I'm sure this is nothing...
1. My sneakers have disappeared - New Balance, colour white, relatively new
2. My wife's jacket is missing - windbreaker with hood, dark blue, not a parka
3. Putting a key into the back door and turning it was always hard, now it appears easy - almost as though someone had sprayed something into where the key turns.
4. Last year I got into a scrap online with a member of the Potter's House Christian Fellowship over their Wikipedia article. The history of our scrap is here, here and here. The guy eventually revealed my name address and phone number by doing a whois search on my URL.
.
2006-04-01
Bush Answers my Questions!
I just don't believe this. One of the White House press corps has obviously picked up my list of Christian questions to ask George W. Bush. Obviously I can't post the entire section here but Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post directly asked the President three of the questions that I had written:
.................
...................................
Naturally I am completely over the moon about this. Please see the full Whitehouse press transcript here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/200600401.html
.................
...and that's why we need to be resolute in our efforts. Next question. Dan.
Q Good Morning Mr. President, I have...
PRES. BUSH: You're that guy from the Washington Post aren't you?
Q Yes sir. I have a number of questions for you that I found on the internet that concern your Christian faith, do you mind if
PRES. BUSH: You know I don't mind if you ask me these things but you got to realize that there are more important matters on the table here.
Q: I understand sir but I'd like...
PRES. BUSH: I mean we're not here to discuss the ins and outs of pinheads here. I mean we don't need to split hairs. You see the fact is that I gave my life to Jesus Christ. He changed my heart. I've said this many times before I don't understand why it is why you need to hear more about this.
Q: Well many of your followers are Christian and churchgoing people and I think that they might be interested to hear more about the faith of the president they support. These, these questions aren't hard ones about angels on pinheads but
PRES. BUSH: Angels where?
Q: On pinheads, you know the old medieval...
PRES. BUSH: That's pretty funny. I never heard that before (laughter). That's okay Dan ask away.
Q: Well the first question is this: If you died tonight and stood before God, and he said to you "Why should I let you into heaven", what would you say?
PRES. BUSH: (Pause) Whew that's a good one! (laughter) Well Dan I, I mean that when you look at Jesus, I reckon, well, well I certainly don't plan on dying tonight (laughter). You know I got these Marines here at the Whitehouse and they're armed to the teeth so you'd have to be pretty lucky to get a good shot at me.
Q: Well the question doesn't talk about how you die, I mean if you die...
PRES. BUSH: Oh you mean like if I had a heart attack or something?
Q: Yes
PRES. BUSH: Whew! (laughter) Do you know something I don't know Dan? (laughter) My Doctor does a checkup on me every week, it's a pain in the ass I know (laughter). He says I'm okay, so... what's your question?
Q: Well I'll move on to the second one. Do you think that sincere, devout and peaceful Muslims go to heaven when they die?
PRES. BUSH: Are you from the ACLU or something? (laughter)
...................................
Naturally I am completely over the moon about this. Please see the full Whitehouse press transcript here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/200600401.html
2006-03-31
Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer
The title of this post is exactly the same as the title of the New York Times article on this subject.
I have blogged before about how these sorts of studies do not prove one way or the other about whether prayer can affect a person's healing.
As an evangelical who believes in the exclusivity of the Christian faith and the power of God to heal if and when he chooses, it struck me as odd that the investigators used the prayers of people from non-evangelical churches:
The only way a conclusive study of this subject can be achieved is to limit the prayers to evangelical churches and for the participants in the study to be subject to "double blind" testing which means that both the pray-ers and the persons prayed for do not realise that a test is being conducted.
One final essential element is God's participation in the test. God is the one who ultimately answers prayer - prayer is not what heals people, but God. If my house is on fire and I call the fire brigade to put it out, I don't praise the power of the telephone to put out fires - the same needs to be said about prayer. And since God is involved, and because God refuses to be tested, He also would have to be subject to being double-blinded by the testers, which is very hard to do given his omniscience and omnipresence.
Given these particualr restrictions, it is fairly clear that God's ability to answer the prayers of his saints regarding sick people cannot be scientifically proven through testing and quantitative analysis.
From the Theosalient Department
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
I have blogged before about how these sorts of studies do not prove one way or the other about whether prayer can affect a person's healing.
As an evangelical who believes in the exclusivity of the Christian faith and the power of God to heal if and when he chooses, it struck me as odd that the investigators used the prayers of people from non-evangelical churches:
The researchers asked the members of three congregations — St. Paul's Monastery in St. Paul; the Community of Teresian Carmelites in Worcester, Mass.; and Silent Unity, a Missouri prayer ministry near Kansas City — to deliver the prayers, using the patients' first names and the first initials of their last names.So, two Catholic congregations and the "Silent Unity" church in Missouri. This latter church appears to accept all religions as equal and is happy to pray with people of all religious faiths.
The only way a conclusive study of this subject can be achieved is to limit the prayers to evangelical churches and for the participants in the study to be subject to "double blind" testing which means that both the pray-ers and the persons prayed for do not realise that a test is being conducted.
One final essential element is God's participation in the test. God is the one who ultimately answers prayer - prayer is not what heals people, but God. If my house is on fire and I call the fire brigade to put it out, I don't praise the power of the telephone to put out fires - the same needs to be said about prayer. And since God is involved, and because God refuses to be tested, He also would have to be subject to being double-blinded by the testers, which is very hard to do given his omniscience and omnipresence.
Given these particualr restrictions, it is fairly clear that God's ability to answer the prayers of his saints regarding sick people cannot be scientifically proven through testing and quantitative analysis.
From the Theosalient Department
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Al Mohler wimps out again
Al Mohler is a wimp. He's a pushover. He's a purse-carrying theological nancy-boy controlled by his theocratic taskmasters in Colorado Springs.
Al's latest blog is about Houston mega-church pastor Joel Osteen. Osteen's commitment to prosperity theology has been well documented, not least by Internet Monk Michael Spencer, who describes him as a "motivational speaker pretending to be a Christian pastor". I certainly concur with Spencer that Osteen's very existence is an indication that something is very seriously wrong within American evangelicals.
The good news, it seems, is that Mohler, one of America's most prominent evangelical leaders, has taken notice of Osteen's popularity and influence, and has blogged about him.
But, of course, the bad news is that Mohler equivocates. His blog is not a detailed, point by point dissection of Osteen's grave theological errors and nor is it a call for us all to warn our fellow believers about such teaching. Instead it is, well, nothing.
Most of Mohler's article about Osteen is simply a direct quote from The New York Times. When Mohler actually writes something he starts off by essentially discrediting the NYT. "It would not be fair to characterize Mr. Osteen's ministry based upon a profile published in The New York Times" he says, which pretty much questions whether or not Osteen actually does teach bad theology since, well, you just can't trust the "MSM". Mohler then says "The real test of his ministry is what he does in the pulpit (or on the platform of his church, as it happens)", which of course, is true. Then comes a most cowardly and inept conclusion:
1. Mohler H8s Osteen
For those who recognise that Osteen is preaching a false message, Mohler may appear to be on their side. Certainly Michael Spencer thinks so, and is over the moon about Mohler's latest words.
If a knowledgeable Christian with a love for Christ and the Gospel and with a knowledge of prosperity doctrine turns on Osteen's TV show, they will conclude that Osteen does not preach the Gospel, nor does he preach the cross, and nor does he preach salvation. For this person (of which Michael Spencer is a good example), Mohler appears to be on his side.
2. Mohler (hearts) Osteen
But for those who support Osteen and think he's the ants pants and the bees knees, Mohler's conclusion defends their position. "Of course Joel preaches the Gospel" they would say, "Of course he preaches and believes in the cross of Christ". Osteen supporters would be quite happy with Mohler's article because they know that their Joel is doing all these things - even though it is obvious that what Osteen supporters think "preaching the gospel" is and what Osteen opponents think it is are actually quite different.
During the Osteen controversy at Michael Spencer's site, quite a number of Osteen supporters turned up on the comments thread and said wonderful things about him and how he preaches the gospel and everything, while at the same time not engaging with the details of Michael's arguments against him. The Osteenie-boppers, who do not really understand what "preaching the gospel" is, would not see in Mohler's words any implicit condemnation at all. If Mohler was making a criticism, his choice of words was woefully inarticulate.
In short - when confronted with Mohler's last paragraph from his blog, Osteen supporters would feel vindicated and supported. Mohler is not criticising their Joel. He is, through the use of rhetorical questions, implying that Joel is okay.
3. Mohler says something about Osteen.
And what of those who don't know much about Osteen? Well, since Mohler isn't exactly condemning Osteen in his article, ignorant readers may just conclude that the "MSM" is going overboard and indulging in typical Christian-bashing without checking the real facts - which are, of course, whether Osteen preaches the truth or not. Mohler hardly encourages these ignorant readers to make these checks themselves.
If there is any example of postmodernism infecting the church, Mohler's last paragraph is a good one to use. Osteen critics see Mohler being critical of Osteen, Osteen supporters see Mohler being supportive of Osteen. It depends upon who the audience is and what their presuppositions are to determine the meaning of the text. In this sense, Mohler's article is a wonderful example of "the death of the author" in action.
What is lacking in Mohler's article is his explicit support or rejection of Osteen and his teaching. He's happy to excoriate and expose the "works of Satan" in such areas as homosexuality, abortion, socialism and the Democratic Party, but when it is absolutely clear that Satan is also working through the evangelical church via the false teaching associated with prosperity theology, Mohler writes a piece that is as compromising as they come. Why?
I think the reason is because of his close ties to "Focus on the Family" (he's a board member). Osteen and his church, while indulging in the false teaching of prosperity theology, are nevertheless part of the evangelical mainstream. Osteen's followers and fans are probably numbered in the millions. If Al Mohler came out and slammed Osteen for his teaching, FOTF may incur the wrath of millions of Osteenie-boppers. It's hardly likely that Osteen would respond to Mohler's criticisms by admitting his sin, repenting and then preaching expository sermons for the rest of his ministry career. A Mohler/Osteen fight would be a battle between two evangelical heavyweights - both exuding power and influence over millions of Americans. It would be a contest that would confuse many and could possibly split the evangelical movement.
So, for the sake of appearing unified, Mohler writes a blog article that says nothing, that is written in such an expert, postmodern way that Roland Barthes himself would love it.
But this is not what Mohler should have done. He should have been courageous and boldly spoken the truth. He should have written a blog article that rips apart Osteen's teachings and exposed them for the falsehoods they are. But he didn't. He chose to be political. He chose to shut his mouth, keep his head down and follow the party line. Mohler has decided that evangelical unity is far more important than standing up for the truth.
I have criticised Mohler many times in this blog. Apart from this recent debacle, Mohler appears more than willing to compromise rather than come out for Biblical truth, even when it goes against the grain. One example of this is his unbiblical stance on the consumption of alcohol. Another example is his support for the use of torture.
So here's an evangelical leader who thinks alcohol is evil, torture is okay, and that prosperity theology is not a serious problem.
Enough is enough. Mohler should repent, resign from ministry, and retire.
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Al's latest blog is about Houston mega-church pastor Joel Osteen. Osteen's commitment to prosperity theology has been well documented, not least by Internet Monk Michael Spencer, who describes him as a "motivational speaker pretending to be a Christian pastor". I certainly concur with Spencer that Osteen's very existence is an indication that something is very seriously wrong within American evangelicals.
The good news, it seems, is that Mohler, one of America's most prominent evangelical leaders, has taken notice of Osteen's popularity and influence, and has blogged about him.
But, of course, the bad news is that Mohler equivocates. His blog is not a detailed, point by point dissection of Osteen's grave theological errors and nor is it a call for us all to warn our fellow believers about such teaching. Instead it is, well, nothing.
Most of Mohler's article about Osteen is simply a direct quote from The New York Times. When Mohler actually writes something he starts off by essentially discrediting the NYT. "It would not be fair to characterize Mr. Osteen's ministry based upon a profile published in The New York Times" he says, which pretty much questions whether or not Osteen actually does teach bad theology since, well, you just can't trust the "MSM". Mohler then says "The real test of his ministry is what he does in the pulpit (or on the platform of his church, as it happens)", which of course, is true. Then comes a most cowardly and inept conclusion:
The first question is this -- Would anyone watching his television program, or sitting in his vast church facility, hear in Mr. Osteen's message a clear and undiluted message of Gospel proclamation? Would this person have any reason, based on hearing Mr. Osteen's message, to know himself as a sinner and to understand how the cross of Christ is the only ground of his salvation? Would he come to know that Jesus the Christ is fully human and fully divine, and that He came in order that we might have everlasting life -- not just a good parking space?Mohler doesn't answer any of these softball questions himself, preferring his readers to make their own judgements. In fact, Mohler does not give any real opinion at all - and that is a grave problem. This final paragraph can be read in three different ways:
1. Mohler H8s Osteen
For those who recognise that Osteen is preaching a false message, Mohler may appear to be on their side. Certainly Michael Spencer thinks so, and is over the moon about Mohler's latest words.
If a knowledgeable Christian with a love for Christ and the Gospel and with a knowledge of prosperity doctrine turns on Osteen's TV show, they will conclude that Osteen does not preach the Gospel, nor does he preach the cross, and nor does he preach salvation. For this person (of which Michael Spencer is a good example), Mohler appears to be on his side.
2. Mohler (hearts) Osteen
But for those who support Osteen and think he's the ants pants and the bees knees, Mohler's conclusion defends their position. "Of course Joel preaches the Gospel" they would say, "Of course he preaches and believes in the cross of Christ". Osteen supporters would be quite happy with Mohler's article because they know that their Joel is doing all these things - even though it is obvious that what Osteen supporters think "preaching the gospel" is and what Osteen opponents think it is are actually quite different.
During the Osteen controversy at Michael Spencer's site, quite a number of Osteen supporters turned up on the comments thread and said wonderful things about him and how he preaches the gospel and everything, while at the same time not engaging with the details of Michael's arguments against him. The Osteenie-boppers, who do not really understand what "preaching the gospel" is, would not see in Mohler's words any implicit condemnation at all. If Mohler was making a criticism, his choice of words was woefully inarticulate.
In short - when confronted with Mohler's last paragraph from his blog, Osteen supporters would feel vindicated and supported. Mohler is not criticising their Joel. He is, through the use of rhetorical questions, implying that Joel is okay.
3. Mohler says something about Osteen.
And what of those who don't know much about Osteen? Well, since Mohler isn't exactly condemning Osteen in his article, ignorant readers may just conclude that the "MSM" is going overboard and indulging in typical Christian-bashing without checking the real facts - which are, of course, whether Osteen preaches the truth or not. Mohler hardly encourages these ignorant readers to make these checks themselves.
If there is any example of postmodernism infecting the church, Mohler's last paragraph is a good one to use. Osteen critics see Mohler being critical of Osteen, Osteen supporters see Mohler being supportive of Osteen. It depends upon who the audience is and what their presuppositions are to determine the meaning of the text. In this sense, Mohler's article is a wonderful example of "the death of the author" in action.
What is lacking in Mohler's article is his explicit support or rejection of Osteen and his teaching. He's happy to excoriate and expose the "works of Satan" in such areas as homosexuality, abortion, socialism and the Democratic Party, but when it is absolutely clear that Satan is also working through the evangelical church via the false teaching associated with prosperity theology, Mohler writes a piece that is as compromising as they come. Why?
I think the reason is because of his close ties to "Focus on the Family" (he's a board member). Osteen and his church, while indulging in the false teaching of prosperity theology, are nevertheless part of the evangelical mainstream. Osteen's followers and fans are probably numbered in the millions. If Al Mohler came out and slammed Osteen for his teaching, FOTF may incur the wrath of millions of Osteenie-boppers. It's hardly likely that Osteen would respond to Mohler's criticisms by admitting his sin, repenting and then preaching expository sermons for the rest of his ministry career. A Mohler/Osteen fight would be a battle between two evangelical heavyweights - both exuding power and influence over millions of Americans. It would be a contest that would confuse many and could possibly split the evangelical movement.
So, for the sake of appearing unified, Mohler writes a blog article that says nothing, that is written in such an expert, postmodern way that Roland Barthes himself would love it.
But this is not what Mohler should have done. He should have been courageous and boldly spoken the truth. He should have written a blog article that rips apart Osteen's teachings and exposed them for the falsehoods they are. But he didn't. He chose to be political. He chose to shut his mouth, keep his head down and follow the party line. Mohler has decided that evangelical unity is far more important than standing up for the truth.
I have criticised Mohler many times in this blog. Apart from this recent debacle, Mohler appears more than willing to compromise rather than come out for Biblical truth, even when it goes against the grain. One example of this is his unbiblical stance on the consumption of alcohol. Another example is his support for the use of torture.
So here's an evangelical leader who thinks alcohol is evil, torture is okay, and that prosperity theology is not a serious problem.
Enough is enough. Mohler should repent, resign from ministry, and retire.
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
House prices will fall
The Angry Bear Blogsite is everything the world needs - pro-growth progressives warning of the impending doom of over-investment and fiscal stupidity.
Today's posting is about the historical growth of house prices over time. And this is not just about America, but about house prices throughout the western world. And it is not just about house prices for the past few decades, but for the past few centuries.
The graphic, created by Robert Schiller, clearly shows that house prices rise and fall over time, but are not at all determined by population growth. Obviously the reason for this is that as population grows and the demand for housing increases, so does the supply - a process that keeps the prices down.
But the graph also shows that recent price activity has led a growth "spike". In other words, the current price of housing throughout the western world is completely anomolous. Quiddity, a blogger who posted a comment about this article at Angry Bear, points out that the graphic reminds him of Tobin's Q, an equation that has been increasingly used to explain (in hindsight of course) how and when the stockmarket has become overvalued. Similar to the P/E ratio, Tobin's Q is a very useful tool for investors, and there is no doubt that the current housing trend is unsustainable.
But, of course, that doesn't mean you should sell your house (This means you Dave!). The current market is overvalued because it has been used for speculative purposes, not because there is a massive demand for accomodation. The current housing market is made up of homebuyers, those who wish to take advantage of homebuyers (banks, real estate agents, etc), and people who try to take advantage of people who try to take advantage of homebuyers. It's these third group of investors - people and businesses who buy property solely as an investment in the hope and belief that prices will continue to rise - who will suffer the most when the market crashes. Conversely, those who buy houses in order to live in them will actually be the least affected by this.
So, if you own a house and live in it - stay there and don't sell. Pay back the principal as best you can and don't borrow against the equity since that will bite you badly when the crash happens.
If you own an investment property, however, I seriously suggest you sell it... now.
From the Osostrian School Department
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Today's posting is about the historical growth of house prices over time. And this is not just about America, but about house prices throughout the western world. And it is not just about house prices for the past few decades, but for the past few centuries.
The graphic, created by Robert Schiller, clearly shows that house prices rise and fall over time, but are not at all determined by population growth. Obviously the reason for this is that as population grows and the demand for housing increases, so does the supply - a process that keeps the prices down.
But the graph also shows that recent price activity has led a growth "spike". In other words, the current price of housing throughout the western world is completely anomolous. Quiddity, a blogger who posted a comment about this article at Angry Bear, points out that the graphic reminds him of Tobin's Q, an equation that has been increasingly used to explain (in hindsight of course) how and when the stockmarket has become overvalued. Similar to the P/E ratio, Tobin's Q is a very useful tool for investors, and there is no doubt that the current housing trend is unsustainable.
But, of course, that doesn't mean you should sell your house (This means you Dave!). The current market is overvalued because it has been used for speculative purposes, not because there is a massive demand for accomodation. The current housing market is made up of homebuyers, those who wish to take advantage of homebuyers (banks, real estate agents, etc), and people who try to take advantage of people who try to take advantage of homebuyers. It's these third group of investors - people and businesses who buy property solely as an investment in the hope and belief that prices will continue to rise - who will suffer the most when the market crashes. Conversely, those who buy houses in order to live in them will actually be the least affected by this.
So, if you own a house and live in it - stay there and don't sell. Pay back the principal as best you can and don't borrow against the equity since that will bite you badly when the crash happens.
If you own an investment property, however, I seriously suggest you sell it... now.
From the Osostrian School Department
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Bush's popularity revealed
Dreaminonempty at DailyKos has posted an interesting graphic based on a recent "Survey USA" poll on George Bush's current popularity. At this present moment in time, it appears that Bush has the support of the majority of people who live in:
Nebraska
Utah
Alabama
If these numbers translate to votes in the Midterm Election, there will be a marked swing to the Democrats. The only question that remains is what this swing will be. There will always be some margin of error between polling and actual election results, but with a large swathe of states disapproving of the president by 55% or more I think that the result could be a rather substantial Democratic victory in the Senate.
Click here to see the graphic in full size.
Nebraska
Utah
Alabama
If these numbers translate to votes in the Midterm Election, there will be a marked swing to the Democrats. The only question that remains is what this swing will be. There will always be some margin of error between polling and actual election results, but with a large swathe of states disapproving of the president by 55% or more I think that the result could be a rather substantial Democratic victory in the Senate.
Click here to see the graphic in full size.
2006-03-29
Unfortunately named places
In Glenorie, in Northern Sydney, there is a street named Pinus Avenue.
In Western Lake Macquarie, south-west of Newcastle, is a suburb called Woodrising.
In Western Lake Macquarie, south-west of Newcastle, is a suburb called Woodrising.
Limited Atonement is not in the Bible
Hah! Got you! You're probably wondering what I'm going to say and about how Limited Atonement is wrong aren't you?
I'll state two apparently contradictory things here:
1. Limited Atonement is not backed up by Scripture
2. I believe in all five points of Calvinism, including Limited Atonement.
You see, it's a bit of a semantic trick. A few years ago I sat down and tried to nut out everything the Bible said about Limited Atonement - the idea being that I was looking for a verse that specifically tied the Atonement to Election.
And guess what? I couldn't find any.
Of course, the Bible is replete with verses that point out that God's people, the church, have their sins forgiven solely by the work of Christ on the Cross in his atoning death - what many theologians describe as "penal substitutionary atonement". There is no other way that a person may be forgiven.
And, of course, the Bible is also replete with verses that point out that it is ultimately God who chooses those who come to him. From the valley of dry bones in Ezekiel 37 we see that dead people cannot choose to serve God unless they have been regenerated first. Because we are dead in our sins and incapable of responding to God's grace, God acts in our hearts through the Spirit. In other words, it is God who makes us Christians - a process that has been determined since the beginning.
Yet there are no Bible verses which link these two doctrines. Yes, God's people can only be fogiven through the Atonement; Yes, God's people have been elected from the beginning; No, Atonement and Election are not mentioned together.
The problem is that it is not Calvinists who created the term "Limited Atonement", but Arminians who forced them to through the Five articles of Remonstrance (specifically article 2):
The article actually sounds quite good doesn't it? Nevertheless, Calvinists (not John Calvin himself, who was long dead when this problem arose) responded to these five articles with their own five, which includes the response to article 2 and is now called "Limited Atonement". These five points are now known as "The Five Points of Calvinism"
As I grappled with Limited Atonement, I came to the conclusion that it is the only possible outcome that results from the Bible's teaching on Atonement and Election - yet it is a conclusion that has no explicit Bible verse to back it up, and relies instead upon the logical outcomes of an analysis of two biblical doctrines. In a sense, Limited Atonement is similar to the doctrine of the Trinity in that it is a thoroughly biblical idea that results from a conglomeration of various doctrines. This analogy falls down, however, considering the overwhelming amount of biblical data for the Trinity (thus making it an essential feature of the Christian faith - denying the Trinity is essentially denying God, while denying Limited Atonement isn't as serious).
As such, if a Christian truly examines the scriptures and is convinced of the reality and truthfulness of both the Atonement and Election; and if that Christian should be presented with the idea of Limited Atonement; then that Christian will come to the conclusion that to deny Limited Atonement would be to deny either the Atonement or Election or both. In a sense, Limited Atonement is a "Litmus test" for the ability of a Christian to work out the logical result of two different (though obviously related) biblical doctrines.
I make the point that denial is the important thing to look at here, rather than acceptance. If a Christian should accept both the Atonement and Election then that is enough - even if that person does not know what Limited Atonement is. What is important is if that denial of Limited Atonement ends up denying something else in Scripture.
Let me get back to the Trinity. No Christian is apostate if they do not understand the Trinity. Denial of the Trinity, however, is a damnable offense. Again I will state that a denial of Limited Atonement does into fit into this class. (Denial of the Atonement is, however, quite a serious matter)
So what place does Limited Atonement have, especially in preaching and teaching? I think it's important for people to know, but I think it is far more important for people to understand the Atonement and Election. If the congregation have these two things right, then they'll accept Limited Atonement.
Moreover, when Christians begin to read verses like 1 John 2.2 and John 3.16, they may be led to question the extent of Christ's salvation, a process which could lead to Universalism. In trying to explain how the universal nature of God's gospel call fits in with his specific acts of election, Limited Atonement is an excellent teaching to follow.
From the Theosalient Department
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
I'll state two apparently contradictory things here:
1. Limited Atonement is not backed up by Scripture
2. I believe in all five points of Calvinism, including Limited Atonement.
You see, it's a bit of a semantic trick. A few years ago I sat down and tried to nut out everything the Bible said about Limited Atonement - the idea being that I was looking for a verse that specifically tied the Atonement to Election.
And guess what? I couldn't find any.
Of course, the Bible is replete with verses that point out that God's people, the church, have their sins forgiven solely by the work of Christ on the Cross in his atoning death - what many theologians describe as "penal substitutionary atonement". There is no other way that a person may be forgiven.
And, of course, the Bible is also replete with verses that point out that it is ultimately God who chooses those who come to him. From the valley of dry bones in Ezekiel 37 we see that dead people cannot choose to serve God unless they have been regenerated first. Because we are dead in our sins and incapable of responding to God's grace, God acts in our hearts through the Spirit. In other words, it is God who makes us Christians - a process that has been determined since the beginning.
Yet there are no Bible verses which link these two doctrines. Yes, God's people can only be fogiven through the Atonement; Yes, God's people have been elected from the beginning; No, Atonement and Election are not mentioned together.
The problem is that it is not Calvinists who created the term "Limited Atonement", but Arminians who forced them to through the Five articles of Remonstrance (specifically article 2):
That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer...
The article actually sounds quite good doesn't it? Nevertheless, Calvinists (not John Calvin himself, who was long dead when this problem arose) responded to these five articles with their own five, which includes the response to article 2 and is now called "Limited Atonement". These five points are now known as "The Five Points of Calvinism"
As I grappled with Limited Atonement, I came to the conclusion that it is the only possible outcome that results from the Bible's teaching on Atonement and Election - yet it is a conclusion that has no explicit Bible verse to back it up, and relies instead upon the logical outcomes of an analysis of two biblical doctrines. In a sense, Limited Atonement is similar to the doctrine of the Trinity in that it is a thoroughly biblical idea that results from a conglomeration of various doctrines. This analogy falls down, however, considering the overwhelming amount of biblical data for the Trinity (thus making it an essential feature of the Christian faith - denying the Trinity is essentially denying God, while denying Limited Atonement isn't as serious).
As such, if a Christian truly examines the scriptures and is convinced of the reality and truthfulness of both the Atonement and Election; and if that Christian should be presented with the idea of Limited Atonement; then that Christian will come to the conclusion that to deny Limited Atonement would be to deny either the Atonement or Election or both. In a sense, Limited Atonement is a "Litmus test" for the ability of a Christian to work out the logical result of two different (though obviously related) biblical doctrines.
I make the point that denial is the important thing to look at here, rather than acceptance. If a Christian should accept both the Atonement and Election then that is enough - even if that person does not know what Limited Atonement is. What is important is if that denial of Limited Atonement ends up denying something else in Scripture.
Let me get back to the Trinity. No Christian is apostate if they do not understand the Trinity. Denial of the Trinity, however, is a damnable offense. Again I will state that a denial of Limited Atonement does into fit into this class. (Denial of the Atonement is, however, quite a serious matter)
So what place does Limited Atonement have, especially in preaching and teaching? I think it's important for people to know, but I think it is far more important for people to understand the Atonement and Election. If the congregation have these two things right, then they'll accept Limited Atonement.
Moreover, when Christians begin to read verses like 1 John 2.2 and John 3.16, they may be led to question the extent of Christ's salvation, a process which could lead to Universalism. In trying to explain how the universal nature of God's gospel call fits in with his specific acts of election, Limited Atonement is an excellent teaching to follow.
From the Theosalient Department
© 2006 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
FAQ about the author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
A bible meme from an island off Essex
From this post by Elizaphanian (a word I can't seem to pronounce):
1. How many bibles are in your home?
2. What rooms are they in?
3. What translations do you have?
4. Do you have a preference?
5. Nominate an interesting verse
1. Between about 10-12 I think.
2. Mainly in the study, although one resides in my Bum Bag.TM
3. Good News (the one I read as a child); lots of NIVs (including my original NIV Study Bible from 1987 and the dodgy Thomson Chain Reference edition); my brother's old RSV; an NASB I use when doing sermon work; an NRSV/Greek interlinear (which is essentially my Greek NT); an old Gideon's red Bible I was given at high school that ended up being the "Revised Berkley Version"; an 8 translation New Testament which often comes in handy (KJV, TEV/Good News, Jerusalem Bible, Phillips, NIV, Living Bible, NIV, RSV); I do not have a copy of The Message but, even if I did, I wouldn't include it here because it is not a real Bible; I also have three ESVs.
4. Since buying the ESV I am convinced that it is a much better translation than the NIV. Here in Australia, Evangelical churches still use the NIV a lot although the Sydney Anglicans have been agitating for some years now for the ESV to be adopted. It is a harder translation for people to read, but I think that, over the long term, it will be better for the church to adopt it. I think it is far better to set a standard that the congregation should aspire to, rather than trying to use simpler translations (which are more opaque) to "get down to their level" (which is rather condescending). However, It still has faults (check out the sentence structure of Acts 3.11)
5. Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life, for the ransom of their life is costly and can never suffice, that he should live on forever and never see the pit... But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol (the grave), for he will receive me. (Psalm 49.7-9, 15)
1. How many bibles are in your home?
2. What rooms are they in?
3. What translations do you have?
4. Do you have a preference?
5. Nominate an interesting verse
1. Between about 10-12 I think.
2. Mainly in the study, although one resides in my Bum Bag.TM
3. Good News (the one I read as a child); lots of NIVs (including my original NIV Study Bible from 1987 and the dodgy Thomson Chain Reference edition); my brother's old RSV; an NASB I use when doing sermon work; an NRSV/Greek interlinear (which is essentially my Greek NT); an old Gideon's red Bible I was given at high school that ended up being the "Revised Berkley Version"; an 8 translation New Testament which often comes in handy (KJV, TEV/Good News, Jerusalem Bible, Phillips, NIV, Living Bible, NIV, RSV); I do not have a copy of The Message but, even if I did, I wouldn't include it here because it is not a real Bible; I also have three ESVs.
4. Since buying the ESV I am convinced that it is a much better translation than the NIV. Here in Australia, Evangelical churches still use the NIV a lot although the Sydney Anglicans have been agitating for some years now for the ESV to be adopted. It is a harder translation for people to read, but I think that, over the long term, it will be better for the church to adopt it. I think it is far better to set a standard that the congregation should aspire to, rather than trying to use simpler translations (which are more opaque) to "get down to their level" (which is rather condescending). However, It still has faults (check out the sentence structure of Acts 3.11)
5. Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life, for the ransom of their life is costly and can never suffice, that he should live on forever and never see the pit... But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol (the grave), for he will receive me. (Psalm 49.7-9, 15)
2006-03-28
"Look behind the numbers for Australia's true wealth"
Statistics can do all sorts of things. One hundred people earning $50,000 each. Average wage, $50,000. Sounds good. Ninety people earning $20,000 each and 10 people earning $320,000 each. Average wage, still $50,000. Now we're told the average wealth of Australians has gone up under John Howard. I wonder who's wealthier?
Neil Cameron Waratah
(SMH, 28 March, 2006)
Neil Cameron Waratah
(SMH, 28 March, 2006)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)