Posts

What it means Greek πᾶς Transliteration/Pronunciation pas/pä’s Strong’s G3956 Definition The primary definition is: each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything The secondary definition is: some of all types This word is hotly debated by the Reformed crowd when it comes to doctrines such as particular election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace. The claim by most Reformed theologians is that pas does not mean all all the time. So, with that in mind, here are several verses where pas makes an appearance courtesy of Whosoever Will: ...

It’s the beginning or end of a sermon. The lights are low, the crowd is still. The preacher tells everyone to bow their heads and pray with him. Silence falls on the room. And then… The preacher starts addressing the crowd in a hushed tone that sounds like a prayer with the notable exception that it is wholly directed at the audience, not God. You’ve been there right? Surely I’m not the only one. When the preacher or other dually appointed representative takes what is supposed to be a time where we corporately communicate with the Living God as a time to, instead, offer either a miniature sermon or (slightly better) a chance to summarize the main points from their sermon you just sat through. ...

An atheist friend of mine is fond of reminding me that “Christians are in the majority” in America. He likes to punctuate his assertion with references to statistical data and charts like this one (courtesy of lolgod): The problem I note with such thinking is that if it were true that America were 80% Christian, then we ought to expect to see a country that resembles Oliver Cromwell’s Puritan England more than ancient Rome with it’s hedonistic pleasures and excess. ...

In the previous post I outlined what I believe to be a fairly strong case for the age of the earth being older than 6,000-10,000 years. This was originally written to a private mailing list consisting of some of the brightest and most God-honoring people I’ve ever met or had the privilege of worshiping with. The following is a follow-up to some objections and feedback I received. I want to first say that the views of a pre-adamac race and Darwinian evolution are not required in order to hold to an old-earth view. While these views certainly do require an old earth view as their basis, an old earth view does not logically lead to these extraneous views. Additionally, one does not need to be driven by evolutionary or extra-biblical presuppositions in order to arrive at an old-earth view. I think it muddies the waters when we presume to preempt arguments by speculating on each others motives and sources as opposed to attempting (at least insofar as we are able to as humans) objectively examine the merits and failings of each view’s ability to explain and account for the various pieces of evidence. ...

We need to approach the potentially explosive and devicive topic of the age of the earth from two distinct standpoints if we are to make any fruitful headway. The first standpoint is one of “what does the Bible explicitly teach?” Because if the Bible tells us that the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old then we are certainly obligated to believe God in spite of what we may find by the second question of “what has science been able to prove?” ...

“scientific knowledge” is a misnomer in itself as science does not stand by itself but is rather a means by which we may form and fashion our beliefs. In other words, facts are not self-interpreting. Many say there is not a shred of evidence to support ID, and I would grant that they are correct.. ..provided your criteria for acceptable evidence is dictated by your prior commitment to philosophical naturalism as opposed to a truly open commitment to truth regardless of where it may lead. Scientifically speaking, this would not negate the prior formation of a working hypothesis. But it does negate the stubborn refusal to accept the plausibility of an alternative explanation. Especially when that plausible alternate explanation carries with it more answers than questions (which is the unfortunate case in regards to all Darwinian theories). ...

Here is a follow-up to the exchange I posted on earlier wherein I received and answered a question from someone interested in learning more about the Biblical doctrine of Molinism/Middle Knowledge. “Now, I may be incorrectly understanding Craig’s explanation of how middle knowledge is supposed to have worked, but I believe he detailed a scenario in which God looked out before creation and saw an infinite host of “parallel universes” (my phrase) encompassing all possible individual choices of his creatures and “picked one.”” ...

I recently received the following via a Facebook message (reposed with permission): Wes Pardon the unsolicited message–and I see that with your 3K+ friends, your ability to reply may be limited–but I’m a long-suffering “anti-Calvinist” who’s only now beginning to study Molinism. I noticed through Facebook’s VERY unprivate data search mechanisms that you are a fairly outspoken Molinist of sorts and some random comments I’ve read of yours lead me to believe you might be prepared to shed some light on a couple of things for me. ...

One of the unfortunate side effects of reformed theology is that the view that prayer is actually able to induce change (from God of course) is often sacrificed due to a poor understanding of predestination. Often prayer is portrayed in reformed theology as something we do in order to “get attuned to God” and it is often taught that prayer can’t possibly change anything (that would be heretical and arrogant don’t cha know?). I’m not sure what “get attuned to God” really means for reformed folk, especially since most proponents of this view also hold to a view of God’s sovereignty which results in a belief that all things are causally determined. However I do know that prayer does, in fact, change things. ...

Can atheists Trust the truth detecting ability of their own minds? By that I mean; In a theistic universe we are given reason to trust that our senses are capable of accurately detecting the world around us because we hold to the notion that they were properly designed to operate in the environment in which we employ them. The naturalistic alternative here is that our senses simply evolved through random chance and mutation towards an undirected end. In this case we simply cannot reasonably trust our senses, much less our cognitive abilities to understand the world we find ourselves in. In this model, we might as well be protoplasmic lumps in a cosmic vat that is manipulating our synapses into forming sensory perceptions of a purely artificial environment. ...