Who or what is the single most formidable opponent to Christianity today?
Comments
Daron,
Oh, but you do see the work. If you didn't see the work you wouldn't insist on ignoring the doctrine and you wouldn't continue to switch it around to say that God has forced people to disobey Him and to warrant their damnation.
He is doing exactly that. See my comments above about mothers and pregnancy.
By Malebranche's view, mothers decree the death of their children.
C.S. Lewis also did not believe that from eternity God guaranteed the damnation of the majority of humanity by abandoning them to their sin and wickedness.
If Koukl believed such things as these, then I would have no complaint.
So if Koukl told you "go ahead, reject God all your life, die in your sins and rebellion because I just bet you'll get another chance after death" you'd be fine?
Since all we know tells us that our decisions in this matter end this side of the grave (it is given to every man to die once, and then he will rise to final Glory or final judgment) that would not on;y be speculative but highly irresponsible.
Why did Jesus send Apostles earnestly contending for the souls of men if it didn't matter?
T or F:
It is good news that the world is one of ultimate justice where evil deeds will be punished and paid for - even if we don't see it [the acting out of justice] in our day to day existence.
---------
T or F:
It is good news for the world that the world (including Man) will be redeemed to permanent perfection and glory.
---------
T or F:
It is good news that the evil and rebellious, however great or not their number, will not be allowed to bring evil and rebellion to bear on this New World.
-------
T or F:
It is bad news that even one [single] person languish in Hell for eternity. Even if that person is an unrepentent Stalin, or Hitler, or Dahmer.
----
T or F:
It is good news that everyone, regardless of behaviour, propensity, or attitude toward God and morality continue in their situation and in relation to others for eternity.
By the way, I've read much C.S. Lewis and don't recall him saying that man will get a second chance after death. I recall him saying that why a second chance? Why not a third, fourth or millionth? In that line of reasoning he concluded that there is no reason to suppose God didn't give man sufficient chances in this life.
Can you cite where he said all men would be saved (? why would he hate Hell if this were the case?) or that men will be given more opportunities after death to repent?
If you don't recall Lewis showing sympathy to the doctrine of giving humans a second chance, then I would recommend that you pay more attention to the Great Divorce the next time you read it.
It is good news that the world is one of ultimate justice where evil deeds will be punished and paid for - even if we don't see it [the acting out of justice] in our day to day existence.
True. Unfortunately, however, if Koukl is correct, then the world is ultimately governed by a tyrant, not a just or loving Father.
It is good news for the world that the world (including Man) will be redeemed to permanent perfection and glory.
True. Unfortunately, while I clearly believe that humanity will be redeemed, Koukl thinks most of humanity will be tormented for eternity.
It is good news that the evil and rebellious, however great or not their number, will not be allowed to bring evil and rebellion to bear on this New World.
True. Unfortunately, howeve,r while I clearly believe that there will be a time when evil and rebellion are destroyed, Koukl believes evil and rebellion will never be destroyed, but instead will exist for eternity in hell.
It is bad news that even one [single] person languish in Hell for eternity. Even if that person is an unrepentent Stalin, or Hitler, or Dahmer.
True.
It is good news that everyone, regardless of behaviour, propensity, or attitude toward God and morality continue in their situation and in relation to others for eternity.
If you don't recall Lewis showing sympathy to the doctrine of giving humans a second chance, then I would recommend that you pay more attention to the Great Divorce the next time you read it.
Oh yes, I know you recommend I think harder, pay more attention, and probably even be smarter, but I want to know where Lewis said this. I said, I read his allegory and I thought it was an excellent description of how man can choose his own
eternity in Hell. Lewis shows in Divorce how those decisions were made in life and that, even if we were given chance to see and reject Heaven, we would, based upon those decisions.
It is bad news that even one [single] person languish in Hell for eternity. Even if that person is an unrepentent Stalin, or Hitler, or Dahmer.
True.
Very good. So now let's dispense with your "the majority" and "most" arguments. You don't care if it is the majority, or the most, or almost all - to you the Good News is bad news if even one unrepentant sinner suffer Hell for his crimes.
Unfortunately, however, if Koukl is correct, then the world is ultimately governed by a tyrant, not a just or loving Father.
Not true. I already pointed this out to you. The concepts of loving, just and holy are grounded in the nature and person of God as revealed to us in scripture. Believe otherwise and you fall prey to Euthyphro's dilemma. Your opinion of God's plan doesn't change the nature of God's being. God's nature is God's nature, and it never changes.
And because God's nature is God's nature, if what Koukl believes about God's plan is true than it must be loving, just and holy because that is where those concepts are grounded.
It is good news that everyone, regardless of behaviour, propensity, or attitude toward God and morality continue in their situation and in relation to others for eternity.
I don’t know what that means.
Let me try again.
T or F:
It is good news that unrepentant sinners continue in their sin, are not separated (if it were possible) from God's good Grace and are allowed to bring their unrighteousness to bear on the New Earth and on its inhabitants for all eternity.
It is good news that the world is one of ultimate justice where evil deeds will be punished and paid for - even if we don't see it [the acting out of justice] in our day to day existence.
True. Unfortunately, however, if Koukl is correct, then the world is ultimately governed by a tyrant, not a just or loving Father.
Good. I make my point about justice (everyone getting what they deserve - evil being punished and paid for).
You assertion about God being a tyrant in Koukl's view is nothing but further emotive poisoning and is false.
It is good news for the world that the world (including Man) will be redeemed to permanent perfection and glory.
True. Unfortunately, while I clearly believe that humanity will be redeemed, Koukl thinks most of humanity will be tormented for eternity.
Excellent. So you admit the message of the Gospel is Good News.
Regardless of the number destined for an eternal continuation of their chosen separation and your fallacious use of the word "most" we see that Humanity is redeemed from the Fall.
It is good news that the evil and rebellious, however great or not their number, will not be allowed to bring evil and rebellion to bear on this New World.
True. Unfortunately, howeve,r while I clearly believe that there will be a time when evil and rebellion are destroyed, Koukl believes evil and rebellion will never be destroyed, but instead will exist for eternity in hell.
Good, so the separation of the evil form the righteous, the doctrine of Hell, is also Good News.
Maybe someday you can tell me how God will destroy evil and rebellion without either violating free will or destroying the evil and rebellious.
After reading over these replies, I’m convinced that if Scripture depicted God as engaging in random acts of child molestation, SteveK would defend it on the grounds that it is in Scripture and God’s nature is good. Moreover, Daron’s responses truly miss the mark. I’m done. Enjoy spreading the good news of a God that has abandoned most of humanity to eternal ruin!
I’m convinced that if Scripture depicted God as engaging in random acts of child molestation, SteveK would defend it on the grounds that it is in Scripture and God’s nature is good.
Why are you so easily convinced of this when I have said nothing close to this?
With your prior statements about Koukl's view, you have allowed God's nature to be determined by his plan - which is not Christian theology.
If his plan is Koukl's then his nature is not holy. If God's plan is Malebranche's then his nature is holy.
It is exactly the opposite. If God is holy then his plan can never be unholy. Universalism is dogma too, ya know, so Koukl's view of God's plan is an impossibility in your view so why pretend that it's possible?
I am quite certain that you defend God's nature on the grounds of scripture as well. If I asked you about God and the Midianites, I'm sure you'd cite scripture left and right.
Malebranche
Regarding God's plan. I'll say it again this way. Tell me where I have gone wrong.
In the beginning God had a nature and God had a plan for humanity. Christian theology says that moral goodneess is grounded in the unchanging holy nature of God. That nature being perfectly holy means that God's plan must be holy. You and I come along and God reveals his nature and his plan to us. We lack the abiltity to clearly understand the nature of God's holiness and his plan so we have various disagreements about the actual plan.
Notice I haven't mentioned what the actual plan is because, as far as the nature of the plan goes - it's holiness or unholiness - it doesn't matter what the actual plan is. The answer to the moral question surrounding God's plan for humanity lies only in the question: What is the unchanging nature of God?
IF his nature is perfectly holy and IF Koukl has the correct understanding of God's plan, then that plan is holy and you are wrong.
I just do not agree in using the word "church" to include so many supposed believers, though our brother here explains that he is not refering to the true church of God made of saints washed by the blood of Christ.
I believe the Bible tells us a word for what has been described by our brother here as the most formidable opponent of the True Gospel, is is called Apostasy and it was prophesied by the apostles. False teachings and professing "christians" living like devils are the Number 1 enemy.
‘I hardly know, Sir. What some people say on Earth is that the final loss of one soul gives the lie to all the joy of those who are saved.’
‘Ye see it does not.’
‘I feel in a way that it ought to.’
‘That sounds very merciful: but see what lurks behind it.’
‘What?’
‘The demand of the loveless and the self-imprisoned that they should be allowed to blackmail the universe: that till they consent to be happy (on their own terms) no one else shall taste joy: that theirs should be the final power; that Hell should be able to veto Heaven.’
‘I don’t know what I want, Sir.’
‘Son, son, it must be one way or the other. Either the day must come when joy prevails and all the makers of misery are no longer able to infect it; or else for ever and ever the makers of misery can destroy in others the happiness they reject in themselves. I know it has a grand sound to say ye’ll accept no salvation which leaves even one creature in the dark outside. But watch that sophistry or ye’ll make a Dog in a Manger the tyrant of the universe…Every disease that submits to a cure shall be cured: but we will not call blue yellow to please those that insist on still having jaundice, nor make a midden of the world’s garden for the sake of some who cannot abide the smell of roses.’”
Daron,
He is doing exactly that. See my comments above about mothers and pregnancy.
By Malebranche's view, mothers decree the death of their children.
Posted by: SteveK | June 21, 2010 at 12:06 PM
Why is this not your complaint?
Why is this acceptable? Is it not obvious that God has decreed this whether you area Calvinist or not?
Posted by: Daron | June 21, 2010 at 12:07 PM
Posted by: Daron | June 21, 2010 at 12:08 PM
Posted by: Daron | June 21, 2010 at 12:11 PM
Were these propositions not clear?
Posted by: Daron | June 21, 2010 at 12:16 PM
By the way, I've read much C.S. Lewis and don't recall him saying that man will get a second chance after death. I recall him saying that why a second chance? Why not a third, fourth or millionth? In that line of reasoning he concluded that there is no reason to suppose God didn't give man sufficient chances in this life.
Can you cite where he said all men would be saved (? why would he hate Hell if this were the case?) or that men will be given more opportunities after death to repent?
Posted by: Daron | June 21, 2010 at 12:28 PM
Daron,
If you don't recall Lewis showing sympathy to the doctrine of giving humans a second chance, then I would recommend that you pay more attention to the Great Divorce the next time you read it.
Posted by: Malebranche | June 21, 2010 at 12:56 PM
Ok, now for Daron’s quiz:
It is good news that the world is one of ultimate justice where evil deeds will be punished and paid for - even if we don't see it [the acting out of justice] in our day to day existence.
True. Unfortunately, however, if Koukl is correct, then the world is ultimately governed by a tyrant, not a just or loving Father.
It is good news for the world that the world (including Man) will be redeemed to permanent perfection and glory.
True. Unfortunately, while I clearly believe that humanity will be redeemed, Koukl thinks most of humanity will be tormented for eternity.
It is good news that the evil and rebellious, however great or not their number, will not be allowed to bring evil and rebellion to bear on this New World.
True. Unfortunately, howeve,r while I clearly believe that there will be a time when evil and rebellion are destroyed, Koukl believes evil and rebellion will never be destroyed, but instead will exist for eternity in hell.
It is bad news that even one [single] person languish in Hell for eternity. Even if that person is an unrepentent Stalin, or Hitler, or Dahmer.
True.
It is good news that everyone, regardless of behaviour, propensity, or attitude toward God and morality continue in their situation and in relation to others for eternity.
I don’t know what that means.
Posted by: Malebranche | June 21, 2010 at 01:02 PM
Posted by: Daron | June 21, 2010 at 01:16 PM
Posted by: Daron | June 21, 2010 at 01:19 PM
Malebranche
Not true. I already pointed this out to you. The concepts of loving, just and holy are grounded in the nature and person of God as revealed to us in scripture. Believe otherwise and you fall prey to Euthyphro's dilemma. Your opinion of God's plan doesn't change the nature of God's being. God's nature is God's nature, and it never changes.
And because God's nature is God's nature, if what Koukl believes about God's plan is true than it must be loving, just and holy because that is where those concepts are grounded.
Posted by: SteveK | June 21, 2010 at 01:21 PM
You couldn't quite get the flipside of that:
Let me try again.
T or F:
It is good news that unrepentant sinners continue in their sin, are not separated (if it were possible) from God's good Grace and are allowed to bring their unrighteousness to bear on the New Earth and on its inhabitants for all eternity.
Posted by: Daron | June 21, 2010 at 01:22 PM
Posted by: Daron | June 21, 2010 at 01:24 PM
Posted by: Daron | June 21, 2010 at 01:25 PM
Posted by: Daron | June 21, 2010 at 01:28 PM
Now I'm away for the rest of the day. I'll catch up tonight.
Cheers
Posted by: Daron | June 21, 2010 at 01:28 PM
After reading over these replies, I’m convinced that if Scripture depicted God as engaging in random acts of child molestation, SteveK would defend it on the grounds that it is in Scripture and God’s nature is good. Moreover, Daron’s responses truly miss the mark. I’m done. Enjoy spreading the good news of a God that has abandoned most of humanity to eternal ruin!
Posted by: Malebranche | June 21, 2010 at 01:43 PM
Malebranche
Why are you so easily convinced of this when I have said nothing close to this?
With your prior statements about Koukl's view, you have allowed God's nature to be determined by his plan - which is not Christian theology.
If his plan is Koukl's then his nature is not holy. If God's plan is Malebranche's then his nature is holy.
It is exactly the opposite. If God is holy then his plan can never be unholy. Universalism is dogma too, ya know, so Koukl's view of God's plan is an impossibility in your view so why pretend that it's possible?
I am quite certain that you defend God's nature on the grounds of scripture as well. If I asked you about God and the Midianites, I'm sure you'd cite scripture left and right.
Posted by: SteveK | June 21, 2010 at 02:16 PM
Malebranche
Regarding God's plan. I'll say it again this way. Tell me where I have gone wrong.
In the beginning God had a nature and God had a plan for humanity. Christian theology says that moral goodneess is grounded in the unchanging holy nature of God. That nature being perfectly holy means that God's plan must be holy. You and I come along and God reveals his nature and his plan to us. We lack the abiltity to clearly understand the nature of God's holiness and his plan so we have various disagreements about the actual plan.
Notice I haven't mentioned what the actual plan is because, as far as the nature of the plan goes - it's holiness or unholiness - it doesn't matter what the actual plan is. The answer to the moral question surrounding God's plan for humanity lies only in the question: What is the unchanging nature of God?
IF his nature is perfectly holy and IF Koukl has the correct understanding of God's plan, then that plan is holy and you are wrong.
Posted by: SteveK | June 21, 2010 at 05:43 PM
Well then, if I miss the mark...
Posted by: Daron | June 22, 2010 at 07:47 AM
I just do not agree in using the word "church" to include so many supposed believers, though our brother here explains that he is not refering to the true church of God made of saints washed by the blood of Christ.
I believe the Bible tells us a word for what has been described by our brother here as the most formidable opponent of the True Gospel, is is called Apostasy and it was prophesied by the apostles. False teachings and professing "christians" living like devils are the Number 1 enemy.
Posted by: Alexander | June 22, 2010 at 02:35 PM
Paying more attention to The Great Divorce:
Posted by: Daron | June 23, 2010 at 12:47 AM
I am using an iPad now and am unable to see the videos posted on this blog. Fortunately I was able to search YouTube and see the video.
I am wondering whether you could habitually post a link to the YouTube version in the same blog entry as the original video?
Posted by: Ed J | June 30, 2010 at 06:39 PM
Os Guinness has the answer in the book THE LAST CHRISTIAN ON EARTH. He does a phenomenal job.
Posted by: Frank | July 05, 2010 at 03:16 PM