Earth is 9,000 years old, says Rep. Paul Broun, who sits on House Science Committee (start

[Sola_Fide]

That's an incredulous exegesis of the text. John was a general epistle meaning that it was not written to a single congregation but to all believers. It's an epistle meant to be shared with every known congregation of believers in the then known world.

That's right. That is why John says the atonement is not just for the first century Jewish Christians who were reading this letter. The atonement is for elect Gentiles and Jews, the whole world, from every tribe tongue and nation.

Jesus talked about bringing salvation to the whole world, not just the Jews. He said He had elect sheep who were not of the Jewish fold:

John 10:16 NIV

I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

Paul also talks about salvation coming to the whole world, not just the Jews. The verse in 1st John in no way says that the atonement was for every person. The witness of the entire Bible is that the atonement was for elect believers throughout the entire world, both Jew and Gentile.

 

[erowe1]

Romans 8:32

32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

The words "Everyone that Jesus actually died for will be saved" is not in the text.

You don't think that Romans 8:32 is saying, "If God delivered up Jesus for someone, then God will give that person all things" and that "all things" in that context includes ultimate glorification?

How could you read it any other way?

 

[jmdrake]

That's right. That is why John says the atonement is not just for the first century Jewish Christians who were reading this letter. The atonement is for elect Gentiles and Jews, the whole world, from every tribe tongue and nation.

The verse in no way says that the atonement was for every person. The witness of the entire Bible is limited atonement.

Conversation:

Sola_Fide: 1 John was written to a congregation. Therefore when it says "the whole world" it means others congregation.
jmdrake: Wrong. 1 John was written to all believers.
Sola_Fide: That's right. Therefore I'm still right.

John wasn't writing 1 John to "Jewish Christians". He was writing it to Christians in general. Thus the "our" meant "Jewish and Gentile Christians". Thus the "whole world" meant everybody else. 1 John 2:2 is talking about general atonement made for all. But it only applies to those who accept it.

 

[erowe1]

1 John 2:2 is talking about general atonement made for all. But it only applies to those who accept it.

But 1 John 2:2 doesn't say it only applies to those who accept it. If you take it literally, it says it applies to the whole world.

You can't charge Calvinists with jumping through hoops when they say that "the whole world" in 1 John 2:2 really means only those who accept Jesus and not those who do not, and then turn around and say that that's exactly what you also think it means, but that when you say it it's not jumping through hoops.

 

[jmdrake]

You don't think that Romans 8:32 is saying, "If God delivered up Jesus for someone, then God will give that person all things" and that "all things" in that context includes ultimate glorification?

How could you read it any other way?

I already explained how and why I read it a different way. I've done it multiple times now. You simply aren't interested in anything but you own viewpoint.

Once more, the serpent in the wilderness was lifted up for all. Yet it only healed those who chose to look at it. The fact that those who looked at it were the only ones who were healed in no way meant that it was only lifted up for some. The idea that Jesus' atonement was only good enough for some people or only powerful enough for some or only extensive enough for some is a strange and unbiblical limitation on the power of God.

God did not spare any limits to save us. His giving Jesus' life for all of our salvation proves it. That's Hebrews 2:3 says "How can we neglect so great a salvation"? Yet, some do. It's just like some neglected to look up at the brass serpent and live. It's not God's fault. It's the fault of those who neglect the salvation. Those who resist grace. God, having provided salvation at so high a price, isn't going to deny heaven to those who accept salvation. That's what Romans 8:32 is plainly saying.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Conversation:

Sola_Fide: 1 John was written to a congregation. Therefore when it says "the whole world" it means others congregation.
jmdrake: Wrong. 1 John was written to all believers.
Sola_Fide: That's right. Therefore I'm still right.

John wasn't writing 1 John to "Jewish Christians". He was writing it to Christians in general. Thus the "our" meant "Jewish and Gentile Christians". Thus the "whole world" meant everybody else. 1 John 2:2 is talking about general atonement made for all. But it only applies to those who accept it.

It was a general epistle, yes, you're right. But the point was that the atonement was for Gentiles, not just Jews...the WHOLE world.

 

[erowe1]

I already explained how and why I read it a different way. I've done it multiple times now.

You're not talking about that stuff you keep saying about the serpent in the wilderness are you? You don't really see something about that in Romans 8:32.

You simply aren't interested in anything but you own viewpoint.

I am, but not if it's absurd.

 

[jmdrake]

But 1 John 2:2 doesn't say it only applies to those who accept it. If you take it literally, it says it applies to the whole world.

No it doesn't. The gift of salvation is offered to all. But it only applies to those who accept. Read the thread I posted on "The law of gifts" if you want to understand what 1 John 2:2 is literally saying. Also understand the brass serpent story that Jesus referred to. The brass serpent was the antidote for the poison that all who had been bitten were afflicted by. But only those who looked up at the serpent were healed. Likewise Jesus being the propitiation for the sins of the whole world means He paid the price. But that only gets "credited" to those who chose to believe.

 

[jmdrake]

You're not talking about that stuff you keep saying about the serpent in the wilderness are you? You don't really see something about that in Romans 8:32.

I am, but not if it's absurd.

Fine. You think my position is absurd, I think your position is absurd. We can leave it at that. The back and forth "Don't you see this?...No I don't." is itself getting absurd.

 

[jmdrake]

It was a general epistle, yes, you're right. But the point was that the atonement was for Gentiles, not just Jews...the WHOLE world.

Except the epistle was not written to Jewish Christians. So the idea that "our" meant "us Jews" is not a logical conclusion.

 

[erowe1]

No it doesn't. The gift of salvation is offered to all. But it only applies to those who accept.

But that's not what 1 John 2:2 says. It doesn't mention an offer of propitiation of sins. It mentions actual propitiation. And it says this propitiation is not for our sins only but also for those of the whole world.

When you say that it only applies to the those who accept (i.e. the elect), rather than actually the whole world, there's nothing about your own interpretation of that verse that doesn't comport with limited atonement.

 

[Republicanguy]

Myths? Are you kidding me. Turn on the TV and watch any of these shows about the origins of the universe. I watched one recently and I was amazed that the "science" channel had a presentation that was so completely consumed with myths and fairy tales.

Science IS mythological. Science is not true and cannot give truth. All of the laws of science are false. Truth is by definition that which does not change. Science always changes. It cannot yield truth.

And Curiosity Landed on Mars in August, it is expected to reach Mount Sharpe by the end of the year, an analysis of the soil there may prove whether any form of life could of existed on that planet.

People only say what the Representative Paul Broun because they lack the understanding of the subject.

 

[Sola_Fide]

But that's not what 1 John 2:2 says. It doesn't mention an offer of propitiation of sins. It mentions actual propitiation. And it says this propitiation is not for our sins only but also for those of the whole world.

When you say that it only applies to the those who accept (i.e. the elect), rather than actually the whole world, there's nothing about your own interpretation of that verse that doesn't comport with limited atonement.

Yes, and on this point Calvin said that Christ's death was sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect. But I disagree with Calvin here... to me, this pries a little too much into the hidden councils of God. I would say Christ's death is sufficient and efficient only for the elect.

And in contrast, the Arminian position says that Christ's death was neither sufficient or efficient for any man. Its efficiency, even its sufficiency, must be activated by a man's sinful will.

 

[erowe1]

I would say Christ's death is sufficient and efficient only for the elect.

To me this also pries too much into the hidden councils of God.

To say the cross is sufficient for some finite group of people seems to treat it as something physical and measurable, like there's a drop of blood for each of the elect, and when that runs out, there's no more left.

 

[Sola_Fide]

To me this also pries too much into the hidden councils of God.

To say the cross is sufficient for some finite group of people seems to treat it as something physical and measurable, like there's a drop of blood for each of the elect, and when that runs out, there's no more left.

The danger is that Amyraldianism is the slippery slope to Arminianism. I think the consistent Reformed position is to reject common grace. A.A. Hodge said:

"This view represents God as loving the non-elect sufficiently to give them his Son to die for them, but not loving them enough to give them faith and repentance.... It represents God as willing at the same time that all men be saved and that only the elect be saved. It denies, in opposition to the Arminian, that any of God’s decrees are conditioned upon the self-determined will of the creature, and yet puts into the mouths of confessed Calvinists the very catch-words of the Arminian system, such as universal grace, the conditional will of God, universal redemption, etc.

"The language of Amyraldus, the ‘Marrow Men’, Baxter, Wardlaw, Richards, and Brown is now used to cover much more serious departures from the truth. All really consistent Calvinists ought to have learned by now [1867] that the original position of the great writers and confessions of the Reformed Churches have only been confused, and neither improved, strengthened nor illustrated, by all the talk with which the Church has ... been distracted as to the ‘double will’ of God, or the ‘double reference’ of the Atonement. If men will be consistent in their adherence to these ‘Novelties’, they must become Arminians. If they would hold consistently to the essential principles of Calvinism, they must discard the ‘Novelties’." 9

Here's some more about this:
http://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=355

 

[erowe1]

The danger is that Amyraldianism is the slippery slope to Arminianism. I think the consistent Reformed position is to reject common grace. A.A. Hodge said:



Here's some more about this:
http://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=355

I might lean toward Amyraldianism. But I wouldn't either call myself a 4-point Calvinist or a 5-point Calvinist without a chance to qualify it. I affirm that the people actually, effectually, saved by Christ's death are limited to the elect. But I don't feel obligated to find some way to explain every passage that talks about Christ's death accomplishing something for the nonelect. It may just be that when Romans 8:32 says God gave up his son for those, and only those, who will ultimately be glorified, and when 2 Peter 2:1 says the Lord bought individuals who will end up condemned, they may just be talking about different aspects of what Christ accomplished.

The other thing is, in a saved person's experience, there is a point in their lives after which they are forever saved and before which they are no different than every unsaved and nonelect person (Ephesians 2:1). They are set apart in God's perfect eternal plan. But they are not saved until that moment that by God's grace they exercise saving faith. If the atonement were a simple thing bound up in the cross by itself without additional acts of God that he must do to save the elect, then it could not be the case than any of the elect spend any of their lives under God's wrath, and yet they do.

 

[Chrysamere]

I find it cringe-worthy when people who obviously don't know the first thing about physics -- who probably haven't even taken a single university course in calculus-based classical mechanics, let alone possess a doctorate in physics with a specialization in cosmology -- express strong opinions on matters like gravity, time, and space. That would be like me lecturing a Russian ballet star on her technique or correcting a linguist on Italian grammar, even though I know absolutely nothing about these things.

Everyone has the right to have an opinion on subjects that aren't matters of fact, but an opinion on any factual matter is WORTHLESS unless it is an informed one. To be knowledgeable about the physics of the origin of the universe, a graduate degree in physics or mathematics (or, equivalently, about 7-10 years of full-time, intensive study, preferably under a knowledgeable tutor) is the bare minimum preparation you need, and it has to be in a relevant sub-specialty of physics or math. In particular, if you don't know tensor calculus and general relativity, your opinion on the subject doesn't count. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's the truth.

No one can know about everything. I certainly don't come close. But I've studied enough science to know just how much I don't know. We all need to be humble when confronted with subjects that are alien to us, and if we want to learn about those subjects, we need to devote years of extreme effort to attain that knowledge. There are no shortcuts.

With that rant out of the way, obviously Rep. Broun suffers from extreme scientific ignorance. There are multiple independent lines of evidence proving that the earth is billions of years old. No reasonable doubt exists. But like others here, I don't care about Broun's or anyone else's beliefs so much as about their views on policy. I can be friends with people who know nothing about science as long as they have a "live and let live" philosophy.

Quoted because truth.

 

[Dr.3D]

Quoted because truth.

Even so...

Dr. Gerald Schroeder earned his BSc, MSc and double-Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics and Earth and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught physics for seven years.
http://www.aish.com/authors/48865427.html

I have trouble understanding who GuerrillaXXI was referring to. Is he saying Dr. Schroeder is uninformed in this matter?
Here is his web site for those who would like to learn more about what he is talking about.
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/ScienceGod.aspx

 

[Sola_Fide]

Even so...



I have trouble understanding who GuerrillaXXI was referring to. Is he saying Dr. Schroeder is uninformed in this matter?
Here is his web site for those who would like to learn more about what he is talking about.
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/ScienceGod.aspx

I think the default criticism for anyone who disagrees with the scientific establishment is that "we don't understand it."

No matter how qualified or insightful you may be, if you are outside the Atheist/Darwinist scientific establishment box, you are a "religious nut" and "uninformed".

The scientific establishment is much like the political establishment.

 

[matt0611]

I think the default criticism for anyone who disagrees with the scientific establishment is that "we don't understand it."

No matter how qualified or insightful you may be, if you are outside the Atheist/Darwinist scientific establishment box, you are a "religious nut" and "uninformed".

The scientific establishment is much like the political establishment.

That's a good point. Look at how many economists say we "need" stimulus, keynesianism works, we "need" the Fed, we need government for this or that, its been proven, if you think otherwise you're some kind of fool / crazy / extremist etc

I'm not saying these people or liars or wrong about everything, I think people like Krugman actually believe in their heart that keynesianism is the truth and that it works.

Just like I believe many darwinists / atheists honestly believe evolution is true and there is no God etc

Many facts look different depending on weather you come from these presuppositions or that set of presuppositions. None of us can know everything about everything, its just not possible but I try to do as much research into and learning about things as I can and don't like to follow one set of beliefs just because "most people in this field think this so it must be right". I try to question and challenge my own beliefs a lot or else there is no point in having them if they can't be defended.

I think Ron Paul (and the liberty movement in general) has opened my eyes to a lot of things and taught me not to blindly trust the established views on subjects (politics, government, personal health, economics, war, global warming etc).