MySpace

Well, That's What I Think Anyways...

MySpace.com | rss | sign in
triple



Last Updated: 11/26/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Male
Status: Married
Age: 35
Sign: Capricorn

City: SAN DIEGO
State: California
Country: US
Signup Date: 2/12/2005

My Subscriptions
Jason
_
Calvin
Lindsay
Tortured Conscience
C♥J
-John-
Scot
GÃdFL¥ J•'¯'·.·•
Christopher
Matt
Chris
Ravi
Tanya
Julian Jaynes & the Origin of Consciousness
Amy Noel

Blog Archive
[Older      Newer]
 /  / 
July 7, 2009 - Tuesday 

Category: Religion and Philosophy
If natural man's condition is Total Depravity, How do we account for the apparent "good" in the unregenerate?
Good question because the meaning of total depravity is often misunderstood. It should first be pointed out what "total depravity" does not mean. The doctrine does not refer to man being as evil a creature as he can be. All fallen, unregenerate human beings are endowed with many of God's common graces. God has blessed all men with a conscience and the capacity to promote virtue and civil righteousness. It is abundantly clear that many beautiful aspects of the world we live in have been brought forth by those which are unredeemed by God's regenerative grace. God has gifted natural men and women with the skill to create beautiful music, make profound works of art, to invent intricate machines and do countless things that are productive, excellent and praiseworthy. John Calvin said,
"Those men whom Scripture calls "natural men" were, indeed, sharp and penetrating in their investigation of inferior things. Let us, accordingly, learn by their example how many gifts the Lord left to human nature even after it was despoiled of its true good." (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 274-275).
It would be natural to ask, then, if man is totally depraved, how is it that he can bring forth so many good things? This question is indeed valid but misunderstands what is meant when we talk about man as being rendered depraved by the fall.
So what is meant, then, by the total depravity and spiritual inability of the natural man? It means that man's many good works, even though in accord with God's commands, are not well pleasing to God when weighed against His ultimate criteria and standard of perfection. The love of God and His law is not the unbelievers' deepest animating motive and principle (nor is it his motive at all), so it does not earn him the right to redemptive blessings from a holy God. The Scripture clearly implies this when it states "...without faith it is impossible to please Him." (Hebrews 11:6a, NASB) and "whatever is not from faith is sin." (Romans 14:23) So if man "is restrained from performing more evil acts by motives that are not owing to his glad submission to God, then even his "virtue" is evil in the sight of God." (John Piper) His purpose for doing good works are not from a heart that loves God. Being unspiritual, that is, without the Holy Spirit, "... men do not rise above themselves" (Calvin) But now through our justification and regeneration in Christ, we are enabled, for the first time, to be pleasing to God on the basis of Christ's work and, from this union, the work of the Holy Spirit renews our affections for God, giving us understanding of, and a delight in, spiritual things and turning our heart of stone to a heart of flesh.
Total depravity only means man is lost (Luke 19:10), unspiritual by nature, and thus he is utterly impotent to recover himself from his ruined estate (John 6:44, 65, Rom 8:7; Eph 2:1, 2:5; Rom 3:11; 2 Corinthians 4:4-6). In other words he is unable to do any redemptive good. Fallen man does not desire God, he loves darkness and hates the light (John 3:19,20) so he will not come into Christ at all except he be reborn by the Holy Spirit (John 1:13, 3:6, John 6:37, 39, 44, 63-66; Rom 9:16).
Calvin made an observation from Romans 1 that all men (regenerate and unregenerate) have a sense of the divine within them. Even unbelievers know God in a sense because God has impressed his image on all persons. The apostle Paul said, "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him..." (Rom 1:21) Since the Holy Spirit does not dwell with the fallen, the source of natural man's affections come from a polluted well. He has a sense of the divine and knows God, but only as an enemy, "and by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18). God has impressed humanity with a conscience and it restrains him from doing even more evil, but his heart cannot reach to the heavens to God unless the Spirit first pour His blessings down from heaven. God extends his love to man but since he is hostile to God by nature he will always reject Him. All are responsible to come to Him but inexcusable for their "knowing Him" but refusing to come to Him. "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." It is our duty to repent but we will not do so unless God grants repentance (2 Tim 2:25) and give us new eyes to see the truth. Without Scripture and the Holy Spirit we only distort the true light God has given us in His creation. Since the Scripture declares that we suppress the truth and make idols of all things created (Rom 1:18), so if our blindness is to be removed, it is not just the light of God we need (Scripture), but also new eyes to see that light (the Holy Spirit).
- John W. Hendryx
5:54 AM 
1 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
June 28, 2009 - Sunday 

Category: Religion and Philosophy
Discussing the Parable of the Sower 
John Hendryx & Visitor
Visitor: 
we've been given the parable of the sower. It is right, unless someone sows the word, nobody can believe and hence, bear fruit. Paul says the same thing, without someone preaching, nobody can believe and be saved.
But why does one respond to the word and not the other? The difference lies with the ground and the ground only. The word falls on everywhere alike, without respect to the ground. The sun shines on all grounds alike. The rain falls on all grounds alike. What makes the difference? -- The ground, that is man's part. 
Response:
So, in other words, you are arguing that we ourselves break up the fallow ground of our hearts? You are not looking deep enough if you think so. The ground (of our hearts) is all naturally fallow and the farmer must come and break up that fallow ground. The only seed which germinates rightly is the one in the ground which God (the Farmer) has prepared. All other fallow ground, i.e. those left to themselves, is hopeless.
So how can the ground be man's part? Are you then asserting that some men's hearts are naturally good and others naturally evil? That the difference is that one man was naturally evil and so rejected the gospel and the other good and so believed it? So God's love then, in your view, is conditioned upon whether one's heart is good by nature or not? Think about it, why are some men's "ground" fallow and others prepared? Who did that? Who gets the glory for that?
To believe man ultimately prepared his own fallow ground is not trusting in Christ alone but in something else for salvation. 
Visitor:

>>>You are not looking deep enough if you think so. The ground (of our hearts) is all naturally fallow and the farmer must come and break up that fallow ground.
We should not stretch the meaning of the parable (one of the few parables Jesus is explaining) beyond its intended message. And the message is clear. There are two parts under consideration here, God's and mankind's. The parable portrays a dualism, God on the one hand, man on the other. And it distinguishes different men, focusing on the different human predispositions.
>>>The only seed which germinates rightly is the one in the ground which God (the Farmer) has prepared.
Here we go, this is the point where you stretch the parable and mix a concept in it, which simply isn't part and parcel of the message conveyed at all. There is nothing about a farmer and his preparation here at all, there is nothing about "breaking up" fallow grounds here, neither does the text plainly say so, nor does the narrative implicitly suggest this. So the idea cannot even be held indirectly without dismissing the entire meaning of the parable. To the contrary, the utter impartiality of the seed and the plain decisiveness of the ground as the key to the maturation of fruit, is the clue here. You need very thick "reformed tradition glasses" in order to have the text support a farmer's work and preparation as the decisive aspect. The narrative is far from even allowing for such a twist.
>>>So how can the ground be man's part? Are you then asserting that some men's hearts are naturally good and others naturally evil?
Please note, these questions are solely based on the pseudo problems just mentioned above. These questions assume problems that just aren't there to begin with. It's like someone who first plays with fire in order to have a reason to call the firefighters. The ground is most clearly man's part. The dualism between God's part (seed) and man's part (ground) is evident in the parable. Making the ground actually God's part is to throw overboard the entire intention of the parable, which is to provide an answer why men respond differently to the word of God. Making the ground God's part is to throw overboard the whole parable right from the start -- it would be meaningless!
>>>That the difference is that one man was naturally evil and so rejected the gospel and the other good and so believed it?
Note, there are few treatises in the bible on the question: "Why do some believe and others don't?" -- however, the parable of the sower IS such a biblical response. This IS the biblical response and we shouldn't overload it with our own views how things should function according to us.
>>>So God's love then, in your view, is conditioned upon whether one's heart is good by nature or not?
The seed falls on every ground alike, without respect. This is a key element in the parable. What makes the ultimate difference? -- The quality of the ground.
>>>why are some men's "ground" fallow and others prepared? Who did that? Who gets the glory for that?
This is raising a pseudo problem. Since the parable doesn't answer why some grounds are good and others are not, we must be very careful not to introduce answers from our traditional bias which have nothing to do with the intended meaning of the parable. If the meaning of the parable were NOT the focus on man's part as the quality of the grounds, then wouldn't we expect to have at least a slightest hint towards this? But neither the parable itself nor Jesus' explanation thereof draw our attention towards an alleged work of a farmer on the ground as the decisive element. So if this isn't eisegesis, then I wonder what eisegesis is.
>>>To believe man ultimately prepared his own fallow ground is not trusting in Christ alone but in something else for salvation.
Note, the raising of this pseudo problem, has no fundament. The parable is very clearly drawing a distinction between God's part and man's. Declaring man's part to be really null and void seems next to impossible, in face of this parable.
Two questions concerning hermeneutics: What does the parable of the sower actually say?
A) That there is a farmer secretly at work, preparing some grounds?
B) That the maturation of fruit depends on the quality of the grounds?
And note, this parable IS the biblical answer to the question why the word of God succeeds in so different ways.
Thus, the ultimate difference lies on man's side and only on man's side. When the seed has fallen, everything that follows depends on the quality of the ground, in other words, on man. There's no secret going on behind the veil.

Response:
>>>>We should not stretch the meaning of the parable (one of the few parables Jesus is explaining) beyond its intended message. And the message is clear. There are two parts under consideration here, God's and mankind's.
In an agrarian society such as the one Jesus was speaking to, it would be a given that plowing up fallow soil was part of what the farmer did while scattering seed. The burden of proof would actually be on you to show where Jesus deviates from this implicitly understood truth about reality and alternatively claims that the soil was naturally found to be good. It is common sense that the very nature of fallow soil requires breaking up while sowing. No where in the parable, in nature or anywhere else would people assume the parable is teaching us that that some men's soil is good by nature. I believe that you think the parable teaches this simply because it fits nicely with your view of salvation.
Secondly, I often tell my Arminian friends, that all passages must be read in their context. Context, context, context. I have found that so many passages read in isolation (like this one) are misinterpreted until seen in their original context. Let's look: Here, after Jesus tells the parable he gives a key to it's meaning in the next passage just before he explains the details of the parable of the sower in Matthew:
"Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" 11And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:
"'You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.
For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.'
16But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.
Interestingly, before more fully explaining the parable, Jesus identifies his purpose in telling this and other parables is to hide the meaning from some people, not to make the truth more plain to them. He here takes the disciples a little deeper revealing to them that they have been given the capacity to see while others have not be given this capacity. This is clearly God deciding who will, and will not, hear the truth of the Gospel, for it is up to His own sovereign good pleasure if he will open their ears to hear the gospel of not. Considered right in the middle of the context of the parable of the sower, we can easily pick up that Jesus is saying that the good ground got that way because He Himself made it good. God gives the increase. Those who receive the word only do so because of the grace of God, not because they have any native ability. The parable represents what happens when Jesus preaches the Word. In fact, I believe He was explaining to the crowd what was happening that very day when they were listening to him. That each of them fell under one of the four categories of soils. And Only those with "ears to hear" would believe. SO when the parable is spoken of in context of this explanation of some people being given understanding and not others, the meaning and purpose of the parable is clarified, and makes impossible the meaning that you import into it. Jesus is at pains to make sure that his disciples understood there was a reason why some believed and not others.
So, back to your comment, if you are going to claim that we are stretching the meaning of the text when we claim the farmer is the one who plows up the fallow ground, then you need to be consistent with your own hermeneutic. The parable explains only that some of the soil was good and does not in ANY WAY presume that it got that because by itself. That is not even implied in the text. So if you play by your own rule, you cannot derive the conclusion you have either. ON the contrary, everything in the parable and the context makes clear that who gets harvested is entirely up to the Farmer. God the sower takes the initiative to sow the seed and this involves preparing the ground. God casts seed on both good ground and fallow ground and this is not left up to chance. The Farmer makes sure that some of the seed (the gospel) falls upon good soil.
I honestly can only say I was appalled when I saw in your argument that what makes the difference in the end was not the grace of God but the "quality of the ground", as ifGod chooses people based on their moral qualities. The idea that some hearts are just good by nature, not only clashes with the rest of Scripture, but, I would argue, here as well. Such false unbiblical teaching I pray to the Lord would be crushed in the loins so no false teachers would be raised up afterward who continue to teach that some people naturally have a good disposition, apart from the grace of God. Do some people simply have good hearts that are inclined to the gospel but others are not? Salvation by our good heart or merit is nowhere taught in Scripture here or anywhere else and such outright blatant heresy is to be condemned. Salvation is by Christ alone. Your interpretation can be read in no other light when you say that some people who had 'good soil' by nature believe the gospel. Ask yourself in light of Scripture, how did their soil get that way? Give glory to God and not man.
 
3:20 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
June 28, 2009 - Sunday 
3:15 PM 
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
June 27, 2009 - Saturday 

Category: Religion and Philosophy
Posted by Valentine Technocracy on May 28, 2009 - Thursday - 11:02 PM 
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, thus the sum total of energy in the universe stays the same. Nothing just Pops into existence "Ala Creation", energy simply changes forms.



Posted by triple on June 7, 2009 - Sunday - 3:03 PM 
why do you say that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. how do you know this?



Posted by Valentine Technocracy on June 13, 2009 - Saturday - 3:48 PM
Because scientist have been trying to prove otherwise for three hundred years with no success. It's the fundamental law of the conservation of energy Triple, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The great thing about this claim is that it's falsifiable, but has never been falsified.

Energy is never created nor destroyed, it is only converted. Let's say I have a piece of coal, how would I go about destroying it? If I crushed it I'd just be scattering the energy about in smaller parts or condensing the energy, if I burned it I would only be converting the molecular energy into other forms of energy (heat mostly) and that energy released from the burning of the coal would happily absorb into other molecular structures and energize them. So by burning the coal I may be creating heat, light, and smoke and gas but I wouldn't be creating new energy, I would only be transforming energy between states.

Now we have no logical reason to believe that energy can be created or destroyed. Everything that begins and everything that ends is the process by which energy changes form. Think about this next time you're eating.



Posted by triple on June 14, 2009 - Sunday - 8:26 AM 
very interesting.  have you tried this experiment of transforming energy of coal to verify this?

Posted by triple on June 14, 2009 - Sunday - 8:28 AM 
Oh and I I almost forgot.  I understand that this is a law of TD.  But the other part of the question which I think is important was "how do you know this?"



Posted by Valentine Technocracy on June 18, 2009 - Thursday - 6:21 AM
Triple, the great thing about Thermo Dynamics is that the Law of the Conservation of Energy is falsifiable, and has never been falsified. Until an example of energy being created or an example of energy being destroyed is presented, then it is reasonable to conclude that energy can not be created nor destroyed.

So to answer your question "How do I know?" I know because of evidence Triple. I don't claim absolute magic knowledge like you do with your invisible god friend though. If what I know about the conservation of energy were overturned by new evidence tomorrow I would be extremely excited, because the discovery that energy could be created would unlock limitless possibilities for perpetual energy devices, and I've always been fascinated with perpetual motion. The discovery that energy could be destroyed would open up new ways to look at the disposal of toxic matter, and maybe even provide a way to eventually destroy black holes (a looming natural threat in our galaxy). It would be more than Nobel worthy, if someone discovered that energy COULD be created or destroyed that person would become an instant hero to me. I'm not going to hold my breath though, because everything we do know about energy suggests that it can not be created nor destroyed.




Posted by triple on June 20, 2009 - Saturday - 11:53 AM 
you had mentioned earlier that scientists had been trying to do this for the last 300 years.

have you read all the reports of scientist conducting these experiments of the last 300 years?

From what you wrote earlier you mentioned that you had conducted this "coal experiment" in the form of BBQs you've had.  Have you observed all tests performed on this particular subject?

additionally, no need to insult God please.  just stick with the discussion and that would be appreciated.  thanks.



Posted by Valentine Technocracy on June 21, 2009 - Sunday - 12:21 PM 
----
"have you read all the reports of scientist conducting these experiments of the last 300 years?"
----

No, and why is that relevant? If your insinuation is that someone has falsified the law of energy conservation, please present the falsification. Certainly the scientific community is unaware of it, so you might want to present it to them as well.

----
"From what you wrote earlier you mentioned that you had conducted this "coal experiment" in the form of BBQs you've had.  Have you observed all tests performed on this particular subject?"
----

No, and why does it matter? When I burn coal I don't need an electron microscope and an LHC collider to see what's happening, I can see the smoke, I can feel the heat, I can smell the fumes. There's no logical reason to conclude that the energy is simply vanishing.

Anyway if you think you've got the where-with-all to falsify the law of energy conservation have at it.

----
"additionally, no need to insult God please.  just stick with the discussion and that would be appreciated.  thanks."
----

I didn't insult any god or gods Triple, but maybe you found the word "magic" insulting. Maybe if I said "miracle" it would be better?



V

I would continue to ask...If you haven't read all the test conducted in the last 300 years on energy how many have you read?

You said you said you haven't observed all test conducted on these claims...how do you know that this law of conservation is true?





7:43 PM 
9 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
May 24, 2009 - Sunday 

Category: Religion and Philosophy
This is a talk where Rachael discovered she has terminal cancer. She has 6-18 weeks to live and is using some of that special time to share her heart.


3:34 PM 
4 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
May 24, 2009 - Sunday 

Category: Religion and Philosophy
2:52 PM 
17 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
May 9, 2009 - Saturday 

Category: Religion and Philosophy
In a recent discussion with a friend I had an opportunity to dialog on a particular issue which to some Christians may seem odd but to others not to big of a deal. The main points of the discussion were centered around the creation days in the bible and the second one was the flood of Noah being global or universal (not global but killing all men).

As we look at the issues we must come with some presuppositions and it helps to identify them and recognize the ones that are helpful or those which can be a hindrance. I hold that Scripture is the word of God. It is inerrant and infallible in the original text. This is key. Scripture is inerrant. Meaning it is without error. What is not inerrant is my interpretation of the inerrant Scripture.

The second thing is that if God "wrote" the bible and He exists, then He has made the world. Though this seems an obvious point it is critical because what it establishes is that the two records we have (the Bible and the created order) come from the same person. That person being God. If this second point is true then there can be no contradiction in what creation says and what the Scripture says.

However, what can be flawed is my "interpretation" of either the data found in creation or the Bible. But they in of themselves are not in "error" of what they say.

My view is that
1. The creation days in Genesis are not 6-24 hour days. But they are long periods of time. The earth and universe are billions of years old and not six thousand as a "young earth creationist" would argue.

2. The flood of Noah was not a global flood but it is an account of the event from the perspective of Noah.


I do however, take the accounts literal. And I hope to explain this in coming blogs.
2:51 PM 
5 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
January 4, 2009 - Sunday 

Category: Religion and Philosophy






















8:50 AM 
1 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
January 4, 2009 - Sunday 

Category: Religion and Philosophy
7:01 AM 
2 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate
January 4, 2009 - Sunday 

Category: Religion and Philosophy
Should I be surprised from the response of either atheist or a non-believer when they are told about the who God is? Sometimes the non-believer or skeptic will be quick to attack, call names or degrade the believer because they hold to a view that is so difficult to deal with. I would humbly ask Christians, "Should we be surprised?" Should we be surprised to discover that those who are in rebellion to a God display their hatred of Him?

So what's the big deal? For one part it can lead or cause some Christians to water down who God is and what the consequences are of continued defiance. I know this isn't the easiest message to communicate to the non-believer. But as a believer there must be a recognition who we (humans) are and who He is. Once we realize who we are and who He is, we will understand what we deserve.

Though it is out of compassion that we don't want to offend the non-believer, who is greater to offend? Man? Or God? Why do we err on the side of offending the non-believer? The result? A false gospel. A false gospel that does not stand under the scrutiny of either suffering or persecution. When we tell the non-believer "Come to Jesus and life will be better..." we set them up for failure and we lie. The Scripture never promises coming to Jesus will produce a better life that is full of wealth or comfort. Only salvation.

If you proclaim the gospel to someone and it doesn't offend someone I would say you have a problem. You have probably not adequately told someone who they are or who He is.

7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil.

John 7:7 (NKJV)


Regards
triple
6:49 AM 
5 Comments
(Add Comment) |
Translate