Salvation by Natural Instead of Supernatural Means

Conversation
62

This misses the point. I am not arguing that God should answer all prayers, but he has specifically refused to answer certain prayers like the ones to regrow limbs. That’s strong evidence that its either he is not there or is impotent. He only answers prayer that are tractable by medical means like cancer, but never limb replacement via tissue regeneration.

Most gods promise this, but nothing stops them from keeping their worshippers free of certain debilitating diseases in the present.

She is praising the wrong person. That cure she received was due to the hardwork of scientists past and present, not God. Will she or you equally thank God for the nuclear bombs created with scientific knowledge, or do you only thank God for the good achievements of science?

In addition, which God is she thanking? There are hundreds of them. If she is Christian, she would thank Jesus, if Muslim she would thank Allah, if Hindu she would thank Krishna or Rama. Saying God did it doesn’t cut it for me and its annoying when people give glory to someone who doesn’t deserve it.

Why can’t God regrow limbs via tissue regeneration? That would be strong evidence for his existence and power. His silence makes him look like Baal.

63

Good. In summary, you don’t know.

Good. You don’t know, again, because everything you said here are assertions with little or no supporting evidence.

How is this proof that it is a divine book?

Animals are depraved too. Despite evolving bigger brains which allowed us to develop moral values, we still have the animalistic instincts gotten from our deep ancestry.

This, again, does not show the Bible is divinely inspired. The Bible writers could have easily observed this depravity among humans and written it down. You need to come up with better evidence, because its obvious you don’t really know.

You are Christian, so I understand where you are coming from, but why I believe your tale over that of my Muslim or Hindu friends?

Are you sure no other religion teaches something similar? Even if the answer is no, it doesn’t in any way prove that the Bible is divine. If the Bible makes you feel alright, fine, but don’t use that as proof that it is somehow an inspired book.

64

That’s incorrect, your phone cannot even answer you. It’s mute and deaf. God isn’t.

I also don’t see real engagement with my argument on mutually exclusive prayer.

So all you know is that America has many problematic and sinful people, including among many self-identified Christians. But that’s not enough to indict God of not sufficiently answering prayers.

You still don’t get the point. I’m not saying you’re selfish in your prayers. It’s not a bad thing to pray for others. But praying for other human beings is still being human-centered, instead of God-centered.

I also tend to be skeptical of claims of dreams and visions from God. Many other Christian traditions are similarly skeptical. Only Scripture is authoritative. Were you raised in a Pentecostal background?

Yes, natural theology doesn’t point to a specific religion. And the point of natural theology isn’t to prove biblical inerrancy. Natural theology may convince one to become a theist in the general sense, from which one can then use other arguments to decide whether Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or another religion is more likely to be correct. But you don’t get to reject natural theology just because it can’t point to a specific religion.

Even if you’ve read them, you don’t seem to understand them. Your objections to prayer and your understanding of God contain basic misunderstandings which a thoughtful atheist would not make. That being said, Feser is a different type of philosopher than Craig, Plantinga, Moreland, and Schaeffer. He may be interesting to you.

You may have read your Bible cover to cover, but I haven’t seen evidence that you can actually do serious exegesis. Still waiting for your interpretation of Matthew 17:20.

Sure. From the books you’ve mentioned, which one do you think is the most important?

65

If another religion did, then that religion would also be teaching the truth. Great!

If I’m understanding you correctly, you seem committed to the idea that it is not possible to know anything true about God, which seems like a self-defeating principle. But it’s not possible for you to know that no one can know.

Which kind of God would you want to follow, and why would you make that decision?

66

Hmm. How does that happen in reality?

2 Likes
67

No, animals are not depraved. We do not hold animals morally accountable for their actions. We do not condemn lions for hunting their prey.

However humans have a sense of morality. Where did those moral sensibilities arise? And in spite of our moral reasoning abilities, we so often fail in our ability to hold to our own moral standards that we have set for ourselves.

Secular humanism and other religions seem to tell people that they can become better people by applying good moral reasoning and working harder to do more and more good in the world. However, history seems to demonstrate that not to be the case. The Christian doctrine of the depravity of man is unafraid of telling us the truth about ourselves.

That’s not to say that people should not work to alleviate suffering in this world, of course they should. Those good works also reveal God’s work in our world.

God seems to be less interested in answering specific prayers in specific ways than using prayer to change us and using other people as answers to His prayers in the lives of others. Like in the examples I gave: using the hard work of scientists to develop new treatments and using the monetary gifts of others people to give that girl a prothetic leg. It is a joy to be a part of God’s work in those ways in this world now. And fortunately, in heaven all those limbs will be fully restored, so those prayers will be fully answered.

1 Like
68

I don’t know, do you?

And so?

How does telling us about our depravity make Christianity true?

Which God?

Or he is either impotent or nonexistent.

Stop giving honor to whom it is not due. Prosthetic legs were developed through the application of biophysical principles, and not God. You seem to forget that some scientists are satanists, should we give Satan thanks too?

This is exasperating. Modern science is the source of the medical breakthroughs of our time and not God. This is undeniable. If you want to claim some God(s) are working behind the scene, then provide evidence to support it, otherwise stop redirecting the praise meant for thousands of scientists working day and night to give us these breakthroughs.

2 Likes
69

I don’t really see how recognizing human depravity makes a religion true. How do you know it marks true religion?

No you did not understand me. I have never argued that it is impossible to know real facts about God, rather I have argued that no such means has been devised as at present, so no one really knows anything about God’s intention (if he is really there).

Nothing stops God from providing clear evidence for his existence and power, but he hides himself (if he really exists).

I don’t know. I just go with the Roman Catholic concept of God.

70

Why?

Why do you ONLY want to praise people, and not ALSO praise the God who created those people and gave them their intellect, abilities and drive to help others? Seems you could be missing part of the picture.

1 Like
71

It makes Christianity more true than other religions that ignore that truth

But God has revealed truths about Himself to us through general revelation (in nature) and special revelation (in the scriptures, through His incarnation via Jesus, and through the outworking of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers)

72

My Hermeneia commentary agrees with me on interpretation of Matthew 17:20. It is not merely metaphorical as you argue. Many Christian songs also imply Matthew 17:20 is not only metaphorical. My interpretation of it appears to be quite the natural and obvious interpretation of it. It is interesting that you hamstring your own Jesus and God and what the gospel teaches so much!!

In [17:]20 Matthew contrasts faith with little faith. To believe means to trust in Jesus that he “can do that” (9:28) or that “nothing will be impossible for you.” While for Matthew too all members of the church are “believers” (18:6), faith comes into its own when the issue is miracles and extraordinary proofs and experiences. Venture, prayer, obedience on the one side and the unrestricted power of Jesus on the other side constitute faith. Faith means departure, prayer, venture, laying claim to the unrestricted power of Immanuel that is promised to the church (28:20). And since, according to Matthew, this power is repeatedly available in concrete miracles that by no means are only symbolic, that means that the miracle in this text is not simply irrelevant and designed to introduce a teaching, even though Matthew so radically abbreviated it. Instead, it is a central question of faith for the evangelist that miraculous healings actually happen in the church

I also tend to be skeptical of claims of dreams and visions from God. Many other Christian traditions are similarly skeptical. Only Scripture is authoritative. Were you raised in a Pentecostal background?

Non-denominational Christian, but that is effectively church speak for Baptist.

I do have some Pentacostal friends who are convinced God/Jesus speaks to them in dreams.

I have had some Christian friends receive a message from another Christian who thought God had told them to tell my friend a message. Which turned out very wrong!!

Many of my Christian friends believe God speaks to them today in various ways. Music, coincidence, other people. And they are not Pentacostal.

Again, it sounda like your God is very small, restricted to communication via a book that has different contradictory views on many many things.

You have read Peter Enns. Do you agree or disagree with Enns, that the bible records people with different and contradictory beliefs about God and His Laws?

Yet it appears that, too, well, God wasn’t actually the one behind that fellow Christian bringing a message, or God didn’t incarnate as a fellow psychiatric inmate, or that God didn’t actually speak to my Christian friend in a dream.

Again, we reach a conundrum.

This world and my fellow Christians have seem to have directly refuted God speaking to us directly today, in contrast to many of my Christian friends today, who claim a direct relationship with God/Jesus, and who claim God speaks to them every day through coincidences, friends, the bible, dreams.

How does one “test the spirits”?

Friedman’s “Who Wrote the Bible”.

The better you know your bible, the more you’ll enjoy it. A great many Christians apparently have enjoyed the book, if reviews are any indication.

Which Feser book would you suggest I read?

73

What truths about God can one learn from AIDS and Covid-19? And which God?

Assertions, assertions, assertions. How do we know the Holy Spirit is working in the lives of believers?

74

Are we “depraved”, though?

Evidence shows babies are born to be altruistic.

This is consistent with evolution, and not The Fall and not consistent with humans being born selfish.

75

I just like the way Roman Catholics view God and what he wants.

Because we know these people put in their time and effort into making these medical breakthroughs. We can’t say the same with God (whichever one it is). Do you praise God for nuclear bombs too based on the principles of nuclear physics?

I certainly am not.

How?

1 Like
76

Of course not, that is evidence of the depravity of man.

Do you praise scientists for the creation of guns, nuclear bombs, and chemical weapons?

So what things in this world do you attribute to God?

77

First, I’m not asking you to recite the Hermeneia commentary to me. What is your interpretation, which could be informed by such commentaries, but isn’t just parroting it? And secondly, how do you square that interpretation with other verses I mentioned, when even in the Bible God doesn’t seem to answer all prayers affirmatively? I need real engagement here, not just copy-pasting. You know that in this forum we do not favor creationists who just copy paste arguments from other websites. Similarly, I have no intention of carrying out a proxy debate on Matthew with the late Prof. Ulrich Luz.

Second, I read the Hermeneia commentary that you cited and I see nothing that contradicts my interpretation. Perhaps you should read my interpretation again.

I have no time for these insincere rhetorical digs, Witchdoc.

The Last Superstition is the most general of the bunch I suggested.

1 Like
78

You did question my exegesis and asked what commentary I used regarding it.

It looks like I have not made myself clear.

My interpretation of Matthew 17:20 is that faith in God enables God to demonstrate His power through miracles. Indeed, the context of the passage demands this interpretation;

And Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and the boy was healed instantly. Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, “Why could we not cast it out?”
Matthew 17:18‭-‬19 ESV
Matthew 17:18-19 And Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and the boy was healed instantly. Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, “Why could we not cast it out?” | English Standard Version 2016 (ESV) | Download The Bible App Now

The disciples could not perform miracles because they lacked faith is the big idea of the passage.

Why can’t people cast out covid-19, ala Ken Copeland?

Do YOU have an example where God has performed a miracle for you or someone else you know?

The Last Superstition is the most general of the bunch I suggested.

Okay, lets do this :+1:

1 Like
79

Sure, I would not disagree with that. Yet nothing in that assumes that God promises to perform a miracle every time we ask him for one.

The Resurrection of Jesus is one big example.

I’m more skeptical of claims of modern-day miracles. I have not had time to investigate them.

1 Like
80

Well for once, Kenneth Copeland preaches the prosperity gospel, which is an erroneous and dangerous teaching which does not conform to Scripture.

1 Like
81

It appears clear to me that the God Matthew envisions is much bigger than the one you do.

Well for once, Kenneth Copeland preaches the prosperity gospel, which is an erroneous and dangerous teaching which does not conform to Scripture.

Obviously, I picked someone who doesn’t embody Christian ideals very much with his prosperity gospel and love of money.

Yet the question remains. Why can’t a godly Christian do what he tries to do?