"Oh so God foreknew but had to stand as bemused spectator and watch? Come on we are talking about God who was able to create all from nothing, to bring life to dust and created the cosmos and all that we can imagine. Of course God's hand was in Joseph's story or else the story of Joseph is nothing m...

Justaned asked: "So why don't you show me what part of the story was a surprise to God and which part was blind luck?" Don't know what you're talking about - I wasn't talking about a story and I never said God is surprised by events. But that has nothing to do with sovereignty; it has to do with for...

"You fail to understand where disease came from. It is from the curse brought on by fall of man." yes, but that is not what Sproul and Calvinists (most of them) believe. Actually, according to them, God foreordained the Fall of man (not just allowed for it, but decreed it must happen). Thus, althoug...

I, for one, absolutely deny the unscriptural concepts of sovereignty R.C. Sproul works with. For him (and for most other Calvinists) it is nothing more than determinism, where God is the all-determining Being behind everything that takes place; including even the sinful actions of human beings (like...

R. C. Sproul ??

Well, as always, one needs to consider the source. This is the guy who wrote that non-Calvinists MAY be Christians, but "just barely", and only because they are inconsistent! (in his book "Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will" (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002), page 140.

Ray, As I have already pointed out, Jesus certainly does not avoid their question about Herod's Temple - his answer about that Temple is given in all 3 gospels, as I have shown. So I don't know why you keep insisting that he doesn't answer them. Also, remember that the entire Discourse has to be re-...

Ray, No, I don't believe Jesus avoids their question at all . . . he answers their questions about the Temple they were admiring in his initial comments in all 3 Gospels (Mt 24.2, Mk 13.2, Lk 21.6); but in Matthew and Mark he goes on to describe what happens after the Gospel has been preached (a det...

In Luke 21 he is referring to the destruction in AD 70 (Jerusalem surrounded by armies, the Jews scattered, etc) but in Matthew and Mark he is referring to the future destruction by the Antichrist (as spoken by the prophet Daniel). Although Luke's description uses some similar language it is actuall...

You are correct, I do indeed look past the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD because it is clear from the events surrounding that destruction that it cannot be the one Daniel 9:26-27 speaks of. For one thing, Titus did not destroy the Temple -- he found it already destroyed by fire when he and his ...

The subject of the verb "will confirm" is indefinite in the Hebrew; in other words, the subject is not expressed but needs to be supplied. But the rules of grammar require that the last personal subject mentioned would be carried over as the subject in verse 27. The last personal subject mentioned i...