Innocent Blood

A popular assertion that has been raised multiple times in the dialogues from some of my posts is the claim that "The Bible forbids the shedding of innocent blood." It is complete, clear, overt, undeniable. I think that most any Christian who would read that claim would likely simply nod his/her head and agree. The subsequent claim, then, is that "There must be 'innocent blood' for this command to be valid." And that was what brought me up short. You see, if there is genuine innocence, then we have some very hard conclusions to deal with. First, of course, we'd need to deny the historically orthodox view of Original Sin. Okay, fine. If we must, we must. But, second, we'd have to admit that Paul was wrong when he said, "There is none righteous" because, well, there is. So either he was in error or he didn't actually mean what he said. Then there's the whole issue of abortion. Frankly, I'd have to back off my opposition to abortion. I mean, if 2 million babies a year are being sent straight to heaven, it's frankly the biggest gain for Christ of all time. If some 40 million children were saved since 1973 without having to evangelize them, how could that be a bad thing? I mean, I doubt you'll find such large numbers among the living in the last 26 years turning to Christ.

So I decided to see what my Bible says. Are there actually commands forbidding the shedding of innocent blood? Or are we, once again, taking other people's word for it? As it turns out, there are.

The phrase "innocent blood" is first seen in Deut 19. The command is pretty straightforward: "So innocent blood will not be shed in the midst of your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance" (Deut 19:10). Well, folks, there you have it, plain and simple. The Bible forbids the shedding of innocent blood. Toss out Reformed Theology, rethink Paul's nonsense in Rom 3, and let's leave those poor abortionists alone, okay?

Now wait a minute. Before we start anything radical, there is a standard rule of thumb that you need to follow. It is so standard and so important that it can often be found repeated: "Context, context, context." What is the context of this command? Is it clear and out of the blue like "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" (and therefore simply meant in a straightforward, face-value way) or is there context that explains what it means?

As it turns out, there is very clear context. The topic at hand (starting in verse 1) is the establishment of what was called "the cities of refuge". God commanded Israel that when they took over Canaan they were to "set aside three cities for yourself in the midst of your land" (Deut 19:2). The purpose of these three special places was this: "So that any manslayer may flee there" (Deut 19:3). A manslayer? Yes, someone who "kills his friend unintentionally, not hating him previously" (Deut 19:4). Someone, then, guilty of manslaughter, not murder. What was the problem? "Otherwise the avenger of blood might pursue the manslayer in the heat of his anger, and overtake him, because the way is long, and take his life, though he was not deserving of death" (Deut 19:6). "Innocent blood", then, has very clear context. It is someone "not deserving of death".

Notice that this phrase, "innocent blood", does not convey that the person was sinless. It doesn't suggest in the least that this person had never sinned or that he was not currently guilty of sin. And we all know that "the wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23), so in God's terms there was actually no one who was of "innocent blood" since all are "deserving of death". This, then, was a law given to humans to prevent humans from putting to death people whom humans had no right to put to death. They may have violated God's law (Cosmic Treason) and deserved God's righteous judgment, but that wasn't an option given to Man. Humans were only given the option to enforce the penalties that God allowed for the crimes that God allowed, and if someone had not committed the crime for which they were being sentenced to death, they were classified as "innocent blood".

The theme goes throughout the Old Testament. In 1 Sam 19:5, Jonathan argues with his father, Saul, against killing David who had done nothing to Saul -- "innocent blood". David, then, was innocent of the accusations of treason against Saul ... not wholly "innocent blood". A common use of the phrase "innocent blood" was when people sacrificed their children to Molech. It wasn't a statement that these children (of whatever age) were guiltless. It was a statement that they were "not deserving of death" at the hands of those who killed them. In Deut 21 (and others) "innocent blood" references anyone who is murdered ... "not deserving of death".

There is a theme here. It is absolutely true that God forbids the shedding of innocent blood. No doubt. But "innocent blood" in this context (in every context I could find) was not a reference to sinlessness, but a reference to people who were killed by willful human beings and didn't deserve to be killed by willful human beings. It was a differentiator from people who were killed by human beings because they deserved to be killed (as in the case of God's commands regarding the death penalty in certain cases). Of those, God repeatedly says, "Their bloodguiltiness is upon them." Then guilt or innocence of blood simply referenced the right of humans ordained by God to execute someone. If they were guilty of a God-given violation, they were "bloodguilty". If they were not (even though they were all guilty of sin), they were "innocent blood".

Context, context, context. We often hear things that we take completely out of context and leave it lie. You know, things like "Judge not" because we've been told it so long that we just don't look anymore. The Bible is not to be read out of context. The Bible, if it is the Word of God, is to be read in the context of the entire Bible. If "innocent blood" means what the context appears to say it means, then we don't have a contradiction of Scripture (absolving God from error), of historical orthodoxy (absolving the Church from error), or the ramifications that would follow. Something to think about.

Integrity

As everyone knows, Al Gore is the high priest of the temple of Global Warming. By that I mean that he is the leading spokesman, the loudest voice, the one you think of first when you think of the topic. Most know, however, about the other side of the story. While Mr. Gore travels about the country in private jets and large SUVs to warn us about our "carbon footprint", his house is consuming 20 times the national average of natural gas and more energy in one month than the average American household in one year. There is a term for this: "Inconsistency". That is, while on one hand Mr. Gore is stumping to get all of us to save the planet by decreasing our consumption of fossil fuels, he continues a consumption of fossil fuels far beyond the average person he is chiding. "Oh," he says, "it's okay. You see, I'm paying other people to plant trees and such to offset my carbon footprint." But, Mr. Vice President, wouldn't it be more productive to decrease your own consumption and pay someone to plant trees?" You see, Mr. Gore is inconsistent. He preaches one thing but lives another. The upshot is one has to wonder if he actually believes what he preaches. Personally, it seems to me that until Mr. Gore levels the house he owns (not sells -- that would just mean someone else would consume all that energy), moves into a "green" home, travels in "green" transportation, and shows up at his speaking engagements in a Prius or, better yet, an electric car, I'm going to be hard-pressed to believe his yells of "Fire!" He is inconsistent, and for me it destroys his message.

There is a portion of American Christianity that is hard at work trying to convince the rest of American Christianity that the primary job of the Church is to feed the poor. Okay, that's limited, but they're really interested in the social gospel, not the Gospel. They will point to passages like this: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God ... But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full" (Luke 6:20, 24). They ignore the fact that this does not say, "Help feed the poor" and use it to point out that poor people are important and rich people are ... wrong. The main problem is that the vast majority of those who are arguing that the poor are heaven-bound simply because they're poor and the rich are damned (no, sorry, they don't make that argument -- that would be too judgmental, too consistent) losers are themselves not poor nor willing to head that way. Indeed, they are generally middle-class Americans, among the richest people on the planet. Now, if they genuinely believed that poor folk were inheritors of the kingdom of God, why is it that they aren't striving to become poor folk? They're perfectly happy urging others to surrender their worldly goods so these poor folk will no longer be poor (which, if you believed that the poor would inherit the kingdom of God, would be a bad thing, right?), but they don't actually plan to become one of the walking poor themselves. They are inconsistent, and for me it destroys their message.

Every good Christian knows this fabulous verse. In fact, likely all I have to tell you is the reference and you'll be able to quote it: Romans 8:28. That's right. "God works all things together for good to those who love Him." Great verse. Wonderful promise. It's not a contract; it's a promise. God does it. It doesn't require anything of you. God does it. How easy can it be? And yet, every good Christian would likely have to admit if he was to be honest that when unpleasant events occur, our first response is not "Wow! I wonder what good God is going to work this into! I can hardly wait to see!" We know that we are commanded to "Count it all joy when you fall into various trials" (James 1:2) , but we don't, do we? Some better than others, for sure, but as a whole we're just not so good at this. You see, we are inconsistent, and for me it destroys the message.

"Consistency" is the concept I've been waving, but there is another term, a better term. If you took basic math in high school, you learned the term, "integer". An integer is a whole number. It has no fractions, no decimals. It is one number. It isn't a part of another number. If you take the number 1.5, for instance, it's midway between 1 and 2. It is, in a sense, part of two numbers. Integers are whole numbers in themselves. The word is also the source of our word and concept, "integrity". Integrity is technically "The quality or condition of being whole or undivided." You have integrity when your entire life is whole ... undivided. When your life and your beliefs and your words all line up, you are a whole, you are consistent, you have integrity. That's why there's no plural for the word. It references only one.

What about you? Are you a person of integrity? Does your life match what you say you believe? Does your life match what you say? Are you consistent in what you preach and what you do? If not, are you aiming for it? Are you aware that a lack of integrity goes a long way to destroying the message? Something to think about.

The Challenge of Contradictions

Biblical proof that a true believer can lose his or her salvation (feel free to skim this for now):

"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from Me, you evildoers!'" (Matt 7:19-23).

"All men will hate you because of Me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved" (Matt 10:22).

"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of Me. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved" (Matthew 24:9-13).

"The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers" (Luke 12:46).

Then He told this parable: "A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?' "'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down'" (Luke 13:6-9).

To the Jews who had believed Him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really My disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:31-32).

"I am the true vine, and My Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in Me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. Remain in Me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in Me. I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in Me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned" (John 15:1-6).

But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in His kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off (Rom 11:20-22).

No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize (1 Cor 9:27).

Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now He has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation -- if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant (Col 1:21-23).

Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme (1 Tim 1:18-20).

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons (1 Tim 4:1).

But Christ is faithful as a son over God's house. And we are His house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast (Heb 3:6).

See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called "Today," so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first (Heb 3:12-14).

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting Him to public disgrace (Heb 6:4-6).

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge His people." It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb 10:26-31).

If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them (2 Peter 2:20-22).

Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position (2 Peter 3:17).

See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father (1 John 2:24).

He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and His angels (Rev 3:5).

And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book (Rev 22:19).

Biblical proof that a true believer cannot lose his or her salvation (again, you can skim this for the moment):

If the LORD delights in a man's way, He makes his steps firm; though he stumble, he will not fall, for the LORD upholds him with His hand. For the LORD loves the just and will not forsake His faithful ones. They will be protected forever (Psa 37:23-28).

"Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:14-16).

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life" (John 5:24).

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do My will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I shall lose none of all that He has given Me, but raise them up at the last day. For My Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:37-40)

"You do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and the Father are one" (John 10:26-30).

And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever (John 14:16).

Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with Him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with Him in his resurrection...Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him (Rom 6:3-5, 8).

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom 6:23).

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1).

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose. For those God foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified, He also glorified. What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but gave Him up for us all -- how will He not also, along with Him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died -- more than that, who was raised to life -- is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: "For Your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom 8:28-39).

...for God's gifts and His call are irrevocable (Rom 11:29).

Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand (Rom 14:4).

Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful (I Cor 1:7-9).

And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in Him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession -- to the praise of his glory (Eph 1:13-14).

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast (Eph 2:8-9).

And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption (Eph 4:30).

... being confident of this, that He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus (Phil 1:6).

... who has saved us and called us to a holy life -- not because of anything we have done but because of His own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Tim 1:9).

... but because Jesus lives forever, He has a permanent priesthood. Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them (Heb 7:24-25).

"For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more" (Heb 8:12).

When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, He went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption (Heb 9:11-12).

Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you." So we say with confidence, "The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?" (Heb 13:5-6).

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In His great mercy He has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade -- kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time (1 Peter 1:3-5).

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life (1 John 5:13).

We know that anyone born of God does not practice sin; the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him (1 John 5:18).

To Him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before His glorious presence without fault and with great joy-to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen (Jude 24-25).

Okay, there are two lists here. (I'm sure there are more on both sides, but these are substantive lists, I think.) So, here's your assignment, if you dare. Your job is to make these two lists fit each other. There are rules. You can't discard passages because they don't fit your view. You can't place extra weight on passages just because they fit your view. You have to read these passages with equal simplicity. That is (for instance), if you're going to read "imagery" into one group because they just don't fit, then you'll need to read "imagery" into your favorites as well. In other words, as far as you possibly can, take them all at face value. And keep in mind that these passages have been in the Bible for as long as it has been written, and believers have concluded that there are no genuine contradictions, which suggests that my challenge is possible to achieve. (Hint: Go from the explicit to the implicit. Something that may be implied could be untrue if it goes against something that is explicitly stated in Scripture.)

You see, it is my belief that more often than not you (Christians in general) have taken the passages that agree with your view and concluded that your view is right, but you have not ever examined all the other passages that contradict your view to see how they agree. The view you end up with should be a view that agrees with all of these Scriptures, not discounting, minimizing, or glossing over some. If you're a person who takes your Bible seriously, I would hope that you would seriously consider taking up this assignment.

Interpreting the Bible

It's called "hermeneutics", and it's the method by which we interpret the Bible. Any text, actually, but used most often in terms of the Bible. There are a variety of approaches applied to interpreting the Bible.

The Bible as folklore

This view approaches the Bible as a collection of tales told around the campfire. No, I'm exaggerating, but the idea is that over time people passed on stories to entertain, to explain, to instruct, and so on. These were largely oral stories. They obviously would change with the repeating, and in time it would become nearly impossible to tell which stories were somewhat accurate and which ones were fables made up to make a point. Eventually, however, people started writing these stories down to preserve them over time and now we have them in book form. There is no real way to tell what is accurate, inaccurate, fable, or myth. But they do make a nice set of stories.

The Bible as a teaching tool

This view is somewhat similar to the "folklore" approach, but with a little more ... reverence. This idea says that the Bible is a compilation of teachings for the instruction of the believer. The compilation includes legend and allegory and folklore and anecdotal pieces, but the purpose of the book is to teach. Therein lies the difference between this and "folklore". In folklore, that which is passed on is a gathering of fiction and fact (and, of course, modified fact) just to connect with the past. As a teaching tool, however, the Bible would be viewed as having a purpose -- to teach. Studying the Bible from this view would require the student to find the lessons. The actual stories and words are simply the medium. What you're really looking for is "What is it trying to teach me?" Whether or not there was a Creation or even a Jesus, you could on one hand dismiss the content as fabrication while, on the other hand, still finding it a valuable teaching tool for principles of living.

The Bible as a history book

Here is a somewhat "higher" approach. The assumption is that genuine history was trying to be passed along. As in folklore, it was likely history that has been ... modified with the telling, but it is, by and large, intended to be an adequate historical accounting. The view is to the history of Judeo-Christian religious thought over time.

In this view, the authors are simply humans with a goal to pass on the history of the religion. If they made mistakes, it was just to make a point. If they added information (such as "This is attributed to Paul") that wasn't accurate, it was simply to make the point. Some of the material is made up ... to make the point. Some is borrowed from other cultures ... to make the point. Some is entirely accurate. The goal, however, is simply to trace the history of the Judeo-Christian religion. As such, they may be historically inaccurate, but are spiritually significant.


The Bible as the Word of God

This approach takes the Bible literally. It is important to understand the term "literally". It doesn't mean "word for word at plain face value." That's unfair to any writing. It means "as written". The Bible contains poetry that should be read as poetry and historical narrative that should be read as historical narrative and proverbial texts that should be read as proverbs and doctrinal passages intended for doctrine and so on. The underlying approach of this view is that the Bible is "God-breathed". That would mean that humans wrote it (injecting their own personalities, word choices, etc.), but God superintended it making sure it said what He intended. In this view, then, the only possible errors would be copy errors as opposed to factual errors. The content is taken as written and assumed to be true as written.

What does this look like?

Examine, for a moment, how these approaches handle various events. How about Creation? In the Word of God approach, that story says that God created the known universe and all that is in it. (Various people differ over the meaning of words like "days", but in the literal approach, God created it all.) In the historical approach, God created all that is, but there's no reason He couldn't have done so by, say, evolution. The point is that God was part of the original history. As a teaching tool, it wouldn't matter at all if God actually created the known universe. What is important is that from the beginning of time (whatever that means) God has been active. The text is likely myth intended to teach us that. In the folklore view, it doesn't matter. It's the same as any other ancient culture's story of where things came from. The American Indians have their stories. The Bible has its story. It's just stories.

How about the parting of the Red Sea? The Word of God view would say, "God parted the Red Sea just like it says. A genuine miracle." The historical approach would say, "There wasn't likely a miracle involved. Maybe a wind blew the water off the Reed Sea or some other natural phenomenon. The point is that God watched over Israel in history." The teaching tool approach would say, "It doesn't really matter whether anything like it even remotely occurred. It just tells us that God is watching over us." And the folklore version would dismiss it as a very thrilling fairy tale, good for the movies, perhaps, but not much else.

Well, that's the (extremely) short version. There is obviously a whole lot more that goes into biblical interpretation, and it obviously makes a huge difference if you approach this book as a divine book or not. Perhaps, though, you can begin to see that your premise of interpretation will have a massive effect on your understanding of the Bible.

Comparing Contradictions

Okay, here are the two basic views that get debated so often among Christians:

Classical Wesleyan Arminianism:

1. Humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation
2. Salvation is possible by grace alone
3. Works of human effort cannot cause or contribute to salvation
4. God's election is conditional on faith in Jesus
5. Jesus' atonement was for all people
6. God allows his grace to be resisted by those unwilling to believe
7. Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith

Standard Calvinism:

1. Total Depravity - After the Fall, human will was given over to sin and is as if it were dead, so that without being "awakened" by the Holy Spirit (the initiator) a human is unable to choose to be saved.
2. Unconditional Election - God's choice was not determined by anything ever done or to be done by a human; it is a free gift not earned by merit. Under this view, God is the initiator of salvation.
3. Particular Redemption (AKA Limited Atonement) - The blood of Christ was a substitution for the penalty of sin, and was effectual for the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, it not only secures but guarantees salvation.
4. The Efficacious Call of the Holy Spirit (AKA Irresistible Grace) - The outward call to salvation is made to all, but the Holy Spirit also places an inward call in the hearts of those who are elected for salvation. The outward call can (and often is) resisted, but the inward call is more powerful than human willpower. The Holy Spirit causes the sinner to respond in faith.
5. Perseverance of the Saints - The Holy Spirit will keep the believer secured in faith in Christ to the end.

Here's the test. Are these views contradictory? Are there components that do not contradict? How closely can you make these two views actually agree with each other without genuine contradiction? (I think, if you're willing, you'll find a lot more than can fit than won't.)

What have we learned?

I was never a big Sarah Palin fan. I wasn't an opponent, to be sure, but neither did I see her as the GOP's answer to The Obama Messiah. On the other hand, I also never figured out (from simple observation) what made her so hated by the media and the pundits. George Bush (the latest) "earned" their hatred with 8 years in office. She showed up as a candidate for, what, 3 months, and she apparently is the bane of the universe, promoting horrible things like allowing Down Syndrome children to be born and loved and that it's okay to have conservative religious beliefs. The cad! So outlandish is she that some 8 months after the question of who would be president was answered, she's still the target of rude, crude, unkind comments from the public.

So, now the governor of Alaska has stepped down before her term ends. Why? Well, the pundits are quite clear on that. She's planning to run for President in 2012! There's no denying it! Her own announced reasons are nothing more than lies. What reasons did she give? According to the Wall Street Journal, "Attacks inside Alaska and largely invisible to the national media had paralyzed her administration." The article goes on to say that in the last 8 months "some 150 FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests have been filed and her office has been targeted for investigation by everyone from the FBI to the Alaska legislature." She has been continually vindicated -- the most they have turned up was that she took her kids with her on some trips paid for by government funds -- but she has "accumulated $500,000 in legal fees in just the last nine months." So the governor of Alaska has concluded that the media and her political opponents and "everyone from the FBI to the Alaska legislature" (so to speak) has made it impossible to do her job as governor. Therefore, as a responsible governor, she stepped down to allow the job of governing Alaska to proceed for the people of Alaska.

"No, no!" the media cries. "It's a ploy!" Why? No reasons offered. Karl Rove -- theoretically not an opponent -- told Fox News that she "sent a signal that if you do this kind of thing to a sitting governor like her, you can drive her out of office." It's hard to find anyone saying, "The governor did the right thing for the people of Alaska." She's lying or she's hiding or she's stupid or she's just plain evil, but it is not remotely possible that she did the right thing here.

So, what have we learned? We've learned a lot. We've learned that it is not possible to have conservative Christian beliefs and run for public office like that. We've learned that Down's Syndrome children should be aborted, not born and loved. We've learned that only the "insiders" can be allowed into Washington D.C. and the rest will be scrutinized carefully. If they don't align with the power structure, they will be targeted by everyone from Letterman to their own political party. We've learned that women who wish to run for office need to conform to a feminist view rather than their own individual view. In other words, while feminists think they've obtained some freedom, they've done so by removing the freedom of women to disagree with them ... at least in public. We've learned that anyone who runs for Vice President necessarily has their eye on the presidency and anyone who says otherwise is a liar. We learned that "political correctness" is a very real thing and violating it is politically fatal. We've learned that women can't be themselves in Washington politics, that Christians can't be themselves in Washington politics, that conservatives are not allowed in Washington politics, and that anyone who falls in those categories without toeing the line should expect a firestorm. In other words, those whom we vote in to protect our way of life and those whom we expect to report without bias and those who consider themselves "defenders of freedom" are going to make it a nightmare for anyone who tries to be free of "political correctness" as they define it.

Thanks. Lessons learned.

Photo Op

Taken from my back patio the other morning. It's a Turkey Vulture catching some early morning sun before he set out for the day. He looked really disappointed when I told him, "I know how it looks, but I'm not dead yet."

Paranoid

"No, no," they assure me, "no one is interested in eliminating genders. Why would you think that?" And it's all very comforting ... until you read news items like the one last night. Science is trying to make a "female sperm" which would, according to the stories, obsolete men. One site says that lesbians envision a fantasy world with "lesbians living together in an all-women utopia, loving, raising families and their own food. No men are needed, even in the creation of children." (Despite my preference to cite my sources, I will skip that one. Sorry.) The Daily Mail says, "Despite all the twists and turns taken in the new world of reproductive medicine, the news that a scientific team is trying to make the human male redundant is still profoundly shocking." No, no ... they don't want to eliminate ... well, okay, so some are trying. Odd ... although men have been "evil" and "in charge" for all this time, none of them considered eliminating women. What's up with that?

Search for "Who needs men" in Google and you'll find an abundance of women who think that men are worse than useless. You'll find reports of the new test-tube sperm that suggests "the end of men". (You see, the only function of males in today's society appears to be ... sperm donor.) One article assures us that cats are better than men.

Paranoid? You're not paranoid if they really are out to get you. And while calm voices assure me that no one wants to eliminate the distinction between genders and no one is trying to elevate women above men and all they really want is to just get along ... I keep seeing this stuff. Are you sure no one is interested in eliminating males?