Ramifications

You have to wonder sometimes if the protests we lodge are actually saying what we intend them to say.

Consider, for instance, the popular bumper sticker "Stop the War!" What is left unsaid in that cry is huge. "Stop the war! Forget about the Iraqi people! Don't even think about the horrible effects that such a radical action in this tenuous situation will have on public perception, the people of the region, and our own national security. Don't think about what that says to the troops who were there to do a job and not allowed to finish it. And don't think about the fact that it would make all the loss of life up until now pointless. Just pull out our troops." Or how about those pro-choice stickers? (The one that nearly made me cry was this one: "6 billion miracles is enough.") One reads "Keep your laws off my body" and you have to wonder about the logical extension: "I have the right to choose to do whatever I want with my body. If that includes taking drugs or throwing it off buildings, so be it. If that includes throwing it in front of your car on the freeway ... it's my body! If that includes killing babies in there, so be it. My only concern is my rights, not the rights of children! Keep your laws off my body."

I wonder sometimes if this isn't often the case. Even Christians make arguments without considering the ramifications. For instance, if we argue that we must "avoid all appearance of evil", the logical conclusion is that we must avoid doing just about anything at all because just about everything will appear evil to someone. (As an example, there are those claiming that simply being a Christian is evil. Do we stop being a Christian to avoid "the appearance of evil"?) Too often we will make assertions that end up saying things we never intended.

I have to wonder if this isn't often the case in the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. Claims are made that, frankly, carry quite harmful ramifications. Consider some of the following attacks I've seen lately.

"God did not ordain sin." This is very popular, even a certainty to many. Now, consider the effects if such is true. If God did not ordain sin, then something happened that God did not ordain. If something happened that God did not ordain, then other things can happen that He does not ordain. If anything happens that God does not allow, then He is not actually sovereign, but, at best, only mostly sovereign. And you can never really know if something that happens to you happens because a loving God allowed it for your best interest or it slipped by a negligent God.

"Christ's death and resurrection paid for all sin." It's a nice-sounding thought and even seems biblical. "He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for His own sins and then for those of the people, since He did this once for all when He offered up Himself" (Heb. 7:27). "See? He died once for all." Here's the problem. If all sin is paid for, then on what basis can God justly punish sin? If payment is already applied, then payment cannot be demanded. "Oh, no, it's not applied," some assure me. "It depends on their acceptance of the payment." That would resolve the problem of God's demand for payment, but it doesn't resolve the question because an unapplied payment is not a payment and it cannot be said that Christ paid for all sin but didn't pay for all sin. The statement, then, creates a problem for God. "Christ paid for it all ... but God will ignore that payment until you agree to it. Oh, but, He's God, so He can do what He wants, even if it isn't just."

"It is God's will that everyone be saved." Can there be any question here? It's right there in plain Scripture. How can this assertion be anything but true, and what possible ramifications can there be? Well, first the Scripture: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). How can we even question it? It says the Lord is, and I quote, "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." The reason anyone (like me) would even question such a passage is the simple (and biblical) fact that not everyone will come to repentance. Why is that a problem? Well, if God wills something, what is the first certainty you can state? "It will happen." So if God indeed wills that none should perish, then none will perish. If any perish, then God did not will that none should perish. So the first problematic ramification to the assertion is that if God wills it and it doesn't happen, God is not sovereign. "No, no," it might be replied, "that 'will' isn't like a decree. That 'will' is like a desire or wish." That's fine, and I would indeed agree that God wishes that everyone be saved, but that's not the same thing as claiming that it's God's will. God may wish for something that He decides not to accomplish because He has something better in mind. God, for instance, takes no delight in the death of the wicked ... but He still does it. He wishes for something else, but He still does it. So if we move from "will" to "wish", we've moved from any objection to the Reformed concept that God chooses to save some and not others.

Choices and consequences ... life is made of choices and consequences. Some of the things we choose to say or believe have unintended consequences that we haven't considered. In a "sound bite" age such as ours, this likelihood is even more common, since context isn't often offered and commentary is rare. I suppose, then, that it's up to us to carefully examine the Scriptures and consider the implications or that which we affirm. Sometimes it will change what we affirm. Sometimes it will force us to change other thinking. Always it's a good idea to think these things through.