Tyre has a Bone to Pick

There are certain very common thoughts that some Christians hold that might be worth reconsidering. Take, for instance, the Open Theism claim that God cannot know what humans will choose because it is free will. Okay, let's not go there. That's a minority. How about this? God's goal is to save as many people as He possibly can. That one is popular, for sure. I mean, doesn't Paul say that God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:4)? And then there's the popular (even though its name may not be well known) notion (so popular, in fact, that I once held it) of Middle Knowledge. God looked down the corridor of time, figured out what would save whom, and then carried it out. These may be popular, but are they accurate?

Jesus is generally thought of as a meek and mild man. That's our general image, I think. I don't think that's wrong. But there were a few times in His earthly ministry when He wasn't quite so ... easy-going. Remember the visit to the Temple where He overturned tables and broke out a whip? Not so meek. Or how about the time when He took on the Pharisees near the end of His life? Let's see ... cute little phrases like "whitewashed tombs", "full of robbery and self-indulgence", "hypocrites", "brood of vipers" ... you know, heart-warming pleasantries. Yeah, not so warm and friendly then, either. One of the other times was when He was sending His disciples out on their mission trip. He told them to wipe the dust from their feet if they weren't accepted and warned, "It will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city." Then He launched into what I can only call a tirade.

"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will be brought down to Hades! The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me" (Luke 10:13-16).

Umm, yeah, not so meek and mild there, especially if you understand the Hebraic concept of "woe". Some might have been tempted to warn Jesus about overdoing it a bit. You know, more flies with honey than vinegar ... that kind of thing. But He said it.

Look, though, at what He said. There are things hanging there that I've never heard in a sermon. Take, for instance, the certainty that Jesus had about what would have been. Not what was, but what would have been. Apparently God can know what human choices would be even if they didn't make them.

But it's a two-edged sword. Look at it! "If the miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago." What do we know from this beyond the fact that God knows what would have been? Well, if miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented. Really? Wait a minute! What about our basic premise that God wants to save as many people as He can? He knew that sending miracles to Tyre and Sidon would have resulted in their repentance and He didn't do it. What happened? This strikes a real blow at that cherished idea. It also puts a real hole in the Middle Knowledge concept. He knew what it would take to produce repentance and He didn't do it.

You will conclude what you want, of course, but what do I conclude? I conclude that God owes no one salvation. I conclude that His choice "does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy." I conclude that "He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." Yeah, yeah, I know. That sounds a lot like "double predestination". But that's what I conclude. I wonder if it's time to reexamine some of those popular ideas ...

Prop 100

Arizona is having a special election on May 18th. Only one issue is on the ballot -- Proposition 100. The proposition is to add on a 1% sales tax to the current amount. Why? Well, according to the proponents, "Vote YES ON 100. Protect education, public safety and health care." That's right. The threat is that if we don't increase the amount of taxes we pay, we stand to lose out on education, public safety, and health care.

Now, I have to admit that I'm confused about this. You see, as far as I can tell, the primary function of government is to protect its citizens. Now, we can argue about the limits and nuances of such protection, but it would seem quite obvious that it would start with "public safety". So ... if the first job of government is public safety, where are they spending their money today that would require us to pay in more for that first priority?

Let's see what the official 2010 budget says. Hmm. Well, they'll be paying back $50 million in Federal Stimulus money. Odd. There is a line item for an additional $40 million in "new private prison beds". Right ... so our criminals are more comfortable. Got it. Interesting. There is a "Department of Racing". Apparently the Department of Racing regulates the Arizona parimutuel horse and greyhound racing industry. Oh, now this is funny. The Department of Economic Security has a budget of $546 million. Perhaps we ought to fire them, eh? While we're at it, perhaps we ought to take a real hard look at the Governorʹs Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting and their $2 million. I'm thinking they're not doing their job. Oh, I suppose there is no way around the $2 million we're spending on the Board of Cosmetology. I mean, what could be more important to Arizonans than beauty treatments. Oh, yeah, we have to regulate that carefully. There's another $4 million on a "Telecom for the Deaf Fund". I know ... that's a good thing ... but is it more important than public safety? Is that really the job of the government? And the fact that we're spending more than $13 million on a "Department of Gaming" (with another $74 million to the Arizona State Lottery Commission) is troubling to me all on its own.

Allegedly something around 60% of our budget is already spent on schools and public safety and health care. Fine. But is anyone looking at what that money is going toward and how to cut waste? Trust me. There is lots of waste. Take, for instance, the salaries of the football and basketball coaches. The combined income of the head men's football coaches and head men's basketball coaches at ASU and U of A adds up to more than $3 million dollars. And that's just four men. That's not counting their interim heads and their head assistants and so on. Hey, the combined total of the three major state university presidents is slightly more than $1 million. Says something about what we prize, doesn't it?

Don't misunderstand. I'm not opposed to "education, public safety and health care". And I understand that Arizona's revenue has really dropped. I get it. But I have to wonder where our priorities lie when we need to extort more money from our citizens to provide the very basic things that the government should have already been providing. ("Now, Stan, is 'extort' a fair word?" Yes, it is, when they tell us, "If you don't vote for this you'll lose your education, public safety, and health care funds.") Is that right? Is it really a lack of funds, or is it more likely a case of exorbitant government waste and screwy priorities? I wonder.

But for the Grace of God

A few days ago I did a tongue-in-cheek entry aimed at pointing out the problem with the common line of thinking among Christians that I arrive at salvation because of my choice. In case it wasn't clear, it was not about how special I am, but how glorious and gracious God is.

When we talk about "election" in Reformed circles, there is an element of those listening that think, "Well, you sure think you're something special ... God choosing you and all." And the point gets missed. According to Paul, those who are chosen are chosen "so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls". That is, nothing in me caused God to choose me.

It is this that brings me to my knees at the very thought of being saved. My question might be, "Why me?" What is certain is that it wasn't because of me. It is with the psalmist that I say, "Not to us, O LORD, not to us, But to Your name give glory Because of Your lovingkindness, because of Your truth" (Psa 115:1). Or, as Paul puts it, "He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace" (Eph 1:5-6). Something I can't forget.

Absolute Comfort

It is difficult to watch the unfolding of events in the Gulf of Mexico these days. That oil rig that blew up has created a mess ... a real mess. Oil spilled and continues to flow out into the water. The crude is reaching the coastline, washing up on beaches, damaging the environment, engulfing wildlife that doesn't know to get out of the way or, worse, has nowhere to go. Shrimp fishermen are out of work. The oyster beds are closed. And despite the vast sums that BP America is spending to fix the problem, it only seems to get worse.

What amazes me in all of this is the outcry we hear. The suggestion seems to be that nothing like this should ever happen. Oil rigs shouldn't blow up. Oil pipelines shouldn't leak. If they do, they should be easily fixed. Oil spills shouldn't be so hard to control and clean up. Things like this shouldn't happen!

We work hard for comfort. We invent new levels of comfort. We often believe, in fact, that comfort is our right. So we make new work-saving devices and invent new safety measures and pass new laws to prevent discomfort. We seem to actually believe that we can arrive at Paradise in this world where there are no accidents, no misfortunes, no painful events, where nothing bad happens.

It looks like we've forgotten what it takes to be successful.Vince Lombardi once said, "The price of success is hard work." We know in theory "no pain, no gain" and "you have to break some eggs to make an omelet". Still, it seems as if we have arrived at the place where we want all the comforts without any of the cost. We want advancement without risk. We are very foolish indeed.

The Bible says that all creation is under the curse. Sometimes people think that work was the result of the Fall of Adam, but the truth is that work was always part of the plan. Adam had work to do before he ever fell. No, the price of the Fall was not work, but hard work. God told Adam, "Cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return" (Gen 3:17-19). Since humans are assigned by God to hard labor and since all creation is cursed, why would we expect Paradise on Earth?

I'm in favor of labor-saving devices. I'm not against safety measures. If we can find newer, safer ways to do things, I'm all for it. But what concerns me is this notion that nothing bad should ever happen, that accidents shouldn't occur, that at some point, if we do all things correctly, we will achieve an environment without problems. We can have our oil without risk. We can drive where we want without accidents. Someone is always to blame and all we have to do is find out who it is and make them pay. There! Fixed that! We even think that we it is our right to never be offended. If someone says something offensive, they ought to pay! No one should ever be offended again! Not gonna happen, folks. Absolute comfort is not the birthright of every human being and will not exist in this life. Making that your goal, your dream, is setting yourself up for failure.

The Problem of Peter

If you want to put an end to all the dialog and discussion and terminate those dreaded "5-point Calvinists", it's a simple thing. Just point out 2 Peter 2:1. You see, it's not possible to read that verse without seeing that the Atonement had no limits and, therefore, those awful Reformed folks are wrong.

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction (2 Peter 2:1).

Of course, it's not as if they're going to just roll over and admit it. Seems like those guys have an answer for everything. In this case, in fact, they have several.

The text refers to "the Master who bought them" and that's the crux of the question, isn't it? I mean, did Christ die to save everyone or did He die to save the Elect? Calvinists would argue that He intended to save some and actually accomplished it. Others argue that He actually paid in full the sin debt of all mankind and you just have to accept it to get the benefit. I addressed earlier the problem of the notion that all sin is paid in full, but that tends to be the most common perspective.

So what do we do with this passage from 2nd Peter? What we do not do is dismiss it. And before we do anything else with it, we have to ask, "Why ask?" You see, when Jesus said, "No man comes to the Father but by Me" (as an example), we have no reason to ask, "What did He mean by that? Did He mean what He said?" So why ask about this? Well, there seems to be a couple of problems to consider. First, if the price for all has been paid in full, on what basis can God judge anyone? They owe nothing -- it's paid. Beyond that, though, there appears to be a contradiction here. These false prophets in question, if we're reading this correctly, have been redeemed by Christ ("the Master who bought them"). The result of denying the Master is their "swift destruction". In other words, it is possible to be redeemed and damned. This is problematic when you consider other passages like "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand" (John 10:29). Apparently Jesus was wrong, since they are able to do it. Paul said, "I am sure of this, that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil 1:6). Too bad, Paul. You were overconfident. There are those who are blood-bought sinners who God will not be able to complete. Or what are we to think when Jude writes, "Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of His glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen." (Jude 1:24-25)? If some stumble and do not end up blameless, was God unable or simply unwilling? There are some serious questions here that need to be analyzed. So we have to ask, "What does Peter really intend when he writes about 'the Master who bought them'?"

One of the most common answers is that it isn't a statement of truth, but a claim of the false prophets. They are making a false claim that they were bought by the Master and are refuting that claim by denying Him. That is, the text isn't saying they were actually bought, but that they are simply claiming to be bought and are not (as clearly demonstrated by their denial of the Master). That's a possibility.

Another possibility is found in the odd use of the term that is translated "Master" here. The Greek word here is not used elsewhere to refer to Christ. References to Christ as Master use kurios -- "Lord". This one is despotes -- "Master". It is not merely a reference to a master, but to a sovereign master, an absolute master. If this is the intent, then it could simply be referencing what Jesus said in Matt 28:18 -- "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me." Jesus bought the rights to all authority. This "purchase", then, would not be in terms of redemption (and the Greek word behind it is used in plenty of places to reference buying things without meaning "redemption"), but simply in terms of ownership. The Master "owns them" based on the price He paid.

A third possibility is found in cross-referencing the term. Deuteronomy 32:6 asks Israel, "Is not He your Father who has bought you?" In what sense did the Father buy them? He brought them out of Egypt. Peter knew that. And Peter wrote primarily to Jewish Christians. So these false prophets were typically Jewish false prophets. Now, in the New Testament, this term for "Master" is used almost exclusively to reference the Father, not the Son. If this is the case, then Peter is saying that these Jewish false prophets, by teaching heresies, have denied the Father who redeemed them out of Egypt.

If we conclude that Peter is making a statement about the extent of the Atonement, then we have two problems. First, we have a God who has already received payment for all sin and, yet, still judges people. Second, we have a contradiction of other passages that say that God will sustain His own. These together appear to make God both unjust and incapable. Maybe you don't like the possible answers. I offered three. But understand that it isn't a "Calvinist" problem if you reject those possibilities. It's yours as well. How do you deal with God's justice and His omnipotence if He judges those who are redeemed and fails to keep them redeemed? I definitely have a problem with that.

(Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that the Atonement was only for the Elect and that there was no benefit for the rest. Nor am I suggesting that the Atonement was insufficient to pay for all sin. I haven't, in fact, made any such claims. That's not the point of this post.)

Who is taking care of me?

Years ago my wife went through a bout of depression. The pastor thought it was beyond his counseling skills, so he sent her to a Christian counselor. As part of this counselor's approach, she asked that I come in for an interview. In the course of the discussion, I explained to her my viewpoint on marriage.

Most people think of marriage as a 50-50 proposition. He gives 50% and she gives 50% and you have a whole marriage. I don't see it that way. The Bible tells husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. Christ didn't offer 50% and wait for 50% to make a whole relationship. He gave 100%. I told her that was my approach. I loved my wife 100%. Now, the question is how can you do that? The reason for the 50-50 proposition is that while you're giving out to another, you need to receive. You know, everyone has needs. If you keep giving and receive nothing, eventually you run out. But that, I told her, is taken care of in the love God has for me. I am already perfectly loved. I don't need more than perfection. So, since I am already perfectly loved by the Father, I can love my wife fully without requiring anything in return. So when I give 100%, the least I can expect in my marriage is a 100% marriage. If she gives in return, I can actually get more than a 100% marriage. It's a bonus! And I'm grateful. The Christian counselor told me I was crazy.

I admit it is a bit ethereal. We all know there is a bit of a disconnect between human love and God's love because, well, a human can give you a hug when you need it. I've heard it said, in fact, that we are to be the arms of God. I get that. So I can see how someone would think it's crazy to rely on God and not require anything from your spouse. I think they're wrong, but I can see it.

Funny thing. I have come to realize a previously unknown truth. The question, you see, is if I'm so busy caring for my wife, who's caring for me? You know ... "What about me??!!" The presumption is that love is sacrifice and that's it. But I found something different. I found that my greatest joy is in loving my wife. It's not a sacrifice. It's not a trial, a job, a task, a duty. It's a pleasure. That is, taking care of my wife takes care of me. When I work at pleasing my wife, it pleases me.

And then I found that I should have known that all along, shouldn't I? After all, Paul wrote, "He who loves his own wife loves himself" (Eph 5:28). No ... it's not crazy.

My Testimony

The dream sequence begins with swirling clouds and odd, nondescript voices. The mist clears and people start to come into view ...

We're all standing around in heaven when Angel Ed walks up to our group. Ed is a reporter for the New Jerusalem Gazette and wants an interview with me.

Ed: Stan, we're all excited about you being here. Everyone being here, of course, but we wanted to talk to you as a representative. You see, we angels have thoroughly enjoyed watching the Father's plan of redemption unfold. Still, having never sinned, there were certain components that were outside our experience. I'm hoping you can give our readers some insights.

Stan: I'm glad to do what I can.

Ed: Great! So, you remember that Saturday when that little group of people from the local church came to your door. You invited them in and they shared the Gospel with you. You got it and received Christ as your Savior that day.

Stan: Oh, yes! What a wonderful day that was! Of course, there were ups and downs, but that was the start of my life-giving relationship with Jesus. It's the reason I'm here today.

Ed: Yes, of course! But here's the part we don't understand. That same group of people left your house that afternoon and went to your neighbor's house next. There they gave the same presentation to your neighbor, Bill. Bill rejected the Gospel and is not in heaven today. So the question we all have is this: What was the difference? Why did you accept it and he reject it?

Stan: I've thought about that myself, Ed. It's not an easy question. Obviously God did a lot of wooing to get me there. You know, I went to a Billy Graham event and was intrigued and my mom was a Christian and kept telling me that stuff. I had that time when my daughter got sick and I didn't know where to turn. All sorts of things.

Ed: Sure, and we get that, but I'm pretty sure you're not saying that Bill didn't have any of that, are you?

Stan: No, no, not at all.

Ed: So what is it that finally made the difference?

Stan: Well, Ed, it sounds boastful, I suppose, but there must have been something different in me. Maybe I was more spiritually atuned or maybe I was in the state of mind where I could see things a little more clearly than Bill. I do know that I overcame insurmountable obstacles to receive Christ. I mean, when those folks from the church came in, I was dead in my sin and trespasses. I was intent only on evil. I was hostile to God. In fact, I was actually incapable of understanding the things of God since I was a Natural Man and those are spiritually-discerned things. So you can see that it was an amazing tale that I could push through my own spiritual death, overcome my own natural inclinations, set aside my hatred for God, and understand things beyond my understanding to finally say "Yes" to Christ. I have to tell you, it was really something, a real monument to human Free Will. I guess it shouldn't be surprising at all when you think about it that Bill didn't make it ...

... The mist gathers again and the dream sequence winds down into a haze. The last thing I remember is the angels standing around me patting me on the back for such a phenomenal effort ...

I don't know if you could tell but my tongue-in-cheek story is intended to remind myself of the amazing grace that God showered on me. He called me when I was dead. He gave me a new nature when I was beyond hope. He gifted me with faith and enabled me to choose Him and then granted me eternal life. Me, a sinner, without anything to recommend me. Certainly not that buffoon in the dream. That, I hope you could tell, was not my testimony.

Rated R

There is a website that will, just for fun, rate your blog. I tried it out. According to their analysis, my blog is rated R. Why?

This rating was determined based on the presence of the following words:
* hell (16x)
* dead (6x)
* gun (2x)
* hurt (1x)

Hey, my nephew has been known to read this stuff. Maybe my brother-in-law ought to stop the poor guy from reading such smut. I mean, I used the word "hurt" once. Fie upon me! "Gun" twice? What kind of a place am I running here? But, obviously, the worst is the use of the term "hell".

It's an odd thing. I've seen movies with PG or PG13 ratings that include worse language and even partial nudity and because mine uses the word "hell" (too many times or is it just because the word appears at all?), this is site ought to be restricted to people over 17.

Of course, it has always been my contention that the Good News is not good news without bad news. Telling you "Jesus loves you" all by itself might just feed your ego unless you realize that there are good reasons why He might not. Telling you "You need to repent" is pointless if you don't know why. Jumping to Paul's affirmation that believers are "vessels of mercy" doesn't have the same impact if it doesn't start with the certainty that we were "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction". In other words, without "hell", heaven isn't as sweet.

Well, I suppose I can live with an "R" rating. Only you and I will know it. I still think there is more dangerous stuff out there in the PG13 world than you find on my blog. But wouldn't want to infect those tender young minds with what I have to say, would we? Or maybe it's just that a lot of people under 17 wouldn't understand what I write? Nah! That can't be it.

Whosoever

It is so easy, in some minds, to put an end to the silly notion that God chooses some to be saved. Yeah, yeah, so the Bible uses terms like "the elect" or "the chosen" or the like, but, still, all you have to do is look at John 3:16 to see that it isn't true. Come on! What could be simpler?

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).

Can it be any clearer than that? I mean, look at it! On what is the verse premised? "God loved the world so much." What did that much love bring about? "He gave His only Son." To whom is this gift limited? "Whosoever." (No one.) Can it get any clearer?

Well, yes, actually. First, the verse does not say (despite all the claims to the contrary) that "God loved the world so much." That word is not a quantitative term, but a qualitative term. You know what I mean. We see it in the Sermon on the Mount. "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven" (Matt 5:16). That's not "Let your light shine so much that ...", but "Let your light shine in such a way that ...". The same is true here in John 3:16. It's not a quantitative statement about how much God loved the world, but a qualitative statement about in what way God loved the world.

One thing to consider in this part of the thinking. We all like to claim that God loves the whole world and we will often point to John 3:16 to say so. There are problems with that line of thinking. First, James says, "Whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God" (James 4:4). Now, wait a minute! How can it make me an enemy of God to love what God loves? There is an answer, of course, but it ought to set off alarm bells that something else is going on here. There are ways in which God does not love the whole world. Second, the text in question qualifies, not quantifies the love God has for the world. That is, He loves that "whoever believes in Him" group. That's what the text says. Now, I'm not suggesting that God doesn't have a general love for mankind. We know that "He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matt 5:45). He tells us to make the Gospel offer to everyone. He tells us to love our enemies, so it should be clear that in some sense He does, too. But don't think that God has this unlimited, all-encompassing warm feeling toward the whole world. Or consider it from this direction. We are the Bride of Christ. Would it be right for the husband of the Church to love everyone equally? Or is He supposed to have a particular love for His Bride and a more general love for everyone else? That's all I'm saying here.

Now the "whosoever". This obviously implies to whomever seems to be reading it that "anyone can". Why? I don't know. Here, let's give a fictitious news item that might help illustrate. "Headline Paris, France: Famous financier, Jean-Louis Bardot, has announced today an unprecedented offer. He is going to give €1 million to swimmers. Mr. Bardot said this in a phone interview: 'I love swimmers. I love swimmers in this way: I am going to give €1 million to whosoever can swim the English Channel in the next month.'"

What would we conclude from such a piece? Well, first, it's apparent that our artificial Mr. Bardot loves swimmers, but not in a universal sense. He specified in what way he loves swimmers -- it's those swimmers that can swim the English Channel. Second, although he clearly stated "whoever" in his offer, do we conclude "anyone can"? Not at all. We would easily first eliminate those who cannot get to the English Channel in the next month. Probably something over half the Earth's population. We just eliminated 3 billion people. "Hey, wait!" you object. "He said 'whoever'! You can't eliminate people." And, of course, my representation of your objection isn't reasonable, is it? You can see quite obviously that "whoever" in no way requires "anyone can". It doesn't even require that the offer be made to everyone. It is simply a generalization. We would eliminate those who can't make it. We would eliminate those who can't swim. We would eliminate those who can't swim 26 miles. In fact, we'd likely end up with a very small number of people (I don't think more than 50 people have made that swim) in that "whoever".

The verse in question is a marvelous verse. It speaks of the quality of God's love for people. It tells of the extraordinary gift of His only Son. It tells of the excellent offer of eternal life for those who believe in His Son. It is really, really good stuff. But let's not make it say what it doesn't. It doesn't say that God loves everyone equally. It doesn't say that everyone has the same capacity to respond to that offer. It doesn't even speak of capacity to respond. Let's lay that one aside, okay? It doesn't work here.

Mother's Day, 2010

Let me share a small tribute to my mother.

Watch the news much and you'll find a rising number of mothers who see their children as liabilities. They'll ignore them ... at best. More mothers are in the mode of trying to be their kids' best friend. They ignore discipline because the little tykes wouldn't like her if she was "mean" to them.

My mom never ignored me, and she never tried to be my best friend. She wasn't too concerned if I liked her. She never acquiesced because I complained. Mom was better than that. Mom never tried to be my buddy, but she was the best that a friend could be because her primary concern was always my best interest. Sometimes that meant that I would be unhappy while she taught me hard lessons. Sometimes it meant that I didn't get to do the things I wanted to do. Sometimes it hurt. Sometimes it made me mad. But Mom was single-minded. She raised us with love and truth and didn't waver. And she modeled for her kids what she believed. She actually lived it.

Funny thing. Today my mother is one of my best friends. We enjoy lengthy discussions on deep topics. We analyze our favorite passages of Scripture together or talk about current events and what's behind them or whatever else is pressing. We bounce ideas off each other -- "I wonder if this verse means this. What do you think?" We learn from each other. She is a truly great friend.

I love my mom. I cannot imagine a better mother. She loved me enough to endure great pain on my behalf. She loved me enough to pray for me when I was running the wrong direction. (I still remember that cake you left on my doorstep for my birthday that one year when I lived somewhere you were afraid to visit, Mom.) She still loves me enough to correct me when I'm wrong and I know so well that she loves me that I can appreciate it when she does. Hey, sometimes I even ask for it!

Happy Mother's Day, Mom. I know, I know, you don't feel like the best mom ever. That's okay. I'm still entitled to my opinion. So I'll continue to hold you in the highest regard. I love you, Mom.

To What Extent?

A friend of mine wrote, "Jesus bought the whole world’s debt. There are too many verses that state this. Buying the ticket does not automatically put a person inside the gates of Disneyland. A person must use the ticket. A person must believe the ticket is good in order to use the ticket." I don't think this is in any way a revolutionary view. It's probably the most common perception about the Atonement. "Jesus paid the price for all sin. Now you have to claim it." That's the most common view, I think. It's just that ... well ... with all due respect to my friend and the majority of Christians who hold this view, it makes no sense to me.

First, the basics of the Atonement. Humans are sinners, indebted to God. We cannot pay that debt. God's justice demands payment. So the Son of God took on human form, lived a sinless life, and paid the debt on our behalf. Clear enough. Not particularly complex. That's the essence of the Atonement. But the question is to what extent does that Atonement reach?

Well, that should be pretty easy, right? I mean, we have clear Scripture on it. We know that John the Baptist said of Jesus, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). At the famous story of the woman at the well, after meeting Jesus for themselves, the people told her, "Now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world" (John 4:42). Paul assures us that Christ "died for all" (2 Cor 5:15). He wrote Timothy that Christ "gave himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim 2:6) and that He "is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe" (1 Tim 4:10). Now, we might be able to do some pretty little dancing around "To whom was 'all' referring?", but John leaves little question when he writes "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2). There you have it. Dance around that.

There you have it -- insurmountable biblical proof. In fact, why would you want to surmount it? It's in the Bible! Well, there are actually a couple of answers for that.

One is the problem of Scripture. While that is indeed a plethora (sorry ... I just like that word and had to work it into a sentence at some point) of verses that make the point that the Atonement encompasses all sin ... there is also a pile of passages that deny it. We know, for instance, that God told Joseph that Jesus would "save His people from their sins" (Matt 1:21). Why the limitation? Jesus said, "I lay down My life for the sheep" (John 10:15). Remember, that whole discussion of "sheep" dealt with " I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved" (John 10:9) and "I am the good shepherd. I know My own and My own know Me" (John 10:14). He says (to our everlasting benefit) "I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to My voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd" (John 10:16). So the concept of the "sheep" and "flock" is a limited concept. Paul said that "Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Eph 5:25). Hebrews says that He is coming a second time "to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him" (Heb 9:28). And, bottom line, we know that not all will be saved. There is absolutely no doubt about that. So how do we correlate the all-inclusive language about the Atonement above with this limited language?

Another problem is the problem of logic. The well-known English puritan, John Owen, wrote a famous piece entitled "For Whom did Christ Die?". He lays out the logical problem there. Christ died for one of three logical possibilities: 1) All sins of all men, 2) All sins of some men, or 3) Some sins of all men. If the third case is true, then all men are still in some sin and no one is saved. If the first case is true then all men are saved, right? "Oh, no," you would answer, "they are not saved because of their unbelief." So ... Christ died for all sins of all men except for the sin of unbelief?

Beyond Owen's logic is the problem of the justice of God in all this. If all sin is paid for, then God's justice is satisfied. No further punishment is possible. Any further punishment would be unjust. The example is often offered of a prisoner on death row being pardoned by the governor. The warden goes into his cell and tells him, "You're free! You've been pardoned! You can go." But if the prisoner doesn't believe him, he's still not free. He's still in the cell. He's still in prison. Here's where the example falls down. If the warden, then, based on the prisoner's refusal to believe, executes the man, the warden is now guilty of killing an innocent man. It's called "murder". He was pardoned by the governor and there was no lawful reason to put him to death. If Christ died for the sin of all mankind and all sin is paid for, then God has no just cause to hold anyone responsible for their sin. It would be double payment. He would be guilty of punishing people who have no crimes on their rap sheet. It doesn't matter if the payment is accepted. The payment was made.

The question is a sticky one, and I'm not offering any answers here. What I said at the beginning is that the view that all sin has been paid for makes no sense to me. I've tried to explain my difficulty. I've done my research. When those who argue for unlimited atonement are asked, "How can a just God send people to hell who have been forgiven?" they simply answer, "He doesn't." Apparently they hold that all sin but unbelief is covered. And it should be stated that there is far more agreement than disagreement here. We all agree, for instance, that the blood of Christ was sufficient for all, but efficient for some. Unless you're arguing for Universalism, we're all clear on that. I do know, also, that there are some answers out there. For instance, when Paul told Timothy that Jesus was "the Savior of all men", that's not so tough to figure out. Jesus is the only Savior available to all men. That doesn't mandate that He saves all men. (That's why He is especially the Savior of those who believe.) So there are some ways to correlate the two.

So I leave you with the question to ponder. Did the Atonement actually pay for all the sin of all men? Or did it pay for all sin except unbelief? Or did Christ's death, though sufficient to pay for all sin, ultimately only cover the sin of the elect? How would you correlate the passages that limit the atonement with the passages that don't? Welcome to my sticky questions.

Illegal Immigration

The protests keep rising even though 70% of Arizonans and 60% of Americans are in favor of the new law that instructs the local police to enforce federal immigration laws if the need arises. A growing list of people from the stupid to the sublime are calling for a "boycott" of Arizona. The stupid ones are the Arizonans like U.S. Rep. Raul M. Grijalva and others within the state. "Please, please, cut my throat to stop this law!" What are you thinking? I guess it's not too surprising that Cardinal Roger Mahony, archbishop of the Los Angeles Archdiocese, would protest the law, but it's still not too bright to call it "the country's most retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless anti-immigrant law" when there is nothing in the law against immigration and, apparently, it isn't entirely useless.

And the precedent is set. If Sacramento or Los Angeles or Austin or Denver doesn't like the laws of another city or state, the right thing to do is to act to destroy that city or state economically. "Boycott!!" No local government, be it city or state, should be allowed to pass laws that are not appreciated by everyone in the country. What is wrong with you, Arizona??! So, here's the deal. Either violate the legislators and the voters and the public opinion or die a sure economic death ... your call.

Of course, the grand hypocrite of this pile of complaints is Mexico's president, Felipe Calderón. It's wrong! It's racist! He said it "opens the door to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement." This while his country is known for some of the most corrupt law enforcement organizations and while his country has some of the more strict laws against illegal immigration. In fact, here's what I found for some of the rules of some of the countries on the topic:

Mexico: An illegal immigrant caught can be fined $450 and deported, and if they’re caught entering illegally a second time, they can spend 10 years in prison. Furthermore, local Mexican police must assist the Federales in apprehending illegal immigrants, just like the Arizona law requires. (Of course, it's only "intolerance, hate, discrimination" if it's done outside of Mexico.) (On a side note, it’s illegal in Mexico for non-citizens to protest government actions.)

China: Can officially result in a fine or incarceration for up to 10 days followed by deportation, but often results in the offender being charged with spying.

North Korea: Minimum 8 years in jail, longer if the charge is spying.

Italy: $13,000 fine. If you can't pay, you stay and work it off.

France: $5000 fine, a year in prison, or both.

Great Britain: 10,000£ fine. If you can't pay, you stay and work it off.

United States: Employment with greatly decreased tax loads, money to send home, medical coverage, education, and a loud group of defenders. Drive without a license or insurance. Access to public housing, unemployment benefits, welfare, and workers compensation. If arrested for a crime, they often receive suspended sentences so they can be deported. Worst case, it seems, would be free transportation home.

Dirty, rotten, racist Americans ...

What we should do is adopt Argentine laws for immigration. Their law? Anyone who wants to can live there legally. Oh, sure, they have some undocumented aliens, but no illegal aliens. That's good! Since President Obama has come up with all sorts of new funds to pay for health care and bailouts, I'm sure he can come up with more funds to pay for whoever else wants to live here. And I don't think we need to worry about that whole pesky problem of Nazi war criminals living in our country like they were happy to do in Argentina. After all, why would criminals want to live here? And, hey, wouldn't that make terrorists like us much more? Well, I'm sure it would ... one way or another ...

Romans 9 and Election

To me the absolutely clearest passage of Scripture on the topic of Election is found in chapter 9 of Romans. To me it is unavoidably manifest: God chooses whom He will choose on the basis that He desires (not on the basis of either human effort or human choices) for the purposes that He desires. I cannot fathom how anything else could be concluded from this passage other than that.

Of course, I know that not everyone is so convinced as I am. What other options are offered? Well, there is one primary alternative. This view says, "Paul is not talking about individual election; he's talking about groups." What groups? "Well, there are the Jews and the Gentiles. God is going to save people out of both Jew and Gentile. He's talking about Israel and the Church. He's talking about groups of people ... not individuals."

I have a hard time with that concept. I have a hard time because there seems to be a distinction without a difference. What is it that makes up a group? Individuals! So the argument is that God intends a group ... without actually intending individuals?

I have a hard time with it because the primary mode of explanation in this passage is in terms of individuals. Paul's premise is that, despite the fact that so few Jews are among the saved, God has not failed (9:6). Why? Because the "descendants of Abraham" are the children of promise, not the flesh (9:8). How does Paul demonstrate that? "Through Isaac your descendants will be named" (not Ishmael) (9:7). And we're talking about individuals. He goes on to talk about Sarah and Rebekah, Jacob and Esau, Moses and Pharaoh -- individuals. Jacob and Esau were specifically predestined apart from any works "so that God's purpose according to His election would stand" (9:11). The "proofs" that Paul offers for his arguments in this passage are not in terms of groups, but in terms of individuals.

I have a hard time with it because the language doesn't fit. God tells Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" (9:15). Is that a group? Seems like individuals. Paul says, "It does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" (9:16). Is that groups or individuals? Paul concludes, "So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (9:18). (Paul's "proof text" is God's treatment of Pharaoh, an individual.) As a group? And when he does talk about a group -- "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (9:22) -- it is only meaningful if those vessels are individuals to whom God shows mercy. Being merciful to a group does me little good, but being merciful to me, a sinner, is a magnificent event!

I have a hard time with it because of the objections. This is one of the key interpreting components to me. Paul's approach is very clear, very methodical. He lays down Scripture and then argues it logically and biblically (you know, like we're supposed to do). He starts back with the promise and tells how Jacob was selected over Esau apart from works. What is the very first objection I would expect if I thought Paul was talking about individuals elected apart from their works? "That's not fair!" And that's the first objection Paul faces (9:14ff). He explains that God chooses whom He will choose, that He has mercy on whom He has mercy and hardens whom He hardens. What would the obvious next objection be if Paul were talking about individuals? "Well, if God does all that, then how can we be held accountable? If it's all God's will, what have we to say about it?" And that's exactly the next objection Paul faces (9:19ff). Now, rewind. Let's assume that Paul is talking about groups, not individuals. Paul says that God chooses groups not because the group is special, but because God chooses them. Since this isn't personal, on what possible grounds would we object, "That's not fair!"? And when Paul says that God chooses groups of people apart from the choices of the group, why would there be an objection, "Why does He still find fault?"? He still finds fault on the basis of individuals, right? Not groups. In other words, the objections Paul answers make no sense at all if he was talking about groups, not individuals. There is no reason to object if it isn't about individuals.

What are groups without individuals? Why would Paul use examples of individuals if his concept is of groups? Why is so much of the language itself in terms of individuals if groups were in mind? How do the objections make any sense if Paul was simply saying that God has chosen a group of people? None of this makes any sense to me. In fact, it seems like a whole lot of effort to make this speak of groups when the most obvious explanation is that it is about individuals. Could it be that this "group defense" approach is a product of a preconceived objection rather than a good examination of the text?

Baffled

Seems to me that I'm just too easily baffled. There are so many things in this world that confuse me when everyone else seems to be just fine with it. There's so much stuff around me that I just don't get.

Take, for instance, the ubiquitous "Out of Order" sign. What does that mean? I will see it, as an example, on a vending machine in a row of vending machines. The suggestion, then, is that this particular machine is not in the right place in the line. It is in the wrong order. But if that was the case, wouldn't there be another one in the wrong order? Shouldn't there be two? Well, okay, so maybe it should just go to one end of the line or the other. So why not move it? Seems like an easy thing to do. Or could it be that there is some larger order in mind? I wonder that when I see a lone machine or a bathroom stall with the "Out of Order" sign on it. Is there some grand plan where this machine or that stall is actually supposed to be somewhere else on the planet, and someone foolishly put it here? How do they know? What took them so long to figure it out? How could such a thing happen? It's all so confusing.

Take, for instance, women's clothing. Women will wear blouses with sharp drops in strategic locations or messages across the chest. There is no way to conclude that people are not supposed to pay attention to it because it was put there intentionally for that purpose. Yet, I have repeatedly heard women complaining (not to me, but in general), "My eyes are up here." You know the context. What's up with that? Why would someone draw attention somewhere away from where they want it to be and then complain when we're trying to read the odd and often self-demeaning message they intended us to read (as an example)? Doesn't seem either reasonable or fair.

Take, for instance, Christians who knowingly and willfully defy Christ. They claim to be Christians and deny that Christ has the authority that He claims. They claim to be believers and don't believe what He said. They know what is right and wrong to do and choose not to do right and choose to do wrong instead. They consider themselves "Christian" in behavior while more closely mimicking the behavior of the world. Now, I'm not saying that I expect everyone to be Christian. I would be extremely foolish to think that those who are hostile to God would be willing to follow His commands. I get that. And I understand that not everyone who says to Christ "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom. I get that. But in this world that is largely anti-Christian and in this society that is largely anti-"biblical morality" and in this culture that is quick to discard the Bible as man-made, why bother making the claim when it's the farthest thing from the truth? Why demand that Christians be less like Christ? Why call on believers to ignore what they believe? You don't agree? That's fine. But why call yourself a Christian and demand that others follow you as you refuse to follow Christ?

You see? It seems like there are a lot of things in everyday existence that are baffling to me.

Law and Morality

They say as if it's true, "You can't legislate morality." If, by that, you mean you can't pass laws to make people internally moral, that's fine. But the truth is that many of our laws are based on morality and the goal, if not to make people moral, is to make them behave in a moral fashion.

Now, I think it's pretty clear that there is some distinctions between law and morality. First, not all laws are based on morals. Speed laws are for matters of public safety, for instance. We don't limit driving on the freeway to 65 MPH because it is immoral to drive faster. So some laws are predicated on public welfare rather than morality. I also think that any one of us could come up with some easy examples of laws that are not moral. The easiest example would be the law that makes abortion legal. Laws that legalize murder would be immoral. Laws that prevent people from doing moral good are immoral. So, while there is a connection between morality and law, there is also a disconnect.

The reason I've been thinking about this whole thing is the matter of illegal immigration. I'm not talking about immigration. Legal immigration is ... legal. And I'm not talking about some sort of racism. Racism is immoral. I'm talking about the concept of illegal immigration.

Do a search on the subject and I'm sure you'll find pages and pages of sob stories about poor families locked in dead-end existences with no hope except to flee to the wealth of the United States despite the laws against it. If these stories have no effect on you, you have no heart. On the other hand, we have Scripture that calls us to obey the government and we have the law that forbids this kind of activity. Beyond this, the effects of illegal immigration are not minor and the are, too often, damaging to the people of this country. If these facts have no effect on you, you have no brains.

So I come up against a paradox. I can see that the laws of the nation are there for a reason. I can see the damage done by illegal immigration. I can see the problems it causes. I can see why it is wise to obey the law. And, yet, on the other hand, I can see the sad cases of people in need. I've been to Mexico and seen the genuine poverty (as opposed to the wealth that is called "poverty" in our country), the children suffering from malnutrition, the hopelessness. I've been to El Paso, Texas. Two hillsides face each other separated by the Rio Grande River. One side is dirt-poor and the other in-your-face rich. Dilapidated shanties look across at luxurious hotels. How can they not want to violate our laws and get some of that?

So here's the question. Given the biblical mandate to obey the government over against the biblical mandate to love your neighbor, what is the right approach to take? I believe that it is possible for a government to make laws that violate biblical principles, and if they do, we are required to violate those laws. Are the immigration laws of the United States such a violation, or are they reasonable laws put in place by a reasonable government to provide reasonable protection for its citizens? In these cases, how do we correlate morality and law?

So Tired

I live in Arizona. Every day I am hearing on local and national news what everyone thinks of SB 1070, the latest law passed on the subject of enforcing laws regarding illegal immigration. I have to tell you; it gets tiring after awhile.

It gets tiring because every news outlet and commentary seems to be referring to this as an "immigration law", a change to immigration policy. The law expert from the local university (which will remain unnamed) assures us that the law is illegal because the States cannot make immigration law. Boom! It's over. Thank you very much. Except ... it's not an immigration law. The law amends Arizona statutes "Relating to unlawfully present aliens", not who may come in. It deals with "Enforcement of Immigration Laws", not the laws themselves. Nor is it a "seek and destroy" mission to hunt down illegal immigrants. The premise is that the officers must first have had a reason to be talking to the suspected illegal immigrant before they try to determine whether or not they are illegal. That is, they can't be driving down the road, see a guy who looks Hispanic, and stop him because they want to know his immigration status. That would be illegal under this law. But everyone is referring to it as an "immigration law", and I'm getting tired of it.

It gets tiring because those who are opposed are referring to it as "hate". It is "hateful" to enforce federal laws. It is "hateful" to believe that the United States should be allowed to control its borders. ("Now, Stan, you're misrepresenting their view, aren't you?" No, I've actually heard those very words.) It is "hateful" to want to arrest people who enter this country without going through legal means. There is apparently not the slightest possibility that it is not hate to want to enforce laws. At least not immigration laws. Meanwhile, no one seems even slightly perturbed that Mexico's immigration laws are tougher than America's laws and are enforced with more rigor. Why is that? No one is calling for removal of all immigrants. No one is suggesting, "Don't let another soul into our country!" No one is calling for a ban on Hispanics entering legally. But, still, it's a "hate" thing. That gets tiring.

It gets tiring that so many people outside of this state have been pronouncing judgment on this state without having walked a mile in our shoes, so to speak. We are first in kidnapping in the country, not because so many of us are being kidnapped, but because Arizona is the largest point of illegal entry and the criminals doing the job (called "coyotes") are making large amounts of money kidnapping their clients and holding them for ransom. The average man or woman on the street here isn't in any more danger of being kidnapped than in any other state ... but we're number one in kidnapping. In the last few years in Arizona, the population of illegal immigrants has dropped dramatically. This is due to various things, like the economy, tougher enforcement, and tougher employment laws. Oddly enough, the state has seen a corresponding drop in crime over that time period. Estimates are that a 33% drop in illegal immigrants in two years corresponded to a 25% decline in crimes in Phoenix alone, with the rest of the state reporting similar results. Despite cries to the contrary, the obvious conclusion is that states that deal with more illegal immigrants will likely deal with more crime. So Sacramento decides to cut its ties with Arizona in protest and Colorado is angry that Arizona has decided to enforce federal law and Al Sharpton is complaining and Shakira knows better. Well, that's helpful. I think we should ask Jessica Simpson what we should do about our economic woes while we're at it, don't you? That whole thing is tiring.

Many are crying out that it is not the job of local police to enforce federal laws. That should be a job for federal law enforcement. Of course, everyone including the President himself is admitting that federal law enforcement has failed to do its job. But, hey, that's not Arizona's problem. Never mind that as far back as Janet Napolitano we've been asking the federal government to do its job. (Ironically, despite the ongoing failure, Janet Napolitano is opposed to the state enforcing the law. I guess it has always been "SEP" -- Someone Else's Problem.) To those who are convinced that local police should not be enforcing federal law, let me suggest this. The next time your local bank gets robbed, do not call the police. Wait for the feds. And if your daughter gets kidnapped, leave the police out of it. Wait for the feds. Yeah, yeah, I know they are a bit slower to respond than the locals, but you are quite sure that local police are not there to enforce federal law, so don't ask them to. Or is it that you just ask them to enforce the law when it's convenient for you? So short-sighted. So tiring.

This whole issue has been running for as long as I can remember. I've lived in California where illegal immigration has always been a big issue. I live in Arizona where it is a huge issue. I lived in South Dakota where, even there, it was an issue. For as many years of my life that I can recall, it has been an issue. No one is doing anything about it. When a state like Arizona says, "Well, at least we'll enforce the law," there is a public outcry and a demand for economic crucifixion (which, by the way, will certainly hurt the 50,000 Latino-owned businesses as well) from loud voices inside and outside the state. (How an elected official of this state can call for a boycott of his own state and get elected to another term is beyond me.) And what is the demand? We are supposed to carry identification. If you are legal and carry identification and you are asked, show your ID and go on your way. So? If you are legal and fail to carry your ID, shame on you. The inconvenience might be longer ... but you'll still go on your way. It appears, then, that the issue is about illegal immigrants. And it appears that the call is to let them be. Do not enforce the law. Do not try to manage that problem. Do not suggest there is a problem of legality or a problem of crime or an economic impact. "No, no! What you need to do is let in this flood of people without legal processes so they can do our cheap labor for us and do so without any legal protection or representation! Yes! That's the right thing to do! That's the caring thing to do! That's the non-racist thing to do!" It gets so very tiring.

Spiritual Blessing

Ephesians 1:3 begins with the phrase, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Good start. Enough said. But Paul doesn't leave it there. He goes on to tell us why. Why is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ blessed? Because He has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ. The vastness of the claim is overwhelming. Every spiritual blessing. And those spiritual blessings are found in Christ. That is, contained in Christ is every spiritual blessing God has to offer, and He has offered them ... all. Beyond that, the verb tense is past tense. We will not be blessed in the future. He has already blessed us. (Not to suggest that the past tense of these blessings means that there is no future blessing. These blessings are ongoing.)

What blessings does Paul have in mind? Without delving deeply into surrounding theology or implications, here's a quick list. We were chosen before the foundation of the world. We are holy and blameless before Him. We are adopted into His family. We have been redeemed, forgiven, and lavished with grace. He has made known to us the mystery of His will and incorporated us into His full plan. He has given us an inheritance. We have been sealed in Him by the Holy Spirit. A brief list, perhaps, but by no means a small one.

Why? Why did God bestow on us all these blessings? "To the praise of the glory of His grace." That's the idea. We have been blessed with every spiritual blessing -- blessings found in Christ -- for God's glory. Not for us; for Him. As the psalmist put it, "Not to us, O LORD, not to us, But to Your name give glory" (Psa 115:1). Today, Sunday, is a good day for that, don't you think?

I Don't Get It

Being human, it is a given that we will have varying opinions on varying ideas. That is, we won't always agree. Given. This, of course, leads to ... oh, that's too obvious ... disagreements. And disagreements lead to arguments. And arguments lead to fights. (So much so that often "argument" and "fight" are interchangeable terms.)

I'm here to offer a possible aid in this problem. It's an idea I recommend heartily. It shouldn't be done without care, but I recommend it nonetheless. I think it will be very helpful. Here's the idea. Wait for it. Consider the other person's opinion.

Yeah, I know, Earth-shaking, isn't it? But it's not as light weight as I made it sound. Here's the idea (more fleshed out). If you cannot defend the other person's viewpoint, I think it is questionable that you should be allowed to attack the other person's viewpoint. If you haven't examined the opposing position well enough to fully understand it, is it safe or wise or kind to take up arms against it?

Let me offer an example. I grew up with "believer's baptism". In this view, a person was baptized after they believed. The whole notion of "infant baptism" was foreign to me. And since it was foreign, obviously, it was wrong. Well, eventually I figured out that this was an arrogant and, indeed, foolish approach. So I started looking into the entire "paedobaptism" (the fancy word for "infant baptism") thing. I began to see where they got their ideas. I began to understand their logic. I began to follow their thinking. Eventually I understood it well enough that, in one instance, I took up the debate to defend their viewpoint. Mind you, I didn't agree with it, but I understood it well enough to 1) be able to defend it from Scripture and (more importantly) 2) to understand that the people who held to it weren't all radical, wacko, anti-Scripture nuts with some backwoods understanding of the Bible and no interest in the truth. Because isn't that how we typically view those who disagree with us? We, clearly, have the Bible on our side and they, obviously, don't. We, quite plainly, are thinking people and they, as anyone can tell, don't engage their brains at all. We, therefore, are superior and they, in fact, are dangerous people. Wrong.

I find this so often in the political arena. The right disagrees with the left (and vice versa), so the right characterizes the left as "anti-American". The right loves America, but the President and his left-wing cronies all hate America. Not so. It's just that the left believes that their approach is better for America and the right believes that their approach is better for America and demonizing your opponent doesn't help decide which is right.

Of late the most common place I find this problem is in the arena of "Calvinism versus Arminianism". The whole thing, quite frankly, is quite difficult. Extremists on both sides decry the other as "unbiblical" (even though both sides are quoting Scripture). And talk about "demonizing your opponent" ... well! These two groups will do it quite literally, assured in their belief that the opposing view comes straight from the pit of hell. But then I run into two prominent problems. First, when I read the reasons that the Arminian consider my beliefs "anti-Christian", I agree with them. The theology they are attributing to me is plain wrong. I agree that it's wrong. There are two causes here. First, that whole stupid memory tool, "TULIP", is a really stupid memory tool. It uses English words and all, but almost none of them mean what I actually believe. I don't, for instance, believe in "Total Depravity" -- that people are as bad as they possibly can be -- but in radical depravity -- the Natural Man is sinful at the core. That's not the same thing. I don't believe in "Limited Atonement" generally taken to mean, "Christ's atonement was only enough to cover the sins of the elect." I believe that when Jesus died for sins, He intended to save some and succeeded in that intention. The alternative, to me, is that He intended to save everyone and simply failed. And then there is that whole "Irresistible Grace" thing. "Of course," the opponent cries, "we can resist! We do it all the time!" And I agree! Because that's not the point of "Irresistible Grace". Then there's the "P". Funny thing. Some Arminians will say, "That whole 'P' thing is okay. I believe in 'Once Saved, Always Saved'." They're thinking they agree with me there ... and I don't believe in OSAS. I believe in the Perseverance of the Saints. It's different. So the whole acronym thing causes no end of problems and people are arguing against beliefs that neither I nor "Calvinism" hold. Second, no two Arminians or Calvinists or human beings are alike. What you attribute to "Calvinism" or "Arminianism" may not be what your local neighborhood "Calvinist" or "Arminian" actually believes. You're attributing to me what someone else may believe, but I don't. So I'm forced to defend someone else's beliefs? Not right!

I think, then, that it would be so much better if we would plan to come to a much clearer understanding of the viewpoints with which we disagree before we take up arms against them. I understand that such an approach could be dangerous. After all, if you went about examining a view you oppose, it could end up that you don't oppose it anymore. You could discover that you were wrong and the opposing view was right. But isn't that a win? I mean, are you more intent on opposing a view or are you more interested in the truth? Further, if you thoroughly understand the other side and still hold your position, it is most likely that you will be more capable of defending your own position than before. So ... it's a win-win. So why not?

Objection Answered

Wintery Knight wrote, "My own reservation about Calvinism is that it requires that God create people who go to Hell. They go to Hell only because God chooses not to draw them to him. So there are people pre-destined to Hell for eternity who are not responsible since it’s God’s choice where they are saved or not."

This, I suppose, is one of the most common objections. I know it was mine for awhile and I remember lengthy conversations with my mother over this very same objection. Does God create people who are destined for hell?

First, I need to address the extremely inaccurate representations offered here (and in so many other cases). One is here: "They go to Hell only because God chooses not to draw them to him." First, they go to hell because they choose to reject Him. They go to hell justly condemned for their sins. As a matter of fact, the real question of justice is not "Why would God allow so many go to hell?" but "Why would God allow one not to?" It is neither a failure nor a refusal on God's part. Second, the Gospel is offered to all. Salvation is offered to all. Redemption is available to all.

There is another problem here that is so often missed. Most of the people who object to Calvinism on these grounds do admit that there is a group of people called "the elect", people chosen by God for salvation. The objection isn't that God doesn't choose. The objection is that God doesn't ordain people to hell. Now, I'm not chasing this objection for a rabbit trail. It becomes important. You see, if you admit that God chooses some for salvation by whatever means you care to allow, then you also have to admit that those who are not chosen ... are not chosen. Now, your means of choice may be that God chooses them on the basis of their choice of Him or that He chooses without their input, but it doesn't change the fact that a choice for the salvation of one group of people means that the other group are not chosen.

What is the difference between the chosen and the not chosen? In this case, the difference is that in one case God chose and in the other He didn't. The problem is one of symmetry. The perception of that original objection is that God takes definite steps to save one group and takes definite steps to damn the other. This isn't suggested anywhere in Scripture and Calvinism doesn't claim it. The idea is asymmetrical action. God acts to save some and allows the rest their own way. He intrudes in the lives of some and doesn't bother the others. But however you want to view it, if you admit to the very biblical category of "the elect", then there is the necessary conclusion of the "non-elect".

Still, the objection comes down to this: "It's God choice of whether or not they are saved." (Note that they are responsible for their own sin and so it is not God's responsibility that they go to hell -- it's their choice.) This is where the objection rubber meets the road. Is it God's choice or theirs?

We could examine it from various approaches. What does the Bible say? In discussing why Jacob was chosen over Esau, Paul says that it was "in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls" (Rom 9:11). Is that fair (the objection in Rom 9:14)? Of course it is because God says, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" (Rom 9:15). The demand seems to be that God is obligated to have mercy and compassion on all. God appears to disagree. Further, Paul says that God's choice of whom to save "depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Rom 9:16). Even more shocking is this allegation: "He has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills" (Rom 9:18). Not my words. Not Calvin's words. Paul's words. What is the next objection? The next objection is exactly the objection above: "Why does he still find fault?" (Rom 9:19). If God sovereignly chooses whom to save and does so without their will or effort and He even chooses to harden some, how can He hold anyone responsible? Paul's answer to that is a bit ominous. "Are you sure you want to ask that?" Okay, my version. He says, "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (Rom 9:21). Paul comes to the same conclusion I did above. (Okay, I came to that conclusion because I read what Paul wrote.) The question isn't "Why would He save some and not others? Why would He make people He knows will go to Hell?" (And that conclusion is unavoidable, remember?) The question is "Why would He save even one?" Why do I say that? Because Paul characterizes the entire race of humans as "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" and tells us that it is God's will to "show his wrath and to make known his power" (Rom 9:22). On that basis no one should be saved. This simply makes it all the more stunning when He "endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" (Rom 9:22-23). So from a biblical perspective, is it God's choice or is it theirs? Well, if His choice does not depend on human will, then it is His choice.

Or we could examine the logical perspective. The aim of this objection is to say that we all have the opportunity to choose Christ. To which I say, "Yes! We all do." And that's as far as I go. The suggestion is "We all can", to which the Bible says, "Nay!" There are too many "cannots", too many "no man can's" to conclude this. There are too many conditions of natural man that prevent this. Look, what is the essence of free will? Free will is, essentially, doing what you please. If it's not what you want to do, it's not a free choice, right? If we are dead in sin, hostile to God, by nature children of wrath, inclined only to evil, not righteous, not good, not seeking God, not capable of understanding the things of God (shall I go on?), by what stretch of the imagination would the principle of "free will" include "I freely choose God"? No amount of wooing, no wise argument, no drawing will make a person described this way to, of their own free will, choose God. No! This vast bulk of hindrances that make up the sin nature have to be removed before any such free will choice can occur. And that is the act of God toward the elect. Logically, to call sinful humans to choose Christ is to call them against their wills, and to expect a positive outcome of such a venture would be to demand a violation of their wills.

What prevents them from coming to Christ? Nothing. Their own natures. Their own ... free choice. Their own culpable choice. What would it take to overcome such a problem? It would take new life, a new character. That new character would be able to make a new choice not previously available, would be able to exercise faith not previously operable, would be willing to come to Christ. Without it this new life, this new character, do you really expect a natural man to make the right choice? Only if you violate his will. Oh, and that's what we're trying to avoid, isn't it? See the problem?

Here's Your Bill

Years ago I bought a van to transport our family of 6. It cost more than I had on hand, so I financed it. But making payments could get tedious, so I made a couple of special arrangements. I arranged it at work so that the automatic deposit of my paycheck would include $100 in a special account at the credit union that financed me, and then I arranged it so that the credit union automatically took the payment out of that account. Bingo! The entire transaction essentially became invisible to me. We got used to living off of $100 less than before and we never missed a payment because we never had to think about it. Nice.

It sounds simple, but when you think about it there is a certain insidious side effect. I never really felt the sting of paying for that vehicle. I never had to intentionally save up half the payment from one paycheck and the other half from the other paycheck. I never received a bill. I never had to write a check to cover that bill. So while it made it easy for me, I also never felt the weight. That missed "sensation" made it easier to obligate myself again because, "Hey, that was relatively painless! What's the big deal?!" Older and wiser now, I'm not entirely sure that making indebtedness and the sting of payment "comfortable" is a good thing. In fact, the more painful it is, the less likely I am to do it. And, in all honesty, being out of debt is a far better thing than being in deep, "painless" debt.

The government has figured out this principle as well. From all I've read, if you added up all the taxes, withholdings, fees, penalties, and the like that the government takes from the average American, for every $100 you earn, you only get to keep $50. (Actually, the calculations I saw said something like $51.) That is, between Federal income taxes and state income taxes and sales taxes and social security taxes and Medicare taxes and property taxes and fuel taxes and marriage license taxes and real estate taxes and school taxes and unemployment taxes and telephone access taxes and Workers Compensation taxes and vehicle registration taxes and ... well, you get the idea ... we don't get to take home anything remotely close to what we earned. Now, I've talked to those who say, "I don't mind taxes. It's the price of civilization." (I suspect they're loosely quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who said, "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.") Maybe, but at what point does civilization become too expensive to afford? Well, we don't get to ask that question because the government doesn't let us see the bill. Like my "painless" exercise with the van, they make the payments invisible. Take out some here. Take out some there. "Hey, you got a paycheck! What's the problem? The price of gas too high? Well, it's the oil companies' fault! Nothing at all to do with the something like 42 cents per gallon you're paying us! Blame it on big oil!" And they calmly and coolly take half your paycheck behind hidden taxes and fees so you never really see it go.

I wonder what would happen if they stopped that process? I wonder what would happen if, instead of deductions and hidden taxes and fees, they simply sent us a bill every month? I wonder how long we would tolerate it if we actually received an itemized list of taxes and fees due this month (and next month ad infinitum)? How soon would the tax revolt begin then? I remember years ago a joke was going around about how the IRS planned to simplify the tax forms. "Line 1: Enter the amount you made. Line 2: Send it in." Yeah, funny. Except that the reality is too close to the punchline for me to laugh.

Prisoner of Knowledge

In my mind it seems patently obvious that God's foreknowledge and God's predestination are basically the same thing. That is, if God knows what will happen in the future and God is not wrong, then it will happen. Since He knows it perfectly, it is predestined to occur. Seems obvious to me. Not so obvious to others, I guess.

There are those who argue that God's foreknowing is not the same as foreordaining. Now, if my explanation above is not accurate, I can only come to one of two possible conclusions and both end up in the same place. One possibility is that things are going to happen outside of God's will. He knows it (foreknowledge), but cannot do anything about it. He is, in essence, a prisoner of His own knowledge. He doesn't want it to happen. He doesn't will it to happen. He just can't do anything about it. The other possibility is that He sees what will happen and could do something about it, but chooses not to. In this case, He's a victim of His own knowledge once again. He didn't want it to happen, but wasn't willing to do anything about it. He could, but simply chose not to.

In either case, God is a prisoner of His foreknowledge. He knows perfectly what will occur but either cannot or will not do something about it. In one case He is not quite omniscient. In the other case He is not quite good. In neither case is He the God that we all know and love.

Or ... God knows all contingencies, but knows nothing contingently. He knows what will happen because He either causes it directly or ordains it to be. All that happens (yes, including sin) is part of His divine plan that will bring about, in the end, what He intends. He may cause it or He may allow it, but it is His will. We may not see it and we surely don't understand it, but it is working out exactly as He knew it would because He foreknew it and foreordained it.

Tentative Theology

Okay, I'm going to tell you from the very start that this is tentative. I'm not making a doctrinal statement for the Church to follow. This isn't a hill on which I'd be willing to die. Agreeing or disagreeing with me will not make you a heretic or not in my eyes. It's just a thought, an idea, a possibility. Still, I've never really voiced it, so I thought I'd give it a shot here.

First, the origin of the question, so to speak. I believe that human beings are sinners from birth. I see it in Scripture. I see it in life. I read in the Psalms as David writes, "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psa 51:5), suggesting that he was "in sin" at conception. I read elsewhere "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies" (Psa 58:3). God Himself says, "The intention of Man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21) (where "youth" is actually "anything prior to adulthood"). Paul quotes the Psalms and assures us "None is righteous, no, not one; ... no one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:10, 12). So if we have genuinely innocent children, it would seem to me that these are false statements which, of course, is a problem. Therefore, I can only conclude that human beings are born spiritually dead, separated from God, and justly condemned from birth.

This, of course, raises the nasty specter, "What about all those children who die before being able to receive Christ?" The core of that question, of course, is based on Jesus's assertion, "No man comes to the Father but by Me." So if my premise is correct and all humans are born sinners, justly condemned for being separated from God before they even make a choice, then am I not also claiming that all children who die without receiving Christ automatically go to Hell? It is this very thought that spawned two lines of thinking. One was infant baptism. To this day the Roman Catholic Church as well as the conservative side of the Lutheran Church practice infant baptism as a means of spiritual regeneration for infants so that they are at least temporarily safe from that condemnation. They're still stuck, I suppose, with the awful idea that every aborted baby goes to Hell, but what can they do about that? The other line of thinking is "the age of accountability". In this line of thought (which has shifted and migrated over time), children may (or may not) be born guilty, but they are not culpable for that guilt until they are mature enough to be accountable. This is a pleasant thought and very popular. I can't find it in my Bible, but it is a nice thought. It keeps children off God's radar of condemnation. It even keeps safe those who are impaired. It does beg the question, "If people are not held accountable until they are aware of their accountability, wouldn't it be best to put off as long as possible any information about their accountability?" I mean, if you never tell them the rules for which they would be accountable, they'll be free and clear, right? On the other hand, if you buy this argument, then wouldn't Christians be fairly pleased about 2 million babies aborted every year? Oh, sure, it's sad, but, hey, when was the last time we had 2 million people automatically sent to heaven in a year? That's 2 million people who never had to choose Christ, never even faced the possibility of rejecting Him. No revival ever spawned 2 million decisions for Christ, did it? That's safe, isn't it?

Well, as you can tell, I'm having difficulty with both the concept of baptismal regeneration from infant baptism and the age-of-accountability theory. I'm not finding either in my Bible, and it seems like they cause other theological and practical problems. So what am I to do? Some in my position would surrender. "Yep! I admit it! I believe that all children who die before receiving Christ go to Hell. It's justice. That's all there is to it." Frankly, I don't like that response either. In fact, biblically I know it isn't true. Remember when David's son, born of adultery with Bathsheba, died? He told his people, "Now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me" (2 Sam 12:23). David believed that his son went to Heaven without ever having a chance to "receive Christ" or any such thing. It would appear that it is not true that all children who die before having the opportunity to receive Christ go to Hell. So how do I respond to the question, "What about all those children who die before being able to receive Christ?"

Well, here's where I get to my tentative position. I note that when Jesus said, "No man comes to the Father but by Me", He did not specify how that was to occur. Further, if we consider the history prior to Jesus's arrival on Earth, we have a lot of people whom we believe or are quite sure have gone to heaven without, apparently, receiving Christ as their personal Savior. I don't find any account where David prayed the Sinner's Prayer. I don't see anything that tells me that Elisha responded to the altar call at church. Yet I'm quite sure that the term "the saints" includes a bunch of Old Testament folk. So if Christ is the only way to the Father and these people seem to have gotten there without a confession of faith, how is that possible? I am of the opinion that when Jesus said, "No man comes to the Father but by Me", He was simply saying, "I decide who will and won't be forgiven." Take, for instance, the thief on the cross. You don't find the Sinner's Prayer there, either. His "confession of faith" was quite odd in our eyes: "Remember me when you come into your kingdom" (Luke 23:42). That's it? That's a "Sinner's Prayer"? That's repentance and confession and faith and all that? Well, maybe, but it looks quite odd to me. So what if Jesus's claim to exclusivity was simply His claim to being the authority who determines who does and who does not go to Heaven?

Jesus defined eternal life in a manner different than most of us do. While we tend to think of it as "living forever", He defined it as knowing God (John 17:3). Further, we can be quite certain that Jesus's propitiation for our sins was certainly sufficient to cover the sins of the entire world (1 John 2:2). He would, then, be within His rights (in terms of authority) to forgive whom He pleases and He would be capable of conferring eternal life on whom He pleases and the means by which He accomplishes this are His to determine. It is my belief, then, that Jesus chooses to save children however He pleases. I think this also carries over to Old Testament saints as well as that sticky "native in the jungle who never gets to hear" question. I believe that, by virtue of His sacrifice and His ultimate authority, He is free to save whomever He pleases by whatever means He chooses, and that would include whatever children He chooses to forgive and save.

But, like I said, it's not a hill on which I choose to die. If you are of a different opinion, that's fine. You're wrong, of course, but that's fine. (No, just kidding.) It's my belief and (until talked out of it) I'm going to stand by it.

Against Middle Knowledge

Back in the 16th century (it is believed) a Jesuit theologian named Luis de Molina suggested an idea on how to correlate God's Sovereignty with Man's Free Will. His idea is called Molinism or "Middle Knowledge". Here's how it works. Molina argued that there are three kinds of knowledge. The first is necessary truths, things that are simply true. Things like the definition of a square or the fact that 2 + 2 will always equal 4 would fall under this category because they are true outside of some sort of will of God. God knows all necessary truths. The other category of knowledge is what he termed free truths. These are the things that didn't have to be except that God willed them to be. The sun rises and plants grow and Jesus died; these are free truths. God knows all free truths. Molina argued for a third category, something in between necessary and free truths. Thus the term "middle knowledge". These would be contingent truths. They may not actually occur. They are contingent on human choices. Middle Knowledge would hold that God knows all the "what ifs" and determined what would be based on these "what ifs". The idea, then, in terms of your salvation or, more specifically, your election, would be that God looked down the corridors of time and examined all the possibilities in your life. What would you do in circumstance A and B and C and so on? Oh, look! In circumstance W you choose to receive Christ. Therefore, God chose you from the beginning and saw to it that circumstance W occurred. Then He looked down the corridors of time at, say, Hitler's life. He looked at all the possible circumstances in his life and determined that under no possible circumstances would Hitler choose Christ. So Hitler wasn't chosen.

The view is a popular one, especially among Arminians but even among the Reformed side. The best known proponent today is William Lane Craig, a professor at Biola University. He is a well-known apologist, debating folks like atheist Christopher Hitchens on the existence of God or John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar on the reality of the Resurrection. He is also credited with reviving the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. He's a smart guy, a true believer. That's a "big gun". Another is Alvin Platinga of the University of Notre Dame. He is also well known for his defense of orthodoxy. He is another "big gun". Now, I hate to go up against such well known, well respected guys, but I have to say that I can't buy into this notion of Middle Knowledge.

There are multiple problems in my mind. There is what is known as the grounding objection. This argument sees a problem with what are called "counterfactuals", that whole list of contingencies that God sees. If they never happen, on what basis can they be considered true? If they never occur, how are they real? In fact, if they're based on the freedom of the creature, how can they be true without limiting the freedom of the creature? Yeah, yeah, whatever. The thing that disturbs me the most is that it undermines God's Sovereignty. The Bible claims that God is the only Sovereign. In Middle Knowledge we have a contingent God. All of Middle Knowledge is based on what the creature will or won't choose and what God can do with it. God, then, is limited to what His creatures will or won't do. Let's say, for instance, that God would like to save Ted. Going further, let's say that there could be one circumstance that would cause Ted to choose Christ (all big assumptions, but just follow along). However, that one circumstance required that Bob would make a free will choice ... that Bob won't make. Poor Ted. God had it all figured out how to save him, but Bob wouldn't make the right choice, so Ted is doomed.

Of course, I have other big problems with Middle Knowledge. There is the fundamental assumption that God cannot under any circumstances interfere in Man's Free Will. Where this notion comes from is completely beyond me. There is the further fundamental belief that if God does certain things, some humans will choose Him. The Bible depicts humans as dead in sin (just for starters). Under what possible set of circumstances would God be able to get this dead person to properly respond to Him? If "The Natural Man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned", what possible scenario could God scare up to make him accept the things of the Spirit of God?

I appreciate the work of such giants as Craig and Platinga. I'm afraid, on this point, I'm going to have to disagree. In the attempt to achieve Man's Free Will -- something that God cannot/will not violate -- this view ends up violating too much of Scripture for me. It makes God's will contingent on His creation. It makes Man only mostly dead. Or, to put it another way, it belittles God and magnifies Man. Now ... whose idea would that be?

Miracles

I'm pretty sure that we (Christians) have a pretty light view of miracles. Oh, we affirm them, alright. It's just that we affirm them too easily. Having a baby is a miracle. Living through an accident is a miracle. Or so we say.

I don't know about all that. The Bible seems to reserve "miracle" for a special purpose. It seems that the Bible uses the concept for one use and one only. The biblical concept of a miracle is a sign performed by someone acting as God's messenger that validates their claim as God's messenger. The prophets did them to show they were God's spokespersons. John's Gospel repeatedly uses the concept of "signs" as proof that Jesus was who He said He was. Peter spoke to the crowd about "Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know" (Acts 2:22). There are warnings that false signs will accompany false prophets. Miracles, you see, are intended to constitute evidence for God's messengers.

I admit, though, that it's difficult to avoid calling some things "miracles". Earlier this year my sister-in-law's fiancé was in a horrible wreck. The doctors told the family that he would likely never wake up and, if he did, he would be a vegetable. So imagine their surprise when, just a day or two later, he woke up. He is now in rehabilitation and coming along nicely -- not vegetatively -- despite their medical certainty. And the family gives all the credit to prayer. Just this last week a family friend went into surgery. This lovely young lady got -- get this -- a complete lung transplant. She had been waiting for years. She had stayed alive when doctors said she couldn't. She had been functioning on oxygen levels they said were not survivable. But today she has a pair of replacement lungs and is on the road to recovery thanks largely to the prayers of friends and family.

Miracles? No, not really. I'm not suggesting that he or she is a messenger of God. But they are certainly amazing testaments to the grace of God. Science might explain it away. It was the skill of the doctors and the magnificence of modern medicine. And I wouldn't want to take away from that. What I do know, however, is that "Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights" (James 1:17). And in a world where so much suffering takes place, it is very heartwarming to see God's gracious good gifts, whether they are by purely supernatural means or by secondary human skills. It all comes down "to the praise of the glory of His grace".