Modern Family it is not

Well, folks, we've lost it. This is what is passing for "a good idea".

A website called Modamily, a combination of "modern" and "family", is offering "co-parenting" connections. No, not couples. It's not a "dating" site or the place to meet your next ex. Well, here's what the website says about itself:

We noticed a good portion of family and friends spending their 20s and 30s focused on their careers and putting off marriage and children.Yet, as they approached 40, especially in the case of female friends, there came an enormous amount of pressure for finding a partner, often resulting in rushed marriages ending in divorce.

It was even more disheartening when a child was introduced because now that child would often have to be raised in an environment of friction where mommy and daddy did not get along. I felt there had to be another viable option that could protect against these problems. Hence, co-parenting.

That's the idea. No, don't get married. Get pregnant. By all means, focus solely on yourself for your first, what, 20 years of so-called adulthood and then, when you feel "an enormous amount of pressure" to have a child, find a baby daddy to do the job. After all,

All a child needs to develop and grow is attention, encouragement and love.

My heart broke when I saw this story. They interviewed a 42-year-old mother of two, both fathered by different fathers neither of whom were even expecting to be married to her. The first father was long out of the picture. The father of the younger one, a 4-year-old girl, said without regret, "I'm turning 67 next year; it's time for me to go." That was fine because she was looking for her next baby-daddy to father her next child. And I thought, "But ... what about that 4-year-old girl? How is it good, wise, or safe to send her father out the door to be replaced temporarily by a new one for the next child? What are you teaching your children???!"

"Mommy, where's daddy?"

"Sorry, honey, we had to let that one go. He was too old and we wanted a younger one for the next baby."

"But what about my daddy."

"Don't worry. The next one won't last much longer than yours. We didn't really care about him anyway."

"But ... I did."

It's called "a modern family unit", contrasted with "a traditional one". Family is not actually involved. Indeed, children are not actually the point. Mom felt "an enormous amount of pressure", so she satisfied her urgings without having to fall back on any sort of commitment, effort, even an attempt at a sustained relationship. The children are not the point. The fathers are not the point. Family is not the point. She is. As the Cosmo story puts it, "New Site Matches Co-Parents: No Love Or Sex Necessary." No love or sex necessary. And this they deem "family".

"All a child needs to develop and grow is attention, encouragement and love," says the founder, Ivan Fatovic. Well, those are all good, but family would be better. A married mother and father would be better. Parents who demonstrate love and self-sacrifice and commitment would be better. In fact, a parent who loves a child rather than chooses first to love herself would be a good thing. But in today's world perhaps I'm asking for too much.

Compelling Interest

We live in a society that prefers a government with a "hands off" role. We thrive on individual liberty. That is, "Don't mess with me ... unless you have to." It's called, in legal terms, "compelling interest". There must be some genuine concern for society in general if the government is going to intervene. So, if a foreign military is going to invade, there is compelling interest in the welfare of the people for the government to form an army and defend the country. Reasonable. As it should be.

So the government has a compelling interest in perpetuating the nation by passing laws against, say, murder. Murder kills off people. People pay taxes and perpetuate the country. Killing people off would be a detriment to perpetuating things, so there are laws against murder. Not too hard to follow. The government needs to carry out these things of compelling interest such as roads for commerce and power for living and all this, so they have taxation to pay for it. Not really crazy at all. There are lots of things about which the government has a genuine compelling interest that requires them to intervene.

So, what about marriage? They've now decided to shred the definition and stitch together a new one. The reason for the case against DOMA going to the Supreme Court was that a woman whose female friend died was facing loss of federal benefits that married people would have received. Okay, fine. So it begs the question: Why does the government offer federal (and state) benefits to married people that they do not to unmarried people? (And there is the nagging question on the side about all those unmarried-but-cohabiting folk who face the same problems. But that's a separate question.) The GAO, the Government Accounting Office, lists over 1,000 federal benefits of marriage, including automatic next-of-kin status, social security death benefits, tax exemptions, and on and on. So, I ask, what is the compelling interest of the federal government for marriage?

Well, first, there is the obvious aspect of procreation. Opposite-sex couples have the potential of producing offspring. Without offspring the society eventually ceases to exist, so producing offspring is a compelling interest to a society. But merely producing a litter isn't the only concern. You want these subsequent generations to be functioning, productive members of society. Everyone knows from experience and social studies that the best environment for children to grow is in a loving family consisting of a married mother and father. That's just the way it is. So encouraging this would be beneficial to any society.

"Oh, now, see? You're playing the 'procreation card'. So you'd favor banning marriages of infertile people or couples unwilling to have offspring?" That's what they would say. That's not what anyone I know actually believes. The notion that there would be a fertility test and a psychological test before any marriage license to see if the couple can or will reproduce is ludicrous. The notion that the only function of marriage is procreation is not the position anyone is taking. The question is not about the only function of marriage. The question is why does the government regulate marriage? Look, would you like an ice cream? Yes? Then go get one. There are no government regulations about eating ice cream. Often. It's not in their interest. Regulating marriage is. Why? Look, here's the question. In order for the government to get involved, it has to be about societal, not personal interests. What are the societal factors of marriage and its newly defined cousin, "same-sex marriage"? Or, conversely, why doesn't the government simply get out of the marriage business?

Maybe they will. A recent Pew study said that while 52% of Americans believed that it was important to have kids, only 30% thought it was important to have a successful marriage. Other standard statistics¹ tell us that approximately 50% of marriages end up in divorce. If marriage is on the outs and this is only exacerbated² by the radical redefinition, then I would suspect that in a little while the government won't have a whole lot to regulate there. Besides, if they eliminated the legal entity known as "marriage", they could also eliminate all "spousal abuse" ... since the legal term "spouse" would no longer exist.

And that last bit of sarcasm was intended to point out that the government does have a compelling interest in perpetuating and protecting marriage. Marriage, as it turns out, is good for society. Divorce is not, and "no fault divorce" is a failure on the part of government to protect marriage. Spousal abuse is not. Broken homes is not. On the other hand, marriage -- the union of a man and a woman -- is the best environment for raising children. Married people are likely to live longer. Married people are typically happier and more mature. Married people tend to be better off financially. In short, marriage -- the union of a man and a woman ... for life -- is good for society. I would not only think that the government should be involved, but that it should take a few steps back and delete "no-fault divorce" and "gay marriage" in the efforts to defend this venerable and useful institution. I, of course, will not be holding my breath on this account. As I said, I anticipate more likely a more hands-off approach. Then where will we be?

________
¹ The standard statistics on divorce are a bit misleading. While the overall numbers suggest something in the vicinity of a 50% divorce rate, these numbers are skewed by the totals. Take, for instance, a person who marries, divorces, and remarries. This would count as a 50% divorce rate in one person alone. The divorce figures more carefully analyzed actually suggest a different picture. Look, here's an interesting example. According to the CDC who keeps the records, in December of 2009, Alaska reported 361 marriages and 381 divorces. There you go. The divorce rate is 105%! Shocking! This, of course, illustrates the need to figure out what exactly the numbers mean. (Note, by the way, that according to the CDC, the source of the divorce and marriage statistics, "The collection of detailed data was suspended beginning in January 1996." Odd, isn't it? Everything since is estimated.) The statistics are derived from number of marriages (per 1000 persons) versus number of divorces (per 1000 persons), but doesn't take into account ages, years of marriages, education, religious convictions, whether this is a second (or subsequent) marriage, etc. As it turns out, a couple dedicated to conservative Christian beliefs married between the ages of 20 and 30 for the first time have a better than 80% chance of remaining married for over 30 years (where the counting stops). Beware, then, of "standard statistics".

² Exacerbate ... your "word for the day". It means "to make a problem worse."

Something Better

We who believe the Bible says what it means and means what it says are pretty clear on the topic of homosexual behavior. It's a sin. Fine. And those who see it that way stand pretty firm on that point. Fine. We seem to be good at that. Fine. Or is it?

I wonder if we're good at it. No, not in standing there and calling sin sin, but is it good? No, not is it good that we call sin sin, but is it good that this seems to be where we stop and stand?

Taking Jesus's encounter with the woman "caught in adultery" (John 8:1-11), I don't think we find a similar approach. No, He doesn't say, "Don't worry, lady. Adultery is just alright with me." No, He doesn't make the argument, "We need to be accepting of everyone. Just be quiet about it." In fact, He is pretty harsh in His addressing of sin. He takes out a whip in the Temple, curses ("Woe" was a curse) the Pharisees, and declares that the towns and cities in Israel that rejected Him faced harsher punishment than the worst of the sinful heathen cities. That's not ... "tolerant" (by today's definition). But what does He say to the woman? First, He tells her He isn't condemning her. (Helpful for us, since final judgment of sin is God's job.) Then He gives her instructions on how to improve her lot. "Go and sin no more."

Indeed, this is Jesus's formula for the gospel. "Repent and believe." Yes, sin is sin and we need to repent. But calling sin sin is not the end of the story. It is not the gospel. The gospel is good news that remedies the bad news. For the woman, it was "You were caught in adultery ... but sin no more". For Jesus's gospel it was "You are sin ... but repent and believe."

I think that when we stick at "Homosexual behavior is a sin," we fall short. Yes, it is true that this behavior (along with lots of others) is a sin. So? We need to offer something better. And I think this is key. We tend to offer ... less. "Yes, I know you like it, but my suggestion is that you give up what you like ... because the Bible says it's sin." What kind of gospel is that? Or we could suggest, "I know you like the behavior, but God offers better things. You can be right with Him. You can have a relationship with the Living God. There is so much more available!"

We tend to think that the best choice is to restrict sin. Jesus said He came to give us abundant life. It seems like these two are in opposite directions. C.S. Lewis, in The Weight of Glory, wrote, "It would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased." That is indeed often our problem. God is offering us so much more, and all we want to do is stop the sin. We forget that even if we succeeded in convincing them to stop that sin, our fellow humans would not be right with God, not be heaven bound, not be much better off. And yet we have so much more to offer than "Stop that!" Perhaps we ought to look in that direction more often.

What is Predestination?

What is this thing called "Predestination"? I think, normally, when people use the term, they intend a synonym for "Election". While there may be some truth to this version, it is certainly incomplete. Let's look at what the Bible argues for the concept of predestination.

The term is used explicitly in 5 places in the New Testament (actually 6, except everyone seems to translate 1 Cor 2:7 as something like "foreordained" or "decreed before"). In Acts 4:28 it is in regards to God predestining the crucifixion and carrying it out by sinful leadership. In Romans 8, both verses 29 and 30, it references God predetermining those who would be "conformed to the image of His Son" and the means ("called", "justified", "glorified") by which He would accomplish it. In Ephesians 1:5 it references our predetermined adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, and in verse 11 our predetermined spiritual inheritance. You will note that, although most of these could easily be tied to our Election -- God's choice of whom He would save -- this would be a sadly deficient explanation of predestination ... and it wouldn't explain how Acts 4:28's predestination fits with Election.

No, I think we are going to have to dig a little deeper. What does the Bible mean by the term? The first hint is found in my last reference.

In Him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of His glory (Eph 1:11-12).

(It's always good to have at least the whole sentence in view.)

What's there? Well, we have the certainty ("have obtained") of an inheritance. That, of course, is based on our predestined adoption as sons (Eph 1:5). Makes sense. We have that inheritance based on His predestination. What more does this text tell us in regards to this predestination? First, it is "according to the purpose of Him ...". Predestination, then, is God making sure that His purposes will be achieved. How much does He predestine? He "works all things according to the counsel of His will." Oh, now, see? That is not limited to Election. It would certainly include Election, but that would only be the beginning. Predestination is God working all things according to the counsel of His will in order that His purposes might be achieved. Oh, and what is that primary purpose? "The praise of His glory."

Indeed, I think we have a more or less complete description here of the biblical doctrine of Predestination. It is God working all things according to His will in order to achieve His purposes which primarily includes the praise of His glory.

I'm not alone in this. Easton's Bible Dictionary says that the Scriptures teach that Predestination is "the eternal, sovereign, immutable, and unconditional decree or 'determinate purpose' of God [who] governs all events." "All events" is Easton's summation. Easton warns that it is a difficult doctrine among the "secret things" of God, but it is biblical. "We must accept this doctrine with all its mysteriousness," he writes. But it is the doctrine. In fact, between Naves Topical Bible and Easton's Bible Dictionary they offer more than 85 references¹ on the topic of Predestination. Now, you can take that list and look through it and you can conclude that some of them are not about Predestination or some are not definitive or the like, but here's what you cannot do. You cannot conclude, at the end of all of these references that Predestination is either unbiblical or not considered a historically orthodox position.

As it turns out, the doctrine of Predestination is simply the shorthand version -- the outworking -- of God's Sovereignty. It argues that God works all things after the counsel of His will for the praise of His glory. That includes who gets saved. It also includes who does not. But far beyond that, it includes your calling in life, the person you marry (or don't), your health, your "success" (I put it in quotes because we have a really horrible track record on accurately measuring success), the victories, failures, and tragedies in your life, everything that occurs. It argues that, in the final analysis and by whatever means God chooses (because He is perfectly capable of using natural means to accomplish His ends), God will accomplish the praise of His glory and the rest of His purposes. That is the doctrine of Predestination.

________
¹ Gen 21:12-13; Exo 9:16; Exo 33:19; Deut 7:7-8; Deut 10:15; Deut 4:37; Deut 32:8; Jos 11:20; 1 Sam 12:22; 1 Kings 12:15; 1 Kings 20:42; 2 Kings 19:25; 2 Chron 6:6; Job 23:13-14; Psa 33:12; Psa 65:4; Psa 78:67-68; Psa 78:70-72; Psa 105:17-22; Psa 135:4; Prov 16:4; Isa 41:1-10; Isa 44:1-2; Isa 44:7; Jer 1:4-5; Mal 1:2-3; Matt 11:25-26; Matt 20:16; Matt 20:23; Matt 22:14; Matt 24:22; Matt 24:40-41; Matt 25:34; Matt 26:24; Mark 13:20; Mark 13:22; Mark 14:21; Luke 17:34-36; Luke 4:25-27; Luke 8:10; Luke 10:20; Luke 18:7; Luke 22:22; John 6:37; John 6:39; John 6:44-45; John 15:16; John 15:19; John 17:2; John 17:6; John 17:9; John 21:23; Act 1:7; Act 2:23; Act 2:28; Act 2:39; Act 2:47; Act 3:18; Act 4:28; Act 13:48; Act 17:26; Act 22:14; Rom 1:6; Rom 8:28-30; Rom 8:33; Rom 9:7-33; Rom 11:5; Rom 11:7-8; 1 Cor 1:26-29; 1 Cor 2:7; Gal 1:15; Eph 1:4-5; Eph 1:9-11; Eph 2:10; Eph 3:11; Col 3:12; 1 Thess 1:4; 1 Thess 2:12; 2 Thess 2:13; 2 Tim 1:9; Titus 1:1-2; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Peter 1:10; Jude 1:4; Rev 13:8.

Is God Willing That Any Should Perish?

I've done this before, but people keep asking, so I thought I'd do it again. Maybe if I keep it brief, it will go down easier? (Yeah, right ... and then I woke up.)

Here's the verse in question:

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).

"Now, Stan, you claim that God chooses to save some and not others. How does that make sense based on this verse?"

First, I do not make that claim. The Bible does. See, for instance, John 15:16, 17:6, Eph 1:4, oh, and especially 2 Thess 2:13 (which says, "we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth."). The question now becomes, "Now, God, You claim that You choose to save some and not others. How does that make sense based on this verse?" Reasonable question. (It's better to ask the One making the claim rather than the one that simply told you He made the claim.)

So, what does the text say? Almost everyone in this conversation is quite happy to use this verse as a prooftext to demonstrate that Election is wrong by cutting it short: "not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." Skip that first part. Too boring. Not really relevant. Okay. So ... what does the text say? It says that (God is) not willing/wishing that any dogs should perish, but that all dogs should come to repentance.

"No, no, Stan, that's not what it says."

No? Why not? You see, the text actually says that (God is) not willing that any should perish ... and doesn't any what should perish. So, how do you determine the subject of "any" and "all"? Any what and all what? Well, you cannot simply pull it out of thin air. You have to pull it from the context. What context? Well, the context we've conveniently tossed out for the sake of interest and brevity. So what are the "any" and "all" pointing to? The verse itself says that the Lord is "patient toward you". (King James says "us-ward".) "You" or "us" is the subject here. Not "any dog" or "any tree" or even "any person" because the context hasn't supplied those values. "You" or "us" is in mind, so the "any" and "all" in that phrase is "any of you" and "all of you". (If, on the other hand, you are going to pull "any person" out of thin air, I think I should be free to pull "any dogs" out of thin air just as well. I mean, let's be fair!)

We need one more clarification. Who is "you" or "us"? Peter doesn't leave that to guess. The "you" to whom he refers is listed.

Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:1).

Is there any question, now? The "you" or "us" in mind here is those who "have obtained like precious faith with us". This text is saying that God does not wish that any who have or will obtain the same precious faith Peter had should perish. It is not a claim that God wishes ruefully that everyone should be saved but just can't seem to accomplish it, drat those pesky Humans (with a capital "H" because they are now capable of overpowering God's will). Note, also, that Peter has a specific topic in mind here. He is speaking here about the coming "Day of the Lord" which seems so slow in arriving (2 Peter 3:8-11). So Peter is saying that Christ will not return until every person God plans to give "like precious faith" to has received that faith and been saved. Actually, that's kind of awesome if you think about it. Well, to me it is.

But I'm pretty sure that there will continue to be folk that simply choose to insert "man" after "any" and "men" after "all" without any actual support and see it as proof that God was wrong about election (Oh, didn't you see that it was God's claim, not mine?). If you do that, you're on your own explaining how it is that God wills to save all, but just cannot accomplish it. An Omnipotent, Sovereign God who cannot accomplish His will is neither Omnipotent nor Sovereign. But that will be the problem of those who choose to take that other approach, not mine. Good luck with that.

Whatcha thinking about?

What am I thinkin' about? Nuthin', apparently. No, I haven't fallen off the planet. I'm just taking a short break. I suspect I'll be back soon.

The New Victim Class

Maybe "new" isn't the right term. It has been some time as far as I can tell. But it keeps coming up. I was watching the news the other day and they were interviewing some folk who were doing an early "Black Friday" shopping trip. They were hoping to save hundreds of dollars because their kids were demanding expensive computing devices for Christmas. "My 8-year-old wants an iPhone and my 10-year-old wants a tablet." Poor parents. In order to make their children happy, they're going to have to cough up literally thousands of dollars to buy electronic gadgets for their children.

Last week I was in on a conversation with a pregnant mother of a barely-two-year-old boy. "I just don't know what to do," she was saying. The little boy was in the habit of hitting ... everything. He hit the furniture, the dog, his mother. "I tried tapping his behind" (her words) "but it didn't do any good. I can't find any way to get him to stop. I am afraid he'll hit the baby when he comes." Poor parents. Victims of their children.

When did this happen? When did our society decide to overturn the parent-child relationship where there was a responsible adult authority figure and a child who was under the authority of that figure? When did we decide that children rule? And when we did, did anyone consider the ramifications of allowing an undeveloped, untrained young mind to command? Because I'm pretty sure it won't be a good thing.

We often think that today is better than yesterday, that we are getting better and better. We think of "progress" as always a good thing and we are always progressing. Today's parents, for instance, are better than yesterday's parents because we have "progressed". Of course, today's kids are bored and killing random strangers or walking the streets playing the "Knockout game" and so on. I can only imagine what the next generation of parents will be, given our "progress" in the last 50 years. Poor parents.

Thanksgiving Reflections

We are, by nature (sin nature), ungrateful beings. Oh, we might, with proper training from childhood, learn to be thankful on cue. We can even feel warm feelings of gratitude when nice things are done. But, hostile to God, it is part of our sin nature to refuse to give thanks to Him (Rom 1:21). So a day of thanks built into our year is a good thing. We have much to be thankful for and many to thank. Still, I wonder, every year, exactly what atheists are doing with it.

I found an article, Grateful Without God, that gives hints on the secular view of Thanksgiving. Maggie Ardiente, director of development and communications for the American Humanist Association, tells us, "It is important for us as nonbelievers to recognize that we are lucky in the grand scheme of the universe and to spend this time with our friends and family, and the tradition of doing that once a year, whether you are religious or not, is a valuable thing to do."

"The grand scheme of the universe"? A scheme is a large-scale plan for putting a particular idea into affect. Are they suggesting there is intelligence in the universe aiming at executing a plan? Well, of course not. So ... what are you trying to say?

The article goes on to claim "Secular grace typically recognizes the animals who gave their lives for the feast, the people who prepared the meal and even the elements of nature that contributed to it", as if animals "gave their lives for the feast" willingly or that "the elements of nature" contained some intelligence, some good will with which to offer contributions.

Adam Lee wrote An Atheist Dinner Benediction that allows for a "prayer" at Thanksgiving without God. Of course, there are requests made to, apparently, no one at all. Jennifer Beahan gives thanks to "Nature" as if Nature has some intelligence to give good things to us. So what is the point?

One article entitled "Godless Thanksgiving" offers a list of possible folk to thank, including farmers, soldiers, doctors, engineers, scientists, friends and family ... all good. But they also include "Modern Technology" and "Science" as something to thank. "Science and scientists are the ones who have helped make our world more understandable and hence have improved our ability to live in it." Removing the people involved, this claim is that "Science is one who has helped make our world better." I hate to tell them this, but "Science" isn't a thing, let alone a "one", an entity, a person who has done anything at all.

Thankfulness is defined as "readiness to show appreciation for and to return kindness." Gratitude includes the notion of a kindness shown, a benefit given. Kindness and giving require an intelligence that is kind and generous. Despite the loud and constant complaints that we need to keep God out of the public square, it seems as if atheists are either going to be irrational, reflecting a gratitude for a kindness given by a non-existent being such as Science, Modern Technology, or Nature, or they will have to give up Thanksgiving. You know, Christmas is even harder. But, hey, I'm not suggesting that atheists can't be grateful and rightly so to people who have done nice things. Nor am I anticipating that atheists will be giving up their Thanksgiving or Christmas holidays. Nor am I even expecting them to be rational on these points. Sin, you see, rots the brain. I don't expect more.

Thanksgiving, 2013

In one of Asaph's psalms, he quotes God as commanding, "Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving" (Psa 50:14). Paul told the Ephesian Christians to be "always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father" (Eph 5:20). According to the command to the Christians in Thessalonica, we are to give thanks in everything (1 Thess 5:18). More surprising than that (because, seriously, everything?) is the reason given: "for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus." In three places we are told to give thanks to God simply because He is good (Psa 106:1; Psa 107:1; Psa 136:1).

There are lots of reasons to be grateful to God. Beyond the obvious immediate blessings of family, friends, well-being, or the like, there is the very nature of God and His faithfulness to that nature. There is His lovingkindness (Psa 136:2-3), His wisdom and might (Dan 2:23), His victory over death and the grave (1 Cor 15:57), His gift of Christ (2 Cor 9:15). There is His holiness (Psa 30:4; Psa 97:12) (which -- face it -- exceeds our comprehension). There is His providence (Rom 14:6-7) and His presence (Psa 75:1). Thankfulness is one of our primary means of magnifying God (Psa 69:30). Perhaps it is this aspect -- gratitude for the marvelous nature of God -- that makes thankfulness somewhat lacking in the normal human experience. "Even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened" (Rom 1:21).

Thankfulness to God is commanded, expected, and certainly owed. The lack thereof is a human shortcoming and, given that it is commanded, actually a sin. Since God deserves it and it is commanded, I'm beginning to think that one day out of the year is not quite sufficient. But it's a start. Make good use of it. Maybe even start a trend!

That Nasty Double Predestination

Marc from Lorraine (France) writes in a refutation of the doctrine of double predestination, "According to the doctrine of double predestination, God actively works to save some people but also to damn others." He goes on to say that "Most Calvinists insist they just believe in single predestination", but the argument he makes in this article is how it doesn't matter. In his view if God chooses anyone to be saved and does not choose all, God is a moral monster.

Let's consider a couple of salient facts on this issue. First, it is not true that double predestination means that "God actively works to save some people but also to damn others." Not a fact. It may be a perception -- maybe even a popular perception -- but it is neither required by the doctrine nor is it the one I hold. The explanation Marc gave is called "symmetrical predestination". This version requires that God "forcibly" brings some into the kingdom and "forcibly" keeps others out. By "forcibly" I simply mean that God is the motive force in both cases. Some who wanted to come in are refused and some who are in didn't want to be. It's all a product of God's forceful efforts. I know of no one that believes in this view. Not one. "Asymmetrical predestination", then, would be where God definitely acts to save those whom He has chosen to save but makes no effort on the part of those whom He has not. There is a sense, in this view, that those who end up in Hell have won over God. He would like to save all but chooses not to, and those whom He chooses not to save were allowed to do whatever they pleased ... which was to reject Him. No force on God's part. No keeping them out. No closed doors. Thus, in terms of logical arguments (or, rather, fallacies), Marc's argument is known as a "strawman".

There is another, far more important consideration to examine. What Marc thinks or what I think or what Calvin thought or what Arminius thought are all fairly irrelevant. The important question is what does the Bible say? Marc says that if it's true, it makes God a monster. Those who defend the doctrine say it doesn't. A difference of opinion is all well and good, but since God's Word is truth, the truth of the matter must come from Scripture. What do we find there?

As it turns out, the Bible is full of predestination. In Nave's Topical Index under Predestination there are 85 references listed just for general references. Nave's lists another 14 references in specific references. That's not a few. In the New American Standard Bible, the word "predestined" shows up six times in the New Testament. (Note that Nave's 99 references would cover the concept while not necessarily using the word.) These include God's predestining actions to occur (actually, the death of His Son) (Acts 4:28), the predestination of believers (Rom 8:28-29), the Gospel (1 Cor 2:7), and our adoption (Eph 1:5) and inheritance (Eph 1:11). In other words, it is impossible to deny that predestination exists in the Bible.

And it turns out that the Bible lists both the election of those who will be saved and the advance choice of those who will not. Peter writes of those who "stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed" (1 Peter 2:8). Jude writes of those "who were before of old ordained to this condemnation" (Jude 1:4). I know. That's an awkward King Jamesism. The newer translations speak of those "who long ago were designated for this condemnation" (as if "long ago" makes it better than "before of old"). The words in Greek are prographō palai. The first is to write out before. The second is a retrocession -- a return to former things. Jude wrote that these were "written before formerly". That is, it was written before it happened, and it precedes any time considerations.

In the end, two things come to light. First, Marc is right in one part. Single predestination makes double predestination necessary. No matter how you cut it, if God chooses to save some, not all, then not all will be saved. Given His Omniscience, that group that will not be saved (Jesus's "many" who find the gate of destruction rather than the "few" who find the narrow way -- Matt 7:13) will certainly not be saved. Without any further action on anyone's part, if this is known in advance, it is "double predestination". With or without force or effort, it is double predestination. If God chooses to save those who choose to come to Him, He does not choose to save those who do not choose to come to Him and they are predestined by their own choice to damnation. No one escapes this. Second, since it is logical and biblical, it must be right. And by "right" I mean both the correct view and moral, just, right. The adjustment that must be made, then, is not in our theology, but in our failure to comprehend what God thinks of as good. I suspect we have to make those adjustments a lot.

Fight the Good Fight

In examining the question of biblical prophecy, I came across this passage of Scripture:

This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you fight the good fight, keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme (1 Tim 1:18-20).

It's not very helpful in the question I was examining back then (Are there prophets today?), but it does bring up questions of its own. Take a look.

First, the command: Fight the good fight. Second, the means: keep two things -- faith and a good conscience. Third, the consequence of a failure to fight the good fight by keeping faith and good conscience: shipwreck in regard to their faith. It's all there. It's all pretty clear. What else do we know?

The word there, "keeping", in Greek means "to hold or possess". It is a constant, something not shaken loose. It is continuous. It refers to making constant use of something. You may, then, hold to faith without conscience and expect disaster, or you may cling to a good conscience without faith and, again, anticipate a wreck. Both are necessary.

What else do we know? We know that it isn't a theoretical. It isn't a kind of "If you don't do these two you will suffer shipwreck ... but if you are a believer you will certainly do these two." That may occur in other places, but here we have a specific example offered in Hymenaeus and Alexander. They failed to keep either faith or conscience or both and have, as a consequence, suffered a shipwreck of faith.

Now this is somewhat troublesome to those who read the Scriptures and see with abundant clarity that Christ cannot lose one, that God preserves His own, that He who began a good work in you will complete it. Isn't this a prime example of two guys who contradict this understanding? I would urge caution.

First, "shipwreck" is not by definition fatal. Remember, Paul himself encountered shipwreck three times (2 Cor 11:25) (plus another one later) and didn't die. Shipwreck aborts a journey, perhaps, but not a life. In the same way, spiritual shipwreck may abort a spiritual journey, but not a spiritual life. Another clue is in the phrase, "whom I have handed over to Satan." Implied here is the assumption that they did not originally belong to Satan (or they wouldn't have been handed over to him -- they would have already been his). These two were assumed to be believers. This same phrase was employed elsewhere -- "for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved" (1 Cor 5:5) -- so this doesn't entail lost salvation, but correction. And now we're back at the concept of shunning, where the aim is not punishment but repentance and restoration.

The question remains. Is this a case where Hymenaeus and Alexander were genuine Christians who strayed from their faith and/or conscience and ended up in shipwreck of faith which lost them their salvation? I have pointed out that nothing in the text requires that the two were originally Christians, but only that Paul counted them as believers. I have pointed out that nothing in the text requires that "shipwreck" requires "lost salvation". Either of these might be implied, but are not explicit. The explicit texts elsewhere say that those who belong to Christ will always belong to Christ and that those who do not belong to Christ "go out from us" (1 John 2:19) to demonstrate that they never were of us. Jesus told the false prophets the same thing: "I never knew you" (Matt 7:23).

What, then, can we conclude? Hymenaeus and Alexander strayed from the faith and/or good conscience. Hymenaeus and Alexander were assumed to be believers and were set apart for discipline. The aim of this discipline was to teach them to return to the faith and good conscience. These things we know. The assumption, based on the rest of Scripture, would be that if they remained outside the faith, they never were "of us" because "if they had been of us, they would have remained with us" (1 John 2:19). So, those people you need to shun who are classified as "believers" (because, remember, we are to shun "so-called brethren", not the immoral of the world) ... are they regarded as believers or not? Until they "go out from us", demonstrating their departure by their embracing of the separation, you have to assume they're believers in need of repentance. Paul appeared to think of Hymenaeus and Alexander that way. It requires a long term departure from essential doctrines or a practice of sin (1 John 3:9) to demonstrate that these never were in the faith. That, I suppose, is why Jesus warns us about dealing with the weeds among the wheat (Matt 13:24-30). Our aim is always repentance and, in the case of believers, restoration; God will take care of the judgment of unbelievers.

Not Evangelism

Mark Dever is a pastor in Washington D.C. and the founder of 9Marks Ministries. He wrote an interesting article about 5 things mistaken for evangelism. Dever lists Imposition as number one. We're not trying to impose our opinion. We're offering facts -- truth. Nor is it our opinion. It is God's. Neither is evangelism "personal testimony". A testimony tells what happened and might be helpful for illustrative purposes, but it isn't evangelism. Evangelism isn't social involvement like feeding the poor or helping people although these may provide an opportunity for evangelism. A common substitute these days for evangelism is apologetics. Arguing for the faith is commanded and can even support evangelism, but it isn't evangelism. Nor is evangelism a program that makes converts. Common mistakes, all.

What is evangelism? The dictionary says it is "the preaching or promulgation of the gospel." I can go with that. The word is actually based on the same word from Scripture -- euangélion -- translated "gospel". "Good news". Yeah, yeah, we got that. We all know that the "gospel" means "the good news". Is that all there is? No, indeed not.

When Jesus (you know, the Christ of Christianity) preached the gospel, here was His version: "The kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1:10). Now clearly Jesus didn't have the benefit of Campus Crusades' "Four Spiritual Laws or Evangelism Explosion's well-thought-out approach. We might even call it crass ... if it weren't for the fact that it was the Master's version. His version of evangelism, therefore, was a two-part command: repent and believe.

Jesus expanded His version at the end of His earthly ministry.

All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matt 28:18-20).

Now that is more of a program than "repent and believe". There is the "go" and the "make disciples". There is baptizing and teaching. And it isn't small in any of these measures. It includes "all nations" and "all that I commanded you" and "to the end of the age". Really big. Amazingly missing, however, is "make converts", perhaps the most popular (and apparently mistaken) version of "evangelism" today.

Okay, so what do we have? Biblically we have a problem to address. (Thus the need for "repent".) Without the bad news there is no good news, and biblically the news without Christ is really bad. Leave out the problem of sin and you're not evangelizing. There is the answer to the bad news -- Christ. That answer includes His existence, His life, His death, His resurrection. It includes faith ("believe") and submission. And we have the next step -- "make disciples". This is biblical evangelism.

None of this is an imposition of beliefs any more than it is an imposition of beliefs to tell someone "There's a bus coming that will run you down if you don't move." A personal testimony and logical defense might just assist in this process of telling the bad news, explaining the good news, and proceeding with discipleship, but they don't make up the entire reality of evangelism. Preaching the Gospel is evangelism. And we were not commanded to make converts; we were commanded to make disciples. Anything less is not evangelism. And if we are not willing to preach the Gospel, we are clearly unaware of how bad the bad news is or how good the good news is. Perhaps we need to hear the Gospel ourselves.

Honor and Glory Forever

Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen (1 Tim 1:17).

One verse. One sentence. (Okay, "Amen" might be its own sentence, but you get the idea.) One notion. To the King, honor and glory forever. And, yet, such a big idea.

It is big because of the King. He is eternal, something that typically eludes us. His "eternalness" is from forever to forever. It never started; it never ends. We can have everlasting life, but we will never have this kind of eternal life because we have a beginning. He had none.

It is big because He is immortal. This word is not the echo of the "eternal". It refers instead to "incorruptible". There is no decay, decline, no variation.

And while He is no longer visible to our eyes, He is still eternal and incorruptible ... and present.

It is big because this God is the only God. Earlier translations include the claim that He is the only wise God, which is certainly true, but the simple fact that He is the only God comes crashing in around a race of beings -- humans -- who almost predicate their existence on the notion that they and anything else they choose is also deity. He is; we are not.

It is big because this King, this one God, deserves honor and glory. No, not now; always. No, not forever; forever and ever. No, not this Sunday, but every day of the week and every hour of the day and this without end.

Big. Really big.

Gender Confusion

No, this is not about the problem of "gender identity". No, that fact does not make this topic more ... palatable.

I'm reading in 1 Timothy. There we read the famous (infamous?) 1 Timothy 2 where Paul tells Timothy (among other things):

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor (1 Tim 2:12-14).

The "gender confusion", then, of which I speak here is not "What gender am I?", but what is intended here regarding women teaching or exercising authority over men?

There are a few approaches to this text. I will offer them as a spectrum. On one end is the "It's in the Bible; it doesn't really mean anything" approach. You know, the ultra-liberal idea that the Bible is a nice, man-made book that may or may not be of any value. We'll discard that approach at the outset.

Next is the "It is no longer applicable" idea. This is, perhaps, the most common. The argument is that in Paul's day women weren't viewed highly and, worse, weren't very educated. They weren't allowed "to teach or to exercise authority over a man" because they weren't ready to do it. It is no longer the case today. Women have higher status, better education, and the full capability of doing just that. End of story. Why are you still standing in the way of female church leadership?

Farther along this spectrum is the suggestion that the text is poorly translated. When it says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man", it should have said, "I do not permit a wife to teach or to exercise authority over her husband." The reason cited is that the words for "woman" and "man" in these texts is the same as the words for "wife" and "husband". Of course, in all texts the Greek words are the same. They didn't have distinct words for "wife" versus "woman" or "husband" versus "man". The meaning, then, has to be determined contextually. So the prohibition is not about women submitting to men in general (so that a woman should be allowed to teach or have authority in church), but just in the home.

More steps along this spectrum put us at the traditional view. It says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man." That means that women ought not teach or take authority over men. Specifically in this traditional view the idea is not "all women ought to submit to all men", but that women have certain male leadership figures -- home, church, government, etc. -- and must submit to these as required. It is not suggested that women are not allowed to teach (Titus 2:3; Prov 1:8), but not allowed to teach men or, specifically, to have the authority over them. The traditional view is in church and at home, there are specific men to be in charge and women must submit to them. This would preclude the possibility of female leadership in church (or home).

At the far end of this spectrum would be the other extreme. This one would say, "All women must submit to all men." They would argue that there is nothing in the text that limits it, so that must be the case -- no limitation. To be completely fair, the only place I've heard this argument made is by those who oppose any limitation to female leadership in the church. It is typically a parody argument. I have never known, heard, read, or seen anyone who actually holds this position. We'll discard this approach at the outset as well.

So we're left with three basic positions. We're left with three "gender confusions". They don't agree, so they can't all be right. Which is correct?

The "It is no longer applicable because culture has changed" argument is problematic for me. Paul doesn't say or even suggest it is due to education or culture. Paul gives his rationale. He indicates two reasons for this position. First, God made Adam first -- the order of creation. Second, Adam was not deceived; Eve was -- the order of the Fall. Now, unless a radical change in culture means a radical change in the order of creation and the order of the Fall, I cannot fathom how a change in culture translates to a change in this concept. The text doesn't allow for it and no rational argument has been offered yet that will biblically or historically support it.

So now we have two possibilities. Is it a reference to wives submitting to husbands or to women submitting to male authority where appropriate? (Remember, it is not women submitting to all males. We've discarded that one.) Here's where I end up ... waffling. Real, genuine, sincere Christians take the "wives submitting to husbands" view on this. People I trust and respect. They argue that since it cannot mean "all women submit to all men", there must be limitations. And since the text is contrasting women and men -- Greek gunē and aner -- then it must be referencing not all women, but wives. This could be further supported by the fact that Eve was Adam's wife. I can see all that. Makes sense. But here's where I run into a couple of problems. First, the words gunē and aner are used elsewhere in the chapter. While verses 4 and 5 mention "men", the word in these places is anthropos -- mankind. But then Paul calls on aner everywhere to pray (1 Tim 2:8). Next, he tells gunē to adorn themselves with respectable apparel (1 Tim 2:9) and to learn quietly with all submissiveness (1 Tim 2:11). So my question is this. Do these also refer to husbands, not men, and wives, not women? Is Paul calling on husbands everywhere to pray and the unmarried men have no need to do so? Is he saying that married women are required to properly dress and submissively learn and the unmarried can do what they want? If not, when does it change from "men" and "women" to "husbands" and "wives"? That's one problem. Second, how is it that the Church in history never figured this out? The longstanding traditional view on this topic has always been that women are not allowed to lead in the home or in the church. That didn't change until the late 19th century, 1900 years after Christ. How is it that they got this wrong all along?

Not to be outdone, I have to ask the other side -- to be fair, my side -- its own questions. Logically and experientially and even historically the position has been that the command here is speaking of homes and churches. Women are to submit to their husbands and to their church leadership. Easy. Plain. Historically orthodox. Fine. But ... on what basis? On what basis do we argue (as we all certainly do) that this is not a command for all women to submit to all men? I mean from the text. What in the text suggests, "I'm talking about home and church only"? We all agree that it is, but why? On what basis?

So, you see, I'm rejecting a few views without a problem. Any view that says that the Bible simply isn't applicable today when it claims to be is not a view I can live with. Nor can I go along with an opposite perspective on this topic that women as a gender must submit to men as a gender. I can't even buy the cultural argument that Paul was only talking about his day because it makes no sense with the text. Having discarded these, however, I'm still torn with the other two. Is it about wives and husbands? If so, that leaves new questions. What about the unmarried? What about female church leadership? (Can a woman be a pastor and not have authority over her husband? Is "pastor" different than "elder"? If not, in what sense can a female pastor/elder be "the husband of one wife"?) New questions. Or is it about wives submitting to husbands and women submitting to church leadership? Then on what basis is that defended? If someone could just clear up these gender questions for me, I'd appreciate it. I'll wait ...

Shunning

There are two passages in Scripture that talk about the concept of "shunning". You know how that works, right? I mean, we in the modern church pretty much discard it. It's an archaic, even cruel concept. The idea is that a group of people will shun someone who doesn't submit to some sort of particular group standard. If you've ever seen a movie about the Amish, you've likely seen where our hero stands up for what is right and is shunned by the group for it. They can't eat with you, speak to you, spend time with you ... oh, just about anything at all. The orthodox Jewish communities will do it, too. It's mean; it's just plain mean. Well, we know better now, don't we?

And yet ...

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler — not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you" (1 Cor 5:9-13)

... it is biblical. Ouch!

The command actually is given in two places. The second is in Paul's second epistle to the church at Thessalonica.

If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother (2 Thess 3:14-15).

So, what do we know now? Well, first, as I said, it is biblical. It's not "Amish" or narrow-minded or any such thing. It comes from the pages of the Word of God. Second, it isn't about "evil people". It is about "believers". Paul specifically tells them that it is not a reference to the immoral of the world. It is only about those who bear the name of brother. It's not about those outside; it's about those inside. Third, it is not mean. If it is mean, it is a mistake. The text specifies, "Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother." The purpose is the purification of the group and the restoration of a brother. That is not mean.

Biblically, then, withdrawing from people who classify themselves as Christians but are openly, unrepentantly immoral is not a suggestion nor is it mean-spirited. It is commanded. It is in the best interests of the person being shunned. It is a good thing. So ... why aren't we doing it? Right, of course. Doing it right. Doing it wrong is a bad idea. But discarding a biblical command is an equally bad idea. So?

When Reason Fails

There is a perception among many believers that faith and reason are distinct and separate. I (obviously) disagree and have pointed out that the Bible disagrees. There is, on the other hand, a perception on the other side that would argue the reverse. If we can only provide the most coherent, most cogent, most rational, most well-constructed line of reasoning, we should be able to convince people to come to Christ.

The Middle Ages are sometimes referred to as "the Age of Faith". The term, of course, was coined by the philosophers of the time known as "the Age of Enlightenment" -- roughly the middle of the 17th century through the beginning of the 19th century -- because they dubbed their own period as "the Age of Reason". So in the Age of Faith reality was determined by your religious beliefs. In the Age of Enlightenment they figured out that reason, the mind, the intellect ... these were the ultimate source of reality and truth. We, of course, know much better now. Our scientists and scholars and social reformers have entered the better era -- the Age of Empathy.

How is this age better? What have we figured out that religion and reason could not? Enlighten us! What does Empathy know that Christianity and Science has failed to learn? Well, religion in general and Christianity in particular failed us because it taught us that humans -- especially the body -- are sinful. And Science has affirmed that the body is primarily a machine. The Enlightenment suppressed emotions in favor of the intellect. Clearly to Science "feeling" was beneath "reasoning" and beneath "believing" to Faith. And this was all wrong. So the Empathetic Civilization -- the Age of Empathy -- has come. And we embrace our empathetic masters.

Life is much better now. "How you feel physically and emotionally defines reality." There's a definitive statement for you. And if you grasp it, it starts to answer all sorts of things you may have been struggling with. It explains the current apparent insanity of our culture. It is obviously the source of the "if it feels good do it" ethic. It explains how a sexual desire for the same gender could be classified in any sense as "normal". It explains how it is possible for a person born with the sexual make up of one gender defines him or herself as the opposite gender simply based on how he or she feels. It clears up the problem of being judgmental toward people who you believe to be judgmental, intolerant of people you consider intolerant. It explains without a problem how people who call themselves Christians can say, "Yes, the Bible says this, but it isn't applicable today because we feel it isn't." If how I feel determines what is real, then reality is irrational by definition.

Enter the rational apologist. He (or she) is going to give you the most rational, well-constructed, evidence-filled line of reasoning. He will show from the evidence, from the premises, from the arguments, from the logic, and, perhaps, even from Scripture (although that seems less likely) what the truth is. And, having constructed this marvelous edifice of calculation, he will assume that the proper response will be -- can only be -- submission to the truth. This approach fails to take into account the age in which we live that venerates how we feel over how we think. It fails to take into account the biblical claim that the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9). It fails to grasp that the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God (Rom 8:7). In short, it fails to consider the reality that a sin-sick world is surrendered to a debased mind (Rom 1:28).

Dostoyevsky said, "When reason fails, the devil helps!" True. Since our fight is not against faulty reasoning or overwhelming evidence, but "against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places" (Eph 6:12), we should keep in mind while we are constructing our rational defenses and seeking to bring people to Christ that reason is not sufficient. We need something more. We need the power of the Word of God. We need the conviction of the Holy Spirit. We need divine intervention.

Though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ (2 Cor 10:3-5).

The Faith-Reason Connection

It is often asserted that faith and reason are in opposition. Indeed, it is often asserted by believers. You know, "walk by faith, not by sight", as if "sight" and "reason" are the same thing. These are not. While faith is "the evidence of things unseen", it does not require that they are without evidence or reason.

Not only does the language not require a separation of church and mind, but neither does God. He has been in the habit of providing reasons to believe since He first started out with humans. There are many examples, but I will just go to the clearest and, in fact, the "trump card" of reasons.

"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves know ..." (Act 2:22).

The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works (2 Cor 12:12).

How shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to His will (Heb 2:3-4).

Just a quick and easy sample. What is the most common claim of the skeptic? "If your God would just do some miracle in front of me I'd believe." Shorthand: "If God would give me a reason to believe, I'd believe." What reason? "Some miracle." Well, that is what the Bible offers repeatedly -- signs and wonders.

Remember the story of the lame man in Mark 2? Sure you do. The people had crowded in enmasse to see Jesus. There were so many reporters around that these 4 guys couldn't get their sick friend in to see Jesus. (What ... you don't believe me? Well, the text says, "When they could not come nigh unto Him for the press ..." Isn't that reporters?) So they vandalized the place and lowered him through the roof. Jesus assessed his condition and determined right away what he needed. "And when Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, 'Son, your sins are forgiven'" (Mark 2:5). Well, of course, that's much more impressive than fixing his inability to walk ... if it is true. And they didn't think it was. So Jesus told them, "Why do you question these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, take up your bed and walk'?" (Mark 2:8-9). This is a call to faith. It is a demand for belief. But Jesus didn't leave it there by itself.

"But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" — He said to the paralytic — "I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home." And he rose and immediately picked up his bed and went out before them all, so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!" (Mark 2:10-12).

Jesus saw no need for faith apart from reason. He gave them a reason to believe.

The Bible is full of reasons to believe. We are commanded to love God with all our minds, to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, to make a defense. God didn't intend us to be mindless drones. Biblical faith is not blind; it has reasons. The Bible is full of signs. The Scriptures give reasoning and defenses and explanations. Christianity is not without rational defense. The only way to argue that faith and reason are not connected is to do so without any reference to the faith of Scripture. Don't let them trick you like that.

The Problem of Election

I know people -- even people whom I count as genuine believers -- who have real problems with the concept of Election. No, not voting. (This isn't about Obama.) The idea that God chooses whom He will save. One guy told me, "If election is true, then I might as well join the KKK" because clearly if God chooses to save some and not others, this is a privileged group with a higher standing than those who are not chosen.

Of course, this is problematic for me. I mean, I understand the sentiment. But I'm bound by a prior commitment. My view is if I find it clearly in Scripture, regardless of how I feel about it, I'm forced to agree with Scripture. This starts very early in your examination of the truth. Is God right when He speaks against sexual immorality or is our culture right when we vote in favor of it ... in large numbers? Is Scripture right when it says, "In the beginning, God ..." or is society right when the "intellectuals" assure us there is no God? Is the Bible correct when it tells us that Jesus died and rose again or is the world right when they tell us it can't happen? We have to decide early on which source of truth we're going to buy into. Will culture and experience and feelings determine truth for you or will the Word of God be what is true?

Having determined which of the two you will accept, we come up, then, to the question of election. Does God choose in advance whom He will save? Regardless of how you feel about the question, what does the Bible say? That is, if God's Word tells us that God chooses in advance whom He will save, is that sufficient reason to believe it is true regardless of how we might feel about it? I ask because these are the kinds of things we read in Scripture on the subject:

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out (John 6:37).

You did not choose Me, but I chose you (John 15:16).

He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him (Eph 1:4).

We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this He called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thess 2:13-14).

Now, there is a lot of Scripture that demands the concept of election -- God choosing whom He will save. This is really quite incontrovertible. It's impossible to avoid. But the question becomes whether or not God chooses in advance or do we choose and God then confirms our choice?

As for me, I'm stuck with these Scriptures (and more). Jesus said, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me" (future tense). He told His disciples that they did not choose Him. Paul told the Ephesians that we are chosen "before the foundation of the world". He told the Thessalonians that God chose them for salvation "from the beginning". I can do whatever fancy word dances I might do, but I can't get around these clear passages. So I'm forced by my prior commitment to the Word of God to conclude that God chose before the foundation of the world whom He would save. Does that make me special? Frankly, yes. But not because of anything in me. Believe me, of that I'm quite sure.

Obey the Gospel

Paul, writing to the church in Thessalonica, says something a little ... unusual, at least to my ears.

This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering — since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus (2 Thess 1:5-8).

The text is about the suffering of the Thessalonican Christians. The ones inflicting this suffering and, thus, on whom God will inflict vengeance, are described in two ways. First, they "do not know God." Fine. We get that. Second, they "do not obey the gospel." Now, wait. "Obey the gospel"? What exactly does that mean?

You see, to most of us the gospel is "good news". And that, of course, is because that's precisely what the word means. But what is to be obeyed? The gospel that we think of tells us that we are sinners and that Christ died to remedy that and if we believe we can be saved from our just reward of eternal death. Where is the obedience part?

The first mention of "gospel" in the New Testament is in Matt 4:23 when Jesus "went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom." And what was this gospel? "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt 4:17). It was the same message in Mark 1.

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1:14-15).

"The kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe." That was "the gospel of God". When the Philippian jailer asked what he had to do to be saved, Paul told him, "Believe in the Lord Jesus" (Acts 16:31). So apparently there are commands intrinsic to the gospel that must be obeyed. The two commands appear to be "believe" and "repent".

Faith, then, is commanded. Paul speaks of his mission to "bring about the obedience of faith" (Rom 1:5). Faith itself, it would appear, produces obedience. And this is what we see elsewhere. Jesus didn't know the false prophets who claimed to do miracles in His name because they were "workers of lawlessness" (Matt 7:21-23). They "believed" and they "did miracles", but they didn't obey, so it couldn't be called biblical faith. James says that faith without works is dead (James 2:17). So genuine faith -- Jesus's "believe" -- produces works of obedience.

Then there is repentance. The word doesn't mean, as some think, feeling remorse for your sin. It isn't a guilt trip. It is a change of mind. What kind of change? Well, when you start to examine it, this is a huge change ... and not, to the natural mind, quite sane. Indeed, the "repentance" -- the "change of mind" -- demanded by Scripture is radical. It was evidenced in Jesus's rebuke of Peter when He said, "You are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man" (Mark 8:33). Not setting your mind on the things of man is radical thinking. It was demonstrated when Jesus explained, "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26). Not highly valuing family and self is radical thinking. It was illustrated when Jesus told His disciples, "If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me" (Matt 16:24). Denying self and purposely taking up a cross is radical thinking. Paul picked up this "other-minded" theme when he told the Philippian Christians, "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves" (Phil 2:3). Considering others as more important than yourself is radical thinking. What is called for here is a complete overhaul, a paradigm shift, in normal human thinking -- a serious change of mind.

Obedience to the gospel occurs in two areas. First, it must be received and embraced by faith. This faith isn't simple mental agreement. It isn't merely "believe". It is a faith that produces a change in action and outlook. Second, to be obeyed the gospel must include repentance, a change of mind. This is no small change. It isn't "Okay, now I feel bad about my sins." No, it is radical and serious and large. Anything less is a failure to obey the gospel, and failing to obey the gospel puts you in the category of those who don't know God. So, is "repent and believe" your response to the gospel? Or are you looking for an easier, wider gate?

Where Do You Live?

We live in disturbing times. There is Obamacare and a government moving against religious freedom -- specifically Christian freedom. There is crime and immorality. There are worse-than-useless schools and similar churches. There is identity theft and child theft and rape and murder. And on and on. The culture is turning against us. We live in a society that is opposed to insulting or attacking any group at all ... except Christians. There are political uncertainties, legal uncertainties, economic uncertainties, religious uncertainties, physical uncertainties -- every aspect of life. And then we read this:

¹ He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High
Will abide in the shadow of the Almighty.
² I will say to the LORD, "My refuge and my fortress,
My God, in whom I trust!"
³ For it is He who delivers you from the snare of the trapper
And from the deadly pestilence.
⁴ He will cover you with His pinions,
And under His wings you may seek refuge;
His faithfulness is a shield and bulwark.
⁵ You will not be afraid of the terror by night,
Or of the arrow that flies by day;
⁶ Of the pestilence that stalks in darkness,
Or of the destruction that lays waste at noon.
⁷ A thousand may fall at your side
And ten thousand at your right hand,
But it shall not approach you.
⁸ You will only look on with your eyes
And see the recompense of the wicked.
⁹ For you have made the LORD, my refuge,
Even the Most High, your dwelling place.
¹⁰ No evil will befall you, Nor will any plague come near your tent.
¹¹ For He will give His angels charge concerning you,
To guard you in all your ways.
¹² They will bear you up in their hands,
That you do not strike your foot against a stone.
¹³ You will tread upon the lion and cobra,
The young lion and the serpent you will trample down.
¹⁴ "Because he has loved Me, therefore I will deliver him;
I will set him securely on high, because he has known My name.
¹⁵ "He will call upon Me, and I will answer him;
I will be with him in trouble; I will rescue him and honor him.
¹⁶ "With a long life I will satisfy him
And let him see My salvation." (Psa 91)

Two main points here. First, "He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will abide in the shadow of the Almighty." "Umm, okay ... so?" Which leads to our second point. "You will not be afraid." Not be afraid of snares or pestilence, the terror by night or arrows by day, death and destruction, evil, plague, lions, cobras, or bears (oh my!). (Okay, it's not quite in there, but it could be.) Instead, "With long life I will satisfy Him and let him see My salvation." Thus, repeated over and over in Scripture, "Fear not."

The question, then, is where do you live? Do you live in America or Europe or Asia or ...? Or do you live in the shelter of the Most High? I'd highly recommend the latter in these disturbing times. It's a really good place to be.