It's actually a cute sounding word. It kind of rolls off the tongue nicely. Sounds like a nice little trill on the piccolo or something. Kind of magical. But when you consider that the federal government has projected $3.83 trillion in total spending for 2011, it kind of makes me want to ask ... "what's a trillion?"
Well, it's simple! A trillion is simply 1,000 times a billion. Easy, right? I mean, think of a billion and then add 1,000. No! Not add! Multiply. So, let's see ...
If we went back 1 billion seconds from now, we would go back about 32 years. If we went back 1 trillion seconds from now, we would go back almost 32 thousand years. One billion minutes ago was almost to the time of Christ, but one trillion minutes ago was 1.9 million years ago. Or how about this? If you traveled 1 trillion feet, it would take you just about the 98 million miles to the Sun ... and back.
How about in terms of money? The government plans to spend that $3.83 trillion this year. Estimates and averages place the cost of feeding one average African for a day at $4. There are currently about 1.25 billion people in Africa. If we took our budget for the 2011 fiscal year and bought them food with it, we could feed all of them ... for two years. Or how about our national debt? We are at $14 trillion right now. With the current 312 million Americans, each of us would need to pay $45,000 to pay it off. (The average income per person in the United States is about $33,000.) Look over at that cute little kid in the stroller. How long do you think before she is going to pay her share? So that's not reasonable. Let's do it by household. With 115 million households, we'd each need to pay $122,000 to pay it off. Since the average household income in America today is about $50,000 per year, don't count on that being paid off any time soon.
Without offering judgment or evaluation or recommendation, I have to say that, while a "trillion" may sound "cute", it is really a number beyond my common perception. And we are consuming 3 times that amount this year. Which may be a bad thing since we owe more than fourteen times that one trillion mark. That is, if we simply stopped all national spending entirely and paid everything we planned to pay toward paying off our national debt, it would take us four years to pay it off. No, not so cute now at all.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
What's Next?
I find this utterly reprehensible. An unnamed couple in Australia terminated the lives of twin sons conceived using IVF because the couple already had three sons and wanted a daughter. Seriously ... utterly reprehensible.
Given today's pro-abortion stance, try to use their logic to suggest that this in any way could be construed as "wrong". If the "gold standard" is "women's choice" and this woman chose, on what possible basis can they suggest it was "immoral"?
To terminate the life of a child is horrendous. To terminate the life of two is twice as horrible. To murder them because "we wanted a girl" is beyond abominable. But to argue against it in today's judicial climate is impossible. I don't even know where to find the argument that, given the mantra of "women's choice", Dr. Kermit Gosnell (He cut the spinal cords of babies induced in late term because their mothers wanted to terminate their pregnancies and is now charged with murder) should be charged. How is "late term" somehow "murder" but earlier on it is not?
I'm appalled. I'm horrified. But I'm not surprised. It's an inexorable result when we submit to "women's choice" specifically or "what I want" in general as our measure of moral values.
Given today's pro-abortion stance, try to use their logic to suggest that this in any way could be construed as "wrong". If the "gold standard" is "women's choice" and this woman chose, on what possible basis can they suggest it was "immoral"?
To terminate the life of a child is horrendous. To terminate the life of two is twice as horrible. To murder them because "we wanted a girl" is beyond abominable. But to argue against it in today's judicial climate is impossible. I don't even know where to find the argument that, given the mantra of "women's choice", Dr. Kermit Gosnell (He cut the spinal cords of babies induced in late term because their mothers wanted to terminate their pregnancies and is now charged with murder) should be charged. How is "late term" somehow "murder" but earlier on it is not?
I'm appalled. I'm horrified. But I'm not surprised. It's an inexorable result when we submit to "women's choice" specifically or "what I want" in general as our measure of moral values.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Don't Tell Me You Love Me
Back in 1980 Sweet Comfort sang, "Don't Tell Me You Love Me", a song apparently sung from God's perspective. The song opens with, "Don't tell me you love me if you won't show me your love." The flavor, the idea, is in this line: "Don't sing me your love songs if your lyric and your life don't rhyme."
It seems to me that "Your lyric and your life don't rhyme" is the definition of far too many self-professed Christians. She made it late to the birthday party because she was tied up with her volunteer work at her church, but she's here now, so, don't worry; she'll catch up with the heavy drinkers in no time. He is a self-proclaimed Christian, but his status on Facebook tells how his girlfriend is moving in today. I'm not talking about slips. I'm not talking about "events", those times we all have when we all fall short. I'm talking about the set-your-face-to-openly-and-knowingly-and-continually-defy-God kind of things -- the practice of sin.
John wrote, "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God" (1 John 3:9). But so many who call themselves "followers of Christ" (which is the intent of the word, "Christian") run headlong from Him. They boldly and continually make a practice of sin. They can be found in church on Sunday, maybe even teaching. They may be "members in good standing" and looked up to by many. They may practice apologetics and call for "biblical morality". But by their fruit they are practical atheists.
I can still hear God saying, "Don't tell Me you love Me if you won't give Me your love." What about you? Does your walk match your talk? Does your life reflect the love of God you claim it does? I'm not talking about perfection. I'm talking about the general trend. We all fail. But when you do, does it bother you, or do you defend it? Do you love God? Does your life show it? Does your lyric and your life rhyme?
It seems to me that "Your lyric and your life don't rhyme" is the definition of far too many self-professed Christians. She made it late to the birthday party because she was tied up with her volunteer work at her church, but she's here now, so, don't worry; she'll catch up with the heavy drinkers in no time. He is a self-proclaimed Christian, but his status on Facebook tells how his girlfriend is moving in today. I'm not talking about slips. I'm not talking about "events", those times we all have when we all fall short. I'm talking about the set-your-face-to-openly-and-knowingly-and-continually-defy-God kind of things -- the practice of sin.
John wrote, "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God" (1 John 3:9). But so many who call themselves "followers of Christ" (which is the intent of the word, "Christian") run headlong from Him. They boldly and continually make a practice of sin. They can be found in church on Sunday, maybe even teaching. They may be "members in good standing" and looked up to by many. They may practice apologetics and call for "biblical morality". But by their fruit they are practical atheists.
I can still hear God saying, "Don't tell Me you love Me if you won't give Me your love." What about you? Does your walk match your talk? Does your life reflect the love of God you claim it does? I'm not talking about perfection. I'm talking about the general trend. We all fail. But when you do, does it bother you, or do you defend it? Do you love God? Does your life show it? Does your lyric and your life rhyme?
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Hints
Look, let's be honest. Christianity does not present a unified front. We are not all in warm, amicable agreement on all points of doctrine. Given. Some have suggested that we should be, and I think Paul disagreed (1 Cor 11:19). Others have suggested that what we believe isn't nearly as important as how we live, and I think Jesus disagreed (Matt 5:21-22, 27-28, 7:22-23). Still others have suggested that we're human (true) and prone to error (true) and, therefore, we simply can't know the truth (ah, there's the rub!) for sure, so we shouldn't worry about it. "Can't we all just get along?" Jesus, however, told us that we would know the truth, that the Spirit was sent to lead us into all truth, and so on. Indeed, the Bible says "we know ..." over and over because apparently we can know. So the question is, "How can we know what is true?" I'd like to suggest a few possible tools, some hints, some questions to ask yourself when you think you understand something.
Is it true to the text? This is the simplest, most obvious question. And, somehow, it is often overlooked. Most believe, for instance, that any man can come to Christ despite the clear statement, "No man can come to Me unless ...". Sure, the former sounds right, even feels right, but it isn't what the text says. Or an extremely common one today is on whether or not women should be in positions of leadership over men in the church. "Of course!" loud and numerous voices assure us. But it's not what the text says. On the other hand, most of us, if we're honest, chafe at that whole "Jesus is the only way" thing. I mean, seriously, that kind of exclusivity sounds ... arrogant. But Jesus Himself said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by Me." So while we might think it sounds arrogant, it is indeed true to the text, so it is true.
Is it true to the context? This is where there begins to be some question about the first point. Sometimes context is needed to properly define the text. Far too often text is taken out of context to say something that it doesn't say. A non-confrontational example is one I'm sure we've all seen. Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with Me" (Rev 3:20). An open invitation for unbelievers! But ... the context speaks of something somewhat different. This quote is in a letter "to the angel of the church in Laodicea." It's not a call to unbelievers. It's a call to lukewarm believers. Context is important. Or how about this one? "God doesn't want us to have any fear because He said, 'Perfect love casts out fear'." Well, that is what the verse says; it just doesn't work in context. The context (1 John 4:15-21) is in regards to abiding in God. The context tells us that God is the source of love. The context tells us that when we abide perfectly in God, we love perfectly. Since all sin is a failure to love (God or your neighbor), then when we love perfectly, we have no fear of punishment. Thus, when we arrive at loving perfectly (that's the "perfect love" -- not God's love for us), we have no fear of punishment because we will have arrived at perfection. In other words, the context of this quote does not contradict the repeated commands and warnings to "fear God". The context is telling us about our perfect love. Context, context, context.
Is it biblically coherent? I've hinted above at this one. "The context of this quote does not contradict the repeated commands and warnings to 'fear God'." If the Bible is indeed God-breathed, then the Bible won't contradict itself. It will not tell you, "Jesus is the only way" and "Jesus is not the only way" (as a silly example). So when you read, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Eph 2:8-9) and then you read, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24), you should recognize that you cannot go with "Is it true to the text?" because something is not right here when it is taken at plain, face value. Now, context helps here. Paul's context in Ephesians was "How do you get saved?" and James's context in the latter epistle was "How do I know if it's living faith or dead faith?" That ought to be a clue. It also ought to be a clue that both Paul and James used Abraham as their example, but their "proof" was years apart. That is, "Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness" happened a long time before "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?" So you get a clue from context that the two (Paul and James) are not talking about the same sort of "justification", that they're not both talking about how you get saved, and, therefore, are not contradicting each other. They are saying what Martin Luther said in brief: "We are saved by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone." And we end up with biblical coherence rather than contradiction while remaining true to text and context.
Another very helpful tool is Church doctrine over history. What has the Church said over time? If Jesus was right -- if the Spirit was given to lead His people into all truth -- then it must be that the truth has been maintained for the past 2000 years. It is my conviction that it has. So I get wary when someone comes up with a "new" truth. "Oh," they might say, "we've finally figured this out after all these years although no one before us ever did." There are lots of these areas. Dispensationalism didn't really hit the public market until the 1800's. It has only been in the last 50 years (or less) that some figured out that it is not a sin to engage in homosexual activities. "New insight!" We've recently determined that marriage is not simply between a man and a woman ... although it has always been thus. "We've just figured this out!" I'd be cautious. Now, Church tradition is not authoritative, but I prefer to be cautious about "new" things. It seems the ultimate in arrogance to say, "We've just figured this out after 2000 years when no one else before us could!" I'd recommend not going there.
I'm going to offer one last suggestion that you may not have considered. Does it increase Man and decrease God? Paul said, "Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Rom 3:4). God said, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9). The basic motivation for all of our sin is "I will be like the Most High." Thus, we are self-deceiving posers to the throne. As such, it is our natural (sin) tendency to want to bring God down and bring Man up. We want to lower the standard. We want to minimize the problem. We want to make us closer to god and God closer to us. So we want Him to be thoroughly understandable. If you get there, you're in the wrong place. The Infinite cannot be grasped by the finite. We want to say that Man isn't nearly that bad. David referred to himself as a worm (Psa 22:6), but we would beg to differ. We're noble, important, maybe even critical beings whom God would do well to serve. When your beliefs tend toward a diminished God and an improved position for Man, I would warn you that you might not be heading the right direction. "We're not that bad" may be true ... but I'd tend to wonder. "God is my buddy", "the Man Upstairs", "the Big Guy" -- these absolutely do not refer to the God of the Bible. Neither a diminished God nor an improved Man bode well for a biblical belief system.
These are just a few quick ideas. I think that they work pretty well. We are obviously human and we do obviously err. I'd doubt that any one of us actually has perfect doctrine or perfect understanding. On the other hand, I don't think that this should preclude us from knowing some things with sufficient certainty as to be able to "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints". If we are commanded to "reprove, rebuke, and exhort", it is only reasonable that we have some grounds for relative certainty. On the other hand, if Scripture repeatedly tells us things we can know and we claim uncertainty out of "humility", that's pretty arrogant. (And why do you suppose it is that those who "humbly" cry out against "the arrogance of certainty" are certain they need to correct those who are certain?) (Sorry -- rhetorical question.)
Update:
Turns out that Charles Spurgeon preached a sermon about the concept of detecting heresy by how a doctrine decreases God or increases Man. I guess I'm not alone.
Is it true to the text? This is the simplest, most obvious question. And, somehow, it is often overlooked. Most believe, for instance, that any man can come to Christ despite the clear statement, "No man can come to Me unless ...". Sure, the former sounds right, even feels right, but it isn't what the text says. Or an extremely common one today is on whether or not women should be in positions of leadership over men in the church. "Of course!" loud and numerous voices assure us. But it's not what the text says. On the other hand, most of us, if we're honest, chafe at that whole "Jesus is the only way" thing. I mean, seriously, that kind of exclusivity sounds ... arrogant. But Jesus Himself said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by Me." So while we might think it sounds arrogant, it is indeed true to the text, so it is true.
Is it true to the context? This is where there begins to be some question about the first point. Sometimes context is needed to properly define the text. Far too often text is taken out of context to say something that it doesn't say. A non-confrontational example is one I'm sure we've all seen. Jesus said, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with Me" (Rev 3:20). An open invitation for unbelievers! But ... the context speaks of something somewhat different. This quote is in a letter "to the angel of the church in Laodicea." It's not a call to unbelievers. It's a call to lukewarm believers. Context is important. Or how about this one? "God doesn't want us to have any fear because He said, 'Perfect love casts out fear'." Well, that is what the verse says; it just doesn't work in context. The context (1 John 4:15-21) is in regards to abiding in God. The context tells us that God is the source of love. The context tells us that when we abide perfectly in God, we love perfectly. Since all sin is a failure to love (God or your neighbor), then when we love perfectly, we have no fear of punishment. Thus, when we arrive at loving perfectly (that's the "perfect love" -- not God's love for us), we have no fear of punishment because we will have arrived at perfection. In other words, the context of this quote does not contradict the repeated commands and warnings to "fear God". The context is telling us about our perfect love. Context, context, context.
Is it biblically coherent? I've hinted above at this one. "The context of this quote does not contradict the repeated commands and warnings to 'fear God'." If the Bible is indeed God-breathed, then the Bible won't contradict itself. It will not tell you, "Jesus is the only way" and "Jesus is not the only way" (as a silly example). So when you read, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Eph 2:8-9) and then you read, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24), you should recognize that you cannot go with "Is it true to the text?" because something is not right here when it is taken at plain, face value. Now, context helps here. Paul's context in Ephesians was "How do you get saved?" and James's context in the latter epistle was "How do I know if it's living faith or dead faith?" That ought to be a clue. It also ought to be a clue that both Paul and James used Abraham as their example, but their "proof" was years apart. That is, "Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness" happened a long time before "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?" So you get a clue from context that the two (Paul and James) are not talking about the same sort of "justification", that they're not both talking about how you get saved, and, therefore, are not contradicting each other. They are saying what Martin Luther said in brief: "We are saved by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone." And we end up with biblical coherence rather than contradiction while remaining true to text and context.
Another very helpful tool is Church doctrine over history. What has the Church said over time? If Jesus was right -- if the Spirit was given to lead His people into all truth -- then it must be that the truth has been maintained for the past 2000 years. It is my conviction that it has. So I get wary when someone comes up with a "new" truth. "Oh," they might say, "we've finally figured this out after all these years although no one before us ever did." There are lots of these areas. Dispensationalism didn't really hit the public market until the 1800's. It has only been in the last 50 years (or less) that some figured out that it is not a sin to engage in homosexual activities. "New insight!" We've recently determined that marriage is not simply between a man and a woman ... although it has always been thus. "We've just figured this out!" I'd be cautious. Now, Church tradition is not authoritative, but I prefer to be cautious about "new" things. It seems the ultimate in arrogance to say, "We've just figured this out after 2000 years when no one else before us could!" I'd recommend not going there.
I'm going to offer one last suggestion that you may not have considered. Does it increase Man and decrease God? Paul said, "Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Rom 3:4). God said, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jer 17:9). The basic motivation for all of our sin is "I will be like the Most High." Thus, we are self-deceiving posers to the throne. As such, it is our natural (sin) tendency to want to bring God down and bring Man up. We want to lower the standard. We want to minimize the problem. We want to make us closer to god and God closer to us. So we want Him to be thoroughly understandable. If you get there, you're in the wrong place. The Infinite cannot be grasped by the finite. We want to say that Man isn't nearly that bad. David referred to himself as a worm (Psa 22:6), but we would beg to differ. We're noble, important, maybe even critical beings whom God would do well to serve. When your beliefs tend toward a diminished God and an improved position for Man, I would warn you that you might not be heading the right direction. "We're not that bad" may be true ... but I'd tend to wonder. "God is my buddy", "the Man Upstairs", "the Big Guy" -- these absolutely do not refer to the God of the Bible. Neither a diminished God nor an improved Man bode well for a biblical belief system.
These are just a few quick ideas. I think that they work pretty well. We are obviously human and we do obviously err. I'd doubt that any one of us actually has perfect doctrine or perfect understanding. On the other hand, I don't think that this should preclude us from knowing some things with sufficient certainty as to be able to "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints". If we are commanded to "reprove, rebuke, and exhort", it is only reasonable that we have some grounds for relative certainty. On the other hand, if Scripture repeatedly tells us things we can know and we claim uncertainty out of "humility", that's pretty arrogant. (And why do you suppose it is that those who "humbly" cry out against "the arrogance of certainty" are certain they need to correct those who are certain?) (Sorry -- rhetorical question.)
Update:
Turns out that Charles Spurgeon preached a sermon about the concept of detecting heresy by how a doctrine decreases God or increases Man. I guess I'm not alone.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Evidence for the Existence of God
I wrote before that there is evidence for the existence of God. Without a great deal of examination or explanation, I thought I'd offer a quick list just for reference purposes. That way you can do your own homework.
1. The precision of the universe. There is a lot there, but see Dr. Bradley's piece as an example.
2. The human body. Think the brain, the eye, explaining how the entire venous system complete with heart, lungs, marrow producing blood, and the whole transportation system could just happen by chance.
3. Nothing comes from nothing. (The Kalām Cosmological Argument.) (Seriously, do you actually plan to argue that everything that is came from nothing at all?)
4. DNA. DNA is all about coding, information, data. It requires intelligence.
5. Jesus Christ. A historically accepted figure with historically documented events that indicate supernatural events that cannot be rationally or satisfactorily explained by natural means.
6. Universality of Religion. How does one explain that every known society as far back as can be examined has always had religion?
7. Ontological Argument. "If you can posit a being like 'God', there must be such a being." (Okay, maybe I don't find that convincing, but it is not "not evidence".)
8. Teleological Argument. Already hinted at, it's the argument from the obvious design of the universe.
9. Moral Argument. Every society has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Why?
10. The Bible. A book written over some 2000 years by more than 40 different authors while maintaining consistency and unity.
11. Prophecy. Closely related to #10, how does one explain how someone can explain hundreds of years in advance with precision and detail exactly what will happen?
12. Changed hearts mean changed lives. Don't like it? Fine. The fact remains that radical and unaccountable changes have occurred in people who have encountered the God of the Bible.
Other resources:
Astronomical Evidences, Hugh Ross
Evidence for God
Evidence from Bible.org
Just a brief list and some brief resources (that, admittedly, provide links to more resources that ... well, you get the idea). This is not a "comprehensive" list. Indeed, if you look, it's not even really an argument. It's simply ... a list. Note, also, that "I don't accept that evidence" or "I don't find it compelling" does not eliminate it.
1. The precision of the universe. There is a lot there, but see Dr. Bradley's piece as an example.
2. The human body. Think the brain, the eye, explaining how the entire venous system complete with heart, lungs, marrow producing blood, and the whole transportation system could just happen by chance.
3. Nothing comes from nothing. (The Kalām Cosmological Argument.) (Seriously, do you actually plan to argue that everything that is came from nothing at all?)
4. DNA. DNA is all about coding, information, data. It requires intelligence.
5. Jesus Christ. A historically accepted figure with historically documented events that indicate supernatural events that cannot be rationally or satisfactorily explained by natural means.
6. Universality of Religion. How does one explain that every known society as far back as can be examined has always had religion?
7. Ontological Argument. "If you can posit a being like 'God', there must be such a being." (Okay, maybe I don't find that convincing, but it is not "not evidence".)
8. Teleological Argument. Already hinted at, it's the argument from the obvious design of the universe.
9. Moral Argument. Every society has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Why?
10. The Bible. A book written over some 2000 years by more than 40 different authors while maintaining consistency and unity.
11. Prophecy. Closely related to #10, how does one explain how someone can explain hundreds of years in advance with precision and detail exactly what will happen?
12. Changed hearts mean changed lives. Don't like it? Fine. The fact remains that radical and unaccountable changes have occurred in people who have encountered the God of the Bible.
Other resources:
Astronomical Evidences, Hugh Ross
Evidence for God
Evidence from Bible.org
Just a brief list and some brief resources (that, admittedly, provide links to more resources that ... well, you get the idea). This is not a "comprehensive" list. Indeed, if you look, it's not even really an argument. It's simply ... a list. Note, also, that "I don't accept that evidence" or "I don't find it compelling" does not eliminate it.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Racism in America
The good sheriff of Pima County assured us that one of the primary reasons that the crazed gunman attempted to assassinate Rep Giffords was that we are a bigoted nation. He linked it to our attempts to secure the border. Similarly, some voices are saying that the problem is that we have a black president. If Americans weren't such racists, they wouldn't be so mad about having a black president.
I find the whole suggestion disturbing. Sure, I know that there are still racist Americans. Check out the lunatic fringe "white supremacy" types, for instance. And, in all honesty, visit the deep South and talk to the lifelong residents there. Most have "moved on" from their racism ... but many haven't really. But the fringe types are few in number and those who still hold racist perceptions are quieter now, so I wonder, if America elected a black president, why is “black” still such an issue?
In my considerations over who would get my presidential vote, it never occurred to me to take Obama's race into account. I don't know. Maybe I'm the fringe type, the anomaly, the rarity. When he was elected, I was confused by the "racism is dead in America because we've elected a black president" kind of talk because if racism was dead, we wouldn't have noticed that he was black.
But ... racism is not dead in America (or, I suspect in all likelihood, anywhere else). Here, a white person uses the phrase "boy" (regardless of how it is meant) and it is unforgivably racist, but it is acceptable for "minority races" to shout overtly racial epithets against white people because that isn't racism. When a state attempts to enforce federal law, it's racism, but when those most affected by such an attempt urge the overthrow of the government and the seizing of that state for a particular racial group, that's not racism. It's like sexism. For men to belittle women is sexism, but for women to belittle men isn't sexism. So even though racism in America is in serious decline, the fact that one race is allowed, even encouraged to hate another means that such a condition cannot go away. As long as we continue the random accusations of "race-baiting" and continue to "play the race card" (even if it is only a suggestion, not a reality), racism in America is not going away.
I admire Dr. Martin Luther King's dream of judging people by their character rather than their color. Still, as long as the problem is "them", not "us", I don't see his dream coming to fruition. And, may I suggest, rewriting Huck Finn and censoring Blazing Saddles in favor of "politically correct speech" is not going to solve the problem -- any more than saying that our "harsh political climate" is what made a lunatic killer start shooting in a Tucson shopping center. (I'd say that we should "target racism", but I suppose that would be construed as being too militaristic and, since I am Caucasian, likely a racist remark of some sort.)
Dream on, Dr. King. I'm with you. I'm just not very optimistic.
I find the whole suggestion disturbing. Sure, I know that there are still racist Americans. Check out the lunatic fringe "white supremacy" types, for instance. And, in all honesty, visit the deep South and talk to the lifelong residents there. Most have "moved on" from their racism ... but many haven't really. But the fringe types are few in number and those who still hold racist perceptions are quieter now, so I wonder, if America elected a black president, why is “black” still such an issue?
In my considerations over who would get my presidential vote, it never occurred to me to take Obama's race into account. I don't know. Maybe I'm the fringe type, the anomaly, the rarity. When he was elected, I was confused by the "racism is dead in America because we've elected a black president" kind of talk because if racism was dead, we wouldn't have noticed that he was black.
But ... racism is not dead in America (or, I suspect in all likelihood, anywhere else). Here, a white person uses the phrase "boy" (regardless of how it is meant) and it is unforgivably racist, but it is acceptable for "minority races" to shout overtly racial epithets against white people because that isn't racism. When a state attempts to enforce federal law, it's racism, but when those most affected by such an attempt urge the overthrow of the government and the seizing of that state for a particular racial group, that's not racism. It's like sexism. For men to belittle women is sexism, but for women to belittle men isn't sexism. So even though racism in America is in serious decline, the fact that one race is allowed, even encouraged to hate another means that such a condition cannot go away. As long as we continue the random accusations of "race-baiting" and continue to "play the race card" (even if it is only a suggestion, not a reality), racism in America is not going away.
I admire Dr. Martin Luther King's dream of judging people by their character rather than their color. Still, as long as the problem is "them", not "us", I don't see his dream coming to fruition. And, may I suggest, rewriting Huck Finn and censoring Blazing Saddles in favor of "politically correct speech" is not going to solve the problem -- any more than saying that our "harsh political climate" is what made a lunatic killer start shooting in a Tucson shopping center. (I'd say that we should "target racism", but I suppose that would be construed as being too militaristic and, since I am Caucasian, likely a racist remark of some sort.)
Dream on, Dr. King. I'm with you. I'm just not very optimistic.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Worthy Is The Lamb
1 Then I saw in the right hand of him who was seated on the throne a scroll written within and on the back, sealed with seven seals. 2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, "Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?" 3 And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it, 4 and I began to weep loudly because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it. 5 And one of the elders said to me, "Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals." 6 And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7 And he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. 8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, 10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth." 11 Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, 12 saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!" 13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!" 14 And the four living creatures said, "Amen!" and the elders fell down and worshiped (Rev 5:1-14).
Now ... imagine that in heaven with "the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands". Yeah, a song worth hearing; a message worth repeating.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Against Double Predestination
Some people like to believe in predestination. Now, to be clear, what they mean by "predestination" is "election". (I only point that out because I don't see the two as synonymous.) To be quite honest, it's hard to deny the doctrine of election since it is littered throughout the Bible. So most don't. The difference of opinion is not whether or not there is such a thing, but how exactly God implements it. Some say that God does it unilaterally -- "unconditionally" is the term applied -- and others say that, "No, it is conditioned on my choice of Christ." Fine. I'm not rehashing that argument. Where most Christians agree, however, is on this idea of double predestination (recalling that "predestination" means "election"). You see, most people are fine in some degree of "God chooses whom He will save" (by whatever method you might prefer), but not too many are happy with "God chooses whom He will not save" (the "double" of "double predestination"). That one is unacceptable even to the "unconditional" folk. "It is not," they will all assure you, "taught in the Bible."
Well, of course, I could run down the path of logic. Follow ... quickly. God chooses (by whatever means) whom He will save. Thus, those who are not chosen are "predestined" for damnation. Thus, the "double" side. It seems quite obvious, in fact. If I offer my wife a bouquet of various flowers and she picks out the carnations and throws out the rest, you could say "She chose the carnations" or you could say "She threw out the rest" and be accurate.
"No, no," you will (wisely) warn me, "the heart is deceitful. That's human logic. the claim is that it is not taught in the Bible." Ah, yes. That's where we really ought to go to figure this out.
So ... I'm reading through Peter's first epistle (which is, as I'm sure you know, in the Bible) and I come across this:
Now, again, I'm not suggesting a method, an application, a process or procedure. I'm not saying how God does it. What I am suggesting is that, just as the Bible clearly teaches that God chooses whom He will save (by whatever means you care to prefer), the Bible and logic confirm double predestination -- that God also has ordained (by whatever means you care to prefer) who will not be saved. It isn't "symmetrical" -- God doesn't do the same thing in both cases -- but neither is it questionable. The Bible does teach it. Now all we have to do is figure out how to deal with it.
Well, of course, I could run down the path of logic. Follow ... quickly. God chooses (by whatever means) whom He will save. Thus, those who are not chosen are "predestined" for damnation. Thus, the "double" side. It seems quite obvious, in fact. If I offer my wife a bouquet of various flowers and she picks out the carnations and throws out the rest, you could say "She chose the carnations" or you could say "She threw out the rest" and be accurate.
"No, no," you will (wisely) warn me, "the heart is deceitful. That's human logic. the claim is that it is not taught in the Bible." Ah, yes. That's where we really ought to go to figure this out.
So ... I'm reading through Peter's first epistle (which is, as I'm sure you know, in the Bible) and I come across this:
They stumble because they disobey the Word, as they were destined to do (1 Peter 2:8).Whoa! Wait a minute! Peter uses the word "destined" here in terms of people who disobey the Word. The context, in fact, is the "stone of stumbling and rock of offense" that Christ is to those who reject Him. He trips them up because "they were destined" for it. The Greek word means "placed" as in "assigned", "ordained", "appointed". The idea is precisely the same one offered in Jude 1:4 where he writes of false teachers "who long ago were designated for condemnation". (That phrase, "long ago", confounds translators. The King James says "before of old ordained". Before old. That is, in times preceding time. That is, no matter how you view it, "predestination".)
Now, again, I'm not suggesting a method, an application, a process or procedure. I'm not saying how God does it. What I am suggesting is that, just as the Bible clearly teaches that God chooses whom He will save (by whatever means you care to prefer), the Bible and logic confirm double predestination -- that God also has ordained (by whatever means you care to prefer) who will not be saved. It isn't "symmetrical" -- God doesn't do the same thing in both cases -- but neither is it questionable. The Bible does teach it. Now all we have to do is figure out how to deal with it.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Entertainment and Education
The rule of the day is entertainment. Entertainment is amusement, diversion, affording pleasure. That's how we see it. Churches are trying to inject entertainment into their services because our culture is centered on entertainment and if you don't compete with that, you won't get people in the door, right? So we have to aim to amuse (a word whose original intent is quite telling), to please.
I'm currently reading Handel's Messiah: Comfort for God's People by Calvin Stapert. Interesting book. It talks about the current events of the Messiah and about Handel himself and about the influences and about the meaning. I'm enjoying it. But one thing he pointed out I found quite interesting.
One person was reported to have told Handel after a performance of the Messiah, "You certainly entertained the people." Handel is said to have replied something to the effect that "If I only entertained them, I failed. I wish to make them better." In Handel's time, it seems, entertainment was not intended as amusement. "Amusement", you see, is based on two components. "A-" is the prefix that indicates "not", and "muse" is a word meaning "to think" or "to meditate on". From the Old French, amuser, it meant "to cause to be idle" or, in today's way of viewing it, the opportunity to not think for awhile. But not in Handel's day.
In his day the notions of "entertainment" and "education" were inextricably linked. The only valid purpose for entertainment was education. There were severe restrictions on "performances" and "entertainment" for that reason. Indeed, the primary purpose of education in that time was moral education. The intent was to teach right and wrong. Entertainment, then, was a "spoon full of sugar" that would help the medicine go down. You may, certainly, entertain, but you must do so for the purpose of teaching decent, moral values. That was the only valid purpose of entertainment.
We've come a long way, baby, eh? (You see, "progress" is not always "improvement".)
I'm currently reading Handel's Messiah: Comfort for God's People by Calvin Stapert. Interesting book. It talks about the current events of the Messiah and about Handel himself and about the influences and about the meaning. I'm enjoying it. But one thing he pointed out I found quite interesting.
One person was reported to have told Handel after a performance of the Messiah, "You certainly entertained the people." Handel is said to have replied something to the effect that "If I only entertained them, I failed. I wish to make them better." In Handel's time, it seems, entertainment was not intended as amusement. "Amusement", you see, is based on two components. "A-" is the prefix that indicates "not", and "muse" is a word meaning "to think" or "to meditate on". From the Old French, amuser, it meant "to cause to be idle" or, in today's way of viewing it, the opportunity to not think for awhile. But not in Handel's day.
In his day the notions of "entertainment" and "education" were inextricably linked. The only valid purpose for entertainment was education. There were severe restrictions on "performances" and "entertainment" for that reason. Indeed, the primary purpose of education in that time was moral education. The intent was to teach right and wrong. Entertainment, then, was a "spoon full of sugar" that would help the medicine go down. You may, certainly, entertain, but you must do so for the purpose of teaching decent, moral values. That was the only valid purpose of entertainment.
We've come a long way, baby, eh? (You see, "progress" is not always "improvement".)
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Corporate Election
In my Scofield Study Bible I find lots of helpful footnotes on lots of helpful topics. There is a footnote that pops up every time the word "sin" appears ("See Rom 3:23"). There are notes for all the major Christian doctrines. It is no surprise, then, that there are notes for Predestination and Election. But Scofield has two notes for Election. One is "Corporate Election" and the other is "Individual Election".
Quickly, "corporate election" means that God has chosen a "group" to be saved. This "group" is "the Church". This "group" is not defined in its content; it's just ... a group, a body, a corporation. This group will be saved by God's divine choice. Here's how a proponent (aptly) describes the concept:
Now, it's interesting how the two work. If you approach "corporate" through the eyes of "individual", then, the former is a given. That is, if it is true that individuals are chosen by God for salvation, then certainly there is a group of people who are chosen by God for salvation. This group is comprised of those individuals. Easy stuff. But it doesn't work quite the same in reverse. If you view individual election through the lens of corporate election, it becomes so hazy as to be impossible to see. You see, from that perspective all you know is that there is a "group". Who is in that group? Oh, well that is an unknown. In fact, you can move in and out of that group as an individual. As long as you remain in that group, you are "elect". When you move out, you are not. Because, you see, only the group is chosen by God, not the contents of that group.
This is the argument of those who oppose individual election. They read Romans 9 and see "group". Why? Well, there are several reasons to be sure. Paul starts off talking about Israel as a group, clearly explaining that it is possible to be part of the group "Israel" without being part of the group "children of God". And, of course, there is the latter portion of the chapter where Paul speaks in terms of "us" as "vessels of mercy" and explains how those from Israel and the Gentiles are saved by faith to be "My people". That is, there is certainly a "group" aspect to Romans 9, so they read the chapter as "group" -- corporate election.
To me, however, it begs the question: Who makes up that group? Jesus uses the concept of "chosen" when He refers to His disciples. He says, "You didn't choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16). He chose those who made up the group to be "the twelve". In Acts 13:48 we read, "As many as were appointed to eternal life believed." If that was speaking of "corporate election", the idea would have to be "God appointed that 13 people in this meeting would believe, and 13 random people believed." That's not the idea of the passage. "Who is in the group?" becomes an unanswerable question. The group is nebulous and changing.
If "corporate election" is true and "individual election" is not (as those who read Romans 9 this way are trying to say), then it has other problems as well. Romans 8 ends with "those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son", requiring that "those" in that idea are not individuals, but simply a "group". This group will be conformed to the image of His Son, not the individuals. Further, Paul goes on to say, "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect?" That's a very heartening statement ... unless you are arguing that "God's elect" is "a group" made up of unknown and unknowable individuals. If "corporate election" is true and "individual election" is not, how am I comforted with this amazing certainty? I cannot know if I am in the group. I can come and go from the group.
As far as I can tell the Bible teaches both corporate and individual election. As long as I hold to individual election, I must also embrace corporate election because the individuals chosen by God for salvation form the group who are saved. Thus, to see in Romans 9 where Paul speaks of the "children of God" as a group does not contradict the portion where he breaks it down to individuals -- Jacob, Esau, Moses, Pharaoh, etc. It's quite clear that individuals are chosen by God, and that, as Rom 9:23 indicates, those individuals make up the group that he calls "vessels of mercy". Individual election doesn't contradict corporate election. On the other hand, affirming corporate election while denying individual election creates too many biblical problems for me. So I affirm both.
Quickly, "corporate election" means that God has chosen a "group" to be saved. This "group" is "the Church". This "group" is not defined in its content; it's just ... a group, a body, a corporation. This group will be saved by God's divine choice. Here's how a proponent (aptly) describes the concept:
The ship (the Church) is God's chosen vessel which is destined for heaven. The ship's captain is Jesus (who is the author and finisher of our faith and the "Captain" of our salvation. All who desire to come aboard the ship may do so by responding to the invitation by a living faith in Christ. At that point, they may then come aboard the ship. As long as one remains on the ship and remains "in Him" he is one of the elect. If he chooses to abandon the ship or it's Captain, he ceases to be one of the elect. Election is always contingent upon our being "in Him." Predestination speaks of the ship's destination and what the Lord has prepared for those who remain aboard the ship. God has invited everyone to come aboard the ship and reach the final destination (heaven). It is up to us to decide whether we will come on board and remain on the ship.I'm sure you can figure out what "individual election" would mean, then. In this version an individual is chosen by God for salvation. Simple enough.
Now, it's interesting how the two work. If you approach "corporate" through the eyes of "individual", then, the former is a given. That is, if it is true that individuals are chosen by God for salvation, then certainly there is a group of people who are chosen by God for salvation. This group is comprised of those individuals. Easy stuff. But it doesn't work quite the same in reverse. If you view individual election through the lens of corporate election, it becomes so hazy as to be impossible to see. You see, from that perspective all you know is that there is a "group". Who is in that group? Oh, well that is an unknown. In fact, you can move in and out of that group as an individual. As long as you remain in that group, you are "elect". When you move out, you are not. Because, you see, only the group is chosen by God, not the contents of that group.
This is the argument of those who oppose individual election. They read Romans 9 and see "group". Why? Well, there are several reasons to be sure. Paul starts off talking about Israel as a group, clearly explaining that it is possible to be part of the group "Israel" without being part of the group "children of God". And, of course, there is the latter portion of the chapter where Paul speaks in terms of "us" as "vessels of mercy" and explains how those from Israel and the Gentiles are saved by faith to be "My people". That is, there is certainly a "group" aspect to Romans 9, so they read the chapter as "group" -- corporate election.
To me, however, it begs the question: Who makes up that group? Jesus uses the concept of "chosen" when He refers to His disciples. He says, "You didn't choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16). He chose those who made up the group to be "the twelve". In Acts 13:48 we read, "As many as were appointed to eternal life believed." If that was speaking of "corporate election", the idea would have to be "God appointed that 13 people in this meeting would believe, and 13 random people believed." That's not the idea of the passage. "Who is in the group?" becomes an unanswerable question. The group is nebulous and changing.
If "corporate election" is true and "individual election" is not (as those who read Romans 9 this way are trying to say), then it has other problems as well. Romans 8 ends with "those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son", requiring that "those" in that idea are not individuals, but simply a "group". This group will be conformed to the image of His Son, not the individuals. Further, Paul goes on to say, "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect?" That's a very heartening statement ... unless you are arguing that "God's elect" is "a group" made up of unknown and unknowable individuals. If "corporate election" is true and "individual election" is not, how am I comforted with this amazing certainty? I cannot know if I am in the group. I can come and go from the group.
As far as I can tell the Bible teaches both corporate and individual election. As long as I hold to individual election, I must also embrace corporate election because the individuals chosen by God for salvation form the group who are saved. Thus, to see in Romans 9 where Paul speaks of the "children of God" as a group does not contradict the portion where he breaks it down to individuals -- Jacob, Esau, Moses, Pharaoh, etc. It's quite clear that individuals are chosen by God, and that, as Rom 9:23 indicates, those individuals make up the group that he calls "vessels of mercy". Individual election doesn't contradict corporate election. On the other hand, affirming corporate election while denying individual election creates too many biblical problems for me. So I affirm both.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The Blame Game
Why did he shoot the congresswoman? Why did little Christina have to die? We wanna know why. We want to know why those terrorists flew those airplanes into those buildings. We want to know why McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma federal building. We want to know why Bob broke his arm on the job.
Oh, wait, that doesn't quite fit, does it? Well, yes, it does. You see, why we want to know why is telling. Take the Tucson shooting. We want to know why Jared Loughner bought a gun, walked into a friendly "meet and greet" with Rep. Giffords, and started shooting. We have our answers, of course. It's the evil conservatives spouting harsh rhetoric. No, no, it was those target symbols on Palin's map. Well, don't be silly, it's clearly the right wing whackos who are opposed to abortion! What? What kind of idiot are you?! It was the whole tea party thing! Actually, it's the gun lobby and their stupid Second Amendment. Naw! It was just that he was clinically insane.
Okay, maybe we don't have an answer. But we want one and we'll fill in the blanks as we see fit. You see, what we want are answers to the tragedies we see. They can be terrorists or mad gunmen or on-the-job injuries, but we want answers. That way, you see, we can forget about it. We can set up a system to handle whatever we decided the problem was and we can fix it because if we do that we will have a better world. So outlaw free speech because those horrid Becks and Limbaughs of this world are inciting to violence. Put the Palins of this world in jail so they can't push anyone else over the edge. Please don't tell me he was crazy, though, because that one's a little tougher. Well, okay, so we lock up the crazies and that should solve the problem.
Because what we want is "a better world". And what we seek is "an easy answer". If we can nail down a simple problem, we can solve it because we believe that we can solve all our problems eventually and utopia is just around the corner. The simple fact that the heart of man is evil is not an acceptable answer. "You're pointing fingers at me?" We want solutions that are outside of us. Tell me that those rotten conservatives are warmongering idiots. We can arrest them. Tell me that those evil liberals are subversive traitors. We can vote them out. Tell me that his brain chemistry malfunctioned. We can medicate him. But don't tell me that the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked. That's not a problem we can solve. That would simply mean that the worst of us -- the Christians -- are right and the only solution is Christ. And the suggestion would then be that we will not be able to solve the problems of our world and create a utopia!
Yes, that's right.
So ... who are we going to blame and what are we going to do about it when we do?
Oh, wait, that doesn't quite fit, does it? Well, yes, it does. You see, why we want to know why is telling. Take the Tucson shooting. We want to know why Jared Loughner bought a gun, walked into a friendly "meet and greet" with Rep. Giffords, and started shooting. We have our answers, of course. It's the evil conservatives spouting harsh rhetoric. No, no, it was those target symbols on Palin's map. Well, don't be silly, it's clearly the right wing whackos who are opposed to abortion! What? What kind of idiot are you?! It was the whole tea party thing! Actually, it's the gun lobby and their stupid Second Amendment. Naw! It was just that he was clinically insane.
Okay, maybe we don't have an answer. But we want one and we'll fill in the blanks as we see fit. You see, what we want are answers to the tragedies we see. They can be terrorists or mad gunmen or on-the-job injuries, but we want answers. That way, you see, we can forget about it. We can set up a system to handle whatever we decided the problem was and we can fix it because if we do that we will have a better world. So outlaw free speech because those horrid Becks and Limbaughs of this world are inciting to violence. Put the Palins of this world in jail so they can't push anyone else over the edge. Please don't tell me he was crazy, though, because that one's a little tougher. Well, okay, so we lock up the crazies and that should solve the problem.
Because what we want is "a better world". And what we seek is "an easy answer". If we can nail down a simple problem, we can solve it because we believe that we can solve all our problems eventually and utopia is just around the corner. The simple fact that the heart of man is evil is not an acceptable answer. "You're pointing fingers at me?" We want solutions that are outside of us. Tell me that those rotten conservatives are warmongering idiots. We can arrest them. Tell me that those evil liberals are subversive traitors. We can vote them out. Tell me that his brain chemistry malfunctioned. We can medicate him. But don't tell me that the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked. That's not a problem we can solve. That would simply mean that the worst of us -- the Christians -- are right and the only solution is Christ. And the suggestion would then be that we will not be able to solve the problems of our world and create a utopia!
Yes, that's right.
So ... who are we going to blame and what are we going to do about it when we do?
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Wrong Answers
You'd have to have your head in a bucket to not know that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a democrat from Arizona, was shot in a rampage this last Saturday. It's a horrifying story. A crazed (that's how he's described by eyewitnesses and by the subsequent examination of his life) gunman walked up and started shooting. Eighteen people were shot. Six of them died. Among them was the chief U.S. District judge of Arizona, John M. Roll, and little Christina Taylor Green, age 9, born on Sept. 11, 2001. It is indeed horrifying. It is sad for those shot and sad for the families who lost loved ones and sad for Rep Giffords' husband who is likely holding his breath waiting for the outcome.
What is stunning to me is the response. Pima County (where the shooting took place) Sheriff Clarence Dupnik "denounced the nation's vitriolic political climate and noted Arizona's part in the rancor after a controversial crackdown on illegal immigration," according to the Washington Post. He is quoted as saying, "The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous, and unfortunately Arizona has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry." There you have it. The reason this shooting took place was because Arizona has been trying to crack down on illegal immigration. It is our racist bigotry. That's what caused it.
No, of course that's not the argument (even though that seems to be Sheriff Dupnik's point). I heard it from all over. It's the general climate in this country of political conflict. One writer at the New Yorker says, "Whatever drove Jared Lee Loughner, America's political frequencies are full of violent static." And he's not unclear on who the real culprits are. It's those darn conservatives. "For the past two years, many conservative leaders, activists, and media figures have made a habit of trying to delegitimize their political opponents," he writes and goes on to explain the horrible use of terms like "treason". Even that horrendous "reading of the Constitution" the other day was clearly an assault on the Democrats. It's coming from everywhere. It's this climate of conflict that caused it. And this climate of conflict is almost exclusively the conservatives ... especially folks like Beck, Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin. This, of course, isn't the only odd take. Some are saying that it's due to pro-lifers. You see, Giffords was strongly pro-abortion, so clearly it was the conservatives who caused this. Very clearly it is the conservatives in general and the tea party folks in particular that caused this tragedy.
There is an underlying premise for the "it's the national climate of conflict" argument that baffles me. The premise is, "If we were just nicer to each other, then no one would shoot anyone." The originating idea is that people are basically good, and if we would just encourage that "good" in people, nothing bad would ever happen. Nonsense!
The facts don't match the positions. Loughner, the gunman, is described as "an unstable left-wing activist". He hates religion, likes Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto, and cannot be found connected in any way to the tag "conservative". But more than that, the nonsense that "today's climate of political conflict" is the cause fails completely to take into account that political shootings have taken place for centuries, and that humans are sinful at their core, not "nice guys" just waiting to be warmed into being good. Hunting down the evil conservatives to solve this problem won't solve this problem. It won't even be a good band aid.
Side question: Do those who are blaming conservatives, the tea party, Rush Limbaugh, or those who oppose illegal immigration really think that making these outrageous accusations will help diminish the atmosphere of contention?
What is stunning to me is the response. Pima County (where the shooting took place) Sheriff Clarence Dupnik "denounced the nation's vitriolic political climate and noted Arizona's part in the rancor after a controversial crackdown on illegal immigration," according to the Washington Post. He is quoted as saying, "The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous, and unfortunately Arizona has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry." There you have it. The reason this shooting took place was because Arizona has been trying to crack down on illegal immigration. It is our racist bigotry. That's what caused it.
No, of course that's not the argument (even though that seems to be Sheriff Dupnik's point). I heard it from all over. It's the general climate in this country of political conflict. One writer at the New Yorker says, "Whatever drove Jared Lee Loughner, America's political frequencies are full of violent static." And he's not unclear on who the real culprits are. It's those darn conservatives. "For the past two years, many conservative leaders, activists, and media figures have made a habit of trying to delegitimize their political opponents," he writes and goes on to explain the horrible use of terms like "treason". Even that horrendous "reading of the Constitution" the other day was clearly an assault on the Democrats. It's coming from everywhere. It's this climate of conflict that caused it. And this climate of conflict is almost exclusively the conservatives ... especially folks like Beck, Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin. This, of course, isn't the only odd take. Some are saying that it's due to pro-lifers. You see, Giffords was strongly pro-abortion, so clearly it was the conservatives who caused this. Very clearly it is the conservatives in general and the tea party folks in particular that caused this tragedy.
There is an underlying premise for the "it's the national climate of conflict" argument that baffles me. The premise is, "If we were just nicer to each other, then no one would shoot anyone." The originating idea is that people are basically good, and if we would just encourage that "good" in people, nothing bad would ever happen. Nonsense!
The facts don't match the positions. Loughner, the gunman, is described as "an unstable left-wing activist". He hates religion, likes Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto, and cannot be found connected in any way to the tag "conservative". But more than that, the nonsense that "today's climate of political conflict" is the cause fails completely to take into account that political shootings have taken place for centuries, and that humans are sinful at their core, not "nice guys" just waiting to be warmed into being good. Hunting down the evil conservatives to solve this problem won't solve this problem. It won't even be a good band aid.
Side question: Do those who are blaming conservatives, the tea party, Rush Limbaugh, or those who oppose illegal immigration really think that making these outrageous accusations will help diminish the atmosphere of contention?
Monday, January 10, 2011
No Evidence!
I cannot tell you how many times I've heard this, and it gets ... tedious. "There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God, so I don't believe in God." Oddly, it seems to baffle theists. "Oh, my! Where are we going to find scientific evidence for God?" Such nonsense!
Look, science is the study of the physical or material world through observation and experimentation. Good stuff. I'm all for it. So, let's see ... what would science tell us about something like, say, love? Well, they'll do some studies on the brain to see what chemicals are involved or some such, but does that actually tell us about love? Or freedom? Or how about "free will"? We know these things exist, but they are not physical or material, so science is going to have problems with them.
I work in electronics. I know how to use a voltmeter. You put these two wires on two sides of a circuit and the meter is (usually) quite good at telling you the voltage. Fancier ones might tell you the current. So, I have this circuit and it's making noise, okay? Do I hook up the voltmeter to see how loud my circuit is? Can my voltmeter tell me where the arcing is? No, not really. You see, voltmeters are designed to measure voltage not sound or light. Trying to measure sound or light with a device not designed to measure sound or light is foolishness, and if I conclude "There is no sound" because my meter failed to measure it, it is my mistake, not a problem with reality.
So we come to the concept of God. By first definition, "God" is supernatural. Whatever else you want to say about God, that's the first thing that has to be said. He is not physical or material. He is not part of nature. So tell me, please, how you would go about measuring the existence of God with a voltmeter? How can science, the study of the physical, natural world be expected to measure a supernatural being?
Now, I know how these arguments go. "Well, you should be able to find some evidence for His existence!" they will say (ignoring completely the point just made). Fine. There is such evidence. That's the job of apologetics, and there are large quantities of evidence. When the inquirer decides to reject evidence, then it is not a case of "There is no evidence", is it? No, that would be a case of "I don't accept the evidence." And that's perfectly within their rights, I'm sure. But don't go on spouting, "There is no evidence for the existence of God!" It's not reasonable. And "reasonable" is a good thing, right?
Look, science is the study of the physical or material world through observation and experimentation. Good stuff. I'm all for it. So, let's see ... what would science tell us about something like, say, love? Well, they'll do some studies on the brain to see what chemicals are involved or some such, but does that actually tell us about love? Or freedom? Or how about "free will"? We know these things exist, but they are not physical or material, so science is going to have problems with them.
I work in electronics. I know how to use a voltmeter. You put these two wires on two sides of a circuit and the meter is (usually) quite good at telling you the voltage. Fancier ones might tell you the current. So, I have this circuit and it's making noise, okay? Do I hook up the voltmeter to see how loud my circuit is? Can my voltmeter tell me where the arcing is? No, not really. You see, voltmeters are designed to measure voltage not sound or light. Trying to measure sound or light with a device not designed to measure sound or light is foolishness, and if I conclude "There is no sound" because my meter failed to measure it, it is my mistake, not a problem with reality.
So we come to the concept of God. By first definition, "God" is supernatural. Whatever else you want to say about God, that's the first thing that has to be said. He is not physical or material. He is not part of nature. So tell me, please, how you would go about measuring the existence of God with a voltmeter? How can science, the study of the physical, natural world be expected to measure a supernatural being?
Now, I know how these arguments go. "Well, you should be able to find some evidence for His existence!" they will say (ignoring completely the point just made). Fine. There is such evidence. That's the job of apologetics, and there are large quantities of evidence. When the inquirer decides to reject evidence, then it is not a case of "There is no evidence", is it? No, that would be a case of "I don't accept the evidence." And that's perfectly within their rights, I'm sure. But don't go on spouting, "There is no evidence for the existence of God!" It's not reasonable. And "reasonable" is a good thing, right?
Sunday, January 09, 2011
Is That All There Is?
Peggy Lee made the song a hit in 1969 -- Is That All There Is?. It's the cynic's song. It's about seeing various parts of life -- the family home burning down, a visit to the circus, falling in love, likely dying -- and how it was all pointless, unfulfilling, flat.
The first requires a presupposition: "What I sense and experience defines reality." I would like to suggest that, while this is certainly the perceived starting point of most all of us, it is inaccurate. It denies the spiritual realm, an absolute must in today's materialist world and the absolute contradiction to Christianity. First, there is much more out there than what you sense. Second, the Bible assures us that "the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked" ... that what you do sense you may very well lie about to yourself.
The second concept, "It's not enough", is also a likely starting point for a lot of people. Paul didn't suggest his position was the common one when he said, "I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am." Contentment doesn't come easy to us humans. But if "I can do all things through Him who strengthens me", then it is the only reasonable place for a Christian to stand.
So, why is this a Sunday post? I am using it as a jumping off place ... for you to consider. Remember, what you sense does not necessarily define reality. So keep in mind at church, you have not come to a building with a few people, some nice singing, and a pleasant sermon. "You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel" (Heb 12:22-24). No, you don't sense it, perhaps, but that doesn't make it any less real. So when you come away from that, don't catch yourself asking, "Is that all there is?" It's very unlikely that there could possibly be more. It's more likely that you missed all that there is. Don't.
Chorus:There are two statements in this song. First is the obvious -- "Is that all there is?" -- and then there's the implied -- "It's not enough."
Is that all there is? is that all there is?
If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing.
Let's break out the booze and have a ball
If that's all there is.
The first requires a presupposition: "What I sense and experience defines reality." I would like to suggest that, while this is certainly the perceived starting point of most all of us, it is inaccurate. It denies the spiritual realm, an absolute must in today's materialist world and the absolute contradiction to Christianity. First, there is much more out there than what you sense. Second, the Bible assures us that "the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked" ... that what you do sense you may very well lie about to yourself.
The second concept, "It's not enough", is also a likely starting point for a lot of people. Paul didn't suggest his position was the common one when he said, "I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am." Contentment doesn't come easy to us humans. But if "I can do all things through Him who strengthens me", then it is the only reasonable place for a Christian to stand.
So, why is this a Sunday post? I am using it as a jumping off place ... for you to consider. Remember, what you sense does not necessarily define reality. So keep in mind at church, you have not come to a building with a few people, some nice singing, and a pleasant sermon. "You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel" (Heb 12:22-24). No, you don't sense it, perhaps, but that doesn't make it any less real. So when you come away from that, don't catch yourself asking, "Is that all there is?" It's very unlikely that there could possibly be more. It's more likely that you missed all that there is. Don't.
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy
Orthodoxy at its roots means "right thinking". Thus, orthopraxy is "right acting". There is a constant disagreement in Christendom, especially of late, as to which is more important. In America today orthodoxy is not of much importance at all to most. No, no, as long as you do what's right, that's what is important. And the argument goes that Jesus never lectured on the Trinity or explained the nuances of the Atonement or any such thing. He said things like "By their fruits you shall know them." So? What's the question? Jesus preferred orthopraxy over orthodoxy, right?
I'd like to submit an idea here. In the Sermon on the Mount we find six times when Jesus says "You have heard ... but I say ...". Each of the things we have heard are actions -- orthopraxy. But Jesus throws a wrench into the works. We know, for instance, not to commit murder (wrong action), but Jesus says that if you're angry (wrong thinking), you're doing the same thing. We know that adultery is wrong (wrong action), but Jesus says that if you lust (wrong thinking), you're already committing adultery. And so it goes. It appears, from what Jesus says in these examples, that wrong thinking produces wrong actions. Therefore, right thinking (orthodoxy) is necessary for right actions (orthopraxy).
Just an idea.
I'd like to submit an idea here. In the Sermon on the Mount we find six times when Jesus says "You have heard ... but I say ...". Each of the things we have heard are actions -- orthopraxy. But Jesus throws a wrench into the works. We know, for instance, not to commit murder (wrong action), but Jesus says that if you're angry (wrong thinking), you're doing the same thing. We know that adultery is wrong (wrong action), but Jesus says that if you lust (wrong thinking), you're already committing adultery. And so it goes. It appears, from what Jesus says in these examples, that wrong thinking produces wrong actions. Therefore, right thinking (orthodoxy) is necessary for right actions (orthopraxy).
Just an idea.
Friday, January 07, 2011
The Rapture
Have you heard? We now have it on good authority that the Rapture will take place on May 21, 2011. I am disappointed that the prediction isn't specific enough to tell me what time. I like to be punctual, you know, and, besides, it lets me plan my day. You know, like waiting for the cable repair guy all day when it would have been easier if you had a time window. But, hey, I suppose beggars can't be choosers.
Of course, I'm being a little sarcastic. I don't believe for a moment that Harold Camping is correct. I mean, everyone knows that the world will end in 2012. What's up with this "2011" stuff?
Okay, so maybe I'm not just a little sarcastic. But, seriously, I do not buy Camping's stuff. I mean, he got it wrong in 1994. Why would I think he's right today? (Remember, the biblical standard for "prophet" is 100% accuracy. That would make him a ... say it with me ... false prophet.) So he has been wrong before and it doesn't align with Scripture (like the verses that say "No man knows" this information). Sorry, Harry. I'm not going along with you.
And then, at the back of my mind, without any sense of reality or rationality, I find this longing, this hope, this "wishful thinking". "Ah, but what if he's right? I mean, no, absolutely, he's not, but ... wouldn't it be grand to be going home to the Father so soon?" Even rationalists need to have dreams sometimes.
Of course, I'm being a little sarcastic. I don't believe for a moment that Harold Camping is correct. I mean, everyone knows that the world will end in 2012. What's up with this "2011" stuff?
Okay, so maybe I'm not just a little sarcastic. But, seriously, I do not buy Camping's stuff. I mean, he got it wrong in 1994. Why would I think he's right today? (Remember, the biblical standard for "prophet" is 100% accuracy. That would make him a ... say it with me ... false prophet.) So he has been wrong before and it doesn't align with Scripture (like the verses that say "No man knows" this information). Sorry, Harry. I'm not going along with you.
And then, at the back of my mind, without any sense of reality or rationality, I find this longing, this hope, this "wishful thinking". "Ah, but what if he's right? I mean, no, absolutely, he's not, but ... wouldn't it be grand to be going home to the Father so soon?" Even rationalists need to have dreams sometimes.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Crying with the Saints
I heard that Billy Joel song the other day, Only the Good Die Young. His line is interesting: “I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.” Because, you see, being a “saint” – a “good person” – is a sad and miserable thing, right?
Well, I suppose it would be easy to make such a mistake. How many of the religious folk you know are sober, dour, doleful, and probably a host of other synonyms for the idea of unhappy? They never seem to have fun, and if they do have fun it’s either “fun” pointing righteously indignant fingers at others having fun or in secret indulgences of things they are pointing fingers at others for doing. Seriously, this idea of the unhappy saint is something that unhappy saints have brought about.
What is most startling, perhaps, is the fact that it collides with Scripture. Think, for instance, how many times you see the word “blessed”. We would use it to express that someone is fortunate, favored, or happy. It’s a good thing. Or consider the fruit of the Spirit. Number 2 on the list is “joy”. Joy is a state of delight, pleasure, gaiety, happiness. Now, of course, we can quibble over words – that perhaps “joy” and “happy” are different – but no one can say that they are not related. And joy is not merely a fruit; it is a command. In his epistle to the church at Philippi Paul writes, “My brothers, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you is no trouble to me and is safe for you” (Phil 3:1). He goes on to say, “Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice” (Phil 4:4). You have to admit, a repeated message is an emphasized message ... and this one is repeated repeatedly. We are commanded to be joyful and commended for contentedness.
So … why is it that Billy Joel and most of the rest of the world tends to think of saints as crying? Why do believers, those of us carrying around the Good News, come across too often as unhappy folk? Why are we not marked by the joy of the Lord? That, if you recall, was what Nehemiah considered our strength!
I’d like to submit that if you are not joyful, if you are among the “crying saints”, if you are not marked by the joy of the Lord, you’re missing out. You are failing to get it. Your “good news” isn’t so good. I think it’s something I need to visit myself more often – the concept of finding my full satisfaction in the glory of God. Seriously, what more joy could there be than being a saint, a “set-apart” one, chosen by God, redeemed, in Christ, filled with the Spirit – oh, I’m sure you can fill in more – what better place can you be? And if “the pursuit of happiness” is indeed a divine right, what more happiness can there be than being in Christ? So ... what does my life reflect? I’d rather laugh with the saints.
Well, I suppose it would be easy to make such a mistake. How many of the religious folk you know are sober, dour, doleful, and probably a host of other synonyms for the idea of unhappy? They never seem to have fun, and if they do have fun it’s either “fun” pointing righteously indignant fingers at others having fun or in secret indulgences of things they are pointing fingers at others for doing. Seriously, this idea of the unhappy saint is something that unhappy saints have brought about.
What is most startling, perhaps, is the fact that it collides with Scripture. Think, for instance, how many times you see the word “blessed”. We would use it to express that someone is fortunate, favored, or happy. It’s a good thing. Or consider the fruit of the Spirit. Number 2 on the list is “joy”. Joy is a state of delight, pleasure, gaiety, happiness. Now, of course, we can quibble over words – that perhaps “joy” and “happy” are different – but no one can say that they are not related. And joy is not merely a fruit; it is a command. In his epistle to the church at Philippi Paul writes, “My brothers, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you is no trouble to me and is safe for you” (Phil 3:1). He goes on to say, “Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice” (Phil 4:4). You have to admit, a repeated message is an emphasized message ... and this one is repeated repeatedly. We are commanded to be joyful and commended for contentedness.
So … why is it that Billy Joel and most of the rest of the world tends to think of saints as crying? Why do believers, those of us carrying around the Good News, come across too often as unhappy folk? Why are we not marked by the joy of the Lord? That, if you recall, was what Nehemiah considered our strength!
I’d like to submit that if you are not joyful, if you are among the “crying saints”, if you are not marked by the joy of the Lord, you’re missing out. You are failing to get it. Your “good news” isn’t so good. I think it’s something I need to visit myself more often – the concept of finding my full satisfaction in the glory of God. Seriously, what more joy could there be than being a saint, a “set-apart” one, chosen by God, redeemed, in Christ, filled with the Spirit – oh, I’m sure you can fill in more – what better place can you be? And if “the pursuit of happiness” is indeed a divine right, what more happiness can there be than being in Christ? So ... what does my life reflect? I’d rather laugh with the saints.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Habakkuk on America
Dear Lord,
I look around me and I see decline. I see sin becoming rampant. I see what was abominable becoming adorable. I see destruction and violence and strife and contention. I see your law ignored and justice withheld. I see the wicked surrounding the righteous. How long, dear Lord, will you wait to send relief?
Sincerely,
Habakkuk
Dear Habakkuk,
Be astonished! Wonder! Because I am doing something in your time that you would not believe if I told you. I am raising up forces of evil -- fierce, impetuous evil, dreaded and feared, showing no regard to anyone but themselves. I will use them to judge your nation.
Signed,
YHWH
Dear Lord,
I take it back. Never mind. Let's just go on the way it is, okay?
Sincerely,
Habakkuk
Of course, Habakkuk wasn't writing about America; it was Israel. And the "forces of evil" that God was calling had a name -- the Chaldeans. And it did happen as He said it would. And, oh yeah, Habakkuk never said, "I take it back. Never mind." No, that would likely be our response.
Still, the parallels are really close and, when you think about it, a little bit frightening. Good thing we have a good God. (That doesn't mean we're safe from temporal judgment. It just means that if/when He does it, it will be good.)
I look around me and I see decline. I see sin becoming rampant. I see what was abominable becoming adorable. I see destruction and violence and strife and contention. I see your law ignored and justice withheld. I see the wicked surrounding the righteous. How long, dear Lord, will you wait to send relief?
Sincerely,
Habakkuk
Dear Habakkuk,
Be astonished! Wonder! Because I am doing something in your time that you would not believe if I told you. I am raising up forces of evil -- fierce, impetuous evil, dreaded and feared, showing no regard to anyone but themselves. I will use them to judge your nation.
Signed,
YHWH
Dear Lord,
I take it back. Never mind. Let's just go on the way it is, okay?
Sincerely,
Habakkuk
Of course, Habakkuk wasn't writing about America; it was Israel. And the "forces of evil" that God was calling had a name -- the Chaldeans. And it did happen as He said it would. And, oh yeah, Habakkuk never said, "I take it back. Never mind." No, that would likely be our response.
Still, the parallels are really close and, when you think about it, a little bit frightening. Good thing we have a good God. (That doesn't mean we're safe from temporal judgment. It just means that if/when He does it, it will be good.)
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Consent
Every day it seems another adult is charged with molesting children. It is, perhaps, the most disgusting, despicable crime we can conceive. But what you must not ask is ... why? Why is it so wrong?
You see, our society has always believed that children (those under the age of 21 before and now more likely 18 ... sometimes less) should be protected from sexual relationships. We've had statutory rape laws on the books for a long time. The fact that the minor agreed to do it is irrelevant in these cases. They didn't "consent". Consent, you see, is the prime factor.
We all understand the term "consenting adults". That is sacrosanct. Essentially whatever "consenting adults" want to do is okay, even moral ... you know, as long as it's just between/among consenting adults. Consent is the issue. And children cannot give consent. The legal term is "informed consent". The idea is that to give consent you must fully understand the concepts and ramifications and minors just don't have all that is required to give that level of consent.
And that's where it has gone. Why is it wrong -- immoral -- to engage in sexual relations with minors? Because they can't give consent. I've even seen this argument offered to explain why it's wrong to engage in sexual relations with animals. Seriously! They can't give consent. That's why. Any moral person knows that consent defines morality.
Of course, today's society is moving away from the idea that minors can't give consent. There is no end of those who will argue, "Why is it wrong for a 21-year-old to engage in sexual relations with a 14-year-old if they both agree to it?" Consent, you see. And the age limits are dropping. There are even voices that argue that there should be no age limit. Consent is the only issue. Consent is the gold standard for sexual morality. Consent: to give assent or approval. That is, "I agree to do what is before me. It is what I want." Or, to put it another way, "what I want" is the final definition of morality. When we have arrived at "consent" as the definition of "moral" -- and I think we have in the arena of sexual morality -- there is very little reason to consider just about any sexual behavior between or among "consenting adults" as immoral. Gender? Irrelevant. Polyamory? Who cares? And the arguments for pedophilia and bestiality won't be far behind. When "what I feel like" becomes the definition of "what is good", there are very few limits to what we will do. Unfortunately, it appears that this is the aim of some.
You see, our society has always believed that children (those under the age of 21 before and now more likely 18 ... sometimes less) should be protected from sexual relationships. We've had statutory rape laws on the books for a long time. The fact that the minor agreed to do it is irrelevant in these cases. They didn't "consent". Consent, you see, is the prime factor.
We all understand the term "consenting adults". That is sacrosanct. Essentially whatever "consenting adults" want to do is okay, even moral ... you know, as long as it's just between/among consenting adults. Consent is the issue. And children cannot give consent. The legal term is "informed consent". The idea is that to give consent you must fully understand the concepts and ramifications and minors just don't have all that is required to give that level of consent.
And that's where it has gone. Why is it wrong -- immoral -- to engage in sexual relations with minors? Because they can't give consent. I've even seen this argument offered to explain why it's wrong to engage in sexual relations with animals. Seriously! They can't give consent. That's why. Any moral person knows that consent defines morality.
Of course, today's society is moving away from the idea that minors can't give consent. There is no end of those who will argue, "Why is it wrong for a 21-year-old to engage in sexual relations with a 14-year-old if they both agree to it?" Consent, you see. And the age limits are dropping. There are even voices that argue that there should be no age limit. Consent is the only issue. Consent is the gold standard for sexual morality. Consent: to give assent or approval. That is, "I agree to do what is before me. It is what I want." Or, to put it another way, "what I want" is the final definition of morality. When we have arrived at "consent" as the definition of "moral" -- and I think we have in the arena of sexual morality -- there is very little reason to consider just about any sexual behavior between or among "consenting adults" as immoral. Gender? Irrelevant. Polyamory? Who cares? And the arguments for pedophilia and bestiality won't be far behind. When "what I feel like" becomes the definition of "what is good", there are very few limits to what we will do. Unfortunately, it appears that this is the aim of some.
Monday, January 03, 2011
Faith Precedes Regeneration?
I've argued for some time that the Bible requires that for the Natural Man to come to faith he must first be regenerated. I've offered a host of Scriptures and biblical reasons for this. It is, in fact, the most basic differentiation between "Arminian" and "Calvinist". Everything else flows from there.
Arminians, of course, have always sought for proof of their position: Faith precedes regeneration. The assumption is that because it has been prevalent for so long it has always been prevalent. In truth, it's a fairly young idea in terms of prevalence, a spawn of Charles Finney's position that humans have all it takes to be saved. He is the one that popularized the "altar call" and made "decisional regeneration" the position of so many today. But I need to be fair. It is highly unlikely that the people today who argue for decisional regeneration -- the idea that faith precedes regeneration, that we are regenerated after we believe -- do so out of loyalty to Finney. So let's set that aside. If we are charitable to each other, it must be clear that we each hold our position based on Scripture, not on "Calvin" or "Arminius" or "Pelagian" or "Finney" or whatever other source you might wish to quote.
The "killer" verse, then, that has been hoisted up the flag pole most recently is from John 1:
First, let's acknowledge that this passage can suggest this sequence. That is, to believe this line of reasoning is not "mutilating" the passage. So, admitting that, why would I think otherwise? Well, there is a massive amount of Scripture that suggests that this sequence is impossible. (I'm not bringing it up again; you can find it.) So I'm faced with an apparent contradiction. Either all of the plain stuff I read elsewhere is wrong (or my understanding of it is wrong), or this doesn't say what they say it says. So I read this over again.
What do I see? I see an affirmation that regeneration must precede faith. How? Well, it goes like this:
* Who was adopted (given the right to be called the sons of God)? Those who received Christ.
* Who received Christ? Those who believed.
* How does one believe? By being born of God.
* How is one born of God? It is not of human origin in any sense at all.
The Arminian holds that we believe by our own faith, our own choice, our own effort. (I know, "effort" is not a word they'll accept. Fine.) Of course, that's with God's urging and pleading and calling and all that, but the final choice is ours. This is "decisional regeneration" -- we decide -> God regenerates. As for me, I cannot see in what possible sense I can understand John 1:13 to say with such emphasis that it's not in any way, shape, or form a human thing and still mean that, in the final analysis, it's human belief that finalizes the deal.
I have to believe, then, that regeneration precedes faith, and that John 1:12-13 agrees. I do not believe this alone. Here is a short list of those who write about regeneration, faith, and John 1:12-13:
Founders Ministries
Asahel Nettleton
theopedia
Robert Reymond
Reformation Theology
J.I. Packer
Regeneration
Grace Valley Christian Center
letusreason.org
Challies.com
Jeff Paton
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
On Southern Baptist Eisegesis
The Way of Salvation
(I'm not providing the link, but Paul Washer considers decisional regeneration "idolatry".)
Now, numbers do not make something true (as the whole global warming fiasco has shown), but it's worth considering the ideas presented in all these cases, isn't it? And, if not, perhaps one of you kind folks can help me out with the vast numbers of passages I'm having troubles with like this and this and, for good measure, all of this. I'll just be waiting over here. Thanks.
Update:
And then Pastor John Samson over at Effectual Grace posts this. Seriously, we are not in cahoots.
Arminians, of course, have always sought for proof of their position: Faith precedes regeneration. The assumption is that because it has been prevalent for so long it has always been prevalent. In truth, it's a fairly young idea in terms of prevalence, a spawn of Charles Finney's position that humans have all it takes to be saved. He is the one that popularized the "altar call" and made "decisional regeneration" the position of so many today. But I need to be fair. It is highly unlikely that the people today who argue for decisional regeneration -- the idea that faith precedes regeneration, that we are regenerated after we believe -- do so out of loyalty to Finney. So let's set that aside. If we are charitable to each other, it must be clear that we each hold our position based on Scripture, not on "Calvin" or "Arminius" or "Pelagian" or "Finney" or whatever other source you might wish to quote.
The "killer" verse, then, that has been hoisted up the flag pole most recently is from John 1:
He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:11-13).Follow the reasoning. Some did not receive Him. Those who did receive Him did so by means of belief. When they believed they were given the right to be children of God. Thus "believe" clearly precedes "children of God", or faith precedes regeneration. The suggestion has even been made that anyone who believes otherwise is a mutilator of Scripture.
First, let's acknowledge that this passage can suggest this sequence. That is, to believe this line of reasoning is not "mutilating" the passage. So, admitting that, why would I think otherwise? Well, there is a massive amount of Scripture that suggests that this sequence is impossible. (I'm not bringing it up again; you can find it.) So I'm faced with an apparent contradiction. Either all of the plain stuff I read elsewhere is wrong (or my understanding of it is wrong), or this doesn't say what they say it says. So I read this over again.
What do I see? I see an affirmation that regeneration must precede faith. How? Well, it goes like this:
* Who was adopted (given the right to be called the sons of God)? Those who received Christ.
* Who received Christ? Those who believed.
* How does one believe? By being born of God.
* How is one born of God? It is not of human origin in any sense at all.
The Arminian holds that we believe by our own faith, our own choice, our own effort. (I know, "effort" is not a word they'll accept. Fine.) Of course, that's with God's urging and pleading and calling and all that, but the final choice is ours. This is "decisional regeneration" -- we decide -> God regenerates. As for me, I cannot see in what possible sense I can understand John 1:13 to say with such emphasis that it's not in any way, shape, or form a human thing and still mean that, in the final analysis, it's human belief that finalizes the deal.
I have to believe, then, that regeneration precedes faith, and that John 1:12-13 agrees. I do not believe this alone. Here is a short list of those who write about regeneration, faith, and John 1:12-13:
Founders Ministries
Asahel Nettleton
theopedia
Robert Reymond
Reformation Theology
J.I. Packer
Regeneration
Grace Valley Christian Center
letusreason.org
Challies.com
Jeff Paton
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
On Southern Baptist Eisegesis
The Way of Salvation
(I'm not providing the link, but Paul Washer considers decisional regeneration "idolatry".)
Now, numbers do not make something true (as the whole global warming fiasco has shown), but it's worth considering the ideas presented in all these cases, isn't it? And, if not, perhaps one of you kind folks can help me out with the vast numbers of passages I'm having troubles with like this and this and, for good measure, all of this. I'll just be waiting over here. Thanks.
Update:
And then Pastor John Samson over at Effectual Grace posts this. Seriously, we are not in cahoots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)