Baffled

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

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

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

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

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

Law and Morality

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

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

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

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

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

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

So Tired

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spiritual Blessing

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

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

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

I Don't Get It

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objection Answered

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's Your Bill

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

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

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

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

Prisoner of Knowledge

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

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

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

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

Tentative Theology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Against Middle Knowledge

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

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

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

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

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

Miracles

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

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

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

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

Doin' What Comes Natur'ly

Someone once told me, "If you want to know the right thing to do in any given situation, just think about what you would naturally do ... and do the opposite." The idea, humorously put, is relatively simple. Humans are sinful. The "natural" thing for humans to do, then, is to sin. Want to avoid sin? Do something different.

I can see the wisdom in the basic concept. It is, in fact, that wisdom that gives me pause. You see, it seems to me that there is some of our own theology that is much more comfortable as "natural" than, well, supernatural. While it isn't necessarily a genuine test of doctrine that it violates my natural inclinations, it does make me a little nervous when the Natural Man is quite comfortable with it.

Take, for instance, the very popular notion of the supremacy of Man's Free Will. The most prevalent view these days is that God would never interfere with Man's Free Will. And most of us don't bat an eye at the suggestion. Why? Well ... it feels right. Oh, you know how it goes. "God doesn't want robots." Or maybe you prefer "Love isn't real if it isn't freely exercised. God wants us to really love Him." So for the most part the notion of Man's Free Will as inviolable is just taken for granted ... because it is so natural. Of course, some recognize that it may be challenged, so they develop a structure to support it. "Oh, yes, it's true, because if God violated our Free Will He couldn't hold us morally culpable." Ah, there, see? All settled. And if I raise the question of God's Sovereignty, you'll likely hear, "Well, God in His sovereignty has chosen to surrender some of His sovereignty to Man's Free Will." That ought to clear things up ... right?

Here's the problem. You don't find this in Scripture. Nowhere in the Bible do you find "free will". You find the implication that humans are (obviously) capable of making choices and you find the certainty that God doesn't tempt anyone with evil, but that's about it. This entire notion of the supreme, inviolable Free Will of Man cannot be found anywhere. On the other hand, there are a lot of references (some, in fact, can be disturbing) to God making choices for people. There are multiple passages that reference both God's predestination of events and Man's culpability for his choices in those events. In other words, the biblical vision of God's Sovereignty seems to be at odds with the popular version of the sovereignty of Man's Free Will.

But this is just one example. If you look around long enough, you'll start to find that 1) there are lots of notions that are popular in the church today that have little or no biblical backing, and 2) they are very comfortable because they appear so natural. Unfortunately, when you compare these with Scripture (and evident reason), you start running into real problems. I've found "Christian" groups that defend homosexual behavior, adultery, fornication, and just about any sort of sexual sin. On what basis? Well, you start with "it feels natural" and then you go to work rearranging Scripture to match and -- voilà! -- you have a natural doctrine. Why is it that the Church in America is looking more and more like the world? Because it comes naturally. So we modify our standards to what feels more natural rather than what the Word says. Why is it that the doctrine of Original Sin and the suggestion that there is no such thing as a "good person" is so abhorrent to so many Christians? Because it doesn't come naturally and we are more and more inclined to go with our natural intentions rather than the biblical version.

As I said, "natural" is not a genuine test of good doctrine. Still, if Natural Man is unable to understand the things of God (1 Cor 2:14) and humans are inclined naturally to evil from birth (Gen 8:21), perhaps it would be wise to keep an eye on it. Doing what comes naturally may sound right ... but it doesn't work out that way if the Bible is correct. Something to think about in my view.

Losers' Club

The Bible is full of losers. It is, in fact, one of the reasons given to confirm its authenticity. If you wanted to write a story about your heroes, it is likely that you would leave out their foibles and failures. No, no, just exhibit them as heroes! But we have Adam who fell at the first opportunity and Noah who got drunk and Abraham who lied about his wife and ... on and on it goes.

At some point the number of losers in the Bible starts to become an encouragement. I mean, if someone as shaky as Abraham can be God's chosen man, then things don't look as questionable for me. If King David, an admitted adulterer and murderer, can be called "a man after God's own heart", then there is hope for me. If Peter who promised to give his life for Christ and ended up denying even knowing Him can be one of the lead Apostles, maybe things could work out for me as well. If the author of most of the New Testament calls himself "chief among sinners", maybe God could have a use for me as well.

That's on a good day. There are other days that I begin to feel like a prime example. I begin to feel like people could look at me and say, "Well, if God could pull him out of the fire, I suppose there's hope for me." I suspect that's a more accurate self-evaluation. No, no, not better than Peter or David. No, a fortunate fellow given unmerited favor despite every possible reason not to be. If there's hope for me, there's hope for you.

When did grown-ups get so stupid?

When I was young I was taught that I had to respect my elders. They were the ones with the authority. More importantly, they held the wisdom of the ages. It only made sense that we should respect our elders. They were worthy of our respect.

Not so any more, apparently. Someplace between my childhood and today adults became foolish oafs. Doubt me? Look at any movie or television show today that involves children as main characters. You'll find in every case that these young little tots possess the wisdom of the ages. While foolish adults get caught up in foolish behavior, forgetting what is right or important, they are always set right by the sage advice of these astute ankle biters. It doesn't really seem to matter how old the adults are or how young the children are. Teenagers always know more than their parents. Young children are always more savvy than their babysitters. It never seems to fail.

You see, adults seem to have forgotten "the magic". Some stories hold that explicitly, of course, but it seems to be the theme. Adults think in terms of practicalities and logic and reason. Children, much more sagacious due, I suppose, to their vast life experience and higher learning capacities, are more in touch with their feelings. They will enlighten the adults that life ought not be lived rationally, but emotionally. You don't choose the right mate by thinking it through, for instance. No, no! You follow your heart. Duty and honor are far overrated. Living free is what is important. And rules are made to be broken, not followed. Where do foolish adults get silly notions like that? Follow rules ... sheesh! What nonsense! And children should be given what they want. It's only right. How could you think otherwise?

Other cultures still revere the older generation. Oriental societies think that older people have wisdom and younger people would do well to learn from them. Jewish homes used to teach their children "Honor your father and mother." Those silly Jewish people. They actually thought that "The glory of young men is their strength, And the honor of old men is their gray hair" (Prov 20:29). My, how fortunate we are to have evolved beyond that nonsense! Now we know that a lack of life experience and training serves much better. How lucky we are to have figured out the wisdom of children and the foolishness of adults. Such a shame that God was so confused about it, eh?

God would never ordain suffering

My wise mother once told me, "Never use 'never'." She was, of course, joking, but making a point at the same time. Use of superlatives like "always" and "never" are overrated and often wrong. In fact, in terms of arguments, generally the easiest arguments to disprove include "always" and "never". You see, all I have to do to disprove them is to demonstrate a contrary example and the argument is done. Often the whole idea collapses around itself.

So when I hear "God would never ordain suffering," I'm almost forced to disprove it. Never? Jude 1:4 says, "Certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were ordained for this condemnation ..." Now, without arguing about what "long ago" or "certain people" means, there is no doubt about what this verse says. Condemnation of some was ordained in advance. When and why may be questions to ask, but it is unavoidable that God has ordained suffering in this case.

"No, no," the protest rises. "It's not that God never ordains suffering. Of course sinners are ordained to suffer. It's the innocent. It is those who are His. He never ordains their suffering."

Well, there are a variety of ways to go here. How do you define "innocent"? We know that "all have sinned". But you probably (I say "probably" because I've seen too many Christians who mean that nearly everyone is innocent.) mean those who are saved. We could go through Paul's letters and see that God has granted us suffering or Peter's epistles to see that it is God's will that we suffer. But I don't need to go anywhere like that. Too much room for dispute. What is "innocent"? Who are "His"? Let's avoid all that.

How about the Son of God? I think we could all agree that He was thoroughly innocent. I think we could also agree that He belonged to God. We know that God said, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased." We have both, then -- He was innocent and was His. Peter claimed this: "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know -- this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men" (Acts 2:22-23). It wasn't merely Peter's idea. The disciples prayed, "'The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against His Anointed' -- for truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and your plan had predestined to take place (Acts 4:26-28)." Well, you remember Jesus, the Lamb. John called Him the Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world. Even in the midst of the events, Jesus told His disciples, "The Son of Man goes as it has been determined" (Luke 22:22). From these passages to the copious prophecies before His arrival, there can be no biblical doubt that Jesus's suffering on our behalf was God's primary plan ... from the beginning.

If God ordained the suffering of His sinless Son, then on what possible grounds can the argument be made, "God would never ordain suffering", even of the innocent? If Jesus embraced suffering under God's will (Phil 2:6-8), ought not we do the same? If we wish to identify ourselves as followers of Christ ("Christians"), ought not we do the same? Given the number of texts that assure us that suffering is for our benefit, can we do anything but embrace suffering? Does complaining about it make sense? I don't think so.

Secular Government

In a recent ruling, a federal judge in Madison WI declared the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional. Judge Barbara Crabb responded to a suit filed by the Freedom from Religion Foundation by saying it violates the 1st Amendment's ban on establishing religion. The ACLJ plans to appeal.

I'm baffled by the argument. No, not this one. The bigger one. The Freedom from Religion Foundation wants at the bottom line to exclude religion from government. The idea, it seems, is that religion should be in its venue and government should be purely secular. But how does this work?

Being secular is simply being separate from religion. Government, they assure us, must be completely separate from religion. Now, given that some 14% of Americans are either agnostic or atheist, that would suggest that something around 85% of us have religious beliefs. Religious beliefs have ramifications for life. Voting in anyone with religious beliefs would also suggest that they will carry those beliefs into their political arena. Of course, voting in only those of non-religious beliefs is an equally religious problem. It is the establishment of non-religion and will carry its own implications to religion. In other words, no matter who you vote in, it will have implications for government and religion.

Further, the vast majority of government has religious connections. No, I'm not talking about "In God We Trust" on our coins or "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm talking about things like the crime of murder which has been labeled a crime because of the Judeo-Christian ethic that Man was made in God's image. Other cultures don't share the same criminal code. But because of religious perceptions, many of our laws are crafted to reflect those perceptions. Our rights, in fact, were defended by the Bill of Rights because of the belief in a Creator who endowed them.

Eliminate religion from government and things will need to change if we are going to be consistent. Obviously "Under God" and "In God We Trust" have to go. All trappings of religion would need to follow. No congressional prayer. Holidays are gone, at least as far as the ones that have religious links. Many government entities close for Christmas, Thanksgiving, Good Friday, and more. Martin Luther King Day celebrates a man whose vision of racial equality was formed by his understanding of Christianity. That had better go. No member of the government would be allowed to vote his conscience if it was informed by religion. That, I suppose, would require thought police of some sort. Of course, some things would get easier. Defending human life would become a far lower priority. That's a religious value completely without basis in an irreligious government. Aiding others in crisis would stop. I mean, clearly it hasn't gotten us any allies for our generosity around the world, so what secular reason would there be to keep it up? Health care could go. Medicare and social security could be terminated. Taking care of people is primarily a religious notion. Oh, sure, some misguided anti-religious people care for others as well, but on what basis? Probably some leftover religious influence. Churches would lose their tax-free status. The concept of personal freedom would become harder to defend. (After all, we just eliminated our lawmakers' rights to vote their conscience, right?) The military could eliminate chaplains. Well, all chaplains related to anything government could go. Judges would stop sentencing alcoholics to AA. And on it goes. You see, religion has its fingers in everything. They would take quite a bit of prying to get out.

The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (For those sad Americans who don't understand that "respecting" in that sentence is not about "no law showing respect to", it actually means "no law in relation to".) The goal, as it turns out, of a genuinely secular government, is to outlaw religion. If, for instance, I was in government work and my beliefs mandate that I live my life by certain principles (as they do), this secularization would not allow me to freely exercise my religion. It would mandate that no one in government could freely exercise their religion. The positive values that religion offers would be erased from government, and government would become a frightening thing -- more than it is today. And what it is today is a product of some 50 years of the secularization of government. Are we sure we want to go that way?

Endangered

CBS Sunday Morning did a piece on endangered species. They told about the sad story of the Columbia Basin Pygmy Rabbit who recently went extinct. They listed various fish, flies, and other flora and fauna in danger of disappearing entirely. Why is this an issue? Well, because all animals have the right to exist. (They didn't say where that right came from.)

According to the official listings, there are something like 2,250 plants and animals on the list of endangered species maintained by the United States. This list includes everything from the 'Ahakea, a plant in Hawaii, to the Zerene Fritillary, a California insect. What is going on here? What is causing this horrible condition?

Well, according to endangeredspecie.com, the primary problem is habitat destruction. Normal destruction of habitat is typically slow and species have time to compensate, but humans, especially in the last century, have managed to impact every habitat. We are the problem. "Man was in the forest!"

We are ingenious in our destruction, it seems. Some of it is by greenhouse gases or by pollution or by overuse. But we're also to blame for introducing new species to areas in which they didn't originally live. Sometimes it was recreational and sometimes it was planned, but it seems to have always been wrong. We are, then, to blame for all these woes.

What are we to do? Well, there are certainly small things that could be accomplished. You could plant trees and bushes in your yard to create habitat for animals. Of course, they had better be native or you're in danger of introducing foreign plants that could cause their own set of problems. Recycling is a good idea, although the impact on the Earth's wildlife would be small. They recommend you eat organic food to avoid afflicting the planet with pesticides and the like. But it's hard to imagine how my family's consumption could cause any effect, so it must be that it needs to be far bigger than me.

Sadly, it seems as if there is no real hope. The only chance the world has is if we humans were to go extinct. As it turns out, this is exactly the call of some on the far liberal side. One commentary out of Berkeley says,"The only real, long term hope for the eco-sphere is a massive human population collapse, hopefully leading to the voluntary extinction of the human race." No, seriously. That is the call. Edna Spector begs the citizens of Berkeley to implement a No Child policy for all residents. She hopes they will set up euthanasia clinics with people "lined up for many blocks" to die.

"Nonsense!" you say? "Extremist!" you cry? Well, of course, for anyone who believes the Bible it is, but if you are convinced of Evolution as a purely natural, unguided process that made us, it is likely the only rational conclusion. Why should we be any better than the other animals? No, no, if we are going to secularize our world, the next logical step is to exit it with dignity since we, it seems, are the problem.

Before Time

In the question about God's Omniscience, the question arises, "What does God know about the future?" The classical, orthodox view would answer, "Everything." The standard view of Omniscience (capital "O") holds that God knows all things perfectly. He knows all contingencies, but knows nothing contingently. Of course, those who would argue for omniscience (lowercase "o") would argue that God cannot know the future because the future doesn't exist and, therefore, cannot be known.

When I run across passages like these, it makes me sit up and take notice:

He (God) chose us in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4).

And all who dwell on earth will worship (the Beast), everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain (Rev 13:8).

For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation ... (Jude 1:4)

... who (God) saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of His own purpose and grace, which He gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began (2 Tim 1:9).

Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by the command of God our Savior (Titus 1:1-3)

Perhaps you didn't catch the recurring theme. The repeated concept is about what God did before the foundation of the world. (Okay, it's not as easy to see in the Jude passage, but the text gets garbled because the literal translation is "before of time past". Same concept.)

Before there was anything but God, what did He do? He chose us in Christ. No, we didn't exist yet, but He chose us. He had a book -- a book titled "The Book of Life of the Lamb who was Slain". Note the implications. First, He already had the names of those whom He chose. Second, the Lamb was slain before He made Creation. It wasn't Plan B. It was the original plan from eternity. What else? He ordained some to condemnation. To us He gave grace. Got that? Before the ages began He gave us grace in Christ Jesus. Before we even failed to merit it, He gave us unmerited favor. And the Titus passage says that He promised before anything started eternal life for the elect.

Look, predestination and election and all that aside, this is really huge. He chose us. You can think of it as "He knew in advance who would believe in Him" or "He chose without respect to who would believe in Him", but it was all written down ... before He even started. It was all for His own purpose. It was all His initial plan. And it was all before any one of us existed.

When I read these passages of Scripture through the lense of an omniscient God, I find them odd, but when I see them in light of an Omniscient God, I'm awed.

That Doesn't Belong To You

Okay, the weekend is my least traffic, so maybe I can get away with this topic with a minimum amount of interaction. Well, I'll give it a shot.

The Bible has several places that talk about marital relations -- how marriage is supposed to work. One of the better known passages is in Paul's letter to the church at Corinth.

¹ Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." ² But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. ³ The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. ⁴ For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. ⁵ Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control (1 Cor 7:1-5).

I am not writing this on the topic of "same-sex marriage", but it's clear that Paul defines marriage as not only "man and woman", but "one man and woman". "Each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." No polygamy. Fine and dandy. But not the topic. And apparently the tension between husband and wife as it regards sexual relations has always been the case. It is interesting that Paul terms it "conjugal rights" (in the ESV). The Old Testament calls it "marital rights" or "the duty of marriage". And all the commentators are pretty clear that this is talking about sharing the bed -- sexual relations. Funny thing. Why is it that I've never heard it from the pulpit that husbands and wives owe their spouses "conjugal rights"? But, again, I'm not writing this to comment on how men and women sometimes don't give their spouses their "conjugal rights" as they should.

One of the things that always amused me about this passage was verse 4. Paul says that "the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." I have joked about it. "So, there I was, laying on the bed. I patted the spot beside me and told my wife, 'Hey, your body belongs to me, so get it over here ... nekkid!' And she says, 'And your body belongs to me, so put that nasty old thing in the closet.'" I mean, if you take it at face value, we could play at this forever!

So I imagine that my humorous perspective was not likely what was meant. What, then, was? Well, the statement about whose body it is can be aimed in two possible directions. One is the funny way I did it. "See that, honey? Paul says that you do not have authority over your own body; I do." The other is the opposite: "I didn't realize that I don't own my own body; it belongs to my spouse." One angle tells her for me. The other tells me for her.

If the statement is intended as the latter, it changes things. One of my commenters mentioned (more than once) that marital sex is mostly just self-gratification. He meant it in a good way (I was never really sure how), but that was the basic concept. And I suspect, voiced or not, that this is the most common view. "My spouse owes it to me to please me." I mean, isn't that one of the big problems in marriages? "She/he is just not giving me the sexual satisfaction I need." But if the intent is to tell me that my body doesn't belong to me, then marital sex suddenly becomes not about me. It becomes all about my spouse. The aim shifts. The focus moves. Now my job becomes to provide all the possible satisfaction that my spouse might want. You see, my body doesn't belong to me, so how much I get out of it is irrelevant. It becomes a case of seeing my spouse in the bedroom as more significant than me, of not looking out for my interests, but for the interests of my spouse. You know ... kind of like it says in Philippians 2. In other words, if you are approaching sexual relations with your spouse with the idea of what you can get out of it ... you're not following Paul's marriage instructions.

Love is a funny thing. Done properly, it puts you in a very vulnerable place. Love, for instance, does not insist on its own way, believes the best of the loved one, is patient and kind, and so on. So ... who is insisting on my way while I'm not? Doesn't that kind of believing in someone mean that I can be taken advantage of? Doesn't that kind of patience and kindness set me up to take the brunt of others' selfishness? And the answer is that love indeed puts you in an incredibly vulnerable place. That kind of love would also require of you that you take the position I have suggested above. My sexual "needs" and desires are irrelevant; I need to look out for hers. So ... who is looking out for mine? Very vulnerable. The rewards of such a love, however, are phenomenal, reciprocated or not. And the rewards for that kind of obedience (because it is, after all, a command) are also a good thing. Vulnerable or not, it's the right thing. Now the only question is will you do it? Will I?

Dogmatic

Some definitions are in order to start this thought:

Dogma: n.
- a system of principles or tenets, especially for a church.

Dogmatic: adj.
1. of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a dogma or dogmas; doctrinal.
2. asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated.
-Synonyms: arbitrary, imperious, dictatorial.

Dogma today is largely considered a joke in the popular vernacular. People who subscribe to a system of doctrines are, well, just stupid people who deserve ridicule. You have to think for yourself, you see, and if you agree with dogma, you're not a thinker.

Never mind the failure of logic in the position. How did we get here from there? When did it become a bad thing to agree with a set of principles? Well, of course, it's not. It's only when you agree with religious dogma that you're being foolish. Everyone operates on some set of principles. Unfortunately, this idea that people who subscribe to religious dogma are foolish isn't limited to the world (which Christ promised would hate His followers). It is also a common position of a large part of Christianity. You know ... "no creed but Christ". "Experience unites; doctrine divides." That sort of thing. Very popular even among Christians. Never mind that the Bible uses the term in a positive sense (e.g., Rom 16:7; Eph 4:14; 1 Tim 4:6; Titus 1:9; Titus 2:1 ... point made). Never mind that the Bible itself is a set of dogma, a system of principles and tenets for Christianity. We need to avoid that stuff at all costs. We need to make Christianity more experiential than theological, more emotional than mental. Everyone knows that Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship. Yeah ... right.

I suppose that kind of thinking is what got us from definition #1 for "dogmatic" to definition #2. If doctrine is good -- if dogma is right -- then dogmatic would not only be good for a Christian; it would be mandatory. But we've moved away from that to "arrogant and opinionated". We've moved from using "dogmatic" as a good term to using it as an insult. One thing no one ought to be today is dogmatic. That's bad. Don't do it!

Unfortunately, the ramifications aren't pretty. Since Christians have largely decided it's unwise to stand firmly on principle (be dogmatic), doctrine has been sliding. Although we are commanded to "stand firm", we don't want to be labeled "dogmatic", so we stand ... softly. We have been warned "to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught" and to "avoid them" (Rom 16:7), but we make them our friends. We don't, at almost all costs, don't want to be considered dogmatic, so we don't stand and we don't defend and we don't give a reason ... and we find ourselves wondering why teenage pregnancy within the church seems just as high as without and why we are having to fight so hard to defend marriage against same-gender unions and why it is that we aren't taken seriously much at all anymore. Oh, we feel just as warmly toward God as those who went before us; we just don't know the truth as well as they did. You see, that would be dogmatic. And "dogmatic" is an insult we just don't want to bear.

Me personally? I suppose I'd rather be dogmatic and wrong than wishy-washy and right. "No, no, you believe whatever you want. Don't want to offend, you know. It's just that, well, I think you might be wrong ... but, hey! That's not what I mean to say. Wouldn't want to be dogmatic, now, would I?" Am I helping anyone that way? No, I'll remain dogmatic -- standing on doctrine -- at the risk of being perceived at times as dogmatic -- opinionated. I didn't arrive here by accident or by some brainwashing. I've thought it through. Anything else, then, would be a lie. Anything else wouldn't be very helpful to those around me, would it?