Oh boy, Whenever I write on this topic I get 'fan' mail. One major problem is that not all Calvinist go this far, but to be blunt if T,U and L are true then I is inevitable. You can dance around it but in the end God's grace is irresistible if election is unconditional. If God has elected you to salvation you are forced to accept his grace.
The doctrine of irresistible grace states basically this: that once God has decided to give his grace to you (See unconditional election) you cannot resist it and you will become saved. Like it or not.
Between this and P -- Perseverance Of The Saints (which I will deal with next week) you get the basis for Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS). But more on that next week.
My largest problem with this is the image it creates of God that is highly unbiblical.
1) God only presents his grace to the elect. I find a universality in the Scripture of who gets loved by God -- Everyone. If every person is loved by God then why would he only make grace irresistible to those who he has made elect.
2) Faith coming exclusively from God. God only gives faith that saves to those he chooses. The fact remains that when our faith is talked about, it is always given the possessive to us. The Bible never describes faith as God's through us, but ours -- 'your faith' is always the idea. "Your faith has made you whole." etc., etc.
3) Throughout the Old Testament God's people are repeatedly described by God as being rebellious, but what difference would it make if God's grace is irresistible? None. Here we have God going on and on through the prophets calling his people back to him if such a call was irresistible in the first place. God does not work this way in the whole counsel of God.
To further my point, I would like to use an analogy that is common is Scripture. Marriage. The image of marriage is often used of God and his people. Now if this doctrine is true this is how covenant works with God. God proposes the covenant of marriage to you. You not only must say yes but you cannot help but say yes. You have been drugged by god so that you cannot help but say yes. Once you have said yes, God forces himself upon you in relationship and intimacy with him. This would be like me proposing marriage to my wife and then telling her she cannot help but say yes. In fact I am going to answer for her and say yes by taking over her mind and will to make her. Once we are married, I take her home with me and she must do what ever I will. She cannot refuse me for I keep her drugged so she never can resist anything I want to do. There is no love here in such a relationship -- constant spiritual rape is more like it.
Paula and others pay attention here.
I think salvation works more on the line of what engagement and marriage is supposed to be like: When I asked my wife to marry me I waited for her response. I CHOSE Her but she had to say 'yes'. Her saying 'yes' is nothing she did to earn my love, it is simply an acceptance of my offer and gift. Once yes was said did that mean my wife suddenly lost her will and she had nothing to say about how she and i walked in relationship? I think not. Such covenant relationships require give and take on both sides. If she goes out and fools around and no longer want to be married to me -- divorce takes place the covenant is broken.
In the same way God chose me and offered me his salvation but I still had to say yes. To say yes I must believe in Christ's resurrection and confess His Lordship over my life. (Romans 10:9-10) Was I doing 'a work' by doing this? No, all I did was accept an offered gift. Once done, I have said yes, but that does not mean the covenant does not have to be maintained. If I ever stop believing in the resurrection of Christ or, by my life, no longer confess the Lordship of Christ -- the covenant is broken. Conditions exist in this covenant and they are to be maintained or the covenant is gone. Read Deuteronomy for an example of this idea between God and his people.
Next: P - Perseverance of the Saint or Nothing Can Stop Us Now.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Saturday, September 26, 2009
The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 1 -- Eden Again
I know everyone has been waiting with baited breath what I am going to do now. Well, OK that is a little fantasy of mine that I have thousands of lurkers reading everything I write with breathless anticipation. Right.
This is a spin off from my last series and in it I am going to engage the first issue I presented -- public nudity. Only, I want to get a clear Biblical definition of nakedness and what it means to be naked and see if it lines up with the modern church's concept of the subject.
The first place nakedness occurs in the Bible is in Genesis chapter 2 and 3. The whole creation of man and fall story has as one of the central issues -- the nakedness of mankind. Although, I doubt most people look at it as a central issue but let's see -- it is the issue that their eyes were opened to see that they were naked that the knowledge of sin is known. Hmmmm.
Before the Fall
Verse 25 of chapter two is telling: "And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." Given the time we also need to remember that when God is done creating he calls all things 'very good' and this includes the fact that Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed about it. Let's review: Good equals naked and unashamed.
The Fall's Affect on Nakedness
The Fall's immediate affect to both Adam and Eve is that they become aware of their nakedness. Sin equals awareness of nakedness. The result is an attempt to hide their nakedness. The thing is that they are not trying to conceal their nakedness from each other. Sorry Adam and Eve are husband and wife and once you have seen it all with each other there is no shame. Trust me on this I have no problem changing my clothes in front of my wife. Their issue is being naked before GOD. Sin has made them aware of this.
This story also illustrates another thing about nakedness -- where they considered themselves naked. They make aprons for themselves. Loins area. I want to note at this point that Eve does not also fashioned a bra or corset. In deference to all the movies I doubt she bothered to cover her breasts at all -- even with her hair.
It also makes me wonder something else -- was the nakedness about their bodies or their spirits? This passage does not answer it other than to say they were afraid of God when he arrived, but it might be a question to consider as we travel through this series.
There are some consequences for the Fall
1. Separated relationship with God for Mankind
2. Separated relationship between man and woman
3. Beginning of loss of relationship with creation
4. Hard work for men
5. Increased pain in childbirth for women
6. Loss of the tree of life and Eden
7. SHAME in Being Naked
8. Having to wear clothes -- see I have told people that the fashion industry is of the devil and I now have proof. ;-)
I highlight the last two because many people see the wearing of clothes as a good thing and the shame associated with it as natural to man. In deference to such people I see them as results of sin and the fall of mankind just as much as the others. Bad -- Sin equals shame and clothes.
Now the argument raised by Biblically knowledgeable nudists and topfree advocates is, that if sin is the cause of shame concerning nakedness, why do conservative Christians consider it a sin to return to this state of naked and unashamed when it was declared good by God. Do we not tell people after they are saved that they can have victory over sin and that God begins to cleanse us from sin including the results of it. One of the results of sin is shame involving nakedness and clothes. If a person is saved, do we not say that God can removed the shame of their sin?
I hate to say it but this is a good argument. Robert Heinlein, author of many classic science fiction stories, basically argued this way. The argument being that if we Christians were really trying to bring people back into right relationship with God and bring the world back to paradise we Christians should join him in being a nudist. We would try to help people overcome the stigma of nakedness and take off our clothes.
Good equals naked and unashamed.
Bad equals ashamed of nakedness and clothes.
Advocates of nudity point this out.
See the Problem.
This story in Genesis only really points out the beginnings of the problem it does not say how mankind dealt with it. More on that later.
Next: Noah: Drunk and Naked
Friday, September 25, 2009
The Book of Revelation -- Part 5 -- The Need of the Seven Churches for This Book
I think most people who have read the book of Revelation are familiar with the seven churches. The question I have is their role in interpretation of the book of Revelation. I think there is a very real possibility that the visions contained in this book are things they understood much better than us. In a very real way, the book of Revelation is a letter to them.
If this is the case than the needs, desires and situations of these seven churches should influence interpretation of the book as a whole after chapter three is over How would they have interpreted it? What significance did it have for them? Modern interpreters often forget who this book is addressed to and the role they could have in interpretation.
Each of the churches has something they need: Whether they are praised or rebuked by Christ; in some cases both, they all had some need that was met by the book in later pages. Jesus isn't just addressing them here and then forgetting them as he starts chapter 4. He is giving them the information and knowledge they need about Him so they can overcome the problems He has pointed out to them.
1. Ephesus has a need to find a way to rediscover their first love, is there something that follows in the book that tells them how to or motivates the to do this?
2. Smyrna needs encouragement in the face of persecution and a lack of resources, does one of the passages do this?
3. Pergamum needs both encouragement to hold fast and motivation to turn from their idolatry in repentance, do the visions that follow help them with both objectives?
4. Thyatira needs to hold fast to what they do well and cast the Jezebel woman from their midst, is there a passage that tells them how or gives them motivation to do so?
5. Sardis needs revival and to take the remnant left and multiply it, is there a way to do this shown in the book of Revelation?
6. Philadelphia needs to hold fast to what they have and go through the door no man can shut, does the book tell them how and encourage them?
7. Laodecia needs to be a church that stops being useless to God because it relies on worldly wealth and knowledge instead of what can be obtained from God, is there motivation and instruction how to do so in the book of Revelation?
The one thing I want to remember as I look at the rest of the book is not to forget who it was written to originally. It may be that all the seven symbolism in the rest of the book directly ties back to the seven churches. I cannot overlook the possibility.
Next: The Throne of God
If this is the case than the needs, desires and situations of these seven churches should influence interpretation of the book as a whole after chapter three is over How would they have interpreted it? What significance did it have for them? Modern interpreters often forget who this book is addressed to and the role they could have in interpretation.
Each of the churches has something they need: Whether they are praised or rebuked by Christ; in some cases both, they all had some need that was met by the book in later pages. Jesus isn't just addressing them here and then forgetting them as he starts chapter 4. He is giving them the information and knowledge they need about Him so they can overcome the problems He has pointed out to them.
1. Ephesus has a need to find a way to rediscover their first love, is there something that follows in the book that tells them how to or motivates the to do this?
2. Smyrna needs encouragement in the face of persecution and a lack of resources, does one of the passages do this?
3. Pergamum needs both encouragement to hold fast and motivation to turn from their idolatry in repentance, do the visions that follow help them with both objectives?
4. Thyatira needs to hold fast to what they do well and cast the Jezebel woman from their midst, is there a passage that tells them how or gives them motivation to do so?
5. Sardis needs revival and to take the remnant left and multiply it, is there a way to do this shown in the book of Revelation?
6. Philadelphia needs to hold fast to what they have and go through the door no man can shut, does the book tell them how and encourage them?
7. Laodecia needs to be a church that stops being useless to God because it relies on worldly wealth and knowledge instead of what can be obtained from God, is there motivation and instruction how to do so in the book of Revelation?
The one thing I want to remember as I look at the rest of the book is not to forget who it was written to originally. It may be that all the seven symbolism in the rest of the book directly ties back to the seven churches. I cannot overlook the possibility.
Next: The Throne of God
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 4 -- L -- Limited Atonement or Jesus' Blood Can Only Do So Much
Now, in Calvinism, the central core of the system is Total Depravity and Unconditional Election. Once a person accepts these the remaining things of TULIP just follow.
Limited Atonement states that because election is unconditional then Jesus only died for the elect. Some versions state that Jesus' sacrifice only applied to the elect, but either way, atonement is limited to the elect.
I have two objections to this
1) The first is that this is patently Unbiblical -- 1 John 2:2 -- "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." John basically states that Jesus blood and sacrifice is a propitiation for every sin committed; not just but Christians but the whole world. There are other verses like this but only one is necessary.
2) Doesn't this limit the power of Christ's blood? Seems to. It means that Christ's power over sin only extends to those who are the elect. After that Jesus' blood has no power.
Now as I do not accept T or U anyway, it does not follow for me that atonement is limited but applied to anyone who accepts it by faith.
Next: I -- Irresistible Grace or God the Spiritual Rapist
Limited Atonement states that because election is unconditional then Jesus only died for the elect. Some versions state that Jesus' sacrifice only applied to the elect, but either way, atonement is limited to the elect.
I have two objections to this
1) The first is that this is patently Unbiblical -- 1 John 2:2 -- "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." John basically states that Jesus blood and sacrifice is a propitiation for every sin committed; not just but Christians but the whole world. There are other verses like this but only one is necessary.
2) Doesn't this limit the power of Christ's blood? Seems to. It means that Christ's power over sin only extends to those who are the elect. After that Jesus' blood has no power.
Now as I do not accept T or U anyway, it does not follow for me that atonement is limited but applied to anyone who accepts it by faith.
Next: I -- Irresistible Grace or God the Spiritual Rapist
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Sexuality, The Church and America -- Part 7 -- How Should the Church React to All This?
To begin with let us recap the issues I have dealt with in this series:
1. Public Nudity
2. Pornography
3. Homosexual Marriage
4. Friends with Fringe Benefits
5. Polygamy
6. Legalized Prostitution
All of these issues are hot button topics and if you ask your average Christian religious right person about these issues you would get the traditional -- "Well I'm Against Them". This of course causes the left to respond with a loud voice saying -- "Well, how typically knee jerk of you" and "Isn't it just like Christians to try to control peoples' lives and behavior". It wouldn't so bad but many times they are right.
Compounding the problem is the fact that most Christians when dealing with these issues have never really examined them for themselves with Bible in hand. Most of the time it is group psychology thing where because 'the pastor and church say it's wrong, I am going too as well'. Hate to say it but the accusation by the left that Christians do not think through issues but religiously follow traditions is in many cases true. We also have a tendency to be dogmatic about these things even when faced with Biblical evidence that our views might be faulty in some way. We cling to our views and then try to find a new interpretation of the passages in question to keep them. This is BAD! Our response to any issue including the sexual ones of our culture should be based on the following factors:
1. What is the Biblical view of the issue:
2. What are the realities of the issue and how do they differ from the Bible
3. What does the Bible recommend as a course of action in dealing with the issue
In doing so we need to remember that the United States is not Israel of the Old Testament and the notion that somehow our jobs as Christians is to create a holy state here in the west is nonsense. Even if this so, it is obvious to me our tactics are not working because over the last 50 years we have watched the Christians go from being the dominate force in the culture to being a mere subculture. Every time there has been a change in our culture, we have reacted in such a way as to drive people from the pews. Why? Because in almost every case we have looked very religious and very self righteous. This is not going to win friends and influence people.
When it comes to the Bible on these issues we actually only have clear Bible on 3 and 4 -- Homosexual marriage and Friends with Fringe Benefits. Both are declared as sins by the Bible so it is not difficult to say these are wrong and should be avoided. The others are not so clear.
Nakedness for instance is very difficult to define Biblically and thus affects the issues of Public Nudity and Pornography. Nakedness and modesty are spiritual conditions based on the passages we do find on the subject, not a state of dress or undress. Particularly, when it comes to women going topless the Bible is remarkably silent in equalizing nudity with women's breasts. We are not to look at someone with lust in our hearts and thus commit adultery with them, but where does this lust come from? Nakedness and Pornography? The Bible does not indicate this as the source but our own hearts. If this is the case, then is the battle really with society or with the hearts of men and women including our own? I think it is with human hearts.
Polygamy makes the situation even worse because Biblically we actually have some support for the practice. It becomes difficult to look down our noses when some of the great characters were polygamous.
Legalized prostitution Biblically of course has its problems in that it promotes the two big no-nos for the Christian adultery and fornication. At the same time, how do you get rid of it being that it is so pervasive in every culture? As long as people have lusts in their hearts and want to control their time and place of sin, there will be prostitution. I take an interesting approach to the problem because I do not think outlawing it will stop it or hinder it. The is no surer way to curb a behavior than to legalize it, regulate it and tax it. You could do something similar with pornography.
The action to take on these things I am going to propose is not going to sit well with most Christians but at the same time I think it is Biblical.
1. Where the Bible is silent or supportive -- let it go. I think toplessness for women and polygamy fall in this category. If you are not standing on the Word on these issues where are you standing? These two simply have no way to fight them with Biblical justification it is simple a matter of what is tolerated by the culture.
2. Where the Bible is clearly against a behavior, make sure it is dealt with internally before turning external. The biggest failure of Christianity in America is the fact we are very quick to notice the motes in society's eyes while ignoring planks in our own. The rate of pornography use, infidelity and divorce is just as high in the church as it is outside of it. Who are we to judge others when the problem is in ourselves. The prophet who stands and decries his society and then does the same things himself is a hypocrite.
3. We need to get it into our head that people in the world who are not Christians are going to do what they do - sin. The resulting attitude that we as Christians should have is not to be self righteous about it, but to look at them as Jesus did -- with compassion. See Jesus Luke 7:36-50 in particular when dealing with sins of this nature. So as we turn external it should be with an attitude of 'if not for the grace of God, there go I" not this 'I am better than you because I don't do that" attitude that turns people off.
4. Quit relying on carnal weapons. Christians turn quicker to petitions, picket lines and political action that they do prayer and supplication to God. One of the greatest weapons we have is the gospel itself that changes peoples' hearts. We do not use it nearly as much as the others that are worldly.
5. Act as a citizen when you can but be humble about it. I vote and I am not saying that a Christian should not be active in his or her country but that is not ultimately how you are going to change a society. What you will get is a bunch of people who think their freedoms have been infringed upon again by those nutty Christians. I am not against mobilizing, but go find people that agree and motivate them, don't try to persuade or coerce those that oppose you with self righteous and judgmental tactics.
Over the coming weeks we may dive into some or all of these issues further but this series was to lay it our there to see what we could find initially.
Finis
1. Public Nudity
2. Pornography
3. Homosexual Marriage
4. Friends with Fringe Benefits
5. Polygamy
6. Legalized Prostitution
All of these issues are hot button topics and if you ask your average Christian religious right person about these issues you would get the traditional -- "Well I'm Against Them". This of course causes the left to respond with a loud voice saying -- "Well, how typically knee jerk of you" and "Isn't it just like Christians to try to control peoples' lives and behavior". It wouldn't so bad but many times they are right.
Compounding the problem is the fact that most Christians when dealing with these issues have never really examined them for themselves with Bible in hand. Most of the time it is group psychology thing where because 'the pastor and church say it's wrong, I am going too as well'. Hate to say it but the accusation by the left that Christians do not think through issues but religiously follow traditions is in many cases true. We also have a tendency to be dogmatic about these things even when faced with Biblical evidence that our views might be faulty in some way. We cling to our views and then try to find a new interpretation of the passages in question to keep them. This is BAD! Our response to any issue including the sexual ones of our culture should be based on the following factors:
1. What is the Biblical view of the issue:
2. What are the realities of the issue and how do they differ from the Bible
3. What does the Bible recommend as a course of action in dealing with the issue
In doing so we need to remember that the United States is not Israel of the Old Testament and the notion that somehow our jobs as Christians is to create a holy state here in the west is nonsense. Even if this so, it is obvious to me our tactics are not working because over the last 50 years we have watched the Christians go from being the dominate force in the culture to being a mere subculture. Every time there has been a change in our culture, we have reacted in such a way as to drive people from the pews. Why? Because in almost every case we have looked very religious and very self righteous. This is not going to win friends and influence people.
When it comes to the Bible on these issues we actually only have clear Bible on 3 and 4 -- Homosexual marriage and Friends with Fringe Benefits. Both are declared as sins by the Bible so it is not difficult to say these are wrong and should be avoided. The others are not so clear.
Nakedness for instance is very difficult to define Biblically and thus affects the issues of Public Nudity and Pornography. Nakedness and modesty are spiritual conditions based on the passages we do find on the subject, not a state of dress or undress. Particularly, when it comes to women going topless the Bible is remarkably silent in equalizing nudity with women's breasts. We are not to look at someone with lust in our hearts and thus commit adultery with them, but where does this lust come from? Nakedness and Pornography? The Bible does not indicate this as the source but our own hearts. If this is the case, then is the battle really with society or with the hearts of men and women including our own? I think it is with human hearts.
Polygamy makes the situation even worse because Biblically we actually have some support for the practice. It becomes difficult to look down our noses when some of the great characters were polygamous.
Legalized prostitution Biblically of course has its problems in that it promotes the two big no-nos for the Christian adultery and fornication. At the same time, how do you get rid of it being that it is so pervasive in every culture? As long as people have lusts in their hearts and want to control their time and place of sin, there will be prostitution. I take an interesting approach to the problem because I do not think outlawing it will stop it or hinder it. The is no surer way to curb a behavior than to legalize it, regulate it and tax it. You could do something similar with pornography.
The action to take on these things I am going to propose is not going to sit well with most Christians but at the same time I think it is Biblical.
1. Where the Bible is silent or supportive -- let it go. I think toplessness for women and polygamy fall in this category. If you are not standing on the Word on these issues where are you standing? These two simply have no way to fight them with Biblical justification it is simple a matter of what is tolerated by the culture.
2. Where the Bible is clearly against a behavior, make sure it is dealt with internally before turning external. The biggest failure of Christianity in America is the fact we are very quick to notice the motes in society's eyes while ignoring planks in our own. The rate of pornography use, infidelity and divorce is just as high in the church as it is outside of it. Who are we to judge others when the problem is in ourselves. The prophet who stands and decries his society and then does the same things himself is a hypocrite.
3. We need to get it into our head that people in the world who are not Christians are going to do what they do - sin. The resulting attitude that we as Christians should have is not to be self righteous about it, but to look at them as Jesus did -- with compassion. See Jesus Luke 7:36-50 in particular when dealing with sins of this nature. So as we turn external it should be with an attitude of 'if not for the grace of God, there go I" not this 'I am better than you because I don't do that" attitude that turns people off.
4. Quit relying on carnal weapons. Christians turn quicker to petitions, picket lines and political action that they do prayer and supplication to God. One of the greatest weapons we have is the gospel itself that changes peoples' hearts. We do not use it nearly as much as the others that are worldly.
5. Act as a citizen when you can but be humble about it. I vote and I am not saying that a Christian should not be active in his or her country but that is not ultimately how you are going to change a society. What you will get is a bunch of people who think their freedoms have been infringed upon again by those nutty Christians. I am not against mobilizing, but go find people that agree and motivate them, don't try to persuade or coerce those that oppose you with self righteous and judgmental tactics.
Over the coming weeks we may dive into some or all of these issues further but this series was to lay it our there to see what we could find initially.
Finis
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Book of Revelation -- Part 4 -- The Powerful Vision of Christ.
Oddly enough I think the vision of Christ that is found in chapter 1 verses 9-20 have interpretive significance but not in the fact they closely resemble the ones in Daniel. To take this book by itself the vision stands as a very interesting revelation of Christ. John is in the Spirit on the Lord's Day and he hears a powerful voice when he turns around he sees Christ:
1. Christ is powerful in word
2. Christ's appearance in radiant, powerful and central.
3. Christ is commanding and sovereign
4. Christ is light with no darkness at all
5. Christ is in the middle of the churches in question
When Jesus speaks of himself he adds:
1. He is the first and the last
2. He is the beginning and the end.
3. He is the living one
4. He was dead
5. He is alive forevermore
6. He holds the keys of hades
What really though should stick in our mind is the fact that Jesus interprets two symbols for us in this vision: the stars are the messengers and the lamp stands are the churches. What I am pointing out to us here is when the book gives us the meaning of a symbol then we do not have to speculate or guess we need to just accept it.
I am usually not given to overly emotional interpretations but this vision of Christ is so powerful I quake in my own boots and I was not there. Throughout the book of Revelation this is ultimately the vision of Christ we get -- the worthy powerful one who bring all things right. Christ who controls eternal life and death. This is the vision we need to keep as we look at all the others. Its power dominates all else. We should quake as we turn the pages that follow.
Next: The Need of the Seven Churches for this Book
1. Christ is powerful in word
2. Christ's appearance in radiant, powerful and central.
3. Christ is commanding and sovereign
4. Christ is light with no darkness at all
5. Christ is in the middle of the churches in question
When Jesus speaks of himself he adds:
1. He is the first and the last
2. He is the beginning and the end.
3. He is the living one
4. He was dead
5. He is alive forevermore
6. He holds the keys of hades
What really though should stick in our mind is the fact that Jesus interprets two symbols for us in this vision: the stars are the messengers and the lamp stands are the churches. What I am pointing out to us here is when the book gives us the meaning of a symbol then we do not have to speculate or guess we need to just accept it.
I am usually not given to overly emotional interpretations but this vision of Christ is so powerful I quake in my own boots and I was not there. Throughout the book of Revelation this is ultimately the vision of Christ we get -- the worthy powerful one who bring all things right. Christ who controls eternal life and death. This is the vision we need to keep as we look at all the others. Its power dominates all else. We should quake as we turn the pages that follow.
Next: The Need of the Seven Churches for this Book
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 3 -- U -- Unconditional Election and God the Devil
Unconditional Election in my mind is the most heinous of the Tulips we are tiptoeing through because is creates an interesting an unbiblical view of God. When Wesley talked of it it said that it created a portrait of God that made God the devil. I agree.
The doctrine of unconditional election states that a person is predestined to heaven or hell before they are ever born. In short, God decided who will be with him in heaven or hell before they are even created. In short we have picture of God who is sitting on a throne who is throwing people right and left into heaven or hell before they have done anything. My problems with this are enormous.
1) How is God just if he does this? The defense I have heard is that God's justice is different than ours, but this is not so. God tells us what justice is and then declares himself many times to be its definition that we should follow and that we can know justice by knowing him.
2) Biblically this hard to support as every story that is told about final judgment tells us that people are judged by their actions as well as whether or not they possess faith in Christ. The names being blotted out of the book of life in Revelation is a particularly telling comment, overcoming to the end, and the words in Romans speaking of 'whosoever will' are expressions that cover the Bible with one idea -- there is a choice to be made by us that affects our salvation. it is a relationship entered into by covenant of BOTH parties including us.
The fact is that Calvin was trying to make God super sovereign and in so doing he robbed God of justice. He has turned the loving God into the unmerciful devil.
Some of the fruit I have seen of this doctrine are telling: One man I heard of burned himself to death because he believed that he was predestined to hell and he wanted to shorten the trip. Probably the most heinous thing it does is it justifies an antinomian attitude. Such a doctrine does more to fuel the 'let us sin that grace abound idea than any other. Calvinists I have talked to say this is not the case but ultimately does it matter what you do as a Christian. If you live righteously you go to heaven if your predestined to heaven, but even if you don't you are still predestined to heaven your going even if you sleep around or are a drunkard, etc. People living in sin openly because of a lack of fear of justice of God because you see they are predestined to heaven or Once Saved Always Saved doctrines that come from it abound.
In then end, I am pretty sure this is not what the Bible teaches. It teaches to enter into a walk with through Christ by covenanting with him through his blood. To continue in that walk overcoming sin and situation through the Holy Spirit and to continue to the end. Unconditional election makes salvation a one shot wonder that really ultimately has no bearing in how we live our life.
Next: L -- Limited Atonement or Jesus' Blood Only Has So Much Power
The doctrine of unconditional election states that a person is predestined to heaven or hell before they are ever born. In short, God decided who will be with him in heaven or hell before they are even created. In short we have picture of God who is sitting on a throne who is throwing people right and left into heaven or hell before they have done anything. My problems with this are enormous.
1) How is God just if he does this? The defense I have heard is that God's justice is different than ours, but this is not so. God tells us what justice is and then declares himself many times to be its definition that we should follow and that we can know justice by knowing him.
2) Biblically this hard to support as every story that is told about final judgment tells us that people are judged by their actions as well as whether or not they possess faith in Christ. The names being blotted out of the book of life in Revelation is a particularly telling comment, overcoming to the end, and the words in Romans speaking of 'whosoever will' are expressions that cover the Bible with one idea -- there is a choice to be made by us that affects our salvation. it is a relationship entered into by covenant of BOTH parties including us.
The fact is that Calvin was trying to make God super sovereign and in so doing he robbed God of justice. He has turned the loving God into the unmerciful devil.
Some of the fruit I have seen of this doctrine are telling: One man I heard of burned himself to death because he believed that he was predestined to hell and he wanted to shorten the trip. Probably the most heinous thing it does is it justifies an antinomian attitude. Such a doctrine does more to fuel the 'let us sin that grace abound idea than any other. Calvinists I have talked to say this is not the case but ultimately does it matter what you do as a Christian. If you live righteously you go to heaven if your predestined to heaven, but even if you don't you are still predestined to heaven your going even if you sleep around or are a drunkard, etc. People living in sin openly because of a lack of fear of justice of God because you see they are predestined to heaven or Once Saved Always Saved doctrines that come from it abound.
In then end, I am pretty sure this is not what the Bible teaches. It teaches to enter into a walk with through Christ by covenanting with him through his blood. To continue in that walk overcoming sin and situation through the Holy Spirit and to continue to the end. Unconditional election makes salvation a one shot wonder that really ultimately has no bearing in how we live our life.
Next: L -- Limited Atonement or Jesus' Blood Only Has So Much Power
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)