The Heart

I was recently advised by a friend that "Ah, but sometimes the heart is the only wise voice we have."

This is my response:
The heart has its place to speak indeed, but as an adviser speaks to his executive- having no authority beyond his opinion and tasked to command others with a message not his own. Lewis states the need to tame the heart this way: "Without the aid of trained emotions the intellect is powerless against the animal organism. I had sooner play cards against a man who was quite sceptical about ethics, but bred to believe that 'a gentleman does not cheat', than against an irreproachable moral philosopher who had been brought up among sharpers." I agree entirely. We are angry with restriction of 'personal rights', discrimination, genocide, even while we teach our students that morality is personal. We either completely destroy or over empower the function of the heart and then wonder where the gentlemen have gone. "We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."

The wisest Man to ever live once begged, "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me," His heart urged against His purpose, set against Him to upset His will and yet He continues, "nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will." What a hopeless world it should be if the heart had won that round against the mind.

And twice at least Peter let his heart take hold of him: first, in his anger at Jesus' prediction of His death, blaspheming against Jesus' purpose; and then again, this time his heart taken by fear, Peter overthrew his mind, denying Jesus three times to the woman.

Our hearts have the capacity for ambivalence but are in complete obedience to our minds. If we do not fix our intellects upon a constant, eternal, unchanging standard of Reason we shall have no end to hearts that are not only desperately wicked, but are without a master. Hitler was just a man whose mind was determined that atheism was true, and thus left without morality his heart was free to wander to where it would. Unless we ourselves set our minds upon Divine Truth we shall have no base from which to denounce men whose hearts tell them that blacks are slaves, Muslims are dangerous and that Jews are inferior. Feelings are extremely personal but they conform or fail to conform to a meta-personal Reality that demands certain responses. Therefore the products of the heart are not a subject beyond reproof in their individuality but are rather a derivative of the mind and thus open to criticism.

When we accept that Truth is absolute and that it is our duty to adhere to it, we will be able to stand firm in approving or disapproving our sentiments, and in finally correcting our sentiments we will at last gain control over our appetites. Yet were the will of all humanity put to this single task it would be too little an effort. Only by the Grace of God may any have wisdom or knowledge. Alone our hearts will remain as wicked and empty, and our minds will find no true beacon to guide them. Jesus came to demonstrate by His life that He is the Way of the heart, the Truth of the mind and the Life of the stomach, and none of us shall reach the Father but through Him.

Jason

Dawn

I knew that if I stopped but for a moment to consider the wonder and glory that the God of which they spoke possessed, I should be undone. All my clever defenses would quit me like mists blown by a strong wind off the lake. String by carefully woven string in the barricade of my schema would unravel, be hacked to shreds, as if the Fates had grown bored of their duty and become sansculottes of the cognitive realm - snipping the bonds of my conscience with maenadic fervor. The piercing light of dawn ever threatened to plunge into the darkness of my mind and force open my eyes. Sometimes the brightness was so overwhelming it threw the world on the other side of my shroud-lids into brilliant orange. Yet for all the clarity of the darkness nothing could prepare me for the lucidity of the sun.

I stole the first peek facing away from the horizon where the sun would soon crest and begin his stroll across the sky. And as I turned slowly (ever too slowly!) so he rose to meet me. Thus as I increased my field of vision in regard to the luminescence the magnitude of the sun's glow grew as well. As if seeing the light was not apology enough for its glory its existence expanded a fortiori. It takes no time to prima facie become a votary of the sun (but it must be an honest viewing!) when our dark reverie is discarded and we awaken to the persistent promulgation of light that is the Divine Metonymy of this world.

Novus Ordo Mundus

The rhetoric of globalization, the global community and a new world order meet us at almost every turn in today's politics. It is unlikely that anyone is unfamiliar with the terms or the general feeling they invoke. What is likely, is that the underlying assumptions and implications that this language carries with it go unattended in most minds. I think on the whole it is viewed that global "oneness" includes a happy, contented belief that everyone else in the world is human in the same way as ourselves; that the radical Muslim in Iran has the same human problems as the Catholic next door. In one respect this acknowledgment of a common human condition is correct, but taken another way, this view (and the ramifications of the masses accepting it) is dangerous.

Firstly, the idea that all humanity is equivalent not in being sinful, but in experiencing similar emotions, thoughts, and outlooks, is to disregard entirely the affects of culture and religion. In our egoism we conclude that our unique thought processes are distinctly human and representative of the species in general. Freud made each individual study his past; today we have all looked back and found the same human root and concluded that we must be the same branch as well. It's easy to forget the words, "Yet hear now, O Jacob My servant, and Israel whom I have chosen. Thus says the LORD who made you and formed you from the womb" (Isaiah XLIV 1-2). There is nothing of community in the LORD's words here, He is strictly personal on the subject of creating each person. What I think is easy to forget, is that the tree that our botanist-psychoanalysts are studying, has many roots. The analogy that plays closest to the melody, I think, is that we are each created individually, and as many roots merge into the trunk, so many people come together into sin and form a single Fallen Man. Then, being in sin, Man branches out on many paths of evil, and some into buds of salvation where the water of Grace, the light of Love, and pruning of Scripture has yielded holy fruit. But that is a picture better painted another day by a better studied man than I. The point is that despite our common sin, each man is distinct, with his own woven past and unfolding future.

Truly, though, despite the consequences of a global community mindset on the individual, the real trouble comes with the politics of the thing. Another of the assumptions of a world order that is pushed under the rug or hung up in the closet, is that of governance. It seems to be considered that we should all simply "get along" and "live in harmony." While there are current thorns in the side of this harmonious community, the solutions offered present a bit of what I'm talking about. Leaders of nations are not looking to countries like Iran, North Korea, and other mavericks has undisciplined school children that need to be shown their place; these states are instead considered to be rebellious outsiders in need of an offered spot at the table. That the result of nuclear threats should be militaristic preparation and response seems clear. If your neighbor brought a gun to your doorstep you would hardly greet him without first being resolved to shoot him should he try anything. But what it seems to me that the "free world" is doing, is to respond as a united front, not for the purpose of retaliation, but for the purpose of denouncement and invitation. One may argue that the global community arranged in this manner is the best instrument for world peace, I disagree. That is no more than an empire, when all states join one homogeneous "order," whether they do so willingly or not. And empires, as history shows us, do not last, but rather splinter along many lines. When retaliation and then, this is essential, grace is involved in the aftermath, that is where true alliances come from. The United States' relationships with Japan and Germany after World War II are a better demonstration of good international politics than Russia's formation of the Soviet Union.

I recently read in an article that a former world leader approached the world as the ruler of a powerful nation speaking to a community of rulers of lesser nations. This type of policy was tossed out, the article said, by the current leader of the same nation, who now offered to come along side other states and listen to them, speak with them, and generally secede his place as "the" global authority. But I must read between the lines and make the connection with the previous arguments of all people coming together into a "new world order." As I said before, the question that is unspoken when talk is had of uniting the world into a single community, is that of who shall govern it. All states may be defined as societies upon which different types of organizations exist to establish how the society runs and then to enforce those laws. Plato in his Republic sets about discussing the type of society he considers beneficial before naming the guardians as the head of that society, and the philosopher-king takes the place of government in so much as he governs society. The crux of the problem we're discussing, is that when these nations of the world "unite" and "come together to build a stronger, global regime," their must be someone appointed to lead it. Locke argues that a social contract binds people and government, that this constitution holds each to respect the other. I might claim that even authoritarian kingdoms contain a social contract, in that when the ruler acts entirely outside of what is deemed appropriate, the people respond. This very occurrence brought about the West's first taste of democracy in 1215 with the signing of the Magna Carta, and the most definitive rebellion against the breaking of a social contract is well known as the American Revolution.

What is different with the idea of a world order created by the leaders of states, is that up until now people entered into agreement with governments for the sake of promulgating a contract. When only governments are concerned with creating a new government, the people have no voice. It is assumed by each nation's ruler that the people have spoken favorably when they elected (or in some cases, didn't rebel against) him. Thus, without general consent a union may be formed that sets forth a new government over and above its member nations. And someone (I do not think this will be a democracy) will have to rule this "community." As that realization strikes, the man most in-line to claim the throne will be him who "lowered" himself and drove for unity in the first place. "The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness...This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector," is how Plato described it. The good man becomes an emperor. Power doesn't corrupt, it simply removes the mask. He who worked so hard to bring the nations together will have no opposition to, will even be promoted to, the throne. What started as humans connecting on a false emotional equilibrium will ultimately become a tyrannical world government. We may only pray to hold off for a little while, and to be diligent in our observations, "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." We may mourn our inevitable situation, but "so do all who live to see such times." The best we may do is to pray, hope and work. These are all the gifts our LORD has given us and we must use them to the fullest.

Jason

Another Question...

Well, while my fellow writers think through my last question, I turn to the audience for participation.

I need material, content, a direction. Pose a question (multiple people can post questions) in the comments to this post and I'll offer what I can in response to one, or perhaps all (depending on the activity, again, of my compatriots).

Ask away!

Jason

A New Question

I decided I would try to encourage some more discussion on this blog with a new question. It would be nice if we all wrote a response, and I hope our readers will feel free to comment and add their own thoughts.

The Question: What humors God, and how does Man skew humor with sin?

Faith without works is dead

"Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."
James 2:17

An important aspect to be considered when looking at this particular passage, is to understand why James chose to use the term 'dead' to describe faith that is not working. James is concerned with an issue of life or death. Can a faith that is dead save a Christian from death? The question answers itself. Verses 15 and 16 tell the story of an ungenerous believer and how his empty words cannot save his brother from death when there is no provision of life's bare necessities. In the same way, a non-working faith cannot save our lives from the death-dealing consequences of sin.

I think it is good to recognize that the term 'dead' can refer to more than just the death/life terminology used to describe salvation from hell. The English language uses it in many different ways (i.e. "you're dead wrong", "he's dead drunk", "he's dead meat", "that idea is dead", etc.). Paul, in the book of Romans (written in Greek) calls Abraham's body dead while it was still alive and he attributed "deadness" to Sarah's barren womb (Romans 4:19). A Christian's body, in which the Spirit dwells, can be described as dead although the Christian himself is regenerated (Romans 8:10). Paul's usage of the term can be quite broad. In recognizing this whole idea, I think it is near impossible to say (dogmatically at least) that "dead faith" can have only one meaning and that being a soteriological one.

I feel James is describing a faith that is sterile, ineffective and/or unproductive. Context and closer study into other instances in the book of James would beg the argument that he is speaking of the faith that the Christian has and not the faith of the sinner, which first brought him to God. James wanted to admonish and exhort the believers to practive their faith by works.

Say that a sinner hears the gospel message of Christ's free gift of salvation through His dying on the cross for the sins of all men. Say he recognized his need of a savior and he is saved from the consequences of his own sin, placing his faith in Christ. At that moment, this man is justified before God. He is clean in the eyes of the Father. Now say that at this time, this man turns from God and pursues the 'lusts of the flesh' for the remaining duration of his life. Would this man enter into heaven even though the majority of his life was characterized by self-centered 'bad works' all the way up to his dying day?

I am always wary to question a man on whether his belief was genuine and whether or not he received salvation because we cannot read the hearts of men. God knows their hearts and He knows the names of those who are saved. Their names are added to the book of life and more are being added every day. They are added and never subtracted. The Bible states clearly in many passages, that it is by faith and faith alone that a man is saved (1 John 5:9-11). Not by faith plus works or a continuation of works throughout their life.

So in effect, James is saying that healthy faith; a faith of true, strong vitality, will produce good works. But ut is not by these good works that a man is saved, it is not by these good works taht a man proves that he is saved, and a man can be saved yet live life with the absence of good works. Even as we are saved, we have the potential to live in sin. Is this a healthy faith? It is by no means a healthy faith. Through works, faith is made mature.

Let us hold together in unity, as we are, those of the body of Christ. Paul, to the Philippians: "Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you. Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us be of the same mind." Philippians 3:15-16 (NKJV)

Thank you for graciously giving me the opportunity to share some thoughts.

By His grace, Kyle

The Carpenter

There once was a carpenter who lived in the forest and was known to none. He supplied for himself, and had no need to enter town. However, he often would walk to the edge of the forest, where it ended upon the crest of a hill, and gaze into the town below to watch people. Over the course of his observations, the carpenter noticed one man who was very much alone, always moving about by himself and never having anyone over. Seeing his isolation, the carpenter loved this man.

For the next six days the carpenter set about making the lonely man a table. He started by wandering through the forest to find the best quality wood. Once the wood was had, the carpenter brought the materials back to his home and began constructing the table. Endless hours and sleepless nights were spent in delicate care and master craftsmanship. Never before had such love been physically molded. After six strenuous days, the carpenter saw that the table was good, and rested.

Two days later, after rising, the carpenter loaded the table into his cart and set out, for the first time, to the town. He came to the lonely man's house and knocked eagerly on the door. Within a moment the man opened it. "Hello? What is it you want?"

The carpenter's eyes glowed with love, "I have brought you a gift, sir."

After a short mumbling, the man responded, a bit off-set, "Bring it in I suppose."

The two carefully worked the table into the house and set it down. Without another word, the man set about inspecting the table closely. He was no carpenter, no master of the trade, in fact, his experience with tables was the equivalent of a flat-piece on four legs. That did not stop his scrutiny. He easily gazed over the intricacies of the figurines carved on the legs, and the complex woodwork that comprised the precise measurements of the joints, so that no glue was used, but the wood all fit perfectly together. All the man saw, in truth, was a flat-piece on four legs. The carpenter knew this. He could see that no wonder was displayed in the lonely man's eyes. All the same, the carpenter was well-pleased with his gift (for he was honest, and knew his quality), and held no fault on the lonely man for his ignorance.

Within a few minutes of beginning his phantom observation, the lonely man ended, and looked to the carpenter. "I sir, being a wise man, can determine two things from this table. One: it is no beauty, but a simple evolution of wood. And that two: you sir, do not exist."

Now where is the logic in that?

Jason

The Heart of Man

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?" - Jeremiah 17:9

"This is an evil in all that is done under the sun: that one thing happens to all. Truly the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil; madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead." - Ecclesiastes 9:3

Whatever the cause, the effect is very clear: man is guilty of evil. This statement is essential to today's ministry. Man-kind no longer accepts the responsibility! We live in a nation of non-commitment, where marriage is not sacred, sex is not sacred, life is not sacred, and ultimately God is not revered.

I fear my culture, and myself, are completely giving ourselves to visual stimuli. Movies like Watchmen, a complete cesspool of sexual and violent imagery, inundate our theatres; YouTube brings us almost any event we want; in the wider Web, anything can be found in abundance. We give ourselves over to the senses and eradicate the intellect in an attempt to hide from God. Post-modernism, quasi-existentialism, are not new, but simply a more visible representation of man's heart as it has existed since the Fall. Sodom and Gomorrah, the Hebrews while Moses was on the mountain, the Hebrews throughout history between Judges and prophets, and on, give us dramatic presentations of sin.

Jesus says, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations,...teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;" and Jesus instructed not only the salvation He offered, but the sin that man needed salvation from. Only a sinner needs a Savior, even atheism does not argue this; the real argument is that there is no sin, and thus no there are no sinners. Our generation, our time, is different in this aspect. C.S. Lewis writes it like this, " The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defence for being the god who permits war, poverty and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God's acquittal. But the important thing is that Man is on the Bench and God in the Dock" (emphasis added). The modern Christian must confront the modern Man where he is trying to escape to: morality (or the non-existence of it).

Satiating our stimuli can be said to be wrong at certain times, because we can point out that the horror, or for some the enjoyment, of a type of movie or scene is horrifying or enjoyable for a definable reason. That what we are engrossed by is a deviation from what we know to be "unnatural." William Hazlitt once said that "Man is the only animal that laughs and weeps, for he is the only animal that is struck with the difference between what things are and what they ought to be." That is the comparison we function by; we see bodies torn up in gruesome horror films and are shocked, dismayed, frightened! - if we realize that this is a perversion and pain, or some are disgustingly satisfied, entertained, curious - if they have no reverence for the body. Either way, the mind is reacting to a clear deviation from Nature, it is obvious!

Even in morality, we find atheists who expect others to act a certain way. In American culture today we find more and more people stressing "tolerance" and "acceptance" and yet quickly change face and reject, even ridicule Christians. Lewis makes the point in Mere Christianity, "I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practice ourselves the kind of behaviour we expect from other people." Post-modernists may claim that Christianity is intolerant, but whatever the content of the claim these are still claims of morality. The important point to make is that when we adhere to a moral ideal, we make our statement based on a Standard. When we bring that thought full-circle, it is simple to see that whatever we say in reference to right and wrong, good and evil, truth and falsehood, we say against a higher Standard that we are trying to come into line with. And if there is a Standard, there must be a Giver of the Standard. Man is evil; all have sinned whether it be against God's Law or his own; if there is any morality whatsoever, there must be a measure of it; because we judge based on a standard and measure each others' morality, there must be a Being above the world who set the standard. It is here that God takes His place as the Creator, the Giver, and the necessary Savior for fallen sinners in this fallen world.

In faith,
Jason

The Wages of Sin

Before I try to determine what sin is, and therefore who is guilty of sin and can be "labeled" a "sinner," I want to examine the second sin (or Adam's sin, the first being Lucifer's). Adam obviously disobeys God's specific commandment; as a result he and Eve gain knowledge of good and evil, or Morality, and with it the responsibility to do good while knowing evil. But most importantly, at least for our purpose, is Genesis 3:17,19: "Then to Adam He said, 'Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it...In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you shall return.'" To summarize, death is imputed to Adam for his act of disobedience. Besides facing an end to physical life, Adam and Eve are furthermore cast out of the Garden (Genesis 3:24).

Adam's sin is his failure to obey the 'law of works' that was set to him by God. Ironically, in breaking this first law, or commandment, Adam brought upon the 'law of works' to all men in revealing to Man morality. Moses later gives a more defined Law to the Jews, but the 'law of Nature' continues to exist in the Gentiles (Romans 2:15). God also can give specific instruction to Man, which then becomes added to the 'law of works' for the people in question, as with the Jewish political and religious law, or when God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Disobedience to this natural law is punishable by death, as with Adam. Adam is made mortal and becomes capable of death by being removed from the presence of God.

This relocation carries two consequences. First, Adam is physically relocated, and as is logical, his posterity is physically born apart from God's presence in the Garden. Likewise, Adam's posterity acquires the same mortal characteristics as Adam in that they too will die. But in reality, being born mortal is not so much a punishment as a circumstance. It is not something being taken away, but something not being given. Immortality is no more our right than it was Adam's; God gave it to Adam and for his sin took it away. The second consequence is that of Morality, or knowledge of good and evil, while at the same time lacking the local example of God. Man knows God with his mind but does not experience Him with his heart, and chooses to act according to evil rather than good (Romans 1:20-21).

As for the judgment of this sin, I'm not sure I can admit to being born worthy of eternal damnation. That Hell exists, no reasonable man or Christian can disagree; that all men deserve Hell's torment due to another man's transgression, and furthermore deserve that torture simply by their being birthed, no just man can agree. John Locke writes it in this way:

...nobody can deny but that the doctrine of the gospel is that death came on all men by Adam's sin, only they differ about the signification of the word death, for some will have it to be a state of guilt, wherin not only he, but all his posterity was so involved that every one descended of him deserved endless torment in hellfire. I shall say nothing more here, how far, in the apprehensions of men, this consists with the justice and goodness of God, having mentioned it above, but it seems a strange way of understanding a law, which requires the plainest and directest words, that by death should be meant eternal life in misery. Could anyone be supposed [to understand], by a law that says, 'For felony thou shalt die,' not that he should lose his life, but be kept alive in perpetual exquisite torments? And would anyone think himself fairly dealt with, that was so used?

To this they would have it be also a state of necessary sinning and provoking God in every action that men do, a yet harder sense of the word death than the other. God says that, 'in the day that thou eatest of the forbidden fruit, thou shalt die,' i.e., thou and thy posterity shall be ever after incapable of doing anything but what shall be sinful and provoking to me and shall justly deserve my wrath and indignation. Could a worthy man be supposed to put such terms upon the obedience of his subjects? Much less can the righteous God be supposed, as the punishment of one sin wherein he is displeased, to put man under the necessity of sinning continually, and so multiplying the provocation. (Reasonableness of Christianity, 3-4)

It is not unjust for God to remove immortality from Man, who received it as a gift anyway. But for God to punish Man in such a way that all men should only act in ways that deserve further punishment, what good is life in that sense? Being mortal is better than not being. But receiving "life" with the inherent desert of hellfire is unjust, and it would be better not to live (Matthew 26:24). That is not to say that men do not at some point become deserving of Hell (James 2:10-11). And in fact, being given freedom to live righteously and choose good over evil, yet lacking the present goodness of God (as per Adam's removal from the Garden), "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). But we must note the key terms in Paul's writing. "All have sinned," not "Adam has sinned" or "Eve has sinned" but ALL, meaning that we are guilty of our sin, not another man's. Also, "sinned" is important, because it implies that action was necessary to deserve punishment. Paul has not given us "all were born and fall short of the glory of God," but "all have sinned." Lastly, we read "and fall short of the glory of God." By this is meant eternal torment in fire? It seems to me that falling short of the glory of God (namely freedom and holiness) is equivalent to man's loss of immortality, and his loss of the LORD's consistent presence that enabled him to do good.

Man is guilty because he transgressed against the Law (whether of conscience or Moses), but not because he was born. Jesus is asked how to inherit eternal life and replies "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?...You have answered rightly; do this and you will live" (Luke 10:25-28). Romans 2:13 tells us, "for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified." And God says directly in Leviticus 18:5, "'You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I am the LORD.'" Again in Revelations 22:14, "Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city." If a man were to follow the Law entirely, perfectly, he would live. That warrants that man has the opportunity to be obedient unto God, and that he is not born into uncontrollable perpetual sin.

It follows, that if man may receive life by following the law perfectly, that when he fails to follow the law, he should be counted guilty for his actions. But it must be noted, the judgment is for his actions, not the failure of another. Jesus says that when He returns with the Father, "He will reward each according to his works" (Matthew 16:27). Even more examples of personal judgment for workers of iniquity can be found in Matthew 7:23, Matthew 25:41-46, Luke 13:27, Matthew 5:29, 2 Thessalonians 1:8, Revelation 14:9, Revelation 20:10 and John 5:29.

Now I must entwine these statements. Scriptures show that if man follows the Law perfectly he will live; if man fails at any point to follow the Law his just desert is death and he will be punished according to his transgressions. To these truths, it must also be reconciled that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Man is not born into a state of perpetual sinning; it would be better for him not to live, but receiving life is not in man's control - thus God would be considered unjust for forcing upon man a state of being which was torment. Yet even being born with the opportunity to obey, Man cannot of his own will. Granted with the terrible result of God's trust in, and love of, man, that is Freedom, having obtained knowledge of good and evil by Adam's action, and being removed from God's presence as a consequence, Man is unable to live without choosing evil. It is different than being predestined to evil, or being born into punishment. Man acts of his own will and receives consequences for his iniquity. That he is unable to perfectly do good (which is equal to holiness, or the glory of God which we all fall short of) is logical in that he has no Presence, Power, or Example of Good by which to adhere.

Here enters Jesus Christ with a new Law. By obeying the 'law of faith' and believing in the redemptive grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the gap between the Law's standards and Man's obedience is filled. Furthermore, God's grace forgives man his failings, both past and future; for, being outside of time, all of man's failures simply represent a difference between God's standard and man's adherence. Jesus Christ makes up the difference (it is a complete and total difference) so that no work of man has an affect on his claim to eternal life any longer. Instead, being faithful to Christ grants eternal life. In His own words, Jesus says, "'Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill'" (Matthew 5:17). What is Christ if not the great Mediator? Between God and Man, disobedience and Law, sin and sanctification?

In addition to being justified in Christ, Man receives the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the restoration of God's presence to man as Adam and Eve experienced in the Garden. Just as they did good while walking with the LORD, so followers of Christ may do good. John 14:23-26, "Jesus answered and said to him, 'If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me. These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.'" Through faith alone we fulfill the Law, and by faith in Christ alone do we receive the Holy Spirit which empowers us to live in accordance to God's nature. I pray, for the reader who does not know our mighty Savior, yet who tries to adhere to the Law without the Presence of God, or who simply chooses evil over good. There is nothing more necessary than relationship with the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit.

In faith,
Jason

Sin

 Are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we're sinners?

We sin because by nature we are totally deprived from God.  Our natural state is to sin.  I can’t remember the reference, but there is a verse that says something like “just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, thus death came to all men because all have sinned.”  All have sinned. 

The reason we sin is because on our own, our rebellion against God is total. Apart from the grace of God there is no delight in the holiness of God, and there is no glad submission to the sovereign authority of God.  Of course totally depraved men can be very religious. They can pray and give alms and fast, as Jesus said (Matthew 6:1-18).  (I’ll go easy the issue of those who aren’t saved doing “good” because that can lead into election, predestination, and other things that we’ve already tackled.)  But their very religion is rebellion against the rights of their Creator, if it does not come from a childlike heart of trust in the free grace of God. Religion is one of the chief ways that man conceals his unwillingness to forsake self-reliance and bank all his hopes on the unmerited mercy of God (Luke 18:9-14; Colossians 2:20-23).

The totality of our rebellion against God is seen in Romans 3:9-10 and 18. "I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written: None is righteous, no not one; no one seeks for God....There is no fear of God before their eyes."  No one seeks God.  It doesn’t say, “After the first sin humans commit, they are then under the power of sin.”  No, from conception on our hearts are corrupt and sinful.

I would even contest that in mans total rebellion from God, everything man does is sin (apart from God).  I think of Romans 14:23 when Paul says, "Whatever is not from faith is sin." Therefore, if all men are in total rebellion, everything they do is the product of rebellion and cannot bring honor to God, but only part of their sinful rebellion. If a king teaches his subjects how to fight well and then those subjects rebel against their king and use the very skill he taught them to resist him, then even those skills become evil.  Follow?

Because of that, man does many things which he can only do because he is created in the image of God and which in the service of God could be praised. But in the service of man's self-justifying rebellion, these very things are sinful.

In Romans 7:18 Paul says, "I know that no good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh." This is a radical confession of the truth that in our rebellion nothing we think or feel is good. It is all part of our rebellion. That also makes grace all that much sweeter and the Ultimate gift given to us all that much more central.  It creates complete and utter reliance on the atoning work of Christ.

Our rebellion is totally deserving of eternal punishment. On our own, there is nothing we can do to reach God and nothing we can do that is “good.”  Ephesians 2:3 goes on to say that in our deadness and separation, we were "children of wrath." That is, we were under God's wrath because of the corruption of our hearts that made us as good as dead before God.

The reality of hell is God's clear indictment of the infiniteness of our guilt. If our corruption were not deserving of an eternal punishment God would be unjust to threaten us with a punishment so severe as eternal torment. But the Scriptures teach that God is just in condemning unbelievers to eternal hell (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9; Matthew 5:29f; 10:28; 13:49f; 18:8f; 25:46; Revelation 14:9-11; 20:10). Therefore, to the extent that hell is a total sentence of condemnation, to that extent must we think of ourselves as totally blameworthy apart from the saving grace of God.

I’d be very interested in hearing your response to this.  I know we have some conflicting views on this subject.  I just hope and pray that both of us will be able to be humble enough to realize any possible error in thinking.  It’s hard to sharpen iron if it doesn’t want to be sharpened, right?  Let’s be sharpenable.

Lemme know what you think.  Can a non-believer do good with pure intentions?

Because of Him,

Joe Hylander

A Closer Look

Recently I attended a lecture that was held in honor of Charles Darwin's 200th birthday, and the 150th anniversary of the publishing of The Origin of Species. The speaker's focus was on "Neandertals" and recent biological work that is attempting to recreate the DNA of a Neandertal. What struck me first was the clear distinction made between Neandertal and Human; each is considered a different species, a separate creature, individual branches on the 'tree of life'. However, the speaker's interest was on the degrees of variation (in the DNA) between these two "species." It's thought that perhaps by finding the genetic material that Neandertals had, and that Humans lacks, we can discover how we transitioned, or "evolved." Apparently the answer to the change from Ape to Human is all in the DNA, and the way that evolution caused the re-arranging of it.

And here is where I give pause to my thought. Hold on now, I think, why is it we are studying a single foundation of life? Evolution certainly separates Neandertal and Human, but only as Dogs and Cats are separated, not as Beast and Man are (by some) separated. The whole crux of evolution is that everything is natural, is matter, is not special, nor created, nor purposed, nor distinguished. Dirt is a dog is a tree is a virus is a man. And logically, if everything evolved from a single substance, nothing should have significance.

But then, how is it that a distinction can be made between what does and does not evolve? Suppose we (as the evolutionists must do) avoid the logical impossibility of a natural substance simply existing, without cause or creation; to explain how this first substance becomes what we see around us today, it's believed that it lived and grew and developed more advanced life processes. What evolution seems to do today, is to study all the ways that one species becomes another, and to examine the DNA structure as if some progress is being made by doing this research compared to past observations. It's said "X became Y because the DNA was re-arranged and came to include characteristic A." And this is done for every species along the timeline, they all have their differences in DNA that show a story of evolution.

The problem, is that the base substance-what is said to have originally existed and evolved to create life-isn't evolving, isn't even said to have evolved. Miniscule proteins and DNA molecules as a single, unchanging entity are the only basis scientists have for studying changes in creatures, and yet it cannot be found that DNA itself changes. DNA is rearranged, sure, but that's the case even today, and is not a question of evolution, of change, but simply of diversity.

This distinction is like this: a young child takes out his building blocks and constructs a small house for himself. After a few days he gets tired of playing with the house and knocks it down, and then rearranges the blocks to build a tower. Technically, the boy's outer creation has changed; the order of the blocks has changed, the height of the structure, etc. But, he's still using building blocks. The blocks haven't evolved to become steel, which would then yield to entirely new building possibilities. So it is with DNA. The essential determinent of genetics may be rearrranged from creature to creature, but Nature is still being built by DNA.

Logically, if everything is the same natural material, as evolution must postulate, then if one living thing can evolve, anything can. In fact, nothing is 'living' aside from the fact that some matter is charged with electricity and thus moves, and through millions of years of evolving cause and effect patterns, 'life' has occurred. It's reasonable to think that if a cell can become a fish, then DNA can become a more advanced molecule. But really, if that was the case, evolution would be near impossible to study, much less prove. Instead, scientists must admit to a common Design before quickly moving on to individual branches on a tree. Therefore, we must not forget that it is a common Tree that all creatures, and Man, stem from. Common function, and common structure, lend themselves very well to common Designer.

Jason

Sin

What are thoughts, Joe, on the action and judgment of sin? What is man's error, and what is the consequence of it?

And that chicken-egg question: Are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we're sinners?

Jason

Prayer

First, in reference to the predestination discussion, I do not think I misinterpreted your thoughts; at least, I attempted to argue against God's total control over our spiritual "decisions" (they are only decisions if we have a choice), and perhaps the derivative of the predestination belief is that God also directs our every physical action. That inquiry in metaphysics and dualism is best saved for another time, as you said. I simply wanted to close that off on my end as you did on yours.

As for prayer, I'd like to start off with a little bit of Lewis myself, as is found in God in the Dock ("Scraps" p. 217).

'Praying for particular things', said I, 'always seems to me like advising God how to run the world. Wouldn't it be wiser to assume that He knows best?' 'On the same principle', said he, 'I suppose you never ask a man next to you to pass the salt, because God knows best whether you ought to have salt or not. And I suppose you never take an umbrella, because God knows best whether you ought to be wet or dry.' 'That's quite different,' I protested. 'I don't see why,' said he. 'The odd thing is that He should let us influence the course of events at all. But since He lets us do it in one way I don't see why He shouldn't let us do it in the other.'

This idea goes along with a longer essay in the same book entitled "Work and Prayer." The thing we forget, is exactly what you asked of me Joe, "How could there be anything in existence that is outside of God?" If God made the both the spiritual and the physical, then our actions on earth are as much a manipulation of events as our prayers to Heaven. Yet, no one will argue that we, in almost all cases of history, are acting on conscience, emotion, our own thoughts, rather than waiting for things to happen on their own, or for something out of our control to carry out our wishes. It's in the nature of God that we choose to eat the hamburger instead of the pizza, or decide to run instead of walk. It is His nature, and within God, in that He has given us the bodies that we use to interact with the physical world, and also that His very nature, the quintessential element of God, is that He is free. God, being holy, being the Holy One, is able to act in whatever way He deems best that also is in accordance with His goodness and love. In the same way, we are free to act within the laws of nature, and those spiritual laws that govern our amount of power and ability - both placed on us by God.

This could be a much larger subject, let me abruptly try to end that train of thought and respond to the three situations you presented.

1. When we ask, we receive what God deems appropriate. I think that is why He "only hears the prayers of the upright" as you said. On earth, our actions are more immediate and ruthless, because the effects directly follow the cause. When I punch you in the face, you immediately feel pain. However, when we attempt to affect the design of Heaven, we are acting in a realm above time and space, and calling on a power without limits. That is why God is the mediator of our prayers, that in His goodness and wisdom He is able to hear us, and yet not 'grant' our every desire. It would be a horrible world if prayer was an instantaneous success for lunatic and saint alike.

2. These questions are where predestination and prayer are linked in my reckoning, and why the idea of God bringing men to Himself (without fail), removes the necessity of Christ. If God is going to do it anyway, outside interaction in the process is unnecessary. Lewis phrases it such: "Most of the events that go on in the universe are indeed out of our control, but not all. It is like a play in which the scene and the general outline of the story is fixed by the author, but certain minor details are left for the actors to improvise." That is not to say that Jesus is an 'outside source' in the same way as man is a separate entity from God. But, if God is going to directly connect to man anyway, He doesn't really need to provide a facade for how He's going to do it. Just like if He's in full control, without variation, there's no reason to present prayer as an illusion of human influence. But, we certainly do have prayer, and God certainly sent Jesus.

I think the larger picture in both issue, prayer and predestination, is of direction. Predestination and the idea of inept (or unnecessary) prayer, is a belief that God is directly acting towards man, and that is it. Salvation is from God to the men He selects, and God's will is enacted on man without man's influence. However, the view I hold, is that salvation and God's plan are both in need of, or at least subject to, reciprocity from man's end. To be sure, both still start with God, but in the sense that He offers and provides salvation, yet requires man's acceptance. He has a plan and acts out His will, but offers man a method of response and communication. And here, Jesus is necessary. Christ is both the method and message of our salvation, and He is also the avenue of communication to the Father. Throughout the Old Testament, the story of interaction with God is one of specially chosen middle-men: Noah, Moses, priests, judges, kings, and finally, Jesus, that Judge, King and High Priest who ascended above all previous mediators to be the Mediator. I don't know (and correct me if I'm wrong) of any stories where an Israelite suddenly repented of His sin outside of a prophet's message, and without being directly spoken to by God (in essence, made to be the next prophet, such as Moses being spoken to by God through the burning bush). There is always someone sent by God, like Jesus was sent by God, to speak to the masses and require a message of repentance to be sent back to God, through the messenger, just as Jesus requires us to request forgiveness from God, through Him.

This point is probably the longest, because as I said, it parallels two questions. I'm not sure I've fully presented all there is to this point, but I hope I have added some clarity. In essence, interaction between God and man is defined by communication, and relationship, not control and disassociation. God commands, persuades, and directs man, and allows man to respond with obedience, questions, and requests. As to whether the ability to change minor events removes God's ability to know the future, no. That is placing God within time, as if He only knows events in chronological order. Perhaps, if man comes in to change some part of the reel, God will have to watch the movie again to find out what effect the switch had. There is a distinction between knowing events, and causing them. I can watch a fight, and know who's in it, and yet not have had anything to do with it. In the same way, God is present in every moment, ever, and yet may not have directly caused each. That is what we mean by disobedience, is it not? That God is watching some moment of our lives where He wishes us to do one thing, and yet we cause another to happen. If God only knew the future because He was directly causing each event, there would be no sin (James 1:13). Freedom of the angels, and of man, is the only Scriptural precedent for sin.

3. Prayers surely change us. They do so in the way that we've talked about, that prayer is communication with God and as much listening to Him as speaking to Him. Ultimately, listening to God may be considered the highest form of prayer. Lewis writes that "To be in the state in which you are so at one with the will of God that you wouldn't want to alter the course of events even if you could is certainly a very high or advanced condition." Yet even the Lord's prayer asks for bread, forgiveness (remember that we are called, required, to ask for forgiveness; how so, and why, if forgiveness is predestined?), and escape from temptation. Asking of God is equivalent to recognizing the power of God, and His position as the Sustainer of our lives. In that sense, by silencing our own requests, we better understand God's.

As a closing, I'd like to make an observation. If either of us truly believed in predestination of knowledge or events, this blog would not exist. Should we hold the belief that God pre-designed whether or not we would know who He is, and how He works, we would not take it upon ourselves to discover it. Action, request, question, these are not sinful, they are God's nature; they are Freedom.

Jason

Predestination, Prayer, and Confusion (on my part)

Dear Mr. Nack,

First off I would like to apologize for not keeping up with replying to you.  The past several weeks have been exhausting for me; however, that is a poor excuse not to reply.  

I love your introduction to your post.  That verse from 1 Corinthians is one that is true of myself.  Your argument is well taken.  As with much of theology, it is wrong for one to become too dogmatic regarding their beliefs.  That is not to say that we should hold on to our beliefs loosely, as they could be wrong in some regard.  I consider myself a Calvinist, but not to the point where it would be an unhealthy belief.  Obviously, we are children of Christ and followers of God.  Let’s make sure that that is the center of our thought process, not Calvinism.  Does that make sense? 

I feel like you may have misinterpreted my position on predestination.  I believe that God sovereignty and justly choose those who will be saved.  However, I do not believe that we have our ever move dictated to us by God.  Any sense of “free will” (however you define it) is under God’s sovereign control.  How could there be anything in existence that is outside of God? 

I found your argument compelling, but it did not persuade me (it would be boring if we agreed on everything right?  What would we write about?).  Your argument seemed to be too heavy on the philosophy and reason and less on theology (I could be wrong though…obviously).  Sometime I would like to have the time to be able to pick apart each of the passages both of us used in presenting our side of thinking.  Maybe some other time, eh? 

As for now, I would like to take apart Romans 8:29 a bit.  The following breakdown is borrow from John Piper (http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/1985/512_Those_Whom_He_Foreknew_He_Predestined/): 

1.    The connection with verse 28.

“FOR whom he foreknew…”

2.    The meaning of God’s foreknowledge.

“For whom he FOREKNEW, he also predestined…”

3.    The aim of predestination for our good.

“…to become conformed to the image of his Son…”

4.    The aim of predestination for Christ’s glory.

“…that he might be the first-born among many brethren.” 

…I encourage you to read the rest of the outline to his message.  Perhaps the area of predestination is something that we’ll have to agree to disagree on.  To be honest, I haven’t thought much about predestination as of late.  I’ve been studying the purpose of prayer again…to which I am thoroughly confused. 

If you don’t mind, could we change gears to discuss prayer a bit?   I know I’ve already talked to you a bit about it in person and the likes, but I am still confused as to the purpose (speaking mainly of petitionary prayer).  I believe that to a degree, predestination and prayer are connected.  However, I don't know where that degree is.  I found this “conversation” once and find it fascinating; I want to know what you think about it: 

Prayerless: I understand that you believe in the providence of God. Is that right?

Prayerful: Yes.

Prayerless: Does that mean you believe, like the Heidelberg Catechism says, that nothing comes about by chance but only by God's design and plan?

Prayerful: Yes, I believe that's what the Bible teaches.

Prayerless: Then why do you pray?

Prayerful: I don't see the problem. Why shouldn't we pray?

Prayerless: Well, if God ordains and controls everything, then what he plans from of old will come to pass, right?

Prayerful: Yes.

Prayerless: So it's going to come to pass whether you pray or not, right.

Prayerful: That depends on whether God ordained for it to come to pass in answer to prayer. If God predestined that something happen in answer to prayer, it won't happen without prayer.

Prayerless: Wait a minute, this is confusing. Are you saying that every answer to prayer is predestined or not?

Prayerful: Yes, it is. It's predestined as an answer to prayer.

Prayerless: So if the prayer doesn't happen, the answer doesn't happen?

Prayerful: That's right.

Prayerless: So the event is contingent on our praying for it to happen?

Prayerful: Yes. I take it that by contingent you mean prayer is a real reason that the event happens, and without the prayer the event would not happen.

Prayerless: Yes that's what I mean. But how can an event be contingent on my prayer and still be eternally fixed and predestined by God?

Prayerful: Because your prayer is as fixed as the predestined answer.

Prayerless: Explain.

Prayerful: It's not complicated. God providentially ordains all events. God never ordains an event without a cause. The cause is also an event. Therefore, the cause is also foreordained. So you cannot say that the event will happen if the cause doesn't because God has ordained otherwise. The event will happen if the cause happens.

Prayerless: So what you are saying is that answers to prayer are always ordained as effects of prayer which is one of the causes, and that God predestined the answer only as an effect of the cause.

Prayerful: That's right. And since both the cause and the effect are ordained together you can't say that the effect will happen even if the cause doesn't because God doesn't ordain effects without causes.

Prayerless: Can you give some illustrations?

Prayerful: Sure. If God predestines that I die of a bullet wound, then I will not die if no bullet is fired. If God predestines that I be healed by surgery, then if there is no surgery, I will not be healed. If God predestines heat to fill my home by fire in the furnace, then if there is no fire, there will be no heat. Would you say, "Since God predestines that the sun be bright, it will be bright whether there is fire in the sun or not"?

Prayerless: No.

Prayerful: I agree. Why not?

Prayerless: Because the brightness of the sun comes from the fire.

Prayerful: Right. That's the way I think about the answers to prayer. They are the brightness, and prayer is the fire. God has established the universe so that in larger measure it runs by prayer, the same way he has established brightness so that in larger measure it happens by fire. Doesn't that make sense?

Prayerless: I think it does.

Prayerful: Then let's stop thinking up problems and go with what the Scriptures say. Ask and you will receive. You have not because you ask not.

 

Let me ask you, what is the purpose of prayer?  I’m sure things are popping to mind about how we pray to give thanks to God and to offer Him praise.  I wholeheartedly agree with that; however, my confusion comes in the area of petitionary prayer.  This type of prayer is in which I request something from God.  Don’t get me wrong, I pray (although not enough) and ask that God give me things or that God will give me safety, or that God will bless a friend or something. 

My question is this: what is the point of praying if God already has a plan in mind for us? Why interject our own desires into prayers of petitions if we are expected to pray for His will to be done? If I pray for something so earnestly all my life and it is not what God has in mind for me, then I have wasted thousands of prayers in vain. What I desire may or may not be what God has in mind for me; I have no way of knowing. So I ask, why bother? 

I’ll offer 3 possible thought processes:

1.    We pray and then we ask and receive (Luke 11:10) or we do not ask and do not receive.  I do not contest that the purpose of prayer is to use God as our servant boy to do whatever we ask.  It says that He only hear the prayers of the upright and those earnestly seeking Him (Philippians 4:6-7; Matthew 6:5-8; 2 Chronicles 7:14) 

2.    If God will do His will, than the purpose is lacking for us ask.  If he will accomplish His will in his own time and way, why would we ask Him to do something our way?  Or do we ask and due to us asking, He changes His mind?  If He changes His mind, does He really know the future?  Or does He base His decisions on our requests or lack of requests?  What makes us think that we know better than God in some area to ask the Creator of the world to change his plans for us?

3.    C.S. Lewis once stated that he prayers not to change God, but to change himself.  This is the view I hold to.  We know that our thoughts are not God’s thoughts (Isaiah 55:8), but shouldn’t it be our daily intent of making our thoughts those which God would have us think?  We are told to be transformed by the renewal of our minds so that we can test and know what God’s will is (Romans 12:1-2)

Because of Him,

Joe

Government

I'm not sure why the idea of having Christians in positions of authority within the government is so repulsive, but I find, against logic, that it is. The secularist feels that if a man of God is able to take power, he will attempt to convert the entire nation and enforce strict doctrinal laws requiring church attendance and daily prayer at work and in schools or something of that misguided sort. For whatever reason, it's assumed the Christian cannot possibly hold any capacity for logic, as he maintains at least a few specific stances on certain topics. It's as if the non-Christian politician has no values or beliefs by which he acts in government (sadly, sometimes he doesn't, and that always ends in scandal and corruption). The first hurdle to get over is that both Christians and non-Christians will act in government based on their faith in certain items, the real problem is the object of that faith, and I will not attempt to argue that here. Only it must be said that a Christian politician should be considered no less logical than the atheist politician who considers adultery with a prostitute to be acceptable, in fact, he should be considered much more in tune with reason and dignity.

On the other hand, there is the Christian view of having their own in government, and it is split between two opinions. The first, I think, is based on a false sense of humility, in thinking that the Christian should not accept a position of power whereby he may influence the lives of men. If 'power corrupts' then the Christian should be as far away from power as possible. This view is desperately opposed to the fundamental commandment, "Love thy neighbor" and the great verse, "Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends" (John 15:13). Did not God guide the men of power in Scripture? Was not God beside David, Solomon, Moses, Nehemiah and Daniel among others? If a Christian refuses, or fears, authority, he in many cases will be leaving the position open for one who forgets the ultimate Authority. While God is above all leaders, and governs in the affairs of men, there are some who, in authority, will persecute and harass members of society. Harm against the self should be tolerated in Christ, harm against others should be overthrown. The question of rebellion is one almost strictly of human governance, and is open to discussion and consideration as much by Christians as anyone else.

Secondly, even if a Christian brings his values and faith to a public office, he must never mistake office for pulpit. It is not for the Christian politician to preach to, or to convert, the nation. That is for each of us as neighbors, as coworkers, and as friends. Within the political realm it's possible the Christian is able to witness through his personal life, but that is no different from any of us. Politics is his job, and he should carry it out with as much skill as God enables him. As Dr. Ravi Zacharias says in reference to recognizing the personal lives that are brought into politics:

It is a mindless philosophy that assumes that one's private beliefs have nothing to do with public office. Does it make sense to entrust those who are immoral in private with the power to determine the nation's moral issues and, indeed, its destiny? ... The duplicitous soul of a leader can only make a nation more sophisticated in evil.

Therefore, we must have Christians who are both willing and able to lead our cities, states, and country with skill and knowledge in governance, while also living out the personal commitment of salvation. This truth was understood by our founding fathers, who both designed how to govern a nation, and simultaneously lived in submission to the Ruler of that supernal Nation.


What do you think? What role should Christians take in government? How do we reconcile Scriptural teachings of kings and empires with the modern standard of democracy? What other thoughts have you on government?


Jason

Predestination: A Response

That's a very fine definition Joe, and a great argument, or rather explanation, of predestination as laid out in Scripture. I must begin by admitting that my shots are in the dark, and that I, realizing my iniquity, long for nothing more than 1 Cor. 13:12: "For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known."

Taking into account Scripture-those verses which Joe has presented as well as others-and studying the history of God's interaction with man, I don't think there can be disagreement about the fact that God selects specific people for His purpose, and that He chooses to raise up certain people above others. Indeed, Scripture is laid out as stories of men and women who were directly commanded, supported, and praised by the LORD. The real question is whether these people, specially chosen, are selected and yet retain the ability to accept or deny the call, or whether God is forcing people to answer His call with the same Power He is using to call the person. I must agree with the first situation, I'm not sure Reason will allow the second.

Firstly, if God is the Power forcing humans to act, then He may as well not have created Man in the first place. In essence, unless Man is a completely separate, albeit less powerful, entity from God, then Man does not exist at all. You may as well read the Bible where all names, all references to people, are replaced with the word "God." If only God is involved in all that occurs, then reductio ad absurdum He kissed His own cheek in the garden of Gethsemane. Indeed, Jesus is unnecessary if God forcibly brings people to Himself. What's the use in presenting Himself to people He controls? God would be the necessary Power and the acceptance of Him by Man would not be an option.

Let's look at Israel, the classic case of God's divine selection. God has clearly chosen the children of Israel to be His people; He is their God, the God of their fathers, and it is for Israel to follow Him. Yet, how many times did they turn away from Him? If God predestines a person, or a nation, to be His and that is unquestionable and to be carried out without challenge by His authority, how then does His nation leave Him? Is God not powerful enough? Did He not choose Israel? Neither. Instead, "Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth! For the LORD has spoken: 'I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against Me;...Alas, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters! They have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked to anger the Holy One of Israel, they have turned away backward'" (Isaiah 1:2,4). Israel turned away, Israel forgot God.

If judgment lies on those who choose to abandon God, how can the alternative not also be a choice? If there is no choice in following God, then it would be impossible to turn away, and yet the chosen people did. Salvation comes, yes, but always (to my knowledge) through a third party. The people of Israel don't suddenly feel released of their transgressions and follow God again. God calls to them, sends them prophets, judges, kings, leaders, priests. C.S. Lewis wrote on the idea that if God spoke directly to us, to the Soul, in that He placed ideas into us without the use of a 'third party' or source outside of Himself and outside of us, then we would have no idea whether the idea orginated from God or ourselves. It would be impossible to tell, the idea would simply appear, 'come to us', as it were. Salvation is the same. If God worked explicitly in the soul, and made us His children by His power alone, and without our choice, we would have no idea of Him, or His love, or His sacrifice. Only through providing the option of Jesus Christ is humanity allowed to hear the Good News, and fully experience the love of God.

Many Christians, I think, fear the idea of a globalized view of salvation. Often any notion of all people being accepted by God is rejected outright. I agree that not all will be saved, but there is a difference between what will happen, and what is capable of happening. In my view, to use "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4) to mean that before God created anything, He already planned man to fall so that He could specifically call out certain men, is a dangerous claim. The stance of God's planning and forcibly carrying out a plan of sin and repentance inarguably leads to the claim that Adam and Eve had no choice but to sin, that Israel had no choice but to turn away, that those in Hell had no other option. But then guilt is not an appropriate feeling for sin. We can't help it, it's God's plan. And then we must question why God punishes those who follow His plan; I have never read Paul's writings on suffering to be in reference to the sin God forced me to carry out. But what other option have we if we leave ourselves thinking that God planned, before Adam's first breath, that Man would fall and require God's forcible salvation?

Rather, I think the Scriptures better support, as a whole, the idea that God predestined Man, before He created him, to be in relationship with God. That man's purpose was to worship and love the LORD our God. But at the same time,"So God created man in His own image" (Gen. 1:27), and that image is not a physical one; anthropomorphism borders with idolatry. God's image is one of spirituality, being made in similar nature to God. What is God's most defining, most ultimately necessary attribute? Freedom. Ultimate ability and power to do all things because He is holy. The freedom to create, to plan, to act. Man also imagines, remembers, reasons; he is above the beasts who act (seemingly) solely through instinct - slaves of Nature's cause and effect. Man is able to interact with and effect change on the world around Him, just as God is able, though the amount of power is largely different. What is prayer if man is not free to speak to God as an individual being? What is love if man is not able to freely submit to God? What is man's obedience if it's carried out by God?

This is a large concept, with many more examples available, but perhaps should be spread out and influenced by honest discussion. To try and summarize, I believe that God created man with the destiny, or goal, of being in relation with Him, but knowing in His divine wisdom that true relationship happens through free sacrifice, what we call 'love.' However, Adam, in his freedom, chose to pursue his own glory above that of God's, and thus became sinful. God then sent His son, Jesus Christ, to redeem the world, and to call to us that He is the way to Love and Salvation, that the work is done and that we have only to follow after Him. Once we do, I submit that the Holy Spirit comes along side us and is the Power that drives us in sanctification. The Father is the goal, the Son is the path, and the Spirit is the mode of transportation, but we still need to start the engine. Love can only push us into the car, it cannot make us begin the journey.

Jason