Little ditty about Calvinism

You can and you can't,
You shall and you shan't;
You will and you won't.
You're damned if you do,
And damned if you don't.

This is the definition of Calvinism from Lorenzo Dow, a former methodist, who became an independant evangelist. It is in fact the origin of the phrase "You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't." He staunchly said that this was the essence of reformed thought. Despite some errors, I shall agree with him to a degree and address total inablity.

First, You can and you can't. This stems from the deceitful desires of the heart that entangle man's will to do what is evil. Repenting is the easiest thing in this world. For example, I can repent of doing crack cocaine. I turn and repent of it as easily as one says no to eating limabeans. This is because I have never touched that stuff. For me it would be as easy as pie. For someone entangled by it, it is an whole other story. I would have to say that sin is even more of a vice than any substance known to man. Sin is, in fact, the most addictive vice. There is no repenting of sin by throwing it off lightly. This includes repentence of the sin of unbelief. One can but one cannot. The problem lies with the person not with God or His perfection.

You shall and you shan't; You will but you won't. Man acts according to his desires. One desire, for example, is being rational. Another is selfishness. Another desire may be for another's benefit. Man does not come to decisions so lightly either; as to have nothing in the desire for an action yet do it. They are in fact our decisions. Desires may battle it out in our hearts and minds but be assured there is only one victor that is choosen. The will never defeats itself. Furthermore, People don't really act out of character. They only reveal their character in their actions. They only reveal what is strongest desire in their heart. This doesn't make us robots. It makes us human. The actions flow from the character of the person thus we are limited in our decisions by our own desires.

It is futile to change man's ways outside of God. It is God who changes man. No matter how much outer reform or appearance, one is still the same man with the same desires and without God. For even after religion, the evil will seek to escape any outward influence from the Holy Spirit. This is the state of natural man. The goodness of the will is broken. Though I may realize rationally that it is good to repent, my will in no way desires it. Likewise, it follows that anyone who desires unbelief and hates God, will not believe. Nor would tries to have religion by resolve gain anything. His original will shall prevail. One cannot be victorious against their self. This resolve would be motivated in and of itself by a selfish desire not befitting of the gospel. One cannot wish to love God. One can go through the motions but it amounts to nothing.

Next, the last phrase, damned if you do, and damned if you don't. It is certainly clear that you cannot for you will not. For you cannot effect salvation through deeds, good works, or church going. Your affections are in the way. Even a rash "decision for christ" means little because the natural heart is too deceitful and manipulative. The gospel is never a deceitful, manipulative twisting one's arm into an emotional and rash decision to assent to a truth. Some preachers try that. (revivalists*cough* *cough*) This emotionalism does not create conversions. It creates salamanders that thrive when placed under the fire of experiencies but expire easily at room temperatures. Such are not the eternal changes that make up a Christian.

Man must rest from his works and let God be victorious in all he does. Man's resolve alone is not great enough to keep himself from hell. It is not upon the man who strives or runs but upon God to have mercy. Even if a flesh-centered man desired to choose God; he would do so without real faith and trust in it. It is very possible that such a man only seeks to escape God. This choice would lessen his obligations to his soul. I would not trust even my own heart for such conversion. Man must be given a new heart.

Finally, The little saying would be more accurate if it said:

God can and you can't,
God shall and you shan't;
God will and you won't.
God damned you, even if you try and do,
but damned only if you aren't born anew.

The Art of Science and Religion

No one counts the seconds between drops of water from a steady drip to realize that they appear random at first and then become periodic but remain just as random. No one considers that a random number generator on a computer is not truly random. Few people understand that break pads or rather the discs they are on (rotors?) heat up in a non-uniform way. Such that hot spots form on one side of the disc and not the other when spun circularly. No one looks at the spot on Jupiter or Earth's air currents to realize that the semi-spontaneous formation of hurricanes and storm systems depend on the initial conditions. Conditions so small that it can arise out of the flap of a butterfly wing in China. Oh, how I could be changing the world by merely typing this blog entry. At the same time, there are strange attractors in Chaos. Sometimes, it doesn't matter what the initial conditions are. One will always get the same result from the system. Chaos is such a strange thing. Entropy is stranger still.


Sin and grace are very much like chaos in this chaotic world. Sin will always drag one to a single place with its corruption, hell. Yet, Grace is like the hurricane. It abounds such that mighty kingdoms are destroy by a single act 2000 years ago. Even the smartest scientist is but an artist when it comes to these things. The equations don't do it justice. They break down due to their lack of accuracy. Science can't hope to explain God when scientists can't even explain all the things around them by numbers.

Lesser things: Intellegence

Some think intellegence is a natural trait. Some have also considered me intellegent, for lack of intellegence. I know my mind. I know it quite well. I have to disagree strongely at times. I have felt my mind has shifted further from rogue memory toward being more analytic. During this time, I have felt as if I have become stupider. (It gets really funny when I have gone without sleep for more than 48 hours. I can barely piece together a sentence or coherent thought. At least then there is a reason.) I kind of know that this is not the case but rather my intellegence has become analytic. It is a strange thing when my mind is not at my command in the same way it was before. This shift is seen in my classes, I can only learn equations now in conjuction with theories rather than by rogue memory alone. I have to study now when 2 years ago I did not. My rogue memory before meant that I never had to study even for crazy hard thermo-dynamics. It meant that I never learned things for a test and end up forgoting them later.

Maybe it is because my mind has limits and is speciallizing in how it is used. My mind is more systematic and engineering oriented than in my younger days. This shift has its ups and downs. My mind can almost always tackle any of the tallest theological obstacles by force. I have hammered out my view of the covenant of works from scripture. It is appart from standard reformed tradition but it is not new. I find my view echoed in some of the early reformers and the dutch. I am almost done hammering out my understanding of the covenant of grace. My covenant of grace is going to consist of sin and grace in time feeding off each other. Theological mountains are becoming molehills. I am faced with fewer issues and there is less on my plate to contemplate.

Knowledge can puff up. It takes wisdom to deflate it. I am left with what was always there to begin with: God, sin, and the Gospel. My heart needs help, not my head. I am left with theological thought that cannot escape the gravity of the cross. There is an end to learning for this reason. On the other side of the coin, memorizing scripture word for word is very difficult for me. My mind remembers chapters and verses but not words. It is a strange thing indeed.

I bring all this up because I am sure that discernment and deep thought are part of my spiritual giftings. I ask to what end will my own mind and person shift. I have seen other things that disturb me arise such as immaturity. I have felt that I have gone backwards while going forward in things. I don't know if anyone understands this feeling. I am sure God has a reason.

My sin

John Owen once said of sin "Kill sin or it will be killing you." I feel like I am on the being killed end. I am convicted of this since I know that I have not resisted to the point of shedding blood. I am swinging from being closer and further from God both at one time. Sin has entrenched itself deeper into my life. Maybe it is just that I am seeing it now. I know the only cure is the gospel. At Anthem, I was closer to God while being farther away. Luckily, I know that I can draw near to God by the Blood of Christ. I trust in general the gospel but I haven't trusted it enough specifically for killing sin. It is strange. I am more reliant on it, recently, yet in more need of it.

I see that there is a general principle of sin in my life which is now shifting to find new outlets. It may be because I am guilty of giving it a foothold to launch every kind of attack against me. It seems that the provisions of just doing more church stuff does not help my condition. Anthem did not help in that way. Anthem may have helped uncover sin again. I was busy letting it catch fire on the back burner. Christian comfort isn't the problem. The problem is that I am too comfortable in my sin. This sin requires me to have more faith. I don't think I have done a good job at meeting the challenge.

My faith right now feels like John Paul Jones in saying "I have not yet begun to fight", while looking around only to see that my ship is sinking and on fire. Only to know: silly christian, you aught to be able to walk on water. It is our faith that must overcome the world. Merely knowing this does not help. I am strangely not dismayed at my uncovered depravity but I could use some prayer and grace to fight sin as I aught.

Holy Spirit at Anthem.

I definately felt the Spirit moving Friday night during the 3rd message, especially toward conversions. I began to pray for conversions at this point towards the end of the message. Without looking around at all the effects of the HS, which I saw afterward, I could tell spiritually that He was moving in a large way.

I am pretty certain that angels were rejoicing that night. The one thing I didn't do after the message was follow up by talking to some of the new guys. I only talked to Kip briefly. I know that I should have talked to some more people for certain now. Even the ones that I did not know. (which is most of them). I am hearing that many people (6+) were saved by that message. It is not something one aught to count that often. What counts is that God's word was faithfully preached in conjunction with the actions with His Holy Spirit. This is what gave increase.

Reformation and Repentance

I was quite immature at Anthem, like I have never been before in my life. I am not quite sure what came over me. I am usually too serious to do this kind of stuff. Some of this sin was from vanity. Some of it came from the large amount of suger and caffiene consumed.

Here is a list of my offenses:
1)Snorting crushed sweet-tarts
2)Ramming canoes at slow speeds
3)Rolling a place with TP by myself (in retaliation).
4)Throwing tic-tacs at someone.
5)Pulling a chair out from under someone as they were sitting down
6)Putting tatter tots in my pocket and eating them later in front of people. Like Napoleon Dynamite.
7)Having a quiet time precariously perched up on a high rock, just for the fun of it.
8)Burning candy with a candle till it caught on fire.
9)Eating burnt candy
10)Jumping on the low Burning coals of the bondfire... Multiple times.

I am sure I am forgeting something. My sin was active but luckily it was limited in its effect to others. I felt the need to appologize to the person for the chair prank. I think some of this is in response to a prayer a while ago that I see the difference between reformation and repentance. I have been a christian for a long time. I grew up in a 'christian' home. There was much reforming of my actions.

Yet, this is not the same as repentance. This means my sin and the cause often hides beneath a white washed veneer. It was in this state of prior reformation that I was saved. I'm still seeing refined sins appear out of nowhere and shift to another place that is restained by only inhibitions. Furthermore, my shy personality and my introverted nature kept certain sins at bay. This has changed a bit. The cause of sin often hid behind my inhibitions rather than convictions against sin.

Now, we can all see the evils of indwelling sin. One can think it is dealt with only to see that it returns because it hides under everything but convictions. It hides for a time, behind mere choices and inhibitions rather than real repentance. This is the depravity that I have seen in my own person as of late. The heart is deceitful above all things. Furthermore, I see that sin likes shifting its outlet when it is seen. Lust to sloth to lust to an additive personality to vanity to immaturity to lust again. Anthem was an extention of this rollercoster of shifting sin in my life. This is a strange period. I see my potential sins and tendancies outside of christ. I also see my reliance on Christ. I need to pray for real repentance from some of these potential sins. So that they don't take root. I can't say that I like the person that I was on Friday.

Presbyterian New Covenant

There is a confession of a Reformed Baptist I need to make. I almost became a Presbyterian. Its kind of complicated. I both love and loathe Presbyterians. Its because of my experience with them. This came about by considering some of old testament types in Hebrews used. This relates to the covenant of grace, warnings, and covenants in the Old Testament. It is related to the perseverance of the saints.

It began with a standard accusation by a Presbyterian, reformed baptists are somewhat dispensational in their thinking. (Knowing that most covenantal baptists hate the scourge called dispensationalism.) Yet, there are some interesting facts that were brought to my attention that go against some things Reformed baptists have said before. This made me consider every accusation.

The first thing was that the holy spirit indwelt people prior to Pentecost. Not just regenerated but indwelt. (Read about Elijah and his successor.) This is true. The spirit was around before Pentecost. I shall discuss this later.

Hebrews also says Spiritual Israel was not content to just dwell in the promised land. They wished to be given a further rest. They wished for an imperishable inheritance that could not be lost through their corruption. They wished to further commune with God. There was much of the gospel in existence, hidden such that mere flesh could not understand it. Thus, in John 3 when Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus. He is calling him to account as a teacher of Israel for why he does not know what about what he is teaching. Especially about being born again, it was not something to be done only later at Pentecost. It was already in existence among the prophets. Old testament saints could be saved and given the pledge of salvation. Luckily, Christ and the gospel have been clearly displayed in these times and the spirit is poured out in a way that even we can see it. Especially in Christ's flesh and in His ressurectiton.

Now in the framework of the old testament covenants, there were blessings and curses. The Presbyterian question that Hebrews brings up in relation to the new covenant is this. Is the new covenant filled with warnings such that it also includes unbelievers? A cursory reading suggests this, while it is enforced by its negative that says that the promises of the new covenant comes by faith. This seems to allow a larger group of people in the new covenant. (Including unsaved.) Now, this partial picture allows church children to be included in the new covenant. The church/covenant here looked closer to a nation in which people may be born. After a reading of Hebrews, I felt that I understood it as a Presbyterian would. Upon further consideration there were catholic traits too. It also allows the necessity of sanctification in the new covenant to distinguish faith from one group verses the other. I put off converting my 'allegiance' to presbyterian till I clearly convicted of this truth. (If such can be said. My allegiance is towards Christ. I would have been faithful to the Word and my conscience if it stuck.)

I read it again but it was not as Presbyterian or Catholic upon further inspection. The warnings arose from considerations of an Exodus type for Israel. It should be known that Israel requires another Exodus. An exodus from the covenant law into a greater rest, a rest of the spirit. Israel requires another law. It required another savior (not moses). They require more blood to cover their door post for they are under judgement. The new covenant is a fulfillment of the law and promises. Thus, the warnings pertain to reliance on the old testament covenant after the arrival of the new covenant, which consists of the Spirit in greater measure. The warning is not for the unfaithful of a church or the children of a church. These were not for the church period. It is for the Hebrews.

There is an importance placed on the graces of the spirit and on the sacrifice of Christ in these warnings. Now these very things are not new. Some exist under the types of the old covenant. These things increased visibly in relation to Christ in this last age. Yet, some eternal things were hardly new. The warning was for those of the old covenant to spiritual discern and turn. Those who have been enlightened, given grace under the law, believers of the goodness of God's word, and who have experience and observed heaven's power. As well as those, who have partook of the holy spirit in some limited fashion. The details of this relationship are a point of contention.

The next verses seem to suggest that this relationship may simply be for those who lie under the streams of grace (non-specific) but yield up thorns. This non-specific grace can apply to Israel and people in the Old covenant. Yet, this is the issue for the church when one says that the holy spirit ineffectually indwells or sanctifies people in the church (by baptism). It is just as vague and destructive to the gospel. Unfortunately, this type of relationship of the Holy spirit outside of saving grace destroys the incorruptibility of the new covenant. This corrupts the truth about God writing laws on people's hearts as is common practice in the covenant of grace which is fulfilled more completely in the new covenant. It also places an importance on faith itself that aught not be there. The importance is rather on God alone. The relationship to the doctrines of Christ mentioned prior to this warning implies the old covenant for those who had known of God already but required instruction in Christ and basic christian practices. This also speaks of why Paul is so confident that it is apart from the things that accompany salvation.

A Presbyterian is not wrong on a lot of things. They are wrong only in one or two. Yet, they are more often wrong in their focus. I need to pray for them instead of both loving and loathing, the church and denomination, that I was not saved in. Or esteem myself to never be saved in.

Storyline of the Bible

I thoroughly enjoyed the seminar last Friday by Jeff. I saw the outline with "kingdom of God" and thought 'Oh, no this is going to be fullerism or Dispensational kind of crap.' Luckly it wasn't. He did not stress the holy nation aspect to the exclusion of a chosen race, a royal priesthood, and a people proclaiming God's excellencies.

He seemed to touch on the Exodus and similar instances in the OT as types of the things in the NT. It shows God's faithfulness to be increasingly gracious when the people deserve much less. When sin comes grace abounds. This often involves different types of the gospel. I have thought a lot on the OT along those lines. It was nice to hear it from someone else.

Furthermore, if you ask me what I learned I don't know if I can say that it was from Jeff. I was too busy following rabbit trails in my own thoughts with what Jeff said to know if he actually said it. Particularly in formulating my thoughts on the Covenant of Grace. In a way, The gospel is similar to previous exodus models but the inheritance is unperishable. It cannot be lost by corruption, he has put it in our hearts. Furthermore, the covenant of grace extends further into new creation in an already but not yet fashion. For we do not have this unperishable inheritance but an unperishable pledge.

This covenant involves election, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and a people meant to proclaim God's excellencies. It is meant to contain a new israel, not based on works but grace, with much greater promises to a larger audience. It contains God's kingdom or rather God's intended purpose and relation for mankind. (Ever since Eden.) I might do a commentary on Romans 5 to discuss this further in a little while.

Incomprehensiblity and Calculus

It seems that I have explained the calculus of the trinity, if you will, in the last post. I barely scratched the surface of who God is. There are parts that are understandable with difficulty. I tried to be clear on those. There are also parts that are too impossible to understand because God is beyond us.

Lets look at different dimensions. How does a 3D creature explain a 4D universe? Or rather How do we treat our existance time? With much difficulty and not with time's full meaning. We see a bunch of moments in time, rather than time itself. We try to fit slices of time on top of each other (in differential elements for you engineers). So we see multiple layers of our 3D universe and understanding rather than a 4D one. This is the calculus. We may understand parts of the 4D universe but we will never know what it is really like or its real internal workings.

We may understand parts of God but never fully. He is holy. He is transcendantly set apart. We are but creatures that exist on but a slice of His power, wisdom, and understanding. In him we have our being. We cannot fully understand or extend our existance back to Him. Christ manages to describe God in our universe but even he cannot be known by flesh and blood. A complete understanding of Christ is beyond us for He is also God. What we do know; He has had to reveal to us. Yet, this simplified equation that governs, the integration of Who God is, pieced together by slices, hardly describes the totality of God. For God has no bounds. It leads to a general solution that leaves out details. God is incomprehensible. This does not mean God is totally unknowable, rather He cannot be known fully or rightly. He can only be abstracted by what He reveals himself to be. He rightly says to Moses in describing himself, "I AM WHO I AM". Being that this definition is outside a stack of mere principles rather about real substance; within an incomprehensible statement.

Trinity and Filoque

There are two ways of looking at the trinity. One is by looking at the Actions of God.(Economical) The other is by looking at the being of God. (Ontological)

There are three persons in the trinity. Yet, There is one God and substance of the Trinity. Furthermore, the trinity is balanced. No one is any less than who God is or are subordinate to the other two. Many also believe that their is no imbalance in what each person in the trinity does. (That is its economy) This means that Christ's, The Father's, or The Holy Spirit's individual actions are all necessary to bring about a overall single action of God.

In this an action has different parts ascribed individually to the persons of the trinity. While the whole is made up of those parts is done by God, who is singular in his will. The three persons are also united but distinct in this will. An example of this is Salvation. It is ordained in time by the Father. It is obtained by the Son on the Cross. It is applied by the Holy Spirit in regeneration. Overall it is a single action of God in saving man despite the three appearant actions. These three actions are all important, interrelated, and necessary. It is to say each action is in balance with the others for a single purpose. The trinity acts when God collectively saying, without internal debate "It shall be done." and by the power of God's word it is done. There is also the idea that two never act or are, independant of the third, to be or do so is to break the trinity and subordinate the other. Yet, they can be refered to all collectively or singlely in part.

The only mysterious question is how these persons in the Godhead determine how to relate to each other, in the execution of God's will being that their substance is the same. The trinity is united by its very substance. The Son could ordain time. The Holy Spirit could have come to die. And the Father could have applied the Spirit's sacrifice. Each is capable of doing another's duty by nature. Yet, there is a real reason that the father is seen as the eternal. The Son is eternally begotten from the father. The Holy spirit is eternally proceding from the Father. The distinctions, actions, and even names for the distinctions, are divinely there for a reason. They should be respected as three persons. He should be respected as one God.

Now, there is something called the Filoque clause. One thought to add that the Holy Spirit procedes from the Son also. It makes some sense in that He was sent due to Christ or through Christ who is seated on the throne with the father. Yet, the wording of this clause does not establish this as an action. It rather establishes something about the Holy spirit's being. In altering, this statement about the being of the Holy spirit with "proceding from the father and the son" which is true only in Christ's actions, not his being. This appearantly reduces the Holy Spirit's divinity by making him subordinate to the other two.

This was what the split between Orthodox and Roman Catholicism. The Orthodox claim that the Pope with his papal infallibility was proclaiming a heresy that denegrated the Holy Spirit. They also reject his authority in being able to do so and excommunicated him. Whoops! Perhaps the See of Peter is wrong. Once Again.

Limited Atonement

Christ died for the Church made up of individual believers. Furthermore, he died for actual people, literal people whom he foreknew. The Bible does not talk about Christ dieing to give God the ability to forgive based on man's free will or based on external church membership. This is all well and good. I would perhaps still love God if he said such but it is just not there.

It does not talk about Christ dieing so that people can reject him or save themselves when confronted with the gospel. This would also appear good but that is not what is actually said. The Bible rather says that Christ is a stumbling block, because they are too blind to see it. It tells of a God who open eyes and open hearts. It also tells of a sacrifice that actually does the work at forgiving sin. Rather than a sacrifice that just make it possible. This idea of only a potential sacrifice or partially effective sacrifice destroys worth of what was offered. Christs blood is of infinite worth.

The Bible rathers says that Christ dies to save unbelieving enemies of the cross. People are saved by grace, unmerited favor. Through faith (That is the avenue of that grace). It is not of our own doing. For, We are God's workmanship. People cherry-pick Ephesians 2 to say that salvation is by faith. This is true but it is rather by grace received -through- faith. That is the avenue of that grace. Let us not consider if Ephesians implies that faith and grace are both gifts or just grace. The gospel is something one must receive. They do this by faith. Yet, One cannot even receive anything unless he is given it in heaven. John 3:27

I would be ok with Christ dieing to give God the ability to forgive men based on their choice. The Bible does not present this view. It talks of Him dieing to actually save. It is his act of dieing that saves and pays our debt to God. It is not our choice that makes his death worthwhile. However rosy this alternative is, it is not true. I cannot say that Christ's death is worthless in even the smallest circumstance. God accomplishes what he intends. Some might counter that all are saved. I certainly believe that God did not intend for Christ to save all but it would have been possible. Faith is the avenue through which salvation comes to a person by grace. One is not saved without it. Not all have faith.

Someone else might counter that God is not loving to damn people to hell. Well how so, men are getting what the deserve. The great multitude that is saved are getting what they don't deserve.

I would be ok with it if God let us choose. The bible does not present this view. Many reject the idea of one is rather chosen or elect by God. Some distort the plain meaning of election to say that this means mean we choose. Since when did our election of public officials consist of them electing themselves? Greek work -Elektos.- One does not elect themselves to an office. Election never meant that. How can God's electing purpose really be our electing purpose? I would be ok if God did not institute election per se but that is what the Bible says he did.

Even without election atonement would be limited. It is self-destructive to attack limit atonement. Arminian atonement is limited, albeit differently more than universalism or calvinism. If it was a hypothetically universal atonement in which everyone could gain salvation, it is limited in potential because man's choice. Even if it isn't limited by scope, its limited. Furthermore, even if everyone conditionally chose, 'yes' and gained salvation. (Or was granted it without the necessity of belief. As a universalist would claim.) It is limited in scope because the creation is such limited! Christs death is limited anyways!!!! All atonement by nature is limited to a number less than infinity. Only God is infinite! Now why should one believe that Christ's atonement is limited in scope and potential. When his blood is of infinite worth. I propose that it is of infinite worth toward the end he wishes. That meaning, towards a particular people to save.

The question is how did He save? It is pretty clear in my mind and that of the Bible. The answer is that God choose to pay our sin with the death of Christ. Not purchase himself a liberty. Not purchase himself an indefinite number of people from which, there was a possibility that no one would ever be save. The battle must be on how he saves, not the limit of who God saves. He does it individually. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Communion and Maturity.

My experience suggests that christian maturity is related not to knowledge or crafty words/thoughts of wisdom. It is rather related to a soul's time spent dwelling on the Gospel in communion with God. At times this maturity may be called "fanaticism" for in it, one never moves beyond a single belief, the Gospel. One is also fanatical in that they focus on salvation by faith and focus on God himself in everything. Some think there are bigger and better things in faith other than the gospel. I would call it Christian maturity to see otherwise.

Some may equate the gospel with spiritual milk that only babes in Christ need drink. Yet, they neglect that Christ himself is the true food and true drink. He is also the meat and substance of belief. In a way, God himself is the gospel. We must partake of his very nature to benefit. This is not literal consumption but rather we must experience and commune with his nature through the Holy Spirit to benefit our souls. This is christian maturity; it is to have increasing peace and communion with God.

Communion to some has become the outward acceptance of bread and wine. The bread and wine at times are no longer accepted as symbols of Christ and the gospel within our sanctification but the graces and the nature itself. This produces some serious problems. The bread and wine sacrimentally can avail to nothing without one receiving them as they would Christ and the gospel, especially in sanctification. The provisions for sanctification (and even justification) are related to Christ's atonement by the effects of his high priestly intercession. Roman Catholic Liturgy could support this link in communion. Such an understanding would also show how they have errored so far so fast. Primarily by changing what His interecession and what God's application of atonement looks like.

John Piper:
"The first meaning was that the Lord's Supper is a proclamation of the gospel ("As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." 1 Corinthians 11:26). The second meaning was that the Lord's Supper is a remembering of Christ ("Do this in remembrance of me." 1 Corinthians 11:24). The third meaning was that the Lord's Supper is a spiritual feasting by faith on all that God is for us in Christ ("I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst." John 6:35). And the fourth meaning was that the Lord's Supper is a savoring of the promises of the New Covenant ("This cup is the new covenant in my blood." 1 Corinthians 11:25). Now today we look at two final meanings—not that there are no others, but these are the two we will focus on in conclusion. One is that the Lord's Supper is a call to love the people of Christ, and beyond. And the other is that the Lord's Supper is a call to self-examination. Both of these meanings are found in 1 Corinthians 11."

I would also add that the meaning of this sacrament is also to invoke communion between saints within its relation to sanctification and the unity of the holy spirit. Hence, it is done congregationally. I have not touched on the significance of this sacrament to covenant. Within the context of the covenant it is a memorial to that which has been done. It is a memorial to the sacrifice, once and for all time, done by christ. It is not the re-offering, the re-application, or the re-sacrifice of christ. Nor can it be making that old sacrifice present again. For it is already present in the works and acts of grace that flow from Christ's intercession.

Theology & Reformation

"One article, the only solid rock, rules in my heart, namely, faith in Christ: out of which, through which, and to which, all my theological opinions ebb and flow, day and night." -Luther

This is kind of similar to my thought on the matter of theology. That all theology is circular to christ. It may take a path away from the cross at times but it always returns to it. Theology is christ-centric. It is strange how I find my own independant theological opinions are rarely new. Christ, furthermore, is the center of reason for the whole universe. (Logos of John 1.) Why should he not be placed as such in theology that explains the universe's existence and purpose? That men are saved by God alone for his glory alone by grace alone.

With this idea of centrality of christ coming from Luther, it was perhaps Luther who should have gone further in developing all theology to match this pattern he saw. Rather than just fix it for justification by faith. He aught to have removed what is not necessary in order that He may have centered everything back onto God. It seems that this role in the reformation was reserved for Calvin. Calvin was theocentric in much of his theology. While he is theocentric, it is far from putting God in a box. It rather places man in one. Calvin and later confessions were not perfect in there beliefs. It thus remains our duty as protestants to center everything back upon God. It also remains our job to have those beliefs and our minds remain centered on God rather than centered on a dead orthodoxy.

Peace for a weary soul

I didn't do much this weekend. Among the list of things I didn't do: sleep. The worst part is the fact that I have little to show for how I spent my time staying up. Sin was heavily at work in this part of my life. The devil has temporarily moved his fight out of lust into sloth. (How it is strange that one's sin and depravity often turns into a game of whack-a-mole.) I know this shift has happened but I have not been convicted of sloth yet. I will pray for such. Even without godly repentance and conviction, by God's grace I have been spared from the full effect of this deadly sin, spiritual apathy.

This weekened of sloth ended with me going to setup and church exhausted. (Awake for 24hours is not the best way to attend to church.) Luckily there is grace for the weary soul. It is a sweet grace. This grace is magnified when one's weariness is shown to be merely physical rather than spiritual. This grace is spiritual. (Otherwise, it would be called caffiene.) Today was one of those days that I was in a half awake state. Occationally, this state is surreal. It is close to a dream but very much rooted in reality. The feeling is a close cousin is contentment. Yet, the surreal feeling comes from the yearning and experiencing of comforts. How the discomforts are magnified when one is tired and the comforts are disproportionately the same. Yet, being tired sometitmes helps me to better relish these sparce comforts that I find along the way, especially those that come through faith.

Everyone knows what being exhausted and weary feels like but understand that God has appointed a time for sleep. It is for our good. Tired people easily yearn for the time at which they can retire. Yet, it is different that suffering for that time to arrive. I can be at peace without stress for I do not doubt that I will rest later. Likewise, God has ordained a spiritual rest for us all. Faith tells us this. I look forward to the sweet day on which I shall rest from my santification in the beams of heaven's light. I know that this time of rest shall is in the future. Let us get through peacfully wait through this last day without falling asleep so that we greet Christ from afar. Let us recognize that a little grace and Holy Spirit can go a long way.

Coffee and Tillich

I was stopping by a non-establishment coffee house to chill and relax. I sat down drinking a large french roast coffee. It was kinda tasty. My eyes began to wander as they finally came to rest on the bookshelf and then something written Paul Tillich. I had heard of him before somewhere. Yet, I was pretty certain he was not reformed (as in Calvinistic) before I picked the book up. I decided to take a read. It started off about religion being a function of man's spirit. Not necessarily belief/trust but religion itself in a broad sense. Jumping between different faculties like morality, art/myth, reason, and feelings before realizing that it could not be at home in any of these. It is the ultimate ground for all of those and outside of those things rather than a single one. I thought some of these examples really applied to only people who were 'religious' but not christian. It showed that religion finds its ultimate expression as something integral to life itself. It is interesting because it agrees with Reformed thought.


He continued to discuss the ontological arguement and cosmological arguments. I don't read much religious philosophy about these things. (I would rather understand doctrine in relation to the Word.) He discusses Western christianity's attempt to prove God by reason. I didn't spend time to understand it completely. (It would be a waste.) Yet, I have thought about the arguements for God before with different terms. Christianity is rational unlike a lot of religions but reasonings are self-consistent. That is to say that to God himself is the ground for that knowledge. To continue down a path to prove God, one must already believe Him. It is an impossiblity unless one is taught of God. It is impossible for those who aren't spiritual to spiritually discern the things of God.

Furthermore, the only places in nature that we can discern God in are the places he has interacted with nature. This means creation, Christ himself, and the actions of the Holy Spirit. We must show people Christ and him crucified if they are to know God, even in the use of reason. If Christ did not rise from the dead, our faith is futile.

Sensuality and spirituality

These two things from afar seem very unrelated. On the contrary, they both are the desire to commune with another person on a deeper more intimate level. One is Godward. The other is particularly towards others. With this understanding, they do not seem as different as people believe. The bible warns about how fallen sensuality, or lust, will have dire spiritual consequences with one's relationship with God. And it does, as I know from personal experience. It is for this that God says sexual impurity aught not be named among the saints.

I could say like some in today's church that this problem is really just what it is to be human. Yes and no. The original desires were good but sin distorts them. This is no justification for the sin. Yet, we were created with good desires and there is always a proper outlit.

First, the correct expression of sensuality is marriage. In marriage, it relates to the pleasure of esteeming one's spouse, like Christ esteems the church, rather than oneself. Christ's death for the church is described in marriage terms. It is not hard to see why Marriage aught to be seen as a little church in a big church. The two flesh became one. One aught to cherish his spouse as much as he cherish his own flesh. In a way, spirituality is very much the twin of sensuality. Spirituality and sensuality also fell in the same way. Lust is similar to idolatry. They both make seek to make the wrong objects, the center of one's affections and devotions.

Singlehood is discussed by Paul in relation to ministry for this reason. Paul, being the chief among singles, considered that freedom from caring for a wife allowed him to be more devoted to God. It seems odd for today's ears to hear but this link between the two explains a lot. Sensuality and spirituality can step on each other's toes. He did not try to reconcile that it with the idea that they both can coexist in equally. Or explicitly state that they can feed off each other.

Now, the option of outworking of our innate desire of sensuality and sex is not available to singles. (In the single state) So, we must learn to be self controlled and content. Paul exalts this character trait even for couples by saying that marriage will be better if people are first self-controlled, for worldly difficulties are less likely to creep in. To what end is this self control? In marriage and in single life? In marriage it is helps put off one's own desires so that they can focus on another's. Sex is not the problem lust is.

In singlehood, this self control is not emotional frigidity. Merely suppressing these desires and being emotionally frigid does not solve the problem. The sin must be dealt with. One must redirect their attention and desires toward God. One must always return to the cross and make their stand on that hill. It is from recognizing his provision and his authority that we can say with Joseph to the Jailer's wife when tempted. "Why would I do such wickedness against my God." One must also be self controlled enough to confess their depravity and seek forgiveness and grace. Finally, spirituality also can affect sensuality. One cannot as easily lust after someone when they are praying for them. It is a strange curiousity but perhaps it is explained by a link between sensuality and spirituality. I am in no ways an expert but this seems to tie together some loose ends. These things are much harder to do in practice than to say. I am still very much a sinner in this area in need of grace.

Why does God love us?

Does God love us because of Christ's atonement or does He love us before it?
Even if Christ's death secures love. Should this be seen as a means to an end rather than its source? This question seems difficult to answer. It seems that people don't stop to consider God's love. They take it for granted.

I say with Ephesians that God loved His own before the foundations of the world. Yet, Christ appears to die much later. Only to complicate the matter is election. Let us cast our focus from it alone for this is resolved slightly by Revelations which says "The lamb slain before the foundations of the world." It also causes problems. It can appear unclear whether atonement or election in eternity past is the source of God's love. Why does God love us?

Let us look into: if Christ's death and intercession are effective at securing God's love.
Or did God already love the man whom Christ was sent to effectively redeemed?

Lets look at scriptures and specifically for what Christ asks for in his prayers. Since, it will show what Christ tries to secure by his efforts and his interecession now that he is in heaven.

First, His intercession is not necessarily for his believer's prayers, on their behalf. It is redundant for God loves them. Too many people have this mistaken idea of intercession. Lets clear it up John 16:26-27 "In that day you will ask in my name, and I do not say to you that I will ask my father on your behalf; for the father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God."

Second, this makes Christ's intercession much different than how it is often viewed. It is no longer based specifically on our wants and needs in prayer. It is rather based on what His wishes for those given Him, and for those who believe in His name. His intercession is for the outpouring of grace. Namely for granting: the Holy spirit, sanctification, glorification, and the salvation of souls.

When Christ prays for the Holy Spirit in John 14:16. There are other questions about how the Holy Spirit is communicated to us from the Love of the Son and the Father in Christ's heaven intercession. Let's skip those for now to focus on the overall act of His intercession. His intercession is essentially his continual office as high priest. Hebrews links Christ's intercession as a single act of atonement with his death. This part of his intercession appears to be necessary for salvation rather than outside of it. Yet, this does not mean it is the only thing necessary. For like the act of atonement, it is part of a god-given covenant over a chosen people. (The covenant of grace.) It may be in this that the source of God's love rests. He is part of a greater agreement that is worked out from eternity past. In this context of Christ's prayer in John 17 appears to me related to his current intercessory prayers in heaven. In this, Christ mention's that he is sent.

Does this interecession then ask for His love toward the church? As if to secure it? Or does it assume a pre-existing love for the church based on something pre-existant? (election)

John 17 "... I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours... I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word. That they may all be one, just as we are one... so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.... I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known that the love with which you loved me may be in them, and I in them."

This particular love does not seem to be asked for. It seems to be pre-existent because it is based on God's sovereignty of those who were given to Christ. It is also based on those who believe. Yet, these same people were loved in eternity past in the same manner as God loved Christ. Yet, this love is assumed. It is not created or asked for by the prayer. He does not ask God to love them. For God does already. He does ask on our behalf based on that love, so that we may be filled with joy. It seems that election and God's hidden will play a small part in it all. I must hold that God loved the saints prior to their conversion in a way different than common love.

Now, this love must be hardy enough to exist beside God's holy wrath for the sinner. It must be an unconditional love. A love that reaches from hell and back. Christ died for men, while they were yet sinners. He must have also loved them while they were yet sinners. The end of this type of love is always salvation. This is the love portayed in the Bible. Yet, the Bible is clear that certain conditions will be meet in all saved, especially faith. So by necessity this unconditional love, worked out in election, causes or includes the actions leading up to one's faith in Christ.

Now merely allowing man to make these actions of faith is indistiguishable from being disinterested or even unloving, until faith. Like a seed, this love remains dead. I propose this type of love that cannot send christ or cause him to die for the joy set before Him.

Now, for the lamb slain before the foundations of the world. God's plan was complete. It was as good as real. It is in heaven that this intercession goes on. The sacrifice and its end of salvation were realized at the time of God's election. It was not plan B but always plan A. I shall not presume this statement is bound by the same linear constraints either. Yet, one would ask why give the linear narratives of the Bible that define God's covenants as such?

Im diggin' this song

Whatever my God ordains is right
In His love I am abiding
I will be still in all He does
And follow where He is guiding
He is my God, though dark my road
He holds me that I shall not fall
And so to Him I leave it all

Whatever my God ordains is right
He never will deceive me
He leads me by the proper path
I know He will not leave me
I take content, what He has sent
His hand can turn my griefs away
And patiently I wait His day

Whatever my God ordains is right
Here shall my stand be taken
Though sorrow, or need, or death be mine
Yet I am not forsaken
My Father’s care circles me there
He holds me that I shall not fall
And so to Him I leave it all

Whatever my God ordains is right
Though now this cup in drinking
Bitter it seems to my faint heart
I take it all unshrinking
My God is true, each morn anew
Sweet comfort yet shall fill my heart
And pain and sorrow shall depart

Original words by Samuel Rodigast, 1676
Translated by Catherine Winkworth, 1863
Alternate words by Mark Altrogge

The Silver Tongue

In response to my last blog. I wish to write about the opposite of Fire and Brimstone. It is a gospel in which one tries to entertain their audience and make them fell good about themselves. It is watered down truth at best. At worst, it is outright heresy spoken by false prophets. God is made a lion without claws. He is reduced to the status of a mere house cat that people can let into their lives at times and let out.

Many people can be entertained by the wonderful stories told by the brilliant storeteller. But always ask to what end? Is christ's sacrifice even mentioned? Is its direct rewards even mentioned? Is its alternative even mentioned? Can one get clothed when they scarely know they are naked? Can one get better if they scarely know that they are deadly ill. No, not just ill but dead. The Bible even talks about the people who listen to these evangelists (if they can be called that).

2 Timothy 4:3-4 "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths." NASB

If one wanted to be entertained, they would have been better off going to a theatre than a church! At least then, they would not be under the delusion that they were attending to the matters of their soul. This type of preaching cannot bred anything but false assurance. At least the sinner under fire and brimstone preaching knows he is a sinner. At least, that fire and brimstone preacher was faithful to present part of the truth. Even if it is not the good news.

This 'end time' seems as though people will entertain more and more of the myths like gnosticism/Tomb of Jesus/Da Vinci Code myths, even in churches. False assurance will be rampant. Sound Doctrine will be shunned by mainstream churches. The churches will preach in accordance with the desires of the World. (Health, wealth, and being a moral person.) They will wish to be entertained. They will come together in a fake kind of community based on nothing more than a group hug. Church is a mere social club.The world is not there yet. Although, I see the strands of this heresy encircling the church.

Oh, how people in the 1800s saw it begining to encircle the church. How almost every prediction of theirs has come true! We need a revival that includes the preaching of sound doctrine rather than trendy religious fads. Oh, how people need the whole gospel. They do not need the moralistic teachings of pharisees. They do not need the materialistic ambitions of the tax collectors. They do not need just the healing of the lame. They need their sins forgiven first. They need Jesus. They need the gospel. They don't need some sappy story. They don't even need a testimony about "How I feel all better with Jesus around.", like he is some friendly house cat.

No one dares to ask what Jesus? Or what God? He is not the God of our choosing. He is not the God that is naturally on everyone's mind. He is far greater than these. His truth is much more solid. His enjoyment is much more sublime. No one dares to tell anyone anymore that He is a lion. That he does as he pleases. That when crossing paths with Him, it is either life or death. It is a fearful thing to be in the hands of an living God. Yet, it is because of who he. First and foremost. God is the gospel.

Fire and Brimstone

I side with Spurgeon on Fire and Brimstone's use. I see problems with physicians who do more harm than good. The best physician's make the least amount of cuts. Yet, their cuts are in the right places. They do not go into an operation to excercise their skill with the scapel by slicing the victim in two. This makes me think of the problem with most open air preaching. It also makes me think of the attitude in which it is done.

Colossians 4:2-6 "Devote yourselves to prayer, keeping alert in it with an attitude of thanksgiving; 3praying at the same time for us as well, that God will open up to us a door for the word, so that we may speak forth the mystery of Christ, for which I have also been imprisoned; 4that I may make it clear in the way I ought to speak. 5Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person."

It appears that one aught to evangelize with an attitude of thanksgiving and prayer toward God. That he might open a door and that the one might speak forth the mystery of Christ. Wisdom and discernment are needed to make the most of every opportunity. In all of this one's message should be seasoned with grace, so that we know how to respond to each person.

Having paraphrased what Paul has said. It is clearer that yelling out fire and brimestone without much grace, impersonally, is not the primary means that God has instituted in conveying His word. He will not likely bless means outside of what he has put in the Bible. Such open air preaching is easily done without thanksgiving, prayer, wisdom, grace, and leaves little room for responding to others. You are no longer their friend but their enemy for the sake of the cross. You cannot hate anyone over to Christ. I pray for Sal on campus occationally, for he is such a man that would rather love people over to Christ.

One can preach the gospel with much smoke and little warmth. You have a fire alright. It is quite ablaze. Yet, every passerbye will only find it obnoxious to their eyes. Let one rather provide a fire that gives off Light and warmth for those who can't see and are in need of being clothed in Christ. Now some believe that scaring people is the way that one teaches the fear of the Lord to others. They may quote 2 Corinthians 5 but this does not help.

2 Corinth 5:11 "Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others. But what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience." ESV
The context is judgment before God. Some take it to be in response to his terror and wrath from judgment. But the context does not support only that assumption. It is a frightening thing to fall in the hands of an angry God. Yet, this is not the fear that Christians like Paul know about God. They know of the awe and holiness God. There is a reverence, awe, and respect (and usually distance) that God is due by his very nature. In this context, the fear of the Lord, is not scaring people. It is making him out to be as great as he is. In comparison, men are just like ants who God has called to account. This is just as scary as fire and brimstone could ever be. It is called the fear of God for a reason. Yet, it is not the same as the terror of the lord. This type of fear is seen in Psalms.

Psalms 130:3-4 "If You lord should mark iniquities, O Lord, Who would stand? But There is forgiveness with you, That you may be feared." NASB.

He is feared because he is great enough to forgive without injury to His great justice. He is a great God. He deserves His reverence, awe, and respect. At times he even deserves, His distance. Yet, he is never very far from each of us. No one is outside his power. No one is outside his Law. Yet, his arm is not to short that it cannot save. Let us drawn near to this God by the blood of Christ. Let us persuade others, knowing this fear of God. You will face opposition but this is not the purpose of evangelism. Let us tell others of the Good News. Let us not just dwell on the depravity of man.

Confession: Fearing God.

I have recently been convicted of something I have been failing to do. It is fearing God. It is not from some misbelief of who he is. Or a misbelief of what fearing God looks like. It is really from something in my heart. That is to say that it is a heart-issue. (I really don't like using that word. Maybe because it appears so cheese-ified.) I have not made it a practice to be aware of God's continual presense. Yet, I know it to be true. He exists everywhere and no-where. All things are sustained by the power of God. I also know in part, the feeling of awe and holiness of God and their relation to His presense. Yet, these are not brought to bear on everyday life. Self-sufficency and past enlightenment have served to make me act like an atheist. Past events and present circumstances don't help forward a relationship. They bring forth only the status quo.

Next, I have not made it a practice of seeking out and submitting to his authority and his care he would have for me throughout the day. Occationally, it is clear that this care consists of hearing and being feed by the gospel. Yet, this is a result of fearing God. I will work on it a little bit.

There is something interesting about the fear of God that I thought today. That is for the next post.

Lesser things, New music.

I like some modern christian music. Usually modernized hymns from Jars of Clay or Sovereign Grace but I don't discriminate heavily. I like diversity of music sources. I just haven't got into Shane and shane.

CCM is surprisingly more reformed than what I had thought. Reformed people are more vocal perhaps? This music lead to my own 'reformation' to a small degree. (Maybe some artists are experiential calvinists but don't know it yet.) I like songs only because of their words. This means that I can't stand Casting Crowns. I am sorry guys, not even if I listen to their big money instruments and great musical talent. The words are lacking.

I might as well make fun of my own self-identified 'denomination.' about modern music here. I use denomination loosely, only because I break denominational barriers all the time. Most traditional reformed baptists would have thought it blaphemous if Jesus was ever shown dancing to CCM. (or with anything but a KJV in his hand.) Needless to say, I am not a traditional reformed baptist unless you count my theology to be the same as that of Spurgeon or Bunyan on such 'worldly passions'. Well Heck, Spurgeon smoked a cigar for the Lord. Someone might as well sing and dance for the Lord if they are to do anything for the Lord.

It is inappropriate for church but not sinful in and of itself. The fear and legalism from reformed baptists at large is perhaps from an age old stigmatism of being called heretics like the quakers. From all that I have read these quakers were also quite the shakers. With this said, I am tired of modern dance in any church. It is a gross abuse of entertainment in the church. It is also fruity. All things should be content driven not fluff driven.

In closing, I find it is strange that Christians like those in CCM shift toward reformed spirituality at times when moved only by faith. It is not to surprising since Reformed Theology has the only explanations for some things in the Bible. I have yet to hear a good understanding of God being a faithful shepherd going after lost sheep and never losing them from an Arminian. Or about the effective intercession on behalf of all who Christ died for. (If Christ died for all universally why is he not interceding for them universally after he ascended? These two things are of the same event. They are both actions of Christ acting as high priest when he sacrificed himself on the cross/altar in heaven.

If you say these actions should be seen as seperate then it is in denial of Hebrews on the matter. If Christ intercedes effectually by virtue of his blood and God doesn't act. Then there is a breakdown of the trinity. The verses dealing with his death and intercession are both interrelated. Read Hebrews 10. Then Read what Christ prays for in John 17. Maybe we reformed folk are just more vocal at saying what the Bible actually says. Or maybe the Protestant Arminians are wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

Experiential christianity

First, Experiential christianity without established truth gets you nowhere. Illiteracy in the Bible and of orthodoxy is the problem of the church today. This lends itself to be problem to those who have no firm grounding of objective truth in Christianity. It ruins experimental christianity for it cannot exist without objective truth. Experimental christianity is not about natural theology and speculations. Its more about worshipping in spirit and truth. Most Modern Experiential christianity has an anti-intellectual/anti-truth strain that seek not its answers in the Bible but in experience. It seeks the spirit but shuns the truth. I am weirded out by those who cannot establish a firm distinction on truth from mere speculation. Or the one who rejects the more 'normal' operations of the spirit as being suffiecent. One cannot teach without being taught themselves. True experiential Christianity does not look for new truths but seeks to relive old ones. It establishes current convictions, like the Gospel. (This conviction is by far the best sign of maturity.) This is not a new conviction. It is power and motivation to that end. It does not seek to establish the mindset of "seeking spiritual gifts" above all else. It seeks to establish love toward God as response to His love and grace. In so far as Experimental christianity should a vital connection that centers around the fruits of the spirit being poured out in a soul, not the spiritual gifts. Its end is God-ward. This does not boost a man's abilities above the normal station of his life into something superhuman for it a time. It rather gets the Christian to use his gifs in reliance and in greater confidence on the Holy Spirit in aiding his weakness.

This idea of nothing new in experimental christianity is consistent with the teaching of the Word. It is complete. New stances aught not to be formed in our experiences alone. No matter how grand the experience is. These things really should only reinforced what is in the Word. There is no new doctrine in real Experimental Christianity on which a new stance could be built. It is from Satan that new doctrine and heresy arise. True experience is consistent to the Word. We know that the entire word of God is profitable for doctrine, teaching, reproof, and correction. (2 Timothy 3:16) It will not be contradicted. Our life must be lived by it rather than by vain imaginations.

This means that we do not look here or there for Christ to return. We do not adulterate the Bible because we think it to be in error. We do not fight with hard chapters like Romans 9, Ephesians 1 and 2, or James 2. Yet, we do not subject ourselves to earthly institutions that add an infallible cannon, ex cathedra either. While we accept the clearly laid out understandings of past orthodoxy like the Trinity. Not because of experience alone but because of the vast evidence in the Bible that confirms it. We trust not the speculative. Yet, we trust in faith. For Faith is far less speculative for God has clearly said and written extensively on its object.

It is true that many positions of the Bible can be reinforced from experience but this is not adopting something new. It does not lay its foundation or modify the current one. For christ is the only foundation. This ADD, gratification now generation must slow down. Be still and know that he is God. He is the one that lifts our hearts. He is the one who lifts our heads. He does not attack us with crazy fits of passion. He slowly fills us with grace until it overflows in our hearts.

study of John 3:14-20, Part V. C v A

Now let us examine the third option. God's view of giving a chance. This is most notably done by examining the condition of those who are disobedient. Which is everyone, but more particularly those who have heard the Gospel.

God writes through the pen of John "And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and the people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil." This confirms our condition of disobedience. It adds on to this condition by saying that people LOVE darkness. It continues "For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light lest his deeds should be exposed." This says that they love darkness because they are wicked for fear that they should be exposed as such.

It is a fear proper to encountering holiness. Was it not this fear that cause men to crucify Christ? It is a fear of being undone as in being discoved as scum. Look at Isaiah before the throne of God in Isaiah 6. He was exposed by an unapproachable light that eminates before the throne of God. He collapsed and plead for help. The imagery of light has always been Christ in the Gospel of John. God is the very source of that which exposes lies and burns the truth into us. The dark creatures of John 3 are not the ones who hold onto the light themselves. They hate it. Grace and light from God are needed. They come to the light if they do what is true. (verse 21) Yet, a wicked person cannot or rather will not because their sin and wicked deeds are too blinding and painful in such a radiant light. Isaiah merely had a bad mouth that needed to be atoned for in God's presence. Atonement is needed for there to be a change. Not all have faith. Faith is also a gift.

Think of your state when such a bright light of perfection and truth be shone forth. You would be irresistably be undone. To resist the light would be like trying to live as an ant under a magnifying glass. You would not wish to be at home in the light. Our choice isn't sufficent because our rational and natural choice is to skulk back to the shadows. It is not by faith and humilty ask for help from one's persecutor. Do you hold out that man has an island of goodness that would vouche for itself and embrace such aid? Our corruption is too great.

Let us look at the absurdity. Would you cast yourself into the desert without any food that benefits you? Would you not rather return to the verdant lands of abundance. Don't kid yourself, you would have gone back to Egypt. It is a fool who would not choose such. This attraction toward the light and what the world sees as foolish comes from a drastic change. It is not just a change of heart, nothing motivates it but foolishness. People would easily return the way they came. It is not as if we are merely chamelions that can change our skin by our choice. We cannot change our spots. It is God who changes us that is the only door to heaven. He changes us towards his own end. Salvation and his enjoyment. Would a moth not irresistibly fly into the flames of God? Something that appears to be foolish to others but quite natural for the moth. It is as foolish as spending forty years in a desert. Yet, our God does not burn those who come to him earnestly. All who put their hope in him shall not be disappointed. Now let us drop the pretense.

Let us look at the christian life without this change. The rain falls on both the righteous and unrighteous. The unrighteous are feed the same spiritual food as the righteous. (1 corinthians 10.) It seems to imply something eucharistic and salvational. Yet, clearly it does not benefit all. The unrighteous were still... Unrighteous. The food does not benefit them or save those who fall in the wilderness. Now having discussed this, what is the difference between the righteous and unrighteous here. One has real faith, one only has a resemblence to it. Now since everyone originally is unrighteous. One cannot partake of the lord's cup and that of demons. A real change must occur. This change is not merely a choice. It issomething much deeper. It is a literal change of heart not a figurative one with no more power than a fickle choice. We cannot be what we are not. Unless God changes us. We cannot by nature be warmed by God's rays if we are frozen under wrath. We cannot by nature lay claim of Christ's blood if we cannot lay claim to anything that is truly good. We shall see ourselves as counterfeit for that is what we would be if it was by choice alone without grace. Those who truly come to him, he shall in no ways cast out.

Looking back we encounter the same problem for unconversion. How can someone can reject the Gospel when they fully know the riches of grace that lie within? This is perhaps more appropriate to ask someone who thinks they are a chamelion. How do men resist the gospel? Is the gospel not the very thing that gives warmth. Has it not been the most wonderful blessing in one's life? Why would a rational person choose the cold if they knew of warmth? It is beyond me. It is rather because the warmth did not benefit them. Only God can change a believer back, but I see not why. Nor do I see how the cold darkness can creep back into designs of the warming light. The light is victorious. Absolutely.

Now it remains to be seen how ones deeds are exposed. "But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God." ESV. Another translation "his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God." NASB. It is the nature of the person. It is not a chance in man but a chance in God. Wrought means profusely hammered and worked. Their deads have been hammered and worked in God. This is the chapter on the necessity to be born again. You cannot escape the conclusion. It is thus only possible for His great work to actually save, to actually make people come to the light. Giving a chance does not cause a work to be wrought by God.

This is consistent with Ephesians 2 that says we are His workmanship. It is also consistent with Paul again who says "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in us, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." Phil 2:13,14 RSV. Some have become fancy by saying that God respects choice and changes us accordingly. The problem with this is that God is in our will. He is at work in our hearts. Scripture says of God. '"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it does not depend on the man who wills or runs but on God who has mercy.'Romans 9:15-16

It does not say that the people chose to be rebellous so He didn't have mercy on them. It does not say they chose to be rebelous and God was not compassionate. There is an impossiblity with choice. It does not depend on man's will. It is true that God still outstretched his hands when the people were otherwise. He continued to do so for generations. He delievered every promise that he gave them. This does not mean the promises of the law. The law did not intend to save. This means the promises of giving the people a king, the prophets, the priests, a promised land, not forsaking them in trouble, helping them in war, and the blessing of the savior of the world coming their lineage were true. These were the promises of Abraham. As for the New Covenant, enacted by a better sacrifice and better promises. The change in heart and writing His laws upon it is promised in Jeremiah. These promises were unconditional. Likewise, salvation. Some have become fancy in saying that God respects choice and changes people afterward. If choice matters, it cannot be said that God didn't cause the choice. It rather -must- be said that he brought it forth for it does not depend on choice for God to be merciful or compassionate.

Study of John 3:16, Part IV

Now, we should drive clear of confessing pure universalism and/or say that God only saved creation rather than the particular people called Christians. Lets look the design of God's love or the correct object of that love. It may be seen from the previous verses in John and their OT equivalents that the serpent was raised toward Israel, not Egypt. Lets define Israel in this parallel as all those who have heard the gospel. This is fitting because no one can be saved without hearing the gospel. This is not everyone without exception. This is enough to prove, that everyone without exception is not the meaning of world, but a particular people. It leaves another door open. It leaves another question unanswered.

There are three obvious possible reasons of God for raising such a serpent on a stick to the Israelites. 1)To punish the disobedient who do not look. 2)To heal the sick who look. 3)To give everyone a chance to be healed. These three things are not mutually exclusive. One may look at these things and say they are all simultaneously true. Or only one is true.

Let's delve into this matter further. The condemned are condemned already. The purpose of Christ coming and being raised is not to condemn. Number one is not valid. Here the split starts. Two and Three or just Two. One person may say the intent was to heal. Another may say that it was to give the chance to be healed and by virtue heal those who look.

This is like the Arminian/Calvinist split. Did God come to save or Did he just intend to give everyone a chance and have the ability to be saved by raising Christ up on the cross. The same dichotomy arises with Moses. The Calvinist will say that the disobedient will remain disobedient without God. The Arminian will say that they have a choice and it is solely their choice that makes them disobedient. Yet, its it by chance and choice or by grace alone that men are saved. Part 5 gets into all the details.

Study of John 3:16, world part III

The change in world fits as being equally literal and more appropriate than everyone without exception. Before I say what change in 'world' is appropriate lets acknowledge that English has some of this variation in the use of the word, 'world'.

Lets look at the adjective 'worldly'. It in fact likely picked up its connotation from John in the Bible. This does not mean characteristic of every man without exception. Lets consider us have a little test on what worldly means. Multiple choice.

What fits best for describing a worldly strip-club.

A) 'Wooo look at the girl she has curves like the smokey mountains'. Worldly here is not characteristic of natural landforms.
B)'Wooo the strip-club is like every one without exception.' It is not characteristic of every man without exception either. It makes little sense.
C)'Wooo look at all the Asians, Europeans, Americans, Africans, and Australians in that Joint.' Nope, try again.
D)'Woo the strip-club is a degenerate place of immorality.'
E)'Woo the strip-club is full of living beings instead of Ghosts.' Otherwords, it means it is materialistic and of this realm.

The correct answer is obviously D. Some will try to make you believe the answer is B if it be found in the bible. We don't even transliterate 'Cosmos' into meaning the same thing as world or everyone without exception. The 'worldly' in English here means the evil and godless aspects of this world which shall pass away. This should clearly show that it is not as simple as picking a "literal" reading. Silly Rabbit, dictionaries are for kids! The Greek language has the same characteristic of multiple meanings.

I trust not the literal reading unless it is really literal and also in context. The question is which rendering to choose. We do not have a lot of help from the text here in surrounding context. Let it be know that St. John uses kosmos or 'world' many different ways in his books. Greek usage oratory often would witfully and contrast the use of a single word by using it many different ways close together. This Gospel has the marks of someone with a keen eye toward being an Evangelist over a historian. The literary tradition (Johannine) in which the Apostle John wrote shares this tendency of repeatition and rhetoric. This book was meant to be read aloud so it would have rhetorical wit in word usuage in the first century Hellenistic World.

Now having cast a shadow. Certainly this use of world in 3:16 here cannot be the same 'world' that we are told not to love or not to conform as found in first John. There is a big disconnect if God and Christ can love this world sooooo much. While we who are to being transformed into the image of Christ are not to love this world at all.

The World and adjective forms can also be used distributively to mean every tribe, tongue, and nation are represented. "The World court" is not the court of every one without exception. It is a small court made up of a few powerful nations that try cases. Again when we say 'the ancient world' we generally mean the important ancient civilizations. Not dirt diggers in south America. This use of 'world' often excludes a lot. No one really cares about the Nomads of Mongolia. Or the tribes in Africa outside of egypt, in the ancient world. This is not even everyone but only representational of what we know about the society at large. It is not everyone without exception. There are other examples but I don't want to be trite.

Finally, I wish not to write a meaning for world here with any complete certainty. I tend toward the nations or a Gentiles and Jews definition of world. It is by far the most common one found in the OT with respect to Christ's salvation. It is similar to a 'world' court use of the word 'world'. A world with every nation, tongue, and tribe represented. This is the most common use of the word in Bible. It is especially common because Christ was talking to the Jewish people. They understanded the distinction between Jew and Gentile quite well. Some Jews would not touch the Gentiles even with a ten foot pole. This interpretation falls in line with the Great Commission. It is not to covert everyone but it is to reach everyone. This world is representative not complete. Not all have faith. This definition of 'world' falls in line with God's aim. This goes into the design of God's atonement in the previous verses of John 3:16. This shall be expanded in part IV.

Study of John 3:16, part II

Let us keep the verse as many understand it. God is 'so' loving. I do not disagree with the extent of his love. I disagree with its extension. Furthermore, let me demolish the idea of the world as necessarily including everyone rather than those who actually are, elect and believers, scattered across it. Now if I were to say that the world hates George W. Bush. Would I be wrong? No, even if there are people who still liked him. The problem is not the offer or description of the gospel. It is with extending the world to mean everyone without exception. This is hardly plausible. Not all are saved. Not everyone hates Bush.

Let us indulge ourselves in believing that 'so' demonstrates the extent of God's love. This kind of love can only come from the love that Christ has for his Church, new israel and his bride. To believe that this world in 3:16 is everyone without exception is to destroy the truth of the great love between Christ and the church. There is no greater love than laying down one's life for another. Does this apply to everyone. No, for this is to deny Ephesians clearly states that Christ died for the church. No, for the greatest love is symbolized by marriage. To say otherwise is to wed Christ's love to a harlot. It is to destroy Ephesians verses about marriage. For the love for his bride is not so great anymore. Everyone will consent that this absolute love has its rightful place between a husband and a wife only. Ephesians would be utterly meaningless and without force if this unique, exclusive, and absolute connection of love between Christ and the church is severed or extended to mean everyone by virtue of saying that he died for everyone.

To enforce the great extent of love over this verse by necessity 'the world' here must be represented by believers only, being of all tongues, tribes, and nations in God's eyes. To hold onto the word "so" is equally damaging to modern interpretation. If the extension held for christ dieing for everyone, How can someone with such a great love upon them be cast out from God or be damned? Such a God would be cruel and unloving by keeping 'world' (everyone without exception) under judgment. We must maintain that it is right for God to condemn the world, everyone without exception. We must more clearly see that it is gracious that does not damn all but saves many. It should be clear that people should jump toward accepting 'in this fashion' over 'to such an extent' in the use of 'so'. It destroys the very fabric of Christ on our behalf not to do so.

The last No comes from the fact that the word 'world' has many nuanced meanings. Yet, is this change justified? See part 3. Yes, Let us return to what the bible actually says. Let us return to what the language unequivocally allows.

Study of John 3:16, part I

Many of the most quoted verses are understood with the most error. I was reading something about John 3:16 it was rather interesting. The verse basically says in the Greek text: (literally translated) "For God in this fashion loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life."

Compare it to the standard translation:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life."

It seems that many people have been enamored by tradition on its translation.
There are two distinct greek things to notice. The change from whoever and so. 'Whoever' in Greek usually begins with 'pas' followed by a specific verb form. 'Pas' means all or everyone. The verb after pas modifies pas to mean all who are doing the verb. In English, it becomes whoever believes or whosoever comes instead of all who believe and all who come. This may seem redundant to some but 'whoever' seems to broaden the meaning into an invitation beyond 'everyone doing such and such verb'. Strangely, this verse has even been used to argue ability of the world to respond for being such a broad invitation.

The next change is 'so' to 'in this fashion'. This is the more appropriate translation from the original Greek. So? 'So' has more than one meaning in English. So can be evidentary as 'in this fashion' or mean the extent as in 'so much'. The KJV translators originally meant it as evidentary, not just in the extent of God's love. We have kept 'so' because it is popular. The historic change of meaning to "extent" from "in this fashion" is very understandable since God is love. Yet, John 3:16 is not the proof of it.

The use of "so" has obscured this verse. The change back is merited because 'so' obscures the literal reading in respect to the context. People now are content to use this verse out of context with the impression that is what it really says. Furthermore, some preference should be given to a purely literal reading. This alternate one links the verse back to its preceding verses. 3:14 speaks about the serpent who was lifted up to heal the Israelites (a specific people) by Moses. It parallels this act to Christ and his believers. 3:16 verse cannot be ripped apart from its context as easily as it has been in pop culture. Christ has been lifted up in the wilderness for all to look upon and be healed. That is how God loved the world. All who believe in him are saved. He will in no way cast them out. They shall in no way perish but inherit eternal life. We are save by looking upon christ and him crucified. The invitation is in this event. 3:16 certainly is not an invitation but is a mere link in a chain. The ESV is kind enough to foot note the literal rendering. When I first studied this, I did not have an ESV on hand. John 3:16 begins to look different after this subtle correction. It is not the key evangelical verse that should be on every bumpersticker. It is rather a link of a chain to all of John 3.

I am not a hypercalvinist. The bible has other places clearly exhorting and earnestly desiring for all people everywhere to believe. John 3:16 is just not it. We are saved freely by his grace. Yet, as many as those who receive him, to those he gave the power to be sons of God. They aught to receive him and we should encourage them to receive him by invitation. While it is true that, no one can receive it unless it is given from heaven; We do not presume. Let us sow the seed widely as God commands. Christ is not so small that he cannot save someone who has fallen by the wayside. He is not so small that he cannot save one the chief of sinners. There is more onf John 3, see part 2.

Blog status: Mired down in things

I still haven't finished all the charismatic stuff in general that I wanted to do. Or fit spiritual baptism into my Covenant Theology. I really just wanna get past it. It is low on scripture and gospel.

Like, it is all well and good to discuss it.

Yet, we need to remember the God behind it. We need to remember how he is not a God who is too far away to care. He took on flesh and humbly came to our aid. He cares so much that He sent His Son to die for our sin. Yet, He also died for us himself. He cares so much that God did not leave us alone on this dust ball after having made atonement. He cares so much that He wishes for us to be where he is. Heaven. How far both heaven and hell have been moved to make a way for us. Will he not give us all things? Oh, how great a God he is.

Oh yeah expect a radical John 3 study. I worked on it a long time ago. I need to fix it and bring it back.

Charismatic? Tongues

It is my belief that I must hold to what the Bible says and I bind my self to a conclusion. Well, I am open-minded enough to become reformed by my own study. Yet, I became reformed first and foremost by the experiences of my life. The church i attend merely pointed me in the right direction. I have some disagreements but they are slight. With this said, I cannot say that I would ever want a perfect church. If I found one I am afraid that I would have to leave it unless I spoil it.

Now let's discuss my Charismatic leanings for they are unique to me:

If you ask whether I am a third or second wave. I am neither. I fall more along the lines of a pre-charismatic like John Bunyan. I seek being filled with the spirit none-the-less. If you ask me about Prophecy, I will put it neatly into a box of what I believe it is and is not. It is turning old truths over anew. It is strengthened convictions and impressions, not new convictions or ethics. This allows bringing doctrine to bear on a person's life, opposed to the creation of new doctrines for their life.

Next, You ask me about "Praying in the spirit", I will first and foremost point to understandable prayer over tongues. I do not look favorably at one of the proposed purpose of tongues, when other means can be employed to the same end. These other means are not just equivalent. These means are far superior in every way. God's gift now becomes inferior in showing His sovereignty, grace, and care. Why even bother to even bestow it. I don't think gifts that ignore these aspects are bestowed. Tongues also must be informed with truth that is understandable and coherent. It is not fit to be used in worship otherwise. Worship must be in both spirit and truth. I have spoken in Tongues before and found it only mildly edifying. I am not moved to speak in tongues often but it may be in my gifting. The time would be better spent through the normal means of earnest prayer. This perhaps proves that it is the least of the spiritual gifts. It also proves that it is abusable. Yet, I don't think this is the right answer for it as a gift. I think it just proves that it is ill-suited to that end.

The previous christian contemplation article got me thinking on mysticism. Tongues would seem much more pagan if it is merely something one does for prayer, when it is not informing one of truth or conveying truth. I tend to doubt that tongues is a "prayer language" for this reason, even if spurious interpretations existed for it. Tongues here becomes like a meditation technique. A technique inherited and used by pagan mystics also. Tongues cannot exist as such for today.

This does not rule tongues out, especially when it comes other uses or real languages. Tongues would be more suited in dealing with truth in real languages. It is that simple. It is not suited for prayer. We are not conversing with angels. We are conversing with God. Furthermore, I do not believe tongues has any relation to spiritual baptism beyond that of other gifts. This is to say that tongues has as much relation to Spiritual baptism as Water baptism does. Period.

Next, If you point to extraordinary gifts, I will point to that which is really extraordinary first. Conversion is an extraordinary gift. Faith is an extraordinary gift. Repentance is an extraordinary gift. Grace is an extraordinary gift. This is in no way a limit, but rather the obvious. We need the seemingly ordinary gifts first. For they are surpassingly extraordinary. I love the focus on the ordinary means of the Gospel at my church for this reason. Tongues exists to edify the church, but misuse of it as substitute for prayer is not right. I cannot condone it. There needs to be interpretation of it so that it can serve as a sign gift. Or there needs to be a real means of grace in speaking it for other christians. (such as a prophetic word) Perhaps God can use gibberish to convey words of a real languages. I dare not presume it impossible. I find it more likely since the Greek word for tongues is the same as languages. (This is not the same as being fluent hearing/speaking in that other unlearned language, such is a sign of demon possession.)

Christian Contemplation

I have been looking over this stuff about christian contemplation or christian mysticism. I thought it would be relevant to discuss because it is not very well understood. Furthermore, experience driven christianity is a horrible abberation of the truth of God as reveal in the word. God specifically calls for Christianity driven experiences.

From my readings, some of this christian contemplation, (which is really not an action of active contemplation but a grace from God) runs parallel to charismatic occurences and experiences. Different language but same thing among non-charismatics. In short, the charismatic areas that fall into christian contemplation are that which follows: Being filled with the spirit/Infused contemplation. Presight of God/heaven from afar (everything leading up to the Beautific vision.), Apo-'something' prayer/praying in the spirit. (not tongues), etc.

Evidences of such are scattered among various writers There are often the evidences of the Holy spirit in their life. Not just normal means but evidence of a real active relationship. It shows up in diverse places with the impression that it could not be from any other source originally but God. I have come across such instances even from John Owen. Perhaps you know what I mean. It is like reading A.W. Tozer at times. It is as if a truth and conviction was so specific and strong that he would have had to encounter God to be so moved to write it. It is as though it was seared into his heart and memory by his union with God. This essentially is a mark left by Christian contemplation or charismatic encounters with God.

Yet, lets talk about the terms. Christian contemplation is hardly something one contemplates. Many try, but it is grace. Yet, not all of the practices of Christian contemplation fall in this definition. There is a large gap that forms, especially when it comes to the relevance of truth in practice. Various contemplation and meditation techniques that are not explicitly christian slip in. People seek the experience without the truth. This includes subjectivity but is not limited to it.

They say meaningless words and sounds (mantras) over and over. They rock back and forth. They do things merely physically like Yoga. Or try things that are merely psychological. They may also do things that are truthful and right but not motivated by the truth or that which is right. This is phariseeism or living the quiet life of monasticism. It now appears that christian contemplation is not something you do but, more or less, live according to the truth. It is something that must follow from worshipping in both spirit and truth. Being close to God and feeling our union with Him does not come from mediation, active contemplation, and doing good deeds. It comes from devotion specifically towards the truth and God. Some doctrine is needed. It is called doctrina sacra by Thomas Aquinas. Or sacred doctrine. It has roots in all good theology.

It is for this reason that C.S Lewis wrote: "For my own part I tend to find the doctrinal books often more helpful in devotion than the devotional books, and I rather suspect that the same experience may await many others. I believe that many who find that "nothing happens" when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand."

Yet, theology is dead bones without the spirit. All theology is be circular. It must lead away from the cross and back to it. The spirit at times must show us the way back. As for most Christian contemplation, it is stuck by its narrow focus on love. It is also stuck on catholic doctrine. I think love is important but not like the gospel which shows us love and much, much more like holiness, justice, power, grace. etc. It is not our will but His.

Predestination

There is a belief that God works all things in invisible and unknowable ways. Some call this belief predestination. I laugh at such an attempt to label it. It is those who put this label on the actions of a sovereign God on our behalf who are in error. They are obsecessed with the speck of fatalism when they do not see their own log. Free will and choice do not solve fatalism. The choices and the events of history move out of God's hands and into man's. Our fate does not lie in the infinite wisdom and goodness of God but in the hands of our sinful selfs and many times other sinful men. No man is an island. Our fate, in part, comes from the actions of other people. It is subject to the free choice of another man. It is by this that wars are started. Jobs are lost. People drink and drive. People commit crimes. People ruin lives. People lie, cheat, steal from others. The actions of people are causes the worst evils. Our fate is not commited to a person with infinite goodness to work on our behalf in ways unknown but to one who is fallen. If God cannot help in these things, where is God?

Now let us look at predestination for a sec. It is really God's absolute sovereignty as seen in the future. I must admit predestination has one problem. It become the worst monster if God was not all good. If there be but a shadow of evil, even the smallest part. God turns into a white whale. He works evil towards us. I would hate predestination if God be 99.999% good and .001% evil. I would hate God for it also despite being 99.999% good.

It is from this vantage point that we see predestination is always attacked by attacking God's goodness. They bring up the Old testament with its sanctioned genocide and slavery. Or they can just bring up the evils everyday life. It is as if they believe that the small strand keeping them out of hell already, is not grace. What is hell anyway but the genocide of all unbelievers. What is hell but the chaining up of unbelievers? They attack God and say that God is good but not all Good. This is unbelief. They expect they can get away chipping just enough off to discredit predestination.

It is with this I take issue. It is to make Him less than holy. It is to make him less than good. It is to make Him less than God. I only want my God to be all powerful on my behalf, even in my own choices and the choices of others. I cannot see this happening without accepting some form of predestination. Do I dwell on the predestination then? Never, I dwell on a mighty God, mighty to do good, mighty to save. All on my behalf with an invisible hand. It is too high for us to understand. It is too wonderful for us to know. Job 42 and Psalms 139 put it in the right perspective.

American christianity

We have historically been the most God-fearing nation. The revolutionary war even had many religious overtones. It seems we are now losing that base set down. We have already moved past the Christianity they believed. Yet, never so far. It is entrenched in our folk religion. We still pray for pastors to be effective. Not at being a good orator, but we pray for the holy spirit. This is distinct from most other christianity. It is as if we still believe that God is required to act in conversion. While, the official doctrine says man must act. It is in this belief in which we see that God is the one who opens hearts and eyes to save. Man does not open them.

There is hope yet that God has a place in our society and in our lives as the only sovereign. What evangelism denies in belief has been entrenched by the grace of God. It may take one to become a missionary or evangelist to see it but God still acts in mighty ways. The churches that aught to see this truth do not send out missionaries who bring the truth back with them. They send out a social gospel that is nothing but an invitation to a group hug. Let us waken them to the belief the God works all things. Let us show them his mighty works. Especially in his sovereignty