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

Modernist myth: The individual

There is a tendancy to respect the individual outside of the context of a community. One can create theology outside of discussing who are we, and what we can do in general; by discussing only who am I, and what I 'think' I can do. This myth is to say that importance is placed more and more on the individual alone. This is seen in choice and modern evangelism.

Choice is hearald as an individualist right in salvation. God forbide, that God is a respecter of individuals. (Yet, this claim can be leveled just as well against Arminians as calvinists.) It does not discuss the context of grace towards the community of believers. Or the necessity of grace for the placement of that person into the community. It is also the community that gives context to an individual. Someone, who i generally disagree with, once said, "No man is an island." Modern Evangelism has fallen into such. It says Christ died for you, without saying Christ died for sinners and you are one in fact in that community. It does not say that Christ died for the church on a community level; he did not die or spill his blood for those outside it. By placing worth in the individual, rather than the context given to that individual, is to sacrifice the gospel. Postmodernism does not like defining individual, much less anything. It is right in this rejection of modernism's individual but it does not establish community.

We can see how modern churches have become groups of individuals rather than communities. It is perhaps a cause to why we see people date churches. I realize that there are individual considerations but they are not independant from the context given to them.

I am not exhaulting the church but rather am exhalting the means that God has instituted. They are not from or for the individual alone. Election was the selection of a nation of individuals that are to be built together. It was not the selection of individuals who would remain such. It is not the choice of individual to gain an individualistic salvation, apart from a community, by themselves.
Such rugged individualism helps exhalt pride, merit, and choice of individuals in salvation rather than grace and faith lived out in a community. Without a community, believers are fish out of water. Life takes place in a community of God. Life does not take place in the solitude of an individual.

Now when the prodigal son was called home. He was coming home from a life of rugged individualism. He was came home to a family. Let it be like such in Christ. Christ seeks to have communion and fellowship with us in this life and the next. Men were made for such.

Death to Serventes--Rant

Before people start accusing Calvin of being a murderer. I am accusing Arminius with being one. Worse, I accuse him of participating in crimes against humanity by proxy. I am sure Arminius was an expert witness against the protestants. If he was a good Catholic he would even consent to the means that the Catholic church used in his time. For the catholic church is inerrant in its papal anathemas that were enforced. A good catholic follows the leader. (Or rather swallows the leader)

Arminius would consent with the lutheran wars. These wars ended because Germany's population was so badly decimated. It was 1/2 of pre-war levels. It was like the war on the hussites fought to decimation.

Arminius would consent with the persecution of protestants in France. He would consent with killing the Hugenots. What? Who are they? They are the 2million protestants living in France who were exterminated. They don't really exist anymore.

Arminius would consent to brutal child kidnapping of protestant children so they can be raise catholic in monestaries.

Arminius would consent to a St Bartholomew day massacre. At least 8,000 protestants killed in one day. Furthermore, He would not consent to an apology. The catholic church still hasn't apologized,

Arminius would consent to much much more than just this as an expert witness. So why are we still talking about Serventes. He is dead. The world was probably better off. I can't say the world is better off with so many dead protestants who are not heretics.

Now why don't we start talking about Arminians and the head of their theology? That Arminian theology must be demonic from a demonic institution. Let us not even touch that stuff. You call it unfair. You prove my point on total depravity. Now shut up about calvin.

Now all things considered. This is like people who charge Calvin, instead of Geneva (who even kicked Calvin out once), for the murder. Then manage to some how extrapolate an impact on the man's theology. It is an absurd log in one's eye!!! Yes, Arminianism came straight from Catholocism. I can debate anyone under the table on that assertion. Death to serventus because I can show anyone that protestant were a lot more tame than Arminians of that time. Furthermore, I can show that religious freedom later came from not the Arminians but the Calvinists!

Kudos to JI Packer

Quote: "The amount of misrepresentation to which Calvin's theology has been subjected is enough to prove his doctrine of total depravity several times over."

The way I see it Rant-

-Christ died for the church.
-He died to make two flesh one.
-Marriage shows this unique and particular union between Christ and the church.

Gay marriage, Gay marriage. I have had enough of trying to explain why I hate it.
It is an affront to God. Even more so than the acts of Homosexuality.

You know whatelse I hate, people's understanding marriage. They don't see that Marriage requires love to be mainly for the wife. I hate Adultery!

To say Christ’s love lay outside of primarily this union, indiscriminately to everyone, is to ascribe a universal love for every harlot as being equal or greater than that toward a wife. Some call this doctrine unlimited, universal, or hypothetically universal atonement. I would much rather call it, slutty.

Spiritual baptism

Charismatic theology has some influeces into baptistic theology. Unfortunately, they are very nebulous. They often break apart Ephesians 4:5, one baptism. It is not discussed enough but I find that this appearant inconsistancy that needs to be examined. This is really an extension of the line of thought I had at VQ06. I was using strictly a presbyterian heurmanic. This makes it impossible to accept the third wave anwser to spiritual baptism. Only at conversion. Yet, i know that this need not be the case.

I cannot resolve Acts with a third wave approach because I arrive at what I see are greater errors. I cannot just allow a second wave approach to call it two baptisms either. I cannot allow such for i am not strictly second wave. Nor do I hold a strictly pentecost understanding of the occurance. I am pre-charismatic in similarity to bunyan. Also, the second spiritual baptism cannot any more be a sign of regeration than water baptism is. Yet, spiritual baptism is distinct from both of these as a sign and as a grace.

I hope to spell something out more specific on this baptism. As well as relation between the three. We know how water and regeneration are related. Spiritual baptism cannot be the weird uncle in this match. It is related in some means too. I am afraid I may walk new ground in part of my justification of 'one Baptism' but I see no other way. This is for later posts though.

I am not as far away as I thought from what others have said over a particular verse. In short, the Presbyterians are in error here in one part of their covenantal theology if spiritual baptism is thrown into the mix. Yet, I dare not take a dispensational approach on discussing the newness of the spirit at pentecost. I believe that is in error. I rather believe it has been poured out throughout time in the covenant of grace. But specially at pentecost.

Finally, my last thought on water baptism. I have no strong opinions about immersion other than it is more preferable.*

Persuasion

I can explain something logically and thoroughly until the cows come home, but some will still never be persuaded. Some will not care. I have been wondering if I would be better off ringing aloud the bell of truth rather than resting upon on the erosion of the ocean tide in proving something.


To what degree should I be fast, strong, and concise with my statements.
To what degree should I be thorough, steadfast, and calculated.

It is hard to strike an appropriate balance since I cannot decide if I should be defensive or offensive in stating things that have been suffiecently proven in the past almost as fact. Or in stating things that are suggestive but not proven.
I would have little trouble if I did not feel also feel that I had to prove the same eternal doctrines as the people who preceded me theologically.

Do I have someone's shoulder to stand upon or do I need to build something up myself these days. This impasse shows up in the problem of retaining an orthodox. Am I to establish orthodoxy or Am I to maintain it? I side with BB Warfield. I have more problems with people who are perfectly content with orthodoxy than with those who will test it against the Bible and their theological system.

Fixing orthodoxy in places like the emerging church seems to have this two-fold problem. There are some who openly attack it. It would seem that their position need to be eroded from under them. There are others who just need their convictions awoken to truth.

I am taking up some old drafts for some work. Ironically, this is one of them. They are likely next on my list of updates. Ultimately, the reason boils down to how much logic do I wish to use to prove my position? Or how much conviction do I wish to show on their behalf?

In all of this, I am sure on the presentation of the Gospel. It needs to be sounded off to people. It is not something that people need to hear a complete and calculated presentation of logic in support. The Gospel is something needing to be heard concisely and with the strength of conviction. It is in these other things that I have not yet considered what persuasion is appropriate. Or even if the use of persuasion is appropriate.

Baptism and regeneration 2

Lets move on to 1 Peter 3:18-21
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 And (A)corresponding to that , baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience — through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

(A) Greek word: antitupon- a type or copy. This means that it is like that which does. It is does not do it itself.

Within these two contexts you can see how proclaimation to spirits in prison responds not to dead people but ones in bondage to sin. Ones spiritually dead who are baptized. It follows that it is upon the appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus. Not upon water.

Christ was raise for our justification. Not so baptism can save but rather he can save. This justification is in regeneration which is shown in water baptism. This justification is further shown through sanctification with grace from Spiritual baptism.

Baptism and Regeneration

Having dealt a blow to the catholic idea of baptism by desire and wedged in salvation by Grace through faith. (A while ago.)I have hopefully said that salvation follows the grace not the outward act.

I shall also show that the act of baptism is a type/sign of sanctification and salvation; not what saves. It brings us to what scripture says particularly in Romans 6 and in 1 Peter 3.

6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self [1] was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free [2] from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

The link to baptism with God's redemptive plan cannot be over looked. Nor can God's work at causing obedience cannot be overlooked. Yet, Paul leaves little room for such a link not to be present in baptism. The question becomes what is this link.
Paul says also elsewhere: "As many of you as have been baptised in christ have put on christ."(Gal 3:27) This clearly states the numbers between obedient to teaching from the heart and baptized are equal.

To hold that water baptismal regeneration happens, one must also hold that it always does and achieves the result of putting on Chirst. The aorist verb for "put on" is indicative without respect to time. Meaning it has indeed happened or is happening. Yet, the continuance of baptism and newness of life that are also seen in Romans 6. The charge of water baptism being rejectable cannot be sustained from the discussion of ongoing nature in sanctification. It is guaranteed because of the perserverance of the saints and God who both wills and works in sanctification.

Since there is no escape left for "As many of you as have been baptised have put on christ" " One counter example destroys the argument. This is to say that the grace of baptism must always attend water baptism. I can say from personal experience that it does not always attend a person being thrown underwater or sprinkled as a child or an adult. It rather attends itself than externals.

Let us consider colossians 2:12 "11In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. "

Circumcision done without hands. It is not done by a person or a substance/tool in a person's hand. It is done by christ as is stated in the verse. It puts off the body of the flesh. This circumcision is what is ascribed to this baptism. Not of water but of Blood. It is from the application of Christ's blood. This baptism is seen as putting off the flesh and putting on Christ. This is confirmed in verse 12 as being from God not man. It is the grace of baptism in which one is raised through faith in the powerful working of God. This is while being dead in transgressions and in uncircumcision. This is faith not the works done by us in righteousness.

Christ's grace in baptism is the lavar of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit. It is confirmed in Titus 3:5. "he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit." Since Water baptism follows under works done by us in righteousness. It cannot save. This washing of regeneration is nothing but atonement by the sprinkling of his blood at conversion. It is a rightly a baptism but it is of another type. Lets move on to 1 peter

covenant and baptism

Baptism now can be discussed in covenantal framework. Being baptised into christ's death is very similar to the idea represented in union with christ with our iniquities of the flesh and our person being punished on the cross. It shows how the flesh as a whole is condemned in Christ and killed, dead and buried. And how we are in a way. Yet we are raised also. This applies to how new humanity is raised in 2nd adam.

Yet, true grace of baptism occurs in regeneration and not necessarily in water. Water is merely a sign because it is outward truth not an inward one. It can never be an inward one for it is a sacrement. Its efficacy depends on what is inward. Water baptism fits with circumcision as an outward covenantal sign on all its members. Yet we also know that the water does not reveal those who are sons of light but only does so in part. The egyptians also circumcised yet were not of abraham nor under the covenant. Their circumcision was counted as uncircumcision.

In this idea, the perserverance of saints seems to be reject if water baptism of the external church is meant to reveal sons of light who are not such. Such we must consider the baptism of unbelieving childs as uncircumised but not necessarily unclean. We know that Water Baptism is a sacrement so if efficacy does not arise from what is outside but rather from the inward truth of baptism. (Like circumcision) It then appears that water baptism is as much of a part of being shown justified by likeness within the revelation of covenant as it is to covenantal adminstration and identification to the covenant. This is to say it is for believers who have been regenerated and part of sanctification. It follows from the idea that christ's blood cannot justify a believer and be ineffectial. I call into question the purpose of a sacrement otherwise. One would dare not give communion to a non-believer. Why should baptism be different?

Now should paedobaptised people be rebaptised. This is difficult to say since one cannot be recircumsized. Yet, baptism is like the sign circumcision. While regeneration is like the truth and seal of circumcision. Paedobaptized are only accounted uncircumcised even if they are. It follows that it may be possible to be rebaptised since the first one was a sacrement without grace. Yet, does the grace arrive after someone who is clean is next considered circumcised. It was not a covenantal sacrament originally but merely a ritual denoting change. Yet, does it become one? Is this proper to rebaptise? I do not easily know.

Spiritual baptism remains to be discussed at a later time. Yet, it is related to the grace and power of showing Christ's image outwardly.

My Confession of Religion surfing

I came across an interesting link about religion and the internet. It was after 9-11 but I am sure some of it still holds true. Or else I would not be up writing this blog entry.

Religion Surfers

I can only speculate at the future of religion in Cyberspace and church life. The internet is fastly growing into a prime source of spreading information to large groups of people. It also stores and makes information so very accessable. We take it for granted. This story is 6 years old, even before wiki was big.

The web is able to be searched very effectly to. You don't have to be as well read or hunt through books. I admit that I am a big googler and a wikipedian. The quality and quantity of what is online is also improving. This raises some issues to discuss.

First, new sources of error arise. There will be an overload of lies and heresies that are no longer isolated by geography or by number. The people influence by them will be more informed than before by strong delusions. The pastors of a local church will have to be more educated likewise to refute theses errors or let them drift further into them.

Second, the truth is out. (No, not like the x-files.) This will open up doors for those who live with lies. It thus serves as a medium for advancing the truth and the Gospel.

Third, it will speed up the business of how Religion is done.

Fourth, there will be a greater source of information to help pastors and the laymen alike. (Thank God for public domain)

Fifth, there may be more latitudinarians who will not care in what one believes. This is the lazy way out of information overload.

Sixth, there will be religion surfers out trying to educate themselves on these things as the article mentions.

A grave moment

Under diverse circumstances, I have recently visited a cemetary for a decent amount of time. Forgive the pun in the title. I don't believe I have ever really been to a cemetary. I have been to Arlington in DC but only in passing.

I realize now how grave and reposed cemetaries appear to be even at night. It is certainly true that death is the great equalizer and that we all return to dust. Yet, we know that this is not the end. Though the idea of rest with God is sweet, it is not yet our place. We are very much alive. We are very much moving. Things of today and of eternity require our attention, in ways that they could not in death. Let these be for and of God. I see this contrast in the idea of being buried with Him in baptism. The world is no longer the same as when we die to it and it dies to us.

In some ways, the world is like a cemetary. We look around and see the walking dead. We see people who will not actively praise God. We see people whose throat is an open grave. We know of the putrifing flesh of men, that lies only six feet under, but we dare not speak it. We are superstitious not to disturb the dead. We may as, some look at it, be afraid of the dead in this world.

In some ways we must respect the world differently than a cemetary, if it be for God. It is life that determines what is sacred ground. Let us not dedicate to God and call anything sacred if it was found within a curse, like the grave. Let us rather dedicate to God what was found in His blessing, life itself. Let us rather bid dead people to rise. Let us proclaim truth in a place that is silent. Let us focus on the cross, not as a marker but as a living thing that Christ has placed to give us life. Let us dedicate to God, his life in us. Let us live for God for tomorrow we shall die.

Catholics and baptism: Coup de gras. A blow of fat

OK, if you haven't studied french you won't get the second pun. Time to sock catholics on baptism and salvation by faith.

FIRST. To tie in the lose ends what if one defines baptism as the first act of obedience representative of the grace received. Then to deny it, is to deny that the grace has been received. Or it is to deny one's sanctification arising out of true faith. A true believer will have nothing wrong with baptism but that doesn't mean it saves. Catholics have stated that a desire to be water baptised must be implicit to one's faith to be saved. Within this definition, what is required is only this desire from a newly regenerated heart. I say that this desire will not be rejected in such a heart following augustine. Furthermore, this heart will seek to put to death sin.

SECOND. The lavar of regeneration. What if one were to say that regeneration is the application of Christ's blood to cleanse a believer. This in itself would be a baptism of blood. It fills in what is asked for at Trent on both accounts. The grace itself and regeneration.

THIRD. Regeneration and union with christ, denoted by faith: may be said to fill in all the requirements for salvation prior to baptism. Faith is suffiecent. This true faith will not be superficial for I consider it to be present by an act of God. It will not resolutely reject the calls of sanctification including one of its first acts called baptism.

Let the argument be rather about who remains within salvation and if one can fall from grace within sanctificaion. Let us consider the second plank of justification/salvation for Catholics. It is for those who shipwrech their faith. *Cough*Everyone*Cough* I say this to imply that it has become their only form of justification outside of people on their deathbed and infants. To attribute it to man is to be pelagrian in this protestants eyes. Let us also move beyond the transformational model of justification into a protestant one.

It is easy to see why salvation follows the grace not the sacrement. If one places conversion and faith concurrent with the grace called regeneration. Let us also consider that this grace as suffiecent to bring about the desire for baptism as well as faith. It still holds that one becomes saved by catholic standards upon faith not baptism.

A miracle. Perhaps. I argue this is what protestants said when Luther trumpheted salvation by a faith that begins in an act of God. This faith is by grace alone, through faith alone, in christ alone, for God's glory alone, and by Catholocism alone (smirk smirk as I just proved). My new quote: "Catholic, God will hang the truth like an albatross around your neck with your very own theology. Until he drags you to calvary to behold christ by faith." by me.

I see Catholics confusing grace and the sacrement. I shall prove the two are separate. Why should I? the catholics already said they may be. It has happened before in 'extraordinary' circumstances of charity or by an act of God. The difference on sacrements is the fundamental source of all protestant 'truths' or heresies, besides rejection of papal authority. The rest was confused in the catholic system.

Catholic and baptism 2

Ambroise and his disciple Augustine repeat the idea that the person is considered saved but How? He was shown to undergo santification by the spirit prior to baptism. So he had the grace. Furthermore, there was a rank of Catchumen, unbaptised converts that were considered saved since a desire to be baptised by undergoing this process. It is called baptism of desire.

Let's us further consider this: These quotes are taken from second hand from "Baptism and the Baptism of Desire. By Raymond Taouk"
I will analyze these quotes in itallics.
[[
Pope St. Pius X states that "The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least IMPLICIT OF BAPTISM, and this is called Baptism of Desire"... So what is required is a perfect act of love and contrition with a desire for obedience, namely that of baptism

Catholics at trent State: "the state of grace cannot be had except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it"....Let us note the requirement for regeneration. It is important later for it shall show us something.

The word “Votum” (as used by the Council of Trent) is not some superficial wish. That is not the meaning of the word at all. In fact, we must keep in mind that the very nature of faith means that it cannot be totally implicit as it is necessary to know and believe something divinely revealed with a supernatural faith. Laboring under invincible ignorance does not prevent a person from being converted to God by contrition or by an act of perfect Charity. In this act of contrition or perfect act of charity must be contained either an explicit or implicit desire to receive baptism by water according as the notion of baptism is or is not present to the mind of the Person who has turned his heart and mind to God. Ignorance does not prevent one from being converted. The Catholics hold out the idea of the desire for baptism by water.

St. Alphonsus Liguori says "In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament." Does the holy spirit provide this upon regeneration. Notice the hold out specific to the desire for water baptism.

St. Augustine also distinguishes between the sacrament of Baptism and the turning of the heart to God. He teaches that if either of these conditions cannot be secured, the other will be sufficient. A baptized Child is saved, without turning its heart to God, should it die before coming to the age of reason, and a man who turns his heart to God is saved without water baptism, provided he in no way despise the sacrament. This is perhaps the most clear. Augustine offers a weaker hold out. As long as they don't reject baptism.

In any case, there is no Baptism of desire without the supernatural virtue of faith and a certain explicit knowledge of the essential points of faith. Since the nature of faith means that is impossible, that it be completely implicit since faith is a supernatural light to the intelligence. Supernatural faith and explicit knowledge of essential points. Lets reword this to the Gospel and true faith. Let us also make it necessary to believe in cornerstone doctrines like the trinity that tell us which Christ and which God.

This teaching of the Church far from taking away the obligation to be baptized or to enter the Church rather affirms to us not only the necessity for entering the Church but also the necessity for baptism. It shows us the real implications for willfully neglecting to receive baptism and enter the Church, which is the sole ark of Salvation. Even if the Church teaches that it is possible to attain salvation by of the "baptism of desire" or "Baptism of Blood", she is not teaching that it is the ordinary means of salvation for anyone. It would only be by a moral miracle that a person could be saved in such a manner, since what is by definition beyond the ordinary is extraordinary. There is no question of individuals being saved by their own efforts, without God's grace, and therefore outside the Church. On the contrary, it is stated that because these individuals are holding to the true teaching of Christ that they are joined invisibly to the Church. Thus, strictly speaking, one does not say "non-Catholics may be saved" or "Protestants can go to heaven." There are no non-Catholics in the Church and there are no non-Catholics in heaven. The only souls in heaven are those who have joined themselves to the Church in fact or desire....I thought calvinists believe in an extraordinary ordinary miracle called regeneration before faith upon Gospel preaching, this calling is done by God. Finally saying something doesn't over and over about protestants does not make it so. Especially, if it is about conflicting definitions of the true church.]]

See my next article for a Coup Coup de grâce. Forgive the pun. It ties the analysis together.

Catholics and baptism.

Let us first begin with catholics. Let us not be confused with their theology. It is complicated.

They believe that Christ's blood is applied in water baptism. The person is then regenerated and filled or rather infused with all the graces that leads one to be sanctified. These graces enable a person to do good until the person rejects them. Babies are saved in these graces (by baptism) because they are unable to reject these graces until they can reason and reject them. It is also up to the catholic to maintain this deposit of faith. A Catholic will remain righteous and thus saved if he does not reject these sanctifying graces.

This requires the ongoing act of Penance, works, and confession. Some catholics will believe that God works and wills within people within their sanctification. It is done by God alone within a person. This credits God not man for sanctification. It can be said that Augustinians may place the merit/value to God's credit. It is from this they can maintain that men do not make themselves righteous and God saves from first to last. These people rely on God to save.

But many times this turns into a synergism (Thomisians) of effort which credits both. Lastly there is the idea that God only gives the ability. The works are then ascribed as the person's merit which become necessary to be saved. (Most common and close to pelagrian.) A smart catholic would conclude the grace (despite it being granted by the church in baptism) is from God. They would say it is necessary but not suffiecent. This lack of suffiecency means that man's merit is required for God to save.

Augustinians may believe it is suffiecent but not without God's sanctification in a person. The person must still work to be saved but it is and is not him working. I cannot say they beleive in salvation by works but they don't believe in a righteousness apart from the law. This is a short summery of catholocism as I understand it. I may have left a great deal out but I hope this has done them justice. It is from this that one can conclude a few catholics, who trust in Christ for their righteousness, are saved and many more are not because they trust in their works. The invisible church remains unbroken since the time of Christ.

We shall look more closely at baptism from now within this foundation. It is understandable that Early catholics put off baptism to lessen their requirement of keeping themselves righteous until their death. Once baptised they are saved none-the-less. This changed once catholics made purgatory a dogma sanctification was still required even if one waited. There was no longer an urge to wait. It is also shown that Early catholics saw baptism as entrance to group of the faithful and the lord's army by application of the Grace. Baptism served for full entrance into the Catholic church.

Now Catholics who put off baptism till their deathbed were faced with a dilemma. What if they were not near water, a priest, and were dying. Could they be saved. They were willing to be baptised but had not the means at hand. If they died on their way to be baptized by a priest. (Not just any believer but one invested with the power of Rome.) What happens to his soul? Is it saved?

Lets see how in my next post the catholics want to have their cake and eat it too.

Contemplating baptism

I have recently been contemplating the ideas and doctrines behind baptism. I hate to say it but these are often not on par with other exigesis in scripture. For Presbyterians and For baptists and let us not forget Charismatics. This was brought to my attention at VQ 06 and sorta resolved. I have come back to contemplate it since a year ago. FV/AAT has brought the issue of baptism up again when I stumbled into their hermantic when looking at problems with NPP.

It is more of an issue for my theology to fit together since I am charismatic, reformed, and a baptist. If Water baptism and regeneration are too closely tied to covenantal theology (grace/sign) of administration. Spiritual baptism becomes a wierd uncle in short because it is a baptism that is not linked to covenant theology, or even the other two baptists, by any stretch of the imagination. The problem is elsewhere. Man-made Theology then has made it such that the inerrant book of Ephesians in the bible falls on its face when it states one faith, one god, and one baptism.

I plan on discussing baptism in a long series.

Confession of my sin at being a christian

I have been a christian a long time. I have been saved for a long time but not quite as long as being a 'Christian'. I grew up a ‘Christian’ without actually being such for a while. I many times acted 'Christian' without faith. This should be a contradiction at its very core. It is a red flag. True christian things cannot be done rightly by unbelievers. Everything must be done by faith in faith.

Now when i look back through some better eyes. I see that I tried to do everything myself without Christ. Then, I would get mad at myself or maybe frustrated with God when I failed. This a perfect endeavor into a false religion. It is the largest religion of the world. It is the chief component of judiasm, catholicism, islam, hinduism, and a whole host of other religions. It is called Legalism. My childhood faith consisted in this with its own false God for a while. During this time, I had gone to a Presbyterian church that was sound. It was very orthodox. It was so sound that it was sound asleep. A hollow shell of the former self.

They had fallen into the trap of placing morality and ‘Christian’ living above the gospel truths of Christ and Him crucified. They shyed away from any controversy. The gospel was present but not arrayed in its full glory.

My salvation came later in middle school after I had moved from Pennsylvania. I was then going to a nondenominational evangelical (essentially Baptist) church in Indiana. I know that my trust was to be in Christ alone. I also learned that in trusting Christ, perfection was not the end of religion. Christ himself was the end. I certainly was a lukewarm legalistic "Christian" before this time. I can clearly say that christian are called in power. They should actively seek to be more Christ-like day-by-day. This is out of respect and honor of that person. Worship comes from Worthship, as in giving or showing the value of something. Namely recognizing worth and weight to God’s Love, Mercy, Grace, Purity, and even His Being. He is due from every creature this worship for he is our creator.

This transition from morality and duty into trust and worship began with a bang. It was not the same but my faith still had to grow on me. It slowly changed me over time to a complete faith. I was further blessed and strengthened in faith by several years spent at a sound SBC church in Tennessee throughout high school. I have now benefited from a sovereign grace ministries church. I also benefited by the encouragement to seek out God in the Bible and also from the shoulders of other men through personal study.


Before being saved, I just I wasn’t truly into following Jesus. I thought I was. (This is such a false hope that I would not have known without God.) The right way does not lead to a dead end with a mountain crashing on top of you. The short comings of doing 'good' is not the bases of a relationship with God. Real faith leads only to Christ and him crucified. No further.

I see that many times my past efforts to do what was right were shipwrecked by a blind man at the wheel. I was dead for a lack of knowledge. I was dead for a lack of faith. There was no way for me to fix it without God's help. I had to be born again for I could not spiritually discern truth. Natural man cannot. There is no faith apart from truth. There is not even a chance for truth without God himself and the Holy Spirit activily revealing it. God must open eyes and hearts.

It is by this truth of what faith is, that we can know that it is God who saves sinners. He will take the greatest legalist, even the most zealous of them. One which persecuted the church with all of hell's fury. If can be saved, we know that it is not of himself but of God. Let us not think about the ficticious line between sinners and saints, "he's a good guy", or anything like that. The Gospel is worthy of total exceptance by all and anyone. God tells the legalist to stop digging his hole. It is the ongoing sin of unbelief that keeps them at digging. Jesus had to die to overcome this also for his choosen people. He also had to send his spirit to convince people that righteousness was manifest apart from the law.

A natural man cannot please God without knowing how. Natural men think they are doing a service to God but the truth is that they are heap more coals of judgment upon themselves. They exalt their own pride and position rather than being humble enough to submit to Christ. They exalt their filthy rages. They exalt their 'required' service in praising God in such a way that it pays for their short comings. It does not. It is an ever present unbelief that condemns them.

My Exposition of Calvinism, TIULPI

I would first discuss Depravity and original sin. The gospel is too good toward man for a sane person to reject. It is because of sin. It reasons then the sin that Christ supposively died for that stands in the way of one's acceptance of the gospel. How can this be so? I propose it isn't because salvation is all of God. This is the heart of calvinism.

God must act to save people. God does this by regeneration prior to faith. God opening eyes and hearts. Sinners then see the truth and accept the gospel. It is in this act that the workings of God's election are first made manifest in a person.

The death Christ died was God's design to save a particular people while make full atonement for man. This design is first seen in the act of regeneration of sinners to faith. The design centers around His actions not ours. It is ment to bring about a complete salvation including faith and the things that accompany it by one's union with Christ.

Finally, One cannot be lost by the sin that Christ came to save men from. Christ died once and for all. Furthermore, salvation brings along with it the spirit. He will always bring one back to repentance. (This is more of being raked over the coals by the Holy Ghost than a believer remaining in sin and being saved.) Once saved always repentant.

Finally, throughout all of this, Grace comes apart from the trappings of sin and the devil. God is invincible in his plan to save sinners.

In short TIULPI.
Why 'I' twice. It is the center of Focus of God's sovereignty being 'absolute'. The first I was with respect to man's actions. The second with respect to God's plan being invincible.

Note: One can also throw in postmodern/neocalvinist ideas with total depravity if they so please but only if they attribute the problem of understanding to sin or the person rather than the language or God. It is one bridge to postmodernism and back.

TULIP or was it UPLIT

I came across a forum that was researching the history of the mnemonic TULIP. Appearantly, it is a new invention (circa 1932) perhaps by Boettner or some other preacher around that time. It became popular in the 1970s. TULIP was just called the five points before this time.

They were often known by different names too.
T- was Total inability, Human depravity, or Radical depravity.
U- was sovereign election or unconditional predestination.
L- was definite atonment or particular redemption.
I- was efficacious grace or invincible grace.
P- was always the same name.

The five points were often presented in different orders. ULTIP was what Spurgeon used. Dordt has them all over in each section, Starting with TUP. It is in no way monolithic. I much prefer explaining calvinism without Tulip. I shall exposite what I see is a good way of introducing calvinism outside of a polemic or contrast.

High and Low Grace

There are many kinds of calvinists. I want to first discuss what high calvinism and low calvinism are. I sorta hinted at what dutch calvinism was when i started talking on neocalvinism.

First off, the distinction between infra/supra-lapsarianism is insuffiecent for classifying high and low calvinism because each system leads to the same conclusions. John Gill showed this. It is based on perspective just as much as anything. High calvinists will tend to be supralapsarian whereas low calvinists will be infralapsarian. If you don't know these terms, you are likely infra.

The real distinction for high and low is on the focus. High calvinism will stress decrees from eternity past and predestination. Low Calvinism will stress God's sovereignty without addressing these things outside of God's active work within creation. Low calvinism will also be more means oriented with the idea of instrumentality and respect secondary causes like gospel preaching to all. There is some overlap between the two. People were called low and high calvinists often in a derrogatory way.

It should also be noted that high does not = hyper. Yet, all hyper calvinists are high calvinists. Hypercalvinists are in fact high calvinists who forget the gospel applies to all men without exception.

I am somewhere in the middle between these two like most people. I started higher in my doctrine but have moved downward slightly. I guess it was a good thing.

Creation

Some people take creation as entirely literal. Some take it figurative. Others subject the narrative to science. Finally, some take it for exactly what it is in light of the rest of the bible. I bring this up because I was thinking about the creation for sometime.

I see strands of thought that easily incorporate old earth creationism by a literal reading of the passage in Isaiah. "They shall not enter into his rest." as referring to an ongoing sabbath rest. I see other strands of thought that so prove a six day creation, such that no liberal theologian aught to even deny its existence. I have looked around at where I stand on this issue. I cannot find fault in the short creation week. I also cannot exclude a long creation week either. I stand nowhere.

I find it more difficult to conceive of a long creation week but not impossibly. I wish not the difficulty of believing a long creation week on anyone in light of the plain reading of Genesis that glorifies God's work. It is not essential because we can be certain that God made it. We can be certain that He also made it good. In short, I realize stand I nowhere on this issue. I will likely keep this position.

I looked more deeply into Genesis 1 and realized that the creation story has more nuances than what is written. What of Angels? What of the true Heavens, which exist outside of our material existence? Are these the heavens mentioned or is it just the sky. Next, where does this sky end. The firmament includes both sky and stars. Are the true heavens mentioned in this creation or just stars. What do we make of the waters above and the waters below this expanse, in light of these things. What is the deep vastness that existed before creation. Is the creation story just of the earth or is it of the universe. Also, how long was Adam in Eden?

There are many questions. I don't have the answers. I don't think they are necessary to faith. Yet, God had to create the real/true heavens at some time. Yet, they are not eternal. They are created and real outside of our universe. Furthremore, Angels are creatures like men. They cover their eyes, they fly, and they cover their feet. They, even if they live forever, have a beginning.

Since we can see the splendor of the first creation so clearly. It matters not how it was made but who made it. Let us look at the second work of creation. A work that is done by God. He takes not an old man and remakes him. He creates a new man in place of the old.

This is in a work called regeneration, it is worked out later by faith. It is inadequate of an expression to the world's eyes of God's creative glory. Yet, it far surpasses the understanding of the saints that God can make a stone heart alive. That God can clean away the leopard's spots or change the color of an Ethiopian's skin. That God can forgive sin. It far surpasses our understanding of how we came to love one that we were the source of hatred against. It is not that we first love God but that God first loved us. While we were yet sinners, he sent His Son to die for us. It is by this and Christ's effectual prayers that God was please to make men anew in Christ. Desires change and duty becomes delight. God has been found by those who sought him not. Be it always to God's glory. Amen

Neo-calvinism part 2: Relating to society

I don't intend to pick up right where the the Dutch left off. They left off at redeeming culture by progress and understanding. I believe that these are the wrong modernistic goals Christians should strive for in relating to society.

Yet, I return to the idea for the idea of redeeming creation and aspects of the world that God created good. The redemption of these things can extend into our culture. In our globallized world, we cannot reject culture either but we can define our terms to interact with it. The Amish tried to shut themselves out from it. The Mennonites give themselves a new set of rules. The legalists rely on morality or being 'good'. Neocalvinists focused creating Government, culture, arts, sciences, and progress. The Dutch went sideways on these issues. Some blame their doctrine of common grace in exalting good works and systems put in place to carry those out. These things essential left out God in claiming credit for accomplishments. Once in place, the christian charity was no longer needed since the government did it. The error was in their focus. Christians should rather focus on what God in the Bible says on our relation to society. (Not ranked)

1. We need to live peaceful quiet lives.
2. We must be the salt of the Earth.
3. We must be found in doing every good work.
4. We must not be caught up in civilian pursuits.
5. We must preach the whole Gospel.

I see the problem within how they extended the love of God to the world. They ascribed government and progress beside the gospel, rather than below it. These things are clearly civilian pursuits. We must first fight the war of faith. We must first and foremost put on the whole armor of God before we try to relate to the world. It is not understanding but it may be at times adversity. It is not progress but at times it is being a bible thumper. These things show that the sole ideas of progress and understanding in the world's eyes may be wrong, no matter how noble they appear. They can be in conflict with truth and that which gives real progress/change.

The Dutch were right in trying to display God's glory to the world. Unfortunately, temporal means within creation like government and law mean less when considering the glory of eternal goodness and grace. These human means are nothing in light of conveying God himself through the gospel. We should be found in them but only after being found pointing to God in every essential way.

Neo Calvinism part 1

I have recently begun to look into Dutch Calvinism again. Partly because of Kevin Shipp and his love of Bavinck. I have more particularly looked at neocalvinism, which later dropped the ball in the Netherlands. It is an aberration of Dutch Calvinism.

Essentially, neo-Calvinism is a cultural worldview that takes a cultural mandate to be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth. It is the idea that there is not one area of creation that Christ will not redeem. It draws heavily from amillenialism and from the idea of placing everything under Christs feet. This extends into religion as life and secular society. This is ok but when linked with the strong Dutch common grace ideas, there was a tendancy to be at peace with the world. It was extends into being involved with culture and government, at first trying to christianize it. Second, trying to be at peace with it for unity. A cultural mandate was seen to be as strong as the Great Commission by the Dutch. Neo-calvinism easily turned Dutch Calvinism's social aim into compromise with society for so called 'progress'. Progress not of the Christian faith but of secular social justice.

Furthermore, by pursuing this mandate, they failed on things more essential. The Netherlands became pretty unchristian pretty quick. This is where i want to pick up later to discuss how we aught to relate to the world.

POST IT

I had meant to post more on this blog but never got around to it yet. Especially part of my testimony, similar to last post. (Prechristian life to coversion and then afterward.) I doubt this will happen any time soon. I

will just leave any blogger out there with this brief thought.

In heaven, we will beautiful sing songs that angels could not even sing. Angels can only sing of God saving Man. We will sing of God saving us. The angels have longed to look into these things from eternity past. (1 Peter) These things have been revealed in Christ. Yet, Men are living the grace. Angels are only seeing it. Choirs of men will have to sing about being the object of God's love in Christ. Angels appear to only sing of Christ's actions on behalf of his people.

Theologian quiz

I ended up taking this quiz. I got these results:


You scored as Anselm. Anselm is the outstanding theologian of the medieval period.He sees man's primary problem as having failed to render unto God what we owe him, so God becomes man in Christ and gives God what he is due. You should read 'Cur Deus Homo?'

Anselm		100%
Karl Barth		93%
Martin Luther		87%
John Calvin		67%
Jonathan Edwards		60%
Friedrich Schleiermacher		53%
Paul Tillich		33%
Charles Finney		33%
Jürgen Moltmann		33%
Augustine		33%

Which theologian are you?
created with QuizFarm.com


Conclusion:This quiz is not that great at distinguishing between theologians. Barth certainly was Reform minded but there is no question to differentiate atonement. That means what is Barthian might be actually be reformed or calvinistic. The same could be said with Luther and Calvin. I am closer to Calvin than Luther on theology but it doesn't shows.

Finally, I do lean toward Anselm on certain things. These involve original sin and atonement. Most reformed people do to! They weren't just linked to Anselm. My final question is how did Augustine get ranked near the bottom with a Pelagrian like Charles Finney. I know where my differences lie with Augustine. They were not reflected in the questions.

Telling people about a purple sky, part II

God made us rational. He is super-rational. He put order to everything around us. The fault is not in our rational mind or will but in our perception that changes it. The sky is as purple as it is blue.

The only 'rational choice' in light of Christ and God is repenting and seeking forgiveness for our creator is both infinitely loving and abundantly gracious. If you know God as such, it aught to be a no-brainer!!! RETURN AND REPENT!!! Look for another source of rejecting the Gospel or even the goodness of God's law but the irrationalism of our fallen natures and indwelling sin. This old nature must be changed in conversion. We must be born again. We must have spiritual life because by this spiritual things are discerned.

Let's not confuse freedom with foolishness. The problem lies in our fallen state not in our will. The solution is in getting our fallen state corrected. Not in our rational will corrected! We do not sin because of our rational will alone. We sin because we are sinners and see our sin wrongly. We are not saved because of our will alone either. We are saved because God appoints us to salvation by making us see the truth from implanting a new nature. The sky is as purple as it is blue.

This leads one to ask is not Christ victorious in actually saving people? He must overcome our foolish perceptions when he applies his gospel. It is like me trying to convince you that the sky is as purple as it is blue. You may be thinking about what I am saying in passing but I REALLY mean that the sky is NOT pure blue! It is really blue and purple light mixed in EQUAL amounts!!!!! I mean it. SERIOUSLY, It is just as PURPLE as it is BLUE!!! You may be rejecting this wrongly because you perceive it wrongly. We trust too much in ourselves for truth. Yet, this is where God places truth in our souls by regeneration and conversion. We then can rightly see the glory of the cross. We can then rightly estimate the filth called sin. God commands everyone everywhere to repent.

Why should we not return home to our Father who is the one Source of all Being who graciously pardons all who come to him? To not return home is like believing the sky is just blue. It is foolishness. It is not truth. It holds no measure of truth.

The truth is that the sky is just as purple as it is blue.
If you don't believe me finally. Look Here.
PROOF THAT YOU MUST SEE!!!!

"the spectrum of skylight — when analyzed — is about equal parts violet and blue."

We only see it differently as humans. Now why didn't you believe me earlier? Was it because of your free will? or did you wrongly think I was crazy to assert something so absurd. Are your eyes playing tricks on you? The same instance occurs in conversion by your old nature. We bid dead men to live. It is outside their will.

Telling people about a purple sky

It is hard to tell people the truth. It is hard to get someone to believe something that aught to already hold as fact. I can point to all the evidence and they remain unconvinced because of their own flawed/fallen view. They will hold on tightly to their mis-perception of the event. They will not see the truth.

What if I was going to tell you the sky is as purple as it is blue. You would call me colorblind. I would say that observation does not match truth. You would consider me out of my mind on this. Furthermore, I could prove to you that I am not colorblind. Then you would resort to calling me a liar, or worse, a spawn of the devil for spreading such lies. This is seen in Faith as much as it is in Science.

This is how people view things that aught not be question by reason. You can tell them the sky is purple and they will never believe you. In faith, this is similar to sharing the gospel.

You can persuade them all you want. They will just have none of it. You can bring out the textbooks or the Bible. They will remain unmoved. You can go to absurd lengths to try and convince them but they just perceive things wrongly. The sky is as purple as it is blue!!! I am now asserting this fact. The sky might as well be called Purple instead of just Blue. It is really an equal mix between these two colors.

For faith, unless God can restore one's sight they cannot and will not agree with you. How can one reject the goodness of the gospel when it is view rightly. One cannot. The Gospel far surpases any beauty and riches found elsewhere. It has no equal. It cannot be stopped by sin because Jesus died to get rid of it.

Since people do reject the Gospel, one must wonder what is altering their perceptions. It is only man's nature keeping him from the right view. This original sin will keep anyone out of heaven! Just as we see the sky is blue yet the sky is as purple as it is blue!!! Now didn't Christ die to save one from his old nature? How can this old nature with its misconceptions stop the gospel? The sky is as purple as it is blue.

The Gospel is too great to be rejected by anything. Furthermore, the original sin is the source of that wrong perception. Any rational person would accept God and Christ. Lets not get into some silly argument about 'free choice and free will'. I see it more along the lines of reason. Anything less is irrational when viewed rightly. The sky is as purple as it is blue. Perhaps you will see what I really mean in part II.

End To Evil

I have previously written about the non-creation of evil. This does not mean that it has no existence. We continuously deal with it. I find myself relying more and more on the blood of Christ alone to cure it. I do not see any other option.

I have said before that evil cannot stand up to good. Yet, we must recognize the same thing as Jesus. No one is good but the Father. He must be the source of our goodness. The promise for such is born within the blood of Christ. This blood speaks a better word that the blood of Adam flowing through our veins. It speaks a better word than the blood of Abel covering our hands.

Christ's blood must also become our very life. The breath of God (nefas) or our soul, was made to reside in the blood. I take this to figuratively mean that our souls must reside in the blood of Christ to live. Adam's blood is not pure. Our union with Christ is one based on blood. Our new lives have not been fully revealed yet they are ours. These lives are 'treasured up'/hidden/stored up in Christ. Apart from Christ we are cut off. It is the root who gives nutrients through fluid to the leaves or the will wither and die. It is the sun who causes plants to grow. The same connectedness is that which we have with Christ.

At times, it is hard to see how far we are from yesterday because of sin. Yet, we are not any farther from perfection than we were Yesterday. I ask myself what has changed on God's part. The answer 'Nothing' does not seem to satisfy me. I try to ask myself what is wrong with me. I find out that it is everything. I ask for change, just for its own sake, but find it slow coming. I seek to kill sin, while I am still too infatuated with its false warmth to do anything. I feel the weight of condemnation and wonder if I am carrying a cross or I am carrying the hammer to drive the nails. to break the knees out of malice that need not be broken for Christ's death.

If it be a cross, I know that I aught to pick up it as a criminal and take it to calvary as a saint. I know that I can be relieved of this burden. No other way. Yet, the cross often lays right where I left it. If only I would return sooner. Oh how I would see myself free in Christ sooner. Oh how I wish that I didn't participate in killing Christ. Yet, it is something all men do with crosses or hammers.

In this effort may I die with Christ, Oh Lord. So that I may be raised with Him in the next life. Evil shall then be no more. The temple in heaven looks east. This is a sign that it is watching for the Son to rise and shine in all its glory. The night is almost gone and the son is already shining. We can see rays off in the distance over the mountain tops of thy Word. Bring forth more radience onto your people and your land. Remove us from this domain of darkness that plagues your lands for we are the kingdom of light. Deliever us from temptation and ransack the works of the devil.Let us be justified by your blood. Let us grasp the promises of your blood. Let us reside in your blood Christ Jesus. It offers us an eternal home and rest. Send to us godliness which is 'heaven on earth'. Let evil be put under your feet as a footstool for your saints and your kingdom. Have this happen not a moment too soon!

The Nature of Evil, part III

Darkness cannot defeat the light. The light always shines in darkness. No purpose of God will return to him void. The same principle applies to Good and Evil. Evil can only exist with permission. It can only exists in the absence of good.

How does something without substance prevent something that does? If the universe was duelistic, evil would to have substance too. This is not the case. How can something like darkness prevent light. How can things that are cold prevent heat? They cannot. Evil cannot prevent good. This is seen over and over. Good is fully capable of circumventing evil. This is on full display on the cross. Good claims every victory from any battle. It matters only on the intent of God in such. This intent and council of God is inscruitable till judgment. We cannot see what God purposes on the whole as it is still being worked out.

Now, Grace is something with substance coming forth from God. Grace is real and abiding. Furthermore, much can be said about a link between grace and life as well as new creation. These things have substance. It would be ridiculous to assume that it does not have substance. To allow a grace an option of defeat, is to say that grace has no substance. It is to say that it is on the same plane of existence as evil. It relies upon the good already existing for its own existence. Yet, what good is in existence when it was brought to nothing by evil? I cannot say something without substance was purchased christ's infinite worth in blood. I cannot say that grace is without substance when Christ's himself is the source of all substance and being.

This returns me to what 1 Corinthians said. "But by his doing you are in Christ." God has become such and such for us. He is becomes our source of being as we acknowledge our own deaths. Then accepted our lives raised in him. God himself and his goodness are invincible in such actions.

The Nature of Evil, part 2

Man has their source and being within God. I believe that 'being' itself has something good in it even for those who perish in hell. It is like: "It is to better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all." but for life. It is the very breath of God that gives life in his act of creation. This breath remained entirely good until corruption came. The breath or this soul retains all the goodness in the image of God but not in being and nature. Evil would not be what it is if it did not constantly invent ways to lie about the image of the incorruptible God that we bear even still. We are guilty for such continual deceit. God cannnot allow such to continue without judgment.

Evil's main purpose at every turn is to profane the image of God that is retained. It is from this evil sought and corrupted all of mankind completely. We are to be images bearers of God but we would now rather paint over his picture with obscenities and abominations. God cannot rightly cannot stand for such hostility toward himself. We are guilty for being rebels by nature and trying to kill God himself.

Every created thing was made weak and susceptible to corruption. This would have been ok had not corruption taken root. This corruption reaches far into whatever good remained and turned it black. No island remains untouched. Evil would assault the image and person of God Himself if it had any substance to do so. God took on flesh was crucified by evil. Evil and death tried to kill the very source of being and life but things without substance could not keep Christ down.

Like Augustine, I believe that evil has no real substance. God did not make it. One can be good without evil being there. Yet, one cannot be evil without something good and the corruption of something good. Light can exist without darkness. Darkness needs the absence of light to exists. Heat can exist without cold. Cold cannot exist, or be defined, without heat. Absolute Zero is defined by the lack of heat (atomic vibration). These cannot defined by themselves. Evil is like this.

Somethings exists because they are virtues in and of themselves. They exist without aid. Other things exist merely because they lack these vitrues. Evil is such. It is a parasite that requires something that was created good and with being in order to live. Augustine went as far sin was an act of uncreation and the taking away of good.

This begs to question. How can something that has no substance stand up to something that does have? It is clear here that Darkness can only persist by God allowing it. Corinthians seems to answer "the why and to what end."

Evil is but a "base thing of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may bring to nothing that are. So that no man may boast before God. But by -His doing- you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD." (1 corinthians 1:28-31). Evil is to destroy the present so that by Grace everything will be summed up in Christ.

Furthermore, creation and continued existance cannot be evil since they themselves are good. God shall show such on Judgment day. No hardship or suffering can out do the goodness of life itself. Evil may try to multiple these ills but life is a greater gift. This itself will cause every knee will bow and every tongue shall confess God in all his attributes on judgment day.

It was kindness that Adam was not judged and killed in the Garden. God had the right but his lovingkindness continued. Spiritually dead men have the fires of hell lit by the kindnesses of God in their present life. Wraith is when these kindnesses depart. Eternal Wraith is where everything but one's eternal soul and substance is destroyed.

For the redeemed, Evil is present so that our hope, our boasts, our wisdom, our sanctification, our righteousness, our redemption, and our very life and our very being remain in the Lord. And not of ourselves.

Part III Grace invincible.

The Nature of Evil, part 1

Do you know what the worst book ever is? Moby Dick hands down.

Long, boring, and blasphemous.

It beats out The House on Mango Street by just a little. A character getting raped by a Clown is not quite as bad as attacking God who symbolically is the white whale in the Moby Dick. Ahab is symbolically man. A man who is revenge filled at striking back at God for causing him to fall. The whale was following the ship the whole time. The author calls this malice on the whale's part.

It demonizes the whale so that no one cannot sympathize for it. He makes God into a monster who he says is all the more evil because it appears white. One can only question if they should sympathize for Ahab. You are left with a mixed impression. It attacks the idea of man creating the human race and condemning the majority of it (for their sin). The book attacks original sin, the right of God for judgment, calvinism, fatalism, and power/control of God over man.

Did you know that 'Moby Dick' is a Unitarian book in disguise?

If the relationship between God and Man was rightly described in this book. Ahab would be striking out against the very ship he was standing on. See part two for a response.