Can You Lose Your Salvation? Part 1

I might take several whacks at this and by that, I'm going to pre-emptively name this post part 1. There may never be a part 2, but where I'm going to start may lead to a more in-depth post...something that requires, ya know, sources. : ) Furthermore, MANY MANY smart theologians have, I think, definitively answered this question. Allastair Begg, John McArthur, RC. Sprouls, W. Pink, John Piper, Luther, Calvin....search "assurance of salvation" and those guys names and you will come up with an abundance of information. This is intended for me, to be my mental notes and to be something I can come back and look at; a journal, if you like.

Why Is There A Divide?

I personally have come to believe the reason for the divide is a doctrinal one. As early as Jacobus Arminus, having given birth to Arminean theology, he states that you can lose your salvation. The beginning may be earlier than that, but that's as far as I've gone.

The starting question is, "who is in control".

If your answer is God, then you can explain everything after that, with that answer. Both good and evil, easily fit into that category. If your answer is God and "other things" then you'll be left confused as to where to apply God and then appropriately, the other things. If you're like me, you'll tend to assign everything you see as "good" to God and everything you see as "bad" to yourself, or Satan or something that isn't God. But what about things that are neither immediately good, or bad, or worse, appear good, but later it's revealed they are actually damaging or destructive, or vice versa? You'll quickly have to reverse what you applied to God, back to something else. Is that sin? Scary! What's strange to me about this is the amount of ethereal mysticism required to maintain this belief system. Let's take the earthquake in Haiti...some will say that it was God until their confronted fully with the ramifications of that...and they will probably relent to "I don't know, that's unknowable, or life happens, nature" or some other, ungodly cause. Because they've never seriously pondered the interaction of God in a daily setting, they aren't equipped with an answer. They may further see it as inconsequential. This is what I call "blaming God". Well intentioned Christians blame God for the good in their life, but they don't blame him for the damage and destruction, or stumbling blocks he's put in their life. When they have a windfall of money, they say "praise God", as well they should, but when their wife is diagnosed with acute terminal brain cancer, they don't get on their knees and praise him. It's no wonder they have no idea whether or not you can keep your salvation, and though I've never heard a good explanation for the mechanics of 'losing' your salvation, I'm saddened by the idea that it has anything to do with us. Here's loosely what I used to think and some other ideas I've come across:

• Maybe it's because each of us has a sin credit line and when it's maxed out, unless you repent to make up some room, then you are in danger of going to hell.
• I've been told that Roman Catholics believe that if you die before you confess a mortal sin that it doesn't matter what happened before, you're going to hell.
• Perhaps its just plain falling away and deciding you don't really believe what the Bible says and so you just don't pursue God...similar to what Paul, Peter and John have said on the matter.

In either case, there are a great many people who live with this fear every day. When it comes to these deep theological doctrines and ideas, instead of getting heady and intellectual, I like to dumb it down. There's a risk there; I might leave something unsaid, or leave an angle of attack for my belief system open. My defense is that I depend on the benevolence of God to make what I say right, for even if it's wrong, he uses that to draw me to him.

Let's consider what it takes to 'lose' something; I think there are some conditions that must be met.

1. You have to be in possession of it to start with
2. It should, I contend must, belong to you
3. You should have some, I contend absolute, certainty that you actually do possess it
4. You must either earn it, or have it be given to you, to come into posession of it (because you didn't create it out of thin air right? For if you did, concerning salvation, it certainly isn't real).

Now, we can use scripture to simplify and reduce, so we don't have so much to work with. Dealing with most denominations that don't attempt to reconcile orthodox belief systems, (this isn't aimed at the orthodox church) most accept that they can't EARN, their salvation. That language is pretty obviously heretical to most. So then we're left with coming to possession of it, maintaining possession, and certainty that you're right.

Lets deal with certainty.

Paul says that Faith, is the evidence of the belief in things unseen. Faith is a relatively blinded trust. Belief is a rationalization based on facts. So...faith really describes how you live, while belief describes what you know. So if you have faith, that's an evidence. How do you know if you have faith? How do you live? Do you live in agony, striving towards obedience everyday, or do you live in the "I'm mostly a good person" world? That might be the answer for you.

Let's deal with coming into possession of it.

While you were yet sinners, Christ died for you. For by grace you've been saved...no man comes to me unless the father draw him first. Sounds to me that the coming into possession of it has to do with God's richness of mercy and compassion in your life. And this, is NOT promised to all, since all do not have it.

Let's deal with maintenance of that salvation.

I have one question to answer this point...do you obey God because you want to, or somewhere inside of you there's this feeling that you HAVE to? To me, there's a big difference when it comes to assurance. One demonstrates a love bond and the latter demonstrates a fear bond. Fear bonds only grow stronger when you're apart or when you're close, but not both. "The Life Model: Living from the heart Christ gave you" :::great book by the way if you're struggling with emptiness:::

So then, what are we left with?

We're left with God giving a gift out of his mercy and compassion...to lose such a gift would be like saying God will take it back from you. Since you're not equal with God and can do nothing without him. So are we saying that God breaks his covenants with us? MAY IT NEVER BE. For he says to Israel REPEATEDLY, nevertheless, I will keep my covenant with you.

I don't faith, that you can lose your salvation. Notice my usage. I live that way. Because God is his rich mercy gifted me salvation. I feel a genuine desire to be obedient to him. There was a time when I felt obligation and fear as a contrast.

This is not easy to deal with, much of what leads us to these types of questions and inability to answer has to do with Satan, early childhood teaching, heartstrings, programmed response and the inability to think. We've been dumbed down in the country to the point of embarrassment. You've seen the show, I'm not smarter than a 5th grader. Unfortunately, this is entirely too accurate for the majority of Americans. Golly, imagine if they put up an 1800's 5th grader.... the show wouldn't last 5 minutes.

Hey! It's Today, Praise God!

I'm thankful for the blue sky, the smell of the air, birds chirping, my wife, my children, my problems, my trials, my tribulations, my temptations, my failings, my success, my faith, my God, for all is NOT mine, it's His.

Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow;

Praise Him, all creatures here below;

Praise Him above, ye Heavenly Host;

Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen.

Does God FORCE you to love him?

There are popular views out there and even more popular sayings about God's forced love. One such popular teacher said that "God is not a rapist".

First, rape is a crime of anger, not forced love. Second, I struggle with the idea of condescending God's holiness so much as to begin and end a sentence with such a dangerous equivocation. If God is what you say he isn't (using your terms and not the accurate ones) then you're certainly a heretic, and if he isn't you've made a comparison that certainly diminishes his holiness and unapproachable nature by making such a comparison, even if only to try to prove he's NOT that.

Let's be smart though; What does the author of that statement really mean. What he MEANS is, God does not force you to love him. He GIVES you FREE WILL to choose whether or not you will love him. And what of his explanation for those that God created that he KNEW would not? Oh, well he knew they would not and they damn themselves.

This whole thought process holds together, so long as you can suspend logical conclusions and at the root of your philosophy you can maintain that it is YOU who makes decisions that matter, and not God. Certainly there are those who believe that have free-will and what they mean is, they are a sentient being, self-aware and able to make decisions. Certainly that would include a decision to "believe" in this fancy idea of an almighty God right? Certainly me choosing a latte vs a cappuccino is equally distinct and within my right as my ability to choose God right?

What does the Bible say?

John 6

Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"

Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

--

43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.'[d] Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

--

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

--

The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

Now, let's move to Romans 9.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.

18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.

Now, let's return to the beginning and address the point about forced love. Since the Bible does not address the topic of forced love, categorically, then we must exegetically formulate what we believe from what we observe in the Bible. To do so, I'm going to use an illustration that will reveal that you don't have a problem with forced love. I'm going to prove to you that forced love is WHAT YOU DESIRE, that it's okay, and there's nothing wrong with it, in this context.

I think that we would agree that if you LOVE your child you will discipline him/her. You will reprove them, help them endure consequences to produce obedience. Now for the parallel.

When your child makes a decision at any age, under your authority, they do so with your expressed, or implicit approval, until they are met with disapproval. When your child disobeys you, do you give him a choice on whether or not to obey the rules? You may allow your child to choose wrongly, but you do so, knowing that it will produce character, endurance and ultimately future obedience. Or you may NOT let them choose wrongly, because the consequences are too great, depending on the age of the child. Given that we may believe that we have the ability to choose God, to be his child or not be his child, then why don't you allow your child the free will to be obedient in all situations? It's a little hypocritical, don't you think, to afford yourself the ability to choose the ultimate family, or not and not afford your child the same ability with your earthly family, is it not? And isn't their free will, God given? If yours is, so must theirs also How are you better than they, that you should prevent them, their God given right to freely choose, right and wrong, to love or not, to be obedient or not? Who are you?

I'm being irrational and going to an extreme conclusion on purpose. For WE are the child and God is the Father. Do not believe that because you make wrong choices that somehow God is not in control of them. Did you get that? Re-read it. Do NOT believe that because you MAKE wrong choices that God is not the author of that. That he's not guiding that, not allowing that on PURPOSE, so that you will be obedient in the future! You might say, "my child could break the rules without me knowing, isn't that free will?" Can you do something without God knowing? The answer is no, it's not free will. It was allowed, for had you known, you wouldn't have all0wed it. If if you did allow it, it wasn't free will, because you didn't actively stop it. Your child's ability to make any decision is tempered and throttled completely by your level of knowledge and will regarding their activity and decisions. Since God has perfect knowledge and a will for his children, we must conclude that every decision, good and bad, right and wrong is guided and allowed by him...caveat, if we're his child. For not all are.

What's the result? A loved child and a well disciplined child respects their parents, loves their parents. When you think about it how can we have a problem forcing OUR child to obey us...but then have a problem with GOD doing the same? This is the lie we've been taught though; check what you think you know. That goes for everyone...most definitely me.

The deceiver has taught people, (using language that obfuscates the intent of the language), that you are EQUAL with God. You're his peer, equal in your right to choose or not choose him, equal to be or not be his child. And you're taught to use the experience of your ability to choose a latte versus cappuccino as PROOF that you have this ability. Would you let your child at the age of 1,2, or 3 decide whether or not he want to be your child? NO, they couldn't even formulate that thought, much more know the consequences of that decision.

So why, in our spiritual infancy, are we taught that we have the ability to choose to be God's child or not?

Ultimately, this is Satan' world and he has a lot of tools that he uses against the Saints. My point is the longer you believe that you are in control of your destiny with God, the less you'll seek him. Comforted by the fact that it's your works that prove your a saint. I can remember believing that, although I couldn't formulate the words or articulate it. Probably because if I had articulated it, I would have had to examine it, and thus, logically it would have been dismissed way before I was ready for the truth of God.

This is the beauty of God's plan. It's HIS PLAN! If it depended on us or me, or you, we'd be in so much trouble! His work in you, is wonderful. I write this blog for me, but I believe that if you're reading it, and it's changing the way you think; that's GOD!

Praise Him!

Spiritual Warfare

I suppose many believe that there are demons, ghosts, undead, gremlins, boogeymen...

I don't worry about the fantastical creations of Hollywood, nor my vain imaginations. What I do realize however is that in our modern day existance there is a spiritual war being waged daily, by the minute casualities are being hauled across battle lines. Mortars are being fired, prophets are screaming "incoming"...the sound of narrowly missing bullets can be seen whizzing past like the opening scene from Saving Private Ryan.

I use seen, instead of heard on purpose. This battle is invisible, yet totally observable. To the wicked, bad things just happen to people, or worse, they are the cause of their own living casualty. To the unelightened, they live, seemingly perpetually underwater, unaware that the battle is being waged. And just like being underwater, you can hear muffled screams for people trying to help you, but you're hopelessly focused on your own survival and perhaps the contemplation of that possibility, so you're unable to rise to the surface. You're engaged in battle...and thus unable to observe that which keeps you in the battle.

I once had a duality of thought, competing ideas so to speak, on this very subject. I believe that God was in control of everything, except "some" things. He get's all the credit for the good, I get the credit for the bad, God is the cause of good in my life, I'm the cause of the bad....he's perfect, I'm worthless. Well that last part IS true...Many hold this view and don't even realize the problem with it. This view is, at least in part what holds us underwater.

There are demons assigned to you, just like there are heavenly angels assigned to you. They've gotten better over time and convincing you that you're worthless, your husband doesn't love you, your daddy doesn't love you, the world is out to get you, feeling bad for yourself is okay, God isn't real, prayers are fake, only you can save yourself, to worry about things which you have no control...admit it...all of us have these thoughts. Now, if we're chosen, if we're children of the light? How can we possibly entertain or even create these thoughts?

Let's start this way, have you ever experienced a time when these thoughts aren't present? Ofcourse you have. Then you experience when they are present...For me, I put it together, by the grace and mercy of God in the last 8 months, more specifically, I was able to accurately predict attack within the last 2 months. I've come to realize that it's a warzone out there. There are precious few Demilitarized Zones, but there ARE DMZ's.

Let's start with the anatomy of an attack.

Doubt, fear, anxiety; these are the primary attack tools.

Marriage, relationships, health, economics, children; these are the primary attack surfaces.

After agreement, after reconciliation, after repentance, after spiritual growth or enlightenment; this is primarily when you will be attacked the hardest.

I've learned to remind myself and I also did warn my wife this morning, that when we reconcile, Satan will bring everything he has at the our weakest link. He has the luxury of being able to see how things play out, unfettered by human emotion, compulsion or desire. He's a murderer. His only goal is to separate you from the love of God, the safety of his arms.

I've learned that it's only when I;

• Read my Bible
• Attend Church
• Attend Bible Study
• Evangelize
• Fellowship Deeply with other believers
• Earnestly Pray
• Sing

That I have safety...and in total honesty, what I really mean, is that these are methods of escaping attack. Much like running up a hill, onto the front porch, closing the door behind you all while the arrows continue to pelt your armor and the house and door as you close it behind you. I've found when I recognize I'm being attacked, I don't walk, I RUN to these places.

(Note, just as put the period on the last sentence, my daughter tripped on the power cord to this laptop, killing the power, and I thought possibly losing all my work. I see that as an attempt for Satan to tempt me to sin, by being angry...it didn't work).

You and I are attacked daily and by the minute. Your very thoughts are invaded by these beings. Some people have said that demons aren't omnescient, and I think I agree with that, however what we cannot understand is how our thoughts are known by others, without us ever telling them what we're saying. I'm not trying to be mystical here, I'm only saying there is an entire universe of energy and information that precious few of us have any access to. Those beings live there. What you think is a private thought may as well be a facebook status update to these beings...Just so you know, I don't feel I have any access to that world. I've had a rare occassion, where the Holy Spirit urged me to saying something, and prompted me with information I couldn't possibly know and it turned out to be correct. All beings on some level have had that experience, some would call it intuition, however the rote definition of intuition cannot explain the uncanny accuracy at times. Furthermore and last on this part of the subject, you must be certain from where you draw this "intuition" for it should be from the Father, anything else, is sinful and not from God.

So now, I look at the world as a 1942 battle scene, except with way more damage. There aren't any standing buildings. Everything is war torn, there are body's everywhere, every location and time of the day a potential skirmish can break out. I'm leery of every situation and encounter, I'm on guard, KNOWING that the devil roams about, like a roaring lion, looking for whom he might DEVOUR!

Realizing that my thoughts aren't a safe place, you must realize that everywhere is a battle ground. No place is safe, it's by God's mercy that talking to his servants, reading his word, or fellowshipping corporately can give you rest. A rest that Job never experienced until the very end. Guys, it's real, it's there and when you start looking for it, you see it everywhere. Some will say that if you look for something you'll find it, but that doesn't nullify or validate whether or not it's really there. So all we have to go on is what the Bible says, and in all I've read, I can see that it's there always and continually. Satan has been given dominion over this earth, this is his turf. You're an alien in a foreign land and he's looking for you, to afflict you. The good news is you don't have to let him.

My Journey (so far)...

a narrative

age 5 - 24, apostasy

Like many in America and across the world, I was taught to say the words at an early age. I remember my conversion, you'll later come to understand when I say, I said the words, at age 5. I was essentially scared into 'accepting' Jesus into my heart. I was told about Hell and how bad a place it was, and how awesome heaven was. That my parents were certainly going to heaven and I didn't want to be apart from them. From that point, I believed I was a Christian. We attended various churches, I never liked any of them. Generally though, as kids go, I was a good one. I obeyed my parents, I earned their trust and for the most part, I never violated it.

At 16 I had a real conviction against a particular church, called Bethel Baptist church in Byron Bergen, NY. Knowing now the real meaning of Bethel, it's a wonder they named it that, though it's negative imagery was certainly fitting, in my mind at least. My future wife attended there...her family had attended a bible based church school and I believe were essentially thrown out of that church or left over some unhandled, or inappropriately handled matter. They ended up at Bethel. Since my parents, for a time, did not attend church due to their own embittered battle with a church, and I fancied my future wife, I decided to attend with them. What I found and really what I spent most of my time doing, is challenging those in authority. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which was and for the purposes of this narrative I will focus on, my battle with legalism. This was later revealed to me as my fight with head knowledge versus what some call "heart" knowledge. Anyway, I would fight and argue, because this society of believers held on to rules that with even my tertiary knowledge of the Bible, I could easily say..."the Bible doesn't say that"... I spent so much time trying to "help" others think and realize that they were being fed a handful of doggie poo, and because they were accepted in the society, ostensibly by abiding in these rules, they too willingly spoon fed fecal matter into their faces. At a certain point we left that church, but I tell it to you, because certain aspects of the character I displayed show up later in life....hold that picture.

Then I got married! 19 years old, a kid on the way, a chip on my shoulder so big that it hit and killed people every where I went. Those who know me, or have had one of those themselves know exactly what I'm talking about. I spent the better part of this time looking for something I had know idea how to find. I was looking for a church that could feed me, challenge me, grow me and mostly, agree with what I already thought I knew. I had no concept of church history, reformed theology, doctrines of grace...what I knew was I had the Bible, I said the words, and Roman Catholics were evil...I still had my tendancy to evangelize, teach others, even out of my ignorance, to love people, and have a desire for them to know God, but I had NO inner peace, no joy, nothing I was COMPLETELY sure about. Everything I had was a "pretty good idea" and because of the nature of my personality, I was able to convey that I strongly believed. Because of my above average grasp of the English language, coupled with a strong intellect, I could convince others that I believed. I didn't even know what believing really meant, for at the age of 23 I said, (concerning assurance of salvation) "no one REALLY knows until the end".

At the age of 22 I committed one of the most despicable acts of my short life on this earth. One that I thought not even possible for me to commit. For it shook everything in me...I couldn't believe that someone who claimed to be saved, someone who knew God could EVER do that. Either I must not be saved, or God can never forgive me. For a YEAR, I cried everday on the way to work, begging his forgiveness, never feeling forgiven. Up to now, I've never really thought about that...I suppose that level of hopelessness is exactly how someone in hell would feel. Hell being separation from God. Eventually I got over my self pity and moved on to other things, not realizing that my anger for God and contempt for his utter LACK of intervention in my life, was growing.

age 24 - 27, what is love

At 24 years old, after being fired from now my 3rd job, all while my pay steadily decreased, my ability to provide going sideways, my wife angry...and her not being a full person to begin with adding stress to our marriage, while feelings of utter inadequacy, coupled with a strong desire to prove myself all culminated to one point. I remember the evening with exceptional clarity. I pray God that you never let me forget. While on the phone to my father, lamenting my own plight, desiring for anyone to rub my back and tell me it would be okay...he offered me some scripture that was so bitter in my mouth that I puked up bile. Not really of course...my bile was in the form of words. And yes, I said them.

"God has failed. I'm his servant and he's failed. I don't see him, he's not here. If he does exist, he's some place far away. (then I quoted scripture) Malachi 3:8-11.

Soon after this event, I was confronted with a teaching on money. While I will not go into it, let me tell you what happened. God used a mens Bible study and in particular, one of his servants, Kim Hinkle. He cut me, drove me, plundered me, beat me, pillaged me, and pulverized me...he broke me on himself.(Christ). What became my awakening, my realization that I didn't know God, and while my theology states that I was always saved, I did not always truly know God. At 24 I had a heart conversion for Christ. And for a season, God gave me financial rest. Bear in mind, I'm woefully unequipped in my theology, my doctrines, anything of the sort. I'm a newborn baby...feeding on the milk and wanting meat, but being unable to understand. So I spent the next three years facing something else that has been a real challenge for me and ultimately was the starting point of this journey.

My marriage. I can tell you that I LOVE my wife. Sonya is the most beautiful thing to me, she's my helper and I would die for her without a second thought. But I've never loved her, until I realized what love was. To do that, God had to show me through his son what love really is. There are many practical definitions, there are many inaccurate definitions but I'm going to show you the one that God showed me. Because at this stage of my life, still a babe, what love is, through his tender mercy to me.

Love is, perfect acceptance of that which is unacceptable. That's a contradiction you might say...no. I was born unacceptable. I was born apart from God and could do nothing of my own free will but sin. If you understand, though I didn't at the time, how putrid sin is to God, you begin to realize that YOU embody that quality to him. So, then, there is nothing lovely about me, I'm not even good looking to God. He taught me that he accepted me and that if I was to love my wife as she deserves, then I must do the same for her. Sadly, though I learned this message, I was not without failure. I again entered into sin, I again fell from her, I fell from God, I was angry, not at God, but at my wife...which was an expression of my unbelief of God. I still didn't believe. I knew who God was, I had a sense of who he was...but I was still learning. There was no firm root in me. As long as I could stay encouraged, I would follow God, but after a drought of encouragement, I was to fall, again, and again, and again and again.

age 27 - 29, I've never been obedient

I can't fully explain all the details, and even know I know this is probably much longer than you'd signed up for, but I have some great jewels in here. At 28, committed to my wife, endeavoring to love her we entered a company called GSI, it was to be my latest failed attempt at working. I would be fired for performance...when my performance was exceptional. This story, if you sit with me will be repeated throughout my life. God has used my work to show me many things about himself. I took a 20k pay cut to go there; the majority of my trials there produced self-pity and high emotional discharge. My wife an I were sincerely struggling to get a long. After all, I'd used my sin against God to hurt her, to use it against her as some means of retribution for all the perceived hurts of mine. Marriages rarely survive the event, much less someone who's supposed to be leading his family, torpedoing the ship with a vengeful attitude and news of near death proportions...We were doing our best to get a long, I was trying to accept her and make amends for my indiscretion. Enter GSI. The loss of income proved much more devastating than I anticipated, however with hope in hand and a desire to do better, I put forth my best effort and at every point of opposition, I doubled down on this bet. My emotions however were completely out of control. I would blow up over stuff that didn't matter and I would pacify things that were monumentally important. All while I'm trying to hold a marriage together with a woman I'm desperately in love with, but we can't seem to show each other.

I remember the day;

"Sonya I don't really feel like you're handling your responsibilities here at home and I would really appreciate..."

(Sonya) "well, I don't feel like your handling your responsibilities of providing for this family!"

That cut. Deep. I was very hurt. How could she say that? Didn't I take a pay cut to make things better? Wasn't I laboring day and night for her? To try to provide? I was so hurt and angry that the inhibitions that were firmly under control, I purposely released control over. No more needs to be said than that. Suffice it to say that I had pity parties and invited as many approbation givers as I could. The fall out of that created something in Sonya that scares me, and frankly hurts worse than insults or even neglect....indifference. God uses all sin, to prove himself to you, either in condemnation, or in grace. Here's how he used mine.

March 5th 2009; my journal entry excerpt:

I've had some interesting discoveries while I've been on this trip [to san francisco on business]. I want to capture them here but also the feelings around them. Probably most disturbing is my sense of right and wrong continue to be eroded to a point where only self serving thoughts preside. It appears I tend not to think in terms of right and wrong, rather beneficial and non beneficial for "Joshua". This is bothersome to me. (More on that in a minute).

The other discovery is that I have no concept of how close or far away I am from God I really am. I operate as though I'm in control, but I'm really not.

I've been struggling for what seems like years now in this funk of self-pity. I didn't used to think it was self-pity, but something about this trip has made me realize it.

So with this new sensibility it makes sense why church, tithing, a good attitude and all these things have been so hard for me. I'm wallowing in self-pity, hoping something better will happen to me. I don't want to be fake, I want to be real and driven by realistic things. I do want to live dangerously for Christ (and for the doozy) and to be what he desires me to be.

End of excerpt:

3 months later to the day, I was fired for performance at 90 some percent of my number year to date, in what people have later speculated was the worst economic decline since the great depression. This started my current journey of which I'm 8 months in and counting. I know that this journey is a small window of time and I'm not wasting a moment of it.

It's called;

age 29 - A Call To Obedience

Since that day, and fully by the grace of God, he's given me the faith to trust him. And he daily tests it so that "I" can know that it's real. He doesn't need to know, he can't be taught, he knows already. So the test is for ME!

I didn't know it, but I was being called to obedience. Do you know that I'd never felt a call, well that's not true. I'd never had a conviction for obedience. I'd felt like I "Should" be obedient before, but I was easily dissuaded by those proffering total grace... So my desire to be obedient in the face of this world, to the vain speculation of others, never was fully consummated.

My knowledge and paradigms about God have been shaken to their very foundations. Everything I thought I knew, I didn't know, or it was predicated on knowledge or a source that was untested. YET, I packaged it up and sold it to others lock stock and barrel as though the USDA had their stamp of approval on it. Remember the first age? I was guilty of the very thing I accused others of...and I've done it. Shoveled fecal matter into my face at a rate that would shame even the best Olympic athlete.

Part of the shift was to reveal to me my character, my God given character. To help others think, even though I need that too. To demonstrate my apostasy, so that it's beneficial to his body. To be a minister to my family, because I was too focused on things outside my family. God gave me these desires, even though their fruit early in my life was not rooted in a knowledge of him. They were rooted in the character that he made me...now that he's drawn me to him, the character can be expressed in praise and glory for him! That was his work, not mine! And it continues today.

During this short trial, I've been called to obedience. I can point to sin in my life that is no longer existent. I don't even have the temptation. God has removed it from me. Specifically pornography. I wouldn't say that I had a huge problem with it to begin with. Mostly it was a tool for me. Yet, I had no idea how much poison can affect the other portions of your life. This day there are certain words that trigger a sexual image. Especially when I'm church or talking to fellow believers. My frustration with that temptation has always been with me, however what has never been there is the hope that someday I might be free of it. I can tell you that the Lord has begun to free me of it.

What's also interesting is how many people rebuked me for my desire for obedience. These people were Christians. I've since adopted the saying that if you want to scare people and start a riot, talk about your faith with fellow "believers".

I've also become more keenly aware of my sin;

• Pride
• Anxiety
• Fear
• Doubt
• Lust

To be honest, these were NEVER on my radar before. I thought it was a good day when I went home and hadn't killed anyone.

Finally, the best conclusion so far. Back to my marriage, God has given me a portrait, that sustains and validates the need for my love of my wife. Well beyond sex, intimacy, emotions or yes, even the desire to "accept" her as I learned in my 3rd age. He's shown me that SHE is to ME exactly what I am to HIM. She's a picture of me to Christ. A sinner, desperately in need of the love of Christ, no matter how well I communicate my need for God, Christ recognizes I need him and he loves me so, he's willing to scourge me. This is now how I love my wife. As though she's lost and a sinner, so completely in need of my love that she may not even be able to express gratitude. I once didn't understand what dying for your wife meant...now I understand; it may require physical death, but more often than not, it will mean putting her first, by loving her, in-spite of her ability to return the favor.

How, with this information could I possibly abandon Sonya, as I once seriously considered?! May it NEVER BE! The strength I draw, I draw from Christ and my interaction with his holy truth, not by the vigor or commitment of my human spirit, but the hope, by which I can cry out, abba, father! DADDY!

My eyes have been opened on so many things that if I were to write the anecdotes it would fill volumes. One thing is lasting, and one thing is obvious to me.

God is real. And he really loves me. And he really saved me.

My next post will be all about spiritual warefare, since this is one of the biggest things my eyes have been opened to.

Joshua's Personal Catechism (Read Daily - till you get it!)

• Fear is not of God;
• Doubt is not of God;
• God's rebuke is gentle and encourages me;
• I'm saved, safe, and under no impending doom;
• God's work in me, is no bigger than his desire and no smaller than my personal salvation;
• God has made me special, but my specialness does not exceed that or come at the expense of, and shows deference to others first.
• God's number one work in me, (and should it be the only work this is sufficient for me) is to believe in him who he has sent, Jesus Christ.
• Though I cannot see neither the beginning, nor the end of my tribulation and waves crash high, my Father is my salvation, my air supply, my guide, my strength, my hope, my worth, my love, because he loved me.
• My problems have become small footstools that I rest on, till my father rescues me, not from the circumstance, but with the knowledge of how he bears me up, even in my pain, which leads to a better and more pure worship of him.
• In the end, I'm resolved as I was in the beginning, I'm nothing, saved by only the grace of God. I've done nothing good, nor bad that qualified me, but my saving was done independent of me.
• He is my hope and the reason I cry out, DADDY!

Does Your Name Mean Anything?

Makenzie and I were in the eye doctors office and because we were trying entertain ourselves, I thought it might be fun to take our names and string them together, their meanings I mean, to see if a coherent thought springs forth. You may be familiar with the study of the geneology of Adam to Christ, where just this very thing happens. Here's a link I found on the internet describing, it's quite neat.

Click /here/

Joshua - God is Salvation

Makenzie - Son of a wise leader

Kaleb - Tenacious and Aggressive

Lael - Belongs to God

With a few prepositions and pronouns you can easily read a coherent message.

"God is Salvation, to the son of a wise leader, who is tenacious and aggressive and belongs to God."

This is an exact picture of both my family and myself. What I find so interesting is how God works in ways that completely glorify himself. I can't deny the arithmetic here; I'm a child of God and woven into my family geneology is a message that pertains to my walk with him. How exciting and wonderful.

A few facts that you don't know, and I didn't know either.

The spelling of Caleb was repulsive to us, but Kaleb we picked because we thought it was different. Turns out that it's a HEBREW spelling that we picked. I needn't remind you that Joshua and Kaleb were the two faithful spies...(we didn't pick that on purpose nor have solid state knowledge of that at the time of the name choosing, it's since become very special to us).

If you take our names all the way out you have this;

Joshua, Aaron, Thomas: "God is salvation, mountain of strength, twin"

Makenzie, Aislyn, Rose: "Son of a wise leader, dream and vision, fame"

Kaleb, Jaden, Thomas: "Tenacious and Aggressive, God has heard, twin"

Lael, Arrianna, Magnolia: "Belongs to God, holy-silver, flower"

I see all types of beauty in what God has brought together.

Just in case you think I forgot, I didn't. I was just saving the best for last.

Sonya, Monique: "Wisdom, Unique"

I find these to be exact descriptions of my help-mate.

The Fallacy of Fairness

The Fallacy of "Fairness"

by Thomas Sowell

If there is ever a contest to pick which word has done the most damage to people's thinking, and to actions to carry out that thinking, my nomination would be the word "fair." It is a word thrown around by far more people than have ever bothered to even try to define it.

This mushy vagueness may be a big handicap in logic but it is a big advantage in politics. All sorts of people, with very different notions about what is or is not fair, can be mobilized behind this nice-sounding word, in utter disregard of the fact that they mean very different things when they use that word.

Some years ago, for example, there was a big outcry that various mental tests used for college admissions or for employment were biased and "unfair" to many individuals or groups. Fortunately there was one voice of sanity-- David Riesman, I believe-- who said: "The tests are not unfair. LIFE is unfair and the tests measure the results."

If by "fair" you mean everyone having the same odds for achieving success, then life has never been anywhere close to being fair, anywhere or at any time. If you stop and think about it (however old-fashioned that may seem), it is hard even to conceive of how life could possibly be fair in that sense.

Even within the same family, among children born to the same parents and raised under the same roof, the first-borns on average have higher IQs than their brothers and sisters, and usually achieve more in life.

Unfairness is often blamed on somebody, even if only on "society." But whose fault is it if you were not the first born? Since some groups have more children than others, a higher percentage of the next generation will be first-borns in groups that have smaller families, so such groups have an advantage over other groups.

Despite all the sound and fury generated in controversies over whether different groups have different genetic potential, even if they all have identical genetic potential the outcomes can still differ if they have different birth rates.

Twins have average IQs several points lower than children born singly. Whether that is due to having to share resources in the womb or having to share parents' attention after birth, the fact is what it is-- and it certainly is not fair.

Many people fail to see the fundamental difference between saying that a particular thing-- whether a mental test or an institution-- is conveying a difference that already exists or is creating a difference that would not exist otherwise.

Creating a difference that would not exist otherwise is discrimination, and something can be done about that. But, in recent times, virtually any disparity in outcomes is almost automatically blamed on discrimination, despite the incredible range of other reasons for disparities between individuals and groups.

Nature's discrimination completely dwarfs man's discrimination. Geography alone makes equal chances virtually impossible. The geographic advantages of Western Europe over Eastern Europe-- in climate and navigable waterways, among other things-- have led to centuries of differences in income levels that were greater than income differences between blacks and whites in America today.

Just the fact that the lay of the land is different in different parts of Europe meant that it was easier for the Roman legions to invade Western Europe. This meant that Western Europeans had the advantages of the most advanced civilization in Europe at that time. Moreover, because Roman letters were used in Western Europe, the languages of that region had written versions centuries before the Slavic languages of Eastern Europe did.

The difference between literacy and illiteracy is a huge difference, and it remained huge for centuries. Was it the Slavs' fault that the Romans did not want to climb over so many mountains to get to them?

To those living in Western Europe in the days of the Roman Empire, the idea of being conquered, and many slaughtered, by the Romans probably had no great appeal. But their descendants would benefit from their bad luck. And that doesn't seem fair either.

A recent flap in a Berkeley high school reveals what a farce "fairness" can be. Because this is ultra-liberal Berkeley, perhaps we should not be surprised that a proposal has been made to eliminate four jobs as science teachers and use the money saved for programs to help low achievers.

In Berkeley, as in many other communities across the country, black and Latino students are not performing as well as Asian and white students. In fact, the racial gap in academic achievement at Berkeley High School is the highest in California-- no doubt a special source of embarrassment in politically correct Berkeley.

According to the principal, "Our community at Berkeley High School has failed the African-Americans." Therefore "We need to bring everybody up-- that's what this plan is about."

Surely no one, not even in Berkeley, seriously believes that you will "bring everybody up" by eliminating science teachers. This is a proposal to redistribute money from science to social work, by providing every student with advisors on note-taking, time management and other learning skills.

The point is to close educational gaps among groups, or at least go on record as trying. As with most equalization crusades, whether in education or in the economy, it is about equalizing downward, by lowering those at the top. "Fairness" strikes again!

This is not just a crazy idea by one principal in Berkeley. It is a crazy idea taught in schools of education across the country. A professor of education at the University of San Francisco has weighed in on the controversy at Berkeley, supporting the idea of "projects designed to narrow the achievement gap."

In keeping with the rhetoric of the prevailing ideology, our education professor refers to "privileged" parents and "privileged" children who want to "forestall any progress toward equity."

In the language of the politically correct, achievement is equated with privilege. Such verbal sleight of hand evades the question whether individuals' own priorities and efforts affect outcomes, whether in education or in other endeavors. No need to look at empirical evidence when a clever phrase can take that whole question off the table.

This verbal sleight of hand is not confined to education. A study of incomes of various groups in Toronto concluded that Canadians of Japanese ancestry were the most "privileged" group in that city. That is, people of Japanese ancestry there had higher incomes than members of other minorities and higher than that of the white majority in Toronto.

What makes the "privileged" label a particularly bad joke in this case is a history of blatant discrimination against the Japanese in Canada in years past, including a longer internment during World War II than that of Japanese Americans. But, to some on the left, the very concept of achievement must be banished by all means necessary, regardless of the facts.

Achievement by overcoming obstacles is a special threat to the left's vision of the world, and so must be magically transformed into privilege through rhetoric.

Those with that vision do not want to even discuss evidence that students from different groups spend different amounts of time on homework and different amounts of time on social activities. To admit that inputs affect outputs, whether in education, in the economy or in other areas, would be to undermine the vision and agenda of the left, and deprive those who believe in that vision of a moral melodrama, starring themselves as defenders of the oppressed and crusaders against the forces of evil.

Redistribution of material resources has a very poor track record when it comes to actually helping those who are lagging, whether in education, in the economy or elsewhere. What they need are the attitudes, priorities and behavior which produce the outcomes desired.

But changing anyone's attitudes, priorities and behavior is a lot harder than taking a stance as defenders of the oppressed and crusaders against the forces of evil.

To the extent that doing the latter misdiagnoses the problem, it makes solving the problem even harder. That does no good for those who are lagging, however much it exalts those who pose as their defenders. "Fairness" indeed!

Most of us want to be fair, in the sense of treating everyone equally. We want laws to be applied the same to everyone. We want educational, economic or other criteria for rewards to be the same as well. But this concept of fairness is not only different from prevailing ideas of fairness among many of the intelligentsia, it contradicts their idea of fairness.

People like philosopher John Rawls call treating everyone alike merely "formal" fairness. Professor Rawls advocated "a conception of justice that nullifies the accidents of natural endowment and the contingencies of social circumstances." He called for a society which "arranges" end-results, rather than simply treating everyone the same and letting the chips fall where they may.

This more hands-on concept of fairness gives third parties a much bigger role to play. But whether any human being has ever had the omniscience to determine and undo the many differences among people born into different families and cultures-- with different priorities, attitudes and behavior-- is a very big question. And to concentrate the vast amount of power needed to carry out that sweeping agenda is a dangerous gamble, whose actual consequences have too often been written on the pages of history in blood.

There is no question that the accident of birth is a huge factor in the fate of people. What is a very serious question is how much anyone can do about that without creating other, and often worse, problems. Providing free public education, scholarships to colleges and other opportunities for achievement are fine as far as they go, but there should be no illusion that they can undo all the differences in priorities, attitudes and efforts among different individuals and groups.

Trying to change whole cultures and subcultures in which different individuals are raised would be a staggering task. But the ideology of multiculturalism, which pronounces all cultures to be equally valid, puts that task off limits. This paints people into whatever corner the accident of birth has put them.

Under these severe constraints, all that is left is to blame others when the outcomes are different for different individuals and groups. Apparently those who are lagging are to continue to think and act as they have in the past-- and yet somehow have better outcomes in the future. And, if they don't get the same outcomes as others, then according to this way of seeing the world, it is society's fault!

Society may lavish thousands of dollars per year on schooling for a youngster who does not bother to study, and yet when he or she emerges as a semi-literate adult, it is considered to be society's fault if such youngsters cannot get the same kinds of jobs and incomes as other youngsters who studied conscientiously during their years in school.

It is certainly a great misfortune to be born into families or communities whose values make educational or economic success less likely. But to have intellectuals and others come along and misstate the problem does not help to produce better results, even if it produces a better image.

Political correctness may make it hard for anyone to challenge the image of helpless victims of an evil society. But those who are lagging do not need a better public relations image. They need the ability to produce better results for themselves-- and a romantic image is an obstacle to directing their efforts toward developing that ability.

Tests and other criteria which convey the realities of their existing capabilities, compared to that of others, can have what is called a "disparate impact," and are condemned not only in editorial offices but also in courts of law.

But criteria exist precisely to have a disparate impact on those who do not have what these criteria exist to measure. Track meets discriminate against those who are slow afoot. Tests in school discriminate against students who did not study.

Disregarding criteria in the interest of "fairness"-- in the sense of outcomes independent of inputs-- adds to the handicaps of those who already have other handicaps, by lying to them about the reasons for their situation and the things they need to do to make their situation better.

Mixed up with the question of fairness to individuals and groups has been the explosive question of whether individuals and groups have the innate ability to perform at the same levels, if they are all treated alike or even given the same objective opportunities.

Intellectuals have swung from one side of this question at the beginning of the 20th century to the opposite side at the end. Both those who said that achievement differences among races and classes were due to genes, in the early years of the 20th century, and those who said that these differences were due to discrimination, in the later years, ignored the old statisticians' warnings that correlation is not causation.

The idea that some people are innately superior (usually one's own group) goes back for centuries, but various new facts that came out in the 19th and early 20th centuries gave the appearance of "science" to such beliefs during the Progressive era.

Sir Francis Galton's research turned up the fact of remarkable achievements among members of the same family, which he regarded as evidence of genetic superiority. The rise of IQ testing, and especially the massive mental testing of soldiers in the U.S. Army during the First World War, showed great differences in test scores among various racial and ethnic groups.

In the public schools, there were similarly large differences in which ethnic group's children failed to get promoted. In both the Army mental tests and in the schools, Polish Jews did poorly at that time. Carl Brigham-- a leading authority on mental tests and the author of the SAT-- said that the Army tests tended to "disprove the popular belief that the Jew is highly intelligent."

It should be noted that all of these conclusions were based on hard data, not mere "perceptions" or "stereotypes," as so many inconvenient facts are dismissed today. What was wrong were not the data but the inferences.

Polish Jews were among the many immigrants from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe who were relatively recent arrivals in the United States. Many of these immigrants grew up in homes where English was not spoken, as Carl Brigham acknowledged in later years, when he recanted his earlier statements. In later years, Jews scored above average on mental tests.

It is also a hard fact of history that some races had far more advanced technological, economic and other achievements than others at particular times and places. But those who were ahead in some centuries were often behind in other centuries-- the Chinese and the Europeans having changed positions dramatically after Europe eventually caught up with China and then surpassed it within recent centuries. But there was no evidence of any dramatic changes in genetics among either the Chinese or the Europeans.

While striking changes in the relative positions of different races at different periods of history undermine genetic explanations, the fact that there has been no period when their achievements have been the same undermines today's presumption that different economic or other outcomes are due to discrimination.

Whatever the innate capacity of any race, class or other group, what pays off in the real world are developed capabilities, and these have never been the same-- or even close to being the same-- for individuals or groups.

All the leading brands of beer in the United States were created by people of German ancestry and so is the leading beer in China, not to mention breweries created by Germans in Australia, Argentina and elsewhere. Germans were producing beer in the days of the Roman Empire.

This does not mean that beer brewing skill is genetic but it also does not mean that this skill-- or any other skill-- is randomly distributed among peoples, so that a failure to have equal "representation" of groups in a given institutions can be presumed to be due to discrimination by that institution.

Fairness as equal treatment does not produce fairness as equal outcomes. The confusion between the two meanings of the same word has created enormous mischief, much of it at the expense of lagging groups, who have been distracted from the things that would enable them to catch up. And whole societies have been kept in a turmoil pursing a will o' the wisp in the name of "fairness."