The Emphasis, Not The Object But The Outcome

Many, even I, for a time emphasized the futility that seems to be pregnant in the sovereignty of God; namely predestination. There is yet a common question, that even to my ears has not been adequately answered. For the answer, just didn't seem complete enough. Not that the truth revealed was less true, or insuffecient to the cause for which it was offered, rather, it lacked, in my mind, at least another angle of the definition that adequately describes reality.

Of the matter of predestination, it is asked in a number of ways;

"can man believe in God but not be saved?"

The question is quickly dismissed with God's sovereign choice, and rightly so. Yet, we cannot even come close to approaching the wisdom that is inherent to that truth. There is, however, something we can approach and understand and by manner of visitation come to the realization of the truth.

I believe, that any man, who believes in God, in such a way that his life is changed, increasingly, evermore, desires and achieves obedience to God's ordinances and precepts, and perseveres in that faith until the end, must be saved.

Why the emphasis on the doctrines then?

How do you tell the difference between true belief and unbelief, which can certainly look like genuine belief by nature of it's posture, even in yourself, is my rhetorical question...

"Counterfeit money is certainly a good mental picture of this"

Though I answered in short, this is a good question, for what I described certainly seems within the power and control of the man in question, by the nature of cause and effect. Yes, it seems to be in his power. Yet, in reality, this is not in our power. For if it was, you would see more do it. But what do you see? You see those who confess the name of Jesus quickly run back to their old lives with only a few minor pious changes. Perhaps they now attend church, perhaps they now read their bible. Perhaps they even pray. (I feel like I'm becoming A.W. Pink here :)) However, they will always lack obedience and they cannot please God, for their obedience is based on and rooted in the flesh. They do so, as the flesh and their belief is false because the believe in God, by way of themselves. Their view of God is merely an extension of their view of themselves. Which is why they always lack assurance, or they have it in total, having never been tested. No! it's not in our power to persevere, to obey or to believe in such a way so as to cause true obedience. No if God's Spirit resides in you, then you set your hope on the Spirit and the Law of Faith. In this you have real assurance and a belief that pleases God, unlike the flesh. As we experience the world though, we see so many examples of false belief. We see so many examples of believing that is simply a mental ascent to facts about God; emotional experiences near God, fellowship with real believers that leads to common grace enrichment, but never permanant change. That is because, the Gospel of Jesus Christ affects every person. It always will. We were designed to respond to it. It's in our blood. You hear the words of truth and the atoms that make up your chemical being are immediately catalyzed, yet so as to serve God's purpose and design. So then, the emphasis on the doctrines is to provide believers some measure of understanding of what it looks like to have a faith that perseveres. Why is this necessary? Among the many known and unknown reasons, one of which I'm certain, and that one is because God does not sanctify us entirely, immediately. He moves us through the wilderness of SIN in stages, according to His commandment. We serpentine through the desert in order to learn obedience to God from the things from which we suffer. Thus the doctrines are a helpful pointer to the understanding of the true commandment of God. Because Satan is a tempter of those who are weak and strong, but he's wiley and God ordained a method for us to have understanding, even before we have the experience to know how to use it to give us assurance of the faith.

So then, what's the point. The point is simply this, it's not as though God is unloving in the passing over of some. Though He does, but this is the wrong dichotomy. No, it as though there are many counterfeits and we're trained daily to believe that because the name Jesus Christ passes over your lips that you must be saved. Thus, you tend to believe that there are those who could meet and experience the truth of God in total, as God Himself designed it, but God would reject them. The problem is that the one who thinks this cannot discern the counterfeit faith. Theybelieve that we should assure false converts in their mental ascent even though they openly reject the doctrines and stand opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That somehow, we should be seduced into believing that harmony with unbelievers is better than rightfully dividing the truth of God, which in some cases caused unbelievers to be swallowed up by the Earth. I say no. It's better to believe in God to the end. It's better to rightfully divide the truth of God. It's better to share the gospel with unbelievers and test the spirits and see if they be of God. In this, we fulfill the two greatest commandments and the great commission.

G.O.S.P.E.L

Nothing more needs be said;

 

 

Why Jesus?

As I was getting ready for church this morning I thought through an exchange, where on one side of the cosmos you have a God who loves his people and causes them to love him, and on the other side of creation you have a god who only causes you to be aware of him enough so as to make you completely responsible to seek him out and love him; since it's been said that God does not want forced love.

The question came to me, why Jesus then? Why the new model of grace and mercy to the gentiles? So, follow along these questions and answers. They are not meant to be dogmatic, but rather a method of questioning of the scriptures through logic and reason to see what they mean. The antecedent to all of these questions is, why was Jesus necessary?

Did God create man?

Yes, God created man and everything in the universe

So then how does man come to know God, prior to the scriptures being written down?

Adam walked with God and Abram was called by God. They talked with Him through the Angel of The Lord.

To what estate is man born into?

Totaly depravity. Depseperately wicked.

How then did they seek God?

God must have revealed himself.

Then, if God revealed himself, did he only reveal enough of himself so as to cause man to be responsible for having faith in Him?

Yes.

How then does God expect man to come to Him, if he's desperately wicked?

Through his goodness and mercy and his kind acts. Miracles and understanding.

How does man come to this understanding?

God reveals it.

How then is man responsible to seek out God of his own free-will if the only way to understand God is that He reveal it?

Man must!

Could not God righteously cause man to love him, since He's truth, in order that all flesh would be saved, so as to not abrogate his free will, but rightly call him to himself?

He could, but he doesn't want forced love?

If what you say is correct, then surely he must want the death of men more than he wants to be loved; for if he cannot cause you to love him of His own will, and he leaves you to your own, then he does knowingly create you only to send you to Hell.

No! Man is responsible. Man chooses wickedness.

I agree, man is responsible, because God has made him so. God holds him responsible for his sin. So then, if God is unwilling let us say that any should perish, but all should have everlasting life and he knows that many will choose death, is He not the parent? Does He not know better so as to instruct us? How is it that the Divine being of the Universe is unwilling to teach and discipline His children to the point of strict obedience?

God has a will of decree and a will of permissiveness. Some things he causes to happen, some things he's allows you to mess up on your own.

So then, how is God in control of what he's permitted you to do? And how does he know what you will do? Does He know what you will do? Has he already planned the circumstance in which you will do what you will do, but not your thought or choice?

God gives us free-will.

Does this leave man unable and unwilling to come to God unless God intervenes?

yes, but by His grace He does.

Wait, you mean He abrogates your will so that you can be saved?

Yes, but your will is still free to choose to love him or not. He just gives you the grace to have that choice. Like turning on the lights. Jesus takes 9 steps toward you, you just need to take one step toward Him.

How can this be? So your will is not entirely free, just mostly free? How do you know when it's free and when it's not?

When I choose to do right, then I obey God, when I choose to sin, then I disobey God. So God decree's my righteousness but permits my sin.

If this is true, why do we need Jesus?

Because the gentiles weren't part of the covenant

So then, only the Israelites will was free? If the foreigners could not choose God, in what way were they free?

God's allowed sojourners to join Israel if they obeyed the covenant.

True enough, but what of the others who did not have access to the knowledge of God, how did they choose that?

They didn't. God did. 

In what way was that free?

 

I always come back to the root question, free to what, free from what. If man was created free and his first act was sin, thereby introducing us all to sin, making us guilty as soon as we understand the Law of God, then God must supercede that process in order to redeem those whom he has called to be a posession for Christ. It's his mission. Free-will makes sense to most people because we're taught that in order to have responsibility, you must be causally linked to the deed committed. That is, in good works you must have caused the good work, and in sin, you must have caused the sin. But, we see even in the contemporary world, in mans sense of justice that this does not have to be true. You can be held responsible for something you didn't do or not do, but simply because of your existance, you are held as the responsible party. The best example of this is debt. How interesting that Paul makes the case in Romans that our debt was taken from us...not given to Christ by us, but taken from us and we were credited Christ's righteousness. Notice what Paul doesn't say, if you ask Christ to take your debt, he will and when he does, he'll give you his own righteousness. No, he says that you were a debtor. You were dead. And when you were made alive, your debt was taken, your account was credited and now you are a son of God! Romans.

The Conflict of Two Natures: Part 2, The Conclusion

In my previous post, I was rebutting the belief in Free-Will as a means of an approach to God in theology. I am considering the implausibility of such a thing for it certainly makes the scriptures confusing and in many cases outright contradictory. We're picking up in verse 19 and considering Paul's case of the conflict of two-natures. I think it's important to point out that the author's viewpoint on this passage has changed or at least, he's realized that what has been taught over the years, by way of foolishness has much to do with why he's writing this. That is, this particular passage has been used over and over again to excuse sin. To make man not culpable in his sin and more to the point, it's been wrongly used to describe why free-will fails. It's not because the theology is wrong and blaspheme's God, no rather there is something that is stronger than the sinner, but only at times and occassions unknown to the sinner. So, the result is that the sinner struggles alone or under the grace of God, but in no way has any ability to have victory over sin. In fact, the author would go so far as to say that this passage has been wrongly used to obscure the complete ignorance and illogical argumentation of free-will. For free-will purveyors cannot solve the unanswerable question of why they cannot, in their freedom, stop sinning. Which, on face is rationally enough to question the accuracy of such a position, but to make the point, this passage in particular has been used to demonstrate, that while will is free, so that God can justly hold man responsible, man still fails at obeying God because he is somehow beset with sin because he is not yet perfect. Stated plainly and in complete rebellion to God, I'm not Jesus, that's why I struggle! But, I can overcome sin! It really does sound quite good, if you don't think about it and question it to it's most logical ends, and further more as I plan to demonstrate, apply the definition of words and systematic theology of presuppositionalism. Words have meaning and that's lost in a free-will theology.

^19(F) For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 

How is it that Paul cannot do the good that he wants? In what way is his free-will beset so that even though he knows to do good, he's not able? This seems like cognitive dissonance. The holding of two contradictory positions in complete harmony as though there is no contradiction. No one could say that they want to do good, but they just can't. Why can't they? There must be something else they are choosing instead of choosing good and right. And if that is so, is not the will free enough so as to cause them the responsibility for that choice? And, if they have responsibility, why then aren't they guilty of lying as well? For do they not want this evil more than they want good? And doesn't that make them disingenuous? How is it that I can want something good, but then I want something bad more, so I do it, but then hold up the fact that I want the good thing as proof of anything? It's proof that I'm a liar or confused. I want what I do, because I'm free, thefore I do what I want!

²⁰Now if I do what I do not want,^(G) it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

Hold on Paul, this cannot be what you mean? Now you're giving some unnamed, unspoken, entity inside of you the responsibility? Now, if I went up and punched someone in the face, of my own free-will, I couldn't very well tell the judge..."Your honor, it wasn't me. It's sin inside of me that chooses these things, I'm just and innocent bystanding, while totally free and I freely allow this sin to live within me, I'm not guilty, because technically it's not me". Yeah, that would work. Or, does it make more rational sense that Paul is putting a dividing line between his flesh and his spirit? Remember, Paul said that none seek God. So what can seek God except the Spirit of God? So then, Paul is starting to setup the case of the proof of the Spirit that there is a conflict. He's not excusing sin. He's not saying sin doesn't matter in the sense that you can live in it with impunity and be called a Son of God, rather he's setting up the case as to why you are FREE from it.

 ²¹So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 

Paul is making clear that he's at war! He finds it to be a law, a rule of thumb that when he's seeking God that evil is seeking to destroy that connection and fellowship and that we are to be mindful of our enemy the Devil!

²²For^(H) I delight in the law of God,^(I) in my inner being, ²³but I see in my members^(J) another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

The nail in the coffin. He delights in the Law of God. When he was a Pharisee, did he not delight in the law as he persecuted the church, yet this did not lead to righteousness. But that's not what he's saying. His inner being delights in the law of God. Which is different than his flesh, which does not seek to obey the law of God, nor is it even able to. But, what then, is he free from sin? No, he witnesses the war, the domination, at times of sin in his life. He makes clear there are too laws, the law of sin which leads to death and the law of the spirit, which delights in the law of God, in his inner being. They war against another. Since he's captive in this body, the law of sin dwells in his members. Meaning? He cannot escape sin. He's not free, to not choose it. It's only God himself, through the law of his mind, ie the law of God through Spirit, that actually overcomes sin. 

²⁴Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from^(K) this body of death? 

I've learned that this is a reference to Roman times that when a man murdered another man, what they would do is tie the dead man to the living man until he was consumed, unto death, by the filth of the deadness of the other man. In what way does this represent a freedom not to sin?

²⁵Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

Notice Pauls position, Thanks Be to God! Yet in my explanation of this thing that is wretched and insidious to deal with, does he say...yeah, I got it bad and so do you, so deal with it? NO! He says, THANKS BE TO GOD! For even though I may appear to complain, I'm thankful to God that he has ordained these things, since he is the only one wise and no one else is. In final he says, I myself serve the law of God with my mind or inner man which leads to life and peace but with his flesh he serves the law of sin which leads to death. Paul is saying that it is only the power of the law of God in his mind, and the sanctifying work of God, which is God's work alone that he can be free from his sin.

In conclusion, I do not see how you can rationally or logically hold on to a free-will theology, if you dont' intend to make the Apostle Paul out to be a confused, lying, multiple personality victim. The problem with describing the reason you don't sin as being a result of the grace of God and the reason you do to your free-will is that you deny that God has the ability be gracious enough to teach you not to sin, by causing you to sin. If you believe in free-will to the fullest, then offering secondary causes that are certainly under a persons control, as the primary reason why you sin, you are making false the claim, by your very own admission that you have free wiil. Because, if the first cause of your sin, is a secondary cause that's under your control, but you do not control it, then you either lie about having an inner man that doesn't want to sin, or you're confused about the level of control you actually have over the secondary cause. In either case, you're not in control. For certainly free-will can choose not to lie?

Some may say that this conflict of two natures is simply a reference to a desire to do well and not sin, but it's not necessarily including the ability to. In other words, there is a sense in which you can see the right things to do, but through secondary cause, ie guilt, depression, deception, circumstance, etc, you're unable to bring yourself to do right. I say, exactly right. Why then do you say that you freely choose right or wrong? If you see to do right, but cannot, is this not the very definition of the anthesis of freedom?

Freedom can only be defined by something that has the ability of obtain freedom for itself, or have the power to grant it to something lesser. However, in so granting it to something lesser, it's freedom is limited by the grantor. The very necessity of freedom being granted demonstrates the very limitation of that freedom. Afterall, God did not grant you the freedom He himself has He? So, the author asks.

You're free.

To what? From what?

 

 

The Conflict Of Two Natures: Part 1

I was reading this passage this morning. I've felt it necessary to go back through Romans fully and with the hope that God would reveal even greater depths of understanding of this great work. One of the things I seem to contend with other believers about often is the idea of free-will versus predestination. But even that can be further sub-defined, so as to say free-will versus divine providence. That is, the idea that everything that occurs, as the Westminster Confession states in Chapter three, that whatsoever comes to pass was decreed by God. That would include

• 9/11
• The Japan Earthquake
• Hitler
• You Being Wealthy
• You Being Poor
• Your Divorce

Stated plainly, if you believe in free-will of the spirit or the flesh, then you accordingly believe that God did not plan 9/11 or any of the following events. You may believe that God simply foreknew these events and by his own power, you would have to conclude that he didn't stop them either. The point of this post though is not to argue the merits of that, but rather to provide an example of possible erroneous thinking or misapplication of scripture. I will be successful if as a reader you come away from this with at least an alternate perspective. My interest lies predominately in vetting this out for myself in the hopes that what I believe to have been revealed to me is in fact true.

Consider the text of the conflict of two natures as described by brother Paul in Romans 7:14-25.

¹⁴For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh,^(A) sold under sin. ¹⁵For I do not understand my own actions. For^(B) I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. ¹⁶Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with^(C) the law, that it is good. ¹⁷So now^(D) it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. ¹⁸For I know that nothing good dwells^(E) in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. ^19(F) For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. ²⁰Now if I do what I do not want,^(G) it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

 ²¹So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. ²²For^(H) I delight in the law of God,^(I) in my inner being, ²³but I see in my members^(J) another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.²⁴Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from^(K) this body of death? ²⁵Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

 

¹⁴For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh,^(A) sold under sin. 

I settle on the matter that words have meaning, taking the rules that the explicit defines the implicit and not the other way around as well as the rule of divine inspiration I must consider what this text means.

For we know

This was not simply learned, this was revealed, having been taught by the Father and that resulting in the coming to our Lord Jesus Christ. John 6. 

the law is spiritual but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

The law is not a law of men, manufactured by men, but rather by God alone. We are not spiritual by nature, in that we cannot obey the law. And we are sold. The free-will theology will have difficulty at best describing how I was willinging sold into sin. That is, one might say that you chose to do drugs, or become a prostitute, and that accordingly became your master and that by your own choice. But, this is not what the text says. So say that you sold yourself into sin, when the text does not say that, at least not here, would be to define the explicit by the implicit. The text explicitly says that you were sold. Sex slaves are sold without their permission, animals are sold without their permission, and grapefruit are sold without their permission. The language plainly indicates that you are sold, by an owner and you have no influence in that decision.

For I do not understand my own actions.

What does Paul mean? Which of us does not understand our own actions? We know plainly that when we sin, we desire to sin. And when we seek God, we seem also to believe that we know plainly, we desire to do that. So what does Paul mean? Context and history matter. Paul is a Pharisee, trained of the highest order. He knows plainly the law of Moses and he's obeyed it to the full. A good contemporary example would be a disciplined body builder, who cannot understand why he eats sugar-filled-doughnuts. He knows he has a competition come up. He knows he cannot eat those things and win, yet, seemingly out of his control, he injests them and that even to his chagrin. He not only knows not to, he knows he doesn't want to, yet he does! Modern psychology would call this delusion, for if you do something, you clearly on some level, want to do the thing. But, this is NOT what Paul says.

I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.

What is puzzling here is the very idea of free-will would me that this should not occur. For freely you operate and none influence you so much so as to abrogate your freedom to choose sin or not. But, Paul, under divine decree here writes that which I do not want to do, I do. So, then, he knows what not to do, he knows not to do it, he's looking at it and says no, yet he does it. Is Paul delusional? Does he simply not recognize that he REALLY DOES want to do these things, he's just lying to himself? Well, that's where free-will must take you. Why? Simply because, you're free. You choose of your own volition based on knowledge and experience. So then, you actually can't be compelled to do anything that you don't choose to do. So, this text is irrational. Paul is lying or, in the most pleasant light, he's alluding to that which we all understand, that in secret, we really do want to do these things, but it seems far more pious to say that you don't want to do them. Because, who wants to admit that they come to the threshold of sin and with fullness of knowledge and truth say, I LOVE SIN! 

¹⁶Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with^(C) the law, that it is good. 

Meaning, it has rightly condemned me in all ways.

¹⁷So now^(D) it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 

Whoa, wait up Paul...if I believe in free-will, how can you say that it is not you who does it? Does not God hold all men responsible for their choices? Who is this you, that is not you, who chooses for you and that not of your free-will and choice? These seems confusing at best...how is it possible that I have a free-will but there is something in me that doesn't appear to, or if it does it always seems to choose what I don't want it to choose?

Paul is making clear that it is not him that does it. Explicitly he states that. Who of you will state that when you sin that it is not you that sins? Paul did.

¹⁸For I know that nothing good dwells^(E) in me, that is, in my flesh.

Ahh, the linchpin of the entire passage. Paul is referring back to the case that he's already made in Romans 3:10-19. None are righteous, not even one, and so forth. It would appear two things clearly emerge in Pauls theology. 1. Paul is not good, he's totally depraved, utterly wicked, completely turned aside, ready to kill at a moments notice. 2. That condition persists in the flesh even after he is made alive in Christ. So then, free-will would say what to this condition of being utterly sinful in the flesh? Some have said that there is enough goodness in man, though he is mostly evil, to choose God. Some have also said that, man is entirely wicked, but God has extended a balloon of prevenient grace that they must simply pop and allow it to wash over them. Yes, how does one do any of these things if, they are as Paul says, wicked? Wouldn't any act that leads to godliness, be in itself godly and therefore righteous? How does a wicked body do anything righteous when Paul says it cannot?! Not only this, but Paul is merely repeating the words of the prophet Isaiah and King David. No, Paul clearly understands that sin so abrogates the will that if you are free, you are free only to choose it!

For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.

Is Paul contradicting himself? He says that he can't do good, yet he has a desire to carry out that which is good, yet he is unable? Or is Paul simply referring to the fact that he knows the law perfectly, something we cannot even come close to identifying with, and his conscience is assailed constantly with the knowledge that even in his great learning of God's Holy Law, he cannot obey it. Even in his desire, let us call this human desire, he desires to obey God's law, but is simply unable. For what is the cause of this conflict?

Continued In Part 2

 

Not By Will Or By Might, But By Mercy

If you speak with me about God for any length of time you'll find out that I believe that He decrees all things to occur by his own authority, according to the counsel of his own will, which he says will stand.

The westminster confession says this of God's Eternal Decree: Chapter 3, it's in it's entirety at the bottom of the post.

 

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3] II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions;[4] yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.[5] III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7] IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.[8]

 

As I read this morning in Psalms, 22:30-31

Posterity will serve Him; it will be told of the Lord to the coming generation. They will come and will declare His righteousness, to a people who will be born, that He has performed it.

So you see, God is the performer of faith. We are not. God instills faith in us, for he grants it by his own gift to us, thereby making Him the Author of it. Furthermore, He perfects it and finishes it, by the sustaining work of the Holy Spirit, in which we have been marked/sealed until the day of judgement. You will say to me, how then does he hold me into account, for who resists His will? Who are you oh man so speak back to God? You will not tell the potter he has no right over the clay or that he doesn't know what he's doing will you? ~ Paul in his letter to the Romans, on the chapter 9 and of the verses 16 and following.

Are you saying that people desire to go to Heaven but God rejects them?

No!

The scriptures say that if you confess and believe you will be saved!

What then can be reasoned by this?

Simply that man in his first estate, truly and irrevocably of his own volition hates God, even though he can be taught language that seems to suggest an understanding of the precepts of the Lord God Almighty. Even a child who is wholly disobedient to parents can utter correctly the words "I'm sorry" so as to avoid the certain and necessary punishments of them. Yet none would stand in defense of this child as having uttered words as being as weighty as believing them to be true and certain. This is the same effect of so called believers who have been utterly decieved by the soft-peddaling of the scriptures and even so called false teachers. The making wide of the road that leads to salvation, calling the True God of Heaven, a God of Love before He is God. That even his first natures of justice and authority, divinitiy and omnicience must be abrogated by his second natures of mercy, loving kindness and grace. Foolishness! 

This has created the situation where we have people saying some of the same things that we say, participating with us in worship, wholly wearing the uniform of Christianity and yet, we're ill equipped to reason in the matter of what clearly seems to be out of place. That is, apostate believers who deny Christ by their actions, yet are in no way held to the minutest level of accountability.

Don't judge we're told. You don't see a yellow stripe up their back do you? Would a court convict you of being a Christian? 

We do not judge by unrighteoussness, but by ungodliness. For we are all unrighteouss. Godliness is one who is lawful. One who desires the richness of God's words, to be taught his precepts, and to desire obedience. One who LIVES by FAITH! The saved man does not desire autonomy from the living God! No! He desires to be ruled by God! Even to the furthermost reaches of his own will; to be governed without prejudice.

Narrow is the way that leads unto salvation and there are few that find it. I say read your Bibles and pray that God would lead you, by His Spirit into all truth.

 

 

 

 

<------->

The confession in it's entirety.

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3] II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions;[4] yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.[5] III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7] IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.[8] V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,[9] out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto;[10] and all to the praise of His glorious grace.[11] VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto.[12] Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,[13] are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,[14] and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation.[15] Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.[16] VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praised of His glorious justice.[17] VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,[18] that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.[19] So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God;[20] and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.[21]

Logic Puzzle: Try It, See What You Think

Many just accept the providence of God. But in some respect, they limit it by their own weak understanding of God's power and authority. They will say, God is in control of all things, but in some respect doesn't cause evil. He allows men, of free-agency, to make choices and then approves them.

This is called Middle Knowledge. In response to such a though that I wrestled with for most of my life I thought up a logic puzzle. There are four possible entries given God's omniscience and omnipotence.

Concerning the events of man;

• God plans to do something
• God plans to do nothing
• God plans to not make a plan
• The unkowable knowing

In so far as we understand information and can decode language, it seems reasonable to believe that if there is a fourth possibility, it's entirely mystical and not approachable through knowledge, logic or scripture. While it may be possible, it would contend that it is not possible to know for certain that any event was causally linked to this fourth occurence. For what would be the evidence of such a thing except to appeal to the unknowability of a thing. While I'm content such a thing is possible, again, I appeal to the unkowability of unkowability. If it's true, you would not know in anyway that it is the reason for such a thing to have occurred. Because the scripture makes plain God's eternal purposes in his actions. Not that all purposes are known or knowable, but simply for the revealed things, how can we know how God has chosen to bring them about? That is what the point of this writing is.

Consider the definitions:

God plans to do something - God in his foreknowledge and by his omnipotence, irrespective of mans actions or respective of mans actions, thoughts and decisions, plans to execute his plan to do something. Then, in so planning, exectutes the plan of his plan to bring about some event, so as to be the first cause of a thing to occur.

God plans to do nothing - God, in his foreknowledge and by active restraint of his omnipotence, foresees the actions of men, thoughts and decisions and does knowingly approve them to come to pass by actively restraining his right and power to thwart them

God plans to not make a plan - God in his foreknowledge only, knowing the actions thoughts and decision of man, does knowling abdicate and responsibility of a thing to occur. While it is said that he created the earth and all that is in it, concerning the event, God does simply ignore it to the affect that man is entirely free from his purpose and effect, since God neither upholds him, approves him, or restrains him from any and all that his heart has desired.

But, can it be said that in any way that God has not made a plan? No. In all three causes of action, God must plan to not plan. So then, it is unreasonable to believe that God can plan to not make a plan, because this is circular logic. The planning of not making a plan is in effect itself a plan to do nothing. But, can God plan to do nothing? If God plans to do nothing, it's to approve the something that would occur by doing nothing. In effect, he's planning the negative, by not affirming the affirmative. So planning to do nothing, is actually planning to do something by nature of the affect that nothing becomes something as soon as it's planned to do.

Then, God plans to do something concerning all events. The simple question is, is this based merely on foreknowledge or because he is in fact the creator of all things?

They've Turned The Reality of Salvation Into a Utility

In the quiet early morning hours, as my dream of a wild provocative engagement with evil begins to conclude, and just as my eyes are to be opened by the sovereign light of both God and the sun, I hear a small whisper.

"They've turned the reality of salvation into a utility..."

Just at that moment, my eyes popped open, disengaged from the battle of my dream and now chewing on this truth. Both affirming and debating it's veracity in my own mind. Yes! I say, instantly, that's right. This is a good work picture for false christianity. Before I can share what this means, even though it will have obvious meanings to many, I need to lay out to you something that is depserately profound to me. It's not new, it's in no way, new. But, it's a reality that becomes more and more resolute with each passing breath. It is, my worldview.

Compatibilist, with no knowledge of incompatibility

In my Christian experience, which extends from total ignorance in apostasy to now, an elementary student and child of God I've examined my world-view. And while you can only process information relative to the truth that's been exposed to you, I can easily see how I and others are so easily deceived in just this simple element. Your worldview.

A week ago, Japan endured a 9.0 earthquake, followed by a Tsunami that will, in the end, have been a factor in the death of more than 10 thousand people. If I ask, many might agree that God caused that, or 'allowed' that to happen. Since, they can not forseeably recognize any man-centered cause of the thing. And what of the nuclear reactors that are very close to melt-down? If that happens, will this also be the cause of God, or simply the irresponsibility of man? And what of despotic dictators that, over the centuries have killed millions of their own people? God, or man? God himself says that he's the cause of good and evil that occurs on man. In Isaiah.

I had a view that God got the credit for everything good and I got the credit for everything bad, unless the bad thing actually turned out to be a good thing, then it was back to God again. Unfortunately, there wasn't a lot of thinking going on. I did not have a teacher who was willing to change my self-contained, untested logic. Frankly, I had bought what I was sold. That God is at best an ambivalent, deity, who really desires man to do well and he's constantly there, like a good natured wife, simply reminding you to do good, but ever so disappointed when you don't. He's certainly able to make all these things, but he restrains himself, because (as I was taught) he doesn't want forced love. He wants real love and he's going to pine, until he can have it. 

So you begin to see, how this performance paradigm, makes God feckless. He's desirous of the goodness of man to show his compassion towards his other creation, and he's desirous of man to worship him, but unable or unwilling to guide man into all truth. No, he's simply depending on the proclivity of man to advance and engage the argument, come to a point of higher learning and apprehend God. But, as I said in my total anger, at a point where I'd had lived this theology out, to the point at which I was angry with God. "Wait, isn't HE GOD?, why is it that I need to over come? Why is it that we're in a situation where I literally cannot comprehend a higher point of belief in him so as to give me peace and ability to contend with my reality?" 

The question is simple; why, if God is God, does man need to contend with life like he is God, in order that creation should be at peace with the one true God? If He is truly God, then he should, compel those who are unable, either through means, will or necessity to the point of worship of Him. For who are we to know better? For, if I fail, does not God also fail in His ability to reconcile me to Himself, if in fact I am saved?

NEVER!

But this is where performance doctrine leads. This is what it looks like. At least it did for me. What's worse, is that I had no real sense of scripture, not even academic knowledge. I knew enough to be dangerous, and ever I was! To myself and those around me.

Christian World View Only

I once asked myself, when reading Mathew, what does it mean to be strong and to live in the Spirit?

God certainly answered this question, irrevocably. The world is not a compilation of independent, free agent human choices. No, because if it were then God deserves little to no credit for the good things that occur. How can God simply be responsible for the good, but not also the bad? Job says, we've received good from the and of the Lord, shall we not also receive evil? Our world, is entirely spiritually dominated. As I've grown in the Spirit, I've learned to see things more for what they are rather than what they look like in the flesh. I've come to the concept that the only right, accurate and reliable way to interpret the world is a Christian-Biblical-Only worldview. Otherwise, history is a mess, a confusing mess or deception, greed, lust, murder and too many other things to list, all approved by God, because he was unwilling to do anything about it. Or it couldu be stated, that in that view, he wanted something more than he wanted to stop all those things. That's the conclusion that free-will leads you to. Some will say he doesn't want forced love, but that would also mean that he doesn't want people to not murder other people, because he doesn't stop that either. So, he has a law, that he allows you to violate, knowing you will, for the expressed purpose of holding you accountable to it? This is confusing.

In my worldview, my Christian-Biblical-Only worldview, God does not dignify man with a seat at his table of authority. God is truly God. Man is truly not. Evil exists, at least in part to demonstrate the good intention God has toward his people. The frank reality is that without dark, you would not know light. This obviously makes God the author of evil, which he himself says that he is. But this gives me comfort. Why?

Without Him I Could Do No Other

Gods purposes are his own, but what he has revealed is that he's purifying a people for his own posession. It seems spurious at best to try to list out why he's allowed to do whatever he wants to do in order to make that happen. Suffice it to say that I hold to the simply belief that God is God and he's under no jurisdiction and that whatever he does is right. Man should not seek to interpret him through his weak moralistic, emotionally charged worldview. Let's look at some word plays to see if we can make the case.

• God can take your wealth because - God gave you your wealth
• God can take your family because - God gave you your family
• God can take your health because - God gave you your health
• God can cause you to stumble because - God was the one who holds you up
• God can take your life and that of everyone's because - God is the giver of life

Does this cause me to lose hope? No! If I'm called, and I know that I am by studying the scriptures and finding proofs of regeneration, then, I know that all things happen have more than just an unknowable higher purpose. They are the working out of my salvation! The reproval and scourging of my Father in Heaven, the purifying of me for service to HIM! How could I know any of that, or believe if, if I thought that I was some in control of all my choices and therefore responsible for all the consequences? That's a snare that keeps me focused on how to live THIS life better and not a pardon to live in order that my next life is better!

They've Turned The Reality of Salvation Into A Utility

So then, in light of my opening statement, how does this relate? It's simple, if I can demonstrate to you that you're a bad person (not hard to do these days), and show you that there's a person who died so you don't have to feel bad about that any more, and ask you to believe that I'm telling the truth, you too can be saved. But that is not at all what the gospel says. So, you have the reality of salvation, I believe that I'm bad, wrong and evil, and I do believe that a person died so I can be free from that, and I believe that is the truth, traded for the utility; now you're saved. WRONG. That is not to imply that an immature faith is an unsaving one. Salvation is of the Lord. It's simply to make explicit, that we're to go out into the world and make disciples, not converts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Am God and There Is No Other!

In my Christian experience, I've begun to have the chance to slow things down and really analyze my life and world in which I live. In fact, I've really had to consider what is useful and expedient as Paul refers to, all things being lawful but not all things are expedient. One of the elements of my life that is hardest to contend with is the analytical and corrective monologue that seems to run non-stop in my head. The nature can be frustrating because it's like an alarm clock that never stops warning you it's time to get up. Yet, I feel slightly nervous to turn it off....because what if, always seems to enter my mind.

This is where I come to the point of preaching to myself what I've already learned. Let's start there.

1. I'm Totally depraved.

In every possible way. I'm against, hate, dispassionate towards, irreverent of, lack knowledge, defy calls to obedience, outwright ignore and blaspheme the One True Living God, YHWH.

On my best day, my most righteous act is a menstral rag. So, then, if I'm that unclean, how can I be saved?

2. I'm Unconditionally elected.

I don't make rent payments to God. I can't make rent payments to God. My money doesn't spend. Nothing about me is good, nor could it ever be without the totally sanctifying work of God himself. I can't save myself, I can't even make myself better and if I lived in the fulness of truth, I SHOULD reject me as well. Blessing to God Almighty that in His wisdom and by His authority, according to the secret counsel of His will, I am elect. How can I know that?

3. I believe in Christ's Limited atonement. The Holy Scriptures teach that we're all born into bondage of sin and depravity. We are transferred out of Satan's kingdom and dominion, into the the dominion of God. And he works both as the author and finisher of our Faith, which itself, is a gift from him. Some will say that we have free-will, but I say we're saved through;

4. Irresistable grace. This is not hard for most people to accept, for once the necessity of grace is realized, it's certainly accepted. I tell you that anyone can do that. Anyone can be made to feel bad enough about themselves to believe that they require grace. But this is NOT salvation. For what profit is it to us to give goodness to those who are nice to us? Anyone can do that! But we might say, if I'm totally depraved, and Christ did not die for all, how can I know that I'm unconditionally elected and that the grace I've recieved is irresistable? Don't I resist in sin?

5. Perseverance of the Saints, is both overwhelming and comforting at the same time. The proof of these things is that you run the race to the END! You finish the race. You push on, you don't give up, you never lose the faith in God that saves. It's overwhelming because, if you think like me, in your small trials you may well think that, 'there is yet a lifetime ahead of me!'. But it's comforting to those who have ears to understand because you know that your perseverance does NOT depend on you!

I'm both thankful and overwhelmed at the idea that God, would in anywise save me. I'm both unworthy and unable in anyway to restore the deficit of faith. God does not have faith in me. God does not hope. These are things that are left to man to work through, experientially, but all through the divine providence of God! The King, YHWH.

Let none profane the name of God. For he is certainly the King. If you do not believe, that is fine, it would be better for you if you did, but if you do not, at minimum know that He is God and is to be respected!