NowTHINK!AboutIt

Avoiding Hackneyed...Making Sense

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy

Mercy Is Not A Synonym For Salvation

December 10, 2018 by EnnisP Leave a Comment

Mercy is a paradox. It's never deserved but it's never free.

Universally Offered
Individually Accepted

God made a curious statement to Moses in the Old Testament (Exodus 33:19), and Paul repeats it in the New Testament not once, but twice. The first repeat is found in Romans 9:15.

I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Though the wording is slightly different, the second is in verse 18.

The topic is Mercy and the context is Service in both passages.

It’s an interesting statement because it sounds restrictive, as if God is selectively rather than generously merciful. Makes it sound like some are in and some are out.

Interpretations vary but some take it to an extreme suggesting there is no rhyme or reason, no formula for who receives mercy and who doesn’t. God shows mercy only to a select few and reveals no reason for the choices He makes.

If you’re lucky enough to receive mercy, be grateful. If not, sorry.

Faith Over Fear Tees

The Romans passage does mention specific people: Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob. Even nations are named: Gentiles and Israel. And sure enough, in each pair, one is selected and the other is left out. [Read more…] about Mercy Is Not A Synonym For Salvation

Filed Under: Evangelism, Faith, God's Sovereignty

Bible Election And The Case Of The Frozen Brain

November 2, 2018 by EnnisP Leave a Comment

Election is in the Bible but it's not what you think.

Question 7 of the Westminster Short Catechism asks:

What are the decrees of God?

I guess it’s a good question but the catechism gives no indication as to why they ask or why it’s important. Seems a bit mysterious.

I’m curious as to why they mention “Decrees” at all. The word doesn’t feature widely in the Old or New Testaments so you’re left wondering, but not for long. The catechism’s answer to this strange question takes a huge leap from the mysteriously broad to the philosophically outrageous:

The decrees of God are His eternal purpose, according to the counsel of His will, whereby, for His own glory, He hath FOREORDAINED WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS.

The answer gets right to the point but instead of clearing the air, it leaves you confused and fretful, not to mention shocked!

Did they really say God ordained “Whatsoever comes to pass?”

If you’re a thinking person and you extend this short statement to its logical end, many difficult questions arise. So many, in fact, that the brain freezes up like a PC. It becomes a hailstorm of inquiry.

Did God really foreordain murder, mayhem, genocide, abuse, corruption, oppression, natural catastrophe and so on? The inferred meaning is impossible to miss. It’s also difficult to accept.

It really boils down to just one question. Are horrible things really a part of God’s will and has His personal counsel guided events to such conclusions?

And if the answer to that question is yes, you are compelled to ask an additional question. How can these horrible things possibly glorify God?

Amazingly, and in spite of the logical implications, those who hold these beliefs are unfazed. The unfortunate but unequivocal response to “Are you sure about this” is “Yes! Everything that happens is in sync with God’s predetermined will!”

Faith Over Fear Tees

And if in the interest of clarity you should inquire further, the rationale becomes a bit circular.

Everything happens and is foreordained by God in order to serve His eternal purpose and to glorify Himself, and because it is for His own glory, it’s all arranged by the counsel of His own will!!

In other words, everything is God’s will because God wills it to be so.

There’s even a simple explanation for those who are stumped by an intellectual impasse or two along this thought path.

God is beyond our understanding and does as He pleases whether we understand it or not.

No problem!

That, of course, isn’t an answer. This entire discussion implies many uncomfortable characterizations of God which are difficult to swallow but don’t be too disturbed. According to Paul, we can be sure God will not deny Himself. He will not do things contrary to His character (2 Tim. 2:13). [Read more…] about Bible Election And The Case Of The Frozen Brain

Filed Under: Evangelism, God's Sovereignty, Salvation

Differences Between Calvinists And Arminians

June 25, 2016 by EnnisP Leave a Comment

Today's Calvinist is different to yesterday's.

Either/Or
Neither/Nor
What Are You
Going To Be

I consider myself neither Calvinist nor Arminian but rather a mix of the two. I don’t mean to sound uncommitted or indecisive when I say that.

It’s just difficult for me to think any person could really side completely with either.

And the two ideas vary a lot.

I doubt any person in either camp today is exactly what the forebears of either belief were in the past. Which, of course, means that if you say you are a Calvinist now, you will be differing with Calvinists of yesteryear.

As things move forward, and we think more deeply about our beliefs, perspective changes.

Don’t overreact. I didn’t say belief changes. I said perspective changes. If it doesn’t, you’re standing still.

It’s a fact. Today’s Calvinist is different.

The same could be said of Arminians but does anyone ever talk about Arminianism. Other than Calvinists.

Of the two ideas, the one most talked about, studied, explained and argued over is Calvinism. Everyone joins in that conversation. Arminianism, however, gets most of it’s attention from Calvinists.

So, I decided to put together a comparison of the two. Don’t get upset though. No insult is intended. The following list of comparisons is not exhaustive and is written in the spirit of fun and humor. [Read more…] about Differences Between Calvinists And Arminians

Filed Under: Faith, God's Sovereignty, Theology

Reflections On “Love Wins”

December 20, 2011 by EnnisP 6 Comments

Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived

Is Bell’s Universalism
Worse Than Calvin’s?

Rob Bell’s book, “Love Wins,” recently hit the market, or maybe I should say the fan, based on the maelstrom that followed. It’s really making people think.

Not “believe” but think and I’m certain that’s a good thing. Only a thinking person can believe, right?

But…

Even before the book was released the flurry of accusations, disavowals and condemnations – proclaimed, of course, with “hear I stand” affirmations of Rob’s unquestionable infidelity – made one think the anti-Christ had surely arrived. And these responses were based on nothing more than a pre-release video ad.

The ad was provocative, yes, but not the basis for laying criminal charges.

That didn’t matter though. With little evidence and no identifiable crime, stake burning mobs began gathering.

And after the release? Whooooooooooa! The barrage of heated acrimonious remarks was enough to melt glaciers.

I try to avoid universal everybody’s-doing-it statements but it definitely seems like “everyone” took aim at Rob. For all the right reasons, naturally. I don’t doubt a few hangers-on will keep the firestorm fueled for some time to come.

The question is how do you make sense of all the noise?

Providing a list of every naysayer or attempting to analyze every contrary remark would take an endless amount of time so I won’t go there. I will, however, focus on one review for discussion purposes. The writer is Kevin DeYoung who is reformed (lower case “r” for me – talk more about that just now). His remarks are representative of the negative reactions so he is a good place to start.

His first response – I feel more might be coming – was posted on The Gospel Coalition and I will excerpt a few remarks to illustrate the presumptuous ranting manner in which Bell’s ideas are being attacked.

My purpose, by the way, is not to encourage anyone to agree or disagree with Bell or DeYoung. These two men don’t represent the opposite ends of the good vs evil spectrum. Thankfully, one isn’t absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong.

There are more than just two possible conclusions and according to what Bell said in the book he understands that. The problem is DeYoung doesn’t. He and those like him allow for no divergence on certain ideas and assume Bell must be “completely” wrong because he opened up discussion on ideas that are “absolutely” fixed. Like so many others, his write-up is laced with the language of assumed-understandings from beginning to end.

His title reads: “God Is Still Holy And What You Learned In Sunday School Is Still True…”

And to mimic Rob’s approach to such absolutist remarks…

Really? Which Sunday School is that? The American one, the English one, the Scottish one, the Irish one, the Italian one, the German one, the one in Switzerland or Spain or the Eastern Orthodox one? Was it the Stone Age one or the Iron Age one or the Middle Ages one?

Let’s be clear. From what I understand some of those Sunday schools agree with Bell.

Truth? DeYoung, like so many others, speaks from a very narrow, near history perspective – mostly opinion – and quotes people who endorse that perspective. I’m being generous to call it perspective, a word that implies a long broad view.

His introduction provides a very generalized, hazy rendering of Rob’s primary point and includes a summary of his accusations, on which he expands in the interminably long exposé that follows:

The theology is heterodox. The history is inaccurate. The impact on souls is devastating. And the use of Scripture is indefensible.

I’ll talk more about it later but for the record, long winded statements are typical of reformed teachers and there is good reason for it. The heart of their teachings is so irrational, illogical and flaky they resort to long drawn out twist-and-turn, hard-to-follow discussions just to give the appearance of intellectual superiority. Taking this approach diverts attention from their senseless confusion to what seems to be excessive cerebral activity.

Who can argue against that?

However, not only is the good news better than that, as Rob would say, it really isn’t so complicated either.

DeYoung repeats or alludes to his accusation points ad nauseam throughout the article but only as assertions. Any proof he offers is from people whose opinions mirror his. At one point he says:

If Bell is right, then historic orthodoxy is toxic and terrible. But if the traditional view of heaven and hell are right, Bell is blaspheming. I do not use the word lightly, just like Bell probably chose “toxic” quite deliberately. Both sides cannot be right.

Several thoughts come to mind, if you’re thinking:

  • Can’t both sides be wrong? DeYoung assumes he must be right if Rob is wrong. Even his use of terms like “historic,” “orthodoxy” and “traditional” assumes history is on his side, as if “truth” historically ran on only one track and it happens to be the one he is on. Sorry Mr. DeYoung. I’m not sure Rob is absolutely correct but it is certain you are neither absolutely right nor orthodox.
  • Therefore, his choice of the word “blaspheming” is silly if not stupid and typically ungenerous, arrogant even. Exactly what you would expect from someone with a toxic mindset.

“Blaspheme” doesn’t really apply anyway. We use it to characterize actions or words intended to impugn God’s name or affront His person. Bell might be attacking ideas but he clearly isn’t defying God. He believes the Bible and works from it not around it. However, in the heat of the moment, with so many egging him on, how could DeYoung resist.

The history DeYoung learned, which he assures us Bell got wrong, is an interpretation sanitized by the religious institutions of the American west, which not only trained him but continually monitor his acceptance.

Does anyone who knows how the system works think he can be entirely honest? Even publicly considering a different – not new – idea, would immediately trigger disbarment proceedings. His (their) interpretations of history and the Bible are “inspired” and therefore set. There is no room for discussion.

But, for me, here is the real issue. DeYoung is a dedicated “calvinist.” So dedicated in fact that his seminary peers referred to him as Calvin’s clone.

For those who may not be aware of it, calvinism – not the Bible – teaches that God preselected certain individuals to go to heaven while assigning everyone else to hell and these selections were made before the universe was created. In case you didn’t know, “calvinism” is slang for “reformed.” [Read more…] about Reflections On “Love Wins”

Filed Under: Evangelism, God's Sovereignty, Love Wins

The Devil Serves God Too!

December 6, 2011 by EnnisP Leave a Comment

If God is so powerful…how does the Devil exist?

This question was originally posed by an agnostic/atheist type (Agath) and sent to me by a Christian friend but it’s a little bit confusing. No explanation was offered so you have to analyze it a bit to get a handle on what is really being asked.

After reading the question, my first thought was, “why shouldn’t the Devil exist?” I know he’s not the nicest guy around and I don’t like him any more than the next person but does that constitute a reason to X him out?

And, yes, God does have the power to dispose of him but if God were to annihilate him, who else should He blot out and by what rule would He decide who goes and who stays? Should I expect Him to eliminate every person I don’t particularly like?

Quite honestly, I’ve never met the Devil or tangled with him directly – at least not that I know of – but I could give you a long list of people who have aggravated me to no end. What about them? Should they be on the death list also?

Aside from personal issues, however, what other reasons could justify the Devil’s elimination? Should we expect God to blot out any person who does wrong and, if so, aren’t we all in danger? No one is entirely without sin so everyone could be on the list. Solomon said…

“There is not a just man upon earth that does good and sins not.” (Ecclesiastes 7:20)

And only an argumentative or delusional soul would disagree with that point.

So the next question is, would we expect God to exterminate only those who commit particularly egregious crimes and, if so, who gets to decide where acceptable crimes end and egregious ones begin?

Obviously, Agath’s original question spawns many more sub queries making it difficult to fully resolve the issue. Maybe before we demand God eliminate the Devil’s miserable soul we should take a look at what the Bible actually says him. And the first observation to note is… [Read more…] about The Devil Serves God Too!

Filed Under: Answering an Atheist, God's Sovereignty

Next Page »
Faith Tees
In Defense of Divorce
This book doesn't say what you've already heard.

Copyright © 2021 · Dynamik-Gen on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in