God has solved the sin problem, but each of us have to respond to that mercy and grace through repentance and faith.

God did not create robots to inhabit the earth to fellowship with Him. He made man as free moral agents with the ability to make moral choices. God solved the sin problem but we must respond as sinners and repent and turn to Him. This idea that somehow God ‘elects’ His people and that they have no choice in the matter is foreign to the Bible.

The Israelites had to kill the Passover lamb, receive its blood in a vessel, and apply it to the sides and tops of the doorframes of the house. Then they had to close the door, stay inside, and eat the meat of the lamb.

Joshua set before the people the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or the gods of other lands and told them they must ‘choose between the two’. But as for Joshua and his house, they would choose to follow the Lord.

The NT tells a story about a feast that was ready. The guests did not have to worry about anything, but they had to come participate in it. In the same way, the feast prepared for us by Jesus Christ is ready, but we must come as guests, and eat. There is a personal responsibility involved in being a Christian. “In that day you will say…” and there is no doubt that every elect of God will confess “Jesus is Lord” and be saved. Jesus said “But I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me,” and so we will come, we will believe, we will trust. But that does not negate the Biblical obligation that we must individually believe in Christ to be saved.

The water is now available, but the thirsty must come and drink.

Those who were dying because they had been bitten by snakes in the wilderness had to look at the uplifted brazen serpent so that they could be healed. The Philippian jailer had to do one thing: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.

What happens if we do not turn to Jesus Christ for salvation? God’s anger will not be turned away from us. In john 3:36 we find a description of those who have never trusted in Jesus Christ: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” If a person does not trust Christ’s atoning sacrifice, he must perpetually atone for his sins. The problem is that our righteousness is as filthy rags.

Salvation is available for all who would come to Him in repentance and faith. We see this truth in verse 2. Behold, God [is] my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH [is] my strength and [my] song; he also is become my salvation.

First, in verse 1 Isaiah says “You have comforted me….” Isaiah was saying, “God was angry with me, but now he has comforted me.” Then in verse 2 Isaiah says, “Behold God is my salvation.” My salvation! What an affirmation. In the original language, “behold” means “surprise!” Wonder of wonders! God is my salvation!

Second, in verse 2 Isaiah says, “I will trust…” The Hebrew word is “batach”, which has the meaning of committing oneself to God and thus being secure forever. This is saving faith. It is not enough to have information about the gospel or even to understand it intellectually and agree about the truth of the gospel. Faith is trust. Saving faith is my wholly depending on the Lord.

Third, remember, God sent Isaiah to speak to King Ahaz, who was in serious trouble. The enemy had the strength and the ability to destroy Israel. Although Isaiah gave him the gospel, he refused to trust in God. So in 7:9 the prophet declared, “If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will nto stand at all.” That is always the truth. If we do not believe in the gospel when it comes to us we will fall That is why Hebrews tells us that “today is the day of salvation.” Implied is do not let it pass you by. Don’t procrastinate!

Fourth, Isaiah said, “I will not be afraid (of anything).” Trust and fear are opposites. Believers are delivered from God’s wrath; thus, their fear of death is gone. A believer therefore says, “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.” Then comes the glorious shout of jubilation: “But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Dr. _____,

Before I start, I want to confess that I may not have been as charitable as I ought have been before, in our discussions of these issues. My passion results from a zeal for the truth, but was not intended as disrespect. If you gleaned such from our encounters in the past, I apologize most humbly, and I ask your forgiveness. In that spirit, however, I do want to advance a thesis: perhaps, in your advancing this line of doctrine, it is warranted that my puzzlement should be real, when hearing them expounded in your class. From the pulpit, we are taught the opposite of what you have been teaching. That God’s grace in election is unconditional, and the freedom of man’s will to choose any thing is captive to either sin or righteousness. That God’s grace is extended to sinners who are totally depraved – extensive to their wills, which cannot choose anything but evil. That the atonement is not conditional upon the man who chooses to accept it, but upon the intent of Christ to save those for whom He died. That the drawing of all men to Himself is a work of God, worked upon those men who are regenerated by the Spirit, and come willing, not unwilling, to the cross of Christ, due to the effectual call, worked by the Holy Spirit. That we are not simply perseverers, but preserved BY the power of God – irrespective of the autonomous freedom of our wills in a state of salvation.

I pledge, Dr. _____, that my surprise and consternation, in light of what has been taught in the pulpit, was both warranted and truthfully grounded in a real shock as to the inconsistencies of the two gospels being presented. One which seems to require the exercise of a dead man’s “free will”, to accept the Lordship of a God he neither wants nor can desire – and the repentance of sins which a dead loves, and will not release – and a faith which is inexorably set upon this world; and another that requires the faith and repentance that God freely gives, to be the grounds for an invincible, impregnably mighty fortress of salvation which is decreed, empowered, actively aided, and only possible by the creation of new life by the spirit, prior to any exercise of will in the matter. This sovereign will of God is the only grounds I can see for any salvation of man, at all points, and in all means! This is the grounds for my zeal, and I humbly beg forgiveness if I have been too forward in my denial – but I cannot do otherwise in principle, and I apologize if my practice of that denial was lacking in respect.

My difference is grounded not in a desire to “win”, nor in a desire to be the “doctrine police” or any such thing. It is grounded solely in a very real concern and a zealousness (or jealousy!) for the sovereignty of God’s freedom of will over the lives and wills of men, which surely affects how the gospel is presented, why it is presented, and what the gospel itself is. Surely, by asserting that men are not autonomously free does not deny that men are *responsible*. The crux of the matter is that they ARE responsible – to God – the very God who is the self-existent living standard of justice! That is the answer Paul gives to the objector in Romans 9, and it must be our answer when we seek to discover that answer for ourselves, must it not? The salvation that belongs only to the Lord can have no other ground than in the power of God, the unconstrainedly free will of God which determiens the exercise of that power, and the election of men to salvation from before the foundation of the world, to a salvation bought specifically for those whom He elected before the foundation of the world, secured by the omnipotent, substitutionary atonement of the Son, and the justification of His blood – along with the sanctifying work of the Spirit, keeping us in all righteousness! We cannot have any other grounds for salvation, or assurance of it’s efficacy, can we?

If we try to have the grounds for our assurance be in the power of God over our wills, (which does not allow them to stray back to the old nature we were redeemed from, by the sanctification of the Spirit), then how can we say that God has no, or has chosen not to have, power over our wills in the regeneration unto salvation? Does a dead men choose to rise, or is he raised? The heart of stone which dead men have MUST be changed to a heart of flesh by the sovereign power of God. These dead men’s bones are very dry – and can only be knit together by the one who knit us together in our mother’s womb. This is the central issue, it seems. Can a dead man live, unless he is raised to life? If he is raised, will he not believe in the one who raised him, as surely as dusk follows the dawn? This is the glorious truth of the surety found in the doctrines of God’s grace, founded in the absolute sovereignty of God over all of every one of His creations. It is not a mechanistic, fatalistic system, but a glorious declarative truth – that God is our salvation, and that everything that God does, He does perfectly, precisely, and to His own great and majestic glory and purpose.

I’d like to make it clear – I’m not out for your job. I’m not out for you to step down as a teacher. I don’t desire either, and that, in fact is not even on the radar of my concerns. What I’d truly desire is for you to re-examine the Biblical foundation of what is, clearly, part of the very gospel delivered once and for all to the saints. God’s sovereign decree to the salvation of His elect throughout redemptive history, His active regeneration of their souls to prepare a will dead and unable to respond into a soul both alive and able to respond to the gospel presented by the preaching of the Word; God’s active, gracious gifts of faith and repentance to those very same souls, which, on the basis of all this perfect work by the Holy Triune God, believe savingly. This special series of gifts to God’s chosen is of course on the basis of Christ’s death, atonement, justification, and mediation for those self-same elect souls. To try to apply the atonement to one who is not also mediated for, is foreign to the perfect saving work of Christ. Further, to ground our assurance in the ability of God to *keep* our faith, surely necessitates God’s ability to actively direct our wills, and to move in power within those to whom all these good and gracious gifts are granted. Such a necessity surely negates any concept of an *autonomous* free will – and can only mean that the freedom of our wills is only a freedom within the limits of the nature which we possess! Since God can work all things to the praise of His glory, this is very basis of the creative purpose of God, and should be a thing glorified in, not condemned! When a doctrine of the ability of man to freely will is made central to the discussion, and further, cannot be found in scripture as a quality possessed by the children of men, this leads me to believe that perhaps we are placing more credence in a philosophical presupposition than in the words of holy scripture! It is the doctrine of an autonomous free will that is foreign to the Bible, sir, and I challenge you to frame a rebuttal to Romans 9:16, or John 1:13, which in fact state the opposite in the context of salvation – which is the issue.

While I appreciate that you believe no such perfect balance between the responsibility of man and the Sovereignty of God can be found in Scripture, I would respectfully disagree by pointing out that this is a doctrine which is not something new, can be demonstrated by a veritable mountain of scripture, and is perfectly consistent throughout the entirety of Scripture. A Potter whose hands cannot shape the pots as He wills, but leaves the pots to shape themselves of their own free will is not much of a Potter, is He? If God will accomplish all His good pleasure – and his pleasure is decreed from the end to the beginning – can we truly say that God leaves the salvation of His children to the exercise of their depraved wills, apart from any prior intervention of God’s regenerative, restorative grace on those wills? The will of God is always the cause behind all stages of the Work of Salvation. You may disagree with it – but I cannot say otherwise.

God did not create robots to inhabit the earth to fellowship with Him.

Sir, what doctrinal system claims anything of the sort? I know of no such doctrine from any system that even claims Christendom.

He made man as free moral agents with the ability to make moral choices.

So, from that strawman, the opposite claim is: “He made man as free moral agents with the ability to make moral choices.”

Yes, He MADE man that way – but did man not fall? Additionally, in doing so, did He not show that man cannot be trusted to make moral choices? The statement is true – as far as it goes, but it only goes so far. Now, man is a slave to sin, dead in tresspasses and sins, and has a depraved mind – he cannot subject himself to the law of God by making righteous moral choices – in fact – that mind is “not even able to do so”!

They are free – within the limits of their slavery to sin. No one is anything but contingently free – contingent on their master. I would debate really using “free” in the context of slavery. Such a definition is not the Biblical definition of ‘free’ – only ‘free’ in the context of slavery.

Romans 6:18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
Romans 6:20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.

That’s the contrast that Paul makes – and that is the contrast we are thus required to make, from Scripture. There is no autonomous free will apart from a contingency upon a master’s influence over his desires, as Edwards would say.

But, we can expound on this from Scripture clearly.

Proverbs 18:1-2 Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh [and] intermeddleth with all wisdom. A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind.

Through desire / (a man) having separated / himself, seeks / to meddle (to contend with) / all wisdom.

The desire of man is to separate himself, and he thus seeks to contend with the wisdom of God. To separate himself from? The Righteousness of God. Thus, he isn’t interested in true understanding – but his only interest in his own opinions, which now have primary weight, given his focus on self, as a being separated by himself, to himself – not by God, to Himself.

A man is a slave – and always a slave – but he is also free, and always free – but ONLY to that which his nature belongs. When we are born again to Christ – we are made new – we have a new nature. Not one that is fully free of the flesh – but one that is being sanctified by the Spirit, and bought by the blood of Christ.

Romans 6:22-23 – But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Eph. 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

We were by nature children of wrath.

2 Peter 1:3-4 …seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of {the} divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.

We WILL be partakers of the Divine nature, which a child of wrath can never be, unless that nature is changed. We were given everything pertaining to life and Godliness – through the knowledge of He who called us!

John 8:36 “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.”

Not free in name only, as you are under sin – free of everything pertaining to life and godliness – but free of the slavery of sin, and slaves to righteousness of God, in which the only true freedom can be found.

John 1:12-13 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

The NT tells a story about a feast that was ready. The guests did not have to worry about anything, but they had to come participate in it. In the same way, the feast prepared for us by Jesus Christ is ready, but we must come as guests, and eat. There is a personal responsibility involved in being a Christian. “In that day you will say…” and there is no doubt that every elect of God will confess “Jesus is Lord” and be saved. Jesus said “But I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me,” and so we will come, we will believe, we will trust. But that does not negate the Biblical obligation that we must individually believe in Christ to be saved.

The water is now available, but the thirsty must come and drink.

Those who were dying because they had been bitten by snakes in the wilderness had to look at the uplifted brazen serpent so that they could be healed. The Philippian jailer had to do one thing: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.

What happens if we do not turn to Jesus Christ for salvation? God’s anger will not be turned away from us. In john 3:36 we find a description of those who have never trusted in Jesus Christ: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” If a person does not trust Christ’s atoning sacrifice, he must perpetually atone for his sins. The problem is that our righteousness is as filthy rags.

Salvation is available for all who would come to Him in repentance and faith. We see this truth in verse 2. Behold, God [is] my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH [is] my strength and [my] song; he also is become my salvation.

Do you see what this argument depends on? OUR faith and repentance – the “doing” of the “exercise” of these things. Just as in James, the outworking of the Spirit causes in us the inevitable outworking of the gifts He grants to us – which were given to us for the *purpose* of these good works.

Eph: 2:10 – For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Sir, have you never seen the scriptures that say BOTH OF THOSE (faith and repentance) are gifts of God? Say whatever we will, that’s the killer for this argument, if we can demonstrate it from Scripture.

God has solved the sin problem, but each of us have to respond (The Father draws you to Himself) to that mercy (God’s) and grace (God’s) through repentance (God’s) and faith (God’s).

As used, this definition of faith and repentance is unbiblical, the Biblical nature of this definition of “free” will contradicts Scripture, and any election which is not the foreordained Sovereign choice of a free and omnipotent creator is no election, but subservience to the free and omnipotent will of man.

On Faith:

The Hebrew “batach” as “place one’s OWN trust in” as the definition of saving faith – clearly raises the question of the origin of the faith and repentance. As I’ve stated already, that origin is very obvious from scripture – as is our inevitable duty and priviledge to exercise those gifts for their intended purpose.

Hebrews 12:1-2 Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Isn’t that incredible? The same verse we use to *define* faith is the immediate preceding context for the statement as to the origin of faith. What is our surety of this faith? The One who grants it is the One seated at the right hand of the Father and interceding on our behalf, as the One who bought us with a price.

Romans 12:3 For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

Phil. 1:29 For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,

Not only does Scripture testify to the provenance of our faith, but the historic confessions of Baptists also testify to their understanding of it.

1689 London Baptist Confession (and 1742 Philadelphia Confession)
Chapter 14: Of Saving Faith

1. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word; by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord’s supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened. (2 Corinthians 4:13; Ephesians 2:8; Romans 10:14, 17; Luke 17:5; 1 Peter 2:2; Acts 20:32)

2. By this faith a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word for the authority of God himself, and also apprehendeth an excellency therein above all other writings and all things in the world, as it bears forth the glory of God in his attributes, the excellency of Christ in his nature and offices, and the power and fullness of the Holy Spirit in his workings and operations: and so is enabled to cast his soul upon the truth thus believed; and also acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come; but the principal acts of saving faith have immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, and resting upon him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace. (Acts 24:14; Psalms 27:7-10; Psalms 119:72; 2 Timothy 1:12; John 14:14; Isaiah 66:2; Hebrews 11:13; John 1:12; Acts 16:31; Galatians 2:20; Acts 15:11)

John Owen masterfully testifies to this reality as well.

The Death of Death in the Death of Christ – Book II, Chapter 5, Pgs. 234-235

Thirdly, This condition of faith is procured for us by the death of Christ, or it is not. If they say it be not, then the chiefest grace, and without which redemption itself (express it how you please) is of no value, doth not depend on the grace of Christ as the meritorious procuring cause thereof; — which, first, is exceedingly injurious to our blessed Saviour, and serves only to diminish the honour and love due to him; secondly, is contrary to Scripture: Tit. iii. 5, 6; 2 Cor. v. 21, “He became sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” And how we can become the righteousness of God but by believing, I know not. Yea, expressly saith the apostle, “It is given to us for Christ’s sake, on the behalf of Christ, to believe in him,” Phil. i. 29; “God blessing us with all spiritual blessing in him,” Eph. i. 3, whereof surely faith is not the least. If it be a fruit of the death of Christ, why is it not bestowed on all, since he died for all, especially since the whole impetration of redemption is altogether unprofitable without it?
In one particular they agree well enough, — namely, in denying that faith is procured or merited for us by the death of Christ. So far they are all of them constant to their own principles, for once to grant it would overturn the whole fabric of universal redemption; but, in assigning the cause of faith they go asunder again.

So does Spurgeon testify:

Nay, the doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works, lifted up; for he always thinks faith is a work of the creature and a condition of his acceptance. It is as false to say that man is saved by faith as a work, as that he is saved by the deeds of the law. We are saved by faith as the gift of God, and as the first token of his eternal favor to us; but it is not faith as our work that saves, otherwise we are saved by works, and not by grace at all.

If you need any argument upon this point, I refer you to our great apostle Paul, who so constantly combats the idea that works and grace can ever be united together, for he argues, “If it be of grace, then it is no more of works otherwise grace were no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more of grace, otherwise work is no more work.”

On Repentance:

Acts 5:31 He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
2 Tim. 2:25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,

1689 London Baptist Confession (and 1742 Philadelphia Confession)
Chapter 15: Of Repentance Unto Life and Salvation

1. Such of the elect as are converted at riper years, having sometime lived in the state of nature, and therein served divers lusts and pleasures, God in their effectual calling giveth them repentance unto life. (Titus 3:2-5)

2. Whereas there is none that doth good and sinneth not, and the best of men may, through the power and deceitfulness of their corruption dwelling in them, with the prevalency of temptation, fall into great sins and provocations; God hath, in the covenant of grace, mercifully provided that believers so sinning and falling be renewed through repentance unto salvation. (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Luke 22:31,32)

3. This saving repentance is an evangelical grace, whereby a person, being by the Holy Spirit made sensible of the manifold evils of his sin, doth, by faith in Christ, humble himself for it with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrency, praying for pardon and strength of grace, with a purpose and endeavour, by supplies of the Spirit, to walk before God unto all well-pleasing in all things. (Zechariah 12:10; Acts 11:18; Ezekiel 36:31; 2 Corinthians 7:11; Psalms 119:6; Psalms 119:12 8)

1858 Abstract of Principles Articles 8, 9, & 10

VIII. REGENERATION

Regeneration is a change of heart, wrought by the Holy Spirit, who quickeneth the dead in trespasses and sins enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the Word of God, and renewing their whole nature, so that they love and practice holiness. It is a work of God’s free and special grace alone.

IX. REPENTANCE

Repentance is an evangelical grace, wherein a person being, by the Holy Spirit, made sensible of the manifold evil of his sin, humbleth himself for it, with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrence, with a purpose and endeavor to walk before God so as to please Him in all things.

X. FAITH

Saving faith is the belief, on God’s authority of whatsoever is revealed in His Word concerning Christ; accepting and resting upon Him alone for justification and eternal life. It is wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit, and is accompanied by all other saving graces, and leads to a life of holiness.

There is a solution to the dilemma some consider insoluble: The Sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. It is not new, nor is it novel – in fact, it is not complicated.

Augustine perhaps stated it first. (Confessions, X, 29)

“Give what you command, and command what you will. You impose continency on us.”

It’s a truly simple concept. What is commanded is also given. What is given, is also commanded. How is God’s Sovereignty and human responsibility reconciled? In the grace of God, of course.

The Israelites had to kill the Passover lamb, receive its blood in a vessel, and apply it to the sides and tops of the doorframes of the house. Then they had to close the door, stay inside, and eat the meat of the lamb.

How can this be said to be analogous to saving faith?

Israel, when they come to the red sea, immediately complain that Moses has brought them there to kill them all. What was Moses’ response? “Do not fear! Stand by and see the salvation of the LORD which He will accomplish for you today; for the Egyptians whom you have seen today, you will never see them again forever. The LORD will fight for you while you keep silent.”

Second – did not God harden the hearts of the Pharoah, and the Egyptians (is that free will?), and did not the Egyptians hate the Israelites and want them to leave, out of fear? They had no choice but to obey. The Israelites had no more place among the Egyptians. God burned their bridges behind them.

Third – God gave the commands, the means, and the escape – from the Angel of Death, and the Egyptian army. God provided exactly what He commanded. How is this any difference than faith and repentance being both commanded by God, and granted by God? It’s the Sovereign decree which results in His glory being both radiated from and reflected back to Himself.

Of Election:

This idea that somehow God ‘elects’ His people and that they have no choice in the matter is foreign to the Bible.

Sir, election is personal, predestined, particular, and perfect. It is presented in many ways, it is outlined in many places, and it is God’s sovereign freedom that determines it. Our choice is not only completely irrelevant, but completely immaterial.

God’s decree of election takes place before the foundation of the world. It is a personal decree, a loving decree, and a particular decree. It depends on no will of man – no choice – but on the will of God – HIS choice. It depends on nothing man can, or will do, or has done. It rests solely in His divine pleasure. Not only is it anything BUT foreign to the Bible that election rests in no choice of man, but election by the choice of man is anathema to the gospel, and to Scripture itself, directly contrary to your claim.

Once again: John 1:12-13 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

God’s purpose is the purpose which matters in His election. His purposes, His decrees, are what declared the (Omega) End from the (Alpha) Beginning and which accomplish all His good pleasure!

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;

Romans 9:11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls)

Ephesians 1:3-6 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly [places] in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

Ephesians 2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

1 Thess. 1:4 knowing, brethren beloved by God, [His] choice of you;

Romans 11:5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to [God’s] gracious choice.

Romans 11:7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;

Romans 11:28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of [God’s] choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;

Acts 15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Isaiah 29;16 You turn {things} around! Shall the potter be considered as equal with the clay, That what is made would say to its maker, “He did not make me”; Or what is formed say to him who formed it, “He has no understanding”?

Isaiah 45:9 “Woe to {the one} who quarrels with his Maker– An earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you doing?’ Or the thing you are making {say,} ‘He has no hands’?

isaiah 64:6-8 For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. There is no one who calls on Your name, Who arouses himself to take hold of You; For You have hidden Your face from us And have delivered us into the power of our iniquities. But now, O LORD, You are our Father, We are the clay, and You our potter; And all of us are the work of Your hand.

Romans 9:11-24 for though {the twins} were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to {His} choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.” What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” So then it {does} not {depend} on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And {He did so} to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, {even} us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

“Isaiah said ‘I will not be afraid’ – Trust and fear are opposites.”

Yes – and God has not GIVEN you a spirit of fear – but of POWER, and of LOVE, and of a SOUND MIND

2 Tim. 1:7-10 For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline. Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with [me] in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,

His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity who has saved us AND called us!

Soli Deo Gloria. To God ALONE be the glory. In all things.

Dr, _____, You know who I am, and what I was. I’m a walking, talking example of the power, Biblical orthodoxy, and experiential efficacy of the Doctrines of Grace. Only a God sovereign over the will of man could, or would have dragged me out of my sin by a methodical destruction of all of my props, pretensions, deceits, sins, and wickedness. A God who draws all men to Himself has no trouble with recreating a will suited to serve Him, and employing His mercy to save a man such as me. I tell you – it was none of me – I was unwilling, I was unable, I was without power or hope in this world. He saved me, He dragged me out of the miry clay and He remade me to serve Him.

There is no power that can resist His call and power. None. It is to His praise, His glory, and to the jealous desire for His glory above all doctrines, theories, and constructions of man that I write this rebuttal. It is a zealousness for the glory of the God who justifies, the God who calls, the God who foreknows His elect, and is mighty to save those He chose before the foundation of the world. Truly, John tells us: We “were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Amen, and amen.

Dr. _____ – I love you, I care for you, and I want you to know that I in no way am motivated by any desire to “win an argument”, or to pugnaciously “demean” your abilities as a teacher, which I respect. I’m motivated by a call to defend the gospel of Christ, and by no other reason whatsoever. I consider the Doctrines of Grace the very Gospel – and Calvinism is merely the unfortunate nickname of men for the Biblical theology of God’s Sovereignty in salvation. I am forced to contradict what you are teaching by Scripture and by that “pattern of sound words” which we are commanded to maintain, and to defend. I’m an apologist at heart – and the task of the apologist is to defend the gospel of Christ, and I am more and more convinced that my purpose in Christ is to be “appointed for the defense of the Gospel.” Thus, I am offering this scriptural rebuttal in the spirit of reconciliation, and I am anxious that I do not appear puffed up by means of “superior knowledge”. I have nothing I have not received – and “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.”

Humbly yours in Christ,

Joshua.

Thanks Lane!

Part 2!

I’ve been hanging out in Dr. White’s online chat/apologetics channels for years, now. I found a gem on RecoverThe Gospel that I can’t believe I’ve never heard before, as long as I’ve been there.

I thought I’d share it with you, 1 part at a time. Thanks Lane!

I think it important to remember that the internet is a medium which propogates a special kind of wave quite well–ideas. It is also a medium which does not propogate another kind of wave at all (like a sound wave in a vacuum)–emotional appeals.

Even arguments which attempt to present an emotional appeal do not find the sort of resonance that *personal* emotional appeals find (eg face-to-face). That is one interesting thing I’ve noted about theist versus atheist websites, and the apparently disproportionate representation of atheism on the web in general. I am not claiming that the speaker’s emotions do not come through in their writing. What I am claiming is that the power of eliciting an emotional response in your reader is rendered virtually null via writing compared to personal proselytizing, sermons, and evangelism in general.

That is, the amount of intellectual material on *individual* websites (versus orgs and groups) representing atheism seems overrepresented in proportion to the % of people who espouse atheism. Conversely, the amount of intellectual (versus evangelizing, emotional appeals, etc) material on Christianity (again, among individual sites) is underrepresented by stats.

You’ll find all kinds of Xian “apologists” (yes those are sneer quotes), but you’ll also find that they are nearly all united in “defending the faith” from skeptics and the arguments of atheism *to minister to other Xians!* Nearly all the articles on sites that address creationism, atheist logic, etc., are explicitly addressing an audience of Xians.

Admittedly, a few amateur Xian apologists have taken their best arguments to the WWW for the purpose of evangelism, but I would put forth my observation that they are beset on all sides by the ideas of the godless, a chorus composed of ever more voices. I think the web has helped more atheists to “come out” and to realize they *are* atheists than *anything* positive it has done for religion, because religions are stripped of their most powerful tool–the emotional, personal appeal to repent and join the fold. The web helped me to address the things that kept me quagmired in liberal Xianity for years, and then deism, and then agnosticism. I could’ve gone to libraries, sure, and still could, to find books and arguments (i have a bookshelf that is now stocked with and growing with atheist literature). But the WWW has provided a “crystallization” effect for atheists–with a seeded center like the RA site, more and more doubters and freethinkers find what they need: not companionship and comfort, but food for thought.

People who are critical of *any* ideas may come across as unhappy…but I would rather be *perceived* as unhappy than *be* gullible.

Thinking Freely, on the Raving Atheist’s comment section

I find it interesting that emotional appeals are thought to be the centerpiece of evangelism. I was always taught that an emotional “conversion” was not likely to be real, or lasting.

They make some good points about the differing signal-to-noise ratios between atheist and Christian apologists, however. I’ve found the same myself. Even with internet apologetics, the roster seems awfully small – the ones who cater to skeptics smaller still.

Am I wrong?

This post was written for the Carnival.

The largest objections I’ve seen to the concept of faith revolve around these three issues.

First, that faith is somehow inherently unwarranted – that it flies in the face of logic.

Second, that faith, warranted or no, is inherently unbelievable – that it is not trustworthy.

Third, that faith, warranted, believable, or not, is even comprehensible – that we can’t know anything about it.

I’ll start with some statements that say this, and go on from there.

Warranted:

“Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits.”
– Dan Barker, “Losing Faith in Faith”, 1992

“Faith is surprisingly difficult to define, but in a religious context, I think we can agree that it refers to one’s confidence in a belief for which their is no evidence. Thus, when someone refers to his or her faith, we generally interpret this as reflecting a body of religious dogma in which the speaker believes without empirical basis.”
– vjack, Atheist Revolution

“I reject this sort of faith as a destructive departure from reason that has dire consequences for humanity (see Sam Harris’ The End of Faith). To suspend reason by embracing superstition is to delude oneself into a blissful but counterfeit state of idiocy, one which history has taught us repeatedly leads to bloodshed.”
– vjack, Atheist Revolution

“All religions have flaws. They all can be argued to the point where logic forces the proponent to claim “well, you just have to have faith”.”
– Dave Silverman, NoGodBlog

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not out to bash these folks. I just selected a few quotes, to give an example of the general opinion towards faith from the skeptical community. I am, however, going to answer them. See, the general consensus is that faith, because of it’s second dictionary definition: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence is some sort of belief made out of whole cloth – a faith which simply rests on nothing.

While that definition does, indeed, exist, there is more than one definition of it. #4, if you’ll notice, says this: “The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.” This, when you interact with a Christian, is what is meant by faith – in one sense. In another sense, it is dictionary definitions 5 and 6. “The body of dogma of a religion“, and “A set of principles or beliefs.”

You’ll see some confused Christians say that they really have no reason to believe what they do – but, as I’m sure you’ve noticed, they really don’t. They don’t even know what they believe, in many instances. Part of faith is knowledge of the object of your faith. If you know the object of your faith, there is sufficient justification for that belief.

Spurgeon says, as I’ve mentioned previously, “What is faith? It is made up of three things—knowledge, belief, and trust.” The first component is what addresses this. This portion is addressed by theology – the study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions. This portion is addressed by philosophy – the critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs. This portion is addressed by a host of other systematic studies – which all delve into the nature, the object, and the veracity of knowledge.

Christianity has a 2,000-year history of studying these subjects, and the wealth of that study is incalculable. It is not embarked upon lightly, should not be considered lightly, and is undertaken with trepidation. The subject matter of faith is God – who tells us we should rightly fear Him. The same sort of fear which strikes awe into our very soul, which blinds us with it’s brightness, and forces us to our knees in reverent wonder. The study of God is no academic matter. It is a matter of grave importance. This study is what we are called to do, as Christians, and Theists – or, even skeptics. If your God is unknowable, your faith is worthless, because you have no basis for it. The very bedrock of Christianity is that God is knowable, and that He wants us to know Him.

The study of knowledge, the study of Creation, the study of mathematics, the study of… anything; they are all the basis for a Faith which is grounded not in “blind” acceptance – but in reasoned, knowledgeable, and studied acceptance of something (someone) proven trustworthy. I believe, because I “know Whom I have believèd, And am persuaded that He is able
To keep that which I’ve committed Unto Him against that day.” – as the old hymn goes.

Trustworthy:

Uhhhhhhhhhh . . . isn’t Passover about the slaughter of innocent children? Didn’t God use all sorts of horrible plagues just to tease the virtuous Job? It wasn’t just blasphemous deposing rebels who felt God’s wrath. For Chrisstake, He killed Himself and his perfectly innocent own Son. So He’s used that “technique” over and over; but even if it were only “once” I don’t see why any spiritually sensitive person would trust Him.
– The Raving Atheist

This is the sticky one. Trust is something experientially determined. It can be given, without prior experience, but it’s veracity is determined by experience. So, the question remains, how can we trust God? Well, the answer lies in knowledge. Theology, as we’ve already discussed, is the knowledge of God. If you’ve studied theology, you learn what God is, and what He isn’t. God is good, but he is not evil, and etc. This, perhaps, is something I may have to get into later. I may use this for a topic when it’s my turn to host. I’d like to explore it more. For me? I trust God because I know Him, and I’ve learned about Him. I’ve studied Him, I’ve experienced Him, and I’ve read what He has to say about life. I trust His judgement. This is not a trust based on “hey, why don’t I just trust God” – although, in it’s defense, I’ll say that this is acceptable. God is, by definition, trustworthy. At least a inherently good God would be. My God is.

Comprehensible:

One good reason to not believe that God exists is that the concept of God is incoherent. The concept of God is like a round square or the largest number.
– Michael Martin

“Is Christianity absurd in the dictionary sense of being ridiculously incongruous and unreasonable? It seems to me that the answer is “yes.” Given standard criticisms of Christianity and certain plausible interpretations of it, Christianity is filled with ridiculous incongruities and unreasonable beliefs and practices.”
– Michael Martin

As Michael Martin, the premier “Christianity is incoherent/absurd/incongruous” debater exemplifies, there is a point where the objection is not that there can be no knowledge of, or trust in, Christianity (or Theism), but that the very concept makes no sense. There is a laundry lista mile long of the supposed “incoherencies” he’s listed, but, it essence, it’s a very old objection. Our brains aren’t functioning right, or we’re being deceived.

Plantinga has a comment on rationality to answer this: “What you properly take to be rational, at least in the sense of warranted depends on what sort of religious and metaphysical stance you adopt. It depends on what kinds of beings you think human beings are, what sorts of belief you think their noetic faculties will produce when they are functioning properly, and which of their faculties or cognitive mechanisms are aimed at truth.”

Basically, there’s a subtle truth that you learn when studying theology. God’s ways are not our ways. By this, I mean that what seem incongruous to us, may not necessarily be so, to God. We just might be wrong about our sense of coherence. God’s plan doesn’t involve our input, frankly. A lot of theological concepts only “work” when you look at them from a certain perspective. Things like Atonement, Sin, and Sacrifice only make sense when you grasp the concept of Holiness. Coherence, as shown above, depends on what you’re aimed at.

Faith requires knowledge of the object of faith – it requires trust in the object of faith, and it requires the object of faith to be understandable, to a certain point. No human knows everything with certainty – few know more than a few things with certainty. What we need to know, we need to know well enough to consider that belief warranted. What we need to trust, we need to trust well enough to make that trust warranted. What we need to understand, we need to understand well enough to make our belief that we understand it warranted.

So, let’s put it all together. Faith is warranted, because faith is based on knowledge. Faith is trustworthy if the object of that faith is trustworthy. Faith is comprehensible because you cannot have faith in something you do not understand enough to justify your faith in it. Faith without justification is simply that blind faith we’re accused of having. That sort of faith, however, is not the faith we have.

Faith, as a noun, means something else – and can be used in this instance as well. allegiance or loyalty to a duty or a person

A Christian must have faith in His God – that faith involves allegiance, it involves loyalty, and it involves duty. Christians are citizens of heaven, first and foremost. Our allegiance is to God, and only then to others. We must be loyal to what God is, and what we are asked by Him to be. We have to be loyal followers. We have a duty to do what He has told us, and to do things His way.

The first important issue, however, is truth. If a thing is true, it is therefore worthy of our faith in it. That’s the meat of the issue. So many times, we simply say “that doesn’t make sense” – and assume that this means something isn’t true. This isn’t the case, in many instances. Truth is the major determining factor in determining whether or not something should be believed.

If you say you have no faith in anything – you’re not being very truthful. You have faith that you if you step out in the crosswalk, a truck won’t come barreling in and run you over. You have faith in the good intentions and skills of the drivers on the road, whenever you drive. You can say you don’t have faith in God – but if you don’t know Him, how could you? Well, you don’t know the drivers around you. By that standard, you’d have no reason to trust them, either.

I can say this: Until you know God, you cannot have faith in Him. After knowledge comes understanding. If you lack the knowledge, you will ever lack understanding of the concept, in my view.

What it boils down to, to rephrase it, is whether the knowledge that faith claims to have is justified. Be it a priori or a posteriori, knowledge comes from somewhere. However, the important questions are, is that belief true, is it justified? Of course, I’m a foundationalist, so that would make perfect sense to me 😀

If something is justified, the core issue is “what justifies it?” As I’ve already said, in so many words, I believe that the nature of God, the knowledge of God, and the coherence of the whole “enchilada” do so. Inductively, along with my own personal (emotive and spiritual) experiential relationship with God, I can say that my belief in God is a justified, true belief.

That’s what you need to have faith. A belief, a justifier. That’s it. If you’d like to discuss exactly what those would be, and advance defeaters for my justification, you’re welcome to do so. I’d love the chance to talk with you.

I’m not going to list all of the components which undergird my faith in this post. If you’d really like to know, comment. Then, we’ll talk. Discussion is much better for unearthing things anyway. It makes the topic more lively. So, feel free.

When Jeff Downs contacted me to do this review, I was excited. I’ve always had an interest in Eastern Religions, but the majority of my exposure to what they believe has been through historical novels, Kung-Fu movies, and just a few apologetic materials. Needless to say, my first choice, out of the list of books he gave was this one. I’m weak on the East, I must admit.

A short overview:
The author is John Renard, who is also known for his scholarly treatments of Islam. (Which, personally, I believe to be a just a bit over-sympathetic. I digress.)

It is published by Paulist Press, an American Catholic publishing house, founded by missionary priests. It is the fourth in a series of “101 Questions” books from Paulist Press, which cover Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, as well as the Church, in other volumes.

This book is a very short, very concise Q & A format study of Confucianism, Shinto, and Daoism, as the title suggests. It is arranged in nine sections, with most terms indexed for easy reference. The sections are fairly clear-cut, if pedantic.

1. Beginnings and Early Sources
2. Development and Spread
3. Doctrines and Practices
4. Authority, Law, and Ethics
5. Spirituality and Popular Piety
6. Religion and Artistic Expression
7. Internal Diversity and External Relations
8. Women, Family, and Society
9. Chinese and Japanese Traditions Here and Now

One thing you’ll notice, while crusing through this book, is that the writing style is extremely dry. It reads like a textbook, and is as interesting as most textbooks are. Which is to say, of course, not very interesting at all. It is not that the subject matter is not interesting – it is. The style the author gives to it is very much academic, and not at all engaging. I found it tough going, if quick – and I’m an omnivoracious reader, averaging 2000+ pages a week – on a slow week.

The second thing you’ll notice, if your tastes in literature are similar to mine, at least, is that the “101 Questions” style of the book does not lend itself well to a straight read-through. I found that it will work very nicely as a reference book, if you are looking for the answer to a specific question about the religions he writes about – but that it comes across quite disjointed, otherwise.

Apart from writing style and formatting, the book is very informative, despite it’s faults. It gives you quite a bit of background, history, and detail about the questions it examines. I enjoyed learning, although I didn’t enjoy reading it.

My suggestion is very simple. Use it for reference, if you get it. It has a glossary, index, subject listing, and a very exhaustive bibliography. It seems to be a good ‘beginner’s” book, or a book for general readers. Like most textbooks, it works better for reference than it does for regular reading material.

It’s not a long book. Including all of the references in the back, it is only 243 pages. It has 3 1/4 pages listing the various schools of the 3 religions, 3 pages of glossary for Chinese and Japanese terms, 6 pages of timeline, 6 1/2 pages of bibliography, and ten pages for an index. For such a short book, that’s some serious reference material.

It is fairly indepth, although concise, quickly readable and referenced.

At work, the other day, I had a discussion with a coworker, which centered around a discussion of The DaVinci Code. We discuss metaphysical or spiritual aspects of life quite often, but I engaged fully, this time – because he was not quite sympathetic to the specific claims made in The DaVinci Code, but sort of asking questions about themes in it – namely, Mary Magdalene’s supposed “marriage” to Jesus, and etc. That didn’t take long, as I explained the history of those claims, and who had made them – but that got me thinking – “what does he really think about the Bible?”

So, I asked him – “What do you think – is the Bible what it claims to be?” His answer, predictably, was to ask “in what way” – because, really, I wasn’t very specific. Have I ever mentioned that I don’t do apologetics in the real world very often? It’s my own shortcoming, and a result of the insular lifestyle I tend to lead. Well, anyway, I began to explain that the Bible claims to be the actual words of God, to man. His response was that it likely wasn’t the whole truth, but maybe part of the truth.

Well, my immediate response was to ask, in effect, that if it isn’t *the* truth, then what is? Is it found in the Mormons, or in Islam? Where? His response was, (also in effect), that truth was found in an individual person. Which, (also predictably), led me to ask – so, if truth is found in each individual, doesn’t truth always change?

What followed was, to me, an odd exchange. His point seemed, to me, to be that all morals are relative, and that what is true to one person is not true to another – and that the “belief” that it is true is what directs morality. My responses followed the pattern that if this is the case, then what Hitler did, or Hussein did, can be credibly justified by their belief that it is right. That was one aspect of the conversation. The other aspect was an attempt, on both parts, to explain exactly what we meant, when we said what we did. I don’t know if I understood him rightly, but by the end, he agreed with me that there is a concept of moral truth that over-arches what we believe to be true – but I don’t know if that was what he thought to begin with, or if it changed his mind. It’s hard to tell. I conceded that some moral decisions are situation dependent (such as killing someone – murder versus self-defense, or war), but that the basic principle remains the same.

It was a good exchange, but not anywhere near the “cut-and-dried” exchanges I’ve had in the past. He agrees that there is a spiritual world, that the physical came into being as the result of a non-physical force, and that there will be an eventual heaven and hell. However, it seems to me that he doesn’t think that the Christian way is what it says it is – the only way to an actual eternal existence in Heaven. We disagreed about the existence of an original or natural sin – but following a consistent moral code is very important to him. I enjoyed the discussion – as well as prior discussions we’ve had about the insufficiency of the limited-to-the-physical atheist/materialist viewpoint; but I’m not quite sure how I’d expand on this from here. Acer is what I’ll call him, since he uses that pseudonym online – and I had a lot of fun talking with him. (He may even read this – he knows about my blog :D) I’m not sure, exactly, what he really thinks, though. I’m not precisely worried about offending him by talking about Christianity – but I don’t want to badger him, either, or try to “win an argument”. That’s not the point. I’m a bit belligerent by nature, and I don’t want to be considered a bully. I also don’t want to lose the grip on the conversation by being too timid, either. I care about him, and I want to make sure he’s on the right track – not to become improperly judgemental and accusing. Speak the truth, in love…

It was interesting, and a bit scary – but I’m not quite sure how to handle it from here. Keep in mind – this is a friend from work, who reads this blog occasionally – so if you have comments, keep this in mind. (and Acer… if I messed anything up in our conversation, or I didn’t understand anything well enough – let me know!)

Thanks,

This is not only in bad taste – incredibly bad taste – but irredeemably caustic.

Take a few looks at it.

A hilarious atheistic satire highlighting the futility of prayer had to be scrapped late Tuesday night when twelve West Virginia miners miraculously failed to suffocate to death as expected.

A satire? His “original” satire was about how futile it is to pray to a God. It was to mock the faith of the victim’s families. To use real, just announced deaths as a cheap shot in favor, supposedly, of his viewpoint.

His satire, he says, “failed” – because the people were announced alive. So, of course, he posts the satire of the satire anyway – because now it applies again. They died, and God didn’t save them, yadda yadda.

It’s reprehensible.

It gets worse.

TRA said the discovery of twelve corpses would have been particularly funny to those who read his original piece, which was going to predict a “miracle” similar to the one credited for the survival of nine men from a flooded mine in Quecreek, Pennsylvania in 2002.

Funny? FUNNY? That isn’t even morbidly funny. That’s just ham-fisted gallows mockery.

TRA took solace in the fact that one dead body was found, but said it wasn’t enough to save the parody. “Maybe if five or six of them had died, I could have done a bit about how the survivors’ families were gloating about the selective ‘miracle’ that spared only the rigtheous,” he said. “But it wasn’t to be.”

“Nearly a whole hour wasted,” TRA said. “Is there no God?”

What an unadulterated, swilling stream of drivel-mouthed bile. I wouldn’t countenance that sort of comment on anyone. Anyone at all. It’s sick, it’s morally repugnant, and it’s an absolutely reprehensible thing to say.

You, sir, (and I use that term loosely) have truly “earned” your “award”. I refuse to call it “misguided”, or anything of the sort. It’s simply repugnant, and a discredit to anyone calling themselves an atheist. I can respect a person, regardless of their beliefs – I can’t, however, respect someone making a morally abhorrent comment like that.

What possesses people to heap scorn on an already painful situation?