I highly encourage you to take a listen to Tuesday’s Dividing Line. Dr. White went over, as Mr. Wright demanded on Hannity and Colmes a while back, one of Dr. James Cone’s books. It’s truly amazing (and sad) the amount of heresy the man manages to pack into 10-15 pages.

Centuri0n quotes Phillip Jensen, from a recent 9Marks podcast:

“You can’t preach the Gospel to people you are afraid of.”

Cent’s comments: “That, my friends, is a statement that ought to change the way we view the “culture” discussion.”

Steve Camp, in later comment: “Sure you can. But you cannot preach the gospel with power if you do not live in the fear of God.”

So, whatcha think? I tend to go with cent, personally.

Created by OnePlusYou

First try, too. 222 clicks in 30 seconds.

Update: 228, last night – 255 just now, after some rest. Hah!

Recently, I’ve been doing a good bit of study on issues of the will, desire, and their relationship to God’s sovereignty.

As a result of that study, I’ve moved (I believe) toward a position of Theistic Determinism, instead of my previous (self-defined, perhaps out of ignorance) soft compatibilism. However, to be completely honest, I saw quite a few different definitions for each – so this may fit better than I think.

Why’s that? Mostly because I’ve never really followed the presupposition of God’s Sovereignty to it’s philosophical conclusion before, in my thinking. Here’s my definition of what I’ve come to, as a result.

God has (Sovereignly) decreed all that will occur (i.e. all of history that ever will be), and how it is to occur . God has decreed in accordance with His intrinsic desires. God can decree whatsoever history he pleases, and by whatsoever means that history will be accomplished, as he pleases. Man’s will is in accordance with his own desires; those desires are influenced and generated by external and internal circumstance(s), environment(s), and natural inclination(s). These desires and influences are always in accordance with the decree of God; Thus, every will of man is in accordance with the decree of God. Man’s will is contingent upon God’s will, and can be said to be “free” in only a contingent manner, and with no autonomy possible. Man’s will is always in accordance with his desires, so man can never be said to be forced, or coerced into any action against his will. Man is responsible for his actions before God, regardless of his opinion of the justice of God, or the “fairness” thereof. The only valid concept of “Justice” proceeds from God’s intrinsic nature; He decrees from that Just nature, when He says that all His works are Just; Thus, God is just in declaring men responsible for all of their contingently free desires and actions.

So, let’s break that down.

1. God has (Sovereignly) decreed all that will occur (i.e. all of history that ever will be).
1a. God has decreed also how history will occur.
1b. God has decreed in accordance with his desires.
1c. God’s desires are intrinsic to Him.
1d. God can decree whatsoever history he pleases, and by whatsoever means that history will be accomplished, as he pleases.
1e. Whatsoever occurs, is contingent upon God’s decree.
(Eph 1:11, Isaiah 46:10, 48:3, 55:11, Acts 4:28, James 1:17, Prov 16:33, Numbers 23:19, Acts 2:23, Deu 28:63, 1 Sam 12:22, Jer 5:22, 18:4,6, Jon 1:14, )

2. Man’s will is in accordance with his own desires.
2b. Those desires are influenced and generated by external and internal circumstance(s), environment(s), and natural inclination(s).
2c. Those desires and influences are always in accordance with the decree of God.
2d. Every will of man is in accordance with the decree of God.
(Romans 6:12,16, Gal 5:17, Eph 3:23, 2 Ti 4:3, Jam 3:4, 4:15)

3. Man’s will is contingent upon God’s will.
3a. Man’s will can be said to be “free” in only a contingent manner, and with no autonomy possible.
3b. Man’s will is always in accordance with his desires, so man can never be said to be forced, or coerced into any action.
3c. Man is responsible for his actions before God, regardless of his opinion of the justice of God, or the “fairness” thereof.
3d. The only valid concept of “Justice” proceeds from God’s intrinsic nature.
3e. He decrees from that Just nature, when He says that all His works are Just.
3f. God is just in declaring men responsible for all of their contingently free desires and actions.
(Romans 8:5, 9, Prov 11:6, Eph 2:3)

Questions, comments, objections? (Spiritual proofs would be helpful, especially.)

Big thanks to Tur8inFan for helping me gather my thoughts – and for contributing greatly to the first section. If any error exists, it belongs to me, however… Thanks also to all of the folks who have debated me lately… you’re represented in this somewhere!

“I would also point out, not only how true these things are (I shall discuss that more fully from Scripture on a later page), but also how godly, reverent and necessary it is to know them. For where they are not known, there can be no faith, nor any worship of God. To lack this knowledge is really to be ignorant of God – and salvation is notoriously incompatible with such ignorance. For if you hesitate to believe, or are too proud to acknowledge, that God foreknows and wills all things, not contingently, but necessarily and immutably, how can you believe, trust and rely on His promises? When He makes promises, you ought to be out of doubt that He knows, and can and will perform, what He promises; otherwise, you will be accounting Him neither true nor faithful, which is unbelief, and the height of irreverence, and a denial of the most high God! And how can you be thus sure and certain, unless you know that certainly, infallibly, immutably and necessarily, He knows, wills and will perform what He promises? Not only should we be sure that God wills, and will execute His will, necessarily and immutably; we should glory in the fact, as Paul does in Romans 3:4 – “Let God be true, but every man a liar”, and again, “Not that the word of God has failed,” and in another place, “The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are His.” In Titus 1:2 he says: “Which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began”… If, then, we are taught and believe that we ought to be ignorant of the necessary foreknowledge of God and the necessity of events, Christian faith is utterly destroyed, and the promises of God and the whole gospel fall to the ground completely; for the Christian’s chief and only comfort in every adversity lies in knowing that God does not lie, but brings all things to pass immutably, and that His will cannot be resisted, altered or impeded.

A will which has no power without grace is not free

You describe the power of “free-will” as small, and wholly ineffective apart from the grace of God. Agreed? Now then, I ask you: If God’s grace is wanting, if it is taken away from that small power, what can it do? It is ineffective, you say, and can do nothing good. So it will not do what God or His grace wills. Why? Because we have now taken God’s grace away from it, and what the grace of God does not do is not good. Hence it follows that “free-will” without God’s grace is not free at all, but is the permanent prisoner and bondslave of evil, since it cannot turn itself to good. This being so, I give you full permission to enlarge the power of “free-will” as much as you like; make it angelic, make it divine, if you can! – but when you add this doleful postscript, that it is ineffective apart from God’s grace, straightway you rob it of all its power. What is ineffective power but (in plain language) no power? So to say that “free-will” exists and has power, albeit ineffective power, is, in the Sophists’ phrase, a contradiction in terms. It is like saying “‘free-will’ is something which is not free” – as if you said that fire is cold and earth hot. Fire certainly has power to heat; but if hell-fire (even) was cold and chilling instead of burning and scorching, I would not call it “fire”, let alone “hot” (unless you meant to refer to an imaginary fire, or a painted one). Note, however, that if we meant by “the power of free-will” the power which makes human beings fit subjects to be caught up by the Spirit and touched by God’s grace, as creatures made for eternal life or eternal death, we should have a proper definition. And I certainly acknowledge the existence of this power, this fitness, or “dispositional quality” and “passive aptitude” (as the Sophists call it), which, as everyone knows, is not given to plants or animals. As the proverb says, God did not make heaven for geese! It is a settled truth, then, even on the basis of your own testimony, that we do everything of necessity, and nothing by “free-will”; for the power of “free-will” is nil, and it does no good, nor can do, without grace. It follows, therefore, that “free-will” is obviously a term applicable only to Divine Majesty; for only He can do, and does (as the Psalmist sings) “whatever he wills in heaven and earth” [Psalms 135:6]. If “free-will” is ascribed to men, it is ascribed with no more propriety than divinity itself would be – and no blasphemy could exceed that! So it befits theologians to refrain from using the term when they want to speak of human ability, and to leave it to be applied to God only. They would do well also to take the term out of men’s mouths and speech, and to claim it for their God, as if it were His own holy and awful Name. If they must at all hazards assign some power to men, let them teach that it be denoted by some other term than “free-will”; especially since we know from our own observation that the mass of men are sadly deceived and misled by this phrase. The meaning which it conveys to their minds is far removed from anything that theologians believe and discuss. The term “free-will” is too grandiose and comprehensive and fulsome. People think it means what the natural force of the phrase would require, namely, a power of freely turning in any direction, yielding to none and subject to none. If they knew that this was not so, and that the term signifies only a tiny spark of power, and that utterly ineffective in itself, since it is the devil’s prisoner and slave, it would be a wonder if they did not stone us as mockers and deceivers, who say one thing and mean another – indeed, who have not yet decided what we do mean! Since, therefore, we have lost the meaning and the real reference of this glorious term, or, rather, have never grasped them (as was claimed by the Pelagians, who themselves mistook the phrase) why do we cling so tenaciously to an empty word, and endanger and delude faithful people in consequence? There is no more wisdom in so doing then there is in the modern foible of kings and potentates, who retain, or lay claim to, empty titles of kingdoms and countries, and flaunt them, while all the time they are really paupers, and anything but the possessors of those kingdoms and countries. We can tolerate their antics, for they fool nobody, but just feed themselves up – unprofitably enough – on their own vainglory. But this false idea of “free-will” is a real threat to salvation, and a delusion fraught with the most perilous consequences. If we do not want to drop this term [“free-will”] altogether – which would really be the safest and most Christian thing to do – we may still in good faith teach people to use it to credit man with “free-will” in respect, not of what is above him, but of what is below him. That is to say, man should realize that in regard to his money and possessions he has a right to use them, to do or to leave undone, according to his own “free-will” – though that very “free-will” is overruled by the free-will of God alone, according to His own pleasure. However, with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, he has no “free-will”, but is a captive, prisoner and bondslave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.”
~ Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will

See, I’m doing this game project. The great and powerful Fringespace. I love it, I really do. I’m just getting sort of frustrated with the process right now. We supposedly have this really big team, and all of that… but only a few of us are doing anything. I can live with that, I suppose – but it makes getting the gumption up for doing something on it hard, sometimes. Especially when I could be doing apologetics! As you probably know, I hang out in several chat channels – I average 7-8, on a normal day. I hang out in James White’s #prosapologian and #apologetics, on Starlink IRC – #apologetics on Undernet, #hard-light and #fringespace, on EsperNet, #btrl on another server, and #gamedev, on another.

I get to engage in some awesome apologetic discussions on starlink and undernet, constantly – and that is just so much mroe fulfilling than working on a game, most times. Although, really, I want to get this game done. I’m torn, and I’m a bit guilty that I’ve neglected the game – but I can’t stay guilty, because I’m doing something very profitable!

What’s a gamer/apologist to do? I’m going to keep working, but it’s hard to stay focused when there could be an awesome conversation about the deep things of God going on, and I know I’m missing it. I also feel guilty for neglecting my baby here, this blog, for that game – but it’s a very rewarding project, too. I’m just going to have to divide my time up wisely, so that I am doing everything I can, with the gifts I’ve been given. I know I’m good at this – and I want to show that Christians can do things like this as well as anyone can – but I don’t want to neglect God by doing so.

Hence, my ennui.

Once again, dear friends, it’s an election year.

Which means it’s time to endure endless rhetoric, lying snakes, and nutjobs, all pandering for our votes. Frankly, the entire modern political process in the US makes me sick, makes me tired, and makes me see red. What is even worse, to me, is the spiraling descent of conversation in Christian circles when the subject of politics is broached. If you impugn a favorite candidate, or the entire process, you must be 1. ignorant, 2. biased, or 3. Want the democrats to win.

Frankly? I don’t really CARE who wins, past the local level. They all do what they want, within the confines of the power we’ve “granted” them (as if there was truly a choice about the whole thing to begin with, in a two-party system). To vote, I have to hold my nose about something to do with the candidate, or take them at their word – which, if they are a politician, is about as likely to be kept as for me to win the lottery without even playing. It’s not going to happen.

For those who object that it’s not fair, or useful to generalize – I sincerely ask the objector to examine the collective records of the golden boys of conservatism, libertarianism, and see if my maxim holds true. Perhaps there are exceptions. All well and good. However, I believe that if there is really no guide to certainty as to their decisions, once elected, we have no way to endorse such people, as Christians, without potentially compromising our stance as followers of Christ. 1. Power breeds corruption. 2. Politics breeds compromise. 3. People, politicians in particular, LIE.

Further, I will remind you that in a government such as ours, our positive endorsements of specific people have very real consequences, and are very real indicators to the world on our willingness to compromise our God-given principles in one area for a potential advantage in another. We pass by, in our choices of governmental leadership, things which we would never pass by, in choosing a church leader. Or in a Sunday school teacher. Or even a friend we hardly know. Which, to be completely honest with you, is why I am very cynical concerning the whole concept of “elected” governance at all, the older I become. In a system such as ours, where corruption is rampant, and even encouraged – where anti-biblical statements are the cornerstones of platforms in both parties, can we really endorse anyone, with a good conscience, in that atmosphere?

I say no. I’m also gravely tired of the endorsement, of the lack of endorsement, of political campaigners being grounds for harsh words, name-calling, and vituperation. This is the reason i’ve had a long-standing policy on this blog of a “no political comments, unless the subject is politics” rule. It brings out the worst in people – including me. So, I’m done with it for the year. Period. I’m also disabling my usually-neglected poltiical blogroll for the duration.

Politics:

I do not want to see politics discussed within any topic I don’t have listed within the “Politics” post category. I am not here to talk politics, and you aren’t either – or your comment will have any political commentary removed – unless I specifically say the subject is politics.

The largest percentage of major blogs are politically oriented. Yes, I sometimes link to them – because I read them – but I don’t write about it often. If you’d like a political discussion, I suggest you visit one of the blogs listed to your right under “Politics”.

I hate to be a spoilsport, but that’s not what this blog is here for. This blog is here to discuss why you think the way you think, why you believe the way you believe, and why you hold the moral values you hold. If you’d like a discussion about one of the things above – feel free to comment. Otherwise… don’t.

This IS a politically categorized post, but I’m disabling comments on it – because, really, I don’t want to have to respond to any comments about it. I’m sick and tired of it.

No, I’m not voting for a candidate in the Presidential elections. I don’t trust any of them enough to vote for them. I have one exception, on policy – perhaps. I could almost like Ron Paul, but there is no way in God’s green earth he’s going to get the nod. Even if he does, he doesn’t have any experience in that sort of office, and although I like many of his ideas – he doesn’t have the experience to govern a nation. He’s a dark horse, albeit a very conservative/libertarian one – but one with little experience in an executive office of any sort. That’s all I have to say about that.

I’m done. I won’t respond to any more of it in chat channels, because it puts my blood pressure up through the roof, and I’m really not especially interested in being the Lone Ranger, and going it alone, with my contrarian view, against all comers. I’m done with it, I want to spend my time on more productive things, and I really don’t want to tick off my friends because they don’t agree with me, and I’m such a bulldog about what I believe. I’d rather take a stand on something other than how much I despise a bunch of slimeballs who are able to deceive enough people to be elected. I’d rather be an apologist about something that matters, thank you.

I wrote this for a Sunday School lesson a good while back, and it was floating around in my blog’s “drafts” buffer. Figured I’d clean it up and post it. Enjoy.

What do we mean, when we say “unfair”?

The dictionary says that it means to be “unjust, biased, or unethical”.

So, when we apply this to the life of Job, does God’s treatment of him seem unfair?

Or, a different question, do the things that happen to us, or to others, seem unfair?

Are they “just”?

“Properly due, merited; consistent with what is morally right”

Think back to the definition of grace that many of you may know:

“UNmerited favor”

So – when God acts to bless, is He not bestowing grace, not justice?

We’ll stop there, and come back to it – just keep that in the back of your mind for a bit.

The Accusers: – Job 15:5-6

Eliphaz comes out swinging, responding to Job’s stinging remarks in Job 13, calling them “… you forgers of lies, You are all worthless physicians. Oh, that you would be silent, And it would be your wisdom! “. He sure does wish that they had stayed silent, like they had begun, when they first arrived! “Your platitudes are proverbs of ashes, Your defenses are defenses of clay.”

Ouch!

He isn’t done, though. He rails at Job for thinking himself better than they – then, he appeals to authority (an age-old debating trick that is as ineffective as it is deceptive) by saying that the “grey heads” think the same as they do.

In verse 20, he cuts to the heart of his argument – that the wicked are the ones who see this sort of judgement, as the natural outworking of their sinful lives – thus, Job must be sinful.

The argument goes as follows:

1. Sinful men are always punished by God for their sins *in this life*.
2. You seem to be punished by God in this life.
3. You must be a sinful man.

Job, after Eliphaz’s chapter-long diatribe winds down, will have none of it. In fact, he’s rather annoyed.

Read Job 16:2-3

He then goes on to recite a short-form version of the trials he has endured, and makes a very interesting statement.

Job 16:19-21>

Catch a couple things in there?

1. He has faith in the Justice of God
2. He trusts in God, not man (small wonder, considering what he keeps hearing from them!)
3. He anticipates an advocate in heaven for men.

Where have we heard of that?

Read 1 John 2:1

Sound familiar?

Read 1 Tim. 2:5

How about that?

Job picks up on this, and understands the need for such a thing – as we may be hard-pressed to imagine.

Job Trips:

After Bildad essentially rehearses Eliphaz’s argument, in Job 18, Job has enough.

First, he accuses them of pride – which, probably, is justified.

Second, though, he accuses God of being unjust. Of wronging him.

Is God unjust? CAN God be unjust?

He even says to them in 19:22 -“Why do you persecute me as God does, And are not satisfied with my flesh?”

Job isn’t perfect. He’s amazing – but he isn’t perfect.

However, read what he says right after he says that:

Read Job 19: 25-27

Wow. This, many think, is the most triumphal statement of faith ever recorded. Remember, too, that this is not only before Abraham’s covenant, but before the law, before the messiah, or any hint of the messiah.

He affirms his faith in God’s existence, His sovereignity, His personal involvement in human affairs, His future reign on earth – he affirms his own mortality, his belief in a physical resurrection, and his belief in an eternal life in the presence of God.

Wow. This is from a man sitting in ashes, ridiculed by his friends, who has lost everything he posesses, everyone he loves (does his wife count?), and afflicted most excruciatingly by varied sickness. Utterly amazing.

Zophar, then, gives Job the *same argument*. Again. Read Chapter 20, if you don’t believe me. He does, though.

Job finally, finally, responds to their argument.

Read Job 21

Seems rather similar to this:

“for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:45)

Read Ecclesiastes 7:15

Common Grace. Common Grace is defined as the “grace of God by which he gives people innumerable blessings that are not part of salvation”. Job, I believe, is establishing for these knuckleheaded “comforters” this bit of theology.

God gives even the wicked some blessings. God gives these same blessings to everyone.

However, Job is reminding them that God’s grace is extended to believer and unbeliever alike – and that not every bad thing that happens to someone is the result of a judgment from God.

So. What can we learn from this?

1. Not to be miserable comforters, of course. Mr. Hal has talked about this, before – remember Mrs. Triplett?. What does Job tell them?

Job 16:5

2. God cannot be unjust. Everything is for His glory, and there is purpose behind our suffering – even when we can’t see it.

3. We have an advocate in heaven, Who mediates between the Father, and us

4. Common Grace explains the seeming “unfairness” of Christian suffering and non-Christian prosperity.

5. Faith can be found, even in the midst of suffering. “For when I am weak, I am strong”.

I decided she was getting a bit moldy, so I’m airing her out, drying her out, and opening back up. For a little while, at least.

Funny how those two first years of marriage, a baby, and the like can derail you 😀

In any case, I’m still working on Fringespace, still hanging out in #prosapologian, and hanging out with my wonderful family.

Which reminds me. You remember this post? Well, God answered the prayer I made, all that time ago – He was the Father to my little girl, when I couldn’t be – and He brought her to me. She lives with me, now. We’ll see how it goes from here on, but we have her until at least the end of the school year. There are very few things in life that bring me as much joy as just being able to look at my little girl again, whenever I want. It’s been something I’ve dreamed of, and prayed for for so long, I keep wondering if I’m dreaming.

God is good. Other than that, things are going fairly well. Love my church, and our Sunday School class. We’ve started a family bible study, and host it every other week at our house. Had all 6 kids at once, for Thanksgiving, and Christmas. Great time, blessed time.

Maybe I’ll start posting more often. Maybe. Oh, I fixed some things about my template that have been bugging me for a few months. The funny thing is, that’s when I visit, most often, is to fix something aobut the blog I never post on. Go figure.