Dave Letterman Should Stick to Comedy

Dave had John McCain as a guest on his show tonight. I know he loves politics, but the man just doesn't understand the markets. They were speaking of the 15 billion dollar "loan" to the Big Three.

Dave recited the Reed/Pelosi mantra: if we give them the money, then the Big Three must devote half of their production to hybrid/alternative energy vehicles, for this will create a plethora of jobs in the industry.

There is one problem: the market. Expansion of jobs within a company require an increase of revenue. This revenue can come in the form of sales, bonds, or government subsidy. The first is the problem: sales. There is simply not enough demand to warrant that much production. People buy what they can afford, and these cars are more expensive to make. Moreover, it will take 5+ years to break even if gas prices stay low. If people don't buy those cars, Big Three is right back in the place they are now, and with a depreciating stock of cars.

So, in order for this bright idea to work, one of two things must happen: Gas prices skyrocket (and if the do, it is probably due to the dollar, meaning car prices will also increase) which will fuel some demand...or [the more likely solution] the government will force us to buy them by coercive methods

Neither is desirable. Trust me, if gas goes up to a point at which it is economically worth the cost for a hybrid, demand will increase for it. Markets will take care of the problem when the problem manifests...

...also, global warming is such a serious problem, it snowed in South Louisiana yesterday, so lets bring more expensive regulations on the already struggling car industry, because New Orleans can't handle this snow.

Economic Commentary Just Stinks...

I need to get a job writing for AP or Yahoo! Finance... Today on Yahoo! Finance, there was a headline titled "Inaction on Big 3 would Cost Taxpayers Billions". This peaked my interested, because it is obviously intended to get public support of the bailout. At the very beginning, I find this brilliant thought:

The U.S. auto industry's problems will cost taxpayers plenty whether or not the government helps Detroit.

Just walking away and letting the struggling Big Three automakers go under would drain government coffers by about as much as the $15 billion bridge loan that lawmakers are preparing, and perhaps much more, according to outside analysts. The costs would come from lower tax collections by the federal, state and local governments and the payment of extra unemployment, pension and other benefits to unemployed or retired auto workers.

This is plain nonsense...

First, lost revenue to the government is not taxpayer expense. It is taxpayer cost when the government spends money. If the government doesn't get the money, it should cut back and not spend what it didn't get.

Second, why should the government take on the insurance of the pension plans? Yeah, there will be some unemployment, but not 15 billion dollars worth. These folks will find other jobs if given the incentive to, and prolonging unemployment benefits rids them of the incentive. People are going to lose out because of this recession, but government intervension socializes the losses to everyone. If the government would just get out of the way, the recession will be shorter and recover haster, and the losses will be focused to a lot fewer people.

What Is Really at Stake in this Election: Liberty and Personal Independence

For those of you who wish to prosper, for those of you who wish to be financially independent, for those of you who desire to contribute to society in the way you desire—in the field you choose, for those you who do not want to be slaves to the powers that could well be...

Ensure that you vote.

Listening to the rhetoric of the Obama campaign, one clearly sees that this candidate wishes to create a society in which each person becomes dependent on the government in all ways and for all things: from healthcare to retirement, education at every level, even jobs and income. In such a society, individuals are not to be responsible and provide for themselves, but they are to look to the government as provider, as the master and creator of jobs, as the healer in healthcare, as dean of education, as caretaker of the elderly.

Do not be fooled, the sovereignty of the individual ends where the sovereignty of government begins. Hence, as the power of government grows, individual liberty fades away. The Obama government will respect neither the freedom of the individual nor his property, and the strides one may take to prevent or overcome a dependency of government--whether through hard work, innovation, success, or the accumulation of wealth--will only penalize and marginalize him in this society. You can see this in Obama's definition of wealth: wealth is measured only in terms of income. What about savings, assets, or net-worth? In the utopian society these are not necessary, and the one who has them is deemed covetous and evil. "He's greedy and his selfish hoarding withholds from us our rightful due! We are entitled the result of his work--he is to work not for himself but for us all!"

Why strive to succeed if the prize of your success will only be stripped from your hands in the name of equality?

Stop and ask yourself, What does it mean to say that all men are created equal? Does equal mean equally entitled or equally free? Freedom and entitlement cannot coexist, for entitlement is nothing more than dependency, and dependency is slavery. To call government handouts "entitlement" and "compassion" is nothing more than sophistry and propaganda. The government's "compassion" comes only through the confiscation of another's gain. You cannot call charity that which is actually theft and coercion.

This utopian dream has one fatal flaw: human nature. It assumes that people are altruistic and selfless. The assumption is a wonderful picture and it might work in the movies, but it doesn't represent reality in the slightest part. Our founders understood that all people are self-seeking and greedy—perhaps to varying degrees, but selfish nevertheless. They designed a market and political system that kept this flaw in check through practically natural mechanisms, and Obama has expressed frustration and hostility in the constraints on government set forth in the wisdom of the constitution. In fact, he sees the Constititution in terms of the rights of government, not the rights of the people.

If people were altruistic, this utopia of socialism would just "happen." People would voluntarily spread the wealth around, and it wouldn't have to be forced upon us by the governmental powers that be. However, socialism has never "happened" without force, and the ones who wish to subject us to it act as is they do not suffer from the same greed as the corporate executives. Trust me, they do, and they will use socialism to their own gain and our expense.

"You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig!" These remarks were Obama's reference to Sarah Palin. It matters not if it refers to her person or to her ideas; the comment is nothing more than hypocrisy when he is putting lipstick on a different pig. One can dress oppression in terms of hope, change, and opportunity, but is it still oppression. To "spread the weatlh" will only ensure universal poverty. Governments are no different than corporations in the fact that both are institutions composed of individuals. Therefore, governments are as susceptible to greed as corporations; the only difference is that the former is expressed primarily in the quest for power and domination, the latter in the pursuit of money. Unfortunately, this thirst for power hasn't an ounce of accountability other than the vote, and this vote shall have been bought by the redistribution of wealth. Socialism is nothing more than political bribery and economic slavery.

A veil is being passed over our eyes by the Obama campaign, and we must see through it. This election has more at stake than the hypnotized masses realize.

Vote wisely, and know what you are voting for.

Defining and Knowing God’s Will

This post is a follow-up to the FBCTW College Bible study on 7/6/2008.

“My name is will, God’s will!” “It’s not in God’s will for us to be together anymore.” “I don’t know which color carpet God wants me to have?”

The term God’s will has become a rather nebulous concept within Christian circles, mostly because the term will has several meanings in and of itself. Will can refer to one’s desires, purposes, plans, intentions, and motives. The same is true of God, and when we or the Scriptures refer to His will, in one sense we refer to his desires, law, and precepts. At other times, the reference is to his purpose, plans, intentions, and counsel. Although God’s attribute of purpose is distinct from God’s other attributes, it is strongly related to his other attributes, especially that of His holiness, love, independence, omnipotence, and omniscience.

When we fail to note the distinction between God’s will of purpose from that of His desire or precept, confusion is the common result. Often times, when we think of us following God’s will, we think of some spiritual tightrope that God has set before us that if we do not precisely follow, we fall to our doom—not to mention frustrate God in his purposes. Just listen to the way many describe our place in relation to God’s will! These descriptions of God’s will make Him seem so dependent on human beings! This is simply not biblical.

First, we will cover God’s will in terms in his purposes, decrees, and plans. Then we will cover it in terms of desire, law, and precepts.

God has a unified purpose in the creation of the world and all that happens in it—and that purpose is to reveal his glory and majesty. Like the plot of a great book or movie, God’s overall purpose has many “sub-plots”—individual persons and events—that piece together to produce His masterpiece that accomplishes its chief end. The main character in His plot is Jesus Christ and the climax is His life on earth. Everything centers on this event. [Eph 3:11]

God, in his grace, involves us in his purposes and plans, but we as the creature cannot frustrate the plans of the Creator! Compared to greatness of God, I am but a drop of water compared to the vastness of earth’s oceans, and all of humanity might be slightly more than a bucket. Therefore, if I or the entire human race were to oppose God in his purposes, we would be like a penny stopping a freight train! Whatever God purposes, He does. We must know, understand, and accept this. That is why Paul says:

33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! 34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become His counselor?” 35 "Or who has first given to Him And it shall be repaid to him?" 36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen. Romans 11:33-36

This is the foundation of Romans 12:1-2. There is no one sovereign over God—He is the sovereign. He has no need for our advice or service to accomplish his ends. The counsel of Scripture allows for no other interpretation: Job 12:13-25, 23:13, 42:2; Psalm 33:1-22, 115:1-3, 119:89-91, 135:6, all of 139; Daniel 4:34-35; Proverbs 19:21; Acts 2:23, 4:27-28; Romans 8:28; Ephesians 1:11. [Many others]

Whether we are in submission to or rebellion against God, God will accomplish his purpose through us—and judge us for our rebellion if that be the case.

However, when we view God’s will in terms of his desires, precepts, and law, it is clear that this is not always done. Only in terms of God desire for our behavior can we be “out of God’s will.” God consistently commands us to obey his will, so obviously He desires our obedience. However, even as believers, we consistently rebel against God’s laws! Paul confirms this in Romans 12:1-2:

1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove [test, determine, or evaluate] what is that good and acceptable and perfect will [purpose] of God.

Clearly, God is commanding us through the apostle Paul to be transformed [metamorphoomai] by the renewing of our minds. God desires that our minds be transformed by the disciplines of the Christian faith: the study of the Word of God, prayer, and service in the body of Christ. This is also not always done.

This brings us some interesting questions. Does God purpose evil? Clearly by his hatred of it, God does not desire it! Therefore, how can God purpose something that He does not desire? If He does purpose evil, is not God responsible for it? How can I trust a God who is responsible for evil? If we cannot thwart God’s plans, how does that relate to our freedom of choice?

These are substantial questions that will be addressed in coming FBCTW Bible Study, and a short answer here will not do justice to the questions themselves. However, some of the questions must briefly be addressed in order to complete the topic of God’s will and purpose.

God Himself does not commit evil, nor does He tempt people to commit evil. His nature is good—and his knowledge is perfect. He knows the inclinations and motives of our hearts, even better than we do! Evil has a place in God’s overall perfect plan, and God purposefully allows men to act in evils ways, knowing exactly what they will do, with the intention to bring about a greater good and reveal a greater glory of Himself by His use of those actions!

Although the commission of sin stirs up anger is displeasure in God, in patience God permits it to exist for a greater good. How this is so lies within the unsearchable wisdom of God, and when these horrendous acts of wickedness take place, God is not obligated to reveal to us how they are a part of his plan. However, we must know they are for our [believers] and His good!

Take note of the parent who must let his child do something that might hurt him in order that the child may learn an important lesson that would not be learned if the parent kept trying to protect the child. Both the parent and the child are hurt by what takes place, but it is for the child’s good. So it is with God and us.

The story of Joseph and the crucifixion of Christ are clear examples of this. Think of how much it hurt God to see His Son experience what He did on Calvary! On the other hand, what a glorious revelation of God’s love, grace, wrath, and justice in Christ’s Work!

Now, how are we to know and be in God’s will? From Romans 12:1-2, it is clear that in order for us to know, test, examine, and prove God’s good, acceptable, and perfect purpose, we must continually be transformed by the renewal of our minds. What does “be transformed by the renewing of your mind” mean?

It means first and foremost that we must be born-again—regenerated by the power of Christ’s resurrection. That is the beginning of the metamorphosis. That means we must have trusted Christ and His work alone as the only means to a relationship with the Father and eternal life! If we have not done so, we cannot be “in God’s will.”

It means that we must study His Word so that it becomes the guiding principle of our lives. We must be in surrender to the wisdom therein.

It means that we should be in prayer, fervent and consistent prayer.

It means that we serve the body of Christ—the church—through a local congregation of genuine believers.

When we are doing these things, we are in “God’s will”—regardless of what career we may choose, or the person we marry. In fact, when we are truly conformed to Christ’s image, we tend to make wise decision in these major choices—even when God doesn’t clearly show us the decision to make. When we conform to God’s desire, we have freedom in knowing that we cannot frustrate God’s purpose.

To sum it up: To be in God’s will is to do God’s will. To do God’s will is to live like Christ. The rest falls into its place by the awesome sovereignty of God.

Updates

I am sorry it has been two months since my last post. A ton has been going on, and now that everything is official, I can make mention of it here. Due to a transfer at my company, my wife and I are moving to The Woodlands, TX, a community 30 miles directly north of Houston. My new position will be greatly involved with IT project management. Due to all business due to the move, I have had and will have little time to post anything of substance. I hope to pick back up after June 10th or so.

Before I mention the prayer request for my wife and I, I wanted to make mention of a few prayer requests for some friends, and some folks that I do not personally know:

• Pray for Sam Seidel. About four weeks ago, this little boy fell into a pool and was underwater for 15+ minutes. He still is recovering...
• Pray for Patsy Parker. She has been in and out of the hospital for the last several months, with surgeries. She still has a long road ahead.
• Pray for my friend's (Brian Daniel) mother, she has cancer and is going through a round of chemotherapy.
• Pray for Maggie Liner, our friends Marja and Shawn daughter. The family is changing houses, and Maggie has started day-care and has been struggling with staying well. Nothing severe or life-threatening--she just hasn't been able to get to 100%.

For me and Laura, pray that the transition goes well, that we sell our current home and get the contract on a house on which we have placed an offer, and that Laura is offered a job in a nearby school district, either Klein, Spring, Tomball, or Conroe. Lastly, and most importantly, please pray that we find a solid, biblical church that has strong preaching and fellowship.

President's Day...

If you have ever been so lucky to have debate a secularist or atheist on the religion of the Founding Fathers, undoubtedly you have heard the retort, "All of the Founding Fathers were diests."

Likewise, from Christians--particularly evangelicals--you will hear that the all of the Founding Fathers were Christian...

Neither is true. The only Founding Father that could be labeled deist--actually believing something compatible with classic deism--is Thomas Paine, and Paine could be easily interpreted to have been atheist or agnostic as well. The rest were obviously theist. How do I know this?

Most of the prominent Founding Fathers that the secularists claim to be deists were George Washington, Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and occasionally John Adams. However, when you read the consensus of all of these men, there is a theme and word that shows up in all of their writings: Providence.

Washington was not an evangelical. Frankin and Jefferson were not even orthodox to historic Christian beliefs. The secularist are right on this point. However, all of these men consistently use the word Providence (of God) in their personal writings. Mentioned also is God's favor towards the United States.

This poses a problem for the secularist: the concept of a provident God is incompatible with deism. One cannot be a deist and believe in the providence of God, for the former holds that God does not interact in the affairs of the world and the latter requires such action on God's part.

To read more: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=878

I Do Have Readers...

Laura and I were talking with her parents last night on the phone, and her father, Dennis Sims, pastor of Ellerbe Road Baptist Church in Shreveport, LA, told us a hilarious story...

To set the context, Laura had them on speakerphone, and Laura and I were lying in our bed...

This past Sunday, I expressed in the midst of my sermon, as I have on several occasions, my frustration with people who have some theological training and express their dissapointment in the Sunday School material for "being too shallow", among other things...

At this point in time, I am literally shrinking under the covers, because I have expressed my sentiments on Sunday School material on multiple occasions, although I can't remember if I had done so within earshot of Dennis before. The funny thing was, Laura and I had "productive conversation" along those lines the day before.

Don't get me wrong, I don't expect to get a seminary education from Sunday School, so "shallowness" isn't really my beef with the material...I get frustrated when I see unbiblical (something totally different than shallow) teaching in the Sunday School material.

...and use this as an excuse to not go to Sunday School at all. Like I said, I have said this before, and no one has ever told me anything in the past. This week, a person who attends our church misunderstood the comments and thought I was talking about him/her. Now this person has complained in the past about the shallowness of material, but he/she attends Sunday School, so she was not the target of my comments. We easily resolved the misunderstanding.

There is another man in the congregation who has a seminary education who hasn't been coming to Sunday School for a while, but he has medical reasons for doing so. However, just in case there was any misunderstanding, I went to visit them [or call them, I [Brent] can't remember].

His wife answered the door/phone and I began to speak with her. She assured me that there is no problem, and the conversation changed paths to another subject. She attends a BSF study, and the subject of the material is the book of Romans, and I have also been preaching through Romans--but the study is a bit ahead of where I am. She told me that the most recent study was on Romans 9. I said, "You all must be dealing with some significant issues, such as the sovereignty of God, election, and predestination. Now from what I understand, you can't address demoninational issues in this study can you?"

She said, "We can deal with any topic the passage addresses. Besides, there are a lot of Calvinistic Southern Baptists. In fact, I believe your son-in-law is a Calvinist, at least that is what it seems from reading his blog."

So I've said all of this merely to say that I ran into someone who has come accross your blog.

I found this to be hilarious! And, if you are reading again, thanks!

"You Are Too Cynical"

My wife and I had a real heart-to-heart yesterday. I love her to death, but she aggravates me when she makes me face reality ;-) One problem we have faced in our marriage comes from by incessant habit to criticize practically everything spiritual. She is an optimist and sees the good in things, and I am quite the pessimist when it come to spiritual matters.

Most of the time, when I read books on Christian theology, or "Christian spirituality", I keep my guard and I don't trust the source immediately. Theologians and preachers have to earn my trust by being reverent and true to God's word--and not sacrificing the careful interpretation of Scripture (or reverence to God's character) to drive home an emotional point. All fail in doing this at some point, others are blind squirrels trying to find a nut--they do so only by accident.

When trying to explain why I am so critical to Laura, I make no sense. None. I've had a hard time justifying it--but this article explains why so well:

Why do we espouse such outlandish concepts as "don't throw the baby out with the bath water"? A better comparison of how we are being told to pick through the bad theology often being put forth today is not the baby/bath water analogy but it is the broken clock analogy. How convincing would it be for those same people who use the baby/bath water analogy to say, "Don't throw out the broken clock because it will be right sometimes"? How many of us would give a hearty amen to that kind of mentality?

Perhaps the reason we are more likely to agree with the baby/bath water analogy is that no one wants to picture a baby being thrown out, but how about the broken clock? I personally don't want to have to pick through a bunch of rancid humanistic philosophy to get to the bits of good theology that might be buried in most of these trendy preachers preaching.

In all honesty, I am really frustrated with the church today. Either one cares about ministry, or she cares about theology. Hardly ever do they meet in the same church congregation. I find completely theologically irresponsible claims in some of the study material that has come across my eyes lately, and would love to be in a situation in which error is not so commonplace.

Just this past week I read material in which these claims were made:

"God loved me most when I deserved it least."

"God accepts me even though I am guilty...Faultfinding is not God's style."

Why are they irresponsible? When does God love me the least? When did I deserve God's love the most? Would God be just in accepting me despite my guilt? Am I still guilty in they eyes of God as a member of the body of Christ? What would God be doing at the Great White Throne judgment?

These claims are filled with sappy feelings, but they lack significantly in biblical truth--and more of us would see this if we stopped reading with our feelings and engaged our minds some.

The sad thing is this: the point of the material was good...it was about demonstraing grace and mercy to our spouses, but my trust of the authors has been severely damaged, so now my guard will be even higher when I read on. I feel that I will have to sift away most of what's there in order to find the nugget of truth.

Daniel Hixon on Calvinism - Part 2

Here is Daniel's explanation of Unconditional Election:

Unconditional election - those who are elected by God for salvation are not elected based upon any work or quality of their own. There are no conditions they must meet in order to become the elect, God simply chose them (apparently arbitrarily since "there is no partiallity with him," which is very problematic). This is necessary because our depravity and the corruption of our wills is SO total that if God did not choose for us, then no one would be saved at all. Unconditional election is aimed at the same problem (our broken will) as Wesley's prevenient grace. If Unconditional election is true, then surely God, who wants everyone to be saved according to 1 Tim. 2:4, would therefore act in accordance with his own will and elect everyone for salvation unconditionally, to do otherwise would seem to imply some imperfection in God if he wills one thing (universal salvation) and then acts to ensure it can never happen. Thus if I believed in unconditional election I would immediately be a universalist Calvinist. I am of the opinion that we are elected according to the foreknowlege of God on the condition of our faith in Christ and our consequent and necessary participation in the covenant and the covenant people of God, and that all humans are called to do that by the grace of God, though many reject this calling.

The Scriptures are clear that God has chosen those whom He would save and did so before the foundations of the world, and these are "predestined" to be conformed to the image of his Son: (Ephesians 1:1-11, 2 Timothy 2:8-9, Romans 8:28-30; 1 Peter 1:2). This choice is not arbitrary, and no Calvinist would ever say so. When the Scripture says that "there is not partiality with God, " particularly in the New Testament, it is in the context of the comparison of peoples, Jews to Greek or slaves to free. (i.e. Romans 2:10-11, Acts 10:34, Ephesians 6:9). We are chosen and predestined according to God's purpose and for His good pleasure. God had a purpose in choosing whom He does for salvation, but the basis of this choice is not any foreseen quality, attribute, or work of that person--it is by grace and grace alone.

1 Timothy 2:4 is the best verse in the Scripture to support Daniel's point, but the comments in 2:4 are made in passing. They are not the primary point of the text. The point of the context of 1 Timothy 2 is not that God wants every human being to be saved--it concerns godly practice and behavior. It could be credibly argued that "all men" of 2:4 could contextually mean "all kinds of men" for Paul is urging Timothy to pray "for kings and all who are in authority" (1:2). In most cases that the term all men (or whole world, all people, all, etc) is used, it is qualified by the context to a specific group of people. Rarely, save the cases in which all of man is described as fallen, does "all" or "world" refer to literally everyone. Not even in John 3:16.

There are passages in which the entire point concerns the doctrine of election by grace. Romans 8:28-30, Romans 9, Ephesians 1:1-11 with the support of 2:1-10, John 6:37-40,44,65, John 10:1-30, for examples.

First, let's look at these passages. In Romans 8:28-30, Paul tells us that "whom (or those) He foreknew, He predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son." The predestined are then called, and the called are then justified, and the justified are then glorified. The word foreknew is proginosko in the Greek. It is simply a compound word combining pro (before) and ginosko (know). In both the English rendition cited and in the Greek, "those" or "whom" is a plural term acting as the direct object of "know." The object of God's foreknowledge isn't a mere choice or act, quality or merit; it is a set of persons. In every case that the word ginosko is used with a human being as the object of that verb, it refers to a relationship of some sort. It could be an acquaintance, or it could even be sexual, but it never refers to a knowledge of a set of facts. In fact, the word ginosko is used in Matthew 7:23 when Jesus says, "I never knew you, depart from me!" Therefore, from the context, it is clear that there are those that God does not foreknow. The same "those" that are foreknown in verse 28 are the ones who are glorified in verse 30. From this passage, it is clear that not everyone is called, either.

This verse is telling us that God knew us in a relationship with Himself in eternity before [the best term we can use to describe the eternal nature of God's knowledge] that relationship came to be in time.

Romans 9 is even stronger: Paul begins by lamenting that the Jews do not know Christ, that he would surrender his own salvation for that of his kinsman. If there were a group of people that should have known that Christ was the Messiah, it should have been the Jews, they had the Law, the service of God, and the covenants--and were the race through which God chose Christ to come. But then Paul tells us that "they are not all Israel who are of Israel." The first Israel refers to the descendents of Abraham, the second refers to God's chosen people. This is a bold statement on Paul's part.

To substantiate this claim, Paul uses the Old Testament. God rejected Ishmael, but chose Isaac--both were sons of Abraham. Then Paul refers to Isaac's children and says God chose Jacob over Esau: "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 [grace] but of Him who calls." Paul has just demonstrated that mere kinsmanship to Abraham does not make you one of the chosen of God. Then Paul, in response to a possible objection ("Is there unrighteousness with God?"), uses the story of Moses and Pharaoh as an example for God's sovereignty in election and concludes in verse 18:

Therefore He [God] has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

In other words: God can save whoever He wants to, and this salvation is not in a response to action by men. It is initiated by God and is applied to particular individuals. Paul knew people would say that it is not fair for God to not give everyone a chance--especially if it is God who hardens the hearts of men. "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?'"

Paul's answer is not one that satisfies the modern-day critic of Calvinism, who often poses this very objection when confonted with the doctrine of reprobation. Paul essentially says this: We are property, and God is the property owner. Because of our status as creatures, God can do as He wishes with us. "Who are you to reply against God? Shall the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'why have you made me like this?' Does not the potter have power over the same lump of clay to make one vessel for honor, and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endure with much longsuffering those vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

Pauls couldn't be more clear. More to come on the UE in Eph 1 and 2, John 6 and 10, and others.

Daniel Hixon's Refutation of Calvinism, Part 1

Take some time to read my friend Daniel Hixon's criticism of Calvinism. The criticism is brief and broad, covering a lot of topics an a short amount of space, so he doesn't develop some of his arguments as much as I would like. Daniel is a brilliant guy. In fact, I respect him very much because of his honesty when we have discussed issues in the past.

I was one of the "real-live" Calvinists Daniel engaged at LSU. I was let out of my cage from time to time, so that I can roam to-and-fro and debate to pesky Arminians. ;-). Of all the non-Calvinists I have ever debated, Daniel was one of the most gracious and honest opponents. We talked about it on many occasions, too.

To be honest this movement distrubs me a little...Reaction to this Calvinistic trend has been varied. Young and zealous Calvinists with their tight rational system with all of its certainty can come of [off] as (and sometimes may actually be) arrogant and narrow, not respecting the rest of us...

I cite this section because Daniel is right...and this arrogance is not limited to the young and the zealous. My wife and I have discussed this elitist tendency among Calvinists on many occasions, and because of this, we avoid "Reformed" churches. I know that some of my Calvinist friends might gasp at me saying this, but it is the general tendency when Calvinists get together. It's not that they "come off" as arrogant--the most vocal Calvinists typically are arrogant and elitist. This is ironic to me, because elitism is inconsistent with Calvinist theology, although it is often it an outcome when people let sinful arrogance reign in their hearts. I will explain this inconsistency more in a moment.

This elitism does not come out of the doctrine of election itself--it simply comes from thinking that we are right and the rest are wrong. It comes from the belief that we preach the truth and the rest preach blasphemies, and the arrogance is most apparent when we think that we have nothing to learn from Christians outside of the Reformed circles. You can see that I am speaking from experience...

Daniel gives his summary of the 5 points of Calvinism:

Total depravity - this expression does not occur in scripture, but if it means that "every inclination of all the thoughts of their hearts were evil, and that continually" that causes me to wonder why so many non-Christians do so many apparently good (or at least refrain from even more evil) things. Calvin himself addressed this problem with what he called "restraining grace" which is in my opinion very similar to what Wesley called "prevenient grace." Both of them ended up saying the same thing: we are totally depraved in theory, but it doesn't play out that way in practice (Calvin says we are able to refrain from some evil and Wesley says we are also able to freely choose to accept/reject Christ) all because the grace of God is already at work in every person.

When Daniel said, "this expression does not occur in scripture," he was attempting to bias his reader against Total Depravity. The term "prevenient grace", a term coined by John Wesley (the founder of Methodism, Daniel refers to his sermon against Calvinism) and central to his theology of man, also does not occur in Scripture. Neither does the word Trinity. Just because the actual term does not exist does not mean the concept is not taught in God's Word.

His quoted definition is the correct definition of Total Depravity: every inclination of all the thoughts of our hearts, apart from the redeeming work of Christ, are evil, and on that continually. The definition is a citation out of Genesis 6 and 8. Reformed theologians qualify this "restraining grace" a bit more than Daniel does, and most common term is "common grace." Common grace comes several forms, with the most evident one being human government. The influence of the church upon society is another form of common grace. It is common grace that prevents the human heart from plunging into anarchy, as can be seen when the presence of certain forms of common grace, such as government, are removed.

However, common grace more often affects man's action rather than his motive. It keeps people from doing evil, but it doesn't necessarily stop man from desiring it. Most Calvinists, myself included, believe that altruism in an unbeliever is rare at best, if not impossible. Even when good is done, it is done with corrupt motives. Common grace also does not save; it does not change the obstinate heart of the sinner to be able to accept Christ.

In fact, Wesley's "prevenient grace" is an outflow of his belief in something similar to total depravity. Wesley did believe in severe noetic effects of sin; sin impeded man's ability to come to Christ. In Wesley's doctrine of prevenient grace, God temporarily removes the effects of sin when the gospel call is made so that a persons response to the gospel is truly his own without any influence from God or sin. Prevenient grace is what make a "free choice" possible. In common grace, God does not remove the corruption of sin, he merely limits its capabilities through external means. In prevenient grace, the corruption is removed for the purpose of "free choice." Hence, these concepts are not one in the same.

Total depravity is not a "theory." It is a consistent teaching of Scripture, and it is the basis of biblical grace (Eph 2). Before Christ, my will was a slave to sin to do its bidding. It's reality can be seen, for we all know what we are truly like we no one is looking, and we see what people (and governments) can do when accountability is removed.

There is a biblical basis for Total Depravity and Common Grace. Genesis 6 and 8 cite Daniel's definition almost verbatim. Psalm 14, John 6:44; Romans 1-3; Isaiah 53:6; Ephesians 2:1-10; Romans 13; among many others. If you need more, let me know.

More to come...wifey says it's time for bed.