Bad Arguments Often Used Regarding Moral Issues

These are just some things I've encountered in the past few months I felt like commenting on. I might update or expand on this as time progresses.

Argument #1: Who cares if a person does x if they don't hurt anybody?

The idea here seems to be that, if no physical pain is involved, then there is really nothing bad happening. For example, who cares about same sex marriage if the two individuals in a same sex relationship aren't "hurting anyone"?

Of course, speaking generally, this argument fails because most people might recognize that there are certain immoral acts which do not cause any pain or "hurt" on an individual. A kleptomaniac, for example, doesn't "hurt" anybody, but his stealing of items that aren't his is still a crime and an immoral act. A vandal who does graffiti on the side of a highway bridge doesn't "hurt" anybody, and yet it is still considered wrong.

If we were to likewise apply this across the board, I think we would find that those who make this argument are not consistent. Let's return to our earlier example of same sex marriage. Would those who use this argument to support that likewise use it to support incestuous relationships? After all, if a brother and sister are in love, can't they be accepted by society, since they aren't "hurting anybody"? If a 50-year old man meets with a 15-year old boy and they engage in physical relations that are completely consensual, why should the 50-year old man be arrested and charged with a crime? He isn't "hurting anybody." There are even some today who will argue that in such situations (ie., a 50-year old man engaging in a consensual relationship with a 15-year old boy) there is absolutely nothing wrong as no one is being hurt and it's entirely consensual. Why is such argumentation invalid in this case but not in select others?

The fact is, physical (or even mental) pain does not need to be inflicted for something to be labeled "wrong." Anyone can recognize that some things which are immoral likewise do not inflict physical harm against a person. Furthermore, refusing to apply this reasoning to a similar situation for superficial reasons is simply special pleading.

Argument #2: You shouldn't be concerned with x because it doesn't directly affect you.

This very notion, that something has to directly affect the person before they can declare it good or bad, is simply fallacious. There were many Americans who wanted to get involved in World War II despite the fact that the war, in and of itself, was not directly affecting America the way it was other nations. There were many white Americans not directly affected by the Jim Crow laws, and yet they spoke out against them. There are many in the west today who see atrocities committed in African or Asian countries and yet speak out, despite the fact they are not directly affected by it. A person might hear about the husband of a woman they know who is cheating on her, and - despite the fact they may be able to keep a safe distance from the drama - may choose to call out adultery for the evil that it is.

A person does not have to be directly affected by an issue in order to say it is wrong or immoral. A moral question is not dependent upon the relative distance (literal or metaphorical) to the person pondering the moral question, nor on how the individual issue affects the person making the argument.

In fact, there is much inconsistency in this position, in the sense that the person making it is oftentimes defending an act or world view which likewise doesn't affect them. Hence we are led to conclude that it is all right to pontificate on a subject so long as it is in the positive, but it is not all right if it is in the negative. This presents us a case of special pleading.

Argument #3: You shouldn't be so concerned with x. You should be worried about something like y.

This is the red herring fallacy, where the person attempts to shift the topic to another that might be somewhat but not entirely related. Even if someone might argue that y is indeed worse than x, a dilemma is still present: that y is worse than x does not negate the qualities of x, and hence both are still bad. For example, arguing "rape is not as bad as genocide" does not negate that rape is still bad, and hence bringing genocide into the equation contributes absolutely nothing to the conversation.

Argument #4: Who cares as long as the person is happy?

The idea here is that, if the individual person has reached a subjective level of happiness, what they have done can be perceived to be right and proper, even if just for them..

Of course, a person doesn't have to be a master rhetorician to see just how bad this kind of argumentation is. There are those who get happy causing physical pain. There are those who get happy over seeing someone else suffer. There are those who get happy committing crime. There are some who make horrible life decisions with the excuse that they "just want to do what makes them happy." There are some who suffer from what is known as body identity disorder, where they cannot truly feel happy unless an arm or leg which they believe does not belong is amputated.

Just because an individual thing or action makes a person feel happy does not mean it is automatically right. Happiness should not be made equatable with morally correct.

Argument #5: This person can do whatever they want!

This is the classic "It's a free country!" argument. The reader has probably heard various modes of it. "It's my body, I can do whatever I want with it." "It's my life, I can do anything I want with it." Etc.

Here's the fallacy with this position: that a person has a certain ability to do something does not automatically mean they are above criticism in regards to that action. Let me put it this way: I am perfectly free to go out, get a loan I can't possibly afford for a super expensive car, then go out and purposefully, just for the kicks, total that car in a wreck. I'm perfectly free to do that of my own will...however, someone has just as much right to tell me to my face, "Dude, that had to be the dumbest thing you could have done." Someone else might say to that person, "Leave him alone! He's free to do as he pleases!", but that doesn't deny what the first person said. It neither contradicts the argument that what I did was dumb, nor does it even directly address it.

Responding to an argument with what amounts to "I'll do what I want!" is a response that is common among ten-year olds, but shouldn't be common among adults.

Argument #6: These people didn't ask to be born under this moral code.

Is that so? Did you also know that no one ever asked to be born under any moral code or system of law? I didn't ask to be born under the Constitution - should I consider the Constitution to be irrelevant to what my rights should be? When I moved to Virginia, no one asked me, as I crossed the border, "Are you OK with Virginia's laws? Oh, you aren't? OK, they don't apply to you, then." When a murderer is sent to court, he doesn't get off free simply by telling the judge, "Hey wait, I never got asked to be placed under these rules regarding murder!"

Keep in mind that I am not arguing that a law or moral code is right simply because it exists or it has jurisdiction; I am arguing that it is fallacious to say someone should be free from their obligation or applicability to a law or moral code simply because they've "never been asked."

Your Media Rep

All credits to the original artist.

Joseph, the Shadow of Christ

As with my last post, the following is also from Jonathan Edwards's A History of the Work of Redemption.

The next thing I would observe, is God’s remarkably preserving the family of which Christ was to proceed from perishing by famine, by the instrumentality of Joseph. When there was a seven-years famine approaching, God was pleased, by a wonderful providence, to send Joseph into Egypt, there to provide for Jacob and his family, and to keep the holy seed alive, which otherwise would have perished. Joseph was sent into Egypt for that end, as he observes, Gen. l. 20. “But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to save much people alive.” How often had this holy root, that had in it the future branch of righteousness, the glorious Redeemer, been in danger of being destroyed! But God wonderfully preserved it.

This salvation of the house of Israel, by the hand of Joseph, was upon some accounts very much a resemblance of the salvation of Christ. The children of Israel were saved by Joseph their kinsman and brother, from perishing by famine; as he that saves the souls of the spiritual Israel from spiritual famine is their near kinsman, and one that is not ashamed to call them brethren. Joseph was a brother they had hated, sold, and as it were killed; for they had designed to kill him. So Christ is one that we naturally hate, and by our wicked lives, have sold for the vain things of the world, and by our sins have slain. Joseph was first in a state of humiliation; he was a servant, as Christ appeared in the form of a servant; and then was cast into a dungeon, as Christ descended into the grave. When he rose out of the dungeon, he was in a state of great exaltation, at the king’s right hand as his deputy, to reign over all his kingdom, to provide food, to preserve life; and being in this state of exaltation, he dispenses food to his brethren, and so gives them life. So Christ was exalted at God’s right hand to be a Prince and Saviour to his brethren, received gifts for men, even for the rebellious, them that had hated and sold him. [source]

Jonathan Edwards and the Flood

The following is from Jonathan Edwards's A History of the Work of Redemption, and deals with the flood and Noah's ark.

By means of this flood, all the enemies of God’s church, against whom that little handful had no strength, were swept off at once. God took their part, appeared for them against their enemies, and drowned those of whom they had been afraid, in the flood of water, as he drowned the enemies of Israel that pursued them in the Red sea.

Indeed God could have taken other methods to deliver his church: he could have converted all the world instead of drowning it; and so he could have taken another method than drowning the Egyptians in the Red sea. But that is no argument, that the method he did take, was not a method to show his redeeming mercy to them.

By the deluge the enemies of God’s people were dispossessed of the earth, and the whole earth was given to Noah and his family to possess it in quiet; as God made room for the Israelites in Canaan, by casting out their enemies from before them. And God thus taking the possession of the enemies of the church, and giving it all to his church, was agreeable to that promise of the covenant of grace: Ps. xxxvii. 9-11. “For evil-doers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the earth, and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.”

Another thing belonging to the same work, was God’s wonderfully preserving that family of which the Redeemer was to proceed, when all the rest of the world was drowned. God’s drowning the world, and saving Noah and his family, were both reducible to this great work. The saving of Noah and his family belonged to it two ways, viz. as from that family the Redeemer was to proceed, and it was the mystical body of Christ that was there saved. The manner of saving those persons, when all the world besides was so overthrown, was very wonderful. It was a wonderful type of the redemption of Christ, of that redemption that is sealed by the baptism of water, and is so spoken of in the New Testament, as 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21. “Which sometimes were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” That water which washed away the filth of the world, that cleared the world of wicked men, was a type of the blood of Christ, that takes away the sin of the world. That water which delivered Noah and his sons from their enemies, is a type of the blood that delivers God’s church from their sins, their worst enemies. That water which was so plentiful and abundant, that it filled the world, and reached above the tops of the highest mountains, was a type of that blood, which is sufficient for the whole world; sufficient to bury the highest mountains of sin. The ark, that was the refuge and hiding-place of the church in this time of storm and flood, was a type of Christ, the true hiding-place of the church from the storms and floods of God’s wrath. [source]

The Materialistic Limitations of God

Recently I've rediscovered my love for the writings of H.P. Lovecraft, and have - thanks to Kindle versions available online for free - been reading and rereading his entire works of fiction. Lovecraft is famous for his creation of the mollusk-headed god Cthulhu, and there are many who, while not knowing the name of Lovecraft, do know the name of Cthulhu. Lovecraft is considered today one of the greatest writers of the horror genre, and one of the first to really evolve the "cosmic horror" niche. Modern writers like Stephen King and others cite him as inspiration.

He was also, among these things, an atheist. On this subject, I came across this article quoting chunks from a written correspondence between H.P. Lovecraft and three acquaintances. In particular among Lovecraft's acquaintances was a friend named Maurice W. Moe, with whom Lovecraft often sparred in regards to religion. An interesting section to me was near the beginning, in which Lovecraft writes:

The latter conception, of a God who is confined in action to our visible universe, leaves us to speculate as to what God or forces may preside over the rest of creation—or if we adhere to the commandment of Scripture, and believe only in one God, we must assume that the rest of space is godless; that no personal loving father-deity is there to bless his sons and subjects. But then, if this be so, why did the personal all-wise parent select this one particular little universe wherein to exercise his beneficence? I fear that all theism consists mostly of reasoning in circles, and guessing or inventing what we do not know.

If God is omnipotent, then why did he pick out this one little period and world for his experiment with mankind? Or if he is local, then why did he select this locality, when he had an infinity of universes and an infinity of eras to choose from? And why should the fundamental tenets of theology hold him to be all-pervasive? These are monstrous uncomfortable questions for a pious man to answer, and yet the orthodox clergy continue to assert a complete understanding of all these things, brushing inquiry aside either by sophistry and mysticism, or by evasion and sanctified horror.

It seems that Lovecraft's contention is this: does the limitation of God's personal work present a limitation on God Himself? In other words, why would God create such a spectacular universe if He only intended to interact with a small part of it? What was the thinking process in such an endeavor? Why, in the great expansive universe, is religion in general so geocentric?

Those most familiar with Lovecraft's work would know that this thought process is present in his stories. Characters often interact with creatures, spirits, or gods that cross time and space. For example, in a 1919 short story entitled Beyond the Wall of Sleep, the narrator, working at an insane asylum, discovers that a patient there has become a "prison" for a star-like entity that belongs, as it itself explains, to a race of "roamers of vast spaces and travellers in many ages," adding: "Next year I may be dwelling in the dark Egypt which you call ancient, or in the cruel empire of Tsan-Chan which is to come three thousand years hence" (source). The entity likewise states: "We shall meet again—perhaps in the shining mists of Orion’s Sword, perhaps on a bleak plateau in prehistoric Asia. Perhaps in unremembered dreams tonight; perhaps in some other form an aeon hence, when the solar system shall have been swept away" (ibid). In Lovecraft's universe, the idea of a "godless" galaxy was not an issue, as every corner of time and space had some form of deity or spiritual force. It was interesting, therefore, to read this line of thinking from Mr. Lovecraft outside of his fictional works, and I thought it was worth giving a response, just for the sake of discussion.

Firstly, we read the objection "we...believe only in one God, we must assume that the rest of space is godless; that no personal loving father-deity is there to bless his sons and subjects." This objection tells us that if there is one God, who focuses on earth, then "the rest of space is godless," as there is "no personal loving father-deity...there to bless his sons and subjects," as God has, for whatever reason, limited Himself to earth. However, this presupposes that by God's giving direct revelation to one part of His creation, God limits Himself to that part of His creation. We are to believe that if God gives particular attention to one planet, then all the rest are forsaken.

However, there is a fallacy behind the very idea that giving special attention to one part of our focus while giving general attention to the rest means those under the general attention are completely forsaken. Let me present a scenario: a mother has two children, one with Down Syndrome, the other mentally healthy. She is going to be giving special attention to the child with Down Syndrome, but the general motherly attention owed to the child without Down Syndrome. In this case, it would be erroneous and cruel to suppose that, because she gives special attention to the child with Down Syndrome and general attention to the other, she must either hate or completely ignore the other child. In like manner, that God gives special attention towards the Earth and its inhabitants does not mean God has completely forsaken the rest of the universe.

Such thinking as proposed in this first argument also ignores a few important elements from the Christian perspective:

1) All the universe exists by the supreme will of God. The universe cannot be "godless" if we know that it is sourced to God itself (Gen 1:14-19; Psa 8:3, 33:6, 136:5-9; Isa 42:5; John 1:3; Heb 1:10, 11:3; Rev 4:11) and performs its daily actions by the will of God (Job 9:7; Psa 147:4). Obviously we are not proposing that God has marionette strings and is guiding the planets along - there are rational and scientific explanations for the method by which the planets revolve and stars do what they do. Science does not contradict the sovereignty of God over creation; it merely reveals the natural means by which He performs it. Neither is this a case of "the god of the gaps" as so many wrongfully call it, for we are not saying that God is a God of Planets, nor (as we outlined before) that the planets revolve because God is actively doing so in the same manner I would push a stalled car down the road. Rather, we are arguing that the source of a planet's existence - as well as the source of all physics and science behind its planetary motion - is sourced to God. I know that lightning does not strike the earth because God is up in the clouds chucking lightning bolts at people - all the same, I know that lightning does not strike, be it through natural means, except by God's will.

2) All the universe is a sign of God's existence. Of this scripture speaks plainly: the heavens are said to "declare the glory of God" (Psa 19:1); the prophet Isaiah asks, "Lift up your eyes on high and see: who created these?" (Isa 40:26); the apostle Paul writes that God's "eternal power" and "divine nature" are perceived "in the things that have been made" (Rom 1:20), and I have no doubt the blessed apostle would include the stars and planets within this passage. Contrary to the idea that the universe sans Earth is considered godless, scripture sees the universe as a sign that the universe is anything but godless, and in fact is a sign of a Divine Creator.

When one thinks about it, the very notion that the rest of space is "godless" seems to imply God can create a universe too big for even Him, which is similar to the conundrum as to whether or not God can create a rock so big even He can't lift it up. God is not limited to planets, nor to moments in space itself. The fallacy here may be in equating, as I outlined earlier, God giving one kind of attention to a part of His creation does not mean He has forsaken the rest of His creation. This just simply isn't true - God is not limited by the scope of His own creation.

In fact, the prophet Jonah had an even more close-minded view of God's scope than earth versus the universe, as he believed God's control only extended so far as the holy land of Israel. Hence the reluctant prophet, not desiring to preach to Nineveh (Jon 1:1-2), left Israel to escape the call (Jon 1:3). His hypothesis proved utterly false, as God came to his boat and caused the storm that would unfold the rest of the story. In Jonah's mind, the fact that God, at that time, was giving special attention to Israel, that must mean that the rest of the world is godless. This wasn't true - wherever one of God's people went, He was there. In like manner, if mankind were to ever reach a state of scientific development that he would be able to reach out and colonize on other planets - perhaps even the most distant galaxies - I have no doubt that God would be able to have the gospel spread among the stars, and to save men even on the utmost limits of creation itself.

Secondly, we have the question: "why did the personal all-wise parent select this one particular little universe wherein to exercise his beneficence?"; as well as "why did he pick out this one little period and world for his experiment with mankind?"; and finally "why did he select this locality, when he had an infinity of universes and an infinity of eras to choose from?" Again, all fair questions to ask, but when we ask the question of why we must seek to resolve the question of motive. To ask why with no interest in resolving motive is about as sensible as asking why a man bought a 2012 Kia Rio5 with all the possible car models on the world, and then concluding from this question that the man must not exist at all.

It might be interesting to point out, first and foremost, that our planet - at the time of this writing - is practically the only planet in the known universe which can sustain life, and this is because Earth meets all the necessary requirements for this. The rate of rotation, the distance from the sun, the atmosphere, and many other factors key into this. For certain there are planets out there which are close to being able to support life, or have the possibility of supporting life, but Earth is the only planet on which all requirements are met and which we know for a fact these requirements have given us life. In any case, God could not provide the same form of attention He gives to Earth to other planets such as Jupiter, Neptune, or Mercury for obvious reasons: there's no reason to do so. None of the stars on Orion's Belt could provide sustenance for humans, nor could any "dwarf planet" like Pluto. That God would choose Earth to create mankind and show it benevolence is hence, in many ways, a logical step, given He could not do it on any other planet.

Yet many might make the logical contention that God did not happen across the planets, but rather was the creator of them, and so we might ask: "why did God design only one planet upon which to have the climax of His creation, which is mankind?" Again, a fair question, one that might be flatly answered by stating that it was God's will. While this might sound like a cop out response when taken in isolation from the rest of this post, it is not when one considers the focus on the creation of Earth. This was where the climax of God's creation occurred, and where God focused his special revelation. This was the methodology by which God ordained that His glory would be seen, both in the past, present and the future.

Thirdly, we are asked: "why should the fundamental tenets of theology hold him to be all-pervasive?" I would argue because by necessity a god who created the universe would have to be all-pervasive. If God created all matter as we know it, and began what we know by our limited measurement as time, then God would have be outside the natural, material world. God would, by necessity, have to exist outside of time, space and matter - and yet He is likewise the creator and initiator of it all. What I mean by this is that God is the Great Initiator of all we know: it was He who began the roll of history; it was He who made the first matter; it was He who brought about all things into existence. In order for all this existence to come into being, something outside of that existence would have to...well...exist.

Let me put it this way: an automotive designer does not initially exist as part of the car he designs. Before even the idea of that car comes into being, something outside of that car has to exist. It is from the creativity and the will of that automotive designer that the car's design, purpose and existence comes into being. However, the automotive designer does not morph himself into that car, or suddenly cease to exist because that car of his now exists, nor is the designer compelled to stay inside that car and never leave it. The car may be limited by the designer, but the designer is not limited by the car. In like manner, time, matter and all existence exists because of God, according to His design and purpose, and hence He is, by necessity, outside of such limitations. If this is the case, then God is indeed "all-pervasive."

Double Standards and "Education"

Sometime ago I was watching an atheist's video on YouTube describing how one can come to morality sans religious beliefs. One statement made was that we could improve a person's view on the world through education. As I was pondering on this over the past few weeks, I suddenly came to a realization: there is a double standard for many when it comes to acts of evil and what they call "education."

Whenever some evil is committed in the name of a religion, it is almost always attributed to religion as a vague idea in the most prime example of a broad brush sense (which I've shown before as completely fallacious). However, if people are doing wrong in secular circles, we are told that they just need a better education. I do not consider either viewpoint to be entirely wrong, but I believe that the application of both is inconsistent. Permit me to explain.

Let us take a horrible situation, such as a group of people physically attacking a homosexual. Obviously, this is wrong - even Christians believe so. If you know a homosexual, you witness to them - you don't kill or harm them. Let us say these people even do it because they "think homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of God." Most people would write this off as simply being another example of how religion is evil and move on. However, here is where the "apply more education" argument can likewise be made, for those individuals are acting contrary to what their religion teaches, not in accordance to it (again, refer to my previously linked post). They could be taught the biblical way to approach homosexuality in general and homosexuals in general. Placed in a proper church, they could receive discipleship in this regard. If they refuse this discipleship and education - or continue to act contrary to it - then the fault is on them as individuals, and it is they alone who are in the wrong, not the group to which they claim to belong.

Some might move that this distortion of religious belief is still sourced to religious belief in general, and hence religious beliefs in toto should be banned. However, such a position is not consistent when held up with more secular or scientific understandings. For example, the distortions of evolution have led to evils such as social Darwinism, while concepts such as genetics or the "human gene pool" has led to programs such as eugenics, and greater evils such as the Holocaust. It is certain that those who staunchly support evolution as a theory or genetics as a science would ever agree that, since some have distorted evolution or genetics for evil, we should throw both out the window, let alone that we should throw science in toto out the window; yet many of these same people will, people some have done evil in the name of a religious faith, we should throw religion in toto out the window.

Education is, of course, a wonderful and important part of our society. There is a great danger, however, in either setting it to too low a standard or raising it to too high a pedestal. We should not belittle the idea that being more educated in anything is counterproductive, just as we cannot think that "throwing education at the problem" will automatically solve a social dilemma. Some of the cruelest men in history were also the most educated, and often used their education either to perform great evil or to come to evil ideologies. Evil can be used from either a religious or secular foundation because evil is, first and foremost, an equal opportunity employer.

Theology Fanboys: A Rant

If there is one thing that is a major stumbling block for me, it's fanboys. Ugh...fanboys. Just writing that word leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

Some of my readers may not be familiar with the term "fanboy." One of the definitions offered by the Urban Dictionary reads:

An extreme fan or follower of a particular medium or concept, whether it be sports, television, film directors, video games (the most common usage), etc.

Known for a complete lack of objectivity in relation to their preferred focus. Usually argue with circular logic that they refuse to acknowledge. Arguments or debates with such are usually futile. Every flaw is spun into semi-virtues and everything else, blown to comedic, complimentary proportions. [source]

The most common usage for the word "fanboy" generally revolves around science fiction universes, superheroes, anime, and video games.

For example: Star Wars. Some people just like Star Wars because it's entertaining; others like it because it's a fascinating universe from which to draw inspiration. Both of these are perfectly legitimate reasons to enjoy it. Yet there are those out there who will defend any criticism of the saga to the death. If you say something objective like, "You know, I didn't like Episode II all that much - the acting and pacing was just poorly done," they will react violently and defend against every small point you make. What's more, they'll attempt to turn it against you as if your dislike of something is a personal fault. Even if you say something reasonably harmless like "I don't hate it, I just dislike x, y and z," they'll react as if you just said "I really despise that movie and hope everyone involved in it and their immediate family dies." They might not even respond to your argument at all - they might throw a cliche, tired argument out that avoids everything and simply say something shallow like, "You just don't get the art!" Most of the time it's not even worth speaking to these people, because even if you clearly demonstrate your point to be valid or their arguments to be fallacious, they will nonetheless continue on with their shallow reasoning, much like the emperor adorned with his "new clothes" continuing the parade.

As suggested before, fanboys can be in many circles, not just science fiction or comic books. As one ventures into the realm of theology, they may find that, indeed, there are fanboys there as well. I might divide these into two groups:

Firstly, there are the cultic fanboys. These are the ones who basically equate disagreement with a minister or a ministry with disagreement with God Himself. This is pretty self-explanatory, I think.

Secondly, there are the passive-aggressive fanboys, who from now on shall be referred to as PAFs. Why do I call them passive-aggressive fanboys? These are the typical fanboys in denial. That is, they will often open up their responses with, "I don't think this ministry/this minister is infallible, but..." and proceed to treat the person as infallible. PAFs may deny that they are upholding a person or ministry as equal with the word of God so as to avoid falling into the trap of cultic fanboys, and yet their attitude and inability to accept any legitimate criticism says otherwise. A PAF may even argue "I'm not necessarily supporting this individual, but..." and proceed to not only support the person or ministry, but to support them to the death. Just like the PAFs mentioned before, such PAFs will refuse to listen to reason or give direct responses to your arguments, and holding discussions with them will end up simply debating in circles.

Let's now examine how an agreement avoiding fanboyism could play out between two brothers in Christ:

Christian A: "Have you ever read Pilgrim's Progress? It's a classic."
Christian B: "I dunno, I couldn't really get into all the analogies Bunyan used. It's just not my thing."
Christian A: "Ah, I can understand that. I personally think he did an OK job, but then again I'm a sucker for that kind of thing."

See, wasn't that pleasant? Now let's see it through the lens of a cultic fanboy:

Christian A: "Have you ever read Pilgrim's Progress? It's a classic."
Christian B: "I dunno, I couldn't really get into all the analogies Bunyan used. It's just not my thing."
Christian A: "You're such a Pharisee. Don't you know how many people God saved with that book? You need to rethink your position, or you will face severe judgment for your attitude."

Wow, that went downhill quickly. Now let's look at it through the lens of a PAF.

Christian A: "Have you ever read Pilgrim's Progress? It's a classic."
Christian B: "I dunno, I couldn't really get into all the analogies Bunyan used. It's just not my thing."
Christian A: "What do you mean you couldn't get into the analogies?"
Christian B: "I dunno, just not my thing is all. The delivery was like a kid's book to me."
Christian A: "Christ used analogies. Are you saying his work was bad?"
Christian B: "No, not at all, I just mean the way Bunyan used them, I couldn't get into it."
Christian A: "Could you get into the parables? What's wrong with you."
Christian B: "Nothing's wrong with me! I'm just saying Pilgrim's Progress wasn't my cup of tea is all."
Christian A: "Bunyan is a well respected author. Who are you?"

All right, that's starting to get painful. I think I've clarified my position, any way. Now, least I cause anyone to stumble by confusing fanboyism with simple defense of a topic, let's review this situation again, but through the lens of someone attempting to defend John Bunyan but not in a fanboy-like way.

Christian A: "Have you ever read Pilgrim's Progress? It's a classic."
Christian B: "I dunno, I couldn't really get into all the analogies Bunyan used. It's just not my thing."
Christian A: "Really? I think they're pretty well done. I like them."
Christian B: "It just reads like a kid's book to me, I suppose."
Christian A: "Well, keep in mind Bunyan was trying to convey something child-like, so that even the layman could understand what he was trying to convey. However, if you don't care for that kind of use of analogy, I might suggest Bunyan's more straight theological work. They're work reading, and might be more up your alley."

See? Christian A defended Bunyan, but didn't treat Christian B's opinion like it was the result of some great personal fault. Now, just for good measure, let's see an example where accusing the other person of being a fanboy is actually itself wrong.

Christian A: "Have you ever read Pilgrim's Progress? It's a classic."
Christian B: "Yeah I did. It was the dumbest, stupidest, stinkiest thing I've ever read."
Christian A: "Uh...well I mean, Bunyan's not perfect, but I didn't think it was that bad..."
Christian B: "Quit being such a Bunyan fanboy!"

In this example we see where accusing someone of fanboyism is actually incorrect. Having an appreciation for something - even to a high degree - does not by itself make you fanboy. The reader might refer back to my original example with Star Wars: some like it, maybe even love it, for specific reasons that are perfectly legitimate, but do not sink to the level of fanboyism. Merely liking something does not equate to being a fanboy of it.

At this point I think I'm starting to have too much fun with the topic. End of rant.

Joyce Meyer: Jesus Suffered in Hell

In the often painful pseudo-social world known as Facebook, it makes me wince to see Christians - mostly women - quoting Joyce Meyer. The universe of "Christian personalities" is not unlike the various personalities in the world itself, and every "niche" has to be filled, I suppose. Meyer obviously tries to fill in the specific "niche" for women, and because she's a female pastor (which already violates 1 Timothy 2:12) that targets women, women naturally flock to her.

This is a dangerous and misguided act, and for two simple reasons:

1) She's a member of the Word of Faith heresy. To my knowledge She has yet to repent of this, and maintains fellowship with fellow arch-heretics Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, the Crouch family, T.D. Jakes, and many others over at Trinity Broadcast Network, a Christian television station in name only. Is this really the kind of spiritual food we want to be feeding ourselves? Even if Joyce Meyer says some good things, "a little leaven leavens the whole lump" (1 Cor 5:6). She preaches a false gospel and shares fellowship with those who likewise preach a false gospel - Q.E.D.

2) She believes that after Jesus died he was tortured in hell. She claims this from personal revelation. Don't believe me? Here's an audio that covers this, quoting her books and playing audio tapes with her own voice.

The Joy from Sound Theology

Peanuts is copyright Charles Schulz

Modern Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, by MacArthur

The following is from Grace to You's website, featuring a sermon by John MacArthur. It touches on many such blasphemies in this day and age, especially from Hyper-Charismatic or Neo-Pentecostal circles.

The Modern Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

Jeremiah 29:11

The following I've touched on before in this post.

You have received a warning at Christian Forums

Dear Jesus Christ,

You have received a Warning at Christian Forums.

Reason:
-------
Warning

Hello Jesus Christ,

Your post quoted below was recently reported for staff review. After careful review our moderating team has reached consensus and has decided to issue you a warning for this post which you made in the thread "The Official Sanhedrin Thread!" for violation of the following Christian Forums rule:

Flaming

• Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.
• If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button. Do not report another member out of spite.
• Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian.
• Those who do not adhere to the Statement of Faith are welcome as members and participants in discussions, but you are required to respect these beliefs, even if you do not share them.

Your post will remain deleted from the thread. Please take some time to review our Sitewide Rules before making any further posts. You should also review the Moderation Protocol for Christian Forums. This warning does not carry any points, however, further violations will lead to infractions which do carry points. The policy for reviewing staff actions is located here. The review policy is as follows:

If you receive a staff action such as a warning or an infraction, you may contact a Supervisor or an Administrator to discuss the action. If you receive a ban, you may use the Member Services Center to begin a thread and talk to the Administrators about the staff action. They will decide if the ban was given in error and should be reversed or if it was correct and should remain in place.

Should you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me, a Supervisor, or an Administrator.

Sincerely,
**CF Staff Team

-------

Original Post:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.

All the best,
Christian Forums

Pragmatic Evangelism and God's Word

When writing about those who come to the Lord's Supper without proper evaluation of their own lives, Jonathan Edwards responded to many objections he was receiving from his opponents on the subject. The main position of his opponents was that the Lord's Supper was a converting tool rather than an ordinance for the saints of God. Objection 20 specifically dealt with a form of argumentation that said: "Some ministers have been greatly blessed in the other way of proceeding, and some men have been converted at the Lord's supper" (quoted from the book).

This kind of argumentation is not unlike the mindset of many today who support what is today known as Pragmatic Evangelism. The notion is that the methodology of evangelism is irrelevant if the consequences are that people are saved. Some will respond to criticism of a minister or a particular methodology with "Well I was saved by the preaching of x," or "Well God saved me by y." It is the "ends justifies the means" mindset that has seeped into many churches today. As such, I believe Edwards's own response to this mindset, some 250-years ago, is still relevant even today.

Though we are to eye the providence of God, and not disregard his works, yet to interpret them to a sense, or apply them to a use inconsistent with the scope of the word of God, is a misconstruction and misapplication of them. God has not given us his providence, but his word to be our governing rule. God is sovereign in his dispensations of providence; he bestowed the blessing on Jacob, even when he had a lie in his mouth; he was pleased to met with Solomon, and make known himself to him, and bless him in an extraordinary manner, while he was worshiping in an high place; he met with Saul, when in a course of violent opposition to him, and out of the way of his duty to the highest degree, going to Damascus to persecute Christ; and even then bestowed the greatest blessing upon him, that perhaps ever was bestowed on a mere man. The conduct of divine providence, with its reasons, is too little understood by us to be improved as our rule. "God has his way in the sea, his path in the mighty waters, and his footsteps are not known: And he gives none account of any of his matters." But God has given us his word, to this very end, that it might be our rule; and therefore has fitted it to be so; has so ordered it that it may be understood by us. And strictly speaking this is our only rule. If we join any thing else to it, as making it out rule, we do that which we have no warrant for, yea, that which God himself has forbidden. [Humble Inquiry Concerning the Qualifications for Membership in the Visible Church]

Tiptoe Through the TULIP: Limited Atonement

Here we go continuing with our little TULIP exposition. As I said in the last post, if you're new to this little miniseries of mine, I'd suggest you start from the very beginning (a very good place to start!).

We've now approached the dreaded "L", which stands for Limited Atonement. Next to Unconditional Election, this is perhaps one of the most controversial of the Five Points of Calvinism. So much so, in fact, that there exist out there people known as "Four Point Calvinists" (their historical name being Amyraldians) who deny this doctrine.

The nitty gritty of Limited Atonement is that when Christ died on the cross, he did not die for the sins of the entire world - rather, he died to atone for the sins of those whom God would elect and hence redeem. Limited Atonement is also known as Particular Redemption, since it teaches that Christ died to redeem a particular group of individuals. The opposite of this would be General Redemption, which believes that Christ died to redeem all mankind. In fact, historically speaking, Baptists in America were often identified as either Particular Baptists (Calvinistic) and General Baptists (non-Calvinistic).

As we're going through TULIP bit by bit, and we showed the tie between Total Depravity and Unconditional Election, it might be worthy to note here the tie between Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement:

It will be seen at once that this doctrine necessarily follows from the doctrine of election. If from eternity God has planned to save one portion of the human race and not another, it seems to be a contradiction to say that His work has equal reference to both portions, or that He sent His Son to die for those whom He had predetermined not to save, as truly as, and in the same sense that He was sent to die for those whom He had chosen for salvation. These two doctrines must stand or fall together. We cannot logically accept one and reject the other. If God has elected some and not others to eternal life, then plainly the primary purpose of Christ's work was to redeem the elect. [Loraine Boettner, Reformed Doctrine of Predestination; source]

In other words, if we establish that mankind is under a total depravity, and therefore God's election must logically be unconditional, then it likewise stands to reason that Christ would not die for the justification of those whom God knew ahead of time would perish in their sins. Therefore, we can conclude that Christ would die and atone for those predestined to be elected under the saving grace of God.

Now let's move on to the part where I shut up and I start letting scripture speak. Those who are familiar with this blog will know that I've already touched on this section of scripture before, and in greater detail, but for this part I'm going to be quickly reviewing the tenth chapter of John's gospel.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice." [John 10:1-4]

This is the beginning of one of the seven big sermons made by Christ in John's gospel, and is addressed to the Jews, including the Sanhedrin, who had gathered after the meeting between Jesus and the man born blind in chapter nine. It is the famous "Good Shepherd" sermon, and the Good Shepherd is, of course, Christ Himself.  It is the initial, summarized version of the much larger version which Christ will elaborate on for most of the chapter.

Christ starts out by identifying that those who enter the sheepfold by the door or climb in another way (in other words, false prophets and teachers) are thieves and robbers, but they who go through the door are the shepherd. He then describes this scene: the shepherd enters, he calls the sheep by name, and leads them out. Once they are all out, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him "for they know his voice." Note that the shepherd enters and makes the first move by calling the sheep. Note likewise that he calls the sheep by name - this is a personal calling, not a general one. The sheep respond, and follow him, for they "know his voice" as their shepherd, which further identifies them as his specific sheep. Just this little section alone, therefore, gives as good enough evidence for Irresistible Grace as it will eventually for Limited Atonement, but that's for another post. For now, keep in mind that the sheep are called by name and that they know the voice of their shepherd.

Because the people do not understand Christ's figure of speech (v. 6), he begins to elaborate on the previous parable:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." [John 10:7-11]

Christ identifies himself with two motifs from the aforementioned parable: he is both the door and the shepherd. In this sense, he is not only our mode of salvation, he is likewise the author of it. He is the only "door" to salvation, for anyone who enters by him "will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture" (v. 9). Thieves (again, false prophets and teachers) only come "to steal and kill and destroy," but Christ came so that his sheep "may have life and have it abundantly" (v. 10). Our Lord then says the famous: "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep" (v. 11).

Note quickly - what did Christ just say? For whom does he lay down his life? He lays down his life for the sheep. Who are the sheep? Obviously within the context of everything we've discussed so far, it's the people of God. Christ died for those who belong to his flock. Shepherds are not willing to die for sheep of other flocks, but rather for sheep of their own flock.

To elaborate further on this, let's look at the next few verses:

"He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep." [John 10:12-15]

Again Christ elaborates on the special care and love that the shepherd has for the sheep. He then states: "I am the Good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me" (v. 14). Not only does Christ know those who are his sheep, but his sheep know him. Again, this is referring to an effectual kind of knowing, for the shepherd knows the sheep by name (v. 4), and the sheep, upon being called by name, follow (v. 5). Christ takes this even further when he states that he knows the sheep and the sheep know him "just as the Father knows me and I know the Father" (v. 15a). In other words, just as the Father and Son are in perfect knowledge of one another, so too is the Son in perfect knowledge of those who are his, and those who are his own know him. Christ then says again: "I lay down my life for the sheep" (v. 15b). Again, for whom does Christ die? The sheep. Who are the sheep? The elect of God. Those whom he knows by name and calls by name to go out to pasture.

As one will see in the my previous post about John 10, which I linked to above, I'm well aware of some synergist responses to this. To respond to them briefly:

1) Christ doesn't say he died for just the sheep and no one else. Aside from this being the "prove a negative" fallacy, the individual making it is forgetting the overall point: Christ doesn't say that because he doesn't have to do so. When Christ says he died for the sheep, and demonstrates the deep relationship between the Good Shepherd and his sheep, he doesn't have to specify any further. If an officer said, "I am a general, I lead my soldiers," it would be completely fallacious to suppose that we can interpret that to mean the officer commands even people outside his unit - maybe even non-soldiers - simply because he doesn't specify as much.

2) Christ can call sheep, but they can reject him. This creates the idea of a shepherd who calls out his sheep and leads them, but it is possible for one of those sheep to say "Forget this!" and dart off, with the shepherd able to do little more than wag his hands in anger. Aside from the fact that a real life shepherd would never allow such a thing to occur, this would contradict a continued application of the Good Shepherd sermon found later on in the chapter. While at the Feast of Dedication, some unbelieving Jews approach Jesus and as him to tell them plainly if he is the Christ (v. 22-24). Christ tells them:

"I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one." [John 10:25-30]

Christ tells the people bluntly that they do not believe (v. 25). Why do they not believe? Christ says "You are not among my sheep" (v. 26). His sheep hear his voice, and he knows them, and they follow him (v. 27). The Good Shepherd states regarding his sheep: "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand" (v. 28). Christ then turns this into a Trinitarian affair when he says: "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one" (v. 29-30). The phrase "I and the Father are one" refers to their unity in Trinitarian work, and hence the treatment of the sheep is something done both by the Father and the Son (the Holy Spirit will be discussed later on in the gospel). The Father gives the sheep to the Son, and the Son gives the sheep eternal life and keeps them from falling. No one is able to snatch the sheep, for they are in the hands both of the Father (v. 29) and the Son (v. 28). Those who do not believe or have false belief are, as Christ said to the unbelieving Jews, not even God's sheep to begin with (v. 26).

Just as one says "baa" not to become a sheep, but because they are a sheep, so too does a person believe not to become God's sheep, but because they are God's sheep. Christ does not say "You are not my sheep because you do not believe," he clearly states "You do not believe because you are not my sheep." Their identification of sheep was not dependent upon their belief; their belief was dependent upon their identification as sheep. Likewise, those who are Christ's sheep are incapable of being lost, for they are being preserved by both the Father and the Son, who are working together in this act of salvation.

3) When Christ talks about "the sheep," it's different than "my sheep" - "the sheep" is general, but "my sheep" means those sheep who come to believe. This would presuppose that Christ is completely irrational in his train of thought. As we've seen thus far in this exegesis, no where does the context of "my sheep" and "the sheep" stop being synonymous. They both refer to the same group.

To return to the subject of this post, what do we see being discussed here in John 10? Admittedly we see a lot of things (I'd argue all Five Points of Calvinism), but one of those thing is the identity of Christ's sheep and the clarification of for whom the Good Shepherd dies. The Good Shepherd lays down his life for his sheep, whom the Father has given to him, for it is his sheep whom he grants eternal life and preserves in his hand until the day of resurrection, so that they may go out and find pasture.

This makes the atonement, of course, a very personal event. If Christ knows his sheep by name, and it is these sheep for whom he dies (as he clearly did not die for those who are not his sheep, like those in verse 26), then Christ died for a special group of people, and as a substitution not only for a vague or general idea of a people's sins, but a specific group of people's sins - people with names, faces, and personal lives. This means, dear Christian, he died not just for you, but for you. As he hung upon that cross, he had your name on his mind, and his blood atoned for every single one of your sins, however how great or small. He died for your specific sins within your specific life, and he suffered knowing that the day would come when you would be called and justified, and he knows even now a glorious day will come when you will be glorified together with him. You were elected by the Father, the Son atoned for your sins, and you are now being preserved today by the Holy Spirit. Your salvation is a blessing from the Trinity, but most of all your atonement was done personally in your stead by the Son. If you gain anything from that post, ponder on that most of all - that your sin was not atoned for in a vague sense, but that all specific sins you ever committed were atoned for by Christ, and he did this out of love for you.

We have two more petals of the TULIP to go. God willing, those will be going up in the following weeks.

A Clarification on Satire

So it has come to my attention, many times over, that two posts of mine written in satire (this and this) are continually getting assumed to be not-satire. People continue to think that those posts were real posts with real accounts that really did get reported. To explain this way:

Firstly, none of those accounts exist. "Paul33AD" and "Tishbite_Men_Rul" were "what if" jokes, pertaining to what the apostle Paul and the prophet Elijah would take as usernames if they lived today. If there really are usernames like that on the internet, it is sheer coincidence.

Secondly, I get the feeling people aren't reading the title of the threads to which the "reported posts" belonged. As I sincerely doubt there really exists a thread out there entitled "Why isn't Baal answering my prayers????", one has to conclude the thread name was made up, and hence the entire post is written in jest.

Thirdly, some people do not seem to recognize where the "offending posts" are from. The one for "Paul33AD" is taken from the first chapter of Galatians, while the one for "Tishbite_Men_Rul" is taken from what Elijah says to the priests of Baal during their encounter on Mount Carmel. They clearly aren't real internet posts.

I had at least one more such satire I was going to post before letting it rest for good, but at this moment I'm pondering if I should just let it rest. As the Joker once said, "If you have to explain the joke, then there is no joke."

The Death of Love

The word "love" has lost all meaning in today's society. In some respects, I would almost say we need to remove it from our language. It has become a near useless word, something thrown around and used so readily that, if words had value in the supply-and-demand system, the word "love" would be dirt cheap.

Some of our flawed understanding of love comes in a flawed understanding of God. Many today have turned God into a squishy Being who loves all unconditionally, and has the same love for all people everywhere. This mentality might do wonders for therapeutic religion, and it might help a church win converts, but it doesn't survive under biblical scrutiny. If God loves all people the exact same way, why did He intentionally spare Noah but destroyed all those outside the ark? If God loves all people the same way, why did He bless the Jews and punish those in the land of Canaan? Atheists are quick to point out these inconsistencies, and though I would argue they're just responding to straw men, that straw man is the most readily accessible version of Christianity available in western society.

Some of our flawed understanding of love comes from a flawed understanding of love between one another. How many times have we encountered someone who was staying in an abusive relationship because they "loved" the other person? How many times have we encountered people who believed it was OK to enter an immoral lifestyle simply because the two people "loved" each other? (See my post here). A popular argument today, mostly in the context of homosexual marriage, is "equal love equal rights." Of course, most who hold to this view aren't consistent with it: some who uphold same sex marriage with "equal love equal rights" will immediately backtrack when asked if a brother and sister in a relationship is also "equal love equal rights." All of these are examples where the word "love" is treated as a shallow, superficial thing that can be used to stir emotions and justify a certain position.

Obviously, speaking from a biblical perspective, we are commanded to love on varying levels. We are told, first and foremost, to love the Lord (Matt 22:37) We are told to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us (Matt 5:44). The Lord told believers to love one another as he loved them (John 13:34). A husband is commanded to "love his wife as himself" (Eph 5:33). We are told to pursue, among many other things, love (2 Tim 2:22).

Let us note quickly that love, contrary to popular sentimentality, is not always the same. A man loves his wife differently than he loves his children. A believer loves his best friend differently than he loves God. This realization, that a person's love differs from subject to subject, avoids the mindset mocked by atheists, which we described earlier. Obviously Christ had love for all eleven disciples of his who were faithful, and yet John is identified at least five times as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 20). Even in this situation alone we find that God has a variation of love.

Let us also note that, while we are commanded to love, we are at the same time told not to love certain things. We are told to stay away from the love of money (Heb 13:5), and told not to "love the world" or "the things in the world" (1 John 2:15), something the apostle Paul faulted Demas for (2 Tim 4:10). The apostle Paul likewise warned against those who were "lovers of self," "lovers of money," and "lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God" (2 Tim 3:2, 5). Christ himself said that we must love him more than our parents (Matt 10:37) - not meaning we should hate our parents, of course, but that salvation was more important than family acceptance. While we are told to love, we are likewise commanded to be discerning with our love. Clearly, there are some things we cannot love, and there are some forms of "love" we should seek to avoid. This is why our Lord warned us that "no servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other" (Luke 16:13) - you cannot love all things equally without, at some point, becoming inconsistent. This is why creating the concept of "love" into a vague thing that is applied equally across the board is so dangerous.

The problem is that "love" today has been the quintessential trait to have, and has been made equal with "anything that is pleasing," and hence anything that is displeasing cannot be love and therefore must be avoided. This is why whenever someone attempts to review what a false teacher believes or they criticize another person's theology, many people jump out and accuse them of not showing enough "love." Upon what basis? If a friend you cherished told you, in a state of intoxication, that they were going to go out and drive, wouldn't you stop them? Wouldn't you warn them of the error they were committing? Wouldn't you take a stern position if they became defensive towards you? Why is that showing love, but rebuking someone for their (perhaps damnable) error is not?

The apostle Paul told the Philippians that he prayed not only that their love would abound all the more, but that it would abound "with knowledge and discernment" (Phi 1:9), yet no one today seems willing to exercise this knowledge and discernment. The apostle Paul likewise commended Timothy not only for following his love, but likewise his "teaching," "aim in life," and "faith" (2 Tim 3:10), but many people seem to desire to forgo such things for the sake of a superficial concept of "love." Such people do not fit the model of love as scripture teaches it, but rather those who Paul described as having "refused to love the truth and so be saved" (2 The 2:10).

The question is, where does this true Christian love come from? Is it something we instill in ourselves? On the contrary, Christian love is in and of itself a gift from God.

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. [1 John 4:7]

The apostle John, writing to believers, says that we should "love one another," and this is possible because "love is from God," and "whoever loves has been born of God." We do not love to be born of God, but rather those who are born of God love. This is why the commandment to love God comes before the commandment to love our neighbor (Mark 12:29-31), for how can one love their neighbor the way God intended unless they first know God? Hence the statement by the apostle John that those born of God likewise know God, and hence they love. In here we have two revelations: 1) love is not something we create or produce, but something granted by God; 2) there are varying levels of love (God for man, man for God, man for man, etc.), and hence we are able to discern the differences between various levels of love,  as well as an ability to discern between true love and false love. Therefore we are able to realize that the love between God and man is different than that of between husband and wife, and we are able to understand that criticism of falsehood is not a lack of love for another person, but an example of love for the truth.

The problem with many today is that they have separated themselves from a concept of love that bears distinction and discernment. Perhaps, therefore, "love" is not entirely dead, but it needs only be discussed on a much more mature manner. For Christians, it shall have to be discussed within the context of how God Himself has defined it, and by nothing else.

Tiptoe Through the TULIP: Unconditional Election

We are continuing through a series requested by a sister in Christ regarding the five points of Calvinism, also known as TULIP. This post will deal with the second letter in the acronym, which is a "U" and stands for Unconditional Election. To any newcomers to this little miniseries, I'd suggest starting with this post to understand how I'm doing this and where I'm coming from.

Unconditional Election, in its simplest, crudest definition, states that, before the foundation of the world, God chose the elect to inherit salvation, and it was not based on anything we did. In other words, God does not look at Man A and Man B and say, “Ah, Man A does way more good deeds than Man B,” or “Oh, Man A is way more receptive of the gospel than Man B,” and choose His electing that way. Most importantly, this electing is not based upon anything we do, hence the unconditional nature of it. We are not saved because we walked the aisle, did good works, or responded to the gospel - we believe because we were elected and called by God.

As many might have already guessed, this, along with Limited Atonement, is one of the most attacked of the TULIP phrases. That God would elect someone for reasons outside of their own person has become one of the chief reasons many attack Calvinism and label it a hateful theology. Some charge that Calvinism makes God maleficent and evil. Others say that Calvinists believe God's decision is arbitrary, as if God places up pictures of everyone who will ever live, throws a few darts, and saves whomever the darts landed on.

Therefore, let's dispel some common straw men right off the bat:

1) God does not do this out of malevolence. God is not doing this out of wickedness. Remember that in our last discussion, regarding Total Depravity, we established that mankind in toto were objects of wrath who were deserving of God's judgment for their sins and whose natural inclination was to reject God. Those who would say that God electing unconditionally is not fair forget that, if God were truly "fair" and "just," we would all be in hell. God could have done with mankind what he did with the angels who rebelled against Him, which was to leave them destined to perish in hell. Therefore, we should not be surprised that God elects some, but that He elects any.

2) God is not doing this for arbitrary reasons. The word "arbitrary" suggests that it was by near random personal whim without reason or understanding. Therefore many people have the idea God's electing individuals is similar to someone choosing a lobster from the tank at Red Lobster. However, everything God does has a purpose. Remember that when Christ heard that Lazarus was sick, he intentionally stayed where he was for two days (John 11:6), during which Lazarus died. One could therefore argue that Christ intentionally let Lazarus die. However, Christ did not permit Lazarus to die for any mere "arbitrary" reason, but, as Christ himself said: "It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it" (John 11:4). In a similar manner, God's purpose in election is not a matter of "eenie meenie miney moe," but a matter of fulfilling His purpose and will.

3) God does not predestine damnation. Many people assume that, if God elects some for salvation, then He must elect everyone else for damnation. This, however, is not the case, and those who argue in such a fashion do so in a false dichotomy. The natural state of man, without the electing intervention of God, is one poised for damnation, and it is God's election through grace which saves us from that. Remember that in our past discussion, regarding Total Depravity, that we established that the natural state of man is one in rebellion against God and is headed for damnation. God doesn't need to predestine a man for hell - he does a fine job of that on his own.

4) The election itself is not salvation. Many people think that, because God brings about salvation through election, that election and salvation are equatable to one another. On the contrary, election is not itself salvation, but is merely the act by which God chooses those who will receive the benefits of salvation. A governor may choose to pardon an inmate on death row, but it is not that actual act of choosing that is the freedom from death for the prisoner.

Yet as I said in my last post, there's only so much I can discuss on the subject. As per the series, we are now going to see what scripture says on the matter. To discuss this scripturally, I’m going to take a leap and jump into a controversial passage. I'm going to be discussing this topic from...you guessed it...Romans 9!! (Cue shocker music.) Let's start:

I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit—that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. [Romans 9:1-5]

First, let’s understand the context. Paul has just finished giving his great exposition on salvation in Romans 8, and now turns to a difficult question: if God’s plan of salvation is so assured, why then are there disbelieving Jews? In other words, why does a Jew like Paul believe the Gospel, but a Jew like Caiaphas rejects it? Paul begins to answer this question by going to Old Testament examples:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” [Romans 9:6-9]

Paul writes that not all who are descended from Israel are Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are descended from him naturally - in other words, not all ethnic Jews are God’s people automatically. You are not born a believer, and hence you are not born a true child of Abraham. What does make you descendant? Not being a child of flesh - in other words, a natural descendant of Abraham - but rather a child of the promise, or being those who have inherited the promise of salvation from God. As an example, Paul brings up Isaac, who was selected over Ishmael by God. Ishmael was a child by human action - God did not deem Ishmael to be born, but Sarah asked Hagar to produce him with Abraham. Isaac, on the other hand, was a choice by God, and based on God’s will. Although God looked out for Ishmael and made certain him and his mother didn't die in the desert, He said that Isaac was the son whom He would bless and with whom He would stay.

Now Paul has to presuppose arguments against his position, and he recognizes that some Jewish Romans might point out that the situation with Isaac is a special one. After all, Ishmael was the product of a slave woman, not Abraham’s actual wife, and was conceived by the will of man rather than the will of God as Isaac was. You can't possibly compare that to two people - one a believer, one not a believer - who are not in such a condition. Therefore, Paul presents another example which levels the playing field, and makes it so that no one can make such a contention.

And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” [Romans 9:10-13]

Now I know, I know...it’s common for people to say that these are nations, not people. They do this by going to the verse from Malachi (which Paul quotes) and pointing out that Malachi is speaking of the nations of Israel and Edom. The problem is that Paul, in this specific section of scripture, doesn’t talk about nations, but rather individuals. You can see that in the details he outlines: they are all personal; they deal with personal traits; they deal with traits that an individual would have, not ones that nations would have. We have to also remember Paul’s train of thought: he’s talking about why Jew A would believe the Gospel while Jew B would not - why would he suddenly change his train of thought in the middle of his discussion? No rational person thinks that way.

I'm also aware that some people argue the word "hated" here doesn't mean a passionate, sinful kind of hate, and in fact just means "loved less." While it's true that the word refers to a kind of moral antipathy, this argument fails on two points:

1) The grammatical use of these words for "love" and "hate" are always used in opposition to one another. For example, this exact same grammatical use is found in Matthew 6:24, when our Lord says: "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other." Clearly, even if this doesn't mean the servant will violently hate the one master, it's still plain from the context that he's not going to love both of them.

2) Even if we argue that the use of "hate" here refers to moral antipathy rather than passionate hatred, it's still a fact that Esau was passed over for Jacob. Jacob received the blessing, Esau did not. In other words, some form of electing took place. Therefore, to argue that "hate" just means "loved less" is a complete non sequitor.

I likewise know that it’s common for people to say that God merely used foreknowledge of what Jacob and Esau would do and based his decision on that. However, let’s review what these verses say, and answer some basic questions:

Question: What is the condition of the two boys when the election took place?
Answer: a) Neither had been born; b) Neither had done good nor bad.

Question: What drove God’s decision-making?
Answer: a) His purpose of election; b) Not because of works!

It is impossible to argue that Paul is referring to any kind of foreknowledge on God's part regarding the actions of Jacob and Esau, and this is because of the clear language scripture gives us. For one, nowhere is such foreknowledge made mention. For another, Paul literally says that God's choice had nothing to do with what Jacob or Esau did do, were doing, or would do. The deciding factor in God's choosing Jacob over Esau was His purpose of election and His will. Anyone who argues God looked into the future to see what Jacob and Esau would do is reading into the text.

What we see unfolding in the epistle to the Romans is Grade-A Unconditional Election. We see this more when Paul quotes God from the Old Testament in verse 15 with, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." The apostle develops this further in verse 16 with: "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." Again, it is neither our will nor our works that make us "electable" before God, but God’s own mercy, serving His purpose and will. I have listened to and read many attempts to insert human will into these verses, but all have failed due either to jumping from the context of the verses or cutting them up and reading each in an isolated context. When you start from verse one and move on in chronological order, the point Paul is making is clear.

So when we look down upon a Christian in the church, that Christian is not a saint because of anything he has done or would do, but by the kind mercies of God, who, though that man was dead in trespasses and sins, made him alive together with Christ. As I said at the beginning of this post, we shouldn’t ask ourselves why God elected that man, but rather we should ask ourselves, knowing the state of man, why God elects anyone. That is why God's election towards salvation is in and of itself called "mercy" in this chapter of Romans - because it is completely undeserved.

We will, God willing, continue on with this series in some of the posts to come.

A Fallacy Regarding Jesus and Same Sex Marriage

In more than a few times, I have heard the argument made against religious beliefs regarding homosexuality in general something to the effect of "Jesus never talked about same sex marriage," or "Jesus never talked about homosexuality." This is meant either to imply that Jesus was all right with both subjects, or that, since he never spoke on it, Christians shouldn't dwell on it for too long. There are, however, four issues that arise from this argument and demonstrate just how fallacious it is:

1) It was not an issue at that time. Jesus was a devout Jew who was not opposed to the Mosaic Law, in particularly the moral law. While he often attacked the traditions of the Pharisees or the human wisdom of the Sadducees, both of which had been added to the Law, he never once lifted a finger to attack anything God had written. At the time Christ lived, in the area Christ lived, and to the audience spoke to for the most part, there was not rampant homosexuality or sodomy as there was elsewhere in the world, and the question of what defined marriage was at that point not an issue. Therefore, to bring up that Jesus never spoke directly on homosexuality or same sex marriage is about as relevant as bringing up that Athanasius never spoke directly on post-modern thought.

2) Jesus still identified marriage as being between a man and a woman. When asked by the Pharisees about divorce, the following dialogue occurs:

And Pharisees came up to [Jesus] and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” [Matthew 19:3-6]

Note that when speaking about marriage, Christ refers to Genesis 2 and states God had made mankind "male and female," and that, in regards to marriage, a man shall leave his father and mother (not simply "his guardians" or a vague "two parental units"), and hold fast not to his "significant other" or "civil union partner," but "his wife." In this context the two people "become one flesh" in marriage. Note also that Christ is speaking here entirely of a heterosexual relationship, both in regards to the parents and to the couple getting married. Therefore, Christ's view of marriage is one that was isolated to heterosexual relationships alone. There was no room for homosexual relationships.

3) Christ's handpicked leaders condemned homosexuality. The apostle Paul especially condemned it: while talking of "dishonorable passions," he makes mention of women who "exchanged natural relations" and men who "gave up natural relations with women and were consumed by passion for one another" (Rom 1:26-27); he said that those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9); he called it "contrary to sound doctrine" (1 Tim 1:10). The apostles, including Paul, were handpicked by Christ personally, and were chosen and entrusted to carry on his will and doctrine, ergo if one takes issue with how they interpret sin and morality, they shall have to take it up with Christ himself.

4) Christian theology takes into consideration the Bible as a whole. Those who might still persist in the previous point with "Paul and Co. are still not Jesus" are not considering how Christian theology views scripture as a whole, which is that all scripture is "God-breathed" and sourced directly to God (2 Tim 3:16). The only Christians who isolate doctrines to literally only the words of Christ believe what is called "Red Letterism" (referring to the habit of some Bibles to put the letters of Christ in red), and they are generally not considered orthodox in such thinking. We must also remember that Christ was God, and as all scripture is sourced to God, all scripture is therefore sourced to him, ergo we cannot isolate our inspired writ to only what words God the Son said during his earthly ministry.

Most important of all, of course, is the fact that Christ spoke out against all sin, heterosexual and homosexual alike. A man coveting after a woman for lustful purposes made him guilty of adultery, and made him just as much a sinner before God as a man embracing homosexual desires. It was for such individuals that Christ came into this world, so that he may absolve men of their sins and make them righteous before God. "I have not come to call the righteous," Christ said, "but sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:32). No man is a greater sinner than another, but "unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3). If this post has grieved anyone, I pray that it does not merely give them empty grief, but that they would be "grieved into repenting" (2 Cor 7:9), and that God may "perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 2:25). One day, God will judge us all through Christ Jesus, and we will be cast either into eternal punishment or into eternal life. Until then, you have a chance to repent and place your trust in this beautiful Gospel that God has given mankind through His Christ. God bless.

Loyalty towards Christ

I think it's safe to say that Jonathan Edwards was neither a universalist nor an inclusivist.

Christ came into the world to engage in a war with God's enemies, sin and Satan; and a great war there is maintained between them; which war is concerning us; and the contest is, who shall have the possession of OUR HEARTS. Now, it is reasonable under these circumstances, that we should declare on whose side we are, whether on Christ's side, or on the side of his enemies. If we would be admitted among Christ's friends and followers, it is reasonable that we should profess we are on the Lord's side, and that we yield OUR HEARTS (which the contest is about) to him, and not to his rivals. And this seems plainly to be the design and nature of a public profession of Christ. If this profession is not made, no profession is made that is worth regarding, or worth the making, in such a case as this is, and to any such purpose as a being admitted among his visible friends. There is no other being on Christ's side, in this case, but a being so with an undivided heart, preferring him to all his rivals, and renouncing them all for his sake. The case admits of no neutrality, or lukewarmness, or a middle sort of persons with a moral sincerity, or such a common faith as is consistent with loving sin and the world better than Christ. He that is not with me (says Christ) is against me. And therefore none do profess to be on Christ's side but they who profess to renounce his rivals. For those who would be called Christians, to profess no higher regard to Christ than what will admit of a superior regard to the world, is more absurd than if a woman pretending to marry a man, and take him for her husband, should profess to take him in some sort, but yet not pretend to take him in such a manner as is inconsistent with her allowing other men a fuller possession of her, and greater intimacy with her than she allows him. The nature of the case, as it stands between us and Jesus Christ, is such, that an open, solemn profession of being entirely for him, and giving him the possession of our hearts, renouncing all competitors, is more requisite in this case, than a like profession in any other case. [from Humble Inquiry Concerning the Qualifications for Membership in the Visible Christian Church]

Tiptoe Through the TULIP: Total Depravity

Durr hurr, my title is so clever. Any way...

I was asked by a sister in Christ to explain the five points of Calvinism, known today by the acronym TULIP. This will by no means be an in depth discussion of the five points, as plenty of resources like that are available online or in printed format. This is also not meant, in its primary goal, to convince anyone towards Calvinism, although God might use it in such a fashion. This is simply meant as a quick and brief explanation of what Calvinists believe and what the five points really mean, hopefully dispelling any misconceptions along the way. As we're going through TULIP, it might make sense to start with the "T", which stands for Total Depravity.

Total Depravity talks about the moral condition of man, and teaches that, morally speaking, he is a fallen creature. Most Christian churches and schools of thought already teach that man is fallen in some way, but Total Depravity goes to the very heart of the matter...literally. Man is a totally and utterly fallen creature, to the point of being naturally corrupt in regards to spiritual things.

Let's go through a few immediate clarifications about what this means. This does not mean that the only thing man can do is evil and nothing else. This does not mean that non-Christians can’t do “good” things. What this does mean is that an individual, without the regeneration of the heart given by God, is unable, on his own, to come to God in saving faith. This is why many people use the phrase Total Inability rather than Total Depravity. Mankind is completely unable, by his own power, to convert himself towards God.

This brings us to the age old question: Does man have a will? Many people seem to presume that Calvinists don't believe they do, and hence they think Calvinists believe men are like robots that have to be reprogrammed. However, Calvinists fully believe man has a will...the issue is, what is the state of  that? According to the position of Calvinists and other monergists (and some synergists), man's will is enslaved to sin, and if left alone it will always pick sin. This is the essence of total inability. You could hold a brick and say "You have free will, go up or down" and let go, but if left to the power of gravity, the brick will always go down. In like manner, you can say to an unregenerated man "You can have life or death," but if he's still under the power of sin, he will always choose death.

A quote on this matter from someone who was far, far more learned than myself:

Man is a free agent but be cannot originate the love of God in his heart. His will is free in the sense that it is not controlled by any force outside of himself. As the bird with a broken wing is "free" to fly but not able, so the natural man is free to come to God but not able. How can he repent of his sin when he loves it? How can he come to God when he hates Him? This is the inability of the will under which man labors. [Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination; source]

But enough about what I can say - from here on, I’m going to let scripture do the talking. I could easily do the shotgun approach, throwing out a lot of verses and declaring victory, but I’m not fond of proof texting unless I’m in a hurry. As I’m trying to put some effort into this, I’m going to bring in some of the stronger sections of scripture that I think demonstrate the point, so that we have some solid grounds for discussion. We’ll start with one of my favorite moments of scripture: the second chapter of the apostle Paul's letter to the Ephesians.

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. [Ephesians 2:1-3]

Paul begins this section by saying to the Ephesian Gentile believers (the “you” in verse 1) that they were dead in the trespasses and sins in which they once walked. These trespasses and sins, however, were not unique to the Ephesians themselves, as Paul says that they were following the course of the world, the “prince of the power of the air” (the devil), and the spirit now at work in the sons of disobedience (in other words, those who refuse to believe). Paul then says that “we all once lived” in this mode, the “we” here referring to Paul and his fellow Jewish Christians. All of them, Jews and Gentiles alike, were “children of wrath” - also translated as “objects of wrath” - like the rest of mankind were.

Paul’s point here is clear, and is vital for the following verses (which we’ll get to in a moment). The apostle is belaboring the point that the natural state of mankind is one of being spiritually dead. Before a person is regenerated by God, they are dead in trespasses and sins and are by nature an object of wrath - in other words, they are worthy of judgment, and little else. Just as a man who is naturally dead cannot do anything towards, a spiritually dead man cannot do anything towards salvation.

Now that might sound like grim news, but now we get to the good news. In many ways, Ephesians 2 is like the miniature version of what Paul discusses in the first three chapters of Romans, and it’s here that Paul switches gear and goes from sin and judgment to gospel and grace.

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, 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 [Eph 2:4-6]

Paul tells us that God, out of love for us, and while we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ. Let me reiterate this: we (the believer) were still dead when God quickened us. This blows the idea of Pelagianism and to a large degree Semi-Pelagianism out of the water. When Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, there was nothing Lazarus contributed to that act. In a similar matter, Paul says that we, who are dead and objects of wrath, are made alive together with Christ by God, with no assistance from us. God is the main actor here, not man. Paul even belabors this point by writing that it is by grace we have been saved. He will reiterate this two verses later with: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.”

So how is this related to the topic of Total Depravity? Paul is quite clearly teaching here that mankind is completely depraved - the natural state of man the world over is one of a dead being. We are objects of wrath because of our inclination to sin. If God left every man alone, no one would be deserving of eternal life. They would still be following the course of this world, and it won't be until the quickening power of God comes upon them that they can change direction.

I should quickly note here (least anyone accuse me of misrepresentation) that Calvinism is not the only theological system which teaches Total Depravity. Most monergists (such as Lutherans) believe in Total Depravity, and most orthodox synergists do as well. John Wesley and George Whitefield - two famous street preachers who were Arminian and Calvinist respectively - would see eye-to-eye with one another on this. Where the different parties would start to differ is what they believe in regards to the other letters in TULIP, which we will, God willing, continue to tiptoe through as these posts progress.