Reasons for Analyzing Romans

After having enough Calvinists quote Romans to support their views, I decided to really get down to analyzing it.

Part of this decision came from a person quoting Romans 3:10-11 to support the position that all are unable to understand (Total Depravity) unless God affects God's grace on a person, thus God is the one who is really doing all the action; our salvation has nothing to do with our choice initially(Unconditional Election)... (though when bringing up the double-election, whatever the technical/theological word for it is, they will turn to the "no one is without excuse; God's made the information plain for everyone" horn).

I asked this person for the context of the Romans 3:10-11 passage, and I was only given a very general statement: that Romans 1-3 is all about giving the history of how humanity fell since the days of Adam. By phrasing it that way, without knowing the context myself having no Bible in hand, it seemed that Romans 1 would be about our initial state (pre-Fall) leading to the culmination (Romans 3:10-11, all have sinned, all are running away from God and cannot turn back to God on their own accord/will). However, when just given that context, I just had a strong feeling that he may have been "stacking the deck" to prove his point. Now that I've analyzed those chapters myself I realize that he was...oooh, yeah he was, though perhaps unintentionally.

Though I can see how, without a thorough analysis of Psalms 14 (all of it, not just verses 1-3), one can interpret Romans 3:10-11 in that manner. But it would have helped if that person who quoted the Romans 3:10-11 passage would have simply said that Paul was quoting verses from the Psalms.

Had I known this during the discussion, I would have at least understood that some of the Psalms were written a bit more in the extreme sense, not meant to be taken quite so literally as we Greek-minded people may be inclined to do. After going home and finding the passage myself, I noticed I could make a good case that Paul seems to have refered the Psalms to make a case about a certain group of people rather than all people who ever lived. Perhaps in another post (if I remember), I'll present how I came to that conclusion about the Psalms passages that Paul quotes.

Note to self: discuss Psalms 14 and 53 eventually.

Realization about Friendships

Warning: this post will not really contain anything of intellectual substance (I think...)

I just realized this morning and all day today that I have to close the door and move on to the next room of my life. Some events from last week brought me to this revelation: some old friends made it fairly obvious that they had already shut the door on me. Contact has been weak at best for the past 2-3 years. They moved on, I hadn't. I'm still nostalgic of the past... when Central's group, Impact/Prime Time, was going so well. Damn, I miss those people. They all have a special place in my heart. But it's time to move on now.

After Alan and I got married, about a third disappeared off the face of the social earth. That's a strange thing about our society (or maybe just LV). When people get married, all the singles seem to vanish and don't want to come over and hang out anymore. When people have kids, they vanish and say they don't have time anymore. Conversations became more and more stilted.

Now there are some other people who I've tried being friends with, but they've hardly reciprocated. They hardly called before having kids (for those who do have kids now), and now they never call. I realize I'm low on their list. I need to shut that door, though I don't want to, and move on to the next room of my life. I'll still be here for them (if they ever call) and I'll aim to not hold grudges (I'm being honest), but I'm no longer going to look to them for friendship. I need to find other people who will reciprocate. After talking with my parents about it, I realize it's not me... it's the culture of the town. It's hard to find healthy friends who will reciprocate. It sucks. I never felt like I really belonged here anyway. I've always been looking for a way out.

I also need to give up Sunday night church. I have no real friends there. I might find friends elsewhere.

Where has all the substance gone?

I spend a bit too much time on the computer when I have free time. I think I know why so here's my attempt to fix it.

I do want to keep up to date with what's going on in the theological world, but I realize much of the stuff I've read isn't quite concise and to the point. For example, I was reading the blog, Emergent No (EN). EN made a lot of assertions about some people like Scott McKnight, Tony Jones, and Brian McLaren ... but currently I don't know a lot about these people (pastors? theologians? other?). So since I don't know a lot about these people, I'd like to hear some good evidence to support EN's assertions. However, I haven't found much. EN provides some quotes from these people, but the analysis is rather weak. Here's an example (quote taken from the EN blog):

Jones then informs us that Eckhart’s work is:

a mystical treatise on the intersection between Greek philosophy and Christian theology with an emphasis on God’s indwelling of humanity (emphasis added).

So this patent denial of the work of God the Holy Spirit in the true born again believer in Christ is where it begins, and where this deception leads is summed up in the statement that will follow. These Christ-denying and man-pleasing words actually come from a document produced by the Second Vatican Council of the Church of Rome called Gaudium et Spes:

So ... please explain to me how this quote is a "patent denial of the work of God the Holy Spirit in the true born again believer in Christ". How are these "Christ-denying and man-pleasing words"? Call me stupid, but I don't get it. These claims need to be spelled out by EN. I've read the blog entry for answers to these questions of mine and have found nothing. And where is the "statement that will follow" which is supposed to show us where "this deception (whatever this "deception" is - please explain) leads".

EN also quotes Len Sweet's quote of David Bohm:

I am calling the New Light apologetic. It is already present in bits and pieces, here and there in this discipline and that discipline, in this denomination and that denomination, in this thinker and that thinker. The New Light apologetic represents a Christian alternative to the largely Old Light “New Age” movement.

(bold and underlining is EN's)

Now it seems that, when reading EN's critique of this quote, EN notices the "Old Light 'New Age' movement," but I don't think EN grasps what the author's main point is. EN associates this with the New Age movement and seems to think that Sweet is therefore aligning himself with the New Age movement. But I don't see that. I only see Sweet saying that we live in a postmodern world and we must adapt our method (a new apologetic) to reaching out to the postmodern world. But this doesn't necessarily mean becoming one with the postmodern world (and from what I've read, I think Sweet would agree).

So, since the EN writer doesn't really give good grounds for her assertions and claims, I think I'm going to remove that blog from my reading list. Searching for her reasons for her claims takes up too much time.

I was just reading the CARM website and I really have to say, I'm displeased with it. People who read stuff off of it really don't get a fair picture of the issues the writer personally disagrees with. For example, with Open Theism, the writer of that article on CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry) completely misunderstands the true issue behind the debate. It's not about God's omniscience because nearly all OT's fully believe that God is 100% omniscient.

What's the main issue? The nature of the future. (But CARM doesn't quite get it) Is the future exhaustively settled or is it still partially open? Does the future currently exist as a B-Theorist of time would say, or does it not exist yet as the A-Theorist would say? Yes, God knows the beginning and end of this creation, and yes, God knows of what is absolutely certain between those two points... but the question is, are all events fully settled between the "will happens" and "will not happens"? Many OT's believe those two terms "will" and "will not" (in as far as the future is concerned) are not contradictories, rather they are contraries because there is a third option: "might and might not happen".

The CARM writer states, "In open theism, the future is either knowable or not knowable." This statement is not true. He should have written, "the future is partially open and partially settled." In as far as the "knowable" part, if event E in the future currently is a "might do X and might not do X", then that is all that can be said about that event until the agent actually does the action. Those who come from a B-Theorist position might ask, "So does God know what the agent will do?" That B-Theorist is still referencing a B-Theorist framework. Recall, the OTist believes there are three possibilities of the future: 1)will, 2)will not, and 3)might & might not. Quit trying to turn the 3) into a 1)! If it's 3), then God knows it as such. It is true that a "will" entails a "might", but a "might" does not necessarily entail a "will".

CARM also states that OT's "differ in that the [sic] God can only know that which is knowable..." Tell me, what's wrong with God knowing only what is knowable? Is he telling us that God also knows that which is false as being true? His idea of God knowing what is unknowable is simply incoherent.

He also thinks OT's believe, "God only knows the present exhaustively." This also doesn't represent OT correctly. Yes, God knows the present exhaustively and the past and future exhaustively, but the question is the nature, or content, of the future. God knows the current status of the future, again in the 3 categories outlined above."God can make mistakes..." wrong again. A mistake relates to knowledge of reality... if I have a false or incorrect understanding of something of reality, I make a mistake.

"Historic Orthodox Christianity states that God knows all things, even the entirety of the future, exhaustively." So do OTists. The question is the nature of the future.

"Is God all knowing about the future or not?" Yes.

"Is God existing in the future or not?" No. If the future doesn't exist, how can God exist in the future?

"Is God limited to the present or not?" If only the present is all there is, that is, if it's all that exists... what exists (God & creation) can only exist (are "limited" to) in what actually exists (reality).

"God's omnipresence is also in jeopardy in open theism, since some open theists deny the existence of the future and thereby deny the omnipresence of God in the future." If the future doesn't exist, how can God be in the non-existent future?

All quotes are from the CARM website.

Adoption, Abortion, and Gatica

We're thinking of adoption, but I've been having thoughts about the idea of "selecting" what baby to adopt. How different is that from Gattaca where people could decide what color eyes and what skills they want their babies to have. All undesired embryos in the film were disposed before the parents had the option of deciding on a boy, girl, blue eyes, or brown eyes. Gattica is a story about an Undesired, Borrowed Ladder, etc.

For adoption, we can decide what racial preference, what gender, whether they have drugs or alcohol in their system vs. most likely being clean, etc. There is a high prevalence of "drug babies" in our city; in fact the city orphanage is so overfilled so that babies are now being kept in hospitals, yet there is a 2 year waiting list through private agencies for caucasian babies. I ended up asking myself, "would I have preferred those babies to have been aborted instead?" Morally-speaking, no...but emotionally-speaking? But I still think it's a bit unfair how people who are so hooked on drugs and irresponsible are able to conceive, and do conceive (why didn't they just get their productive equipment permanently disabled?), while there are so many good couples who are unable to conceive and are hoping to adopt. Am I wrong for thinking this?

Frustration with Dogmatism and Pride

I'm just going to have a brief rant. I'm not an important person and nobody reads this blog anyway- so I don't have to worry about being cautious about how I word things here.

Here's my frustration: ok... I'm a "layperson" in the church. I haven't studied theology formally in a seminary. But you know what really bugs me? When I'm not taken seriously by those who have studied theology for a long time. When I'm frequently interrupted when I'm trying to clarify my position. When they listen to someone else because they think the other person is smarter than me (which, yes, may be the case... but!!! it's not fair to keep interrupting me while hearing the "smarter" person out before responding.)

I'm starting to think that the more one studies theology, the less one is willing to *really* listen to others, particularly to those who are "laypersons". I've probably been guilty of this too. It's like there's this theological pride... "I've figured it out. I'm right. I know what your position is before you even finish your sentence." But you know what? When humility vanishes, what use is your theological brilliance? Now, on the open theism discussion board I frequent, I haven't encountered that for the most part. They are willing to uncover every rock to understand what philosophical assumptions they bring to the table when reading the Bible. Perhaps they've been willing to hear me out because that type of discussion is in writing.

But it seems something happens when I have face to face discussions. Maybe I'm just too emotional. Maybe my voice just isn't strong enough. Maybe I have the wrong image. Maybe it's the blond hair. Maybe because I'm young (31?) Maybe it's the fact that I'm a woman and men tend to subconsciously look down on that... perhaps because of the Corinthians passage. I don't know! But it's frustrating. I can tell when a person looks down on me; you can see in their eyes - mentally they're finishing your sentences for you and not really hearing what you're saying. They only think they know what you're saying, but their responses show that they haven't got a clue - mentally, they're only building strawmen. Erg.

Many theologians and pastors tend to see things in black and white, failing (and basically refusing) to see where their philosophical assumptions are when coming to the text, and (especially when they think they are *absolutely right*) have a blatant unwillingness to consider that there may be more than one way to interpret a text. When mentioning certain words, they jump to conclusions. For example: "philosophy", "theology", "biblical", "sovereignty", "hermeneutics". For some strange reason, people think they can separate philosophy from theology. You can't! Philosophy encompasses every discipline, every argument, every position one holds. When you analyze, interpret, decide what the author is trying to say, you are using philosophical tools, assumptions, beliefs.

There's the loose, everyday usage of the word "philosophy", such as "I have a philosophy about the stars," "I have a philosophy about how one should use chop sticks," "I have a philosophy about Bilbo the clown." But think about questions like this: Why are we here? How should one interpret the Bible? What is the proper mode of discourse? What is "sovereignty"? What hermeneutical approach should we use: Baconian or something else? Can we set aside all assumptions and just simply "read the text"? Those are all philosophical questions. And here are other philosophical positions as well: We should first analyze the Greek and Hebrew grammatical structures when analyzing the Bible. (Why?) We should interpret scripture with scripture. (Why?) "Day" instead of "time period" or "season" is the best translation for "Yom" in Genesis chapter 1. (Why?) We shouldn't bring our philosophical assumptions to the table when reading a text - we should read it straight-forward. (FYI, you CAN'T do that. You always bring your philosophical assumptions to the table. Here's the clue: How ought we interpret this biblical text?)

I've heard enough Calvinists say, "My position is biblical and theirs is not." Give me a break - you (who say things like this) refuse to listen to the others and when others present a biblical case for their position, you are dismissive by saying they are incorporating philosophy rather than letting the text speak for itself. The same can be said about you - it's arrogance that prevents a person from hearing the other person out. You don't even *really* try to *really* understand where the other person is coming from!

Ok, my venting rampage is over. (almost)

What does it mean when Jesus says, "I never knew you"?

I had this posted on another blog and thought I'd just put it on here for reflection. I wrote it back in December (although I edited it a bit just now... oh well)

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven,
but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will
say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in
Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then
I will declare to them, 'I never knew you;DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'" (Matthew 7:21-23)

I've had these verses in the back of my mind for a long time. Because of these verses, I had wondered whether my relationship with the Lord is "genuine enough" or "strong enough" so that He would not say, "I never knew you." I wondered, "gee, if these people who did all these things in Jesus' name and still Jesus said, "I never knew you," then... what about me? I mean, I do a lot of stuff for church; I am involved in apologetics; I know the main Creeds; I confess that Jesus is my Lord (though, gosh, I fail and fail at the daily application of that... maybe that will be my next blog: Mark 8:38); I aim to follow Him daily; I accept the sacrifice made on the cross and am very thankful for it. But still there was that nagging question: Is it enough?

I've heard some sermons on these verses, but after doing my own study, though my study was short time-wise, I think what the pastors said was slightly misleading. One said that if you believe in Jesus as your Lord then you have nothing to worry about. But it never really answered the nagging question in the back of my mind: those people who perform miracles in Jesus' name, use His name, and perhaps even believe in Him (for all I know), what does it mean for Jesus to say, "I never knew you."

Granted, what the pastor said was true... but there's the other part of the salvation message that was seriously missing (though at the time I didn't realize it): the repentance of sins. Without the repentance of sins, there is no forgiveness. Without the repentance of sins, there is a serious gap between us and the Lord. If we are not pure in heart and spirit, we can't know the Lord, and that purity can't be manifest without complete repentance to the Lord.

So.. how does this all tie together? When Jesus said, "DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS", the verse He was referring was Psalm 6:8. Whenever a passage in the Old Testament was quoted, I pretty much assume that Jesus wasn't only talking about that single verse, but the whole context. (A friend once said that when Jews used to quote the O.T., they were referring to the whole passage, so that's how I got that hermeneutic.) The whole Psalm is about David's serious repentance. He realized in his sin he was "pining away" (remind you of the song "Oh Holy Night"?), his bones were dismayed, he is weary from sighing (what emotions might cause one to "sigh"?...regret, negative memories, mental tiredness, frustration), he "dissolves his couch with tears", making his bed "swim", his "eye has become wasted in grief". David is the one who wrote "depart from me, all you who do iniquity" just after stating that his grief has become old because of his adversaries... his adversaries keep practicing lawlessness.

Then, here's the key: "The Lord has heard the voice of my weeping, The Lord has heard my supplication, The Lord receives my prayer." I take that last part as to perhaps be a sign of the restoration of the relationship with the Lord. We know from Psalm 40 that the Lord lifts David out of the miry clay, the "pit of destruction", and sets his feet on a firm rock and gives a new song in his mouth. I see this Psalm showing a similar idea. The Lord sets his feet on a rock; the Lord receives my prayer; etc.

I realized that when you come to realize how holy God is, then you realize it's only by repentance, seriously regretting and turning away from your sin that leads to God granting forgiveness (yes, I know it's a question as to whether God is the prime mover in causing repentance or if it's of our own volition), accepting that forgiveness through Jesus Christ that you are brought back to a right relationship with the Lord where He has promised that He will not deny you.

We know that works can't cover transgressions; only turning away from our transgressions and repenting of them to the Lord solves the problem.

So perhaps in this passage Jesus is talking about those who do miracles & works, but don't repent of their own sins. They basically use Jesus' name in vain without truly following Him.

Verses Opposing "Perseverance of the Saints"

Now I'll list some Bible verses that may bring the "once saved, always saved" doctrine into question:

• Ps 51:10-12 Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me.Do not cast me away from Your presence And do not take YourHoly Spirit from me.Restore to me the joy of Your salvation And sustain me with a willing spirit. NASU
  
• Isa 63:8-10 For He said, "Surely, they are My people, Sons who will not deal falsely." So He became their Savior.In all their affliction He was afflicted, And the angel of His presence saved them; In His love and in His mercy He redeemed them, And He lifted them and carried them all the days of old.But they rebelled And grieved His Holy Spirit; Therefore He turned Himself to become their enemy, He fought against them. NASU
  
• Matt 6:14-15 For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. "But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions. NASU
  
• Matt 10:22 You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved. NASU
  
• Luke 12:42-47 Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their rations at the proper time? "Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But if that slave says in his heart, 'My master will be a long time in coming,' and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers. And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes. NASU
  
• Rom 11:17-22 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. NASU
  
• 1 Cor 9:26-27 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.NASU
  
• 1 Cor 15:1-2 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. NASU
  
• Gal 5:1-5 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. NASU
  
• Col 1:21-23 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach — if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister. NASU
  
• Heb 3:6-15 but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house — whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end.Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says,"TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME,AS IN THE DAY OF TRIAL IN THE WILDERNESS, WHERE YOUR FATHERS TRIED Me BY TESTING Me,AND SAW MY WORKS FOR FORTY YEARS. "THEREFORE I WAS ANGRY WITH THIS GENERATION,AND SAID, 'THEY ALWAYS GO ASTRAY IN THEIR HEART,AND THEY DID NOT KNOW MY WAYS'; AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH,'THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST.'"Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God. But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called "Today," so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end, while it is said,"TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE,DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS, AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME." NASU
  
• Heb 4:11 Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience. NASU
• Heb 6:4-6 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.NASU
  
• Heb 10:32-39 But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings, partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated. For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one. Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised.FOR YET IN A VERY LITTLE WHILE,HE WHO IS COMING WILL COME, AND WILL NOT DELAY. BUT MY RIGHTEOUS ONE SHALL LIVE BY FAITH;AND IF HE SHRINKS BACK, MY SOUL HAS NO PLEASURE IN HIM.But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.NASU
  
• 2 Peter 2:20-22For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, " A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT," and, "A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire."NASU
  
• Rev 3:4-5 'But you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments; and they will walk with Me in white, for they are worthy. 'He who overcomes will thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels. NASU
  
• Rev 22:18-19 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. NASU
  

I'll get to more later.

Verses Supporting "Perseverance of the Saints"

Can we voluntarily walk away from salvation?

Some verses that seem to say no:

• John 6:39-40"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." NASU
  
• John 10:27-29 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, 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." NASU
  
• Rom 5:6-11 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. NASU
  
• Rom 8:28-30 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. NASU
  
• Rom 8:31-39 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Just as it is written,"FOR YOUR SAKE WE ARE BEING PUT TO DEATH ALL DAY LONG;WE WERE CONSIDERED AS SHEEP TO BE SLAUGHTERED."But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. NASU
  
• Rom 11:28-32 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. NASU (Heather's note - I consider this as probably one of the strongest verses in support of the "once saved always saved" argument.)
  
• Eph 1:13-14 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation — having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption ofGod's own possession, to the praise of His glory. NASU
  
• Phil 1:6 For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. NASU
  
• 1 John 4:13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. NASU

Verses Supporting "Free Will"

Are our actions free? Even further, do we freely choose to follow God or does God compel us to follow Him (or does God put an irresistable desire in us to follow Him? ... I think that means "to compel", but some people would disagree with me - though I don't think their argument is really strong.) If I have time, I'll comment on these. If not, consider these as some references to ponder.

Some verses:

• Lev 26:21 - 'If then, you act with hostility against Me and are unwilling to obey Me, I will increase the plague on you seven times according to your sins.’
  
• Lev 26:43 - They, meanwhile, will be making amends for their iniquity, because they rejected My ordinances and their soul abhorred My statutes.
  
• Matt 23:37 - Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
  
• John 5:39-40 - You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.
  
• Acts 7:51 - You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.
  
• 1 Tim 2:3-4 - This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. NASU
  
• 2 Tim 2:11-13 - For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him; If we endure, we will also reign with Him;If we deny Him, He also will deny us; If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.

Craig & Ehrman Debate

I just got the link to this debate from Bill Craig by email and apparently Bart Ehrman isn't permitting publication of it, so this can only be passed around by "word of internet". This took place around April or so. It's about the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf

God's Attributes: About Immutability

I've decided to start posting my own thoughts while I have a bit of time between semesters. For those of you who know me, I must admit, I've been keeping another blog that's been separate from this one. I did have pretty good reasons (I think?), but I don't really want to get into all the "why's". The main reason is that I didn't want it to be any source of confusion and internally (in case you haven't noticed yet) I tend to be rather "on my guard" when it comes to discussing personal thoughts.

But now I'm over that (mostly, I think), and I'll transfer some of my old stuff onto here so you can see what I've written about. :)

Anyway, here's one thing that I've been thinking about. Among "secondary issues" in Christianity, there's debate over whether God is completely immutable or not. Immutable basically means "non-changing in any way." There are many in the church who believe that God absolutely can't change in any way. But I believe God does change in some ways and in other ways, God does not change. Here's a brief outline regarding my position on the matter:

Aspects of God that do not change:

1. God is eternal. God always exists. - God was never created, God will never die, God will never cease to exist. Why? God is self-sustaining and needs nothing else to live (in other words, God is not "contingent"... God is necessary)
2. God is completely good. God's character defines goodness and doesn't change. What was good will always be good because God's moral character does not change.
3. God is omniscient. He knows all truths. God knows all that can be known.
4. God is omnipresent. God is fully and immediately present to all that exists (even present to Hell... if Hell indeed exists. Yes, we can discuss if you want to know more.). However, there are different "intensities" of God's existence. Here's an example: I can talk fully into a microphone, but the listener cannot hear as well if the amplitude (volume) is turned low. The listener can hear very clearly if the amplitude is turned high.
5. God is omnipotent. God can do anything that is logically possible. So the question "Can God create a rock so big that even He can't lift it" is logically impossible. The problem is with the question - not with God's abilities. It's basically a nonsense question. Just because a person can pit opposites against each other doesn't make it a good question. Also, if God puts restrictions on Himself for certain reasons, He's fully allowed to do so - that's where we trust his omniscience. He ultimately knows what's best in order to accomplish His purposes.

How God changes: (when God does something, there is a change... but not in character)

1. There was a time before God created and after God created. When God created, this required God to do something - specifically to issue the command. Who God is didn't change. What God did, did cause a change. Hopefully this makes sense.
2. When God became incarnate (became a human), there was a change. There was "before the incarnation" and "after the incarnation" - again, this is a change. Still, God's character didn't change.
3. Whenever a miracle, decree, command, etc. was issued, there was a change: from "God does not do the miracle" to "God does the miracle", from "pre-command" to "post-command". God does not eternally perform the miracle - it happens in one moment in time. Now there's the internal debate regarding the nature of time. I subscribe to the "presentist" view... I believe that when a change occurs, "time" occurs. Time doesn't cause change... change causes time. Have I confused you yet?
4. Sometimes God is happy, sometimes sad, sometimes proud, sometimes angry. This is due to God's creation. Creation makes God happy, sad, proud, and angry.

So, I was just looking at the Hebrews 13:8 verse: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." Yes... in character... in who He is ultimately. But Jesus did not always exist in bodily form. There was a moment in time where he became incarnate.

Malachi 3:6: "For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed." Same thing... we can trust in God because God's character does not change. God is always good, therefore God can't go back on His promises.