Showing posts sorted by relevance for query i love to be wrong. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query i love to be wrong. Sort by date Show all posts

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

I Love to be Wrong!

Well, that's not really accurate... at all. I don't love to be wrong.
What I'm trying to say is that I love to learn that I have been wrong. Now, many consider this quite odd. Most people generally do not like to hear that they are wrong and if someone proves to them that they are, in fact, wrong, they usually will feel more annoyed than happy. So, I felt like writing a blog, explaining to the world that I am not just crazy: that I have a rational and logical reason for being happy to discover that I've been completely mistaken. In fact, I think that if more people saw things the way I did, and really didn't mind discovering their own flaws and confusions, that we would all live in more perfect peace and happiness. So why is it that I don't mind learning that I am wrong? Put simply, it's because I love to be right. To discover that I have been wrong is to discover that I can escape from that path!

Let me explain in further detail. I put forward first off the simple presupposition that if an idea or action is wrong, then it is not the best, and will lead to various negative outcome. I will be in a bad situation. Now, if I am in a bad situation, there are two possibilities:
1 - I am doing everything correctly
2 - I am doing something incorrectly
Now let us suppose that I am being persecuted for my faith in Christ, in which case I would be doing everything correctly, but still in a painful situation. It is of course awesome to suffer for what's right, but the fact that I am in the right is a painful fact because it means I have to continue with what I'm doing and believing, even though it's going to continue to be hard. On the other hand, let us suppose that I am being picked on because I am tactless, in which case I could make the painful situation dissolve simply by acting differently! What joy, what freedom, what relief is found in that sentiment! It's like all I have to do is to push one shiny button, and my problem goes away! Now that is awesome.

This is not limited to merely doing things incorrectly, but also applies to thinking incorrect thoughts, which can have much more subtle negative consequences. Subtle or not, I know that truth is more awesome, and am glad to avoid all the consequences of believing lies! As you can see, then, as a mere matter of practicality, understanding where one is wrong is the best thing that can happen to a person! If I believe that guns work without being loaded, and then learn that I am wrong: that a gun works better if it actually has ammunition in it, it is going to help me in a big way when I actually get out there on the battlefield!

The one thing that mainly holds people back from this very practical way of viewing things is that many people simply don't like the idea that they are wrong, or have been doing things wrong for any period of time. Personally, I have come to be quite familiar with the fact that I am often quite dumb and mess up quite a bit. It doesn't bother me anymore. (Perhaps because I have learned to accept and love myself, even with all my flaws) I am not shocked to learn that I am wrong anymore than I would be shocked to hear that my Mom is going to Walmart. She goes to Walmart almost every day, and I'm sure that I'm wrong more often than that!

So, basically, since I don't see it as a negative to see that I am wrong (I am used to it) and I do see it as a positive to learn a better and more practical way to think about and do things, I love to learn that I have been wrong! I love to see where I am wrong, because I love to be right! You see, one of the the only ways to become more right is to see where you are wrong currently. I should add that I have this view in mind when I sometimes argue with other people. My basic point is never "you're wrong and I'm so much smarter than you," but rather "I have good news for you! The world is so much more awesome than you think it is!" Also, just because I am glad to see that I have been wrong does not mean that I am easy to persuade: I study and think about everything I believe. If you can honestly show me where and how it is invalid, then I would love to learn from that! But until then, as my brother says, "I believe what I believe, and I'm going to believe the heck out of it!"

God Bless!

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

God Hates People !?

God Loves Everyone

It seems quite clear that God loves everyone from no matter which way you look at it. For instance, I love my brother, my neighbor, and my enemy.

Matthew 5:44 "But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you..."

Is it possible that I love anyone more than God does?
I would say that it can't be! He is love, and all love that I have comes from him.

1 John 4:7-8 "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love."

If there is someone that, because of God's command, I love enough to give my life for, is it possible that God loves them less than I do? Do I have love more powerful or perfect than God's love? Of course not! In my last blog, I also put forward several verses which say that God loves everyone.



___________________________________________________
Now let's put forward a shocking fact: God hates people.





That's right. I didn't say that God "loves the sinner, but hates the sin," I said that God hates some people. I'm not making this up; check out these verses:

Romans 9:13 "As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”"

Psalm 11:5
"The LORD tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates. "

Proverbs 6:16-19
"These six things the LORD hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:

A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,

A heart that devises wicked plans,

Feet that are swift in running to evil,

A false witness who speaks lies,

And one who sows discord among brethren.
"

In those verses, God says through His Word that He does not just hate the sin, He also hates false witnesses, Esau, and those who love violence. God's Word cannot lie. Notice, though, that unlike the hatred that we often have for people, God only supports perfect hatred:

Psalm 139:21-23
"Do I not hate them, O LORD, who hate You?
And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?
I hate them with perfect hatred;
I count them my enemies."

___________________________________________________
What is this hatred?
What is this perfect hatred? Why is David allowed to have perfect hatred, if we are to love both our neighbor and our enemy? Isn't that impossible? Is the Bible contradicting itself?

Some would put forward the idea that "hatred is opposite of love." I don't think that definition holds much truth. I heard just the other week, in a sermon, that "the opposite of love is not hatred, it's apathy." I would have to agree with that. Apathy is not love; it is not anywhere near love...
1 John 3:17 "But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?"

Whereas "love-hate" relationships are quite easy to find. God loves the world, and God hates the wicked, but nowhere does the Bible say that God is apathetic about any of them. If the Bible said that God loved all, and was apathetic about some, then that would perhaps be a contradiction. But that is not what the Bible says.

When we say "hatred," often we mean "a lack of love mixed with animosity and hostility toward another person; a desire to harm them." I admit that this is an oft-used definition. However, is that really the type of perfect hatred that God has? That would definitely contradict the passages about God loving people.

Let's look at the Bible at face value, and look at the implications:
  • Fact: God loves the world. (John 3:16)
  • Fact: God hates some people. (Ps. 11:5)
  • Logical conclusion: God's perfect hatred can happen at the same time as love.

The idea that hate and love perfectly can, and must, walk hand in hand may seem odd or strange to you, and so before going on with more arguments, scriptures, or proofs, I will take a moment to paint a word picture for you. A picture painted by G.K. Chesterton which shows this unique relationship being seeming opposites.

"Let us suppose we are confronted with a desperate thing--say Pimlico. If we think what is really best for Pimlico we shall find the thread of thought leads to the throne or the mystic and the arbitrary. It is not enough for a man to disapprove of Pimlico: in that case he will merely cut his throat or move to Chelsea. Nor, certainly, is it enough for a man to approve of Pimlico: for then it will remain Pimlico, which would be awful...

The evil of the pessimist is, then, not that he chastises gods and men, but that he does not love what he chastises--he has not this primary and supernatural loyalty to things. What is the evil of the man commonly called an optimist? Obviously, it is felt that the optimist, wishing to defend the honour of this world, will defend the indefensible. He is the jingo of the universe; he will say, "My cosmos, right or wrong." He will be less inclined to the reform of things; more inclined to a sort of front-bench official answer to all attacks, soothing every one with assurances. He will not wash the world, but whitewash the world...

No one doubts that an ordinary man can get on with this world: but we demand not strength enough to get on with it, but strength enough to get it on. Can he hate it enough to change it, and yet love it enough to think it worth changing? Can he look up at its colossal good without once feeling acquiescence? Can he look up at its colossal evil without once feeling despair? Can he, in short, be at once not only a pessimist and an optimist, but a fanatical pessimist and a fanatical optimist? Is he enough of a pagan to die for the world, and enough of a Christian to die to it? In this combination, I maintain, it is the rational optimist who fails, the irrational optimist who succeeds. He is ready to smash the whole universe for the sake of itself."


___________________________________________________
Examples:

I really do relate to that one line: "Can he hate it enough to change it, and yet love it enough to think it worth changing?" This really is what God does, and has done. Let me give an example:
  1. God hates the wicked.
    Psalm 5:5 " The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who do wrong."
  2. I was one the of the wicked.
    Romans 1:30 "...backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents..."
  3. In His hatred, He also loved me enough that He was willing to die to me so that I would no longer be one of the wicked.
    Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

In our own humans minds, we may see some sort of contradiction here. If you hate someone for being wicked, how could you also love them enough to die for them? That is God's perfect and gracious love for us. If God loves people enough to die for them, how could He condemn those who choose to remain wicked to hell? That is God's perfect hatred. There is no contradiction. The cross is where God's perfect mercy and justice were both perfectly fulfilled. Is it so hard, then, to see that God's perfect love and hatred could both be perfectly fulfilled?



Example: As christians, we are commanded to love all. We also commanded to hate some. Logical conclusion: Biblical hatred can happen at the same time as love.
Romans 13:8
"Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law."
[Also see Luke 10 for clarification about who our neighbor is; who we are to love]

Luke 14:26
“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.

The common interpretation of this "hate" is that Jesus is saying your love for Him must be so great that your love for others seems closer to hate in comparison. Notice that this hatred can and should happen at the same time as love. For he who does not love his brother is in the darkness until now.


Another Example: David was a man after God's own heart, and thereby we infer that he followed the two greatest commandments, and also hated people with "perfect hatred" without being reprimanded. Logical conclusion: Biblical hatred can happen at the same time as love.

Acts 13:22
"And when He had removed him, He raised up for them David as king, to whom also He gave testimony and said, ‘I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after My own heart, who will do all My will.’"


I maintain that although the Bible says that God loves and hates, it does not contradict itself. I maintain that as christians, we are told to love and hate, and yet are not commanded a contradiction. I could be entirely incorrect and confused here, but it seems to me that we are called to love God above all, and to hate(love less) people while loving them enough to give our lives for them. It seems to be very possible for David or God to hate the wicked with a perfect hatred while loving them passionately. It seems to me that God hates the wicked with passionate hatred, while loving them (including me here) enough to die to pay their penalty, and make them into a new creation.


Friday, August 7, 2009

Calvinism 2: Sovereignty, Grace, Love, and Free Will

Sovereignty, Grace, Love, and Free Will:

God is Sovereign! Oh yeh. Definitely. God deserves all the glory in the world, and more! Not only because He is simply all-powerful and able to create life, but also because He is intelligent, creative, humorous, trustworthy, righteous, holy, and, most surprisingly of all, loving and merciful. He could have been an all-powerful God who loves to make people suffer just for fun. But He isn't. He could have been a dumb God who made really stupid laws of physics that didn't end up working so well. But He isn't. He could have been perfectly righteous and holy and still been cool with letting us all burn for our sins. But He isn't. He is so much more awesome than that! He is the great "I AM," the righteous, pure, and loving God. That is amazing. It's simply unbelievable that for no reason that I can think of, the God of the universe just happened to be this awesome - what if some other God had existed instead? Why isn't that the case? I don't know. I don't even understand how our God came to be existent in a universe where there was no other god. It makes me dizzy to try to figure it out. How did He just always happen to be there? Why didn't some sort of sadistic God just always happen to be there? I don't know, but I'm ready to sing and dance and praise God for eternity for being simply being so awesome!

God, having created us, is Sovereign over all. He can do whatever He feels like. Thankfully, He never feels like doing anything evil. God not only is all-powerful, but also refrains from doing everything He could do. He could make the earth crumble at this moment. But He does not. He could make me become ten feet tall. But He does not. I do not disagree with calvinists that God could, if He felt like it, causally determine every human action. I do not disagree that He could, if He wanted, save randomly selected people and leave others to burn. I do not disagree that He could, if He wanted, regenerate them so that they would have saving faith. I do not disagree that He has the power to create some people just to see them burn in hell, to give Himself more glory points somehow. I do not disagree that He could take away free will from every human on earth. I merely say that although He has the power to do all that, although He is sovereign in His reign, He does not use His power to do any of those things. I do not argue that God is not sovereign over all, I only argue about what God does with that sovereign power. I believe that God is powerful and sovereign enough that He could give men free will, and still remain perfectly in control of the universe. He would not lose His sovereignty somehow if He felt like giving men true choices. No, He would still be King. God is still on the throne.

God is sovereign, and deserves all glory. The main reason that I speak against calvinism is because, by misrepresenting God's character, they take away from His glory. They do not glorify Him for being the all-loving Being that He is! They do not glorify Him for being able to Author free creatures, and still remain in control of the world. They do not glorify Him for being tender-hearted, gracious, and merciful. They do not glorify Him for being just. They do not glorify Him for being the great "I AM," without any variation or shadow of turning, but rather claim that He decrees evil and that He is more loving to some than to others. They do not glorify Him for loving and dying for those who He knew would reject Him. They do not glorify Him for being Him, because they confuse themselves with God. They sometimes say that God causally determined that they would do something that, in fact, they themselves determined to do. That's not small. Calvin himself claimed that "every act of man is secretly instigated by God." Thankfully though, that that particular view is not a very commonly held belief. We need to understand God better, in order to glorify Him for being the awesome amazing righteous God that He truly is!

Now the question of free will is a very important one, especially when it comes down to assigning responsibility and blame. A person cannot justly be held responsible for that which he had no choice about. You have no choice about where you were born, and it would be unjust to kill you simply because you were born in America. But even more importantly, if a thing does not have free will, then it acts as an extension of the true actor. For instance, if I flip the light switch, the light will go off. The switch does not have free will, and acts as an extension of me, while I am using it, and therefore it is not said that the lightswitch turned the light off, but rather that "I" turned the light off. If God were indeed Author of our every act, and we only thought that we were determining what we did, then as Author, He would be responsible for the story. If I write a pornographic novel, and fellow christians rebuke me, I cannot blame the main character in my book for the dirty thoughts. No, indeed, that character had no free will, but was, in effect, an extention of me: a projection of my mind. The author, then, is the one with the dirty mind. If God secretly instigated and decreed every act of man, if He causally determined our every thought and choice, then He would be the one responsible for every act of cruelty, deceit, and genocide in history. I dream every night, and there are people in my dream. However, even though they look and act like separate people, they are only an extension of my own mind. Since I determine, subconsciously, their every thought and action, they are not free beings, and are an extension of myself. I maintain, then, that we are separate beings from God. I maintain that God loves us differently than He loves Himself. There is a God, and you are not Him. You are not an extension of Him, like a dream, or a puppet, or a lightswitch. We are separate beings whose actions are not causally determined by anyone but ourselves.

Many people throw around the words "free will," but a good majority of those cannot agree on what it actually means. I will give a working definition that I will be using throughout all my explanations and theories. Despite any talk of two-sides coins, any being's choice only has one determinent: one being that actually determines what choice is made. The chair moves when I push it. Its motion is determined by an external source, and therefore I would qualify it as not having free will. A cat walks across the room. I may have influenced the cat, by calling for it, but its motion is determined by itself. The determinant is internal. Therefore I would qualify it as having free will. Man has free will. This is not to say that nothing can influence him, for many things do. This is not to say that he is not born with a thirst for sin. He is. But because every man's choices are internally determined, man is has free will. God also has free will. He Himself is the determinant for all that He chooses to do. He is, however, more free than we are in power. We can also choose to try to fly. He can choose to try to fly, and actually succeed! However, I must add that God, having free will, chooses to be bound by His own nature. He will always and forever do what is right. One reason that it is important to understand that free will is determined, (self-determined is still determined) is that people always trip over the question of foreknowledge. How can God know something for sure about the future, if the future could change, was random, or free? God can know the future, for certain, because every one of our acts are determined. Those acts, though determined, are free because we are the ones to determine them.


I think that it is very important, in order to understand the rest of the story, to understand the beginning. In this case, I am referring to the earth before the fall of man. That was the beginning. That was a time when God looked at everything He created and called it "good," it was a time when God would walk with man in the garden. Why is this important? Don't we already know all this? Well, first of all I think that it is very important to note that in God's ideal set-up, man had free will. Man was able to choose whether to climb a tree or walk on the ground, to disobey or to obey. Why is this? Perhaps it's because God wanted to actually relate to humans. Christianity is only religion that teaches that people can have a relationship with God Almighty. The only religion that teaches of a God who, for some reason, loves people, and wants to interact and enjoy their company.
"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me."
Revelation 3:20

He could have easily given man free will, but not put that nasty tree in the garden. Why did He not do that? I don't think the scripture gives us a straight-forward answer about that, but since we know that God wants to fellowship with man, and since we can see through out the Bible our relationship with God painted as a romance, it is quite possible that He gave us the choice not to obey so that we would be able to choose to obey. To say "I do" is only an option if "I don't" is also an option - or else the words "I do" lose all meaning. So to truly study and appreciate the set-up of this world leads to an understanding of how God wanted things to be. He wanted man to exist, to exist in a beautiful, exciting, and safe place, to relate to Him and fellowship with Him in the garden, and to make the choice not to do what He commanded man not to do, choosing instead to continue trusting God and enjoying His company.

So, after all that, man fell and it was a huge disaster that is still tearing apart all of mankind. God, because He is loving and just simply awesome, chose to interact again with humans, and to help them. He still wants man to exist, to be in fellowship with Him, and to choose to want Him instead of sin.

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!"
Luke 13:34

Calvinism is the doctrine that God does not give people grace enough to be in the position of being able to choose either to have faith in Christ, or to reject Him: it is that He either gives them so little grace that they cannot have faith, or so much that they for sure will be saved. (Irresistible Grace) Now, if God's ideal is to have man choose, then why, after the fall, would He give up that ideal? If He is all-powerful, and can give people however much or little grace as He would like, why would He not give them enough to achieve His ideal?

Also, there is the question of the origin of sin. Satan sinned, and so did Adam and Eve. Did God cause them to sin? There is no scripture to support that, and in fact many scriptures which claim that God does not look on evil, tempt people, and is not anything but pure from any point of view. Who made them sin? Well, I think the only possible answer is that they themselves caused themselves to sin. Three logical possibilities:
  • -God caused a created being to sin
  • -Someone God didn't create caused the created being to sin
  • -The created being caused itself to sin
The first is very unbiblical, because of God's righteousness, holiness and purity. The second is unbiblical because the Bible does not teach that there is any uncreated being other than God Himself. The third, then, must be the answer. Why, then, is it denied by most calvinists? There is mystery, and then there is contradiction. Many things are mysterious, but to claim that all possible answers are wrong is a contradiction. I believe that the idea that the created being caused itself to sin is mainly rejected on the grounds that a perfect creature cannot cause itself to sin. Well, then, I would have to say that, according to the evidence, a perfect angel or a perfect human can cause himself to sin. Read the Bible. It's right there. This self-determinism is what most people would call "free will." The perfect man has free will, and therefore is capable of making the decision to sin. And he did make that decision.

This brings me back to the concept of God's will. You may remember that I said previously that God is Sovereign. I still stand by that. Now, a person may fairly ask, if God is sovereign, why do evil things happen in the world? If God wants people not to murder each other, then why do people murder each other? Is it because God's moral will commands people not to murder, but with His sovereign will, He decrees that people do murder each other? I would have to say no. That's more like what the devil does. With one hand, he offers happiness, and with the other hand, he takes away happiness. Like abusing hard drugs. God is the great "I AM," and what He is, He is. He is just to one, He is just to all and for always. He is love to one, He is love to all and for always. We know from the scriptures that He is not only righteous but completely Holy and Pure.
"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning."
James 1:17

That's right. No shadow of turning. He does not command right with one hand, and with the other command, decree, or instigate evil. God states that He hates wickedness, and I believe Him. He does not want people to murder each other. God also states that He wants men everywhere to repent, and I believe Him. He wants men to choose to turn away from their sin, asking Him for redemption. Sometimes, you cannot have both. The only way to have no one kill anyone else is to take away from them that choice, in which case they would also not have the choice of repentance.

It's as simple as me and brownies. I want brownies. I want to be healthy and not weigh too much. I can't always have both. My complex will is what I choose to do: I only eat brownies every one in a while, because I want to be healthy and skinny more than I want to eat brownies. My simple will is any simple statement of will, without reference to any other desire. My simple will is to eat brownies. Why then am I not eating brownies while I write this blog? It is a mystery! It's because I have so many things that I want that I act according to my complex will, my integration of all my desires, after sorting which ones are most important to me. God does not like evil, but allows it because, apparently, even more than He wants evil not to exist, He wants His creatures to have freedom, He wants them to choose to ask Him for help, and He allows them to make their own choice, even if it includes doing evil. One must keep in mind, however, that He is patient, but not permissive. He will allow it only for so long, and then will destroy the earth with fire. It is not God's simple will that happens, but rather the counsel of His will.
"According to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will."
Ephesians 1:11

I should also add that God does not like evil, but He does allow evil. Here is the awesome part of it: God is creative and awesome, and uses the fallout of that evil to produce good! Satan just can't win for losing! The devil's greatest "victory" was the crucifiction of the Christ, but God totally used that! People should not do bad things to us, but when they do, which God allows, God uses that trial to purify us and to sanctify us, to draw us closer to Himself.

"And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose."
Romans 8:28

Now one question that always comes up, when speaking about the sovereignty of God, is the hypothetical question of God's complex will clashing with men's will. Surely man could not, with his freedom, override God's will? True enough. I would say that God never lets that clash happen. For instance, God wanted the jews not to be slaughtered in the time of Esther. He used Esther to prevent the massacre. What if Esther hadn't wanted to go before the king? Would God's plan have crumbled? Or would He have overridden her will somehow? Neither. Esther 4:14 "For if you remain completely silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. Yet who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” God would have simply used someone else to deliver the jews. The last statement holds much significance also. If God from eternity past had known that Esther would have remained silent, perhaps He would have put another girl in her position in the kingdom instead. God, you must remember, chooses where and when any of us are born. If God knew that Pontius Pilate would not have condemned Jesus to death, why would God allow Pontius to be at that time in history, in that position? He wouldn't. God shuffles history. He chose the line of the Messiah - He chooses who your family is. No matter what man chooses, God's plans happen.

Sometimes, God even directly intervenes, to make sure that His will happens. He does not, however, seem to enforce His will by "secret instigation." I see throughout the Bible and real life that He seems to prefer straight-forward external methods of persuasion. For instance, do you remember the time when God wanted Jonah to go to Ninevah, and Jonah didn't want to go? Did God respect Jonah's choice and just give up on His own plan? God forbid! Did He override Jonah's free will, or give Him some irresistable grace or something? God forbid! Instead, He simply made a storm, and then had Jonah swallowed by a big fish, who transported Jonah to exactly where God wanted Him. Now Jonah, in the belly of the fish, finally sorta repented and agreed to do what God asked, even though he really didn't have the best attitude about it. I'll come back to that point later. God used eternal methods of persuasion, and let Jonah choose for himself what choices to make. Consider missionary biographies as well. I've read several accounts of supernatural protection. God wants the missionary to remain alive, and some people want to kill the missionary. Does God give up His plan of keeping the missionary alive? Of course not! Does He choose to over-ride human free will, "restrain the evil in their hearts," or give them irresistible grace to do right? Again, no. The stories always say that He physically retrains them. One time the missionary was guarded by nine angels, who the bad guys could see, and fled from. Another time, an attacker raised his arm, holding a knife, but then was unable to move his arm! God's plans happen. That's right, and if God's plans include man having free will, that's going to happen too!

Going back to the story of Jonah, you might notice in the story that God loved those Ninevites more than Jonah did. This should not be surprising, because usually men love others less than God loves those people. I would even argue that God loves each person more than any other person loves them. God is love. There is no love more perfect than God's love. This point was probably my first reason for rejecting calvinism as unbiblical. Throughout the Bible, I see God as a loving God. God is love. There is no way in which He is not loving. We are told that God hates the wicked, (Psalm 11:5) but even in hate, God is pure and loving. He hates the wicked, yet died for us wicked people so that we would not longer be wicked, but would be a new creation.

"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners,
Christ died for us."

Romans 5:8

It is therefore impossible for me to love someone more than God does. Given that, I used to witness to people a lot. There was this one widow that I would consistently witness to, but she was convinced that she was christian because she went to church. She believed that she would go to heaven because she had never really done anything sinful. I witnessed to her for years, and yes she was sometimes a bit insulted that I claimed that, from the Bible, she was a sinner deserved of hell, but she knew that I told her that truth in love. I would always add that I was also a sinner deserving of hell. She never listened, as far as I know, and died suddenly one day after falling and hitting her head. Needless to say, I was very sad. I had loved her, I would have given my life for her, I gave her my time, I prayed for her, and I wanted her to be saved. But, I also did not wish that God would save her without her repenting and asking for that salvation.

Years later, calvinism tells me that the only reason she didn't repent was because God didn't feel like giving her enough grace that she would even have the option of crying out for help. She wasn't saved because God didn't really want her to be saved enough to do anything about it. How could that be? How could it be that I would give my life for her, but God could have saved her with no extra cost to Himself, but didn't want to enough to choose to? How could it be that I loved someone more than God did? I would have, for no extra cost, saved her. (Except, of course, for the undeniable fact that I would want salvation to be conditional upon faith - as God truly does) But not taking into account free will or choice, I loved her enough that I would have saved her, and God didn't? That is not a scriptural view! The only true love I have is from God! If I love her that much, it is only because that love is from God, and God loves her that much. He loved her enough to be willing to give His life for her, and that is the only reason that I loved her that much.

One objection that people sometimes have to the teachings of non-calvinism is that the doctrine is too comfortable, and therefore people only believe it because they are unwilling to face the hard truth. Well, you know, it's not really my fault that God is so awesome that the truth is so much more awesome and wonderful than untruth! It's not my fault that the God of the universe just happens to be so amazing that people think He's nothing but a fairy tale. It's not my fault that He made up all these comfortable doctrines: that we are all loved, that we can know for certain that we are saved, that we can spend eternity in HEAVEN, that the Being who made the universe has no flaws at all, etc. Sometimes the hard truth is facing the fact that the truth isn't as hard as you think it should be. The jews stumbled over the same problem: the hard truth was that the way to gain salvation wasn't as hard as they thought it should have been. Prostitutes able to go to heaven! Imagine that!

Looking back across the post, I have to admit that it all seems rather poorly explained. To fully explain any of these paragraphs, complete with piles of Scriptural support, I would need a chapter for each point! Someday I hope to actually write a book about it all, and I'll have a chapter for each topic. Meanwhile, for the purposes of this particular group of posts about calvinism, I'm going to have to be content with a more sketchy explanation of all these questions and concepts. I will post, later, more extensive blogs covering each concept covered only breifly here, and if any of you want more explanation/verses for any of these topics, just ask me, and I'll either message you a long and cohesive response, or post a blog about that topic.

One other point I should add here, while I'm randomly rambling about random calvinist topics, is the idea that I do believe in monergism. I do very strongly hold to the idea that God saves us through His own power, without any assistance from us. It does not depend on us, it depends on Him. Now God, being a picky sort of fellow, does definitely have some conditions for who He likes to save. God, being God, has conditions, and who are we to answer back to Him and tell Him that He can't? These conditions, whether they be having red hair, or having faith, do not help save us at all. God saves us, single-handedly.

Monday, July 19, 2010

Does God Sin By Allowing Evil - Part 2 (Special Pleading)

Topic 2: Calvinist premise: God is held to a different standard than we are.

Therefore, He can permit and cause sin without sinning. Does this hold true?




_____________________________________________________
Issues Brought Up

Now, by the end of the last post, you can see that I support the idea that the relationship between God and man and the relationship between an animal owner and his animals. Pike says that we can extend this further, and develop the concept that there is a difference in the relationship between God and man and between man and other men. Well – so far, so good. I actually agree! God's relationship IS different than our relationship with each other! However, Pike goes on to say that because God's relationship to us is different than our relationship to us, what may be wrong for us may be right for Him. At first glance, this may make sense – after all, it would be wrong for us to judge the world, but it's right for Him to do that. However, the form of calvinism that Pike holds to claims that there is a lot that is wrong for us that is right for God: It would be wrong for us to cause sin, but it's right for Him to cause sin. It would be wrong for us not to love people, but its righteous if God doesn't love people, etc. I disagree with this view.

In the last blog, I touched on the two categories of position/role and moral character/intent. I will bring these two concepts up again in this discussion.

_____________________________________________________
God has a different position/role than we do
-
but He holds us to the same moral standard that He holds Himself to.


Now, I agree with Pike that God does relate to man differently than man relates to man. Additionally, I agree that God can restrict men from doing things that He Himself does, and He can command men to do things that He Himself does not do. For example – He judges the world, and we repent. However, I do not see this this logically points to the idea that God does not conform to the same standard of moral perfection that He strives to mold us into – in fact, the Bible states specifically that He wants to conform us into His own moral image: the image of His Son.

The difference between what God is culpable for and what we would be culpable for only applies to position/role. For example – God takes the role of judge over the earth – we do not. However, while God does not take that role – as in, when He came to take the role of a mere man – He operated by the same moral principles that are always a part of his nature. We are never going to take His role, even in heaven, but we will be conformed to the moral standard of perfection, in the likeness of His Son, who took on our submissive role.

Our role is different from God's role. But God holds us to the same moral standard that He holds Himself to. The most fundamental part of God's nature is love. As we are told: God is love. Even the two most important commandments for us reflect this: Love the Lord your God, and Love your neighbor as yourself. You'll notice that what He is and what He calls us to be are not two distinct and separate moral standards. No. Rather, in learning to love and obey God (He who loves Christ will keep Christ's commandments that we should love), we become conformed to HIS image – which is love. You may notice a repeating theme here. So, even though our relationship to each other is not the same as God's relationship to us, we can count on the fact that He is always more holy, and not less. If He calls us to love, it's because He loves more. And if He calls us to demonstrate justice, it's because He reigns justly over the entire universe. We are to imitate Him. This is only possible because of the moral standard that He holds Himself to, and expects us to hold ourselves to, in an ever-increasing way.

_____________________________________________________
Okay well - What standard does God hold Himself to?

Now, obviously Pike still believes that God is perfectly holy and righteous when He causally-determines evil, and so he continues the discussion with a discussion of what moral standard God holds himself to.

“Of course, we'd have to get even deeper here. Is God holy because holiness is a standard that God must follow; or is God holy because whatever He does is by definition holy? I maintain the second, as there is no morality apart from God, and thus there is no standard of behavior He has to follow external to Himself. Which means that it is true that if God determines x, it is impossible for God's determining of x to be a sin, even if He declares that x is itself a sin.”

Now I agree, of course, that there is no force outside of God that God is accountable to. God is the highest moral law in the universe. However, going one step further, me and Pike disagree again. I believe in Divine Essentialism, and not Voluntarism. Voluntarism is the position that maintains, basically, that God's will is above His nature. What God chooses is righteous. If God suddenly commanded us all to torture each other, it would be a sin to disobey! I do not hold to this point of view. I believe in Divine Essentialism – God is always true to His essence. His will and His nature are always perfectly in sync. It is impossible for God to choose to something that His nature finds abhorrent. And yes – God does record in the Scripture that He finds sin abhorrent. (see Amos 6:8) God is the great “I am.” He is unchangeable. There is no deceit in Him. There is no shadow of turning with Him.

God would be culpable for causing sin for two reasons:


Reason #1 - It would go against His Holy and Perfect character. He does not even look on sin (Hab 1:13-14). He disavows even thinking up specific sins (Jer. 32:35). There is no shadow of turning in Him. Why then, would He with one hand abhor sin, and with the other hand cause it?

Reason #2 - In the Bible, God specifically that anyone or anything that causes sin commits sin. For Him to cause sin, by His own standard, would mean that He would be committing sin. (See The Culpability of Causing Sin)

_____________________________________________________
God Was Not the Mastermind Behind this Sin


Earlier in this blog, I made the claim that “[God] disavows even thinking up specific sins (Jer. 32:35)” Here's the verse I was referring to:
Jeremiah 32:35
“They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.”

Pike responds with this absolutely fascinating interpretation of this verse. (What will they think of next?)
“By the way, your quotation of Jeremiah 32:35 is incorrect, when you imply that God cannot think on sin. What "didn't enter God's mind" was that they ought to engage in this behavior. It's the moral imperative that God didn't consider.”

I can just image the tonal inflection of the discussion between a calvinist and a non-calvinist reading the same verse...
  • Non-Calvinist: “...Nor did it enter into my mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin!”

  • Calvinist: No, no, no. “Nor did it enter into my mind that they should do this abomination!”

Anyway, first of all, Pike said that I imply that God cannot think on sin – what I actually said was that God didn't think up (invent, mastermind) that sin. There is a difference there.

Going back to his interpretation of the verse, am I really expected believe that God causally-determined Israel to offer up sons and daughters to Molech, and then turned around to say, with an air of indignant innocence: “I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination...” A lawyer could say “Yes, yes – you see? He did not command it. It wasn't something they should, by His revealed will, have done. God never says that He didn't make it happen.” But I think that's missing the whole point. I think that God's commentary could be more likened to this: “You think this was my idea??? It wasn't. I didn't mastermind this! This is sickening – an abomination! Abhorrent to my soul!” At face value, that seems a lot more like what God is saying. I mean, just look at it for a moment, without bias if you can:


Quote: “I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination...”

Interpretation 1: “I didn't command this in my revealed will! I caused it, sure, but they shouldn't have done it! They are going to pay.”

Interpretation 2: “You think this was my idea??? It wasn't. I didn't mastermind this! This is sickening – an abomination! Abhorrent to my soul!”

Enough said.

____________________________________________________
Conclusion


Just to give a brief re-cap of the various main points that were put forward in this blog, here is a short outline:

  • God relates to man differently than man relates to man

  • There are different moral obligations that go with different roles - We will never take God's position/role

  • On the other hand, God's moral standard for us and for Himself are the same. His commands reflect His character.

  • God's will is not above His nature. He Himself cannot do anything against His own divine essence.

  • God would not cause, and then later disavow, evil that His soul abhors

Does God Sin By Allowing Evil - Part 1


i

This topic came up as a result of this blog, posted by Peter Pike over at Triablogue: Does Permission Exculpate God?

Pike puts forward the the idea that, according to Arminianism, if God foreknows everything and then still allows sin, He would become culpable for all evil that occurs. I commented, and as me and Peter debated back and forth, it quickly became a very fascinating discussion. I was half-tempted to just repost the conversation here, but I generally feel that reposting conversations is a very unstructured and sloppy way of presenting information, and so I decided to make this more of a proper blog.

During the course of the debate, three interrelated but separate topics were discussed:

  • Is it immoral for us to permit sin and harm? From an Arminian point of view, is it immoral for God to permit sin and harm?

  • Calvinist premise: God is held to a different standard than we are. Therefore, He can permit and cause sin without sinning. Does this hold true?

  • Does Arminianism contradict itself or claim this: God would be culpable for causing sin, since He is held to the same moral standard as man, but would not be culpable for allowing sin, since He is not held to the same moral standard as man.


I will post three blogs, and in each blog, one of these topics will be addressed. The blogs will be posted in the order listed above.

____________________________________________________
Topic 1 - Is it immoral for us to permit sin and harm? From an Arminian point of view, is it immoral for God to permit sin and harm?


Here I will quote a chunk of Pike's blog post:

“I do not wish to rehash old ground anew, but instead to add yet one more Scriptural proof that permission alone is insufficient to exempt someone from culpability. And that Scriptural proof is found in the Law of Moses.

Exodus 21:28 states:
When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable.

Now an ox is an animal, and as such it as a rudimentary will. It is not an inanimate object, in other words, and it will often do things that the owner does not wish for it to do. Anyone who has ever owned livestock—or even pets, for that matter—knows of the frustration of wanting an animal to do something and the animal not doing it.

… What is clear from this verse is that the owner of the ox is not held responsible for the actions of the ox. Presumably, this would be due to the fact that the ox’s will is not the owner’s will, and that is why the owner is not liable. The owner did not wish for the ox to kill anyone, the owner did not plan for this, therefore the owner is not culpable.

Thus far, it looks like this would be evidence for the position that if God permits something evil to occur He is not culpable for that. However, the very next verse reads:

But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.

And here we see that the escape to “permission” cannot remove culpability from God. For we see that it is still the case that the owner of the ox does not will that the ox gore anyone, and we still see that the owner does not plan this event to happen, yet nevertheless the owner is held responsible with the same penalty imposed as if he had murdered the man himself. Why is the owner culpable? Because he did not take measures needed to reign in an ox “accustomed to gore.” He is negligent for not stopping that which he knew was dangerous, and therefore he receives the same penalty as if he had personally acted instead of the ox.

… And if the owner of an ox is culpable when he knows full well that he has a dangerous ox, then God surely must likewise be culpable if He knows full well that a created being He put on Earth is a danger to others.”

____________________________________________________



Issues brought up:

Here we establish the Biblical principle that if a person allows his non-moral beast, who he owns, who he is responsible for, and who he knows is dangerous, to hurt people, he is in the wrong. But this doesn't say anything about God permitting us to sin, because God does not relate to us in the same way that we relate to non-moral oxen that we own and can in good conscience lock up in the backyard for their entire life! I put forward to Pike the idea that if we “own” an animal we are accepting responsibility for them in a different way than we accept responsibility for other people, and different then any way God takes responsibility for our actions.

Pike answers this by setting forward this idea: It is not only immoral for a person to allow his beast to kill someone, it is also immoral to allow harm to come to another person when you could prevent it. He gives two reasons for this argument. Reason #1 - Ezekiel's watchman is warned that if he does not attempt to save others by warning them, he is held responsible for their deaths. Reason #2 – It would be unloving to not stop harm from occurring, if you have the power to stop it. (He adds a side note that he is not talking about instances in which it is right and proper for you to avoid interfering.)


____________________________________________________
Discussion:

Here is the direct question:
“If we allow someone to be harmed when it is in our power to stop that harm, is that loving him as we love ourselves?”

It depends on our position, and our motives. If we are the person's bodyguard (a position), and we allow them to be harmed, that would be unethical and wrong. If we allow that person to be harmed out of a lack of love, then that would be unloving. There are, however, other cases in which we may allow people to be harmed, in which we do no wrong. I allow people to be harmed everyday, when I have the power to stop that harm, because I choose to go to work at an office job instead of being a detective or police or military or Social Services worker. I do not permit harm because I am not loving. I permit harm because I do not feel called to go and prevent that particular harm. People permit harm to those on death row (namely, death) – this, also, is not unloving. I could go on and on, but my point is this: Whether permitting someone to hurt someone else is right or wrong depends on your position(and thereby responsibility) and motives.

Position or relationship of responsibility: If I own an oxen, I am in a position of authority and responsibility over a non-moral being. If I allow it to hurt people, I am abusing my position. If I am a watchman, and I don't warn people, I am neglecting my duty. But what if I don't own the ox? What if I'm not a watchman? Then I have no responsibility in those cases (except for the moral responsibility of motive) If you let your ox kill someone, shame on you. On the other hand, if my little sister goes and slugs some guy at school, I am not culpable for that, even if I know that my little sister has violent tendencies. Why? I am not in a position of authority or responsibility over my little sister in the same way I would be over an ox. For this reason also, God is not culpable for allowing sin, since He does not take responsibility, as an owner of a non-moral being, nor signed up to be a “watchman.” He did not take those positions, and therefore is not culpable for not fulfilling the responsibilities that go along with them.


Moral character: It's all about the motive here. This goes back to what was said about the commandment to love. If we let our animals go around killing people, and we don't warn people of an attack, it's probably become we are not pursuing righteousness or love. We would rather sleep at home than warn people of impending danger, and if my animals hurts you – well tough for you. Is that loving? No. However, if we permit something for a good moral reason (IE it would be illegal to do otherwise, we are dedicating our time to a different cause that God has put on our hearts, we know that we need to allow our children the freedom to make mistakes rather than just locking them up, etc), then it can be fine. God's moral character is always pure and holy, and so if He allows something, you can bet your life that it is with morally pure, righteous, and loving intent.


A Final Question from Pike:

“Are you actually saying that God is not responsible for His own creation?”

God is responsible for His choice to create. He is responsible for His choice to create moral beings who could then choose to sin. He is not responsible for what those moral beings choose to do. [From an Arminian perspective in which those moral beings cause themselves to do things. If one assumes that God causes all the actions of the beings, then yes He would be responsible for any good or evil that they carry out, at His decree] He is responsible for His actions, and not ours. We will be held responsible and culpable for our actions, except in the case where God choose to take our punishment on the cross, and we trusted in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, in which case our culpability was put on Him.

____________________________________________________
Conclusion:

Stay tuned for my next three blog posts, which will cover the other aspects of this same discussion! But, just to reiterate the points that I put forward here:

  1. Man would be culpable for allowing his non-moral beast, which he owns, to go off and kill someone, if he knew that the ox was dangerous.

  2. It does not follow that we are also culpable for allowing anyone to be harmed. Whether or not it is a fault to allow harm to befall someone depends on these two factors: Our responsibility/positon/role, and our moral character/intent.

  3. God is not culpable for allowing man to hurt each each other, or for allowing oxen to hurt people for two reasons. First of all, He does not take a role in which He has the responsibility to protect us from all harm (as a watchmen would) or to keep us from hurting each other (like locking up an ox). Secondly, His moral character and intent in allowing harm is already righteous and pure.

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Nothing is Unconditional


I woke up the other morning with the thought it my mind that nothing is truly unconditional. Nothing has no conditions at all. Same with the word "all;" it always means "all within these certain parameters." Think about something unconditional. Let's suppose that I say that I unconditionally love everyone. That would simply mean that I love people with who meet these conditions:
  • -They must exist
  • -They must be people
  • -I must be aware of their existence
Wow - three conditions! Whatever happened to having no conditions? Can anything truly have no conditions whatsoever? I cannot think of anything that has no conditions whatsoever. If any of you can, then I'd love to hear about it.

So then, if nothing actually has no conditions whatsoever, then what is the difference between conditional and unconditional? How could we define the terms so that we can practically use them? It would be pointless to define a word as something that does not exist. In fact, that is why I object to defining "free" as something more than even God has, for He is the most free being of all. What is the actual difference between what we call unconditional, what we call conditional, and what we call random?


_________________________________________________________
Unconditional: An offer that first determines eligibility with core conditions, and then is enacted for all those who are eligible, whether or not any other conditions are met.
Example: Unconditional love
Core Conditions to determine eligibility:
  • -Must Exist
  • -Must be Human
  • -I must know of their existence.
I will love everyone who fulfills these conditions, and will not cease to love them because of any other conditions.



Random: An offer that first determines eligibility with core conditions, and then is only enacted for select individuals who fulfill conditions which are designed to be most like non-conditions.
Example: A raffle
Core conditions to determine eligibility:
  • -You must exist
  • -You must be human
  • -You must be at a certain event
  • -You must be capable of getting a raffle ticket
  • -You must choose to get a raffle ticket
  • -You must obtain said ticket before the raffle begins
  • -You must not get caught cheat
When all those conditions are met, perhaps twenty people have raffle tickets, but perhaps there is only one prize. I must select only one of the eligible people, so I add some more conditions, which are similar to non-conditions.
  • -You must have a ticket that does not have the same number as any one of the first seven tickets I pull out of my hat and rip up
  • -You must have a ticket that does not have the same number as the next five tickets that I burn
  • -You must have a ticket that has the same number as the ticket on the top, right-most section of my hat that I pull out
If you meet all those conditions, which are designed to be arbitrary and unlike meaningful conditions, then you will get a prize!

This is what we call random. Programmers also design "random number generators" which cannot actually generate a number based on no condition whatsoever, but can be programed to pick different and unpredictable numbers every time by programming several conditionals which are dissimilar to normal meaningful conditions.



Conditional Based on Factors You Cannot Determine: An offer that first determines eligibility with core conditions, and then is only enacted for select individuals who fulfill conditions which they cannot determine.
Example: Racism
Core conditions to determine eligibility:
  • -You must exist
  • -You must be human
  • -I must know of your existence
There are many people who fulfill these core conditions, but I don't want to persecute all of them. So here are some added conditions to narrow it down; conditions which they have no influence or control over fulfilling:
  • -You must be mainly a different race than I
  • -You must obviously be that race
  • -I must have a feeling against that race in particular
If an eligible person fulfills those conditions, through no power of their own, they will receive free persecution from me.

Now, as an added note here, not all offers that are Conditional Based on Factors You Cannot Determine are morally wrong. For example, I only date guys. That is condition based on something people have no control over, and yet it is morally right and fine. It only becomes unjust or unkind when the offer is negative or hurtful. For instance, if I punch every guy I meet, that would not be right anymore.


Conditional Based on Factors You Can Determine: An offer that first determines eligibility with core conditions, and then is only enacted for select individuals who fulfill conditions which they can determine. [Yes, this operates under the assumption that a person can determine stuff. A person is a free agent and determines his or her own choices]
Example: A Sale
Core conditions to determine eligibility:
  • -You must exist, be human, etc
  • -You must be selling a product that I want
  • -You must not be charging more than I am willing to pay
  • -I must not be aware that you are untrustworthy
Still, even if I want to buy something from you, and am willing, based on those conditions, I will not give you money until you fulfill a certain additional condition that you can control:
  • -You must give me the merchandise
Only if you choose to fulfill that condition will I give you money.

As an added note: Not all conditional offers are just and kind either. If I shoot everyone who gives me merchandise, that it conditional based on something they can control, and yet is not just or kind.


Conditional Based on Factors that I Determine: An offer that first determines eligibility with core conditions, and then is only enacted for select individuals who fulfill conditions which only I can determine.
Example: Hypnosis Show
Core conditions to determine eligibility:
  • -You must exist, be human, etc
  • -You must be attending my show
Now there are a lot of people attending my show, but I only want to hypnotize some of them. So I choose that I will only hypnotize the ones that fulfill this one final condition:
  • -They must be pointed at by me
And only if they meet that condition will I hypnotize them. The problem with this type of conditional offer is that it doesn't actually tell us anything. It only begs the question: What were the conditions I used to choose who I picked?



_________________________________________________________
So there you have it. Those are the four true types of offers, and one false type. It's all very interesting to be sure, and I hope I didn't make it too confusing.

So now the question of the day:
Which category does the offer of salvation fall under?
Which category does election fall under?
Hmm....

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Loneliness

Loneliness

I would like to start by saying that I consider myself very unqualified to write about loneliness. If there is one subject I don't understand well, it's loneliness. I've only been really thinking about it for about a day, but that's enough to make me feel like writing about what I was thinking. For a disclaimer, this is based mostly on my own experiences with loneliness and is not applicable or helpful in all situations. I know, it's kinda weird that I have a disclaimer in my blog, but since I like to talk in general (i.e. "all of us" "we"), I wanted to warn you that I know that it doesn't actually apply to everyone who may be reading this. Anyway, onto the topic at hand, I think that we need a definition of loneliness, to make it easier to discuss. Loneliness, first of all, is a feeling; not the state of being alone. People can be alone without feeling lonely. Just think about kids playing video games - they can shun human interaction for hours and hours without feeling the slightest bit deprived. So I would say that Loneliness is the result of unwanted separation or distance (from others, yourself, or God)



Loneliness and other people:

Now, when most people talk about loneliness, they look for the answer in other people. I'd say that many people think that loneliness is only related to distance from other people. This distance can be caused by all sorts of things: lack of contact, rejection, unkindness, lack of understanding, or a lack of love from either person will create distance in the relationship. Needless to say, there are many ways to create closeness and reduce distance in relationships, and all of us will be learning more and more ways to do so our entire lives. Some people are less socially adept than other, and so it's harder for them, but none of us have really figured to get rid of all distance! So in this blog, I'm not going to write about how to fix distance with others, because although closeness with other people is nice and good, it's not the main issue. Usually the distance between us and other people is not what's causing us to feel lonely. Consider what we look for from other people:

-We want people to understand us
-We want people to appreciate us
-We want encouragement
-We want to make a difference in people's lives
-We desire respect
-We crave love
-We need help/support

[Note: Those can absolutely be healthy things to look for - God did not create us to be alone. But when we feel crushingly alone, and feel like we NEED them, then there's got to be a deeper reason why we feel that way]

Translated into why we feel that we need those things, the list looks like this:

-We don't feel understood
-We don't feel appreciated
-We feel discouraged
-We feel ineffective
-We don't feel important
-We feel unlovable (sometimes because we feel that we are: incompetent, a failure, not good enough, etc)
-We don't know where to find solutions/we feel tired of trying

As you can see, most of those actually have to do with how we view ourselves and deal with ourselves. I think that people feel lonely mainly because they do not get along with themselves. Someone I know is the most despairingly lonely person I know, and absolutely desperate for attention from anyone and everyone - and see the problem is that she hates herself, and looks to others to accept her. Conversely, when other people treat us like we are not valuable, that can effect how we think of ourselves, and we might start treating ourselves like we are not valuable. So we'll go on to talking about getting alone with yourself and with God.
________________________________________________________________________________


Loneliness and God

I start with loneliness and God because you never really can be at peace with yourself if you are not at peace with God. If you feel truly at peace with God and with yourself, then when you are alone, you won't really feel very lonely. I know that's true for me, anyway. When I felt despairingly lonely, I was not at peace with God or myself. I felt that I was not good enough, and felt far from God. After that changed, I could be by myself tons and I wouldn't feel unhappy! I'm happy just hanging out by myself: thinking, writing, praying, playing. Not to say that I don't look for friends and people - I do! But I don't feel lost without it. Basically, we feel lonely when we feel distanced from God. I've thought of six ways to get rid of distance, and feel closer to God:

1 - Salvation

Obviously, people are going to feel a void in their life, an emptiness, because of the distance between themselves and God created by their own sin when they are not saved. The simple solution to this distance between that person and God is for them to repent, trust in Christ as their Savior, and dedicate their life to Him. So simple that many people pass it by. Probably most of you reading my blog are saved already, so I'll put more of my focus on the other ways to feel closer to God.

2 - Understand our position before Christ

Basically, we need to understand that if we are saved, this is no condemnation for us left. No judgment, no anger, no wrath. All of that was given to Christ, who carried our sins on the cross. We are now dressed in Christ's righteous, so that God sees us as perfect. Beautiful, snow white perfect.

Isaiah 1:18
“ Though your sins are like scarlet,
They shall be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They shall be as wool. "

Psalm 103:12
"As far as the east is from the west,
So far has He removed our transgressions from us."

Romans 6:1-3
"
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?"

2 Corinthians 5:17
"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new."

Romans 7:24
"O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?"

As you can see, the way God sees us, we are perfect, because we have Christ's righteousness. Our sins are now as white as snow, and we are a perfect new creation in Him. Technically, our flesh, the old man, is dead, and we are just waiting until we are freed from it. We will be, once we go to heaven, until then, we have to wrestle with our old nature, which technically is dead.

Most people have heard that, in theory, but in practice are taught that God is easily angered, and if you do much as miss an opportunity to do something extra, they have sinned and God is displeased and distant.

[For clarification, so that you don't think I've gone off the deep end into some sort of heresy, I'm not saying that we should all live a carnal life, or that we cannot grieve the Holy Spirit! But first of all, whenever God is displeased, he is still loving and close and we are still perfect in Christ before him! We should live for God, but not out of fear constantly! Those in the Old Testament were under the law, and were motivated by fear and by "shoulds," but we are under grace. Every sin in the past, present, or future is already taken care of. We are free to make our lives miserable and useless, but why would we want to? If you act and think as though you are still under the law, and hesitantly approach God in fear that you've made another mistake, and He is probably very mad and displeased, then you are going to constantly feel distanced from Him, and that's not the way He wants it to be. We are told in Hebrews 4:16 to boldly come before the throne of grace in time of need. And when are we more needy than when we are making mistakes? ]

Even in your weakest or strongest moments, God sees you as who you truly are in Christ: Perfect. He has no more anger or condemnation left for you. So you can be close whenever you want! (That's so awesome!)


3- Clear Conscience

(Wow - this blog is way too long already, but I'm not even close to done) I think the #1 problem that causes people to feel distance between themselves and God is an unclear conscience. Ongoing sin will definitely put a dampener on your closeness with Christ. You will feel uncomfortable around God, and actually start trying to avoid Him. That will make distance. [I should make special note to the ongoing sin of bitterness - that particular sin is so devastating in a relationship with God, I just had to mention it by name. It also tends to destroy all your relationships, not just your relationship with the one you are bitter against] Unconfessed sin will do the same thing. We know, of course, that God already knows about all our sins, but if we don't actually take the time to talk to him about it, and apologize and ask for help, we will feel ashamed to be in his presence. That also makes distance. Finally, if the sin involves someone else, it's also best to apologize to them and ask for forgiveness. It's one of the hardest things in the world, but also one of the most freeing!
It's especially hard to apologize for something people didn't know you did. For example, if you lie to someone, just a little lie that just slips out, it is SO hard to go back to that person and admit to it and apologize! But if you don't, you will have a weight on your spirit. I should add that this applies to sins in your distant past that never got resolved. When I first heard about this concept, God put it on my heart to try it, and so I apologized to people for stuff that I had stolen years and years before that they never knew I had stolen. That was embarrassing to my flesh and my pride. That's one way to learn humility. But God really blessed me and I felt very free after that. You may notice that I'm a very open person. Because I have a totally clear conscience (well worth keeping it that way!) I really feel like I have nothing to hide. I am open about my strengths and faults equally. If you have a completely clear conscience (and yes, it is worth the effort to brainstorm, and ask God about any unresolved or unconfessed sin) you will feel much more at peace with God than if you don't.


4- Dedication

Sometimes we feel distanced from God because we are afraid to hear his will for us. You might notice that generally, when we feel distanced from God, it's because we are hiding from him, out of shame for our mistakes, fear of his will, hiding our sins, etc. Ever since the garden of Eden, it's been like God is available to us, and we are the ones hiding from Him. So anyway, the Bible speaks of "double-minded" christians, who have one eye on God and one eye on the world. When we know that we are not dedicated to God's will, we will feel distanced from Him, and sometimes we will hesitant to hang out with Him and find out what He wants, because we are scared that He'll want us to do something that we don't want to do, and then since we would know His will, we would have to do it. So we just kinda avoid asking Him about his specific will, and instead justify everything we do. "I'm going to church, God must want me to do that. Everything's good." If you tell God that you want to know his will, and that whatever it is, no matter how hard or easy, that you will follow it, (you can even ask God to help put your heart in the right place so that you want to follow Him) then that really does help with feeling close to God.

5- Praise

Sometimes we feel distanced from God just because we don't really know or understand Him. I'd say just study the Bible and take time every day to praise and thank God for who He is and what He has done. You'll understand Him better, which will make you feel closer to Him, and having such a fun conversation with Him about how great He is generally makes you feel closer too. Enjoyable time spent with anyone brings some closeness. Usually, after I talk to God and praise him and thank for all sorts of things, I really feel more in love with Him. All you need to fall in love with Him is to understand or see Him, because he's so awesome: He's so loving, smart, just, and FUN that it's impossible to see that and understand that without feeling somewhat awestruck!

6- Chatting with God

This is usually called prayer. Sometimes I like to pray to God more formally and respectfully, and sometimes I like to just chat with Him casually about the struggles I'm facing, and the highlights of my day, and stuff I'm worried about. He is the one being that I can just really be myself around. I'm not scared of what He will think of me, so I can just tell him everything I'm going through, wanting, thinking, and feeling. I also pray for other people, and praise God, but just sharing about your own life, even though he knows it all already creates closeness. It makes you feel understood, and like you're on the same team. God is always with you, so if you are feel lonely, just talk to him for a while. (Not just about how lonely you feel, but about everything! :) )
________________________________________________________________________________


Loneliness and Yourself

Last but not least, you need to be at peace with yourself. If you dislike yourself, or are ashamed of yourself there will be unwanted distance between you and yourself. You can fight with yourself, or you can support yourself, but you are always going to have some sort of relationship with yourself, and a strained relationship isn't very fun since you are always with yourself! If you feel distant from yourself, and don't have patience of appreciation for yourself, or if you discourage yourself or don't care for yourself, you will feel lonely and look for all that from other people! That's a real key to loneliness. So I have three important ways that you can get along with yourself:

Accept Yourself

First of all, you need to accept yourself, and appreciate your own value and God-given gifts. As a side note on the verse "love your neighbor as yourself," if you don't understand your own value, you won't understand the value of other people, since your value is equally infinite. All people are made in the image of God and are valuable and lovable regardless of behavior. Unbelievers are referred to in Jesus' parable as "lost coins," and as we know, a coin that is lost is still valuable! It's still a coin. It's also best to accept the unchanging factors in your life, such as your looks, your family, your place in history, and your gender. God made you the way He wanted you to be, and if you don't like the way you are, then you are actually criticizing the one who made you - the ultimate genius and artist. He didn't make a mistake.

I should add that it is safe to praise yourself for accomplishments and talents that you have. Humility is not denying your talents, but rather giving credit where credit is due: God gave you your looks, abilities, and opportunities. Will this make you proud? Not really, because your value is, as I said, not based on performance. You can do wonderful things, and still have the same value as someone labeled "a loser." We are all to treat one another with love and respect, and in fact serve one another. Pride is when we think that we are more important somehow, and we should avoid that, but still can work on fulfilling our own potential and helping others to fulfill theirs.

Patience


It's good to learn patience, because you will need it in this life! You will need to wait on God. You will need to be patient with all the stupid people that you will deal with. You will also need to learn to be patient with the stupid person that you are - yourself. If you don't know how to be patient with other person, you won't know how to be patient with yourself. If you are not patient with yourself, you will find yourself constantly putting yourself down for being stupid, or slow, or any number of other things that you wouldn't charge other people with! You should treat others with respect, we know that, but we also need to treat ourselves with the respect and patience that we treat others. We actually learn and grow fastest that way. It's true. Don't be perfectionistic with yourself, and discourage yourself because you aren't doing as well as you expected, but rather encourage yourself: have courage and give yourself hope. In diets, the books often tell people not to be too negative, but rather reward themselves. If they don't, they generally quit and it doesn't work out well. In the same way, in real life, you gotta help yourself along, encouraging and being patient with yourself, as you would be with a little kid. (Those parents who are always yelling at their kids probably don't know how to be patient with themselves)

Clear Conscience

Finally, you need to have a clear conscience before God and other people, as I mentioned before in the section about distance from God. If you don't, then because you are a new creation in Christ, you will be ashamed of yourself. You don't want to be ashamed of yourself, that's really not very fun, and it definitely creates distance between you and yourself. So read the paragraph above on having a clear conscience. Don't be ashamed that you make mistakes and choose to do wrong. By all means, you can feel guilty about it, that's healthy, but shame is when you feel that YOU are bad. Guilt is when your ACTIONS are bad, and shame is when YOU are bad. But you have to remember, you are not the problem, you are perfect in Christ. Your actions are the problem, and they are not you - you can leave them and change.

In Conclusion:

Wow - I really have talked forever. I will try to make a short and easy-to-understand summary. The topic was the feeling of loneliness, which comes from unwanted distance and separation from yourself, from God, and from other people. The main issues of loneliness spring from your feeling distanced from yourself and God, which will cause you to look to others for what you are missing.

So to be close to God, your best bet is to be saved and to understand your relationship with Him. Have a clear conscience before Him, be dedicated to His will, and every once in a while take some time to praise Him and to chat with Him!

To maintain closeness with yourself, you should accept yourself for who you are, and be patient with yourself, encouraging yourself as you would encourage others. And don't be ashamed of yourself; having a clear conscience helps with this, but it's also a way of thinking.

Well, that's all I have to say! If you liked this blog, then please, recommend it to all your friends! If you absolutely hated it, then please, recommend it to all your enemies! Hehe... But seriously, I do hope that this blog had some truth or helpfulness. May God Bless You All.

Praise God Forever!