The Curse of Contentment

As people start into Lent, one general topic that comes up is contentment. Oftentimes, when people talk about contentment, they are referring to a lack of desire for more. That's the type of contentment I am writing about today, and in specific, I am writing about a lack of desire for spiritual things.

When any of us accepts Christ as Savior, we reject the old religion of the world:  Put on your best behavior, and be good enough in order to earn approval and affection. We reject this religion in favor of the truth that we are NOT good enough, but we are deeply and truly loved by God - and we would be wise to ask for help so that our future doesn't have to be so terrible (sin and sad consequences).

If someone comes to your turf, walks up to you, and criticizes you, what is your (current) natural reaction:  Is it to feel hurt that someone so close to you is misunderstanding you; do you go on to justify yourself and disprove them?  Or is it excitement at the possibility of being able to receive more spiritual blessings from God?

The first reaction can be called defensive (I'm fine where I'm at), while the second reaction can be called upgrade-oriented (Want).

After we become Christians, I think that probably all of us go through a stage in our life where we fall back into the mental voice:  Put on your best behavior, be good enough in order to earn approval and affection. We try our best, and then we are content with where we are at. We are fine. We can't complain. We are doing better than we deserve. We are tired. It doesn't feel like abundant living because it *isn't* abundant living, and we are content to stay here. This is "good enough" and if anyone is judgmental enough to try to point out our flaws, we feel that we have every right to get upset. They are walking about looking for flaws to critique. What jerks!  We commend ourselves on our patience and good temper if we can defend ourselves to these people without losing our temper at their presumption.

But as long as we remain in this stage, we are the Laodicean church. While Jesus stands outside and knocks, we ignore the door and talk about how we are perfectly content where we are. While He counsels us to buy from Him gold refined in the fire, that we may be rich, we continue to respond: "I am rich, I have become wealthy, and I have need of nothing."  

While we are thinking, "Why is this person ripping on me?" Jesus is telling us: "As many as I love (desire to benefit), I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent (accept upgrades)."

Accepting Upgrades: Growth is *accepting* (not building) something from God.  The reason we are being confronted is not that we just need to try even harder and spread ourselves even thinner to get any appreciation, but rather that we are suffering from the lack of spiritual blessings that God is offering to us (and we are busy telling him that we are good enough).

And what is the alternative to being fine where we're at?

Jabez
"And Jabez called on the God of Israel saying, “Oh, that You would bless me indeed, and enlarge my territory, that Your hand would be with me, and that You would keep me from evil, that I may not cause pain!” So God granted him what he requested."  (1 Chronicles 4:10)


Jacob
"Then Jacob was left alone; and a Man wrestled with him until the breaking of day. Now when He saw that He did not prevail against him, He touched the socket of his hip; and the socket of Jacob’s hip was out of joint as He wrestled with him. And He said, 'Let Me go, for the day breaks.'
But he said, 'I will not let You go unless You bless me!'

...Then Jacob asked, saying, 'Tell me Your name, I pray.'
And He said, 'Why is it that you ask about My name?' And He blessed him there."   (Genesis 32)  [Extra note: Jesus Christ, Immanuel, that is the name of God. The Israelites were the first ones to meet God by name in person.]


Elisha
"And so it was, when they had crossed over, that Elijah said to Elisha, 'Ask! What may I do for you, before I am taken away from you?' Elisha said, 'Please let a double portion of your spirit be upon me.'

So he said, 'You have asked a hard thing. Nevertheless, if you see me when I am taken from you, it shall be so for you; but if not, it shall not be so.' Then it happened, as they continued on and talked, that suddenly a chariot of fire appeared with horses of fire, and separated the two of them; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. And Elisha saw it..."    (2 Kings 2 )

What do you desire?  For me, I want God. I really really want God. I want upgrades and spiritual blessings. I know that I am loved (and therefore I don't need to be good enough). I do not focus on "good enough" and "bad," but rather "less awesome" and "more awesome." I always want to be more awesome. Therefore, I beg God for more understanding than I have now (He also uses people in this process to confront me or prove me wrong), and every time I hear of a possible flaw (which tips me off to a possible upgrade that I might now be able to access) I am happy and curious to know more details. I enjoy where I'm at in my journey, but I am never content to stay - I want MORE Jesus.

I think that God gives grace to the humble because they are the only ones who truly desire it. The proud would never acknowledge that they are spiritually poor, and therefore do not desire help.  Now, God is not stingy - He has an infinite amount of the stuff, and if you aren't using it, then that extra capacity is just going to waste.  Therefore God encourages us to ask him for things (Mt 5) and delights to give it to us when we ask.

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.  - James 1:5

Dream big. Abraham dreamed of being a father of nations, since that's what his name was all about. But that dream died after he reached old age without children. In the end, though, God's plan for him was for him to be a father of nations - God was the one to plant that desire.

Desire. Ask God for more. Don't turn away potential upgrades when they are offered (in the form of painful feedback from reality, most often).

How do you know whether you desperately need more truth and a deeper relationship with Christ?  If you have a pulse, you do.  It's not a one-time transaction where you accept Christ into your life and then all your needs are met. It's an ongoing relationship - we are like a stream of water. Unless we want to become become a stagnant algae-filled swamp, we must *always* be getting more and more from God (water flowing in) and passing along to others what we ourselves have received (water flowing out).

So, people who are "fine," you need more Jesus. And, people who are very mature (maturing) and have a deep and close relationship with Christ, you need more Jesus.  It's awesome, because He wants us to want Him enough to wrestle with Him - He desires to give good things to those who would enjoy them.

Grace and Enabling

(Are you making the problem better or worse?)

Grace is a huge concept in the Bible, but I think that most people don't take  a lot of time to dive into that topic and studying the Bible to see what grace is.

“Make me understand the way of Your precepts; So shall I meditate on Your wonderful works.” Psalm 119:27

Growing up with the AWANA program, I learned a definition of grace as follows:  “A free gift that you don't deserve.” That's one basic tenant of grace that Christians generally agree upon:  Grace is unmerited – if it was merited (deserved), it would no longer be grace.  Some people will say that grace also means favor: God's grace is when God shows you favor.  But none of those definitions go deeper than that, which leaves unanswered questions, such as:  When God decides to give us favor and send us something undeserved and unmerited, what does He send us?  What IS this unmerited grace that God gives us when He shows favor?

Some people give the answer that anything God gives us that we do not deserve is grace. Like, when He sends rain and sunshine to everyone on earth, that's undeserved and therefore a form of grace. However, this answer doesn't stand up because Biblically, both blessings and grace are undeserved, and yet they are not used synonymously. The word “blessing” is used for many things, mainly extras – like, you are already doing okay, and then God gives you an extra blessing that you can praise and thank Him for.  God blesses people with children, for instance. The “grace,” on the other hand, is only used in situations where we need help and God is helping to fix that situation for us. When Noah received grace from God, it saved him from dying in a flood. When we are saved by grace, we are rescued from the sin and death we were wallowing in. In the christian life, we are told to come boldly before God's throne to find grace *in time of need.*  Blessings are unmerited extras, while grace is unmerited help/rescue.

"Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need." Hebrews 4:16

So, when help/grace is offered, there is still a choice: God allows us to accept or reject that grace. We can receive grace in vain when we are living under grace, as Christians, yet do not accept that help – Usually because God wants to help us become sanctified and Christ-like while we are still clinging to our familiar sins and being too scared to take up our cross and follow.

"We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain." 2 Corinthians 6:1

Who benefits from grace?  Well, who benefits from free help?  Those who WANT help. In other words, only those who have humility and realize that there is a problem will even want to be rescued or helped.

"But He gives more grace. Therefore He says: God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble."  James 4:6

When the Bible says that God gives grace to the humble, it doesn't mean that God is somehow playing favorites. Rather, it means that He offers grace to those who *desire* grace.

In the Lord's prayer, He instructs us to ask God not to lead us into temptation. In this prayer, we are asking God to make right choices easier for us. We are asking for His help in keeping us on the straight and narrow.

Now, with this understanding of grace (unmerited help), we can start to make sense of the various passages of the Scripture that tell us to be gracious and to give grace to other people. What does it mean to offer grace to others?

"Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers." Ephesians 4:29

Here, we are instructed to speak in a way that gives grace to those who hear; our speech should make it easier for others to received the edification that they need. In short, grace is opposite of temptation. Temptation makes it easier for a person to make a bad choice, while grace helps make it easier for a person to make a right choice.  All of our speech is to be gracious, and the Bible tells us to speak about doctrine, encouragement, correction, and instruction in righteousness. You'll notice that “correction” (ie godly confrontation) is included there.  Accountability and confrontation provides grace because it makes it easier for us each to learn and grow – it makes it harder for us to make wrong choices. [See also: The story of The King and His Hawk]

I remember one friend I knew who was battling an addiction. After realizing that he couldn't fight it alone, he got involved in a (very helpful and kind) men's group. Each evening, his accountability buddy would call him – and would ask if he had had any temptations in that area or had sinned in that area. (If he said no, the follow-up question would be to ask if he was lying – which sounds harsh, but it's helpful because addicts struggle also with the temptation to cover up the situation.)  Now, just *knowing* that there would be someone to hold him accountable made it tremendously easier for him to say “no” to temptation again and again, while kicking his habit. Accountability absolutely is a form of grace that helps us when we need help. None of us can do this life alone.

Both grace and condemnation start with acknowledgment that there is a problem present.  The difference is that condemnation points a finger while grace lends a hand.

__________________________________________________

So that's grace. What is enabling?

“An enabler is someone who—despite knowing that a behavior is destructive or harmful—allows a loved one to continue to do it. It is frequently used in the context of addiction.”

“No one wants their loved ones to do things that hurt themselves. However, by excusing behavior or looking the other way, you can enable an addict to continue abusing drugs or alcohol. Enablers allow substance abusers to continue using drugs without suffering the negative consequences of their actions.”

I found a good quiz online that goes like this: Are You an Enabler?

An enabler is a person who, acting out of a sincere sense of love, loyalty and concern, steps in to protect, cover up for, make excuses for and become more responsible for the chemically dependent person. This can prevent the addicted individual from a crisis that might bring about change, and thereby prolong his or her illness. To find out if you may be an enabler, answer the following questions:

1) Do you avoid potential problems by trying to keep the peace? Do you do whatever you can to avoid conflict because doing so will solve problems?

2) Are you in denial about your loved one being addicted? Do you think his or her drug or alcohol use is just a phase and isn't anything to be concerned about?

3) Do you have a hard time expressing your feelings? Do you keep all your emotions inside? 

4) Do you minimize the situation? Do you think the problem will get better later? 

5) Do you lecture, blame or criticize the chemically dependent person? 

6) Do you take over the responsibilities of the addicted person? Do you cover for and pick up his or her slack to minimize the negative consequences? Do you repeatedly come to the rescue — bailing him or her out of jail, out of financial problems or other tight spots? 

7) Do you try to protect your addicted loved one from pain? 

8) Do you treat him or her like a child? Do you enjoy taking care of your loved one and feel superior when you do? Do you still financially support him or her, even though he or she is an adult?

9) Do you try to control the dependent person?

10) Are you good at just enduring? Do you often think, this too shall pass?

11) Do you believe in waiting? That God will take care of this?

12) Do you give him or her one more chance, then another and yet another?

13) Do you join him or her in the dangerous behavior, even when you know he or she has a problem? 

If you answered yes to even one of these questions, you may have enabling behaviors, which could be [increasing the power of addiction in the life of your loved one.]

In short, God has some grace built into the system: It's called hitting one's head up against reality. This lets you know that what you are doing isn't working and motivates change. Enablers protect the person struggling with sin – they don't protect from the sin, but rather protect from the consequences of sin. They make sure that the addict/sinner never hits their head up against reality, and therefore never has motivation to change.

Why am I comparing and contrasting grace and enabling?  Well, to start with, they are exact opposites. Grace helps people to make good decisions, while enabling makes it easier for them to make sinful choices. But furthermore, people get these two concepts confused. Those who want to show grace want to avoid stumbling people, and a few believe that enabling is the only way to avoid stumbling people. They reason that if you do something and it makes another person upset, you have stumbled that person. They preach that we should avoid potential problems by trying to keep the peace – we should avoid conflict (not because that will solve the underlying issue, but because it won't trigger their anger).

Is there truth to their viewpoint?

 “If a loved one is struggling with drug addiction, confronting your friend or family member about their addiction can be a challenging and emotional experience. At first, it may seem easier to deny that there is even a problem or to excuse your loved one’s behavior. These denials and excuses however, will only make the problem worse. Denying or excusing a loved one’s addiction enables them to continue using drugs, which hurts themselves and others.”

Ultimately, if a loved one is sinning, they need grace and not enabling.  It may seem like giving them grace (confrontation in some cases) will “stumble” them because it will arouse their anger.  Let me share an analogy:


A friend comes to visit a farmer on a rainy day. After being invited inside, he notices that there is a hole in the roof, and rain is dripping into the living room. “Why do you do something about that hole?” he asks his farmer friend. “Oh but it's raining right now,” the farmer replies, “I can't go on the roof because it's slippery.”  This is a good point, and so the friend drops the topic and enjoys the rest of the visit.

A week later, the friend visits again. It's a bright and sunny day, but when he goes inside, he notices that the hole is still present. “Why didn't you fix that hole in your roof?” he asks. “Well, it's not raining,” the farmer explains, “there's no need!”

Now the question of the story is this:  When would be the right time for the farmer to fix the roof?  Obviously, it would be when it's sunny outside and there is “no need” because the problem is not causing any symptoms (no leakage). Those who claim that triggering anger is stumbling a person mistakes the problem (heart problem) with the symptom (anger). They think that by avoiding the symptom and preventing consequences, then things are great – the hole in the roof (heart problem) isn't a problem as long it's not raining (symptoms), right?  Right guys?

The issue IS a heart issue, though, all sin is. If you are gracious and they get angry at you, that's a symptom of that underlying heart condition. To avoid confrontation and accountability (Biblical forms of grace) will irritate the symptom less, but it will enable the heart problem to get worse. If you go out of your way to protect someone from the symptoms of their issue (including anger), you are a textbook case of an enabler who prevents the sinning individual from a crisis that might bring about change, and thereby strengthens the power of sin in that person's life.

That's not grace. That's not offering help. That's not making a righteous choice easier. Rather, enabling makes wrong choices easier and offers to whitewash the world instead of washing the world. Chesterton wrote that one who is not truly loyal 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.”

_____________________________________________________

Galatians 2:17
“But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not!”

In other words:

“Seeking Christ includes increasing the knowledge of our own sin – does this (increase in knowledge of sin) increase sin? Certainly not!”

Grace often increases knowledge of sin, but it does not increase sin itself. In fact, grace is the only way out of sin.


[CLICK to view full size!!!]

So I Threw It to the Ground!!!

[ Please click on picture to view it full size!! :) ]

When I watch "I Threw It To the Ground" by Lonely Island, the scene where the main character quips: "MAAN! This ain't my Dad, this is a CELL PHONE!" reminds me of people who actually do make that kind of mistake with their relationship to God.  :)

The Christian Journey: Into the Light

Job 12:22: "He uncovers deep things out of darkness

And brings the shadow of death to light." 

[ Please click on picture to view it full size!! :) ]

Psalm 18:28: "For You will light my lamp, 

The Lord my God will enlighten my darkness." 

Psalm 90:8: "You have set our iniquities before You, 

Our secret sins in the light of Your countenance." 

Christ is a Gentleman

In life, we are with God. We get to enjoy His creation, His domain, and His grace.

But we start off dead to Him - separated from Him - not connected with Him.

And we need to be connected to Him to live. Just like our spirit must be connected to our body to live.

He loves us and pursues us, and He offers salvation and connection - BUT He will only go ahead and connect with us if we accept Him. If we chooses to stop pushing away and telling us no.

Because He's a gentleman.

He's the One who decided that "no means no" is a good boundary to have. 

Forgiveness - What is it? How does one do it?

Jesus told the parable of the debtor who was forgiven a humongous amount of money, and then goes and throws another man into prison for owing $50. It's about forgiveness, but the connection between the monetary debt and true forgiveness is not always obvious.

Sin has a cost, and when someone sins against us, we pay a price for someone else's sin. Forgiveness is what makes that voluntary - forgiveness is agreeing to live with the consequences of another’s sin. Forgiveness means that we don't want to "make them pay" later, to reimburse us for that price we had to pay because of their sin.

Neil Anderson spells out this concept very well. I first read this as a teenager, and forgiving other people, with this understanding of forgiveness, was one of the most freeing things I have ever done in my life. So, now I am passing it along to all of you:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"We need to forgive others so that Satan cannot take advantage of us (2 Corinthians 2:10,11). We need to be merciful just as our heavenly Father is merciful (Luke 6:36). We are to forgive as we have been forgiven (Ephesians 4:31,32). Ask God to bring to your mind those people whom you need to forgive by expressing the following prayer aloud:

        Dear Heavenly Father,

        I thank You for the riches of Your kindness, forbearance and patience, knowing that your kindness has led me to repentance (Romans 2:4). I confess that I have not extended that same patience and kindness toward others who have offended me, but instead I have harbored bitterness and resentment. I pray that during this time of self-examination You would bring to mind only those people whom I have not forgiven in order that I may do so (Matthew 18:35). I ask this in the name of Jesus. Amen.

Forgiveness is not forgetting. People who try to forget find they cannot. God says He will "remember our sins no more" (Hebrews 10:17), but God, being omniscient, cannot forget. "Remember no more" means that God will never use the past against us (Psalm 103:12). Forgetting may be the result of forgiveness, but it is never the means of forgiveness. When we bring up the past of others, we are saying we haven’t forgiven them.

Forgiveness is a choice, a crisis of the will. Since God requires us to forgive, it is something we can do. But forgiveness is difficult for us because it pulls against our concept of justice. We want revenge for the offenses suffered. But we are told never to take our own revenge (Romans 12:19). "Why should I let them off the hook?" you may ask. That is precisely the problem -- you are still hooked on them, still bound to your past. You let them off the hook, but they are never off God’s. He will deal with them fairly -- something we cannot do.

"But you don’t understand how much this person hurt me!" you may protest. But you don’t see, they are still hurting you! How do you stop the pain? You don’t forgive someone for their sake; you do it for your sake so you can be free. Your need to forgive isn’t an issue between you and the offender; it’s between you and God.

Forgiveness is agreeing to live with the consequences of another’s sin. Forgiveness is costly. You pay the price of the evil you forgive. You’re going to live with those consequences whether you want to or not; your choice is whether you will do so in the bitterness of unforgiveness. Jesus took the consequences of your sin upon Himself. All true forgiveness is substitutional because no one really forgives without bearing the consequences of another person’s sin. God the Father "made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Corinthians 5:21). Where is the justice? It’s the cross that makes forgiveness legally and morally right: "For the death that He died, He died to sin, once for all" (Romans 6:10).

How do you forgive from the heart? First, you acknowledge that hurt and the hate. If your forgiveness doesn’t visit the emotional core of your life, it will be incomplete. Many feel the pain of interpersonal offenses but they won’t acknowledge it. Let God bring the pain to the surface so He can deal with it. That is where the healing takes place.

Decide that you will bear the burden of your offender’s offenses by not using the information about their offenses against them [IE to tear them down] in the future. This doesn’t mean that you tolerate sin. You must always take a stand against sin. But don’t wait to forgive until you feel like forgiving; you will never get there. Feelings take time to heal after the choice to forgive is made and Satan has lost his place (Ephesians 4: 26-27). Freedom is what will be gained, not a feeling.

For each person on your list, say aloud: Lord, I forgive (name) for (specially identify all offenses and painful memories [and even ongoing effects]). Don’t say, "Lord, please help me to forgive," because He is already helping you. Don’t say, "Lord, I want to forgive," because you are bypassing the hard-core choice to forgive, which is your responsibility. Stay with each individual until you are sure you have dealt with all the remembered pain.

As you pray, God may bring to mind offending people and experiences you have totally forgotten. Let Him do it, even if it is painful. Remember, you are doing this for your sake. God wants you to be free. Don’t rationalize or explain the offender’s behavior. Forgiveness deals with your pain, not other’s excuses. Positive feelings will follow in time; freeing yourself from the past is the critical issue."

                                  From Released From Bondage, by Neil T. Anderson
                                                               [Brackets words added by me]

Is There No Balm in Gilead?

God has blessed us with every heavenly blessing, and He Himself is life and joy and healing. Yet, so many of his people are hurting, hanging on, and tired. Why is this?  We read the same question asked in Jeremiah:

"For the hurt of the daughter of my people I am hurt.
I am mourning;
Astonishment has taken hold of me.

Is there no balm in Gilead,
Is there no physician there?
Why then is there no recovery
For the health of the daughter of my people?" - Jer. 8:21-22

Now, of course, there IS balm in Gilead, so to speak. The issue does not lie with a lack of medicine. God loves to give good gifts and showers us with everything that we need.



















As humans, we are designed with needs. Lots of needs. We have spiritual needs, physical needs, and even emotional needs (recall, before the fall, God said that it was not good for man to be alone). Yet, many times we want to rise above this calling, and want to assure ourselves, "I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing."

Yet humans are needy by nature. When God Himself took on human flesh, He took on human needs as well. And He embraced that neediness! He was on His knees before the Father each morning. For 40 days, He also fasted.  Fasting makes our body remember all of it's physical needs, and it brings us sometimes grumpiness and the feeling of physical desperation. Fasting reminds us of our own neediness.

Those who aren't cool with neediness pursue the path of selflessness with fervor. They don't complain, they are tough. They don't ask for things, and besides, they can handle it! It's very much against their way of life to accept help from anyone. Jesus Himself addressed people like this by saying that the well have no need for a physician - He didn't specifically mention that they need Him, but He pointed out that they would not be able to benefit from His presence as long as they were in the category of "the well who don't need things."

Yet as Christians, we want to be the cool Christians. The Christian with our act together. We don't want our flaws or needs or wants spilling out to where people can see them. We want to be a "good example" for others, and by "good example," we mean "got our act together." Yet sometimes that motivates us to cut ourselves off from additional grace and blessings that are always available to us, because of God's rich generousness.

[Please click on picture to view it full size, so that you can read the dialogue]

The Lesson of Balaam's Donkey

Now the donkey saw the Angel of the LORD standing in the way with His drawn sword in His hand, and the donkey turned aside out of the way and went into the field. So Balaam struck the donkey to turn her back onto the road.

Then the Angel of the LORD stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, with a wall on this side and a wall on that side. And when the donkey saw the Angel of the LORD, she pushed herself against the wall and crushed Balaam’s foot against the wall; so he struck her again.

Then the Angel of the LORD went further, and stood in a narrow place where there was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left. And when the donkey saw the Angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam; so Balaam’s anger was aroused, and he struck the donkey with his staff.



Then the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?”

And Balaam said to the donkey, “Because you have abused me. I wish there were a sword in my hand, for now I would kill you!”

So the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey on which you have ridden, ever since I became yours, to this day? Was I ever disposed to do this to you?”

And he said, “No.”

Then the LORD opened Balaam’s eyes, and he saw the Angel of the LORD standing in the way with His drawn sword in His hand; and he bowed his head and fell flat on his face.

_________________________________________________

In this story, Balaam physically could not see the danger that he was in. In a more metaphorical sense, this applies to many situations because we all have blind spots in life, and we don't always know what danger we are facing or what trouble we are getting ourselves into. The story of Balaam is a lesson in humility; why should he have paid attention to the perspective of a sub-human creature who was incapable of telling him a good reason for what he was doing? There are several key elements in the set-up to this story, though, and these elements are also seen reflected in many more modern tales, but I'll get to that later.

1. Character #1 faces danger of some sort
2. Character #2 is a loyal or upright character who has proven untrustworthy
3. Character #1 looks down on Character #2, doesn't think them worth listening to
4. Character #2 tried to prevent bad stuff from happening
5. Character #1 for whatever reason does not hear or does not understand the reason that Character #2 has for getting in the way
6. Character #1 gets angry at Character #2 for getting between them and their goals
7. Character #1 hurts Character #2
8. Finally, Character #1 sees the danger prevented and appreciates Character #2

That's generally how it goes. Where did Character #1 go wrong? Well, other than the obvious mistake of getting himself into trouble somehow, there are the issues of trust, of respect, and of anger. After Balaam had hit the donkey several times, the donkey is able to speak back and he asks whether in the past he had ever gone against Balaam or been stubborn like that. The donkey asks if Balaam has any reason not to trust him, and Balaam has to admit that the donkey had always been a loyal servant and never untrustworthy in that way. Balaam was wrong, then, to judge rather than trust his loyal servant. In Balaam's mind, though, he was a man and the donkey was a donkey, which means that he was right by default. There wasn't the slightest possibility, in his mind, that he should actually heed the donkey.

Similar plotlines pop up here and there. In Lady and the Tramp, for instance, the Tramp knocks over the baby's basset (with the baby in it) while helping Lady to protect the baby from a vicious rat who was attempting to bite the baby. Naturally the noise brings in Aunt who-ever-it-was, and she berates both dogs, also calling the dog catcher to take the Tramp to the pound. The parents get home, and they actually listen to Lady's barking, she leads them to the curtain where the rat (then dead) was lying, and then of course the Tramp is appreciated. The Aunt distrusted all dogs from the very start, despite Lady's habitual past trustworthy conduct, and saw Lady as a lessor being (obviously) so that the possibility that she should actually heed the dog's barking (first warning her of the rat, and later trying to show the dead rat) wasn't in her mind at all. Again, there is a lack of humility that she could have a blind spot, dismissal of input from those she looks down on, retaliation toward those who were protectors, and final revealing of the truth.

In another well known story, It's A Wonderful Life, there is a scene near the beginning where the main character is a child working for a pharmacist. The pharmacist, Gower, accidentally grabs the wrong bottle and inadvertently sends young George to give a child poison. Young George notices this danger, refuses to deliver the drug, and attempts to explain...

GOWER

Why, that medicine should have been
there an hour ago. It'll be over in
five minutes, Mrs. Blaine.

He hangs up the phone and turns to George.

GOWER
Where's Mrs. Blaine's box of capsules?

He grabs George by the shirt and drags him into the back
room.

GEORGE
Capsules...

GOWER
(shaking him)
Did you hear what I said?

GEORGE
(frightened)
Yes, sir, I...

Gower starts hitting George about the head with his open
hands. George tries to protect himself as best he can.

GOWER
What kind of tricks are you playing,
anyway? Why didn't you deliver them
right away? Don't you know that boy's
very sick?

GEORGE
(in tears)
You're hurting my sore ear.

GOWER
You lazy loafer!

GEORGE
(sobbing)
Mr. Gower, you don't know what you're
doing. You put something wrong in
those capsules. I know you're unhappy.
You got that telegram, and you're
upset. You put something bad in those
capsules. It wasn't your fault, Mr.
Gower...

George pulls the little box out of his pocket. Gower savagely
rips it away from him, breathing heavily, staring at the boy
venomously.

GEORGE
Just look and see what you did. Look
at the bottle you took the powder
from. It's poison! I tell you, it's
poison! I know you feel bad... and...

George falters off, cupping his aching ear with a hand.

Of course, after Gower realizes that it was, in fact, poison, he was penitent and very grateful to poor George, who became deaf in one ear after the incident. Unlike the previous two stories, Character #2 wasn't an animal. The dynamic remains the same, though, because George was just a child; there wasn't the slightest possibility present to Gower's mind that the kid saw something that he didn't. Rather, the child seemed to get between the old man and his goals, and there was hell to pay. In this case also, George had been nothing but trustworthy and reliable; there was no reason for Gower to distrust him and turn on him just as there was no reason for Balaam to distrust and turn on his donkey. The motivation is understandable: what underling dares get between a man and his goal, especially without being able to articulate quickly and clearly why? That underling faces wrath for being "in the wrong" automatically, not heard, and getting in the way, even though getting in the way protects the other character from the destruction that lies in that way.

Therefore, the lesson of Balaam is simply this:

We all have blind spots. Therefore, if some loyal underling (even one below your statue, your rank, your education, your age, or sub-human) gets between you and a very urgent goal then follow these three steps: Respect their motivations even if you don't understand or you disagree; Listen to their perspective if you can to try to consider their angle on what the danger might be; Whatever you do, don't hit them in anger just because they stand between you and your goal. If anything, it is better to be too gracious than too quick to condemn.

A Fiery Dilemma

Today it was plastered all over the internet news: A house burned to the ground while firefighters stood by and watched, because the residents had not paid their annual $75 fire-protection fee. You can read all the details here: Yahoo News Article. Just as food for thought, why is it that a house can be described as either "burning up" or "burning down" in the same set of circumstances?

Pictured above: A completely irrelevant house burning

Anyway, at first glance, it seems to be heartless of the firefighters to just stand by while a person's home goes up in flame. Especially considering the prices of homes and how many years and years of hard work it takes to buy one of those. On second thought, though, it seems clear that if all the community relies of how heartless it would be for the firefighters not to put out a fire on their house, even if they didn't pay dues, then none of them would feel inclined to pay. Whereas, if they realized that their own house *actually* burning down was a real risk, they would be lining up down the street to pay $75! Even to slap on a fine of $1,000 might not motivate people, because it's so much easier to imagine that you'll never need the insurance, and then if you hit the situation, you'll pay for it then. Americans do have the tendency to think that the world owes them, and therefore would be outraged when they don't receive a service which they had every chance to subscribe to, but choose not to.

In other words, letting the house burn to the ground was just, but it was not merciful. Strike the scoffer, and the simple will become wary. People will realize that safety is not magically guaranteed, and will take the deal more seriously. Rather than learning that they can get away with not paying, they will learn that justice does not bow to the American "you-owe-me" mentality, or popular vote (which would have gone in favor of putting out the fire.) So, I can readily understand and every support where the firefighters were coming from on that one.

But, you know me, I'm all heart. I would go with mercy. If the justice was about something horrible like killing, or even a habit like stealing, then I might justly let a person's house burn to the ground. But for a small amount of money? I would question the system, because deciding that the *only* way to make people pay dues was to show them that deliverance was not a right. You see, I like to show mercy, when it's at all feasible (but not when it would be inappropriate)

In some places, we still have volunteer firemen in this country, people who would put out fires for no money at all -- and surely that's loving. If I had been in charge, I could have put out the fire, and then pressed supervisors about how badly it would have gone if I hadn't, even though they hadn't paid, and propose to make it a mandatory fee (like car insurance.) The system may be better if you just slap people with a $1,000 fine if you have to put out a fire when they weren't "insured" like that. Alternatively, it could be better if those sort of things are covered in taxes, like they are where I live. I mean, of all the silly things our taxes dollars go to work on, fire protection easily ranks high.

So, I would have mercy on the poor people and save their house, and then re-think the system so that we could get the money we need/want, and people still don't end up having to beg and plead and cry while their house burns down before their eyes. Even if their proud lack of foresight justly deserves that disaster.

Conditional Grace Throughout the Bible

Grace

John Piper is probably a familiar name to many of you, since he is a well-known and respected reformed christian author. Recently, I was reading John Piper's book. "Future Grace," and I came across the idea of unmerited condition grace in the life of the christian. I would like to expound on that point in this blog.

"Free, Unmerited, Conditional Grace

However, free doesn't always mean unconditional. Many of God's acts of grace are conditional... When James says '[God] gives a greater grace... God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble' (James 4:6), he means that there is a grace that comes to those who are humble, but does not come to the proud."

"It should be plain from this, that fulfilling conditions does not imply earning anything or meriting anything. Grace is still free, even when it is conditional. There is such a thing as unmerited, conditional grace. Do not equate meeting conditions of grace with earning or meriting grace. 'Earning grace' would indeed be a contradiction in terms, like 'hot snow' or 'verdant desert.'"

"Grace cannot be earned. The very meaning of grace is that the one receiving the grace does not deserve it - has not earned it. If a philanthropist pays $80,000 for your college education on the condition that you graduate from high school, you have not earned the gift, but you have met a condition. It is possible to meet a condition for receiving grace and yet not earn the grace. Conditional grace does not mean earned grace. How can this be?

The part of the answer that needs to be said here is that when God's grace is promised based on a condition, that condition is also a work of God's grace. This guarantees the absolute freeness of grace. The philanthropist mentioned above may even become the personal tutor for a failing high school student to insure that he does get his diploma and so meets the condition for $80,000 grant."

Furthermore, Piper gives an example of a conditional promise from the Scriptures, and comments on it.

"The Lord is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble, and He knows those who take refuge in Him." Nahum 1:7

"We do not earn or merit anything by taking refuge in God. Hiding in something makes no contribution to the hiding place. All it does is show that we regard ourselves as helpless and the hiding place as a place of rescue. The condition we must meet to have this grace is not a meritorious one."

Piper goes on to say that, in the christian life, faith is often the condition of future grace. Does this condition nullify the grace of God? His response is this:

"As we ponder how to live the Christian life, the uppermost thought should be: How can I magnify rather than nullify the grace of God? Paul answers this question in

Galatians 2:20-21, 'I have been crucified Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now life in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God."

Why does his life not nullify the grace of God? Because he lives by faith in the Son of God. Faith calls all attention to grace and magnifies it, rather than nullifying it."

_____________________________________________________________
All of these teachings, I would affirm. I have often said that an offer or action can be conditional, but not deserved. For instance, suppose that I only share my chocolate with those among my siblings who are girls. The offer of chocolate would be conditional, but has nothing to do with the fact that the girls deserve chocolate more than the guys do. Or for another example, if I walked into a school and shot every red-head, that action would be conditional. I would only shoot people who meet the condition of having red hair. Does that imply that they somehow the red-heads deserved to be shot more than the others? Of course not!

In the lives of christian, I believe that we are called to come boldly before the Throne of Grace to ask for help in time of need (Hebrews 4:16). If God gives me grace, and I am not in sin as much as a fellow brother or sister in Christ, is that cause to look down on them or boast? Of course not! I am no better than they, and any grace that I have received, conditional or not, is unmerited! I am a poor beggar in need of God's grace, and may God let me never forget that fact!

Now, one objection calvinists often have against the idea that salvation is conditional is the idea that if the grace of salvation was conditional, we would have something to boast about. If salvation was truly conditional, then we could say that we are somehow better or more worthy than our unsaved neighbors, which would be obviously false. I maintain, however, that this is a false dilemma. It seems to be that just as post-salvation grace is clearly conditional, and yet clearly undeserved, pre-salvation grace could hypothetically operate under the same principles.

I believe that Biblically, salvation(the whole package) is conditional upon faith. I do not believe that this is a reason to boast. As Piper said, "The condition we must meet to have this grace is not a meritorious one." I do not believe that I am any more worthy than non-christians in receiving salvation, or anyone more worthy than christians in receiving any sort of grace. I am a miserable wretched sinner, always in desparate need of God's help and grace. I do not believe that salvation being conditional on faith would nullify grace. As Piper said, "Faith calls all attention to grace and magnifies it, rather than nullifying it." If grace were conditional on works, then we could all boast. No grace is conditional on works. Not pre-salvation grace, not salvation grace, and not post-salvation grace. When grace is conditional on faith, our only boast in is Christ (Galatians 6:14).

In this way, I want to humbly put forward the idea that whether or not salvation is conditional, the argument against it needing to be unconditional on the basis that conditional would mean merited or deserved somehow is not a legitimate argument against conditional salvation. I put forward this idea on the grounds that we can see from the Bible that conditional grace does not in any way imply merit, and that faith as opposed to works does not nullify grace, but rather put it into the limelight.

____________________________________________________________
By means of clarification, some put forward the idea of "Unconditional Election." Others put forward the idea of "Conditional Election."One major argument against the idea of conditional election is that if we determined whether or not that condition(faith) was met, we would somehow be able to call the fulfilling of that condition "meritorious," say that we "earned" our salvation, or nullify the idea of grace.

I am trying to put forward the notion that if, by the grace of God, we were able to determine whether or not we fulfilled the condition on which salvific grace was given, that it would be similar in concept to our ability, through God's grace, to determine whether or not to fulfill the conditions for grace in our christian life(like humility) I am comparing the two and noticing that in both cases, the grace, although conditional, would be unmerited and something no one can boast about. Does that make sense?

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.

Calvinism 4: Irresistible Grace

Irresistible Grace:

We all know basically what irresistible means, but do we know what grace is? As a child, I was taught that grace is “a free gift that I don’t deserve.” While this is true, what is the gift? In English, if we could not use the word “grace,” what would be used instead to convey the same meaning?

The first use of the word is in Genesis, when God decides that He is sorry that He made man.

"But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord."

Genesis 6:8

Grace was free, as we can see, no trade or exchange of goods here. Grace is an attitude of God toward those who find His favor. Grace is why Noah didn’t die by inhaling a lungful of water. Grace can be called “help,” or “the attitude of one to give help to another.”

We are also told to act in a gracious way to one another:

"A good man deals graciously and lends; He will guide his affairs with discretion.”

Psalm 112:5

"Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good
for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers."

Ephesians 4:29

God is said to give grace even to Christians.

"Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain
mercy and find grace to help in time of need."

Hebrews 4:16

Notice that wording: Grace to help. Whatever the problem, grace is the answer. It’s like the band-aid of the spiritual world. And who does God give this help to?

"But He gives more grace.

Therefore He says:

God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble."

James 4:6

The humble are those who will ask for help, and God enjoys helping them. The proud don’t think they need any help.

This equation will be simplistic and not thorough, but it will help you remember this point I’m trying to make:
GRACE = HELP.

Now sure enough, we all know that we can give people help when they don’t want it. Hospitals, if they receive someone who just took too many sleeping pills, will pump the person’s stomach without that person’s permission.

God’s help, though, is not forced. It is help that can be rejected or turned away from.

"We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to
receive the grace of God in vain."

2 Corinthians 6:1

"You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law;
you have fallen from grace."

Galatians 5:4

By the way, I don’t believe that “falling from grace” being to lose one’s salvation, but rather to reject the day-to-day help that God offers us. And trust me, as Christians, we need all the help (grace) that we can get!
Most of the verses that mention grace in the New Testament say something like this:

"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."

Ephesians 1:2

Amen to that! With all our sin and weakness, it’s a good thing that God offers us so much grace/help. It is by God’s help that we are saved. We, helpless sinful beings, can ask God for help, as discussed in the last email.
God, because He’s just so awesome, chooses to help, and it’s His help that saves us. “By grace you have been saved.” If God wouldn’t have gone out of His way, and by that I mean if He hadn't been willing to die a painful death, we would not have anyone to help save us from sin and death no matter how hard we cried for it.

The Calvinist view of irresistible grace is that when God gives us grace, we don’t want to resist. God regenerates our hearts and minds, and then we have faith.
I have a couple problems with that:

• A. The Bible does not say be saved and then believe, but rather believe and then you will be saved.
• B. The common term for that sort of thing is mind-control.
• C. God gave man free will, and seems to prefer interacting and relating to people who can choose to respond to Him.

God, though what I’ve seen in His interactions with humans throughout the Bible, likes to use external, rather than internal, forces to deal with people. Consider Jonah for a moment. He didn’t want to go to. God could have, I’m sure, used mind control. Now when I say "mind-control," I don't mean forcing people to do something against their will, because of course if you control their mind, you control their will! You simply make sure that everyone wants to do what you want them to do, and then they just do what they want.

He could have given Jonah “grace” to see with compassion the lost souls of Ninevah so that Jonah would have happily trotted off to follow God’s command, but no. God had Jonah tossed in a large fish, and even after that Jonah had attitude! God’s will of reaching the Ninevites was accomplished, but He didn’t even need to pull out His mind-control super weapon. God can rule just fine without mind-control, and He prefers it that way.

Think of the garden of Eden. God’s perfect and ideal set-up for mankind. It was “good.” But man still had a choice to follow and love God, or not. It’s always been that way. God seeks a relationship with mankind. A real relationship.

We can see all through the Bible, His love letters and longing to have a close and trusting relationship with us. He didn’t want robots, who have no choices but do what they are programmed to do. Even His angels who praise and serve Him all day long had the option to leave. Even so, when God created man in the garden of Eden, He gave man a choice: love or leave. Sadly, we choose to give up perfection for some tangy fruit and the promise of “being like God.”

We didn’t love Him, we were jealous of His position. God didn’t draw them back to Him using the mind-powers of grace. No. He kicked them out of the garden. He’s very straightforward that way.
Calvinists will hear me, and respond that God is recorded to have “hardened” people’s hearts, or that:

"The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, Like the rivers of water;
He turns it wherever He wishes."

Proverbs 21:1

God does harden people’s hearts; but only those that choose for themselves to harden it. If you desire hardness, He will give your heart hardness. But if you desire grace, then He will show mercy and regenerate your heart. He does do “open-heart surgery,” but only with your consent.
You’ll notice that before God is said to have hardened Pharaoh’s heart only after this:

"But Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also;
neither would he let the people go."

Exodus 8:32

In the same way, God turns the heart of the King wherever He wishes. And where does He wish for it to turn?
We find the answer here:

"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows,
that he will also reap."

Galatians 6:7

So I maintain that God does not use mind-control grace, which is not, I believe, a Biblical meaning of grace, to change people’s minds. He many times gives people what they want. An excellent and very frightening example of this is how God dealt with the Israelites in Isaiah. He tells them to listen, and they do not heed His Word. Then they ask for an explanation of God's will, not to heed it but so that they can judge it and make fun of it. At that point, God says that He will close their ears so they will not hear and understand until He is done judging them. For the next probably fifteen chapters, God judges them, and not once does He tell them to listen. That just goes to show you that God is not an unreasonable being who commands people to do what they are not able, through His help, to do. Finally, He is done judging and tells them again to listen and repent, and they do!

The point is, is you ask God for Himself, then He delights to reveal Himself to you.

"Delight yourself also in the Lord, And He shall give you the desires of your heart"

Psalm 37:4

However, if you want to shut your ears, or if you prefer a lie to truth like King Ahab did, then He will punish you by giving you what you want. If you want to close your ears, God will punish you by closing your eyes. If a person wants their heart to be hardened, God will harden their heart. If a person wants none of God, then through eternity, they will get none of God, which is Hell. C.S. Lewis once said that in the end, there are two types of people: those that say to God: "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says: "they will be done." This is astonishing. This is unbelievable. This is what the Bible tells us is true. I don't claim to understand why God gives people what they want - why He is so kind, so harsh, or even why salvation is so "human-focused" and "man-centered." [The whole point of salvation being to save us humans, you know] I don't claim to understand why God is so loving and witty. I just read the Bible, and am left in Awe.

God does not give people irresistable grace. He chooses to offer people grace that they can say "no" to. He wants man to have free will, and if that's what He wants, then that's what He is going to make happen!