iPandora

This is a repost from June 4th, 2008. A friend of mine and I were discussing this tonight and I was trying to recall where I’d read this reconciliation of the two viewpoints. Funny I should find myself the author.

This is only the lightest of treatments of what has muddled many a mind and rankled many an argument over the vast span of history between Christ’s walking on earth and out present day.

Let me begin by putting all my cards on the table:

Predestination (or election) and choice and free-will in salvation are not mutually exclusive and in fact are both true throughout both the moment of salvation and the life-long process of sanctification.

First up in the list of evidence is that passage many evangelicals love to hate, Romans 8. This excerpt from verses 28 through 30 contains the most difficult bits:

(28) And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. (29) For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (30) And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

The meaning of this verse is not open to much discussion or debate, it is rather clear on it’s face: we are not responsible for our salvation or sanctification. We are merely fortunate to have been chosen.

Next up, Romans 9: 6-22:

(6) …it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, (7) and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” (8) This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. (9) For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” (10) And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, (11) though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— (12) she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” (13) As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

(14) What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! (15) For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (16) So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (17) For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” (18) So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

(19) You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” (20) But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” (21) Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (22) What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,

This is very similar to God’s ultimate response to Job at the end of his complaining. God tells him his mind is too small to understand all the purposes behind His working in the world. Trust is not trust when we see the whole picture or comprehend the entire situation.

But then what of choice? It seems that Paul has not left any room for choice and free-will in either salvation or sanctification.

So then we get to the “friendly” passages. The ones that are quoted every Sunday and most every other day from thousands of pulpits and soap-boxes around the world promoting the ease of access to God’s redemptive plan, John 3:16:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

As we can see, there is little debating this scripture either. “Whoever” is an inclusive word with the only limiter being one of undebatable choice: “believes”. The choice is obviously ours to make when it comes to salvation.

So then there is a paradox, there are two apparently mutually exclusive claims made regarding salvation and it’s cause and effect.

Using these verses and their context, it is not difficult to see how they fit together like two sides of the same coin.

John 3 begins with the account of Nicodemus’ talk with Jesus. Jesus was telling an unsaved and searching man how he ought to find salvation.

Romans 8 and 9 are revealing a greater understanding of salvation, sanctification, and the Christian walk to those already saved.

When God speaks to those who need Him and who He desires to come to Him, that is all of us, He speaks of our need and choice. And when He speaks to those of us who are working out lives defined by His process of sanctification, He speaks of His own supremacy and unmatchable ability to reach out to us, draw us, save us and sanctify us and of our own inability to accomplish any of the same.

God’s omniscience and His perspective seeing our entire lives, He sees our beginning and our ending at the same ‘time’ and therefore knows how we will choose before the choice is even presented. This is confirmed and expounded upon by Paul’s statement that “He works all things together for good to those called”. However, in much the same way an observing scientist’s knowledge that a mouse will eventually reach the cheese in the maze does not negate the free-will in the choices that mouse made reaching the cheese, God’s knowledge and awareness of our entire life-path at all times and His active work in our life-path do not negate the fact that we are responsible for the choices he has given us.

Once to every man and nation, comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, some great decision, offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever, ’twixt that darkness and that light.

Then to side with truth is noble, when we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and ’tis prosperous to be just;
Then it is the brave man chooses while the coward stands aside,
Till the multitude make virtue of the faith they had denied.

By the light of burning martyrs, Christ, Thy bleeding feet we track,
Toiling up new Calv’ries ever with the cross that turns not back;
New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth,
They must upward still and onward, who would keep abreast of truth.

Though the cause of evil prosper, yet the truth alone is strong;
Though her portion be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong;
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above His own.

Update 8/31/09:

Neil at 4Simpsons links to an article attempting to reconcile Predestination and Free Will at the blog Winging It. David argues that God’s predestination and election awakes the heart to experience the free will capable of accepting salvation.

I really want to recommend this column/blog on The American Vision by Gary DeMar.

This article is a very clear, concise, unapologetic but very respectful perspective on power and purpose in general and our government in specific.

Again, it is very short but very clear and I would definately encourage you to read it.

I pray for you my son tonight
that you always walk in God’s light

That your young ears will listen well
as of Christ’s blessed hope I tell

and weave His story through all life
to you, young son of my dear wife.

I pray for you my son tonight,
God’s protection and His keen sight.

Your young eyes will see of God’s love,
your fresh heart will give thanks above,

Your small hands will lift up in praise,
and all your life it’s song will raise,

To God above it’s notes so clear,
that none below can help but hear.

I pray for you my son tonight,
that you always walk in God’s light.

Senator Edward Kennedy

Read Shattered China’s obituary to the man, the icon, here.

I heard of Senator Kennedy’s death this morning, not from the news, but from a good friend I was sharing breakfast with. And he said he wished he could be as Kennedy was, To his last breath, For what he believed.

For the sake of this argument we must accept and then put behind us the facts of this immoral, philandering, leacherous and treacherous man’s ways and means. There, now put that aside.

You’ve got to respect the man who never lost sight of what he believed in. Whether his own personal fame, power for his family name, success for his social(ist) ideas, history to be unable to forget him, his goals were never forgotten.

He could’ve set things aside at 60. His family will never want for wealth or position. He’d be feted at balls and parties, there would always be women willing and ready to bed him. For all intents and purposes he had it made.

But he didn’t stop.

He would work until he fell out of his chair, and then he’d work from his hospital bed tirelessly trying to secure the success of his plans and perversions.

If only.

If only he’d been strong for the right. Not the political right, the Lord’s right.

But there is us.

I am called to do no less for Christ than Senator Kennedy did for himself.

To fight with all I have, to struggle with all my might. And when my might is spent, to lean on the Lord for strength and continue on fighting.

May we all be the man Kennedy would’ve been had he been redeemed through the body and the blood of our gracious and merciful Lord Jesus Christ. Giving our everything and our all to Him and His glory.

May I be Christian to my last breath.

Senator Kennedy has died . . . and all I can say is what a relief for the country.

Sure, he is being labeled as one of the best Senators at working across the isle. Sure he is being called an advocate of the poor and needy (Do they really need another advocate? What about an advocate for the middle class?), but does any of that really overshadow his moral bankruptcy and the political corruption that some called “savvy”?

If I might remind you, Senator Kennedy “forgot” to tell authorities that he was driving the car when it fell off the bridge with a girl inside (Anyone remember the bumper stickers that said “My guns has killed less people that Senator Kennedy’s car”?), he screwed intern in the back of restaurants, and most recently he called for the rules regarding his replacement be changed . . . after he had changed them to their current standard in 2005.

Yes, Senator Kennedy did so, so, so much to help the poor and needy? But did he do it for them, or to secure his political future (the vote)? Yes, Senator Kennedy did so much good, but did he ever resolve that he was a lying perverted cheat who was charged with manslaughter?

Actually, even though I believe that he should have been disqualified for public office, he doesn’t have to resolve the lying perverting cheater part with us . . . he is now before a much larger judge . . . with a case that I am afraid he will lose.

So, now we are approached with the “icon” label . . . but is he an icon to the Kopechne family . . . among others (read about the rape incidents by his nephew that took place at his home). What really makes Senator Kennedy an icon? Fighting the war in Iraq so that millions of people could remain in a tyrannical dictatorship, being unable to do his job but refusing to resign, changing laws to fit his political needs?

Wait, I think I may have to recant my statement. Let us label Senator Kennedy as an icon. Let us proclaim his as the leader, the head, the top gun. That is right, Senator Kennedy is iconic of our legislative system and our representatives (not all of them, just too many of them).

I will let Senator Kennedy be an icon, he just will not be my icon. He will not represent me. He has his place in our history . . . but his story ends there. His only legacy is one echoed by corruption in Washington, by tears in Chappaquiddick, and the groans of the middle class.

Bill Whittle at PJTV notes that conservatives have, by and large, failed to engage the populace with creative messages.

Tim Hawkins appears more than able to do his part to make up for this shortcoming.

Government Panic

A friend of mine asks if conservatives and those opposing the “Public Option” canard aren’t allowing themselves to be distracted from what ought to be the first, only, and real argument.

The real argument ought not be anything about how much it will cost or how this part of the plan or that part of the plan will or will not violate this or that moral principle.

The real argument ought to be, what program of the federal government has achieved success enough that we can say the federal government is even basically capable of managing our health care?

Medicare? Welfare? Getting us to the moon?

If the standard is “Did it work?” Then yes, there are plenty of successes.

But if the standard is did it work better than a private sector initiative has or could have done, then no, there aren’t any successes.

It has been said the government of the US is very good at getting big things done. But it accomplishes them wastefully and without efficient use of money, people, time, or any other quantifiable resource.

And it is prone to corruption. Not just prone. If the government puts aside billions and trillions of dollars to set up healthcare management for the entire US, you can bet your bottom dollar hangers on and suck ups and all the dirty corrupt scum of the earth will be crawling as quickly as possible to that massive spigot of wealth to suck as much as possible for themselves.

It’s not a chance, it’s a fact.

So, is the government capable? Yes, in the barest sense.

Would we want anything the government created? No, in the surest sense.

Confession

…of concrete sins the old man dies a painful, shameful death before the eyes of a brother. Because this humiliation is so hard, we continually scheme to avoid it. Yet in the deep mental and physical pain of humiliation before a brother we experience the Cross of Jesus as our rescue and salvation. The old man dies, but it is God who has conquered him. Now we share in the resurrection of Christ and eternal life. ~Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Big Plans: Obama and Pelosi

Jack Ryan, hero of most of the books penned by author Tom Clancy, is given words which President Obama and most, if not all, of the leadership in Washington DC and state capitols across this great nation would do well to hear and heed.

In The Sum Of All Fears Jack Ryan encounters a powerful member of the current administration and gives them a reality check on what they’d been considering:

(T)he most dangerous trap in government service. You start to think that your wishes to make the world a better place supersede the principles under which our government is support to operate.

The government of the United States of America operates under the constraints and the controls of the Constitution of the United States of America.

The strength of the United States of America is that we believe that no man is above the law. No member of the government, no matter how high or powerful, can escape this.

That’s why former President Clinton was impeached, he broke the law by lying before a Grand Jury.

That’s why there are governors and legislators and mayors and bureaucrats of all types in prison, because their position does not free them from the constraints of the law.

The Constitution, a document of purpose and power, is the real strength behind this American Experiment. And to the extent we ignore the conditions of the Constitution, we weaken it. And to the extent we weaken it, we weaken our nation. And to the extent we weaken our nation, we’re traitors.

Dreamers can be leaders, but we remain a strong nation only when our leaders stay within the bounds of their responsibility.

A couple things to update everyone one . . .

First, from the this article and video, a congressman (Rep. David Scott), holds a town hall meeting on a local highway that will be installed.

Two points on that . . . 1) What is a congressman worried about a local highway for? That sounds like special interests to me. 2) Why is he talking about a highway at a town hall meeting when everyone knows that health care is on everyone’s mind.

However, the real elitism is hound in the congressman’s response to the criticism . . . he yells at the doctor! The congressman refuses to set up an appointment with the doctor and then yells at him for expressing his concerns. In fact, in the video, you will even see that the congressman really doesn’t want to answer the question. Wait, we vote for him and trust him to represent us and now he will not even tell us how he will represent us . . . that definitely sounds like of the people and for the people.

Second, as this article and this Fox News video show, Rep. John Dingell holds a town hall meeting to address the health care reform (very good). However, has anyone ever realized that Rep Dingell was first elected to congress in 1955. For some reason, I don’t think he has ever had to touch normal American hardships.

The real elitism comes out in his responses though. While holding the meeting, the representative is rudely interrupted by a father and a son. The interruption is not right, but neither is the congressman’s response. When asked how a disabled child would be protected under welfare reform, Rep. Dingell says that there is an amendment . . . but cannot quote the number. Why? Because there is no amendment. So, basically, the congressman lied to the people who voted him in thinking that they would be too stupid to know any better . . . sounds like he knows his constituents real well.

Oh, yah, and then on top of that Democratic leadership just decried that protesters as “un-American.” Hmm . . . welcome to the new culture classes . . . those who “know” and dictate, and those the “knowers” try to hoodwink.

Update:

Here’s the video: