Thunder Sounds

Sex, Marriage & Fairytales

noreply@blogger.com (SLW) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:33:00 +0000

I have no, even faint, appreciation for rap, but I thought this would be an interesting change of pace. Way to say, Jefferson.

Good-bye Joe Paterno

noreply@blogger.com (SLW) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 21:02:00 +0000

Joe Paterno was a great person and a fine mentor to college students throughout his life.

I met him twice walking to class at Penn State. We shared a sidewalk and a few pleasantries for a few minutes. He didn't have a coterie in tow, and didn't mind talking one on one with a doltish college student rushing off to class. I've always thought that was classy of him. JoePa had class.

Evil Is Not Self-Existent

noreply@blogger.com (SLW) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:07:00 +0000

Evil is real but not self-existent. It isn't an eternal verity, it is only a passing thing, here for time, but not for eternity. If it were not so, God could not be God as presented in the Bible. Instead, god would have to be of a dualistic conception, light and dark at once.

Evil can only exist consequently. Consequent of something God did? Well, yes, but not directly. God did not breath evil into existence, did not cogitate it and then induce it. Evil does not arise from the heart of God, though evil has most certainly arisen.

Evil is not a creation of God, but a creation of creations. Evil bursts into existence when a creation created with the capacity to itself freely create, creates against the will of God. That creation can be an attitude, an action, an aim, or whatever, but to be evil it must be at odds with God--that's what makes it evil. God's response to such is corrective and terminal.

Given God's omni characteristics, if evil were allowed to continue, it would be as if he harbored evil within himself. That would be schizophrenic and impossible, for a house divided against itself cannot stand. Because God is everywhere always, evil cannot be. Therefore, God has circumscribed evil within time for a time until he deals with it eternally.

From the perspective outside of time, evil has not even been a hiccup. For us in time it seems as if evil has been around forever (and always will be), but that is only an illusion we experience from our perspective within time. Outside of time, this realm of time is not so much as even a flash. God who is always the same is there "already" at the beginning and end, whereas evil is not.

Evil is not self-existent, not eternal, and not therefore truly something. Although here and now it is real and has far-reaching consequences, in the eternal scheme of things it is as nothing. Evil is consequent (and therefore dependent) upon creatures taking free actions which are in opposition of God. Where there is no will in opposition to God, there is no evil.

Time and What Matters

noreply@blogger.com (SLW) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 04:34:00 +0000

I've been talking a lot about time lately. It is real, and fleeting, and overall, a bane to human existence. It is what it is, and all the wishing and wanting, hemming and hawing, ruing and grousing won't do a thing to change it. Time marches on even though we can't keep step.

These thoughts cause me to consider the two great realities upon which all the rest of life hangs.

First, God is the only reality. Nothing else exists of itself. Everything else is a wisp, a flash and a curl of smoke in the mind of God. The universe seems grand and imposing, but it's just a puff (really, of nothing). The machinations and manipulations of countless generations of those made in the image of God vainly tempting to tame the worlds are but a vanishing midst.

Second, time relentlessly, only forges forward. No repeats, no going back, no changes or exchanges, every purchase is final. Time doesn't care about one's dreams, one's loves, one's opportunities, and certainly not about one's regrets. Everyday it puts everything in the round can file and presently stretches toward the next dawn.

Simple and elegant, remarkably profound. These truths consume every other concern and issue in life. As to how, and what this means to any of us, that also seems to me simple and straightforward. So I'll let you do the math.

Shock: Maybe We're Owed A Little Something After All

noreply@blogger.com (SLW) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:20:00 +0000

We are owed nothing. We are entitled to nothing. We are in a position to demand nothing. God is under no obligation to do anything for us. If you think otherwise you know nothing.

I have run across the position of those first sentences and the attitude described in the last taken by zealous folk when discussing God. Truth be told, I may have taken it myself at one time or another. At this point in my life, however, I'm not sure it's tenable. Certainly, none of us would argue for such a position being justified among humans in positions of authority; for example, pet owners.

How could such a position be anything other than callous and oppressive for anyone in a powerful position? Claiming it for God casts him in a very Marie Antoinette-like light. I see absolutely no upside in doing so. A holy and just God merits a better defense than to be cast in that tyrannical light!

Does God not have obligations to sentient beings given his decision to create them? After all, they did not wish themselves into existence with their capacity to (even the inevitability that they would) go against God. I think God does have some responsibility, especially since such souls are eternal and risk everlasting fire. God certainly acts like he has some parental obligations. Perhaps we should take our cue from him regarding this and not press Romans 9:16-24 beyond reasonable measure.

Time continues, giving opportunity for humans to be made right. God has stamped a witness into creation and poured out his Spirit profusely. We have been given all things, including Christ, even holiness is ours if we want it. We may turn our backs upon the responsible provision of God and be left to our fate, but thankfully, God is not so callous that he didn't feel the compulsion to provide.

Foreknowledge and Choices

noreply@blogger.com (SLW) — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 19:48:00 +0000

The Bible presents God as knowing the future exhaustively. Yet, the scriptures also record God having pronouncements made about the future through his prophetic agents to people, who in turn respond to said announcements in such a way that God changes that pronounced future. Incidents of this sort drove Jonah nuts and led Moses to an altruistic intercession that came back to haunt him. Whereas it demonstrates all too clearly that God controls the future, it completely blows out of the water any sense that God's exhaustive knowledge of the future requires a fixity of the future. Confusing, to say the least.

We are told to ask whatever we will in prayer, and that God will answer those prayers. The whole concept of answered prayer puts such a twist on virtually every way theologians and philosophers have looked at time and foreknowledge, as to make their musings virtually useless. A future-effecting intervention from God outside of time in response to definite, self-intiated actions by agents within time certainly pulls the rug out from under the concept of a fixed future. You see, God's exhaustive knowledge of the future is not time bound, and does not require a lack of fluidity in order to be exhaustive and accurate.

There are instances where God tells people they have done what they have done because he determined that they would. God has delivered quite detailed descriptions of what people who don't even exist yet will do in circumstances and events that were not even hinted at by circumstances and events at the time of announcement. He often clearly states such actions are at his beckon as well. This reveals not only his control of the future, but also means that some things are predetermined. Hmmm, chalk one up for deterministic approaches!

It is obvious that God is more than a mere observer and that he is not merely a determiner. God has told us some things about himself in his timelessness that can help us understand the mystery; for instance, he will never lie, he is not tempted by evil and will never tempt anyone else with it, he cannot be thwarted in the accomplishment of his will, even though mankind has the capacity to disappoint him and cause him regret. He knows the beginning from the end and the end from the beginning. All things will conclude on his agenda.

It is obvious that people have real choices that matter. There is a quality to at least some of those choices in which God must "wait" to see what man actually does (despite God's analytical skills). Yet, those analytical skills allow God to see where alternate choice could have lead. God does what he wants, of course, but what he wants is interactivity with man's choice. In all of this, he simultaneously sees exactly how man's choice and his choice unfolds through time to the end.

Though the only workable solution I see to all the complexity of timeless omniscience and the clarity of biblical revelation is simple foreknowledge, I understand the difficulty in seeing it as a sufficient view. What I think is more of a problem than even our own time bound limits of imagination and understanding, is our conception of a fixed future. God, outside of time, sees all of time (at once) and thereby knows the future both exhaustively and fluidly. For us, the present is where we live unaware of temporal effects that occur outside our moment. Therefore, regardless of the completeness of God's foreknowledge, our choices here and now are real.

Foresight and Insight

noreply@blogger.com (SLW) — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 06:32:00 +0000

Thoughtful people have been arguing about the subject of God's foreknowledge and his omniscience for ages. The wrench in the works, it seems to me, always lies in divorcing the timelessness of God's knowing from the sequence of things happening.

God sees the entirety of time, for lack of better words, all at once. He can see not only the free actions of agents in this way, but also his interventions within time along with their effects throughout time (talk about iterated loops!). Despite it appearing terribly confusing to us, God is able to put a screwdriver on the right nut in time in the way we can put one on the right bolt on a machine in front of us and adjust it's functioning to achieve our aims. Foresight.

Additionally, God knows his free moral agents transparently. He sees not only the biochemical processes that carry our soul's thoughts into the realm of physical existence, he also sees the spirit behind it all. He has a superb discernment into what we would do if our circumstances were different because he knows us, he knows what is in us. Though his knowledge of what we actually do is founded upon us doing it, there can be no doubt that he has us pegged, and can see whatever we do coming, so to speak. Insight.

There is no way to translate the scope of God's seeing and knowing into the confines of our ways of doing the same. What he tells us about himself--what he knows and sees, and what he will and will not do--are all that we have that is dependable on the subject. If one's hypothesis about these matters results in a conclusion that has God thinking, saying or doing other than what he's said of himself concerning these matters, then that hypothesis is false. Along those lines, I've come the conclusion that taken together, the biblical material dealing with such matters paints a picture of God's knowledge of the future that is best understood in overarching terms as simple foreknowledge.

The proponents of other approaches (e.g. Determinism, Molinism, Open Theism) would take exception to my conclusions, of course. Scripturally, a case can be made for and against any of those views. When varying theological conjectures arise which have this quality, it is usually because all of the views have only a piece of the puzzle without of acknowledging that the others have a piece too (note my interpretation of the timing of the Rapture). As I see it, all of them in some fashion are both right and wrong, and if so, how can any of them be true?

Foreknowledge and Counterfactuals

noreply@blogger.com (SLW) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 17:02:00 +0000

Counterfactual knowledge is the awareness of what would be if something other than what happened had happened--seeing, if you will, the alternate timeline that would have arisen if another choice had been made or other circumstances had existed. Is it real? It's hard to say, even in regard to God (though I will try). He is certainly analytical enough to prognosticate in that fashion (as we are under many circumstances), and he has the added benefit of being able to see everything, including our thoughts and intents and not just our outward actions.

Before we can get anywhere with this, however, we must first determine how God uses statements in the Bible we consider counterfactual. Is he actually dispensing information concerning an alternate "what-if" reality, a window on his thoughts about possibilities, or is he merely making points rhetorically? If it were any other person speaking that way we would know the answer was "rhetorical," with the all-knowing God we must pause before reaching such a conclusion. Does God know certainly what any of us would do if we were in different circumstances?

It would be easy enough to say yes, if for no other reason than not to offend God and honor our conceptions of his omniscience and sovereignty, but that isn't really the point. God is about truth, and in particular the truth he tells us about himself. Humans attributing to God what he doesn't claim for himself, even to make him appear "bigger" or "better" doesn't really honor him--at best it would be presumptuous, at worst it would be idolatrous! Is God actually, clearly telling us that he knows what we would do in any given circumstance?

There is scriptural warrant to think he does, cases in point:

Deuteronomy 31:20-22 - God knew the intents of the heart and what history those intents would end up making as a result;

Psalm 139 - God's knows the thoughts and actions of David before they occurred;
Ezekiel 3:6b-9 - God knew the hearts of Israel and took steps within Ezekiel's to counteract them;

Matthew 11:20-24 - Jesus knew that people who did not repent in the past would have repented if they had seen Christ in action. [Now, that is not to say they would have come to faith in Christ, just that the incredibly wicked would not have acted in ways that demanded their immediate destruction rather than waiting until the end of time];

John 2:24-25 - Jesus understood the inner workings of man's intents and desires, and how to thwart their consummation in action;

1 Corinthians 10:13-14 - God knows what temptation a person can bear and does not allow more than a believer can withstand by promising an available escape.

On the other hand:
Genesis 22:12 - God had to see the determination to act and the act initiated before he could say that he knew that Abraham would not withhold Isaac;
Exodus 13:17-18 - God spoke uncertainly about what the people might do and avoided learning what they would actually do;
Deuteronomy 8:2 - God had to see the heart actualized before he knew for certain what was in it.

I don't know that God meant to establish parallel truth by making counterfactual statements in the Bible. It easy to see these statements as other than the revelation of absolute, certain descriptions of alternate reality. There are obvious other purposes to those counterfactually structured statements that may be more fundamental to their meaning than the apparent counterfactual aspect. As always in biblical interpretation, intent of the (ultimate) author is of paramount importance.

If God had to see something done before he could know it certainly, as seems to be the case in some of the texts cited above, then I think it is safe to say that counterfactuals represent the discernment of God rather than the revelation of an alternate, possible history. Is God accurate in his assessments? Absolutely, but an assessment of a person's character and reactions is not the same as the statement of fact as in a historical narrative. Therefore, counterfactuals in the Bible do not represent an unveiling of Middle Knowledge, but merely the discernment of the all-wise, all-seeing God.

Foreknowledge is based on what God actually sees outside of time, not on permutations of possibilities that he cogitated within the counsels of his own mind before he created. If we posit that God knows with certainty what we would do in any circumstance, that he deliberated through what-ifs of creaturely freedom before he chose what became, we don't have freedom but merely a different way to see Compatibilism. If God has true (that is absolutely certain) counterfactual knowledge of free human action, not founded on what humans actually did, then foreknowledge is "rigged" and compatibilism is true.

Foreknowledge, Time and Omniscience

noreply@blogger.com (SLW) — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:16:00 +0000

If God is outside of time, God can foreknow exhaustively on the basis of being omniscient and self-existent, without regard to decree whatsoever. The notion that God foreknows because he has foreordained becomes superfluous, completely unnecessary. Further consideration of it as the cause of foresight can be tossed aside because it is unexplanatory. Of course, that doesn't disprove that God decrees and that is why what is so, is so, but it does remove any necessity for that decree explaining foreknowledge.

If God were instead entwined somehow in time, if there were some sense in which he abided by it, then God could not be the Holy God and the future could not be said to truly exist (to be known). In that case, God would be subject to a quality of creation, not self-existent, and would, like creation, have to wait and see. There could only be the now and the record of the past in such a situation. Any premonition or prescience, even by God, could not be taken as fact so much as prognostication.

God, in fact, sees all at once without regard to and unlimited by time and space--timeless omniscience. This must be so, no matter how hard it may be for us to envision, if God is truly self-existent. That means that God sees all time references with equal facility. Since God is apart from time, I think Simple Foreknowledge is more than adequate to account for God's knowledge of all that is and will be.

That doesn't explain counterfactual knowledge, but that will have to wait until next time...

Foreknowledge and Time

noreply@blogger.com (SLW) — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 16:41:00 +0000

Foreknowledge, in relation to God, means that God already knows what for us is future. Time, in our experience, is linear--it moves in one direction and there's no going back. If God can foresee time that has not transpired, it means that God is either outside of time not subject to its linear quality, or it means that time is nothing more than the actuality of sequence in the unfolding decisions he has already made. Is there anything about time that might tell us how he foreknows?

The nature of time is of utmost significance in this musing. Is time something or is it merely the tape measure that connects the reporting of events? I think we have an answer to this question--not provided by the Bible, but Einstein. Einstein theorized that time was a dimension of the universe, something, part of the nature of stuff. I think that was proved when atomic clocks on the space shuttle and synchronized atomic clocks on the ground were unsynchronized by the experience of differential speed.

If time is effected by what happens to stuff, it must be part of stuff. If it is part of stuff then I think we can come to some conclusions about its relation to God. God is the creator of stuff: he is not stuff (as in pantheism), he is not dependent on stuff (he is self-existent), he is not limited by stuff (he is sovereign). Therefore, God is outside of time, with all time before him as is all creation. If God sees all creation at once without reference to location, then he sees all time at once without reference to past, present or future.

With more to say...

I Think We Need A Cold Shower!

noreply@blogger.com (SLW) — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:36:00 +0000

Concupiscence refers to the passion aroused for sex--the longing that pursues and finds satisfaction in the completion of the act. Ray Romano, in Everybody Loves Raymond, serves up a workable video definition of the concept when he informs his wife that she's already activated the launch sequence. If we grant a Solomonic exception because Debra and Ray were married, then we have a picture of concupiscence. It is the arousal of desire that fixes itself upon the attainment of sex.

It is an obscure word, in Bibles only found in the King James Version, so many contemporary readers aren't even familiar with it. Modern versions of the Bible generally translate "covet," "lust," or "desire" where KJV translated concupiscence. Translators obviously felt a more general word was required, although I don't think that makes sense in Colossians 3:5 and 1 Thessalonians 4:5 (even though it does in Romans 7:8). I think the context of the Colossian and Thessalonian passages specifically includes things sexual--hence sexual arousal and desire.

Concupiscence is the very definition of how the heathen live, at least if we take our cues from the popular culture. Everything in that milieu is about sex, or more accurately, the arousal of sexual interest and its pursuit. It fills the silver screen, dominates the lyrical, and sells cars, tools, and perfume. It spills over into the church with the baptism of "romantic" love and the near universal evangelical acceptance of the cat and mouse sexual game the world is so adept at playing. I think we all need a cold shower!

Somehow Christians need to wake up from the daze we're in and realize that following Christ means not following the world. We must dare to be different, for we are a different sort in Christ. We're not called to be the versions of the worldly whose only difference from the lot is the address of our final destination. We're new creatures, with a different kind of fire. The fire that is burning the world is not the sort we want to share anyhow.

Sex and the Bible

noreply@blogger.com (SLW) — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 22:55:00 +0000

Sex is a touchy subject. It's hard for me to write or say the word without blushing. I guess an older generation's sense of decorum rubbed off on me. Not to worry, it's not like the vapors are going to overcome me, so let us proceed.

For all the talk of sex these days amongst evangelicals, the Bible is really not very explicit nor exhaustive in its treatment of the subject. Its approach is not developed in detail from the ground up; but rather sex is treated as a given in human life, something assumed, and handled euphemistically with the less said the better. Generalities and principles are the best that can be inferred, and proscriptively, despite all the angst among the religious through the ages, there really isn't that much said at all. There is enough, however.

I can find but four absolute sexual proscriptions in the entirety of the Bible: homosexuality, bestiality, fornication, and adultery. The overarching principle, it seems to me, is have no sexual intercourse with any creature other than your human spouse of the opposite physical gender. There are specifics that fall under this principle such as no intercourse during menstruation or immediately after birth, and no incest (particularly cross-generational), but that's it, really. So much for the detailed lists that so many believers bandy about!

So how do so many Christians come up with so many proscriptions with so much detail? I think many rely on Natural Law. If one adopts the premise that sex is fundamentally reproductive in purpose, just about anything non-reproductive could be considered willful and ultimately sinful. Masturbation and birth-control are examples of such issues, though neither is ever mentioned in the Bible.

Other proscriptions are clearly man-made and cultural. Specific sexual practices or approaches to the act are most certainly never mentioned in scripture, but that hasn't stopped people authoritatively listing dos and don'ts that do not appear there. What I think can be said in light of what has been said is that whatever a husband and wife wish to do in regards to the subject is up to them. As long as they are agreeable it's nobody's business but theirs.

I wish the subject stayed that way. We are an oversexed culture! What ever happened to less is more? I think the relative biblical silence on the subject ought to tell us something in and of itself, especially today--we think too much and speak too much about sex. And that's just from the pulpit!

How Can I Find Peace With God?

noreply@blogger.com (SLW) — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 18:10:00 +0000

It is not enough to believe in God, to acknowledge that there is a God over us, a Creator. While that is essential, it is not sufficient to be in good stead with that Creator. Demons willingly acknowledge as much and are certainly not in good stead. So faith in God in its most general sense is not saving faith by any sense.

Doing as God commands is certainly a good way to live in view of God's actual existence, but it does not amend for not doing as God commands. A person could live for years faithfully abiding by all that God commands and on an impulse disobey one day. That one day would be sufficient to wreck the man's record, and his former obedience would not provide any absolution for him. Good works accumulated can never outweigh even the mass of one bad work.

Rightness with God cannot be achieved through banal generalities (e.g. "I believe in God"), nor can it be earned by any with even one bad work to their name (that's all of us). Rightness with God has to be a concession given by God to undeserving people. As such, the means and methods of that concession will have to be of God's choosing, not ours. We're in no position to bargain or call the shots.

Has God made such a provision? Biblical Christians say yes, in very definitive terms. Nominal Christians and other religions are not so clear about things. They either slough off the issue altogether ("all dogs go to heaven," or "if at first you don't succeed try, try again," or "there is no such thing as heaven or hell") or they get one to work hard and hope for the best (more or less).

If you know the turmoil of conviction in your soul, you know that platitudes, theories and uncertainty will not do. Some things have to be known, or there is no peace. So what is the definitive answer of the Bible? God made provision for humanity to be reconciled to him through the efforts of his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. He died for our sins and rose from the dead for our justification.

If one can believe that Jesus Christ is God come to earth; that he died for our sin and rose bodily, literally, from the dead; and is therefore the one we should follow (the Lord), that one can be saved. If one relies upon what Jesus has done as the basis and means of standing right with God, reconciliation with God is accomplished. Of course there is a cost involved--not that we can do anything to earn it, or to aid it, but it will impact our future direction. Things will change.

Peace, you see, comes at the price of letting Jesus change your life.

Are All Who Believe in the End of Time Fatalists?

noreply@blogger.com (SLW) — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 18:55:00 +0000

In commenting on whether or not there was any substantial difference as to how determinism or fatalism view a predetermined end, I said, "...if the end is predetermined, the circumstance is fatalistic--regardless of whether or not one envisions the steps that lead to it as determined or not." That concept is worth exploring a bit further, so let's give it a go.

If one believes that God not only knows the end from the beginning but can, Babe Ruth-like, point to a desired end to events and then "hit the ball" to that spot, we certainly have the makings of a fatalistic viewpoint. That would just about include all Bible believing Christians I would think. By that reasoning, if one takes seriously the biblical concept of the "End of Time," that one would have to be generalized as a fatalist. Are all who believe in the end of time thereby fatalists?

If God were merely speaking on the basis of prescience, that is foresight, when such things were prophesied maybe we could say no and leave it at that. In that case, he would only be telling us what unfolds in time rather than what he was causing to unfold: determination would be removed from the equation. That, however, clearly is not the flavor of at least some of what he says. For example:

“Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done. Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure’; calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it." (Isaiah 46:9-11 NASB)

It appears from this passage that not only did God see what would happen, but he knew what he wanted to happen and made it so. Much of eschatology seems to me to be of this ilk. Despite this apparent difficulty, there are two factors which keep biblical Christianity from being truly fatalistic: (1) time and temporal sequence is of the created order not of the Creator's, and (2) there is nothing to say that God's determination and the indeterminacy of free agents can act on cause and effect without being co-opted by each other.

The first factor is hard for the human mind to grasp. We don't have the context to understand it--we're creatures of time and everything happens in our existence by temporal sequence. God, however, is outside of time: it's a characteristic of creation but not of the Creator. He is capable of reasoning, and seeing, and understanding in ways we are not, ways which are not limited or timebound. Just because he knows and sees all that for us is in time (past, present, or future), it doesn't follow that he must thereby have determined all that he knows and sees in time.

If we project our experience upon God, and try to force him into the box we live in, we not only do not see him as he is, we also misinterpret, miss, or make inconsistent all that he says about himself and about stuff in his Word. We think that God has to do things ordered, as in temporal and/or logical sequence as do we, without a shred of evidence other than our own experience. The truth is we don't know how God thinks. Whether God reasons with us or we reason with him, we do so within human constraints--as for God in himself, who can know his mind?

In identifying the second factor, I am not referring to compatibilism. Compatibilism requires that the choices of free agents are made freely by those agents in a way that is foreordained (determined) by God. Those are really mutually exclusive concepts which cannot be contemporaneous anywhere but in the mind of Lewis Carroll. A better concept is concurrence, which posits that the free agent chooses and acts and God concurs (i.e preserves and allows). Of course, either construct envisions God as able to direct things toward a chosen end, so long as, generally, free agents remained free, which is the heart of the matter.

The point is that without freewill everything is most definitely fatalistic. With freewill and God not bound by time, not so much. Is it possible to have true freewill and a predetermined end? I think that is what the Bible describes. So yes, but in order for us to accept it we have to abandon our ability to mentally grasp the way it was reasoned out. Thankfully, we have adequate warrant from the scripture to do that very thing.

Is There a Difference Between Fatalism and Determinism?

noreply@blogger.com (SLW) — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:02:00 +0000

Fatalism refers to inevitability. What will be will be because it is predetermined. Efforts to thwart a fated end (e.g. Greek tragedy), or efforts to produce any end are not the governing issues in determining what ends will be--fate is. It is an inherently religious perspective.

Determinism refers to pre-existing causes. What will be will be, because causes and conditions that have "gone" before have set forth cause and effect chains that determine the end. Secular determinism is the framework of Godless science (not that science is necessarily godless). Religious determinism is the framework of Calvinism.

Say a person sees the probability of an unpleasant future looming ahead of her. She decides to take action and change the course of her future. She takes what action she can, and experiences a chain of events she would not have if she had not taken action. It appeared she had changed the course of affairs and the initial probability wasn't so probable anymore. Unfortunately, the thing she feared came upon her anyway.

A fatalist would say, "I told you so." There is nothing that can be done to avert or change what is fated. The outcome proves the premise. What would the religious determinist say that would in anyway be different? The thought to avert the future was predetermined; the course of mitigation attempted was predetermined; the apparent success of that course was predetermined; and the ironic result of the whole affair was predetermined. How is the analysis of the result any different for one viewpoint as opposed to the other?

If a religious determinist is to be a determinist, that one is also, ultimately, a fatalist. Whether one looks at an end occurring regardless of intervening actions, or examines consequent actions step by step, the result is the same--what happens happens because it was predetermined. That one cares more about the steps to get there than the other makes precious little difference at all.

Jury Duty

noreply@blogger.com (SLW) — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:02:00 +0000

I just finished an experience I've always managed to avoid one way or another all these years. I sat on a jury in a civil trial. I never want to do it again. I don't think I'll have to worry about a criminal trial, since I'm absolutely opposed to prison and would not send any non-violent offender there regardless of the evidence or the law. I doubt that would pass muster in the pre-selection process.

The OJ Simpson trial (and more recently, even the Casey Anthony trial to some degree) have thoroughly undermined my confidence in the jury system. The jury system no longer works (if it ever did) because not all jurors are capable of following simple cause and effect trails, let alone difficult ones; jurors are purposely kept ignorant and information limited by the system so decisions have to be made on the basis of less than the totality of facts or science; a host of legal technicalities and terms make the process of weighing and determining facts very uncertain; etc., etc., etc.

My own experience has only served to validate my concerns. Did the jury I served on do justice? Maybe, but I have my doubts. We took the best guess we could given what we were presented. We were offered precious little, and very purposely I might add. We were deadlocked until a couple of people were willing to acknowledge that the situation meant that there just wasn't enough evidence to make the plaintiff's case. Such is justice in the US, heaven help us.

I think lawyers ought to make up the bulk of juries. They understand the proceedings, the terms, and the nuances of legal determinations. They are the ones making money off the system (would it be too much to ask them to serve some time every year rendering verdicts?). As long as they do not have a horse in the race, they would make the best jurors. They can be mixed with people who, instead of not knowing anything about the fields in question, are familiar with them. We would get more just verdicts, and probably quicker ones I would think.

Arminians Cannot Logically Adopt Perseverance

noreply@blogger.com (SLW) — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 16:39:00 +0000

If grace is resistible and election is conditional, then there remains no basis for the perseverance of the saints. To maintain such, one would have to posit a transition in God's governance of the believer such that God initiates salvation according to Arminian principles (freedom and grace), but after rebirth continues salvation according to Calvinistic principles (determinism). Though a biblical mechanism for such a shift could be posited on the basis of texts like Philippians 1:6, or John 6:39, there is no way to harmonize such a conception with the book of Hebrews or other passages warning that all is lost if one ceases to persevere in faith.

There is no need to. From God's perspective (looking back from the end or even just seeing all at once), of everyone who is finally and eternally saved it can be said that they will have made it because of God's efforts to preserve them. For everyone who made a turn to God, even who came to know him intimately, but at some point ceased to believe in Christ and walked away from him, it can be said that they will have fallen irretrievably because of their own freedom to believe or not believe. That God loses none of those he foreknew does not mean he will not lose some of those he knew along the way.

If it is intrinsic to God's will that mankind be free (as any Arminian would attest), then on what basis would a shift to Calvinistic precepts for the saved be justified? It seems to me, any such basis would have to be established by ignoring some scripture on its face in order to emphasize other passages of scripture. What would drive that? Emotion? Comfort? Make no mistake, any such an effort thoroughly undermines the Arminian conceptions of soteriology in the first place. If one knows God's grace is resistible, then one cannot posit a perseverance that is not.

An Alumnus Speaks About Penn State

noreply@blogger.com (SLW) — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 00:01:00 +0000

I am a Penn State grad ('81). I have always been proud to say that. At the moment my emotions would betray that sentiment. I am more than a little ashamed. Like all the vast horde of the Blue and White, I am in shock and dismay over the scandal that has overwhelmed Penn State.

I can't say that I was ever a Paterno fan (though I've always respected him as a person and his approach to the football program), but I have always been a fan of Penn State. I listened to the games on the radio when I was a kid, and do not remember missing a game in Beaver Stadium for the four years I was a student at University Park. I can justifiably say I've seen some of the best players to ever play the game, play the game.

In light of the revelations that have come forth, and I do not believe it is a rush to judgment, given the findings of fact of the grand jury, Joe Paterno must go. I do not see how he can coach another game. I hope that Penn State has the good sense to announce an interim coach immediately, and to start the selection process for a replacement.

Ultimately, I think a clean sweep is required: a new coach, a new coaching staff, a new Athletic Director, a new VP for Business Affairs, and... a new University President. Graham Spanier is more blameworthy than even Paterno for the inaction and travesty that has come to light, and should be fired immediately. The coaching staff should get pink slips effective the end of the season with whatever severance is customary, and JoePa should be cashiered now, never to coach a game again, not even a scrimmage, not even a practice session.

Addendum:
JoePa has announced his retirement, effective at the end of the season. Not to kick a guy when he's down, but that is not good enough! A criminal investigation against the perpetrator was undertaken in '98 and JoePa suddenly, mysteriously forced him off his staff in '99. It seems like he might have known something untoward about the guy. A horrendous eyewitness account in '02 by someone still on his staff now (does that not imply that JoePa found him credible?) should have set off JoePa's alarms full blast. Yet the perpetrator was still bringing young boys to football games, to the locker room, to the campus years later--under Joe's nose!

Joe Paterno has lost any consideration his years of exemplary service may have afforded him. His judgment is suspect, and with the crimes in question of the nature they are, Joe is in no position to represent an institution such as Penn State. He should not be allowed to.

Addendum II:
I am in favor of the Board of Trustees decision to fire Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier, effective immediately. They need to do the same with AD Curley and VP Shultz.

Some Final Thoughts:

Jerry Sandusky has ruined the lives of more young men than we may ever know. He did so with malice and a cold-bloodedness that would do a viper justice. Even after the now open wounds he left behind scar over, the pain of their memory will linger behind. He stole something time allows no one to ever get back--youth. He deserves no consideration from us.

I don't think he should get the opportunity to drain the joy out of one more young man's youth. In that spirit I wish the student body and the Nittany Lion Football Team a good finish to their football season. The simple joys of your youth should not be sacrificed on the altar of a monster. You're young once, if God grants you the grace and opportunity, enjoy the moments while you have them.

Two Worth Reading

noreply@blogger.com (SLW) — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:45:00 +0000

One article by Barry Arrington, and another, very much worth reading.

Biblical Economics

noreply@blogger.com (SLW) — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 16:05:00 +0000

As we come into an election year here in the US, talk of economics fills the public square once again. On top of the electoral buzz, we have a socialist in the White House empathizing with protesters camping out on the streets with no clue about what they are protesting, egged on surreptitiously by the communistic ACORN group. The world's in turmoil and capitalism and free markets are getting the blame. What position on these economic matters should a Christian take? Let me sketch out an outline of Biblical Economics that may help you make up your mind.

Private Property
The foundation of freedom under God and economic prosperity is private property. When Moses led the formerly enslaved out of bondage into a land flowing with milk and honey, freedom and opportunity lay in each man having inviolable land rights in perpetuity. When a person has what they have, unassailable by fellow citizens or governmental power, that person has the basis to work and make a future for himself and his family, and at least the basis for freedom from tyranny.

Entrepreneurial Freedom
God gives people the ability to create wealth. Folk anywhere who have the freedom to take risks and prosper from their efforts, make such efforts to their own benefit and that of those around them. The entrepreneurs gain wealth, those around them gain goods and services they desire. Capitalism (even in it's muted form practiced in the West) has been the only reliable engine of economic development and rising standards of living the world has ever known. Why not, it was God's idea for the economy of a fallen world.

Equality in Justice
Government is responsible under God to maintain justice between people. Me and mine should be protected from violations coming from you and yours. Justice must be blind, with the economically weak standing on equal ground before the bench with the economically strong. That in NO WAY means that justice can be, or should be, equated with economic equality. The poor will always be among us, the law should never allow them to be trampled under by rest of us. Certainly, making everyone poor is the very worst injustice.

Care for the Poor
Since the unfortunate, the feeble, the young, and the disabled will always be among us, sustenance should always be made available to them. However, no provision whatsoever should be made for the able but idle: they should be left to their condition in the hopes that their belly might teach them the lesson of life--no work, no food. The unfortunate, the feeble, the young, and the disabled are no burden to society despite their need. The idle are parasites and fools.

Workers' Wages
A worker's labor is as much an entrepreneurial risk as the investment of intellectual and tangible property. Workers, therefore, deserve to benefit from the profits of any entrepreneurial endeavor as much as do the entrepreneurs themselves. There would be no need for the disaster that is unions, nor the myriad socialistic and inefficient governmental impositions on business if workers were allowed to "freely" share in the profits of the organizations they work for. Perhaps worst of all has been the shill game (SS, healthcare) which in effect refuses to pay workers their wages for today, today.

The Wealth Gap
When economic activity sifts people into the haves and have nots over time, differences in economic prosperity and power can become entrenched and widen. The richer gain more of the means of production and power, the poorer lose more and the result is a loss of freedom and opportunity. A mechanism to reshuffle the economic deck in about every other generation (about every 50 years) would be helpful to long-term, overall economic activity and opportunity.

Usury
Relative weakness between the parties in a transaction, the existence of urgency, and sheer greed should not be allowed to so color interest rates that they become so burdensome that they lock intransigently the borrower into a perpetual state of debt, or threaten (just by their extent) the on-going ability of the borrower to continue economically. Whereas it is economically beneficial to have a ready pool of capital within any nation that can be borrowed by those with a need or with an idea to exploit, it is anything but economically useful to have the burden imposed in order to do so be so weighty as to crush further economic activity from the borrowers.

Monetary Manipulation
Dependable scales are necessary to continuing market activity. If measures are constantly shifting, someone is getting the shaft and the resultant uncertainty will depress economic activity. When the value of money is constantly shifting, either arbitrarily or through manipulation, it is as if a pound is a pound one minute but not the next, or for one customer but not the next. Policies that allow central banks and government printing presses to manipulate currency values seem to me destined to artificially benefit some economies at the expense of others. Ultimately, the result will be depressed economic activity that otherwise could be greater and political instability.

These are temporal considerations that affect this age of sinful man. None of them will transition into eternity, but today, for this age, they form the basis of understanding what a biblically informed approach to economics would look like. I think it interesting that no politician is even remotely promoting such an approach to economic policy, nor is any political party. For all the squawk that comes from such quarters, it is obvious that they pay no attention whatsoever to what Bible might suggest concerning practical considerations of governance (though perhaps, the Cubans may be starting).

Interesting Events in the Levant

noreply@blogger.com (SLW) — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:23:00 +0000

Greece may be headed on a path away from Europe. Could they find solace in the arms of an old enemy? According to biblical prophecies, as I see them, Greece is as likely to be part of the 10 Horns as it is any European confederation at the time of the Antichrist. Watch the trajectory of this one!

Israel is sharpening its spears, ostensibly against Persia. Any happenings in this part of the world are prophetically interesting, but when they involve the possible demonstration of massively destructive weaponry, we have a possible reason the 10 Horns make peace with Israel rather than attempting to push her into the sea.

Am I Missing Something?

noreply@blogger.com (SLW) — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:51:00 +0000

According to a story by Greg Wilson reporting for Channel 5 in Chicago, Topeka has decided to stop prosecuting domestic violence cases due to budget concerns. I don't get the reasoning that would lead to such a decision, although I must admit I haven't seen a full accounting of the whys and wherefores behind it. Regardless, there are real victims to domestic violence, unlike, ooh, let's say speeding, or possession of marijuana, or breaking curfew, or... I think you can see where I'm coming from. Why not stop prosecuting victimless "crime" rather than sending the already abused back into the jaws of a greater likelihood of death?

Is Unbelief Sin?

noreply@blogger.com (SLW) — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:55:00 +0000

Unbelief is not sin in itself. Sin is the exertion of will (decision, determination, action) in opposition to God. Unbelief is a gut reaction, an assessment of God's character and his word. Adam and Eve did not believe God nor what he said to them, and the result was choice exerted in opposition to God. The unbelief wasn't the sin, the action it led to was. Unbelief is a state of heart and mind in regard to God which leads to sin.

Unbelief, therefore, is not a sin that can be condemned or forgiven, though the sin it leads to certainly can be. Unbelief itself is merely the spiritual and soulish framework from which sin arises--not sin itself. As such, neither faith nor unbelief can properly be thought of as works (as sin can). They underlie works but are not works themselves.

Whereas it is true that a sinful heart is unbelieving, and it is an undeniable consequence that an unbelieving heart will be sinful; sinful and unbelieving are not synonymous. They are interrelated but not equivalent. Whatever is not of faith is sin, which I think is about the same as saying whatever is of unbelief is sin. The sin is not the unbelief, the unbelief is not sin, sin is what happens when one acts without faith.

To those who argue that if Arminian tenets are true, faith is a work and unbelief is a sin which cannot be forgiven, I say think again! Unbelief is only a state which keeps one from entering into God's promises. It is not unbelief that results in judgment, but unbelief that keeps one under the condemnation for their sin. Unbelief is not sin, sin is an act of the will, but it is the state of heart and mind that produces it.

Who Did Jesus Die For?

noreply@blogger.com (SLW) — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:59:00 +0000

As in almost anything that observers look upon, one observer can see a thing from a different angle or direction than can another. The two may describe a thing in terms virtually opposite of each other, and yet both be correct, and I would add, objective. Only a view that captures more angles, including those observers', would be more accurate. This is certainly true about our title question.

Calvinists assert that Jesus died only for those that were unconditionally selected to be saved. To say that there is even a hint of truth in such a perspective seems to fly in the face of the scriptures which universally assert that Christ died for everyone. Not everyone gets saved, however, which leads one to question in what way did he actually die for all when only some are benefited. Certainly, there is no doubt that he died for those who are benefited.

From one perspective, looking at efficacy, there is no argument--Jesus death was for some and not for others. From eternity looking back on time, such an assessment would seem to meet the facts as they will be: the repercussions of his death and resurrection will affect some, but not others. To look at that reality from that perspective and say Jesus died for the benefited is a spin that one could technically make and be accurate as far as it goes.

The problem with this view arises when the horizon on the subject is stretched to include intent. Since intent in this regard involves the counsels of God, humans can only know what God tells us about his intent. We cannot figure out the mind of God in this regard, nor infer what our reason tells us he must have been thinking. That is error prone when done between humans, it is idolatry when done concerning God.

God has spoken concerning his intent in offering Christ as the atoning sacrifice for humanity's sin, and has done so conclusively. Christ died as a bonafide sacrifice for all. Whosoever will may lay their sin stained hand upon the head of the scapegoat and tap into its benefits. That anyone who does so requires the intervention of God to do so does not mitigate or limit the expansive intent of the offer, anymore than does the outcome. Jesus is the savior of all men, but especially for those who believe and are benefited.

Overcoming Depravity

noreply@blogger.com (SLW) — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:37:00 +0000

Depravity robs the human being of any capacity for any impetus toward God, but does not incapacitate the human being from any response to God. A thoroughly depraved person can respond to the touch of God, the appearance of God, or the unseen spiritual influence of God without having to be re-plumbed or regenerated in order to do so. All that is required is for God to express himself sufficiently to that depraved person so as to stir that person's empty spirit.

Because of the autonomy of humans (an aspect of the image of God, marred though it is in them), whatever interaction the Spirit may bring to him or her is not guaranteed to overcome that human's depravity. If Adam and Eve could go their own way in Eden, then a depraved person under the influence of the Holy Spirit can do so as well (in fact, they're much more likely to). There is nothing irresistible about grace, anymore than there is anything not resistible about any instance of sin. That freedom of will is intended by God is readily evident in mankind being made in his image.

Ultimately, life as God would have it lived will require a complete rebuild. The combination of soul, spirit and body we have been born with since Adam and Eve is not capable of experiencing life as God would have it. Meanwhile, in the here and now, sufficient grace can be brought to bear upon our condition to at least enable reconciliation to and relationship with God. As any of us are naturally, we can be encountered by God and respond to him with faith; we can then even be regenerated and reborn in spirit despite our dying bodies; and therein do we overcome our natural depravity.