Reclaiming Our Mission

Integrity: Living Consistently and Living Rightly

2011-07-12T22:12:00.000-07:00

What is Integrity?

In our modern age, integrity seems nearly passé. We frequently hear reports of local crime or a new political scandal. The cultural breakdown of honesty appears nearly pandemic. In our fast-paced, competitive culture, “playing fair” seems out-of-date. Yet for centuries, people of integrity—from George Washington to Mother Teresa—helped lead their societies in truth, living with character that should never become obsolete. But what is “integrity”? This term speaks of genuine, wholesome actions. Shortly stated, integrity is living consistently and living as one should.

Living consistently means to live the same life in private as public, no matter the cost. Academic cheating often falls into this category. During high school, I didn’t have much temptation to cheat. When I reached college, however, I found the courses far more competitive and vital to my academic career. With law school on the horizon, I could not afford to be on the wrong end of the plus/minus grading system. Such a situation made it tempting to cut corners at times. Yet, I realized that I wanted to live truthfully. When I apply to law school, I can tell the admissions office that my grades represent my real work. Integrity requires consistency in my actions, even if I have to “suffer” by attending a lesser law school with my lower grades. Nevertheless, a person of integrity will not lead a double-life.

Integrity is not limited to living consistently. One can live consistently without living with integrity. Charlie Sheen is a popular example of a man who freely shared his beliefs and private actions, but did not live a respectable life. Integrity involves living rightly. In Plato’s Republic, Socrates sought to discover what each person ought to do. He argued that people should live a just and virtuous life. While we might argue the fine points of morality, most of us would agree about the goodness of abiding by general moral principles. Integrity must not only involve honesty, but also principles such as respect for others, kindness, and self-control.

Personally, I find that living rightly can often be more difficult than living consistently. I might be willing to be honest, but reluctant to change bad patterns in my life. College, for example, offers choices between friends and grades. Sometimes I need to sacrifice my schedule to think about others. Other students are experiencing relationship or financial troubles, and could use some kind words. At other times, though, I must tell my friends that I cannot “hang out” because I need to put in the necessary effort in my classes. To live with integrity, then, I must live transparently. But I must also live with a concern for others and how I can help them. I only have one chance to live—I want to make the most of my time.

Read my Poem 'audition'! :-O Give me feedback!

2011-04-10T13:43:00.000-07:00

So, since I've been room-bound with strep throat for the weekend, I decided to burn some time writing a poem. Incidentally, Master's is apparently having a 'Poetry Slam'. Not sure what that is, but I might submit this poem. *Might* I'm not totally in love with the poem.

Tell me please if you can understand it, if it flows, and where I can fix it to make it clearer, flow better, and anything else. Please be critical. Very critical. :)

The Redemption of the Complacent Wanderer

It was just the other day

That I decided to stray—

From the cross that held the truth

What I believed from my youth

Disregarding all care and caution

I made myself a bargain

Clutching my self-righteous lenses

I covered my eyes and senses

Pushing the cross aside

Seeing the world through my pride

And lo what did I see!

It startled me.

I gasped and jumped with a start

For I saw a fountain flowing from every heart;

Bubbling out were the deeds of each one

Their deeds and actions, the sum

Kindness flowed like a cascade

From those who love displayed

While avarice, jealousy, and hate

Oozed from the souls of the reprobate

But through the lenses of my own righteousness

My own heart was clear and clean

My spring was the cleanest of them all

It sparkled; I stood tall

The best of them stood shamed by me

In fact I thought it so plain to see

That each fountain was clogged with ill

'Cept mine, full of good will

Then a voice rung from heaven:

“What is it that you should lengthen

Your scarlet good works more—

From a spirit neither humble nor poor.

Remove your spectacles—

And your deeds off your pedestals

And see reality;

Not this superficiality.”

And suddenly my glasses of superiority

Were cast under that Calvary tree;

Now I gazed on a new scene

And realized that I, too, was unclean.

Now my spring was filthy

As I gazed at it clearly.

It bubbled up ill motives of my heart

And now I was set apart

With my glasses, I had thought I could see

That everyone around me was a Pharisee

But now I had full sight

And behold, I was the Levite!

I ignored the injured wayfarer

I lived as a muckerer

Caring not about those around me

Making my heart an ugly sea

The specks in other brooks

To which I had cast arrogant looks

But what of them?

Mine carried logs that condemn.

I stumbled toward the cross of Christ

To rid me of this sin that enticed—

To replace my evil timber

With the Holy Spirit and Scripture.

Clinging to the Word

I know my arrogance was absurd;

My fountain did not glisten

Now to Christ I must listen

The blood from his side

To my wicked heart applied

His sacrifice to cleanse my heart

And give me the chance to restart

I must remain by Christ's side

And when I let my faith slide

Back to the cross I must strive

And there, my fountain revive

"The Grace Card" Review

2011-02-27T19:28:00.000-08:00

So, I saw The Grace Card tonight with my family for my Dad's birthday. It wasn't bad. In fact, for the debut release by a Christian indie studio, it was very good. It wasn't great, but for a sector that has an undoubtedly smaller talent and monetary pool than most Hollywood products you don't expect a blockbuster. And yet the big name movies still bust, despite millions of dollars and several big names.

Graceworks/Calvary Pictures self-admits that they followed in the footsteps of Sherwood Pictures, the groundbreaking smalltime Christian studio that moved to bigtime fame with Facing the Giants. I must applaud them for moving beyond much of the corny/Christianease elements of some of the Sherwood products. Of course, the somewhat trite pattern of messed-up family who meets a Christian who preaches Gospel and everyone ends up happily ever after was revisited a bit too frequently in the movie. Still, it was a good film.

Story: The freak death of his 5-year-old son haunts Mac McDonald for the next 17 years, even as he attempts to avenge that death by becoming a policeman. He is eventually paired with a more successful, but African-American, police Sargent named Sam Wright. Although Sam is studying for full time pastoral work, he eventually finds his greatest calling is to help Mac and Mac's troubled son.

The story really isn't bad. The idea of a haunting memory or the personal struggles of each character is strikingly real. However, drawn-out dialogues and slow scenes belabor the story. When the action gets real and character conflict develops, however, this movie does a great job of bringing the viewer in for several fascinating and very personal scenes. I found myself at one point feeling Mac's incredible pain after he nearly kills his son. Unfortunately, the directors weren't able to keep this tension and intrigue throughout the movie. At times it seems as if the screenwriters took a vacation on some scenes, just to write a great scene to follow it.

Grade: B-

Acting: My personal pet peeve with any movie is the acting. I usually try to keep as far away from the emotional tugs of a movie, and try to see through the storyline. I just think to myself "Eh, this isn't real", so I don't have to feel anything as I watch the movie. (Great person to go to the movies with, right?) Acting is usually the first thing to break down. Even a poor story can be hidden by realistic drama onstage. My biggest problem with most Christian movies is such a poor level of acting. Often, Christian filmmakers are talented writers and/or cinematographers. Their attention is spent crafting the perfect visual scene without necessarily ensuring strong acting.

This movie started trailing down the same path early in the movie. The acting at the beginning was, quite frankly, pathetic. The characters didn't seem to fit the roles, and the level of dedication just wasn't there. I was ready to dismiss The Grace Card as just another well-meaning, poorly executed script. But, the main actors seemed to gel into their roles as the movie progressed. The action scenes started holding my attention, and I would realize after 5 or 10 minutes that I hadn't even considered the acting. That means that the actors are rendering legitimate performances, compared to the first part of the movie where I was squirming in my seat.

Grade: B

Cinematography: I was generally impressed with The Grace Card's camera work. Good cuts back and forth between characters along with the proper enhancement and focusing enabled an attractive viewing. While there were no particularly impressive shots, most of the video end was well executed. The editing was much like the storyline, off and on. Some scenes ended awkwardly, while others flowed perfectly from one to another.

Grade: B+

Music: This isn't really a big category. But, it should be noted. Of course, Graceworks turned to Contemporary Christian music which is pretty cliché for the Christian genre. Still, the music was used at the proper times, and the musical score enhanced the viewing experience.

Grade: A-

So, in the end, The Grace Card was a well-meaning and generally well-executed piece. I would probably give it a B overall. This film showed that the Christian industry is off in the right direction. Of course, more attention to detail and better acting and story are crucial for appealing to a more mainstream audience will be crucial. But, it's heading in the right direction. In fact, secular audiences seem to be understanding. While the typical Christian drama is the hinge that people either love or hate about the movie, there aren't too many critiques of the story. For example, the reviews at the Rotten Tomato seem to appreciate the attempts of The Grace Card to make a sincere movie. The negative reviews hinge mainly on the message.

So, go see the movie. It's a good experience, and you're supporting a good cause, which is more than can be said about the end result of other studios and their movies.

The Heavens of Genesis: Understanding Gen 1:9

2011-02-16T15:28:00.000-08:00

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

Probably the most famous creation verse, Genesis 1:1 starts a puzzling trend of the term "heavens" throughout the Creation account. The term starts taking a confusing path. It is also known as the 'expanse' (1:8), then waters appear 'below the heavens' (1:9), as lights appear in this 'expanse of the heavens' (1:14), to light the earth (1:15), and birds are seen flying in these same heavens (1:20)! By Noah's flood, these same heavens have 'floodgates...[that] are opened' (7:11) to drench the earth. Birds are constantly flying in this heaven, also known as 'sky', yet this is the same place that the people of Babel eventually try to construct a tower to--build it to reach that very heaven. (11:4)

שָׁמַ֫יִם

Such a word that is translated as 'sky' and 'heavens'--what does it exactly mean? Strong's Concordance describes this 'sha·ma·yim' as "from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve." Further, Strong's mentions it with an Arabic root, relating to the heavens, spread out over everything.

It seems to have a dual meaning, as it is used with the birds of the air (1:30) and of the figurative place of God's dwelling. (14:22) How can that be? Well, the word itself is quite general, and closely related to another word, an Arabic one, which merely 'signifies high or above ; as that for "earth" from one that signifies low and beneath, or under.'

Waters Below and Above

To fully understand the intriguing passage Gen 1:7, then, we have to look beyond just 'sky' itself. "And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so."

But to fully understand this section, we need to look at the whole passage.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. 9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.”

A few things should be pointed out here. First, the waters come with the initial beginning Creation of the 'heavens and earth'. The water is part of this. THEN, Creation as we know it starts. Second, the waters are split up, and an expanse is put in between them. It is called heaven. Apparently, this means that the divide is 'upper' waters are really ABOVE heaven. Now, this heaven is that 'shamayim' that we looked at first. It could be a vague term. But more specificity could be gained by looking at other passages. Psalm 136:6, for example, shows the earth in, around, or above those waters. The variety of translations seem to indicate the earth as formed out of these waters. Then, Genesis says that heaven creates another divide between those waters and another set of waters. The heavens cannot consist of this second set of waters, as a 'water canopy theory' would support. The water canopy theory claims that Noah's flood drained a 'canopy' of water over the earth--that was there as a protective shield. But, birds are flying in this heaven, and planets are suspended in it. And the heaven is the DIVIDE between the waters, not part of the waters itself. Besides, the likelihood of a water canopy is scientifically doubtful. And Psalm 148:4, written after that canopy supposedly was drained (during Noah's Flood), testifies to the constancy of those above-the-heaven waters. "Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!" Therefore, the heavens, while including the sky and the atmosphere with some water element, cannot be this upper waters. Third, the Creation account details everything below the heavens, in the lower waters. It talks about the heavens, the planets, animals, and plants. Every type of thing that we see today is mentioned in this creation account of the lower waters. Therefore, to the question that might be raised 'where are these upper waters?' we can suggest that it makes sense that we can't see these waters. They seem to be so far out of our known created universe that it would be impossible to discover with our eye and technology.

The Expanse

The expanse supports my discussion that the waters ABOVE it cannot be seen by us nor known (at least in the near future). The expanse is an broad, (an extended surface), hemispherically-shaped area that comes from that word that means to spread out. Consequently, it makes sense that this large canopy could suspend the stars (Gen 1:14) and provide a place for winged creatures to fly (1:20). Plus, it gives testimony to the Creator (Ps 19:1) and allows us to praise that same Creator in the same place (Ps 150:1). The idea of an awe-inspiring canopy (Ez 1:22) giving testament to God and allowing for life as we know it works with this interpretation.

Possible Questions

There of course are many questions to this view. Didn't the Ancient hebrews, who knew nothing of the world, think this way? Haven't we moved past that? Why would God create all this water? Why water ABOVE heaven? Where is God anyway, if not heaven?

Some of the answers may be simple. Some not so much. Just from looking at the Scripture, it seems that the most accurate reading would have to be a rather surprising reading---some type of waters above the earth.

When Babies Die: The Eternity that Awaits

2011-02-13T00:40:00.000-08:00

It was one of those days. Jeff had come up with another wacky idea. Or at least read about another wacky idea. That's usually how those things worked. He dragged me into the Bible Department where he was going to quiz Dr. Thorsell on the B-theory of time. B-theory, for those without the philosophical knowledge, is...not A-theory time. Which, of course, Jeff was arguing.

A-theory, to be more specific, is wrong. Well, "wrong" isn't a nice word. Mom always said to be nice--maybe "misguided." In any case, A-theory comes down to saying that God was outside time before he ever thought or created anything (changed), but once Creation started, He's in time forever. B-theory retorts that God transcends time. All time is like one moment together; everything is seen together, instead of on a timeline.

But, just for sake of intellectual honesty, I might add that the only reason A-theory is wrong is because Jeff supports it. And, therefore, I have to take the opposite side. That’s really all there is.

Discussion is excitement; sparks flying as arguments are thrust and parried...the crowd roars...the light glows above the head of the victor as the jeering crowd thumbs-down his opponent.....

Ahem.

Argument is not the point of this post. Not even A-theory vs. B-theory. The point is...

After a long Facebook discussion back and forth that night, I returned to Master’s the next morning, refreshed and ready for more action. I ran into Jeff again, and our argument wound around, as most of our arguments do. We slide down rabbit trails with the ease and eagerness of, well, a…rabbit.

A-theory vs. B-theory became Morley vs. Thorsell, philosophy vs. theology. It was outward change vs. inward change, it was the infinite vs. finite. It shifted to election to....

Do babies go to heaven?

I really don't know how we exactly got to this point. But eventually, we reached the point where Jeff promoted the view that "babies go to hell." Of course I magnetically retorted with the excellently constructed retort of "NOOOOO!" In my humble defense, that was the only argument I could muster at the time. Soon, Peter had joined in and raised the excellent question of asking what exactly dooms the sinner: his sin or sin nature? If it's his sin, babies could most likely go to heaven, if they had never sinned; if not, they probably were doomed for hell with imputed sin.

I had to admit that sin nature first dooms man, but tried racking my brain for another gun, er, argument to pull out. The only weapon I could find was the "age of accountability." I had heard this view espoused from different circles. Thankfully, for me, class started, and I could just throw my hands up and say that it wasn't my doctrine...I was just using it for debating purposes. ...Right?

The question is not the Age of Accountability, but the issue of babies going to heaven. That centers on "infantile soteriology"--the term I've coined for this purpose. This revolves around several main issues.

The Crime: What is it exactly that dooms us to hell? What exactly is breaking the law? Are we doomed from conception because of a so-called sin "nature" that has been passed down and stains everything we do? Or, is it that we are condemned for our willful sin, and it just stems from a nature that tends towards sin naturally?
Age of Accountability: At what point from conception do we know enough to confess our sins? Or even with the point above, do we even need to know enough to be condemned?

Regeneration: If God chooses, when is the regeneration happening? Certainly, we are called to believe, but is that belief when we are in our old nature or in our new nature? See, if it is in our old nature, and we assume that babies never make a choice, they are stuck in their old nature and its consequence of hell. BUT, if God is the one who changes us and THEN we believe, that means that ostensibly the Lord could convert someone even if they hadn't believed. Possibly.

In a sense, the discussion can be traced to two essential points--what condemns man, and what saves man? It seems that the whole point of life and the Bible (sin vs. salvation) is caught up in this issue of baby death. It's caught specifically at a point in time so close to conception that we're left with no clear answer at first. I'll be looking at what condemns us, when it condemns us, and when we are saved.

Sin Nature--what condemns us?

A first look at the idea of condemnation in Scripture is an enriching study. In fact, the most telling treatise about our condemnation can be found in Job 34, not the most typical Bible passage. Nevertheless, we have Elihu, Job's only wise friend, offering insight into God's justice. He declares that God would never do evil, and instead "repays everyone for what they have done...what their conduct deserves." In the middle of the chapter, Elihu offers a curious line, "God has no need to examine people further, that they should come before him for judgment." He is not referring to the final judgment, but rather the fact that the Lord has no need to get some sort of heavenly "warrant" to condemn the unrighteous. None of the baby's action (and therefore, no possible sin) is hidden from the hand of God. Further, he mentions the example of someone saying to God, "I am guilty but will offend no more...should God reward...on your own terms?" Therefore, we have the Biblical idea that one sin condemns us. One stain dooms us eternally, because the infinite Most High has a perfect standard.

So, then, we know that God will finally and completely condemn any baby who has any trace of sin in them, even if we see them as supposedly innocent. We also see the concept that the judgment is based on "deeds." Of course, the very fact that one thing is true does not necessarily exclude another postulate from being just as true. That is, just because our deeds condemn us does not rule out the possibility that a sin nature (without any action on our end) could also condemn us.

We see other examples of condemnation based on outright rejection of a heard Gospel or command. The Ninevites repented when they heard the truth, and will themselves condemn the deeds of Jesus’ generation who heard and dismissed John the Baptist and the Christ. (Matt 12:41) Christ's own teaching condemned his listeners (John 12:48), while divisive professing Christian are actually "self-condemned." (Titus 3:11) Matthew 12:37 says that we will be condemned "by our words." Additionally, we know that man has condemnation right in front of him, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made." (Rom1:19-20) Other verses model this--but they always revolve around the Creation. That leaves a bit of a puzzle. The unborn doesn't see creation, as we classically think about it (rocks, trees, animals), but we know that they are made and obviously are in a womb that has been made. But can they perceive that? We also know that the "requirements of the law are written on their hearts" (Rom 2:15) but once again, when does that perception begin?

For the sin nature, we understand that Adam sinned and messed up the future for us. Sin entered the world and had access to tempt and deceive us. (We might wonder how Adam could sin without a sin nature, or how sin even got to the Garden, but the answers cannot be provided here for length’s sake. However, we know what happened.) In any case, Scripture seems to teach according to Romans 5:12 that according to one man, sin was passed to all. Yet, it might be noted that this verse says "and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." There seems to be a loophole to recognizing that the sin nature may predispose us to sin, but what ultimately condemns us is the sin itself. I won't belabor the point, though. David Reagan nicely summarizes the sin nature here. We know too that Christ Himself was born of WOMAN, not man, apparently to avoid gaining this sin nature. I think, though, the argument for a sin nature is fairly strong.

In the defense of the "actions condemn; sin nature does not (necessarily) condemn" stance, I might point to Biblical practicum. Nearly everyone, if not all, those who were condemned in the Bible were clearly condemned. Before the individual is punished, a litany of their unjust deeds or their full knowledge of what was right is listed. There aren't many, if any, examples of people barely knowing, or doing just one wrong action and then doomed eternally. Certainly, it is "legal" for God to condemn based on the smallest of transgressions, but it appears that the Lord wants to definitely show the sin so we know that the person was justly convicted. This is part of the reason that the ungodly Old Testament kings are vigorously denounced as "not walking in the way of David" or "practicing evil in the sight of the Lord" and why Jesus continually reiterates to the Pharisees that they fully know the truth and are rejecting it. Therefore, it would seem that the condemnation of a baby would be clear--that is, the baby is fully shown to have transgressed. It seems hard to see how much could happen for a baby, but man typically underestimates sin and God's standard. Just because we want something (that the baby be saved), does not make it any more likely. In fact, it is in God's hands to do with those what he chooses. As Elihud says to Job, God made everyone and has the right to expire their lives at any time.

Summarizing, then, we find that our condemnation to hell typically results because of our actions, either external deeds or the actual rejection of the truth. Our sin nature may also condemn us, with the "imputed' sin from Adam. Anyways, I'm leaning towards the fact that babies are condemned, even at the very "quickening" of the embryo.

Age of Accountability: When Are We Condemned?

The fundamental resting place for this doctrine is 2 Sam 12:23. Now that David’s child has died, the child cannot return, but David will "go to him." The king is apparently implying that the child will be in heaven, David’s eventual home. There is some disagreement on the interpretation of this passage--possibly David is only implying going to his child as 'death', and lying next to him in the grave? But, this assumes that David was temporal enough to think that death was 'sharing' something...it would make sense that David would understand the biological decomposition of the body, and the eternal implications of death. After all, he mentions Hades in his writings, and even with our own limited knowledge of what happened to the OT saints/sinners at death, we know that death was not some sort of “sharing thing.” “From dust to dust” (Gen 3:19) It seems highly doubtful that David would think that he was 'going somewhere to be with' his son as...dust. Would David then go comfort his wife with the news that his bones would go to dust along with his sons? This seems so farfetched that the majority of scholars accept that David was pointing towards a heavenly kingdom.

Other arguments might include Jeremiah 1:5 where God says "“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” This setting apart parallels other verses that God elected before the "foundations of the world." But this is a little shaky--exactly what does this appointing and determining a purpose for mean? Of course God could have a purpose for them--doesn't he have one for every Christian? Take Paul, who lived a life of sin as Saul, but was enormously influential for the Kingdom. He could equally have been set apart, but there was no saving before birth. The one thing that an Age of Accountability individual can say is that God could indeed plan a path for each person. So possibly the baby who dies has actually been appointed as a tool obviously for God's glory, but also a tool to go to heaven?

Generally, the rest of the Age of Accountability argument stems from Biblical practicum. That is, children are constantly held up as examples of faith, devotion, and most importantly, purity. Additionally, there are verses like that in Jonah where the children are seen as unintelligent, “not knowing their right arm from their left.” Further, we don't see examples of individual children accepting Christ--we see 'families' and separate adults. From this, one might say that children are exempt from certain punishment from the law. Not a particularly great argument, but these ideas of children are found throughout Scripture.

I looked at the Age of Accountability with a lot of doubt. The idea of the baby being condemned seem to mesh with Scripture far better than the idea of a “free pass” for some unknown time. Besides, too many people use this Age of Accountability as just a way to soften the Gospel, with many feel-good reasons to support their position. ('How could God do this?!' 'It's only a baby!' 'We all think of baby's as cute and innocent!') But, as I look at the Scripture, it seems that there is a chance for those children. Take a look at David's child. If David truly would see his child in heaven, I would advocate…NOT the Age of Accountability, but the issue of election. See, if God had chosen the child, and would bring him to heaven, there is no need for an age of accountability if it is God's working. The Age of Accountability is so misused to allow even children with an understanding of the Gospel a free ride. Scripture says that we all know what is right and wrong, and if a child can sin, he has to be accountable--he has made a choice. I don't doubt that David's child sinned. Rather, I believe God can elect and save the child without needing what we would typically think of as general salvation ideas.

Regeneration: Can God save a baby or person who does not physically speak words of repentance?

This is a challenging issue. Exactly what constitutes salvation? We know that man must believe and repent (Rom 10:9-10). We also know that God elects and invests into those He will bring to salvation (Is 42:1)Further, God must draw for everyone who comes to the Son has been drawn by Him (Jn 6:44). I believe that it is most Scripturally supported that the Lord must regenerate before we can believe and that regeneration is what actually changes us. I had a debate on this issue last semester, especially regarding free will. I didn't provide the greatest answer that day, but the heart of the matter is this: we are always slaves, either of God or man , and therefore as slaves we really have no choice in the matter. The believing is merely a result of what God has done, by buying us as slaves. It's a sign of our true repentance, not what actually saves us. Now, the question is always "So if God is saving us, why doesn't He save everyone?" (answer: it's based on his glory) which leads to "Isn't he just as guilty for not saving some people then too, since they really didn't have a choice?" But, we must understand that every person is fully guilty already, and even giving people free will isn't any help. Aren't you nearly as guilty if you put a loaded gun in a room with someone then as if you just outright shot them? Letting man choose his course and repenting of his own volition (even though we know that there is none righteous, none who seeks God) wouldn't get God off the hook. But, don't get hung up on my specific doctrine on this. I'll provide alternative interpretations. My point here is that if God can truly save without the outward act of confessing, He can save an unborn child. The “belief” mentioned in Romans 10 is about a public declaration, of an outward sign, and being willing to put yourself on the line for God, and not man. It is not in the form of a word that makes it the saving element.

Other alternatives:

--You don't have to hold to that version of Calvinism. Think about the idea of the Sower, where some plants wilted. If you believe that you can lose your salvation, then you can understand that God can elect someone and they could turn from Him. So...what? See, God is still choosing (in some form) that person before they make their belief, meaning that he could choose a child too. It's a very shaky argument, I realize.

--How about actual belief from the infant or mentally deformed person? Those who say babies are going to hell—all of them—seem to leave no chance for this. But the facts bely the truth. In fact, people in supposed vegetative states have been noted to have recovered from them, and there are stories from these people that they truly can hear and think within their state but not interact publicly. I have the article link but I don't have the login right now. When I do I'll paste in the pertinent quote(s). When we say that someone is too mentally deficient to understand, I think that's a failure on our part. We take a primitive view of intelligence, saying that certain human activities show what is 'intelligent' and who can understand. Yet you have people in vegetative states---nearly "brain dead" according to our standards--who have come back alive and say that they could hear and understand when they were in that state. Is it that hard to think that a person could believe? Or that a baby could believe if given the special grace from God? If that baby can sin, can't he also do what is right?

**************************************************************************

Conclusion

I t's been a long journey. I haven't included an exhaustive list of verses, or offered full arguments, because many of these areas stem out into even more areas that are all under heavy debate. This subject is obviously very difficult. It's easy for me to sit behind a computer and type out what happens to a child for eternity, when I'm not living with that myself. I thought about it--how tough would it be to have your young child die and not know? The pain of the physical loss of all that apparent promise would be heartbreaking, without worrying about eternity.

I've suggested an argument that allows for natural depravity and rejects typical Age of Accountability, but promotes the idea that God can save through such difficult situations. He's chased down a lot of people throughout history--why couldn't he do the same with a child who has not left the womb?

Now the hard question is still--if God condemns any child to hell (even in my system, children could end up in hell), how can He be loving? Well, there are several answers. First, God often uses one person as a ministry in the life of another. We cannot understand Romans 8:28 and everything working for good, at the beginning, but there's always a plan that's bigger than we can see. David learned his lesson and Solomon was eventually born. The Apostle James says that trials test us and perfect us. Second, about the child itself. Tim Keller suggests the possibility that parallels Rom 8:28. How do we know the child was not a future Hitler or Stalin? Isn't it actually more gracious to kill one to save many? Even though it would be hard for parents to believe that their child is the next autocrat, it can be imagined. Hitler had parents, after all. Third, we aren't God. We often forget that He created us. He owns us. He does everything for His glory. "For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." (Rom 9:15)

As I said it's a hard subject. I haven't even reached a solid conclusion, but I attempted to give a fair hearing to God's word on this topic. I would welcome every and any critique, addition, and insight that the willing reader can provide. Small or big, it would be instrumental both for the accuracy of my post here and my own edification.

2011-02-02T19:25:00.001-08:00

2010-07-30T07:02:00.001-07:00

Picasa Web Albums

Recent Uploads

JSG added 3 photos to Blogger Pictures

Jul 29, 2010 6:58:08 AM

Post Comment Unsubscribe from this user.

To share your photos or receive notification when your friends share
photos, get your own free Picasa Web Albums account.

2010-06-30T19:08:00.001-07:00

getting ready to head to Colorado Springs in August!
WHOOOOOOOPPPPPPEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!! :D

2010-06-29T08:18:00.001-07:00

Live life to the fullest, without regret. You only have one life to live.
Make it right the first time. Psalm 16:11

2010-06-24T19:51:00.000-07:00

2010-06-23T17:47:00.001-07:00

I'm a little concerned

Tip to find South with your watch : Recreation, Camping, Outdoor Tips : GreatTipsAndHints.com : Tips, Hints, Guides, Helps, How to, Useful links, helpful links

2010-06-16T19:30:00.000-07:00

Tip to find South with your watch : Recreation, Camping, Outdoor Tips : GreatTipsAndHints.com : Tips, Hints, Guides, Helps, How to, Useful links, helpful links

2010-06-16T19:00:00.001-07:00

feels that his masculinity is scandalized by his high school grad gown... =/

2010-06-16T16:58:00.001-07:00

Picasa Web Albums

Recent Uploads

JSG added a photo to Blogger Pictures

Jun 15, 2010 4:53:41 PM

Post Comment Unsubscribe from this user.

To share your photos or receive notification when your friends share
photos, get your own free Picasa Web Albums account.

2010-06-16T12:03:00.001-07:00

"And when I think, that God, His Son not sparing;
Sent Him to die, I scarce can take it in;
That on the Cross, my burden gladly bearing,
He bled and died to take away my sin."

2010-06-15T19:53:00.001-07:00

If you're chomping at the bit, here are photos. Grand Canyon
http://ping.fm/sKe2b
and the rest of the trip
http://ping.fm/OYx8l
=D

2010-06-15T16:56:00.001-07:00

I'm not THAT conceited...I was just playing around with Picasa....
http://ping.fm/6MJ2C

2010-06-15T07:59:00.001-07:00

Evolution at its worst....
http://ping.fm/Vz9h3

2010-06-03T05:02:00.001-07:00

Don't forget the residents of the Gulf Coast. While you are excitedly
moving into summer, they are watching their lives and livelihoods die
in front of their very eyes. Pray for them.

2010-06-02T21:32:00.001-07:00

had an awesome time at his piano recital: great songs, great teacher,
great duet partner, great friends, great family. :D

2010-06-01T06:29:00.001-07:00

"But as for me, my prayer is to you, O Lord. At an acceptable time, O God,
in the abundance of your steadfast love answer me in your saving
faithfulness." Happy June! :D

2010-05-31T10:17:00.001-07:00

feels awesome! Ran 7 miles today, did 40 pushups and 80 situps, lawnwork,
prep for the trip, and got a hair cut! :D

2010-05-31T07:01:00.000-07:00

Chess Test....

(show chess board)(hide chess board)

2010-05-30T16:01:00.001-07:00

W00000000000000000t! =D Done! For now.... :P

2010-05-30T13:26:00.001-07:00

What hurts the most, is being so close....and then having to do all this
work.... =(