History has a way of producing heroes and great men. People who have affected the destiny of nations and events. Like Patton whose blitzkrieg attack against the German forces caused the fall and conquest of Czechoslovakia within a short span of time. Or Montgomery who outflanked and defeated Rommel, the Desert fox in the decisive battles of El-Alamein and the Mareth line in Tunisia. Better still, Emperor Napoleon took on and trounced the combined forces of the four powers at the Battle of Austerlitz (1805).

My blog is not about these renowned chaps. But is about a Roman General known as Germanicus Julius Caesar, born on the 24th of May, 16AD to a family of Roman Aristocrats. (His father was Drusus Nero Claudius and his mother, Antonia Minor).

Germanicus was a genius born before his time. His prodigy might have arisen from the fact that he was related to every emperor and member of the Julian-Claudian dynasty. Even his mother was the daughter of Mark Anthony (once Julius Caesar’s Master of the horse).Augustus was his uncle by marriage, Tiberius who was his nephew adopted him as son and heir, Caligula was his son, Claudius was his brother and Nero was his grandson through Agrippina the Younger who was a daughter of Germanicus.

Germanicus came to the attention of the Roman public following his victories over Arminius(Hermann) Chief of the Cherusci who in AD 9 had destroyed three Roman legions led by their general,Publius Quintilius Varus and had driven him to suicide. For the first time in Roman history, the standards of the legions had been captured by Barbarians (this feat was to repeated centuries later with the defeat and death of the Roman emperor, Decius Trajanus at the hands of the barbarians in 251 AD).

The defeat of Varus at the battle of the Teutoberg forest (20,000 Roman troops lost their lives) had been a blow on the psyche of the Roman Empire. Augustus was so distraught that for months he refused to shave his beard or cut his hair and was known to bash his head against a door bewailing the loss of his legions and uttering the following words; “Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions”. He declared the anniversary of the defeat as a day of mourning and sorrow to be observed by all Romans.

He was to charge his successors not to extend the natural frontiers of the empire (an advice that was disregarded by Trajan,Optimus Princeps who added the provinces of Dacia and Parthia to the embrace of the empire and Septimius Severus who invaded Mesopotamia.).

In AD 14 after the demise of the much revered Augustus, the Auxiliary troops in the Germania region had called for Germanicus to be declared emperor and had risen in rebellion because their stipends had been marked down. The general had placated them and had offered them a booty across the Upper Ruhr River which was readily accepted.Germanicus turned out to be a brilliant strategist and campaigner. His employment of the military tactics of ambush and rout was unsurpassed.

The tribe of Marsi was suppressed and almost wiped out. In the next two years he fought the Germanic people and he even captured Arminius’s wife, Thusnelda in one of his forays on May, 15.He treated her well and with decorum and allowed her to sleep in his quarters saying “they are women and they must be respected for they will be citizens of Rome soon”.. He fought the battles of the Weser River and the Angivarian wall (in Modern Hanover) satisfactorily and withdrew his forces with out much loss.

Tiberius out of spite and jealousy was to recall him and send him to Asia where in AD 18 he defeated the kingdoms of Cappadocia and Commagene and annexed them as Roman Provinces. He also inspected Egypt (a personal domain of the emperor) and in a quarrel with the Governor of Syria, Calpurnia Piso ordered his recall to Rome.

Germanicus was to fall sick and die in suspicious circumstances in Antioch (probably from poison) and the finger of suspicion immediately fell on Piso who was arraigned in Rome on charges of murder. A climate and atmosphere of fear fell on Rome not only arising from Germanicus’ death, but also from the tyranny inflicted by Sejanus (the Praetorian prefect) on the Roman people. He was to fall from grace and was tried for treason by the Roman senate in AD 31.

Before Piso could stand trial, he committed suicide (Tacitus was of the opinion that he was silenced to stop him testifying and implicating Tiberius in the murder of Germanicus). Germanicus’ name was placed in the following; The Carmen Saliare, the Curule chairs. He received the honorary seats of the Brotherhood of Augustus and his coffin was crowned with oak wreaths.

His ivory statue took precedence in processions of the Circus Maximus.His posts as priest and Augur were to be filled by members of the imperial family, knights of Rome gave his name to a block of seats to a theatre in Rome.

Arches were raised to him throughout the Roman Empire. In particular, arches that recorded his deeds and death at Rome, Rhine river and Nur mountains. In Antioch, where he was cremated had a sepulchre and funeral monument dedicated to him.

Germanicus was to exact his revenge from the grave on Tiberius. According to Suetonius in his Private lives of the 12 Caesars, Caligula who was the son of Germanicus strangled Tiberius and took the purple for himself.

I meant to post this last year, but hard drive failures and my lap top screen being cracked on my main laptop, harassment from neighbors and cyber stalkers caused me to lose track of my original refutation of bible.ca’s ranting against Calvinists, but I recreated it about an hour or two ago, and expanded it, here it is:

According to Bible.ca:

“1. Every Bible passage that says, “If you hold fast the word” must be deleted. To the Calvinist, there are no ifs. These passages make no sense to them.”

My response: Because you said so. For the Arminian, there is no grace, no verse can be literal enough when it plainly states that salvation cannot be earned, so they have to resort to making a mere claim, and pretending any verse is evidence of their mere claim.

“2. All passages for watchfulness should be deleted: “be faithful unto death and I will give you the crown of life”. Why be faithful if you already have and can’t lose?”

My response: All passages referring to God implying and stating that salvation cannot be earned should be deleted, and no one should be faithful to God if they can’t take credit for having saved themselves by some supposed goodness of their own. “Pride comes before a fall” is deleted from their hearts.

“3. It would certainly lessen a Christian’s fear of sin and lead to increased sin.”

My response: Your personal certainty is Scriptural evidence, let alone any kind of evidence? And you are, who that I should care about your certainty, your feelings? And no, what increases sin is not the belief that God is forgiving, merciful, doesn’t abandon those he loves and doesn’t break his promises, but telling people that if they sin that they don’t need to trust in Jesus as having told the truth when he said taht he suffered and died for all their sins, that you don’t need to have faith in God, trust him, and can doubt his word, believe that God was a liar, believe that it’s good to interpret God’s word so that it suits your personal pride, and can just ask for forgiveness again and expect to be forgiven despite your your doubt and arbitrary beliefs.

“Historically, such an increase of sin based upon this theology has been documented.”

And so well documented Mr. Pretentious that you conveniently didn’t show any of this documentation, nor did you even mention a single reference to any of this supposed documentation. The only increase in sin was your lie upon lie, and preaching out of jealousy of those who preach the truth out of love. I can imagine your insane “refutation” now:

“Just believe me and you’ll be forgiven of your sins, you won’t increase in sin at all after wards, but those faithless Calvinists who do whatever sure will.”

The real iffers are you Arminians, who have many among you who’ve said to those who’ve spoken the truth, ” ‘If ‘ you’re right, but where’s your proof? ” despite the “proof” repeatedly being shown to you. Maybe this will get through to you, (and though bible.ca didn’t use the “race” argument I call it, some do, so I’ll set them straight now):

“Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets a prize? Run in such a way as to get the [one] prize.” – 1 Corinthians 9:25

I’m guessing that many Arminiests use this verse or would given the right circumstance, to show that eternal life can be earned, at least one, maybe two of them have use these verses on me as evidence of this. But they are taking them out of and twisting the meaning of those verses by themselves. The previous two verses say:

“To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.” Not,

“I’m working for salvation because God’s not in control of my will or anything else and I have some goodness in me that allows me too, and I decide my destiny, no fate but what we make.” or some other nonsense like that. Further, Paul is talking about a single prize for multiple runners in a race, if this were about eternal life than he’s saying that only one person will get eternal life. Obviously then Paul is not speaking literally but metaphorically. But some Arminian might say, “Yes he didn’t mean just one person will get eternal life, it was a metaphor,” but that argument is false because there is no evidence he’s talking about earning eternal life as I pointed out, further, I didn’t say that merely because Paul was speaking metaphorically that that meant he wasn’t talking about salvation, my point is that he clearly didn’t make a two-sentence teaching that was self-explanatory and obvious as many Arminians think or would claim it is.

So what did Paul mean then? Paul next said,

“Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a that will last forever.”

Are Arminians training to get eternal life, or working for eternal life and / or trying to keep it by obeying God’s law? They aren’t “training” to get it. Paul is saying that the competitors concentrate to win, possibly suffering even to win, he mentions training because some races are short, but training often takes a long time since no one is born in shape and people don’t spend their lives running around to win races, and in the same way no one is born being religious and perfectly obedient to God, knowing and understanding his word or having instant preaching skills. It takes time, a long time to know and understand God well, to obey him well, and to get good at leading people to Christ who have different beliefs and widely varying intellectual and language skills. And what is this eternal crown? A crown is an object of glory symbolizing a person’s very high status. Paul even said,

“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory” – Hebrews 2:9

and Peter said,

“And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.” – 1 Peter 5:4

Jesus called it “the crown of life” (Revelation 2:10), a statement which supports Peter’s comment about this crown being so glorious that he refers to it not merely as a “glorious crown” but “of glory”, as if to say “of God’s glory”, however according to Scripture God will not share the glory that radiates from himself, so this type of glory God will give could only be something similar, and incredible, but not so similar as to be not a big difference. The similarity being that the glory will be incredible like God’s. It is also clear that this glory will radiate outward from around our heads because God doesn’t say, “a robe of glory” or “belt of glory” or “ring of glory”.

But what about this verse:

“Hold on to what you have so that no one will take your crown.” – Revelation 3:11

Though that verse isn’t talking about eternal life, why did Jesus say that Jesus already had their crown? It was because the way they were living at that time was leading them to getting this special reward. However, if they stopped being as obedient as they were or turned from God, they wouldn’t obtain it. So, this isn’t a reward that can be earned with a few good deeds or easy obedience, unlike what I assumed at one point (assuming isn’t good), which was that they had already earned this special reward.

I don’t know. I thought I’d make a post on how I came to my theological standpoint. However before I start, I will go back to what I said in earlier posts, these are points that are worth discussing, but should not bring division in the Church. If we can all agree on regeneration and the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, I think that’s enough to bring us together in fellowship. But I have my personal convictions and I wanted to share them a little bit here.

Before, in an earlier post, I said to not call me a Calvinist or Arminian. I said that more to stress fellowship and how we should not be divided over the two sides. I am a Calvinist. And when I say that, I mean that I agree with the 5 points that John Calvin taught. I am not a cessationist like John Calvin was and I’m sure there’s other stuff that he taught that I don’t agree with, but I don’t know because I haven’t read any of his writings. This is just an issue of the 5 points. I don’t take the label of Calvinist to say that I agree with every little thing John Calvin said. In fact, John Wesley, a definite Arminian, is someone who I agree with on a lot of points.

I used to be against Calvinism. I think to the immature Christian, Calvinism seems absolutely ridiculous and doesn’t make sense. However when I opened up and began to study the two views, I came to the conclusion that it was Arminianism that didn’t make sense. Perhaps I didn’t get a clear explanation of it and I’m not saying a mature Christian can’t be an Arminian. However, for me, as I’ve matured my views have shifted.

So anyways, the 5 points of Calvinism use the letters TULIP to spell out the first letters of each point. The 5 points are as follows:

Total Depravity of Man

Since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, all men are born into sin. All men are naturally evil. Everything they are and do are evil. They hate God (maybe not with their words, but with actions) and they want nothing to do with Him. Their hearts are evil. They deserve the full force wrath of God.

Why do I believe this? In Romans 3:9-18, Paul states it pretty clearly:

9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
13“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
14“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know.”
18“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

To my natural ears, I don’t want to hear that everyone is evil. In fact, some might think that I sound like some fanatic when I say that. But this is not to come from me. Everything we believe has to line up with the word of God. So when I read this, how can I not agree with that? It’s true. Man is evil. We have turned from God completely. And why would we deserve His grace? We don’t. That’s what makes the love of God so amazing. “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)

Unconditional Election

Because man is naturally evil and wants nothing to do with God, he can not choose for himself to turn to God. God must first enable the sinner to come to Him.

Here’s the one that people attack. Predestination. You may think this one’s crazy. God chooses who He desires to save? Yes. However this does not discount freewill. If I were to say that freewill didn’t exist, then I would be wrong. Freewill exists in scripture. We have freewill. But let me give a visual explanation of what I’m talking about.

I walk to school everyday. However I don’t have to. I could ride the bus, or perhaps get driven by someone. Those are my options. But can I choose to fly? No, of course not. That’s not even an option for me. I don’t have wings. So do I not have freewill because I can’t make the decision to fly to school? No, I do. Flying is not of my nature, therefore I can not make that decision. The same goes with this. Because I am naturally evil since birth and I want nothing to do with God, I’m not going to choose God nor will my evil heart want to. First He must enable me and then I can make the freewill choice to come to Him.

Bible verse?

John 6:44:
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Also, you may look at the example of Pharaoh with Moses (Exodus 4:21). God hardened his heart. It didn’t say that Pharaoh chose to not let God’s people go. It said that God hardened His heart so He would not let His people go. Why? So God could be glorified. God’s in control of everything.

Limited Atonement

The atonement of sins through the sacrifice of the Son Jesus Christ saved only the elect of God.

This probably isn’t the greatest term to use for the subject and I will say that this point was not something I had an easy time agreeing with until it was properly explained to me.

This should probably be called sufficient atonement. Limited atonement just doesn’t sound great and it kind of makes it seem like God doesn’t care about the rest of the world. The sacrifice of Christ was sufficient for all of man. If every man were saved, the sacrifice would be sufficient enough for them. However, here’s where I understood the point.

If Christ died for everyone, then that would have to mean that everyone is saved. We know this isn’t true because scripture tells us that few will find the narrow gate and narrow road (Matt 7:13-14) and that men must repent and believe to be saved (Mark 1:15). So really, it’s not such a horrible idea as it originally sounds. Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient for all of man, but it is only done for those that are/have been/will be saved.

Irresistible Grace

The grace that God gives to man for his election can not be refused.

Why would you resist it? When the grace of God comes on you, it’s too beautiful and amazing to resist. When I was saved (or at least became confident of my salvation), I paced around my room saying “I’m saved!” because I just couldn’t believe why God would love me so much to elect me into His kingdom and desire to use me. When you receive it, it puts you in awe. I will say that once you have received a revelation of Jesus Christ, you will not refuse it. It will drive you to your knees in repentance. It’s beautiful.

There was a period of time before I came to Christ where I guess I was enabled. God had revealed Himself to me and then as time went on, He kept on enduring in me and pressing Himself upon my soul until I came to the point of repentance and faith in Him. This is God’s irresistible grace.

Perseverance  of the Saints

Once man has been saved, they don’t lose their salvation. They are eternally secure in their salvation.

This isn’t really a point for Calvinists. There are many Calvinists that do not agree with this and there are many Arminians who do. My view: I do agree with it.

Ephesians 1:13-14:
13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

It’s almost like saying, “Now that I’ve been reborn, I will go back to death and then become the way I used to be.” It just doesn’t make any sense, at least not to me. And how powerful is the work of Christ if I have to keep coming back to it to seek my salvation once again? It almost seems like it’s saying the work of Christ wasn’t good enough to save me and I must be good to be saved if eternal security were not true. According to the Prophet Isaiah, our righteous works are like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). We can not do enough good. If our salvation depended on a scale of good and bad things we’ve done, I guarantee you that the bad would weigh down and break the table it sits on.

So that’s my views in a nutshell. I could go into a little more detail probably if I was asked, but I figured I’d just make a post of this stuff. However, I want to stress that this should not cause divisions and quarrels among believers. Our personal convictions should not be added to the word of God. Let love be on the forefront of our minds. Let the Arminian and the Calvinist fellowship with one another. I guarantee you’re not right about everything and neither am I.

I don’t know. I thought I’d make a post on how I came to my theological standpoint. However before I start, I will go back to what I said in earlier posts, these are points that are worth discussing, but should not bring division in the Church. If we can all agree on regeneration and the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, I think that’s enough to bring us together in fellowship. But I have my personal convictions and I wanted to share them a little bit here.

Before, in an earlier post, I said to not call me a Calvinist or Arminian. I said that more to stress fellowship and how we should not be divided over the two sides. I am a Calvinist. And when I say that, I mean that I agree with the 5 points that John Calvin taught. I am not a cessationist like John Calvin was and I’m sure there’s other stuff that he taught that I don’t agree with, but I don’t know because I haven’t read any of his writings. This is just an issue of the 5 points. I don’t take the label of Calvinist to say that I agree with every little thing John Calvin said. In fact, John Wesley, a definite Arminian, is someone who I agree with on a lot of points.

I used to be against Calvinism. I think to the immature Christian, Calvinism seems absolutely ridiculous and doesn’t make sense. However when I opened up and began to study the two views, I came to the conclusion that it was Arminianism that didn’t make sense. Perhaps I didn’t get a clear explanation of it and I’m not saying a mature Christian can’t be an Arminian. However, for me, as I’ve matured my views have shifted.

So anyways, the 5 points of Calvinism use the letters TULIP to spell out the first letters of each point. The 5 points are as follows:

Total Depravity of Man

Since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, all men are born into sin. All men are naturally evil. Everything they are and do are evil. They hate God (maybe not with their words, but with actions) and they want nothing to do with Him. Their hearts are evil. They deserve the full force wrath of God.

Why do I believe this? In Romans 3:9-18, Paul states it pretty clearly:

9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
13“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
14“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know.”
18“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

To my natural ears, I don’t want to hear that everyone is evil. In fact, some might think that I sound like some fanatic when I say that. But this is not to come from me. Everything we believe has to line up with the word of God. So when I read this, how can I not agree with that? It’s true. Man is evil. We have turned from God completely. And why would we deserve His grace? We don’t. That’s what makes the love of God so amazing. “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)

Unconditional Election

Because man is naturally evil and wants nothing to do with God, he can not choose for himself to turn to God. God must first enable the sinner to come to Him.

Here’s the one that people attack. Predestination. You may think this one’s crazy. God chooses who He desires to save? Yes. However this does not discount freewill. If I were to say that freewill didn’t exist, then I would be wrong. Freewill exists in scripture. We have freewill. But let me give a visual explanation of what I’m talking about.

I walk to school everyday. However I don’t have to. I could ride the bus, or perhaps get driven by someone. Those are my options. But can I choose to fly? No, of course not. That’s not even an option for me. I don’t have wings. So do I not have freewill because I can’t make the decision to fly to school? No, I do. Flying is not of my nature, therefore I can not make that decision. The same goes with this. Because I am naturally evil since birth and I want nothing to do with God, I’m not going to choose God nor will my evil heart want to. First He must enable me and then I can make the freewill choice to come to Him.

Bible verse?

John 6:44:
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Also, you may look at the example of Pharaoh with Moses (Exodus 4:21). God hardened his heart. It didn’t say that Pharaoh chose to not let God’s people go. It said that God hardened His heart so He would not let His people go. Why? So God could be glorified. God’s in control of everything.

Limited Atonement

The atonement of sins through the sacrifice of the Son Jesus Christ saved only the elect of God.

This probably isn’t the greatest term to use for the subject and I will say that this point was not something I had an easy time agreeing with until it was properly explained to me.

This should probably be called sufficient atonement. Limited atonement just doesn’t sound great and it kind of makes it seem like God doesn’t care about the rest of the world. The sacrifice of Christ was sufficient for all of man. If every man were saved, the sacrifice would be sufficient enough for them. However, here’s where I understood the point.

If Christ died for everyone, then that would have to mean that everyone is saved. We know this isn’t true because scripture tells us that few will find the narrow gate and narrow road (Matt 7:13-14) and that men must repent and believe to be saved (Mark 1:15). So really, it’s not such a horrible idea as it originally sounds. Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient for all of man, but it is only done for those that are/have been/will be saved.

Irresistible Grace

The grace that God gives to man for his election can not be refused.

Why would you resist it? When the grace of God comes on you, it’s too beautiful and amazing to resist. When I was saved (or at least became confident of my salvation), I paced around my room saying “I’m saved!” because I just couldn’t believe why God would love me so much to elect me into His kingdom and desire to use me. When you receive it, it puts you in awe. I will say that once you have received a revelation of Jesus Christ, you will not refuse it. It will drive you to your knees in repentance. It’s beautiful.

There was a period of time before I came to Christ where I guess I was enabled. God had revealed Himself to me and then as time went on, He kept on enduring in me and pressing Himself upon my soul until I came to the point of repentance and faith in Him. This is God’s irresistible grace.

Perseverance  of the Saints

Once man has been saved, they don’t lose their salvation. They are eternally secure in their salvation.

This isn’t really a point for Calvinists. There are many Calvinists that do not agree with this and there are many Arminians who do. My view: I do agree with it.

Ephesians 1:13-14:
13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

It’s almost like saying, “Now that I’ve been reborn, I will go back to death and then become the way I used to be.” It just doesn’t make any sense, at least not to me. And how powerful is the work of Christ if I have to keep coming back to it to seek my salvation once again? It almost seems like it’s saying the work of Christ wasn’t good enough to save me and I must be good to be saved if eternal security were not true. According to the Prophet Isaiah, our righteous works are like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). We can not do enough good. If our salvation depended on a scale of good and bad things we’ve done, I guarantee you that the bad would weigh down and break the table it sits on.

So that’s my views in a nutshell. I could go into a little more detail probably if I was asked, but I figured I’d just make a post of this stuff. However, I want to stress that this should not cause divisions and quarrels among believers. Our personal convictions should not be added to the word of God. Let love be on the forefront of our minds. Let the Arminian and the Calvinist fellowship with one another. I guarantee you’re not right about everything and neither am I.

For a few hundred years now there has been a debate over the nature of salvation.  Conditional or Unconditional Election asks this question: is salvation something that happens to us, or is it something that we have a role in.  Now, we know that salvation is the completed work of Christ on the cross, and there is nothing that can be done to add to or take away from the salvation that Jesus has provided.  It is done, just like Jesus said it is.  The question is do we have any role in accepting it?  My personal answer is yes, but there are many who say no, that salvation is something that God does to us.  My personal opinion is that salvation is something provided for us, but that it is contingent on two things for us to accept it: belief or faith, and repentance.  Below is a list of verses that support my view.

Luke 9:23

Luke 13:5

Luke 24:47

John 1:12-13

John 5:24

John 20:31

Acts 2:38

Acts 3:19

Acts 16:30-34

Acts 17:30

Acts 26:20

Romans 1:16-17

Romans 4:5

Romans 3:21-27

Romans 4:24-5:1

Romans 10:9-17

1 Corinthians 15:1-3

2 Corinthians 7:10

2 Corinth 13:5

Ephesians 2:8-9

2 Peter 1:10

1 John 2:1-2

All these verses seem to have this “if this, then salvation”.  Now, this does not mean that we work for our salvation.  To believe so would be an affront to God and the salvation that he provided.  All this means is that the Salvation of Jesus Christ the Messiah must be accepted, and that is done by believing He is who He said he is, the one and only son of God who died on a cross and rose from death on the third day, and by repenting of our sin.

Dieses Informations- und Diskussionsangebot wurde in der Vergangenheit unter dem Namen “Die sozialistische Nation” geführt. Es war gedacht als eine Vergewisserung der politisch-gesellschaftlichen Situation Deutschlands seit der Wiedervereinigung, der Speicherung früherer Grundsätze und als Versuch, sie in ein neu zu schaffendes Ideologiegebäude zu integrieren.

Die Vergewisserung als Standortbestimmung ist nun abgeschlossen. Nicht alles auf dem Weg dahin war richtig und zielführend, vieles muss neu überdacht werden.
Die vorangegangenen Beiträge werden, auch wegen der Resonanz, nicht gelöscht, sondern sollen weiterhin Anregungen geben.

Es geht jetzt darum, aktiv zu werden, zu handeln. Eine Idee entwickelt sich nicht nur im Denken, sie muss auch regelmäßig praktisch überprüft und gefestigt werden.

Nur Taten können uns letzten Endes voranbringen. Angesichts der aktuellen Situation in Deutschland ist ein durchdachtes Handeln dringend nötig, damit der Begriff “deutsches Volk” in der Zulunft wieder einen Sinn ergibt.

Packen wir’s an!

Here’s a Halloween joke for your kids to use:

If the Calvinist’s flower is a tulip, what is the Arminian’s flower?

A daisy (He loves me, He loves me not; He loves me, He loves me not).

HT: rap

“I just believe in a whosoever gospel.”

So the response often goes whenever a discussion of sovereign grace is entered upon. I have heard this protest against sovereign grace many times. Normally, what a person means who says this is simply that Jesus accepts any who come.  The conclusion is then drawn from this that all people must be able to come of their own accord. 

So, is it true that Jesus believes in a ‘whosoever’ gospel?

Yes! By all means. No one who comes to Jesus in saving faith will be turned away (John 6:35, 37, 40, 47, 51, 54, 57-58). Does this resolve the issue, however? If it is agreed that Jesus saves all who come to him in repentant trust, have the historic debates over the doctrines of grace now evaporated? Can Arminians and all Semi-Pelagians and whosoever else, now put down their placards?

Sadly, I suspect this will not happen. After all, it seems that the ‘whosoever will’ question is really just a distraction. Evangelicals generally are in agreement here. Calvinists enthusiastically believe in a whosoever gospel. So this protest does not accomplish anything productive. It clouds the real issues by setting up a straw man that is supposed to represent a Calvinist perspective but in reality does nothing of the sort. It is, therefore, merely a distraction.

But if the first question is really just a misguided distraction, what is the real question?

The real question is, who did Jesus believe was going to actually come to him? If I may put it this way, whosoever was he talking about? Simply put, who comes to Jesus?

Is it:

• Those who of their own initiative, change the disposition of their own hearts from the state of rebellious unbelief to the state of repentant faith.

Or, is it:

• Those who, in eternity past, God selected out of the mass of humanity to receive mercy and in time are effectively drawn to Christ, having their hearts converted by grace.

A cursory look at a few passages in John’s Gospel will help clarify the answer to this question.

“All that the Father gives to me will come to me and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” (John 6:37)

• The group that the Father gives to the Son is the same group that actually comes to the Son…no more, no less. Jesus receives every person in that group.

“For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.” (John 6:38-39)

• The Father’s will is that Jesus would save every single person that the Father gives to him. Jesus does this. The group of people that the Father gives the Son is the same group who will be raised to blessed life on the last day.

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:44)

• Sinful humanity is not able to come to Jesus. The Father must specially, individually and effectively draw them to Jesus. Everyone who the Father draws in this way will ultimately go to heaven. Those who he does not, will not.

“And this is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” (John 6:65)

• The ability to come to Jesus in saving faith is a gift, selectively and individually given by the Father.

“But you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.” (John 10:26)

• The reason people do not believe, is that they are not part of the people God has given to the Son. Arminians reverse the logical order of this verse. They say, “You are ultimately not part of God’s flock because you don’t believe.” But God says ultimately you do not believe because you are not of my flock.

“I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” (John 10:28-29)

• The Father has given a flock to the Son. Jesus will fully and finally save all those whom the Father gave him.

“You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit…” (John 15:16)

• It is not our election of God, but God’s election of us, that results in our salvation.

“When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said ‘Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.” (John 17:1-2)

• There are two groups spoken of here: broadly, all humanity (“all flesh”) and narrowly, the elect (“all you have given him”). Jesus gives eternal life to the individuals in the second group.

“I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word.” (John 17:6)

• The people the Father gave the Son are specific people; individually known by the Father and the Son. These people are the same ones who keep God’s word in life.

“I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.” (John 17:9)

• Jesus prays for the people the Father has given him in a way that he does not pray for the rest of humanity. Jesus prays in a way that brings about the results intended.

“Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.” (John 17:24)

• The people the Father has given the Son from all eternity will enjoy his glory for all eternity.

John’s Gospel teaches:

1. In eternity past, the Father has given a certain group of people, out of the mass of humanity, to the Son to be saved.
2. All who the Father gives to the Son in eternity, will come to the Son in saving faith in time.
3. “Whosoever” comes to the Son in faith, is welcomed and will be saved by the Son.

From this, we can see the problem with the “whosoever” protest. It seems to ignore the first and second points. John’s Gospel teaches us that the Father gives a certain group of people to Jesus. Jesus fully and finally saves that group of people.

I already made a post on this topic. Basically, what I think about this debate is that it’s no reason to divide in the Church. I believe there are many misconceptions of Calvinism and I think there are a lot of people that call themselves one or the other but don’t even know what that means.

I have more of a passion to argue against division over the issue than to actually argue my point of view. Who cares? Yeah, we should be following our convictions and seeking truth, but understand that people on both sides can be saved. This morning, it just came to me how important it is that the thief next to Jesus was saved. I think of it as necessary to be written in the Gospel accounts. Why? It shows us why we are truly saved. All the man could do at that point was repent and believe as we’re told and he was saved right then and there. He wasn’t baptized. He probably had a lot of messed up views theologically, but he repented and he believed and that’s all that mattered for him to receive a promise that he would be with Jesus in paradise.

I think we should really look at this. Where is our focus? Look at the essential topics. Salvation. There should be nothing added or taken away from that. If we can agree on the fact that salvation is only dependent on the grace of our God through His Son and nothing else could save us, then why do we divide?

I have no problem with debates and discussions, but if love is not in there and it turns into quarrels, gossip, and slander, then the real problem is not the issue that is being debated, but the way the people are acting about it.

Don’t call me Calvinist or Arminian. I’m not going to limit myself to one man’s interpretation of scripture. I read the scriptures, receive teaching from others, test it to the scriptures, and then believe what God says. I have my opinions and beliefs, but if I label myself, I believe there will be more assumptions and misconceptions than discussions and nothing will be accomplished. Let’s not act like the Corinthians did and follow men, but let us be one body that follows Christ and is simply focused on the building up and edifying of each other in love.

Våren år 9 la Arminius seg sammen med allierte germanske stammer (cheruskere, marsere, chattere, brukterere, chaukere, og sugambrere) seg i bakhold og overfalt en romersk hær bestående av 17., 18. og 19. legion foruten også tre kavaleriavdelinger og seks kohorter av støttetropper, totalt rundt 30 000 mann, hvorav 18 000 romerske borgere. Slaget har gått inn i historien som Slaget ved Teutoburgerskogen. Nyere arkeologiske funn har fastslått en langvarig debatt om det nøyaktige stedet for slaget som nå kan med rimelig sikkerhet fastslåes var i nærheten av Kalkriese, en høyde i Niedersachsen, omtrent 20 km nord for Osnabrück.

I tre dager bølget slaget fram og tilbake. Samtlige av den 30 000 store romerske hæren ble utslettet og da nederlaget var sikkert begikk Varus selvmord ved å kaste seg på sverdet.

Les mer om denne kampen som var av enorm betydning for Europas historie.

Boken kan kjøpes hos Amazon.com

„Varus, gib mir meine Legionen zurück!“ soll Kaiser Augustus verzweifelt ausgerufen haben, als ihn die Nachricht ereilte, mehr als 15.000 römische Soldaten seien von den Germanen in einen Hinterhalt gelockt und vernichtend geschlagen worden.

Der Imperator und mit ihm ganz Rom waren geschockt. Die Supermacht Rom verlor drei ihrer besten Legionen und erlitt eine der größten Niederlagen ihrer Geschichte. Die Pläne, eine Provinz rechts des Rheins zu errichten, wurden jäh durchkreuzt.

Die Varusschlacht, auch bekannt als die Schlacht im Teutoburger Wald, wurde zu einem Ereignis von welthistorischer Bedeutung. Sie hat das heutige Europa entscheidend geprägt.

Die Römer gaben ihre Expansionspläne im fernen Germanien auf und zogen sich hinter den Rhein zurück.

Die Varusschlacht markiert weder den Beginn noch das Ende römischer Aktivitäten in Germanien. Der Vorstoß des römischen Imperiums beginnt bereits um 17/16 vor Christus unter Kaiser Augustus. Bis 9 nach Christus folgt ein Aufbau der Infrastruktur (Straßen, Wasserwege, Kanäle, Städte, Bergbau, Metallverarbeitung) unter römischem Einfluss. Im Sommer 9 nach Christus spricht der Statthalter Varus auf dem Gebiet der Germanen an der Weser römisches Recht und erhebt Steuern. Die offizielle Einverleibung Germaniens als Provinz (analog Gallien unter Julius Caesar zuvor) steht unmittelbar bevor. Da lockt der römische Ritter und Cheruskerfürst Arminius den Varus in einen Hinterhalt, als dieser mit drei Legionen und Tross (ca. 20.000 Mann) in die Winterlager am Rhein umziehen will. In einer mörderischen Abnutzungsschlacht werden die Legionen vollständig vernichtet, die Reiterei desertiert, die Adler gehen verloren und nur ganz wenige Überlebende flüchten in das Kastell Aliso an der Lippe. Während die Zeichen römischer Macht in Germanien in Flammen aufgehen, retten sich die Insassen des an der Lippe gelegenen Lagers an den Rhein. Weitere verlustreiche Feldzüge folgen insbesondere in den Jahren 14-16 nach Christus unter dem römischen Caesar Germanicus, bis Kaiser Tiberius die Romanisierung Germanies aufgibt.

15.000 Mini-Römer ziehen ins LWL-Römermuseum ein

Was wäre geschehen, wenn Arminus nicht gesiegt hätte…

Everybody talks about anniversaries today, but let’s talk about a different one. Today is the 2000th anniversary of the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest.

The battle took place when Arminius, chieftain of the Germanic Cherusci tribe, gathered a confederation of German tribes and annihilated three Roman legions in 9 AD. At least 20,000 Roman troops died, most of the officers killed themselves as slaves, and most of those who survived spent the rest of their lives as slaves.

Of course, to the Romans Arminius was a vile traitor, and they arranged to have him assassinated twelve years later. Many of the German tribes weren’t terribly fond of him, either, since he died at the hands of his wife’s family. (And you thought your in-laws sucked!) But it is undeniable that the Romans never conquered the German tribes, and never pushed their boundaries past the Rhine again. Even the Roman historian Tacitus described Arminius as “the liberator of his people”.

The picture above is a monumental statue of Arminius not far from where I live. Yes, there is a giant statue of an ancient barbarian warlord in the middle of Minnesota. Back before German nationalism was something that one did not do in polite company, Arminius became a symbol of German pride, and a bunch of patriotic German immigrants raised a giant copper statue of Arminius in central Minnesota. It’s still there, facing Rome, sword raised in defiance.

-JM

On this, day two of my remembrance of the Battle of Teutoburg Forest, I offer up this painting by Otto Albert Koch, Varusschlacht (1909).

Two thousand years ago Hermann rallied the so-called Barbarians of Germania into a unified force to strike back against the oppressive advance of the mighty Roman Empire. They fought not just for their freedom, but for the very existence of themselves as a people!

Northern Europe would have become a very different place had Hermann and those brave warriors not drawn a line at the Rhine and proclaimed, “You shall not cross.”

Hail the Fallen Heroes! Hail Germania!

Gregor Arminius ist ein Freund des dezenten Looks, unscheinbar und doch sympatisch. Er ist ein Verehrer emphatischer Blondinen, scheut sich aber sich mit vollpfostigen Freunden, wie Zungy (rechts im Bild) zu präsentieren.

I’ll start off by saying that I personally would consider myself Calvinist (I am not a cessationist though). I think it is often misunderstood. Here is a great article on it: http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/calvinismarminianism.htm

Here is an article on Hyper-Calvinism which is very dangerous and I think is what people often mistake Calvinism for (written by the same author): http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/hypercalvinism.htm

However, that is not the point of this article. I am writing this to explain why both Calvinists and Arminians should be able to fellowship with one another and be united as one. I believe both are part of the Body of Christ.

Who is our leader? Jesus is supposed to be our leader. And yet we’ve exalted men as our ultimate leaders and claimed that anyone who denies what a man has taught is not of God. However, what is really happening is that they are not of that man you look to as your leader. This problem has arose in the Church before in Corinth. In 1 Corinthian 1:10-17, Paul states to the Church:

¹⁰ I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. ¹¹ My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas ”; still another, “I follow Christ.” My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you.

¹³ Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? ¹⁴ I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, ¹⁵ so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. ¹⁶ (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) ¹⁷ For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

The people were divided among their leaders. This is not of God. Christ is our leader.

2 Timothy 2:23-24:
²³ Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. ²⁴ And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.

It is all a very stupid thing to argue about. Whether we agree whether or not the reason we are brought to salvation and in what way, it does not change the fact that we are saved. Both sides believe that all must be born again (regeneration), therefore this simply an argument of how we are saved but not of the very act of it. In that, I see no reason that it should cause division of the Church.

And to those that think of themselves better than the other or higher, even if you are, you have no right to judge those who do not have as much understanding as you. No where in scripture does it say you will be saved only if you understand every single thing in the word of God. In fact, I can confidently say that we will never fully understand everything of God because we are finite creatures and He is infinite. Let those of more knowledge and wisdom guide and lead the babes in Christ, not spend their days arguing with them. For you who spend your time arguing with them and dividing yourself from them are also babes in Christ because you do not understand that we are one body of believers serving one leader: Jesus.

1 Corinthians 3:1-9
¹ Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. ² I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. ³ You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere human beings? ⁴ For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?

⁵ What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. ⁶ I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. ⁷ So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. ⁸ The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. ⁹ For we are God’s co-workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.

The divisive are warned:

Titus 3:9-11
⁹ But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. ¹⁰ Warn divisive people once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. ¹¹ You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned.

Also read Romans 14.

There is much unneeded division over this issue and I am against it.

Varus
Iris Kammerer
Taschenbuch: 464 Seiten
Verlag: Heyne
ISBN-13: 978-3453470897

9 n. Chr. – Germanien ist unbefriedet und von den Römern unterworfen worden. Der Statthalter Publius Quinctilius Varus soll Teile des römischen Heeres vom Sommerlager zurück in das Winterquartier in der Nähe des heutigen Xanten führen. Im Vorfeld erhält er mehrere konkrete Hinweise, dass sein Vertrauter Arminius, aus einem germanischen Fürstengeschlecht stammend und unter Römern aufgewachsen, einen Verrat plant. Er hat zu seinem Schützling blindes Vertrauen und schlägt überheblich alle Warnungen in den Wind.

Als dann die ersten Angriffe auf die von ihm angeführten drei Legionen und deren Trosse erfolgen, ist Varus noch immer nicht gewarnt. Das Wetter ist schlecht, das Gelände ist unwegsam und für die Römer nicht geeignet in Stellung zu gehen. Aber in nicht nachvollziehbarer Selbstüberschätzung sieht Varus den Gegner sowohl kampfkraft- als auch zahlenmäßig als unterlegen an. Das entpuppt sich als eine fatale Fehleinschätzung der Situation, die den fast vollständigen Verlust der drei Legionen samt Nachhut zur Folge hat.

Zum 2.000. Mal jährt sich in diesem Jahr die Varusschlacht, die das politische Gesicht Mitteleuropas dauerhaft veränderte. Grund genug zu diesem historischen Roman von Iris Kammerer zu greifen. Sie schildert das historische Geschehen aus der Sicht der Römer. Sie nutzt gekonnt verschiedene Handlungsstränge und Perspektiven, um sich diesem Thema zu nähern. Da gibt es zum einen Caldus, der den Statthalter vor dem Verrat warnt und dafür rangniedrigere Dienste ausführen muss. Dann wird die Geschichte des Titus Annius erzählt, der die Sklavin Thiudgif aus einer Laune heraus durch ein Würfelspiel gewinnt, um die Iris Kammerer ebenfalls eine Handlung aufgebaut hat. Und es gibt den Erzählstrang um die Figur des Varus, in dem deutlich wird, wieso es zu dieser verheerenden Niederlage kommen konnte.

In ihrem Roman lässt Iris Kammerer sowohl historisch verbürgte Figuren als auch fiktive in die Handlung eingreifen, die, grob gesehen, die Handlungsstränge des Romans ausmachen. Sie schildert das Geschehen im Teutoburger Wald vor 2.000 Jahren äußerst glaubwürdig und realistisch. Dabei ist nicht sicher zu belegen, ob es sich in Wirklichkeit so und nicht anders zugetragen hat. Aber es wäre genau so, wie die Autorin es beschrieb, sehr gut vorstellbar.

Besonders hervorheben möchte ich, dass es Iris Kammerer, trotz der allgemein bekannten Geschichte der Schlacht, gelang, einen spannenden und fesselnden Roman zu schreiben. Dies ist aber auch darauf zurückzuführen, dass ihr Augenmerk nicht auf Varus und Arminius, sondern eher auf den historischen Helden der 2. Reihe lag. Die Sprache ist bestechend, klar und der Zeit gemäß. Ein dem Roman beigefügtes Glossar hilft dem Leser über die eine oder andere Klippe hinweg. Das Buch enthält ein ebenfalls sehr nützliches Namensverzeichnis, in dem die historischen Personen gekennzeichnet sind. Das half mir die anfängliche Verwirrung bei den sich ähnelnden römischen Namen zu überwinden.

Mein Fazit: „Varus“ ist einer der besten historischen Romane, die ich in der letzten Zeit las. Das bekannte Thema wurde hervorragend in einen spannenden Roman verpackt. Ich bin beeindruckt von der Detailtreue der Autorin und werde in absehbarer Zeit ihre Cinna-Trilogie lesen.

Über den Autor (Quelle: Amazon.de)

Iris Kammerer, 1963 in Krefeld geboren, arbeitete nach dem Studium der Klassischen Philologie und Philosophie als Texterin, Redakteurin und Beraterin. Seit 2004 ist sie freie Autorin. Bisher erschien die erfolgreiche Trilogie um den römischen Offizier Cinna (“Der Tribun”, “Die Schwerter des Tiberius” und “Wolf und Adler”) sowie der im Mittelalter angesiedelte Roman “Der Pfaffenkönig”. Iris Kammerer lebt zusammen mit ihrem als Sachbuchautor tätigen Mann Helmut Kammerer in Marburg.

Time for a little in house debate between Protestants in preparation for my dangerous posts on “Why I am not a Catholic” and “Why I am not a Calvinist”, which will lose me 90% of my Christian readers. Sigh. I don’t want to lose any readers, but I like to be me!

Anyway…

I spotted this article over on Birds of the Air blog. (H/T Neil Simpson)

Excerpt:

Classical Wesleyan Arminianism:

1. Humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation
2. Salvation is possible by grace alone
3. Works of human effort cannot cause or contribute to salvation
4. God’s election is conditional on faith in Jesus
5. Jesus’ atonement was for all people
6. God allows his grace to be resisted by those unwilling to believe
7. Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith

Standard Calvinism:

1. Total Depravity – After the Fall, human will was given over to sin and is as if it were dead, so that without being “awakened” by the Holy Spirit (the initiator) a human is unable to choose to be saved.
2. Unconditional Election – God’s choice was not determined by anything ever done or to be done by a human; it is a free gift not earned by merit. Under this view, God is the initiator of salvation.
3. Particular Redemption (AKA Limited Atonement) – The blood of Christ was a substitution for the penalty of sin, and was effectual for the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, it not only secures but guarantees salvation.
4. The Efficacious Call of the Holy Spirit (AKA Irresistible Grace) – The outward call to salvation is made to all, but the Holy Spirit also places an inward call in the hearts of those who are elected for salvation. The outward call can (and often is) resisted, but the inward call is more powerful than human willpower. The Holy Spirit causes the sinner to respond in faith.
5. Perseverance of the Saints – The Holy Spirit will keep the believer secured in faith in Christ to the end.

I am basically in agreement with the Classical Arminian view, and I would accept the following points of Calvinism: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Definite Atonement. I totally disagree with Irresistible Grace. Perseverance of the Saints is fine, except for people who literally reject their former faith. I.e. – you can’t lose your salvation by committing sins X,Y and Z. I am a 3.99 point Calvinist.

For my non-Christian readers who struggle with understanding why you are assumed to be in rebellion, ask yourself how much of your busy lives you have spent trying sincerely to decide whether God is really there by watching debates, making friends with Christians, visiting church, reading the Bible, praying test prayers, etc. Before God starts to work on you, you are in full flight away from God. That’s just the way it is.

When you are at the point of inventing an infinite number of universes to explain the fine-tuning, you’ll know what I am talking about. For every 100 non-Christians who starts to make that speculative multiverse reply to the fine-tuning argument, maybe 1 of you closes his mouth and says “ENOUGH”.

The doctrine of middle knowledge

And I think Wesleyans like me can recover an extremely robust view of divine sovereignty by invoking the doctrine of middle knowledge. This is the view that God can foresee what any individual will do in any set of circumstances (counterfactuals of creaturely freedom). And he uses this middle knowledge to actualize a world in which everyone who can freely choose to be respond to God’s saving initiative will be placed in the exact time and place where they would freely respond.

Consider Paul’s defense in Athens on Mars Hill: (in Acts 17:22-31)

²²Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. ²³For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.

²⁴“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. ²⁵And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. ²⁶From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. ²⁷God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. ²⁸‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

²⁹“Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man’s design and skill. ³⁰In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. ³¹For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”

I’ve actually stood on Mars Hill, so this is a special, special passage for me.

Without God’s actualization of the conditions needed to save each individual person, no one could be saved. And it’s more than just the time and place, God has to individually reveal just the right amount of himself to the person in that time, so that they have the choice to respond without being coerced. So you have unilateral salvation initiated by God, but man is still responsible for rejecting God. It’s PERFECT!

If you haven’t heard of middle knowledge, I highly recommend that you take a look at it. It solves the problem of reconciling divine foreknowledge, free will and human responsibility. It’s kind of new though, so you may not have heard about it unless you are into philosophy of religion research. I went to a Wheaton Philosophy conference which had the Calvinist Paul Helm of Oxford University as the main speaker. He plowed, but the consensus among the audience (90% in the people I surveyed and judging from audience questions) was that middle knowledge was the correct solution to these thorny problems.

Further study

I have to mention this post on Between Two Worlds linked by Muddling Towards Maturity. This has to do with the scope of the atonement.

For whom did Christ Die?

Michael Bird posts three short entries by three different scholars regarding the intent and extent of the atonement:

• Paul Helm (Calvinist View)
• Michael Jensen (Amyraldian View)
• Ben Witherington (Arminian View)

My guy in the race is my favorite historian, Ben Witherington, but I’m not familiar with Jensen. Witherington is highly qualified scholar who is respected and endorsed across the spectrum. He is an evangelical.

I’ll be posting something about the atonement later this week.