It is important to remember that God’s sovereignty does not make us into fatalistic stoics. Yes, it was God’s will that the Twin Towers fall, but that does not mean that we are not to be angry, grieved and devestated over the act.

God will decide which sinners will be redeemed through the blood of Christ, but we are commanded to reach out to them all.

If my family is killed tomorrow by murderers, does the fact that it was pre-ordained by the Almighty prevent me from my grief, or the law’s duty to punish those responsible? Of course not.

God has told us how to live, and what we should do. The rest is in His hands. He is always fair and good because He says that He is. Tyrannical from a limited human viewpoint, perhaps, but not for Him. One of the fringe benefits of being God.

Tom: Fair enough. Actually, since Jim came out of the closet, heresy has become quite the fad here at the BHT. (JN)

Although I would disagree with your point of view, it was more my goal that you didn’t characterize what you were objecting to as “Calvinism” since I don’t see it as a Calvinism / Arminianism issue at all.

And now we can’t even use the Cavinism / Arminiansm dichotomy any longer since Lutheranism is evidently a third category. (SW) (actually, Catholocism would be a fourth category but since KenL is gone we can just assume that they are wrong about most everything except abortion)

Bill: I don’t have all the answers, and I don’t even try to.

I do have all the answers. I’m just not sure which ones are right. (JN)

Bill: I don’t have all the answers, and I don’t even try to. Yes, there are times in Scripture where God ends someone’s life. Most of the time, in hindsight, we can see a purpose for it. I guess that’s where Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (who’s always wrong) came up with a purpose for 9/11.

I’ve discovered something about myself. I’m not one of these people who are all religious and “Oh, it was God’s will, bless His name, and farther along we’ll know all about it” type person. I’m more like a Jacob, a character I used to despise, but, you know what, I’m him. I wrestle with God. I’m like David, who got pissed off at God because of the incident with Uzzah. If I were to post the exegetical paper I turned in on Genesis 22, some of you would be pretty shocked, because I accused God of being unfair in that situation. I just don’t sit there and stoically say that “O, brother, its was all God’s will.” And I think some things, even in the Bible, were attributed to God but they got God’s will wrong, like in the genocide that was committed by the Israelites to take the land. I know, I’m a heretic for saying some of this, but knowledge of God is always incomplete. Knowledge of God came to its fullness through Jesus the Christ, and still our understanding is incomplete. I think knowledge of God developed over time until the culmination in Jesus.

If God is love, these are not loving actions, and go against the very character of God.

Tom: Your argument proves too much, unless in fact you are an open theist or process theologian. Kurt has touched on this. God could have stopped the Sept. 11 tragedy, and all other tragedies. If God is love as you say (I’m not denying it) then He would have stopped these things. Why didn’t he? Only two reasons come to mind. Either He was unable to do so or unwilling to do so. It there a third option?

God is love, but that’s not all He is. I don’t like it any better than you do, but I have to be honest about what scripture teaches. You can claim prooftexting if you want. Have I taken those passages out of context and changed the meaning?

Tom: Were I to adopt the view that God were merely “standing by” and watching bad things happen instead of stopping them when the power was His, would that make Him any less responsible for things as they happen? Think of it like physics…imagine I have the power of a supercomputer in my head and I can calculate the path every pool ball on a given table when I break. I set the balls into motion and watch them go exactly where I knew that they would go. Sure, you could say that they went to their places on account of a chain of events, but ultimately who knew where they’d go? I would argue that God is like that, but infinitely more.

The Bible tells us that God hates sin. The Bible also tells us that He is sovereign and supreme. Why does he ordain that which He hates in His great plan? I can’t tell you, but I can see no other way to interpret it.

Jesus was crucified and rose again and now sits at the right hand of God. That’s not what I’m talking about here. I think it’s ludicrous to think that God was working through Tim McVeigh, or those deceived, hate-filled Muslims who crashed into the Twin Towers because they think that Allah will reward them. And proof-texting isolated verses doesn’t cut it. If God is love, these are not loving actions, and go against the very character of God.

Tom: It’s better to call God a murderer?

Are you saying that God never ends people’s life? What about the Red Sea episode? Annanias and Saphirra? Korah and his cronies? The purge of Canaan at the hands of Joshua? Uzzah?

The bible is full of unpleasant things that are attributed to the hand of God. What are we to do with them?

You might say the brutal execution of a sinless and innocent man could fall under the category of “tragedy”. But most of Christendom is more or less agreed that God was glorified by it.

Tom: It has nothing to do with Calvinism, simply a reading of the whole corpus of scripture. Amos 3:6 for one. Job, for another. I simply can’t imagine a nervous, frustrated, hand wringing God anxiously looking down upon his creation hoping that things turn out all right. If that is the case, as the great theologian Kenneth Copeland says, “God is the biggest failure in history”.

So God is glorified in the horrible tragedies of the world, because we sure wouldn’t want to say God is not omnipotent. It’s better to call God a murderer? With that kind of thinking, no wonder people don’t turn to God. Oh, wait a minute, it’s God’s will they don’t turn to Him, right? Universalism and process theology is looking better all the time.

Amanda: No. I was using the male-lineage method. Kuzco’s mother may have been alive, but in the film she was absent (and presumably wouldn’t have been crowned Emperor while a male heir existed). Since Kuzco is emperor, his father is dead (most likely). No, Izma was not his mother, just his really, really, really, really, really, really, really old advisor. Really.

Michael: I was hating Disney before the SBC, so there. Thpt!

Snopes has sooome good information, but they’re missing some others.

On “God” in the 3 faiths: I agree with JS.

Tom: Which robs God of more glory? That he has preordained a divine plan which includes, for reasons that we cannot understand, the existance of sin, or that he watches sadly from heaven as His will and His plans are defied by upstart humans?

I do not understand why God has done things the way that He has, but for us to say that anything that occurs is not preordained by Him, is to say that God is not omnipotent. You can’t even get around it by saying “God simply allowed it to happen, He didn’t cause it.” Bologna. This is the God that exists outside of time and set all things into play. His power is too all-encompassing to allow any other possibility.

Hmm, so then Calvinism would say that the Holocaust was God’s will? That the Twin Towers bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing and repressive, murderous regimes around the world are God’s will? Reasons enough for me not to be a Calvinist!

Josh:

It may well be that your categorizations are correct, and that Lutheranism is a more pious system because it refuses to delve into the reason why some people resist grace.

From the proximate standpoint, it IS a mystery why any human being would resist or deny God.

However, Calvinism appeals to me because it tries to look at the ultimate, rather than proximate, standpoint. It does not attempt to speak for God, but does grapple with the scriptural evidence of God’s cosmic sovereignty and cosmic goodness in a robust way.

In a vernacular sense, as Jim put it once, “God’s will is what happens. Now get out your bibles and start working.”

I believe it is a false characterization of historical Calvinism to say that it promulgates a pernicious doctrine of why people resist grace. I believe Calvinism simply takes What Is, and attempts to lay at God’s feet a trust that even the most confounding human stiff-neckedness will somehow display the utter goodness and righteousness of God, even if in a manner we won’t be able to grasp until the day of judgement.

Holee….

Looks like some folks in California need a visit from Mr. Aluminum Bat. I thought this was a joke at first, but apparently it checks out on Snopes. LA County has banned the usage of the term “Master/Slave”, even in reference to computer hardware configurations.

Get the scoop over at Snopes.

I’m still waiting for somebody to say “haha, just kidding.” We can only hope.

All things Disney at SNOPES.com.

Wednesday will be a half day of school and then we dismiss until Monday. Most of our international kids will be staying here so the dorms don’t close. Our daughter will be coming home and we’ve decided not to travel for Thanksgiving, but to have the holiday here. A small disappointment, as we usually go see our parents, but Denise’s mom is recovering from minor surgery and isn’t quite up to the big day. It won’t be too hard to be thankful being home with our kids. No one can be as blessed with wonderful wife and kids as I am. We love one another, and we all belong to Christ.

Clay has been at Regional All-State Choir for two days. One of four OBI kids participating. He has another day and then we will go to the concert tomorrow night. This is a big deal for him. Hundreds of kids. A director from EKU. Great Choral music. This is the next level, where a young person gets to see what all the work is for and what can be achieved. I can say in Clay’s case, it’s paying off. I’m seeing some growing interest in serious music that actually looks promising for the future.

The same God: This is a good question. Given that all three religions claim to accept the Tanakh (for these purposes I won’t call it the OT) as inspired, trivially speaking it is true that they all worship YHVH as revealed therein. QED.

The character of God revealed in the NT, Tanakh, and Koran are not the same, however. I think, and I hope that it’s not just my Christian bias showing, that the God revealed in the Tanakh and the NT are quite similar, though they have some important differences. This God is a perfectly holy and morally demanding God, but one who is infinitely forgiving and who loves his people despite their unfaithfulness. This is a God who can ask Abraham to offer his firstborn or who can say “Be ye perfect”, but who provides a sacrifice in both cases.

The God of Islam is different, from what I have read of the Koran. Allah seems less holy to me. He makes reasonable demands, then makes accomodation for human weakness. The best metaphor for him is a tough but fair master. YHVH makes impossible demands, then provides for them himself. The best metaphor for him is a patient and loving husband.

Islam and Christianity can both claim to authentically represent YHVH by invoking continued revelation, of course. But by comparison with the original, the Theos of the NT seems more like YHVH than Allah of the Koran.

I’m curious what you meant by ‘father at least’ in reference to Kuzco. There was no mention of either father nor mother, so I’m assuming that both were dead. Were you counting Izma as his mother?

I would say that the object of Christian, Jew, and Muslim worship is the same God.

I would go on to say that they are not worshipping the same God because the Jews and Muslims are not worshipping God at all. I believe that worship must in some way be acceptable to the One being worshipped, and viewed through the lens of Christianity it is clear that the Jew and Muslim have rejected the very God they claim to worship, so whatever it is that they are doing, it isn’t worship.

Matthew: I certainly agree that the Trinity is an essential Christian doctrine and that God as worshipped by Jews and Muslims is not the Trinitarian God of the NT. Jesus Christ is Lord, and Jesus was Lord at the time of th OT narratives.

But on the other hand- historically speaking- it appears to me that one could make a case from the OT narratives that all three religions worship the God of Abraham, as known at a particular time in history before Christian and Muslim revelation take the matter into areas where there is no compromise. We have a teacher who was raised among Muslims in N. Africa, and she is adamant on this: that the way to relate to Muslims is to say that The God of Abraham/Ishmael is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. When she says this, a number of our teachers get visibly angry. But- historically speaking, not bringing in all of revelation (which I think GWB has to do, as any of us have to do now)- it seems that all three would look at Genesis 22 for instance, and say that is our God Abraham is dealing with.

And I heartily agree that Calvinists frequently do all their reading about other theological positions from their own interpreters. That’s not always unreliable, but it is seldom the way to hear how Arminians present their own case. (Macarthur on Charismatics would be a glaring example.) And as for librarian freedom, I’m all for it. I don’t see any reason for librarians to charge those outrageous prices.

Michael, what about the OT narratives seen in light of the NT? I’m not being difficult, but when people tell me that Muslims and Christians worship the same God my response is that Islam certainly denies Christ and the Holy Spirit (they interpret the passage in John where Jesus promises a comforter as Muhammad) therefore they are not worshipping the same God. You can’t deny 2/3 of the Trinity and worship the same Triune Creator that we do.

Far be it from me to defend Arminian theologies, but some of y’all need to read something other than Calvinist characterizations of Arminian theology. I’m not saying that these characterizations are bad or wrong but at least extend them the courtesy of reading their writings. When I knew nothing of Calvinism I didn’t go out and read Arminian critiques of Calvinism, I read Sproul, Piper, Pink, etc. I think it is in poor taste to say that Arminians mock God with libertarian freedom when no one I know would even think of doing something like that.

Theology Website. Looks well done and interesting, despite the bland name.

Don’t Forget:

BHT CHRISTMAS!!!

Josh,

I don’t mind spending time quibbling about words.

Jesus is not a synonym for grace.
Salvation is not a synonym for grace.
The Holy Spirit, regeneration, sanctification, etc, are not synonyms for grace, even though they all may have something to do with grace.

Although I would characterize myself as a Calvinist, this has nothing to do with Calvinism, it has to do with the meaning of words. Perhaps I should just ask you for a 5 word definition of grace. (use 10 if you need to.)

I usually stick with the reliable “unmerited favor” definition but if that doesn’t work, we can try something else.

As for your example of Jesus and the chicken metaphor, I’ll go back to my previous statement. Desire does not equal decree. God does not desire that anyone sin, but he has decreed that sin will occur (ie: the crucifixion). God allows people to resist Him. But if He decides to overcome that resistance, it will be overcome (I think you said that also). The bible says God accomplishes ALL his purposes. Our God is in the heavens, He does whatever He pleases. God cannot fail.

So, in the instance mentioned, where Christ tries to gather Israel to Himself, are you saying that God in Christ TRIED to do something but FAILED?

I would have to register my profound disagreement with anyone who insinuates that God CAN fail, or that He HAS failed at doing anything He purposes to do. That is a fundamentally Arminian notion, and makes man some proud idiot, shaking his “free will,” in God’s face saying “nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah.”

Of course, a rejoinder could be, “well, it’s a mystery what went on.” And it may very well be, but from the biblical data, we are given two mutually exclusively options: either God can fail in accomplishing salvation, or He cannot fail (the latter entails irresistable grace). Which is it?

Jews, Muslims and Christians worshipping the same God? I guess that depends on your idea of worship. Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but it does not seem possible for those who do not know God to worship Him. Those that deny Christ, deny the true nature of God. It does no good to worship a partial truth.

If Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same god, then can’t we say that Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Spongites and Phelpians worship the same god as well?

Bill:

No, I wouldn’t characterize that as grace at all (although grace may be involved).

jaw hits floor

Actually, I’m not too surprised. That’s probably the main thing that separates Calvinism from Lutheranism…ever since at least the Puritans, grace has become more and more and more abstracted until it pretty much proceeds from the omnipotent hand of the Father alone. I believe Jesus Christ is the embodiment of God’s grace, and if we wish to understand, describe, explain, or define God’s grace, we need look no further than the mystery of the Incarnation, because every single thing pertaining to salvation (i.e. grace) is wrapped up in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Anything less seems to make him a little less than true God.

Christ mentions desiring to gather Israel as a hen gathers her chicks, and I think there are clear examples of him attempting to do so, and Israel not listening because of hard-heartedness. What do you make of that?

The Hastily Assembled 1 Page Lord of the Rings (Thanks Father Mackenzie)

A lot of my GWB supporting friends are spinning and spitting over this one: “I do say that freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every person. I also condition it by saying freedom is not America’s gift to the world. It’s much greater than that, of course. And I believe we worship the same god.”

Oh Lawd. Best of the Web Today comments:

Bush is right. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all monotheistic religions, united in the belief in a single God. (Muslims often call God by the Arab name Allah, but then so do Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews.) The three religions conceive of God differently, and Muslims and Jews do not share the Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ. A Christian may well believe that Islam’s conception of God is wrong, but if you believe in only one God, it makes no logical sense to describe a fellow monotheist as worshipping a “different” God.

“The Christian God encourages freedom, love, forgiveness, prosperity and health. The Muslim god appears to value the opposite. The personalities of each god are evident in the cultures, civilizations and dispositions of the peoples that serve them. Muhammad’s central message was submission; Jesus’ central message was love. They seem to be very different personalities,” Haggard said.

Scott & Co.:The unofficial Anti-Disney Website makes it abundantly clear that Disney is a bully, greedy, plays hardball, isn’t really the Magic Kingdom and so on. I wouldn’t argue with that. But the premise that Disney really has a concerted, intentional interest in demeaning families and selling gay couples just sets off my Art Bell buzzers. I won’t make a “Rule 16” call on your various claims cause I’ve never sat through most of Disney’s awful fare and you know what you are talking about. I just feel the SBC war on Disney is foolishness. Liberals are forever declaring war on corporations that pollute and pillage. Here are conservatives declaring war on Disney because too many cartoons feature orphans?

Like I said, English literature is repleat with orphans and people raised by relatives. It’s part of the literary mindset of Western storytelling from serious drama to children’s books to cheap romance novels. I can’t see that Disney is much different, and if a few pro-gay Disneyites are sending their message undercover it doesn’t bug me. I’m teaching my kids to think.

Well, of course Clark wanted to subtly get at Bush. The point is that anyone should be able to see that the Post’s headline is a hilarious distortion of what Clark actually said. The laugh-fest doesn’t end there, as Clark isn’t even given the dignity of being called a candidate, but a “wannabe”, and most of the article is devoted to saying that Bush’s drinking past is somehow off-limits for discussion. This is ostensibly journalism, but it reads more like a parody of a GOP press release.

Michael: Well, Michael, it’s a little more than conspiracy.

I worked with a theater for several years, and let me tell you: if there was one studio we dreaded dealing with, it was The Rat. Disney’s penchant for control over the sales and marketing of their product got them in hot water with us (and our attorneys). They charged us far more for their films than any other studio, and required that every person pay full admission to see their usually claptrap fare. This meant that we couldn’t even hope to discount ticket prices for Disney movies out of fear of losing our shirts. And we were a discount theater. Disney required 90% of our Box Office take off the bat (remember that next time you wonder why popcorn and sodas at theaters cost so much). By contrast, Paramount (sigh…. blinks eyes enrapturedly…) charged us just over 50% for kids and seniors just over 60% standard. The average among all studios was 70%.

And don’t forget – Disney includes Disney, Buena Vista, Hollywood, Touchstone, and Miramax. Ouch.

To top it off, The Rat would send people to theaters playing their stuff to spy on them and make sure they were doing it right. One local theater almost got sued out of existence because the owner took it upon himself to pay for the admission of every child under the age of 4. Were they secretly trying to force gayness on our kids? Were they communicating evil messages through animated fare to youngsters? Probably. The SFX tag in the Lion King is a little iffy (most people thought it said “SEX” – I believe it was changed for the special edition), but there are genuine bad words and things hidden throughout many Disney kid flicks – falling blocks spell the word “Damn” in The Emperor’s New Grove, a topless woman in The Rescuers, and several naughty things in Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Ken: Glad it’s over. Multiply that by about 20x a year and you have my ministry. I am convinced that one of the reasons I am here is as ballast to the lunacy that is evangelicalism loose in my chapel. Revivalists tend to say anything they want and care little if it makes any sort of sense. The power these guys feel in being able to do their thing and then fill up an altar is intoxicating. It’s proof that God approves of whatever weenie theology they were selling or manipulative method they were using.

The Disney thing reeks of conspiracy wackos. The SBC war on Disney was one more reason to get my kids out of an SBC church.

Anyone familiar with world literature and particularly British/European literature knows that lit has always been overly populated with protagonists who were orphans or raised by relatives. That had to do with things like…..death and war and disease. Not conspiracies at Disney.

Someone out there on the fringe needs to take a few steps back from the edge.

Remember everything I said about my fear of twenty-somethings? Hand me my medication.

JS: The tactic is called Damning with faint praise.”

If I may quote: Damning with Faint Praise.

“Classification: A deductive fallacy of soundness with a falsehood in the major premiss, in the Ad Hominem family.

Description: The argument “attacks” a position by complimenting or praising the opponent or the opponent’s argument. However, the praise is misdirected or unenthusiastic, suggesting that relevant, enthusiastic praise would be undeserved.”

Clark- that sneveling little opportunist- wants the words “Bush” and “alcoholic” in the same sentence so bad he’ll say anything to make it happen. Where did GWB ever say he was an alcoholic? Clark needs to quit fantasizing about being Hillary’s VP and come up with some reasons to take him more seriously than Kucinich and Sharpton.

I understand the problem here, though. The dwarves have become such a comic lot that talking about Bush’s “alcoholism” at least has the potential of attracting a stray reader here and there.

Josh: I stand corrected and withdraw my statement as worded, and will replace it with the following: “Luther never rejected the Catholic Church, just the abuses he saw that had taken hold of the church by way of a corrupt hierarchy.”

I stand by my statement that Luther had no desire to found a new church, but saw himself as a reformer of the Catholic church, and would not have left the church if not exited. Further, I do not believe the short list you provided made Luther a “bad catholic.” Peter Kreeft- a Protestant convert to the RCC- makes a convincing point that Luther was one of the better Catholics in history. I still believe we are subject to considerable revisionism to make Luther the great advocate of Protestant denominationalism. But we may disagree. I probably agree more with what you’ve written so far than anyone on the blog.

The illusionist “preached” the revival meeting in our church this weekend.

I will be sharing some interesting things that I “learned” from this preacher this weekend.

1. There will be people who go to Hell because of my sin.

2. Victorious Christian living is not the result of willpower, but the initial act of salvation is.

One more note:

The Emperor’s New Groove: Paca actually has 2 1/2 kids – his wife (ChiCha) is pregnant. Also, although it doesn’t appear so, Emperor Kuzco is actually approaching his 18th birthday (he needed to pick a bride – “Let’s take a look see. (1st) Hate your hair, (2nd) Not likely, (3rd, 4th and 5th) Yikes, Yikes, Yikes, (6th) and let me guess, you have a great personality.”). Technically, he’s a teenager whose parents (father at least) are gone.

And the loopy purple fish is actually a blue tang by the name of Dory.

And yes, Married With Children is more family friendly because Al Bundy rules. Thank you.