Cold As Ice

 One of the little conundrums (of which there are many) associated with walking a life pleasing to Jesus is: how should I feel about those who reject the gospel? One's reaction will probably vary based on factors such as:  corporate (the unsaved generally) vs personal (those you have actually shared the gospel with), and whether you have an affinity toward someone (let's face it, some we witness to are likeable; some aren't).

Any of us who have read of heroes of the faith have undoubtedly come across those who describe intense sadness at the thought of lost souls. Those saints whose "hearts ache or weep" at the thought of those heading to perdition. While any Believer (at least this one) could not find fault with such intense passion, they (at least this one) could find themselves feeling a bit lacking. I'm reluctant (but that's never stopped me before) to try to measure this emotion but let me try an illustration such as a thermometer. 100 degrees being a burning passion for lost souls; 32 degrees, not so much. I'm not saying that I have a heart of ice in this regard, but I would probably need at least a hoodie. My wife could probably get by in a polo, and some of the most passionate in this arena would need 24/7 a/c as they are burning so hot for the lost. Of course, as Believers we have many views and non-essential theological issues where we converge and diverge. At the end of the day, we are still different at the human level based on nature and nurture, so we need not panic. More reassuringly, the Bible doesn't demand we feel a certain way toward reprobates (that lets me off the hook). Of course, we are to behave a certain way; with love.

Saying we are to behave lovingly doesn't negate some pretty strong directives when it comes to those who reject your offer to share the Good News (i.e., "I don't want to even hear it. Do your Bible beating somewhere else"), or let you share, then reject the actual Gospel. Either way, it's "my bad" on them! We're told to shake the dirt from our sandals, have no association with darkness, and other such passages that reflect the tenor of Matthew 7:6. This is not license to ridicule or generally be unkind, but I believe it frees us from going around in sackcloth and ashes for those who reject the free offer of Christ. On an intellectual level I feel authentic pity for them, and, if truth be told (redundant for this blog), there is emotional distress when kith or kin I feel affectionate toward harden their hearts. However, I also can feel amazed and angry. Amazed that anyone would not seriously consider and accept Christ's offer. Angry that they are an enemy of God. Choose this day who you will serve. If you don't choose Christ, directly or indirectly you have chose Baal; we are now in separate camps and mortal (and eternal) enemies. 

Another reality that takes the edge off my angst toward those who reject Christ is that they did it to their own dang self! Calvinism aside (where it should stay), salvation is all of God; damnation is all of us. Most importantly, no one is elected to damnation. Whosoever means just what any clear-thinking person (saved or not) thinks it means: ANYONE. All are called. Not all heed the call. So, it's kind of hard for me to get worked up over those who get what they want. They don't want God now, tomorrow, or ever. Okay, a loving God does not force anyone against their will to love Him in return. So, in a weird, distorted way (often my trump card), one could argue that one should be happy that reprobates are getting what they desire, life apart from God and his constraints. It's as though our feeble human emotions of happiness and sadness shouldn't even apply when it comes to salvation and damnation. There isn't a happiness strong enough to apply to eternity with God, and there isn't a sadness strong enough to apply to the converse. Maybe it's a protective measure for me to just stay in the realm of facts in this situation; try to stay emotionally detached. I can certainly relish the joy that comes with the realization of my salvation, and that of my immediate family (it actually can be a selling point when sharing the Gospel) as it highlights that in addition to eternity with Christ, you can have your best life now (pun totally intended).

Similarly, as in trying to reconcile God's sovereignty and human freewill; I have to just let it go. My finite mind will never understand how the knowledge of untold numbers of people eternally damned doesn't make one crazy with worry or lament, especially when it's inevitable that some of them will be people you had fond feelings for in this life. I guess part of the reason we can cope with these realities is that God loves all of us and would have none go astray. But his love compels Him to allow us to reciprocate or reject this love. Forced love is an oxymoron. For those that are turned into "emotional wrecks" at the thought of the perishing sinner; I suppose that is their cross to bear. Conversely, maybe some of them are made more fervent witnesses because of this trait and they can be admired for it. But, not everyone is wired to withstand that load. Thankfully, God seems to find a niche for all who say, "Here am I Lord...", and all of us can contribute to the Kingdom in our small way.

Feel the Burn!

 The great body builder Ronnie Coleman once said, "Everybody wants to be a bodybuilder, but nobody wants to lift no heavy-ass weights". Well, in a similar vein I've found that everybody wants to be a Christian, but nobody wants to talk about no judgmental Jesus. It may be a bit of an overstatement, but certainly true to a degree. Especially as it applies to "celebrity Christians" (almost an oxymoron in my book) such as athletes and Hollywood types. They are quick to thank God (sometimes even Jesus) for their success and acknowledge how "blessed" they are (am I the only one who finds "Blessed" t-shirts highly annoying?). But, don't hold your breath waiting for them to condemn the sinful lifestyles and attitudes rampant in their respective industries. That's not surprising emanating from those living the lifestyles of the rich and famous, as it is virtually impossible to attain those wordly trifles without compromising your faith.

But, my concern and experience has demonstrated that we, the "common folk" display many of the same tendencies (myself included). Having gone to Protestant churches for over 20 years has exposed me to pathetically few deep theological discussions; especially as it relates to the wrath of God. I take some responsibility here for not at least broaching the subject when there was opportunity, or not putting myself in more situations where I may have heard such discussion. Typically, the small talk at church was no different than anywhere else. Sure, you wouldn't here profanity or God's name taken in vain (no small thing), but the content was pretty much the same rhetoric concerning weather, politics, sports, health; you name it. Additionally, often enough a complaining tone was heard, as opposed to that of an Overcomer. Just a Clearplay version of wordlings around the water cooler. 

I imagine that's a big reason why I've never been a fan of "small talk". I'm that way by nature, but it has only become more ingrained the longer I walk with the Lord. Sure, there is a time and place for small talk, but it seems for many, all the time and anyplace is appropriate. Especially if the same folks are playing the same "broken record" every time you cross paths. I'm not down on them or judging them, but don't mistake my disinterest as rudeness. I will smile and greet you, but respect my choice to not stand around talking just to talk. On the other hand, I'm always willing to have deeper discussions about meatier issues, but this can't be done in 10 second sound bites. And society by and large lives on 10 second sound bites (even the church) as we've been programmed by Twitter and others to "spit it out" and move on. Again, I recognize my role in this and realize I have to up my game. Too often, even in "Christian" circles I'm afraid to come across as "holier than thou", so I don't even attempt it. Or, I assume that the parties won't be interested. Maybe like me, they're waiting for someone else to get the ball rolling. 

The old adage is to keep the peace you never discuss sex, politics, or religion. Ironically, we Christians need to discuss these things; peace or no peace. With the definition of a woman confounding so many, Biden and his freak show in the White House, and our own Downgrade Controversy in the contemporary church; how is there time to talk about anything else?! I want to know where others in church around me stand on these issues; I don't much care about their stance on sports or vacation spots. I want to know where they stand on adultery, fornication, homosexuality, alcohol, gambling, repentance, holiness. Not because I'm waiting to judge them (God has already done that; He knows), but because how I relate to them depends on whether they are sheep or goats. Of course, sermons that feed the sheep and cause the goats to squirm are helpful. We attend a good church with expository preaching that appears to be theologically sound (I say appears, as we have only been there a couple years and that isn't always enough time to be sure). For sure, an increased emphasis on repentance and the evidence of sanctification would "thin out the herd" a bit on Sundays. So be it. 

I'll never be a small talk guy, for sure. But I'm definitely more comfortable pulling it off with those who take the Word of God seriously and live their lives accordingly. I realize I need to put a couple more "plates" on the weight bar of my witness and push through to some of these topics. I'll never be a Ronnie Coleman when it comes to weights and I'll never be a John MacArthur when it comes to Bible teaching, but I can challenge myself to be the best Christian man I can. Just as more iron in the weight room spurs on muscle growth; iron sharpening iron in the discussion room, spurs on spiritual growth.

Tiptoe through the T.U.L.I.P.

 For various reasons, I never intended to write on Calvinism. One of the biggest reasons is that I refused to accept the premise that Calvinism is a thing. It's not so weird when you consider that Spurgeon himself did not like the label as he was uncomfortable putting a "label" on what was simply what the Bible says. I have always felt similar. Why use a man's (no less a sinner than the rest of us) name on Biblical truth. If it's in the Bible it needs no such "adornment", if it's not, call it anything you like, because it doesn't concern us. Also, while I'm name dropping, Spurgeon also stated that he felt there was no doubt that he would meet John Wesley in heaven in spite of their polar opposite views on Calvinism and Arminianism. So, what does that tell us? Well, it tells me that far too many people, waste far too much time and energy debating these issues. I would venture to say that Spurgeon's attitude toward Wesley is a tacit admission of the folly of it all! If either of these giants of the faith felt a proper understanding of these issues was crucial to one's salvation; they would have not been timid to say so. I know Spurgeon never did, and I don't think Wesley did either.

A recent epiphany compels me to break my silence on the subject, especially as it relates to the U and L in TULIP; unconditional election/limited atonement. As most Christians, I can get on board with the other letters in the acronym, to a greater or lesser degree, but unconditional election (salvation not available for all) and limited atonement (Christ only died for the elect) are not only the most disagreeable concepts; I'm not convinced they're scripturally without question. I'm not disputing election is in the Bible, the problem comes when knowing when to apply the term properly (i.e., who are the elect). In addition, even if you settle this question in your mind; there is another one just as pondersome: can only the elect be saved? That is to say, you have elect and you have saved; and all elect people are saved, but not all saved people are elect. For instance, if you interpret Israel as the elect, then clearly one doesn't have to be elect to be saved (the Gentiles grafted in, right?).

So, here's the epiphany: if only the elect can be saved, what do you do with the "unelect" who assume they can't be saved and are bound for Hell? Pay close attention. I understand as Believers we are not to assume someone's election or not and share our faith to all. I'm looking at this from a different perspective then I've ever heard. The perspective of the other person's assumption of the state of their relationship to God. If unconditional election/limited atonement are facts, Biblically and otherwise (like gravity), then a reprobate could justify living in willful sin, even to the degree of harming others. Why? Because they could (due to their heinous lifestyle) assume that they're not elect and bound for Hell anyway, so why not do as they please? You might state that not many people know much about Calvinism, let alone TULIP, but there are a lot of unsaved people who have been in enough churches to pick up just enough information to muddle things. Someone who has heard the concept of unconditional election/limited atonement (especially in a passing or superficial manner) could easily fall into a pretty hopeless state. If great minds like Spurgeon and Wesley (amongst many others) can't reach a consensus on this, how can we expect those not as gifted (me and most of the population) to be able convince someone that their stance is wrong? If unconditional election/limited atonement is a thing, it applies to someone; maybe me. The best way to avoid that hindrance to salvation is to not teach it. If you think John 3:16; it's easy.

Going through TULIP, let me illustrate why U and L are problematic over-complications of the Gospel.

Total Depravity: for my money, the most undeniable concept that is supported by the Bible. We're all born hopelessly lost due to Adam's fall. But I tend to side with those that don't equate total depravity with an inability to respond to the Holy Spirit.

Unconditional Election: kind of a mixed bag on this one. God showers us with unmerited Grace; not based on any conditions we meet. However, the Arminian view that God through his omniscience knows who will choose and therefore they are elect (conditional) is plausible.

Limited Atonement: Don't buy that God's atonement is limited in any way (intent or effect). He intended it for all and it's effectual for all, but you have to accept the gift.

Irresistible Grace: Again, can go either way depending on definitions, but lean toward ability to reject God.

Perseverance of Saints: If total depravity is the one I'm most convinced of, this is the one where I'm most ambivalent, because either God keeps us or we "run the race" to the end, and we're good. It's a win/win.

The common denominator between T,I,and P is that they don't question God's love for all mankind as U and L do (strictly interpreted). We're all totally depraved (T), so we start from the same point. No favoritism here. Whether God's Grace is irresistible (I) or not is also universal. It's one or the other for everyone. However, if God's Grace is irresistible, we can only be referring to particular grace (elect). If common grace were irresistible, all would be saved (universalism). Based on these observations; grace is resistible. Perseverance (P) is another easy one in my view. If you're a true Believer, God will "automatically" keep you unto salvation, or if a Believer must work out their salvation (works/fruit required) I'm okay with that as any true convert who loves the Lord will keep his commandments. But unconditional election and limited atonement are two sides of the same coin and are at odds with the "whosoever" of John 3:16. And, if you're not one of the "whosoever", T,I, and P are moot. If you're not elect (saved as part of those atoned for, limited), then it doesn't matter whether you're depraved, able to resist Grace, or persevere. Essentially, the only concepts that are worth debating are U/L, because if they are true, then the others are just superfluous fluff. Even if they aren't true TIP are really still more word games or mental gymnastics, then solid Biblical essentials one must accept totally. One could take the view that man is mostly depraved, able to resist God's offer, and could lose their salvation; and still believe that Jesus "so loves the world". Accepting U/L makes believing in a loving God a tough sell, especially focusing on L. U is more palatable if you believe that the saved can be classified into two categories: the elect, and the non-elect; which I do based on the following copied verbatim from a comparison chart on Calvinism/Arminianism:

Irresistible Grace or Effectual Calling - in addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The external call (which is made to all without distinction, can be, and often is, rejected; whereas the internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected: it always results in conversion. By means of this special call the spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ.

Did you notice the word, often, above? Stating that external calling often is rejected, is also saying, sometimes it is accepted. Ipso facto, you have two categories of saved people; those who must respond to inward calling (elect), and those who choose to respond to external calling (saved, but not elect).

So, there it is: my two-cents worth on Calvinism. Which, like anything else I've read on the subject, is over-priced. It seems like so much fool's gold, as these views are everywhere and seem pretty worthless. It's not enough that everyone who follows Jesus just can't be called those of the Way, or Christians, or anything that labels them as hearers and doers of the Word of God. So we have Lutherans, Protestants, Baptists, etc. If that's not bad enough, we have to further divide along other lines such as Calvinism/Arminianism, and others. Anything that distracts from realizing you are a lost sinner in need of Jesus, who died on the Cross and will

save anyone who believes and repents, is a win for Satan.

In the words of Ferris Bueller, "...isms, in my opinion, are not good". I concur wholeheartedly, especially as it relates to Calvinism/Arminianism.