user: pass:

Jonathan Wood



Send a Message

Web Presence


Email

Last Active:

October 29, 2008

Relationship Status

Highschool

College

Interests

Brittany, music, theology, philosophy

Bands/Artists

I will listen to anything and everything but most rap

Movies

The Godfather Trilogy, Mission: Impossible, Unbreakable, A Beautiful Mind, The Departed

Books

Heart of Darkness, the Bible

Other Website

123 total entries
« Previous123456789 ... 232425Next »

New Endeavour

So I had an idea for a slightly humorous, mostly satirical essay-ish thing called "WWJD? - What Would Jesus Decide?" in which I would debate different voting methods for the Christ assuming that He was around for the election in 2008.  I think that it shall be fun.

After discussing this with a few people, I also want to write a sequel about in which denomination Jesus would find his "church home."  I figured, "Hey, I spend most of my time complaining about and making fun of politics and Christianity, so why not make a marginally organized effort to create something slightly enjoyable?"

I'll get to it in a few years, I'm sure.
1 remark
Quick Remark:

Boo-boop-ah-doop...WHOOP!

So it's 4am and I'm still awake-ish.  That sucks.  On brighter notes, University of Memphis beat Tulane by 44 points on Saturday, I played my song at church last night (went much better than I expected, plus a few other musicians chipped in), and I've completed/satisfied ~10 of my new year's resolutions.  >:-)

Hoorah!
1 remark
Quick Remark:

That was a little long...

So I just wrote this as a comment, but it's difficult to read because it's a little long and weird formatted, so here it is again:


Now, for my disclaimer – I am not an Armenian, nor am I a
Calvinist.  I just don't like it when
people say "A is/isn't B" but do not support it in a satisfactory manner.



Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV says "For by grace are ye saved
through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: Not of works,
lest any man should boast." Let's dissect this passage:

1. "For by grace are ye saved" - we are saved by God's grace

2. "through faith" - it is because of our faith that we can be saved
by God's grace

3. "and that not of yourselves" - the "that" in this phrase
is a pronoun; its antecedent is the nearest noun "faith." "Faith
not of yourselves" tells us that the faith we have to have in order to
partake of God's grace did not come from us

4. "it is the gift of God" - the pronoun "it" also needs an
antecedent; "faith" is still the closest PROBABLE choice (yourselves
is closer, but just doesn't make sense), so it should then be read "faith
is the gift of God." Do we ask for gifts (if not slightly spoiled; I know
I sure do)? Not typically.

5. "Not of works" - What isn't of works? Time for another switcheroo:
"Not of works are ye saved." We are not saved because of anything we
do.

6. "lest any man should boast" - Since humans don't do anything, we
have no right to brag.

So what do these verses tell us? In a nutshell, Eph. 2: 8-9 say "God saves
you, not you, so don't brag." If God does save us, then, do we have the
free will to choose Him?

Now I'm going to state a few points, then support them afterward...
 

1. Those who are saved are saved by God.

2. To be saved by God is a choice made by God.

3. God made this choice before the creation of the world.

1. As above, my summary of Ephesians 2:8-9 is that God saves us. End of point.

2. Romans 3:10-11 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."
It's pretty cut and dry -  no human in his natural sinful state desires or looks for God. That would mean that, if there is salvation, God comes looking for us.


3. God is perfect and unchanging, not an anthropomorphic God who was created in our image; he is an eternal being (exists outside of the system of Time which He created).  If God is not bound by time, then when He makes a choice "in-time" in 2004, it's the same as if He made it in 1904, 4, 4000, or before time was created. This is because, to Him, there is no time.  It's just our observation of change in our realm; He's outside of it.  Don't like that answer? Here's another one to chew on:

Romans 9:11 - " (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)" This verse is talking about how God had chosen Jacob over Esau to continue the Jewish bloodline. God chose Jacob in a few different ways listed here:

1. "being not yet born" - Jacob was chosen for his purpose before
being born

2. "neither having done any good or evil" – nothing Jacob had done
would have affected/recommended him to God for any reason.

We are then told why: "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth" Many people, when I tell them God chooses before they're born say things to the effect of "that's unfair." Paul had the same thing in Romans.


9:14 - "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God
forbid." Claiming that God is unfair is claiming that God is fallible,
therefore non-perfect.  Still, it does seem a bit harsh that a loving God would willingly send billions of people to hell, does it not? The real question we should ask, though, is why a just God would send millions or billions to heaven. We all deserve hell, but He showed some of us mercy. So what is the answer to these questions?

It is a generally accepted principle (due to catechisms from multiple faiths), though I honestly do not have a full scriptural basis on this one at the moment (I'll have to look into it some more, so bear with me on this one) that man's purpose is to bring glory to God.  Anyway, assuming this to be true, then the answer to those questions is similar to this purpose. God is glorified in both sending people to heaven (Romans 9:23) AND sending people to hell (Romans 9:22).

As for Calvinists not understanding your Armenian views, I went to a nice little independent Baptist school for 13 years where I was taught, for 13 years, that Calvinism is wrong and has no Biblical basis.  I believe that for several years, but discovered through my own study of the Bible that this isn't entirely true.  I asked teachers about it and the typical reply was "I think you should make sure of your salvation."  But, yes, I do understand where you're coming from, possibly even more than you do.


Now, I want to address the last post…

Reasons against Calvinism:
1. Westboro Baptist Church
2. Abuse from Calvinists
3. Issues with the beliefs themselves


1. Forget Westboro Baptist Church.  Every Calvinist I know (and I've met quite a few) wishes those people would fall off the face of the planet because they're not what the Church is supposed to be.

2. Just because you're berated by people of a particular ideal doesn't mean the ideal is wrong.  If so, from what I said above, then Armenianism is stupid and wrong.  If there's no free will or election, then what is there?  ;)

3. As for the issues…


(a) God is sovereign to the extent that He mandates everything. 
Now, for those of you who really don't understand what that means,
according to the Calvinist, God not only created man, and created good, but He also created evil, suffering, and the whole lot.


(b) On top of that, God makes people sin.  (Yes, I'm serious.) 

(c) God can choose to save all but instead He chooses to save some and condemn those who can do nothing else to change their fate.  Before God calls those select few, those people were totally rebellious to all things good (in theory) and would never have turned to God.  Thus, the elect are basically robots, seeing as how the love I know is predicated upon choice.


(a) Let's assume that God does not know everything.  Then you make sense.  Now, I'm going to work off of the assumption that God does know everything (part of being eternal, see above) because that's what I believe is supported by scripture.  If God knows that something will happen, then it will happen, no?  Let's look especially at prophecies – God says that they're going to happen, so we'd better assume that they will.  This is God setting things in stone (as if they weren't already).  Because of his vantage point, everything about human existence is set in stone; we can not change the fate of the world because God already knows what it is.

Now, if God is omniscient, then it stands to reason that He would know of Satan's rebellion and Man's Fall.  Now let's use an analogy.  If you know that if you light a match in a room filled with natural gas that the room will explode, and, being in a room which you know is filled with natural gas, you light the match, did you destroy the room?  It is very hard to argue that you didn't as you very intentionally did.  If God knew what would happen with His reation, did He not destine/fate/elect/doom His creation to this state?  Sounds very intentional to me.  He knew what would happen, He knew what the repercussions would be, He knew exactly what He was doing.

Now, for a little physics – cold = absence of heat; darkness
= absence of light; evil = absence of good; suffering = absence of…well…non-suffering.  These opposites exist in a realm in which
they are allowed to exist.  There was no suffering until God came down after the Fall and said "Now you're gonna suffer; now you're gonna die," in effect.  I'm tired of this train of thought.  I'm moving on.

(b) Depending on how strongly one holds to Calvinism, they may or not believe that.  You are making a generalization.  Either way…

Exodus 7:3 – "And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the lands of Egypt."  God controlled Pharaoh's reactions directly so that He would be more glorified (see far above).

Exodus 7:13 – "And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said."

Exodus 8:22 – "…and Pharaoh's heart was hardened…" and so on
and so forth until Pharaoh died.


Romans 9:15-23 – "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.  So then it is not of him that wileth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.  For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.  Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault?  For who hath resisted his will?  Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?  Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why has thou made me thus?  Hath not the potter power over the
clay; of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?  What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory."  I'm not going to say anything else on this one for now.

(c) As I said before, there is the whole "none that seeketh after God" verse.  Also, we've got the nifty verse talking about how "many are called, few are chosen" and such things.

Frankly, I'm a little burned out at the moment.  I just got up about half an hour ago and still need to take a shower and such, so I'm off for now.



2 remarks
Quick Remark:

Calvinism is not stupid

Sorry...usually I don't get too irritated by people who are irrational about certain religious belief structures, but there is one that kind of got to me - a post saying, simply, that Calvinism is stupid.

Calvinism, being an organized structure of ideas, can not be stupid.  Either (a) the ideas are stupid, or (b) Calvinists are stupid, but never (c) Calvinism is stupid.

(a) the ideas are stupid - the ideas contained in Calvinism are some of the most logical and Biblically-supported religious ideas we have today.  Many of the greatest theological minds agreed with many or all of the tenets of Calvinism (like, say, John Calvin, John Wycliffe, Martin Luther, etc.).  To say that these ideas are stupid is to say that the scriptures from which they were derived are stupid.  Now, if someone says that the Bible is stupid, then that's their own thing; this, however, is not the case with this monologue.  I am directing this at a Bible-believing Christian (whether or not you are one is irrelevant; I'm simply not writing to you).  So, either the Bible is stupid or Calvinists are stupid.  I'm going to assume that it would be decided that the Bible is not stupid.

(b) Calvinists are stupid - I'm sorry...what?  The tenets of Calvinism are supported with more or less strength by exegetical study of the Bible.  The tenets of Armenianism (the relative opposite of Calvinism) are not - they are derived from eisegetical viewpoints.  If you'd like a Biblical discussion, I'm fully open to that; I haven't had one in a good while.  Otherwise, don't even try pulling this one; I'll flat out tell you that Calvinists are not stupid.  Not to say that some aren't...I know a few stupid Calvinists, and I know some brilliant ones.  'Nuff said.

(c) Calvinism is stupid - as outlined above, no.

That's all I've got for now.  It's 3:30 am, and I've got church in a few hours.
1 remark
Quick Remark:

Dammit all again...

Okay, so I was looking at American Idol information tonight to see what the basic schedule is like; I was completely wrong about how the auditions take place.  What they make look like a 2-day affair for the auditions is actually a week-long process.  I can't take a week off of school for this, so my only option would be to take a semester off in anticipation of the tryouts.  I can't do that, either.  So I'm either going to have to do one of two things I can't do or figure something else out.  Time for some more of one of my favorite things: re-evaluation.
2 remarks
Quick Remark:
123 total entries
« Previous123456789 ... 232425Next »

my friends


my pix


advert