Jonathan Wood
Send a Message
Web Presence
Last Active:
October 29, 2008Relationship Status
Highschool
College
Interests
Bands/Artists
Movies
Books
Other Website
New Endeavour
February 17, 2007So 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.
Boo-boop-ah-doop...WHOOP!
February 12, 2007So 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!
That was a little long...
February 11, 2007So 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?
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.
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).
Now, I want to address the last post…
1.
2. Abuse from Calvinists
3. Issues with the beliefs themselves
1. Forget
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.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.
Exodus 7:3 – "And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the lands of
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.
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.
Calvinism is not stupid
February 11, 2007Sorry...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.

