skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live," Romans 8:13 (NIV)
It is encouraging to me when a counselee tells me they are struggling with the flesh. It is a primary indication that she is truly regenerated and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Those who are not regenerated will have no fight within them for righteousness and purity of heart.
Christians are called to a life of self-denial. We are constantly presented with choices to fulfill our fleshly desires or to deny our fleshly desires. In the Greek, "to deny" means, "to refuse to associate with."
"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, "Titus 2:11-12 (NASB)
We are to refuse to associate with ungodliness and worldly desires any longer. My goal is to help her to see that she must refuse to associate with her old self anymore. She is to turn her back on who she once was (and still is in the flesh) and put it to death by the grace of God and the intention of her will through the power of the Holy Spirit.
From the Scriptures we know that God is holy and that we are called to be holy (1 Peter 1:15-16). This demands a total life transformation in the life of a Believer in Christ because when we came to Christ we were anything but holy and all of our lives reflected that in one way or another. Our flesh ruled us and what we thought about, what we believed, what we desired and how we acted out all of those things was evidence of that fact.
This is why it is so critical to put to death those fleshly deeds done in the body, and why the death must begin by the transforming of the mind.
"Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." Romans 12:1-2 (NASB)
The body is to be a living, breathing representation of the grace of God displayed in our redemption. Our fleshly tent is to reveal on the outside what has taken place on the inside. We are to consider ourselves as subjects of the King to be used in whatever way He decides. For this to be possible, we must be living daily what we possess eternally. Not out of fear or terror of judgment or punishment, but instead as the Scripture says, we are to put to death the deeds of the flesh as our spiritual service of worship! Have you ever considered the death of the flesh, the intention to stop indulging your sinful self, as an act of worship?
I am amazed at how many people look upon secession of sin as some horrible punishment, rather than looking at it as a merciful blessing. The ability to stop indulging the flesh is a wonderful thing available "only" to those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit for only we have the power of God within us.
Credit: http://magical-poetry.blogspot.com
For us to understand moral evil from a consistent view we need to understand that it is based in man. Mankind, who is sinful and totally depraved. We need to properly define what man is or should I say what God intended him to be and how he ended up. We must understand mankind's capacities at the moral level as designed by God under the pretext of freewill. As Feinberg states it: We must understand the "constituent ontological parts" of human beings. I will list them as I understand them in a grocery list format.
o A being with the capacity to reason. This capacity varies between individuals (humor intended)
o A being with emotions
o A being with a will that is free or they are free to make choices
o A being with desire(s)
o A being with intentions (formed from desires and/or reason)
o A being with the ability to move around
o A being that wasn't intended to be like every other of its type.
The best conclusion that can be made is that human beings were created with an intention that they were to be finite (not gods) both metaphysically and morally. God appears to have intended to create humans, not Gods or super-humans. We were to go through our life in non-glorified bodies. What we must also keep in mind is that even though mankind became subject to the Fall, the Fall did not negate the features originally built into the human race as listed above. They only became distorted or knocked out of order and made dysfunctional. On top of these facts we must also understand that God does not cause our actions nor does he perform them. As stated multiple times in this paper, human beings do them of their own volition and are responsible for their actions even though God can work through them whether they are evil or good (Feinberg "Many Faces of Evil" 167-170).
So how does evil arise in this system of thought or this reality? The Book of James does a nice job addressing this question and it warrants quoting.
"Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. James 1:13-15"
According to God through His inspired word we see that moral evils come from human desires. We see in James 1:15 that somewhere between the conception of the idea entering the head of the human and an actual act, the human's attraction to moral evil becomes so overwhelming that that person commits an act based on the thought that had its inception in their head. This absolutely squares with what Jesus said at the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5.
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:27-28"
It has been posed to me in some of my reading and some of my classes in Valley Forge Christian College that desires themselves are not bad. God gave humanity things like sexual desires and a freedom of choice. They allow for good plurality, good diversity, etc...no everyone likes their coffee black and a black 66 GTO Tempest with a red interior. What we often forget though is that God also gives us a moral standard to live by and to do anything other than follow that moral standard is disobedience. So what we see is: Desire is okay in God's creation and/or the plan God intended for things in His creation. It is after the Fall that we see a twisting of the original intended order and the misappropriation or misuse of the desires God gave mankind. Desire becomes evil/sin when the intent of the heart of a person committing an action is in direct violation to God's ordinances/moral codes. When actions come into conflict with God they become sin and/or moral evil. What I have purposely avoided so far in this portion on moral evil is direct implication and accusation of the devil and his acolytes. As humans we must first be assured that evils that are being perpetrated are not immediately cast on or blamed on "evil spirits". To me this is often just a deferral of blame and an unwillingness to take responsibilities for one's actions. We know for a fact from Scripture that the devil and his helpers are limited and finite in power and number. They are not omnipresent and omniscient. Logic dictates that if this is true they cannot be in all places at once so...they cannot always be responsible for my own or an individual's regress into sin which was my/their own choice. Once we have deduced that evil or decisions for evil by humans were not wholly their own or not theirs at all, it is then that we should begin to implicate the "powers and principalities, or evil spirits" that are clearly at work (deviously) in this world. We know from repeated narrative in the Bible that this happens quite often.
To assure that I do not go off on a tangent I would like to abbreviate and conclude this portion on moral evil refuting the idea that, since God is sovereign and all-powerful, He should stop moral evil in the world. This would be impossible from a logistical point of view and still allow man to have free will. It would also erase all traces of humanity and choice from mans universe thereby making it a monochrome hell.
* The first option open to God is to remove or eliminate human beings. This is clearly not beneficial to humanity and is not in harmony with the pattern outlined thus far from Scripture when dealing with God, God's purposes and His creation.
* Second, God could eliminate all objects of desire. There would then be no desire for humanity. This would be in direct contradiction to the nature that God created man. God create man to work in Eden. The implication here is that God inbred or made intrinsic to man a desire to work. This will not fly either in terms of logic or based in a Biblical worldview.
* Third, we see the need to eliminate all human desires. Again, this is counter to God's initial creation which is a being created with desire and an ability to choose. What I believe we begin to see when we combine the second and the third idea though is a shadow of what is to come in the Kingdom as outlined and prophesied in Revelation 21 and 22.
* Another plausible explanation for the use of desire to a good end is this. God could allow desires to exist but enact a system in which they can exist where they will not be aroused to the point of producing evil. If they can be aroused to that extent have a checks and balances system that allows for negation of the ill effects or minimizations of said evil. In other words: A system of redemption, repentance. This is what we see as the modus operandi of the Bible. God creates a creature capable of free will (in His image). Some of these beings go "rogue". God in His omnipotence and sovereignty allows these rogues and anomalies in His system to: (1) use it to help fix the system and (2) allow free will to continue to exist and still have a system in place to save those who sin (everybody) from their own actions thereby bringing God glory on all accounts.
It is a Win-Win for God and a Win or Lose for mankind based on the outcome of their own salvational choice.
Origin: http://lilith-dark-moon.blogspot.com
I have been blogging this week about the wonderful grace of God in the life of the Christian.
Yesterday I made some statements that a few have questioned about our freedom because of the grace of God in our lives. The question is, "Well, if all is forgiven and nothing is counted against me can't I just live however I please?" The answer to that is an emphatic "NO!"
I want to be clear when I say that a person who is saved by grace and in indwelt by the Holy Spirit will not carelessly sin or live as they please thinking that God's grace will take care of them. Because there will be no desire to live that way!
Our desires will be conformed to His desires and more and more we will want to do what is right- because it glorifies Him! Once we realize the cost of the grace extended to us, and the generous sacrifice made on our behalf how could we possibly choose to abuse it? Each day becomes a "Thank You" to God as we desire to bring Him glory as a response to what He has done for us.
It truly is in Christ alone my friends. Rejoice in this truth, stop striving, stop fearing, and stop trying to earn God's favor. He loves you ~ always.
"But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many." Romans 5:15 (NKJV)
It is a testimony to our sinful condition without Christ that it is so very glorifying to Him to be our savior.
Grace is given to us because it glorifies God to do so, not because we are deserving or special or worthy.
It is a marvelous thing it is that God chooses to bring Himself glory by saving horrible sinners. Our unholiness demanded a stiff redemption price- the blood of Christ. Our unholiness is the reason we need grace unto salvation. We are completely and totally unworthy of what we have received.
It is in seeing our unworthiness that we can begin to have a glimpse of just exactly why we are to demonstrate grace to those who have hurt "us" so deeply. In those painful relationships - when grace is displayed to one who is undeserving- it may not make one bit of difference in how we are treated.
What we will experience is freedom.
Origin: http://pagan-magic.blogspot.com
It seems that many cultures have some concept relating to a person's purpose or destiny in life, and in American paganism and its many sub-branches these culture specific terms tend to get used interchangeably, often equated to the term "fate". Fate, of course, is the idea of a predestined or predetermined outcome in life which cannot be altered or affected by human action. Many Greek tragedies, such as Oedipus, are based on this idea which is personified in Greek mythology by the Moreia (the Fates) who create the "thread" of a person's fate, measure it, and cut it at death. Loving semantics as much as I do, I feel the need to point out that the terms equated to fate are not actually equivalent to each other and in fact often have very specific nuanced meanings. I thought it might be good to write about some of the most commonly used words and how I personally understand them, although I have to be clear that this is purely my own viewpoint; I am no expert. However I think even an amateur attempt at explaining the different terms could be helpful and also could provoke some great thought and discussion. I do want to stress though that this is my own understanding of the concepts, based on my research and study.
First let's look at the most common term: karma. At this point there are two very different ways to understand karma, which may be labeled the Eastern and Western views. The term itself is from Saskrit and means "action" and is a concept found in both Hinduism and Buddhism; this is what I refer to as Eastern karma. Effectively karma is a neutral principle, the result of the sum total of our actions in this life and previous incarnations. Karma is what directs the circumstances under which we will next reincarnate.
We can affect our own karma by choosing the actions we take, because all action inherently creates karma, but karma works on a cosmic scale. I like to think of (Eastern) karma as something like painting; each and every color choice and brush stroke, i.e. action, effects the end result. In contrast Western karma takes a more immediate approach, espousing the idea that karma works on a small, fast scale with the effects of our actions appearing not only within our lifetime, but also sometimes in the same day as the action. The Western view also sees karma as a moral principle, with "good" and "bad" karma based on actions. At its simplest this can be illustrated by saying if you do good, good will happen to you and if you do bad, bad will happen to you, rather like a spiritual ATM - put money in get money out, overdraw your account get charged fees. The most common view of this principle works entirely on the idea of an inherent good and bad value system to all actions, and is supported by the idea that either karma itself is a semi-sentient force or that the Gods enforce it. A less common view
Next we have the concept of wyrd. Wyrd is an Anglo-Saxon word, corresponding to the Norse urd, and means, roughly, "to come to pass" or "becoming"; related to this is the concept of orlag, meaning "from the law". As it was explained to me, orlag is the sum total of our past actions as well as those of our ancestors - we are born with a fixed orlag based on what has come to pass before our birth. Orlag effects all creation, including the Gods and spirits, as well as people. To quote Bauschatz: "This past includes the actions of all beings who exist within the enclosing branches of Yggdrasil: men, gods, giants, elves, etc.. it is such actions that form the layers or strata that are daily laid in the well by the speaking of the orlag. The coming into the well is orderly and ordered; events are clearly Wyrd and orlag are both flexible and fixed; like water flowing in a river and the bed of the river itself. The river bed shapes where the river flows and directs the water but the water can change the shape of the river bed. So it is with wyrd - we shape our wyrd by our choices but our wyrd creates orlag which in turn directs our lives. Some people argue that orlg and wyrd are the same concept, and that may be so, I just find that it is easier to grasp them as separate but interlinked concepts. The analogy of weaving is often used to describe wyrd, and I tend to see wyrd as the weft and orlag as the warp. Freewill is an important aspect of wyrd, as we always have choices on how to act within the circumstances we find ourselves in.
D'an is an Irish word that translates as "fate" - and also as gift, offering, craft, calling, and poem (O Donaill, 1977). It is a complex term but is often understood as the fate or destiny that a person is born with. There is a saying that goes "A man won't drown whose d'an is to hang" that illustrates this idea that d'an is inexorable and inescapable. This term out of all of the ones we are looking at most closely resembles the Greek idea of fate, although the Irish appear to have lacked the personification aspect of fate seen in the Greek.
Even if we just look at the roots of each word we can see that there are differences in there meanings. Karma comes from the I-E root of kwer which means to do; wyrd comes from the root wert which means to turn or rotate; fate is from the root bha which means voice (I couldn't track down the I-E root of d'an). Each root meaning connects logically to the modern meaning I think, and shows the subtle differences between the terms.
While I can see why it is easier to use the simple equivalents when discussing the different terms I believe that it is better to understand the nuanced meanings of each term. Each one has its own layers and depth which reflect the culture and world view from which they came, and for modern pagans more can be gained by using them properly than by reducing them all to a Greek concept of fate. There is also a wealth of understanding to be gained by studying each term, in depth, individually, which I encourage people to do if the subject interests them.
References:
Bauschatz, P., (1982) The Well and the Tree: World and Time in Early Germanic Culture
O Donaill, N., (1977) Focloir Gaeilge-Bearla
Morgan Daimler is a blogger, poet, teacher of esoteric subjects, Druid, dedicant of Macha, and wandering priestess of Odin.
Tags: barack obama koran nbc new another point of view winter solstice moon how to heal depressi amhain sabbat ritual twelve prominent jewish anti the single cause of atheism is christian
By Scott Petullo and Stephen Petullo
We've interacted with thousands through our work and often ask people if they believe in the concept of karma. Karma is simply defined as what goes around comes around, meaning you reap exactly what you sow, including (and perhaps mostly) rewards and challenges from past life actions.
About 60% say they do believe in karma, 15% say they don't know, and about 25% say they don't believe in it. We've concluded that those who don't accept the concept of karma appear to reject it for one or more of the following three main reasons:
1) Some are simply more analytical, rational, of the if-I-can't-see-it-it's-nonexistent frame of mind and need proof. They don't have a good reason to accept it, so they're rejecting for now.
2) Some have misconceptions about the concept. They may mistakenly feel that karma is all about punishment, and since they don't believe a higher power would punish people, they reject what they perceive karma to be.
Our work has convinced us that karma is not about punishment, but a spiritual law of energy; whatever you do and say, both "good" and "bad," will return to you, even if you don't believe that it will. This really is a universe of justice, but it understandably doesn't seem that way to those who focus only on the circumstances of this lifetime.
It's also common for people to think that karma only happens immediately, in this lifetime, but it often takes more than a lifetime to balance itself out. For example, it was not "his karma to be dumped" just because he broke up with someone else a year before. The act of breaking up with someone, by itself, does not incur negative karma unless it's done in a negative way.
Another misunderstanding about karma is that many don't realize that the more you try to balance karma yourself through negative actions, the more negative karma you'll create for yourself.
Does that sound like too passive of a disposition to you? There's nothing passive about changing what you can and letting go of what you can't change, or that is not your right to change.
Yet another misconception about karma is that due to your subconscious and super-conscious self (soul, or spiritual self) being beyond your conscious personality, simply forgiving yourself or confessing your sins won't eliminate your karma. While doing so, your higher-self is smiling and shaking its head, saying, "That's one more circumstance you'll have to experience directly from the receiving end in a future life."
3) Another reason some reject the concept of karma is that they seem to have great difficulty in taking complete responsibility for their actions, would rather maintain a victim-consciousness, or refuse to admit the reality of their behavior. This group of people is likely to be in denial about things they've done or said and don't want to face the possibility that they will eventually need to experience directly what they've inflicted upon others. No matter how good someone is at justifying their actions and convincing themselves of their own lies, they still must face the music of the karma they generate at some point in the future.
These types of people are less likely to do "the right thing" in all situations, especially when no one is looking. They assume, incorrectly, that if no one catches them, they can get away with anything. Based on our past life regression and astrology and numerology charting work, we've found that the eyes of truth really are always watching all of us, at all times.
What is doing "the right thing," you ask? Ultimately, it's treating others as you want to be treated.
But it's not easy to fathom exactly how karma functions through traditional, earth-bound thinking.
A good way to envision how karma works is to imagine a spiritual tie to everything you say or do, like an invisible, indestructible golden link that only detaches itself from you once you finally balance, often unknowingly, the energy. Each time you're born, your soul is still attached to all the golden links from previous incarnations and you deal with some of them directly in the current life according to what your soul planned before incarnating.
Whether or not you believe in karma, don't do or not do something just because you "should," or "shouldn't." Remind yourself you're doing the right thing because you don't want to deal with the repercussions at a later time, and more importantly, because we're all in this together.
Copyright (c) Scott Petullo, Stephen Petullo
Scott Petullo and Stephen Petullo are identical twins and have been exploring metaphysics since the early 1980's. They are experts in the fields of prediction, personal fate, love life, and past life regression, and are natural psychics and mediums. Get their free report: 13 Spiritual and New Age Myths and 11 Questions to Ask Before Hiring a Psychic.
Tags: goddess concordi invocations benediction crosses handmade crosse goddess darza mate unday mass obligation heepfold
Calvinism is much bigger than the so-called "Five Points" - also known as TULIP. Calvinism should not be limited in definition to the "Five Points": this is just its soteriology. Calvinists are a diverse group, but the Five Points represents their shared doctrine of Salvation. I personally prefer the term "Augustinianism" because it points to the fact that the Doctrines of Grace were not invented by Calvin and the Reformers. But even "Augustinianism" is a bit misleading. I like Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones' remark: "We should not talk about 'Calvinism'; it is Paul's teaching."1 Those familiar with the history of the Reformed Church know that the Five Points as we know them, were formally developed in response to the theological crisis of Arminianism.
In 1610, a group of Dutch Protestant followers of James Arminius, known as the "Remonstrants," presented to the States General a "Remonstrance" that exposed their divergence from Calvinism. The matter was brought before the Synod of Dort (1618-1619), which was an international assembly called by the States General of The Netherlands in order to investigate the trouble. The Synod consisted of 35 pastors and elders from the Netherlands, five university professors from the Netherlands, 18 deputies from the States General and 27 foreign delegates. Besides Erastianism and anticonfessional humanism, the Synod had to deal with the fundamental Christian doctrine of Predestination. The Synod upheld the Augustinian doctrines of sin and grace and therefore declared the Remonstrants to be in doctrinal error. Arminianism was not tolerated in Europe until 1795. The "Five Points" were the Synod's reply to the specific discrepancies of the Arminian theology.
But I would suggest that there are three foundational truths adhered to rigorously by all Calvinists worthy of the name - and these are the undergirding basis of the Five Points. They are: 1. God's Sovereignty; 2.The Divine Decrees; and 3. Soli Deo Gloria. I see these three truths presented in this order in Job 23:13-15.2 Verse 13 tells us that no one can hinder God's free exercise of His sovereign authority. Verse 14 informs us that God has decreed everything that happens. And Verse 15 tells of the fear and awe we should have in the presence of God's glory. We discuss these three foundational truths in turn.
* The Sovereignty of God:
Nothing irks Calvinists more than the way in which all other doctrinal systems appear to disregard, downplay or bring into disrepute the sovereignty of Almighty God. If we assume, as the Scriptures plainly do, that God is sovereign, we cannot remove any one of the Five Points without assailing God's character and His very nature. This is why virtually all anti-Arminian polemic starts with a defense of God's sovereignty. God's sovereignty means that He is subject to no one and He is influenced by no one. God does as He pleases, only as He pleases, always as He pleases. No one can thwart Him and no one can hinder him. Scripture is replete with declarations to this effect.Spurgeon preached, "There is no doctrine more hated by worldlings, no truth of which they have made such a football, as the great, stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the Sovereignty of the infinite Jehovah."4 By this, he meant the way in which Divine sovereignty and human responsibility are usually pitted against each other as if they were utterly and absolutely incompatible. Besides the fact that this impugns the intellect of God by assuming that He is not smart enough to create morally responsible rational beings without confuting His own plans, it ignores the plain fact that Scripture teaches that man's responsibility is based on God's sovereignty.5
Arminians accuse Calvinists of believing that men are merely robots who mindlessly do whatever is foreordained for them to do. They then proceed to argue that this makes God unjust if He punishes men for doing that which they have no choice about. This argument is false on many counts. First of all, it is what philosophers call a 'category mistake,' viz., applying the features and limitations of one thing to an entirely different category, an un Secondly, it is built upon the notion that Love is the central attribute of God's nature. True, the Bible says that "God is love,6" but it tells us this once, while it tells us the God is holy countless times. This does not mean to suggest that God is holier than He is loving, but that in the grand scheme of things, God willed to theopneustically accentuate His holiness more often than His love. It is assumed that no one can meaningfully love God if they are not absolutely and unconditionally free from any Divine influence. This ignores the Biblical statement that we love God because He first loved us (i.e., His love is the cause of our love)7.
Finally, this is the same objection the Judaizers urged against St. Paul.8 This at least proves that Calvinist soteriology is the doctrine of St. Paul. We are not concerned with solving the issue here, but only with presenting the theological backdrop for the Five Points.
* The Divine Decrees:
By the Divine Decrees we mean the Scriptural doctrine that God has foreordained everything that has or will ever take place in the entire course of the history of the universe. It is only natural that the God who created everything should have a definite plan for the things He created. This plan has many particulars and that is why we speak of decrees in the plural. There is really only one single decree in the mind of God that comprehends all things.
The doctrine of the Divine Decrees plays such a prominent place in Reformed theology that A.W. Pink deals with this subject even before he discusses Divine Sovereignty.9 Berkhof informs us, "Outside of Reformed circles the doctrine of the decrees meets with very little favour. Pelagians and Socinians reject it as un-Scriptural and unreasonable, and Arminians either ignore it altogether, or represent the decrees of God as based on His foreknowledge."10 However, if we deny God's decrees we have to explain away a great deal of Scripture.
We shall only note three specific traits of the decrees as revealed in Scripture.
1. They are all-comprehensive. By this we mean that nothing lies outside their scope. It includes men's good actions,11 their wicked actions,12 contingent events,13 the extent of man's life14 and the place of his habitation.15 In short, all things were planned and purposed by God in the exact way they occur. With regard to sin, God's decree is permissive. This renders the future sinful act certain, but this does not mean that God will bring it to pass by His own act. God decreed not to hinder the sinful act of the creature's self-determination. Nevertheless, He regulates and controls its results.16
2. It is immutable. He never has to give a 'second thought' to any of His decisions. He in ineffably wise and can therefore never make a decision that He will later consider injudicious. He is all-powerful; therefore He never lacks the ability to bring about that which He purposes. God is faithful and true.17
3. It is efficacious. Berkhof describes it this way: "The fact that God made a divine plan does not mean that He has decided to bring to pass by His own act all that is included in it; but it does mean that what He has decided will certainly come to pass, and nothing can thwart His purpose.18 19
This is the reason that Calvinism always places such strong emphasis on Predestination. God is sovereign and as sovereign, He has decreed the conversion and/or perdition of all men. He is sovereign over men's perdition20 and He is sovereign over men's conversion21. God's decree rests upon His sovereignty, not, as the Arminians would have it, upon His foreknowledge. Scripture explicitly tells us that God's foreknowledge is based upon His decree.22 He knows all things because He has decreed that they should be. All things occur by His "determinate council (i.e., His decree) and foreknowledge" - in that order.
* Soli Deo Gloria:
Finally, Calvinism is committed to the glory of God. This does not merely mean that we are to consider God's glory as our motivation for all that we do - though this is certainly correct, but it primarily means that His glory is God's motivation for all the He does. Arminians often take offense at the above statement because it seems to them to insinuate that they are not interested in God's glory. But it is true to say that their system does not strive to emphasize God's commitment to His own glory in the same way that classic Calvinism does. Calvin says somewhere that it is unworthy of any theologian to permit people's minds to be occupied with anything but God's glory.
The Scriptures portray God's zeal for His glory as the primary motivation behind all His acts.23 This is why I took issue with the very popular notion that God's love is His central attribute. God's holiness is His glory. How many times does the Bible speak of the "beauty of holiness." By this we mean to say that whenever God acts in any way, His principal impetus is His commitment to His glory before anything else. When God decreed the plan of salvation for His elect, His glory was the first and foremost concern. He did it out of love, but He did it for His glory first! Consider Paul's statement that "every tongue will confess that Christ is Lord, to the glory of God."24 This tells us that the ultimate purpose and plan of God in the salvation of the elect and damnation of the lost is the recognition of Christ's glory - which, since the Son is of one essence with the Father (homoousion), brings glory to the Father as well.
God repeatedly calls Himself, "a jealous God."25 If we ask for what is He jealous, the obvious answer is: His glory. In Exodus 20:5 when God first declares His jealousy, it is in connection with the ban against idolatry. Idolatry is demeaning to God's character in that it suggests that the image is a suitable substitute for the Reality. We are accustomed to viewing jealousy as sinful, but it is because our jealousy is always misdirected. People very seldom are as zealous for God's glory as they are for their own. The few times it has occurred, God has taken special notice of it.26
This is a difficult concept for some people because of the apparent selfishness on God's part in being thus motivated. Human self-centeredness is sinful precisely because it puts self before God. It places the interest of an insignificant, finite worm of a man before the interests of the great, ineffable, inscrutable glory of God Pantokra5twr! In this, it is idolatrous. Likewise, it would be idolatrous (if such a blasphemy could be imagined!) for God to place any of interest before His own. It is an unsullied, utterly wholesome selfishness: it is a commitment to the Greatest, All-Perfect Self: the source of all inferior selves, indeed selfhood itself.
If God is so committed to the advancement and display of His glory, we are quite mistaken if we do not do the same thing. Calvin's own words are, "For, if the glory of God is dear to us, as it ought to be, we ought to struggle with all our might against him who aims at the extinction of that glory."27
In Psalm 19:1, David proclaims, "The heavens declare the glory of God." There are physical phenomena in the design of the universe that absolutely stagger the human imagination. Astrophysicists and cosmologists refer to these marvels as the "anthropic principle." This is a sophisticated way of saying that all of the various design characteristics of the entire universe are so perfectly suited for human life, that this must be the reason behind them. In other words, whether the universe was created by God or simply evolved, it exists in order to support human life. Many non-Christian physicists unashamedly advocate this. One example would be the ratio of the mass of electrons to protons. The ratio is so finely tuned that a change in either direction of 1 in 10 to the 34th power would not permit sufficient chemical bonding.28 To understand these odds we would have to imagine covering a million continents the size of North America in piles of ten centavo coins that reached all the way to the moon. Among these 10 decillion coins, (i.e., 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) there is one with a red spot on it. To match these odds, you would have to draw the coin with the red spot the very first time! These numbers are literally astronomical - no pun intended.29
But it gets even more amazing. Physicists have determined 75 parameters in the universe, in our galaxy, in our solar system and in the earth/moon/sun relationship that are unbelievably complex. Mathematicians have determined the odds of these 75 parameters occurring naturalistically to be 1 in 10 to the 99th power!
In his book, "Darwin's Black "Box, microbiologist Michael Behe discusses the blood clotting "cascade," which consists of a series of over 200 interconnected chemical reactions. Removing any single one of these would kill a human the moment he/she was ever wounded. A wounded person would either bleed to death or their blood would gel up inside their body. Either option would be fatal.30
The beauty and design of creation has always fascinated reverent minds. St Basil preached, "I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that everywhere, wherever you may be, the least plant may bring to you the clear remembrance of the Creator."31 He goes on to say, "A single plant, a blade of grass is sufficient to occupy all your intelligence in the contemplation of the skill which produced it."32 One is reminded of the line in Wordsworth:
To me the meanest flower that blows can give
Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears.33
Yet, even though Christian apologists are correct when they note that such meticulous attention to detail shows God's unfathomable love for His creation, the Psalmist tells us that this is more an expression of God's glory than His love. Jonathan Edwards puts it like this: "For it appears, that all that is ever spoken of in the Scripture as a ultimate end of God's works, is included in that one phrase, the glory of God; which is the name by which the ultimate end of God's works is most commonly called in Scripture; and seems most aptly to signify the thing."34
It now remains to tie these three points together as the foundational underpinning of the Five Points. Let it first be noted that the Arminian scheme puts the cart before the horse by making God's decree contingent upon His foreknowledge. In fact, this scheme really makes God's knowledge contingent up on own creatures. There is a huge flaw in anyone's theology when they make any of God's attributes contingent. God alone is an absolute being. If we assume that God cannot decree our salvation unless He foresees that we will in fact believe, we are denying both the efficacy of His decrees and the reality of His sovereignty. What kind of sovereignty can be meaningfully spoken of when the clay hinders the Potter? What kind of Potter seeks the will of the clay before deciding what it will be made into? And what kind of glory can a Potter have when both His will and skill are frustrated by His pottery - the very objects of His craft?
It is for these blatant and palpable reasons that neither Arminianism nor any other anti-Calvinist system can hold water. The weight of Scriptural evidence regarding God's sovereignty, His decrees and His commitment to His glory constrains us to the truth embodied in the Five Points.
1 D.M. Lloyd-Jones. The Puritans, Their Origins and Successors, pg 212.
2 Job 23:13-15 ASV: But he is in one [mind], and who can turn him? And what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. For he performeth that which is appointed for me: And many such things are with him. Therefore am I terrified at his presence; when I consider, I am afraid of him.
3 Ps. 115:3; Ps. 135:6; Isa. 46:10; Dan. 4:35; Eph. 1:11, etc
4 Sermon on Matthew 20:15
5 See "The Sovereignty of God" in A.W. Pink's The Attributes of God
6 1 John 4:8
7 1 John 4:19
8 Romans 9:17-23
9 A.W. Pink, The Attributes of God
10 Louis Berkhof, Manual of Christian Doctrine
11 Eph 2:10
12 Proverbs 16:4; Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28
13 Gen. 45:8; 50:20; Prov. 16:33
14 Job 14:5; Psalm 39:4
15 Acts 7:26
16 Psalm 78:29; 106:15; Acts 14:16; 17:30
17 Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23
18 Psalm 33:11; Prov. 19:21; Isa. 46:10
19 Louis Berkhof, Manual of Christian Doctrine
20 Ex. 4:21; 14:4, 17; Deut. 2:26; Josh. 11:20; 1 Sam. 2:25; 1 Kings 22:20-22; 2 Chron. 20:1, 22-23; Prov. 16:4; Eze. 14:9; Mark 4:11, 12; Luke 22:22; Acts 1:16; 2:23; 16:6, 7; Rom. 9:21-22
21 Romans 9:18; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:3
22 Acts 2:23
23 Revelation 4:11
24 Phil. 2:9-11
25 Exodus 20:5; 34:14; Nahum 1:1
26 Numbers 25:10
27 John Calvin, Institutes 1.14.15
28 See the Evidences for Intelligent Design by Hugh Ross PhD at www.reasons.org
29 Ibid.
30 Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box
31 Hexaemeron, Homily 5, NPNF, 2nd series, volume 8
32 Ibid.
33 Ode On Immortality
34 Jonathan Edwards, Dissertation on the End for Which God Created the World, Ch.2 Sect.7, Works, vol. 1
Tags: zechariah chapter 11 accurately pagan blog project 2012 the importance of palm sunday paul of taranto back to basics ten hermetic alchemy
