Paul's Passing Thoughts

We have been hit with a lot of news lately about tragedy visiting the rich and famous. Some are rich and famous for un-profound reasons while others enjoy riches and fame because of their profound impact on society and history.

In both cases, all of those involved speak of their endeavor to be right with God. Indeed, no matter what you have obtained in life, death levels the playing field, completely, and questions what the future holds. Everyone knows God holds the keys to life after death. The Bible states that God has implanted that truth in every individual and a denial of such is “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.”

When you have it all, or the more you have, death has more to take away. Success only amplifies the eternity question. Some of the famous who have everything except a get-out-of-death–free card share their plan for meeting God, while others keep it private.

Evangelicals and church folk in general will be concerned with the doctrinal aspects of one’s plan for dealing with the death issue.  Church orthodoxy loves its pithy truisms like, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” while being directly responsible for creating insurmountable barriers to finding the truth about salvation. All churches are the same; they would all love to have a monopoly on their version of the gospel and the power it would give them. There is no power like having power over someone’s eternal destiny.

Jesus acknowledged religion’s efforts in hiding the truth about salvation for its own gain. Church is particularly guilty of that. In response, He promised that those who seek will find. Curiously, this points to an individual seeking. Jesus wasn’t in the least bit impracticable; so, why wouldn’t He cut to the chase and tell seekers to find a local Baptist church? Especially since Baptists believe that John the baptist was the first Baptist pastor. I’m not kidding. How stupid is that? Even as a former rabid Baptist pastor, I laughed out loud when I heard it in a sermon. With that said, though I was doing a lot of LOL before LOL was cool, an honest seeking can be taking place in any given church or no church at all.

Motives do matter; for example, the thief on the cross wasn’t theologically savvy in the least and didn’t quote any Rabbis. By no means am I endorsing soteriological ignorance, but I do think we should consider the verse that states, “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”

I believe good doctrine enables people to find salvation easier, and leads to a more abundant entrance into God’s kingdom not infected with doubt. Nevertheless, God is  attentive to those fighting to overcome the obstacles of institutional religion.

But, when one is at death’s door, little is more important than the quality of the entrance.

paul

As human beings, we have desires of all kinds. In regard to some of those desires, society is a hindrance. If we are running late for work, a desire forms in our heart; a desire to arrive at work on time, and also, a desire to avoid repercussions for being late, but societal law calls for speed limits. Actually, this one event can lead to the formations of many desires; for example, a very strong desire for the car in front of you to move out of the left lane and into the right lane.

Desires often clash with societal norms and laws. The closest thing we can get to living out those desires without society objecting is a thing called, “fantasy.”

Suppose a culture announced the building of a new town with its own jurisdiction. Everyone in the culture is free to live there or not live there, it is purely a choice. The town is called Freedomville because there are no laws or cultural norms; everyone is free to live according to their own desires. The only law is the freedom to live out personal desires.

Initially, would the town be popular? What would be your thoughts about such a place?

paul

Don’t get me wrong, I think Prager U is a godsend. That’s why I was surprised at this video where they toe the line on traditional church orthodoxy. Secondly, regarding this view, they mange to contradict themselves with another viewpoint, which for them, is another anomaly.  First of all, I reject the premise of the question, “Is mankind basically good or basically sinful?” But, if you would have to choose one, “basically good” is the best answer. Perhaps I will present that argument in another post, but for time sake, this post is about the argument that Prager presents against its own view.

Overall, Prager U presents the idea that basically sinful people can create things that are basically good and teach people to be good. In addition, in the aforementioned video, Dennis Prager states,

Ok, then, are people basically good? As I will show, given humanity’s history, the answer should be obvious. Of course, human nature isn’t basically good. Now, this doesn’t mean that people are basically bad. We are born with real potential to do good. But we are not basically good.

This is why I say the question itself doesn’t have a proper premise. And, it wouldn’t be correct to say that Prager is totally onboard with church orthodoxy which is more consistent on this issue. In fact, church orthodoxy states that mankind cannot do any good work because mankind is basically evil or “totally depraved.” So, Prager is kind of half-pregnant on the issue.

Biblically, we find that the “works of the law” written into the being of everyone born into the world teaches us what is good and evil and either accuses us or excuses us. This is part of being created in the image of God.

Prager, in the video, offers the following point to prove his thesis: if man is basically good we wouldn’t need to create laws or teach children to be good. Plus, historically, people have done really, really, bad things. Well, historically, people have done really, really good things. And, children do good things that they have never been taught to do. And, laws created by men are often good, right?

However, Prager’s greatest contradiction is in this video that is otherwise profound. He states that America is an idea that has been a greater force for good than anything else in human history as far as governments are concerned. Hence, the idea that America needs “fundamental change” is an idea vigorously rejected by conservatives.

I contend that those who create something fundamentally good are not fundamentally sinful.

paul

FACT: New Calvinism is a return to authentic Protestantism.

FACT: Protestantism is another form of Catholic progressive justification and salvation by church authority.

FACT: Disagreement on the philosophy of Plato was the catalyst for the Reformation, NOT a biblical view of salvation. “Infused grace” is the scriptural cloak for the real issue.

FACT: The Reformers rejected all notions of assurance apart from the authority of the church over salvation.

FACT: The Reformers rejected all notions of a church apart from the state. Americanism is NOT a Protestant idea.

FACT: John Calvin believed in a temporary election of some resulting in a greater damnation for the glory of God.

FACT: The church does not appear in history until the 4th century. The church has no ties doctrinally or historically to the 1st century called-out assembly of Christ.

FACT: The problem with church is church.

One reason the election debate is never-ending follows: there are just as many verses in the Bible that seem to teach predestination as those that teach human choice. However, verses that speak to choice do seem more definitive.

So, if God is not a God of confusion, where are the statements in the Bible that end the argument? The opportunities for Christ and the apostles to end the argument during biblically recorded conversations would number into the hundreds, but they never seize on the opportunity.

For example, “And Jesus said to him, ‘Go your way; your faith has made you well.’ And immediately he recovered his sight and followed him on the way.” Technically, Jesus is telling the guy that it is his faith. At the very least, he is allowing the guy to assume it is his faith. Why not say, “Go your way, the faith I have given you has made you well.” Again, this is just one example among hundreds where the biblical authors pass on an opportunity to clarify the issue in no uncertain terms.

Verses that say salvation is impossible with man are often cited as proof texts, but of course, it is impossible for people to regenerate themselves like it was impossible for this guy to heal his own eyes. Of course, only the Spirit can baptize the believer into Christ through the death of the old self and resurrection unto all things being new. That doesn’t mean we can’t be persuaded to exercise our own faith.

Furthermore, it is curious how Peter exhorted the Jews: “With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, ‘Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.'”

How odd that Peter would put so much effort into persuasion if faith is nothing but a gift from God and beyond the ability of mankind. Peter seems to indicate the opposite by exhorting people to save themselves with their own faith. The faith of the individual precedes the supernatural act by God.  Again, Peter passes on saying something like, “You will save yourself from this corrupt generation if God gives you faith.” Statements like that would end the argument, but they are never said.

Here is the point: what is not said specifically is a hermeneutic, especially if it is something supposedly central to salvation and the gospel.

paul