Catch-22

I’ve realized the only way I’m ever going to afford Graduate school is by robbing a bank, which would pretty much contradict my intentions, and eliminate any chance of me ever graduating from Seminary, as most evangelical institutions of higher learning discourage grand larceny.

Election in Vincent’s Word Studies

So as I am getting familiar with the Greek alphabet, I was flipping through Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament trying to sound out the Greek words to no avail, when an entry for 1 Thessalonians 1.4 caught my eye yesterday morning:

4. Election of God. Incorrect. … This, and the kindred words έκλέγειν to choose, and έκλεκτός chosen or elect, are used of God’s selection of men or agencies for special missions or attainments; but neither here nor elsewhere in the N.T. is there any warrant for the revolting doctrine that God has predestined a definite number of mankind to eternal life, and the rest to eternal destruction.*

The entry contained a footnote directing the reader to a note on page 133 in Volume III. The note was a decently-sized essay attempting to turn Romans 9-11 upside down and to provide an Arminian heads-up for texts that might sound like they are teaching “…revolting doctrine[s.]” These doctrines, which need not be named or labeled, were called on page 133 (in Volume III) the “…most dangerous perversion” of chapters 9-11, and were deemed to be an “…arbitrary” choice.

I read the essay, and I think I gave it a fair shot (mostly because I am still not satisfied with my own understanding of Romans 9-11), but as I worked my way through, I came across a passage that blew my mind. The entire article is a bitter tirade against the doctrines of particular grace, and would have us believe that in God’s electing of national Israel to “…the temporal privileges of the chosen people,” (p. 139) he left the most crucial decisions up to the pathetic self-determination of “children of wrath” (Eph. 2.3). Ultimately, God’s purposes were allegedly dependent on the obedience of persons who were “dead in [their] sins” (Eph. 2.5). Understanding how national election is somehow more “fair” than election to salvation is beyond my comprehension. Ultimately, the reason Abraham was chosen, purportedly; was because he believed God. Had Abraham cursed Yahweh of Hosts like we all have too many times, God would have been forced to choose someone else who would obey. How can it be God’s Sovereign choice if it is, at the end of the day, depending on someone else’s choice?

From the Front Lines

Greenville, SC – Cartoonist Jack Chick released yet another Gospel tract through his Bible-Belt mouthpiece, Chick Publications, despite Emergent Village reports that the aging Fundamentalist had been killed in the Colorado mountains during their campaign against the Bullhorn Guy.Chick Publications had this to say with the release of the new tract:

“Jack Chick hath survived the onslaught of these carnal Christians falsely-so-called who use the Great Satan’s Bible, and is still writing more glorious gospel tracts at this very moment. The LORD straighteneth the crooked highways for the righteous, and raiseth the valleys for His name’s sake, leveling the hills; He confoundeth the ways of the wicked. He clears a way for his chosen to escape through the very midst of infidels; even a great company of heathen. May the blood of Jesus be pleaded. Chick is Great! Chick is Great!”

Lt. Gen. Brian D. McLaren insisted that the tract must have been sketched prior to Chick’s death in the Colorado caves, and was being released at this point in order to revitalize the hundreds of remaining Fundamentalist cells scattered throughout the Southern US.

The Doctrines of Grace & Modernism . . . One Of These Things Is Not Like The Other

I recently read an article in which Brian McLaren made the comment that Calvinism is the “highest expression of modernism,” explaining why he thought that most of his critics come from within the Reformed Camp. Puzzled by the connections, I briefly thought of whom he might be referring to:

John MacArthur – Emergent – No, Election – Yes.
D.A. Carson – Emergent – No, Doctrines of Grace – Yes.
Chuck Smith – Emergent – No, Predestination – No.

McLaren did say “most,” not all. Still, I found it odd that he could make such a bold statement as the “highest expression of modernism,” especially after declaring himself to be a Fundamentalist/Calvinist in 2004’s A Generous Orthodoxy. I liked the book. I agreed with some of it, disagreed with some more of it, but it made me think and I appreciated it.

Speaking of which, Brian used words quite similar to the above quote in the same chapter. Apart from poorly equating the Doctrines of Grace with a bastard-type of Fatalistic Determinism, he wrote two pages later:

“In terms of intellectual rigor, I believe that Reformed Christianity is the highest expression of modern Christianity, which is a sincere compliment – and a gentle warning, too. If we are moving beyond modernity in general, then the forms of Christianity that have most successfully adapted themselves to the thought patterns of modernity are in the most trouble.” (A Generous Orthodoxy, pg. 188)

Back up. Is Reformed Christianity the highest expression of modernity? Has Calvinism most successfully adapted itself to the thought patterns of modernity? I doubt I have to convince anyone that modernity emerged from the Enlightenment project; indeed, modernity was the natural outcome of such endeavours. John R. Franke, who wrote the Foreword to A Generous Orthodoxy has this to say about postmodernity: “[It has] significantly reshaped our common cultural and intellectual life in a variety of ways, including the expression of Christian faith since the Enlightenment.” (A Generous Orthodoxy, pg. 10)

He continues later:

“Foundationalism refers to a conception of knowledge that emerged during the Enlightenment and sought to address the lack of certainty generated by the human tendency toward error and to overcome the inevitable, often destructive disagreements and controversies that followed. This quest for certainty involved reconstructing knowledge by rejecting ‘premodern’ notions of authority and replacing them with uncontestable beliefs accessible to all individuals.” (A Generous Orthodoxy, pg. 10-11)

What is a premodern notion of Authority? God’s word. The Prophets. Christ Himself, who is, for the modern mind, a fairy tale, an imaginary friend, pie in the sky and by and by.

Who is correctly labeled the “Father of the Enlightenment?” The kaffir Voltaire. What I’m about to say is not shocking: The Enlightenment’s foundation was human rationality. It was man-centered, and believed that man was in control of his destiny. Man could, by his own strength, using logic, reasoning, science and technology, determine where he came from, where he was, where he would be going, and what his ultimate purpose would be. Man’s knowledge was essentially elevated to the status of god incarnate. Man, man, man, man was the beginning and end of all understanding about the world.

In sum: we were in control. The Enlightenment was one big middle finger in the face of Christ that screamed “I am, and there is no one else beside me.” (Is. 47.10) Thus when McLaren writes that the prefix post- can mean, “emerging from … and emphasizes both continuity and discontinuity,” we can see where postmodernism gets it’s “foundation.” Or, as we would say of a newborn child, “He has his grandfather’s eyes…”

One Of These Things Is Not Like The Other …
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe these doctrines are very modern. But when I examine the origins, it appears that the exact opposite is more fitting. A system that emphasizes humanity’s sovereignty and our ability to not only rationalize our own destiny, our ability, even our right to choose or reject, our free and unhindered will is the Champion theology of modernity. Not a theology which above all demonstrates that humans, in the words of Friedrich Nietzsche, “… presupposes that man does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: [and instead] believes in God, who alone knows it.” Augustinianism is very pre-modern. It is altogether anti-modern.

Or as Francis Schaffer puts it:

“The utopian dream of the Enlightenment can be summed up in five words: reason, nature, happiness, progress, and liberty. It was thoroughly secular in its thinking. The Humanistic elements which had risen during the Renaissance came to flood tide in the Enlightenment. Here was man starting from himself absolutely. And if the humanistic elements of the Renaissance stand in sharp contrast to the Reformation, the Enlightenment was in total antithesis to it. The two stood for and were based on absolutely different things in an absolute way, and they produced almost different results.”
Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We
Then Live? (Wheaton: Crossway), 1983. p. 121

Let’s look at this for what it is at the core: Libel. If you want to tarnish a movement or a person’s reputation in the Emerging Church, just sling some modernist mud their way. It’s a beautiful system, really. It does not require the one slinging the modernist label to define how certain theologies are modern; it is reducible to name-calling. At best. We can do better.

If you want a theology that has most successfully adapted itself to the thought patterns of modernity, which no one denies was the natural child of the Enlightenment, find a movement which emphasizes a soul’s absolute liberty. I’m not going to waste my time looking in Geneva.

As I mentioned before – maybe I’m wrong. I’m somewhat new to this whole ‘conversation,’ so maybe I’ve completely misunderstood Brian McLaren. Maybe I completely misunderstand Augustinianism. Maybe I’ve completely misunderstood Modernity. Maybe I don’t know how to read critically. Maybe Francis Schaeffer completely misunderstood the contrast between the Reformation and the Enlightenment. I’m open for correction if someone can show me a more excellent way.
Grace and Peace
Tyler Bennicke
2007

Going Through With Getting Exactly What I Want

“Hi, my wife asked me to pick up her prescription, the na-”
“You’re married?? huh; - What the hell are you; 20?”

I can understand why it’s so surprising to see ‘young people’ married, but what I don’t get is the “double surprise” people have. When people found out that I was engaged to Theresa, there was surprise, shock, congratulations et cetera. However, when they find out that I actually went through with it, they were even more surprised.

“Wow, that’s amazing! I mean, last I heard you were engaged, but I had no idea you actually went through with it!”

Was I expected to back out? Do I have a history of not being dependable?

“went through with it.”

That’s the same language used to describe suicide attempts. Abortions. Jihad. School shootings. And apparently, weddings.

“We knew he was teased, and I heard how he had threatened to bring a gun to school, but I didn’t think he would actually go through with it…”
“Angus had spoken much about making jihad on the kuffar, but we thought he was just letting off steam - I didn’t expect him to actually go through with it…”
“Lots of kids talk about how they wish they were dead! Everyone exaggerates their drama, writes poetry about suicide, but no ones expects them to actually go through with it!”
“Well, she was a single mother with another on the way from a different father - she mentioned a partial-birth abortion once as a last resort, but I never thought she would actually go through with it…”

Maybe it’s just that Theresa and I had a short engagement - 10 months. Most couples are opting for the extended-engagement package, in upwards of six years or longer. But if you haven’t set a date, if you haven’t even set a year, in what sense can you possibly call that an engagement of any kind?

Being engaged as I was for 10 months, I learned that it’ pretty much like having a ticking time bomb strapped to your chest. Not in a bad way, of course, but you know that with every second that goes by, you’re one extra second towards the inevitable. A wedding is going to break out sooner or later. It’s guaranteed.

Maybe it has to do with our ultra-modern attitude toward love and sex these days. A recent Maclean’s magazine interviewed feminist Laura Sessions Stepp, author of “Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love, and Lose at Both.” Commitment is perceived as getting in the way of your plans, and is therefore not ideal. If you’ve lived your life by your thirties, maybe then you can settle down - but never before, because life is all about you, and you don’t want a wife or a husband screwing that up.

If anyone has ever seen that “EasyHome” truck kicking around town, you know the hook I’m talking about - “Get exactly what you want, for as long as you want.” This I think is in sum the mantra of our age, which is indicative of our ultra-modern symptoms of Hyper-Selfishism, Hyper-Capitalism and Hyper-Materialism. The collective fantasy of our species is to be able to have enough money, time, freedom, and resources to satisfy whatever exotic lust you should ever have. (Props to Andy Crouch) But then again I don’t see life as getting what you want and satisfying your desires. I can’t tell you what life is all about, but I can tell you what it isn’t.

“Get exactly what you want, for as long as you want. And then divorce her.”

The Free-Flow of the Gospel to the Nations

The crew at mondaymorninginsight.com has linked to the Livechurch.tv blog, which recently asked the question “What if we asked…’How much can our church give away?’” instead of asking how our Church can raise more money.

It’s a great question, one that needs to be seriously considered by the contemporary Hyper-Capitalist Church of the 21st Century. Last year, T.D. Jakes and the Potter’s House announced that Jakes would be selling his teaching materials and sermons on Audible.com for $14.95 US a month.

In contrast to “The Bishop,” Christ instructed his followers in this manner: “Freely you received, freely give.” (Mt 10.8) Paul himself refused financial support from the Churches he visited, in order that he would never be accused of turning the Gospel into a commodity (1 Cor 9). He refused financial support!

To be blunt, if a Church charges money for “teaching material” instead of at least offering them as a free download also (provided of course that they do have the capacity for this), they are bankrupt and know nothing of the Gospel. Did not Peter rightly rebuke Simon the Sorcerer for trying to purchase the Spirit? Peter told him “You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God.” (Acts 8.22)

I found this quote of Johann Gutenberg at the e-sword website. Gutenberg wrote: “Religious truth is captive in a small number of little manuscripts, which guard the common treasures, instead of expanding them. Let us break the seal which binds these holy things; let us give wings to truth in order that it may fly with the word, no longer prepared at vast expense, but multitudes everlastingly by a machine which never wearies to every soul which enters life.”

The copying policy for the independent Apostolic ministry fireonthealtar.com is simple: “There isn’t one. accept [sic] for Matthew 10:8b”

Fireonthealtar.com sees this period in history as revolutiuonary for the spread of the Gospel, technologically speaking. If Gutenberg’s invention was revolutionary, then with the advent of the internet the implications have multipled a hundredfold.

Listen to what they write:

“For the first time in history we have technology that allows us to witness in a powerful new way. … On this web site there are over 60 compilation tracks from different authors and growing. Compilations are simply audio files that combine two powerful elements - worship and teaching. Remember the scripture “Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God” Romans 10:17. There is something special about “hearing”. … Never before in the history of Christianity (life) has their been a medium like this available to us. With the cost of blank CD’s decreasing and personal CD-R burners for under $100. Many of us are in a position to begin sowing powerful and possibly life changing seeds here on earth. All of the compilations center around Jesus - some are geared more towards building up the Church but that’s okay. … Imagine the fruit!! What if students started leaving them around their school or employees at their work. What if someone were to take a road trip with 5,000 CDs and plant them all over the U.S. Can you imagine the impact? All of those seeds! planted at Bars, grocery stores, businesses, shopping malls, mardi gras!, college campuses, city hall etc.. What an opportunity we all have. How many souls could be reached? How many Christians could catch the fire?”

In contrast to their infective optimism and grassroots zeal to see the Gospel spread abroad, T.D. Jakes wrote in the news release last July: “We’re are [sic] very excited about our role in this 21st century offering, which will allow the spoken word to guide, enlighten, and comfort our listeners in their daily struggles and triumphs.” For $14.95 a month. Pathetic. I apologize for being so un-generous, but it is. It really is pathetic. There is no way you can convince me that a church with 28,000 members cannot afford to provide their sermons for free, when a church that is in the 200-ish-range like Fall River Chapel can provide them online without price.

The Gutenbergs of today are the practically anonymous believers who have a sincere passion for Christ’s fame and provide the Word and teaching materials freely and without cost, the free-flow of Gospel Truth to the nations. To this the prophet agrees, writing millenia ago: “Ho, every one that thirsts, come ye to the waters, and he that has no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.”
(Is 55.1)

Letter to Richard Dawkins, c/o Charles Simonyi Chair Personal Assistant

Dear Dr. Richard Dawkins
I am a graduate student in Canada, and although I wasn’t able to read the entirety of your book, what I have read was very good. While I am inclined to disagree with your premise and conclusions, I quite enjoyed it.

However, my concern is that your work suffers from many generalizations, which detract from the experience of the book as a whole. For example, on pgs. 283-284, you relate the story of an unnamed “respected elder statesman” of the Zoology dept. at Oxford while you were an undergraduate, who, upon hearing an American cell biologist who presented evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real (the statesman having believed and taught prior that the G.A. was an illusion), went up and shook the American’s hand “with passion,” and, thanking him, admitted that he had been wrong for 15 years.

To this, your comment was that “No fundamentalist would ever say that.” In defense of the accusations that you are a type of atheist fundamentalist, you are presenting a decidedly one-sided view and a half-definition of what a (theistic) fundamentalist is and does. From what I can conclude, for a theistic fundamentalist to prove you wrong, s/he would be required to deny the existence of God, not merely admit that they had been wrong on select points of theology or orthopraxy in the past (as the elder statesman in a sense did). In other words, admit that they were wrong about the God Conviction and that Richard Dawkins was correct regarding the God Delusion. It just doesn’t work, and this is what I see as the primary flaw in your recent publication.

For example, if I were to admit upon hearing testimonies to the errors of my formerly held opinions and views, especially with regard to Biblical interpretation and theology, I would readily admit that I have been wrong and thank those who instructed me in the correct paths. This is not merely theoretical, this is practical. I have been wrong before (desperately wrong) regarding election, predestination, eschatology and justification. I write to you today as a (theistic) fundamentalist, who has been ‘wrong’ before, will be ‘wrong’ again, and I readily admit to this fact.

Regardless of these errors, what I see now as the biggest mistake in life was my formerly held belief that I was in charge of my own destiny. I was raised in a secular home, fed the humanistic creation myth of evolution from a young age, and furiously argued with people I deemed “blind fools,” also known as Christians.

I do not want you to think that my change of heart had anything to do with ‘Intelligent Design’ propaganda or brainwashing, rather what turned the lights on, so to speak, for me was postmodern incredulity toward suppositional and non-experiential knowledge. What caused this “breakup” between my dogma and I was my increasing uneasiness with humanistic self-determination, and the arrogance it presumed when trying to teach me that a species who has existed for but a microcosm in the vast scale of things, could actually determine or at least attempt to plot the history of everything and present it all in a very logical, modern step-by-step format.

It’s not that I found theism to be more attractive; but on the contrary, the humanistic and evolutionary metanarratives are by far the most exciting and beautiful. It’s not that I never experienced a sense of awe or felt invigorated when reading works such as yours. It’s not that the theories don’t work or are flawed. It’s just that I wasn’t buying. To sum, I wasn’t convinced by theism, I was unconvinced of humanism.

I currently maintain an a priori commitment to theism, every bit as much as Richard Lewontin holds a prior commitment to materialism, as he wrote in the New York Review ten years ago. For what it’s worth, I would hope to persuade you to reevaluate your assertions regarding fundamentalists. Your book challenged me to think, and for that I thank you. I hope that this letter finds you well.

Grace and Peace,
Tyler Bennicke

The Difference Between Being Healed and Being Made Whole

On the way to Jerusalem he was passing along between Samaria and Galilee. And as he entered a village, he was met by ten lepers, who stood at a distance and lifted up their voices, saying, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.” When he saw them he said to them, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went they were cleansed.
Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice; and he fell on his face at Jesus’ feet, giving him thanks. Now he was a Samaritan. Then Jesus answered, “Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine? “Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?” And he said to him, “Rise and go your way; your faith has saved you.”*
(Luke 17.11-19 ESV)

In this incident Jesus encounters and heals ten lepers leading up to His Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem. This minyan of outcasts keep their distance from the very Light of the World yet shout out ‘Jesus, Master, have mercy on us’ (v.13), where elsewhere lepers came straight away into Christ’s very presence, kneeling down and beseeching the Great Physician to make them clean (Mark 1.40-45), even being so careful to add the humble prerogative, ‘If you are willing.’ Not so with this band. These cry out ‘Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.’ Christ did have mercy on this clique of lepers, and ten were healed that day. All ten encountered the spirit of God. Every leper there experienced the healing grace of Yahweh. This mixed group of Samaritans and Jews coporately were affected to varying degrees by Christ’s atonement (on ‘microcredit’ in God’s forebearance - Rom 3.25), experiencing the reversal of the curse God placed upon creation thousands of years prior as a result of sin (Gen 3.17,19). All ten outcasts felt the wooing love of God that compelled them who were ‘far off’ (both with regard to society and God) to be ‘made nigh by the blood of Christ’ (Eph 2.13). Ten were healed - but only one was saved (the AV renders it ‘made whole’ in v.19). While all ten experienced temporal physical healing, nine would experience eternal separation from God as a result of their refusal to give praise to God, and only one was saved from the wrath to come (1 Thess. 1.10). What is the conclusion of the whole paragraph? Being a believer, experiencing the New Birth is in no way, and under no circumstances, a prerequesite for meeting with Yahweh-Rapha.

This is what I refered to previously when I demonstrated that many fundamentalists (myself included) unintentionally limit the atonement of Christ to certain specifics, and in particular to those who do not believe; a.k.a., unbelievers, ‘the lost,’ infidels, kafirs, the heathen, the reprobate, etc. I did not do this in some half-hearted attempt to slip either Universalism or Word-of-Faith in the back door, but as a primer for an Irresistible Atonement Redux. Why some would wish to narrow the scope of Christ’s vicarious sacrifice through which an entire mass of souls which no one can number has been effectually called, harvested, and sanctified from amongst the legions of rebels that populate our family tree, is beyond my estimation (Lk 10.2, Jhn 4.35, Rom 8.31-33). There are varying degrees to which the atonement may sanctify someone. To some, it may cleanse them from sickness (the nine who left). To others, it may cleanse them from sin (the one who turned back to worship). Observe what Jesus said to those who will have prophesied, cast out demons and done many good works in His name - “I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.” Imagine all the things people have done in the name of Jesus, and yet have had not the slightest idea about what the normal Christian life was about.

Furthermore, Christ’s atonement can be resisted by creation only so far as God allows the rebels to resist it. In the example quoted above, it was not the cries of the lepers that cleansed them, it was the will of God that the healing provided for in the atonement should in some respect sanctify the minyan (Is 53.5, Mt 8.17, Rom 9.16). One Samaritan was cleansed, healed, saved and made whole, but what sacrifice is left for the other nine? None remains, spare a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the rebels (Heb 10.27). What intercession can be expected for the nine who did not turn back to worship (Lk 17.15)? How is it that nine may have been enlightened, may call Jesus ‘Master,’ may have an encounter with the Living God, have been made partakers with the Holy Spirit and tasted the power and grace of the world that is to come; the best of all possible worlds? How can these nine men taste such a thing, experience so much, and still turn away from what they knew to be true?

We might ask Judas. Like the other apostles, Judas denied Jesus. Unlike the other apostles, Judas never repented. Judas turned back from trusting Christ. Judas wanted his own way, Judas was reprobate, Judas, Judas, Judas. Synonomous with the word traitor, Judas Iscariot not only denied Christ, but lead His enemies to the very spot where they could quietly arrest Him at night without causing too much of a disturbance. What can be said for him? Jesus said in John 6.70 “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.”

The book of Hebrews describes this class of people, the class that the nine lepers, Judas, and countless others who have forsaken Christ may be counted among. While they were among believers, have seen the power of the spirit and grace of God in action, have been in some manner sanctified by the Spirit and brought to that place of repentance, yet for reasons which are a mystery they turned away from believing, and followed their own lusts. The apostle writes:

For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned. Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation.
(Hebrews 6.4-9 ESV)

Yet we know from hearing the word of Christ that with God all things are possible (Mk 10.27), spare lying; denying His own nature. Yet the author of Hebrews writes that it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have fallen away. If these people were brought to the place of repentance once, why would God not bring them again to the place of repentance so that this time they might not fall away? They have had their chance. Just as there is one death and after this the judgement (Heb 9.27), with no second chances beyond this life, there are no second chances within this life. The short answer is this: the reason God does not lead them to repentance again, the reason God does not save them, is because He does not want to save them. In 1 Sam 2.25, the author writes of Eli’s wicked sons saying: “[They] did not listen to their father’s rebuke, for it was the Lord’s will to put them to death.” Yahweh speaks later in chapter 3, saying: “Therefore I swear to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.”

Strong words.

This then is the conclusion: Do not tempt the Spirit. Understand now and forever that all blessings, all grace and all peace, faith, hope, love, are gracious gifts of the Father of Lights, who causes the rain to fall on the just and unjust. Understand that we must all “work out our salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2.12). When you are dealing with the Great God who caused the Universe to come into being in a moment, who became a man and died a brutal death on the cross for the securing of your salvation; when he calls you to receive salvation, do not put it off! Behold, now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation! Arise you sleeper, rise from the dead and Christ will give you life (Eph 5.14, 2 Cor 6.2)!

Do you know of your need for repentance? Do you desire God? Do you cry out for salvation and wisdom? Do you say as does the father in Mark 9, “Lord, I believe! Help thou my unbelief!” Then understand that at this moment you are more than human, for the scripture says of humans that ‘there are none that seek after God’ (Rom 3.11). If you have faith, if you are at that point of repentance, if you cry out for wisdom and ask God to help your unbelief, know that you did not posess these qualities yourself. You were not worked up into a state of repentance, any and all faith you have, any desire you have to repent is a gift of God, a true miracle, and not of yourselves (Eph 2.8). And just as God brought you to that place of repentance and faith, if you fall away hence, God will leave you to the reprobation you chose. Know that you will never again desire faith, repentance, wisdom, or salvation. All of these gifts were purchased for you in the atonement, and the Father of Lights distributes them all according to His will. It is the atonement which allows God to hold out his hands all day long to a sinful and disobedient people, it is the atonement which removed the wrath of God and allows God to both be just and the justifier of those who believe in Jesus (Rom 3.26), it is the atonement which prevents the universe from being incinerated at this moment, and it was God’s forbearance, foreknowledge, and the atonement which allowed God to ask our ancestors “Where are you?” in the garden (Gen 3). The Atonement is too big to be limited, it is too big to be confined only to sin, it is the single event in the history of the cosmos that has proved once and for all, to all who will receive it, that the Eternal One loves righteousness and hates wickedness, that the judge of all the universe will do right. He can be trusted. He does love us. He has redeemed us. There is nothing left for us but grace, sovereign grace and grace amazing alone. Who else feels like praising God with groans words cannot express for the miracle and grace of His Unlimited Atonement?

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing

in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before

the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and

blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption

through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has

blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through

his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to

the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom

and insight making known to us the mystery of his

will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ

as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him,

things in heaven and things on earth. In him we have obtained

an inheritance, having been predestined according to the

purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel

of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ

might be to the praise of his glory.

(Ephesians 1.3-12 ESV)

(The Other) Limited Atonement

When Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw Peter’s mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. He touched her hand and the fever left her, and she got up and began to wait on him. When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “He took up our infirmities and bore our diseases.”
Matthew 8.14-17 (TNIV)

For so long fundamentalists, in reaction to their brothers and sisters who favoured a ‘miracles on demand’ approach to the sovereignty of God á la Word-of-Faith style bastard Christianity, which cuts off any humble supplications along the lines of ‘not my will but Your will be done,’ replacing it with ‘my will must be Your will so long as I really believe it,’ to the ignorance of Rom. 9.16 (’It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy’), have denied that in Christ’s atonement there was provided physical healing, reversing the curse of Adam’s fall. But this theology of Christ’s atonement was, for their own fault, propagated to the ignorance of Matthew 8.14-17 (quoted above) where the author of that Gospel claims that Christ healed the sick, specifically in order to fulfill Isaiah 53.5 ‘by his wounds we are healed.’ No other interpretation is possible, given the nature of the way in which Isaiah is quoted. In this manner, fundamentalists clearly ignored the doctrine of sola scriptura, instead interpreting the passage in Matthew 8 in response to their own experience following what they saw as ‘charismatic excess’ and a clear throwing off of Biblical submission to God.

I believe it was R.A. Torrey who cleared away the fog, insisting that yes, physical healing was provided in the atonement following Matthew 8.17. But Torrey didn’t stop there. While some temporal healing was provided for in Christ’s atonement, it’s primary application was to effectually cleanse all who trust in Christ alone from sin. But just as we will never experience true freedom from sin in this life, so too will the atonement not provide all physical healing, this side of glory. John writes in Revelation that at the end of all things, ‘[God] will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.’ (Rev. 21.4 ESV) Then the fullness of Christ’s atonement will be made manifest, for Christ will redeem all of creation, He will restore it to the days when it was ‘very good,’ (Gen 1.31) and God will be ‘all in all.’ (1 Cor 15.28)

John Piper once said that moral evil, moral rebellion is so awful and horrific a concept, that the only way God can give us a hint of what it is like to him is with physical forms of curse (Gen. 3.17, Rom 8.20), and that physical disasters and disease is about teaching humans the horrific nature of our moral corruption. The flipside of this is that while Christ roamed the highways and byways of Palestine, cleansing the lepers and healing the sick, he was doing this purposely to demonstrate the all-encompassing nature of His coming atonement for creation. Christ’s miracles always pointed the way to the larger, more significant power of Christ to heal not only physical deformities or diseases, but His ability to redeem humans from the penalty of sin.

Why bother bringing up Torrey in a day when Word-of-Faith preachers/scam-artists dominate the religious broadcasting and pop theology markets? Wouldn’t it be better to argue, say some, that there was no healing in the atonement, skew an argument around twisted Gospel passages, just to drag people out of the Health-and-Wealth, Name-it-Claim-it, Blab-it-Grab-it heresies?

If we deny that there was any healing in the atonement, then we are limiting its effect upon creation. We are doing what many Presbyterians do in their attempt to narrow the atonement to only so few details, effectively making it effective only for the elect. But what we see is that the atonement spreads to too many areas to be narrowed down to a bullet list. Even an anti-Calvinist tract I found at the back of our church, after arguing ‘But the atonement is not limited…’ went on to say ‘The atonement is limited only…’ to those who repent and place faith in Jesus Christ.

‘For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil.’ (John 3.17-18 ESV)

The atonement is without limits, in other words, it is unlimited; even irresistible. There is not one thing that it does not affect that our Sovereign God has not willed it to affect. As shown earlier, not all of its effects are made known currently. At the consummation of all things, all disease, sickness, sin and sadness will be put away and never again be known. This is because of Christ’s atonement, which made propitiation for the sins of the world, for the errors in creation, and removed the wrath of God (1 John 2.2, Rom 3.25). Christ’s atonement does not merely deal with what we have done and what we are, it deals with everything, especially creation which endured the curse of God when the first sin entered the world. As Yahweh said in Genesis, we are a part of creation, we will ‘return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.’ (Gen 3.19) We should expect the atonement to save us, what we are by nature. Dust.

Coming soon…

Warning: This rant was originally written in November of 2005 when I was supposed to be writing a paper or something actually productive. It represents the scattered thoughts of a confused and frustrated undergraduate trying to understand what is right and wrong in grey areas and not-so-grey areas.

“I look up, but the face swims before my eyes, dissolves, huge and transparent, melts into the motionless trees and the sea of people…I blink rapidly: Henri. ‘Listen, Henri, are we good people?’ ‘That’s stupid. Why do you ask?’ ‘You see, my friend, you see, I don’t know why, but I am furious, simply furious with these people - furious because I must be here because of them. I feel no pity. I am not sorry they are going to the gas chamber, damn them all! I could throw myself at them, beat them with my fists. It must be pathological, I just can’t understand …’”
-Tadeusz Borowski, “This Way for the Gas, Ladies and Gentlemen”

Canada is the closest and arguable most important trading partner with the nation that can rightly be called the epicenter of a global culture of decadence and excess, a hierarchical superstructure built on a foundation that is not Christ, and is neither peace, justice, or equality, but a foundation that is the oppression of an impoverished and uneducated mass.

The middle classes have been duped into believing that we are somehow important in this structure, and the elites tease us through the exports of Hollywood, prime-time television, and video games. These illusions have made us think that in this house built on the backs of the underclass, the untouchables, we are somehow privileged to wine and dine with the big wigs. We are not the foundation of this house, we are the ottomans and footstools for Capitalists.
The children of the middle class attach bayonet to rifle along with the children of the lower castes as they serve in Afghanistan/Ethiopia, their families paid by the Federal government for their service.*Our children fasten explosive belts to their waists along with the children of the unemployed in Palestine/Iraq, their families reimbursed alike by Arab elites for their noble sacrifice. For what? In the name of Canada/the United Nations, in the name of Allah, in the name of Manifest Destiny/the Project for a New American Century, in the name of the Khalifah/the pan-Arabian Ummah. The ‘Good Guys’ and the ‘Bad Guys,’ whatever side we stand on, are in actuality brothers, and are both being teased and controlled by the same common enemy:

Those who do not care about anything but themselves, who exploit those who care about everything but themselves.Big-budget films distract us with the promise of a brief two hour escape from reality. But the downfall of movies is that once you exit the theater, the fantasy is over. But those who consider themselves overmen but are not have found another way to keep us entertained and distracted. The serials on the Television are an iron chain that keeps us slaves to the ongoing drama - “What is going to happen next to such-and-such a character? Will X and Y get together? How much sin can we watch, nod our heads and consider entertainment tonight?” These mindless continuing never-ending stories (Read: ‘The OC,’ ‘Desperate Housewives’)* allow us to indulge in a lifestyle that most of us will never actually experience, it is a distraction, it is a fantasy, it is a tool of obedience and voluntary servitude to Capitalism and the Prince of the Air and the King of this World.

Some serials and sitcoms tell our youth that it is normal to have sex on a first date. It is abnormal to be a virgin. It is immoral to save yourself for one special person; namely your husband/wife.
To the female it tells her that while sex is special, it is not to be saved for your husband. A boy who is important to you now is good enough. It is not your lifelong mate that is important, it is who your first partner is that is important (first of many hopefully, that is the mark of an independent woman). Oral sex isn’t really sex, it is harmless fun; an easy way to maintain purity if you’re not ready yet. STIs are bogeymen for teenagers created by mean adults who don’t want them to have fun. Teenagers know what real life is like - just look at ‘Friends’ or ‘Seinfeld’ - these people have casual sexual relations all the time and never contract infections or become pregnant.
If a girl ever is good enough to play on a boys team in any kind of sports, it is so exotic and unusual that a big deal must be made of it and a feature film made in her honour, perhaps also an award in her name should be handed out annually.
Additional knowledge that our culture must teach our female youth is that if you cannot fit into a size two dress or under, you need to diet because you’re a fattie. If you go out of the house without makeup on, you will be a social outcast forever. Having pimples is a sign of a rare disease that usually doesn’t happen to teenagers. If you develop one you should stay home from school and wash your face until the pimple areas bleed.

For the males, our culture teaches them that the most important debate that they will ever face is whether it is size that matters or what you do with it. The Jury is still out on that verdict, but you better be prepared for a verdict either way, or you’ll die poor and lonely because no woman will ever fuck you. “Love” is all based on two things anyway: your penis and your pectoral muscles.
Men do not eat salads, or any vegetables really. The food of masculinity is grease, protein, and carbohydrates. A sign of male stability is not caring about your diet. You must participate in every sport that is available to you, and moving a ball to one end of the field or getting a puck past a goalie are the defining moments of your life. They are to define your very essence. They demonstrate your gender. Hopefully your parents helped to reinforce this by plastering your room with images of soccer balls, footballs, and basketballs when you were younger. If you are good at sports, you will have access to plenty of women. If you suck at sports, you will never get a date (with the possible exception of the ugly quiet girl that everyone teases, but even she might laugh at you).
Real men don’t show emotion, and if you ever cry, God will cue a laugh track that will expose you for the wuss you are, just like on TV. Oh, and if this wasn’t enough stress on the adolescent’s life, remind him that unless you lose your virginity before you graduate from High School, you will become a permanent LOSER. No one will ever hire you, and women will cringe when you come near, suspecting you to have some physical abnormality.

And we know that these are all lies - but why are they created? Who starts them? Who perpetuates them? Why are we allowing these lies to be propagated? It is as though there is some organization or being out there causing all these influences with the express intent of destroying us.

We become restless, monsters of consumption, slaves to trends, seeking acceptance, seeking to join in the dance that the elites show us. We are not satisfied with what we have, we always want more. A faster car, a nicer jacket, darker jeans, shiner necklaces, a bigger house, better grades, more expensive furniture, more DVDs, a different lifestyle, the one that so-and-so has on MTV, the one that so-and-so had on that movie, more money, more trips to exotic places, more this and that, more food and pleasure, more drugs, more alcohol, more indulgence, less family, less Jesus, less Bible, less pie in the sky and by and by.
Reality television indulges our lusts for wealth, excitement and adventure. Maybe, possibly, someday, we’ll be fortunate to participate in the tease of the elites that allows us to nibble on the scraps that fall from their tables and enjoy their lifestyle for a day, to the amusement of everyone else. Celebrities tantalize our senses and our selfishness by showing off what their exploitation has produced for themselves. Music videos destroy our attention span until we can only maintain our attention for three-four minute time slots at once. Video games return our attention span to us for hours upon hours, days upon days, until our attention is focused solely on a single task: rescuing the princess, moving onto the next level, gunning down x amount of thugs / prostitutes / zombies, or worse, being caught into a never-ending online addiction that unlike films or television shows, has no end, and keeps the consumer trapped in their rooms for days, obsessed with an activity that when all is said and done, is utterly pointless and has no redeeming value other than as a way to pass the time. Worse than the indulgent fantasies of TV and the cinemas, video games bring the consumer directly into the fantasy, blurring the line between observation and participation.

The Internet is a double edged sword, providing many opportunities for education and free flow of information, yet also brings pornography, immorality, and idleness directly into many people’s homes. No longer do men have to purchase a magazine from a shady store to indulge in a nonexistent fantasy, it can be done in the comfort of your own bedroom. No longer is a disguise needed, a clearing of ones Internet history can suffice, with no record remaining. Suddenly this activity that “every man does” and “doesn’t hurt anybody” isn’t so innocent anymore. Husbands suddenly find that their wives no longer satisfy them. They expect something more. Real women are not like the woman that they married, apparently. A multitude of women await the husband through the web, and he no longer needs his wife. He does not love her as he used to. He leaves his wife. The man’s daughter grows up without a father, without a daddy, and then seeks to find that missing love of a man, the love of a daddy she never had, she seeks the love of a father in boys who abuse her and will tell her anything to be satisfied. She goes from one loser to another, hoping to find true love, but guys do not want true love. The girl is hurt and injured, the girl showers several times a day feeling ashamed and dirty because of what she did, but unable to remove her crimson stain, her scars received having thought that she had found ‘the one.’

And what does society offer in consolation for all it’s crimes? Nietzsche’s madman tells her that churches are the tombs and sepulchers of God.
If you don’t know how to have fun, learn to drink. If you don’t know how to cry, learn to make fun of others. If you want to pursue purity, wear a condom. If you don’t want to be a role model for the youth, do all your crimes at night. If you don’t know how to relax and cope, if you can’t stop worrying, release with an orgy of smoking/drinking/fucking. If you don’t want to think, drop some dope, smoke some weed, watch some TV, have a few grammes of soma with your coffee.

Higher tuition rates mean less people can go to university. Is this a bad thing? Once I have my degrees, it is in my best interests for tuition rates to keep increasing. If higher education becomes less attainable, then less people will have said education.

If everyone has a Ph.D., my employment prospects become less promising. So it is in my advantage, if I want to continue to enjoy my place in society, to favour tuition hikes in the following years (after my education is completed), so that I am further separated from the backbone of Western Civilization and not trod upon (that much). It is in my best interests to favour capitalism, to favour the aims of the ‘War on Terrorism’ to maintain my comfort. It is in my best interests if I support a North American missile shield in my backyard, it is in best interests if I hail the leadership and aims of the Heimatsicherheitsabteilung. It is in my best interests to support American World Hegemony, because I speak English and live in a position of close proximity to the Heima-cough-excuse me - I mean, Homeland. American Imperialism is a hell of a lot better than European or Chinese Imperialism would be, right? All are built on the broken backs of boys with M-16s (or an apparent 5.8 x 42 cartridge as the Chinese now appear to be using) and the lower classes.

I can’t.
I can’t support ‘Iraqi Freedom’ or ‘Infinite Justice’ or the ‘Project for a New American Century’ out of conscience - can I? We know that the wars were started on lies and intentional deceit. We know that any and all blowback on American soil will support these projects. Can the ends justify the means? Never.
Is it in my best interests to follow the crowd and accept the inevitable? Yes. But I can’t. Can’t I? I can’t enjoy this, I can’t just sit back and watch it happen, can I?

How can I enjoy this decadence that is built upon the availability of cheap oil?
I can buy bottled spring water from Vancouver that has been trucked across the country, from sea to sea. And buying it will not put me in debt. I can buy bottled spring water from France. I can buy bottled spring water from Nova Scotia. I can buy filtered water from Nova Scotia. I can filter my own water from Nova Scotia. I can buy bottled artesian water from Fiji.
Fiji is an island in the South Pacific ocean. And apparently there is enough of a market for artesian water from Fiji in Antigonish that a capitalist can justify bottling said artesian water and ship it to Antigonish, Nova Scotia - and make a profit. Petroleum is that cheap. Instead of just drinking Nova Scotian water I can spend money and buy WATER (still one of the most plentiful substances on Earth) from Fiji.
Oranges are trucked from Florida to Nova Scotia. Bananas are shipped from (Costa Rica?) to Antigonish. Let’s face it; despite our complaining over the prices at the pumps, gasoline is cheap. Dirt cheap. Cheaper than water from Fiji.

Average price for a litre of gas = $1
Price for 500ml of artesian water from Fiji (last time I checked) = $1.49

Everyone cannot be a medical Doctor. We still need people to sweep the floors, we still need people to shovel overpriced nutritionally-deficient hydrogenated oil-laden popcorn into paper bags at the cinemas for our consumption. We still need people to answer phones in call centers. We still need people to perform road maintenance. We will need people to operate sewage pumping trucks. We still need third-world children to apply adhesive to plastic and dead cattle flesh to produce a new line of $159.99 USD fancy shoes (just in time for the new fashion season - here’s a tip: navy is the new black) for undergraduates to fasten to their feet on Saturday night when they (with friends) become intoxicated, go to a certain building where currency is exchanged for entrance, where additional intoxicating beverages are purchased and consumed (much to the delight of the owners of said buildings) and where noises, produced by electronic machines and the voices or wealthy (artists? emcees? musicians?) businessmen which are then recorded and sold to the deejay of the aforementioned building and replayed so the intoxicated masses, now joined by scantily clad (and also intoxicated) women who are looking for attention to enhance their low self-esteem (because the media and the aforementioned cinemas, television, and internet tell them that to be desirable and attractive they must look a certain way and must conform to a certain standard, and unless you’re on the cover of a magazine or in an advertisement for perfume or denim, you have yet to ‘make it’), dance and grind with one another in a mass clothed orgy of consumption and Von Dutch hats, with the hopes that perhaps when the building closes down one of these intoxicated women who is either very affectionate or intrigued by one man’s shiny new sneakers, might come back to his apartment where they will copulate, waking up the next morning to a headache and confusion, followed with a ‘walk of shame’ back home (the implication being that the shame did not begin the previous night), where the woman and her friends will get together, eat grease to ease their hangovers, wallow in affirmations of what an awful night that was, and spend the remainder of the week in anticipation and preparation for next Saturday when the scenario will be repeated. Sometimes this is the case with many people. Why does this system of consumption provide so much comfort for people?
We consume shoes, alcohol, clothes, food, music, etc at an alarming rate. And it all provides to support the lifestyles of the elite. Why do we continue to follow these lifestyles? Why do we continue to consume?Because we like it.

Slow down. Was this a critique of television or capitalism or the war on terror that got out of hand? No. It is a criticism of Western Civilization. Or maybe just a rant.

This is mostly a criticism of myself. Am I exaggerating the impact that all these things? Does committing an hour of your week to watching a television drama really that big of a deal? No, of course not. Many good people watch television. Most people who watch television are good people. Actually, whether or not you watch television has nothing to do with your classification of being either righteous or unrighteous. Not one thing.

I am not condemning the television. I am not condemning the cinemas (I go to the cinemas). I am not condemning the internet. All these things are not causing people to act one way or another, and these things are not evil in and of themselves. The issue here is people’s hearts, something that cannot be changed unless they are willing. What then is my point?
My point is that I am a part of this culture of decadence and excess. I live and exist and am surrounded by it everyday. Why do I find myself hating not only it, but me? If I hate it, why am I not doing anything? For the believers, we have been called not to reform society, we have been called to preach the Gospel. Where does my mission begin and where does it end? What actions should flow out of preaching and living the gospel? How can I reconcile being a part of this society and hating it, yet enjoying the opportunities it affords me?
Why do I enjoy this hierarchical structure, how can I with a clean conscience? I was raised in the middle class and while I have been afforded the opportunity to go to university and am not among the lower classes, I am certainly not among the elites and upper classes. How can I stand this inequality that exists?
How can I reconcile my feelings of contentment here while still wishing for economic and social justice?

My point, my question is this: How can I reconcile these two opposing opinions? I might as well ask how could a vegan reconcile his eating of a cheeseburger?

*-I am not condemning the government of Canada and the services it provides (roads, healthcare, military, civil police, etc) and I am certainly not condemning the Canadian military for the work it does overseas with the UN peacekeeping corps.

*-Some may object to my analysis of “The OC” considering I have only watched 1/4 of one episode and therefore are not informed enough to make a proper judgment, and “Desperate Housewives” because I have never actually watched this series. I have nothing to respond to this with. I know enough based upon the sound witnesses of others that these shows dramatize and glamorize a material and immoral lifestyle. For those who pursue righteousness, are these serials not just simple ways to indulge a little bit in that lifestyle that our flesh craves without actually living it? Is this not perhaps the greatest cop-out of our generation? What in these serials can be considered “whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things [are] honest, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] lovely, whatsoever things [are] of good report…”? (Phil. 4.8)

Thanks to Adbusters, Antipas Ministries, Dr. Zecker, Professor Strickler, Dr. Lalande, and Dad’s rants on the hidden petroleum crisis.

Anything that is praiseworthy in this rant belongs to Yahweh. Anything that is in error belongs to myself. May the Lamb that was slain receive the reward of His suffering.