The Parable of the Lost Sheep: Calvinist Version

Posted on 3.27.2012

Then Jesus told them this parable:

“Suppose a shepherd has a hundred sheep and he loses all of them. Doesn’t he go out into the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds one? And when he finds one, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. And having rescued one sheep he leaves the ninety-nine sheep lost in the wild. He calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me! I have found one of my lost sheep.’

This entry was posted by Richard Beck. Bookmark the permalink.

178 thoughts on “The Parable of the Lost Sheep: Calvinist Version”

  2. "But his friends and neighbors say, 'What about the other sheep?' The shepherd replies, 'I am sheepish about that.'

    Terrible thought, really, but since we all had it... 

  3. I probably shouldn't be picking on Calvinism as I'm no doubt hurting some readers' feelings. My apologies to them. To be clear, I'm not against Calvinism per se. I'm against the particular doctrines of election and double predestination. I'll attack those doctrines over and over again.

  4. Caricature can be witty and fun.  But, when based on error; they are just sad.  Hint: all 100 were his to begin with; the parable is not about salvation.

  5. On the other end of the theological spectrum, I was discussing this parable with a friend one day.  He believed that you could lose your Salvation at any time for committing a sin.  I told him his soteriology wasn't based on grace but on luck and timing and used the lost sheep parable as an example.  His response.  "Sure, God will try and come find the sheep, but that doesn't mean there's a  chance the sheep will be eaten by a predator."

    /facepalm

  6. Between heaven and mirth?  Lord knows that the particular beliefs you take issue with have caused enough sorrow and tears.  Heavy, harsh, and hateful stuff.  Humor has a way of disarming the power an idea or belief has over a person.  Expecto patronum!

    For those to whom these beliefs are essential to their theological house of cards, them's fightin' words, Dr. Beck.  I have been wondering only very recently, when one of my own illusions was abruptly and very painfully shattered, at the importance of being gentle and sensitive to others' need to believe certain things?  For a long time, I was on the warpath about Calvinism and conservative evangelicalism, in general.  In the final analysis, I can't say that it did me or anyone else any good.  How do we hate the sin (election and double predestination) and love the sinner, practically-speaking?  It sounds good in theory, but I have yet to see how that goes well in practice.  I do have tremendous respect for you, Dr. Beck, so I really hope to learn from your wisdom on how this can work, where I have failed at it miserably in the past.  ~Peace~

  7. I think the reason for my errors is that I'm not one of the elect. I have to wait for God to regenerate my heart and mind. Until then, I guess, I'll be in error and among the damned waiting for God to elect and save me. But all this waiting is making me very, very anxious. What if I get hit by a bus today? I don't want to be one of the 99 sheep left in the dark. I want the Good Shepherd to come and find me.

    So I've got my fingers crossed that I make the cut before I die.

    Just know, God, that I'm watching the clock and time is a'wastin'.

  8. I always root for the underdog.  ;-)  It's one of the qualities of Jesus that has drawn me to Him; compassion for the excluded.  His own (largely) rejected and despised status.  If I did not believe this about Jesus, and by extension, God's essential nature, He would not be a Person whom I could believe in at all.  My favorite parable is the Prodigal Son.  It almost always makes me want to cry, but not sad tears; rather, ones of joy and gratitude.  We all have our lost sheep moments, too, I reckon.  ~Peace~

  9. Hi Richard.  I very much appreciate your blog and am a regular reader and sharer of links to it.  

    I was surprised by your response to David here.  Seems like you just mocked David instead of responding to his actual point; the parable possibly not being about salvation.  Is there a backstory here I am missing?

  10. That reformation period, especially Luther, was reacting against the extreme uncertainty of indulgences and the entire sacramental system.  It all urged the question, "when have I done enough?"  Grace, the solas and election were the core of the answer.  I'm not sure how you escape election.  Although double predestination would seem to be the swing to the other side.  Luther had a great image of a person on a donkey falling off into the ditch on one side getting back on and falling off into the ditch on the other.

    I'm not sure its a great analogy but I've been thinking of election as an opt-out policy.  You are covered by Christ until you opt out.  And that is the tragic consequence of sin.  We can choose to opt-out of grace.  The proclamation of the revealed Christ forces a moment of decision (Bultmannian), or I like to think of Schoedinger's cat or quantum physics with Christ coming to reveal or open the box.  It helps me make sense of passages like Matt 12:45 or Heb 6:4-6.

  11. Once more; all 100 belonged to Him.  They were already 'saved' as the story begins.  None of the sheep were waiting to find out if they were among the elect.  And, the God I know will save His own and there isn't a bus driver alive (or dead) who can change that.

    Two more hints.

    This is all about Israel; there isn't a gentile in the room.

    This is all before the cross.  No death burial and resurrection yet.  So what is this all about anyway???

  12. I think David was onto something...maybe this parable is not about salvation. In fact, maybe much of what I/we have believed is about salvation, as we have culturally come to understand it, really is more about life as life really is.

     David's "Hint" was very thought provoking for me today, all 100 were his to begin with ... all "lost sheep" start out already as one of his... if you never had a home or a shepherd to begin with, you are not lost. And if you can make your own way home, you are not lost. Maybe the good news today is in fact we have a home, and a Shepherd, and he comes looking for us anytime we get a bit lost, bringing us home when we can't find our own way. I hope so.

  13. I think David has an excellent point about the original parable. My comment was about David's sadness over my error. Why be sad over the unregenerate? Why expect anything else other than errors from the unregenerate?

    Though my tone was silly, I'm pointing out a pretty serious problem regarding epistemology within certain Calvinist formulations (that truth is only apprehended by the regenerated mind) and that my error can only be overcome by being one of the elect. Thus, no need to feel sad for me. God is glorified as my error is simply a backdrop for God saving and enlightening the elect.

  14. Oh, ok - thanks for clarifying.  I figured there was some kind of backstory I was missing.  Can someone who is "elect" still make errors, and the errors would then be sad?  Or do the elect make no errors, or are their errors just never sad?  Ha, this can get confusing...

  15. Well, that's all OK, because the fact that those other sheep were lost obviously means they were never really the shepherd's to begin with...

  16. Hi Richard,

    Because you are a psychologist, I am sure you are aware that the reasons why someone adopts one theology (i.e.: Calvinism) over another (i.e.: Molinism) are complex and not simply just a result of an "unbiased" reading of Scripture.  We all have many reasons for believing what we do and some we probably hide from ourselves or are unaware of.  I think MarkP1971 was on to something I have believed for a while now (if I understood Mark correctly).  When I was a Calvinist, for reasons that I cannot entirely explain, the theodicy issues Calvinism creates for some people were lost to me.  Calvinism functioned as (believe it or not) a comfort for me.  I had such a deep sense of personal sin that I thought that I was without hope without the possibility of election.  It was all about grace.  I was aware of the theodicy problems with Calvinism at the time but they never made it to the front of my mind.

    Fast forward many years later I got married to the woman of my dreams.  Through talking about the faith with her, I began to see and to grapple with many of the challenges Calvinism creates.  Whereas my belief in Calvinism was a comfort to me because I saw it as a solution to my sinfulness, my wife could not get around the theodicy problems it created for her, no matter how hard I tried to convince her of the "plain reading of Scripture."  I too began to wrestle with the same issues my wife did.  Because of this, I no longer consider myself a Calvinist, but I still have deep respect for the tradition.  I would also add that not every Calvinist is the same.  The most vocal tend to also be those who present the most disturbing viewpoints and who are the least personable.

    It would be interesting to see you do a research project on the psychology behind why some choose one theology over another.

    My point is this: please don't throw stones at a particular viewpoint unless you first acknowledge the complexities I have described.  You may unintentionally end up alienating some people.  Beliefs are complex and our family and personal background, experiences, and personality types probably have as much to do with our beliefs as with our "reading" of Scripture.

    Chad

  17. Chip, that is another good question:  "Can someone who is 'elect' still make errors?"

    Be careful if you think you stand comes to mind.  There is a tension to be lived, I think, between confidence in one's beliefs and right standing with God, and humility in walking with Him and in relationships with others.

  18. "We can choose to opt-out of grace."  I'm not so sure about that, MarkP.  That theory presumes that at a given point, we are completely free of any constraints that might cloud our judgment or ability to receive the Truth and respond to it.  I would push back on the free will hypothesis, by arguing that only God is strong enough to faithfully and perfectly fulfill His contract or covenant with humankind.  If it depended on us, I doubt any one of us is saved, now or forevermore.  Though that whole Schroedinger's cat experiment is the super-freakiest thing I've ever seen/heard, to be sure!  ~Peace~

  19.  I don't think it's necessary to escape the election passages.  Christ is the elect one, and we are elect in him.  In reading Ephesians one, and almost all of the election passages, I find that our election is "in him."  I think that Calvinists generally read the passages without the "in him;" that is:

    Eph 1:4 For he chose us before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

    Rather than:

    For he chose us [b]in him[/b] before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

    Just as we are found to be righteous because Jesus was righteous, we are elect because Jesus was elect.

    So, when someone asks me if I believe in election, I say yes.  What I don't don't believe in is individual election to salvation before anybody was born.

  20. Chad, thank you.  That was beautifully said.  Ironically (?), Dr. Beck has written a more extensive examination of the psychology behind religious beliefs.  'Unclean: Meditations on Purity, Hospitality, and Mortality' (2011) and 'The Authenticity of Faith: The Varieties and Illusions of Religious Experience' (2012).  I can't recommend these two books enough.  The content is bound to challenge and change you.  See the sidebar link for more info on ordering.  ~Peace~

  21. I'm really sorry to have given you the wrong impression.  I'll use a few more words to hopefully clarify my view which I don't put forward as THE TRUTH.

    The hundred sheep were His at the start of the parable.  However, 1 was 'lost' and 99 were not 'lost.'  While in one sense, God owns everything (the cattle on a thousand hills etc.), I was not referring to that aspect of being His.  These sheep represent one's who had already been declared righteous by Him.  They were already 'saved.'  The one who through his sin had broken fellowship/relationship with God was the one referred to as 'lost' or 'having gone astray.'  BUT, not in the sense of no longer being God's, in the sense of being saved, a once and for always declaration.

  22. I have long ago said that I do not consider you unregenerate.  So, I am not sad that you 'can't get it right.'

    It is not a Calvinist formulation that only the regenerated mind can avoid making such errors.  It is God's formulation per 1 Corinthians 2:14 as an example.

    My sadness was that you have a large following and when you say something it is more than likely to be taken as being 'without error.'  Nevertheless, neither your nor my errors can prevent anybody from receiving God's grace.  The 'elect' will be saved.

  23. Given some of the questions/observations about his parable of mine and the original, a note about the connection/inversion:

    The sequence of parables in Luke 15--lost coin, lost sheep, lost son--begin with this verse:

    Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”

    The three parables are, thus, stories Jesus tells to describe his ministry and, by association, the heart of God. Symbolically, Jesus and his Father are the widow going to great lengths to find the coin, the shepherd going to great lengths to save a sheep, and the father who welcomes the prodigal home. The contrast with the Pharisees reaches the climax in the contrast between the f/Father and the older brother. The extravagant, wasteful love of God--incarnated in Jesus's embrace of sinners--comes crashing into the stingy, non-inclusiveness of the religious "insiders."

    In short, these are parables about the heart of God.

    All that to say, this parable of mine reverses all this. God, in the image of the shepherd, doesn't search until all are found. God isn't interested in the "last one." More, God is content to damn the many and save only a few. Thus the implicit question: Does the doctrine of election describe the heart of Jesus and his Father? I'd argue, no, it does not.

  24.  If you are a regular reader here, then you know that there IS a backstory between the good doctor and David.  I think it has something to do with sin and human accountability. I am not a Calvinist, but rather an agnostic, often for reasons just exactly such as this.

  26. Yes, those are the questions I'm interested in. I don't have lots of Calvinist friends. But these questions between election and epistemology (e.g., doctrinal error) are something I've been thinking about a lot lately so I've been inquiring about this with Calvinist readers who comment.

    Because my hunch is this: Hardcore Calvinists shouldn't really care about (e.g. be saddened) or debate on blogs about doctrinal error.

    They shouldn't debate it because only the grace of God can lead one out of error. Achieving truth isn't a work of human effort or intelligence. Thus, what is the point of arguing or trying to use logic in a debate to convince others?

    Relatedly, they couldn't care because if God has left me in error (and bound for punishment) that is all to His glory. Thus, my error is a display of God's sovereign will and choice and, thus, should be cause for praise and worship. My error only shows how great God is in enlightening the minds of the elect.

    Thus, to care or debate is a sign of unfaith. Or, more likely, a sign that the Calvinist doesn't, in any practical way, actually believe what he is saying.

  27. That's the same argument I make, though I connect being elect "in Christ" with Colossians 1.

  28. Sigh...  David, that is unkind and unfair.  This is a good example of the war of words that makes my heart hurt for all of us.  I have been reflecting on what makes me so sad about these conversations.  To win the truth war is to sacrifice the thing which has been the most precious:  Mercy.  If only Dr. Beck had not taught me so well.  Turning back is not an option for me now.  Wherever Dr. Beck is going with this, I can't necessarily follow.  David, if you have learned anything here at Experimental Theology, isn't it to think courageously and deeply for yourself.  You're killing me here.

  29. How do you know you're not one of the elect?  I thought that was a key part of the doctrine of election - nobody knows whether or not they are among the elect.  At least that's the only part I like.

  30. Mark, I appreciate your thoughts, and understand and agree with what seems to be your desire to denounce double predestination. The problem with your replacement analogy though, is that it then makes salvation a function of man, and not of God.
    "And that is the tragic consequence of sin.  We can choose to opt-out of grace."To which I will simply say, "Impossible." Unless of course one believes that sin, death, our enslaved wills, Satan... anything... can defeat God's purposes. "Where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more." I must humbly disagree with your analogy, but we just can't out-sin God's grace. Sin is not an entity that we either defeat or are defeated by. It is a condition to which we are presently enslaved, but that we will be freed from when "all things are made new." To make grace an opt-out or opt-in choice is simply another form of "salvation by works" -- as in, "I chose to be saved (opt-in, made new) and you didn't." It is another shortsighted attempt at believing that some of us are "better" (more loved by God) than others; that some are His children and others are not.Contrary to the common view that we "save ourselves" through the proper use of our "free" wills (opt-in), and to the view that we are "born again" by choice, it is GOD'S choice, not ours, as to our rebirth. We did not choose our first birth, and we do not choose our second, or RE-birth. That is God's gift as the enactment of HIS will. It is NOT optional.Take care.

  31. Susan,

    Please forgive me for the sin of curiosity; but, what exactly do you see in the above comment that is unkind and or unfair so as to 'kill you.'  This is a sincere request.

  32. That's sort of my point. If I'm one of the elect then what does it matter what I believe? Nor should it matter to those reading about my errors. Truth and error doesn't make any difference in certain Calvinistic positions. So why debate about it in a thread?

    For example, in the space of a week two Calvinist readers of this blog have said that I can believe in universalism and be one of the elect. Great. So why care if universalism is "an error"? Or be sad about that error? There's nothing to be sad about and the error doesn't matter.

  33. And to help clarify further David - at least as I understand your view in the context of all of humanity - the "100" is not 100% of mankind, but 100% of the "elect." Please correct me if I have misunderstood you.

    If I am correct, then you apparently believe that:

    God does not love 100% of mankind, but only some of it.

    God does not intend to make 100% of His creation new, but only some of it.

    Jesus did not die for 100% of mankind, but only some of it.

    That Christ is not the savior of 100% of the world, but only some of it.


    Just how many "caveats" are there to God's good and loving purposes?

    My friend, I am sorry to appear to so strongly challenge and disagree with you in this (which I am most certainly doing, but not with any intent to insult you), but I would really like to know what your real purpose is behind trying to prove that not ALL will be saved. Is it some sort of personal vindication that you are a better/smarter scriptural interpreter than others.... or do you actually believe that bad news for the majority of mankind is somehow "good" news for the lucky "elect," of which you are apparently included. 

    Do you actually NOT care about the rest of your fellow man?

    Or is that you believe that God doesn't really care about us as individuals, but only as the means to glorify His massive ego? 

    And if so, why the hell do you "love" Him?!?

  35. Jim731, I don't see the works argument.  If you find yourself in Christ it is all by grace because God has placed you in Christ, forgiven sins through the cross and  placed his Spirit within you to enable a sanctified life.  In Christ it is all God's work.  It is only outside of Christ, when you have opted out of grace, that you've done anything.  And all you've done is condemn yourself. (John 3:18)

    My bigger problems with my analogy always ran to a) baptism being the place where the Spirit is given and b) evangelism in the fact that in sharing the gospel you are creating a chance for rejection, where blissful ignorance might just be blissful grace.  The thoughts against those concerns were usually that a fuller revelation grants greater assurance, vs. no assurance in ignorance and baptism being an outward sign - a physical grace given by God to hold on to.  Both were grace on grace.

  36. Richard certainly doesn't need me coming to his defense...so I won't...but I will say I find this conversation rather refreshing. Ideas matter. The stories we tell ourselves, about ourselves and God, matter. If this blog isn't an appropriate forum to have direct, frank conversations, then where? I have followed this blog for awhile, and I suspect others that have as well have come to a similar conclusion - this is not a place for "safe", superficial, or "easy" conversations (at least from a doctrinal perspective). I agree that these conversations are not for everyone...but then again, I suspect not many people that are easily offended follow this blog. 

    Like Richard, I find these Calvinist doctrines troubling, and as I look around Christiandom some of the most popular (read: celebrities), most read, and most heard pastors are card-carrying Calvinists (i.e. Gospel Coalition). So I say "Calvinism (or at least some of its tenets) are fair game." Of course we can and should always communicate with respect and grace, without sacrificing conviction and intellectual rigor.

  37. Susan, the gospel of John will play with you mind in those Schrodinger's cat ways.  But to your comment, Jesus was always saying things like "if you have ears, hear".  Sadly we can close our ears.  Think about the Abraham's comments to the rich man (around Lazarus) - "even if someone were raised they won't listen."  Everyday with the Spirit's indwelling we still have a sinful nature.  There is a reason Jesus' warnings are always "watch".  Justification to use the technical term is God's work.  Sanctification, only possible with the Spirit, is nevertheless a joint effort and we can screw it up.  And I'm sinner enough to screw it up completely.

  38. Yeah.  Our election is in Christ.  The opt-out thing is opting out of Christ.  It was really trying to wrestle with the tough examples of those who never heard the gospel and those who fell away and the centrality of grace.

  39. If it is GOD who has "placed me in Christ" then it has nothing to do with me or my choices. Grace is UNMERITED, UNCHOSEN - we do not "choose" to have it given to us. A blind man (either physically or spiritually), whose sight has been restored, would not opt-out of "seeing the light." When we are given the "realization of the truth" we can no longer see as "true" that which has then been proven to us to be false.

    The "works argument" is that it is something we DO to earn, obtain, receive... God's grace. If it is "ALL God's work," as you so rightly claim and with which I wholeheartedly agree, then how could anyone be doing ANY work contrary to it (ie., "choosing to opt-out")?

    Concerning condemnation: "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." Rom. 5:18  

    Christ's one act of righteousness will result in exactly what God intended -- life for all men. 

    To "opt-out of grace" would be to choose to remain enslaved to sin, remain blind, remain ignorant, remain decaying, remain dying... and so choose to be separated from the source of life -- God. Only the enslaved/sick mind would so choose, which would be impossible for the freed/healed mind to still be.

  40. According to Augustine Adam and Eve were able to sin and able not to sin.  After the fall they were not able not to sin.  Being regenerate, being in Christ, in this world is not complete.  The sarx, flesh, sinful nature remains until the last day.  We retain the sinful nature though the Spirit placed within does war with it.  From experience we know people who have fallen away.  Unless you are willing to say that they were never in Christ to begin with (a classic Calvinist expression), you have to account for that.  Simul justus et pecator - at the same time a sinner and and a saint - St. Paul's wrestling with the flesh - is that accounting.  Here in this age, even with the down-payment of the Spirit, that apple looks tempting.

  41. Jim,
    I too consider you my friend.  I am most definitely not insulted by anything you said.  No, I am most assuredly not a better/smarter scriptural interpreter than others.  I am not trying to prove that ALL will or will not be saved.

    This isn't really that complicated.  I have a view from my life path.  I share that because I am always looking to see where error is part of my view.  I am sure that neither one of us wishes to proceed down the wrong path.  Right?

    I have not really studied the passage that contains this parable to any real depth in a long time.  When I saw what was being attributed to Calvinism (again, just for fun, I repeat to you that I do not consider myself a Calvinist) I just reacted.  I could indeed be all wet.  But, so far nobody has challenged my view in any substantive manner so I still haven't gone back to see where I might have said something in error.

    "the "100" is not 100% of mankind, but 100% of the "elect." Please correct me if I have misunderstood you."

    I think the "100" is simply a number used to make Jesus' point.  It is a lot bigger than 1 and that is its only significance.  It in no way represents 100% of mankind or of the "elect" as far as I can tell.  Based on what you thought my view of the "100" was, you listed a number of views that you think I agree with.  Actually I agree with none of them.  I would like to address one of them very, very briefly, however.  The statement that "Jesus did not die for 100% of mankind, but only some of it."

    I believe that Jesus died to pay the price of sin of every human that has or will ever live.  So, sin is not and never has been the reason anybody remains separated from God.  The problem is belief.  All God asks of any person is to believe what He has revealed to them.  So, when a terrible, horribly, miserable sinner (e.g., me), whoes sins have already been paid for, believes the gospel, God saves them.  That's all there is to it.  Of course there is always a caveat . . . Belief is not 'yah, that might be what He said, but I 'm still keeping my options open . . .'

    Finally, for this cycle at least, you ask:  "And if so, why the hell do you "love" Him?!?"

    Scripture says it better than I ever could.  1 John 4:19   We (individually) love, because He first loved us (individually).  And, since dead people don't love, each of us better believe before we die or . . . well, you get the point.

  42. Richard, 
    Thanks... this, I think, says what I was trying to say below regarding David's post and the 100 sheep. His comment (and my apparent lack of familiarity with your regular commenters) allowed me to hear the original parable slightly differently than I had before. Hence my comment finding this parable being about something other than "salvation", as we have culturally understood it. 

    You maybe said it better, by saying this parable, along with the other two in Luke 15 are about "the heart of God". This is what I was referring to when I said it was about "life as life really is" because God's heart is described by these parables.

  43. Thanks for the healthy reminder. I do have a bee in my bonnet about this. I find particular versions of Calvinism to be such an offensive assault upon the reputation of God that I get very emotional, too emotional. It's a struggle.

    For what it's worth, my first comment in this thread was an apology to Calvinist readers.

  44. If we were simply sharing our stories (as Chad did so beautifully), and comparing ideas for the sake of dialogue, then I enjoy thinking about new ideas and hearing what others think as much as you seem to, Rob.  But apparently, some have felt it their duty to correct and/or convert those who are "in error" -- most prominently, Dr. Beck, and any of us who are pitied to have fallen under his "false teachings."  Holy toledo, Batman!  Please.  All these fragments of Protestant Christianity, which are variations on the same theme, are scrapping for followers, and apparently scared to death that their religious institutions will die out, if they don't fight like good soldiers to save their churches.  I think it was my friend Jim731 (or was it Sam?) who commented that some things are better left to die and stay buried.  We don't go down without a fight, though, do we?  And.  I think we get the spiritual battle against the devil and his minions (powers, principalities, etc.) confused with slaying EACH OTHER!  And then.  Congratulating ourselves for our heroic rescue mission:  Dead or alive, makes no matter mind, it seems.  If Dr. Beck has been fielding hateful comments that have been moderated out of the commentary, then I can empathize with his push back.  A person can only take so much vitriol before cracking the whip a time or two.  Conviction and intellectual rigor?  So, how do we determine who is lacking in conviction and intelligence in the debate contest?  Moral dumbfounding anyone?  Ah, as if any one of us is capable of emotionless, purely rational thinking and speech regarding issues such as religion or politics.  We have a million and one ways to deceive ourselves, no doubt.  I personally came to this blog and have continued to follow it because I am a questioner.  I have found arguing to be a fruitless pursuit.  (Unless I'm arguing with myself, which is often more helpful than you might think!)

  45. "Being regenerate, being in Christ, in this world is not complete.  The sarx, flesh, sinful nature remains until the last day."

    I agree. 

    " ... and the corruptible will be made incorruptible."

    The same One who first made "all things," will then make "all things new."

  46. In response to your question below (to which a direct comment was not an option) -- "My sadness was that you have a large following and when you say
    something it is more than likely to be taken as being 'without error.'"

    "Don't cry for me, Argentina," as the song goes.  You see yourself, David, as being obligated to save us from Dr. Beck?  I'm more inclined to think we need saving from your indoctrination.  Speaking for myself, I (or my eternal soul) neither needs nor wants a heroic rescuing from Dr. Beck or anyone else.  And I might add, if you don't like or agree with Dr. Beck's blog content, why do you keep reading?  I know that evangelicals are so programmed for battle of the Borg.  But, just stop.  Please.

  48. Sam, we can cry on each other's shoulders, in a manner of speaking.  It's a holy throw down (not to be confused with a hoe down!)

  49. Hi Richard,

    Thanks for your reply.  I want to tell you that my wife and I stumbled upon your blog and are really big fans.  Even though you and I probably share some pretty different theological views, you are one of the few bloggers that I feel "get it" in terms of faith, doubt, etc.  I am an "N-order complaint" type person as you describe it.  I also feel that my faith is in constant tension between feeling and logic and has never been able to find a home in either.  My journey has been one full of doubt and cognitive dissonance and probably always will be that way.  That's just how my mind works.

    I was "raised" in the Reformed tradition (by "raised" I mean that I didn't really begin exploring Christianity in depth until I was in college).  Although I owe a great debt to and still sympathize with many in that tradition, I also feel that many of the "answers" given by that tradition oversimplify the complexities of faith and life and can in some cases do more harm than good.

    Although I no longer consider myself a Calvinist, I sometimes still get emotional when I feel like Calvinism is mischaracterized... perhaps due to the indebtedness that I feel to the tradition... strange that I would want to defend a position I no longer hold.

    Chad

  50. In reply to David:

    So how did you believe when so many others don't?

    "No one can know the son unless the Father draws them, and no one can know the Father unless the son chooses to reveal Him?"

    "No one can say that 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit."

    It appears then David, that you did something (believe) through your own power (and were then rewarded by God with salvation), that scripture declares is only possible through God's actions. 

    You have previously claimed that "we all have the power to believe but won't until God opens our eyes." Which is nothing other than *giving us the power to believe,* though you try to differentiate the two.

    God does not ask us to do something - believe - that He knows we are unable to do without His gift of faith. Your attempts at trying to differentiate *won't believe* versus *can't believe* are as shortsighted as saying that a blind man is at fault for walking into the tree because he *would not* see the tree.

    A physically blind man WILL not see the tree exactly because he CANNOT see the tree UNTIL his blindness has been healed... until he has been GIVEN physical sight. In exactly the same way the spiritually blind person WILL not believe UNTIL he has been given spiritual sight - faith - which is ENABLED only by God.

    I don't think Jesus randomly chose "100," but because 99 + 1 = 100... 100%... the whole of the flock... the whole of mankind.

    I do completely agree with your assessment of why we love God - because He loved us first. But that must include His love for all of our fellow man... all of our neighbors.... all of His creation - His children. Scripture also explains why only some love God now - "Those who are not loving do not know God, for God is love," and that it is God who decides WHEN (not if) to reveal Himself to anyone. 

    Otherwise we are left with the only answer as to why the "non-elect" do not, and will not ever, love God -- because He does NOT love them.

    "And, since dead people don't love, each of us better believe before we die or . . . well, you get the point."

    Cute, but death will be defeated. Or don't you believe so?

  51. "I get very emotional, too emotional. It's a struggle."

    To this honest and vulnerable admission, I can relate.

    What do we do now?

    Curse the darkness, or light our candles in solidarity?

    ~Peace~

  52. Parables are not allegories.  They typically have one major theological, referent point or theme.  Ascribing referent points to every little aspect of a parable is misusing scripture.  The point of the lost sheep parable was that "God delights in seeking, and saving, His sheep who are lost."  It says absolutely nothing about election or who the 99 sheep are, or the identity of the 1 sheep.  Surely you wouldn't say that we can conclude from this parable that 99% of the world is fine, perfectly sinless, and not in need of being found, and only 1% needs finding.  I would hope we would both agree that it would be drawing a false conclusion from the parable.  In the same way, using the parable to mean anything other than, "God delights in seeking, and saving, His sheep who are lost," is an abuse of scripture.  It is elsewhere that scripture says who are God's sheep and who are not and thus who God seeks, and who it is that He saves. 

  53. Gr8 parable.  Every time qb walks into First Presbyterian Church here in Amarillo, he chuckles inwardly, wondering if he'll ever be "outed" as an open theist...and if so, what that will mean for his family, who loves it there.  

    Truth be known, so does qb...all except for the "Presbyterian" part.

    qb

  54. I think it's awesome that you defend against mischaracterizations. It's a very Christ-like thing to do. And it's important to push against people, me included, when they are using strawmen.

  55. "God delights in seeking, and saving, His sheep who are lost."

    That's sort of the point of my parable. That, when you look the doctrine of election with fresh eyes, its seems pretty clear that God doesn't delight in seeking and saving His sheep who are lost. Because, as a Calvinist would admit, God could save more and more, any number up to everyone who has ever lived. God could do that. But God doesn't. Which makes it a bit of a stretch to claim that God delights in seeking and saving the lost.

    I mean, if God delights in it so much, why not save the elect +1. Does God not delight in that math?

  56. Hey, did you follow the SCOTUS today on the debate about the individual mandate? Looks like the conservatives might strike it down. You know that makes me sad, but I thought today, "Well, qb will be happy." So l'll rejoice with those who rejoice today. You. :-)

  58. In further reply to David:

    "I believe that Jesus died to pay the price of sin of every human that has or will ever live.  So, sin is not and never has been the reason anybody remains separated from God. The problem is belief."

    So then it seems that Jesus' death did not actually do anything for any of us. If sin is not what "separates us from God," then why die for it? How was "God in Christ, reconciling us to Himself" if we are still His enemies? How did God "demonstrate His love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us," if His death accomplished nothing?

    If Jesus was a knowledgeable, effective, and compassionate savior then, he should have died for our unbelief. How sad then, that of all the things he could have saved us from; of all the things that he could have died for; it was that one thing that sends us to eternal hell - disbelief -  that he failed to overcome. 

    "It's no wonder the Jews and Muslims and atheists don't believe that Christ is the savior of the world. Even the Christians don't believe it."

  59. By that line of argument, why doesn't God create a world with evil -1? Doesn't God delight in good and hate evil? Yet evil remains. Clearly, there must be a reason why God doesn't do things we think he would do.

    To put it in parable terms, the shepherd will scrupulously keep all 100 sheep, but not the goats, and especially not the wolves in sheep's clothing.

  60. That, again, depends on who His sheep are... the parable doesn't say who the sheep are, other than the fact that they are His.  In John 10:26-27, Jesus says: "you do not believe because you are not my sheep.  My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me."  God delights in seeking, and saving His sheep who are lost.   

  61. Ah, I see. He saves the sheep and doesn't save the goats. But, let me ask you this: how'd the sheep become the sheep? Well, because God sought them out and saved them, made them a sheep rather than a goat. Which brings us right back to the point of my parable.

  62. See my response above to Reformed and Unashamed. Isn't it a bit circular, logically speaking, to say that God will save the sheep and not the goats when God's salvific action is what defines a sheep versus a goat. I mean, being a sheep isn't an intrinsic quality, it's imputed by God. So saying, "God only saves the sheep" is tautological, a meaningless statement.  It just brings us back to the point of my parable.

  64. Jim,

    I know you are very intelligent and quite knowledgeable concerning the Scriptures.  So, I must be dumber than dirt to keep misleading you so.  All I can say is that it is not my intention and I wish my words were clearer.

    "It appears then David, that you did something (believe) through your own power"
    It may appear so; but, I certainly don't say so.

    "(and were then rewarded by God with salvation),"
    Again, appearance aside; I do not believe this.

    I have no need to quibble about these words.  If you want to describe God's giving us the gift of salvation through faith as "opens our eyes" or "gives us the power," I have no problem with either expression.

    Let's play dictionary:
    able:   Having sufficient power, strength, force, skill, means, or resources of any kind to accomplish the object.

    choose:  To make choice of; to select; to take by way of preference from two or more objects offered; to elect; as, to choose the least of two evils.

    "Your attempts at trying to differentiate *won't believe* versus *can't believe* are as shortsighted as saying that a blind man is at fault for walking into the tree because he *would not* see the tree."

    Ok, Webster and I are both shortsighted, I have no problem with that.  However, there really is a difference between being able to do something and not choosing to do it.  Somehow you know that when man does not choose to believe God it is because he is not able.  I don't believe that; but it is OK with me for you to stay there.

    "A physically blind man WILL not see the tree exactly because he CANNOT see the tree UNTIL his blindness has been healed... "
    The blind man does not choose to 'not see the tree.'  He is not able to see the tree.

    "In exactly the same way the spiritually blind person WILL not believe UNTIL he has been given spiritual sight - faith - which is ENABLED only by God."

    In Genesis 15:6 God declares Abraham righteous because he believed Him when He told him that he would have countless descendants.  It didn't take spiritual acumen for Abe to believe God; it simply took his choice to trust or believe.  Man today is also, like Abraham, able to just choose to believe; he won't because he doesn't want to.

    "I don't think Jesus randomly chose "100," but because 99 + 1 = 100... 100%... the whole of the flock... the whole of mankind."
    OK, be my guest and believe this.

    "But that must include His love for all of our fellow man... all of our neighbors.... all of His creation - His children."
    OK, be my guest and believe this too.  It is simply not in Scripture.

    "Scripture also explains why only some love God now - "Those who are not loving do not know God, for God is love," and that it is God who decides WHEN (not if) to reveal Himself to anyone."
    Loving God and knowing God do indeed go together.  Believing God does not depend on either.

    "Otherwise we are left with the only answer as to why the "non-elect" do not, and will not ever, love God -- because He does NOT love them."
    Actually, the real reason people don't love God is that they do not know Him.

    "Cute, but death will be defeated. Or don't you believe so?"
    Of course I believe 'death will be defeated.'  Now, if only you and I had a shared understanding of what that means . . .

  65. Jim,

    Hope you can figure out what follows what here.  This is in response to your comment that started with:  "In further reply to David:"

    "So then it seems that Jesus' death did not actually do anything for any of us. "
    Again, I apologize for leading you astray.  God always had a plan for Jesus to pay for sin.  It is in that sense that I say that sin was never the problem for continued separation.  Let's just stick with today to keep it simple.  Sin has been paid for; it is no longer the reason for me to be separated from God.  Today, it is one's choice to NOT believe God that maintains the separation.  It is not our sin.

    "If Jesus was a knowledgeable, effective, and compassionate savior then, he should have died for our unbelief."
    OK, you have decided what He should have done.  Wow, I'm afraid that that is well above my pay grade.

    "It's no wonder the Jews and Muslims and atheists don't believe that Christ is the savior of the world."
    Now if we could only agree on what the Greek word kosmos means.  People choose to believe (and to not believe) all sorts of stuff.  Bob Jones' followers thought cool aid would get them to heaven.  Go figure.  But, let me ask you this.  Did Christ's death result in salvation for angels who rebelled with satan?  Shouldn't it have?  Aren't they part of the kosmos?

  66. An excellent point Richard. And it is akin to saying, "God only saves believers," or "the Holy Spirit only regenerates believers," as if they were believers BEFORE God's action. There is no such thing as an "unregenerated believer."

  67. To my good friend David, in response to your comments below:

    As always, you and I are worlds apart on the meanings of "love, death, salvation, election, free will..." and a host of other words. Though I am sure at some point in God's time we will see eye to eye, as will all mankind, I highly doubt that that point will arrive during our current lives. As Patricia has beautifully alluded to, we are all the sum of our "stories," and all of our stories, and our conclusions and opinions resulting from them, are different. It is an easily missed, and oftentimes confusing and misleading, situation. If only we would all see each other as does Temple Grandin, "Different, but not less," the world would be a much happier, more peaceful place. But I have no doubt that that day will come.

    I am going to use one last analogy and then I will shut up. And for it I will borrow the words of a great number of Calvinists, and Arminians, and universalists - that we are all "spiritually dead" until regenerated.

    Now for the moment let's equate "spiritually dead" with "physically dead." There is a "dead" body lying on the floor in front of us. In order for that body to get up and move (become alive, or become spiritually "undead" - believe) what has to occur?

    I think that we would both agree that the dead body cannot give life to itself, but must be given life - regenerated, reborn, reanimated. And the only one I know who can do that (Yep, I will be your guest and believe this), is God. 

    As I see it, your claim is equivalent to believing that the "dead" body is ABLE to give life to itself, and that God will hold it responsible for refusing to do so - in other words, for CHOOSING not to come to life. As I commented elsewhere to Richard's line of thinking concerning the sheep and the goats, "there is no such thing as an unregenerated believer." Regeneration - the breath of God - is required to make one both come alive, and to believe. 

    Because I suspect that you will not (or perhaps "cannot") equate spiritual death with physical death, I also suspect that you and I will always therefore disagree. And so as one last point I would simply ask you this: (I will not be responding, so feel free to answer here, or only to yourself.)

    Out of the billions upon billions of people who have ever lived, of which you claim that everyone of them is ABLE to believe but CHOOSES not to, why has not a single one of them ever done so without God first "regenerating" them? (And as I see it, God was not TESTING to see if Abraham had faith, but DEMONSTRATING what he would do with the faith that God GAVE him.)

    And when you have answered that, please tell me why not a single one of those same billions of people did not come to life the first time without God's breath, and how any of them will defeat death and come back to life the second time when God "makes ALL things new" ... when He restores ALL things, reconciles ALL things, gives life to ALL who were condemned in Adam - without His gift of regeneration and rebirth? If we did not CHOOSE our first birth, why do you assume that we must choose our REbirth?

    Peace to you.

  69. Precisely.  Comical in a laughing down crying kind of way.

    Thanks for the :-) Patricia.

  70. If Jesus doesn't rescue me, put me on his shoulder and carry me home to the father's embrace, I am well and truly screwed. 40+ years of fear, uncertainty, doubt, depression and, quite possibly, raving lunacy as I have attempted to find some sort of lasting peace as a Christian have proven quite nicely that any possible salvation will be a gift in every possible sense of the word. I honestly don't even have it in me to muster up a good session of belief that lasts for more than a day or two. So, apparently, if my salvation is contingent on my belief I am, again, screwed.

    And then people come along and say that quite possibly the reason why I am in the state I'm in is because the "loving" creator "decided" that I wasn't going to be a recipient of grace?

    And then other people tell me that my problem is that I don't believe. Or I don't believe enough. Or I don't believe the right things.

    Seriously?

    Calvinism says to me: Dan, you'd better start believing, doing and saying the right things, because nobody, yourself included, is going to seriously think you're one of the elect if you don't.

    Arminianism says to me: Dan, you'd better start believing, doing and saying the right things, because even though salvation is a free gift you can lose it right quick if you get off into the weeds. After all, the way is narrow and hard. If you're not believing, doing and saying the right things that's a pretty good indication you've left the narrow way.

    And so I've spent 40+ years with the "evidences" of my "lack of election" or my "lack of belief" rising up and slapping me in the face.

    If I could get off this ride I would, but I can't. I'm so terrified at the thought of eternal separation from God  (whether that be death or hell) and I'm so desperate to finally feel accepted by Him that I just keep at it.

    If insanity is continuing to do the same thing but hoping for a different result than I am certifiable.

    Argh!

  71. Susan, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say (my fault).  I wasn't suggesting that anyone in this conversation was lacking conviction or intellectual rigor. I appreciate this blog because I think both are present and valued.  Of course we all have biases, but assuming we agree there is some objective truth/reality out there, then all models of this  reality are not created equally. Therefore, we advocate for the model(s) that we believe do a better job of explaining that reality. 

  72. I know where this is going, so rather than throwing out verses which I'm sure you have read let me just cut to the philosophical presuppositions that we're working off of, "where do you believe people receive their value?"  I believe the Bible teaches that the only value people have comes from God.  As the Creator and Lord of man, He is the one who determines our value and purpose.  Do you disagree?  

  73. Not sure I agree or disagree. For example, does the non-elect have value from God? I personally believe that everyone is created in the Imago Dei and is, thus, loved and valued by God. So if that's what you mean, I agree. But if you mean that only some--the elect--are valued by God and the rest of us are viewed as trash by God, well, we're back to my parable again.

  74. Hi Dan,

    I think I know exactly what you are talking about.  I spent well over a decade stuck in the endless loop you are talking about.  The harder I tried to muster up belief and good feelings about God the more I saw my own imperfections, false motives, and hardness of heart.  Trying harder only made it worse.  Even now I am not completely out of the woods.

    You may find the writings of Horatius Bonar helpful in this regard.  Try "God's Way of Peace".  Horatius Bonar does come from a Calvinist background but I would not let that prevent you from some really helpful advice - just spit out the bones when you find them.  He writes for people just like us.  His book is not a cure-all.  No book is.  Google it (it's an old book and free public copies abound on the internet) and take from it anything that you can.

    Charles Spurgeon's All of Grace may also be of some help to you as well - but then again, perhaps not.  Different medicine works for different people.

    Keep struggling.  You'll find your way.

    Chad

  75. So, the basis of mankind's value is that they were created in the Imago Dei, the Image of God and "thus, loved and valued by God."  So, what does it mean that we are all in the Image of God?  I would say that we are in the Image of God in whatever way(s) that we are like God.  Surely, we are not in the "image of God" in ways that we are not like God!  So, can a person become more or less in the Image of God, or more or less like God?  Were Adam and Eve less in the Image of God, (less like God) after the fall?  If God is righteous and perfect, then surely, we would agree that Adam and Eve were less in the Image of God after they became no longer perfect. 

    So here is another question, "are there certain aspects of God's Image that He values more than others?"  We have an intelligent will and God has an intelligent will.  This is most certainly an aspect of the Image or likeness of God that we all have that separates us from animals, trees, etc.  But it is interesting, that in the Bible, God never says it is wrong, evil, or immoral to not have an intelligent will.  This is even though, clearly, those with greater intelligence are more "like God," since He has the greatest intelligence.  On the other hand, what God rages against, throughout the Bible, are those who do not reflect His moral holiness and righteousness. 

    Is it not safe to say then, that the aspect of God's nature and character that he most highly esteems and desired to be reflected through mankind, His image bearers, was His morally perfect attributes.  And does this not mean that every single human who enters the world, committing sin, fundamentally fails in the ultimate purpose for which God created us, to be the Image of God, revealing his moral perfections and righteousness?  And lastly, since the fact that we are made in the "Image of God" is the basis for God's love and value of us, and at the most, we are a "broken," if not a "false" image of Him, what else is left for Him to value in us?  As creatures who have destroyed, corrupted the essence of who we are, our chief characteristic, the Image of God in us, the part of us from which we receive our value from God.  Since we are no longer a fully functioning, in tact, perfect image of God, what inherent right or characteristic have we retained that we can demand that if God is loving, He must bless us?                      

  76. I once thought like this author. "And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely," and "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." Embrace both, I said? Impossible. There must be another interpretation. I regret that I found such ways in myself to butcher God's bible. Unfortunately finding myself more often the former, I still ought say:

    The sovereignty of God over all things is turmoil of soul for the intellectually independent servant of Christ, but it is a sweet resting place for the humbly bowed slave of Christ.

  77. I once thought like this
    author. "And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely," and
    "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him."
    Embrace both, I said? Impossible. There must be another interpretation. I
    regret that I found such ways in myself to butcher God's bible.


    Unfortunately finding myself more often the former, I still ought say,
    the sovereignty of God over all things is turmoil of soul for the
    intellectually independent servant of Christ, but it is a sweet resting
    place for the humbly bowed slave of Christ.

  78.  "In Him [Christ Jesus], you also (Dan G), when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in Him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, *****to the praise of HIS glory.******" Ephesians 1:13-14

    God is after His own glory. He will eternally get the praise for being a great, great rescuer of miserable sinners like you and I. Saving the worst people, like us, makes His grace even more amazing. It is for His sake, for the sake of Christ, and thus He will do it.

    "I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions FOR MINE OWN SAKE, and will not remember thy sins." Isaiah 43:25


    Let it sink in. Lose yourself in His glory. It is a sure shelter.

  80. I make the same move and then connect being "in Christ" with Colossians 1. I made this argument in an exchange I had with with J. Daniel Kirk about universalism over at Two Friars and a Fool.

  81. To Richard and all my fellow ETers,

    It seems that once again I got more than a little bit carried away in my comments to my good friend David. While I can easily imagine that in your always kind and gracious hearts you might complain that this is not necessary, I am going to ask it anyway: Please forgive me. Please forgive me for hogging the blog and for saying anything that might be taken as unkind or judgmental, for that is never my intent. If there ever was anyone who let his passions get the better of him, it is me. But that is no excuse, so once again I beg your forgiveness, and at the same time know that I have received it. Thank you all so much for having given me the assurance of that.

    And to you David specifically, please forgive me if I gave you any indication that I thought you were anything other than the kind, intelligent, sincere, honest, and loving individual that I know you to be. Thank you for your passion and commitment to what you believe. I love ya, bro.

    I think I will do us all a favor and keep my mouth shut for a while. The longer, the better.... right?

    God bless you all.   Jim

  82. Thanks for the reply! I must confess I don't see anything circular there, just not particularly informative from a logical standpoint. It doesn't say anything about the contents of the categories, just their existence.
    If the sheep in the parable are the whole of humanity (as you seem to be saying) and not all are saved, then it's either the 99 or the 1 who is lost. It's definitely not the 1, it's pretty clear that not all are saved, and as you pointed out it's monstrous to say it's the 99. So your interpretation of the parable must be incomplete, regardless of whether you're a fan of election or not. That's what I was trying to say in admittedly elliptical fashion.

  83. Great heartfelt discussions here :) Gonna have to check your books out when I have the money for 'em, Dr. Beck :)

  84. Doctrine and theological constructions aside, I think Dr. Beck's main point stands that this (original) parable demonstrates the heart of God for the lost. I'm a universalist in the George MacDonald mold, but I am part of a straight up Reformed church. It's funny, I was drawn to this church because the people seem to express love for Christ and others more than other believers I've known. But anytime discussion of theology and doctrine comes up with the guys from the church, the focus is more on dissecting admittedly difficult scriptures, primarily from Paul's epistles, to prove calvinism right. And all I want to say every time is "but what was Jesus like?" Shouldn't the answer to that question be enough?

  85. Dan G, and that is precisely what is so offensive about the Calvinist (neo-Reformed) doctrine (TULIP).  The system is such that you're locked in with no way out in sight.  As the belief goes (predestination and election), your fate is sealed.  Fear is the power that this system of thought holds over a person.  That fear is a powerful force.  It divides us, even within ourselves, let alone into "us and them" categories with others.

    Yes, I completely understand feeling like you are certifiable.  Right there with you, brother!  Even as you want to let it go, even as awareness dawns that the taskmaster (systematic theology) is a harsh and unworthy one, it takes a long, long time to break out of it.  Give yourself grace and both permission to fail and the confidence to trust yourself.  Surround yourself with people who affirm you to ask questions (hello, Dr. Beck!), and who won't crucify you for asking the "wrong" questions.  You may need to get a new set of friends?  If everyone you know is a card-carrying Calvinist of the 5-point TULIP variety, you won't find much support for divergent thinking among them.  It can be lonely.  It can be a long, bitter battle to defend your right to quit that game.  Which sounds absurd, as if we need others' permission?  But, in a community, it matters to us, doesn't it, whether we are accepted and have peace with our brothers and sisters.  It should, anyway, if we acknowledge our humanness, the need for healthy connection.

    Dan G., I am pulling for you.  Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts and experiences.  ~Peace~

  86. Hi qb, I have been thinking about your comment, and wonder if you would entertain a question?

    What do you think would happen if others in your congregation became aware of your unorthodox views?  Would your membership be revoked, or would people who had formerly embraced you then hold you (and your family) at arm's length?

    I don't ask strictly from morbid curiosity, but because this is the experience that I have had in the past with church.  There are unspoken "rules" that one doesn't break, without explicit or more subtle consequences.  The code of silence was not healthy for me, though it did keep the peace with others.  Challenging the rules, or the authority figures, was understood to be a no-no.

    It occurs to me that this situation is not so uncommon in churches, which explains why so many people seek outside "places" for exploring their faith and openly discussing it.  Of course, the drawback to that is not really knowing the people with whom one is interacting.

    I know little about the Presbyterian denomination or its statement of faith.  There are two branches of Presbyterian, though, aren't there?  I've been more intimately acquainted with Baptist, Evangelical Free (EFCA), and United Methodist doctrine and tradition.  ~Peace~

  87. qb's not falling for any of't, not counting his chickens before they hatch.  If it goes 6-3 to overturn the mandate and Sotomayor rides with the majority, qb will entertain a moment or two of smug glee.  Even so, if it goes that way - and it's not self-evident to me that it will - SCOTUS will (true to deferential, conservative form) tailor its opinion narrowly and sever the mandate from the rest of it, letting the policy monstrosity stand except for the mandate.

    Still, your pseudofellowship in pseudorejoicing will be appreciated...if it comes to that.  I'm not convinced.  I think Kennedy was playing games with us yesterday; pessimist that I am, I predict he and AJSS will vote with Breyer and Ginsburg when push comes to shove.

    BTW, we won't know nuthin' definitive until June.  So qb'll be on pins and needles, clinging bitterly to his guns and religion, until then...and then perhaps even beyond that.

    The only consolation in all of this will be the fact that when BHO trained his guns on those he thought might be open-minded, the names that came up were Scalia and the conservative bloc.  That says a lot between the lines, and it's accurate.

    qb

  88. It's will be interesting. And a nail biter. Many are saying it's up to Robert's and Kennedy, the two going one way or the other, with the final outcome being 5-4 to overturn or 6-3 to keep the mandate in place.

    Also, I didn't want my comment to be seen pseudofellowhip. We disagree a lot about politics, but on my end it's always affectionately. One of my best friends on campus is a hardcore libertarian, and we go at it all the time. But we love each other. That's how I see you and I. Disagreeing, but no pseudofellowship.

  89. I for one hope that you will not withdraw from conversation here, Jim. I know it's easy to get drawn into debate, especially when the belief system you've been through and seen through is being pronounced as "the" unmitigated truth. Like you, I think David is in earnest. He reminds me of all things Baptist, and why I -- and I suspect others here -- left and will never return to that cultish world.

    From George MacDonald, Prayer.
    "My prayers, my God, flow from what I am not;
    I think thy answers make me what I am.
    Like weary waves thought follows upon thought,
    But the still depth beneath is all thine own.
    Out of strange strife thy peace is strangely wrought;
    If the lion in us pray -- thou answerest the lamb."
    -from Diary of an Old Soul

    Always your friend, Patricia

  90. Thanks, Rob.  I appreciate that clarification.  It's too easy to dismiss the beliefs and experiences of others by implying that they are less intelligent, or, that *obviously* their faith is lacking or non-existent.  I would go one step further in saying this:  Stating a truth that you know is going to provoke offense, and then invalidating the other person's offense, is unfair.  If these kind of provocative conversations are going to happen, then people are going to get hurt.  We each believe what we do for our own reasons.  I objected so much to the mocking tone of the post because I do not like it when someone mocks me.  That is probably a silly, childish, self-absorbed reason to give a flying fig about others, even those with whom I disagree, but I don't feel good about hurting someone that way.  If I think about the ways that I have been hurt by religion and certain dogmas, I can be angry too.  I was disappointed that Dr. Beck chose that way to talk about Calvinism vs. his beliefs (Universal Salvation).  Many other blogs carry on a perpetual debate, often heated, over such controversies.  Who wins?  I don't know.  I have not come away, ever, feeling like I've won anything by scoring a point or two.  I hate what divides us, but there it is, I guess.  What good can we talk about, that we have in common?  We are human, all of us, and not one of us is perfect -- either in believing or doing the right thing.  Objective truth is relative to the degree that it is received in these earthen vessels of ours.  Christ is the Truth incarnate.  Shall we talk about Him?  I welcome any and all lively discussion with you and anyone, as long as you don't imply that I'm a) stupid and/or b) not equally loved by God.  ~Peace~

  92. You are not alone, Dan G. You are not alone.

    "They regard the Father of their spirits as their governor! They yield the idea of  ... "the glad Creator" and put in its stead a miserable, puritanical martinet of a God, caring not for righteousness but for His rights: not for the eternal purities, but the goody proprieties. The prophets of such a God take all the glow, all the hope, all the color, all the worth, out of life on earth, and offer you instead what they call eternal bliss -- a pale, tearless hell ... "
    George MacDonald, on Mean Theologies

  93. Jim, your kind-hearted and gentle spirit have blessed me so many times here.  Your passion for sparing others from the theological dogma that has hurt and offended you in the past is so understandable.  The gauntlet was thrown down.  We would be inhuman if we did not feel any emotion.  What I read of your conversation with David was a debate of the Scriptural proofs that are used to validate Calvinism.  That was the point of the post?  Please don't go away, Jim.  I suppose we should all ask forgiveness of each other, for yesterday's sword-fight?  I am sorry too, Jim, for failing you as a friend.  How can I encourage you in the way that you would like to be supported?

  96. Thanks so much Susan. I really appreciate the encouragement.

    It really is a taskmaster, this compulsion to "get it right". Whether that be theology, beliefs, behaviors or whatever. Taken as a narrative whole I think I sometimes see a beautiful and hopeful big picture shining through the bible and christian history. Unfortunately when I read the bible or many christian books what usually leaps off the page and smacks me upside the head are messages of condemnation and guilt which produce fear, uncertainty and doubt.

    I know exactly where this came from since the denomination I was raised in was extremely legalistic to the point of perfectionism. They were (and presumably are still) extremely proud of their status as the remnant, the little flock, those fortunate ones who had been given "the truth" and the accompanying mandate to bring the "third angels message" to the apostate (all other christians, also known as Bablyon) and the heathen (everyone else).

    My problem was that even though I got out of that system (miracle in itself I'm sure) I was programmed with the compulsion to get it right. To find "the truth". To work it all out. So I've tried it all, every "ism" imaginable, like some hamster jumping from wheel to wheel but never actually getting anywhere.

    And now I've come to the end of the road. There aren't any "ism's" left. Or at least I don't have the energy to try any more of them. Which, presumably, leaves me in another "ism" (some sort of agnosticism).

    One of the "ism's" I explored was fond of what they call the Jesus Prayer. It's pretty much all I have left.

    Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

    Thanks again. The encouragement and the knowledge that I'm not alone really does help.

  97. In my own faith biography this is where I ended up: "Richard, don't worry about it. If God is like Jesus God isn't going to screw you over."

    It's about that simple for me.

  98. See, now you're just making me cry.

    I hadn't read that before. That is so incredibly right on. MacDonald is one of the few christian authors I will even allow myself to read anymore. Just as this is one of the very few christian blogs I will allow myself to read.

    Thanks so much. If Christ has a body on this earth, you all are most assuredly a part of it.

  99. Failing me as a friend?! My goodness, NO! You are one, along with Patricia, Dan G, Sam, and others, who keeps drawing me back here so that I may sit at your feet and learn what Christ is like. Everything you say is an encouragement to me. 

    Thank you so much for your understanding.

  100. Thanks Richard,

    You're on the very short list of christian author's, bloggers, etc. who actually give me hope and encouragement instead of just piling on more guilt, shame, fear and doubt. I appreciate it so much.

    Unfortunately, one of the things burned indelibly into my mind as a child is a scene where Jesus looks at me in the last day and shakes his head so sadly and says "depart from me, I never knew you". That scene has haunted me continually since I was a child. I suppose the church leaders and my parents who painted that picture for me, and so many others like me, were trying to do a good thing. I suppose they were trying to motivate me towards "being a better christian", being a "good little boy" and all of that. And the verse is right there in the bible.

    So sure, I've always seen Jesus as wanting to rescue me. As trying to rescue me. As holding out his gift of salvation to me. And I've always seen so many other people around me who seem to be living in the joy of their rescue and of their salvation. But for me, when all is said and done, and I approach the great white throne, I'm that little boy again, and I look up at him and he shakes his head sadly and says "I'm sorry, I really am, I just never knew you".

    This is the reason I am so attracted to George MacDonald, to your writings, and to Christian Universalism. Because in them, all of the goodness and love and intention of God, through Christ, is for me too. Not just for those others who have "gotten it right". But oh man those "Mean Theologies" and false god's are just so hard to exorcise.

  101. Thank you Patricia. I count myself blessed beyond measure to have friends like you and Susan and Sam, among many others here. I said so much yesterday (or was it over several days - I can't even keep track) that I felt like I not only overwhelmed the blog, but David and myself. I really appreciate your support. I don't think it's possible for me to completely withdraw, but I will do my best to limit my words to those which support and lift up others rather than trying to find the faults in their arguments. Take care.

  102. Please don't shut up Jim. I need your words. They're like water in the desert.

    If you think you've gone overboard then by all means apologize and ask for forgiveness. But don't keep your mouth shut.

    Your good heart and your passion shine right through. It actually does me so much good to see the way both you and David make such an effort to let each other know that you're not enemies and that you do honor each other.

  103. Thanks Richard. It seems that you and I share a hot "button" - Calvinism. And when it gets pushed we tend to react quickly and strongly. I will try and limit my comments to the shorter and more positive reactions as you are better at doing.

  104. It's not easy to come out of the FOG (Fear, Obligation, Guilt) that others carefully and religiously construct around us. Coming out of it is a process. And where they would warn you not to trust your own observations (they'd have you trust theirs instead, right?), I'd say that God gave you a heart, mind, soul and strength, and gave His utmost blessing on engaging and using them in this life. Blessings, my friend.

  105. Yet another great example of why Calvinism is Jank. Seriously though, I think Calvin was just picking up where Augustine left off. 

    I found this article interesting: http://www.dyordy.com/Gathering/MustWeRepentofAugustine.html

  106. I'm just trying to understand - your beef with Calvinism is that beliefs don't matter?  

  107. No, Jim.  It is true, that I did fall very short of being at my best for you and with you yesterday.  So not what I ever want to do, and I am truly sorry.  You, and the others you name, continually set an example of love and grace.  It's a mean old world, and I need your good and edifying influence.  I am so glad that you came back, Jim.  Love and blessings to you.  And thank you for your understanding and forgiveness.  ~Peace~

  108. So ....what would the Universalist Caricature of this be?


    “Suppose a shepherd has a hundred sheep and he loses all of
    them. Doesn’t he go out into the open country and go after the lost sheep?  No, he says there is plenty of time and
    eventually they will find their way back, so why bother. He calls his friends
    and neighbours together and says, ‘Rejoice with me! My lost sheep will
    eventually come back.’

     

  109. Hello Dan G,
    You couldn't have summed it up more perfectly.  That "depart from Me - I never knew you" verse is the scariest verse in the entire Bible for me too.  Many Christians we all know (especially mega-church pastors who make $250,000) seem so sure they are NOT one of the 97% of humantity that will allegedly burn in hell for eternity.  Many (I thought it was only a few)  seem so sure they are one of the 3% special elect, while others seem so sure they are one of the 3% who decided to follow Jesus, have faith, believe right, go to the right church and don't sin like 97% of humanity does.  It's very, very bizarre how many seem so sure of their locked-in status of holiness. Worse yet, God seems to answer many of these people's prayers, hence appearing to endorse them,
    thus endorsing their OTHERS will burn in hell doctrine.

    I like that you use the word insanity.  One of the few verses that keeps me from going INsane (barely by a thread) with this Christian stuff is the very opening of His Sermon on the Mount - Blessed are the POOR IN SPIRIT, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

    You geniunely fit that bill.  Those who gloat or doctrinally debate/insist (to no end) over the prospect of OTHERs going to hell don't exactly portray themselves as being ...  poor in spirit - but that's just me.

    Feelin' U Dan G - thanks for the courage and honesty - you encourage me a lot when you share.
    Gary Y

  110. It's the sheep that are lost... the good shepherd always knows exactly where they are. And he will not fail to bring them all home. I think our biggest error is thinking that he should do so when WE want him to, as in when the evangelist decides that it's time for you to believe "properly."

  112. "It's the sheep that are lost... the good shepherd always knows exactly
    where they are. And he will not fail to bring them all home.".  I hopes so.....but neither Calvanism nor Universalism make total sense to me

  113.  The Father seem in the prodigal son(s) to be looking out anxiously for the Son.... I see/ feel a lack of this in (some) Universalism (and of course the same in hyper-Calvinism - so I'm not completely comfortable with either - yet like apsects of both)

  114. Dan, let me first just reiterate what others have said. "You are not alone." If anyone should ever tell you that they haven't felt similar insanity, they are either lying, or they haven't ever really thought about all this stuff deeply enough to have a valid opinion. In fact, that's often the problem -- they don't think about it enough to come to their own conclusions but simply blindly accept what they are taught instead. You obviously cannot stand to do that so you are racked with all the competing images that have been slammed into your brain by all the sincere yet misguided people that are trying to save your "miserable" soul. Isn't organized religion wonderful? ;)

    Your first sentence hit me like a ton of bricks in its sincerity, honesty, and spot-on accuracy. It covers everything I have wrestled with myself and bundles it into what I feel is the most biblical and godly message I have ever heard in one sentence.

    "If Jesus doesn't rescue me... I am well and truly screwed." 

    Which, if we extend it to anything and everything, becomes:

    If God doesn't do it... it doesn't get done. 

    As I see it, and as you have framed it so well, any other "Christian" message (and you have certainly heard and felt them all) eventually boils down to us finding, healing, restoring - "saving" - ourselves.... and if WE don't do it "we're truly screwed." The abilities and character of God are completely left out of the equation. Though Calvinism tries to avoid any hint of man's actions in the process, it's still there all the same. When they tell us that "God is sovereign in election, but that doesn't remove man's responsibility to believe," they are just rephrasing the Arminian notion that our personal faith is what will save us. Both views are veiled attempts at "giving God ALL of the credit," while still making sure that man gets his rightful share.

    Sometimes I see traditional Christian theology as a rump roast. It's just one big BUT(T):

    God is sovereign in election.... BUT you still have the responsibility to believe.

    Salvation is a free gift.... BUT you have to receive it.

    God loves you unconditionally... BUT here's what you need to do to earn it.

    There's nothing you can do to save yourself.... BUT here's what you need to do to save yourself.

    The "Good News" is that God loves us and Jesus died for our sins.... BUT that just might not apply to you.

    We've all heard them before.

    I was going to stay out of commenting for a while, but your heartfelt story was so meaningful to me that I just couldn't do it (The flesh is weak). But I did promise to try and keep my comments shorter, so I'm going to end right here by summing up in what is certainly not the be-all and end-all of theological ideologies, but which has served to keep it in perspective for me. Interestingly enough, Richard's comment is right in line with it.

    "If God is truly good, then no one has anything to worry about. But if He is petty and capricious instead, as so many religions make Him out to be, then no one is safe... regardless of which religion they claim."

    Since being "forced" by God to re-examine everything that had been taught to me, and to compare it with scripture and the passions of my heart and mind, that is my inevitable conclusion: God IS truly good. We have nothing to worry about.

    Peace


     

  115. I understand the Calvinism part, but what is it about universalism that bothers you? (And as you are probably aware, just like there is not just one "Calvinist" viewpoint, there are many versions of "universalism.")

  116. Thanks Dan. Your affirmation means a lot to me. I tried but I couldn't do it. And it was all your fault. ;)

  117. Your gracious words, not just here but in everything you have ever said, simply blow me away in their kindness and tenderness. Because of you I am a better person. Thank you.

  118.  If God is bad or non-existent, we're all doomed. If God is good, we ultimately have nothing to fear. Therefore, I hope God is good, and try to live my life in the light of that hope. But as you say, it can be really difficult, exorcising the fear.

  119. In the Prodigal Son story, I think we often miss that an important message, if not THE most important message, concerns the "faithful" brother. I see him as kin to the self-righteous Christians who don't realize that everything they have comes from the "father," that it was freely theirs all along, but they are loathe to share it with others because those others are weaker, don't deserve it, or were slower to "come around." The story of the workers in the vineyard is very similar. 

  120.  Your kicking at a dead horse here.  Take your arguments over to the Gospel Coalition website and enjoy fellowship with like minded believers.  I am beginning to wonder if Dr Beck is ever wrong!  Are there any openings in the Trinity...?

  121.  Yes, both sons were prodigal (hence the son(s) in my l comment).  Does the self-righteous one ever get reconciled to the father?

  122.  Hi Jim

    Its hard to put an intuition into words... I think one area is around this quote by  C.S. Lewis  “Hell begins with a grumbling mood, always complaining, always blaming
    others... but you are still distinct from it. You may even criticize it
    in yourself and wish you could stop it. But there may come a day when
    you can no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood
    or even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself, going on forever like a
    machine. It is not a question of God "sending us" to hell. In each of
    us there is something growing, which will BE hell unless it is nipped in
    the bud. ”

  125. Bless you Jim, and thanks so much. You all give me hope that maybe joy will come in the morning after all.

  126. Absolutely. But obviously we don't get to see it because our view of the story ends too soon. As all stories do, this one continues long after we got a glimpse into it. I picture the self-righteous brother continuing in his selfish ways, resenting the father's joy in his brother's return. Until one day (this is the "God" moment) when his father's words finally break through and he realizes what a selfish jerk he's been (been there, done that), he weeps at his father's feet, begging for forgiveness. And his father gently reminds him of what he had been trying to get across all along, "Everything I have has always been yours. It was YOU putting conditions on my love for you, and for your brother. Welcome home."

    Of course the narrative and dialogue changes depending upon which Bible version you would have read it in. ;)

  127. I'm new but love ET already.  No defense of Calvinism from me; I went to a seminary where it was taught and believed.
    One statement gave me comfort although I never pursued it. Election is a doctrine of assurance shown in the invitation written on the door, "all who will enter, may." once entered, written on the other side of the door is "elect from all eternity."
    Long ago, I gave up doing theology from top down.  FrSteve

  128. I apologize John if I have said something to make you no longer desire my presence on this blog.  It seemed to me that this group was an open minded group, willing to listen, reason, and share differences of opinion.  What is the purpose of attacking in Calvinism if you aren't willing to discuss it honestly and fully?  All I did was ask reasonable questions based on Scripture.  If you think my reasoning is wrong, maybe you could point out why rather than stifle intellectual discussion.   I myself, am open to being corrected if I am wrong.  But I'm afraid just telling me to leave is not gong to persuade me to change my mind.  As far as me beating a "dead horse.." i haven't seen anyone who has answered... much less attempted to answer my questions from above.  Seems the horse is alive an kicking to me.     

  129.  It's only tautological if we or the Bible actually said that "God's salvific action is what define(d) a sheep.."  The sheep aren't defined by God's salvific action but by his eternal decree.. the elect were chosen in God's plan before they even existed in order to be saved.

  130. I'm am reformed and I am telling you to spend your time on blogs that will listen.  I was stating it is useless to argue with Dr. Beck because he hates all things that have some form of exclusion.  You got my post wrong. They will not respond to you here.

  131. Hey, I did respond. I respond all the time to readers who disagree.

    Regarding my feelings about exclusion, yes, you have that right. Just one note of clarification: I'm a huge believer in judgment and hell.

    I don't like exclusion, which is why I don't like religious people excluding themselves from hell. To quote Jesus, "Everyone will be salted with fire."

  132. Oh, I'm wrong. I just don't know about what. I mean, who believes something they think is wrong?

  133. Forgive me friend, but you are assuming that your preferred Calvinist blogs are the ones which "will listen." Though I imagine that there might actually be one, as I haven't obviously tried them all, every one I have ever engaged in conversation with has very quickly banned me from it. For doing what? For repeating their doctrines back to them, comparing those to what they actually preach, and pointing out the contradictions. Nothing more. I did not insult them or question their ancestry. But they apparently did not like having their theology questioned. That wasn't allowed.

    Like those on any "exclusivist" blog, those Calvinists weren't interested in listening to anything other than Calvinism. It is no different on the "exclusivist" blogs of any other theological viewpoint. 

    It seems that to you "willing to listen" means the requirement not only to listen, but to agree - as if we should all feel enlightened, overjoyed, and freed from our ignorance. I'm sorry but that's just not the way it works. A mature conversation (or argument) requires the willingness to hear all sides, and respectfully agree or disagree, without the need to form judgments about the other's character or his/her position with God. Sadly, when disagreements do occur, as they always will, the typical "Christian" response is to immediately render judgment as to the other persons intelligence, character, or salvation status. 
    While Dr. Beck, myself, and many others here will most certainly disagree with your reformed theology, we are all perfectly willing to discuss it with you. When we disagree we will tell you why, but we will never consider you anything other than a fellow child of God, just as we see every other person on the face of the earth. Unless I am mistaken, a basic tenet of Calvinism is that every person on earth is NOT a child of God, but only the "elect," so it is your theology which is doing the excluding.

    If you wish to, please show me where I am wrong. If not, fine. I won't judge you either way. And regardless of which one of us has it more "right" than the other, we are still just broken, imperfect, ignorant vessels, as is everyone else. 

    I believe that our Heavenly Father intends to repair all of us. Do you?

  134. Respectivelly, (at least I'm trying to be, forgive me if I'm not)...I'm curious why you seem intent on attacking Calvinism when you yourself are a universalist? What I mean is, it seems that the idea of eternal destruction all together is what you find disgusting (or jankey). Why then bother discussing Calvinism? Do you really find Arminianism with a solid belief in a real, eternal hell easier..or "more fair"?

    -Michael

  136. "The sheep aren't defined by God's salvific action but by his eternal decree"

    Those are one and the same. God decrees to save some. His salvific action - to save them - is enacted. One does not occur without the other.

    The "goats" then are defined by His decree NOT to save them, which is nothing other than His salvific INaction.

    In either case God created them both. They did not create themselves. Whatever physical, mental, or spiritual abilities or disabilities they may have are a result of God's actions, not their own. 

  137. John, I apologize for assuming something about you that was not true, and responding in the way that I did with out inquiring further.  That was wrong of me and in Christ, I ask for your forgiveness. 

    Having said that, I think we would both agree that "Faith comes by hearing."  People are never brought to the truth without hearing it first.  Thus, the apostles spent much time in the synagogues arguing for the truth, both to those who were unbelievers and then to those believers who were misinformed like Apollos.

    To this point, I have enjoyed my conversations with Dr. Beck and see no reason to not seek to share and distinguish our differences, pursuing of the truth, and a greater understanding of Christ.

    My faith is not in my reasoning abilities, or in Dr. Becks willingness to understand, but in the Truth and the Spirit of God who draws His own to Himself and who refines them through the fires of life, which includes interaction with believer who disagree.  

  138. I'm posting this again from below so that anyone who so chooses can respond.

    If, the basis of mankind's value is that they were created in the
    Imago Dei, the Image of God and "thus, loved and valued by God," then,
    what does it mean that we are all in the Image of God?  I would say that
    we are in the Image of God in whatever way(s) that we are like God. 
    Surely, we are not in the "image of God" in ways that we are not like
    God!  So, can a person become more or less in the Image of God, or more
    or less like God?  Were Adam and Eve less in the Image of God, (less
    like God) after the fall?  If God is righteous and perfect, then surely,
    we would agree that Adam and Eve were less in the Image of God after
    they became no longer perfect. 



    Here is another question, "are there certain aspects of God's
    Image that He values more than others?"  We have an intelligent will and
    God has an intelligent will.  This is most certainly an aspect of the
    Image or likeness of God that we all have that separates us from
    animals, trees, etc.  But it is interesting, that in the Bible, God
    never says it is wrong, evil, or immoral to not have an intelligent
    will.  This is even though, clearly, those with greater intelligence are
    more "like God," since He has the greatest intelligence.  On the other
    hand, what God rages against, throughout the Bible, are those who do not
    reflect His moral holiness and righteousness of the Image of God. 



    Is it not safe to say then, that the aspect of God's nature and
    character that he most highly esteems and desired to be reflected
    through mankind, His image bearers, was His morally perfect attributes. 
    And does this not mean that every single human who enters the world,
    committing sin, fundamentally fails in the ultimate purpose for which
    God created us, to be the Image of God, revealing his moral perfections
    and righteousness?  And lastly, since the fact that we are made in the
    "Image of God" is the basis for God's love and value of us, and at the
    most, we are a "broken," if not a "false" image of Him, what else is
    left for Him to value in us?  As creatures who have destroyed, corrupted
    the essence of who we are, our chief characteristic, the Image of God
    in us, the part of us from which we receive our value from God, being no longer a fully functioning, in tact, perfect image of God,
    what inherent right or characteristic have we retained that we can
    demand that if God is loving, He must bless us?

    I affirm that God is completely and fully loving toward all people.  But what is it about who we are that intrinsically demands that God's love for us must be manifested through blessing and redemption?    

  139. I think your comment here is in response to our exchange elsewhere on the thread.  There I wrote the following: "[D]o the non-elect have value from God? I personally believe
    that everyone is created in the Imago Dei and is, thus, loved and valued
    by God. So if that's what you mean, I agree. But if you mean that only
    some--the elect--are valued by God and the rest of us are viewed as
    trash by God, well, we're back to my parable again."

    Above you say, "I affirm that God is completely and fully loving toward all people."

    So as I read it, we agree on that point. As to why God loves everyone completely and fully I'm less interested in defending (e.g., I could be wrong about the Imago Dei), as you and I agree that "God is completely and fully loving toward all people." That's the key point.

    Trouble is, you also seem to believe that God is going to send billions of people, people whom God loves "completely and fully," to eternal conscious torment and torture.

    Which seems, well, a strange way to love. Completely and fully.

  140. If I said, God chooses them because He chooses them, or God saves them because God saves them, or even God saves them because God chooses them, that would be tautological. 

    But that is not the argument.  The argument is that God both chooses and saves people based off of his eternal purposes which are distinct from His act of choosing or saving them.

    This is an inadequate analogy, of course, but if two 30 Ibs weights, exactly the same in all respects, are falling at the exact same speed, but one is falling toward my foot and the other towards a Black widow, I will reach out and grab the one and not the other.

    In that moment,  my answer for reaching out and grabbing the one will not be "I chose this weight because I chose it" or "I kept this weight from falling because I chose it."  No, I would say, there were Purposes for which I kept one from falling and not the other.  The two purposes are different, but they are both good and reasonable purposes, and it had nothing to do with my different amounts of love for each weight.

    Again, the purposes described here are in no way analogous to the purposes God has in electing some to salvation and others to damnation.  My only point is that God's end purpose is what defines the elect, or who he saves.

  141. Not to mention that in the parable, the sheep are separated from the (literally) baby goats (that's a clue right there) on the basis of their actions. So we don't even necessarily have sheep who are sheep by election, but by actions! The goats are defined by what they did not do; and also note that they are surprised to learn they are (baby) goats! Hmmm...

  142. So do you attack Paul in general, or just on soteriology?

    2 Thessalonians 2:13  But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the first fruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. 
    Ephesians 1:3 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,  4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love  5 he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 

  143. "why God loves everyone completely and fully I'm less interested in defending... (e.g., I could be wrong about the Imago Dei)" 

    But this is huge.  The entire basis of your argument is not just that God loves everyone... for Reformed theology affirms this.  But your argument is that God's love must look like XYZ.  Thus, when Reformed theology does not match XYZ... you say that it cannot be true love.

    What I'm asking is why must God's love look like XYZ and not as Reformed theology describes it?  Thus the question, what is the intrinsic foundation, within man, for God's complete and full love of man?  Only the answer to that question will establish the limits on what God's love can look like towards man.  What is it about man that His love toward us must always result in blessing? 

    Maybe examples will help:  I love chicken completely and fully.  Why do I love chicken completely and fully?  Because it tastes good.  Thus, my complete and full love for chicken results in me cutting off its head, cooking it and eating it.

    Another example: I love fireworks fully and completely.  I love them because they make beautiful displays in the sky.  My love results in lighting them on fire and causing them to explode in the sky.            

  144. I really don't think it's a huge deal. The huge deal, and where I'm guessing we'll just agree to disagree, is this: Your belief that God "completely and fully" loves those who God is torturing and will torture for eternity.

    To be clear, I have no doubt that such an act would reveal God's power and sovereignty. You and I agree that God can do anything God wants. The issue goes to the claim that God is completely and fully loving those He tortures. I mean, if that's love where is there room for hate? By comparison, Hitler comes off looking more humane for using Zyklon B gas at Auschwitz. It, at least, ended the suffering. This is where I think hardcore Reformed theology runs off the rails. In it's laudable effort to protect God's transcendence and sovereignty in the end it makes a mockery of language and of what humans know to be morally right in their hearts (back to the Imago Dei). And there is a logical issue as well. Bill is elected by God for eternal bliss. Joe is predestined for eternal torture. God completely and fully loves both Bill and Joe. And if that's the case, as you seem to be arguing, then love has lost any external reference. God loving you could mean God blessing you or torturing you for all eternity. I'd argue in the face of this that you're not using love in a coherent manner. Unless you define "love" as "whatever God does to you." And that's fine. I think some Calvinists define it that way. But then why use the word love at all?  Just be upfront and say, "God will do what God will do and this has no coherent or external referent to how humans use the word love. In fact, as humans define love God's 'love' is often the exact opposite. And worse. God's love can, in fact, given our moral vantage point as humans, look a lot like Hitler to us." If that's the case please just drop the word love. It doesn't mean anything to you or I or anyone else on the planet. Stick to the power words, those communicate what you want to say. Clearly and with minimal confusion.

  145. "I love chicken completely and fully.  Why do I love chicken completely and fully?  Because it tastes good.  Thus, my complete and full love for chicken results in me cutting off its head, cooking it and eating it."

    I would have to disagree. You love the *taste* of chicken alone (or the pretty lights that the fireworks make when you light them on fire). You don't actually care about the chicken's life, or the chicken's feelings, or about the lives and feelings of those who care about the chicken. The chicken as an individual, who has real value to its family and friends, is not of concern for you. All that matters is what the chicken can do for you - fill your tummy, and show that you have the power to destroy it.  And you think that that should glorify you (at least as you see yourself here as representing the Reformed view of God).

    If your "complete and full love for chicken" consists of destroying it for YOUR own pleasure, then you are absolutely correct that the Reformed and universalists cannot agree on the meaning of "love." 

    Since I never heard Jesus - the image of God incarnate - suggest that we "love" our neighbors by eating them, I have to assume that God's love would not look like that as well. In fact He said, "love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you.... and THEN you will be perfect as is your father in heaven." But then, of course, what do we really mean by "do good?" An overnight soak in steak sauce perhaps... before the neighborhood barbecue party?

    But make no mistake, I do enjoy your analogies, as amusing attempts at redefining words to fit your theology at least. But I have a very hard time believing that you, a fellow human being who I have no doubt LOVES his own family, actually believes that God destroying your own children would somehow show that He "loves" them... or you!

    Come on my friend, if the definition of "love" is so fleeting, then none of us have any clue whatsoever as to the character of God. And His image then, that we are trying to emulate by following Christ, is seriously misunderstood.

    But never doubt R and U... I love you with all of my heart. Would you like to come over for dinner?  ;)

  146. Excuse me R and U, but I would like to ask a few questions of you here.

    You seem to make an assumption -- that Adam and Eve were "perfect" before the "fall," since you did say that they "became no longer perfect."

    How does a "perfect" being become "imperfect?" Wouldn't "perfection" imply the inability to make any mistake? Wouldn't a "perfect" being be exactly as is God - without fault or the ability to fail.. to sin... to come up short of the mark?

    Whatever "nature" a created being has - whether it be perfect or not... able to sin or not - is a function of its creator's design, is it not? Or do you believe that the creature created itself... that the clay vessel molded itself?

    If we fail in the "ultimate purpose for which God created us," is that a condemnation of us as CREATED beings... or a condemnation of God as CREATOR? Just WHO is responsible for the imperfections in the clay vessels... the clay vessels themselves, or the potter who molded them? And thus WHO is sovereign - man or God?

  147. "But what is it about who we are that intrinsically demands that God's love for us must be manifested through blessing and redemption?"

    Because we actually have value to Him as individuals, just as do your children to you. Or would you actually expect us to believe that a demonstration of your "love" for your own child could consist of roasting them alive, and eating them for lunch?

  148. Jim,

    Since the definition of love seems to be the root here, what about leaving all this other stuff aside for now and just see if we can agree on a simple definition of love, agape, God's type of love, the love that is defined in Philippians 2:5-8?  I'll share my definition in a show of good faith.  Love is the unselfish, active seeking of the true welfare of the other.

  149. Wonderful point.

    I would say that in the original, Jesus does leave the other 99 unprotected. It's part of the story--part of the radical, "take that" response that Jesus takes to the judgmental religious people, who are essentially told that they may be left out after all. The same harsh edges are there in the Prodigal Son story--the older brother isn't part of the party.

    But the heart of God is exactly what you've described.

  150. "Love is the unselfish, active seeking of the true welfare of the other."

    That's a beautiful definition. I agree completely.

  151.  and I hope too it will end up like this, but for me at least it is a hope rather than a certainty.

  152. Thank you for sharing your heart.  The point you make about Lewis falling pray to the tendency to dehumanise I'll have a long think about.  The point about God not having not having the word "hope" .... sounds Calvanist to me ;)... I'll have an even longer think about.    The Great divorce by CS Lewis is one of my favourite books, and yes the idea that I get from it is that as you say "the idea seems to be that our poor choices continue to corrupt us more and more until finally there is nothing human left" .... so I guess its a kind of annihilationism ...which makes more sense to me than any eternal torment version... and the first book I read that opened up that kind of possibility (and so is dear to me)......but who knows maybe its a stepping stone to universalism...[but for me probably a Calvanistic form of universalism.... TUUIP ...  Total Depravity; Unconditional Election; Universal Atonement; Irresistible Grace; & Perseverance of the Saints ;) ...sorry, still feeling like pushing back against the original post.... I'll stop now ]

  153. You say that the reason God loves us is not a big deal, yet clearly, in your answer you demonstrate why it is.  You do this by calling the Reformed perspective of God's loving and perfect response to treasonous and wicked men "torture."  A word that neither we, nor the Bible, would ever use.  I would define torture as intentionally harming someone in a way "they do not deserve" making it incompatible with both love and justice.  We believe Hell is something that the Bible claims people "do deserve," because of their treason against an infinite and perfect God, and thus, it cannot be labeled torture, but rather, God's justice.  But just because something is just does not mean it is loving.       

    So how can I claim that God's eternally purposing wicked people to go to hell is love?  This takes us back to the start, "why does God love us?"  What is it about us, apart from God, that we have the right to define love as only that which benefits us? 

    This is my answer: We have nothing in us inherently love-worthy that finds its source and identity outside of God.  God is the only completely independent being.  All other things depend upon God for existence.  If something were good or love-worthy for a reason other than God, then it would have to have found its source and existence from something else.  To claim we have any value independent from God, in essence, is to claim deity, to rob God of His glory.    

    So why does this matter.  It matters because if everything that is love-worthy about us has its source in and purpose for God, then, really, the only possible reason for God's love of us is because God loves Himself.  Many people rage against this, and I have seen people on this blog, call God, as see from the Reformed perspective, selfish.  But again, is it possible for a perfect and holy God who is worthy of all honor, praise and glory to be "selfish"? 

    The reason its possible for humans to be "selfish" is because we Do Not deserve worship or praise or glory, but, being created for God, we are required by God to live for and worship God and consequently to live for others.  What praise, or worship, or glory can God bring Himself that He does not deserve, thus, being worthy of the title: "selfish?"  Surely, we wouldn't say that, somehow, we deserve honor, worship, praise and glory(or salvation) over and above God's glory.  

    In conclusion: God loves the non-elect for the same reason God loves the elect, because He loves Himself and created them both for His glory.  There can be no other adequate non idolatrous reason.  He receives glory from them in different ways, one through salvation and one through judgment for treason, but He receives glory through them none the less.

    Romans 11:36
    "For from Christ and through Christ and for Christ are all things.
       To Christ be the glory forever!     

    Isaiah 40:6-7, 17
    "All humanity is grass,
    and all its goodness is like the flower of the field.
    The grass withers, the flowers fade
    when the breath of the LORD blows on them;
    indeed, the people are grass. ."

    All the nations are as nothing before Him;
    they are considered by Him
    as nothingness and emptiness.

  154. I must point out that love always demonstrates itself differently between different people and roles.  Husbands love wives differently than their children.  We love God differently than we love our families.  Our friends differently than our family.  Our church different then the world.  If we direct the wrong kind of love to the wrong category, that love becomes hate.  If you love your wife in the same way you love your dog... you will be in trouble. 

    Likewise, the kind of God deserves is a all consuming, total love.  The only reason we should love all the things mentioned above is because we love God.  To love something for any reason other than from a place of love from God is to hate God and to deny Him the love that He deserves.  What love, what day, what hour do we have that does not belong to God?  Also, if God did anything independently of love for Himself, He would be hating Himself.

    Thus, we can't look at verses which God gives to define how humans should love each other in order to define how God loves humans. For, Creator to creation relationship is different than creation to creation relationship.       

  155. It seems to me you said we have value as "Individuals," but then what you described is that we have value as "God's children."

    Unless I am understanding you wrong, "individuals" is a tautology.  God loves us because we are we. 

    As far as being "God's children" the only way this term is used for the non-elect is when Paul uses it in Athens, referring to the fact that all people are "God's creation."  John explicitly says that it is through faith in Christ alone that we are given "the right to become children of God."  But even if God does have a fatherly connection to all people since He created them, this love for them as father would solely be due to His relationship to them as Creator.  In other words, He loves them, because He love Himself and He created them for His purpose.   

     

  156. "He receives glory from them in different ways, one through salvation and
    one through judgment for treason, but He receives glory through them
    none the less."

    Hey, like I said, it's fine to make glory the center of gravity in your theological system. Go for it. Maybe God is glorified for committing atrocities worse than Hitler, by stoking a torture chamber or all eternity. Maybe you even go to church and sing praise songs to that monster. Knock yourself out.

    But let's not pretend that this pursuit of glory via torture is "completely and fully" loving to those being tortured.

  157. Glory is not the center of the system.  God is the center.  Glory just happens to be the only word to adequately describe everything that the perfect and holy God deserves from man, whether love, thanksgiving, worship, or honor. 

    As Romans says
    "To Christ be the glory forever"

    I said: "Hell is something that the Bible claims people "do deserve,"
    because of their treason against an infinite and perfect God, and thus,
    it cannot be labeled torture, but rather, God's justice."

    You did not respond.  So I ask, as the Creator of the world, does God not have the Sovereignty to create a law and to see the judgment for willful breaking of that law carried out? 

    "You shall not eat of the fruit, for in that day, you shall surely die."  

  158. Perfect as in having not ever sinned, much like a perfectly white sheet has no red marks.  That does not mean that a perfectly white paper is not able to get red ink on it.  It just means it does not, while it is perfect. 

    God's perfection is different than Adam and Eve's perfection for He is unchanging in character.  Since they were in the Image of God, they were created with a will and the ability to choose to obey God and never die or to disobey him on penalty of death. They, by their own will, chose death.       

  159. What I meant by "individuals" is that God considers EACH one of us - all of humanity - His creation - to be worthy of His care and love. As our creator and Father He is responsible for us. I know Calvinists like John Piper have asserted that "God owes us nothing," but I most adamantly disagree. Just as you owe your children the care that they need and that you became morally bound to provide when you chose to have them, God as our Father is responsible for ours. If an earthly father would abandon his children and refuse to care for them he would be condemned and thrown in jail, and yet that same action on God's part is considered to "glorify" Him. 

    In the Calvinist view each person is nothing more than a means to an end - God's so-called "glory." It doesn't matter if they serve that purpose as an "elect" or "non-elect," as saved or damned. God does not see us as Jim, or Sally, or Bob - specific individuals - but only as voices in His glorification choir, or kindling for His bonfire.

    If you continue with your chosen quote from John you will find that it is NOT the will of man - any action of faith on OUR part - that results in our rebirth, but the will of God. And just as God originally made ALL things, He has also promised to make the same ALL things new. 

    You are correct that "God does have a fatherly connection to all people since He created them," and because He is the father of all people, all people are therefore His children... unless, of course, you believe that someone else created the non-elect? A scriptural interpretation that says otherwise is certainly yours to make, but that does not change the relationship of the creator/Father to His children. You may choose to shun and abandon your own children, but I highly doubt that you or anyone else would find that particularly godly, or a proper representation of Christ's love for mankind.

    While I do appreciate your clarifications, it is obvious that we fundamentally disagree on God's purpose for creating mankind, His responsibility to care for all of us, and His view of each one of us as specific people and not just items on a list. And through all of this it is very apparent that we have fundamentally opposed views on the character of God - what He is like. In your view it is perfectly acceptable for God to do anything to anyone and you will claim to love and worship Him. I'm sorry, but I will never love a being that defines "good" and "loving" as "whatever the hell I feel like doing." That being is nothing other than a psychopath, because he actually does NOT care about those he saves or damns; they are only pawns in a game to stroke his massive ego. Thankfully a Great Physician can heal all the human psychopaths. But there's no one to heal your "god."

    Peace to you my friend.

  160. Interestingly enough, the first time "death" is mentioned in the Bible was in those verses you refer to. Nothing had ever "died" before... the concept of "death" was completely unknown to Adam and Eve, just as it is completely unknown to young children, which would strongly indicate that they could not possibly have understood what God was talking about. And though God said that they would certainly "die that day," Adam lived to be over 900 years old, so the meaning of "death" itself is obviously not what the average person would view it today. Thankfully though, whatever it means, "Christ will reign until all His enemies have been put under his feet, and the last enemy to be defeated will be death." We will all die, that is certain. But unless God is lying we will also be resurrected to life. 

    Rom. 5:18  Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. Through God's curse ALL men inherited a sinful nature, a nature given to them by their creator. But through God's action again, ALL men will be given life. And they will be made new creations - given new natures... the nature of Christ.The corruptible will be made incorruptible. And death is nowhere to be seen.

  161. "I must point out that love always demonstrates itself differently between different people and roles. "

    But if it it not unselfish and always actively seeking the true welfare of the other, it's not love. So please choose another word when you wish to describe God's feelings for those that He actively seeks their destruction for His own selfish glory.

    Thank you.

  163. "Religion was given birth out of the fear of death."

    Yes, absolutely. And through man's need to control others out of his own fear of protecting himself from that death.

    "There is no evidence for your loving God. He does not express His love to us."

    We experience His love through loving others and being loved in return. His image is revealed in a mother and father's undying love for their children, and in their willingness to die for them and to bear their suffering.

    Cole, I hear your horror at the unbelievable suffering that has occurred here on earth. I hear your disgust and hatred for a "god" that would allow it.  And because of all of that I understand your need to get rid of Him, to assume that He does not exist, because there was a time when I felt the same. 

    But you have not always felt this way, have you? You seem to vacillate back and forth. One day you will expound on the wonders of God's love, and the next you will curse Him for not existing. If you don't believe He exists, why even think about Him? But you must still harbor the possibility of His existence or you wouldn't feel so driven to question His motives. And if you do believe He exists why assume that He does not know exactly how you feel, and is not insulted or horrified at your feelings towards Him? Why accept the teachings of those same death-based religions to taint your image of Him as one who is glorified through our misery now, and our eternal misery later? Why not instead assume that the outrage you feel towards those hurting children is because of the love that you have for them, and that that love is the essence of Him - your creator and father; and that His promise to restore all things - to make all things new - to dry all of our tears - is true?

    I cannot prove God's existence to you, nor prove that He loves you. But I can tell you that I love you without knowing anything about you, and that I can only do so because of the love that He revealed to me through Christ. We all walk through darkness sometimes, as you are doing now. But there is light at the end of the tunnel. The sun will always rise after even the darkest night. The sun will rise again tomorrow. Hang on my friend.

  164. Cole, 

    Just to clarify my poorly worded sentence below: God DOES know exactly how you feel, and He is NOT insulted or horrified at your feelings towards Him.

  165.  You have not answered my question from above.  How can a perfect, holy, God, who deserves all honor, worship and praise... do something that is selfish?

    Do you disagree that God deserves all honor, worship, glory and praise? 

    Likewise, who gives you or me or anyone else the right to define love?  If the Bible defines true love as that which comes from God and is directed back to God... who are you to define it as "seeking the welfare of others..." 

    Do you disagree that we were made for God, to relate to and worship God?  

  166. R and U, 

    I appreciate the time that you have spent in this conversation and do not want to appear to minimize or ignore your great passion for your beliefs. But as I implied in closing my last response, the differences in our views on the character of God are so great that I see no end to our arguments. We both see each other as "blind" to the truth about Him, and as such we are wasting our breath in trying to convince the other to open his eyes. 

    I wish you nothing but peace. Jim

  167. Reformed and Unashamed,

    I believe this is what John was trying to warn you about.  There is a strong belief here that universalism is the true interpretation of Scripture.  They simply know that other views are wrong because they have already defined the God they want to be their God.  The God of the Bible is simply not the God they want.  And, there are plenty of verses that can be taken out of context to support their view.  So, when a specific is questioned, well you see what happens.  Calvinism or spiritualism or religion or churchianity, or whatever is portrayed as the bad guy with caricatures that make it obviously evil.  For example, God tortures; He doesn't punish.  Therefore, Calvinism, for example, has a bad God that universalists want no part of.  They want a god who loves according to their definition.  At any rate, you raised lots of great questions and it is too bad that no universalist wanted to engage you.

  168. That's true. I want no part of it. I gladly, happily, and joyful take my place with the damned. And may God be glorified in that.

  169. David,

    Everything you say here could very easily be applied to Calvinism or any other school of theology. The "God" which you claim is the "God of the Bible" is simply another name for "God as David sees Him." Your blindness is in not seeing that.

    As to why you hang around here David, I have no clue. If we are not "elect" nothing you or anyone else can say or do will ever change that. So please stop acting like our election is conditioned upon believing you.

    And as to Richard's comment: I'm right there with you my friend. 

  170. P.S. 

    David, it was YOUR definition of love to which I agreed. Are you actually going to claim that the "God of David," or the "God of Calvinism," loves the non-elect by that definition?

  171.  Thank you David.  R and U needs to find a better outlet.  The most intolerant to today are usually the most "tolerant".  You must agree or you are a bigot, racist, close-minded, etc...Just like the post concerning ethnocentric beliefs. People are ethnocentric if they don"t believe in universal healthcare or rampant immigration.  I can't decide if these people are thinking they are "cool" or truly believe this stuff.  I'm sure Jim731 will respond.  He must be retired...

  172. To John, thanks for sharing your thoughts. And thanks for showing your tolerance for for me when I am thoughtless and shortsighted. I am simply going to share with you what I said to my good friend David in a personal letter I sent to him asking for his forgiveness:

    I am tired of us fellow human beings arguing. And so I will simply say this. In this moment I don't care what God thinks. I don't care what you think God thinks. I don't care what you think I think God thinks. All I care about is that you believe that I love you - that I unselfishly want nothing but your true welfare. And I believe with all of my heart that you unselfishly want nothing but my true welfare. 
    I love you [John]. That's all that matters. Please ignore anything else I have said. Please ignore any thoughtless tirade that you felt I directed at you. Please ignore any useless clanging gong that I have tried to hit you over the head with to try to show you that I am "right" and you are "wrong." You don't need anyone to enlighten you, least of all me. I love you and I believe that you love me. 

  173. Hi David,
    I think you and I will always hermeneutically part ways on the issue of dispensationalism. As someone who follows Jesus more than Paul, I read the epistles through the gospels.
    As far as what this is about, it's about the doctrine of election and the character of God.

  174. First an agreement.  Yes, ALL of Scripture is about the charater of God.  And of course that includes the gospels and the epistles.  None of the Scriptures are either more or less God's word.

    "As someone who follows Jesus more than Paul, . . ."

    Now,  now, . . .  is 'following' Paul vs. Jesus a fair point or an unworthy distraction.

    "I read the epistles through the gospels."

    Paul says that the gospel that he preached had no input from any (including the 12 Apostles) men.  He maintained that it was a direct revelation of the risen Christ; something that the Apostles could not say.  The Apostles were directed to the Jew; Paul to the Gentile.  In Acts 15 over twenty years after Pentecost they still can't figure out how the gentile fits in.  Why in the world would you, a gentile, keep going back to the gospels for a foundation?  Remember that I agree with you that all of Scripture is about God's (which of course includes Jesus') character.

    "As far as what this is about, it's about the doctrine of election"

    Wow, that was a surprise.  The name 'parable of the lost sheep' is very misleading; not to say unbiblical.  God can not 'lose' a sheep.  All 100 of them were His all through the parable; but, one was deceived or led astray.  But, never lost in the sense of being separated from God.  The punch line (Matthew 18:14) is that God does not desire any of His sheep to lose anything; not that they should themselves not be 'lost.'  That can't happen.

  175. God's emotional life is infinitely complex. In one sense God doesn't deligt in evil and suffering in and of itself. He's not a sadist. But being God He sees the big picture and He does take delight in the good He will bring out of it. Just as He delights in executing justice though not the perishing of the individual. He feels everything at once. Believers can feel sadness over something yet rejoice that God will bring good out of it. 

  176. God's most important attribute is His Holiness. It's the only attribute that is listed three times in a row to express it's importance. The Bible says God is Holy, Holy, Holy. So, while God is love it's a Holy love. Likewise God's justice is a Holy justice etc. The problem is that most people view God's love like a human love. But it's not. Moreover, He is never obligated to be gracious to sinners. This would contradict the very meaning of the word grace. In the end, one group recieves grace the other group gets justice and God is glorified. No one recieves injustice.

  177. Yes, these parables are about the heart of God, a loving God who pursues and finds the "last one".  But He isn't abandoning or damning the "many" for the sake of the "one".  Jesus said in John 6:39 
    And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”  We are secure in our standing with God through Christ.  So the 99 have not been abandoned...Christ knows they are safe, so He goes after the one who isn't!  The true meaning of the doctrine of election is that God chooses us, and by His Spirit, begins to regenerate our hearts from our sinful condition (so sinful we would not choose Christ without the Spirit producing faith in our hearts).  Rom 5:8 shows how much Christ loves us, and proves our salvation is not dependent on our worth or works:  "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."  For a pastor or evangelist or anyone witnessing to a non-believer, the doctrine of election is a comfort, because it ensures that because of the Holy Spirit working in the heart of the hearer, some will hear and respond to the the Gospel.  Is 55 is another great passage to demonstrate God's love and purpose for His children.

  178. Hi Richard.  I stumbled on this blog as I was researching to preach on this parable.  I am Reformed (but not necessarily a 5-pointer :).  I was raised Pentecostal, so I have a more "tempered" view of election than many of my colleagues.  I did not take offense at your comments, and I actually welcome healthy debate over the challenging aspects of election and the theodicy issues.  It is too easy to get myopic and entrenched about what we hold as our beliefs and we all need to be challenged to see the Gospel in new ways.  No matter what we think election/predestination means, when we meet our Lord and Savior, we will all realize that His decision about our eternal destination was just!  

Leave a Reply