Comment Quorum

Another edition of Comment Quorum coming your way.

On 5 October, an anonymous commenter thought Phil Johnson's use of "the phrase 'bovine product' while explaining his comment about Bin Laden" was priceless. I think Phil was definitely venting while writing, and not thinking clearly about the implications of beating another man to death with meat products.

In regards to the same post on Phil Johnson's anti-pacifism articles, another anonymous commenter asked for my "of Brother Johnson's main arguments (e.g., that Jesus didn't change the moral law found in the Old Testament) and claims (e.g., pacifism is an "immoral" and "unbiblical" doctrine)." Pacifism is not immoral; nor is the practice unbiblical. The way of Jesus, especially his example, was not to insist his followers be ready with canes and cow thighs for when Pilate or Herod might come along. I am thinking about posting on the issue of pacifism, and some points Phil made. I am not ready at the moment to get into a long article. In due time I will come out with something.

Mikey, in regards to my post The New Monasticism: Homeschooling, seems to hold a dissenting opinion. He expressed I should "[b]e careful with the homeschooling. It's a practice almost totally dominated by christian wingnuts. This is not a balanced or healthy way to educate a child." Well, to all you wingnuts out there homeschooling for the right reasons, I'm on your side. I guess the "balanced and healthy way to educate" my sons would be to let them be one of forty other students in an education system geared towards not teaching them but getting them to pass the graduation requirements, thereby bringing in the extra thousands to millions of dollars the state gives successful schools. I guess spending three hours after school correcting the bad stuff they learned that day is better than teaching them correctly the first time, and moving on in their education.

On 5 October, thefollowingextracts braved the depths of election. I believe his take on this brings up many good issues and would be best read as a whole.

I'd like to chime in on the election issue brought up in a previous blog entry
and referred to here in the "Comment Quorum" blog entry.[Disclaimer: I will not
pretend that I have done a thorough scholarly study on the following topic. My
layman's approach will probably be evident in the terminology I use. Hopefully,
my lack of experience with the terms of this much discussed topic will not
obscure my point. Thanks for your patience.]

It seems to me that both an unconditional election (see the cited sheep passages in John) and a radically choice-based salvation (see the calls to believe for salvation in Acts)are represented in the canonized Scriptures. These are both representative of larger cosmologies that might be described as determinism and free will (or a plethora of other terms). But are the cosmological statements of the Bible meant to
establish absolute cosmologies? Are we supposed to synthesize disparate strands
into a unified cosmology?

To me, the value of the cosmological statements of the Bible is practical. I'm not saying that these cosmological statements are not true or real, but I would say that the intention of these cosmologies--such as when Paul cites the election of the saints to encourage them in their faith in and love for the Lord, or when Peter motivates believers to growth/good works that will "make your calling and election sure"--is to exhort believers toward certain ways of thinking or behaving. Thus, it is not necessary to form a systematized Biblical cosmology out of the various cosmological strands of Scripture. It is necessary to use these cosmological strands appropriately to motivate people toward faith, love and good works.

I realize that the above approach may result in some inconsistent/hypocritical thinking about theology and the Scriptures. But, when we create a systematized cosmology, we often find difficulties in actually hearing/taking in certain statements in the Scriptures that may not reflect our cosmology or synthesis. I think this presents a graver inconsistency/hypocrisy. I guess I'd rather have my readings be more consistent to the intent of the authors of the Text than be entirely consistent within themselves (if I have to pick one or the other). As is now apparent, our
theologies on this issue are determined in large part by our assumptions about
the Text itself, assumptions which are born out of complex mixtures of
experience, community, brain chemistry, and etc.

Humans think precariously in a precarious universe. God gives grace in His Sovereignty.

Here are my thoughts on his thoughts. I do not believe the calls for salvation, as in Luke's Acts of the Apostles, represent the idea of a "radically choice-based salvation." The call goes out to everyone, the gospel is shared with the world, but not everyone can listen and understand the good news. Our “free-will” is not as free as we would like to think, and we would all really want to be. Our will is limited by our nature, with which God created us. The foremost limitation we have as unregenerates (prior to regeneration, or being “born again” as Christ said in John iii.3) is our being spiritually dead. Unless you are made alive by God Himself, you will stay spiritually dead (Eph. ii.1-4).

It was said, “[W]hen we create a systematized cosmology, we often find difficulties in actually hearing/taking in certain statements in the Scriptures that may not reflect our cosmology or synthesis. I think this presents a graver inconsistency/hypocrisy.” True enough, if you have shut off your mind to listening to others--including and especially the Spirit—who can give you guidance and correction where needed. Because I chose not to close myself off from studying the writings of Calvinists, I was able to gain a significant amount of knowledge I believe God used to take me to where I am now. As I understand Paul, he wrote with more than just a desire “to motivate people toward faith, love and good works.” And I agree with the statement that I would rather have my reading be consistent with the intention of the author. I cannot get away from the intense importance Paul placed on knowing the truth and understanding the doctrines he taught. Those doctrines point to God, and help us understand our Sovereign.

In the case of God's sovereign election, I do not begin with the declaration that we have God's election and also man's free-will and ability to believe in Christ or not by their own volition. I will be writing more about election and free-will in due time.

Addendum: I just got one that I thought was of interest. An anonymous commentor wrote in about the Evangelical Outreach site I gave a resounding "Wow!" The commenter said, "Yikes, that cartoon was graphic. So he is opposed to eternal security? Does that mean he believes you can lose your salvation or am I not getting it?" Yes, the author of the site does not believe in eternal security. Also, they openly teach a conditional security, where your continued salvation depends on what you do.