Asked about so-called profiling of Muslims, Mr. Mukasey said that tactic is not used at airports. However, he used blunt language to defend extra scrutiny the Justice Department gives to militant Islamic groups.
"So far as focusing investigations, we investigate where the threat is coming from. The threat is coming from Islamist extremism. It's not coming from Calvinism," the attorney general said. "We'd be out of our minds not to mention the waste of resources to look everyplace simply in the name of being correct."
Pete turns four on December 7th, and I'm starting to get excited! I think he's finally intellectually ready to understand that I love him and want to have a personal relationship with him. Even from before he was born, I have had a deep desire to express my love for him; to embrace him as my son, to provide for him and nurture him, to instruct him and discipline him. The only problem is that I don't want to force my love on him, thereby violating his free will. What if he doesn't want me to love him? What if he chooses to reject my love? For me to force it on him would be unjust and perhaps even sadistic. It would be hateful, not loving, for me to force my love upon him against his will.
So, I've been waiting. I keep looking for signs that he's ready. He's getting really good at his A-B-C's, and he can count *way* past ten. But, is he old enough to make a decision this important? What if he can't clearly articulate what it is that he is choosing? What if he is too young to fully understand what it means to make a life-long commitment to accept me as his own personal father?
So, I continue to withhold my love from him until he's ready and able to tell me that he wants it. Until then, I'll just have to keep waiting for the time when he decides whether or not he wants to be a Wittmann. Man, I can hardly wait!
—
(In other words, if you think a son needs to be able to articulate the propositional truth that he loves his Father and his Father loves him in order for it to *count*, I think you're nuts.)
These are all messages from his compliment machine, an exhibit in an ongoing art project in Washington, D.C., that plays random compliments as pedestrians walk by.
People are drawn to your positive energy…
The *real* message of the project might not be so flattering. Joshua Zumbrun quotes Greaves as saying, "It's a response to how on kids' soccer teams… win or lose, everyone gets a trophy." Greaves refuses to unpack this statement any further, saying only "People can believe it [the compliment] or not." Zumbrun continues, "Will they believe it? If everyone gets the trophy, if everyone receives the compliment, does it really mean anything?"
No. No, it doesn't. As Amy over on the Stand to Reason Blog puts it, "… it's hard not to see the meaninglessness of endless, unmerited compliments, randomly dished out, unconnected to any real truth about the recipients."
You are on a constant quest for knowledge…
Like an inverted version of Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron, the compliment machine invents a reality in which everyone is equally wonderful, equally worthy of praise. We like the compliment machine because it tells us what we already believe about ourselves. In our pride, we believe that we deserve the compliments it pays us, no matter how random or disconnected they are. We truly believe that I'm OK, and you're OK. We don't really believe that any of us deserve God's wrath; we can't imagine a god who isn't made in our own image, that wouldn't let us all into heaven for doing our best.
This is, I believe, why we have so much trouble believing the doctrine of total depravity. We can cope with the idea that we were bad enough that we needed a savior, but we still believe that the Father was obligated to send us one. We like the idea of having a choice between heaven and hell, but the thought that we are so wicked that we will always, in all circumstances, choose hell because it best suits our wicked and rebellious hearts is just too much. We can acknowledge that we sin from time to time, here and there, but not that, as Paul Washer says, we've "never done anything but sin!"
Your eyes are beautiful…
And so, our gospel becomes a spiritualized version of the compliment machine:
God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life…
God desires to have a personal relationship with you, if only you'll let him come into your heart…
We end up with a gospel that doesn't take our sin seriously, addressing our "felt needs" without addressing our single greatest deficiency: our complete and utter wickedness before God.
Until we realize we are dead, we cannot be made alive. Until we understand the depths of our sinfulness, we cannot repent, that our sins may be blotted out (Acts 3:19). While this gospel keeps playing, we will never be made into something truly incredible: holy, blameless, children of God.
37Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."
- Acts 2:37-39
36And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?" 38And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
- Acts 8:36-38
27When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. 28But Paul cried with a loud voice, "Do not harm yourself, for we are all here." 29And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. 30Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
- Acts 16:27-31
When you read through the book of Acts, one of the things you will notice is that the apostles never employed the use of altar calls. They never, as far as I can tell, issued an "invitation" or asked their hearers if they were ready to "make a decision." Some heard their message and wanted to kill them, and no amount of coaxing or inviting would have had any impact on them. Others were "cut to the heart" and would not rest until they had received a satisfactory response to the burning question in their hearts… What must we do to be saved?
We do a great disservice to the gospel of Jesus Christ when we reduce it to an illustration or a formulaic process wherein we present a certain set of propositional truths and then solicit a response from our unconverted target. The gospel isn't a how-to for salvation. It is nothing less than a proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who died to take away the sin of the world. People will certainly respond to this message, but not because we've asked them to. If your "gospel presentation" requires you to ask for a response, you're probably presenting something other than the gospel.
I found Jeff Meyers' blog a few months back via the Presbyteer's blogroll, and I've found his writing to be rather thought provoking. In the last three weeks, Jeff has written about everything from Harry Potter to the Fall of Satan to Jonathan Edwards' "trinitarian speculation" on why the world was created.
As usual, his latest post got me thinking. Jeff maintains that infant baptism is "scandalous" among us Americans because of our one-man, one-vote mentality and our celebration of our individualistic freedoms. When we baptize our babies, God puts his mark on helpless, incapable creatures and claims them as his, without even a hint of consent from them or any respect for their rights as individuals. Jeff writes, "It is not a confession of what man has done or of the faith someone possess or of the experience that someone may have had. Infant Baptism is all about God in his Sovereign freedom acting upon a passive infant…. [Salvation] comes from above, like the sprinkling."
That last line caught my attention. Does the method of baptism matter? I would say that, at the very least, the method has a great influence on the message that is communicated through baptism. Or, who it is that is doing the speaking.
The believer baptist camp depends on the method (i.e. immersion) of baptism for much of its derivative meaning. Baptism becomes an outward symbol of an inward experience that has already taken place, initiated by the convert. He descends into the water as a sign of being buried with Christ, and then is brought out of the water as a symbol of being raised to newness of life with Jesus. By performing this ritual, the convert confirms publicly that he has agreed to be saved. There may be a conversation here between him and God, but the convert is the one speaking the loudest, declaring "I belong to God" because of what I've already brought to the table (i.e. faith).
When water is sprinkled on the head of an infant, the child is passive. The water is poured from above, onto the child's head. The baby goes nowhere and does nothing. He contributes nothing to the ritual, nor does he even consent to it. It is God who speaks, saying "This one is mine" as he places his mark on the child. For years to come we will hope and expect to see the child exhibit real and vibrant faith, but it is very clear who has initiated this relationship, and it isn't the baby.
As I've said before, infant baptism isn't just about baptism. There are several foundational questions we have to get right before we can get the right answer about who to baptize. The question, then, is this; do we initiate our own salvation by producing saving faith, which makes Christ's death efficacious in our lives, that we would be raised with him? If so, baptism by immersion makes perfect sense. Or, do we receive the grace of God even when we are unable to choose to accept it for ourselves, bringing nothing to the table from within ourselves? If this is the case, then sprinkling from above makes perfect sense and gives God the glory as the one who speaks through baptism.
18While walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon (who is called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen. 19And he said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." 20Immediately they left their nets and followed him. 21And going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets, and he called them. 22Immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him.
- Matthew 4:18-22
Jesus calls Peter, Andrew, and the Sons of Thunder to follow him and he will make them "fishers of men." The obvious reference is to their prior occupation, that Jesus would employ them in pulling men into the boat instead of fish. Thomas Boston encourages us to take it one step further, considering why the men they were after would be compared to fish:
BUT WHY ARE UNCONVERTED MEN COMPARED TO FISH IN THE WATER?
Among other reasons, they are so because as the water is the natural element of fish, so sin is the proper and natural element for an unconverted soul. Take the fish out of the water, it cannot live; and take from a natural man his idols, he is ready to say with Micah, Ye have taken away my gods, and what have I more? The young man in the gospel could not be persuaded to seek after treasure in heaven, and lay by the world. It is in sin that the only delight of natural men is; but in holiness they have no more delight than a fish upon the earth, or a sow in a palace.
Oh, the woeful case of a natural man! Bless the Lord, O my soul, that when that was thy element as well as that of others, yet Christ took thee in his net, held thee, and would not let thee go, and put another principle in thee, so that now it is heavy for thee to wade, far more to swim in these waters.
- Thomas Boston, The Art of Manfishing
The unconverted man loves sin and hates righteousness in much the same way that fish love the water and hate dry land. No amount of coaxing or persuasion can effectively convince a fish to forsake the water in favor of dry land. A fish may, for a short time, force himself to live out of the water. This will not last long. He may die, but more likely he will find a way back into the water for which he is most naturally suited. If a fish is to exist permanently out of the water, he must become something other than a fish.
This is what the Holy Spirit does in man's conversion. Through the proclamation of the Word (1 Cor. 1:23) and the working of the Holy Spirit (John 3:8), he who is spiritually dead is made something other than a dead man. The rebel who hates God and loves sin is made to love God and hate sin. Anything less than this and all you have is a convert in name only, who is no more suited for the Kingdom of God than a fish for dry land.
One of the things us Reformed folks major in is the sovereignty of God. The truth that "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass" (WCF III:1) is both a great comfort to us, and a humbling reminder of our place in God's universe. However, if we don't keep things in balance we can find ourselves using this doctrine as a cop out. For example, if God has foreordained whatsoever shall come to pass, why should we pray? Isn't God just going to do whatever he wants? And yet, we are commanded all throughout the Bible to pray. Why would God, the ultimate "First Cause," who knows the end from the beginning, command us to pray?
Consider these two questions, seemingly in opposition to the other:
If God has foreordained everything already, how can we pray in hopes of changing things?
If we are commanded to pray, then how can it be true that God is sovereign and has ordained all that comes to pass?
How can God respond to prayers, and yet not have a "real" (ie, a reciprocal, dependent) relation with the creation?
Perhaps there's a Trinitarian answer to this: In the creation, God responds to His own work. He makes light, and then He pronounces His work very good. This is not a matter of God patting Himself on the back. Rather, it is arguably the Father approving the work of His Word and Spirit, the two "hands" by which the Father works in the creation.
God's response to prayer is similar: The Spirit provokes our prayers, which we offer in the name of Jesus to the Father. When the Father responds to these Spirit-inspired prayers, He is responding to His own work. God is responding to God's work, the Father to the Spirit.
The Westminster Shorter Catechism gives a good definition of prayer (#98): "Prayer is an offering up of our desires unto God, for things agreeable to his will, in the name of Christ, with the confession of our sins, and thankful acknowledgment of his mercies." Leaving confession and thanksgiving aside for the time being, let's consider how it is that we are to "offer up our desires unto God."
First, let us not be so arrogant as to assume that God's eternal decrees were somehow dependent upon or determined by our foreseen prayers. Continue reading this post »
We're going to be heading in a new direction with our Sunday night men's Bible Study in a couple of weeks. After spending almost 8 months in the Book of Mark (yes, it's only 16 chapters long… we're just a little slow), we have decided to do a 12-week study of the five points of Calvinism vs. the five points of Arminianism. It promises to be an interesting study, to say the least. Matt Beran and I have been asked to lead it, which will be a great opportunity for me to go back and review what I've already studied and to also be challenged to learn even more of what God's Word has to say about the Doctrines of Grace.
One challenge I've run into is that there doesn't seem to be an acronym for the five points of Arminainism. OK, that's not quite true. There doesn't seem to be an acronym for the five points of Arminianism that isn't pejorative in nature1, so I took the liberty of putting my own little list together:
Wounded Will - Man's "human nature" has been seriously wounded by the Fall, but he is not completely spiritually helpless. Some Arminians believe that man still retains the ability to choose or reject God in and of himself, while others believe that God has graciously restored/maintained this ability in man. Ultimately, it is man's free choice that determines his eternal destiny. Faith is man's contribution to his own salvation, and he may give or withhold it at his discretion
Ancillary Election - God chose, before time, those who would be saved. However, this election was secondary and entirely dependent on his foresight of future choices that these free beings would make. Those who would freely believe the gospel were elected unto salvation. Thus, it was an election of omniscience, but not of sovereignty, and man is ultimately responsible for his own destiny.
Total Atonement - Christ died equally for the sins of all humanity. His redeeming work makes it possible for all men to be saved, but does not directly guarantee the salvation of any individual man. Christ's death enables God to pardon anyone who believes the gospel, but it did not actually, nor effectually, appease God's wrath.
Effectual Resistance - The Holy Spirit calls men to salvation through the outward proclamation of the Gospel. However, the Spirit's work is ineffectual unless the sinner believes the message of the Gospel. Thus, the will and disposition of man can (and often does) thwart the work of the Spirit. Again, man is free to choose his ultimate destiny.
Relapse Unto Judgement - Man, who was saved and regenerated in accordance with his own free and determinate will, can forfeit his salvation if he does not maintain the faith that saved him. Some "Four Point Arminians" would not hold to this point, while others would maintain that a person can be saved and lost repeatedly and that his eternal state before God is determined only by which side of the fence he is on when he dies, so to speak.
It's nothing special, but hopefully it is easy to remember and at least relatively fair and even-handed. I would love to hear any criticism and/or different ideas on how these points could be reworded and fit into an easily remembered list.
Footnotes:
I found a few, including CHAFF and IDLE, neither of which were intended to shade the Arminian position in a favorable light. [back]
RSS 2.0
