Potentia Deo ad Destructionem

As the year is coming to a close my mind shifts back to a year ago when My soul and I could together rejoice and sing ” I am truly blessed by God!”. Many things were going my way in life. After what seemed like a short stream of awesome blessings , The Lord took those things away from me, leaving me to feel as though I had been awoken from the climax of an amazing dream. All of what he had blessed me with at that point..gone. Vanished into thin air. I felt pain. I felt betrayed. Though in hindsight I look back an know it needed to happen.

Throughout this year, God has given me the grace to lay my hope and trust in Him. This Psalm comforts me in the sense that in this suffering, I am not alone. I am not alone in my emotions. There are times where I feel God has abandoned me. There are times where I feel as though my enemies are surrounding me and mocking me, and asking “Where is your God? “.  Amidst this pain, I know He is there. I know because His breakers and His waves are going over me. Though they are painful, I know it is for my sanctification. But I continually call out to Him and it is though He has forgotten me. As I take another look at the Psalm, I notice something the Psalmist does. He talks to himself!  “Why are you cast down, O my soul, and why are you in turmoil within me? Hope in God; for I shall again praise him,my salvation” . The most influential voice in our lives is our own voice. We are constantly talking to ourselves. My own voice had been leading me to the conclusion that “the temporary blessing from God was supposed to be forever! But God doesn’t want me to be happy!  He has forgotten me!”. Over and Over the voice in my head has the microphone and it is not speaking from the truth of God. But we are to talk to our souls. Preach our Souls the Gospel. Say to our souls by God’s grace “Soul! Do you not remember that you have been called by God! You have been Foreknown!!  You were called out of the deadness of your sins, and given to The Son of God! You have been Justified, you are being conformed to Christ’s image! You will be Glorified! Do you think that God is just going to leave you to die?!  Again I ask you this question: Why are you cast down, O my soul, and why are you in turmoil within me?, and then I say to you : Hope in God; for I shall again praise him, my salvation!”

It is by God’s grace that we can do these things. Though I may think that God has forgotten me, I know that He has not. These trials were foreordained beforehand for my sanctification. The Lord is preparing for me a blessing. The Storm cloud is darkest right before it is about to break with rain. And O, The rain is so much more enjoyable after the drought! Though now I may yearn for God, and think that He has forgotten, I will again praise Him, my salvation!

I’m at a crossroads. Evangelicalism has continued to be a total failure, a failure in the sense that like many other movements all we see is redefinition of what was once a beacon of hope for American Christianity.

Today, if you’re evangelical you can be Rob Bell, or Albert Mohler. If you’re evangelical you can be Roman Catholic, or Protestant. Evangelicals can be both Calvinist and Arminian. Irrespective of traditions we can be pentecostal, baptist or lutheran.  Evangelicals are only republican although many voted for Obama. Evangelicals talk about ‘salvation’ without justification and ‘asking Jesus into your heart’. They walk the aisle, bark like dogs, or have big tent revivals. They are Pelagian or Calvinist. They don’t celebrate halloween, can’t dance, don’t smoke, or drink alcohol. They are aware of the evils of pop culture only to reinvent it ten years later themselves. They like to talk about how Britney Spears wears skimpy clothes, but don’t mind incorporating the aesthetic elements of her concerts in their worship. They seek social justice without justification, they want to feed the poor but are not fed by God. This leads me to ask; what exactly is an evangelical?

I attend an evangelical church, at least that’s how we identify ourselves. But lately, I’ve been wondering if I should even continue to call myself evangelical. I surely don’t identify with a transformational, theonomic-lite evangelical relation to society. I drink beer and use tobacco products. I’m not going to feed the poor without sharing the Gospel, but I want to make sure that the poor at my church are fed first. I don’t believe that the Trinity, and the deity of Christ are the only articles of faith that a Christian can hold to be called a Christian. I’m not a mystic, and I didn’t ask Jesus into my heart to be saved. I don’t believe prayers are magical and I believe God is sovereign.

Now, it would seem that I fit the profile of an evangelical, at least an evangelical from decades ago. Today, however; I don’t. It would seem its time to abandon the term.

The Law of the Excluded Middle states that every proposition is either true or not true. ( P v ~ P )

Arminianism includes at least five theological expressions which were later countered by the five points of Calvinism. Below I define the five points of Arminianism in terms of the five points of Calvinism as the latter are more familiar than the former. The positive assertions at the beginnings of each statement are representative of Calvinism and the negatives at the ends of each statement are representative of Arminianism. Please notice that each statement is true by virtue of the law of excluded middle. One is logically forced to choose between one of the two positions provided by each statement. There is no third option for any of these statements.

Humanity is totally depraved or humanity is not totally depraved.

Election is unconditional or election is not unconditional (conditional).

The atonement is limited in extent or it is not limited (universal).

The grace of God is irresistible or it is not irresistible (resistible).

True believers will persevere or true believers will not persevere.

One is therefore obligated to adhere to a Calvinist or Arminian position with respect to each of these five soteriological considerations. When people assert that “the Bible teaches both” with respect to any one or more of the propositions above the consequence which follows is that the Bible contradicts itself. Likewise one cannot logically claim that neither of the two positions offered in each of the statements is taught by the Bible if the Bible says anything at all about the points above. Therefore views pretending to be “above and beyond” Calvinism and Arminianism are really based on ignorance. One is obligated to choose between one of two beliefs for each of the five points listed above. Please note that those who state that neither position on any of the points is knowable via Scripture differ pragmatically. For example it is common practice amongst those rejecting unconditional election and adhering instead to conditional election to say that we just cannot understand the doctrine of election. This is not a mark of humility as is often assumed but rather a refusal to come to a decision logically entailed by possessing a soteriology.

Nick Don is a great example of what happens when Protestants fail to remember the central tenet of the faith.

http://www.revelife.com/715608043/catholic-on-reformation-day/

But Protestants are far too often accepting or even celebratory of this state of things, seeing the Protestant church not as a protesting, reformation movement within the catholic church, but as an end in itself.  But to the degree that the Protestant church forgets who it is and is content to exist only in its own branches, it is sinning against the unity of the church Christ died for.  The church of all places must be unified, as it is intended to be the first fruits of a coming new creation in which all the walls the divide people have been destroyed (Eph 2:14).

Nick seems to have developed this Romantic idea that the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church are all ‘churches’It cuts both ways, Nick would have to chastise the Catholic church for dividing with the Protestants or did he forget the Council of Trent? In as much as Protestants sin for being Protestants, Catholics sin for refusing unity with Protestants a la Trent.

Also, Protestants don’t believe the Catholic Church is the ‘catholic’ church so that we’re not divided with Rome. Rome anathematized the Gospel, in doing so ceasing to be a church.

Furthermore, Catholics don’t believe Protestants are catholic. And who is Nick? An anabaptist? He’s heretical on both ends.

Hauerwas discussed the advantages of a catholic Catholic church.  For example, a catholic Catholic church gives the worshipers the comfort of knowing that wherever they travel, they will be worshiping the same God.  It is not necessarily so in the multitude of Protestant and Protestantish churches that not only have convergent beliefs in a number of matters, but also have no relationship with one another.  According to Hauerwas, “Catholics understand the church’s unity as grounded in a reality more determinative than our good feelings for one another.”  We might also add a reality more determinative than your or my unique theological formulations.

Hauerwas through Nick has exaggerated the issue, suppose we I entered a city where there was no Presbyterian Church but a faithful baptist church, would I then be forced to worship the baptist God? Hauerwas either is exagerrating or Nick is abusing what he said.
I do not necessarily want to see the Protestants close up shop and return to Papal authority.  Perhaps that makes me too Protestant for most Catholics.  But I also cannot see the Protestant church as solitary and satisfactory in itself.  No doubt many Protestants will disagree.  Standing as I do outside both organisms, I can summarize what I would like to see this way: I would like to see the Catholics become more Anabaptist, the Anabaptists become more Catholic, and the Protestants become more of both.

The only problem is that Catholics cannot ever be no less than Roman Catholic. The Roman Church is always and will always be the Roman Church, unless Nick would accept a liberal and fallible Catholic magisterium he cannot ever demand they become anything else, they are an immovable rock.  So, whatever Nick would like to see, he’d only be able to perhaps see a Protestant Church and an Anabaptist movement ruin itself into the hands of Mother church.

Today lets celebrate the Reformation, from Anabaptist mysticism and Roman idolatry.

Emergent Jews 

I have never quite understood why anyone would present the “argument” that “all” means “all”. Of course “all” means “all”! If someone were asked to define “all” and that person responded by saying that it means “all” that person would be correct, even if it was a circular definition. Tautologies are always true and words are essentially the same as themselves. “Cow” means “cow”, “book” means “book”, “pie” means “pie”, and “all” means “all”. It is really not very helpful to proudly repeat that “‘all’ means ‘all’” and it makes no sense to deny it.

The underlying issue at hand is what “all” means when defined in a non-circular fashion. Some hold that “all” refers to “every single entity without exception” every time it is used. Others would claim that the meaning of “all” is largely dependent upon its context. The latter contention is the more sensical and, for example, is necessary for interpretting Scripture. For example:

In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. (Acts 1.1-2)

Luke recorded every single doing and teaching of Jesus while He was on earth without exception? If this is true, then what do we do with the verse immediately preceeding?

Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. (John 21.25)

Another example:

And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 12.32)

Jesus is speaking here of His death by crucifixion, His death on the cross. (John 12.33) Does the cross really draw every single person who ever lived to Christ without exception? If so, then what do we do with passages which speak of the cross being a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Greeks? (1 Corinthians 1.23) The cross is offensive, it does not draw every individual without exception.

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1.18)

The term “all”, just like other terms, must draw its meaning from the context in which it appears. An understanding of the text and culture from which that text originates goes a long way toward resolving the apparent contraditions pointed out in the texts above and answers our questions regarding “all”.

What do you think?

There was a time, if  ’time’ it could be called, when God, in the unity of His nature (though subsisting equally in three Divine Persons), dwelt all alone. “In the beginning, God.” There was no heaven, where his glory is now particularly manifested. There was no earth to engage his attention. There were no angels to hymn his praises; no universe to be upheld by his power. There was nothing, no one, but God; and that, not for a day, a year, or an age, but “from everlasting.” During a past eternity, God was alone: self contained, self-sufficient, self-satisfied; in need of nothing.

-  The Attributes of God,p.10 AW Pink