Freedom from Porn

Avid Apple users, you will do well to skip the first two paragraphs. Kkthxforplaying.

For YEARS I have criticized and poked fun at Apple for striving to be different than personal computers. In fact, I remember when my family purchased our first PC. I was in the seventh grade, and I was strongly motivated to encourage my parents to get one after experiencing my first real-time strategy game: Warcraft 2. Many a conversation was to be had with my best friend, Scott, about why PC’s were superior to Macintosh, including that Mac’s were not compatible with most computer games. For whatever reason, Apple has worn as a banner of pride that they aren’t compatible with PC’s.

[One quick comment before I continue – it has been overly amusing to me to see Mac’s, for all intents and purposes, recently turn into expensive PC’s. They use intel processors, incorporate Microsoft Office, and can run a Windows OS! What’s the difference between Mac’s and PC’s? Mac’s are four times as expensive. You are essentially paying for their operating system].

There. I got it out of my system, lollerbeamz go pew pew =).

Even though Apple and Mac users annoy me to no end with their mind numbing claims of superiority, I was so proud after reading an exchange between Steve Jobs and a blogger at “Valleywag.” Apple’s CEO received an email criticizing them for standing in the way of freedom to look at internet pornography on the iphone, itouch and ipad. “Is Apple about freedom?” he was asked. Steve had this to say in response:

“Yep, freedom from programs that steal your private data. Freedom from programs that trash your battery. Freedom from porn. Yep, freedom. The times they are a changin’.”

I don’t know about you but I don’t think I can even recall another CEO who has taken a firm stance against the pornography industry. Consider the position a man like Steve Jobs is in, then consider the above statement. I mean, wow. That took some serious nerve. I honestly had no idea he had these kinds of convictions. He goes on to talk about how he wants Apple to help introduce new technologies that aren’t developed first by and for the porn industry. Gotta be honest here, this is a wonderful thing, and Steve Jobs has earned my respect

*glances over his shoulder for the Doc, or Jamie, or any other deceived #prosapologian Mac user*

I was even more surprised that Apple’s app store won’t distribute pornographic applications either! The news just keeps getting better and better. Macintosh will probably never be the right fit for a guy like me – mainly because I like hardware and software choices, aaand because I prefer to pay one quarter of the price of Macintosh for the same thing – but Jobs takes a good stance. For that, I give him mad props.

Does anyone know anything about Steve Jobs’ religious background?

Thanks for reading,
Rusty

Racism

"Racism." That's the term many on the political Left choose to use when referring to those of us who are opposed to illegal immigration. To be fair, it isn't everyone who leans towards the liberal side of things that calls conservatives racist. But it is enough for the main stream media to barrage us with that sort of namecalling.

As best I can tell, the racist charge looks something like this formula:

Opposition to Illegal Immigration = Not Liking Hispanics/Latinos.

How one arrives at this kind of formula, I will never know, because I honestly believe all human beings are equal in value to one another. I will go a step further and say that every single person is created in the image of the triune God. At the same time, I am adamantly against aliens trying to unlawfully enter this nation.

I am 100% in favor of having foreigners migrate to this country, only let it be done the right way: legally. If you're unhappy with the process to gain citizenship or the amount of people allowed to emigrate to the United States, then work to change the existing laws.

It baffles me how people on the Left think they can somehow completely understand the hidden motivations and intents of our hearts, and even read into our beliefs the opposite of what we say that we mean. For example, I'm not a racist ... but I am accused of being one because I believe people should only emigrate to the U.S. legally. This doesn't make sense to me. Let me explain my own beliefs and convictions, and please, please, take me at my word.

Around lunchtime I have a chance to catch some of talk radio, and today heard a segment on Medved's show that made me laugh out loud in frustration. For some reason Michael Medved has increasingly become a moderate Republican, and that is especially the case when it comes to illegal immigration. He said that he thinks it is a bad idea for the Republican Party to be known as the "anti-Latino" party because of our stance against illegal immigration.

What I want to ask Michael is this: how is being against illegal-immigration against Latinos? If his answer is that is how I will be perceived by the Mexican-American population, my response would be: so be it. There is nothing I can do if someone wrongly chooses to believe Republicans are racists for trying to secure our borders, and uphold our laws. Oy ... never know what I'm gonna get when I listen to talk radio =)

Ah, the joys of politics,

Rusty

LOST is nearing the end *sniffle sniffle*

For those of you who have yet to enjoy NBC's LOST, I will do my best to not include any spoilers whatsoever. w00ty freakin w00t.

Ran across this article today, written by the actor who plays Hurley, giving his final thoughts and comments on the show coming to a close.

I didn't become an avid fan until season 4, and that only because my best friend was a mega-fan of the show. I vividly remember more than one Nelson family get-together where my presence was a conversation killer. The reason? Because I had yet to watch LOST, and they refused to spoil it for me.

Reluctantly, I began to watch the show by borrowing the DVD's from Scott. He and his sister introduced some of the LOST theorists presented through YouTube, and that's when I knew the series was a hit.

Emily has also taken to the show, and the two of us have made it a weekly ritual to watch that week's episode at Scott and Mindy's place on Tuesdays. I honestly don't know what we're going to do after this Sunday night when LOST is over. I imagine we'll have to get started on a new show =) (Emily already wants to begin Alias. Sooo ... Alias it is!).

For those of you who have yet to get lost in LOST (yes, I really did say that outloud; err, via chat), I will say that this is my second favorite show of all time. My favorite part about the series is that just once I feel I'm gaining a grasp on what's really going on, they introduce a new perspective that changes everything.

Whatever the 2.5 hours series finale brings, I'm sure I'll love every minute of it.

Until next time,
Rusty

You mean the President isn't a gamer?!

Hampton University had the honor of having President Obama deliver the commencement address to those in attendance. Unless you’re living in Canada, you’ve no doubt heard some of the controversial remarks he made about information, technology and democracy. Here is the relevant portion of these remarks:

“And meanwhile, you’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter. And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- (laughter) -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it’s putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.”

Most of what I’ve caught the news media discussing is how the President is somewhat “dissing” technology and video games. While this is somewhat true, I personally believe a president ought to have some leeway in poking fun at certain genres – in this case, technologies – without getting beat up about it.

What is upsetting about the President’s words, however, have nothing to do with the President’s inability to use an ipad or xbox360. Ironically enough, while mentioning kinds of informational distractions, he uses distractions himself by joking about his lack of having and using various technologies and games. I believe that the President’s point had very little to do about technology, and everything to do with information being harmful for democracy.

We are living in the “Information Age,” and as Barack Obama rightly pointed out, we have a wealth of information available to us. In fact, we have more information available than any civilization in the history of mankind. The President specifically mentions that there are bad arguments out there. I happen to agree with him. But this begs the question: why bother to mention this? If we continue reading his comments we’ll discover his purpose when he said, “information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation.”

I’m sorry, what?! So then, knowledge isn’t power?

To those who have defended the President by arguing that his only intention was to say that video games and entertainment media are unhelpful, I would simply ask how this makes sense considering the speech in its entirety? He spends a great deal of time talking about democracy, and even does so here. He goes so far as to mention bad arguments that don’t rank high in truthfulness.

This leads me to my next question: is the President implying that certain forms of information are dangerous to democracy? If so, what should be done about it?

Do I even need to mention the first amendment and the right to free speech for citizens? This means that even when there are arguments and beliefs I disagree with, people should have the right to express their perspectives. Period. Even if they are bad arguments that don’t rank high on the truth meter. How can this be bad for Democracy? I would submit to you that it is beneficial and necessary for Democracy. Let every perspective be expressed and let the people decide for themselves.

My fear in hearing Obama’s speech is the undertone that bad arguments and untruthful arguments are an enemy of empowerment, emancipation and democracy. Is he implying that government has the responsibility to ensure only good arguments are delivered to the public? I sincerely hope not.

Had Benjamin Franklin attended the commencement ceremony he would not have been pleased by Obama’s thoughts about more information being bad for democracy. It was Franklin who published one of the more popular newspapers in the colonies and experienced first-hand the underhanded back-biting that took place in nearly every paper (he even contributed on more than one occasion). Were Obama to be consistent, he would have to condemn the bad arguments and untruths taking place at the time of the Revolution so that democracy would be benefited. Ironically, it was the expression of many opinions and beliefs – even bad arguments and untrue statements – that contributed to our own political process, and not an attempt to convince the public that only certain kinds of information are helpful to emancipation.

On a side-note, G4TV’s take on this issue has been hilarious. Gamers are all up in arms now. Better not diss technology if you wanna have the l33test fans ftw, Mr. President =).

Thanks for reading,
Rustoleum

The Tea Partier's Rallying Cry

It was completely a spur of the moment decision, but remember a couple weeks back when those Tea Party rallies were happening all over the country? I decided to attend one. I have had mixed feelings about the movement, and I wasn’t overly happy to discover that they take almost no stances on any moral issue. The only things they are united on are their desire for lower taxes and less government.

For whatever reason, I was watching the most boring television program on FoxNews: Greta Van Sustren’s hour-long segment, and for the first time in a long time she caught my attention. I mean she really caught my attention. She was talking about the Tea Party rallies that would be happening (this was the day before April 15th), about the President’s health care bill, and how the Federal government will increase the tax bracket. 10pm being way past my bedtime, I stayed up well past 11pm watching the program and trying to mentally sort out some political issues.

Tax Day was one of my days off that week, so once I woke up and saw live footage of Tea Party rallies around the nation, I knew I had to see what they were all about. The one held in the East Valley was at Freestone Park in Gilbert, which was all of 2 miles away. Parking was a nightmare until the police designated a nearby field as a parking lot =). People were showing up in droves, and the atmosphere was electric. I heard people talking about their outrage for the ever-expanding growth of government and how this is an encroachment of their rights. Of course, there were uber-libertarians present as well, opposed to 99.9% of government functions – I don’t fit this category, mainly because there are certain things I believe government is responsible for: protecting her citizens and securing our liberties.

Dozens upon dozens of speakers were given an opportunity to briefly promote their Tea Party group, and I heard a variety of opinions about government, tax policy, health insurance, and a few moral issues. Overall, the one thing that was abundantly clear about the movement’s goals: fewer taxes and less government = more freedom and liberty. Having thought of Tea Partiers for years as Ron Paul radicals, it was a pleasant surprise to find thousands of normal people all with the same goal.

The event was unfolding with a relative calm until the one (yes, only one) protestor showed up. I kid you not, the very moment he started loudly booing, he was encircled by dozens of people angry at his disruption. Hoping that the poor guy wouldn’t get killed for his foolishness, I stepped in to shake his hand and hear him out. We had a fairly decent conversation about the purpose of government, capitalism vs. socialism, morality and worldviews, and then religion. We exchanged email addresses to further our conversation. I’ll let you know if anything comes of it.

At one point during the rally I was getting bored, hot and tired, so I began making my way back towards Leia II. Once I reached the parking lot, a nice-looking suburban stops in front of me and out steps J.D. Hayworth (running for Senate)! I stood there for a moment, probably looking a bit dumbfounded, pointed to him and said, “J.D.?” He came over, shook my hand and asked my name. He then invited me to walk with him into the rally. In the midst of our very general and brief conversation, I managed to say to him that I was glad he was running and that “I’m not 100% sure who I’ll be voting for, but definitely not McCain!” He laughed.

A friend at church made a suggestion that I may take: somehow helping J.D. Hayworth’s election campaign. I have a strong desire to do something to help the Republicans and put a stop to the rapid expansion of government started by President Obama and the Democratic Party.

On a related note … the information that initially caught my attention on Greta Van Sustren’s show was a discussion of how much the average middle-class American’s tax bracket will increase if Obama gets his way. Right now it is sitting at 35%, that is, until the Bush tax cuts Obama didn’t renew expire. From that simple action alone the tax bracket will be raised to 41%. Obamacare was signed into law but hasn’t taken effect yet. Once the bill and program begins to need funding this will add anywhere from 12-16% in taxes. This is guestimated by considering most European nations that have a government insurance program. Even if we go with the lowest number of 12%, this raises the tax bracket of the average middle-class citizen from 35% to 53%! I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous. This kind of FDR / Jimmy Carter policy is just too much government. I would go a step further and say that even 35% is too much.

The desire for the state to gain more power is never ending, and must be kept in check at every turn to keep government in its place. The fact of the matter is, with the right kinds of reform government insurance is unnecessary. In fact, public education is unnecessary. How can I say this? Think about it: what did people ever do before the government provided insurance for them? Weeell, they purchased insurance on their own. Or, what did people do before government-run schools? Were Americans uneducated? Actually, the private schools in the United States were considered the best in the world, at one time. Charter schools are a step in the right direction, but really, the Department of Education is utterly unnecessary. Who is the government to define what an education is and is not anyway? Americans want to be educated, and we don’t need the government to coerce them to receive one. The benefits to finding a job require people to get one. But I’m straying a bit off topic; surely the reader gets my meaning.

I’ll conclude with this: the November elections are approaching, and with them I hope many career politicians are voted out of office. Only then will real and effective change begin to happen. This election is so critical because with enough Republicans and conservatives we can either overturn Obamacare and/or cut its funding. One way or the other, the American people have spoken: no Obamacare, and more liberty to make personal decisions. Hard to argue with that, especially in light of the Bill of Rights.

Thanks for reading,
Case

Health Insurance a Natural Right?

The Enlightenment, for all its flaws and worldly perspectives, brought about some results that the vast majority of Westerners enjoy and approve of today. An Enlightened thinker would argue for “natural rights,” not always on the basis of the Bible – though sometimes from Scripture – but more often than not from a theistic perspective. In particular, our nation’s founding fathers overwhelmingly believed that there are certain “inalienable rights” given to all men from the one and only god (whoever that god might happen to be).

Having studied the period known as the Enlightenment, it is humorous to me that liberals now claim it is a natural right to have health insurance. Upon hearing this claim for the first time by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a number of questions came to mind: What did our founding fathers mean by “natural rights?” Why did the Federal government wait 200+ years to recognize health insurance as a natural right? In light of the fact that “natural rights” were considered by the Enlightenment Thinkers to be the protection of private property and personal happiness from the ever-present desire of government to expand and become involved in the affairs of her citizens, how can forcing health insurance fit into that?

Never before has the Federal government forced her citizens to purchase a service on a massive scale. I did not think I would see this kind of encroachment of our liberties in my lifetime. Honestly, I didn’t. Yet, in a single moment 1/6th of the American economy was handed over to the Federal government.

What about those who argue that this health insurance bill is a good thing because now 32 million people who didn’t have insurance will now be able to get insurance through the government? How might I respond? Very simply: it seems like wisdom to give the government this kind of responsibility, until one thinks it through. Because I want everyone to have insurance, just like liberals and socialists do. But why does the government need to be responsible for folks getting insurance? Aren’t people capable of taking care of themselves? I say yes: people are fully capable of making their own financial and health decisions.

The liberal may then say, “Fine – but what about the honest working man who wants insurance but can’t because of an existing precondition and/or is in-between jobs?” So glad you asked! Why not pass meaningful health insurance reform to ensure individuals can hang on to their policies in-between jobs, and can be accepted with preconditions (though prices will vary based on the conditions). There is much more to it than that, but even these simple suggestions make the Obama health care bill completely unnecessary. Aaand it would remove government hands from [what should remain] a private industry.

Each time I talk with liberals about why the private sector is a better option than the state, it amazes me how little they have thought through the result of the government suddenly being responsible to provide health insurance for 32 million individuals. First of all, they would instantaneously become the nation’s largest health insurance company. President Obama has already talked about setting price controls, which would be utterly detrimental to the industry. I can’t fathom a company with any sense at all remaining in the health insurance industry, trying to compete with the federal government. No health insurance company has 32 million insureds; and this number is just to get started. Businesses will soon learn it will be cheaper to stop providing insurance for their employees and pay the government fine. These employees may then try to find the more expensive private insurance … or, most likely will take advantage of the government option which they are already paying for with their taxes. Gonna take a stab at it, but I’m willing to bet within 10 years 70 million people will be insured by the government. The process will continue this upward spiral until the government option becomes the only option.

Joe-liberal may ask, “Why is the government being the only insurance provider a problem?” Answer: because the quality of health-care will drastically decrease. As we speak, British elections have the quality of health-care at the fore-front of their political discussion. Because the government is the sole insurance provider, the government limits what kinds of drugs and treatments can be used on patients. In fact, they were discussing on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show yesterday how the most advanced breast cancer and prostate cancer treatments are not available in England. This is what happens with Socialized medicine; there is a limited budget which equates to a rationed health care system. Frightening.

Government insurance will be great … unless you get sick and need to see a specialist and/or a special treatment/procedure.

Do I even need to say that increasing the size of government is bad for the private sector? Sure, the IRS will need more employees to keep track of who’s insured and who isn’t, meanwhile the private sector will continue to diminish. When government increases, private property and rights decrease.

Thanks for reading,
Case

Socialized Medicine

Most of what I remember from the 80’s is limited to cartoons (Transformers, Ninja Turtles, He-Man [totally random, but I wonder if he found his She-Woman?], and my favorite: GI Joes) and playground experiences. This is why I tend to think of myself more as a child of the 90’s on into the 00’s. Like most kids, politics was off in the distant future while I sorted out more important issues to me at the time. For me, it was working out kinks in my theology until about 2004. This was the year politics meant something to me. I began reading the news, listening to talk radio, and thinking hard about the prominent political discussions of the day. I registered as a Republican and cast an informed vote in the Presidential election.

From my own experience, I’ve discovered that once one becomes informed about the world it is difficult to walk back into ignorance because there is so much that needs fixing. You learn that government is a necessary evil that God establishes to constrain the wicked desires of man’s heart, and to maintain civility in society.

I’d have serious doubts if the reader didn’t know ahead of time most of my political conclusions, but how is it I ended up reaching these conclusions? Certainly the most important influences were my parents, my best friend, and the folks at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. Aware of my own presuppositions and traditions, I knew that the truthfulness of my beliefs needs to be consistent, which is why I spent a great deal of time and energy thinking about politics. Staying informed of the political landscape has enabled me to engage in a host of ideas: the role of government, morality in government and society, how a Christian is supposed to function within a governmental framework, a Christian’s role within democracy, and so on and so forth.

2004 until today have been an interesting six or seven years, as you’re probably aware. I have experienced political ups and downs with each victory and loss. The most important issue, however, happened this past Sunday when the House passed a historic bill that will forever change the direction of this nation. Many have said this already, but it is worth repeating: the America we knew is coming to an end. Government insurance that will cover 30+ million Americans will do that to a nation.

Are the Republicans being a bit too extreme in their reaction to this healthcare reform bill? No, I don’t believe so. Let me explain … 30+ million people insured by the government will make them the largest health insurance company in the country. No other insurance company in their right mind will try to compete with the kind of rates the government will control. This means these insurance companies will be forced to expand to other kinds of insurance – home, auto, business, life – ooor simply go out of business. This is inevitable. Next, we’ll see the government be the sole insurance provider for health care. The Speaker of the House and our President claim that this healthcare reform bill will actually decrease the cost of healthcare and lower the national deficit! How can this be in light of the fact that the government will now be paying with our tax dollars for these 30+ million insureds. This is insanity … pure insanity to say the deficit will decrease when our spending increases.

Why are Republicans so worked up over this? Because the Socialization of healthcare increases government control of our lives and reduces the freedom we have. Rather than choosing whether we want healthcare or not, the government will decide for us. Like the public school system, it seems a logical and practical step that the government will decide what doctors and hospitals you can go to. They may even decide which cases are too costly to pay for – they will have millions upon millions to pay for, you see.

It is a simple matter of freedom versus Socialism. Don’t be fooled for a moment that the issue is really about covering millions of people who cannot afford healthcare. The issue is about our freedoms as individuals. I don’t want to pay for someone else’s healthcare. I don’t want the government to take away more of my money. My goodness, how much more can they take from us? Isn’t 35-40% enough?!

How do I respond to the accusation that Republicans don’t want these 30+ million people to have access to health insurance? Why don’t we pass meaningful healthcare reform that allows individuals to keep health insurance in-between jobs, and with pre-existing conditions. Yes, having a pre-condition will mean your insurance rate will be higher than someone without any pre-conditions. But again, this assumes personal responsibility over against government mandated insurance like Social Security. Really, with the right kind of reform, Americans are fully capable of providing for their own health insurance, just as they are capable of planning for their own retirement.

Ronald Reagan made a point that I must reiterate to you. He said that Americans will never vote under the banner of “Socialism” but they will under the banner of “Liberalism,” which claims to defend the middle-class by increasing the role of the state. A fair warning indeed.

Thanks for reading,
Rusty

Too Much to Tell

Truly, so much has happened since my last post, I don’t know where to begin. Emily said yes … to my proposal in marriage. Somehow, I managed to convince her to marry a guy like me, and how lucky I am! That Irish luck thing finally paid off, it seems. After far too long [Master Kenobi] I’ve earned my Bachelor’s degree in Business Management. Lastly, it’s been about five months since my promotion, but I was promoted at Starbucks. Oh! Last of the lasterlies, Emily and I bought a house that will be closing on the 30th. W00ty w00t.

Curious as to how I managed to persuade my Emily to say yes? Valentine’s Day was approaching, and I thought that to pop the question on that particular day would be far too expected. I did, however, drop hints to mislead her to believe I would be proposing on Valentine’s Day – yup, I’m evil. In actuality, the Saturday before V-Day, I told her we had plans for a double date with my best friend Scott, and his lovely wife, Mindy. We were supposed to have some couple’s shots with Adam (Scott’s bro-in-law), so we were all dressed slightly upwards from casual. A faked phone call was all that was needed to continue on the charade that Adam was actually meeting with us to take our picture. Once we arrived at one of the Superstition Mountain’s lakes, we parked and decided to walk around while we waited for Adam. Scott and Mindy created some distance and it wasn’t long after that that I read to Emily an early Valentine’s Day card, in which were some song lyrics that I had been saving to read to the one I would propose to, dropped to my knee, and held out the ring. By God’s free grace, she quickly said yes, and I would be lying if I said there weren’t a few tears from the both of us. It was a spectacular moment, one that we will undoubtedly remember for the rest of our lives together.

Because the parallels between myself and Chris Farley might be made, I shall refrain from stating the total amount of time I spent to earn my degree. Nevertheless, earned it I did. The most exciting part of having this accomplishment under my belt is how it will open up more possibilities for me in the future.

It has been five? six? months since I was promoted to a management position at Val Vista and Southern. Great learning experience thus far, especially working with a whole new set of folks. I’ve learned some invaluable lessons from a business angle and interpersonal-savvy angle. All I can say is this: QASA, VIA, SKCDL’s, DCM’s and scones have been my life during this brief time. I’ll try not to have nightmares about the drive-thru bell ringing in my ear every 20 seconds =).

Perhaps two weeks after Emily and I were engaged, we made a bid on a house. We found this house on our very first day of house-hunting, and both knew this was the one within minutes (in fact, we only spent a grand total of five minutes inside the first time). That’s all it took. We have done everything on our end, so now we wait for the bank to fund the loan and BAM. That’s all she wrote. Lord willing, everything goes smoothly from this point onward.

Our wedding date is August 14th, and that day cannot come soon enough. Maybe I should have listened to my fiancé who suggested we marry a month sooner? =). There you have it: my life update in a nutshell. Thanks for reading.

Rusty

Compatibalist Freedom

David,

Thank you for your email and your excellent questions. These are both well formulated and well thought out; I very much appreciate that.

Your first question: “If God ordains and puts all sin and disobedience into motion by His plans, how does the blame for this sin land on sinners and not Himself?”

Though it is true that men perform the actions ordained by God since eternity they are also held accountable for their actions. This is what we call Compatibalist Freedom. There is a distinction made between primary and secondary causes. God is the primary cause for all things that happen in time and space. Secondary causes are accomplished through the agents themselves. God ordained the Fall of Adam and Eve, yet it was actualized through Adam and Eve. It was not God who sinned, but Adam and Eve.

There are 3 clear examples in Scripture that teach Compatibalist Freedom: Genesis 50:20, Isaiah 10:5-14, and Acts 4:27-28.

Genesis 50:20, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.” (NASB).

Shortly before our text, Joseph and his brothers witnessed their father‘s death. After they finished burying him, his brothers began to worry that Joseph may take vengeance for the many evil deeds they did against him (vs. 15). Eventually they approach Joseph to beg for mercy, and Joseph responds in verse 20. His brothers meant much evil against Joseph, and yet God intended good from these actions. This means that God had a purpose all along for the many evil difficulties they forced upon their brother. God had intentions for their actions before they were ever performed! Joseph showed mercy to his brothers, even though they were clearly guilty of the actions God ordained ahead of time.

Isaiah 10:5-14, “5 Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hands is My indignation, 6 I send it against a godless nation And commission it against the people of My fury To capture booty and to seize plunder, And to trample them down like mud in the streets. 7 Yet it does not so intend, Nor does it plan so in its heart, But rather it is its purpose to destroy And to cut off many nations. 8 For it says, "Are not my princes all kings? 9 "Is not Calno like Carchemish, Or Hamath like Arpad, Or Samaria like Damascus? 10 "As my hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols, Whose graven images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria, 11 Shall I not do to Jerusalem and her images Just as I have done to Samaria and her idols?" 12 So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, "I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness." 13 For he has said, "By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did this, For I have understanding; And I removed the boundaries of the peoples And plundered their treasures, And like a mighty man I brought down their inhabitants, 14 And my hand reached to the riches of the peoples like a nest, And as one gathers abandoned eggs, I gathered all the earth; And there was not one that flapped its wing or opened its beak or chirped.”” (NASB).

In this scenario Assyria is used by God to punish His people for their godlessness. Assyria “did not so intend” or “plan so in its heart” to attack Jerusalem but only to “destroy and to cut off many nations.” And so God uses Assyria to attack Jerusalem. After the fact, God punishes Assyria for “the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness.”

This is another example of God causing events and then holding the individuals involved responsible. In this case, Assyria didn’t even intend … but God did intend for them to do this. Then Assyria is held accountable and punished accordingly.

Finally, Acts 4:27-28 may be the most important of these 3 examples because of who is involved in God’s predestining purpose: Jesus Christ.

Acts 4:27-28 “27 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.” (NASB).

Luke records Peter’s and John’s response to the priests, elders and scribes. The point I will make from this text is that the Lord predestined many decisions and actions which resulted in the suffering of Christ, yet Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and the Jews are all accountable before God for their behavior and involvement.

Next, I would like to address a possible implication from your question. Are you implying that without a libertarian freedom man cannot be held accountable for his actions? If so, I would simply ask how such a freedom can exist since men are unable to do other than what God foreknew they would do? In other words, if men lack the liberty to act apart from the foreknowledge of God then they cannot possess a freedom independent of all forces (including God’s). Libertarianism is clearly not the kind of freedom men possess. Rather, the Bible teaches that men have a compatibalist freedom, where under the sovereign rulership of God men are still accountable for their deeds.

On to your second question: “If genuine, unprovoked devotion is not, and cannot be part of His plans due to His sovereign nature, why did He not create everyone with a natural positive response to His being?”

Very simply - because God, in His infinite wisdom, decided to create the way He did. I will make reference to Ephesians 1 and Romans 9. Also consider that the secret things belong to the Lord; we know only what God has revealed to us (Deuteronomy 29:29). Going beyond the Scriptures into speculation about why God ordained things this way is futile since only the mind of the Lord knows such things. We might as well ask why God created the law of gravity the way He did.

I hope this was beneficial for you. If you would like to continue on this discussion, or have further questions please let me know.

Because of the sovereign rulership of God,
Casey “Rusty” Ryan
AOMin

Joshua,

Job is a wonderful book, full of insight into the mighty control of our God, even over the terrible events that happen in the lives of His saints. You asked if the end result of Job’s conversation with God is with the Lord essentially telling Job, “How dare you question me?” Yes, this is what I believe is happening. God is the Creator of all things, including events that occur in time and space. He ordains everything for the betterment of His people; the good and the evil.

You said, “If it is, then I really don't understand Job accepting God's Authority.”

God has ultimate authority. He is the ruler over everything that exists, so Job accepting this fact was wise on his part =).

You continued, “I mean, God allowed Satan to take everything from him, and offers no direct reasons why.”

Being the sovereign over all creation, God does not have to answer to us … for anything. In fact, we only know what God allows us to know about His purposes. Otherwise, it is kept hidden from us (Deut 29:29).

The lesson from the book of Job is that the Lord gives, and the Lord takes away. But whether He gives or takes away, we are to bless His name. Job 1:20-22, “20 Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head, and he fell to the ground and worshiped. 21 He said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, And naked I shall return there. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD." 22 Through all this Job did not sin nor did he blame God.” (NASB).

All good things come from God’s hand, and all these things we do not deserve. Therefore, how can we complain when the Lord takes back what was from Him? If we received what we deserve we would face God’s judgment and then sent to Hell for all eternity to be punished for our sins. But thank the Maker of all that He has chosen to demonstrate His mercy on a great multitude of guilty sinners. This is why Job did not blame God when God used Satan to take away His family, possessions and health. Job did not originally deserve the blessings from God’s hand, so what right did He have to complain, much less to question the wisdom of God in purposing what He purposed to happen?

While we do not always know the reasons behind why God is doing something, we must remember the promise of God that He does everything for the good of those that love him (Romans 8:28).

I hope this was of help to you. Please let me know if you have any further questions on this subject, or if there is anything I can help you with.

Because of the sovereign rulership of our God,
Casey “Rusty” Ryan
AOMin

Preparation for Witnessing to Latter-day Saints

Rob sent Alpha and Omega an email looking for help in witnessing to a pair of LDS missionaries, and mentioned that he was "burning" to present the gospel to them. I wish more Christians were like Rob. Hopefully, I was able to give him a good start to further prepare to be a faithful witness to the Latter-day Saint community in his area. Here's what I sent him, and may also help you as you do your best to present the gospel of our Lord to all men:

Hello Rob,

First of all, I thank God for you and your willingness to preach the gospel to this pair of Latter-day Saint full-time missionaries. I have met so many Christians who prefer to shut the door on Mormons rather than reasoning with them from the Scriptures, so please know you are a great encouragement to me.

Your approach in how you plan on talking with these young Mormons (if you have not already) sounds great to me. I have met with dozens of LDS missionaries over the years and am actually meeting with a pair right now, going on our fifth encounter next week - which I’ve learned is quite rare. My approach is similar to yours, in that, I try to be extremely up-front in the beginning. I let them know right away that I have no desire to convert to the Latter-day Saint church, that I have read the entirety of their Scriptures and have intensely studied their belief-system in an attempt to better understand their perspectives, and that it is my goal to convert them just as it is their goal to convert me. Lastly, I mention that I prefer to have a pleasant conversation and polite debate centering around our differences in hopes of winning them over.

This seems to work much better than my first attempt with a pair of LDS missionaries where I was not forthright and led them to believe I was a seeker, possibly interested in investigating their church. Being straightforward with them is respectful, and I believe, the God-honoring approach.

In your discussions with them try to control the topics of conversation - there is no need to go through their lesson plans. Many times I will select a topic that focuses on a core difference between us. For example, in my current discussions with missionaries we are talking about how many true gods exist, as well as the nature of God. The Trinity is regularly needing to be mentioned, along with what I do not believe about God. Comparing and contrasting my beliefs with theirs, then demonstrating that the Biblical evidence fully supports our beliefs about God, and also does not support their beliefs is the best approach to take. Whatever approach you take, continue to reinforce your said beliefs from the Bible so that they can begin to understand why Evangelicals believe what we do.

There are a number of books and mp3’s I want to recommend to help you prepare for your evangelism towards the Latter-day Saint community. James White has written two of the best books on Mormonism that I’ve encountered: Is the Mormon My Brother? and Letters to a Mormon Elder. The first is a systematic look at LDS beliefs organized by their authority structure. The second is more a reference and contains a series of fictitious letters between James and a Mormon elder on his mission on a wide variety of topics. Both are invaluable to have on your shelf. Jerald (now deceased) and Sandra Tanner’s Utah Lighthouse Ministry also has any number of books, and a unique set of documentation that are useful for those in-depth conversations with a Latter-day Saint. Walter Martin’s (deceased) Kingdom of the Cults is also a great reference to have on the LDS faith, along with other spin-offs of Christianity and other world religions. At the AOMin website there are a number of good articles, mp3’s and DVD’s on Mormonism that can greatly aid you. “The Witnessing to Mormons Seminar” (#482MP3) is a personal favorite that I listen to each year before handing out tracts at the Mormon Easter Pageant at the temple in Mesa, AZ. Check out the articles section of our site, and the store has mp3’s and dvd’s on Mormonism that will greatly assist you. Our site address: http://www.aomin.org.

I have some friends in Maryland who may be able to help you in your studies of Mormonism. I’ll shoot over an email to them and get back to you as soon as I can. Also, feel free to ask me any questions on the subject. It would be my pleasure. I will be praying for you as you continue to shine the light of the gospel to the Latter-day Saint community.

Because of Christ,
Casey “Rusty” Ryan
AOMin

Foreordination and human responsibility

Hello Ben,

I appreciate your desire to seek out the truth even on difficult issues such as these. I’ll do my best to answer your questions in their entirety.

You asked: “Did God create beings He knew would rebel against Him? And if so, how can He hold them accountable for that rebellion?”

Yes, God created beings He knew would rebel against Him. On a related note, I would also like to address how God knew the future before the foundation of the world, and I think you‘ll see how this becomes directly relevant to your questions. Was God simply looking down through the corridors of time, much like a fortune-teller with her crystal ball? Or does the Lord have another basis for knowing what happens in the future? I believe the Bible answers this very question.

Isaiah 44:6-8 reads: “6"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me. 7 'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it; Yes, let him recount it to Me in order, From the time that I established the ancient nation. And let them declare to them the things that are coming And the events that are going to take place. 8 'Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.'“” (NASB).

This is a text I use fairly often when talking with Latter-day Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses, but also with Open Theists, oddly enough. In these few verses our God states in more ways than one that He is the only true and living god that exists. More than that, He offers a challenge to the many false gods to declare to Him the events of the past and their purpose for happening. God then challenges idols to declare events that have yet to happen. I believe there is a strong implication that just as the Lord established past events and the ancient nation He likewise establishes the future.

Isaiah says in 46:8-11, “8"Remember this, and be assured; Recall it to mind, you transgressors. 9 "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'; 11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it.” (NASB).

Saying similar things as the previous passage we looked at, but also that He declares the end from the beginning so that His purpose will be established according to His good pleasure. He has spoken and it will happen just as He desires. His plans always come to pass.

Next, I’d encourage you to read Isaiah 40-50 … but until then … this section in Isaiah not only presents a series of tests to demonstrate that He is the only true god, but also to serve as reassurance for this fact. Among His many tests are the constant reminder that He alone is the Creator of all things, and I believe that His many mentions of ordaining the past, present and future must be considered an act of God’s creative handiwork (creation).

Romans 8:28 is a passage well known amongst Christians down through the ages of the Church because of it’s reassurance of God’s total control over all things: “8 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” (NASB). This is comforting not only because God is watching out for the Christian’s best interests but because everything that happens is according to God’s purposes. Think how the first century Church viewed this text in light of the intense persecution brought by the Jews and the Romans, and the text becomes all the more relevant. Even in the face of persecution our Lord is in control because He has ordained what will happen, and His ends will be accomplished for the betterment of His people.

What I have attempted to do up to this point is demonstrate that the Creator has ordained all events in time and space: the past, present and future. But I have one other point to make regarding good and evil. Going back to Isaiah, we read in 45:6-7, “6 That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, 7 The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.” (NASB). He forms light and darkness, causing well-being and calamity. Another text, Proverbs 6:4 reads: “4 The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil.” (NASB). This brings out a very important fact: God ordains all things, good and evil - evil the wicked for the day of doom.

We are nearly ready to directly address your question, but first we need to answer one other question: if God has ordained good and evil events, how does that all play out? In an attempt to better explain our theology, Calvinists differentiate between first and secondary causes. God is the first cause of all things that happen. In other words, He has ordained everything that takes place. Secondary causes are the means which He uses to accomplish His ordained decree.

So, did God “create” sin? I suppose it depends on how you are defining the term “create.” He certainly ordained the existence of sin and evil, but it was Satan and human beings that actualized, or brought about, its existence.

How is it that human beings are held accountable for their sins in light of the fact that God has ordained all things? A simple answer would be that it is human beings that sin and not God. But going further, human beings have what is known as compatibilist freedom. That is, that though God is sovereign in ordaining everything that comes to pass, man is responsible for what he does. This is seen in 3 key texts of Scripture: Genesis 50:20, Isaiah 10:5-13, and Acts 4:27-28.

Genesis 50:20, “20 "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.” (NASB)

In this rather awkward scenario where Joseph’s brothers are pleading with him to not be punished as a result of their wicked behavior, we have a clear recognition that God had purpose and intent in the evil they had done. What was that purpose? To preserve many people alive. Joseph’s brothers meant evil but God meant it for good. It is important to point out that though God has ordained even Joseph’s brothers’ evil deeds, they are not let off the hook for their behavior. For evidence of this take a look at what Jacob said to each of his sons on his deathbed.

Isaiah 10:5-13, “5 Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hands is My indignation, 6 I send it against a godless nation And commission it against the people of My fury To capture booty and to seize plunder, And to trample them down like mud in the streets. 7 Yet it does not so intend, Nor does it plan so in its heart, But rather it is its purpose to destroy And to cut off many nations. 8 For it says, "Are not my princes all kings? 9 "Is not Calno like Carchemish, Or Hamath like Arpad, Or Samaria like Damascus? 10 "As my hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols, Whose graven images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria, 11 Shall I not do to Jerusalem and her images Just as I have done to Samaria and her idols?" 12 So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, "I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness." 13 For he has said, "By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did this, For I have understanding; And I removed the boundaries of the peoples And plundered their treasures, And like a mighty man I brought down their inhabitants,” (NASB).

Assyria had evil intent to destroy and cut off many nations, but not against Jerusalem. Yet God chose to use Assyria as the rod of His anger and punish the Jews. Once finished, the Lord then punishes Assyria for what they did to Jerusalem. The simple lesson from this passage is that God controls all things but we are still held accountable for our actions.

Finally, Acts 4:27-28, “27 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.” (NASB).

Even the Son of God had an appointed time to face abuse and death at the hands of Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel. We know from the Scriptures that all these have been held accountable for their actions. But think about the many decisions that led to the experiences that Christ faced. Between Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles and the Israelites there were an innumerable number of decisions. The first century also came thousands of years after the time of the creation … and I wonder how many choices and actions were done leading up to the time of Christ? If God did not ordain even the choices of men I suggest to you that ordaining specific events of Christ’s life would have been impossible. The Lord is either utterly sovereign over the universe - including time and space - or He is not sovereign at all. These are our two options.

One final question you had asked was whether God created beings He knew would be destined for eternal punishment? I believe that He did - Romans 9 talks a bit about why God did this very thing.

I’ll wrap it up there, but please let me know if you’d like to discuss this further or if you have any further questions.

Praise God for His rulership over all things,
Casey “Rusty” Ryan
AOMin

Which gospel to believe?

I had the honor of responding to a recent email entirely about the gospel. I hope this is encouraging for you =)

---------------------------------------------------------------

I am not out to start a fight. I just want both sides to the story. I am not a fan of tit for tat ridicule I see on both Protestant and catholic blogs. I just want to make an informed decision based on fact and reason. I am a fallen away christian, but I have decided religion should be the most important thing in my life, so I am searching for answers. 1.)evn though the 7 books in the catholic bible(Judith, Tobit, etc. are not in prot. ones, are they the work of God? I must add I found comfort and felt closer after i read them. Is that wrong. I met a priest who was a nice guy, and he told me he didn't care what denomination I was, he just wanted me to be closer to God. He was not anti-prot. as I thought they all were, and he told me to keep going to my Baptist church. The guys I read on the cath. apoli. on the internet were down right mean, as were alot of the prot. Are we not all followers of Jesus? Very confused. Even alot of the prot. guys were ripping each other. Mt head is spinning. I don't know who to believe?

---------------------------------------------------------------

My response:

Paul,

First of all, let me just say that I am honored to be able to respond to your email because you touch on the most important issue in life: true religion.

I’ll respond to your email as best I can but the more I know about what specific questions you have and what issues you are struggling with the better I’ll be able to interact with you.

Contrary to liberals who are ever ready to share their opinions, conservatives on both sides of the Protestant and Catholic isles would argue that the differences between the two perspectives are of the utmost importance. We are not talking about peripheral issues that have no meaningful impact, but rather issues that focus on the gospel of Jesus Christ. Roman Catholics would say that the Protestant gospel is false, just as Protestants would say that the Roman Catholic gospel is false.

Now to the main thrust of your email: Which of these two religions is true, and which possesses the true gospel of God?

Paul the Apostle began his letter to the saints at Rome by describing the gospel as “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1:16, NASB). If we are to believe that Paul was here correct in his assertion that the gospel is the power of God for salvation to all who believe, then having a right view of the gospel must be our foremost concern. All other issues pale in comparison because it is only through the gospel that God has chosen to save sinners from a life and the consequences of our sins. Were it not for the Lord’s intervention, we would be hopelessly left to bear the guilt and punishment for our sins.

While there are many important issues dividing Protestants and Roman Catholics, I’ll spend most of my time in this email focusing on the differences between the two gospels. I will also offer a Biblical defense of the Protestant view of the gospel from the Bible.

The great divide that exists between the Protestant and Roman Catholic gospel is centered around the doctrine of justification. So I ask the question: how is a sinner justified, or declared not guilty of his sins, before God?

The Catholic catechism defines justification this way: “The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1987). We see here a summarized statement that sinful man is justified through faith and through baptism. It is important to remember that justification and sanctification are considered one and the same by Rome, therefore it shouldn’t surprise us that justification is considered an ongoing process, completed only after death and Purgatory. Ludwig Ott has this to say on the subject: “Without a special revelation nobody can with certainty of faith know whether or not he has fulfilled all the conditions that are necessary for achieving justification" (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma Rockford Ill.: TAN Books and Publishers, 1974, p.262). A sinner may never fulfill all the requirements to be justified; it may increase, decrease and even be lost. The Catholic Catechism also teaches that we may increase in our sanctification through our merits. The Holy Spirit gives prevenient grace that enables all of mankind to respond and cooperate with God’s grace. Justification is then a cooperative effort between God’s grace, which makes a way of salvation possible, but in the end it is up to man’s will and personal merits that earn salvation for him.

By contrast, the Protestant view of justification is solely a work of God’s grace and not a cooperative effort between God and man. Because of Adam all of mankind is spiritually dead to the things of God, unable even to respond to the gospel. Man is so affected by sin that he cannot repent or believe in the Savior. The Holy Spirit must give grace for believers to respond, though a key difference here with Rome is that when the Holy Spirit gives grace to a sinner it accomplishes the task to its fullness. I could say it another way: God never fails to save a sinner whom He has decided to save. Through the hearing of the gospel (the message of Christ) the Holy Spirit raises the dead sinner to spiritual life, who then believes in Jesus Christ and is justified of his sins. Because of our complete inability to save ourselves, or to do anything pleasing in God’s sight (even repentance and faith), Protestants emphasize that salvation is by grace alone. Justification is a legal declaration made by God in His law court at a point in time, and not a process. We are not justified by works of any kind, be that works of Law or personal merits, but solely by faith. Therefore, the basis for our right-standing before God is not because of our own merits but because of the merits of Jesus Christ, imputed to us (considered to be ours) through faith. Justification can not be increased or lost because one‘s right-standing before the Lord is not based on man‘s work. This is a completely different idea compared to Rome’s view of an infused righteousness within man as an ongoing process.

Where in the Bible do we see this view of justification by faith alone, and not by works at all? Firstly, I would strongly encourage you to familiarize yourself with the epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians because they are on the subject of justification.

In Romans, Paul spends the first few chapters demonstrating that all men are deserving of the wrath of God because of sin. Both Jews and Gentiles are addressed in these chapters, and Paul makes sure to point out that both works of the Law and personal merits cannot make up for the consequences of sin. We are completely lost, unable to have a right position before our Creator. Then finally, in Romans 3:21-31 we have one of the most beautiful sections in all of Scripture explaining how God saves dead sinners through faith. In verse 28, Paul writes, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” (NASB). Or again, Romans 5:1, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (NASB).If Paul was going to add anything necessary to ensure our justification he would have mentioned in here.

Next, Paul continues on his argument in chapter 4:1-8: “What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 "BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED. 8 "BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.””

Abraham, the Father of our faith, was not justified by works but through faith. The righteousness of God was made known to Abraham through faith. Paul makes the contrast between the one who works and the one who does not work, and it is to the one who does not work that is justified of his sins. God justifies the ungodly, not the godly. He credits righteousness to those not working but having faith in Christ. The contrast between faith and works must be noted because they are given as though polar opposites.

To the Galatians, Paul wrote this: “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.” (Galatians 2:16, NASB).

The distinction between the Protestant - and I believe, Biblical - gospel with the gospel taught by Roman Catholicism is immense. The Counter-Reformation led by the Roman Church completely reject this Biblical understanding of the gospel in their Council of Trent and gives us a good idea of how Rome views the Evangelical perspective; Canon IX: “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”

In conclusion, Protestants agree with the Scriptures that say sinners are justified through faith alone, and not by works. Rome says that we are justified through faith and works.

Obviously, I’ve given you a lot to think about so I’ll leave it here and eagerly await your response.

Because of the finished work of Christ,
Casey (Rusty) Ryan
AOMin

Free Will and 2 Peter 3:9

The following is my response to an AOMin email. Enjoy =)

-----------------------------------------------------------

Jason,

Thanks for your email and your interest in the subject of Calvinism. The single greatest point I would like to begin with is one that you stated in your email: "I've just always assumed we have free will." In other words, one of your presuppositions is that men have "free will." Two questions seem to logically follow this statement: (1) How do you define "free will;" (2) Upon what basis do you say that men have "free will?"

In my experience, most folks tend to define "free will" to mean the following: an inherent ability within sinful man to be able to spiritually accept or reject the gospel of Jesus Christ. Not only does the Bible not define the term "free will" in this way, but it simply does not define it at all. I would suggest that the Bible very clearly teaches the opposite of the definition I listed above. In fact, the Word of God emphatically teaches that because of our fallen state we are unable to repent and believe, or perform any spiritually-pleasing act before God's sight.

Because I want to zone in on your question relatively soon, I'll list a handful of passages on the subject with a book recommendation or two for further study. Ephesians 2:1-4, John 6:37-44, Romans 3:10-11, Romans 9:10-18. Two books that I would recommend to you are The Potter's Freedom and Drawn by the Father both authored by James White.

Now onto your question: "How does a Calvinist explain 2 Peter 3:9? It says God doesn't want "anyone to perish", "but everyone to come to repentance". How can that be if God has predetermined who will perish, and who will be saved? Unless he is drawing everyone to him, which can't be true." If you will allow me, note that this question is only indirectly related to man's ability, or lack thereof, to spiritually come to Christ in faith. However, I think it is a perfectly valid question regarding the Calvinist perspective on predestination: If God has foreordained those whom He would save, how can He also desire every person who has ever lived or ever will live to be saved?

I'll give you my conclusion first, then explain my reasoning in how I interpret this passage. My conclusion is simply that God does not desire to save every person who has ever lived or ever will live. How can I say this in light of 2 Peter 3:9? I think the answer is actually in the text ... but we must pay attention to the pronouns.

The Apostle Peter starts off this epistle addressing a particular audience when he writes: "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1, NASB). This same audience is being addressed in chapter 3, but a contrast between a second group is made throughout the chapter. After reminding this group of Saints that this is his second letter written for them (vs 1), he then introduces a distinct group of people he describes as "mockers," "scoffers," and "ungodly men." This second group, a group of unbelieving men, are referred to using pronouns such as "they" and "them."

After such a clear distinction can be seen between the Christians ("beloved," "you") and the non-Christians ("their," "they") we arrive at verse 9. If you follow the pronouns, and the distinction that Peter himself is making in the text, the questions can then be asked: Who is God patient towards? Who does God not desire to perish? The simple answer is that God is patient towards the "you," and He does not desire the "any" and "all" to perish. The question then becomes: Who is the "you," "any," and "all?" Without inserting a foreign meaning onto the text (commonly called "eisegesis") Peter is referring to Christians. God is patient in His coming for the sake of His elect people, and desires that all of His chosen ones will be saved. Other explanations of this text make the "you," "any," and "all" mean something that is foreign to the context.

I hope this was helpful for you. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further, or have any further questions.

Because of Christ,
Casey (Rusty) Ryan
AOMin

Trouble Loving My Enemies

Do you have someone in your life that is difficult to be around because of some negative aspects to their personality? For you, this might be an acquaintance you’re forced to bump into every so often, a coworker, a friend’s girlfriend (or boyfriend), or even someone who frequents the same Starbucks as you at the same times. That one person could be described as rude, overbearing, mean and nasty, or may even touch on the verge of hateful. I have such a person in my life; a person who easily fits into the descriptions listed above.

I say all of this, and it really does sadden me that I have this kind of relationship with this person. Someone who acts this way cannot be called my friend, and I don’t think it a stretch to recognize that this person is my enemy. Not by choice – I don’t think I would choose to ever have an enemy with a fellow human being. Yet I find myself at odds with this person on a regular basis and for no good reason. The amount of thought and energy I have spent to try and understand why this individual treats me so is beyond me, and I am at my wits end.

Today I found myself praying to God: “God, why does so-and-so hate me without cause?” Then again: “God, I need Your help if I am to truly love my enemy.”

That is my goal today. To focus on what it means to love an enemy and how this can be done.

During my internal battle (and it is a terrible onslaught of a war) the Holy Spirit brought to mind our Lord’s statement from the Sermon on the Mount:

“43You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' 44But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:43-48, NASB).

Once having read this passage the Holy Spirit would never again let me off the hook with my enemies =). It seems clear to me from the earlier context of this chapter that we are not to let folks take advantage of us simply because we are Christians, and yet from these verses we are required to love those who would try to. This is very much the circumstance that I find myself in. A person I am forced to interact with on a consistent basis who treats me poorly, though unprovoked. How am I to respond to such treatment, and what is my responsibility as a Christian?

Beyond doubt, you can rest assured that I am to not be taken advantage of. Any amount of kindness or compromising should not include being walked all over, or slapped around. Rather, as Jesus provides a handful of unique examples, we may use creative means to bring out the shame in what they are trying to do to us without crossing a line, thus behaving sinfully like our enemies. My remaining sin would love it if our responsibilities ended there, because I could then rejoice at justice being done, without sinning, but not … “going the extra mile” … as it were =).

We are not only to avoid abuse or creatively point out sinfulness, I believe we are to love those trying to do these things to us. This does not simply mean an emotion – although an element of understanding and compassion should be at play here. After all, we would act no differently apart from God’s free grace! We are to truly love our enemies. This is what I find a difficult task: I must not become like my enemy. I am not permitted at any point to hate this person in my heart, thus becoming a murderer in God’s eyes. I cannot attempt to harm this person’s reputation, though this has been attempted by this person. I certainly cannot treat my enemy poorly.

Above all this, I am to do good to my enemy! Even when I know it might be shoved back in my face, I am to do good to this person. The thought of doing this does not please me in the slightest. Why do you think that is? Iiii think it’s because deep down in my innermost being I don’t believe my enemy deserves to be treated well by me. There it is. There it is. My true thoughts and intents are revealed there, and this is one reason why I struggle in loving this enemy. Isn’t it the point that none of us deserve grace – that is what makes grace … grace. It’s free. It can’t be earned. Grace is undeserved.

Since I received free grace from the Lord God, not because of anything in me, then shouldn’t I do likewise for others?

God’s Holy Spirit brought one other verse to mind:

“If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” (Romans 12:18, NASB).

The scenario that the Apostle Paul describes here is a possible scenario (“if”), but is a noble goal, nonetheless. “So far as it depends on me” Christians are to be at peace with everyone. The question then is: Have I done everything I can to make peace with my enemy? Up to this point, God has not ordained that I get along with this person, which may mean there isn’t anything I can do to gain my enemy’s favor. However, this does not mean that I should not try everything to make peace. Blessed are the peacemakers.

Thanks for reading ya'll,
Rusty