|
ILoveJohnCalvin
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Sean
Birthday: 7/12/1986
Gender: Male
Interests: Reformed to the core (Calvinist for life)...
I tried to merit my salvation...but darn it...Jesus had to earn it for me (Rom.5:10)...and then God had to give it to me (Eph. 2:8-9)...stupid sin (1 Cor. 2:14)...
Facebook me!
Also, I like:
meeting people, talking, playing guitar, talking about theology, Texas Aggie football! (A A A A A!), being a weirdo...
Dashboard Confessional, The Killers, Switchfoot, David Crowder Band, Lifehouse, Creed, Chris Tomlin, Goo Goo Dolls, Vertical Horizon, Counting Crows, Third Day, Caedmon's Call
Expertise: Sinning. I'm great at that.
Yeah the only thing you can count on me to do is to let you down, eventually.
Plus I'm kinda weird, but if you're reading this, you knew that.
Occupation: Student
Industry: Engineering
Message: message me
Website: visit my website
Member Since:
5/27/2004
|
|
| The Wills of God?In contemplating my Calvinist views, I rechurned the issue of unconditional election (one of my favorite points of Calvinism!  ). I began remembering (it has been a while since I've posted, especially about religion and even more so regarding Calvinism) that probably the most obvious issue that people take with election is that it seems to indicate a disparity between what God says and what God allows to happen. First let me define what I mean by unconditional election (also, for the sake of this post, we assume that unconditional election is true, even though you the reader may disagree with this, it would be a pointless post otherwise. Even so, I use a Scripture to defend the idea below:
Unconditional election is the act of God, before the beginning of time, "electing" (or choosing) some individuals for salvation.
In light of this idea it would appear that John 3:16 ("For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." NIV) is no longer meaningful. It would appear that God says "You must believe or you will perish," but He also says "Not everyone is going to believe."
Ok so we're not quite yet at a contradiction, but here's where it gets sticky:
- "...that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."
1 Timothy 2:4 - "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
2 Peter 3:9 - "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?"
Ezekiel 18:23
So this is seemingly at direct odds with the idea of election in general, which is supported by Scripture:
"You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you."
John 15:16
"Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."
Romans 9:18 "When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed."
Acts 13:48 "For he [God] chose us in him [Christ] before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight."
Ephesians 1:4 "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers."
Romans 8:29 "But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth."
2 Thessalonians 2:13 I don't want this to turn into me defending the idea of election period to you, but I just wanted to make sure that you get my point that God, does in fact will that only a particular group of people be saved (well, I suppose I am sort of defending it  ). So, now what? On the one hand Scripture says "God doesn't want anyone to go unsaved" but on the other it clearly says "I have chosen only some to be saved."
.......so does God have 2 wills? It's not a new idea. There are the ideas of sovereign will and moral will, secret will and revealed will, will of decree and will of command, etc. Is such the case here? Noted Arminian scholar Randall Bassinger notes, in his work A Case for Arminianism, "if God has decreed all events, then it must be that things cannot and should not be any different from what they are." He states that it is too difficult to "coherently conceive of a God in which this distinction really exists." One could interpret 1 Timothy 2:4 to believe that "God's willing all persons to be saved" does doesn't refer to everyone in the the world, but to all kinds of persons, since the "all persons" in verse 1 could very well refer to groups like "kings and all in high positions" (verse 2). It is also possible that the "you" in 2 Peter 3:9 ("the Lord is longsuffering toward you, not wishing any to perish") refers not to everyone in the world but to "you" beleiving Christians. However, I don't think this is a satisfactory answer, and most Arminians don't either. Let's make reality clear: Just because God wishes/wills that all should be saved, it is evident from the world around us that not everyone is or will be saved. So, with an understanding that nothing happens that is not God's will, and that God wills all things and has a will for all things, what do we do with the disparity between what God wants to happen and what God allows to happen? I will write more in the days to come. This is a long, difficult topic and it would bore you (and drain me) to write all of it into one post. Thus, between my posts regarding this topic will be...
LLAMAS! 
Specifically:
40 specially trained Ecuadorian Mountain Llamas
6 Venezuelan Red Llamas
142 Mexican Whooping Llamas. And it that isn't enough, we will include the majestik møøse: 
A Møøse once bit my sister... No realli! She was Karving her initials on the møøse
with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given
her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and
star of many Norwegian møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo
Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst
Nordfink"...
| | |
| Obama?I've caught Obama fever! Obamamania, Obamarama, Obama, Obama, Obama. (I
just pray to God this is clean, renewable electricity I'm feeling.)
Only white guilt could explain the insanely hyperbolic
descriptions of Obama's "eloquence." His speeches are a run-on string
of embarrassing, sophomoric Hallmark bromides.
In announcing his candidacy a few weeks ago, Obama confirmed that he
believes in "the basic decency of the American people." And let the
chips fall where they may!
Obama forthrightly decried "a smallness of our politics" — deftly
slipping a sword into the sides of the smallness-in-politics advocates.
He took a strong stand against the anti-hope crowd, saying: "There
are those who don't believe in talking about hope." Take that, Hillary!
Most weirdly, he said: "I recognize there is a certain
presumptuousness in this — a certain audacity — to this announcement."
What is so audacious about announcing that you're running for
president? Any idiot can run for president. Dennis Kucinich is running
for president. Until he was imprisoned, Lyndon LaRouche used to run for
president constantly. John Kerry ran for president. Today, all you have
to do is suggest a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender,
and you're officially a Democratic candidate for president.
Obama made his announcement surrounded by hundreds of adoring
Democratic voters. And those were just the reporters. There were about
400 more reporters at Obama's announcement than Mitt Romney's, who, by
the way, is more likely to be sworn in as our next president than B.
Hussein Obama.
Obama has locked up the Hollywood money. Even Miss America has
endorsed Obama. (John "Two Americas" Edwards is still hoping for the
other Miss America to endorse him.)
But Obama tells us he's brave for announcing that he's running for president. And if life gives you lemons, make lemonade!
I don't want to say that Obama didn't say anything in his
announcement, but afterward, even Jesse Jackson was asking, "What did
he say?" There was one refreshing aspect to Obama's announcement: It
was nice to see a man call a press conference to announce
something other than he was the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby.
B. Hussein Obama's announcement also included this gem: "I know
that I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But
I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must
change." As long as Obama insists on using Hallmark card greetings in
his speeches, he could at least get Jesse Jackson to help him with the
rhyming.
If Obama's biggest asset is his inexperience, then if by the
slightest chance he were elected and were to run for a second term, he
will have to claim he didn't learn anything the first four years.
There was also this inspirational nugget: "Each and every time, a
new generation has risen up and done what's needed to be done. Today we
are called once more, and it is time for our generation to answer that
call." Is this guy running for president or trying to get people to
switch to a new long-distance provider?
He said that "we learned to disagree without being disagreeable."
(There goes Howard Dean's endorsement.) This was an improvement on the
first draft, which read, "It's nice to be important, but it's more
important to be nice."
This guy's like the ANWR of trite political aphorisms. There's no
telling exactly how many he's sitting on, but it could be in the
billions.
Obama's famed eloquence reminds me of a book of platitudes I read
about once called "Life Lessons." The book contained such inspiring
thoughts as:
"When was the last time you really looked at the sea? Or smelled
the morning? Touched a baby's hair? Really tasted and enjoyed food?
Walked barefoot in the grass? Looked in the blue sky?" (When was the
last time you fantasized about dismembering the authors of a book of
platitudes?)
I can't wait for Obama's inaugural address when he reveals that he
loves long walks in the rain, sunsets, and fresh-baked cookies shaped
like puppies.
The guy I feel sorry for is Harold Ford. The former representative
from Tennessee is also black, a Democrat, about the same age as Obama,
and is every bit as attractive. The difference is, when he talks, you
don't fantasize about plunging knitting needles into your ears to stop
the gusher of meaningless platitudes.
Ford ran as a Democrat in Republican Tennessee and almost won —
and the press didn't knock out his opponent for him by unsealing sealed
divorce records, as it did for B. Hussein Obama. Yet no one ever talks
about Ford as the second coming of Cary Grant and Albert Einstein.
Maybe liberals aren't secret racists expunging vast stores of
white guilt by hyperventilating over B. Hussein Obama. Maybe they're
just running out of greeting card inscriptions.
| | |
| WHOA!Hey now! I haven't been here in a while. Does anyone even READ this thing anymore? It's doubtful. Update:
I am in my last semester at Texas A&M where I will graduate with my Bachelor's degree in Physics in May 2007. I am engaged to the most beautiful Heather and we'll be getting married before the year ends! After I graduate, I'll be working in a hospital as a physician's scribe (will explain later) and then it's off to medical school in Fall 2008 (God willing). This semester (and the last) have been insane. I'm taking 7 classes, studying for the MCAT, and doing research. Yikes! Talk to you all later, soli deo gloria Sean | | |
| GodlessThis from one of Ann Coulter's recent articles, and YES I realize that
not ALL liberals believe in Darwinism, and that some conservatives
probably do, read on anyway:
The long-anticipated book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" was
finally released this week. If The New York Times reviews it at all,
they'll only talk about the Ann Coulter action-figure doll, so I think
I'll write my own review.
This is not a book about liberals. I stress this in anticipation
of Alan Colmes hectoring the author to name names. (For people who
resented being asked to "name names" during the 1950s, these liberals
sure aren't shy about demanding that conservatives do the same today.)
It is a book about liberalism, our official state religion.
Liberalism is a doctrine with a specific set of tenets that can be
discussed, just like other religions.
The Christian religion, for example, frowns on lying and
premarital sex. That is simply a fact about Christianity. This does not
mean no Christian has ever lied or had premarital sex. Indeed, some
Christians have committed murder, adultery, thievery, gluttony. That
does not mean there's no such thing as Christianity any more than
videotape of Rep. William Jefferson accepting cash bribes means there's
no such thing as congressional ethics rules.
Similarly, the liberal religion supports abortion, but that
doesn't mean every single liberal has had an abortion. We can rejoice
that liberals do not always practice their religion.
"Godless" examines a set of beliefs known as "liberalism." It is
the doctrine that prompts otherwise seemingly sane people to propose
teaching children how to masturbate, allowing gays to marry, releasing
murderers from prison, and teaching children that they share a common
ancestor with the earthworm. (They haven't yet found the common
ancestor ... but like O.J., the search continues.)
The demand that their religion be discussed only with reference to
specific individuals — who is godless? are you saying I'm godless? — is
simply an attempt to prevent us from talking about their religion. This
tactic didn't work with "Slander" or "Treason," and it's not going to
work now.
It's not just that liberals ban Reform rabbis from saying brief
prayers at high school graduations and swoop down on courthouses and
town squares across America to cart off Ten Commandments monuments. The
liberal hostility to God-based religions has already been copiously
documented by many others. "Godless" goes far beyond this
well-established liberal hostility to real religions.
The thesis of "Godless" is: Liberalism IS a religion. The liberal
religion has its own cosmology, its own explanation for why we are
here, its own gods, its own clergy. The basic tenet of liberalism is
that nature is god and men are monkeys. (Except not as pure-hearted as
actual monkeys, who don't pollute, make nukes or believe in God.)
Liberals deny, of course, that liberalism is a religion —
otherwise, they'd lose their government funding. "Separation of church
and state" means separation of YOUR church from the state, but total
unity between their church and the state.
Two months ago, the 9th Circuit held that a school can prohibit a
student from exercising his First Amendment rights by wearing a T-shirt
that said "Homosexuality Is Shameful."
Even the left's pretend-adoration of "free speech" (meaning:
treason and pornography) must give way to speech that is contrary to
the tenets of the church of liberalism on the sacred grounds of a
government school.
How might the ACLU respond if a school attempted to ban a T-shirt
that said something like "Creationism Is Shameful"? We'd never hear the
end of warnings about the coming theocracy.
In fact, students are actually required to wear "Creationism Is
Shameful" T-shirts in Dover, Pa., where — thanks to a lawsuit by the
ACLU — the liberal clergy have declared Darwinism the only true church,
immunized from argument. Ye shall put no other God before it. Not one.
Liberals believe in Darwinism as a matter of faith, despite the
fact that, at this point, the only thing that can be said for certain
about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled
organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural
selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1).
If only Darwinism were true, someday we might evolve public
schools with the ability to entertain opposable ideas about the
creation of man. | | |
| The Past, Present, and Future...without the cool Christmas story...It's been an interesting summer, to say the least. From spending time with Heather's parents to being engulfed and bombarded with 2 months of nothing but organic chemistry, spending more time with my parents than I have in probably a year, and finally volunteering at a clinic in downtown Fort Worth, it's been busy.
First, I have decided that medical school is in fact where I will be going after I graduate from Texas A&M. I will as well try to enroll in an MD/PhD program, probably going for my PhD in Biochemistry, Physiology, Structural Biology, or if I'm really lucky, Physics. After rounding with medical students, talking with many physicians, and spending lots of time in prayer and the O.R., I've concluded that medicine is the field for me. I made the decision back in December to investigate the idea seriously and take organic chemistry this summer, and after the Lord has blessed with me with good grades to stand a good chance at getting in (please don't misunderstand this as arrogance, God has been really good to me), I know this is the road for me. I will take the MCAT in May of 2007 and begin applying. More than likely, I will end up at Texas A&M's College of Medicine simply because their MD/PhD program will be easiest for me to get into and for other personal reasons. I love the idea of having contact with many people on a day to day basis and having the chance to talk with them about serious issues such as life, death, family, faith, etc. What a chance to share Christ with people!
Second, as I was packing my car up tonight and my parents were going to bed, my dad approached me about an article on total depravity from a Christian website I had left on his night stand. We then had a discussion about liberal theology and its pervasiveness in America. Looking back on this week, we've had several meaningful discussions on theology and the Gospel. On Thursday we talked about grace over some cigars. If anyone knows the history of me and my family, religion is about the last thing you'd have predicted us talking about 4 or 5 years ago. We hated Christianity. We hated religion in general. We hated God, if He existed. I remember a discussion my dad and I once had about how we thought that Adam and Eve and other stories were just "myths" and were useful for explaining things "we once didn't understand." I am so thankful for my family and for the patience and longsuffering of the Lord with us. Oh, how we all deserve immediate and swift destruction! My heart was so hard and calloused! Yet, God is patient and merciful to us, pitiful sinners though we are.
I am excited for the change that awaits in my future. God is probably up there thinking, "Sean, you have no idea." And He's right. I really don't.
-Sean
| | |
|
