Biblical Exegesis: Arminian Chronicles: Ephesians 1 Chosen "In Him"

Image via Wikipedia

Here is a great article I learned about from Brennon's Thoughts.It is a verse-by-verse analysis of Ephesians 1;2:1-10. It's from an Arminian viewpoint. Here are my comments in red, the author's are in black.

Verse by Verse Analysis

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

God the Father is truly the Father of Christ. Christ proceeds from the Father, yet Christ is no less eternal or God.

No argument here;

The phrase “heavenly places” is in Ephesians 5 times and nowhere else in the New Testament. (Eph 1:20; Eph 2:6; Eph 3:10; Eph 6:12). In Ephesians 2:6 the believer is already seated with Christ.

No argument here;

Eph 2:6 “and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus”

No argument here;

This could be taken as future or now but spiritually. Based on the next two verses, the future seems to be the correct understanding.

I think it means that it is now true spiritually and will be a physical reality in the future because Paul describes it in the past tense referring to the point at which we were saved.

We are blessed in Christ Jesus. Our blessings are from and through and in Him. God the Father’s purpose of salvation was in Him. Only through union with Him is the Church blessed.

The “us” Paul refers to is the Church. Paul, a Jew, is uniting himself with his Gentile audience. In Christ, they are united.

At this point we we know "us" refers to the church. What is the church? Them that believe is the church - past, present, and future.

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

God’s choice, from eternity past, was to save the Church, those united to Christ, through Christ’s work. Election is in Christ. Christ is not simply the means to save those the Father elects. Rather, Christ is eternal and the very foundation of election.

We will be holy (positive) and without blame (negative). God will completely forgive those that are in Christ Jesus. God has decided to save those united to Christ. The phrase holy and without blame appears also in Colossians 1:22-23:

Col 1:22 yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and without blemish and unreproveable before him:
Col 1:23 if so be that ye continue in the faith, grounded and stedfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye heard, which was preached in all creation under heaven; whereof I Paul was made a minister.

Here in Ephesians ending up holy and without blame is certain, unconditional and caused by God. In Colossians ending up holy and without blame is contingent and conditional based on our continuing in the faith. Here in Ephesians the Church is being addressed as a body. In Colossians, the individuals are addressed. The Church will never fail, but individuals may or may not be joined with or remain within the Church.

I think we have a problem here. The church cannot be saved unless the individuals who make up the church are saved. I've got to disagree that Ephesians is just referring to an organization. Paul writes "us" - the people who believe are loved and chosen. Because the people who make up the church are chosen - the church is chosen. If a person continues in faith it is because God has predestined him/her.

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

God pre-arranged that the Church would become His children, through Christ. His plan is certain, and even though we are still on earth, we might as well be in heaven seated with Christ.

Did God predestine us or did he predestine the plan of salvation? God predestined us not a plan. Does a plan get adopted like children? Does a plan get seated in heaven? No, 

Corporate Election

Was it necessary for Christ to come and redeem us? Were the incarnation and atonement simply means of accomplishing God’s preexisting plan? This passage teaches that Christ’s role is both instrumental and all-inclusive in election.

Amen

The incarnation and redemption were indeed necessary. God’s very character of justice requires that sin cannot be ignored or go unpunished. There could not have been any salvation without redemption through Christ’s blood, which provides the forgiveness of sins. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19-21). God loved the world so much that He gave his only begotten Son (John 3:16), He spared not His Son but delivered Him up for us all (Romans 8:32) and Christ’s death was foreordained before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20).

Amen

With that in mind, God’s election was based on Christ and His work. Election could not have been otherwise. God could not have chosen to save sinners apart from redemption in Christ Jesus. God’s holiness would not allow salvation through other means.

Amen

Christ was established by God’s choice to be the foundation of salvation. By His blood, sinners would be saved. But in the establishment of Christ as the Savior the Church is implicitly chosen. Those that are in Christ and united to Him have been established by God’s plan. All in Christ are elected to salvation and apart from Christ, no one is elected to salvation.

Amen. God knows who will be saved. 

The election is not of certain individuals whether or not they are united to Christ. It is all those and only those who are united to Christ. The election does not unite people to Christ. Rather it adopts them to God through their union to Christ. We are united to Christ by grace through faith.

I agree election is not of certain individuals whether or not they are united to Christ. I have never heard or read James White, RC Sproul, John MacArthur, John Piper or any Calvinist say that it was.

Is it possible to be elected to adoption and not be united to Christ. No way! You can't be adopted as a child of God  without being united with Christ through faith. The thing is that all those who are united with Christ are elected.

The Gift of Faith

Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Faith is a gift from God and through this gift, we are united to Christ and thereby saved. ¹ A gift implies a giver and a receiver. If the receiver does not want the gifts, they may be rejected and returned. Gifts are never earned or deserved. They are given freely.

How is faith returned? Either a person has faith or doesn't. Is it possible for a man to have faith yet reject Jesus. I don't see how.

So in what sense is faith a gift? First we must understand what faith is. In Hebrews 11 we read that:

Hebrews 11:1-3 Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen. For therein the elders had witness borne to them. By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which appear.

Normally we assent to truth as soon as we see and understand the proof. That’s the difference between a belief and an opinion. The proof is the evidence of the truth. Often the truth is its own proof, or rather; it is self evident. In faith, we hold a conviction of something not seen. Faith itself is the assurance. Faith itself is the evidence. Faith acts as the proof in convicting us of a truth we have no other proof for.

I can agree with that.  But how does that prove that faith is a gift that can be rejected? If faith is rejected it seems more like it was never given. Is there a passage of scripture that says that saving faith is given to all people in the same proportion?

Once we understand basic math, believing that 1 + 1 = 2 is not really a choice. Once it’s understood, it can not be rejected. The evidence forbids it. Believing or not believing is not volitional. The evidence, not our will, moves us to assent to the truth.

Faith is like opinion in that we don’t have evidence moving our mind to hold a conviction. Rather, we choose to do so, voluntarily. In contrast to the math equation example where the evidence moves our mind to hold a conviction, our will moves our mind to hold a conviction. Faith differs from opinion in that faith is the substance or assurance. Faith itself causes us to accept the truth.
So faith is a gift from God, in that He moves our wills to assent to the truth of the Gospel, which we have no other proof of. He starts our will moving towards believing the truth, and as long as we don’t resist His grace, He carries us through to fully assent to the truth of the Gospel.

Look at what is commented: 

Once it’s understood, it can not be rejected. The evidence forbids it. Believing or not believing is not volitional. The evidence, not our will, moves us to assent to the truth.

I see the point and agree.  However he also wrote 

So faith is a gift from God, in that He moves our wills to assent to the truth of the Gospel, which we have no other proof of. He starts our will moving towards believing the truth, and as long as we don’t resist His grace, He carries us through to fully assent to the truth of the Gospel.

How can God move our will, yet we can resist His grace? How? I have talked to several Arminians who agree that without God we are unable to come to the truth of the Gospel but if God only nudges us to the point to which we can decide why doesn't God push us all to the point that we accept the Gospel? Free will doesn't answer the question because God had to violate our will so that we would even begin to consider the Gospel. Everyone is going to hell by default. God has chosen to predestine some of us to unite with Christ and be reconciled to Himself. - the elect.

By way of example, let’s say a dog is stuck in a house, unconscious and the house is on fire. Rubble falls on the dog and breaks its legs. The dog will certainly die. A man runs into the house and wakes up the dog. The dog gets scared, but doesn’t know how to escape. The man shows the dog the way out, but the dog can’t follow because of its broken legs. The man picks up the dog and runs to safety.

If the dog had bitten the man when he ran for safety, the man may have dropped the dog and it would have died. But if the dog doesn’t resist, we still wouldn’t say that it saved itself.

In the same way God carries our wills to assent to the truth of the Gospel.

I think that the analogy fails to illustrate what is really happening. Let's and it real and say that it's a man. in the burning house. The man has just raped and murdered everyone in the house and set it on fire. a piece of concrete falls and knows the man unconscious and breaks all of his limbs. The king of the country runs into the burning house and carries the man out  and sets his broken bones and allows him to live in the palace, pardoned and free of condemnation..  This more accurately illustrates what God has done for us. We were dead in sin and trespasses. We didn't want to be saved. We didn't even know we needed a savior. Nor do we deserve it. Yet, the king of all reality swoops in saves us, heals us, and forgives us, transforming our very nature.  That is how God brings us to the truth of the Gospel.

Answers to Calvinist Objections

Based on this passage three arguments in favor of unconditional election have been asserted:

Argument 1: He chose us to be holy, not because we were holy
Argument 2: The choice happened before the foundation of the world and not at the moment individuals come to faith
Argument 3: No further reason was given other than the good pleasure of His will

The Calvinist view breaks down into two major varieties. The first called supra-lapsarian states that God predestined some for glory, others for destruction before considering man as fallen or in Christ. The second, infra-lapsarian states that God predestined some for eternal life and passed by the rest after considering man as fallen and in sin.

The first argument does not support the supra-lapsarian (pre-fallen mankind) position. In fact it opposes it. Those that were predestined were unholy. They were sinners. But Adam, before he fell was not a sinner in need of saving grace. Verse 6 states that predestination is to the praise of the glory of His grace. Grace is given to sinners so a reference to grace here seems to consider man in a fallen condition. Further, the passage states that we are made accepted in Christ, but we must first be considered rejected because of our sin. This is evidence that God considers men as sinners prior to predestination.

I agree while we were yet Sinners Jesus died for us (Romans 5:8).

The infra-lapsarian (post-fallen mankind) position does not have this problem. They concur that man was considered as sinners when they are predestined to salvation. The mistake is not that the election is made prior to individuals believing, but that the election relates to individuals and not the group. Also the election is in Christ, not unto union with Christ.

I don't believe the author has been able to prove that there is a difference between being elected in Christ and being elected into union with Christ. 

Verse 4 describes the individuals as “in Him” but only believers are united to Christ. Because Christ is the foundation of salvation, no one could be predestined to salvation apart from union with Christ.

Agreed

Further, the “us” in verse 1 is “the faithful in Christ Jesus”. Verses 13 & 23 indicate that the reference is to a group and not individuals. In verses 22 & 23 those that are “in Him” are named the Church, but the Church is a group of believers not “individuals without being considered believers”. In verse 13 only after believing did the gentiles join the Jews who first believed and were officially added to the group by the Holy Spirit who sealed them.

First verses 13 does not refer to group but to the same individuals who believe.  Look at its context.

¹¹In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, ¹²in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. ¹³And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, ¹⁴who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory.

The "you" is the same "us" Paul has been discussing. Second, I agree that the Holy Spirit seals us. 

when we believed The question is if we are sealed how is it that we can become "unborn again"? We can't. If you get into union with Christ by your own free will....why isn't your free will enough to get you out? Because it's not anything we do, it's a gift. If a person rejects that gift...they never received it.

Paul is saying is that God before the foundation of the world chose to save believers through Christ and predestined them to heaven. Basically, this is the formulation of the gospel before the foundation of the world. God did not have to choose to save anyone at all. Believers do not earn salvation through faith. God out of the good pleasure of His will, graciously chose to save believers.

Yes, Amen! The point of disagreement is how does one become a believer? Can you just choose to believe without any intervention from the Father. John 6:44 knocks that possibility out. So if you can't believe on your own, how is it do you come to faith? God saves us despite ourselves.

Conclusion

Ephesians 1 teaches that God before the foundation of the world chose to save believers through Christ and predestined them to heaven. God does not accept sinners nor does he choose anyone to eternal life except in Christ and for the sake of Christ. "He hath chosen us in Him," verse 4; "wherein He hath made us accepted in the Beloved," verse 6. This demonstrates that man’s condition prior to election was fallen and in need of saving grace. This grace is in Christ and provided through faith which unites us to Him.

I agree with the conclusion. However I can't see how if God is doing the choosing how is it that we can reject. Jesus said of his disciples that the father gave Him, none of them he lost (John 17:12). Why would Jesus be a butterfingers now and some of His followers be lost?  No way!

-------------------------------------------------
¹ Some people object that faith itself is not the gift here, noting the gender of it and faith are different in the Greek. They prefer to understand that salvation or the economy of salvation through faith as the gift. The Greek is inconclusive and has been read either way. Though I prefer the understanding that faith is the gift, either read is permissible. But the concept that we need God’s grace to believe is clear from many passages of scripture, such as John 15:5 (without me ye can do nothing), Acts 18:27 (he helped them much that had believed through grace) and 2 Timothy 2:25 (if peradventure God may give them repentance unto the knowledge of the truth).

In case you are wondering, I agree with the footnote too.

Arminian Chronicles: Ephesians 1 Chosen "In Him"

Truthbomb Apologetics: 'Religion-free' Haiti Relief Fund

This is a great post from Chad over at Truthbomb Apologetics. I join him in congratulating Dawkins and other atheists in raising money for Haiti. I thank God for their help and I also agree that it's silly and wrong to argue that atheists are incapable of doing good things and caring about other people. They clearly can and do. However, Chad is correct, atheism does not explain how or why we should care about what happened in Haiti. I want to quote Chad's closing because I think it sums up the only way a Christian can respond to this move by the Atheists.

In closing, I want to once again commend Dawkins and his fellow atheists for providing relief for those in Haiti; and, it is indeed wrong to say that atheists cannot be good or live ethical lives. However, from the atheistic worldview it is unsustainable why it is better to help the Haitians than to not help the Haitians.

It's really a major issue for me because my wife is Haitian. She was  born in Port-au-Prince and still has many relatives and friends there, including her father. Miraculously, they all survived the earthquake, but lost their homes. Even more, I find even more miraculous is their attitude. They like every single survivor that I have heard speak credit and thank God for their survival and for the help of the world. My father-in-law and his wife actually experienced the hand of God preserving them and bringing them out of the wreakage of their home that collapsed on top of them. He said he knows that God saved their lives. He said he heard a voice tell him how to lead his wife out, crawling out of the house. He knows it was God. And my wife's cousin  escaped her house collapsing on her and her baby by mere seconds. When she realized that there was an earthquake she grabbed her baby and left the house.  There are other miracles. Other examples of God's grace and power in the face of devastation. We were praying and continue to pray. No way can we say that prayer does not do anything. The survivors themselves disagree with the worldview of the atheists. Those who actually are suffering are holding on to God while some of those who are rejecting God are wondering why would a loving God allow such a thing. The contrast is striking. Note: the picture is of my father-in-law, Marion-Phillip with my daughter, Makayla from when he visited the States in 2007.

Truthbomb Apologetics: 'Religion-free' Haiti Relief Fund

Apologetics 315: Sunday Quote: Frank Tipler on Cosmology

A very important quote has been posted on Apologetics 315 by Frank Tipler.

"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." - - Frank Tipler

Why is this so important. Tipler is a word-renowned physicist and mathematician. He started out trying to prove that Judeo-Christianity is false but ended up a believer! I'm planning to read his book The Physics of Christianity. I realize that his work, since he became a Christian, has been dismissed and he has been ignored by some and endorsed by others. I truly believe that the Judeo-Christianity is the only worldview that makes sense with the evidence from science and history. Apparently, Tipler has come to the same conclusion.

Apologetics 315: Sunday Quote: Frank Tipler on Cosmology

The MLK that's never quoted....EVER! #2 - BlackScienceFictionSociety

Martin Luther King, Jr. via last.fm

Yeah...obviously this insight from Dr. King is almost never discussed! No way will this video show up on CNN or any mass media. Martin Luther king Jr. Understood that the truth is the racism was a smokescreen for the classicism and economic structure designed to keep power and influence out of the hands of the masses. The goal was/and is to keep the rich rich, if not increase, and keep the poor poor. Not just here in this country but around the world. MLK understood this. Malcolm X realized this too. It was for this reason why they ware assassinated. If this truth caught hold and people really got angry we would have a revolution. The problem is i have no idea what we could replace the current system with. Which is why I think the best we got is to trust God and know that He is gonna sort out all of this. We must also not add to this by insulting, maiming, and killing others who are in the same boat with us!







The MLK that's never quoted....EVER! #2 - BlackScienceFictionSociety

Atheism is Dead: Bart Ehrman, Interrupted - on the Bible and Christianity

Mariano has post a great article about how Bart Ehrman tries to wiggle out of his responsibility of his conclusions concerning the Bible. He seems to believe that one can be a Christian and have a low opinion of scripture. Ehrman thinks that scripture doesn't have to true  in order for  Christianity to be worth living. He seems to have forgotten the he credits his path to agnosticism as beginning  with his rejecting the Bible as the word of God. This is a wonderful article and you should read it if you think that the Bible does not matter. It's contents are profoundly relevant especially if you see yourself as a Christian. As Mariano wrote, how can you call yourself a  follower of  Christ if you don't endorse what Jesus endorsed, do the things he said, or live the way he said if you don't know what the Bible says about him?

Atheism is Dead: Bart Ehrman, Interrupted - on the Bible and Christianity

Review: Tyler Perry's "I Can Do Bad All By Myself"

Last September, Tyler Perry's latest movie was released. I didn't see it. And it appears few people did because it wasn't out long. I heard almost nothing about it.  Last week it came out on DVD/Blu-Ray. It is probably one of his best movies. I really enjoyed it! It was most definitely from a Christian worldview about .not being selfish and what it means to love others. It was good. Madea was in it. While I have been going back and forth about how I feel towards a man portraying her, I would  rather a woman play Madea. If you are black you know  a real woman like her in real life -  this is why we like His movies so much. Music is really important to the story. Gladys Knight, Marvin Winans, and Mary J. Blige are all in it and they got solos! I think people should see it. Here is one of the songs from the field:

Apologetics 315: In Intellectual Neutral: William Lane Craig MP3 Audio & Video

Over at Apologetics 315 is an interesting lecture by William Lane Craig calling for Christians to become intellectually engaged in our society today! I agree! For example, people are asking today if Christians believe that Haiti endures so much disasters and problems because they are under the wrath of God? We should be able to answer "No!" and explain why! People are asking why do bad things happen to the innocent? God answers all of these questions. They are in the Bible. We ought to be able to give an answer - reasons why we trust God! Read the post to get the links to the audio and video.


Apologetics 315: In Intellectual Neutral: William Lane Craig MP3 Audio & Video

Trinity : Does the Bible Teach Theological Subordinationism?

Here is Mariano latest post on his series about the Trinity.  In this one he shows that Muslims and those who deny Jesus' equality with God  really miss an important point. Here is a quote:

Jesus said that the Father was greater than Him, He did not say that the Father was better than Him. The president of the United States is greater than I am, but he is not better.
When Jesus came to Earth He humbled Himself and became obedient, He became a little lower than the angels, He came as a man in the service of the LORD and therefore, called the Father His God (see Philippians 2:8; Hebrews 2:9; John 20:17). This refers to position and not to ontology.

 This is an important post and you really should read the rest of it! Check out the graphic he included on the left that illustrates what you have when you reject the Trinity and Mariano does a great job explaining it in the article.

Trinity : Does the Bible Teach Theological Subordinationism?

The God Centered Gospel vs. a Man Centered Gospel

Here is a great discussion from Dr. James White discussing the difference between a message centered around God and His character and His Glory, juxtaposed with one with humanity at its focus. He makes great points. I've found that we need to be careful not to change what Bible really says. Yes, Jesus came to save us. Yes, God loves us. Yes, God values us. Yet we must not value our perceived needs greater than glorifying and obeying God. He truly is all that matters. God is not obligated to save anyone....I'm just grateful He has decided to save those whoput their faith in Him. As I have. Take a listen to Dr. White's arguments for why it matters and how some protestants, not just official Roman Catholic theology changes what the Bible says.

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. - 1 Corinthians 6:18-20

The God Centered Gospel vs. a Man Centered Gospel

Help Haiti! Pray!!! Donate what You Can!!

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : the Psalm 22 Controversy, part 4 of 4

Here is the fourth part of  Mariano's series talking about Psalm 22 and how Jew and Christians view it using various scholars. Very important stuff because it's a messanic text fulfilled by Jesus.


Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Jewish / Judaism : the Psalm 22 Controversy, part 4 of 4

Comic Pros Form 'Heroes For Haiti' To Help Earthquake Victims - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

 Comics Alliance is reporting that some comic creators are banning to gather money together for the relief effort to Haiti. Follow the link  to find out how you can help them to make a difference.

Comic Pros Form 'Heroes For Haiti' To Help Earthquake Victims - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Common Questions about Islam and Muslims

 Beggars All is one of my favorite blogs and it has a great post on it answering specific and common questions concerning is Islam. It is definitely worth a look!

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Common Questions about Islam and Muslims

Biblical Exegesis: Revelation 3: 4 & 5

Image via Wikipedia

It's come to my attention that Revelations 3:5 is sometimes viewed as saying that it is possible for a person to loose his or her salvation. Instead of just looking at verses 3 and 4.

⁴Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. ⁵He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels.

Jesus is talking here. It seems to me, from the context, that Jesus is not talking about those who are not in the Book of Life. Instead, Jesus is talking about the characteristics of those in the Book of Life. Jesus is not telling us that people who overcomes the suffering and tribulations of life get to be in the Book of Life. Jesus is saying that a characteristic of those who overcome will be that they will not be erased from the book. This means that they will be in that book. No where in scripture do we see an example of someone who becomes "unborn again". Someone who is written in the Book of Life and then dropped. We did not save ourselves, why would we think that we can loose what we did not gain on our own. Therefore an apostate wold never have been in the Book of Life in the first place.

Atheism is Dead: Friedrich Nietzsche Nails Richard Dawkins

Mariano has posted a great article exploring Nietzsche's published thoughts about the logical conclusions of what Atheism  gets you. It's well-written and worthy of consideration. Nietzsche was an atheist, but he thought through the decision he was making and what it really meant! I think that is why he lost his mind. He truly saw what happens when a man totally disconnects from God. It isn't really pretty. So why don't more atheists loose their minds? One word...Grace. Even though they let go of God, God does not always let go of them. I don't think they truly see what Nietzsche saw. If they did they would abandon their silly worldviews, but they have convinced themselves that they are good without God.

Atheism is Dead: Friedrich Nietzsche Nails Richard Dawkins

TimeTravel Experiments, Parallel Universes, Stargates, 2012 and New Revelations

Here is a documentary trying to combine science and science fiction. Take a look and see what you think. I think that they tried to combine too much stuff and tried to tie things together that aren't really related.




TimeTravel Experiments, Parallel Universes, Stargates, 2012 and New Revelations

He Lives: Haiti's Misery provides fodder for Pat Roberston

I first heard about Pat Roberston's remark about the disaster in Haiti that came yesterday. David wrote:

Pat Robertson, on Haiti,

They made a deal with Satan.

Robertson reports that "Haiti" said to Satan: "We will serve you [Satan] if you get us free from the French." According to Robertson, Satan responded: "Okay, it's a deal."

Here is the video. The money quote begins around the six minute mark of the video.

I can't believe Roberston could be that stupid. Bad things don't happen to people because they made a deal with Satan. The truth is Haitian rebellion from the French happened because God allowed it and America was blessed by their freedom. Remember they bankrupted Napoleon to the point that he had to sell the Louisiana territory to the U.S. effectively doubling it. Besides loosing Haiti and loosing to Russia weakened Napoleon enough so that the British could win and start their own empire for the next 100 years! The Haitian War for independence was a watershed event that was pivotal to world history.

I think Roberston thinks that Haiti must have done something really wrong for all the horrors, not just the Earthquake, that they deal with. He thinks that God is punishing them. That makes no sense. Why don't we just see what Jesus had to say about this.

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish." - Luke 13: 1-5

He Lives: Haiti's Misery provides fodder for Pat Roberston

The Nature of Morality part 2 of 2

As I talked about in part 1, I had been dialoguing with Beechbum about the existence of God and it ultimately came down to whether or not morality is an objective reality or depends only on what we as people agree on. I promised to respond to his point that marriage and ultimately adultery are not universal because of a handful of cultures do not accept marriage as we have in western culture. He pointed to two cultures as an example: the Na of China and Kung San in Africa. 

I checked out Kung San of Africa but I could find not example of marriage being unrecognized. All i could find was references to wedding rites. Sorry, but if you have wedding rites, private or public, your society recognizes marriage.

The Na of China (also known as the Moso)  is a lot more complex. Describing their society as not recognizing marriage is a little dishonest. They don't have the institution as we have come to define it.  Added to the myths and misunderstanding about them has not made the situation any clearer. The best resource I found on the internet was a pdf file written by Tami Blumenfield in which she attempts to debunk the myths. She points out that while to our western minds doing away with strict monogamous legal contracts, which is what marriage has become here, would promote promiscuity and abandoned children but the Na have little of that. I think that in evaluating their customs it leads us to view our own ideas of what marriage is and what it should be.

It seems to be that what the Na have is not marriage if you define marriage as a legal contract obliging a man and a woman to one another for a lifetime. But given that most of the children see and interact with their fathers, and the fathers are obligated to support the children and the children's mother, describing the Na as without "fathers" is a lie.  Of course they have fathers. Also that men have lattitude to have multiple families and women in their lives is not unheard of. The difference between polygamous societies and even our own with the Na is that the man is not legally liable to any of the women. She is free to be with who ever she wants. That's not marriage but it is what we call "an open-marriage" without the baggage of  legalistic or monogamous expectation.

Some of the articles I read seems to look at the Na system as a good one. But what does the Bible say is the ideal?  I know many will point to the polygamy illustrated in the Old Testament but never does the Bible neither condemn nor confirm that polygamy is good for people. Given the context of the Na, the system does not fall apart completely in a matriarchal world where the needs of the group/family are more important in the individual. In no way would this work in our patriarchal and selfish society. I'm not sharing my wife with anyone. In the culture shown to us  in the Bible, polygamy was allowed because some women would have had no means of support or protection if they were not married.  But I think one example shows us why it's not the best situation. Remember Jacob had four wives and according to Genesis between the wives and their children fighting, I doubt Jacob had a moment peace! No thank you.  Beechbum even admitted that it is best for a child to have father and mother in the same household...even the Na actually have that  although the households share the men.

The thing I noticed was that the ideal that all cultures really strive for is a man and a woman together in the same household with children...at least part of the time.  They all  go for it and all fall short without God. Why? Because it is a universal decree for the Creator, but because of sin, we can't do it perfectly without God. Much more could be said but the conclusion of the research I have done shows me that adultery is still wrong in every culture. The Na can break up and hook up with one another but there are still rules that govern their behavior. Rults that show that they still feel jealousy and want consistent and reliable mates even if they don't have a word meaning  "jealousy". So back to what the Bible says about the ideal. Let's end with what Jesus said.

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

 Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." - Matthew 19: 3-12

See? We were never meant to divorce our wives for any and all reasons. The Old Testament was clear on that even as Jesus demonstrated. Marriage was meant to protect men and women not subjugate women or classify them as property! One man - one woman - is the best and moral structure for a marriage.

Sources:
Shunya's Notes: The Na of China
A Society Without Fathers And Husbands: The Na of China
A World Without Fathers and Husbands
Moso
THE NA OF SOUTHWEST CHINA: DEBUNKING THE MYTHS
Tribes in the Kalahari desert South Africa

Strong Earthquake Hits Haiti - Sphere News

We all need to pray for the people of Haiti. We are talking about huge earthquake in the place in the western hemisphere least able to handle it. My father-in-law lives in Port au Prince and my wife still has much family in the area. There is still no word from them yet, but we will keep praying and beleive God that He will make everything workout. I have found the following news article that sums up what we know thus far. Following it are some videos.

Strong Earthquake Hits Haiti - Sphere News

Hazakim

I've posted a few articles about Hazakim on the blog. I love their music. It's not just good hip hop...it's awesome music. More important than that their message straight from God. They boast clever uses of language combined with sound exegesis. These two videos are based on two songs from their latest album. I can't wait for the next album!







Hazakim - more Info

Why I am Not a Roman Catholic

Alan Kurschner has posted a great article on the Pros Apologian blog on why he isn't a Roman Catholic. He quotes Tim Staples, a Roman Catholic apologist, saying thus:

"The bottom line here is this: Jesus Christ did not suffer and die so that we don't have to. Jesus Christ suffered and died so that our good works offered up in him can be truly pleasing and salvific before God. And indeed, Jesus didn't suffer and die so that we don't have to suffer and die, he suffered and died so that our suffering and death could be salvific."

Kurschner is not taking Staples out of context. Dr James White actually played the comment in context on his webcast recently! Tim Staples actually said this. I don't think it's fair to say that that all Roman Catholics believe this way or would agree with Staples, but from what I understand it is the official view of the Pope and what is taught from the Vatican. I vehemently disagree. Totally not Scriptural. It's important because this is the core of the Gospel that we are admonished and commanded to teach. Staples is postulating a different Gospel. In rebuttal, Kurschner printed Isaiah 52:13–53:11. Staples is not the only one who teaches this. Some Protestants do too. Norman Geisler wrote something similar in his bid to redefine the Calvinism/Arminan debate in his book Chosen be Free. God really wanted to drive the point home that is by Jesus' death our sins are atoned for and by his Resurrection we are justified!

Jesus' sacrifice was complete and perfect for all who their faith in Him! I like how 1 Peter 3: 17 - 19 puts it!

It is better, if it is God's will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison

I've heard that James White will soon debate Tim Staples January 28 at 4pm MST on Purgatory and I hope it will help those who have not recognized that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins and the only offering that has any power to save us. It will most certainly come up.

Why I am Not a Roman Catholic

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Various Resurrection Related Issues

Mariano has written a great post about various issues related to the Trinity and Resurrection. I've really enjoyed his series about the Trinity and I know that if you have any desire to know if the doctrine of the Trinity is correct and Biblical, Mariano's articles are a great place to begin your research! The issues discussed are:

Importance of Resurrection
Resurrection is Physical
Resurrection Prophesied and Witnessed
Who Resurrected Jesus?

Christian Apologetics - Life and Doctrine: Trinity : Various Resurrection Related Issues