This belief that God will punish His children who sin is a very traditional belief. What kind of father doesn't punish His child? An unloving one, of course.
Hey, Pirates Who Don't Do Anything, how much truth is there in that?
Larry: Nothin'.
Mr. Lunt: Zilch.
Larry: Nada.
Thank you.
So let's think for a bit- why not punish the sinner for what they've done? After all, they're a Christian yet they've defied God! That ought to be enough for punishment.
Absolutely correct. The problem is, the people who usually make that claim forget the second part: Jesus took all the punishment for the sins of the whole world.
But what about consequences? Are you saying that we can go sin without consequences?
~facepalms~ People, there is a difference between punishment and consequence. Consequence is synonymous with effect; the consequence is the effect resulting from a cause. The consequence, or effect, is what is brought onto the person by their own self. Punishment is brought onto the person by someone in authority (in this case, God). Consequences do happen, like a girl getting pregnant from sex that shouldn't have happened. This happens not by God's doing, but the person's own.
Now there may be more arguments to counter the idea of no punishment, but I believe the Bible itself has the key to lay them all to rest. Take a look in Luke 15:11-24 (Luke 15:11-24 YLT*). It's the parable of the prodigal son; I'm sure you all know this story. The kid tells his dad he wants his inheritance, the dad gives it to him, he goes and spends it all partying and being an idiot, he ends up broke and starving and feeding pigs, he goes back home humbled, and his dad welcomes him home with a ring, robe, shoes, and a party.
Here's how I look at it. The father is God, and the kid is a Christian. The kid (Christian) decides he wants to go out and sin. So the father (God) willingly lets him go (for God respects the human will; He doesn't force Himself onto anyone). The kid (Christian) goes and spends all his inheritance on Lord knows what. Luke 15:13 (Luke 15:13 RSV) says he wasted it. I wouldn't be surprised if this guy was doing just terrible, ungodly things like hooking up with girls and prostitutes (which is actually confirmed in verse 30), having nightly drunken sprees, rubbing his wealth in poor people's faces, etc. (Keep in mind what you'd think of a pastor or someone in today's world who's supposed to be a Christian but acts like this.) Then there's a famine and the guy goes broke (is that a punishment or consequence? Give you a hint: who brought the state of being broke on him- his father or himself?). He gets so desperate that he takes a job feeding pigs, and is so desperate for food he wishes he could eat whatever the pigs are eating (punishment or consequence? So far, the answer to both looks like consequence. He brought it all on himself.) The son (Christian) finally decides to go back to his father (God), but says he will tell his father that he is no longer worthy of being called His son and will be willing to work as a servant. He was preparing to be punished! You think you're being punished severely with a lecture and a whip? At least you get to keep the family name. This one was thinking he would be denounced as even his father's own son. I doubt that's happened to many. He then trods off back home. When the son (Christian) comes back, however, the father (God) sees him from a distance and runs as fast as his legs will carry him towards His son. But is this father (God) running to punish the son (Christian)? Actually, it says He had compassion, gave him a bear hug, and kissed him. The father wasn't mad at all! He was overjoyed when His kid finally came back! The son tried to say to his father that he will be more than willing to work as a hired servant without being recognized as a son. He agrees to whatever punishment his father may have in store for him. The father (God), instead of lashing out at His son (Christian), telling him how wrong he was to do what he did, punishing him, and denouncing him, yells to his servants to bring out the best robe, a ring, and some shoes. He then orders them to take the fattest calf and kill it for a celebration feast and party.
I'm sure you noticed that the father did absolutely nothing to punish His son. Why the heck didn't He? He knew the son had learned his lesson, for one. Otherwise, he wouldn't have come back! In fact, He even says so in Luke 15:24, 27, and 32 (Luke 15:24 NIV, Luke 15:27 NIV, Luke 15:32 NIV). He says the reason there's gonna be a party is because the son, for this, was dead, but now is alive again. The son was lost, but now he's been found. He's come back home safe and sound. What are God's thoughts centered on? The kid is back!
Of course, there's other Christians, represented by the older brother later on. He hears the music and dancing at the party and asks what's going on. And, like most Christians, is shocked to hear that his dad is not punishing the younger brother at all, but celebrating his return. He talks to his father, and points out how well he's behaved the entire time, yet never got a party for himself. Then, possibly attempting to make the father look like a hypocrite, points out that the other son spent his father's life savings on prostitutes, yet gets a full party and the fattest calf gets killed for a feast for him. I do think he represents the Christians who think the other Christians who sin ought to be punished for what they've done. This is done out of a lack of love for the other brother. Had he loved his little brother with the same unconditional love that the father did, he would have ran alongside his father when He ran to greet His son who'd finally returned. But alas, he acts rather in jealousy and anger than love. After the inquiry, the father says they are partying because there is a good reason- the son, who'd gone away and been an idiot, has come to his senses and has returned. He was dead, and is now alive again; he was lost, but is now found.
With this story, told by Jesus (and therefore, God) Himself, I don't see how anyone could believe God punishes His children who disobey Him. Rather, like in the parable, He waits patiently until His child comes back home, ready to greet him/her with open arms and a compassionate, loving heart. This kind of love relationship between man and God was enabled when Jesus took the punishment we deserved on His cross. Now that the punishment has been inflicted, there is no need for it. Only love. That's what I've discovered about God recently more than ever- nothing His children can do will ever make Him run to the returning child with a whip and chains and a long lecture about how wrong they were. And, as I have implied (or rather, as Jesus Himself replied), it is the ones with no love in their hearts that wish to see the wrongdoers punished. Remember the older brother who was whining about the younger one going out and being an idiot and still gets a party? Had he had the love and heart for his brother as his father had for him, he would have come right alongside his father when running to meet the returning son.
Until next time,
J-Lindo
*I put the reference a second time in parentheses with another translation's initials there for people who would rather read a translation easier to read than the KJV, which is the default translation if I do not specify another. If you're on a computer, you'll see what I mean when you hover your cursor over both of them.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Monday, May 14, 2012
Calvinism Thoughts
If any Calvinist dares get mad at me or even thinks I'm stupid for posting my thoughts on this, remember, God is sovereign over every last thing that happens, and has every bit of everything that's happened, is happening, and is going to happen planned out in advance. So God predestined and ordained that I would be doing this in the first place.
Then again, He also predestined whether or not you would be mad or think me stupid for this as well, right? ;)
Anyways, just a few thoughts. My Calvinist friend said something about human responsibility (ie if God has predestined who's going to be saved and who isn't, why bother preaching the Gospel? Because He told us to.). Which is weird, because "responsibility" by definition requires free will because when one has a responsibility, one can choose to do or not do what they are responsible to do.
The thing that really caught my attention was this website explaining predestination http://www.orlutheran.com/html/trelect.html. He's pretty thorough, I think. Though it looks like he believes in free will with everything except getting saved. Odd for a Calvinist, who typically believes in no free will whatsoever due to God preordaining everything that's ever going to happen.
He's pretty straightforward and explains everything well, except for the very last parts.
Predestination is intended to be a teaching of the greatest comfort for Christians - but only for Christians. Not predestination, but "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" is to be preached to the lost. It is most foolish to talk to non-Christians about predestination, for this teaching is not intended for them. Rather, unbelievers should be pointed to "Jesus Christ and Him crucified," to the Gospel that says that God offers reconciliation, forgiveness, and eternal life, to everyone who believes, regardless of their social status, race, sex, or past life (See John 3:16; 2 Corinthians 5:19; 1 John 2:1-2; Galatians 3:27). "He died for all" (2 Co. 5:15) is the message the non-believing world needs to hear.
To be honest, I find that just a tad bit hypocritical. Believe that God is only going to save some people that He's already chosen beforehand, yet teach non-Christians that Christ died for all? Hide the doctrine of predestination, then reveal it when they're ready? Say, "God died for all people in every nation, His blood can save you today," then, "God only died for a certain group of people, of which you are lucky enough to be a part of. I only told you He died for all so that you would get saved."
Why not tell non-Christians that God only died for those He'd already chosen? I believe it ruins people's want of salvation. When a non-Christian hears God only died for the elect, he can very easily say, "I'm not part of the elect; I am not going to be saved." And the Calvinist is stuck there because obviously God preordained those people to say that. If people started hearing that, much fewer would get saved, I think. And those who would, being young Christians, probably would not go around telling other people about it because hey, if other people are gonna get saved, He's already predestined them to, so nothing I do or don't do can alter His plans! So I think Calvinists want people saved, but know their doctrine is too dangerous for a non-believer to hear, otherwise Christianity would likely fall.
Though to be honest, my biggest problem with Calvinism is that it totally rips love out of the equation. Oh, it tries to keep it in there by saying God choose who He choose out of love. But the problem is, I believe God created mankind so He could have someone to love Him back. Calvinism teaches God created us solely for His glory. But He's got innumerable angels doing that already. I believe God wanted love, not glory. Sure, He gets glory out of it, but it wasn't the main purpose. Hebrews 12:2 says that Jesus endured the cross for the joy that was set before Him. What gave Him joy? Knowing He'd get more glory, or knowing that because of what He'd done, He would be able to finally have a bride to love Him? Here's what I think could answer the question: do you find joy in being glorified or being loved? I believe it would come from being loved, and I'm willing to bet the same answer will go for God.
Calvinists (for the most part) claim humans have no free will. If we don't, and we truly have no choice about whether or not we're going to be saved, then we can't really be loving God back. Love implies a choice to either love or not love. Love is never forced. This is also tried to be covered up, by saying we will love Him when we do get saved, but if He decided we will, is it really love?
Again, I ask you: Would you rather your spouse be a robot who loves you but has no choice to do otherwise, or have one who loves you even though they have the choice not to? I think anyone would choose the ladder. Why? Because it's more real that way.
I could be all wrong, but that's how I see it.
One last food for thought: Couldn't Calvinism be refuted entirely if one could prove God doesn't actually know the future? ;)
(Not to say God can't make extremely educated guesses or can't know whether His prophecies will come true or not. His prophecies will come true because those are special events that He wishes to happen and will happen because His will is dominant and can override anyone else's.)
J-Lindo
Then again, He also predestined whether or not you would be mad or think me stupid for this as well, right? ;)
Anyways, just a few thoughts. My Calvinist friend said something about human responsibility (ie if God has predestined who's going to be saved and who isn't, why bother preaching the Gospel? Because He told us to.). Which is weird, because "responsibility" by definition requires free will because when one has a responsibility, one can choose to do or not do what they are responsible to do.
The thing that really caught my attention was this website explaining predestination http://www.orlutheran.com/html/trelect.html. He's pretty thorough, I think. Though it looks like he believes in free will with everything except getting saved. Odd for a Calvinist, who typically believes in no free will whatsoever due to God preordaining everything that's ever going to happen.
He's pretty straightforward and explains everything well, except for the very last parts.
Predestination is intended to be a teaching of the greatest comfort for Christians - but only for Christians. Not predestination, but "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" is to be preached to the lost. It is most foolish to talk to non-Christians about predestination, for this teaching is not intended for them. Rather, unbelievers should be pointed to "Jesus Christ and Him crucified," to the Gospel that says that God offers reconciliation, forgiveness, and eternal life, to everyone who believes, regardless of their social status, race, sex, or past life (See John 3:16; 2 Corinthians 5:19; 1 John 2:1-2; Galatians 3:27). "He died for all" (2 Co. 5:15) is the message the non-believing world needs to hear.
To be honest, I find that just a tad bit hypocritical. Believe that God is only going to save some people that He's already chosen beforehand, yet teach non-Christians that Christ died for all? Hide the doctrine of predestination, then reveal it when they're ready? Say, "God died for all people in every nation, His blood can save you today," then, "God only died for a certain group of people, of which you are lucky enough to be a part of. I only told you He died for all so that you would get saved."
Why not tell non-Christians that God only died for those He'd already chosen? I believe it ruins people's want of salvation. When a non-Christian hears God only died for the elect, he can very easily say, "I'm not part of the elect; I am not going to be saved." And the Calvinist is stuck there because obviously God preordained those people to say that. If people started hearing that, much fewer would get saved, I think. And those who would, being young Christians, probably would not go around telling other people about it because hey, if other people are gonna get saved, He's already predestined them to, so nothing I do or don't do can alter His plans! So I think Calvinists want people saved, but know their doctrine is too dangerous for a non-believer to hear, otherwise Christianity would likely fall.
Though to be honest, my biggest problem with Calvinism is that it totally rips love out of the equation. Oh, it tries to keep it in there by saying God choose who He choose out of love. But the problem is, I believe God created mankind so He could have someone to love Him back. Calvinism teaches God created us solely for His glory. But He's got innumerable angels doing that already. I believe God wanted love, not glory. Sure, He gets glory out of it, but it wasn't the main purpose. Hebrews 12:2 says that Jesus endured the cross for the joy that was set before Him. What gave Him joy? Knowing He'd get more glory, or knowing that because of what He'd done, He would be able to finally have a bride to love Him? Here's what I think could answer the question: do you find joy in being glorified or being loved? I believe it would come from being loved, and I'm willing to bet the same answer will go for God.
Calvinists (for the most part) claim humans have no free will. If we don't, and we truly have no choice about whether or not we're going to be saved, then we can't really be loving God back. Love implies a choice to either love or not love. Love is never forced. This is also tried to be covered up, by saying we will love Him when we do get saved, but if He decided we will, is it really love?
Again, I ask you: Would you rather your spouse be a robot who loves you but has no choice to do otherwise, or have one who loves you even though they have the choice not to? I think anyone would choose the ladder. Why? Because it's more real that way.
I could be all wrong, but that's how I see it.
One last food for thought: Couldn't Calvinism be refuted entirely if one could prove God doesn't actually know the future? ;)
(Not to say God can't make extremely educated guesses or can't know whether His prophecies will come true or not. His prophecies will come true because those are special events that He wishes to happen and will happen because His will is dominant and can override anyone else's.)
J-Lindo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)