GUARDIAN'S HEART

A Response to John Loftus' Challenge

2006-08-01T22:47:00.000+08:00

“Excuse me? I thought the idea of the plagues was that God was doing something miraculous. If God could turn an entire river into Blood, He certainly could have made it blood without the ability to coagulate! Somehow, the author had no problem with God intervening with the entire water system of Egypt at once, but not creating something that is physically impossible to exist. Curious. If God made water into Blood, he was stuck with all the properties of Blood.”

“I have seen the argument that the crossing of the Reed Sea was done at the time of a tsunami, and the reason why the water had receded. Did God cause the tsunami? Or was it good timing? Or was it a natural event that people attributed to God? (The timing is all off, anyway. It would take more than 30 days for 2 Million to cross a sea, and no tsunami lasts that long.)”

“Then they use the fact that all this water is there to give natural explanations for fossils, continents, and mountains forming. Couldn’t the fossils also miraculously appear? Occasionally we mix and match parts of natural/supernatural. Like God supernaturally calling all the animals into the Ark, but naturally fitting them in, and then supernaturally causing them to hibernate, rather than require food.

Even Christians understand the problem of fitting all the provisions and animals on the Ark, so they begin inserting “miracles” as necessary to resolve the problem. Re-define “kinds” so as to require supernatural evolutionary rates. Or have the animals all shrink. Or have “pockets” of fresh water for some fish to survive. As the natural explanation is being given, if there is a speed bump, simply interject a “miracle.” Shoot, the whole thing is a miracle, what is wrong with a few nudges of miracles along the way?”

“The problem comes in that we no longer can determine how much was a miracle, and how much was not. If it was ALL a miracle, why the silly charade of having a flood, a boat and a dramatic rescue? Easier to kill all but a few humans and animals with God’s laser-beam eyes.”

“For some reason (that the Christian enthusiastically admits they cannot even hope to explain) the God must be mixing and matching natural and supernatural events. Either there is some limitation in which he is bound by some laws, or the humans are picking and choosing which parts to label “miracle” and which to not by arbitrary means.”

“Another common natural/supernatural event is the Resurrection. We all agree that a person that is dead for 2 days does not come back to life. That is a supernatural event. But then Christians insist on Jesus having a very natural body. One that walks, talks and eats. (Luke 24:42-43) Not so natural to fly, so that one gets chalked down to the miracle bit. (Acts 1:9)”

“I am often told that just because one account doesn’t say something happened, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Hey, I can play that game too! Just because the angel doesn’t say it, the angel could have muttered under his breath, “Come see where he lay…(until about two seconds ago, when I had to open the stone, because Jesus forgot his key again. Had you come in here a bit quicker, you would have seen him teleport out of here naked!)”

“By the time the Gospel of Peter was written, it was made even clearer that Jesus needed that rock moved to get out. The Gospel of Peter has the stone rolling away by itself; two angels come down from heaven, go into the tomb, and bring Jesus out. We know that actually happened, because it was recounted as something the centurion said, and early Christians would have been too fearful to quote testimony from a living Roman Soldier. (I hope you understand the sarcasm of that last sentence after reading such claims from apologists.)”

“Moving the stone for a “look-see” would not make a whit of difference to his followers. There would not have been any need to connect an empty tomb to the miraculous personage appearing before them.”

“No, I do not assume miracles cannot exist. I am having a hard time, though, hearing Christians agree as to what is a supernatural miracle, and what is good timing, and what is natural. If Christians cannot agree what is a miracle, why should I assume that what some particular Christians claim is a miracle—really is?

Jesus needing a rock to move, because naturally he could not leave without it, and later teleporting sounds exactly as to how humans create myths.”

The above are select quotations from Mr. Dagood's article "Which Part Fits in Which Slot Again?" on Debunking Christianity. Now if the reader was wondering why I picked them out of all the available paragraphs, it is because I wanted, in the sparse time available to me (I am in the last year of college and the academic schedule can be really unforgiving), to point out the one mistake which drives the entirety of Mr. Dagood's article.

I would definitely like to address each and every problem he raises concerning miraculous events. In fact I would like to thank Mr. Dagood and all his cohorts for challenging my faith, since he is giving me opportunity to behold more and more of the unsearchable glories of God. But I simply do not have the time to do so. Thankfully, others before me have addressed the same issues (including the creationists Jonathan Sarfati and John Woodmorappe on the Ark and ironically, John W. Loftus' old mentor William Lane Craig on the historicity and resurrection of Christ).

Having laid that aside, I would now like to get to the core of the argument, and that can be found in the introductory statement made by Mr. Dagood:

“In discussing miraculous occurrences as recounted in the Bible, we often see apologists swing back and forth as to what part of the miracle was actually supernatural, and what part of it was natural. Obviously, God could use both to his advantage, having the foresight to utilize an opportune moment and make it look like a miracle, yet there would be no way for us to tell.

How does a Christian come up with a system, by which we determine God just had good timing, as compared to God actually intervening? There is no way.”

The first paragraph alone contains a serious error only proponents of Open Theism, Natural Theology or hardline Arminianism would have a hard time trying to debunk (which, ironically, seem to be the type of Christians the article is aimed at—he references believers who either insist on or try to suggest naturalistic explanations for miracles, in particular), and neither of those three systems qualify as sterling examples of orthodox Christianity because they harbor unbiblical presuppositions about God's sovereignty.

Basic Biblical Fact: God does not “foresee” opportune moments. The God of the Bible is not the god of the Deists who wound up a clockwork universe and left it to run by itself. The author presupposes that such and such “opportune” moments happened INDEPENDENTLY of God's will, something the Bible never teaches at all. This error perpetuates itself all throughout the article in a concerted effort to try and blur the line between what is miraculous and what isn't.

But the truth is, God holds all things together in the entire universe moment by moment and personally orchestrates every single event, whether miraculous or “natural”. He controls the tiniest atom and the largest galaxy. In fact, even Satan's actions are bound by His decree (Job 1:6-12, 2:1-7). All the thoughts and intents of men's hearts (ref. Luke 2:35) are ultimately known by him because of the hidden script of Divine Providence, written before time began; hardening in their selfwilled pride those whom He will harden, and delivering by humility those whom He will deliver (Rom. 9:14-15).

The only reason the birds of the air do not perish for lack of food is because He feeds them daily. (Matthew 6:26, Luke 12:24, Job 38:41) The one reason the constellations do not misalign is because He guides them with His hand (Job 38:31-33). The stars themselves exist and die by His mighty power (Isaiah 41:26). Individuals, communities and nations develop at the utterance of His Word and perish at the blast of His nostrils (Job 4:8-10, Psalm 104:29-30) .

My God is the God who changed water into wine (John 2:1-11) and sticks into snakes (Exodus 4:1-5, 7:8-13). He is the God who commanded water to hold weight under His feet (Matthew 14:22-33, Mark 6:47-52, John 6:16-21) and the raging storm to cease (Matthew 8:23-27, Mark 4:35-41, Luke 8:22-25). He is the LORD Almighty in battle (Psalm 24:8), who controls vast armies of angels and men alike for His purposes, and disposes of them as He wills (2 Kings 6:17, Jeremiah 22:7, Isaiah 10:5-19). Nothing is exempt from His control as if they operated on their own...not even dice (Proverbs 16:33).

In short, there is no such thing as a system for determining which is a miracle and which isn't, nor is there a need for it, because God upholds all things by the power of His hand (Hebrews 1:3). Which goes to mean that the skeptic who types out blasphemies against the Lord and His people is only able to do so by what he himself would consider a miracle, and he had better repent and believe in the Gospel or perish.

This is a classic example of skeptics charging us with the “God of the Gaps” fallacy, yet they do not realize that they themselves cannot escape a similar charge when they (by virtue of a skewed humility) attribute events to “chance”. Doing so presupposes that the human will know for certain in the future how such an event occurred using his own faculties and any instruments developed to gather data about such events, and that these phenomena are ultimately natural in origin.

However, the sober fact is that random chance simply does not explain things any better than a god of the gaps invocation could. We are merely finite and fallible OBSERVERS of a vast universe which we do not completely understand, which means that all our knowledge of reality is ultimately unjustified when we set our own observation and reasoning up as the final arbiters of truth (just because we observe something does not guarantee its reality, universality or constancy—something even the atheist will agree with). And even if we were able to know the hows of every single subatomic action and reaction, it is still impossible for us to know the whys and wherefores of such details.

Earlier I referenced blurring the distinction between miracles and natural events. Keeping in mind the above statement, the fallacy of this line of thinking may be made more fully known: how does one absolutely determine if a phenomenon is indeed “natural”, i.e. a uniform occurrence within nature? If it observes the laws of nature? But how do we know that the laws of nature are self-attesting and absolute in themselves (a greater problem surfaces if we were to ask how such laws came to be and if they are even independent of any higher governance)? Because we haven't seen anything that contradicts them? Then that makes it all relative to us, doesn't it?

You know what that means? It means that, in the atheistic universe, WE are gods, even though we cannot justify that selfsame idea!

Because of this, all the naturalistic atheist, with his naturalistic biases, can ever hope to declare from his limited observations is that we are trapped in a universe which never planned us and doesn't give a hoot about our presence on what they themselves would consider an insignificant speck in a vast ocean of stars and interstellar junk that exists for no particular purpose. Which only leads him to embrace such arrogant and self-destructive beliefs as existentialism or even nihilism.

Furthermore, this article exhibits another common attitude all men hold: the unhealthy fear of God's sovereignty. The entirety of the writing treats God as if he was some sort of arbitrary agent who may just suddenly decide to do this and that on an unfounded whim—a belief that is so profoundly ignorant of the fact that God makes decisions according to His Divine Nature. Our God is a God of order, not of chaos and confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33); this immediately and overwhelmingly refutes the notion that God is arbitrary. Yet considering the treatment of moral justification and the problem of evil by the Debunking Christianity fellows, I am not surprised this even comes up.

And yes, Mr. Dagood. I would heartily agree with you that Jesus appearing before His disciples isn't enough to convince them. In fact, you seem to have missed the one verse stating that they all thought they had seen a ghost. Mary Magdalene was so hardened in her grief that she thought the resurrected Christ was a gardener. It took Jesus spiritually opening the eyes of the two disciples traveling on the road to Emmaus just to get them to recognize Him. Thomas went down in history as one of the foremost empiricist skeptics of his time.

As R. C. Sproul Sr.--in his work “Who is Jesus?”--has bluntly put it: Joseph didn't need to be a skilled biologist to know that babies don't come from the stork. Same goes for people who all their lives have seen that once living creatures die, they stay dead (and we have seen how dependent humans can be on their own finite knowledge).

Yes, Mr. Dagood. The human heart is just that hard, because God has given us over to our selfish desires in His anger, due to our sin of rebellion (Romans 1:17-32).

This points out yet again the false presupposition the whole article ultimately runs on, yet cannot even justify: that the human being is the final reference point for all truth, simply because he is. If that does not sound exactly like the premise of the lie made to Adam in the Garden, then I do not know what does.

Atheists demanding to know how miracles could have come to be, and then writing them off as mythical simply because they in their limited and fallible human knowledge cannot understand the intricacies thereof, sounds exactly like unfounded arrogance.

Repent, and believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ; for the Kingdom is at hand.

Hold the Presses!

2006-03-12T23:45:00.000+08:00

In recent months a group of former Christians (most of them professing to be ex-pastors and ministers) have come together and organized a blog called Debunking Christianity, and almost immediately this ragtag band of atheists got into a tangle with the guys over at Triablogue.

OK, end of history lesson. I've encountered a few of the Debunking Christianity posts myself and have decided to respond to them. I actually have an earlier article, but for now let's deal with a little "joke" post they made as of recent. With that in mind, allow me to postpone my "Dissing the Decalogue" sequel for a while so we can deal with these people. The "jokes" are in blockquotes and bright red.

"Who was Cain afraid would kill him when God put him out of the Garden for killing Abel? There were mom, dad, bro and himself on the whole planet at the time."

You mean Adam and Eve didn't have much in the way of sexual intercourse after 130 years since creation (Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old (Genesis 5:3), and judging by Eve's statement that Seth was the replacement for Abel (Genesis 4:25), it's a pretty easy deduction: Abel was killed right before Seth was born)?? And weren't they evicted from the Garden prior to even siring Cain, Abel and a bunch of other children (which the Bible never enumerates, but only hints at a good number thereof--Genesis 5:4)??

"Why would God stop the whole earth for a day so Israelites could finish a genocide against the enemy?" I mean, I can see stopping it so there is more time to hug, or feed the hungry, or plant the crops, but more time to kill? Dumb story.

This only goes to show that the concept of God's righteous judgment is highly unpopular. See my last post on the Decalogue. Furthermore, one would be hard pressed to discover where the atheist gets justification for his moral authority. Even exbeliever, one of the members of Debunking Christianity, has openly admitted to being an existentialist, which only undermines his whole emphasis on Focault's social power structures as the basis for the justification of morality.

"How come the horses in the Exodus die twice in the Ten Plagues and still survive for Pharoah to mount a final attack against the Israelites, and then die again."

The text just says that "the cattle in the field" died (Exodus 9:3, 19-21). As for the use of "all" in that context, here's what John Calvin had to say on the matter, for example:

As to his saying that "all the cattle died," it is a comprehensive expression, for immediately it will appear that a considerable number of animals still remained. But he means that the herds were everywhere destroyed, and the flocks smitten by the murrain; or, if you prefer it, that the murrain was general in its attack, and that it reduced Egypt to a state of poverty by the destruction of their cattle and other animals. Finally, the universal term merely refers to this plague having been a remarkable proof of God's anger, because the pestilence did not only kill a few animals, as it usually does, but made havoc far and wide of a vast number of herds and flocks. (John Calvin, Harmony of the Law vol. 1, commentary on Exodus 9)

Calvin classified the use of "all the cattle" as synecdoche; that is, there was widespread destruction of livestock in Egypt on account of the plague, without necessarily saying that every single animal died. And that's just ONE possible explanation, since a) the text doesn't assert any kind of timeframe between the plagues. It simply summarizes what happened to Egypt without telling us an exact or approximate timespan within which the events of Exodus 7-13 occurred, and b) the Egyptians could have simply bought or forcibly confiscated extra cattle from the Israelites to partially replenish their livestock and hopefully start anew after the anthrax plague. While this isn't asserted or even implied, it IS still highly probable.

"If Herod killed all the little children under two to get at Jesus, who escaped, can we not say the little children had to die for Jesus before he died for them?"

Argument from outrage. God has the right to take life whenever He so desires. It's not pretty, but then again we don't even deserve to exist. Besides that, since when did Jesus ever declare that He died for everybody? The only person who would reel from this argument is, sadly, an Arminian.

"Why does the Apostle Paul, who writes most of the New Testament, NEVER quote Jesus, tell a story of his life or death, discuss a miracle or teaching?"

Paul wrote epistles that were part doctrinal expositions in nature and part moral-ethical guidelines for the renewed believers who were starting their lives over from square one--and these never contradicted the teachings of Jesus himself, since both affirm the Law and the Prophets as authentic and authoritative Scripture! Only by squaring Paul against Jesus can this joke even be made, and I wonder just where the humor is in that. Besides, he did quote Jesus on several occasions:

"I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." (Acts 20:35)

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." (1 Corinthians 11:23-25)

And let's not forget the two occasions in which he quoted the words of Jesus on the Damascus road vision.

(UPDATE: D'oh! Paul repeatedly recounted the basics of the Gospel several times in his epistles [e.g. "Christ died for us...according to the Scriptures", Rom. 5:8, 1 Cor. 15:3-7; compare with Matt. 20:28, Mk. 10:45 and Jn 10:11] and also claimed that his teachings weren't given to him by men, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ [Gal. 1:12]. How come I didn't see this earlier??)

"Why does neither Mark nor John know anything about Jesus birth, while Matthew and Luke do but tell contradictory stories?" Answer...Because the Gospels are like four people who see a car wreck...

Concerning the car wreck, that's almost precisely what we would answer re: "contradictory stories" since witnesses at different places and angles will often report different aspects of the same story that then need to be harmonized. However, I must note that this is an incomplete analogy, since witnesses to a car crash will almost often rely only on memory, among other details (remember that one of the Holy Spirit's tasks was to remind the apostles about Christ's teachings, which they could in turn pass down to disciples like Luke during interviews--see John 14:26).

As for Mark and John, why wouldn't it be plausible that they would omit certain details about Jesus' life especially if a) people already knew about them from oral retellings and reports and b) they had a target audience and a purpose for writing, which would naturally lead them to streamline? Considering the "contradictory stories" in this light, many alleged contradictions go away. Why biblioskeptics never even seem to allow for harmonization is only due to the fact that they have discounted the Bible as a historical book without giving it the benefit of the doubt.

"Why does Paul only say Jesus was born of a woman like everyone else?"

Context. Galatians 4:1-7 sez: "Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ."

"Did Paul ever spend five minutes with the real human Jesus?"

The only way this comment could even be funny is if you rejected miracles and visions a priori. Furthermore, even if one did reject the fact that the glorified Christ visited Paul, Acts 9 still says he spent time with the disciples at Damascus, which would have received firsthand eyewitness testimonies and reports from the apostles themselves. Then again, why would one who rejects the Bible's reliability accept that either? It's all arbitrary.

"Isn't it strange the man who writes most of the New Testament and tells us all how to live, think and believe about Jesus, never met him, while the Twelve who did, vanish into thin air and write nothing?"

John, Peter and James the younger (who was related to Jude, who himself wrote an epistle) all wrote general epistles; Matthew (a.k.a. Levi the tax collector--Matthew 9:9 and 10:3; Luke 5:27) organized an entire Gospel revolving around sermons and speeches, Mark wrote a gospel on Jesus' works and John recounted Christ's declarations of divinity. Besides, Paul did meet Him at the Damascus road, and apart from that event he had contact with many disciples and even with the apostles themselves at Jerusalem, who would have taught him doctrine they had lerned from the Lord firsthand.

All having been said, this is nothing but barefaced agenda masquerading as "humor". In fact, coming from an alleged former pastor these jokes are so ignorant the whole thing isn't even funny at all. Monty Python would've done a better job.

In fact, I think Paul Manata did a better job at refuting these than I have.

Dissing the Decalogue? (Part I)

2006-02-12T20:13:00.000+08:00

Just read this article by William Edelen over at The Secular Web, a large website dedicated to "the spread of freethought" and secular humanism. After reading it, I decided that the most amazing thing about "freethought" is that you're free to think ANYTHING you want as long as you don't think according to whatever "freethinkers" may consider as outdated religious cult philosophy and doctrine. Kinda defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

Anyway, here's the article itself, with responses from yours truly. Mr. Edelen's original writings are in blue. Each section of writing will be followed by my personal remarks.

We are being drowned today in biblical ignorance, religious illiteracy and historical stupidity by the religious and political right in this country. In no other place is this so visible as in the prostitution of the "Ten Commandments". They want these archaic and primitive cultic codes posted all over the U.S. in schools...court houses...public buildings and on and on and on into a nightmare of militant ignorance. Goethe defined "evil" as "militant ignorance."

Quite a thing to call the Decalogue "archaic and primitive" when the civil laws of the United States (or any other established country) are either directly based on them or reflect them to a degree (which would mitigate in part against the relativist position, but that's for another topic). We will take a look at this in a short while. The ad hominem in this opening line is itself an eye-opener for those unfamiliar with the vehemence the enemies of Christianity are capable of.

These archaic "commandments" were nothing more than a cultic code written BY Hebrew men FOR Hebrew men. Nothing more, nothing less."

First, if he is playing the "man-made law" game then may I not play that same card against him and claim that he himself has no right or authority to tell us what is right and wrong? Second, one would have to assume that every society in the world is by nature self-serving, which is the least of what Secular Humanists want to think about concerning mankind, since they seem to consider us humans as more or less inherently noble. Dan Barker, during an old program of Dr. James White's The Dividing Line claimed to have once asked a Christian "Is that what you think humans are, [evil little] murderers?"

No one has so put these Ten Commandments in perspective better than Ruth Gordon, the actress. She said to an audience,..."There is one commandment that I can assure you.... I have never broken.... I have never coveted my neighbor's wife."

All this proves is that all men have to some extent broken, and in fact continue to break, the laws of God. If what the author means to say by this quotation is that the Ten Commandments are intrinsically useless due to their apparent "archaic" nature, he'd better find some other justification for the existing universal sentiment that murder is inherently wrong, for example, as well as defend the validity of contemporary civil laws which prohibit many types of crimes related to the ones generally outlined in the "archaic" Ten Commandments.

By the way, the commandment which says not to covet one's neighbor's wife also says not to covet his ox, donkey, servants or anything else that he owns (Exodus 20:17). The quip about not coveting her naighbor's wife aside, Ruth Gordon may not be as guiltless regarding this one commandment as she thinks.

Sir James Frazer in his classic THE GOLDEN BOUGH writes: "these commandments of Israel are taboos of a familiar type in primitive religions disguised as commands of a tribal God."

Dr. Ernest Colwell, former Dean of the Theological Seminary, the University of Chicago, writes: "these were prescriptions written ONLY for the Hebrew cult. They acquired authority due to their association with the rites of the cult."

The underlying presupposition behind the "outdated tribal taboo" claim (a hallmark of the now-defunct Documentary Hypothesis) appears to be that the society that currently exists is an enlightened lot, which would in turn assume that the events of the previous three centuries (18th-20th) uncovered valid truths that positively influenced humanity. Many skeptics often reference back to the period of Enlightenment as a turning point for history, and that for the better; John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, who claimed that people would believe anything told them in a "Pre-Enlightenment" world during his 2005 debate with Dr. White, is one such example. This belief itself presupposes two things:

1) Humans are of themselves sufficient to know what absolute truth is through the means espoused by the humanistic ideologies of 1the 8th century (mainly rationalism and empiricism).

2) Ancient people are ignorant and superstitious (the ancient Egyptian society with its elaborate rituals and construction projects, as well as the Mesopotamian legal body alone should be enough to refute this charge, to say nothing about the ancient Chinese and the South American Mayas).

In addition, Dr. Colwell makes a surprising remark. "They acquired authority due to their associations with the rites of the cult"? Please clarify this. Unless I'm mistaken, what he is basically saying here is that the commandments acquaire authority from the rituals. I submit to you that it is the other way around. It is because of these restrictions that the rites of animal sacrifice, for instance, were developed, since actions flow from axioms. I do not have enough material to respond to this at present, so I am leaving it at this for now. As for the code being restricted to the Hebrew "cult", we will deal with that in the next section much more fully.

All "thou shalt not kill" meant is that thou shall not kill another Hebrew. The giver of the commandment, Moses, quite obviously ignored it with everyone except the Hebrews. And all with his jealous and war like God's blessing. In the Book of Numbers, Chapter 31, verse 17/18, Moses gives this order: "now kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him. But all the women children, the virgins, keep alive for yourselves."

The command "Thou shalt not kill" literally translates into "Thou shalt not MURDER" (Heb. ratsach). Murder is a premeditated act that defiles the sanctity of man as the bearer of God's image (See Genesis 9:5-6) and violates God's authority to prescribe judgment by whatever means He chooses, which He does in commanding the Israelites to utterly decimate the Canaanites. This alone makes the Israelites' acts of invasive war vastly different from murder, since unlike the later Assyrians who would similarly attack Israel (see Isaiah 10:5-19) they were acting on behalf of God's orders (furthermore, read this differentiation between waging war against a non-Canaanite foreign nation and a Canaanite nation in Deuteronomy 20:10-18). This is a common skeptical misconception that frequently makes the rounds, and one that ignores the total sovereignty of God over all creation. If God is the creator and owner of all creation, does it not follow that He would have absolute authority over that same creation, to do whatsoever with it according to His will?

Probably in all of history there has never been a command more revolting to human sensibilities. A scorched earth policy. Genocide. Ordered by Moses, AFTER the so called Commandment "not to kill".

And there you have it. Human sensibilities become the final arbiter of truth and justice in the face of God's ineffable right as final arbiter of truth and justice! Furthermore, one would have to ask where those selfsame human sensibilities came from. Evolution? Then I'm afraid I have somehow evolved to become a Christian, so there goes your entire argument! Secular humanists like to start with whatever faculties we already know we possess and go on from there, without even confronting themselves with the ultimate question of what generated those faculties, what they are for and, to a further extent, exactly whose faculties they reflect (ground rule for the Law of Causality: effects cannot be greater than their causes).

Second, this statement is easily refuted by several verses from the Biblical record itself, specifically the ones referring to the original inhabitants of the land of Canaan and how the Israelites should relate to them and their practices:

"Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people." (Leviticus 18:24-29)

"Speak not thou in thine heart, after that the LORD thy God hath cast them out from before thee, saying, For my righteousness the LORD hath brought me in to possess this land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD doth drive them out from before thee. Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." (Deuteronomy 9:4-5)

"Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, 'How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.' Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods." (Deuteronomy 12:30-31)

"When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee. Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God." (Deuteronomy 18:9-13)

"But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God." (Deuteronomy 20:16-18)

Leviticus 18:29 is a particularly interesting verse to consider in light of the skeptical objection to the Canaanite raids. "For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations...shall be cut off from among their people." What God is saying here is that His precepts (in particular those related to the Ten Commandments) apply equally to Israel as they do to all countries (come to think of it: if the Decalogue was meant for Hebrew eyes only, why did God bother to extend His judgment upon the Canaanite nations--or any other nation for that matter? See Exodus 12:49, Numbers 15:16 and 29, Isaiah 13 (Babylon) and 23 (Tyre), Obadiah 1:4 (Edom), etc.); in fact Deuteronomy 28:15-68 lists multiple phases of successively increasing curses should the Israelites disobey God's commandments. True enough, these exact same curses came to pass when Assyria scattered the Northern kingdom of Israel around 750 B.C. and Babylon subsequently invaded and captured Jerusalem around 600 B.C., which was right after they had adopted the Baal worship and fertility religions of the Canaanite nations. What then of Mr. Edelen's contention that the ultimate supposition behind the Mosaic Law is a self-serving national agenda bordering on cult mentality? The very fact that the law applies to all irrespective of ethno-cultural lineage shows that Israel is far from being what anthropologists would call an honor-based society, one based on group-mentality and external appearances of having it made.

According to Christian fundamentalists, at the same time they are extolling the virtue of the commandment "thou shalt not kill", they claim that they would have been deprived of salvation if Jesus had not been killed. In other words, they claim that through the violation of this commandment, the human race was saved. What double talk and gobble-de-gook they live with.

Obviously this author had failed to read Peter's speech in Acts 2:

"...Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it...Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:23-24, 36)

And his later speech in Acts 3:14-15:

"But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses."

The Bible does not in any way diminish the fact that Christ's crucifixion was murder; it even denounces it as the worst act of murder in human history, having been inflicted upon the Creator Himself. But it also says that God ultimately predetermined such an event in order to bring about the last, greatest and perfectly efficacious rite of vicarious atonement ever accomplished (ref. Acts 4:27-28; please take note that Calvinists such as I also believe in the reality of secondary causes). It never makes any effort to whitewash this gross violation of the 6th commandment, as can be seen in the closing words of Stephen's speech in Acts 7:51-53:

"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it."

And this comment by Paul on his fellow Jews in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16:

"For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost."

Yet even as it does so, it also tells us that through the horrific secondary cause of men murdering the Son of God, the one ultimate act of redemption was accomplished:

"But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." (Romans 4:24-25)

"And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour." (Ephesians 5:2)

"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Hebrews 10:10)

"And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation..." (Revelation 5:9)

Long story short, the Bible and Christianity applaud Jesus' act of self-sacrifice, as was planned out by Father, Son and Holy Ghost before the creation of the world (John 10:15-18, Ephesians 1:3-14, ref. John 6:38-40). It does NOT, however, glorify those who have themselves performed the act of murdering Christ. There is a difference between appraising the sacrificial martyrdom of one person and appraising the heinous acts of those who martyred him in the first place. This is anything but double-talk.

And yet today...the biblically ignorant and religiously illiterate want to post these archaic and primitive cultic codes on every tree, fence, wall, room, building, school, park in the United States.

There is just no limit to the stupidity of the religious and politcal right.

Ad hominem. We simply recognize that society en toto would never have had laws apart from God's grace. If men would reject God then the burden is upon secular humanists to justify any other sort of law, for that matter.

"'Evil' is militant ignorance." And so it is.

Let us now turn to the following question in the summation of this response: if the Ten Commandments, being God's Word, are merely a self-contained prescription written out for a certain society in a certain culture, then why do the following declarations exist in the very same code wherein the Ten Commandments are found:

"Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?" (Deuteronomy 4:5-8)

Why bother to flaunt the statutes and judgments of a judicially and legally isolated group before other nationalities if their laws are temporal and not transcendent, insofar as the major tenets of the Mosaic Law might be applied to other nations (barring dietary and other minor laws for the moment)? On the subject of other nationalities dubbing the Israelites as "a wise and understanding people", what makes their laws inherently better than other nations' codes--for example, the Code of Hammurabi, which existed at the same time the Mosaic Law was written? Why bother instructing the Israelites not to worship any other god and to execute judgments upon the gods of other nations if the First Commandment wasn't true and universally binding? All of the God-given commandments in the Bible stem from the fact that God has absolute jurisdiction over everything in the universe:

"The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." (Psalm 9:17)

The bottom line is this: if laws are restricted to their respective cultures and societies then how dare the secular humanists impose THEIR culture on us? What right has any culture to say other cultures are wrong, for that matter? Upon what basis can anyone make their claims of absolute truth? Human rationality? Yet humans often act irrationally, based on misconceptions and runaway emotions. Empiricism? Our senses often deceive us as well; we see things in the corner of our eye that aren't there, we hear sounds that never were. We also cannot perceive everything due to our limited sensory range. Scientific investigation? All operations science can do is examine the motions of the known universe, not magically look back into the past based on presuppositions that require present conditions to have been the same throughout the annals of time (even operations science itself requires the presupposition of the uniformity of nature in conjunction with various other axioms--the laws of logic, the trustworthiness of human perception, unbreakable natural laws, and the transcendence of the human mind with regard to analyses and interpretation of design. All of these aren't proven outright, yet are held to by faith).

And all that without yet considering how utterly irrational it would be if we claimed that human freedom gives each of us equal authority. If that is so then why should the ideas of one individual be held in greater esteem over another? This utterly destroys the foundation for their "society as arbiter of truth" polemic. What makes a man more eligible for leadership that another? Knowledge? Well, how DO we gain knowledge? WHY do we seek knowledge? WHERE do we get that knowledge? WHAT constitutes knowledge? Even more importantly, HOW would that individual apply his knowledge? The fact of the matter is that the ought-to needs to exist before any body of leadership could ever conglomerate to tell others what is right and wrong, so where would they get that knowledge of what ought to be done?

Ultimately all the secular humanist has to fall back on is the bleak uncertainty of postmodernism and the resultant ideals of Nietszche: everything is meaningless. Yet they would vehemently fight against this notion. They would claim that we have minds and that we don't need a deity to tell us what is right and wrong. All without bothering to ask themselves where the mind and its ingrained (albeit corrupted) compliance with the laws of logic came from; where we got our conscience, our understanding of morality and our knowledge of good and evil...or, if we presuppose Darwin's "survival of the fittest" axiom to be all that there is to life, what the value of survival is at all. Think about it. If we're just one stage in a blind evolutionary process, what should we live our lives for? Even if we grant the [Neo] Darwinian assumptions to be correct, why should we keep on existing? Unfortunately, for those who disdain God, there can never be an answer to that question apart from a self-deluded "purpose" of one's own making.

My friend Frank Turk was correct. All the skeptic, in particular the secular humanist, does is take the Christian's luggage at the airport (swapping his similar yet rubbish-filled suitcase for it in the process), and, by virtue of liking the items found in it, claims it as his own without due regard to where those belongings came from and who originally owned them. They take our tenets, thinking they're nice because it serves their own standards, and then proceed to kick us out of the picture because we're superstitious and dogmatic people, all the while offering our incense, our tapestries and our precious jewels to an idol of their own making, under the dubious guise of "Separation of Church and State". What they don't know is that in the entire process of dislodging the absolute God and replacing Him with fallible, finite man, they are not only revealing themselves to be hypocrites but also setting up all of mankind for swift destruction.

Indeed, Goethe was right. Evil IS militant ignorance. Yet this comment is itself perfectly compatible with the Bible:

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." (Psalm 14:1)

Why? Because men have thrown away God in their desire to "become as gods [themselves], knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5).

God bless,
Mach

Oh good grief.

2006-01-29T20:36:00.000+08:00

Your anime hair colour is... WHITE!!! You are smart
and serious. Don't worry, you can be sweet
and funny too. You are seen as powerful and
appealing by all your friends, which is why
they often ask YOU for advice!

What's your true anime hair colour?
brought to you by Quizilla

And to think I blogged on the subject of white hair not too long ago.

Independence

2005-12-30T16:50:00.000+08:00

Independence. The very sound of it makes us giddy with excitement. People would die for the very notion of it, as is clearly shown throughout the annals of time, when men would rise up against tyrants for the sake of glorious liberty, shedding blood and having their blood shed in the name of freedom. Fledgling adolescents more or less desire it greatly, when the pubescent dreams of one day abandoning the nest in preference of a self-sustained existence. The very clamor for such a boon exists all around us in a vast and wide circle, encompassing all of humanity.

Yet how many of us stop to consider the fact that, for all our uplifting of the concept, we are not really completely independent per se?

Let's say you go to a grocery store. You pick up several bags of chips, a few cans of sausages and corned beef and a package of frozen salmon. Running the items through the counter, you feel a sense of pride knowing that you have done the groceries all by yourself. No mom helping you to make a shopping list or pick out which items to buy.

Yet have you taken the time to consider the people who made those products? The factory workers who operate machines to can them? The people who farm the animals and the laborers who process them?

Heck, what about...the lady at the cash register?

Let's get a bit irrational here for a while. "OK," you may think. "Let's say I was the one who had to run the items through the barcode reader. What about that?" Problem. What about the people who manufactured the barcode reader? Or the cash register?

Stepping out of the urban scene for a while. Let's say you had to hunt or fish for your own food. "Roughing it", so to speak. No cashiers, no meat processing plants, no delivery trucks. You get your own meat.

There's another problem. Doing so would still mean that you are dependent on the processes found in nature, i.e. the food chain, the water cycle, photosynthesis...these are necessary to ensure the wellbeing of the animals you hunt for and the vegetables you farm. The naturalistic materialist would claim that you are dependent on nature's operations in order to survive.

There are yet more problems. These natural processes depend on the laws of physics, at most up to the molecular/atomic level, in order to operate. These laws govern every single chemical reaction that occurs every second, from the evaporation of water to the operation of the neurotransmitters that permit you to perform your every action by (as the name implies) transmitting impulses from one neuron's axon to another neuron's dendrite.

It is here that the naturalistic materialist philosopher wishes to stop. For him, there could be nothing higher than the laws of nature. Yet common sense argues that laws require a lawgiver. Design requires a designer, and purpose requires a purpose-giver. Machines simply cannot manufacture themselves, and intelligence cannot proceed from non-intelligence. Life cannot begin from non-life, as Redi and Pasteur pointed out centuries ago.

In fact the very logic used to argue that there can be nothing higher than or beyond nature itself requires an orderly mind to put it together, since applying the laws of logic to itself in order to demonstrate its apparent self-existence would only result in circular reasoning. Attributing the existence thereof to extraterrestrial beings from the planet Spira only compounds the problem to an infinite degree, and concluding that these laws exist simply because they are would only serve to reveal one's presuppositions (as if the [unintentional] attempt to compound the problem doesn't show this already!).

Which brings me to my point: There needs to be a self-existent end to these notions. An end which can account not only for the order present in nature and logic, but also for the personality and moral law (conscience) that exists in humanity*.

And we see that in the holy God of the Bible; "...for by Him (Jesus Christ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist." (Collosians 1:16-17)

There are only two things men can do to this message: heed it and submit all to the Creator, the Potter who holds the clay in His hand, or (as natural man is wont to do) fight it and rebel against the Lord for the sake of your own preconceived "independence". And we all know the result of the second action:

"...every man did that which was right in his own eyes." (Judges 17:6)

God bless,
Machaira

*One cannot simply attribute this to genetics and evolutiuonary theory, as the materialists have sought to do; for one, if you propose that certain unselfish moral attributes are due to natural selection choosing such features as beneficial to society (thereby weeding out un-beneficial "immoral" behavior), could I not easily produce a counterclaim based on the same premise, e.g. that selfish people could just as quickly propagate due to either their advanced level of resourcefulness (owing to the fact that they are looking out for number one) or the fact that they may simply be leeching off of the "moral" and unselfish individuals in the community? Reading the first explanation, we have in reality gotten nowhere. "Natural selection" really hasn't weeded out the "immoral" behavior as in the first proposal; rather, the second proposal contradicts the first theory (Besides, wouldn't the first proposal undermine the very idea of "survival of the fittest"?)! Secondly, C.S. Lewis' age old argument still stands to this day: if our thoughts, ideas, emotions and morality are simply based off of chemical reactions with no transcendent quality to them, who's to say what's right or wrong?

A response to Jeremiah Bailey's "Sovereignty and Salvation in the Gospel of John"

2005-09-30T14:10:00.000+08:00

Note: This is an old article, meant to have been submitted before the beginning of the current school year. Large portions are yet unedited to fit my parameters given in the second paragraph of this essay. I will edit the formatting as I go along.

A Response to Jeremiah Bailey's Article "Sovereignty and Salvation in the Gospel of John"
by Michael Angelo Lee

Before I begin, I would first like to provide the reader with a little background concerning who I'm dealing with and what he believes. Jeremiah Bailey, who runs a blog at http://jbdes.blogspot.com/, is one of the regulars at the IRC channel "#prosapologian", a channel populated mostly by Reformed Christians. Ever since he joined the channel around a year ago, he has been engaged in countless debates with me and my brethren over the validity of the Reformed (Calvinist) doctrines, in particular the sovereignty of God over the salvation of individuals [1]. Recently he has claimed (at least in this blog entry) that he now accepts predestination and thus does not hold to a fully Arminian position sa he had in time past, but even in doing so he still admits to believing in the concept of free will (the problems with free will are discussed elsewhere in this website).

Below is his blog entry concerning the Gospel of John, its teachings on soteriology (the doctrines of salvation) and his analysis thereof, in the which he concludes that a certain "tension" between predestination and free will exists. I have taken the liberty to respond to it here and show where exactly he errs in his exposition. His original writings are bracketed and in black, Scriptural references are in red and my responses are in blue.

Sovereignty and Salvation in the Gospel of John [this is not meant to be an exhaustive study, it is meant to be totally within the framework of e Gospel of John]

>> Never in history has a subject been more hotly debated, nor within the church today, than the role of sovereignty in salvation. For the last two-thousand years this battle has raged,and as a result, a number of recognizable systems of belief on the subject came in to being. Whether it is Augustinianism, Pelagianism, Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism or any of the other notable lasting soteriologies one fact remains no one can agree and everyone else is dead wrong. <<

Quick note: Augustinianism is the forefather of Calvinism. Molinism is almost directly related to Pelagianism (both try to affirm the arbitrary will of the individual as opposed to a form of determinism), and classical Arminianism is Semi-Pelagianism (i.e. while they adhere to one point of TULIP--Total Depravity--they end up discarding the rest in favor of libertarian "free will" aided by an act of the Holy Spirit, which they term "prevenient grace"). I could actually divide that list and pit two against three: Augustinianism and Calvinism vs. Arminianism, Molinism and Pelagianism. Why? Two assume the total sovereignty of God over the universe, while three try to reconcile the (supposedly irreconcilable) fact of personal human responsibility with the existence and rulership of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent Being by assuming that some sort of arbitrary free will has been given unto man. We will tackle this all throughout the reply, as Mr. Bailey adheres to the latter position.

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

>> This division seems to be very prominent among the scholarly. Arminians point fingers and say the Calvinists are dangerous, and the Calvinists point fingers and say the Arminians are inconsistent. With all the fingers pointed in all the different directions, there must be none left to pick up a bible and read. <<

Pretty generalistic accusation often made by people who try to appear "above the rest". This speaks volumes about Mr. Bailey's personal attitude (towards the Calvinist position and doctrine, in particular; additionally, this statement of his is highly misleading since by strict definition he is a Semi-Pelagianist), but let's not rabbit-trail off into that area.

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

>> Not just read the words and try to fit them into an already existing framework, rather read the word and let it speak for itself. <<

Which is what Calvinists have been doing for years on end. Of course, the burden of proof is upon you to prove that we have an existing framework. Let's see if you can do just that.

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

>> That is the goal in this essay, to seek the truth. A thorough examination of all the gospel of John has to say on the matter will help with the achievement of that goal. Nearly every chapter of John’s Gospel is loaded with statements relevant to this topic. All care will be taken to insure the broadest range of material, however, some verses are key to this discussion, like 6:39-44, and will receive special and prolonged attention. The author will attempt to be straightforward, but with such a topic, bias always exists. Balance will be sought, but not as a sacrifice to (hopefully) new ideas. The general structure will attempt to follow the order of the scriptures, however, scripture is often needed to interpret scripture and some degree of cross-referencing will occur. <<

There is nothing new about slaveofJC's ideas, as will be seen shortly.

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

>> The first section of scripture we will deal with is Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus. * John 3:13-18 "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. (14) "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; (15) so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. (16) "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (17) "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. (18) "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. * <<

>> Jesus explains his authority on the subject: He’s been there. He then lays the foundation for salvation explaining it comes from a belief in Him. He tells Nicodemus that this offer is for all men, whoever will believe. Jesus then gets to the heart of the matter and explains his mission. He tells Nicodemus that the Father sent him for the express purpose of providing for men a way to enter heaven. He is not there as a Judge to sit in judgment, but he explains that those who don’t believe are already judged. Raymond Brown explains, “The very presence of Jesus in the world is a judgment in the sense that it provokes men to judge themselves by deciding either for Jesus or against him. (Brown 1966: 147) In other words, it would appear that he is saying a man’s damnation comes as a result of his own inaction. The implication of such a testimony from scripture appears to be far-reaching, however, there is more yet to the story. We have established the criteria for Jesus’ judgment, but who does Jesus have authority over to judge? <<

The problem in this interpretation lies in the fact that Mr. Bailey automatically translates any instance of "whosoever" or "whoever" into a free offer for all people. This is only half-true at least, and in certain contexts can be easily misconstrued to mean "all people have free will and it's up to them to just ARBITRARILY DECIDE whether or not they will follow Jesus." Why is that?

Firstly, it must be noted that God giving a commandment or making a conditional statement in the Bible does not immediately translate into the recepients being ABLE by FORCE OF WILL to comply with such (e.g. the Ten Commandments, the Mosaic Law, etc.), and I am sure that Mr. Bailey will agree with this. So where lies the problem? Answer: in the "willing" part. Man's will is an abstraction. It's not a part of us we can choose to move at any time, just like moving an arm or a leg. It's precisely US already acting out on our decision. That is why James can say "a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways" and Paul can say "The Spirit wars against the flesh, and the flesh against the Spirit; so that none of you could do the things you would". Time and again we have attempted to explain to Mr. Bailey that THE WILL IS CONTROLLED BY THE DESIRE. This not only keeps the Arminian abuse of "whosoever" in check but also proves a) just how incapable men are of deciding FOR God, and b) just how deathly responsible they are for their actions (since they were able to choose, BUT DID NOT WANT TO).

Second, Mr. Bailey stops short of three passages that are critical to this section being interpreted fully and in the light of monergism, as opposed to the "tension" of synergism which Mr. Bailey attempts to somehow extract from the text. Here they are:

19) And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, AND MEN LOVED DARKNESS RATHER THAN LIGHT, because their deeds were evil.

20) FOR EVERY ONE THAT DOES EVIL HATES THE LIGHT, NEITHER COMES TO THE LIGHT, else his deeds should be reproved.

21) BUT HE THAT DOES TRUTH COMES TO THE LIGHT, that his deeds may be made manifest, THAT THEY ARE WROUGHT IN GOD.

Verses 19 and 20 are reflected in later NT passages...for example, Romans 8:5-8:

Rom. 8:5) For they that are after the flesh (i.e. live according to the sinful nature) do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit (i.e. regenerated believers) the things of the Spirit.

Rom. 8:6) For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

Rom. 8:7) BECAUSE THE CARNAL MIND IS ENMITY AGAINST GOD: for it is not subject to the law of God, NEITHER INDEED CAN BE.

Rom. 8:8) SO THEN THEY THAT ARE IN THE FLESH CANNOT PLEASE GOD.

So the flesh can NEVER please God, because it is at war against God and is not subject (governed) by His law. But since Mr. Bailey's entire discourse was solely within the framework of John, let's go to the beginning of John 3 to find another parallel:

3) Jesus answered and said unto him, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

4) Nicodemus saith unto Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?"

5) Jesus answered, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6) THAT WHICH IS BORN OF THE FLESH IS FLESH; AND THAT WHICH IS BORN OF THE SPIRIT IS SPIRIT.

7) Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again."

Bottom line: unless men are born again by the will of God (ref. John 1:12-13), they will never be able to please God OR enter the kingdom of God at all. Let's let the text speak for itself at this point.

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

>> John 5:19-27 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. (20) "For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel. (21) "For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. (22) "For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, (23) so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. (24) "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. (25) "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. (26) "For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; (27) and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. <<

>> Jesus makes these awesome statements in response to the Jews after he healed a man on the Sabbath. They challenge him as a Sabbath breaker, and in response Jesus informs them of his real authority. Jesus first establishes himself as equal to the Father by saying he does all that the Father does, and claiming that the Father shows Him all of His works. Jesus establishes his authority over the earthly lives of men, as well as their eternal destination. Jesus is the only being in the entire universe that judges. The Father has the right to judge also, but defers to the witness of His Son. Not only does the Son have authority to judge all men, but the authority to execute that judgment. So, we have the clear testimony of scripture that (1) Jesus has authority to judge and execute that judgment, and (2) His criteria for judgment is the inaction of man. Therefore, man has a very real choice concerning his salvation. This, however, is not the full testimony of scripture, so we move on to the pivotal chapter six. <<

Yes, man has a choice, but what is that choice based on? Can the natural man DESIRE God apart from the work of the Holy Spirit? It is important to consider that whenever a decision is posed and this is touted as "evidence" that man has free will contrary to what Calvinism teaches, we must factor in one crucial question: FREE TO DO WHAT? The answer, of course, is actually pretty much common sense: Free to do what one DESIRES. When an Arminian posits choices and conditional statements as proof that man has a role in his salvation, remind him that he is actually begging the question of how and why would he choose God at all when he is TOTALLY DEPRAVED.

Secondly, I need only ONE verse from that entire Scripture citation just to bring down the Arminian position even further:

(21) "For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, EVEN SO THE SON ALSO GIVES LIFE *TO WHOM HE WISHES*.

But shall we go further in the context? Let's do just that!:

31) If I bear witness of Myself, My word is not true.

32) There is Another that beareth witness of Me; and I know that the witness which He witnesseth of Me is true.

33)Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.

34) But I receive not testimony from man; but these things I say, that ye might be saved.

35) He was a burning and shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.

36) But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works that the Father hath given Me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of Me, that the Father hath sent Me.

37) And the Father Himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape.

38) AND YE HAVE NOT HIS WORD ABIDING IN YOU: FOR WHOM HE HATH SENT, HIM YE BELIEVE NOT.

39) Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me.

40) AND YE *WILL NOT* COME TO ME, THAT YE MIGHT HAVE LIFE.

41) I receive not honour from men.

42) BUT I KNOW YOU; THAT YE HAVE NOT THE LOVE OF GOD IN YOU.

43) I am come in My Father's name, and ye receive Me not; if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

44) How can ye believe, WHICH RECEIVE HONOUR ONE OF ANOTHER, AND SEEK NOT THE HONOUR THAT COMETH FROM GOD ONLY?

45) Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

46) FOR HAD YE BELIEVED MOSES, YE WOULD HAVE BELIEVED ME: FOR HE WROTE OF ME.

47) BUT IF YE BELIEVE NOT HIS WRITINGS, HOW SHALL YE BELIEVE MY WORDS?

Here Christ continues the theme He started in Chapter 5 concerning His position of authority; the Pharisees He was speaking to did not accept his testimony as the chosen Messiah, hence the defense of His position. But what slave fails to tell us is that the REAL reason the Pharisees would not accept His divine being can be found in the closing statements of the chapter: they did not have the love of God in them! They did not have His Word abiding in them! Once again, we see how desire drives the will to do the darndest things.

In addition, we see how even the Scripture fails to speak to those who aren't regenerated, as stated in vv. 46-47. These self-righteous religious separatists, who bragged about being wise in the Scriptures, were so blinded that they failed to even consider how the inspired writers of Scripture (Moses in this case) foretold of the Messiah's coming and his actions long before Christ arrived to fulfill their prophecies.

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

>> There is one section of chapter six that is specifically used to emphasize the sovereignty of God in salvation. In the midst of Jesus’ discourse about him being the bread of life, some interesting remarks were made by our Lord. <<

>> John 6:35-44 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. (36) "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. (37) "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. (38) "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. (39) "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. (40) "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." (41) Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, "I am the bread that came down out of heaven." (42) They were saying, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, 'I have come down out of heaven'?" (43) Jesus answered and said to them, "Do not grumble among yourselves. (44) "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. <<

>> Jesus begins with the statement that he is the bread of life, and also alludes to his being the living water. He moves on to their unbelief and seems to explain the reason for their unbelief. All the father gives will come and he will keep those who come. The natural implication of this statement is that those who didn’t come were not given by the Father. Jesus then claims he came down from heaven, this combined with his statement about being the bread of life elicits a parallel to the manna that came down from heaven. Jesus is asserting not only the fact they need him for their survival, but also that he is divinely sent. He claims the authority of the one who sent him, and then makes a statement based on that authority. With that authority, he states that everyone who believes will have life and he will raise him up on the last day. Here we see a parallel to the statement made before (39), except the statement seems to say that anyone may believe in the Son. Here is an example of the beautiful tension in scripture between the necessity of God’s giving to the Christ, and the free choice available to all. (Burge 2000:200) <<

Once again it must be asserted that the problem with the free offer of the salvation of Christ Jesus is not in the "whosoever" but rather in the "will [believe]". Look at the text of 28-39 which you yourself cited, for instance (NB: he did not cite 28-34, but rather I have added it here for emphasis). The context is that of the miraculous feeding by the sea of Galilee:

28) Then said they unto Him, "What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?"

29) Jesus answered unto them, "THIS IS THE WORK OF GOD, THAT YE BELIEVE ON HIM WHOM HE HATH SENT."

30) They said therefore unto Him, "What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? What dost thou work?

31) Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'"
Here the people are still hooked on the previous miracle, but their hardness of heart (their depravity) leads them to seek signs and wonders so that they may believe...an incident parallelled in Luke 11:29 and John 4:47-54.

32) Then Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but My Father giveth you the true Bread from heaven.

33)For the Bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world."

34) Then said they unto Him, "Lord, evermore give us this bread."

35) And Jesus said unto them, "I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

36) But I said unto you, that YE ALSO HAVE SEEN ME, AND BELIEVE NOT.

37) ALL THAT THE FATHER GIVETH ME SHALL COME TO ME; AND HIM THAT COMETH TO ME I WILL IN NO WISE CAST OUT.

38) For I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me.

39) And this is the Father's will which hath sent Me, THAT OF ALL WHICH HE HATH GIVEN ME I SHOULD LOSE NOTHING, BUT SHOULD RAISE IT UP AGAIN AT THE LAST DAY.

40) AND THIS IS THE WILL OF HIM THAT SENT ME, THAT EVERY ONE WHICH SEETH THE SON, AND BELIEVETH ON HIM, MAY HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE; and I will raise him up at the last day."

Verse 40 is directly connected to 39, which culminates in the very direct statement made in verse 44! Once again we see that those whom the Father draws to the Son are those who believe (a theme which we will see recurring time and again in John's gospel, both positively and negatively), and it is evident from Christ's assessment of the people in front of Him that most of them were not among those given to Him of the Father.

>> The Jews then began to murmur and grumble, so Jesus responded with a bold statement. No one comes to me unless the Father draws them. The Greek word translated draw is e???, which translated literally, means to drag. (Strong 2000) Jesus boldly asserts that the only way men reach salvation, is to be dragged there by God. If this statement is not looked at in context one may assert through the combination of verses thirty-nine and forty-four that salvation is solely the result of predestination. However, Jesus continues his statement after verse forty-four. <<

Actually the very context mitigates against his position, as he himself admits by the end of this discourse on John 6.

>> John 6:45-51 "It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. (46) "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. (47) "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. (48) "I am the bread of life. (49) "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. (50) "This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. (51) "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." <<

>> Fortunately, Jesus explains the method of drawing while at the same time affirms his divinity. The text appears to say that the method of God’s drawing/dragging is scripture. Everyone that has learned and heard from the Father, despite not having been able to see him, comes to Jesus. In other words, those that have actually learned something from the scriptures and the words of the Christ will have salvation. (Gaebelein 1981:76 ) <<

The text says NOTHING about the Scriptures being God's method to "draw" people to Jesus in John 6:45. Christ only referred to Isaiah 54:13 ("And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children.") in defense of his statement on v. 44. Verse 45 is not talking about the METHOD of drawing, but rather it is a mere clarification of the Father's monergistic actions in bringing people to His Son...and that a Scriptural one, seeing as Jesus fell back on Isaiah 54, a very monergistic passage in itself. Furthermore, Mr. Bailey seems to have forgotten about these words in John 5:45-47:

45) Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, IN WHOM YE TRUST.

46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for He wrote of Me.

47) But if ye believe not His writings, how shall ye believe My words?

Remember: these were not unbelieving skeptics. These were Jews who earnestly sought to uphold the Mosaic Law, as Christ Himself tells us with the words "in whom ye trust". If reading Scripture were indeed God's method of drawing people, then WHY WEREN'T THESE ZEALOUS JEWS EVEN DRAWN? WHY DID THEY MISUNDERSTAND?

Moreso, this assertion ("Everyone who has heard...from the Father, comes to Me") is repeated in the negative 2 chapters later, specifically in John 8:43 and 47.

8:43) Why do ye not understand My speech? EVEN BECAUSE YE CANNOT /HEAR/ MY WORD.

8:47) He that is of God /heareth/ God's words: YE THEREFORE /HEAR/ THEM NOT, BECAUSE YE ARE NOT OF GOD.

So they did not hear because THEY WERE NOT OF GOD. We will get to chapter 8 and peruse the context of these verses in a while, but for the meantime let us press on with the article. Also, once we get to Mr. Bailey's explanation of John 10:25-30, we will see how this interpretation warrants some serious question-begging on his behalf, as I have already shown in part above.

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

>> Jesus again reminds them of his divine origin by saying not only is he bread from heaven, he is better than the manna of their forefathers. Another passage that is in chapter eighteen is worth noting, and seems to explain in more detail the meaning of 6:39. John 18:1-9 When Jesus had spoken these words, He went forth with His disciples over the ravine of the Kidron, where there was a garden, in which He entered with His disciples. (2) Now Judas also, who was betraying Him, knew the place, for Jesus had often met there with His disciples. (3) Judas then, having received the Roman cohort and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, *came there with lanterns and torches and weapons. (4) So Jesus, knowing all the things that were coming upon Him, went forth and *said to them, "Whom do you seek?" (5) They answered Him, "Jesus the Nazarene." He *said to them, "I am He." And Judas also, who was betraying Him, was standing with them. (6) So when He said to them, "I am He," they drew back and fell to the ground. (7) Therefore He again asked them, "Whom do you seek?" And they said, "Jesus the Nazarene." (8) Jesus answered, "I told you that I am He; so if you seek Me, let these go their way," (9) to fulfill the word which He spoke, "Of those whom You have given Me I lost not one." <<

>> Here we have Jesus in the garden with his disciples awaiting his arrest. When the guards come to seize him, Jesus does not hide but comes straight to them. He tells them to take Him and leave the others alone. The author then tells us, that this was His fulfillment of his earlier statement made in John 6:39. Here the loss that is prevented is of their earthly lives. While I am sure this verse still has relevance to us and our salvation today, it forces us to challenge the accepted meaning of the verse. If the verse is talking more in terms of Christ not losing his tools of evangelism and the foundation of his church, rather than in broader terms of salvation it may force a different view than the seemingly direct predestination view of the passage. For a clearer view on the matter, let’s look at Jesus’ own explanation of his statement. <<

Mr. Bailey clearly took the verses out of context. John 6 presented Jesus as preaching to a mixed audience of Jews and would-be followers who only wanted free food and a miracle. The disciples didn't even come into the picture until verse 60 when the ones whom Jesus saw would "go away" started complaining. In addition, it is clear from the wording of John 18:9 that the author was talking about John 17:12! Compare:

Jn. 17:12) "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Thy name: THOSE THAT THOU GAVEST ME I HAVE KEPT, AND NONE OF THEM IS LOST (past tense, God is the one addressed), but the son of perdition; that the Scripture might be fulfilled."

Jn. 18:9) That the saying might be fulfilled, which He spake, "OF THEM WHICH THOU GAVEST ME HAVE I LOST NONE." (past tense, God is the one addressed)

In addition, let's look at the text of John 6:32-46 and see if what Mr. Bailey is saying is indeed correct:

32) Then Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but My Father giveth you the true Bread from heaven.

33) For the Bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world."

34) Then said they unto Him, "Lord, evermore give us this bread."

The Jews are still fixated on the flesh, on what man can do, as many people even today are prior to doing. This is nothing short of a humanistic anthropocentrism that dominates the soteriology of many religions, whether they be theistic or otherwise. Only a few verses prior to the discourse on the Bread of Life, the Jews asked Christ "What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?" They were so focused on the aspect of doing that they missed the root of all action: believing.

35) And Jesus said unto them, "I am the bread of life; HE THAT COMETH TO ME shall never hunger; and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst.

36) But I said unto you, that ye also have seen Me, and believe not.

37) ALL THAT THE FATHER GIVETH ME SHALL COME TO ME; AND HIM THAT COMETH TO ME I WILL IN NO WISE CAST OUT.

Let's stop here for a second. Christ promised that those who come to Him shall never hunger (v. 35). Why WON'T they be hungry anymore? Because He will never cast out those who come to Him (v.37)! However, He made a little clarification: many among the group He was speaking unto did not believe on Him despite all appearances (v. 36, ref. vv. 26-27). Why? By implication of verse 37, they weren't given unto Him of the Father. Those who have indeed been given of the Father unto the Son are the ones who will no longer go hungry. Having said that, let us proceed further.

38) For I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me.

39) And this is the Father's will which hath sent Me, THAT OF ALL WHICH HE HATH GIVEN ME I SHOULD LOSE NOTHING, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40) And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."

Remember verses 35-37? Here's the crux. It has already been shown unto the reader that those who come unto Christ will never hunger, because He will never cast them out; and here He says that He will never cast them out because He came down from heaven to do the Father's will (v. 38). And what is the Father's will? That of all which He has given the Son nobody should be lost, but should instead be raised up again at the last day (v. 39)! And repeating the promise of verse 35, Christ indicates that the ones given unto Him of the Father are the ones who will truly believe on Him (v. 40) and thus will never be lost, but instead given everlasting life and the promise that they will be resurrected. See how all these verses are interlinked?

41) The Jews then murmured at Him, because He said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven."

42) And they said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He saith, 'I came down from heaven'?"

Behold the unbelief of the Jews. The depravity of their human reasoning would not let them accept the divinity and the importance of Christ's Person and mission.

43) Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, "Murmur not among yourselves.

44) No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw Him: and I will raise Him up again at the last day.

Jesus clarifies his earlier declaration in the light of the Jews' unbelief. After telling them to stop murmuring about His claims of divinity and what they knew about Him, Christ tells them that no one can come unto (or believe on--remember verses 35 and 40!) Him unless the Father drws them.

45) It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall be all taught of God.' (Isaiah 54:13) Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto Me.

46) Not that any man hath seen the Father, save He which is of God, He hath seen the Father."

It is written repeatedly in John how the Son "revealed" the Father to the people (ex. Jn. 1:14; 3:11-13; 5:16-23; 7:16-18, 29; 12:28; 13:8-11, 31), which is why He used Isaiah 54:13 in John 6:45. But even as Christ revealed the Father to everyone around Him, not all of them understood (ex. Jn. 6:41-42), and those who at the very least knew that Jesus was trying to make Himself equal to God tried to apprehend and kill Him for blasphemy (Jn. 5:18; 7:19, 32; 8:37, 59; 10:31, 39; 11:8, 47-54)! Those who did immediately recognized that He was of God (ex. Jn. 3:1-2; 4:29, 39-42; 6:67-69; 7:41a) and that it is only through Him that we can know the true God (Jn. 1:18; 3:11-13; 14:7-11), but it must be asked: WHY DID SOME RECOGNIZE HIM WHILE OTHERS DID NOT?

>> John 6:59-65 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum. (60) Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, "This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?" (61) But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, "Does this cause you to stumble? (62) "What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? (63) "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. (64) "But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. (65) And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."<<

>>Jesus sees that the disciples are struggling with the things he has said. He goes on to say in layman’s terms, “Oh, you think this teaching is difficult? How will you react when I depart from you and rise to heaven? What will you do when I go?” So, he asserts the importance of his message equating it again with scripture by saying it is spirit and life. Verse sixty-four and sixty-five tell us that Jesus said this thing, because he knew some didn’t believe in Him. He is explaining to them why they don’t believe, and at the same time using this truth to separate the true disciples from the fakers and the uncommitted. It would seem that Jesus is saying that God is preventing the insincere from remaining within his discipleship. Also, the fact that Jesus knew from the beginning exactly who would fall away seems to indicate real and concrete proof for the eternal predestination of the elect. These passages seemed to have been intended for a double meaning, speaking in specific terms of his earthly disciples, but at the same time revealing God’s foreknowledge and foreordination. So, what should we do with such seemingly contradictory viewpoints from scripture? As research was done for this essay, a pattern began to emerge as I studied the relevant scriptures. As we advance through selected scriptures, hopefully this pattern will emerge for you the reader. <<

They are only contradictory in this context because, as was previously shown, Mr. Bailey committed the error of taking verses out of context. In the larger context, they are only contradictory because Mr. Bailey assumes libertarian freewill to be true. This "contradiction" is the essence of his "tension".

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

>> Just as the view of predestination seems to overwhelm all else, we get another relevant statement right in the middle of the following chapter. In fact, Jesus makes several similar statements. John 7:37-39 Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. (38) "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'" (39) But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. <<

>> Jesus makes this wonderful and amazing promise to the Jews he came to save. If anyone seeks salvation, he will grant it to them. Not only will he give them that gift, he will impart his Spirit to them. So, anyone that wants to follow him and receive his spirit can. <<

Right before that scripture he mentioned, Jesus says the following to His own flesh-and-blood siblings (who likewise didn't believe in Him) in chapter 7:

6) Then Jesus said unto them, "My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready.

7) The world cannot hate you; BUT ME IT HATETH, because I testify of it, THAT THE WORKS THEREOF ARE EVIL.

and later in vv. 16-19:

16) Jesus answered them, and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His that sent Me.

17) If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of Myself. (important verse to consider!)

18) He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but He that seeketh His glory that sent Him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

19) Did not Moses give you the Law, AND YET NONE OF YOU KEEPETH THE LAW? Why go ye about to kill me?"

The last statement about not keeping the law despite it being given by Moses (whom the Jews Christ was talking to were boasting of) harkens back to John 6:45 where Christ states that all those who have learned from the Father will come to Him, only this time the statement is given in the negative. Then there's this interesting passage:

25) Then said some of them of Jerusalem, "Is not this He, whom they seek to kill?

26) But, lo, He speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto Him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ?

27) Howbeit we know this man whence He is: But when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence He is."

28) Then cried Jesus in the temple as He taught, saying, "Ye both know Me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of Myself, but He that sent Me is true, WHOM YE KNOW NOT.

29) But I know Him: for I am from Him, and He hath sent Me."

Let's fast forward to verse 34; this entire conversation is actually the setup for the conversation on Christ's person and his fundamental difference from the worldly Jews in Chapter 8:

34) Ye shall seek Me, and shall not find Me: and where I am, THITHER YE CANNOT COME.

Compare this with the later passage in John 13:36b, which instead speaks about Simon Peter, a regenerated individual:

Jn 13:36b) ...Jesus answered him (Simon Peter), "Where I go, you cannot follow Me now; but you shall follow Me afterwards."

Hopefully I have inserted enough context to let the reader know that slave's rendering of verse 37 is questionable without even having to bring up the question-begging evident in his statement. In fact, Mr. Bailey says it himself rather clearly: "anyone that WANTS to follow him and receive his spirit can." Once more, it must be asked if anyone would even want to follow Him when left to his own devices.

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

>> Even more relevant text occurs in chapter eight. John 8:12-19 Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, "I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life." (13) So the Pharisees said to Him, "You are testifying about Yourself; Your testimony is not true." (14) Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. (15) "You judge according to the flesh; I am not judging anyone. (16) "But even if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone in it, but I and the Father who sent Me. (17) "Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true. (18) "I am He who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me." (19) So they were saying to Him, "Where is Your Father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither Me nor My Father; if you knew Me, you would know My Father also." <<

>> With the setting of the statement in verse twelve considered, Jesus makes a bold and awesome statement by saying that he is the Light of the World. Jesus says that the one who follows after him will not walk in darkness, but have salvation. The Pharisees were probably deeply angered by his statement, so they sought to challenge his authority. Jesus explains the nature of His relationship with the Father, and explains how that fulfills the requirements of their law. His phrasing itself seems to be a rebuke, “Even in your law...” Notice he does not say God’s Law. This is a setup for his next statement; “You don’t know me or the Father.” Then we reach the meat of the relevant material. <<

Not much of a problem here, but...

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

>> John 8:21-24 Then He said again to them, "I go away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come." (22) So the Jews were saying, "Surely He will not kill Himself, will He, since He says, 'Where I am going, you cannot come'?" (23) And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. (24) "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." <<

>> Jesus begins this rebuttal with the statement that they will die in their sins. They will not reach heaven to commune with the Father. Then, Jesus says that unless you believe that I am God, not only will you die in body but in soul as well. (Note: I am not suggesting a second death, but rather I view hell as everlasting death, just as heaven is everlasting life) Within the same body of scripture, we see this tension emerge yet again. To the unchurched such teaching may seem contradictory, but to the theologically minded it displays the awesome power of God. <<

...It's plain enough to acknowledge that "If you don't believe that Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah, the One whose origins are of old and from everlasting and the sovereign Creator of all things, you shall die in your sins", but it's a stretch to try and say that this affirms freewill in humans. I can attest to this passage, give a nod to the aspect of human responsibility and affirm predestination all at the same time, since no one can believe Christ is God apart from the effectual regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. The reason why the ones who did not believe and repent are still responsible for their sins is not because they have some arbitrary freewill to choose right or wrong, but because they are free agents, beings which possess their own nature, desires, consciences and thoughts, and in turn this nature leads them to perform their respective actions. The will is not some neutral mechanism meant to be used when choosing between two things. Rather, we will when we already act upon a choice!

So no "tension" here, since these Jews were not really guilty simply because they failed to make a choice. Rather, they chose not because they desired not, and they desired not because they saw not (i.e. they were blind), neither heard not (i.e. they were deaf), and neither did they understand with their hearts (i.e. their hearts were of stone). The problem was the very depravity in their nature. The opening statement in John 8:12 states that those who follow Jesus can see; they have the light of life! But the Pharisees, in their blindness, refused to acknowledge His true character (this analogy is taken further in the ninth chapter). Christ ended up plainly stating in verse 19 that they neither know Him nor the Father, for if they had truly known Him then by implication they knew the Father also. A similar statement can be found in the preceding chapter:

Jn. 7:28) Then cried Jesus in the temple as He taught, saying, "Ye both know Me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of Myself, but He that sent Me is true, WHOM YE KNOW NOT.

A more pointed declaration can be found in chapter 5:

Jn. 5:37) And the Father Himself, which hath sent me, HATH BORNE WITNESS OF ME. Ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape.

Jn. 5:38) AND YE HAVE NOT HIS WORD ABIDING IN YOU: FOR WHOM HE HATH SENT, HIM YE BELIEVE NOT.

Jesus is speaking of something painfully obvious in these passages. These were devout Jews. They had the Torah. They had their beloved traditions. They sincerely believed that they were Abraham's children (more on this crucial topic later), and that they were following the Mosaic Law to the letter. These fundamentalist separatists sincerely believed they were right with God and that they had favor with Him. But there was something wrong! Christ told them that in spite of everything they had and did, they never truly knew God! Why is this so?

But let's not stop at verse 24. Let's check out some MORE relevant text in chapter 8 to find the answer:

30) As he spake these words, many believed on Him.

31) Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on Him, "IF YE CONTINUE IN MY WORD, THEN ARE YE MY DISCIPLES INDEED;

32) And ye shall know the truth, AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE."

33) They answered Him, "We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man; how sayest Thou, 'Ye shall be made free'?"

34) Jesus answered them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, WHOSOEVER COMMTTETH SIN IS THE SERVANT OF SIN.

35) And the servant abideth not in the house for ever, but the Son abideth forever.

36) IF THE SON THEREFORE SHALL MAKE YOU FREE, YE SHALL BE FREE INDEED.

Let's stop here for a moment. These are weighty words indeed! Christ explains to these religious Jews a couple of important points:

1) In verse 30, these Jews "believed" on Jesus. But for Christ, this initial "belief" wasn't enough! He goes on to tell them that "If you truly continue (abide) in My doctrine, then you are truly My disciples." Note the word "continue" in that passage. Does this mean that once we have initially believed, we need to continue or we'll lose our salvation? Yes and no. Yes, we truly need to continue (or persevere, as the writer of Hebrews says) in the faith and doctrine, not because we shall lose our salvation if we quit but because perseverance is the mark of a true Christian. Note how Christ phrases the passage itself: "If ye continue in My word, then are ye My disciples INDEED." In other words, perseverance is the affirmation of the outward profession of discipleship. If it were a warning about the loss of salvation then Christ would've said "If you continue in My word, then you shall remain My disciples" or something along similar lines. But how does this point fit in with the doctrine of monergism? We'll find out at the end of Chapter 15, but read on first.

2) Verses 34-36 are quite painful to read. "Whosoever commits (note: this participle denotes a continuing action) sin is the SERVANT (or slave!) of sin". It's important not to miss the meaning of this passage! The Jews, blinded by the flesh, wonder at Christ's proclamation that knowing the truth will set them free. "Hey hey hey, we're Jews, buddy. We're Father Abraham's seed, and we are NOT under ANYBODY'S heel. How then, in the whole wide world, can you say such as thing as 'you shall be set free'? Are you somehow telling us that we're NOT free?" to which Christ plainly replies "Exactly that. You're not free. Everyone who continues living in sin is the slave of sin. And slaves don't remain in the household forever. However, the Son (being the Heir and a freeman, since only freemen were able to purchase slaves back in the Roman empire) does! Therefore, if I set you free, you WILL be free indeed." We will here deal with part one of the major points Jesus was trying to make (divided neatly into several sections for your understanding), and enter into a little history lesson to clarify what Jesus said about "the slave(s) of sin":

a) He is the Son of God, the second Divine Person of the Trinity who is also equal to God the Father in standing. He is not like unto us: "I am from above; ye are from beneath" (v.23). He is sinless and without spot, "the Lamb without blemish" who would "take away the sins of the world" (Jn 1:29).

b) By stark contrast, humans are enslaved to sin. Slaves are ENTIRELY under the will of their masters, and moreso in the Roman Empire wherein slavemasters had the additional right to hold the very lives of their slaves in their hands.

c) Only a free man, especially in the context of Roman slavery (remember that Israel, or Palestina as it was called at the time, was under Roman occupation, and history shows us that Rome is basically a slave society), had the power to grant a slave freedom and give him full Roman citizenship (via a process called "manumission"; this legal action has several different varieties and at least two different outcomes, but within all of them only the legislated law, free man, or the slave owner had the power and right to declare when and whether a slave would be set free...or not. Read more about manumission here <http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dpd/delphinus/art/gutin.html>), and here Christ, having established his position as the Heir [to the Kingdom and of salvation] and as the uniquely-begotten Son of the Royal Family of God--thereby stating that he was the King and a Citizen of the Kingdom of God, and by logical extension, a free man--tells the Jews that only He had the power of manumission for the slaves of sin, and that only He could transform them from being the slaves of Satan's empire into full-fledged citizens of the heavenly Kingdom.

So Christ, in deftly alluding to concurrent slavery in the Roman Empire to describe the sinful state of humans, is actually establishing monergism in this passage; to the end that men might rest on the promises and power of God unto salvation, and not upon themselves (Eph. 2:8-10)! But let's not stop here. Christ goes on to explain why these religious men, standing before Him, do not accept His Word. The Jews already mentioned that they were Abraham's seed in response to Christ's claims of their slavery to sin. "We are heirs to the Kingdom! We are the promised children who will inherit the earth, the offspring to the free woman Sara as opposed to the bondwoman Hagar! How then do you say that we are slaves to sin?" Christ continues, after saying that all who keep committing sin are slaves to sin.

37) I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill Me, BECAUSE MY WORD HATH NO PLACE IN YOU.

38) I speak that which I have seen with My Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father."

39) They answered and said unto Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus saith unto them, "If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

40) But now ye seek to kill Me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: THIS DID NOT ABRAHAM.

41) YE DO THE DEEDS OF YOUR FATHER." Then said they to Him, "We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God."

42) Jesus said unto them, "IF GOD WERE YOUR FATHER, YE WOULD LOVE ME: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of Myself, but He sent Me.

43) Why do ye not understand My speech? EVEN BECAUSE YE CANNOT HEAR MY WORD.

44) YE ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, AND THE LUSTS OF YOUR FATHER YE WILL DO. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

45) And because I tell you the truth, ye believe not.

46) Which of you convinceth me of sin? AND IF I SAY THE TRUTH, WHY DO YE NOT BELIEVE ME?

47) HE THAT IS OF GOD HEARETH GOD'S WORDS: YE THEREFORE HEAR THEM NOT, BECAUSE YE ARE NOT OF GOD."

Jesus didn't merely say "You're too proud and obnoxious to hear My word" or "You simply don't get it because you didn't try hard enough to understand the Scriptures" or even a plain "Are you yet without understanding? (Matthew 15:16)". He specifically told them "You're of the devil. That's why you couldn't love Me or hear My word; instead you seek to kill Me, just as your hell-born father would do himself. If your Father were truly God as you claim, then you would love Me and you would keep My sayings (for they are not Mine, but the Father's which sent Me--John 14:24!); however, as it stands you're not even of God at all." Remember back in John 6:44-45 when Jesus said that everyone who has heard and learned from the Father will come to Him? Well, here's the exact same reasoning, only in the negative form. Those that have heard and learned from God will come to Christ; those who have not heard will not come. They who will not come act thus because they are of the devil. They are slaves of sin (vv. 34-35). And the only way such people could be freed from that slavery is if Christ Himself made them free (v. 36)! Monergism once more.

Let's look at how the Jews react to Christ's solemn truth. They resort to rage and ad-hominem...something which, ironically, even non-Reformed evangelicals do when confronted with this revelation about the depravity of man and the sovereignty of God over salvation:

48) Then answered the Jews, and said unto Him, "Say we not well that Thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?"

49) Jesus answered, "I have not a devil; but I honour My Father, and ye do dishonour Me.

50) And I seek not Mine own glory: there is One that seeketh and judgeth.

Verse 50 harkens back to verse 29 in the same chapter: "For I do always those things that please Him." Christ, being himself of the divine nature, is perfectly in harmony with God the Father. However, in this context He is setting Himself apart from these Jews who thought that they were honoring God. How does He do this? "I honor My Father, and seek His glory instead of mine. By contrast, you who think yourselves to be honoring God are not honoring Him at all." In what way do they not honor God? Let's go back to John 5:23b: "...He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent Him."

51) Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man keep My saying, he shall never see death."

This verse is extremely important. It is a free offer, but at the same time it is another affirmation: those who keep His words are saved. We'll come back to this verse in chapter 14-15.

52) Then said the Jews unto Him, "Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, 'If a man keep My saying, he shall never taste of death.'

53) Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? And the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?"

54) Jesus answered, "If I honour myself, My honour is nothing: it is My Father that honoreth Me; OF WHOM YE SAY, THAT HE IS YOUR GOD:

55) YET YE HAVE NOT KNOWN HIM; BUT I KNOW HIM: AND IF I SHOULD SAY, 'I KNOW HIM NOT', I SHALL BE A LIAR LIKE UNTO YOU: BUT I KNOW HIM, AND KEEP HIS SAYING.

Jesus re-emphasizes the stark truths he pointed out in vv. 43-47 against the blundering Jews who clearly missed out on the true meaning of eternal death and why they were headed for that place: for all their religion, they never knew God at all. If they did know the Father, Jesus says, then they would acknowledge Him to be the Christ.

56) Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day: and he saw it, and was glad."

57) Then said the Jews unto Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?"

58) Jesus said unto them "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

59) Then took they up stones to cast at Him: but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."

Awesome declaration of divinity. This final declaration in John 8 is the capstone, the pinnacle of the discussion which started with a free offer. Because Jesus is God, we can trust Him! He will never fail, and He will never lie to us. Also, it is a solemn declaration of judgment; Christ expressly says that all men are under the judgment because all men are slaves of sin. The reactions of the Jews to his comments about slavery to iniquity and His personal divinity only serve to heighten the point made in this chapter: All men by nature hate God, are slaves of sin and will keep on committing sin because a slave is completely under the power of his master. Moreso, a slave will not abide in the house forever; since he is not a free citizen (Paul talks a bit about such legalities in Acts 22:25-29, although in a different context), he has no rights to inheritance or property save that which his master may allow him.

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

>> Now, we’ll jump to chapter nine to look at Jesus’ second encounter with the blind man he healed. John 9:35-41 Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" (36) He answered, "Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?" (37) Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you." (38) And he said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him. (39) And Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind." (40) Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, "We are not blind too, are we?" (41) Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains. <<

>> Jesus uses the blind man’s situation to create a metaphor to teach the people and call out the Pharisees. In verse thirty-nine he establishes his sovereignty over the salvation of men. He brings blindness to those who had vision (i.e. the scriptures) the Jews, and to bring sight to those who were blind The Gentiles. (Henry 2002) <<

No problem here, but before you go on reading, please take note that the events and theme in this chapter are directly connected to the succeeding chapter, similar to John 7-8.

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

>> One of the strongest cases for predestination comes from the beautiful imagery of the Shepherd and his sheep in chapter ten, but even in one of the strongest texts in support lies the tension we have seen time and again. John 10:7-9 So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. (8) "All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. (9) "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. <<

>> He is the door that guards salvation, but anyone can go through that door. This is a beautifully poetic yet nonetheless effective offer of free salvation for all men. However, just before that, Jesus spoke of the sheep not hearing the robbers who came before him. He elaborates on this later. <<

The question still remains as to why anyone would enter the Door of their own will when that very same will is enslaved to sin and the person in question LOVES it. More question-begging. Remember, it's not in the "whosoever" so much as it is in the "will". Even a straightforward 5-pointer would affirm that if anyone would indeed go through that door, then they will be saved. The question is: WILL they do so ON THEIR OWN? Would someone so obviously enslaved to sin as to be completely enamored to it even WANT to go through that door? The answer is NO. They're chained to their sin (not to mention DEAD in it--you might as well invite a corpse to an after-dinner party) and they will never even want to go through unless God breaks those chains, raises their mortified souls and leads them from the grave of putrefying iniquity into the cleansing light of the cross of Jesus.

This is a poor treatment of John 10, actually. We shall return to this chapter and deal with it more fully in the conclusion.

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

>> John 10:25-30 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me. (26) "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. (27) "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; (28) and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. (29) "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. (30) "I and the Father are one."

>> He explains to them their unbelief, “You are not my sheep.” You are not the flock that was chosen. At the same time, it is a rebuke of their free rejection of God. As Albert Barnes put it, “Were it not for pride, and prejudice, and vainglory for your false notions of the Messiah, and from a determination not to believe, you would have learned from my declarations and works that I am the Christ.” (Barnes 2002) <<

Interesting. But it must be asked: where does that determination NOT to believe comes from? Despite the fact that Mr. Bailey admits to Christ's audience not being among His chosen flock, his usage of Albert Barnes' explanation sounds awfully similar to an Arminian's explanation of why man still has the capacity to make an arbitrary choice in his salvation despite the sinful nature; namely, that unbelief happens due to (as Barnes himself puts it) inherent pride, prejudice and a dozen other sins a person would stubbornly cling onto. Supposedly, this would be one of the Arminian response to why one person chooses Christ and not another (as opposed to an arbitrary choice, something which would only make absolute sense if one believed in human autonomy--interestingly, it appears that Arminians sometimes allude to this too, as can be seen in one such response to John Hendryx' online article "Challenge to Synergists" <http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/prayer_synergist.html>).

But this actually creates more problems. First of all, by saying that inherent pride and prejudice and a dozen other sins one could possibly think of are the factors which prevent men from accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior, couldn't we also say that, if only they had lesser pride and prejudice, as well as a right notion of the Messiah, they might have accepted Jesus as the Christ? I do not mean to put words in Mr. Bailey's mouth, but such an explanation would only serve to imply that the requirements for belief/unbelief lie on the virtues or vices inherent in a person, and such a stance would run contradictory to Scripture, since it is by God's grace and mercy that a person is lifted up from the fog of darkness in which he dwells and delights--not because of anything meritorious in ourselves.

The only way out would be to claim that such "wildcards" as humility, knowledge, wisdom and godliness (which aid in leading a person to accept Christ) were provided by God Himself, as John Patrick Holding of the Tekton Apologetics Ministry once did in his written response against Calvinism, brilliant apologist against unbelieving skeptics as he is. But if such a claim were made, wouldn't the Arminian be inadvertently leaning towards the Calvinist's position...that is, our salvation is God's work alone? And even if the Arminian were to make the counterclaim that we still have freedom in exercising such virtues or not, would it still not beg the question of WHY some men chose NOT to accept God while others do?

Remember when Mr. Bailey claimed that the Father's method of drawing was the reading of Scripture back in his interpretation of John 6:45? We may now apply our present question to his reasoning: why do some people understand Scripture and some do not? And even if you taught them regarding their misunderstandings, why do they still continue to look for errors and contradictions, as the Pharisees and Sadducees did in the synoptic Gospels, for instance? And even if they did understand, then why do they STILL try to look for more excuses NOT to repent and believe? We have lots of instances like that nowadays: atheists who take Bible verses out of context and butcher words just to make the Christian God fit their image of a dweeb, the Jesus Seminar folks, various Arian sects who deny Christ's deity, the Roman Catholic Church with her unbiblical doctrines of sacramentalism and sola ecclesia...the list is nigh endless. Remember, these are people who have access to Scripture, and even if you DO correct them, they'll still cling tenaciously to their perceptions and precepts! WHY?

In conclusion, Mr. Bailey should have stopped with the statement that the Jews believed not, simply because they were not of Christ's sheep...for by comparison, Christ's sheep listen to His voice.

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

>> In chapter eleven we again come to an I am statement. John 11:23-27 Jesus *said to her, "Your brother will rise again." (24) Martha *said to Him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." (25) Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, (26) and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?" (27) She *said to Him, "Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world." <<

>> Again, salvation is freely offered. In fact, if you look at every “I am” statement it is coupled with the free gift of salvation. I will skip all those already covered, but let’s look at those remaining. <<

Of course men would be "free" to believe in Christ...but only if they weren't so preoccupied with the desires of their heart in the first place! The full answer to this inerpretation will be given in the next section.

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

>> John 14:6-12 Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. (7) "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." (8) Philip *said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." (9) Jesus *said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? (10) "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. (11) "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. (12) "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. <<

>> As we see here, Jesus says if anyone (this phrasing appears to have been used repeated) loves him, he will have salvation. <<

Let's look at the text a little more closely than Mr. Bailey has done, starting with verse 12. I want to emphasize a point as we near the close of this article, although we will tie all these points up during the next (and last) Scriptural citation to see how they all fit in together within the framework of the Gospel of John.

12) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto My Father.

13)And whatsoever ye shall ask in My name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14) If ye shall ask any thing in My name, I will do it.

15) If ye love me, keep My commandments.

16) And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you forever;

17) Even the Spirit of truth; WHOM THE WORLD CANNOT RECEIVE, BECAUSE IT SEETH HIM NOT, NEITHER KNOWETH HIM: BUT YE KNOW HIM; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18) I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

19) Yet a little while, and the world seeth Me no more; BUT YE SEE ME: because I live, ye shall live also.

20) At that day ye shall know that I am in My Father, and ye in Me, and I in you.

21) HE THAT HATH MY COMMANDMENTS, AND KEEPETH THEM, HE IT IS THAT LOVETH ME: AND HE THAT LOVETH ME SHALL BE LOVED OF MY FATHER, AND I WILL LOVE HIM, AND WILL MANIFEST MYSELF TO HIM."

22) Judas saith unto Him, not Iscariot, "LORD, HOW IS IT THAT THOU WILT MANIFEST THYSELF UNTO US, AND NOT UNTO THE WORLD?"

23) Jesus answered and said unto him, "If a man love Me, he will keep My words: and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him.

24) HE THAT LOVETH ME NOT KEEPETH NOT MY SAYINGS: and the word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father's which sent Me."

After all the conditional statements, Jesus makes a startling declaration: "He who has My commandments and keeps them loves Me, and I will manifest Myself unto him." Jude, evidently keeping the previous prophecies of Jesus "leaving" them ("Yet a little while, and the world seeth Me no more", etc.) in mind, wondered exactly how He would manifest Himself to them once more without the world seeing Him--obviously in the spiritual sense here, since Christ speaks of men "keeping His words", although even after His physical resurrection He manifested Himself only unto His beloved disciples and to 500 chosen followers. Is He going to hide Himself or something? How is it that the world will neither see Christ nor the Holy Spirit, but those who follow Him in spirit and in truth will?

Jesus replies, "If a man truly loves Me, then He will keep My words, and I and My Father will come and live with him. If a man doesn't love Me, he will never keep My sayings: and remember that the word I speak unto you isn't Mine, but they are of the Father who sent Me." This is NOT a declaration of a free offer of salvation! Rather, He is comparing the actions of the one who loves Him and the one who doesn't: the elect and the non-elect, respectively! The man who loves Him will keep his sayings, but in contrast those who don't will reject them! Remember John 5:51, 10:9 and 11:25-26 from earlier, as well as unmentioned passages like John 6:54-58, 7:17 and 8:31-32? Well, now we can keep them in perspective. In fact John even repeats this invaluable bit of wisdom in 1 John 2:3-6, concerning the assurance of salvation. Furthermore, he repeats the claim that His words are not solely His, but the Father's. Remember how Jesus spoke of those hearing and learning from the Father being the only ones who would come to Him (Jn. 5: 37-38; 6:45, 64-65; 7:28; 8:37-47; 54-55).

Note how this connects neatly with the aforementioned facts that a) even though the world will never see Him, the future apostles will, and b) the world cannot receive the Holy Spirit because it neither sees nor knows Him, but the apostles will enjoy His presence. Christ was establishing some sort of difference between the apostles and the world. So how does this fit in with the rest of John's record? Read on for the conclusion.

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

>> Again it is made clear with the final I am statement. John 15:1-5 "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. (2) "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit. (3) "You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. (4) "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. (5) "I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. An exhortation is given to remain in the vine and to seek to bear fruit. If such an exhortation is given, it implies that the exhortation can be obeyed or disobeyed. <<

It still begs the question of whether or not the ones exhorted are capable of performing the command at all, not by virtue of any strengths and advantages they may have but rather by their very desire to obey! And let us press on with the Scripture for a much clearer exposition, as here we shall finally deal with the "tension" which Mr. Bailey seems to see in Scripture, for, as the Scriptures themselves shall demonstrate, there is no such tension at all:

6) If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

7) If ye abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

8) Herein is My Father glorifed, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be My disciples.

9) As the Father hath loved Me, so have I loved you: continue ye in My love.

10) If ye keep My commandments, ye shall abide in My love; even as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love.

11) These things have I spoken unto you, that My joy might remain in you, and that your joy may be full.

12) This is My commandment, that ye love one another, as I have loved you.

From verses 1-12, Christ makes repeated conditional statements (with verse 4 being an imperative command, and the commandment of verse 12 reflects the one found in Jn. 13:34). If one does not take the contexts of the preceding chapters into account, as well as fail to interpret vv.2-3 and 4-5 according to the proper relationship of the statements, verses 1-8 would seem to imply that the salvation of men is contingent upon their works...and indeed Arminians have long attempted to use this as prooftext for the loss of salvation. Let's stop here for a while and look at it briefly before we continue to the remnant of chapter 15 and tie up every point I have made in this exegetical exposition of the gospel of John. This section is important if we want to bring together everything.

a) In vv. 2-3, Christ explains that fruitless branches are taken away and fruitful branches are pruned, or cleaned--and we see that the remaining 11 disciples, the true "chosen ones" of Christ who were given to Him of the Father (Jn. 17:11-12; compare Jn. 13:10-11). Christ moves from the general statement that true and false disciples are determined by their fruits (ref. Mt. 7:15-20, Lk. 6:43-45) to the more specific example of the remaining 11 sitting before him at the Passover table being, by implication from the "pruning" action of the Father upon the fruit-bearing branches in v. 2, fruitful branches and therefore, true disciples. Keep this in mind as I explain the second and third points.

b) In vv. 4-5, Christ gives an imperative command: "ABIDE in Me, and I in you." Why is this? He goes on to explain: "As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, no more can you, unless you abide in Me." So it is EXTREMELY necessary for the professing Christian to have a deep connection with Jesus, an everlasting abiding in Him, that he may bear fruit. But Jesus doesn't stop there either; He goes on to show the one inevitable result of abiding in Him: "He who abides in Me and I in him BEARS MUCH FRUIT." Bearing fruit is the inevitable effect of abiding in Christ. There can be no other result apart from this. But also notice the explanatory statement: "...for APART FROM ME YOU CAN DO NOTHING." A believer can NEVER bear fruit apart from the input of God's grace through Jesus Christ. Now let's move on to the last point:

c) Look at verse 6. The verse a lot of non-Reformed folks who believe in eternal security often find troubling. But as we have seen, the man who abides not in Christ would produce no fruit, and the one reason why God the Father saved us by the work of God the Son and sealed us by the indwelling of God the Holy Ghost is that we might bear fruit! Verses 4-5 actually reflect several other passages in the New Testament's Pauline epistles, such as Philippians 2:12-13, Ephesians 2:8-10, Colossians 3:1-3, 1 Thessalonians 4:7, and 1 John 2:27-29. In the end, taking this passage out of context of the previous verses will make it beg the question of "how can a true Christian abide in Christ and NOT produce any fruit?"

But there is actually a greater question at hand: "Why does God give imperative orders and make conditional statements? Doesn't it mean that people could choose at any time to obey them or not?" Yes and no. Yes, we are responsible to obey such orders, but no, it doesn't imply that we are free to obey them. This is why the Mosaic Law--or any law, for that matter--expressly fails; although it is holy and good, and it tells us what God's character is like and what He desires, it is powerless in itself to MAKE us holy and good (interestingly, Mr. Bailey insists back in John 6:45-51 that the Father's method of drawing is "Scripture". If this were so then why do a disproportionate amount of people who have access to Scripture end up wresting it unto their own destruction <2>? Just look at the Mormons, the Witnesses, the Catholics...and even the disciples themselves !). All it does is show us where we go wrong; it condemns us (Rom. 7:7-13).

However, there is another side to this. If you look at verses 23-24 of Chapter 14, Christ tells his disciples the difference between the man who loves Him and the man who doesn't. The man who loves Him will keep His Word, and the man who doesn't love Him will not keep his word. There is a direct parallel between this and the Vine/Branches analogy in John 15: "He who abides in Me produces much fruit, and he who does not abide in Me (the one who does not produce fruit--for apart from Him we can do nothing!) will be cast out and burned."

13) Greater love hath no man this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

14) YE ARE MY FRIENDS, IF YE DO WHATSOEVER I COMMAND YOU.

Same thing we saw in Chapter 14: "You ARE _______ if you _________." A statement of affirmation. And once more, it should be asked just how men will follow Christ's commandments if they didn't even desire Him in the first place.

15) Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

16) Ye have not chosen Me, BUT I HAVE CHOSEN YOU, AND ORDAINED YOU, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in My name, He may give it you.

I actually saw an Arminian friend of mine try to explain away this passage by saying that it only meant Jesus chose to save the world even though it didn't choose Him. But given what has been explained about the vine and the branches as well as the imperative commandments, we now know from the immediate context WHY these disciples will bear fruit. They were ordained of Christ to do so!

17) These things I command you, that ye love one another.

18) If the world hate you, ye know that IT HATED ME BEFORE IT HATED YOU.

19) IF YE WERE OF THE WORLD, THE WORLD WOULD LOVE HIS OWN: BUT BECAUSE YE ARE NOT OF THE WORLD, BUT I HAVE CHOSEN YOU OUT OF THE WORLD, THEREFORE THE WORLD HATETH YOU.

20) Remember the word that I said unto you, 'The servant is not greater than his lord.' If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. IF THEY HAVE KEPT MY SAYING, THEY WILL KEEP YOURS ALSO.

21) But all these things will they do unto you for My name's sake, BECAUSE THEY KNOW NOT HIM THAT SENT ME.

22) If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.

23) HE THAT HATETH ME HATETH MY FATHER ALSO.

24) If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

25) But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

Here are some very blunt words about the difference between the disciples and the rest of the world. Verse 18 sets the stage for the discussion about persecution (which extends into Chapter 16): the world has hated Christ--God--before it hated the disciples. But why does it hate the disciples of Christ? Verse 19 says it all: Those chosen of God are no longer of the world, just as Christ is not of the world (ref. John 8:23-24, 17:14-16). Christians throughout the centuries who have lost countless friends and became alienated from families and relatives who rejected them can attest to this. Missionaries martyred by hostile pagans can attest to this. Stephen, the very first martyr who got stoned by an angry Jewish audience in Acts 7, can attest to this. And verse 20 clarifies it: "Whatever reaction they had toward Me, the same they will have towards you. If they raised a hand against me, they will likewise do so unto you. If they listened to My words, they will listen to you also (remember this!)." This harkens back to the words spoken in John 7:7.

Verses 21-25 basically explains why they do it, in a similar vein to John 8:21-59. "They (the denizens of the world) are going to do all these wicked things unto you for My name's sake, because they don't know Him (the Father) who sent Me." The ultimate cause of their hostility towards the gospel of Christ is more than simple pride, prejudice, or ignorance, as Mr. Bailey in quoting Albert Barnes implied earlier. It's because they DO NOT KNOW GOD AT ALL. This is explicitly repeated over and over and over again in John: Jn. 3:19-21, 3:27, 5:23, 5:37-47, 7:28-29, 8:12-59, 12:44 (rendered in the positive), 14:7 (again, positive), 14:18-24 and 16:1-3.
So why all the conditional statements? Why the barrage of rebukes against unbelievers who "resist the Holy Ghost" at every turn? How can we look at them in the light of election? What does Christ's being God have to do with all this?

Interestingly, the answer is found in the middle portion of the Gospel of John: John chapter 10. Mr. Bailey merely glosses over this chapter, picking out a few prooftexts while trying to establish his so-called "tension". Let's take a closer look at it.

1) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

2) But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.

Christ establishes the exclusivism of Christianity in His opening verses. As stated in John 14:6b, no man can come unto the Father except through Him. But he goes on to mention something rather telling:

3) To him the porter openeth; AND THE SHEEP HEAR HIS VOICE: AND HE CALLETH HIS OWN SHEEP BY NAME, and leadeth them out.

4) And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, AND THE SHEEP FOLLOW HIM: FOR THEY KNOW HIS VOICE.

More about "hearing Christ's voice", this time in the form of an understandable analogy using the shepherd and his sheep...a subject many of his listeners would undoubtedly have known, for shepherding has been a major livelihood in Israel for almost 1,500 years. Having gone through John 5:37-47, 6:35-45, 8:43-55 and so on, we now come to a deeper level of understanding concerning Christ's call to salvation. Those who are truly His sheep will hear His voice and follow Him, as Christ would later explain--in plain language--to His disciples concerning His commandments and the nature of the man who loves Him...in John chapter 14. Furthermore, it is asserted here that Christ knows His own sheep BY NAME. Here is a wonderful two-way relation which all Christians ought not only to take comfort in, but also to consider with caution: Christ knows His sheep by name, and in turn the sheep know Him, and hear only His voice (refer to the succeeding verse).

5) And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: FOR THEY KNOW NOT THE VOICE OF STRANGERS."

Here Christ talks about discernment. See Galatians 1:6-9 and and Ephesians 4:14. Discernment is one of the marks of true, mature Christians (see Hebrews 5:11-14); consider how it is repeatedly trumpeted in the final pages of Scripture how many false Christs, false Prophets and scoffers will arise to deceive many--and IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE, even the very elect (see Matthew 13:22, Acts 20:28-30). But it follows from this declaration that the true sheep are safe from such dangers in the Shepherd's hands, even though it may beset them on all sides (see 1 John 18-29, Psalm 23).

6) This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which He spake unto them.

This chapter is a continuation of the events in John 9 (the healing of the blind man), and obviously Christ was conversing with the Jews and Pharisees who accosted him at the end of the previous chapter. Note here how they still do not understand what Christ is getting at, but also note how the blind man's confession of faith and the Pharisees' skepticism flow neatly into the context of Christ calling His sheep by name. We will get to that later.

7) Then said Jesus unto them again, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the Door of the sheep.

8) All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
Again, see 1 John 2:18-29.

9) I am the Door: by Me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Being a resident of the Philippines, I am well aware that we have many sects who teach that "if you join us you'll be saved, but if you leave us you'll be doomed to destruction!" And it's not just the Jehovah's Witnesses; we also have the lucrative Dating Daan and the large Arian cult Iglesia ni Cristo (around 2 million strong and growing). But look at the vast difference between the salvation of such false religions and the salvation offered of Christ. Many religions teach that one is saved so long as he remains within the ranks of their church memberships, but here Christ teaches that once a man enters Him, the only Door unto true salvation, he will walk in and out ("walking" here obviously refers to everyday living) and find pasture--satisfaction in Him. Christ will keep and sustain Him! He will lose none of those men whom the Father gave Him, but shall raise them up again at the last day (Jn. 6:39-40)!

10) The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

See Colossians 2:8 for a fuller understanding of John 10:10.

11) I am the Good Shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

Verse 11 parallels Mark 10:45: "For even the Son came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, AND TO GIVE HIS LIFE A RANSOM FOR MANY." There is a definite scope of atonement given in these verses: Christ came to lay down His life for the sheep.

12) But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

13) The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.

14) I AM THE GOOD SHEPHERD, AND KNOW MY SHEEP, AND AM KNOWN OF MINE.

Here it should be clear that Christ knows His sheep in particular, and is known of them. He repeats the statement made earlier in verse 4..

15) As the Father knoweth Me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down My life for the sheep.

16) AND OTHER SHEEP I HAVE, WHICH ARE NOT OF THIS FOLD: THEM ALSO I MUST BRING, AND THEY SHALL HEAR MY VOICE; AND THERE SHALL BE ONE FOLD, AND ONE SHEPHERD.

Later in John 11:47-53, the Jewish high priest Caiaphas made an unwitting prophecy about how Christ should die "for the nation", that is, the Hebrew nation; however, John also elaborated on how this substitutionary atonement was to be made not only for the Jews, but also in order to "gather in one the children of God which were scattered abroad" (v. 52). Also, in Christ's prayer in John 17, verses 20-21 record Him as saying "Neither pray I for these alone (i.e. the remaining 11 disciples), but for them also which shall believe on Me through their word; that they all may be one; as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us: that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me." Here He is talking about the Gentile peoples of the earth, but taken in the larger context of knowing His sheep and the sheep knowing and hearing His voice, it is made very clear here that Christ came to redeem a definite population of "sheep", as His parable states. Later He even goes on to explicitly state how these unbelievers scoffing at Him weren't of His sheep.

17) Therefore doth the Father love Me, because I lay down My life, that I might take it again.

18) No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of My Father."

Christ displays His authority and power in these verses, and by mentioning the commandment of His Father he proclaims the power of the Trinity by extension.

19) There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.

20) And many of them said, "He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye Him?"

21) Others said, "These are not the words of Him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?"
Christ's teachings are the kind of things you would expect to cause division, even among unbelievers. This is because He is so radically different from the world and its inhabitants, and though He came to share in the infirmities of our flesh, He was untainted by sin.

22) And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.

23) And Jesus walked in the Temple in Solomon's porch.

24) Then came the Jews round about Him, and said unto Him, "How long dost Thou make us to doubt? If Thou be the Christ, tell us plainly."

25) Jesus answered them, "I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in My father's name, they bear witness of Me.

26) BUT YE BELIEVE NOT, BECAUSE YE ARE NOT OF MY SHEEP, AS I SAID UNTO YOU.

We all know how unbelievers keep demanding this kind of information and that of Christians, and unless they get their questions answered they wouldn't believe. Not that they would even if we knew every single detail, anyway. Here are the Jews demanding Christ to just tell them plainly if He was indeed the chosen Messiah. I wonder where exactly their vaunted Scriptural knowledge went, since they probably knew all about God's response to Job's complaints. This is the unbeliever's arrogance at work, and yet Christ obliges them over and over again: "He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent Him (Jn. 5:23)", "I am the bread of life (Jn. 6:35)", "...for I am from Him; and He hath sent Me (Jn. 7:29)", "When ye have lifted up the Son of Man, then ye shall know that I am He (Jn. 8:28)", etc. Many miracles and consistent Scriptural evidences have been presented before them; what more could they want?

Yet these religious men continued in their hardness of heart. Why so? If Scripture were indeed the Father's method of drawing people, as Mr. Bailey insists, then why did these Jews, who bragged about poseessing the Law of Moses, still persist in their skepticism? The answer is made plain: "YE ARE NOT OF MY SHEEP". How many times has Christ told them this? "And ye have not His (God the Father's) word abiding in you; for whom He hath sent, Him ye believe not. SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES; FOR IN THEM YE THINK YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE, AND THEY ARE THEY WHICH TESTIFY OF ME. And ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life (Jn. 5:38-40)." "But there are some of you that believe not...therefore said I unto you, THAT NO MAN CAN COME UNTO ME, EXCEPT IT WERE GIVEN UNTO HIM OF MY FATHER (Jn. 6:64-65)." "...but ye seek to kill Me, because MY WORD HATH NO PLACE IN YOU. (Jn. 8:37)".

27) MY SHEEP HEAR MY VOICE, AND I KNOW THEM, AND THEY FOLLOW ME:

28) And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, NEITHER SHALL ANY MAN PLUCK THEM OUT OF MY HAND.

29) My Father, which gave them Me, is greated than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of My Father's hand.

30) I and My Father are one."

If by now you were wondering where you've seen these verses before, it's because this record is roughly similar to the infamous election passage in John 6:35-45. God the Father draws the sheep, who are the only ones who manage to hear Christ's call. When once they have been given to the Son, they shall no more perish, but have passed from death unto life. In addition, Christ distinguishes those who aren't His sheep from those who are, by the simple reasoning that the latter hear His voice and follow Him. The phrase "Neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand" is directly related to verses 5 and 8 within the same chapter, wherein Jesus states that His true sheep will not be led astray by false gospels, prophets, teachers and apostles.

Moreover, the impact of the proclamation of verses 26-30 increases when one takes into consideration how chapter 10 is a continuation of chapter 9. Remember how Christ mentioned that He came into the world so that the blind may see and the seeing made blind, after He had once more encountered the blind man whom He healed, and how the Jews and Pharisees railed against Him for saying such an offensive thing? The blind man was one of His sheep. Why? He heard Christ's voice and followed. The Jews and Pharisees weren't of His sheep. Why? Because they would not hear (understand) Him.

Having seen multiple repeated statements and events, we may thus derive several general themes from the Gospel of John. Note that:

1) Jesus is indeed the Christ, but more than simply being another kind of anointed servant, He is the divine Son of God, the second person of the Trinity and the Creator of all things. He is not only equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, he is also of the same essence as they are and exists harmoniously with the both of them, all three persons being in perfect unity and agreement. (Jn. 1:1-3, 9, 10-11, 29-30, 49-51; 5:16-23; 8:19, 58; 10:30-39; 12:44-45; 13:16, 19-20, 31-32; 14:7-11, 16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:13-15; 17:1-5, 22; 18:36-37; 20:28)

2) Man is unable by himself to come to God due to his state of corruption, and needs to be delivered from his fallen state if he is to have any salvation at all. Left to himself, he will continue resisting God and following his natural desires, that is, the sinful flesh and the whims of the devil. In fact the Apostle Paul himself repeatedly mentions and alludes to this fact in passages like Romans 6-8, 1 Corinthians 1:21-31and Galatians 5:19-21. (Jn. 1:5, 10-11; 2:24-25; 3:3-8, 19-20, 27; 5:37-47; 7:5-7, 28-29; 8:12-24a, 37-49, 54-55; 10:25-26;12:37-41; 15:18-25; 16:1-3, 20; 17:14)

3) Salvation can only be found in Christ Jesus, by acknowledging His true divine nature as well as obeying His commands and calls unto repentance and faith in Him and His work of atonement; but because of the depravity of man no one can come unto Him unless the Father draws the person. Neither can men understand the Scriptures or the Gospel by themselves unless the Father Himself would teach them, for otherwise they would only subject them to mocking and derision. He explicitly teaches monergism in addition to the exclusivity of the salvation found in Him, to the chief end that men would not lean upon themselves for the sake of acquiring salvation, but upon the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. With this concept of monergism in mind, Christ makes conditional calls, declaring both His divinity and the free offer of salvation to all men at the same time. However, He does so with the knowledge that no man will come unto Him unless the Father initiates the salvation of the individual, and therefore not all men would respond to His call favorably. He even admits that He came into the world to save a certain number of men, whom He calls His "sheep" or "flock". (Jn. 1:4, 12-13, 29; 3:14-21, 36; 4:13-14; 5:19-27, 40; 6:26-29, 35-58, 61-66; 7:37-39; 8:12-27, 31-36, 37-47; 51-55; 9: 35-41; 10:1-18, 25-30; 11:25-26; 12:20-36, 44-50; 13:8; 14:6; 15:16; 17:6-26; 18:37; 20:31).

4) Without disclosing unto us the exact identity and number of His sheep (for this is relegated unto the secret counsel of God), He gives us certain vital characteristics of His flock; namely, that they recognize His identity, love Him with all their heart, soul, mind and strength, hear His words, keep His sayings, obey His commandments and remain united with Him, even unto the very end. By contrast, those who aren't of His flock will continue to struggle with and resist His words, and thus will remain and die in their sins (believers: Jn. 1:12-13; 3:21; 5:24-25; 6:37-40, 54-57; 8:31-32, 39, 47; 10:4-5, 8, 14, 27-30; 13:10, 34-35; 14:21-24; 15:14; 17:6-8; 21:15-17. Unbelievers: Jn. 1:5, 10-11; 3:19-20, 36b; 5:18, 37-42, 46-47; 6:41-42, 52, 60, 66; 7:18-24, 30, 32-36, 44; 8:13, 28, 37-59; 9:16a, 18-41; 10:20, 24-26, 31-39; 11:46-57; 12:10-11, 37-43; 14:24; 15:18-25; 16:1-3, 20).

In conclusion, we can then answer the question: Why does Christ give conditional commandments all throughout the Gospel of John? While we Calvinists may acknowledge these first two truths, I would like to declare that it is not only to inform men of what God desires of them and what they are responsible for doing--disabled as they are from performing such tasks due to their inherent hatred of God and His precepts--or to declare among men that singular and non-negotiable path unto salvation, which is through Jesus the God-Man (Jn. 14:6), but also, as He Himself says, to call out His chosen sheep from among the mingled flock of lambs and wolves. His sheep hear his voice! He is even now separating the wheat from the tares, since as He Himself has said, "the fields are ripe and ready for harvest" (Jn. 4:34-38). He is indeed the "true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world (Jn. 1:9)", but being the Light He knows what is in man, and thus reveals the hearts of men (Jn. 2:23-25, ref. Luke 2:34-35), whether they are with Him or against Him (Jn. 3:19-21).

Let us now close with a quotation of Christ's very own words to Pontius Pilate:

"Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. EVERY ONE THAT IS OF THE TRUTH HEARETH MY VOICE." (Jn. 18:37)

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

>> What are we to make of this controversy? There is evidence even within John for conflicting points of view, so let us look in turn at some of the explanations sought by men. The Augustinian/Calvinistic explanation seeks to place emphasis on the sovereignty of God, and who could blame them. If scripture is not totally clear, it is logical to err on the side of caution and prevent ignorance from limiting God’s role in salvation. However, it is not fair to ignore the testimony of scripture. The most common demand of Augustinians/Calvinists is the demand for consistency. They demand a flat concrete answer to the age old question: Is God sovereign or does man have free will? They are quick to assert that it is an either or question citing a plethora of verses as proof. For example, a common verse cited states that all things were planned from the end to the beginning. To allow within statement room for the free will of man is the gravest form of inconsistency. However, they are left with the same quandary. The same question can be turned around to force an incorrect meaning. If all things are planned out from the end to the beginning, then why would God plan sin? Therefore, God forces man to sin. This is obviously illogical and false, but nonetheless you can improperly ignore the tension of scripture to force your point of view. The same tension between predestination and free will in non-Calvinist systems exists also between predestination and man’s sin inside of Calvinist Theology. <<

Here we see another of the many attacks Arminians hurl against Calvinists: "God could not have predestined according to the Calvinist doctrine, because it would mean God is the author of sin." I as a Calvinist will wholeheartedly admit that the mystery of predestination is not fully knowable in this life, and neither is the true reason for the entrance of sin, death, decay and evil into an otherwise perfect world. Yet while Mr. Bailey thinks that this is a foolproof argument against Calvinism, he is on the other hand rather quick to conclude that Divine sovereignty and human freedom MUST exist as some sort of mysterious dichotomy. This is nothing short of a double standard.

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

>> They aren’t the only ones guilty of ignoring the whole picture. The Arminian and Pelagian systems both ignore the clear testimony of scripture in regards to election. Pelagius denied key doctrines on original sin and denied the sinful nature of man. (Cairns 2002:324) He denied the very essence of the reason behind the need for salvation and God’s grace. Arminianism (modern Arminianism at least) looks past the evidence for God’s sovereignty and sometimes accepts the Molinist explanation. Molina was the counterpart of Ignatius of Loyola. He believed in three kinds of Divine knowledge, but the staple of his system was scientia media or middle knowledge. He supposed that God could predestine and man freely act, because of God’s foreknowledge of the free action of man. While a nice idea, it has no grounding in scripture and is merely a human attempt to rationalize the tension, but in effect still puts all the emphasis on man. (Geisler 1999: 493) <<

Good assessment, Mr. Bailey, and rightfully true; but could you not see that you are doing the exact same thing yourself in the entireity of your dealings with Scripture? While admitting to passages that "overwhelmingly" teach predestination, you are still quick to dismiss them in light of passages which you think imply free will (for the mere reason that they are general commandments/free offers), and then go on to conclude that there is some sort of "tension" present. The sad truth is that you're just not willing to let go of free will altogether!

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

>> There is not, in the author’s opinion, a distinct theological system that takes all things into account.

The burden of proof is upon you to establish one, but please stop for a minute and reflect on the following words of God to Job:

"Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? Canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?" (Job 38:33)

No matter what kind of theological system you may end up establishing, there will still be the fact that an infinite amount of God's knowledge is still hidden to us. This seems to be a mere copout to try and dismiss Calvinism as a one-sided affair.

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

>> Could it be that both Calvinism and Arminianism contain soteriological truths? Isn’t it better to recognize and examine the tension provided in scripture, than to force the scriptures into one view or another?

Actually, no, since one system recognizes that God is completely sovereign over the universe while the other seeks to try and make Him "fair" by pulling Him down to the level of a human being. The "tension" you speak of only appears if one assumes that "free will" is needed in order for man to be responsible, and if one were to accept it it would be like saying the sky is blue and bright neon pink at the same time.

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

>> A careful study of the scriptures reveals a balance of free will and predestination. A pattern emerges of a clear and real tension similar to that of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, or the theanthropic nature of Christ. Perhaps the answer to the age old question, is God sovereign or man free, is a resounding yes. We must seek to avoid the pitfalls of straying to much to one side of the argument or the other. Justin Martyr saw once such pitfall, “Neither do we maintain that it is by fate that men do what they do, or suffer what they suffer. Rather, we maintain that each man acts rightly or sins by his free choice.” (Bercott 1998:285) Justin Martyr rightly speaks against the fatalistic views that are sometimes held as a result of the misinterpretation of scripture. Just as easy however, is the opposite possible. The belief in free will coupled with misinterpretation of the scripture has lead men down the path of open theism. An unknown author once said, “Without free will, how shall God judge the world? Without grace, how shall God save the world?” (Water 2000:377) How then, can God perfectly predestine, and men freely choose? The answer is simple: By the awesome and boundless power of God. <<

In the very end, Mr. Bailey's attachment to the notion of arbitrary and libertarian freewill shines through the rhetorical clutter of "A dichotomy concerning human freewill and God's predestination exists in Scripture and therefore both Arminians and Calvinists must be partially true." His opinion on the subject hasn't really changed too much since I first encountered him in #prosapologian, and while he now admits to predestination, he still ends up, by virtue of his insistence on a free entrance of just about anybody into heaven of their OWN arbitrary choice, placing himself in a position of "tension" where he is likely to be ripped apart between two opposing poles. It's either God is sovereign over salvation, or man is sovereign.

References:

[1] See What Happened in #prosapologian Today? Pt. 1 (http://www.peterpike.com/philosophy_display.php?id=4) and Pt. 2 (http://www.peterpike.com/philosophy_display.php?id=5)

The Power of Art

2005-08-16T13:31:00.000+08:00

We circled the huge, graying monolith as rains fell around us, soaking the dark pavement. Soon we came to the barely visible side entrance, made plain only by the cordons and signs directing vehicles to pull into the small alcove. I exited the vehicle, signed the guest logbook and walked into the building. After some confusion, I found myself at the top floor of the CCP building, in front of a small gallery containing only 6 paintings. A quick glance at the logbook in front of the plaque assured me that this was the right place, so I walked in and took long, hard looks at the pieces within the tiny chamber.

Apparently Dennis Gonzales was one of those UP students who religiously attended art exhibits, expos and the like, or so the plaque behind the entrance states. Not much of a problem to understand, I guess. There are and will be people who are like that. But let’s get down to business.

The tiny exhibit, entitled "Hombre", is indeed a fascinating study on human nature in visual form. Though his style involves taking pre-existing works and remolding them into his own work by generously pouring in a quart of what appears to be his adopted philosophy in life, Dennis accurately portrays the modern human condition to a great degree. I say "accurately" because while his paintings depict somber, often morbid situations with touches of irony and dark, sardonic humor, a quick glimpse of reality will prove that he is, in most cases, correct.

Take "Okama" (Japanese for "oven"?), for instance, in which a bisexual parody of the first woman, Eve, stands right beside not only that ancient enemy of man, the Serpent, but also a cartoonish fairy godmother. Just imagine for a moment: is this not the very embodiment of today’s confused and flamboyant sexuality? Or the shocking "Hombre", a painting depicting a child whose teddy bear is being "examined" by three adult men. In my scant experience surrounding art exhibits, never has the wanton destruction of innocence by perverted humans been so powerfully put across, as one’s eyes quickly move from the tearful face of the child (framed in a halo, to wit) to the teddy bear being fingered by one of the old men, and finally to the blood trickling down from beneath the girl’s skirt.

Ah, yes, blood. The very symbol and essence of [physical] life, as it is written by the lawgiver, "For the blood is the life" (Leviticus 17:11). Most of Mr. Gonzales’ works feature gory details, from the splattered pillar in the rather decadent composition "Lord" to the crimson rain in the bitter yet humorously puzzling "Superman". What better way to depict mankind’s idiosyncrasies with than the crimson lifestream itself, which flows within his veins? Yet here it is gratuitous; wasted, I might even say. Perhaps that is the exact intent of the author, for often mankind’s prowess and soul is wasted on mundane things that only contribute to his self-destruction. A kind of mental and spiritual bloodshed, if you will.

The most striking piece, though, lies in the very center of the gallery: the colorful collage entitled "Mankind". Here the many facets of man are revealed--from sadness and laughter to idealism, superstition, lust and hatred--as numerous faces interact with each other amidst random drawings of animals and cartoon figures like Road Runner, Popeye and even the Warner Bros. version of Superman (perhaps this is one way of saying how silly and yet how bestial we are?). Easily the most eye-catching and varied composition in the little room, as it attempts to feature every possible bias and thought men possess. Yet there was one figure in the painting that often caught my eye: the drooping head of Christ lying in the very center of it all, complete with greenish pallor.

At present, it leaves me wondering: is this the very influence of the whole "God is dead" mentality that sprang up during the so-called "Enlightenment" and broke out into a sort of epidemic during the 70s and beyond?

Perhaps the one thing I dislike about Gonzales’ works…and believe me, high art is such that you do not exactly end up criticizing the artist’s methods but rather his worldview…is that his negative atmosphere leaves little room for hope. It’s one thing to tell us how blind and utterly desolate we are (and believe me, in today’s bland age of individualistic postmodernism, we need such things), but to leave man without hope only opens the door for a sort of societal suicide.

As I left the room, I glanced back at the painting located to the left of the gallery entrance. "Man-made" depicted a bleeding wild cat brutally bound by wires and left in the middle of a dark road. I cannot help but wonder at the truth and at the same time the semantic incompleteness of the picture. Is everything man-made cruel as opposed to nature (in this case, the feline)?

Or does the artist merely wish to say that what sinful man often does is cruel?

"When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. Distressed and hungry, they will roam through the land; when they are famished, they will become enraged and, looking upward, will curse their king and their God. Then they will look toward the earth and see only distress and darkness and fearful gloom, and they will be thrust into utter darkness." – Isaiah 8:19-22

So Wazzup?

2005-06-15T13:02:00.000+08:00

I'm quite busy at the moment. People who think artists have an easier time than geophysicists and microbiologists should enroll in art school, but here's what I'm engaged in for the time being:

1) I'm reading an interesting e-book, "Creation Compromises" from the staff at Apologetics Press. It deals mostly with newfangled creation schemes like the Gap Theory, Progressive Creationism and Theistic Evolutionism from a presuppositionalist perspective. And it's free! Any Christian worth his salt over the controversial matter of creation should check out this written work, but be warned: there is quite a smattering of Arminianism at the very beginning.

2) I'm going over the old ground in my electronic copy of Joseph R. Faranaccio's book "Faith with Reason: Why Christianity is True" and while I'm finding it quite helpful, I must admit that the old evidentialist frrame of mind still gets in the way of my meager understanding of presuppositionalism. However, a recent reader reply on Answers in Genesis sparked this little thought on my part: Why do some Christians who normally hold to presuppositionalism suddenly turn into rampant evidentialists when matters concerning creation are presented on the discussion table? Think about it.

3) I've also been checking out some works by the Japanese artist Yoji Shinkawa. For those of you who don't know who he is, he is best known as the character and technical artist/designer behind the Konami games "Metal Gear Solid" and "Zone of the Enders". In fact, if you head on over to Peter Pike's official website and check out the cover art for his next novel "Ghost Shadows", you can tell that I've incorporated Shinkawa's fluid chiaroscuro lighting techniques into my realistic drawings (in fact it was Shinkawa's work that got my ball rolling on realistic art).

4) Fandom galore! While downloading resource packs for use in Game Maker 5.3, I found out that one of them contained various MIDI files from assorted games, movies and songs. Around more than a third of the tunes were old-school BGM tracks from the classic Sonic the Hedgehog series on Genesis, from the first game up to Sonic & Knuckles, and there were some tracks from Donkey Kong Country (which I didn't get to play), Final Fantasy 3 and 5 and even a midi rendition of Roxette's "Almost Unreal" (I was wondering what it was doing there, but then again "Almost Unreal" was a major hit in Europe). I had the time of my life jamming to the Azure Hill race track BGM from Sonic 3 and the infamous classic melody of Starlight Zone from Sonic 1.

5) I've been playing an online Flash game, "Ultimate Sonic" by menace.ch. It used sprites from the GBA game "Sonic Advance 2" and, needless to say, I was impressed by the detailed animation, which led me to search out the sprites myself (I've had a fruitful search, mind you...). That aside, the game also featured a hidden end theme: if you manage to unlock Amy Rose (the pink hedgehog with a HUGE crush on Sonic) and beat the game with her, you get to hear the first stanza of the Team Rose theme song "Follow Me" from the game "Sonic Heroes". Result? Up till now I couldn't get the song out of my head. It's just so darned CUTE, and the fact that Kay Hanley has a very good upbeat singing voice doesn't help matters any. Not only did it beat out the Pop n' Twinbee song "Twin Memories" by a mile, it also inspired the remodeling of a character design, which you can check out here.

6) I discovered a Japanese fanart page dedicated exclusively to Sonic the Hedgehog. Yeah, sure, it contained the usual drawings and stuff, but it also had an...interesting hidden gallery. I left the website thinking "Why didn't I think of turning Sonic into a real person?" Man, these Japanese cartoons are stranger than I thought...

7) Exclusive "BabelVania" production update! New levels are now available! In addition to the "Cavern Underneath the Soil", "Decrepit Watchtower", "'Scientific' Laboratory" and "The Temple of Salt", we now have the "Ivory Clock Tower" and "Corridor of Denial". New dialogues and characters available too! And finally, let's not forget the 30+ SHORT SWORD CLONES! The only problem is that...uh...I...don't...have...Macromedia Flash.

Oh, you didn't know I was making up a "game" called BabelVania? ;-)

You Gotta Have White Hair!

2005-06-01T14:47:00.000+08:00

I got whiff of a recent trend in the Konami game, Castlevania. Unless you haven't heard by now, a majority of the new heroes have white hair. The artist Ayame Kojima must have a flair for hot punks with silvery white locks. But I also picked up another common thread. Ever notice how in the games wherein the heroes have white hair, Dracula (or some other penultimate enemy) surely got defeated? By "surely" I mean they kicked his butt hard and good, and effectively returned Vlad to his 100 years' slumber.

If so, then I have a brand new theory: the secret to the efficiency of a Vampire Hunter lies in his hair color! Think about it. Of all the heroes in the Akumajou Dracula universe, who were the ones who managed to put Drac down for the count for _good_? The guys with white hair, of course! Alucard (Nocturne in the Moonlight version), Nathan Graves (greyish hair, but close), Juste Belmont, Soma Cruz...that's four games with four guys who had the potential to become ridiculously broken, overpowered AND handsome to boot (I would've listed Hector, but Curse of Darkness isn't out yet). Who else could run around carrying the entire US armory in their cloaks without so much as even showing signs of fatigue? And when they fought through their games, they finished it real good, while in comparison their non-white haired counterparts did poorly! Why? Because they had white hair while their other compatriots didn't!

I mean, just think for a second. At some point in the Dracula novel, Jonathan Harker's hair turns white from despair. Later, after he and Quincey Morris dealt the finishing blows on Vlad, only one of them survived the final battle. Guess who it was. ;-)

And besides, consider the following:

1) Is this why Trevor Belmont had to rely on three (THREE! Do you know how much three is!?) Partner Spirits just to get through Transylvania and defeat the Count?

2) Is this why Simon got afflicted with a horrible curse and had to fight Dracula TWICE just to get rid of it?

3) Is this why Christopher didn't kill the Count outright on his first adventure (no pun intended), leading to the kidnapping of his son Soleiyu?

4) Is this why Richter Belmont got brainwashed by Shaft 5 years after he initially schooled the Count, turning him into a bad guy?

5) Is this why both Hugh Baldwin and Maxim Kischine weren't chosen to wield the Vampire Killer, and subsequently got twisted to serve the purposes of the Dark Side (TM) out of sheer jealousy?

6) Is this why neither the Genesis game "Bloodlines" nor the N64 games were even marginally successful compared to the other blockbusters?

7) Is this why Dracula had to steal Cornell's powers of lycanthropy in exchange for the release of the hapless werewolf's human sister?

8) Is this why Koji Igarashi thought of removing Sonia Belmont's game from the series' official timeline?

9) Is this why Julius Belmont lost his memory after sealing the Demon Castle in the sun and had to wait 30 long years for a white-haired exchange student to foil Graham Jones' plans and destroy the castle's chaotic essence?

10) Is this why Leon Belmont NEVER got to fight Matthias as the final boss?

11) Is this why Nathan Graves wasn't _too_ powerful in his GBA debut (remember, he had greyish hair)?

And lastly:

12) Is this why Dracula rises every 100 years??

If my assumptions are correct, then by all means...I'll force myself to forget about proper cranial ventilation, let my hair grow out until the end of the year and bleach it a snowy white. Then I'll gladly plunk myself into a coffin for a good, long rest until the year 2106 comes along or some cultist nutcase decides to disturb my beauty sleep.

An Article I Wrote

2005-04-02T02:22:00.000+08:00

This is some really eclectic and weird stuff, but anyway I'd like you all to read this.

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

Last Sunday I was left in a whirlwind of doubt. Being a Young-Earth Creationist (a very misunderstood and unpopular stance, not only in today's secularly-dominated scientific arena but also among many groups of professing Christians), I was suddenly attacked by a wave of confusion regarding the entire philosophy of the general theory of evolution in all its forms: biological, geological and stellar (outer space).

“Could the Theistic Evolutionists and Old-Earth Creationists (Christians who believe in either biological evolution or a 5 billion-year-old earth/14 billion-year-old universe, or even both) be true?” I asked myself. “Maybe God did use evolution...maybe the earth IS old, after all, and there was a possibility of animal deah before Sin entered the world through Adam...what if we're wrong?” I was left in a dizzy, and was generally moody throughout the rest of the day.

However, by the grace of God I was able to discern later on, through the aid of some articles and a bit of memory regarding past studies, that behind the seeming “scientific truth” of long-aged development of the universe and its inhabitants is a paradigm that is not only irrational, but also runs contrary to Scripture--the end-all and be-all basis for conservative creationist scientists. The paradigm--or worldview--in question is naturalism, with its 18th-century offspring, uniformitarianism.

Naturalism assumes that only material nature exists (e.g. natural laws--laws of physics, chemistry, etc. This belief is also known as materialism, and is held by atheists/agnostics) and that only naturally-observed phenomena may be used as a criteria for determining not only how everything operates, but also how everything came into existence. Uniformitarianism, popularized by the lawyer-turned-geologist Charles Lyell, is related to naturalism in that it INSISTS that today's geological features MUST be explained by--and ONLY by--untold ages of erosion, sedimentation, tectonic movements, etc. all operating at uniform, present-day rates over the course of time (hence the name).

One can immediately see how absurd this kind of thinking is, because it ASSUMES unchanging, gradual processes as bases in making further assumptions on how old a rock formation is or how it got there in the first place, all while ruling out any unpredictable and cataclysmic events that might have acted as wildcards. This ruling paradigm has become so widely accepted that an entry on “catastrophism” (a naturalistic, albeit more realistic, take on geology that allows for the possibility of catastrophic events in shaping the geological history of the earth), which runs contrary to uniformitarian principles, declared it as a bankrupt idea.

From here we can see that behind most of secular historical science (a science that theorizes about the natural history of the earth, and is actually far more philosophical than scientific in nature)--in this case historical geology--lies an a priori commitment to materialistic worldviews that assume only the existence of matter and impersonal laws, and nothing else besides. In the end, my response to the old-earthers and the theistic evolutionists on the age of the earth and universe is this: “Why is it necessary for you to assume LONG AGES when those who have popularized the idea thereof have actually birthed it from flawed philosophies?”

But even more importantly, I learned about the importance of being well-grounded. Paul instructed the early Christian believers residing at the ancient Roman cities of Ephesus and Collose to establish their lives in Christ and the Holy Scriptures, so as not to be carried about by “every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:13-15) and “spoiled” through vain, deceitful philosophies (Colossians 2:7-9). But what does my explanation on a historical scientific stance have to do with Thursday's event?

While at the Women's Month celebration held in Bonifacio Shrine, I noticed a set of displays on abortion. Being a conservative, pro-life Christian, I could not help but agree with the message that abortion is simply another form of murder; a throwback to the humanistic and evolutionary dogmas of “eugenics” promoted by the Nazi scientist Ernst Haeckel, who employed subtle deceptions in order to convince the public of the necessity of the Third Reich's ethnic-cleansing quest for the Aryan “master race”. However, one thing caught my eye. A picture of the severed head of an infant contained the caption “Freedom of choice??”

Hmm. Freedom of choice, indeed? Pro-choice advocates treat human life as if it were nothing more than a mere inconvenience to be disposed of at the will of a fellow human being. But let us not forget one of the underlying factors in the enactment of abortion: the consent of the mother. And feminists have gone a long way just to lobby that “right” (which is still being disputed, by the way). Remember the Roe vs. Wade case in the US? The 1973 court battle that legalized abortion-on-demand? It's still being trumpeted by radical feminists as a triumph of “Women's Rights”.

It's a good thing that the Philippines is still somewhat conservative as a nation. In today's liberal atmosphere it's good to find a stable landmark every now and then. But I have to admit that I was taken aback by the display on abortion in a feminist fair. I have no complaint on teaching women livelihood activities (noodle-making, haircuts, etc.), but the display on abortion revealed to me the vast inconsistencies within the feminist camp. It's practically a given that any philosophy that was never rooted in Christ and the Bible to begin with will eventually implode, and this is solid evidence (in fact there are three general types of feminists known, but I won't mention them now). Why? Because the message generated by the “freedom of choice???” poster directly contradicts the “woman's right to choose” rhetoric we often hear abortion advocates trumpet.

In a moment I had been dazzled, but after realizing this I walked away from the exhibit with a heavy heart. We so often blind ourselves to that which we do not wish to see. It is a blessing to know that there are still people who will fight for the right of a so-called “blob of flesh” claimed to be part of the woman's body so long as it doesn't have human features, but then again it must be asked: on what BASIS are they fighting for it? I was primarily confused because here was a philosophy that supports the "woman's right to choose" fighting for the life of the unborn. The one thought racing through my head was "Maybe I was wrong about the feminists. Maybe they ARE right."

A casual look at the DIWA pamphlet I picked up when I first came to Bonifacio Shrine set me aright once more. One of their lectures was on dating, and some of the topics involved how patriarchal constructs and power influence dating. "Wait...these people still seek to turn everything upside down. So on what basis are they willing to defend the life of an unborn child? Is it because life is sacred (which generally religious Filipinos wouldn't deny) or is it because the fetus and the woman are victims of an 'aggressive and heartless patriarchal society'?"
I am terribly sorry, but I am NOT a supporter of the Women's Movement, nor will I ever be one. Just as I stand my ground on the issue of the origin of the universe, so likewise I stand my ground on the issue of feminism. I have too much respect for the (complementarity of the) opposite sex to subscribe to the ideologies of the Sisterhood!

John Calvin on Creation

2005-03-09T10:04:00.000+08:00

I was browsing through the Alpha & Omega Ministries Pros Apologian blog today, and found this entry about James Patrick Holding's (the director of the Tekton Apologetics Ministry) unwillingness to admit that he had been exegetically defeated in the TULIP "debate" with Dr. James White.

In the entry, Dr. White quotes a portion of John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter 1 section 4. While reading through this rather insightful statement, I found this little ditty:

"A rebellious spirit will display itself no less insolently when it hears that there are three persons in the divine essence, than when it hears that God when he created man foresaw every thing that was to happen to him. Nor will they abstain from their jeers when told that little more than five thousand years have elapsed since the creation of the world. Of course, this third assertion should not have been classed with the first and second, which respectively concern the Trinity and Gods Omniscience, since it involves a chronological computation assuming no gaps, based on the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, together with several assumptions about the chronology of Genesis 1. (For further reference see notes on Book One, Chapter XIV, section 1.)* For they will ask, Why did the power of God slumber so long in idleness? In short, nothing can be stated that they will not assail with derision. To quell their blasphemies, must we say nothing concerning the divinity of the Son and Spirit? Must the creation of the world be passed over in silence? No! The truth of God is too powerful, both here and everywhere, to dread the slanders of the ungodly..." (emphases mine)

I was wondering to myself what he meant when he said "this third assertion should not have been classed with the first and second, which respectively concern the Trinity and Gods Omniscience" (this, BTW, seemed related to the second emphasized phrase), so I decided to do a little searching of my own. I read through the first book of the Institutes, and eventually stumbled upon the reference Calvin cited in the above quotation. Here it is:

"God was pleased that a history of the creation should exist--a history on which the faith of the Church might lean without seeking any other God than Him whom Moses sets forth as the Creator and Architect of the world. First, in that history, the period of time is marked so as to enable the faithful to ascend by an unbroken succession of years to the first origin of their race and of all things. This knowledge is of the highest use not only as an antidote to the monstrous fables which anciently prevailed both in Egypt and the other regions of the world, but also as a means of giving a clearer manifestation of the eternity of God as contrasted with the birth of creation, and thereby inspiring us with higher admiration. We must not be moved by the profane jeer, that it is strange how it did not sooner occur to the Deity to create the heavens and the earth, instead of idly allowing an infinite period to pass away, during which thousands of generations might have existed, while the present world is drawing to a close before it has completed its six thousandth year." (emphases mine)

So we see that the third assertion shouldn't have been classed with the Trinity and omniscience/foreknowledge, because according to Calvin, the unnregenerate person may well ask--demand, rather--something concerning the secret counsel of God, which no man has any right to know unless the omnipotent Creator, who alone is privy to his own thoughts, first deem it willing to reveal thus unto him (in hindsight, shouldn't the same person ask the same thing concerning the Trinity and omniscience?). He maintains, however, that with the unbeliever it is impossible to discuss the things of God, as revealed in Scripture, without meeting some form of hostility or general opposition. Calvin continues:

"In fine, let us remember that that invisible God, whose wisdom, power, and justice, are incomprehensible, is set before us in the history of Moses as in a mirror, in which his living image is reflected. For as an eye, either dimmed by age or weakened by any other cause, sees nothing distinctly without the aid of glasses, so (such is our imbecility) if Scripture does not direct us in our inquiries after God, we immediately turn vain in our imaginations. Those who now indulge their petulance, and refuse to take warning, will learn, when too late, how much better it had been reverently to regard the secret counsels of God, than to belch forth blasphemies which pollute the face of heaven."

Hmm, I wonder...is this not what the deist James Hutton did, in surmising that the earth existed for countless ages via the existence of rock layers compacted by pressure and differing in substance? Is this not that very thing which the unbelieving Charles Darwin practiced, in postulating that all the specie of the world must have transitioned into one another, perhaps from a single ancestor?

"Similar is the madness of those who charge God with idleness in not having pleased them by creating the world countless ages sooner than he did create it. In their cupidity they affect to go beyond the world, as if the ample circumference of heaven and earth did not contain objects numerous and resplendent enough to absorb all our senses; as if, in the period of six thousand years, God had not furnished facts enough to exercise our minds in ceaseless meditation. Therefore, let us willingly remain hedged in by those boundaries within which God has been pleased to confine our persons, and, as it were, enclose our minds, so as to prevent them from losing themselves by wandering unrestrained." (emphasis mine)

This is exactly what materialistic scientists try to do. Under the guise of being "open-minded" or "open to new challenges", they inform us that the universe and life must have come about through non-personal, random forces occuring within a nigh-infinitesimal period of time (which was deduced to allow for the extremely low probability of the events occuring...some scientists even go so far as to say that the universe had been existing for an eternity). And where does God fit into the picture? Nowhere! They dare not allow a Divine foot in the door for it would bruise their enlightened egos. Who needs the miracles of the God of Scripture when all things can be explained by that wonderfully omniscient god, Materialistic "Science"? Since they fit in so perfectly with the heathen philosophy noted in the above quotes from the Institutes, let us rephrase Calvin's last sentence in the above quotation to mirror their uunbelieving axioms:

"Therefore, let us willingly remain hedged in by those materialistic boundaries within which we have been pleased to confine our persons, and, as it were, enclose our minds, so as to prevent them from losing themselves by wandering unrestrained into religious superstition."

Hypocrites.

*For more information on the arguments non-conservative Christians use when (re)interpreting Genesis 1-11 to fit the hypotheses put forth by unbelieving materialist scientists (including gaps in chronologies), see AiG's excellent section on Genesis.

"They Are of the World"

2005-03-02T09:50:00.000+08:00

I know that Casey (a.k.a. The Rusted One of Many IRC Nicks) had been involved in a somewhat heated discussion in his Cultural Diversity class (which, I believe, is just a cubit, cubits and a half shy of "Gender Development") over the topic of homosexuality just a short while ago. You can read his side of the exchange
here. Imagine labeling the homosexual behavior as a "culture"...sheesh.

Thinking about that whole scenario, my own thoughts can't help but wander toward the prospect of having my butt handed to me on a platinum tea tray in Gender Dev't. That's right, I've submitted my official reaction paper. If you read through it, you can see that it's a bit disjointed.

Class will begin in a few minutes, and we will have our preliminary exams. To be honest, I can't help but feel intimidated. The professor appears to be a very bright and assertive woman. Good for her, but she seems to have this penchant for bullying students (mostly aimed at those who couldn't handle their reports well enough). I also can't help but feel as if the female population of the class (which outnumbers the male population by around 4 to 1) will end up seeing me as a woman-hater.

Feminism appeals to women, not only because it attempts to address the many problems of daily life for women in a fallen world (If you would gladly scroll down, serrevin told me something very interesting on the subject of fallen human personalities affecting social behavior between the sexes), but also because it seeks to empower the "little woman", to establish her ideentity based on rules that women have composed and give her autonomous control over her own life. If I were a woman, I honestly would find such an idealism impossible to resist apart from the grace of God!

But I believe that the main reason philosophies such as these appeal to humans is because we are rebels. We don't want anybody else's rules governing our actions. We don't want people to get in the way of our hopes and dreams. Ever wonder why Betty Friedan saw housekeeping as drudgery and the home as a "comfortable concentration camp" (her words, not mine)? It was because she cared about her own vainglory more than the welfare of her husband and children, and in writing angrily speculated that most women in America felt the same way she did. She most likely tapped into the selfishness of many housewives in America (and by the way, don't we ALL have that failing?) and launched a cultural revolution that ruined American family life in the long run. By extension, we are all the same.

Case in point: the Israelite people during the great Exodus from Egypt. I ran across a commentary on my newer Bible the other day and found its message very interesting; basically, when God was very visible back in the day, there were few atheists. However, there WERE a lot of rebels to go around. A casual reading of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers reveals how people often fall short of pleasing the Triune God, mainly because the desires of their own hearts and minds get in the way so much. The same is evident here. Women in actuality desire to be treated like queens, they way we men SHOULD have treated them according to God's good plan (see Ephesians 5:24-26). But instead, we failed greatly because of our unregenerate hearts...and now they're taking revenge with their own brand of rebellion.

It's 9:41 as I am typing this, and my exams are about to start. Today might be less hectic than the next, but I must set my heart in God and not be swayed should persecution arise because of my belief. And I believe Rusty could use the same passage below as well.

"Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error." (1 John 4:4-6)

Machaira is considering renaming his blog to either "MACHinations" or "MACHismo" in honor of irRational

Just Some Stuff

2005-03-01T17:39:00.000+08:00

I promised a friend I'd post this link a few days back, but never got around to actually doing it. Well, he can come see it now:

"It's 'Mordor'. With a D."

Also, here's a little something to remember from a #prosapologian regular:

[16:38] (DeoVolente) I think God teaches us in debate and frustration that he is the one who changes hearts and minds. So, that is the peace that I take recourse in and not my own pride.

Short Take on "Without a Paddle"

2005-02-22T12:52:00.000+08:00

O...K. This reaction will be short, sweet, and slightly disjointed. It's been several days since I watched the movie and I still remember most of it, but for now I'd like to deal with the philosophies in the movie. First of all, though, I'd like to share some thoughts about the basic good and bad of the film. It'll help us understand the nature of the philosophies embedded in the script.

Funny. I guess that's what this show is, so I'll give it that. For one, I liked the Matrix parody mainly because I regularly make fun of those wacky bullet-dodging scenes the first movie was famous for...you know, Keanu Reeves bending backwards with arms waving and all. In fact, I liked most of the *cleaner* comedy in the film, such as Tom's dumb remarks (the part where the native American tells him off was a nice touch) or Dan's lame, almost-embarassing Threepio cracks (that just kinda shows you how much of a big nerd he really is). The fishing-with-a-flashlight scene? Only in the cartoons. And the grizzly bear episode was rather...cute.

However, around halfway through the film, everything grows lame and dare I say too postmodern pop culture. For one thing, it seemed kinda predictable that the hash field would end up getting burned, but why play into all the 70's “good tripping” drug scene? I know this will sound lame to many of my contemporaries, but as Mrs. Reagan said, you don't need drugs to have fun. In fact, this movie made a number of cracks without necessarily needing to get into the liberal and offensive side of things, although sadly the bathroom jokes outnumbered the more General Audience ones.

And what about those blonde New Age tree huggers? Goodness, that was probably nothing more than a sorry excuse for gratuitous sexual innuendo. Without a Paddle didn't need any of that junk. The homosexual gag in the cave, Dan’s repeated complaints about not being able to get it on with a girl, the numerous references to “downstairs”…this film seems like typical American White Trash sex party stuff at some later points, and it really does nothing for the story. It just ended up killing my interest faster than a gunshot wound right down the middle of the corpus callosum.

Here’s the bad part. What started as a “good ‘ol boys” film with a ton of potential for unearthing the deep treasures of bonding and friendship ended up as just another summer teen flick that stars a trio of angst-ridden twentysomething adults instead of a group of angst-ridden high school sophomores. Whatever shred of morality there was in the film was all but invisible as the viewers are instead treated to a slew of comedic nonsense.

I’ll be fair, since comedy is one literary tool that can be used to make a point—and it does happen at certain points in the film, like the part where Dan stitches up Tom’s wounded arm or the scene where the three heroes fall into a mine pit. Although, mind you: good, lasting points in this film scarce. In fact the very main “moral” of the film is just humanist, existential blather smothered with feel-good overtones (“He burned his money just to stay warm.”). True, money and possessions are nothing compared to a life fully lived. But then again how would the film define a “full life”? Why, doing the things you want to do for the sake of [your own] happiness, of course! Have fun! Hang out with your buddies! Enjoy every spare minute you have because at the point of death it all goes away and we can never take it with us. This life is all we have, so make sure you drink in every last drop like a long, tall Screwdriver on a hot day.

Don’t get me wrong here, I am NOT denying the fact that these guys had to sacrifice their own self-absorption just to help each other (and that IS a crucial part of friendship: coming out of one’s own hole to help another)…but ultimately, it’s all a collective selfishness. And I am only able to say these things because I am a born-again, evangelical Christian. A life lived without any relation to the one, true Triune God whatsoever is good for nothing more than a tool to be used as God sees fit (Ecclesiastes 6:7-9, Romans 9:14-18). And furthermore, herein lies the futility of humanism and materialism (not the “gimme-gimme” kind of materialism, but the philosophy): the belief that the earthly life is all we have. The good news is that those whom God has redeemed have a better destination than this corrupt earth (see 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians 15). But I guess I shouldn’t expect anything much from unbelievers on the matter.

In hindsight, I wonder why I even laughed in the first place.

More on Feminist Stuff

2005-02-18T00:26:00.000+08:00

A friend of mine, who goes by the nick "Serrevin" in the IRC chat channel I go to, had a discussion with me about my writing on Egalitarianism, and it was a good one. Here it is:

[20:44] (machaira) Evin, could you please look this over and see if I made any misakes in my argumentation?
[20:44] (machaira) *mistakes
[20:44] (serrevin) yeah
[20:44] (serrevin) let me see it
[20:44] (machaira) http://machairaina.blogspot.com/
[20:45] (machaira) Latest entry
[20:45] (serrevin) what are you dealing with?
[20:45] (machaira) Feminism
[20:46] (serrevin) k
[20:47] (serrevin) what's the title?
[20:47] (machaira) "Egalitarianism...Yeahright"
[20:47] (serrevin) k
[20:52] (serrevin) I think it was pretty cogent
[20:52] (machaira) Oh?
[20:53] (serrevin) i'm a bit more sensitive to the feminists but the argument definately makes sense
[20:53] (serrevin) did you have any reservations about it?
[20:53] (machaira) Well, I thought my argument was lacking somewhere. Especially when I touched on media.
[20:53] (serrevin) how so?
[20:54] (machaira) They could claim that "Well, the commercial pushed you to want it!"
[20:55] (serrevin) it's very hard to argue with modern liberals
[20:55] (machaira) I thought in response, "Unless the female had any perceived need prior to the viewing of the advertisement, she wouldn't bite the hook."
[20:56] (serrevin) would we be able to sell a product in masse to women that helps them grow facial hair?
[20:56] (machaira) Would they even want that?
[20:57] (serrevin) of course not
[20:57] (machaira) Good point.
[20:57] (serrevin) there has to be a previous dispostion toward a percieved need/want in order for a commercial to work
[20:57] (serrevin) all the commercials do is simply embellish the need/want
[20:57] (machaira) Yes...ads don't give us desires. They just play on existing ones and direct them to the particular product/service offered.
[20:57] (machaira) Yep.
[20:58] (serrevin) well there you go
[20:58] (serrevin) hahah you can use the "facial hair" thingie if you like
[20:58] (serrevin) but yeah dude, it seemed pretty tight to me
[20:58] (machaira) Thanks.
(non-related entry)
[20:59] (serrevin) i've always complained about the confusion of "feminism"
[20:59] (serrevin) you know they want equal rights
[20:59] (serrevin) but when the titanic is goin down they expect us to give them the last lifeboat
[20:59] (machaira) And to heck with us?
[21:00] (serrevin) well that's the thing
[21:00] (serrevin) was leo supposed to punch her out, and fight for his life like the men were doing with each other
[21:00] (serrevin) what would the reaction have been?
[21:00] (machaira) So much for equality
[21:01] (serrevin) you know they would have decried it as violence toward women... blah blah blah
[21:01] (machaira) Yup, equal treatment.
[21:01] (machaira) Hey, we treat each other this way, and since you wanted things THAT way...well...
[21:01] (serrevin) feminism saddens me tell you the truth
[21:01] (machaira) *Shoryuken!*
[21:01] (serrevin) hahahaha
[21:01] (serrevin) hahahah
[21:01] (serrevin) that was classic bro
[21:01] (serrevin) i'm gonna steal that
[21:01] (machaira) LOL
[21:02] (serrevin) all they want is to be treated the way we're supposed to treat them
[21:02] (serrevin) but they're too proud to say so
[21:02] (serrevin) look how this culture treats them
[21:02] (machaira) Good words, man.
[21:02] (machaira) Go on
[21:02] (serrevin) what is an artist like britney spears saying to them
[21:02] (serrevin) " we don't really care about your talent, just take your clothes off"
[21:03] (machaira) Uhh..."We're open season?"
[21:03] (serrevin) commercials are the same
[21:03] (serrevin) we've got women taking their clothes off to sell everything
[21:03] (serrevin) and let's not even get into the porn issue
[21:04] (serrevin) so our culture has stripped them of dignity
[21:04] (machaira) (Which quite a number of radical feminists themselves endorse)
[21:04] (machaira) (porn, that is)
[21:04] (serrevin) true
[21:04] (machaira) Go on
[21:04] (serrevin) I think the "revenge" comment about feminism is correct
[21:05] (serrevin) but I also think it's the wordling's way of trying to get some dignity back
[21:05] (serrevin) they percieve men as the one with the power, and they want to be in that position because they're tired of being degraded
[21:05] (serrevin) hence the scream for "equality"
[21:05] (serrevin) but at the same time they want to be treated as the "weaker vessel"
[21:05] (machaira) "Oh look at them, they're better than us"
[21:05] (serrevin) which leads to the whole titanic situation
[21:06] (serrevin) there aren't many women running the porn industry, or the music industry, or the commercials that exploit them
[21:08] (serrevin) men have dropped the ball in this culture, look at the plague of the single mother for example
[21:09] (machaira) They want to be treated the same as men, but when the boat finally starts to sink they pressure us to treat them as the "weaker sex" instead of knocking them out with flash kicks like we're doing to each other.
[21:09] (machaira) True. If one party fails to do his responsibility, a domino effect follows.
[21:10] (serrevin) I think all the posturing for equality is a cry for dignity, a dignity that men have stripped them of
[21:10] (serrevin) think for a moment
[21:10] (serrevin) what is the reprobate mind of man going to do, seeing as God has given him headship?
[21:10] (machaira) Heh...plain and simple
[21:10] (machaira) Aggressive control
[21:10] (serrevin) exactly
[21:10] (serrevin) and how is the reprobate mind of woman going to respond to that?
[21:11] (machaira) "...your desire shall be over him..."
[21:11] (serrevin) "the message" translation would be "feminism"
[21:12] (serrevin) on the one hand they want the dignity that reprobate men have stripped them of, while at the same hand, they remember that they are supposed to be treated as queens, and they want that too
[21:12] (serrevin) that's why it's so amazing to see the way the lord dealt with women
[21:13] (machaira) The woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery...
[21:13] (serrevin) exactly
(non-related entries)
[21:14] (serrevin) and they responded to it
[21:14] (serrevin) my wife was a rabid feminist when I first met her
[21:14] (serrevin) and she's totally adopted a biblical position on the issue now

Also, irRational not only pointed out a misused word in the same article ("pimps" instead of "prostitutes") but also said something that I can't help but quote here:

[23:54] (irr2lurk) one thing that makes me angry is that feminists say i can do anything i want to do
[23:54] (irr2lurk) except that which i really want to do
[23:55] (irr2lurk) be a full time wife and mommy

Feminism is another thing that has affected me adversely, and I would like to write about it a bit more. Perhaps, God willing, I shall add it to my not-so-compiled writings on the Fall of Man and how it has affected every single aspect of life in the material and spiritual universe. Who knows, maybe it'll get to be a book someday...huh-huh-huh. ;-)

Egalitarianism...Yeahright

2005-02-18T00:07:00.000+08:00

I can't believe how irritatingly one-sided and self-contradictory our Gender Development class is. On the one hand, it is asserted that women should be given equal treatment alongside men (laws, representation, "equal work opportunities", etc.). On the other, one group reported on women's health issues and how women have "special needs" that should be met. One is led to wonder just what ramifications it will have upon the feminist concept of egalitarianism.

Similarly, I was treated to a double standard: for a few rather emotionally-charged moments, the professor (who appears at first sight to be an equity feminist--the more "conservative" type--but is also laced with gender feminist ideologies) talked about constitutional amendments and how men might be charged with sexual harassment cases should they perform any offense. What caught my ear (and my ire) was her statement about how it was the right of women to wear sexy clothes because "it makes them feel good".

I was like "Oh my goodness...this is nothing short of a double standard." So it's OK for women to dress like prostitutes because it makes them feel good, but men suddenly have the added responsibility NOT to stare? Whatever happened to "equality"? Suddenly the whole concept of accountability fell squarely on the shoulders of the hapless male while the female was rendered free to do anything she wanted, and, hell's bells, to Sheol with the male if he ever loses any vestige of self-control in favor of staring at a cleavage for more than 1 second. Shades of the foolish woman condemned in the book of Proverbs come to mind. I remember a quote Shamgar once made in channel: "We are men, that's why we require you to stay clothed."

It doesn't end there. Later on we tackled the issue of how women are portrayed in the media, and the professor lamented not only the portrayal of women as sex objects (this I will not object to as far as my Christian worldview is concerned, for it reflects not only lasciviousness but also the whole "self-worship" lifestyle of the old Health Culture movement, which led to the rise of bodybuilding), but also the use of women to pressure OTHER women into buying products or services, like hairstyling and (of all things) laundry detergents. She claims that the media forces women to look and feel a certain way, to adopt a certain lifestyle, and to buy certain things, thus causing budgetary affliction.

Um, well. I thought women had the right to dress in sexy clothes because it made them "feel good"? Land sakes, folks, just look at Britney Spears and Ashanti! Because of them I regularly see girls who dress in jeans with fake gloss on the thighs and--dear me--buttocks. Those jeans are a lot more ridiculous in appearance than what you see here described, because in real life they look something like cowboy pants bleached at all the wrong places (and if I were to hazard a preference, I'd say I'll choose the cowboy pants over those jeans any day of the week). And I know one particular schoolmate who has hot oil treatments on a DAILY BASIS.

What about osteoporosis commercials? Aren't these "catering to women's special needs" as declared in class? And yet according to this logic, they seek to deny women a proper daily allowance of calcium because the media is swaying them to purchase a certain product for their own well-being and thus draining their cash reserves? And besides, isn't that what commercials are SUPPOSED to do in the first place: get customers to avail of a certain product? I can only imagine how they would react to Vitamin E commercials that showcase a very sexy female kickboxing instructor in tight Speedos who claims to "kick hard" because of her supplement intake! I'll tell you WHY they adopt this practice: it's because they believe women should be free to decide how they should look like, in what way they would define success, and what they should buy for themselves. I am left to wonder just how consistent that claim would be if what women wanted was to look and feel good "for themselves"...just like all those "successful women" in the TV ads. Besides, we had women prepping their hair with coconut paste and dressing in all sorts of outlandish jewelry WAY before shampoo with ginseng extract was ever invented.

I know how the media forces people to think one way and not the other; I will not deny that. But to first make a claim that women had the right to do anything they wanted with their bodies and later on deny this in light of "media bias" is ridiculous. It should be remembered that one tenet of media production is "Give the people what they want." Picture the following:

Advertisement says: "You need/want this." (as it is INTENDED to do!)

Woman says: "I want it!" (rendering her responsible because she desired it in the first place--else the commercial wouldn't have had any appeal to her. Why would you choose to get something you never wanted to begin with?)

Feminist tells Woman: "NO!!! You don't want that!" (I thought women should be free to do anything they want?)

Let me get this straight. Women are human. Humans are made in the image of God. We have, in respect to one another, unalienable rights. Therefore, women have unalienable rights that we as finite creatures should respect. They have the right to live healthy, happy lives like the rest of us do. However, it is a stretch to declare that both men and women should be treated equally in all things and in the broadest, most general sense of the word, and a contradiction to declare that while men and women should be treated equally, everyone should still cater to the "special needs" of women. Furthermore, it is a glaring contradiction to declare that women should have the right to do anything they wanted with themselves, and at the same time deny the desire of women who want to do something for themselves in the name of being free to do anything for oneself as a woman! Besides, as I noted in my previous blog entry on one atheist argument, just WHO defines rights and laws around here? Is it us? Or is it the triune God who made heaven, earth, and everything in them?

One article I read once said it best: "Feminists aren't interested in equality. What they want is revenge." They don't want to be recognized as humans with the same general rights every human being has had from the foundation of the world, but rather they want to rule the world and define those rights for themselves. Let the males suffer.

Mach thinks he's been reading too much Peter Pike articles

The Utter Foolishness of it All

2005-02-13T22:57:00.000+08:00

"Can God make a square circle? Or a rock so big he can't lift it? You say he can't? But I thought your God was omnipotent? If he can't do these things, then he's not omnipotent."

Answer: God also happens to be the creator AND standard of logic and absolutes, and this argument shows not only a disregard for absolutism but also a glaring lack of logic. For example, what defines a circle? Or a square for that matter? Is it just the terminology, or also--and that more importantly-- the inherent qualities thereof (e.g. circumference, radius, lack of edges and corners, etc.)? A circle ceases to be a circle, both in name and quality, when it suddenly possesses a bunch of corners and straight edges.

Let's apply that to the rock argument. A rock, by definition, is a solid fragment or large mass of hardened mineral--an object with finite volume. God, on the other hand, is described by the Christian Bible as the very embodiment of infinity (Psalm 90:2). He has neither beginning nor end in all of his aspects. So how could he possibly create an object of limited size that he, an omnipotent being, cannot lift? That object would logically have to be WAY bigger than he is (i.e. bigger than infinity!) for him NOT to be able to budge it an inch. This is a logical fallacy. NOTHING can be greater than that which is infinitely great, and furthermore a rock would cease to be a rock by definition if it lacked any measurable qualities. Can you see the absurdity?

Secondly, the skeptic here challenges the concept of absolute standards and makes a play on words. He seeks to redefine meanings, primarily so that the Christian would be left confused and unable to tackle the real root of the problem within the atheist/skeptic, which is an unbelieving and rebellious heart naturally biased against anything God has to say (remember...Adam and Eve were tricked into wanting to know better than God, which led to the rebellion in Eden). You will want to point out that God is THE standard for uniformity and order; governance exists only if there was a governor to pass, implement and maintain laws. A circle is such because he decreed it to be. Rocks are finite because he decreed them to be. That which God has made crooked we cannot make straight (Ecclesiastes 7:13). Otherwise, to what purpose would the Scripture say "Woe unto them that call evil 'good', and good 'evil'!"? (Isaiah 5:20)

Lastly, the skeptic has tried to impose limitations upon God in attempting to challenge his omnipotence by letting him contradict himself. Surely, if he is all powerful then he could do anything, including becoming inconsistent! We may simply point him back to the transcendental argument. Just as we may ask who defines laws and universal standards, we may also ask who defines limitations and boundaries. Shall God, the unchanging God, be at all limited by the fact that He cannot bring into existence a certain logical fallacy due to certain universal parameters, when HE HIMSELF is the very reason those same parameters exist? We must point out to the skeptic the fact that God cannot contradict himself, for an ultimate standard cannot be inconsistent. He cannot be irrational (for he is the basis of rationale) or evil (for he is the standard of good).

God is not some arbitrary, random force. If anybody remembers that old comic book Judge Dredd, one may wish to note that the title character's tagline was "I am the law". God is no different! He IS the very basis for the law, as the law reflects his divine character (this is why Scripture's authority rests upon God himself...because the Bible is the very word that proceeded from God). Without law and order, there can only be...guess what? Anarchy. Chaos. Without consistency, there would be inconsistency. Without light, there would be darkness. Without good, there would be evil.

Take note: the opposites of all these concepts--law, order, consistency, light and good--are not concrete qualities in and of themselves. Rather, they entail the LACK of the aforementioned qualities. And shall an infinite God lack anything? Just because he cannot do something contrary to his nature does not mean that he is lacking. WE are the ones who are lacking because we cannot conform to his nature! We lack righteousness, therefore we are unrighteous. We lack wisdom, therefore we are foolish. We lack love, therfore we are unloving. God is not wanting in these things, for he is complete. And he cannot do the things which proceed from the shortage or absence of the qualities enumerated here, for that would mean he is lacking in some way.

Therefore, sorry skeptic dude. God can't make a square circle, for that would be a contradiction in terms. He is unable to make a rock so big he cannot lift it, for that would be a contradiction in concepts. And he isn't "limited" according to your demand for inconsistency as a quality, for he is the very reason that limitations, standards, consistency and the notions thereof exist.

Think about it. If God didn't exist, why would a circle be a circle at all?

(For more on this, visit Ryft's blog here, which contains a much more detailed article on the same subject. I love this apologetics stuff)

Some Thoughts on Sound Doctrine

2005-01-28T12:59:00.000+08:00

While I was doing time in Perspective class yesterday, something thought-provoking came to me. But before I begin, why don't you get a ruler, a pencil, a roll of masking tape and a piece of paper?

Got them? Good. Now, I want you to tape the sheet of paper to a flat surface on all four corners. That way, it won't be disturbed when you move your hand and accidentally brush the paper.

Next, take your pencil (or other writing tool) and draw a line using the ruler as a guide. Don't worry, it can be in any angle as long as it's straight.

When you're through, lift the ruler and try re-aligning it with your original line, then draw another one.

If you notice that your line didn't match the angle of the original, congratulations. That's exactly what I wanted to happen, and the analogy of my point. Christians nowadays are content to live merely with the knowledge that "Jesus died for them" and "God has a wonderful plan for their life" that usually involves praying a prayer and stuff like that. We get fed with so-called "doctrine" that usually involves postmodernism and we have churches that merely mumble "We don't care what happens, what matters is God within us" in the face of an entire onslaught of godless messages and philosophies we see and hear each and every day.

As a result, we get a lot of professing Christians who end up compromising with the sorry excuse that "we shouldn't worry too much about what we say, think or do, what matters is that Christ died for us and he has a wonderful plan for our lives". Atheists and secularists bash the Christian faith simply by saying "How can a God of love send people to hell?" or "How can a God who supposedly loves mankind send killer tidal waves crashing right through heavily-populated countries?"

Why is this so? Could it be that Christendom has failed in one crucial aspect? Of a truth, it has. It has failed to uphold sound doctrine. As a result, we have strayed far from the path of righteousness laid down by God. We as Evangelicals are producing baby boomer converts who probably don't know the difference between the Lord's Supper and the Eucharist. We are producing evangelists who rely on the latest techniques to preach the Gospel instead of that solid, grounded conviction to obey the commandment of Christ in Matthew 28:19-20. We are producing apologists and theologians who engage in bunny-hopping through the entire Bible just to find passages that fit THEIR worldview instead of wise men who let the Scriptures speak for themselves. I'll leave you to guess what happens.

Do you see my analogy? We try to fit that same straight rule the Bible provides, but if we get even ONE thing wrong concerning essential doctrines we end up straying in the long run. Remember the line I asked you to draw? If you so much as even misalign your ruler by less than a millimeter, you will end up straying from the angle of the original line; if you extrapolate that to several meters, you'll see the difference much more clearly. And I believe that is what we are experiencing now; a little deviation from sound doctrine ends up taking us in another direction.

Dr. James White once mentioned something about some church sermons being nothing more than rehashed versions of "The Four Spiritual Laws". I say it's like cotton candy: Fluffy and sweet, but little nutritional value.

SUGGESTED READINGS:

Deuteronomy 5:31-32
Deuteronomy 17:10-12
Deuteronomy 28:13-14
Proverbs 4:26-28
Isaiah 30:20-22
2 Timothy 4:3
Titus 2:1

All Scripture references are taken from the New International Version. I really should set my default to KJV 'cause it's no longer held under copyright law.

Resources and Something Else

2005-01-18T20:59:00.000+08:00

Hey, I PROMISED. Just so you may know for yourself how Machaira is a delusional man:

"Enjo Kosai: Compensated Dating"

Japan for the Uninvited: Enjo Kosai (Do not hang around for too long in this page, mind you...)

Asia for Visitors - The Myth of Enjo Kosai

Enjo Kosai (Details, Meaning, Articles and Explanation Guide)

Lolita Complex and Enjo Kosai (This one hits it on the mark rather hard)

Asahi-Shinbun: Survey Disputes 'Enjo-Kosai' Hype (I don't know if I should be relieved or ashamed ;-)

TIMEasia.com Sex in Asia Enjo

hackwriters.com - "Enjo Kosai - Adventures in a Love Hotel" by J. T. Brown (Also kinda hits it on the mark. I just wish he didn't bring up that little detail about the box of tissue...)

And of course, the articles referenced in my long ramble. So there you have it. Can you stop being paranoid now, me?

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

Daniel in the Fine Arts Den

I wrote most of this earlier in class. Now you can catch a glimpse of what happens during Machaira's school hours.

"What did I get my sorry butt into???" I thought as I listened to the professor's rather disjointed lecture on metaphysics regarding "being". Hearing him talk about heathen mumbo-jumbo...and attempting to connect it all to the Bible, to boot...was a real eye-opener about the state of the institute I was currently enrolled in. No, wait, scratch that. It wasn't just ANY eye-opener. It was like having my eyelids forced open by steel clothespins while a sadistic 15th century Inquisitionist positioned himself over me, menacingly brandishing a pair of bloodstained forceps and yelling "IS THE EUCHARIST THE TRUE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST!?"

For a professedly Catholic school (though it is claimed to be non-sectarian), I was surprised to hear humanist and even pagan philosophies spouted from classroom pulpits (my much more sophisicated substitute for "teacher's desk"). I wonder: is this the "progress" the so-called "Age of Enlightenment" (more like endarkenment if you ask me) was claimed to have brought to the world as so many Discovery Channel and National Geographic-esque programs would have us to believe? If you were to ask me, I feel like an exiled Jew in Babylon right now. At least Daniel had the faith and courage to stand up to people who worshipped pagan deities.

Oh, great. He's talking about family planning and being liberal-minded about ideas or something. Now what? Modernism: Glory to Man in the highest, for Man is the measure of all things? Or POST-Modernism: "pwn3d by 3xp3r13nc3" (as wonky would put it)? Oh wait, that's existentialism. Postmodernism is like "There seems to be no absolute truth out there and if there was any to begin with, we probably couldn't attain it". To make matters worse, he speaks at around 100MPH and makes it VERY difficult for me to understand what he's actually saying (at least it's good practice for when I get to talk to a native Japanese person ;-) Ah, wait. Now he's pushing pluralism. "Doesn't matter what religion you're in, we all worship the same God." So, sir, could you tell me how Allah, whose Prophet denies the deity of Christ, is the same as the God of the Bible whose apostle of love wrote "He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not (John 1:10)" of the very same Jesus? Could you tell me how the lecherous Zeus of Greek mythology is similar to the faithful Lord Almighty who said "Thou shalt not commit adultery (Exodus 20:14)"? When did the once-human deity of the Mormons become categorically similar to the Lord GOD whose servant Moses declared "From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God (Psalm 90:2)"?

To make matters worse, here are my classmates. If they meet a professor they don't like, well, to Beelzebub with the subject (I admit I was chatting with my seatmate, a professing Evangelical, about the prof and his really odd teachings, so I'm guilty of this too). Sure enough, in time they were making a lot of noise. The guy next to me was even reading a portfolio by a Vegan classmate (NOW you #prosians know why I'm so hung up on PETA). The boys behind us were insulting the professor by imitating his manner of speaking. Worse, one of the students asked him a question regarding God as a being. I'm guessing the teacher shot out an inconsistency or something, but then again that particular classmate may not be aware of the principles of causality either (i.e. Everything has a cause--in the theists' case, God is the Prime Cause of all things--the uncaused cause in the Christian case).

I'm honestly tempted to tune out everything going on around me, but I feel I must listen. Many of my classmates are pagans, and even though they may not really care about what the teacher is saying, 1 Peter 3:15 still incites me to some action. I only hope I get to use all this knowledge in God's timing.

The LONG EK rambling AT LAST! (Part 2)

2005-01-17T19:38:00.000+08:00

(Continued from last blog post)

The author then goes on to delineate some more causes of enjou kosai, and even a key ethical factor essential to the entire fracas (which I might rightly argue is the heart of it all--more on that argument later). She correctly identifies that a big deterrent to the morality of the issue is that girls involved (or uninvolved) in enjou kosai practically write their own policies as to what is allowable and what is not. Compounding this problem is the presence of crises like family disputes, broken relationships, etc. which drive the girls to consider the immoral practice of compensated dating (here in my country, we might call that the "escort service") as an easy way out. With the presence of an amoral, pragmatic and relativistic attitude towards the practice, nipping this thing in the bud is next to impossible.

However, here comes the really meaty part. Listen to the author in the following quotes (emphases mine):

"In considering this issue, we too often have a certain stereotype of these girls: uneducated and ignorant of their actions. However, many of the teenagers who are involved in enjo-kosai are educated. On the contrary what has been too often said, some of the girls involved actually go to the best schools and they use enjo-kosai as a tool of solving their problems. Whatever those problems are, they go out and try to divert their minds in stead of just shutting themselves in. They know how to cope with their problems and are strong enough to live their lives. Still, many people might think that enjo-kosai is not the right way for solving problems. The reason might be like this: there should be other alternatives, so the girls have to value themselves. But in fact, it is the girls concerned who decide whether they are going to value themselves or not. Mr. Muyadai explains, 'The term, the right to decide oneself, is defined as the right which the person can decide something though one is put at a disadvantage as a result, unless one does not give trouble to anyone'."

More utilitarianism here. Note that she makes compensated dating sound like a reasonable instrument for problem-solving. All this while the fact that she noted the following only one paragraph earlier:

"A girl who had an interview with Ms. Hayami does enjo-kosai because she doesn’t have her own place at home where her father decides everything. Another girl started enjo-kosai to heal her pain from a broken heart. Because of these reasons, the discord within the family, too much interference by parents, teenagers are likely to look for acceptance and find this from middle-aged men."

Good. Ness. If Ness was good at seeing inconsistencies, he would immediately note that what they did is anything BUT a viable solution to the problem. This is nothing more than a form of escapism. Instead of facing up to the issue at hand, the girls look for other outlets--in this case, dating middle-aged men. In the process, they actually compound the problem: not only are they feeding the lusts of guys as morally ungrounded as they are (think about this: you as an enjou kosai girl are possibly dating some other young lady's daddy and perhaps even having sex with him, and this activity in turn fuels an existing family problem involving the man you're dating, thus leading his OWN neglected daughter to practice the same thing you're doing right now. And to make it worse is that your daddy is secretly having an affair with that other girl as a result. Not that you probably care about him, anyway, but what you don't know is that the man you're in bed with is your best friend's dad. THINK, for crying out loud!!), they also dehumanize themselves, kill their conscience (as if it wasn't DEAD ENOUGH already), and potentially expose themselves to a variety of STDs as well as early pregnancy...all without truly solving anything whatsoever.

"Today, many teenagers have their own sense of value for decision-making about sex. They know what they are doing, and they are responsible for their results. The decision-making for sex is a very private matter that neither parents nor others should interfere with. After the Tokyo Metropolitan Government adapted a new law to penalize adults who buy sexual relations from teenagers, Metropolitan government spokesman Toshihiro Nakazawa has commented: “Considering that restricting teenagers’ sexual activity is a very sensitive and private issue that might violate their human rights, the ordinance aims to penalize adults who buy sexual relations” (“Violators”). However, it is clear that police will have difficulty in proving if teenagers received money or valuables, and the adult knew the girl was a minor. Likewise, it will be hard for the law to penalize adults if both the adult and the teen-age girl want their relationship and try to hide it. Although the law has an effect, there is a great possibility of affairs secretly taking place. Indeed, restricting these girls’ behavior is beyond our power."

Firstly, I would like to seriously question that part about teenagers "know[ing] what they are doing." Oh, they know they're having fun and serving their own ends, all right. I just want to question if they know the dire consequences of what they're doing, let alone the destructive nature of the impulses that drove them to it. Can one seriously think that teenagers who abuse sex for their own profit (or even for so called "love" as in the case of live-in partners) actually KNOW what they're doing on the most basic level of things? Probably not, especially if they have NO IDEA about any existing God who judges and will judge all men. True, they are responsible for what they are doing. I just wish they had a little more wisdom on the subject. Godly wisdom at that.

And what's this about the part on decision-making for sex being something neither parents nor any other person should interfere in? That is utter foolishness. Parents are responsible for the proper upbringing of children, and as shockingly delicate a subject as sexuality is, children should be informed about its nature, as well as its proper time and place for use (for instance, see Proverbs 5, 6:20-35, 7, 9:13-17). Promiscuity is not only evidence of greed and lack of self-control, but also unfaithfulness. How many marriages have been ruined because the husband ran off with another guy? I mean girl? How many people have fallen into disgraceful living because they sold off their birthrights for a bowl of porridge, so to speak? How many innocent lives have been destroyed because of unwanted pregnancies? YOU tell me, YOU'RE the ones who think parents should not interfere with children on the topic of sex!

Lastly, will you please look at the second half of the paragraph. "We were having illicit sex but you barged in and tried to stop us! It's unfair! HUMAN RIGHTS!!" Sadly, while libertarian freedom in the human political sense has been permitted knowing that, to paraphrase John Piper, forced allegiance to the law is not true allegiance at all (which is why God, according to Calvinist soteriology, is technically not forcing us AGAINST our will when he calls us into the glorious fellowship of Jesus Christ, because he SUBDUES our rebellious will and turns our hearts to be IN ACCORDANCE with his perfect will...but that's a different story ;-), it has been abused by people who want to have their own selfish ways. Of course, that's why this same freedom is limited by ordained law to begin with, but here we see a failure of law enforcement because the Tokyo Metropolitan rule only aims to penalize adults who solicit the sex act and leaves out the teenagers on the premise of violating their rights to do whatever they want with their bodies, without duly noting the fact that enjou kosai is perpetrated not by the adults (who only act as the willing customers) but by the teenagers themselves, who routinely go to telephone clubs and even the internet to PERSONALLY and WILLINGLY offer their companionship for a lofty fee! It's ENJOU KOSAI we're trying to stop here, people, not merely somebody's wife making out with another woman's husband! It's true that, in lieu of certain undeniable rights, the law is not at liberty to handle every single transgression with ease (like forcibly stop a couple of people from committing adultery or fornication, as the above quote rightly points out...I mean, we're not in ancient Israel anymore, Caleb), but why are its enforcers so reluctant to apply it fully to something with which it has at least some capacity to check?*

Finally, we have a very sobering conclusion. Sobering in that it reflects that our world has definitely gone astray. Read these sentences for yourself and note the humanistic, morally relative tone.

"Teen-agers in today’s society in Japan have a great power. They create fads, they actively go for what they want, and they seem very positive. Sometimes we get perplexed at their behaviors, but I’m often impressed with their mental energy. They take actions when they long to do something without asking for help to their parents. Although we tend to blame those girls doing enjo-kosai, they have various reasons and their own value of decision-making about sex. Through this time of dynamic changes, these girls are trying to adapt themselves to it. Instead of just criticizing them, we need to make an effort to understand them and accept them."

Ah yes, so illicit sex for cash is a fad. Dating older men who are probably married is a fad. Taking actions when one longs to do something without asking for help from one's parents, despite the fact that what you're doing would basically be a slap in their face (unless, of course, they hardly even care at all--which seems to be the issue, and in which case the girls actually mean to take revenge against negligent parents) and that instead of engaging in good, honest work you are taking the easy (?) way and selling your own dignity for a couple thousand yen (unless you consider "dignity" in terms of cash) is a positive behavior. Girls adapting themselves to dynamic changes in what can probably be one of the worst ways possible is a good thing because, surprise, they are learning to be masters of their own fates (an old professor of mine, a devout Catholic, once said that this is a "wonderful thing"...fancy that), and we must thus see them as acceptable. After all, this is the sexual revolution, right?

THIS is the heart of the matter, boys and girls. It's Genesis 3 all over again, played out on a grander scale. Enjou Kosai is just one of the foul offspring of the first rebellious act of mankind, in fact a minority among many other evils (roughly between 5% and 13% of the total highschool girl population in Japan are involved in it, if I recall correctly). But nevertheless it is influenced by the same poison of man's selfish desire for total autonomy, which has been ingrained in our nature ever since Adam ate of the forbidden fruit. This is nothing more than rebellion, mingled with greed. If you would so kindly scroll up, you will read that one girl reportedly practiced Enjou Kosai because her dad was "too controlling" at home. If this is not rebellion, I don't know what is.

The article the author references to at the beginning of this essay, by the way, espouses a view that is a far cry from what Fuijiwara-san would want us to consider. Read these words of Alice Yamada:

"Japan is experiencing a degeneration of morals and ethics after the entire nation had devoted itself to becoming a strong economic power. Children were left to fend for themselves because the adults were too busy making money and as a result, the teenagers now are living lives as they please. It is too late for the adults to try to interfere. The children have developed their own social norms and lifestyles. The only future Japan can hope for is one in which the children learn their lessons and prostitution is discarded from their lives as a result of their own wills."

I couldn't agree more. It is written, "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it" (Proverbs 22:6). Ever since the advent of the cultural revolution, these parents have not exactly been doing that, and therefore I wouldn't be surprised if sooner or later something gets screwed up (heck, it's 1:40 AM and I should be sleeping, but I'm still awake and typing this...though I will not blame my own sins on my parents, they are still responsible for what they have done). I'll be a bit lenient on Japan here since most Japanese hardly even know what real Christianity is all about, much less the Gospel message (one art site I know of is entitled "One Way to the Heaven!"...I doubt the author even knows how critical the implications of that phrase are), but I do know for a fact that this will in no way discount them from having any responsibilities in the entire matter (Romans 2:11-16).

However, a couple of somethings. It's not exactly too late for parents to get their children back. Drawing from one aspect of the Gospel message, the selfish, sinful nature is the root here, and both parties have their respective problems regarding that fleshly nature. One offshoot is the lack of communication that pervades the parent-child relationship, and I know on a personal level that this particular shortcoming is a VERY difficult and painful obstacle to overcome (#prosians, sorry to be so not my usual happy-go-lucky self here, but now you know the reason why I chat with you guys very often. Please pray for me). As it is written, the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children (2 Corinthians 12:14). If there's anything parents need to let their children know not just in word but also in action, it's that they can be trusted and depended upon.

Yes, I do admit that, perhaps due to divine judgment, it may be too late to redeem some of the things that have already come to pass. But it is not too late for the parents of the next generation, the ones whose children are yet tender, to espouse a well-grounded set of ethics for themselves, that they may more or less pass it on to their offspring. And there is a way to do this. It begins by begging for mercy at the foot of the cross whereupon the now-risen Son of God was once slain.

Secondly, who are we to think that, apart from any act of God (who turns mens' hearts according as he pleases), the children of today may be counted on to simply realize "Hey, this is wrong, I shouldn't be doing this", make a 180-degree turn and abandon a particular lifestyle, especially concerning the fact that the children are the one who have made their own rules of the game? Yes, it may be possible for one to turn from evil acts on the basis of wrong presuppositions, but at best one can only achieve a temporary or incomplete change. The real root of the evil is in one's heart (Matthew 15:17-20), and the only one who can change the wicked hearts of men is the LORD Almighty (Jeremiah 32:38-40). Sheep without a shepherd usually get lost and killed.

Fancy trying to justify Enjou-Kosai by virtue of independent choices. This phenomenon is but a small one relative to the rest of the world, and there are bigger problems than these. I myself am wondering WHY I devoted so much time and energy to a relatively little thing (in comparison to bigger problems like widespread abortion, drug abuse, criminal activity, the lack of morals, godless doctrines, etc.), but let me point you to a couple of crucial facts that are exemplified by this wave of juvenile irresponsibility. One is that, without a solid moral ground or basis for ethics, people, yea, entire nations will crumble into the shifting sands of relative selfishness. Another fact is that men are by nature corrupted, even at a tender age. It is a sad thing to see people pushing to have their own wicked ways, but it is even sadder to see them attempting to justify malicious intents and behavior, as the author of the article I critiqued in this essay has attempted. Perhaps it is nothing more than a vain attempt to try and alleviate their guilt?

If they could even feel guilt at all, that is.

* I would like to note that, unlike normal prostitution (which is more or less an organized business), Enjou Kosai is often a private transaction, wherein girls have to personally advertise their own services via phone or internet. This would actually make it harder to crack down on such activities.

(Resources next blog post. I'm too preoccupied to go look for them right now)

The LONG EK rambling AT LAST! (Part 1)

2005-01-16T15:07:00.000+08:00

As I explained in my first blog entry, I am currently contemplating and preparing to write a short manga about a young girl involved in Enjou Kosai, roughly translated as "compensated dating" (In fact, for those of you who can read Japanese kanji, Sketch no. 15 in the Rakugaki section of my personal art site is the character design for the girl, whose name is Kotoko Hanebayashi*).

However, being the big dunderheaded coconut that I am (there's a Captain Haddock-ism for you Tintin fans), I realized one very vital thing: I don't even LIVE in Japan. Despite the fact that I had once been made aware of young girls prostituting themselves in clubs and the like, even going to far as to wear the very same school uniforms people see often in anime (and we know what an effect those have on people {shudders}), I had no idea what these girls experience. I needed to know more.

So what does a clueless gaijin do with a partially cultural issue? You Google for it. Soon I turned up a whole bunch of articles related to the subject; most were generally repulsed by and thus opposed to the idea of highschoolers selling themselves for money, of course. But one writing in particular caught my eye. Being an article written between 1998 and 1999, it was quite dated, as mutato (a fellow #ProsApologian regular) observed. But although it got a few points correct (such as parents being partly to blame for children running awry), its opinions on the "merits" of Enjou Kosai so bluntly expressed the heartless, postmodern and evolutionary humanist society we live in today.

Why these strong words? Well let me provide you with some quotes.

"To build upon Yamada’s analysis, we need to understand that there are many types of enjo-kosai. Likewise, the purpose for doing enjo-kosai also differs from girl to another. Some girls use enjo-kosai as a tool for solving their problems, while others use it just to earn more pocket money. Unfortunately, when we talk about enjo-kosai, we tend to have a stereotype of these girls that allows for nothing but superficial criticism. Although the teenage girls involved in enjo-kosai have been generalized as uneducated people degrading Japanese society, their decision-making shows these girls have grown tough in order to make their ideal life come true."

Well, if anything about Japan's society is to be blamed, it's the fact that Japan is pretty much lenient towards sexual issues. I mean, the legal age of consent for sexual contact with a girl is 12?? Furthermore, what's this part about "growing tough in order to make their ideal life come true?" Let me translate that for you: "These girls have learned to throw away morals in order to grasp a life they so selfishly crave, whether it be for material wealth, security, revenge or a twisted semblance of love". No matter if it involves sexual contact or not, these young women are playing with fire and toying with men who are as morally weak as they are to serve their own goals. I somehow fail to NOT notice the words "survival of the fitest" written all over this paragraph. In a way, though, the author points out a nugget of truth: this wave of immorality only shows that evil exists and grows in our world like a rippling tide. Since the parents have neglected the girls, and morality regarding sexuality in Japan is actually rather casual, why should the girls care? If they wanted to make money by dating older guys, who will prevent them?

"The media contributes to the problem because it does not offer a balanced treatment of news items. For example, when we think about the construction of nuclear power plant, the media focuses on the danger of nuclear and local people there, but they rarely recommend the merits of nuclear power. After watching the program, viewers are likely to oppose the construction, but their opinions might be changed if the media explains our situation [that Japan lacks natural resources and we need something to substitute] and the merits of nuclear power."

Um, excuse me? Why are you comparing *nuclear power*, which is not necessarily a moral issue in and of itself, to Enjou Kosai, a phenomenon primarily rooted in moral and social problems? Are you going to somehow counter with "Well, nuclear power can be dangerous to human life if improperly maintained, isn't that a moral issue too?" Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with that, but this doesn't even begin to be a good analogy to the entire enjou kosai controversy. In the one, the resource is a material object; the problem only begins to arise when dangerous radioactive material is improperly handled, and therefore demands a healthy modicum of responsibility (after all, even if we were talking about your mother-in-law here, you wouldn't exactly want her to die in a meltdown would you?). In the other, the *cough* "resource" *cough* of one's own body is already being improperly handled. That's not responsibility; that is the utter absence of it! And one's own sexuality is hardly even a liquid asset (i.e. disposable) in the Materialist sense of the word; our bodies are not even ours to to us for our own pleasures. God is the only one with the right to dispose of our corrupt, earthly tents at will.

Do you understand this? The driving principle for the practice of enjou kosai is pragmatism and/or utilitarianism: the goal is the only thing that's important and results alone dictate the righteousness of any endeavour. The problem is that BOTH ends and means MUST be considered ethically for justification! So can the act of playing hanky-panky with older, perhaps even married men for some semblance of control be considered "just"? Can the ends thereof, that is, the gain of material wealth, a sense of vengeance and perhaps even a feeling of control, be considered "just" (this is actually much more important, BTW, but that doesn't discount means from being ethically considered as well; if one depended only on the results to justify the means, then ANY method is technically justifiable)? According to ethical relativism, maybe! Furthermore, this isn't exactly some ethical dilemma we're talking about here (in the which you are hard-pressed to sacrifice certain ethics for a higher good); this is nothing but hardline relativism applied to real-world problems: "WE do what WE think is right with OUR own bodies!"

In this light, why is it different from nuclear power again? Because in the use of energy derived from fusion reactions, one has to take into stock the fact that the proponents of a nuclear power plant are also responsible for its proper maintenance, for the sole purpose of protecting lives benefited by the practice. In the business of peddling one's own sexuality (not one's talents or skills, unless for some very sick reason you think making whoopee is a talent) for a buck or two--well, at least 200 bucks anyway--one is not only taking something ordained of God to be a covenant sign of love and faithfulness ONLY between married man and woman (the primary reason why any sex outside of marriage is sinful, by the way), one is in effect saying "To Beelzebub with my morals and my health, what matters is that I get what I want!"

Heh...if nuke plant servicemen adopted the same principles, we'd all be knee-deep in radioactive sludge right now. In fact, a lot of prostitutes often end up not only throwing their souls away for the cash (whether it be for themselves or someone else, in case someone raises that objection as well), they also manage to wind up throwing away not only the remainder of their years due to sexually-transmitted diseases, but also their unwanted fetuses should they botch (or forego, whether unconsciously or otherwise) the "safe sex" aspect of the "job". Life for life, in a twisted sort of way. Contrast the responsibility and ethical considerations of both means and ends in the one with the utter disregard in the other:

NUKE PLANT

Goal: Provide a large population of people with cheap, efficient energy. (ethical; you're providing a much needed service to hundreds of thousands of people. With all the contraptions we have come up with using the gifts God has so graciously provided us with, it's hard to imagine living in a world without electricity)

Ethical Considerations: Radioactive material is hazardous to human, animal and plant life if improperly contained (Even if your neighbor was an animal-rights nut who constantly pressures you into giving up meat and has attempted on several different occasions to steal your pet Alsatian and let him go into the wild where he might be killed by a pack of coyotes, you wouldn't exactly want him to die, would you?).

Means: construct a nuclear power plant and disposal facility according to the most stringent safety standards possible (ethical. You are considering the safety of those who will be benefited by your actions...see the considerations above. Besides, even if we were to think humanistically, how would your beneficiary be able to enjoy the 24/7 electricity you're providing if he's a smoldering pile of green-glowing cinder?)

ENJOU KOSAI

Goal: Money, money, money. For that absolutely gorgeous Giorgio Armani scarf, of course. If not money, then revenge on mommy and daddy who are often away at work and neglecting you in the process. If not revenge, then trying to pacify a broken heart, because your (sorry excuse for a) boyfriend basically made advances on you, took you to his home while his parents were at work, nearly got you pregnant and left you for another man the following day. Oh the irony. Gee, you think these reasons are even ethically justifiable at all?

Ethical Considerations: Varies according to the individual. "I don't want to get pregnant or get AIDS, so I will use a condom." "I wouldn't want to spend the cash given me, it was hard-earned by those good men who basically used me like a rag doll in a love hotel somewhere in Kanegawa Prefecture." UH?????

Means: .....................I wouldn't even want to go into detail here. Humanists (notably atheistic/relativistic materialists) will miss the point here, of course, since I am answering the matter from a theistic paradigm. But, aside from the usual banter of physical hazards we often hear medical professionals and the like saying, God has expressly laid down the rules in entire passages like Leviticus 18 and 20 (it was very horrible having to wade through these passages, personally...disgusting images kept creeping into my head faster than I could get rid of them). You go read those Scripture portions for yourselves. My point is that IT IS WRITTEN. God basically said in Genesis 2:23-24 that sex should only be a covenant sign between married men and women. In this wise it is hardly even comparable to uranium. Why do you think he hates adultery and fornication? Because it is a sign of disrespect against God (you are pre-empting His revealed divine will on the proper time and place for intercourse and inserting your own selfish reasons for misusing a gift which he himself gave you) and furthermore, it is a sign of infidelity. Imagine being given a priceless gift by your husband as a token of his marital love for you, and then you either give that away to your boyfriend (as a token of YOUR love for HIM, no less) or sell it to some two-bit money changer so you could buy that lovely gown you've always wanted.

Bottom line: A human being's body is not a plutonium rod to be used and disposed of by themselves or other people at their own discretion. We are created in God's image and only God has the absolute right to our physical essence. Heck, we aren't even plain animals "evolved" from some primordial sludge (the possibility of life arising from nonlife is completely nil, anyway)...the implications of materialist evolutionary philosophy is strongly present here. And I might also note that the lack of a foundational belief in God is key to the propagation (and in this case, the defense) of such godless actions. Without an absolute ethic of any sort, men are "free" to do anything they want and justify it to boot, because the only thing they would consider to be their real guides would be their personal desires, their own sense of right and wrong and their subjective feelings (I was about to say society, but who cares what society wants?). Is it no wonder Christ said "Whosoever commits sin is the servant of sin" (John 8:34)?

(Continued in next post...)

The Long EK Article

2005-01-14T13:04:00.000+08:00

...which is not here yet, by the way, is being completed in the interim. If any #ProsApologian regular is reading this, help. I need a few guys to proofread my written analysis of an article I found regarding Enjou Kosai, because (in plain language) I am not as mighty as wonky or as wisdomy as Shamgar, CalvinDude, MarkE22, centuri0n, unicalman or...well, just about anybody in #pros. Seriously, you guys. I don't want to mess up this apologetic and make Christians look like bigoted idiots. Well, we may be "bigots" in the eyes of the rest of the planet, but we're not supposed to be idiots.

In fact, I'm looking through this site at the moment. Might turn up something.

It's tough being Christian and conservative. But hey, considering the wide gap between the vain philosophies of men and the mind of Christ, it goes with the job description. And, uh...well... (spots a couple of articles)

Teenage Prostitution in Japan
Japan Times: Juvenile Crime Wave Prompts Jusice Ministry Crackdown
Means and Ends
When Absolutism is Relative

...Well this changes things a bit.

Just Why Are You Interested in EK? Sukebe!

Good question. It's because 1) I'm writing a story about it to delve deeper into why it's wrong in the first place, and 2) I have a very bad past. Which I will not publish here for the sole reason of looking cool. But seriously, good question. Why AM I getting hung up on this? All the cool stuff I could write (like the adventures of samnj and wonky) and I end up losing sleep over a prostitution issue. I better get some rest and think about this with a clear head or I'll end up ranting in channel again and pissing off somebody, like tiredofUT.

Oh well. At least I'm still kyoudai in Pete's blog. That, and OzPhantom is a man who understands the blurx I keep typing in #pros.

Some Thoughts on The Hedonist Extreme

This just came to me earlier, and I wanted to share my thoughts. When one is unregenerate, that is to say he is a child of wrath under sin (Ephesians 2:3, 5:6; Colossians 3:6), one tends to revel more or less in the sinful pleasures of this world (Isaiah 5:12). Good and bad are nothing more than abstract terms with meanings relative to one's personal desires and opinions, and this actually causes a lot of hoopla. (Proverbs 21:2)

But when one is cleansed by the blood of Christ, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5), he suddenly sees, on the human level, his own sinfulness and rebellion against God. However, he also realizes in effect that the world he had once been enjoying was really a bastion of corruption. His surroundings suddenly become a very scary place as he begins to understand that he's technically not in Kansas anymore (1 John 5:19). Why? His point of view has changed. Suddenly (to paraphrase a rather popular seeker-sensitive author right now...#prosians, bear with me), it's no longer about himself; what he wants, what he believes, what he thinks is right for himself. Moral relativism is thrown out of the window as he realizes the presence of a greater good, the glorious absolute truth of God Almighty himself.

And you know what? This absolute ethic suddenly begins to color all things; things you once thought were wonderful in your blindness you now see in their true state of decay (John 3:19-20), and thus they both repulse you and yet drive you to pity at the same time (Philippians 3:18-19, Matthew 5:43-48). You realize that the worlds were framed by the word of God, and not by chance (Hebrews 11:3, Genesis 1), opening up the concept of external accountability to a divine Creator (Romans 3:19). And you realize that those who were once your closest companions are now your foes (1 Peter 4:3-5).

The world sure seems a lonely place for a new Christian. But thankfully, God has said "I will never leave you, nor forsake you" (Deuteronomy 31:6, 8; Joshua 1:5; Hebrews 13:5). That much we can count on. More than enough, in fact.

I have to go now. Class starts in a few minutes. God bless you all.

Romans 1:18-32 Portrayed in the News

2005-01-13T16:25:00.000+08:00

Sometimes the news never fails to surprise me. For example, a Satanist was beaten up badly by a couple of kids who were subsequently charged with hate crimes. In response, look what the satanist says:

"My allegiance is to Satan and I hate Christianity, Judaism and Islam, but I don't hurt anyone," Mr. Romano said. "I take out my anger in mosh pits and S-and-M clubs. I think it's ironic that the Christians got violent with the Satanist."

Judging by their behavior towards him, I don't think his assailants were even Christian at all. However, one must question that kind of response. "I hate Christianity, etc., but I don't hurt anyone"? As if not hurting anyone would somehow justify him or make him superior (thanks to centuri0n for pointing this out)? In the eyes of men, perhaps. Ironically, this is why REAL Christians are commanded to "let [their] light shine before men" so that people will "see [their] good works, and glorify [their] Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:16)

In other news, I received a Reuters story from a friend about atheists and secular humanists whining about religion and planning to make a big splash in 2005 to counter "religious fundamentalism". Among other things, they complain that Bush's election "strengthened...Christian fundamentalists" in restoring the Bible to it's proper place, and that "key Humanist values", such as "racial and sexual equality" (read: complete and utter sameness), "respect for human rights" (read: leave us alone, you Bible thumpers) and "morality based on reason rather than on the dictates of a supreme being through a holy book" (read: we worship the creature rather than a Creator, that is if there ever was one) as "under attack". Why WOULDN'T we attack them?? Your so-called "values" and "social breakthroughs" such as gay marriages (note the last section of the article) and evolutionary teachings have caused a lot more societal, moral, spiritual and intellectual damage in the last couple of centuries than your twisted caricature of Christianity and religion (e.g. using the Crusades and witch hunts) has ever accomplished!

Funny, I thought these were the people who cry "tolerance"? So why aren't they tolerating me and my brethren? For a bunch of people who mostly don't believe in a supreme being and claim to have no affiliations with any religion whatsoever, they sure are good at pushing theirs.

"Tolerance" Strikes Again

2005-01-12T07:26:00.000+08:00

This is very sickening. I was browsing through the Ladies Against Feminism webpage (a site that is slowly growing to become a favorite of mine) and I found this external article listed in their main page.

After scanning it very carefully, I was both enraged and ashamed. Enraged at the perverse darkness enveloping this soon-to-be-judged world of ours, and ashamed for the fact that I am technically in a similar situation and yet I don't speak/act out against evil like the poor girl did.

May God grant me the courage to do more than angrily rip a pizza delivery pamphlet, one that had been marked with profanity and hateful words by an animal rights activist, off of the school bulletin board. May He grant me the srength and conviction to conduct myself wisely toward outsiders (Colossians 4:5) that I be blameless and harmless, an unrebukeable child of God in the midst of a perverse generation (Philippians 2:15). And may he grant me the deep abiding faith in the victory of His Son Jesus Christ, the faith that will enable me, despite all odds, to say in all truth that "Here I stand, I can do no other; God help me. Amen."

Machaira's blog.

2005-01-11T09:55:00.000+08:00

In the Red Corner...

Yay. I can now tell people about the more mundane things in life, like having to carry my dog down to the first floor of our house whenever we come home from travels, school or work. It's quite an odd thing lugging an overweight Japanese Spitz around like a jumbo-sized pillow.

But I'm not here to tell you about mundane things. I'm here to be serious. Like I was after I had read this article.

One of the commentators used an interesting term: "Philistine Hell". Of course, he was referring to his own country (wherever that may be), but I would like to remind our readers that the same level of idolatry and promiscuity we see here was indulged in by the Philistines, Canaanites, etc. Oh, wait, what did God do to them again? Why don't you go to Deuteronomy 9 and find out for yourself.

Kinda makes you think, doesn't it? I love the manga style of art, yes, and I personally use it...but these people are literally SOLD to it! After reading the part about otaku camping out in makeshift cardboard shelters just to buy a plastic disc showcasing uber-pretty girls or whatnot, I fell to thinking "Man, these guys need a LIFE!" But God knew differently than I did.

That IS their life.

They glory in it, they dwell upon it, and the same shall be part and parcel of their judgment (Romans 1:18-32).

I'll close with this quote from an article entitled "Oriental Lolitas - The Back Half - Japanese Erotic Comic Books" by Susanna Jones for now:

"The manga schoolgirl is made out of ink and paper, but does that mean no one gets hurt in the making of it?"

And in the Blue Corner...

I'm currently writing a story about a girl practicing Enjo Kosai, or "compensated dating" (others would label it as "prostitution"). Enjo Kosai involves girls, often high school students, who sell themselves to (mostly) middle-aged customers for cold hard cash to fuel their materialistic fancies.

Hmm, I wonder...didn't Christ say something about a man's life not consisting of the things he owns? (Luke 12:15) I'm surprised at how we as people can sell ourselves for something that cannot last. In contrast, Christ tells us "not [to] work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life (John 6:27)".

Just kinda tells you in a blunt way what our priorities really are.