Entropy, Sin and Renewal

Having said that entropy is a death principle, I must also say that death is an entropic principle. That characterization, naturally, would also extend to sin, since it was sin that gave rise to death. Therefore, sin is an entropic principle too. Sin requires the exertion of some soulish "energetic principle" which cannot be fully recaptured, or restored, or reused once is has been expended. Sinning empties the tank of something that made sinning possible.

Sin is soulish spilled milk. Once accomplished, even at some minimalistic level, sin marks the sinner for the rest of his or her life. He or she cannot go back to the spiritual quality he or she had before. Something is used up which cannot be unused or self-restored. Sin is the indelible stain of the soul.

To deal adequately with sin, the sinner must look beyond his or herself, and beyond anything else that suffers from entropy--something which cannot only jam the dhinni back in the bottle, but can also erase the record of the failure in time. Anything less would not be true restoration. There is nothing that fits that bill except for almighty God, for he alone is not entropic and also supertemporal.

God is willing to both erase the spiritual decay of sin and it's record. He is willing to reset the clocks, as it were, and start again. There is a time he's appointed to do that, and in the meantime, he has graced us with a taste of what is to come. What is necessary to overcome sin and death has been provided by the only source possible and it has been made widely available to all who wish it.

For all who've faced the undeniable conclusion that they are not what they should be, and that they can't do anything about it, there is great news in Christ. He's demonstrated his ability to take away our sin and overcome death. He promises to make anyone who trusts in him to do so new on the last day and take them into eternity without decay. Life without entropy awaits us, what are you waiting for?

Another Perspective on Romans 9: Part III

Mercy and Faith
Verse 19 of Romans 9 begins an aside in Paul’s dissertation. He has a hypothetical responder object to the repercussions of Paul’s presentation, arguing that if all depends on God’s mercy, than those hardened cannot be blamed for their hardness. This, of course, presages Paul’s revelation in chapter 11 that currently, a hardening has come upon the Jews. Hardness is not presented there as a necessarily persevering quality, so the response is more directed at the hypothetical questioner’s arrogance than at establishing any principle of deterministic election.

Regardless, the principle that God can do what he wants with whom he wants is the prerogative of creators. Potters call the shots, not pots. Who, then, is in a position to question God’s motives or demand anything from him? The created can but accept their lot, and be as they have been made to be. There is hope, however, in faith as we shall see.

Vs. 22-24 is Paul’s way stating what Peter said as well. There is a patience in God, holding back the expression of inevitable wrath, so that everyone destined for mercy can be shown it. Peter keys that to repentance, Paul keys it to faith (not only in this chapter but throughout his writings). So whatever this may be saying about God’s predetermination, by the end of the argument, it is said that faith is the means by which one gets into the class of promise.

Vs. 25-33 pull all of these concepts together in application by showing that God’s purpose was inviting a people, made up of Jews and Gentiles, to righteousness. This promise was entirely a matter of God’s mercy, rather than arbitrary status or works, and is accessed through faith. And not just faith, but specifically, trust in that stumbling block that is Christ. God had to make choices in time to bring this promised Rock into place, but now that he is, whoever puts their trust in him will never be ashamed.

Conclusion
The principle of Romans 9 is not that God arbitrarily chooses certain individuals to be saved and others to be damned. Instead, it teaches that anyone who receives God’s promise by faith and relates to God on the basis of his mercy, rather than works, will be part of his people. God is God and can do as he likes, but if Gentiles, regardless of lacking the Jews' “God-givens,” can be made righteous by faith, anyone can. And by God, you too, whoever you may be, can.

Parts I, II

Another Perspective on Romans 9: Part II

Election
Paul’s use of the concept of election in Romans 9 is not accurately related to individual salvation (i.e. that God picks individuals to be saved or damned). In verse 11, election is cast in a redemption history light (and as evident by vs 4-5). Paul was neither trying to establish a principal of individual salvation by election, nor establishing, contra-Calvin, that election unto salvation was corporate. He was merely trying to establish the fact that in order to fulfill his purposes (which were salvivic), God made choices among men.

God chose Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in that regard, and rejected Ishmael, Esau, and others. This choice had nothing whatsoever to do with establishing any pattern concerning personal salvation, nor was it made for personal merit.  These individuals (and their progeny after them) were chosen merely in regard to their role in bringing forth the ultimate promise--Christ. That progeny's counterintuitive rejection of Christ is the point Paul is exploring in Chapter 9.

In verse 16 we do discover something more akin to precedential regarding salvation—that God’s mercy was the determining issue, rather than any merit or lack of merit in his selectees. In the immediate context, this refers to his choices within redemption history, but in the broader context (see chapters 3, 4, 10 and 11), it does service the concept of salvation by grace. It seems that everything in redemption history and in redemption itself, rests in God’s mercy rather than the merits of man. As always, to God be all the glory.

In making these choices in time, which would ultimately result in the fulfilling of his purpose, v. 18 says that God shows favor to some folks and disfavor to others. Disfavor results in obstinacy (hardness) toward the purposes of God, although it is not clear that it causes such (especially in light of v. 30). Pharaoh is used as an example, and at least in his case, hardening was attributed to both God’s action and his. Regardless, the choosing of which is which is God’s alone, and he answers to no one for it, although I think it worth remembering at this point that these are not choices to personally save or damn, but to accomplish his purpose in making these choices.

That purpose is finally specified in vs. 23-24. God saw the end of making these choices prior to that end occurring, that end was his purpose: that Gentiles and Jews would be called together into his salvation in Christ. He endured with great patience those vessels hardened throughout history, because he saw the glory in the end for those vessels of mercy, even us, those Jews and Gentiles being saved in Christ. So God made choices in history, not to demonstrate his methodology in establishing who would go to heaven and who would go to hell, but in order to advance his purpose through history and to accomplish it in time.

Conclusion
Romans 9 is not speaking about election unto salvation at all, as if there could be an explanation of why God, solely by decree, would determine some to be saved and others to burn in hell forever. If anything, Romans 9 is trying to explain why the elect are not being saved--why Jews, despite their status as the chosen, are not embracing Christ. Neither corporate nor individual election unto salvation is in view at all! The conclusion of the explanation, in a nutshell, is that Jews do not accept God’s mercy by faith but try to establish their own meritorious record and end up missing the promised Messiah of the Jewish people.

Parts I, III

Another Perspective on Romans 9: Part I

Introduction
Romans 9 has to be the most controversial chapter in the entire Bible among believing Christians. Generally, the issue that causes all the sparks and gets all the attention is election; however, when I read the chapter, I don’t see election, as generally understood, as the intent or the focus of the chapter. All the hullaballoo about election is misplaced, in my mind, the result of misinterpretation and misunderstanding context. Romans 9 is merely the opening salvo in a argument that extends through chapter 11 which explains why Jews were not being saved in Paul’s day. The determining issue in that is clearly stated to be faith, not election.

Overview

The initial subject of chapter 9 (vs. 1-5) is the disheartening rejection of Christ amongst the Jews, who were supposedly God’s chosen people (the elect). The chapter goes on to explain how the benefaction of God’s promises cannot be understood according to arbitrary qualifications (who your daddy is) or by human efforts (what one does to make himself meritorious). The conclusion (vs. 30-33) is that the promises can only be pursued through the auspices of faith, and not by dependence upon one’s status in a chosen group (elect) nor by personal merit (works).

Paul's Argument

Though it is true that the Jews were the recipients of the promises concerning salvation, they were, in Paul’s day, not the beneficiaries. The fault, Paul explains, does not lie in the promises (God’s word) but in Israel’s unbelief. The puzzle of this circumstance lies in their misapprehension of God’s choice (election). An arbitrary membership in a class of people was not a sufficient way to understand nor define those chosen to be beneficiaries. Abraham and Isaac were used to illustrate the point.

Though Ishmael (and others) were the offspring of Abraham, they were not the result of promise nor the beneficiaries of promise. Though Esau was Isaac’s son, and therefore the result of that promise, he was not a beneficiary either.

Furthermore, that choice was not predicated upon the determination or effort of man--it was purely and simply a matter of God’s mercy and not human merit. God’s mercy cannot be tethered to deserts in the recipients but is solely according to the pleasure of God, otherwise it would be reward rather than mercy. God has mercy on who he wills, as Paul ably illustrates by the examples of Esau and Pharaoh. The bracing repercussion is that we have nothing to say to God to defend our worthiness, nor detract from his judgment which excludes us from his beneficence.

Mercy is not merely arbitrary, however. Although mercy is not extended on the basis of worthiness (which would seem to make it arbitrary), it is received on the basis of faith (which seems to make it anything but arbitrary). If this was not the intended point of Paul's dissertation from verses 1 through 29, he would never have brought up the pursuit of righteousness starting with verse 30. The long and short of it is that God extends mercy to whomever he wishes regardless of works or geneology, but that ultimate, saving mercy can only be received through the auspices of faith.

The force of the argument in Romans 9 is that Jews who thought they had the privileged position of being chosen by God because of their heritage and their works, were in fact missing the ultimate promise of that election. It is not that they were not chosen or even chosen no longer, as chapters 10 and 11 make abundantly clear. Their loss (hardening) revolves completely around their unwillingness to respond to God's mercy with faith. Instead, they endeavored to establish their own record of worthiness by the law and thereby missed out on God's mercy in Christ.

Parts II, III

All This Talk About Vision

God speaks to people about what he will have them do. Today. He hasn't changed.

The experience of such would be called a vision, even if it wasn't something optically perceived. It seems funny to me, but everyone in the church world is all about vision these days, even if they are blatant cessationists (thanks for nothing Peter Drucker).

When a man or woman of God has an ambition or dream, ostensibly inspired by God in some way, they labor to put together all the pieces necessary to accomplish it. He or she puts up a target, and then pushes and pulls, moves and shakes, and out comes...

...a calf. These may (and I only say that by concession) not be our golden gods, but at the very least, they are our bronze serpents. The truth is that they are our Ishmaels.

The church world has so thoroughly embraced the strategic management techniques used in the world, that though the product resulting from this kind of vision may be accurately consumer-driven, it is about as far away from the model described in the manual as sand castles are from real ones. Since this kind of vision is the product of human imagination, in what way can it be said to be a vision from God? For that matter, would God even bother to give us a vision if the thing we were endeavoring to accomplish could be achieved by human ingenuity in the normal course of affairs? The results of these managerial efforts never produce Isaacs, and can never measure up to the model in the heavens.

When God does grant a vision to a person, it is not like he places an order with that person, or is commanding that one to accomplish the thing shown. The vision is a demonstration or a display, really a sneak preview, of what is coming to pass. He doesn't give us visions for us to figure out how to make it so, he gives us visions of what is he is bringing forth. Generally, they are beyond any possibility of us making them so anyhow, and they only come about by the most unusual and bizarre of circumstances.

Our efforts to produce the vision from God instead produce hardship. They result in Ishmaels which strive against all men. They result in the trashing of those who can't "keep up," the disdain of those less perceiving, and the exploitation of the blood-bought as if they were mere raw materials. They produce pride and division, and leave heritages of animosity. To hell with such visions!

By contrast, God's efforts to fulfill the vision he shared produce the joy of the Lord. They result in Isaacs, which are pleasant in their surprise, gentle to all, and demonstrate the peaceable fruits of righteousness. They do not trash, belittle, or otherwise relegate to trophy cases the blood-bought and beloved of God. They produce laughter and praise, and leave the sweet savor of heaven behind.

Perhaps it has something of a biblical precedent, all this talk of vision: it leaves a sour taste in my mouth!

Entropy, Zombies, and Eternal Life

en·tro·py  

  [en-truh-pee]  Show IPA

noun

1) In Thermodynamics:
   a. on a macroscopic scale, a function of thermodynamic variables, such as temperature, pressure, or composition that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.
   b. in statistical mechanics, a measure of the randomness of the microscopic constituents of a thermodynamic system. Symbol: S
2) In Data Transmission and Information Theory: a measure of the loss of information in a transmitted signal or message.
3) In Cosmology: a hypothetical tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (i.e. heat death).
4) a doctrine of inevitable social decline and degeneration.

Entropy is a death principle. On a large enough scale, everything is winding down and does not have the ability to wind itself back up. The spring is springing and eventually will be sprung, for nothing in all of creation can reset itself to what it was before. Something would always be lost in the effort. Even if it could "come back to life" it would be less than life--zombie life, only a shadow of its former self.

The classic proof of First Cause is true: the caused cannot cause itself. Therefore, to observe, not only the self-initiated return to a former state, but an improvement in that state is an evidence of something truly supernatural. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is such a circumstance. Not only did he come back from death, he came back better--more powerful and not subject to death again.

One could dismiss such an occurrence because he or she was not there to see it. But for those who cannot shake eyewitness testimony, nor the need to explain the rise of Christianity in a hostile, pagan world, Christ's entropy-defying defeat of death and his return, not to zombie life but to eternal life, becomes the central event in human existence. Even more than that, it becomes the window to heaven and the gate to eternal life. Open up the shade and crack open the door, the world may offer zombiism at best, but light and life await you in Christ.

Must God Cast His Pearl Before Swine?

“Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."    Matthew 7:6 (NASB)

Does God know people? I mean know them, as in what truly motivates them, what their secret desires are, what is the likelihood they would do anything in a particular situation. I think he does, and does so with astonishing acumen (he is God after all). It is obvious he knows their histories, including every overt thing they have either said or did and every secret rumination of their hearts, but he also sees their entire life at once. I think it is beyond doubt that he would know how they would respond to efforts he would make to coax them, inspire them, persuade them, command them, or otherwise engage them.

If God is so thoroughly familiar with people as I've suggested, is he under any obligation to attempt to rescue those he knows would only rebuff his efforts? If Jesus has any thing to say on the subject, I think his answer would be a resounding "NO." Folks who would pay no never mind, are not guaranteed to get the opportunity. His instructions to his disciples above seem to bear out this principle.

If extra-biblical history yields any insight into the question, it too, I think, offers a resounding amen to the proposition. Vast swaths of human population have come and gone without ever hearing the Gospel. Of those that have, vast swaths ignore it outrightly or pay it nominal fealty at best. Hopefully, we all realize it is not the hearers of the Gospel that are saved, but those who believe it and follow Christ as a result. Given what we have seen with those who do hear the Gospel, there is nothing to suggest that even some of those folks that have not heard would have responded to Christ with faith had they heard.

Pointing out these kinds of things can cause folk who believe in the inclusivity of God's love and the universality of Christ's atonement (as I do) to be aghast. In my mind, some of these posit a sentimental notion of God's love that doesn't reflect the evidence of life in general nor the scriptures in particular. Just because God would rather see someone saved than lost, it cannot be inferred that he has an obligation to try to save that which cannot be saved. As for me, I think God knows what he's doing without my counsel or condemnation, and that everyone who would have been saved will have been saved when all is said and done.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that God has bound himself to giving each person, by some means, a personal opportunity to receive or reject Christ. If the result of people known to have actually had that opportunity produces, proportionally, so little fruit, how would the outcome of some extraordinary effort by God to reach them ex-gospel be significantly different? Without the Gospel they do as they want, oblivious and uncaring about God's desire. With the Gospel they do as they want, dismissive and uncaring about God's desire. Why think that there was some untapped potential among the unhearing masses that would have responded if it would have had the chance?

Who could fault God if he decided to bypass the rigamarole and cut to the chase? Could we trust him with that judgment? Rather than posit extra-biblical, feel-good notions about partial grace/partial revelation, or post-mortem grace, or universal enablement, or whatever (none of which have anything close to definitive statements in the scriptures to support them), why not say what we can say clearly and leave judgment in the hands of God? Rather than pretend to know how God graces or judges, leave it to God and say no more than he has said. Regardless, nothing justifies suggesting there is something other than the Gospel that saves.

As for me, I see no way in which God is obligated to cast his pearl before swine.

Understanding Sovereignty

God is sovereign. We hear it often as a confession of resignation popularly; as in "Oh well, God is still on the throne." Or as a theological bulwark scholastically; as in "There are no rogue molecules out there." But what does it mean that God is sovereign?

First and foremost, it deals with the substance of God's freedom--he does as he wants. There is nothing to restrain him, limit him, or withstand him. We could say, "nothing, except for himself," but that would be vacuous and a bit silly to point out. In a nutshell, his range of action and choice is unimpeded.

Secondly, it means that all things are under God's authority. Nothing has power over God, but God has power over all things. Nothing can compel God to do other than he wishes, yet he has the power to compel anything not him. His determination cannot be thwarted. God, alone, is in power.

Thirdly, it means all things are under God's direction. He decides how everything will be and do. There is nothing independent of God (though God is independent of all). Everything else has what capacities God determines and accomplishes what God plans. God directs the affairs of everything.

God's sovereignty is necessary, he would not be God without it. If there were something else that had the attributes of sovereignty, it would be God. However, it does not follow that some things that are attributed to God's sovereignty are necessary to sovereignty. For instance, God's sovereignty does not require that he exhaustively determine every instant of every particle's or every agent's action. It is sufficient that he governs such by law and principle put into place at creation and which operate by such capacity throughout time.

In fact, if his sovereignty did not work in this fashion, the concept of Sabbath rest would be impossible. Although he upholds (i.e. continues the existence) all things, it doesn't mean he has to be manipulating or creating things constantly, instantly, to be in control. Of course, he has the option to do what he wants, with anything he wants, anyway he wants; but generally, things proceed according to the control "program" he instituted at the initiation. They will continue that way until he says to the Creation, "Be no more."

So, things continue according to this kind of governance. Nothing is out of control, or doing other than he wills, for he sovereignly willed for things to act and be in a certain fashion. Act and be that way they will--particles do the dance they were programmed for, agents act with the capacities they were granted. God is sovereign over all, even if he did not design every instant.

This principle particularly plays out with demons and mankind. It was God's sovereign will to create these beings with a sub-sovereignty of their own. They exercise freewill, authority and direction as they do because it is God's will that they do. Agents (and even particles for that matter) do not exercise what they exercise according to the minutiae of God's determination, but by the principles of law that govern their exercise. They do as they are programmed to do, as does everything. Mankind and demon just happen to be programmed to do as they want.

Oops, I Agree With Pat Robertson

Pat Robertson is often in the middle of a self-generated firestorm. The man has had his feet in his mouth so often, his tongue is scuffed like a welcome mat (badum, ssch: that is the customary drum and cymbal strike for the comically impaired). Recently, he's been setting off smoke detectors, again. This time over the issue of legalizing marijuana.

I do not believe it is right to use marijuana "recreationally" to achieve an altered mental state, anymore than I believe that is acceptable to do with alcohol, cocaine, or any other substance. Drunkenness and sorcery is sin, period. However, I do not believe, as a Christian American, that it makes any sense for such substances and such behavior to be illegal in the sense that incarceration is possible.

All that illegalizing drugs has done for our society is to prosper gangsters and thugs, who use their power and money to violently destabilize culture, even entire societies (like Mexico, Burma, Columbia, etc.); and to burden society with the cost of building, maintaining, managing, and supplying prisons, largely, for drug offenders. When those offenders are released, they are, generally, more violent and less capable of succeeding in "normal" society than they were when they went in.

Our approach to drug enforcement looks to me like the proverbial shooting of oneself in the foot. Surely, there has to be a better regulatory model than what we're doing now! Prohibition was a disaster, and so too has been the "War on Drugs." We should move from criminalization to regulation yesterday.