Irresistible Grace -- What About Cain?

This is the fourth installment in this series dealing with ‘irresistible grace’ or as some call it ‘effectual grace’ whereby God calls individuals to salvation. That in and of itself is correct, however the question is does God coerce or override the individual’s freewill? Those who insist that God’s will cannot be resisted confuse what God wills unconditionally with what He wills conditionally. God wills the salvation of all persons conditionally – conditioned on their repentance (2 Peter 3:9). Therefore, Biblically speaking God’s will in this sense can be resisted by an unrepentant heart. As Dr. Geisler says on page 97 of Chosen But Free, “Election is unconditional from the standpoint of the Giver (God), but it is conditional from the standpoint of the receiver. And since God foreknew for sure who will receive it, the result is certain. Thus, in this sense God’s grace on the elect is irresistible.”

Let’s look at one account in the beginning of Scripture and see what it teaches us regarding this topic.

Genesis 4:3-13
And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now [art] thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.

In this account, God actually singled out a ‘totally depraved’ man – Cain – and confronted him over his offering and attitude. God lovingly ‘challenges’ Cain and He provides him with a choice. The choice is to ‘doest well’ and if Cain does the right thing, the LORD promises him that he will be accepted by God. So, a ‘totally depraved’ man is faced with a ‘choice’ or 'decision' to seek and obey God or not to seek Him. Sadly we see as a result of Cain’s unrepentant heart that he chooses to disobey God. We know the rest of the story – Cain made the wrong choice using his freewill. Abel chose to obey God and Cain did not – Cain chose to do it his way.

The nuggets I glean from this passage are that even in the beginning of earth’s history, shortly after sin entered the human race, God actively pursued His creation. God personally encounters Cain in love and with His holy conviction. God does not force or make Cain do anything. He simply holds him accountable for his actions and He asks him to ‘contemplate’ his sinful state. God’s dealing with Cain is motivated by His desire to see Cain ‘do well’ and follow God. It can’t be any clearer.

I ask a simple question. Did not God ask Cain to reform, or better yet repent of his sin and choose to doest well? The resounding answer is YES! Then God, who created frail man certainly knows our limitations and capabilities. Why would God ask His creation to do something He knows they can’t possibly do – to follow the extreme Calvinist’s position of total depravity which infers a dead man can not make a decision or choice to seek after the things of God? Only God can save the person who chooses to repent and believe and that is the POWER of the gospel. But man is responsible for the repenting and believing part.

Simply put, God put Cain to a test that He knew the outcome of, but He still gave Cain a choice. Just as he does each of us! We don’t know how long Cain wrestled with this, but we do know he failed. Clearly Cain resisted God’s grace as a result of his unrepentant heart and a choice of his will. Remember John 3:16...

God is love!

In Him,

Eye

Extreme Calvinism -- "Born Again Before Faith"...

Calvinism -- the very word raises emotions, sparks debates and arguments, begets name-calling, and in general fosters divisiveness that liters the past and most likely will continue in the future until such time as the Lord returns. I will be the first to admit my understanding of the Calvinist's position was cursory at best and certainly not something I spent much time pondering. After numerous on-line encounters of Blogs, websites, conventional books by well-respected authors and of course much prayer and study of the Scripture on these matters; I can honestly say I do have a solid understanding of the issues as they lie today.

As evidenced by my recent posts, I have gleaned much from Dr. Geisler's fine book Chosen But Free. This book goes into great detail in outlining the 'history' of Calvinism and contrasts it with what is known today as 'extreme' or 'hyper' Calvinism. It also does a masterful job of exposing extreme Arminianism versus Arminianism and how they differ from historic Calvinism.

In studying Calvinism, I quickly discovered, as evidenced by some of the comments associated with my previous posts, the concept that one must be regenerated so that they can then place faith in Jesus. I've been a Christian for 37 years, I've read the Bible from cover to cover numerous time, shared the gospel with people, prepared in-depth Bible studies for Sunday School, Bible seminars, and teaching series, and I must confess this idea of being born again or regenerated prior to faith never lept off the pages of the Bible as I prayed and studied these many years. Furthermore, this concept of being born again prior to faith has not been raised by an unregenerate or lost person regarding salvation when I've talked to them about the Lord. My 'extreme' Calvinist defenders might argue that they will never bring that up because they don't understand the things of God and it is foolishness to them. Moreover, the doctrine of salvation is beyond an unregenerate person's capacity.

To me, the best way to examine a situation is to test it against the clear Word of God. I'm constantly drawn to the Philippian jailer and his encounter with God. I can not find any indication in the Scriptures that the man was regenerated so that he could then place faith in Jesus. Where is that to be found in Scripture? Actually, what we do find is a lost man asking the apostle what he must do to be saved! Now, either he was lost when he asked that question or he was saved! You can't have it both ways. I proclaim he was lost because of a several clear reasons:

1) The Bible was explicit in its use of the language that was uttered from the man's lips -- he admitted to the apostle he was lost.

2) Those that argue he was 'secretly' regenerated prior to this so that he could then place faith in Jesus must prove that from Scripture. If this doctrine was clearly taught in Scripture, don't you think the apostles of all people would have an excellent working knowledge of it and would have taken every opportunity to preach it? I can't find where they did.

3) The apostle responded to the jailer's enquiry with the simple words, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved... In other words, it could not be any clearer -- you believe and then you are saved!


I'm pasting for your reading pleasure a paragraph from James White's Statement of Faith found on his website here.

We believe that God, in His sovereign grace and mercy, regenerates sinful men by the power of the Holy Spirit, not by any action of their own, bringing them to new life. God grants to them the gifts of faith and repentance, which they then exercise by believing in Christ and turning from their sins in love for God. As a result of this faith, based upon the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, God justifies or makes righteous the one who believes. God's gift of faith and the continuing work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the elect, results in good works. These good works flow from true, saving faith; they are a necessary result of faith, but are not to be considered necessary to the gaining of justification, which is by God's grace through faith alone, so that no man can boast.

When you read this paragraph carefully you see this order:

1) God regenerates sinful man by the power of the Holy Spirit
2) God brings them to a regenerated state of new life
3) Then, God grants them the gifts of faith and repentance, which they then exercise by believing in Christ

I'm not making this up, it is what James White believes the Scriptures teach and he is not alone -- there are many other extreme Calvinists who agree with him. But sadly, I have yet to see any clear exegetical effort from Scriptural proof texts that show the progression noted above.

In Him,

Eye

Limited Atonement -- Continuation of Extreme Calvinism Articles

I quote the Moderate Calvinist position regarding Limited Atonement from Dr. Geisler's book Chosen But Free for the reader's review:

Limited atonement is also affirmed by moderate Calvinists in the sense that it is limited in its application. That is, although redemption was purchased for all and is available to all, nonetheless, it will only be applied to those whom God chose from all eternity – the elect.

Please find a very good exchange on this topic between Dr. Davy and Dawn. I've taken the liberty of bumping this thread to the main post position.


Dr. Davy said: “Limited atonement is a difficult issue. Let's say Christ died for all people (as Jn 1:29 and 3:16 seem to say). How then can God send some of those people to Hell, for whom Christ died? Was Christ's atonement insufficient? Saying that Christ died for the elect only solves that conundrum. The Arminian says that Christ's atonement was sufficient for all, but only effective for those who receive it by faith. I'm not sure if that is an adequate qualification. For one thing, either it was totally sufficient or it was not--to say that something was sufficient but not effective sounds like quibbling over words to me.”

Dawn's response: I don’t think limited atonement is a difficult issue at all. The only reason any of this appears to be difficult is because Calvinists of the extreme or hyper persuasion have totally and completely complicated the simplicity of the gospel and the perspicuity of scripture. They’ve done this by redefining biblical terms, creating false analogies, creating false doctrines, using fallacious arguments, taking scripture out of context, twisting scripture, ignoring tons of scripture and maligning God’s very character.

You said, “Let's say Christ died for all people (as Jn 1:29 and 3:16 seem to say). How then can God send some of those people to Hell, for whom Christ died? Was Christ's atonement insufficient? Saying that Christ died for the elect only solves that conundrum.”

It is very clear that Christ died for all people, but that’s not the whole of the gospel. There was a caveat attached to Jesus’ death. The caveat being that one must actually believe the gospel. And I’m not talking Easy Believism here. As Eye has pointed out numerous times, the word believe is an action word that means to faith/commit. One must not only believe Jesus is Lord, but one must put their trust and faith in the Lord and commit their lives to His service. When we believe on the Lord in those terms then Jesus’ death on the cross is effective. It WAS, IS and ALWAYS WILL BE sufficient whether we believe or not.

How can God send some people to Hell? Easy (though it grieves Him tremendously while at the same time it is His JUSTICE), because the Bible states that one must believe on the Lord Jesus to be saved. Was Christ’s atonement insufficient? NO WAY! The question is irrelevant because the argument that His dying for ALL dictates that ALL must be saved is a logical fallacy. Saying that Christ died for the elect ONLY is simply wrong because Calvinists have CREATED the so-called “conundrum.” Sorry, Dr. Davy, but there was never a conundrum. NEVER.


Dr. Davy said: “The Arminian says that Christ's atonement was sufficient for all, but only effective for those who receive it by faith. I'm not sure if that is an adequate qualification. For one thing, either it was totally sufficient or it was not--to say that something was sufficient but not effective sounds like quibbling over words to me.”

Eye's interjection -- Words do mean something so quibbling over them is relevant to understanding the thought. Please note how Dawn has taken the clear definitions of sufficient and effective for us to compare and understand their meanings.

Dawn's response: The fact that Christ’s atonement was/is sufficient for all while not effective for all is in no way an inadequate qualification, rather it is the ONLY true and correct qualification as taught by the word of God. When we know and understand the whole of the gospel we understand the differences between sufficiency and efficacy, not to mention the actual definition of the words are DIFFERENT.

sufficient adj. 1. adequate for the purpose; enough. 2. Logic. (of a condition) such that its existence leads to the occurrence of a given event or the existence of a given thing. Compare NECESSARY (def. 4c). 3. Archaic. competent. sufficiently, adv.

effective adj. 1. adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result: effective teaching methods. 2. in operation or in force; functioning; operative: The law becomes effective at midnight. 3. producinga deep or vivid impression; striking: an effective photograph. 4. prepared and available for service, esp. military service. -n. 5. a member of the armed forces fit for duty or active service. effectively, adv. effectiveness, effectivity, n. - Syn. EFFECTIVE, EFFECTUAL, EFFICACIOUS, EFFICIENT refer to that which produces or is able to produce an effect. EFFECTIVE is applied to something that produces a desired or expected effect, often a lasting one: an effective speech. EFFECTUAL usu. refers to something that produces a decisive outcome or result: an effectual settlement. EFFICACIOUS refers to something capableof achieving a certain end or purpose: an efficacious remedy. EFFICIENT, usu. used of a person, implies skillful accomplishment of a purpose with littlewaste of effort: an efficient manager.

Christ’s atonement was sufficient to save the entire world. His atonement is only effective when one applies the correct principles to that atonement (i.e., believe (believe/faith/commit) on the Lord Jesus Christ).

Dr. Davy said: “For another thing, it can be made to look like faith is a work, and it is necessary for man to do the work of faith in order to complete Christ's work of atonement. Once again, it implies that Christ's atonement was not totally sufficient for salvation.”

Dawn's response: Sorry, DD, but only a hyper/extreme Calvinist would ever see faith as a work. The Bible explicitly states that faith is NOT a work. (Romans 3:27) So WHY would ANYONE EVER see it as a work? The ONLY way they would ever see it that way is if they were TAUGHT to see it that way. FAITH IS NOT A WORK and can NEVER be seen as a WORK. Saying that one can exercise their GOD-GIVEN FAITH is in no way an implication of insufficiency of Christ’s atonement. It’s just NOT. God is the only one who can save, but He requires some participation from man, and that participation of faith is NOT a work. That IS what the Bible teaches. Man’s participation in no way takes any sovereignty away from God. Man can’t save Himself, but He must obey the word of God by placing his faith IN God. God then quickens our spirits to life and we are new creatures IN HIM. It is ALL the work of God.

Eye's finale -- thanks to Dr. Davy and Dawn for their good exchange on this topic. To sum up I would like to quote from Dr. Geisler's book Chosen But Free, p. 76:

Extreme Calvinists argue that limited atonement is supported by the fact that the objects of Christ's death are always believers, not unbelievers. They further contend that if Christ paid the price for the salvation of all unbelievers, then all would be saved. In other words, they argue that rejection of limited atonement leads to universalism (the belief that everyone will be saved), which of course is contrary to Scripture.

And on page 88 of Chosen But Free we read:

The stark truth of the matter is that the God of extreme Calvinism is not all-loving. Limited atonement necessarily means God has limited His love to only some.

Remember John 3:16...

In Him,

Eye

Tiger -- Congratulations!

1st Corinthians 9:24 "Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain."

The time, energy, work, sacrifice, and effort that goes into training to perform at the highest levels of a sport are staggering. Few can do it and fewer can master their emotions and talents to perform at such a level on a consistent basis.

That said, are we running to receive the prize? The trophy Tiger is holding in this picture will not compare to the saints hearing those words spoken by Jesus to those who faithfully run the race and obtain the prize...

Well done, good and faithful servant

In Him,

Eye

Unconditional Election and Stargates...

I know -- after seeing the picture of the Stargate portal from the Sci-Fi show Stargate I’ve most likely lost what little credibility I might have gained with you the reader. But, if you will indulge me for just a moment, I think I can explain myself in a way that I hope makes sense – especially in light of the continuation of my post on extreme Calvinism. Today’s post will deal with the ‘U’ which stands for unconditional election.

To quote Dr. Geisler’s book Chosen But Free on p. 68, “The second premise of extreme Calvinism is unconditional election, by which is meant that there are absolutely no conditions for God’s electing some to salvation or for our receiving it. Strangely, even some extreme Calvinists seem to acknowledge this distinction, saying ‘We must be careful to distinguish between conditions that are necessary for salvation and conditions that are necessary for election…’ He adds, ‘There are all sorts of conditions that must be met for someone to be saved. [Geisler commenting on Sproul: A strange statement for one who believes salvation is by “faith alone!”] Chief among them is that we must have faith in Christ” (a quote from Chosen by God, 155

(The footnote from Geisler on Sproul’s book reads: The catch is that even faith is a result of “irresistible regeneration.” Surprisingly, Sproul even admits that “The Reformed view does, in a narrow sense, see obedience as a ‘condition’ (but never the ground) of justification…The real necessary condition is the presence of real faith which will of necessity yield the fruit of obedience” Willing to Believe, 179.”)

Now that we are all confused, let’s try and get to the heart of the matter. Moderate Calvinists agree there are no strings attached to the gift of salvation – it is unconditional. When election occurred – before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4) – the elect were not even created yet. God elected on His own, with out any conditions that needed to be performed on the part of the elect. However, the question is not whether there are any conditions for God giving salvation; the question is whether there are any conditions for man receiving salvation. And here the Bible seems to be very emphatic that faith is the condition for receiving God’s gift of salvation. Quoted from p. 69 of Chosen But Free

In a nutshell, the error of extreme Calvinism regarding “unconditional election” is the failure to adhere to an election that is unconditional from the standpoint of the Giver (God), but has one condition for the receiver – faith. And this in turn is based on the mistaken notion that faith is a gift only to the elect who have no choice in receiving it.

As footnoted by Geisler on page 74 of Chosen But Free, ‘Some extreme Calvinists admit that faith is a condition that unregenerate humans must exercise before they can receive the gift of salvation. Sproul acknowledges that this is “the most crucial point of the debate between Dispensationalism [moderate Calvinism] and Reformed Theology [extreme Calvinism] (see Sproul, Willing to Believe, 198

Back to my picture of the Stargate – you thought I’d forgotten, or better yet you hoped I had forgotten! Here’s why I have the picture. I know this is a crude analogy, but I think in some ways it ‘pictures’ salvation. First, when the gate isn’t turned on there is no obvious or representative power available. In other words, man can not save himself and he can’t wake up and decide today he will make a decision to believe the gospel apart from the power of the gospel being present to convict and provide the means for salvation. So, the person who decides to walk through the non-powered Stargate goes nowhere. However when the power is activated, a person responding to that power could walk through it and be transported or transformed from one place in the galaxy to another place thousands of light years away – at least on television!

Now imagine the Stargate represents the ‘power of the gospel’ so that when a person hears the gospel the gate is activated as a result of the preaching of the Word and the conviction of the Holy Spirit. The person hearing the gospel must respond in faith to the gospel and believe the gospel to be born again. To use the analogy, they would have to believe and walk through the gate to complete the mission of being born again. If the gate is turned on and you ‘choose’ not to go through it, you remain in the same place. Maybe you are afraid of the gate or what it might do to you so you reject the turned on gate and choose to stay where you are. The bottom line is the person must ‘choose’ to believe the power is there to transform them. In faith they step through the gate when it is turned on and they go to another place.

So it is with the gospel. When the convicting power of the Holy Spirit moves on the heart of a person through the preaching of the word and the power of the gospel is available to save that person (the gate is turned on), that person must believe the gospel to be saved (walk through the gate). As the Philippian jailer said, ‘what must I do to be saved?’, and the reply came, ‘believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved…’

Back to the analogy of the Stargate – to steal from Spurgeon, the sign above the Stargate reads “Whosoever will…” and once you go through it the sign on the back side of the Stargate reads “Chosen before the foundation of the world”…

If any of you are Stargate fans, explain to me how those walkie-talkie radios work thousands of light years away from the person on the other end of the radio! Enquiring minds want to know…

In Him,

Eye

Eye's Musings -- Want to Sink a Few More Putts?

Camilo Villegas, of Medellin, Colombia, surveys the surface of the 9th green at the TPC at River Highlands golf course in Cromwell, Conn., Sunday, July 2, 2006, during the final round of the Buick Championship. Villegas finished with a 4 under par 276 for the four rounds and in a tie for 21st place. (AP Photo/Bob Child)

You may not be a golf fan and hey, that's ok. But for those of us who enjoy the game this shot of Camilo Villegas reading the green at the Buick in July of 2006 is simply amazing. Players like Tiger Woods, Vijay Singh, Camilo Villegas and many others have taken the game to the next level and training and preparation are critical components to their success. For those of you who play, I wouldn't try this technique unless you have the 'game' to go with it. It's kind of like the wild clothing you see a lot of the European and Australian players wear when they play. I suppose if I could shoot sub-par 90% of the time I played it would not bother me to wear a pair of bright yellow pants and a lime green shirt!

Are You An Extreme Calvinist?

Since joining the ranks of the blogosphere in March of this year, I’ve been involved in ‘chatting’on line with a number of Christians about the topic of Calvinism. I will confess some of it was edifying and then some was not. I quickly realized that Calvinism has several different camps. Some embrace TULIP from a ‘moderate’ view, others consider themselves Calvinists but embrace only some of TULIP’s doctrines, and then others hold to what I would describe as a hyper or extreme Calvinist position regarding TULIP. The purpose of this post, and perhaps more to follow, will be to explore the world of the extreme Calvinist. Most of my points are gleaned from Dr. Geisler’s excellent book Chosen But Free. I highly recommend it for those struggling with this topic.

What does the acronym TULIP stand for?

• T stands for Total Depravity
• U stands for Unconditional Election
• L stands for Limited Atonement
• I stands for Irresistible Grace
• P stands for Perseverance of the Saints

This theological framework came out of the later writings of St. Augustine (A.D. 354-430) as a result of his controversy with the Pelagians who emphasized free will at the expense of grace. Augustine overreacted with an emphasis on grace at the expense of free will. [Chosen But Free; p. 168; Dr. Geisler] We discern from a careful study of early church history and theology that among the great Fathers of the church, with the lone exception of Augustine’s later writings; Irenaeus, the early writings of Augustine, St. Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas all affirmed the ability of fallen human beings to exercise free choice in their own salvation. They also rejected the doctrine of irresistible grace on the unwilling, as well as, limited atonement, unconditional election, and total depravity as conceived by extreme Calvinism.

What’s important about the early church’s theological position with the exception of Augustine’s later writings in response to the Pelagian’s emphasis on free will at the expense of grace is there would have been no notable extreme ‘Calvinists’ during the first 1500 years of the church. Much detail and documentation of these facts are available for those interested, but for brevity’s sake I will forge ahead into the distinctions between “moderate” Calvinism and “extreme” Calvinism.

How does the Moderate Calvinist view Total Depravity?

• Corruption of good
• Effects of sin are extensive
• Born with propensity to sin
• Human will is diminished

The moderate Calvinist embraces the concept of total depravity amply supported by Scripture. Basically, all the Scriptures used by extreme Calvinists are accepted by moderate Calvinists with the primary difference being that moderates insist that being “dead” in sin does not mean that unsaved people cannot understand and receive the truth of the gospel as the Spirit of God works on their hearts. That is, it does not in effect erase the image of God, rather it only effaces it.

Unconditional election is also held by moderate Calvinists. It is unconditional from the standpoint of the Giver, even though there is one condition for the receiver – faith. This does not mean the sinner must perform some work in order to become one of the elect. God alone does that on the basis of grace alone. It means only that the elect must believe in Christ to receive this gift of salvation.

Limited atonement is also affirmed by moderate Calvinists in the sense that it is limited in its application. That is, although redemption was purchased for all and is available to all, nonetheless, it will only be applied to those whom God chose from all eternity – the elect.

Moderate Calvinist believe irresistible grace is exercised on all who are willing. That is, anyone who is receptive to God’s work in his heart will be overwhelmed by His grace.

The perseverance of the saints is an essential part of moderate Calvinism. It affirms that all regenerate (justified) people eventually will be saved, in other words, once saved always saved.

[The above was adapted from p. 120-121, Chosen But Free]

How does the Extreme Calvinist view Total Depravity?

• Destruction of good
• Effects of sin are intensive
• Born with necessity to sin
• Human will is destroyed

[p. 57-58, from Chosen But Free]

Extreme Calvinism is marked by a particular understanding of the ‘Five points’, or TULIP, which must either stand together or they fall together as a result of their peculiar logic. For the extreme Calvinist, total depravity does not mean that humans are as depraved as they could be. They even believe that man is capable of social or domestic good as a result of God’s ‘common grace’ to all men. However, mankind is incapable of any spiritual good and, according to extreme Calvinism, they are totally incapable of initiating, attaining, or ever receiving the gift of salvation without the grace of God. They believe a person is ‘spiritually dead’ which eliminates all human ability to understand or respond to God. A fine point but arguably critical, they believe the effects of sin are intensive (destroying the ability to receive salvation), not just extensive (corrupting the ability to receive salvation). Extreme Calvinists obviously admit that fallen humans have biological life; however they deny they are alive in any sense in which they can respond to God. And whereas the faculty of will is present, the ability to choose to follow God is destroyed. [Chosen But Free; p. 58]

As a result of the extreme Calvinist’s position on total depravity, he must have regeneration occurring prior to faith. In other words, we are saved in order to believe; we do not believe in order to be saved. R.C. Sproul is a modern day extreme Calvinists that champions this view. Please note a quote from R.C. Sproul’s Chosen by God; p. 118. “In regeneration, God changes our hearts. He gives us a new disposition, a new inclination. He plants a desire for Christ in our hearts. We can never trust Christ for our salvation unless we first desire him. This is why we said earlier that regeneration precedes faith.

The Lord willing, I will continue to contrast the ‘U-L-I-P’ of extreme Calvinism versus moderate Calvinism in future posts. For now, I would like to ask those who consider that God must do a work so that man can believe (regeneration precedes faith) to give Scripture that supports that view. Of course, any other comment(s) are also welcome.

In Him,

Eye

Things I've learned From Blogging...

I suppose every person is entitled to their opinion and certainly the United States of America has fostered that concept with our Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, key Judicial Rulings by the Supreme Court, and the 'Right to Free Speech' as stipulated by our great Constitution. I'm a supporter of this freedom of free speech that affirms our right to express ourselves; but when we take our opinions 'live' and parade them openly in cyberspace for anyone to see (your family, friends, any of the 'alphabet agencies', your employer, your employees, your fellow Christians if you are one, and any other individual with spare time and an internet connection) then we potentially create a cybertrail you may think is innocent enough and perhaps even righteous in its cause, but ultimately it can create problems not only for you but those who participate with you in your discussion of ideas. That's sobering to me...

That said, the Internet has become a playground for ideas and chatter on all sorts of topics. While blogging has been around for a while, I believe it is still in its infancy. About right now someone is scratching their head and wondering where the word 'blog' came from and what is this all about. To be specific, let me give the Wikipedia diefinition on blogging:

BLOG A weblog, which is usually shortened to blog, is a type of website where entries are made (such as in a journal or diary), displayed in a reverse chronological order. Blogs often provide commentary or news on a particular subject, such as food, politics, or local news; some function as more personal online diaries. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other blogs, web pages, and other media related to its topic. Most blogs are primarily textual although many focus on photographs, videos or audio. The word blog can also be used as a verb, meaning adding an entry to a blog.

Sounds simple enought doesn't it? And rather harmless at that... Well, that's where I think we are mistaken. Some of us are more gadget prone than others -- we boast of cell phones with cameras embedded into them, laptops, PDAs, numerous email accounts for work and personal use, digital music, photos and videos. If the medium is electronic, then there is a way to get it spun into the world wide web. Once it is in the web, it stays there unless one goes to great pains and efforts to attempt to remove it. Even then, you can't be assured you 'erased' it from the web because there is no such thing as an original on the web. Everything is an image on the web and all it takes is duplicating that image by another person and they simply re-cast it into the web. It really is rather intriguing and frankly somewhat mystifying and scary, at least to me.

You rightfully ask right about now, well why are you blogging about this if you feel this way? Well, that's what blogging is all about isn't it? The concept of sharing ideas and information. My primary point to the patient reader is that with the freedom to share ideas and information comes responsibility. To take it a step further, when I or anyone else enters into the arena of discussing God's Holy Word then responsibility and accuracy join hands with humility and love. I will be the first to confess that I have not treated every 'poster' with the equality and respect they deserve and for that I apologize. My words may not have reflected an unkind attitude, but my heart was not right at times when I posted some of my responses. I know, you can say that is passion and that's okay. However, I'm challenged now in my spirit to be 'slow to speak and slow to anger'.

I don't know how long I may keep this exercise up. But for now, while I keep blogging, I do promise to keep my posts respectful, void of name-calling, accurate to the best of my ability, humble and focused on Jesus and making Him known to the readers of this blog and the world.

Thank you for your time in reading this.

In Him,

Eye