I welcome myself to the blog world!

Well, I guess it's about time I picked up one of these - it's only the evolution of the internet, right? Seems like everyone and their mother has one.

I'm excited to finally post something, but I'm not exactly sure what to write about just yet. I know there have been some pretty big things going on my life lately. Pretty big changes. So I guess I'll start with that.

I've recently started seeing someone (Estela), and I have to say that this is a very amazing change for the better. There are things about her that are just... awesome, to say the least. Only thing is, she left today for a two week cruise in Puerto Rico today... and we haven't really gotten anything serious started like I wanted to. There are various reasons for this, which is fine, I'm ok with waiting for the right time to do this, it just sucks that it worked out like that. On top of this, I need to try really hard to make things as NOT weird as possible for my friend Mike, who dated Estela in the past.

It's a struggle that I'm going to have to deal with; hopefully these feelings will grow, and I'll become MORE passionate for her on her return. I miss her already: which is both good (my feelings for her will strengthen) and bad (because it hurts). Whatever. It is what it is, as I like to say.

Another big change (although more of a development) is my recent strengthening of a belief towards a certain subject. I have this Bible study every Thursday night with Tim Moen, Justin Miller, Ted Skolits, and Lyle Reed. It was something that I thought would be good for me, considering my long-term difficulties (to put it mildly) with the Bible, and especially for the reason that we're covering the book of Romans - which has always given me alot of problems.

Going into it, I knew it would be interesting. Four (maybe three, I'm not too sure about Ted) of the five guys there are strong adherents to Reformed theology. Then there's me - a participant in the Emergent movement. I really love a good debate; arguing is by far one of the funnest things around. I have enough experience in it to get to the heart of an issue without taking any sidetracks and enough tact to know how to do it in a mostly discussion format. It's just something I enjoy. So, as you might guess, a prominent theme in the book of Romans (on the surface, but we'll get to that) is the doctrine of election. Which I've always disagreed with, but now that I had three or four reformed theologians in the room, I really had to know how to defend my beliefs.

It's the kind of thing that you don't even see until it's upon you. Leading up to chapter 8 (which I would say is the bombshell), we've had to skirt around the issue by covering some ground issues. Issues that are the root of these branches of theology, but not necessarily the cause. Issues like Irresistable grace - does God brain wash you to follow him through "grace" or does he allow mankind to choose the alternative (like what Stephen talks about in Acts), which would definitely give him the most glory, in my opinion. Issues like perseverence of the saints - does God allow you to leave his presence if certain things have disgusted you or does he force you to stay (by force, if necessary)? Issues like can man do something good without God - if an unsaved human takes a bullet for a widow, utterly selflessly, is it a good deed or is it a sin since he acted without God? -- alot of people like to use the verse Romans 8:18 "I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out." But let's think about that for a minute, does he actually never do a good deed ever? Obviously he's speaking in generalities here, or else that would imply that preaching the gospel to the Gentiles is a sin--

The point is, until yesterday's study, I never really knew how much I hated the doctrine of election. To me, and I mean to offense to any of the adherents to this belief, it's almost as bad an extreme as Mormonism. It twists the good news into some kind of whim based salvation. I could just see God now, the supposed God of love who wishes that all would become saved and sent Jesus to die for the world (not just the elect) just picking and choosing from the beginning of time "you'll receive grace, you'll receive eternal death, you'll receive grace, and you'll be separated from me forever. It's RIDICULOUS. Of course, yesterday we got to chapter 9 of Romans, which seems to imply that very thing ("I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and compassion on whom I will have compassion" & "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue... Jacob I have loved and Esau I have hated")

The idea of free will can easily be fitted into these passages, but I'll come back to that. Am I the only one who thinks this is the most ludicrous, twisted, disgusting doctrine of all time? Rhetorical question. John Wesley said something that blew my mind when I read it,

"To say that God has decreed not to save them is the same as saying that he hath decreed to damn them. Call it whatever name you please, election, preterition, predestination or reprobation…it comes in the end to the same thing…By virtue of an eternal unchangeable decree of God, one part of mankind is infallibly saved, and the rest infallibly damned.
Therefore on preaching: it is needless to them that are elected…it is useless to them that are not. Predestination is full of blasphemy, It represents our blessed Lord as a hypocrite, a deceiver of the people,. a man void of common sincerity. Such blasphemy…as might make the ears of a Christian tingle.
George Whitefield [who he was speaking to], you represent God as worse than the devil; as more false, more cruel, and more unjust. You say you will prove it with the Scripture! Hold on! What will you prove by Scripture? That God is worse than the devil? It cannot be.”

This absolutely sums up my feelings towards this matter. But where does that leave us? As I was reading chapter 9 I became very angry. Livid almost. If the doctrine of election stands, then I'm not sure I want anything to do with this God. Like I said, free will can definitely fit over these passages by (of course) assuming foreknowledge - I like to quote Romans 8:29 to support this: "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.", but I digress - it just didn't seem to fit.

I began to try and fit outside the box here (I can't believe I actually just used that phrase legitimately) and began to consider other ideas where both theories of God's justice could fit. Of course, both theories claim to include both election and free will, they'd have to since both are biblically supported. Election stands on irresistable grace, in that when God's grace is shown you don't really want to choose anything else; and free will stands on the idea that God knew who would accept his grace, so he elected them and began to call them. But I have to be honest, both of these sound so... shallow at this point- especially with Romans 9 and 10 fresh in my mind.

Two ideas came to mind, and I'm definitely starting to like the sound of one of them. The first, and less supported, is that it's possible that God used election in the times of the Old Testament - when people were bound by the law. This could very well have been God's tool of accomplishing salvation when salvation by works was impossible - as with Abraham, Moses, Joshua, and Jacob. But it still lacked something - probably the fact that it still included whim-based salvation. The second one, that I'm really starting to run with, is the idea that maybe God does use election. Only... the non-elect aren't necessarily excluded from the prospect of salvation - they can still choose to follow Jesus. That would make preaching still necessary, that would exclude whim-based salvation, that would still include the idea that God works in certain people's lives more than others (the elect), and it really seems like something an all-powerful yet loving God would do to give himself the most glory. He gives everyone a chance, a real chance - not some "I know you're already going to say no" bull-shiz - to come to know Jesus as Lord... he just keeps some on the side in just in case everybody says no.

This idea was really inspired by the passage I read in Romans 11 where Elijah is lamenting to God about stuff: "'Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.' But what is God’s reply to him? 'I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace." This passage really seems to support this theory of mine. Of course, it's going to take some systematic theology (I hate that word, for reasons that I won't get into. "I'm an emergent participant" should be enough) to be able to make it stand, but I'm really excited to get into it.

Phew.

I guess I'll get into my current readings, frustrations, more rantings, and desires another time. I'm glad I got to let all of that off my chest and into something physical. God, I love to write.