• Home Page
• Computer Blog
• Chess Blog
• Exercise & Diet Blog
• Theology Blog
• Islamic Terrorism Blog
• Contact Us

What we can’t say about black-on-white crime

The article below was originally posted on Worldnetdaily.com

I have been reading a new book called “Darwins Plantation” by Ken Ham and Charles Ware and found the following article of interest. I’ll let you know what I think about the book and the topic of racism after you read the following article (the article is not from the book):

____________________________________________________

What we can’t say about black-on-white crime

In the case of the Michigan teens, Dustin Kaiser, Michael Carter and an unnamed 14-year-old girl, two victims survived to bear witness. Their assailants were convicted but, once again, no hate crime charges.

Regardless of the particulars of a given case, a phenomenon is becoming apparent in America: White on black is standing out far more than black on white.

Just watch the startling video of the assault on the white straphanger. If it had shown a white gang attacking an innocent black man, does anyone really believe the footage wouldn’t be featured on every news broadcast?

Then, the young girl in the Michigan case was forced to perform sexual acts, and all three victims were shot in the head. And Newsom and Christian were sexually mutilated in unspeakable ways. Yet, the scarcity of national news coverage is striking.

The reason is obvious. Such cases don’t conform to the Shill Media’s favored fiction, their narrative about prejudiced whites and persecuted blacks.

Speaking of fiction, America is not a “racist” nation, not compared to other lands anyway. But there are racial problems, most of which go unmentioned. Why?

Because most originate in the black community.

We’re not supposed to say it, but, contrary to leftist dogma, blacks in America are far more bigoted than whites. The truth is that black bigotry is whitewashed.

I know, I’ll be called a “racist” just for saying this – that’s part of the blame game – but it’s not hard to understand. Blacks and whites have very different upbringings. Weaned on political correctness, most modern white children are told that the worst thing one can be is a racist. They’re bombarded with messages about how their race owned slaves and is privileged, about how bigotry characterizes it. They’re told that if you have racial feelings, you’re a bad person.

While political correctness should be squelched, most would agree that teaching kids to view every individual as a child of God deserving of dignity is a wonderful thing. But understand something: Within the context of man’s history and outside our bubble-wrapped world, it’s also a very unusual thing.

Hatred easily finds a place in the heart, and blaming “them” for our woes and travails is natural for man. Why do Palestinians often call Jews “apes and pigs”? Why do Hutus in Rwanda call the rival Tutsis “cockroaches”? Why have there been ethnic conflicts in all corners of the Earth since time immemorial? While I’m sure sociologists could wax somnolent rendering theses on the matter, the simple truth is that in most of the world what reigns is not political correctness, but group correctness.

This brings us to the black community. Race is not only a big issue within it, it’s a much different one. Most black children are raised not to revile their race, but revere it. Often, hatred toward whites isn’t lamented, but lauded as the attitude of a racial patriot toward “oppressors.” And just as anonymous Jews incur the stone-throwing wrath of anonymous Palestinians, a white man or woman on a bus or subway is not an innocent, but an enemy. Viewed through this prism, the persecution of such hapless souls is merely the exacting of vengeance.

Relevant here is comedian Chris Rock’s skit about how all black people hate whites, and the idea that behind every joke lies some truth. While the operative word is “some,” it amounts to many. Could it be otherwise? If for decades you do the racial politics dance – the Jackson-Jena Jig – where every real or perceived problem in the black community is attributed to “the Man,” black youths are going to be embittered.

This bitterness is reflected in and exacerbated by the bile disgorged by rap thugs. The song “Kill d’White People” by Apache includes the line: “Kill the white people; we gonna make them hurt. …”

And the Menace Clan says in “Kill Whitey,” “Niggas in the church say: kill whitey all night long. …”

Despite this, we still labor under the illusion that white skin equates to a white sheet, and hate crime laws have become get-whitey laws. And the powers-that-be will continue to exercise double standards until they acknowledge the deep seeds of hatred sown by demagogues in black America.

I won’t hold my breath waiting, though. You see, you’re not supposed to say these things, and you’re a racist if you do. So, yes, I’m guilty. Just like O.J. Simpson is innocent.

End of Article____________________________________________________

This article has put into words much of what I see and hear in the news everyday. I am strongly against racism of any kind. What has made me upset the last few months though is the idea that only white folks can be racist. I have heard Black Leaders on the News say how racist this white person, or that white person is, while never acknowledging their own racist remarks.

The book that has led me to think more deeply about this subject is “Darwins Plantation.” This book makes some really strong points, especially that at the root of the worst racism is evolutionary thinking (”They are less ‘evolved’ than me.”). Those of us who believe all humans were created by God, believe that all races are equal.

While I recommend the book, I can see that it falls into the same problem as the media: it only talks about and discusses the “racism” that was/is exhibited by whites. I believe that the terrible events and racism of the past cannot be used to justify racism in the present. I tend to agree with the above author that whites are generally taught that racism is wrong, while blacks are taught they are the victims of whites. The push is to make whites feel ‘bad’ for the actions of their ancestor…. and bad as people now.

I have heard the term “reverse racism” used on occasion when someone finally does acknowledge that racial groups other than whites can also be racist. It’s not ‘reverse racism’…. its just plain ugly racism!

Racism is wrong… all racism… whether from whites or blacks. We are all responsible for our own actions (not those who lived a hundred years ago), and will someday be held accountable for them.

Creation or Evolution: The Foundation of Our Lives

The Creation Debate with Evolution is one of the most important debates you will ever study. Were we created by God or are we just an accident brought about by chance. The view you hold on this topic will impact your faith in the Bible, God, and how you live your life. Continue reading Creation or Evolution: The Foundation of Our Lives…

Welcome to Learn Theology.com’s “Theology Blog!”

Welcome to LearnTheology.com!

This Blog discusses basic biblical theology and beliefs. We will discuss God (His nature and attributes) as well as Salvation and the Bible.

Beliefs (doctrines) that are related to The Gifts and Miracles of the Holy Spirit, Prophecy and Future Events, Creation, and Reformed/Arminian theology will be discussed in the appropriate Blogs (click on the tabs at the top of the page).

We are currently looking for individuals who are interested in writing/blogging about theology and theological issues. If you will like to be involved, please click on the “Admin” link at the bottom of this page. Thanks!

Thought Number 103… Thanksgiving Cannot Occur in a Vacuum

Thought Number 102… This Is the Way Church Is Supposed to Work

Thought Number 101… Shameless Parental Pride

What are the essentials?

A message that I heard recently started me ruminating (about foundational issues, as usual). This is good in that maybe there is some discussion merited here, but not so good in what I think I was hearing. It was a mixed bag so to speak, and I took a while to decide to write about it.

The message was an interpretation of Romans 14. It proposed that there was confusion within the church over what constituted essential and non-essential matters of faith and necessary practice, and that this results in divisiveness (read that as non-inclusiveness in this case) both within the body and in terms of attracting people to the church when the two categories are miss-applied. The unstated subtext of the message appeared to be church growth and it side-stepped the related and larger issue of ecumenical error.

The message sampled a few widely divergent attributes from various denominations, pointing out that these were often construed within those circles as indicative of and necessary for real Christian spirituality.

What sort of attributes? Here are some examples (there were a few more):
All denominations - dressing up or not for church
Reformed Presbyterians - no instrumentation and singing of psalms only.
Anglicans (also Roman Catholics) and others - the use of strict liturgy
CRC - use of catechism to teach doctrine and theology
Pentecostals - spiritual gifts in present times and exuberant worship

I think that you get the idea. Let me also point out that I did not make up these examples, and that the list likely contained some inaccuracies. Nonetheless, these are what were presented, and as you will see, although not completely without merit, I found some of the implications disturbing.

The message proposed that all of these attributes were optional and not essentials to the faith. Further, it declared that as non-essentials they were divisive within congregational life when viewed as anything other than surface preference, best applied only to one’s self. By implication it was also implied that these should not properly form the basis for Christian discernment.

Some years ago an wise Christian brother said to me that denominations were just expressions of preference with the body. I like that in some ways since it stresses the reality that although there are preferential differences we (true believers) are all one body in the Lord. Thus our preferential differences as evangelical believers should not separate us divisively. They are “items for family discussion”, so to speak. That works well as long as we are discussing truly preferential, and not foundational, matters. And therein lies the rub…

In the present case it seemed to go well beyond that, which concerns me. The conclusion of this particular message was that ALL attributes other than the Gospel (as expressed in a line or two) are non-essential. Everything else was deemed personal, and potential divisive. That may sound very inclusive in the surface (and that was indeed the subtext being delivered in this case, for other reasons), but it is also, I believe, very dangerous.

Certainly I can agree that some items are truly preferential. I may like to wear a suit to church and you may like to wear jeans. You may be more comfortable in the framework of liturgy, while I might prefer a more free spirited exchange. I may think the drums in the worship band are okay, but you are only really comfortable with the old hymns. Those are, as mentioned above, family discussion items. However, I clearly draw the line when it comes to the Bible, theology or doctrine being judged superfluous and potentially divisive.

If the ONLY criteria for inclusion is the simple Gospel, and every other attribute and tool is to be cast in the light of optional and unnecessary, then what of Biblical development and understanding?

Let us take the example of catechism. I am not a ‘rules’ fanatic and I do not actively use a catechism (though I likely should), but new or young believers often need tools for understanding the faith beyond initial belief statements. Without that they will not mature. Catechisms and similar simplifications help with that process. They are in fact in many cases essential to the processes. In the message in question, even The Word itself was not included in the stated essentials list. Since the Word is the Lord, this gives me very serious pause.

My concern here (thought I can not seem to state it as clearly as I would like) is that foundational Bible and related edification were being cast in the same optional, non-essential light as Sunday go-to-meeting clothes, all in the interest of seeker friendly warm fuzzies. The lynch pins of developing maturity were cast in a light of divisiveness. Nothing was considered solid beyond the simple Gospel. It is a clear case the baby going out with the bath water in the name of inclusiveness.

Surely this is error. We are, of course, called first to the Gospel. But henceforth we are called to development in the Word. For that to happen, tools including the Bible and supporting material are needed. Those are not divisive beyond dividing us rightly from the world.

So what do I think are the essentials? Well, as a preliminary list I would included the Gospel, Bible, plus basic Christian theology and doctrine expressed through tools such as a catechism. Overall, the tools to understand the reality of Christian life. Even when these may differ between groups, they are nonetheless critical and definitely not unessential.

In writing this I realize that the real underlying issue is not the one stated. It is the one alluded to by the desired inclusiveness of the seeker friendly approach. That issue is - church growth are what cost? The requirement to be inclusive and seeker friendly, thereby stimulating growth and wide appeal, can result in the casting off of the very support framework that assists believers to mature. This is clearly happening today, and the push of church leadership for growth, albeit with an eye to conversions, seems to include extreme blinders as to the long term cost. Therein is grave danger of a completely emotion and experience based assembly. This may on the surface appear dynamic and my indeed grow dramatically, but below the surface it is developing without any real foundation.

One can only cry out - Beware!

Boasting in Christ, but living in the world

Well, here we are, believers in the body of Christ, conscious that our eternal value is based solely upon the work of Christ, originally, now and always, yet living in the world of flesh from day to day.

We are surrounded by a world governed by the paradigms of fleshly value, conditioned and encouraged on every front that success is to be found in taking pride in ourselves.

Even within the church, much of the focus is on worldly matters, albeit with a superficial nod towards the Lord. Activities are created and evaluated with business models. Congregational success is evaluated related to resources and programs. Preaching is too often based upon the secular to provide the relevance which the Word of God is deemed to lack. Certainly many good and worthwhile accomplishments are put forth in support of the community and family, but, and it is a crucial but, Christ and Him crucified is on the far back burner. Similarly off the radar are foundational knowledge of Scripture and it’s meaning beyond worldly or sociological examples. One would think at times that a current movie clip or pop song was the answer instead of Scripture. Sound silly? If so, then you haven’t been watching closely…

In stark contrast, we have the Apostle Paul in Galatians 6:14 placing the sole justification for his value, the work of our Lord, squarely in our face through his example. We may read it and possibly gloss over it, but in the conviction of the Spirit there is no escaping the reality of Paul’s defacto challenge to our normal paradigm of living and our congregational priorities. In the writing of the New Testament, I believe that this eternal challenge to borderline apostasy was part of the intent. Judging from the situation we see about us, the inspiring Spirit appears to have had one eye on the future. Paul was archetypal in so many ways, and this particular way is probably even more applicable now than in early church times (a speculative assumption admittedly).

So, what to do (makes me think of the Mad Hatter for some reason)…

One popular interpretation of this quandary from the more recent past times (last few hundred years give or take) was to assume that the requirement was was to take an ascetic approach to piety. This generally included negative paradigms of denial, with more being deemed better. Though tempting on the surface, this is a trivialization of the task of living in the world, and would seem to stand in denial of other Scriptural proscriptions to live joyously in our salvation. The doctrine of outward asceticism is both dated and inappropriate. At the same time, however, we are not called to revel and wallow in the world of the flesh in any way the contravenes the tenants of the New Convent, as outlined variously by our Lord through the New Testament.

So, back to what to do…

A comment on the previous post supplied a great list of things that are swirling about us as modern priorities in church life. Taking a negative approach, these might be a good start at listing what not to do. At the risk of being accused of being too simplistic for our modern times (guilty as charged!), I would somewhat boldly suggest that we take Paul at face value. Our cause for celebration is not the assembly or congregation, not the family, not good works, not even the fruits of the Spirit. Our cause for celebration and gathering is is solely our status in Christ and His accomplishments.

We celebrate (aka worship) Him in all aspects, and His work in our lives. By extension, since the Word is Him, we read, proclaim, study, discuss and celebrate it as well. We proclaim these things in and to the world, ignoring the perception of foolishness. We support these activities variously as we can. And we do not make any attempt to improve the message. Scripture states that it is the vehicle for understanding and evangelism. It does not state that is has an expiry date or needs updating or embellishing. In fact, such matters are implied to be very dangerous and in places ascribed to be marks of the apostasy to come.

Does this imply old, dry, droning lectures. To borrow from and paraphrase Paul, “May it never be”. That is a function of presentation, not content. However, it does mean proclamation of the Word, not movie or sound bite clips for sociological relevance or increased entertainment.

The Word and the celebration of Christ is made relevant to those who will be saved by the Spirit, not by men.

There you have it. There are probably better ways to spell it out, but it is simply Christ, His word and His work, and that alone. Let us celebrate those things in following Him, casting aside the rest as the true foolishness.

Remembering Paul’s only boast

In an article from a daily devotional publication for teens (Soul Journey, ISBN 1-57293-132-9), a recent article cited six human characteristics or activities from Proverbs 6 that are unacceptable to the Lord. These were inflated ego, lying, murder, evil scheming, rushing into evil, lying in court and trouble making. The point made in the article was that these attributes or activities are opposite to the Lord’s nature and what he loves, and that an examination of how our loves and hates line up with the Lord’s is important.

Valuable food for thought, but for me the passage brought to mind a couple of other Scriptures where Paul explicitly describes his own stance, and by implication what ours should be.

“But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” Galatians 6:14, and “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.” Galatians 2:20.

First, let me added the obvious provision that I am only speaking of believers in this discussion, since those of the world consider such matters ‘foolishness’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).

It stuck me that the unacceptable behaviours and attitudes laid out in Proverbs 6 could only occur in a believer to the degree to which the stance described by Paul in Galatians was either not the case (making them tarns among the wheat possibly) or was slipping towards worldly influences.

The world in which we live, are conditioned, and make our way, by and large teaches precisely the opposite. We are to put ourselves forward, show our talents, skills and accomplishment, and take as much pride as possible in these things throughout the process. Though false humility is common, the old adage of “blow you own horn since no-one else is likely to blow it for you” would seem more the phrase of the day today, albeit covertly.

Does this imply that there is no satisfaction to be taken, even obviously, in a job well and truly done? Not at all. But there is a great gulf between satisfaction in accomplishment and achievement, and worldly pride. And in a world overwhelmingly concerned with and largely rewarding of appearance, worldly pride is what is most often rewarded over genuine accomplishment.

That having been said, Paul stands clearly in the shadow of the Cross, boasting solely in the accomplishment of the One (and the process) that has saved Him. The difference here would appear to be one of attitude towards the world. If one has or seeks their place ‘in the world’, and views themselves as living ‘in the world’, then a worldly view of self and a desire to both be acknowledged by and seek pride in that world are natural and virtually unavoidable. Even when actually avoided, the battle is continuous and unrelenting.

On the other hand, if one does not belong to the world, but to Heaven solely through Christ crucified, then what is there of merit to boast of in the world or in ones place or activities therein? The only individual merit is in being a citizen of Heaven though still on earth. As such, since one had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact of their election to Heaven (Ephesians 1:4), all merit belongs to the provider of that destiny, Jesus Christ, and within that to the Holy Spirit and the process of Salvation.

So, grasping the fact of one’s election, devoid of personal merit both before or after the fact, must trivialize the world and its machinations. That which transports us into Heavenly eternity with our Lord is all that is of merit, and since He is the provider of that process at all junctures, boasting in Him alone is the only option (and joy, I should add).

Thus, Paul has stated for us, in direct and simple terms, the only road for those in the body of believers who are yet in the world. Though Satan and his minions (largely unacknowledged in the world today but nonetheless active) provide endless circumstance and support for the importance of the world, and specifically for the significance of individual pride, self esteem and self reliance in that world, Paul has stated the only real basis for personal value. That value is in the shadow of Christ and His accomplishments, shining the light of importance and significance on Him alone.

Soli Deo Gloria

Does this mean that, as a corollary, our lives in the flesh are to be devoid of satisfaction, accomplishment or worldly reward or enjoyment?. I do not think so. It is a matter of attitude and posture within the world, and not the circumstances that the Lord may permit, that is of importance. How that is possible is another discussion…

Solus Christus

Evangelism without known misrepresentation

Nothing is difference in the potential path into eternity before the unbeliever and the unbeliever, nor the absence of any foreknowledge by the believer when presenting the Gospel, alters the believer’s requirement to evangelize. The absolute certainty of eternal separation from God and righteous judgment that awaits the unsaved, combined with the inability to fail in their part of a process that is controlled by the Lord and not the presenter, should fuel the believer’s resolve.

We can not know who was marked by the Father before the beginning of time to be among the Lord’s people (Ephesians 1:4). We can only know that that result is already a given for the Lord and that he has charged us to preach his message as part of the process. Our mandate does not include second guessing that process. Our mandate as believers only includes simple obedience. Further, Scripture states that the Gospel must be heard by many throughout the world, elect and unelect alike, that the Glory and power of God are demonstrated in all nations (Mark 13:10). It is interesting to note that this does not included every person, but that is another issue. All believers are charged to proclaim the Gospel universally, regardless of the outcome they might observer in any individual recipient. The outcome in any recipient is in the Lord’s hands alone, already decided and awaiting only the action of the Spirit, not ours in any way. This brings great freedom in presenting the message.

“For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God.” (italics added) 1 Peter 4:6. Many in both camps must hear the Good News in demonstration of God’s sovereignty. Again, the outcome is a completely separate issue from the preaching of the Gospel by the believer. Believers are charged to act universally, in blind faith and trust, leaving everything subsequent to that to the Lord.

On a one to one basis, what of the way the Gospel is presented? Does it really matter? I propose that it does.

Even though the Lord can and does use all presentations effectively, articulate or rough, accurate or inaccurate, within his preordained intent, from the believer’s viewpoint is it nonetheless important to present the Gospel completely and accurately. As forthright messengers that must mean a presentation that is without knowing misrepresentation. Specifically, and taking into consideration that one can only present something to the degree of one’s own understanding, presenting the Gospel in a way that implies that God will provide salvation to all or without cost or condition would not reflect the specifications of Scripture, and would not be honest. Even more, if the Message is presented in a manner that implies that the Lord’s plan for salvation definitely applies to a particular unbeliever, when we can not know if they are among the elect, is unacceptable because it willfully misrepresents the Scriptural specifications of the Message. Such a misrepresentation does not reflect upon the recipient (aside from possibly acting as a temporary stumbling block), since their path has already been preordained by the Lord and they are the passive agent in the exchange in this regard. But a Gospel presentation with a universal guarantee or applicability attached to it is not the truth, and reflects upon the presenter.

What the big deal? Let’s look at an example for clarity.

On the assumption that one can not know whether a believer is among the elect and therefor whether they will embrace the Gospel, one can not honestly say to any unbeliever that Christ died for their sins. The Atonement is particular, applying to an individual only if they are one who accepts the Lord. They are only able to do that if they are already marked as His and subsequently touched by the Spirit, neither of which has anything to do with, or can be know by, the evangelist. Specifically, if they do not accept the Lord, and remain among the unsaved, then the presentation would be a lie. Further, to give any encouragement that they might be somehow covered implicitly and saved while not accepting Christ does them a serious disservice and possible harm.

Consequently, stating that “Christ died for your sins” or similar, unequivocally, likely misrepresents the truth and the Gospel in many cases (unless you are a Universalist, but we won’t go there). It potentially misleads that person. This is clearly unacceptable for a believer. And beyond that, it is completely unnecessary.

One clergyman commented that this sticking point made the presentation of the Gospel inconvenient. He wanted to be able to say to everyone that Christ died for them, making the Gospel as welcoming as possible. Well, what can one answer to that? Inconvenient maybe, but reality. To paraphrase another Bible teacher “That’s what the Book says. Get over it!”. The Gospel must stand in presentation as itself, in truth. Willfully massaging the Gospel into misrepresentation for ease of presentation is not part of the mandate. Harsh? I don’t think so. Just a dose of reality. And silly when it is so trivial to present the message truthfully and accurately without alienating the recipient.

So what is one to do? The answer is actually very, very simple.

Christ died for sinners. That is absolute truth. He died for the specific sinners who accept and embrace Him as Lord. Again, simple and true. If the unbeliever will truly embrace Christ as Lord, repent of and seek forgiveness for their sins and surrender their life to Him, thereby accepting the Gospel message, then His Atonement was indeed for them. A presentation from that perspective is completely accurate, yet does not misrepresent the situation of the individual who will not accept. Specifically it does not in any way encourage them that they are among those for whom Christ sacrificed or that they might somehow slip through irregardless. This approach is no more difficult, no more obscure, not excluding in any overt way that puts one off, and it states the truth. What could be simpler?

But I hear a voice from the back saying that possibly the listener won’t find this presentation welcoming enough and might not accept it. The answer is simple. The reaction to the message in the recipient is the Lord’s domain. It has nothing to do with you.

Just semantics? Superficially it might seem so, as with all matters of language, but what is represented is not trivial. As such, it is significant.

How to accomplish this is the next question. There are many ways, but I would simply ask why one would not use the only indisputable, divinely inspired tool that the Lord left us, and in fact suggested for this purpose - Scripture. “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17. With Scripture there is no possible misrepresentation, as long as we personally stay out of the way. It is the tool of choice according to Scripture itself It was clearly designed for the Spirits use is this regard and can not fail in the Spirit’s hands. If the Spirit does not move, then movement in the recipient is not appropriate at that time, irrespective of the presenter. That is the simple solution, but there are also other approaches that represent that Gospel accurately.

Though we have been discussion a small but important piece of the Gospel message, it should be mentioned that any presentation must be of the complete message, particularly the repentance and cost requirements. However, that has been assumed in discussing this narrower issue.

The key is honest and complete presentation of the Gospel, without unnecessary human implications that may make some presenters more comfortable but are not always accurate and may mislead, even possibly acting as a stumbling block for the recipient.

Soli Deo Gloria

Whose plan anyway? The Unbeliever…

Now to the unbeliever, the case which started the initial conversation. Though on the surface of everyday life this situation might appear similar to that of the believer, the reality is completely different. We must also bear in mind (as mentioned in the previous post) that our Lord’s statements and perspective take an eternal viewpoint, whereas we tend to see life situations from the myopic viewpoint of flesh alone (we can’t help it, but it needs to be kept in mind).

The Lord has made no positive commitment for this life, nor given even the slightest hint He has any positive plan, for the unbeliever, beyond possibly bringing them face to face with the Gospel message. Even that is only ‘possibly’ since it is nowhere stated as a given. The unfolding of history will be determined by His plans for salvation, with the unbeliever playing a peripheral role as needed as the primary plan unfolds.

The statements in the verses previously cited (Jeremiah 29:11, Romans 8:28, and 1 Corinthians 10:13) are not applied to the unbeliever anywhere in Scripture. Specifically, there is no offer of any of the associated hope or positive future to those individuals. In fact, the reality painted in Scripture appears to be quite the opposite.

When speaking of sinners, be it individually and corporately, God does not (contrary to the popular and unfortunate PR in many churches today) differentiate between the sin and the sinner in His statement of intended judgment and wrath. He portends wrath against the sinner in the commitment of the sin. That’s wrath unto eternal judgment at the hands of Holy God, folks. Yikes! If that isn’t scary, then what is?

As an aside concerning the behaviour of believers, the Lord never tells us to act pro-actively against the sinner in the sense of punishment or judgment. In fact, we are cautioned to not do so, leaving those actions to the Lord. Our mandate is only to present ourselves as His and share His message. We are certainly not to join with the sinner or participate in their sinful activities in doing so, but neither is their future within our mandate in any sense.

Without the cloak of Christ to shield one from the righteous and deserved wrath of God, and release one from the responsibility for sin before Him, the statements of His inescapable wrath should be terrifying to all who hear them. In spite of this, the unsaved can ignore them  because those truths are part of the ways of God. They are undiscernable and are foolishness to the ears of those in the world. The unsaved simply can not comprehend that reality from their natural mind, and Satan does his best to convince them that their natural view is correct. But none of that alters the reality of judgment to come.

With that in mind, and even granting that in the larger picture the Lord uses all situations for the overall advancement of His Kingdom, what plans are there for the unsaved? First, by stating in Scripture that he will prosper who He will and condemn who He will, the Lord has implied that he has assigned one of two tracks (no others, nor any combination, is every documented in Scripture) - one for salvation and one for righteous judgment and wrath. For the latter, concerning the unsaved who are of the natural world, the result comes down to who they are governed by. According to Ephesians 2:2, they are among the “sons of disobedience”, governed by “the Prince of the power of the air” (that is, Satan). That being so, the plans within which the unsaved exist are those of Satan, drawing them ever further from the Lord while in this world, with hearts ever more hardened against the Lord’s message and ways.

It should be noted as an aside that it is not the Lord that move the unbeliever on along this path actively. Since they were not marked as Christ’s sheep before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4), then the Spirit does not intervene in their path to apply the Atonement to them what was so graciously provided by our Lord . Nothing is done to them by God, but neither is anything done for them. Satan’s plan works out in them while the Lord simply does not intervene in the process of the natural world, and they simply follow their nature in flesh.

This is not to say that they may not participate in good and beneficial act in the world. They often do so, in wonderful acts both large and small. But since “those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:8) and “without faith it is impossible to please Him” (Hebrews 11:16), it is clear that when preformed from the unbeliever’s natural state none of those things can be pleasing or acceptable to God. These good acts can not be positively credited to the unbeliever’s account because the acts are of the world not the spirit and coloured by the basic nature of the fallen world. As such they are sacrificially unacceptable to God in their essence, as are all acts that flow from that state of being. Further, it could be speculated that since the unbeliever is not His, they do not have a Heavenly account to which anything could be credited - that account being a parallel benefit of being among His sheep.

All this is to say that there are indeed plans for the unbeliever, and in the case of addicts those plans may include sobriety. But, and this is the real issue, those plans are not part of the saving plan of the Lord in the case of the unelect. Those who are to remain as belonging to the world are governed by the world. They can not (in fact, will not) depend upon the Grace of our Lord to have created a plan from which they will have faith, nor that there will be a positive eternal outcome.

Let all the Glory be His alone.

Next, what of evangelism in this perspective? The challenge of proclaiming the Good News without misrepresentation…

Whose plan anyway? The Believer…

I was chatting with a brother a day or two ago concerning his work with addicts. This work often involves working with non-believers. We progressed to a discussion of God’s plans for both believers and unbelievers. The perspective towards unbelievers particularly seemed pertinent to this discussion, but our attitude toward ourselves is also quite revealing and would likely benefit from some ongoing introspection.

Let us recall a couple of pieces of Scripture: “For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope.” Jeremiah 29:11, and “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” Romans 8:28, and finally “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.” 1 Corinthians 10:13. There are other similar verses as well, but you get the drift clearly.

From 1 Corinthians 10:13 we can discern that things may (likely, will) not be all sweetness and light in the path of the believer. There would be no point to verses such as this, concerning challenges, if there were not going to be any challenges of substance.

First, this flies in the face of the “God has a wonderful, happy (usually implying mostly, if not always) and joyous plan for your life” crowd. It is clear that, as His people, we can expect to be challenged, both individually and corporately.

Second, these challenges will always be surmountable for God’s elect. For the believer there is no condition placed upon that in the verse. But here is the rub, so to speak - the extent of the challenge and our capacity to handle it are from the Lord’s point of view, not ours. He definitely did not say that the challenges would be such that we would recognize or be aware of our ability to overcome them, either before or during the process. Further, there was no undertaking in Scripture to share the process with us. This would tend to indicate that from our point of view the challenges may be great indeed, even seemingly insurmountable. We must walk in unconditional faith in His judgment of our capacity, not our own preconception. The pathway is in His leading, not our conception of what we are or are not capable of accomplishing. Fundamentally we are back to the paradigm laid out by the Israelites centuries ago, as they were tasked to follow the pillars of fire and smoke through the desert, relying solely upon the provisioning of the Lord. T’would that we ‘get it’ in less than 40 years!!

Jeremiah 29:11 speaks of hope and a future. This points to the hope of a future in the eternal sense, not that of the world nor even necessarily within our lifetime in flesh. Since the world is the domain of the Prince of the Air and thereby his plans, thriving or prospering (the term used in the NIV translation of this verse) in the world or present life can not be what the Lord alludes to. Not to say that some success in the world might not be in the plan, but the benefits from the Lord’s vantage point are in Heaven. After all, even as the Lord of all creation, He endured the world in light of the Glory that was set before Him (Hebrews 12:2). Our glory in Heaven, though infinitely less than His (we are not Mormons, after all), nonetheless follows His paradigm as His people, and the Glory, hope and future are all in Heaven.

The situation is similar with Romans 8:28, where the “good” is in the eternal, kingdom sense. This is not in any way implied to be coincidental with worldly good, though that could be a side effect.

Overall, we have a situation where the believer, as one owned by the Lord, may face great difficulty in the world, but will always be on the eternal path with and to Him, working in a predestined process (variously in Ephesians 1) of planned and divinely controlled sanctification and purification.

In this is our rest, and our only security. And our Lord has made clear that this is sufficient. Again, his agenda, not ours.

All for His Glory alone.

Next - The Unbeliever…

Totally Undeserving of Grace, yet Saved

I was thinking about how believers are like that old line from Alice through the Looking Glass, we see through a glass darkly. In our case, however, we predominantly think that we see normally. The sun appears to shine clearly and brightly. The moon illuminates a clear night sky. Stars twinkle in the heavens above. All this and more appear with what we consider true colour and form. And yet all of this, and all of our internal life which this is merely a reflection of, is behind the smoky glass lens of fallen man. All that we are, and therefor all that we think, see, touch, feel, create, and so on, is jaundiced by who, what and whose we are. We were the Totally Unable - slaves to the world of flesh. That world permeates everything that we are because we are part of it.

[Notice I use both the past and the present tenses here. Before we were saved, it was all present tense. After (now, hopefully, for the reader) it is past tense, but remains partially present while we are yet in the world. Please forgive my confusion of tense as we continue…]

In that previous, natural state we can not understand things of spirit. “For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.” Romans 8:5. We could only appreciate and serve the flesh. This do not necessarily mean that all that we do is completely evil, unjust, without value, or otherwise. But is does mean that the shadow cast by our basic natural condition of being of the flesh taints all that we are, and thereby all that we do, could do or even could imagine doing. That is not under our control, since it is merely a reflection of the nature of ourselves that we take for granted. To put it another way, if you live your whole life behind tinted glasses, how would you know that the entire universe was in reality not the colour you saw at all? Not only would you not know, but you could not know. Even if someone told you the truth, you would be unable to process it in order to really understand it, since to do so would make you into a different person entirely.

So here we are. We were who and what we were as men (and before someone asks, generic men, by the way, which includes women ), and we could not be anything else since we can not see or even imagine anything outside that global reality. Only as a result of being changed by an external force beyond this global universe can we perceive another reality, that of spirit. Then there has to be development, but that is outside reality until we have been altered to participate in it.

And that is what our Lord has done for us. We were marked for inclusion and change before the world was created, by “the kind intention of His Will” Ephesians 1:5. Our Lord came and created a pattern of redemption for all those who Hi Father predestined to be saved, so that the opportunity and mechanism would be available. The Holy Spirit altered those who were marked by the Father, sealing them into that Particular Redemption provided by our Lord “once for all” Romans 6:10, Hebrews 10:10… (that were marked).

What a wondrous and joyous miracle of completely undeserved mercy and Grace!

What did this have to do with our ability in our natural form as we arrived in the world? Absolutely nothing!! How could it, since we couldn’t even see it from that reality.

How can we not be humbled to our knees or prostrate on the ground before our God, in the light of what has been done to us and for us? We have been plucked from the world or darkness and sight dimmed by flesh, and recast into heaven while still alive.

Praise our Lord and Glorify His name. We can never give sufficient worship and thanks.