Why I Am Not a Calvinist Part 7 - Hebrews

I will wind down my rantings about Calvinism shortly. My last post on this topic dealt with Romans 9, a passage typically used to support a predistinarian view. Hebrews 6, on the other hand is a typically Arminian proof text and with good reason.

As a teenager, I read this passage with terror. I thought I had committed an unpardonable sin and it is a minor testament to the plain reading of this text as not supporting eternal security that I came to that conclusion. The text in Chapter 6:4-6 says:

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

I stated earlier that I support a view of eternal security that is based not on God's decree, but on the infinite value of Christ's sacrifice. That is - I do not believe one can casually lose his or her salvation. Grace is too gracious and Christ's blood too precious.

What is being spoken of here seems to be something different.

Scot McKnight on the Emerging Church - Part 1

I have been reading Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog for a few months now. I’ve even engaged in the conversation a few times, perhaps being a bit more feisty than I should at times. I’ve never met Scot McKnight, but I tend to like him from internet exchanges. He is gracious and engaging, and even sent me a couple of off-line e-mails to continue a discussion and find out a bit about me.

So when he published an article in CT on the Emerging Church, I had to read it and many of the reader comments, which have been all over the map. I have to say that I’ve not always been comfortable with things said on the Jesus Creed site. Most of Scot’s comments I can handle – many of the comments of his readers I have trouble with. After reading Scot’s article, I think I’ve come to some additional conclusions in regard to the Emerging Church movement. Scot attempts to define the indefinable Emerging Church (EC) movement and says some good things and troublesome things. First the positive:

Why I am Not a Calvinist Part 6 - Romans 9

At some point in my views of Calvinism I have to deal with difficult passages of scripture. And the most difficult is Romans 9. So here goes nothing...

I was always told as a young college student that a text without a context is a pretext. I had no idea what that meant, but it made "context" a part of my vocabulary. So while I often struggled with the implications of the words in Romans 9:10-18...

Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

Clearly this is good support for a predestinarian view. And I admit it was troubling. But, at least to my own satisfaction, context helped me through it.

Obama's Words, Obama's Actions

Been away from posting for a while. Finishing up a recording project for my son, and holiday stuff. Can't help but wonder if the country is ready for Barack Obama.
This guy is articulate, good looking, smooth as glass. And he presses the right "religion" buttons to woo a new generation of evangelical voters. I had dinner with a young man who interned for Obama and was fairly sold on him. 

Consider this quote from Obama's 'Call to Renewal' address:

...secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Jim Dobson couldn't have said it better. And the mainstream media will undoubtedly broadcast every soundbite it can that paints Obama in the light of a moderate, rational and religious man.

Here's my problem and many have written on this subject.

Obama's positions on life issues are more extreme than any candidate I have ever seen.