Why I Am An ArminianPart II: Calvinists

Introduction

Considering that I have always been an Arminian, deciding between Arminianism and Calvinism was a matter of whether or not Calvinism challenged my own beliefs enough for me to lose my trust in them. They would have to do this through biblical evidence, theological argument, and/or demonstration of good fruit. Needless to say, this never happened.

I'm going to examine each of these in turn, but right now, I am going to focus on fruit. Here I am going to be discussing the movement that many have called "the Calvinist Resurgence". There has been a recent increase over the past couple of years of Calvinism, especially within academia and the internet.

Disclaimers: I would like to remind everyone that the name of this series is "Why I am not a Calvinist" rather than "Why you shouldn't be a Calvinist". I do not expect what I say here to dissuade anyone from being or becoming Calvinist, nor do I think that it should. I write it because it is a very real reason why I am not.

The critique that follows is not a critique of 'Calvinism' but of the Calvinist Resurgence, and the mentality and attitude that tends to be associated with it. If you are Calvinist, and you feel that this doesn't apply to you, then it simply may not. This is my analysis of a present movement, rather than Calvinism as a system (that's coming later).

It is also necessary to mention why it is so important to me to mention this in this series (and I'll say this again at the end): A major reason why I am not a Calvinist is that most Calvinists that I have talked to have been jerks, and so I didn't trust them. It is very important to me that Christians realize that the way they behave and the way they treat the person they are talking to have a very real affect on how that person views the validity of what you have to say, not to mention what you believe. If you only receive one thing from this post, I would like it to be: be careful how you express the things of Christ, because people are watching.

Calvinist Resurgence

[What follows is an extrapolation of my thoughts expressed in this article I submitted to SEA: Personal belief as to the reasons of the Calvinist resurgence]

My opinion and thesis is that the Calvinist Resurgence is basically a backlash to the Postmodern Movement. What is the Postmodern Movement? Excellent question.
Well, no one really knows. The postmodern movement is a negatively defined stance, and like all negatively defined stances, it lacks something to stand on.

By negatively defined, I mean it defines itself by what it is not, i.e. it is not modernism. Modernism itself began with the Enlightenment which believed in the omnicompetence of human reason, as well as a strong expectation of progress. Ancients were seen as inferior, and they believed that we are progressing to a greater state of life. However, the various atrocities of the 20th century modernist philosophies have shaken the West's confidence in this world view. The result is what is known as postmodernity.

Postmodernity can be seen as essentially an overall attitude stemming directly from the rejection of modernity's main points. The result of this that I believe is most pertinent to the conversation is the rejection of a cultural epistemological standard.

Epistemology is the study of understanding. It deals with such things as how we determine truth, and what are the standards upon which we sort out fallacy and what do we mean by 'truth'. Our present culture lacks any epistemological cohesion. In modernity they relied on reason; in the ancient world they relied on revelation. Today, we rely on personal opinion, which is hardly a standard at all. Indeed, the less systematized, the less authoritative, the less orthodox an idea is, and the more personally it is expressed, the more legitimate it sounds to the postmodern ears. Ancient heretics are seen as open-minded thinkers, and flash and pomp mean more than substance.

There is a backlash going on in this culture attempting to reestablish past epistemological norms, though they would hardly phrase it like that. By this, I mean that they are trying to strongly establish the idea of truth, the attainability of that truth, and that the truth is "such and such". They see themselves as the last champions of orthodoxy at Thermopylae, standing the tide of heretics, gluttons, and liberals who are tearing the world apart. However, it is this "world" that they are protecting. They are trying to fix the damage already done, and return things to the old order so to speak. However, this backlash is just as much of a smorgasbord as postmodernity itself, since different groups see the "old order" differently.

I believe one of these groups sees the "old order" to be protected as Calvinist theology. They somehow believe the Reformation put the world in order, and ever since then liberals have been driving it apart. I might add that they don't tend to see the difference between a liberal and a postmodern, meaning that they often see themselves as fundamentalist. Indeed, they really are fundamentalist in attitude, doctrine, and politics. Whether or not this is a slow transference of fundamentalism opposing liberalism to opposing postliberalism, or whether or not it is a reaction against postmodernity which is absorbing fundamentalism is beyond my capacity to speculate. I would say though that this particular group's reliance on Calvinism is tied to postmodernity's loss of epistemological standards (standards of establishing truth).

This group neither represents Calvinism historically, nor Calvinism proper, but I do believe it represents most Calvinists we see on the net, including James White, Reformed Mafia, and Pyromaniacs. My thesis is that most of the attitudes that we find distasteful are a result of the combination of Calvinism with their reactionary position towards what is going on in the world.

EXAMINING SOME ATTRIBUTES: Apologetic Theology

By apologetic theology, I mean that they develop their understanding of God and the world based off of what works the best in debate. Indeed, I would argue that it is the cause of their devotion of Calvinism, rather than a result from it. However, there are a lot of new Calvinist ideas (that are considered to be the traditional Calvinist view by these people) for exactly this reason. Compatiblism comes readily to mind. Another is regeneration before salvation, along with its "dead man" analogy.

Again, we return to a lack of epistemology. Truth is what is the most convincing. Therefore, since they were convinced by these ideas, they are truth. Many do not seem to truly understand the ideas, they just know that they find them convincing, and parrot them back against the "enemy".

Elitism

Once on the Ben Witherington blog, Ben put up a post expressing John Piper's opinions regarding the elitism of certain Calvinists. I only reference so that you may compare them with my own, for I disagree with him considerably, but have respect for the man so I offer him as a second opinion.

By elitism, what I mean is an attitude that considers one to have the high ground. To them, it is our responsibility to convince them, and if they remain unconvinced, then we have been "defeated". As long as their system survives, they are victorious. In other words, they don't really have to prove anything.

Many of my Arminian brothers have speculated that this elitism that we see is a natural result of a caste system consisting of the reprobate and elect inherit to Calvinist theology. I disagree, though I do think this caste system is a reasonable conclusion from Calvinism.

The elitism is drawn from several factors, the greatest of which is the erroneous presupposition that Calvinism is the default Evangelical, if not Christian, position. I don't really know where this particular presupposition comes from, but I do believe that it is connected to the need of an epistemology (fundamental way of viewing and verifying truth). Without a unifying epistemology, each person is forced to create for themselves their own standards of truth. Calvinism offers this, providing a framework of understanding which is easily grasped (this is not a negative). The result is the person judges new information based off of this framework making it impossible to turn around and judge the framework itself.

The militant nature of the movement is also tied to this. This is a group of people who are angry at the changing cultural tides, whether they see them as liberal or recognize them as postmodern. Regardless, they cast those accepting these cultural changes as the enemy, creating an us/them mentality.

This mentality combines with Calvinism much like baking soda and vinegar. The us/them attitude is casted in elect/reprobate rhetoric and theology. Their hatred of the enemy becomes justified through God's hatred of the reprobate. They use this to justify their anger and behavior. Casting God as vindictive justifies their vindictiveness.

Apologetics Over Evangelism

There is nothing wrong with Apologetics (The defense of an idea or belief system). Each of us is gifted differently, and some of us are more gifted in the area of apologetics than in the area of evangelism. I am included in this, since I am more of a theologian than anything else.

However, these people seem to be dramatically drawn to apologetics, mostly because the foundation of their whole worldview is based on an opposition to certain ideas. They want to defeat what they see as liberalism, which eventually develops into any false Christian perspective. Therefore, they care more about converting "false Christians" than converting non-Christians.

Some of this isn't bad when applied to groups like Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. But when it gets extended to actual Christian groups, like Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and, of course, Arminians, they end up wasting their energy "sheep stealing".

Pragmatic Hermeneutic

Similar to apologetic theology, pragmatic hermeneutics is tied to usefulness in debate. However, here instead of ideas, I'm referring to methodology. There are a couple of examples of this:

1. The Machine Gun Hermeneutic
2. Lack of contextual understanding (like knowing Romans 9:9-24 but being ignorant of Romans 9:7-8)
3. Focus on verses instead of books
4. Favorite memory verses.

All of those go hand in hand but are slightly different. The fourth isn't really a negative thing, except when joined with the other three issues. The point of all of this, is that Scripture is a tool which they use to prove their point, rather than what they use to shape their opinion. Indeed, there is an assumption that their opinion is already formed from Scripture. After all, their teacher knew a lot of Scriptures...

This is mostly tied to their militant nature. They claim that their belief in Scriptural inerrancy is giving authority to Scripture (which itself is tied to their rejection of liberalism), but in reality, it is granting their opinions inerrancy since they are "derived" from Scripture. Though I have no problem affirming that there are no mistakes in Scripture, I do not grant my interpretation of it the same respect.

Reason/Consistency

This is the bit that I had the most difficulty is writing. Due to the complex relationship of fundamentalism with liberalism/postmodernity, they have a kind of love/hate relationship with reason.

Liberalism is, in essence, the acceptance of Enlightenment epistemology as the norm of the church (Again, epistemology is the study of how we understand truth, and the Enlightenment did this through the belief in the omnicompetance of human reason). Fundamentalism, fighting against this movement, not only rejects this claim, but also bases their own arguments on Enlightenment epistemology in an attempt to combat liberals. The result is that Enlightenment epistemology crept into the Fundamentalist perspective anyway.

When Postmodernity came along, and started rejecting Enlightenment epistemology, fundamentalists made a fatal mistake: they equated postmodernity with liberalism. The result is that now they think that liberals are the ones rejecting Enlightenment epistemology, and that it is the fundamentalist's job to defend it. Combine this with the still present inherit hatred of the liberal arguments and positions in the past, as well as commitment to the authority of revelation over human reason, and you have one really messed up epistemology.

Enter Van Til. Cornelius Van Til was an apologist in the mid 20th century who first proposed what is known as "presuppositional apologetics". Without getting into details, part of the theory is that the highest goal of a philosophical/theological position is consistency. Anyone who has entered the fray with these Calvinist fundamentalists have heard of the word "consistent" before. Indeed, Van Til himself was a Calvinist.

This whole position creates an excellent resource when dealing with a culture that lacks epistemology. When accepted, a person can sort through all of the conflicting opinions with this rule of consistency as a guide. However, no one person can possibly grasp all of the various implications of all philosophical systems around them, and the result is that the person will be attracted to theologies that are an easily presentable interlocking system. Naturally, 5-point Calvinism becomes very attractive.

This has an unfortunate consequence. In my experience, those that appeal to Calvinism's inner-consistency are often really poor judges of inner-consistency of other systems. I have found that Arminianism often "fails" the inner-consistency rule by failing to be consistent with Calvinist presuppositions. This is because, to some degree, Calvinism is becoming the basis of these people's epistemology. Personally, Arminianism is not the foundation of my epistemology. Instead the Incarnation is. However, for this group, Calvinism is absolutely their epistemology, adding to the elitism already mentioned.

Pathos-based Rhetoric

In formal rhetoric, there are three factors which are considered to enter into convincing a person. They are logos (Greek for 'word' or 'reason', referring here to the soundness of an argument, or it's logical coherence), pathos (Greek for 'emotion', referring here to the passions aroused in the audience), and ethos (Greek for 'ethic' or 'character', referring here to the projected character of the speaker for the sake of creating trust). Therefore, by pathos-based rhetoric I mean that they tend to use emotional arguments, and are often rather emotional themselves.

Now this isn't entirely bad, except that they absolutely fail in the area of ethos. There's some logos there, I admit, but very little ethos, if any at all. This is, of course, a result of the elitism.

I brought this attribute up last because it ties back into the title of this series: Why I am an Arminian. Because I started as an Arminian, I am in part an Arminian because Calvinists failed to convince me otherwise. They failed to convince me otherwise because of the shear lack of character displayed by the Calvinists I met. I didn't trust them enough to really listen to them.

You may ask how this isn't elitism, since I am demanding the Calvinist convince me instead of allowing both sides to stand on equal ground. The difference is that here we are dealing with my own heart, rather than a public discussion. In a public discussion, I don't insist that all I have to do is disprove the other side's arguments. But when it comes to my own heart, I'm not going to change my mind on something unless I am convinced otherwise.

But, these Calvinists didn't even cause me to doubt my position. If anything, they bolstered it by displaying the fruits of the world rather than the Spirit. If they merely showed me kindness, they may have convinced me when I first encountered it. Now, I am not so ignorant about Arminianism itself as I was then. The reason that I currently reject Calvinism is due to the superiority of Arminianism, and I want to make sure that is understood. While their behavior at that time prevented me from taking them seriously, I have since talked to and read many Calvinists who I do respect, including John Calvin himself. But by the time I had started to understand Calvinism, and had already come to study and fully understand Arminianism.

However, the reason I didn't believe in Calvinism back then was the kind of Calvinists I met. I write this in the hope of inspiring others to think about how you present the person of Jesus Christ first, and think about how to win the argument second. Thank you.


For orginal post, see here.
For series index, see here.

Why I Am An ArminianPart I: Testimony

Finding Scotia

I grew up in a village called Scotia. When I was a child, all I really knew was my home, my school, and some sites from my car. I knew my home was located in Scotia, but I didn't really know what Scotia was like, or where it was.

Soon, I got my first bicycle. I began to ride through the streets, learning the street names, the sites, and the feel of the village. As I grew, I became more and more familiar with my surroundings, and I developed a greater appreciation for my home.

When I became a teenager, I started to learn the area around Scotia. I understood where it was in relation to the various towns around me. Slowly I developed a better sense of where my home really was.

Finding Arminianism

For me, discovering Arminianism was much like discovering Scotia. I didn't grow up in a Calvinist church, or was converted to Calvinism when I came to Christ. Nor was I raised in a Semi-Pelagian Church thinking that it was Arminian. My church was legitimately Arminian; I just didn't know that was what it was called. Calvinism was just this "ancient heresy" that I had heard about once or twice, but never really gave it much thought.

Then in college, I remember being told that a band that I listened to was Calvinist. I was shocked. I did not suddenly think they were bad or anything. I was just shocked that Calvinism was still around; I then got involved with an on-line debate site called carm.org which is run by a Calvinist. I wasn't really that concerned with the topic though, I was more concerned with talking to atheists and cult members.

As time went on, I became more and more frustrated with the Calvinists at carm. I knew they weren't all bad (I liked the guy who ran the site for instance). But I found I had to keep cleaning up their messes. The Calvinists were pushy, rude, and were giving Christianity a bad name. So, I began to ask them questions.

I found that what I believed in was called "Arminianism". I had never heard the term before. However, when they tried to explain Arminianism to me, it never sounded like what I believed in. When I described what I believed, they assured me that I was Arminian, but "one of the good ones". This somewhat disturbed me since many of their descriptions of "other Arminians" were clearly unbiblical. So I began to investigate.

By this time I was in seminary, and to understand things better I took a course about Arminianism and Calvinism (taught by an Augustianian Catholic. I had a very fun seminary). I was hoping to understand the two systems better, and to test my own beliefs.

From seminary, I learned that what the Calvinists were describing as Arminianism wasn't Arminianism at all. It was called Semi-Pelagianism. Ancient Arminianism was actually referred to as Semi-Augustianism, a term that most Calvinsts don't even seem to know. Furthermore, I learned that the Synod of Dordt (which they claimed was a significant historical document backing up their claim to orthodoxy) was a local council with little authority. I also learned the teachings of Arminius himself, as well as John Wesley. In these two men, I found not only clear wisdom and piety, but true devotion to Scripture.

Defending Arminianism

From all of this, I was greatly disturbed at the slander and libel that I was encountering on-line. Calvinists were constantly equating Arminianism with Semi-Pelagianism, while occasionally equating it with every other heresy ever conceived. Most of these were deceived, but behind it all were many deceivers.

I accepted the label 'Arminian' and began defending it; not because I wanted to label myself, nor because I am so committed to Arminius, and not because I hate Calvinism itself. I began defending Arminianism because those particular people who are using Calvinism for their own ends are damaging the name of Christ and need to be opposed. I've never seen myself in opposition to Calvinism, but in opposition to a movement which happens to be Calvinist (This movement is often called the Calvinist Resurgence).

My passion is a passion for truth and honesty. I want the truth taught, but I also want people to think clearly, and be honest with their own motivations and beliefs. This movement is disrupting the integrity of the faithful, dispossessing them of the heart of Scripture, and robbing them of their minds. This is the conviction that I have come to. Some of you may be offended at that, but this is where I am right now, and I have to follow where it leads me. So I will continue to fight the fight, and promote an honest reading of Scripture.

Find original post here.
Find series index here.

Ode To Driving In Rochester (repost)

I wrote this last year, and I still think it is hysterical.  For those who don't know, this is what most drivers in Rochester are like. They have lived with snow their entire lives, and still don't know how to drive in it. So here is my ode (To the tune of "Satisfaction" by the Stones):

I can't get no proper traction
I can't get no proper traction
Though I try, and I try
And I try, and I try
I CAN'T GET NO, I CAN'T GET NO

As I'm driving in my car
And the stones come on the radio
And as the road turns more and more
I completely lose track of my steerin'
And then the car just starts veerin'
I can't get no... Oh no no no...
Hey hey hey, get out of my way!

I can't get no proper traction
I can't got no measly fraction
Though I try, and I try
But I can't drive, how am I alive
I CAN'T GET NO, I CAN'T GET NO

As I'm headin' out east,
And I'm suddenly off the street
And then I look up and see a tree
And when hittin' it causes my engine to smoke
I get out for the life of me
I can't get no... Oh no no no...
Hey hey hey, But I'm still OK

I can't get no proper traction
I ain't got no time for reaction
And I've tried, and I've tried,
But I'll die, so good-bye
I CAN'T GET NO, I CAN'T GET NO

When I'm ridin' around the town
And I'm doin' this and doin' that
And some guy pulls out from nowhere
And as I'm spinning into a record store
I'm lovin' this snow more and more
I can't get no, Oh no no no...
Hey hey hey, that's what I say

I can't get no, I can't get no,
I can't get no proper traction
no proper traction, no proper traction, really no traction

Christmas according to John (repost)

Many believe that there are only two tellings of the Christmas story in Scripture: Luke 3, and Matthew 1-2. But there is a third telling: John chapter one.

In the beginning was the Word, andthe Word was with God, andthe Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him as life, andthe life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'") And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. -John 1:1-17

I do not want to take away from the greatness of the other Christmas stories in Scripture, but this is my favorite out of the three, and it saddens me that it is often forgotten. It may not give historical details of his birth, but it says most clearly the heart of why we celebrate on Christmas.

The focus of Christmas isn't that Jesus was once born. I have often asked people why Christmas is important and their answer is that it needed to happen for Jesus to get to Calvary. Well, that is true, but there were a great number of things that needed to happen for that, and we don't celebrate them all.

The reason we celebrate Christmas is the reason that John gives: The Word of God became flesh. The light of God came to men. That the Holy God thought it good to come down to Earth and get His hands dirty with our mess. That is something worthy of celebration.

John 1:1-5

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him as life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

It is very important to contemplate what John means by 'the Word'. The brilliance of it though, is that John means a great many things by 'the Word'. But I believe that its primary meaning is to tell us the primary aspect of the economy of the 2nd person of the Trinity: He is God's self-disclosure to humanity. He is what God has "said" about Himself, and the source of our understanding of Him.

This says a many things about the Word. The Word existed at the beginning of things. The Word was God's means of creating the world. That the Word is distinct from God, but is yet God Himself (hence Trinity).

It also says that the Word is the source of life and light to humanity. Light is a major theme in John's gospel, introduced here. For now, he speaks merely of its strength, and how it can overcome darkness. Like the term "word", light here refers not the concept of goodness, but to the concept of revelation. The light reveals the things in the dark. John will describe this in more detail later.

John 1:6-8

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

The introduction of John the Baptist is a curious addition to the story. Its introduction here is to deal with a common Jewish theory at that time, which was that John the Baptist was the Messiah. Here the Apostle dispels that theory, and claims that it was John the Baptist's purpose to point to the Light. The other reason has to do with the Apostle's claim that the John the Baptist himself was sent by God, and to dispel any erroneous thoughts that might suggest. However, this also serves as an introduction to John the Baptist himself, whose role in coming of Christ will later be revealed.

John 1:9-13

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Here is where John goes into more detail about the light. Again, by enlighten it means reveals things. This light came into the world that rejected and hated Him, and was even hated by His own people. But He came anyway, knowing this out of love so that we may become children of God. Those who become children are those that receive Him, those that believe in His name. Even here we have the NT emphasis that salvation isn't just to the Jews, but to any who may believe. Salvation does not merely come to those who it is "supposed to come", but it comes to whoever may believe for God is no respecter of persons.

John 1:14

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

And this is what makes this a Christmas story. This is the celebration of Christmas: that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. He ate like us, bathed like us, smelled and spoke and walked like us. And now we can know who God is, because we have witnessed the Son and have seen His glory.
However, John's point here of having seen the glory of the Son is to testify that Yeshua truly is the Son of God. John knows that He is the Son of God, for John has indeed seen his glory, being an eyewitness to the Word, and therefore we know this testimony that he is setting forth is true.

John 1:15-17

John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'") And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

Bearing speaking again of the Baptist gives further proof to John's testimony.

But what is most interesting is the comparison between Moses and Yeshua. The gospel of John is very Jewish, and one of his concerns is to understand the coming of the Son of God in light of the first century Jewish world view. How he, and the other apostles I might add, do this is by recognizing that in Moses we have been given the Law, the understanding of righteousness and God's justice. But in Yeshua the Christ we God graciousness and the fullness of God's mind. For though God is far above us and we cannot see Him, He has made Himself known to us through Yeshua the Christ!

For this reason I say Merry Christmas, and to challenge you to take the time and think about what it means for the Word to become flesh, for the true God of glory to come to us, even when we were yet sinners, knowing full well what the end of His time on Earth would bring.

In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
Amen.

For original post, see here.

Double Talk of Compatibilism (repost)

Compatibilism is the desperate attempt of Calvinists to have their cake and eat it too. It is the claim that humans are still responsible for their sins because they wanted to commit them, but that God still predetermined their actions because He shaped the person's will by molding the internal motives of that person. This way, God has determined sin without being responsible for it, and humans are responsible without possessing any level of causation.

But this doesn't really work. Let us consider a person. We shall call him Quincy. And let us start with a sin. Let us say that Quincy stole a cookie. Now according to Compatibilism, the sequence of events are as follows:

1. God had decreed before the foundation of the world that Quincy would steal the cookie.
2. God shaped Quincy's life up to that moment to build in him a temptation to steal that cookie in that moment.
3. In that moment, God planted a particular desire in Quincy to steal that cookie that would overpower his other desires.
4. Quincy then decides to steal the cookie based on his inner desires.
5. The cookie is stolen.

Now we may say that God isn't really absolved from the actions above since He did so much to cause them, but that's not my point. My point is this: according to Compatibilism, Quincy is 100% responsible for the above action and God is 0% because of the way in which he was motivated to steal.

Now let us consider the moment of salvation.

1. God had decreed before the foundation of the world that Quincy would come to saving faith of our Lord Jesus.
2. God shaped Quincy's life up to that moment to build in him a willingness to commit to the Lord.
3. In that moment, God planted a particular desire in Quincy to accept Jesus Christ that would overpower his other desires.
4. Quincy then decides to believe.
5. Quincy accepts Christ has his Lord and Savior.

The important thing to note here is that according to Compatibilism, God is 100% responsible for the above and that Quincy is 0% responsible.

So what is the difference between the two modes of action? NOTHING!!! The only difference is that one resulted in evil and one resulted in good but the process of causation was EXACTLY the same. Which means that all Compatibilism does is it makes God responsible when Calvinists want Him to be, and makes the human responsible when they want him to be. However, it is completely inconsistent and resolves nothing.

Calvinist Santa: The Movie (repost)

Calvinist Santa
by: jc_freak


View here for original script

Why Are You Defending The Rich? (repost)

"Why are you defending the rich?" Provocative question isn't it? There are so many little assumptions that are built into that one sentence.

As a conservative, I get asked this question occasionally. Ironically, it is not because I am saying the rich are great, and it is not because I am defending some of the immoral behavior of some CEOs and corporations. It is simply because I disagreeing with liberal economic policy. So why ask this particular question?

So, let us consider some of the assumptions lying behind this, and maybe then we can offer some appropriate answers.

A Matter of Motivation

The first assumption is that what I am doing is defending the rich. People have a very difficult time accepting that the thought process of someone else can be radically different from their own. As such, we often assume that someone's reasons for opposing our beliefs are along the same lines as our reasons for holding them. For instance, some Pro-life people believe that Pro-choice people actually don't mind killing children. Meanwhile many Pro-choice people assume that Pro-life people are sexist. Neither one of these assumptions are accurate, but both are based off of us having trouble separating out our motivations from the motivations of others.

In this case, I do not hold to conservative economic principles because I have any love for the rich. To be frank, I don't care about the rich one way or the other, at least not as a category. It is irrelevant to me. I don't see economic policy as a means of rewarding or punishing people for behavior. I see it as a means of maintaining economic stability for our civilization. That's all I care about.

The reason why someone would accuse me of defending the rich is because they view themselves as assaulting the rich. They may not use or like that terminology, but clearly that is the way they view things. Why else would my opposing their beliefs be considered to be defending a different group?

It's OK To Have A Little Class

Assumption two, of course, is that the rich need to be assaulted and shouldn't be defended. The poor are seen as victims of society, while the rich are seen as hoarders, preventing the poor from being delivered from their economic woes. I am speaking in hyperbole here, since I know no one that would express it this way. Every liberal I've ever met will acknowledge that there are good rich people in existence. But you can tell by the way that some of them talk, specifically the kind who would ask the titular question of this post, that they see these as exceptions.

So, do I disagree with this view? Yes, though not because I think the rich are great mind you. It is because I don't think the rich are monolithic. Some are good, and some are bad. Some of the poor are good, and some are bad. Economic status has nothing to do with moral integrity in my opinion, and I don't target a group simply because of their class. I believe this to be bigotry.

I think we can all agree that those who view the poor as universally lazy are bigoted. I think we can also agree that those who view the rich as the epitome of what it means to be an American to be equally bigoted. Where we disagree is that I believe the opposite to be bigoted as well. And I don't abide by bigotry.

Economic Justice

The last assumption is that the purpose of economic policy is to bring justice to the world by evening out the classes. I've hinted at this before of course, but it is good to address it directly.

I believe in justice and fairness, but I don't think that fairness means everyone gets the same thing. I believe everyone should get the same chances. The law is to treat everyone equal. That is not the same thing as making everyone equal. Whether we like it or not, we are not all equal in this society. I believe we were created equal, but as we live our lives, we go in different directions. Some of us succeed, and some of us don't. While it is tragic to be unsuccessful, it is not necessarily unjust or unfair.

Directly controlling the economic flow simply won't work. People are too selfish, and those in charge of directing that flow will be a higher class than those who aren't. Those who desire to eradicate the classes will merely recast them, and will cause that upper class to have considerably more control over the lower class than the system we have now. Instead of it being the rich vs the poor, it would be the government vs. the people. It isn't an improvement.

Classes are OK. They're not perfect, and it would be better if we didn't need them, but it is a natural result of living in a fallen world. It is the kind of problem that if you try and fix it, you end up breaking the whole system. What is wrong is when we think that being of one class makes you a more valuable human than someone else. That is bigotry as I said before. To some degree there will always be bigotry, and even if we managed to create a society without economic classes, we will still find ways to categorize each other and prejudge one another. We are very creative.

As a Christian, I believe that we are a fallen race. Sin and wickedness are inevitable. I am not going to look to a human system to try and fix the problem because I know it will fail. Instead, I will fight for justice within my own context, proclaim the gospel, and look forward to the return of the Son. That is the lot of the Christian, wherever we find ourselves.

Imago Dei (repost)

The concept of being created in the image of God is at the center point of many Christian anthropological positions (anthropology is the study of humanity: what makes humans human). My pastor often says that you should never create a doctrine around a single verse. This is an excellent rule of thumb, and I highly recommend it, but ironically when we are talking about being made in the image of God, we have to deal with the fact that this term is actually only used in two passages in all of Scripture: Genesis 1:26-30 and Genesis9:6(though referenced elsewhere). However, Genesis 1:26-30is a rather important passage. It is specifically the creation of man, and as such gives us what I think is a legitimate exception to the general rule.

So what does it mean to be made in the image of God? Well there are several things that it doesn't mean. We aren't ethereal. We aren't a Trinity of persons. We aren't omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnitemporal, and any other omni for that matter. Indeed, there are a lot of ways in which we actually look nothing like God. So how can it be said that we are made in God's image?

Going to Context

Well, if we are going to look at this question biblically, we need to remember the 3 Cs of hermeneutics: context, context, and context. So let's look at the context:

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. -Genesis 1:26-30

It is interesting to note that it doesn't go on to describe any divine attributes. However, what it does do is connect the notion of humanity's creation to humanity's authority over the rest of creation. Indeed, I would argue that this is what the concept of being in the image of God means: we have authority over creation.

Authority vs. Sovereignty

"Hold up! How can we have authority over creation, while God is still sovereign?"

To put it simply, having authority is not the same thing as being in charge. When I was a kid, my sister Calin and I had authority over our younger siblings (Calin exercised that authority to a greater extent than I did, but I digress). However, none of us ever confused Calin and me with Mom and Dad. We all knew who really was in charge.

Indeed, it is this kind of fundamental confusion that has lead me to never take Calvinist claims of having "a more sovereign God" seriously. Being more despotic, doesn't make someone more sovereign. It usually just makes them more of a jerk.

In the case of humans and God, the relationship between the two is essentially that of delegation. God delegates a certain amount of authority over to humanity for us to rule over creation. However, what authority we have is only based on our submission to the source of that authority: the Divine King.

The Race of Representatives

Understanding that our authority comes from God's sovereignty, as opposed to being... well, opposed to it, becomes easier when we understand our authority in terms of imago dei. The Hebrew word for 'image' is 'tselem', which is often used to refer to idols.

Now, I am not saying that humans are idols of God, or anything like that. It is very clear in Scripture that we are not to worship each other, but it is important to understand how the word connects to idol worship.In idol worship, one doesn't believe that the idol is truly their god. Instead they believe that it represents their god, or stands in for their god so that they can interact with him/her in a more tangible way. Thus we can consider 'tselem' to mean representation, or representative.

A story from I Samuel works to illustrate this. In this story, the Philistines have captured the Ark of the Covenant, and God has sent plagues of tumors and mice to punish them. Then, in chapter 6, they inquire of their priests what they should do. The answer is to make images (or tselemim) of the mice and the tumors out of gold as an appeasement to God. Note how the images here are not things to be worshiped, but things to represent the tumors and the mice.

Likewise, we can consider ourselves, as human beings, to be things which represent God in creation. We are His delegates, His representatives, and the only power we have is by representing God Himself. Our power is not of our own, but it is an extension of His.

Going to the Story

Now the Bible tells a story. Theologically, we call this the metanarrative, or the overarching story from which our theology is based. When we imagine the image of God in this manner, we find that it influences the way in which we view God's interaction with humanity through history.

At first God sets up humanity to be His representatives among creation. However, humanity rebels and becomes separate from God, deterring humanity's ability to accurately represent Him.

So God sets up for Himself a particular people within humanity to represent Him among humanity. He chooses a single man by the name of Abraham, and sets apart his descendants as the Chosen People, or the Elect. They come to be known as the Israelites. However, at Mount Sinai the Israelites reject God out of fear, and wish to remain separate from Him.

So God sets up for Himself a particular tribe within Israel to represent Him among the Elect. This is the tribe of Levi, and they become the priests of Israel. Indeed, a priest is best understood as someone who represents God to the people, and represents the people to God. If you remember, it was God's original intention for Israel to be a nation of priests (Exodus 19:6). However, because the Israelites rejected this, only the Levites are priests.

Even so, God still continues to show His desire to rule people through a divine representative by establishing the High Priest, to represent Him to the Levites. Therefore, within the OT, you have:

High Priest
/ \
Levites
/ \
Israel
/ \
Humanity
/ \
Creation

Now let's think of the New Testament. In the New Testament, we, the gentiles, are grafted into the vine of Israel, and thus become God's elect as well. However, because of the priesthood of all believers, we manifest God's original design for Israel to be a priesthood to all nations. Thus the Levites and Israel collapse together in the NT picture as the Church. However, we are not grafted in by our own power, but by the power of Christ's sacrifice and resurrection, as the Resurrected One becomes our High Priest. Therefore, in the NT we have:

Christ
/ \
Church
/ \
Humanity
/ \
Creation

Therefore we see that this is how God chooses to rule over His creation. He does not do so through meticulous predestination of all things, though He could. Instead, He chooses to act through people, and He appoints people and peoples for the purpose of representing Him and acting for Him. This is how God manifests His sovereignty.

What Does That Mean for Us?

A few different things. First of all, it means that we are responsible for what we do. We are responsible to God, not just because we are His creatures, but because we have the unique make-up to act on God's behalf. Therefore in everything we do, we represent God as we do it, whether that be consciously or unconsciously. Our sins are not simply bad things that we do, but they are things that besmear God's image, for we are God's image.

Second of all, we have a responsibility. We are supposed to represent God. As humans, we are to represent God in creation and take care of it and nurture it. Do we behave like crazy environmentalists? No. But we treat creation with respect, do what we can to bring out its beauty, but also organize it, and incorporate our own structures within it as any gardener would.

As Christians, we also represent God to other humans. As such, we need to represent Him in both justice and mercy. We don't back down from what God says is true and just, but we behave in a way that demonstrates God's love and affection for humanity. We are delegates of a benevolent king, and we should be benevolent as well. But we are still representing the king, not just some guy with really good ideas.

Third, we need to see that humans are holy: even bad ones and even unborn ones. The way we treat other humans cannot simply be based out of convenience or judgement. People deserve our respect, not because they have earned it, but because they represent God Himself. I would say, biblically speaking, that it is never good to kill a human being (though it is sometimes necessary). Killing other humans soils our hands. Even David, though he fought in God's wars, was too unclean to build God's temple.

Essentially it means that we need to treat humans with respect, not because they deserve it (because we don't), but because they represent God, and God deserves it.

For original post, see here.

The Machine-Gun Hermeneutic (repost)

Since I have been debating on the internet, there has been one particular use of the Bible that I have seen them use again and again. I have come to call it the machine-gun hermeneutic. Hermeneutics is the study of how to interpret Scripture, and a hermeneutic is a particular method of interpretation.

I post this as a warning to all those who may see this technique being used. Do not be fooled. It does not demonstrate that an argument is biblical, but instead quite the opposite.
Argument from Verbosity

An argument from verbosity, or argumentum verbosium, is when someone provides an enormous amount of proof as well as a complex line of reasoning, so as to overwhelm the audience. The hearer is unable to examine all of the proof mentioned, or untangle the line of reasoning, so accepts the argument without truly challenging it. However, this does not mean that the proofs were strong (or even relevant) or that the line of reasoning was logical: it just means that there was too much for the hearer to take in and evaluate.
For example, if I wanted to convince you that flying is too dangerous, I could quote you the number of planes that have crashed in the past 5 years, the number of people that have died, and then break down by airline, in the end quoting 25 different stats. Believe me, I would sound convincing. But this wouldn’t change the reality that flying is the safest way to travel because in this case the number of crashes isn’t nearly as relevant as the percentage of crashes. However, I would have quoted you enough stats that you would be unable to actually examine the validity or applicability of those stats. That is an argument from verbosity.
The Machine-Gun Hermeneutic

The machine-gun hermeneutic is essentially an argument from verbosity using Scriptural quotations. I could break down the entire chapter of Hebrews 10, and demonstrate how the entire context, as well as the intention of the entire book, demonstrate that it is possible that a true believer can fall away from the faith. Then the Calvinist responds by quoting 5 Scripture verses, without discussing their context, and then claims victory. I’ve seen this many times. However, those 5 verses usually have nothing to do with the context at hand, or teach something incredibly different than what the Calvinist says. It doesn’t really matter, because I now have to sort through the context of 5 different verses, explain how none of them match up to what the Calvinist says, and my original point gets lost. The Calvinist still ends up winning.

I began referring to this as a machine gun hermeneutic based off a conversation I had once. My opponent essentially quoted 6 or 7 different verses at once, and then insisted I respond to every single one of them. I refused, because I knew it really wouldn’t be effective anyway, since he would ignore whatever exegesis I offered by simply quoting more texts (he had done it before). He claimed that I didn’t respect Scripture. I responded, saying that I believe Scripture to be a sword, not a machine-gun, and it is disrespectful to Scripture to treat it differently than how it was designed.

You see, a sword takes an incredible amount of skill. If you do not angle the sword exactly right, it doesn’t slice, it only nicks. Often even the higher sword masters do not slice every time they connect with the sword. This is not even considering all of the necessary parrying and thrusting techniques.

A machine gun on the other hand only takes as much skill as is necessary to keep the user safe. The techinique is simply to shoot a spray of bullets and to hope that one of them connects.
The machine gun hermeneutic works similar. One simply quotes as many Scripture verses as possible and hopes that the shear volume is sufficient to get a hit. However, this ends up discouraging one from actually reading the Scriptures. The contexts of the verses are never considered. The verses are simply memorized so that they can be quoted when needed.

Now quoting Scripture isn’t bad. It's not that I need to discuss the context of every verse that I quote. But it is the context of the verse which determines whether my quoting it was valid, and that is impossible to determine when I have 6 verses to sort through at once. In the end, the Scripture itself is ignored, but its presence causes the statement to sound offical.
  See original post here

The End of the Reposting

Finally I am done simply reposting what I have posted on my previous blog. I hope that you have enjoyed going through this material as much as I have. It is always interesting looking back on what you have written in the past.

My intent with the rest of this blog is simply to get out my ideas with feedback. I think by talking and through discussion. Therefore, I do not see this as a mode of converting people to my opinion, but as a mode of thinking. By writing the ideas down, I shape my thoughts better, and if and when people challenge those ideas, I am able to address those challenges, and either correct or improve upon the original thought.

I had one professor in seminary who said that he was afraid that the seminary failed me to some degree but not allowing me to come to my professors in private more with my thoughts. Though I wouldn't have used language that strong, I do agree that I am a person who needs to work out his thoughts with other people, often changing my opinion in conversation, much to the annoyance of my wife.

So please, feel free to comment, as I do enjoy conversation. However, please be warned, I will converse back. Also, a couple of rules for commenting: Nothing dirty. I'll crop that out quickly. Also, please stay on topic, expecially on the older posts. I have this set so that I only moniter posts 10 days old and older. After that point, I'll be strict on seeing people stay on topic. However, on newer posts, I'm giving freer range of discussion, since they are new, and I want to generate discussion.

So, let the true blog begin.

Movie Review: Dark Knight

As I said before, I am a big movie fan, but I am also a big Batman fan. Batman discussions were common in my household, as we would often compare notes and thoughts on the various psychological profiles of various villains. Yes, this was my childhood. I posted this August 10th, 2008.

Overall Reaction

I was excited to hear of the coming of the new Batman film for two reasons: I'm an avid Batman fan to begin with and the fantastic treatment of the character in Batman Begins. I was hoping for a film that was on par with Batman Begins, but I was unsure of whether or not they could do it. They were going to change an essential aspect of Joker's identity (bleached face for makeup) and maintain the Hollywood mistake of not sticking to one Batman villain per movie. So how did it fair?

It was amazing! Fantastic, action-packed, psycho-dramatic, thriller. One of the best movies I've ever seen.

Comparison to the First Movie

There were many things about this film which demonstrates a style for the entire series when compared with Batman Begins.

One, both movies resisted having an opening theme song, or even title screen. Instead, both opted for creating the Batman symbol only, in a highly stylized fashion. The first one formed it with a swarm of bats, the second by a blue fire. This thrusts the audience right into the movie.

Also, both movies have a very strong color scheme, which is first seen in the Batman symbol shot. The first one was brown and black, with some other earth tones. The second one was more blue and grey, with some other urban colors. There are scenes which are an exception to this, but these strong color patterns are certainly prevalent.

Also, the plot movements are very different. The first movie was very linear, almost episodic in nature. You might consider the first movie to have 4 episodes:

1. Bruce Wayne training and dealing with his past (ends when Ras 'al Gul's house explodes and Bruce meets Alfred at plane)
   
2. Bruce Wayne creating Batman and taking down the Falcone (ends with Rachel and her boss discussing prosecuting him. 'Baton' is passed when Scarecrow is introduced)
   
3. Batman investigating the drugs and fighting Scarecrow (ends with Bruce Wayne coming to his party)
   
4. Batman fighting Ras 'al Gul

Note how in each episode he is dealing with a different villain, has different kinds of challenges, and even the feel of the movie itself is different.

The Dark Knight is more monolithic in feel, with more of a cyclical structure: Joker instigates a challenge, Batman, Gordon, and Dent react, over and over with slight changes with each cycle. The only exception to this could be the incident with the Chinese accountant, but even with that, its the three good guys reacting to a challenge presented by the accountant. Also while the first movie was about the creation of Batman, for the most part, this one focused on the relationships between Batman, Gordon, and Dent, and how those relationships deal with the Joker crisis.

There is also the idea of theme. The theme of the first movie is fear and symbol. This second movie, the theme is hero and order. Throughout the movie, Dent and Batman are compared as two kinds of heroes. The final monologues of Gordon are the most conspicuous of this, using the same wording to describe the two, as well as the two titles: White Knight and Dark Knight. Gordon is also displayed as a hero to some extent, but never truly, because he is too pragmatic to truly be a hero.

Order is also treated, but not to the same extent. This is treated more on the villain side of things. You have the mob essentially trying to regain order. Also, to some extent, the good guys trying to create order for the first time. Then you have Joker trying to destroy order: an agent of chaos as he calls himself. Then, finally, Two-Face; a man who has lost he belief in order, and finds solace in the only thing he can still find reliable: chance.

Intensity

There are two ways to gauge intensity: the quality of the action and the strength of the suspense. On a scale from one to ten, I would rank the action as a 7.5. Most of the tight shots made it difficult to tell what was happening in the fight scenes (especially when he was in the building in the last confrontation with Joker). Most of the other kinds of action were very short scenes. The scene that ranks the highest for action (and I would rank it about a 9.5) would be the car chase scene. Car chases, cool new vehicle, bazooka, explosions, trucks getting slammed, and an 18-wheeler flipped over its front. Now that's action my friend.

However, for suspense, I would rank this movie overall as a 10. This is clearly more where the director was going. Its a strong cross between a thriller and an action movie. Never quite knowing what Joker is going to do, always on the edge of your seat, not knowing who will live or who will die, and Two-Face making every decision by the flip of a coin. Very high suspense. Combine this high suspense with the action that was in the movie, and you have a very intense film.

Characters

Every true Batman fan knows that its all about the psychosis. A Batman movie without psychosis as a focus is like Star Wars with Jar Jar as the comic relief. Just bad. This movie got is right with each character hopelessly complex. Let us examine them starting with the least, and moving to the greater:

Mob bosses: The head mob boss in this movie is Maroni. In the comics, Maroni was the guy that threw acid on Harvey Dent, making him Two-Face. Here, Maroni is actually a very quiet man, more of a victim of circumstance than a real threat to anyone. He gets forced into a corner by Batman, Gordon and Dent, then pushed around by Joker, abused by Batman's interrogation, and finally trapped by Two-Face. Though he is the "head of the mob" he is very passive in the movie.

The other mob bosses are the closest thing you get to two dimensionality. They are concerned with money, respect and power. Not much more. Like Maroni, they are easily harassed, conned, and eventually destroyed by the main characters.

The Mayor: The mayor was a really great character. The actor impressed me with his American accent since I'm already familiar with him and know that he has a very thick spanish accent. The guy sounded completely different. In either case, the Mayor character was just brave enough to let Gordon and Dent do their attack on the mob, but wasn't nearly as confident about it as they were. Strong, but cautious. Also quirky in how he expressed himself, making him interesting to watch. Overall, I felt that I would really like him as my mayor.

Alfred: It is a shame to me that I must treat Alfred so soon, but he's not really that important in this movie. Alfred takes a bit of a back seat in this film. Alfred has always been, to some extant, an exposition character. Essentially a character whose close enough to the protagonist that at necessary points, the protagonist can plot-dump, verbally wrestle with inner-demons, or explain what he's thinking without it looking too hokey. This is essentially the only role that Alfred really has in this movie, even serving as an expositional excuse for Rachel at one point.

However, though he's an expositional character, he's not a passive one, sometimes even implanting the very thoughts that Batman is going to act on eventually. Alfred demonstrates a constant concern for Wayne's well being, as well as source of normalcy, but also possesses a profoundly insightful objectivity, being the first character to really grasp what the Joker is about. He's comic relationship with Bruce also makes the necessary exposition scenes run comfortably.

Rachel Dawes: Rachel is a character made up just for the movies. This makes her presence interesting to me as a Batman fan, since I have no precedent to judge her by. What's great about her in this movie is that she is so different than the last movie, due to a change of actress. I don't mean to say that Gyllenhaal's Dawes was better than Holmes', but I think it was good to see this kind of change in the second film. This gives the series permission to do something similar later on when other main actors finish with the series.

Overall, this Dawes is happier. Her dream is coming true: Gotham is becoming safe. Additionally, she is in with the very men causing it to happen: Bruce Wayne, Harvey Dent, and even Jim Gordon who she calls a friend. To some degree she is the damsel in distress, much like she was in the first movie, but also like in the first movie she fights back, and displays bravery and passion. She presents herself as a woman of principle in both movies, and this is how she remains consistent between the two.

Lucius Fox: I'm not sure if I like how involved Fox is in this movie. Quite frankly, I felt that way about the last movie, and this one took it further. Still, given what they did in the first movie, what they did here was quite appropriate.

Two things of note (spoiler alert). First, there is the way that Fox handles both the asian accountant, as well as the guy that figures out Batman's identity. It showed a rhetorical cleverness and gave you a lot of respect for him. The second bit is how Fox helps Batman in working the radar system, for lack of a better word. Classically, that would be something that Alfred would do. Here, it is an opportunity to show Fox's integrity in that he doesn't like the idea of the power that it gives Bruce, and it shows Bruce's confidence in him, as well as Bruce's expectation that he would react the way he did. We receive a very competent, reliable man full of integrity.

Jim Gordon: Jim is much more heavily featured in this movie than in the last one. In the first one, Gordon is simply established because he is part of the Batman world. In this movie, Batman, Dent and Gordon are the main characters. That triad is the primary subject of film.

Here, Gordon is the pragmatist. He's the guy that does what he can do in order to get the job done. He's not really a hero because he compromises on his ideals to get the job done. One of the big plot points is that Gordon has assembled a highly trained detective force in order to take down the mob. However, most of this force consists of officers that were investigated by Dent when he was in internal affairs. At one point, Dent criticizes Gordon for this, and Gordon says, "If I didn't let detectives you investigated on, I wouldn't have anyone at all." This best demonstrates this pragmatist attitude.

Two things of note (spoiler alert). The whole thing they do with Gordon getting shot is simply awesome. First of all, even I was really unsure as to whether or not he was dead. Second, when he comes back, the entire theater cheered! And that scene with him and his wife was absolutely fantastic. It also sets up for what happens later, since the reason why Gordon does this is to protect his family.

The second thing of note is Dent going after Gordon. It is kind of surprising since Gordon wasn't corrupt and wasn't involved in the kidnapping of Rachel. But Dent saw Gordon as partly responsible because it was members of his force that did the kidnapping. Therefore, the very thing that Gordon was protecting from Joker was now attacked by Dent, and Gordon was completely helpless. When he insists on thanking Batman and the last speech that he give about Batman to his son shows that he is now committed to Batman, regardless of what else happens. It will be interesting to see what the do with him in the next movie.

Harvey Dent/Two-Face: Before Dent becomes Two-Face, his is a tough guy. A no fear district attorney who is committed to ending corruption and the mob. There is a purity about him in that his motivations are so honest. They often play with the idea that Dent leaves things to chance, hinting toward Two-Face, except that he really isn't since he is using a double-faced coin. The one "interrogation" scene is absolutely awesome, comparing Batman's technique and Dent's. Dent, even without Two-Face, is an awesome character, and because he was so honest, it is a real tragedy when he falls.

Bruce Wayne even completely believes in him, saying to Gordon that he was the best of the three. What is interesting is that Dent believes in Batman just as much, often acting as his one apologist in a world that is primarily critical of him. His comparison of Batman to the Roman dictator, which was a temporary position held by one man in only extreme circumstances who was above all rulers and laws is particularly telling. His sole purpose was to get Rome out of a crisis. The point of this comparison was both the perceived temporariness of Batman's mission as well as his need. This comparison also seems to be what persuades Bruce Wayne into much of his choices throughout the movie. (Side note, the mention of the Roman dictator as well as the direct reference to Caesar could also be a reference to the First Triumvirate which was a powerful political alliance in Roman times consisting of Caesar, Cassus, and Pompey. This could be compared to the alliance of Batman, Dent, and Gordon, perhaps relating Batman and Dent to Pompey and Caesar who eventually became enemies. Hero to villain allusion also foreshadows Dent's eventual fall).

Then he becomes Two-Face. First of all, this is a very different Two-Face than in the comics. The Two-Face that we've all come to know and love is marked with a multiple-personality syndrome. Essentially, you have Dent (good) and Two-Face (bad). Two-Face is the stronger personality. The Two-Face personality isn't so much as evil, as he is selfish, like most simple criminals. What makes the character fascinating is the dual interest. The Two-Face personality is a mob boss interested in money and revenge. Dent remains an attorney seeking justice and goodness. One's selfish, the other is selfless. Indeed, this personalities are so different that they can only truly agree on one standard by which to judge their actions: chance. Thus Two-Face uses a coin to determine which of his two personalities he will act upon.

In the movie, Two-Face doesn't possess multiple personality. (spoiler alert)Instead, Two-Face is truly Harvey Dent, but a broken man. It is the lose of the love of his life, and the injustices surrounding that lose, which causes him to loose his faith in institutional justice. Mark that. Two-Face's criminal activity isn't merely a selfish criminal, but a man seeking justice. He is a vigilante. Indeed, Dent, through out the movie, is compared to Batman, and here we are comparing Batman's form of vigilantism with Two-Face's. In Batman Begins Ras 'al Gul describes a vigilante as "a man lost in the scramble for his own gratification." That is exactly what Two-Face here is, while Batman remains above this description, constantly willing to sacrifice himself and his reputation for good of others. Two-Face is seeking gratification over the loss of Rachel, and is specifically targeting those he feels are responsible. The use of the coin is that chance is the only form of justice left. It's almost a love hate relationship with chance, since he sees his own misfortune as a product of it.

The targeting of the two corrupt cops and Maroni makes a lot of sense. Also the coin toss for Joker. These are the ones directly responsible for Rachel's death. What is interesting is that he then goes after Gordon. This is where he really passes from being a tragic misguided vigilante to being a villain, though he still sees himself in the form of a vigilante. He's reasons for going after Gordon is a move from direct responsibility to indirect. Gordon is responsible because he allowed corrupt cops into his unit. However, he intends to hurt Gordon the way that he was hurt. This is a different MO than what he did with the others he hunted. What makes the most sense to me, is that Gordon was that Gordon had the audacity to think that he was sorry. He had to prove to Gordon first that he wasn't really sorry, and in order to do that, he had to inflict Gordon with the same pain that he felt: the loss of a loved one. Eventually he turns on Batman and himself after Batman makes the point that all three of them are responsible since they went after the mob, starting the whole thing going.

Joker: Ah, the Joker. The Joker is everyone's favorite villain. Here are the things that make Joker Joker:

• Unpredictable
  
• Commits crime out of pleasure rather than personal gain
  
• Crimes have an artistic vibe.
  
• His "calling cards" are an actual joker card, and a forced smile on his victims faces
  
• He has a permanent smile on his face
  
• He makes you laugh while feeling horrified.
  
• Incredibly vain. He shows off, and loves to explain his cleverness, especially to Batman.

There are several things that make this Joker different than the typical one. First of all, instead of bleached skin and a huge red smile, he wears makeup and has scars from what's called a Glasgow smile. A Glasgow smile is where you make cuts from the corners of the mouth to the ears. This is his permanent smile, as well as how he leaves a forced smile on his victims (the traditional Joker uses a venom or gas). This is probably in an attempt to make the Joker more realistic, which seems to be an overall objective of the series.

The other marked difference between this Joker and the traditional one is appearance and demeanor. Having a sort of grunge look, this Joker looks messier, as if he doesn't care what he looks like. The traditional Joker is far more interested in the concept of "presence", something that Batman is a master of. Also, this Joker isn't as much of a physical rival as the traditional one. The original Joker story has Joker as the first person to defeat Batman in hand to hand combat, though only to be defeated shortly there after. This Joker has a conspicuous limp, as well as a vague way of speaking, as if he doesn't always entirely know what his thinking or going to say. This gives off the appearance that he doesn't know what he's doing, resulting in people underestimating him.

It is difficult to pinpoint the motivations of this Joker. He seems just to enjoy chaos. One cannot trust anything he says about himself since it is constantly changing, and often it seems that he believes what he needs to believe about himself at the time to achieve his objective.

(spoiler alert) His brilliance in the movie is his ability to be several steps ahead of everyone else, often having his next scheme already underway during his current one. For instance, when he is attacking Harvey on the road, he already has planned his break out of prison, and the kidnapping of Harvey and Rachel, despite the fact that he is supposed to think that Harvey is Batman at the moment. This is why I don't really take him seriously when he talks to Dent saying that his objective is to prove the schemers how futile their schemes are.

Personally, it seems to me that Joker is simply attempting to prove his superiority. Prove that his perspective on morality is better than the common man, that his position on money is better than the mob, and that he is smarter that the Gotham Triumvirate. All other explanations he gives seem merely to be a pretense.

In some ways his simpler in psychology to the usual Joker. However, his planning skill seems to be equal to him, if not surpassing him.

Batman: Not as much time was spent on developing Batman's character in this movie as last movie. That's a natural consequence of spending so much time with Dent and Joker. Hollywood seems unable to realize that if they don't burn through Batman's whole rouge gallery in three movies, that they can have a lot more blockbusters, as well as more character enriched plotlines. Ah, well.

What I love most about Batman is a particular trait that I share with him. We are both cynical idealists. What I mean by this is that I am cynical about the world: about the motivations of humans and ability of humans to fix things. However, I am idealistic about God and the church. I believe the church can fix anything because it is organized and run by God. It has not achieved this so far because we keep usurping Him, but God is all powerful, all wise, and benevolent. Therefore, though I constantly see depravity and darkness around me, I choose to hope.

Likewise, Batman is cynical about people, government, even himself. However, he still fights for an ideal: he lives for it, and is willing to die for it. That ideal is that one man can make a difference. That ideal is that humanity can be saved from itself. And he believes this, despite that absolute corruption that is around him.

This movie shows off Batman's idealistic side a lot. First of all, he believes that he will not have to be Batman forever. And believe me, no one wants Batman Forever. Once Gotham is on its feet again, and the system begins to actually work, Batman can retire. The second thing is that he believe Harvey Dent is the one who can accomplish this. He says Harvey is the hero that Batman could never be: a symbol of hope instead of fear. However, it is Batman and not Harvey that lives up to this standard. An agent of self-sacrifice and unwarranted hope, Batman continues to fight and live for a better Gotham, even after Dent falls.

The Relationship Between God's Sovereignty and Human Free Will

I posted this on my website July 22nd, 2008. It represents my fundamental view of God's sovereignty. I posted it then after I had first submitted it to SEA. It still has not been published there, but once it is, it will include a link here for comment. Please, I'm truly interested in feedback on my views here.

I'm Free and God Is Still Sovereign
by Martin Glynn

Over and over and over again I am told that I do not truly believe that God is sovereign. Sure, I think I believe it, but God can't really be sovereign if He doesn't minutely control every little thing that came to pass. Besides, didn't King George's sovereignty mean that he caused each blade of grass in his kingdom to move? I digress.

My intent here is to define as succinctly as possible my personal perspective as to the relationship between God's sovereignty and our freedom to choose. This does not define the position of all Arminians, or even all the members of SEA. This is my understanding. Let any flaw you find be on my head and no others. Let us begin.

Sovereignty

Pure and simple, sovereignty means that you are king, hence the King George comment above. I find it interesting that Calvinists have attached attributes to the meaning of sovereignty that could never apply to an earthly king. It is alright to say that such attributes are a logical result of God being king, but it is a gross error to attach them to the definition of the term. However, what makes one a king?

A king is one who has the authority, right, and power to demand, and there in cause, his will to be manifested within his realm with the objective of maintaining the quality of life for the citizens within that realm.

So what would it mean for God to be king? It would mean that whenever God decrees something to happen, it will happen. Here's the rub: it does not demand that everything which happened God decreed. That is an illogical leap. This is also important, if God did not decree everything, that means if something happens which He did not decree, it does not necessarily go against His sovereignty.

Ok, let's say, I accidentally drop this fantastic cup of milk which I am drinking. If God decreed that I shall drop the cup, and I drop it: God is still sovereign. If God decreed that I shall hold on to the cup, and I drop it, then I have just undermined God's sovereignty. However, if God has said absolutely nothing about whether I drop the cup or not, and I drop it, then God is still sovereign as long as we maintain the fact that He could have decreed it if He had wanted to.

God has the right and power to do whatever it is He pleases, and if God pleases not to decree something one way or the other, it is His right and power not to. We have no right to say that he must decree it or He forfeits His sovereignty. That's silly! (at best) No, we declare God to be sovereign, regardless of how He chooses to do things or not to do things.

Free Will

I don't like to talk about free will too much. I don't think it is an apt focus for what it is we are trying to say. I would agree with the definition of free will as contrary choice, but even then, I would say that the basic point is that our will has true consequences on what will be in the future, no matter how slight those consequences may be. Therefore, what I prefer to talk about is human contingency.

Human contingency is the understanding that God has determined that particular events and ends shall be contingent upon the human will. What is important to note is that only particular events and ends are contingent, which means that others are not. The ones which are and the ones which aren't are determined by God. However, those which are are truly contingent.

Now there are a lot of things which are left up to the human will. For instance, I agree with Martin Luther that the color of my socks were probably determined by me. What's important to the Arminian position is that the whether or not one will have saving faith is contingent upon the will of that one. After all, that's what makes us Ariminian. But the point is that those things are contingent on our will because God either let's them be because He doesn't care about the color of our socks, or because God explicitly decrees that this end will definitely be contingent because He wants it that way.

But, no human will is completely free. We are restricted by boundaries. Think of a baby in a play pen. Within that play pen, the baby can do whatever he wants, but there are boundaries set up by the sovereign parents that prevent the baby from certain activities. Additionally, what else is in the pen is determined by the parents, not by the baby. Likewise, God puts boundaries on us, that we cannot cross. The general ones are as follows:

1. Natural laws: God has set up His universe in a very particular way that we cannot change. I cannot fly under my own power, shoot lasers out of my eyes or lick my own elbow. There are physical laws, established by God, that prevent me from doing so.
   
2. Particularity: Each of us are born to a particular place, at a particular time, as a particular gender and nationality, and with access to a particular set of people. I cannot meet George Washington. I cannot become a woman. I cannot be something other than Irish (though why would I want that anyway). No, I was born here and now because God caused me to be born here and now, so that I may seek Him, as the Word says. I cannot change this. It's part of what makes me human.
   
3. Consequence: Though there are events which are contingent on my choice, there are established consequences for that choice. Some are written in the physical world like splatting if I choose to jump off a building, or going bankrupt for making unwise investments. Others are exacted by God, for He is the judge of the universe, and He judges what we do both in this life and the next.
   
4. Established events and ends: God allows particular events and ends to be contingent on the human will, but He also decrees certain events and ends to come to pass, and once God decrees is, we cannot stop it. God's sovereign power is irresistible, when he exercises in that manner.
   
   Consider for a moment the dreams of the pharaoh told to Joseph. He dreamed two dreams, and the two dreams means that events foretold in the dream were established. This means that if he didn't' dream two, than the events weren't... Therefore, some events are established, and some are not. But the ones which are, we cannot prevent.

What I want to know, what I am dying to know, is how God is not sovereign given the descriptions above? I fail to understand this accusation, given to us time and time again. So please, explain: how?

What Is A Christian?

I made this post May 24th, 2008. I believe it is rather self explainatory

What is a Christian?You would think this would be a simple question to answer, but lately it seems that the line has become ambiguous to many. The most simple and accurate definitions would be one who has been born again of the Spirit, and is a member of the people of God. However, the basic problem with both of those definitions is that they speak to realities that we cannot measure.

Therefore, for the sake of our purposes of determining who is a Christian and who is not, the best definition would be one who believes in the gospel of Jesus Christ and lives out its implications. What is the gospel of Christ? It is the Christ event. The gospel is good news, and intrinsic to the definition of news of a particular event in time and space. For the gospel, this is the Christ event. Any definition of gospel that does not have the Christ event as its center defies the very nature of what gospel means. So what is the Christ event. It is:

1. The Incarnation: Or more simply put, the birth. The event where the Son of God came down and took the form of a human and dwelt among us. He lowered Himself to our level; got His hands dirty so to speak. This also demands that the gospel is centered upon one particular person, or a particular gender, of a particular race and nationality, at a certain time in history: Jesus of Nazareth, a Jew in the first century.
   
2. The Sacrificial Atonement: Or more simply, the death. However, it isn't just believed that Jesus died, but that His death is a sacrifice through which we are redeemed. He died for us, in our place.
   
3. The Resurrection: Or more simply, the... resurrection... I guess there really isn't a simpler word for it. However, it is not just that Christ rose from the grave, but that through His resurrection, Christ defeated death, and the powers of darkness, which no longer have any power over us.
   
4. The Parousia: Or more simply, the return. Even though this event has not happened yet, it was promised us, and is attached to the gospel. This world is temporary.

So what are the implications of the gospel? Well, this is where Christians begin to argue, and for the sake of keeping things simple, I will refrain from producing a list. However, any attempt to make something central which cannot be demonstrated to necessarily derive from the above four facts is erroneous. The gospel is the center of Christian faith, and nothing else.

Movie Review: Iron Man

Now we are getting really recent. Here is another movie review, but this is strictly a fun movie, Iron Man. There is nothing theological here. I just love movies. Indeed, before I was called to the ministry, I wanted to be a film director. Here is my review of Iron Man posted May 8, 2008

Plot

The plot of the movie was really excellent. The origin story for Iron man is accurate to the comics, with the heart battery, Yin Sen, and the need of building a suit to escape. The person that originally captured Tony in the comics was Mandarin, but he would have been rather corny on film (he has magic rings). I believe his kidnappers playing with his rings was a little nod to the Mandarin though. Yin Sen was rather annoying at first, choosing to morally chastise Stark until he realizes that Stark is trying to escape. Then he redeems himself.

The choice of the Iron Monger as a doppelganger villain was rather excellent as well. For origin stories, it is often best to tie the man villain in with the origin, like Ras al Gul in Batman Begins, or Norman Osborn with Peter Parker in Spiderman. Because you have so little time, you need to try and keep the movie to one plot, which means intergrading the origin of the hero with the battle of the first villain. Since the creation of the Iron Monger suit moves with the creation of the Iron Man suit, plus the parallel professions of Stark and Stane, integrating the villain in was done smoothly.

Because most of the origin of Iron Man takes place in a lab, as opposed to the powers just coming to him, and good part of the film had to be devoted simply to the logistics of building the armor. They managed to do this with enough humor to avoid it being tedious. (plus the first fight with the final Iron Man armor in the desert was awesome!)

One of the key points of the movie was a demonization of weaponry, or iron mongers as Stane says at one point. It manages to walk the line between being anti-military, and being anti-weapons. Indeed, Tony doesn't seem to shun the military, or go against the US, but is mearly trying to keep his weapons out of the hands of terrorists. He doesn't have a problem with weapons, but is upset when they are used by the enemies of America. This doesn't really seem to change. He simply stops trusting his own company and his customers to keep the weapons out of the wrong hands. Indeed, most of the anti-weapon attitude comes from Stane's interpretation of Stark's opinion, rather than Stark's own words.

The heart battery was done poorly in my opinion. It doesn't really explain how a perpetual battery is needed to keep things out of his heart, and how just turning it off and on keeps him alive. I know this was the orginial story arch in the comics, but I think a glorified pacemaker would make more sense at this point. That's the way it seems to function, yet that's not the way it is explained.

No comment on the scene after the movie other than its awesome.

Action

The action sequences are really good. The first one where Tony is escaping is a perfect blend of realism and sci-fi. Because we are dealing with the original suit as it was made from scrap, it should feature problems/imperfections. These keep the scene believable and funny. Instead of a superhero, you get more of a tank kind of feel to it, like you are watching a war movie. The camera movement felt more like a war movie as well. This, with the chaos factor being way up, made the scene believable, as well as suspenseful. Out of 5, I give it a 4

The first battle with the armor against the terrorists was essentially showing off what the suit can do. It made you believe that here are some features that helped out here, but that his full power wasn't really used. He walks around with an invincible swagger that gave the scene the perfect feel. This is especially true in the way he handles the tank and the hostage situation as mere nuances instead of real threats. Out of 5, I give it a 5.

The jet scene that follows wasn't so much an action scene since Tony wasn't really fighting the jets. It was more a revelation of the suit to Rhodes. The scene has a lot of suspense, as well as demonstrating that these jets could still beat him (that may not have been true if we were willing to fight back). Out of 5, I give it a 3. Passable, but not really memorable, for the action anyway.

The final scene with Iron Monger wasn't quite as good. Some of the action was confusing. Mind you, it was still a fantastic fight scene, but it suffered some of the problems of Dirty Harry with the scene being a bit too dark for a lot of it. Also, the way he wins in the end was confusing: how did that blast not kill Tony? I mean really? It just seems to knock him out of the way, and he was just lucky to survive. Still the feeling of desperation was fantastic; I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. Out of 5, I give it a 3.5.

Characters

They did an absolutely perfect job of Tony. They got the full complexity of the character. He truly beleives in the American government in the beginning, and never stops believing in the American ideal. It shows his immorality in the beginning as immoral and unfulfilling, and you dont see him engaging in it after his conversion, though his recklessness remains. The character is based more on the ultimate version than the original, which is further demonstrated by the hidden scene at the end. His first press conference when he comes back is a beautiful expression of his current vulnerablity and new found direction. Further, they keep him consistant without keeping him rigid.

Rhodes they don't do enough with to find something to complain about. What they do with him is great, and the reference to him becoming War Machine just before the final battle was tastefully done.

Pepper they did wonderfully. They didn't overemphasize the romance between her and Stark, which is what I was worried about, and kept her character intact. Also, they played with her in the plot line in a way that was very respectful to the character. The scene where she is caught by Stane was beautiful.

They showed Happy, but they never named him. For those who aren't Iron Man fans, the two civilian assistants that Stark has are Pepper Potts and Happy Hogan. In the movie, Jon Favreau is in multiple scenes in the beginning. He's the guy that raced Stark to the jet plane, and he's the one that Stark turns to when the attractive but obnoxious reporter comes up to him. In the credits, he is under "Hogan", and is clearly a reference to Happy. This was more of a fun throw in, and I enjoyed it.

Stane was nothing like he was in the comics. I dont mind that. Quite frankly, I was expecting that. Stane was what they needed him to be, and no one else could have worked. It was slightly on par with Batman Begins treatment of Ras Al Gul. His character was tweaked a bit to intertwine him in with the origin. The character that they turned Stane into was exactly what the story needed. He performed the part beautifully.

Overall, I think the movie was excellent. I would say on par with the original Spiderman, impact wise.