this is here for my sake not yours

well, you can read it if you wish, but i'm putting this here, because i read it and i thought it was great and wanted to keep it, so this is just a simple cut and paste, the writer was some "Martin Zender". if you don't want to read something about free will don't read this. and feel free to comment, but remember, i didn't write it, and that's not why i'm putting this here either. i'm not even saying i agree with all of it! but it's nicely put together. this is just for me to read again and keep basically


Free Will & The "Oh Well" Creed

What is free will? Free will is a doctrine that teaches that man can act independently of God. This should already ring sour to the spiritually-attuned ear. The doctrine of free will teaches that man has the freedom to choose or reject God, never mind the verse that says no man is seeking God (Rom. 3:11).

But I remind you that we’re talking about free will; Scripture has nothing to do with this.

In other words, in the doctrine of free will, man becomes the deciding factor in his own salvation. Jesus Christ’s work on the cross, according to this doctrine, was only a potential salvation, not an actual one. According to this doctrine, the cross of Christ never saved anybody; the cross only saves those who decide to be saved. What about the verse that says no one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him? (Jn. 6:44). Never mind it. What about the verses that say God is the Savior of all mankind (1 Tim. 4:10), and that the blood of the cross will reconcile all to Him (Col. 1:20), whether those on the earth or those in the heavens? Never mind them. Then what about the verse that says God is operating all things in accord with the counsel of His will? (Eph. 1:11) Again, never mind. I have already told you. Scripture has nothing to do with this. We’re talking about free will.

Scripture is strong medicine

Reader, if you believe in the free will of man, please investigate the ninth chapter of Romans in any version you please, come back, then tell me if you still believe in it. If you still do, then read Romans 11:32. If you still believe in free will after that, take a little tea, massage your temples, and read John 6:44. You say you’ve read these verses and you still believe in free will? Very well; perhaps your neck needs cracked. If you do not know a good chiropractor, try it yourself. Place one hand on your head, another on your chin and yank. Ah! Now read Ephesians 1:4. Still? Perhaps bed is the answer.

Go to bed, rise tomorrow with a clear head, then read Proverbs 16:9, 19:21 and 1 Kings 22:22. If, for whatever reason—medical or otherwise—you still believe in free will, take Daniel 4:35, Jeremiah 10:23, Proverbs 21:1, Proverbs 20:24 and Isaiah 10:15 and call me in the morning. As long as you are neither pregnant nor nursing a baby, take two readings of Ephesians 1:11. Caution: do not exceed this recommended dosage. At higher doses, unbearable relief may occur.

Warning: these verses may cause excitability in theologians and seminary students. Avoid operating a motor vehicle while reading these verses. A persistent reliance on orthodox tradition may be a sign of a serious condition. If your belief in free will persists for more than a week, tends to recur, or is accompanied by rash, pride (or rash pride) and a general looking down on others, accompanied by a false estimation of self, consult your Savior.

Who chose who?

Don’t take my jolly humor the wrong way. I used to believe in free will myself. But then a brother asked me to exercise it by deciding not to sin the following day. I was determined to do it. My alarm clock went off and I reached for it, but it wasn’t there; Melody had moved it to her side of the bed. The day had hardly begun and already I had missed my alarm clock; the word sin, in the original Greek language of Scripture, simply means "to miss."

So much for my vaunted free will.

Deep down, many Christians believe that there is something about them that makes them smarter than others, able to make a better decision concerning God than others. Wouldn’t you agree that Christians who think this way would have something to boast in? They would if an account of their salvation began with the word "I."

Yet Paul says that, in the true gospel of grace, boasting is debarred. That’s Romans 3:27. "Debarred" means: shut out, excluded. Do you realize what this means?

This means that a believer cannot even claim credit for his or her ability to believe! (Quite true, I’m afraid. Read Philippians 1:29 and Romans 12:3. The first verse says that our belief in Christ is graciously granted us, the second that our very faith is a gift. You’re disappointed; I can see it in your face. But now you know the truth: You are no different than anyone else. If God hadn’t chosen you, you’d be an unbeliever, too, just like your stupid Uncle Harry. Take heart. Once your pride has recovered from this, you will exult in your Savior as never before; you will need Him as you never have. (If God has used me to save you from a fall and soften your opinion of Harry, I am happy.)

Think!

Now think about it. If a person begins an account of his or her salvation with the word "I," then he or she is boasting. That person may say they’re not boasting, but denial doesn’t change facts. Yet if they begin an account of their salvation with the word "God," they are practically repudiating the doctrine of human free will. What about you? Does an account of your salvation begin with the word "I" or with the word "God?" I hope that it begins with the word "God." If it does, then you have rejected the false doctrine of the free will of man and now believe in the free will of God. This is a good thing.

For who makes you different from anybody else, and what have you got that was not given to you? And if anything has been given to you, why boast of it as if you had achieved it yourself? —1 Cor. 4:7

But here we run into an apparently insurmountable problem, which also appears quite impossible to overcome. We now understand that God has given us the belief and faith necessary for salvation. But this leads us to a startling and seemingly troubling conclusion: He has not given this belief and faith to others. While this may be a hard pill to swallow at first (I recommend a little orange juice), it is nonetheless true. As I will show, this is not a problem. No, truth is never a problem. Discarding error is the problem.

Matthew 13:11 records these words Jesus spoke to His disciples: "To you has it been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of the heavens, yet to those (the throng) it has not been given."

Hear Him in Matthew 11:25- "Jesus said, ‘I am acclaiming Thee, Father...for Thou hidest these things from the wise and intelligent.’"

What does the Master say of Jerusalem in Luke 19:42? "If you knew...what is for your peace! Yet now it was hid from your eyes."

Could it be that God purposely kept some from believing His Son? You may be tempted to think that the "wise and intelligent" nailed their own coffins, or that Jerusalem got stubborn apart from God’s influence. Resist this temptation. I challenge you to read what these verses say, not what the "wise and intelligent" tell you they say. God is a causer, not a reactor. Consider the above in light of the following:

Romans 11:8- "Even as it is written, God gives them (Israel) a spirit of stupor, eyes not to be observing, and ears not to be hearing, till this very day."

Romans 11:32- "For God locks up all together in stubbornness."

Romans 9:18- "Consequently, then, to whom He will, He is merciful, yet whom He will, He is hardening."

To the mind unprejudiced by traditional teaching, these verses say one thing: God is responsible for unbelief. Don’t shoot the messenger! This truth is probably causing yet another seemingly inescapable problem to trouble your mind. That is why I am about to place that problem on a sturdy table in front of you and offer a solution to it in the plainest possible language. I choose English.

Divine-inspired stubbornness

If you believe in either the annihilation or eternal torment of Uncle Harry, then you have encountered a serious problem. I have just shown from the Scriptures that God is responsible, not only for withholding Himself from Uncle Harry, but also for locking up Harry in stubbornness. Now look around you. The world is an oblate spheroid from the weight of people like Uncle Harry; the spiritually stubborn account for most of humanity. My question to you is: what happens when these people die in this condition?

You say everyone gets an opportunity to believe before they die? Let’s test this theory. Pause to consider Israel.

In Romans 11:8, Paul writes that, "even as it is written, God gives Israel a spirit of stupor" that remains "till this very day." Paul was quoting Isaiah 29:10. Israel’s divinely-inspired stubbornness, then, dates at least to Isaiah’s time. (See also Isaiah 63:17 and 64:7-8.) Paul wrote Romans around the summer of ‘58 A.D. Isaiah lived around 750 B.C. Here alone are approximately 800 years of God-inspired stubbornness. And what of the nearly 2000 years of stupor since? Folks, a lot of Jews have died unbelievers in 2800 years. And God, Who has not only made them stubborn (Rom. 11:8, 11:32) but also holds the keys of death (Rev. 1:18), is responsible.

I wonder if your theology has an answer for this. I’ve been staring at that throw rug over there by your rocking chair. All this time I thought that was your dog lying under it. Now I see that Boscoe is chewing on the sofa. That lump under your rug is all the verses I’ve just quoted that you’ve been sweeping under there for most of your Christian life. I think it’s time for a little spring cleaning.

The "Oh well!" creed

Calvinists (those folks belonging to a religion invented by John Calvin) ran into the same problem; they simply put their dogs outside. But besides this, they also had trouble with the idea of a sovereign God bringing billions of people into the world, only to send most to an eternity of torment. You see, the Calvinists at least saw the truth of the sovereignty of God; give them credit for relatively flat rugs. They acknowledged that members of Christ’s body are predestined for it long before birth, apart from personal merit. That’s easy enough to see; Ephesians 1:4-5 and Romans 8:29 say as much. So hooray for the Calvinists again.

But what of the billions of people who aren’t predestined for heaven? What about the horrible problem of a God who purposely feeds hellfire with divinely-hardened flesh? Well, the Calvinists finally devised a "solution" to that: they no longer considered it a problem! Today, one of their shortest creeds is: "Oh well!" This creed is repeated a great deal at funerals. Calvinism so infuses the heart with Christian love that its founder, John Calvin, once had a disagreeable Spanish theologian, Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in Geneva in 1553. Doesn’t that hurt? I guess only if you hold onto the match for too long.

Song and dance

At the other end of the problem stand the Arminians. These folks followed Jacobus Arminius, who rejected Calvin’s predestination teaching of pure grace. Arminius believed salvation was available to everyone—if they exercised their free wills and took it (i.e. "works"). The Arminians’ rug resembled a beret on the Matterhorn. But at least they relieved God of responsibility for His creation. God sent them a large "thank you" card, which can be seen at the National Free Will Museum in Meesavemyself, New Mexico. This museum is open only if you believe that it’s open.

"If you go to hell, it’s your fault!" is the Good News of the Arminians. This bogus gospel, passed down to the present, is believed and preached by millions. It even makes some people want to wear robes.

But the doctrine, "if you go to hell, it’s your fault!" does have an even more sinister side-effect than making people want to wear robes. That side-effect is: If you go to heaven, it’s your credit. This deduction is unavoidable. If going to hell is one’s fault, how can staying out of it be anything but one’s credit? I give up. If I can be stubborn enough to lose my salvation, it is self-evident that I can be savvy enough to gain it. This little song and dance is also called "salvation by works." But I wouldn’t tell people that this is what they really believe. Well—I guess I would. But they won’t like to hear it. And they sure won’t believe it.

So you say you want to get persecuted? That’s awesome. Then walk into your average evangelistic church today and suggest to them that the blood of Christ was shed for—and will ultimately save—everyone.

For some reason, this news will stab their hearts and they will hate your intestines.

Want to hear some sense?

Now I’m going to solve the problem and relieve your troubled mind. Don’t credit me—give God the glory. (But I do accept Red Lobster gift certificates.)

The problem, restated, is: 1) No one can believe in God unless God gives belief 2) He refuses to give belief to most of humanity, hardening hearts to boot, and—here comes the problem— 3) He allegedly sends those whom He has hardened (without the proper clothing, one would assume) to an eternity of hellfire.

You will notice that the Calvinist and the Arminian viewpoint have one common point: a belief in eternal torment. The Arminians ducked this horror by making God not liable for sending folks to orthodox hell. The ticket out? Free will. Free will is one of the easiest heresies to disprove from Scripture—but it doesn’t matter. Arminian-types who believe in eternal torment are in the embarrassing position of having to stare sovereignty-of-God verses in the face and deny them; I’ve witnessed the phenomenon. But at least, unlike Calvinists, they resist a God who damns people on purpose. Calvinists, delicate souls, simply recite the "Oh well!" creed and go home.

The common problem with these two errant beliefs is—eternal torment. In my next book, I will put together the correct part of Arminianism with the correct part of Calvinism (discarding the rest), to show you the truth.

ALL things © copyright 2001-2006 by Martin Zender. All rights reserved.

andrew rants

i just want to say before you read this, that i was very 'emotional' when i wrote this and it comes off as a big rant, which it is. i still stand by everything i said, but if i wrote it again, i'd be a lot less emtotional and less of a rant

inspired by this blog and the war going on, i have been inspired to write about something.

can we just make stuff up and say it's true? i'm not talking about any old thing, but things to do with God/theology etc?

the more i look back at my past, the more i realise i've heard preachers tell me things, that have no bearing in reality. i have learnt that the bible is the only definate word of God we have. people talk about special revelation and what-not, but i've heard more than one 'revelation of heaven' and they were both different.

lets get a fact straight. the only theological thing we know for sure is the bible. who agrees with me? hopefully you all do.

second, we know that if something contradicts the bible then it is wrong, that too is not a grey area but black and white.

the issue comes from the third area. when someone preaches something that doesn't contradict the bible but doesn't come from it either, then what are we to do?

i heard a preacher at CNLC (guest) tell me that when you get to heaven, if you have gotten over something (like an addiction to drugs) that you'll get a crown.

his message was based on that, yet, there is no reference to that in the scripture?

sure it sounds nice, he may have even woke up from a dream with that in it! but does that mean we can just 'add' it to theology? of course not. often i hear people say things, that do sound correct, and may well be, but they're not from the bible, and therefore, ARE NOT DOCTRINE/TRUTH, and should always be stated with that in mind. something SHOULD NOT tell you something like getting a crown in heaven, without also adding that this information is speculative and not bible sourced

another one is people reading their experience into the bible. in the bible, start of acts, people spoke in tongues. in that instance, it was other known languages. nowadays people speak in tongues (i too used to do it lots), not in the same way as in the bible, but people say that what happened in the bible must be what is happening now. you know what they say about assumption.

and the greatest thing about all this is the pride people have. i am open to new opinion. i used to just accept things. i listened, and changed my mind. at least i gave it a chance. most people who i talk to won't listen. they are set in their way/thoughts and won't accept others. that is pride. to assume you are right? we CAN NOT know for sure if the 'tongues' people speak today are the same thing that was in the bible. never mind the fact that the bible clearly states to not speak in tongues unless there is an interpreter, it still happens in church often.

people will argue and tell me that tongues they speak today are the same as they were back in acts despite the fact that the situation is different and the results are different. i don't know why people are so proud they can't stop and think, maybe i'm just doing what everybody else is doing and not really stopping and studying the situation for myself, and then talking to people on both sides of the fence and really getting their own concept. a well rounded view.

i'm not trying to tell you if tongues are right or not. in my opinion, what i used to say wasn't the spirit, it was me making stuff up. i don't personally think that we have a need to speak in tongues, and that tongues was something for the people who first experienced the holy spirit. that was extraordinary circumstances, the holy spirit came down for the first time in history. they also had fire on them, but no-one has fire on them today??

context context context people. not just with learning, but why did those people have tongues and who else did and why? tongues is just an example here.

please people, study the bible, don't add to it. if it doesn't come from the bible then while it may be true, you can't state it as truth.

education vs ignorance

i was just reading something and it made me think. unlike most things i'm not sure on my position here.

the thing i was reading was about sex education and abstinance etc. this was actually about those 'purity' rings that people can wear that say they have put themselves aside to wait for marriage to have sex.

now usually i think thats a good thing. im not condoning pre-marital sex, with my christian believes and whatnot

the problem here, is that 88% of the people who make these 'purity pledges' go against what they've said.

now that in itself isn't the problem, people are responsible for their own actions and no-one else is, the problem, is that more often than not, the teachings of abstinance do not actually teach the realities of life and the 'what ifs' of what happens when (a large proportion of) people ignore these teachings and go ahead and do stuff anyway.

invariably, these people because they have been taught abstinance, do not know 'what to do', or more importantly, what not to do. this is where more people have unprotected sex, spread stds and get pregnant.

so thats the problem, but the other issue is what to do about the problem. some people (conservatives more than liberals) say that sex education is the same as condoning sex. well, there is a good question. if you teach people about sex are they more likely to do it? well, maybe, but i know i'd rather have my kid have sex younger and protected than older and unprotected (ultimately, i'd rather them wait until marriage) so yeah. education is a good thing, in my opinion. what do you think?

i personally think it's silly that people think education or legalisation = condoning, and this has come up in various debates i've had about drugs with people. i've been arguing with people about BZP and how various people want it made illegal, when i think it should stay legal, and in fact i think most drugs should be made legal, not because i want to use them, but because we shouldn't be told what to do, and it's our bodies, and just because some people don't like it doesn't mean we should force people to do what we want. people have said if you legalise marijuana it's the same as telling people 'it's ok to do', but cutting yourself is legal but that's not ok to do and it's also legal to run into a wall but that doesn't mean anyone is encouraging you to do that (actually, if you're the type of person who does things because you get told to do them, I encourage you to run into a wall) it's more a matter of personal freedom

for those opposed to drug legalisation, seriously answer this: "if someone wants to get high, why shouldn't they be allowed to" because the answer to "if someone wants to drink himself to oblivion every night, why shouldn't they be allowed to" is "but they are"