*pops in for a moment*

Calvinists also see the human condition as being fatally flawed in the sense that while you and I and everybody have "free will", or the ability to make choices on our own, that those choices are automatically skewed by our being imperfect sinful beings. Thus while we have free will in our base sinful state we will always choose not to go to God and instead to continue in sin. Only those who have their "eyes opened" by God will be able to make this eternal choice.

That's not truly free will, then, is it? It's permanently biased free will. We're free to choose (in our state of original sin), but only so long as we choose to continue in sin. That doesn't make sense to me. Care to enlighten me on how that's "free"?

The "free-willies" apparently reason that God loves the whole world and all the persons in it and wants everyone to come to him. Are you disputing this?

1 Timothy 2:3-4; This (supplications, prayers, and petitions offered for everyone) is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

((Emphasis mine))

Does calvinism say that God only wants the people he predestined to come to him? That seems incredibly harsh. Why does he only want certain people to come to him and other people to stay away? That's unjust. A just God, to my way of thinking, would offer everyone a fair chance to come to him.

Really, at least among the brothers and sisters in Christ here, I would hope to see more grace and attitudes of humble questioning shown rather than knee-jerk assumptions.

Yes, same here. Though I'm sure I am guilty of this as well

"You Never Mentioned Him To Me" is just plain disturbing. Sharing Christ with others just so we don't have to feel guilty later is so self-serving! I can't believe Christians think that's a good motive to have for witnessing. The Bible gives us our motive in preaching the Gospel: obedience to Christ. That's it, period. No man-made supplements needed

Although there are questions of Free Will implied, I'm not trying to get that debate started again

Well, as you can see, it doesn't take much

Providence works through individuals, by choosing those who are most likely to choose a path that synchronizes with the needs of Providence.

Not the biblical Providence. God doesn't sit back, watch our choices, and then make His based on ours. Nor does he simply use foreknowledge to make His decisions. No — He takes an active role in both history and individual lives. It isn't passive, or based on our choices. It would be truer to say our choices are all based on His.

I never equated witnessing and salvation. Where did this idea come from?

I don't know. Maybe the same place as your mistaken assumption that because I don't like bad motives in witnessing, I don't like witnessing, period?

You know, for someone who has no time, 220, you sure seem to have plenty for this thread

With Amy Carmichael, it was a vision of people dropping into hell.

The thing is, this doesn't stand up biblically. All that the Father has given Christ will come to Him; no one predestined for salvation would "drop into hell" if Amy Carmichael didn't go to them. God's purposes will always be fulfilled. It is unbiblical to claim that Christ's sheep, that the Father has given Him, won't be brought into the fold because of our actions. As I said before, this makes salvation dependent on man's works again!

I don’t think Paul cared so much about motives.

So basically you are admitting that witnessing and evangelizing out of guilt is a bad motive, but it doesn't matter so long as the witnessing gets done?

Paul rejoiced that Christ was preached, but I'm sure he would have rejoiced more deeply if there had been godly instead of worldly motives at work. Can we agree on that?

Also, when speaking of the Gospel as a stewardship, I think Paul was referring to his special call as an apostle. Are you an apostle, 220? Not that the point of the Gospel as a stewardship really argues anything either way in this discussion, but I'd be cautious to apply statements Paul made specifically about himself to all believers, at all times, everywhere.

But I said nothing about our part being essential.

Yes you did. According to you and Amy Carmichael, people predestined for salvation will drop into hell unless she went to them. I'd call that pretty essential

Extra revelation isn’t necessary but it still happens. All it means is that we must test dreams and visions against the Word; when they pass the tests, it means they’re God-given and should not be ignored.

Indeed. I've tested hers and found that it doesn't align with Scripture.

How many people in the Bible began their God-given ministry with a God-given dream or vision? Quite a few! And guess what? God still gives them! Joel 2:28-29 is being fulfilled every day, and it began with Acts 2.

Keep in mind that not everyone here subscribes to charismatic practices. I'm a former charismatic myself and am strongly opposed to that belief system. I don't want to get into that debate with you now, but I just want you to know that when you try to use stuff like that as evidence for why your ideas are right, it has quite the opposite effect with me. Just letting you know.

That's a good "nutshell" of Arminian and Calvinist beliefs, SL . Yes, Romans 9 was the chapter that broke me down too, about three years ago. It's just so crystal clear... I was amazed at myself for how well I had glossed it over and ignored it all those years before!

Care to enlighten me on how that's "free"?

Pardon me, sweeetlilgurlie, but the tone of this comment makes your username singularly unfitting

If you want to learn about views that are different from your own, please do join in. I'll do my best to explain what I've learned, trusting that God will have His way in your life and teach you as He wills. But if you're just here to pick a fight, looking down on everyone who believes differently from you, please don't be upset if I excuse myself from responding to you. I'll refrain from posting responses to your points until I know you truly want to learn (not necessarily convert, just learn) and are not approaching this with a combative, oh-yeah-why-don't-you-make-my-day attitude. Shall we go on?

SLG, I know it certainly comes across as harsh. Believe me kiddo, I had a very rough time coming to grips with this whole thing. But it says it right there in the Bible and I cannot deny it.

The "free-willies" apparently reason that God loves the whole world and all the persons in it and wants everyone to come to him. Are you disputing this?

I am not disputing this. In fact I wrote as much in my last post when I described the core philosophies of each side. As I said, I once counted myself among their number and know that Free Will adherents have the best of intentions first and foremost in their minds with regards to the unsaved, and it is this sincerity in word and action which provides so much of their impetus in trying to bring people to Christ. I admire their purpose, believe me, I do.

But the Bible says something entirely different about the reality of the situation.

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? (emphasis mine)

God knew from the very beginning who would be saved and who would not, and that's something both sides can agree on (foreknowledge). But what the Free Will side cannot come to grips with is that God actively selected certain people to bring to Him and lets the others go their own way, and the reason for this is surprisingly simple. He wants to bring glory to Himself, and uses those He he has not selected to bring about that glory. Did he not harden Pharoah's heart and then use this to further glory for Himself in his protection of the Hebrews fleeing Egypt?

I'm trying to find the old NWeb archives but can't seem to locate it, but there towards the last 10-15 pages or so a great conversation/debate took place where I was making much the same arguments that you are right now, except I was squared off against Doc Ransom, ww, and TBG. But when I read Romans 9 under their tutelage there it was, the whole time, and I simply couldn't deny it. And to be frank here, after really reading it I found it to be quite...liberating. And extremely humbling, for that matter. God could have picked any number of great people...He chose me for reasons I may never know (me!). I cannot even begin to comprehend the reasons behind the selection and will only add that I am certainly not worthy of the choosing. But then again, are any of us?

Hi Wisewoman. I'm not here to pick a fight, though, reading the way I worded my post, it certainly seems like I'm jumping on your backs. I'll be watching that in the future so that my meaning is clear.

I can say, though, that your comment about my username is very rude. I could say, because you don't believe the way I do, that your username is not very fitting. However, I'm not going to go there because doing so would be a hasty judgment on my part and it would simply be bashing you.

Here, in this thread, I'm asking questions because I'm looking for answers on what you think about certain issues. I haven't been entirely clear on why calvinists and protestants believe the way they do. Hence my question asking. I'm genuinely interested in your answers. So yes, I'd love to continue.

@Shadowlander: Alright. Those verses definitely shed some light on your side of the issue.

I'm pretty sure we agree on some things: The Bible is the Word of God, whole and entire. All of it is true. And all of it fits together perfectly. There are not some parts which disprove other parts. Are we of the same mind on this?

If we are, we can continue to further ground. You've said that you converted to the calvinist way of thinking because of Romans 9. But the word of God is not just Romans 9. There are other verses that seemingly contradict Romans 9.

So here's the thing. Either the writers were contradicting eachother, and were wrong, or else we are interpreting the scripture incorrectly and we're wrong.

I can say, though, that your comment about my username is very rude.

I meant it in fun, sweeet, not in a mean way. I'm sorry if it was offensive to you!

Here, in this thread, I'm asking questions because I'm looking for answers on what you think about certain issues.

Fantastic! Then let's discuss . I hope this will be a fair exchange, in which both sides attempt to answer the points made by the other.

I'm pretty sure we agree on some things: The Bible is the Word of God, whole and entire. All of it is true. And all of it fits together perfectly. There are not some parts which disprove other parts.

Agreed! If two passages appear to contradict one another, we've misinterpreted one (or both). We have to accept all of Scripture... even those unpleasant bits in the Old Testament, for example. But more on those later.

You've said that you converted to the calvinist way of thinking because of Romans 9. But the word of God is not just Romans 9.

No. But Romans 9 was instrumental for both SL and I to finally confess that the doctrines of grace were indeed true. Once God broke us down there, we (or at least, I) realized that the doctrine of divine election is all over the place in Scripture! If I gave you a list of verses that talk about this doctrine, would you look into them?

Everything in Scripture reinforces the truth of both God's sovereign election and man's responsibility. I read the Bible for years before I was able to understand those parts that talked about God's active role in salvation. I just glossed them over before... "oh, that can't really mean what it sounds like." But He did not come to make salvation merely available; He came to make it actual!

And now to answer your earlier post:

That's not truly free will, then, is it? It's permanently biased free will. We're free to choose (in our state of original sin), but only so long as we choose to continue in sin. That doesn't make sense to me. Care to enlighten me on how that's "free"?

I think the problem here is that you are conflating free will with unconditioned will. Free will is the ability to choose whatever you want at any given moment. Can we agree on that definition? Unconditioned will is the ability to choose anything.

Think of it this way. There is a vulture with two plates in front of it. One plate has lettuce on it, and the other has raw meat. The vulture is free to choose whichever plate it wants; technically it has the ability to choose the lettuce. No one is dragging its face over to the meat. But will it choose the lettuce? No! Its free will is defined by its nature; it will always choose the meat because that is in its nature to do.

It's similar with sinners. We have two plates in front of us, God or rebellion. We are free to choose whichever we want; technically we have the ability to choose God. But will we? No! We will choose what we want because our wills are free... and what we want is always rebellion.

The Bible says that man is actually incapable of choosing God on his own:

...the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so.

Without God's direct, personal intervention, we will never choose Him because we will never want Him. He is the one who goes in and replaces our hearts of stone with hearts of flesh that can finally respond to His love. And according to the Word, He does this for whom He will, not everyone. He has mercy on whom He has mercy.

The "free-willies" apparently reason that God loves the whole world and all the persons in it and wants everyone to come to him. Are you disputing this?

1 Timothy 2:3-4; This (supplications, prayers, and petitions offered for everyone) is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

I think what is key here is the difference between what theologians call God's moral will and His decreed will. God doesn't "want" people to sin (His moral will)... and yet He decrees that sin will be used in His master plan of glorifying Himself through His creation. God's moral will is not always done, but His decreed will is irresistible and inevitable. His purposes never fail; we can never foil His plans with any action of our own!

Does calvinism say that God only wants the people he predestined to come to him? That seems incredibly harsh.

It does, doesn't it? But so does His decreed will in the Old Testament that the Israelites go in and make war on the neighboring nations, killing every last man, woman, and child. Talk about incredibly harsh! But do you deny that God was just in ordering that to be done?

Why does he only want certain people to come to him and other people to stay away? That's unjust.

Be careful not to apply human standards to God. For example, it would be selfish and wrong of a human being to seek glory for himself, right? But for God, anything else would be idolatry. There is nothing higher than Him, and so He should make His glory the highest goal. Not the comfort of created beings. Not our needs and wants. His glory has to come before all of that — or else God is making us more important than Himself, and that is sin!

God draws certain people to Himself, and does not draw others, because this glorifies Him. Ephesians 1 is a great passage for this, as is Ephesians 3

His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.

God makes some vessels for common use and some for noble purposes. All that is done demonstrates God's perfect justice, wisdom, and love — resulting in His glory

A just God, to my way of thinking, would offer everyone a fair chance to come to him.

Would a just God order the massacre of entire people groups? Seems rather harsh, doesn't it? Unfair, maybe?

Would a just God choose just one nation, Israel, to be His special inheritance and chosen people among all the nations of the world? Seems rather unfair to everyone else, doesn't it?

Would a just God allow — nay, plan — an innocent man to be brutally executed for the sins of others?

I am thinking that maybe it is our fallible, human version of justice that is flawed. We cannot come to the Bible and God holding our ideas up as the standard to which they must conform. Who are we, anyways? Isn't it God who defines what justice is?

Although there are questions of Free Will implied, I'm not trying to get that debate started again

Well, as you can see, it doesn't take much

I'm sorry. This is partially my fault. I just wanted to know what the terms meant without having to go back through the archives and try to figure it out.
Thanks for the definitions Shadowlander!

Wisewoman, you make some great points in your post above especially at the end.

I haven't been able to post here much the last few days but I need to mention something about Amy Carmichael's vision. We have to be careful about visions from anyone no matter how Godly they are. I am not saying not to trust them. I am saying to take that vision with a grain of salt and test it against the Word.

This past summer, I attended a Bible Study with my church (I can't do it now due to time and transportation). During the study, the host mentioned something about a pastor from east Texas (I think). The pastor apparently had a vision just after Obama was elected. The vision essentially said that if Obama split up Israel politically, God would split our country physically. The host immediately said that he was not going to simply take him for his word and the same goes for me. But I also know my history. Earthquakes have been known to hit the Mississippi River area (New Madrid Fault) and based on historical info, the area is due. This is just speculation here, but it definately makes you think. I won't say this guy has predicted the future (and I have heard nothing but good reports about him in terms of his theology), but at the same time I'm not just going to blow it off either. So what does the Bible say about it?

God did promise Abraham that if anyone blesses him or his people, God would bless them. If anyone cursed them, God would also curse them. I do not believe that the Christian church has replaced the Jews as God's people. I believe the Christian church has been grafted into God's people. God also said that he would bless the actions of the righteous for a thousand generations. I am curious to know how many generations have passed since Abraham. Based on the geneologies, there were 56 generations between Abraham and Jesus. I don't have time to go further but this is interesting to think about.

So how do we deal with visions and dreams? God used them frequently when a written copy of his Word was innaccessable. And I still believe God uses them. But in much fewer occasions. I see God using dreams and visions for special cases and particular messages. But all dreams and visions should be checked with the Word of God. Because God's not the only one who can give dreams and visions. Satan can too and our imaginations can do some impressive stuff. So check it out before you take action.

Once I had such a dream. There was a recession from 1991 to 1993 - the recession we had to have - which hit my family really hard. With two children about to leave school with less than brilliant results, another in Primary school and both their parents out of paid work, the future looked really grim. Maybe it was God, maybe the Devil, and perhaps it was just my worried but sleeping brain mulling things over. But in my dream, out of the blue, there was a Biblical text: Isaiah 48:10.

According to the Douay Bible, the one I had handiest, to look it up, this verse says:
"Behold I have refined thee, but not as silver: I have chosen thee in the furnace of poverty".

There is more to that text in verse 11, explaining God's intentions towards Israel. I don't know why I'd dream of that particularly obscure text, which wouldn't have been mentioned too often, if at all, in my church attendance, but it was an explanation of sorts, and that dream did encourage me to persevere with finding work. We all survived - somehow.

Good dream or bad dream? Or do they only matter when it is big world events, and not a small family, struggling to survive an economic downturn?

God did promise Abraham that if anyone blesses him or his people, God would bless them. If anyone cursed them, God would also curse them. I do not believe that the Christian church has replaced the Jews as God's people. I believe the Christian church has been grafted into God's people.

And I think Romans 11 is pretty clear that the Jewish nation has been cut off, though maybe to be grafted on later. Regardless, glad that you know that the Church shares in all the promises of Israel since it is at least part of Israel (I contend that Israel is the OT Church).

TBG

Just to make sure I'm on the same page here, TBG, you are agreeing that the Abramic blessing is still in place? Or are you disagreeing and saying that it isn't in place anymore?

Aaaaaarrrrgh!!! What have I wrought? I only wanted to know what you guys (and gals) thought Lewis's position was. Then all I wanted to know was if my understanding of the "nuanced" version of "Calvinism" was accurate. Then WiseWoman says this:

Not the biblical Providence. God doesn't sit back, watch our choices, and then make His based on ours. Nor does he simply use foreknowledge to make His decisions. No — He takes an active role in both history and individual lives. It isn't passive, or based on our choices. It would be truer to say our choices are all based on His.

...and now I feel like I'm back at square 1. I don't see the nuance there WW. Where's the "Free Will and Destiny are two sides of the same coin" in that (isn't this what Doc and TBG have been saying)??? If our choices are based on His, then it's all His. God decided at the beginning of time to allow Sin into the World, and decided arbitrarily who would "choose" Him and thus be saved, and who would reject Him (to spend an Eternity being tortured in Hell). And saying that Humans just don't understand "True" Justice, is, I think, a cop-out.

There's no further explanation, just accept it. I need more than that to go on. And frankly, I think humans have a very good sense of Justice, even if we don't always live up to it. We don't torture people (or we shouldn't) indefinitely, for a crime that was pre-programmed into them.

Besides which, I didn't say, when I quoted myself, that God was passive. I directly implied that God (or Eru Illuvatar in that case), was actively participating by placing the people who had already made their choices in circumstances that would fulfill His plan. They made their own choices, He finagled the odds that would make those choices work to His benefit. One ends up in a Fiery Pit of Lava, and the other gets a Free Ticket for the last boat to Valinor (there to live out the rest of his days in comfort before finally going off to Hobbit Heaven).

That's the only way that I can see to make any logical sense of the otherwise contradictory Bible passages, some of which say "all is pre-destined" and others which say "man has Free Will" (and no, I don't have the passages handy, I'm just typing off the top of my head--very slowly I might add because I still only use two fingers. But I know you guys [and gals] all know the passages already ).

And I'm sorry, but this particular issue requires a logical solution for me to buy it .
Anyway, I'm just trying to understand your position .

Peace and Long Life

Gandalf's Beard

So wisewoman [and others], what are your thoughts on Adam and Eve? They didn't have a sinful nature. They weren't programmed to choose evil. And yet they did. Yes, Eve was deceived [but Adam wasn't, which I think is worse]. Still, both had free will.

For example, it would be selfish and wrong of a human being to seek glory for himself, right? But for God, anything else would be idolatry. There is nothing higher than Him, and so He should make His glory the highest goal. Not the comfort of created beings. Not our needs and wants. His glory has to come before all of that — or else God is making us more important than Himself, and that is sin!

Nice. Thanks...

I don't see "You never mentioned Him to me" as creating guilt. I see it as taking true interest in the lost, having compassion for the lost. And that is just as strong a motive in Christian missions as obedience to the Great Commission. Countless historians have studied missionary motives. Note the plural. There was never just one.

So basically you are admitting that witnessing and evangelizing out of guilt is a bad motive, but it doesn't matter so long as the witnessing gets done? Paul rejoiced that Christ was preached, but I'm sure he would have rejoiced more deeply if there had been godly instead of worldly motives at work. Can we agree on that?

Yes, godly motives are best. But I'm not convinced evangelism "out of guilt is a bad motive" or even a worldly one. It's better than disobedience to God's revealed will [Great Commission]. I'll let God worry about my motives, since only He can change my heart. In the meantime, I want to keep my mouth open. Are you saying that until our motives are right before God [and others] that we shouldn't do any evangelizing?

EDIT
I scanned my current research in mission history [mostly 19th century] for a discussion of missionary motives. And below is what I found. Yes, motives matter and they should be pure. But I think evangelism out of a sense of guilt [which God can purify] is better than any non-religious motivations.

[Par in diss]: Understanding human motivation for various movements in history can be difficult. As Bishop Stephen Neill acknowledges, “no human motives are . . . pure” (Colonialism 280, 413). The added religious factor in the nineteenth-century missionary movement makes it even more so, which is why the critical attribution of “capitalist imperialism and materialism” to missionary motives is simply inadequate (Cuthbertson 18). Potential missionaries had various reasons for wanting to enter a foreign field of service, not all of which they voiced to society recruiters, usually because they wanted “to create a favourable impression” (Oddie, “India,” 64). According to Bishop Neill, “even the most blameless of missionaries was liable . . . half-consciously to identify his own country’s interests with the interests of the kingdom of God” and sometimes was guilty of mistaken judgment and lack of foresight (280). However, he also notes that “nothing . . . is to be gained by questioning [the missionaries’] sincerity” (280). For many evangelical missionaries, “accountability to God” meant “having right motives,” even when they acknowledged the possibility of being deceived by the impurity of their hearts (Piggin, "Assessing," 328-29). Sometimes missionaries’ “secular motives were spiritualized” while their “spiritual motives were . . . emptied of altruism” (333). However, the desire to become a missionary, a generally hazardous field of work even with its potential educational and material benefits, was more than “self-glorification” or a method of “self-improvement” (337). [Check out this source: Derek Baker, ed., Religious Motivation: Biographical and Sociological Problems for the Church Historian, Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell, 1978].

Religious motives [not necessarily in this order]
1. “Obedience to Christ’s explicit commission”
2. “Gratitude for the Gospel”
3. "What was due to God’s glory”
4. Love for Christ
5. Love for one’s calling
6. Eschatology: some believed the spread of the Gospel would usher in Christ’s second coming and millennial kingdom
7. After 1870: Roman Catholic proselytization and the spread of Islam in North Africa and the Middle East
8. Keswick convention and American revivals: for some recruits “missionary work was the ultimate sanctified Christian life”
9. Concern for the heathen’s temporal, moral, and spiritual condition, including Concern for “heathen perishing in their blindness” without Christ. Foundation: belief in hell and divine punishment for those who did not know or accept Christ. This declined in some missionary societies after 1875, when “cultural humanitarian motives,” namely the desire to “increase the happiness and improve the temporal condition of the heathen,” began to predominate.
10. Early 19th century: wanting to “make reparation for the Slave Trade”

Some missionary motives: “utilitarian”--commerce (45); “humanitarian-cultural”--civ, “ascetic,” “romantic” (46); “theocentric,” “the motive of love and compassion,” “ecclesiological”--denominational/”the very form of the Church [being] part of the Church’s gospel” [73], “eschatological” (47)--Lord’s millennium/kingdom (48), “obedience to Christ’s explicit commission” (48). [Max Warren, The Missionary Movement from Britain in Modern History, London: SCM Press, 1965.]

Medical missions: imitation of Christ's good deeds and obedience to His command to "heal the sick"; humanitarianism, "utilitarian reasons, relating medical provision to missy mortality and efficiency; and strategic reasons . . . acceptability of medical missions when no other form of mission could gain a hearing" (Walls, "Heavy Artillery," 288). The strategic reason was most decisive and prominent (289).

Non-religious motivations included economic advantages, opportunities for travel/adventure, rise in social status, and opportunity for ordination; among women: self-fulfillment, romance, and financial gain. However, the various missionary societies usually sought strong Christian commitment in potential recruits and hoped the hard life of a typical missionary would ward off those with more materialistic motives.
/EDIT

Indeed. I've tested hers and found that it doesn't align with Scripture.

Really. I thought it was Amy Carmichael's job to test dreams and visions given to her, not us. And who are we to say this vision wasn't from God, especially since she's now dead? Please read Carmichael's books. I highly recommend them. Then you can judge for yourself her life as a missionary. Until then...

Keep in mind that not everyone here subscribes to charismatic practices. I'm a former charismatic myself and am strongly opposed to that belief system. I don't want to get into that debate with you now, but I just want you to know that when you try to use stuff like that as evidence for why your ideas are right, it has quite the opposite effect with me. Just letting you know.

I'm not charismatic. I'm Pentecostal. There IS a difference. And when charismatic practices creep into Pentecostal churches, my family and I aren't too happy.

Beard, my position on free will is that it doesn't exist. If we are truly creatures of sin, and dead to spiritual things, as Paul said, then our will is also dead to good and to God.

This past summer, I attended a Bible Study with my church (I can't do it now due to time and transportation). During the study, the host mentioned something about a pastor from east Texas (I think). The pastor apparently had a vision just after Obama was elected. The vision essentially said that if Obama split up Israel politically, God would split our country physically. The host immediately said that he was not going to simply take him for his word and the same goes for me. But I also know my history. Earthquakes have been known to hit the Mississippi River area (New Madrid Fault) and based on historical info, the area is due. This is just speculation here, but it definately makes you think. I won't say this guy has predicted the future (and I have heard nothing but good reports about him in terms of his theology), but at the same time I'm not just going to blow it off either. So what does the Bible say about it?

Check out the videos and links below. You can also google/yahoo "USA to split 2010." See what you find. Is this for real? You decide. This is just to let you know that people are talking about it.

US to split into 6 pieces in 2010 -- Russia Today's Youtube channel, interview with Russian political scientist Igor Panarin, who published The Crash of America a few months ago.
USA TO SPLIT IN 2010 MUST SEE!!! -- "USA to split due to economic crisis and probably because of the swine flu shot which many people will not take. Biden: Obama will be tested in the first 6 months (The generated crisis is the swine flu.Add six months from October and you get the month April when the swine flu happened)."
Russian Professor Predicts the USA Disintegrates -- "CNN talks to Prof. Igor Panarin who theorizes that by 2010 the United States will fracture."
Russian Scientist Igor Paranin Sees American Civil War For 09 -- Online article by PAIR A NORMAL GUYS INC | January 1, 2009 at 01:05 pm

I dunno, y'all...
Russians and crackpots can talk all they want about the imminent destruction of the U.S., but our fate is entirely in God's hands. I believe that the Abrahamic Covenant is still in place, but is deserting Israel more abominable to God than our other national crimes?
God is King. If He wills it, our nation will be dissolved like dust. If he wills it, we will be preserved.