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.

Excellent point. God alone decides what happens to us. And yet, God may will in the future that we be divided and conquered. No other nation, no other kingdom has lasted forever. Ours had a beginning and it therefore must have an end. The questions are when and how. "Is deserting Israel more abominable to God than our other national crimes?" Maybe not. But God says there are some crimes in which the land itself will spew out its inhabitants [Lev 18 incest, adultery, infanticide, homosexuality, bestiality [Lev 18:6-23]. All these abominations have taken place in the US. We're overdue for destruction. I'm truly amazed at God's forbearance sometimes. And yet look at how often God is patient with us. It is literally by His mercies that we are not consumed! [Lam 3]

There are sins of a people that God will cover and there are sins in which God will most certainly punish. I am not talking about individuals here, but those of a people. The spirit here in America is mirroring that of Sodom and Gomorrah. God said it was time to destroy those two cities when the level of thier sin had reached a climax. Have we reached that level yet? I can't be the judge, but I know it's coming soon. In conjunction with the Abrahamic promises, it is interesting to note that since the formation of the political nation of Israel in 1948, only two US Presidents have not been in full support of Israel: Carter and Obama. Could our nation's support of Israel been the one thing that has kept God from bringing judgement on us due to our sin? I can't say for sure, but I can't rule it out.

There is one thing I do know for sure. There will come a time soon in which the Christian church in America will face true persecution like the churches in other countries have. It's going to happen at some point or another, and for the most part lately, many Christians in America have become complacent. This includes Christians in very solid churches. And I feel with fair certainty that it will take persecution at that level to wake up the church as a whole. I don't know when this will happen. But we do need to be ready for when it does. It is my understanding that 1/3 of the Christian population will be martyred before Jesus comes back. That is a staggering number to think about. The long and short of it is this: we will soon learn who is truly following Jesus with their lives and who isn't.

When did this discussion become about God destroying the U.S?

Every generation believes theirs is the most depraved. The Puritans believed it, the Revivalists of the 1800s believed it, the Klu Klux Klan of the 1920s believed it, and now we believe it. We've been predicting the end of the world since its beginning.

Ours had a beginning and it therefore must have an end. The questions are when and how.

True, but America is very young as a nation still. Look at how long other nations and empires have lasted, and even when they lost power, they were not destroyed, just changed. Rome, Greece, England, and Spain all still exist, just not in the same way they did before they lost their empires. The U.S. losing it's dominant position in the world doesn't necessarily mean madness and persecution will follow.

I believe that the Abrahamic Covenant is still in place, but is deserting Israel more abominable to God than our other national crimes?

And does Israel's place in that covenant mean we should turn a blind eye to their national crimes?

Mod Hat On

Please refrain from political discussion as it is one of the banned topics on Nweb.

TBG

TBG: I didn't realize this was [becoming] a political discussion.

There will come a time soon in which the Christian church in America will face true persecution like the churches in other countries have. It's going to happen at some point or another, and for the most part lately, many Christians in America have become complacent. This includes Christians in very solid churches. And I feel with fair certainty that it will take persecution at that level to wake up the church as a whole. I don't know when this will happen. But we do need to be ready for when it does. It is my understanding that 1/3 of the Christian population will be martyred before Jesus comes back. That is a staggering number to think about. The long and short of it is this: we will soon learn who is truly following Jesus with their lives and who isn't.

I completely agree. I've been feeling this way for most of the year now. I've even been praying for God to send persecution to wake up the church, to wake up my friends. I've been warning people about a future Holocaust. Why is it we've been immune from persecution so long anyway? Persecution purifies and strengthens the church.

Draugin: I just noticed you have 220 posts. LOL!

FYI: I'm taking a break from NW this week. Gonna work on a diss. Pray for me please. [And pray I be good and keep my promise. ]

(edited)

TBG: I didn't realize this was [becoming] a political discussion.

I noticed that it was and have been very quietly watching the conversation. Anytime this topic comes up it will sometimes brush up against the concept of moral values, which inevitably leads to political conversation because each of us has our own ideas and beliefs as to who is responsible for all of it in the first place. Just have to be on the lookout for it and when you see it start to creep into the thread, squash it without remorse. Those are the rules.

Fencer, I largely agree with your post. I still fervently believe that the Abrahamic covenant is still in place and that due to relations with the Jews some nations will be judged more leniently than others will. But I disagree that somehow the US is the single biggest bastion of evil in the world and that we're just needing a beating. Every nation that ever was has made human mistakes. Some carry those mistakes into habitual crimes, such as genocide, and those nations will be brought to task when they are judged. I'm not saying that our country is going to get away with everything in a squeaky clean manner (we do have much to answer for) but I have difficulty reconciling this animosity towards one's own nation when one compares it next to Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or Communist China where evil wasn't/isn't lurking in shadows but was/is practically out in the open for all to see. This for everyone: Don't be so quick to wish down fire and brimstone on our heads just to make some theological point.

I do agree that it is inevitable that things are going to turn for the worst but we're not at that point right this second and we have plenty of chances to at least try and fix things (and I would go so far as to say that it is our duty to do so) but let's not jump the gun here and want Judgement crashing down on our heads because of something that's on TV or what some nitwit says on some talk show that we disagree with.

Sorry I'm late in getting to this: I started this post a few hours ago when there was still one less page of posts...lol!

Rather we are stewards of the gospel. Remember the parable of the talents? What do we do with the gospel, and with the talents and gifts God has given us to spread that gospel? I pray we aren’t like the servant who hid his talent in the ground. What happened to him? He was thrown “into outer darkness” [Matthew 25].

I have been pondering this parable for several months, now. Many more learned scholars than I have interpreted this parable just as you did above, 220. Almost every one of my commentaries does. So while I acknowledge the scholarship that states that faithfulness is the point at issue in this parable, I also want to point out a few things that have changed my perspective on it recently. First, please allow me to quote the whole parable so that those unfamiliar with the text will be able to refer to it.

The Parable of the Talents
14 “For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. 15 To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16 He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. 17 So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. 18 But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master’s money. 19 Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20 And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.’ 21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 22 And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.’ 23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

First, let me make sure everyone is aware of the context of this parable. Many have been asking Jesus about the end times. The disciples are confused because Jesus has made it clear to them that a cross has to come before the crown, and they cannot get their minds around this as they have always been taught that when Messiah came, he would take the throne and rule and all would be right with the world—they cannot understand that he must leave by death, resurrection and ascention and will then return at a later time. Jesus tells four parables in a row concerning this subject.

Please note: in this parable the two faithful servants are contrasted with one unfaithful servant.

The two faithful servants put the money of the master to work. Both trusts netted the same return: 100%.

The unfaithful servant did not put the master’s money to work. Much could be speculated as to why he did not do this, and many of the commentaries I have are glad to put thoughts into this person’s head. However, by his own words let him be convicted:

1. “I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter”
2. “I was afraid”

According to his own words, WHY did this “wicked and slothful” servant choose to hide the possession of his master?

He believed he knew his master. He had no faith whatsoever in his master, believing him to be hard and unfair. And because of this mistaken understanding of his master he responded incorrectly.

This parable is the third in the set of parables. I submit to you that the point of each parable is the same: some servants know their master well, and have been motivated by that knowledge to properly prepare for his surprise return at a delayed time. Some servants to their very great peril do not know their master well, though they think they do.

The last parable in the set confirms this. There are two sets of servants. Both have served by doing exactly the same works. But one set thought they were serving the Lord, and weren’t, and were cast into hell for it. And one set had no thought that their service was blessing the Lord, but it was: and they enter into Heaven.

Here are the conclusions I must come to concerning this parable:

1. The application that many, many, many pastors and teachers make of this parable; i.e., that we must work harder to produce more and never hide our “talents” and although not everyone gets the same amount of talents, we should always use them for God or else be ashamed when He returns is a wrong application of this parable. It has little or nothing to do with individual talents, gifts, abilities, money or the amount we each have of them or the use of them.

2. Proper application is similar to that of the wheat and tares: some are serving, but are not serving God, and don’t know Him, even though they look like Christians from the outside. Some know God and are serving Him even if they don’t realize they are serving Him and they look exactly like the unbelievers who look like Christians.

3. God Himself has mercy upon whom He will have mercy.

4. Works won’t save you or keep you saved or impress God when you face Him after death.

5. God will very likely delay Jesus' return so long that many will cease to trust He is coming. We should guard our hearts against this.

6. Lastly: if I find myself complaining against the Lord, I need to check my understanding of Him, for I am in peril of my soul if I fail to understand and fully trust Him.

What do you think? Have we as Christians been putting the wrong emphasis on this parable?

Note: I have been reading an interesting book on music-we-do-when-we-meet-together-as-Christians (a.k.a. worship). I hope to post a bit on it's premises and get your feed back soon.

Meanwhile, for those who are so persuaded, please pray for me this week: my first recital is Friday night, and I need to stay well, get programs done, house cleaned (company coming in for the weekend), and still teach and work!

mm

wisewoman wrote:

"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.

220 wrote

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.

As it was explained to me, there were several parts to it. What would happen if someone stood up on the last day and made a claim against another that “you knew I was astray but never mentioned Him?” Obviously the song doesn’t say what happens next.

About its Biblical relation and application, there were some verses presented. A Reformed commentary on Matthew 11 may reassure Calvinists not to fret about such things, while simultaneously suggesting to the Free Will group (particular in Matt. 11:21) that Sodom was save-able, and therefore so may be other people.

The other verses presented were Esther 4:13-14, which no doubt may mean different things to Calvinists and Free Will. Verse 14a notes that “For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place.” And this sounds something like the Calvinist teaching that all who will be saved through Christ will be, even if we (as a sort-of Esther) fail. (Though of course the Calvinists would add that such failures may not affect their own standing.) The free-willies might point out how different this sounds when we add back verses 13b and 14b: “(13) he sent back this answer: "Do not think that because you are in the king's house you alone of all the Jews will escape. (14) For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father's family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?" Just because we are in the King’s house, does that mean that we cannot be pulled out of it for not behaving in the way of one entrusted with that position, they will ask. Or rather, if one can be pulled out of the King's house, were they ever truly saved, ever truly in it. And so forth.

Anyhow, in addition to addressing Jerks for Jesus, this song could also be said to address their opposite: mutes for Jesus, or “I gots mine” for Jesus. Which, while less obnoxious in the public arena, isn’t an improvement. So this song does at least challenge the selfishness of “I gots mine.” wisewoman notes the selfishness in doing something to avoid feeling guilty. Certainly everyone who has commented to far has pointed out selfishness, although in a variety of flavours. So selfishness, whether actual or imputed, seems to be a constant factor.

I find it hard to completely discard a song that includes a line like “A few sweet words may guide a lost one to His side”, though. It reminds me a little of the verse stargazer quoted, about “ always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect... – (I Peter 3:15b, ESV) It reminds me that just as Christians “preach always, and it necessary, use words,” then sometimes nonbelievers ask without using words. Are we paying attention to them?

220 wrote:

I've even been praying for God to send persecution to wake up the church, to wake up my friends.

What kind of persecution would you like them to experience? Losing a spouse, for starters? Paul, Peter etc. prayed that believers already under persecution would grow strong and rejoice, but I don't recall them praying for the believers in safer lands to please get harmed. This sounds too close to praying against our brothers. Rather, why not pray that our brothers will wake up to the suffering, persecution, and need that already exists in other parts of the world, and will start to think about whether they have a call to go there?

If our choices are based on His, then it's all His.

No; we make real choices. But they are based on what He does. stardf29 once had an illustration I liked about this. Imagine that there is a perfect lover, a man who is right in every way for a particular woman. He woos her tenderly, fulfills her every need, and offers her true love that will never fade or die. With him, she will be completely happy and secure. It was his choice to love her like this — and it's her choice to accept or reject that love. But why would she reject him? She will choose to love him (a real choice), and her choice is based on his previous choice of her.

Of course we can pick holes in this analogy and it's a flawed one, but the point is that we aren't brutally forced into anything. We choose what we want, all of us. I do think people go to hell because they want it... or rather, because the alternative (the presence of God) is so hateful to them that anything is preferable to Him.

Justice demands payment. God would not be just if He did not exact payment for offenses committed. Hell is not a place where poor victims are unfairly punished. It is where criminals are paying the just price for their crimes.

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.

We don't know that His choice of the elect is "arbitrary," though we do know it isn't based on any merit in us. In fact, I very much doubt if it's arbitrary; God does what will bring Himself the most glory, as is fitting and right. I don't know why He chooses the ones He does, but do I need to know that? Is anyone ever told any story but his own?

And God never forces anyone to sin. We handle that quite well on our own. So He is not culpable for our offenses, and no blame can be attached to Him for the guilt we have incurred.

There's no further explanation, just accept it. I need more than that to go on.

I'm not saying "there's no further explanation, just accept it." No, wrestle with it! If you want more to go on, search the Scriptures. The Bible teaches both God's complete sovereignty and man's responsibility, and teaches them side by side. In the Old Testament it says ten times that God hardened Pharaoh's heart — and it also says ten times that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. I remember reading that in my study Bible... I need to find that note again and write down the specific references.

There is a mystery here that I confess myself unequal to penetrating. Every now and then I get a tiny inkling of their perfect harmony, like a half-second glimpse through lattice and ivy where you can *almost* see what lies on the other side. The difference between us, GB, is that I approach the Bible with love and submission, knowing that I can't unravel it all and not needing to, because I trust its Author — while you are holding all the pieces that don't seem to fit and trying to make them work without reference to the One who made them.

I'm not trying to sound condemning or anything, and probably from your position the way that I described myself is the less flattering of the two anyways. How foolish, to submit to something I don't understand, to determine beforehand to love and obey the Word no matter what it says. I suppose by the wisdom of the world that's very stupid indeed. I'm okay with that. It's just hard for me to make sense to you because we are coming at this from such different positions.

They made their own choices, He finagled the odds that would make those choices work to His benefit.

But this is still not the biblical picture of providence and God's plan. It is still making the deity's choices come as reactions, after-the-fact additions, to the choices of the created beings. He has to "finagle" things around what they do to make His plan viable. They make their choices and the god-figure has to scramble around to make those choices coincide with his master plan. That isn't the way it works in the Bible.

And I'm sorry, but this particular issue requires a logical solution for me to buy it.

Actually, it requires far more than a mere logical solution. Spiritual truths are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14), and only God can open our spiritual eyes. I pray that God opens yours to truths that are far beyond human logic.

Anyway, I'm just trying to understand your position .

Thanks for trying . I don't think you'll succeed on your own; the core of the Gospel will always be repugnant to you until God works in your heart, but it's brave of you to try.

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.

Hmm, I'm not sure what exactly this refutes from my earlier posts on the subject. Could you explain how this damages the biblical perspective of free will being the ability to choose what we want?

Oh certainly, Adam and Eve had free will and a sinless nature. They could have chosen not to sin. But they chose to desire something God had forbidden them, and fell. How does this prove the existence of unconditioned will for the rest of humanity?

Nice. Thanks...

Are you saying this facetiously, or do you agree about God's glory and "self-centeredness" being perfectly holy and right?

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.

I don't see how it can be interpreted any other way than as a guilt-inducing device. In the position of this song, people who are going to hell are casting recriminations at Christians, who are then to heartily regret their sin which directly caused these people to go to hell. It's not like a song that encourages us to reach out to the lost around the world — oh no. "You Never Mentioned Him to Me" is utterly hopeless because it all occurs when there is no chance to change. It induces guilt because it basically says WE are responsible for souls going to hell because of our failures and sins. Really, 220, it's a stretch to say the song encourages us to take a "true interest in the lost." The only true interest in that song that I can see is a selfish one; we want to avoid feeling guilty.

And that is just as strong a motive in Christian missions as obedience to the Great Commission.

It might be a strong motive, but that doesn't make it a correct one. I'll stick with obeying the Great Commission first and foremost. Compassion for others will always follow when we obey Christ first.

Countless historians have studied missionary motives. Note the plural. There was never just one.

There should only be one primary motive, however.

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].

It's definitely a wordly motive because it is based on self. Arguing that it's better than direct disobedience only demonstrates the weakness of your position, that you have to contrast it with outright sin to make it look better!

Are you saying that until our motives are right before God [and others] that we shouldn't do any evangelizing?

No; why are you setting up this straw man again? If I ever said that, could you please quote it? I am simply arguing against bad motives because I don't want to settle for "okay" when we can have God's best instead. I'm sure you've heard the statement that the good is always the worst enemy of the best. I think it's applicable here. If you want to settle for just "getting the job done" with evangelism, that's your call of course. I want to honor God with both my actions and my motives, as far as I can control them.

But I think evangelism out of a sense of guilt [which God can purify] is better than any non-religious motivations.

Again, you are comparing the motive of guilt to blatantly sinful motives... doesn't it tell you something that you have to use sin as your other prop to make the motive of guilt look better? (And you are also admitting that guilt as a motive is inferior!)

Really. I thought it was Amy Carmichael's job to test dreams and visions given to her, not us.

It's strange to me that you would think that, because according to your logic I can come here and post about a vision I had, and as long as I said I had tested it and found that it aligned with Scripture, no one else has any right to take it to the Word themselves . It's not their job, it's mine, mine, all mine, even when I expect others to listen.

That position would kind of invalidate your claimed gift of spiritual discernment too, wouldn't it? It's "not your job" to discern anything that I say, if I claim to have tested it against the Word, right? Anyways...

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...

Now you are pulling the sympathy card: "oh, she's dead, so you shouldn't be harsh on her. Just accept what she said was from God because it's mean to doubt somebody who's dead!"

And good grief, where did I ever "judge her life as a missionary"? If you read what I posted, I said she was probably a fine Christian woman but that didn't mean that everything she saw or thought she saw was from God. I never said anything about her life as a missionary, and I'm unsure why you need to accuse me of that.

It is fascinating to me that in your defense of Amy Carmichael's vision you never once offer a Scriptural rebuttal to the Scriptural objections I made to it. I've seen nothing that causes me to revise my belief that such a vision flies in the face of the clear truths in Scripture that all those the Father has given to Christ will come to Him, and He will never let anything snatch them out of His hand. Until you can show me from Scripture how Carmichael's vision was in line with correct dctrine, I'm not buying it.

And another thing about the whole dreams and visions thing: you're falling into using anecdotal evidence again — which is neither convincing nor Scripturally based.

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.

I think you're splitting hairs trying to make a difference between the two. Out in the wider world the terms are used interchangeably. My former denomination also called itself "pentecostal" (it was the Assemblies of God), and "charismatic" is just as appropriate a word to use of their doctrines and practices.

I look forward to your reply when you return, 220. Hope your dissertation work goes well

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.

I would distinguish between unconditioned and free will here. Unconditioned will is the ability to choose anything, apart from any desires. Free will is the ability to choose what we want. Unregenerate man will always want rebellion rather than God and so that is what he chooses. Unconditioned will — the ability to choose anything, with no reference to what one wants, no personal influence whatsoever — is the kind that doesn't exist.

Oh, and quick mod note to add to TBG's: homosexuality is also an unconditionally banned topic here. See the rules if you aren't sure what topics are allowed; they're pretty clear. Thanks!

When did this discussion become about God destroying the U.S?

Yeah, I didn't quite get where that transition came from either . I think we have enough going on in this thread already without throwing in random things like that. It smells suspiciously of the old "bait and switch" trick...

I submit to you that the point of each parable is the same: some servants know their master well, and have been motivated by that knowledge to properly prepare for his surprise return at a delayed time. Some servants to their very great peril do not know their master well, though they think they do.

I appreciate this perspective, MM, and I think you're right about this parable. Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to share that with us! While the "traditional" meaning of using your talents for God's glory is probably a secondary layer to this parable, it does seem less important in light of the bigger idea of knowing the Master well.

It also explains the part where the servant claims that the Master is a hard man, reaping where he did not sow and all that. I was always puzzled by that because the Master is supposed to be God, right? Why would the master in the parable he hard and cruel when God isn't? He isn't, of course; it is all the misconception of the servant. The master repeats those words back to the servant as a judgment ("you thought such and such, did you?"). But now it makes sense if the parable is really about knowing the Master.

Just because we are in the King’s house, does that mean that we cannot be pulled out of it for not behaving in the way of one entrusted with that position, they will ask. Or rather, if one can be pulled out of the King's house, were they ever truly saved, ever truly in it. And so forth.

Good point, but I wouldn't equate the King's house with salvation, but rather with an earthly position God puts you in to effect His purpose. If you fail, He will work it out nevertheless. It isn't really a question of salvation, I don't think.

What kind of persecution would you like them to experience? Losing a spouse, for starters? Paul, Peter etc. prayed that believers already under persecution would grow strong and rejoice, but I don't recall them praying for the believers in safer lands to please get harmed.

Amen, TOM! I agree that praying for harm to come to fellow believers is just disturbing — and, like you, I can't think of a single Scripture reference to support such a practice . Suffering for Christ is a privilege (Philippians 1:29), but it is handed out at God's discretion only, never ours! Praying persecution for other people seems rather arrogant, frankly

*collapses after writing this post*

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. …. ...and now I feel like I'm back at square 1.

I sympathize with you. I often feel that just when I think I’m beginning to understand something happens that sets my understanding back. I can’t help you with the Calvinism part because I do not understand enough of it myself, but I think I can help a little with Lewis’s position. I finished The Great Divorce last night. For those who haven’t read it, here is a quite summary. In Lewis’s story, when the unsaved die they go to the “grey town.” In this town, they have no needs. If people chose they can take a bus to the Valley of the Shadow of Life, which is like the outskirts of heaven. The people who come from the “grey town” can stay and move on towards heaven if they choose. However, they must give up whatever it is in their life that is keeping them from God.
Here some quotes from the book (some deal directly with free will / predestination and some relate to the ongoing discussion about spreading the Word:

Earth, I think, will not be found by anyone to be in the end a very distinct place. I think earth, if chosen instead of Heaven, will turn out to have been, all along, only a region in Hell: and earth, if put second to Heaven, to have been from the beginning a part of Heaven itself.

I beg readers to remember that this is a fantasy. I has of course—or I intended it to have—a moral. But the transmortal conditions are solely an imaginative supposal: they are not even a guess or speculation at what may actually await us. The last thing I wish is to arouse factual curiosity about the details of the after-world.

Before the following quote, the narrator asks his teacher (George Macdonald) why the Solid People (aka the saved) don’t go down to the grey city to save the Lost since there are some who never take the bus.

Everyone who wishes does. Never fear. There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.

No natural feelings are high or low, holy or unholy, in themselves. They are all holy when God’s hand is on the rein. They all go bad when they set up on their own and make themselves into false gods.

This quote is from a Solid Person who is trying to help someone.

That’s what we find out when we reach this country. We’ve all been wrong! That’s the great joke. There’s no need to go on pretending one was right! After that we begin living

I don’t think this means wrong in every respect but rather points to our actions and some beliefs. At some point we all did something (more likely a lot of somethings) that was wrong and we thought was right.
This quote is from a woman whose son died early and she comes becomes she wants him back. I think it has to do with people’s ideas about God.

I don’t care about all your rules and regulations. I don’t believe in a God who keeps mother and son apart. I believe in a God of Love. No one has a right to come between me and my son. Not even God. … I hate your religion and I hate and despise your God. I believe in a God of Love.

This seems so ridiculous against the setting of being that close to Heaven.

Teacher: But someone must say in general what’s been unsaid by among you this many a year: that love as mortals understand the word isn’t enough. Every natural love will rise again and live forever in this country: but none will rise again until it has been buried . Narrator: The saying is almost too hard for us. Teacher: Ah, but it is cruel not to say it. They that know have grown afraid to speak. That’s why sorrows that used to purify now only fester.

This reminded me of the discussion about sugar coating the Gospel.

Narrator: What some people say on earth is that the final loss of one soul gives the lie to all the joy of those who are saved. Teacher: Ye see that it does not. Nar.: I feel in some way it ought to. Teacher: That sounds very merciful: but see what lurks behind it. … The demand of the loveless and the self-imprisoned that they should be allowed to blackmail the universe: that till they consent to be happy (on their own terms) no one else shall taste joy: that theirs should be the final power; that Hell should be able to veto Heaven. … I know it is grand to say ye’ll accept no salvation which leaves even one creature in the dark outside. But watch the sophistry or ye’ll make a Dog in the Manger the tyrant of the universe.

This is all I have time to post for now, but I’ll be back later with a few more quotes.

Edit: I'm back. Did you miss me?

Nar.: In your own books, Sir, you were a Universalist. You talked as if all men would be saved. And St. Paul too. Teacher: Ye can know nothing of the end of all things, or nothing expressible in those terms. … But it is ill to talk of such questions. Nar.: Because they are too terrible, Sir? Tch: No. Because all answers deceive. If ye put the question from within Time and are asking about possibilities, the answer is certain. The choice of ways is before you. Neither is closed. Any man may choose eternal death. Those who choose it will have it. But if ye are trying to see the final state of all things that will be (for so ye must speak) when there are no more possibilities left but only the Real, then ye ask what cannot be answered to mortal ears. Time is the very lens through which ye see—small and clear, as men see through the wrong end of a telescope—something that would otherwise be too big for ye to see at all. That thing is Freedom: the gift whereby ye resemble your Maker and are yourselves parts of eternal reality. But ye can see it only through the lens of Time, in a little clear picture, through the inverted telescope. It is a picture of moments following one another and yourself in each moment making some choice that might have been otherwise. Neither the temporal succession nor the phantom of what ye might have chosen and didn’t is itself Freedom. They are a lens. The picture is a symbol: but it’s true than any philosophical theorem (or, perhaps, than any mystic’s vision) that claims to go behind it. For every attempt to see the shape of eternity except through the lens of Time destroys your knowledge of Freedom. Witness the doctrine of Predestination which shows (truly enough) that eternal reality is not waiting for a future in which to be real; but at the price of removing Freedom which is the deeper truth of the two. And wouldn’t Universalism do the same? Ye cannot know eternal reality by a definition. Time itself, and all acts and events that fill Time, are the definition, and it must be lived. The Lord said we were gods. How long could ye bear to look (without Time’s lens) on the greatness of your own soul and the eternal reality of her choice?

Sorry about the length of that one. I’m not clear on what it is saying so I didn’t want to edit any parts out. What I get out of this last quote is that humans cannot understand what will happen in the end. It seems like it says that both Predestination and Universalism are flawed and we would be better off not bothering about it.

I know nothing of MacDonald’s works so I can’t say how much of what Lewis has him say mimics what he said in his works and how much Lewis is putting into his mouth. Also, we need to consider that this is only supposal. I think that each of the people from the grey land represent a particular type of personality flaw. However, the moral as I see is that people cannot hope to come to know God and get to Heaven until the divorce themselves from whatever it is they are clinging to besides God.

Lewis did lean toward the free-willie side, and directly disavowed "Calvinism" -- as he saw it -- in The Great Divorce and The Problem of Pain, specifically the concept of "total depravity."

Either way, by now I'm sure he is Reformed, or in Heaven he has joined John and Charles Wesley in a friendly debating society versus Calvin himself, and perhaps B.B. Warfield, and the Apostle Paul.

Also, while I love The Great Divorce, without support from the Bible I find it hard to say God sends people to Hell because, deep down, they want it. My view of human nature, from what I see in the Scripture, is much less optimistic. People want goodness, yes, and they want their own way, but by nature they want it free of bad consequences, and even more so, free of God. They want many of God's gifts, even the ideals of moral behavior and righteousness, but on their own, without the Creator of all good things, Who is Himself goodness. This is the epitome of rebellion, and I can't think that God simply gives them "what they really want" when He punishes them.

I know Lewis mentioned “total depravity” in the Great Divorce but I don’t think that he “disavowed it.” He seemed rather to say that it was not a bad thing. However, I’m still not 100% clear on “total depravity” and Calvinism so I could be wrong. It is really funny that we are spending so much time on trying to figure out how salvation, free will, and God’s plan work together but from the discussion (assuming Lewis is in Heaven, etc.) seems to be saying in the long run it does matter what we think about it. I didn’t get the idea that Lewis was saying that people “wanted” Hell in the sense of the normal term of wanting. I think it has more to do with the idea of wanting one’s own way. They choose what they think will make them happy and cling to that despite the offer of something better. I think he means that they have chosen to be selfish not realizing that that really means Hell.

One more Lewis quote that might help explain.

Reality, in fact, is always something you couldn't have guessed. That's one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It's a religion you couldn't have guessed.

I'm gonna dip in here real fast and say two things.

1. Visions aren't given for the purpose of doctrine. They're given to warn or communicate, sometimes like Isaiah and Ezekiel to give or clarify a calling.
2. I'm not really praying for the church to be persecuted. Poor choice of words. But I know persecution purifies. And when I use this word, I'm thinking "Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and communist China"--in the US! So many people in this country have no idea what's really going on, or what's coming. It's going to be a holocaust. Within a year, you'll be amazed [or frightened out of your wits]. I'm praying God does whatever it takes for the church to wake up--out of sleep: to open its eyes to others' suffering, to persecution of the body in other countries, to the political situation in the US and Europe, and to the VERY soon return of Jesus Christ!

What follows ... couldn't resist.

220 wrote: Nice. Thanks...

Are you saying this facetiously, or do you agree about God's glory and "self-centeredness" being perfectly holy and right?

It dawned on me yesterday morning that I was created to glorify God, to worship Him. I was created for His glory. Somehow, that was liberating! I plan to do a word study on "glory." So when I said "nice" and "thanks," your first thought is that I'm being facetious? You can't even take me at face value?

Compassion for others will always follow when we obey Christ first.

You acknowledge compassion as a motive, but not before saying it isn't a "correct" one? What about compassion isn't correct, primary or otherwise?

In the position of this song, people who are going to hell are casting recriminations at Christians, who are then to heartily regret their sin which directly caused these people to go to hell. It's not like a song that encourages us to reach out to the lost around the world — oh no. "You Never Mentioned Him to Me" is utterly hopeless because it all occurs when there is no chance to change. It induces guilt because it basically says WE are responsible for souls going to hell because of our failures and sins.

And I'm wondering what will happen at the day of judgment in heaven. Our minds should be on eternity and that includes what happens to people when they die. I'd rather feel guilt and open my mouth, thinking about people's souls, than say nothing. You say the song is "hopeless because it all occurs when there is no chance to change." But maybe the song induces evangelism by showing people there is a chance to change, i.e. be a witness for Christ before it's too late. It's showing people the reality of eternity and making them take warning.

Curious: what were your sister's motives for going to the mission field? I'm sure she had more than one. And for her, was obedience primary?

So you used to be AG, ww? Why did you leave? I love The Brooklyn Tabernacle in New York City. They're AG.

Modern-day Pentecostalism dates from about 1900. Charismatics date from about 1960. Some of their church practices also differ.

Wikipedia on Pentecostalism: "Pentecostalism is an umbrella term that includes a wide range of different theological and organizational perspectives. As a result, there is no single central organization or church that directs the movement. Most Pentecostals consider themselves to be part of broader Christian groups; for example, most Pentecostals identify as Protestants. Many embrace the term evangelical, while others prefer restorationist. Pentecostalism is theologically and historically close to the charismatic movement as it significantly influenced that movement and some Pentecostals use the two terms interchangeably.
. . . .
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Christians from mainline churches in the United States, Europe, and other parts of the world began to accept the Pentecostal idea that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is available for Christians today, even if they did not accept other tenets of formal Pentecostalism. Charismatic movements began to grow in mainline denominations. Charismatic Episcopalians, Lutherans, Catholics, and Methodists emerged, and during that time period, Charismatic was used to refer to similar movements that existed within mainline denominations. Pentecostal, on the other hand, was used to refer to those who were a part of the churches and denominations that grew out of the earlier Azusa Street revival. Unlike classic Pentecostals, who formed strictly Pentecostal congregations or denominations, charismatics adopted as their motto, "Bloom where God planted you."

In recent decades many independent charismatic churches and ministries have formed, or have developed their own denominations and church associations, such as the Vineyard Movement. In the 1960s and still today, many Pentecostal churches were still strict with dress codes and forbidding certain forms of entertainment, creating a cultural distinction between Charismatics and Pentecostals. There is a great deal of overlap now between the charismatic and Pentecostal movements, though some Pentecostals still retain a strict understanding of "holiness living" principles."

Wikipedia on Charismatics: "Pentecostals, the Charismatic Movement and Neocharismatics share major narratives. Among these are a common belief in the way God works in revival, and the power and presence of God evidenced in the daily life of the Christian believer. Many charismatics and Pentecostals have a shared heritage in the Wesleyan-Holiness tradition. However, the traditional Wesleyans do not believe that speaking in tongues is an evidence of the second blessing of sanctification.

Many churches influenced by the Charismatic Movement deliberately distanced themselves from Pentecostalism, however, for cultural and theological reasons. Foremost among theological reasons is the tendency of many Pentecostals to insist that speaking in tongues is initial physical evidence following the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Pentecostals are also distinguished from the Charismatic Movement on the basis of style. Additionally, many in the Charismatic Movement employ contemporary styles of worship and methods of outreach which differ from traditional Pentecostal practice."

I want to reread The Great Divorce. Thanks for posting all that info, PP.

1. Visions aren't given for the purpose of doctrine. They're given to warn or communicate, sometimes like Isaiah and Ezekiel to give or clarify a calling.

I agree about visions not being given for the purposes of doctrine. That's a great point. However, God-given visions will never contain faulty doctrine either. That would be like the Bible containing incorrect historical information... God just doesn't make mistakes like that. History may not be the purpose of the Bible (just as doctrine is not the purpose of a vision), but the Bible will never make historical mistakes and God-given visions will never contain doctrinal error. Does that make sense?

It dawned on me yesterday morning that I was created to glorify God, to worship Him. I was created for His glory. Somehow, that was liberating! I plan to do a word study on "glory." So when I said "nice" and "thanks," your first thought is that I'm being facetious? You can't even take me at face value?

No, of course I can! Sometimes it's hard for me to determine someone's tone, though, in a conversation like this. It also probably doesn't help that my husband and I use the single word "nice" to mean the exact opposite, in a wry, eye-rolling kind of way. So I was just trying to clarify that because I did realize I could be misunderstanding you. Thank you for explaining.

And I couldn't agree more about how liberating it is to know we are created for God's glory only! I love that. It puts everything in its proper perspective. My salvation isn't even about me: everything God has done to bring it about is for "the praise of His glory" (Ephesians 1:6).

You acknowledge compassion as a motive, but not before saying it isn't a "correct" one? What about compassion isn't correct, primary or otherwise?

It's not that compassion isn't correct; it's more that it's a secondary motive under our devotion to Christ. It's what Jesus says in Luke 10 " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' " Loving God always comes first, and then loving your neighbor. Compassion for others is not a bad motive at all; it just should not take precedence over love for and obedience to Christ.

Curious: what were your sister's motives for going to the mission field? I'm sure she had more than one. And for her, was obedience primary?

I believe her primary reason was obedience to the call God put on her life to go. Love for the people of that country has developed very strongly in her, of course, but mostly after she was already there. She believes that God wants her to spend her life in this country sharing Him with the people there. So really, the two are intertwined — but love for God always has to come first, and then love for people, as it says in Luke 10:27 that I quoted above

She's actually in the States for the next year and a half after spending two years in that country. (And she's in town this week, yay! We get to spend some sister-time this weekend ) The next time she goes back we may not see her for three years. But we praise God for how He is using her in that dark place.

So you used to be AG, ww? Why did you leave?

We left because God pulled us out. He was opening our eyes to so many things at that time, not least of which was the danger of placing subjective emotional experiences on the level with Scripture. He convicted us that even though we paid lip service to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, we didn't really live that out because we always had to add something to it, some feeling, some hype, some emotion, some experience. And you can't live your Christian life on that emotional roller coaster.

The thing that is so dangerous about charismatic practice is that it is like a drug; you always need a higher and more outrageous dosage as you become slowly immune. That's why people in that movement start barking like dogs, claiming that it signifies their doglike devotion to Christ; why they foam at the mouth and lie on the floor kicking the wall, in "birth pains" over what Christ is supposedly doing in them; why they get "slain in the Spirit" and "drunk on the Spirit" and behave in ways that utterly profane the lovely name of Him to whom we belong.

After we had become convicted that there was a problem with the whole speaking in tongues thing and other such practices, we came across a really helpful book called Charismatic Chaos, by John MacArthur. It didn't convince us of the error of pentecostal/charismatic beliefs because God had already changed our minds on that point. Rather, it articulated the reasons why, using Scripture and logic. I recommend it if you are curious to explore this further.

I hope we can go over some of the things I mentioned in my last post when you get some free time, 220! Sorry to distract you from your dissertation; I know how these discussions can be so hard to step away from sometimes

Thanks WW for attempting to explain your position again. I still don't really follow it, but I will keep trying .

And thank you Pattertwig. Those are a lot of Lewis quotes to absorb, and I will have a lot of rumination and more research to do, before I post on this again.

GB

So many people in this country have no idea what's really going on, or what's coming. It's going to be a holocaust. Within a year, you'll be amazed [or frightened out of your wits].

What is happening in the next year? Just curious.

Mod note (again; there seem to be a lot of those): ‘ware the politics.

The three main topics I’ll cover below: charismatic gifts, missions motives, and desiring Hell. Also, a lot of this will be about and directed toward 220, but I agree with WiseWoman that the dissertation takes precedence. If you take your time, that leaves me more to work on other writing projects as well.

Charismatic gifts

In the 1960s and still today, many Pentecostal churches were still strict with dress codes and forbidding certain forms of entertainment, creating a cultural distinction between Charismatics and Pentecostals. There is a great deal of overlap now between the charismatic and Pentecostal movements, though some Pentecostals still retain a strict understanding of “holiness living” principles.”

I’m curious to know whether you believe similarly, 220. From what you said about the Holy Spirit bringing “conformity” (I believe that was your word) to gray areas, it sounds like it could be. Can you share life — or at least forum space — with Christians who have different standards in those legitimately open areas, such as entertainment and dress styles? So far you have been, so I’m guessing the answer is yes.

In that case, we’re cool. I can even get along with you about the difference between charismatics and Pentecostals. After all, I have, have read, and appreciate a book called A Different Gospel about the “Word Faith” (name-it-claim-it) stuff, and it’s written by a Pentecostal man, D. R. McConnell. That cracked a few of my preconceptions, that all charismatics/Pentecostals bought into this heresy. And by the way, yes, I do use the word heresy, because these false beliefs properly applied lead to a false Gospel and thus lack of true salvation.

However, I still believe a lot of Pentecostal ideas about the Holy Spirit come from misapplication of the book of Acts. Descriptions about unique early-church events and practices have been turned into prescriptions for all of the church for all time. This is bad hermeneutics, which ignores the what-did-it-first-mean-for-them reading (as has been shown about thought-judging “spiritual discernment”)

It’s also selective and inconsistent. After all, in one instance merely the Apostle Peter’s shadow had the power to heal (Acts 5), and I don’t see charismatics/Pentecostals insisting that we should all continue this practice today. Also, in one instance Luke (inspired by the Holy Spirit) describes how Phillip veritably “quantum-jumped” between locations so he could open the Scriptures to the Ethiopian eunuch. Should we stand in our church parking lots and wait for the Spirit to transporter-beam us up? Or might it be more practical to realize the Spirit could teach us how to find a good discounted airfare?

At the very least, one must admit that Christians can have varying views on this topic and still be in the same Body. And they still have the Holy Spirit. Paul never assumes all people will have the same gift (1 Corinthians 14), whether it be tongues or teaching or compassion or prophecy. In many charismatic churches, not nearly enough guidelines are in place to ensure an organized worship service that will persuade any visiting unbelievers that God is truly at work.

What beyond a battle of “words from the Lord” will prevent flakes and freaks — and I am sure you have seen them too! — from proclaiming God is guiding their “gifts”?

Among such groups, I haven’t seen (at least not yet) enough outworking of a professed belief in the supremacy of Scripture above personal experience. It seems that too often the reading of Scripture is fudged to better fit the experience, or the practice of a gift with fewer boundaries, rather than vice-versa.

We may legitimately disagree on whether the “fantastic” gifts, such as tongues, are still around for today or whether they are now limited. However, one can only conclude from an honest reading of Scripture — the only sure word from the Holy Spirit — that all true spiritual gifts do have limits. Paul says clearly in 1 Corinthians that they are love, the context of edifying other believers rather than self-focus, and revealed Truth.

Missions motives

I think evangelism out of a sense of guilt [which God can purify] is better than any non-religious motivations.

Okay, so the question in effect is: if the choice is only between a sense of guilt and non-religious motivations, what would we choose? But before trying to figure out the lesser of two evils, I’d vote for a third-party candidate. Yes, in retrospect guilt may seem closer to the right motives for reaching the lost. But that doesn’t mean I’ll whole-heartedly endorse a song that uses overtly anti-Biblical concepts to make a point.

Think of it this way. Someone out there may read a quasi-Christian book, such as The Shack, and eventually come to a faith in God, and a few years later more fully accept the whole Gospel, including the bad news about sin’s separation from God, and the good news of Christ’s atoning death. Now in effect, God used someone reading The Shack to get to Him eventually. He can work His will, despite people’s errors. But should I then go out like some kind of bizarre fatalist and distribute The Shack to all my friends? Or would I better exercise discernment and find the best sorts of books to give to baby Christians?

Here’s an example closer to the real-life song we’re talking about. Let’s say there’s a hymn out there about how Christians ought to be kind and Christlike to each other, forgiving each other just as Christ forgave us, because we belong to Christ (a very Biblical truth; Ephesians 4:32).

Now let’s say the motive for this should be because if we don’t forgive someone before we die, we’ll go to Purgatory and maybe spend a few months or years getting that unconfessed sin cleaned out of us before we’re allowed into Heaven. (To my Catholic friends: we can talk about Purgatory later if you like; this example is strictly for 220 and my other Protestant friends.) The motivation, then, is not out of love for Christ or because we’re His people, but because we’re afraid of punishment. Not cool, not loving, and worse than both of these, not Biblical.

Yet someone could say Well, that’s better than having a Christian refusing to forgive a brother or sister even while he’s on his deathbed! Perhaps so, but does that mean I’ll give the song my full support and not care who it ends up deceiving down the way? or the fact that it cheats God of His glory? or the fact that it denies the clear truths of His Word about the sufficiency of Christ’s death?

Yes, I would try to get such a song taken out of a hymnbook, or a worship service if I had that power — because it’s not Biblical. It doesn’t even prevent one side of God’s nature, or the Gospel, without balance, as some songs do (loving vs. holy, etc.) It presents an entirely anti-Biblical view. Though perhaps we might recognize that the writer’s intentions were good, true Scriptural, spiritual discernment would reject it firmly.

Desiring Hell

However, I’m still not 100% clear on “total depravity” and Calvinism so I could be wrong.

Here’s as short a description as I can manage, taken from a long PM I wrote to someone last year. As I’ve said, Lewis misunderstood the “total depravity” concept, in the way a lot of people do. They assume that it means no one can do anything good and is as bad as an axe murder if he/she is not a Christian. Instead, Total Inability (a better term) says that despite all human acts goodness — which many people do have, thanks to God’s common grace — they cannot read God.

Thanks for being open to hearing the real view! Here’s my best try:

1. T is for Total Depravity

This is the biggest hurdle for some, especially those who want to think of humans as still free, or somehow more morally neutral. Yet Scripture is clear that unredeemed people are slaves to sin, or in fact dead in sin (Ephesians 1-2). Dead people can’t decide to raise themselves. Their hearts aren’t beating, and they’re cold.

Some people think that the phrase should be Total Inability instead, to prevent misunderstanding. That’s because there’s also the Biblical truth that God gives “common grace” to people, sometimes including wealth and generally happy, healthy lives. Or He has governments to keep things generally moral, even if people are not redeemed.

So most people are not as truly “bad as they can be.” Yet from His perspective, they’re still not holy, which is His standard because He’s perfect. In God’s sight, there is nothing, nothing, they can do to seek Him.

“None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God ...” (Romans 3: 9-18). Read that passage — not much in there supports the idea of a human free will separated from sinful nature. You’d almost get the idea that everyone is automatically doomed to be separated from God forever, unless something happens.

The doctrines of Grace specify this is exactly the case. What needs to happen is not only that a person must Decide to be saved, but that God must act to enable that decision by deciding first: Here is the person I want. He or she will be saved.

I didn’t get the idea that Lewis was saying that people “wanted” Hell in the sense of the normal term of wanting.

I think I can correct what I said before, only to say that God doesn’t just send people to Hell as some kind of mercy killing. But yes, people do in effect want it, but not a “normal term of wanting.”

“All get what they want. They do not always like it.”

I think that’s a much better perspective. Humans who deep down want separation from God will find, when they actually receive it, that they do not like it at all. But still, they will hate God forever.

And I would add that if we are to talk about how Hell is what rebel sinners in effect want, that needs to be balanced with the truth that God’s justice is upheld in Hell. He is not weeping and somehow hurt if He punishes someone there. He can be glorified in justice as well as in His love that saves a sinner.

Finally, to Gandalf’s Beard: If you begin to see God as the most glorious according to Scripture, and even the good things humans do not worthy of His favor because of our rebellion against Him, I do hope that recognition of truth will lead beyond a mere intellectual comprehension.

With everyone else here — Pentecostals, charismatics Christ-honoring Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, whatever — I’d encourage you to ponder these truths with your heart as well as mind, and please do stick around the forum even if you don’t truly believe them (that is, Him). ‘Tis always great to have you around (if for nothing else than to show some Christians that common grace affects professing agnostics as well in their attitudes of decorum and kindness).