"Highly Educated Forms of Stupidity"

Last week I found a great article by J. Budziszewski, a philosophy professor at University of Texas, Austin.  It describes his conversion experience, and is titled "Escape from Nihilism".

I was going to post a longer section, but the article is so great that I thought I'd just post this small snippet, and point to the whole article here for the rest.

[A] strong mind that refuses the call to serve the God who made it has its own way of going wrong. When some people run away from God, they rob and kill. When other people go away from God, they do a lot of drugs and have a lot of sex. When still other people run away from God, they just sleep their lives away.

Well, when I fled from God, I didn’t do any of those things. My way of running away from God was to get stupid. I am very serious. Though it always comes as a surprise to intellectuals, there are some forms of stupidity that you have to be highly educated and intelligent to commit, and I discovered them all.

God keeps them in his arsenal to pull down mulish pride.

- J. Budziszewski, in Escape from Nihilism [source]

"The Faulty Mechanism of Evolution"

This post is part of a series of posts that deal with some common Young Earth Creationist (YEC) objections to theistic evolution.  The impetus for these posts came via a comment from a reader on a previous post.  An index of all these posts can be found here.

Here I would like to address this part of Steve’s original comment:

[Y]ou must trust in literally million of totally random occurrences happening over and over and over again through out billions of years. Not to mention that all these random occurrences must take place in such close proximity to each other, and in such a small window of time on order for the two "new" male and female species to find each other and mate before they die. The odds of that are mind boggling. And to believe that this conveniently happened millions of times over? 

Evolutionists do not believe what Steve suggests above.  If what he suggests above were to happen, it would truly be mind boggling.  But this is simply not what evolutionists believe.  This argument shows a complete lack of understanding of the mechanisms behind evolution. 

This type of argument is very common among Young Earth Creationists, and betrays a complete lack of understanding of the belief they claim to dismiss.  How can someone dismiss evolution on the grounds of lack of evidence if they simply do not understand it?

Let me try to clear up three very common errors made by Steve and many other YECs.  The following three points are fundamental to evolutionary theory, and if one doesn’t grasp these points, they simply do not understand the theory.

1) Natural selection is a non-random mechanism

2) Evolution occurs primarily in groups

3) Evolution is a cumulative process

Natural selection is a non-random mechanism

Above, Steve is claiming that evolution isn’t plausible because “millions of totally random occurrences happening over and over and over again throughout billions of years” couldn’t create a new species.  He is totally correct.  Steve (and many other YECs) miss a key aspect to evolutionary theory: natural selection.  Natural selection is non-random because organisms that are able to reproduces more will pass their traits on to their offspring.   Organisms that cannot reproduce will die without passing on the traits that do not let them reproduce.   Evolution occurs when many random mutations are passed through the non-random filter of natural selection, producing a process that is not random.

Evolution is a cumulative process

It is very common for YECs to claim that evolution isn’t plausible because random mutations must occur over and over again, and the probability of this happening is just too small.  This claim falsely assumes that there is no mechanism for maintaining one mutation before the next can occur.  In fact, natural selection is just that mechanism.  Natural selection turns what would be a random process into a cumulative process.  Each mutation that is selected by the environment (because it provides a reproductive advantage) is a stable organism, which reproduces and introduces the mutation into the collective gene pool.

Evolution occurs primarily in groups

The claim made by Steve above falsely assumes that speciation must happen suddenly, where one individual produces another individual of a different species.  In fact, populations of animals gradually evolve, not individuals.   The most easily understood type of this kind of speciation is called allopatric speciation, where one group is separated from the main group.  Due to different environmental pressures, this separated group undergoes cumulative changes that are different from the main group. 

Putting it all together

So evolution occurs when the non-random mechanism of natural selection acts on random genetic variation, over long periods of time, and primarily in groups, not individuals.  If you miss any one of those elements, you simply do not understand evolution, and you are in danger of making ignorant accusations that simply don’t hold water

"The Religion of Evolution"

This post is part of a series of posts that deal with some common Young Earth Creationist (YEC) objections to theistic evolution.  The impetus for these posts came via a comment from a reader on a previous post.  An index of all these posts can be found here.

Here I would like to address this part of Steve’s original comment:

Evolution is the most dogmatic religion there is. In order to believe it you must trust in literally million of totally random occurrences happening over and over and over again through out billions of years.


[And then later]


Would you agree that it takes much less faith to believe a wonderful,loving, all knowing, always present, and all powerful GOD simply created everything perfectly just for us just because he loves us. Why must there be a greater reason or explanation beyond that. Why can't we take his word at face value?

Evolution is not a “greater reason” for God’s creation; it isn’t a reason at all, it is HOW God created, not WHY.  Steve is confusing purpose and mechanism; they are not the same thing.

Furthermore, evolution does not require “faith” and is not “dogmatic” because it is based on evidence.  As I describe in my previous post, there is a vast amount of evidence.  As new observations are made, theories are changed or abandoned to conform to the evidence.  This is exactly the opposite of dogma or the sort of faith implied above.

In fact, young Earth Creationism is actually more dogmatic, because it takes a particular belief, and (flying in the face of the evidence) claims that this is the way it should be, and any claims to the contrary are wrong.  It cannot accept that whatever God has done (As determined by biblical and scientific evidence) is okay.  This is idolatry, and this is wrong.

"The Unproven Theory of Evolution"

This post is part of a series of posts that deal with some common Young Earth Creationist (YEC) objections to theistic evolution.  The impetus for these posts came via a comment from a reader on a previous post.  An index of all these posts can be found here.

Here I would like to address this part of Steve’s original comment:

You might argue the the Bible was written and translated by man, and could have errors (I personalty don't believe this to be the case). But I feel compelled to point out to you that evolution itself is only an idea of man and also may have many errors in it. It's all based on observation with the assumption that certain events occurred. Regardless of what information you've received in your studies of evolution, I assure you, to this day, it has not been proven, and I'm totally confidant that it never will be. No one was there to witness it. There is no documented record of it taking place. No one can, or ever will know for sure.

First of all, we would never expect to observe large changes in organisms directly.  In fact, if scientists observed something like a fish turning into a frog, then we would have some good evidence against evolution.  Evolution occurs mainly by the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time.  Of course it hasn’t been directly observed.

Secondly, there is a documented record of evolution taking place.  In fact, there are several documented records.  The fossil record, biological record, and genetic record are our record of it taking place.  Now, I’m sure the question referred to a written record.  Even though this kind of record should not be expected to exist at all, (and of course does not) this does not mean that we cannot be sure that evolution did not occur.

Nothing in the natural world can be proven with total certainty.  In the claim above, the kind of certainty that is being required is only possible through omniscience, which only God possesses.  However, we can achieve a high degree of certainty by examining the evidence.  In the case of evolution, we have vast amounts of evidence from a wide variety of fields.  In each case, the conclusions from each field test the conclusions from each other field. 

The following is just a selection from the three types of “records” above that show that one must be completely ignorant of the data to claim that there is no evidence for evolution taking place. 

Keep in mind that each piece of evidence checks and supports each other piece – this is important – no single piece proves evolution, but as each piece is added, predictions can be made about what further evidence should show… This is how a phenomenon that is directly unobservable is studied.

• Common ancestry predicts a nested hierarchy (groups within groups).   We in fact see an organized, well-defined, consistent hierarchy ("tree of life").
• Different bodies of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life.   Morphological/physical, genetic, and biochemical evidence all produce the same phylogenies. 
• Animals from the fossil record fit into the same tree of life.   Despite the claims of evolution deniers, transitional forms have been found.
• The animals found in the fossil record are arranged chronologically in order of increasing complexity and as predicted by the tree of life. (Try doing that with a flood.)
• The geographical distributions of species and groups are consistent with their evolutionary history, e.g. marsupials are found only in Australia.  This piece of evidence is still true when fossil evidence is considered.
• Gradual change predicts a similarity in structure despite a difference in function.   As species change and acquire new functions (swimming, flying), old structures must be adapted to the new function.  This is exactly what is observed; the same bones in the same relative positions are used in human hands, bird wings, whale flippers and horse legs.   Additionally, you never see birds with wings and arms, because wings and arms are adaptations of the same structures. 
• Organisms that evolve the same functions independently should show differing structures to accomplish the function.   Octopus eyes and mammal eyes have opposite ordering of layers, because vision was evolved independently, as confirmed by their place in the tree of life.
•  Since new functions are acquired by adapting old structures, often the resulting structure/system is not optimal.  Examples:  We can choke because our digestive system and respiratory system share parts.   We have a blind spot in our vision because of the suboptimal ordering of the layers.  Octopi do not have the blind spot.
•  Speciation does occur and has been observed, despite claims that it has not.  To me, the most compelling examples of speciation in action are "ring species”.  Also, I have cichlid fish in my aquarium that only come from lakes in Africa that have habitats less than 200 years old.   Most YEC accept this because they have to invoke post-flood speciation to explain the possibility of Noah's Ark.
•  Non-functional (junk) DNA shows a remarkable pattern of inheritance.  For me, this is the most convincing and irrefutable evidence of macroevolution.

Now, although this cannot “prove” with 100% certainty that evolution occurred, it is enough to be very certain that one of two scenarios exists:

Either   1) Evolution occurred.

Or        2) God has gone to extreme lengths to make it look like evolution occurred.

Option 2) is neither the God of the Bible, nor a God I want to worship.  Hence, I am convinced that evolution occurred.

"The Slippery Slope of Evolution"

This post is part of a series of posts that deal with some common Young Earth Creationist (YEC) objections to theistic evolution.  The impetus for these posts came via a comment from a reader on a previous post.  An index of all these posts can be found here.

Here I would like to address this part of Steve’s original comment:

Joe, you claim you are a Christian yet you don't believe what the Bible has to say about how existence came into being. If you doubt that part of the Bible, how can you be sure the parts with Jesus in it are true? Or what he said and did are true. If you pick and choose what you will and won't believe, aren't you in fact picking apart the foundations of your faith? If that's the case, what reassurance do you have of you salvation or even of your existence?

First, it is simply untrue to claim that theistic evolutionists “don’t believe what the Bible has to say about how existence came into being.”  What I reject is not what the Bible has to say about origins, but what biblical literalists think the Bible has to say about origins.  I do not “doubt that part of the Bible”; I doubt the biblical literalist interpretation of that part of the Bible.

I believe the Bible (including Genesis) is inspired by God and is trustworthy.  But we need to be very careful about what we say a biblical text is trying to communicate.  More on that later.

Now on to the main point:

The general question can be stated this way:  If the creation account is not taken literally, then why should we take anything else literally, including the stories of Jesus’ death and resurrection?

There is a fundamental difference between the texts containing the creation accounts and the texts containing the narratives of Jesus’ life.   The difference is in the purpose of the original writers, and the literary genre of the texts in question.  If the genre is historical narrative, then there is no reason to interpret it literally, and it would be a mistake to do so.   But if the genre is poetic, prophetic, wisdom, etc., then we must be more careful.

Purpose & Genre of the Gospels

Looking first at the gospels, it is abundantly clear that the purpose of the gospel writers is to provide a historical narrative of the events surrounding Jesus’ birth, life, death and resurrection.  Look at the opening verses of Luke:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.  Luke 1:1-4

Here it is clear that Luke’s intention is to write actual historical facts, as they have been handed down to him, so that his audience (Theophilus) can “know the certainty of the things [he has] been taught”.  There is no reason to view the gospels as anything except historical narrative because it is explicitly stated that the purpose of the text is to communicate actual events as experienced by eyewitnesses.

Purpose & Genre of the Creation Accounts

Now turning to the creation accounts:  It is not so straightforward to determine the authors’ purpose or the literary genre(s) of the texts.  However, when we begin to understand the world in which the creation stories were written, it becomes clear that there are a whole host of reasons why they may have been written other than for scientific/historical reasons. 

The ancient near east (the historical context of the creation accounts) was polytheistic, and the gods themselves were part of creation: The sun and moon were gods, not things created by a single, transcendent God.  The creation stories served the purpose (among many others) of reminding God’s people that their God was different; their God actually created the universe, and wasn’t a part of it.  These stories used already existing myths and re-wrote them to show that Yahweh is not like the gods in which their neighbors believe; Yahweh is creator, and as a result we are accountable to Him.

I’ve discussed this further in a previous post, so please go there for more explanation.  Also, a great book on the subject is The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate by John H. Walton.

Determining Context & Purpose Builds Confidence

I think it is pretty clear that the rejection of the creation stories as literal historical truth does not then lead to a rejection of the historicity of other parts of the Bible, including the life and significance of Jesus Christ.  On the contrary, examining the purpose and context of texts like those describing the life and words of Jesus gives us confidence that the authors were setting out to increase our certainty about Jesus, and give us assurance of the salvation that comes by making Him our Lord and Savior.

More YEC Objections

I recently received a comment on a previous post where (in the post) I discuss the events surrounding my eventual rejection of Young Earth Creationism (YEC).  The comment, (made by someone named Steve) addresses a few of the big issues YECs have with theistic evolution.  These objections are also pretty common, so I thought I’d devote a few posts to answering Steve’s questions.

Steve’s entire comment is below, followed by an index to the posts addressing his objections.

Joe, you claim you are a Christian yet you don't believe what the Bible has to say about how existence came into being. If you doubt that part of the Bible, how can you be sure the parts with Jesus in it are true? Or what he said and did are true. If you pick and choose what you will and won't believe, aren't you in fact picking apart the foundations of your faith? If that's the case, what reassurance do you have of you salvation or even of your existence?

You might argue the the Bible was written and translated by man, and could have errors (I personalty don't believe this to be the case). But I feel compelled to point out to you that evolution itself is only an idea of man and also may have many errors in it. It's all based on observation with the assumption that certain events occurred. Regardless of what information you've received in your studies of evolution, I assure you, to this day, it has not been proven, and I'm totally confidant that it never will be. No one was there to witness it. There is no documented record of it taking place. No one can, or ever will know for sure.

Evolution is the most dogmatic religion there is. In order to believe it you must trust in literally million of totally random occurrences happening over and over and over again through out billions of years. Not to mention that all these random occurrences must take place in such close proximity to each other, and in such a small window of time on order for the two "new" male and female species to find each other and mate before they die. The odds of that are mind boggling. And to believe that this conveniently happened millions of times over? 

Would you agree that it takes much less faith to believe a wonderful,loving, all knowing, always present, and all powerful GOD simply created everything perfectly just for us just because he loves us. Why must there be a greater reason or explanation beyond that. Why can't we take his word at face value? 

Index to posts:

Part 1: The Slippery Slope of Evolution 
(If Genesis isn't true, what about Jesus?)

Part 2: The Unproven Theory of Evolution 
(Nobody saw evolution happen!)

Part 3: The Religion of Evolution 
(Evolution takes too much faith!)

Part 4: The Faulty Mechanism of Evolution
(Evolution just doesn't work!)

Some new faces around here...

I knew something was up when I saw the traffic for my blog yesterday:

It turns out that David Heddle over at the blog He Lives has mentioned my posts on Calvinism.  When a nobody like me gets mentioned on a great blog like He Lives, StatCounter is sure to go into a tizzy.  This has happened once before, with similar results.

In both cases, the bloggers in question have disagreed with me, which is really great.  I'm used to a religious environment where conformity is highly valued, and questions are seen as a lack of faith.  I long for a church family where open questions are encouraged, and certainty is acknowledged as the elusive vapor it really is.  (That sounds postmodern, but I've had that label thrown at me too many times in the last week, so keep it to yourself, okay?)

In any case, here are a couple posts from He Lives regarding Calvinism and the issues I've been discussing lately:

Sproul chapter two: God's Sovereignty
Sproul chapter three: Free Will

Enjoy!

A Depraved Idea (Quote of the Day)

Here is the quote of the day for April 22, 2010.  This one made me smile; A nice surprise in the middle of a long day.

"I don't believe in Total Depravity, and think the idea is totally depraved." -My friend Mark (here)

Total Depravity and Calvinism's Ugly God

This sunday my Pastor preached a sermon on the topic of Total Depravity, or as he put it: "Your Instincts Stink." You can hear it online (at least for a few weeks) here. This is the kind of sermon that makes me want to look for an Arminian church, not because I dislike my church, (on the contrary, I love it and the people there) but because sermons like this can damage my faith.

My pastor did an excellent job communicating the Calvinist belief that man cannot accomplish anything good on his own. This ideas was expressed via the teachings of Johnathan Edwards and Augustine that

"Man will always act according to his strongest inclination at that moment."

Now, the idea here is that our inclinations (and therefore our actions) are (because of the fall) always evil, and only by the grace of God can we do anything good, including believe and have faith. Salvation is accomplished solely by God, through the sacrifice of Jesus and the election of God's chosen people who are able to believe through power given them by God. Going back to the Edwards/Augustine quote above, God changes our inclinations, allowing us to act differently, to believe, and to be saved. Man has absolutely no part in it anything.

I can see how this is comforting. The ball is in God's court. I don't have to worry about it. But to me it is extremely troubling. If you always act according to your strongest inclinations, you have absolutely no ability to change the course of your life whatsoever. You may think you can simply examine your inclinations/motivations, (this was suggested in the sermon) and try to change them, but if this idea is correct, the action you took to examine your motivations was in iteself a response to your strongest inclination at that moment. You are a deterministic being. Your life has already been determined, and your future actions, thoughts, feelings, and emotions are already determined, unless God intervines.

Of course the whole Calvinist system is based on the belief that (for the elect) God WILL intervine, and help us change our inclinations, giving us the ability to believe in Jesus and be saved.

But that's not the only problem with Calvinism. As I've discussed before, the problem of evil is a very difficult one for anyone who believes in a personal god. The ugly God of Calvinism is a god who created this world, orchastrated evil, saves some people of His own choosing, and damns the rest to hell for not believing something that isn't true. Calvinism heightnens the problem of evil so greatly that a better alternative is that God does not exist at all.

I think the Arminian system gives a much more believable (and palletable) scenario, while still taking seriously what the Bible says about election: That God, by his grace, created man with a choice, and "elects" some by pursuing them, (perhaps as a result of their choices) and further enabling them to choose better still.

A Calvinist might say "But you are undermining Gods soverignty! God is in control, not man!" Blogger Ken Schenck at the blog Quadrilateral Thoughts answers this well:

"If God can create the world out of nothing, then He is certainly able to empower a person, by his prevenient grace, to reach the smallest point of volition ex nihilo, a point of the barest will either to remain depraved as they are or to signify ever so slightly a desire for more grace... leading to God's empowerment to signify a desire for more grace still. Would you suggest that God is not clever enough to figure out how to do this, to empower totally depraved humanity to begin to make a choice?"

Now back to what I mentioned above, about sermons like this, and how they can damage my faith:  There is nothing wrong with going to a church that teaches ideas that are contrary to your own beliefs.  If one is actively engaged with their faith, and continually examining their beliefs, this is inevitable.  But when ideas like this are presented in a way that suggests something is wrong if you don't totally agree, or that there isn't room for discussion, I begin to wonder if I am worshiping in the right place.  I'm not suggesting that any belief be accepted as equal, but some discussion of alternate (but equally biblical) views should be accepted.

Of course, a Calvinist would claim that Arminianism is unbiblical based on their selected proof texts...

Justice, The Image of God, and Calvinism

A couple weeks ago, our Sunday School class discussed "The Image of God", and what that might be.  We divided up into groups and listed several possibilities.  At the top of virtually every groups list were entries like "morality", "sense of right and wrong" and "desire for justice".  Our deeply-rooted sense of injustice when we're wronged [Hey, that's not fair!] seems to be the human trait that we believe comes directly from God himself.

[As a side note, it was interesting to see how absent any form of "physical appearance" was from our lists.  It seems that modern science has finally eradicated (at least among the people present) the delusion that our bodies somehow uniquely reflect a portion of God's being.]

There are, of course, good reasons why we believe that our morality and desire for justice is also a fundamental characteristic of Gods.  Throughout the Bible we see God fighting for justice, or commanding his followers to seek justice.  Countless passages tell of  how God "loves justice" (Isaiah 61:8, Psalm 33:5) and hates those who make unjust laws or withhold justice (Isaiah 10:1-4, Deuteronomy 27:19).  So it seems that we share with God a fundamental desire for fairness, justice, and righteousness, and this may be what is meant by "the image of God".

As I thought about this conversation in the days after the class, I began to wonder why Calvinists don't see a terrible problem with their cherished theological system...

A Calvinist believes that God is the only entity involved in our salvation in any way; He conceives, initiates, and completes the salvation of "the elect" without any contribution from them at all.  They believe that some people are created for the sole purpose of eternal destruction, while others are created to be the objects of God's love, and are destined for eternal life.  According to Calvinists, there is absolutely no difference between the two types of people other than Gods choice.

If your "injustice meter" isn't red-lined, get it checked.

So I ask the question:  How could a God who is so concerned with justice invent a system that is so unjust?  I think the answer is simple:  He couldn't.

I'm reminded of a poem I read a few years ago by Charles Wesley, which discusses what he calls "The Calvinistic Conundrum".  Here's a small portion:

Oh Horrible Decree

Worthy of whence it came!

Forgive their hellish blasphemy

Who Charge it on the Lamb. 

The righteous God consigned

Them over to their doom,

And sent the Savior of mankind

To damn them from the womb;

To damn for falling short

Of what they could not do

For not believing the report

Of that which was not true.

What are my "religious views"??

What should I call myself?

Lately I've been wondering what I should call myself.  Specifically, what would I say are my "Religious views"?  Currently in my Facebook profile I don't have anything listed.  The reasons for this are complicated. In short, I'd rather not identify myself with any particular group, because in every group there are whackos that believe things or act in ways that I'd rather not be associated with.  I have no problem sharing my faith with someone who is asking, but I'm not going to call myself "Christian" when the term can mean so many different things to different people.

What other people call themselves

Out of curiousity, I took a little "survey" of my facebook friends that also go to my church.  Of the 50 or so that fit that category, here is what they had listed as their "religious views":

Christ Follower    17
Nothing at all     14
Christian          13
Baptist             4

There were also several unique entries that I'll discuss below.

I was surprised at how few people actually put "Baptist", although I do go to a pretty un-Baptist Baptist church.  (We just changed our name to take the word "Baptist" out of our name...)

Also interesting is the dominance of "Christ follower".  I suspect the reason for this is a sermon our pastor gave a while ago where he made a pitch for that term.  While I don't mind it, it's prett un-original, and that disqualifies it for me.

In any case, I've had the desire to actually fill that space with something, since several other entries in my profile indicate that I do have beliefs of some kind.  Here are the other unique "religious views" of some of my other facebook friends:

The supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples in and through Jesus Christ!
Jesus is LORD
Set Free
Redeeming love has been my plea...
I don't believe in atheists
I'm saved by grace, thru faith, not because of anything I've done - it's a gift of God!
Godfearer
Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords
God is my ALL

Some of those are interesting, but none are exactly what I'm looking for.  I'm looking for something that shows exactly where I am:  Pretty much in line with a lot of traditional Protestant beliefs (but not all) but with a desire to stretch those beliefs as far as I can.  I question not for the sake of questioning, but to test these beliefs to see what is strong and what is weak, what is worth keeping, and what is open for change.

Options

So far I've kicked around a lot of labels, but most have been disqualified because they seem too arrogant. (Some also don't really fit me anyway)  This category includes:

Thinking Christian
Discerning Christian
Intelligent Christian
Maverick Christian
Open-minded Christian
Reasonable Christian
Reasoning Christian
Intellectual Christian
Rational Christian
Freethinking Christian

Other labels that come close but are too negative (emphasizing the questioning or skeptical side of my faith) include:

Skeptical Christian
Doubting Christian
Questioning Christian

Current Possibilities

So far, there are two options that I am still considering.  Here's the first:

Heterodox Christian

Wikipedia gives this description of the term:

The term heterodox is occasionally used by some Christians to refer to themselves when they are in disagreement with orthodox understandings, but voice this disagreement while still maintaining the overall value of the tradition. The heterodox Christian therefore remains in the tradition and attempts to stimulate constructive dialog around issues with which they disagree. [source]

I like that!  I have a friend that this term fits perfectly (way better than it fits me) but I still like it a lot.  However, the word "heterodox" has some pretty negative connotations, and I'm sure it would make friends and family worry more than I'd like.

The final option I'm considering is simply to put one or more scripture references.

Right now I would probably use the following:

Mark 12:30, Acts 17:11

or simply

I Thessalonians 5:21

I'm also considering:

Luke 12:57
Isaiah 1:18
Proverbs 10:14
Prov 19:2
Mark 9:24
Phil 1:9-10
1 Cor 10:15

Any Suggestions?

So what about you?  What do you have on your facebook profile?  Do you have any suggestions for me?

Taking God's Sovereignty Too Far?

Today in our Sunday school class, the teacher spoke on the subject "What every Christian should know about SIN".  Naturally, the subject of evil, it's origin, and effect on creation was high on his list of discussion topics.

The teacher, coming from a strongly Calvinistic viewpoint, emphasized the soverignty of God while maintaining that God allowed sin, but did not originate sin.  From this perspective, there really is no reason sin must exist, except to create a problem for which there is only one solution: Jesus Christ.

This is obviously (at least to me) a pretty weak argument, and I suspect most who hold to it would recognize this.  That's why the age-old fall back of "mystery" is so often peddled as the stop-gap between our common sense and the weaknesses of a particular theological position.

During the Q&A portion of the class, someone brought up the solution to this problem I think is most viable: That evil is the result of God's choice to give us the ability to sin; Evil exists in the world because a world without freedom is a world without love. We were created by God to love him, and true love cannot be forced.

The response from the teacher was something about being cautious that we don't undermine God's sovereignty, and the mystery of the balance between God's control over everything (including our choices) and the fact that God holds us responsible for our choices.

Why is it so horrible to suggest that God might choose to limit himself, specifically that he might limit his power over our own choices?

It's not like there isn't any biblical precident:  The doctrince of divine kenosis (self-limiting) in the person of Jesus is well known and accepted.  Why is it so scandalous to suggest that God would choose to limit himself in other ways?  Isn't that the story of Adam and Eve; That God gives them the REAL choice to obey or not?  Haven't we distorted this story into something else in order to defend the soverignty of God?

And I won't even mention open theology. (oh, wait... I just did)

Am I missing something, or is it plainly obvious that God's choice to limit himself does not diminish his sovereignty in any way?

What's the big deal?