The Slam

2008-05-30T10:04:00.000-07:00

Why Me?

So I am speaking this Sunday at Image on the topic of suffering (i.e. "Why Me?"), and have been doing lots and lots of reading, listening, studying the Bible, etc. It never ceases to amaze me how many *different* reasons people have for why there is suffering (speaking specifically of Christians here), when the Bible seems to be so clear as to what the underlying reason(s) actually are.

Don't get me wrong - it isn't that God gives us all the details in each and every case. In fact, I believe he rarely does this. In most cases we end up suffering knowing some general truths (God will use this for our good, in our suffering we realize our dependence upon God, in the end God will receive glory, etc.) but we don't get to know the specifics as to *how* God uses any given instance of suffering to accomplish these things. This tends to frustrate me to no end. How about you?

We seem to be constituted in such a way that knowing *all* the details, from A to Z, somehow makes suffering easier to manage. The problem with this is twofold. First, as I mentioned above, this rarely if ever happens. Second, when it *does* happen, it takes our focus off of where it should be - God. In effect, it undermines much of what God intends to accomplish in us during our suffering, namely a realization of our utter dependence on his grace for all we have.

My mom was sharing with me the other day regarding some suffering she and dad are going through in their lives, and passed to me this little nugget of truth found in Proverbs 25:2.

"It is the glory of God to conceal things,
but the glory of kings is to search things out."

The Hebrew word for "glory" here is kä·bode', which has the typical definition of:

a) abundance, splendor
b) honour, splendor, glory
c) honour, dignity
d) honour, reputation
e) honour, reverence, glory
f) glory

So perhaps what God is telling us here is that a lack of knowledge on our part (for why we are suffering, or just in general) brings glory to God because the alternative would cause us to think we had it all figured out - in essence, to think higher of ourselves than we ought. And isn't that the basic problem with sin in the first place?

-- Brian

2008-03-24T06:32:00.000-07:00

The Offensiveness of Christianity

It has been a chore for me to blog as of late, but as I was researching something for the homegroup I lead, I came across the following snippet from an article by Greg Bahnsen.

"Christianity does not claim to be relatively true, but absolutely and universally so. Furthermore, as a religious system it claims to be exclusively true. This is naturally quite offensive in a pluralistic, democratic age. "Everybody has a right to believe about God what they wish," we will be reminded. But that is not the point. The right to believe something does not translate it into something which is true. Some religious perspectives teach that there are a variety of ways of reaching God or serving Him (or It) -- many paths to the top of the mountain. Christianity is not one of them, though. Eclectic and smorgasbord approaches to religion may wish to incorporate Christianity into their religious options (one more of many), but in the nature of the case Christianity cannot be assimilated to their outlook. Christianity claims that Christ alone is the divine Savior, claims that only through Him can anyone be right with God, and claims that what we believe about God is restricted to what He reveals about Himself (thus excluding human imagination)."

The full article titled "Answering Objections" can be found here on the Covenant Media Foundation website.

I find a very important truth in Dr. Bahnsen's words that I want to highlight, namely that the claims of Christianity are "naturally quite offensive in a pluralistic, democratic age." This is extremely important for us as Christians as we interact with those who do not share our faith. If we are living our lives as we are called to do, following the philosophy of Christ as opposed to the philosophy of this world (Col. 2:8), then the explanation that we give for any claims we make in any realm of life should ultimately find its basis in scripture. It is just this appeal to scripture as the foundation of our lives that will consistently lead to altercations with non-Christians. How pleasant or unpleasant these interactions may be depends a great deal on how we handle them.

Remember that although non-Christians will often find the exclusive, absolute claims of the Bible to be offensive (1 Cor. 1:23), we are called to answer their questions in a gentle and respectful manner (1 Pet. 3:15), rather than in a contentious manner that only serves to further their opposition to the Bible (2 Tim. 2:23-26). How do we accomplish this without watering down the truth of God's word (John 17:17)?

Sharing an Offensive Message Without Being Offensive

There is a marked difference between sharing a message that is offensive, and sharing a message (offensive or not) in an offensive manner. Consider by way of an example the case of a friend who has personal hygiene that leaves much to be desired. You could certainly approach them with the direct question "do you realize that you smell horrible?" Even though this may be the case, meaning that the message itself is indeed offensive, there is no need to share the message in such an offensive manner.

When it comes to the gospel message, there are no doubt elements that non-Christians may find offensive. The claim that a person is a sinner can be a very offensive claim, especially if that person is "good" according to the standard of the culture they live in. In fact, this is one of the main reasons that non-Christians do not accept the "solution" that the gospel provides - they don't see any "problem" that needs to be solved. On top of the claim that all are sinners, the claim that Jesus is the only way to reconciliation with God can also be offensive, especially if the non-Christian happens to already hold a competing religious view.

Regardless of the offense of the message itself, we are called to share it, simply because it is true! The question then is not whether we should share this potentially offensive message, but rather how we should share it.

We see the answer to this question both in the life of Christ, and in the words of Paul as written to Timothy.

Following the Example of Christ

Jesus came to seek and save that which was lost (Luke 19:10), which is a crucial truth that we can never lose sight of. The motivation of Jesus was to help those who were in need, not to rail upon them for being in such a bad way, despite the fact that they were. It is true that Christ's ultimate motivation was to bring glory to the Father, but the central way that he accomplished this goal was by loving sinful man. Time and time again scripture states that Jesus had compassion (Matt. 9:36, Matt. 14:14, Matt. 15:32, Matt. 20:34), the result of which was always an action. The love of Christ for lost sinners always resulted in action, the greatest of which was his willing sacrifice at Calvary.

The methodology of Christ in sharing the truth was to love people; to show them compassion and meet their needs while simultaneously and unashamedly proclaiming the truth of who he was (the Messiah), who they were (sinners), and why they needed to have faith in him.

Following the Commands of Scripture

There is but one scriptural way to share the gospel, or defend one's faith - with gentleness and respect (1 Pet. 3:15). What does this look like in action? Paul tells us in 2 Timothy 2:23-26.

23Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. 24And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

This is truly where the rubber meets the road. We are to be "kind to everyone", as one who is "patiently enduring evil" and engaged in correcting our opponents with gentleness.

When a simple sharing of the gospel turns ugly as if often does due to the offensive nature of what we are sharing, we have two different ways we can respond. One is to take offense at the offense being taken, and begin to rail upon the one we should be loving instead. We can beat our unsaved friends and relatives over the head with the word of God and rationalize our actions by assuring ourselves that we are simply "telling it the way it is". This has become way too easy to do in the less-than-personal world of the internet. People say things in email or on discussion boards that they would never say to someone they were standing in front of. The impersonal medium of the internet has been the catalyst for a whole new breed of "militant Christians" whose entire world revolves around "flaming" as many unbelievers as possible. Don't get me wrong - I am not blaming the medium of the internet for this; rather, I am blaming the messenger's abuse of it.

The more appropriate way to respond is to be kind, patient, and gentle. We are to teach those who do not believe about the love of God, not only in the message we share but in the way we share it. One of the main complaints against Christianity is the perception of hypocrisy. Unbelievers aren't stupid. On the contrary, they know enough about Jesus and his commands to see the hypocrisy of furthering a message of love by using insults and hateful speech. If we pray for those who are lost and speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15) then we have done all we are commanded to do; all that we can do. for that matter. The rest is up to God, to grant them repentance (2 Tim. 2:25).

-- Brian

2008-01-04T03:09:00.000-08:00

God's Motivation - A Demonstration

One of the things I have noticed over the past few years of debating and defending my faith with a host of skeptics is that there is a common thread behind most of their questions. It goes something like this - "why would God do that?". Why would God ask Abraham to sacrifice his son - didn't he already know what he would do? Why would God punish people for eternity in Hell for something as simple as unbelief? Why would God require the shedding of blood (especially a human) as a way to atone for sins? Why would God create people who would disobey him? Why, why, why??

These are all excellent questions, and there are many, many more. Excellent because they cause us to really dig deep for answers, the result of which is the strengthening of our faith. In particular, they cause us to ask the foundational question "what is God's motivation for doing what he does?" Over the next few days -- or perhaps weeks and months -- I am going to take a look at the ways in which scripture demonstrates the answer to this question, which is found in Romans 11:36:

"For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen"

The general principle that we can take from the verse as it pertains to God's motivation is that everything that is, everything that exists, happens, and in turn everything that God does is for him. "For ... to him are all things. To him be glory forever." God's glory is the ultimate motivation for everything that God does.

God's ultimate motivation is not to make us happy; it is not to provide for us; it isn't even to save people. This is not the ultimate reason that God has for all that he does. There is something far greater, more foundational at work behind the scenes of all the good and bad and ugly that we experience in this fallen world.

-- Brian

2007-12-14T10:49:00.000-08:00

Christianity is a Relationship, Not a Religion

I know I am going to get in trouble with this, but here goes ...

The catch phrase "Christianity is a Relationship, Not a Religion" has, I suspect, only come into use over the past few years. I don't know its origin (I suppose I could look it up in Wikipedia or Google it), but I do know when I started to hear it. It was about 7 or 8 years ago at a church I was attending. I believe it showed up in some Sunday School material, and then seemed to permeate throughout the entire church. In fact, it used to be used as a reason for why something was the way it was. For instance, someone would make a comment and then end it with "after all, Christianity is a relationship, not a religion."

Don't get me wrong - I know exactly what is being said here. I grew up a Baptist, and constantly heard about other religions (and other denominations within Christianity) being way too "religious" in their faith; the idea being that they were more concerned about tradition and works and the details of their particular set of beliefs and not so concerned with their "personal relationship with Jesus Christ."

The point in using such a catch phrase is, I think, to try and emphasize the "personal" aspects of Christianity - personal in that we have a God who is intimately involved in our lives, we have a saviour who loves us and intercedes for us with the Father, and we have the Holy Spirit living inside of us! That's a rather personal belief system.

Here is the problem - Christianity is, without a doubt, a religion. So to say that Christianity is a relationship but not a religion is to tell an untruth. Here is the definition of religion:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

According to this definition, Christianity is a religion, just as Isalm and Judaism are religions.

Words have definitions, and when we communicate with those around us we need to be careful to understand what we sound like to others when we use words just because those words have definitions. To say that Christianity is not a religion, is to ultimately sound foolish because the common usage of the word "religion" defines a category that Christianity fits squarely within.

We do not have the privilege to simply redefine words because we may not like what baggage might be attached to those words, and such is (I believe) the reason for this catch phrase. Instead, I think we need to stress the tenets of Christianity; we should be very clear when we communicate what our beliefs are to indicate that we are not the members of a religion that is so concerned with being "religious" in the way that term is all too often understood. We must also be sure to express the personal nature of our belief system; especially as it relates to God.

Christianity is indeed a religion, but it is also a relationship with our glorious creator God through Jesus Christ our LORD.

-- Brian

2007-11-26T09:27:00.000-08:00

More Great Light

I am currently in the process of post-processing wedding photos from earlier this year in preparation for putting together a photo album, and came across a picture of the wedding cake that is just fantastic. This is such a big deal for me, because I rarely shoot pictures that I would classify as "fantastic". And lest you think I am simply blowing my own horn here, I had at least two other people say they thought it was fantastic as well :) No, really, I did!

The challenge for me was to figure out *why* the picture looked as good as it did. I knew it was a quality of light issue, but thought there was more to it. In the end, I enlisted the help of other photographers in the SmugMug forum (known as Digital Grin), and got their input as well.

The more I learn about photography, the more I learn how important light really is - especially in showing "depth".

There is this type of light known as "flat lighting", which means (as you can probably guess) that there is equal light coming from all sides of the subject. The result of this is that the subject looks very flat - as opposed to 3D. If you are a novice at photography, then you might not even know this is what is going on. All you can probably tell is that the photograph doesn't look as good as you would like it to. This is *exactly* the type of light you get from direct, on-camera flash, by the way. This is why it is *always* a good idea (when using flash) to either take the flash off-camera, or to bounce it off a wall to your left or right, which essentially takes that flash off camera (along with making it much softer).

Here is the photo in question:

Notice a couple of things about the lighting here:

1) There are absolutely no harsh shadows - the light is very "soft". Some of the light is coming from ambient light streaming through windows into the room, which helps to give the warm look to the photo.
2) The left of the entire cake and tablecloth is brighter than the right (there is a shadow on the right). This helps to give "depth" to the photo, and was accomplished by bouncing my flash off the wall to my left. In this case, since the color of the wall was very close to the color of the cake and tablecloth, there was no color cast to get rid of in post-processing.
3) There is a highlight on the right side of the cake that is most noticeable on the bottom tier. I am unsure of the source of this light (sorry, I didn't plan it that way :) ).
4) In addition to the lighting of the cake, the cake itself is just gorgeous, the room is very formal and there is really nothing distracting in the background. Also, the placement of the napkin, plates, and bouquet is very natural looking (no, I didn't place them there).

All in all, it has been a fun study of a "lucky" shot I got more than 3 months ago, and has inspired me to start looking more for these lighting scenarios when I am actually taking the picture.

-- Brian

2007-11-21T11:20:00.000-08:00

The Problem with Pragmatism

In present day apologetical encounters, one is sure to eventually come across an unbeliever who claims that we should not believe the Bible because science has proven it to be untrustworthy. After much back and forth, the apologist may feel a tad bit overwhelmed as the unbeliever responds to point after point with scientific proof and evidences that support their contention. If the apologist disagrees with the conclusions that these scientists have come to, then they find themselves in the unenviable position of having to prove that the conclusions these scientists have come to are wrong.

In addition, the unbeliever may stress that what the Christian has to offer is mere subjective opinion, whereas what science has to offer are “facts” which are “objective” and derived from “repeatable” observations. It is no surprise, then, that the apologist finds himself in a very precarious position. After all, how can the apologist become sufficiently educated in all the various areas of scientific study in order to come up with a meaningful rebuttal to each and every criticism that is raised? How can he or she keep track of all the latest discoveries and “revelations” that are occurring on a daily basis, and (furthermore) determine which are valid and which are not? A daunting task, if one chooses to take this approach.

To add to this frustration, consider what 1 Pet. 3:15 has to say -

“but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, 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” [ESV] (emphasis mine)

If you weren’t aware that there was Biblical warrant for *always* being “prepared”, well now you know!

As the saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat (sorry all you cat lovers), and this is definitely the case when it comes to apologetics. One approach is to attack the conclusions of science themselves, and demonstrate that they are incorrect. However, that is certainly not the *only* way, nor the most effective in my mind, and here is why.

All unbelievers, scientific in their criticisms or not, have to answer the same basic questions - just as believers do. Regardless of the criticisms being leveled against the claims of the Bible, those making the criticisms have foundational questions which must first be answered, before their claims can even be evaluated. For the unbeliever appealing to science to support their criticism of the Bible, the most foundational question is this - “why should we accept science as a method for determining truth?” When it comes to the trustworthiness of the Bible, *truth* is exactly what is being challenged, after all.

If an unbeliever says “this particular claim in the Bible is not true”, then they have taken upon themselves the burden of giving a *reason* why the claim in question is not true. If their reason is because science has concluded something to the contrary, then they now bear the burden of demonstrating why a scientific conclusion is to be accepted as true, as opposed to a conclusion drawn from the Bible.

If you happen to raise this challenge to the unbeliever, be prepared for all variety of backlash. (Please note, I am not saying *all* unbelievers are like this - or even *most* - only that I have encountered enough who respond in this way to confidently state that it is not unlikely for you to encounter similar responses). What types of responses might you get if you challenge science as a means for determining truth? There are a variety, actually, but a very common one is this - “we use science because it works.”

One must at this point ask the question “exactly what do you mean when you say science ‘works’”? It isn’t that you don’t necessarily understand what is meant by the word as it is being used, but rather that you want your unbelieving friend to stop and think about what they are really saying. “It works” implies that “it” (whatever it happens to be) facilitates our ability to accomplish the goals that we set out to accomplish.

Just look at all science has done for us, after all - it has healed disease, extended our lives, made those lives more comfortable, increased dramatically our ability to communicate and transport things across great distances, etc. So, when someone claims to have “scientific proof” that the Bible is not entirely true, it is only natural to sit up and take notice.

Herein lies the problem. The fact that we Christians are so easily taken in by such phrases as “scientific proof” should be bothersome to us. After all, what is it about the fact that science “works” that should lead us to so blindly accept that the conclusions it comes to are true? Just what kind of “reason” for accepting scientific conclusions is this, after all?

What the unbeliever is doing (whether they are aware or not) when they appeal to the claim that “science works”, is offering a pragmatic justification for accepting that scientific conclusions are true. The problem here is that there is no necessary correlation between something “working” and the purported “truth” of the foundational premises used to accomplish the goal in question.

Let me state this a bit differently, and then follow up by way of example.

There is a distinction between “reason” in the sense of a motivation, and “reason” in the sense of logical justification. Many times in this type of discussion, definitions are blurred and equivocation occurs, making it difficult to see this difference.

For instance, when the question is asked “why trust scientific conclusions?” and the answer comes back “because science works”, the “reason” here is really just an explanation of the motivation behind the decision to trust science in this way. The “reason”, as stated, is not a logical justification for believing that the associated premises are true.

Let’s look at an example in the realm of moral justification to make this easier to see. Let’s say a husband abuses his wife. When you ask this man what the reason is for this abuse, he may answer “because it makes me feel good” - in other words, for this man “it works”. This “reason” is simply an expression of his motivation, it is *not* a moral justification for his actions (unless he has a very warped moral standard).

In the same sense, one can offer pragmatism as a motivation for accepting scientific conclusions as truthful, but that is a far cry [i.e. categorically distinct] from offering a logical justification for accepting them as truthful. Pragmatism as a logical reason fails miserably.

The problem with offering the justification “we use science because it works” is that one must also justify that which “works”. In other words, if science allows us to accomplish some particular goal, then one must justify that this particular goal is what we should logically be pursuing.

Even then, using pragmatism as a justification still fails because it is possible to accomplish the same goal by following distinct sets of beliefs which are contradictory to one another. Since there is no logical way for sets of contradictory beliefs to both be true, the fact that either or both allows us to accomplish what we want cannot logically entail that they are representative of reality (i.e. what they claim to be true is in fact true.)

Take the goal of being a moral individual. Since both Judaism and Christianity hold to a belief that one should do this, one could accomplish that goal while accepting either the entire belief system of Judiasm *or* of Christianity. These two belief systems, however, contain contradictory beliefs (especially as regarding the person and nature of Jesus Christ).

If you ask a member of either belief system “why do accept the tenets of your faith as true?” they could both honestly answer “because it facilitates me being a moral individual” - in other words, “because it works”. The only thing different between this line of questioning and the line of questioning above is what the “it” is (i.e. the goal) that “works”. In this example, it is being a moral individual, whereas in the example above pertaining to scientific conclusions, it is being able to predict with a good degree of accuracy, the outcome of future events.

Pragmatic justification, therefore, can only provide a motivation for accepting something as true, but can never provide a logical justification for accepting something is true.

This has direct bearing on the issue at hand - whether or not it is rational to accept claims from science as “gospel” when it comes to the question of evaluating claims in the Bible to be true, just because science “works”. The answer is no, it is not. Since pragmatism does not provide a logical rationale for believing scientific conclusions are true, it does not provide a logical rationale for concluding that Biblical claims that contradict the claims of science must therefore be false.

Let me make a couple of points clear in closing that I should have stated already. First, I am not “anti-science”. Second, I am not claiming that science is *not* useful, or (even more to the point) that no claims of science are true! The only point I am making here is that the statement “because it works” is an insufficient answer as to why we should accept scientific conclusions over against Biblical ones.

Clear as mud? :)

As always, comments are welcome!

-- Brian

2007-11-14T18:30:00.000-08:00

Busted!

So I spent the last hour trying to clean shards of glass out of my 28-70mm lens.

Here's the short story: I was at church taking pictures of my daughter winning a book award at AWANA (they told me in advance she would be getting a trophy). I brought two lenses with me - my 85mm f/1.4 (for low light) and my 28-70mm f/2.8 (for low light and zoom). As I was trying out both lenses to see which would give me the most flexibility, I placed the 28-70mm lens on the table behind me; well (or so I thought) away from the edge.

As I was taking some test shots with the 85mm lens, I turned and my jacket must have somehow caught the lens behind me on the counter. It came crashing down (about 4 feet) to the floor, and I heard a sickening cracking sound. I picked up the lens and could here the bits and pieces of my filter bouncing around inside the lens cap - at least I hoped it was the filter and not the lens itself.

In this case, I am not quite sure what part of the lens struck the floor. There are no visible marks on the lens or the casing - this thing is a workhorse and very durable. The filter itself is not quite as durable, and so I imagine it was simply the shock of the lens falling 4 feet that caused it to shatter as it did.

My challenge for tomorrow? Trying to figure out how to clean off the tiny shards of glass from the filter that are still stuck to the surface of the lens. Word to the wise: NEVER take a cloth (even a microfiber) and simply run it across the lens to clean off things like this, as you will without a doubt leave small surface scratches on the lens.

-- BK

2007-11-14T09:54:00.000-08:00

Seeing the Light

I attended a course in photographic lighting techniques yesterday, and had a wonderful time. For me it was more of a review than anything else, as I had already attended the same course (at a different location) back in the spring/summer of this year. Because of this, I took a little more time to take photos while the hands-on portion of the class was going on. It was that, or just sit around and wait for the next lecture segment :)

Although the class was on how to best make use of on-camera flash, the first room we shot in had this terrific quality of light that I have not seen before. While the rest of the class was taking turns photographing a model by the window, I was taking pictures of the rest of the class photographing a model by the window. As I did not wish to intrude or impact their photos, I took all the pictures making use of available light only. It wasn't until I looked at the photos after the fact that I noticed how great the lighting was.

One of my favorite photos was of Neil (the instructor) watching over the shoulder of one of the students

I think the amazing quality of light came from the fact that the sky was mostly overcast (think "diffused, soft light") and that there was a bank of large windows letting this light stream in and bounce around on the brick walls and off the hardwood floor. We don't often stop to think about this, but all of that bouncing off those warm-toned surfaces definitely introduces a warm color-cast to the light. So what I had was warm, soft light bathing my subjects.

The rest of the pictures can be found here.

-- BK

2007-11-12T16:24:00.001-08:00

What's on the Table for Tomorrow

Tomorrow I am attending a lighting/exposure seminar put on by Neil van Neikerk. I attended this same seminar back in the Spring (at least I think that's when it was), and got so much out of it I am going to attend it again! Neil has a great web site where he explains much of the magic behind the great photos he takes. He is of the mindset that trying to shoot using available light (i.e. without a flash/strobe) is rarely the best choice; that it is always possible to improve upon the quality of your photo by intelligent use of flash. Given the power/portability/smarts of today's flash units, it only makes sense to make use of them as often as ... well ... as often as it makes sense :)

I highly recommend this course (and web site) to anyone who wants to get consistent and good looking photos.

Another favorite site of mine is Strobist. This is actually a blog that goes into a great degree of detail with examples and such. These two sites are philosophically very close - the only difference I have been able to find is that the Strobist recommends that "off camera" flash be used most if not all the time, whereas Neil is more into "on camera" flash that is bounced. Both have their place, depending on the event and venue.

With that said, perhaps I will report back (with examples) on some of my own experiments that have come out of this class and this blog!

-- BK

2007-11-11T13:57:00.000-08:00

Image New Facility Preview

Well, the day came and went ... the weather was cold, but the fellowship was warm!

We had our first worship service at our new (and currently under construction) meeting place. Good food, good fellowship, and a great vision to look forward to.

Pictures can be found at:
http://www.knappimaging.com/gallery/3812022

-- BK

2007-11-09T18:37:00.001-08:00

iRace '07

A fantastic thing happened this past Saturday (almost a week ago now), and I got to have a part in it. Our church sponsored a 5k run, which I was told by some who ran in it was actually a tad more than 5k, and was more like a trail run.

Whatever you want to call it, it was an amazing site to see upwards of 50 runners (this is the first such event, mind you) come out in force to support this most excellent ministry known as Manna Worldwide.

Rather than run the race, I had the privilege to photograph it!

For those interested, you can find the photos here

-- BK

2007-11-09T17:47:00.000-08:00

Is The Bible True? (Part II)

So here we are again, over a year later, trying to answer the question of whether or not the Bible is true. I hope there aren’t too many of you out there who I left hanging. Yes, I know, this assumes people are actually reading this blog. Quite honestly, there are too many things that have happened over the past year in my life to begin to get into details - suffice it to say, I am just *now* finding the time to resume blogging, and so I felt it was only appropriate to pick up where I left off.

So, without further delay ...

We have already seen that we cannot simply ask “is the Bible true?” because doing so means considering the claims that the Bible makes (that is, after all, what we are trying to determine the truth of - the claims that the Bible makes). The problem we find is that the Bible says we must assume the Bible is true in order to know whether or not the Bible is true, but as most first-year students in logic know, that is circular reasoning; simply assuming the thing you are trying to demonstrate.

I suppose this might bother some of you who either:

a) don’t believe that the Bible says we must start with the assumption the Bible is true in order to know it is true ... or
b) believe that I am contradicting the Bible when I say we cannot rationally assume the Bible is true in order to know if it is true

All I can say is this ... bear with me!

So if we cannot start with the assumption that the Bible is true, then what is the alternative? Well, the unbelieving world would have us take a route that does not assume the truth of the Bible. After all, if we cannot start with the assumption that the Bible is true, then the only other alternative is to not start with the assumption that it is true. But is that any more rational an approach to take?

Let’s play hypotheticals here ... let’s say for the sake of argument that the Bible is true - all of it - even the part that says we must assume it is true in order to know whether it is true. Do you see the problem yet?

If the Bible is true (hypothetically), then we cannot start without the assumption of the truth of the Bible and ever know that it is true, as the Bible says we cannot do this. If the Bible says we cannot do this, and the Bible is true, then it is true that we cannot do this (and all God’s people said ‘duh!’).

So now what? Starting with the assumption that the Bible is true makes us guilty of circular reasoning. But, starting without the assumption that the Bible is true leaves us (by virtue of what the Bible says) in the position of never being able to know whether or not the Bible is true.

And so we come to the point of this exercise, to conclude that asking “is the Bible true” is entirely the wrong question to be asking! The question we should be asking, if we are going to ask it, is “what if the Bible is not true?” This is an entirely different question - it is, in fact, an entirely different way of looking at the problem. It is a perspective that is indirect in its nature. It says “imagine, for a moment, that what the Bible says is true is not true.”

Let’s return for a moment to Proverbs 1:7a

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge."

This passage is key! Recall that God tells us we must start with a reverent fear for him (one which comes by knowing who he is through his word, implying that his word is true) or else we cannot know anything. Notice it isn’t just that we cannot know whether the Bible is true, but (according to the Bible) this well-informed-via-scripture-fear-of-God is the very foundation for knowledge of anything at all!

So here we have the key to answering this question - If the Bible is true, then if the Bible is not true then we cannot know anything at all.

Wow, was that ever confusing?

OK, let me put it a different way. If the Bible is true, then if we do not start with the assumption that the Bible is true, then we cannot know anything at all. Stated different, a belief in the truth of the Bible is necessary in order to know anything. Or put even differently, the Biblical argument for the truth of the Bible is that without it being true we can’t know anything at all.

This is HUGE! No, seriously, this is really, really HUGE!

It is also entirely appropriate, if you think about it. If God is who the Bible claims him to be, then wouldn’t we expect this very thing? If God created the universe, including not only the beings (that is, of course, us) who he intends on knowing things, as well as those things he desires us to know, then it should be no surprise that God himself plays a central role in this process of knowing! We should not be shocked to find Proverbs 1:7 in the Bible, given the rest of what the Bible has to say.

And so we have it ... we have found the way in which we can determine whether or not the Bible is true!

We cannot assume the Bible is true in order to see if the Bible is true, as that would be circular reasoning. We cannot not assume the Bible is true, as that would be assuming it is possible to know whether the Bible is true, without assuming it is true, which would be to assume that its claims to necessarily assume it is true are ... not true!

You might want to read that again ... perhaps a couple of times, in order to ensure you get what I am saying. If you still don’t get it, don’t worry. The point is this, neither simply assuming or not assuming the truth of the Bible is logically going to get us any closer to knowing whether or not it is true. What is required is an entirely different approach.

We must hypothetically assume that the claims (all of them) in the Bible are not true, and then see whether or not it is possible for us to know anything at all. Does this sound odd? Does it sound strange? Perhaps, but realize that most people never stop to think about how they know what they think they know in the first place. Most people just ... assume ... that they are able to know things, without considering whether they really do, in fact, know what they think they know.

Let me state this differently before closing this installment. If the claims of the Bible (about knowledge) are true, then a denial of any part of the Bible would ultimately lead us into an inability to know anything at all. This is so simple, and yet so amazingly difficult to grasp, which is why I am going to turn what was going to be 2 posts into many more.

Next time, we will take a brief look at how it is we know things. More appropriately, we will consider some different theories as to how knowledge is possible. The result will be (hopefully) that you will see there is not very much consensus on this subject, and (also hopefully) that the Bible has what is the only logically possible answer to this question.

--BK

2006-08-10T20:20:00.000-07:00

Is the Bible True? (part I)

I have been thinking over the past few weeks about this particular question, not because I doubt whether the Bible is true, but rather because I know there are so many people (even Christians) who do. It got me to thinking (which can be dangerous) about whether this is even the right question to ask. Let me 'splain ...

When we ask if the Bible is true, or how we can know if the Bible is true, we are asking the wrong question in my opinion. Asking if the Bible is true, in that manner, implies that we can determine the answer without making reference to the Bible. In fact, it implies that we cannot make such a reference (i.e. assume the truth of it), or else we will be guilty of circular reasoning. We would be assuming the very thing we are attempting to ascertain the truth of. Such an approach would be entirely irrational.

But it is at this point we must consider the claims that the Bible makes, specifically the claims about God and knowledge. Consider Proverbs 1:7a.

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge."

What does this verse say about the nature of God? It says that in order to have knowledge we must first have a fear of God. It says the first step in the process of knowledge is to fear God. Now, we don't have to believe that this is true. In fact, I suspect most people would think it was silly that we would first have to fear God in order to know things. But that is what the Bible says, and remember, if we want to find out if the Bible is true, we must consider all that it says.

And so here we find the problem facing us is maybe larger than we first expected.

Do we have the ability to determine whether the Bible is true without referring to it? Can we come to a meaningful conclusion as to the truth of the assertion "the Bible is true" without assuming at least part of it is true from the outset? No. At least not according to Proverbs 1:7.

If we plan on determining whether the Bible is true, we have to evaluate the claims that it makes. In fact, due to the nature of the claim made in Proverbs 1:7, we cannot simply ask the question "is the Bible true" without considering, at least for the sake of argument, that the Bible is true. But once again, if we assume that Bible is true, then we cannot use that assumption as part of the process of deciding if the Bible is true - or can we?

This is why I say that asking "is the Bible true" is the wrong question to ask. It is the wrong question to ask specifically because of the claims that the Bible makes. Proverbs 1:7 says we must first fear God before we can know anything, meaning we cannot even know if the Bible is true unless we assume God exists, and unless we fear Him. But if we must first fear God, then we must first understand who he is. Why is that?

Consider this - if you came to me and said "fear the Great and Mighty Humbunny" you would probably expect my next question to be "who or what is the Great Humbunny?" That would be a reasonable question, after all, as it would be utterly impossible for me to fear someone or something I know absolutely nothing about, especially when we consider what the word "fear" means.

I do not believe that the word "fear" in Proverbs 1:7 means "to be afraid of." The Bible as a whole speaks about the relationship between God and knowledge from a different perspective than that of trembling in one's shoes. Fear, in this sense, is reverence, which is a realization of the person of God and the role he plays in our process of "knowing" things.

1 Peter 3:15 tells us to be always ready to give an answer for the hope that is within us. But the very first part of 1 Peter 3:15, along with the last part, instructs us as to how we are to accomplish this.

"But sanctify the LORD in your heart" - that is the first part of the verse. What does that mean? It means we are to set Christ apart in our heart - we are to give him primacy in our heart as the means by which we will be able to give that answer for the hope that is within.

The "heart" in this case is not that physical organ that pumps blood - such an interpretation is not reasonable. I believe that the heart in this verse speaks of our intellect - the "thinking" part of our being. I believe we are to give our LORD the primacy he alone deserves in our reasoning. In fact, Pauls tells us that very same thing in Colossians 2. Verses 2-4 say basically the same thing as Proverbs 1:7.

"that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of undersanding and the knowledge of God's mystery which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this in order that no man may delude you with plausible arguments."

Where do the riches of both wisdom and knowledge reside? In Jesus. Consider Colossians 2:8.

"See to it that noone takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."

Paul warns us to be sure our way of viewing the world - our philosophy - is one that is Christ-centered, and not world-centered.

What do all these passages - Proverbs 1:7, Colossians 2:4 and 8, and 1 Timothy 3:15 have in common? I believe they clearly instruct us that God as our father and as our saviour play a crucial role in our ability to know things; to think properly; to reason correctly.

Now some of you may have noticed that I am using the Bible a lot here - there is a reason for that. If we are to determine whether the Bible is true, we must consider what it says, and what the Bible says about knowing and thinking and reasoning is that we must fear God; that is, we must give him the ultimate place in our intellect if we are to be able to know anything, including whether the Bible is true. And so this leads us back to the problem of asking the question "is the Bible true" in the first place. If we must set God in an ultimate place in our reasoning in order to know things; if we are to sanctify him and fear him and revere him, then we must know who he is. We certainly can't honor and revere a being we know nothing about.

But in order to know who God is, we have to look into the Bible (at least according to the Bible). We must assume that what the Bible tells us about God is true in order to know who God is, so that we can set him apart and revere him, in order that we can know anything at all, which includes knowing whether the Bible is true!

Do you see the great big circle we must traverse? Let me make it simpler.

According to the Bible, we must assume the Bible is true in order to know if the Bible is true.

Therein lies the problem - it is specifically why we cannot ask the question "is the Bible true" and come to an answer without assuming the very thing we are questioning. And so we see that we cannot hope to answer the question "is the Bible true" without being circular in our reasoning.

Does this therefore mean that there is no way for us to know if the Bible is true? No - it simply means we must ask the question differently. And that will be the subject of my next post on this topic just as soon as I get around to posting it!

-- BK

2006-07-31T13:34:00.000-07:00

A Big Deal

Every now and then the pastor of my church graciously allows me to speak to our congregation. The last time was a few weeks ago, and the topic was something very near and dear to me - why the Bible is such a Big Deal!

Having grown up in the church, I realized a few years ago that I had no clue why I believed what I believed - I couldn't do as Peter commanded us to do, give an answer for the reason for the hope that was in me. So began a long journey that I am still on today - reading and learning and understanding God's revelation.

This message touches on the necessity of reading scripture from a few different perspectives.

The file is large (14MB), but should load and start playing right away. If not, simply [right-click] on the following link and save it to your local drive.

Why the Bible is a Big Deal

As always, feel free to post any comments you have!

-- BK

2006-07-24T07:24:00.000-07:00

Welcome Home

This past year my family and I spent a week at Walt Disney World in Orlando, FL. It was a great time. The weather was perfect, the rides and shows were great, and our accomodations were just fantastic. We stayed at the Wilderness Lodge, one of Disney's "on-site" resorts. Let me tell you, the place is amazing.

When we first arrived at the Lodge, I stepped out of the car and was greated with "Welcome Home". You know, I didn't think much about it, except that it was a clever marketing phrase - a little subliminal message that "you belong here, be sure to come back often and spend lots of money!"

But the more time we spent at Disney, the more comfortable we felt. Everybody, and I mean everybody had a fantastic attitude. Customer service was most definitely the number one thing on their mind, and it showed. It didn't matter whether were riding the boat over to the Magic Kingdom, whether we were eating at The Whispering Canyon Cafe, or whether we were passing a housekeeper in the halls ... the smiles, the warmth, the friendly demeanor was everywhere. And that got me to thinking ...

It made me wonder why we had to pay so much money, and why we had to travel so far from home, to experience this level of customer service. More to the point, it made me wonder whether these people were like this in their "real lives", or whether it was just an act they put on while at work.

And finally, it convicted me! It made me wonder why I didn't act like these people do all the time. It shouldn't be that tough to do. It shouldn't be difficult to smile. It shouldn't take much effort to be friendly. And in reality, if you really desire to do this, it shouldn't take much work to have an others-first-me-last attitude. But it is difficult, it is hard, it does take work.

Why is it so much effort to be nice??

I think we know the answer, don't we? It is selfishness. It is the me-first-others-next attitude that is so ingrained in us. This is nothing new ... it is a part of the human nature to love oneself. In fact, Jesus realized there was no doubt that we think primarily of ourselves, that's why he said what he did in Mark 12:31 ... "love your neighbor as yourself."

So here's the challenge ... to you and to me. Why can't we take this to heart in every part of our lives? Not just at church, not just at home, but in every single area? Why can't we give a level of "customer service" to others that would make Disney World pale by comparison?

It won't be easy ... we will really have to want to do this. But consider the impact we would have on this world if we were to daily live out the attitude behind the words "Welcome Home".

-- BK

2006-07-23T12:54:00.000-07:00

Kicking and Screaming

I read the most remarkable statement the other day in a discussion between a Calvinist and a non-Calvinist:

"God doesn't drag people kicking and screaming into Heaven!"

The non-Calvinist sounded absolutely outraged that Calvinists would believe that God would take people to Heaven against their will (i.e. "kicking and screaming"). This misrepresentation derives from the belief that Calvinists hold that God's grace is irresistable (the "I" in TULIP), meaning that if God has determined an individual will come to him, then it is going to happen.

It is worth mentioning that Calvinists do not believe that God forces anyone to go to Heaven against their will, but rather changes their heart so that their will is then in alignment with God's on the issue of salvation. This is not mucking about with the will itself, but rather changing (regenerating) that which determines the types of choices the will makes (the heart).

But let's consider for a moment the (straw-man) objection of the non-Calvinist who would make such a statement above (note that I am certainly not saying all non-Calvinists would make this statement.) It is important to consider this statement, because it demonstrates clearly just how important the "freedom to choose" is to this individual.

I wonder what one who would make this criticism would answer to the following question:

"If God already knew that your spouse would not willingly accept God's gift, would you prefer He let them spend an eternity in hell, or would you rather he brought them to Heaven kicking and screaming?"

When the question is phrased this way, I wonder if the non-Calvinist might feel different about this argument? When the question is phrased this way, might the non-Calvinist reevaluate just how important the "freedom" of their spouse's will is, as compared to their eternal disposition?

I wonder.

-- BK

2006-07-22T20:59:00.000-07:00

Derek for Free?

Hats-off to Derek Webb for launching freederekwebb.com (ok, it isn't going live until Sept. 1st, but who's counting?) People will be able to not only listen to, but download and keep his latest album "Mockingbird". Wish I had known about this before I purchased it! :)

I have grown to appreciate Derek's music, first as a member of Caedmon's Call, and more recently as he launched into a solo career. His most recent album "Mockingbird" tackles a number of very sensitive issues. Here is what Derek says on his site about the album, as well as his motivation for launching this web site:

my most recent record ‘mockingbird’ deals with many sensitive issues including poverty, war, and the basic ethics by which we live and deal with others. but i found that music has been an exceptional means by which to get this potentially difficult conversation going. and this is certainly an important moment for dialogue amongst people who disagree about how to best love and take care of people, to get into the nuances of the issues.

Bravo, Derek. Although I am not sure I completely agree with all your perspectives, I do applaud you for opening the conversation up in such a generous and creative way!

-- BK

2006-07-22T17:30:00.000-07:00

Dave Hunt ... Who could God save?

In the Q&A section of Dave Hunt's website (www.thebereancall.org), Dave responds to a question regarding the lack of footnotes providing a reference which identifies "some scholars" who feel that the first 15 chapters of Acts were actually written in Hebrew. I'm not going to get into the problems with this statement, as James R. White has already sufficiently addressed it on his blog.

What I want to make mention of, however, is a statement that Dave Hunt makes in his response. Dave says the following:

"White claims to go by all of Scripture, but he repeatedly cites the same few texts….Pointing to God’s sovereignty as justification for His predestination of multitudes to damnation whom He could save, White refuses to consider the hundreds of scriptures in which God pleads with Israel and all mankind to repent and turn to Him."

I want to highlight the following: "Pointing to God’s sovereignty as justification for His predestination of multitudes to damnation whom He could save ..." (emphasis mine). As is often the case in Calvinist/non-Calvinist debates, the non-Calvinist suffers the same (or greater) force of the very argument he or she is levelling against Calvinism.

If Dave thinks it is a problem that in the Calvinist's worldview, God could save certain persons, but instead chooses to predestine them to damnation, does he not realize he also suffers from the same problem? Putting aside the obvious fact that the "just" response from God to man's sinfulness and rebellion would be to do just that - predestine them to hell, Dave apparently doesn't see that his position suffers as well.

In the non-Calvinist's worldview, is God not fully aware of who will and will not choose to accept him? Is it not His sovereignty which gives Him the "right" to allow these individuals to be born into this world anyway? Could not God save these people, if he wanted to, even if they "freely" chose to deny him? Can't God overcome the will of people if he really wanted to, even in the non-Calvinist's worldview?

If God is omnipotent, then the answer is obviously yes. Yet God has decided that some will come into this world who will not repent of their sins and call him Lord. Whether God has decreed this state of affairs (the Calvinistic view), or has simply allowed it (the non-Calvnistic view), God could save these people, if he wanted to, in either the Calvinistic or the non-Calvinistic worldview. Apparently Dave doesn't realize his own argument (if it had any merit at all) condemns his position, too.

-- BK

2006-07-22T10:26:00.000-07:00

What Does God Want?

In the debate between Calvinists and Arminians, the hottest point of contention has to be the concept of “limited atonement” - the idea that God did not send his son to die for every person without exception, but rather that he sent him only for the elect. And although the Calvinist may bring many verses to the table in support of his position, he must still deal with the "all" passages - passages which seem to indicate that God loves all men without distinction, and that His desire is that all come to him in belief.

One of the most commonly quoted of these "all" passages is 1 Timothy 2:1-4.

1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,
2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.
3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

In dealing with this and other such passages, Calvinists spend a great deal of time attempting to convince their Arminian friends that the word "all" does not mean all people without exception, but that it refers to a subset of mankind. There are, after all, numerous verses in scripture where even the Arminian would agree that all does not mean all without distinction (for example Matt. 2:3, 3:5, 4:8). Regardless of whether the Calvinist is correct in his assertion, the Arminian is not likely to "buy into it", given the seemingly explicit nature of this passage. After all, who can argue that the statement "who desires all men to be saved" actually means that God does not want all to be saved? To do so would be ludicrous!

It is not my intention in this article to convince Arminians that God loves a particular set of people (the elect) differently than he loves all people, even though I believe this. It is not my plan to present passage after passage that supports this assertion, although I can do so. Instead, my goal is to demonstrate to the Arminian that 1 Timothy 2:4 cannot be used to argue that it is God's ultimate desire that all men without exception be saved, and I will use beliefs shared by both the Arminian and the Calvinist to accomplish this.

Before I get into these common beliefs, let me be sure that you understand exactly the point I am making. Please notice that in stating my goal I refer to God's ultimate desire that all men be saved. The qualifier "ultimate" is important to see here. I have no problem stating that God (in some sense) loves all men without exception. However, it is not God's ultimate desire that all be saved. My goal here is to show that 1 Timothy 2:4, when taken in conjunction with the forthcoming beliefs, cannot be used to show that it is.

Exactly what beliefs do Arminian believers hold to that are common with Calvinists? Omnipotence, for one. Omnipotence is the power to do whatever one desires. As an omnipotent being, God has the power (or ability) to do anything he wants to do. Another belief that both sides share is that of the non-universal nature of belief in Jesus Christ. Verses such as Matt. 7:14 and Luke 16:19-31 convince both the Calvinist and Arminian alike that not all people believe, and therefore not all people are saved.
What impact do these two common beliefs have on the universal nature of God's "desire" as expressed in 1 Timothy 2:4? What argument can possibly be made that would convince an Arminian that God's ultimate desire is something other than that all men be saved? Possibly the best way to illustrate this is to present a hypothetical discussion between an Arminian and a Calvinist.

Calvinist: Is it God's desire that all be saved?

Arminian: Yes, read 1 Timothy 2:4.

Calvinist: Then why aren't all saved?

Now, I want to stop here because I want you to see that this is technically the end of the argument. Given the beliefs that are common between the Calvinist and Arminian, the Calvinist has successfully made his point. However, as this may not be apparent to all, I will continue the illustration further.

Calvinist: Then why aren't all saved?

Arminian: Because not all believe.

Calvinist: But why do people need to believe in order to be saved?

Arminian: Because it wouldn't be real love if people didn't willingly believe.

Calvinist: But why does it need to be "real love" in order for people to be saved? If God ultimately wants to save people, he can just save them, right? If God is omnipotent, then couldn't he just bring everyone to heaven if that is what he desires?

Arminian: Sure, he certainly could bring everyone to heaven, but then there would be people in heaven who didn't willingly choose to be there.

Calvinist: Then it sounds to me like there is a condition on being saved.

Arminian: Of course - unless a man be born-again, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. Being born-again involves a belief in Jesus Christ as saviour.

Calvinist: Yes, I agree with you. But who made up that rule?

Arminian: I don't understand.

Calvinist: Who is the one who determined that you must be born-again in order to spend eternity in heaven?

Arminian: Well God did.

Calvinist: So if it is God's ultimate desire that all men are saved, why did he put a condition on their salvation?

Arminian: If God were to simply bring everyone into heaven, then there would be people there who didn't love him. God only wants people in heaven who truly love him.

Calvinist: But why does God only want people in heaven who truly love him?

It might be good to stop our illustration at this point and reflect upon the hypothetical discussion so far. Although it may not be clear, the sticking point here between the Calvinist and Arminian has to do with the reason why God has chosen to introduce a condition to salvation. Neither one is questioning the fact that a belief in Jesus Christ is necessary to salvation. However, the Calvinist is pressing the point that this condition only exists because God has put it in place. If God ultimately desired all men to be saved, then he could do it. God could sanctify, justify, and glorify every single person if this was what he ultimately desired, but he doesn't do this. He only does so to people who come to him in faith.

Let's continue.

Calvinist: But why does God only want people in heaven who truly love him?

Arminian: Would you want to spend an eternity with someone who didn't willingly desire to be with you?

Calvinist: If it were my ultimate desire to do this, then the answer is yes.

Arminian: Come on - you would want to spend eternity with someone who didn't love you?

Calvinist: If it were my ultimate desire to do this, then obviously the answer is yes. It wouldn't matter to me what the person felt. It wouldn't matter whether they loved me, or whether they hated me. If it were my ultimate desire to save this person and bring them to heaven, then I would simply do it, as I have the power to do so. Just as soon as I start introducing conditions, it should become apparent that my desire is not unconditional, and therefore not ultimate. Just as soon as I start introducing conditions, it should become apparent that my ultimate desire is that those conditions be met.

Rather than proceed to carry on this illustration any longer, I think it is helpful to interject an analogy.

Let's say you and I are used to conversing by sending emails to one another. In my latest email to you, I tell you I have found the house of my dreams. It has everything I ever wanted in a house - including a great location. I have more than enough money to purchase it, and I also have all the political clout necessary to overcome any issues that may arise. I tell you flat out that it is my desire to purchase this house. The next week you send me an email, and you ask me about the house. In my response to you, I state "I decided not to buy it".

"What changed?" you ask in your response. You were sure, based on what I had to say about the house, that I loved it, and that I would own it. There was, after all, nothing standing in the way of me getting what I wanted - not money, not political influence, not anything. So you are curious (and rightly so) as to why I don't own that house. It does not seem reasonable to you that I don't own it, based on my expressed desire to own it and combined with my ability to secure it.

In my reply I tell you that I decided not to purchase it because the current owners did not want to sell regardless of how much I offered them. I tell you that even though I could have forced them to sell I decided not to do so because I wouldn't personally be happy living in a house under those conditions. You now understand (and rightly so) that there was an even greater desire in me than to simply own the house - my greatest desire, my most ultimate desire, was to own the house without forcing the current owners out.

Now, I have chosen this specific analogy because I feel it will appeal to Arminians. It draws a parallel between purchasing a house and saving a person's soul, with the (seemingly) ultimate choice being up to the current house owner. Don't be fooled, however. Analogies prove nothing - they only serve to make a person's point of view clear by expressing it in terms which are easily understood. So although the analogy proves nothing as to how a person is actually saved, what it does (hopefully) do is demonstrate the different aspects of people's desire - specifically my desires about owning the house.

It may seem like I am taking the long way around the block in meeting my goal, but at this point I feel I have laid all the groundwork that is necessary to prove my point. When we state that it is God's desire that all are saved, as 1 Timothy 2:4 most definitely states, we must consider everything else the Bible says. We must consider the fact that all are not saved, and we must ask ourselves why this is, given that God has the ability to save everyone despite their disbelief. Simply put, if God wants all to be saved, and God can save all without condition, then why aren't all saved?

The answer should be obvious - there is something else God desires even more than for all to be saved. There is a more ultimate desire that God has, than the unconditional universal salvation of all mankind. We have a hard time seeing this at first glance, because we tend to think of God within the context of ourselves. We don't stop to think about the fact that God has the power to save all unconditionally, because we don't have the same kind of power ourselves. But once we are reminded of God's omnipotence, there is no excuse to to continue to argue that it is God's ultimate desire that all are saved.

It is a human trait to universalize statements, often out of necessity. Human discourse would become just too complicated if we continually qualified the scope of everything we said by adding the necessary words in our dialogue. So, we rely upon context to make this qualification for us. This includes both the immediate context of the current conversation, as well as the broader context of shared experiences and past discussion. So it is no surprise that many would take 1 Timothy 2:4 to mean it is God's ultimate desire that all (in a universal, unqualified sense) are saved, until such time as they are challenged with the question "then why aren't all saved?"

Although this seems like a perfect time to investigate the nature of God's ultimate will, it is not my desire to do so here and now. My only goal at this point is to show that 1 Timothy 2:4 (or any of the other "all" passages) does nothing by itself to support the idea that God truly desires that all (in a universal sense) be saved.

If God ultimately wants all to be saved, and if God is able to accomplish this, then all will be saved. Since all are not saved, there must be some more ultimate desire that God has. The difference between Arminians and Calvinists over the issue of Limited Atonement comes down to what each side sees as this more ultimate desire. The fact that some more ultimate desire than that unconditional salvation of all exists is not where the dispute lies. The dispute lies in what that more ultimate desire actually is.

Arminians feel that it is the self-determined free will choice of human beings, Calvinists feel it is the sovereignty and right of God to determine the choices of human beings according to his plan and to his own glory. But let one thing be completely clear - 1 Timothy 2:4 does not provide the answer to this dispute. 1 Timothy 2:4 does not indicate what God's most ultimate will is, it only states that it is the desire of God that all be saved. And this is where I feel my goal has been met.

Since 1 Timothy 2:4 does not address the more ultimate desire of God, we must look elsewhere in scripture to find it. We must look at other passages to determine whether the Calvinist is correct, or whether the Arminian is. And because we must look elsewhere, 1 Timothy 2:4 by itself does nothing to support the Arminian's position against the Calvinist, or vice versa.

-- BK