Trust and Belief

With great confidence I am going to claim that none of my regular readers are PhD's in the field of Astrophysics.  Though none of us have spent the better part of a decade doing the indepth and challenging work associated with becoming an "expert" within this field, there are a number of facts that we will all confidently regurgitate;  Size of the sun, size of our galaxy, distance between planets, the movement of stars and comets, the speed of light, etc.  When we make these fact claims we do so with the utmost confidence that we believe that what we are repeating is true.  Why?  Because we implicitly trust the individuals and organizations that have told us so.

There is a virtually limitless amount of "knowledge" that the modern man possesses that has little to do with personal study and observation.  Though we can quote verbatim a Wikipedia article on the personal feelings of Robert E. Lee during the civil war, few of us have ever actually held in our hands and read physical letters penned by the general.  There is just too much important knowledge and information that we utilize in our day to day lives for us to do the necessary work to prove the veracity of our claims personally.  We believe the work of those we trust. 

But what happens when two honest people have wildly differing positions on a particular issue?  How is it even possible?  It has to do with who you choose to trust. 

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine.  Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear"--2 Timothy 4:3

Thanks to the internet whatever your personal values, thoughts, opinions, activities, etc, are, you can find plenty of people to support you.  Not long ago I was reading about the growth of "fetish" communities.  Thirty years ago if you were a pedophile, you tried to get help, covered it up, tried to deal with it, or, acted on it and went to prison.  But what no one ever said, or, accepted, was that the proclivity towards pedophilia was "normal" or, "ok".  Now there are entire online created communities of predatory pedophiles who support each other, give tips and advice, and even plan international trips to countries with laxer child protection laws. 

While a pedophile in 1970 could still do some horrible damage, it was very limited in scope, and many potential predators never became predators because they didn't have anyone egging them on.  Today, if you are a potential predator, you are just a click away from people all over the world affirming your feelings and encouraging you to find ways to act on it.

Our human and self-driven desires cause us to seek out the "expert" advice of those who affirm what we already want to believe.  We start with a premise that whatever I "feel" must be right because I feel it so STRONGLY.  In some instances, there is natural internal and/or public aversion to such feelings.  Instead of responding to that natural aversion we instead look for someone to encourage the behavior or belief.  We TRUST that person BECAUSE they tell us what we want to hear, so we then integrate their affirmation as the foundation of our BELIEFS. 

Let me avoid putting a specific example within Christianity today in the cross hairs.  But ask yourself, what do you(and others) believe today compared to 20, 30, 50, 2000 years ago.  The rapidity in which these consistently believed Biblical positions are being reshaped has been breathtaking.  Why?  Because it is becoming easier and easier to gather around us teachers that tell us what we want to hear.

In contrast to what some "theologians" will argue, 2 Timothy 4:3 has a basic understood assumption built into it.  That there IS a sound doctrine.  And the second truth is that sound doctrine is in direct contrast to peoples natural desires. 

Theology today is crafted by a simple formula;  1- I feel or experienced "x", 2- I want to feel good about myself, not bad,(you can replace "myself" with "others") so I don't want "x" to cause me discomfort.  3-  I therefore subvert plain reading of scripture to be primarily interpreted by what makes me the most comfortable. 

Biblical theology has historically been crafted by; 1- Reading the Bible  2- Feeling or experiencing "x", 3- Shaping my response to "x" by what the Bible says.

We place our trust in what, or, who, makes us feel the best about ourselves.  Or, we put it in whatever or whoever says exactly what we have already decided.  And that becomes our belief. 

At the heart of everyone who rejects the Biblical teachings on any issue is that they are placing their trust in someone who has given them a way that makes them feel more comfortable.  And this happens with virtually zero cross examination.  They said what I was hoping to hear, I will just assume they are telling me the truth.  While they respond to teachers that disagree with their new position by immediately questioning everything, or, outright rejecting it because they don't like their response.  Again, with zero cross examination.  You said what I didn't want to hear, so you must be wrong/lying.

Your beliefs will be the result of who you trust.  Do you trust God's word?  Or, do you trust yourself and others first.

We want the candy so much we ignore important details.....

Election vs Free Will

Do you like arguing about theology?  Oh, wait, I forgot you are a 21st century western civilization Christian.  You LOOOOVVVVEEEE to argue about theology....and doctrine....and church practices.....and pretty much everything else.

What gets people more heated than anything?  Election vs Free Will debates.  AKA, Calvinism vs Arminianism.

For those who have been lucky enough to have avoided knowing too much about this SUPER ESSENTIAL argument.  Let me briefly sum up the two positions.  But with the qualifier that I am in no way intending what I am about to write to in anyway be a completely exhaustive(or perhaps even fair) summation of either position.

Arminianism/Free Will:

Every person has to make the choice for Jesus.  No choice is also considered a "no" for Jesus choice.  No one is bound for evil, or, bound for good.  We are free will moral agents responsible before God for the choices we make.

If I was a competent blogger I would list a number of bible verses here that support this position.....

Calvinism/Election:

God Himself "elects"(chooses) who is to be saved and who is not to be saved.  This places a high value on God's absolute sovereignty and is hyper focused on our utter sinfulness and inability to do anything to "earn" salvation.  If you are God's elect, you WILL be saved BECAUSE of HIS work, if you are not, you will NOT be saved.

Ditto on the competent blogger post...blah blah blah, bible verses.


Where we Go Wrong

Are you able to know whether or not you are elect?  Probably not.  You know what is inarguable?  Jesus Christ came as fully God and fully man to die in the place of sinful man and to rise again and that through him(regardless of your view on elect/free will) and only him we can be saved.

The mechanism by which this actually works is a bit challenging to work out.  Not that lofty and challenging theological introspection is without value.  But here is the problem, the bible is pretty liberal at mentioning both.  It mentions constantly our responsibility to claim with our lips the Jesus is Lord, AND, it talks about God's elect. 

But, regardless of the actual details of the mechanism, both positions are clear.  It is only through Jesus that it happens. 

How did Jesus deal with the issue of election?

Let's take a look at an interesting exchange in Matthew 15

²¹ Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. ²² A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”
²³ Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
²⁴ He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
²⁵ The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
²⁶ He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
²⁷ “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
²⁸ Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.


Jesus appears to be a bit of a jerk here.  This woman is making quite a scene begging for help, yet he ignores her.  When pressed to respond to her he replies, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel"

Did you catch that?  Jesus had a specific, pre-ordained, ministry goal....shades of Election perhaps??

But this non-elect woman does not stop.  She comes right up to him, kneels before him and calls him Lord.  And Jesus heals her daughter just as if she had been one of the "Elect". 

Jesus was there for a specific people.  God had elected to send him there for them.  But when a non-elect person, by faith, comes to Christ crying "Lord Lord" Jesus commends her for her faith and in no small way shows great love and mercy to her.  In a way, her position transforms from non-elect to elect. 

I cannot deny that the bible speaks with clarity about God's elect.  Yet, here is a beautiful picture of our Savior reaching across that divide to one who was not elected. 

In practice and theology I lean much closer to Reformed and Calvinist theology.  But this is how I personally read scripture regarding this issue.  I do not believe that Election is a mutually exclusive position.  Meaning, ONLY those who are elect will be saved.  Scripture, as I read it, shows that the Elect WILL be saved, but when, by faith and calling upon the name of the Risen Savior, the non-elect come to the feet of Jesus, they will also be saved.

So how do we take this bit of theology and apply it to our lives.  Well, you don't know if you are elect, and neither do I.  But what I do know is that I have a responsibility to respond to the call of the Cross.  And the message of the Gospel is a responsibility that all followers of Christ are called to share. 

When we get lost in debating the nuances of the mechanisms by which God does what He does, we avoid the personal responsibility that we do have.  So let us cut down the rhetoric and start proclaiming that the Cross of Christ is the only hope for ALL men!