For about four months now I’ve been reading Edwin Palmer’s The Five Points of Calvinism. I’ve been reading very slowly. Mostly because most of it is recap for me. Valuable nonetheless.

While reading today, I came across an excellent quotation from Palmer on God’s foreordination of man’s sin. It goes like this:

“It is even biblical to say that God has foreordained sin. If sin was outside the plan of God, then not a single important affair of life would be ruled by God. For what action of man is perfectly good? All of history would then be outside of God’s foreordination…”

Although this quote hardly includes the whole discussion of this topic, it does ring very true to the underlying question. Is it part of God’s ‘plan’ that man sins? Yes. In a way, it absolutely must be.

The dissention over topics of predestination in the bible begin with the question of man’s depravity. Is man able to do ‘good’ before he is a believer? ‘Good’ like accepting Christ? Some believe that he can, other’s in the reformed tradition believe that he cannot. If man is to accept Christ, God must enable him to do it.

Although there are many verses supporting the reformed understanding of man’s condition, and indeed some apparently in support of the opposition, I came upon this one today and found it’s language compelling.

Jeremiah 13:23:

Can the Ethiopian change his skin
   or the leopard his spots?
Then also you can do good,
   who are accustomed to do evil.

Through the prophet Jeremiah, God argues that the rebellious creatures of man are no more able to do ‘good’ in their natural state than is a person able to change the color of his skin, or a big cat the pattern in his fur.

In Have you ever read Romans 14:13? It goes like this:

“Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother”

I think I hear this verse (and others like it) way too often. It’s usually used as kind of a blanket verse. A trump card to avoid tense situations. Billy is drinking a beer and Betty thinks it’s wrong. Rather than Billy and Betty having to deal with the tension of holding differing convictions, it’s argued that Billy shouldn’t drink beer because it’s causing Betty to ‘stumble’.

Is it? Or is her sense of right and wrong taking offense at Billy’s differing opinion? They’re not the same thing.

Admittedly, this is not a topic that I have thoroughly thought through. There are still quite a few questions and points of contention in my mind over it. But the overarching issue, I think, is relatively clear.

Consider the verse, Proverbs 27:17:

Iron sharpens iron,
and one man sharpens another.

Is it possible for iron to sharpen iron without friction? No, of course not. Friction is more or less why iron can sharpen iron. Likewise, I can’t think of too many times that a brother refined me apart from my own convictions rubbing against theirs. For us to benefit from one another as believers, our sense of right and wrong must be offended some times.

In Romans 14, Paul does not want to cause a brother to stumble by eating meat. After all, many of his Jewish brothers would be violating their conscience by eating meat. But eventually, they did eat meat. There are very few Christians today who refrain from eating meat for biblical reasons. How’d this happen? At some point someone’s convictions must have been offended causing them to reconsider their resolves, ultimately allowing them to change their views and eat meat with a clean conscience.

In the situation with Billy and Betty, Billy shouldn’t entice Betty to drink beer, nor should he drink beer if Betty is feeling the urge to do so—thus violating her conscience. However, I don’t think Billy has much obligation to Betty’s preferences beyond that.

If we allow the definitions of ‘stumbling block’ and ‘offended’ and ‘conscience’ to be convoluted, then we’ll be restricted from just about everything. There aren’t many topics that Christians unanimously agree on and how specifically to live this life is far far far from being on that list. That’s okay. But it means that topics like this one shouldn’t be carelessly understood and hidden behind.

It usually results in more irritated conflict and threatens to stunt our spiritual and relational growth.

Proverbs 17:15 says:

He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous
   are both alike an abomination to the LORD.

With spiritual writings like these, it’s no wonder that so many of the Jew’s had difficulty understanding God’s message of grace through faith in Jesus. Perhaps that was God’s plan.

After-all, how can God justify us when justifying the wicked is an “abomination” in his sight.

We must suppose this was all part of his cosmic plan for redemption and glory and glory and glory and glory. He clears the air in Romans 3:23-26:

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

The complexity, yet completeness of the Word is a fascinating thing.

Proverbs 16:33:

The lot is cast into the lap,
   but its every decision is from the LORD.

Back in the day, people would cast lots to determine what the Lord’s will is. For example, the Apostles cast lots when they needed to replace Judas. You could say it’s something like rolling dice, or flipping a coin by today’s standards. The Bible has quite a bit to say about casting lots, but I’m not too concerned with it now.

What’s more interesting to me is the tension of control in this verse. Both God and man have an element of control here, but with the concepts of man’s responsibility and God’s decision in such close proximity and such sharp contrast, it’s hard not to reflect.

There seems to be a relentless debate over who really exercises control in this life: God, or man? Who has the final say? For me, I’ve settled confidently into the belief that it is God with the last word. But it’s not hard to see why the conflict among Christians prevails. It’s one of the few topics that truly have such far reaching ramifications on our faith.

I think this little verse in Proverbs is an excellent descriptor (at least in this translation) of the way I see this tension between God’s sovereignty and man’s control worked out.

Man will cast the lot. He will make the motion. He will flip the coin. But God has made the decisions. Or to extend it to more realms of greater relevance: I will believe in Jesus with my faith, and I will try to live my life in a way that honors him. But the ability, the drive and the desire to do those things has come from God alone.

1 Peter 3:14-16

“But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 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, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.”

“Always being prepared to make a defense”.

If you think about the nature of a “defense”, it requires objective reasoning. You would never hear a lawyer in a court argue that his client is innocent because of a good hunch he’s got. A defense would require objective evidence. The Greek word is “apologia”, which roughly defined means “a reasoned argument”.

We don’t have hope for no reason. If we have no reason for our hope, maybe we don’t really have the hope at all.

So, when Peter exhorts us to be prepared with a “defense” it can’t mean the ooey-gooey feeling inside. It must mean that we should seek to understand what we can of the scriptures to the best of our ability. Which, if you follow it to it’s logical conclusion, would mean: Get your theology straight.

Over the past couple weeks, I have been pondering very old questions of my faith. Questions that I had before coming to know the Lord. The difficulty is not one of intellectual assent, but of emotional concurrence.

The questions have namely circled around the concept of original sin. As Christians, we agree that each person is hand crafted by God in the womb of his or her mother (ps. 139:13). Yet, each one of these people have some mystical connection to their father Adam. Adam’s sin is imputed into his children

Now, in the process of God forming each one in the womb, he makes no mistakes in permitting this mystical connection. In fact, since there is no governing force outside of God controlling the formation of his creatures, it  must be God creating creatures in, not only his own image, but also the fallen image of their father, Adam.

Many people will become very upset with me at this point. Probably because it sounds as if I’m ascribing evil to God. I’m pretty certain that I’m not.

However, we must be in some web of denial when we affirm the belief in an all powerful, sovereign God, yet somehow claim a force exists that acts outside of his control. Like the spiritual imputation of sin from one generation to another. What kind of twisted logic could we possibly subscribe to that would say God is sovereign, but the imputation of sin happens on its own?

Trouble is, the answer isn’t easily stomached. At least not in the United States, and not in the last 150 years of theological landscaping.

therein lies the up-rise in my questions. The answer is not theologically difficult to grasp. It is emotionally difficult to grasp. In John 11, Jesus has the opportunity to save Lazarus, but chooses to allow him to die instead. This is what he says:

"This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it."

Lazarus didn’t stay dead, but for the glory of God, Jesus permitted Martha and Mary and Lazarus to suffer deeply. He allowed Lazarus to die. And, if we look farther back into the Old Testament, we find historical events taking place for God’s glory that don’t have such a happy ending.

My spirit cries out when I think about this. It feels like injustice. It feels bad—at least at first.

However, the reality of a situation isn’t usually decided by feelings. Therefore, despite what it may feel like, I must accept that a reality exists regardless of how I feel about it.

As I read, reluctantly, in the book of Mark today, Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane. There he prayed that the death before him could be avoided. Mark 14:35-36:

[Jesus] fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will."

Jesus’ prayer here always used to be a little unsettling. Read narrowly and it seems as if he’s saying that he doesn’t want to atone of the sins of the world and that he’s asking for a way out.

I don’t that’s the case.

Jesus acknowledges that God can do anything. He is asking God to remove the guilt of people’s sin in a way other than the one he has chosen. We know what God’s response was. Jesus was crucified, according to plan.

I think that this puts a period at the end of the question about the imputation of sin.

Within the limited scope of understanding we have, God’s commitment to his glory seems to come at a great cost to humanity. But, as Romans 8:28 says, “for those who love God all things work together for good”.

This in mind, as I take the scriptures in faith and believe God at his word, the question begins to change. Perhaps the real question is, what would be the cost of God’s commitment to anything less? Far more devastating, I think.