CalvinDude.com

Consider the following graphic from my website’s stats:

Hmmm, 14% of traffic from a Qatar extention? You know how popular Reformed websites are in the Islamic world and all, but this is just a little too much for me to believe.

I just had an interesting thought regarding the Arminian/Calvinism debate. Arminians like to say that God does not elect men, but instead men choose God. Let us stipulate that this is the case for the sake of argument.

How does one person choose God and another not choose God? Perhaps it is upbringing, society, etc. But no matter what it is, if God has no control over who choose Him then it is logically necessary that God likewise has no control over where anyone is born or who anyone interacts with. God has no control over how smart a person is, or how spiritual he will be in his make-up, or what his character is.

In other words, if an Arminian says that God does control where a person was born, and who he interacts with, or what kind of person he is, then God does determine who will believe in Him and who will not. It’s simple cause and effect.

How many times have you heard an Arminian say, “God brought this person into my life”? If God has no control over your salvation, God does not bring anyone into your life. An Arminian, to be consistent, would have to conclude that God is in control of nothing if God is not in control over who comes to Him and who does not. If God is in control of anything then God can use what He is in control of to ensure that someone is saved.

Of course, if God really wanted every single person on Earth saved He would be able to present Himself to every single person in such a way that people would believe in Him. If God really is trying 100% to save everyone, why are there still some who do not believe? Could it be because they are depraved?

Face it. An Arminian has to either accept that men are even more depraved than the Calvinist asserts (for they are able to resist God’s 100% full effort to save them, an action that could only be the epitome of depravity as it is obviously not righteousness to resist God), or else God really isn’t trying all that hard after all.

Ah, it’s wonderful to not have to live in that inconsistent theology :-)

Last night, I watched The Chornicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe. Even taking the Christian allegory aside, it was just a well-done great story. I only wish that some day I’ll have written something like that (not in terms of a fantasy book, but one with such great character development and philosophical appeal). Non-Christians will find the story engaging and triumphant and will probably miss all the symbolism. The movie is definietly not “evangelism” but it does help serve as an allegorical reference if you take a non-Christian friend to see it. It gets my two thumbs up, for what that’s worth :-)

Just as an addendum to the previous post, I don’t have any problem at all with the fact that the police were investigating the KKK. After all, members of that group have been responsible for murders in the past and it would be foolhardy for them to not pay attention to them. That, however, does not change the fact that these people have the right to their beliefs. The law in America only addressed conduct, not beliefs (although that is unfortunately changing with the so-called “hate crimes” legislation and bunk like that).

You remember back when liberals would say things like, “I might disagree with you, but I’ll fight for your right to say it”? Apparently, these liberals don’t exist anymore. And sadly, when it comes to some speech, even a lot of conservatives suddenly find that political correctness trumps free speech.

This article from the Deseret News is about a black police officer who infiltrated the Ku Klux Klan. What were the results?

The investigation revealed that Klan members were in the military, including two at NORAD who controlled the triggers for nuclear weapons.

“I was told they were being reassigned to somewhere like the North Pole or Greenland,” Stallworth said.

Does this seem troubling to anyone other than me? First of all, notice the implication of the first sentence. These were Klansmen who could have triggered nuclear bombs!!! GASP! EGAD!! Can you believe it???

Wait a second…why would a Klansman want to trigger a nuclear bomb? Isn’t it a bit hysterical to imply that all Klansmen would want to kill people, let alone that they would use atomic weapons to do so?

Then, of course, we have the second sentence. These men were transfered because of their beliefs. That’s right, they didn’t hold mainstream views (and, indeed, they held erroneous views), but they weren’t transfered due to conduct. They were transfered simply because they were in the Klan.

Now it’s easy to pick on the Klan. Racist people are evil, no matter who they are prejudiced against. The color of a person’s skin does not affect their humanity, and anyone who says it does is flatly wrong. But just because someone is wrong does not mean that they ought to be transfered to a remote location.

The correct means in dealing with racist bigots is to confront them with the truth. The incorrect means is to become bigoted toward them in return. After all, who defines what is politically correct and what isn’t? What if those who were not racists were the ones who were transfered to remote locations?

This is a bad precedent, no matter how “well intended” the action was. One of these days it will backfire and the roles will be reversed. Which is why, even though I disagree with the views of the Ku Klux Klan, I will fight for their right to be stupid.