Bigfoot: an Animal, or a Large Coordinated Conspiracy?

No one comes to the conclusion that there are indeed bigfoots roaming the North American continent without being tipped over the edge by a volume of evidence that, in the end, seems to make their existence less outlandish than their nonexistence. But if I were forced to point to a single piece of information that, for me personally, was the straw that broke the skeptic’s back, it would probably be the information presented in this graph:

gill_1

What you are seeing is is a representation of bigfoot track sizes, and corresponding estimated body heights, plotted across the geographical latitudes where they were found. The average sizes shown tend to increase as we move northward. But what does it mean? It has to do with a zoological generalization known as Bergmann’s Rule. According to the New World Encyclopedia, Bergmann’s Rule is usually defined as

a within-species tendency in homeothermic (warm-blooded) animals to have increasing body size with increasing latitude and decreasing ambient temperature. That is, Bergmann’s rule states that among mammals and birds, individuals of a particular species in colder areas tend to have greater body mass than individuals in warmer areas. For instance, white-tailed deer are larger in Canada than in the Florida Keys, and the body size of wood rat populations are inversely correlated with ambient temperature.

One reason for this is that larger bodies can retain more heat since they have much less surface area in comparison to their total mass than do smaller bodies.  This analysis was performed in 1978 by Professor George Gill, a physical anthropologist at the University of Wyoming, who himself concluded that it supported the bigfoot hypothesis. I first ran into this information in Jeff Muldrum’s book, and he gives a somewhat condensed and simplified presentation of Gill’s study. What I have given is a condensed and simplified version of Muldrum, so for further study, you may be interested in Gill’s more detailed article.

The reason these data are so remarkable is the sheer impossibility of hoaxing such widespread (in time and distance) trend. Assuming Professor Gill’s analysis is fair and accurate, but bigfoot is a hoax, then either there would have to be a large coordinated bigfoot conspiracy, or the data would have to be coincidental. I have trouble with either of those explanations, especially in light of the many other compelling evidences presented for bigfoots’ existence.

Majority Rule and Minority Rights

A while back, I was listening to the Michael Medved show—a great forum for discussion, or, as the host likes to put it, your daily dose of debate. A gentleman called in advocating increased taxation on the wealthy. This seems to be the progressive panacea, and the idea has popular appeal right now due to the perception that “the rich” are gliding by unaffected while millions of Americans are struggling to pay their daily expenses. But taxation of the rich is a feel-good measure without any real problem-solving teeth to it. And in any case, the rich are already paying an awful lot. The host rattled off some figures to this effect, but the caller was not dissuaded. He said that it didn’t matter how much the rich were paying now. Why? Because most Americans want them to pay more.

What I want to address is this idea that as long as the most Americans want something, it should be put into practice. The caller’s philosophy seemed to be that the majority defines right and wrong. What if it isn’t right to confiscate more from a certain class of people? This question did not seem to enter into his mind. But it has entered into mine. Thomas Jefferson recognized the the potential of a straight democracy to trample the rights of the minority when he said, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” This is why rather than a pure democracy, we in the U.S. have a constitutional democratic republic, in which we elect representatives and in which minority rights are protected. Majority opinion can never justify the violation of the rights of men, no matter how few. Numbers do not determine right and wrong. To me, it doesn’t matter if most Americans want to hike up tax rates on people making a certain amount of money. Creating, as someone else has put it, a tyranny of the middle class is not okay whether it it is popular or not.  Most Americans could want anything. My point here, though, is not about tax rates. My point is that the mere fact that most Americans want something does not justify it. That way of thinking suppresses nonconformists—and while par for the course among radical leftists, such suppression is a chilling thought to those who wish to conserve free thought and free action and self-ownership. Human rights are not subject to change.

Wrath to Riches

There is nothing better to hear in church than what God in Christ has done for sinners like me. This week I heard a great sermon from Zephaniah 3 where we were reminded again that judgment was immanent, but then, almost without explanation, it was dissipated. Gone! In the beginning of the chapter, we read about God’s righteous judgment coming upon his people. Then in verse 14, God says, “Sing aloud, O daughter of Zion! Rejoice and exult with all your heart, O daughter of Jerusalem.” The next line tells us in a simple affirmation why they should rejoice and sing and exult, in perhaps the happiest declaration anyone could ever hear: “The Lord has taken away the judgments against you.”

This is not just Israel’s problem, nor Israel’s rescue, but all of us were or are in the crosshairs of the wrath of God. So was I. But the Lord has taken away the judgments against me. Romans 1:18 says that “the wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” Ephesians 2 intentionally personalizes God’s wrath, saying, “And you were once dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” Nothing could be more sobering, for, as Hebrews says, “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” However, the next phrase in the passage in Ephesians sets are hearts at ease again. “But God…” it says.

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our  trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

“For the same Lord is Lord of all,” says Romans 10:12, “bestowing his riches on all who call on him.” It’s amazing. Jesus himself went from riches to wrath so that I would go from wrath to riches. Let me close with 2 Corinthians 8:9. It tells us that we “know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for [our] sake he became poor, so that [we] by his poverty might become rich.” Hallelujah, what a Savior, who appeased the wrath of God that was against me, gave me his own righteousness, and freely lavishes upon me the unsearchable riches of Christ.

Science as Theology

Some say you cannot mix science and theology, but au contraire, you cannot separate science and theology. Science itself is, in a way which I hope to explain, a branch of theology when properly understood, and as we owe God praise and credit, we ought to think thus of science. This is certainly not to say that science cannot be used—and used to great instruction and benefit—without thinking of God, but that using science without thinking of God is not seeing all that science has to tell us and, more importantly, is robbing God of his due credit. It is not using science to its full potential or even its ultimate purpose.

The Bible says that “the heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). That is, the universe preaches to us, in general terms, about God’s creativity, wisdom, and goodness, and this proclamation, found in the world around us which we observe daily, is everywhere present, making it obvious that God is there and that he has acted. Dante said that “nature is the art of God,” and who could deny it? The Apostle Paul said that what can be known about God (apart from special revelation) is plain to people because God has shown it to them in the things he has made! Though nature is not very specific in what it tells us about God, it does tell us certain things quite clearly. For instance, nature tells us about his eternal power and his divine nature (Romans 1:18-20). That is, from the natural order it is easily deduced that God is immensely powerful—that he is in reality God. He is not like us.

When we look deep into the secrets of the world, from the cosmos to the quanta, we learn about how nature operates. We get an idea about how things function and what causes what. We begin to formulate laws that govern how particles interact with each other, or with energy or gravity or magnetism; we discover and record how animals survive and how they interact with each other in eco systems; we look at the behavior of waves, of light and sound; we reduce physical behaviors to mathematical equations to predict the motion of the planets or the acceleration of the stretching of space. In any and all of these cases we are ultimately learning about the maker of the these systems, just as studying Michelangelo’s artwork will tell you about Michelangelo himself. We believe that God upholds all the created order by the word of his power (Hebrews 1:3). Science is the study of the means he uses to do so. Science tells us what God created and how he conserves creation. It tells us how he keeps it all together. Physicist Dr. John Hartnett once observed that “the universe, including the created laws that describe the way it normally operates, often turns out to be far more ingeniously constructed, and at the same time elegant, than previously imagined” (Starlight, Time, and the New Physics 12).  When we wonder at how it all works, we often have no idea how amazing it really is. This is because God is infinitely wise. The living cell was once thought to be a simple little blob. Newtonian physics was once thought to perfectly and exhaustively describe the motion of bodies in space. But God was working on another whole level.

When archeologists and anthropologists want to learn about an ancient culture, they study their artifacts. The universe is dig site of the artifacts of God. When we engage in science, we engage in the study of God’s work. When we engage in the study of God’s work, we are studying God. When we unpack the laws of nature, we peak into the mind of the lawgiver. May science be treated with enough respect to be acknowledged as a vehicle for learning about how great God is, and may God be worshipped and glorified as we lower our microscopes and raise our telescopes to the purpose of finding out just how awesome and mighty a God we serve.

Body and Soul

Back in 2004 I had another blog. Much of it is filled with prattle, but, especially in later entries, I composed some ruminations that I think should not be lost to cyberspace. I have decided to scroll through the old blog and to begin reposting worthwhile content periodically, though I will reserve editorial powers over it. I begin with the following from 6 December 2004, addressing the question of whether we will still be essentially the same person in the afterlife, given the fact that our bodies and brains have been destroyed. If memory lies in the brain (and our memories, or the sum of our experiences and interactions, make us who we are), then how can we in any sense be the “same person” after death. Or to put it another way, if brain malfunction can cause memory loss, even though the soul is supposedly still “in there,” then how can we say the soul remembers? And if it does not, then having once been disembodied, we cannot be the same person we were in life.

I want to quote Charles Hodge on a couple things, and I will underline what I want to emphasize. First, he believes animals have souls:

“‘Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?’ Eccles. 3:21. The soul of the brute is the immaterial principle which constitutes its life, and which is endowed with sensibility, and that measure of intelligence which experience shows the lower animals to possess. The soul in man is a created spirit of a higher order, which has not only the attributes of sensibility, memory, and instinct, but also the higher powers which pertain to our intellectual, moral, and religious life.”

It is interesting that all the Hebrew and Greek words for soul and spirit and soul and spirit in English are used indiscriminately in the Bible of men and irrational animals (Hodge). I want to quote a few more related things.

“Man, then, according to Scriptures, is a created being in vital union with a material organized body.”

“It is a fact of consciousness that certain states of the body produce certain corresponding states of the mind” (by which he means the soul). “The mind takes cognizance of, or is conscious of, the impressions made by external objects on the organs of sense belonging to the body. The mind sees, the mind hears, and the mind feels, not directly or immediately (at least in our present and normal state), but through or by means of the appropriate organs of the body. It is also a matter of daily experience that a healthful condition of the body is necessary to a healthful state of the mind; that certain diseases or disorders of the one produce derangement in the operations of the other. Emotions of the mind effect the body; shame suffuses the cheek; joy causes the heart to beat and the eyes to shine. A blow on the head renders the mind unconscious, i.e., it renders the brain unfit to be the organ of its activity; and a disease of the brain may cause irregular action in the mind, as in lunacy.”

Hodge attributes will to the soul. He also attributes joy and shame to the soul. I think this must be the case, because consciousness as well as having sensations are not properties of matter. We do have sensations (a property of the soul), and we have them (we know from experience) through our physical senses and sense organs. So Hodge has satisfactorily demonstrated from experience that the body and soul exist, at least for the time being, in vital union with each other. This suggests the idea that if a disorder of the body causes all recognition of an experience to vanish completely, it is only because the soul is presently dependent on the body for its expression, not because the soul either does not exist, or because the soul cannot retain memory apart from the body. Since the soul/mind is immaterial, it cannot be directly affected by a blow to the head. That is, suffering trauma to the brain may cause apparent memory loss. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the memory is lost completely to that individual, since memory is a function of the soul. The soul remembers. The brain does not, and therefore you do not, only because you cannot in the current state of things: You need the normal operation of the brain. The soul’s expression of your memory is dependent on it.

Think of a client computer in a network: say the client’s network card burns out. The client (i.e., the brain) can no longer access the file on the server (the soul/mind), but this does not mean the file has been deleted; the file still exists on the server. You’re “lost” memories may return when you are freed from the body, then given a perfect one at the eschaton. So therefore, going a step further to the point I really wanted to make, no one can prove from your experience that your soul will not retain the integrity of your personhood after this life. Temporal memory loss and our general experience that memory and the integrity of one’s self (think of Alzheimer’s) is tied to the brain does not necessarily show that these things are tied to the brain ultimately. The possibility remains that such things are functions of an immaterial aspect beyond the brain for which the brain is merely an instrument of expression. Since consciousness and having sensations are not properties of matter, regardless of its configuration, such a possibility seems an inevitable conclusion, leading us to believe that the idea of retaining memory and being “the same person” in a disembodied state after physical death is really not a problem at all.

P.S., I think of Stephen Hawking. His body in his latter years would not have allowed us to see who he is, but for modern technology. What a soul this guy has. What a mind. Thankfully, we’ve been able to allow him to express his mind by aids for his body. We would not have known who he is because of his Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, but he still would have have been that person—the soul God created for his body.

The Roots Run Deep

I just completed Tom Nettles first volume on Baptist history, and I found it to be an inspiring read. It covers the time period after the Protestant Reformation from about 1600 to the 1830s and gives us surveys of a total ten key Baptist men during pivotal epoch in church history. Seven of these ministers were Reformed, and it is to them—John Spilsbury, William Kiffin, Hanserd Knollys, Benjamin Keach, John Gill, Andrew Fuller, and William Carey—that I trace my spiritual heritage, as I have after my own Bible study come to embrace the Reformed Baptist faith. Here, I want to say something from the text about each of them.

John Spilsbury: Fought for several important points of doctrine including 1) credobaptist practice. He believed that “the new covenant assumes the effectual working of the Spirit to create a believing community and employs new positive ordinances as the symbols of its character. Believers’ baptism, not infant baptism, corresponds to the nature of the new covenant,” has Jesus’ authority behind it, and was the practice of the Apostles (Nettles 114). According to Nettles, Spilsbury’s opponents thought of him as uneducated but felt compelled to compose responses to his arguments against infant baptism. One such rebuttal came from a man named Praise-God Barebone. But praise God, Barebone eventually became a Baptist himself.

Second, Spilsbury argued for confessionalism, teaching that “no church, and thus no baptism, could exist apart from submission to orthodox evangelicalism embodied in a confession of faith” (Nettles 118).

Third, he defended the compatibility of particular atonement and universal gospel preaching.

William Kiffin:  Tom Nettles first word on Kiffin is that he “must be given a prominent place in the affections and appreciation of all Baptists” (129). In fact, One historian calls Kiffin the Father of the Particular [Calvinist] Baptists. Kiffin was the only signer of the 1644 London Baptist Confession of Faith who also signed the Second London Confession in July of 1689.

He also argued enthusiastically for believer baptism alone and paired up with Hanserd Knollys in debating two paedobaptists on the topic. Kiffin later found it needful to defend the practice of requiring baptism in order to take Lord’s Supper. Kiffin also helped plant Baptist churches.  In disputes with Quakers and others, he proved to be fair and honest.

Hanserd Knollys:  Knollys became a minister in the Anglican church in 1629, but resigned after becoming convinced that some of their practices were not biblical. He came to the conclusion that he himself had been “building his soul upon a covenant of works and was a stranger to the covenant of grace” (Nettles 148). After a struggle, he learned to embrace God’s promises of grace and was “filled with joy unspeakable and glorious” (Knollys qtd. in Nettles 149). Knollys was not yet a Baptist, but sailed for America, stayed two years, and returned to England. Exactly when he was convinced of Baptist doctrine is not certain, but it is certain that he was a decided Baptist some time after he came back to England, and from there began to defend their cause with “stable, courageous leadership” (Nettles 152). He fought against antinomianism, and signed the 1646 revision to the first London Confession, which contained greater clarity on God’s sovereign providence and particular redemption. He defended an evangelistic Calvinism. Along with William Kiffin, Knollys spearheaded the first national assembly of Particular Baptists, which took place in 1689 and there the Second London Baptist Confession was republished publically and Knollys was the first signer. Knollys wrote in defense of Baptist church government, which believes each local church to be autonomous and not subject to any higher denominational authority. He preached in his London church until he was 93.

Benjamin Keach:  Keach born again at the age of fifteen. His study of Scripture led him to reject infant baptism and he joined a Baptist church. Nettles remarks that Keach “seemed never to be convinced that he had exhausted all truth, or even the capacity for understanding as much truth as possible” (163). He goes on to say that “the covenant and all its accompanying blessings are the driving force in, and give coherence to, Keach’s entire theological scheme” (Nettles 167).

Keach wrote a handful of major works on the topic of justification, defending the Reformed position and saying that “the Christian, therefore, is not to work for Life, but from Life” (Keach qtd. in Nettles 179).

He also wrote poignantly against paedobaptism and for credobaptism, with works like Pedo-Baptism disproved, and The Ax Laid to the Root, or One Blow More at the Foundation of Infant Baptism and Church Membership. No subtlety there. But he wrote many books on many topics. He wrote on what a true church is, spoke against the Church of England, noting that “true biblical discipline is, in fact, incongruous in a state church for none of the members has voluntarily committed himself” (186), and defended the singing of hymns and songs in church worship.

John Gill:  Gill was a prolific writer and a exceptionally intelligent. Nettles says, “Very early in life Gill’s intellectual precocity emerged and he soon demonstrated extraordinary ability in languages, specifically Greek, Hebrew, and Latin” (197). Gill was a powerful defender of Calvinism, composing a four-part tome, The Cause of God and Truth, published between 1735 and 1738, in response to Daniel Whitby’s attack on the doctrines of grace.  Gill also spoke on behalf of the prescriptive use of a confession of faith. He believed that not doing so was one cause of theological decline, the other being a neglect of the doctrine of God’s sovereignty.

Gill also addressed other things such as deism and Sabellianism (the idea that God is one person who has revealed himself in three modes). Gill proved to be an effective defender of the Trinity.

He wrote a lot. He engaged many enemies with keen analysis and exposition of their logical fallacies.  Nettles remarks, “Issues of biblical theology, historical theology, philosophical theology, systematic theology, practical ecclesiology, apologetics, biblical linguistics, biblical exposition, experimental religion, and issues of pastoral ministry are all dealt with clearly and cleanly” (215).

Gill’s education and sharp analytical thinking was not superfluous. When Anthony Collins composed a sophisticated attack on Christianity, “Gill’s knowledge of Jewish literature was invaluable for demonstrating the vacuity of Collins’ destructive arguments” (Nettles 240).

Andrew Fuller:  Fuller was baptized in 1770 after conversion from a sinful lifestyle, then joined a Baptist church.  In 1775, Fuller learned of a debate among Calvinists which was to occupy much of his effort. It revolved around the so-called “modern question” that asked whether unregenerate people were under any obligation to repent and believe, and also were preachers under obligation to call upon such people to repent and have faith. Fullers answer was a resounding Yes. He argued carefully that if God’s withholding grace were sufficient to nullify man’s responsibility, then grace was no gift, but a burden, for without it, a man was not truly guilty. Fuller’s full treatise on the subject has been touted as “the shot which provoked the army into the field of battle” (Nettles 243). It was called The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, published in 1785.

Fuller, like the others, defended Calvinism, and did so astutely. Consider the following thoughts from Fuller: Arminianism “appeared to me to ascribe the difference between one sinner and another, not to the grace of God, but to the good improvement made of grace given us in common with others.” He believed that “to suppose God to act in time without an eternal purpose in his action is to deprive him of wisdom, or to suppose a new purpose to arise is to accuse him of mutability” (Nettles 254). Therefore, we “are landed upon election” (Fuller qtd. in Nettles 254).  He once proposed seven reasons why regeneration must precede our coming to Jesus.

On the other hand, he refuted hyper-Calvinism by arguing the “modern question” and also by taking a view of the atonement that sees it as not as limited to the elect in its nature, but limited to the elect by the covenantal design of God—God’s deliberate purpose to save a certain group of particular people. The first view sees the atonement more as a commercial transaction. But, says Fuller, if this were the case, it would be “inconsistent with free forgiveness of sin, and with sinners being directed to apply for mercy as supplicants, rather than as claimants” (Fuller qtd. in Nettles 256).

He also, according to Nettles, “did not ignore the broader issues of his day,” but rose up against “deists and Socinians, thoroughly mastered their writings, and fired off replies so perceptive and to-the-point that his opponents found their arguments clearly emasculated” (268). He was a faithful and caring minister, exercising church discipline with seriousness and glad to warmly receive penitent sinner back into the fold. He died in 1815.

William Carey:  William Carey accomplished much for the Lord, but led a very hard life. His faithfulness is a great inspiration. After conversion, Carey was influenced positively by Robert Hall’s book, Help to Zion’s Travelers, which taught from a Particular Baptist viewpoint. This does not mean he did not thoroughly examine the argument for infant baptism. But he finally rejected that practice in favor of believer baptism alone. Carey would prove to be very gifted in linguistics, and this would aid him later in the work God had for him.

In 1792, he was part of the formation of “The Particular Baptist Society for the Propagation of the Gospel Amongst the Heathen.” Supported by this organization, he would go to India to preach the gospel. One of the first requests was for a Bengali translation of the Bible.In 1801, the Bengali New Testament was completed. It was just the beginning. “Carey was responsible for translating the Bible, or supervising and overseeing its translation, whole or in part, into thirty-six distinct languages,” says Nettles (296). Indeed, Carey became one of the most respected Sanskrit grammarians among scholars. His work in Bengali even helped improve the language. He began schools in illiterate areas, and used the Bible to teach, believing that “comprehensive education [would] prepare the students for a rich life free of superstition” (Nettles 302). He taught math, science, geography, logic, and reading. He and the missionaries he worked with thought that “sound education would reveal several untenable features of pagan religion and at the same time enhance one’s own openness to true Christian faith” (Nettles 302-3).

But things were not easy. Carey’s first wife only reluctantly agreed to move to India. There, she eventually lost her mind and gave William much aggravation, accusing him of infidelity, breaking into outbursts of anger and profanity, and threatening his life. When she died, Carey was uncertain of her salvation, though others believed her to have been saved, but afflicted with stress, fever, and mercury poisoning.  Later a fire destroyed huge volumes of Carey’s work, especially in certain indigenous languages. Following this, the Society defunded his operations due to lack of converts. Carey continued to work. He fought the spreading notion that many ways existed to reach God and that exclusive religious claims were arrogant and intolerant and outdated in our pluralistic world. He died in 1834, leaving a great legacy, and was buried by Charlotte, his second wife.

As these seven portraits impress me, they do so not only as Christians, but as theological forbears, seeing that I, as a Reformed Baptist believer, have myself identified with the community of faith to which they belong. I look up to them, therefore, in a special way. You may wonder if it is right to admire mere men. It is, as long as the admiration never eclipses our worship of God. In fact, it is not only right, but healthy to have admirable heroes. In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul plainly told the Corinthians to imitate him, as he imitated Christ (1 Cor. 11:1). Consider Hebrews 13:7, which tells us to “remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.” God knows that sometimes, as earthly as we are, it is easier to follow the example of someone closer to home, and encouraging to know that fellow human beings can do right, even if not all the time. So choose heroes. Just make sure you don’t idealize them (or idolize them) and most importantly, make sure they’re the right heroes.

“Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad” – and “God shows no partiality.”

It is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son." And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

So says Romans 9:8-13. The verses that follow are even more explicit concerning God’s free right to choose some to bless and save and some to curse and condemn without regard to any of their own actions or anything else about them. It is a choice based entirely on God’s free will. The Bible is clear: God exercises complete freedom in election and saves whomever he wants, without anticipating any cause for his selections in the people selected. God is the prime mover in election.

The Bible is also clear about something else: God shows no partiality. He is not partial to any persons for any reason, but is completely fair and impartial. From Deuteronomy 10:17 through Colossians 3:25, God’s impartial judgment is emphasized. He judges with equity and rules with fairness. Are God’s sovereign election and his impartiality compatible?

In discussing divine predestination with a friend many years ago, I was first confronted with this dilemma. Stressing that God chooses sinners for salvation not based on anything about them—that God chooses whomever he wants—I was reminded, “But there is no partiality with God.” I stopped. In Calvinism, God is not granting equal treatment; there can be no dispute about that. It certainly gave me something to think about, and it wasn’t for a long time that I would have a satisfactory answer.

A PROBLEM JUST FOR CALVINISM?

The first thing to realize is that, when you think about it even briefly, this is not a problem for Calvinism alone. All orthodox Christians believe that God (regardless of the reasons) is not going to treat everyone alike. He is going to treat some people according to what they deserve and treat other people not according to what they deserve. The only way to get around God’s discrimination here is to teach that everyone will be condemned (which no one teaches) or that no one will be condemned (which universalists teach but Scripture doesn’t). So the difficulty stares us in the face: God is not partial in the least, but he discriminates between persons, saving some and judging others. This is equally true in Calvinist and Arminian schemes. All I would have initially have to have done for my Arminian objector is turn the tables on him.

SO… WHAT’S THE ANSWER?

Partiality in the Bible is constantly condemned. It is not only God who is to be impartial, but we as well. Under Mosaic Law, partiality was forbidden in the court of law. Verses abound prohibiting partial judgment, but most such verses are attached to a group of people. Don’t be partial to the poor. Don’t be partial to the rich. Don’t be partial to someone who bribes you. Don’t be partial to the wicked. Partiality is tied to being attracted to (either by sympathy or by being impressed or by what you’re given in return, or whatever) a certain party or group of people and, because of that, leaning toward them or treating them better, even when it isn’t just. Impartiality is a communicable attribute of God—an attribute of God that we can posses to some degree, and ought to try to. So we can be confident that God’s impartiality is the purest form of the impartiality he commands of us.

Taken this way, what it means for God to be impartial is that God will not treat anyone contrary to justice due to anything about that person that attracts the deference or pity of God or as a favor for something they can offer God. No action, no promise, no motion on your part can pull God’s favor.

BUT GOD IS FAVORABLE TO SOME PEOPLE, AND NOT EVERYONE

True. But it is not because he is partial to them. Then could it be because their works have made them deserving of salvation? If that were the case, then God’s favor would not be partiality—it would be justice. The problem is that all our so-called righteous acts are filthy before God, and the harder we try to assuage God, the further we dig ourselves into debt. But then we’re left with the same question. How does one receive favor from an impartial God if it cannot be earned?

A PROBLEM FOR ARMINIAN THEOLOGY

The answer lies in two very important things: 1) God sent his Son as a propitiation for the sins of the world so that “he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:26). Because Jesus was a substitute who was judged in the place of God’s elect, they can be set free without an infraction of God’s perfect justice. But the question still remains: Why them? And this is the question that concerns our look at God’s impartiality. Jacob is loved, Esau is hated. Joe Schmoe is loved, Jon Doe is hated. We still have our initial partiality problem.

Here is my conclusion. Remember how partiality is defined. The reason my Arminian friend threw God’s impartial nature at me is because it seemed to contradict the Calvinist idea of unconditional election. But that’s just it. Therein lies the solution. God is NOT partial because his choice of sinners is UNCONDITIONAL. He is not attracted to his special people by anything in them or anything they do or offer in return. He chooses men and women, boys and girls, from a wide cross-section of nations, people groups, races, social classes, and backgrounds. And his choice has nothing to do with them! They cannot bribe and have not bribed God. This is strictly because God’s effectual call is a gift of free grace and “not from anything at all foreseen in mankind, nor from any power or agency in the creature” (Baptist Confession of Faith 10.2). This is why God’s unconditional election of sinners is not a show of partiality: because the recipients of his saving grace have not in any way pulled God’s favor; God has pushed it entirely on his own. They have not persuaded God, as it were, to save them over against the mass of mankind who remain unsaved.

In the final analysis, this leaves Arminian theology with the partiality problem it thought was a conundrum for Calvinism. The Arminian idea of a conditional election, an election rooted in the anticipated faith of the recipient, appears, as I see it, to pose a difficulty. It makes God partial to the faithful. You see, in Arminian theology, Jesus died for all people indiscriminately and alike, God’s prevenient grace enables any and all to accept Christ in faith, and God waits for those who respond and retroactively “predestines” those people. If this is true, if Jesus died for every single person, then what’s the difference?

It’s you.

You have effectively bought God’s favor with faith and repentance, which are not free gifts of grace, but come—in the ultimate determining sense—from within you, and, by the way, put you on higher moral ground than those around you who, though equally able (or enabled by God’s universal draw), did not accept Christ. Congratulations! You have successfully made God partial to you by bribing him with your faith and repentance.

But may it never be, for God shows no partiality.

Pirate Radio

Pirate Radio wasn’t a bad movie. It was interesting and had some very likeable and unlikeable characters and other characters that had likeable and despicable sides to them. But what I noticed was the way the movie depicted two very unhealthy extremes. It showcased the dehumanizing lifestyles of the excessively strict and the excessively libertine.

Alistair Dormandy, an English bureaucrat, represents the legalistic way of life, and at one point even quips, with visible pleasure, “If you don’t like something, you simply pass a new law making it illegal” (the basic logic of liberal progressives in the United States today).

Life on the boat, on the other hand is as free from moral laws as Mr. Dormandy’s life is free from freedom. But contrary to creating a wonderland, the lack of any moral lodestar here gets people deeply hurt–and confused.

Whatever else the movie may have communicated, I liked how it allowed us to see how flawed and how destructive these two extremes of restraint and autonomy can be. Of course, most people do live between them, society itself usually providing the guidelines of what is considered normal behavior. But even here there is an absence of true guidance. It turns out that it is only in Christ and the law and liberty that he brings can we find a new and balanced way to be human, since “he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord” and yet “likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ” (1 Cor. 7:22).

“I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren…”

Sadly, survey after survey (here’s one) show that a large portion of professing Christians are, when it comes to matters of their own religious faith, severely uneducated. Sometimes it’s not their fault. Usually it is. Many Christian adults have never even read the whole Bible, which they believe is the inspired Word of God, upon which their entire system of thought is founded. One atheist quips “It’s like a lawyer spending thousands of dollars and years in law school while never managing to actually read the Constitution.” His insult is not entirely undeserved, and it makes me wonder, Why aren’t Christians learning about God and Christianity with fervor?

Reading in Hosea, I was reminded how important it is to study spiritual truth. God is not content for us to sit back, but desires us to be active in pursuing a complete picture of the truth that he condescended to give to us via the Bible. In Hosea chapter 4, God is bringing an accusation against Israel, his chosen people. He says that there is “no knowledge of God in the land; there is swearing, lying, murder, stealing, and committing adultery.” God is very aware of something my pastor said yesterday in his sermon: that bad theology leads to bad living (and vice versa, creating a kind of circle—but the point is, the two are very much interrelated). In verse 6, God says, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God [read: the Bible] I also will forget your children.” In fact, in chapter 6, God says he prefers knowledge of God over burnt offerings.

These texts have something to say to us. We Christians are God’s people now, the real Israel, and the people with whom God is in covenant relationship. In Matthew 22:29, Jesus himself rebukes the Pharisees because they did not know the Scriptures well enough. Our sincerity is not sufficient—our faith is only as good as the validity of its object. Remember in Romans 10:2, that Paul says the Jews have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. Their ideas about God were incorrect, so their zeal was meaningless. Fortunately, God has given us the truth about himself in the Bible, since all Scripture is profitable for doctrine and for instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16). Bible study, then, is not an option in the Christian life.

Christian ignorance comes from two sides, of course. First, there is poor teaching in churches where the truth is watered down, stops at preschool level, or is replaced with cheerleading, motivational speeches, or funny anecdotes. My advice: find a better church. But second, there is the laziness or apathy of the individual Christian. Theology is not for “them.” It’s for YOU! And luckily, we in the West have a pile of resources to help us learn about God. There is no excuse. And why wouldn’t you want to learn about the thing which is most important to you? Go ahead, pick up a systematic theology book. It may weigh ten pounds, but no one is asking you to finish it by next Wednesday. There are great ones. Try James Boyce or Wayne Grudem. For a slightly lighter serving, Grudem has a condensed version simply called Bible Doctrine. Not a bad starting place. There are also great books by R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer (notably, Knowing God), Michael Horton, and James White, just to name a few. Don’t know where to start on the Web? Try

The resources are endless. Unfortunately, you have to filter out the jewels from the junk. With a good foundation laid from the kinds of teachers and ministries I listed above, that will become much easier over time. Eventually, you’ll be able to sniff out faulty teaching like a hound. I leave you with the apostle Peter’s encouragement to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

What Our Schools Need is a Moment of Science

The National Medal of Science is awarded by the President of the United States of America to individuals whose scientific contributions have been deemed worthy by a 12-member committee gathered for just this purpose. The medal itself pictures a man with a crystal in his hand and inscribing a formula in the sand. When I first saw a picture of the medal, I thought the man was holding a flame of fire in his hand, which to me was a poetic depiction of human discovery, immortalized in the ancient myth of man’s first discovery of the means of controlling fire, from which, according to the myth, our scientific progress proceeded. The crystal which the medal actually depicts represents the order of the universe, apart from which science would be impossible, and the unfinished equation represents scientific abstraction. The man is surrounded by earth, sea, and air, representing his attempt to comprehend the elements that make up the world around him.

To me, this picture of man is a beautiful one, hearkening back to the words of Shakespeare, “in apprehension, how like a god!” or of the Bible, that God has “made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor and has given him dominion” and stated that “nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.”

Human existence is one of discovery and subsequent control, in the creation of artifacts based upon knowledge of the materials we use to create. Science is of utmost importance. It is one of the things that separates man from the apes. It is indeed a result of the imago dei in humankind. And it works. Everything we see around us is due to the understanding we have of nature through the scientific method. Your house, your air conditioner, your car, your computer, your Advil, your shoes. Even your toothbrush. They are all products of applied sciences. I trust science. And so do you. It’s value cannot be questioned, but it is not only a vehicle of comfort, security, productivity, or health; it is an intrinsic part of the human experience, and without it, we stagnate into a kind of essential death, or death of our essence. Scientific inquiry is a necessary part of the dominion mandate of Genesis 1:26, 28, and to abandon the pursuit of it would be to sever a piece of the human soul and to spurn the desire of God.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.