Some people believe that getting remarried after a divorce is adultery and a sin. This would have to include dating. Yet, it seems that some people who believe remarriage is a sin might excuse dating as acceptable by creating artificial and legalistic “technicalities” in order to justify their personal desires to justify dating as long as they do not get remarried? This however is a display of hypocrisy in order to bend artificial rules created by personal legalism and lack of control.
If remarriage is a sin, then dating must be included as a sin in such a belief. The Hebrew Prophets and Jesus always called the people to the heart of the law rather than the legalistic letter of the law. For example Jesus equated the entertaining of adulterously imaginative thoughts about another woman as equal to the physical act of adultery. In the same manner, Emotional adultery by which a man or woman seeks the fulfillment of emotional and spiritual needs through a member of the opposite sex other than their spouse is as guilty as one who commits physical adultery, because it is the heart which displays the true character of a person and which leads to the physical action, and the physical action does not occur unless the heart is already in position to do so. Therefore dating is emotional and spiritual form of intimacy and union by which one mirrors the emotional and spiritual union of marriage even without the physical union with another person. To hold to the belief that remarriage after divorce is adultery and sin, but to excuse dating on the technicality that it is ok as long as one does not physically remarry is nothing more than legalistic hypocrisy motivated by self-interest and lack of self-control.
Religion is the sociological label for one’s philosophical world view concerning the existence of a god, gods, powers, or no god. Even Atheism is a religion as it makes a philosophical statement about the non-existence of god, gods or powers. Humanistic Atheism or Secular Humanism specifically replaces a god, gods, or powers, with the potential of the human person and perhaps the human person itself. The religious nature of such a philosophical world view that believes in the non-existence of a god, gods, or powers, has been confirmed by various court rulings that have recognized such world views to be religious in nature. The attempt to reshape current systems into atheist systems where god, gods, or powers in the traditional sense is not allowed is therefore not the removal of religion from the system, but rather a replacement of traditional religions with the religion of atheism or humanism. It seems that what is portrayed to be a battle for human rights is in reality a battle to enforce one specific philosophical world view over all others. This religious intolerance is perhaps most evident by the ferocity with which those of the humanist religions attacks all other religious structures within the public realm particularly those of the Christian philosophical worldview.
As I was reading through some Scripture I came to a thought about salvation.
Calvinism believes in the election of souls for salvation. We do nothing for our salvation but rather God choses and saves those whom he decides to save. With such a system of salvation and thus eternal security, it makes sense that many calvinist-based ministries place great emphasis in getting the non-believer to come to salvation yet tend to be weak on the follow-up towards discipleship, because the goal of calvinist evangelism is to get that commitment for Christ on the basis that once a person has become a believer, he will be eternally secure no matter what he does with his life afterwards.
This seems fairly logical and satisfies a desire for security yet that is just the problem. Are we trying to understand God’s plan for our comfort of mind in a system that logically makes sense to us? Or are we trying to understand how God works as he has revealed himself in scripture?
Inconsistencies seem to arise when we adopt such a logically pleasing doctrine, as Scripture seems to suggest election as well as a universal love that allows for free will. Is Arminianism right? or is Calvinism right? Scripture shows evidence for both in action, and to claim that one is right at the exclusion of the other seems rather presumptuous, arrogant, and creates inconsistency in the understanding of Scripture.
One such inconsistency deals with the saving power of Christ’s death. Scripture tells us that Christ died for all, yet Calvinist theology tells us this cant be so. The assumption is that if Christ died for all then all should go to heaven. Yet people still deny Christ and go to hell. If Christ died for all and people still go to hell, then his saving power is ineffective. The Calvinist conclusion is that Christ only died for those who are elect. In this way Christ’s death was 100% effective for those whom he died for.
The inconsistency with this theology is that while according to their definition, Christ’s power is effective for whom it was meant, it is now limited. It is as if to say that Christ could not save everyone, so he chose to save those he could save. While trying to save one limitation, Calvinist theology in effect creates another. If I were to say that I can beat everyone at a game of cards and yet I only played against 8 year-olds, then yes, given that I only play against 8 year-olds I can beat everyone I play against. However it is quite obvious that my ability at cards is very much limited in skill.
1 John 2:2 says, “and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.”
There is nothing limiting or ambiguous about “holos kosmos” (whole world) that could possibly make it mean “whole world of only those he chose to save”. The normal reading and understanding of the phrase is simply the “whole world”, everyone, chosen or not, no exceptions, all. Christ’s power has given the potential for all to be saved if we but respond to His saving grace.
Instead of asking, “are you an Arminianist?” or, “are you a Calvinist?”, maybe we should stop blindly following human figures or popular books and programs, and instead look at what Scripture actually says and follow Jesus Christ.
Before we begin to say, “Calvin said…” or “Mother Teresa said…” or “This book says…”, maybe we shoudl stop, see what Scripture has to say about it, and find out what God has to say about it.
