Five Myths Millennials Believe

Ah, we Millennials. How did we grow up so short-sighted, under-funded, emotionally needy and over-confident? How did we grow up and abandon religion, or at least good Christianity, good budget skills or good logic?
   [I thought it prudent to remind the reader that I'm 22 years old, and thereby just as Millennial as the next twenty-something. I speak for my own generation here, not someone else's.]
   Without further ado, 5 Myths that Millennials believe!

        Number 1: Global Warming is melting the polar ice caps at a rate never before seen, and we need to stop polluting practices to keep the ice frozen, like it's supposed to be.
        Facts: Yes, the average hot temperature has gone up over the last few decades. One interesting thing to note, though, is that almost none of the Global Warming people have actually been to either Pole. Those that have largely occupied two Polar missions to the ice cap above Greenland, Canada and Russia, in order to prove to the world that, according to their calculations and theories, during the warm season ships can now sail through waters that were previously were impassible. Both expeditions encountered massive ice floes and blockages, even whole huge sheets of frozen layers of ice that hadn't melted for years and years, despite the theories of theirs that say that this ice melts completely ever summer.

       Number 2: Rich people either inherited their wealth, or got huge help from other rich people to start up. Just look at Trump!
       Facts: Many millionaires worked their way to that point, often from ramen-eating, clunker-driving existences. Dave Ramsey is a good example. He worked himself to millionaire status from nothing, got stupid (his word, not mine) and lost it all, and then built himself up even better than he was, from the nothing he had left himself. So Dave Ramsey is good proof that it can be done - twice. But there are plenty of others. Just listen to Ramsey's "Millionaire Hour" on his radio show
(https://www.youtube.com/watchv=TBVc9RGmnl4&list=PLN4yoAI6teRNHlVsLUYTquLdh3kh1VXES), where real millionaires call in and talk about what they did. The secret, usually, is hard work, frugality and sacrifice. You don't get rich on Starbucks, energy drinks, a new phone, a new car, a bigger apartment or anything like that. You get rich by working big, earning big, saving big, investing big (in safe investments, not the crazy stuff) and spending tiny. Dave Ramsey's kids used to complain that he spent so little, but now they can all look back on college that he paid cash for, and numerous other things he's been able to do because of his lifestyle, and now they're working to follow his example. We can do this. But it won't be overnight, and we don't get treats along the way - we've got to work for it.

        Number 3: Religion has always resisted scientific progression, and science is now killing religion.
        Facts: Atheism doesn't make much sense as a philosophical theory (perhaps I'll make a post about that soon), but its scientific theories don't make much scientific sense, either. I don't say that as a layperson - I prefer to listen to scientists' opinion on this. Philosophy is killing atheism, and evolution is key in preserving atheism as a worldview. Without evolution, atheism can't explain life, especially intelligent life. But the problem is that science continues, not just to baffle, but to contradict evolutionary theory. A prime example: when Darwin's evolutionary theories first exploded into a mainstream worldview, the scientific community thought that cells were mind-numbingly simple organisms with basically no internal mechanisms. They thought they were little blobs of goo with a semisolid membrane protecting their otherwise amorphous insides. From this perspective, it seems almost reasonable to postulate that such an organism might have spontaneously evolved from some sort of primordial soup (the existence and makeup of which science has never really had good proof). The problem, however, is that cells are incredibly more complex than early evolutionists (or Creationists, for that matter) could have dreamed. They have complex proteins that make up their skin, molecular machines that pump fluid from one part of the cell to another and back, digestive processes, waste processes, reproductive mechanisms to ensure that the first cell is not the last, motor function machines within the organism that help it move about, to say little of the huge store of readable data found in cellular DNA and the mechanisms that translate it and put its messages into effect. These sorts of mechanisms, most of which are completely necessary, so far as we can tell, for a cell to survive at all. Without all of them, it would have none of them - or at least, it couldn't survive without all.
        In addition to this, the scientific explosion in the Renaissance was pioneered by Christians like Gallileo Gallilei and Isaac Newton, and scientists have a pretty good Christian population to this day.

        Number 4: Reformed Theology (a.k.a. Calvinism) is the greatest, purest, most consistent form of Christianity ever, and is the most effective version of the Gospel. John Piper and his contemporaries are great men of God.
        Facts: I've developed a degree of respect for my Reformed brothers and sisters, but this myth needs to stop. In my other posts, I explain why it is that this is a myth at more length, but suffice it to say for now that Reformed Theology claims to be Biblical, but isn't.

        Number 5: Feminism is the great celebration of women.
        Facts: How interesting to note that the way Feminism celebrates womanhood is by making women as much like men as they can... Feminists want men's jobs (which we don't deny them, provided they do a good job), they want men's pay (same), they want men's authority, they want men's apparel, they want men's hairstyles, they want men's sports, they want men's cars, they want men's civil rights - in other words, women want to have what men have and to be what men are. It sounds to me like Feminism is more a celebration of manhood than womanhood.

   So those are five of the myths we Millennials believe! How we got to the point of actually believing any of these five things is depressing and truly beyond me. I don't get it.
   Anyway, thanks for reading and check me out again back here in a week!

   God bless.

God's Character

God's Character

The Nature of Justice

Who is God?

That's a question that has boggled and busied mankind for millennia. What is God? What's he like? What does he want? Why does he do what he does? Why is there evil in the world if God is good? Questions, questions, questions. And not all of the answers are forthcoming.

Luckily for us, the Bible lays out many of the things we need to know about God right in front of us.

The Bible tells us that God is good, holy, righteous, just, gracious and loving (among other things – he has other attributes, but these are the ones most relevant to this discussion). No true Christian will contradict any of these traits of God's.

The Bible tells us that God is holy, which basically affirms, proves and supports his goodness. No conflict there. The Bible tells us that God is good, which kind of sums up his character and motives in itself. The Bible tells us that God is righteous, which tells us not only is God a moral entity, but that he is morally good and upright. The Bible tells us that God is just, and loving, and gracious. And this is where the conflict begins.

Calvinism defines Justice as “each receiving according to his merits,” and Grace as “someone not getting something bad that they deserve.” In Calvinism's definitions, it admits that this makes Grace and Justice incompatible. What's worse is that Calvinism admits that God doesn't always give each according to his merits – making him not completely just, really. So, modern Calvinists use the concept of “non-justice.” Non-justice, Calvinism says, is when God does something that isn't just, but isn't unjust either. Grace, it says, falls under this category. (Deuteronomy 32:4, among other passages, tell us that God is just in all of his ways. One of the most serious problems presented for the concept of non-justice lies in verses like Deuteronomy 32:4.)

[NOTE: I know that not all Calvinists agree on every single tenet of doctrine, and that not every Calvinist will feel properly represented by the concept of non-justice. If anyone feels I am misrepresenting their doctrine in its description here (though not the refutation), please feel free to let me know in a comment, and I'll gladly hear you out.]

But does Justice itself really leave any room for such a concept? Is there any righteousness outside of justice? Can God even express such contradictory attributes?

But let's concede “non-justice” for a moment. Even then, we still have God ignoring his own just character whenever it suits his fancy – in other words, God is only just most of the time, not always. Calvinism says that when God executes justice, he sends people to Hell (for something he ultimately caused, but that's already been covered). So when he spares people, he makes an exception in his just character. But also, justice is unloving in Calvinism. When God executes love, he spares the Elect and ignores justice. Calvinism sees beauty in this – the God that throws everything else aside to save his people. So the God of Calvinism is loving to some, and just to others – but he can't be both for both sets of people. The Calvinist definitions leave no room for it.

In order for God to be both loving and just toward the same group of people, as the Bible plainly teaches*, we must seek a definition that fits this model. And I believe good theology has done just that.

*[The Bible teaches that God is perfectly loving and perfectly just.]

Justice is to be defined as obeying and/or enforcing law. A just man is one who obeys law, and a just judge is one who both obeys and enforces it. “Justice is served” when a punishment demanded by law, for violation of law, is meted to the offender according to the requirements made by law. Justice punishes evil according to law.

[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justice    <> Full Definition C]

If justice seeks to destroy, and love seeks to build, how can they be compatible?

The answer lies in a final question: Why do we have Justice in the first place?

We have justice because of love. Justice is basically a set of laws designed, not simply to combat evil, but to protect the people that we love – that often involves combating evil, but that's not all that Justice entails. Justice is not incompatible with love – in fact, love requires and conceives justice. Love that will not protect is no love at all, and justice is that protection.

But the question remains, as to whether it is truly just for God to show grace to us. Calvinism would say no, it's not just. But again, that leaves us with a God that picks and chooses when he wants to be just, and when he feels like doing something outside his own rules. If the expression of God's grace lies plainly within the bounds of Justice, however, then it would be just for him to offer Grace to us. It depends upon one's definition of Justice, and more importantly, upon God's definition of justice.

The most disturbing question that is raised by this concept is this: If God were going to operate outside of justice in order to save us, relying solely on the allegedly unmeritorious systems of grace, why do we see an atoning death on our behalf? If God were ignoring the rules of his own character, couldn't he just bypass the atonement bit, the part that Jesus was so nervous about? If God could just bypass things like this, if he could save us without justice, without rules, then why did he let himself be tortured to death for us? If God were willing to save us without justice, then it follows that he would probably be willing to save us without payment – it completely nullifies the cross. If God saved his Elect with no regard at all for justice, then Jesus died for nothing. If God ignored justice, then there was no need whatsoever for such atonement – but we know that because of God's just character, he refused to save us without satisfying justice. Justice demands payment for sins, and he paid the price. Now that justice has been served, and love thus fulfilled, love is free to save by grace through faith.

Justice proceeds from love. If God justly saves via atonement of crimes because he loves the criminal, then justice is entirely compatible with this salvation. The concept of non-justice is not only ridiculous, but also completely redundant. Justice does not mean merits – it means law.

In summation, Calvinism claims that God is perfectly just, perfectly righteous, perfectly gracious and perfectly loving, but the essence of Calvinism tells us that God is kind-of-just, kind-of-righteous, kind-of-gracious and kind-of-loving, and maybe not at all.