some struggles with the implications of predestination theology

they say that if we are saved, it is because God saved us, but if we are not saved, it's unbelief. but how can we believe without faith? and if it's God who gives us faith, how can you place responsibility on humans for this decision? by this reasoning, is it just an illusion that we make decisions? because it sounds to me like God decides who gets to know him and go to Heaven. and, by extension, who doesn't.

so how can i be expected to find comfort in his choosing me and not someone else? they say that it's faith to accept these paradoxes, but for me to accept them is to buy into a different God than i've always known, a God who is inconsistent, plays favorites, and didn't actually die for every person. a God who says he does not will that any should perish, yet condemns some to Hell for no discernible reason. no, i am not comforted. i cannot believe it.

but would it cease to be true just because i didn't believe it? let's pause for a second, to think of the ramifications. if this were true, God's will would still be inexorable. we still wouldn't stand a chance against him. so even if i didn't agree with his system of justice, what good would it do to disagree openly? people only oppose God because it doesn't suit them to believe in him, but it would be absolute folly to believe and still oppose him. even to believe and do nothing to further his purpose would be extremely self-centered, saving only yourself while knowing others were in danger. a better strategy would be to convince yourself that your cause was a just one, if only for the sake of being able to live with yourself. so Christianity would look exactly the same, but love would no longer enter into the equation; we would follow God solely out of fear. in fact, this is probably what it looks like to a critically-thinking outsider. in short, is it a given that an almighty God must always be a good one?

yet we are assured in Scripture that he is good.. that's, like, his main defining trait. so all of my conclusions must go through this filter if Scripture is to be believed (which, if it weren't, this would be a pointless and entirely different rant).

if there are multiple possible paths to orthodoxy, this question is not a particularly useful one. the main result of me rehashing this question is me questioning God's character. i am always trying to learn more about his character. but now i'm terrified i'll discover something about him that will contradict everything i've always believed. i suppose that's where faith comes in--believing in his goodness, even when i don't understand all the details.

at my core, i am deeply relational, and also deeply curious. i always want to know why. i especially want to discover why people do things and how they work. so i have to conclude that i'm this inquisitive out of love, not just skepticism. i may never be satisfied with an answer to this question. but i have to keep digging.

hard questions

if one is saved once, is he saved for all time, or can he reject that which he once believed? if that happened, would the Spirit then leave him?

how should we understand blessing? can i really say "i'm blessed in this way" when so many aren't? can i know that all things, good and bad, are for the purpose of furthering God's good plan? can i really say accurately "God will provide" or "God will protect?" how can i, as one person, even make global statements about something like this?

how can i say "God provided this" or "God will provide this" or "God will do this" with any degree of confidence when, for many, their basic needs are not provided for or granted? is it because they didn't pray? is it because they didn't trust in God? or is the provision more on a spiritual level? and if that's the case, can we really call any physical good thing "provision" or "a blessing?"

if faith is granted by God, what does that say for those who have none? why would God grant faith to some and not to others? do we all have faith which we must choose to act on at some point in our lives?

dancing

reasons i like dancing:

• it’s active, but also artistic
• physical closeness, but with clearly defined roles and boundaries
• teamwork and unity—you have each other’s back and are working together
• it can be romantic, but can also just be social (because of the physical closeness with boundaries)
• it makes me feel graceful and pretty!
• it can be very simple or very complex, and you have the freedom to decide, and to improvise
• music
• it’s a good opportunity to talk, but you don’t have to

i'm just going to start adding random irrelevant titles when i can't think of good ones.

it's hard to do something new when you know it probably won't be very good, especially when you know others who could do a much better job. but oftentimes, it's still important and worthwhile to try.

another lie

lie: sin and death of our souls is not the greatest issue and the greatest problem.

dftbabiycbatsfaatft

there's a saying i often remember: dftba (don't forget to be awesome)

it's fun to aspire to and maybe joke about. but in seriousness, sometimes being awesome is too overwhelming a burden to take on. so i want to allow myself this addition:

don't forget to be awesome . . . but if you can't be awesome, then strive for alright, and that's fine too.

two taboos

something i have never ever talked about here: politics.

politics (as a subject) is interesting because—no, wait. i shouldn’t say that. i actually find politics horribly boring and frustrating and depressing.


take 2.


the way we approach politics can be interesting—and, admittedly, frustrating—because it’s so polarizing. it seems like everyone has an opinion, and everyone urges everyone else to have an opinion, but only if it’s the same opinion. otherwise, you’re the “other”. but most discussions i’ve experienced on this have not been nuanced. most of them have been emotionally charged and combative, relying more on blame than on an exchange of information and ideas.

admittedly, politics is a subject of conversation i have mostly avoided, so my perception may be skewed. i know there are many who can, and actively do, pursue nuanced understanding of controversial topics.

i understand that this is probably an important thing. that being said, a few years ago, i gave myself permission to not have opinions about things on which i had little to no information. so the next step: to become better informed.


all this is not actually why i came here. instead, i want to point out to myself a similar approach i’ve seen on a different matter. this is helping me understand my instinctive approach to both topics.

shockingly, the other topic is religion. *gasp!*

religion is a bit different for me, because i have both opinions and information (at least, about my own religion. as i’ve stated in the past, my lack of a complete understanding of various worldviews is part of the problem here). but i still tend not to be very vocal about it in most situations, even though, according to my beliefs, the stakes are higher. this might boil down to cowardice, but i think it might also be because the stakes are higher. if i thought that potentially sacrificing a person’s opinion of me or even relationship with me, would surely result in their salvation, i would be much more likely to do it. (btw, isn’t there a verse about that? no seed falling in vain or something?)

the truth is, i’m not sure i truly believe that presentation is irrelevant. biblically this is false, right? it is the truth of God, through the power of Christ, that saves people. Paul even admits to not having eloquent speech, which is what makes the power of God even more evident.

but i also don’t think that forcing things down people’s throats is an effective strategy to having them listen to what you say.

actually, Pastor Mark has talked about this. “make sure that it is Christ they are really rejecting, not just you.” so how do i do this?

welp, i thought i knew where this post was going, but i was wrong. let’s just call it the scenic route.