New Series -- Sort of, Random Thoughts While Running #1

I am going to start a new series (well, technically not a series) of posts about thoughts I have while out running.  I've already talked about my thoughts while running.  But, I'd like to make it a consistent category of posts.  Mainly because my thoughts while running are pretty random.

Let's start with this thought:

I recently (today) read a great blog entry from Evidence Unseen about the discussion between Calvinism and Arminianism.  I've blogged about and thought about this topic before and this entry has only strengthened my confidence in my view that Calvinism/Reformed Theology (C/RT) is a poor view of what the Bible really teaches.  I'm not saying I have all the answers, I'm just convinced that we do actually have true free will, and it is much easier to reconcile free will with sovereignty than it is to reconcile predestination with free will.  Also, despite some indications to the contrary, the Arminian view is more biblically sound and verifiable than I've read in the past.  Here are just a few examples (taken from that previous link): 2 Peter 3:9 key phrase, "not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance."  In the C/RT view, how can we reconcile God not wanting any to perish but He creates (presumably) millions upon billions of people that will perish without God.  Why would a loving God create people that He knows He will not choose to take to heaven.  More verses: John 15:10; Joshua 24:15; John 3:18, obviously, God wants people to choose.  If there's no such thing as free will there's also no such thing as sin, unless God is choosing or making people sin (which is impossible, Isaiah 6:3, and many other verses).

One last point on this issue (for now).  A friend of mine that is a staunch C/RTheologian, said that God is 100% sovereign, and that Adam and Eve were the only free moral agents, everyone since the fall/initial sin is a slave to sin.  Now there's still a problem...  If God is truly 100% sovereign, that means he made Adam and Eve with the plan that they would sin.  So God is responsible for their sin also.  It was in His plan all along.  They weren't really free moral agents to do what they willed, because God had already planned that they would sin.  All of this, and more, leads me to say that C/RT has the more difficult issue, both biblically and philosophically, to show how God can predestine everything and yet teach us to choose/believe, and judge us based on those choices.

On to less weighty thoughts!  I want to write at least two open letters.  I often see "open letters" talked about on blogs and other websites and I want to write at least two.  One, to atheists--well really to theists as well--that in discussions, we need to first discuss definitions of what we're to discuss before we discuss God, creation, biogenesis, etc.  The second and the one I was thinking about tonight as I ran was an open letter to all runners (I won't write all my thoughts out in this entry but this is my start):

Dear Fellow Runners,

Please try to throw off the shackles of your predisposition and prejudice and TAKE OFF YOUR FOOT-COFFINS!  Pardon the barefooter parlance, but "foot-coffins" are shoes.  I know it's tough.  When I first heard of the idea I was a bit sceptical.  But really I promise, you will like it.  Sure it might hurt a bit in different areas than when you run with your coffins on.  But I promise you will eventually grow to love the freedom and comfort, yes comfort that comes when you free your piggies.  I'm not saying that you must forever go barefoot.  In fact I'm really only encouraging you to try it.  I've not been running barefoot everywhere all the time since I started, but I'll tell you, my favorite "shoes" is when I'm not wearing shoes at all.

I won't lie, I recently restarted distance running training and tried to jump into it after a long break completely barefoot and I wasn't comfortable.  Since I need to train, and completely barefoot wasn't a viable option at the distances I need to run, I've been wearing my huaraches.  If you can't get around it, I recommend that if you cannot (because of whatever reason) go completely barefoot, try New Balance Minimus or Merrell's Barefoot line.  I personally run in Merrell Barefoot Trail Run shoes because I'm forced to by military regulations and they're pretty good, but just not as good as my huaraches, and I even prefer barefoot to my huaraches.

A few caveats: if you're planning or working on a PR in an upcoming race--that you're already pretty far along in you training for--don't switch.  If you're in an environment where the temperatures reach dangerous levels (though it is possible, I don't feel the danger is worth the risk).  If you struggle with real health issues like diabetes or some other significant health issue that affects your foot sensitivity (keep in mind I'm not a doctor, and I don't take any responsibility for your health).  Also, a word of caution and the reason I say hold off if you're working towards a PR or some other significant race, go slow.  I'm talking painfully slow.  I've heard some barefoot running teachers say only run one mile at a time for a couple weeks, and only add one mile a week for months.  Go slow, and immediately you'll feel the benefits, but if you go too fast and too far too soon, you run the risk of hurting yourself and you won't be able to enjoy it.

So do it, go out there, take off your shoes, and go run.  Set your piggies free!

Death of Free Will

Calvinism leads to the death of free will. I know that May seem like a serious claim but let's break it down.

Freedom - The ability to do as one wants.

Now, this is a simplistic definition of freedom because there are, most certainly, limitations to freedom. Take for example, I am not free to choose to breath oxygen, freely without mechanical assistance, under water. I'm limited by the laws of physics. I'm also bound by circumstances. For example right this moment I'm not free to go parasailing because I'm sitting in my living room and part of the laws of physics and my circumstances dictates that I cannot parasail at this very moment.

One last, and possibly the most important part of this idea, one cannot go against oneself. Now, before you get in a huff about this and say that I'm Calvinist after all... Listen, there are different levels to a person. For example, I want to eat ice cream right now, but I'm choosing not to do so because my will is overriding my natural desire. Anyone who's ever dieted can attest to this conundrum. I want to but I don't want to and that's okay. In the end I'm still doing what I want on a certain level.

Choice - an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.

This requires an actor, and two or more options. This doesn't mean that there cannot be agreement between two actors. Take my wife and I together we chose to attend a financial class. We came together and talked about the choice and decided that we agreed we should take this class. That's a different class of choices.  We're talking about two separate actors that do not consult each other.

Take Bob. Bob decides to murder his neighbor. Did God choose for Bob to murder his neighbor? There is no evil in God, therefore God could not have gone against His nature to choose murder.

Take Jim. Jim hates the very thought of God. His heroes are Nietzsche and Hitler. Jim is faced with a choice, to murder his neighbor or not. He chooses not to do so. Did God choose this? If all choices are God's choice then He did choose that. But, everything an evil person chooses is evil, so God couldn't have made this choice either because it's an evil choice too because Jim is evil.

If God makes all choices then God is evil.

Now, if you say God made the decision to let Bob and Jim make those decisions, that is a TOTALLY different position. That is a totally different decision. God didn't decide between the two options to murder or not to murder. That is not an option that God's nature allows. God chose to let Bob and Jim make those decisions.

Within Calvinism there are several ideas that rob everyone of this idea of choice. That is, within Calvinism mankind is limited by his nature to choose; the whole TULIP acronym, Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints means that mankind has absolutely no decision in salvation.  Within total depravity, is the concept that mankind has a sinful nature, and as such people cannot choose to love God.  Also, this sinful nature is part of mankind's birthright, it has nothing to do with each individual's behavior or anything like that.  To a certain extent I can see the point there, but the problem comes when one says that a sinful-natured person cannot go against that nature and choose God.

In this Calvinist view, mankind cannot be said to be punished for individual choices, only the choices of Adam/Eve.  They're the only people who have ever been able to make the choice to love God or disobey Him, ever since that one fateful decision all mankind has been doomed to hell.  Don't get me wrong, I feel the Bible more or less supports that idea (Rom. 5:12ff).  The problem is this, if no one can choose to do good ever, that means that mankind is doomed to hell not based on his own decision but based on the decisions of someone else.  That isn't freedom, that's slavery.  Now, yes, we are slaves to sin and after forgiveness we're slaves to righteousness so, we're always enslaved, but here's the kicker, how can we be punished for our nature?  That'd be like me being punished because I'm red-haired.  So, according to this view, I'm a slave because I was born a slave and I'll be punished to everlasting torment because I didn't win the lottery?

Here's the second issue, Unconditional Election especially when coupled with Irresistible Grace.  They also together remove all choice from mankind.  So, according to Calvinism, not only can I not make the decision because of my sinful nature, God specifically chooses exactly who gets saved.  Now, don't misunderstand me, I think in a certain way God chooses.  God is omniscient, which would mean that He knows who does and who doesn't want to be saved, and God is omnipotent, which means that He could work in such a way that makes whomever He wills choose salvation.  But, again, that's not freedom.  Being chosen by God as a random (that's the unconditional part, meaning it's not contingent on our actions or choices) recipient of grace and forgiveness is not freedom.  Especially with the idea of irresistible grace.  Not only can we not choose God, but if chosen we cannot resist, we cannot go against His choice in us.

So, where's this free will again?  Oh, it's dead.  It was recently engaged in so strong an argument that I would rather be an atheist than a Calvinist.  If this God that Calvinists believe in is really that terrible I don't want anything to do with it.  Maybe it's supposedly more biblical as some seem to believe, but it's certainly not rational.

I found yet another site about Calvinism and the first point it tries to make is that "man is one hundred percent responsible for his behavior."  I found this interesting site also which makes it clear that the Bible teaches that mankind can make free choices.  "Luke reports that, “by refusing to be baptized by [John], the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves” (Luke 7:30, emphasis added). How could Scripture be more explicit than that? So too, in Isaiah the Lord says, “Oh, rebellious children…who carry out a plan, but not mine; who make an alliance, but against my will, adding sin to sin” (Is. 30:1). Again, how could Scripture get any clearer than that?"  So, which is it?  Did the Pharisees actually reject God?  Not according to Calvinism, they were born rejecting God as part of their sin nature, not as any actual choice of their own.  So, how is man responsible for his own choices if his choices are

I realize that philosophically speaking having at least two options presented to an individual is all that's required for choice.  However, I would posit that there's more to it than that simple concept.  I believe that for a choice to be real the different options have to be viable options.  Like in the examples in Calvinism the sinful human cannot choose God/good because of a born-in predilection to sin.  That is not a real choice.

If Calvinism is right then John the Baptist was wrong in saying: "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"

In summary, I still believe in God.  I will always believe in God.  Also, I believe Christianity (really the Bible) has the best description of God available for mankind.  I will never and can never accept that Calvinism has the answers to the nature of Christianity/salvation.  I know I may be missing something, but as it stands, I don't think I will ever be dissuaded from holding that view.