Divine repentance

layman said...

Steve, would you mind walking me through how a passage such as Genesis 6:6 should be understood? Thanks:

Genesis 6:6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. (NKJV)

Let’s discuss some general issues, then apply those considerations to the case at hand.

1.Does the Bible sometimes employ anthropomorphic depictions of God? I’d say yes. For example:

i) It uses certain human social roles to depict God, viz. father, son, farmer, potter, husband, shepherd.

ii) It assigns body parts to God, viz., arms, hands, mouth, eyes.

iii) It also employs inanimate and bestial depictions of God, viz. rock, wind, water, fire, light, lion, eagle, hen.

iv) In fact, God himself, in some theophanies, simulates a human role—complete with all the trappings (e.g. Isa 6:1ff.).

v) Of course, a pagan—with his pantheon of corporeal or metamorphic gods—might take all of these theistic metaphors literally. However, the Bible also goes out of its way to contrast the true God with heathen divinities.

v) This, of itself, doesn’t prove that we should interpret Gen 6:6 anthropomorphically. However, it eliminates any presumption in favor of a literal interpretation. The anthropomorphic interpretation is a live exegetical option.

2.We’d also expect anthropomorphic metaphors to be more common in certain literary genres, like poetry and historical narrative.

For example, God is the main actor or lead character in many Biblical narratives. So we’d expect the narrator to represent God in ways similar to the human players. The story is written in a common universe of discourse.

3.Certain human emotions are either contingent on the limitations of human experience, or amplified by the limitations of human experience. Unless God shares the same limitations, he won’t experience the same emotions. The anthropomorphic interpretation is a live exegetical option.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that we can automatically discount all emotive depictions of God as anthropomorphic. But it eliminates any presumption that such a depiction must be literal.

God and man share some things in common. But if a particular emotion is clearly contingent on the vicissitudes of human finitude, then we would treat that depiction as anthropomorphic.

Keep in mind that there’s also a certain amount of hyperbole in the way Bible writers depict human beings. You can find that in the Psalms, for example. This is not a clinical diagnosis of David’s physical or mental state at the time.

4.Apropos (3), the Bible ascribes certain properties to God, such as omnipotence and omniscience, which are incompatible with certain human emotions or reactions:

http://www.biblicaltheology.org/omnipotence.pdf

http://www.biblicaltheology.org/omniscience.pdf

5.This raises a question of theological method. Some Christians don’t think we should harmonize Scripture. They think we should leave all these disparate descriptions in a state of tension.

However, Paul was a very logical thinker. And Dallas Willard has written on article on “Jesus the Logician”:

http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=39

We can cite other examples of Bible writers who use logic to make a point (i.e. Isaiah’s satirical attack on heathen idolatry). Likewise, when Jesus and the Apostles debate their Jewish opponents, the question at issue is which side is consistent with the OT scriptures.

So I think it’s unscriptural to avoid harmonizing Scripture.

6. It’s easy to see why, for purposes of communication, a transcendent God would sometimes be depicted in humanoid terms. That helps the reader identify with God.

It’s not so easy to see why a humanoid God would be depicted in transcendent terms. In what possible sense are attributes like omniscience and omnipotence metaphorical?

7. Returning to the verse at issue, I think the language is metaphorical. I think it’s designed to express God’s literal disapproval of sin in vivid terms which a human audience could relate to.

Interacting with a Moral Government Theologian

Note: The following is a detailed response that I recently offered to a newfound acquaintance that holds to a heresy called Moral Government Theology (hereafter MGT). MGT is a real theological mess. It affirms Open Theism, denies mankind's solidarity with Adam, and adamantly promotes sinless perfectionism. There’s more theological error inherent in MGT, but those three tiers are the major heretical roots in the system that everything else flows from. I take this fellow to task pretty hard on his Openness views by reducing his position to absurdity by demonstrating that he is inconsistent with his own hermeneutic and thus should either (1) reject Open Theism on his own hermeneutical standards or (2) become consistent in his interpretations and start viewing God as a “big chicken man” with literal arms, wings, eyes, nostrils, etc.

I post this because it would be good to be familiar with MGT in general and open theism specifically if you have never wrangled with them before.

Hi XXX,

As to the various issues related to sinless perfectionism and our corporate solidarity with Adam, please take a look at a few short articles I wrote here, here, and here. These short articles were written in response to a kind fellow that, as far as I can tell, held to some very similar views that you do regarding the relationship of Adam's sin to our own as well as sinless perfectionism. We had a charitable discussion and I enjoyed interacting with him even though we still disagreed.

As to the issue of holding to Open Theism, I think that this doctrinal position paints a picture of a different god, and not the God of the Bible. Frankly, this is the biggest concern I have with your theology. I too believe that God knows all that can be known; however a sharp distinction must be drawn here as I believe this includes all things, past, present, and future (Job 37:16; Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 46:10; John 2:24-25; 16:30; 21:27; 1 John 3:20). However, there's more. Several passages tell us that God not only knows everything about everything that is, but He also knows everything that could be but is not. He knows all possible worlds even though He chose not to actualize those possibilities as part of His plan for His creation. These are things that were not planned to happen but would have happened had God planned the events of the universe differently (cf. Matthew 11:21-23). So, to say that not everything can be known, I believe causes the Scripture to contradict itself; However, I believe that this is impossible because I believe that Scripture is infallible. Because my time is limited, lets look at your reference to Genesis 22:12, which states, "He said, 'Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.'"

The question before us is whether God literally did not know what Abraham's response would be until Abraham made it. Most Open Theists I've interacted with will say something like, "The verse has no clear meaning if God was certain that Abraham would fear him before he offered up his son." Then, they will cite several other Old Testament passages where God tests Israel "to know" whether they would fear God and serve Him. Then it is assumed that these passages cannot be reconciled with the view that God eternally knows exactly what will be in the heart of a person to do.

If we had no other information about God from Scripture regarding His nature and His eternal purposes other than Genesis 22:12 and some of the other passages you listed, then I agree that we would have to grant that these passages seem to teach that God's knowledge is growing and that God is learning things as history progresses. However, logically speaking, God cannot but know all things as certain, otherwise He would not be "perfect in knowledge" (Job 37:16). If God's foreknowledge were not eternal, then he must have learned something at some time. And if he learned it, then he must have previously been ignorant of it. If He had been ignorant and learned something, why could He not also forget something after a while? However, I do not believe that God learns or forgets. Does this mean that God did not know for sure what Abraham would do until He saw the raised knife? Does it also mean that God did not know whether or not Abraham feared Him as Genesis 22:12 states? But, the Open theist is presented with a problem because in Openness, God knows all the present completely and totally. If God knows all present things exhaustively, then did God not know the state of Abraham's heart regarding Abraham's reverent fear for God? How could He not? 1 Chronicles 28:9 says, ". . . for the LORD searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts . . ." and Psalm 139:4, "Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all." Since God continually searches all hearts and presently knows even the intent of the heart, and exhaustively knows what words a man will speak even before the words are on the man's tongue, then surely He knew what the intent of Abraham's heart was during the three day journey to the place of sacrifice as well as whether or not Abraham feared Him. Again, He would have known that Abraham feared Him and the test was unnecessary to establish this fact.

It is important to also take note here that Genesis 22:5 says, "Abraham said to his young men, 'Stay here with the donkey, and I and the lad will go over there; and we will worship and return to you.'""He [Abraham] considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type." This is why comparing passage with passage is so important. This is because when you compare Scripture with Scripture, you learn that God must have known that Abraham was completely trusting in the Lord, or else, Scripture cannot be trusted because it contradicts itself. Nevertheless, in Abraham's case, we have some "behind the scenes" information supplied by the Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures. "He [Abraham] considered that God is able to raise men even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type" (Hebrews 11:19). Abraham's consideration that God is able to raise the dead must have existed before he lifted the knife, or else it would have had no bearing on his decision. For God to literally not know what Abraham would do, He would have had to be lacking knowledge of Abraham's heart and faith, which the book of Hebrews says motivated Abraham's obedience. As I've already iterated, this view must be rejected based on the clear teachings of Scripture. God is said to know the heart: "I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind" (Jeremiah 17:10a). In Acts 15:8 Abraham was ready to sacrifice his son and according to Hebrews 11:19, he expected the Lord to resurrect Isaac, , God is called the "heartknower" in the Greek. In many passages, He is said to judge according to the heart. Since given other passages of Scripture, God must have known Abraham's heart, and Abraham had faith in his heart that God could even raise the dead if necessary, God must have known what Abraham's decision would be. Therefore the clear teaching of Scripture demands that we do not take God's statement, "now I know" to be a literal declaration of previous ignorance but instead as an anthropopathism.

Because I believe that it is not consistent with the rest of Scripture to say that God did not know what was in Abraham's heart and that God did not know what Abraham would do, we can conclude that God was speaking to Abraham in terms that Abraham was familiar with. This is not at all foreign to the language of Scripture. In Genesis 3:9, after Adam's sin, God calls to Adam and asks "Where are you?" Are we to say that God did not know where Adam was in the garden? Of course not. To say such would contradict other clear passages that teach God's omnipresence, such as this one:

"Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? ⁸ If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there.^" Psalm 139:7-8

God makes statements often designed to reveal to us a truth that needs to be presented. In fact, God often asks questions of people that He Himself already knows the answer to in order to call people to account (just like I do with my own daughter when she's done something wrong – i.e., "Do you know what you've done?"). In Adam's case, the "where" has always been understood by classical theists to be dealing with Adam's spiritual condition, not his physical location because to say otherwise would contradict other clear passages of Scripture that teach God's omnipresence. In like manner with Abraham's situation, God is simply relating to Abraham in terms consistent what Abraham would understand, particularly, after event with Isaac on the altar.
It is also important to note that Genesis 22 is rife with types and shadows of the gospel. The Son, Isaac, is offered on wood, on a hill after a three day journey. Jesus, the Son, was offered on wood, on a hill, and was in the grave for three days. In fact, Jesus said in John 8:56, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." The day that Jesus is speaking of is the day of Christ's sacrificial death. God ordained that the gospel be revealed in types and shadows in the Old Testament and Genesis 22 is a great example of this.

In my studied opinion, God is doing two things: (1) God is revealing the gospel in typological form. (2) God is speaking for Abraham's benefit; that is, it was Abraham who needed to hear that God was acknowledging that Abraham feared Him. The test was not for God, but for Abraham and the words "Now I know" were not for God (since other Scripture says He already knew – 1 Chronicles 28:9), but for the man who needed to hear God affirm his faithfulness. Abraham is a man locked in time and the act of sacrificing Isaac was important prophetically. But it was also important to us as a testimony of a Godlover's faithfulness to God.

Summary

Thus, in my opinion, the Open Theist position on Genesis 22:12 raises more questions than it answers:

1. Did God not know the then present condition of Abraham's heart since God knows all present things exhaustively according to the Open theist position?
2. Did God not already know that Abraham feared Him per God's exhaustive knowledge of the present?
3. God already knew, according to Genesis 22:5, that Abraham expected that God would resurrect Isaac. Did God forget this as He tested Abraham?
4. Since the Open Theists states that people have libertarian free will, then what guarantee did God have that Abraham will not become unfaithful in the future?
5. If God doesn't know for sure that Abraham will be faithful in the future then it means that if Abraham becomes unfaithful, God would have made a mistake. Can we trust a God that makes mistakes?

A Very Important Postscript on Hermeneutics

I realize that after all I have said, that you already have a hermeneutical grid to run my arguments through, for all people do. What I now want to get you to think about is the inconsistent and artificial distinctions made by open theists between anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms. Open theists attack classical theists for not taking the Bible literally and at "face value" when anthropopathisms are used (passions in God, God's repenting, learning, questioning, changing, etc.). So they adopt a univocal lens with the anthropopathisms and take them hyper-literally, but still inconsistently use an analogical filter with the anthropomorphisms.

So, according to the Open Theist's hermeneutic, when God is spoken of as repenting, questioning, changing, etc., this is all to be taken at face value one-hundred percent of the time and to suggest otherwise is in their opinion, to manifest a Greek, Hellenistic mindset, as opposed to a Scriptural, Hebraic one.

Yet, a blatant inconsistency becomes evident in the hermeneutic of the Open Theist when God is spoken of as having hands, a mouth, a heart, wings, and as travelling from place to place on cloud, these are to be taken figuratively, metaphorically, and analogically.

I have never read a work by the popular Open Theists Clark Pinnock or Gregory Boyd that has ever given a justifiable reason for taking one set hyper-literally while taking the other metaphorically. Thus, Open theists accuse classical theism of glossing over and ignoring the import of the anthropopathisms, yet they contradict themselves in the next breath when do the very same thing with the anthropomorphisms of Scripture! Thus, the hermeneutic of the Open Theist, even if left unchallenged, even hypothetically granting the distinction they make between mind-statements and body-statements relative to God, still leads to absolute absurdity.

Take for instance Clark Pinnock. He enjoys citing Jeremiah to illustrate divine "openness." In Jeremiah 32:35 Yahweh states, "They built their high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin." Why take this passage just literal enough to allow an "open" view of the future, but not literal enough to say that not only is the future unsettled, but certain things have not even occurred to God? Is this feasible? Child sacrifice had alreadyreally mean that the possibility of renewed child sacrifice had never crossed his mind before even as a remote possibility? Unless one is using a classical theist's hermeneutic, then one of course one must affirm that Yahweh did in fact mean precisely just that. occurred among the covenant people at this point in history. It was nothing new. Did God

All of these types of examples are absurd because everyone (except those in the cults) knows that these things are not true of God. However, endless articles have stirred up a tumultuous sound and fury over the repentance passages in Scripture. Yet a principled argument that sets aside one class of statements as anthropomorphic or anthropopathic, and another as "literal" cannot be made. Serious intellectuals in this country are using the "repentance" passages, one metaphor among a myriad of metaphors which, when taken literally, tend to make chaos out of the doctrine of God, to deny that God knows the future.

Can it be more obvious that the only metaphors in Scripture which are taken literally are precisely those metaphors which conveniently uphold the open theist's agenda of discrediting the notion of exhaustive foreknowledge in order to maintain the philosophical notion of libertarian freedom? That statement was not meant to be pejorative by any means, but based on the Scriptures (the statement to Adam, the tower of Babel, Sodom, Yahweh's test of Abraham, etc.) as interpreted through by the hermeneutic supplied by the Open Theist, why, should God's exhaustive knowledge of the present continue to be accepted and believed? Yet no Open Theist has challenged God's exhaustive knowledge of the present? Why? Because it does not directly threaten the shibboleth of libertarian free-will, which, in their opinion, exhaustive foreknowledge destroys.

As an aside, Clark Pinnock did indeed start to take the plunge into absurdity in his book "The Most Moved Mover" when on page 138 of that book he tentatively puts forward that God indeed has a body of flesh and bones, just like the Mormons teach! At least he's being consistent; consistently heretical. Thus, this issue is one of the philosophical tail wagging the dog, instead of the philosophy being informed by a rigorous, systematic theology that is guided by a classical, theistic hermeneutic that relies upon the analogy of faith.

Praying in the Name of

Having examined the logic of the Why Doesn’t God Heal Amputees? argument, I want to move on to address the specific verses misquoted during the course of the argument. The main verse that we will look at here is John 14:13—“Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son” (ESV).

As a result of the above verse, the tradition has become that virtually every Christian prayer ends with the words, “In Jesus’ name, Amen” (or some variant thereof). This, however, is a misapplication of the passage.

Indeed, even a cursory reading of the Scriptures will show us that the use of a name is far different than a “tagline” at the end of a prayer. God is infinitely concerned for His Name. For instance, Ezekiel tells us twice:

You will know that I am the LORD, when I deal with you for my name's sake and not according to your evil ways and your corrupt practices, O house of Israel, declares the Sovereign LORD.' " (Ezekiel 20:44)

"Therefore say to the house of Israel, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone.” (Ezekiel 36:22)

Furthermore, Jeremiah pleads on behalf of Israel:

For the sake of your name do not despise us (Jeremiah 14:21)

Daniel states:

O Lord, listen! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, hear and act! For your sake, O my God, do not delay, because your city and your people bear your Name." (Daniel 9:19)

Even the first petition of the Lord’s prayer is “Hallowed by thy Name.”

The examples could easily be multiplied. And before we get further, one thing ought to be glaringly obvious already. When Jesus commands His followers to ask for things in His name, He is claiming divine authority. This passage is first and foremost an indication that Christ did indeed view Himself as divine. (Another indication that is often overlooked is the fact that all the prophets who spoke from God would says, “Thus says the LORD” whereas Christ always said, “Truly, truly, I say to you…”)

Any Orthodox Jew alive at the time of Christ would have recognized that Christ’s words were blasphemy…unless He was God. No mere man has the right to have petitions brought before God in his name. Consider for example what is being said if we use someone who is not divine: “In the name of Todd, I ask for this.” This illustrates how ludicrous this would be in any other context. The only explanation that makes sense is if Christ is claiming divinity.

The second thing to note about this passage is what it means to pray “in the name of Jesus.” This is not simply adding the words, “In Jesus’ name” at the end of a prayer. Instead, praying “in the name of” someone has a more legal sense. While this isn’t used as often these days, it is by no means absent from English either. For example, Rage Against the Machine has a song called Killing in the Name with the chorus “Killing in the name of” with the implied philosophies being the reason for killing (yes, I own Guitar Hero II). And of course there are other songs that fit this: Stop in the Name of Love for instance.

Our legal system still uses this concept. Judges act in the name of the law such that judicial pronouncements must be obeyed. When a judicial order is executed, the authority of the order comes from the law. But consider what would happen if someone served a judicial order that did not come from the law but instead was invented whole cloth by the person serving the order? What happens to that person?

He himself is judged by the law. Now suppose what would happen if someone prayed for something in the name of Jesus when Jesus Himself does not want it. Would that prayer be answered in the affirmative? Obviously not.

(By the way, using the judicial example above could cause some confusion here, so I want to be clear: praying for something that is not God’s will is not inherently evil, as masquerading as a judicial employee is. After all, Christ prayed that the cup be taken from Him. However, the key is that in all things you end the same way Christ did: “Nevertheless, not my will but Yours be done.” A Christian can pray for what he wants regardless of whether it is in the will of God as long as he remembers that in the end we have to submit to God’s will, not our own.)

Again, praying in the name of Jesus is not the adding of magic words to the end of a prayer in order to get the formula to work right. It is to submit to the will of Christ and to pray for what He wants to occur. Praying in the name of Christ is not a trick way of getting whatever you want; the terminology is precise and accurate, regardless of how badly the words have been misused by atheists and Health & Weathers. When we pray in the name of Christ, we are praying with His authority, His will, and His goals in mind, not ours.

A Clarification

John Frame and Andrew Sandlin interact about Sandlin's post on the classical conception of God.

Making Sin Unthinkable

I’m going to start this off by noting that this post will be more for Christian edification. It’s an in-house discussion, and not intended as an apologetic against atheists (although adequately alliterated!). As such, I ask our atheist readers to respect that.

The sermon at church this morning got me thinking about something. And I should note that the pastor didn’t actually address any of this in great detail (he only mentioned it in passing, as his sermon was on a different topic); but I think good sermons are the kind that get you thinking about further implications.

In any case, to set up the matter, we were dealing with the idea of what the Christian response to God’s mercy should be. In short, let us start with the following truths (which for purposes of my post are given and not up for debate here).

1. Christ bore all the sins of those whom He saved when He died on the cross.
2. No one who is saved will ever lose his salvation (because that would make God unjust, given 1).

Now given these two premises, a common objection is: What motivation does any Christian have for doing good then? After all, if we are saved and cannot lose our salvation, and if our sins are punished in Christ, then why not sin freely?

These questions are often used to attack Calvinism. Unfortunately for the non-Calvinist, to ask these questions assumes another Calvinistic principal: total depravity. See, I find it very interesting that everyone knows at an instinctive level that in the absence of rules men are as evil as they possibly can be. After all, that is the gist of the objection above: if Christ paid it all and we are free to sin, then there is no reason for us not to sin.

But what kind of person would live with the attitude, There is no reason for me to do good, therefore I shall do evil? The answer: a depraved person. To put forth this objection is to admit the depravity of mankind, which would (in the absence of God’s restraining grace) result in the worst possible world that one can imagine.

Now the typical response to this objection (and indeed, the response my pastor took) is usually along the lines of saying: “God is our Father. And if we love our Father, we wouldn’t want to do anything that would upset Him.”

While this is true, I think that understanding the implications of depravity that underline the objection in the first place provides us with a stronger response. The response to the objection ought to be: What kind of person would WANT to do evil simply because he can do it? If you are the kind of person who would actually want this, how could you possibly believe you are redeemed by Christ?

And this gets to the heart of the matter. If we are regenerated by God, then He is making us into new people. Granted, the process is long and not instantaneous. However, He does remove our heart of stone and gives us a heart of flesh. He does free us from the bondage of our depravity (and if the Son sets you free, you are free indeed).

In other words, if you are told that Christ has taken all your transgressions upon Himself and that you can have full assurance of salvation, your first thought should never be, Good, now I can sin as much as I want, because that is the thought of the unregenerate. If you are thinking this way, it’s a good indication that you are not saved at all.

In the end, while it remains true that we ought to obey God because we love Him and we want to please Him, our obedience to God ought to also become something that transcends such a calculating process. Sin should become unthinkable to the point that you no longer want it at all.

This is the essence of Luther’s famous quip: “Love God. Do what you want.” Because if you love God, what you want to do is to obey Him. In other words, for the actual Christian the objection to Reformed doctrine is a moot point. Sure, we can sin and do the most vile things ever contemplated knowing that Christ has us covered; but our heart’s desire will be to flee evil and cling to what is righteous.

In the end, this is the essence of sanctification. When we are fully sanctified, sin will be impossible—not because we lack the “hardware” needed to commit sin, but because the “software” of our nature will be such that we will only desire righteousness all the time.

And if you’re currently contemplating whether you are saved or not, use this as a test: Does your heart resonate with the idea that forgiveness is a license to sin more, or do you long for the day when sin becomes unthinkable?

The Dark Night of the Soul

Anonymous on this post asks:

Is it possible that a true Christian can sometimes have the "dark night," where God doesn't seem real to him or near to him ... or are such "dark nighters" always reprobate non-christians?

i ask because i struggle with assurance of salvation some times for months...and the struggle itself seems to confirm my fears.

It appears to me that this question might have roots due to a misunderstanding of Steve’s original post. Even if that is the case, the question is still legitimate and deserves to be looked at with a Biblical mindset.

To answer the question, a “dark night of the soul” can be, and in fact has many times been, experienced by Christians. It is not an indication that one is reprobate if one has struggled with such a position. Indeed, the assurance of salvation is quite often the most common battlefield upon which a Christian will test his faith, and that battle can last months, years, and even to varying degrees unto the end.

Before I continue further, it is helpful to note that what Steve said of Teresa was not that she was reprobate—in fact, he specifically said he didn’t know if that was the case. If Steve’s post had intended to make the connection that “experiencing a dark night of the soul is proof you are reprobate” he would not have needed to qualify this statement with his uncertainty of Teresa’s salvific status. However, as Steve noted, feeling that God has abandoned you may be an indication that you are unsaved, but it is by no means a certainty.

I also note that I do speak from personal experience regarding “dark nights of the soul.” I have mentioned in many places before that I was once diagnosed with severe depression. In fact, one doctor told me that my case was the worst he had ever seen (this isn’t exactly what you want to hear from you doctor, in case you were wondering). In my case, the depression was linked to a specific physical cause. But this was not something that I discovered immediately. Instead, I spent two years gradually getting worse and worse psychologically, until my boss where I worked pulled me aside and ordered me to see a doctor because of the changes in my personality that my coworkers had noticed. At that time, I started several different types of medication in greater and greater doses, but I never seemed to get better.

Eventually I switched doctors (for reasons unrelated to my treatment at the time). My new doctor gave me a physical and said my blood was too thick. He had me do a pulse/ox test (which is used to indicate your sleeping pulse rate and the oxygen saturation level in your blood stream). The results of that test indicated that several times during the night, oxygen levels dropped and my heart began to race—an indication that I had sleep apnea. I had a sleep test scheduled and the results came back positive. Not only did I have sleep apnea, but the entire time I was tested I never entered REM sleep. In all likelihood, I had not gotten much (or possibly any) REM sleep for over two years. It is no wonder that this would demonstrate itself in the form of depression!

For me there was a simple cure. I got a CPAP machine (which uses air pressure to keep the airways from collapsing while you sleep). About a month after I started with the CPAP machine, I had finished with all medication that I had been taking for depression. And I’ve never been prescribed any depression medication since then. All my problems were apparently due to sleep deprivation.

Now during the time I was at my worst in depression, I had no desire to do anything. I was physically, emotionally, and spiritually exhausted. Many times, I would not go to church because I simply didn’t feel like getting out of bed on Sunday. Now, I’ve never been the type of person who has had problems with assurance of salvation…but that is not necessarily a good thing. You see, there were times during my depression that I literally hated God. But because I have always believed in eternal security, I knew that I could never escape from Him. He would always be there (and while I know that is true in a positive sense, back then I viewed it in the negative sense—like the schoolyard bully who will always be there to pick on you).

Because of my own depression, I have been able to talk to many other people who have gone through depression too. The pain of depression is something that is difficult to describe to people who have never experienced it. The doctor who told me that I had the worst case of depression he had ever seen also told me that he had a patient who was suffering from depression and had also been diagnosed with cancer. This patient claimed to prefer the pain of the cancer to the pain of depression. It is not difficult to understand why. When pain is caused by a physical source, our body has means to cope with it. We can go into shock, for instance. Likewise, we are able to treat (or at least attempt to treat) the physical ailments.

But depression takes place completely in the mind (even if it is caused by physical sources). It creates its own physical pain as well, but this physical pain doesn’t become dulled by shock. If depression gives you a stomach ache, causes you to vomit after every meal, makes you nauseous at the slightest scent, well taking Pepto Bismal isn’t going to help one bit. The stomach ailments are not caused by a stomach problem—they are caused by a mental problem, and only curing the mental aspect will change that.

Because of the Christians I’ve talked with, I know that one of the most common effects of depression is a struggle with faith and assurance. It is easy for us to fake how much we love God when things are going well. But add the overwhelming pain of depression, and suddenly it’s difficult to know where in the raging storm you can find dry land. I know many Christian brothers and sisters who struggle at times of depression with whether or not God has abandoned them. They struggle with this, yet I know as much as humanly possible that they have a genuine faith in God.

We do not need to take my personal testimony and my own witness for evidence, however. The Bible also shows many of these same people. If those who have never experienced it would like a glimpse of what depression is like, I suggest reading Psalm 88. Some excerpts follow:

I am counted among those who go down to the pit;
I am a man who has no strength,
like one set loose among the dead,
like the slain that lie in the grave,
like those whom you remember no more,
for they are cut off from your hand.
You have put me in the depths of the pit,
in the regions dark and deep.
Your wrath lies heavy upon me,
and you overwhelm me with all your waves.

O LORD, why do you cast my soul away?
Why do you hide your face from me?
Afflicted and close to death from my youth up,
I suffer your terrors; I am helpless.
Your wrath has swept over me;
your dreadful assaults destroy me.
They surround me like a flood all day long;
they close in on me together.
You have caused my beloved and my friend to shun me;
my companions have become darkness.

The NIV translates the final clause in a way that is even more poignant than the above ESV: “the darkness is my closest friend.”

While David did not write the above Psalm (it was written by the Sons of Korah), David also had his share of similar Psalms. For instance we read:

Because of all my adversaries I have become a reproach,
especially to my neighbors,
and an object of dread to my acquaintances;
those who see me in the street flee from me.
I have been forgotten like one who is dead;
I have become like a broken vessel.
For I hear the whispering of many—
terror on every side!—
as they scheme together against me,
as they plot to take my life. (Psalm 31:11-13)

And:

Why are you cast down, O my soul,
and why are you in turmoil within me?
Hope in God; for I shall again praise him,
my salvation and my God. (Psalm 42:11)

David was called “a man after God’s own heart,” yet also in this Psalm he wrote: “I say to God, my rock: ‘Why have you forgotten me?’” (vs. 9).

David’s examples could easily be multiplied, but we can also include several of the prophets. Jeremiah is known as the “weeping prophet” because of what he endured (watching the destruction of Jerusalem, recording it in the book of Lamentations). There were many dark nights experienced by many of the saints.

And we know from Paul why this is the case: “But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies” (2 Corinthians 4:7-10). And further: “For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Corinthians 12:10).

This brings us to the paradoxical nature of the Christian walk. Despite the televangelist’s claims, Christianity is not about health, wealth, and happiness. It is about weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. It is about being crushed, perplexed, struck down. It is about being a jar of clay, not a steel container. All the more so that God’s strength is revealed more fully.

David was a man after God’s own heart. We know this, in part, because of the anguish he went through. He might be knocked down a dozen times, but he would get up thirteen times. And it was not due to his own abilities—he always acknowledged that it was God alone who could save him, and it was God alone who could deliver him.

Because we are time-bound creatures, we do not have the eternal aspect to measure whether someone going through a “dark night of the soul” will ultimately stand or fall. We only have the immediate temporal vantage point. Because of that, we cannot be dogmatic in determining what any particular person’s “dark night” means. But we do know that it is not automatic proof that said person is a reprobate.

However, as Steve’s post warned us, the existence of suffering is not itself proof that one is saved either. The wicked often suffer greatly in this life too—not all judgment is reserved for after death. Indeed, much persecution can be found between reprobates who are unrestrained in their hatred of other reprobates.

We likewise cannot ignore various other points that Steve brought up: the fact that the Roman Catholic system is non-Scriptural, that it teaches a false gospel, that it glorifies masochism and not just the natural toils and persecutions that will arise as we contend for the faith, all must bring some doubt as to what Teresa’s suffering meant about her spirituality. Ultimately, we do not know if she was regenerate or not; but we do know that the Roman system is not what we find in the Gospel.

And that brings us to the final point: evaluating our own personal experience. If you are currently going through a “dark night of the soul” what should you do? How do you make your “calling and election sure” in order to know whether what you experience is God demonstrating His power through your weakness or whether it is the bare fact of evil that even the unregenerate must deal with? Obviously, the first part of the question gives us some indication: does your “dark night of the soul” make God’s power shine though more fully? If so, then you have every reason to believe that your faith is genuine.

Often, however, this is a position that we cannot evaluate ourselves. When you are in the midst of depression, your perception of reality is affected. I know from my own experience that logic itself was different when I was depressed. For instance, when depressed, it logically makes sense that I should not waste the effort it takes to pay my bills on time. After all, having a phone is pointless; having electricity is meaningless; even having a place to live is worthless. In a world of pain, there’s not much point to anything.

But as soon as the depression lifts, we realize that our previous views were irrational. The logic that we couldn’t see in the depression is so obvious when the depression lifts that one feels stupid for having fallen for it while depressed.

So if you are going through a “dark night of the soul” you are the last person you should ask for an honest opinion of your spiritual state. You are the last person qualified to tell whether God is making Himself known through your weakness. For that, you need other believers.

And that is why God has given us the Church. When depressed, it’s probably the last place you want to be, but it is the very place you ought to be. Only in the company of other Godly men and women can you get an honest answer of whether they can see God working in your life. And if they can see God working in your life, then you know that you can take heart—you are a jar of clay with a great treasure inside.

Finally, remember to also stay in the Word of God. Again, it may be difficult to concentrate on Scripture when you are feeling down, and there are many passages that you will not be able to think clearly on. For instance, when depressed Ecclesiastes is probably the last book you will want to read. But Scripture was given for our benefit, and even if you do not immediately feel anything from it, just being in the habit can sometimes be enough to help pull you through a “dark night of the soul.”

To wrap it all up, then: No, having a “dark night of the soul” does not in itself mean you are reprobate. It does not mean you are saved either, though. Just because you go through a dark night does not mean you are pious; but it doesn’t mean you’re the spawn of Satan either. When you are going through one of those dark nights, you need to have at least one other believer who you can lean on (and preferably more than one other believer—there is a reason we are told not to forsake the assembly!). If you know they are Godly men and women, trust in their judgment because they are going to be in a far more objective position to evaluate your spiritual walk than you will be.

A Matter of Perspective

Yesterday was a really bad day for me.

After working all day long (at a job which is stressful enough as it is), I was finally looking forward to getting home where I could simply relax and continue to work on my current writing project. I got down to where I parked my bike and pulled it off the rack only to discover I had a flat rear tire.

Great, I thought. I so totally wanted to go to the bike store and spend money repairing my bike today. That was awful nice of God to oblige me in that manner.

Luckily, a block away from where I work there is a free shuttle stop. There is another shuttle stop right outside of the place where I bought my bike, which also repairs my bike whenever I break anything. So I walked over to the shuttle stop and waited for the shuttle to come by, because I knew that the shuttles have bike racks on the front too.

Or rather, I should say that most of the shuttles have bike racks on them. The one that showed up at the stop I was waiting at was one of the shuttles that did not have the bike rack. Since it was a mile down to the bike shop, I could have waited for the next shuttle to arrive and hope that it had a bike rack like it was supposed to. But since that wouldn’t be for another fifteen minutes, and since I could walk the distance in that time, I took off instead.

By the way, I should note at this point that I can walk a mile in fifteen minutes…assuming that I don’t have to wait at traffic lights. Alas, I didn’t consider that when I started to walk. I ended up getting to the bike shop about three minutes after the shuttle went by. Oh, and it did have a bike rack on the front of that shuttle. Talk about rubbing it in…

In any case, I got into the bike shop and wheeled my bike to the back where they do repairs. After waiting in line for another fifteen or twenty minutes, they finally got to my bike. I said, "I just need to buy a new tube and have you guys put it on." So the lady there took my bike and pulled off the bike tire. She showed me what had caused the tire to go flat—a barbed piece of wire roughly in the shape of a fishhook. Then she started to put the new tube on when she stopped suddenly.

"You’ve got another problem." (Note: this is not a good thing to hear when you’re getting your bike repaired.)

"Yeah?"

She took the back tire off again and brought it over. One of my spokes was broken. So, after rummaging around in a few drawers, she got a spoke that was the right size. Then, because it was the rear wheel, she had to take off the gears, repair the tire, and put everything back together. She said, "This will get you home, but you should have someone look at your tire soon."

I said it would be no problem as I still have the free warranty check for my bike. Technically, you’re supposed to have it done within the first ten days or 100 miles, but if you’re nice to the people who work there they always tell you, "Just bring it in when you really need to fix something." This does mean I’ll be without my bike this weekend though.

In any case, I paid my bill and finally got to leave an hour and a half after I got off work. Since it was much later, and since everything had gone so badly, I decided that I didn’t want to risk trying to cook (which for me means microwaving whatever I happen to have left in the freezer), so I stopped at Burger King. (Note: when your day is being consistently bad, don’t expect fast food to be anything approaching fast.)

After I explained my order (which had the tricky request of asking for "no tomatoes"), the guy at the counter got to call his manager over and fix the register, delete out my order and re-enter it twice, and finally get it finished. Miraculously, my sandwich did arrive without tomatoes! I just had to wait an extra twenty minutes to get it is all.

While I was waiting for my food, however, an interesting thing happened. I was standing by the beverages refilling my Diet Coke (you can tell there’s a problem with speed when you’re able to drink an entire Diet Coke and refill it while waiting for your sandwich) and a man stepped up to refill his water. He was about my height, around 40-45 years old, and he happened to be in uniform, which isn’t all that uncommon since I live in a military town (NORAD is practically in my backyard, and Fort Carson is just to the south). I told the gentleman standing there, "Thank you for serving." He smiled and thanked me for thanking him. I told him that I appreciated what he was doing, and asked him if he had been in Iraq.

"Twice," he responded. "And I’ll be going back again, either in October or March. They haven’t told us when yet, but we should know in a couple of weeks."

As we talked, I noticed a slight change in how this soldier (his name is Jim) reacted to me. At first, when I brought up the subject of Iraq, he said, "I can’t wait for us to get out of there. Our generals have been telling Bush for two years that we need to get out." But as our conversation progressed, his tone changed, and I got the feeling that, while it was definitely true he didn’t want to go back to Iraq again, he had stated his position stronger than he really felt because he didn’t know if I was anti-war and thus didn’t want to get into a verbal altercation when he was just trying to eat his dinner in peace. As we spoke and he saw that I wasn’t about to verbally abuse him, he softened up a bit and began to tell me some of what had been going on in Iraq while he was there.

To hear it on the news, the entire country of Iraq is a deathtrap. Yet Jim served two tours without firing his weapon outside of target practice. That’s not to say that it was safe for him—in fact, he told a story about how he and his squad were getting ready to go to a training exercise, and the gate they were to go through en route was hit by a suicide bomber killing six civilians. If it had been fifteen minutes later, they would have been right in the middle of it.

But this brings up an interesting point. The insurgents in Iraq are killing far more Iraqi civilians than anyone else. Jim told me how he sees little Nissan pickup trucks with as many as twelve Iraqis riding in them at one time—people just hanging off the back of the pickup and such. There is no armor on those vehicles. When they get hit by an IED, you have twelve dead civilians. And while the IEDs that hit US troops are reported in the news, those that the civilians accidentally set off only appear as little sidebars.

Jim told me of how his squad was up near the Iranian border and found a weapons cache with lots of grenades in it. "We probably shouldn’t have been playing with that stuff," he told me. Then he relayed a story of how one of his Sergeants pulled out an RPG shell and a giant spider ran from where it had been hiding. These desert spiders are said to be able to kill cats—they’re not the little critters we have here in the States. In any case, Jim said that they finally blew up the weapons cache standing about three hundred yards away from it. After the explosion, they decided they probably should have stood four hundred yards away from it.

Jim also told me of the children in Iraq. They love to play soccer—but don’t you dare call it anything other than football. They also like to run up to US soldiers because they know they can get food and candy. Jim told of having kids ranging in age from teens to two-year-olds standing in front of him. He would take a roll of candy and give the kids a piece at a time. When they traveled through a village without stopping, he would toss MREs (he said that an MRE is "considered gold" over there since there’s so little food) to the kids. He quickly learned that he had to make sure to get the MRE as far away from the edge of the road as possible, because the kids would run into the road and risk getting run over by traffic if it fell too short.

When he mentioned this about MREs, I laughed and said, "I used to have a friend in the fire department. He got a box of K Rations from there that we took on a hike. The only thing good in them was the Charms candy!"

Jim’s face lit up at this. "Charms are the candy I was giving the kids!" he said. Ironically, the fact that I knew what Charms candy was (and face it, if you’ve never had a ration you pretty much never heard of Charms candy) built a link between us. It was like we had an underlying bond, all formed on the basis of something as insignificant as the fact that seven years ago I had a K Ration while hiking with a friend who worked at the fire department in the town I used to live in.

In any case, because of this, Jim told me that every single person in his squad who had been married had gotten a divorce. This included Jim. Serving two tours in Iraq, the first one for six months and the second for eleven months, tore his family apart. He’s got three kids; his daughter, who will turn nineteen next month, just got married to one of Jim’s squad-mates—one of the guys who had been divorced during their time in Iraq.

Jim told me about his own divorce, and how he had heard stories about how some people had gotten divorced and then later remarried each other and went back to normal. He said, "I’m not too interested in remarrying right now. But my wife—ex-wife—thought differently. She remarried, so I guess we’ll never get together again." The way he said it, you could tell the pain that was inside over the whole issue.

And at this point, I realized something else. See, I had gotten my food about twenty minutes earlier, despite how long of a wait I had to get it. Yet Jim, who had only gone up to refill his cup of water, and I were still talking. Jim seemed to have this loneliness about him and he just wanted to keep talking. As I thought about it later, I realized that it could be since he got divorced he simply doesn’t have anyone to talk to about what he’s gone through. A stranger in Burger King might just be the closest thing he has had to conversation in a while.

Of course, I don’t want to read too much into it. Perhaps he’s just a talkative guy. But it didn’t feel that way, and the way he talked about his wife gave me good reason to suspect that he was lonely. Who knows for certain.

All I know is that when I left Burger King, I realized that our entire conversation came about as a result of my having a flat tire on my bike. Had I not needed to get my bike repaired, I would have biked straight home—I hadn’t intended on stopping at all. Had I been able to catch a shuttle ride down to the bike shop instead of having to walk it, or had my bike not needed to have the spoke repaired in addition to having a new tube, I still might have decided to stop at Burger King for food (since that alone made me irked enough to not want to spend time in the kitchen when I got home)—but it would have been at least a half hour earlier than when I actually got there. Had the cashier not messed up my order and needed to call the manager over, my order could have been prepared that much sooner. Had I not had to wait for so long for it to be cooked, I would not have been getting a refill of my Diet Coke at the same time Jim showed up to refill his cup of water.

If I wanted to, I could extrapolate it further back—if I liked tomatoes, I wouldn’t have requested my sandwich without them and the cashier wouldn’t have messed up my order in the first place; if I hadn't run over a tiny wire in the road somewhere, my tire wouldn't have been flat—and how did that wire get there anyway? Etc. But we don’t need to go that far to see what a bizarre, convoluted trail of coincidences lead to my meeting Jim, and to my subsequent writing of this post.

Naturally, our atheist friends will say that my having spoken with Jim was just a fluke, that all these events occurring were just a happy turn of events, a rare case of serendipity. But there are two important things to consider before dismissing this in such a manner.

1) All the events that lead up to my meeting Jim were, from my perspective, bad. I had a flat, I had to walk a mile, it ended up taking longer to get fixed, the cashier messed up my order, I had to wait nearly half an hour just to get my food. None of these things are exactly events that you would go running up and down the streets shouting, "Hallelujah, God blessed me today!" Yet:

2) Before I talked with Jim, I was having a really bad day. After talking with Jim, my day didn’t seem so bad at all. Not only was I able to meet someone I’d never met before, but I was able to talk to him and help him deal with some of the stress and issues he’s had to confront since being in Iraq. All the bad things that happened to me were trivial compared to the good that came about.

Steve has posted some articles recently about evil and hell and the atheists’ arguments about the morality of said places. I don’t need to repeat his work here. But I’ve also read Joe Holman on the Debunking Christianity blog write about how his mother was almost attacked by a serial rapist when Holman was a child. Holman used this event to attack God—why would God save Holman’s mom, but not the six other victims of the rapist?

It always amazes me how atheists who write about the Problem of Evil approach the issue as if they just discovered something that no one else in the world knows: there’s evil! It’s like someone running into the middle of the room to shout out, "Guess what? The sky is blue! The sky is blue!" As if the book of Job had never been written, or Christians always live perfect utopian lives and if they would just only experience evil then the first thing they’d do is abandon their faith instantly!

Yet everyone experiences evil. Evil is not some unique discovery that atheists just found; it’s something that Christianity was built on. A Christian is nothing more than an evil person who has been redeemed by Christ.

In a minor way, my experience of today illustrates the fallacy of the Problem of Evil. If we only focus on the bad events that happened to me, we don’t see the culmination of the events leading to a greater good. The thing that atheists don’t realize is that it was the grace of God who gave me the resolution to my bad day today. All these things could have happened to me, including my conversation with Jim, and yet I might not have ever put it together than my conversation with Jim was a direct result of every single one of the "bad" things that occurred to me this afternoon. Similarly, God could have used a bad event in my life to have someone else placed in a position to help another person in need. The lady who fixed my bike tire had to change her schedule around so that I could get my bike back. God could have used me to delay her so that she would run into someone. Of course, I don’t know whether this happened or not; but I do know what happened to me.

Naturally, someone can respond: "Having a flat tire on your bike is worlds different from someone being raped or murdered." Yes, this is true; yet the principle remains the same. Again, I can use my own life since I’ve experienced it. When I was a child, I was literally tortured in elementary school by kids who used to be my friends. Day after day, I was beaten up, pushed into fences, had my library books ripped up (so I would get fined), insulted, and tormented. This went on for two years at the school (and I should point out that children are geniuses at figuring out how to hurt others when the teacher isn’t looking).

To say that this experience changed my life is an understatement. To this day, I have problems developing deep friendships with people because of the fact that my friends were involved in the abuse. Before I realized I was doing it, the only friends I had were people I knew I could beat up if I had to fight them; that way, if they betrayed me, I wouldn’t be back in the same cycle.

There are parts of my memory of elementary school that I have literally blocked out. I honestly can’t say what happened to me in a full extent. But the abuse I suffered was the closest thing to being rape without actually being sexual in nature (after all, this happened in fifth grade). By no stretch of the imagination can anyone say that this event that occurred in my life is anything but evil.

Yet I don’t deny God, nor do I deny that God had this happen for a good purpose. Yes, it was bad for me then. Yes, I’ve been through hell since then, as a direct result of those events. Yet for all that, I’ve seen the good that comes out of my past experiences. I see how God can use me to help others. I’ve seen the hand of God directing the way things in my life turned out—things I didn’t see at the time, but which in retrospect are obvious, just as the chain of events leading up to today’s conversation with Jim is obvious.

If we only focus on the evil, we don’t have the whole picture. If we intentionally ignore God’s ultimate purpose in the events that occur—which atheists, and even some Christians, do—we have but a skewed picture of what has happened. What man means for evil, God means for good. And His plans are the ones that come to pass. I see this now, and hopefully you can see it from this post too. If so, well…

Yesterday was a really good day for me.

Making a 2nd Amendment Issue Out of a 6th Commandment Problem

In the wake of the latest campus shooting, the topic has already been hijacked by 2nd Amendment concerns. I first noticed this myself reading some of the British news articles about the response, but this morning I’ve read it in several US papers (as well as their on-line comment features).

It is tempting to offer a response to some of the arguments against the 2nd Amendment (I am, after all, a supporter of the right to bear arms), but it strikes me as the “easy” argument to get into to avoid the actual “tough” issue.

Perhaps the most striking point about the tragedy was what I saw yesterday as I walked past the local courthouse. What I saw there was the usual scene. Nothing had changed at all. The flags weren’t even at half-staff.

This, I think, illustrates more than anything else how complacent we’ve gotten toward mass shootings in general. These things no longer shock us like they used to. And when you look at some of the many school shootings over the past decade, their sheer quantity tells you that there is something wrong here.

Even a simple examination of the way the media reacts tells us a lot. Consider the reaction that Herbert Morrison had when he witnessed the Hindenburg explode and cried out emotionally, “Oh, the humanity!” Today, that’s a punch line. Compare Morrison to the reporters who search for survivors before the bodies are even moved and, in almost salivating tones, ask such “journalistic” questions as: “How do you feel?”

Again, there is something seriously wrong here.

The problem with the shooting at Virginia Tech isn’t a problem about the 2nd Amendment. It’s a problem stemming from the 6th Commandment: “You shall not murder.” If Cho Seung-Hui had followed this commandment, he could have had a thousand guns and no one would have any reason to fear him; the fact that he would not follow this commandment means he was dangerous even without a single gun.

Our culture has, in many ways, become a culture of “death.” We have taken away human dignity by removing morality from every facet of our lives. It is easy to divert the issue to the questions of gun control, because that allows us to ignore the deeper issue: the heart issue. What are we doing to make murder unthinkable in the first place? Because until people embrace the 6th Commandment, we will continue to have these problems even if the 2nd Amendment is repealed.

Some may question why apologetics is necessary. Had someone shown the moral necessity of following the 6th Commandment instead of, say, teaching that morals are simply contrived beliefs held by a group of social individuals, it may well be that the shooting would never have occurred in the first place.