Podcasts

Is Luke 10:13 more of problem for Calvinists or Molinists?

32 Comments

Calvinism is the view that God decides whether you go to Heaven or Hell and nothing that you do affects where you end up. If God wants to save you, then he will, and you can’t resist it. If God wants to damn you, then he will, and you can’t resist that. God saves some people and not others, but not based on anything that the people themselves do. God does not want everyone to be saved.

Molinism is the view that God draws people to him, and they can resist his drawing, just like in any ordinary love relationship where the beloved is not drawn against his or her will. On Molinism, God also places people in the best time and place for them to respond to him, depending on what evidence they need. He can do this because he knows how people respond in any set of circumstances. If people go to Hell, then the people are responsible, on Molinism. But God wants everyone to be saved, but not against their will. God actualizes a world in which he is sovereign over everything that happens, and gets the outcome that he wants, but without violating free will.

So here’s a verse that I think is troubling to both sides, Luke 10:13:

13 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

This verse is a problem for Molinists, because if the people in these cities would have repented if they got better miracles, then why didn’t they get the better miracles they needed? If God loves them, then why didn’t he give them better miracles?

And this verse is a problem for Calvinists, because it shows that people do have free will to respond to evidence that God allows them to see. Why would evidence matter on Calvinism, since God can just flip the person’s switch (or not). If God wanted those people to repent, he could just do it without having to care about evidence, since he is the one who decides whether they believe in him or not, totally apart from their free will.

News

A closer look at Obama’s three-point plan to create American jobs

Leave a comment
Unemployment rate chart 2011
Democrats take over the House and Senate in January 2007

The Heritage Foundation outlines three of Obama’s job creation plans.

Excerpt:

This week, President Obama is again set to make a pitch for his latest plan to stimulate the economy, but meanwhile he is turning his back on projects that would put tens or even hundreds of thousands of Americans to work. And he’s doing it all to appease his left-wing, environmentalist base at the expense of domestic energy production.

Heritage’s Rob Bluey reported last week on a new finding by a New Orleans-based group that the Obama administration is approving just 35 percent of the oil drilling plans for the Gulf of Mexico so far this year. It is also taking an average of 115 days — nearly four months — to secure approval from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. Those numbers are a sharp drop from previous years, well below the historical average 73.4 percent approval rate and 61 days it takes to approve plans. And for plans that require drilling activity, the numbers are even worse with an average approval time of 222 days.

That’s bad news for job creation. One deepwater rig alone can create 700 jobs locally. But slowing down oil drilling in the Gulf isn’t the only way the President is blocking jobs. Earlier this month, the Obama Administration announced it would delay the construction of the $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline that would bring in more than 700,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta, Canada, to the Texas Gulf coast–and could have produced upwards of 20,000 jobs. Heritage’s Nicolas Loris explains the impact:

What this delay really means is that President Obama is putting off an important election year decision in which two of his largest supporters–labor unions and environmentalists–are split on the issue. This tactic allows the decision to be delayed until after the 2012 elections.

More importantly, this means a delay in access to easy imports from our northern neighbor, the creation of thousands of jobs, and the generation of revenue for the states where the pipeline passes. Montana, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Texas are collectively projected to collect $5.2 billion in property tax revenue as a result of building the pipeline.

As if that weren’t enough, the White House made another decision blocking energy-related jobs in the United States. In mid-November, the Obama Administration delayed a mineral lease sale in Ohio’s Wayne National Forest for oil and gas drilling. Apart for providing Americans access to affordable energy, the project could have had a tremendous impact in the state, including the creation of an estimated 200,000 jobs, an overall wage and personal-income boost of $12 billion by 2015, and a billion-dollar boon to Ohio landowners, schools, businesses, and communities.

So Obama has three plans to create more American jobs:

  1. Block drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
  2. Block the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline
  3. Block drilling for oil and gas in Ohio

I don’t think Obama’s three job creation plans are working.

Maybe he just just do the opposite: 1) more drilling in the Gulf, 2) build the Keystone XL pipeline, and 3) allow development of the Ohio oil shale. And while he’s at it, 4) drill for oil in Alaska. That would create real jobs.

Commentary

Are evangelical Christians less interested in religious liberty than Catholics?

5 Comments

From First Things.

Excerpt:

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has responded vigorously to the restrictive and unworkable “conscience regulations” being imposed on health care providers by the Obama Administration’s Health and Human Services (HHS) Department. The Catholic Archdiocese for Military Service has said “no” to allowing priests in the Armed Forces perform homosexual “weddings,” now that the historic prohibition on homosexuals in the military has been lifted. And most recently, eighteen Catholic colleges and universities banded together and, through the Alliance Defense Fund, submitted comments to HHS citing a violation of religious freedom regarding the interim final rules on preventative services.

We applaud the efforts of America’s Catholic leadership in defense of religious liberty. But we do so with a certain measure of consternation. As Evangelical Protestants, we wonder: Why is organized Evangelicalism so silent?

Where is the National Association of Evangelicals?

Where is the (Evangelical) Council for Christian Colleges and Universities?

Where are the editorials and feature articles in Evangelical publications?

At a time when our religious liberty is being eroded by an Administration that insists on forcing its anti-Christian policies on American public life, why are so many of our leaders shuffling their feet and staring at the ground?

[…]Every Christian school in the nation that offers insurance to its employees or students will be affected by the 2010 health care law—as schools like the University of Dallas, Franciscan University of Steubenville, and Ave Maria University immediately recognized. While Evangelicalism does not have specific teachings on contraception in the way that the Catholic Church does, no Christian organization in the United States should be comfortable with the requirement that insurance must cover abortions. Since that is the intention of the Obama administration, why are Evangelical Protestant colleges and universities, and Evangelical leaders generally, not speaking out? Why are they not joining with Catholic leaders and institutions in opposition to these anti-religious liberty measures?

I try to talk about these issues on my blog, but I agree that evangelicals are disengaged. Evangelicals are the most conservative voters, but we have to do more than vote Republican. We have to think about these issues between elections. We have to vote in primaries. We have to knock on doors. We have to write blog posts and editorials. We have to get advanced degrees. We have to get involved in the debate. It’s not enough to have the right opinion, we have to be convincing.