eternal security

1Sa 2:27 And there came a man of God to Eli and said to him, “Thus says the LORD, ‘Did I indeed reveal myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt subject to the house of Pharaoh?
1Sa 2:28 Did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to go up to my altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? I gave to the house of your father all my offerings by fire from the people of Israel.
1Sa 2:29 Why then do you scorn my sacrifices and my offerings that I commanded for my dwelling, and honor your sons above me by fattening yourselves on the choicest parts of every offering of my people Israel?’
1Sa 2:30 Therefore the LORD, the God of Israel, declares: ‘I promised that your house and the house of your father should go in and out before me forever,’ but now the LORD declares: ‘Far be it from me, for those who honor me I will honor, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed.

man chooses

In 1 Samuel 2, there is an interesting scene in which God revokes His promise of an eternal house for Eli. This is fairly unambiguous by the wording of the text. God had “promised” but now that promise is “Far from” Him, and a new rule supersedes the previous.

Parallel concepts are found in God’s eternal kingdom, originally planned for Saul, but then given to King David. Through David’s life and through the lives of the following Kings, God warns that the eternal kingdom can be cut off if the recipients are evil.

When we reach the New Testament, we encounter claims of eternal life. Modern Christians claim that this means that individuals become robots. No longer can they sin, but they will forever be in heaven without a chance to rebel. Is this a warranted conclusion from the use of the word “eternal”? Did eternal take that meaning with Saul, David, or Eli? What discludes a conditional eternity rather than a deterministic eternity? Are there any eternal promises in the Bible of the type the deterministics can use as an example?

The most eternal promise found within the Bible is the unilateral promise to Abraham to make of Him a great nation. Malachi 3 claims of this promise that God will not change on it. Hebrews 6:18 claims that in this promise it is impossible for God to lie. The Jews were confident that this would mean they would never be cut off completely, but John the Baptist counters otherwise:

Mat 3:9 And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.

Even if every son of Abraham rebelled, God has innovative options that are not reliant on mankind’s continued obedience. With this being the case, there is no reason to think that both mankind is granted eternal life and that the eternal life cannot be revoked if mankind chooses to rebel. John is under the impression that mankind still has the ability to reject God even if it threatens God’s promises.

There is no reason to think that there is no free will in heaven. The closest the Bible comes to this concept is the description of the new earth in Revelation:

Rev 21:3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God.
Rev 21:4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

God is wiping away tears. No one is dying. No one is crying. Does this mean that there is no free will? Is this a hyperbole meant to illustrate the greatness of the Kingdom? Or is this a testament to God’s kingship and judgment? Is there any reason to default to a loss of free will?

Revelation also contains an idea of evil people still alive and functioning in the new Earth:

Rev 21:24 And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it.
Rev 21:25 Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there).
Rev 21:26 And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it.
Rev 21:27 But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.

The nations that are saved enter the city, except for those who are unclean. Why are these passages worded as such if there can no longer be sin? Would this suggest that the natural understanding of “no more tears” in the same chapter is due to the wicked not being allowed entrance? We have every reason to believe in heaven, rebellion is possible.

Also from the book of Revelation:

Rev 12:4 His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born.

Rev 12:7 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought,
Rev 12:8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer.
Rev 12:9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

In this passage, there appears some sort of heavenly war. Inhabitants of heaven are disenfranchised and cast to Earth. This suggests that these actors all had the ability to rebel.

With all these facts in mind, the position that eternal life precludes a heavenly rebellion is just untenable. Eternal life, like God’s other eternal gifts, are more likely conditional on continued obedience.

Posted in Kingdom Theology, Theology | Leave a comment

making sense of the Bible

Cowboy Bebop Plays His ComputerDon Boudreaux observes that theories are narratives that we tell to make sense of the data. This is true for any discipline:

Each semester I teach my freshman students that theories are simply stories that we tell in order to make sense of observed reality. And if story X does a better job than does story Y of making sense of reality, then story X is the better theory of the two. Compared to story Y, better-story X makes those who hear it go “Ah, yes! That makes sense! Now I understand reality better than I did before!”

This definition and function of “theory” holds regardless of discipline. It’s true for physics no less than for biology; it’s true for chemistry no less than for economics. It’s true for the most formal, purely mathematized story no less than for the most casual, purely verbal story. A theory that does not cause Jones to sense that she better understands reality is not a theory that Jones accepts. Put differently, for Jones to accept a story as a valid theory of that aspect of reality that the story is meant to explain, Jones must like (by her own lights) what she perceives to be the correspondence between the story’s logic (and its implications) and reality as Jones understands reality.

Boudreaux goes to quote an author who attempts to explain the origin of Facebook “likes”:

So in spite of its interactive patina, the digital economy continues the industrial practice of preventing real people from participating in the growth economy – at least as its beneficiaries. We still get to work, and we still end up living and socializing in a landscape that feels more like business than pleasure. There’s just no money.

In fact, the digital landscape so effectively monopolizes economic activity that most people have almost nothing left to be extracted. That’s why in order to maintain some semblance of growth, Internet companies had to find a way to monetize something other than cash from its users. Something measurable, countable, and attractive enough to shareholders to justify their real cash investment in the companies’ stock.

That’s right: “likes.” ….

Likes are a new way to stoke that growth furnace.

Boudreaux responds:

The above quoted passage is stuffed with error enough for several long blog posts. But I’ll content myself now only to ask if you find Rushkoff’s theory of “likes” likable. Does this story he tells make you go “Ah ha! Now I get it! Now I better understand why ‘like’ buttons exist and why so many people like (!) to use them”? Does Rushkoff’s theory of ‘likes’ cause you say to yourself “Until now, I thought that ‘likes’ emerged in order to, or because of [fill in the blank]. But now I see that, as Rushkoff explains, ‘likes’ instead are the last possible crumbs of value that digital monopolists such as Facebook can extract from ordinary people – ordinary people who have been utterly impoverished by the past couple of centuries of industrial capitalism. Rushkoff’s explanation has torn the blinding curtains from my eyes! I see now that clever monopolists are raising the market values of their firms to astronomical heights by getting the impoverished masses to ‘like’ in droves the monopolists’ webpages and web-featured products. I like that explanation!”

The same sorts of questions should be used for Biblical interpretation. Does the story have explanatory power? For example, when a Calvinist explains Exodus 32,Genesis 18 or Genesis 22, does a reader jump out of their seat and proclaim “Ah ha! Now I get it! Now I better understand why the text was written like it was”?

Here is Matt Slick on Genesis 22:

Since we can see that it is not consistent with Scripture and logic 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 Scripture. In Gen. 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. God makes statements often designed to reveal to us a truth that needs to be presented. In fact, God often asks questions He already knows the answer to. In Adam’s case, the “where” was dealing with spiritual condition, not physical location. In Abraham’s case, God was simply relating to Abraham in terms consistent with what Abraham would understand, particularly after the actual event with Isaac on the altar…

God was doing two things. First, God revealed the gospel in hidden form. Second, God was 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 but for the man who needed to hear God affirm His faithfulness. Abraham is a man locked in time. The act of sacrificing Isaac was important prophetically, but it is also important to us as a testimony of faithfulness to God.

Does a reader automatically respond: “Now it makes much more sense!”?

Posted in Bible, Economics | 3 Comments

on hypersensitivity

tumor

One of the primary causes of the Trump phenomenon is hypersensitivity in modern America. The victim class continually threatens, intimidates, and shames people into silence. One cannot have a normal conversation without having to worry that people will explode randomly over the most trivial of comments. The people being triggered may not even have direct reason to be triggered. Say the word “retard” and people who have no real relationship with any mentally challenged people (or whatever the phrase is these days) will spring to their defense. And the victim class is endless, so there is no limit to people being outraged on behalf of strangers they never know.

Even if someone has direct experience, they might claim offense. But this is still most likely overreaction by hypersensitive individuals.

In my own life, I have had to deal with my oldest child having leukemia. We spent countless, sleepless nights in the children’s ward. Our hopes have been shattered time to time, and we have been plagued with uncertainty. How many tears have been shed? How many times have we had to watch our child being put under in order to inject needles into his spine?

When I hear a cancer joke, my natural reaction is to evaluate the humor in the joke, and laugh if it is funny. When people make cancer jokes (and the like), they are not truly targeting people with cancer. This is not hate speech designed to destroy people with legitimate problems. Most often, if they know their audience is a cancer patient, they will refrain from making the joke. If someone who knew my child had leukemia continually tried to anger me by making cancer jokes intended to hurt me, I might take a little offense. Alternatively, if someone who knew me made cancer jokes knowing I am a grown adult and understand basic concepts of humor, then I most likely would laugh along no matter how many cancer jokes they tell.

Jokes and humor, especially, are designed to press the limits of what is deemed politically correct. Their very nature calls for building absurdities and hyperbolic nature into their delivery.

Attacking non-malicious people over how they communicate is beyond civility. This type of non-civil outrage should not be dignified unless we want more of this behavior over a wider scope of speech. Economics 101: if you want more outrage over non-malicious speech, then praise and defend it. If you want more civility, shut down those who wish to use hypersensitivity to silence others.

Posted in Leftists | Leave a comment

why income taxes cannot be targeted

Supply and Demand

See also: https://mises.org/library/new-confusion-about-taxes

Posted in Econ 101, Economics | 1 Comment

minimum wage

minimum wageThis graphic accurately represents the effects of minimum wage. Like all good or services in the economy, the higher the cost, the less people purchase. This is the basic law of supply and demand. As prices increase, less is purchased. It does not matter if the item is Doritos, or plumbing services, or even minimum wage labor, the laws of Economics are absolute.

If plumbers suddenly doubled in price, America would suddenly find itself with a new surge of do-it-yourself plumbers. People would hire fewer plumbers and either let small problems slide or figure out alternative ways of getting their plumbing needs met. Certainly not all people would resort to these alternates, but the effect would be visible. The more expensive that plumbers become, the more profound the effect.

Whether plumbers make more money or not depends heavily on if the increase in payment per job outweighs the loss in job opportunities. If it doesn’t, in a free market, plumbers would then lower their prices to recapture that lost income. If the government prohibits plumbers lowering their wages, the plumbers lose out on possible income.

A higher wage per hour sometimes leads to less wages overall. If the person becomes unemployed, this wage is then reduced to zero.

Firms are not magically immune to the laws of supply and demand. In the case firms hiring of labor, labor is only hired when the expected returns outweigh the cost. No one will be hired for a greater cost than they bring benefit to a firm. If a worker only brings $50,000 annually in services to a firm, then spending more than that $50,000 (in salary, taxes, insurance, etc.) results in a net loss for that firm. The firm is better off not hiring that individual.

When minimum wages are established, those who cannot bring at least that much value (the cost of wages, benefits, and overhead costs) to the firm cannot be hired. If these people (who produce less than the value they bring) retain a job after the minimum wage is implemented, they will soon find themselves without a job. Sustained losses are hard to maintain, especially in competitive low end labor career fields.

The great thing about this illustration is that there is one minimum wage house who has the tip of the house above water. In order to become employable, some workers are going to have to become more productive (work harder). Either that, or they might forgo some benefits (costs to employ them). Maybe they lose hours from their work schedule. Maybe the firm stops giving employee discounts or other fringe benefits. Maybe the managers are allowed to treat the employees worse. After all, work environment leads to workers wanting to accept lower wages. My wife worked for a place that would let employees sleep on their down time. Sure, they were only making $6 per hour, but they often got paid to sleep.

Labor costs are not always felt in terms of per hour wages. Focusing on per hour wages above other labor factors is dangerous and short sighted. Note, when minimum wages are government enforced, people cannot make their own decisions on the type of work environment they wish to have. These people, even if earning more money, are made worse off.

All government meddling in the market leads to unintended consequences. The government cannot improved people’s lives by fiat, so can only hurt society as a whole with their laws. Those that they purport to help, are hurt the worst.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

the trump phenomenon

82Ou8PGThere is a strange wind brewing in the American political scene. The Republican nomination is quite likely to be given to a complete political outsider, who is garnering massive grassroots support. This individual is none other than the continually bankrupt and crass Donald Trump.

His speeches seem not to advocate any particular policy except broad statements about making Mexico build a wall on the border and threats against trade with China. On all the issues he stakes a position that is forever changing. His position seems to be whatever is on his mind at the time a question is asked. Literally, Trump appears to come up with positions on the spur of the moment, no matter how ludicrous those answer are.

920x1240

So why is Trump massively popular? Sargon of Akkad points out that Trump is being attacked in full by the media. They call him racist, sexist, and everything in between. Sargon’s video was in response to an episode by John Oliver which is expressly
dedicated to attacking Trump. But Trump’s polls remain unaffected. As Milo Yiannopoulos points out, even after being called racist, Trump polls better among minorities than any other historical Republican candidate. Trump also polls well with Democrats.

Reason.com cuts to the heart of the matter:

The crowd at Rutgers—and at Yiannopolos’s other appearances—certainly suggests that some students are sick to death of the liberal orthodoxies being drilled into them during every waking moment of their time in school. What if millions of Americans feel the same way?

“Nobody votes for Trump or likes Trump on the basis of policy positions,” Yiannopoulos told me. “That’s a misunderstanding of what the Trump phenomenon is.”

..

This has a lot to do with why people support Trump. They know that the academic elites despise them and their culture, and are going to try to educate their children into hating themselves and their culture. Can Trump stop AU or any other university from doing this? Of course not, and we would not want to live in a country where POTUS has that kind of power. But a vote for Trump is a vote against the class that’s doing this p.c. indoctrination. They know that Trump doesn’t give a rat’s rear end about p.c. — and they love that about him.

Cheering on the likes of Trump and Yiannopoulos might just be one way for them to cope with that perceived reality. Trump’s naysayers claim—with good reason—that his candidacy is a disaster for the Republican Party: his election to the presidency would destroy the country. But that’s a selling point for his supporters—not because they love destruction, but because they’re suffering under the status quo, too. At least with Trump, they can enjoy the show and collect some small measure of vengeance against their PC overlords.

The Trump phenomenon is not about issues. It is not about taxes or immigration or guns or abortion. When people attempt to attack Trump on these fronts, they are misunderstanding what he represents to Trump supporters. Trump represents a victory by the common man (Trump polls best among the least educated) against the social justice warriors and liberal elite.

*This article is in no way endorsing Trump, but instead explaining his popularity.

Posted in Human Nature | 4 Comments

do not vote for laws you will not kill over

From Yale Professor Stephen L. Carter:

On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.

The problem is actually broader. It’s not just cigarette tax laws that can lead to the death of those the police seek to arrest. It’s every law. Libertarians argue that we have far too many laws, and the Garner case offers evidence that they’re right. I often tell my students that there will never be a perfect technology of law enforcement, and therefore it is unavoidable that there will be situations where police err on the side of too much violence rather than too little. Better training won’t lead to perfection. But fewer laws would mean fewer opportunities for official violence to get out of hand.

Posted in Goverment | Leave a comment