Welcome to the September 2026 edition of The Eclectic Web Journal! This month, we talk about what Romans says about freedom in Christ, and we discuss the need for a big “SHIFT” in our politics and society. We beg people to understand and not vilify Calvinists, and we also highlight some relevant articles from previous editions.
We’re making another run at picking up some “likes” on our “The Eclectic Kasper” Facebook page and we would love to get to 300 “likes” by the end of the year. Please give that FB page a “like,” and feel free to provide your questions, comments, and insights on any of our posts.
Thanks for reading and keeping up with us, and stay eclectic!
DEVOTIONAL THOUGHT: I Can Change . . . I Guess – 1 Peter 1:14-15
1 Peter 1:14-15: As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior.
The Red-Green Show was a staple of Canadian comedy for years. The series depicted inhabitants of a rural town called Possum Lake, for whom the local men’s lodge, called Possum Lodge, was the center of their social world. Most episodes ended with the men gathering in the basement for their Possum Lodge meetings, where they obligatorily intoned the Man’s Prayer: “I am a man, but I can change, if I have to, I guess.” They utter this in a hilariously obligatory and defeatist way, like a kid saying “I’m sorry” when being forced to apologize.
The heart of Christianity is God turning sinners into saints, not just through the declaration of justification that occurs when a person trusts in Christ, but also through the subsequent gradual process of changing that individual. We call this sanctification; we have been declared righteous through faith in Christ’s death and resurrection, but our goal is to align our lives with that declaration of righteousness.
Our goal as believers should be change, sanctification, and pursuing Christ-likeness (Rom 8:29; 2 Co 7:1; 1 Thess 4:3, 7; 1 Pet 1:14-15).
Unfortunately, many believers approach this notion of sanctification obligatorily; we come in to church, sit in a pew, hang our heads, and think, “I can change, if I have to, I guess.” Those defeatist and obligation-oriented attitudes set in when we think about change, and that can kill the process of sanctification from the start. And as the Possum Lodge group illustrates, sometimes men are the ones who struggle the most with the need to change: we wonder whether we can change, whether we want to change, and whether we have the tools to change, and whether we have the humility to change.
Biblically speaking, change should be an opportunity, an adventure, the thrilling goal of conforming our lives to God’s character and to His Word; sanctification should never be a tedious obligation.
God’s Word helps us move from the mentality that we can’t change, and through the notion that we must change, to the realization that we want to change. Part of this is understanding a theology of sanctification, being convinced that we can change, and then, eventually, actually changing in ways that we, and that even others around us, can notice (Matt 5:16; Phil 2:15; 1 Pet 2:12; 3:16).
First Peter 1:14-15 are great verses about change, the value of change, and the motives for change. He mentions at the beginning of v. 14 that we pursue change “as obedient children”; as most small children like to imitate their earthly fathers, so, too, the believer should want to imitate our heavenly Father (Matt 5:48; Eph 5:1). In 1 Peter 1:14, the apostle mentions that we have been saved from conformity to the “former lusts” which we all exhibited to some degree before conversion (Eph 2:1-3).
If we don’t change and move away from those pre-conversion lusts and desires, then perhaps we don’t understand the reason why God saved us; we were saved in order to change, not to remain as we were, but to be conformed to Christ (Rom 8:29; Phil 3:10). Interestingly enough, the verb “to conform” here is suschematizō; the su- prefix means “together,” and you may recognize the root schema, as in “scheme” or “schematic,” indicating a “form” or “shape” of something (1 Cor 7:31, Phil 2:7). That is, we are not to be in the shape of this world, but we are to imitate spiritually the form and character of Christ. The only other use of suschematizō in the NT is in Rom 12:2 where Paul instructs people not to “mold to” or “conform themselves to” the standards of this world, but to be transformed in our minds so that we can be pleasing to God. Change of life, speech, and behavior should not be an obligation, but it should be a joy to become more conformed to Christ and more pleasing to God.
In 1 Peter 1:15 Peter continues by describing the positive side of child-like obedience. As with v. 14, there is in v. 15 the motivation to be “like the Holy One who called us”; we do not pursue change for the sake of change, but to be holy like the Holy One (v. 16). This holiness should shine through “in all your behavior” (v. 15). The word “all” here is extensive and could translate “every kind of” or “all sort of” behavior and conduct. It is through our behavior that we exhibit the holiness of God and the obedience to which we have been called. We should strive for absolute purity in our business decisions, our study habits, our TV viewing, and the way we speak to others. What are one or two ways in which you need to change and to become more holy in your conduct over the next month.
Of course, there are many exhortations to change in the Bible; beyond those we have mentioned above, there is also Eph 4:24, Heb 5:14; 1 Pet 4:1-2, and many others. For believers, being changed and sanctified demands a change in our behavior, mindset, speech, and relationships so that we are more Christ-like (Romans 8:29; Ephesians 4:24; Philippians 3:21), and so that we are demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:16-23). Also, verses about becoming more holy are not suggestions or polite requests; these are expectations for Christians. We can either fight this expectation, or gladly embrace it, and pursue the adventure of change with Christian maturity.
There are always barriers to change that we need to beware of. There is the lie that we’re too old and set in our ways to change; this minimizes the power of God’s Holy Spirit to help us grow and mature (1 Pet 1:2). Also individual pride can create personal blind spots in terms of our faults and moral lack; this is why having some accountability for our sins and temptations can be helpful (Jas 5:16). Have the humility to ask someone close to you what they think you can do to mature and improve; pride is one of the greatest obstacles to change.
That leads us into some strategies for change. First, and we can’t emphasize the importance of this, we need to have the humility to recognize that there is always room for improvement and greater conformity to Christ in our lives (1 Pet 3:8; 5:6). We also need to identify and confess specific sins (Psalm 51:1-4; 1 John 1:9); what are the “former lusts” to which we are still clinging (1 Pet 1:14)? Again, it can be helpful to ask for help and get accountability from another brother or sister in Christ (Jas 5:16). Some of us have a hard time even asking for directions, let alone help with spiritual and moral issues; but admitting our sins to another believer can help us avoid sin habits and can help us make the changes that we need to make.
In addition to these strategies, there are the changes that need to take place in our minds. I often tell people that our fallen minds are like toddlers: when a toddler trips and falls, there is an impulse for them to break out into tears, even if they are not hurt. An adult has a precious few seconds to distract the toddler, and to point at a plane flying overhead, or a car driving nearby, or even to a tree, and immediately the impulse to cry evaporates. Similarly, believers sometimes need to distract ourselves away from a desire to sin by letting our minds dwell on something that is good and worthier of our attention instead (Phil 4:8). In the heat of the moment, this could mean reciting a Scripture verse, texting a friend that we are being tempted, or even doing something more mundane, like turning on the TV, or listening to news, or reading a book; better to do something boring than something sinful! This points us to the need to retrain our minds with the Bible’s put off/ put on principle (Eph 4:22-32; Col 3:9-10): replace vices with virtues, and bad habits and behaviors with godly ones.
And we always talk about making applications from sermons, personal Bible study, and lessons in our own lives that are realistically attainable, measurable, verifiable, and then follow through on those applications (obey!). Remember, we were not just saved to get to heaven, but to live a life of purity, obedience and service even now during this present life (Acts 6:7; Rom 1:5; 15:18; 16:26; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet 1:14).
What are we doing if we are not pursuing these changes in our lives? What is our focus as Christians and churches if it is not evangelism of unbelievers and the sanctification of believers? We have churches here in North Metro Atlanta that have soccer fields, swimming pools, and even zip lines! Yes, this would be a lot of fun, but are we losing our focus? Have we forgotten the most important elements of the Gospel message and that being saved is more than just getting our fire insurance?
Let’s remind ourselves that we all need to change, and that pursuing our sanctification should be our focus because it is God’s will for our lives (1 Thess 4:3). Let’s also remember this doesn’t have to be some tedious church chore, but change and pursuing Christ-likeness can, in reality, be the greatest and most rewarding adventure of our lives!
POLITICS: Time for a Big SHIFT
People want a big shift in government. Even when our economy is as good as it is, and jobs are as plentiful as they are, and people have access to as many goods and services as we do now, even then we still need to shift focus and attention. In this case, we really need to shift back to what is important for us to be a healthy and thriving society.
Of course, this is not something that the GOP is messaging well as we approach important mid-term elections in November. As usual, Republican candidates are lost in the weeds, and doing too much mudslinging, and not spending enough time presenting a clear and memorable platform that summarizes helpful conservative principles.
A few years ago, I proposed the PLAIN plan, an acronym summarizing conservative doctrines that would benefit all members of society and the country at large. I also suggested a “GOP A To E” plan, and you can see our article about those proposals here from the September 2024 edition of The Eclectic Web Journal.
Now, I’m proposing another acronym to encapsulate conservative ideals: this acronym suggests that it is time for a helpful SHIFT back to founding principles.
Smaller Government
Human Dignity
Individual Freedoms
Fiscal Responsibility
Technological Pursuits
I hope that those ideas are self-evidently important and that they will resonate with most Americans. However, I will go over each one and discuss how they connect with many of the hot topic issues today. And hopefully, you want to be part of this SHIFT, as well.
Smaller Government: If we are going to fix our economic issues it will not be through more taxation, but rather through limiting the size and spending of the federal government. DOGE made admirable efforts to cut government redundancy and outright waste, but we need to continue to support these efforts in some way. We need less bureaucracy, less regulation, and a more streamlined and efficient government. We need to get back to the U.S. Constitution’s vision of a small, limited government that doesn’t have its hands in everything. As a result, it will not be filled with hundreds of bloated and expensive bureaucratic agencies that infringe on the rights and responsibilities of citizens. The Tenth Amendment of Constitution states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Getting back to this ideal would eliminate an enormous number of expensive activities that the federal government participates in, and that would consequently return both freedom and money to the states and citizens. More money could be used to pay down our unsustainable $40 Trillion national debt, and then both our citizens and our nation would enjoy more freedom.
Human Dignity: We have really lost the idea of human dignity in our country. The GOP has a unique opportunity to step up and discuss protecting rights, enacting justice, protecting citizens from criminals, and even protecting some criminals from unfair trials. We can even acknowledge that while many people on the Right don’t agree with the trans or asexual lifestyles, we still respect peoples’ rights to live as they choose, as long as they are not committing a crime or marginalizing any else’s pursuit of happiness.
Human dignity includes pursuing Biblical ideas that the church should champion, such as helping the poor and needy, and the widow and orphan (Deut 14:28-29; Psa 146:9; Jer 22:16; Mic 3:1-3; Matt 25:34-40; Rom 15:26-27; Jas 1:27). The church should help society to be more discriminating about who actually needs help and welfare from the state, and who is just living irresponsibly and mooching off the state (Eph 4:28; 1 Thess 4:11; 2 Thess 3:10-12). Those who are living off of welfare and making bad financial decisions are penalizing other decent citizens, and are stealing their dignity and wealth (Proverbs 13:11; 17:23).
Individual Freedoms: In some ways, this is redundant with the notion of “Human Dignity” above. However, this point highlights the freedoms that should flow from human dignity. The GOP should pursue freedoms for citizens to life, to be safe, to vote, to gain wealth ethically; this means less power for the federal government and more rights for states, cities, and for citizens to govern themselves as they see fit.
Fiscal Responsibility: Here, too, this point is a bit redundant from the idea above regarding “smaller government,” but we here indicating a root cause of that problem, specifically that the federal government needs to spend far less money, to use the money they receive more wisely, and to aggressively pay off the national debt. Government at every level must not pursue taxing more, but they should pursue spending less.
I am not criticizing one side of the aisle over the other: both parties are entirely to blame for this mess. Some politician or party has to stand up and do something significant with entitlement spending, one of the biggest drains on our budget, and the most evident sign of irresponsible leadership. And, I have already written many articles about the stupidity of the vast amounts of foreign aid that we send around the world to people who hate us (see here or here, for instance). Additionally, even as a conservative, I think that military spending should be drastically reduced. I am not convinced that we need to have costly military bases and equipment all over the world; I am not an isolationist, but I also know that the Constitution does not task the USA to police the world, an unnecessary and very expensive self-imposed mandate.
The national debt, foreign aid, entitlement spending, and military expenses, these are all examples of mismanaged resources and finances (Prov 13:23; 27:23; 29:4; Luke 14:28-29). And we need candidates in D.C. who will actually exhibit financial responsibility with the taxes we send. You will recognize such individuals in that rather than proposing that we raise taxes on the rich or on all citizens, they will instead assert that we need to look first and foremost on how to drastically reduce the spending of the federal government. That’s when we know we have shifted from irresponsible to responsible financial management.
Technological Pursuits: We are beginning to see that the AI will be an important part of our future, and the USA should be on the front lines of this technology. But we still want to pursue the manufacture of computers, microchips, satellites, and other technological advancements. We should reduce regulations on tech companies, increase manufacturing, and not demonize wealthy entrepreneurs who are spearheading growth in these tech markets. We should pursue technological advances, space exploration, and improvements in our military capabilities, and we should not discourage the growth of these arenas.
Someone may say to me in response to this article, Why don’t you just mind yer own beeswax and let our government leaders make up their own plans!? The answer is simple: I don’t trust the GOP to come up with a cohesive message, because they rarely have before! It is enormously frustrating to know that conservatives are right on a variety of economic, social and moral issues, and yet, they won’t come up with a memorable platform and plan. The problem is not ideology, it is messaging, and unfortunately, democrats are far better at messaging even though many of their ideas are feeble, naïve, and in some cases, downright dangerous.
So, whatever your voting pattern has been, I want to encourage you to vote for conservative politicians, and to promote this idea of an important SHIFT back to founding principles that will encourage sustainability for our country and prosperity for us all.
CALVIN’S CORNER: A Desperate Plea to Understand, Part 1
I recently saw a video where an individual was vilifying Calvinistic principles, even though, as we will hopefully verify, those principles spring directly from Scripture. And, as most people do today, there was no small amount of straw-manning, or making outrageous claims about a system of thought or interpretation, and then arrogantly declaring how wrong those exaggerated tenets are.
Of course, many Christians don’t always clarify their theological views today, and that leads to some confusion. And yes, Calvinists have not always been overly friendly in sharing their views, too. In fact, some are just down right rude! But that shouldn’t affect our theological formulation; truth is truth, even if it is delivered by fallen people in an unfriendly manner.
But if you could be patient with us in this article, I will try to make some desperate defenses of Calvinism that will hopefully make you think about it more honestly, and help you to recognize that there is indeed a Scriptural basis for this theological system.
When I say that I am calling for a desperate plea to understand, I mean two things. First, I mean that all Calvinists are trying to do is to understand Scripture. I’ll elaborate more on that below. Second, in light of our tendency to demonize people and vilify them before hearing them out, I am simply asking people to try to understand where a Calvinist is coming from. No matter which side of the aisle you are on relative to this debate, I hope you will walk away from this article feeling that Calvinist principles are more Biblically valid than you had believed previously.
Calvinists are just trying to understand the text. There is a stereotype with Calvinists: they’re a bit pushy and condescending. I think that certain types of people gravitate toward certain doctrinal persuasions, and other personality types drift toward other doctrinal systems. Arguably, many pushy people gravitate toward the force and strength of a Calvinist system of thinking.
That said, Calvinists are not evil people trying to take away your freedom. We see the sovereignty of God, the fallenness of humanity, and the need for grace and salvation all over Scripture. We are just trying to point that out. I’m not sure how else to read certain verses which we will discuss below, and we are certainly not trying to read these verses in a way that make people miserable or depressed. The goal is truth and Biblical accuracy (Acts 18:26; 2 Tim 2:15). We also believe that the accuracy of truth is directly related to the joy and freedom that we can experience as believers, or as our Lord Jesus Christ succinctly said, “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).
We’re trying to understand Scripture as accurately as possible, and to help others do the same; don’t condemn those who are honestly trying to do that within accepted theological constraints and traditions.
Calvinist words and concepts are clearly in Scripture. I’ve had many people ask me over the years where we get Calvinism from, or if Calvinism is even in the Bible. The notion seems to be that Calvinists are pulling their ideas out of thin air rather than from careful exegesis of Scripture. But, and this should be no surprise, like Augustine, Luther, Wesley, and many others, Calvin obtained his ideas from Peter and Paul.
Doctrines associated with “Calvinism” are not made up, but are related to concepts and words within the text. Whether you agree with Calvinism or not, you cannot deny that Scripture uses words like “foreknowledge” (Rom 8:29; 11:2; 1 Pet 1:2, 20) or “predestine” (Rom 8:28, 29; Eph 1:5, 11) or “elect” (Matt 24:22, 24, 31 [and parallels in Mark 13:20, 22, 27]; Rom 11:7; 2 Tim 2:10; Titus 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1), or other words or phrases related to those concepts (see also John 6:44; Acts 13:48; Eph 1:4; 2:10; 1 Thess 2:12; 5:9; 2 Thess 2:13).
In fact, these principles are often showcased at climactic moments in these epistles. In a pinnacle of the critical chapter of Romans 8, Paul says, “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren” (8:29). In fact, some NT epistles open with word and concepts associated with Calvinism. At the beginning of the important book of Ephesians, Paul states, “Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will” (1:4-5). Peter does the same thing in his first epistle, asserting from the outset that believers are “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood” (1 Peter 1:1-2). This statement isn’t buried deep within Peter’s epistle, but he opens his letter by pointing to God’s election and foreknowledge. To pretend like these are only from Paul, or that these spring from the imagination of John Calvin fifteen hundred years after the apostles is lacking in intellectual and exegetical credibility.
I don’t come to these verses with some heavy Calvinistic bias; rather, I come to them and see Calvinistic principles, which were, incidentally, derived from these precise verses. To put it another way, its not that I’m reading these verses through some lens of Calvinism, but rather, it is that these verses form a framework for creating a way of thinking about salvation, which some may refer to as Calvinism, and this way of thinking then helps us interpret other parts of Scripture.
We have a few more points that we wish people would understand about Calvinism without distorting it or vilifying its adherents. So we’ll toss those into a follow-up Part 2 toward the end of this edition.
ROMANS: A Declaration of Freedom, Romans 8:1-2
Romans 8:1-2: Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
As we think about the events of September 11, 2001, or as we approach another important mid-term election, we think about the unusual freedoms that we have in this country, and we should consider doing all we can to preserve them. Freedom and liberty can slip through a society’s fingers quickly, as every government on the local, state, and federal level tries to grab more and more power over the people that it is supposed to protect.
Fortunately, it is different with the spiritual freedom that we can have in Christ; once we are given this freedom, nobody can take it away from us! As we continue to work through our verse-by-verse exploration of the book of Romans, we come to some of the most important and liberating verses, specifically Romans 8:1-2, which remind us that no matter what happens in this life, nothing can take away the freedom we have in Christ.
The “therefore” in Romans 8:1 that begins this magisterial chapter points back to the problem raised in the second half of Romans 7, namely, there is a war between good and fleshly impulses in each person, and the fleshly impulses are usually victorious over the body (Rom 7:15, 19, 23). These negative impulses are driven by sin (vv. 14, 17, 20), they are deeply embedded in each individual (vv. 18, 25), and their result is death (vv. 13, 24). Thus, the person is helpless, and in need of someone to rescue her or him completely from this situation (vv. 24-25). The “therefore” at the beginning of chapter 8 demonstrates that there is indeed escape for the sin-riddled, death-bound individual thanks to the love and sacrifice of Christ.
This verse rests on the notion of all peoples’ inability to solve the problem of sin or to stave off the ramifications of this sin problem, which is temporal and eternal death. The only solution is the one that God has provided: there is no condemnation for those in Christ. The “now” emphasizes that this problem has been definitively solved at this point in redemption history after the death and resurrection of Christ.
The word katakrima is the Greek word in the original used for “condemnation,” used only here and in Romans 5:16 and 18. It refers to the result of sin committed against a holy God, and that result is the sentence of eternal death and separation from God. Though sometimes used in a temporal or legal situation (Matt 20:18 [par Mark 10:33]; 27:3; Mark 14:64; John 8:10, 11; Rom 2:1; Rom 14:23), the verb form of this word is also often used in a spiritual and eschatological context, as well (Matt 12:41, 42 // Luke 11:31-32; Rom 8:3, 34; 1 Cor 11:32; Heb 11:7; 2 Pet 2:6). The context here surely indicates the latter of these options, specifically that despite our inherent and unavoidable sin problem, there will be no spiritual and eschatological condemnation for those who trust in Christ. Rather, through Christ, there is deliverance and rescue from the sin problem now and the consequences of the sin problem later. This is the solution to the problem that Paul alluded to in 7:24, and that elicited his praise of God in v. 25.
One last note on this verse is the phrase “in Christ Jesus,” which is synonymous with the oft-used phrase “in Christ.” This phrase often signals the statues of an individual who has received God’s grace by faith in Christ (Rom 3:24; 6:11, 23; 12:5; 1 Cor 1:4; Gal 1:22; 2:4; etc.). This status of being “in Christ” is a person’s only solution for the problem of sin and its accompanying condemnation of eternal death. There is no other means of salvation, there is no other way to God the Father, and there is no avenue for spiritual freedom apart from faith in Christ (see also John 14:6; Acts 4:12).
This remarkable declaration of freedom through faith in Christ is followed up with a statement about the law. The previous chapter discussed the problem of the “law” or principle of sin and death (7:21, 23, 25). Paul has also contrasted the law of sin with the law of the mind, which has some inclinations toward God’s order and law (7:23, see also v. 25). In 8:2, Paul argues that the law of the Holy Spirit of life sets the believer free from the old law of sin and death and condemnation.
The verb eleutheroō in v. 2 means “to free, to set free” and is only used in a metaphorical or spiritual sense in the NT (John 8:32, 36; Rom 6:18, 22; 8:2, 21; Gal 2:16; 5:1). The cognate adjective eleutheros (used 23 times in the NT) means “free” or indicates a “free person” (i.e., non-slave), or someone who is “independent” or “exempt” from taxes. The noun form of the word eleutheria (used 11 times), means “freedom, liberty”, and, like the verb, is also always used in a spiritual sense (Rom 8:21; 1 Cor 10:29; 2 Cor 3:17; Gal 2:4; 5:1, 13; Jas 1:25; 2:12; 1 Pet 2:16; 2 Pet 2:19). The point of this verse, and of the freedom of the Gospel message, is that the appropriation by faith of Christ’s work has permanently set us free from the dominion and consequences of sin. In Christ there is a freedom to do good and an exemption from condemnation that we justly deserve.
When I think about how fragile freedom really is, I think about the theme song to Firefly: “Take my love, take my land/ Take me where I cannot stand/ I don’t care, I’m still free/ You can’ take the sky from me/ . . . Burn the land and boil the sea/ You can’t take the sky from me.” We all long for some version of freedom that can’t be taken away from us.
The freedom we have in Christ is even greater and more assured than anything this world could promise. The Christian version of the Firefly theme would include the fact that throughout history believers have been oppressed and imprisoned, and even tortured and killed; yet the world can do their worst, but you can’t take my faith from me. God’s Word guarantees our freedom from the present power and from the future presence of sin; it assures us that the threat of eternal condemnation away from God has been completely eliminated for those who have trusted in Christ’s sacrificial death and literal resurrection.
OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD: Pictures In My Head
Well, another one left the nest. So, we are re-releasing an article from the old web journal. This time it’s our youngest, rather than our eldest as this article discussed when we released it so many years ago. It’s not our first time, but seeing the last one go hurts in a different way; watching them fly from the nest doesn’t get easier.
As we noted originally, if you haven’t experienced this before, you may not understand the intent of this article. If you have gone through this already, then you’ll know exactly what we’re talking about. I have not adjusted this article, so it is necessarily out of date. But now, about ten years later, much of the prophecy in this article has been fulfilled, and my life is different in may of the ways I anticipated a decade ago; but the passage of time and all the collateral damage that goes with it still hurts; again, I’m sure many of you will relate.
So here again, from the October 2015 edition of The Eclectic Kasper, we again present to you with minor modifications, “Pictures in my head.” And, as we warned then, you may need a box of Kleenex nearby, just in case.
The Muppets have a remarkable way of excavating deep feelings, and yet, this aspect is almost completely lost on children. The fun, the silliness, and the sight gags are for them. The joy of family, friendship, as well as sentiments of regret and loss, these kinds of emotions that the Muppets occasionally evoke are for adults.
The 2011 move simply called The Muppets with Jason Segel and Amy Adams features fans who are trying to get the Muppets back together after they had gone their separate ways. These fans even go so far as to visit Kermit in his comically-swanky Hollywood mansion.
This visit plunges our favorite frog into some uncharacteristic introspection during a song called, “Pictures in My Head.” Kermit ambles down a grand corridor in his home looking at portraits of Fozzie Bear, Gonzo the Great, the Swedish Chef and others. As he remembers his interaction with his former associates, he laments, “Is there more I could have said? Now they’re only pictures in my head.”
It is a remarkably clever scene; the pictures eventually spring to life, as though these memories were still living and poignant to Kermit. However, by the end of the song, the characters fade back into their portraits, confirming his assertion that, indeed, his memories evoked from the pictures on the wall are now only pictures in his head.
We, too, often reminisce – perhaps with some measure of satisfaction as well as with some measure of regret – about the past that we once had with people that we still profoundly love.
“Would anybody watch or even care, or did something break we can’t repair.”
Just as my life changed indelibly when I held my first child, it has also changed now that we have sent the firstborn off to college an entire state away. He is enjoying college greatly and doing fine, but I’m not sure that I can say the same for those of us left behind.
After he left, I tortured myself a few times with this Muppets song, and it took me a while before I could listen through the entire song without getting too choked up. Could I have done better as a dad? Have I equipped him to do well on his own?
“Is there more I could have said? Now they’re only pictures in my head.”
These musings by Kermit really struck me. I, too, have found myself looking wistfully at pictures and thinking about times gone by with my kids, and especially the college-bound eldest. These are feelings that I’ve never known before; I am pioneering what is for me uncharted emotional territory. It’s hard to describe the conflicting feelings: profound pride for a kid that turned out pretty well juxtaposed with gut-wrenching regret. Did I work more than I should have? Was I attentive enough? Did I always respond as well as I could have? Never have I shed so many ambiguous tears for reasons I have yet to understand.
The heartless and relentless passage of time strikes hardest in our relationships with our kids. They don’t stay static; they grow up, and then fly away. This is the way it is supposed to be; after all, I don’t want them living in my basement when they’re in their thirties or forties! But just because they are supposed to go, and just because I have been preparing them to go for a long time, none of that really softened the blow when the moment of departure finally came.
I was deluged by so many other unexplored feelings, too: glad that he is moving on, a feeling of emptiness, joy as he takes the next step, relief that he’s not in prison, an ambiguous emptiness and lack of closure. They don’t tell you about this in pre-marital counseling or in parenting classes.
In fact, it seems to be the big unspoken secret of having kids, and I may perhaps be the first fool to break some unwritten code. But the powerful feelings you have when you leave the child in day-care for the first time, or while you watch their first soccer game, or when he or she goes on that first date – these feelings pale in comparison to the weird joy, sorrow, relief, and regret of sending them away to college.
As hard as it often is to parent small children, somewhere in the back of my soul, I find myself wishing they were still, and would always ever be, just my little kids.
Someday all of the kids will be grown and gone. I hope they live nearby, or at least within a half-day’s drive. But just as I couldn’t have predicted where life has taken me, I certainly don’t know where life will take them. They will have children, jobs, and responsibilities of their own. I, too, will still have things to do. We will see each other whenever we can; we’ll try to get together often.
But even those aspirations mask the heart-breaking reality that pierces us with nostalgia and regret every time we see those pictures on the wall: it will simply never be the same again.
“But I’m standing here instead. Now they’re only pictures in my head.”
Right now, I can hug my kids and play with them, or at least, with the three who are still under my roof. Some still sit in my lap, and let me hold them while we watch football or while they cry. Some still want to be pushed on the swing, to be taken out to McDonald's, to play silly games, and to watch the Muppets.
Witnessing these moments heartlessly pass by is sobering; the time I have had with them has slipped by so fast. Some elements of my time with them are already vague memories: Awana, peek-a-boo, driveway hockey games, excursions to the playground. There is still some time left, but I have plenty of room to make better use of these fleeting and fun few years while I am still their daddy.
Because, someday, they will be grown and gone . . . all of them.
At some point I will be able to pick up the hat of a granddaddy, place it on my head, and fulfill that role for my kids and grandkids. And from what I have seen, that role looks like it’s a lot of fun.
But by placing upon my head the hat of grandfather, I will have to remove permanently the hat that I now wear of being a father of young children. It is a role that I have had for almost twenty years now, a hat that I have worn on my head that has defined me, and provided me with unspeakable meaning and joy.
But, sending my eldest off to college has been a sobering reminder that I am plodding closer to the day when I will have to slowly and reluctantly take that daddy hat off my head, set it aside, and retire it forever.
Like Kermit, I too will be standing in an empty corridor, looking at the photographs on the wall. All of us will be part of a vanished yesterday, recalled with increasing blurriness by portraits on the wall as well as the ones in our minds. I need to make the most of the time that is left. Because my other little children, soon, like the eldest, will just be pictures in my head.
CALVIN’S CORNER: A Desperate Plea to Understand, Part 2
Ironically, while working on these articles about Calvinism, I had a conversation with someone who clearly hated the notion of “predestination.” This is odd since, as I pointed out in Part 1 above and also to this individual, “predestine” and related words are in the Bible (see, for instance, Acts 2:23; 4:28; Rom 8:29, 30; 1 Cor 2:7; Eph 1:5, 11). This person obviously didn’t have much clarity or education about these debates regarding divine sovereignty, human will, and salvation, and his misconceptions about Calvinism, foreknowledge, and predestination were outlandish.
We continue here in Part 2 to ask people not to distort Calvinism nor to vilify Calvinists; we are just trying to read and understand the Bible as best as we can. You may have specific differences with exegesis or theological formulation, but there is no need to demonize others who are also trying to understand God’s Word.
Here are a few more points that we desperately wish people would understand about how Calvinists believe that we are trying to accurately divide the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).
Calvinists don’t deny human will and choice. I hear this accusation often, specifically, that Calvinists deny any exercise of human will at all. And if we deny human will, we also deny corporate and individual responsibility. But do Calvinists believe that God has scripted out every choice of humanity and that this somehow takes away human responsibility?
Well, I can’t speak for all Calvinists, so I will just assert what I believe Scripture teaches: I don’t deny human will; I deny free will; I deny that any person has completely free, uninhibited will and choice, and that any human being can make choices that are free from a multitude of consequences, or even from any consequences. Our will and choices may clash with that of a parent, or a spouse, a friend, or with the government; our will may be abrogated by the speed limit or some other law, or by a social norm, or by a clear verse of Scripture. But there is no such thing theologically or philosophically as free, uninhibited, unrestrained human will, and I defy anyone to find me a verse in Scripture that asserts that there is!
If anything, Scripture is the story of God’s will, God’s sovereignty, and God’s rule which He continually exercises over all creation. There cannot be both completely free and unfettered human will and divine sovereignty; one of these wills must reign over the other.
We mentioned in “Part 1” how many words that are associated with Calvinism, like “foreknowledge,” “elect,” and related terms occur in the Bible, and some of them several times; they are accurate translations of the original Greek words. However, I only found one use of the phrase “free will” in the NASB and that is in Philemon 1:14. The context of this is clearly not talking about salvation nor is it asserting that people have uninhibited choice in all kinds of matters. In fact, the phrase is translated “willingly” in the KJV and “not forced” in the NIV. The only uses of the phrase “free will” in the NKJV are in reference to certain offerings that one was not required to provide, but that you could provide “willingly” (see Lev 1:3, 19:5, 22:19 and 29), and these are the only four uses of this phrase in this translation. Similarly, the use of the phrase “free will” in the ESV’s translation of 2 Cor 8:3 does not undermine God’s sovereignty nor His prerogative of election. Here again, translating this phrase “willingly” or “of their own accord” (NASB) is clearly more in line with the original text.
To summarize, several mainline translations, including the NIV, the KJV, or the NRSV, do not contain the phrase “free will” in them. And where some translations do contain that phrase, it is used rarely, and it is never referring to salvation. Rather, it is discussing doing something willingly in a specific and limited context.
Calvinists do not deny the value of evangelism. “So, if you’re a Calvinist, then you don’t believe in evangelism!” I was shocked when someone said this to me; I could hardly respond to such a misunderstanding of Calvinism.
I don’t deny evangelism. In, fact, I believe that Calvinism compels evangelism; it makes me want to go out and share the Gospel will all people, knowing that God is moving in some of their hearts to help them receive the Gospel of Christ. I want the joy of being there when the Holy Spirit opens their eyes, when they believe in Christ, and I want to help nurture them in the beginning of their Christian journey.
I have been pushing our church to do more evangelism and missions. We go around to places nearby the church to invite people to attend our church, and to engage in evangelistic conversations with people. We do not believe that divine sovereignty in any way cancels out the responsibility of believers to proclaim the Gospel to whomever will listen (Matt 28:19-20; Acts 1:8; Rom 10:14-17; Eph 6:19).
Calvinists don’t really care about Calvin, but we care about Jesus and about the Bible. The way some people depict Calvinists, you would think that we have shrines to John Calvin in our living rooms!
Again, I may not speak for all Calvinists, when I say this, but, I don’t really care about John Calvin. Of course, I am very interested in church history, and the history of Biblical thought and interpretation. But other than for academic and historical reasons, Calvinists are not interested in Calvin, in preserving his memory, his heritage, nor even His theology. For the most part, we are only interested in the framework he popularized because it is Biblically accurate. If Ted Turner had come up with a Calvinistic system, I would still gravitate toward it only because it resonates with Scripture, not because it had anything to do with Ted Turner. We are not revering the person, but we do appreciate their attempts to encompass many Biblical verses into a coherent way of thinking about salvation.
Theology is not a popularity contest. We use terms like Lutheranism, Augustinianism, and Wesleyanism for convenience, not because we revere these people. And in doing so, we are not saying that these people invented these doctrines, but that they emphasized them, or in some cases, re-popularized them when many people in the church were drifting from clear Scriptural teachings.
Calvinists do not support or affirm many of the terrible things that others say we believe. Many people have taken Calvinist doctrines and made illogical leaps toward views that most Calvinists would never embrace.
For instance, we do not believe that God is the author of evil; evil clearly comes from God’s creatures who use whatever capacity of will they have to oppose God, including Satan’s rebellion against God, or Adam and Eve’s original sin. I have never read or heard a Calvinist say that God is responsible for sin; in fact, the whole point of the Bible is that God is not responsible for sin, but He does provide redemption and salvation.
Again, most Calvinists don’t deny that people have some measure of choice in their life, nor do we believe that the sovereignty of God eliminates the need for evangelism, or the value of personal responsibility. These are not Calvinist tenets, but rather, absurdities that start with a nugget of Biblical truth and foolishly extend that truth to a ridiculous and unsubstantiated conclusion without rightly handling the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).
Well, we could go on about how people vilify Calvinists, take them and their teachings out of context, straw-man their views, or take Calvinist principles and extend them into unbiblical absurdities. Perhaps, we’ll do a follow-up to this article in a future edition.
You and I may not agree on certain aspects of salvation and human will, but Christians should at least avoid untrue statements like asserting that the Bible doesn’t mention any issues related to predestination and election. Furthermore, we should avoid demonizing those who don’t agree with us on non-essential issues dealing with Christian doctrine or practice (Rom 14:1-13).
Rather, we should, as I have tried to do here, present our side with Biblical data and clear assertions that are rooted in Scripture, and not rely on speculations and hypotheticals. Our doctrines, beliefs, and convictions must come not from men, but from God and from His Word.
APOLOGETICS: Proof, Reason, and Circularity in Faith
This article is from the March 2024 edition of The Eclectic Web Journal and is presented here with minor modifications.
What is the role of proof in faith? How reasonable must a faith be before it can be reasonably believed?
Let’s face it: in the 1980s and 1990s, evangelicalism spent a lot of time trying to prove our faith. Back then, and even more recently, gents like Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig and organizations like The International Society of Christian Apologetics or Institute for Creation Research filled in an apologetic gap.
The idea of “apologetics” means a defense for our faith. It comes from the Greek word apologia, again meaning a “defense” or a “reply.” The word occurs eight times in the New Testament, but used most poignantly for our purposes in 1 Peter 3:15: “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (NIV). Sometimes we use logic, science, archaeology, to provide some extra verification for our faith to someone who is skeptical or even for the believer who struggles with some doubts about the historicity of the Christian faith.
This present article stems from some feedback that we received on our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page. Last edition, we had an article about the Gospel and its essential components. One individual wrote on our Facebook page, “The ‘gospel’ is just another myth. It would do as much good to worship Zeus.” OK, interesting perspective, but it didn’t seem like there was going to be a lot of fruitful interaction here.
But another comment exhorted us to “Start by proving that ‘God’ exists without resorting to the same old circular reasoning.”
This comment was interesting on several levels. In fact, this individual was setting a trap that most evangelicals or people of faith fall into. In the following, I will describe that trap, how to avoid falling into it, and how to respond to such comments.
First, the obligation of proof is not on those who believe, but on those who assert. We believe that God exists, that the Bible is reliable, and that Jesus’s life, suffering, death, and resurrection atones for the sins of the world. We never suggested that we could or had any reason to prove this scientifically or historically. When you think that you have to answer every antagonistic question or respond to every criticism, notice how Jesus always controls the conversation, such as in Matthew 21:24-27.
When you get down to it, demanding a believer to prove an article of faith is actually kind of stupid; if I could prove it, then I would accept it as fact, and not have to believe it by faith. The reality that something is accepted by faith means that there isn’t the kind of scientific proof we have for gravity, cells, or the movement of stars. We happily accept many facts, but there are also many things that we believe by faith.
Second, no amount of evidence will satisfy someone who refuses to believe. There is a tremendous amount of validation for the existence of an Intelligent Creator (see the Intelligent Design movement), and there is tremendous historical, textual, and archaeological veracity for much of what is found in Scripture. However, no archeological or historical discovery can definitively prove nor disprove Scripture. And they don’t need to; again, we ascribe to these things by faith.
But that epistemological stubbornness works both ways. We say that no amount of evidence against Christianity would hinder our faith. Similarly, no amount of evidence for Christianity can sway a serious skeptic. There is no amount of proof that one could offer to a skeptic to verify the reality or legitimacy of something that they refuse to believe anyway. There are still flat-earthers despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary; they will doubt any “evidence” that you place before them.
It may help to remember that Jesus Himself dealt with this kind of trap. The religious leaders in first-century Israel refused to believe Jesus no matter what He said or did. They asked Him to speak plainly about who He was, but He asserted that even if He did so, they would not believe (Luke 22:67; see also John 3:12). The religious leaders asked for a sign, but He asserted that even with that they would not believe (John 4:48; 10:25). When they did see His miracles, they attributed that power to Satan rather than God (Matthew 9:34; 12:24), creating an incredibly-convenient loophole in their logic.
We will face similar refusal to believe today. It is helpful to remember that an unbeliever cannot be won by proof or evidence, but only by the Holy Spirit generating faith in their heart so that they would be able to believe in the message (Titus 3:5).
Third, the “circular reasoning” argument circles back both ways. Or, to put it another way, there is always circularity to faith. Circular reasoning means that you use an assumed premise as evidence to prove your assumed premise.
I saw a meme recently – and yes, we’ll do another fun article on memes soon! – that noted the circular reasoning of Christianity. The meme basically noted the irony of saying that I believe the Bible to be the Word of God because it says it is the Word of God so I believe it to be the Word of God. However, this is excusable: worldviews do create circularity: disbelief creates skepticism and faith creates acceptance. Most people willingly participate in the circularity of their worldview, or they decide to abandon it for the circularity of another worldview.
You can remember two things about the circularity of faith. First, it is easier to see the circularity of someone else’s worldview than it is to see the circularity in your thinking. People can point to predictable circularity in Christianity, but fail to see their own. When you push them on their own beliefs about God, they will say something like, “I don’t believe in God because I’ve never seen Him or heard from Him so He must not exist,” which is, of course, a circular argument. Or they may say, “We believe that the universe is billions of years old because there is evidence that suggests that the universe is billions of years old so we affirm that the universe is billions of years old.” Again: circular argument. By the way, that same formula works if you change “billion years” to “about ten thousand years.” That is, the evolutionist and the young-earth evangelical both subscribe to a worldview that is circular and that necessitates faith.
But also, faith allows us to have some circularity! We believe in the reliability of the Bible because of what the Bible says about the reliability of the Bible. I wouldn’t buy that argument if we were talking about the Koran or about Marx’s Das Kapital. However, I have a faith assertion of the reliability of the Bible because the Bible asserts its own reliability. Yes that is circular. But that also doesn’t mean that it is wrong.
So, let’s put these aspects together into a more cohesive response to the unbeliever. When someone asserts that God doesn’t exist, we can ask them if they are asserting that as fact or assuming that by faith. That is, if by faith, we ask how they came to that faith, and they will probably give us circular reasoning: God cannot exist because bad things happen and bad things would not happen if a loving God existed. They have accused you of a belief that utilizes circular reasoning, but they themselves possess faith and circular reasoning.
And if they say that they arrived at the non-existence of God by fact, then ask them to clearly irrefutably prove it. I think it will become very clear quite quickly that in doing so they will resort to assertions of faith and circular reasoning.
I thought of these tactics when we received that Facebook response mentioned above. I used these tactics to push back against the person who posted this. So, in addition to writing this article, I simply replied, “Thank you for your reply. I have no need to ‘prove’ what I arrived at by faith. The burden of proof is on you if you assert that God doesn’t exist. Do you believe in God’s non-existence by faith or proof? If by proof, please provide that proof. If by faith, kindly describe the reason for your faith in God’s non-existence. And please do not resort to the same old circular reasoning: ‘A loving God doesn’t exist because bad things happen, and bad things wouldn’t happen if a loving God existed.’ Thank you in advance for your thoughtful reply.”
This is one strategy for you to use as you strive to defend your faith. May you wield the weapons of faith, reason, and good argumentation for fruitful and victorious ends.
The Eclectic Web Journal is written by Matt Kasper and edited by Martha Kasper. Matt is a graduate of Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, Dallas Theological Seminary, and he recently completed a PhD. in Reformation history from Georgia State University. Matt is the pastor of a small church northeast of Atlanta called Grace Atlanta Bible Church. He helps lead several other groups and activities in the Atlanta area, as well, including the Peachtree Corners & Norcross Pastors Association and Atlanta Geek Fellowship.
We had written a decade’s worth of articles in our previous web journal, called, The Eclectic Kasper, which we published from 2011 to 2021. We will work on repairing access to these articles, and let you know about our progress on that front.
If you haven’t yet, please give our “The Eclectic Kasper” Facebook page a “like” and you can leave comments about any of our articles on our posts there.