squaring God's election with "all men are created equal"

Have you ever wondered how the doctrine of election and the Declaration that "all men are created equal" can both be true? Now that is a question I have never heard discussed. It's probably in the "too hard" pile. A question we can wait to ask on the other side of eternity. But, if you are a serious ponderer, you must give it go :-)

Let's see what we can do with this.

God's election, clearly found in Scripture but not embraced by all Christians, speaks to God's Sovereign will. He does what He chooses independent of cause and effect. This is a concept outside the realm of our natural thinking. Even a non-Christian perspective is that humans have difficulty accepting randomness, an unexplainable occurrence. Randomness is what Sovereignty looks like. 

Equality is a dominant theme of human nature. Equality somewhat flows from the human obsession with justice. While people see equality as a virtue, there is no universal way equality is understood. People are not equal in obvious ways. Some are taller, smarter, more attractive, faster, etc. Given these differences do not produce the same results, we agree equality is not "sameness". Everyone is not created the same. Thus, the common debate is generally "equality of opportunity" vs "the equality of outcomes." Primarily society grapples with "all men are created equal" as economic policies that affect the distribution of goods and services are developed and enacted. 

Is this what the Founding Fathers meant? Were they proposing an economic system? There is an argument for claiming the Declaration was aimed more at dismissing the class systems that used birth position to determine the worth and destiny of individuals. Birth established privilege for much of history. Maybe they were declaring that there are no divine authorities among humans. There are no Lords and no Ladies. No Gents. Maybe "all men are created equal" was a break from historical views that some people are advantaged simply by birth,

For those that believe the Founding Fathers were taking "all men are created equal" from the Bible, what do we do with the doctrine of election? When Jesus says, "for God so loved the world", is  He not referencing an equality of all individuals? The word "world" here means nations and tribes of the world. Jesus is moving from the Old Covenant with Israel to a covenant that is not dependent on a specific people group. Jesus is declaring the Gospel is not restricted to Jews. Similar to the Founding Fathers, Jesus is claiming one's birth into a given situation is not God's view of that person's value and destiny. 

Jesus also says in His final prayer before the cross, “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me." This referred to the disciples. But Jesus goes on to pray, "Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me." In many places in scripture, it is clear that God chooses, He calls whom He wills. He knocked Paul off his horse on his way to persecute Christians. Like the parable of the landowner, He rewards as He chooses. There is no cause and effect. Not even the effects of "all men are created equal". HE IS SOVEREIGN.

In the final analysis each of us must decide if God should be defined by what man thinks or if man should be defined by what God thinks. Which view takes primacy in our understanding? We can never know why God chooses as He does. We just know it is for His glory and not ours. That is what makes Him Sovereign. To force our rationale about the equality of persons denies His Sovereignty. What makes Him worthy of our worship is that even in His sovereignty, He has chosen to favor us. This favor is not based on "equality" of our birth, His favor is not based on anything about us. The only real statement of "equality" in Scripture is that "we all" have fallen short of deserving His favor.

In that way "all men are created equal" is a scary proposition, not one in which we should boast.

That is the way I ponder this question ......  through the lens of Grace

"scientific truth" - an oxymoron

A recent article made headline news when it reported the findings of scientists on climate change. The thrust of the article was that now there is "scientific truth" of man induced climate change, what will a Trump administration do about it?

Now let it be clear, this blog is not about climate change. If truth be known, I am a strong advocate that man should be a good steward of God's creation. The article interested me because it claimed "scientific truth." I would dare say a large percentage of those reading the article would never question that phrase. They would knock each other out debating the conclusions of the article and maybe its purpose, but rarely its assumption that science produces truth.

No reputable scientist would claim science produces truth. I have advanced degrees in both physical and social sciences, well published in academic journals. Science finds statistical evidence that A is likely to cause B given C. Science is limited in many ways. First, it is only probabilistic, or showing a statistical inference. Second, all scientific inquiry is bounded. That is, the findings are limited to certain conditions included in the study.

Third, going in assumptions and methods are always biased. I once heard, "the problem with science is the scientist." For example, in this article the conclusion by the scientists was climate change must be man made because they could find no evidence for any other explanation.


This is VERY FAULTY SCIENCE.

Therefore, I do several things with scientific studies. I take the findings with a grain of salt until I view the assumptions and methods. I do not take it as evidence of truth, but statistical probabilities that two things relate together in a certain way, possibly. Finally, I seek to understand the purpose of the study.

While many people wish to conduct themselves in ways that do not create problems for our environment, many of these same people do not want "climate change" to be used by government as a hammer to control and interfere in their lives. Constitutionalists would claim "inalienable rights". That is, they want to pursue their life outside of government intrusion. There is a concern that science, similar to that presented in this article, is simply a tool to grow government. That's where the disagreement generally is and that is where the public discourse should go. Those that are cynics of climate change science should not challenge science with science. That is ingenious and futile. But rather argue for the way in which society should incorporate the myriad of studies that suggest cause and effect of actions we take on the environment.

Its not that we should avoid or constrain public discourse on issues like climate change, it's that we should be more informed about the methods and tools we use to debate. Science does not determine truth. Let's at least quit bullying others with that claim.

If truth is not determined through observation, how then is it determined?

I'll leave that with you for now as something to ponder ......