Capitalism and Government Regulations: Why a free market solves problems

Capitalism and Government Regulations: Why a free market solves problems

          It seems like every day you hear about a new law or regulation that the government wants to put in place. Lawmakers try to find the exact wording and punishments to make sure certain mistakes won’t happen again. No one wants another BP oil spill, a great recession (2008 crash), or a monopoly with all the price setting power. Working tirelessly to formulate potential laws to prevent any of these things from happening again seems to be their top priority. But with more laws comes less liberty and freedom. If only these lawmakers could see that the free market already prevents the preventable, a lot of sleepless nights could yet be filled with dreams.

              

          The number one factor that would keep oil spill and risky investments by banks down to the minimum is a free market, or supply and demand. The second biggest factor is GREED. Now, I know what you are thinking.  You believe greed was the main reason for these problems in the first place, so it cannot possibly be a solution. But what is greed? Would it be fair to define it as a motivation or a lust for money, power, and fame? I will agree that greed did have a hand in these problems. Less money spent on pipeline maintenance means more profits. Quick and risky investments can also increase profits. In a very small amount of time, the weakness was shown. Oil spilled and banks collapsed. The greediness of the board members blinded them to the possible negative consequences. But will that happen again?

     Those in Congress think it might happen again. That is why they create laws and regulations, so as to prevent a recurrence. A lot of ordinary citizens also think it may happen again, which is why they call on their representatives to create these rules. It’s funny to me that people go to all this trouble when there is a much easier way to get what they want. Look inside your wallet. You see that paper? It’s yours. You can do with it what you wish. British petroleum and its members of the board are ultimately interest in one thing: convincing you to voluntarily give them that green paper. So, do you see the solution now? It’s simple; don't give them that rectangular piece of paper with a picture and motto on it. That’s it! Just don't give it to them. Tell BP that if they want your money, they are going to have to fix some things. Show them that they need to repair all the damage they caused. And if that still isn't enough for you, just vow to never give them your money. Problem solved! Let’s create some examples so you can see what I'm talking about more clearly.

     Now is the part where I show you how greed is the solution. So, most would agree that the head honchos of BP are greedy. They want as much money as they can get their greedy hands on. Do you remember how they get your money? They have to convince you to voluntarily give it to them. They can't force you; they have no army or personal justice system. You have to agree to hand over your money. In order to convince you to give them your money they have to appeal to you. BP wants you to want BP. The more you want or like BP, the more money you will give (trade) them. Now comes the important conclusion. It is also true that the less you want or like BP, the less money you will give (trade) them. So, if BP is greedy, that means they want more money. And if they want more money, they have to get you to want/like them, so that you will be inclined to give them more money. Therefore, greedy BP will do what needs to be done to get you, and others, to want them. But what do you want? Well, according to what you have communicated to your congressman, you want no more oil spills. This means that the more you believe BP will NOT be responsible for another oil spill, the more you will want them. This forces BP to perform some internal functions to show you that they don't want another oil spill either. And what internal functions would show you they are serious? Purchasing better pipelines and maintaining them! See how it all comes around? If you believe the members of the board are extremely greedy, then you must also believe they will do what is necessary to make money. And what is necessary to convince the consumer to give them money. And in order to convince the consumer, they will have to take steps to make sure their oil does not spill into the ocean again.

     We can also look at it from a simpler angle. Imagine that in 1 month from now there was another BP oil leak. Tell me, with so many other gas stations, would you buy from BP again? Probably not. And I bet at least 90% (to be modest) of people surveyed would say the same. Tell me, what would happen if BP lost 90% of its customers? If it lost 90% of its revenue? BP would go out of business. That’s what would happen. If BP had 90% fewer people buying its gas, it would not make enough money to stay in business, how are those greedy board members going to make money when almost no one buys their product? They won't. And those board members know this. They know that if they leak more oil into the ocean it will become almost impossible to make money to satisfy their greedy desires. So they are forced to take steps to make sure their oil does not spill into the ocean again.

     Next we shall cover the investment banks during the 2008 crash into the great recession. Yet again people have no problem admitting they think the CEOs of investment banks are greedy and will do whatever it takes to make more money. In 2008 this greed was brought to the public eye when it was shown that risky investments were made based on valuation models that were rushed into production before they were complete. The risk of these assets and mortgage backed securities was massively understated. Whether this was an honest mistake or a chance taken by a boss is a speculation, but most of us would probably be correct in assuming that a dollar sign popped into the chief investor's heads when they saw the incomplete formula and started to run with it. But regardless of whose fault it was or why it happened I can almost guarantee it won't happen again.

     The same reasoning that applies to BP applies here to all investment firms. That is the beauty of supply and demand, it applies to all businesses. Investment firms use other people's money to invest in securities. Without other people voluntarily giving these banks money to invest with, they would go bankrupt. They cannot make money without your money. Therefore they must appeal to you in order to entice you so that you'll give them your money. To be successful they must give you the feeling that not only will they not lose your money, but that they'll also increase it. If you fear that they will make the same mistake again then you will not trade with them. This causes the head investors to check their models and check them twice because they know if they make a similar mistake citizens of the United States will not trust them again and will refuse to give these banks their money. Consumer demand will be low causing the banks to lose profitability and eventually close down. Can you know see how a free market works best for everyone?

          Let me explain why I said "I can almost guarantee it won't happen again." The main reason I say "almost" and not "absolutely" is because of the federal government. It turns out the same people you cry to for help are actually the ones hurting you and I’ll tell you why. Does the phrase "too big to fail" ring a bell? As a capitalist this phrase makes me cringe. No company is too big to fail! Any business that fails to provide what the consumer wants should fail. If a grocery store fails to provide decent at a fair price, it should fail. If a car manufacturer fails to provide quality cars at a fair price, it should fail. If an investment bank fails to provide a reasonable return on investment at a fair cost, it should fail. Banks and insurance companies, like AIG, should have failed, but the government bailed them out. This warped view of Keynesian economics does more harm than good. What did big companies like AIG learn from this? That they are too big to fail. That they can take huge risks because the government will bail them out. They have learned that no risk, no amount of damage done is too much to shut them down. They can make whatever unintelligent decisions they want because big brother will always be there to help them out. With any risk the potential reward will always be greater than the potential loss. if you could go gambling at a casino and knew that a great fortune could be made and that even if you lost your life savings with some bad bets the government would bail you out and give you a good amount of that money back, would you not be more inclined to take this risk? Wouldn’t you be willing to gamble all your money knowing the government would bail you out if you lost it all? So why should these firms stop risking your money? 

        If you would like to see how capitalism plays out, just look at the cell phone industry. This industry has animal set of regulations and laws controlling it. It is driven by consumer demand and cell phone supply. The government does not subsidize the making of the phones. And the competition between the companies leads to a better product every day. Not only are the carriers competing; AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, Cricket, Boost, and T-Mobile, but the manufacturers also have plenty of competition; Motorola, LG, Samsung, Apple, HTC, Blackberry, and others. Think of all the improvements this industry has made in so little time. Mobile phones have decreased in size, then we had flip-phones, then sliders, then touchscreens, then smartphones. The designs just keep getting more advanced. What can a Smartphone not do now? This is what a free market looks like. Companies competing to make a better product so more people will buy it which will earn those greedy CEOs more money. You see how greed is desired? They want more money, and in order to do that they have to create a phone better than the rest so people will buy it. This pushes companies to become better and to make a better product. When the incentive is there (money) companies will do what they must to obtain it. And that means creating a product that will persuade you to voluntarily give them your money.

         Before we end with examples, I'd like to point out one more industry: The school bus industry. This sector is completely subsidized/paid for by the government. There is only one customer (the government) who has a set budget. There is absolutely no incentive to create a better product. You never hear of the greedy bus driver manufacturers. The barriers to entry are high since the government signs year long contracts with a company. This is not a free market. Now, when is the last time you saw a newer, better school bus? It's been a long time hasn't it? That's because without the free market there is no incentive to become better; and it shows. 

         Hopefully I have been able to show you why it is that a free market will produce the best results and why government interference only procrastinates inefficiencies. It all comes down to money. You and I both know that. Companies will do what it takes to get your money. Just don't give them your money and you can indirectly tell them what exactly what you want them to do. If you have the government, backing them up no matter what they do, then they will not have any incentive to change. Please remember this you believe the government should step and effect the decisions of any company or industry.

Mourning After Death: The most selfish act besides killing

          Just after reading the title I’m sure you’ve already judged me and are gearing up to attack me as soon as I start to explain myself.  I do not care if you agree with me, my greatest fear is only that you’ll read the rest of this essay with a bias against me.  I ask that you please let that go and just listen.  Your possible frustration will not affect the words that have already been written.  It only affects the attitude you have as you continue to read. You’ll be clouding your own mind instead of the words on the page.

             
     Let me just start by saying that I do not wish death on any one.  I hope this is obvious.  I also would love to see the day that nobody died and therefore no one would mourn.  The loss of life is hard to deal with and I would prefer if no one ever had to deal with it.

              
     Now the first place to start is to describe the emotions, feelings, and thoughts that happen to someone who has lost someone they care about. They probably go through the 5 stages of grief: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance. The first 4 stages are what I will try to show as being self-centered. The last step is acceptance, which is more a state of mind and not a feeling or action. For the rest of this essay, to make it easier to understand, I will use the example that someone close to you has died. I will therefore be referring to you as the person I am trying to argue with and show that you are being selfish.

Stage 1: Denial

     Here is where you refuse to believe that someone you care for has actually died. The most common phrase used at this point is “I don’t believe it.”  Do you really not believe it? Or do you just not want to believe the truth? Regardless of the answer we need to ask a different question: “Why don’t you believe or want to believe?” Answer: Because of the significance of the event. A life has ended. But, why do you care that a life has ended? The unintelligent and superficial answer would be, “Because I care about the person.” But do you see what the problem with that answer is? Just because someone died, does that mean you no longer care about that person? No, of course not. You care for that person now just as much as you did when they were alive. So, back to the original question: “Why do you care that they died?” There are two answers you might give. Either “I’m sad because they don’t get to live out the rest of their life.” (This assumes that living out your life is a positive thing. I’m okay with that assumption). Or they say “I’ll never get to see them again.”

“I’m sad because they won’t be able to live out their life.”

                You are probably going to think I’m a huge jerk for saying what I’m about to say, but please look deeper and test what I’m saying to see if it’s true. My question is: Why should someone be sad that another person cannot live out their life? Does the person who passed away care that they can no longer live out the rest of their life? No, they are dead. They do not have this facility. Does the person who passed away have any negative feelings/attitudes/thoughts about death? No. Again, they are dead and are not capable of that. If a person says the above quotation what they really mean is: “If that person was alive then they could experience the joy and happiness that comes with life.” You want the other person to experience happiness because if you saw the other person in a state of happiness that would make you happy. And that’s the key. The selfishness is right there at the end. If that person were alive right now, they would have the ability to experience happiness. And when they are happy you are happy. It’s all about your happiness. It’s an altruistic selfishness. At this point you might argue that you want the other person to be happy for their own sake. That their happiness is the final good/goal. I would respond to this in two ways. First, look at the two words that start the person doing the “wanting”. It’s “you”. YOU WANT ___________. It’s all about what you want. Secondly, the dead person does not want to be happy. They are incapable of wanting anything since they are brain dead. Plus, the dead person is not in a negative state. They are not sad nor depressed nor do they lack/want anything. They cannot have those feelings. Again, they do not want to be happy. Therefore, their happiness cannot be a final good. It can only be an instrumental good for you.

“I will never get to see them again.”

                This is an easier response to explain. Just re-read it and you will see that it reeks of selfish attitude. The first word is “I”. Right there anyone can see that you are just talking about your own wishes. This sentence contains no happy thoughts for the dead person. Instead, its only focus is on what you want.

Stage 2: Anger

                The next step in this process is anger. People become mad at the situation. But, we must find what you are really mad at. You are mad that the person is dead. But why? And what is your anger directed towards? We must first answer the questions of why you are mad your friend is dead. As you might say, it is either because your friend won’t get to finish out their life or because you cared for them and did not want to see them dead.

            
   I already explained the actual, underlining, selfish feeling behind you wishing your friend could live out their life so I will move on to the next answer. You did not want to see your friend dead. This is because you see the state of death as a negative thing. So, you are mad that something negative happened to your friend. But again, that is not where it ends. When you care about someone, you also mimic their emotions. When someone you care about feels sad, you start to feel sad. When your friend laughs in happiness, you will smile back in happiness. One must admit that when you get a gift for someone, you enjoy giving it to them because seeing their happiness gives you happiness.  It is partly a selfish act. Back to the death situation. When your friend dies, you see it as something negative happening and you see your friend in a constant negative state. In this way you also become sad and in a negative state. You become angry that whatever caused your friend’s death is also affecting you. You are in a negative state because your friend is in a negative state. This negative state partly manifests itself as anger.

               
     This anger also comes from not being able to see your friend again. You are angry because you will not be able to experience friendship with them again. You are being totally selfish in your anger towards everything you will not have. You are angry because you want to have your friend, but the friend was taken away. You are angry because you want what you can no longer have.

Stage 3: Bargaining

                This whole step clearly contains the flavor of selfishness. You ask to give up one of your items in order to reverse the death of a friend. Why? Because you would be happier not having that item and instead having your friend. At this point you might say that you would not be doing this only for yourself. You truly would give up anything for the other person to be alive. There are now two things to look at here. The selfish act of helping someone back to life AND the weighted bargain.

              
     Starting with the selfish act of helping someone back to life: How would you feel if I told you that your bargain helped someone back to life? You would feel such gratification knowing that you had a hand in bringing someone back to life. And this is not a consequence, it is the cause. So, when making “the bargain” you are only thinking about how happy you would be if that person came back to life and how happy you would be knowing you had a hand in it.

              
     Now onto the weighted bargain. This means that the bargain you make will provide a net positive outcome to yourself. If the net outcome was a negative you would not make the. Let me illustrate with examples. If you said, “I will give up my car and my house to have my friend come back to life,” you are only making this deal because the personal happiness you would receive from knowing your friend is alive outweighs the negative effects of giving up your car and house. Do you agree? Nah, you probably still think you would make this bargain solely for the friend’s happiness. Well check this out. If your friend was alive would you give up your car and house if it meant your friend would get a $100 gift card to Best Buy? Huh, would you? But the gift card would make your friend happy! And you said earlier that you would give up your car and house simply for their happiness. So why not this time? I’ll tell you why! Because the negative effects outweigh the positive effects. You are being selfish, but there is nothing wrong with that J Everyone is selfish. Sure, a lot of people would trade some material property in order to bring someone back to life, because the overall personal outcome is your own happiness. But no one would trade two expensive material items for a small monetary card because the overall personal outcome would be negative. Therefore, you would only make “the bargain” because of the happiness you attain from the result.

Step 4: Depression

                This is the final stage of grief that I will be talking about and could possibly be the most controversial. If I were to summarize it now I would say depression is a totally self-centered attitude and anyone could get out of their depression if they stopped feeling sorry for themselves, accepted what happened, and just tried to make their future better.  It’s that easy! Depressed is defined as “sad and gloomy; dejected.” I will therefore characterize a depressed person as sad or gloomy.

              
     When a person is depressed or sad or gloomy we have to ask what caused it and why does that event make them sad? As is the case with the rest of this essay we will cover the event of death. It’s no surprise that if you ask someone what emotion they would feel if someone they cared about died the number one response would be sadness or depression. So let’s see why that is. If someone you cared about died and you became sad I would ask, “What’s wrong?” you would reply, “My (spouse, significant other, best friend, etc.) passed away.” To which I would respond, “Why does that make you sad?” You would then probably give me a funny look and counter with something like, “Because I loved them.” Do you see where I’m going with this? Does your friend’s death now prevent you from loving them? No. So what are you implying when you say the reason you are gloomy is because someone you loved is dead? We have already been over the answers: “Because they won’t be able to live out their life.” And “I won’t be able to see them again.” So what else is there? Possibly: “I won’t be able to share my love with them,” “I will always miss them,” “There will now be an empty hole in my heart,” “They made me happy.”

               
     All those excuses are egotistical and full of self-pity. You won’t be able to share your love with them? Ok, I don’t deny that, but it’s just one more problem that affects no one but you. So accept it and move on. You will always miss them? See that first pronoun? It’s “you” which, like all the other excuses tells us that the only person this problem affects is you. Missing someone is natural. So accept it, move on, and stop feeling sorry for yourself. We all miss something; this is life. There will be an empty hole in your heart? That is so self-centered. You think the rest of us haven’t felt heart-brake before? It happens to everyone. The fact that this has also happened to you makes you human. So stop feeling sorry for yourself and move on. They made you happy? Everyone loses something that makes them happy, you are not the exception. Find something else that makes you happy. There are multiple people or things that can provide happiness, so stop letting yourself be sad over what you don’t have and go search for another person/item that will make you happy. All of those excuses were centered on things you no longer have. It’s all about what happened to you. Self-pity at its finest. Now get up, accept it, and move on. You can be happy again if you stop crying over what you had and start to focus on what you currently still have or can have.

              
     I hope you stuck with this essay and continued until the end. And I know on the surface this looks awful and unsympathetic, but I hope you take a closer look at what I said and actually think about it. Not only will seriously considering what I said be tricky but knowing how to apply this will be tricky as well. I highly recommend not showing this essay nor using its logic to someone who is grieving. This should only be used as a teaching tool before a person grieves or a long time after a person has finished mourning their dead. Only with a clear mind should one read or be given this reasoning.

              
     As a tangent I will explain how I want this logic to be applied to my loved ones should I die. If I die, please do not mourn for me. No amount of sadness or depression can change the outcome. Also, I will be dead and will not have the ability to see who is crying over my death. So, if you believe that you will be “paying your respects” or something like that, don’t worry about it. I don’t see how you can respect a dead person. In order to show respect, I must be able to observe it, which would be impossible if I’m dead. Also, how do you think I would feel if I knew that I had a part in your sadness? I would feel awful. No matter what happens, I never want to be the cause of your depression or tears. Even if it is because I died, I still would not want to know that you were in a state of mourning because of me. So, do me a favor please, and do not mourn my death. I do not want to be the cause, either directly or indirectly, of any form of sadness.

Thanks for reading!

*Note: I make no claim as to whether acting in selfishness or selfishness, in and of itself, is right or wrong. I do not wish to answer that question. All I wish to show is that mourning is a selfish act. I do not assert whether it is morally right or wrong. That is for someone else to decide.

The 3 Types of Love

This is a personal opinion but it seems to me that the most successful and happiest marriages are ones that exemplify three types of love: love of your spouse, the love of Love, and the love of God. When all three are present in a marriage, and shown by each partner, their relationship continues to grow and persevere. As for me, I am young, have little personal experience with love, and have never been married. I am not afraid to admit that I could be wrong and I would understand if you quickly dismissed my opinions based on my lack of personal experience. In this essay I am strictly giving my opinions and am in no way asserting that what I say must be fact. I would just like to give my perspective on this issue. It will be hard for me to keep the three types of love spate because there is definitely overlap. I apologize now for any confusion I lead you into when reading this essay.

                I will start with the easiest type of love to define, and that is a love for your spouse. This really does not require much explanation. I do not think anyone would deny that the first requirement for a successful marriage would be for both parties to love each other. This love inclines one to want to do whatever it takes to make the other happy. They will want to get to know each other, they will want to have fun with each other, and will be willing to make sacrifices to make the other happy. The last part was the key to defining love and to differentiating the three types of love. To exemplify the love of a spouse is to make sacrifices to help your spouse reach their final goal. Whether that’s turning off the TV to talk about what your spouse wants to talk about or letting your mother-in-law live at your place to make your spouse happy. Their happiness is their goal and you will sacrifice to help them attain that goal. But love an emotions are funny things. They have this mirroring effect. Laws of physics prevent the creation of something from nothing (conservation of matter) and prevent mechanisms from creating more energy than was put into them (conservation of energy). But love and happiness do not follow such ules. Love and happiness can come from  seemingly nowhere and can easily produce more happiness without added work. Seeing your spouse happy makes you happy. And this is the magic of love. Even though it takes a lot of work/energy to sacrifice your wants, you do it because you want your spouse to be happy. But sometimes, just that thought is not enough, even though it should be. Someimes you question yourself, “Was everything I just did worth it?” But then, once you see your spouse’s eyes light up and see how big their smile is, you suddenly know that it was truly worth it. Their happiness becomes contagious and you catch the biggest and most effective virus (or should I say “love bug”) ever and immediately begin to smile as your heart overflows with joy. Out of the exhausted and doubting pit in your mind comes a rush of bliss, seemingly out of nowhere and with no work or effort put forth. This love of your spouse is only the first part of a beautiful marriage.

           Moving on I would like to explain the love of Love. I have heard a lot of people say, “I love love.” So this idea of the love of Love cannot seem too foreign. Continuing with my opinionated definitions, I see the love of Love as one being willing to sacrifice to reach Love’s final goal. Love’s final goal is to have the purest form of happiness and joy bestowed upon both parties of the relationship. This is also a layer above the love of a spouse. When  our love for our spouse is not enough to get us to sacrifice we depend on our love of Love to be the motivation. We all have an idea of the concept of Love; what true Love looks like, what Love requires of us, what Love’s outcome is, and the like. We also see love as this overarching good. Something that is pure and should be attained by all. If we attain this feeling of Love we will be eternally happy. And our best way to attain this Love and to become controlled by it is to perform the tasks demanded by Love. If we want to have our lives match the beautiful painting of Love we must work at it. We love the concept of a couple that is head-over-heels in love with each other. So, when a situation arises, or more hopefully in every area/decision, we ask ourselves, “What would Love do?”

           Lastly, there is the love of God. This is the highest good. If the love of your spouse and the love of Love are not enough to get you to sacrifice your wants for something else then you can trust in this type of love to be enough. The love of God is also greater than humanity. God easily exists with humanity and since he created us, he deserves our love and praise. To parallel the other two types of love, to love God is to sacrifice our wants in order to please God. This should be our ultimate goal. If we make it our primary responsibility to please Him, then we will do what He wants. And when it comes to marriage He wants us to love and care for our spouse. We are to treat others as we want to be treated. Would a perfect and loving God want us to hit our spouse? No. Would god want us to cheat on our spouse, even if the spouse never found out? No. Would God want us to think about cheating on our spouse, even if we never acted on it? No. With these 3 questions you can see how three types of love are needed to have the most successful marriage. Let’s refresh the questions to say: “Should we hit our spouse?” “Should we cheat on our spouse, even if they never found out?” “Should we think about cheating, even if we never act on it?” The first question can be answered by asking ourselves, “What would someone who loved their spouse do?” It can also be answered by the 2 higher levels of love. The second question cannot be answered by asking, “What would someone who loved their spouse do?” because the event would not affect the spouse (assuming they never found out about it). The second question must then be answered by a higher level, “What would someone who loved Love do?” An affair would destroy a relationship grounded in Love. Love does no harm and an affair would go against the principles established by Love. The third question cannot be answered by the first two types of love. If you just thought about cheating, without acting on it, then the spouse would certainly not be affected. Also, the concept or goal of a perfect Love would not be affected because no action was taken that would prevent you from that love. So, we must ask, “What would someone who loved God do?” They would not have these impure thoughts. To even look at another with lust in your heart is to commit adultery. God can see your thoughts and thoughts of sin or immorality do not please Him. We must put away thoughts of sexual immorality if we are to practice loving God. And remember: God is Love.

               A possible fourth type of love is the love of your children. I am not sure where this love would fall in the hierarchy. I also have refrained from adding this love because not all couples have children and I do not believe you must have children to have the most successful marriage possible; although it can help. Regardless, I hope I was able to explain my thoughts in a clear way and that I didn’t confuse you too much. “And now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.”

A Stronger Free Will Defense

Let me start off with a quick attack. If predestinationism is true, then evangelism is the most selfish act possible. You think God needs your help to bring someone to him? If it’s God who chooses how and when we will be saved, then he doesn’t need your help. If you say you helped bring someone to Christ, aren’t you taking credit for what God did? For what only God can do? If “Total Depravity” is true, evangelism is pointless. No one could share the love of God with an unsaved person because they are to “depraved” to accept or understand it.

                Now that I got that out of the way it’s time for me to show you the verses in the Bible that prove my point. God does not choose who will believe in him, nor does he choose who will not believe in him. God does not predestinate individual people, but he does predestinate believers. What I mean by that is: God doesn’t say to himself before someone is born that, “I want Joey to be saved, therefore I will make him believe in me. I will pre-determine whether he chooses life or death.” What God does say before anyone is born is, “I have decided that everyone who believes in my name and the work of my son shall inherit the kingdom. I have pre-determined that anyone who puts their faith in me will go to heaven.” From now on I will show you verses that explain God’s will that all should be saved and verses that describe the choice God gives us: we believe in him or not, we choose life or death.

                No one is more special in God’s eyes than anyone else. But, believing in predestination puts you on a pedestal. If you believe you are saved because God chose you to be saved, then you are saying that you (before you realized you were saved) were better than me. God does not do things randomly; therefore he must have had a reason to pick you over someone else. So, what makes you better? Why does God love you more than someone else who is not saved but is willing to seek him? John 3:16, the verse everyone knows says, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son…”  Who does God love? The world! Who did God give his son for? The world! If God chooses who would be saved then this verse would read, “For God so loved the chosen elect that he gave his only begotten son.” Therefore, God does not choose who will be saved because we know that God gave his son to the world and not the chosen elect. Because God gave his son to the world, anyone can be saved. All you have to do is believe. The only way God could give his son to the world is if the whole world had a chance to receive the son.

Now I will offer a proof for free will based on this verse:

1.       A person is not saved if they do not receive Jesus.

2.       In order to receive Jesus, a person must have the ability to receive him.

3.       Each person is part of the world

4.       If something is given to an object, if the object has the ability to receive, the object can receive the given item.

5.       God gave Jesus to the world.

6.       God does not do meaningless actions.

7.       Therefore- The world, each person, must have the ability to receive Jesus.

Conclusion: Since God does not do meaningless actions, then if God gave the world his Son, it must be because the world has the ability to receive his son. Each person is a part of the world, which means that each person has the ability to receive the gift God has given us. Predestination says that God chooses who receives his son, therefore not allowing/preventing some from receiving his Son. It follows that predestination stated that not all people have the ability to receive Jesus, since God chooses who has the ability. Therefore predestination is invalid.

                1 Timothy 2:4 says, “God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved…” As you can see, God wants everyone to be saved. How are we saved? By believing in him. So, God wants everyone to believe in him. If God chose who would believe in him, then he doesn’t want everyone to be saved. Let me illustrate this with an example: I am in the mood to eat apples. So I go to the store to buy them. Now, the only apples that I will allow to come into my shopping cart are green ones, because I don’t like red apples. In order for apples to be green, it must have a green pigment in its cells. So, when I got to the store I only allow apples with the green pigment in them to get into my cart. Now, I love apples and am very hungry, so I want all the apples to be green (have a green pigment) because I want as many apples as possible. But, the apples have or do not have the green pigment independently of what I want. I did not make the apples green; I just chose the ones that were green. To relate that to humans. God (the hungry shopper) does not choose who has the spirit or believes in him (have the green pigment); he only chooses those with the spirit (green apples) to come into heaven (the cart). God wants all to be saved (the shopper is very, very hungry) he wants as many people to be saved as possible (wants all apples to be green and not red) but people have the spirit or do not have the spirit (have or do not have the green pigment) independently of what God wants.

                1 Timothy 2:6 says, “Who gave himself as a ransom for all people.” Again, God would not give someone a ransom if they were not able to accept it, that would be illogical and pointless. Therefore all must be able to accept the ransom.

                2 Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is longsuffering (patient) to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all come to repentance.” The KJV says God is longsuffering to us-ward and the NIV says God is patient with you. These verses tell us that God is patient with us! What is God showing? Patience. Who is he showing it to? Us. Why is he showing it? Because He is “not wanting anyone to perish.” From this we can conclude that it is our job “to come to repentance.” That is the only way in which God can be patient with us. If it was God’s decision whether or not we came to repentance, then God would only be being patient with himself. If it is God’s choice as to whether we are saved or not, there is not patience required toward us. God could put Jesus into our lives at any point – no waiting/patience necessary.

                Next- I know that logically the absence of proof is not proof of absence but let me bring to light the way faith is portrayed as opposed to the way it is never portrayed. In Hebrews 11:1 it says, “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see…” [NIV]    “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen…” [KJV]   Notice these things do not say “certainty FROM what we do not see,” nor “the evidence FROM things not seen.” Also notice that the bible never mentions faith FROM God or faith from Jesus, but faith in God and faith in Jesus! Romans 10:17 tells us exactly where faith comes from, “So faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” God does not give us faith; we attain faith by hearing the word of God. Also, the bible has never lead me to believe that I am justified by the constraint of God’s choice, or that I am justified through the will of God.

                Titus 2:11 says “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.” This verse alone disproves/refutes the Calvinistic doctrine of ‘Irresistible Grace.’  This verse tells us that God’s grace has appeared (been shown) to everyone. But as we all know, not everyone goes to heaven. This means that some people who have seen this grace have turned it down and not accepted it. Therefore God’s grace is resistible!

                Deuteronomy 24:16 says “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.” In the T (total depravity) doctrine of Calvinism there is this theory of “Original Sin” and this theory basically says that because Adam sinned and we are all born of Adam, we are all guilty of that same sin. Therefore we are born sinful leading to our total depravity. But, as the verse in Deut shows, we are not help accountable for someone else’s sin. All will be put to death for their own sin! We don’t deserve death because of Adam’s sin; we deserve death because of our own sin. The Bible says “through one man’s sin death entered the world.” When Adam sinned, all his offspring now had a sinful nature, but are not guilty of sin until they commit their own first sin. There is also a verse in Romans that says “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Why do we all fall short? Because we all have sinned. This verse does not say “For Adam has sinned and all fall short of the glory of God.”

                If the fact that we are descendants of Adam means that we are born sinful, then Jesus was sinful.

            For my final points I will use three passages, 2 that show us it is our choice whether or not to choose God/life or death; and one that shows how God is not the one to plant the seed of faith in our hearts. The first comes from Deuteronomy 30:15-20 which says, “¹⁵ See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. ¹⁶ For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. ¹⁷ But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, ¹⁸ I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess. ¹⁹ This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live ²⁰ and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the LORD is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” Here God is telling us to choose life! It is the person’s choice whether or not to choose God. This verse would be contradictory if God was the one to choose for us.

                2^nd passage, Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sirach) 15:11-20: “Say not: "It was God's doing that I fell away"; for what he hates he does not do. Say not: "It was he who set me astray"; for he has no need of wicked man. Abominable wickedness the LORD hates, he does not let it befall those who fear him. When God, in the beginning, created man, he made him subject to his own free choice. If you choose you can keep the commandments; it is loyalty to do his will. There are set before you fire and water; to whichever you choose, stretch forth your hand. Before man are life and death, whichever he chooses shall be given him. Immense is the wisdom of the LORD; he is mighty in power, and all-seeing. The eyes of God see all he has made; he understands man's every deed. No man does he command to sin, to none does he give strength for lies.” This passage can also be found at http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/sirach/sirach15.htm. But, what this verse is saying is clearly evident. And though this book lies within the apocrypha, it is still used for teaching.

            The last passage comes from 1 Corinthians 3:5-8: “⁵What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. ⁶I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. ⁷So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. ⁸The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. ⁹For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.” Now, was it God or man who planted the seed? Was it God or man that started the process? It was man! Someone plants the seed of faith in us by sharing with us the word of God, and once that seed is planted (once we believe) God then does the growing part by continually sanctifying us. It now makes sense to put 2 verses together- “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God” and “being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.” (Phil 1:6). You see, once we choose accept Jesus, once the seed is planted; God then helps us grow. He changes us, and then continues to sanctify us through his word.

Are We Made In The Image Of God?

This question has been the center of disagreement in my Bible study for a long time. And it’s time I did something about it. In order to answer this question I will need to do four things: define “image”, list my points, prove them using verses in the Bible, and show why other verses that look like contradictions to my argument are not.

So, what does it mean to be created in God’s image?

My first choice will be to debate the issue based on the definition of image being “sinless.” God is sinless, therefore, God’s image could also be sinless. When Adam was created, he was made sinless. Now, being made sinless is different from having the potential to sin. Adam obviously had the potential to sin, and he ended up sinning, but before that he was sinless. Once Adam sinned, I believe the sinful nature entered humans and therefore abolished God’s image in us. Now, let’s look at a very interesting verse: Genesis 5:1-2 says “¹This is the list of the descendants of Adam. When God created humankind (Heb Adam) he made them (Heb him) in the likeness of God. ²Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them “Humankind” (Heb Adam) when they were created. ³When Adam had lived 130 years, he became the father of a son in his likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.”

Verse one is self explanatory and no one can find anything to criticize.  Verse 2, on the other hand, brings up something to talk about. God named Adam and Eve “Humankind.” This makes one think that if God refers to “Humankind” then he could definitely be talking about just Adam and Eve. Now, verse 3, it directly says that Seth was born in Adam’s image. Why doesn’t it say Seth was made in God’s image? It seems verse 1 and 3 were written the way they were for a reason. The Bible has already told us, back in chapter 1:27, that Adam was created in God’s image, so why bring it up unless Moses is trying to prove a point and bring some differences to light? This leads me to believe that the image of God and the image of Adam are not the same thing. This would make perfect sense if the image of God referred to sinless and the image of Adam referrers to sinful. Are we now all born sinners? It would seem so according to Genesis 8:21 “²¹And when the Lord smelled the pleasing odor, the Lord said in his heart, ‘I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.” God says that the heart is evil from youth, which can be taken as since we were born. Also, Romans 5:18-19 says “¹⁸Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. ¹⁹For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” Because of Adam’s sin, we were all made sinners, which can also be taken as born sinners.

Now that I have shown we are born sinners, I must continue on proving that we are no longer in God’s image. My first argument would be that since all of us are born sinners, we are all sinful, and therefore born in Adam’s image. For my accompanying reason I will take you to some verses. 1 Corinthians 15:49 says “⁴⁹And just as we have bourne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man." This book, and consequently this verse, was written to Gentile believers. And what Paul is saying is that everyone has bourne the image of the earthly man, but only the believers in Christ will bear the image of the heavenly man. So, is God an earthly or heavenly man? Is Adam an earthly or heavenly man? It seems clear that we boar the image of the earthly man, and that means we boar the image of Adam and not God. My second verse comes from 2 Corinthians 3:18 “¹⁸And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord.” What this verse is trying to say, using clues from the verse in 1 Corinthians, is that we are being transformed from the image of the earthly man into the image of the heavenly man. You might now be wondering how this fits in with sinful/sinless. It would seem that this verse is implying that we started out as sinful but are transforming into something sinless. This fits with what Jesus has done for us. We all started out sinful and our objective is to become sinless so that we may be found righteous in his sight. But can we ever become totally sinless? No. So how do we get into heaven? We get our sins taken away and in effect become sinless. That is where Jesus and his work on the cross comes in, but I don’t have to tell you that.

Now, when trying to say that we still are born in God’s image, people usually refer to certain verses. The main one being Genesis 9:6 which says “⁶Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person’s blood be shed; for in his own image God made humankind.” Now, I’ll show you three reasons why when it says God made humankind in his image it is not talking about us. 1- humankind is a type of race, and therefore is only made once. When you or I are born, do we start a new race? Is humankind made again? A human being is made again, but not humankind. 2- Look back up at the top and read Genesis 5:2, better yet, I’ll re-type it: “²Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them ‘Humankind’ when they were created.” God specifically named Adam and Eve Humankind; just like you would call Mr. and Mrs. Johnson the Johnsons. So when God says humankind in 9:6 he is specifically talking about Adam and Eve. 3- We know what Genesis 9:6 says, but what does the next verse (Genesis 9:7) say? [To make my point clear I will put verse 6 & 7 together] “⁶Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person’s blood be shed; for in his own image God made humankind. ⁷And you, be fruitful and multiply, abound on the earth and multiply in it.” Why is that “And you” there? The reason it is there is to show that God was talking about someone else when he mentioned ‘mankind’ and now he wants to put the attention back on the person he was talking to in the first place (Noah).

But I must now digress to a previous question. What does it mean to be created in the image of God? I already gave one possibility, sinlessness. But, what else could it be? Two things that it is NOT are same physical feature as the creator or physical features imagined by the creator. Let me explain further. One might say that to be created in the image of God must mean to look like him, physically. But this cannot be so because God has no physical body or shape. Then another might say that to be created in the image of God means to be created in the way that God imagined us. God imagined a being with two legs and 2 eyes and 2 arms and so on… This could be true for Adam; but it also says that Adam “gave birth” to Seth in his own image. And it stands to reason that Adam did not have the power to create a human that looked the way he wanted it to. So both definitions concerning physical features are void. So, what else is there? It could be an intangible 3^rd eye that allows humans to see God. We assume that Adam was able to see God as he was walking around in the garden and that is because he had the 3^rd eye. But once sin entered the world, the 3^rd eye died, and therefore Seth was born in Adam’s image without the 3^rd eye. This holds true throughout the rest of the Bible because we know that if someone where to look at God, from Seth- on, they would surly die. But how does the 3^rd eye correspond to “being transformed”? Easy, the unbeliever cannot see God and cannot form a relationship with him. But, when we accept Jesus into our lives we can then form a relationship with God and see him working in our lives and other’s lives.

Any other opinions as to what image means? A friend of mine brought up the opinion of the image of God being qualities of God, such as: feelings, thinking, rationalization, unconditional love, perfect peace, and the like. He suggests that Adam started off with 100% of these things, but when he made the wrong choice and sin entered then all of these qualities were watered down. We know longer have perfect rationalizing skills, our thinking, especially in terms of spiritual secrets is permanently flawed and there is no way of achieving perfect peace or showing unconditional love. This also coincides with transformation verse in that once we accept Jesus into our hearts he allows us to interpret the Bible, to have a greater peace and to love abundantly.

So, which of the three is the correct answer? I’m not sure yet…

Did I Choose God Or Did God Choose Me?

Is predestination real? Does God choose who goes to heaven and who goes to hell? Does he provide the faith we need to accept him? Is his grace irresistible? The answer to all these questions is NO. I believe that we have free will and it is our job to recognize God’s creation, Jesus’ love, and the Holy Spirit’s power. I chose to accept God and to believe in Jesus’ finished work on the cross. Jesus did not die just to save those he wanted to save, but he died to take away everyone’s sin, so that everyone had a chance to accept God’s grace and attain salvation. But how do I know this is so?

                Let’s start with 1 Timothy chapter 2. It says “¹I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone- ²for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. ³This is good, and please our God our Savior, ⁴who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. ⁵For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, Christ Jesus, himself human, ⁶who gave himself as a ransom for all people.” This verse specifically says that God wants ALL to be saved and that Jesus paid the ransom for ALL people. John 3:16 reiterates this: “³For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” God loves the WORLD. Now, can anyone honestly say that scripture tells us that God chose a certain number of people to be saved? Do they tell us that Christ died to save the chosen? No.

                Now, let’s look at 2 Peter 3:9 “⁹The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but to come to repentance.” This verse also tells us that God wants all to come to repentance. But, before that, it says God is being patient with us. Why would this be so? Certainly it is not because God does not have the power to change our hearts immediately; because he does. God is not being patient with us because it takes a long time for him to convert our hearts, God can convert our hearts in less than a second. But, God is being patient WITH US because it is our choice as to whether or not we will accept Christ. If it was not OUR choice than God would only be patient with himself; which is not what the verse says.

                Now, on to Romans chapter 3 starting with verse 22 “²²This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, ²³for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. ²⁵God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of blood- to be received by faith.” Now according to this verse what is given to us by God? Answer: Righteousness and a sacrifice of atonement. Both these things are given THROUGH faith. Nowhere in the bible does it say that faith is a gift from God. Actually, faith being given to us by God contradicts the definition of faith itself. Faith is believing in what cannot be proven, believing in what we hope for. If God gives us faith that says he is real, then it is no longer faith, it is knowledge. If we think that God makes us believe in him, then we do not accept him on faith, we accept him because we are given the knowledge that he exists. [provide analogy here]. On to another point- Verse 24 says that all are justified freely by his grace. It does not say, in fact it says the opposite of, we are justified by the constraint of God’s choice, or we are justified through the will of God.

                We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac, how God asked Abraham to offer his son Isaac on the alter to test Abrams’s faith. And right before Abraham was about to slay his son God says “ ¹²’ Do not lay a hand on the boy,’ he said. ‘Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.’ “ God tested Abraham. Why? To see if Abraham truly feared God. It is Abraham’s choice whether or not to believe in/fear God. If it is not Abraham’s own choice, then God merely tested Himself, which is ridiculous! Therefore, it is our choice to accept God and have faith in him, not God’s choice.

                What about God finding favor in certain people, mainly Noah. Genesis 6:8 says “⁸But Noah found favor in the sight of the Lord.” How did Noah find favor in the sight of the Lord? Easy, the only way he could have, by obeying God’s word and believing in God. Genesis 7:1 says “¹Then the Lord said to Noah, ‘Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you alone are righteous before me in this generation.” These two verses show that Noah found favor in God and that he was righteous. Nowhere in Genesis does it say that God chose Noah to believe. If God chose Noah to believe in Him, then He couldn’t find favor in Noah, because God made him do these things. If God controlled whether Noah would accept him or not, God would not find favor in him just because he did what God made him do. If you could control someone you would not like them simply because they did what you said, that doesn’t make sense. Imagine holding a gun to someone (this is the only way a human can directly control another human) and asking them to get you a glass of water. If they get you a glass of water are you going to then have more respect for the person or like them more? No. They are doing what you asked because you made them do it.

                Genesis 6:6 says, “And the Lord was sorry he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.” Why was the Lord angry? Because people were sinful and would not turn to God. So, from this verse it is obvious God does not chose who is saved, because this verse says he is sorry for making humans who would not choose him and continue only in evil! If God chose who he wanted to be saved, he would never have felt this way because he would have just opened some humans hearts to accept him.

                I now feel that it’s time to move on and discuss some verses that are very confusing. Mostly, the verses that have the word “predestination” in them. But one thing I want to point out before I continue is that a lot of people have a crooked view of the word predestination. Notice that whenever the word it mentioned it is talking about a group of people, never a single person.

                First up, Romans 8:29-30, “²⁹ For those God forknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. ³⁰ And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” Now, this is tricky, so feel free to read this paragraph over a few times. “those God forknew” refers to the believing Gentiles; God knew there would be a group of Gentile believers (that’s why he sent his son to die, so that Gentiles could also have their sins forgiven and be saved). So those Gentile believers were “also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son;” now conforming to the image of the Son is talking about a change in personality but also about being saved. God predestined ‘the forknown’ to be saved. The key here is to realize that the ones God forknew are not specifically Bob, Paul, Sara, Jim, Will; but the ones God forknew is the group of Gentile believers. Here is a metaphor that might make things clearer. God chose Gentile believers to be saved, but he didn’t choose who would be a Gentile believer.  Another way is: All Gentile believers can get on this bus #2, and God is letting us all know that bus #2 is going to heaven. It is now our job to become Gentile believers, which gets us on the bus.

                Next, we jump over to Ephesians 1:4-5 which says “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love He predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.” This verse’s first sentence starts right off by saying that God chose us to be saved. But who is the “us”? Paul writes this letter to Gentiles. Just as I said before God chose the Gentile Believers (as a group, not specific people) to be saved. Again, when in the next sentence, Paul says God predestined us for adoption, he is talking about Gentiles. Let me give you another example to back this up. Think back to Romans 11 and the ingrafted branch. Did God graft single person branches in or the whole Gentile nation? God grafted the whole Gentile nation branch in so that whosoever believes in Him shall never perish but have eternal life!

Do Paul And James Contradict Each Other?

Throughout my study of the Bible I have seen the various ways Paul tries to get the point across that we, as Gentile believers, are saved by “grace through faith” and not by works. (Ephesians 2:8). All throughout his letters you see him rebuking the different nations for digressing back to works based salvation. The Galatians thought they had to be circumcised and the Corinthians thought they had to speak in tongues. No matter how many times Paul preaches that we are saved solely through God’s grace, some people still don’t get it. So, after reading Paul’s letters I skipped to the book of James and saw many things that are the exact opposite of what Paul preached, but then looking back at the first verse I knew that James was speaking to the “12 tribes of Israel” meaning the Jews. That explains the contradictions. But the purpose of the paper is not to prove that different books are written to different people as 2 Timothy 2:15 says, I will leave that for another paper, but to prove that James and Paul preach opposite messages, in terms of salvation.

                First, I’ll start by laying down some key verses found in the books of Paul that most of us already know. Romans 3:28 says, “For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from observing the law.” Therefore, our faith must not rest upon observance of the law, and observance of the law =works. This is shown in Romans 4:4-5 when it says “Now to anyone who works, their wages are not credited to then as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to anyone who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.” So, our works have NOTHING to do with salvation. Verse 4 says that when someone works they are owed money, and therefore it is not a gift. If I work 10 hours at McDonalds they will give me $70, not because they want to throw money away, but because they owe me. They are required to give me money based on my actions. In terms of salvation, Paul tells us that God’s grace is a free gift and cannot be earned. Nothing we can do can merit grace. Grace is not owed to us because of our actions; therefore we must have complete faith in Jesus’ finished work and realize there is nothing we can do to achieve salvation. Verse 5 clearly portrays this when it says “to anyone who DOES NOT WORK…” So, can works be any part of attaining righteousness? Can it be .0001%? No! Romans 11:6 says, “And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.” You can’t have part works and part grace; according to the definition Paul’s gives us, that is impossible. It’d either 100% grace or 100% works, the 2 cannot be combined. In order to attain righteousness we must not work, but trust God. Is this saying not to do any good works ever? No. Once we are saved, and even before, we should do good works, but those works should not ever be mixed with our perception of salvation.

Romans 9:16 says, “It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.” This also testifies to the fact that not even a desire to do what is good can save us. God’s mercy is all that can save us. Faith, putting your trust in God and Jesus, is the only way to be saved; nothing you do, but believing in what Christ did. Christ did all the work for you; just believe that and you in. Romans 10:4 reiterates that point when it says, “Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.” Christ fulfilled the law FOR us; we don’t have to do anything! Just believe. Galatians 3:3 says, “Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by human effort?” Human effort is what Paul is trying to steer away from (again, I am only talking in terms of salvation.) God’s grace requires and demands no effort on our part. Nothing we can do can help us attain salvation.

I hope it is clear to everyone that we are saved by faith alone. Faith in Jesus and God’s grace. No amount of works can help us, or should be done, to attain righteousness.

Now, onto James. Here, I will start with a bang to keep you interested. Do you believe we are saved by faith alone? If so, then why does James in 2:24 say, “You see that people are justified by what they do and NOT BY FAITH ALONE.” Paul clearly says we are justified by faith alone, but James says we aren’t (they must be talking to 2 different people). Now, for some other verses in James.  Chapter 2 verse 12 says, “Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law…” Now, according to Paul, do you think we should act as if we are going to be judged by the law? I don’t think so. We should act as if we are saved by God’s grace, not judged by the law, but called to do good works. Then move down to verse 14 which states, “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if people claim to have faith but have no deeds (NIV or “works” in KJV)? Can such faith save them?” The implicit answer is no. So what James is saying that faith without works cannot save you. This goes against what Paul says in Ephesians 2:8. This point is reiterated in James 2 verse 17: “In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” But Romans 9:19 told us it did not depend on human effort. James literally says works MUST accompany faith, or that faith is dead, Again, James preached faith + works; not faith alone. One last time James says in 2:26, “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.” I don’t think it can be spelled out more clearly that James believes salvation/righteousness = faith +works.

Now comes the confusing part, but eye opening once you understand it. Both James and Paul use the story of Abraham to back up their points. In Romans chapter 4. In verse 3 Paul writes, “What does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.’” In verse 13 he says “It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would he heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.” Verse 16 says, “Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace…” Paul shows us continually that is was strictly Abrahams’ faith that saved him and not any works. Not let’s go to James. 2:20-22 says: “You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our fat her Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the alter? You see that his faith and his actions were working TOGETHER, and his faith was made complete by what he DID.” So, James is saying that Abrahams’ works + faith gave him righteousness. So, is Paul or James correct, being that they say 2 opposite things?

Well as it turns out, unsurprisingly, they were both right. Paul recounts the story in Genesis 15 and James recounts the story in Genesis 22. So was Abraham declared righteous twice? Yessir. Romans 4:11 says “…So then he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised (Gentiles), in order that righteousness might be credited to them. AND he is then also the father of the circumcised (Jews) who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.” Continuing in verse 16; “Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring- not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. As it is written ‘I have made you a father of many nations.’” So, why did Abraham have to be declared righteous twice? So he could be the father of all who believe. In order to be the Gentile’s father he must be justified by faith. And in order to be the father of the Jews he must be justified by faith + works.

Finally, I think it is correct to say that Paul and James preached different messages in terms of salvation. Paul said we just need faith. James said it is faith + works. These 2 messages do not conflict with one another because Paul is talking to the Gentiles and James it talking to the Jews.

How An Atheist Helped Me Understand The Bible

Throughout the past couple years two certain verses have haunted me. They made me question God’s love and the definitions of right and wrong. I have always tried to ignore these verses, but they always stayed in the back of my head. Whenever I thought about them, I got frustrated and just tried to ignore them and pretend that they didn’t mean exactly what they said. Those verses were Isaiah 64:6 “But we are all as an unclean [thing], and all our righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.” and Romans 8:8 “So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.”

These two verses tell us that anyone, who is without the Spirit, cannot please God and that all their supposed moral acts are worthless. All kind and loving acts, if done without the Spirit, are worthless in God’s eyes. But how can this be? If a non-believer holds the door open for someone, shouldn’t that make God smile? If a non-believer gives a million dollars to a charity or a church, shouldn’t that please God? If a non-believer jumps into the middle of a fight to save the small child from getting bullied, shouldn’t that make God happy? Why would these moral acts mean nothing to God? These are the questions I faced all the time and the answers implied by these verses made me mad. One human is honestly helping another human, who wouldn’t smile at the thought?

To see why these works do not please God and are actually compared to filthy rags we need to look into the nature of human beings. Everyone has heard of the doctrine of original sin. The fact is that everyone sins and comes short of the glory and perfection of God. We all have a sinful nature in us and that leads us to our sin and separates us from God. But non-believers still do nice things; they aren’t only capable of bad, are they? Well, they aren’t only capable of bad, but they are certainly are not capable of being moral, or in God’s case, righteous. I know what you are thinking: “What do you mean non-believers are not capable of being moral?” First off, we need to look at the definition of a moral person. This is where Aristotle comes into play. In order for a person to be moral they must meet four criteria: 1) they must know what they are doing. For instance, if you trip a criminal who is running away from the police by accident; and that leads to the police catching the criminal- you did not act morally because you did not even know what you were doing. 2) They must choose to act the way they do and they must choose it for its own sake. For instance: if you are required to get to work in the next 15 minutes but the car right ahead of you breaks down and you help the owner push it to the side, you are not acting morally. You did not push the car to the side because you wanted to help the owner; you just wanted it out of your way. 3) The act must spring from a firm and unchangeable character. 4) They must feel pleasure after completing the act. Number two and three are where everyone falls short.

Back in the early 1600s an atheist philosopher started writing books. His most famous book was called “Leviathan.” His name was Thomas Hobbes.  Although I don’t agree with everything he writes in this book he does bring up one very good point. He says that every action we do is made because it is in our own self-interest. In philosophy this is called “egoism”. And this statement could not be more true. Think about it, there is no action you perform that you do not believe to be in your own self-interest. That is why we lie, cheat, and steal. Just like these sins, all other sins and wrongdoings are easily traced back to self-interest. But what about acts that appear loving? Nope, still done in self-interest. For example: when someone gives money to a charity they are acting in their own self-interest. Either they are trying to get a tax write-off or trying to gain a positive reputation or they want the warm, fuzzy feeling that comes afterwards or they feel an obligation to give back or they would feel bad if they did not give money to charity. Most of the explanations I just listed can be also be applied to every other act that seems “self-less.”  When you help someone move into their new house you do it because either there is a reward or you want your neighbor to like you or you owe your friend a favor or you want your friend to owe you a favor or you want the warm, fuzzy feeling that comes afterwards or you want to show off your muscles or you want others to think you are a nice person or you would feel bad if you did not help. So, as you can see, every action we perform is based on our own self-interest! And thanks to Hobbes I was able to see this and to know that someone else out there realizes that we are all egoists!

Here is another proof that I came up with, and the basis is formed on the question “If there was no gain would you do the action?” Another way of putting it would be to say: “If a certain action did not fulfill any self-interest, or did not provide a benefit to you, would you still complete the action?” The answer is a universal “no.” It is a fact that all actions have a negative consequence. All actions, performed by you, take up your time. As you complete an action you use up seconds, minutes, or hours of your life that you can never get back. So, right here, we already see that all actions have a negative consequence. The effect this has on people varies, but no matter how much it differs from person to person there is always an existing amount of a negative consequence. Again, this effect can be very, very minimal; but, it does exist. If an act provides no personal gain in accordance with self-interest then the overall effect of the action is negative. With nothing to overtake the –0.000001 amount of dissatisfaction, the overall effect is one of dissatisfaction. And, since it is logical to say that no rational being will perform an act that leads to a negative effect or personal dissatisfaction; then we can therefore say that every action a human performs must involve self-interest.

This 

After showing that we are all egoists we can now go back to Aristotle's definition of a moral person. If you recall the second criterion was that the person must choose the moral action for its own sake. That means a person must do the right thing simply because it’s the right thing, not because they have some self-interest in the action. Since all actions are done with the thought of “This will not hurt me” or “It will hurt me more if I do not do this action” then these acts are not moral because these acts are done only under the condition that the chosen outcome will be less bad for you than the opposing action(s). So, by definition, no one is moral! No one can be moral because all of our actions spring from self-interest instead of morality. Now it is quite easy to apply this to theology. Because of the sinful nature inside of us we are egoists. Everything we do- we do it because it will benefit us. We do not do any action because it is the right thing to do; we do it because we want to do it. This is why we cannot please God and why all or good works are likened to dirty rags. Even when we do morally good actions or rightouesnessess we are only doing them for ourselves, not because of a moral or godly nature in us. God does not want us to do the right thing simply because He says so; he wants us to do the right thing because that’s what our heart tells us to do. He wants our earnest desire to be in line with morality or righteousness. And this is only possible if the Spirit lives in us.

Check this passage out, Jeremiah 31:31-34:

^“31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

³²Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

³³But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

³⁴And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

Looking at verses 33 and 34 we see that God will write the law (morality) in their hearts! So man will be moral because they shall have a firm and unchangeable character and will do the right thing simply because it is the right thing. People won’t even have to teach others to fear God because that knowledge is already in their hearts.

So, it no longer bothers me when the bible says that all good works, while done in the flesh, are like dirty rags: in fact, it makes complete sense! We cannot please God because all our works are done for our own personal benefit instead being done for the sake of it being the right action. No wonder God calls them “filthy”: because we are trying to deceive ourselves and God when we do righteous acts and claim them to be moral. When in reality, we are just trying to benefit ourselves. Thank you Aristotle and Hobbes for helping me see the truth in God’s word!

Since I'm already talking about Hobbes I will take this time to explain another truth that has been shown to me through Hobbes’ Leviathan. In that book he says that we are always at war with one another and that in order to keep us from always fighting with one another for more power we must have an overarching legitimate government to keep us I line by fear of punishment. Hobbes’ writes “Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common power to keep them in awe, they are in a condition which is called war; and such a war, as is of every man, against every man” He also says “Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice.” This last sentence is saying that without a government, there is no law to keep or follow. And without a law, there can be no injustice because justice/injustice cannot be defined. Unless the law says “do not steal” how can I say I am being treated unjustly if someone steals from me and is not punished? These couple lines from Hobbes, and the rest of his book, show the truth in God’s word also. Look how closely the quote from Leviathan matches up with Romans 4:15 “Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression.” It’s pretty much the same thing! Where there is no law, there is no injustice/transgression!

But back to the first quote about the common power keeping people in awe: look at Romans 13:1 “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” So, what it looks like to me is that God did establish governments. He did this because otherwise we would be constantly fighting with each other, just as Hobbes said. Without the overarching power to keep us in awe or to punish us we would all run free and take whatever we wanted knowing that it would lead us to war with each other. This is why a government or a hierarchy of power is necessary.  

Man, I love it when reason, logic, and philosophy say exactly what God has already said. Even ungodly men have seen just how corrupt our bodies are! They mostly come to the same conclusions that God has already set, and prove the truth in His word as they do so. 

Can We Stop Sinning?

v   2 passages come to mind. Background on sinning

Ø  Romans 7: 14-25

Ø  14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.^[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

v      21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
      So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

OK, so these verses first.

But I (this is Paul talking) am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. Slaves must obey their masters, which is in this case sin, that is why we must make Christ our master. This sin nature that Paul talks about lives in everybody. It is a side-effect of living in the flesh. Verse 23, “waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin.” All humans go through the same thing. We all want to do good and not sin. We have a debate within our minds, however small, about every action we take. Should we do this or should we do this? I feel that these verses explain to us, very clearly, that sin is powerful, affects everyone, and causes us to do what we don’t want to do.

Anything else you guys want to say?

The nest passage is one that everyone has surely heard. But did you know it was in the not only the Bible twice, but the same book twice. Look at Matthew 5:29-30 [read it]. Then Matthew 18:8-9 [read it]. Jesus here, isn’t exaggerating and isn’t making stuff up. He is dead serious. Back in those days, obviously Christ hadn’t died, so their sins weren’t forgiven by his blood, so sinning was a lot harder to wash away. Even so, Christ knew that there would be certain sins for people that they just can’t get over unless they cut off the source; the source being the eye, hand, or foot. It sounds extreme, but Christ knew how impossible it is to stop sinning. The eye, the hand, the foot are all flesh, and the flesh is death because of sin.

NEXT. Is there any chance of overcoming this struggle? Can we prevail over sin?

Well, the obvious answer comes to mind. We, alone, cannot prevail over sin. Only Jesus can do that! But let’s look at a verse

Galatians 5:16-18

16So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

So, if you live by the Spirit, you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. This verse and the next verse lead me to believe that when Paul says to live by the Spirit, he means 100%. And if we are honest with ourselves, we have to agree that it is impossible to live by the spirit all 100%. Another point to go with that; in verse 18 Paul says “if you are LED by the spirit.” So there must be a difference between being LED by the spirit and LIVING by the Spirit. I feel we are all led by the spirit, and I think you guys would agree. Back to verse 17; “They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not what you want.” What does this verse mean? Is it saying that whichever one wins, the sinful nature or the spirit, that neither is what you want? I don’ think so. I think Paul and I are on the same page and that we WANT to do whatever the spirit wants, and DON’T want to do what the sin wants. Am I correct? But why doesn’t Paul say that the Spirit wins or that you do what you want to do. I think that Paul is saying that the sinful nature wins, and that we do what we don’t want to do. But, why does the sinful nature win? And not the Spirit? Because we don’t FULLY 100% live by the spirit. Because if we did live 100% by the spirit, we would not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.

How about Romans 8:5-12

5Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind of sinful man^[e] is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind^[f] is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
 9You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

So, we are controlled by the Spirit, not sinful nature. Then why do we still sin? Well, what better time to use a parable, one that I made up. Most of us were controlled by our parents when we were young. They made us go to school, told us when to brush our teeth, told us when to eat, told us when to go to baseball practice; so I think it’s fair to say that they controlled us. But, it seems every day we found a way to disobey them.  The sinful nature chose for us what we did, even though it was our parents who gave us physical life.

Also, Think back to Adam, here was a person who didn’t even know what sin was. He was not controlled by it in any way. He had no sin nature and what did he do? The same thing goes for Eve. That’s 2 people who knew not of sin and sinned anyways.

We will always sin, and that’s part of what makes Jesus’ sacrifice and God’s grace so awesome! We don’t have to follow the law to attain salvation. Romans 5:20 says, “The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase.” Then go back to verse 13 “to be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.” So the law was brought in to this world to show the Jews and everyone after them, that they DO sin, and that they sin a lot. Just like us. Verse 20 again “…but where sin increased, grace increased all the more.” Also, lucky for us, we are not under the law, we are under grace. You might at this point be thinking that I’m telling you that it’s okay to sin. Or that you’re gonna be forgiven anyway, so just go ahead and sin. Since the law was to show us that we do sin, and we, as Christians, are not under the law, but under grace, shouldn’t it be okay to sin? Let me rephrase that question. Shall we sin because we are not under the law, but under grace? Well, for the answer, look at Romans 6:15 and you will get your answer…….. By no means! [finish reading passage]. So, just because we are forgiven of our sins, doesn’t mean we can keep on sinning. True, we will still sin, and God will still forgive us, but it is our calling to be like Christ; we are “slaves to righteousness.”

So, I’ll finish with the irony that is God. The only one who can save us from our sins- is the one who didn’t sin. It wasn’t Pilot who put Jesus on the cross, it wasn’t the Pharasies who put Jesus on the Cross, it wasn’t the Jews who put Jesus on the cross- it was OUR sins!

Back to Adam and Eve, there’s something I’d like to share with you guys. A theory as to why Adam is mainly responsible for Eve’s decision. Go to Genesis 2:16

“and the lord God commanded the man “you are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must no eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will certainly die.” So after reading that the only thing Adam could not do is EAT the apple. Could he look at it? Yes. Could he throw rocks at it? Yes. Could he take the fruit and throw it? Yes. He could do anything to the fruit except eat it. But, let’s see what instructions were given to Eve. Chapter 3:2 “the women said to the serpent, “we may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘you must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”  Hold on here! God didn’t say that! Find me in the Bible where God said “do not touch it.” He didn’t! So, I bet you $100 the devil was picking apples of the tree and juggling them, right in front of Eve and saying “hey, look at me; I’m touching the fruit and not dying.” Which led Eve to think that God was wrong and that she wouldn’t die. Therefore she ate the apple.