Arminius on Election

Arminius:

In the second place, you assert, that “divine Election is rule of giving or withholding faith. Therefore Election does not pertain to believers, but faith rather pertains to the elect, or is from the gift of Election.” You will allow me to deny this, and to ask for the proof, while I plead the cause of those, whose sentiment you here oppose. Election is made in Christ. But no one is in Christ, except he is a believer. Therefore no one is elected in Christ, unless he is a believer. The passage in Romans xi, 5, does not serve to prove that thesis. For the point, there discussed, is not the election of grace, according to which faith is given to some, but that, according to which, righteousness is imputed to believers. This may be most easily, proved from the context, and will be manifest to any one, who will more diligently inspect and examine it. For the people, “which God foreknew, (verse 2d,) that is which He foreknew according to His grace, is the people, which believed, not that which followed after righteousness by the works of the law (Rom. ix, 31). This people God “hath not cast away.” For thus is to be understood the fifth verse, “there is a remnant according to the election of grace,” that is, they, only, are to be esteemed as the remnant of the people of God, who believe in Christ, as they alone are embraced in the election of grace, the children of the flesh, who followed after righteousness by the law, being excluded. That, which follows, teaches the same thing, “if by grace, then it is no more of works.” What is that which is “by grace “? Is it election to faith? By no means; but it is election to righteousness, or righteousness itself. For it is said to be “by grace” not “by works.” For it is not, here, inquired whether faith, but whether righteousness belongs to any one by works. Consider also the next verse “What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for, but the election hath obtained, and the rest were blinded.” What is that which Israel had sought for, and had not obtained? Not faith, but righteousness. See the end of the 9th and the beginning of the 10th chapters. They rejected faith in Christ, and endeavoured to obtain righteousness, by the works of the law, and this is the reason that they did not attain “to the law of righteousness.” It is the same thing, also, which the elect are said to have obtained, not faith, but righteousness.

 Much thanks to Arminian Today for this. Much to ponder and chew on.

--Nick

Inebriated Musings before Election Day, Or Why Idiocracy is a Possible Reality

What happens in 48 hours? I'm hoping planet earth still exists.

As I was driving home and listening to talk radio, I instantly realized why I stopped: everything that happens counter to a preconceived ideal of how the world should operate results in hysteria.

Universal healthcare, the world is on fire.

A casual glance at facebook reveals memes and idiotic pictures about "Elect Barack Obama, Sincerely the world." Coupled with pithy quotes designed to denigrate an opponent in 15 second bite size chunks, entirely intended to make you laugh and instantly look down at the opposing view.

What substance is there really? Everyone calls Mitt Romney a "lying sack of shit" and when I asked, all I got was something akin to proof texting Jon Stewart. Or, on the flip side of that, folks claiming Barack Obama feels "entitled" to be president, whatever that truly means.

Frankly, I plan on voting but I'm tired. Truly tired. Listening to the debates and reading my twitter feed can result in a severe case of head achery. Politicians know their plans are too complex for your average caterpillar, and so they *have* to dumb it down. Calling out Paul Ryan in the debate about "not answering the question" misses the point in that he really *can't* answer the question. This also includes Uncle Joe.

The current state of affairs requires a dumbing down of complex and obtuse political schemes and schisms in order to placate the ego and nether regions of the voter. Idiocracy never looked for fearsome or looming.

So what do we do? Play in the mud? Batten the hatches? Turn off the tv? Jump kick the microwave?

Who knows.

American individualism versus a corporate national body equals a bastardized blob of three legs, seven arms, two heads and a mouth like Gilbert Gottfried.

I say vote. Why not. You are already going to be paying for it anyway.

--Nick

The Radical Nature of Not Voting

In protest, my (worthless) vote will not be cast this election. As someone who was already hesitant to vote in the last election (but ultimately caved), I want to answer a few common objections to my resolution.

"It is your civic duty to vote."

No it isn't. If the colonized political process will not yield positive benefits in *either* direction from *either* candidate, then it is my civic duty to maintain my principles and resist such a colossal waste of my time.

"If you don't vote, you have no right to complain."

Two things. One, I don't plan on complaining. I haven't done much political complaining since Obama was elected, I don't plan on doing much of that now.

Second, if I were to complain, I would have every right to complain under the guise of the first Amendment. Free speech can be exercised however one so chooses, and if one wants to be a loud mouth and a hypocrite, well this is America and we elect those kinds of people all the time.

Boosh.

"You are not an American if you don't vote!"

I've never ridden a bull, shot a gun, beaten my wife, or driven a monster truck. I don't like MacDonalds, Budweiser or the NRA.

Wait, how does this help me vote?

--Nick