Salvation Point 2

Conditional Salvation was the point of tonights' class. The idea being that if you are an Arminian, you believe that Salvation rests on your shoulders. There is something you must do in order to be "saved". That something is choosing Christ. If you are a Calvinist, you believe there is no condition. There is nothing you must do, say or feel in order to be "saved". You are one of Gods' chosen people or you are not, plain and simple.

To the surprise of anyone who knows me, I sat back and said nothing until the end of class, and even then it was a simple illustration to help drive in a point being made by someone else. The reason I was unusually silent was because there was a massive amount of thoughts all firing at once in my brain regarding this issue. They went something like this:

1) If sin did not exist until Eve ate from the tree of knowledge only after being told not to, then all sin exists solely because God set up rules He knew we would disobey. He shows the knowledge that we will disobey these rules because He also sent His son, Jesus, to save us from these sins that would not exist if He didn't make the rules. What is then the purpose of the rules? Why set people up to fail and then give them a way out? There seems to be something we're missing...something deeper.

2) If God created all people knowingly setting us all up to go to Hell and then "saving" only a certain predetermined subset, can He be called gracious, loving or just? When He who sets the rules then punishes not those who break the rules, but whomever He feels like, what kind of message does that send? We read that God loved Jacob (who was the bad kid) and hated Esau (who was the good kid) when they were still in their mothers' womb. Why then was Esau born? In using a person to make a point for another, as is part of scripture, is He not proving His superiority and power instead of His grace and love?

We are only sinners by Gods set of rules. But it is God who makes the rules. So He could have made different rules that would all be easy for us to live by. Like don't eat yellow snow, it's a sin; don't eat toast butter side down, it's a sin; don't go to bed angry, it's a sin...you get my drift. But He didn't. He made rules that go against the very fiber of who we are...no sex before marriage, no wanting what your neighbor has, no arguing with your parents.

So again, I feel like we're missing something, something deeper. God could have made up ANY rules He wanted. He chose rules that SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK. Why????? Are rules that are easy to follow useful? Do rules that are easy to follow teach us anything? Does following a rule that is easy prove your loyalty to something? One way to see this is perhaps He saw that he made us flawed and set up the rules to save us from ourselves. But the other way to see it is that He saw, in His infinite wisdom, that we only grow as people from mistakes, from problems, from torment. Show me a person who has led an easy life and you will be showing me someone without any depth who knows not who they are. For without challenge, we cease to exist. Without extremes we cannot know where the balance should be.

When you look at Salvation, do you see having a say? Do you think you, this small person, get to choose God? Or did He pick you, specifically you, the day your soul was made by Him?