Thanks, Greg, for the continuing dialogue. I would question the value of the “Scriptural Reasoning” approach, at least to an evangelical effort. Such an approach appears, to me, to be more of an intellectual approach. It’s an approach in which each religion presents its own perspective as the best approach to God. No one is at such a session to be convinced of another religion, especially Christians. Other participants may be listening to each perspective, but listening with the idea of how to defend their own religion. In the end it would be similar to a class on world religions, an intellectual approach to religious differences. Such an approach is not geared toward evangelism. In such a setting there is little embarrassment in expressing religious ideas. It is expected. But I doubt that the Scriptural Reasoning approach has any or little effect as to evangelism.
I mentioned the embarrassment Christians typically feel in doing evangelism in the public arena. It’s easy to speak of Jesus Christ in a church setting or a seminary or Bible college setting where all believe basically the same. It’s easy to write articles and make comments on a Christian website, where Christian dialogue is expected.
But it’s altogether different when a Christian is placed in hostile territory. Christians realize that the Christian message of Jesus does not stack up to reason or common sense. It’s a message that has to be acknowledged by faith apart from reason. That God is a three person being of which the second person came to earth as a human baby makes little sense (even to the Muslim). Or that Jesus is fully human and fully divine at the same time, but as to his humanity never sinned or did wrong, even as a child or a teenager, makes little sense. And we could go on with the improbabilities of Jesus’ miraculous life, and so the non Christian reasons quickly that Christianity makes little common sense. It’s difficult for the Christian (especially in Western culture) to evangelize in a cultural setting where reason and common sense wins the day. That has increasing become the embarrassment of making a stand for Jesus in our culture.
Again, as to common grace being a segue to the Christian faith. Perhaps there is a place for common grace in Christian thinking, that God works through other avenues other than the Christian message which is common to all people. But common grace is not the Christian message. A message of God’s common grace skirts the Christian message altogether. That seemed to be your complaint in regard to the mainline Christian’s speech, no mention of Jesus, but only of “common grace” methods to help curb religious intolerance. Once again, Greg, thanks for the dialogue.
Hey, Izaak. I’m a little confused. I seem to have two responses from you. There’s one response here on the website, but another, and different one, where I receive notification in my email of a new comment posted to this article. That’s strange. I’m not sure which one I’m supposed to respond to. And now there are other comments. Let me first say, I’m good with God, in fact, very good. No need to worry there. Thanks for your concern.
But, my spiritual well being would be way off track as to the intent and purpose of this article. I think Greg is concerned as to why Christians, Bible believing Christians, are not stepping up to the plate and speaking up for Jesus (the Christian Jesus, as opposed to the Muslim Jesus), even in a forum involving various religions, such as the vigil that he went to? And that is what I was attempting to respond to. That’s my goal in responding to this article.
In previous comments, I mentioned how most Christians (in our Western culture) are embarrassed by Jesus. Let me illustrate, to help make my point clear. We all know the tactics of evangelism used by Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. They go door to door, wanting to make an entrance into your home, to tell you about Jesus. You may say, I already know about Jesus. They say they want to tell you about the real Jesus, a proper interpretation of the Bible Jesus. And most Christians think, no thanks, I don’t want this and quickly send them away. For us, to be so bold as to go to people’s homes to tell them about our Jesus would be embarrassing. We think, You wouldn’t catch me going door to door, even to my neighbor right next door. To have doors slammed in my face would be embarrassing. Or to go to the shopping mall with a youth group and approach people with the good news of Jesus, is also embarrassing. It’s embarrassing for those kids trying to explain Jesus to strangers, and it’s embarrassing for those strangers who are being told of the one and only way to be made acceptable to God.
That kind of embarrassment is felt by most Christians when called upon to speak up for Jesus in a non Christian environment. Although, all Christians know and believe the Bible’s message of Jesus, it’s embarrassing to speak of him in public, because they know such a message does not stack up to reality or to common sense. If humans are made in God’s image, it’s our intelligence and ability to reason that makes us most like God and different from all other animals. And human reason dictates against the Jesus of the Bible. It would seem that this mainline Christian pastor (that Greg mentioned) knew this as well, so looked for less offensive ways (the offense of the gospel) to represent Christians in their concern for religious intolerance.
Put Christians in a Christian context, the church, for example, and it’s easy to talk about Jesus, because all have swallowed the Jesus pill. To put a welcome sign in front of your church is the Christian’s preference for evangelism. But it’s not so easy to talk of Jesus in foreign territory where others haven’t swallowed the Jesus pill. Thanks, Greg, for your encouragement.
Thanks, Eric, for your response. I think you may be right about victim blaming. It will do little to remedy an abusive situation or relationship. Instead, we each should ask of ourselves, how have I contributed to this situation and how can I contribute to the solution. What am I willing to do to restore a bad situation. Instead of casting blame, let’s take the proactive approach toward resolution. Thanks again, Eric.
Thanks, Joshua, for your thoughts concerning the different worlds of the churched and unchurched and how the churched (Christians) can bridge the gap between. Of course there is a fundamental difference between those two worlds (Christ or not), and some would say that difference is reflected in a difference of world and life views as well as life styles. Beneath your words, your bridge seems more of a bridge for the unchurched to see the value of the Christian world, and not so much for Christians to see the value of their world. Christians (you) want to bring them fully into the Christian world without fully becoming part of their world, an unfair exchange. For the most part, non Christians are perfectly happy living in their own world according to their values and world view. In fact, most would see the Christian world (the church) as a bogus world that depends on a make believe reality that is artificial. So although the funeral pastor thought he may be bridging a gap, by appealing to their music, I doubt that the hope he offered (his ulterior motive) really made a connection. Non Christians aren’t that gullible or naive, at least in our culture.
Thank you, “name withheld,” for your insightful article in contrasting the differences between the Muslim and Christian perspectives on God. You gave a nice (short) description of how the Islamic would describe the heart of the Islamic religion and his/her perspective on God (or Allah).
In contrast, the Christian would be compelled to say that God is a three person entity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) of which all three are fully and completely God, separate and yet one. The second person of this entity, at a point in history, came down to earth from heaven and took on the form as a human baby (person). He is embodied as a fully human person and yet retains his fully divine nature (as God). Fully human and fully God. He lived his earthly existence sinlessly from the time of his birth (baby Jesus) in thought word and deed. He performed many miracles. He was crucified at the hands of those who didn’t believe who he claimed to be. After three days in the grave he was raised to life, walked again on earth, then ascended into heaven, where he presently reigns over heaven and earth. Someday (soon) he will return to earth to establish his final and eternal kingdom, at which time all people will be judged for their lives on earth, and be found wanting.
You suggest that Christian theologians can find some philosophical problems with the Islamic doctrine of God. Do you really think that Muslim scholars can find no problems with the Christian concept of God? Put the two concepts of God side by side, and which makes more sense? Which stacks up to reason? And by the way, I’m not putting in a plug for the Islamic religion or concept of God. It just seems unlikely that Christianity is more reasonable than other religions.
I’m glad, Eric, that those verses are convincing to you, To the secularist those verses sound like a ploy or strategy to convince Christians that they’re not stupid for believing such an unreasonable message, even though God given reason and logic say wake up to reality. Those verse are like a young child telling his parents that they have a mental block that keeps them from believing in the reality of Santa Claus. Only children know that Santa is real.
I have no disdain for God’s word. Nor doI have no problem with a knowledge and trust in God. But which word or revelation are you talking about? The Jewish scriptures, the Koran, the book of Mormon, the Hindu scriptures, Buddhism or the Bible? They all make the same claim (truthfulness) for their Scriptures as do Christians. Or are you talking about creation, the natural revelation of God? Thanks for your concern. I have the same hope for you.
Thanks, “name withheld,” for your efforts to explain some of the differences between Islamic and Christian theology and world views. Whether they are allies or cobelligerents makes little difference to the secularist. Backing away from commitment to either religion (a secularist viewpoint), perhaps gives a more objective perspective.
Recognize that both religions claim a complete trustworthiness for their own religion and for their inspired writings, whether the Bible or the Koran. Both religions are mutually exclusive of the other’s religious tenets. So Christians claim only the Bible is true and reveals the only God anointed path to salvation. And Muslims claim only the Koran (and related Scriptures) is true and reveals the only God anointed path to salvation. Are both true, or only one, or is neither true?
Consider the divine story line of each as to reasonableness for the Bible and the Koran. The Bible (or Christianity) claims that God is a three person entity. The second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, came down to earth from heaven, as a human baby, lived a sinless life (what a good boy he was), performed many miracles, was rejected by the Jews, was crucified, and after three days rose to life from the grave. After a short period of time he ascended back into heaven to the Father’s right hand where he presently reigns over earth and the church. Eventually, he will return to earth to assume his reign from earth and heaven over all of creation (with the Father and the Holy Spirit), as the Triune God.
The Muslim or the Koran teaches that Jesus was a great prophet appointed by God (a single entity) but that he (Jesus) was fully human and not God. Nor was Jesus physically raised from the dead after his death.
Both stories claim an infallibility and trustworthiness for their accounts. As much as the Christian may claim a more reasonable and thoughtful perspective of salvation, the Islamic view as to historical accounting makes much more (common) sense about the person of Jesus. And of course, it is the historical narrative that supports the theologic position of either view of salvation. Both religions and their Scriptures claim many miracles which makes little sense today. Both religions, to the secularist, are archaic and mythical views of religion and God.
So to the secularist, neither religion fits a logical scheme of reality. Both sound foolish in their arguments of agreement or disagreement or cooperation. Thanks, though, for your efforts.
Good going, Dan. You obviously hit on a topic that has drawn a lot of responses, and obviously some diversity as to the meaning of justice. I’ve been away from my computer for a while and just picked up on your interesting article. It spurred my thinking, like it has many others. I liked the analogy of using your children to make your point.
Your definition (short definition) of justice is: “Justice is people getting what they deserve, whether good or bad, and whether we personally like the outcome or not.” To bring that home to your six year old son, you used the example of the policeman who stopped a person who broke the “stop sign” law. Obviously guilty of wrong doing but the policeman let it go for his own reasons (liked his looks). Your son said, and you agreed, that such action would be wrong. It’s not just.
But that is exactly what God does. He gives a set of laws that everyone must meet. All have failed to meet the standard of God’s justice. And yet he chooses (elects) to forgive some but not others. It’s like the policeman giving a break to some but not to others. And it definitely doesn’t fit the definition that you have given of justice. As God’s image bearers, is that the pattern you and I should follow in dealing with people, act justly toward some but not all?
I think you miss the point. You said, Dan, “justice is people getting what they deserve...” The point I’m making is that the elect don’t get what they deserve. They escape justice. Your definition fails. Because someone else pays a debt doesn’t mean justice is served. If Joe Bloe says I’ll pay the debt for Adolf Hitler’s crimes, justice is not met. Adolf Hitler has to pay for his own crimes. Otherwise justice is not met.
To Erik, the police officer could say to the offender, “I’ll forgive your crime. Go and try not to do this again. Forgiveness does not require a payment, whether by an offender or someone else in his place. Another thing, Erik, you said, “God did indeed punish the law breaking, but in the person of his Son.” He may have punished the “law breaking” but he didn’t punish the law breaker. Therefore justice was not met.
So then, Dan, you want your son to understand justice, equality, forgiveness and mercy from God’s perspective in a way that makes sense to him.
Here’s a simple story that a child should be able to understand. A father takes his four sons fishing. They are close in age (two sets of twins - 5 and 6 years old). He tells them to be careful, not to rock the boat, as that could be dangerous to their safety. After an hour the boys get bored and start to horse around and start rocking the boat. Lo and behold the boat tips over and all end up in the water. The water is not that deep but is still over the heads of the boys. Its an easy task for the father to rescue all four boys. He’s an excellent swimmer and has life saving experience. But he decides to save only one and leave the others to drown. Afterward when confronted he says, the boys all misbehaved and received the due consequence of their misbehavior. That he saved one shows his kindness.
Now ask your son what he thought of the father. Was he just in allowing the three to drown when he could have easily saved all four, was he truly merciful or forgiving in allowing the three to drown? How do you think the courts of justice would treat such a father?
Of course this is how God chooses out of a sinful humanity the few elect. Although Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient to pay for the sins of the world, the actual payment is limited to only the elect, the chosen, The majority of humanity never even hear a valid presentation of the gospel and are bound for an eternity in hell as sinners. Is this the kind of justice and mercy that we should emulate as image bearers of God? Is this the kind of justice that you are happy to emulate and prescribe to your children? How do you understand Biblical election differently than what’s explained above, since, as you say, we have completely different understandings of Scripture?
Posted in: Where Are the Evangelicals?
Thanks, Greg, for the continuing dialogue. I would question the value of the “Scriptural Reasoning” approach, at least to an evangelical effort. Such an approach appears, to me, to be more of an intellectual approach. It’s an approach in which each religion presents its own perspective as the best approach to God. No one is at such a session to be convinced of another religion, especially Christians. Other participants may be listening to each perspective, but listening with the idea of how to defend their own religion. In the end it would be similar to a class on world religions, an intellectual approach to religious differences. Such an approach is not geared toward evangelism. In such a setting there is little embarrassment in expressing religious ideas. It is expected. But I doubt that the Scriptural Reasoning approach has any or little effect as to evangelism.
I mentioned the embarrassment Christians typically feel in doing evangelism in the public arena. It’s easy to speak of Jesus Christ in a church setting or a seminary or Bible college setting where all believe basically the same. It’s easy to write articles and make comments on a Christian website, where Christian dialogue is expected.
But it’s altogether different when a Christian is placed in hostile territory. Christians realize that the Christian message of Jesus does not stack up to reason or common sense. It’s a message that has to be acknowledged by faith apart from reason. That God is a three person being of which the second person came to earth as a human baby makes little sense (even to the Muslim). Or that Jesus is fully human and fully divine at the same time, but as to his humanity never sinned or did wrong, even as a child or a teenager, makes little sense. And we could go on with the improbabilities of Jesus’ miraculous life, and so the non Christian reasons quickly that Christianity makes little common sense. It’s difficult for the Christian (especially in Western culture) to evangelize in a cultural setting where reason and common sense wins the day. That has increasing become the embarrassment of making a stand for Jesus in our culture.
Again, as to common grace being a segue to the Christian faith. Perhaps there is a place for common grace in Christian thinking, that God works through other avenues other than the Christian message which is common to all people. But common grace is not the Christian message. A message of God’s common grace skirts the Christian message altogether. That seemed to be your complaint in regard to the mainline Christian’s speech, no mention of Jesus, but only of “common grace” methods to help curb religious intolerance. Once again, Greg, thanks for the dialogue.
Posted in: Where Are the Evangelicals?
Hey, Izaak. I’m a little confused. I seem to have two responses from you. There’s one response here on the website, but another, and different one, where I receive notification in my email of a new comment posted to this article. That’s strange. I’m not sure which one I’m supposed to respond to. And now there are other comments. Let me first say, I’m good with God, in fact, very good. No need to worry there. Thanks for your concern.
But, my spiritual well being would be way off track as to the intent and purpose of this article. I think Greg is concerned as to why Christians, Bible believing Christians, are not stepping up to the plate and speaking up for Jesus (the Christian Jesus, as opposed to the Muslim Jesus), even in a forum involving various religions, such as the vigil that he went to? And that is what I was attempting to respond to. That’s my goal in responding to this article.
In previous comments, I mentioned how most Christians (in our Western culture) are embarrassed by Jesus. Let me illustrate, to help make my point clear. We all know the tactics of evangelism used by Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. They go door to door, wanting to make an entrance into your home, to tell you about Jesus. You may say, I already know about Jesus. They say they want to tell you about the real Jesus, a proper interpretation of the Bible Jesus. And most Christians think, no thanks, I don’t want this and quickly send them away. For us, to be so bold as to go to people’s homes to tell them about our Jesus would be embarrassing. We think, You wouldn’t catch me going door to door, even to my neighbor right next door. To have doors slammed in my face would be embarrassing. Or to go to the shopping mall with a youth group and approach people with the good news of Jesus, is also embarrassing. It’s embarrassing for those kids trying to explain Jesus to strangers, and it’s embarrassing for those strangers who are being told of the one and only way to be made acceptable to God.
That kind of embarrassment is felt by most Christians when called upon to speak up for Jesus in a non Christian environment. Although, all Christians know and believe the Bible’s message of Jesus, it’s embarrassing to speak of him in public, because they know such a message does not stack up to reality or to common sense. If humans are made in God’s image, it’s our intelligence and ability to reason that makes us most like God and different from all other animals. And human reason dictates against the Jesus of the Bible. It would seem that this mainline Christian pastor (that Greg mentioned) knew this as well, so looked for less offensive ways (the offense of the gospel) to represent Christians in their concern for religious intolerance.
Put Christians in a Christian context, the church, for example, and it’s easy to talk about Jesus, because all have swallowed the Jesus pill. To put a welcome sign in front of your church is the Christian’s preference for evangelism. But it’s not so easy to talk of Jesus in foreign territory where others haven’t swallowed the Jesus pill. Thanks, Greg, for your encouragement.
Posted in: Violence against Women – It’s a Men’s Issue
Thanks, Eric, for your response. I think you may be right about victim blaming. It will do little to remedy an abusive situation or relationship. Instead, we each should ask of ourselves, how have I contributed to this situation and how can I contribute to the solution. What am I willing to do to restore a bad situation. Instead of casting blame, let’s take the proactive approach toward resolution. Thanks again, Eric.
Posted in: Bridging the Gap
Thanks, Joshua, for your thoughts concerning the different worlds of the churched and unchurched and how the churched (Christians) can bridge the gap between. Of course there is a fundamental difference between those two worlds (Christ or not), and some would say that difference is reflected in a difference of world and life views as well as life styles. Beneath your words, your bridge seems more of a bridge for the unchurched to see the value of the Christian world, and not so much for Christians to see the value of their world. Christians (you) want to bring them fully into the Christian world without fully becoming part of their world, an unfair exchange. For the most part, non Christians are perfectly happy living in their own world according to their values and world view. In fact, most would see the Christian world (the church) as a bogus world that depends on a make believe reality that is artificial. So although the funeral pastor thought he may be bridging a gap, by appealing to their music, I doubt that the hope he offered (his ulterior motive) really made a connection. Non Christians aren’t that gullible or naive, at least in our culture.
Posted in: Trinity or Tawhid? The difference between Christianity and Islam to a 'T'
Thank you, “name withheld,” for your insightful article in contrasting the differences between the Muslim and Christian perspectives on God. You gave a nice (short) description of how the Islamic would describe the heart of the Islamic religion and his/her perspective on God (or Allah).
In contrast, the Christian would be compelled to say that God is a three person entity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) of which all three are fully and completely God, separate and yet one. The second person of this entity, at a point in history, came down to earth from heaven and took on the form as a human baby (person). He is embodied as a fully human person and yet retains his fully divine nature (as God). Fully human and fully God. He lived his earthly existence sinlessly from the time of his birth (baby Jesus) in thought word and deed. He performed many miracles. He was crucified at the hands of those who didn’t believe who he claimed to be. After three days in the grave he was raised to life, walked again on earth, then ascended into heaven, where he presently reigns over heaven and earth. Someday (soon) he will return to earth to establish his final and eternal kingdom, at which time all people will be judged for their lives on earth, and be found wanting.
You suggest that Christian theologians can find some philosophical problems with the Islamic doctrine of God. Do you really think that Muslim scholars can find no problems with the Christian concept of God? Put the two concepts of God side by side, and which makes more sense? Which stacks up to reason? And by the way, I’m not putting in a plug for the Islamic religion or concept of God. It just seems unlikely that Christianity is more reasonable than other religions.
Posted in: Are Christians and Muslims Allies, Cobelligerents, Both or Neither?
Thanks
Posted in: Are Christians and Muslims Allies, Cobelligerents, Both or Neither?
I’m glad, Eric, that those verses are convincing to you, To the secularist those verses sound like a ploy or strategy to convince Christians that they’re not stupid for believing such an unreasonable message, even though God given reason and logic say wake up to reality. Those verse are like a young child telling his parents that they have a mental block that keeps them from believing in the reality of Santa Claus. Only children know that Santa is real.
Posted in: Are Christians and Muslims Allies, Cobelligerents, Both or Neither?
I have no disdain for God’s word. Nor doI have no problem with a knowledge and trust in God. But which word or revelation are you talking about? The Jewish scriptures, the Koran, the book of Mormon, the Hindu scriptures, Buddhism or the Bible? They all make the same claim (truthfulness) for their Scriptures as do Christians. Or are you talking about creation, the natural revelation of God? Thanks for your concern. I have the same hope for you.
Posted in: Are Christians and Muslims Allies, Cobelligerents, Both or Neither?
Thanks, “name withheld,” for your efforts to explain some of the differences between Islamic and Christian theology and world views. Whether they are allies or cobelligerents makes little difference to the secularist. Backing away from commitment to either religion (a secularist viewpoint), perhaps gives a more objective perspective.
Recognize that both religions claim a complete trustworthiness for their own religion and for their inspired writings, whether the Bible or the Koran. Both religions are mutually exclusive of the other’s religious tenets. So Christians claim only the Bible is true and reveals the only God anointed path to salvation. And Muslims claim only the Koran (and related Scriptures) is true and reveals the only God anointed path to salvation. Are both true, or only one, or is neither true?
Consider the divine story line of each as to reasonableness for the Bible and the Koran. The Bible (or Christianity) claims that God is a three person entity. The second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, came down to earth from heaven, as a human baby, lived a sinless life (what a good boy he was), performed many miracles, was rejected by the Jews, was crucified, and after three days rose to life from the grave. After a short period of time he ascended back into heaven to the Father’s right hand where he presently reigns over earth and the church. Eventually, he will return to earth to assume his reign from earth and heaven over all of creation (with the Father and the Holy Spirit), as the Triune God.
The Muslim or the Koran teaches that Jesus was a great prophet appointed by God (a single entity) but that he (Jesus) was fully human and not God. Nor was Jesus physically raised from the dead after his death.
Both stories claim an infallibility and trustworthiness for their accounts. As much as the Christian may claim a more reasonable and thoughtful perspective of salvation, the Islamic view as to historical accounting makes much more (common) sense about the person of Jesus. And of course, it is the historical narrative that supports the theologic position of either view of salvation. Both religions and their Scriptures claim many miracles which makes little sense today. Both religions, to the secularist, are archaic and mythical views of religion and God.
So to the secularist, neither religion fits a logical scheme of reality. Both sound foolish in their arguments of agreement or disagreement or cooperation. Thanks, though, for your efforts.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
Good going, Dan. You obviously hit on a topic that has drawn a lot of responses, and obviously some diversity as to the meaning of justice. I’ve been away from my computer for a while and just picked up on your interesting article. It spurred my thinking, like it has many others. I liked the analogy of using your children to make your point.
Your definition (short definition) of justice is: “Justice is people getting what they deserve, whether good or bad, and whether we personally like the outcome or not.” To bring that home to your six year old son, you used the example of the policeman who stopped a person who broke the “stop sign” law. Obviously guilty of wrong doing but the policeman let it go for his own reasons (liked his looks). Your son said, and you agreed, that such action would be wrong. It’s not just.
But that is exactly what God does. He gives a set of laws that everyone must meet. All have failed to meet the standard of God’s justice. And yet he chooses (elects) to forgive some but not others. It’s like the policeman giving a break to some but not to others. And it definitely doesn’t fit the definition that you have given of justice. As God’s image bearers, is that the pattern you and I should follow in dealing with people, act justly toward some but not all?
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
I think you miss the point. You said, Dan, “justice is people getting what they deserve...” The point I’m making is that the elect don’t get what they deserve. They escape justice. Your definition fails. Because someone else pays a debt doesn’t mean justice is served. If Joe Bloe says I’ll pay the debt for Adolf Hitler’s crimes, justice is not met. Adolf Hitler has to pay for his own crimes. Otherwise justice is not met.
To Erik, the police officer could say to the offender, “I’ll forgive your crime. Go and try not to do this again. Forgiveness does not require a payment, whether by an offender or someone else in his place. Another thing, Erik, you said, “God did indeed punish the law breaking, but in the person of his Son.” He may have punished the “law breaking” but he didn’t punish the law breaker. Therefore justice was not met.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
So then, Dan, you want your son to understand justice, equality, forgiveness and mercy from God’s perspective in a way that makes sense to him.
Here’s a simple story that a child should be able to understand. A father takes his four sons fishing. They are close in age (two sets of twins - 5 and 6 years old). He tells them to be careful, not to rock the boat, as that could be dangerous to their safety. After an hour the boys get bored and start to horse around and start rocking the boat. Lo and behold the boat tips over and all end up in the water. The water is not that deep but is still over the heads of the boys. Its an easy task for the father to rescue all four boys. He’s an excellent swimmer and has life saving experience. But he decides to save only one and leave the others to drown. Afterward when confronted he says, the boys all misbehaved and received the due consequence of their misbehavior. That he saved one shows his kindness.
Now ask your son what he thought of the father. Was he just in allowing the three to drown when he could have easily saved all four, was he truly merciful or forgiving in allowing the three to drown? How do you think the courts of justice would treat such a father?
Of course this is how God chooses out of a sinful humanity the few elect. Although Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient to pay for the sins of the world, the actual payment is limited to only the elect, the chosen, The majority of humanity never even hear a valid presentation of the gospel and are bound for an eternity in hell as sinners. Is this the kind of justice and mercy that we should emulate as image bearers of God? Is this the kind of justice that you are happy to emulate and prescribe to your children? How do you understand Biblical election differently than what’s explained above, since, as you say, we have completely different understandings of Scripture?