The Arminian interpretation is impossible, and the answer stares at us plainly from the text:

[6] It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. [7] Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children.

On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." [8] In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. [9] For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."

[10] Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. [11] Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad – in order that God's purpose in election might stand: [12] not by works but by him who calls – she was told, "The older will serve the younger." [13] Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

The point of the passage is to show that God's word to Israel has not failed (v. 6). The reason this question comes up is because it seems that God promised salvation to Israel, but salvation is only available through faith in Jesus Christ, but Israel on the whole (most individuals!) has rejected Christ, and therefore it appears that Israel on the whole is not saved.

Paul answers this right away. God's word has not failed, "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children" (v. 6b-7). Now stand in amazement at how STUPID the Arminians are. Paul takes Israel as a whole when he brings up the question, and then explicitly calls attention to the individuals within Israel in order to answer the question. In fact, his answer depends on individual faith and individual election. That is, God's word to Israel has not failed, because not every individual within Israel belongs to the true Israel, and not every descendant in Israel is a child of Abraham.

Then he adds two illustrations to emphasize individual election:

From v. 7b-9, Paul says Abraham's true children would come through Isaac. By this, he means that they would come through God's supernatural power to fulfill his promise rather than by natural generation. "It is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring" (v. 8b). God made the promise to Abraham, but he distinguished the individual of Isaac against the individual of Ishmael. So his grace does not apply to "children of Abraham" in an all-inclusive and corporate sense, but in a selective and individual sense.

But lest one thinks that from Isaac forward divine grace is given in a corporate sense without consideration of individuals, Paul makes the same point again, this time with Isaac's children (v. 10). Two children, even twins, came from the same father, but God chose to love one and hate the other. As if to stress individual election even more, he chose the younger instead of the older.

Returning to Paul's reason for writing all this in the first place, his argument is intelligible and compelling only because he asserts individual election, and in a sense, even against corporate election. God's promise to Israel (corporate) has not failed because the promise applies only to chosen individuals within this Israel, which we might call a true Israel.

With this in mind, read the rest of Romans 9 and you will see that it consistently insists on God's control over individuals. Again, Paul's argument would not make sense and would fail unless this is what he intends.

The Arminian argument is almost a sign of surrender. If it tries to make this a teaching of corporate election, then it admits that this is talking about God's sovereignty in choosing nations, so that the nations do not choose themselves. The Arminian perceives the teaching of God's sovereignty in this, but redirects it to a corporate application. Therefore, if this redirection is prevented and it is shown that the text obviously refers to individuals, we retain the Arminian admission that it teaches election, and since it refers to individuals, it teaches the election of individuals.

The fact that you can ask if God will still control us when we get to heaven tells me that you still do not fully grasp the basis for God's sovereignty and that your thinking is still man-centered.

God is sovereign not because of who you are or where you are, but because of who he is and what he is. He controls all things because this is what it means to be God. His sovereignty is first an ontological and metaphysical issue and not a soteriological issue. It has nothing to do with where we are or our state and condition. We will never become autonomous and independent from God. His sovereignty is not a game, where we will arbitrarily decide to go by one set of rules for a while, and then when we have stopped playing we will go by another set of rules. He controls all things because he is God.

Be careful when you ask a question like this so that you do not blaspheme, because your question amounts to "Will God still be God when I am in heaven, or will I have independence from God and become equal to Jehovah himself in his freedom?" Nevertheless, I do not wholly blame you, because Calvinists and Reformed theologians have trained people to think from a narrow soteriological viewpoint even when the question pertains to a broad ontological and metaphysical issue. If you ask them a metaphysical question, they will give you a soteriological answer. This has resulted in much absurdity, and sometimes blasphemy. For an example, see my article, "But What About the Thingamajig?" As for you, always think of God with the utmost fear and reverence. Do not blaspheme, not even indirectly or by implication.

The Reformed and Pentecostals are both wrong on very important points. The Reformed are more correct on the central issues, but they are full of unbelief and human traditions. So we cannot be loyal to a tradition, but only to the teachings of Christ. Read through the Gospels with fresh eyes. Jesus indeed said, "Have faith, and you can command a mountain to move." He said, "The little girl is not dead, but sleeping." He told the disciples they failed to cast out a demon because of their unbelief or lack of faith. The Reformed and Evangelicals cessationists have not been able to make good sense of these, not because they are difficult to understand, but because their false theological assumptions cannot permit or process what Jesus said – that is a big problem!

Be stronger. Be better. Move beyond both the Reformed and the Pentecostals, and see what the Bible teaches. Watch how Jesus talked. The Pentecostals understand things about faith and power that are much more faithful to Christ than the Reformed, but the Pentecostals are very narrow so their understanding do not accommodate even more central truths like God's sovereignty. (This is a generalization. There are Reformed charismatics, and there are excellent Pentecostal scholars.)

The truth is that faith is what Jesus said it is – it is certainty, certainty of things hoped for, and of things not seen. But this certainty is granted by God, and when we have this certainty, it is the evidence of things hoped for and not seen. We have it. We know we have it. And we receive what our faith is certain of.

Beware of human traditions, just as much as you should beware of idolatry and witchcraft.

Faith is certainty. It is so certain that Jesus said if you pray in faith you would believe that you have received what you asked for before you actually attain it. When the devil attacks you and you doubt, that means his attack is beginning to be successful. Fight it and kill the doubt. Faith and doubt are not feelings as such but qualities of thought. Fear might be a feeling that arises from doubt.

The Reformed and Evangelicals are very fond of making excuses in this area. They would probably condemn Jesus Christ himself as one of those fanatical "faith teachers." They might indeed suggest that you can doubt and still be full of faith, or even say that doubt is good. Jesus would loudly rebuke them. No, doubt is bad, always bad. Peter feared, and he sank. James said that if you waver, do not think that you will receive anything from the Lord. The Pentecostals and Charismatics are overall far more faithful to Scripture in this area.

These are generalizations that do not apply to every particular case. There are counterexamples from each side. And although I state the overall situation as I perceive it, the truth is that I could not care less which tradition wins and which one loses. I do not want to take a side and say, "I am of this one!" or "I am of that one!" Neither the Reformed and Evangelicals nor the Pentecostals died to redeem me from sin and endued me with power from heaven. Jesus Christ alone did these things. I will follow him. The rest can come along or they can burn in hell.

Jesus taught that if you even have a mustard seed faith, nothing will be impossible for you. Christians have often twisted this to mean that you can have 1% faith and 99% doubt! This is a demonic perversion of the teaching. No, Jesus said, "If anyone…does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him" (Mark 11:23). If you waver, do not think that you will get anything from the Lord.

Of course, sometimes God shows mercy, as when Jesus rescued him while Peter was sinking. But without faith, a man cannot expect to receive, although he still might receive despite his doubts because of God's sovereign kindness. In any case, rather than making excuses and twisting Scripture so that everyone will feel better, we should accept what Jesus taught on faith, condemn our own unbelief, and strive to attain to the level he commanded.

If you pray full of faith, you will know it, and you will not need to ask anyone, and no one will be able to convince you otherwise.

The Reformed probably represents the best overall theological tradition, but much of it is still human tradition. As human tradition goes, it invents things that complicate and undermine the system of truth, and it often rebels against God's commands and teachings. Compatibilism is one example. As for cessationism, it is perhaps one of the most harmful false doctrines in human history. It is not only a result of a difference in opinion, but I regard it as a doctrine of demons.

Although I refer to cessationism once in a while and counteract it, it has not been given a prominent role in my writings. This is because there are so many things wrong with Reformed and Evangelical doctrines and practices in general that we must take things step by step, and there are indeed issues that are more central than cessationism. God's sovereignty is one of these central issues, because it pertains to what it means to be God. If we claim to believe in God, but our idea of God really does not match what the Bible says it means to be God, then when we refer to God we only speak the word, but the meaning does not match the God of the Bible. Then we are not talking about the same thing.

So God's sovereignty, or the very idea of what it means to be God, is central. Other central issues include a proper understanding of biblical inerrancy, the atonement, and so on. But the truth that God continues to act in unusual ways, even through men in the form of the gifts of the Spirit according to his will, is also extremely important. To deny this is to doom the church to weakness, deadness, and defeat. There is no need to look to either the extreme of Reformed and Evangelical unbelief or to the extreme forms of Pentecostal fanaticism. Rather, we ought to derive all truth from God's revelation in the Bible.

Realize that unless you bow down and submit to a school of human tradition, you will face opposition, even persecution from modern-day Pharisees. I am attacked with unjust and unintelligent criticisms and slander from all sides. But if you will cling to the Lord Jesus and consider yourself his servant, then you will be bold to speak in his name and you will not be controlled by the fear of men.

Arminians are not always explicit about their Arminianism. They might assume it, but they do not always explicitly assert human freedom in contradiction to divine sovereignty. They might often tell the man to decide, such as to decide to believe and obey, but although they say this with false assumptions behind it, the statement itself is acceptable – the Calvinist must also tell the man to decide for God.

That said, my judgment is that unless a church is explicit about its Arminianism, a Christian who is informed and convinced of the doctrines concerning God's sovereignty should attend an Arminian charismatic/non-cessationist church rather than a Reformed or Calvinist cessationist church. I believe that cessationism is so heretical and so harmful that it warrants this policy.

But I cannot make an absolute generalization. Many cessationist churches are indeed better than charismatic/non-cessationist churches, but these charismatics churches must be terrible! You will have to carefully compare the options and decide.

Each parable usually has one main point (or very few points), and the details are there to move the story along. And the Gospels almost invariably tell us directly the point of a parable.

For example, the Parable of the Good Samaritan answers the question, "Who is my neighbor?" The Law commands us to love our neighbor, and as they tended to do, the Pharisees and the teachers of the law would try to define "neighbor" in a way that would excuse them from having to love anyone that they did not wish to love. But Jesus turned it around on them and said "Who was a neighbor to this man?" The one who showed mercy. And he said, "Go and do likewise." Details like where the man was traveling to, the inn, the two coins, that they were silver coins, etc., most likely do not symbolize anything, but serve to keep the story together and to further the plot.

In the Parable of the Unjust Judge (Luke 18), Jesus uses the a fortiori argument. It is not that God is like an unjust judge, but it is precisely because he is not one (that he is a just judge), that he is better than an unjust judge, and that we ought to be encouraged even more to persist in faith and prayer. Jesus explicitly declares the point of the parable: "And will not God bring about justice for his chosen ones, who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" (v. 7-8).

Likewise, the Parable of the Dishonest Manager in Luke 16 is directly explained: "I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings" (v. 9). It is not that Jesus tells us to be dishonest managers, but that unbelievers know how to use wealth to make friends in the sphere of their lives, and believers ought to know how to use wealth in their own sphere, in their own context and according to their own worldview.

Thus the dishonest manager provides only an analogy to how Christians are to use their wealth, and not an example that is directly applied or imitated. So although we might be unaccustomed to the phrase in a spiritual context, the expression "to gain friends" is carried over from how the dishonest manager uses wealth to how Christians ought to use wealth. This wealth is used in a way that would make us "friends" in eternal dwellings, in the next life. Therefore, the natural interpretation is to use wealth in a way that carries eternal significance, most obviously, in evangelism and discipleship, but also other good works that the Bible commands, such as feeding the poor, caring for widows and orphans, and so on.

The power of this teaching is often underestimated. Several times the Bible observes that believers and unbelievers, the rich and the poor, the educated and the uneducated, appear to suffer the same fate – they die and cannot carry their wealth with them. But then there is the power of the gospel. Through Jesus Christ our wealth can transcend this life and break through to the next life. In Christ, what you earn here can benefit you there. What you do with your wealth here will affect what happens there.

The dishonest manager and his friends would die, and all their money would be lost. All the wisdom and shrewdness of the non-Christian finally comes to nothing. The friends that he bought with his money cannot help him or welcome him. They, too, cannot bring their money with them. And in the next life they would all be destitute and in suffering. But if the Christian uses his wealth wisely (wise in the Christian context, and not in the non-Christian sense), then his natural wealth turns into spiritual and eternal riches. We rejoice and celebrate this power that God has given us through Jesus Christ!

All the teachings that you have learned about honoring God in all circumstances would apply. Many writers have produced works on this topic. Perhaps you may find some and see what you can glean from them.

However, I would add that you can pray for you son's healing, while continue to give him all the natural attention and help that he needs with his condition. Of course, some church traditions tell us that there is no longer miraculous healing for us. But I spit on these traditions. This is a wicked man-made teaching, not remotely hinted at by Scripture.

There is no time to explain this in detail, so I hope you would consider this and pray that God may give you insights on the matter. While you do this, as I said, continue to give your son all the natural attention and help he needs.

Most traditional churches are indeed very, very bad, and very, very dead, and full of unbelief. I cannot in good conscience support them. But this is a generalization and does not apply to every church in particular. So there will be cases, perhaps many cases, where I will not support someone who wishes to leave a church. But there are cases that are entirely understandable. Many churches, traditional or not, do not deserve to exist.

Several Christians who decide to come together indeed makes a real church. Things like seminary degrees and denominational ordinations are human credentials that often help church order but are never necessary. This does not mean that every Christian is qualified to start or lead a church, but it means that no Christian is forbidden in principle. These small groups indeed make real churches. But again, it is difficult to generalize and each small group or church will have to be judged individually. Of course many of these groups are worse than the churches that they have abandoned.

Instead of making it a matter of doctrine or policy to condemn and threaten those who leave (and I admit that many leave for incorrect motives and reasons), traditional churches should repent and fix themselves. If people return and get more of the same death, unbelief, and church politics, they will just leave again. And this time, I hope, they will know better than to come back again.

It is good that instead of excusing yourself, you admit your sin and you are taking it seriously. Even if the sin persists, remember to never lose this – never begin to make excuses or to think that it is not a sin.

It is correct that true faith in Jesus Christ leads to holiness. However, a stubborn sin – or two or three – can tend to capture our attention to the exclusion of other aspects of our lives. When you take your entire life into account, is the basic disposition toward holiness? Is there an overall growth in knowledge, reverence, purity, and good works? If so, then this is consistent with a genuine faith in Christ. Instead of allowing a stubborn sin to become a stumbling block for your whole faith, you should consider the fact of your continuing growth in Christ to draw strength and encouragement in the ongoing battle against the remaining evil.

Accountability to other believers is not useless, but it is often overrated as an aid to sanctification. When it is effective at all, it is helpful mostly when it comes to outward conduct, and not as much when it comes to motives and thoughts. And it is effective only when the person does not hide or lie about his situation or progress. If you really want to sin, you will lie so you can do it and so other people will not find out. So even if you draw on the strength and pressure of a Christian community, see to it that your main focus remains on Jesus Christ. He is the sole Mediator, the Lord of the conscience, and the Shepherd of your soul.

I have always considered the usual arguments on church attendance and membership forced and unconvincing, often outright made-up and dishonest. It seems that those who make these arguments wish to enforce a human tradition no matter what, and they impose a moral obligation beyond what the Bible teaches and implies.

All the arguments that assert the necessity of corporate spirituality and that undermine and condemn individual spirituality, even an isolated spirituality (when this isolation occurs not because of rebellion, but because of providence), are completely invented and unbiblical. One popular Reformed theologian even appealed to the slogan that God is our Father, and the Church is our Mother. This is heresy and blasphemy.

Although the church as a local community in itself is not a human tradition but God's idea, so that it is good and biblical, there are practical elements in how the teaching is implemented so that there is flexibility in its application. If a church is indeed very bad, and you are unable to guide it to a better direction, then there is no biblical reason to force yourself to attend that church, even if there is no other church in the area.

It is popular to insist that a Christian can never survive, or can never grow, or can never grow properly, unless he is surrounding by supportive believers. This is utter rubbish. The Bible does not teach it. Perhaps it is true in some people's experience because they are not faithful believers who cling to Christ, but rather weaklings who rely on one another – theirs is, at least partly, not a spiritual faith, but a human or social faith. So you do not need to be threatened by them or be enslaved in conscience by their teachings.

That said, you still need to be realistic about your reason for not attending a church, your faith as an individual, and your ability to live and grow as a Christian apart from a community. It is indeed possible and not necessarily wrong, but why are you doing it, and can you do it? Take your faith seriously, and if you indeed must do this, then design measures that will help you grow without a community, such as regular times of prayer and worship, study, ministry, and so on.

It might be unpopular in our circle to say this, but on evaluating and choosing a church, it is much better to attend an Arminian and charismatic church that is generally sound in doctrine but somewhat in error and anti-intellectual, than to attend a Reformed and Calvinist church that is somewhat better in doctrine on paper but is dead, dead, dead, completely dead and in unbelief. Indeed, either church seems unappealing in their own ways. Of course, we would prefer a church that affirms both God's sovereignty in controlling the salvation of his people and his sovereignty in continuing the manifestations of the Spirit, but such a faithful church is hard to find.

Many charismatics have a satisfactory view on God's omnipotence, omniscience, Christ's nature, his atonement, justification by faith, and so on. And they do not try to explain away everything that the Gospels and the Acts teach about God's power at work through his people. Also, because they are often less intellectual (not always), their errors are easier for you to detect and to dismiss, but when the Reformed teach errors, as they often do, they are more complex and subtle, so that you will have to be on your guard at all times.

Keep in mind that I am a strong advocate of biblical intellectualism. But even as such a strong advocate for it, I will tell you that the more intellectual a group is, the more it is in danger of being possessed by the spirit of the Pharisees. This is avoidable if the spiritual development is well-proportioned, but many communities fail in this and become possessed by this murderous religious spirit. It is very, very strong in Reformed and other scholarly circles. Do not be delivered from being a mindless fanatic just so you can become a Pharisee. I wonder which one is really worse – probably the Pharisee.

I am very against making up a restriction where the Bible does not state or imply one. On the other hand, I am also very against using "God made all things good" as a blanket justification for everything that people want to do. This application pushes the text far beyond its original purpose. It means only that food and marriage and such things are not spiritually unclean, but that all such things are clean through faith and prayer. Yet we still do not eat poisonous mushrooms, even naturally grown ones! Indeed mushrooms are not spiritually unclean, but which mushrooms are fine to eat? Books or reading as such may not be spiritually unclean, but which books should you read? Certainly it does not mean that the Satanic Bible is holy. Music, or rhythms and sounds as such, may not be spiritually unclean, but which songs are acceptable? Paul says that (even if) all things are permissible, not all things are expedient.

Both illegitimate restriction and permission are characteristics of the Pharisees. They make restrictions where the Bible does not. And then they pretend that the Scripture says something or that it does not say something (whichever suits their purpose) in order to justify and excuse every little thing that they do.

With this in mind, it seems that secular music could be consumed in principle, but it ought to be used with discernment and moderation just like other forms of non-Christian entertainment and expression, such as paintings, novels, and movies. It might not be wrong for me to admire a non-Christian photo of a beautiful lake or mountain (but it would be ridiculous to follow one tradition that would make it a holy mandate to take more and better photos than the non-Christians). It might not be inherently wrong to watch a movie produced by non-Christians, but which non-Christian movies are acceptable? The broad principle does not automatically sort out every instance for us. We will have to pay attention to the contents.

Non-Christian songs, even when they are not singing about sex and drugs, continuously exhibit and suggest certain beliefs regarding romantic love, freedom, dreams and ambitions (common theme in children's movies), a festive spirit, tolerance, and many other things. Even the song "Happy Birthday" assumes that each human being is so important that he ought to mark the day of his birth every year, and that everybody else ought to celebrate it as well. Is this good or acceptable? Maybe, maybe not, but the song assumes an answer to the question. It is not neutral. The mind could absorb these things so that they become mental strongholds. Christians ought to agree with this general assessment and caution, and understand that it is not paranoia. The Bible teaches us to protect the heart, because out of it are the issues of life.

Still, I would not make a law for myself and say that I must not watch movies or listen to songs. And I would not try to excuse myself by saying that all things are good. If you ask why I am watching a movie, I would answer, "Because I want to watch a movie. After this I am going to eat a steak!" The one who tries to find a precise justification for letting them do something when the Bible does not really offer that justification, is a Pharisee. He is condemned whether he does it or does not do it. We must pursue purity, but also hold on to the liberty that Christ won for us with his blood.

You are to be congratulated for the grace of God that is upon you. We know it is never by our own wisdom that we arrive at the truth. Everywhere we witness God's power in shutting men's eyes and minds so that they could not perceive the plainest facts and reasons. Faith like a mustard seed can move mountains, but most people do not have even this. A little truth from God is more precious than gold and rubies, but God enables us to know truth in its breadth, and depth, and beauty and wisdom. We could have nothing, but God has given us all good things.

Now that God has enabled you to break free from human tradition into his truth, take heed that you do not trade one human tradition for another one, even if the second is better than the first. It would be so comfortable for me to adopt one of the creeds of Christendom and become its scribe. Then I will have instant acceptance, instant fellowship, instant support, and multitudes to fight along my side. No matter how good a tradition is, you are always directly accountable to Jesus Christ. Even within the best of traditions, errors and disagreements abound, and there seems to be no rest. But I have discovered a greater peace than human camaraderie – in Jesus Christ there is peace in the midst of a storm. He is the sole master of my conscience, and in him I can stand up to a thousand years of human consensus.

The religious establishment accused Jesus of being an imposter and a magician. It denounced Paul as a heretic and usurper. This kind of error did not die when the Christian faith gained strength in the world, because this is not a pre-Christian error that died with the Pharisees, but it is a human error and sin. Therefore, do not be surprised that even the best of human traditions often oppose the truth of Christ and the power of the Spirit. Do not take part in this, and do not become a victim to this.

My view on many things agree exactly with some existing traditions, but my view on some things disagree with them. Have I not considered views different from mine in great detail? Do I not wish to agree with some existing system and have unity with somebody? Of course I do. But God's word told me to say what God says: "Do not be terrified of them, or I will terrify you before them" (Jeremiah 1:17). It will be worse for me, if I know the truth and perceive their error, but agree with them anyway.

The fact that you can agree with me on some of these things again shows that the grace of God is upon you, that you are willing to heed truth and reason instead of allowing traditions and prejudices to make you their slave. However, it is not easy to be entirely liberated in following Christ, because men will try to subjugate you to their ideas, if not in this, then in that, or in another area. Pray that you will always be free to follow Christ alone with your whole heart.

Therefore, follow Christ directly – perhaps with other believers and with the church, but not through other believers or through the church. Never be hindered by men, their traditions, their procedures, and their self-conferred authority. Also, develop a faith that is whole, that is full and well-proportioned. An interest in apologetics is excellent, but continue to advance in all other areas of your faith, including theology, prayer, worshiping the Lord in songs, loving your spouse and children, diligence in your work, exhibiting honorable conduct before all men, and even legitimate spiritual powers and experiences (I am not against experience, but I maintain that truth does not come from experiences, but that experiences are judged and understood by truth).

Whenever someone asks a question against a biblical doctrine, it represents an attack against God and his glory. Therefore, you must both answer the question and attack the person. There must be something wrong with the person for him to ask such a question. By extension, you should also examine yourself for failing to answer it. If you truly grasp God's nature and glory as revealed in the Bible, instead of letting an analogy that represents him as a human person throw off your entire theology, then you would not have any difficulty answering this.

Although the Scripture uses human analogies to illustrate some things about God, the points asserted are always clear, and they are often asserted directly along with the analogies. Moreover, the Bible represents man as the image of God, and not God as the image of sinful man! Even when something is said about man, and then God is said to be like it, it is said that God is better or greater, and not inferior.

First, we assert the positive doctrine and see that there is no problem with it. So he causes his people to worship him, and he approves of this worship. The issue is not whether we think he ought to be able to enjoy it, but whether this is what happens, that he truly causes the worship, and whether he declares that this is the way he likes it. If so, then the matter is settled. It is finished. The person who makes an objection against this is in fact saying that he (the man) is unhappy that God can be happy with this arrangement. He is insisting that God should not be happy with this, even though God himself does not complain. Instead of threatening the doctrine, this objection is blasphemy. This man thinks that he himself can be a better God, or that he knows better in how to be a God who is happy and satisfied. Our doctrine is not in trouble, but this man's very soul is in trouble. This answer is sufficient for both the Christian and the non-Christian, because the objection logically makes no sense.

Second, this person's reasoning can apply to many other attributes of God. Even if God cannot cause anything at all in this universe, if we continue to affirm his omniscience, this means that he knows everything about past, present, and future worship – every motive, every thought, every prayer, every intonation of every word in every hymn, every gesture of the hands and face, and so on. If we think that he has a mentality very much like that of a human person (as the analogy of the girl implies), then how can he "enjoy" worship? So the God that this person has in mind must be striped of his knowledge also. How about his power? How can God "enjoy" worship when his infinite power means that no one can go against him? How about his promises and blessings? As Satan said to God, "Does Job fear God for nothing?" We can continue this analysis until we are left with a God that this man is satisfied with, who in his opinion can have a meaningful existence. And this God will be nothing more than a superman, if even that. This answer is especially applicable to the Christian, since it shows that he in fact does not believe in God. His "God" is something very different that he invented, and this "God" (a mere superman) is the deity that he worships. But it is also applicable to the non-Christian, because the God that he objects to is not the God of the Bible, and the Bible is not obligated to present him with a God that he likes.

Third, many other details in the objection remain unclear. What does it mean to "enjoy" worship? What does this person think worship is? Does he really think it is like a girl who receives flattery? Is that the kind of God that he has in mind, and the reason he thinks God commands worship? Does he offer arguments to support this? Is this person a Christian? And if he is a non-Christian, does he understand anything about the Christian faith to make this silly assumption? Also, do you think this is what worship means? Why do you allow this assumption, that God is like a little girl, and that worship is like flattery?

Fourth, the human analogy itself backfires against this person. A little boy who takes up two toy soldiers and makes them fight each other is in constant control of both items, but he still finds the whole scenario exciting. A little girl who sits down with her toys to have tea with them and to chitchat with them still finds hours of amusement. I do not say that worship is like this, but this shows that even if worship is like this, it would not necessarily be a problem, and it does not necessarily mean that God would not "enjoy" it. This man is so stupid that he does not even understand the human situation, and he dares to scrutinize God's nature against God's own revelation.

What an inferior thinker! What a despicable and worthless person! Attack him. Belittle him. Scold him with harsh words and with a loud voice. But first, examine yourself. It is very serious that you cannot answer such an easy challenge. It is not just an intellectual problem, but also a spiritual and ethical problem. If you had held on to your God as he is revealed in the Bible, you would not have allowed blasphemous assumptions and analogies to trouble you.

The conspiracy theories are irrelevant, because all non-Christians conspire against God in one way or another. It is a waste of time to investigate those pertaining to secret societies and organizations. John wrote long ago that "the whole world lies in the power of the evil one" (1 John 5:19). What difference does it make if any particular conspiracy theory is true? Some of these theories could be true, some could be false. They could all be true, or all be false. It makes no difference to the Christian approach to the world. It is the devil's red herring. In studying them and spending energy on them, people are already ensnared and defeated. Do not allow the devil to set the agenda for the church.