Aftermath: Lessons from the 2012 Election

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

The 2012 U.S. election is over, and more than 100 million Americans participated in the great exercise of democracy — fulfilling the franchise of the vote. Even with some votes not yet counted and some issues as yet clarified, a general picture of the election is clearly in view, and the impact of this election will be both massive and enduring.

Several lessons emerge in the immediate aftermath of the election and Christians should consider them carefully.

A Decisive Victory

First, we must recognize that President Barack Obama won a decisive and clear victory, surging to over 300 votes in the Electoral College before midnight. Against the expectations of many, the President held his 2008 coalition together. Voting intensity among younger Americans, African-Americans, Hispanics, and other crucial constituencies held firm. Once the election results started coming in, an Obama victory came quickly into view.

Barack Obama avoided the ignominy of an electoral repudiation and may also have won the popular vote. The decisive nature of his win spared the nation the agonies of the 2000 election and points to a major political realignment. Other issues also became clear. The election returns and voting data indicate that President Obama’s “evolution” on the issue of same-sex marriage cost him nothing. That probably surprised both sides in that controversy

Christians must now pray for our President. As the Apostle Paul instructs us, “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” (1 Timothy 2:1-2 ESV) We should eagerly and urgently pray for our President. We should pray for his health and his family, for his stamina and his character. We should even pray that he and his administration will be remembered as one of the greatest of our nation’s history, measured even by the convictions that are most important to us.

We are rightly and deeply concerned. We must pray that God will change President Obama’s heart on a host of issues, ranging from the sanctity of unborn life to the integrity of marriage. We must push back against his contraception mandate that tramples upon religious liberty. Given the trajectory of his first term in office, we are urgently concerned about a second term, knowing that the President will never again face the electorate.

As the President acknowledged in his speech last night, our nation faces huge challenges. We must pray that President Obama will lead in a spirit of national unity and mutual respect, bringing Americans together to resolve these ominous problems. Incredible responsibility now rests on his shoulders. He has won a second term, now he must rightly lead.

A Divided Electorate

As morning dawned, the election of 2012 looms as one of the closest in American history. At 2:00 a.m., only 240,000 votes out of more than 103 million cast separated President Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney. That is a margin of .3% and would rank the election as the third closest, falling behind the slim margins of the 1960 election between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon and the 1880 election between James Garfield and Winfield S. Hancock.

The margin in the Electoral College is significant, but the popular vote reveals a deeply divided nation. The nation is divided politically, but that divide points to a division at the level of worldview. The 2012 election makes clear that Americans are divided over fundamental questions. Americans are divided into camps that define and see the world in fundamentally different terms. The election did not cause this division, it merely revealed it. This deep division at the level of worldview presents President Obama with a daunting political challenge, but a worldview crisis is an even greater challenge for the church.

A Changed and Changing Electorate

Fundamental changes to the American electorate also became evident. Vast demographic changes mean that the electorate is far more ethnically, culturally, and ideologically diverse. The electorate is becoming more secular. Recent studies have indicated that the single greatest predictor of voting patterns is the frequency of church attendance. Far fewer Americans now attend church, and a recent study indicated that fully 20% of all Americans identify with no religious preference at all. The secularizing of the electorate will have monumental consequences.

America is becoming more urbanized, and this also changes voting patterns. Younger voters are disproportionately identified in ethnic terms, pointing to long-term electoral shifts. Fewer Americans are married and fewer have children in the home. This, too, changes voting habits. These are just a few of the factors pointing to a fundamental change in the nation.

The Demise of the Republican Coalition

Though many Republicans will draw encouragement from the popular vote, the Electoral College now confronts the Republican Party as a massive problem. The map just does not add up for Republicans in terms of the present reality, much less the shape of the future. Put simply, the Republican Party cannot win unless it becomes the party of aspiration for younger Americans and Hispanic Americans. Otherwise, it will soon become a retirement community for aging conservatives. The party’s position on immigration is disastrous, and it is at odds with the party’s own values.

No party can win if it is seen as heartless. No party can win if it appeals only to white and older Americans. No party can win if it looks more like the way to the past than the way to the future. The Republican Party could not defeat a sitting President with a weak economy and catastrophic unemployment. As columnist George Will has said, a party that cannot win under these circumstances might need to look for another line of work.

The Republican Party will surely enter into a period of intense self-examination and a struggle for the future shape and direction of the party. That fight will be necessary, and it will be important to those of us who are concerned about a range of issues

A Catastrophe on Moral Issues

Evangelical Christians must see the 2012 election as a catastrophe for crucial moral concerns. The election of President Obama returns a radically pro-abortion President to the White House, soon after he had endorsed same-sex marriage. President Obama is likely to have the opportunity to appoint one or more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, and they are almost sure to agree with his constitutional philosophy.

Furthermore, at least two states, Maine and Maryland, legalized same-sex marriage last night. Washington State is likely to join them once the votes there are counted. An effort to pass a constitutional amendment preventing same-sex marriage went down to defeat in Minnesota. These came after 33 states had passed some measure defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. After 33 victories, last night brought multiple defeats. Maine and Maryland (and probably Washington State) became the first states in the union to legalize same-sex marriage by action of the voters. There is no discounting the moral shift that momentous development represents.

Other states considered issues ranging from abortion and marijuana to assisted suicide. While not all were lost, the moral shift was evident in the voting patterns.

Clearly, we face a new moral landscape in America, and huge challenge to those of us who care passionately about these issues. We face a worldview challenge that is far greater than any political challenge, as we must learn how to winsomely convince Americans to share our moral convictions about marriage, sex, the sanctity of life, and a range of moral issues. This will not be easy. It is, however, an urgent call to action..

More than the Presidency Was at Stake

Scores of other offices were at stake in the 2012 election, and at every level. The lack of complete election results leaves many unanswered questions this morning, but one big fact is known — the U.S. Senate will remain in Democratic hands. As a matter of fact, this election may well point to a liberal shift in that body. The election of Elizabeth Warren (MA) and Tammy Baldwin (WI) and the re-election of Sherrod Brown (OH) point in this direction. Tammy Baldwin becomes the first openly-gay candidate elected to the U.S. Senate.

It’s Not Really About Politics

Christians must never see political action as an end, but only as a means. We can never seek salvation through the voting booth, and we must never look for a political messiah. Nevertheless, Christians do bear a political responsibility, established in love of God and love of neighbor. We are rightly concerned about this world, but only to a limited extent. Our main concern is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Being in the world but not of the world has never been easy. The 2012 election underlines the challenges we now face and the responsibilities we dare not neglect.

“What would you call a Christian whose Christianity is almost no more than a belief in God, that his name is Jesus, that Jesus loves him, died for him and he loves Jesus in return… but has almost no regard for tradition or orthodox and who has doesn’t regard the bible as a true source of God and who doesn’t value the idea of empirical information but only personal inspiration from God himself?”

That was a question asked in a Christian forum I frequent. I am really interested in hearing how anyone reading this would answer it. I won’t reveal what I answered in the forum thread right now, or how the question author views himself. I would just like to hear how others would respond.

Thanks!

Good Arguments First and foremost we need to avoid the ubiquitous ad hominem (“to/concerning the person”) variety—otherwise known as “personal attacks.” Poor papers often focus on the person: both the critic and the one being criticized. This is easier, of course, because one only has to express one’s own opinions and reflections. A good paper will tell us more about the issues in the debate than about the debaters. (This of course does not rule out relevant biographical information on figures we’re engaging that is deemed essential to the argument.)

Closely related are red-herring arguments: poisoning the well, where you discredit a position at the outset (a pre-emptive strike), or creating a straw man (caricature) that can be easily demolished. “Barth was a liberal,” “Roman Catholics do not believe that salvation is by grace,” “Luther said terrible things about Jews and Calvin approved the burning of Servetus—so how could you possibly take seriously anything they say?” It’s an easy way of dismissing views that may be true even though those who taught them may have said or done other things that are reprehensible.  Closely related is the genetic fallacy, which requires merely that one trace an argument or position back to its source in order to discount it. Simply to trace a view to its origin—as Roman Catholic, Arminian, Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist/Baptist, etc.—is not to offer an argument for or against it. For example, we all believe in the Trinity; it’s not wrong because it’s also held by Roman Catholics. “Barth studied under Harnack and Herrmann, so we should already consider his doctrine of revelation suspect.” This assertion does not take into account the fact that Barth was reacting sharply against his liberal mentors and displays no effort to actually read, understand, and engage the primary or secondary sources.

Closely related to these fallacies is the all too familiar slippery slope argument. “Barth’s doctrine of revelation leads to atheism” or “Arminianism leads to Pelagianism” or “Calvinism leads to fatalism” would be examples. Even if one’s conclusion is correct, the argument has to be made, not merely asserted. The fact is, we often miss crucial moves that people make that are perfectly consistent with their thinking and do not lead to the extreme conclusions we attribute to them—not to mention the inconsistencies that all of us indulge. Honesty requires that you engage the positions that peopleactually hold, not conclusions you think they should hold if they are consistent.

If you’re going to make a logical argument that certain premises lead to a certain conclusion, then you need to make the case and must also be careful to clarify whether the interlocutor either did make that move or did not but (logically) should have.

Another closely related fallacy here is sweeping generalization. Until recently, it was common for historians to try to explain an entire system by identifying a “central dogma.” For example, Lutherans deduce everything from the central dogma of justification; Calvinists, from predestination and the sovereignty of God. Serious scholars who have actually studied these sources point out that these sweeping generalizations don’t have any foundation. However, sweeping generalizations are so common precisely because they make our job easier. We can embrace or dismiss positions easily without actually having to examine them closely. Usually, this means that a paper will be more “heat” than “light”: substituting emotional assertion for well-researched and logical argumentation.

“Karl Barth’s doctrine of revelation is anti-scriptural and anti-Christian” is another sweeping generalization. If I were to task you in person why you think Barth’s view of revelation is “anti-scriptural anti-Christian,” you might answer, “Well, I think that he draws too sharp a contrast between the Word of God and Scripture—and that this undermines a credible doctrine of revelation.” “Good,” I reply, “—now why do you think he makes that move?” “I think it’s because he identifies the ‘Word of God’ with God’s essence and therefore regards any direct identification with a creaturely medium (like the Bible) as a form of idolatry. It’s part of his ‘veiling-unveiling’ dialectic.” OK, now we’re closer to a real thesis—something like, “Because Barth interprets revelation as nothing less than God’s essence (actualistically conceived), he draws a sharp contrast between Scripture and revelation.” A good argument for something like that will allow the reader to draw conclusions instead of strong-arming the reader with the force of your own personality.

Also avoid the fallacy of begging the question. For example, question-begging is evident in the thesis statement: “Baptists exclude from the covenant those whom Christ has welcomed.” After all, you’re assuming your conclusion without defending it. Baptists don’t believe that children of believers are included in the covenant of grace. That’s the very reason why they do not baptize them. You need an argument.

The above is excerpted from a blog post at The White Horse Inn by Michael Horton

Jesus: Sovereign or Failure?

Larry Brown

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. (John 12:32 KJV)

Countless modern churchmen and theologians easily declare that Jesus failed in his mission because, they say, He did not do everything he set out to do. From the failed God of Sun Myung Moon to the dumbed down God of the Open Theists, many seem to be attempting to avoid dealing with a God who says what He will do and does what He says. To make matters even worse, church members have listened to an easy to believe, convenient, watered down gospel for so long that most are not now willing to hear the truth of what the Bible says about our Sovereign God.

When Jesus declared, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me,” He was stating a wonderful truth but he was not stating the obvious as far as the English translation of scripture is concerned.

What you believe this verse means will reveal to a great extent what you think of Jesus. There are a number of decisions that one must make when interpreting this passage that, when understood, will determine the depth of your appreciation for our Lord. It is not enough to take the easy and sentimental approach to exegeting this passage because your conclusions will reveal the kind of God you serve.

What are the questions we must raise in considering this verse?

1. What does “draw” mean?  Most people seem to have a rather romantic notion about the meaning of this word. They want to use it as we use the term to say that two were “drawn” to each other, i.e., that there is a sort of magnetism there which attracts people to Him but the Bible knows nothing of that. To the contrary it teaches that the world hates and despises Him – holds him in low esteem. There is no beauty about him that we should behold Him. He is rejected of men (Isa. 53:2-4) . Many think of the term as if the Lord is wooing people to Himself as a suitor woos his intended. But that cannot be the way Jesus intended for this word to be interpreted. Did you ever go to a well and attempt to woo a bucket of water from the well? That would keep a person thirsty for a long time. The root of the word translated “draw,” both here and in John 6:44 is a word that means, “to drag.” The same word is used in John 21:6 where “he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.”

Dragging a bucket of water from a well makes sense to me, but I don’t think I could woo one up. It is certain that no one is ever drawn to the Lord “kicking and screaming”, but most assuredly meant here that those he drawswill come. Not some of them, not most of them but all of them.

2. What did Jesus mean by the term “all men”?  It should at first be noted that the word men is not in the manuscripts from which the scripture was interpreted but was supplied by the KJV translators as it was in several other English versions of the New Testament. Others translated it all things. At least one translation has it all my friends. The meaning of the term “all men” is unclear if you consider only the words presented in the texts.

One would think that the term “all men” should mean that Jesus meant to draw one hundred percent of all people to Himself. Now one who has faith in the One who healed the sick, raised the dead, and resurrected Himself from the grave should be able to say without reservation that Jesus did not mean in any literal sense that He intended to bring one hundred percent of all people to himself. The simple fact is that had Jesus meant to bring one hundred percent of all people to Himself, He would certainly have done it. Isa 59:1

There are some conclusions that must be drawn from this discourse. When the Lord determines to draw us to Himself, He is not trying in some romantic sort of way to gain our permission to become part of our lives. The relationship between God and the Elect is not one of courtship. He is neither trying to win us over nor to wear us down in order to accomplish His purpose in our lives. God does not influence our lives after the manner of men. He does not need to do so. He is God. When God decides to draw a person to Himself, that person will come. Not kicking and screaming as I stated previously but he will come with a heart full of gratitude for the revelation of God Himself. The song of one so drawn shall ever be, “Amazing grace! How sweet the sound That saved a wretch like me! I once was lost, but now am found; Was blind, but now I see.”

The second conclusion is this. If you believe that Jesus meant that after His crucifixion that He would draw one hundred percent of all men to Himself you have to accept one of two positions. You must either accept the position of the Universalist, that is, you believe that all people everywhere are or will be saved or else you have to say that Jesus has failed because He clearly had not done what He said He would do. All people have not come to Him and it is clear that all men will not come to Him. There is no middle ground. The instant you accept as fact the idea that Jesus meant that one hundred percent of all men would come to Him, you box yourself into the corner of having to accept one of these two positions.

There is another choice. To be realistic and consistent with the scripture we must either limit the quality of what Jesus has done or we must limit the scope of what Jesus meant. I, for one, will hold to God’s promise of Isa. 55:11. “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” What God says He will do, He will do. Since His word will accomplish that which He pleases, we must believe that He intended something other than one hundred percent of all men when He said, “I will draw all men.” The context is always a great aid in understanding the meaning of a passage. In John 12:20-21 we read “And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast: The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.” Considering this as the context then, we might well say that the “all” which Jesus would draw unto Himself would be “all people” or “all nations.” In that context no one would dare call Jesus a failure. But Jesus may be thinking in even a broader context here. Seven times in John 17, He speaks of “those whom thou hast given me.” These certainly will all come to Christ. There can be no doubt. He will draw them and they will come. Those of us who are numbered in that number should always rejoice that He chose us for salvation and we should always work toward getting all that the Lord will call into the Kingdom. To God be the glory forever. Amen.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Larry W. Brown is Pastor of New Liberty Baptist Church
Morgantown, KY 42261

Where’d All These Calvinists Come From? Part 1 of 10.

The above is the first of a series of posts by Mark Dever @9Marks concerning the reurgance of Calvinism in Evangelical churches. Definitely worth reading.

The following is an article that popped up in an email alert I receive on a daily basis. It sounds nice, but is it really? I’m still mulling it over.

What Church Looks
Like–in 10 Years

by Thom Schultz

Where will you be in 10 years? in 20 years? If you’re involved in a church, it may look quite
different from what you’re accustomed to today.

The church in America is currently shuddering under unprecedented societal change. Some churches are shuttering—closing their doors, rather than adapting to the swirling changes around us. But some are breaking through and finding fresh ways to share the ageless message of Christ with a still-spiritually-open culture.

Some of the innovation we see today was actually predicted over 10 years ago. At that time a think tank of ministry leaders from across the country met to envision the future. They accurately foresaw some changes we now see emerging.

For example, whereas the modern church looks and feels much like a theatrical presentation, the think tankers saw a church that would begin to look and feel more like a neighborhood place to gather around food and drink.

That model is sprouting up in divergent locations across the country—and outside the country.

Morning Star Church in Middleville, Michigan, worships in a former auto parts store that now looks like a homey little restaurant. “We have a DNA of worshipping around tables,” says pastor Bill Wynsma. The church’s website describes the vibe: “Remember those signs in some churches that say, ‘No Food or Drink in the Sanctuary’? Well, we welcome you to enjoy coffee, tea and other morning beverages along with a selection of snacks.”

And, more than 200 churches across the country and Canada have joined the growing network of Lifetree Cafes’. I’m blessed to work with this new ministry that’s designed to reach into the community with a conversation-based experience. Members of the community gather around small tables and enjoy snacks and drinks while they delve into host-led explorations of life issues—with a spiritual twist. Some Lifetree locations are inside church facilities. Others are offered in local coffee shops and community centers. While Lifetree Café is often perceived as primarily being an outreach ministry, many of the churches who have launched Lifetrees are finding that it’s also building relationships within the church, which is essentially closing the problematic “revolving door” that many churches experience.

Whitsunday Baptist Church in Queensland, Australia, offers a beachfront café experience every Tuesday night. Soul Church Café provides “coffee, dessert, and a chat about some of the more important things in life.” The ministry offers “conversation, friendship, and a little bit of what you are looking for.”

In Communist China, where churches are highly restricted, Christian restaurateurs opened the Upper Room Rainbow Café in Beijing. Biblically themed décor surrounds the tables where patrons munch on cleverly named entrees. (On a recent visit, I tried the “Five Loaves and Two Fish.” Tasty!) Curious Chinese residents gather here for Bible studies, Christian music and even sermons. “We consider it a dinner show,” says the savvy owner, who stays legal and in good favor with the government.

So, why are these food-and-drink venues working? If we say faith is a relationship, it makes sense that our expressions of faith look relational. Sitting around a table, eating, and talking with friends about matters of faith is a relational model that Jesus used very fruitfully. And the conversational aspect allows people to interact with the message, something that resonates well with today’s interactive citizens.

As we watch this trend build throughout today’s church, where will it lead tomorrow? What will the church look like in 10 or 20 years? It’s an important question. The better we can anticipate the coming changes, the better prepared we’ll be to take the unchanging message to the changing world.
We’re organizing a new think tank to analyze developing trends and explore how they’ll drive change for the church in the future. This special gathering will include generations authority Neil Howe, and church researcher Scott Thumma. The Future of the Church Summit is October 22-24, 2012, in Loveland, Colorado. For more information or to register for this groundbreaking summit, visit group.com/summit2012.

It’s a healthy thing to read the signs and adjust: “You know the saying, ‘Red sky at night means fair weather tomorrow; red sky in the morning means foul weather all day.’ You know how to interpret the weather signs in the sky, but you don’t know how to interpret the signs of the times!” –Jesus

What do you see coming?

This article appeared on HolySoup.com July 25, 2012. Thom Schultz is an eclectic author and the founder of Group Publishing and Lifetree Café. Holy Soup offers innovative approaches to ministry, and challenges the status quo of today’s church

I was recently pointed to an article at one of those sites that seems to be dedicated to exposing everything that is wrong with our government (both sides), and the vast global conspiracy that threatens all of our freedoms. The article I was pointed to had to do with the destruction of water restraining dams across the country. It was a bit of a rant (the language and tone gave it away), but it had some merit. I did a little digging and found out more about dam destruction than I ever wanted to know. What I found out is that there are good reasons, not so good reasons, and bad reasons for their destruction. I even found a site that detailed all of the factors that go into making a decision to destroy an existing dam. So I guess you could say that the ‘ranting’ served a good purpose; my researching a bit to get the bigger picture of the issue(s).

To make a long story short, I offered in a comment the sources I found, as ‘homework’ that might be profitable, except for conspiracy theorists. After being chastised for accusing the author of the original article of being a conspiracy theorist, I explained that ‘global conspiracy’ was in the title, and my personal experience is that most conspiracy theorists aren’t really interested in all of the facts. I further commented that I agree with much that was stated about our current administration and the federal government, will be at the polls, and viewed the whole global conspiracy theme from Biblical worldview. We’ll see what comes my way next.

Having said all that, I’m reminded of something I was taught a long time ago. We can be part of the problem (any problem), or we can be part of the solution. I doubt that there are a lot of folks who don’t know that axiom. I submit to you that it applies to things temporal as well as things spiritual.

The specific spiritual connection I am making concerns some in the ‘discernment’ community who have decided that certain leaders in the contemporary church are a bunch of antinomian (against the Law) heretics who talk about grace too much and who can’t tell the difference between justification and sanctification. Like the global conspiracy theorists who seem to enter any dialogue/discussion presupposing a global plot behind every action of the federal government (and rant accordingly), these discernment ‘gurus’ have already passed judgment upon men who are communicating the church’s need to rediscover the awesome power of grace in our lives, while digging up everything (out of context) that they can to try and prove their non-existent point.

And like many conspiracy theorists, they are relentless in their attacks, and offer no solutions. They just rant, gain a few followers, and refuse to listen to anyone who offers anything that might challenge their judgmental findings. Not only that, they refuse to listen to the teachings of the accused and already condemned brethren on their ‘hit list’ that soundly refute their rants! In other words, they refuse to do some honest homework to 1) find out if there is a real problem and 2) recommend a solution to any real problems that surface. Rather than go after blatantly unbiblical teachings and the wolves in sheep suits who fleece the flock on a regular basis, they would rather sit smugly in their certain conviction that there are antinomian heretics in our midst and we MUST expose them.

I find all of this tremendously sad, for what it communicates about the Bride of Christ to the lost souls all around us who love to latch onto anything to justify their running from God and rushing headlong into Hell, and because it takes us away from our sacred mission and privilege – to preach Christ, and Him crucified.

Well, is all of the above just another one of the personal ‘opinions’ floating around the blogosphere, or is there in it something of note to take away and act upon? I’ll take it as encouragement to be part of solutions, not a contributor to problems.

How about you?

I think it’s a good question, considering the current and widespread environment of self-centered Christianity. Here are four passages from a single chapter of Exekiel and a NT portion from Ephesians that might answer the question.

 “But they rebelled against me and were not willing to listen to me. None of them cast away the detestable things their eyes feasted on, nor did they forsake the idols of Egypt. Then I said I would pour out my wrath upon them and spend my anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt. But I acted for the sake of my name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations among whom they lived, in whose sight I made myself known to them in bringing them out of the land of Egypt.” (Ezekiel 20:8-9 ESV)

 “But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness. They did not walk in my statutes but rejected my rules, by which, if a person does them, he shall live; and my Sabbaths they greatly profaned. Then I said I would pour out my wrath upon them in the wilderness, to make a full end of them. But I acted for the sake of my name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations, in whose sight I had brought them out.” (Ezekiel 20:13-14 ESV)

“But the children rebelled against me. They did not walk in my statutes and were not careful to obey my rules, by which, if a person does them, he shall live; they profaned my Sabbaths. Then I said I would pour out my wrath upon them and spend my anger against them in the wilderness. But I withheld my hand and acted for the sake of my name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations, in whose sight I had brought them out.” (Ezekiel 20:21-22 ESV)

“And you shall know that I am the LORD, when I bring you into the land of Israel, the country that I swore to give to your fathers. And there you shall remember your ways and all your deeds with which you have defiled yourselves, and you shall loathe yourselves for all the evils that you have committed. And you shall know that I am the LORD, when I deal with you for my name’s sake, not according to your evil ways, nor according to your corrupt deeds, O house of Israel, declares the Lord GOD.” (Ezekiel 20:40-44 ESV)

 “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. “ (Ephesians 2:1-7 ESV)