Science Owes Christianity

Science was made possible by the discovery of a rational universe, perceived by a rational mind, using rational modus operandi. Induction, deduction, experimentation, measurement, repeatability, theory and hypothesis make science possible. The Eastern religions don't believe in a rational universe, but in Maya or that the universe is a figment of our imagination and that it isn't really real. It was the Christian worldview of 15th century Europe that really got the scientific method off to its debut. Sir Francis Bacon is considered the "Father of the Scientific Method."

All of the early great scientists (Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus,  Newton, Boyle, Pascal, Maxwell, Boyle, Bacon, et al.) were Christians. In fact, science owes its existence to Christianity. But the ironic thing is that now science seems to be thinking that religion, in general, is the "enemy" and incompatible with the scientific method.

Science is only one avenue to the truth. Some things are not verified by test tube, repetition, observation, measurement or confined to laboratory conditions. I.e., you cannot take a pound of love and a pint of partiality, nevertheless we affirm their existence.

All worldviews require presuppositions and so-called "natural science," as opposed to the supernatural, does too. In fact, it takes more faith to believe a naturalistic universe without any intentional design than it does to simply believe in a supreme being. The evidence is in favor of a deity, but people are not willing to take the leap of faith in the direction of the faith because of moral issues, not intellectual problems. They don't believe because they don't want to believe, not because they can't. "Even though he performed many miracles there, they would [not could] not believe in him" (John 12:37).  Soli Deo Gloria!

Does Prayer Work?

Prayer works, the preacher says, so come on up and we'll pray for your needs. The objection I have is that TM works and yoga works, but we don't try them. Just because something works doesn't mean it is true, that is not the criterion. Lee Strobel says that Christianity works because it is true, it is not true because it works.

We should pray even if we don't feel we are getting from God what we want, as it were, that he is our genie giving us what we want. We pray for the sake of praying says Steven Brown not for ulterior motives. Someone has wisely said that we should love God even if there were no heaven and fear God even if there were no hell. Well, we should have the desire to commune with God even if we don't get our way.

The paradigm of prayer should always include "in Jesus' name" (it is for his sake and God's will that we really want to pray). Now, some preachers think their prayers are more "effectual" (James. 5:16) than others but they are not. Any Christian can pray without giving up and "fervently" to get our wills aligned with God's. We don't change God, he changes us. You see, we are all on an equal footing in prayer--that is the beauty, God is no respecter of persons and shows no partiality.

Some say that worry works because 90 percent of what we worry about doesn't happen! Well, with that kind of logic prayer isn't as effective as worry because I don't think anyone can say that 90 percent of their prayers were answered in the affirmative--if they are, they are not very challenging prayers. God can answer in the affirmative, negative or tell us to wait. "Man ought always to pray and not to give up" (Luke 18:1). But we should never give up hope unless God clearly says no like he did to Paul's thorn in the flesh. But remember this: God has arranged it so that we can explain away answered prayers if we so desire--he doesn't force us to believe but wants faith to please him. Well, prayer does work but that is not why we pray!

On The Enslaved Will

The bondage of the will or what Martin Luther called the enslaved will was the subject of his book "De Servo Arbitrio." A diatribe was written against the scholar Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam a well-known prototype "Arminian" and protagonist of "free will" as the Romanists defined it.  The Remonstrants objected to Reformed theology and were answered by the Canons of Dort in 1618, which delineated the so-called five points of Calvinism.  Jacobus Arminius was the architect of the Arminian heresy, which deviated from orthodox theology stemming from the days of Augustine, Bishop of Hippo.

Martin Luther said that the freedom of the will is a grandiose term and fit only for God. Our wills are enslaved to the old sin nature and inclined to evil. They are biased and prone to evil, not good. Luther said that man has not ceased to be man, but ceased to be good. We are only free in the sense that God doesn't force us to do evil--we do it on our own volition.

Augustine of Hippo said that we are free but not freed. This is not a mind game, but only stressing that we don't have liberty, though we are responsible moral agents. We concur with our evil and no one forces us to do evil, which would be determinism or coercion. We are voluntary slaves to evil. God doesn't force anyone to do something he doesn't want to do.

There are many Bible verses that stress the lack of freedom to respond to Christ on our own without the wooing of the Spirit. "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him." "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God who showeth mercy." "Who are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. " "The way of man is not in himself."

The freedom of the will so to speak is a curse, since we are free to do evil. Augustine said that we are non posse non peccare, which means we can only do evil. Luther said the will can only do evil, too. Augustine said we are "free, but not freed;" we have a free will in a sense, but not liberty.  Soli Deo Gloria!

The Bondage Of The Will

Did you get set freed by Christ or not, that is the question.

According to Martin Luther (cf., The Bondage of the Will), the will is enslaved or in bondage to the old sin nature and not free. Augustine of Hippo said that the will is "free but not freed." He wasn't playing mind games but saying that we are responsible agents to God for our choices, but don't have liberty. He doesn't force us to do evil, because we do it on our own initiative. The freedom of the will is a curse because we can only do evil according to Luther. Where did free will help Esau?

There are many Bible verses that show that man doesn't have free will as far as the ability to choose and come to Christ apart from grace and the wooing of the Spirit. "For who can resist His will?" (Rom. 9:19). "It is not of him that willeth ..." (Rom. 9:16). "Who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13). "For the way of man is not in himself, it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps" (Jer. 10:23; cf. Psalm 37:37).

We are biased or prone to evil, not good. Martin Luther said we have not ceased to be man, but have ceased to be good. The whole matter can be summed up in the phrase: "We don't need free will--we need wills made free!" We are inclined to evil, not good--the ability lost at the fall. We are biased. We are still human but not good-natured. The doctrine of total depravity ensures that we are not inherently good, but spoiled throughout with evil.

This is one of the oldest debates in Christendom. Heretic British monk Pelagius and Augustine debated it and so did Luther and Erasmus of Rotterdam. The prevalence of the doctrine of freedom of the will in today's church is due to the influence of the Wesleyan Arminians (founded by patron saint Jacob Hermann, better known as Jacobus Arminius). Don't let anyone make you think that the enslavement of the will is a new doctrine or that it is not orthodox, because it is the original doctrine defended by the church fathers and the reformers.

In the final analysis, we don't need free will to be saved, but wills made free!    Soli Deo Gloria!

How Depraved Are We?

Common Sense On The Will

There has been debate over the will of man for centuries. Martin Luther debated Erasmus of Rotterdam in a diatribe The Bondage of the Will, and Jonathan Edwards wrote the book entitled The Freedom of the Will. Most of the problem lies with semantics because people don't understand the definitions. No one is saying we are automata, chatty dolls, or robots, so to speak.

But Proverbs 21:1 says, "The king's heart is a stream of water in the hands of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will." Jer. 10:23 (cf. Prov. 16:9) says, "I know, O LORD, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps." Prov. 20:24 says, "A man's steps are from the LORD, how then can man understand his way?" "...Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" (Rom. 9:19). There are numerous passages that seem to indicate that God is in control.

There are two kinds of free will. The will to do the divine and to do the mundane. We have not lost the free will to do a secular activity. We do not have the desire or inclination to choose Christ apart from a work of grace (God woos us). "No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him..." (John 6:44, cf. 65 known as the "hard sayings of Jesus). "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Rom. 9:16). Our destiny is ultimately in God's hands and He chose us according to His foreknowledge before time began. (This refers to the doctrines of election and predestination.)

Is His sovereignty limited by man's freedom? The most fanatic Calvinist will admit that man is free to do what he desires to do. God never forces anyone to do anything he doesn't want to do--that would be coercion or determinism. He feels no outside force but God is still able to influence Him to do His will. "For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13; cf. Col. 1:29; Heb. 13:21). The will is defined as that by which the mind chooses and is the referee, as it were. Finally, Prov. 16:9 says, "The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps."   Soli Deo Gloria!

Plain Talk On Eternal Security

Salvation is a turning from sin to God--the summons to faith is only half the process, but some believers refer to their salvation experience as a repentance per se, the call to forsake sin. Paul says, "Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret..." (2 Cor. 7:10). God isn't fooled by mere outward show, He says, "Rend your hearts and not your garments" (Joel 2:13). William Booth, the founder of the Salvation Army, deplored the rise of a gospel that had salvation without repentance.

Billy Graham says that genuine repentance and saving or true faith go hand in hand and are complementary to each other; faith is like the flip side of the penitent coin. Repentance is a recurring motif in the Bible. Jesus opened His ministry proclaiming, "Repent! For the kingdom of God is at hand." One must bring forth the fruits of repentance for it to be real (cf. Matt. 3:8: "Bear fruit in keeping with repentance"). Faith and repentance are linked or coupled by Luke in Acts 20:21, "Testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." Paul said, "...Repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance."

Repentance is not a one-time act but according to Martin Luther a progressive lifelong event. We never stop repenting. This was the first of Luther's Ninety-Five Theses.

Repentance is "coming clean" and it is "throwing in the towel." It is more than "eating your humble pie," and it is not a human work, but the work of God in the heart. Watchman Nee says, "Our end is God's beginning." We all have to come to the end of ourselves or reach our limit outside of our comfort zone. 2 Tim. 2:24 says that God "grants" repentance. "Then to the Gentiles God has also granted repentance that leads to life" (Acts 11:18). It is a gift.

It is doing an about-face, doing a 180-degree turn, or making a U-turn. You renounce and repudiate sin--all your sins. Note that is imperative--it is a mandate. It is not simply "regret," or feeling sorry or emotionalism. Attrition is like feeling sorry over the consequences like getting caught. Contrition is true repentance. "A broken and contrite heart, you will not despise..." (Ps. 51:17).

Soli Deo Gloria!

Materialism Is Rampant

Not ignoring the "Christmas spirit."  Materialism is not new; as in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the days when the Son of Man comes. Jonah said, "Those who cling to worthless idols forfeit the grace that could be theirs." Anything that comes between you and God is an idol. Idolatry is breaking the first of the Ten Commandments. Obadiah puts an interesting spin on materialism when he says Israel shall "possess their possessions." We must not let them dictate our lives but must remain in control of them. (We use things and love people, not love things and use people.)

Our whole society is based on consumerism, greed, and the pride of life, which is from the world and not of God (1 John 2:16). "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." (Cf. Matt. 6:21) "Do not store for yourselves treasures on earth...." The Bible says in Matt. 6:24 that you cannot serve God and Mammon.

The vast majority of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is consumer spending. Billy Graham has rightly quoted, "Riches are not in the abundance of possessions but in the fewness of wants." When I dedicated my life to Christ I had to get rid of my motorcycle because it had been too important to me and I wanted Christ to be first in my life. Some people can control their possessions without loving them--I couldn't. Maybe today in my more mature years as a believer things would be different. "Our life does not consist in the abundance of our possessions," said the Lord. And so I was convicted by Luke 14:33 which says, "So, therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple."

You see, all of our possessions really belong to God. It is not how much of our money we give to God but how much of His money we utilize for ourselves, because it is written, "For the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof" in Psalm 24:1.  In his book, The Pursuit of God, A. W. Tozer writes of "the blessedness of possessing nothing." 

You can be a poor materialist or a rich man without being rich in Christ or a rich man that is not a materialist. Woe to him who is rich in this world's goods and not rich in Christ. For it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. But with God all things are possible. "The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil" according to 1 Tim. 6: 10.

CAVEAT: JUST REMEMBER THAT WE USE THINGS AND RELATE TO PEOPLE! Soli Deo Gloria!

Are Translations Relevant?

I recently heard a guest preacher--and I admit a good one--say that the King    James was the best translation (he has been preaching for 64 years--old school!) and that most of the other translations are not "worth reading." I took umbrage but I listened to his sermon patiently and forgave him for his slight indiscretion. This really got me to thinking. When I saw him after the sermon I asked in a civil manner if he could come up with any reason to fault the NIV, a Bible used in my church--no response. I told him I thought the best translation--if you have to pick one--was the ESV; he told me to "enjoy it!" I wouldn't put someone down for enjoying his version, believing it is the best translation, but to say others are not worth reading I don't understand.

I enjoy many translations. Charles Swindoll says that if you only listen to one preacher you will lose objectivity; I think the same goes for reading just one translation. Subjective judgment based on feelings is not the real reason to be partial to a translation. It is easy to understand that a preacher from Wales would think this though: because you like "Englishisms" or the archaic words that are in Elizabethan English doesn't mean it's the best translation even if it's the best English (which is 400 years old this year).

It's good to enjoy your Bible but that doesn't make it the best one. However, bear in mind that having an "Aha!" moment or inspiration or illumination does not mean your reading the "right" translation; like when neo-orthodox Swiss theologian Karl Barth said the passage "becomes" the Word of God when we have an existential experience with it such as: getting goosebumps, chills down your spine or a warm feeling such as a burning in the bosom like Mormons get from the Book of Mormon to authenticate it. Enjoy the Word of God period; no "ifs, ands or buts" about it.

I read several versions and have memorized most of my verses in the New King  James Version. I think that you can get "Bible fatigue" by reading too much of one version because the freshness wears out and you may not get the fresh insights and a new take that you can get from an unfamiliar version that might make you think twice. This is especially true when I read my Luther translation into German. If your doctrines depend upon one translation, then you are in trouble; the only "inspired version" is the original extant autographs in the Koine Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew.

We have a group of "King James only" people in our church that really said aloud "Amen" when the preacher said this. What about the people of France, and Germany? Do they have an "inspired version" too, or must they learn English? I read Martin Luther's translation from the original languages into Modern High German daily and I think his language is faultless, but even Luther made mistakes. I showed three obvious mistranslations to one of these King James adherents but they are adamant. This kind of stubborn thinking is divisive and counterproductive to a church.

The important thing is that people are reading God's Word--God protects His Word:  when I bought a Bible at Walmart for $5 and one of these adherents asked me what version it was saying, "Too bad, the King James is the "inspired version!" He went on about how it was "authorized" and the "first one." With all due respect, the King James Version was the favorite amongst evangelicals until 1978 when the New International Version replaced it, now there is a resurgence of what seems to be nostalgia and a throwback to the "good old days." Now, don't get me wrong! I think every well-read Christian should be familiar with the King James, especially since it has influenced our culture and language so much--many phrases of our language are right from the King James Version--it is English at its best!

Actually the Wycliffe translation of c. A.D. 1380 was the first in English but Tyndale was the "Father of the English Bible,"[the New Testament published in 1525 in Germany because it was illegal in England and the Old in 1535 after Coverdale completed it, not knowing Hebrew--he used Luther's German Old Testament]. The Geneva Bible (first with verses and not to have Gothic letters, the one favored by the Puritans, as a household Bible and used by Shakespeare, d. 1616), the Great Bible, the official pulpit Bible dedicated to King Henry the VIII, whose eyes Tyndale prayed would be opened when he was burned at the stake, and the Bishops Bible, published 1568 for Queen Elizabeth I (revised for the King James and the "official" Bible of the time) preceded it, too. The official didn't mean popular, but it became popular later, and thus we have the King James which used Elizabethan English that had already been out of style just to sound "majestic." (Nota bene that the King James Anglican translators were offended by the Calvinistic Geneva Bible.) Virtually all translations up to modern times have used Tyndale as the starting point directly or indirectly.

I think the NLT, the New Living Translation, popular for new believers, is nearly a in modern English, but it is still technically a translation--and is an example of "dumbing down" the Bible. The NASB, New American Standard Bible, is the most literal, but difficult to understand figures of speech and idioms. The NIV is an easy read at a low-grade level and translates thought for thought instead of word for word, and it claims to follow the King James where it is accurate, which can be difficult to understand sometimes, such as idioms. It was the work of over one hundred scholars working from the best manuscripts and saw the need for a Bible in contemporary English. The NKJV or New King James Version tries to stay faithful to the King James, except for the "Englishisms" and archaic words. Many people who loved the King James will accept this one readily. I recommend the ESV or English Standard Version which claims to be as literal as possible and this version doesn't do your thinking for you or "digest" it before you get to it. The CEV or Contemporary English Version is "user-friendly" for those seeking easy comprehensibility and speedy reading because it is written at the elementary-school reading level; it tries to be "lyrical and lucid" to the listener as well as the reader. I like to compare my Martin Luther translation to see how he translates something--it is very enlightening. The important thing is that you get a translation you can feel comfortable with--and don't judge people by their translations; for instance, the RSV of 1952 and 1971 or the Revised Standard Version, the first modern translation was largely a revision of the King James Version, was published by the National Council of Churches, which is dubious by evangelical standards.

If you want to be accurate and are debating doctrines you have to go to the original languages or trust some scholar of these languages, but when you do that you can be taken advantage of because you're vulnerable, and can be led astray if you're not a Berean who searches the Scriptures to see if it is so (cf. Acts 17:11).[My brother Randy tells me a good idea is to read the preface to see what kind of translation the publisher is trying to make and the disclaimers (such as not showing dynamic equivalence or mood word translations like Oh! or Ho! etc.) to note.]

Some translations use functional (or thought-for-thought translation) equivalence that is what the author is trying to say in a way we can understand it and others use formal or word-for-word equivalence whereas the translation is more literal to what was written in the original. The goal is to get an experience that the original audience had when reading as a balance of the two--not so literal you can't understand it, and not so paraphrased it does your thinking for you.

A word to wise is sufficient: The King James and the New International Version (International Bible Society now Biblica) rely on the Masoretic Text (added vowells) as published in the Biblia Hebraica (from a 12th-century copy), but the NIV also consults the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate for the Old Testament. The American Standard Version or ASV was a revision of the KJV in 1901. The New American Standard Bible or NASB (from the Lockman foundation) relies on Nestle's Greek New Testament. The NIV relies on the Textus Receptus and the Majority Texts for the New Testament. Sometimes notes are given such as other manuscripts read as follows, the best manuscripts read so and so, etc. Sometimes we can go by what the Church Fathers said or quoted, e.g., they never quoted the longer ending of Mark. The newer translations have the advantage of better manuscripts than they had available for the Authorized Version, e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls were more than a thousand years older than the Masoretic Text (THE INSERTION OF VOWELS).   There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts and thousands in other translations to compare and see if the veracity of the copyists can be trusted. There is no evidence of the corruption of the text.

Some people are impressed that because some 54 or so translators (HAVING OVER 100 ISN'T UNCOMMON BY TODAY'S STANDARDS) were commissioned for the Authorized Version that it was the best; actually more translators were used for the NIV, which was international in scope, and the result wasn't affected by sectarian bias,--using many denominations of translators--and the team for the ESV was over 100 different scholars, but the Anglican translators of the King James were subject to bias and didn't like the popular Geneva Bible that was published in Switzerland.

There is a niche market for everyone:

As they say: "to each his own!" The issue is whether we go to the lowest common denominator or try to edify believers. Words are the building blocks of knowledge and to use simplistic language is counterproductive because it compromises doctrine. For instance, the English prof who is a baby believer would not feel handicapped with the KJV while the mature believer who is unsophisticated in reading should probably read the New Living Translation by Tyndale publishers, the NLT, which is trying to stay loyal to the legacy of the Living Bible. To mention a few specialty Bibles: the NET Bible or the New English Translation Bible (lots of interpreters, textual criticism and study notes available at NETBible.org on the internet), the Holman Christian Standard Bible or HCSB NOW THE CSB (very contemporary translated by 90 scholars representing 20 evangelical denominations under the aegis of the Southern Baptist Convention), The MESSAGE is a paraphrase full of very modern, contemporary idioms, the NCV or New Century Version is based on the ICB or International Children's Bible, the NRSV or New Revised Standard Version is for mainline and interconfessional adults, the NAB or New American Bible is Catholic, the AMP, or the Amplified Bible (good for word study), and the J. B. Phillips, A Translation in Modern English (a classic). Some translations just try to put it in contemporary English which changes every generation and needs constant updating (the NET re-translates every 5 years). It is good to make an informed decision though and not pick one just because it is a best-seller. One must strike a balance between being completely literal where it is word for word or formal equivalence, and dynamic equivalence, that is thought for thought and optimal equivalence, which is a balance of both. There is a trade-off between readability and literal accuracy--nuances of meaning exist. A totally literal translation is not readable (try reading an interlinear Greek text), and a totally readable one is not literal--there must be a compromise. Idioms don't always translate and are misunderstood if translated literally, as anyone who has studied a foreign language will tell you--like jokes that lose something in the translation; some things are untranslatable.

[Paraphrases are not translations and take great liberties with the text, mixing in interpretation with "pseudo-translation."] I think The MESSAGE by Eugene Peterson is a valid paraphrase by a true believer, but it is limited as a paraphrase and should be reckoned as just that--you won't even recognize some of the verses. The TLB or The Living Bible by Dr. Kenneth Taylor was the New York Times No. 1 best-seller in 1972 and 1973 (SELLING OVER 40 MILLION COPIES), but that is also a paraphrase. They may aid in study or give insight but don't use them for proof-texting.

As for me, I have several Bibles of different translations and don't rely on a certain one as gospel truth and error free but get edified by them all. I think we should be tolerant of others who favor different translations than the one we've grown accustomed to. I still know so many verses in the NKJV that when I'm reading another version I can compare the verses.

The psalmist said, "O how I love your law!" I really don't know which translation I like the most because I'm too busy reading the various versions and all I know is that I love the Bible, regardless of the version it's the Word of God. [The New Testament writers were often quoting the Septuagint, a Greek translation.]
Soli Deo Gloria

EXAMPLES OF FORMAL OR DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE:  KJV, NKJV, CSB, NRSV, HCSB, ESV, NASB, RSV.  EXAMPLES OF FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCE:  NLT, NIV, CEV, CEB, NCV.  EXAMPLES OF PARAPHRASE OR FREEFORM:  THE LIVING BIBLE, THE MESSAGE, GOOD NEWS FOR MODERN MAN.  
Randy Broberg said...
On target. One minor point is I think the "thought for thought" -- the so-called dynamic equivalence method is still a translation. A paraphrase departs even more from the original. Also, read any translation's forward to see what method it claims to use.

Easy-Believism Or Cheap Grace

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, (cf. The Cost of Discipleship) the famous Lutheran Nazi resistor, talked about "cheap grace." Our salvation is free, but it costs everything. "Easy-believism" refers to belief without commitment and lordship. We must accept Christ as the lord of our lives and the center of our being.

Simple acquiescence or agreement is not enough (the Romanists believe that agreement with church dogma constitutes a meritorious faith); one must believe in one's heart and decide to follow Jesus no matter the cost. Jesus said, "Take up your cross, deny yourself and follow Me" (Matt. 16:24).

William Booth, the founder of the Salvation Army, regretted that the twentieth century would usher in Christianity without Christ and faith without repentance. Your head belief must travel 18 inches to your heart to be heart belief. True faith loves Jesus and is a living relationship with Him.

Repentance is the flip side of faith and goes hand in hand with it. They compliment each other and need each other--they are different viewpoints. We are to leave the fundamentals of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God. To get assurance we must examine our hearts and look at the fruit of our lives. The Word of God coupled with the testimony of the Holy Spirit will bring assurance of true faith.

Don't let anyone tell you that it is easy to become a Christian. Sure children can get saved but one must receive it as a child even if one is old. Jesus said to enter at the "narrow gate" for narrow is the gate and hard is the way that leads to life and "few there be that find it" (Matt. 7:14). Many preachers say, "Just believe! It's easy!" but the Holy Spirit must be working in the person's heart to convict them (John 16:8) and draw them to Christ (John 6:44). Jesus said, "Apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). Soli Deo Gloria!

God gets all the glory and we are not the captain of our souls or the master of our fate--our ultimate destiny is in the hands of God. Arminians think this makes God look like a terrible tyrant, but in reality, He is sovereign over all.  Soli Deo Gloria!