God Is Not the Author of Confusion

 One verse keeps returning to my mind whenever discussions about election, appointment, or salvation order become tangled:

“For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.”
(1 Corinthians 14:33)

Paul says this in a practical context, but the statement reveals something deeper about God Himself. God does not operate through disorder, contradiction, or hidden chaos. His work—whether in creation, revelation, or salvation—has coherence.

That matters when we read difficult passages.

---

Ordinance, Appointment, and Order

Psalm 119:91 says of creation:

“They continue this day according to thine ordinances: for all are thy servants.”

Creation stands because God set it in order. The universe is not random; it is governed. Seasons repeat, cause and effect hold, and life functions within a framework God established.

That same idea helps when reading Acts 13:48:

“As many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”

Some older translations use language closer to ordained or set in order. Newer translations often choose appointed or designated. The word choice can sound heavy to modern ears, but the underlying idea is consistent with Scripture: God works according to order.

This does not mean God forces belief. It means belief occurs within the framework God has established—just as life exists within the framework of creation.

---

Salvation Has an Order

Ephesians 2:8 gives us a simple sequence:

• grace

• faith

• salvation

Grace precedes.
Faith responds.
Salvation follows.

That is not confusion. That is order.

If salvation were arbitrary, incoherent, or internally contradictory, Scripture would reflect that. Instead, Scripture repeatedly explains, reasons, persuades, warns, and invites.

Paul can say:

• “Faith comes by hearing”

• “We persuade men”

• “Be reconciled to God”

Those appeals only make sense if God’s way of saving is intelligible.

---

Translation and Tone

Sometimes newer translations sound like a parent saying, “We’ll see.”
Not wrong—but vague enough to plant uncertainty.

Older language often leaned toward ordinance and order because those words emphasized stability. Not unpredictability. Not confusion.

The 1611 translators were not inventing theology; they were using the vocabulary of their time to express an orderly God working through an orderly plan.

Later spelling updates didn’t change that foundation.

---

Creation as the Illustration

If someone struggles with words like ordained or appointed, creation is a helpful place to start.

God did not micromanage every leaf falling, yet He ordained the system.
God does not force faith, yet He ordained the way salvation works.

Different realm.
Same God.
Same consistency.

---

A Final Thought

If God is not the author of confusion, then whatever we believe about salvation must:

• be coherent

• be consistent with the gospel call

• align with the character of God revealed in Scripture

Let Scripture interpret Scripture.
Let order explain order.
And let God remain who He says He is.

Calvinism, Arminianism, and Dispensationalism — A Quick Guide (with my two cents)

 If you’ve ever tried to wrap your head around God’s sovereignty, human choice, and prophecy, you’ve probably stumbled across Calvinism, Arminianism, and Dispensationalism. They each have their strengths… and yes, a few quirks that make you sweat a little.

---

1. Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism

In a nutshell: God is in ultimate control. Like, everything.

Core Beliefs:

• God chooses who will be saved — predestination is a big deal here.

• Jesus’ death saves the elect — not everyone automatically.

• Once saved, you’re saved. No take-backs.

• God orchestrates events, but humans still have “secondary responsibility” (whatever that means in practice).

Pros:

• Super comforting if you like knowing God’s plan cannot fail.

• Your salvation is secure — no worries about a “slip-up” derailing the plan.

• Explains why God’s plans always succeed, despite our screw-ups.

Cons / Things to sweat over:

• Can feel like you’re watching a cosmic puppet show — are humans really free?

• Hard to reconcile some Bible verses about choice and responsibility.

Hyper-Calvinism (for context):

• Pushes Calvinism to the extreme.

• Suggests God actively controls every action, leaving almost no room for choice.

• Feels a bit like being a pawn in a cosmic chess game — not my cup of tea.

• My questions: how do you know that you are one of the elect? What if you're not and you just think you are sense it's not your choice? That could be sweating time.

• Did God made me do bad and blame me for it?

---

2. Arminianism

In a nutshell: Your choices actually matter. Yep — sweat a little here. 😅

Core Beliefs:

• God offers grace to everyone — you get to say yes or no.

• Salvation can be lost if you turn your back or persist in sin (conditional security).

• God foreknows what you’ll choose, but He doesn’t predetermine it.

Pros:

• Makes human choice and responsibility real.

• Faith and obedience actually count.

• Feels very personal — God sees your yes or no.

Cons / Things to sweat over:

• Can create anxiety: “Wait, what if I mess this up?”

• Might underplay God’s ultimate control of history.

---

3. Dispensationalism

In a nutshell: God runs different “programs” for humanity at different times. Think of it like divine seasons or phases.

Core Beliefs:

• Scripture must be rightly divided — promises apply differently depending on the dispensation.

• Church Age is separate from Israel’s covenantal promises.

• Humans are responsible for their choices; God foreknows, but doesn’t force.

• Prophecy often focuses on Israel, not necessarily the Church.

Pros:

• Provides a framework for understanding God’s plan across history.

• Makes sense of who warnings and promises apply to.

• Keeps human responsibility real while honoring God’s omniscience.

Cons / Things to sweat over:

• Can get technical — you might feel like you need a theology degree.

• Easy to over-divide Scripture if you’re not careful.

System	God’s Sovereignty	Human Free Will	Security of Salvation	Focus
Calvinism	Very high	Limited	Eternal for the elect	God’s ultimate control
Arminianism	Moderate	High — you decide	Conditional — can be lost	Human responsibility
Dispensationalism	High — sees choices	High	Varied — age-dependent

Bottom Line

• Calvinism: God’s control is everything — sit back and relax (mostly).

• Arminianism: Your choice matters — so maybe sweat a little.

• Dispensationalism: God runs different programs; your choices still matter, but prophecy and Israel add layers of complexity.

All three attempt to wrestle with foreknowledge, human choice, and prophecy. No one system solves every tension, but understanding the differences helps you navigate Scripture thoughtfully — and maybe enjoy the mental workout. 💪

---

If you like, I can also make a super-short “quick-read” version with punchy bullet points and examples — perfect for social media or sidebar posts — keeping your personality in it.

Seven Men Who Rule the World From the Grave — Episode 7: Michel Foucault

 

If Dewey trained culture to live without fixed truth, Michel Foucault trained it to distrust the very idea that truth ever existed.

With Foucault, the progression reaches its logical conclusion. Truth is no longer something to be discovered, reinterpreted, or applied — it is something to be suspected. Claims of truth are not evaluated for accuracy, but interrogated for motive.

Knowledge as Power

Foucault argued that what societies call “truth” is inseparable from power. Knowledge does not stand above institutions, language, or culture — it is produced by them. Every claim to truth serves someone’s interests.

In this framework, truth does not liberate. It controls.

The task, then, is not to believe, but to unmask. Not to understand, but to deconstruct. Suspicion becomes a virtue, and certainty becomes a threat.

Language Dissolves Meaning

Foucault placed enormous weight on language. Words do not convey stable meaning; they shape and constrain thought. To control language is to control reality.

Once this assumption takes hold, communication itself becomes adversarial. Statements are no longer heard — they are analyzed. Intent matters more than content. Authority is always guilty until proven innocent.

Why Foucault Still Rules

Foucault rules from the grave whenever disagreement is framed as harm, conviction as violence, and clarity as domination. He rules wherever institutions are assumed corrupt by definition and moral claims are treated as masks for power.

You don’t have to read Foucault to think this way. His influence lives in cultural instincts — in the reflex to critique rather than understand.

Scripture Under Suspicion

The Bible cannot survive in a Foucauldian framework as Scripture. Its claims to truth and authority immediately place it under suspicion. It is no longer read to be understood, but examined to be exposed.

When Scripture speaks clearly, it is accused of oppression. When it refuses revision, it is labeled dangerous. The problem is not the text — but the framework brought to it.

The End of the Drift

At this point in the progression, nothing remains solid. Truth is power. Meaning is unstable. Authority is suspect. What began as reinterpretation ends in dissolution.

And yet, this was not planned.

These men did not work together. They lived in different times, different cultures, and addressed different questions. Still, their ideas form a coherent drift — not because of coordination, but because they shared a direction.

When revelation is set aside, something else must take its place. And what replaces it will inevitably reflect human authority, not divine truth.

A Final Word

This series has not been about demonizing thinkers or denying complexity. It has been about recognizing frameworks.

When the Bible refuses to cooperate with these frameworks, it is often blamed — footnoted into doubt, softened into suggestion, or dismissed as a relic. But Scripture does not exist to be managed. It exists to speak.

“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword…” — Hebrews 4:12

The question, in the end, is not whether these men still rule from the grave.

It is whether we will allow Scripture to rule the living.

It’s done.