I finished reading Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views a couple of months ago. Found it to be a valuable addition to my modest library. That being said, I think that the Arminian position, or rather opposition, could have been better represented, more clearly articulated, though. Dave Hunt seemed to be a bit unfocused at times and often ventured into the realm of ad hominem arguments. I think, too, Hunt perhaps misunderstands that which he opposes and finds himself fighting against an errant mixture of hyper-Calvinism and some weak caricature of Calvinism, a strawman of sorts. Also, my limited experience in these exchanges leads me to the conclusion that most, but not all, of the opposition to the doctrines of grace is founded more on an emotional response to the doctrine of election than a wholly biblical argument, an opposition often evidenced by the common ‘God does not want robots to worship/love Him’ refrain.
For further thought, here is video I found at New Demonstration in a post titled He is Not a Weak Beggar, He is a Powerful Saviour. The speaker is James White from Alpha and Omega Ministries who represented the counter-point to Dave Hunt in the aforementioned book.
Follows is a post from Reformed Voices:
For those whom He foreknew… (Romans 8:29)
“Before the foundations of the earth He knew you, and it’s not because He looked in some crystal ball, or down the corridors of time and saw you in the future.
The bible never speaks of a crystal ball, and it never speaks of corridors of time or God looking into a book that talks about the future… it never does. It never talks about God looking into the future.
God does not know the future because He’s looked ahead and seen it… God knows the future because He’s Lord over it, and directs every molecule, every fiber of being, every bit of matter towards the purpose He has ordained.
That is a God my friend.
Not a god who looks into the future and then reacts, not a god who makes choices based on choices of other men He’s seen in the future.
No.
A god who is The God and Lord and Author of the future.”
-Paul Washer
Part 1:
Part 2
Part 3
Stating the obvious, bumper stickers and church signs are often poor venues for declarations requiring nuance, and perhaps one should not put too much effort in analyzing them. That being said, I ran across a church sign near my house recently that read “Too Blessed to be Depressed.” These are the same guys whose sign once read “God’s Stimulus Package: The Rapture.” (more on it here) After reading this sign I thought of the following verses and the tensions contained therein.
Matthew 5:1-4 (NASB)
When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying, Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
I think about the inference of that sign that it is normative that Christians should always be happy and never depressed. What that sign can be is a slap in the face to someone who mourns. There are strains of Christianity that really think that Christians are never to be in any kind of want, physical or otherwise. In light of that church sign, I find it ironic that there is a book in the Bible titled Lamentations. The Psalms are full of lament; some flirt with utter despair. Psalm 88 comes to mind.
Here are a couple of pertinent quotes that I ran across recently to reflect upon in light of the all the aforementioned:
A. W. Tozer: “It is doubtful God can bless any man greatly until He has hurt him deeply.”
Alan Redpath: “When God wants to do an impossible task he takes an impossible man and crushes him.”
HT: Abide In Christ
In light of the above:
“…your poverty is no hindrance, for my Master asks nothing from you – the poorer the wretch, the more welcome to Christ. My Master is no covetous priest, who demands pay for what he does – he forgives us freely; he wants none of your merits, nothing whatever from you; come as you are to him, for he is willing to receive you as you are. But here is my sorrow and complaint, that this blessed Lord Jesus, though present to heal, receives no attention from the most of men. They are looking another way, and have no eyes for him…. My Master is not wrathful with you who forget him and neglect him, but he pities you from his heart. I am but his poor servant, but I pity, from my inmost; heart, those of you who live without Christ. I could fain weep for you who are trying other ways of salvation, for they will all end in disappointment, and if continued in, will prove to be your eternal destruction.” -Charles Spurgeon
I do not want to be misconstrued as being one who thinks personal testimonies of faith, of life change, are without value. Such is absolutely not the case. They are of great encouragement. That being said, for quite a while, I have had questions about the apologetic and evangelical value of proclamations of a ‘changed life’ as being a primary validation for the truth of the Gospel.
Lot’s of groups, organizations, religions, ideologies, and therapeutic methodologies can make valid claims to being able to change one’s life for the better. Yusef Islam, the artist formally know as Cat Stevens, apparently has found peace in Islam. Many find relief from the pain of living by following the teachings of the Buddha. Tom Cruise and others have apparently found meaning and have experienced a ‘changed life’ due to their involvement with the success oriented faith of Scientology. Others can point to the ill-defined ‘higher power’ spoken of in Alcoholics Anonymous as helping them overcome their bondage to alcohol. Interesting that atheists, if I recall correctly, have much lower divorce rates than theists, than professing Christians, at least in America. As stated in an earlier post, I think Mormons put most to shame in terms of outward morality and expressing family values. Involvement in the arts, in science to further knowledge, in humanitarian activities brings meaning the lives of many.
In the final analysis, what we are talking about, at times, is subjective experience in seeking to validate a belief system. It all points inwards to the self, and I have to take your word for it that your subjective experience in your belief system would be normative for me if I believe as you do. Too, many of these testimonies speak more to therapeutic fixes to emotional and psychological problems than to an addressing of that sin problem. And that is fine and even necessary when encouraging another Christian, but I have heard these testimonies of ‘life change” given to non-Christians. What that may lead to is a desire to become a Christian in order to fix one’s relational problems and help with one’s emotional burdens, but what one may not find is a conviction of sin in those verbal transactions. I am speaking from first-hand experience, both inside of church and in elsewhere.
Going off on a minor tangent, I remember seeing videos of cardboard testimonies from various churches wherein people come on stage while inspirational music is being played in the background . Each one holds up a cardboard sign with a brief description of a problem, something wrong, something tragic, in their lives and then flip it over with a description of resolution or a finding of peace in regards to that tragedy. Following is a sampling of some of the testimonies encountered in some cardboard testimonies.
One read “$$$ Bondage To Pornography.” It read “Freedom through obedience” on the other. Another read “God Robber” on one side and “God led giver” on the other side. “Christian men seemed weak” read another with “Now I am one” on the other side. “Painful childhood memories” read side A of one sign, “God healed those memories” read side B. Many signs read of broken marriages on one side, and reconciliation on the other. “Shy, introverted, and fearful” read on side, “pastor for 18 years” read the other. The pastor who held up the sign said the flip side was due to commitment to ‘the process.’ One sign read “Poor self-esteem” on the A side, and “He makes all things beautiful” on the B side. Many others signs were quite poignant, speaking of profound heart-wrenching pain on one side and God’s merciful intervention on the other side, speaking of, for one example, the loss of a child through suicide on one side, and God’s healing grace on the other. I cannot help but be moved by such displays of suffering and grace.
Understand without any ambiguity whatsoever that I take nothing away from the heart’s desire behind these testimonies, that I acknowledge that God is good to His children. I completely affirm that the sovereign triune God, creator of all, causes all things to be for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. He can heal marriages, heal sickness, heal depression, and He loves His people. What disturbs me, however, is the remarkable paucity of cardboard testimonies that read on one side “I am a wretched sinner deserving the wrath of God” with the other side reading “I am saved by Christ alone by faith alone by grace alone” The question is this: what exactly is the problem the Cross is to fix that cannot be fixed by other means? Parenthetically, one may truthfully and Biblically assert that becoming a Christian may cause you more problems than you had before.
What kind of sign would the apostle Paul hold up? “I was a self-righteous man who supported killing Christians and persecuted the church” might one side read. The other side might read “God sovereignly snatched me from Hell and redeemed me that I may be clothed in Christ’s righteousness. I will be persecuted and undergo great trial for the Gospel and then will be killed because of it” Couldn’t fit all that on a cardboard sign, though.
Somebody tell me what kind of sign the apostle Peter might hold up.
Maybe I am putting too fine a point on things; maybe I am just a crusty old curmudgeon, but when I read accounts of the Gospel being proclaimed in the text of the Bible, I find the apostles and evangelists pointing away from themselves to the empty tomb of Christ. They point to something in time and history, they point to something….falsifiable. If the bones of Christ are ever discovered, our faith falls down and I look elsewhere. As the apostle Paul affirms, if Christ has not been raised, our faith is in vain and we are to be the most pitied of all men.
I have heard the Messiah referred to as a rebel, both by those who I admire and by those outside the umbrella of orthodoxy. I understand the allure of the rebel, the bold counterpoint to the banal status-quo. America loves the rebel, the one willing, no matter the consequence to self, to poke the ‘man’ in they eye with a sharp stick for the ’cause.’ Indeed, our great country was born of rebellion, of revolution.
However and not to put too fine a point on it, does scripture ever describe Christ as a rebel? Who in scripture is actually described as a rebel? What resonates with me is Christ’s obedience, not any inferred rebellion. He was obedient to the Father to the point of death, even death on the cross. The One who created all condescended to take on flesh, humble Himself, and wash the feet of His disciples. He kept the Law perfectly; He imputes his perfect obedience to his elect, to his sheep. His obedience, however, does not does not infer a milquetoast demenor. He is bold in His zeal as indicated in His overturning the table of the money changers, His hard rhetoric towards the Pharisees. I think, too, of Paul describing Himeself as a bond-servant to Christ while still boldly opposing those who stood against sound doctirne.
Often I feel the need to preface a declaration with a disclaimer, and this post is no exception. I know there are many Christians, better, wiser, than me by far, who love the Messiah who will disagree with me, some perhaps vehemently, regarding the soon-to-follow thoughts. I know, too, that this is ground that has been tread by countless others, and my voice is but one of a myriad, but I want to speak to this subject. Thus it goes…
Here is a typical statement, one I have heard dozens of times, that I believe frames the perception of the nature of salvation of the vast majority of American Christendom:
“If you and I did not have free will, we would not be able to choose to love God. What kind of world would we have if everyone was programmed to love or hate without a choice? God gave us free will so we could choose to love him!”
Another common refrain is that God does not want mere robots to worship Him. If it is His choice, then our ‘choice’ is coerced and thus meaningless. I completely understand that perception, where it comes from, and I used to hold to it.
The problem with this well-intentioned human wisdom is that it does not hold up to robust Biblical scrutiny, that it perhaps does not take the fallen nature of humanity seriously enough, that it glosses over the utterly rebellious nature of the human heart and our innate inability to choose the God of scripture. Read, for one example, Romans 3:11. Let me orbit around this idea of where love for God comes from. Again and absolutely without any ambiguity whatsoever, I do not deny that there are many who disagree with or misunderstand my assertions of God’s sovereign role in salvation who love God. I do affirm, gently, that they misunderstand the perspective of someone who affirms this authentic love for God can, and in the final analysis, must be birthed by the sovereign triune God’s free will in salvation.
First, here are some thoughts on free will:
- Does the fatherless and motherless child choose who will adopt them? Is adoption not the Biblical affirmation of a Christian’s relationship to the Father? (Romans 8:15)
- Did Lazarus choose to be called from the grave by Christ? Do the dead reanimate themselves? Are we not, in our unregenerate state, referred to in Biblical text as being spiritually dead, everyone of us? (Ephesians 2:1) (Colossians 2:13)
- Consider the Christian description and metaphor of salvation as being born again. (John 3:3) Consider this: Did I choose to be physically born? Did I have anything to do with that decision? (John 3:8) (Romans 9:16)
I think that the American church sometimes inadvertently reduces the work of regeneration to a transaction with God that depends to some degree on something we do, even if that work is described as merely making a choice. It is almost as if, in the free-will scheme, I sit in negotiation with God and God slides this offer across the table to me. I pick up the offer and look at it. It is an almost unbelievably good offer, but in the end, Christ’s ability to save is ultimately limited by my inferred ability to ‘choose’ God, to accept that offer. The offer, Christ’s ability to save, is impotent without my input. What sometimes happens is that our certainty of salvation is attached to something we do or perform, even if that work only constitutes 0.00001 percent of the work performed. The results are that we may end up wrestling with doubts about the veracity and ability of our ‘work’. Was I sincere enough? Did I believe hard enough? Is my faith great enough to save? Why am I still struggling with sin if I raised my hand or walked the aisle? Inversely, we may also place our faith in our ‘work’ in such a way that we bank so much on a fleeting, momentary response to an emotionally manipulative call to salvation that we may actually be ‘inoculated’ and hardened to the Gospel. We may also end up taking pride in our ability choose Christ when others do not choose (Ephesians 2:8-9). Think, too, about Acts 13:48.
In searching for some media to give examples of what I refer to, I find this typical example of decisional regeneration in action. I recall being in the audience:
HT:Old Truth
In the end, the evangelical methods used are born out of our view of our role in salvation. If we are trying to coerce a response to an offer that depends on our inferred ability to choose, we may end up marketing the Gospel in the way the world markets products to consumers. I could say more to this, but I have spoken to it ad nausea, among other places, here, here, here, here, and here. The biblical call of repent and believe in Christ is often replaced with non-biblical rhetoric, of offers to try Christ, to accept Christ, to invite Christ. To my ears, these calls, if the language used is actually taken seriously, brings us to the conclusion that Jesus appears to be Someone who needs to be evaluated, and if He meets our needs and qualifications, we ‘accept’ Him. This may not necessarily be the language of someone driven to their knees in despair over their sin and in desperate need of a Saviour.
Here is the crux of the matter. Perhaps we may affirm that love for God is born by a growing understanding of the cost of the Cross and our inability to do anything to add to our salvation.. It is born by the realization that we are utterly and completely helpless to save ourselves, that even our ability to believe is an unmerited gift of the triune God. It is born out of the realization that God owes His creation nothing, that if He never gave us a Saviour, He would still be a holy, righteous, and just God. Indeed, one-third of the angels rebelled and God never offered them clemency, redemption. I love my Saviour, though so imperfectly, because He gave me life – when I was spiritually a walking dead man with no ability to choose God- at the price of His life, that He defeated death as evidenced by the empty tomb. There is nothing good in me that He should condescend to breath life into me.
I could speak so much more to all this, but time to bring pause to the days blogging. Perhaps more on this later….
I wanted to share this post by Dan Phillips:
Promises, promises
by Dan Phillips
Reading through Mark last week, Peter’s words arrested me: ὁ δὲ ἐκπερισσῶς ἐλάλει· ἐὰν δέῃ με συναποθανεῖν σοι, οὐ μή σε
ἀπαρνήσομαι (Mark 14:31a).
Got that? Great! Let’s close in prayer….
No seriously; let me tell you how and why this verse caught hold of me.
Peter spoke this during the last supper the apostles shared before Jesus’ crucifixion. Jesus had just dropped the bombshell that every one of them would fall away from Him (Mark 14:27).
Peter, the Mouth that Roared, immediately leaps up to say, “Even though they all fall away, I will not” (Mark 14:29). Peter phrases it in such a way that indicates that it is perfectly conceivable to him that those other losers might bail. “But not I,” he says tersely and emphatically — strong adversative (ἀλλ᾽) and no verb.
In response, Jesus agrees with Peter — sort of. Peter is right that he will indeed do differently from the others. But not the way Peter insists. Jesus tells Peter that he alone — Peter — would deny Him three times (v. 30).
Bringing us to Peter’s retort given above, for which I’d offer this ad hoc translation: “But he very vehemently kept insisting, ‘Even should it be necessary for me to die with You, I absolutely will not deny You!’”
Greekers will note the double-negative — a (pardon me) no-no in English, but in Greek a doubly-emphatic negation. Peter is saying that there is no way he will deny Jesus: “Not! Not!”
We all know the sequel, Peter’s miserable failure and his heartbroken weeping.
Now, I don’t for a moment doubt Peter’s sincerity. Do you? Nor do I question the depth of feeling behind his words, nor the intensity of his intention and full expectation to fulfill them. Peter meant every word he said. Yet he failed. He could not deliver on his promises.
How did the Rock crumble? Where did Peter go wrong? In many ways, actually.
Mostly, Peter’s estimations were all off. He did not put a high enough estimation on Jesus’ words. He badly underestimated the fierceness of Satan’s coming attack, and the intensity of the temptation he’d face.
On the other hand, Peter seriously overestimated his own strength of character and will, his resolve, his ability to withstand temptation in his own strength. So when the trial came, the pressure soared and Peter came up short — far, far short.
Now, turn from this to Hebrews 13:5, which I render thus: “Your way of life must be without love of money, being content with what is at hand; for He Himself has said, ‘I absolutely will not abandon you, nor will I ever, ever desert you.’”
Another promise. Another emphatic promise — indeed, a very emphatic promise. The Greek student will count no less than five negatives in the last nine words: “Not, not will I abandon you, neither not not will I desert you.” It is, I have heard, the inspiration for the hymn’s wonderful words,
The soul that on Jesus has leaned for repose
I will not, I will not desert to its foes.
That soul, though all Hell should endeavor to shake,
I’ll never, no never, no never forsake.
“Another promise,” you say. “Like Peter’s.” Yes; when I read Peter’s double-negative, I thought of this quintuple-negative.But consider the differences. When God makes this promise, is there any chance, any possibility whatever, that His estimations will be off? Is it possible that God did not know how difficult you would be, elect soul? Did He not know about your weakness, believer in Christ? Your flaws, your follies, your defects?
Did He not know of the difficult life you’d have — what kind of a spouse that person you dated would turn out to be? How your job would go? What would happen to your income, your neighborhood, your church, your health?
Is it possible that God overestimated the power of His grace to be sufficient for you? That He thought too highly of His ability to keep you, and control every last one of your circumstances (personal and impersonal; Psalm 115:3; Proverbs 21:1; Romans 8:28; Ephesians 1:11)?
If you have the false god of “open theism,” yes, I suppose all of those things (and much worse) are possible.
But if you have the almighty God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ for your God, then no. His promises are better than the best solid gold.
You can bank everything on them.
Postscript: This truth is of great personal value. I had just written these words when one with a broken heart came to see me, weeping because of a faithless, treacherous person who had callously betrayed him (and many others) for love of a sin, and arrogant refusal to repent.
I had the opportunity sincerely to sympathize, and to share what a wonderful contrast such a person makes with God. Thank God that God never shifts, falters, flips, nor turns traitor. Thank God that “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved” stands good now and before the Throne, as surely as “I absolutely will not abandon you, nor will I ever, ever desert you.”
Thank God that God is God, and not man.
I said it before, I used to have a deep and broad interest in politics, and there isn’t anything wrong with that at all. I have lost that interest for the time being, but will probably engage political issues again at some point in the future. I do have some sophomoric, peripheral and perhaps overly simplistic thoughts, though, on politics…and Christianity.
Though I do lean a bit to the right side of the political spectrum in most hot-button issues, I think, in my gift for stating the obvious, that neither the Democratic nor Republican party clearly reflect the Kingdom. In simplest terms, the right affirms that people need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and be self-sufficient and responsible for their destiny. True in the realm, to great degree, of human affairs and governance, but Kingdom thinking states that I cannot pull myself up by my on bootstraps. I have nothing to bring to the table, I have nothing to offer, there is nothing I can do by my efforts to improve my status before the triune God. I cannot climb the ladder to glory. I am utterly helpless and completely dependent on a ‘handout’ that I do not deserve. I am not a spiritual victim, a pawn of circumstance beyond my control who just needs a bailout to get back on my feet because I was done wrong by the man, by the power brokers. I am and we are, in our natural, unregenerate state, in rebellion against God and deserve nothing better than hell. I am alone responsible for my sin, my guilt is real and judicial, and I cannot pay off that debt to God. Thanks be to God that I am redeemed by faith alone, by grace alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone. Without regard to the rhetoric of the old Moral Majority, maybe the politics of the conservative Christian Right do not align with the politics of the Kingdom in the substantive fashion that some would seem to infer. Could it be, too, that the Christian Right seemed to confuse moralism with the Gospel?
The left, on the other hand, and I am painting with very broad and quite crude brush strokes, sees everyone as entitled to the ‘good life.’ Without regard to earning ability, everyone deserves equal access to education, health care, good housing, and it is the role of a benevolent state to provide those things for every one. I want all of that. Who doesn’t? But at what cost? Who pays? Ideally, we all pay collectively, some more than others. Perhaps such an ideal state could say that each ‘gives’ according to one’s ability and each receives according to one’s need, if you know what i mean.
I think the problem here, in terms of Kingdom thinking, is one of aforementioned perceived entitlement, especially in identity politics. That being said, and quite frankly, I am recently quite attracted to the social awareness of much of the left and think that it is in some ways more reflective of the Kingdom than the rugged, self-focused individualism of the right. What happens on the left, though, is a devaluing of the individual for the sake of the collective, especially when some groups within the overarching collective are more equal than others. No original thought here, I know. That being said, the evidence of this devaluing of life by an ideology that wants to provide a good life to all plays itself out in the specter of abortion on demand, in the specter of forced euthanasia, in the specter of rationed health care. Remember Terri Shiavo?
Also, can true altruism be birthed by the forced redistribution of wealth? In the end, the state becomes god from which good gifts flow, and the state will exact a price from all who fall under its watch. In the Kingdom, though, from Who was the price exacted? Where, too, is that Kingdom? Do we expect our best life here and now, or do we defer to something much better later?
I guess what I am trying to say is this: the Christian left, the new evangelical left, is ultimately no more reflective of Kingdom principles than the Christian right. You see, I do not deserve the good that I receive in the Kingdom, that is the nature of grace. I receive because I am adopted by my Father. My recent disenchantment with the political realm is merely descriptive and by no means intended to be prescriptive for anyone. As a bookend for this post, I just have X amount of time and energy and would rather direct those personal resources elsewhere, a place where politics are just on the edge of my radar screen.
That all being said, here are some things in a similar vein I have been thinking about recently and may put to word….
- What does it mean to ‘take America back for Christ?’
- Was America ever really a Christian nation?
- Why is it important to you that it was (or was not)?
- Do believers in other nations want to blend Christian and national identities? (Let’s take England back for Christianity!…..wish it would happen, too. Is Europe turning Islamic?)
- Is there a danger of a diluting synergism in blending even appropriate patriotism and Christianity?
- Are the founding documents of America Christian or more Enlightenment deism in there origin? To put it another way, are there Gospel implications to found in those documents?
- Is the validity of the claims of Christ diminished if America was historically not as Christian as we want its history to be?
- Do Christians in other countries wonder or fret about their nations role in end time scenarios to the degree the many American Christians do? (I used to really wonder about that issue, of America’s role in certain eschatological perspectives. Is that not narcissism on a national scale?)
- Here is the kicker….Christians, Reformed or not, affirm (I hope) God’s absolute sovereignty over the affairs of nations. How much nervous hand wringing do Christian’s need engage as we interact with the political world…and I think we do need to engage it to be salt and light… while reminding ourselves that we are on a journey to the Celestial City.
