This post on CR?N which is in its entirety a Dietrich Bonhoeffer quote, is something I would agree wholeheartedly. I think discipleship is something that churches of all varieties need to focus more on. It is hard to disagree with the “Editor†on that point.
The thing that confuses me is comparing the idea expressed in that post to the ideas expressed in this article from the “Editor†a few days ago. That article linked to this Bob DeWaay post that talks about “pietism†in his words. Now the “pietism†that DeWaay is going after is largely a straw man in my mind, because I know many Christians who are not from the Reformed persuasion, and none of them would say they are saved by works like DeWaay is implying. Also, I don’t think any of them think of themselves as “elite†Christians.
It seems to me that “picking up our cross†as described in the Bonhoeffer quote involves us making a conscious decision; it involves action on our part. God does not just lay it on our backs. So once again, whoever the elusive “editor†is at CR?N, he or she seems to be talking out of both sides of his or her mouth.
55 Comments(+Add)
Phil,
You are right on as Dietrich Bonhoeffer believed that man could make moral choices but that those choices could not be sustained as man was not equiped with the “tools” to sustain that choice.
That is somewhat where I get my view from…
It is ironic that they will take a quote from someone that they would most likely totally disagree with but then use it to boister up their own view and be serious about it.
Be blessed,
iggy
To deny a thirst for the deeper life is to in some part refuse Christ. We all do a little “cut and paste” when it come to quoting and using positions of people who we would roundly disagree with in other areas. The difference here being CRN would never admit it where it suits their purpose.
I qoute and love the Revival Lectures of Finney, however as he grew older he became very unorthodox doctrinally. But I admit Finney’s theological anamolies, but when CRN quotes Ravenhill and Tozer, then ridicules the deeper life, well that is a problem.
The way to deny a problem is to… deny it. See? Simple.
My partner has two boys. One day something came up broken and Chris asked the boys one by one who did it. He asked Christian if he did it and he said no. He asked Gideon if he did it and listen to what Gideon said,
I am not saying that Christian did it”
The flesh, so tricky!
Wow, it must be the predestined plan of God that you pick in another post in which I am the “editor” in question.
I put up the post re: pietism. I have no idea which CRN contributor posted the Bonhoeffer quote.
Gee, several people posting a variety of thoughts and links on a variety of issues together on the same blog. And you thought you were the only ones left.
The Bonhoeffer quote does not contradict Bob De Waay’s teaching at all.
Men like Wesley, Tozer and Ravenhill were dead on when functioning in their callings. Wesley was an evangelist. His teachings on holiness are gobbledygook.
Tozer and Ravenhill functioned prophetically. However their views on mysticism would most likley change if they were here today to see it’s “wonderful” fruit.
Rick, when it comes to Finney I most respectfully disagree. I see nothing useful from him.
Picking up the cross, like repentance and working out our salvation, all come “post-faith” They are evidences of God’s choosing us.
Chris P,
And you outline, yet another problem with the deceptive and cowardly practice of posting anonymously.
Finney walks into a town and without any advertisement the entire town repents within a week, and you see nothing useful? There are remnents of his ministry in New England even to today, 150 years later.
Even Tozer and Ravenhill would disclaim to be uttered in the same breath as Wesley, have you read his journals? To say his teachings on holiness were gobbledygook is careless. He was somewhat legalistic in his approach, but you would have to agree they were light years from anything being taught today.
Wesley would consider us all comfortable compromisers, MacArthur, Ravenhill, Bell, all of us. Sacrifice today means having to wait a day until the pool man comes to fix your heater. Read Wesley’s missionary journals and see what Christianity used to look like.
We all should be seeking the deeper life, in communion with Christ and in obedience to Him also. They are siamese twins.
Chris P….
Re-read you last comment and tell me… does is sound rational at all… to quote Tozer then condemn his mystic influences… which are denied by Ken all together….
No offense (As I know you already have great issue with me) but you are all over the board….
iggy
I like Bonhoeffer. However, he was considered by many to be neo-orthodox. Why do ODM’s quote people who don’t share their beliefs?
Wikipedia:
Neo-orthodoxy is distinct from both liberal Protestantism and fundamentalism. This can be seen in Barth’s understanding of the Bible. He rejected the fundamentalist claim that the Christian scriptures are inerrant. He rejected the modernist liberal Christian claim of that time, that God could be known through human scholarship. He believed that the Bible was the key place where the Word of God can be revealed to human beings, and that an existential leap of faith is required by the individual to hear what God has to say.
Later in the article, Bonhoeffer is listed as a neo-orthodox.
I think that is the point… Chris P. is all over the place… Tozer is good but bad, Wesely is great but wrong… Noe Orthodoxy is all wrong but Bonhoeffer is good… chairs are bad but pews are good, jeans are bad but suits are good… and on and on… it all comes down to their own personal preference and has nothing to do with actual attacking heresy…
When cornered to produce real proof of heresy, outside of maybe the easy target of Word of Faith people.. they produce nothing but mockings and putdowns and name calling but not one substantial quote.
I know Chris P. does not like me but man, can someone get a grip of reality over at CRN?
Be Blessed,
iggy
I’ve thought of at least some forms of Calvinism as being like this…
A man of intelligence builds a robot, and programs it to kill another man. The crime is solved, and the inventor put on trial. He defends himself by saying that the robot is the one who committed the crime, that while yes he did program the robot to do it, he himself did not do the killing. Yes, the robot had no choice but to do what it had been programed to do, but nonetheless it was the guilty party.
Calvinism, in at least some of its forms, seems to exist on a contradiction–that God makes people do what He wants them to do, and that man is the guilty party even though they can do only what God wills them to do.
To say that we are nothing to do with our relationship with God seems to contradict much of what the Bible says, that we are not to ‘quench the Spirit’ or to ‘grieve the Spirit’, that Christ calls us to come to Him.
My point in writing this was not to get into another debate about Calvinism and Arminianism. My point is that it seems that CR?N’s only standard for judging who is right and wrong is very ambiguous at best. I agree Bonhoeffer should definitely be in their “heretic” category, using their normal standards. He was good friends and on the same page theologically with Karl Barth, for cryin’ out loud!
Also, if two posts are tagged by the “editor” any casual reader would assume those posts are written by the same person. Perhaps for clarity, a different anonymous name should be chosen. Perhaps taking the lead from Dr. Seuss, there could be “Thing #1″, “Thing #2″, etc.
Personally, I really liked that DeWaay article on Pietism since it clarified for me the history of it and the resulting manifestations of it.
The “picking up of your cross” is the manifestation of the faith that God gave you. You were not able to choose God but God choose you and He gave you that faith to believe in Him. This same faith continues to work in your santification after you became a Christian. This faith enables you to “work out your salvation.” It’s not the works that saves you but it is evidence of your faith. Without this faith, then whatever works you do, even if it is good, is dead, for it was done under your own strength, not through faith.
Mother Teresa’s “picking up of her own cross” (works) was under her own strength, not because of saving faith in her. This lack of faith in her was evident in her very dark doubts about her faith. People benefited from her “dead” works, but how many came to true Christian faith because of it? (which is doubtful in general in the RCC)
If you understand that you are NOT saved by works or under your own strength to believe, then just how do you become a Christian but to believe the “Reformed” belief of saving faith as a gift given by God whom He chooses who will get this gift?
The independent Baptist, charismatic, evangelical, and Wesleyan churches I’ve attended through my life all that somehow man himself has that kind of power or ability to make that decision for Christ under his own strength. So this leads to persuasion by heart-tugging altar calls; attracting people to their churches by changing to contemporary services, casual attire, and de-emphasis on doctrine; more talk on cultural issues (movies, secular music, celebrities, best-selling books) during sermons; changing their worldview to mesh with the ever evolving paradigms in secular society, i.e., “Christian” feminism, more tolerance of sin (fornication, homosexuality, political ambition, etc.); less preaching on the wrath of God on man’s sinful condition- more on God’s grace and love (but you don’t appreciate or respect God’s love without knowing God’s hate of sin and sinners.) This kind of thinking eventually leads to the belief that they have to change or re-think Christianity. There are thousands of ways the belief that man determines by himself whether he gets saved or not manifests itself through how the church does church.
Again, man gets saved not on his own strength but by God giving him the faith to believe. This faith is given by hearing the Word of the Lord. This hearing can happen through preaching, on television, through reading the Bible, personal sharing from a Christian, etc. There is no need to change your church services to “impress” him to Christ; no need of tearful altar calls; no need of “relevant” videos and Powerpoint presentations; no need of spending God’s money on equipment of all sorts to “upgrade” or “update” your church services. All it takes is just sharing the Word from God and God’s faith does the saving work.
I’m not saying that just because a church has Powerpoint or a contemporary service that that church is going wrong. Or that a church where jeans are welcomed is not truly Christian. These *by themselves* isn’t enough to say that church is thinking themselves better than other churches (”more relevant”) or pietistic, but it does serve as an indication that it does.
5th paragraph of my previous post is missing a word in the first sentence: “….churches I’ve attended through my life all [believe] that somehow man himself……”
Timothy B,
I am not sure I agree on all points. I think that one can have profound doubts and still be saved and doing “God’s works”….
I think we need to be careful in that we attribute to God or to man… I do think that if it is of God, there is edification and people can see Jesus. This was the case with those who did work closely under or with Mother T.
They experienced something in that they stopped seeing a mere human, but Jesus as who they were ministering to… and most often that person would state that they see “the god you serve” in them… meaning they saw Jesus in that person as they bound wounds and fed the hungry.
So, it is easy for us to sit here and not really know as to the doubts… but I see that with doubts comes the proof of a stronger and more persistent faith that endures and perseveres through that darkness of doubt.
I too have had great moments where I had doubts…. I wondered if I could continue in faith… yet in these moments I also have grown profoundly in that God is faithful and will always prove Himself so.
I see that we do not walk by sight but by faith and often the greatest faith is going into the darkness in total dependency on Jesus trusting totally that His leading is true and He will never leave you or forsake you.
Again, much of what you wrote I agree… but I do not equate doubt with not truly being saved.
Now, I know the scripture states that the man who doubts is double minded… but that is more that they claim faith and still cling to the OT sacrifice or sway with the latest fad of doctrine… but I do not see that doubt as the same I am talking about.
Be blessed,
iggy
TB,
Coming from a Wesleylan/Pentecostal tradition, I am going to naturally disagree with some of your assertions. I will agree that many preachers end up begging people to come up for an alter call, and that there have been abuses. That being said, I don’t think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I think sometimes a person’s spirit is willing to make a commitment to Christ, but their mind is preventing them. I think reasoned explanations and invitations are in order in those cases.
I have also known people who have come to Christ without hearing any type of Gospel presentation. There’s no clear cut formula. In any case, I think that if it were just a matter of God’s will, then all would be saved according to 2 Peter 3:9, since He doesn’t want any to perish.
If we are going to start painting different churches with broad brushes, I could very well point to many Refrormed churches with congregants who are happy being the Elect and letting everyone else go to Hell, so to speak. I know that’s not true for all Reformed churches, but neither is your portrayal of the more Arminian churches.
God hates sin – but God does not hate sinners.
How many times do you need to preach to Christians about how much God hates sin vs. how they should then live? How much time should you spend on teaching the belief in Jesus versus the beliefs of Jesus?
The entire debate of free will vs. predestination makes me completely ill, because both extremes completely miss the point and make God something less than He is.
Does He predestine numerous things as part of His will? Most certainly, He does. Just look at Hezekiah.
Does He ever change His mind in response to petition and prayer from His people? Most certainly, if we believe the Bible, He does. Just look at examples from the OT, from Abraham through Moses to David and Josiah and beyond. Jesus apparently thought so, and he sweated blood over it in the Garden of Gathsemene.
Does He give people the permission to choose or reject Him, to give evidence to the condition of their hearts? Most certainly, He does. If Adam had no choice, then God created him to sin. If Esther had no choice, then God’s word as recorded by Mordechai is deceiving. If Jesus had no choice, he was play-acting in the wilderness for 40 days and going through the motions leading up to his crucifixion. Does this make God less than sovereign? By no means. In fact, it is His giving of permission to choose – not man’s choice – which makes it possible to choose.
But how can choice and predestination coexist? 4000 years of history prior to Jesus arrival, and the revelation of God over that period of time led His people to believe that both coexisted because God existed apart from His creation and ‘before’ the beginning. It was the human interjection of Greek fatalism (giving flesh and bone to the limited view of ‘predestination) and rationalism (forcing the tyranny of the ‘or’ between predestination and choice) centuries after Christ that put us into this mess.
Whenever a systematic theology – be it Calvinism, Arminianism, Open Theism, Catholocism or the like – is raised to cardinal doctrine, it then becomes truly “another gospel”. Pompous statements like “Calvinism is the gospel” are exactly what Paul condemned to the Corintians and the Galatians as “a different gospel”. The Pope’s reiteration this past summer of the apostasy of Protestants was “a different gospel”…
There is only one God and Calvin is his messenger.
Iggy, I agree that just because a Christian has/had doubts about his/her faith at one point in their walk with Christ doesn’t mean he/she isn’t a Christian. Growing in understanding, knowledge, and maturity in and about the faith will help dispel those doubts. Our standing in Christ isn’t based on “feelings” but on fact that God saved us.
I chose Mother Teresa because her works on widely known yet her doubts were very deep. It appears she never got out of it.
Yet, inspite of her doubts still served by faith…
and that is my point.
blessings,
iggy
Mother Teresa did not teachand profess salvation by grace through faith. Only God knows here destination, but her message was not the gospel. She was a great earthly servant as there are many such servants religious and not. If you can get to heaven by works she’s there.
If not…
Phil Miller,
Since we come from different perspectives, I do think we will see problems where the other doesn’t.
Whereas you agree there are/have been abuses of the altar calls, I see the problem as being the altar call itself. It is calling on man to “make a decision” to chose Christ. Jesus Christ is outside of the door of your heart wanting to come in. Such a picture is un-biblical. God says I chose you, not you chose Me.
As far as a person’s spirit is willing but his mind is not, it is not necessary for an altar call to resolve that situation. You may think the opportunity is now or never but I believe that God will eventually turn that person to Him regardless of the timing.
“Hearing” of word of the Lord doesn’t necessarily coming through audible tones, but through reading, or sign language, or even dreams.
In 2 Peter 3:9, the context is talking about God’s people, not the world in general, so the “all” in that passage refers to God’s people.
By not mentioning Reformed churches in the list of churches that I was a member of, I wasn’t implying that Reformed churches are perfect. I’m sure some Reformed churches have altar calls too and other not-so-Reformed practices. I’m sure that some Arminian churches have some Reformed practices. I was only speaking in general terms.
Just for fun I thought I would throw in a Catholics viewpoint on Mother T and salvation by Grace through fiath…
This is from a Catholic website…
be blessed,
iggy
oops! that last link is not a “Catholic” site.. my bad… but it is a good article that should still give one some thought.
iggy
btw I am refering to the one that is caught in the spam catcher…. LOL!
iggy
Timothy,
How would you interpret the great invitation given by our Lord… “Come to me all who are weary and heavy-laden?” It seems like a straight-forward appeal to a person’s volition.
What about an altar-call where someone simply recited that verse? Come forward if you are weary and heavy-laden and learn the message of Jesus. Would that be unbiblical?
TB,
I would agree that God takes the first step in salvation. I just don’t think He chooses some and not others. I don’t want to get into a long protracted debate about Predestination and Free Will, since that debate has gone on for centuries. It really wasn’t intended to be the main point of my original post.
My main point was that two articles posted pretty closely to one another on CRN seemed to pretty clearly contradict one another.
By the way, feel free to just call me Phil. Seeing my full name written out in a comment seems so formal.
Phil….
Yeah we do this… we take your topic and agree then move it to our pet topics…
Blessings,
iggy
I once told someone that I consider Wesley and Calvin to be much smarter than I am. If they couldn’t agree I doubt that you and I will every come to a resolution on the matter of “Elect” or “Free Will”.
Am I the only one that puts this debate under the category of “Useless Genelogies and the like”.
chris – I understand your point and the intransigence of everyone usually makes the discussion moot. But at the root of the discussion is the most important fact of all, is real salvation offered to everyone?
That would seem to be a core doctrine, no?
Chris L…..your comment was right on!
Rick…if we ALL truly believe the holy scripture..then of course the true answer to your question is an undisputed and resounding…YES!
Chris L……
***”God hates sin – but God does not hate sinners.”***
Psalm 5:5, “The boastful shall not stand in Your sight;
You hate all workers of iniquity.”
Psalm 7:11, “God is a just judge,
And God is angry with the wicked every day.”
Romans 9:13, “As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.â€
***”How many times do you need to preach to Christians about how much God hates sin vs. how they should then live?”***
We all need periodic reminders about how God hates sin. It’s a central doctrine of the faith.
***”How much time should you spend on teaching the belief in Jesus versus the beliefs of Jesus?”***
Huh? I’m lost here. I would need an example of what you mean about “beliefs of Jesus.”
***”The entire debate of free will vs. predestination makes me completely ill, because both extremes completely miss the point and make God something less than He is.”***
I don’t see how predestination makes God *less* than He is. I guess that makes God extreme.
***”Does He predestine numerous things as part of His will? Most certainly, He does. Just look at Hezekiah. Does He ever change His mind in response to petition and prayer from His people? Most certainly, if we believe the Bible, He does. Just look at examples from the OT, from Abraham through Moses to David and Josiah and beyond. Jesus apparently thought so, and he sweated blood over it in the Garden of Gathsemene.”***
I do believe God predestines petition and prayer from His people too.
***”Does He give people the permission to choose or reject Him, to give evidence to the condition of their hearts? Most certainly, He does. If Adam had no choice, then God created him to sin.”***
John 15:16, “You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit…”
Romans 9:21-23, “Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory…”
***”If Esther had no choice, then God’s word as recorded by Mordechai is deceiving.”***
I’m not sure what you mean here.
***”If Jesus had no choice, he was play-acting in the wilderness for 40 days and going through the motions leading up to his crucifixion.”***
How does free will and predestination apply to Jesus, whom is part of God the one who predestines?
***”Does this make God less than sovereign? By no means. In fact, it is His giving of permission to choose – not man’s choice – which makes it possible to choose.”***
Well, John 15:6 quoted above in one of many that indicates God does the choosing. I guess you choose to ignore them.
***”But how can choice and predestination coexist?”***
Any choice man makes for belief in God and His salvation can only be made AFTER receiving the predestined gift of faith from God.
***”4000 years of history prior to Jesus arrival, and the revelation of God over that period of time led His people to believe that both coexisted because God existed apart from His creation and ‘before’ the beginning.”***
The source of this information is where?
***”It was the human interjection of Greek fatalism (giving flesh and bone to the limited view of ‘predestination) and rationalism (forcing the tyranny of the ‘or’ between predestination and choice) centuries after Christ that put us into this mess.”***
But those verses quoted above (and others) were IN the Bible written BEFORE Greek fatalism and rationalism came about.
***”Whenever a systematic theology – be it Calvinism, Arminianism, Open Theism, Catholocism or the like – is raised to cardinal doctrine, it then becomes truly “another gospelâ€.”***
I can agree to a certain extent this statement. But systematic theology can be very useful in understanding doctrine as long as it was derived from God’s Word.
***”Pompous statements like “Calvinism is the gospel†are exactly what Paul condemned to the Corintians and the Galatians as “a different gospelâ€.”***
I never said Calvinism is the gospel. I’m not all set in concrete in whether I agree with everything that is Calvinistic. I am still in an ongoing lifetime of study of God’s Word and if a certain biblical doctrine has a “Calvinistic” label attached to it, then so be it.
***”The Pope’s reiteration this past summer of the apostasy of Protestants was “a different gospelâ€â€¦ “***
Yes, I agree it is a different gospel. Seems like the Inquisition is starting up again there.
M.G.,
The context of the passage you are quoting reveals that the phrase, “weary and heavy-laden” is pertaining to “the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him (the Father).” Jesus does the choosing of whom he reveals God and to these He gives the promise of rest.
Matthew 11:27-29, “All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.”
So the message “Come to me, all you who labor and are heavy-laden” spoken from the altar, by itself, isn’t the gospel of Jesus Christ. Where is the message of our sinful condition? It doesn’t address why Jesus had to die on the cross. Besides, how does a sinner understand you are talking about his spiritual condition versus his physical weariness from working overtime which was caused by a heavy workload?
So if you give that kind of invitation, people come forward, THEN you give the gospel, then what? Another mini-altar call within an altar call? Some may wonder, ‘well, why couldn’t he tell me this gospel while I was sitting in the pew instead of standing this whole time in front?”
So that kind of an altar call is making a bad thing worse. IMO.
Timothy,
Your response is, well, kind of a strawman. You distort the plain definition of altar call.
Heritage Dictionary defines altar call as the following:
altar call
n. A specified time at the end of a Protestant service when worshipers may come forward to make or renew a profession of faith. Also called invitation.
The implication, in my mind, is that altar calls function as the d’enouement, if you will, of a sermon, or particularly, evangelistic meeting. They happen after the gospel has been presented. So my question stands, why would it be inappropriate, after a gospel presentation, including perhaps some (theologically neutral) explanation of divine election, for a pastor or evangelist to quote the great invitation?
The difficulty is that, along with election, the Bible contains strong themes of human volition and moral responsibility. You can’t erase those themes. For example, why do you assume that you *must* understand the great invitation in reference to the fact that it is the Son who reveals the Father? Why isn’t it vice-versa? Why isn’t the question of to whom the Son reveals the Father a matter of who responds to the Son’s invitation? In other words, is it possible for a theological system to distort our hermeneutics?
In the end, to claim that something as simple as an altar call is unbiblical is to sacrifice the Bible on an altar to some theological system. I love my Calvinist friends dearly, but I do worry that it’s possible to make an idol of Reformed theology.
M.G.,
Give me an example of an altar call in the Bible.
M.G.,
Without reinventing the wheel, this says it best for me in regards to your response:
http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.37
Timothy,
If that truly is your response, then you’ve changed your position completely. Awesome!
Originally, you said that altar calls were wrong because urging individuals to make a decision to choose Christ is unbiblical. (After all, God chooses us.) You now cite an article that takes aim, not at urging men to embrace Christ, but rather at encouraging individuals to indicate that a decision has been made by approaching an altar. To make its point, the article quotes famous preachers who encouraged individuals to be reconciled with Christ, thus contradicting your original point.
As far as the article’s thesis is concerned, it’s pretty silly. Regarding why people have been encouraged to come down front to confess Christ, that appears to be a straight-forward application of Luke 12:8. The fact that, gasp, it wasn’t “invented” until the year 1800 strikes me as, in isolation, a terrible argument for why altar calls are a bad thing.
“Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; *we beg you* on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”
2 Corinthians 5:20 (emphasis mine)
M.G.
I feel you are trying to force the article to say what you want it to say, because you just have to hold on to the Wesleyan “tradition.”
Being reconciled to Christ has nothing to do with altar calls. You don’t need to go through an altar call to be reconciled with Christ.
Luke 12:8 doesn’t mean to go to the front of the church. It has much broader application, meaning everywhere you go, confess and be an witness before men, whether at work, out in the missions field, in your personal life, etc. It wasn’t meant to be merely walking an aisle to the front. That scripture has been twisted to fit and justify the implementation of an altar call.
I’ve read this post 3 times (give or take 2) and for the life of me, how did we get to where we are in the comment section?
Joe,
It usually happens when one picks out a certain point of a previous comment and that point is tangential to the post. It snowballs from there.
Timothy,
This is my last comment. I’ll just say this. You are certainly correct that the scripture I cite has broader implications than altar calls. That’s a truism.
But the question is whether it’s really a *distortion* of scripture to write the things I’ve written. That’s not so clear.
I’m sorry, I just can’t see how an altar call is somehow a violation of scripture.
Let me put it to you in logical form. I agree with you that no verse will *entail* that one use altar calls. Importantly, though, that fact does not *then entail* that altar calls are not scriptural.
I’ll end with an attempt to tie things together. Appeals to individuals to choose the Lord are biblical. That’s not pietism, it’s just common sense.
“And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; . . . but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
(And for what it’s worth, I’m not Wesleyan… but why, oh why, do these conversations always turn to the participants?)
M.G.
As for conversations turning to the participants….well, for example…if a victim wrote “the car was red” and the reporter said the car was blue even after repeated reading of the victim’s report, then the focus shifts to the reporter’s ability to understand what is written or perhaps the reporter has some tie with the criminal or the reporter worships red cars. With the Bible’s repeated proclamation of God’s predestining will, I would figure that those who continue to state the Bible does not say that have something that is blocking them from accepting that, be it stauch adherance to denominational practices and beliefs despite lack of biblical support or whathaveyou or plain ole selfish humanism.
Ok, I know we got other things to do in life. Nice talking with you.
TB,
So are we going to go by the modern English definition of hatred (i.e. the opposite of love, to despise) for “God hates sin”, but then turn around and use the Jewish contextual definition of “hatred” (used in Ps 5 and Ro 9:13 – to show disfavor, to favor less than another) for “God hates sinners”?
Ps 7:11 does not refer to hatred, but to anger – which are two different things for God.
If you cannot differentiate such, then how do you differentiat between “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.” and “Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness.”?
To the point,
Romans 5:8 “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
Certainly we need to be reminded of God’s hatred of sin. As for it being central doctrine, I don’t see a whole lot as being more central than the shema (Love God) and “love your neighbor”.
If we follow Jesus’ method of teaching (which mirrored the rabbinical/hasidic practice of the first century), 1/3 of teaching is doctrine (what to believe), 1/3 of teaching is practice (how to live out belief), and 1/3 of teaching is parable (tying the two together). Faith is to lead to action, so much of doctrinal teaching is centered on “What does God expect”, and not “What is the nature of God and how does He work”. Fixating on the nature of sin and hell does not produce love, nor is it faith that leads to action – instead, it produces fear. God does not wish us to serve Him out of fear, but out of love. So I would argue that making the “nature of sin” a central doctrine and spending an inordinate amount of time on it produces very little fruit for the kingdom.
Let me word this differently – how much time should we spend teaching who Jesus is versus what Jesus taught? If we are to believe the Bible, Jesus was obsessed with preaching ‘the kingdom of God’. What is the message that Jesus preached, and do we preach it with the same reckless abandon as he did?
1) Fatalistic predestination (which assumes that every event, microscopically is predetermined by God) traps God within the bounds of time. It reduces everything recorded in the Bible to play-acting and God as a cruel puppet-master, trapped by His own rules. If God has to know everything before it happens, then it is impossible for Him to change is mind, because He will have already done it – requiring Him to “play act” until the time in which He “changes His mind”.
2) If everything is predetermined, then where we see God “changing His mind”, then we have to say to ourselves, “well, the Bible is really lying there, because God knew He would change His mind before He did it, do He really didn’t change His mind – He just made it look like He did for those people.
3) If everything is predetermined, then Adam had no chioce to eat from the tree or to obstain. It requires complete disenginuity to say, “well, Adam chose to eat the fruit, but he was incapable of choosing to obey God”. If Adam could not choose, then he is not responsible for his sin – God is!
Wow – talk about circular reasoning!
So, not only do we not have a choice whether or not to follow God, but we don’t have a choice whether to pray and petition Him, as well, because if we do, then it’s just play-acting a script that is already written. Apparently David didn’t know anything about God, if we observe his behavior when pleading on behalf of the life of his child borne of sin in II Samuel 12. Instead, we see “the man after God’s own heart” treating God as if His mind might be changed.
Let us put John 15 into context, rather than prooftexting a single phrase. Here, Jesus has brought his disciples into the Temple the night before his death, to try to prepare them for what is coming, and to remind them where they came from.
As their rabbi (not in the modern ‘rabbinical’ Jewish sense, but in the pre-70AD sagistic/hasidic/rabbinic system), Jesus was reminding them of when they first followed him. Normally, disciples (talmidim) would choose a rabbi to study under, if the rabbi was willing to allow them in. Jesus, though, is notable as being one of three rabbis (Hillel – just prior to Jesus and Akiva – in the century after Jesus – are the other two) who, instead, went out and chose his own disciples, and chose them from people who would not have been considered worthy by Judean rabbis.
In v. 16, Jesus is reminding them of their calling – “you did not choose me, I chose you” – which was a confidence builder, not some homage to predestination. (sources: here, here and here, along with a number of books on first-century Christianity)
“Do not think that because you are in the king’s house you alone of all the Jews will escape. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father’s family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?”
Esther is clearly given a choice to obey God’s calling – to deliver her people – or to reject it – resulting in her own destruction, but not thwarting God’s plan of deliverance.
If Jesus was fully human – a representation of the perfect Adam, acceptable as an atoning sacrifice – it is disingenuous to suggest that he can just step out of humanity as he pleases to nullify predestination. If everything is predestined, then Jesus’ role here was predestined, as well, and he had no choice whatsoever in the matter of turning down Satan’s temptation the wilderness, and he had no choice but to go to the cross. If everything was predestined, then his prayers to God in the garden were nothing but play-acting.
“Dear God/me, please change your/my mind so I don’t have to die tomorrow. Oh wait, sorry, it is already predestined that I will die tomorrow, so asking for a way out is pretty silly, since I know how the whole thing will work out, anyways. I think I will still go ahead and pray to you/me just so that the guys here aren’t confused and have a good story to tell someday. Look at that – they fell asleep again, waiting for me to stop talking to myself to change my own mind, when I already know what I’m going to do, and since changing my mind means that something would change, which would then be predestined, which then really wouldn’t be changing my mind… boy, this whole ‘time’ thing is confusing. Why did we create it again?”
I did nothing of the sort – I put his words in context to who he was talking to, and what they would have understood, rather than ripping them out of context to mean something completely different.
So, AFTER I have received the gift of faith from God, I can choose not to follow Him? That certainly doesn’t sound like ‘irresistable grace’… In fact, it now sounds like gobeldygook, kind of like “man has the ability to choose, but only to choose sin…”
Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls (in which the Essenes described themselves as being the only ‘elect’, because they alone believed in double predestination, and the rest of the Jews did not), among other sources (Mosely, Young, Flusser, and others).
From wikipedia:
In other words, ‘free will’ is the key to understanding what it is to be ‘made in the image of God’. It is what differentiates man from other living creations of God. Where does it come from? God.
There are many verses in the Bible which suggest that 1) God ordains events to happen; 2) God can change His mind, based upon pleas from His people; 3) People can choose to follow Him or reject Him. I do not dispute this (though I disagree with some you have identified as being such).
Rationalism insists that we have to choose either “Free will” or “predestination” as being mutually exclusive. You’ve provided no scriptural support for this. In fact, you’ve provided circular reasoning trying to account for the paradox this choice creates.
Instead, if we reject both fatalistic determinism and the forced choice of rationalism, we can accept that scripture is true, and that these two concepts do not have to be mutually exclusive. In fact, this view does not have to be seen as contradictory if you accept that God exists apart from time (i.e. ‘before the beginning’) which means that some form of string theory is valid.
Unfortunately, though, systematic theology quickly becomes the lens through which the word is interpreted, and not the reverse, as demonstrated in the verses you have cited (and many you have not, but which are used by those who try to force the rationalistic choice).
I was not quoting you there, but giving the famous Spurgeon quote… Sorry for not being clear.
Unfortunately, though, for many ODM’s, the Inquisition has started up again, with monergism as its pruning instrument…
Timothy,
Aarrghhh. I said I would stop commenting. But here I am.
It’s just that I’d be interested in knowing where I denied that the Bible teaches divine election or “predestining will.” I didn’t. I merely pointed out the obvious. The Bible *also* emphasizes, at points, that we are volitional agents with moral responsibility.
Please argue fairly. Your last post was disappointing. If you truly believe that all I’m doing is blinding my eyes to the truth, why converse? Be a charitable writer. If you assume that people who disagree with you may have good ideas and good reasons supporting their positions, I’ll do the same. What’s the point of discussion when one side thinks the other is, well, nuts?
And you never addressed my argument that you essentially changed horses midstream. One moment you said that giving sinners a choice to receive Christ is the problem with altar calls, and then you cited an article that said it’s anachronistic to invite people to physically move when we should just preach the gospel and leave it at that. So which one is it?
TB,
You wrote:
I think that neither MG nor I are trying to do what you suggest, but rather that you’re playing the Old Oaken Bucket game I wrote about several weeks ago – where you have allowed yourself to try to make scripture fit your theology, rather than the other way around… We’ve gotta pull the whole chain out and accept that the Bible clearly describes pre-destined events along side with free will, and that just because we see this as contradicatory does not make it so.
Awww, geez, Louise, Chris L !! Why don’t you write the whole book while you’re at it? Such a looooong reply!
I might concede the point about whether God hates sinners too after enough study.
But trying to unravel the rest of the comment…well, I’m not up to it. One thing I’ll touch upon is this: Somehow our talk about predestination of salvation turned into predestination of daily events. I was coming from the viewpoint that predestination and freewill did not apply to Jesus because Jesus was the Son of God and Jesus was without sin, therefore He did not need to “choose” God because He WAS God. He did not die on the cross for His own sins which were non-existent.
Chris L, I’d say you make difficult and confusing what ought to be simple.
That doesn’t really seem fair. Chris L took the time to respond to your writing, I’d think you’d at least make an attempt, or come back to it later, or at least address the strongest point.
Well, M.G. yeah, I’d wouldn’t think you are nuts, but just not self-honest to let the Bible determine your theology. I used to believe like you do, arguing for free-will like Chris L does (though not as complicated like he does) until I further studied for myself the issue. The verses used to support free-will don’t really support free will because people do not choose God until God gives them the faith to do so. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is foolishness to man. Man needs the faith of God given to him by God in order to chose. God causes man NOT to choose if He desire the man not to, such as the hardening of Pharoh’s heart. Pharoh had no choice in the matter but to be an evil man because God determined so.
Can we just go back to the fact that CR?N had an featured a devotional written by a neo-orthodox? This is like PETA having a thought provoking essay written by Ronald McDonald.
Tim Reed,
I’m sorry but this is taking too much of my time. I’m dropping out and say what you want to say about me, it won’t bother me. Bye.
Actually, the simplest thing is to accept that apparent contradictions in scripture, like those involving free will and predestination, are only contradictory because, like Job learned, we aren’t big enough to know.
I took the time to give you an in-depth reply, because it seemed you were asking for one.
Just to note:
But if there was no choice to make for Jesus, then there was no temptation to be had in the wilderness, for he wouldn’t be tempted. If he did not have to “choose”, then there was no point in him becoming human in the first place, because your statement denies his humanity. However, if he was like Adam, as hinted by Paul, then he truly did have to choose.
At issue here isn’t my making things difficult. It is that when you take a concept from a limited subset of verses dealing with God setting events in place (predestining them), and then extract that concept of predestination to re-interpreting all other scripture which doesn’t mesh with it, you’ve taken your system and imposed it on scripture, not the other way around.
The second part of your comment, though, is interesting:
Exactly – he had to be a perfect sacrifice – alike to all of those for which he was being substituted in his humanity, but different in that he never chose to sin. It is that difference – having the free will to depart from the path given by God but choosing not to do so – which made his sacrifice perfect in atoning for ours.
When you substitute his “God nature” for his human nature, you rob his sacrifice of its meaning. You render the path he walked meaningless – because you have rendered it impossible for him to have had the choice to sin in the first place.
It is not something that ‘further study’ illuminates or darkens. It is whether or not you are willing to accept apparent contradiction in scripture without forcing yourself to choose “free will” or “predestination”. You are incorrect in saying that I am “arguing for free will”. I am arguing that both “free will” and “predestination” are possible and plain in scripture, and that it wasn’t until centuries after Jesus’ death and resurrection that the foolishness of separating them came to the fore.
Baloney.
This is the exact circular logic I am referring to when I talk about systematic theology making people do stupid things with scripture – using the former to shape the latter.
Its unfortunate that you give up when a simple iteration of your beliefs isn’t enough to make everyone who disagrees with you change their minds.
I understand discussion can be difficult, but if you want to do anything other than find the 5 people out there who completely agree with you and stand around going “duuuude we’re so right adn they’re so wrong” its something you have to learn to do.
Interesting what happens when you are away from a post for a few days.
I am not all over the board. I am consistent with what I know to be Truth.
You are criticizing me for doing exactly what the emerging thing does. Only I have seen them “glean” truth from Ghandi, Bono, or …. also.
This is a disingenuous tactic. I explained myself plainly.
I would eat dinner with Tozer, however, though I might give a guy like Brian McClaren a cup of water if he was dying in the desert, I would not sit down to “dialogue” with him.
I don’t care if that sounds harsh or not.
As for Finney, I question the fruit of his minstry, since I have known and worked with those who have come out the upstate New York area who claim him as “dad”. They adhere to open theism and its variants as well as hyper free-will and hyper arminian theologies. Most of them are wannabe monks and/or desert fathers.
If you go back to the links I put up on Pietism, and The Pelagian Captivity over at CRN you will see the positions I am more in agreement with.
Tim, who cares if you change your mind? Where do we see such “coversation” in the NT?
Paul didn’t converse with Peter, he rebuked him.
Ah yes I forgot we aren’t Peter or Paul or any of the other bible heroes. They are in a special class by themselves. Had more of the Holy Spirit than we do. No wonder they have been canonized.
There is much effort to force Ken or myself or whomever to constantly explain themselves, while I haven’t seen anything like that going on from your side.
“As for Finney, I question the fruit of his minstry, since I have known and worked with those who have come out the upstate New York area who claim him as “dadâ€. They adhere to open theism and its variants as well as hyper free-will and hyper arminian theologies. Most of them are wannabe monks and/or desert fathers.”
Wow, a real generalization. I will see your “known and worked for” and raise you a “lived there and worked with”.
Monks and desert fathers. Haven’t met one.
Hey Chris P., on CRN they have a good post (editor?) about botching an alatar call. I admire their Finneyesque research.
How to Preach Without Converting Anyone
by Charles Finney
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-to-preach-so-no-one-will-be.html
What are you babbling about? We constantly answer every challenge in every comment. We don’t shut down comments completely, randomly delete entire posts without explanation, hide behind anonymous posts, or launch “drive by” comments. Just look at this thread. You see Timohty Bell come on here, l
aunch a challenge and Chris L. answer it extensively. So extensively that TB ran away without further comment.
As I’ve noted before, you justify yourself by pointing to certain actions of particular prophets. Yet you ignore their actual commands concerning grace, and mercy especially towards those who call on the name of Christ.
You mean like Jesus’ conversations with the Pharisees, Saducees, Jews, Samaritans, Herodians, and gentiles? Or how about the conversations we see with the epistles themselves which represent 1/2 of a conversation each. And yet, despite all these examples of conversation among and with the early church the only thing you can think of is a single incident where Paul rebukes Peter.
Chris P.
Ummm Chris that is way out of ballance.. yes Paul confronted Peter… but Paul always respected the other Apostles…. after all they commissioned him to go to the Gentiles.
Paul was certainly under submission to the other Apostles though he was also their equal… He made a trip so that the other Apostles could check out the Gospel and he also make sure his Gospel was the same as theirs.
Paul did not just rebuke Peter… he lived with Peter for a time and I am sure that it was just a time of rebukin’.
be blessed,
iggy