“Those That Have Ears, Let Them Hear.”
This is a clarion call to the brethren out there to examine what they believe and how they live the Christian life. Many of the brethren out there are not living a life that is consistent with their theological beliefs. So many brothers out there are living lives where they are more concerned with pleasing man than pleasing God. Many are so concerned with doing devotions that they actually believe that in doing these “faithfully,” life will go well. The truth of the matter is that these brothers are actually not living the life they pretend to be living. If they are honest, they will find that after the excitement of being in church on a given night passes, sinners have to deal with the besetting sins they deal with on a daily basis.
Please note that according to Scripture, it is impossible to keep the ten commandments. This is why the son of God had to be slaughtered on a Roman Cross. He is the one who lived the life we should have lived and died the very death we should have died. It is time to acknowledge that many are living double lives. If we cannot keep the ten commandments that God has instituted, how then can we keep the commandments instituted by men? The truth is we cannot! It is time to examine what we believe and how we think about Scripture. The following video will challenge you in the Christian life. It is posted in the comments section. Looking forward to growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ! See the video in the comments section. Remember that ideas have consequences. Romans 12 :1-2
52 Comments, Comment or Ping
Mario Herrera
Ideas Have Consequences:
Mar 29th, 2008
Travis
I guess Paul, Peter, Luke, Matthew etc were the only ones without free will.
This is a struggle in my life, a mojority of my friends are arminian, but hold that scripture is infalable, thank God, I pray God will open thier eyes, to see his soverignty.
This video is a proof that a new reformation is happening, Define, Document, Defend, Destroy, and do all these things in Love.
Mar 29th, 2008
agogley
Powerful video. Is this part of a series?
Outside of my small reformed church, most Christians I know are also arminians. They simply cannot grasp how God could choose some and leave others on the path to hell. But as the video documents, free will leads to a variety of other doctrinal problems that eventually creep in.
Mar 29th, 2008
Tim
Preach it Mario!
Mar 29th, 2008
Mario
This is a part of a series and it will be put up! We are to sanctify Christ as Lord over all of life! A humanistic view of Scripture must be eradicated from the minds of believers! Our faith must be not in man, but on the power of God.
Mar 29th, 2008
Greg
I have a question but first I want to say how much I appreciate this web blog site and the great value it brings from Dr Morey and his crew. My question is simple.and I think germane to the various subjects which all have to do with with truth. This is the prevailing topic of all or most blogs here because we want to avoid error, maintain sound doctrines and beliefs - so my question is can someone define truth for me? What is truth by definition and I am not looking for anecdotes, examples, generalizations such as Jesus is truth or the bible is truth but want and need a definition of the very meaning of the word truth. If you can help me I would be grateful. Thank you.
Mar 29th, 2008
john
I have said over and over to the brethren that Arminianism is the foundation of every cult and abhorant theological system seen in the american psuedo-christian cults. Arminianism is the presupposition upon which the legalism that cult leaders have built their religious machines upon. You will not find they that hold the doctrines of grace spawning churches holding to a mans free will and ability to chose God according to his own intellect and wisdom. Arminianism is the culprit behind that kind of church foundation. Do we wonder why there are so many christian cults today? Its because churches like Calvary Chapel, Pentacostals, Charismatics, free will baptists, Assemblies of God, Church of Christ, and a host of other non-denomination assemblies proudly preach the free will of man and his ability to repent, believe and chose simply because he wills to do so.
They are their own worst enemy. Their own presuppostions upon which their doctrines are the based have fostered the ongoing increase in psuedo-christian ministries, doctrines and converts.
Look at WOF teachers like Hinn or Copeland, their Arminian presuppositions form the basis of preparing the hearts of the unlearned to receive the false doctrines of ‘force of faith’, speaking your healing, confessions to prosperity and the doctrine that God has created spiritual laws that all one must do is tap into those laws to obtain what they desire. These teachers pretend like Calvary Chapel teachers to be above the petty infighting and doctrinal divisions created by the stance Calvinists have taken in regards to divine irresistable grace.
Yet, they are not above it but rather very cleverly propogate Arminianism in all their teachings and leave their students to formulate like-kind presuppositions as they have under the guise of ‘biblical study’. The reality is the Calvary, Wof, Assemblies of God disciples are believing that way because ‘their teachers say so’. Unless they are a regular poster to Crosswalk or some other poster area the majority of Arminians cannot give a reason for their presuppositions other than “its what Pastor so and so says”.
You will also find that Arminianism FORCES the bible student to look at scripture as a large puzzle that cannot be put together without major gaps or holes in the picture. The reason is because Arminianism fosters the ancient hatred of God to remain a seed-bed of hostility toward God when God acts in sovereign ways that conflict with the Arminian believers view of God. Its a sad fact they are insulted when they realize God didnt ask them if they want to be saved. They are offended that God isnt going to save everyone because He has determined not to do so for his own reasons. They are put out as though they were punched in the nose when they learn that God actually makes vessels of wrath out of some human beings. Those vessels of wrath were not consulted on whether they knowingly and voluntarily signed up for the job. “Thats not fair” they will say. Instead of realizing Gods power and His Choice over the affairs of men the self-sovereign presupposition enters into judgment against God for not acting as moral and fair as they would act. Its insane but true. The heighth of moral pride tells God “You have no right to chose against anyone”. Now its totally ok for God to chose for anyone, but definitely “not God” to chose against anyone.
In the end the Arminian must sit down and formulate doctrine after doctrine that are caveats to Gods plans and purposes revealed in scripture.
John
Mar 29th, 2008
john
Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Greg: Its not clique to say that God’s word is truth.
It might be that God would rather have you understand his truth according to the definition you derive from scripture yourself. It will in the end be the only definition that will satisfy a truth-thirsty mind
John
Mar 29th, 2008
Greg
John:
I appreciate your comments and am familiar with the quotes. It raises more questions for me because I need to define everything so defining truth for me is a mission of sorts. “Thy word is Truth”; is this not more of a proposition rather than a definition and to then say that “God’s word is truth” is really a corollary to the Axiom which is “The Bible alone is the word of God” – if this is correct I am still without a definition but have a wonderful proposition; the only valid proposition in fact when it refers to God’s word. This still leaves me without a definition but does give me the location (The bible), which is the word of God written. When Jesus said “I am the ….truth…” was this not a proposition rather than a definition where Jesus as the living truth pointed us to written truth? – Am I off the mark here? – defining terms seems to me to be very high on the list of coming to understanding and from a base of understanding being able to give a defense (apologia) of the hope that lies within us. I still search for the definition of truth and have gathered many ‘definitions’ but need one that satisfies a biblical context.
Mar 29th, 2008
Soisauce001
I go to a Vineyard which pretty much hold an Arminian view. After a 6 month study on “why the gospel is the good news” and taking some time to study through Romans, I realized that it’s intellectually dishonest to hold that view. I guess I’m a reformed vineyard? haha.. I dunno.
But I’ve been asked a couple of times about my beliefs and I realize that people have a hard time grasping this concept of total depravity and unconditional election. There is a heavy reliance on “free will” which I was spoon fed for the longest time. Some how God is not sovereign enough to violate man’s “Free will.” And somehow God is not just if he SAVES who he wants to SAVE.
I’ve found that this illustration helps people understand how election is compatible with the fact that God is JUST. I tell them to imagine that 100 people kill their family members in the most cruelest way possible. Then I tell them that all 100 murders get caught and sentenced to death. I then ask the question, “If you let them die are you just?” they respond yes.. I then ask, “What if you decide to saved 10, are you unfair to the other 90 or are you still justs.” They respond “just”.. So I then say, “how can you say that God is unfair or unjust for saved those he wants to save? We are all sinners by action, thoughts, motives, and nature. We are all condemned and found guilty, deserving nothing but the full wrath of God. If He destroys the world right now and wipes out everyone, HE is still JUST and still GOOD.. If he decides to saved a handful.. HE is JUST and GOOD..”
thoughts?
Mar 29th, 2008
Travis
Greg
great question, I dont know if this will be the best definition but this is what i came up with.
Facts about the Kingdom, the heveans, the Earth, Hades and everything pertaining to them.
my question for my definition, is: are facts the same as truths
maybe this:
anything in non contradictory to Gods will, past, present or future
Im coming to these conclusion that truth must transend time, and space, there is my semi understanding of the definition of truth. Help me out also.
But here is another question: hear me out on this, not evrything in scripture is true anymore, so truth can change. There must be different types of truths: absolute truths and temporary truths. Im not sure im gonna think about it more, and go to the source of truth.
This was a string of thoughts in process!
Mar 30th, 2008
Greg
Thank you Travis for your help:
If I take the dictionary definition of truth (Conformity to fact or actuality. A statement proven to be or accepted as true) then I am left with the unpleasant and impossible task of proving what I believe to be true. Creation perhaps (ex nihilo) is a good place; how do I prove that? – perhaps the resurrection of Lazarus – nope, can’t prove that; what about Jesus sitting at the right hand of the father (Hebrews 10:12); whoops, can’t prove that either and the list is endless. To say the word is truth is not defining it because I cannot prove it and because I cannot prove it therefore the English definition of truth is a faulty one; totally secular and misleading. Thy word is truth still remains the proposition but I am left with a human secular definition that leaves me cold.
We live by definition and how we define something becomes the basis for understanding. The closest I have come to finding a definition is by following the word proposition. The bible is all the propositions of God towards man. The Bible is the word, the words and the thoughts of God. Christianity is the series of propositions in the Bible; it is a complete system of thought and a Christian is one who has believed one or more of the propositions of the Bible, which is saving faith (belief). Faith or belief is the instrumental cause of salvation. That then leads to a (am not fixed on this yet) definition of truth as being “A proposition that contains no error or possibility of error”. This definition then would lead to a conclusion that the Bible alone is truth and there is no truth on anything or any subject outside of the Bible and all ‘truth’ must be subject to the Bible at all times.
So help me here with my search for a definition of truth.
Mar 30th, 2008
john
Hello Greg:
I agree with you, its a proposition from Jesus.
I understand truth as “The absolute knowledge of Gods person, the unchangeableness of Gods’ revelations about all things in all times and the perfect righteousness in which God does all things to effect His creation.
Truth is God Himself, Truth is what God says about anything, Truth is what God does about anything.
In contrast Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Jesus was speaking of men being the offspring of the devil and refers to him as not abiding in truth because there is no truth in him. I say offspring as Jesus has claimed because in this sense the text reveals the connection of men to the devil by way of imitation of activity and speaking. In this way men are liars like the devil and murderers like the devil.
Truth is revealed by God, Satan speaks of his own manufacture which are lies. From this I gather a definition of truth that “Gods perspective on men or the devil in all there myriad places and conditons contains the truth of what men are, what motives they have and what Satan has said and what motives he has in effecting anything”.
To know truth we must look through God’s eyes to see events or hear by Gods ear what has been said. Since this is impossible in a direct natural sense we approach seeing and hearing to know anything by means of a mediator. Jesus has said Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
Joh 16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.
Joh 16:15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you.
We are guided into truth by the Spirit of God, again as I said “truth is what God says about anything” therefore he shall hear for us and speak to us Gods mind…and we shall ‘know the truth’.
This brings us to an important bridge which must be crossed. Faith obtains from God those things which the Spirit has revealed about anything. The gift of faith that apprehends grace apprehends truth as well. The natural mind can agree with propositions from Jesus, but only faith can apprehend them so as to bring them into the heart and mind as a source of light to the soul or a source of sustenance for strengthening the inner man.
There are many top-knotch theologians here that can explain all this much better than myself, I hope I have not confused the issue for you, (althought you no doubt can easily jump way past my baby steps here) Ill leave it for some others to venture upon your question with better answers.
John
Mar 30th, 2008
Greg
Greetings John:
Your comments are correct and obviously well thought out but still leaves out the core of defining terms, in this case ‘truth’. Also innumerable issues have been raised in your reply and comments so I will leave my reply to the main task of trying to discover a definition. The source of all truth is Christ both in person and in the scriptures; they being inseparable. Also the point you inferred about faith or believing being a supernatural act of God causing a man to believe is also wonderful. I agree that the unconverted can agree or apprehend the propositions of God as being true but the supernatural work of God goes from my believing that the proposition(s) is true to the proposition is true for me. That is, saving belief or faith (Faith and Belief being interchangeable).
When you said, “I understand truth as “The absolute knowledge of Gods person, the unchangeableness of Gods’ revelations about all things in all times and the perfect righteousness in which God does all things to effect His creation.” Is this not more the result of knowing, agreeing with thus believing God’s revelation of truth to us rather than being the definition? What you say here appears to me to be more of a consequence of believing through the supernatural agency of the Holy Spirit rather than understanding what truth is by its nature. Am I being off base here?
I really do not have any disagreement with anything you have said at all and I think we have a common fidelity to the word of God. Perhaps my reasoning behind my search to define things may help here. The Bible is many things including but not limited to God’s word, God’s words and God’s thoughts expressed in words. Man is the image of God and language existed before man (God spoke all things into existence). Man has language by creative fiat from God and therefore man has both the opportunity and obligation to know language, particularly his own which, in our case is English. To know language one must know what terms mean coupled with laws of logic which means we accept the law of non contradiction and that acceptance is necessitated by defining words thus eliminating potential contradictions through faulty definitions. Is this agreeable to you? When the Bible speaks of truth, your blogs speak of truth, your adherence to truth and in fact the absolute exclusivity of truth from error then surely we must define our term. This I think goes beyond examples, anecdotes, results or consequences of truth, locations where truth is found etc but gets to the centrality of defining it.
I have struggled with defining terms in every area and in two it was almost impossible to discover a definition because all I could find were results, consequences or intricate details of what was involved; but no definition. These two areas are defining salvation and humility. I finally settled upon Salvation as “Salvation is being rescued or delivered from a just verdict and punishment;” and humility as “Humility is an agreement”. Humility is an agreement whereby I agree y the power of the Holy Spirit to agree with everything God says including all he says about me and all He says about himself. These definitions may have fault, be incomplete or inadequate but momentarily serve a good purpose. My next area is to define what a person is. This may be the most difficult but for now my search remains on defining truth. The definition of “truth being a proposition that contains no error or possibility of error” remains somewhere between the shelf and the table. I look at it but am not sure whether it is accurate in its totality. If you or anyone there can contribute to my search I sure would appreciate it a lot.
Many thanks from Greg
Mar 30th, 2008
john
Hi Greg:
Your welcome my friend, even if its more of a training for me than you.
“Is this not more the result of knowing, agreeing with thus believing God’s revelation of truth to us rather than being the definition? What you say here appears to me to be more of a consequence of believing through the supernatural agency of the Holy Spirit rather than understanding what truth is by its nature. Am I being off base here?”
Youre really a good thinker, thanks for helping me think.
I would have to say that definition is absorbed in knowing and agreeing. I have the whole package in one singular revelation of truth.
I can see the guidance to Gods truth as well as know I have obtained that truth. The end result is freedom. Freedom to live in an abiding fruitful relationship with Christ.
Joh 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Abiding in Christ’s words brings knowing truth and the power of the truth known will make us free.
It appears that truth is continued in before its fully known, yet the word which we abide in contains the truth that sets us free.
Im not at a place where definition need go beyond the proposition. I think the reason is because I make my defense of truth with the propositions of truth not a reduced level definition. Whether that is good or bad I shall see in the future.
Words are symbols of ideas said Augustine, truth is not symbol but substance says John (me).
Its an interesting paradox that we abide in truth so that we may know that truth. This is as I believe, faith obtains what the mind leaves as abstract knowledge.
Maybe a workable definition for me is “Truth is believing what God knows”.
again, calling all philosophers theologians!!
John
Mar 30th, 2008
Greg
Conversing on this web blog is a good thing for me as it diverts my attention away from a deep personal grief this week, which has caused intensity towards really knowing and understanding truth. Let me comment by interspersing your comments with my replies because I think we are onto something here,
You said: “I would have to say that definition is absorbed in knowing and agreeing.” – this is an interesting and I think correct statement but presupposes many things including that there is something to be know (content and the Gospel is always content or revealed information) and that you agree with it. T
he questions raised is how do you know that you should agree with this unless first of all you understand that the source is true, is from God and that it contains no error? This then leaves the quandary of definition because faith is not blind but is understanding and believing known or revealed information so before I can do that I must know or define what truth is so I can then accept or reject the information being revealed to me. Does his make sense?
You said: “I have the whole package in one singular revelation of truth.”
This I believe both by Axiom and by reading that revealed truth to which the Holy Spirit confirms by conviction that it is true. I may get into trouble here but in accepting the Bible as the Axiom of Christianity truth is known to me implicitly because I trust the source and explicitly when I read it myself. An example would be as to how I could agree with the creation story of Genesis unless and until I had read it myself. Until I read it any knowledge of creation is implicit (maybe even unbelief) and when I read it, it then becomes explicit truth, revealed and confirmed. I still have the issue of defining truth.
You said: “I can see the guidance to Gods truth as well as know I have obtained that truth. The end result is freedom. Freedom to live in an abiding fruitful relationship with Christ.” – I agree totally.
Great quotes: John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. I would add to these one of the key words in the entire bible that dictate we define terms and words for Jesus said: John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit , and they are life.
If as Jesus said that His words are Spirit and Life then is it not incumbent on us to understand those words and how can we understand them without defining them?
You said: Abiding in Christ’s words brings knowing truth and the power of the truth known will make us free. Amen.
You said: It appears that truth is continued in before its fully known, yet the word which we abide in contains the truth that sets us free.
I am glad you said fully known because it must be known at least in part to walk in or abide in. truth is revealed information, intellectual fodder, which we believe or not believe.
You said: I’m not at a place where definition need go beyond the proposition. I think the reason is because I make my defense of truth with the propositions of truth not a reduced level definition. Whether that is good or bad I shall see in the future.
This is where I am having a problem at this time. For a long time I would have agreed with you vigorously but the problem as I have come to see it is to identify whether a proposition is true or not. Dr. Bob Morey is 7’ tall and is in the NBA Hall of Fame. Now that is a proposition but is it true? Maybe not except when he dreams! A proposition is the meaning of a declarative sentence and the declarative sentence has terms that are true or not true. I can only determine the truth of them by definition and revelation. Taking the negative proposition: “there is no truth in science at all, at any time under any circumstances” comes from the definition that Truth is a proposition that contains no error or possibility of error. Because science is empirical I know it can never be true although it may from time to time reveal helpful facts.
You said and quoted: Words are symbols of ideas said Augustine, truth is not symbol but substance says John (me).
Augustine and you need to be combined for truth is both symbolic and substance but never paradoxical under any circumstances.
You said: Its an interesting paradox that we abide in truth so that we may know that truth. This is as I believe, faith obtains what the mind leaves as abstract knowledge.
I do not agree at all that there is any paradox in Christianity even though from time to time there may appear superficially to be. God and His word are never at odds with each other. You have not presented paradox here but sequence of revelation. We grow in Grace AND knowledge as the bible says and because I know more today than yesterday that does not mean it is paradoxical to state the Bible is all truth even if after that statement I know more of it than before.
You said: Maybe a workable definition for me is “Truth is believing what God knows”. I agree that this is the result of regeneration and that what God knows we can know insofar as His word reveals it to us. God’s knowledge and ours coincide within the word of God.
What is Truth?
You said: “again, calling all philosophers theologians!!”
– yes Help please.
Mar 30th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Truth is ultimate reality.
Mar 30th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Soisauce001~
I like your 100 people analogy. I think it was Spurgeon who said something along the lines of that it is amazing God saves…any…
How prideful it is to believe in “free-will”…I wouldn’t want to serve a God who is subject to ANYTHING us humans come up with…
Mar 30th, 2008
Chad
RM,
Far from being prideful it actually magnfies the sovereinty of God ten fold. God is not “subject” to anything humans can come up with but is sovereign to such a great degree that DESPITE the grace/gift of free will God has given those created in His image He will accomplish his purposes - reconciling ALL of creation to Himself, creating a new heavens and earth - that is the hope we find in scripture.
This video is nothing more than propaganda and shows a true lack of understanding Arminian or any other theological system. Arminius and Pelagius are world’s apart. Arminians (and by the way, most are called Wesleyans here in America) do not believe they choose “freely” for God. We can do NOTHING apart from God’s grace. This video would have you believe the wrong thing. If Arminians/Wesleyans DID believe as this video suggests then they most certainly would be in the wrong.
Mar 30th, 2008
Chad
I meant to add above: Just how powerful and sovereign is the God who has to have everything determined and planned out down to every detail? How does that compel real, genuine love? If God is sovereign in this sort of way, why send his Son to die on a cross? Is He not powerful enough to just declare those whom He has already predestined as “saved”? Can’t he just make it so by divine fiat?
If you read any of the early church fathers prior to Augustine they provide some VERY GOOD answers to all these questions and none of them have to do with predestination - they all fully acknowledge free will and God’s outpouring of love on all of humanity.
Mar 30th, 2008
agogley
I can’t wait for Stephen to knock down this one.
Mar 30th, 2008
Espiridion "Speedy" Camez
Truth
1) It corosponds to reality
2) It is immutable
3) It can be known
4) It is absolute.
As we examine the sciptures, we find that God has revealed to us His self, His Nature, Our selves, our nature, and w/o God revealing this to us, we would be left to figure it out for ourselves. Do we see any civilizations that have tried to figure it out for themselves?????
The hindu’s of India come quikly to mind for me, that alone should be enuf to satisfy the question. But mankind proves it oer and over again.
Unrevealed religion leaves man bankrupt, still in bondage to sin.
Mar 30th, 2008
Espiridion "Speedy" Camez
Truth
1) It corosponds to reality
2) It is immutable
3) It can be known
4) It is absolute.
As we examine the sciptures, we find that God has revealed to us His self, His Nature, Our selves, our nature, and w/o God revealing this to us, we would be left to figure it out for ourselves. Do we see any civilizations that have tried to figure it out for themselves?????
The hindu’s of India come quickly to mind for me, a wicked religion created by man, ( If you have doubts, Dr. Morey has written a very easy to read,informative article on it. http://www.faithdefenders.com )
that alone should be enuf to satisfy the question. But mankind proves it oer and over again.
Unrevealed religion leaves man bankrupt, still in bondage to sin. They have NOT the truth…………………………………….
Mario, the article is convicting, it caused me to examine myself. It is time that christians live what the scriptures teach, and teach what teach what God has revealed!!
Man pleasers will be rewarded accoring to their deeds.
Chad,
Do you have a verse for your claim that free will is a gift???
Also, what do you do with the doctrine of ELECTION clearly taught to us throughout scripture, specifically in Eph 1????????
Also, what do you know about the “justice of GOD” in ref to your question:
“If God is sovereign in this sort of way, why send his Son to die on a cross? Is He not powerful enough to just declare those whom He has already predestined as “saved”? Can’t he just make it so by divine fiat?
How does that reconsile the old testament teaching on HIS justice need blood to be shed for the remission of sin, HEB 9:22 ????
I humbly look forward to your response.
Mar 30th, 2008
Espiridion "Speedy" Camez
My bad on the double post ; (
Mar 30th, 2008
Travis
Chad,
So we agree, “can do NOTHING apart from God’s grace”
Just to make sure, can you define: Free and Will?
What are we “free” from, what are we free to do?
What is “will”, and where is it at?
Was the term “free will” used by these early church fathers? Who were they?
Mar 30th, 2008
Chad
Agogley - This is not a competition. Theological discourse should never be about “knocking” something or someone down but about becoming more like Christ and learning more about the God we all desire to love with all our heart, soul, MIND and strength. Agreed?
Speedy:
You ask some good questions.
No problem on the double post - I do that often
First, you ask: Chad,
Do you have a verse for your claim that free will is a gift???
The short answer would be, sure. We could pull out verses like our being made in the image of God and discuss the implications of that. We could talk about Joshua putting before the people to “CHOOSE this day whom you will serve.” We could talk about John’s gospel and the assumption that lies in the text that “whosoever believeth” is talking about responsibility of humankind. There are many other passages that we could talk about but before we do that there is another greater issue.
For starters, I disagree with the notion put forth in this video that the Bible is just a big book full of propositional truths for us to figure out and live by. It certainly DOES have propositional truths in it, but that is not what the Bible IS. If this were all it is (as the video seems to suggest) than why do we need to Bible any longer? It would seem that you guys already have all the truths “pullled” from the text and we can now just live by your blogs, books and systematic textbooks. That would seem far easier and less confusing than continuing to read the Bible, wouldn’t it?
But in fact, we don’t do that and no one would suggest we should (quite rightly). That is because the Bible is FAR MORE than just a code book of propositions that fell from the sky. It’s a beautiful narrative that renews our minds as we read it in concert with the Holy Spirit who leads us into truth. As such, I do not get caught up in pulling a verse here or there to try to “prove” my side and “knock” someone down. No doubt that for every verse I pull out of the Bible to demonstrate free will you will be able to pull one out that demonstrates something other. No doubt every verse I pull out that demonstrates slavery and racism are not actions in line with God’s character someone else could find one that says it is. See my point?
Sorry this is so long but it is crucial to understand where each of us is coming from when we approach God’s Word. When I read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation I find in it a grand narrative - a wonderful story - about God’s Creation, how God’s creation chose to worship something other than their Creator, and God’s passionate and unquenchable love for ALL his Creation to redeem it and bring it ALL back to rights. See, I believe that God is working in history and that history is going somewhere wonderful - to the new heavens and new earth that will be joined together in the Lord’s final coming. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is indeed so sovereign and mighty that even despite giving humans the capacity to choose that God is able to bring about his final purposes in the end and who gives and receives love not out of compulsion or manipulation but out of genuine desire.
You then ask about the doctrine of ELECTION. Though I would disagree that it is one that is “clearly taught” (or else, we wouldn’t be having this conversation) I will agree that it is taught, just not as clear as some think. God’s election in the Bible is almost always in regards to nations and communities. Ephesians 1 says nothing of individual election, I would argue, but rather sings the praises of God who has now grafted in ALL nations with Israel. The OT proclaims again and again that Israel is to be a light to all the world, to ALL nations, and that one day God will graft them into his divine economy. In Christ, one could argue that God has elected all humanity, Jew and Gentile alike. They are all loved by God. Sadly, many will refuse to recognize Christ as Lord of heaven and earth and will go about worshipping their own idols.
SPEEDY: Also, what do you know about the “justice of GOD” in ref to your question:
“If God is sovereign in this sort of way, why send his Son to die on a cross? Is He not powerful enough to just declare those whom He has already predestined as “saved”? Can’t he just make it so by divine fiat?
How does that reconsile the old testament teaching on HIS justice need blood to be shed for the remission of sin, HEB 9:22 ????
CHAD: Good question. Does Heb. 9:22 and following really teach that it is GOD’S justice that needs to be met? I would say that it does, but probably not in the way you are stating it.
Regarding reconciling Hebrews with the OT, what do you make of Isaiah 1:11ff where God says he’s had enough of burnt sacrifices and offerings and all he wants is that the people cease doing evil, learn to do good, seek justice, rebuke the oppressor,defend the fatherless and plead for the widow. (Again showing God’s love and concern for ALL humanity).
A great answer though to your question of why God’s Son was Incarnated and why he had to die on the cross is answered in the 300’s by St. Athanasius in his little book, On the Incarnation of Christ. I HIGHLY recommend it. It shows just how the early church viewed God’s love for ALL the WORLD and what the word JUSTICE really means for God and us. If you are really interested I would be happy to take the time to outline some of the major points,but everyone really should read it - especially during Advent.
sorry this is so long….grace and peace!
Chad
Mar 31st, 2008
Chad
Hey Travis,
Yes, we agree that we can do nothing apart from God’s grace. None of your “Arminian” (they are probably more aptly called Wesleyan) friends would say they can move towards God without grace - if they do, then they are misunderstanding Wesley and Arminius just as many Calvinists misunderstand Calvin.
“Free Will” is sort of a misnomer to begin with. When Wesley and others talk about “free will” it is alwasy with the understanding that our will is in bondage (this is from Augustine, Luther, Calvin, so on). We all agree that left to ourselves, we will be “bent” and “warped” into ourselves - our will, though we THINK it is free is really in captivity for it can only choose to serve my own interests. We all agree to this point, yes?
It gets complicated from here. Augustine (and then Calvin who followed) couldn’t figure out how this cycle is broken. His answer was that God must have “chosen” some to believe in him and others He did not. But those weren’t the only answers offered from Christians who were wrestling with the same issue. These people declared, NO, God loves everyone and didn’t send Jesus to die for just a select group of predetermined people but Jesus died and rose so that ALL might come to know the God of Israel! This is remarkable and what I would argue is FAR greater news (which is what GOSPEL means, by the way) than the God that loves selectively and whose power to save is extended only to a few. So for these Christians who understood the gospel in this way they answered the question of why some are not Christians (the same question Augustine had) a different way - essentially, they continue to deny the grace of God which is not IRRESTIBLE (this is the linchpin for Augustine and Calvin) but that grace is resistable to certain extents. In otherwords, God’s love is not coercion. God desires our hearts, not our sacrifices, and a heart that robotically loves God by divine fiat is not really love, is it?
As for the early church fathers who thought in this way, I again recommend you read Athanasius’ On the Incarnation of Christ.
grace and peace,
Chad
Mar 31st, 2008
Espiridion "Speedy" Camez
Chad,
Can you tell me what hermenuetical principles you have been taught, and how you use them to exegit the passeges you gave to support that free will is a gift.
Just so we are clear, we believe in mans responsibility and GOD’s soveriegnty. They are both taught in scripture.
In our finite minds, not easy to dicern. But clearly taught.
Mar 31st, 2008
Chad
Speedy,
I hate talking about categories or getting into systems because all that really does is create division - as if it frees us to then say, “oh, well, you are part of THAT group, so therefore I don’t have to even engage you in conversation.” What if we instead just address each other’s questions and comments? I posted quite a bit that should provide some food for thought - you don’t have to agree with it but it would be nice if we could discuss the meat of the posts rather than getting distracted by “systems” - which, I’m sure you would agree, are just products of human reason anyways.
And lastly, just so we are clear - I too believe in humankind’s responsibility and God’s soverienty. They are both taught in scripture.
looking forward to your thoughts,
peace,
Chad
Mar 31st, 2008
Mario
Freewill is never spoken of in Scripture! God is orchestrating everything according to His will! There is only room for one free will and that belongs to the Omnipotent God of Scripture! To this man should bow and acknowledge because His will is going to be done whether we like it or not!
Chad, define your terms please. Free will, what do you mean by this? Free from what? To do what?
Mar 31st, 2008
Chad
Mario,
I invite you to read my posts. If you have something specific about either the explanation I offered, the history of those beliefs, or the overall arch of Scripture and God’s purposes I would be happy to talk about those with you.
peace,
Chad
Mar 31st, 2008
Mario
I will look at the posts Chad. Today’s church is diseased as a result of a lack of Biblical teaching. The series of video’s which are going to be played give a very good overview of this controversy. We are not here to contribute to further debate for the sake of debating! We are attempting great things for the Lord Jesus Christ! There is a New Reformation in progress. What we do is put for Scripture and trust that God is working on His children to get them to a deeper level in their walk! Let us not get off topic but discuss what the Scripture declares; that God is sovereign over everything, even the order of man’s steps as he lives out life.
Mar 31st, 2008
Mario
Chad,
As I read the about section in your blog, couldn’t help but notice you warn Travis to be careful and mention the word cult? Can you explain this? How is exhortation to complete biblical thinking cause for concern?
Mar 31st, 2008
Chad
Mario,
I agree with you that there is much in the church that needs correction - but there is also much good going on as well. Of thatwhich is “diseased” (your word, not mine) I would argue that a debate between Calvin and Wesley is not a contributing factor.
What I would say is “diseased” is extremism and Pharisaicalism and legalism and a church so full of doctrine that it forgot how to love. Those are definately issues that should be addressed. What makes you think that your particular form of “reformation” is the right one?
As for the “cult” comment, have you read the Greg Boyd thread on this site? Webster defines cult as “a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox OR extremist.” When a person like Bob Morey refuses to engage anyone on the facts of an issue but only insists in branding people “heretic” and “antichrist” as a means to silence all further conversation, how would you define that? I would call it “extremist,” wouldn’t you?
Now, to the thread we are currently discussing, I posted several lengthy posts with many observations and questions. Would you like to discuss any of those points?
peace,
Chad
Mar 31st, 2008
E. Speedy Camez
Chad,
you seem to have a few things going on here.
I just have one question.
Do you know what “hermenuetics” means? You called it a “system” or “category”. I am sure you must have mis understood me. If you would be so kind to answer the question above, we can move on.
Mar 31st, 2008
Chad
Speedy,
No, I didn’t misunderstand the question - and yes, I know what hermeneutics means. I don’t “subscribe” to any sort of “system” is what I was trying to say.
Besides that, why does it matter? Are you unable to address the several points I have already made unless you know what hermeneutic I’m using? Forgive me, but that sounds like an excuse to dance around the issues.
peace,
Chad
Mar 31st, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Chad, hermeneutics matter and you in fact *do* subscribe to a system. As a pastor, what would you tell someone that insisted on killing herself because she wanted to be a good Christian?
Mar 31st, 2008
Mario
Chad,
You mentioned that “systems” are a product of human reason. What do you mean by systems? Do you believe Scripture as revealed in the bible is a product of human reason? It is a system composed of 66 books which reveal the truth which does not originate from the human mind. Man is a receiver of truth and not one who determines truth. In reality, Truth divides. Doctrine is of extreme importance because it identifies exactly what love is. Christ came to bring peace, however, not a false peace that the world gives. He came to deliver the truth but man did not want it. If we are going to follow Christ, He warned us we would suffer for His names sake. He said he came not to bring peace but a sword. This sword would divide families, friends, and ultimately those who are opposed to biblical thinking.
Chad, you are being pretty extreme yourself calling us a cult because we call someone a heretic. That would place you in the cult category as well.
Mar 31st, 2008
Chad
Stephen,
I hope this thread isn’t going to mirror the last where NOBODY wants to actually converse about the topic but EVERYONE wants to just pigeon hole people into little stereotypes so that they can then just label them whatever makes them feel good about themselves.
Of course hermeneutics matter - did I ever say they didn’t? My point is - what is the point in asking such a question when I have laid out a perfectly valid alternative view to the one this video has put forth? Does anyone want to talk about that?
How bout this: when you or anyone else can tell me where in scripture it defines hermeneutic and then proceeds to tell you which hermeneutic you ought to “subscribe to” than I’ll reconsider whether this line of questioning is even remotely valid. Other than that, how about everyone here allow it to be enough that I believe scripture is God’s inspired Word and that it is THE witness to Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God who lived, died and rose again.
Now, anyone care to actually talk about the topic of this thread? Has anyone here ever read Athanasius?
peace,
Chad
Mar 31st, 2008
Chad
Mario,
Just so we are clear: A “hermeneutic” is NOT Scripture. Don’t confuse the two. One is a “system” devised by reason as a way to decifer and understand the other. But you must realize, that as soon as you do that, it is no longer just you and the text - you now have something between. But of course, we ALL do - there is no such thing as perfect objectivity when it comes to reading scripture or anything else. Do you agree?
The peace that Christ brings is a big subject indeed. It is one I just preached on this past Sunday. You are welcome to read that sermon on my blog - it is called “Peace Be With You.”
When you talk about dividing families and such, that is not the same thing as the peace of Christ, I hope you understand. That is something totally different, and it must be read in context. Jesus didn’t come to divide, he came to mend and to heal. The well don’t need a doctor, the sick do.
peace,
Chad
Mar 31st, 2008
Stephen Macasil
BOOM! There you go: “That is something totally different, and it must be read in context.”
Chad, does this apply to you too?
Mar 31st, 2008
Mario
I will address this Chad. That’s funny Chad. We know that Hermeneutics is not Scripture, but the method used to interpret the Scripture. I will address the peace issue. I’m afraid though, that you are confusing the peace of the world with the peace of Christ True peace can only come to those in union with the Messiah. I will look at your sermon this evening. In the Scripture the Messiah says he did not come to bring peace but a sword! You cannot get away from it. “I hope you understand.” Give a little bit more than that. Please address what Christ meant in Matthew 10 when He declared the following:
“5 I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. 16 I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.
17″Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. 18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
21 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
24 “A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25 It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub,[c] how much more the members of his household!
26 “So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny[d]? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
32 “Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
” ‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
36 A man’s enemies will be the members of His own household.’[e]
37″Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
40 “He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. 41 Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward.”
He did come to mend and heal, however, while on the earth, he chose not to heal all people. Ultimate healing and mending comes for those who will believe in the name of the son of God, those in union with the Messiah. This is ultimate peace.
In His Eternal Peace,
Mario
Mar 31st, 2008
Chad
Stephen, Mario, Speedy, whomever:
One last time: Are any of you willing to discuss ANYTHING of any substance?
Have any of you ever had a real conversation with another person who loves Jesus?
peace,
Chad
Mar 31st, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Chad, you said: “I have laid out a perfectly valid alternative view to the one this video has put forth?”
No, you didn’t. The “alternative” is in no way “perfectly valid.” You are the one who has stated that such a position does not exist. But when you say your asserted alternative is perfectly valid, to which objective point of reference do you posit perfect correspondence? If you shall answer “Scripture,” I will engage you in a point-by-point exchange, comparing your assertions to what is revealed in Scripture.
Mar 31st, 2008
Chad
Mario,
Thank you for being the first to actually present something worth discussing.
Matthew 10:34ff is what you could call a mashal, or, a paradoxical saying - one that sounds at first unbelievable. It is a common way to write for the Hebrews and is meant to draw attention, to cause one to stop and consider what is being said (Jesus was a Jew and the way he worked, talked, acted and thought came from such a Jewish context).
This is a mashal because we stop and we ask “how can Jesus say that? Isn’t he the ‘Prince of Peace?’” If he did not come to bring peace, then how can the following passages be true: Ps. 72:3, 7; Luke 1:79; 2:14; 7:50; 8:48; John 14:27; 16:33, 20:19, 21; Rom. 5:1; 10:15; 14:17; Eph. 2:14; Col. 1:20; Heb. 6:20-7:2? Don’t all of these proclaim in the strongest sense that Jesus is the one who brings Peace?
This is why it is a mashal - it causes one to stop and think about what Peace is and how Christ can bring peace but yet the very nature of Jesus being the Christ will also bring division.
So here Jesus is teaching that loyalty to him will bring persecution. And it did. Most of the disciples died a martyrs death. Rome persecuted Christians for the first 3 centuries of the church’s young life. In the Roman world it was OK to be Jewish - but as soon as you proclaimed Christ as Lord instead of Caesar, you were asking for the sword. So yes, Christ’s coming brings peace, but it also brings division - division between who though? It is those who profess Christ as Lord over and against everything and everyone the world professes as lord. And for family? Christ is not ENDORSING family strife and division, as I’m sure you would agree. He is, however, bringing into sharp relief one of the commandments (honor your father and mother) and laying that beside fidelity to Christ. If a young Jewish son or daughter becomes a Christian in the first few centuries they were disowned and left for dead for fear of Roman retaliation. Yes, being a Christian caused such divisions - but it was because people clung to Christ more than anything else, as we are all called to do.
Do you agree with this? If not, why? Do you think that Matthew 10 is a carte blanche given to Christians to fight against fellow Christians? I’m trying to understand why you think this is so important.
peace,
Chad
Mar 31st, 2008
Chad
Stephen,
I’m not interested in “engaging” you in a verse war. We are not at war, Stephen (and please, don’t qoute Paul here - I’m not your enemy).
Have you read Athanasius’ On the Incarnation of Christ?
Mar 31st, 2008
Chad
Here is just one of my earlier posts that no one has commented upon. I’d be interested in your thoughts:
Speedy:
No problem on the double post - I do that often You ask some good questions.
First, you ask: Chad,
Do you have a verse for your claim that free will is a gift???
The short answer would be, sure. We could pull out verses like our being made in the image of God and discuss the implications of that. We could talk about Joshua putting before the people to “CHOOSE this day whom you will serve.” We could talk about John’s gospel and the assumption that lies in the text that “whosoever believeth” is talking about responsibility of humankind. There are many other passages that we could talk about but before we do that there is another greater issue.
For starters, I disagree with the notion put forth in this video that the Bible is just a big book full of propositional truths for us to figure out and live by. It certainly DOES have propositional truths in it, but that is not what the Bible IS. If this were all it is (as the video seems to suggest) than why do we need to Bible any longer? It would seem that you guys already have all the truths “pullled” from the text and we can now just live by your blogs, books and systematic textbooks. That would seem far easier and less confusing than continuing to read the Bible, wouldn’t it?
But in fact, we don’t do that and no one would suggest we should (quite rightly). That is because the Bible is FAR MORE than just a code book of propositions that fell from the sky. It’s a beautiful narrative that renews our minds as we read it in concert with the Holy Spirit who leads us into truth. As such, I do not get caught up in pulling a verse here or there to try to “prove” my side and “knock” someone down. No doubt that for every verse I pull out of the Bible to demonstrate free will you will be able to pull one out that demonstrates something other. No doubt every verse I pull out that demonstrates slavery and racism are not actions in line with God’s character someone else could find one that says it is. See my point?
Sorry this is so long but it is crucial to understand where each of us is coming from when we approach God’s Word. When I read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation I find in it a grand narrative - a wonderful story - about God’s Creation, how God’s creation chose to worship something other than their Creator, and God’s passionate and unquenchable love for ALL his Creation to redeem it and bring it ALL back to rights. See, I believe that God is working in history and that history is going somewhere wonderful - to the new heavens and new earth that will be joined together in the Lord’s final coming. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is indeed so sovereign and mighty that even despite giving humans the capacity to choose that God is able to bring about his final purposes in the end and who gives and receives love not out of compulsion or manipulation but out of genuine desire.
You then ask about the doctrine of ELECTION. Though I would disagree that it is one that is “clearly taught” (or else, we wouldn’t be having this conversation) I will agree that it is taught, just not as clear as some think. God’s election in the Bible is almost always in regards to nations and communities. Ephesians 1 says nothing of individual election, I would argue, but rather sings the praises of God who has now grafted in ALL nations with Israel. The OT proclaims again and again that Israel is to be a light to all the world, to ALL nations, and that one day God will graft them into his divine economy. In Christ, one could argue that God has elected all humanity, Jew and Gentile alike. They are all loved by God. Sadly, many will refuse to recognize Christ as Lord of heaven and earth and will go about worshipping their own idols.
SPEEDY: Also, what do you know about the “justice of GOD” in ref to your question:
“If God is sovereign in this sort of way, why send his Son to die on a cross? Is He not powerful enough to just declare those whom He has already predestined as “saved”? Can’t he just make it so by divine fiat?
How does that reconsile the old testament teaching on HIS justice need blood to be shed for the remission of sin, HEB 9:22 ????
CHAD: Good question. Does Heb. 9:22 and following really teach that it is GOD’S justice that needs to be met? I would say that it does, but probably not in the way you are stating it.
Regarding reconciling Hebrews with the OT, what do you make of Isaiah 1:11ff where God says he’s had enough of burnt sacrifices and offerings and all he wants is that the people cease doing evil, learn to do good, seek justice, rebuke the oppressor,defend the fatherless and plead for the widow. (Again showing God’s love and concern for ALL humanity).
A great answer though to your question of why God’s Son was Incarnated and why he had to die on the cross is answered in the 300’s by St. Athanasius in his little book, On the Incarnation of Christ. I HIGHLY recommend it. It shows just how the early church viewed God’s love for ALL the WORLD and what the word JUSTICE really means for God and us. If you are really interested I would be happy to take the time to outline some of the major points,but everyone really should read it - especially during Advent.
sorry this is so long….grace and peace!
Chad
Mar 31st, 2008
john
Chad: Im your huckleberry. We can discuss the doctrine of Election if you like or the doctrine of total depravity.
I take it youre the “Ive got my own brand of Arminianism” and I can debate well with it kinda fellow…. so lets talk. Now just so you know, I cant get back to you as fast as Id like so be patient with me.
I happen to love Athanasius myself and I appreciate the incredible way he hammered out the Trinity. But I wouldnt make Athanasius the ark bearer of free will because some homilies cater to your liking. Thats unfair to Athanasius and only setting up some strawman to waste time over.
I too happen to subscribe to the Historical grammatical approach to scripture interpretation, you should understand then I will take this route in advancing my own propositions.
I realize Mario just tossed numerous verses for you to interpret and you also realize (I hope) that you will not be taken seriously if you cant interpret the texts honestly within their context and intent. So, its far more dangerous to deal with scripture than with “Athanasius said” arguements.
In one of your posts you said
“No doubt that for every verse I pull out of the Bible to demonstrate free will you will be able to pull one out that demonstrates something other. No doubt every verse I pull out that demonstrates slavery and racism are not actions in line with God’s character someone else could find one that says it is. See my point?” I see your point.
But Im hoping that instead of scripture nullifying proof texting we will both be able to enjoy a godly examination of scripture.
Since the crux of the reformed view of salvation lays its stress upon the sinfulness and depravity of man I will build upon texts that reveal mans natural condition.
Then, since redemption is Gods determinate plan for the Elect I will look with you at what God revealed about his Election.
In reading your previous posts I notice you dont offer actual doctrine to substitute Election, but offer questions back to Mario.
Let me know your intentions and we can go forward.
Thanks for being willing to come here and go over these things.
John
Mar 31st, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Chad, you put forth what you called a perfectly valid alternative. On what grounds is your alternative perfectly valid? Is it because it came from you?
I have assesed your “alternative” and I disagree that it is perfectly valid.
Steering the discussion toward OIC is a red herring and is a waste of time, seeing that it is not authoritative or inspired in the least. Athanasius had many good/right things to say as well as many bad/wrong things to say. I don’t mind if you appeal to Athanasius or any other church infant as long as it is supportive only, not authoritative.
Mar 31st, 2008
Espiridion "Speedy" Camez
Chad,
You got your hands full buddy with what I hope is an interesting dialog with Brothers, Mario, Steve and John. I will bow out and enjoy the rest.
Grace and Peace,
speedy
Mar 31st, 2008
Chad
John,
I know you can’t see me right now but I’m standing up and applauding
Thank you for being so forthcoming and for showing a desire to discuss matters of faith without getting caught in some “heretic hunter” game. Such stuff is depressing and nauseating to me.
I hear what you are saying about pulling Athanasius’ works out on free will as unfair, but I don’t see it as a strawman. My purpose for moving there was two fold - one, Travis asked if any early church fathers wrote about the things I’m writing about and two, because it shows that prior to Augustine, the thought and insight behind Athanasius’ works, especially that of On the Incarnation, I feel do well to sum up the general consensus of the early church - ie., the general state of humankind (depraved) and God’s posture toward them (love). Athanasius also highlight (no, revels in!) the great expanse of God’s love and the totality of the work completed on the cross (very different from limited atonement theories).
I hope that helps clear up why I find Athanasius important in this particular discussion. I have lots of Calvinist friends (many of whom I am in seminary with) and the majority of them (those that are learned) realize that they are subscribing to a “system” of thought that has a long history - a history comprised of fallible men and women who earnestly sought after God’s heart. They certainly feel that their “system” is one that most closely captures the scriptures (else, they wouldn’t hold it) but yet they realize that it is not the only way, and that there are other equally “valid” (that’s for you, Stephen) ways of examining these issues - none of which are “heretical” or some spawn of antichrist (that’s for you, Bob). With these friends in Christ I don’t need to discuss Athanasius because they already know the history of revealed thought and truth and accept it. Here, however, I am less convinced that this is the case (until, that is, you came along, John).
You said I didn’t offer anything to substitute Election to Mario, but I thought I had. I believe I said something along the lines of God’s election almost always being communal in nature (nations, for example) and rarely particular. Do we see cases of particular election in scripture? Sure we do - Paul’s conversion could be cast in such a light. But I don’t believe such cases reveal a God who picks only some to be saved while damning the rest. And yes, I do believe God loves everyone, and thus, so should we (for what that’s worth).
I’ll close here. I just spent the day painting our basement to get it ready for the 2 children we are adopting from Ethiopia (praise God!) and I feel like I’m about to pass out from fume exposure! Sorry if this seems muddled.
peace,
Chad
Mar 31st, 2008
john
Hi Chad: Thanks for the willingness to go over these things.
Just a quick note, I am not a seminarian I am armcharian in theology so if you havent already noticed Im outgunned.
That being said I do love God’s word and its enjoyable to me to engage in some exegesis with others who disagree with my understandings.
In regards to “particular election” or the election of individuals I believe the scriptures teach such and its everywhere to be found.
Could we go to 1 Peter? with a small excursion back to Ex and Deut.
Let me first say that national election is generic its used in scripture to denote the combined 12 tribes “Hebrews” or “my people” Exo 3:7 And the LORD said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows; and again, Exo 7:16 And thou shalt say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath sent me unto thee, saying, Let my people go… These two verses combining all tribes under God’s ownership calling them ‘my people’.
So I dont wrest the scripture to say that God uses generic terms to denote the ‘Hebrews’ as His people. Nor is it out of context to show that these ‘Hebrews’ were chosen Deu 10:15 Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day.
So from these texts and many others can be called upon, God chose a people whom He called ‘His people’. He also left out others for He said ‘above all people’ showing that these Hebrews were special and accepted over others. Lastly Deu 7:6 For thou art a holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
Deu 7:7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:
Deu 7:8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers…
We begin to see that Gods chosing and his blessing walk hand in hand. We see that His chosing and his love are connected.
This forms the basis of understanding Gods election. For when we begin to speak of election we do not speak of man electing himself by his own choice, but God initiating choice and love before anyone is aware of it. God goes so far as to say “you are chosen for the Fathers sakes”, and again because of an oath He made to their fathers.
This and many many other texts teach us a simple lesson in where love comes from and where blessing comes from. The answer is simple. Gods own choice to do so.
Ill turn now to 1Peter: Hoping of course that my small excursion was sufficient to establish just one thing. God’s people are so by way of God’s own choice to make them a people for himself. We see this nationally, and the context says so clearly in Deut 7.
1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
Who are these elect? They are the strangers that are dispersed among the regions. These strangers are not nations but individuals and the context would not have you press nations upon ’strangers’.
parepide?mos
Thayer Definition:
1) one who comes from a foreign country into a city or land to reside there by the side of the natives
2) a stranger
3) sojourning in a strange place, a foreigner
anyway its late and work be a comin quickly…more tomorrow
John
Mar 31st, 2008
Reply to ““Those That Have Ears, Let Them Hear.””