| Author | Message | ||
| Denisegilmore Registered user Username: Denisegilmore Post Number: 98 Registered: 10-2000 |
ARE YOU SURE YOU LIKE SPURGEON? "The doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works..." -- C.H. Spurgeon Praised by many evangelicals as a great preacher, Charles H. Spurgeon is considered a successful and "safe" example of a "non-theological" ministry. His works are recommended as a means to lead many aspiring pastors into developing their own successful ministries. His Lectures to My Students are often used for this purpose, emphasizing the "practical" aspects of evangelism. But while the form of Spurgeon's successful preaching is often studied by would-be pastors, the content of this Christian giant's preaching and teaching is often ignored. Rather Spurgeon is popularly thought to have heartily approved of the same theology that is presently dominating American culture: Arminianism. Many Christian leaders, for instance, like to point out Spurgeon as one who also had no formal college training. They ignore the fact that he had a personal library containing more that 10,000 books.1 It is further argued that the success of his ministry in the mid-to-late 19th century was due to his anti-intellectual piety, "his yieldedness to the Spirit," and his Arminianism. The fact is, Spurgeon was not anti-intellectual, nor did he entertain delusions of being so holy that he could allow God to work only if he was "yielded." Most importantly, he was not an Arminian. He was a staunch Calvinist who opposed the dominant religious view of his day (and of ours), Arminianism. Even toward the end of his life he could write, "From this doctrine I have not departed to this day." He was grateful that he never wavered from his Calvinism. "There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrine of grace than do I..." Reading Spurgeon's beliefs, one will see that this tremendously fruitful ministry was built upon the preaching of the biblical gospel. In his work, "A Defence of Calvinism," he states unequivocally: [T]here is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation Here Spurgeon affirms his agreement with what are usually called "The Five Points of Calvinism." Spurgeon's own summation was much shorter: A Calvinist believes that salvation is of the Lord. Selections from his sermons and writings on these subjects make his position clear. Regarding Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace: When you say, "Can God make me become a Christian?" I tell you yes, for herein rests the power of the gospel. It does not ask your consent; but it gets it. It does not say, "Will you have it?" but it makes you willing in the day of God's power....The gospel wants not your consent, it gets it. It knocks the enmity out of your heart. You say, I do not want to be saved; Christ says you shall be. He makes our will turn round, and then you cry,"'Lord save, or I perish!" Regarding Unconditional Election: I do not hesitate to say, that next to the doctrine of the crucifixion and the resurrection of our blessed Lord--no doctrine had such prominence in the early Christian Church as the doctrine of the election of grace. And when confronted with the discomfort this doctrine would bring, he responded with little sympathy: "'I do not like it [divine election],' saith one. Well, I thought you would not; whoever dreamed you would?" Regarding Particular Atonement: [I]f it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has he been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fore and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. He has punished Christ, why should He punish twice for one offence? Christ has died for all His people's sins, and if thou art in the covenant, thou art one of Christ's people. Damned thou canst not be. Suffer for thy sins thou canst not. Until God can be unjust, and demand two payments for one debt, He cannot destroy the soul for whom Jesus died. Regarding the Perseverance of the Saints: I do not know how some people, who believe that a Christian can fall from grace, manage to be happy. It must be a very commendable thing in them to be able to get through a day without despair. If I did not believe in the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints, I think I should be of all men most miserable, because I should lack any ground of comfort. The selections above indicate that C. H. Spurgeon was without a doubt an affirmed, self-professing Calvinist who made his ministry's success dependent upon truth, unwilling to consider the "Five Points of Calvinism" as separate, sterile categories to be memorized and believed in isolation from each other or Scripture. He often blended the truths represented by the Five Points, because they actually are mutually supportive parts of a whole, and not five little sections of faith added to one's collection of Christian beliefs. Spurgeon never presented them as independent oddities to be believed as the sum of Christianity. Rather, he preached a positive gospel, ever mindful that these beliefs were only part of the whole counsel of God and not the sum total. These points were helpful, defensive summaries, but they did not take the place of the vast theater of redemption within which God's complete and eternal plan was worked out in the Old and New Testaments. Certain that the Cross was an offense and stumbling block, Spurgeon was unwilling to make the gospel more acceptable to the lost. "The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, is the truth that I must preach today, or else be false to my conscience and to God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine." Elsewhere he challenged "I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible....Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be heresy..." Spurgeon believed that the price of ridicule and rejection was not counted so high that he should refuse to preach this gospel: "[W]e are reckoned the scum of creation; scarcely a minister looks on us or speaks favorable of us, because we hold strong vies upon the divine sovereignty of God, and his divine electings and special love towards His own people." Then, as now, the dominant objection to such preaching was that it would lead to licentious living. Since Christ "did it all," there was no need for them to obey the commands of Scripture. Aside from the fact that we should not let sinful people decide what kind of gospel we will preach, Spurgeon had his own rebuttals to this confusion: [I]t is often said that the doctrines we believe have a tendency to lead us to sin....I ask the man who dares to say that Calvinism is a licentious religion, what he thinks of the character of Augustine, or Calvin, or Whitefield, who in successive ages were the great exponents of the systems of grace; or what will he say of the Puritans, whose works are full of them? Had a man been an Arminian in those days, he would have been accounted the vilest heretic breathing, but now we are looked upon as the heretics, and they as orthodox. We have gone back to the old school; we can trace our descent from the apostles....We can run a golden line up to Jesus Christ Himself, through a holy succession of mighty fathers, who all held these glorious truths; and we can ask concerning them, "Where will you find holier and better men in the world?" His attitude toward those who would distort the gospel for their own ideas of "holiness" is clear from the following: No doctrine is so calculated to preserve a man from sin as the doctrine of the grace of God. Those who have called it 'a licentious doctrine' did not know anything at all about it. Poor ignorant things, they little knew that their own vile stuff was the most licentious doctrine under Heaven. According to Spurgeon (and Scripture as well), the response of gratitude is the motive for holy living, not the uncertain status of the believer under the influence of Arminianism and its accompanying legalism. "The tendency of Arminianism is towards legality; it is nothing but legality which lays at the root of Arminianism." He was very clear on the dangerous relationship of Arminianism to legalism: "Do you not see at once that this is legality--that this is hanging our salvation upon our work--that this is making our eternal life to depend upon something we do? Nay, the doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminianism, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works...." A status before God based upon how we "use" Christ and the Spirit to feign righteousness was a legalism hated by Spurgeon. As in our day, Spurgeon saw that one of the strongholds of Arminianism included the independent churches. Arminianism was a natural, God-rejecting, self-exalting religion and heresy. As Spurgeon believed, we are born Arminians by nature. He saw this natural aversion to God as encouraged by believing self-centered, self-exalting fancies. "If you believe that everything turns upon the free-will of man, you will naturally have man as its principal figure in your landscape." And again he affirms the remedy for this confusion to be true doctrine. "I believe that very much of current Arminianism is simply ignorance of gospel doctrine." Further, "I do not serve the god of the Arminians at all; I have nothing to do with him, and I do not bow down before the Baal they have set up; he is not my God, nor shall he ever be; I fear him not, nor tremble at his presence...The God that saith today and denieth tomorrow, that justifieth today and condemns the next...is no relation to my God in the least degree. He may be a relation of Ashtaroth or Baal, but Jehovah never was or can be his name." Refusing to compromise the gospel in any way, he soundly refuted and rejected common attempts to unite Calvinism and Arminianism into a synthesized belief. Nor would he downplay the importance of the differences between the two systems: This may seem to you to be of little consequence, but it really is a matter of life and death. I would plead with every Christian--think it over, my dear brother. When some of us preach Calvinism, and some Arminianism, we cannot both be right; it is of not use trying to think we can be--'Yes,' and 'no,' cannot both be true.Truth does not vacillate like the pendulum which shakes backwards and forwards....One must be right; the other wrong. Alan Maben Notes 1. Walter A. Elwell, ed. Evangelical Dictonary of Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1984), s.v. "Spurgeon, Charles Haddon," by J. E. Johnson. 2. From sermon cited in Iain Murray, The Forgotten Spurgeon, 2d ed., (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1986), 52. 3. "A Defense of Calvinism," by C. H. Spurgeon, in C. H. Spurgeon Autobiography, eds. S. Spurgeon and J. Harrold, Rev ed., vol I, The Early Years 1834-1859 (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1976: reprint), 165. 4. J. E. Johnson, 1051 5. Spurgeon, "A Defense of Calvinism," 173. 6. Ibid. 168. 7. Ibid., 168. 8. As cited in Murray, 93. 9. From a sermon cited in Murray, Ibid., 44. 10. Ibid., 60. 11. Spurgeon, 172. 12. From a sermon cited in Murray, 245. 13. Spurgeon, 169. 14. Ibid., 162. 15. Ibid., 168. 16. Murray, 168. 17. Spurgeon, 174. 18. Ibid. 19. Murray, 79. 20. Ibid., 81. 21. Murray, 53. 22. spurgeon, 168. 23. Ibid., 164. 24. Murray, 111. 25. Ibid., 68. 26. Spurgeon's Sermons, vol. 6 (Baker, 1989), p.241 27. Murray, op. cit., 57. Recommended Works: Murray, Iain. The Forgotten Spurgeon, 2d ed. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1986; reprint. Spurgeon, Charles H. "A Defence of Calvinism" in C. H. Spurgeon Autobiography. Edited by S. Spurgeon and J. Harrald. Rev. ed. Vol I, The Early Years 1834-1859. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976; reprint. Spurgeon, Charles H. New Park Street Pulpit. A collection of his sermons. Spurgeon, Charles H. Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit. A collection of his sermons. Alan Maben is a graduate of California State University, Long Beach and Simon Greenleaf School of Law ©1992, 1999 Reprinted by permission of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, 1716 Spruce Street, Philadelphia PA19103. http://www.alliancenet.org/pub/articles.html | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 798 Registered: 12-2003 |
Very interesting, Denise. Thanks for sharing it. Colleen | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 186 Registered: 4-2000 |
Biblically, Arminianism and Calvinism cannot both be right in some type of theological compromise. As a former Armenian, I know firsthand how tentative, struggling, and uncertain my walk with Jesus Christ was. Indeed, all whom He justifies He glorifies. None of the elect is ever lost. When we stumble and fall, our Heavenly Father holds our hand even tighter. Praise God, we don't have to face the trials, heartaches, and disappointments of life alone. He is faithfully at our side at every step of our journey. Jesus never unadopts the members of his wonderful family. We are eternally secure in Him. If God can preserve us in heaven without destroying our free will, he can preserve us on earth without destroying our free will as well. Paul states that "the Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God" (Romans 8:16). Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 805 Registered: 12-2003 |
I love your last paragraph, Dennis. And I had the same experience with Arminianism that you describe: "tentative, struggling, uncertain." Praise God that He IS sovereign, even over evil and my own free will! My eternal destiny is NOT in my own hands. Colleen | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 187 Registered: 4-2000 |
SPELLING CORRECTION: I was never a former "Armenian" but rather a former "Arminian" (big difference--smile). --DJF | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1011 Registered: 11-2002 |
What does the word "Armenian" mean? Wasn't Armenia taken over by the Truks who massacured a lot of the Armenians in the early 1900's? What's tht have to do with understanding grace? | ||
| Sabra Registered user Username: Sabra Post Number: 224 Registered: 10-2001 |
I have limited knowledge on all of it, but understand they beleive you must continue to confess your sins after being born again to maintain your born-again status. So you are sort of in a state of saved, fallen, saved again, fallen, blah blah, sounds like Adventism. Calvanists say you are saved even if you set up a church of Satan in your neighborhood. Neither is right in my opinion. Spurgeon lived in a different era and I appreciate much of what he has to say. I think he was a Christ follower and a sincere christian and fallible just like the rest of us. Eat the meat, spit out the bones. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 806 Registered: 12-2003 |
Arminianism (not Armenianism!) is the belief that our salvation is determined by our free will--by our decision to follow Jesus. This belief also includes the idea that at any time we can decide to walk away from God and lose our salvation. Calvinism teaches that the sovereign election of God determines our salvation and holds us securely saved. (These are VERY rough descriptions!) The Bible is absolutely clear that God's calling and foreknowledge and predestination and election are sure. (I've been studying the end of Romans 8 and the beginning of Romans 9--there's no denying the absolute certainty of God's election.) The Bible also asks us to believe, to accept the sacrifice of Jesus. We do say yes to Him--but even our ability to say Yes to Jesus is a gift of grace. Arminians say that we freely choose to say yes or no: strict Calvinists say that God ordains our "yes" or our "no". The more I study the Bible, the more Calvinistic I find myself becoming! Yet that does not say that I discount the importance of my own decisions. I've mentioned it here before, but I love what Wayne Grudem (author of Systematic Theology) says about this issue: "Exactly how God combines his providential control with our willing and significant choices, Scripture simply does not explain to us. But rather than deny one aspect or the other (simply because we cannot explain how both can be true), we should accept both in an attempt to be faithful to the teaching of all Scripture." As Dennis stated earlier, God's election and our free will do not comprise "some type of theological compromise." I agree. I would say, however, that there is a paradox here--our choices have eternal consequences, yet God directs even our individual decisions. I have found so much freedom and comfort from my growing understanding of God's absolute sovereignty. As a former Arminian (Adventists are Arminian, by the way), I always struggled with the existence of "unfair" suffering. This struggle set up areas in my experience where I doubted God--or felt confused by Him. As a more Calvinistic believer now, I see that God's glory is at the heart of all reality. Ultimately the suffering we experience is not about us or even about the people involved. It is about God working out everything according to the purpose of His will. (Ephesians 1:11) Ultimately, all things will reveal the surpassing glory and goodness and justice and mercy of God. Colleen | ||
| Sabra Registered user Username: Sabra Post Number: 228 Registered: 10-2001 |
Colleen, The way I figured it out for my own limited brain, dust that I am, is that God already knows the end. He sees the entire picture, therefore He knows what we will choose and what we will end up choosing. I think the choice is still ours, He just knew it before we did and so He knows whether or not we will be (are) saved and predestines our steps accordingly. So, we indeed are either saved or lost and He knows (knew). Boy, that's confusing, hu? | ||
| Dane Registered user Username: Dane Post Number: 50 Registered: 4-2004 |
This apparent conflict between free will and God's election frustrated me for years. What helped me the most was reading a book titled "The Only Wise God" by William Lane Craig. He is a philosophy prof at Talbot Theological Seminary. The book is his attempt at relating human free will and God's divine foreknowledge. Let me give a brief quote to illustrate his argument. The quote is set up around a man named Jones who mows his lawn. "The fact that Jones will actually mow his lawn is the reason why God foreknows that he will mow the lawn. Jones does not mow the lawn because God foreknows, God foreknows because Jones will mow the lawn. Now this does not mean that Jones's action causes God's foreknowledge. The word "because" here indicates a logical, not a causal, relation, one similar to that expressed in the sentence, "four is an even number because it is divisible by two." The word because expresses a logical relation of ground and consequent. God's foreknowledge is chronologically prior to Jones's mowing the lawn, but Jones's mowing the lawn is logically prior to God's foreknowledge. Jones's mowing is the ground; God's foreknowledge is the consequent. Jones's mowing the lawn is the reason why God foreknows that Jones will mow the lawn." So to me, and I may be all wrong here, when the Bible talks about God's election/predestination it is addressing His foreknowledge of what we will choose. Have to get to a small group meeting. Will say more later. Dane | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 442 Registered: 7-2003 |
Dane, I have also been helped by Craig's ideas on "middle knowledge". I don't think we can take philosophy as truth, but it can help us to better comprehend ways in which seemingly disparate teachings in scriptures could actually be complementary rather contradictory. Just to be clear, I don't believe there are any contradictions in the Bible, just gaps in our own understanding. Philosophy helps us see how those gaps might possibly be bridged even though it cannot be authoritative nor a valid source of doctrine. Chris | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 190 Registered: 4-2000 |
Dane, We cannot choose what we do not desire. We, obviously, do not have a NEUTRAL free will. The sinful human heart will never desire Christ on its own--due to original sin. God must first do something in us (our calling and election) in order for us to have the ability and/or desire to choose him. Jesus said, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father" (John 6:65 NASU). In his book, CHOSEN BY GOD, theologian R. C. Sproul comments on this verse on page 68 as follows: In this passage Jesus is not saying, "No one is allowed to come to me..." He is saying, "No one is ABLE to come to me..." The next word in the passage is also vital. "Unless" refers to what we call a NECESSARY CONDITION. A necessary condition refers to something that must happen before something else can happen. The meaning of Jesus' words is clear. No human being can possibly come to Christ unless something happens that makes it possible for him to come. That necessary condition Jesus declares is that "it has been granted to him by the Father." Jesus is saying here that the ability to come to him is a gift of God. Man does not have the ability in and of himself to come to Christ. God must do something first. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Dane Registered user Username: Dane Post Number: 51 Registered: 4-2004 |
Dennis, I appreciate your quote from Sproul and I agree that God has to act upon the individual before that person has any inclination to come to Christ. At the same time I do not see a conflict here with free will. Dane | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 133 Registered: 2-2003 |
So you think you like Calvin? http://www.biblical-theology.com/calvinism/ashes.htm Although I approve of trying to work out some sort of ěsystematic theology,î in fact, I teach it at Bible college, there can be problems with it. The Bible is not a textbook of systematic theology, so the various subjects have to be systematised based what the Bible does teach. As some subjects are not totally clear, or there may be apparent contradictions, it is most tempting break the rule of, ěDo not go beyond what is written, so you will not take pride in one teacher as opposed to anotherî (1 Cor 4: 6). Different theological systems, therefore, when it comes to the unclear areas, often make various assumptions and presuppositions, which are not actually stated in so many words in Scripture. Once the theological structure is in place, then verses which apparently teach the opposite are dismissed or rationalised away, and anyone that emphasises or even brings up these opposing verses is called a heretic, because our view is ěBiblicalî and his is not. Iím sure we have all met Adventists who are convinced that their theology is totally Scriptural, have we not? If evangelical Christians, who take the Bible seriously and consider it to be the only basis of our faith and conduct, happen to differ on certain issues, and they do, it is because they interpret certain passages of the Bible differently, or maybe just chose a different set of ěproof textsî often based on presuppositions they may not even know they have. I myself happen to have strong views on some (though not all) of the disputed areas, and I have got into arguments with people who think their view is ěBiblicalî and ěthe truthî even although in many cases the only difference I see is that I do not agree with their extra-Biblical additions to what the Scriptures actually say, or perhaps they do not agree with mine :-) I consider the Calvinist/Arminian debate, which has been going on since the Reformation, to be a case in point. It is written in two verses that election is based on the foreknowledge of God (1 Peter 1: 1-2; Rom 8: 29-30). This has to be a given, as it is stated clearly in the Bible. The difference lies in the way this expression is understood. The Arminians claimed that God foresaw the hearts of all men, and knew who were the ones who would respond to the gospel. He therefore made sure that these people would hear the gospel under circumstances which would enable them to respond. The Calvinists explain that foreknowledge means that God had an intimate relationship with the elect from all eternity, and so election is based purely on His decision and has nothing to do with manís foreseen response. There have also been other, alternative explanations offered. As far as ěonce saved always savedî is concerned, Arminians quote verses like, ěIf anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burntî (John 15: 6), and Calvinists stress things like, ěI give them eternal life and they shall never perish; no-one can snatch them out of my handî (John 10: 28). Note that is was Jesus that said both these things, and they are written in the same gospel. Anyone mentioning the opposing proof text is immediately anathematised. Calvinists are always stressing the sovereignty of God, which is no problem because it is in the Bible (e.g. Ps 16: 16). What I do have problems with is their peculiar understanding of what this means. The sovereignty of God to Calvinists seems to mean that God is the absolute cause of everything that there is, otherwise He is not sovereign. This I do not see. The Bible also teaches that God is all-loving (e.g. 1 John 4: 8) and totally just (e.g. Ps 9: 7-10). The picture of the ěsovereignî I get from Calvinism is something like the following, though of course, no illustration is perfect: There is a city which has an absolute ruler. There are many houses in the city with people in them, and all the doors and windows have been locked, so that no-one can get out (total depravity). The king then issues a decree, that on a certain day, all the people have to come out of their doors and stand in the street (repent and turn to God!). He then arbitrarily picks a few houses (unconditional election), unlocks the doors, goes inside and forcibly drags the people out into the street (irresistible grace) and locks the doors behind them so that no-one can get back inside (perseverance of the saints). There are now people both in the street and inside the houses, and no-one is able to change position. The king then offers infinite rewards to those in the street, and infinite torture and punishment to those in the houses (last judgement). This type of king to me would be a capricious tyrant who may be an absolute sovereign, with absolute power, but he is neither loving nor just. I guess I tend to be more on the Arminian side (you may have figured), though I am not entirely happy with it, as that too is a man-made system. I do not believe in salvation by works, and I do have assurance of salvation, because I know I am in Christ, and I know I am constantly led by the Holy Spirit. The way I would ěrationaliseî it, is that if I choose to remain in Christ, then nothing in this world or the next can separate me from him, but if I decide to walk away, then I also have that option. I am also quite happy with the explanation that God called and saved all those who he foresaw would accept the gospel. I think these explanations preserve Godís sovereignty, his power, his love and his justice, as well as manís free will. I think it is perfectly in line with the idea of Godís sovereignty that He could make a sovereign choice to create rational beings with free will, and it is in line with his omnipotence that He could work all things out according to the purpose of His will even in such a situation. I am sure there will be those who do not agree with me. I apologise if I have made anyone angry, it was not my intention. God bless, Adrian | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 534 Registered: 7-2003 |
I remember the first time I heard those two words...arminian and calvinism. I had no clue what they meant. And though I have friends strongly entrenched closer to one side than the other, I've decided to make peace with the tension that exists in scripture between those two concepts and not argue about it. If someone chooses to argue about one side, I will always pick the other side to play devil's advocate. But in the flip situation, I will take the other side. Not to be mean-spirited, but to present what I think the Bible does, which is both sides. I do not completely understand the concept of being 'pre-destined' and struggle that God has picked me and not someone else because scripture also says that he wouldn't like anyone to perish. But I also know that I have to accept the call of the Holy Spirit on my heart. (these are over-simplifications, I know) My real frustration comes when people malign others for not being in their "camp" on this topic. I hate to see division. B is adamant about free-will and though he knows scripture talks about pre-destination, he rejects anything that suggests we had anything but complete autonomy in our salvation decision (I think that shows his ignorance in man's true sinful condition)...I think he has to believe that way to keep in line with losing salvation for not going to church on the right day... In that respect, he seems to say, we can choose Christ and accept Christ as our savior, but God may not choose us because we worshipped on the wrong day, etc, so in that respect, salvation is never guaranteed because we will never "know" if God has chosen us based upon what we do. I don't even know if that thought is orthodox in the arminian camp. It certainly leaves one with a sense of uncertainty, that's for sure. And it's sad because he seems to do things out of fear, though he will claim it is because of "love" for God. I have enjoyed reading the different sides of this argument and knowing how people have traveled from one side of this issue to the other. Thanks for taking the time to write your perspectives. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 812 Registered: 12-2003 |
Actually, Adrian, I really appreciate your explanation above. While the idea of God's complete sovereignty has been a great relief to me, I still don't see that sovereignty as necessarily "causing" everything. In terms of who is saved and who is not saved, I know that God chooses us--I know He called me to Himself. I couldn't have found my own way. I can't explain fully how God's election and foreknowledge specifically work with God desires that all be saved and that none should perish, but I'm comfortable with the tension of those facts, because I suspect that in ultimate reality, they are not in tension at all. I just can't see it all. In terms of events, God's sovereignty has been a great relief to me because I've come to believe that nothing can happen that God does not allow. It has to go through His permission first. I was taught that God does not cause illness and disasters--and I agree. Yet if those things do not pass through His permissive will before they strike, He is not truly sovereign. I was taught that God can make good come out of the evil and and ugliness of sin in the world, and that Satan causes the ugliness and sin. In other words, God can't really stop Satan from having his way now and then, or He would be perceived as "unfair". But God can bring blessings to us if we ask Him to. That idea really makes God powerless--bound by the need to be "fair" to Satan so the watching universe can see that He doesn't block any creature's free will. (There was an awfully lot of the "watching universe" idea in Adventism, and the need to prove God is fair.) Yet even though Satan attacked Job, he did it with God's explicit permission and within His perameters. And although God restored all Job had lost, still his later children did not replace the first ones he lost. Those people were dead, and there's no good explanation offered for how that's "fair". Yet it was within God's permissive will. None of those things happened without God's permission. It brings me back to trusting God because He is God, not because He makes sense and rationally answers our questions. He Himself must be enough for us. I know I'm not a strict Calvinist, but I have to say that now that I've added the inexplicable sovereign will of God to my understanding of reality, living makes more sense. I feel like I really can trust Him, even though He doesn't explain Himself to me. Since I experience His salvation and His love, I can trust His sovereignty and His silence. Coming to believe in God's sovereignty has removed the background suspicion that God can be manipulated a bit, because he's bound to honor everyone's free will. Remember? Even his second coming would be determined by how well and how fast we took the gospel to the world and how willingly we submitted to having His character reproduced in us (read that keep the commandments perfectly). Ellen even said God would have come long e're this if we had really done our jobs right. I am comfortable living with some unresolved understanding between the facts of election/foreknowledge and free will. In fact, it seems that there is some lack of complete understanding about most of the really significant truths. Salvation, for instance--although we can break it down and explain it, who can really explain Christ's dual nature, the idea that the almighty God would become human and die, or the mystery of the eternal blood of the covenant that opened a new and living way to the Father? Praise God for revealing Himself but still being beyond our comprehension! Colleen | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 60 Registered: 7-2004 |
So many great descriptions and discussions of a complex topic. And one that is particularly hard for SDAs to understand when the primacy of human will has been a central point of so many teachings and writings. Once I started breaking free from that grasp, I started realizing just how involved the Biblical answers to these questions were. My own studies of this have often left me with more questions than answers. My rather simple conclusion so far is that God's will is greater and more important than man's. Praise God that knowing all the right answers isn't a criteria for eternal life. | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1015 Registered: 11-2002 |
Well, here I go again. I'll probably offend someone on here, but that is not my intention. How come you all even bother getting concerned about such issues? In Matt. 6:25-27 says ,"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your body, what you will wear. Look at the birds of the air; they neither sew nor reap nor gather into barns and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? AND CAN ANY OF YOU BY WORRYING ADD A SINGLE HOUR TO YOUR LIFE?" So, don't get worked up about it. John 5:24 says, "Verly truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and DOES NOT COME UNDER JUDGEMENT, BUT HAS PASSED FROM DEATH TO LIFE." Now switch to Prov. 31:6. It says "Give strong drink to him who is perishing, and wine those in bitter distress; let them drink and forget their provery (This is referrig to me and my cildren and my friends.), and remember their misery no more". So, I have a two liter bottle of rum, a lot of beer and a houseful of friends. We're gonna party down, starting right now. Actually the others started their weekend partying several hours ago but I just can get going now. Don't fret. You are saved. Party-harty. | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 191 Registered: 4-2000 |
Susan, In Proverbs 20:1 (NASU), Solomon reminds us that "Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, And whoever is intoxicated by it is not wise." Adding further clarity, Proverbs 20:1 (NIV) cautions, "Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise." | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 134 Registered: 2-2003 |
Susan, Some people get extremely hot under the collar about these theological debates. I usually keep out of it, but I was feeling mischievous yesterday. Continuing in the same vein, I found an interesting article about Lutherans and Anabaptists. Here it is: http://www.goshen.edu/mqr/pastissues/july02roth.html Seriously though, it does mention an interesting point. The Reformers were so interested in orthodoxy (correct theological belief) that they forgot about orthopraxis (correct Christian behaviour), which the Anabaptists stressed. Perhaps that is why both Luther and Calvin felt OK about killing people who did not agree with them - oops, there I go again. It is probably because of a sort of "pendulum" reaction. Because of the mediaeval Roman Catholic emphasis on salvation by works, rituals, sacraments, etc., and Luther's own fear of going to hell, he was so relieved to discover salvation by faith, that he overstressed the forensic aspect of salvation - that God justifies the sinner, considers him righteous by faith (position) in spite of his behaviour (condition). (This point is, of course, perfectly correct, but it is only the beginning of the Christian walk.) He did not like the book of James, which emphasises correct behaviour, although that is in the Bible too. When the pendulum swings back to the middle again, we see in the Bible that profession of faith is unacceptable unless it also leads to a change in lifestyle, though this is based on the internal working of the Holy Spirit and not on keeping lists of rules, which is legalism. What I am trying to say nicely, is perhaps you should consider Galatians 5: 16-26, or Ephesians 5: 8-20. You did not offend me at all, and none intended to you either, Adrian |
