| Author | Message | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2317 Registered: 12-2003  |
Right. And Grudem echoes this question only in softer terms: "Calvinists must say that they do not know the answer to the following questions: 1) exactly how God can ordain that we do evil willingly, and yet God not be blamed for evil, and 2) exactly how God can cause us to choose something willingly." Yet God takes responsibility for evil and darkness in the Bible while simnultaneously declaring that there is no darkness in Him. It is a conundrum for sure. Quite frankly, I believe we are intended to struggle with this question and not expect complete answers in this three-dimensional existence. I will never forget John Piper's statement in "Brothers, We Are Not Professionals" where he said he believes the purpose of confusing, enigmatic passages in the Bible is to drive us before the Lord in prayer. The paradox about this subject for me is that the more I find myslef adopting a view of sovereignty that's more on the Reformed end of the spectrum than on the Arminian end, the less certain I am I can explain how it worksóbut the more deeply confident and peaceful I am that I can completely trust God to be responsible for EVERYTHING while knowing He expects me to make choices according to the Spirit instead of according to my sinful nature. I actually can see God being sovereign in my lifeóand God expecting me to make uncoerced choices that honor Himówhile simultaneously He equips me to make and follow through on those choicesóóit's all intertwined in my experience. I certainly cannot explain it, but I praise Him for the whole thing! Meanwhile, I continue to study and wrestle with this...! Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 553 Registered: 3-2005 |
No one has all the answers to these questions. I have to say, that I am very impressed at the way Grudem writes. I have only read a little of his book, but I like the charitable spirit in which he presents both views especially in that section on the Atonement. There is a different spirit of humility that shows in his writing, than in a lot of Reformed material I have read. Even J.I. Packer is much more polemical in that article I referred to earlier. Stan | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 117 Registered: 3-2005 |
Yes...it seems there is something unrevealed that holds the key to this mystery. What I keep coming back to, is that God is Good. The absolute Good. No matter the ultimate answer to this question, God is Good. Therefore, whatever He has done and is doing, is Good. I can count on that and I grasp on to it. The really problematic thing is that this "in-house" debate while extremely perplexing for us (Christians), is downright unacceptable to those who are looking "in" on Christianity. I think this is where I wish there were answers, but have to accept that God's Will will be done and He is Sovereign and He is in Control even when I don't 'get' it. It also has given me such a sense of the incredible HUGENESS of God. The very 'littleness' of me, and the incredible beauty of what Jesus actually did at the Cross. Praise God we are free (whether it's our choice or His election, I am grateful!!) Patria | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 434 Registered: 4-2000  |
GOD AT RISK? Attendees at the GC Session in St. Louis were encouraged to purchase the new book entitled "God at Risk: The cost of freedom in the Great Controversy..." by Herbert Douglass, former associate editor of the Adventist Review. The book title sounds very Adventistic and/or perfectionistic. Hopefully, someone on this forum can expound on the central focus of this latest book by Douglass. I have not read it. Dennis Fischer E-mail: dennisfischer@alltel.net | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 561 Registered: 3-2005 |
Dennis, Just the title alone makes alarm bells go off in my head. I can just imagine what it is about. What a joy to serve a truly sovereign God who has left nothing to chance in securing our salvation. No, Satan was defeated by the death and resurrection of Christ, there is no more controversy! Stan | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 1735 Registered: 3-2004  |
Amen! Amen! Amen!! Stan. There is no more controversy. Thank you Jesus. You are awesome. Diana | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2324 Registered: 12-2003 |
Now I want to see this book! God as risk...no matter how you look at it, that idea does NOT endorse a sovereign God. Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 862 Registered: 10-2004  |
Amen, Colleen! The book is probably about how the "Adventist god" has put himself at risk by leaving it all up to "US" to either vindicate him by living perfect sinless lives, or else let Satan "win" and....control the universe...? Jeremy | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 567 Registered: 3-2005 |
Here is another short summary summing up the essence of Reformed theology by the late Dr. James Montgomery Boice, who was the pastor of Tenth Presbyterian church in Philadelphia, that Cindy who posted above attended. Boice succeeded Donald Gray Barnhouse, and wrote a classic book called "Amazing Grace". The link to his short article is www.eefweb.org/info/THEOLOGY.HTM Stan | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 580 Registered: 7-2004 |
When will the SDA's get it that the decision's been made, the verdict is in, God and Jesus win (as do we, by default)? You can't convince me that these people like worrying about every minute detail of their behavior/dress/diet every minute of the day. It is exhausting. I remember in the late 50's when it was fashionable to say "God is dead." That book title gives me the same creepy feeling that the above phrase used to. God is not at risk. Had he been purely legalistic this planet would have winked out of existence when Adam and Eve sinned. God is merciful. And above all else God is just. He declared a blood price owed, and Jesus paid that blood price, but praise God the story doesn't end on Golgotha's hill. God is Sovreign! When Jesus rose he held the keys to our lives and our deaths. By taking our stripes for us he bought us, and those of us who acknowledge that as our only truth have been guaranteed life. The SDA's can choose to live at risk if they want. I live in triumph because of Jesus' triumph and he holds me in his hand. I go where he goes. Jesus is Lord and he is my King. Belva | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2326 Registered: 12-2003 |
Preach it, Belva! Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 569 Registered: 3-2005 |
Chris, I wanted to go back and ask a question on a response you gave in your post #920 which was a response to my post #552, (now archived above in the last section), where I was thinking out loud about a way to resolve the question of Limited vs Universal Atonement. You said that I was really thinking in Arminian terms(which is easy to do, since that is my background) but I have stumbled across a similar thought from John Piper (author of Desiring God) who is clearly Reformed in his doctrines and does believe in the Limited atonement. Here is a link to his web site, and a short article summarizing the five points of Calvinism, www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/summary.html From point number 2. "The atonement applies to the elect in a unique, particular way, although the death of Christ is sufficient to propitiate the sins of the whole world. The death of Christ effectually accomplished the salvation for all God's people." Eph.5:25 "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" Heb.10:14 "By a single offering he perfected for all time those who are being sanctified." John 10:15 "I lay down my life for the sheep" Rom. 8:32 "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how shall he not with him freely give us all things" So, it seems that Piper is saying by his statement and texts, that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for the whole world, but only applies to the elect. This seems to make sense to me. Does anyone else have any comments on the above? Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 571 Registered: 3-2005 |
And while on the subject of John Piper's web site, there is an excellent discussion on the sovereignty of God and evil or suffering gleaned from an analysis of John Edwards work on this topic. www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/suffering/god_and_evil.html Stan | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 118 Registered: 3-2005 |
Stan: I find that particularly interesting because I know very well that John Piper subscribes to TULIP. I recently heard a sermon on it. He is a marvelous speaker. I really enjoy hearing him talk, though I found some of his arguments regarding TULIP to be really less than Calvinistic, though he fully claims it. I have (in my limited exposure) found him to be somewhat of an enigma in the arena of election. His terminology really doesn't fit with others like R.C. Sproul. I can usually 'spot' a Calvinist (not a bad thing) within 5 minutes of hearing them talk, but not with John Piper. I was actually surprised to hear him talking about TULIP and endorsing it (for whatever that 1/2 cent is worth  ) Patria | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 572 Registered: 3-2005 |
I agree Patria. I think Piper tries to make the terminology sound more winsome than some other Reformed types. However, there is no doubt that he is a Calvinist. He just doesn't think that label is helpful in an Arminian dominated evangelical culture. Here is a link to a sermon in which Piper discusses the topic "For whom did Jesus taste death"? www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/96/052696.html One more link on Piper where he discusses ten reasons why the five points of Calvinism have made a difference in his own life. This is where its at. These are not just theoretical doctrines that theologians have fun with, or we just discuss on forums. They really apply to everyday life. Especially for us coming out of Adventism, and the heretical pelagianism we were exposed to, these doctrines are liberating grace. The link is www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/ten_effects.html Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 573 Registered: 3-2005 |
I came across another article today while web surfing that I believe is a must read. The evangelical protestant world generally thinks that they are distinct from Roman Catholics in their belief in Justification by faith alone. Well, R.C. Sproul challenges that assumption with a thought provoking and very controversial article dealing with the heresy of Pelagianism that has invaded today's evangelical church in America. When you read this article, just notice the many similarities to Adventism that he notices in the evangelical church in general. I was amazed at how the doctrine of justification by faith has been sabotaged. Luther would be rolling in his grave. Sproul deals with the heretical teachings of the most influential evangelist in America, who was a contemporary of Ellen White, and that is Charles Finney. He denied the basics of the Christian faith, yet somehow was revered by American evangelicalism as being a great evangelist! The linlk to Sproul's article is www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul/PelagianCaptivity.pdf Stan | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 925 Registered: 7-2003  |
Here's the issue, Stan: Calvinist say, "Christ only died for the elect". To which Arminians respond, "Are you saying that Christ's sacrifice was so limited that it couldn't pay for the sins of the world? Gee that really diminishes the quality of Christ's sacrifice." To which Calinists quickly reply, "No, no the quality of Christ's sacrifice was theoretically sufficient to cover the sins of the world, it's just that Christ chose not do it this way. His sacrifice could have covered the sins of the world in terms of it's sufficiency, it's just that Jesus chose not to do this, but to only die for the elect. It's an argument about quality. Arminians think it diminshes the sacrifice to say that Christ only died for some. Calvinist think it diminishes the sacrifice to say He died for all, but it was only effective for some. So when someone says, "Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for all, but is only effective for some" it has absolutely no meaning unless it is clear what meaning the speaker is pouring into the words, i.e. what their frame of reference is. When Arminians say this they mean that Christ actually died for every person that ever lived, but that the benefits of that sacrifice are only applied to those who choose to believe. When Calvinists say this they mean that the quality of Christ's sacrifice was theoretically sufficient to pay for every person who ever lived. So if He had chosen to actually die for everyone then absolutely everyone would be saved (universalism). Since not all are saved, it must mean He chose NOT to die for some. That is why I encourage each of us to be very very clear about what we mean when we say these things, because when we use the same words and phrases, but give them different meanings it causes confusion. Does that help? Chris | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 119 Registered: 3-2005 |
Stan: Thank you for the links. I will read them. Chris: Thank you for the clarification. Patria | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 574 Registered: 3-2005 |
Thanks Chris. I do think I understand the difference. You have really brought a lot of clarity to these issues. My friend Walter Martin used to call himself a Calminian. However, I see no way to reconcile these two systems of thought. I agree with J.I. Packer when he calls them two opposing systems. I think you were right Chris last week when you said that all five points hang together. The weight of the Biblical evidence favors Calvinism over Arminianism as far as I can tell. Spurgeon said Calvinism to him means a God who truly saves. I will take that position with no reservation or apology. He is indeed sovereign! Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 575 Registered: 3-2005 |
One additional note re Walter Martin. It seems to me that those evangelicals who still embrace Arminianism, are much softer on Adventism (As Martin was) than those in the Reformed camp. For example it was Anthony Hoekema who wrote the book "four Major Cults" in which he included Adventism as one of the majors. He wrothe this book after Martin made his conclusions, and he openly challenged Martin in that book. Also Dr Robert Morey, clearly Reformed, sees Adventism as a cultic system. I see it as Adventism's roots being in Wesleyan Arminianism, and as a case study in where Arminianism leads. It can lead to the Pelagian system of Traditional Adventism, or it can lead to the liberal direction. There are many other examples in American history where Arminianism has led logically to Universalism and then to Unitarianism. And Universalism runs rampant in SoCal Adventism, and Arminianism leads to Richard Rice's theology of open theism, which strikes right at the root of God's sovereignty. Stan |
