| Author | Message | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1768 Registered: 3-2005 |
Another great Calvinist was Charles Haddon Spurgeon. I could read this man's sermons all day long. The great sermon Spurgeon is famous for on Calvinism is linked here: www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm Here is Spurgeon's opening quote from that sermon: "The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again."óC. H. Spurgeon And Spurgeon also said that Calvinism is the gospel. He should know. His preaching was blessed greatly by God. Thousands flocked to hear Spurgeon when he was preaching faithfully the doctrine of Jesus and the apostles--the doctrine that was recovered by Luther and Calvin. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1769 Registered: 3-2005 |
And here is a little more of Spurgeon: T IS A GREAT THING to begin the Christian life by believing good solid doctrine. Some people have received twenty different "gospels" in as many years; how many more they will accept before they get to their journey's end, it would be difficult to predict. I thank God that He early taught me the gospel, and I have been so perfectly satisfied with it, that I do not want to know any other. Constant change of creed is sure loss. If a tree has to be taken up two or three times a year, you will not need to build a very large loft in which to store the apples. When people are always shifting their doctrinal principles, they are not likely to bring forth much fruit to the glory of God. It is good for young believers to begin with a firm hold upon those great fundamental doctrines which the Lord has taught in His Word. Why, if I believed what some preach about the temporary, trumpery salvation which only lasts for a time, I would scarcely be at all grateful for it; but when I know that those whom God saves He saves with an everlasting salvation, when I know that He gives to them an everlasting righteousness, when I know that He settles them on an everlasting foundation of everlasting love, and that He will bring them to His everlasting kingdom, oh, then I do wonder, and I am astonished that such a blessing as this should ever have been given to me! "Pause, my soul! adore, and wonder! Ask, 'Oh, why such love to me?' Grace hath put me in the number Of the Saviour's family: Hallelujah! Thanks, eternal thanks, to Thee!" I suppose there are some persons whose minds naturally incline towards the doctrine of free-will. I can only say that mine inclines as naturally towards the doctrines of sovereign grace. Sometimes, when I see some of the worst characters in the street, I feel as if my heart must burst forth in tears of gratitude that God has never let me act as they have done! I have thought, if God had left me alone, and had not touched me by His grace, what a great sinner I should have been! I should have run to the utmost lengths of sin, dived into the very depths of evil, nor should I have stopped at any vice or folly, if God had not restrained me. I feel that I should have been a very king of sinners, if God had let me alone. I cannot understand the reason why I am saved, except upon the ground that God would have it so. I cannot, if I look ever so earnestly, discover any kind of reason in myself why I should be a partaker of Divine grace. If I am not at this moment without Christ, it is only because Christ Jesus would have His will with me, and that will was that I should be with Him where He is, and should share His glory. I can put the crown nowhere but upon the head of Him whose mighty grace has saved me from going down into the pit. Looking back on my past life, I can see that the dawning of it all was of God; of God effectively. I took no torch with which to light the sun, but the sun enlightened me. I did not commence my spiritual lifeóno, I rather kicked, and struggled against the things of the Spirit: when He drew me, for a time I did not run after Him: there was a natural hatred in my soul of everything holy and good. Wooings were lost upon meówarnings were cast to the windóthunders were despised; and as for the whispers of His love, they were rejected as being less than nothing and vanity. But, sure I am, I can say now, speaking on behalf of myself, "He only is my salvation." It was He who turned my heart, and brought me down on my knees before Him. I can in very deed, say with Doddridge and Topladyó "Grace taught my soul to pray, And made my eyes o'erflow;" Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1770 Registered: 3-2005 |
And since I can't get enough of Spurgeon, here is a great passage on eternal security, The late lamented Mr. Denham has put, at the foot of his portrait, a most admirable text, "Salvation is of the Lord." That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, "He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord." I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. "He only is my rock and my salvation." Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, "God is my rock and my salvation." What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christóthe bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there 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 after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor. "If ever it should come to pass, That sheep of Christ might fall away, My fickle, feeble soul, alas! Would fall a thousand times a day." If one dear saint of God had perished, so might all; if one of the covenant ones be lost, so may all be; and then there is no gospel promise true, but the Bible is a lie, and there is nothing in it worth my acceptance. I will be an infidel at once when I can believe that a saint of God can ever fall finally. If God hath loved me once, then He will love me for ever. God has a master-mind; He arranged everything in His gigantic intellect long before He did it; and once having settled it, He never alters it, "This shall be done," saith He, and the iron hand of destiny marks it down, and it is brought to pass. "This is My purpose," and it stands, nor can earth or hell alter it. "This is My decree," saith He, "promulgate it, ye holy angels; rend it down from the gate of Heaven, ye devils, if ye can; but ye cannot alter the decree, it shall stand for ever." God altereth not His plans; why should He? He is Almighty, and therefore can perform His pleasure. Why should He? He is the All-wise, and therefore cannot have planned wrongly. Why should He? He is the everlasting God, and therefore cannot die before His plan is accomplished. Why should He change? Ye worthless atoms of earth, ephemera of a day, ye creeping insects upon this bay-leaf of existence, ye may change your plans, but He shall never, never change His. Has He told me that His plan is to save me? If so, I am for ever safe. "My name from the palms of His hands Eternity will not erase; Impress'd on His heart it remains, In marks of indelible grace." 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 the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints, I think I should be of all men the most miserable, because I should lack any ground of comfort. I could not say, whatever state of heart I came into, that I should be like a well-spring of water, whose stream fails not; I should rather have to take the comparison of an intermittent spring, that might stop on a sudden, or a reservoir, which I had no reason to expect would always be full. I believe that the happiest of Christians and the truest of Christians are those who never dare to doubt God, but who take His Word simply as it stands, and believe it, and ask no questions, just feeling assured that if God has said it, it will be so. I bear my willing testimony that I have no reason, nor even the shadow of a reason, to doubt my Lord, and I challenge Heaven, and earth, and hell, to bring any proof that God is untrue. From the depths of hell I call the fiends, and from this earth I call the tried and afflicted believers, and to Heaven I appeal, and challenge the long experience of the blood-washed host, and there is not to be found in the three realms a single person who can bear witness to one fact which can disprove the faithfulness of God, or weaken His claim to be trusted by His servants. There are many things that may or may not happen, but this I know shall happenó "He shall present my soul, Unblemish'd and complete I can only say "To God alone be the glory" after reading the above. Stan | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 751 Registered: 4-2000  |
What a powerful message on eternal security by Charles Spurgeon! I agree with Colleen that sometimes it may be best not to use the words "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" in discussing soteriology. It is easy to get sidetracked by the foibles of the expositors of those views. Instead, we should focus upon Scripture alone to determine the way man is saved. Obviously, both views cannot be right. We are saved by the will of God alone. Biblically, there is no partnership salvation or cooperative grace as Adventists, Catholics, Methodists, and many others teach. Furthermore, I don't subscribe to the popular notion that the Bible teaches both views. Man has no authority nor ability whatsoever to trump the will of God. Indeed, God declares "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" (Romans 9:15 NASB). Paul adds, "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy...He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (Romans 9:16,18 NASB). "The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are the children of God" (Romans 8:16 NASB). Dennis Fischer | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 101 Registered: 10-2002  |
Quick note to Stan: No disrespect meant, but you're the only ardent Calvinist I know, and it was from you that I heard the harshest condemnation of Arminians & Catholics. I'm new to the whole battle. And while I'm somewhat glad to know what things mean, in a way I wish I had not looked into it. It is a terrible war with many, many wounded. As you point out, there are many wounded on the Calvinist side as well. The pendulum swings both ways. Who will stop it and lay down his life for his brother? | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1775 Registered: 3-2005 |
I am sorry Ramone if I have come across as harsh. Since I was brought up in the strictest form of Armininianism, it was marvelous to discover the true meaning of salvation by grace alone through faith alone, on the account of Christ alone. When I realized that it was the Triune God who did all the work in saving me, it was truly a liberating experience. I am sorry that you perceive that I haven't been graceful to those with whom I disagree. But let me clarify a few things. It is clear that most of us on this board agree that at least traditional/historical Adventism preaches a false gospel of works- righteousness. Probably most of us also agree that Roman Catholicism is also a false religion. However, I believe that even in those two false systems, God has sovereignly worked to save some of those, even though they are in false religious systems. Since I was brought up in the strictest form of Adventism and Ellen White, I think you could understand that when I discovered where Ellen copied most of her perfectionistic, Pelagian theology form the likes of Charle Finney and John Wesley, then that made me study very carefully what was the basic theology behind these systems, and that is well documented to be the Roman church. I have never said anywhere on this board that my evangelical brethren who are Arminian in their theology are not saved. In fact, there are threads I can show you where I clearly stated that they are indeed brothers in Christ. However, I can document that in another evangelical church I attended, that their Arminian views lead to condemning Calvinists like me. That is one of several reasons I had to leave that particular church, and now join the Presbyterian Church in America, which of course respects John Calvin like the Lutherans respect Luther. I have known many (including myself who struggled with these issues for eight years) who have taken the time to study these issues carefully, and then when the light finally comes on, that we are saved only by God's grace alone--and nothing of ourselves, then it is indeed a joyous breakthrough. So no offense to you Ramone, and sorry if I have caused offense to you. Stan | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 102 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hi Stan, Thanks for your kind words. I truly don't know the depths of understanding what you've been through, especially what you've suffered for your beliefs. Please forgive me, too, for judging you. I'm sorry. This is perhaps the oldest and most ferocious debate within Protestant Christianity... I had little idea of how heated it was when I started this thread. Many have left love in order to be right, in the name of not compromising truth. I saw a videotape of Philip Yancey speaking once at Avondale SDA College in Australia. He tactfully and gently went for the throat by quoting John, that Christ came "full of grace and truth." He said many churches want to be full of truth, but few want to be full of grace. One of the biggest problems in the C&A battle (that is, Calvinism & Arminianism) is the difference in language and meaning. One side means one thing, another side means another. Both rush to extremes in accusing the other side---as I noted earlier, Arminians look at Calvinists as determinist, heartless or un-evangelistic. Calvinists look at Arminians as unbiblical, humanist and Pelagan. Yet actually talking to the other side, I've found (and continue to find) neither side's stereotype of the other to be true. Calvinists do have hearts and are not deterministic. Arminians are vehemently anti-Pelagan. (As a side note, I don't think EGW copied much from Finney since they were contemporaries; also, Finney personally & publically blasted William Miller & the Millerite movement) I talked to a co-worker tonight who spent six good years growing in Calvary Chapel. He had a lot of wounds from Calvinists. I guess he knew some extreme ones. He happened to be rooming with two, and they went to a Calvinist-leaning church as well as to Calvary Chapel. Every time the Calvary pastor made an appeal, altar call or anything similar to inviting people to accept Christ, the two got visibly upset. When they got home, they wanted to argue about it. My CC friend grew quickly tired, "All they wanted to do was argue" is what he told me. He said others he'd met were very vocal in church about trying to change peoples' beliefs. One came in while he was working at the church and started trying to lead him into debate about it. My friend responded by saying, "I'll talk with you only about 1st Corinthians 13... You came in here, but you don't even know my name, me, my family, who I am, what I've been through or anything about me, but you want to debate me?" His experience was one parallel to yours, only it was somewhat in photo-negative to yours. There has been much wounding. Although these are dear issues to us, at some point we need to count the cost from God's perspective. A prophet once had a dream: She saw two people fighting with one knife between them. Each used the same knife to slash and tear the other, and there was much blood. When she awoke the Lord explained it to her, essentially saying, "My word is sharper than a double-edged sword, but many people are using My word against each other instead of against the enemy. My people, have no part in this. Choose love." I want to apologize again. I don't want to minimize what you feel so strongly about. Stan, beloved of the Lord, please forgive me for judging you, for not loving you. I've heard a few bad things about Calvinism, but I've never really talked to Calvinists. Please forgive me. Things are not as I'd heard. I love the great love Calvinists have for giving credit to God and recognizing His Spirit's work. Yet I still do disagree with some parts of Calvinism. Is that okay? In investigating these things ever so briefly, I've found I'm closer to "Arminian", yet I truly appreciate and love the heart of "Calvinism", too. I'm not Pelagan. I was wonderfully blessed by the testimony of Charles Finney's conversion. I absolutely love many of Charles Wesley's hymns. I also love many of Andrew Murray's writings. Wesleys, Arminians. Murray, Calvinist. Please accept me and try to understand I'm not in denial, nor am I cognitively dissonant in these things. I find God in all of them... or rather He has found me through them. I must go to bed. May His peace be with you, my brother. In Christ, Ramone | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1776 Registered: 3-2005 |
Thanks Ramone for your statement also. The fact that the doctrine of election causes so much controversy is a well established fact. Because of this many preachers will no longer preach on election and pre-destination. But, this is not the solution, as the doctrine of election cannot be ignored, because the Bible is filled with it from the story of Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, and all the way through the New Testament. It is good for people to struggle with these doctrines of God's sovereignty. Michael Horton in his book "Putting Amazing Back Into Grace"--which is the most entertaining and enlightening book on the Reformed (that is better than Calvinist--due to the inflammatory nature of the word which has become synonymous with evil in some circles) faith talks about all the arguments back and forth, and how both camps lack grace and civility while discussing this topic: this is from page 56 of his book, "One group takes the theology. A doctrine like election is discussed....Insults are then hurled at those who are "too blind" to see the truth as clearly. A doctrine calculated to produce humility instead creates pride; a ruby is squandered, the people impoverished, because the object was to win an argument rather than share the wealth. Another group insists that, based on what they have heard from the other group, they "just want to love Jesus" and forget about theology". But neither of these approaches are acceptable--the Bible teaches the truths about election plainly, but many of us (myself included in the past) just didn't want to face up to what the Bible was really teaching. But, once we take God at His Word, then these truths are illuminating and help increase our assurance of faith. Stan | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 255 Registered: 7-2005  |
What's interesting is the fact that Luther praised Erasmus for raising the subject of the free will. Because Luther saw this subject as being more important than indulgences, popery, purgatory. He conisdered the free will "THE THING ITSELF", the "GRAND TURNING POINT OF THE CAUSE". Bondage of the Will, pages 203,205, electronic edition (I gave the link to this book in a post on this thread) The importance of having a proper view of the free will becomes evident in defending the gospel, as was the Luther debate with the false gospel of Rome. We cannot refute 100% the false gospel of Roman Catholic Church, even the false gospel of adventism as long as we believe in some sort of free will. I'm not saying that salvation depends on having the correct view about the free will. But in defending the gospel, we are at loss if we maintain a wrong view about it. The new Sabbath School lesson is about the Investigative Judgment, 1844, and the gospel. The writer is arguing that in the judgment our only hope is the imputed righteousness of Christ, His righeousness imputed, credited to us. At face value, it seems that the true gospel can be harmonized with Investigative Judgment. But the author is clearly against the reformed gospel, against predestination. The need to investigate dissapears if the salvation is entirely of God: after all, what will be the object of investigation? Why God chose X and not Y for salvation? It's a mystery, God works as He pleases, how a creature can judge His Creator? The reformed faith completely knocks out the IJ. I believe that Desmond Ford's message of the gospel of grace had a limited impact in adventism because he was an arminian. The church adapted herself to his message, adopted many points of his exegesis, but the central core remains intact. The false gospel had not bee 100% refuted. | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1778 Registered: 3-2005 |
Good points Jackob, I will repaste this one paragraph from J. I. Packer who wrote the forward to the book "Bondage of the will", and the point he addresses is that the doctrine of the bondage of the will is the very basis of the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith. This emphasizes the point you made above Jacob, "Whoever puts this book down without having realized that Evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will has read it in vain. The doctrine of free justification by faith alone, which became the storm center of so much controversy during the Reformation period, is often regarded as the heart of the Reformersí theology, but this is not accurate. The truth is that their thinking was really centered upon the contention of Paul, echoed by Augustine and others, that the sinnerís entire salvation is by free and sovereign grace only, and that the doctrine of justification by faith was important to them because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace. The sovereignty of grace found expression in their thinking at a more profound level still in the doctrine of monergistic regeneration.2" Your point about Ford is well taken, but as one who lived and processed out of Adventism in the early 80's he was invaluable to thousands who left the church because of Ford's teaching on 1844. His function has been the bridge over troubled waters--out of Adventism many of us needed. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1779 Registered: 3-2005 |
Ramone, There are a few resources to check out for further study. The Spurgeon sermon posted above is a great introduction. Leigh also posted a link that has one of the best internet resources, and that is a link t o C.J. Mahaney's online article that may give you a different perspective on all of this. That link is www.sovereigngraceministries.org/pdf/perspectives/election.pdf Another great resource is John Piper's material at www.desiringgod.org Piper has written a great book called "Desiring God" where he puts a real interesting perspective on all of this. The great principle of Christian Hedonism is based on God's total happiness, and God's happiness is related to the fact that none of his purposes can be frustrated. In other words, according to Piper, God's happiness and our happiness is founded on the fact that God is totally sovereign. None of God's purposes can ever be frustrated. There is nothing at all that happens good or bad that surprises God. There are no accidents or coincidences in the Kingdom of God. Piper notes the struggle with this doctrine that jonathan Edwards had, and I will quote from Piper's book on P.28, "Many of us have gone through a period of deep struggle with the doctrine of God's sovereignty. If we take our doctrines into our hearts where they belong, they can cause upheavals of emotion and sleepless nights. This is far better than toying with academic ideas that never touch real real life. The possibility at least exists that out of the upheavals will come a new era of calm and confidence." "Jonathan Edwards recounts the struggle he had with the doctrine of God's sovereignty: 'From my childhood up, my mind had been full of objections against the doctrine of God's sovereignty...It used to appear like a horrible doctrine to me. But I remember the time very well, when I seemed to be convinced, and fully satisfied, as to this sovereignty of God... I have often since had not only a conviction, but a delightful conviction. The doctrine has very often appeared exceedingly pleasant, bright, and sweet. Absolute sovereignty is what I love to ascribe to God. But my first conviction was not so.'" These doctrines strike against the core of our natural human tendencies and presuppositions, as well as our background and baggage we bring to the table. It took me a lot longer to come to believe these truths, than for others I have seen on this board. It has been great to watch many on here struggle with these doctrines, and then come to believe that indeed the Bible does teach the full sovereignty of God, and that salvation is all of God, and none of our own doing. Soli Deo Gloria (To God alone be the glory-Amen!) Stan | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 754 Registered: 4-2000 |
Jacob, I heartily agree that Reform theology "knocks out" the investigative judgment alibi. You are a sharp thinker. Also, I concur with your comments that Dr. Ford had a limited impact on Adventism because he was an Arminian. Fortunately, to his eternal credit, Dr. Ford was a significant catylst for many people to leave Adventism. Actually, people are still leaving Adventism as a result of his ministry. The SDA hierarchy still fears his presence wherever he speaks. Certainly, God isn't finished with Des Ford yet. I suppose it can be argued that there is a limited amount of good a single reformer can accomplish with a toxic-faith system. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 143 Registered: 2-2006 |
Desmond Ford certainly influenced me for getting theological distance from Adventism! I had already been 'distanced' and did not go to an SDA church (hardly any church, at all, in my 20's), but I knew nothing about Romans, Calvinism, Luther, Arminianism, etc.. Ford's tapes on Romans made me understand the Gospel alone. I will always be grateful to him and the Holy Spirit for that. Cathy | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 256 Registered: 7-2005 |
I don't want to minimize Des Ford influence. I only want to put him in perspective. The church modified it's position about the Investigative Judgment, making it sound in harmony with the gospel. the church made concessions to Des Ford's position, but insufficient to change itself, and renounce the IJ. Read Ford's views in an interview which is available here
What's interesting is the fact that someone who is making these concessions can retain the IJ. Others, like me, and Cathy, or Stan, or Dennis, will see these points as sufficient evidence to leave adventism, and rejecting the IJ. The same evidence can be intepreted and leave room for disagreement. I'm often frustrated because the gospel oriented adventists are judging me for rejecting the IJ. They accused me that I have other reasons than the gospel for rejecting it. They feel sorry for me because I'm not willing to see the harmony between the gospel and the IJ, or to try to harmonize them. "Why reject the IJ? We can live with the gospel and with the IJ, at the same time" Let me give you a single example. The IJ sustains that ours sins are no more to be remembered only after we pass the judgment, and only after this moment, we will be secure forever. Until this moment, even if we have believed in the gospel, because of our free will, we can loose our faith, and because of this situation, our forgiveness is only temporary. If we loose our faith, we will loose our salvation, and the temporary and conditional forgiveness will be annuled. this is why our sin still stands in the books of heaven and is not erased, until we pass the judgment. God will remember our sins if we had lost our faith and we will suffer His wrath. But the gospel says that God will remember our sins no more (Hebrews 10:17). How can God said this, if we can loose our faith and loose our salvation, because of our free will? Certainly He will remember our sins and we will be punished for these sins. This is why the free will gospel of arminianism is in harmony with the IJ premise, that God's forgiveness is not 100%, that is only a temporary forgiveness, and the sins of believers are still to be remembered. God still keeps a record of these sins, and, if someone loose their faith, He will remember their sins, in spite of His promise that he will remember them no more. Ellen White said about the Day of Atonement
I will add separately something else from the page 355, the same book
The gospel of free will can fit this paradigm, but the gospel of free grace is entirely at odds with it. | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 149 Registered: 2-2006 |
I understand what you are pointing out, Jackob. (and what others have pointed out about Ford, in the past, on other threads). Years ago, when I read that Ford still upheld the Sabbath, I was crushed. I still cannot understand why. So I am both grateful and perplexed by him. It is interesting to read these updates about him, since I haven't really read much of anything about nor from him in about 10 years. Thanks! Cathy choosier1@msn.com | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 103 Registered: 10-2002 |
A friend shared this story and commented about it:
This again basically sums up what I've studied so far in Calvinism & Arminianism. I find neither to be heresy, although I do find parts extreme. I admit to "struggling" with predestination. But it's in the same way, brothers & sisters, that I "struggle" with the Trinity. I can only figuratively get a grip on it. Perhaps this may shock those of you who believe you fully understand it. But I admit I cannot, and that's okay with me. I don't have to have an iron-pressed explanation. As I said earlier, I understand as I gaze on Christ Himself. I can't always break it down into human wisdom----and by human wisdom, I mean an air-tight theology. Let me say something else about all the efforts you've gone to in order to persuade or witness of the truths you believe: The age-old Chinese proverb wisely says, "Don't curse the darkness; turn on the light." If you believe something as "truth", the best way to help people recognize it is to turn on the light. Pointing out the darkness will only get you so far. "Taste and see that the Lord is good"... not "Taste and see that the darkness is wrong", and not even "Taste and see that the Lord is right"... it's not about right-ness, but about His goodness. This brings me to the wonderful word "grace". As wonderful as the word 'grace' is, as wonderful as the truth about grace is, the actual substance of grace is far, far better. It is one thing to try to convince people things about grace; it is one thing to try to get them to recognize grace (rather, we try to get them to admit that grace is like this and this). But it is far greater to actually give them grace. To live grace to them. To--in a sense--pummel them with grace, to channel it to them, to pour a river of it on them. We can know all the "truths" about grace, yet if we are not doing this, we have truly known nothing. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 104 Registered: 10-2002 |
In reading, I'm truly appreciating the Arminian emphasis on believing. The John 1:12-13 text is a good example of a text that can be read in a strictly Calvinist way, but that (if you read the first part of the verse) can also be read in a strictly Armenian way. The former puts the emphasis on the word "will" at the end of the verse. The latter puts the emphasis on "believing" in the first part of the verse. For me, the greater context of the passage seems to support emphasis on "belief" (for example, verse 7). The "will" part is one of several ways listed together of saying that we are not natural children, but are children of God. It doesn't seem to be talking about the question of our own will versus God's at all---after all, even in natural birth your own will has no say in the matter! Indirectly, the passage could say something about man's will versus God's, but it would be missing the main point and context of the passage (as well as the watershed passage of John 3) to put our focus there. Another fun--and wonderful--thing I found is a phrase Paul uses in Romans 9. Paul refers to Pharaoh and others as "the objects of God's wrath", versus "the objects of God's mercy." Yet in Ephesians 2, Paul says that "we were by nature objects of God's wrath" prior to being saved by God's grace {through faith}. Of course, some of these phrases depend on which translation you're using. Speaking of that, another interesting thing is the way that Romans 9:16 is worded in different translations: "So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy". (NRSV) "So then [it is] not of the one desiring, nor of the one running, but of the one having mercy, God." (Greek) The literal Greek is fun! And the former translation uses the word "exertion", which suggests salvation by works, and "desiring" in the same vein. But then, Paul's constant opposite of works is "faith/belief", which "comes by hearing the word". This is also interesting because in order to believe in predestination, you have to hear about it. One of the reasons many people so fervently preach about it is because they want others to believe. If you do not believe, you will not know it and receive its benefits for you today. Hence the Biblical urge to help others believe so that they may further be benefitted by it. As fun as these things are to look into, God is simply wonderful. What good is "soteriology" if we do not know God Himself? I love the Ephesians verses which mention "predestination" because the word always appears with "in Him" next to it. In Him we are predestined. In Him we are saved. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 105 Registered: 10-2002 |
Of Calvinism Of predestination: The predestination ("Sovereign Grace") doctrine I've taken as one of two sides of the same coin---that wonderful mystery of God that beautifully defies our understanding. That we have some choice (which is how I've been understanding "free will") is obvious in all the Bible's cries of "Believe!"---yet it is not an un-influenced choice. It is not un-influenced by the Spirit, nor by other spirits. Yet God has also clearly put the choice to us. It's a wonderful call He gives to us, and it's also wonderful to look in faith and know we're not alone. One of the things that helps me to understand this "choice" is practical experience in choosing to forgive. I can't even begin to explain how liberating it is to choose to forgive, to ask Him for the gift of forgiveness, and then to choose to exert it regardless of how you feel, regardless of how the situation seems, regardless of what I believe is possible. God always comes through in the choice to forgive in His name---to extend the grace that He's given us to others. I love how He's taught me about forgiveness in my life, and showed me truly that "to forgive is to set a prisoner free, and discover the prisoner was you." I could let someone argue about how much of the "choice" was mine, how much God influenced it or left it up to me, yet it's horribly distracting from actually making that choice. I know He always leads me to that point---the point where I can forgive or remain bitter (or rather, remain "right" and just as is often the case). How I make the choice (the mechanics of it) are not as crucial as actually making the choice. And even further, focusing on the mechanics of the "how" truly misses sight of what inspires the choice---seeing that God has forgiven me, and that He dearly loves the person who has wounded me (or whom I think is clearly in the wrong). The focus is to be on His love---on His heart for me, on His heart for them. In sight of the amazing freedom I receive and the freedom He gives the recipient of my forgiveness---in sight of such Agape LOVE!---how can I pull back to focus on the mechanics of "how"? The pull of God, the power of the Spirit inside me compells me to receive that grace, that agape love, that forgiveness, and give it away to everyone I meet---to live in that river of flowing agape love, and bestow it on others as I receive it from Him. Of "limited atonement": This is probably the only problem I truly have with Calvin's beliefs. I keep reading that God so loved the world, that He sent John the Baptist so that all men might believe, that He wants none to be lost, that the Lamb of God takes away the sins of the world. The hinge point on who benefits from this atonement and who doesnt, however, is belief (see John 3:16 and the verses that follow it). I think if we try to soften Scripture (by saying it doesn't really mean "the world" or "all men") in order to fit it into our logically & semantically ordered system of beliefs, we might risk missing out---not missing out on heaven, but rather missing out on sharing in the heart of God for others, which I can only describe as infinite, passionate, broken, inviting, crying, longing, incredible, agonizing, exuberant, ecstatic, and amazing. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 257 Registered: 7-2005 |
Cathy, I'm happy that you understand my point. Like Stan and Dennis said, I also believe that God used and is using Des Ford to bring many adventists to the gospel. This is a situation nobody can deny, and I regret profoundly that the adventist church in Romania has not a scholar like Des Ford, to bring in front of the church the issues they are trying so hard to hide. | ||
| Cathy2 Registered user Username: Cathy2 Post Number: 151 Registered: 2-2006 |
Agapetos, You have written so beautifully and joyfully about God...I barely have words...you said it all. I see things this way, too. Especially, the live and give. Give grace, live the Gospel and know God. And the forgiveness coming from God; we asking him to help us to forgive; making that choice. Oh, yes! The mechanics and semantics about God fall away in the actions of love and grace and His actual presence. I love the original Greek. Thank you for these wonderful, exquisite posts~ Cathy |
