| Author |
Message |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1359
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 4:06 pm: |     |
Jeremiah,
I don't see how that quote from Irenaeus teaches free will. And Chrysostom wrote 300 years after the apostles. That is hardly "by the time the last Apostle died"!
Jeremy |
Justdodie
Registered user
Username: Justdodie
Post Number: 85
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 6:44 pm: | |
Whoooooh! This thread blows my tiny mind! Are you actually saying that there is no such thing as free will? And if so, why do people keep urging me to 'surrender my will to God'?? Or 'give my heart to Jesus'. Doesn't that imply something I HAVE TO DO in order to win God's favor?? This may be an interesting intellectual exercise for some, but what about folks like me who just feel that God is already there for me, right now, without fail, and will never forsake me? Wouldn't you say that's pretty much a leap-of-faith type position to take?
I find it odd when people urge me to 'surrender' when I already feel that I am immersed in the Allness of God and there is nothing to surrender except perhaps my old fears that there might be a God who will reject me or let me down. I think that the position I am in at the moment is pretty much: release, let go, and just let God guide me and speak to me in whatever way seems best. I am making no iron-clad decisions, nor worrying myself about this doctrine or that one. I am simply basking in the wonders of God's amazing power and love.
Joyce
|
Heretic
Registered user
Username: Heretic
Post Number: 266
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 9:16 pm: | |
I know this may be a bit long but a pastor I know did this study on "freewill" that may interest some here:
quote:Question:
Does man have ìfree willî or has the Lord in His sovereignty planned everything from the beginning? In the Garden when Adam and Eve ate from the forbidden tree, the study notes in my Bible says the Lord gave man a ìfree will,î because if He hadnít, man would be nothing more than a puppet. What is the relationship between manís will and Godís sovereignty?
Answer:
The great ìI AMî as revealed in scripture is sovereign over all His creation; therefore, nothing occurs outside His permissive or intervening will. Christ said not even sparrows can fall to the ground ìapart from the Fatherís willî (Matthew 10:29). He does as He chooses and all He chooses is right, because His will is consistent with His holy character.
The Lord created man in His image, as a rational creature with the power to make personal decisions. All that He created was good, including man. Though He never influenced man in any way to do wrong, in His omniscience, He knew man would eventually choose to disobey (sin). Remember, the Lord exists outside of time. He knows all things past, present and future. While the Lord did not cause man, nor influence him in any way, to sin in the Garden, man could not have chosen to disobey had the Lord not sovereignly permitted or granted him that opportunity.
As to why the Lord allowed man to sin is not clearly revealed. Some believe it was so His attributes of grace, mercy and forgiveness could be revealed and others believe it was so sin could be dealt a fatal and final blow for all eternity. No one can say for sure, because the Lord did not choose to reveal His reasons to us.
But there is still this question of whether man has ìfree willî today. Is man nothing more than a puppet, doing what the Lord has predetermined he should do? No. If that were the case, man would never be permitted to sin since disobedience is not a part of Godís good, perfect and pleasing will. The Bible is clear: the Lord never tempts man to sin (James 1:13), nor will He allow us as Christians to be tempted beyond what we are able to bear, always providing a way of escape (I Corinthians 10:13). His will is always consistent with His holy nature.
However, Adam and Eveís decision to disobey (sin) had a profound impact on human nature. The anti-God, self-aggrandizing mindset expressed in their sin became part of them and that moral nature was passed to their descendants (Genesis 6:5; Romans 3:9-20). The doctrinal term is ìtotal depravity,î because there was no aspect of their personality, character, mind, emotions, or will that escaped the consequence or effects of their sin. As sinners, they infected the entire human race with their sinful nature, which is the reason no one comes into the world today with a neutral innocence or ìfree will.î Man is born with a heart inclined toward sin; one that seeks the fleshly fulfillment of his sinful will and selfish desires (Psalm 51:5). No one born after the fall in the Garden has experienced an uninfluenced (or free) will as was given to Adam and Eve (Romans 5:12). Christ said the heart of sinners is enslaved to sin (John 8:34). Their sinful will is the root cause of their rebellion and disobedience (James 1:14). We are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we are born with an innate sinful nature (Romans 6:20).
Man is by nature an enemy of God; spiritually dead in his sin (Colossians 2:13; Ephesians 2:1-3; Romans 8:7-8). His will is so enslaved to sin, he cannot even understand, nor spiritually discern, the things of God (I Corinthians 2:14).
Therefore, manís only hope for redemption rests solely on the unmerited grace of a merciful God (Ephesians 1:7; 2:8-10). Those redeemed through faith in the atoning death of Christ on the cross (when He experienced Godís wrath, satisfying His holy justice as punishment for the sin of all who would believe; I John 4:10) are called Godís ìchosenî or ìelect,î because salvation is the gift of Godís sovereign and amazing grace, not the result of the best efforts or works of a spiritually dead man (Romans 8:28-33; 9:11-13, 16; 11:5-6; Col. 3:12; I Peter 1:1-2; 2:8-9; Hebrews 12:2).
Once man is born again (John 3) and becomes a new creation in Christ (II Corinthians 5:17), he begins to war against his natural desires, as he draws on the power of the Holy Spirit deposited within him in order to make the kind of decisions that glorify his heavenly Father.
Conclusion: Have men been given the power of personal decision? Absolutely! Are they mere puppets of God? Not at all. If they were His puppets, they wouldnít be allowed to sin, because it is not the Lordís desire for anyone to disobey His holy and righteous will. However, the natural manís will is not truly free today, because it is enslaved to the sinful nature he inherited from Adam. Does the Lordís sovereign will ever overrule manís sinful will? Of course; how else would man be regenerated from spiritual death unto life (Acts 2:23; Ephesians 1:3-6) (Example: Apostle Paulís conversion)? Once a sinner is born again, his will is set free and brought into line with Godís good, perfect and pleasing will as he yields to the enabling power of the Holy Spirit to make choices that go against his innate, sinful nature and glorify his heavenly Father (known as the sanctification process), giving evidence his new birth in Christ is genuine. He worships the Lord with gratitude and thanksgiving, as he realizes his decision to trust in Christ for redemption was a part of Godís sovereign plan ìbefore the foundation of the world . . . having predestined us . . . according to the good pleasure of His willî (Ephesians 1:3-5).
Heretic
|
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1812
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 9:39 pm: | |
Here are some more wonderful Spurgeon quotes on the gospel:
Today's quotes about the Gospel, come from the prince of preachers, C.H. Spurgeon.
"Never lose heart in the power of the gospel. Do not believe that there exists any man, much less any race of men, for whom the gospel is not fitted." (CHS)
"Let this be to you the mark of true gospel preaching - where Christ is everything, and the creature is nothing; where it is salvation all of grace, through the work of the Holy Spirit applying to the soul the precious blood of Jesus." (CHS)
"If God does not save men by truth, he certainly will not save them by lies. And if the old gospel is not competent to work a revival, then we will do without the revival." (CHS)
"On Christ, and what he has done, my soul hangs for time and eternity. And if your soul also hangs there, it will be saved as surely as mine shall be. And if you are lost trusting in Christ, I will be lost with you and will go to hell with you. I must do so, for I have nothing else to rely upon but the fact that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, lived, died, was buried, rose again, went to heaven, and still lives and pleads for sinners at the right hand of God." (CHS)
Joyce,
Thanks for being here. I have been interested in reading about the path you took out of Adventism. I hope you continue your search for the truth about God, and what He has given in His Son Jesus Christ, and His Gospel as revealed in the Bible.
Stan |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 4221
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 11:23 pm: | |
Here's what "gets" me: there are people all over the continuum from Pentecostalism to hyper-Calvinism who are in Christ. We simply cannot say that just because people believe one way or another, they have a false gospel. If they embrace Jesus and His death and resurrection as their salvation from their own sin, they are in Christ.
Please don't misunderstand me: I believe that God's sovereign power is at the core of all reality and life. But we cannot imply that people are believing a false gospel if they understand their walk with Jesus to include being drawn by the Holy Spirit to a point where they understand the gospel and accept it, simultaneously being filled with His Spirit. There are plenty of texts in the Bible to support such an interpretation.
We just watched a video given to us by some good friends, former Jehovah's Witnesses who spent a few years in ministry with Campus Crusade for Christ. This video is a one-man play called "The Bema", and it was delivered to a Crusade Staff Conference in Colorado Springs in 2003. It is a dramatic presentation of the saved appearing before the judgment seat of Christ (as described in 1 Corinthians 3) to receive their rewards for their stewardship of God's gifts to them.
I couldn't help thinking about this discussion as I watched that powerful play. Of course, it was one man's imagination fleshing out a few brief verses, but it was profoundly moving in an awesome, "God is holy and worthy of all my praise" sort of way. The play was interrupted twice by the entire stadium full of Crusade staff singing both hymns and praise songs, honoring God and worshiping Jesus.
I would not characterize Campus Crusade as primarily "Calvinistic", nor are they extremely Arminian. But the deep love and worship of Jesus displayed by the play's actor was moving even via recording, and the singing of the staff was genuine. They were not having an "emotional reaction" to a fluffy idea of Jesus; they were honoring Him for His grace and justice and mercyóand for saving them.
I believe everyone here knows that I believe God's sovereignty is the underlying reality that gives meaning to the gospel, to my life, to salvation, to everything that happens. But quite frankly, God allowed the Bible to make paradoxical statements. We are supposed to struggle with these passages, as John Piper says in his book, "Brothers, We Are Not Professionals". We are supposed to pray that God will show us what He wants us to know, that He will reveal what is true in these passages.
God allows us to live without having all our questions answered tidily in a formula that explains how He works. I personally find the revelation of God's sovereign Lordship and power and rule over all creation to be infinitely comforting, but I cannot say that a Christ-follower who does not see things quite the way I do is following a heresy.
If a person is in Christ, God Himself will continue to teach him and lead him closer to Him. Some people may never fully come to see what others of us have found in God's sovereign realityóbut if they are in Christ, this lack of "seeing" does not negate God's sovereign calling and election of them.
Yes, getting my theology "right" is important to me. I am finding, though, that God doesn't reveal Himself to everyone in exactly the same ways. As a very dear friend of mine with whom I used to teach said to me last week when we met for dinner, "You and I may both read the Bible, and God may teach us different things [about issues non-essential to salvation], but even though to us they seem different, they're both the same thing!"
I know that statement doesn't sound very logical, but I understand what she means. God is 'way beyond our limited comprehension. The things He reveals to each of us, the individual gifting He bestows on usóthese things are all part of the Truth that comes from Him.
We must really be careful not to put stumbling blocks in front of new believers or weaker brothers by insisting that only one theological interpretation is "correct".
Yes, there are plenty of things clearly WRONGóincluding false gospels such as Adventism. But if the core essentials of salvation are embraced, we really must allow people to see some of the more technical issues from different perspectives.
Again, if people see humanity as the central "value" in the universe, that viewpoint leads to a false gospel. If people see God as the Sovereign Lord, on the other hand, but understand the role of "choice" in the process of salvation to be Spirit INFLUENCED rather than the the outcome of previous regenerationówe really can't call that heresy. We can acknowledge it as a point of difference, but not as a point of broken fellowship.
Colleen |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 561
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 7:20 am: | |
I haven't seen the contention that anyone who believes in Jesus will not be saved. Even if we have an improper or incomplete understanding of how we came to have this belief in Him. That said, there are important consequences and beliefs that ultimately follow from what we believe about "our role" in our own salvation. Once we start focusing on our contributions to salvation, then "gift" starts to diminish and becomes a wage. Even if we are being grossly overpaid, if salvation is exchanged for something that we do, that exchange becomes a wage.
I want to take care not to use the phrase "false gospel" as a hammer against any person who does not agree 100% with me. I think it is far more useful to discuss why the doctrine of God's sovereignty is so important and powerful. |
Helovesme2
Registered user
Username: Helovesme2
Post Number: 546
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 8:51 am: | |
Thank you Colleen, I agree.
God is soveriegn. He calls us to Himself. Somehow, some respond and others don't. Those who respond, no matter how clearly, or 'thru a glass, darkly' they see are safe in Him.
Every one who comes to Him He will in no wise cast out.
|
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 267
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 12:09 pm: | |
A huge difference between free-will adventists and free-will evangelicals is seen when someone ask the question "What is the condition to be saved?"
Both groups believe that nobody is saved without the atonement of Christ, that the atonement is vital. Both groups also believe that the atonement needs to be applied individually. Without a definite "yes" to Jesus's work, without surrendering to Him, nobody will be saved. But even if both groups believe that they can exercise their free will in saying "Yes" to Jesus, they maintain different views about this "free will".
When an adventist is asked to declare what is the condition for salvation, the answer is "faith in Jesus Christ and keeping the law". But when an evangelical is asked, his answer is "Faith in Jesus Christ". From an evangelical perspective, nobody is able to keep the law of Moses, even in the regenerate state, the perfection is only after the resurrection. Jesus kept the law perfectly for us, and this condition is fulfilled by Him.
What's interesting is the fact that the evangelical free-will believer is directing his choice toward the correct goal, Jesus. The adventist free-will believer is directing his choice toward a wrong goal, himself, in trying to "keep the commandments". The evangelical focus is entirely on Jesus, the adventist focus is on Jeus and himself. In reality his focus is entirely on himself. An evangelical obtains the assurance of salvation looking to Jesus, and adventist obtains the assurance of salvation by looking to himself. He actually worship Jesus and his free will. The evangelical is not doing this, he worship only Jesus. He's not focused on his will, he's not putting his trust in his will for salvation. Making the keeping of the Sabbath the final test which will decide salvation, adventists exalt the will to the place where it is more important than what Christ did on the cross. They are worshippers of "free will".
Personally I believe that having a correct view about free will is important, I'm a believer in the five points of calvinism. But keeping the focus on this subject, is not entirely healty. It will move the focus from Jesus to ourselves more than it is needed for salvation. Because when we press the issue of free will, and emphasize the difference between our view and the view of others, we can push the people over the limits. I see a danger in pressing too much this subject which can be dangerous for the gospel.
I will quote from "Death and the Afterlife" by Robert Morey. He shows how someone focusing on the issue of free-will can go beyond the limits.
Universalists believe that all people are already saved, and will be saved even if they will not repent and believe the gospel. And they gave some reasons for this. One of these reasons comes from the reformed idea that man has nothing to contribute to salvation, that even his faith is worked by God's. The reformed faith emphasized this for the purpose of giving the entire glory of salvation to God. That man has nothing in itself to contribute for his salvation, even his faith is the sole product of God's grace.
But the universalist position toward calvinists is similar to the calvinist position to arminians. In their view, the calvinist belieevr makes the same mistake as an arminian because a calvinist believe that man must repent and believe to be saved. but for universalists, doing something for salvation, even believing in Christ with a belief which is totally God's work, is wrong in itself. For them, both calvinists and arminians are guilty of the same sin: they attribute to man's will the salvation of the individual.
I wrote this long post, and the next quotation will also be long, for illustrating why I can't believe the issue of free will can obscure the gospel. I'm a a firm believer in the five points of calvinism, but this is because I believe that the calvinist position is in perfect harmony with the gospel, but I will not put my calvinist belief on the same level with the gospel. The knowledge of the gospel does not depend on the knowing and accepting the calvinist faith, or any other theologycal system. The true gospel is simple enough to transcend our personal views about this subject.
quote:Barth objectified the entire process of salvation to ensure that man would not be involved in it at any point. Christ himself is the electing God and the man elected. Christ alone is elected and accepted by God. he was reprobated by a divine "no" and elected by a divine "yes." Thus the "yes" and "no" of salvation is taken entirely out of man's hands and put into Christ's hands alone.
Since Christ as man is elect, then all men in Christ will be saved. Human faith or unbelief are not necessary for election or reprobation. Therefore, they are not necessary for the triumph of grace.
The only difference between the Christian and the non-Christian according to barth is that the Christian "knows" that he is saved, while the non-Christian doesn't. They are like a group of people stranded on a raft. The raft is actually floating in four feet of water, but only two of the group "know" it. The rest think that they are in danger of drowning.
The church's mission, according to Barth, is to joyously proclaim that Christ has saved all men. Thus, "unbelief" is impossible, because it will be conquered by triumphant grace. The "yes" and "no" decision of salvation does not belong to man but to Christ alone.
......
Beginning with the Barthian reduction of salvation to its objective elements, Punt declared: "It is an error to think that there is anything that must be done to inherit eternal life". He goes on to reject the idea that sinners must repent and believe the gospel in order to be saved. Robert Morey, "Death and Afterlife," pages 228, 230
My present position is that the decisive factor in the difference between the false and the true gospel is it's focus. If the focus is entirely on what Jesus had done on the cross, on His finished work, this is the essential for salvation. Any other issue has secondary importance. The adventists are guilty for removing this focus, from Jesus and His finished work, declaring repentance and faith in this finished work as insufficient for salvation. |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1813
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 1:27 pm: | |
Colleen,
I agree with you that this debate is not about whether Arminians or Calvinists are preaching false gospels. I am not sure that anyone on this thread either said that or implied that. Many on this board have become very passionate about the doctrines of Sovereign grace, and it may be at times, I have come across as too zealous for this faith, but I have emphasized many times that I do not believe like the hyper-Calvinists do that Arminians are not saved.
For the record, it needs to be stated, that it is my former large evangelical church I last attended That has launched a significant campaign against the Reformed faith. They sponsor one particular famous apologist to go around to their different churches and they are saying my belief in Reformed faith is a different gospel, and on the radio, this person said that Calvinism borders on blasphemy. So I don't know who is attacking who, but I will go on record as saying I believe my Arminian brothers and sisters, (including many of my evangelical SDA friends) are indeed saved. No theological exam is needed to enter heaven. But, there are evangelical leaders who embrace Arminianism who are also quick to embrace Catholicism, as theology matters less and less to many of these folks.
I like the charitable spirit John MacArthur uses in the following exchange when he was asked whether Arminianism is a different gospel. I agree with his position:
The following "Question" was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape, GC 70-19, titled "Bible Questions and Answers." A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE. Copyright 2000 by John MacArthur Jr., All Rights Reserved.
Question
Can you talk a little bit about Arminian theology? Is it biblical? And, if a church embraces that theology, are they saved? [Can somebody who holds an Arminian view be a Christian?î]
Answer
Yes, if youíre talking about Arminian theology. We always want to make the distinction between Armenians and Arminians. Armenians [are] a people; Arminian is a theology from Arminius. Let me just say this. This debate comes up all the time, and I like to answer the thing by saying I really donít land, necessarily, with labels very comfortably. You know, you can be called a Calvinist or a Hyper-Calvinist or a Four-point Calvinist orÖIíve been called a Four-and-a-half-point CalvinistÖ One guy called me a One-point Calvinist--I donít know how he came up with that. And people can be labeled Arminian.
I understand what they mean by that, but I, personally, try to resist those labels because those labels are loaded with different content for different people. And people love to slap a label on you and then everybody defines that label in a different way. So, I really run from those labels.
At the same time, to put it simply, the debate of Calvinism and Arminianism falls along five simple lines that we all know about called T.U.L.I.P.: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and the Perseverance of the saints--T.U.L.I.P.
John Calvin rightly interpreted the Bible to teach that man is totally depraved. What that means, is that, not every human being is as sinful as he could be or she could be, but that every human being is sinful to the point that theyíre incapable of altering their condition. That is to say, total depravity means you canít do anything to save yourself. You canít even make a right choice. You canít awaken your spiritual deadness. You canít give life where there is death. You canít come to a right conclusion on your own. Total depravity means that everyone, is by virtue of their own will and their own power and their own choices, incapable of redemption. Thatís total depravity.
Arminius would say--Arminian theology, Palagian theology, as itís also called--would say ìman is capable.î That while man is, in the general sense, a sinner, he has capacities within himself to choose to be saved. That is the debate. I donít think thatís biblical. I think we are dead in trespasses and sin, and dead people donít make choices. Dead people canít make themselves alive. So, I think there is a clear distinction there.
In the case of unconditional election, you have the view in the Scripture that the people who are saved are saved because they were chosen by God apart from any merit of their own, apart from any condition. Whereas, typically, the person who holds Arminian theology would say that we are saved by acts of our own will. We have still the power to believe on our own, and therefore, when we choose to believe, we become elect. It isnít something that God determined in eternity past; itís something that occurs sort of ëde factoí or ëipso facto,í--ìafter the fact.î
And then you have limited atonement; in the typical reformed view, means that the atonement, in its actual work, the actual efficacy of the atonement, was only for the elect. That is, itís limited to those who believe and were chosen by God, whereas the Arminian side of it would say that everybodyís sins have been paid for, all across the world, whether people believe or not. So that, in the end, Jesus paid the penalty for the sins of people who donít believe. Thatís a problem because if your sins are paid for already by Jesus and you go to hell, then thatís double jeopardy.
And then you have irresistible grace, which is the idea that when the spirit of God works on the heart of a sinner, the sinner canít resist. Arminian theology would say the sinner can resist.
And perseverance of the saints, the last in the five points, is the idea that if youíre saved, youíre going to persevere to glory. Arminian theology says you might not--you could lose your salvation along the way.
So, they are diametrically opposed. The question comes, ìCan somebody who holds an Arminian view be a Christian?î And I would hate to say they couldnít be. I really believe that it is possible to be Arminian and to be a ChristianÖto misunderstand your human capability, to misunderstand the election, to misunderstand the extent of the atonement, even to misunderstand the irresistible nature of Godís saving grace, and even to think you could lose your salvation. But, at the same time--while being confused or ignorant of those things--to know that youíre a sinner and know that the only way of salvation is through Jesus Christ. I guess you could say that someone could be an Arminian and push those points far enough, where they could jeopardize my confidence that they really are a Christian. You could push the point of not being totally depraved far enough where youíre actually being saved by your own works, by your own belief, by your own ingenuity, by your own self-induced faith. And you could get to the point where you could really wonder whether someone understands that itís all a work of God.
But, I think it would be going too far to say someone who holds an Arminian view, or anyone who holds an Arminian view, is, by virtue of that view, not a Christian. I think there are people who just donít understand rightly those things, but who know theyíre sinners and who cry out in their sin for the Lord to save them. They donít understand how what theyíre doing works together with the great purposes and power of God, and consequently canít give God fully the glory He deserves for all of that, but they could be genuinely saved, by hoping in Christ and Christ alone."
MacArthur is a lot more charitable than Martin Luther was. A lot of people play down how much Luther believed in these doctrines of grace, because SDAs and much of evangelicalism want to claim to be heirs of the reformation, and they praise Martin Luther, but I wonder how many of them have read Luter's "Bondage of the Will". Luther was adamant that any belief in free-will negated salvation by grace alone.
Stan
|
Jackob
Registered user
Username: Jackob
Post Number: 268
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 1:54 pm: | |
I must make a correction.
I mistakenly said that "I can't believe the issue of free will can obscure the gospel"
The correct way is
"I believe the issue of free will can obscure the gospel" if this issue takes more importance and focus than it is necessary, |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1360
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 2:03 pm: | |
I think that if there are really only "two religions" ("free grace" and "free will"), then we either would have to say that none of those who believe in free will (even evangelical Christians) are saved, or that all who believe in free will (whether they are Baptists, Muslims, Hindus, etc.) are saved--in other words, universalism. But I don't find either of these positions acceptable. Therefore, I can't accept the "two religions" (free grace vs. free will) argument.
Also, looking at the Bible, I see passages which I have to wonder--if they weren't part of the Bible would they be labeled as "human-centered theology"?
Here are just a couple of examples:
quote:"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." (Revelation 22:17 KJV.)
"Now there was a man at Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian cohort,
2a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually.
3About the ninth hour of the day he clearly saw in a vision an angel of God who had just come in and said to him, "Cornelius!"
4And fixing his gaze on him and being much alarmed, he said, "What is it, Lord?" And he said to him, "Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God.
5"Now dispatch some men to Joppa and send for a man named Simon, who is also called Peter;
6he is staying with a tanner named Simon, whose house is by the sea." (Acts 10:1-6 NASB.)
Also, take a look at the Gospel that Peter preached to him:
quote:"Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality,
35but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.
36"The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)--
37you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed.
38"You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.
39"We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross.
40"God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible,
41not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.
42"And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead.
43"Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins."
44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message." (Acts 10:34-44 NASB.)
This does not sound any different to me than the Gospel message I would hear preached in a "free will" evangelical Christian church. In fact, the only difference is that the beginning sounds more "man-centered" than a lot of "free will" churches.
Even Charles Spurgeon admitted that he preached the Gospel to unbelievers as if they had free will and could choose Christ, and that only after they were saved did he tell them that they actually didn't have a free will! So in other words, even Spurgeon preached an "Arminian Gospel" to unbelievers. So if we are going to condemn the message that is preached by evangelical Christians who believe in free will as a "man-centered gospel" (or even a different religion!!), then we also have to condemn the message preached by Spurgeon, and even the Apostle Peter.
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on June 26, 2006) |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1814
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 2:43 pm: | |
Jeremy,
Apparently the article I posted by John Reisinger is the point of controversy. That was one of his polemical pieces on this subject. Reisinger is so good on the New Covenant and the Sabbath at his web site www.soundofgrace.com I posted his article, and said it was food for thought, and had important implications. I did not say whether I agreed fully with those implications. But I thought it was very interesting about the historical facts about how we got Arminianism in America after the Puritans had brought the pure Reformation teaching of Luther and Calvin.
I want to present a more balanced John Reisinger here from one of his articles on that site, where he clearly says that just like we are not saved by "decisional regeneration", neither are we saved by doctrinal regeneration:
John G. Reisinger
I have not always been convinced that Limited Atonement was a biblical doctrine. I saw the other four points at least five years before God taught me the truth about the nature of the atonement. I well remember tearing in half Arthur Pink's booklet on Was the Sin Question Finally Settled at the Cross? and throwing it into the wastebasket saying, "I will never believe that!" I think the last three issues of Sound of Grace prove beyond question that I now not only believe the truth of Limited Atonement, but, along with J.I. Packer, I affirm that this truth is the very heart of true Evangelical faith.
A few readers have tried to convince me that I could not have been saved when I tore Pink's booklet in half. One man has vehemently urged me to repent of my false conversion and admit I did not become a true child of God until I became a five point Calvinist. I say all of this at the beginning of this article so you can "brace yourself" for what is coming next. By the way, we published a booklet many years ago entitled "Decisional Regeneration." We were trying to show that Arminianism really teaches that a sinner's decision has the power to regenerate his heart and make him a child of God. "Doctrinal Regeneration" would be a good label for the brand of Calvinism that insists only five point Calvinists are truly saved. In reality these people give correct theology the same power that the Arminian gives to his decision. We insist that neither the sinner's will nor correct theology can give a dead sinner life.
When Peter said, "Not so, Lord" our Lord rebuked him and said, "Get thee behind me Satan," but at that very moment Peter was a saved man. J.C. Ryle correctly observes, "Just because God has sanctified your heart does not mean that He has totally sanctified your brains and taught you all the truth in one instant." A true child of God can be awfully mixed up both theologically and emotionally and still be in Christ. If you think it through, I think you will agree that it is better to be a confused and emotionally upset saint on their way to heaven than to be the best-adjusted and theologically correct unregenerate person on their way to hell. Holding firmly to the truth of sovereign grace is not absolute proof that a person knows the sovereign Lord in a way of saving faith."
It is possible that the article "Two Religions' was just a little too much, in light of what he wrote above, and in light of what MacArthur wrote.
Stan
|
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 562
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 3:11 pm: | |
Stan, I loved this one specific statement, "We insist that neither the sinner's will nor correct theology can give a dead sinner life."
|
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 563
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 3:34 pm: | |
I would challenge those who place great emphasis on our choice to do a simple word study on the NT uses of choose, chose, and chosen. You might wish to start with these verses:
John 6:70; John 15:16; Acts 15:22; Philippians 1:22; James 2:5; Matthew 12:18; Matthew 22:14; Mark 3:13; Mark 13:20; Luke 1:9; Luke 6:13; Luke 9:35; Luke 10:42; Luke 12:32; Luke 23:35; John 13:18; John 15:16; John 15:19; Acts 1:2; Acts 1:24; Acts 6:5; Acts 9:15; Acts 10:41; Acts 13:17; Acts 15:40; Romans 11:7; 1 Corinthians 1:27; 1 Corinthians 1:28; Ephesians 1:4; Colossians 3:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Timothy 5:21; 2 Timothy 2:10; Titus 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1; 1 Peter 2:9; 1 Peter 5:13; 2 John 1:1; 2 John 1:13; Revelation 17:14
Perhaps it is only my theological bias, but I see God's choice emphasized in these, not man's. |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 765
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 5:17 pm: | |
Good point, Ric. Indeed, we are not the captains of our eternal destiny. By the way, since our church doesn't have adult Sunday School classes during the summer months, I have visited several churches (two this last Sunday) to enhance my understanding of how various Christians worship. One of those I visited recently was a Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod).
I have been attending an excellent Sunday School class at a Presbyterian Church (PCA) taught by their senior pastor. Our current series of studies are entitled, "How the Bible Came to Be." The lectures are akin to being college-level. I always appreciate learning new things.
Dennis Fischer |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1815
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 9:12 pm: | |
Dennis,
Marti and I have just started attending a PCA church in our area, and we are really impressed with the God-centered worship, and the teaching. The pastor teaches in the style of Donald Gray Barnhouse, and even sounds like R.C. Sproul. My wife, who usually hasn't been interested in attending church in the past says that she never has heard Bible teaching like that. After many years of wandering, we praise God for this church he has led us to.
Stan |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 4224
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 26, 2006 - 10:23 pm: | |
What great classes, Dennis! And Rick, you make a good point. I really like the Spurgeon quote you posted, Jeremy, stating that we preach as "Arminians" before people are saved, and we explain God's sovereign calling once they believe. It reminds me of the proverbial doorway: before one enters, he sees a doorway with these words over the door: "Enter and come unto Me." Once a person walks through that doorway he looks back and sees these words over the doorway on the inside: "Chosen from the foundation of the world."
I believe God's sovereignty only begins to make sense as something real instead of merely theoretical after we are savedóalthough it was clearly always at work.
Colleen |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1817
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 11:38 am: | |
I also agree with Spurgeon regarding how we preach the gospel to everyone.You don't preach Calvinism to an unbeliever, you preach Christ and Him crucified, you teach them how they stand condemned in light of the Law of God.
But, the question is what happens after you are saved? If after a person becomes saved, after a period of time, and with Bible study with the Spirit's leading, then what if a person is confronted with the fact that they had nothing to do with their salvation, but they insist on believing that it was their choice, and that they had to supply the faith to become born again?
And, what if large mega-churches openly try to cast aspersions on the Reformed faith by endorsing and selling the books of those who say Reformed theology is basically false, and they send these apologists around to different churches to teach on the "evils" of Calvinism?
Does this change the argument? I was so hard-headed even after I became saved, that for many years, I thought Reformed faith was false. So I can understand that there are many individual Christians who are clearly Arminian who are just as saved as any of us. But Reformed theology is a very unpopular and politically incorrect gospel. I just wonder how many of the mega-churches would be filled to capacity today, if God's sovereignty and sovereign grace was taught in a way that clearly showed that salvation is a gift that is 100% God's doing, and none of our doing?
Charles Spurgeon did have crowds overflowing several times a week, and he preached the Reformed faith unapologetically week after week. Those were the days when Christianity flourished in London, but when compromise on the Biblical doctrines of grace began to creep into the church, then the gospel lost its power. Spurgeon spent the last few years of his life fighting this spirit of a compromised gospel and is documented in history as "The Downgrade Controversy" on www.spurgeon.org
Rick,
Thanks for posting those texts. There are two more texts that I would like to add, and they are parallel passages Matthew 11:25-27 and Luke 10:21,22 which I will quote it here:
21In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.
22All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."
What can be clearer than that statement? Jesus CHOOSES to whom He will reveal the Father. Also it is clearly stated above that God hides this truth from the wise and understanding, and reveals it to His children that the Father and the Son planned to save before the foundation of the world.
Jesus taught these same truths all throughout the gospels, but especially in John 6. There were 5000 people that were present at the beginning of the sermon on election that Jesus preached.
John 6:44--'No one can come to me unless the Father DRAWS him.' John 6:37--'All that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will raise him up at the last day'. So, it seems abundantly clear that either everyone will be saved, or that God chooses to save some according to His secret will and according to His good pleasure. Then in John 6:65'...no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father'. Then check out the very next verse 66 "After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him."
So there were twelve disciples left after Jesus got through preaching this sermon on election. His message was not popular with the masses. But Jesus must have thought this topic of election and free-will was very important, or otherwise why did he spend so much time on it? And likewise, why did Paul and the Apostles always talk in terms of God choosing us instead of us choosing God. Yes, the sermon Jesus preached in john 6 caused about 4,988 people to stumble, but that doesn't mean that this message shouldn't be preached. That kind of preaching Jesus did was certainly not the recipe for church growth.
Stan |
Deadmanwalking
Registered user
Username: Deadmanwalking
Post Number: 16
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 6:27 pm: | |
I must correct what appears to be a misunderstanding by some here of my meaning in the initial post of this thread. I did not intend to equate or imply in any way that Human-centered religion equals Armininism and God-centered Theology equals Calvinism.
It is true that my own journey from Adventism moved first through Evangelical Armininism to Calvinism as I have related in this and other threads. It is also my belief that the Doctrines of Grace most closely reveal a "High View of God" that I would describe as the goal of all God-centered Theology.
What I mean by God-centered Theology is simply that, a Theology that always has God enthroned.
What I discovered in my journey was that much of the evangelical church, Calvinistic or otherwise, was Man-centered religion. Note that I erred in the title of this thread, I meant to title it Man-Centered Religion, and have attempted to use that phrase in the posts since.
I must confess that my battle, both within my self and in my attempts to share my faith, is with Man-centered everything! I love quotes, and one of my favorites is, "The theme song of hell is "I Did it My Way!" I believe that is the basis of all my rebellion against God. I want Him to meet my needs the way I want them met, when I want them met or I want Him to simply leave me alone. What I want is put myself on the Throne of my life and my world, and I really want all of you to agree that I should be there and worship me! Now I don't want you to know that is my agenda so I'll disguise it however I can. I am totally committed to my imperial self. That is both a description of my natural man before being born again and what I mean by Man-centered religion here.
Much to my dismay, what I've found, even outside Adventism has been a "Form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof."
I hope and wish all of you and all of my family and friends would come to see the beauty of Christ and the glory of Grace that God-centered Theology paints. We will never see all these things the same way, but may our passion be to see Him more clearly, and like Paul declare that,î To live is Christî
Soli Doe Gloria,
Richard
|
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 1827
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 9:33 am: | |
Thanks Richard,
I agree with you that there is a lot of Calvinism that is man-centered and I even think there are some good Arminian preachers who are really God-centered as well.
I would really like to dialogue with you some more offline Richard. My email is:
riverfonz@aol.com
Stan |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 4238
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 3:02 pm: | |
I understand what you are saying, Richardóand "discovering" God's complete sovereignty has, as Jess on this forum has said in the past, changed my world view more completely than anything except learning the true gospel and discovering I am secure in Christ.
I have found that when I meet others who really know Jesus, I find the same alive-ness and joy in them that I have experiencedóand this life is palpable and real, even before I know if they have "free choice" or "election" leanings. I remember our pastor's wife saying one evening to the women's Bible study group leaders, "The Holy Spirit in you recognizes the Holy Spirit in another person."
She went on to say that she had met an intereseting professional woman at an event whom someone thought she would enjoy talking to. She said that after the first few exchanges, she realized that the other woman was not a Christ-follower and did not have that life that comes from being alive through the Holy Spirit. She said their conversation just didn't go anywhere because that shared unity of the Spirit was lacking. They had completely different world views.
I believe that Jesus Himself, as you suggested above, is the One that unifies us and teaches us. He is our life and unityóand He Himself transcends theology when we meet other Christ-followers.
Colleen
|
|
