Megaen: I have not had a housewarming party yet. I have a roommate who's going to be moving in in June, so I was going to wait until he got here. :) I am very excited about it. I think there's some real potential for growth her for me.
----------
Meg: Great thought! It's not just about us understand God's heart it's about us giving Him ours.
A thought I had about that is this: Would we even be able to perfom the unselfish act of giving Him our hearts without first receiving something from Him? :-) We love Him because He first loved us and sent His Son to die for us...
----------
In the May 12th post Paul had left the following comment:
So, since we've been throwing around all these ideas and thoughts. I would like to try to restate what it is your saying in only one statement for clarification.
"The only reason we are able to humbly come to the cross in repentance, is because God has 'given' us the proper motivation that we require to make it an action."
Is that close at all?
God Bless
I would say that is part of it...but it would seem to me that the only reason we can do any "good" thing is because of God and His gifts.
Does that make sense?
One of the thoughts I had on the "why this question matters" topic is this:
If our perspective lies such that we understand that ALL good gifts come from the Father, then when we see someone struggling, we will not be inclined to encourage them to "change their behaviour", but instead we should encourage them to draw near to our Saviour...to kneel before Him and pour out themselves so that He may fill them with the gifts He's promised us in His Word.
I'm not implying that the behaviour doesn't need to change, but rather that we're often tempted to put the cart before the horse. It's our human nature to think, "If I change my behaviour, I can get close to God again." When in reality I believe it's the opposite for a Christian!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Good morning, Luke! I’m sure you’re wondering, what’s an old lady doing on my blog! Okay, I’ll explain. We were told Chris sent us a special hello on his blog, so I had to check it out, which led me to your blog. After reading all the interesting dialog the past few days, the Spirit has been bugging me to reply (even though I really didn’t want to). So okay, like Cody, I’ll put my 2 cents worth in. So here goes . . . on the subject of Predestination, John Bradle, Roanoke, shared this view in a sermon. God created a seed and predestinated it to become a plant, to flourish, and to bear fruit. Inside the shell of that seed is the DNA that can make it become the plant God wants it to be. But before the seed can become a plant, it first has to lie in the ground and die, be watered, heated by the sun, and overcome adverse conditions. Like a seed, God predestinated you and me and every human being to become his adopted son or daughter. (For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.) He predestinated all of us (not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance), and he calls all of us, but it’s voluntary on our part whether we’re willing to die to self, be washed by the blood, baptized with water and fire, and be an overcomer. If we choose so, then through Jesus we’re justified and eventually glorified. (But other (seed) fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.) Sure makes sense to me now, and is a comfort to believe God wouldn’t create people just to put them in Hell on purpose.
Okay, since I’m here, I’ll put in another 2 cents . . well maybe actually a nickel! I just want you and your readers to know how much I love and appreciate you young people, your love for the Lord and your strong faith. I really mean it! Tim talked to Bro. Ed Schwartz (elder in Bluffton) one time and Ed said every Sunday an old brother asks him, “Brother Ed, is the ship still afloat? Is it still on course?” Last fall we went to the Gridley Fellowship Hall for a singing program put on by some of the Young Group. Oh my, it was so BEAUTIFUL – I just sat there and bawled. YES, the ship is still afloat and it’s still on course!! A short time later we were at ISU Bible Study and I felt the same affirmation. I can still remember 31 years ago, going to “Bibes” for the first time – I can still remember what I wore, where I sat, and signing the clipboard as a “convert”. It was just awesome to be in the very same room, filled with young people with the very same faith. Yeah, I bawled then, too. Praise be to God!
Well, I’ll leave you all with this. (Reminds me of Amy and her dad. Hope it works. It’s the Blondie comic from April 24.)
http://www.blondie.com/dailies/index.asp?month=4&year=2006&comic=2006-4-24
Humbly, and In Christ,
Cathy Hohulin
P.S. Luke, I like your condo. You are blessed!
Cathy-
Very good response. I appreciate your thoughts and for sharing. I completely agree with your analogy and it is encouraging to hear that "we" young people are appreciated! So, Thanks and God Bless!
Jake Gerst <><
Luke, I really like what you had to say about behavioral change. Bear with me, this may be sort of rambling and maybe a bit convoluted. Some of the terminology I use here may not be familiar, but I think this will bear some insight on the topic.
The Bible, repeatedly, and in many different ways suggests that the Particulars flow from the Universals (if these terms are not clear, read on). And an understanding of this is critical to understanding our lives. This truth is, by and large, affirmed both by secular psychology as well as sound Christian theologians. Secular psychology, working from a humanistic base will likely emphasize the Universals as being genetics, or environment, or what not. On the other hand, with a Christian worldview, we are more likely to see the Universals as things like divine nature, human nature, our identity or relationship etc.
The aspect of this that relates to behavior, is the idea that attributes (Particulars) flow from an identity or a relationship (Universals). In essence, this means that the Universals are the critical things that determine the Particulars, and also the Universals often can't be seen, but are only perceived by viewing the Particulars. This general idea is all over in scripture. One particular passage is:
Mat 7:17-18 - Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit
Jesus also eludes to a similar sort of thing when he teaches that evil comes from the heart and flows into the actions and words. Our deepest character, our identity, our relationship with God or lack thereof, determines our actions. Now, if in seeking to please God, we focus on the Particulars (behavior, particular sins, actions, etc.) in an imbalanced way and overlook the Universals (the quality of our relationship with God, our identity in Christ, the status of our heart), we essentially have passed over and missed the only one thing that could potentially give us true behavioral change. That is one particular (no pun intended) way in which we often "put the cart before the horse", as Luke said.
One subtle, but dangerous reason why people fall into the TRAP of inordinate focus on the Particulars over the Universals is because it SEEMS easier for to come up with plans to solve problems with the Particulars than it does with the Universals. It is easy to come up with plans for behavioral reform or stopping individual sins, etc. But how does a human go about reforming the Universals (the heart, the human nature, character)? So, and this is how this relates to the ongoing topic, the human desire to be Boss is often what drives us to seek to focus exclusively on reforming our sinful behavior (though even that will end in failure), rather than bowing to the God who Lord of all things (even those seemingly inpenetrable things like the heart, human nature, etc.) and ask Him for help. Acknowledging that a good tree brings forth good fruit, and a bad tree brings forth evil fruit, will drive us to consider the question: Can GOd change my heart? And for the ones whose heart has already been changed, the questions would be: Is it true that my heart has been changed? If it has, how is it that I am sinning and bringing disrepute to His name? Have I lost sight of my Master?
Regarding Cathy's comment:
"Inside the shell of that seed is the DNA that can make it become the plant God wants it to be."
That is true. But, the thing is, if we are to accept the normative definition of "predestination", a plant that never grew would have not been predestinated in any sense. It may have had the potentiality, but never the destiny ("The inevitable or necessary fate to which a particular person or thing is destined; one's lot.") Destiny refers to fixed thing. And the Greek word for "predestination" is even stronger than the English one, so there is no room for "predestination" of an event that doesn't happen. Unless we are going to use predestination in a way that slightly resembles its meaning, I'd suggest some other word is picked that conveys "arranging a possibility or chance ahead of time".
Is there any scripture passage which suggests that every one is predestinated ("To destine or determine in advance")?
Ephesians 1:4-11 speaks of the predestination of "us" (being collective between himself and the church at Ephesus)
Romans 8 speaks of the predestination of the group of people being glorified.
And, the term "elect" is used in a similar way.
Now, if we are to take terms like predestination, elect, chosen, etc., and apply them to all without exception, we have effectively removed all meaning from them and henceforth give them meanings that militate against their natural meaning.
"Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified"
I'd just like to state: In that passage (from Romans 8), the group that is predestinated is also called, and also justified, and also glorified. Our theology may dictate that this chain needs to be split in between two parts (some for everyone, and some for some), but the text does not present that possibility.
Regarding what I said: "And the Greek word for 'predestination' is even stronger than the English one"
Words such as "elect", etc. (which are in a similar class as predestinated, chosen, etc.) are regarded so strongly in the Bible, that when God clarifies the calling of Israel in Romans 11, He is careful to clarify the difference between the core "elect" peoples and Israel as a whole, even though Israel was definately elect as a nation.
Cathy: I really appreciate your thoughts and your willingness to share them with us! I really feel it's our loss when your generation hesitates to dialogue with us on issues like this, so I truly thank you.
I also really appreciate your encouragement to young people. It means more than you probably know.
I would like to comment on a certain section of what you wrote.
He predestinated all of us (not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance), and he calls all of us, but it’s voluntary on our part whether we’re willing to die to self, be washed by the blood, baptized with water and fire, and be an overcomer.
I don't believe that the fact that "God's not willing that any should perish" supports the idea that we're all predestinated. Predestinated is more than the possibility of an outcome. (basically restating what Mark said) However, I do believe that God calls us all. Many are called but few are chosen.
So...God's will is that ALL men come to the knowledge of the truth...and MANY are called...yet FEW are chosen.
This is where I'm so glad I serve a God who is in COMPLETE control and a God who doesn't always adhere to logic I understand. Somehow...even though God wants us all in Heaven...many are not chosen.
So, if you are a Christian...if you do have Christ living in your heart...it is because God choose you. Is that humbling or what? That is one of the most humbling thoughts to me...why me?...This should spur us to ever greater love and devotion to our loving Master. For some reason...out of all the many that were called...we were chosen. We were given the gift.
But like a said in an earlier comment, the unsaved don't have to sit back and wonder if they're going to be "chosen"...they can make the decision to come and taste and see right now, and then look back and praise God that they were chosen too...
Praise Him for He is so worthy.
Luke, I first looked at predestination/Calvanism (as to what the Bible states) at my original church as a Christian (not AC), and there was a lot of differing views there also. After following along:
"It's our human nature to think, 'If I change my behaviour, I can get close to God again.' When in reality I believe it's the opposite for a Christian!"
What you said about the cart coming before the horse is exactly right and that's the only reason I have for studying this topic at all. In order to change, the power comes from a closer relationship to Christ. Therein is all the power, and the only reason/ability to change. That should be the basis for everything in our lives, including our church, its traditions, etc:
In order to contribute to the church we must first look to Christ, NOT vice versa.
(think about it both ways, that's what I see as a problem at times and it's directly related to this topic) How unworthy I am!
Luke:
"But like a said in an earlier comment, the unsaved don't have to sit back and wonder if they're going to be "chosen"...they can make the decision to come and taste and see right now, and then look back and praise God that they were chosen too..."
Please clarify what your meaning.... the way you're wording it sound like a contridiction to what was stated earlier.
"they can make the decision to come and taste and see right now"
According to previous posts and comments.....
... it's not their decision to make. "They" (the unsaved) don't have any "ability" to make a desision.
Just sounds confusing to me. I need some clarification.
Paul: Yeah, I can see how that sounds confusing, but continue the quote a little further for some clarification: "they can make the decision to come and taste and see right now", and then look back and praise God that they were chosen too...
It's just a matter of giving credit after the fact. Basically the message I was trying to convey was that an unsaved person is not given the authority in the scriptures to say, "Well, the reason I haven't repented of my sin is because God hasn't chosen me."
Somehow the concepts of predestination and being chosen exist simultaneously in scriptures with the concept of our free will and us being urged to come and taste and see.
While I definitely don't feel it's critical to be able to explain that juxtapostion of ideas, I do feel it's critical to acknowledge that they're both there. I believe that acknowledging it is only because of God that we came in repentance, and acknowledging it is ONLY through His grace that we can be sanctified is an important part of humbling ourselves before God. It is also an important part of developing a Biblical perspective on our dependance on God.
Does that make more sense?
I know that I am a day late and a dollar short to comment on the subject of predestination, but I cannot resist tossing in my two cents nonetheless.
First of all I would like to say that I am very impressed with the blog posts and with all of the comments. Most people I've talked to don't care about the Calvinist/Molinist (or Arminianist) debate, haven't studied it in any depth, and certainly are not able to talk about this subject in a logical and coherent manner.
This issue is a particularly confusing one for me because so many brilliant Christian minds stand all over the map on this issue. Of course, I really don't care what apologist X thinks; I'm more interested in what the Bible says, but both Calvinists and Molinists can point to certain Bible passages which seem to support their views.
Currently I adhere to the belief of middle knowledge to explain the verses about predestination in the Bible (I must admit, however, that I have not studied this subject in a great amount of depth). Dr. William Lane Craig is one of the most well-known proponents of middle knowledge. Dr. Craig's website contains information about middle knowledge if anyone is interested in learning more.
Perhaps you all have already read it, but Dr. Norman Geisler wrote a book titled "Chosen But Free." Dr. Geisler is a moderate Calvinist, although I believe that he likes to consider himself somewhere between Molinism and Calvinism. His book is a very interesting view of the moderate Calvinist position.
I do think that Hyper-Calvinists and perhaps even 5 point Calvinists have some major problems biblically and theologically, but other than that I don't really have a strong opinion.
Thanks, everyone, for the enlightening discussion!
Steffanie Bertsch
Hi Steffanie,
"I know that I am a day late and a dollar short to comment on the subject of predestination"
We are all some few hundred years late on this one. Thankfully my opinion on this matter has been undeniabily proven to be right back then. (joking)
When I hear of "Middle Knowledge", I always think of "Middle Earth" :)
"Middle Knowledge" and Molinism essentially springs from the work of Luis de Molina. I'm not highly studied in the topic of "Middle Knowledge", though I have some general familiarity with it.
It seems to me that Middle Knowledge basically tries to make Arminianism consistent. Classical "Arminianism" inconsistently claims that knowledge of an "free will event" can exist in God's mind ahead of time, and yet He doesn't control its outcome. "Middle Knowledge" makes it a bit more consistent by claiming that God doesn't perfectly know the future and so therefore He doesn't control the "free will event". In other words, Molina stated that God cannot know the future free acts of men in the same way He knows other things absolutely.
With all due respect (and just by reading your post, I think you have earned due respect), I think Molinism is more logicaly sound than it is scripturally sound. I think it is the by product of highly intelligent evangelicals trying to avoid some of the inconsistencies of traditional Arminianism, but unfortunately minimizing (if not obliterating) the eternal decrees of God. I think Middle Knowledge is essentially creating unnecessary distinctions and differences in God's knowledge in order to explain some hard-to-explain aspects of God's sovereignty and decree. For me, I can't see any reconciliation what the Bible says about God's knowledge/decree with the idea that God has some sort of "alienated" Middle Knowledge.
I'm sure there's more to it, and I may not have grasped it all yet, but from what I know so far--those are my main objections to it. I think, while it is far more logically consistant than traditional Arminianism, it still doesn't do justice to what the Bible says about Predestination and God's activity.
Regarding Geisler, he does tend to label himself a "moderate Calvinist", though I think that is a tad misleading. He's basically an "Arminian" (which is obviously a broad label) with the possible exception of his position on a believer's security (although Arminianism, in its original form left the issue of a believer's security unresolved). However, his position on a believer's security isn't typical of "Calvinistic" theology. So, if Geisler is a "moderate Calvinist", he's basically a 0 point Calvinist. There is also a reply to "Chosen but Free" called "The Potters Freedom" by James White. Gotta love those two titles. They themselves show forth the emphasis of their respective authors.
I'm amazed at how many different perspectives have come through in this topic and I'm glad you chimed in. (Luke, Thanks for prompting this discussion!! Your blog is great!)
Steffanie: Thanks for commenting on this! I too have really enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts on this. I've learned a lot. I appreciate you bringing up "middle knowledge". I'm not at all familiar with it, but I'm looking forward to learning.
Mark: Thanks for your summary of some of those terms. I'm definitely getting into some new territory for myself here. I'm pretty sure I get what you're trying to say about Middle Knowledge creating unecessary distinctions and differences in God's knowledge in order to explain some hard-to-explain aspects of God's sovereignty and decree, but would you mind providing some scriptural examples for clarification. (i.e. scripture says ________, but Middle Knowledge says _______.)
Luke,
As with most advanaced philosophical concepts, its hard to say "Middle Knowledge says.." in one sentence. I'm not so sure William Lane Craig could even pull off that :) From what I understand: The three forms of God's knowlege that Molinism deals with are Natural Knowledge( ie. laws of physics), Free Knowledge (things that could have been otherwise, but are as they are because God actually chose them to be so--ie. the number of planets), and Middle knowledge (God knows all possible paths, but does not have knowledge of which specific one will happen ahead of time).
Ok... Let's give it a try: Molinism says--that certain events, such as our coming to Christ, are to be understood as only being known in God's "Middle Knowledge" (God knows each and every possibility, but remains uninformed about what route will be taken--until it actually happens). [Steffanie, am I saying this accurately?]
Maybe a better way to put it would be, "Scripture essentially says God has exhaustive foreknowledge (let alone fore-ordination), but Middle Knowledge essentaily says that God's foreknowledge is limited.
There are many texts which contradict a Middle Knowledge approach in regard to salvation (basically most of them that give any considerable detail about election), but more specifically there are also affirmations in scripture which deny that any event could be placed in the category of Middle Knowledge.
(so.. for some "proof texting"..)
Isaiah 46:9-10 says "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:" I think the concept of Middle Knowledge can only exist if we to are assume that "things that are not yet done" and "all my pleasure" includes "Free Knowledge" and excludes "Middle Knowlege".
Ephesians 1:11 says that God "works all things according to the counsel of his will" (Eph. 1:11). This implies that God not only knows the future (which in the context there is our inheritence, our predestination), not only ordains the possiblity, but actually works out "what is" according to His will (in other words, when it comes to predestination "what is" corresponds with "His will").
Pro 16:33 teaches the principle that "The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof [is] of the LORD." This essentialy says that we do the action of casting a lot, but God determines the outcome. Now, arguments about determinism aside, the dilema that this poses to the Molinist position seems to be: They obviously would need to place this casting of the lot into the "Free Knowledge" category, but on what basis, then, would they place this under free knowledge under God's "Free Knowledge" and yet place something as grand as the salvation of mankind under "Middle Knowledge"?
There are more texts and possibly better ones than that. But those are 3 that come to mind. I need to study more about this issue and the arguments for and against. I hope I may have clarified things more than I have made them murky. I'm more versed in theology than I am in philosophy persay, so I don't feel that this is exactly my forte, as Middle Knowledge is predominately a philisophical idea applied to theology (whereas my viewpoint, while ultimately having to do with philosophy, isn't really all that philisophically systematized).
A few years ago I had the privilege of hearing a series of discussions which touched on the topic of predestination. One speaker was a Calvinist, one was a Molinist, and one was an Open Theist. The presentations I heard dealt with more than just the subject of predestination...but predestination was a large part of it.
The Calvinist told us that God looked at everyone and decided whether each individual would go to heaven or not. If you were picked to go to heaven you would inevitably accept God's offer of salvation before your death, and if you were not picked you COULD NOT accept God's invitation no matter what. This Calvinist believed that God basically determines everything we do; we are essentially robots either programmed to accept God's grace or to reject it (irresistable grace). He believed that Jesus did not die for everyone, but simply for those whom He decided in advance would be saved (limited atonement). (By the way, I realize that not all Calvinists believe this exactly, I'm simply sharing what one prominent Calvinist in my area believes.)
I have trouble interpreting Matthew 23:37 in light of the above beliefs. If this Calvinist is correct, we cannot take the Bible at face value.
I guess I also don't see the use of evangelism if the Calvinist gentleman is correct. The people who are predestined will be saved no matter what (irresistable grace), and the non-elect are headed for eternal destruction and don't have the ability to accept God's grace, according to the Calvinist I heard. Why waste my time sharing the Gospel with either of them?
Just in case everyone is not familiar with the concept of Openess theology, I am going to plagarize a little summary from carm.org. "Open theism, also known as free will theism and openness, is the teaching that God does not know all things. That is, He does not know the free will choices that people will make in the future because God either chooses not to know or because the future isn't knowable."
Open Theists don't believe that God is omniscient, obviously (although they usually say they do :). They believe that God knows everything except the choices that humans will make. They think that if God knew what I am going to do at 3pm today (let's say play vball), I do not have free will because I cannot pick what I want do at 3 (I have to play vball because God already knew I would). Open Theists would say that God knows me better than I know myself; therefore, He knows that I like to play vball and since it's sunny He can make an educated guess about what I'll be doing at 3. However His knowledge of human decisions is just that, an educated guess. He cannot know with absolute certainty what choices I will make in my life. I definitely consider this stand erroneous, and you probably do as well. The Open Theist whom I heard believes that this view distances God from sin. They see the Calvinist and Arminianist positions as making God the cause of sin.
Although there may be several different branches of middle knowledge, I'm just going to provide a quick summary of the one with which I am most familiar.:)
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosphy introduces middle knowlege by the following paragraph:
"If Aristotle had not been a student of Plato, then would Aristotle have chosen to start his school at Lyceum? If you believe God knows the answer to this question, you probably believe God has middle knowledge. Middle knowledge is a form of knowledge first attributed to God by the sixteenth century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina. It is best characterized as God’s prevolitional knowledge of all true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. This knowledge is seen by its proponents as the key to understanding the compatibility of divine providence and creaturely (libertarian) freedom."
I realize that quote might be hard to follow, so let me try to elucidate the concept of middle knowledge by using another quote. "The doctrine of middle knowledge proposes that God has knowledge of metaphysically necessary states of affairs via natural knowledge, of what He intends to do via free knowledge, and in addition, of what free creatures would do if they were instantiated (via middle knowledge). Thus, the content of middle knowledge is made up of truths which refer to what would be the case if various states of affairs were to obtain. For example, the statement, "If John Laing were given the opportunity to write an article on middle knowledge for the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, he would freely do so."
In other words, middle knowledge says that God knows what I would do if it started raining at 3pm today, even if it doesn't rain. Does that make any sense?
If you've followed my monologue so far, I'm sure you see why some people hold to the idea of middle knowledge. Proponents of middle knowledge would probably say that God knew (via middle knowledge) who would accept Him of their own free will, and "chose" those people to have eternal life. Put another way, God chose those whom He knew would choose Him.
Thanks for the thought-provoking conversation guys! I have thoroughly enjoyed it.:) Have wonderful weekend!
Steffanie
To Steffanie,
It is a good thing to have people of various positions interacting, and I think it is often through those debates/discussions that you mentioned that people are given opportunity to think through and sort out what they believe.
Here is my attempt to try to (hopefully accurately) what the majority of non-hyper five-point Calvinists believe..
For the sake of this discussion instead of using the term Calvinist or Calvinism, I will sometimes utilize "Reformed theologian" and "Reformed theology". You are right, there are some Calvinists, who subscribe to hyper-Calvinism that see humans as robots and who use election in a way as to discount evangelism.
Though there may be different explanations as to what it is, the doctrine of Irresistable Grace is normally put forward in this manner: The fall causes mankind to be spiritually dead to the extent that the natural man can not receive the things of God. If the natural man can not receive the things of God, he must be transformed befor e He can come to Christ. Since this transformation must come before the action, it would have to be irresistable.
If you look at Matthew 23, you will see Jesus is talking to Israel as a nation, and more specifically the leaders. It can be easily argued that v37 is not refering to how God operates in the heart of a sinner. Why? Everything in v37-39 is collective, speaking of Israel as a elected nation. Ffirst, Jesus is addressing Jerusalem (not literally the city, but as a representative of its people collectively). Second, v38&39 put this verse in the context of a prophesy. What was Jesus' message in v37-39? In my own words: "The nation of Israel, who killed my messengers, is disobedient. I offer my protection for them, and yet they reject it. They will be punished for this disobedience. And they will not see me again until they once again bless my messengers."
Regarding evangelism, that is a classic objection to Reformed theology. But it is kind of ironic. Three explanations for why I say that:
1. Historically speaking, there is no basis to say that Reformed theology & predestination discourage evangelism. George Whitfield (Calvinist) was the first evangelist to hit American soil. Charles Spurgeon preached "Calvinism" with great evangelistic zeal in his preaching (even Arminians do not deny this). There are countless other examples: Jonathan Edwards (ministry to Native Americans), Charles Wesley, etc. One could go on and on. So many missionary movements and awakenings are Reformed in their origins.
2. The doctrine of predestination, as put forward by Reformed theology does not nulify evangelism at all. Yes, it does say that it is God who decides to save some and pass over others. But it is important to recognize that it teaches that God not only ordains the end (salvation of His elect), but also the means (the preaching of the gospel). So, and here is the important point, while it is God who saves us: GOD ALWAYS USES A MEANS, THE PRESENTATION OF THE GOSPEL, TO ACCOMPLISH THE END OF SAVING HIS PEOPLE (to miss this, is the most common misrepresentation of Calvinism). It is God who saves, not us, but God uses us to carry His gospel to the whole world. We plant and water, but God gives the increase. We do not know who is elect, so we take the gospel to all (plant & water), and God will give the increase as He wills.
3. Actually, the Reformed understanding of election can actually make evangelism more effective. All too many evangelical Arminians get so wrapped up into coax people into a "decision"--that they forget their simple mission: To present the gospel to the world. Election is a comfort to the evangelist because of the fact that God can work a miracle in the hardest hearts (even ones that are "unwilling"). The evangelist does not have to frustratingly wait for those dead in sin to open their own eyes, he knows that God can perform that miracle, and will if they are to be saved.
Thanks for the quote from carm.org. I think that is a pretty good site and has been useful to me. Thanks for the comments on Open Theism and Middle Knowledge. I think this may cause me to do some further research. And I'm glad to hear that there still are good minds (who like to discuss things like this) that are still in the AC. I do pray regularly (even though I believe it won't happen unless God wills it :>), that the AC will be blessed with more individuals who are serious about matters of faith and eager to study. I think that could be an impeteus for great revival, renewal, and reform.
P.S. If you want a presentation of Reformed theology that is potentially more sophisticated than the Calvinist you heard in that debate, or even what I've presented, "Easy Chair Hard Words: Conversations on the Liberty of God" by Doug Wilson is great (I think I already recommended that book). Also, regarding Open Theism, I've heard that "God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism" by Bruce Ware is a pretty good summary of the Reformed position on Open Theism. Are there any books written from the perspective of Molinism that you would recommend?
To Everyone,
I think I may have overstayed my welcome :) But I think I may have exhausted some people with my verbosity. Don't worry Luke, I'll be back on other topics :)
Thank you everyone for the thought provoking interaction, and for putting up with some of my rambling. Its awesome that we can have discussion like this that is so charitable and non-polarized (even though some of the ideas may be conflicting). If anyone wants me to further explain something, to ask me questions, or call me into question for inconsistencies, feel free. I may even recant/draw back on something I said :) You can contact me privately (my e-mail is on my blog, I think), because I don't want to weigh down Luke's comments section with too much predestination related discussion.
If you people know anything about me yet, its that I have a hard time resisting theological discussions with my fellow brothers and sisters, especially my fellow AC brothers/sisters.
Post a Comment