If God is completely sovereign over the universe,then why do I need to live a holy life? If God really wanted me to, wouldn't He just "make it happen"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Luke
- I started this blog out of curiousity and it grew to become a great encouragement for me in my Christian walk. I hope the writings here can be used by God to further His work in your life.
My Blog List
-
-
-
-
-
-
What's This? A Blog Post???8 months ago
-
opening day [squeezed in versinon]11 months ago
-
[Free *HD*] The Good Lie Free5 years ago
-
-
Three Princes... and a Pauper7 years ago
-
What day is it?7 years ago
-
-
the.big.28 years ago
-
Our ellipsis . . .8 years ago
-
Disney World8 years ago
-
-
November 20148 years ago
-
The Other Side of the Hill8 years ago
-
-
-
Pink Explosion8 years ago
-
Illnesses and injuries8 years ago
-
What they say about Good Friday9 years ago
-
I am unclean9 years ago
-
-
My Blog has Moved!9 years ago
-
December... Full, Full, Full!9 years ago
-
-
An Overnight Guest10 years ago
-
A New Beginning...10 years ago
-
Worlds Greatest Beans10 years ago
-
5 or 50??10 years ago
-
Zach & Daniela's Wedding Reception11 years ago
-
July in Review11 years ago
-
A Note from Tucker11 years ago
-
I wonder how many times11 years ago
-
Finally!12 years ago
-
2012 resolutions12 years ago
-
7.24.1112 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9 comments:
He's exactly right. We find it so easy to take things to what seems "their logical end" without submitting ourselves to the reality of Scripture. We take the truth of God's sovereignty and immediately start "spinning out implications", like "Oh, that must mean there's no such thing as free will" or "that must mean that God is responsible for my sin" or "that must mean I'm nothing more than a machine" or accepting some kind of a naturalistic view of the universe. Indeed it would do us all good to spend more time meditating on what is there in Scripture, what questions they are answering, what concerns they have, and how we can live out the life of the Word before focusing on the logical implications that seem so readily apparent in our minds.
how do you define free will?
Has anyone ever told you how much you look like John Wayne?
Free Will: My will is free to choose whatever it most desires.
I'm not sure if Traever's question was directed at me or you, Luke. I'll just throw out a definition I think is adequate and hope that's the end of it. I think the CCC's definition human freedom is fine:
"Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude."
As the question about free will moves the conversation in a very different direction from Pastor Piper's response or my own agreement with his point, feel free to email me, Traever, if you want to discuss the matter further.
well, i'm sure you can see what i'm getting at...does an unregenerate man have the "free will" to turn to God in faith and repentance? do you affirm the roman view or the historical protestant view? and do you agree they are mutually exclusive?
I tried to put together a fuller response to this question last night, but my computer decided that it was time to go to sleep (for it and for me, I guess) and it was lost. Without going into too much detail, I'll try to sketch a basic attempt at an answer.
Assuming that by unregenerate you're referring to someone who has not been joined to Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost, one who has not been created anew by sanctifying grace, a person who has not been filled by the Spirit, then they can certainly not "turn to God in faith and repentance". Faith is an uncreated fruit of the Spirit, expressed through our free will (for no violence is offered to it, nor is the liberty of these second causes removed) and as all other energies or activities of God is not accessible to us except through the Spirit.
As to your other questions (all regarding Catholic/Protestant distinctions), I am not qualified to give a good answer, but I will try lay out a few fumbling impressions. You ask if I affirm the "roman view", and I'm assuming from the context that that view would assert that someone who does not have the presence of the Spirit, who does not have sanctifying grace (in Catholic terms), would be able to have the virtue of faith. And yet, the Catechism seems to deny this, saying that "One cannot believe in Jesus Christ without sharing in his Spirit" and reiterating "Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him." The Augsburg confession seems to say something similar, stating (in the section on ministry) "the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith". From a straightforward reading, they both seem to affirm that faith requires the Spirit in our lives.
Now it's possible that my thoughts here aren't taking account of a more nuanced understanding of "unregenerate man" that you may have in mind or that you are thinking of other Catholic/Protestant resources that seem to disagree on the matter, in which case my reply will not seem applicable. And that might very well be the case. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not Catholic or Protestant, many of the definitions arising out of that discussion/debate/fight don't seem helpful [to me] for understanding the Scriptures or becoming a more Godly man, some of the distinctions I've heard sound far more like philosophy than honest exegesis, and to top it off I've got intelligent friends on both sides who keep reminding me how little I know.
Are their positions mutually exclusive? They probably are in some (hopefully) significant way. The guys making these fine distinctions are extremely bright and I don't know enough (and may not even be capable) to consider some of those distinctions in detail, let alone coming to some kind of firm conclusion on the matter.
that is what i meant when i referred to unregenerate. i agree with your first assessment of the unregenerate man. i also enjoy the westminster citation of course. but remember, the issue during the reformation, and ever since then, was not the necessity of grace but its effectivity. the necessity of grace has been affirmed since the 5th century when pelagianism was condemned. but it wasn't like they were just speaking past each other during the reformation and actually agreed on grace. the question is if grace does actually overcome man's rebellion of God and cause man to turn to Him. is the grace what causes man's cooperation or is that something man offers in order to enable grace? you play a little coy with the roman catholic/protestant distinctions but you are too well read to not be clear. if you affirm both the necessity and effectivity of saving grace then where do you differ with the reformers?
From what you've said, it doesn't sound like their disagreement is merely over if grace is effective (I imagine that both groups would argue in the affirmative), but precisely how it is effective, how it functions. It appears to me as an argument over the metaphysical mechanisms of God's grace in the human heart.
>>the question is if grace does actually overcome man's rebellion of God and cause man to turn to Him.
I doubt that the former part of this statement would be a point of contention as both groups would undoubtedly agree that "light drives out the darkness". The more sticky questions would probably revolve around the use of the word "cause" in the latter half of the statement and how God's causing would interact with our causing (our will). Unfortunately, this is a rather complex question (considering the four different causes taught within the late medieval age, plus the quotation I gave above from the WCF claiming that "second causes" have a liberty, a freedom of their own) and would need to be examined in far more detail than a combox (or my poor mind) does allow. Please don't think that I deny by omission. And though it may surprise you, I am extraordarily lacking when it comes to Reformation and Counter-Reformation theology. All that I had was a few church history texts that would either oversimplify (by presenting stereotypes -- Protestants as determinists, Catholics as idiots) or confuse (by not presenting any clear description of their positions). I honestly do think they differ theologically in some way (really really really smart people tell me so), and you're probably right that the precise function of grace is getting closer to the heart of that difference. But my guess is that most of the differences at this point in time are those of practice and, once in awhile, exegesis.
If I were were to make a go of your question, I wouldn't start by examining causes, but by considering Christ, by contemplating the connection between the human and divine wills within the Incarnation. There we see salvation, as divinity took on flesh. Yet, the Ecumenical Council (if I'm remembering correctly, this one was at Constantinople) argued that Christ was fully human, that he had both human and divine wills. On the one hand, his divine will did not invalidate or destroy his human will, it did not compel his human will to submit (and just in case you're concerned about any implications I'm making, I'm not suggesting anyone of the discussion partners is saying that it does, Traever, as I am aware that Calvin explicitly denied that God's sovereign work compelled the individual). Instead, it is in the garden that we see his human will freely submitting to the divine will, turning towards the cross. Christ's effective work is effective through the submissive will of Christ, acting in concert with each other, when each operation (that of divinity and that of humanity) operate together, when they cooperate.
So did Christ submit because he chose to, or because God chose to. Both, I think. Divinity chose first, humanity last, but both chose. Divinity humbled himself, empyting himself, taking the form of the servant so that we, humbling ourselves, empyting, and submitting ourselves to his will so that we may "become partakers of the divine nature". If the latter action is not free in a way that is analogical to the former, the redemption, our healing is incomplete (for the will as not yet been healed).
As to where that puts me on the map of Christian theology, I honestly don't know. But I think it fits will within the ethos of the Apostolic Christian Church.
As Thou in true, obedient love
Didst give Thyself up wholly,
I give myself to God above
To do His will here solely.
But please, if you want to continue this discussion, send me an email and we can go into more details. Comboxes aren't really the best place for theological clarification.
agreed. i'll email you when i get some time.
Post a Comment