Posted on 01/16/2006 12:59:35 AM PST by Gamecock
"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be." Rom. 8:7
Our theology really reflects how we think about God. When we have poor theology it reveals that we are thinking wrong thoughts about God. Wrong thoughts about God dishonor Him. Good theology, then, means that we are thinking more closely in line with His revelation about Himself, and therefore honor Him with our thoughts. A.W. Tozer once remarked: "The essence of idolatry is the entertainment of thoughts about God that are unworthy of Him." I would agree that unity in the church is of great importance but we cannot have it at the expense of revealed truth. To say we all love Jesus but have entirely different understandings of who Jesus is just will not do. Although this essay is critical and may appear polemical, it is important that we expose theological error where we find it so that we have the right balance in our understanding of God and His plan. It is only written in a spirit that we strive after what is excellent and leave behind that which does not benefit the church.
Recently I received a letter from a brother who pointed out some of the erroneous theology coming out of Chuck Smith's ministry. For those of you who are not familiar with him, he is the Senior Pastor of Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa, a church that strongly promotes a synergistic gospel, meaning that both God and man each make a contribution to complete the work of salvation. To give you an idea where he stands, Smith also recently gave a hearty endorsement to Dave Hunt's embarrassingly unscholarly book entitled "What Love Is This" which was intended to expose the shortcomings of the doctrines of grace.
As was pointed out to me by a visitor, part of Chuck Smith's sermon on Eph, 1:1-4 focuses on God's foreknowledge and the word "chose." He gave the following racetrack illustration of what it means for God to choose us. In essence Smith taught the following: God knows everything, so when He chooses you it is like Him going to the racetrack. Since He knows who will win, those are the ones He chooses. God doesn't choose losers, only winners; I am a winner because I chose Him first. Here is his exact quote from that sermon:
"…you could go to the race tracks with this kind of knowledge (foreknowledge). Imagine what you could do, having foreknowledge knowing every horse what he was going to do in that race and you would go to the race track with this kind of knowledge. Now if you could do you think you would go there and pick out a ticket of losers? I don't know what you do at racetracks. Would you pick out a bunch of losers? You would be stupid if you did. Of course you wouldn't you would pick the winners, because you know in advance who is going to win the race. What the outcome is going to be. And so you make your choices predicated on what the outcome is because you already know in advance what it is going to be. That is just using your head. Now that is what thrills me about God choosing me ... God already knows the choice you are going to make. But you are the one that makes the choice, but God in all of His wisdom, knows the choices each person is going to make. But He doesn't make the choice for you. He only knows in advance, that which you are going to choose. " http://calvarychapel.com/library/smith-chuck/studies-books/00-ALL-1979/5275.htm
So I am a winner because I chose Him first? Hmmm, lets follow this logic ... In other words then, according to Smith's analogy, God only chooses the one who has physically trained himself better, or is naturally stronger than the one who lost the race, so to speak. Or, to bring this same analogy into the spiritual realm, God chooses the one who contributed more towards his/her salvation - One man, while still in his old nature, either created a right thought, generated a right affection, or originated a right volition that led to his salvation while the other man, did not have the natural wherewithal to come up with the faith that God required of him to obtain salvation (to "win the race'). So God, according to this scheme, really chose one man over the other based on something good within one while rejecting the man who lacked this inclination towards goodness. So who are we trusting for salvation then? Why does one believe and not another? Is one naturally endowed with more wisdom to start with? Did one train himself better prior to salvation, so to speak? Even if God initiates with grace, in this scheme, what does the one man have, who chooses God that the one who rejects Him does not? Has evangelicalism gone full circle? ... Isn't that the very reason why we broke off from Rome in the 16th century - to get away from such man-centered doctrines? Are we saved by merit then? I would challenge you to go back to the Council of Trent, the document that came out of the Catholic Counter-Reformation to see how closely it resembles Smith's teaching on the free will of one who is not yet born again.
In the Council of Trent (1563), which is the standard of the Roman Catholic Church, we find the following statement about freedom of the will written in opposition to one of the most critical recovered biblical doctrines of the Reformation (Sola Gratia):
"If any one shall affirm, that man's freewill, moved and excited by God, does not, by consenting, cooperate with God, the mover and exciter, so as to prepare and dispose itself for the attainment of justification; if moreover, anyone shall say, that the human will cannot refuse complying, if it pleases, but that it is inactive, and merely passive; let such an one be accursed"!
"If anyone shall affirm, that since the fall of Adam, man's freewill is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing titular, yea a name, without a thing, and a fiction introduced by Satan into the Church; let such an one be accursed"!
The frightening thing to me is that much of modern evangelicalism has basically compromised the most valued biblical doctrine recovered at the Reformation: Salvation by Grace Alone (By grace alone through faith alone). We have replaced it with a cheap counterfeit: Grace PLUS Faith. We must that recognize that faith does not come from the natural man but the spiritual man. "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." (1 Cor 2:14) We would never believe unless the Holy Spirit came in and disarmed our hostility to God, making our heart of stone into a heart of flesh that we might believe. Faith, desire and will for God are not produced by the old nature but are produced only after God does a work of regenerative grace in our soul. (1 John 5:1; Ezekiel 11:19-20; Acts 16:14b)
We can really see how the synergistic concept carries over into the religious language of modern popular evangelicalism. The other night I was out with some friends celebrating a birthday and one of the gentlemen sitting there said, "I accepted Christ three years ago..." Now I understood what he meant and have heard this expression many times before but something inside me felt uncomfortable when I heard it put that way. In fact, this expression has never been comfortable for me, but we all have probably used it at one point or another. So after coming home I pondered what about this expression that I didn't like. I think it comes down to this:
When someone says: "I accepted Christ" at such and such a time in the past, it puts the entire impetus or stress of salvation on the individual and his assurance comes from something he did at a moment in the distant past. But the reality of the matter is that God accepted us. We were a loathsome stench in His nostrils but the blood of Christ made us clean and a sweet aroma to Him so that He might have fellowship with us. So perhaps we should try to be more biblical when conversing about salvation by speaking of it in a more God-centered manner. Without being legalistic about this, for instance, instead of "I accepted Christ ten years ago…" perhaps it would be more effective to listeners to be speaking like this: When God called me to faith in Christ; When God opened the eyes of my faith or understanding (as he did Lydia in Acts). When God turned my heart of stone into a heart of flesh; When God turned me from darkness to light; When God made me alive in Christ. --- The work of salvation is the work of the Trinity: God the Father elects us, Jesus the Son, purchases our redemption (those the Father has "given Him.") (John 6:37,39) and the Holy Spirit applies the benefits of Christ's redemption to the same.
To say that we "received" Him is actually more biblical but it would be good to put that in context. "We love God because He first loved us" Even in the one place where John uses this word "received" (John 1:12) he is careful to qualify it with the next verse which says:
"...children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God." John 1:13
Not of human decision. Hmmm. Born of God. All glory to Him. In other words, I didn't generate a right affection or originate a right volition that led to my salvation until God did a work of grace in me. God did it and my response was sure. I deserved only God's wrath but He was merciful to me and brought me to Himself. Regeneration is not we, in the flesh, voting yes, it is a work of God that disarms the rebellion in our hearts towards God that the Spirit applies to His people when the gospel is preached. We did the believing but God gets the glory, even for the very desire we have for faith. The Church is charged with calling all people to repent and believe the gospel, but no person will do so left in his unregenerate state. Our hearts are far too disinclined from the desire for God. But those who are born again have now the dispositions of their hearts changed which desire to believe and obey:
"Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes,and you will be careful to observe My ordinances." Ezekiel 36:26-27
With this in mind we can preach indiscriminately to the lost, "Be reconciled to God!" (2 Corinthians 5:20). In other words, "...repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 20:21) is commanded to all people. It is the sinners responsibility to turn and embrace Christ, but God, the Holy Spirit alone initiates and applies the benefits of the new birth through the preached word of God: “You have been born anew, not of perishable seed but but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God...That word is the good news preached to you.” (1 Peter 1:23,25) James says, “He chose to give us birth through the word of truth“ (James 1:18). These verses testify that the apostles strongly believed that regeneration came only as God applied the gospel to the heart of His people through preaching. So it is not we who effect our own conversion to God, but an act of His lovingkindness:
"It is not of him that wills or of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy" (Romans 9:16).
If God knows everything, then could He know, for example, that your great-grandson will take your great great-grandson to church? Can He know which church it will be?
Can he know if you will be alive at that time and will attend a baptismal service? Can He know the attendees at that service? Can He tell which attendee is missing because He's got that one in the "blackout/don't peek" mode?
Can God know the day of your death? Can He know if there's a funeral service, and which pastor, if any, will be preaching it? Can He tell if it's in a church building or in a funeral parlor?
The "don't peek" theology simply isn't satisfying to me. Even allowing that God "forces Himself not to know something," that doesn't account for all the other knowledge God would have that would certify to Him that which He's supposedly chosen not to know.
And, again, if people are born from above by God's Holy Spirit, then we have to assume that God doesn't know what God himself will do in the future.
"No Peek" simply doesn't biblically work for me.
Our only choices are two, it seems to me: (1) Traditional omniscience, or (2) open theism.
Notice how the curse and our sin nature, that resulted from the fall, hinders our ability to receive and endure fruit for the Gospel.
18 Now here is the explanation of the story I told about the farmer sowing grain:
19 The seed that fell on the hard path represents those who hear the Good News about the Kingdom and don't understand it. Then the evil one comes and snatches the seed away from their hearts.
20 The rocky soil represents those who hear the message and receive it with joy.
21 But like young plants in such soil, their roots don't go very deep. At first they get along fine, but they wilt as soon as they have problems or are persecuted because they believe the word.
22 The thorny ground represents those who hear and accept the Good News, but all too quickly the message is crowded out by the cares of this life and the lure of wealth, so no crop is produced.
23 The good soil represents the hearts of those who truly accept God's message and produce a huge harvest-thirty, sixty, or even a hundred times as much as had been planted."
See how proud Jesus is at how this man is exercising his God given faith.
Luk 7:9 When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
Behold our Godly calisthenics:
Luk 9:23 And he said to [them] all, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
Salvation is completely the grace of God being exercised. There's nothing we can contribute. However, how well we become versed in the language of faith depends on our responces to the motivations the Holy Spirit places in our hearts.
God is very active in our sanctification, by minimizing the temptations to that which we can bear, and providing a way of escape. Personal experience tells us that we do not always take the escape route, and are forced to suffer the consequences. God would prefer that we followed His will always, but He is so powerful that even when we do not, He works in Godly character by teaching us through our mistakes.
1Cr 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God [is] faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear [it].
David's responses to the motivations of the Holy Spirit.
Without the Holy Spirit's motivations we would not know what to do, therefore we would always be ungodly. However, when we actively respond, God delivers blessings in our life. Saul chose not to take the escape routes God provided, whereas David escaped great calamity again and again.
Settle down. I simply asked a question.
I am settled and that is what bothers you most. Your attempt at "teaching by asking questions" doesn't work with me. Like I said, I'm settled in my faith and can't be swayed or shaken. When you get to the point that you know, that you know that you know, you will understand. Until then, you will flounder.
I answered your question first by telling you what you want a 'why or why not' to is not a true statement to begin with. It's as twisted as asking why or why not is snow red. Go back to your Socratic man-made methods because the things of God appear to be of no concern to you and, obviously, out of your reach of comprehension. Again, God doesn't command, He invites.
Your best bet is to try your questioning on someone that's intrigued with man-made methods, such as yourself.
IF you have existed in the mind of God from BEFORE the foundation of the world, then EVERYTHING about you is known to God, most especially whether or not you will sit with Him in heaven.
And IF your salvation exists in the mind of God, it is already a fact which cannot be altered, inside, or outside time.
Unless God WANTS it altered which really doesn't make any sense because we are talking about God here, whose immediate knowledge is the exact same thing as His foreknowledge, which is complete and contains all contingencies AND the chosen path.
"Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it?" -- Lamentations 3:37
God's knowledge is absolute without a shred of "possibility." God's mind IS REALITY.
This seems so clear that I'm at a loss half the time to figure out why all the believing world doesn't agree with it.
And I've come to the conclusion it's because advertising works.
If we hear "autonomous will" and "conditional salvation" long enough, pretty soon we believe in an open-ended free will as a reality.
In fact, we're downright proud of it, as evidenced by these recent threads with our RC friends who have gone so far as to call free will a "gift from God."
As for me, I'm quite firmly convinced in my own mind of the truth of what I believe. That doesn't mean I won't engage in rational discussion over those doctrines, for such may very well convince others as well.
You, however, don't seem interested in discussion but rather condescending lecture. That's your prerogative. Just don't expect many people to be convinced you're anything other than an arrogant, prideful nuissance :)
Have a nice day.
***David's responses to the motivations of the Holy Spirit.***
Chapter and Verse please.
In one place you say He is a respector of persons. Now you quote scripture saying he isn't.
So, which is it?
There is no single "Catholic position" on this matter; it's never been defined. Within the parameters laid out by (especially) Scripture, II Orange, and Trent, it's possible to come up with various conclusions.
IMO, the only "foreseen choice" any of us can ultimately make completely apart from grace is really a non-choice; it's the failure to resist grace at the critical moment in our conversion. (Christ said "apart from me, you can do nothing". Of course, he meant "nothing good". So at that critical moment, apart from Christ, you can either do nothing, or you can choose to do something bad.)
It's possible to believe that God foresees this failure to choose evil at a critical moment and elects those people. (That's conditional election.) It's also possible to believe that God foresees those who make the positive choice for evil at the critical moment, reprobates those people, then elects everyone else. (That's unconditional election.)
Calling election "causative of conversion" begs the question a bit. How does God know whom to elect in the first place? There has to be something about the foreseen behavior of the person that causes the choice, because he says that he desires that all men should be saved and come to knowledge of the truth, but it appears that all men are not saved. If that is the case, then His desire that all men be saved and come to knowledge of the truth takes second place to something ... perhaps keeping intact their ability to say "no, thanks"?
This discussion hinges on our understanding of eternity. This is how Calvinism and Arminianism can both be right and wrong. They confuse perspectives. These doctrines were formulated before mankind could conceive of eternity. Now we know better. Be careful not to confuse immortality/ everlasting life with the eternalness of God. There are two perspectives:
1. Inhabiting eternity (Outside time) - Only the Father, Son and Holy Spirit can claim never having been created, therefore not subject to time *Omniscient*. (Jesus chose to see reality from our perspective during His earthly ministry [Mar 13:32], thus completely relying on the Father as a perfect example to us). (Satan and the Angels cannot escape time or else they would be omniscient).
2. Within created time - From our perspective God has foreknowledge because our free-will choices are known to Him from eternity. Jesus didn't know the day or the hour because when He spoke Mar 13:32 He was within created time.
The Bible is written to help us understand things from within time, giving only glimpses of God's eternal perspective. Therein lies the confusion.
Mar 13:32 But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
I don't agree, but that is largely because I am more comfortable with the paradox that God desires all men to be saved, and yet elects some for reasons only known to him, but without regard to any alleged merits on the part of those elected. I'm more comfortable with that paradox than with the idea that God knows who he picked - for his own reasons - than with the idea that God picks those predisposed to assent to him.
Sorry if I made that error and thanks for catching it.
God is no respecter of persons.
However, Scripture is one complete testimony of God revealing His election throughout time, by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ alone.
"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly." -- Romans 5:6
It's also possible to believe that God foresees those who make the positive choice for evil at the critical moment, reprobates those people, then elects everyone else. (That's unconditional election.)
No, that's conditional election as well, conditioned upon other people's choices which is even more absurd.
Unconditional election is based upon NOTHING in men because all men are equally fallen. Unconditional election is based solely upon the good and perfect pleasure of God.
How does God know whom to elect in the first place? There has to be something about the foreseen behavior of the person that causes the choice
Men have always wanted this to be true. Because if it is true, they (or a church hierarchy) can elect themselves and determine their own salvation. But Scripture tells us otherwise:
"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth" -- Romans 9:11
How much clearer does it have to be?
"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." -- Romans 9:16
I've always thought it interesting that Paul added "runneth" to "willeth," as if he were stressing not only is it impossible to obtain salvation due to our own efforts, even if we REALLY TRY HARD, we cannot accomplish what is God's alone to ordain.
Whether we're contemplating God "inside" or "outside" of time, the fact remains there is only ONE TRUTH -- regardless of how men would prefer it to be otherwise.
If it's based on nothing at all, then God lies when he says, not in one place but in two, that he wills all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. He further lies in Ezekiel when he says it is not his will that the wicked man die, but that he turn from his evil and live.
Sorry, you can't have it both ways. If God chooses based on NOTHING, then he has only himself to blame if heaven is not full and hell is not empty.
That's not what I said, though. I said he picks those who fail to resist him. Nobody can be "predisposed to assent to him" unless he first makes them that way ... and then you're back where you started from, asking "why did he predispose this person here and not this other person over there".
Oh, and BTW, your argument doesn't even work. All men can be equally fallen, but it doesn't follow that all will choose to do a particular evil work in a given set of circumstances. Some may do nothing. Even spiritual corpses can do nothing, though they can't choose to do nothing (which is not the same thing).
Something like saying "Saying that nobody's yet proposed a fully-satisfactory unified field theory keeps physics uncertain and gives physicists final say over the mechanics of objects"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.