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).
In post 97 you posted the following in response to the original article:
Ignoring scripture is the quickest path to bad theology.The implication was pretty clear. You disagreed with the Reformed understanding of man's will as presented in the article on the basis of the Scripture you quoted. I sought clarification by asking the following question in post 99:Regarding King Saul and King David:
1Sa 13:14 But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him [to be] captain over his people, because thou hast not kept [that] which the LORD commanded thee.
Do you believe it's reasonable or just for God to command men to do something and then graciously grant the obedience to that command to whom He chooses?That question was not meant to be any sort of re-statement of your position in different terms. It was simply a relevant question given the Scripture you quoted and the implications ostensibly being drawn from it.
However, rather than make any attempt to either answer the question or even seek clarification, you come back swinging in post 111 (bolded for emphasis):
Why do YOU feel the NEED to twist things? Is that the way you are? You love someone so you COMMAND them to do something? Your mind is so twisted that you can't imagine someone loving you so much to die for you to save you from eternal damnation? You're clueless when it comes to perfect love. God doesn't COMMAND, He invites.However, your employer WILL command you to do something - tell him/her that you don't think it's reasonable or just. Your 'love of a paycheck' will submit you to obedience.
Lastly, who do YOU think you are to question ANYTHING about The Almightly? You are merely a mortal man with a sinful nature. Fear of The Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
I replied in 115 by asking you to settle down and explaining that I was not making implication about what you said in your original post, only using the Socratic method in discussing it. Your response?
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.This led to my pointing out the fact that you don't seem interested at all in discussion, a fact further supported by your last response:
There is no doctrine - your question wasn't truthful - so rational discussion was not your intent. You can be firmly convinced in your mind but when it reaches your heart there would be no desire to make untruthful statements and expect an answer. ......you're anything other than an arrogant, prideful nuissance :) You make a deceitful statement, I call you on it, and I'm being arrogant, prideful nuisance ?? A typical childish response when one can't get their way. I won't play in our 'teaching by questioning' sandbox so you call me names and stomp your feet. Telling it like it is is not being prideful, it just an irritant to you.It took reading through that whole rude invective twice to glean what appears to be your response to my original question; namely, that the premise of my question (that God commands things of men) is flawed because God does not command men, He only invites them.
Assuming that is indeed what your objection was, don't you think you could have found a more constructive, peaceful means of pointing out your disagreement with my question rather than immediately attacking me? I would have gladly discussed whether or not your criticism of the premise of my question withstood the test of Scripture and plain reason. But instead you respond abusively, condescendingly, and accusatively.
Now, we can proceed with a rational discussion, or not. The choice is yours. I am more than willing to do so without personal attacks if you agree to reciprocate.
What will it be?
God's election is not based simply on His whim, but on His foreknowledge (Rom. 8:28, 1 Pt. 1:2)--that is, on His eternal perspective. From that perspective, all time is before Him at once, and those who are elect are already chosen, "written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain, from the foundation of the world."
Yet, even from within that eternal perspective, God recognizes the element of human choice: "'Do I actually delight in the death of the wicked?' says the Lord YHVH. 'Is it not [better] that he should turn from his ways and live?'" (Ezk. 18:23). If God does not delight in the destruction of the wicked, but would rather that they repent, and yet there are those who do not repent and are therefore destroyed, it must be that there is a choice: "I call Heaven and earth to record today against you. I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Therefore, choose life, so that both you and your seed may live" (Deu. 30:19). That choice happens within the temporal sphere.
The Calvinist errs in being so focused on the eternal perspective that they remove all human responsibility--and therefore make God out to be a cosmic monster who does indeed delight in casting the wicked into hell without giving them the chance to repent. They also, ironically, limit the sovereignty of God by declaring that God could not make the sovereign decision to give man a choice.
Conversely, there are those who so over-emphasize the freewill of man that they declare that even God does not know the future. Not anyone here, mind, but there are indeed those who make the case.
This is a balanced soteriology, from which one can say both, "I accepted the Lord" and "the Lord accepted me" without a hint of contradiction.
So men can be spiritually neutral?
"Knowledge of the sciences is so much smoke apart from the heavenly science of Christ." -- John Calvin
In the light of scripture, which is the reservoir of the TRUTH, it is revealed over and over that we participate in the process.
As Buggman so eloquently expressed in Post #142:
The Calvinist errs in being so focused on the eternal perspective that they remove all human responsibility--and therefore make God out to be a cosmic monster who does indeed delight in casting the wicked into hell without giving them the chance to repent. They also, ironically, limit the sovereignty of God by declaring that God could not make the sovereign decision to give man a choice.
Conversely, there are those who so over-emphasize the freewill of man that they declare that even God does not know the future. Not anyone here, mind, but there are indeed those who make the case.
This is a balanced soteriology, from which one can say both, "I accepted the Lord" and "the Lord accepted me" without a hint of contradiction.
"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." -- Romans 9:16"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
It isn't "mercy" if it's earned in any way. It's wages due.
And if God wanted all men saved, all men would be saved.
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." -- Titus 3:4-7"But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
"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
"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." -- Romans 9:16
It's no coincidence these are the same verses I offered Campion.
I disagree.
Just because God thinks something does not mean that that something has come into existence.
I'm not so hot on the idea that all time is before him at once.
I do not believe God is bound by time, but to say that I am simultaneously before God as an infant or as an old man on his deathbed seems to defy the principles of reality that have been established in the bible.
Are God's thoughts pensive? Does He muse? At any time inside or outside of time does God contemplate alternatives?
Because if you answer "yes" to any of these you are stating there is a point inside time or outside time that God does not "know" everything.
God's knowledge is certain and fixed; His will is definite and defining.
Think about it. Can you honestly envision God pondering His next move? At any time?
Frumanchu said earlier today that to discuss "Can God have choices" is like discussing "Can God create a rock that God cannot lift."
So far as the argument that something IS in existence at the very moment God has thought about it is to deny the existence of time and of sequence.
If God intends for something to exist (as He contemplates it outside of time), that thing WILL exist (inside of time.)
To deny that is to deny the very nature of God, IMO, and results in a speculative God, like the Greeks and Egyptians assumed.
"That day shall not come until the man of sin be first revealed, who sits in the temple of God showing himself that he is God..."
Christ has not yet returned.
Precisely. Does God tell us He will return?
Yes.
Will He return?
Yes.
Is there any chance in the universe that Christ will NOT return?
No.
Life is definite, determined once for all time by the will of God.
Now you're saying exactly what I've been saying.
You should agree with me more often...it really lessens my stress, ya know. :>)
Hardly. Either I'm not being clear, or you don't have a good response so you're just trying to be cute.
My money's on the later. 8~)
Will Christ return, or is God still deciding that one?
I've been saying all along that it WILL happen. I've only maintained that it has not ALREADY happened....it does not yet have EXISTENCE.
I know I'm cute -- but I'm not trying to be.
(PS: So you're one of those "Latter" day kind of folks, huh?)
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.