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).
See you soon.
Of course not. God knew everything from the beginning of time.
A similar question I would pose to you; has there ever been a time when God has not directed even one event? If there has been then God is not God.
Under your soteriology God is unable to bring man to full repentance simply because it goes against man's will. People cannot pray for someone else's salvation because it would violate their free will. God is powerless to rescue someone because it goes against their will. This didn't seem to stop God from zapping Paul.
You won't get any argument from Augustine, Luther or Calvin on that. The point of disagreement is that if once God decides to save someone is that grace irresistable? The Arminian would say yes. The Calvinist would say that if God sets His mind to it, it will be accomplished. Otherwise, don't bother to pray for anyone cause it won't do any good.
****The difference between Calvinists and Catholics is largely a difference over the MEANING of what it means to have free will.****
>> I disagree. Most of us would say it's over Grace and Works. <<
Well, I had meant the biggest disagreement over FREE WILL that Catholics and Calvinists have... but -- and I happened to have touched on this is my first post -- I do think that even the disagreement over Free Will does stem from our disagreement over Grace and Works. So if that's what you meant, I actually do agree with you.
LOL, now I'm confused!
LOL, now I'm confused!
Mongergism.com is an amazing site. My favorite (other than A Puritan's Mind) on the net.
>> I think the Arminian (and perhaps the Catholic?) position sees election as some kind of ratification of the foreseen choice, whereas Calvinists see election as causative of conversion. <<
I think this is Arminian issue is a substantial source of the misunderstanding between Calvinists and Catholics (and Kosta, I'd probably lump Orthodox in with the Catholics on this one, but let me know if you have a problem with what I write.)
The Catholic position is not the Calvinist position, but it is not the Arminian position either. The Catholic position is this: God, having created us, loves us. He created us so that it is our nature to respond to his love for us. But, because of the stain of sin, we cannot detect this love for us, and we have become ignorant of it. Through grace, God removes the stain of sin, and we once again can experience that love.
I'm inventing this metaphor, so there will probably be many legitimate problems with it pointed out, but here goes:
Our closest ability to understand God's unconditional love for us comes from our unconditional love for our own child; In fact, God gives us the grace of taking part in the creation of another so that we may understand him better.
The newborn child: Has it given birth to itself? No.
When a child becomes filthy, the child will stink. The Father will clean the child. Does the child want to be cleaned? Probably not. Can the child clean itself? No.
As the child grows, the Father will teach the child to clean itself. Can the child clean itself without the father? No, the father has provided everything the child needs to clean itself: the home, the plumbing, the towels, the clean clothes. If the child does not clean itself, will the parent not make sure the child is cleaned? Of course.
But as the child grows older, how foolish would the child be to say, "I will mess in my pants, and I will not clean myself. For my Father loves me, and if I have faith in that love, I will become clean." Rather, the child, knowing that the Father has taught him good things, obeys the father by cleaning himself. And when the child's younger siblings mess themselves, the child helps his siblings to become clean also.
Does the Father want the child to have messy pants? No. Will the Father not love the child who messes his pants? Of course he will. Will the Father hug the child with messy pants? Yes. But he may ask the child to clean himself first. If the child believes that the Father would not love him because he messed his pants, though, would the Father not run after the child, messy pants and all, and warmly hug the child? Yes.
Is it not our duty as older siblings to help younger siblings stay clean? Yes. Does that mean the Father cannot keep our siblings clean without our help? Of course not.
The "Armenian" position (at least as presented by Calvinists) is that the child must accept the love of the father in order to be loved. That is absurd.
The position with the Catholic Church rejected is not that we need to choose God, nor that we can save ourselves; what the Catholic Church simply rejects is the notion that the Father doesn't want us to clean our own backsides when we take a dump. Through the church, God has provded us a toilet, toilet paper, a shower, cleaning cloths, soap, a warm house, warm water, etc. He expects us to use them.
But, it is God who works in you, who began a good work and will complete it....NOT YOU.
Yes, we MUST work our salvation with fear and trembling.
But, we must always remember that any of our efforts are by God's grace and Spirit.
I didn't know if you thought I was saying that the disagreement over the meaning of Free Will was bigger than the issue of works or whether you were saying that, even on the topic of Free Will, the issue of works was more important than the misundertanding of the meaning of free will.
If you were asserting the first, I agree with you; I had meant that the definition of free will was the biggest disagreement between Catholics and Calvinists only in the context of our discussion of free will.
If you were asserting the latter, I probably still would ultimately agree with you, since I believe that the confusion over the meaning of "free will" does stem from the difference in our understanding of salvation by grace alone.
Haven't we had this entire discussion enough times, Fru? Come on now...if you're not gonna dance, then don't come to the party. :>)
Reading between the lines, I think you just agreed that God knows everything without exception.
What is so fearful about that question to you guys? Just answer it and get it behind you.
His grace and Spirit are the means we need for our salvation. But He does not comple us to use them. We must choose to accept and use the means He so graciously gives us, even if we have done nothing to deserve them.
You believe the same as we do insofar as God knows everything without exception. What exactly that entails and what the implications are is a source of disagreement.
So, if you want to dispense with the games, you could clarify the relevance of your question to the topic at hand by explaining in more detail what your view of God's omniscience has to do with it.
Or...we can continue to dance.
No question that Arminianism and other forms of semi-Pelagianism are works-righteousness based.
It's easy to see the theological failure of Arminianism just by how many times they get tripped up when they resort to such nonsensical illustrations and analogies.
"What the Arminian wants to do is to arouse man's activity: what we want to do is to kill it once for all---to show him that he is lost and ruined, and that his activities are not now at all equal to the work of conversion; that he must look upward. They seek to make the man stand up: we seek to bring him down, and make him feel that there he lies in the hand of God, and that his business is to submit himself to God, and cry aloud, 'Lord, save, or we perish.' We hold that man is never so near grace as when he begins to feel he can do nothing at all. When he says, 'I can pray, I can believe, I can do this, and I can do the other,' marks of self-sufficiency and arrogance are on his brow." -- C. H. Spurgeon
According to Spurgeon, the Arminian needs to get people to work harder and train better in order to win Smith's hypothetical race so that God's bet will pay off.
I think you can speak for someone else soteriology but not for mine.
God has always been in control and God has always known everything. God is not a schizoid being with His planning ability over here, his reflective capacity around the corner, and his knowledge over there, and his power out yonder someplace.
God chose you in Christ.
"In his sight all things are open and manifest, his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to him contingent, or uncertain." (Westminster Confession, II:2)
"God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently." (Westminster Confession, V:1,2)
Now I'm tracking.....
The potter knows what he wants to make when he begins to work on a lump of clay. The clay only discovers the intent of the potter by yielding to the potter's touch. God has a concept of what He wants me to be when He starts to work in my life. I can only find the mind of God by yielding to His touch
Perfect! While on the potter's wheel is when He deals with those things that of not of Him. to name a few - pride, jealousy, self righteousness, stubborness.
It's just not accepting Jesus into our hearts but conforming to His Will. He conforms us on the Potter's Wheel as we submit to His correction as we crucify our flesh daily to get His desired results. NOT many are willing to submit to this. The Holy Spirit gives us the strength to go through this process ONLY when we totally give our life over, total submission. God tears out by the roots, those things NOT of Him - our mindset, our feelings, our desire for the wrong things (i.e., gossip). It is not a pleasant place to be but it's the only place to be. Not our will but His Will be done.
The thought that when one accepts Jesus, goes to church, prays, give their tithes, is kind to their fellow man - they are in good standing - all is well. Not so! Unless one is willing to submit to the Potter's Wheel through the His strength because we cannot do it on our own - we are not followers of Christ for He says 'take up your cross daily'. God's Wisdom and Discernment is needed in order to see wrong teaching. The Holy Spirit is the best teacher.
There will always be disagreement with those that don't have the wisdom and discernment - they try to figure out things in their own mind - what makes sense? It doesn't happen that way. God's thoughts are not our thoughts, God's ways is not our ways. The more we are on the Potter's Wheel, the more we see His thoughts and His Ways because He instills them in us. So when one doesn't submit to it and other one does, there is no way that one can convince the other of what God has shown them, instill in them. It truly is a personal relationship and total submission to understand the things of God.
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.