At my blog, I wrote a post entitled “Does the God in American Evangelicalism Produce Fear?” When we look around, we can see that our church is divided and weak. The Anglican Communion and the PCUSA have rejected the authority of the Bible as the sole authority for the church. The church won’t preach the fullness of the Word in an expositional format (verse by verse) and is afraid to call out society on its sin. Instead, we hear pop psychology lectures or shallow topical sermons that are too pragmatic and ignore the deep rich doctrines.
My question to the bloggers here on this site, and all visitors to my site or this site, is why is the church so weak? In my post at my site I answer the question with the fact that God is not so sovereign to inspire genuine fear and awe in us to love him and delight in him alone. Do you agree with my assessment? If so, do you agree with my answer, or what do you think the reason is for why the church is in this state? If not, why do you disagree with my assessment of the situation of the church?
15 Comments
Your Question: “My question to the bloggers here on this site, and all visitors to my site or this site, is why is the church so weak?”
And your answer:”In my post at my site I answer the question with the fact that God is not so sovereign to inspire genuine fear and awe in us to love him and delight in him alone.”
I think that it has less to do with God and more to do with man. It is our lack of recognition of God in our lives–and in the life of the church. We fail to place God first. Living in America, we are more focused on 401k packages than trusting that God will provide. Our job gives us 4 weeks vacation so we must use that time to vacation away from the body of Christ. These are merely examples.
Your word “sovereign” is the key to understanding your thoughts. I do not like taking anything away from God, but I don’t think that is what you are getting at. Maybe I should just ask what you mean by sovereign?
I mistyped what I was trying to say. I meant to say "God is not seen and preached as the sovereign of the universe, the despote of the universe whose sovereign power inspires fear and awe in those who see him." God's sovereignty is so great and so all inclusive that nothing is outside of his government and is so powerful that nothing can thwart it (Daniel 4:35). Acts 17:24-25 says that we cannot even breathe without God granting it the breath to us. Proverbs 16:33 says that not even the lot cast in "random chance" is outside God's control. Unless that is the place that God has in his creation, there will be no true fear of Him who hates evildoers (Psalms 5:5; Psalms 11:5). Psalm 33:18-19 says that God's favor rests upon those who fear Him and cast themselves upon God's covenant love for mercy and salvation, and God will save them who fall on their faces before Him. It is all in my post.
Several things came to mind in reading your post. You make several great points. We need to fear God. Not in a cowering insect sort of way, but with true awe and respect, something along the lines of the advice given in Hebrews 12:28-29. I am not scared of God. Why is this? I now of his love that goes along with his justice. I fear and respect and stand in awe of his power, holiness, and justness. This makes me understand and be thankful for the mercy he has shown me. I couple this with the promise made to believers in Romans 8:38-39 and I know that I should not be scared, but thankful.
Another point that you are right to stress is that we need good hermeneutics in our preaching. I am going through The Hermeneutical Spiral by Grant Osborne. I am not very far into it, but he has already stressed two things: the need for context in the study of the Bible, and the ultimate goal of good exposition is good preaching. Preaching must be grounded in the word of God and it must be hermeneutically sound. You are right on in proclaiming the need every church in history has for these things.
However, I find some points of contention to go along with your good points. First, and perhaps foremost, how are you able to pronounce judgment on the state of Christianity in America? Is there some sort of survey that shows these deficiencies in the Church in America? I just don’t understand how one can judge the state of so many churches. I am sure that you are able to view and evaluate the local situation that you are a part of. I don’t think you are claiming the abilities of the prophets of Israel and their special communication with God that enabled them to evaluate and pronounce judgment on large sections of a country. I am sure you are not saying that. However, given that you are not saying that, I simply don’t know how one is able to make such an evaluation. I can understand one pointing to Olsteen, or other big name pastors. However, these are merely individuals and they most certainly do not represent the whole. I can see one pointing to how the church in portrayed in the media (secular and religious), but then again, I think we all know that what the media presents and what is actually the case are often quite a bit different. You say that the Church is afraid to confront homosexuality, hunger, and poverty. I say you are wrong. There are tons of church organizations that take up the charge that Jesus gave us to care for the poor and feed the hungry. Homosexuality is an interesting case. It warrants a whole ‘nother post to talk about how to deal with it. Something I find interesting is how Christians separate this sin away from all the others, as if it were worse. The fact that christians deal with it in such a way does not detract from the fact that it is still a sin, however.
Along this same vein of thought, I am also not sure how Arminian preaching equals a lack of fear in God. The Arminian (or better stated, a free will in salvation) framework posits that God both hates sin and will punish those that commit sin. Now, since it is the human’s responsibility that they turn towards or reject God, that punishment is very real to them. In Acts 17:26-27 Luke tells us that “He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us…” Given the above, I would suggest that good Arminian preaching places a healthy fear of God in the ears of its listeners.
As a matter of fact, one could say that the Calvinistic framework leads to people not fearing God. After all, the person is not responsible for their own salvation and if God is (actively) as sovereign as you suggest then He is really responsible for everything. One might as well accept it. Going to hell - have fun while you can - why should you respect a God that has done nothing to save you and yet has saved millions of other people. What allegiance do the damned owe to a king that leaves them to die? Limited atonement, indeed. Now, I am merely pointing out the situation from their point of view, not justifying their actions.
On the flipside, if God has saved me (and he has given up just a little bit of his sovereignty and I am allowed to preform my own actions, such as sinning or not sinning) why should I cower? God will save me. I won’t experience the punishment of Hell. I can’t. Perseverance of the saints allows me to not show God the true fear I should have of him and get away with it. Now, if you say that doing this is evidence of me not being one of the elect, I then move to the above paragraph where I am doomed anyway.
Now, I am not saying that the above two paragraphs are how people should act or really do act, but as along as we are pinning the problem of not fearing God on those Arminians, perhaps is it noteworthy to realize that just about any theological framework can lead to a lax view of God.
Beyond those criticisms, I liked a lot of your post.
If I were to give advise to the Church in America, it would be the following:
Don’t worry about the culture. Every moment each person crafts culture. It is not a static thing and to expect it to be such is analogous to expecting the wind to always blow one direction and at one speed.
Even though culture is constantly being created and formed, like a underwater reef, it is possible to effect change in your local setting. If everyone focuses on this - lots of change can happen quickly.
Realize that this is not ancient Israel, but modern Rome. Live like the NT Christians (minority in a “secular” culture), not the ancient Jews (majority within a religious and divinely created theocracy).
Live out Christ’s commands to love one another. This includes taking care of the poor and needy. Exchange the wealth we have been blessed with for blessings that can be given.
Just like we should stop worrying about the culture of America, stop worrying about what is right for this country. Don’t have a need for America to be a shinny city on a hill, number 1 superpower. If she falls, she falls, if there is a depression, there is a depression. Don’t sacrifice the call of Jesus and the Gospel for the safety of the country you happen to be in.,
Henry,
You asked, "how are you able to pronounce judgment on the state of Christianity in America?" But if you read my post, it's not just me. Pastors both here in KC and everywhere have noted this weak God in America. When I listen to sermons, I hear this weak God being preached, when he is being preached. When I interact with other students, people from other parts of the country, it is the same thing: there is no fear of God because churches aren't preaching a totally sovereign despote God. Just follow the headlines not in secular media, because you are correct in saying what is reported isn't always what is happening. Check out Christian news outlets and see what is going on in the Church.
When I talk about the Church not standing up to confront social issues, look at this. The PCUSA and the Episcopal Church throws out the Bible as their authority. Then sin is allowed, then justified, then approved and welcomed and encouraged. Many people have split from these denominations. But many, many more still follow it passively or actively! Plus, when was the last time you heard a sermon on hunger or poverty. It just doesn't happen anymore. Most preachers are more and more like Chip Ingram: lets talk about how to have good relationships with everyone. We get so caught up in our two issues: marriage and abortion/cloning/stem-cell research. We forget about the whole host of other issues within the local church.
I never once said that Arminians don't fear God. What I said was that the God that the Arminians preach is weak and has lost his sovereignty (or chosen to give it up, which this idea can't be found anywhere in Scripture). I merely observed that the God Calvinists preach is a big God, a sovereign God. In fact, I have only heard one preacher ever mention God as despote, Pastor Tim. The God I hear from Calvinists is firmly in control of everything. But I never said that Arminians don't fear God, their preaching doesn't lead to a proper fear of God, as I pointed out by the comment by Jay. Arminian preaching does not present the sovereignty of God as Proverbs and James does (see my use of Proverbs in my post).
As to the comment about people living as they want because they know they are not elect, I respond like this: where do you see people walking around with signs on their heads saying "elect of God" or "not elect of God"? Only God knows who the elect are, Jesus knows who are his. The only way we will ever know who belongs to Jesus is by their response to the gospel: do they believe it or not. Those who believe believe because God granted faith and repentance to them (Philippians 1:29; 2 Timothy 2:24-25). Otherwise they will continue persisting in sin and open rebellion and treason against God, who graciously created them and has not destroyed them the minute they transgress God.
Also, the life that you say would come because people know that they are elect (who are they to tell God that they can't be elect?) is the life they already lead. They live in open defiance against God, they are sinners following after their own flesh and lusts (Ephesians 2:1-3). Even those who are elect live like that until they are effectually called by God to faith in Christ and repentance and allegiance to Christ. Nothing changes for them and it is a moot point in all reality.
Also, in the Roman empire, every person who lived in the empire was commanded by the emperor to swear allegiance, this is the primary reason for the emperor cult. If you did not swear allegiance to the emperor and participate in the cult, you were guilty of treason. If they were going to live in the empire and hold citizenship, then they needed to swear loyalty to Rome embodied as the emperor. The same is true of God. If humanity is going to live in the creation that God rules over as despote and kurios, then they must swear allegiance to him or be found guilty of treason and open rebellion. This is exactly what happened, mankind has committed treason against God but still demands to live in his kingdom with their own pre-conceived rights and privileges. We have no rights with God. We can demand nothing from a despote, a slave master. Our very breathing is a gift granted to us by God. We don't think in these terms anymore because of democracy. While democracy is probably the best form of government for humans to govern themselves, it is not the government that God operates within. He is a monarch, a lord, a despot. This is the problem that I am seeing in Evangelicalism in America, it is too democratic in its views with God.
When you say that since God has saved you (which you don't actually believe that because you still had to come to him first; you really are saying God only made salvation possible and within your grasp if you will just reach out on your own and take it), why should you cower? Should you cower before men? Absolutely not, which is Paul's entire argument in Romans 8:31-39, but for it to work you have to hold to the election of Romans 8:28-30. Should you cower before God? I am arguing yes! Over and over in the Psalms the Psalmist pleads for mercy from God after his sin. Do you not think that David didn't cower before God when he realized his sin with Bathsheeba and her husband? What else was David doing in his plea for mercy in Psalm 51 but cowering before God and throwing himself before God in hope for God's mercy? If we aren't scared of a sovereign God whose wrath burns against sin, then do we really realize how horrendous hell is? I'm not certain God scares people enough.
When you say, "Perseverance of the saints allows me to not show God the true fear I should have of him and get away with it," that is a gross equation of eternal security and POTS. Eternal security is what really teaches that no matter what we do, if we say the prayer/sign the card/walk the aisle/get dunked in the tank but live a utterly sinful life, we will still go to heaven. POTS preaches the passages that say we must endure to the end or suffer God's wrath like 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 and Hebrews 6:4. It just also affirms texts like Philippians 1:6 and Philippians 2:13 that say we have divine help.
"Don’t worry about the culture." If that was the way the church operated, then there would still be slavery, women would be extremely oppressed in society. It was through the cultural work of the church that slavery was abolished in Rome. It was through a Baptist preacher that civil rights were granted to Black Americans. If the church doesn't worry about the culture, what will happen to it.
I am not worried about the culture of the state of America, I'm worried about the church's ability to make any kind of impact upon any culture at any moment. My ability to spread the gospel freely and openly depends on the culture. Do you know that there is a law in Canada that forbids preachers from preaching against homosexuality (this is from a friend who is from Canada)? How can I call people to repent of sin if I can't call it sin? I am worried about the body of Christ and her effectiveness in the Great Commission, which is greatly influenced by the culture around us.
Some things to consider are:
1. - God is in Control.
2. - Prayer. Let’s pray for everybody.
3. - Paul does a good job outlining People’s sin in Romans 3 and then goes on to tell them why there’s hope for them. Which brings us to the main point. We need to tell people they’re sinners. Unless they know, there’s no good news.
For some people think they’re good and that they’re going to Heaven. For others, there’s no God and “let’s just be nice”
Both Calvinists and Arminians understand the need of the great commission. To say otherwise is to deny the Lord’s command to go and teach all nations. There’s no excuse for not evangelizing. It is biblical.
Hank,
A few things on your last comment. Firstly, because some other pastors are saying it, or Christan News media are saying it; does not make it so. My point here is local, local, local. The only way you are going to effect the culture is in individual lives, for the lives of individuals make up the culture. It is foolhardy to make sweeping allegations of “American Christianity” for a multitude of reasons. A bunch of local observations don’t add up to a national picture - they are merely a bunch of observations about local, separate, and disconnected situations. Christianity in America is so diverse and diffused that you can’t really make any judgments on it as a whole. You can make great judgments on the particular manifestations of it, such as the PCUSA, the preaching of Chip Ingram, or the Episcopal Church. You can say things about them, but transferring it onto a slippery entity such as American Christianity is a misrepresentation. So, while I disagree with your statement of the state of American Christianity, I agree with some of your proposed solutions.
All the lamenting about the evils of our time at large doesn’t do any good except for pushing large volumes of air around. What does have an effect, and I don’t think that you would disagree with me on this, is change on the local level. If your pastor, or yourself sees people around you that are not peaching from the word - take it up with that person.
Something else to consider - the popular preachers are popular because the people want to consume what they are “selling.” They will become unpopular as their listening base changes. That happens locally.
Your posts suggests that Arminian preaching lacks a “strong” view of the sovereignty of God. The implicit argument is that Arminian preaching with it’s weak view of God is a heavy contributor to the lack of fear of God in America. The Arminian framework = lack of proper fear of God. That is what I was responding to. I countered that by saying that a Calvinistic framework can lead to the same thing. If I am elect - I can do anything and I am good to go. If I am not elect - I can’t do anything to get myself out of this hole God has put me in, so why bother. My point is that either framework can lead to people not “cowering” in fear of God.
I know full well that in Ancient Rome, there was no distinction between religion and the state. Since the local Gods were seen as the protectors or destroyers of local and national governments, improper worship = angry gods = local/national calamity. This is why early Christians had to worship the local gods and acknowledge Caesar to he a god that they also worshiped or be persecuted.
I have no idea where that came from. Maybe I am just misreading it or something.
Something that I find lacking in our discussion is the Love of God and why we should love him back. I don’t love a master if I am a slave. I hate him. I respect his power as I despise it. The only hold the master has over me is the force of his/her will. If I am a slave I hate the master. Why do I love God? Because of who She is. He is much more than a mere master, although he is the master and creator of the universe. I know his love for me. I know the promises that he has made. The unrepentant should cower. I can stand before God with holy fear and awe. Since I am clothed in Jesus’ righteousness, I can no longer live in fear. I don’t have to be afraid of God and eternal punishments. Instead, I am motivated to do good because of what he did for me and how he is, not because I am afraid of God, not anymore. Now, I might be using another definition of fear than the one you are using. Overall, I take the same mindset as Eph 2:10
You say you are worried about the Church’s ability to make any kind of impact on culture at any moment. I say that they only way you are going to do that is to affect local people. Since culture is created by people at every moment, reaching the local people will change the local culture. Many people changing their local cultures results in regional or national changes. Your ability does not depend on culture, or even the laws - it depends on ones boldness despite the laws or culture.
I do wanna stress that I mainly differ with you on your side points.
There is actually a lot of great cumulative info on the declining nature of Christianity in America. Almost all the progressive evangelicals I read speak of it. Numbers don’t always translate to deficiencies, but in the case of churches, I think they do.
I think you [H.M. and H.T.] may be talking about more than that - namely how the church can and/or should intersect with culture - but I thought I’d link to the best article I’ve read about ‘the numbers’ lately:
Sally Morgenthaler: Worship as Evangelism from Rev! magazine
I have three comments:
1.
PROVE THIS. Don’t assume you know others positions. Tell me, is all things in Proverbs suppose to be taking literally? Why should I take one verse literal–just because the name “God” is in the passage? You are correct in thinking that God has absolute qualities but he also has finite qualities too. Just because something says “God” does not make it an absolute promise. In fact, I think we are/can be in error if we set our foundation of a certain doctrine on passages of scripture that are figurative, prophetic, or apocalyptic.
2.
WOW, do you really believe this about your non-calvinite friends. At what point is what you said correct: Jesus becoming man-dying on cross-grace given because of Jesus’ sacrifice. At what point is man involved (I think that is your question)? The answer is the same with both parties-Henry “I am a Calvinite” Imler and HM both would have to agree that Grace comes down to us and we have all received it. Hank, you would say (I am assuming here) that we can not accept it by choice–While I would say we can make that choice. My answer is not the “first move” like you say, but it is a response to what God as already done. He caused salvation not me.”For even though salvation does not come from our will (John1:13), yet it does come “through our faith” (eph2:8) by our act of “receiving” Christ (john 1:12)” Norman Geisler (a calvinist).
3. Hank, I still do not think you have answered HM’s question about POTS. At least, you have not convinced me of any thing yet. I am trying to be open (as I always try too) to others viewpoints–in hope that I learn and do discover the truth (and I try to be willing to change if I am wrong). But I am still not convinced of anything you have said. I think those practical questions that HM makes are some that I have wrestled with for a long time when it comes to this topic. Why live the life if it is already decided? Why pray, why evangelize, why tithe, why go to church, why not live for fun if everything is already set (the afterlife). The answer of “just because” saints do it is not convincing me.
Casey,
I feel a little hot under the collar, here. I stopped talking on this thread because of the last statement in HM comment's, "I do wanna stress that I mainly differ with you on your side points." I also realized that these were small points of objection to my main point. Now onto your three points.
1.) I do not know of anyplace that I am not supposed to. Please show me where I have erred so that I may be corrected, also show me how I have misread the verses from Proverbs and James I have cited.
2.) Casey, where does the Bible talk about us having the ability to make that choice? In Deuteronomy 29:4, we are told that God has not given Israel a heart to understand, eyes to see, and ears to hear. Hence they are rebellious and obstinate when they enter the promised land of Canaan. I have sited verse after verse that says we are unable to see the kingdom (John 3:3). Also, look up Genesis 6:5; Genesis 8:21; Jeremiah 17:1; Jeremiah 17:9; John 3:5 John 8:34; John 8:48; John 10:26-27; Romans 3:9-12; Romans 8:6-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14. You point to Ephesians 2:8 as saying we are saved through faith, and I agree with that. However, that faith didn't just come up inside of us by our own effort, faith, like the grace and salvation, was given to us by God as a gift (cf. Philippians 1:29). I also pointed to 2 Timothy 2:24-25 where we are told that God grants repentance, it doesn't come from inside a person by his or her own effort. And by the way, Norman Geisler isn't really a Calvinist, look at the new Appendix in Chosen but Free, he tries to refute James White's book The Potter's Freedom which defends historic, five-point (TULIP), Calvinism.
3.) Be open and consider this. If a person holds to a libertarian view of free will (the ability to choose and choose otherwise), why does that person pray for the lost like this, "God save the lost"? Since it is a human act that unites a person to Christ, and God cannot exert himself in such a way that he cannot compel that person to believe when he hears the gospel preached. God cannot secure that person's salvation. God cannot work in that person's heart to cause them to believe, for that would violate the said person's view of free will. So why do you (those who hold libertarian free will) pray for the lost person when God has chosen to do nothing in moving that person to or away from Christ? If you are consistent with your theology, then you cannot pray for God to actually save someone. He can only make it possible. A Calvinist can ask God to actually save someone, to effectually bring them to Christ.
First of all, Jesus and his authoritative apostles and prophets command us in the Scripture to do all of these things. I should not have to say more, if our God commands it, then we do it. Secondly, you are importing your view of free will into the Calvinistic system and you cannot do it. Remember, in Calvinism, God's grace effectively brought you to the obedience of faith and repentance (2 Timothy 2:24-25; Philippians 1:29). That grace is what keeps you persevering. Go back and read read Philippians 1:6 and Philippians 2:12-13. Why do we work, because God is the one working in us to bring about our obedience. This is the promise of the New Covenant in Ezekiel 36:26-27 ESV, "And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules." God causes us to walk in obedience as part of our new covenant with him, bought by Christ (cf. Luke 22:20). Or look at Titus 2:12 where Paul says that the grace that our brings salvation to all men (cf. Titus 2:11) teaches us to renounce ungodliness and live godly. If a person who lives like you suggest, then that person has not received the grace of God that saves men. That person still stands condemned in their sins because they are not living the holy life. Also consider 2 Thessalonians 2:13, "But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth" (NASB). Here we see that God chose us from the beginning to be saved by sanctification through the Spirit. We are saved by being constantly conformed to holiness through the work of the Holy Spirit. To not be conformed to Christ's holy standard shows that you do not have the Spirit and thus you are not part of the elect of God.
Also, I don't think I ever said “just because.” I do believe that I said this,
“Just because" is a lame answer, so I don't hold to it. Scripture teaches it, and that is enough for me, even if it doesn't make total and complete sense sometimes.
I’ll hop in on the evangelism question because it is a good one [and a hefty one].
I affirm H.T.’s first point: God commands us to.
Romans 10:13-15 talks about the necessary conditions for people to be saved. And it includes the sharing of the Gospel.
But further, it is a privelege God allows us to participate in - the greater work in human history, the work of redemption. Isaiah 52:7-9
In other words, just because God foreordains the end of salvation, doesn’t mean that he hasn’t foreordained the means to accomplish redemption.
In Acts 18:9-10, the Lord told Paul to not be afraid but to speak and share the Gospel to the Corinthians “for I have many people in the city.”
Paul did not simply concede that the ‘many people’ who belong to God would be saved whether he stayed there or not, but he stayed there a year and six months “teaching the Word of God among them.” Acts 18:11
When Paul was told that God had many elect people in Corinth, he stayed a long time and preached in order that those elect people might be saved.
Did Paul know who was elected by God for salvation and who wasn’t? No. But once people came to faith, he was confident that God had chosen them for salvation. Paul shares this sentiment in 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5.
Paul endured a life of incredible hardships to bring the Gospel to those whom God had chosen. At the end of his life, he said in 2 Timothy 2:10:
Election is not fatalist - no matter what we do, things are going to turn out as they have been previously ordained, therefore it is futile to attempt the outcome because they will not make a difference - or mechanistic - an impersonal universe where all things have been inflexibly determined by an impersonal force long ago - even though many times it is characterized this way.
The New Testament consistently presents the entire outworking of our salvation as something brought about by a personal God through genuine persons. Ephesians 1:5
I may not understand completely why God has decided to include me in his work of redemption in light of his foreknowledge, but He has. But he has. And for this, I will submit and obey and hold the tension with humility in my heart.
Thanks for the opportunity to share Casey, H.T., and H.M. I also want to say that I am trying to stay in a posture of learning in our discussion. I appreciate you guys!
Hank,
I do not mean to make you feel hot! Sorry.Just asking questions. I would never mean to insult you or anyone. sorry.
On the first point of my questions to you: it was to prove your statement that Arminian preacher preach a low view of God, specifically through Proverbs and James.
You quoted, Proverbs 16:33. “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.”
You asked to show how this might not be literally true. I believe that proverbs is indeed a book of pithy statements used to be helpful in seeking wisdom, but not 100% true. Does a dog always return to his vomit? Is gray hair the only way for people to be wise? Is a poor man shunned by every relative he has? It is wrong, unless you who affirm, to hold to Proverbs 16:33 as a promise to us. Every decision comes from God? Did you ask God what shoes or socks to but on today? Maybe you are living in sin because God wanted you to wear blue socks. The fact is you are affirming this believe so you need to show me why I am wrong. (I get frustrated with talking to you because you throw a million scriptures out, but I would say that the majority of what you use is indeed in error of understanding what the author meant)I really do not want to debate every single passage with you, but I am conveying to you my difference. You sound more like prooftexting then building a case. I do not want that to offend you. But when you use scripture, I would like to see more of the context that the author uses–than compared to a quick list of words for your defense. Like I told you early, I am more than happy to talk about these things, and I am more than willing to admit error and change my thoughts. I personally believe that some points calvinites make are wonderful, but I do disagree with a few thoughts too.
If you have questions about my believes I will try to answer them. In you lost post, I might have skipped it, but i did not really see too many questions that needed answered (let me know if I missed something).
I can not give you a good answer, because I can not find your question, but it does seem to me that you do not understand Arminian view of how someone comes into the faith nor do you understand how one should pray. I would never pray like that, why assume arminians do? What is your evidence for that?
Sorry about the confusion, but your response to Honzo’s question sounds to me like you are saying “just because”. I know that you are not, but the effect seems to me that that is your answer. We persevere to the end because that is what we are supposed to do. I loved your point on Jesus says it so shut up and do it.
I want to leave you with this from RC Sproul,
“In the perennial debate between so-called Calvinism and Arminianism, the estranged parties have frequently misrepresented each other. They construct straw men, then brandish the swords of polemics against caricatures, not unlike collective Don Quixotes tilting at windmills. As a Calvinist I frequently hear criticisms of Calvinistic thought that I would heartily agree with if indeed they represented Calvinism. So, I am sure, the disciples of Arminius suffer the same fate and become equally frustrated.”
Oh, ps… I know Geisler is not a strong calvinist, but he still calls himself one. I only used him to bridge the gap from me to you. Just like I am using Sproul.
Hank,
Maybe what I call your “list of scripture” is more of a problem on my end of things than yours.
I have just seen so many prooftext and scriptures out of context over the years that I get a little annoyed too, with things that look close. If it smells like a cat and looks like a cat it probably is a cat, but we do have costumes of cats; so I might be a little harsh judging your comments.
Maybe there is some truth there too.
We should always be ready to give a defense for what we believe, and you do a good job at that.
Casey,
I wasn't feeling insulted, I just felt like you were cracking down on me hard–which could have come from my misreading the tone of your comments too–bringing the heat. I also don't sleep much any more so that explains some of the "Where did that come from?" statements in my posts/comments.
The reason why I use so much Scripture is that I am constantly hearing that Calvinism is not based upon the clear teaching of Scripture, but is rather a system of belief based upon one man, John Calvin, etc. People never take the time to argue this debate with Scripture, at least in my experience (and this includes my profs at both SBU and here at MBTS! I live in a lion's den up here and so I have to be ready with Scripture to defend my position at all times.). People never want to turn to John 6 or John 10 or Romans 9, ect., to debate whether or not Calvinist soteriology is taught in these passages or not. Instead they talk about why pray and evangelize (these are good questions that need to be answered but not before going to Scripture). Other people will say I can't possibly imagine God ever being like that, but yet they won't show that he isn't from the Bible. How can we ever grow in our knowledge of God apart from serious and studious historical-grammatical exegesis of the Scriptures? I don't think it is possible, we can only speculate at best, and that is dangerous, at what and who we think God is.
If you ever think that I have misused a single Bible verse, please show me and don't say I am "prooftexting" or "taking it out of context." Explain to me the appropriate context so that I can see the error of my ways, or may be it might show you that I am right…who knows? But please you have to demonstrate this to me otherwise I have no reason to accept your criticism of my interpretation. I am like you, always wanting to learn more and to have the best understanding of Scripture possible on this side of heaven.
Your quote by Sproul is one point I was making. What HM was saying about living how you want to is not what Calvinism teaches at all. Just like I know that every Arminian-type (may be not full-blown but not Calvinist) prays like a Calvinist (God save this man) even though they don't hold that soteriology. Every Calvinist also evangelizes like an Arminian too, preaching the gospel to everyone commanding them to repent and believe.
I am accused of being a hyper-calvinst, but that is never taking into account of what the historical definition of hyper-calvinism actually is. Many Arminians are accused of Pelagianism, which is a heresy! I understand this all too well. Don't forget, I used to be Arminian too. I know what I used to believe, it just isn't what you believe, and that is my fault for not understanding how you believe.
My other point was that if HM wanted me to be "consistent," then I wanted to point out what it would mean for an Arminian to be "consistent" too, namely in prayer.