Meaningful Theological Dialogue - At Least from My Perspective
I've been interacting with Dr. Brad Reynolds' blog. The subject of Calvinism came up because of Southeastern's abstract of principles and Dr. Reynolds prior comments regarding election and so forth. I've posted several comments to Dr. Reynolds on the subject and thought it appropriate to repost them here for the edification of those who read here.
By the way, the Southern Baptist's Abstract of Principles article on Election reads: Election is God's eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life, not because of foreseen merit in them, but of His mere mercy in Christ, in consequence of which choice they are called, justified, and glorified.
The following has been copied from the comments at Dr. Reynolds' blog:
Chris Redman said:
Can someone please explain how Jesus' gospel message in John 6, especially verses 37-40, 44, 65-70 is in any way a gospel message of "man's free will".While you are at it, please help us poor and misguided Calvinists to understand John 10:26, "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep."If everything hinges on man's free will, why didn't the Jews in John 10 have the chance to choose to be one of His sheep?Come on guys. We all stand in wonder and awe. We all recognize the profound implications of God's election of "some unto everlasting life". Nevertheless, it is clearly revealed. Why not preach it faithfully?
Tim said:
Brother Christopher,While I am not the blog owner, it does appear that your question does not relate to the post. However, I will make only one statement concerning your question. No one has said salvation "hinges on man's free will". I do believe that salvation hinges on God's Grace. "For by Grace are ye saved"... Also, "We are His workmanship"... GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY. Do not forget though; "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved". And do not forget; "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." MAN'S FREE WILL. I do believe that God draws one to him, but I also believe that somewhere there needs to be a reciprocation on behalf of human. God is not going to take us into heaven kicking and screaming.
Chris Redman said:
Brother Tim,A couple of statements in reply...1) "Whosoverwill" does not form the doctrine of free will. I believe John 3:16 and all of the invitation passages. But, what they say is "whoseover shall...not perish, shall be saved, etc." It does not say that man has the natural capacity to choose spiritual good or evil without any inclination toward one or the other. That was Adam's condition, not ours.Whosoever will believe shall not perish. Amen! But, who will? God's elect will.2) I reject free will as a reality for man after the fall. After the fall, man is still a free agent but he has a fallen nature. He can do anything he wants to do except go against his own nature. The essence of freedom is the ability to do what you want to do. I believe that every man does what he ultimately wants to do. The problem is that naturally all man wants to do is sin and rebel against God.3) As far as God drawing men kicking and screeming into heaven, we all know that's a straw man. No reasonable Calvinist believes that. But, we will say that when God's will and man's will collide, God wins.Phil 2:13 "It is God who works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure."At the moment of conversion, the sinner's will and God's will are the same. However, the event that made this possible was God's effectual grace, or His effectual calling. (Irresistable Grace)I am convinced that most people reject the doctrine of Irresistible Grace because of the title of the doctrine itself, not the merits of the doctrine.Romans 8:30 "Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called and those whom He called, these He also justified and whom He justified, these He also glorified."This is a divine order of the process of salvation for the sinner. Predestination is first. In time, God calls effectually releasing the bondage of sin and spiritually enabling the elect sinner to see the kingdom of God and repent and come to Christ in faith. Thirdly and immediately, God justifies the sinner based on faith in Christ's atoning work, and in time God glorifies them in eternal bliss.The term "called", "calls", "Calling" is used throughout the NT and especially in Paul's writings to refer the the conversion of sinners. This is the foundation of "Irresistible Grace".
Brad Reynolds said:
ChristopherYou have some well thought out ideas but I have some questions concerning your assumptions, especially involving your belief of the substance of God's image in man, what the unpardonable sin is and God's integrity in giving invitations to those who can't respond, but I think it best to save them for another post since I don't want to chase "the eternally long rabbit trail of Calvinism:)"
Chris Redman said:
Brad, Thanks for your comment.Quickly, regarding the unpardonable sin. The unpardonable sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. What is this? It is attributing the works of God to the works of the devil which is precisely what the pharisees accused Jesus of being (from the devil). Regarding inviting people who cannot respond, I won't write a book here either. However, I will simply say that the two parallel truths in scripture are not God is sovereign and man is free. The two parallel truths are God is sovereign and man is responsible. Man is fully responsible for rejecting Christ because it is their willful rejection. God does not coerce them to reject Christ. They reject because they want to reject. Therefore, they are responsible and their judgment is just.Comment - 10 men stand before a judge. All 10 are guilty of murder. The judge condemns the first 9 men to execution. He turns to the 10th and says, "You will be pardoned." Is this fair?
"All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand or say to Him, 'What have You done?'" Dan 4:35
Brad Reynolds said:
Christopher As I said, we would probably not say something that we have not heard before.However, in relation to the unpardonable sin I would be interested to know if lying is a sin that ALL men can be forgiven of (Mark 3:28)?The inviting question was not about their rejection (I certainly agree God is just to pardon whom He will) but about God giving an invitation they can't respond to, ie: Come unto me...just kidding. Further, you didn't address God's image in man.
Chris Redman said:
Brad,I assume, and I am open to correction, that you are focusing on the unpardonable sin in context of general atonement vs. limited atonement.(ie: All sins are atoned for by Christ for all persons except the sin of unbelief. Unbelief being the unpardonable sin)If this is the case, the typical question and answer is: Why does anyone go to hell? The general atonement answer is because of unbelief. The particular atonement answer is because of their sin.My obvious objection to the general atonement answer that people go to hell because of unbelief is: Is unbelief not a sin? What about those who have never heard the gospel and go to hell?Am I warm or am I completely missing your idea in bringing up the unpardonable sin?Comment: I think it is safe to say that not one of the elect have ever committed the unpardonable sin. Also, I think the primary thrust of this verse is within it's context. Jesus was speaking specifically of the unbelieving pharisees. I think it's relevence within a broad discussion of soteriology is very limited unless we are discussing the views of the atonement.
As far as the image of God in man, I again assume that you are interested in some remnant of original righteousness within man. Again, if my assumption is wrong, please correct me.The bottom line is, what does scripture say? Specifically, what does Jesus say about man's ability to choose or believe unto salvation?John 6:44, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him and I will raise him up at the last day."There is no free will here. There is no general or universal drawing of all men here unless we fall into universalism. Jesus is teaching moral inability.All men have the natural ability to come to Christ. There is nothing naturally keeping anyone from confessing Christ. However, morally, as a result of man's fall and spiritual death, he is incapable of coming to Christ.Does God draw all men equally? The obvious answer is no. Does God call all men equally? NO! Rom 8:30 and especially 1 Cor 1:26-28.
Also, Brad said, "The inviting question was not about their rejection (I certainly agree God is just to pardon whom He will) but about God giving an invitation they can't respond to, ie: "Come unto me...just kidding"I think the best way to address this is to simply ask the question, "Does God command man to do something he cannot do and yet still judge him for failing to do it?"The answer is, yes He does. The Old Covenant, the covenant of works was established in the Garden between God and man. God commanded man to do "this" and you will live. Do "that" and you will die. Man did "that" and he died spiritually.God still holds man accountable to the covenant of works. Man's failure to keep the covenant of works is the foundation for sin and judgment.As a result of the fall, no one can keep the covenant of works perfectly but God still holds man responsible for breaking the covenant.Therefore, God commands man to do something he cannot do and yet judges Him for failure to do it.The new covenant of grace did not erase the old covenant of works, it fulfilled it. Christ kept the covenant of works fully and without sin. Thus His sacrifice merited grace on behalf of his people by fulfilling God's righteous requirements on behalf of all who would believe on Him.I think this concept is pertinent to your question about the sincerety of the invitation passages.
Brad Reynolds said:
Christopher,You make some good points and I appreciate your spirit. Again, I really don't think we are going anywhere but on we go.I believe people go to hell because of their sin but do not go to heaven because of their unbelief...there is a difference.Thus concerning the unpardonable sin: can the nonelect be forgiven of lying and if not then isn't lying an unpardonable sin for the non-elect and if so then what are we to do with Jesus' statement in Mark 3:28-29?In other words if the elect can be and are forgiven of everything and the non-elect cannot be and are not forgiven of anything then what meaning has this passage?Thus, my position: only the elect WILL be saved, but anyone CAN be saved. Otherwise, the passage on the unpardonable sin makes no sense. I don't understand election and choice but I am satisfied to affirm some things about God are simply above me and are supra-rational. May I further assume that you believe God's image in man is no longer, as a result of Adam's sin?Finally, you changed my question. The question is not does God command man to do something he can not do but does God extend an invitation to man that is not a real invitation.
Chris Redman said:
Brad, my text in John 6:44 is much more specific and relevent than the passage in Mark on the unpardonable sin. The obvious reference there is to the pharisees.
Brad Reynolds said:
To all:I do not deny the Scriptures that you have referenced concerning God's election and Sovriegnty. I am not convinced His Omnipotence was exercised at the exclusion of His Omniscience - ie - I am not sure His Sovreignty in election was exercised in exclusion of His knowledge of those who would accept and yet I am not convinced that His Omnipotence was dependent on His Omniscience either. Thus, while I don't deny the Scriptures you have referenced...nor do I deny the text of the unpardonable sin or I Tim 2:4 or I John 2:2 or the fact that God gave invitations to all (which either implies all can respond or God is insinsere in giving an invitation which He made impossible for some to respond to). Therefore, I arrive at the same point Paul did (Romans 11:33-36) when he was amazed at Israel's ELECTION, their REJECTION of Christ through unbelief, and their ability to no longer abide in unbelief. With out any further questions to you...I wanted to state where I stand and hopefully we can bring this to a close.
Brad Reynolds said: (comment directed to another blogger's statement)
JimGood point, however, I think it is one thing to say God invites everyone to come knowing only some will come (sounds like a parable:) and something totally different to say God invites everyone to come but makes it impossible for some. The latter in my mind causes irrational and ethical issues - ie - It's not really an invitation since God causes some to come and makes it impossible for others to respond.
Chris Redman said:
Brad,Are you suggesting that God "causes people to sin" seeing that He "makes it impossible for others to respond"?God does not make it impossible for the non-elect to respond, sin does.Genesis 2:16-17, "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.'"But of course, God does blind and harden hearts so that they won't see and won't respond. But even this is a result of sin.John 12:39-40 "Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: 'He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they should see with their eyes, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them.'"I guess God's invitation really is insincere at least to those whom Isaiah spoke?!?! So who can resist His will? But who are... (you know the rest).
Summary: I appreciate Dr. Reynolds engaging in some rather serious theological dialogue. I think such dialogue is healthy and needful. Even if Dr. Reynolds remains wrong :-), at least some of us have been able to learn and grow through dialogue.
By the way, the Southern Baptist's Abstract of Principles article on Election reads: Election is God's eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life, not because of foreseen merit in them, but of His mere mercy in Christ, in consequence of which choice they are called, justified, and glorified.
The following has been copied from the comments at Dr. Reynolds' blog:
Chris Redman said:
Can someone please explain how Jesus' gospel message in John 6, especially verses 37-40, 44, 65-70 is in any way a gospel message of "man's free will".While you are at it, please help us poor and misguided Calvinists to understand John 10:26, "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep."If everything hinges on man's free will, why didn't the Jews in John 10 have the chance to choose to be one of His sheep?Come on guys. We all stand in wonder and awe. We all recognize the profound implications of God's election of "some unto everlasting life". Nevertheless, it is clearly revealed. Why not preach it faithfully?
Tim said:
Brother Christopher,While I am not the blog owner, it does appear that your question does not relate to the post. However, I will make only one statement concerning your question. No one has said salvation "hinges on man's free will". I do believe that salvation hinges on God's Grace. "For by Grace are ye saved"... Also, "We are His workmanship"... GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY. Do not forget though; "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved". And do not forget; "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." MAN'S FREE WILL. I do believe that God draws one to him, but I also believe that somewhere there needs to be a reciprocation on behalf of human. God is not going to take us into heaven kicking and screaming.
Chris Redman said:
Brother Tim,A couple of statements in reply...1) "Whosoverwill" does not form the doctrine of free will. I believe John 3:16 and all of the invitation passages. But, what they say is "whoseover shall...not perish, shall be saved, etc." It does not say that man has the natural capacity to choose spiritual good or evil without any inclination toward one or the other. That was Adam's condition, not ours.Whosoever will believe shall not perish. Amen! But, who will? God's elect will.2) I reject free will as a reality for man after the fall. After the fall, man is still a free agent but he has a fallen nature. He can do anything he wants to do except go against his own nature. The essence of freedom is the ability to do what you want to do. I believe that every man does what he ultimately wants to do. The problem is that naturally all man wants to do is sin and rebel against God.3) As far as God drawing men kicking and screeming into heaven, we all know that's a straw man. No reasonable Calvinist believes that. But, we will say that when God's will and man's will collide, God wins.Phil 2:13 "It is God who works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure."At the moment of conversion, the sinner's will and God's will are the same. However, the event that made this possible was God's effectual grace, or His effectual calling. (Irresistable Grace)I am convinced that most people reject the doctrine of Irresistible Grace because of the title of the doctrine itself, not the merits of the doctrine.Romans 8:30 "Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called and those whom He called, these He also justified and whom He justified, these He also glorified."This is a divine order of the process of salvation for the sinner. Predestination is first. In time, God calls effectually releasing the bondage of sin and spiritually enabling the elect sinner to see the kingdom of God and repent and come to Christ in faith. Thirdly and immediately, God justifies the sinner based on faith in Christ's atoning work, and in time God glorifies them in eternal bliss.The term "called", "calls", "Calling" is used throughout the NT and especially in Paul's writings to refer the the conversion of sinners. This is the foundation of "Irresistible Grace".
Brad Reynolds said:
ChristopherYou have some well thought out ideas but I have some questions concerning your assumptions, especially involving your belief of the substance of God's image in man, what the unpardonable sin is and God's integrity in giving invitations to those who can't respond, but I think it best to save them for another post since I don't want to chase "the eternally long rabbit trail of Calvinism:)"
Chris Redman said:
Brad, Thanks for your comment.Quickly, regarding the unpardonable sin. The unpardonable sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. What is this? It is attributing the works of God to the works of the devil which is precisely what the pharisees accused Jesus of being (from the devil). Regarding inviting people who cannot respond, I won't write a book here either. However, I will simply say that the two parallel truths in scripture are not God is sovereign and man is free. The two parallel truths are God is sovereign and man is responsible. Man is fully responsible for rejecting Christ because it is their willful rejection. God does not coerce them to reject Christ. They reject because they want to reject. Therefore, they are responsible and their judgment is just.Comment - 10 men stand before a judge. All 10 are guilty of murder. The judge condemns the first 9 men to execution. He turns to the 10th and says, "You will be pardoned." Is this fair?
"All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand or say to Him, 'What have You done?'" Dan 4:35
Brad Reynolds said:
Christopher As I said, we would probably not say something that we have not heard before.However, in relation to the unpardonable sin I would be interested to know if lying is a sin that ALL men can be forgiven of (Mark 3:28)?The inviting question was not about their rejection (I certainly agree God is just to pardon whom He will) but about God giving an invitation they can't respond to, ie: Come unto me...just kidding. Further, you didn't address God's image in man.
Chris Redman said:
Brad,I assume, and I am open to correction, that you are focusing on the unpardonable sin in context of general atonement vs. limited atonement.(ie: All sins are atoned for by Christ for all persons except the sin of unbelief. Unbelief being the unpardonable sin)If this is the case, the typical question and answer is: Why does anyone go to hell? The general atonement answer is because of unbelief. The particular atonement answer is because of their sin.My obvious objection to the general atonement answer that people go to hell because of unbelief is: Is unbelief not a sin? What about those who have never heard the gospel and go to hell?Am I warm or am I completely missing your idea in bringing up the unpardonable sin?Comment: I think it is safe to say that not one of the elect have ever committed the unpardonable sin. Also, I think the primary thrust of this verse is within it's context. Jesus was speaking specifically of the unbelieving pharisees. I think it's relevence within a broad discussion of soteriology is very limited unless we are discussing the views of the atonement.
As far as the image of God in man, I again assume that you are interested in some remnant of original righteousness within man. Again, if my assumption is wrong, please correct me.The bottom line is, what does scripture say? Specifically, what does Jesus say about man's ability to choose or believe unto salvation?John 6:44, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him and I will raise him up at the last day."There is no free will here. There is no general or universal drawing of all men here unless we fall into universalism. Jesus is teaching moral inability.All men have the natural ability to come to Christ. There is nothing naturally keeping anyone from confessing Christ. However, morally, as a result of man's fall and spiritual death, he is incapable of coming to Christ.Does God draw all men equally? The obvious answer is no. Does God call all men equally? NO! Rom 8:30 and especially 1 Cor 1:26-28.
Also, Brad said, "The inviting question was not about their rejection (I certainly agree God is just to pardon whom He will) but about God giving an invitation they can't respond to, ie: "Come unto me...just kidding"I think the best way to address this is to simply ask the question, "Does God command man to do something he cannot do and yet still judge him for failing to do it?"The answer is, yes He does. The Old Covenant, the covenant of works was established in the Garden between God and man. God commanded man to do "this" and you will live. Do "that" and you will die. Man did "that" and he died spiritually.God still holds man accountable to the covenant of works. Man's failure to keep the covenant of works is the foundation for sin and judgment.As a result of the fall, no one can keep the covenant of works perfectly but God still holds man responsible for breaking the covenant.Therefore, God commands man to do something he cannot do and yet judges Him for failure to do it.The new covenant of grace did not erase the old covenant of works, it fulfilled it. Christ kept the covenant of works fully and without sin. Thus His sacrifice merited grace on behalf of his people by fulfilling God's righteous requirements on behalf of all who would believe on Him.I think this concept is pertinent to your question about the sincerety of the invitation passages.
Brad Reynolds said:
Christopher,You make some good points and I appreciate your spirit. Again, I really don't think we are going anywhere but on we go.I believe people go to hell because of their sin but do not go to heaven because of their unbelief...there is a difference.Thus concerning the unpardonable sin: can the nonelect be forgiven of lying and if not then isn't lying an unpardonable sin for the non-elect and if so then what are we to do with Jesus' statement in Mark 3:28-29?In other words if the elect can be and are forgiven of everything and the non-elect cannot be and are not forgiven of anything then what meaning has this passage?Thus, my position: only the elect WILL be saved, but anyone CAN be saved. Otherwise, the passage on the unpardonable sin makes no sense. I don't understand election and choice but I am satisfied to affirm some things about God are simply above me and are supra-rational. May I further assume that you believe God's image in man is no longer, as a result of Adam's sin?Finally, you changed my question. The question is not does God command man to do something he can not do but does God extend an invitation to man that is not a real invitation.
Chris Redman said:
Brad, my text in John 6:44 is much more specific and relevent than the passage in Mark on the unpardonable sin. The obvious reference there is to the pharisees.
Brad Reynolds said:
To all:I do not deny the Scriptures that you have referenced concerning God's election and Sovriegnty. I am not convinced His Omnipotence was exercised at the exclusion of His Omniscience - ie - I am not sure His Sovreignty in election was exercised in exclusion of His knowledge of those who would accept and yet I am not convinced that His Omnipotence was dependent on His Omniscience either. Thus, while I don't deny the Scriptures you have referenced...nor do I deny the text of the unpardonable sin or I Tim 2:4 or I John 2:2 or the fact that God gave invitations to all (which either implies all can respond or God is insinsere in giving an invitation which He made impossible for some to respond to). Therefore, I arrive at the same point Paul did (Romans 11:33-36) when he was amazed at Israel's ELECTION, their REJECTION of Christ through unbelief, and their ability to no longer abide in unbelief. With out any further questions to you...I wanted to state where I stand and hopefully we can bring this to a close.
Brad Reynolds said: (comment directed to another blogger's statement)
JimGood point, however, I think it is one thing to say God invites everyone to come knowing only some will come (sounds like a parable:) and something totally different to say God invites everyone to come but makes it impossible for some. The latter in my mind causes irrational and ethical issues - ie - It's not really an invitation since God causes some to come and makes it impossible for others to respond.
Chris Redman said:
Brad,Are you suggesting that God "causes people to sin" seeing that He "makes it impossible for others to respond"?God does not make it impossible for the non-elect to respond, sin does.Genesis 2:16-17, "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.'"But of course, God does blind and harden hearts so that they won't see and won't respond. But even this is a result of sin.John 12:39-40 "Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: 'He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, lest they should see with their eyes, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them.'"I guess God's invitation really is insincere at least to those whom Isaiah spoke?!?! So who can resist His will? But who are... (you know the rest).
Summary: I appreciate Dr. Reynolds engaging in some rather serious theological dialogue. I think such dialogue is healthy and needful. Even if Dr. Reynolds remains wrong :-), at least some of us have been able to learn and grow through dialogue.
posted by Christopher Redman at 9:34 PM
13 Comments:
Wrong but trying hard. Sovereignty is a tough pill to swallow for many Baptists because man isn't in the loop. I've been taught and shown my whole life that man has to choose the Lord to be saved. It's not easy to get all your mental gears retooled and its not quick either.
Thats what ticks me off the most. Why did Baptists switch horses in midstream? And why did it become so pervasive in SBC life so quickly? The only conclusion I can reach is that they didn't really know what they believed and were too busy trying to live day to day to do anything about it.
Much Grace
Josh
Why did Baptist switch horses in midstream?
As Spurgeon said, "We were all arminian at first." The fact is, these doctrines are not natural to man. They go against the whole natural tendency of man's fallen nature.
Frankly, it was easy to depart our theological roots because "man" got involved.
Yes, he is wrong... but as c.t. lillies said, "sovereignty is a tough pill to swallow"... in it's true sense. Many will say they believe God is sovereign, yet they put God in a box when it comes to His sovereignty. Isn't that interesting. And that box is made out of flesh crying out for its own way. I have also been taught all of my life that man has to choose the Lord to be saved. But in regeneration it is a purely monergistic work. There is no "man" in that process. I wrote about that HERE.
“Blessed is the man You choose, and cause to approach You, that he may dwell in Your courts” (Psalm 65:4)
Michael Scott Horton writes...
"If...election and predestination seems too severe, let us remember that an atonement that doesn't atone, a redemption that doesn't redeem, a propitiation that doesn't propitiate, a satisfaction that doesn't satisfy does not help any of us! The fact that God would choose, redeem, call and keep a great number known only to Him is Amazing Grace indeed and of infinitely more comfort than the idea that Christ's death actually secured the salvation of none, merely making salvation possible, depending on the ability of those who are 'dead in trespasses and sins' to make the right moves..."
As I have written before on my site regarding free will, Don't my choices reveal the character of my heart? I am not a sinner because I chose to sin. Don't I choose to sin because I am a sinner? What I am determines what I will choose. If I am totally depraved, I will not freely choose God. I will freely choose to stay enslaved to sin. God did not coerce my will, He renewed my will. In other words, He made me willing not through coercing my will but He made me willing by renewing my will, and is, by the process of sanctification, continuing to transform my will.
A sinner who refuses to come to Christ made a free and uncoerced choice not to choose Christ in accordance with his depraved will, acting voluntarily, free to be who he is apart from Christ... which is one enslaved to sin.
I do not have faith in a holyish, sort-of sovereign, changeable and weak God. My faith and hope rests in a Holy, sovereign, unchangeable, ALL-POWERFUL, perfectly just and loving God.
Excellent post. Thank you for letting my husband and I know about it.
CR,
Thanks for the tip on your post. Sorry so long in responding. Mississippi awaits me even now...
Admittedly, the conversation was hard to follow since it was not just you and Dr. Reynolds. You indeed, CR, possess a command of Calvinism. There is little doubt concerning that.
Alas, my Brother, but for me, the Calvinist theo-dominoes fall rather quickly once they begin.
And, in my journey, the first tetter-tottering began with the Geneva man's "horrid decree" and soon moved on to the heart of the flower--L.
Have a great evening, my CR. I trust Your Lord's Day messages were heavily saturated with our Lord's unction. With that, I am...
Peter
Peter,
Perhaps you are too caught up with the "Geneva man". If we just deal with the text of scripture and leave all the philosopher/theologians aside, we will find God's free and sovereign grace to undeserving sinners.
There is no biblical reason to wander into that "horrid decree".
I had hoped that some of our previous dialogue would have granted some comfort to you in that concern.
My CR,
Frankly, my Brother, to suggest that one not deal with the necessary implication of one's theology is to suggest that one not deal with reality.
To assert the unconcitional predestination of some to salvation necessarily implies the unconditional predestination of some to damnation. If you are comfortable, my brother CR, in denying what your theology demands, go for it.
And as for "no Biblical reason", I'm afraid you need to consider your own system's theologians and Biblical scholars. With that, I am...
Peter
With that, i am...
Peter
Peter,
You are a bright and well informed individual. I appreciate your dialogue. Your comments are challenging, insightful, and welcome.
May I state again that scripture reveals election by God of some persons unto everlasting life, not because of foreseen merit in them or anything else that would cause God to favor them over and above any other.
As far as the necessary implication that all others are "unconditionally predestined" to wrath, give me the text and I will embrace it. If there is no text to validate it, I don't feel any compulsion to believe it or defend it.
Why are you driven to logic above scripture? There is nothing logical about God's sovereign grace but it is revealed to us in the Word, is it not? I think your problem does not lie with me, the geneva man, sproul, nettles, ascol, spurgeon, edwards, etc, etc. Your problem lies within your own heart and the offense of scripture. You are the man in Romans 9 who says, "But why does He still find fault for who can resist His will?"
As for the theologians of the "system", I would think that you would applaud my stand. I would think that you would joyfully embrace a brother who does not follow of jot and tittle of the geneva man, or Dr. Sproul, or Edwards, or Spurgeon, or whoever. I read their works and what I find according to scripture, I embrace and learn. What I find contrary to scripture's revealed truth, I reject and learn.
Is that not what we are called to do?
With that, I am writing from an alternative reality...
Dear CR,
I too thank you for the dialogue. However, I am sorry that rather than deal with questions your belief system requires, you simply deflect it aside, discerning instead "[my]problem lies within [my] own heart and the offense of scripture." Why, thank you, my brother, CR.
The dfficulty, one such as yourself faces, my Brother, is not being able to consistently hold to your silence simply because something is not explicitly revealed in Scripture. Try that comforting silence when you have a young couple whose baby has just died and as their Pastor you simply tell them: "sorry, guys. I have no encouragement to offer you that your baby is o.k. The Bible doesn't speak openly about infant salvation." Necessary deductions don't count. There's that darn logic again!
If asking tough questions to my theological convictions--logical or otherwise--is off limits, then, at least for me, my convictions are not worth my possessing.
I trust your afternoon well. With that, I am...
Peter
Peter,
Actually, I'm not certain what theological convictions you hold dear. You are astute and quite capable of pointing out what you don't believe but fall way short in explaining what you do believe. Your illustrations and stories provide an excellent opportunity for dialogue but when it comes to dealing with book, chapter, and verse; we are still waiting.
At least I have stepped up to the plate (Jerry's baseball analogy) and opened myself for examination and critique and you have done well in just that. If I am so far off the mark, brother, please enlighten me as to the truth but make sure you bring an Open Bible with you.
I have thought that I have provided a lengthy explanation as to why I embrace unconditional election and why I don't embrace double-predestination in our previous dialogue. Perhaps I will have opportunity to post a more thorough position on this subject in the future.
I find more evidence in scripture supporting infants going to heaven (which I believe) than I have ever found for double-predestination (which I don't believe). Therefore, I don't have a problem counseling anyone who has lost a child with the comfort that I believe that child was covered by the blood of Christ.
As far as my applying Romans 9 to you, please accept my apology if I was the source of offense but if I am wrong, please explain yourself. What has Romans 9 revealed in your study?
As far as holding my silence when something is not explicitly revealed in scripture, may I reply...
I don't have a choice but to speak where God speaks and to be silent where He has been silent. Where did sin and evil come from? I don't know. It's a mystery. God has chosen not to reveal it. Why did God not provide any atonement or reprieve for the fallen angels but sentenced every one of them to judgment and damnation? I don't know. Why has God chosen not to save every man, woman, and child who has ever lived? I don't know.
I can provided a broad answer, God does all that He does for the purpose of glorifying Himself. But, in the specifics of these difficult questions, I simply trust God's nature and character. Isn't that what faith is? Simple trust, childlike faith.
I don't have a problem speculating on possible answers but I will not speak in these areas with the authority of "Thus says the Lord". I'm a preacher first, a theologian second. (And, I'm a weak theologian at that.)
BTW, I'm writing a gospel presentation using the theme of the old covenant and the new covenant of grace. I will publish it online soon and I very much would like your input and critique to help me polish it up.
Thanks,
CR
Pete you're a sharp cookie but it always sounds like you're looking down your nose at everyone who doesn't agree with you. Chris is right, you're full of sugary words but the Word hasn't turned up much yet.
And that dead baby thing was way beneath you. You can do better than that.
Much Grace
Josh
Dear Josh,
I do not think we have met. Thank you for your post to me!
And, I see my "sugary words" must somehow have become sour, from your perspective. :)
As for "the baby thing", I fear you must not be a Pastor or you would not at all feel it a low blow. More than once I have stood in those dirty boots and I assure you, Brother Josh, it is an unpleasant place to be.
From my 'high and holy' view (forgive me, :), our theology must possess teeth. That's all the illustration was, my Josh, an attempt to expose teeth (or in CR's case, my perception of its lack).
Finally, if you think my words appear void of either Biblical or reasonable sense, I suggest you simply pass them by. I agree: given the sourness they must have for you, they probably possess little edification.
Have a great afternoon, Brother Josh. With that, I am...
Peter
Dear CR,
My convictions, my Brother, are not vague to me, which, from my perspective at least, is all that matters.
As for being offended at your words and characterizing me as the man in Romans 9, why what could I say, my Brother CR? I suppose I 've slipped on the britches of virtually ever sinner in the Scripture.
Indeed, if the truth be told, you don't have to go as far as chapter nine, my CR. To the contrary, stop in chapter one. There you may find me very well packaged.
As for what I believe, I am perfectly comfortable with the BFM2K as a broad, theological guide. Interestingly, I was also comfortable with the 1963 version :) But broad it must remain, from my view, for I refuse to bow at the altar of sacred confessionialism--including, but not limited to Calvinistic confessionalism.
Have a gracious evening and peaceful tomorrow. With that, I am...
Peter
Well maybe I was wrong about you Pete on all counts.
Post a Comment
<< Home