I have always believed that most issues come down to a core root or issue. When you really start to cut things away and tear through the history, the baggage, the wording, the hurts and the fights, there is a point, a tip if you will that set the whole thing off. As I was traveling this week too and from World Changers, I questioned, what is that point in the current debate? There is so much overlap, and then some much fighting over what seems to be rhetoric, what is the splinter?
Now, I have some presuppositions of my own, and most of you know them. I have written about my concept of Woven Theology quite a bit. Some of you like it, some of you don’t, so you will have to forgive me of starting where I am theologically. As I look through my particular lens, here is what I see. We all know that God calls and God saves, that seems to be universally agreed on. I think the majority hold to the concept of Eternal Security. Where the splinter lies is in the initial Salvation experience, who’s idea was it, who initiated it, who made the “choice”, what is us or God. I think if we peel back that layer, we get to the real root of the issue. This is what caused the disagreement and where most of the conflict arises.
What exists in a person that causes some to become redeemed and some to stay unregenerate. What is that element, that key, that piece that causes some to be sheep and some to be goats. Is it choice, or is it God’s will? Does God choose who will go to Heaven and who will go to Hell, or do we have that ability to choose who goes where? What is the difference. Everything hangs on that question.
Some say that God predestines some for Heaven and some for Hell, we often hear this called Double Predestination and we see it talked about in Romans 9:22 & 23. There are some who say God chooses and elects and that is that. Others look at Romans 10:13, saying how can that be true, if whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved, how can we limit Salvation to just a few.
It seems that what we have here is a Biblical contradiction, and so both camps begin to explain away the text and what is said. Now don’t get me wrong, I am HUGE on context and it makes me crazy when we just take scripture out of context to use for our own purpose, but I don’t think that is what is happening in this debate. I submit for your consideration a third perspective.
If we can’t answer the question completely with “God Elected” and we can’t be settled with “Man chose” then there must be a third alternative. There must be something that we are not seeing. I have written over and over that I think much of the issue is the way that we view and perceive time. We put God in our time line and in our time perspective, and that begins to complicate things. Many theologians and teachers have seen that God has created time, and therefore is not subject to it. For God to be omnipresent, He is not and cannot be limited by time or space. Once we negate the limit of time, the concept of election and predestination can take new meanings. We can see how prayer can work and how the prayers for the lost can bear fruit. As John Piper says in a sermon about prayer “prayer causes things to happen that would not happened if you didn’t pray“. How can that work in salvation except that God can hear the prayers of His people spoken today at the foundations of the world. What a staggering thought.
Other issue that I think we must examine in the difference between those who are/will be saved and those who are not/will not be is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. In the context, Jesus is freeing a man from a demon, and He is accused of being of the devil. He says that if someone says His work is from the Devil, they will be forgiven. To accuse the freeing work of the Holy Spirit to be through a force other than the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven. How does this work together in the work of salvation? I think this is paramount, we have responsibility when conviction comes.
So, here is my challenge that I am constantly working on, mulling over. How do we see man’s responsibility that is covered in scripture, the fact that we are in relationship with God and through this relationship, Salvation happens, YET, God is completely sovereign. We cannot take God’s plan and His ultimate will that we see in Romans 8 and 9, but we cannot lose the response and relationship we see in John 3 and in Romans 10. We then look at this concept of Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, how does that happen? At what point does the relationship vs God’s choice interact and where does prayer come into the picture? I know what I think, and many of you have seen it. What are your thoughts? Reason with me.
Dan:
All of the verses that describe predestination talk about God’s sovereignty and power to do as He wishes. But they are silent on the thought processes of God in determining who will be saved or lost. An omniscient mind by definition will consider everything affecting the outcome. Surely God does not consider His foreknowledge of man’s free will response to be irrelevant in His decision. His gift of the Holy Spirit enables even the BACON bad people to understand and accept Christ’s gift.
My point is that the word “unconditional” election is Calvin’s concept, not Paul’s. I far prefer the BACON “already elected.”
Brother Dan,
I have followed and read you with great delight for a while. However, “I have somewhat against thee…” Not with your opinions or theology, but with your use of the term “rhetoric” in such an inaccurate manner. “Rhetoric” as it is classically used is not a bad term. I suppose that this is one of my personal “pet peaves.” Even this morning I have spent about 2 hours researching and reading for a paper to be delivered or published in some venue on “The Use of Rhetoric Falling on Hard Times.” The term is nearly always used to mean something negative coming from an enemy or adversary. Please forgive the rant, but this is something I get as animated about as others do about the ordo salutis debate.
sdg
rd
I don’t use rhetoric as a negative or bad term, I am afraid you must have misread me, or I have written unclearly. rhetoric is a neutral term, I am sorry for the misunderstanding.
Dan,
Have you read Thomas Flint or William Lane Craig on the subject of prayer impacting God’s activity in history? I have found Molinist thought on the subject very interesting. I’ve also seen more and more Reformed individuals incorporating the concept of Middle Knowledge.
– Joshua
Molinist thought on these matters is a nice attempt by old Rome to filter its errors into our midst. Want see where it leads just look at Rome’s errors.
I wrote this a while ago, and I have been pondering the reality of Double Predestination with Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. If Double Predestination and Irresistible Grace are true, when is there an opportunity to commit Blasphemy if one is never touched by the Holy Spirit? Is it just an intellectual exercise?
Dan,
I’m not sure that anyone denies the Spirit’s presence and work in all people, but I believe the Bible teaches the Spirit doesn’t work the same way in all people. God the Spirit is active in every life, but his activity varies from each person.
I would agree with that, I guess I am just wondering “why”. What is the difference, what is the factor from the whole of scripture. How do we bring all the parts together in the guy who rejects Christ and walks away. What are all the moving parts as we see in scripture. Not sure we will ever be able to agree on it, but I think it’s more than just “he chose” or “God predestined”. Seems to be more too it in scripture.
follow your insight into sacred Scripture, DAN . . .
You said: “If we can’t answer the question completely with “God Elected” and we can’t be settled with “Man chose” then there must be a third alternative.”
Dan,
I disagree with the notion that simply because we have two camps who disagree that neither are correct. By creating a third position, you are simply creating another camp that will disagree with the others. Further, this new camp will be one with a theology that has not been accepted for the last two thousand years and will surely not be any closer to the truth than the existing camps.
Just because Arminians and Calvinists disagree doesn’t mean one of them must be wrong nor is it a license to create an alternative sotereology to find middle ground or compromise.
Blessings,
Jason
It’s not because the two disagree, it’s because neither position seems to take the totality of scripture into account. When a group can use scripture to counteract other scripture, chances are both are wrong. There are scriptural truths that neither camp have been able to deal with, therefore both are incomplete structurally.
Let me be really clear, I could care less about the divide. I don’t really care what the Traditionalist or the Calvinists believe. I do care that it’s tearing the SBC, but even that is secondary to me. I care about what the scripture teaches, and that so often we are willing (at least in my opinion and vantage point) to ignore what is in scripture because of some system, theology, historical tradition, human intuition, understanding, philosophy, teaching, professor, school, book, writing or other random non-scriptural wisdom. I want to get back to what in Scriptural, not create some camp. I really could care less if anyone else agrees with me, or if in 2,000 years anyone knows what I said. If they had the Bible, they will come to the same conclusions.
“How do we see man’s responsibility that is covered in scripture, the fact that we are in relationship with God and through this relationship, Salvation happens, YET, God is completely sovereign.”
There is much in Scripture about the sovereignty of God. There is much in Scripture about free will and personal responsibility. It all works together in a way that is beyond human comprehension. To put the mind of God into a neat theological box is to stand in arrogance before our Creator.
Most of this current debate is nothing more than allegiance to teachings and traditions of men … and Jesus warned us not to do that! The blogosphere is full of “I think”, “In my opinion”, “They said”, “He wrote” etc. We move from one argument to another, convinced that our way is THE way. We masterfully slaughter those who differ from us with our arguments framed by intellect, not Holy Spirit revelation.
I could advance my humble, but accurate, opinion that non-Calvinist SBC traditionalists are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth … but I hold out little hope of converting Calvinists to my way of understanding the Bible on these matters. That 500-year debate has been conducted by greater intellects than those popping up on blogs … an ongoing argument that will have no resolution as long as there are the religiously passionate who will defend their position to the death. (personally, I hope to live long enough to see religion’s funeral preached!)
Thus, for the sake of unity, we must look for that which will genuinely unite. We don’t need to search for items we can agree to disagree on and cluster around that. We must look for unity of spirit and I’m witnessing very little of that. If we are to truly work together for the cause of Christ, the adhesive needs to be kindred spirit. “The Spirit Himself testifies together with our spirit that we are God’s children” (Rom 8:16). Find your family and work with them!
If there was a like button, I would use it here.
There’s nothing in us, no spark of goodness waiting for God to unleash it. We are “dead in our sins and trespasses”. St. Paul tells us quite clearly that “no one seeks for God”.
We are made alive by the Spirit, through God’s grace, and faith is the conduit that He uses for this purpose. And St. paul tells us that “faith is a gift of God”.
God does it all. From start to finish, and He is not dependent upon anything that we might do, say, feel, or think.
Pick up a copy of Luther’s , “The Bondage of the Will”, and see what he does to Erasmus over this question. Takes him to school.
Listen to this class, before, during, or after you read “The Bondage of the Will”.
http://theoldadam.com/2012/06/09/free-will-or-bound-will-2/
It will help you get started off on the right foot.
If we won’t unite around Jesus (and Him crucified, risen, ascended, etc), then we are most likely looking for things to divide us.
For a lot of years it was OK with Baptists to be Calvinists or not to be Calvinists. Suddenly it’s not. What nobody seems to want to consider is that it may be a move of God that’s causing it. A move in response to something the SBC has or has not done.
Something that has caused Him to remove His hand of protection from our unity. Something that has us looking for things to separate over. At least, those who want to fight over things.
I realize there are many news worthy things going on in the SBC right now. I know that those things do have a degree of importance in the big picture among preachers and various other religious professionals who might venture onto these threads to take a break from whatever it is you take a break from and catch up on the convention news.
Therefore, in all humility possible by a native of the Southland and a card carrying member of the SEC and lifelong supporter of the SABANATION, Flagship of the SEC, I come to you with something of an importance far beyond the news within the SBC.
I come to you with a request of earthshaking importance. PLEASE TAKE TIME FROM WHATEVER YOU ARE DOING AND VOTE FOR CHIPPER JONES, NUMBER 4 GREATEST SWITCH-HITTER OF ALL TIMES, TO BE ON THE NATIONAL LEAGUE ALL-STAR TEAM.
This is your opportunity to be part of something really great without much cost and time. You will never have this opportunity again. BTW, dogs, cats, goldfish, and farm animals that have names given to them by their owners can cast votes if you will do that for them. So make this a family affair.
Remember: The Family That Votes For All-Stars Together Stays Together. VOTE FOR CHIPPER!!…….TODAY!!!
Because the link contains no abominations from the New York team that shall not be named, here’s the link to accomplish that which Brother CB has so eloquently suggested:
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/events/all_star/y2012/fv/ballot.jsp
Because they have now put Chipper on the team, it is now incumbent upon all who read this exhortation to now vote for David Freese, the reigning World Series MVP.
Thanks for the update. Yes, indeed, folks, a small modicum of justice has been done.
It was once stated that “Bloggers don’t count, ’cause they all wear underwear in the basement” (Or something similar to that).
Well, my Band of Baptist Blogger friends, that has been proven untrue and unfounded and un-everything else that can be un-ed and undone!
Here is the news from the Washington Post. (Most honest and conservative news source other than a Baptist blog)
Washington Post:
“Braves third baseman Chipper Jones was named to the National League all-star team after having an outpouring of votes from the Baptist Blog World led by the Number One Baptist blog SBC VOICES which is owned by Tony Kummer and managed by SBC Boss #3, Huggy-Bear Dave Miller.”
Fellows, I just want to thank all of you for having “Unity of Heart and Mind” Like Dave has been telling you to have and doing this good thing for Ole Chipper.
It has been a long time since I was so choked up with emotion. And to think, Dave voted for Chipper even knowing he is not a low-down, NY Yankee, but rather an Atlanta Brave. What a noble sacrifice.
WE LOVE YOU, DAVE! YOU OLE UNIFIER, YOU!!!
I do not blog wearing underwear in the basement. For one thing, it’s not comfortable walking on the concrete floor in bare feet. Secondly, the only computers in the basement are Linux servers, and while I’m quite comfortable at the Linux command line, I prefer blogging with graphical browsers to blogging with text-only browsers.
I blog in my underwear at the computer in my ham shack, which is located in a corner of my second floor bedroom.
As humans of flesh we think all mysteries must be revealed to us. After all we know all, but God has told us differently we just choose not to listen to him. We think God must reveal everything to those who are of his flock. God thinks differently regarding what he must reveal to us, we just chose not to listen. So we fight with one another rather than accepting that God has chosen not to reveal every mystery. After all I am right and who are you to tell me differently.
We all have a desire to think we are Paul sometimes, especially when commenting on blogs.
Ephesians 3:3
how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly.
Ephesians 3:9
and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,
John,
You are only marginally correct. But the purpose of Holy Scripture is divine revelation. Revelation that God wants us to understand and preserve. It is not wrong for people to believe that Scripture is clear on certain topics.
If we adopt your view where do we draw the line of other established church doctrines? The Trinity will forever remain the greatest example of a doctrine still containing mystery but not enough mystery for us to lack an orthodox position. It is never wrong to claim we understand God’s word. Nor is it wrong to attempt to understand everything God has revealed in His word. Both sides are attempting to do this. We just need to do it more cordially.
– Joshua
Well I must be improving if I am marginally correct. Tongue in Cheek Joshua. I was not writing a statement of faith.
“After all I am right and who are you to tell me differently.”
John,
I apologize for communicating poorly. Forgive me if I have offended you while being inappropriatly critical!
🙂
“””It is never wrong to claim we understand God’s word.”””
At the very least that statement is presumptuous. What could it mean? Does it mean there is only one perspective on a major doctrine? Does it mean that human language can codify and outline the definitive definition of said doctrine?
Are the definitions of necessity only correct using Greek? or French? or Name-your-own-language?
I think it is the height of audacity to say “We understand God’s Word.” I think John was more than “marginally right.” For almost any doctrine that matters, there will be differences of opinions as to how to express that doctrine.
Just to “define” the Trinity has required multiple volume commentaries–and in the end of reading these tomes, does one then “understand” the Trinity.
Such a “complete” understanding seems counterproductive and actually impossible in my mind. I understand 1 apple plus another apple gives me 2 apples, but I’m at a complete loss to explain why an apple tastes so good.
A Bible that is easily understood and able to be mastered by everybody is a man-centered Bible. I believe a Bible that masters man is a God-centered Bible.
The idea of “what we know and how we know it” is a broad field of philosophy and there are no easy or well-established answers everyone agrees on.
I think unity would greatly be helped by a dose of humility in these discussions.
Frank,
I am sorry if I communicated anything but pride. I am not arguing *man* can understand on his own and should be proud; but that God’s *intent* in revelation is for us to understand. Therefore we should expect God to work through His word and His Spirit to help us understand.
Different “definitions” that are only different in phrasing are fine amongst believers. But we should recognize that mutually exclusive or contradictory definitions mean someone has misunderstood. In this cases when statements of faith allow we should provide as much mercy in disagreement as possible. They should not cause the divisions we are seeing.
However, I think unity in humility will only occur when we *expect* God to help us understand everything in Scripture and we are humbled by the great lengths He goes to teach us. Unity is never achieved by simply leaving thing up to mystery. Eventually those claiming knowledge get ridiculed and then they get proud and emotions explode. Instead let us accept God’s word as His intended revelation and humbly claim to be students seeking (and as promised *finding*) understanding.
– Joshua
I was talking about this with my pastor on Sunday and this is what he had to say about it:
http://soundcloud.com/bobcat27/predestination-and-free-will
It’s not too long. Under 10 minutes, I believe.
Great point! C. S. Lewis spoke to this very thing. He said that since God is outside time he sees everything at once. To ask which came first, the chicken or the egg, is to ask the wrong question.
Charley,
You stated:
Are you familiar with the train illustration? The man inside the station, looking out the window, sees each car of the train as it passes, one at a time; while the man on the mountaintop overlooking the valley sees the entire train from first car to last at one time. Of course, each car represents one moment of time, and God is the One overlooking the whole thing.
But here is an important distinction that is often missed: Even though God simultaneously sees all moments of time, He does not see all moments of time as simultaneous. In other words, God sees all the cars of the train at once, but He never loses track of their sequential position on the train. Therefore, even though God is outside of time, He is fully aware of “which came first.”
The point remains that God is outside time. We experience sequence, not him.
Charley,
Exactly what point does that make? What affect do you see from the proposition that God does not experience sequence?
The question of chicken and egg becomes irrelevant. We simply don’t know what it’s like to be outside time and to see things from God’s perspective, to intervene, and to be in relation to all those in time.
Charley,
I disagree that the question becomes irrelevant. It is one thing to say that God does not experience sequence, but another to say that He is not fully aware of that sequence. God knows that the chicken came first because He stepped into time and created the chicken. It is impossible to read through the Bible and not notice that God acts within time in a sequential way. Not only is God outside of time, but also, God in right here in time with us, not only aware of temporal sequence, but intervening in temporally sequential ways. When God parted the Red Sea, was that temporally sequential event? Yes, and their are a myriad of other examples in Scripture. And of course, the ultimate divine act of stepping into time was the incarnation of Christ, who remains a temporal man, forever experiencing temporal sequence.
I don’t think the Bible is clear about what exactly happens when a person comes to God. The whole Calvinist point is getting old, really.
It’s a worn-out argument. I’ve not seen it make a difference in the lives of people either.
J.I. Packer in his book, Evangelism and The Sovereignty of God, dealt with the matter of teachings in Scripture that are apparently contradictory, seemingly antithetical. He called them antinomies. Another term used is paradoxes. There is a work called, The Faith of Counsellors, by a Professor at the Univ. of Cardiff, Wales, Dr. Paul Halmos. He set forth what is called the theory of creative dissonance, something like, I suppose, Feistinger (sp) and his Cognitive Dissonance. Dr. Halmos set forth the fact that a counsellor who was held to both an objective, scientific perspective as well as a subjective one of love, and experienced the two as productive of a tension within, was the most effective counsellor (note the two lls I think is a British spelling, that’s English. What we speak is American, hence counselor). In other words, when the counselor need to be objective and scientific and gather information, he or she could do so. On the other hand, when the counselor needed to be loving, supportive, he or she could do that, too. My 6 years of research in Baptist/Church History had brought me, independent of Dr. Halmos’ views and presentation, to practically the same perspective with reference to theology. I remember in ’67-’68 making a list of two sided doctrines, e.g., trinity-unity, Jesus humanity-deity, Church, universal, spiritual-local, visible, Worship formal-informal, inspiration divine-human element, etc. I think I had a list of about twenty items. As I thought and worked on the doctrines, I found when the doctrines were in balance, that is, when both sides were addressed and allowed to have their due influence, the accomplishments were outstanding. When polarization occurred, the creativity lapsed. Things became cut and dried. Perhaps the most creative period in World History, since the time of our Lord, was the years from 1740-1820. During that period, which I identify as The Climax of the Reformation, Protestantism was transformed from being a combative, contentious, conflicted Gospel Recovery Movement into an outgoing, “We will win you with persuasion,” effort or “The Great Century of Missions.”
Our problem today is that Sovereign Grace is coming back into the focus, perhaps in response to the prayers for the Third Great Awakening that have been going on for more years than I have been alive (71), counting how many years D. Martyn Lloyd Jones had been praying for such a visitation as a part of the process. In order to have a true awakening, one which radically alters society, transforms churches and believers, opens new doors of opportunity for Gospel advance, allows for new developments in liberty and ways of dealing with problems that had never been considered before, we must have the theology. And there is only one theology associated with the First and Second Great Awakenings, namely, Sovereign Grace, and I use the term in distinction from mere calvinism and reformed thinking, due to the more egalitarian nature of true Sovereign Grace as expressed in the hymn Amazing Grace.
This past Sunday I supplied for our son who is on vacation, and I preached on the subject, The Ethiopian Proof, text, Zeph.2:11,12, related scriptures: Ps.68:31b; Zeph.2:10-12; Acts 8″26-40. Question from a skeptic: What evidence is there of God? Answer: Consider the conversions of African Americans. Plus one must consider the issue of how they are making a contribution to our society designed to transform it. Cf. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s, use of the statement by Arnold Toynbee in his Study of History which points to the possibility. There is more, but I defer.
Very well said…but Calvinism influences people differently.
Interesting post and truly this a key area of disagreement. But I think the BIG splinter is not from the 500 year old debate, but the recent document that said that Traditionalists are the True Southern Baptists and should be in charge and reformed Baptists are interlopers and upstarts trying to ruin their churches.
Now, I’ll be brushed aside with a comment similar to yours, “When you really start to cut things away and tear through the history, the baggage, the wording, the hurts and the fights, there is a point, a tip if you will that set the whole thing off. ”
But, I was happy to agree to disagree! I had discussions with those I disagreed with but not fights or attacks. So, Why was I attacked. I’m STILL waiting for an apology.
Unless maybe ‘they’ WANT us to leave the SBC and take our missions money (which is significant) to the GARBC or some other convention.
There’s the point that needs settling!
I have recently posted a video answering the very common objection that Calvinists believe in a “chosen few.” This statement is used so often by non-Calvinists that they rarely – if ever – stop to consider if that is even a fair assessment of the view they are critiquing. I would suggest that it is not, and that, in reality, both the Calvinist, as well as the non-Calvinist (so long as he is not an open theist!), believe that the number of those who are saved – who will one day stand before the throne and before the Lamb – is a “great multitude that no man can number” (cf. Rev. 7:9) and more importantly for this discussion, is the EXACT SAME NUMBER of redeemed individuals.
I would humbly submit the following for your kind consideration:
http://youtu.be/XxyJsfNv4FM
Soli Deo Gloria