From his article in WORLD Magazine, Silent Witnesses:
"Some evangelicals stop referring to Jesus because they think they do not need Him anymore. Jesus was involved in their conversion, long ago, but now they have to concentrate on living the Christian life. They have forgotten that the gospel is for every day of the Christian's life. And that no one can live the Christian life without Christ, who says, 'apart from Me you can do nothing' (John 15:5). "
That's the hardest thing to remember, that it's all about the Gospel. Our fallen state as humans and our redemption; God's wrath and justice right right alongside his mercy and grace; God's holiness and love displayed to the ultimate degree: it's all wrapped up in the Gospel.
Oh, how we want to ram God's wrath down people's throat in an attempt to cause them to "fear the Lord" when it's his grace that leads to proper respect for (and repentance 'unto') him. And oh, how we want to camp on God's love without mentioning that in his love for mankind the Father had his only Son crucified as an atonement for our sins. We find it easy to gravitate to the left or right, to be "liberal" or "conservative" but find it hard to be "...perfect [whole, complete], lacking nothing...".
Why? Because: "...apart from me you can do nothing".
Friday, March 03, 2006
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
On Calvinism vs. Arminianism
From a post I made in a thread on John Piper's prostate cancer over at Christ and Culture. My thinking was a little muddled towards the beginning of the post, but I think I made my point by the end ( i.e. no one's got God and his decrees 'pinned down' or defined entirely):
"I may be hairsplitting and trying to draw middle ground where there is none, but...
The "hard-line' Calvinist view seems to be (or at least is interpreted to be): God directly acts to cause suffering. God directly forms the cancer in John Piper's prostate for some unknown purpose.
The "hard line' Arminian view (which I believe logically leads to open-theism) appears to be: God doesn't have anything to do with suffering, whatsoever, other than to attempt to comfort us in it. It's as if God says to the cancer patient "Gee, I wish I could help you, but...".
When I recall the stories of Job and of Joseph, I see a different picture. One where God is not the agent of sin or suffering, but who is the Almighty God who *allows* sin to occur and uses even that which is intended to disgrace him (sin) for his glory. Now of course, God does smite sinful humanity at times. It's his prerogative.
Why do I include suffering along with sin? Because both are subsequent to the Fall, both are harmful to man, and yet both are used by God for his glory.
Another comment: I see a tendency on the part of Calvinists (I'd consider myself to be one, as long as one doesn't equate it with being "mean") to overthink things to the dishonor of God and a tendency on the part of Arminians to underthink things to the dishonor of God.
Many Calvinists seem to think they actually have the doctrines of grace (DOG) pinned down and thoroughly defined, and as a result can speak with a frightening degree of certainty about incredibly complex, doctrines. We can NEVER completely grasp the reality of the DOG anymore than we can fully understand the Hypostatic Union or the Trinity. To think we can is to sully the glory of Christ.
As for the Arminian postion, I think many simply reject Biblical truth because it is initially difficult to accept - it often doesn't appeal to our emotions, but instead requires thoughtful and prayerful consideration. So rather than "thinking biblically", they rely on philosophy or raw emotion to reach the theological conclusion that suits their tastes.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infinite, and without sin. And he created a universe into which sin and suffering entered. And he did it with the full knowledge (omniscience) that they would enter in. He wasn't taken aback by the Fall ("Oh my, what do I do now!!"), his plan and purpose have remained the same from before the foundation of the world, and "In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will". "
"I may be hairsplitting and trying to draw middle ground where there is none, but...
The "hard-line' Calvinist view seems to be (or at least is interpreted to be): God directly acts to cause suffering. God directly forms the cancer in John Piper's prostate for some unknown purpose.
The "hard line' Arminian view (which I believe logically leads to open-theism) appears to be: God doesn't have anything to do with suffering, whatsoever, other than to attempt to comfort us in it. It's as if God says to the cancer patient "Gee, I wish I could help you, but...".
When I recall the stories of Job and of Joseph, I see a different picture. One where God is not the agent of sin or suffering, but who is the Almighty God who *allows* sin to occur and uses even that which is intended to disgrace him (sin) for his glory. Now of course, God does smite sinful humanity at times. It's his prerogative.
Why do I include suffering along with sin? Because both are subsequent to the Fall, both are harmful to man, and yet both are used by God for his glory.
Another comment: I see a tendency on the part of Calvinists (I'd consider myself to be one, as long as one doesn't equate it with being "mean") to overthink things to the dishonor of God and a tendency on the part of Arminians to underthink things to the dishonor of God.
Many Calvinists seem to think they actually have the doctrines of grace (DOG) pinned down and thoroughly defined, and as a result can speak with a frightening degree of certainty about incredibly complex, doctrines. We can NEVER completely grasp the reality of the DOG anymore than we can fully understand the Hypostatic Union or the Trinity. To think we can is to sully the glory of Christ.
As for the Arminian postion, I think many simply reject Biblical truth because it is initially difficult to accept - it often doesn't appeal to our emotions, but instead requires thoughtful and prayerful consideration. So rather than "thinking biblically", they rely on philosophy or raw emotion to reach the theological conclusion that suits their tastes.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infinite, and without sin. And he created a universe into which sin and suffering entered. And he did it with the full knowledge (omniscience) that they would enter in. He wasn't taken aback by the Fall ("Oh my, what do I do now!!"), his plan and purpose have remained the same from before the foundation of the world, and "In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will". "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)