The card from my bride as we celebrate our 30th anniversary today reads:
Hold on to me, and I will hold on to you through anything and everything life brings our way.
Bring me your worries, and I’ll listen with my heart.
Tell me what you need, and I’ll do my best to give it to you.
Love me even when it isn’t easy, and I promise to do the same for you.
After all, isn’t that what love, true love, is all about?
Happy Anniversary
I am a truly blessed and lucky guy. Happy anniversary, my love.
There’ll be extra-credit given to anyone who remembers a rock group by this name. However, instead of being about Blind Faith, this post is about blind faith in relation to money management and the will of God.
An acquaintance recently said, “I’m realizing that the most important thing I can do is give up the control I think I have over my own life so that the Lord can bring about His control in my life. I need to trust and give up control.”
What’s so astonishing to me about this quote is that just two years ago this same person emphatically told me that it was God’s will that they were able to buy a particular house. In answer to my question as to how they knew that it was God’s will to buy the house, the response was, “Well, we got the house, didn’t we.”
Suffice it to say, higher mortgage payments due to an adjustable rate mortgage coupled with other significant financial blunders is putting a severe strain on this couple’s relationship – not only with each other but also (as I see it) with God. What’s most interesting to me is the inability (or unwillingness) to understand that a series of poor financial decisions – and not “the will of God” has brought about their difficulties. I can only surmise that the “faith waters” just beneath the surface are roiling. I see a desire to admit that “mistakes were made”. However, admitting to mistakes is to admit that they were exercising a false faith by believing that God gave them the house in the first place.
I think of someone who’s blind and I think of someone not able to see. Duh! However, Webster’s dictionary definition of the word ‘blind’ clarifies what I believe to be the root cause of this couple’s difficulties:
The reality is that God has provided a “wealth” (pun intended) of information about money-matters. It appears to me that this couple is experiencing the consequences of financial decisions that are inconsistent with biblically based money management practices and that their current difficulties have nothing to do with the application of God’s sovereign will.
Below is a letter that Colleen had posted elsewhere on this blog that I think lends itself to its own post. I will have a response to Colleen’s letter in the next day or two. As always, I welcome people’s thoughts and viewpoints.
Sincerely,
Bob
Setting aside God’s sovereign election of individuals to eternal life, let us agree on three other types of election. First, what we could call a “national” election. Wouldn’t you agree that some nations and communities have been given more exposure to a knowledge of true religion and the gospel than others? God undoubtedly does choose some nations to receive much greater spiritual and temporal blessings than others (i.e., America). The contrast is very striking when we compare these to third-world nations such as Africa, India and China. Did these people choose their fate? I don’t think anyone would say they did. The diversities of religious privileges in the different nations can be ascribed to nothing but the good pleasure of God.
Another form of election taught in scripture is that of individuals to the external means of grace, such as hearing and reading the gospel, association with other people of God, and sharing the benefits of the civilization which has arisen where the gospel has gone. None of us has had a chance to say at a particular time in world history or in what country we would be born–or whether we would be a member of the white race or some other. One child is born into health and wealth in a favored land, while another is born into poverty or neglectful parents. Have these things not been sovereignly decided for them? Furthermore, was it not of God’s own choosing that He created us as human beings, in His own image, when He might just as easily have created us as frogs or mosquitos or cats? These things, too, are due to God’s overruling providence, and not to human choice.
Lastly, I offer yet another kind of election, that of individuals to certain vocations. Some are given to amazing gifts for classical guitar, and others have gifts of painting or singing or speaking. Some people have been given personal beauty, some intelligence, some a kind disposition. Did we choose these gifts? I’m here to tell you, Bob, no matter how many guitar lessons I might take, I will never play in the beautiful way you do.
In each of these “types” of election, God gives to some what He withholds from others. We can easily see from conditions in the world and from our own everyday experiences that these blessings are bestowed sovereignly and unconditionally, irrespective of any previous merit or action on the part of those so chosen.
If we are highly favored, we can only be thankful for His blessings; if not highly favored, we have no grounds for complaint. Why, precisely, this or that person is placed in circumstances which lead to saving faith can only rest in the providence of the God Himself.
In Christ Alone,
Colleen
The below post is a letter that a good friend and an ardent Calvinist (who just happens to be the husband of my daughter) recently gave me in response to my contention that Jn 3:16 (along with 2 Pet 3:9, Rev 3:20. Tit 2:11, 1 Tim 2:3) refutes the concept of election. Mike was kind enough to provide a detailed response to each of these verses. Hopefully on subsequent posts I’ll respond to those other verses. However, with this post, I’m focusing in on Jn 3:16. Mike’s letter is heartfelt and reflects the passion and commitment he has for his Christian faith. Mike is heavily involved in Equip Campus Ministries at South Dakota State University and I would encourage people to check out their web site: www.equipsdsu.org. I appreciate Mike and with his permission, I’m pleased to offer his letter for the reader’s consideration. I’ll post my response to this letter in the comments section.
Jn 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son and that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.
Arminian Interpretation: God loves the entire world, meaning every single individual in the world. However, He has also designed the world in such a way that only believers will have eternal life.
Calvinist Interpretation: God loves the entire world, meaning every single individual in the world. However, He has also designed the world in such a way that only believers will have eternal life.
So what’s the problem?
I think it’s helpful to notice what question this text doesn’t address. It doesn’t address the question for why some do believe and others don’t. All Jn 3:16 says is that God saves the believers.
Why do some believe and others don’t?
We must admit that Jn 3:16 doesn’t answer this question. Here are a few examples within John that will suggest that belief starts with God and not man.
Jn 3:5-8 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Sprit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the spirit.
Thoughts: It seems like we were born of the Spirit the same way we were born of the flesh. When I was born of the flesh, I played no part in my birth. My birth was 100% a result of my parent’s choice. So it is with my spiritual birth. It has nothing to do with me, but everything to do with God. From our perspective, John says it’s like the wind, you don’t know where it comes from or where it goes.
Jn 6:28-29 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.
Thoughts: The people want to know how they can be doing the works of God. Jesus replies by saying, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
Observation:
Belief is a work. Which presents a problem because Eph 2:9 says that salvation is not a result of works.
But this works because Jesus says that our belief is a work of God, not a work of man.
This is like Jn 1:12-13 that says, “To all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Jn 10:24-28 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “how long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.”
Observations:
Jesus is answering the question we posed about, namely, “who do some believe and others don’t?”
His answer to why the Jews don’t believe is, “because they are not a part of his flock.”
In other words, those who are a part of Jesus’ flock will believe.
Again, to put it another way, being a part of Jesus’ flock is the prerequisite for belief. If we are in Jesus’ flock, we will believe. If we are not in Jesus’ flock, we will not believe.
Intangentiality? Okay, so I made up the word. I couldn’t find it in my trusty Webster’s but maybe a little meaning can be dissected out of it:
A recent sermon, “Under-Construction Priorities”, was interesting. Referencing Eph 5:15-21, the sermon related to establishing God-honoring priorities which will help stifle human folly and establish spiritual wisdom. The NIV Topical Bible breaks chapters and verses into a general context and the theme for this passage, which actually begins at Eph 4:17 (and ends at Eph 5:21) is titled, “Living as Children of Light”. A cursory reading reveals a lot of “to-do’s” including:
Don’t live as the Gentiles do
Put off the old self (deceitful desires)
Put on the new self (righteousness and holiness)
Speak truthfully
Don’t let the sun go down while you’re still angry
Don’t steal
No trash-talking (unwholesome chit-chat)
Don’t grieve the Holy Spirit
Lose the bitterness, rage, anger, brawling and slander
Be kind, compassionate, and forgiving
Be imitators of God
Live a life of love
Live a life of purity (not even a hint of sexual immorality)
No obscene or foolish talking or coarse joking
Exercise caution – be wise
Make the most of opportunities
Don’t be foolish
Understand what the Lord’s will is (emphasis mine)
Don’t get drunk
Be filled with the Spirit
Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs
Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord
Always give thanks to God for everything
Submit to one another
Why does Paul mention something about God’s will in the middle of all this “behavior” stuff? Is the placement of the phrase, “understand what the Lord’s will is” – between “don’t be foolish” and “don’t get drunk” significant? I’m not sure. However, my overall sense is that the will of God is not something tangent to one’s faith. Rather, the will of God can be easily recognized and understood and is front-and-center in how we conduct our lives. Paul isn’t teaching us to discover God’s will for some decision we need to make (here or in other passages such as Romans 12) by “praying in earnest”, “seeking wise counsel”, or “accurately interpreting one’s circumstances”. Many Christians talk about the will of God as it relates to a whole host of non-moral decisions in their lives such as:
Regarding all the “stuff” that makes up our lives, does the grace of God allow believers to make decisions they deem best? Is the passage evidence that God is more concerned with how we live instead of how (or whether) we seek His direction on non-moral “things”? I like a comment from a previous post and think it’s applicable: “It’s grace. All grace.”
Criticisms invited if you think I’m in error.
I read with interest an article sent to me entitled, Two Views of Regeneration, by John Hendrxy that compares:
An attached link pointed me to this site: www.monergism.com.
My NIV Topical Bible states that regeneration, in essence the act of being born again, results in salvation.
Monergism vs. Synergism. Sounds like a lawsuit, doesn’t it? This discussion has been around since before the flood. Well, it is probably more accurate to state that this topic has been around since the days of John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius. In any event, John Hendrxy states, [the] “unscriptural view (of synergism in general and of prevenient grace in particular) is the greatest threat to a true understanding of salvation in the Church today.”
The arguments and evidence presented by Mr. Hendrxy are, to say the least, compelling. However, it doesn’t take much internet searching to find (to me, anyway) strong Biblical evidence to support the doctrine of synergism and the concepts of Arminianism. Is one obviously right and the other obviously wrong? Is there some middle-point wherein there is truth in both Calvinism and Arminianism?
I cannot help but think that this discussion is a microcosm of many different thoughts, ideas, perceptions, and understandings of various Christian thought and I find it disconcerting that so many Christians can have so many different and divergent thoughts as to:
With regard to the Calvinists verses the Arminians, I am more comfortable with the Arminian arguments. Perhaps Colleen with her Greek lexicon and thoughtful arguments will persuade me otherwise.
There’s a lot of varied opinion within Christian circles about a whole host of issues and there is a lot of biblical substance to each of the arguments. A most interesting book, Across the Spectrum, argues from both sides of many significant on-going theological issues within the Evangelical Christian community. So, in backing away from the specifics of any particular arguments – at least in this post, I am asking:
I like salt on my food and grace in my arguments as it tends to make both more palatable and more interesting. As always, I welcome thoughts and opinions.
This is a letter posted on a Caring Bridge web site for a young boy with acute myelogenous leukemia:
Although I’m sure Rose is well intentioned, her comments (to me, at least) raise a number of questions about who she believes God to be and how He interacts with us. Perhaps Rose is a “Godwillian” – someone who believes that whatever happens, God desires it to be, and we need to figure out what it is that God wants us to learn.
I’m guessing that John Piper is a Godwillian. He’s quoted in Greg Boyd’s book, Is God to Blame (pg 48) as saying, “From the smallest thing to the greatest thing, good and evil, happy and sad, pagan and Christian, pain and pleasure – God governs them all for His wise and just and good purpose.”
Greg Boyd responds on pg 53:”Not once did Jesus suggest that a person’s afflictions were brought about or specifically allowed by God as part of a ‘secret plan’. Nor did He suggest that some people suffered because God was punishing them or teaching them a lesson. He didn’t ask people what they might have done to get in the sad predicament they found themselves in – even when dealing with demonized people. Jesus never suggested that a person’s suffering was brought about to contribute to a ‘higher harmony’. To the contrary, Jesus consistently revealed God’s will for people by healing them of their infirmities”.
I’m told that my thoughts on will-of-God issues tend to put God in a box. We mere mortals simply can’t understand the nature of God and how He interacts with His creation. Fair enough. But I can’t help but think that people, such as Rose, who posted about God using leukemia to teach patience, often make God out to be something He isn’t.
Who knew that a four-hour statistical process-control review meeting would help clarify my struggle with aspects of the Christian faith? Perhaps it is inherent working within a chemistry/manufacturing environment to understand all of the known variables. One aspect of understanding the variables is safety related, of course. Another aspect of understanding the variables relates to the cost of doing business and ensuring that a quality product is the end-result. To that end, when process variables are in control, the outcome (in this case how well the final products works) can be accurately predicted and there will be a minimum of variance.
So, what’s the correlation (pun intended) of the day job with my faith? Part of my struggle revolves around divergent views as Calvinist, Arminian, open theist, or any other view for that matter. I presume that God has provided all that we mere mortals would ever need to know about Him through the Bible. So, how are fundamental beliefs so varied from one Christian to another? Why is my interpretation and understanding of Eph 1:4 entirely different from that of CJ Mahaney? Note: please see my previous post regarding CJ Mahaney’s sermon on sovereign grace and divine election. Is it possible, for instance, that I’m looking at the “mean value” while CJ Mahaney is looking at the “median value” within the same “data sets”? Is there more than one interpretation for this verse – or for passages within Lamentations 3 and Romans 9? Can we make sense of apparently conflicting passages of Scripture?
I’m paraphrasing a little: but if I hold to Christ’s teachings, I’ll know the truth which will set me free. Seems simple enough – and according to Bob George in his book, Classic Christianity, if the truth sets me free, then the opposite is true; error binds me up. Feeling conflicted about my faith; I suppose it would seem reasonable that I am in error. But am I?
While recently searching for information on Calvinism I stumbled across a web site quoting material from The Five Points of Calvinism – Defined, Defended, Documented by David Steele and Curtis Thomas. I thought it would be beneficial to post my understanding of these terms and highlight the specific differences (at least related to divine election) that I have with my Calvinist friends.
According to Arminianism:
According to Calvinism:
The reason for my interest is that (I think) the Calvinist-Arminian debate goes to the nature and character of who we believe God to be. Feel free to post your thoughts and comments.
The following is a letter I wrote to a friend who recently lent me a CJ Mahaney DVD on sovereign grace:
I’ve listened to the CJ Mahaney you gave me re sovereign grace. I looked on CJM’s web site, www.sovereigngraceministries.org, but was not able to find this particular DVD on the mystery of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. In any event, CJM makes a compelling case for believing in divine election. However, if anything, I am more convinced in the error of Calvinism in general and divine election in particular because:
According to CJM, Eph 1:4 says that Christians were chosen personally and specifically by God to be saved because we were chosen:
Without the prepositions, Eph 1:4 in the NIV version I have says; He chose us to be blameless. From my Webster’s dictionary, the word chose (choose) has different meanings including “to select freely and after consideration” and “to decide”. As such, rewording the verse slightly – God decided that we were to be holy and blameless before creating the world. In short, God created us without sin.
My simplistic understanding goes like this: God wanted fellowship with earthly creatures that were without sin. God created Adam and Eve – perfect, holy, and blameless and they enjoyed fellowship with God. God also gave A&E a free will and it wasn’t long before A&E sinned. God therefore booted A&E out of the Garden of Eden. Amazingly, God still desired A&E’s fellowship as well as the fellowship of everyone that would come from A&E. We go through the entire OT with all of its rules and regulations but God still couldn’t enjoy fellowship with us because we failed to uphold and obey His law. Amazingly again, God still desired our fellowship and set up a process whereby His own death would serve as a substitute punishment for our sin. To that end, I do not see that Eph 1:4 has anything to do with divine selection.
CJM’s perspective on how God enacts divine election was interesting – wherein God reaches out and stops some, but not all, of those who’re running straight to Hell. I thought about your example of choosing to pay off one brother’s mortgage but not the other. However, I’m not aware of scripture that paints the picture of God applying randomness or otherwise arbitrarily saving some but not others. As you know, I don’t accept your examples in Romans 9 because I believe the last couple of verses explain that chapter to be about those who have faith being saved i.e. the Gentiles against those who tried to keep the law and rejected faith i.e. the Israelites. As I understand it, Christ died once for all and every requirement for our salvation has been satisfied. All that God requires is for us to believe – which is something we must choose to do. I don’t see how God needed to do anything more i.e. choose some (the elect) and not others (the “deselect”).
CJM makes it sound as though the human condition is not able to seek out truth, justice, or righteousness. The Bible is clear – all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. However, if we are created in His image, then doesn’t it make sense that we have been given the ability to know and understand right from wrong, good from evil – at least to varying degrees. Clearly, there are various levels of evilness throughout humanity. Any rational person would categorically state that Adolph Hitler was “more evil” than Mother Theresa. If we are able to make that distinction, then isn’t it possible that we can also see and indeed desire the holiness of God. We may not understand the ramifications or the costs of that holiness and our sin nature will forever prevent us from being truly holy. But that’s why Christ came. We are holy and blameless, in Christ, because of the free gift that we have chosen to accept.
CJM laid out the fruit of election as being:
Fine and well – but show me the scriptural references. Is there such a thing as “the fruit of election”? On the other hand, is this something made up to sound spiritual and to help argue the merits of divine election? Without scriptural references, I can only surmise that “fruit of election” is a made-up concept. In contrast, I can point you to Gal 5:22 regarding the fruit of the Spirit.
Regarding word definitions, CJM stated, “Repentance is a way of admitting that we can not save ourselves.” My Topical NIV states that repentance involves a conscious sorrow for one’s past way of life – a heartfelt “I’m sorry” expressed to God – turning away from an old way of living. Of course, I don’t believe that I can save myself. Most Christians, at least within the evangelical circle I run in, understand that it was our accepting the free gift of Christ’s sacrifice for our sins that has saved us. To be honest, I’m not even sure that one has to “feel” sorrow or remorse to become a Christian. I don’t know of any reference for that. On the contrary, we repent because we understand that we have fallen short of the holiness that God desires in all of His children.
Well, this is probably a good place to stop. Take care and I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Bob
Martin's Mercurial Musings 