|
Post by Jules on Mar 22, 2006 18:24:47 GMT -5
wanted to begin a discussion on what people on this board think of what the sovereignty of God really means, and how does it effect evangelism? I'll start off by quoting an excellent piece by Spurgeon, taken from Matthew 20:15 - I couldn't agree more with his thoughts:
"There is no attribute more comforting to His children than that of God's sovereignty. Under the most adverse circumstances, in the most severe trials, they believe that Sovereignty has ordained their afflictions, that Sovereignty overrules them, and that SOvereignty will sanctify them all. There is nothing for which the children ought to more earnestly contend than the doctrine of their Mastor over all creation - the Kingship of God over all the works of his hands - the Throne of God and His right to sit upon that throne.
On the other hand, there is no doctrine more hated by worldlings, no truth of which they have made such a football, as the great stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the Sovereignty of God. Men will allow God to be everywhere except on his throne. They will allow Him to be in His almonry to dispense His alms and bestow his bounties. They will allow him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of heaven, or rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean; but when God ascends His throne, His creatures then gnash their teeth.
And we proclaim am enthroned God, and his right to do as He wills with His own, to dispose of His creatures as He thinks well, without consulting them in the matter; then it is that we are hissed, and then it is that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on His throne is not the God they love. But it is God upon the throne that we love to preach!"
AMEN!
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 22, 2006 19:01:32 GMT -5
Jules,
This is a great topic and really gets to the heart of all theses discussions. I don't have time right now to give a positive statement of sovereignty, but I do have a question for the one you've listed here by Spurgeon.
How does this view of sovereignty differ from fatalism? The American Heritage Dictionary defines fatalism as:
1. The doctrine that all events are predetermined by fate and are therefore unalterable.
2. Acceptance of the belief that all events are predetermined and inevitable. )
Obviously God is behind it and not fate, but do you understand what I mean? I don't intend this to be a personal criticism, but for me it's a real roadblock in understanding the Reformed view of sovereignty.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 22, 2006 19:40:04 GMT -5
Here's something written by Jerry Walls that I think is a good summary of my view of God's sovereignty: "In trying to read the Bible cautiously and on its own terms, we see a sovereign God who has freely chosen to create a world fully dependent on him yet different from him, a world open to divine causation but not comprehensively determined by its divine sustainer, a world inhabited by God but not utterly overwhelmed by divine presence. We are not seeking to establish human freedom at the expense of divine sovereignty; rather we are seeking to affirm God's freedom to create whatever kind of world he desired, even a world whose every movement is not be be traced back ultimately to specific divine determination. If God has in fact chosen to create this kind of world, we neither glorify him nor magnify his sovereignty by insisting that he has created a world of a different sort." (italics his) Steve
|
|
|
Post by tomah on Mar 22, 2006 19:56:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 22, 2006 21:11:45 GMT -5
Thanks Armen.
To get into exactly how Calvinism can hold determinism and free-will is probably too much for the MB. These are intricate philosophical theories. The only way for the Calvinist to hold both of these views is to change the definition of free-will from "free to do otherwise" to "free to do what you want." This is called compatablism because it seeks to make determinism and free-will compatible. In this scheme God determines the will so that man is said to freely choose what he wills. Yet his will is determined by God. This is where, I believe, Calvinism falls apart. Despite all the philosophical manuvering Calvinism does not have an adequate or biblical view of human freedom.
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Mar 22, 2006 23:05:16 GMT -5
Jules, How does this view of sovereignty differ from fatalism? The American Heritage Dictionary defines fatalism as: 1. The doctrine that all events are predetermined by fate and are therefore unalterable. 2. Acceptance of the belief that all events are predetermined and inevitable. ) quote] For starters, I'd say that fatalism is inherently negative and implies that the result of one realizing "fate" (as the world calls it) is to be despondent, hopeless, unmotivated, etc. I think what makes the sovereignty issue unique is that with fatalism, there is no object or absolute truth by which to cling to, or hope for. Everything is random, everything is uncertain. But with God's sovereignty, you have an object (God Himself and His character) that in effect determines the nature of circumstances that are beyond our control. We have a hope. Things are not random. Does that make sense? So because God is gracious, holy, loving, forgiving, just, jealous, etc....these characteristics determine how all of life is played out. I disagree (strongly, but respectfully) to the claim by Mr. Walls that the world is inhabited by God but not utterly overwhelmed with his divine presence. Mr. Walls cannot see the overwhelming presence of God because he is in sin, and his eyes are not spiritual. Here's why I think that: Romans 1:18-20 says that men's wickedness and sin supress the truth (and God is Truth) and that what can be known about God is plain (evident) to them because God Himself has made it plain to them. God's invisible qualities and divine nature, eternal power (sovereignty as well) have been understood from what was made, so that men are without excuse. In a world that was created to praise Him (the ROCKS will cry out if men do not, remember? Luke 19:40) how can someone say that this world is merely inhabited by God? They can say it because they are blinded to the truth. These are the ones that the Lord gives over to their depraved minds because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie. Christ is already seated at the right hand of the father RULING. He has already put his enemies under his feet, and defeated death (the last enemy) through His resurrection. The presence of God was hovering over the waters of the deep in the beginning, and He is still here today. If God were to remove His hand, men would be unable to draw breath. Oh beloved of God, He is more than just here with us. He reigns! I don't know what we grasp first, our total depravity or God's sovereignty, but the two are inseperable truths. I don't know what scares Christians most about the doctrines of grace and God's sovereignty. I can only suppose it has something to do with the fact that we either dont know Him well enough to trust Him to run the universe as He chooses, or because we think we are still capable of some good on our part. Interestingly, I have yet to meet a "former Calvinist". Yet almost all "Calvinists" who embrace the doctrines of grace and God's sovereignty were once Arminian. So, just wondering if anyone else has. (and I mean a Biblical "Calvinist" not a hyper-Calvinist) there are of course some former hypers that have now settled down into a Biblical balance.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Mar 23, 2006 2:25:12 GMT -5
(raising hand) I was... but then I found out I wasn't of the 'elect' as they defined it and had to remove myself from that classification. Nor am I Arminian... but as I've come to know the LORD and His character, not just by theology but His Person, the more and more Augustine/Calvinist teachings made less and less sense to me. And yes, GOD does make sense... He created us in order that we would relate with him through His character, and scripture is proving it to me the more I study it. And yet I know I must have much of it wrong still... but I never knew HIM like I do now, and I wouldn't give that up for any theology. But I do enjoy coming to understand it still.
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Mar 23, 2006 13:15:40 GMT -5
Grant, interesting. thanks for your post. I think man will always falls short of truly defining these things, which is why we ever have theology - man's attempt to get the things of God into a bix and package it all nice and neat. I am a firm believer that it is Scripture alone that is our authority, not experiences, that should govern our theology as it were. It helps to be able to define some things, but we should be careful not to think that a man's (such as Calvin or Arminius, Luther or anyone else) had all the answers and was inspired in the same infallible way Isaiah, Moses, Paul, James, Peter and the writers of the Bible were.
I'm a sucker for study, but I've noticed that something the "idea" becomes the end, and not the means. By that I mean that we can lose our focus on Him and pursue things, even godly things, such as evangelism, as our end, instead of HIM being the end and evangelism (or Calvinism or whatever) being the means of reaching it. Does that make sense? I am guilty of chasing ideas, loving ideas, loving truthful ideas, and forgetting that they are only there as suport, not the anchor itself. The Calvinist, Dispensationalist, Cessationalist, Pre-Tribber, Arminian, Holiness preacher, or whatever they are are all in danger of being identified too closely with WHAT they believe and not WHO they are following, if they are not constantly in prayer.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Mar 23, 2006 13:44:36 GMT -5
I appreciate your post, Jules. And if I understood it correctly, I agree with it whole heartedly. I believe Scripture to be 100% GOD; in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with GOD, the Word was GOD, He was in the beginning with GOD. can't refute that! I also believe one can get wrapped up in theology just to answer questions and yet vere away from the character of GOD in doing so. What I mean by that is this, we are so centered on knowning Him (a noble and honorable act) that we dig into Scripture, we want to know all there is to know about our loving LORD. But to answer questions, I believe many times we try too hard to make Scripture fit our form[ed]/[ing] theology, losing sight of the source of this basis, GOD Himself. I'm not speaking of only experiences and some idolistic view of Him, but the true nature of Him as He's described Himself and has shown to be through history, scripture, and revelation/experience all together. Words can be twisted to fit almost any view, but character proves itself. GOD bless y'all!
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 23, 2006 16:38:55 GMT -5
Jules,
I think the point that Mr. Walls was trying to make was that God does not suffocate us with his presence. He's a godly Christian who is a professor of philosophy of religion at Asbury Theological Seminary. I say this because you said that "Mr. Walls cannot see the overwhelming presence of God because he is in sin, and his eyes are not spiritual." I may be mistaken, but it seems that this is too harsh a judgment based on a small paragraph by Mr. Walls. I think possibly you misunderstand his meaning here. This may be my fault because the quote I provided is a summary of several pages in a book. Perhaps it is taken out of context.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Mar 23, 2006 19:05:52 GMT -5
If we do not have a free will, then we don't know it.
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Mar 23, 2006 19:46:44 GMT -5
Steve, my apologies, and you are right - I misunderstood his quote. I REALLY get fired up when people appear to belittle God's influence, power, and control of this world. It is just something I am passionate about, not as though I really need to defend God's character, or I myself would be guilty of belittling him, right? I run full speed ahead sometimes, and I should have asked for some context before jumping to conclusions about a man I know nothing about. But as I posted in another thread, Asbury is a great college, my pastor went there. I'd be interested to know the book you took the quote from. And Josh, you are SO RIGHT brother! (about you saying if we don't have free will, then we don't know it) I think this is exactly the case, in a very simplified aspect anyway, which is all we are capable of. If we really understood that God chose us and we didn't chose Him, who'd choose him? No one. In fact, Jesus said that - you didn't choose me, I chose you! We love because He first loved us...He starts and finishes it all, to His glory. If we knew who the sheep were why would we waste our time preaching to goats? We wouldn't. For some reason, God chose US, His sheep, to preach His Word and use it as the means to bring men to repentance. He certainly didn't have to do this. He could have put it in the stars and never given us the command to go and tell. Although creation too speaks of God's nature, I don't think the "gospel" can be ultimately preached apart from God's law being presented, but that might be a topic for another thread. I fact, someone start that one, I'd be intersted in hearing some thoughts on that.... And many times we don't get to know who is a sheep or goat ultimately until we stand before His throne. So we tell everyone, and in the process, we understand why some are going to be objects of wrath and some will be objects of mercy. In this, we see a part of who God is. It's a confusing and difficult part, but that's only because we are so stupid and depraved apart from Him
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Mar 23, 2006 20:00:16 GMT -5
Jules, The book I'm referring to is called "Why I'm Not A Calvinist" by Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell. There's a companion book called "Why I'm Not An Arminian" by Robert Peterson and Michael Williams The book by Walls and Dongell has such an awesome spirit about it. Even if you disagree with them it's hard to find people who deal with these issues with more gentleness and love. You can see both books at: www.amazon.com/gp/product/0830832491/ref=pd_bxgy_img_b/102-6262663-7643313?%5Fencoding=UTF8Steve
|
|