I will wind down my rantings about Calvinism shortly. My last post on this topic dealt with Romans 9, a passage typically used to support a predistinarian view. Hebrews 6, on the other hand is a typically Arminian proof text and with good reason.
As a teenager, I read this passage with terror. I thought I had committed an unpardonable sin and it is a minor testament to the plain reading of this text as not supporting eternal security that I came to that conclusion. The text in Chapter 6:4-6 says:
It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
I stated earlier that I support a view of eternal security that is based not on God's decree, but on the infinite value of Christ's sacrifice. That is - I do not believe one can casually lose his or her salvation. Grace is too gracious and Christ's blood too precious.
What is being spoken of here seems to be something different.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Scot McKnight on the Emerging Church - Part 1
I have been reading Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog for a few months now. I’ve even engaged in the conversation a few times, perhaps being a bit more feisty than I should at times. I’ve never met Scot McKnight, but I tend to like him from internet exchanges. He is gracious and engaging, and even sent me a couple of off-line e-mails to continue a discussion and find out a bit about me.
So when he published an article in CT on the Emerging Church, I had to read it and many of the reader comments, which have been all over the map. I have to say that I’ve not always been comfortable with things said on the Jesus Creed site. Most of Scot’s comments I can handle – many of the comments of his readers I have trouble with. After reading Scot’s article, I think I’ve come to some additional conclusions in regard to the Emerging Church movement. Scot attempts to define the indefinable Emerging Church (EC) movement and says some good things and troublesome things. First the positive:
So when he published an article in CT on the Emerging Church, I had to read it and many of the reader comments, which have been all over the map. I have to say that I’ve not always been comfortable with things said on the Jesus Creed site. Most of Scot’s comments I can handle – many of the comments of his readers I have trouble with. After reading Scot’s article, I think I’ve come to some additional conclusions in regard to the Emerging Church movement. Scot attempts to define the indefinable Emerging Church (EC) movement and says some good things and troublesome things. First the positive:
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Why I am Not a Calvinist Part 6 - Romans 9
At some point in my views of Calvinism I have to deal with difficult passages of scripture. And the most difficult is Romans 9. So here goes nothing...
I was always told as a young college student that a text without a context is a pretext. I had no idea what that meant, but it made "context" a part of my vocabulary. So while I often struggled with the implications of the words in Romans 9:10-18...
Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
Clearly this is good support for a predestinarian view. And I admit it was troubling. But, at least to my own satisfaction, context helped me through it.
I was always told as a young college student that a text without a context is a pretext. I had no idea what that meant, but it made "context" a part of my vocabulary. So while I often struggled with the implications of the words in Romans 9:10-18...
Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
Clearly this is good support for a predestinarian view. And I admit it was troubling. But, at least to my own satisfaction, context helped me through it.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Obama's Words, Obama's Actions
Been away from posting for a while. Finishing up a recording project for my son, and holiday stuff. Can't help but wonder if the country is ready for Barack Obama.
This guy is articulate, good looking, smooth as glass. And he presses the right "religion" buttons to woo a new generation of evangelical voters. I had dinner with a young man who interned for Obama and was fairly sold on him.
Consider this quote from Obama's 'Call to Renewal' address:
...secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Jim Dobson couldn't have said it better. And the mainstream media will undoubtedly broadcast every soundbite it can that paints Obama in the light of a moderate, rational and religious man.
Here's my problem and many have written on this subject.
Obama's positions on life issues are more extreme than any candidate I have ever seen.
This guy is articulate, good looking, smooth as glass. And he presses the right "religion" buttons to woo a new generation of evangelical voters. I had dinner with a young man who interned for Obama and was fairly sold on him.
Consider this quote from Obama's 'Call to Renewal' address:
...secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Jim Dobson couldn't have said it better. And the mainstream media will undoubtedly broadcast every soundbite it can that paints Obama in the light of a moderate, rational and religious man.
Here's my problem and many have written on this subject.
Obama's positions on life issues are more extreme than any candidate I have ever seen.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Dennis Prager on the Authority of The Book
I listen to Dennis Prager when I get the chance. He is a Jewish Conservative talk show host who is calm, articulate and gracious. He column today in Jewish World Review speaks to the issue of the culture wars and does the best job I have seen in quite some time in defining what the culture wars actually are.
I have grown a bit weary of the secular press characterizing the culture wars as an attempt for a few narrow, fundamentalist, right-wing zealots to impose a theocracy on the rest of the culture, a culture which we are told has been secular since the days of Thomas Jefferson. I am growing more weary of the tendency of many evangelical Christian authors and bloggers to essentially say the same thing, that Christian involvement in politics (read conservative Republicanism) is unbiblical and damages the church. More on that in a later post.
Prager does a great service by providing a bit of clarity. What the culture wars are about is not religion per se, but morality based on a text that is shared across many very different viewpoints:
I have grown a bit weary of the secular press characterizing the culture wars as an attempt for a few narrow, fundamentalist, right-wing zealots to impose a theocracy on the rest of the culture, a culture which we are told has been secular since the days of Thomas Jefferson. I am growing more weary of the tendency of many evangelical Christian authors and bloggers to essentially say the same thing, that Christian involvement in politics (read conservative Republicanism) is unbiblical and damages the church. More on that in a later post.
Prager does a great service by providing a bit of clarity. What the culture wars are about is not religion per se, but morality based on a text that is shared across many very different viewpoints:
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Is Jesus the Only Savior?
Taking a break from Calvinism for a moment, I have to plug a great book. James Edwards was a mentor to my nephew Troy, who became a Presbyterian pastor, (and leans in the Calvinist direction - but we're still very much on speaking terms!) I had not read anything by Edwards prior to reading Is Jesus the Only Savior? I have to admit I didn't know what to make of the title at first, but after reading it, I suspect it is a book that ought to be looked at by a lot of young college age men who need mentoring, and maybe ought to be a study for high school seniors heading to college.
His book is calm, scholarly, but readable. He takes on the various phases of the "quest for the historical Jesus" by exposing the naturalistic assumptions underneath them. He takes the question further showing that there is a great deal of reason to trust the historical reliability of the New Testament with easy to read, cogent arguments and a judicious choice of compelling evidence. There was new material here that I had never encountered. Josh McDowell and others have produced a volume of information in this regard, but I found items in Edwards book very exciting. Having established the reasonableness of trusting the New Testament, he tackles the central issue - "did Jesus believe himself to be God?"
But what sets the book apart is how he links the rebuttal of "modern" skepticism of the historicity of Christianity with the "after-modern" skepticism about whether Christianity has the right to make exclusive truth claims. This is the epistemological question of the age my sons will have to deal with and I hope I can get them to take a good look at a book like this one.
The one caveat for more conservative evangelicals is that Edwards admits that it is difficult for him to reconcile every detail of the gospels into a perfect harmony, so he does not identify himself as being in the strict inerrantist/fundamentalist camp. Then again, C.S. Lewis was not exactly a fundamentalist and most evangelicals are quite comfortable learning from him.
This is an important, credible and readable book. I hope it gains a wide audience.
His book is calm, scholarly, but readable. He takes on the various phases of the "quest for the historical Jesus" by exposing the naturalistic assumptions underneath them. He takes the question further showing that there is a great deal of reason to trust the historical reliability of the New Testament with easy to read, cogent arguments and a judicious choice of compelling evidence. There was new material here that I had never encountered. Josh McDowell and others have produced a volume of information in this regard, but I found items in Edwards book very exciting. Having established the reasonableness of trusting the New Testament, he tackles the central issue - "did Jesus believe himself to be God?"
But what sets the book apart is how he links the rebuttal of "modern" skepticism of the historicity of Christianity with the "after-modern" skepticism about whether Christianity has the right to make exclusive truth claims. This is the epistemological question of the age my sons will have to deal with and I hope I can get them to take a good look at a book like this one.
The one caveat for more conservative evangelicals is that Edwards admits that it is difficult for him to reconcile every detail of the gospels into a perfect harmony, so he does not identify himself as being in the strict inerrantist/fundamentalist camp. Then again, C.S. Lewis was not exactly a fundamentalist and most evangelicals are quite comfortable learning from him.
This is an important, credible and readable book. I hope it gains a wide audience.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Why I am Not a Calvinist - Part 5: Eternal Security
An acquaintance told me the other day that her child was planning to leave a Christian College for another Christian College because of the overbearing nature of the chapel services. She explained that in the denomination with which this college is associated, "they don't believe in 'once saved - always saved'. To this lack of belief in eternal security in part, she attributed what unfortunately sounded like a daily bludgeoning of the students from the pulpit to confess sin and get their spiritual lives straight.
Having spent some time in "holiness movement" circles, I can certainly sympathize. Revivalism, left in the hands of men to create the revival by tactics of mass persuasion, can be a destructive thing. Presumably, by going to a different institution where Christians are "eternally secure", this abuse might be avoided.
I find that the average lay person is often drawn to a Calvinist viewpoint because of the belief in eternal security, the belief that a Christian, once saved from the consequences of sin, can never again be lost. I, if truth be told, have always believed in a slightly limited form of eternal security, but for very un-Calvinistic reasons. In fact, as a young layman, had no notion that eternal security was in any way related to Calvinism.
Having spent some time in "holiness movement" circles, I can certainly sympathize. Revivalism, left in the hands of men to create the revival by tactics of mass persuasion, can be a destructive thing. Presumably, by going to a different institution where Christians are "eternally secure", this abuse might be avoided.
I find that the average lay person is often drawn to a Calvinist viewpoint because of the belief in eternal security, the belief that a Christian, once saved from the consequences of sin, can never again be lost. I, if truth be told, have always believed in a slightly limited form of eternal security, but for very un-Calvinistic reasons. In fact, as a young layman, had no notion that eternal security was in any way related to Calvinism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)