Wednesday, July 18, 2007
stir things up
Well, it seems people have gotten tired of leaving comments, so i thought i'd throw out a quote i just read. My good friends Jeremy talked to me about Spurgeon's sermon "Jacob and Esau," so i'm reading it right now. He is talking about facts, specifically the fact of God's election unto salvaion. Here's his quote- "however much you may object to it, it is actually true that God did love Jacob, and did not love Esau." That's all i'll write, but you all can go ahead and critique Spurgeon on this one if you feel up to it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
i had fun at dinner with you last night!!! :)
baby!!!
hahahahhahahhaha
From, your friend Kate (and jeremy!!!)
The big problem with Spurgeon (and not his weight) is that he applies the election of a nation to individuals, that's just shoddy.
I agree with the anonymous comment. This is a quote from Malachi 1 where God says,
“I have loved you,” says the Lord. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob's brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob 3 but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.” 4 If Edom says, “We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins,” the Lord of hosts says, “They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called ‘the wicked country,’ and ‘the people with whom the Lord is angry forever.’” 5 Your own eyes shall see this, and you shall say, “Great is the Lord beyond the border of Israel!”
He is talking about national election and not individual. Too many Calvanists make this their proof text for predestined election of individual people and it clearly doesn't mean that. It's talking about God's love for Israel which is the same theme running throughout Romans. It's about God's love for his people (Israel=Church) and Romans 9 is setting a stark contrast between the Church and the world. Why everyone reads this as individual election is beyond me.
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters- yes, even his own life- he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
I think everyone would agree that Christ does not mean for us hate our family. That would SO contradict his teaching. He means for us to put him above even our family.
Isn't it possible that the same meaning is intended with the love Jacob, hate Esau thing?
anonymous,
I appreciate your trying to add some insight from the verse in Luke.
However, me must be careful to take a word in one verse and apply it to others just because we think it says something else.
I'm only about 12 years away from my PhD in Hebrew and Greek :), but I'll try to shed some light on this from using a simple online lexicon
http://www.studylight.org/lex/
The verse in Malachi 1 uses the same Hebrew word for hate, "Sane", as Malachi 2:16 which says that God hates divorce. So does God just dislike divorce a little more than He likes people remaining married?
Also, that same word is used 145 times on the OT and almost always means "hate" in a negative way, usually referring to one's enemy.
Similarly, in the NT, the word "Miseo" is used in Romans 9. Of course Jesus isn't saying to just flat out hate our family. But if it doesn't appear as hatred to the world compared to our love for him then we can't be his disciple.
And what do you do with these verses?
"Whoever hates me hates my Father also." John 15:23
"I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world." John 17:14
Who decides when "hate" means "dislike a little more" or when it means "to hate, pursue with hatred, detest", like the lexicon says "Miseo" means?
Again, I'm no expert in Hebrew or Greek, but this appears to be pretty obvious.
And Ryanmrug, even if Romans 9:13 wasn't there it wouldn't change what the rest of Romans 9 says about election...read it!
Ryan,
With all due respect, I'm assuming that you don't know the author of this blog and that you were just out "Calvinist hunting".
Your profile says, "I have made it a personal aim to show why the Reformed faith, particularly their doctrines of grace are inconsistent with Scripture."
Why don't you waste your time doing something more beneficial to the body of Christ? Either defend your position (whatever it is) or spend your time reading/listening to some people who are Calvinists who don't fit this ugly caricature that you painted in your last post:
"Calvinists are arrogant and stiff-necked people. They interpret Scripture as they see fit (there goes the analogy of Scripture) and contort it to their own beliefs. They destroy the hope for evangelism because they do not see that Christ died for all people, they are ineffective, ill suited pseudo-Christians."
You may think you are honoring God in this pursuit, but your venomous speech is just as destructive to the cause of Christ as these so called "arrogant and stiff-necked people" that you are trying to oppose.
Well Lickel, you title this post "stir things up"...you've certainly allowed that to happen :)
Sorry for the two deletes, I can't get this to post the way I want it to and it won't let me edit.
Josh,
I like where you are going with the difference between hate used in Luke and the way it is used in Romans. We are to understand these as completely distinct terms. Hate in Luke is a comparison, we are to hate our mother and father in comparison to the way we love Jesus. But Romans 9 seems to carry a very different tone, in that God hated Esau.
Ryan,
I read your blog, not too impressed. Even if we yield to the notion that Romans 9 is about corporate election it can be inferred that election always begins individual, as in the two literal people of Jacob and Esau (c.f. Isaiah 51:2). You have more woof than you have content. Just a thought. If you want to read further I've recently concluded a long number of posts on Calvinism at: synodofsaints.blogspot.com/search/label/Calvinism
I'de like to hear what you think.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
I just want to say something. I'm SO tired of people arguing about Calvinism. Why do Calvinists (which ARE equally brothers and sisters in the faith) feel the need to promote their belief system so zealously? Why do non-Calvinists (which are not the same as anti-Calvinists) feel the need to attack and contend with Calvinism? Talking in cirlces, causing division, getting upset, wasting time. Neither will ever change what they believe. Why "stir things up"? What good does it do? All who consider themselves people of God should be loving God, loving their neighbors, glorifying Christ, promoting and striving for unity and peace and leave all the theological superiority complexes and backbiting behind.
Sorry, didn't mean to post that last post anonymously.
Dana,
Although I can appreciate where you are coming from I think there is something important to note. Calvinists (I think I can speak for them) do not see a minor difference with those who don't agree. What we see at stake is not just a theology or an opinion, but the very Gospel itself, the kind of Gospel Paul speaks about in Romans 1:16-17. We must remember that as much as we are called to love others, the proper love for others flows from a proper love for God, which is why it is the first and greatest commandment. We cannot love others properly if we do not love God the way we ought (with all our hearts, with all our souls, and with all our "minds.") The good of what it does is that we are contending for something, we are contending for the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1-4). It is true that Christ did not want division in his Church, but it is equally as true that we should separate ourselves from those who teach falsely (Romans 16:17). Those who separate themselves from false teaching in order to uphold the integrity of Scripture should never be rebuked, rather they should be praised. Those are my thoughts on the matter. Anyone else?
Kyle,
I understand what you're saying, and I respect anyone who takes a stand for the truth. But honestly, I've never seen the debate between Calvinists and Non bear fruit. Ever. In fact, in my experience, it often results in inflating the pridefulness of those in both camps. I'm not saying these things shouldn't be discussed, but I'm tired of seeing Christians jump all over other Christians who love and serve Jesus Christ just as much (both ways). You know what I mean? Yes, we have to contend against false teaching, BUT everyone thinks everyone else is teaching false stuff. Who is deciding who is right? Maybe I'm idealistic, but it just would be nice to see Christians come together in unity and stand on common ground. Really, it's just all sad to me.
Dana,
(deep breath)...
I have seen a debate between a Calvinist and a Non bear fruit. I was not a Calvinist and debated it much with my brother-in-law who was. And guess what, now I am. Not that my debates with him ultimately made me a Calvinist, I believe the Holy Spirit did, but he caused me to search the Bible and listen to/read people who were teaching good solid Calvinism.
Sorry to say, I think you are being idealistic. There is such a lack of discernment in the body of Christ today. How can we stand on common ground with people like Rob Bell and Donald Miller (noticed those authors as some of your favorites on your site) when they continue to say absolutely absurd things about God and against orthodox Christian faith? You can read this review about "Velvet Elvis" that exposes the dangers of his teaching. And I just heard Donald Miller at a conference and he was terrible!
These postmodern teachers are undermining Biblical authority and leading people down some seriously dangerous paths.
I don't think this is a Calvinism-Arminianism debate at all. I have a friend who is a pastor of a Calvary Chapel church. He is very not a Calvinist, but he would agree strongly that Bell, Miller, etc. are teaching false doctrines.
Well, I don't know that this helps since you didn't want people doing what I just did, but I hope you will pray about it and at least realize that we can't just accept everything that comes off the press as "Christian". Read some stuff from the Puritans or something else that is not by some new, hip, popular teacher. There is such a wealth of good teaching and reading out there. I'm sure Andy, Kyle or myself could recommend something for you.
OK, I'll stop rambling!
Hi Josh,
First let me say this: You are a stranger to me, and I almost always avoid any potentially heated conversation with strangers, simply because we do not know each others hearts.
With that said, I appreciate your comment. What I don't appreciate is the assumption that I haven't read any writings by the old, classic giants of the faith. Just because what you saw on my blog page was the new guys doesn't mean that's all I read. ;)
Anyway, I would say also that just because you don't agree with all of what someone teaches doesn't mean there's no truth in it. I don't agree with all of reformed theology but that doesn't keep me from reading the writing of those of the reformed tradition. Neither do I agree with all of Wesleyan theology or postmodern theology or whatever. But I do my best to test everything, hold on to the good, and avoid every kind of evil.
what reformed books have you read?
I think we need to be careful what we label as "false teaching." In Scripture, Paul rebukes those who are true false teachers - like the Docetists or Gnostics, for example - because their teaching went directly in the face of Scripture, denying the deity or humanity of Christ, or advocating a return to the law and legalism. Those are definite false teachings. They deny clear Scriptural truth, and are, to use Ryan's term, leaven to be removed. With that in mind, we cannot call Calvinism, Arminianism, or non-Calvinism/non-Arminianism false teaching, regardless of which side we call our own. These views have doctrinal differences, yes - but both sides cross the line when they refer to the other's as false teaching, not because of true heresy, but because of those doctrinal differences.
Furthermore, when we assume that those with differing views maintain their opinions because of a failure to love the Lord with all their minds or because of unfamiliarity with or misinterpretations of certain passages of Scripture, we assume too much of ourselves and too little of those we disagree with - and I speak from personal experience.
I'm not saying that this forum should be a love and hugs unity-fest - by all means, let's debate doctrine in a thoughtful manner - but in our disagreements we should avoid referring to our doctrinal differences as falsities, and instead should be reminded of that which we have in common - a belief in justification by faith alone through grace alone, a passion for the God-breathed Word, and a devotion to the One who alone provides life abundantly.
Well, i've beenout of town (and still am), but it looks like there is a pretty hefty string of comments. I thank you all sincerely for your posts and thoughts and comments. I guess election is a hot topic. I didn't mean for it to be. Someone needs to explain to me this "national election" idea a little more. I've heard the idea before, but are those of you claiming national election saying that God at one time elected the Jews and now does no electing? How do you avoid personal election even if you hold to a doctrine of national election?
Ryan, I appreciate your comments, but i don't appreciate your purpose in being here. Please keep posting, but let's keep this focused on the gospel. I would like to hear more of what you actually believe, rather than having all of your posts aimed at disproving a system of thought you think is heretical. Speaking of heresy, I won't defend Clavinism nearly as much as the doctrines of grace that you call heresy in your blog. Sometime you need to tell me more about how grace is heretical. That will be a good one. You are right in saying that the doctrines of grace are at the root of reformed theology, however. I am not totally reformed, but many of its doctrines that you seem to dislike like original sin and grace and substitutionary atonement are doctrines that i find are at the heart of the gospel and are proclaimed in God's Word and therefore i would gladly lay my life down to protect. Going along with what Hypkis said, we shouldn't completely disown a belief because it is labelled as "reformed" or "arminian", but we should if it doesn't line up with scripture and the sound doctrine that comes from it.
Maybe I should clarify something. Ryan, i want you to keep posting, just not in a spirit of competition but in a spirit of humbly approaching the scripture and being grown in truth together. Debate happens and is good, but this blog was not created to show Arminianism as wrong. I realize your purpose is to try to disprove Calvinism, and good luck with that, but i don't know if this blog is reformed enough to make your Calvinist hunting worth while. Your "disproofs" are not very strong and haven't been teaching us or edifying God's people. I don't mean to bash your comments, i'd just like to hear more of your actual thoughts and some more insightful comments. Thanks y'all!
"You are right in saying that the doctrines of grace are at the root of reformed theology"...no they aren't. The root of reformed theology is the Person and the Work of Jesus Christ, the doctrines of grace are only a small part of "reformed faith" (a.k.a Biblical theology). Not to be too picky :-)
Hmmm, if i would have said that the doctrines of grace are THE ROOT of reformed theology i might agree with you. Maybe i used some bad wordage. But i don't understand how the doctrine of grace differs from what you label "the Person and Work of Jesus Christ." And i have a few friends who might not be thrilled with you calling reformed theology the same thing as Biblical theology. But thanks for the catch. Perhaps an up and coming post will be one about the doctrine of grace.
Not sure I can agree that Calvinism is at the root of Reformed theology-I see it stemming logically from a doctrine on the covenants and justification by faith alone (but that's a side point).
"And i have a few friends who might not be thrilled with you calling reformed theology the same thing as Biblical theology."
That's fine, if they can show me where Reformed theology strays from Biblical truth.
Anonymous,
The issue with calling any theology "Biblical Theology" is that all theologies are based on the Bible. Their hermeneutics may differ, but at their root, whether they are Arminian or Reformed, covenant or dispensational, even Catholic or Lutheran or charismatic...all of them claim that their theology is biblical. Therefore, stating that reformed theology IS biblical theology is essentially stating that the others are not, which is a huge slap in the face to anyone who calls him/herself a non-Reformed believer.
No it's not a huge slap in the face to the people but rather to the theology they maintain. Clearly they can't all be Biblical theology (and Rome is a "Biblical" and traditional theology). Again, if it can be shown from Scripture that Reformed theology is wrong then I would gladly renounce it.
We want more bloggage
yeah Lickel, get off your duff!
Post a Comment