what is free will

I usually like how Michael Patton shows agreement between theological positions and then clearly defines what is typically the smaller area of disagreement. His post on A CALVINIST’S UNDERSTANDING OF “FREE-WILL” is no exception.

Patton first offers the following 5 possible definitions:

• That a person is not forced from the outside to make a choice
• That a person is responsible for his or her choices
• That a person is the active agent in a choice made
• That a person is free to do whatever they desire
• That a person has the ability to choose contrary to their nature (who they are)

He rightly asserts that a Calvinist would affirm the first three and reject the fourth. And that this is likely the position of all believers, Calvinist or not. It is on the fifth point that we typically have issue.

To analyze this further, he then defines "Libertarian Free-will" or "Libertarian Freedom". This is "the power of contrary choice". That is, in the Libertarian Freedom camp, one would argue that a person could make choices against their nature. The problem is that one's nature makes up who they are and who they are determines their choice. That makes their choice self-limited. Therefore the choices are free, but they lack liberty. Said differently, a person does not become a sinner because they sin, they sin because they are a sinner. It is about the nature of the person first. To quote Patton, "If people are identified with the fallen nature of Adam, then they will make choices similar to that of Adam because it is who they are. Yes, they are making a free choice, but this choice does not include the liberty or freedom of contrary choice." Conversely, those in Christ have a new nature and can make choices consistent with that nature.

Even if one denied the doctrine of total depravity, libertarian freedom is untenable. Patton offers some examples:

• You did not choose when you were to be born.
• You did not choose where you were to be born.
• You did not choose your parents.
• You did not choose your influences early in your life.
• You did not choose whether you were to be male or female.
• You did not choose your genetics.
• You did not choose your temperament.
• You did not choose your looks.
• You did not choose your body type.
• You did not choose your physical abilities.

Simply put, one is on shaky ground if they want to argue that we choose against our nature. In fact, both Arminians and Calvinists agree still at this point. Neither openly affirm the Libertarian Free-will position. The difference isn't the above, but that the Arminian holds to the doctrine of prevenient grace, a grace from God that neutralizes the will so that the inclination toward sin is relieved such that the person can make a true free will decision.

This now is where we differ. The Calvinist would ask what does neutralized look like? Does it erase everything? If so, what within you then makes the choice? How then does responsibility fit into that? The argument would be that a neutralized being would end in perpetual indecision. R.C. Sproul uses the following illustration of a "neutral-willed" mule in Chosen By God.

The mule had no prior desires, or equal desires in two directions. His owner put a basket of oats to his left and a basket of wheat on his right. If the mule had no desire whatsoever for either oats or wheat he would choose neither and starve. If he had an exactly equal disposition toward oats as he had toward wheat he would still starve. His equal disposition would leave him paralyzed. There would be no motive. Without motive there would be no choice. Without choice there would be no food. Without food soon there would be no mule.

In the best case, a neutral will results in arbitrary choices and where then is responsibility?

Therefore, in the end, the Arminian overcomes the Libertarian issue with prevenient grace for all while the Calvinist would say effectual grace for some but not for all. That leads us to a different argument but at least one that's based on the real difference as opposed to something, when thought through, most would already agree to.

Technorati Tags: Calvinism

ok to kill?

Tough question answered well by John Piper ...

freedom

"You have your freedom when you are easy in your harness." ~ Robert Frost

Freedom is an interesting thing. It does not mean absolute independence. I've mentioned some analogies in the past. Note that freedom is living within the construct of the nature of a thing. What is freeing to one is death to another (2 Cor 2.15-16).

"Real freedom only comes when I tether myself to the Freedom Giver." ~ Matt Massey

The analogy Massey gives is that of a kite. Without the being tethered to the kite master, the kite is merely garbage blowing in the wind (and even that not infinitely). But when tethered to the master, it is beautiful and can fly infinitely ... especially if we tease out the analogy a bit by noting the master is also the master of the wind.

Jesus told us the same thing (John 8.31-32). Only when we abide in him will we know the truth and be set free.

So what stops us from doing this? Massey offers two reasons:

• we have a wrong view of who Jesus is
• we want control

Our control is not only not an option, it is only an illusion. We are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness (Rom 6.19). We don't go from slaves to free. We go from slaves to slaves. But in slavery to righteousness is freedom. And this is by tethering ourselves to Christ (Rom 6.5-11).

Walter Brueggemann writes, "The entire morality of the New Testament is rooted in freedom, the freedom of the exodus and the freedom of the resurrection . . . It is the power of the resurrection that calls us to cope with evil . . . It is the turn of new life that enables us to live lives characterized by joy, peace, patience, self-control (Galatians 5:22-23)."

In Christ Jesus, and only in Christ Jesus, can we be true versions of ourselves ... the best versions of ourselves.

inerrancy and unusual constructions

Wayne Grudem writes [pg 91 Systematic Theology]:

It Is Consistent With Inerrancy to Have Unusual or Uncommon Grammatical Constructions in the Bible. Some of the language of Scripture is elegant and stylistically excellent. Other scriptural writings contain the rough-hewn language of ordinary people. At times this includes a failure to follow the commonly accepted “rules” of grammatical expression (such as the use of a plural verb where grammatical rules would require a singular verb, or the use of a feminine adjective where a masculine one would be expected, or different spelling for a word than the one commonly used, etc.). These stylistically or grammatically irregular statements (which are especially found in the book of Revelation) should not trouble us, for they do not affect the truthfulness of the statements under consideration: a statement can be ungrammatical but still be entirely true. For example, an uneducated backwoodsman in some rural area may be the most trusted man in the county even though his grammar is poor, because he has earned a reputation for never telling a lie. Similarly, there are a few statements in Scripture (in the original languages) that are ungrammatical (according to current standards of proper grammar at that time) but still inerrant because they are completely true. The issue is truthfulness in speech.

Technorati Tags: Scripture

the gospel for christians

"There is nothing in us or done by us, at any stage of our earthly development, because of which we are acceptable to God. We must always be accepted for Christ’s sake, or we cannot ever be accepted at all. This is not true of us only when we believe. It is just as true after we have believed. It will continue to be trust as long as we live. Our need of Christ does not cease with our believing; nor does the nature of our relation to Him or to God through Him ever alter, no matter what our attainments in Christian graces or our achievements in behavior may be. It is always on His “blood and righteousness” alone that we can rest." ~ B.B. Warfield
HT: TT via PC

theological liberalism

Alan Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways, p. 261 “Theological liberalism is an indicator of institutional decline not only because it tries to minimize the necessary tension between gospel and culture by eliminating the culturally offending bits, but because it is basically a parasitical ideology....theological liberalism rarely creates new forms of church or extends Christianity in any significant way, but rather exists and ‘feeds off’ what the more orthodox missional movements started. Theological liberalism always come later in the history of a movement and it is normally associated with its decline. It is therefore a highly institutional manifestation of Christendom. As such it is deadly to apostolic forms of missional movements.”

HT:EH

it's all about jesus

Some of the words have an initial feel (and my feeling may change if I think a bit more about it) of being a little too absolute but directionally I like this a lot ...

“In summary, the Old Testament should be seen as preparation for and anticipation of the King’s coming. The New Testament should be seen as the proclamation that God’s expected reign has come in Jesus, with the cosmic and ethical implications of this fact worked out in many new contexts. The New Testament’s thrust is: now that God has established his kingdom, what are the implications of this gospel (good news)? That’s why each book of the new Testament doesn’t simply rehearse or rehash the barest essentials of the story — Christ died, Christ was raised, Christ will come again (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3). No, rather than playing the exact same melody again and again, the New Testament writers transpose it and arrange it for new contexts and audiences. But the narrative anchor point is always Jesus and his kingdom, and the subsequent pouring out of the Spirit upon the church at Pentecost.” - Michael R. Emlet, CrossTalk (Greensboro, NC; New Growth Press, 2009), 49-50.

HT:FE

facebook today

Smart FaceBook quotes of the day ...

"It may be said without qualification that every man is as holy and as full of the Spirit as he wants to be." - AW Tozer ... via Jeff Goins

"he 'tended to unsettle every thing, and yet settle nothing.'" - Ben Johnson on a theologian of his day and many in ours. ... via Bob Hyatt

"Whoever seeks God outside Jesus Christs finds the devil." ... Jeremy Bouma

fear of god

The kind of God that appeals to most people today would be easy-going in his tolerance of our offenses. He would be gentle, kind, accommodating. He would have no violent reactions. Unhappily, even in the church we seemed to have lost the vision of the majesty of God. There is much shallowness and levity among us. Prophets and psalmists would probably say of us, "There is no fear of God before their eyes." In public worship our habit is to slouch or squat; we do not kneel nowadays, let alone prostrate ourselves in humility before God. It is more characteristic of us to clap our hands with joy than to blush with shame or tears.

We saunter up to God to claim his patronage and friendship; it does not occur to us that he might send us away. We need to hear again the Apostle Peter's sobering words, "Since you call on a father who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives in reverent fear." (I Peter 1:17) In other words, if we dare to call our judge our Father, we must beware of presuming on him. It must even be said that our evangelical emphasis on the atonement is dangerous if we come to it too quickly. We learn to appreciate the access to God which Christ has won only after we have first cried, "Woe is me for I am lost."

- John Stott, The Cross of Christ

HT:RA

rebellion

"Man’s rebellious enmity against God (Colossians 1:12; Romans 8:7f) has called forth his holy enmity against evil (1 Corinthians 15:25f; Romans 11:28; James 4:4); his wrath (Romans 1:18; 2:5, 8–9; Ephesians 2:3, 5; Colossians. 3:6); his judgments (Romans 1:24–32; 2:3, 16; 3:6, 19; 2 Corinthians 5:10); his vengeance (Romans 12:19; 2 Thessalonians 2:8); and the curse of the broken law (Galatians 3:10). The wrath of God in the final judgment stands in immediate connection with the enmity which is removed by the reconciliation (Romans 5:9–10). Thus God so acted in giving his Son to be made sin and a curse for us that his wrath was averted and his righteousness made manifest even in forgiving believers (Romans 3:25–26). The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ assures them that the sentence of condemnation is no longer against them." ~ William Childs Robinson, “Reconciliation,” Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, ed. Everett F. Harrison (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960), 437–438.

wild thing

Can you dig it? Out of sight, I knew you could.

Technorati Tags: ecclesiology

don't stop singing the songs

I love this ...

I Love Elvis from ilovepinatas on Vimeo.

HT:AF

Technorati Tags: ecclesiology

dinner chat

We're hosting a "dinner for 8" on Saturday. We love having company. There's just something about having interesting people to our home for conversation that I enjoy. In particular I like this format because first of all, I like food, but secondly, it's a somewhat random group so I get to meet new people, folks I might not have otherwise taken time to get to know.

Anyway, I ran across this interesting post on how to have better dinner conversations. Here are some of the conversational points:

Ask open-ended questions. As the hosts, Gail and I have a singular goal: we try to ask interesting questions. We try to make these questions open-ended, so that people must elaborate and give us some insight into them as a person. For example,

• What is your idea of a perfect vacation?
• If you could design your ideal job, what would it look like?
• What is the best book you have read in the last 12 months and why?
• What is the most important lesson you learned from your father?
• What is your very favorite thing about your spouse?
• If you were by yourself, and could listen to any music you want, what it be?
• If you could spend a day with anyone on the planet, who would it be?
• What it is like to be your friend? or to be married to you?
• If you were suddenly the President of the U.S., what would you do first?
• Looking back over your life, what would you describe as your proudest moment?

Ask a second question. The most interesting conversations come after the initial answer. It takes extraordinary discipline to refrain from answering your own question and, instead. answer a second question. Yet this is where the deepest conversations occur. I like to ask questions like these as follow-up questions:

• How did it feel when that happened?
• Can you elaborate on that?
• Why do you think that is important to you?
• Do you think you would have answered the same way five years ago?
• What emotion do you feel when you describe that?

crush idols

How to Build a God.



HT:RO

driscoll on hell

absurdity

That emerg* is finally articulating what it is (ANKoChristianity). The more I read, the more Jeremy Bouma's words ring true; "in reality the emerging church simply believes otherly; the form of Christianity that this version of Christianity pushes is neither innovative nor different: it is a form of Christianity other-than the versions that currently exist but mirror those that have already existed." And sadly, in that effort, has left Christianity.

In ANKoChristianity, McLaren repeatedly mischaracterizes Christians. I noted some of this based on on an critique by Michael Wittmer. To add to that, since many of the defenders simply claim McLaren isn't being properly represented, here's another.

McLaren claims that according to Sola Scriptura, we must take everything in Scripture at face-value. From page 89;

“God has just told us that a large proportion of what is uttered in the book of Job is false and foolish. Yet we are taught that the book of Job, being part of the Bible, is the Word of God and is inspired by God. Does that mean that God inspired the introduction and conclusion, but not the middle, where the pious blowhards speak? Or does it mean that God inspired the pious blowhards’ false statements? Or that God was pretending to inspire that part, but was crossing the divine fingers behind the divine back, so as to come out later on to say, ‘I was only kidding in that part’?

As with so much that the emerg* is against, they simply do not understand what they vehemently dislike or disagree with. I'm sure they have had some bad experiences but rather than take time to properly understand, they just want to be different. When it comes to Christianity, this is the reaction of the unregenerate. I'm reminded of the number of times I've talked to someone who recently had some sort of "conversion experience". If they had any church history at all, they inevitably report something to the effect of, "wow, that other church never told us about God/Jesus like that." Now I'm sure many in their past failed at some point but it is not true that no other church ever witnessed the truth of God. It's typically that the person simply didn't have ears to hear and now that the Holy Spirit has opened their heart, they "hear" for the first time. The problem isn't usually that it wasn't said.

So back to ANKoChristianity. McLaren is a smart man. His writing is simply to fuel the dissension in the emerg* ranks rather than to help clarify and correct. He promotes an absurdly wrong view of Sola Sciptura and therefore his alternative cannot be taken seriously.

McLaren proposes redefining a Christianity that he doesn’t understand and doesn't like. He and his follows need to return to Scripture and to God. There, and only there will they find the peace and the life we all so desperately need.

Technorati Tags: Emerging Church, heresy

god man

“The Son of God became a man to enable men to become sons of God.”
- C.S. Lewis
HT:JH

more on confronting

Yes - we are supposed to address sin and error (1 Tim 1.3-4). Not doing so is unloving.

hungry

From Frank Viola ... Colossians 1:5-6 ...

If you are a Christian, it’s in your spiritual DNA to hunger for more of Jesus Christ. That hunger can be choked by other pursuits. Even religious pursuits. But that hunger is present. It just needs to be watered a little. Reading a book that reveals Christ . . . or hearing a message where the riches of Christ and the deep things of God are unveiled . . . causes that hunger to be watered and even awakened. It is that very hunger that causes many to seek the experience of the Body of Christ. At bottom, a longing for body life is really a hunger for more of the Lord.

In my observation and experience, if a ministry is not utterly centered upon and revealing Christ in ever-greater depths, it will eventually wear out in your life. The Lord Jesus Christ is the only thing that never wears out. Everything else grows thin eventually . . . and that includes the 1001 religious and spiritual things that Christians chase after today.

do not forgive without repentance

What if the other party is not repentant, should I forgive? No. Ok, but what then should I do?

Chris Brauns offers a decent answer using Romans 12.17-21 as an outline.

17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Principle 1: Resolve not to take revenge
Principle 2: Proactively show love
Principle 3: Don't forgive the unrepentant but leave room for the wrath of God

I think the first principle is self-explanatory and not contentious. The same with the second but let's highlight, love needs to be genuine, i.e., authentic, and "Christians should dream of how they can pursue peace even with their enemies. Rather than lying in bed picturing how we might retaliate ..."

It is the third principle, don't forgive the unrepentant, which doesn't set well with many. And this is compounded with the liberal denial of God's wrath.

But Romans 12.19b is consistent with John 20.23 which does not at all imply that all are to be forgiven ... it does however reinforce the seriousness of our role in forgiveness which is to be granted as often as it is requested (Lk 17.3b-4).

An example of Paul not always forgiving is found in 2 Timothy 4.14-15. In addition, he confronts the notion held by some that we cannot confront error/sin - a idea based on a wrong understanding of texts such as Matthew 7.1 and Luke 6.37. True love will want to remind (1 Cor 13.6) others that God's judgement is certain (Heb 9.27).

Some overlook the overall story-line of Scripture by cherry picking texts they perceive support Jesus forgave without requiring repentance. An example of cherry picking is Luke 23.33-34. Some would say Jesus gave forgiveness with no evidence of repentance. But notice that Jesus' words are not that they have been forgiven or that he now forgives them, he is praying for their future forgiveness. These words stand in contrast to the language of Lk 5.20-24; 7.49; 23.43 - all of which were preceded by some act or statement of faith and repentance on the part of the one being forgiven. Stephen's prayer in Acts 7.60 parallels those of Jesus in Luke 23.33-34. These words are asking for future forgiveness and an example of the fruit of this is Paul's conversion and forgiveness (which came after a mighty encounter with God and repentance).

Some point out that repentance is not an explicit prerequisite to forgiveness in Matthew 6.12, 14-15 and 18.21-22. This is true but given we are told to forgive even as God forgives, I understand the repentance prerequisite to be implicit. And it should not be overlooked that Matthew 18.21-22 is sandwiched between Jesus' teaching on Church discipline (Mt 18.15-20) and a parable teaching that people should be forgiven when they repent (Mt 18.23-35).

In summary, John Murray [“A Lesson in Forgiveness,” in The Collected Writings of John Murray] writes:

Forgiveness is a definite act performed by us on the fulfillment of certain conditions…. Forgiveness is something actively administered on the repentance of the person who is to be forgiven. We greatly impoverish ourselves and impair the relations that we should sustain to our brethren when we fail to appreciate what is involved in forgiveness.

Technorati Tags: forgiveness