The reason I buy so many books is because of a simple mandate found in scripture: "be transformed by the renewing of your mind." (Rom 12:2) The only way I've found to accomplish this is by reading, studying, and thinking. The problem with "renewing the mind" is that most of the time you will be taken into areas of thought you had no intention of going, which may result in taking actions you have no real desire to pursue. But, if you believe as I do, that God is in providential control of "all things," there is a reason this will happen.
For instance, I have challenged my Church's use of the 1833 New Hampshire Statement of Faith. A careful reading of this document led me to the conclusion that many parts of it were written from a frame of mind which had more to do with American democracy than with God's authority or activity. One of the points I challenge in the statement is in regard to the Fall of Man. In that section the writer, Dr. John Newton Brown, a Baptist preacher, states men sin, "not by constraint, but of choice."
For all intents and purposes the "not by constraint" concept eliminates God's sovereignty over Mankind. Not by constraint means men do not have a nature corrupted by original sin, therefore we are free to choose of our own free-will to follow Christ - or not. If that is so, then Christians who believe that, must understand, logically, God who is unchangeable, knows all things, and created all things, cannot intervene in the choices we make. God does not change His mind, so if He gave us an autonomous free will, He has no intention of interfering with our choices. We are on our own. If God changes His mind about anything we are on a fools errand trying to be Christians: He might change the rules at anytime, and if that's possible then there are no rules.
More importantly, however, is if we are not constrained what do we do with scripture such as Colssians 1:17 which states, in part: "By him all things consist?" Do they? If men can be convinced to make a "decision for Christ" based on their "free will," providential oversight of our activities has just been eliminated. By what criteria would we then be able to believe our choice is effective. If we are free, in will and agency to do as we please, the question must be asked; why do we pray for God to intervene in any way in our lives? Some even go so far as to say, in defense of their autonomy, "God didn't make a bunch of robots." (Meaning he is incapable of changing us for his purposes. If He interferes in our choice we are no more than robots).
Logically, then, why do we spend so much time praying for God to override the "decisions" of men who choose not to follow Christ? By not choosing to follow Him those men have made their unconstrained choice. When we ask God to intervene we are asking Him to change His mind regarding His omniscient decision to supposedly grant "free will." Theologically I haven't quite figured out how that would work. Philosophically it means those who believe in free-will have arrogated to themselves power which is not theirs to take. They have changed the True God into a god that is an idol of their own making. It is the Golden Calf of "make a decision for Christ." This Idol has populated the American Church with so-called Christians who have no idea they are on their way to an eternity in hell.
That $80 book I want is The New Measures: A Theological History of Democratic Practice. In it the author says:
Like a new measures preacher, I have picked the practices that I think will best accomplish my purposes. I hope to write a theological commentary on a small but important set of practices of democratic culture in America. With that end in mind, I attend to six particular measures: organizing worship so that it achieves measurable results in this world (chapter one); using novelty to compete in an economy of attention (two); demanding that people make free decisions (three); proclaiming the formal equality of all people (four); representing private selves in public spaces, and so speaking with the authority of celebrity (five); and telling stories to illustrate points (six). These six chapters each work from a close reading of some revival practice to a critical, theological engagement with some preoccupation of contemporary social criticism: instrumental reason, novelty, freedom, equality, sincerity, and secularization. In connecting the practices with these top(ics), I do not mean to hide my activity of selection and arrangement. I have chosen to focus on the new measures that open into the most fruitful conversations.
The new measures displayed elective affinities with many important elements of modern cultures, and those affinities helped them to thrive in the intensified competition between churches for adherents. The new measures became so powerful over time that they ceased to be an issue in most white Protestant churches that were not part of Pentecostal movements. Even northern Presbyterians, who split bitterly over new measures practices and theology in 1837, came together around a new measures agenda in 1869 so obvious to all parties that they could agree to call it “pure and simple.” Practices now so familiar as to escape notice were once so jarring as to be unrecognizable. When Finney started preaching in the 1820s, his style seemed so different that some people did not even recognize it as preaching. By the time of his death in 1875, the new measures style had become the invisible instinct of most white Protestant preachers.
Now, here we are (American democratic Christians) 200 years later, wondering why we have churches full of people with "itching ears," wanting even more novelty to satisfy their felt needs. We do more and more with technology to entertain them and placate their whims. Still they will leave if we happen to play and sing music they don't like, or we happen to say something that doesn't quite agree with what they have interpreted as being "true for themselves." Scriptural Truth has little effect on these folks, they worship their own ideas, desires and beliefs. Augustine dealt with their predecessor Pelagius in 350 AD. And the Council of Dort dealt with his philosophical offspring, Arminius, during the Reformation.
Along these lines is an important article at the Banner of Truth. The author says:
Arminian redemption disavows the saving ministry of the Holy Spirit, since it claims that Christ's blood has a wider application than does the Spirit's saving work. Any presentation of salvation that makes the Father's or the Spirit's work in salvation lag behind Christ's work contradicts the inherent unity of the Trinity. The Father and the Son are one. The Spirit and the Son are one. Christ cannot possibly have died for those whom the Father did not decree to save and in whom the Spirit does not savingly work. God cannot be at odds with himself. Arminianism is inconsistent universalism. [emphasis added]
No comments:
Post a Comment