Post Modern Catechism Q-7

The Post Modern catechism can be found here. Question 7 and its answer may be of service to some.

Q7: How doth God execute His decrees?

A: God executeth His decrees in the work of watching us exercise our free will.

For those whose religion is a series of cliches i.e., "God didn't make a bunch of little robots, of course we have free will," you may want to add this to your collection.

Spurgeon and Lewis

Spurgeon said of himself:

I cannot understand the reason why I am saved, except upon the ground that God would have it so. I cannot, if I look ever so earnestly, discover any kind of reason in myself why I should be a partaker of Divine grace. If I am not at this moment without Christ, it is only because Christ Jesus would have His will with me, and that will was that I should be with Him where He is, and should share His glory. I can put the crown nowhere but upon the head of Him whose mighty grace has saved me from going down into the pit. Looking back on my past life, I can see that the dawning of it all was of God; of God effectively. I took no torch with which to light the sun, but the sun enlightened me. I did not commence my spiritual life—no, I rather kicked, and struggled against the things of the Spirit: when He drew me, for a time I did not run after Him: there was a natural hatred in my soul of everything holy and good.

Spurgeon said this in giving a defense of Calvinism. I've been pushing, a little, against the philosophy that man has free will in my Church. Spurgeon did not believe it, Calvin did not believe, and Augustine did not believe it. In fact Augustine had quite a debate with a British Monk named Pelagius over this very issue. Oh, and I don't believe it either.

Most of those I talk to today blindly side with Pelagius and are not interested in discussing the subject. Others are of the mindset that, "all I know is what I learned as a child, I'm not going to argue about it because nothing is really settled that way." "I know I was lost, and I know I chose to get saved, and that's it."

When confronting these kinds of people I'm always stunned at the lackidaisical attitude with which they dismiss something on which eternity hinges. Do we choose God, or does He choose us?

I don't have the mental prowess to figure out the underlying processes that would make a human so unconcerned about eternity but there are those who do, that is why I read books.

C.S. Lewis figured out what is going on in this instance. He wrote a book it. The name of the book is The Screwtape Letters. It is about a head Demon, Screwtape, teaching a protege, Wormwood, how to neutralize people who might be tempted to consider the Church as a way of life. Here is what he told him:

Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn’t think of doctrines as primarily “true” or “false,” but as “academic” or “practical,” “outworn” or “contemporary,” “conventional”or “ruthless.” Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Don’t waste time trying to make him think materialism is true! Make him think it is strong, stark, or courageous—that it is the philosophy of the future. That is the sort of thing he cares about.

Lewis was almost prophetic with that one. Look where are today. We have Churches that don't talk of hell because it is unpleasant, and a President who can't decide if he is Muslim, Buddhist, or Christian.

One thing is certain Jargon will contiue to be used as the backbone of too many ministries just as it is the mainstay of our National life. Wormwood appears to have learned his lessons well.

Calvin Defines Us

I haven't read Calvin's Intsitutes of the Christian Religion but some of the blogs I read occasionally quote them. Often the quotes remind me I need to read them, below is one such quote. I took this one from the blog Wittenberg Door and I thank them for it:

"For what is more consonant with faith than to recognize that we are naked of all virtue, in order to be clothed by God? That we are empty of all good, to be filled by him? Blind, to be illuminated by him? Lame, to be made straight by him? Weak, to be sustained by him? To take away from us all occasion for glorying, that he alone may stand forth gloriously and we glory in him? When we say these and like things our adversaries interrupt and complain that in this way we shall subvert some blind light of nature, imaginary preparations, free will, and works that merit eternal salvation . . . For they cannot bear that the whole praise and glory of all goodness, virtue, righteousness, and wisdom should rest with God. But we do not read of anyone being blamed for drinking too deeply of the fountain of living water. The Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1559"

Clearly, without Christ man has no hope through anything he thinks he can do to be saved. Without Christ's illumination prior to our participation in salvation we are hopeless. We can walk all the altar call aisles, say all the prayers, freely choose to accept Christ (in our dead natural condition), remember the times we did those things, but unless Christ through his Holy Spirit has first pulled us from our grave wherein we are "dead in trespasses and sins" (Col 2:13) we are lost without hope. We can't even assist in this renewing - it is all of Grace.

I think many who believe they are saved, mistakenly believe human temporal abilities to "choose" are co-equal with spiritual abilitites. They are not. We can choose a hamburger or a taco, but until God acts upon us spiritually we cannot choose eternal life with Christ. That life is given to us, whether we like it or not, by God's Grace alone. (Oops! Did I really say that?)  Only after we have been "quickened" spiritually can we or do we want to repent and obey. (2 Cor. 4:2,3,4)

My concern is that when we witness to others of Christ's saving power we often leave out the fact that only He can effectually change us. As lost humans our only hope is to be on our knees begging to be "chosen" by God not the other way around.

Arminianism is inconsistent universalism

I spend more than I should on books. I think it was Erasmus who said something like this: "I buy books and if I have money left over I buy food." That's me! Now I want a book that costs $80+ at Amazon, on sale, and it's not a text book. (If you feel sorry for me all donations will be cheerfully accepted).

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]

Spurgeon said:

Freedom cannot belong to will any more than ponderability can be­long to electricity. They are altogether different things. Free agency we may believe in, but free-will is simply ridiculous. The will is well known by all to be directed by the understanding, to be moved by motives, to be guided by other parts of the soul, and to be a secondary thing. Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free-will; and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, “If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free-will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.” 

Couldn't have said it better myself. 

Free Will?

There's a pretty good discussion in the comments section of the Pyromaniacs today (9-9-09) about free will. I particularly liked Mike Riccardi's comment: [Note: Mike has a post this subject here.]

We've got to be careful. The opposite of free will is not "no will"; it's an enslaved will (John 8:34; Rom 6:6, 6:16-20, 8:7-8). Everyone makes choices. But they can only make choices in accordance with their nature. In humanity's case, that nature is in bondage; it is not free. It is a sin, death, and child-of-wrath nature (Eph 2:1-3).

The unregenerate sinner has a will (i.e., a moral inclination to this or that). But his will is enslaved to sin until freed (or changed) by the sovereign grace of God (Eph 2:4-5; John 1:13; Jas 1:18).

"The opposite of free will is not no will..." Mike's statement points out a fact I have been wrestling with and it is this. Many folks I know, seem to have gotten caught up in the concept of "choosing" when discussing salvation. As in, "you must choose Christ as savior." However, Jesus himself commanded us to "repent," He didn't offer a choice.  Here is what He said, Matt 4:17, "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

On Free Will

Do we have free will in the sense that we can do whatever we want when we want?

Here's a good article on this subject.  The writer quotes J.I. Packer:

"The God who ordains the ends also ordains the means, and evangelism and prayer are God-ordained means to God-ordained ends. J. I. Packer argues that you already "acknowledge that God is sovereign in salvation" because "you pray for the conversion of others"