Prayer

First, in reference to the predestination discussion, I do not think I misinterpreted your thoughts; at least, I attempted to argue against God's total control over our spiritual "decisions" (they are only decisions if we have a choice), and perhaps the derivative of the predestination belief is that God also directs our every physical action. That inquiry in metaphysics and dualism is best saved for another time, as you said. I simply wanted to close that off on my end as you did on yours.

As for prayer, I'd like to start off with a little bit of Lewis myself, as is found in God in the Dock ("Scraps" p. 217).

'Praying for particular things', said I, 'always seems to me like advising God how to run the world. Wouldn't it be wiser to assume that He knows best?' 'On the same principle', said he, 'I suppose you never ask a man next to you to pass the salt, because God knows best whether you ought to have salt or not. And I suppose you never take an umbrella, because God knows best whether you ought to be wet or dry.' 'That's quite different,' I protested. 'I don't see why,' said he. 'The odd thing is that He should let us influence the course of events at all. But since He lets us do it in one way I don't see why He shouldn't let us do it in the other.'

This idea goes along with a longer essay in the same book entitled "Work and Prayer." The thing we forget, is exactly what you asked of me Joe, "How could there be anything in existence that is outside of God?" If God made the both the spiritual and the physical, then our actions on earth are as much a manipulation of events as our prayers to Heaven. Yet, no one will argue that we, in almost all cases of history, are acting on conscience, emotion, our own thoughts, rather than waiting for things to happen on their own, or for something out of our control to carry out our wishes. It's in the nature of God that we choose to eat the hamburger instead of the pizza, or decide to run instead of walk. It is His nature, and within God, in that He has given us the bodies that we use to interact with the physical world, and also that His very nature, the quintessential element of God, is that He is free. God, being holy, being the Holy One, is able to act in whatever way He deems best that also is in accordance with His goodness and love. In the same way, we are free to act within the laws of nature, and those spiritual laws that govern our amount of power and ability - both placed on us by God.

This could be a much larger subject, let me abruptly try to end that train of thought and respond to the three situations you presented.

1. When we ask, we receive what God deems appropriate. I think that is why He "only hears the prayers of the upright" as you said. On earth, our actions are more immediate and ruthless, because the effects directly follow the cause. When I punch you in the face, you immediately feel pain. However, when we attempt to affect the design of Heaven, we are acting in a realm above time and space, and calling on a power without limits. That is why God is the mediator of our prayers, that in His goodness and wisdom He is able to hear us, and yet not 'grant' our every desire. It would be a horrible world if prayer was an instantaneous success for lunatic and saint alike.

2. These questions are where predestination and prayer are linked in my reckoning, and why the idea of God bringing men to Himself (without fail), removes the necessity of Christ. If God is going to do it anyway, outside interaction in the process is unnecessary. Lewis phrases it such: "Most of the events that go on in the universe are indeed out of our control, but not all. It is like a play in which the scene and the general outline of the story is fixed by the author, but certain minor details are left for the actors to improvise." That is not to say that Jesus is an 'outside source' in the same way as man is a separate entity from God. But, if God is going to directly connect to man anyway, He doesn't really need to provide a facade for how He's going to do it. Just like if He's in full control, without variation, there's no reason to present prayer as an illusion of human influence. But, we certainly do have prayer, and God certainly sent Jesus.

I think the larger picture in both issue, prayer and predestination, is of direction. Predestination and the idea of inept (or unnecessary) prayer, is a belief that God is directly acting towards man, and that is it. Salvation is from God to the men He selects, and God's will is enacted on man without man's influence. However, the view I hold, is that salvation and God's plan are both in need of, or at least subject to, reciprocity from man's end. To be sure, both still start with God, but in the sense that He offers and provides salvation, yet requires man's acceptance. He has a plan and acts out His will, but offers man a method of response and communication. And here, Jesus is necessary. Christ is both the method and message of our salvation, and He is also the avenue of communication to the Father. Throughout the Old Testament, the story of interaction with God is one of specially chosen middle-men: Noah, Moses, priests, judges, kings, and finally, Jesus, that Judge, King and High Priest who ascended above all previous mediators to be the Mediator. I don't know (and correct me if I'm wrong) of any stories where an Israelite suddenly repented of His sin outside of a prophet's message, and without being directly spoken to by God (in essence, made to be the next prophet, such as Moses being spoken to by God through the burning bush). There is always someone sent by God, like Jesus was sent by God, to speak to the masses and require a message of repentance to be sent back to God, through the messenger, just as Jesus requires us to request forgiveness from God, through Him.

This point is probably the longest, because as I said, it parallels two questions. I'm not sure I've fully presented all there is to this point, but I hope I have added some clarity. In essence, interaction between God and man is defined by communication, and relationship, not control and disassociation. God commands, persuades, and directs man, and allows man to respond with obedience, questions, and requests. As to whether the ability to change minor events removes God's ability to know the future, no. That is placing God within time, as if He only knows events in chronological order. Perhaps, if man comes in to change some part of the reel, God will have to watch the movie again to find out what effect the switch had. There is a distinction between knowing events, and causing them. I can watch a fight, and know who's in it, and yet not have had anything to do with it. In the same way, God is present in every moment, ever, and yet may not have directly caused each. That is what we mean by disobedience, is it not? That God is watching some moment of our lives where He wishes us to do one thing, and yet we cause another to happen. If God only knew the future because He was directly causing each event, there would be no sin (James 1:13). Freedom of the angels, and of man, is the only Scriptural precedent for sin.

3. Prayers surely change us. They do so in the way that we've talked about, that prayer is communication with God and as much listening to Him as speaking to Him. Ultimately, listening to God may be considered the highest form of prayer. Lewis writes that "To be in the state in which you are so at one with the will of God that you wouldn't want to alter the course of events even if you could is certainly a very high or advanced condition." Yet even the Lord's prayer asks for bread, forgiveness (remember that we are called, required, to ask for forgiveness; how so, and why, if forgiveness is predestined?), and escape from temptation. Asking of God is equivalent to recognizing the power of God, and His position as the Sustainer of our lives. In that sense, by silencing our own requests, we better understand God's.

As a closing, I'd like to make an observation. If either of us truly believed in predestination of knowledge or events, this blog would not exist. Should we hold the belief that God pre-designed whether or not we would know who He is, and how He works, we would not take it upon ourselves to discover it. Action, request, question, these are not sinful, they are God's nature; they are Freedom.

Jason

Predestination, Prayer, and Confusion (on my part)

Dear Mr. Nack,

First off I would like to apologize for not keeping up with replying to you.  The past several weeks have been exhausting for me; however, that is a poor excuse not to reply.  

I love your introduction to your post.  That verse from 1 Corinthians is one that is true of myself.  Your argument is well taken.  As with much of theology, it is wrong for one to become too dogmatic regarding their beliefs.  That is not to say that we should hold on to our beliefs loosely, as they could be wrong in some regard.  I consider myself a Calvinist, but not to the point where it would be an unhealthy belief.  Obviously, we are children of Christ and followers of God.  Let’s make sure that that is the center of our thought process, not Calvinism.  Does that make sense? 

I feel like you may have misinterpreted my position on predestination.  I believe that God sovereignty and justly choose those who will be saved.  However, I do not believe that we have our ever move dictated to us by God.  Any sense of “free will” (however you define it) is under God’s sovereign control.  How could there be anything in existence that is outside of God? 

I found your argument compelling, but it did not persuade me (it would be boring if we agreed on everything right?  What would we write about?).  Your argument seemed to be too heavy on the philosophy and reason and less on theology (I could be wrong though…obviously).  Sometime I would like to have the time to be able to pick apart each of the passages both of us used in presenting our side of thinking.  Maybe some other time, eh? 

As for now, I would like to take apart Romans 8:29 a bit.  The following breakdown is borrow from John Piper (http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/1985/512_Those_Whom_He_Foreknew_He_Predestined/): 

1.    The connection with verse 28.

“FOR whom he foreknew…”

2.    The meaning of God’s foreknowledge.

“For whom he FOREKNEW, he also predestined…”

3.    The aim of predestination for our good.

“…to become conformed to the image of his Son…”

4.    The aim of predestination for Christ’s glory.

“…that he might be the first-born among many brethren.” 

…I encourage you to read the rest of the outline to his message.  Perhaps the area of predestination is something that we’ll have to agree to disagree on.  To be honest, I haven’t thought much about predestination as of late.  I’ve been studying the purpose of prayer again…to which I am thoroughly confused. 

If you don’t mind, could we change gears to discuss prayer a bit?   I know I’ve already talked to you a bit about it in person and the likes, but I am still confused as to the purpose (speaking mainly of petitionary prayer).  I believe that to a degree, predestination and prayer are connected.  However, I don't know where that degree is.  I found this “conversation” once and find it fascinating; I want to know what you think about it: 

Prayerless: I understand that you believe in the providence of God. Is that right?

Prayerful: Yes.

Prayerless: Does that mean you believe, like the Heidelberg Catechism says, that nothing comes about by chance but only by God's design and plan?

Prayerful: Yes, I believe that's what the Bible teaches.

Prayerless: Then why do you pray?

Prayerful: I don't see the problem. Why shouldn't we pray?

Prayerless: Well, if God ordains and controls everything, then what he plans from of old will come to pass, right?

Prayerful: Yes.

Prayerless: So it's going to come to pass whether you pray or not, right.

Prayerful: That depends on whether God ordained for it to come to pass in answer to prayer. If God predestined that something happen in answer to prayer, it won't happen without prayer.

Prayerless: Wait a minute, this is confusing. Are you saying that every answer to prayer is predestined or not?

Prayerful: Yes, it is. It's predestined as an answer to prayer.

Prayerless: So if the prayer doesn't happen, the answer doesn't happen?

Prayerful: That's right.

Prayerless: So the event is contingent on our praying for it to happen?

Prayerful: Yes. I take it that by contingent you mean prayer is a real reason that the event happens, and without the prayer the event would not happen.

Prayerless: Yes that's what I mean. But how can an event be contingent on my prayer and still be eternally fixed and predestined by God?

Prayerful: Because your prayer is as fixed as the predestined answer.

Prayerless: Explain.

Prayerful: It's not complicated. God providentially ordains all events. God never ordains an event without a cause. The cause is also an event. Therefore, the cause is also foreordained. So you cannot say that the event will happen if the cause doesn't because God has ordained otherwise. The event will happen if the cause happens.

Prayerless: So what you are saying is that answers to prayer are always ordained as effects of prayer which is one of the causes, and that God predestined the answer only as an effect of the cause.

Prayerful: That's right. And since both the cause and the effect are ordained together you can't say that the effect will happen even if the cause doesn't because God doesn't ordain effects without causes.

Prayerless: Can you give some illustrations?

Prayerful: Sure. If God predestines that I die of a bullet wound, then I will not die if no bullet is fired. If God predestines that I be healed by surgery, then if there is no surgery, I will not be healed. If God predestines heat to fill my home by fire in the furnace, then if there is no fire, there will be no heat. Would you say, "Since God predestines that the sun be bright, it will be bright whether there is fire in the sun or not"?

Prayerless: No.

Prayerful: I agree. Why not?

Prayerless: Because the brightness of the sun comes from the fire.

Prayerful: Right. That's the way I think about the answers to prayer. They are the brightness, and prayer is the fire. God has established the universe so that in larger measure it runs by prayer, the same way he has established brightness so that in larger measure it happens by fire. Doesn't that make sense?

Prayerless: I think it does.

Prayerful: Then let's stop thinking up problems and go with what the Scriptures say. Ask and you will receive. You have not because you ask not.

 

Let me ask you, what is the purpose of prayer?  I’m sure things are popping to mind about how we pray to give thanks to God and to offer Him praise.  I wholeheartedly agree with that; however, my confusion comes in the area of petitionary prayer.  This type of prayer is in which I request something from God.  Don’t get me wrong, I pray (although not enough) and ask that God give me things or that God will give me safety, or that God will bless a friend or something. 

My question is this: what is the point of praying if God already has a plan in mind for us? Why interject our own desires into prayers of petitions if we are expected to pray for His will to be done? If I pray for something so earnestly all my life and it is not what God has in mind for me, then I have wasted thousands of prayers in vain. What I desire may or may not be what God has in mind for me; I have no way of knowing. So I ask, why bother? 

I’ll offer 3 possible thought processes:

1.    We pray and then we ask and receive (Luke 11:10) or we do not ask and do not receive.  I do not contest that the purpose of prayer is to use God as our servant boy to do whatever we ask.  It says that He only hear the prayers of the upright and those earnestly seeking Him (Philippians 4:6-7; Matthew 6:5-8; 2 Chronicles 7:14) 

2.    If God will do His will, than the purpose is lacking for us ask.  If he will accomplish His will in his own time and way, why would we ask Him to do something our way?  Or do we ask and due to us asking, He changes His mind?  If He changes His mind, does He really know the future?  Or does He base His decisions on our requests or lack of requests?  What makes us think that we know better than God in some area to ask the Creator of the world to change his plans for us?

3.    C.S. Lewis once stated that he prayers not to change God, but to change himself.  This is the view I hold to.  We know that our thoughts are not God’s thoughts (Isaiah 55:8), but shouldn’t it be our daily intent of making our thoughts those which God would have us think?  We are told to be transformed by the renewal of our minds so that we can test and know what God’s will is (Romans 12:1-2)

Because of Him,

Joe

Government

I'm not sure why the idea of having Christians in positions of authority within the government is so repulsive, but I find, against logic, that it is. The secularist feels that if a man of God is able to take power, he will attempt to convert the entire nation and enforce strict doctrinal laws requiring church attendance and daily prayer at work and in schools or something of that misguided sort. For whatever reason, it's assumed the Christian cannot possibly hold any capacity for logic, as he maintains at least a few specific stances on certain topics. It's as if the non-Christian politician has no values or beliefs by which he acts in government (sadly, sometimes he doesn't, and that always ends in scandal and corruption). The first hurdle to get over is that both Christians and non-Christians will act in government based on their faith in certain items, the real problem is the object of that faith, and I will not attempt to argue that here. Only it must be said that a Christian politician should be considered no less logical than the atheist politician who considers adultery with a prostitute to be acceptable, in fact, he should be considered much more in tune with reason and dignity.

On the other hand, there is the Christian view of having their own in government, and it is split between two opinions. The first, I think, is based on a false sense of humility, in thinking that the Christian should not accept a position of power whereby he may influence the lives of men. If 'power corrupts' then the Christian should be as far away from power as possible. This view is desperately opposed to the fundamental commandment, "Love thy neighbor" and the great verse, "Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends" (John 15:13). Did not God guide the men of power in Scripture? Was not God beside David, Solomon, Moses, Nehemiah and Daniel among others? If a Christian refuses, or fears, authority, he in many cases will be leaving the position open for one who forgets the ultimate Authority. While God is above all leaders, and governs in the affairs of men, there are some who, in authority, will persecute and harass members of society. Harm against the self should be tolerated in Christ, harm against others should be overthrown. The question of rebellion is one almost strictly of human governance, and is open to discussion and consideration as much by Christians as anyone else.

Secondly, even if a Christian brings his values and faith to a public office, he must never mistake office for pulpit. It is not for the Christian politician to preach to, or to convert, the nation. That is for each of us as neighbors, as coworkers, and as friends. Within the political realm it's possible the Christian is able to witness through his personal life, but that is no different from any of us. Politics is his job, and he should carry it out with as much skill as God enables him. As Dr. Ravi Zacharias says in reference to recognizing the personal lives that are brought into politics:

It is a mindless philosophy that assumes that one's private beliefs have nothing to do with public office. Does it make sense to entrust those who are immoral in private with the power to determine the nation's moral issues and, indeed, its destiny? ... The duplicitous soul of a leader can only make a nation more sophisticated in evil.

Therefore, we must have Christians who are both willing and able to lead our cities, states, and country with skill and knowledge in governance, while also living out the personal commitment of salvation. This truth was understood by our founding fathers, who both designed how to govern a nation, and simultaneously lived in submission to the Ruler of that supernal Nation.


What do you think? What role should Christians take in government? How do we reconcile Scriptural teachings of kings and empires with the modern standard of democracy? What other thoughts have you on government?


Jason

Predestination: A Response

That's a very fine definition Joe, and a great argument, or rather explanation, of predestination as laid out in Scripture. I must begin by admitting that my shots are in the dark, and that I, realizing my iniquity, long for nothing more than 1 Cor. 13:12: "For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known."

Taking into account Scripture-those verses which Joe has presented as well as others-and studying the history of God's interaction with man, I don't think there can be disagreement about the fact that God selects specific people for His purpose, and that He chooses to raise up certain people above others. Indeed, Scripture is laid out as stories of men and women who were directly commanded, supported, and praised by the LORD. The real question is whether these people, specially chosen, are selected and yet retain the ability to accept or deny the call, or whether God is forcing people to answer His call with the same Power He is using to call the person. I must agree with the first situation, I'm not sure Reason will allow the second.

Firstly, if God is the Power forcing humans to act, then He may as well not have created Man in the first place. In essence, unless Man is a completely separate, albeit less powerful, entity from God, then Man does not exist at all. You may as well read the Bible where all names, all references to people, are replaced with the word "God." If only God is involved in all that occurs, then reductio ad absurdum He kissed His own cheek in the garden of Gethsemane. Indeed, Jesus is unnecessary if God forcibly brings people to Himself. What's the use in presenting Himself to people He controls? God would be the necessary Power and the acceptance of Him by Man would not be an option.

Let's look at Israel, the classic case of God's divine selection. God has clearly chosen the children of Israel to be His people; He is their God, the God of their fathers, and it is for Israel to follow Him. Yet, how many times did they turn away from Him? If God predestines a person, or a nation, to be His and that is unquestionable and to be carried out without challenge by His authority, how then does His nation leave Him? Is God not powerful enough? Did He not choose Israel? Neither. Instead, "Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth! For the LORD has spoken: 'I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against Me;...Alas, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters! They have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked to anger the Holy One of Israel, they have turned away backward'" (Isaiah 1:2,4). Israel turned away, Israel forgot God.

If judgment lies on those who choose to abandon God, how can the alternative not also be a choice? If there is no choice in following God, then it would be impossible to turn away, and yet the chosen people did. Salvation comes, yes, but always (to my knowledge) through a third party. The people of Israel don't suddenly feel released of their transgressions and follow God again. God calls to them, sends them prophets, judges, kings, leaders, priests. C.S. Lewis wrote on the idea that if God spoke directly to us, to the Soul, in that He placed ideas into us without the use of a 'third party' or source outside of Himself and outside of us, then we would have no idea whether the idea orginated from God or ourselves. It would be impossible to tell, the idea would simply appear, 'come to us', as it were. Salvation is the same. If God worked explicitly in the soul, and made us His children by His power alone, and without our choice, we would have no idea of Him, or His love, or His sacrifice. Only through providing the option of Jesus Christ is humanity allowed to hear the Good News, and fully experience the love of God.

Many Christians, I think, fear the idea of a globalized view of salvation. Often any notion of all people being accepted by God is rejected outright. I agree that not all will be saved, but there is a difference between what will happen, and what is capable of happening. In my view, to use "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4) to mean that before God created anything, He already planned man to fall so that He could specifically call out certain men, is a dangerous claim. The stance of God's planning and forcibly carrying out a plan of sin and repentance inarguably leads to the claim that Adam and Eve had no choice but to sin, that Israel had no choice but to turn away, that those in Hell had no other option. But then guilt is not an appropriate feeling for sin. We can't help it, it's God's plan. And then we must question why God punishes those who follow His plan; I have never read Paul's writings on suffering to be in reference to the sin God forced me to carry out. But what other option have we if we leave ourselves thinking that God planned, before Adam's first breath, that Man would fall and require God's forcible salvation?

Rather, I think the Scriptures better support, as a whole, the idea that God predestined Man, before He created him, to be in relationship with God. That man's purpose was to worship and love the LORD our God. But at the same time,"So God created man in His own image" (Gen. 1:27), and that image is not a physical one; anthropomorphism borders with idolatry. God's image is one of spirituality, being made in similar nature to God. What is God's most defining, most ultimately necessary attribute? Freedom. Ultimate ability and power to do all things because He is holy. The freedom to create, to plan, to act. Man also imagines, remembers, reasons; he is above the beasts who act (seemingly) solely through instinct - slaves of Nature's cause and effect. Man is able to interact with and effect change on the world around Him, just as God is able, though the amount of power is largely different. What is prayer if man is not free to speak to God as an individual being? What is love if man is not able to freely submit to God? What is man's obedience if it's carried out by God?

This is a large concept, with many more examples available, but perhaps should be spread out and influenced by honest discussion. To try and summarize, I believe that God created man with the destiny, or goal, of being in relation with Him, but knowing in His divine wisdom that true relationship happens through free sacrifice, what we call 'love.' However, Adam, in his freedom, chose to pursue his own glory above that of God's, and thus became sinful. God then sent His son, Jesus Christ, to redeem the world, and to call to us that He is the way to Love and Salvation, that the work is done and that we have only to follow after Him. Once we do, I submit that the Holy Spirit comes along side us and is the Power that drives us in sanctification. The Father is the goal, the Son is the path, and the Spirit is the mode of transportation, but we still need to start the engine. Love can only push us into the car, it cannot make us begin the journey.

Jason

“He chose us in him before the foundation of the world…”

Predestination is the biblical teaching that God predestines certain events and people to accomplish what He so desires.  It is often used in the same way as the word “election.” Wayne Grudem, in his book Systematic Theology lays out the process of salvation as the following: 

1.         Election (God’s choice of people to be saved)

2.         The gospel call (proclaiming the message of the gospel)

3.         Regeneration (being born again)

4.         Conversion (faith and repentance)

5.         Justification (right legal standing)

6.         Adoption (membership in God’s family)

7.         Sanctification (right conduct of life)

8.         Perseverance (remaining a Christian)

9.         Death (going to be with the Lord)

10.      Glorification (receiving a resurrection body) 

As with any doctrine or any teaching about the Bible, it should definitely not accepted as the truth just because a pastor, a guy with a Ph.D. said so, your dad, or because I said so (you’d have to be desperate to believe everything I say).  In light of that, I would like to point out specific messages in the New Testament that seem to affirm quite clearly that God ordained beforehand those who would be saved.  For example, when Paul and Barnabas began to preach to the Gentiles in Antioch in Pisidia, Luke writes, “And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of God; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48).  Here is an abbreviated list of passages that seem to point to an idea of predestination or election: 

“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.  For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.  And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.”  (Romans 8:28-30) 

"…to do whatever Thy hand and ^Thy purpose predestined to occur."  (Acts 4:27) 

"…but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God predestined before the ages to our glory."  (1 Corinthians 2:7) 

“He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will…”  (Ephesians 1:5) 

“…also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will."  (Ephesians 1:11)  

"I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats My bread has lifted up his heel against Me.’" (John 13:18) 

"He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him."  (Ephesians 1:4) 

In chapter nine of Romans, when talking about God’s choosing Jacob and not Esau, Paul says it was not because of anything that Jacob or Esau had done, but simply in order that God’s purpose of election might continue.  Here is that verse:

“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." 

Many people refuse to accept this teaching of Scripture because it apparently does not offer human choice in the matter of salvation.  However, that is false.  According to this objection, the doctrine of election or predestination denies all the gospel invitation that appeal to the will of man and ask people to make a choice in whether to respond to Christ’s invitation or not.  Our choices are voluntary because they are what we want to do and what we decide to do (Paraphrase: Grant R. Osborne, “Exegetical Notes on Calvinist Texts”).  This also does not mean our choices are absolutely free, because, God can work sovereignly through our desires to that he guarantees’ that our choices come about as he has ordained.  This, however, can still be understood as a real choice because God has created us and he ordains that such a choice is real. Basically, God causes us to choose Christ voluntarily.  What do you think of that reasoning? 

Another objection that is commonly expressed is that the idea of election is unfair since it teaches that God chooses some to be saved and passes over others, deciding not to save them.  This objection is not a strong case for objection of this doctrinal view.  Why would the maker of the universe save ANY lowly humans?  Romans 9:18 says that God “has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.”  It is unjust of us to criticize God for choosing others and for not choosing others.

One more thing:  I do not believe that Jesus died for the entire human race.  If He did, all of humanity would be saved.  By condemning the non-believer to Hell, wouldn’t it be that he is paying DOUBLE for not accepting Christ?  If Christ died for all, the price has already been paid!  It would be unnecessary for a human to die again for a price that has already been paid by Jesus at Calvary.  Thoughts?

Alright, this is getting wicked long.  So I’m gonna end it.  Take care bud! 

Because of Him,

J. Hylander

 

Predestination

Joe, what do you think of 'predestination'?

To be honest, I'm a bit unsure of the actual working-definition, so perhaps a little summary followed by your thoughts would help me.

Re: To Jason

Unity in our faith through love. That is the church's greatest failing. There's much I could say, but others have said it so much better:

Psalm 133:1 "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!"

Ephesians 4:1-3 "I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."

God in the Dock, "Answers to Questions on Christianity"
"Question 14.
Many people are quite unable to understand the theological differences which have caused divisions in the Christian Church. Do you consider that these differences are fundamental, and is the time now ripe for re-union?

Lewis:
The time is always ripe for re-union. Divisions between Christians are a sin and a scandal, and Christians ought at all times to be making contributions towards re-union, if it is only by their prayers. I am only a layman and a recent Christian, and I do not know much about these things, but in all the things which I have written and thought I have always stuck to traditional, dogmatic positions. The result is that letters of agreement reach me from what are ordinarily regarded as the most different kinds of Christians; for instance, I get letters for Jesuits, monks, nuns, and also from Quakers and Welsh Dissenters, and so on. So it seems to me that the 'extremist' elements in every Church are nearest one another and the liberal and 'broad-minded' people in each Body could never be united at all. The world of dogmatic Christianity is a place in which thousands of people of quite different types keep on saying the same thing, and the world of 'broad-mindedness' and watered-down 'religion' is a world where a small number of people (all of the same type) say totally different things and change their minds every few minutes. We shall never get re-union from them."

The Church, Christians, must always be striving to be united in Christ, and be working to come into closer relationship with one another through love - by being open and honest, by not pulling punches whether we discuss personal sin or theology. All forms of Christianity teach (that I know of, and if not, they are not Christian) that we follow ONE God, that there is ONE Way, that we have ONE Hope, and therefore there is no excuse not to have ONE Christianity. "The time is always ripe for re-union."

Jason

To Jason

Hey Nack.  So I have a question for you.  What do you think is the number one thing that the church as a whole is not doing and should be.  Open-ended, I know...I'm curious as to what you think.  Thanks bud.

Psalm 20:7

Lately I’ve been learning more about dependence on God.  You always hear people talking about how we need to give God everything in our lives and not hold on to anything.  Lately that has really been sinking in.  Don’t you love it when a truth that you’ve known for a long time finally sinks in and actually changes stuff in you?

Almost without realizing it, I put my trust more in men than I would like to admit.  Growing up I would make my family, AWANA, youth group, friends, and church a place where I find out who I am.  And who did I become?  I became a guy who knew what to say and when to say it.  I became a guy who put his identity in those things I listed…making decisions based on what I knew would be in line with the values of those groups.  I wouldn’t say that I lived one way in one group of people and a complete different way in a different group of people, but I would say that I made a large amount of decisions based with how I was being perceived by those in those groups in mind.  What would my faith look like with just my Bible?  No Christian friends, no church, no Northwestern, nothing except God’s Word?

As some of you know, this year at Northwestern has been a struggle in some areas.  Last spring I was elected to Student Government.  From what I knew of Student Government, I was just going to have a fun year of leading dumb activities and being popular.  However, this year has been far from that (obviously being popular was never within my grasp though, so I expected it).  This year of Student Government has been questioning the integrity of brothers and sisters in Christ, hearing two sides to issues of morals (while desiring to respect and look up to both sides of people), but most importantly this year has been about the truth.  As it turns out, there are a lot of sinners in the church and the community of believers (note the tongue in cheek).  There will be conflict.  But how we deal with that conflict is what differs between secular society and the church (ideally).  I am proud of Northwestern College; I love how people are concerned about ideas of theological drift.  Those are things that we should be concerned regarding!  The biggest thing that I have learned through all of the uncertainties that are in my life is that I need to trust God with my ENTIRE life.  Not just the areas I find easy to leave up to Him.  If it’s God’s will…I’ll get into medical school…I’ll get married…heck, I’ll even graduate from college…and the list goes on.  It’s my job to entrust Him and allow him to do WHAT HE WANTS.

Lately I’ve found myself slipping into the mold of doing and saying things for the praise and appreciation of others.  I hate that about myself.  Lately verses such as Psalms 18:2 have been great reminders to me.  This verse states, “The Lord is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge.”  What a great reminder for me and anyone for that matter.  Who is our “rock”?  Who is our “fortress”?  Who is our “refuge”?  Is it a relationship we cherish more than God, a status we desire more than God, or an opportunity we strive toward more than we strive to know God more?  Do we care more about the praise of man or of God?  I don’t know about you, but I’m sick of trying to please.  Isn’t it easier to put ourselves in the hand of God?  At least he promises to “never leave nor forsake you.”  Let's cling to that promise by someone who will never let you down.

Because of Him,

J. Hylander

Generation that Seeks Your Face

After reading the last post by Jason, it really made me think about how I might portray my own faith and in how I tell others about it. Too often within the church people attempt to give the illusion that they are on fire for the Lord and that everything is perfect. The place where we are to bear each other’s burdens, we give off the perception that everything is fine. Is this an issue of trust within the church? Or is it an issue of lack of faith? The inability of the church? I don’t know, but it’s wrong. I just wish we could be more the church from the book of Acts.

I also loved the part of Jason’s essay regarding suffering. Paul said that there is a problem if we do not receive persecution for our faith. The world will hate us, but we need to remember to be “in the world but not of the world.” We are called to proclaim the truth boldly. We are not called to sit back and be comfortable in an attempt to not offend anyone by imposing our beliefs on them. This is something that I struggle with at times. If I know the truth and I know of others who do not…why do I passively sit by and say nothing? As Jason pointed out, the prosperity gospel feeds this type of lukewarm behavior. Those that buy into this heresy are self-centered people who do not care about the furtherance of the gospel, but only for the blessings of Christ in their own life.

Isn’t that a great excerpt from John Piper’s message? What a great man of the faith. Between his preaching, his writing, his speaking around the world, his podcasts, and his discipleship, that man is actively pursuing to know of the sovereignty of God. I am forced to ask myself if I am willing to go to those lengths to know Christ? Too often I become content at where I am…reading the Bible inconsistently, at times unfocused during sermons, and simply not being the “hands and feet” of Christ. It is my prayer to daily become more of a Micah 6:8 Christian, to “…act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with my God.”

In his book Confessions by Augustine (which I haven’t read in completion yet), he said that he did not become a Christian based on feelings or emotions, he became a Christian because he believed it to be the truth. How often do we present the Gospel like that? Not enough! Instead we feel that in order to make the Gospel more appealing, we must add our own touches…our fog machines, our contemporary music, our own sense of being culturally relevant. Instead of adding to the Gospel presentation, we cloud it and muddle it. We dirty the true Gospel with our pathetic attempts at spreading it. Why can’t I be more like D.L. Moody? Once I read a book on D.L. Moody and was astounded by his faith. How he would walk the streets and gather kids up and go to teach them about Jesus. Would I be willing to do that (granted, that might be a bit odd if I walked around town rounding up kids)? Why don’t we have faith to rely on the moving of the Holy Spirit? Why don’t we present the truth of the Gospel and allow the Holy Spirit to prompt the hearts of people? Apparently we (including myself) feel that we need to do our own thing to get other people to believe. That is where the prosperity gospel is derived from, an attempt at making Christianity more appealing. Attempting to make the church “cool” is a dangerous place to be. Ever since the Noah, following God has never been easy, comfortable, or free from trials. We are told by James to consider it pure joy when we face trials. These trials build our faith.

Thanks for writing that, Jason. It was a great reminder and also quite convicting. You’re a great man and I’m blessed to know you.

Because of Him,

J. Hylander