Back to Thoughts

After a hiatus from this blog, mostly because of huge changes in my own personal life, I would like to resume writing here and maybe try to spark some lively debates.

Where I live, there is often talk of God's action (or lack thereof) in the world. The frequent stances are:
1) God causes everything and everything, good and bad, comes from Him.
2) The Deistic view, which views God essentially as a divine watchmaker, who created and wound up the world and has left it to go in the ways that it pleases.
3) God is ultimately sovereign, and necessarily allows evil, yet does not cause everything, or possibly even ordain everything. In essence, God limits himself.

Do you have any thoughts on this issue? Are there other stances that should be taken into consideration, and why?

A Followup

Here is another article that I found relating to God's foreknowledge, sovereignty, and predestination.

Interesting how the author immediately blames the Arminian way of thinking (free will choice as opposed to God selecting those who will be saved) and labels it as being "false theology."

Feedback?

Engaging Predestination

Pastor John Piper wrote an interesting article a while ago called "Foreknown, Predestined, Conformed to Christ." The full text of the article can be found here.

I would like to engage Pastor John's thinking in the mentioned article. Predestination is one of the most hotly debated topics in Christianity today. Pastor John, in his article, references Romans 8:28-30 as the main verse Biblically where the doctrine of predestination, as it is usually defined in Reformed circles, originates.

Romans 8:28-20 states:

"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."

I am going to being responding to Pastor John after the subtitle "For Those Whom He Foreknew." I am doing this because I agree with the first part of the article, which is the transcription of a sermon, and the first section is not necessary to understand either Pastor John's points or my own about predestination.

Pastor John says:

Verse 29: "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son." What does "foreknew" mean? Some have taken it to mean that God simply foresees who will believe on him and these are the ones he predestines to be like Jesus. But this assumes two things that are not true. One is that the faith God foresees is ultimately and decisively our work, not his work. In other words, the point of this interpretation is that God does not cause our faith, he only foresees the faith which we cause.

I take issue with the assumptions that Pastor John raises here. His thinking essentially says "Either God fully causes, or does not cause at all, our faith." There is no wiggle room here for Pastor John. Either God is God of causality, or He is completely hands-off and powerless.

I take issue with this thinking because it leaves out any distinction that God has characteristics that we as humans have as well. I do not see a God of causality in the Biblical text, at least not fully. There are recorded instances of history where God has stepped in and imposed His will for the good. Think of the Red Sea and the Israelites, or Moses holding his rod and as long as he did, the Israelites were winning a battle. But remember this: God did not force Moses to hold up the rod. God told Moses to do it or the Israelites would lose and die. I would like to draw a parallel to how God calls us.

God has revealed Himself, in part, through nature. It can be argued that this one way that God has revealed Himself to all. For some, this is enough for faith. For others, they need experiential proof, propositional truth, or more. Some people never arrive at faith. But I do not buy the argument that God has not revealed Himself at all through nature, through Creation.

I also see, in reality, that we have choices in life. Not just the illusion of choice, but true choice. God commanded Moses to hold his staff in the air, but God did not force Moses to hold the staff in the air. Moses had the freedom to choose.

God tells us "Repent and turn to me and allow my Son to be the perfect sacrifice, or die." We have a choice. If love cannot be coerced, then it must be freely chosen. If we are called to love God, among other things, then in order to love Him, we must choose to love Him. He has given us a revelation of Himself, both in Creation and in the person/deity of Jesus Christ, and has called us to be in relationship to Him. But what kind of relationship is it if it is forced?

Also, we have the choice to not choose God. That's clear from the fact that we choose to sin on a daily basis. If we can choose to sin, we can choose to not sin (thought maybe not always the willpower or desire to do so) . If we have the ability to choose not to sin, doesn't it also logically follow that we have the ability to choose or not choose grace, to choose or not choose God?

This is why I follow the progression of Romans 8:29-30. Those whom God foreknew (meaning, those whom He knew would choose Him, after His revelation of Himself) He predestined. Those whom He predestined, He also called and calls to Himself. Those whom He called, who accept Him, He also justified and justifies. Those whom He justified and justifies, He also sanctified and sanctifies.

We cannot move away from this logic, and we must keep these verses not only in the context of Romans 6, or even the whole book of Romans. We must keep God's character in mind in the context of the whole Scripture. God is not just a god of causality. He is not just a god of allowing freedom. God is all of these and more.

I sure know that God is not a puppetmaster. I believe that He desires us all to come to know Him, but that's simply not reality. We will not all choose, because there is another force at work in this world.

An Introduction

Maverick (noun)
Definition: a lone dissenter, as an intellectual, an artist, or a politician, who takes an independent stand apart from his or her associates.

I go by the name Maverick because I have always felt like a dissenter, an intellectual outsider. Over the past few years as I've begun thinking and writing more, under another name, I've always felt like an outsider. In fact, I've very rarely found people who think like I do, and I consider those people true friends of mine.

I have created this blog, unabashedly using a pen name, in order to spark debate and controversy. I hope to engage the thinking heavyweights of the Christian world in lively, intelligent, and productive debate. No topic is off limits or taboo. No viewpoint will be ridiculed, but rather engaged.

Let's pursue Truth together.