Tag: arminian

Posted on

Impeccability

Temptation
Some of you may be saying, “What?” That’s OK – let me explain.

This term refers to the times that Jesus was “tempted” by Satan. (Matthew 4) The question arises to whether or not it was possible for Jesus to sin. If you believe it was, then you would say Jesus was “Peccable.” Of course if you don’t believe it was possible for Jesus to sin then you are on the “Impeccable” side of the argument. Here’s the evidence for both. I’ll let you decide what you think:

In general, Arminians are mostly on the “peccable” side, while Calvinists are on the “impeccable” side of the argument. (Should I dare say that Arminians are peccable?jk)

Peccable – Hebrews 4:15 – “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are–yet was without sin.” Proponents of this view say that in order for temptation to be real, it must be possible. If it was impossible for Jesus to sin, then it wasn’t real temptation and He wouldn’t be able to sympathize with His people.

Impeccable – The purpose of the temptation of Jesus was to prove that He couldn’t sin and could therefore be trusted in the ministry He was about to begin. You should also notice that it was the Holy Spirit (not Satan) who initiated the temptation. If Christ could have sinned, then the Holy Spirit invited Christ to sin, but according to James 1:13, that’s not something that a Holy God can do.

Remember, Jesus had two natures – He was the God-man. If Christ was peccable, then His human nature could overpower His God-nature. That just seems crazy to believe. Can the finite nature within Jesus be stronger than the infinite?

Weakness is implied by temptation and Jesus is omnipotent – all-powerful. There was no weakness of any kind in Him.

Jesus was born without a sin nature. There was nothing inside of Him to respond to the temptation and therefore couldn’t sin.

Jesus knows everything – past, present, and future. Sin depends on ignorance, in order for the sinner to be deceived. Jesus could be deceived and therefore, couldn’t sin.

In moral decisions, Jesus could only have one will – the will of His Father. Is it possible for God to sin? Of course not.

Jesus was able to conquer death – He had authority over it. Sin is less powerful than death. How could you be tempted by something you had authority over?

I guess it’s pretty clear that I’m on the “impeccable” side of this argument. There just seems to be alot more evidence and it makes sense.

How does this impact my life? In some ways I must admit that I feel convicted. Jesus had two natures in Him and of course the God-nature always won out. I have been given the Holy Spirit to influence me and my flesh still wins out sometimes. I understand cognitively that it’s because of my sin nature. . . .I just feel convicted because I don’t like that Holy Spirit’s work get crushed within me, by my sinful self. There’s also something comforting knowing that Jesus could never sin – that means He can be trusted forever. It means I know more of Him to know this about His character. It means I’ve been drawn closer to Him.

Just another thought – In answering this question about how these concepts will impact my life, I feel very inadequate. Many of these concepts are pretty new to me and therefore I don’t know how they’re gonna impact things for me. They certainly will shape my theological standpoints and my understanding of God’s character. As life rolls along – these concepts which are just seeds right now, will take root and change my life in ways that I could never explain right now. By the way, to you Professor Shockley, “thank you for these assignments – I do believe they will make a difference in my life.”

(Info from “The Moody Handbook of Theology” by Paul Enns, pg 236-238)

Posted on

Open Theology

Puppet_2
Open Theology (also called “Freewill Theism”) states that God does not
know the future. He changes His mind in response to our prayers. This idea
comes out of the “Freewill/Arminian” position which says that because
of our freewill, God cannot know the future. If He did, then we don’t really
have freewill. John Sanders describes the three main points:

(1)
God is Sovereign, but decided to create us  in such a way that we could experience a
reciprocal relationship with Him.

(2)
God made some of His decisions non-negotiable, but others are contingent upon man’s requests and actions. He truly responds to what man does. He knows the future as partly definite and partly indefinite.

(3)
God chooses to exercise general rather than meticulous providence. He doesn’t control everything that happens in a man’s life, but has flexible strategies for accomplishing His purposes.

 

They hold a high view of human freedom and even say that God will not violate our freedom.

 

They appeal to God’s testing of Abraham saying that God didn’t know if Abraham could be trusted with the covenant that He had intended for him. The verse actually says, “for now I know that you fear God.” (Gen 22:12)

 

Here’s what I think:

There are plenty of other verses which uphold God’s infinite knowledge. 1 Samuel 16:7 – God knows the heart. Psalm 139:1-2 – God knows all my ways, even the words I will speak. (That sounds like the future to me.) Anyway, considering these verses, we’ve got to either reinterpret them (and other which I have not mentioned) or reinterpret the Genesis passage. It seems more probable that the one should be reinterpreted than all the others. If you consider the book of James which interprets this Genesis passage, it becomes clear that the emphasis is on the fact the Abraham’s faith believed that God could raise Isaac from the dead. If the NT authors didn’t comment on God’s limited knowledge, why should our emphasis be any different? It seems pretty clear that James (Brother of Jesus) never imagined that God learned something that day, but more likely that Abraham did. Abraham knew his faith in new ways that day.

Here are some other thoughts regarding Open Theology:

How do you explain all the Scripture that describes God’s infinite understanding?

What about Jesus’ statement in John 8:58 “Before Abraham was, I Am.”?

What about prophecy?

Does God get surprised?

Does God get smarter as time goes on?

 

If God doesn’t know the future, then that must also mean that He is confined to the limits of time as man is. Doesn’t sound like much of a God to me – Like me, He’s imprisoned to time (which He supposedly created) like me. Like me, He doesn’t know the future. Like me, He gets surprised by other people’s actions.

I’m just not sure we have a god at all anymore. He seems a lot like me.

How does this make a difference for me?

Not at all – cause I can’t subscribe to this view. I will say that knowing the basics of these ideas will prepare me for discussions within the youth ministry that I work with. I feel like I should take some time in the future and study up a bit more on all of this so I can be more prepared. It seems like it might be an appealing theory for our culture that devalues God and uplifts man’s position. It’s probably a growing ideology that I should be ready to give an answer to.

 

(Info from “Does God Know Your Next Move?” by Chris Hall and John Sanders)

 

Posted on

Freewill or Predestination?

FootprintsThis one is a really a tough argument because both sides can be argued with integrity from the Scriptures. My best guess is that this particular issue is much like Brian McLaren describes in “A New Kind of Christian.” (I don’t agree with him all the time, but I like this illustration.) In his book, one of the characters was describing how men pick differing points on a line to argue their stances/viewpoints. He then wondered if God was not on the line at all, but hovering somewhere over the line in another dimension. I think that must be the way it is with this particular argument. The truth (God) is not on our line of predestination or freewill at all, but hovering somewhere over our imaginations – beyond our understanding. As the Isaiah 55:8-9 says, “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways, my ways, declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

Here are the differences:
Calvinism/Predestination/Sovereignty
1. Total Depravity – Before they are saved, men are completely dead in their sins and unable to even come to God without His intervention.
2. Unconditional Election – God chooses who he will save.
3. Limited Atonement – Jesus died to save the elect.
4. Irresistible Grace – God gives a special saving grace to the elect that they will not be able to reject.
5. Preservation of the Saints – Once saved, always saved.

Arminian/Freewill
1. Depraved – Before they are saved, men are depraved in every area of their lives, but still able to choose good/God.
2. Conditional Election – God chooses who He will save based upon his foreknowledge of their choices.
3. Unlimited Atonement – Jesus died to save everyone/the world.
4. Resistible Grace – God offers a special saving grace to all men, but he can resist.
5. No preservation – Man can lose his salvation.

I would consider myself a 4 point Moderate Calvinist: Here what I mean:
I agree with points 1, 2, 4, and 5 of Calvinism, but completely disagree with 3 (Limited atonement) and number 1 needs an explanation. Let me explain each one for me:

1. Total Depravity – If one is completely dead, he cannot even choose God. This would mean that the work of salvation is completely God’s work. This is called “monergism.” Scripture seems clear that it is a complete work of God, but it’s also pretty clear that man’s decision matters somehow. This view is called a “synergism” of God’s work with man’s decision. This is the difference in a Dutch Calvinist (hardcore) and a Moderate/Princeton Calvinist who believes that man does still have some responsibility in it all. The moderate would say that “God woos men” to Himself, but that man still chooses. Here’s the summary of the depravity issue:

Arminian – Man chooses God.
Moderate Calvinist – God woos man.
Dutch Calvinist – God rapes man. (God chooses man in spite of his decision or opinion.)

I’m a moderate.

2. Unconditional Election – It is completely God’s choice who he will save. There are no conditions or works that man must accomplish.

3. Unlimited Atonement – This is where I completely disagree with the Calvinist view. This is also the most popular point in which people disagree. Scripture seems clear that Jesus died for everyone.

4. Irresistible Grace – This is not to say that God doesn’t give grace to everyone – He clearly does – Rain falls on the crops of the saved and the unsaved. All are given breath, and life, etc. This is speaking only of the saving grace which God chooses to give to the elect. They may reject it for a while, but since God’s plan can not be frustrated, he will eventually respond properly to His offer. If God could be resisted, then he must not be sovereign, because he couldn’t accomplish His own plan.

5. Preservation of the Saints – This is the once saved, always saved idea. You cannot lose your salvation, because that would mean that salvation was not God’s work. Your works/lifestyle can not make you lose your salvation, because they had nothing to do with it in the first place. You were saved because God chose to save you, and He doesn’t change his mind. He knew what He was doing when He chose to save you.

There you go. I’m sure there are all kinds of flaws in my logic and understanding ’cause I just don’t have a really good grasp on it all, but this is just where I find myself at this point in my life.

How is my life different because of this concept? I’m not sure. It certainly affects my view of Christianity and also of the world, but in trying to live out my faith, it doesn’t change much on a daily basis. My wife and I disagree on this issue and have chosen not to speak of it, because it just causes division between us. I hope that sometime we can really work to come to a solution, but the truth is that it really doesn’t come up very often, and it hasn’t affected our relationship too much. I do believe it’s gonna be an issue as we raise Kasen. (He’s due Oct 30th). By the time he starts asking those kinds of question, it’s my prayer that we can have a united common view regarding this issue.

(Info from “Man’s Destiny:Free or Forced” by Norman Geisler, also from “The Potter’s Freedom” by James White, Also from “Arminianism or Calvinism” by Steele and Thomas)