In the comments of the previous post, 4 Bums and a Rich Man, I ran up against an interesting attitude that got me thinking. In the course of the discussion, I proposed that we avoid as much as possible using Christian jargon and religious terms in order to be better understood by non-Christians. I had no idea that this would ignite the firestorm of comments that it did (41 comments and counting). To summarize my critics, I was warned against "softening" or "compromising" the message, or promoting a "Seeker Friendly paradigm"
Now, just to be clear, I will never advocate altering the Gospel message. The core of the message must remain intact. However, let's be honest for a moment and acknowledge that you can go about presenting almost any message in a variety of ways.
What took me by surprise was the level of contempt that the phrase "Seeker Friendly" was used. It was implied that the people who subscribe to this mentality are way, way off track. Wanting to know more, I googled the phrase, "seeker friendly". Of the links that I clicked on, I found that this attitude is fairly prevalent; most of the articles were in harsh criticism of this approach of running a church. Some even go so far to use the term "Sinner Friendly", which implies an even stronger derogatory meaning.
My initial reaction to Seeker Friendly churches was one of annoyance. It appears that this approach is rooted in the Political Correctness movement, and that just plain drives me up a wall. I've encountered a church similar to one that is described; in the city that I live in, there is a "church" (and I'm using that word very loosely) downtown that doesn't really require you to believe in any particular belief system. You can be Muslim, Buddhist, or whatever, just as long as you are "spiritual". I'm not sure why people even attend; I guess it must be just for a warm, fuzzy, "I'm spiritual" vibe every Sunday.
That being said, I found myself in an odd position. After reading the articles, I could definitely see where the Seeker Friendly approach has the potential to create churches that have lost the substance of Christianity. Nevertheless, I found that aligning myself with the anti-Seeker-Friendly crowd was just as distasteful to me. Underlying it all, there seems an attitude of "Christianity is supposed to be offensive! Don't baby these people; whack them right between the eyes with their sin! Make them feel the full weight and pain of it and then let them crawl to the cross." (My paraphrase, obviously)
The interesting thing to me is that these two camps of people show up in a different realm: Parenting.
On one side, you've got the people who won't ever raise their voices to their kids and punishments consist of attempts to gently persuade the child to behave. These parents are the ones pushing for "everyone wins" rules in school sports. It's easy to spot these people; they're the ones whose kids are screaming and running all around the supermarket, while the parent tries to bribe them with toys if they stop.
On the other side, you've got the people who feel that "When we acted out as kids, dad tanned our hides with his belt. You can't coddle these kids or else they'll turn out spoiled." It's easy to spot these parents also; they're the ones marching resolutely through the supermarket to the car with a crying kid slung over their shoulder, who is desperately pleading for their life. As they pass the first parent, they roll their eyes in contempt.
Coming back to the Seeker Friendly debate, I believe that neither camp is right. Somewhere between these two extremes is the right amount of love and the right amount of toughness. Based on the Bible, I think this midpoint should probably exist closer to the Seeker Friendly end of the spectrum. More on that in a moment.
Let's return to the parenting metaphor for a moment, because I think it has many similarities to a pastor shepherding his flock. Let's talk about Santa Claus for a moment. As a parent, how do you approach this concept with your children? Do you encourage your children to believe in the wonder and fun and magic of an imaginary man in a red suit bringing toys to all boys and girls? Do you let them believe that this jolly fat man stuffs himself down the chimney and brings them toys on Christmas Eve? Do you do this knowing full well that, every time you tell your children that Santa brought the toys under the tree, you're technically deceiving your children and that some day that imaginary world is going to come crashing down?
Or, do you adopt a hard-line approach and tell your children that Santa Claus not only doesn't exist, he's a tool used by Satan to distract people from the real meaning of Christmas, which is that Jesus was born into this screwed-up world in order to die a horrible, painful death in order to keep us all from burning in Hell?
I personally think my parents did a pretty good job with this topic. They taught me that Santa Claus was definitely an imaginary guy that stood for wonderful concepts and that the gifts that appeared under the tree came from them, my loving parents, who were celebrating Jesus' birth. Later on, my sister even started the tradition of baking a birthday cake for Jesus. However they also taught me that there were other kids who did believe in Santa Claus and it wouldn't be good to spoil their imaginary fun. They taught me the truth yet still made it both pleasant and easy for me to understand.
I think we need to take a step back and examine how Jesus operated. What was his approach? Did he confront people with their sin?
Let's look at a couple examples. I've specifically picked a couple examples where Jesus interacted with individuals who were generally considered to have publicly committed very basic wrong deeds; i.e. ones listed in the 10 Commandments.
The Samaritan Woman at the Well - John 4:1-26
In this story we see Jesus approaching a Samaritan woman at a well and asking her for water. Initially, she's taken aback because he's actually talking to her. John explains this by stating that Jews do not associate with Samaritans. (Side note: It's interesting to me that John takes the time to explain this. John obviously knew his audience would be more than just Jews because they would already know this) Jesus then describes a new type of water that she has a difficult time understanding. Once she starts to catch on, Jesus switches topics. He asks her a question that he already knows the answer to, where is her husband. She has to admit that she's not been very faithful on that front. Jesus' response is difficult to interpret here, because we have no idea what his tone of voice was. He confirms the fact that, not only does she not have a husband currently, she's had many in the past. Depending on his tone of voice, this could have either been a harsh denouncement, a tender expression of empathy, or simply an unfeeling statement of fact. But that is all that is said about it. They go on from there to talk about the differences in Samaritan and Jewish beliefs and the coming of the Messiah.
What do you think? Did Jesus intend to embarrass her and confront her with her sin? She must have been somewhat embarrassed to have her secrets laid bare in front of other people. It's interesting; I've always read this story and assumed that it was a private exchange between just Jesus and the woman. However, there had to be someone else there in order for it to be written down in the Bible.
Zacchaeus the Tax Collector - Luke 19:1-9
So, here Jesus is walking along and sees a short guy up in a tree. Now there are a couple things that are implied here. Zacchaeus is described as a "chief tax collector and was wealthy". Back in the day, these guys were the Roman equivalent of the IRS. The problem was that you couldn't just log onto irs.gov, look at the tax rates, figure out how much you needed to pay, and send it in. The tax collectors would come along and tell you what you were supposed to pay. Typically they charged you more that what Rome expected, so the extra would be profit for the tax collector. Imagine how you would feel if your local IRS agent was living in a mansion because some of your taxes were going into his pocket. We can assume from this that Zacchaeus was probably guilty of stealing from people. Jesus shocks the crowd by calling him down from the tree and inviting himself over to his house.
Should Jesus have condemned Zacchaeus for his sin? The crowd certainly thought so. It was apparently foremost on their mind, because they started grumbling about him being a sinner.
I noticed something else in this verse. Why is the word sinner in single quotes? In the NIV it reads:
7 All the people saw this and began to mutter, "He has gone to be the guest of a 'sinner.'"
That's two examples. I'm leaving it up to you to help me find more. What tact does Jesus take when approaching 'Seekers'? Is he harsh or soft?
83 comments:
Hi Weston: I've been waiting for this...so thank you. Just to clear something up from the last post, it was not a knee jerk reaction, it was complete frustration, and I was not happy with your behavior as well, BUT that's behind tho....
Interesting post. Do me a favor when you have time and read, Psalm 14, Romans 3 and Ephesians 2. The problem to me with seeker friendly churches is that they assume all those lost folks are actually seeking God. Only those in whom God has begun the work in will really seek God, and won't run from concepts such as total depravity.....Scripturally speaking...can you show me some examples where people are actually seeking God?
I have learned to never be a middle of the road person...God is not gray, He is very black and white.
Wes,
Great post. I agree with what you are saying regarding the middle road. I am reminded of a story about a Jewish woman, Rosalind Moss, who had never even heard of Jesus Christ until she was in her mid-twenties.
She became a Christian through a ministry called Jews for Jesus. When she recounts her story, she never mentioned that the Jews for Jesus gave her the fire and brimstone preaching. Instead, they showed her love and expressed that love through teaching who Jesus is and what He did - catechesis.
If someone was to approach her with the fire and brimstone gospel message, I wonder if she would have been more or less likely to convert to Christianity.
Everyone is different. You cannot expect the same delivery method of the gospel to work with everyone the same way.
If the seeker friendly movement saves one soul, then it is completely worth it.
I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.Luke 15:7
Do me a favor when you have time and read, Psalm 14, Romans 3 and Ephesians 2.
So, I went ahead and read those chapters, but it's not clear to me in what way you are using them to support your point. As a suggestion, it would be more helpful if you could maybe narrow it down to the particular verses or maybe quote them. There are a number of online Bible references and it's fairly easy to copy and paste them into the comment box. I don't expect you to get fancy and make a hyperlink to it like I do, but maybe at least let us know which parts you're specifically referencing. There are a lot of other verses in those chapters that really have nothing to do with the point you're making.
The problem to me with seeker friendly churches is that they assume all those lost folks are actually seeking God. Only those in whom God has begun the work in will really seek God, and won't run from concepts such as total depravity.....
I don't agree with you. I do not believe that there are two groups of people, those who God draws and those he doesn't. 1 Timothy 2:3-4 says "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.". (Emphasis mine) To say that there is a group of people that God does not draw has implications for their personal accountability. i.e. The atheists of the world can simply say "It's not my fault I don't believe; God just didn't choose to work in my life".
Scripturally speaking...can you show me some examples where people are actually seeking God?
I already did. Why do you think Zacchaeus was in that tree in the first place?
I have learned to never be a middle of the road person...God is not gray, He is very black and white.
I assume that you are referring to making compromises, which you view as an undesirable thing. However, you must realize that there is a time to stand firm and a time to be accommodating. You may find this difficult to accept, but God himself makes compromises. On one hand, His justice demands that we are punished for our sins, on the other hand, because He loves us, he desires us to be in fellowship with him. He cannot have it both ways; He can't cast us away from His presence and keep us near at the same time. So, in His infinite wisdom, He came up with a solution and sent Jesus. In order for this to work, His sense of justice must compromise and accept a substitute for our punishment, in the form of Jesus.
Weston: You're right, I need to explain myself a little better, there is a whole realm of things that you can get from those scriptures. But you really don't need my input from the scripture, as the scripture more than speaks for itself. They specifically refer to my question, of who in God's Word seeks God. Ephesians 2 is referring to the "what can a dead man really do?". We can not do anything until the Holy Spirit draws us....being spiritually dead simply won't allow it.
What do the words SAY, if anything, about any sort of 'seeking God'. The words in those scriptures point to the inability of natural man to seek God. Of course we are also told to 'seek God' in other places. God tells us to do something that we in our 'from the womb state' cannot do, but he enables us through making us alive, while we were yet sinners (we being the elect).
All men have the general revelation of God in creation and a sense of the existence of God from the womb (Romans 1), and are 'drawn' in a general sense. There are those who receive the special revelation of God, through the written word (God's chosen means), are drawn in a 'special' sense to the cross and believe. What does John 6:44 and 6:65 mean to you? As well as Acts 13:48 (especially). At any rate, the issue is not who are/are not drawn, but who, according to scripture, really 'seek god'.
The 'all men' in your 1 Tim reference does not mean every individual on the planet. If God really desires (wills in some literal translations) that every person on the planet to be saved, wouldn't he also make that happen? The translation means men from all peoples, which is consistent with Rev 5:6.
It is apparent that Zaccheus wanted to see Jesus. I would too with all the hoopla, does that mean I am seeking after God? Whether he was 'seeking God' is a matter of the heart not specifically addressed - but he did want to see the man called Jesus. The Samaritan woman was drawing water and if she was also 'seeking God' it too was a matter of the heart and not addressed in the text. They might have been true 'God seekers', but can we say with certainty, from the text, that they were?
I am very careful to read the Word for what it says and not interject my opinion into it. Assuming is the reason anyone can make it say anything. Reading what it actually does say, you will find the One truth that God intended. Those gray areas that you allow and stand for will never allow you to know God fully, nor make a stand for things we need to make stands on.
triednotfried,
God tells us to do something that we in our 'from the womb state' cannot do, but he enables us through making us alive, while we were yet sinners (we being the elect).
Are you suggesting that God does not draw all men unto Himself, and He only draws the elect?
If God really desires (wills in some literal translations) that every person on the planet to be saved, wouldn't he also make that happen?
God is more than capable of forcing everyone on the planet to be saved. Just because He can do something, doesn't mean that He does do it that way. God is love. Love does not force or step on the will of anyone. That is called rape.
Using this line of reasoning, one can say, "If God really does desire there not to be sin in the world, why didn't He just make us perfect? Why did he send the serpent to tempt Adam and Eve." This line of thinking makes God guilty of sin. That is ridiculous. The sinner can then say it is not me who is guilty of sin...that is just the way that God made me.
Assuming is the reason anyone can make it say anything. Reading what it actually does say, you will find the One truth that God intended.
Amen!!!
"Are you suggesting that God does not draw all men unto Himself, and He only draws the elect?"
I'm not suggesting, I'm saying. You can not claim God's omniscience and have it any other way.
For your second point Carlus, I know...and we've been there done that...so you are saying his death provides salvation for those who resist and deny Him? Wrong...
God allows things in our lives, we always have the choice, that does not mean He is surprised by our actions in the least. He already knows...
I'm not suggesting, I'm saying. You can not claim God's omniscience and have it any other way.
Whoah, you totally lost me there. How does a characteristic of God, that He is all-knowing, have any bearing on whether God draws people to Himself? I don't see how that follows.
For your second point Carlus, I know...and we've been there done that...so you are saying his death provides salvation for those who resist and deny Him? Wrong...
I'm confused; did we read the same comment from Carlus? I can't figure how you got that Carlus was anywhere remotely suggesting that Jesus' death provides salvation for those who reject him, and I re-read his comment at least 5 times. Can you please explain the line of reasoning that brought you to that conclusion?
God allows things in our lives, we always have the choice, that does not mean He is surprised by our actions in the least. He already knows...
You know, sometimes I think God's existence must be boring; everything is a re-run to him; It would be like someone spoiled the end of every movie ever made.
All joking aside, you are venturing into pre-destination vs. free will territory. To reign in that runaway train and keep us on topic, are you suggesting that we have no choice in whether we are "drawn" or not? That some people He choses to draw and some He does not? That would imply that He creates people with the express intention of sending some of them to Hell. If God does not draw them, then they have no opportunity to be saved, and therefore they will wind up in Hell. I know that some Christians believe this, but I do not. Is this what you believe?
Yes Weston, we read the same comment, I know where he is going with it, so I skipped a few steps...this probably isn't the thread for a predestination discussion, ur right...I believe in it strongly...and will get into it if you want... I was answering his question "Are you suggesting that God does not draw all men unto Himself, and He only draws the elect?" to which I answered...
"I'm not suggesting, I'm saying. You can not claim God's omniscience and have it any other way."
Weston does God know everything or not? Explain to me God's omniscience without knowing what will happen...
"are you suggesting that we have no choice in whether we are "drawn" or not? That some people He choses to draw and some He does not?"
I'll be happy to get into this if you like, or we can wait for another thread...completely up to you...
triednotfried - is God's omniscience based on predestination, or based on foreknowledge? He certainly knows who will come to Him (foreknowledge), but it sounds like you are saying that He predetermined who would come to Him and who would not. Therefore, none of us even have a choice. Am I understanding you?
"I know...and we've been there done that...so you are saying his death provides salvation for those who resist and deny Him? Wrong..."
It is my understanding that Christ died for all, even those that resist Him, but it is committing the unpardonable sin, blaspheming the Holy Spirit (or rejecting God) as stated in Mark 3:29 and Luke 2:10 that separates one from God.
It sounds like you've had this conversation before, so maybe I'm rehashing something already discussed. If this was already discussed, which blog was it on?
triednotfried,
I'm not suggesting, I'm saying. You can not claim God's omniscience and have it any other way.
To this I would say....well, I didn't have to say it....
triednotfried - is God's omniscience based on predestination, or based on foreknowledge? He certainly knows who will come to Him (foreknowledge),
Thanks thekrywickis. There is a huge difference between foreknowledge and actually willing people into Hell. Huge, Huge, Huge. God desires that all men come to know Him. He loves us. He desires us to love Him.
God allows things in our lives, we always have the choice, that does not mean He is surprised by our actions in the least. He already knows...
Of course He already knows. That fits perfectly in the description of foreknowledge. If we always have the choice, then God does not will some into Hell and others into Heaven. How does we always have the choice fit into the predestination and no free-will thing anyways? If you have choice, then you have free will.
thekrywickis: Just so you know, I am a recent convert to the Roman Catholic Church. TriedNotFried is someone that I consider my friend, and who has challenged my beliefs many times - which I am thankful for. I don't necessarily believe that you have to agree 100% with people in order to consider them your friend. Anyways...nice to meet you in blogland.... :)
Hi Kry...I'll do this one more time...and look for the threads where this has been discussed before...
I don't believe that God chose us ONLY knowing the future, I don't believe that is what the Bible teaches...
There are a couple of verses that tell us the reason God elected people to salvation, one being Ephesians 1:5 "5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—" So, according to this, the REASON for our being predestined is not something that we do, or will do...it is only for the Lords pleasure and will...
Romans 9:15-16 "15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.", and in Ephesians 1:11
"11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,"
There are so many other passages that teach that our election is not based on something we do or will do. We were predestined before the foundation of the world Epph. 1:4 "4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight." it is only about His will, not because He knew what we would do...but then, there is Romans 8:29 "29 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."
This is saying that our predestination is based on His foreknowledge...it's crazy making until you look at John 10:26 "26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep." There is a predetermined relationship in the knowledge of God, where God brings the salvation relationship into existence. He knew His elect before we were born, and His knowing us before time is the reason we follow Him, not the other way around. The question is not whether or not He has created and pre-destined people to Hell, it is about God choosing to have mercy on some and others He leaves in sinful rebellion.
Carlus: Yes, our "iron" has sharpened eachother a time or two eh? =)
"There is a huge difference between foreknowledge and actually willing people into Hell." Exactly hopefully I just explained that...of course He would love for all to come to Him, He knows who will and who won't tho....
Who said we didn't have free will????? I never said that.
thekrywickis: yup, what Carlus said... =) I'm sure the Lord has slapped his forehead and said "ugh" a time or two with our conversations....
Question, triednotfried... in these verses where it says we have been predestined, is it possible the Bible is simply referring to the fact that He predestined that Jesus would die for our sins? And that he did that for His own pleasure and will? Just posing the question.
Carlus, nice to meet you as well! I stopped by your blog so I knew about your conversion. It makes no difference to me (or maybe you were just telling me to forewarn me that you may bring up some things that aren't typically taught in a protestant church?) Also, do any two people every totally 100% agree on everything? Hopefully you didn't say that because you thought I was being disrespectful. Just joining in the discussion. :-)
This looks like an interesting blog! Have to go to work now, but I will be back!
thekrywickis,
It makes no difference to me (or maybe you were just telling me to forewarn me that you may bring up some things that aren't typically taught in a protestant church?)
Yes.
Hopefully you didn't say that because you thought I was being disrespectful. Just joining in the discussion. :-)
Not at all. I have not found anything that you have said to be offensive....just laying out the cards on the table....
God bless and looking forward to talking more.
I have trouble with the concepts of predestination and free will; they are a logical paradox and cannot coexist with each other. I want to believe in both, but I have not been able to reconcile the two in a way that is logically consistent but does not involve a "strange" scenario. At some point we can dive into this as a full blog post.
But for now, I'm going to bring us back full circle and tie our discussion into the original topic, which is how we react to "seekers". triednotfried said the following:
The problem to me with seeker friendly churches is that they assume all those lost folks are actually seeking God. Only those in whom God has begun the work in will really seek God, and won't run from concepts such as total depravity
Here lies the danger of the concept of the "elect". Follow me for a moment on this line of reasoning: I assume that we all agree that if God wills something, it will be done, right? So, if God chooses a subset of the human race as his elect, and then proceeds to draw them to himself, then there is nothing that we can do to resist or thwart His will. This means that if he pre-ordains someone to be a Christian, there is nothing that we, as other human beings, can do to prevent it; it will happen.
If we follow this line of thinking to the extreme, it means that when they show up in church for the first time, we can be the biggest jerk to them in the world and it simply won't matter. If they're God's elect, then they will come to know Christ in spite of anything we do. We can physically slap them across the face for being dirty sinners, and they should just accept it because they deserve to be punished for their sin. If they run fleeing from the church, well, then, I guess they must not have been God's elect.
In reality, even if it is true that only God chooses certain people and does not choose others, we still don't have any idea who God has chosen. Because of this, we should assume that everyone that comes into our church is a seeker and attempt to assist them in seeking God. It's wrong to think the reverse, to assume that everyone that comes to church is lost, and only the ones that don't run away from concepts such as total depravity are the ones God has chosen. Thinking that way makes Christianity sound like a college fraternity; "If you can survive the hazing, then you're one of us."
The way triednotfried is explaining predestination is a Calvinistic approach. It’s something we studied quite deeply at Word of Life, but it’s the only time I’ve studied it and it was 10 years ago, so I’m not as familiar with the topic as I once was. I’m not bringing up Calvinism to say, triednotfried, that you are wrong, I’m stating it to point out that it is a very popular way of thinking. I’m not stating whether I agree or disagree, but you can probably guess where I might fall. However, I don’t want to be close minded to this discussion and would like to continue in it, if anyone else is willing.
Here’s a link to a document that I found interesting, and perhaps explains triednotfried’s viewpoint at greater length:
http://www.calvinistcorner.com/predestination.htm
Hey, aren’t you guys glad that we don’t have to fully understand God in order to accept His forgiveness?
Weston, I found your points interesting, but don’t have time to comment on them right now. I had the same thoughts about the topic as I was trying to sleep last night. My mind is spinning a little!
Carlus, I look forward to our discussions on here. I’ve found your blog interesting!
HI peoples...yes Kry it is Calvanistic, very. =) I don't mind people telling me I'm wrong, it's how we learn, but I also am pretty sure of my beliefs, so don't get frustrated if I don't bend, chances are I won't. Due to lack of time today, I'm leaving a link:
http://goshareyourfaith.wordpress.com/resources/reformed-doctrine/reformed-articles/
If you have time and really want to study this, this will do it for ya. Have a good day everyone and be back this evening...
HI peoples...yes Kry it is Calvanistic, very. =) I don't mind people telling me I'm wrong, it's how we learn, but I also am pretty sure of my beliefs, so don't get frustrated if I don't bend, chances are I won't. Due to lack of time today, I'm leaving a link:
http://goshareyourfaith.wordpress.com/resources/reformed-doctrine/reformed-articles/
If you have time and really want to study this, this will do it for ya. Have a good day everyone and be back this evening...
So I went and read (More like slogged through it. Whew! That is some seriously toilsome language! I promise never to write like that.) through the article that triednotfried linked. I stopped after about 30 pages because it had turned to topics that didn't really pertain to the discussion at hand.
After all that, I can say that I am not any closer to solving the paradox than I was before. But at least I know I am in good company because even the article iteself admits that this cannot be solved. Here are two quotes pulled from the article:
God has ordained that human beings shall keep their liberty under His sovereignty. He has made no attempt to give us a formal explanation of these things, and our limited human knowledge is not able fully to solve the problem.
Predestination and free agency are the twin pillars of a great temple, and they meet above the clouds where the human gaze cannot penetrate. Or again, we may say that Predestination and free agency are parallel lines; and while the Calvinist may not be able to make them unite, the Arminian cannot make them cross each other.
Of the two polar ends of the paradox, predestination and free will, the article drifts heavily towards discounting the concept of free will, providing multiple examples of how God overrides and controls humanity to execute His plan. It stops short of eliminating free will entirely, because the Bible plainly includes this concept.
I should note, I grew up in and went to school in a Calvinist environment and actually currently attend a Calvinist church. However, I am not at all certain whether I agree with this doctrine.
"I should note, I grew up in and went to school in a Calvinist environment and actually currently attend a Calvinist church. However, I am not at all certain whether I agree with this doctrine."
I'm not here to make people agree, or not. As I stated earlier, I am very comfortable with this doctrine, regardless of titles and such I am not an "anything" but a Christ follower. I do see where free will and predestination work together.
Before I go into that, I'm wondering Weston if you could please show me scripturally where people are actually seeking God? Humor me for a moment and look at Psalm 14 and Romans 3:11 and tell me what scripture SAYS about the subject...I can't find where you answered that.
Let me explain my position of free will. If someone who is speaking about free will means that God gives human beings the opportunity to make their choices that affect their destiny, then yes, we have free will. Our world right now is a direct result to choices made by Adam and Eve, we were created in God's image, that included that ability to choose.
Free will does NOT mean we can do anything we please...as our choices are limited to our nature. An example would be, you can walk across a bridge or not, completely up to you, but you do not have a choice to fly over it. That's not a choice for us. In this same way, a we cannot choose to make ourselves righteous because our sin nature prevents us from canceling our guilt. Look at Romans 3:23. Our free will is limited by our nature. Our being limited unfortunately does not mitigate our accountability tho...the Bible is clear that we not only have the ability to choose, we have a responsibility to choose wisely.
In the NT, sinners are told contantly to repent and believe (Matthew 3:2, 4:17, Acts 3:19, 1 John 3:23) and every time there is a call to repent, it is a choice. So how can we, who are limited by a sinful nature, ever choose what is right? ONLY through the grace and power of God. It is the Holy Spirit who works in and through a person's will to regenerate that person (John 1:12-13) and give them a new nature (Ephesians 4:24)...salvation is God's work.
triednotfried,
Alright!!! I have to admit...now I am very intrigued....
You said:
I do see where free will and predestination work together.
Then you went on to give a beautiful explanation about how we cannot chose God without God's Grace. I absolutely 100% positively agree with this statement.
You also said that:
In the NT, sinners are told contantly to repent and believe (Matthew 3:2, 4:17, Acts 3:19, 1 John 3:23) and every time there is a call to repent, it is a choice.
Beautiful!!! Now, my question is, how in the world does this reconcile with theological position of predestination...especially in a Calvinistic sense? If you are not comfortable with Calvin's position, then maybe explain your own.
Weston,
So I went and read (More like slogged through it...through the article that triednotfried linked...
Let me offer another article...I promise it is not nearly as long and it is written in a much easier to digest form.
Predestination, Salvation and Damnation
Of special note, do Catholics believe in the elect? Yes. But not as defined by Calvinism:
By definition, the ELECT are those whom God infallibly foresees will be saved (Rom 8:28-30). By this definition, it is impossible for the elect to be lost, precisely because God foreknows who will not be lost. But since election depends on God's infallible foreknowledge, we simply have no way of knowing whether or not we are in that category -- God knows with certainty His elect, but we do not. The elect are predestined in the sense that God knows them, and enables them by grace, to be saved.
God bless...
Before I go into that, I'm wondering Weston if you could please show me scripturally where people are actually seeking God?
I can't. Or more precisely, I cannot offer an answer that will satisfy you. There are a number of cases of individuals seeking out Jesus, such as Zacchaeus, however all of them you will be able to explain away by claiming they had ulterior motives. Since we cannot possibly know their motives, it cannot be argued.
Instead, I ask you this: Is it some kind of cruel joke that God would require us to do something (seek Him) that we are completely unable to do?
Carlus, the Catholic stance on this issue makes so much more sense to me. When I consider the Calvinist viewpoint on the "elect", I get such a bitter taste in my mouth, it feels like it carries an air of superiority, like the Christian community is a clique, and that the word "elect" really means "elite". I do not get that same impression from the Catholic viewpoint.
Furthermore, the Catholic viewpoint reinforces my original point. Since we cannot know who are the "elect", we must make one of two assumptions: Either we assume that no one is elected or that everyone is. Since we know that the former is false (otherwise Heaven would be empty) then we must go with the latter; we must assume that everyone is elected and treat everyone as if they were a 'seeker'.
I like what Calvin has to say, I just don't like to be labeled...
The word is Ethelodoulos, it means being a voluntary slave. Man is not forced to be the servant of sin, but he is. We have free choice of good and evil, and we act voluntarily. But the question remains what can a dead man do? The Bible teaches that as a result of the fall, every man, every part of man, his mind, will and emotions and flesh, are corrupted by sin. It really affects every area of our being, including what we do. Isaiah 64:6, "all our righteous acts are like filthy rags" before a Holy God. The Bible says that we are sinners and sin by nature, or as Jesus taught "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit nor can a bad tree produce good fruit." (Matthew 7:17-18.
The term "total depravity" tends to freak people out, so why use it? How about moral inability, or righteous incapability???
The Bible says in Jeremiah 17:9 that Man's heart is "deceitful and wicked", his thoughts are "continually evil" Genesis 6:5. It also teached that man is born dead in transgression and sin Psalms 51:5 and Psalm 58:3, Ephesians 2:1-5. Because the unregenerate man is dead in transgressions, he is held captive by his love for sin (John 3:19, John 8:34) so that he will not seek God (Romans 3:10-11) and that he loves the darkness John 3:19....Nor does he understand the things of God 1 Corin. 2:14...lots of scripture but it's very important.
Read Romans 3:9-18 to see how Paul summarizes our sin-state....He begins this passage by saying that both Jews and Greeks and under sin. Man, before Christ is controlled by their selfish, sinful tendencies...In fact, what parent has taught their children to covet what someone else has, or to be selfish, or lie? Why are they there if not the sinful nature?
Total depravity to me doesn't mean that man is as wicked or sinful as he could be, nor does it mean that man is without a conscience, or a sense of right and wrong. It doesn't even mean that viewed by a human perspective, measured against human standard, that man cannot do things that seem to be good. In fact, it doesn't even mean that man can't do things that seem to conform outwardly to the Law of God. But look at Romans 14:23 and Hebrews 11:6 and you will see that even the "good" things man does are tainted by sin because they are not done for the glory of God, and out of faith in Him.
So here we are, with scripture that is very clear that all of man is affected by sin, so much so that "no one seeks after God"....then how can anyone possibly become a Christian? God has to overcome our depravity in a way that man is able to recognize his spiritual state and hopeless condition apart from God's grace. The blinders have to come off and the bondage of sin has to be broken. Then he is able to respond in faith to the gospel message and the atoning work of Christ on the cross.
I just don't see it any other way... when I hear someone say they came to Christ with their own free will, it takes me to Matthew 19:25-26 where the disciples asked the same thing of Jesus...His reply?
"25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” 26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
"Either we assume that no one is elected or that everyone is."
What happened to that middle ground you were talking about??? Not at all...We know there is a hell, we know people go there, obviously not all are elected...we know there is Heaven, some go there, therefore, some are elected.
Now, as far as being a witness, I will treat everyone like they are a believer, or potential believer....the rest is up to God.
"Instead, I ask you this: Is it some kind of cruel joke that God would require us to do something (seek Him) that we are completely unable to do?"
Hopefully I answered that in my really super long post...to think we can do anything from breathe to seek Him, without HIM? Just doesn't compute with me.
What happened to that middle ground you were talking about?
It's still there. It was originally in reference to our approach to 'seekers' as a middle ground between the soft-sell and hard-line approaches. I've not altered my opinion on that. As I said earlier, there is a time to stand firm and a time to be accommodating. With respect to the 'elect', it might be nice to know exactly who is going to Heaven and who is not; we could avoid wasting our time on the people who will never accept anyway. But because we don't have this knowledge, there is no way to take the middle ground, so we must opt for the option that could cause less harm.
Hopefully I answered that in my really super long post...to think we can do anything from breathe to seek Him, without HIM? Just doesn't compute with me.
Ah, but you said that some are not elected by God. If no one can seek God unless He gives them the ability, then there is a group of people that are completely unable to seek him. That's the cruel joke I was referring to. It like asking someone to fly and then not giving them wings.
Now, as far as being a witness, I will treat everyone like they are a believer, or potential believer....the rest is up to God.
This seems contradictory to your initial comment:
The problem to me with seeker friendly churches is that they assume all those lost folks are actually seeking God
Oh, by the way, thank you for including more verses in your comments, it has definitely helped the discussion.
"With respect to the 'elect', it might be nice to know exactly who is going to Heaven and who is not; we could avoid wasting our time on the people who will never accept anyway. But because we don't have this knowledge, there is no way to take the middle ground, so we must opt for the option that could cause less harm."
This makes no sense whatsoever. Yes there is a way to take the middle ground and it is in assuming that people are in fact seeking God and not try to be Him.
"Ah, but you said that some are not elected by God. If no one can seek God unless He gives them the ability, then there is a group of people that are completely unable to seek him. That's the cruel joke I was referring to. It like asking someone to fly and then not giving them wings."
I'm not explaining it again...go back and read Weston, this is not what was said. If God elects someone to be saved are they going to go to hell? Or do they spend their life working their way into Heaven? So God makes mistakes now? Is our salvation up to us? That's what you are saying...don't buy it.
The two references you refer to that "seem contradictory" are not...read them in context.
Really would like to hear your thoughts on how we are saved with scripture to back it.
Hey folks, you guys got me so interested in this that I started looking for stuff that might shed some light on the subject, I haven't read it all yet, but it seems to talk intelligently about election and the objections to it. Might be worth a read. I'm going to, since ya'll got me interested.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/9170/COLE3.HTM
"29 But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul. 30 When you are in distress and all these things have happened to you, then in later days you will return to the LORD your God and obey him. 31 For the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your forefathers, which he confirmed to them by oath." Duet. 4:29-31
9 "And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever."
1 Chronicles 28:9
"if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land."
2 Chronicles 7:14
"10 They assembled at Jerusalem in the third month of the fifteenth year of Asa's reign. 11 At that time they sacrificed to the LORD seven hundred head of cattle and seven thousand sheep and goats from the plunder they had brought back. 12 They entered into a covenant to seek the LORD, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul. 13 All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman. 14 They took an oath to the LORD with loud acclamation, with shouting and with trumpets and horns. 15 All Judah rejoiced about the oath because they had sworn it wholeheartedly. They sought God eagerly, and he was found by them. So the LORD gave them rest on every side."
2 Chronicles 2:10-15
10For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened."
Luke 11:10
"God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us."
Acts 17:27
"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."
Hebrews 11:6
In Old Testament and New Testament we are asked to seek God, and told that if we seek Him, we will find Him.
My perception of the world from my time in it is that all humans are seeking God. Some are "earnestly seeking" Him and will find Him as promised in scripture. I can't seem to find it right now, but I know there is a verse that refers to how each person is instilled with the desire for God ( even in our depravity). I'll look for it. Could be totally wrong, but I think I'm right.
So, a question for everyone... what about all the people in the world that don't have access to God's Word? How are they saved?
OK, I'll give a try. I would agree that all men seek something, and it is a wonderful idea to assume that all men seek GOD, but do they? Those scriptures say that we ought to seek Him, and when we do, there are good things in store. They don't seem to actually SAY that ALL men DO seek him.
Then we have other scriptures, mentioned earlier in the blog that I went and looked up:
"What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes." - Rom 3:9-18
Those words (I'm trying to just analyze the words) are speaking about ALL men - that seems to be the point of the author.
...to be continued
. . .continuation
To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.
The LORD looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God.
They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one. - from Ps 14
Now those words (I'm just analyzing words, not arguing) clearly are speaking about ALL men, and maybe the author of Romans was referring to them by the "it is written" bit in Romans.
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience-- among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved—Eph 2:1-5
Those words (just the words) are spoken by the author (the same guy who wrote Romans?) to church folks, and don't talk about seeking but the condition of those folks, of being DEAD before God giving them life.
So. . .we have words saying that we should seek God (the first set), and more words that say that nobody does. then we have some words (just words, mind you) that say that folks were dead and were made alive because God gave them life. Someone asked, logically, what CAN a dead man do? (tnf, I think)
So. . .we have an opinion based on observing people - that ALL men are seeking God. (kry)
There ws also a question earlier about God asking men to do somethng they are unable to do. (Weston?)
Looking at the words of the two sets of scripture, and assuming them to be true (they are in the same Bible), and analyzing the words, God doesn't just ask folks to seek, he commands them to. More words say that folks not only don't seek God, but can't (on account of being dead), until God gives them life.
So. . .to summarize all those words, God commands all men to seek Him but until something happens to 'raise them from the dead', they can't. Does that answer that fellow Weston's question?
About those folks who don't have access to God's word. . .I tried to find that also and came across this:
For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
Rom 10:14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? - Rom 10:13-14
More words from the same book. There is a timeline here, in kind of a reverse order. All who call on God to save them will be saved. Before anyone CAN call on God to save them they have to believe in Him. they come to believe in him because someone told them about God and Jesus. The 'preachers' are sent to them (I assume God sends them). Does that answer the "how" question?
So that's my take on the words of the Book that is supposed to give us answers to questions like these.
How did I do?
Now my brain is fried and I gotta do somethng else.
Everyone,
You guys rock....I am having a very hard time keeping up....
triednotfried,
If God elects someone to be saved are they going to go to hell?...So God makes mistakes now? Is our salvation up to us?
Do you see the subtle contradiction in these statements? You are saying that God elects people to salvation. It is God's choosing that ultimately determines if someone is going to go to heaven or not. This steps completely on free-will / choice, which you said that there is an element of in the life of the believer.
Then you go on to question if God makes mistakes. Under the assumption that God elects people to heaven and others to hell, yet in the scriptures we see that He desires ALL men to be saved, then I would have to say yes - God makes mistakes. Under the thought of deterministic predestination (where God determines who goes to heaven and who goes to hell regardless of the man's free-will), He makes mistakes. He either made a mistake in the inspiration of Scriptures where He said that He desires all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of Him, or He makes mistakes by causing not all men to be saved since that is what He really does will. Of course, the most probable thing is that the idea of deterministic predestination or God's election of those into heaven and others into hell, is an unreasonable theological position. I am sure that you know my vote, but just to be clear, I don't think that God makes mistakes...
thekrywickis,
First of all, great job on looking up those verses. Evidently they are showing that man is capable of searching for God. At the same time, they do not contradict the idea that it is God's grace that motivates and moves an individual to search for Him. Truly, we cannot do anything without God Grace...even choosing to seek for Him.
We can, however, choose to act against God's grace. This is where the whole free-will comes into place. God can supply the Grace, but we have to choose whether or not to work with that Grace, or completely rebel against it. This, I think, is the unpardonable sin of denying the Holy Spirit.
So, a question for everyone... what about all the people in the world that don't have access to God's Word? How are they saved?
Good question. Simple answer. They are saved the same way we are...through Jesus Christ.
This is worth a conversation on it's own, but to be brief, there are two types of ignorace - invincible and vincible. Vincible ignorance can reasonably be overcome with thought and searching for the truth. Invincible ignorance cannot.
This may provoke more questions than answers....but isn't that a good thing? ;)
God bless...
Carlus
D.L.,
OK, I'll give a try. I would agree that all men seek something, and it is a wonderful idea to assume that all men seek GOD, but do they? Those scriptures say that we ought to seek Him, and when we do, there are good things in store. They don't seem to actually SAY that ALL men DO seek him.
I am going to venture to say that all men do seek after God. Everyone seeks happiness, and every person's soul does not find complete rest and happiness until they rest and find God. So whether they directly or indirectly seek God, doesn't matter so much. The fact that they are seeking happiness, and God is that hapiness, they are seeking after Him.
And yes, it is is God's grace that is moving the soul to search.
Yes, I love it! This is awesome! Carlus, I was hoping you would pose those questions and thoughts to my post (or that someone would).
I knew the answer to my question there at the end: "So, a question for everyone... what about all the people in the world that don't have access to God's Word? How are they saved?" But I think it would make for a good discussion. God has indeed revealed Himself to everyone, has He not? So then that leads me to the question... if He's revealed Himself, how much seeking can we actually do?
D.L... yes, we are all seeking something! I was hoping someone would say that. I agree Carlus, that we are all seeking God whether we know it or not. Am I contradicting myself? I feel like I am.
More later as I need to get some work done now.
Good conversation everyone!
Excellent Carlus, I am definitely on the same page as you when it comes to these concepts.
I also agree with thekrywickis. I believe we're all created with a "hole" in our lives, so to speak. We "seek" to fill it with something. Many people try to fill it with the wrong things, like a square peg in a round hole. God taps us on the shoulder and says, "Look at me, I'm the piece that is meant to fill that hole". Unfortunately, many of us turn our backs on him and say, "I like my square peg better".
Let me again tie this back to the original topic and remind us why we're on this particular rabbit trail. Triednotfried originally posted:
Do me a favor when you have time and read, Psalm 14, Romans 3 and Ephesians 2. The problem to me with seeker friendly churches is that they assume all those lost folks are actually seeking God. Only those in whom God has begun the work in will really seek God, and won't run from concepts such as total depravity.....Scripturally speaking...can you show me some examples where people are actually seeking God?
I think we've effectively established that people do, in fact, seek God. Whether it is by their own power or by God's grace, that is an academic discussion. In all practicality, it doesn't change the fact that people do show up in church on Sunday seeking God. I think we've also established that we must assume that all "lost folks" are seeking God, because, even if it were true that God only chooses certain "elect" to save, we can't possibly know who those people are. Therefore, the concept of the "elect" should never show up in the way that we respond to seekers.
So, the fact that "Seeker Friendly" churches assume that all those lost folks are actually seeking God should not be a "problem" at all. Rather, it's exactly the approach we should take.
Churches are tasked with sowing the Word of Gospel into the hearts and minds of people. Now, if you've ever grown anything, you know that there is a most certainly middle ground to be had when cultivating plants. Too much sunlight and the sprout is burned; too little sunlight and the sprout withers. It's not until the plant is established that it starts to become hardy and can handle a wider range in amounts of sunlight and water. It's like this with seekers. New faith is like a sprout; too little truth and it fails to thrive; too much harsh truth and it may be burned and die. Even God realizes this. He knows that His glory is too blazing bright for a human to handle, which is why He only showed his back to Moses (Exodus 33:21-23).
thekrywickis,
C.S. Lewis I think said it best in Mere Christianity...
We . . . know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know him can be saved through him.
Now here is a mind bender. What about the OT saints - (Abraham, Moses, Jacob...). How were they saved? Through Christ. But they didn't know Christ, so how can they be saved by Him without knowing Him. The question presupposes that you have to know the name of Jesus Christ in order to be saved. If this is truly the case, then all of the people of the Old Testament, could not be saved.
Very interesting indeed....
if He's revealed Himself, how much seeking can we actually do?
I am a married man. I have seduced my wife into actually spending the rest of her life with me. Big win for me!!! Since I have already wooed her, is my job done? I mean, I already have her, how much more do I have to do? Don't I know all that I need to know. I can stop chasing her now, right? I could, but if I really loved her, I wouldn't.
That is the crazy thing about love. It is always growing and it is always calling you to go to the next level in the relationship. I think it is the same way with God. He is always calling us to take it to the next level. To grow in holiness and perfection. Holiness / Perfection meaning to grow in such a relationship with Christ and conform my will and life to His Will.
See...you got me rambling on and on and on.....this was going to be a short post...and now look at it.
you guys!!!!
Carlus: I know my questions were non-sensical and off track...that was purposefully done. I don't need my beliefs explained to me, I know them better than anyone... whether or not someone agrees is not my goal. I was explaining why I believe the way I do, now I'm done... =)
triednotfried,
I don't need my beliefs explained to me, I know them better than anyone... whether or not someone agrees is not my goal. I was explaining why I believe the way I do, now I'm done... =)
I don't think that I was being offensive but if I did offend, I am sorry.
Looking over my last response to you, I am just trying to understand the relationship between determined predestination where God determines where you will spend eternity and free will.
Typically, as far as my understanding of Calvinistic teaching, is that you cannot have both. Either you have free will and predestination is not determined by God, or you don't have free will and whether you spend eternity in Heaven or Hell is determined by God.
So of course, if you are telling me that you can have both free will and your destination is determined by God...I am naturally curious to know and understand...
God bless...
"Typically, as far as my understanding of Calvinistic teaching, is that you cannot have both." Exactly why I say don't label me...I don't learn from the book of Calvin, I learn from the Word.
I see both in His Word, so there has to be a way for both to be included. Going too far in one direction is not good...excluding one to make your point, is also wrong. It's simply not what it says on the pages of His word. What I see happening is people are trying to fully understand the mind of God and His ways...impossible. How can we ever fully understand the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's free will and responsibility?
God is truly the only one who knows how they work together in His plan of Salvation. I think instead of trying to be right in this discussion, it is more important to admit our inability for grasp fully the nature of God and our relationship with him....
Scripture is very clear that God determines who will be saved. Romans 8:29, 1 Peter 1:2...Ephesians 1:4, tells us that God chose us "before the creation fo the world." The Bible, over and over and over again, describes believers as the "chosen" Romans 8:33, 11:5, Ephesians 1:11, Colossians 3:12, 1 Thessalonians 1:4, 1 Peter 1:2, 2:9...and also that we are the "elect" Matthew 24:22, & 31, Mark 13:20, & 27, 1 Peter 1:2, 2:9, 1 Timothy 5:21, 2 Timothy 2:10, Titus 1:1, 1 Peter 1:1....we are predestined Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:5, 11 and we are elected for salvation Romans 9:11, 11:28, 2 Peter 1:10....how much more would you like?
The Bible is also clear that we are responsible for receiving Christ as our Savior. If we believe in Him we will be saved John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10...God knows who will be saved, God chooses who will be saved, and we have to choose Christ in order to be saved. I believe putting all of this together is impossible for our minds to even comprehend... Romans 11:33-36...It takes faith on our part to believe that they do indeed all work together...but more importantly, we should focus on being obedient to sharing the gospel to the best of our ability, and leave the foreknowledge, election and predestination of to God.
triednotfried,
"Typically, as far as my understanding of Calvinistic teaching, is that you cannot have both." Exactly why I say don't label me...
I did not mean to infer that you are a Calvinist. I don't believe that you are a true Calvinist at all. As a matter of fact, I don't think that there are many true Calvinist left in the world. For example, John Calvin believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Most self-proclaimed Calvinist, Reformed, Presbyterian today don't. Must be too close to Catholicism or something... ;)
What I see happening is people are trying to fully understand the mind of God and His ways...impossible. How can we ever fully understand the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's free will and responsibility?
I think that you are touching on something here that is very important. Mystery. There are things that are divinely revealed and then there are things that are mysteries. The mysteries are things that we cannot completely understand or the things that have not yet been divinely revealed.
I will admit, there is a certain amount of mystery when it comes to predestination and free-will. There are many speculations on the topic. Even though there are many speculations on a certain topic and we don't quite know the full answer, I think that through reason and divine revelation, we are able to at least throw out the ones that are self-contradicting and / or contradicts divine revelation.
While Calvin's position is coherent and not self contradicting within itself, I believe that it contradicts divine revelation in Scripture and should not be held as a potential explanation of the mystery of predestination, election and free will.
Thanks Wes for letting me post one more thing about predestination....
Wow. . .lot of stuff from you chatterboxes. I had to go back to my earlier comment that was all about the words, just the words about 'seekers'. There were words submitted that were pretty clear in telling us to seek God. there were other words that said nobody seeks God and a few more words that said that before we became believers, we were DEAD and the Spirit gave us life. Since DEAD men can't do much, the words seem to say that up until the Spirit does something to us we don't and cant' seek God.
I gotta go with God on the words, since I'm told He wrote the book through men. Assuming that to be true, the words saying we can't don't seek God must be true as well as the words that say at some point we become able, with the Spirit's help, to seek God.
Since the opinion held by three of you is that ALL men naturally seek God, and God's words say otherwise, who is telling the truth here?
Just a question about words, you undestand, nothing personal. If you three are right, the words in the Bible have to be wrong somehow.
D.L.,
Wow. . .lot of stuff from you chatterboxes.
I know!!! We have a hard time shutting up sometimes. ;)
Since DEAD men can't do much, the words seem to say that up until the Spirit does something to us we don't and cant' seek God.
So true...
I gotta go with God on the words, since I'm told He wrote the book through men. Assuming that to be true, the words saying we can't don't seek God must be true as well as the words that say at some point we become able, with the Spirit's help, to seek God.
Yes, yes....!!!! Let's call that help grace.
Since the opinion held by three of you is that ALL men naturally seek God, and God's words say otherwise, who is telling the truth here?
Great question. Scripture always tells the truth. However, that does not mean that everyone is guaranteed an accurate understanding of what it is saying. So let's dig a little further...
FYI - you made me pull out my Catechism of the Catholic Church...nicely done.
After reading the following excerpts from the Catechism (this is the official teaching of the Catholic Church), The Desire for God, I have a couple of thoughts.
When I mentioned before that every man seeks after God, directly or indirectly, I still believe this to be true. However, I think when Scriptures say that some seek after God and some do not, it is referring to the indirect search for God as not actually seeking. It comes back to that whole free-will thing and co-operating with God's Grace.
God supplies us with Grace that we need in order to turn to Him. I do not believe that He with holds that grace from anyone. Although some have more grace than others, I believe God is generous with His grace and gives everyone an amount that they need that will give the person the option of drawing closer to Him or not. God never gives us an amount of grace that makes things 100% obvious that He is Lord. If that were the case, what is the use of faith? In other words, He will never step on our free will. God seduces...He does not rape.
With that in mind, people can co-operate with that Grace and seek him, or they can reject that Grace and try to find happiness in other things. Biblically speaking, this may be the people who do not seek God. So let me restate my earlier position:
Everyone tries to find happiness and they will never find that true 100% happiness until they find it in God. Those who choose to co-operate with the Grace that God provides are actually seeking God in the Biblical sense. Those that reject that grace, are not seeking God in the Biblical sense, but instead they are searching for Love (which is God) in the wrong places. How does that square?
Just a question about words, you undestand, nothing personal. If you three are right, the words in the Bible have to be wrong somehow.
I have no problem with being wrong. Lord knows, seriously knows and not just a cliche' phrase, that I have had to eat a lot of crow before joining the Catholic Church - especially after all of the bad mouthing I did against it.
Hi DL... I think we are in agreement in our view points. People don't like to A) read and take the words on the page for what hey mean, and B) don't understand God fully so can not be content until they have completely reasoned Him out. It's very sad and causes alot of pain and division.
Some stuff we agree on here:
"I gotta go with God on the words, since I'm told He wrote the book through men. Assuming that to be true, the words saying we can't don't seek God must be true as well as the words that say at some point we become able, with the Spirit's help, to seek God."
Thank you for this it was very well said. There is simply no way that all men seek after God. One scripture alone will confirm that...anyone know what it is?
Enjoying what you have to say DL, keep up the seeking, He alone brings us to all truth.
Carlus: You know that we don't agree on the exclusive Club Catholic stuff, but I do think we agree on a couple of points about this wonderful God that we BOTH serve...I read along tho, and you say things like "Scripture always tells the truth."
then pull out your catechism to answer DL....the catechism is NOT making it clearer it is adding to what God has already established as His One True Word...stick to scripture...
triednotfried...
Carlus: You know that we don't agree on the exclusive Club Catholic stuff
Huh??? What exclusive Club Catholic stuff? What did I say here that made you make this comment?
, but I do think we agree on a couple of points about this wonderful God that we BOTH serve...
Definitely!!!
I read along tho, and you say things like "Scripture always tells the truth."
Yes, it does...
then pull out your catechism to answer DL....the catechism is NOT making it clearer it is adding to what God has already established as His One True Word...
I think that it is making things much clearer.
With this line of thinking, preachers, when they expound on the Word of God, are adding to what God has already established. Same would be true for any Biblical Commentary, theological study...
And since they add to the Word of God, you are suggesting that I...
stick to scripture...
Okay. In that case, no one should go to Church anymore because preachers add to the Word of God when they preach and don't recite their sermon straight from scripture. (wink)
I used the Catechism to help clarify a point, as well as take back an earlier comment. Either way, it was to help to better explain my position on the matter. Why wouldn't you use every tool at your disposal to help clarify the Truth, and when did this become a bad thing?
God bless...
"Huh??? What exclusive Club Catholic stuff? What did I say here that made you make this comment?" Here? Nothing...sorry, guess it was my "separated sister" coming out...ahem
I state this simply, I don't want to rabbit trail on Weston's blog...but if what you read in the Catechism actually clarified scripture instead of teaching false doctrine, it would be fine. But Rome says the Catholic Church etc is ALL truth so to be a good Catholic you are obligated to believe the truth that may be in it, as well as the lies. To you people, it is truth even if it contradicts scripture, and the whole thing is a mess...
Each of us have the Holy Spirit who gives their lives to Christ, who cannot and will not lie to us, and is declared in scripture as exactly how God teaches us, any book besides scripture is "mann-made" not inspired of the Spirit, and an inferior arbiter of the truth. That's like saying you can only read the Greek and Hebrew because it would be superior to consulting Strongs. Rediculous. There is a huge difference between teaching from the one true inspired by the Holy Spirit Bible...and teaching from another man-made book and calling it scripture. The only way people can rest on Rome is if individual believers don't receive the Holy Spirit and it's just the "Church" to whom it is given...that's about as false as you can get since I and every other believer has the Holy Spirit within them.
I stand by the statement that all men by their NATURE seek God, it is patently false and not found in God's Word.
triednotfried, can you please clarify this comment as it relates to this blog?
"People don't like to A) read and take the words on the page for what hey mean, and B) don't understand God fully so can not be content until they have completely reasoned Him out. It's very sad and causes alot of pain and division."?
In other words, are you referring to the other three of us? I really hope not. We are earnestly seeking the truth, and this is a difficult subject to fully understand.
Carlus, you did a beautiful job answering D.L.'s question:
"Since the opinion held by three of you is that ALL men naturally seek God, and God's words say otherwise, who is telling the truth here?"
and a good job answering triednotfried's comment that you were adding to scripture. There are many tools we can use to help us understand the truth.
D.L., I don't know that I necessarily believe that all men "naturally" seek God. That doesn't jive with our sinful nature. I stated this a few days ago:
"My perception of the world from my time in it is that all humans are seeking God. Some are "earnestly seeking" Him and will find Him as promised in scripture. I can't seem to find it right now, but I know there is a verse that refers to how each person is instilled with the desire for God ( even in our depravity). I'll look for it. Could be totally wrong, but I think I'm right."
Let me clarify... GOD is the one that puts that desire in man. That's not something we can take credit for, and I did a very poor job of explaining myself. The thing I am not totally clear on is whether He put that in all mankind or only the elect.
More later...
(oh, and PS, you can call me Kara)
"In other words, are you referring to the other three of us? I really hope not. We are earnestly seeking the truth, and this is a difficult subject to fully understand. "
Completely agree Kara, but the fact is that the three of you and I do not agree in our belief systems. It's in no way to put you guys down, just we don't agree...and that needs to be ok. I'm fine with my belief system and am not here to convince anyone otherwise... I could get all upset and say that the opinions of you three against me is attacking what I believe as well, but I won't. I take God's Word for what it says...as far as the comment
A) People want to assume things to fit into their way of thinking instead of just reading and believing the words on the page, which is done alot here.
B) There is no way to understand the mystery of God or His ways. Yet we fall into the trap of needing to be right without just taking God at His Word...which also goes on alot here. Both Predestination and Free Will are in the Bible, I gave my take on it...not here to argue, it's how I believe and what I take from scripture...that should be ok.
Kara,
Thanks for the words of affirmation...
Carlus
Everyone,
I have a moral dilemma. Triednotfried has completely attacked my faith and I want so bad to respond...but that would be rude to my host. At the same time, if I don't respond, it may give credence to her accusations - which of course I will not tolerate nor can I allow.
So instead, I have decided to respond on my blog to her accusations, so that I don't take further focus away from Wes original intent with this blog post.
triednotfried,
Let's save the anti-Catholic bashing for a platform that is more appropriate for that discussion.
Carlus: Oh, I see, my beliefs are the only ones to be challenged...got it.
Weston: We actually agree on many things...honing in on specifics is incredibly hard and sometimes uncomfortable, but I respect what you are doing here...I feel like I've explained myself as much as i can...everyone is in charge of their own walk..I have to stay true to what the Holy Spirit, and sound teaching through the years has taught me. That is all.
I am thoroughly confused, because I am honestly just trying to understand the "words on the page". :-)I still have a lot to learn, and I will be the first to admit it! In no way am I trying to fit the Bible into my way of thinking. God's Word is Truth, end of story.
Triednotfried, I am definitely not trying to change your beliefs. No, no, no. You said, "There is no way to understand the mystery of God or His ways."
Yes, that's what I've been trying to say, although maybe not so clearly
"Yet we fall into the trap of needing to be right without just taking God at His Word...which also goes on alot here."
Again, hope you aren't directing that at me. I'm really just trying to understand because I don't."
"Both Predestination and Free Will are in the Bible, I gave my take on it...not here to argue, it's how I believe and what I take from scripture...that should be ok."
I'm not here to argue either, and I respect your input on here a lot. Please don't get fed up and leave. We need you. But please also give us a chance to explain our thoughts and understandings as well. We may be DEAD WRONG, but that's why Wes created this blog, so we can seek the truth on the tough topics. :-)
We're all friends here, right guys? Let's respect each other. I thought this was a good conversation until it got a little hairy at the end. Just trying to be the peacemaker.
Kara
Much has been made of the question, "what can a dead man really do?". I know it was meant as a rhetorical question, but I'm going to answer it anyway. The answer is: Quite a lot, actually. In fact, every bad or good act since the fall of Man has been done by a "dead" man.
to think we can do anything from breathe to seek Him, without HIM? Just doesn't compute with me.
Really? You can't imagine doing anything apart from God? What about sin? Any time you disobey God, you're either doing it on your own, apart from God, or he is enabling you to do it.
Since the opinion held by three of you is that ALL men naturally seek God, and God's words say otherwise, who is telling the truth here?
That's not really what I said. There are a couple concepts that you've lumped into that summary that I don't agree with. Here's my understanding of things:
- People are created with a need for God. This is evidenced by the number of established religions. People naturally want to worship something. Even in Atheism, where there is no deity, intellect is 'worshiped'.
- Humans attempt to fill this need by seeking out something. If left to their own devices, this something is not God, but rather things like happiness, pleasure, prestige, etc. It's not that humans cannot seek God, it's that human nature makes it so that they do not on their own. Again, the evidence for this is found in human history.
- God desires all people to be in fellowship with Himself. Because of this, God commands us to seek Him, rather than the other things we chase after. Evidence: See Kara' previous post for a good list of verses.
- In order to make us aware that He exists and is the object that we are seeking, God reveals himself to all people through General Revelation (His Creation), Special Revelation (The Bible), Community Revelation (my term, i.e the community of believers, ), and Direct Revelation (again my term; the Holy Spirit). Evidence: Many verses in the Bible; can be provided upon request.
- Given that God has now made it possible for us to be aware of, and seek him, we must then make a choice to do so or not. i.e. We have free will to choose to seek God or not. Evidence: Luke 11:10, Revelation 3:20
That's my position on the topic at hand.
Now that I got that out there, on to the stuff that happened while I was composing that. Time to put on my referee shirt. (I really do have one, by the way)
Weston,
Here's my understanding of things:
I completely, 100% agree with your points made.
Now, with my referee shirt on (no, not literally), let's talk.
Triednotfried, I'm citing you for unnecessary roughness. You crossed several lines in your comments to Carlus. In the interest of open and civil debate, I'm going to point them out so that you and those watching can better know where the lines are.
"exclusive Club Catholic stuff" - This is simply placing an unnecessary label where it doesn't belong. Was not needed.
"But Rome says the Catholic Church etc is ALL truth so to be a good Catholic you are obligated to believe the truth that may be in it, as well as the lies" - A lie is a false statement made with the deliberate intent to deceive. You are making an inflammatory accusation here that you do not have the grounds to make. If you think that the Catholic Church intentionally intends to deceive its members I believe you are deluded and just slinging mud.
"People want to assume things to fit into their way of thinking instead of just reading and believing the words on the page, which is done alot here." - Again, you're making sweeping generalizations that you have no right to make.
Bottom line, Triednotfried, you need to check yourself; you're starting to attack people instead of ideas and I won't stand for that.
---------
People want to assume things to fit into their way of thinking instead of just reading and believing the words on the page, which is done alot here.
There is no difference. By reading the words on the page, you are incorporating them into your way of thinking. If, by this statement, you mean that we are attempting to understand the words that we have read rather than blindly accepting them, then I accept the accusation. Guilty as charged. I am always going to make an attempt to understand my beliefs.
There is no way to understand the mystery of God or His ways.
I disagree entirely. God is very rational and He gifted us with rational minds so that we can use them. I may not understand why God does something because His reasons are hidden from me, but I am certain that He has reasons for everything He does. Many of those reasons are explained in the Bible. For the ones that aren't, some of them can be understood through study and reason, while others will remain hidden. To say that we should accept what is taught blindly and without question is to do the very thing that you ridiculed Catholic believers for doing.
Yet we fall into the trap of needing to be right without just taking God at His Word...which also goes on alot here.
Either give examples or apologize for your baseless accusations.
Each of us have the Holy Spirit who gives their lives to Christ, who cannot and will not lie to us...
This will be the topic of my next blog post.
...any book besides scripture is "man-made" not inspired of the Spirit, and an inferior arbiter of the truth
And this will be the topic after that.
Carlus, thank you for keeping your cool in the face of some pretty inflammatory shots. I agree, we're here to discuss ideas, not people or denominations.
This is rediculous, Kry, I have the utmost respect for you...in fact you are amazing to write what you wrote...feel free to come to my blog anytime..
Wes and C...done, won't be back. Have fun in your mutual admiration society...
DL..you rock, hope to talk with you again sometime.
I don't understand why people feel like they have to quit rather than just modifying their behavior.
So I slapped your hand for being rude. There's a simple solution: Stop being rude, pick up your bruised pride, and just get on with the discussion!
Why do people feel the need to take some last parting shot and then take their toys and go home?
Got this in an email from a friend of mine in Denver today. I might have to post it to Little Bits:
I’m off to the Grace Church men’s retreat today. “Biblical Masculinity” whatever that is? I guess you have to gird up your loins before you barbeque them :)
About the “words”. I’m all about the words. I ticked some folks off. The work that I do that pays the mortgage and ‘stuff’ is a whole lot about “words”. I am not the author, but I read the stuff from the authors and am obliged to ask the questions:
“What does that mean”?, or “I understand from your ‘words’ that you mean this or that – IS that what you mean?”
I am required to know enough about the subject matter I am reviewing to ask the questions. The end state is a document/product in which authors have said exactly what they mean in the “words”. Sure there is some technical jargon but the ‘customer’ is technical enough to understand it. However the authors must say, in words, exactly what they mean.
Well, I read the Bible paying utmost attention to the “words”. I go in assuming God wrote it through various men and is a pretty good author and was able to say exactly what he meant with “words”.
Sometimes we can’t understand it all and need to leave at the God level. But there is a shole lot we can and should understand rightly from the “words” (in context of course).
So when I hear someone say that it is his/her opinion that the meaning of something doesn’t seem to fit the author’s words, I ask hard questions. He/she might not have put the right words to their thoughts. Happens to all of us.
The questions can even sound like I am being personal, however, that is not the case. It’s all about the words and it doesn’t make any difference who wrote them.
So that’s me and “words.” :)
Well, I just wanted to get that out there. . .I’m going to heat up some leftover BBQ. If ya’ll were here I would share – there’s plenty and I’ve been told one of the best places to get great BBQ (and sometime the BEST) in the southern half of this state is at my house.
I hope ya’lls’ dinner was/will be as excellent as mine!
Triednotfried, I think I will stay here, but thank you for the offer. You may not see it, unfortunately, but Weston and Carlus are seekers of the truth, my (really OUR) brothers in Christ. I respect them a lot and I think they have done an excellent job bringing up tough questions, and backing up most of their thoughts with scripture. Could they be wrong sometimes? Yes. We are all imperfect. Carlus and Weston both admitted they may be wrong. I don't think the three of us are willing to bet our lives on whether we understand predestination and the elect like you seem to be. But it's not a salvation issue. Apparently it's now a personal issue though, and that's quite unfortunate.
Weston, two things... you did a great job explaining "what can a dead man do?" Excellent. We were created in His image. Somewhere in there He placed a desire for Him, some of us realize how to fill that desire, some don't. But that's not to our credit, it's to our Creator's credit. There's scripture that backs this up, I know it! I'm still searching, haven't had as much time as I hoped to pour over this.
Second...
"There is no way to understand the mystery of God or His ways.
I disagree entirely. God is very rational and He gifted us with rational minds so that we can use them. I may not understand why God does something because His reasons are hidden from me, but I am certain that He has reasons for everything He does. Many of those reasons are explained in the Bible. For the ones that aren't, some of them can be understood through study and reason, while others will remain hidden."
At first I wasn't sure where you were going with this, but in the end I see your point. We can understand SOME of His ways, but not all. He is infinite and we are finite (and stupid... just sayin'). But if there were really no way to understand at least some of His ways, then why would He give us His word and the Holy Spirit? He's revealed to us exactly what we need to know. But there are also paradoxes, and many ways of God that we don't understand. Perhaps that's what tnf meant, that's how I took it. I guess we'll never know her meaning.
Carlus, I haven't been to your blog yet. I don't have a good understanding of Catholicism, or the Catechism that was referred to, so I can't way whether I agree with it or not. But even if I didn't, we'd still be friends. We'll still be in heaven together. :-)
TNF, you once said to me: "yup, what Carlus said... =) I'm sure the Lord has slapped his forehead and said "ugh" a time or two with our conversations...." in response to him stating you were friends. I just wanted to remind you. :-)
Yep, Weston's dead man can do stuff thing was interesting. Spiritually dead men do a lot of things in the physical realm. But they can't do a thing spiritually - they don't desire God, they don't seek God, they cannot choose Christ - and in fact are by nature objects of God's wrath, Psalm 14, Romans 3 and Eph 2 (previously offered).
the question was indeed rhetorical, Weston knew that and Weston chose to comment that dead men do a lot of things here on earth, which was kinda neat, but completely missed the point of spiritually dead men not seeking God.
I was trying to sort of bring things back to the point of the blog and the blog author himself created a diversion.
The whole thing about 'words' was to show that the plain words of the bible, even without knowledge of Greek and Hebrew tell us that by nature, we are not God-seekers.
That's all and there is nothing personal in that. It's the 'words' remember?
It's not about what Calvin, Luther, the Pope, or Mickey Mouse have to say about it. Why can't we just stick to the words? It's also not about our opinions about it. Our 'wisdom' is foolishness to God.
There seems to be a bit of "agreeism" here - Weston and Carlus are quite happy with themselves when they agree on stuff and when they mutually disagree on other stuff.
So I guess I'll mosey on down the path and maybe I'll find some folks who want to talk about the 'words', just the 'words.
Kyra,
Carlus, I haven't been to your blog yet. I don't have a good understanding of Catholicism...
That is okay....neither do I. Just when I think I understand something, that is when I am challenged and I am forced to dig deeper.
or the Catechism that was referred to, so I can't way whether I agree with it or not.
A Catechism is a compiled book of what a particular faith believes. The Catechesim of the Catholic Church, has within it, what the Catholic Faith believes, Heildeberg / Westminister Catechesism is what the Reformed faith believes, Anglican Catechesim is what the Anglican believe...so on and so forth. It is just a compiled record of official church doctrine and teachings.
I would bet that there are going to be some things that you agree with in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as things that you don't agree with.
But even if I didn't, we'd still be friends. We'll still be in heaven together. :-)
Sweet!!!
D.L.,
There seems to be a bit of "agreeism" here - Weston and Carlus are quite happy with themselves when they agree on stuff and when they mutually disagree on other stuff.
Can you go into this more?
I think that it is scandal, in the biblical sense, that Christians are not united. It is a horrible disservice to the Gospel message and our witness to the world that Jesus Christ is King, when we bicker amongst ourselves. No, it is not alright that we disagree, at the same time, we are all called to proclaim the Truth, and let God do the rest. The only problem with this equation is that even though we may believe in completely contradicting things, we each think that we have the truth. Of course, this is impossible.
Hope you stick around!!!
Not saying we shouldn't agree on things, only that 'what' we agree on maybe should first and foremost agree with scripture. Having two guys or a cast of thousands all agreeing and happy doesn't make it right or true. I reckon there will be a heap of folks who arrive at the Pearly Gates all agreed up and happy who might be told to get on down the road.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think a fellow's stance on who seeks God or who doesn't is going to be the deciding factor there.
Personally, when I consider the fact that I was born a rebel and couldn't/didn't seek God, but He gave me life, along with he ability and desire to seek him, and then brought me to the cross. . .(all in words I have read in the Bible). . .well, it means I have a great BIG God.
Maybe it's what that fellow that wrote that old hymn "Amazing Grace" meant.
Again, nothing personal.
D.L., I totally understand where you're coming from about the importance of the 'words'. It's important enough to me that it takes me forever to write anything because I need to have a thesaurus handy whenever I write; I have to find the best word to capture my thoughts.
However, considering your job as a 'reviewer of words', I would think that you of all people would relate to the fact that, just because there are words in black and white on a page, doesn't mean that two people will arrive at the same understanding of the words. Some words are incontrovertible; it's very difficult to not understand what they mean. Take the shortest verse in the Bible, John 11:35, "Jesus wept." You won't find many people who disagree on the meaning of this verse. It's pretty clear. However, take Ephesians 2:1 "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins.... Can you see how people could not understand the words that are written? What does the author mean there? I can confidently say that I've never been dead in my entire life. So evidently it's a metaphor, meaning not literal physical death, but instead some "death-like" state. What does that mean? If I cut off the circulation in my arm and it goes all tingly, I say "My arm has gone dead." When I plug in a strand of christmas tree lights and it fails to light up, I say, "The lights are dead". When people see a convict being led to the electric chair, they say "Dead man walking". When a teenager is out too late and his parents find out, he says to his friend, "Man, I'm so dead when I get home." In each of these examples, the word is the same, but the meaning is different.
The reason we discuss these things is so that we can figure out what the author meant when he wrote it. The purpose of this blog is to discuss the parts of the Bible that aren't completely clear, or topics that the Bible just doesn't speak about entirely. Every Sunday there are thousands of sermons preached all around this country that deal with the things that no one disputes, the "easy" topics, like the fact that God loves us, Jesus died for our sins, etc. There's a lot of people talking about these things; so much so, that I don't really feel like I need to add to it. Instead, I'm here to explore the topics that are avoided because they're not understood well.
One of these topics is the way churches respond to "seekers" that enter their doors. We've not really talked about that topic much in this discussion, instead we've gotten caught up in whether God draws people or whether people seek God on their own. To a certain extent, this doesn't really matter a whole lot because, either way, people show up in church on Sunday seeking God. Where it does matter is when churches start thinking that they are an elite club of "chosen" people. Can you imagine if a pastor got up and said, "I'm sorry, but about half of you are not God's chosen and need to leave now." Now, I know that's not likely to happen for real, but the reality is that some churches respond to seekers in a very similar manner.
I'm sorry if I've made too much of deal about agreeing with Carlus, than say Kara, or you. It's a big deal to me because we come from two very different religious backgrounds. I expect to agree with Kara because we're both coming from Protestant backgrounds. It's more of a surprise to me when I find myself agreeing with Carlus and his Catholic viewpoint because I've been taught all my life that Catholics have it all wrong, like TNF when she called their catechism lies.
I echo Kara's sentiments when I say that I hope you stick around too! I appreciate your personality and the approach you take to these topics. Although, you're making me jealous and my mouth water with all this talk of delicious BBQ!
Just visited triednotfried's blog. Carlus, perhaps you should read today's post. I really hope you guys can work this out. :-)
Goodnight everyone...
Wes (can I call you Wes?)
I certainly appreciate the need to find out what the author meant when he wrote his 'stuff'. I also think that God is often clearer in his Book than we think, when a verse or passage seems unclear at first. The clarity comes by letting scripture interpret scripture.
I remember some time ago observating that there were a bucket load of 'seeker friendly' churches popping up and advertising themselves that way. Now I think that's a swell idea! Then I noticed that most of them seemed to behave as if everyone who came throught th doors is 'seeking God' because all men by nature are seeking.
So when I read Romans 3:11, which led me to Ps 14, one of the breaker switches in my brain housing group went off!
Obviously some folks really seek and eventually trust in Christ, yet a couple of places (I found more also) say we don't. So the question becomes 'at what point' does someone go fom 'seeking something' (point of agreement of all of us) to 'seeking God'.
That's where Eph 2 comes in. The Spirit gives life to the 'dead and can't' (remember the 'what can a dead man do?) so they 'can and do'.
Now I know that brings up a few more hefty questions, but concerning the 'seeker friendly' business - "Words" pretty much settled the matter for this simple old soldier.
Some times the words outta be sufficient to settle the matter. Sure we can have a discussion about it, but is our consensus of opinion the right goal?
The ribs were great!
Good Morning everyone. I wanted to come here and apologize for my behavior the other day.... I was less than respectful to people who are seeking the truth about God and regardless of our differences, need to be. Catholicism is a tough one for me for many reasons, I am trying to work through and past some things, and while at my blog I will be presenting why I feel the Catechism is wrong, it will be done in a respectful manner... Carlus, you know I love you, but your belief system, to me, still is not something that I feel honors God or represents the true church, and how God sees His people. My love for Him far outweighs anything or anyone else in my life, so I'm kinda in a pickle. But i will show you respect and am sorry for how I treated you. I will continue seeking, and if I can' say somethin' nice...well I'm a fan of Thumper... Praying that we all have a God centered Sunday...
Kyra,
Just visited triednotfried's blog. Carlus, perhaps you should read today's post. I really hope you guys can work this out. :-)
Thanks for the heads up.
triednotfried,
Good Morning everyone. I wanted to come here and apologize for my behavior the other day.... I was less than respectful to people who are seeking the truth about God and regardless of our differences, need to be...But i will show you respect and am sorry for how I treated you.
Apology accepted...and looking forward to more respectful discussion of our differences.
I did get a chance to stop by your blog too...
God bless you on your journey.
Triednotfried, thank you for the apology to Carlus. We all have our moments where our emotions get the best of us. I think I speak for everyone here when I say there are no hard feelings. Please feel free to stick around.
D.L.,
Then I noticed that most of them seemed to behave as if everyone who came throught th doors is 'seeking God' because all men by nature are seeking.
This seems to be very similar to the point TNF was trying to make. I'm not sure I really understand. If a church is to not behave as if everyone who came throught their doors is 'seeking God', what would that look like? In what ways would you alter the 'seeker friendly' churches to be more in line with what the Bible teaches?
Sure we can have a discussion about it, but is our consensus of opinion the right goal?
I have to ask the (non-rhetorical) question; In light of the article I just wrote on truth, what other options do we have for discovering truth in this case, other than discussion with other believers? I get how 'consensus' or 'group-think' can be a really bad thing; after all, in the past everyone agreed that the earth was flat. Commitees come up with some of the dumbest ideas in the world. Right now there is a large group of people going absolutely nuts about being "Green". But, by the same token, it is by this very same mechanism (discussion with peers) that we all now know that the earth is round. So, by what other means does one determine the meaning of the words in the Bible that are harder to understand? (just to clarify, I'm not being a smart aleck here; I'm really asking and anyone else is welcome to take a crack at answering the question too)
Thinking over it, assuming everyone is a seeker isn't the big issue. Maybe the reason most seeker friendly churches I've seen or been in are awfully light on the true gospel and awfully prone to making church as much like the world as possible so the 'seekers' of 'something' will get comfortable enough around church folks so maybe down the road they become true seekers of God because they like us. These sorts of churches talk like we are the center of God's universe, which is not scriptural, from what I have read in the words of scripture.
"what other options do we have for discovering truth in this case, other than discussion with other believers?"
What's the case? Who really seeks God? If that's it, just read the book. No consensus needed. We might be talking about different cases.
Carlus: "God bless you on your journey." Thank you, He does every minute of every day.... =)
Weston: I think I understand what DL is saying', maybe it's because it seems like we're both "country folk" but I think we agree on the seeker thing.
I'll just give you my thoughts. I don't believe that all men seek God. It is not scriptural. Since God says if you seek you will find, and many instead choose Hell, that can't be true or His "Seek and you will find" scripture would be a cruel joke. It would seem that churches who cater to these people who are not really seeking anything except to feel better about themselves and not truly seek God, and yes there are people like that, but the churches who cater to these people tone down the religious overtones and try to conform to the non-churchers to attract them to church. HUGE red flag!
What in your opinion does it mean when God says there will be many who will call Lord Lord...yet He is gonna say depart from me, I never knew you. I don't want to give account when I stand before the Lord for being one of those that misled. No you don't have to be harsh all the time, sometimes there is a time and place for it... Sometimes God will use ya to wake people up out of years of being in a Spiritually void stupor. This "I don't want to step on anyone's toes" usually means the gospel is being watered down to a point that it is ineffective.
If my walk with the Lord is nothing but comfort, entertainment and ease, I know I am WAY off base. That is not what Jesus taught, He was more concerned about their eternal destiny and didn't mind if people were convicted of sin, and brought to their knees. I am less concerned with winning the favor of people than I am in pleasing God. I know this took a little bunny trail, but I think it all ties in together. I don't believe all people seek, and I think churches that assume that won't reach the ones that do. Churches who act as if all men seek will not hold to the standard Jesus set for presenting the Gospel, they will instead bend to the will of man.
Wes, perhaps a lot of confusion would be cleared up if you described what you consider to be a seeker friendly church? I see DL and TNF referring to churches that water down the Gospel or try to make church more "comfortable". I don't think that's what you're after at all, because that just doesn't sound like your character to me.
Today as I sat in church I was thinking a lot about this discussion we've been having. I love my church, my pastor does awesome job at presenting the truth, backing everything up with scripture, not taking anything out of context, using word pictures to help us understand the words on the page. (I attend an Evangelical Free church, just FYI).
Then I was thinking about how thankful I was for the Keynote (Apple version of Powerpoint) presentation so that I could follow along with the pastor.
Then I was thinking about the way we worship at our church, our praise team and how much it adds to the worship time to have so many instruments involved.
Then, as the sermon came to a close, our pastor presented the Gospel message clearly and concisely so that anyone could follow along, and offered to speak with anyone who had questions. He does this every Sunday, preceding the message with a statistic of how many people who are "churched" aren't truly saved.
That to me is a "seeker friendly" church. The TRUTH is presented every week. It's not watered down, it's not comfortable. It's this church that has challenged me to grow in the Lord more than any other church has before. It's made me the MOST uncomfortable I've ever been in my walk with Christ, and it's why I love it so. We are a church that believes in community outreach, taking care of our church family, and providing for the physical needs of those that are lost so that they are able to concentrate on the message of the Gospel.
This to me is TRULY seeker friendly. Other churches that have the mission of making people feel better about themselves, well then I guess I don't understand how it can be called a church because it's not what we're commanded to do in scripture.
I know that's only half our discussion, but I thought maybe someone defining "seeker friendly" would help. If Wes' definition differs, I'm sure he will say so, but I'm thinking we're on the same page.
I think you nailed it on the head, Kara, with your description of a "proper" seeker friendly church.
As I said in my original article, discarding the foundational principles of Christianity in order to create a place where people can just "feel good about themselves" is wrong. But swinging the pendulum the extreme opposite direction and creating a "seeker unfriendly" environment is equally wrong.
Basically, I think we need to make Christianity as accessible to people as we can, without diluting the message. Or in other words, we need to strive to be "seeker friendly", but the moment we start influencing people to seek anything other than God, whether it is prosperity or health or whatever, we've crossed the line.
The tricky part is recognizing when we've crossed the line. There are so many good ideas that can lead in the wrong direction. For example, how enthusiastic can your worship be, before it turns into entertainment? Are we so scared of our worship services turning into "entertainment" that we strip all the joy and enthusiasm out of our worship? What about the use of anecdotes and word pictures in sermons? Are we scared that people might enjoy listening to the sermons too much that we resort to complex theological rhetoric? What about churches that offer counseling services? When does that start turning the church into a "self-help" center? But do we flee from that and force people to get their advice from secular psychiatrists?
I guess my point is that, while we need to recognize the potential danger of going too far, we should still be striving to be as welcoming as possible to unbelievers. I believe that Jesus operated in a very "seeker friendly" way. For evidence of this, just look at his use of parables. He used simple stories to explain complex theological concepts to the average person. Wasn't he concerned that people might show up just to hear a good story? Apparently, the importance of getting his message across in an understandable way outweighed the danger that someone might be there for the wrong reasons.
In fact, he had some pretty harsh words for the way the religious teachers of the day were going about it:
Luke 11:46 - Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them."
Luke 11:52 - "Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered and you have hindered those who were entering."
Wes: Words and their meaning can completely get lost in this forum. It's tough....but I think you hit a nail as well by saying there needs to be balance. It's key to any principle within God's Word.... thanks.
Did we ever come to any sort of consensus about seekers? Do all men seek God? Are some just seekers of something while others are really seeking God?
D.L.
+1 for all men do not seek God. While God does provide the Grace necessary for everyone to seek, not everyone will co-operate with that Grace.
Blessings...
Man, by their nature, do not seek God. But I agree with Carlus, God does provide the grace necessary for everyone to seek... none are blameless or without excuse.
Well, that's 2 so far. I'm just trying to see if there's a consensus, since that's Wes' goal.
Post a Comment