| Poster | Thread |
philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Open Questions for John MacArthur | | Let me say to begin that I honour John Piper highly. I believe him to be a man of God with a warm heart and desire to serve God in truth. I regard him as the 'acceptable face of contemporary Calvinism' and a very gifted communicator. However, I disagree with some of his fundamental statements.
I doubt that John Piper will ever see this post but I have just listened to his podcast Q&A on the topic of 'election'... and I have some questions.
The introduction suggests that the whole question revolved around the issue of who takes the initiative in salvation. The suggestion is that Calvin and many another including John Piper and the apostles believe that God takes the initiative but that Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, Arminians and fellow travellers believe that man takes the initiative. As the programme would conclude that I am among the fellow travellers I feel I need to say that this is a mistaken oversimplification. I also believe that God takes the initiative. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Faith cannot precede God's initiative. If there is no 'word' there can be no faith. Some people with a reformed position use the language of synergism or monergism. Does God do the whole thing 'alone' ie monergism or does God do the thing in cooperation with the believers faith? Does synergism really demean the sovereign authority of God?
As the Q&As progress we are introduced to the idea that by 'election' the speakers are referring to 'election to salvation'. We are informed that the idea is apostolic and earlier... the quote being given... [color=0000ff]For Jacob my servants sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me. (Is 45:4 KJVS)[/color] ... but what can this mean in this context? Does this mean that all the physical descendants of Jacob/Israel are 'elected to salvation'? If so what are we to say about the history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah and what exactly constitutes 'Israel'. Do we want to say that Achan and Ahab were 'elected to salvation'?
Actually the conversation refers also to 'elected for a purpose' but it is presumed that the purpose is 'salvation'. Reference is made to the way that we use the word 'election' in the choosing of someone to fulfill a purpose, but do those we 'elect' always fulfill the purpose of their 'election'?
Where does it say that 'Israel' was elected to 'salvation'?
John Piper also says that the only freedom we have prior to being saved is the 'freedom to choose our poison' (his words). By this he explains that man has no freedom to choose God but only freedom to choose the ways in which he will disobey God. Is this true? What does 'choose you this day whom you will serve' mean if my only power of choice is to choose the way I will refuse to serve God? And what does 'choose life' mean if my only power of choice is the choice of choosing the cause of my death?
I am not really anti-Calvinist. It is just that I am quite unconvinced about some of their pronouncements. Is there anyone out there who could take up these questions in a spirit of gentle enquiry rather than a 'we take no prisoners' rhetoric?
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
|
 2006/10/24 5:48 | Profile |
rookie
Member
Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4821
Savannah TN
| | Re: Open Questions for John Piper | | Brother Ron wrote:
Quote:
What does 'choose you this day whom you will serve' mean if my only power of choice is to choose the way I will refuse to serve God?
Man without revelation is doomed by his carnal mind, his fallen nature. Yet, it is God who reveals Himself to man. Man then has a choice according to the Scripture you have pointed to.
The revelation of God through His word is the means by which man is brought to know His salvation.
Psa. 119:41 VAU. Let thy mercies come also unto me, O LORD, even thy salvation, according to thy word.
Psa. 119:81 CAPH. My soul fainteth for thy salvation: but I hope in thy word.
Psa. 119:123 Mine eyes fail for thy salvation, and for the word of thy righteousness.
Those who hear and obey are the seed of Abraham...
Psa. 96:2 Sing unto the LORD, bless his name; shew forth his salvation from day to day.
These are the remnant saved by grace through faith. For they are enabled by God to "shew forth His salvation from day to day."
In Christ
Jeff
_________________
Jeff Marshalek
|
|
| 2006/10/24 6:27 | Profile |
philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
These are the remnant saved by grace through faith. For they are enabled by God to "shew forth His salvation from day to day."
So 'Israel' is the remnant saved by grace? If so, then the word 'Israel' means those who are 'elect' and the phrase is almost a tautology. This will start other 'hares running' but in that case how could we express this...?
a) Israel is mine elect
b) Mine elect is Israel.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
|
| 2006/10/24 7:13 | Profile |
roadsign
Member
Joined: 2005/5/2
Posts: 3777
| | Re: | | Quote:
the only freedom we have prior to being saved is the 'freedom to choose our poison' (his words)
What a hopeless statement!!!!!
I would never tell an unsaved person that.
Why proclaim such bad news when God has offered Good News to the world? God is not willing that any should perish.
I believe that the devil tempts countless to feel that there is nothing they can do about their condition, and so they are left in the prison of futility and hopelessness. (That thinking is the root cause of sins, I'd say.)
THAT deception, I feel, is the poison.
Why should we be feeding the the devil's poison to the lost? We just keep them lost.
Diane
_________________
Diane
|
|
| 2006/10/24 7:34 | Profile |
RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: Open Questions for John Piper | | Quote:
John Piper also says that the only freedom we have prior to being saved is the 'freedom to choose our poison' (his words). By this he explains that man has no freedom to choose God but only freedom to choose the ways in which he will disobey God. Is this true?
This brings my mind to two related topics; the so-called Total Depravity of man (the first point in F.P.C) and [i]the bondage of the will[/i]. To simplify for many readers I might say that the belief is that if man's will is [u]not[/u] bound then he is free to obey God. If He is free to obey God then he is capable of obeying the law perfectly (in theory). Some would call this Pelagianism. If man's will is in 'bondage' to the effects of Original Sin then man is incapable of obeying God. Some take this to the extreme as to say that man cannot even respond to God's word in faith.
The danger is viewing God as a lawgiver who gives laws that He knows man cannot obey and then judges the man for not keeping them. By analogy, it would be like placing an 100 pound bag of feed on the back of my 50 lb boy and spanking him for not carrying it. Conscience revolts at such a thought. However, this is generally explained by saying that because we are Totally Depraved we are struck through with Sin in such a way that our reasoning faculties are not reliable in determining right from wrong. This is circular reasoning that begins with the premise that we are [i]totally depraved[/i] to prove we are totally depraved. This is philosophy and not bible. We have the revelation of God that runs counter to this. Never did God command man to do something in such a way that it was [i]impossible[/i] for him to do it. He told Cain if you do well you will be accepted, but if not then Sin lieth at the door. To say that our faculties are so messed up that we can't distinguish right from wrong is to plead insanity in the courts of justice. Man is simply not accountable for his actions if he could [i]not have chosen other than he chose[/i].
We know that Sin entered, but what is the extent of depravity or the power the 'spirit of disobedience' exerts over us. Are we literally automatons of Sin itself? Are we 'possessed' of Sin as was the demoniac the devil? Does it take hold of us in such a way as to throw us into vileness and iniquity apart from our [i]choice[/i]? I would argue that the Sin nature makes one 'bent' towards sins and rebellion. I would argue that this 'bent' is an opression and not a 'possession'. The key word here is 'yield'. We are servants to whom we 'yield' our members. The unregenerate are bent towards 'rebellion' but they are not forced into rebellion.
We are told early on in Genesis that God's Spirit would not always 'strive' with man for he is also mortal. The Holy Spirit obviously sought to press upon sinners that they ought to choose rightly and walk in the revelation they knew. To me, this 'striving' more than compensates for any 'depravity' man may have suffered and leveled the field in terms of obedience. But what? Men do always resist the Holy Ghost (God's prevenient grace). This is why God is utterly just in damning souls to the flames. They could have and were even 'pressed upon' to do rightly and they resisted God.
Error begets error. Soon a doctrine develops that man has to be regenerated before he/she can respond rightly to God. Those who are regenerated are those whom God in His sovereignty 'elects'. We can discover whom God has elected (regenerated) by going around with the four spiritual laws and seeing who will repeat the little prayer after me. Those who do repeat the prayer must have been regenerated by God and are the elect and are eternally saved. Nothing can pluck them from the hand of God. God regenerated them and God sovereignly saw fit to send me around with the message to discover them. No need to focus too much on the details because God is sovereignly at work in the persons life and He is the author of their salvation, etc..
This is why Finney took on the topic of Total Depravity and was labeled a Pelagian. Being from a law court background he knew that justice required that God do justly. If sinners cannot help themselves they are not culpable. I don't know anyone who really believes that man is totally depraved. Proof being, if they are violently violated they usually want justice. If they want mercy then they have to admit some 'wrong' on the part of the offender or there is nothing to forgive.
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
|
| 2006/10/24 8:36 | Profile |
philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
What a hopeless statement!!!!!
...a spirit of gentle enquiry?
I know these things are important and that they stir strong emotions but I am not willing to 'bin Piper'. I would love to talk to him or someone with the same convictions and say 'please explain'.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
|
| 2006/10/24 9:35 | Profile |
philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
Error begets error. Soon a doctrine develops that man has to be regenerated before he/she can respond rightly to God. Those who are regenerated are those whom God in His sovereignty 'elects'.
This is important for folks who are not familiar with this school of teaching. Classical Calvinists put the sovereign act of regeneration right at the front of everything. They would normally regard every 'Godward' response of man as an evidence of regeneration NOT another step towards it.
In my practice I am more Calvinist that many would guess. I believe that many of the efforts we make to get folks to 'respond' are really what Oswald Chambers would have called 'amateur providences'; man's interference in God's workings. I am not averse to 'an altar call' if that means giving someone an opportunity to respond to what God has said but I would be very uncomfortable with the notion that certain 'evangelical processes' trigger regeneration.
However in my thinking I am not very Calvinist at all. At the last census I was hovering around 20% Calvinist.
Perhaps when others have joined us we could move on to examining the nature of 'election' and asking just what does the Bible mean by that language.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
|
| 2006/10/24 9:44 | Profile |
RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: | | Quote:
I am not averse to 'an altar call' if that means giving someone an opportunity to respond to what God has said but I would be very uncomfortable with the notion that certain 'evangelical processes' trigger regeneration.
I think GW. North's 'Shipwreck' is most helpful in this regard. I am reminded of the many times I have been witnessing to folk and got to the point and asked them.. and yet they said "I'm just not ready yet." Some are not that honest and will go along to get us off their back. This concerns me. Sometime we ought to have a discussion on I Chronicles 21 when David numbered Israel and the hand of judgment was stayed at the threshing floor. I think there is a great truth there to be discovered. It was on that threshing floor that an altar and then the Temple was built.
God initiates regeneration in my view. This 'initiation' includes revivals also, I think. When we look for 'numbers' and base our evangelism on 'numbers' I think we really miss God. But thats another subject. ;-)
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
|
| 2006/10/24 10:12 | Profile |
JaySaved
Member
Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1132
Missouri
| | Re: | | philologos,
Quote:
I am not really anti-Calvinist. It is just that I am quite unconvinced about some of their pronouncements. Is there anyone out there who could take up these questions in a spirit of gentle enquiry rather than a 'we take no prisoners' rhetoric?
Thank your for this statement. Quite honestly when I see your posts I am amazed at the knowledge and grasp of scripture that you posess. Thank you for your devotion to God and the 'spirit of gentle enquiry' in which you bring forth these questions. I hope to engage in this spirit as I have said before 'in all the wisdom the God can give me.
I do not know of any verse in scripture that says that the entire nation of physical Israel is elected to salvation.
On the contrary, Paul is Romans tells us that not all Israel is Israel. Just beacuse a person was a physical descendant of Abraham does not mean they are elected. Jesus also confronted the Pharisees and called them the 'sons of the Devil.'
Election is the acts of God choosing someone out of his own pleasure (Grace) and it has nothing to do with anything the person has done to earn the the Grace (not of works so that no man may boast.)
So, if I may ask, what is your understanding of the what the Bible describes as 'Election'?
|
|
| 2006/10/24 10:17 | Profile |
| | Re: | | This whole topic makes my head hurt...
Romans 14:15 .....Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Thats kinda how I approach topics like this. Well, any topic, really. When scripture doesnt spell it out for us, then there is room at the cross for all.
Krispy |
|
| 2006/10/24 10:19 | |
