Prayer and the Sovereignty of God - Introduction

Prayer and The Sovereignty of God

1. Introduction

   1. The Difficulty
      Many questions are raised when the topic of God's sovereignty and prayer are mentioned in the same sentence together. These questions are the direct result of any extended thought on the fact that God is sovereign, and yet we, as mere humans, can pray to God and be answered by him. The many broad sweeping statements in the Bible made by Jesus regarding prayer, are perhaps the most confusing at first glance, “Ask, and it will be given to you...For everyone who asks receives” (Matt. 7:7-8).
      Initially, this might not cause anyone to lose any sleep, but then the difficulties begin when a person tries to synchronize the simple truths about prayer in the Bible with the powerful, overarching statements about God's sovereignty such as found in Daniel 4:35, “All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’” One can not but help to wonder how God's sovereignty and prayer practically fit together. But we must be careful as we proceed to look into these topics for as C. S. Lewis reminds us, “Prayer is not a machine” (C. S. Lewis, The World's Last Night and Other Essays, p.10) but rather is born out of our relationship with God, not from knowing information about him, but from knowing him (C. S. Lewis, p. 7). In order to set the stage for a discussion of some practical principles about prayer that come out of the truth that God is sovereign, we will first give basic definitions of both prayer and God's sovereignty.

   2. A Basic Definition of Prayer
      Prayer is simply converse with God. Or as John Bradford expressed it, “Prayer is a simple, unfeigned, humble, and ardent opening of the heart before God; wherein we either ask things needful, or give thanks for benefits received” (John Bradford, “Godly Meditations on the Lord's Prayer, Belief, and Ten Commandments, with other Exercises”, The Writings of John Bradford, I, 111). There are many ways that prayer is referred to in the Bible. It is sometimes described as “calling on the name of the Lord” (Gen. 4:26), “entreating the Lord” (Ex. 32:11), “pouring out one's soul to the Lord” (1 Sam. 1:15), “praying and crying out to heaven” (2 Chr. 32:20), “seeking and imploring the Almighty” (Job 8:5), “bowing one's knees to God” (Eph. 3:14).

   3. A Basic Definition of God's Sovereignty
      Essentially the sovereignty of God refers to the fact that “He has absolute authority and rule over his creation” (James Montgomery Boice, “The Sovereign God”, Foundations of the Christian Faith, I, 149). In Scripture, God's sovereignty is sometimes referred to “his rule over all” (1 Chr. 29:12), “his being God” (Ps. 46:10), “his kingship over the earth” (Ps. 47:7), “his possessing all authority” (Matt. 28:18), “his having working all things after the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11). In order for God to be sovereign he must be all-knowing (Ps. 94:11; 139:4, 1 Jn. 3:20), all-powerful (Gen. 18:14, Heb. 1:3, Rev. 4:8), and totally free (Ex. 33:19, Rom. 9:20-24). God's sovereignty is really to speak of the “Godhood of God...to declare that God is God” (Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God, p. 23) and that there is no other (Deut. 4:35; 39, Isa. 45:5; 22, Joel 2:27).

Read More......

Penitence

It is probably too late to take another tack on your paper (not that you should anyway) but I think that penance may not be a word that accurately describes what you are opposing. In fact, the word penance (in its French origin) was derived from a word similar to penitence, which in turn was derived from the same Latin word that gives us our English word repentance. In many languages they are the same word.

In many traditions, penance follows this pattern (as described below): confession, repentance, discipline. The question at hand is probably: what is the purpose of the discipline? I'm sure that many of us, as we are discipled, have confessed our sin to others, displayed that we wish to forsake our wrongdoing and to move towards God, and perhaps in turn our "spiritual mentor" has prescribed a plan of combating sin, or a particular Bible passage to study. To deny this as a valid expression of the Christian faith would be heresy, and to say it is not necessary would be foolish.

I would imagine that your problem arises from the Roman Catholic position that the "discipline" step is a sacrament, required for justification. On a side note, I may be wrong, but it occurs to me that in "Pure" Catholicism, the penance itself may not be considered to justify, but rather is required to maintain communion with the church, outside of which they believe (believed?) there can be no salvation.

Returning to the point -- I believe that in the context of sanctification, this process (confession, repentance, discipline) is not only acceptable but necessary.

Honestly, though, I went back to try and figure out what to say about that, but I can't figure out what it is that you're opposing ... it seems like each example represented a discrete idea, rather than another aspect of a single, unifying whole. Eh. Maybe I just didn't get it. :)

Shifting gears ...

"It is important to look at the original language because it is not enough to reason from one's own opinions or to argue philosophically, for the truth does not come from men, but from God."

Hm ... saying that God is the source of truth does not necessarily require that your expository style and interpretational approach are the only correct one; neither does it require that no man can, drawing from the principles laid out in the Bible, form conclusions about current issues without recourse to quoting a verse to support each and every clause of each sentence.

For one thing, if we have the Holy Spirit, certainly it (He?) would be able to lead us to truth, such that we are freed from merely parroting the phrases in the Bible, but rather understand and can explain them. Secondly, as I'm sure you know, referencing the Bible is no guarantee against error. It is easy to approach the Bible with preconceptions, and whether you realize or not, read into it only what you agree with.

Look at the epistle writers if you want a great example. They only occasionally reference other scriptures, and are usually pretty sloppy in their interpretation. Though I doubt we should claim verbal plenary inspiration for our works, shouldn't these writings be our first model for composing sermons, discussions, blog posts?

If you are merely teaching someone to understand the Bible, you can let it speak for itself (often the best course). But if you are addressing an issue whose scope is beyond a single passage, you must have a principle-based, "Bible-wide" theology. And if you are extending into the deep waters of philosophical questions, though Christ is your guide, it might perhaps be better to take the boat of Philosophy, rather than attempt to walk on water.

pen·i·tence noun
the state of being penitent; regret for one's wrongdoing or sinning; contrition; repentance.

pen·ance noun

1.	a punishment undergone in token of penitence for sin.

2.	a penitential discipline imposed by church authority.

3.	a sacrament, as in the Roman Catholic Church, consisting in a confession of sin, made with sorrow and with the intention of amendment, followed by the forgiveness of the sin.

Wikipedia article on penance: penance in the Eastern Church

... The penitent then accuses him or herself of his or her sins. The priest quietly, and patiently listens. After the confessant reveals all of his or her sins, the priest then offers advice and counsel. The priest may modify the prayer rule of the penitent, or even prescribe another rule, if needed to combat the sins that the penitent struggles most with. Penances are usually given with a therapeutic intent, so that they are opposite to the sin committed.

For a hypothetical example, if the Eighth Commandment has been broken and the person has stolen something, then it could be prescribed that the he or she should return what was stolen (if possible) and give alms to the poor on a more regular basis. Opposites are to be treated with opposites. If the penitent suffers from gluttony, the confessant’s fasting rule is reviewed and perhaps increased. The intention of Holy Confession is never to punish, but to heal and purify. Holy Confession is also seen as a "second baptism".

Read More......

Repentance vs. Penance - Introduction

Introduction

In Evangelical Christianity today, there are some believers who have a tendency to practice penance rather than repentance. Though the term penance is many times associated with Catholicism, in this context, it does not mean that large numbers of Evangelicals are turning Catholic, but simply that there are some within Evangelicalism who, after initially being converted, try to pay for their sins by their own good works and sufferings. The difference between biblical repentance and evangelical penance is vast, has significant personal ramifications, and must be addressed practically in the church today.

Biblical Definition of Repentance in the New Testament

The first word of the Gospel spoken by Christ was “Repent” (Matt 4:17).[1] In order to define what repentance is, it is This one word in the original language of Greek summarizes the difference between what the Lord called His hearers to and “evangelical” penance. It is important to look at the original languagewhat the Bible says because it is not enough to reason from one's own opinions or to argue philosophically, for the truth does not come from men, but from God. God has revealed the truth to us in His Word – the ScripturesHis Word is are truth (John 17:17). And since the Bible was not written in English, it is many times helpful to read and study it in the original languages in order to gain insight into its meaning. Therefore, to begin the search for a biblical definition of repentance, we willa student must look at the Greek terms used in the New Testament that convey the idea of repentance by first looking at Matthew 4:17. Returning to that first word of the Gospel spoken by Christ I in Matthew 4:17, we find that the word translated as “repent” is metanoeite (μετανοειτε) which comes from the root word metanoeo (μετανοέω). The word, metanoeo along with its nominal equivalent metanoia (μετάνοια) is used fifty-seven times in the New Testament and means simply to, “change one's mind.”[2] Literally, metanoeo means “to perceive afterwards” (meta means after, implying change and neoe means to perceive) therefore it, “signifies to change one's mind or purpose, always in the N.T., involving a change for the better, an amendment.”[3] There are two other words in the New Testament which convey the concept of repentance, epistrepho (ἐπιστρέφω), and metamelomai (μεταμέλομαι). The word epistrepho brings with it the idea of “to turn,” “turn around” and therefore “to return”,[4] being very similar to the meaning of metanoeo. Metamelomai, however, means “to experience remorse”[5] referring specifically to the feelings a person has towards something rather than to the fact that a person has arrived at a different position on something as metanoeo implies.

Biblical Definition of Repentance in the Old Testament

Continuing the search for a biblical definition of repentance, a student discovers that in the Old Testament, there are primarily two Hebrew terms that are used to denote the idea of repentance. The first term is sub (שׁוּב) which means “to turn back, return”[6] and many times expresses a person's change of attitude toward God and sin (Dt 4:30; Neh 1:9; Psa 7:12; 85:4; Jer 3:14),[7] denoting “a conscious, moral separation and a personal decision for forsake sin and enter into fellowship with God”.[8] The second Hebrew term used to denote repentance is naham (נחם) which means “to be sorry, rue, repent,”[9] and many times refers to a change in God's dealings with humans as required by His justice (1 Sam. 15:29; Psa 110:4; Jer 4:28).[10]

Repentance as Defined by the Whole of Scripture

Looking throughout the whole of Scripture, a picture of what biblical repentance is begins to be seen clearly. There are rituals of repentance such as the tearing of one's clothing, fasting, sitting in sackcloth, sitting in ashes, (2 Kings 22:11; Jonah 3:6; Dan. 9:3); in addition, repentance is related to baptism as the start of a person's life in Christ (Acts 2:38; 13:24; 19:4). It is connected with faith (Acts 20:21; 26:18; Heb 6:1), with forgiveness (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 8:22; 2 Cor. 12:21; Heb 6:1; Rev. 2:22; 9:20), and with a return to God (Acts 20:21; 26:20; 1 Pet 2:25; Rev. 16:9) that is based on the righteousness of Christ alone (Acts 3:19; 5:31; 17:30).[11] It is essential to note that throughout the Scriptures, “Repentance and faith are two side of the same coin”.[12] Biblically it is “repent” or “perish” (Luke 13:3, 5), “repent” or go to “hades” and “torment” (Luke 16:23, 28, 30). But for those who do repent, there is “joy in heaven” (Luke 15:7, 10), and so it can be concluded, that repentance is representative of the “entire response bringing about eternal life, including faith when it is not stated...Repentance must not be separated from its flip side of faith (Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21), or from the realization that it sometimes stands for the package of human response to the good new of Jesus Christ.”[13] In summary, repentance is simply a change of mind that implies a conscious personal decision to forsake sin and turn to God.

Definition of Penance

Contrary to the wealth of information in the Bible regarding the word “repentance” and its derivatives, the word “penance” never appears in any major English version of the Bible. The concept of penance, however, is not foreign to the Bible. Simply stated, penance is "a religious attitude deeply rooted in the human heart which prompts men to attempt to pay for their own sins by their good works and sufferings."[14] Several examples of biblical penance will be discussed in the midst of looking at three major differences between biblical repentance and “evangelical” penance.

Read More......

The ThirdMajor Difference Between Repentance and Penance

(this is one portion of a paper written on the difference between repentance and penance. Simply stated, penance is "a religious attitude deeply rooted in the human heart which prompts men to attempt to pay for their own sins by their good works and sufferings."¹

1C. John Miller. Repentance and the 20th Century Man (Fort Washington: Christian Literature Crusade, 1980), 19-20).

One of the major differences between repentance and penance is that repentance flows out of a godly sorrow, while penance flows out of a worldly sorrow. The Apostle Paul plainly states this truth in 2 Corinthians 7:10: “For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death.” Two types of sorrow are mentioned, and the fruit of each is a world apart.

Godly sorrow produces repentance, and this repentance is “without regret” (2 Cor 7:10). The phrase, “without regret” does not mean that the person is not sorry for having sinned against a holy God, for it is in fact godly sorrow in that it is primarily a sorrow towards God (Ps 51:4, 2 Cor 7:11), but rather, this phrase means that the repentant sinner has no regret for leaving the sin that before he had loved.

On the other hand, while there is also real sorry in worldly sorrow, it is not primarily due to sorrow over having sinned against God but is due to the negative consequences for the person’s sin. This worldly sorrow is many times heightened by going to great lengths to pay for one’s own sin to the point of believing that “if there is any forgiving to do he must forgive God for making him such a rotten sinner.”¹ Worldly sorrow results in people placing the blame for their sin on their surroundings rather than where the blame rightly falls, on their own heads. On the other hand, godly sorrow leads sinners to take full responsibility for their sin and results in fear to God (2 Cor 7:11). This fear then causes them to cry out for mercy to a God who is fully justified in damning them (Psa 51:1-4), whereas worldly sorrow involves a fear of the consequences of sin, and not of the Judge Himself.

While those who experience worldly sorrow may have a excruciating sense of approaching doom and be conscious of the fact that they are not prepared for life hereafter, they cling to the sinful pleasures of this world and are grieved because they cannot have both the pleasures of God and the pleasures of this world. They have no real fear of God in them (Psa 36:1). King Saul is a perfect example of this “worldly sorrow,” for when he was confronted by Samuel over his disobedience against God's command to completely wipe out the Amalekites, he first masked his sin by claiming to have done what God had asked of him. Finally, when Samuel pushes him on the issue, Saul declares, “I have sinned; I have indeed transgressed the command of the Lord and your words, because I feared the people and listened to their voice.” (1 Sam 15:24). Saul's sorrow did not flow out of his having sinned against God; rather, he only confessed to having sinned once Samuel told him of the consequences that he would face because of his disobedience. Saul was sorrowful because of the consequences of his sin, not because he had transgressed against a holy and righteous God. The motive behind Saul's confession is clearly seen in his reply to Samuel after Samuel declared the Lord would remove him from being king, “I have sinned; but please honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel, and go back with me, that I may worship the Lord your God” (1 Sam 15:30). Saul was primarily concerned with his standing before men, and only cared of his standing before God because it affected how other people thought of him. Restoration to a right relationship with God and therefore the ability to worship was only a side note to Saul; his primary goal was to look good in the eyes of men. He did not ask God to pardon him, but again, because he feared man more than he feared God, he asked for Samuel's pardon. Saul's worldly sorrow lead to death.

The example of Saul is in stark contrast with that of David and the godly sorrow he exemplified after sinning by numbering the people of Israel and Judah as recorded in 2 Samuel 24. After ordering the people to be numbered, David's heart troubled him (2 Sam 24:10), and he said to the Lord, “I have sinned greatly in what I have done. But now, O Lord, please take away the iniquity of Your servant, for I have acted very foolishly” (2 Sam 24:10b). Already we see a contrast between David's response to that of Saul, for David's sorrow came before there were any consequences mentioned, and it lead him to take full responsibility for his sin and confess the sin to God and beg for God to pardon his iniquity. His sorrow stemmed primarily from having committed wrong towards a holy God, not for the negative consequences of his actions. It is also evident that David understood the gravity of the problem and did not attempt to make light of what he has done, saying, “for I have sinned greatly” (2 Sam 24:10).

When God sent the prophet Gad to ask David to choose between three penalties for his sin, either famine, defeat, or pestilence, we again see an extreme contrast between David and Saul in David’s choice of penalty. If Saul was in David's place, most likely he would have chosen to be pursued by his enemies for three months and then not left his palace for three months while his soldiers died in battle and fled. There would be no sorrow in Saul's heart, because there was no direct consequence for him. But David throws himself at the mercy of God in his reply to Gad, saying, “I am in great distress. Let us now fall into the hand of the Lord for His mercies are great, but do not let me fall into the hand of man” (2 Sam 24:14b). The sorrow of David again is revealed, and it is not primarily connected to the consequence, but rather to the fact that he sinned against God. This godly sorrow leads David to put himself at the mercy of God and align himself with God, agreeing that whatever God chooses to do would be just. David's knowledge of God proved correct, for the pestilence did not in fact last three days, but God in His mercy stopped it before the whole duration was complete.

When David saw the angel who was striking the people with pestilence, we see even more clearly his heart of true repentance reflected in these words: “Behold, it is I who have sinned, and it is I who have done wrong; but these sheep, what have they done? Please let Your hand be against me and against my father’s house” (2 Sam 24:17b). Saul would have kept silent, and comforted himself in the fact that he was not suffering for committing evil, but David could not bear the fact that he had caused so many others pain and death because of his sin against God. Because of David's godly sorrow that lead him to repentance, his relationship with God was restored and he completely turned from his sin and worshiped God (2 Sam 24:25); whereas Saul's worldly sorrow left his fellowship with God broken, never restored, ending ultimately in death (1 Sam 16:14; 31:4).

The examples of Saul and David embody the differences between a remorse that leads to repentance and a remorse that leads to penance. As believers, repentance is the only option, and if there be any tendency towards penance in us, we must return our focus away from ourselves and back on to God where it belongs. The difference between repentance and penance comes down to pride verses humility. Penance is the direct result of men paving their own way – a direct result of believing that man's way is better than God's. But repentance comes by God, through the Holy Spirit's work in the heart, causing that heart to humbly submit to God's ways and throw itself at the mercy of a holy and just God.

1 C. John Miller. Repentance and the 20th Century Man (Fort Washington: Christian Literature Crusade, 1980), 26.

Read More......

Polemic vs. Purification

"No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward."

I have on occasion been accused of being divisive, negative, and critical. This claim is far from being unjust, as I'm sure you'll attest to, but I frequently find myself in opposition to the very attributes that are ascribed to me. Is this mere hypocrisy, a double-standard formed from the sinful nature we all possess? Or, is there, in fact, a marked a priori difference between my own critical tack on discussions and the attitudes that I chiefly oppose? Rather than being an auto-hagiography or self-defensive measure, I intend in this post to ask myself this question: "Why?"

The first thing I'm against is criticizing the outside first. Whether it's gay marriage or the "Jesus Seminar", we have a tendency to attack first those things that neither the speaker nor the audience is ever likely to buy into. Though this behavior does not always venture into "strain out a gnat and let in a camel" territory, I feel that a person who can start with themselves or their own context/milieu/denomination, and in humility admit failings with the intention of setting them right, is far closer to the principles Jesus taught than someone who makes a career out of scapegoating external threats. See for instance, the parable of the publican and the pharisee, or this passage in 1 Corinthians:

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

Measure for measure, you'll be judged as vehemently as you judge others. In light of that, I react against a quick judgment against those outside the church. Although I can see the benefit of reinforcing that "this is not what we believe", it can quickly degenerate into self-righteous fascism.

Here's another area that galls me -- when someone will, for the sake of theological issues large or small, write off an entire block of the church. I think that any study of the gospels will reveal that knowledge about God was not the chief criterion that Christ required, but rather, repentance and mercy. To dismiss charismatics, orthodox, even many catholics out of hand without reference to the true things that Christ asks for --

Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

is to be as foolish as those who opposed Christ for healing on the Sabbath. It is easy for us to say, "big deal" about healing on the Sabbath without seeing what it represents. The Pharisees were respected leaders in the "church"; surely you can imagine a contemporary equivalent to their blindness in the face of Christ's power? It is possible to have ecumenism without compromising the essentials -- if you will refuse to let the essentials be circumvented by pet issues or even major issues. In truth, as Paul admonishes, we must accept that there are feet and hands and eyes. The charismatics and the fundamentalists need each other -- and their division undermines God's kingdom.

Am I insensitive to others? Certainly! Do I occasionally play the devil's advocate? Again, guilty. Thank God that there is grace for me as well as for others, or we would all fall equally before His wrath. What I can say is that, when I can, I try to use the strengths of being a hand, foot, nose, or whatever it is that I am to serve God's purposes in the way that I believe is in line with His plan and character. The same God calls and chooses David, Paul, John, Matthew, even Jeremiah; and today it is the same. No part of the body is indispensable.

Read More......

My Fiancee On National Radio!

Check out Laura's appearance as the featured guest on Dr. Mohler's radio show today. The topic was the Time cover story on crisis pregnancy centers.

Read More......

Interesting blog

custardy.blogspot.com

Read More......

Musings from Jonathan Edwards #4

“… I don’t pretend fully to explain how these things are,

...I am far from pretending to explain the Trinity

so as to render it no longer a mystery still, notwithstanding

anything I have said about it. I don’t pretend to explain the Trinity…”

“The Father is as the substance of the sun; the Son is as the rightness and glory of the disk of the sun, or that bright and glorious form under which it appears to our eyes; the Holy Ghost is as the heat and powerful influence which acts upon the sun itself and, being diffusive, enlightens, warms, enlivens and comforts the world. The Spirit, as it is God’s infinite love and happiness, is as the internal heat of the sun; but as it is that by which God communicates himself, is as the emitted beams of God’s glory”

“There is nothing in Scripture that speaks of any acceptance of the Holy Ghost, or any reward, or any mutual friendship between the Holy Ghost and either of the either persons…”

“we never once read either of the Father or the Son loving the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit loving either of them. It is because the Holy Spirit is the divine love itself”

“...walking in the Spirit and walking in love are the same thing”


Questions:
Why do you suppose that the Father is never said to love the Holy Spirit in the Bible?

Why is it that Jesus is never said to love us (present tense as opposed to the past tense) until Rev. 1:5?

If the Holy Spirit is love and God is omnipresent, how can Edwards argue that hell is a world without love?

Read More......

More fun questions

"Can a person be said to freely choose in the context of necessity? Are there any non-necessary choices ever made?"

Read More......

Musings from Jonathan Edwards #3

Some said that that "free will, meaning the ability to determine the nature of the choices made, is the basis of moral good and evil." But Edwards thought was that the "will does not determine choices, it selects among available choices. It is not a self-determining power."

Questions:
"Does Edwards’ doctrine make God the author of sin? Did not God cause Adam to sin when He withdrew preserving mercies from him? Edwards indicates that God left Adam after he fell [(3:382), but was there not a departure before Adam’s sin as well as in consequence of Adam’s sin? Were there two types of departures from Adam? Has Edwards really presented us with an explanation of how Adam fell? Are you comfortable with saying that God withheld His grace, needful to prevent sinning, and, thereby, is not the author of sin? Edwards is willing to say that God is the author of sin in the sense that He is the cause of everything that happens. However, God did not infuse an evil propensity into Adam so as to cause an evil action; He withdrew from him [a deprivation view, 3:381]. God permits evil in this manner; He is not the cause of it."

Read More......

Calvinism / Southern Seminary in the news

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1583921,00.html

So, after reading this article, I was asking myself the question ... is Al talking about actual, historical Calvinism, or about his own personal beliefs? Because my experience has been that Calvinism in practice and polemic, as regards free will, goes a good bit beyond "you can't save yourself" to the point of "Mankind has a free will; but it is free to milk cows and to build houses, nothing more." In truth, there was little, if anything, I found to disagree with in what was billed as a "Calvinist apology" article.

What do you think?

P.S. Extra brownie points to whoever figures out the author of the cows quote.

Read More......

Counsel or Command?

I'm reading A Theology of Christian Counseling by Jay Adams for a class - he says this: "By counsel (he didn't decide to do it on his own) Adam named the animals. By counsel he dressed the garden. By counsel he learned of the trees in the garden and the proper use of them (as well as the possible consequences of misuse). All this came after creation, to a man who was made to be dependent on God's counsel for all his life, who was capable of being changed and developed by that counsel...But something happened that led to the misery we have already mentioned: man turned from God's counsel to heed Satan's counsel" (p. 3).

I read that and really had a problem with the wording - "counsel". I mean, really, is that what was going on? Was God "counseling" Adam not to eat of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't that a COMMAND?

Adams then goes on to say, "Man has no counsel that is strictly "his own" (John 8:34-44). If he rejects God's counsel, whatever counsel he follows instead turns out to be Satan's counsel" (p. 5).

But is it true that men cannot think up evil by himself, without the aid of the devil? Does that mean that EVERY evil thing I do is because I got the idea from the devil? What about my heart? Doesn't James say I am the source of my sin?

The only time I found a verse talking about God's counsel was in Job 15:8 - is says this: "Do you hear the secret counsel of God, And limit wisdom to yourself?"

I'm having trouble seeing Adams' point of view...it seems like he has a subject and is proof texting an idea that he made up. Why not just be Biblical? Is the Bible not enough? Why should I say "counsel" when the Bible clearly shows that it was a command?

And why should I blame the devil for all the evil I do, when the Bible makes it clear that I am evil and need no help?

Sorry, I'm a little tired, and ranting - but I had to dump it somewhere :)

Read More......

Free Willy-Nilly

Doesn't the idea that our choices are determined by our greatest inclination born out by every-day experience?

Why did I choose to come to a coffee shop to study, instead of hanging out with my fiancee? Because strongest and most desirable inclination is to get my reading done for school. I didn't make the decision arbitrarily.

If my choice is determined by my greatest inclination, where does that inclination come from? Wouldn't it come from my nature, or, as Scripture might say, the condition of my heart (i.e. stone or flesh)?

What of Scripture saying "I will give you a new heart and new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to obey my rules"?

Doesn't this imply that a person's obedience is contingent upon that person being filled with the Spirit and having a new Spirit-installed heart and spirit?

Read More......

Captive Will

"Freedom is not the ability to act contrary to willingness – what we find pleasure in is dictated by our nature."

Well, that's his opinion. I think it's balderdash, personally. Our nature dictates what things will be attractive to us, but it doesn't dictate which we will choose. Life is a series of choices between different pleasures -- delayed gratification and instant pleasure, sinful and godly desires, noble and ignoble means, etc. We need God's help, surely, to ultimately succeed in our efforts to choose the good ... but the statement "man has no ability to choose right and wrong" just doesn't line up with scripture.

Honestly, if you had no choices and were only able to choose the right when God changes you to desire only good, Jesus would not say stuff like, "Go and don't sin anymore." He would say, "Hold on, I'll zap you with special powers and then you'll never sin again."

The reformed tradition has given us many great things, but this idea -- that human beings lack moral agency -- is not only untrue, contrary to reality, and dangerous, but in the end no one really believes it. How many times have you counseled a person in sin thus: "Well, you don't really have any choice except to beat your wife. We're going to pray that God will make it so that you don't want that anymore." Obviously, this is something you want to pray for, but the first thing you say to them is, "Stop doing what you're doing!"

Read More......

Musings from Jonathan Edwards #2

Freedom is the ability to choose what you please based on the options available to you.

Freedom is not the ability to act contrary to willingness – what we find pleasure in is dictated by our nature.

Read More......

Is the church the main impediment?

Response to Nathan's comment --

You know, one thing I've been realizing lately is how dangerous it is to say "the church" when you mean "this one church in particular". The truth is, every church is different. I think that my experience the last few years has been of church that (from my perspective) was robbed of the spiritual and the personal. I guess I can't really speak for the church at large ... it's more of a "this is something to avoid, that I have encountered".

So, is the church holding people back? Yes and no. God's plan (I assume) is that people come to faith, and are strengthened by the church discipling them and the Spirit transforming them. I think of it as the two elements of music: technicality and inspiration. The church is meant to be a means of improving your "technical" spiritual skill so that when inspiration strikes, it is more effective. If the church is not accomplishing its duty effectively, then it certainly is an impediment. But God is sovereign; he places people in situations with His eyes open; and if I was to blame my music class for my own failure to produce a Gold record then I would be laughed at.

Now that I think of it, though, the church may really be intended more as a family -- and your family shapes so much! Your morals, your values, tons of stuff that you don't even notice. If I said, "My parents abandoned me, so I didn't have the confidence to succeed," then I didn't have to fail because of what they did, but they certainly set me up for it. In this same way, the church will not stop you if the fire of God is in your heart, but they can hold you back a great deal ... and if you were on the brink of failure, then the church can destroy you!

... but it really is a continuum. There are some churches that are doing a horrible job and some that are doing a great one. No church is perfect, and I would guess that there are few true churches that will leave you worse off, in the end. I don't know.

Read More......

Musings from Jonathan Edwards #1

Sin is not voluntary because all men sin.

There must be a cause to sin because all sin – for if we sin voluntarily then some must not sin, but because all sin, it is therefore not voluntary – for there cannot be an uncaused cause (except God).

Helping Question: If sin is voluntary, why do infants (who do not sin by choice) die?

Read More......

Helen Keller

Hey guys, I have a new poem up at my poetry blog.

Read More......

Test

Just wanted to test the e-mail notification system. If you don't want to be notified by e-mail when someone posts something new just remove yourself from the google group I added you all to.

-Nathan

Read More......

Dreary Days

Weather affects mood...

We're fallen and so is our planet. My weakness manifests itself so clearly, because yesterday it was cold and dreary, with rain either drizzling or pouring all day. I started getting really depressed, for no apparent reason. I mean, sure, life is a bit stressful right now, but Laura and I spent hours registering for stuff people are going to buy for us. It's not like it was a bad day.

But, still, toward evening I was completely depressed. Laura and I had spent time praying, then reading and discussing Scripture. After that we made pizza and chocolate milk and cookies and watched TV.

I was trying to cast myself on the Lord, because he is sufficient. And my spirits lifted some, for awhile, but soon I was back into that funk. And, really, I think it was because the weather was crummy yesterday. Because today it's sunny, and I feel good.

Jesus is the same today as he was yesterday. He held yesterday's rainy world in his all-powerful hands like he has and will all other days throughout history. It's so hard, because I knew it, deeply, understood it. But I felt like the clouds would never lift, and it had only been a few hours of darkness -- not even darkness, but just cloudy. My fickle heart frustrates me. That's why it's good to know that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Read More......