Hey John. I have to admit, you do have me at a disadvantage. Once again, I’m not a scientist, don’t even come close. So I have to rely on others, even as I hear you doing (the book you are presently reading), and you are a scientist. I don’t think you are on the cutting edge of research, but you do have some understanding of what’s going on in those fields. You ask me for examples, but isn’t that just you, trying to push me into a corner? What am I supposed to do, read some evolutionist expert, look for an example in his research or book, then bring it back to you, so you can tear it apart? I don’t know if what you or they tell me is really true, or how to scrutinize theirs or your findings. I really think those beyond yourself are the real experts. I can go to a hospital or a medical expert with serious symptoms of illness, and I have to take the word of the doctors when they give me a diagnosis. Even getting a second opinion leaves me in the same position of having to rely on the experts. It’s my opinion that there are many more experts on the side of evolution. You can bash their findings endlessly, even as I”m sure they could do to you. But they are not involved in this particular debate, so you get to do the bashing with no opposition. If they were involved in this debate, they would not walk home with their tails between their legs. And it would be foolish of me to think that they are not doing their work with integrity. So you can keep pushing me for examples, but that makes you sound like a bully. That leaves me with having to pick a side to stand with. To me, it makes much more sense to stand with those who have put in the abundance of work and research. It feels, to me, like choosing to stand either with a professional team or a little league team. I’ll go with the experts.
All that being said, what bothers me more, is the foolishness of the creationist perspective. Everything created instantaneously and simultaneously at a single point in history (all within six days). That means, as to dating, everything is the exact same age, to within a week (as to the original creation). I imagine young earth creationists (apart from geneologies) can date the origin of the universe to within a week, or at least to a year or two. You may think that science and dating methods can back this up, but to the scientific community it sounds like foolishness. And it does to me. Theoretically, young earth scientists should be able to determine whether the origin of the earth and all of life was 10,000, 8,000 or 8,543 years ago, using the dating methods that they have found to be accurate. That’s the theory for young earth creationists, and again it is based on a couple chapters of the Bible. That may make sense to you and to some Christians, but it’s a theory that has to be accepted by faith because it doesn’t have the evidence to back it up. That’s the nature of religious faith, believing that which is not seen. It has to be accepted by faith because it involves a huge miracle and it can’t be explained otherwise. And it’s based on faith that the church (some churches) expect its members to accept this teaching, and not based upon scientific evidence. It’s also the reason that young earth creationists spend the majority of their effort trying to disprove evolution rather than proving an instantaneous creation (that’s based on faith).
This gets difficult when trying to respond to two people that seem to hold somewhat different positions. I appreciate your input and distinctions. Edwin, you’re right when you categorize me as the flaming liberal (I know, you didn’t quite say that). In my responses I’ve wanted to show that from within the Christian faith (especially the Reformed faith) that there are inconsistencies. It’s arguing from within a prepsuppositional apologetic the inconsistencies or unreasonableness of the Christian religion. But if I disregard the Christian presuppositions then that pretty much ends the debate right there. It would be like a Hindu arguing with a Christian. You can’t argue two completely different religions and expect to get anywhere.
As I understand the Christian religion (and I think there is no other way to understand it), Christianity is different from all other religions. The difference is that Jesus, who is God in the fullest sense, came to earth from heaven to pay the supreme price for sin. It is only in Jesus that there is salvation and apart from him, there is no salvation. He is the propitiation by which he appeased the wrath of God against sinners. And since all people are sinners (even come in the world as sinners) all are deserving of eternal damnation. Apart from Jesus and his payment for sin all are destined for hell. No other religion offers such a perspective on the condition of the human race or on such a plan for the salvation of people. It is unique. Jesus is the cornerstone, not only by his example, but especially by who he is and what he has done to accomplish salvation, making payment for sin. Apart from Christ’s saving work all are lost, because all are sinners. The good a person does counts for nothing because sin negates any good a person may have thought he has done.
I haven’t really heard too much from either John or Edwin on this central teaching of Christianity. It is only by faith in this saving work of Christ, that a person can experience salvation in the present and for eternity. And even this faith comes from God, given only to the elect. (Side note: Arminians believe that Jesus came for the salvation of all and all can respond.) This is the faith and rescue that the apostle Paul speaks about when he describes his struggle with sin. This is the faith that Paul agues for in his letters. It is a specific faith with a specific object. And there is no other faith that will save. “There is no other name under heaven...” This is the heart of Christianity.
John, you have talked a lot about God, but not so much about Jesus, and you have said a lot about faith, but not the object of faith. And Edwin, although you seem to acknowledge Jesus as fully God, and miraculously taking on a human nature, you don’t say much about this necessary propitiation made by Jesus or the helpless state of human kind.
Once again about “faith,” John. “Just have faith and you will be ok.” That’s what a lot of people might say. But not Paul. But, in contrast to Paul, when Jesus talked about faith the object of faith would change according to the situation. When the author of Hebrews talks about faith, the object of faith varies. “It was by faith that Abel brought a more acceptable offering to God than Cain did. Abel’s offering gave evidence that he was a righteous man, and God showed his approval of his gifts.” The object of faith was the sufficiency of his offering to God (works). No propitiation necessary. By faith Noah built the ark. By faith Abraham left his homeland. None of these mention the propitiation of another, but trust that they were doing (what God asked of them). They all believed they could please God. Anyone who truly believes in God will trust that their attempts to please God (love for God and neighbor) will be accepted by him. That’s not the faith Paul is talking about. You don’t trust your efforts even with faith in God. They won’t do it. Propitiation has to be made. And once again Paul and Jesus are at odds. Jesus says the difference between heaven and hell is in loving others, and by loving others you demonstrate your love for God. And Jesus’ teaching was revolutionary, especially in the context of what the Jewish religion had become. Paul’s addition is not just a new twist to what Jesus teaches, but different altogether. I don’t know how to make myself any clearer.
It seems to me, whether you acknowledge Jesus as God or not, whether you acknowledge him as a prophet sent by God, or whether he was just very insightful into where the Jewish religion (which he was part of) had gone amuck, however you see him, his teaching was insightful in his context, as well as insightful for all people in any age. He taught we could please God. It was his teaching and his insight into given situations that made him revolutionary. It’s here that you will fault me to no end. Paul came along and made an idol of Jesus, something I don’t think Jesus wanted for himself. Jesus came to teach a new way, the way of love. But now realize that many or most religions teach the same thing, perhaps with a different prophet. It’s just that Jesus is the teacher par excellence, at least in my thinking.
Well, I see that another response has come in from John. I'll send this as is, and then respond to the next responses later. Wishing both of you health and happiness (God's rich blessings).
I suppose you are right John, to some extent, when you say that both evolutionism and creationism involve faith. But that doesn’t mean that belief in evolution necessitates whether a person believes in God or not. Belief in Biblical creation does necessitate such belief. In fact, that is the beginning presupposition. A scientist should (and most do) do his evolutionary studies apart from any opinion about God. The evolutionist is simply looking for a natural explanation for the development of life. He looks at the facts or his findings and based on those findings comes up wth a theory of what those findings demonstrate. It’s when you add a philosophy (cosmology) to your findings that you come up with an “ism.” Hence evolutionism. But then this is a mixing of science and cosmology, and not true science. Creationism necessitates a cosmology, in fact begins with it. So, you see, the faith element is entirely different for the person who believes that evolution explains the origins of life. He may or may not believe in God.
Of course creationism or belief in a Biblical creation, begins with the presupposition that God has done this (brought into existence the world and all of life), in fact, has done this according to the outline laid out in Genesis 1 and 2. You, John, because you have some sympathy for the findings of evolution (dating and age findings) are now willing to stretch the Genesis account to include something never intended by the author of the Genesis account. I’m sure Moses was not thinking of days in terms of years or even millions of years for part of creation and twenty-four hours days for the rest. That takes away from the plain sense of reading the text. If God could create the animal kingdom in a matter of a few actual days he could do the same with the rest of creation. That’s the point of the Genesis account, not to differentiate the length of days in the account. That’s where the young earth creationists are attempting to be true to the text of Genesis. But they are beginning with big presuppositions which shades their whole scientific endeavor.
You have pointed out previously that buying into the theory of evolution necessitates an atheistic cosmology. Even the evolutionary scientists have claimed that. But certainly not all, or even a majority, have made that claim. And it’s not the begriming premise. And for those scientists that do claim evolution necessitates an atheistic perspective, they don’t really understand what God can and can’t do. Randomness does not exclude God from the process or development of life over time to its present forms. In fact Reformed Christians would say God works in and through what appears to be random or coincidence. In fact nothing happens by chance, even the falling of a single hair to the ground (again, or is it a bird). Isn’t that the point of Peter’s address to the Jews who had crucified Jesus but God was at work, despite their ill attempts, to accomplish the salvation of many. Isn’t that Paul’s meaning, when he says that everything happens by the hand of God, or when he talks about the Pharoah being a pot made for the seemingly ill purpose that God intended. Isn’t this what Christians have in mind when they talk about looking at a quilt from the back side and it looks ugly, but when seen from God’s perspective is beautiful (like seeing it from the front)? Atheistic evolutionism (evolution + cosmology) has a narrow understanding of what God can and can’t do, or what might make sense in the mind of God.
Now for a comment especially for you, Edwin. Again, I appreciate your perspective. And I agree that we have got off target. I think the original article can easily lead into other areas, as it has seemed to have happened here. I don’t expect either you, Edwin or John, to agree with me in the least. That’s ok, but at least you will know where I’m coming from.
I think all religions are manmade and are an attempt to explain the God who has revealed himself in creation. Most religions are ancient and are archaic in many of their basic premises. And certainly scientists today have a host of doubts when someone tells them that the earth, life and even human beings were all created in a matter of six days. Not only do scientists have to defend themselves against the likes of Christians, but also Hindus, Muslims, Mormons and a host of other religions that have their own ideas on origins, because these other ideas of origins come from their inspired Scriptures just as Christians assert. Like other ancient religions, Christianity has a central theme (just one of several) of the wars of the gods (the creator God and the demigod, Satan) who are in constant battle from the beginning of time and will culminate at the end of time. Also, like the many other religions, Christianity’s God acts outside of the created order and laws (such as with creation and a multitude of other miracles).
I think that creation tells us enough about God that I can stand in awe of him and desire to honor him with my life. And when someone as insightful as Jesus appears on the scene, it is cause enough to stand up and listen. In the fact that Jesus’ teachings makes so much sense, I could easily feel I’m a follower of Jesus, myself. But it would be very difficult to feel the same for Paul, who seems to have a very different perspective and emphasis on God and finding acceptance with him.
Also the personal nature that Christians portray God having with Christians raises flags for me. Prayer and the leading of the Holy Spirit are the impetuses for such thoughts of a personal God. They both are very subjective. When someone asks, what would Jesus want me to do, what they really mean is what do “I think” Jesus would want me to do, or what do I want Jesus to tell me to do in any given situation. The Holy Spirit can be thought to have led people and groups in a thousand different directions. And yet the Holy Spirit leads in all truth. I wonder if looking for the Spirit’s voice is no different than let your conscience be your guide. As to prayer, a person can feel that in a given situation God has answered their prayers (healing from cancer) but at the same time a hundred other Christians pray for the same but never recover. Then there is all kinds of rationalizing, as to the answers we get in regard to prayer, even though Jesus taught on more than one occasion that we could pray for anything we want and we will be given what we prayed for. I don’t think that the creation reveals these things but from the beginning of time people have been crying out to the gods with no more success than Christians. Maybe having a personal God is part of the myth of made up religions. Does God care for his creation? In my mind, definitely. He has brought it into existence in one way or another and preserves it wonderfully. Why would I doubt his care of his world. But a personal relationship?
So you see how easily questions (or doubts) about creation and evolution can lead to other areas of concern? Or maybe, more than likely, I’m not very disciplined in staying on track.
I don’t know John. Going back and forth with you makes me a little weary. Maybe it does for you, as well. I think that may be why Edwin dropped out a long time back.
As to your last response, you did a lot of speculation as to a naturalistic explanation of the first four days of the creation narrative in Genesis. You want to be true to the intent of Scripture and yet true to science (general revelation). Sounds admirable. And even though you admitted that what you stated could be totally out, you probably put more stock in such speculations you have made up than in evolutionary theory which has a lot of research behind it. It sounds a little bit to me, that for you, speculation is ok as long as it doesn’t agree with evolutionary theory.
Here’s another take (my speculation). I think there’s a possibility that as to primary causation Genesis is saying that God is the creator God. He stands above it all. That’s the important message for the ages. As to secondary causation a face on reading of Genesis made sense to the people of Moses’ day. That’s as far as their science would let them go in that early stage of history. And a day was a day, as Moses would have understood it. Today, as to primary causation, the message is the same. But today with the advances of science, people are still trying to make sense of origins as to secondary causation. And maybe on both sides of the issue there is both speculation as well as research. This includes Christians on both sides of the evolution/creation issue. Maybe too much is being made of secondary causation when reading the Bible.
I know, for you, an actual Adam, seems very important. Without him a lot of theology seems like it can thrown out or watered down. It sounded to me, as though Edwin was trying to come up with a way to be true to natural science and to the Biblical account. I know you disagree, and I understand. A lot could be at stake.
For me, I’m a theist. That means, in one way or another, God is involved. I’m not near ready to dismiss him. I’m not sure I want to keep this up endlessly. Honestly, I thought you would wear down before me. But looking over these responses, as well as others (to other articles) I think you are the energizer bunny. It’s been fun. And thanks for the food for thought. It’s been good.
Hi Salaam, I’m a little late (several months) noticing your posted article. I think you post some challenging questions. But I doubt that other religious adherents feel challenged by Christianity any more than Christians feel challenged by other religions. They all propose different pathways to God and are not meant to be stepping stones to anything except to God. In fact, most religions are mutually exclusive, therefor not stepping stones at all. Few religions try to accommodate any other religion. For example Christians claim there is no way other than Christ to win God’s favor and acceptance. As Christians, we don’t see any other religion as a stepping stone to Christ or God.
Another important question that needs answering, is who is to say that other religions are false and only Christianity is true? That seems to be the assumption that you are working with. We might claim that only the Bible is the inspired word of God and therefor completely true and trustworthy, and therefor lays out the only valid pathway to God. But that is also what every other religion claims, as well. What makes the Bible true and not the God inspired writings of other religions? Or is that just a matter of opinion? Is there anything that validates one religion over another, Christianity over all other religions?
Why are the claims of other religions false and not our claims? As Christians, we may assert that the claims of other religions are not logical, are nonsense. But is the Christian assertion that Jesus is God and has come down to earth from heaven and taken on a human nature, lived a perfect life, was crucified but rose from the dead and has now returned to heaven from which he will return one day to earth in all power and glory, is this any more realistic or logical? Other religions likely say that our Christian claims make little, if any sense. So what is the basis of us saying our religion makes sense but other religions don’t, therefor we are the only true religion?
And now for the crux of G. Anderson’s concern, winning Christian converts from within other religious beliefs. Of course that points to the exclusivity of the Christian religion. If Christians believed that there are many paths to God, they wouldn’t be concerned to pull Muslims, Hindus or Mormons away from their own religions to make them adherents of Christianity. But of course Christians are quite willing to see a Muslim convert suffer the anguishes of hell on earth (persecution) and to rejoice that they have become a Christian. That’s exclusivity at any and all costs. And that exclusive attitude by Christians is because our understanding of salvation is directly opposed to the teachings of all other religions. Other religions are hardly a stepping stone to Christianity.
Much more could be said, but I’ve gone on for too long already. Thanks for sharing your concerns. I think they are valid, but not easily answered.
I know this article is rather dated, so perhaps the comments that come in this late will never even be read. But as I see it, infant baptism isn't the problem, but rather believer's baptism, or the idea of infant baptism being the only form of baptism that is done in a church (is the problem). Because baptism, say in a Baptist church, is considered a sign of one's faith by which they have taken hold of Christ. It is more of a sign of an individual's action and a sign of when they themselves came to faith in Christ. Whereas in the Reformed tradition, baptism is a sign of God's action. It's really about God and not about me. But in our egotistical society, we tend to put ourselves at front and center and want markers of what we have done, so believer's baptism does more to feed that kind of mentality; it draws attention to me. So in our Reformed tradition we have to be careful not to feed such a mentality and emphasis. Salvation is about God, not about me. More could be said, but seeing as this will likely never be read, I'll leave it at that.
Hi Greg, your gospel formula (or Wax’s) makes some sense. But I don’t know if your short gospel description really does justice to the full accounting of the gospel or message of salvation. I find that Christians sometimes accuse other religious groups of having insider information that isn’t shared until after a so-called conversion or commitment is made. But Christians do that same thing, by which important information is withheld until after the new Christian is well on his/her way to maturity. And even then, because this additional information is less than desirable it is often never shared or is ignored by the believer.
In leg #1 for instance, it often isn’t told to the prospective Christian that apart from Christ, God sets the standard of acceptance by him at perfection. Of course, that’s an impossible standard for humans to ever reach. None ever have, other than Christ, and if one could reach it, he/she would be as perfectly holy as God himself, an impossibility. So this standard of perfect holiness that God or Christianity sets is an impossible standard. On top of that, all humans have been credited by God with the original sin of Adam. So before any human even comes from the womb he is declared by God a sinner and has fallen short of God’s standard of perfection. But another item missing from the gospel story, is that not only does God credit all humans with Adam’s sin but also with Adam’s fallen nature, by which a person naturally gravitates towards sin. In fact he/she can’t help but to sin. He/she can’t help himself because of the sinful nature credited to him/her by God. But on top of this helpless state that a person comes into the world in, he/she is held accountable for failure to meet God’s standard of perfection, as though it’s all his/her fault. Seems, as though quite a bit has been left out of the gospel story. Does this failure by human kind fall to the feet of humans or to God? Is this what we call the “justice of God.”
As to the second leg of the gospel, which you point out is the gospel announcement of substitutionary atonement, you have shortchanged that leg as well. You didn’t mention that this atonement is a limited (the “L” of TULIP) atonement, limited to those chosen by God from the cesspool of humanity. Only the chosen by God are enabled to respond to the gospel invitation by the powerful conviction and influence of the Holy Spirit. The rest are left to pay for having fallen short of God’s impossible mark of perfection, especially when God has credited to all humans Adam’s original sin and given him a fallen nature by which he can’t help but to continue in sin. Although the “few” are the recipients of this wonderful salvation, the many are left to perish (“many are called but few are chosen”). But for those chosen, this salvation is wonderful and is good news, if you can ignore what God has in store for the rest of humanity.
Those within the Christian community speak of Christianity as being unique. Unlike other religions that view God as using a balance or scale of justice to weigh the good and bad of individuals, Christians proclaim that their religion is one of grace alone. But realize that before grace becomes part of the picture, Christianity has to paint an individual into a corner of sin so deep and dark that he or she is utterly helpless. From this dark corner, not even a person’s good works count for anything. And realize from the start that it is God who has put these people into that corner.
But as you say, Greg, the gospel is the “good news” of Jesus, if you’re certain you are one of the chosen ones. Thanks for your article.
I don’t think much was lost in communication, simply because my thoughts were in printed form. I think you simply strongly disagreed with my comments to Greg. You appeal to some of the Reformed Confessions. Most Calvinists would subject their church’s confessions to the authority and teaching of Scripture. For most Bible believing Christians, the Bible is the ultimate authority. Of course there is little agreement among Christians as to what the Bible teaches (interpretation). Just consider the many differences within the CRC, but beyond that, the differences between Christian denominations gets bizarre. There is a host of different denominations and teachings in Christendom. It makes you wonder why there is so little agreement among Christians. I have heard it said that Christianity has the greatest diversity of teachings of any religion. It makes a person wonder about the validity of the Holy Spirit guiding the church in “all truth.” A Christian can make the Bible say almost anything they want. Scripture often seems to contradict itself on many points of teaching. Hence the variety of denominations. The point I’m making is that as soon as I say something, you can contradict me with a specific verse. But we’re speaking of Calvinists. You may believe the Calvinist perspective is the most true to the Bible, but no doubt you would bow to the authority of Scripture. So, to answer your concerns raised in your response.
As to the human inability to meet God’s standard of righteousness, I was not suggesting that people are equal to God (as Mormons may teach), but simply that God’s standard, apart from Christ, is impossible to reach. Consider Matthew 19:25,26. And certainly Paul suggests the same when he says, “there is none righteous, not even one.” God set a standard that is humanly impossible to achieve. Calvinists would certainly teach this. The conclusion: Human reasoning would tell anyone this is less than just on the part of God; or fair, which is part of justice, to set a standard that is unreachable.
I would not expect you to agree with the idea of God putting people into that dark corner of sin. But yet doesn’t Scripture speak for itself? Does not Scripture teach that God credited to all of Adam’s posterity his original sin? Don’t all people come into this world sinners, even before leaving the womb? And won’t God hold all people accountable for that sin, a sin that Adam’s posterity didn’t actually commit? This is a Calvinist teaching.
Also contributing to the idea of God putting humanity in that dark corner, is that God also imputed a fallen and sinful nature to all of Adam’s posterity. I believe, according to Calvinistic teaching, we would refer to this as a totally depraved nature (the T of TULIP), a nature that is sinful in all of its parts, and cannot help but to sin. This nature was imputed to all of humanity by God. And so when people cannot help but to sin, how can common sense say the acting out of this nature should not be placed at the feet of God? Of course, Calvinists are not Arminian, and therefore can not claim that humans have a free will not to sin. They would say a person’s will is constrained by his fallen nature and cannot help but to follow that nature and sin. So of course, as the Belgic Confession says, “they willingly subjected themselves to sin...”, they had no other choice. Humanity was programmed by God to sin. So I would say, that God clearly put humanity in that dark corner. The Biblical evidence is growing.
On top of all this is God’s electing purposes, which I mentioned in the earlier response as a “limited atonement,” limited to those chosen by God. This also is a Calvinistic teaching. It’s the “L” of TULIP. This could be pictured as a parent who had been out fishing with three young children who couldn’t swim. As the three boys got bored, they all started rocking the boat and all three fell in. Because all three couldn’t swim, all three were destined to drown unless help was given to them. So the father, although he could have easily saved all three, decides to save just one and leave the other two to perish. If this parent was brought before any of our human courts or brought before a judge, the parent might say, “It was the kids’ fault that they fell in. They were all rascals. So I felt no obligation to save them all. So I saved just one.” Sounds like the Bible’s explanation of predestination and it doesn’t sound just at all.
It’s too bad the Bible’s message of salvation could not have taught that God’s justice is met in the payment for sin made by Christ, and his mercy is demonstrated in the salvation of all people. But as it is, God only saves the few (“many are called but few are chosen). The Bible teaches that God does not show favoritism and tells Christians they should not show favoritism. But this Biblical teaching is definitely a demonstration of favoritism by which God chooses the few over the many, and it doesn’t demonstrate a truly just God.
You may still try to claim that people have painted themselves in the dark corner of sin and depravity. But your reasoning is faulty. You are not taking into consideration primary and secondary causation. The Calvinist would say that in God’s electing purposes, God is the primary mover or cause of salvation and the convert’s actions are only secondary. The potential convert is called upon to repent and believe the gospel. But of course the Calvinist will say that action by the believer is secondary to the primary cause, which is God’s choosing, God’s providential leading, the Holy Spirit’s leading and enabling. And without God’s primary action the saved sinner’s action would never be possible.
The same is true in regard to God’s damnation of the human race. God is the primary mover, according to the Bible, and humanity’s actions are secondary. So your quote from the Belgic Confession (Art 14) is speaking only of the secondary cause of damnation. Christians tend to do this when they don’t want to admit the less than desirable teachings of the Bible. The primary causation, as demonstrated above, is, of course, God. The actual committal of sin is the secondary and is the act of the condemned. But remember it is the primary causation by God that ensures the sinner’s damnation. Remember the sinner came into the world a sinner and was programmed (imputed fallen nature) by God to be a sinner, and called upon by God to meet a standard that was impossible for him to reach. God was the primary cause.
It surprises me to hear Calvinists quote the Dutch theologian who said, “there is not one square inch of this world that doesn’t belong to God.” That is to say that God is sovereign in and over all. But he quickly denies God’s sovereignty in the huge sphere of human existence that involves the damnation of the human race, except for the few chosen.
Nick, I did say that Christians do the person targeted for evangelism a disservice by not giving a full disclosure of the God they would be responding to. It would be very much like trying to sell a beautiful home to a potential buyer but never telling him/her that the foundation is infested with termites. Let’s at least be truthful when evangelizing. I’ll look forward to your rebuff.
Jeff, I've been retired for four years now and doubt that a gravaman would work as I have too many concerns to list in it. I hope you and family are doing well. We get up to Wis. quite often and do think of you. You may have moved from there, but wish you the best wherever you may be. Blessings. Greg, I'd like to do a little wrestling over some of the issues with you, as I see they are important. So if you're open, you could send me your email address and we could follow up on our conversation. Thanks for your openness. Roger
Hi George, Thanks for your thoughts on being our society’s referee. But I’m quite certain that our society, world, or culture says “no thanks.” They’ll tell you that our society didn’t appoint the Christian church to be the keeper of rules for our society any more than it appointed the Muslim church, Hindu church, Jewish church, Mormon church or any other group to monitor our behaviors. Most people will tell you that they have the good sense of knowing right and wrong themselves. Christians may appeal to their God inspired Scriptures but so does every other religion. So the nonchristian might ask, which referee should I listen to, or does not this great variety of referees (religions) cast doubt on them all as to monitoring cultural behaviors. Are all religions right or are they all questionable. They all claim God as their authority and claim to be the one true religion. Maybe it’s the church’s role to monitor the behaviors of their own members, like your father being a sanctioned football coach, not “cooking” judge, or wrestling umpire. I’m just trying to figure out how people in our society might respond to your well intended whistle blowing. I think our culture’s response will be that they would rather watch the church for a while and see how well those rules are working for them.
I may be out of the loop on this subject. I didn’t realize that the CRC denomination has taken a definitive position on global warming or climate change. Kyle, you talk in this article as though there is already an established position that the denomination needs to act on. Has there been a study committee from Synod with a resulting majority and minority report on the subject? It sounds like someone is jumping the gun on getting a denominational group sent to Paris, especially when you say that “governments from all over the world will be gathering in Paris” for this conference. We’re not a government. I’m not so sure that this is even the kind of thing that a church or denomination should be getting involved in. As a church, we have no expertise in things like global warming. Is the next thing, for our denomination to get involved in, going to be the promotion of organic foods, or boycotting the dairy industry, or cell phone radiation?
Posted in: My Banner Article
Hey John. I have to admit, you do have me at a disadvantage. Once again, I’m not a scientist, don’t even come close. So I have to rely on others, even as I hear you doing (the book you are presently reading), and you are a scientist. I don’t think you are on the cutting edge of research, but you do have some understanding of what’s going on in those fields. You ask me for examples, but isn’t that just you, trying to push me into a corner? What am I supposed to do, read some evolutionist expert, look for an example in his research or book, then bring it back to you, so you can tear it apart? I don’t know if what you or they tell me is really true, or how to scrutinize theirs or your findings. I really think those beyond yourself are the real experts. I can go to a hospital or a medical expert with serious symptoms of illness, and I have to take the word of the doctors when they give me a diagnosis. Even getting a second opinion leaves me in the same position of having to rely on the experts. It’s my opinion that there are many more experts on the side of evolution. You can bash their findings endlessly, even as I”m sure they could do to you. But they are not involved in this particular debate, so you get to do the bashing with no opposition. If they were involved in this debate, they would not walk home with their tails between their legs. And it would be foolish of me to think that they are not doing their work with integrity. So you can keep pushing me for examples, but that makes you sound like a bully. That leaves me with having to pick a side to stand with. To me, it makes much more sense to stand with those who have put in the abundance of work and research. It feels, to me, like choosing to stand either with a professional team or a little league team. I’ll go with the experts.
All that being said, what bothers me more, is the foolishness of the creationist perspective. Everything created instantaneously and simultaneously at a single point in history (all within six days). That means, as to dating, everything is the exact same age, to within a week (as to the original creation). I imagine young earth creationists (apart from geneologies) can date the origin of the universe to within a week, or at least to a year or two. You may think that science and dating methods can back this up, but to the scientific community it sounds like foolishness. And it does to me. Theoretically, young earth scientists should be able to determine whether the origin of the earth and all of life was 10,000, 8,000 or 8,543 years ago, using the dating methods that they have found to be accurate. That’s the theory for young earth creationists, and again it is based on a couple chapters of the Bible. That may make sense to you and to some Christians, but it’s a theory that has to be accepted by faith because it doesn’t have the evidence to back it up. That’s the nature of religious faith, believing that which is not seen. It has to be accepted by faith because it involves a huge miracle and it can’t be explained otherwise. And it’s based on faith that the church (some churches) expect its members to accept this teaching, and not based upon scientific evidence. It’s also the reason that young earth creationists spend the majority of their effort trying to disprove evolution rather than proving an instantaneous creation (that’s based on faith).
Posted in: My Banner Article
This gets difficult when trying to respond to two people that seem to hold somewhat different positions. I appreciate your input and distinctions. Edwin, you’re right when you categorize me as the flaming liberal (I know, you didn’t quite say that). In my responses I’ve wanted to show that from within the Christian faith (especially the Reformed faith) that there are inconsistencies. It’s arguing from within a prepsuppositional apologetic the inconsistencies or unreasonableness of the Christian religion. But if I disregard the Christian presuppositions then that pretty much ends the debate right there. It would be like a Hindu arguing with a Christian. You can’t argue two completely different religions and expect to get anywhere.
As I understand the Christian religion (and I think there is no other way to understand it), Christianity is different from all other religions. The difference is that Jesus, who is God in the fullest sense, came to earth from heaven to pay the supreme price for sin. It is only in Jesus that there is salvation and apart from him, there is no salvation. He is the propitiation by which he appeased the wrath of God against sinners. And since all people are sinners (even come in the world as sinners) all are deserving of eternal damnation. Apart from Jesus and his payment for sin all are destined for hell. No other religion offers such a perspective on the condition of the human race or on such a plan for the salvation of people. It is unique. Jesus is the cornerstone, not only by his example, but especially by who he is and what he has done to accomplish salvation, making payment for sin. Apart from Christ’s saving work all are lost, because all are sinners. The good a person does counts for nothing because sin negates any good a person may have thought he has done.
I haven’t really heard too much from either John or Edwin on this central teaching of Christianity. It is only by faith in this saving work of Christ, that a person can experience salvation in the present and for eternity. And even this faith comes from God, given only to the elect. (Side note: Arminians believe that Jesus came for the salvation of all and all can respond.) This is the faith and rescue that the apostle Paul speaks about when he describes his struggle with sin. This is the faith that Paul agues for in his letters. It is a specific faith with a specific object. And there is no other faith that will save. “There is no other name under heaven...” This is the heart of Christianity.
John, you have talked a lot about God, but not so much about Jesus, and you have said a lot about faith, but not the object of faith. And Edwin, although you seem to acknowledge Jesus as fully God, and miraculously taking on a human nature, you don’t say much about this necessary propitiation made by Jesus or the helpless state of human kind.
Once again about “faith,” John. “Just have faith and you will be ok.” That’s what a lot of people might say. But not Paul. But, in contrast to Paul, when Jesus talked about faith the object of faith would change according to the situation. When the author of Hebrews talks about faith, the object of faith varies. “It was by faith that Abel brought a more acceptable offering to God than Cain did. Abel’s offering gave evidence that he was a righteous man, and God showed his approval of his gifts.” The object of faith was the sufficiency of his offering to God (works). No propitiation necessary. By faith Noah built the ark. By faith Abraham left his homeland. None of these mention the propitiation of another, but trust that they were doing (what God asked of them). They all believed they could please God. Anyone who truly believes in God will trust that their attempts to please God (love for God and neighbor) will be accepted by him. That’s not the faith Paul is talking about. You don’t trust your efforts even with faith in God. They won’t do it. Propitiation has to be made. And once again Paul and Jesus are at odds. Jesus says the difference between heaven and hell is in loving others, and by loving others you demonstrate your love for God. And Jesus’ teaching was revolutionary, especially in the context of what the Jewish religion had become. Paul’s addition is not just a new twist to what Jesus teaches, but different altogether. I don’t know how to make myself any clearer.
It seems to me, whether you acknowledge Jesus as God or not, whether you acknowledge him as a prophet sent by God, or whether he was just very insightful into where the Jewish religion (which he was part of) had gone amuck, however you see him, his teaching was insightful in his context, as well as insightful for all people in any age. He taught we could please God. It was his teaching and his insight into given situations that made him revolutionary. It’s here that you will fault me to no end. Paul came along and made an idol of Jesus, something I don’t think Jesus wanted for himself. Jesus came to teach a new way, the way of love. But now realize that many or most religions teach the same thing, perhaps with a different prophet. It’s just that Jesus is the teacher par excellence, at least in my thinking.
Well, I see that another response has come in from John. I'll send this as is, and then respond to the next responses later. Wishing both of you health and happiness (God's rich blessings).
Posted in: My Banner Article
I suppose you are right John, to some extent, when you say that both evolutionism and creationism involve faith. But that doesn’t mean that belief in evolution necessitates whether a person believes in God or not. Belief in Biblical creation does necessitate such belief. In fact, that is the beginning presupposition. A scientist should (and most do) do his evolutionary studies apart from any opinion about God. The evolutionist is simply looking for a natural explanation for the development of life. He looks at the facts or his findings and based on those findings comes up wth a theory of what those findings demonstrate. It’s when you add a philosophy (cosmology) to your findings that you come up with an “ism.” Hence evolutionism. But then this is a mixing of science and cosmology, and not true science. Creationism necessitates a cosmology, in fact begins with it. So, you see, the faith element is entirely different for the person who believes that evolution explains the origins of life. He may or may not believe in God.
Of course creationism or belief in a Biblical creation, begins with the presupposition that God has done this (brought into existence the world and all of life), in fact, has done this according to the outline laid out in Genesis 1 and 2. You, John, because you have some sympathy for the findings of evolution (dating and age findings) are now willing to stretch the Genesis account to include something never intended by the author of the Genesis account. I’m sure Moses was not thinking of days in terms of years or even millions of years for part of creation and twenty-four hours days for the rest. That takes away from the plain sense of reading the text. If God could create the animal kingdom in a matter of a few actual days he could do the same with the rest of creation. That’s the point of the Genesis account, not to differentiate the length of days in the account. That’s where the young earth creationists are attempting to be true to the text of Genesis. But they are beginning with big presuppositions which shades their whole scientific endeavor.
You have pointed out previously that buying into the theory of evolution necessitates an atheistic cosmology. Even the evolutionary scientists have claimed that. But certainly not all, or even a majority, have made that claim. And it’s not the begriming premise. And for those scientists that do claim evolution necessitates an atheistic perspective, they don’t really understand what God can and can’t do. Randomness does not exclude God from the process or development of life over time to its present forms. In fact Reformed Christians would say God works in and through what appears to be random or coincidence. In fact nothing happens by chance, even the falling of a single hair to the ground (again, or is it a bird). Isn’t that the point of Peter’s address to the Jews who had crucified Jesus but God was at work, despite their ill attempts, to accomplish the salvation of many. Isn’t that Paul’s meaning, when he says that everything happens by the hand of God, or when he talks about the Pharoah being a pot made for the seemingly ill purpose that God intended. Isn’t this what Christians have in mind when they talk about looking at a quilt from the back side and it looks ugly, but when seen from God’s perspective is beautiful (like seeing it from the front)? Atheistic evolutionism (evolution + cosmology) has a narrow understanding of what God can and can’t do, or what might make sense in the mind of God.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Now for a comment especially for you, Edwin. Again, I appreciate your perspective. And I agree that we have got off target. I think the original article can easily lead into other areas, as it has seemed to have happened here. I don’t expect either you, Edwin or John, to agree with me in the least. That’s ok, but at least you will know where I’m coming from.
I think all religions are manmade and are an attempt to explain the God who has revealed himself in creation. Most religions are ancient and are archaic in many of their basic premises. And certainly scientists today have a host of doubts when someone tells them that the earth, life and even human beings were all created in a matter of six days. Not only do scientists have to defend themselves against the likes of Christians, but also Hindus, Muslims, Mormons and a host of other religions that have their own ideas on origins, because these other ideas of origins come from their inspired Scriptures just as Christians assert. Like other ancient religions, Christianity has a central theme (just one of several) of the wars of the gods (the creator God and the demigod, Satan) who are in constant battle from the beginning of time and will culminate at the end of time. Also, like the many other religions, Christianity’s God acts outside of the created order and laws (such as with creation and a multitude of other miracles).
I think that creation tells us enough about God that I can stand in awe of him and desire to honor him with my life. And when someone as insightful as Jesus appears on the scene, it is cause enough to stand up and listen. In the fact that Jesus’ teachings makes so much sense, I could easily feel I’m a follower of Jesus, myself. But it would be very difficult to feel the same for Paul, who seems to have a very different perspective and emphasis on God and finding acceptance with him.
Also the personal nature that Christians portray God having with Christians raises flags for me. Prayer and the leading of the Holy Spirit are the impetuses for such thoughts of a personal God. They both are very subjective. When someone asks, what would Jesus want me to do, what they really mean is what do “I think” Jesus would want me to do, or what do I want Jesus to tell me to do in any given situation. The Holy Spirit can be thought to have led people and groups in a thousand different directions. And yet the Holy Spirit leads in all truth. I wonder if looking for the Spirit’s voice is no different than let your conscience be your guide. As to prayer, a person can feel that in a given situation God has answered their prayers (healing from cancer) but at the same time a hundred other Christians pray for the same but never recover. Then there is all kinds of rationalizing, as to the answers we get in regard to prayer, even though Jesus taught on more than one occasion that we could pray for anything we want and we will be given what we prayed for. I don’t think that the creation reveals these things but from the beginning of time people have been crying out to the gods with no more success than Christians. Maybe having a personal God is part of the myth of made up religions. Does God care for his creation? In my mind, definitely. He has brought it into existence in one way or another and preserves it wonderfully. Why would I doubt his care of his world. But a personal relationship?
So you see how easily questions (or doubts) about creation and evolution can lead to other areas of concern? Or maybe, more than likely, I’m not very disciplined in staying on track.
Posted in: My Banner Article
I don’t know John. Going back and forth with you makes me a little weary. Maybe it does for you, as well. I think that may be why Edwin dropped out a long time back.
As to your last response, you did a lot of speculation as to a naturalistic explanation of the first four days of the creation narrative in Genesis. You want to be true to the intent of Scripture and yet true to science (general revelation). Sounds admirable. And even though you admitted that what you stated could be totally out, you probably put more stock in such speculations you have made up than in evolutionary theory which has a lot of research behind it. It sounds a little bit to me, that for you, speculation is ok as long as it doesn’t agree with evolutionary theory.
Here’s another take (my speculation). I think there’s a possibility that as to primary causation Genesis is saying that God is the creator God. He stands above it all. That’s the important message for the ages. As to secondary causation a face on reading of Genesis made sense to the people of Moses’ day. That’s as far as their science would let them go in that early stage of history. And a day was a day, as Moses would have understood it. Today, as to primary causation, the message is the same. But today with the advances of science, people are still trying to make sense of origins as to secondary causation. And maybe on both sides of the issue there is both speculation as well as research. This includes Christians on both sides of the evolution/creation issue. Maybe too much is being made of secondary causation when reading the Bible.
I know, for you, an actual Adam, seems very important. Without him a lot of theology seems like it can thrown out or watered down. It sounded to me, as though Edwin was trying to come up with a way to be true to natural science and to the Biblical account. I know you disagree, and I understand. A lot could be at stake.
For me, I’m a theist. That means, in one way or another, God is involved. I’m not near ready to dismiss him. I’m not sure I want to keep this up endlessly. Honestly, I thought you would wear down before me. But looking over these responses, as well as others (to other articles) I think you are the energizer bunny. It’s been fun. And thanks for the food for thought. It’s been good.
Posted in: The Religions Next Door: Uninformed? Underdeveloped? or Unregenerate?
Hi Salaam, I’m a little late (several months) noticing your posted article. I think you post some challenging questions. But I doubt that other religious adherents feel challenged by Christianity any more than Christians feel challenged by other religions. They all propose different pathways to God and are not meant to be stepping stones to anything except to God. In fact, most religions are mutually exclusive, therefor not stepping stones at all. Few religions try to accommodate any other religion. For example Christians claim there is no way other than Christ to win God’s favor and acceptance. As Christians, we don’t see any other religion as a stepping stone to Christ or God.
Another important question that needs answering, is who is to say that other religions are false and only Christianity is true? That seems to be the assumption that you are working with. We might claim that only the Bible is the inspired word of God and therefor completely true and trustworthy, and therefor lays out the only valid pathway to God. But that is also what every other religion claims, as well. What makes the Bible true and not the God inspired writings of other religions? Or is that just a matter of opinion? Is there anything that validates one religion over another, Christianity over all other religions?
Why are the claims of other religions false and not our claims? As Christians, we may assert that the claims of other religions are not logical, are nonsense. But is the Christian assertion that Jesus is God and has come down to earth from heaven and taken on a human nature, lived a perfect life, was crucified but rose from the dead and has now returned to heaven from which he will return one day to earth in all power and glory, is this any more realistic or logical? Other religions likely say that our Christian claims make little, if any sense. So what is the basis of us saying our religion makes sense but other religions don’t, therefor we are the only true religion?
And now for the crux of G. Anderson’s concern, winning Christian converts from within other religious beliefs. Of course that points to the exclusivity of the Christian religion. If Christians believed that there are many paths to God, they wouldn’t be concerned to pull Muslims, Hindus or Mormons away from their own religions to make them adherents of Christianity. But of course Christians are quite willing to see a Muslim convert suffer the anguishes of hell on earth (persecution) and to rejoice that they have become a Christian. That’s exclusivity at any and all costs. And that exclusive attitude by Christians is because our understanding of salvation is directly opposed to the teachings of all other religions. Other religions are hardly a stepping stone to Christianity.
Much more could be said, but I’ve gone on for too long already. Thanks for sharing your concerns. I think they are valid, but not easily answered.
Posted in: Our Problem With Infant Baptism
I know this article is rather dated, so perhaps the comments that come in this late will never even be read. But as I see it, infant baptism isn't the problem, but rather believer's baptism, or the idea of infant baptism being the only form of baptism that is done in a church (is the problem). Because baptism, say in a Baptist church, is considered a sign of one's faith by which they have taken hold of Christ. It is more of a sign of an individual's action and a sign of when they themselves came to faith in Christ. Whereas in the Reformed tradition, baptism is a sign of God's action. It's really about God and not about me. But in our egotistical society, we tend to put ourselves at front and center and want markers of what we have done, so believer's baptism does more to feed that kind of mentality; it draws attention to me. So in our Reformed tradition we have to be careful not to feed such a mentality and emphasis. Salvation is about God, not about me. More could be said, but seeing as this will likely never be read, I'll leave it at that.
Posted in: What Is the Gospel?
Hi Greg, your gospel formula (or Wax’s) makes some sense. But I don’t know if your short gospel description really does justice to the full accounting of the gospel or message of salvation. I find that Christians sometimes accuse other religious groups of having insider information that isn’t shared until after a so-called conversion or commitment is made. But Christians do that same thing, by which important information is withheld until after the new Christian is well on his/her way to maturity. And even then, because this additional information is less than desirable it is often never shared or is ignored by the believer.
In leg #1 for instance, it often isn’t told to the prospective Christian that apart from Christ, God sets the standard of acceptance by him at perfection. Of course, that’s an impossible standard for humans to ever reach. None ever have, other than Christ, and if one could reach it, he/she would be as perfectly holy as God himself, an impossibility. So this standard of perfect holiness that God or Christianity sets is an impossible standard. On top of that, all humans have been credited by God with the original sin of Adam. So before any human even comes from the womb he is declared by God a sinner and has fallen short of God’s standard of perfection. But another item missing from the gospel story, is that not only does God credit all humans with Adam’s sin but also with Adam’s fallen nature, by which a person naturally gravitates towards sin. In fact he/she can’t help but to sin. He/she can’t help himself because of the sinful nature credited to him/her by God. But on top of this helpless state that a person comes into the world in, he/she is held accountable for failure to meet God’s standard of perfection, as though it’s all his/her fault. Seems, as though quite a bit has been left out of the gospel story. Does this failure by human kind fall to the feet of humans or to God? Is this what we call the “justice of God.”
As to the second leg of the gospel, which you point out is the gospel announcement of substitutionary atonement, you have shortchanged that leg as well. You didn’t mention that this atonement is a limited (the “L” of TULIP) atonement, limited to those chosen by God from the cesspool of humanity. Only the chosen by God are enabled to respond to the gospel invitation by the powerful conviction and influence of the Holy Spirit. The rest are left to pay for having fallen short of God’s impossible mark of perfection, especially when God has credited to all humans Adam’s original sin and given him a fallen nature by which he can’t help but to continue in sin. Although the “few” are the recipients of this wonderful salvation, the many are left to perish (“many are called but few are chosen”). But for those chosen, this salvation is wonderful and is good news, if you can ignore what God has in store for the rest of humanity.
Those within the Christian community speak of Christianity as being unique. Unlike other religions that view God as using a balance or scale of justice to weigh the good and bad of individuals, Christians proclaim that their religion is one of grace alone. But realize that before grace becomes part of the picture, Christianity has to paint an individual into a corner of sin so deep and dark that he or she is utterly helpless. From this dark corner, not even a person’s good works count for anything. And realize from the start that it is God who has put these people into that corner.
But as you say, Greg, the gospel is the “good news” of Jesus, if you’re certain you are one of the chosen ones. Thanks for your article.
Posted in: What Is the Gospel?
Nick,
I don’t think much was lost in communication, simply because my thoughts were in printed form. I think you simply strongly disagreed with my comments to Greg. You appeal to some of the Reformed Confessions. Most Calvinists would subject their church’s confessions to the authority and teaching of Scripture. For most Bible believing Christians, the Bible is the ultimate authority. Of course there is little agreement among Christians as to what the Bible teaches (interpretation). Just consider the many differences within the CRC, but beyond that, the differences between Christian denominations gets bizarre. There is a host of different denominations and teachings in Christendom. It makes you wonder why there is so little agreement among Christians. I have heard it said that Christianity has the greatest diversity of teachings of any religion. It makes a person wonder about the validity of the Holy Spirit guiding the church in “all truth.” A Christian can make the Bible say almost anything they want. Scripture often seems to contradict itself on many points of teaching. Hence the variety of denominations. The point I’m making is that as soon as I say something, you can contradict me with a specific verse. But we’re speaking of Calvinists. You may believe the Calvinist perspective is the most true to the Bible, but no doubt you would bow to the authority of Scripture. So, to answer your concerns raised in your response.
As to the human inability to meet God’s standard of righteousness, I was not suggesting that people are equal to God (as Mormons may teach), but simply that God’s standard, apart from Christ, is impossible to reach. Consider Matthew 19:25,26. And certainly Paul suggests the same when he says, “there is none righteous, not even one.” God set a standard that is humanly impossible to achieve. Calvinists would certainly teach this. The conclusion: Human reasoning would tell anyone this is less than just on the part of God; or fair, which is part of justice, to set a standard that is unreachable.
I would not expect you to agree with the idea of God putting people into that dark corner of sin. But yet doesn’t Scripture speak for itself? Does not Scripture teach that God credited to all of Adam’s posterity his original sin? Don’t all people come into this world sinners, even before leaving the womb? And won’t God hold all people accountable for that sin, a sin that Adam’s posterity didn’t actually commit? This is a Calvinist teaching.
Also contributing to the idea of God putting humanity in that dark corner, is that God also imputed a fallen and sinful nature to all of Adam’s posterity. I believe, according to Calvinistic teaching, we would refer to this as a totally depraved nature (the T of TULIP), a nature that is sinful in all of its parts, and cannot help but to sin. This nature was imputed to all of humanity by God. And so when people cannot help but to sin, how can common sense say the acting out of this nature should not be placed at the feet of God? Of course, Calvinists are not Arminian, and therefore can not claim that humans have a free will not to sin. They would say a person’s will is constrained by his fallen nature and cannot help but to follow that nature and sin. So of course, as the Belgic Confession says, “they willingly subjected themselves to sin...”, they had no other choice. Humanity was programmed by God to sin. So I would say, that God clearly put humanity in that dark corner. The Biblical evidence is growing.
On top of all this is God’s electing purposes, which I mentioned in the earlier response as a “limited atonement,” limited to those chosen by God. This also is a Calvinistic teaching. It’s the “L” of TULIP. This could be pictured as a parent who had been out fishing with three young children who couldn’t swim. As the three boys got bored, they all started rocking the boat and all three fell in. Because all three couldn’t swim, all three were destined to drown unless help was given to them. So the father, although he could have easily saved all three, decides to save just one and leave the other two to perish. If this parent was brought before any of our human courts or brought before a judge, the parent might say, “It was the kids’ fault that they fell in. They were all rascals. So I felt no obligation to save them all. So I saved just one.” Sounds like the Bible’s explanation of predestination and it doesn’t sound just at all.
It’s too bad the Bible’s message of salvation could not have taught that God’s justice is met in the payment for sin made by Christ, and his mercy is demonstrated in the salvation of all people. But as it is, God only saves the few (“many are called but few are chosen). The Bible teaches that God does not show favoritism and tells Christians they should not show favoritism. But this Biblical teaching is definitely a demonstration of favoritism by which God chooses the few over the many, and it doesn’t demonstrate a truly just God.
You may still try to claim that people have painted themselves in the dark corner of sin and depravity. But your reasoning is faulty. You are not taking into consideration primary and secondary causation. The Calvinist would say that in God’s electing purposes, God is the primary mover or cause of salvation and the convert’s actions are only secondary. The potential convert is called upon to repent and believe the gospel. But of course the Calvinist will say that action by the believer is secondary to the primary cause, which is God’s choosing, God’s providential leading, the Holy Spirit’s leading and enabling. And without God’s primary action the saved sinner’s action would never be possible.
The same is true in regard to God’s damnation of the human race. God is the primary mover, according to the Bible, and humanity’s actions are secondary. So your quote from the Belgic Confession (Art 14) is speaking only of the secondary cause of damnation. Christians tend to do this when they don’t want to admit the less than desirable teachings of the Bible. The primary causation, as demonstrated above, is, of course, God. The actual committal of sin is the secondary and is the act of the condemned. But remember it is the primary causation by God that ensures the sinner’s damnation. Remember the sinner came into the world a sinner and was programmed (imputed fallen nature) by God to be a sinner, and called upon by God to meet a standard that was impossible for him to reach. God was the primary cause.
It surprises me to hear Calvinists quote the Dutch theologian who said, “there is not one square inch of this world that doesn’t belong to God.” That is to say that God is sovereign in and over all. But he quickly denies God’s sovereignty in the huge sphere of human existence that involves the damnation of the human race, except for the few chosen.
Nick, I did say that Christians do the person targeted for evangelism a disservice by not giving a full disclosure of the God they would be responding to. It would be very much like trying to sell a beautiful home to a potential buyer but never telling him/her that the foundation is infested with termites. Let’s at least be truthful when evangelizing. I’ll look forward to your rebuff.
Posted in: What Is the Gospel?
Hi Greg and Jeff,
Jeff, I've been retired for four years now and doubt that a gravaman would work as I have too many concerns to list in it. I hope you and family are doing well. We get up to Wis. quite often and do think of you. You may have moved from there, but wish you the best wherever you may be. Blessings. Greg, I'd like to do a little wrestling over some of the issues with you, as I see they are important. So if you're open, you could send me your email address and we could follow up on our conversation. Thanks for your openness. Roger
Posted in: God's Referee?
Hi George, Thanks for your thoughts on being our society’s referee. But I’m quite certain that our society, world, or culture says “no thanks.” They’ll tell you that our society didn’t appoint the Christian church to be the keeper of rules for our society any more than it appointed the Muslim church, Hindu church, Jewish church, Mormon church or any other group to monitor our behaviors. Most people will tell you that they have the good sense of knowing right and wrong themselves. Christians may appeal to their God inspired Scriptures but so does every other religion. So the nonchristian might ask, which referee should I listen to, or does not this great variety of referees (religions) cast doubt on them all as to monitoring cultural behaviors. Are all religions right or are they all questionable. They all claim God as their authority and claim to be the one true religion. Maybe it’s the church’s role to monitor the behaviors of their own members, like your father being a sanctioned football coach, not “cooking” judge, or wrestling umpire. I’m just trying to figure out how people in our society might respond to your well intended whistle blowing. I think our culture’s response will be that they would rather watch the church for a while and see how well those rules are working for them.
Posted in: Let’s Partner Toward COP 21
I may be out of the loop on this subject. I didn’t realize that the CRC denomination has taken a definitive position on global warming or climate change. Kyle, you talk in this article as though there is already an established position that the denomination needs to act on. Has there been a study committee from Synod with a resulting majority and minority report on the subject? It sounds like someone is jumping the gun on getting a denominational group sent to Paris, especially when you say that “governments from all over the world will be gathering in Paris” for this conference. We’re not a government. I’m not so sure that this is even the kind of thing that a church or denomination should be getting involved in. As a church, we have no expertise in things like global warming. Is the next thing, for our denomination to get involved in, going to be the promotion of organic foods, or boycotting the dairy industry, or cell phone radiation?