In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who tell you these things, do not give ready belief, unless you receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of the things which I announce. The salvation in which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the Holy Scriptures.
Source
We know what caused the catastrophe in Haiti. It was the bumping and grinding of the Caribbean Plate rubbing up against the North American Plate: a force of nature, sin-free and indifferent to sin, un-premeditated, unmotivated, supremely unconcerned with human affairs or human misery.The religious mind, however, restlessly seeks human meaning in the blind happenings of nature. As with the Indonesian tsunami, which was blamed on loose sexual morals in tourist bars; as with Hurricane Katrina, which was attributed to divine revenge on the entire city of New Orleans for harboring a lesbian comedian, and as with other disasters going back to the famous Lisbon earthquake and beyond, so Haiti's tragedy must be payback for human sin. The Rev. Pat Robertson sees the hand of God in the earthquake, wreaking terrible retribution for a pact that the long-dead ancestors of today's Haitians made with the devil, to help rid them of their French masters.Needless to say, milder-mannered faith-heads are falling over themselves to disown Pat Robertson, just as they disowned those other pastors, evangelists, missionaries and mullahs at the time of the earlier disasters.What hypocrisy.Loathsome as Robertson's views undoubtedly are, he is the Christian who stands squarely in the Christian tradition. The agonized theodiceans who see suffering as an intractable 'mystery', or who 'see God' in the help, money and goodwill that is now flooding into Haiti , or (most nauseating of all) who claim to see God 'suffering on the cross' in the ruins of Port-au-Prince, those faux-anguished hypocrites are denying the centrepiece of their own theology. It is the obnoxious Pat Robertson who is the true Christian here.Where was God in Noah's flood? He was systematically drowning the entire world, animal as well as human, as punishment for 'sin'. Where was God when Sodom and Gomorrah were consumed with fire and brimstone? He was deliberately barbecuing the citizenry, lock stock and barrel, as punishment for 'sin'. Dear modern, enlightened, theologically sophisticated Christian, your entire religion is founded on an obsession with 'sin', with punishment and with atonement. Where do you find the effrontery to condemn Pat Robertson, you who have signed up to the obnoxious doctrine that the central purpose of Jesus' incarnation was to have himself tortured as a scapegoat for the 'sins' of all mankind, past, present and future, beginning with the 'sin' of Adam, who (as any modern theologian well knows) never even existed? To quote the President of one theological seminary, writing in these very pages:"The earthquake in Haiti, like every other earthly disaster, reminds us that creation groans under the weight of sin and the judgment of God. This is true for every cell in our bodies, even as it is for the crust of the earth at every point on the globe."You nice, middle-of-the-road theologians and clergymen, be-frocked and bleating in your pulpits, you disclaim Pat Robertson's suggestion that the Haitians are paying for a pact with the devil. But you worship a god-man who - as you tell your congregations even if you don't believe it yourself - 'cast out devils'. You even believe (or you don't disabuse your flock when they believe) that Jesus cured a madman by causing the 'devils' in him to fly into a herd of pigs and stampede them over a cliff. Charming story, well calculated to uplift and inspire the Sunday School and the Infant Bible Class. Pat Robertson may spout evil nonsense, but he is a mere amateur at that game. Just read your own Bible. Pat Robertson is true to it. But you?Educated apologist, how dare you weep Christian tears, when your entire theology is one long celebration of suffering: suffering as payback for 'sin' - or suffering as 'atonement' for it? You may weep for Haiti where Pat Robertson does not, but at least, in his hick, sub-Palinesque ignorance, he holds up an honest mirror to the ugliness of Christian theology. You are nothing but a whited sepulchre.
It's God's will for you to live in prosperity instead of poverty. It's God's will for you to pay your bills and not be in debt.But the Bible says:
Now there is great gain in godliness with contentment, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content.
(1 Timothy 6:6-8, ESV)
If you want to rear financial blessings, you have to sow financially.
Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.
(Matthew 6:19-20, ESV)
You may make some mistakes-but that doesn't make you a sinner. You've got the very nature of God on the inside of you.
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us... If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
(1 John 1:8-10, ESV)
We were old sinners - but when we came to Christ we are not sinners anymore.
The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am [am, not was] the foremost.
(1 Timothy 1:15, ESV)
God chose Christ's members in Him before the foundation of the world; and how should He choose those who as yet did not exist, except by predestinating them? Therefore He chose us by predestinating us. Would he choose the unholy and the unclean? Now if the question be proposed, whether He would choose such, or rather the holy and unstained, who can ask which of these he may answer, and not give his opinion at once in favour of the holy and pure?There is no shortage of criticism directed at those who adhere to the doctrines of grace, especially as it pertains to the reformed doctrine of predestination. It is a common complaint that if the Sovereign Lord has predestined one to eternal life irrespective of our personal merits (or lack thereof), then there is no reason to live virtuously. This is based on only a partial understanding of the Calvinist view of election and justification. The main problem is that one important factor is left out: the doctrine of sanctification. Simply put, when God has elected one to eternal life, He declares them righteous. But it does not end there, as God also places His Spirit upon those whom He justifies, and it is the Holy Spirit’s work on the elect that brings about an inward renewal of the heart and mind, which ultimately leads to glorification. “And these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified” (Romans 8:30 ). It is described as such:-Saint Augustine of Hippo[1]
As appears from the immediately preceding, sanctification is a work of which God and not man is the author. Only the advocates of the so-called free will can claim that it is a work of man. Nevertheless, it differs from regeneration in that man can, and is in duty bound to, strive for ever-increasing sanctification by using the means which God has placed at his disposal. This is clearly taught in Scripture, II Cor. 7:1; Col. 3:5-14; I Pet. 1:22.[2]Thus, we do good works because those who are elected by God are gradually brought into conformity to His image, and renewal is the sign of this. As it is written, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10). Or, to put it in Calvin’s terms,
Christ, therefore, justifies no man without also sanctifying him. These blessings are conjoined by a perpetual and inseparable tie. Those whom he enlightens by his wisdom he redeems; whom he redeems he justifies; whom he justifies he sanctifies. But as the question relates only to justification and sanctification, to them let us confine ourselves. Though we distinguish between them, they are both inseparably comprehended in Christ. Would ye then obtain justification in Christ? You must previously possess Christ. But you cannot possess him without being made a partaker of his sanctification: for Christ cannot be divided. Since the Lord, therefore, does not grant us the enjoyment of these blessings without bestowing himself, he bestows both at once but never the one without the other. Thus it appears how true it is that we are justified not without, and yet not by works, since in the participation of Christ, by which we are justified, is contained not less sanctification than justification.[3]Nevertheless, it seems that the criticisms persist. In recent article in Philosophy Now, Philosophy Professor Robert Howell from the Southern Methodist University in Dallas attempts to naturalize and explain away inward renewal by appealing to a somewhat complex theory involving God’s being the master predictor. Howell illustrates it this way:
In Newcomb’s problem, we’re asked to imagine the following scenario. An immensely intelligent fellow, christened by reputation The Predictor, is able with astounding accuracy, approaching perfection, to predict the actions of others. The predictor sets you the following game. There are in front of you two boxes; one opaque and the other translucent. The game allows you two options: you can either take both boxes and keep the contents of both, or you can take only the opaque box, keeping only its contents. In the translucent box, there is $50,000. In the opaque box, the predictor (who has amassed quite a fortune by his forecasting excellence) will have placed either $1 million or nothing at all. He places the money within the box an hour before you make your choice. His decision about what to place in the box is determined by the following rule: if he predicts that you will take only the opaque box, he will place $1 million within it; if he predicts you will take both, he will place nothing inside the opaque box.[4]As the theory goes, God is The Predictor, the box with $50,000 represents earthly sins and the opaque box represents one’s eternal destiny, which will have $1 million if it is heaven and nothing at all if it is hell. Unfortunately, it seems Prof. Howell gets the reformed Ordo Salutis backwards. Howell states that, “God chooses the Elect based upon his infallible prediction as to whether or not they partake of earthly sins.”[5] Actually, salvation does not depend on whether or not one partakes of sins. If that was the case, then nobody would make it into heaven, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Rather, salvation is a free gift of God, given by grace, and received with the empty hand of faith, as it is written, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9), and, “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5).
God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, predestinating us to the adoption of children, not because we were going to be of ourselves holy and immaculate, but He chose and predestinated us that we might be so.[6]Now, to continue with Prof. Howell’s comments,
God already knows if someone is a member of the Elect – he has already decided the matter , and it’s irrevocable. Now suppose Satan, a two-boxer to the bitter end, knows of Jacob whether or not he is a member of the Elect. It seems that no matter whether Jacob was a member of the Elect or not, Satan would recommend that he partake of whatever carnal sin tickled his fancy. Despite Satan’s wily ways, it seems that in this case he would have Jacob’s best interests at heart, and that any angel who wasn’t completely under the thumb of the Old Man would also recommend the same. It furthermore seems that pious Jacob, once in Heaven, would be right to kick himself and say “I was one of the Elect all along! I should’ve gone for Goody Whitfield when I had the chance!” So anyway, suggests the Protestant two-boxer.[7]As has already been explained, inward renewal comes with election. This inward renewal changes the disposition of the elect, so that they no longer the things of the world but seek spiritual things instead. Needless to say, the elect would not even think such a thing as Prof. Howell has suggested. If anybody should think in such a manner, then it becomes questionable whether the inward work of the spirit is really in them. Calvin says as much when he speaks on election in his Institutes. Commenting on the parable of the Wedding Feast in Matthew 22, Calvin writes,
It is perfectly clear, that thus far the parable is to be understood of external calling. He afterwards adds, that God acts the part of a kind entertainer, who goes round his table and affably receives his guests; but still if he finds any one not adorned with the nuptial garment, he will by no means allow him to insult the festivity by his sordid dress. I admit that this branch of the parable is to be understood of those who, by a profession of faith, enter the Church, but are not at all invested with the sanctification of Christ. Such disgraces to his Church, such cankers God will not always tolerate, but will cast them forth as their turpitude deserves. Few, then, out of the great number of called are chosen; the calling, however, not being of that kind which enables believers to judge of their election.[8]This is why the statement just quoted from Prof. Howell does not really make any sense when taking the actual reformed view on election and sanctification into account. Anybody who wishes to produce a cogent criticism of the reformed doctrine of predestination and the sanctification which flows forth from it ought to address the topic on terms set forth in the scriptures, rather than tearing down a popular but badly deceptive straw man.
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. (Colossians 2:8)References
Verse:
John 3:16; Jn 3:16; John 3
Keyword:
Salvation, Jesus, Gospel
With Operators:
AND, OR, NOT, “ â€
