What about Free Will?...Grace?

[4Him]

Brent, on another thread, made a statement about something I've been thinking about.

...
I am re-examining the reformed teaching on free will.  This is something I rejected long ago, (under GG and TG's teaching).   I find that I am totally slothful about picking up books, turning to verses, and using my God-given intellect to examine this doctrine, because I am afraid of what it might mean.
...
Brent

I have noticed that many who left the Geftakys work(s) years ago have moved completely away from a "free-will" position to one very much more allied with reformed theology.  I find myself increasingly in this boat as well.

I'm wondering what some of you may think about this and why.

[editor]

I was afraid this would happen....

Thank you Lord.  Bring it on.  I can't put this off any longer.

Brent

[Arthur]

Hi Tim, this issue has been much upon my mind as well.

Ever since I got out of the assembly, I have been gravitating--slowly, gently and yet undeniably drawn--towards the blessed assurance that we have in Jesus.  I have become more and more convinced that He is in far more control of my life than I am.  He's God, I'm not.  He knew all things in advance before they were created.  Not only did he know, but he also has all the power to act upon that knowledge.  And not only does he know all things and have all power, but he has a will--a purpose and direction--that he wants to accomplish.  All these things make me think that he's got things under control and he does as he pleases--consequently, I have absolutely no worries about being snatched from his hands, and I should thank God that he has been mericful to me.  All he says I need to do is believe on him.  Over and over and over again he says "believe".  And you know what that means to me?  It means "Stop being so proud and look to God instead of yourself--for saftey, provision, comfort, everything...and yes--justification and cleansing from sin!"  

What a wonderful savior is Jesus my Lord, who loved me so much that he'd die for me (sinful, bound for eternal punishment me)--how could I add to that?  Indeed not!  "I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness came through the law then Christ is dead in vain!"

I am becomming more and more convinced that the Geftakys teaching was dangerous and harmful and only served in getting Christians to be afraid and doubt what God has already assured us for the purpose that George might keep us under his leash to do his bidding (how heinous is that?)

I grew up in a Reformed church, but had questions about how could Christians be not living like Christians--what is this about "not inheriting the kingdom"?  At first the Geftakys teaching seemed to have the answers.  But now I see that they were over-simplified and not true.  And now finally, after all these years, I am getting true answers to my questions.  The remarkable thing is that I had to go through some painful experiences before I could realize the truth of these answers.  Again I am at the place where it seems I've only just begun.  

Arthur

[Tanya]

    After being completely opposed to Reformed theology for about a year, I decided to read about it for myself.  Though I don't agree with all aspects of its doctrine, I am increasingly comforted and not intimidated by it anymore.  
    Christians should study church history and know sound doctrine.  We were taught to listen to the assembly leaders and read George's books. We were spiritually arrogant and looked down on other believers. (We were THE saints--they were brethren or Christians...)  Anyway, many of us didn't have a Christian upbringing and the "heavenly vision/new testament gathering/simple group of Christians way of doing things is all we ever knew."  We were lumps of clay just waiting to be molded by someone.
    In addition, pastors who had a "cemetary" degree were to be dismissed and ridiculed. We wouldn't have just walked into some denominational church and asked them for counseling.  If we were spiritually curious, we went to the saint who anchored us. Or we met privately with the leading brothers.  Theological discussions were not encouraged, especially in a public forum.  Why? Because most of the assembly leaders were totally ignorant of Church history.  Sure, they knew the flag charts, the S in the center diagrams, etc....  Yes, they had myriads of Bible verses memorized but very often, the head knowledge superceded the heart knowledge.
     I think we're all guilty of that.  Ask any parent. We tried to teach John 3:16 to our little ones and then moments later were harsh and exacting when they refused to put their heads down.  "Don't make me take you out of this meeting...be quiet or else..."  This threatening attitude demonstrates the assembly doctrine in a nutshell. Be a certain way and God will be pleased. Meet according to a specific pattern and God will be pleased. It was all about us and not about Him.  
     And so now many of us are out of the controlling environment of the assembly.  We are free to research these doctrinal issues on our own.  Aaron has always had a bent toward Reformed thinking and I have not.   But in the last year, I've been listening to some Reformed radio shows, reading some Reformed literature, etc.. (R.C.Sproul's works are very insightful & encouraging.) I'm not as intimidated by the whole concept as I was before. If anything, I've been comforted & encouraged.  
    Finally, in the assembly, there was an overriding emphasis on outward performance.  "Man looks at the outward appearance but God looks at the heart..." Well, that verse was usually forsaken in our midst. We were on a treadmill of doing, going, being....  Reformed theology focuses on the Lord & what HE has done, what HE will do, how HE has loved us, how HE will keep us.  
    As a Christian, it's wonderful and very sweet to look at our God as One who keeps His promises towards His people.  His grace IS sufficient and He is not a taskmaster.  When we fall, it's not up to us to memorize a verse and make an application of what WE will do next time.  We can rest in Him.  

[editor]

As some of you know, a dear friend of mine tried his hardest to keep me out of the Assembly, back in 1983.

He was a 5 point Calvinist, and when I decided to join the Assembly, against his warnings, I also rejected Calvinism, or reformed theology, in favor of Geftakys theology.  The story is in my book, on the website.

Anyway, I have never made a thorough investigation of reformed theology, until now.  Even now, there are still parts of it that I am lazy about, namely the issue of Free will.

I am worse than a novice in this area, so I am really hoping we can get some people who know what they are talking about here, to help me.

Here's where I stand currently:

T-Total depravity. I am totally fine with this.

U-Unconditional electionI am 60% fine with this, but I have been very lazy in my study.  I really haven't learned enough to understand or challenge the implications of this pillar.

L-Limited atonementI am 50% OK on this, because in some ways, it is a moot point.  Some people are saved, and some are going to hell, which means that atonement is limited, in one very real sense.  Again, I am a novice.

I-Irresistible graceI am 60% cool with this

P-Perseverance of the saintI am cool with this

I guess this makes me a 3.8 point Calvinist.  The problem I with reformed theology, is that it is so logical it makes me nervous.  I like logical things, but on the otherhand, I am uncomforable with it in a spiritual sense, sometimes.

The great attraction I have to reformed theology is that the grace of God is so thoroughly, wonderfully manifest in their teaching, that I can't help but glorify God when I hear a reformed preacher really teach the gospel.  It is wonderful.  Also, reformed folks seem to be the most Christ centered, at least to me.

George Geftakys ridiculed reformed theology more than any other.  He hated dispensational theology as well, but he had special scorn for reformed, because it shot down his plane so convincingly.

With me, I think it's a pride thing, the reason I have neglected this long overdue exploration.  I would appreciate your prayers about this.  

I am going to start reading, and I'll post if I have any profound discoveries.

Brent

[sfortescue]

One person I know, who claims to be an atheist, calls Calvinism a heresy.  I am suspicious of anyone who claims to know for sure that God doesn't exist.  I think they are lying because to me it is so obvious that he does exist.  I suspect that anyone who claims to know for sure that God doesn't exist actually has something against God and is trying to turn people away from God.

[editor]

HI Everyone!

Andrea, you won't get much disagreement from me on this one.  I have the same reservations you do, mostly.  As far as the logic thing, the fact that it is so logical that we perceive it as "putting God in a box," is precisely the uneasiness I confessed to in my last post.  Nevertheless,

What sayeth the scriptures?

Here are some of the thoughts I have been wrestling with:

If man is totally depraved, and will by nature ALWAYS rebell against God, by resisting the Holy Spirit, how can anyone be saved if not for Irresistable Grace?

If Christ's Atonement is NOT limited, but unlimited, than how is it that anyone go to hell?  If all their sins are atoned for, what is it that seperates them from God, and how can He have wrath towards them?   Please understand, the idea that some people CAN"T be saved does not sit well with me at all!

On the otherhand, most of the stuff I have read regarding Limited Atonement is far more taken up with the Atonement, and how we can fully put our trust in Christ for our righteousness, and has very little to do with the "limited" part.

Perseverance of the Saints----we had an awesome discussion about this in our home group 2 weeks ago.   People brought out the usual, "What if a person was saved, and fell into sin, and stayed there and died," argument.  We had different ideas put forth:

"They were never saved,"
"They were saved but lost their salvation,"
"It doesn't matter, even though they lived in sin, God will totally save them."

I don't see how a person can have the Holy Spirit, and spend their entire life in rebellion towards God.  I also don't see how they can become "unjustified" after being justified and made righteous in Christ.  I go for perseverance.

When I crunch the thing down, I find that it is impossible to have one point, without the other.  My sticking point is the free-will idea.

I think God can still be sovereign, and we can have free-will at the same time.  However, I really don't know what is meant by free-will. Somehow, I don't think they are talking about choosing chocolate or vanilla.

My problem is ignorance, which I am attempting to remedy at the present time.

Brent

[Eulaha L. Long]

Not to detract from the conversation in any way, but I believe Christ died for our sins-past, present and future.  I believe that if I sin (let's say I use a curse word), God isn't going to threaten me about my salvation.  I can simply utter "Oops!  Forgive me God!" and it's forgotten.  All this stuff about climbing the Heavenly ladder and praying the Selfer's Prayer is a big joke.  If a child disobeys his mother, there will be a consequence for what he has done, but the child should know that if he asks his mother to forgive him, he doesn't have to go thru the rigor morter's of atonement! The Selfer's Prayer stuff reminds me of bringing burnt offerings before the Lord.  Didn't Christ already give His life as an offering once and for all???  Or am I reading a different Bible from the one the Assembly reads??

[editor]

These were some thoughts I had as to some things that don't necessarily fit nicely and neatly into a calvinistic box.

What about:

1.  In the situation with Pharaoh, there are several verses that say "God hardened Pharaoh's heart, yet there are others that say Pharaoh hardened his heart.

2.  What about that story with Moses where it says that "God repented" in Exodus 32.  Actually Exodus 32, and 33 for that matter, are very interesting in the choices that are made throughout the chapter.  

3.  How about the story where Moses is holding up his hands during the war? (argh, I can't remember exactly where it is)  What happened when Moses put his arms down?  

4.  How about Isaiah 38.  God tells Hezekiah that he's going to die, and Hezekiah pleads with God and gives Him all kinds of reasons why he should live.  God apparently changes his mind and gives him 15 more years!!  This is mind-boggling to me.

I guess my point is again that God can do anything He wants.  Something like this doesn't have to be decided one way or another, but it sure is fun to discuss.
I remember when my best friend and I had our "showdown" of verses soon into our friendship.  We went back and forth with verse after verse, until she said "Well, I guess we won't ever know for sure".  EXACTLY!

Anyway, just some more to chew on.

Andrea

I'm commenting on this a little prematurely.  I haven't educated myself yet, as I had promised, but I am making progress!

The passages you list above are also ones I used in my arsenal against Reformed teaching in the past, and some of them are indeed difficult, which accounts for some of the reasons I am only a 3.8 pointer.

Here are a few quick thoughts:  Moses.  The fact that God "repented," or changed His mind does not in any way violate one of the five points.  If you do some reading about what each of the five points means, you won't find that this passage presents any problem whatsoever.

Hezekiah.  Again, this does not contradict anything.  Here is a simple explanation:  God wanted to get Hezekiah's attention, and knew exactly how to do it.  Hezekiah responded in a godly manner, just as God knew he would, and nothing about God's soverignty was altered in any way.  There are plenty of other ways to look at this as well.

The part about Pharoah is troubling to me, I must confess.  Again, the real hangup I have right now is the idea of free will, and I am not yet ready to come to the table with anything of substance.  

I'll be back.

Brent

[sfortescue]

Imagine playing chess with Garry Kasparov.  You have complete freedom to choose whatever moves you want to make, but you know for sure that you will lose.

[editor]

Imagine playing chess with Garry Kasparov.  You have complete freedom to choose whatever moves you want to make, but you know for sure that you will lose.

Exactly!  
The fact that we perceive ourselves to have freewill, because we can choose between chocolate or vanilla, in no way contradicts the Sovreignty of God!

However, do we have the ability to resist the Grace of God?

If we do, then how can we be saved?  If we don't, then some people can never be saved.  There are other implications here as well.  Again, I'm still not ready to totally enter the fray here.

Brent

[al Hartman]

Eulaha,

     The problem was that, ultimately. GG & Co. were not so much reading the bible as trying to rewrite it.


Brent,

     Maybe you need to watch the movie "Free Willy"

al H.

[editor]

Eulaha,

     The problem was that, ultimately. GG & Co. were not so much reading the bible as trying to rewrite it.


Brent,

     Maybe you need to watch the movie "Free Willy"

al H.

I watched it....and I cried...sniff.

[Oscar]

Imagine playing chess with Garry Kasparov.  You have complete freedom to choose whatever moves you want to make, but you know for sure that you will lose.

I suspect that in this post Steve is alluding to what is known as the Middle Knowledge postition.

The idea is that God, knowing all possible futures, has chosen the one that best fits his purpose and glory.

In knowing all possible futures He foreknew the free, uncoerced choices to believe or to reject God that all individuals in that future would make.  He then chose that future to be actualized in time.

So, all events are predestined but the individuals are making uncoerced choices.

This idea had its origins with a 16th Century Jesuit named Molina.  It is espoused by some pretty heavyweight evangelical scholars, such as J. P. Moreland, W. L. Craig and Norman Geisler.

Extreme Calvinists get pretty upset with these guys, but in my opinion their attempts to refute them fail.  

Take a look at Geisler's "Chosen but Free".

Thomas Maddux

[sfortescue]

Imagine playing chess with Garry Kasparov.  You have complete freedom to choose whatever moves you want to make, but you know for sure that you will lose.

Stephen,

My husband and son had a great time explaining this to me.  I think I get it now.  Very insightful.

M

M,
Don't feel bad, it seems that Tom Maddux is missing the point as well.  It seems like such an obvious illustration of God's sovereignty that I'm mystified as to why someone wouldn't understand.  In terms of Calvinism, it illustrates irresistible grace.  In chess, the objective is to checkmate the opponent's king.  God's objective is to win our hearts.  He won't fail to attain his objective.

Tom,
I searched the internet and found a review of Norman Geisler's "Chosen but Free."  Based on what the review says, I don't agree with Geisler.  The teachings of R. C. Sproul seem a whole lot closer to being right.  The following is a link to the review:

http://www.flash.net/~thinkman/articles/geisler.htm