Last night, the first meeting of the Longview area Christian book club met to discuss the "Introductory Essay" to The Death of Death (John Owen) by J.I. Packer. Five members out of the fourteen invited members were present; Stephen W., Stephen C., Adam, Cameron, and myself. We had an excellent discussion that ranged from Calvanism vs. Arminianism to VBS.
When Cameron walked in, the first thing he said was, "When I was told we were reading an Introductory Essay to a book, I didn't expect to have my theological butt handed to me! I was expecting a biographical introduction." I don't think that anyone was expecting what Packer had to dish out to us. The essay was informative and challenging at the same time.
We started with the first section of the essay, which is a broad overview of The Death of Death as a whole and why this book is applicable and necessary in our world. The Church is in a poor state now, as it was when Owen wrote the book. It seems almost more applicable to us now, then it possibly could have to Owen. "In such matters as the practice of evangelism, the teaching of holiness, the building up of local church life, the pastor's dealing with souls and the exercise of discipline, there is evidence of widespread dissatisfaction with things as they are and of equally widespread uncertainty as to the road ahead." (Section I, Paragraph 3) Packer continues to say that "Without realising(sic) it, we have during the past century bartered that gospel for a substitute product which, though it looks similar enough in points of detail, is as a whole a decidedly different thing." (Section I, Paragraph 3) Now there are two gospels: the old and the new. One would argue that the old is Biblically based and should be what we base our faith on and that the other is a diluted, perverted image of the old gospel, dumbed down so that people today can believe what sacrificing too much of their own free will or surrender fully to God.
Here we deviated from the topic of the book to the tone the author employed in his essay. Several of the members felt that the author very offhandedly dismissed Arminian arguments of
salvation as being inconsequential. The author states that if one follows Arminianism to it's "inevitable conclusion" that one would not be able to logically accept such arguments. Stephen C. said that he wasn't sure he could take Packer's "inevitable conclusions" for all they were worth and that he thought that the arguments weren't as conclusive as initially shown.
We raised several questions in response to the author's tone. Do most Christians really believe that God is not completely Sovereign or that He is impotent? Do Arminians honestly argue that God plays no role in salvation, or is that the author's hyperbole in play? Couldn't Packer have stayed away from such Strawman-inclined language?
It is abundantly clear that Packer is a Calvinist and believes wholeheartedly in Reformed Theology. Three of our members found his tone rather grating, annoying, or amusing in his quick, seemingly arbitrary, dismissal of traditional Arminian arguments. That isn't to say they have no ground, but Packer certainly gave them none to stand on in his essay.
At this point Cameron read his favorite segment of the essay aloud. "Now, the Calvinist contends that the Arminian idea of election, redemption and calling as acts of God which do not save cuts at the very heart of their biblical meaning; that to say in the Arminian sense that God elects believers, and Christ died for all men, and the Spirit quickens those who receive the word, is really to say that in the biblical sense God elects nobody, and Christ died for nobody, and the Spirit quickens nobody." (Section II, Paragraph 14)
This leads us into the main section of the Introductory Essay in which Packer systematically outlines Calvinistic/Reformed Theology as contrasted with Arminian Theology. I won't get into the contrasts, but if you click the link in the title of this post, you can read Packer's Essay yourself. If you aren't interested in biting off all that meat, here is a very succinct discussion of the two theology's opposing viewpoints: http://arminiantheology.com/ Keep in mind that the website I directed you to has an Arminian viewpoint. Try to read it un-biased.
Now our discussion became very interesting as we started talking about God's complete Sovereignty. A large cause of the division in schools of theology comes to God's Sovereignty. It seems as though Arminian's aren't comfortable with the fact that God is absolutely Sovereign. our question (and discussion from the question) was that if God was completely Sovereign, could He choose to lay aside His perfect Sovereignty? We discussed the question in isolation and in the context of salvation. I believe that the final majority conclusion was that only a perfectly Sovereign God would be capable of setting aside His Sovereignty and that it would be done in order that His Power could be more clearly displayed to man.
Out of pure irritating curiousity, the question was asked: Why doesn't God call all men to be saved? He is certainly capable of it. (Limited Atonement)
One thing that Stephen W. said made him a little queasy when considering Reformed Theology was the question of the origin of sin. If God is a Perfect, Sinless Being (which we believe is biblical), and God created the world and all that was in it, doesn't it logically follow that God must have created sin? Not directly, certainly not, but indirectly. And if that is the case, how can God be Perfect, and Sinless, if He is somehow the originator of sin? The discussion: God wanted to create humans that would choose to follow Him and accept His love. In order to have a choice, one must have multiple things to choose from. Logically, there must be an anti-God in order for humans to choose God. And so sin was created by default.
A question on Free Will Logic: Even if God made no active participation in a man's decision to follow God, isn't God still the creator of man, and therefore the creator of the ability of man to decide, and consequently the decision?
Determinism versus Free Will. Determinism is based on the idea that man will always choose what he most desires. If a man or creature is faced with a choice, say fight or flight, he will choose what he most desires. If he most desires safety, he flees. If he most desires victory, he fights. Free Will is based on the fact that man, unlike any other creation in universe, is capable of choosing whatever he wills- he must not always choose his desire. The discussion led us to: Man possesses intellect. His intellect helps to shape his desires- hence free will. Also, Deterministic man is consistent with a deterministic nature, which is obviously the reality. However, "None of us want to be pawns" - Cameron
Are the terms Calvinism and Reformed Theology synonymous? or is Calvinism a subset of Reformed Theology?
Do we choose God because we are elected or are we elected because we are chosen? Do they correlate, are they coincident, or are they the causes?
If God has elected only a few people to be saved, why should the already saved preach or evangelism? God will get the work done one way or another. Through you, or through someone else. It is your choice whether to be a part and receive that blessing or to go on your own way, trusting that God will work it out on His own. Also, knowing that God will definitely save the elected is comforting to know that you can't do anything to screw up someone else's salvation. You can't dissuade them, convince them otherwise, or scare them away. Even if you don't tell them, someone else will. God's plans cannot be foiled by man. Stephen C. decided that might have been the clincher for him in believing in God's elect.
Most of us decided that previously we had believed a mix of Calvinism and Arminianism, but after being challenged by this essay, we will all rethink what we believe about theology. I would say that I personally have begun leaning toward Reformed Theology, but I need to spend a lot of time in prayer and exploring the Bible for further confirmation.
Our discussion was very energetic and edifying. I appreciate all that participated, and hope that those who couldn't make it will come next week. :D Until then, go get some ice cream. You deserve it after reading all of that!
No comments:
Post a Comment