You have to wonder sometimes if people claiming to be Christians bother to read their Bibles. I mean, sure, I don't expect someone who is not a believer to give attention to God's Word, but you'd think people who call themselves by the name of Christ would want to know what God says ... and follow it. Apparently a lot don't.
I can find no other explanation. I read, for instance, of the warning in 2 Peter against "false prophets" who Peter assures us will arise among us with "destructive heresies" (2 Peter 2:1). "Many," he says, "will follow their ..." What? Will follow their what? Their heresies? Their lead? Their misdirection? No, the text says "... their sensuality" (2 Peter 2:2). Interesting. The premise that feeds their heresies is their sensuality -- their commitment to pleasing the senses.
Peter includes greed in this sensuality (2 Peter 2:3) and promises God's just retribution, but I'm fascinated by Peter's perspective on the driving force of the false prophet (and those who follow). He says they "indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority" (2 Peter 2:10). Isn't that truly a description of so many so-called brothers today? "I'm born this way; I should be allowed to indulge my passions and you ought to celebrate it with me." "You old Christians are too narrow-minded. You need to be more up-to-date, engaging people where they live, meeting 'felt needs', helping them to feel better rather than all that 'doctrine' or 'truth' talk." "I worship God where it feels best, not with some outdated authoritarian religious structure" (you know ... the one we call the Church that was ordained by God).
"These," Peter goes on to say are "like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant" (2 Peter 2:12). Isn't that exactly what so many are doing today? Isn't this, in fact, the rally cry? "They're born that way! How can you say it's wrong?" "Creatures of instinct." And more. "They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime" (2 Peter 2:13). "They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children! Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray" (2 Peter 2:14-15). "Insatiable for sin". "Entice unsteady souls". How many can we see like this in our world every day? Peter compares them to Balaam who "loved gain from wrongdoing" (2 Peter 2:15). That is precisely the mindset. "If it feels good, do it." "Speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh" (2 Peter 2:18). And, "They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved" (2 Peter 2:19). If that doesn't give you a chill both of recognition of so many voices around and of the dangers of such an approach, you might not be paying attention.
Peter promised these would appear. He describes them primarily as driven by sensual passions, living primarily for personal pleasure and personal gain, and encouraging everyone they can to follow suit. You'll find these both in the left-leaning places where they assure us that people "born that way" ought to indulge their passions and farther to the right where popular voices assure us that God wants you to be happy, wealthy, and healthy -- the same voices in different clothing. "These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm" (2 Peter 2:17). They look like they'll slake your thirst -- they'll satisfy -- but they're empty. Rest assured, "the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment" (2 Peter 2:9). So what you need to do is to make sure you're in the first category and not the second.
6 comments:
"So what you need to do is to make sure you're in the first category and not the second."
How do you do that? How does unconditional election fit in?
Jim,
I mean no disrespect or animosity when I say this, but perhaps it would benefit you to find out exactly what Reformed Theology holds on these points with which you appear to disagree. There are lots of good sources. I even offer some of my own. I talk here about how Scripture says God chooses and did an entire 5-part series on the points popularly (but poorly) referred to as "TULIP":
Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints
If you wish to dispute a point of view, you should first be sure you understand the point of view. It would also help in the dialog to present your own so that the understood-but-disputed view can be contrasted with what you would consider your accurate view.
As for my statement on making sure you're in the first category, first note that the categories are "the godly" and "the unrighteous". Do you disagree that you should want to be sure (and that the Bible teaches you should test yourself) to be in the "godly" category? Second, Peter himself said to "be diligent to make your calling and election sure" (2 Peter 1:10). The problem in this case (and in the exhortation to make sure you're in the first -- godly -- category) is not God's election, but the failure of the false prophet to recognize his fallen condition. Don't be that guy.
Stan,
No disrespect or animosity has come across in any of your communications. Thank you. The purpose of my questions is to understand your point of view because, as you probably know, opponents often caricaturize positions with which they disagree. I don't want to do that, ever.
To answer your question. No, I don't disagree that you should want to be sure; the scripture is clear on that. It seemed, though, that you were exhorting people to make sure they put themselves in the first category. Is this a fair assessment? If it is not, what is the purpose of encouraging a false prophet to test himself? In your answer you said: "Don't be that guy." I'll read your references, I promise, but that contradicts election as I understand it.
I'll read your references before posting any further questions, but I think it would be helpful for me to be able to ask an articulate advocate. You're the lucky one whose blog I found!
I am, I suppose, baffled by the question. "Election", biblically, refers to "those whom God chooses to save ... to be His." "Be godly" refers to how I live. What is the connection? In fact, in the reference I gave from Peter the way you make your calling and election sure is by how you live (2 Peter 1:5-9). Or, as James puts it, faith without works is dead (James 2:17). And John says that the one born of God cannot make a practice of sin (1 John 3:9). The election occurs without any merit in me (the definition of "unconditional election"), but not without any effect. "Be godly" is the effect of Election, not the condition.
"What is the connection?" - It seems that an un-elect person can't choose to be Godly because of total depravity, and that an elect person will be helped to be Godly because of the perseverence of the saints.
""Be godly" is the effect of Election, not the condition." - If godliness is the effect of a decision God made, it seems that you're telling people to decide something that's not up to them.
From all I can see, your understanding of Reformed Theology (despite whatever biblical references I offer) is this. "Humans are Totally Depraved, meaning that they have no possibility of being saved. The only means by which people can get saved is if God forces them. If God forces them to be saved, He also forces them to be good, thus ensuring their salvation. Humans are, for all intents and purposes, just along for the ride. God damns whom He will and saves whom He will. No human has anything to do with any of this because, after all, it's all contradictory."
From all I can see, the reverse is this. "Humans are pretty sick, spiritually, but not actually 'totally depraved'. They still have some life left in them, so to speak. Sometimes God can stir up just enough of this life to allow them to generate sufficient faith to come to Him. If they do, He can save them. God 'elects' whom He will save based on their choice of Him and is essentially at the mercy of Human Free Will on this. And He can only ultimately save those who remain permanently in that state of faith and godliness. And if someone does not remain that way, they are lost without possible hope."
Of course, that's just "Total Depravity", "Unconditional Election", and "Perseverance of the Saints". We haven't touched on "Limited Atonement" or "Irresistible Grace".
Here's a comparative minute: Comparing Contradictions (and, of course, my answer to my question).
On "If godliness is the effect of a decision God made, it seems that you're telling people to decide something that's not up to them," compare "monergism" and "synergism". Reformed Theology is monergistic in salvation and synergistic in Christian living. (Google 'em.)
Post a Comment