Theology that leads to rebellion?

[glfredrick]

After a goodly number of heated debates between those holding some theological view along the continuum of belief structures that range between hyper-Calvinism and Pelagianism, I have noticed one aspect of the discussion that really bothers me. That aspect is that some of the views appear to have built into their fabric an innate rebellion against God.

While I am sure that those holding various views would not agree that their particular view is actually one that may be rebellious against God, there are still issues to discuss in order to diagnose whether or not that is actually true.

I believe that the rebellion stems from an "actual fear" that, after reading multiple, multiple thread postings, comes down to this issue:

"If I must trust God to decide whom it is that is saved, I may not be one of the ones He saves."

This fear is commonly expressed in the various theological positions in a form whereby God "sees" those who come to Him in faith, and He then "saves" those persons based on what it is that He SEES, versus His divine sovereignty alone (based on no human element such as foreseen faith, etc.).

I find this fear to be a general "softening" of the truth of the gospel, and the truth that God alone is sovereign King over all things, knowing and doing all things that He wills, including selection of whom is "elect" unto salvation.

It is this "softening" of the truth that is the actual rebellion I speak of.

Thus, the rebellion is belief, action, or theology that is held, debated, fought for, proselytized, etc., that takes away from God, His own divine sovereignty, and replaces that with divine sovereignty with a "reaction" to human actions in order that God might bow to the will of the one who "wishes" to be saved, and implicitly, the same one who cannot trust God for that salvation and needs to do his or her part to make sure that he or she is included in God's plan.

So, is fear that God will not choose "me" for salvation in fact rebellion against the express and divine will of God, who alone has the right to decide if we are saved or not? I say that it is... And no matter how well argued the theology that states such, any action that places ANYTHING above God, including human free will is in error and is outright rebellion against God.

 

[Cypress]

As a "free willer" I will respond that it is not to us a softening of the truth or the gospel. To us, or at least myself it is what is required by God. Believe or don't believe....up to us as He sets the condition. Alot of nuanced positions exist but this is a narrow as I can describe it. It is not rebellion towards God but obedience required by God.....simple as that.

 

[preachinjesus]

I believe that the rebellion stems from an "actual fear" that, after reading multiple, multiple thread postings, comes down to this issue:

"If I must trust God to decide whom it is that is saved, I may not be one of the ones He saves."

This is a poor read on the theological conversation imho. Many people on this board, and in various other places, have labored through difficult questions and done the requisite work to understand the positions through the biblical testimony. I would disagree that most of the work is done out of, or in, fear.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your application, but the above bolded observation is not awfully good. From the conversations I've had here, elsewhere, fear of hellfire is less a factor than fear of failing to uphold the biblical testimony.

 

[mets65]

I never worry about if God chose me because I completely reject unconditional election. I think theology may cause some people to focus more on doctrine then how they live their life and their personal relationship with God.

 

[pinoybaptist]

I never worry about if God chose me because I completely reject unconditional election. I think theology may cause some people to focus more on doctrine then how they live their life and their personal relationship with God.

Do you know what Unconditional Election is ?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

This is a poor read on the theological conversation imho. Many people on this board, and in various other places, have labored through difficult questions and done the requisite work to understand the positions through the biblical testimony. I would disagree that most of the work is done out of, or in, fear.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your application, but the above bolded observation is not awfully good. From the conversations I've had here, elsewhere, fear of hellfire is less a factor than fear of failing to uphold the biblical testimony.

Someone in discussing Limited Atonement told me that chances would be great that some of my kids would not be chosen as elect....Id say that constituted fear.

 

[glfredrick]

This is a poor read on the theological conversation imho. Many people on this board, and in various other places, have labored through difficult questions and done the requisite work to understand the positions through the biblical testimony. I would disagree that most of the work is done out of, or in, fear.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your application, but the above bolded observation is not awfully good. From the conversations I've had here, elsewhere, fear of hellfire is less a factor than fear of failing to uphold the biblical testimony.

I understand, from your perspective, why you would think that my read is poor, but that is at the heart of many a post that debates the issues between the theological positions.

At the end of the day, it almost always comes down to the person who holds free will not being able to trust that God might save THEM instead of someone else. What they fail to recognize is that God's grace is already at work in them if they desire to be saved! It is, perhaps, at that point that the true rebellion begins. To attribute a work of God to human effort is the quintessential rebellious statement, is it not? That's why those who support human free will want to come to God on their own terms, and why they also invent a theology that says that their coming to God in faith is the trigger that God uses for the process.

Any doctrine that places human free will at its center is rather an invented doctrine, not one driven by Scriptures. Previnient grace, required for an Arminian doctrine for instance, is one of the things that had to be invented to give any biblical credence to the doctrine of Arminianism (even though many here argue far to the left of classical Arminianism, and do not even accept previnient grace!). I would like for someone to show me a good biblical exposition that demonstrates that previnient grace is indeed scriptural and not just a logical necessity for the free will position.

At the end of the day, I think my statement is precisely the heart of the matter. Some are afraid that if they do not take the lead in approaching God, that God simply will not make the right decision to elect them to salvation. Otherwise, why all the fuss?

In fact, that was the CORE of Jacob Arminius' argument. He argued that God could not make man culpable for sin, then not allow man some means to remedy that sin. But in fact, as has been born out by the orthodox theology of the ages, based on the Word of God, that God decides who it is that has life and who it is that does not -- not humans -- though humans are certainly culpable for their sin before Holy God. Arminius, picking back up the arguments of Pelagius vs. Augustine, sided with Pelagius over Augustine, another debate point that is often brought to bear, i.e., "We do not take Augustine's position on the Doctrines of Grace." The other position is Pelagianism...

 

[glfredrick]

Someone in discussing Limited Atonement told me that chances would be great that some of my kids would not be chosen as elect....Id say that constituted fear.

I would ask how it was that they could know... Based on outward appearances? We must recall what Christ said to the "professional keepers of the law" in Israel -- persons who were righteous by trade. He noted that their righteousness was "outward" not of the heart, and He soundly scolded them, in public. (See Mark 7) Yet today, much is made of "outward" appearances, including free exercise of the will, which is primarily "outward" instead of "inward" for how can a heart yet left in sin be turned toward God in any meaningful way?

 

[Don]

Thus, the rebellion is belief, action, or theology that is held, debated, fought for, proselytized, etc., that takes away from God, His own divine sovereignty, and replaces that with divine sovereignty with a "reaction" to human actions in order that God might bow to the will of the one who "wishes" to be saved, and implicitly, the same one who cannot trust God for that salvation and needs to do his or her part to make sure that he or she is included in God's plan.

Does God react to human action?

James 4:8 Draw nigh unto God, and He will draw nigh unto you.

Thus, the argument is not whether God reacts to human action; it's whether man has any part is his/her own salvation.

 

[Don]

In fact, that was the CORE of Jacob Arminius' argument. He argued that God could not make man culpable for sin, then not allow man some means to remedy that sin. But in fact, as has been born out by the orthodox theology of the ages, based on the Word of God, that God decides who it is that has life and who it is that does not -- not humans -- though humans are certainly culpable for their sin before Holy God. Arminius, picking back up the arguments of Pelagius vs. Augustine, sided with Pelagius over Augustine, another debate point that is often brought to bear, i.e., "We do not take Augustine's position on the Doctrines of Grace." The other position is Pelagianism...

This assumes that Arminius adopted Pelagianism by default.

In my brief readings, Arminius was more of a Pelagius/Augustine hybrid. I'll have to take some time to do some research tonight, but I believe that Arminius adopted a position that's more in line with the way we here on this board argue the subject: Hyper-Arminianism vs. Arminianism vs. Arminian/Calvin vs. Calvinism vs. Hyper-Calvinism.

Don't forget that Arminius was considered just as much of a biblical scholar as Calvin; the only reason he didn't make his appointment and get the chance to argue his position, and possibly sway the biblical leaders of his time towards his scholarly viewpoint, was because he died before the scheduled presentation.

 

[slave 4 Christ]

It is amusing to hear a person say, "theology hinders a relationship with God".

Theology, by definition, is the study of "who GOD is".
How could you have a relationship with someone you don't know?

If we miss this, then the rest will be missed.

Failure to rightly understand God's Revelation of Himself, (ie. who He is) will surely cause one to misinterpret "what God does".

It is a fact all solid systematic theologies start with "who is God", then and only then do they seek to discover "what God does".

Who is GOD? He is "I AM THAT I AM".

He alone is exhaustively Sovereign.
What "He does" flows from this truth.

This quote from Charles Swindoll says this truth very well:

What does it mean to say “God is sovereign”? What does that mean? What does the resume say? It says who is qualified to be sovereign:

He must see the end as clearly as the beginning. He must have clear an unbiased perspective. He must never have a match or rival on earth or in heaven. He must entertain no fears, possess no ignorance, have no needs, experience no frustrations, limitations, or restrictions.
I’m not through. God is sovereign because He always knows what is best and He will always pursue the goal that is consistent with the best, and He will never make a mistake in the process. He must be invincible, immutable, omnipotent, and self-sufficient.
Because God is sovereign His judgments must be unsearchable, His ways must be unfathomable, and His will must be unchangeable.
Because God is sovereign He must be able to create rather than invent.
He must direct, rather than wish or hope. He must control rather than suggest. He must guide rather than guess. (emphasis mine) He must fulfill rather than dream or plan. And to bring a perfect conclusion rather than close his eyes and hope for the best. That’s our God. That’s our sovereign God. You can trust Him even when He doesn’t explain why. (emphasis mine)

If you misunderstand GOD's sovereignty. The rest is just a "foundation of sand".

 

[glfredrick]

It is amusing to hear a person say, "theology hinders a relationship with God".

Theology, by definition, is the study of "who GOD is".
How could you have a relationship with someone you don't know?

If we miss this, then the rest will be missed.

Failure to rightly understand God's Revelation of Himself, (ie. who He is) will surely cause one to misinterpret "what God does".

It is a fact all solid systematic theologies start with "who is God", then and only then do they seek to discover "what God does".

Who is GOD? He is "I AM THAT I AM".

He alone is exhaustively Sovereign.
What "He does" flows from this truth.

This quote from Charles Swindoll says this truth very well:

If you misunderstand GOD's sovereignty. The rest is just a "foundation of sand".

My point exactly... :thumbs:

 

[glfredrick]

This assumes that Arminius adopted Pelagianism by default.

In my brief readings, Arminius was more of a Pelagius/Augustine hybrid. I'll have to take some time to do some research tonight, but I believe that Arminius adopted a position that's more in line with the way we here on this board argue the subject: Hyper-Arminianism vs. Arminianism vs. Arminian/Calvin vs. Calvinism vs. Hyper-Calvinism.

Don't forget that Arminius was considered just as much of a biblical scholar as Calvin; the only reason he didn't make his appointment and get the chance to argue his position, and possibly sway the biblical leaders of his time towards his scholarly viewpoint, was because he died before the scheduled presentation.

That is true... My statement on Augustine/Pelagius was not speaking directly to Arminius. It was speaking to some who post in favor of human free will on this board.

He could not have swayed the Synod of Dort even had he lived because he invented a category of grace that does not exist in Scripture and he adopted a former heretical position, even if softened, in Pelagianism. That was the ruling of the Synod. to be fair, those who presented at Dort had carried Arminius' doctrines farther than he did, just as they extended Augustine's and Calvin's (Luther, etc., all of whom were for DoG) work farther than the original doctrine, carried by Scripture, would allow.

 

[webdog]

It is amusing to hear a person say, "theology hinders a relationship with God".

It's easy to tear down an argument that was never stated. Here is the original statement in context which bears little resemblance to what you said...

"I think theology may cause some people to focus more on doctrine then how they live their life and their personal relationship with God."

How much information does a child need to know about their parents in order to have a good relationship with them?

 

[menageriekeeper]

"If I must trust God to decide whom it is that is saved, I may not be one of the ones He saves."

Guess what, this freewiller trusts that God has decided who to save and set down the law to man as to how it is accomplished: "Believe on the Lord and you shall be saved".

Anything that contradicts what God has clearly spelled out over and over again in His word is "rebellion".

It is you who challenges the sovernity of God when you say that He can't possibly allow man to choose for himself to believe or not believe. That an individual man's eternal destiny depends on that man's choice to believe or reject, while the destiny of humankind and the universe still resides in the hand of an Almighty God.

And even if I should be wrong, I serve this God:

Neh 9:17 And refused to obey, neither were mindful of thy wonders that thou didst among them; but hardened their necks, and in their rebellion appointed a captain to return to their bondage: but thou art a God ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and forsookest them not.

You Calvies need to calm down and find better things to worry about than my "rebellion" cause its already covered! When we reach the end, God will sort us out!

 

[Don]

That is true... My statement on Augustine/Pelagius was not speaking directly to Arminius. It was speaking to some who post in favor of human free will on this board.

He could not have swayed the Synod of Dort even had he lived because he invented a category of grace that does not exist in Scripture and he adopted a former heretical position, even if softened, in Pelagianism. That was the ruling of the Synod. to be fair, those who presented at Dort had carried Arminius' doctrines farther than he did, just as they extended Augustine's and Calvin's (Luther, etc., all of whom were for DoG) work farther than the original doctrine, carried by Scripture, would allow.

Oh, I don't know; who's to say how the council might have reacted if Arminius had been able to present his argument himself?

 

[slave 4 Christ]

It's easy to tear down an argument that was never stated. Here is the original statement in context which bears little resemblance to what you said...

"I think theology may cause some people to focus more on doctrine then how they live their life and their personal relationship with God."

How much information does a child need to know about their parents in order to have a good relationship with them?

My post was not about this paticular quote, but what I have heard through the years.

However, how can a person even begin to have a personal relationship with God without true doctrine?

13 Until I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.
15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them, that thy profiting may appear to all.
16 Take heed unto thyself and unto the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and those who hear thee.
(I Tim. 13-16)

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped for all good works.(II Tim. 3:16,17)

2 preach the Word; be instant in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but having itching ears, they shall heap to themselves teachers in accordance with their own lusts. 4And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned toward fables.(II Tim. 4:2-4)

It is a dangerous course that does not major on doctrine.

 

[mets65]

Do you know what Unconditional Election is ?

Yes, but why does that matter to you?

 

[webdog]

However, how can a person even begin to have a personal relationship with God without true doctrine?

Why don't I ever get answers to my questions, but in turn diversion questions? Here it is again... "How much information does a child need to know about their parents in order to have a good relationship with them?"

 

[slave 4 Christ]

Why don't I ever get answers to my questions, but in turn diversion questions? Here it is again... "How much information does a child need to know about their parents in order to have a good relationship with them?"

Essential Characteristics of the Parent for Effective Parenting
http://onbeinghuman.org/parenting_principle_goal_of_pare.htm

1. •Modeling-
your children are watching you. Your behavior has a profound influence on your children. Often the first element in learning is observing. Parents need to model good behavior for their children. This is especially true when a parent is acting under stress, emotional distress and/or anger. The child learns a great deal about how to respond under these conditions by watching how their parents behave and respond under these conditions. If a parent models out of control behavior (such as throwing things, breaking things, kicking, hitting and screaming) while under stress or angry their children learn these responses and incorporate them into their behavior choices. The first place to look when you see these inappropriate responses in your children is your own behavior. The appropriate question is; have I modeled these behaviors for my children? If the answer is yes, then two things must be addressed, the child’s behavior and the parent’s behavior.

2.•Communication-in order to develop a competent set of moral beliefs and values in a child, parents must tie punishable behavior to a specific moral principle or value. Punishing behavior without communicating a belief or value about why the behavior is wrong fails the child miserably. A child needs the connection so that future choices can be influenced by moral principles and values instead of fear of punishment. Communication makes this possible.

3.•Love-unconditional parental love is essential in effective parenting. Children need to know that parents love them even though they may dislike or disapprove of a particular behavior. It is critical for the parent to clearly separate “love” for the child and “disappointment” in their behavior. In some instances a child will test the parental love by statements such as “I hate you”, “You don’t love me” or “If you really loved me you would…”. Each of these statements is an attempt to use a parent’s love as blackmail for giving into a child’s demands. The parent must resist ever making similar hostage statements about their love for the child.

4.•Parental Relationship-the role of a parent is much different than that of a friend. You are not your child’s friend; you are their parent, which implies you have an unequal power relationship with them. Friends have an equal power relationship-neither can force the other to do things that they do not want to do. A parent must be willing to use their authority to enforce rules, standards of behavior and boundaries. You are authority and must use it to counter the negative influence of others in their life. Through appropriate use of authority, your children will grow to respect you. Respect goes a long way in getting children to comply willingly with parental authority especially when they grow into adolescents and teens. This is the most important advantage of children cooperating out of respect instead of fear. As they get older they fear less and will at some point challenge in an inappropriate way parental authority.

5.•Sacrifice-Effective parents make daily sacrifices for their children. Sacrifice is defined as giving up or forgoing something valued now in order to obtain something believed to be of greater value in the future. Effective parenting epitomizes this definition of sacrifice. Parenting is a lifetime job. It is a non-stop-can’t take a day off endeavor. There aren’t any holidays, vacations or sick days. Once you enter this vocation, your influence whether positive or negative, good or bad impacts the child for life. A parent’s influence even reaches out from the grave. Everyone is influenced throughout their life by the way their parents lived their lives. It is not uncommon for adults to reflect back on a deceased parent in times of difficulty for guidance. We ask contemplate questions like: “What would dad do in this situation?” “What would mom think about that if she were here?” When I think of parenting, I recall a phrase I saw on a marquee sign in front of a church. The phrase went something like this “Children are a living message to a time you will not see. What message will the way they live their life convey about you?” This phrase should become a guide for effective parenting.

6.•Persistence-Children will regularly challenge the limits. They will persist in requesting in the face of “No”. They are attempting to gain control in doing this and this type of behavior should be expected but not rewarded. Don’t be surprised if the challenge occasionally escalates to a temper tantrum in younger children. It is imperative that the parent holds the line and not cave in out of embarrassment to a public temper tantrum. Children must see that the parent is not going to be pressured into relinquishing authority. Responding to temper tantrums in public presents a very difficult challenge for the parent. Often you are embarrassed and ashamed when this happens. You may even feel inadequate as a parent. However, the parent must refrain from use of spankings as a response to the public tantrum. The parent has to remain calm in the face of the storm. Calming statements such as; “You know that I will not give into your temper tantrum”, “I can’t believe how you are embarrassing both of us by your behavior” or “I’ll be waiting over here (move a short distance from the temper tantrum – always keeping the child in your sight) for you when you are finished with your temper tantrum”. If you yell or scream at the child having the temper tantrum you encourage continued escalation on their part. Remember “modeling” calm behavior will in the long run encourage calmer behavior on the part of the child.