Interesting article from Desiring God

I'm not so sure it is interesting, other than to underscore the rift some people seek to create with their particular theological camp. I recently started reading the book, "Desiring God" by John Piper. And while I find most of it edifying, most of it thus far seems to be nothing more than the common cheerleading of Reformed theologians and doctrine that you come to expect in some of these circles. Could John Piper write a book without citing Johnathan Edwards, Richard Baxter, John Calvin, or John Owen? Probably not. Which is a sign of hero worship through and through.

If one wanted to start nit picking what actually amounts to mostly minor differences in theology, one could charge Reformed thinkers with denying that saving faith is actually saving, and is simply an exegetical hoop one has to jump through in an ordo-salutis scheme, but in the end result, not really necessary, because regeneration precedes faith, instead of being the result thereof. One isn't therefore actually justified by faith, but rather, justified by election. In such a scheme, faith isn't even necessary for salvation.

But we need not go down these roads as some have the habit of doing. The two camps are much closer to agreement than those who hold onto carnal party spirits like to admit. At the end of the day, I side with a Weslyean-Arminian view of justification. But even with that, I don't pretend we are as far apart as many carnal men on both sides would like to make us.

Hey Mahoney,

I'm not interested in attacking people. I'm actually interested in everybody getting along, even if we disagree, and gladly welcome open debate on any subject. I simply believe Packer's short thoughts are divisive in nature, especially with the typical mis-characterizations of Arminian theology. Thus, I don't really find this essay interesting. It's just cheerleading for one's camp.

For example:

One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God who enables man to save himself.

I personally know of no Arminian who teaches this at all. Maybe some do somewhere. Personally, as an Arminian, I would totally denounce anybody who would teach such. Salvation is of the Lord. But, this is just a typical "Arminians are Semi-pelagian" slur that you hear from these camps, and I personally think such comes out of a misunderstanding one has of Arminian theology.

The two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms.

No doubt, the theologies are different, and the exact mechnical understanding of how salvation unfolds is different. But, the conclusions the author makes are not helpful. Indeed, he is not dealing with substance. He's just cheerleading and rehashing 400 year old rhetoric.

KingJimmy said:

One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God who enables man to save himself.

I personally know of no Arminian who teaches this at all. Maybe some do somewhere. Personally, as an Arminian, I would totally denounce anybody who would teach such. Salvation is of the Lord. But, this is just a typical "Arminians are Semi-pelagian" slur that you hear from these camps, and I personally think such comes out of a misunderstanding one has of Arminian theology.

My church preaches this to a degree. Not necessarily that we save ourselves but that we choose to save or not save ourselves. And most of the people there who I've talked to believe something like this. (I don't believe it.) It's kind of the same. Just thought I'd throw that out there...

It is interesting, BUT Packer does seem very one-sided about this. Which I think is wrong. He is misrepresenting the other side, which is unfair which is unjust, which is a sin. I would take this with a very BIG grain of salt...
In Christ,
Veronica

Packer may by this article seem one sided, yet his conclusions are true. Consider

1.Most Arminians who say that salvation is of God but that they choose him without his influence contradict themselves.You were either predestined or not. Now this does not negate man's free will to choose (I know I just contradicted myself) because the bible teaches both. We have to affirm both and conclude that we do not understand how this works. God chooses yet man is responsible for not choosing him - that is the paradox. However we cannot by any means deny either doctrine (Sovereignity & Free Will)in attempt to comprehend the infinite wisdom of God

2. Was Jeremiah's call predetermined? Could he have resisted?
Jer 1:5
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations

3. To question GOd's Sovereignity would be like the Edomites or Caananites (or whoever) questioning God why he chose Israel over them.Or (I read this somewhere)like questioning someone who gives free money to 5 people out of a crowd of 20, you can't cause it was a gift and you didn't deserve it. Have you ever thought about who chose your parents, country you were born,literally everyting and yet it's hard to understand that God chose some to salvation. He is God and can do whatever he wants, the truth is we all deserve punishment, he didn't have to save anyone and he would have been just.

4. Did God Harden Pharoah's heart or did Pharoah harden his heart? To suggest that God did not influence Pharoah's decision would be foolish. However I would not go as far to say that Pharoah was not responsible

With all that said, we need to preach the Gospel to all nations, not knowing whom God has elected, trusting that Godwill save all who believe.

Without entering into the substance of of the debate, I would just say that this blog is just selected snippets of Packer's actual essay. Perhaps reading these statements in their full contexts would shed more light on Packer's position and reason for holding it. Obviously, being posted on Desiring God's blog to a mostly reformed audience, this was probably taken for granted that most hold to the view being presented.

Veronica I think it's really funny that this very essay just happened to be brought up, in light of recent eternal discussions ;)

I realize most of those on the Arminian side have probably read enough of this article to have their stomachs turned against it, but if not, I do encourage you to read through the entire piece by Packer found [url=http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/Salvation/introessay.html]here.[/url]

Hi everyone,

Not to revive this thread anymore, but I would like to agree with Jimmy in that I think that sharing things like this here is or can be divisive.

If it is to be asserted that Armenians promote self-seeking in their theology, can it also be acknowledged that the Lord Jesus warns of another seeking, in our speaking? That whoever teaches or sets forth doctrine without the inspiration of God is seeking something also, that is,

their own glory(John 7:16-18).

I suppose that on the last day, that many theological wars and all the reams of paper and wells of ink that they consumed, that it shall all be revealed as one of the last triumphs of self in evading its own death. That, having been once flushed out by the light of the pure word, it fled, and seeing a wise man in priestly garments slew him and exchanged clothing with the corpse and went and hid in an ivory tower called intellectual power, and there lived out his life having convinced everyone but God and Satan that he had died.

That may be true or it may not be. Whatever the case, it will all be revealed, by fire.

Sermonindex said:

"Most calvinists will be shocked on the day of judgment that their life's glorified God so little, though they talked about it so much." - Greg Gordon

I am shocked and incredibly saddened that a MODERATOR would post something like that and even more shocked that the SITE CREATOR would say this and post it. This comment is incredibly derogatory and divisive and I am shocked that one who is LEADING THE SHEEP (because that is what you are doing by having this forum) would say such a thing! One could say the same about Arminians, Baptists, Methodists, Nazarenes, non-denominations, Pentecostals and any other Christian sect. But does that give anyone the right to say such a derogatory and un-Christlike comment to anyone? Absolutely not! That’s NOT love. We must give an account for EVERY CARRELESS WORD we speak. By our words we will be acquitted and be our words we will be condemned.
There is an easy way to deal with this, Greg, it’s called LOCKING THE TOPIC.

I felt that God was leading me away from here because of the argumentative and prideful attitude of a quite a few people and the divisive comments that I have read. This is just another nail in the coffin.
Rest assured I won’t be back to this forum.

Ephesians 4:29: "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but ONLY what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may BENEFIT those who listen."

Was that comment helpful? Did it build anyone up? It did it benefit ANYONE? Loud and clear, NO.
Allbeit, neither did the first post with blog, but that is your problem for not locking it or getting rid of it.

Veronica

Veronica,

I personally did not find the quote offensive. In fact, as an Arminian I would say,

"Many Arminians will be shocked to discover on the day of judgment that though they made much about choosing God, they chose to do so little."

Greg's comment, while very shocking, I think was spot on and very practical. I hear God saying through him: Let's not talk a lot about glorifying God, rather, let's actually do it. At the end of the day, when it is all said and done, that is what will bring glory to God first and foremost.

As John Piper even has said, "God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in Him." There is a practical side to all this glory talk.

Keep shaking it up Greg. If everyone agrees with you, your doing something wrong.

Blessings.

That is true but what is your point? The fact is all of us will be shocked.

You seem to be guilty of the same thing you accuse Packer of in your previous post, divisive and one sided.

Either way it is not a big deal to me and I hope no one on here is offended.

I was encouraged by your other post, the Making of a prophet. I found that to be edifying.

In Christ,
Eugene