After you have watched the film here ;).
This is a perfect illustration of how not to be afraid of presenting the Gospel right way.
BTW, the text of the well-known sermon with the same title is here:
Sinners in The Hands of an Angry God by Jonathan Edwards
16 comments:
A somewhat nasty sermon, in my opinion. You might find the following link interesting: http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/riveroffire.html
"Who can love a torturer? Even those who try hard to save themselves from the wrath of God cannot really love Him. They love only themselves, trying to escape God’s vengeance and to achieve eternal bliss by managing to please this fearsome and extremely dangerous Creator.
This juridical conception of God, this completely distorted interpretation of God’s justice, was nothing else than the projection of human passions on theology. It was a return to the pagan process of humanizing God and deifying man. Men are vexed and angered when not taken seriously and consider it a humiliation which only vengeance can remove, whether it is by crime or by duel. This was the worldly, passionate conception of justice prevailing in the minds of a so-called "Christian" society."
The speaker here seems only a little too glad to talk about all these people who are to be consumed by "the wrath of God". I honestly think such souls really just did not receive enough attention as children.
- Tom
I do not know, Tom. From a Reformed point of view, this is just one aspect of the total picture.
And I tend to agree with Jim on this.
Well, I guess here's the question: my understanding is that the Reformed opinion is such that those who are "not elect" will NOT repent because they have not been given the grace to do so. Thus, a sermon like that by J. Edwards would seem somewhat fruitless, no?
The "non-elect" will just mock it. Some of the "non-elect" will also probably not worry about it because they mistakently assume they've been chosen. Those who are, in fact, among the elect won't really be worried because they don't have to be.
Now, I understand a certain "anger" that we might call a "righteous anger". Hearing of the beheading of our servicemen and women is enough to make me ill. It makes you want to punish those who did it, to retaliate in some way. I get it. I would like to think that God's "anger" is not quite the same thing. It would not seek to inflict pain just for the sake of inflicting pain but to make the soul in question "see the light", so to speak.
It doesn't make sense for suggest that God wills that these souls never see that light. However, for some, that light might be intolerable. What's "good" becomes "Hell" to them. Where that balance between choice and grace is I'm not sure, but I don't think we are all completely without capacity to respond.
- Tom
Tom, technically speaking, that is correct - non-elect will not respond. But we do not know who the elect are, don't we?
One year ago I would laugh at the same film and mock the same sermon. Those things were "foolishness" to me then. So I would classify as the non-elect back then, not long ago.
And then, an unexplainable chain of events took place in my life. The thing is - I know i was not seeking God, and i could care less.
the only consistent and, mind you, biblical explanation to what happened to me may be found in the Doctrines of Grace.
I cannot say I grasp the fullness of it yet, but after examining all the other possibilities, this is the only plausable one, and, I am not alone in believing so.
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD." (Isaiah 55:8)
Tom,
Your difficulties are quite easy to understand. You figure that God thinks like you. This isn't an unatural reaction, but it still doesn't make the assumption correct.
I will go one step further: the assumption (that God thinks and acts like you would) is completely rejected in Scripture. Now, if you have no time for the Bible, Tom, then stop reading right now, 'cause everything I'll write will be pure foolishness to you.
"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Philippians 2:12-13)
"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. (Romans 9:18)
"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:14-15)
You see, Tom, everthing you write after "I would like to think...", and "It doesn't make sense ...", and "...but I don't think...", is pure nonsense if it contradicts what God has said. And clearly, it has!
We preach the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, with warnings of Hell fire, because we are commanded to in Scripture. It is the way God has chosen to save His people. You may see it as a pointless exercise, but again, God disagrees:
"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 16:15)
"For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." (1 Corinthians 1:21)
If God had to be everything "I" thought He should be like in order to believe in Him, He wouldn't be Triune, He wouldn't fulfill His prophecies "in part" at different parts of ages, and He wouldn't send my unconverted loved ones to Hell forever. But you see, with genuine, saving Faith, I do NOT need for God to be everything "I" want him to be. I love Him because He first loved me (1 John 4:19), and I believe He is EXACTLY as He has described Himself in His Word. Plus and Minus NOTHING.
Repent and believe in these magnificient and high Truths, Tom. It them is Truth, and Light, and Life.
Rand
"If God had to be everything 'I' thought He should be like in order to believe in Him, He wouldn't be Triune, He wouldn't fulfill His prophecies 'in part' at different parts of ages, and He wouldn't send my unconverted loved ones to Hell forever"
I see. As long as you slide into Heaven, your "loved ones" can rot in a literal flaming Hell for eternity as far as you're concerned.
So for all this talk about "charity" and "godliness", it's all really about you, isn't it? LOL
See, this last post is what disturbs me about certain varieties of Christianity. It doesn't have so much to do about becoming "like Christ" or becoming "perfect as God is perfect" but about "having the right beliefs".
If one can honestly be unmoved about their "loved ones" frying in a large vat of Crisco for all eternity, I must think they lack empathy and any sense of compassion.
I don't see how this traits are to be considered "godly". Where does Scripture suggest that they are?
Am I completely off-base here?
- Tom
Tom,would it be too much to ask You about where do You stand as far as doctrine is concerned?
I am deeply concerned about the unsaved. I truly am. I put no merit whatsoever in me for the fact that God saved me. It is a gift of a very powerful burden and challenge, and the one of enormous implications.
One of the benefits of this gift for my sane mind is the knowledge that God works all things for good, and that I cannot possibly understand everything now.
Have You listened to Narrow Mind, the Atheistic Wednesday?
Gene was quite blunt there...And yet, one can not be angry with Gene. Because it is biblical - to treat sin as sin, and not as sickness or addiction.
I value what John Piper preaches. There is so much love in the Bible, just listen to the man. And he is a Calvinist, mind You:)
I don't doubt you at all, Ann. I don't think everyone shares your empathy, unfortunately. I'll take a listen to Gene's thoughts when I have a few moments.
Thanks!
- Tom
Tom,
Here is the thing: You will NEVER and NOWHERE find a church, a denomination, a group of people - with whom You will COMPLETELY agree on everything. And why is that? Because everybody is a sinner! Some of us are JUSTIFIED sinners, but nevertheless sinners. We are not perfect. If You seek perfect people, You will always fail and end up disappointed. Only God is perfect, and it is His Perfectness we should seek, while forgiving the imperfectness of our brothers and sisters.
Now, having that in mind, we study the Bible and, guided by the Holy Spirit, get the understanding. So then we look around and test our understanding with that of other people who claim to be called Christians. I believe this happens by Grace, that we find right. Now You may argue, that this is not the case, since there are so many variants of protestant faith, right? My thin experience tells me that many Christians have come over to Calvinism from some less Sovereignity-centered professions, just because they understood, by Grace, the depth and consistency of this teaching, as opposed to their previous understanding. This does not mean that they were "worse" before, or that they were "false Christians" before.
We agree on essentials, and we are saved by faith through grace, to good works, on the basis of the substitutory atonement of Christ.
Some of us are just more radical than others, which does not contradict the picture of ONE BODY of the Church.
I thought you might like the following link, Ann. It provides some interesting thoughts about Calvinism by someone who deeply understands it:
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/calvinism.html
- Tom
Hello, Tom:)
I can see You like it here. That is good.
To answer to the link You provided, I will point You to this one:
http://www.fredsbibletalk.com/fb007.html
Fair enough?
Funny that it happens to reference that same article! Small apologetics world it is.
Well, I'll just agree to disagree. Those who prefer Calvinism will not be persuaded out of it, and vice versa, no matter how logical or persuasive or even Biblical the arguments are. In the end, all that ends up happening is that people start arguing over what the definition of "is" is. After all, as you mentioned, no two believers agree on how to interpret every passage of Scripture, and within the body of all believers, that's a lot of disagreement!
I will say this: there are elements of Calvinism that conflict with what even Scripture suggests are the qualities of "goodness" (longsuffering, patience, charity, justice, mercy). Is it "just" to create humans and punish them eternally for failing to live up to expectations they CANNOT live up to?
In other words, if I yelled at my deaf daughter to clean up her room and then beat her because she failed to respond (despite the fact that she could not hear me), would I be a good parent? Hardly! Yet, this seems to be God's approach in the Calvinist system. Perhaps it's only okay if God behaves as such. In that case, if we say God is "good" but then admit that we have NO idea what this "goodness" entails, well, on what grounds do we say He is good at all then? If God adheres to no moral or ethical constructs other than what He "wills" (i.e., feels like doing), again, all we end up saying is that God is "I know not what". (See the Divine Command Theory and the Euthyphro dilemma: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma)
- Tom
So, Tom, now we are into business of exchanging links. I guess that is good, too.
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1993Euthyphro.htm
This one i did not have to search for, it was referenced in Your link. And since I link to the author from my blog, there was not much doubt...
I daresay that the rebuttal of the anticalvinistic article was sound, solid and biblical, presenting the author's sources, or exposing them, rather.
The conclusion of Frame's article is profound:
"Positively, the moral is: When you are arguing an ethical issue, make sure that you are able to justify the normative character of your conclusions. It is sometimes legitimate to argue from apparently descriptive premises to normative conclusions; but if you do that, you may be challenged to show that there is a normative element in your premise. You should be prepared to answer that challenge. In other words: it is always legitimate, in ethical debate, to ask "Where do you get your norm?" "Why ought we to do as you say?" Indeed, that is often the most important question that can be asked. It is a question that unbelieving ethics is fundamentally unable to answer. The only sound answer comes from the Christian revelation.".
Think about it, Tom. Wherever You are standing right now, it seems to be Your wish to shape God. Ultimately, it is God shaping us.
Or - there is no God, and we are an accident.
I do not think we need to go on discussing it more - because everything has been said already.
Have a blessed weekend!
This is an enlightening discussion.
Let me leave you off with a question to think about for the weekend before you ban me for being a pest ;-)
How do you define "good" in light of Scripture? If you felt an "inspiration" that God commanded you to kill your child, would you, or would you instead find such a command inconsistent with what we understand to be God's revealed nature and believe that such a suggestion was coming from Satan himself?
Why, either way? Surely, you believe that God speaks to the heart of the believer even today, even if you're a cessationist, yes?
Abraham didn't think about it - his knife was poised over his son's stomach with his son staring up at him. God stopped this from occurring, of course, but was He making a statement about human sacrifice at a universal level or just in this instance? A Calvinist would be hard pressed to suggest that there is any universal prohibition against human sacrifice because God also commands instances of mass genocide in the Old Testament, even against people who had committed no wrong (children in their mother's wombs, etc.). You might argue that these people were wicked that were mowed down. Well, in that case, the prohibition against murder can be thrown out the window because, in a Calvinist's eyes, "no one" is innocent ... "all" are equally depraved! (As Calvinist writer and columnist for the CWFA, Mark Landsbaum, once wrote to me: "God hates everyone").
I take issue with the idea that I'm trying to "mold" God into my own image. I'm simply underscoring the truth that we ALL have assumptions about what God would say to us as believers. If whatever God asks of us is good because He is God, then we have NO reason to assume that He would not ask us to kill our children in the most brutal way. If He asks us, it's good! See the problem here? Discernment in the life of a believer becomes impossible.
You have a blessed weekend as well! I'll touch base next week and maybe we can converse further. Or if you like, I can send you my email address.
- Tom
Tom, Taffy - whatever Your nick is - I think we have talked enough.
At one point I kindly asked You for your doctrinal position, but You ignored my question.
This blog has no restrictions as to who comments here, but I hope everybody understands that it is I who set up the rules of good conduct.
I do not appreciate anonymous comments, and I do not appreciate pointless argumentation - that is, I do not want to feed trolls.
Go and listen to Narrow Mind, Gene Cook is far more equipped to answer Your questions. You may also use Your time and comment on his blog.
From now on, I will, though unwillingly, delete Your comments, if they shall disregard my simple rules.
I know where You are coming from. It is not difficult to find out.
It has been interesting talking to You.
Post a Comment