Book Review - Evangelism & The Sovereignty of God

I love most of the books by Dr. Packer. He is a well studied and easy read, with a great deal of depth.

Although you would stereotypically place me in the Arminian camp, I doubt very much that my beliefs are very far removed from your own. I have never had a problem with God being totally sovereign. Yet the very difficulties that generate the lack of evangelism among the Reformed is in its essence - a matter of choice. And one of the largest of the contradictions on both sides of the issue of salvation.

You would think that so great an opposition of beliefs would push students of God’s word to find the middle road, so to speak. The command for us to evangelize would in and of itself be an indication that a choice is involved. I don’t mean to support the majority of the Arminian beliefs; for their understanding in general takes the issue of choice too far from God and does indeed reduce Him. Giving to us far too much of what He alone must be.

Yet Calvinism/Reformed beliefs leave us as mere vessels occupying space until we are judged for sins we could not have stopped, for there cannot be responsibility for sin when there is no choice between right and wrong.

I find that God is not lessened in any way by our ability to, with the power of the Word of God, choose Him over this world. It is our own blind adherence to theologies, instead of seeking to know God, that will in the end doom us. Since scripture supports that God is perfectly willing to allow us to believe a lie - and condemn us for it - you would think that alone would be impetus enough to examine more, and see past the filter of our theologies, and find if we are possibly on the wrong path.

I suppose I should clarifiy my statement a bit, as regards blind theology.

Any persuit of God is going to be a theology of some sort. That much is a given. The difficulty arises when, as Tim wrote so well, we box God and package him up. Yet, that is not all that we do.

We stand in the midst of hundreds of beliefs. The wise among us would say that no one has a monopoly on truth; though to be honest Reformed theology would be among the most inflexible of them. Yet we put on the glasses, or blinders if you will, of the theology we grew up with, or have been taught since child hood. We might even have come to an understanding of Christ later in life.

It is through these glasses that we view scripture. Most times in an attempt to shore up beliefs we already had, or have been challenged by some one. We stop seeking God and end up, possibly, stuck in the rut we choose to be in, rather than seeking to expand our knowledge. Scholarly precision becomes more important than a living relationship with God. Or, God forbid, our understanding was flawed at some basic level, and instead of seeking to understand the reason and solve the puzzle we seek knowledge from others who merely confirm what you already thought you understood.

There is a reason God told us to seek Him earnestly; because any less and it is unlikely that He will impart the correction that we need so badly. Is our fear of change brought about because we are comfortable where we are? Are we afraid that family or respected friends will look down upon us if we find that truth is not among those you currently worship with? The reasons are myriad, and a real danger to the lives of those who claim God as their saviour.

There is a difference between viewing God through our theology, and being open minded enough to follow when His path may take us from our comfortable surroundings.

Mark,

I find myself a bit confused by your question, so if I don’t hit the mark on this short answer, perhaps you could ask it a different way.

I have always believed in a once-for-all, salvation from Christ. Yet Calvinism/Reformed beliefs take an odd bent on the mechanism of how salvation is extended to the world.

Left to ourselves, indeed we would probably always do the things that would lead us to hell. Yet, there are many good people out there who live lives more in tune with what God would have of His children, than many of His children. Does this mean salvation for them? Of course not. Good in this context means a good done for God, not simply being a good person.

Reformed teaching would have the Spirit of God reaching past the boundaries to effect the ability to be saved. Yet scripture clearly shows that with only a few special occasions the Spirit was imparted only by baptism or by the laying on of the apostles hands. It goes on, in fact, to specifically show that it is the power of God’s Word that imparts the ability bridge the gap. “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.”

God is not removed from bringing us past the blockage of our fallen selves, but it does give us the major impetus for the need to evangelize.

While this is a very simplistic answer, much scripture can be brought to bear that does not necessarily alter all of Calvin’s teachings, nor negates all of Arminius’. Indeed both sides have much to offer, and much that is wrong at the foundational level. Calvin made God soverigen in his own estimation, while robbing God of the ability to be much, much more…a God who could retain his soverignty and still give His creations the ability to choose for Him. Arminius took it too far the other direction. Yet…in spite of these contradictions, both sides cling resolutely to their beliefs. That is not necessarily a bad thing, and so I throw out these thoughts to perhaps jog us out of our rut.

“A man in the 1920’s sat in his car looking at over fifty miles of heavily rutted dirt road. At the cross road where he stood there was a hand written sign nailed to a post. It read: “Pick your rut carefully, because your going to be in it for a long time.”

Amen, Donsands