Applied Calvinism
| Chris Ortiz offers a needed reminder to seminarians and anyone else who might love to live in the abstract world. We must constantly seek out ways to make theology applicable and show why it is important. Otherwise, Christians who want to make a difference in their communities will sacrifice good Bible teaching for the sake of doing something. EXCERPT: It is a serious mistake to see theology as an academic exercise. The word theology means God's word; it begins with the presupposition that Scripture is the word of God, and the duty of the theologian is to understand it and to apply it to every area of life and thought. Theology belongs in the pulpit, the school, the work-place, the family, and everywhere. Society as a whole is weakened when theology is neglected. Without a systematic application of theology, too often people approach the Bible with a smorgasbord mentality, picking and choosing that which pleases them.... For me theology means the total mandate of God through His word. What I have written only scratches the surface; it is an introduction to the subject, and it is written to move men to faith and action. (R.J. Rushdoony, Systematic Theology, Vol. I, p.xv, xvi)... Herein lieth the purpose for Christian Reconstruction: applied Calvinism. It's the recognition that since God is wholly other, and superintends all things through creation and providence, then we are dependent upon His infallible revelation as creatures a part and distinct from His eternal being. And, knowing that the primary intent of His written revelation is to teach us "what we are to believe about Him, and what it is He requires us to do" (WCF Larger Catechism, Q.6), then we must move beyond abstract discussions of His anomalies and move ourselves to Christian action. We have spent much time on the first aspect of the catechism in determining what we believe about Him. Now let us discuss what it is He requires us to do. [Full Article] |
posted by Matthew Wireman at 4:59 PM
Comments on "Applied Calvinism"
-
R. Mansfield said ... (Mon Apr 10, 06:00:00 PM) :
-
Matthew Wireman said ... (Mon Apr 10, 09:54:00 PM) :
-
Jason Ramage said ... (Tue Apr 11, 12:01:00 AM) :
-
Matthew Wireman said ... (Tue Apr 11, 05:08:00 AM) :
-
Matthew Wireman said ... (Tue Apr 11, 08:19:00 PM) :
-
Matthew Wireman said ... (Wed Apr 12, 10:48:00 PM) :
-
Matthew Wireman said ... (Thu Apr 13, 10:50:00 AM) :
-
Matthew Wireman said ... (Thu Apr 13, 10:08:00 PM) :
-
Matthew Wireman said ... (Fri Apr 14, 10:43:00 AM) :
-
Matthew Wireman said ... (Fri Apr 14, 11:03:00 PM) :
post a commentGee, I miss the simple days of "applied Christianity."
Hey, Matt, you never answered my question on your "Freedom to Choose" blog entry.
I had responded...and when I went to post it, it had been sovereignly prohibited from doing so.
Rick wrote: "So where does that leave us, Matt? Are we merely actors in a play? Am I not typing this, but it is God typing these words through me?"
In answer to your questions, we are not robots as the charge often goes. I find it demeaning and a strawman argument for the sovereignty position. You are in fact an actor in a play written by God. Granted, I don't think that the working through our members is the best explanation for divine sovereignty but it does help in explaining that God is wholly other in the way he affects us. It is not like a friend trying to persuade us of something. God in his grace takes out the heart of stone (something against a rebel's will) and give him a heart of flesh.
What I find fascinating is how folks define "free will". How would you define it?
I find it more fruitful to make shorter comments...
I got in a conversation about this free will thing while on a backpacking trip last weekend. Turns out that we had two different definitions of free will. I define it as simply having the freedom to make our own decisions. This other girl (a Calvinist) defined free will has being able to make a decision that is not at all influenced by environment, feelings, childhood, family, etc.
Well, I have to admit that going by her definition of free will that of course nobody can eliminate all those factors from the decision making process. But do we have the ability to make a choice, regardless of what influences that choice? I say yes, we do.
Yes, we all do have choice. But what you are defining is simply "will". What exactly is the "will" free from (for both Rick and Jason)?
Thank you, heyirishman. To anyone who wants to answer:
1) If our wills are free from God's will, how can any of the promises of God be fulfilled?
2) If Christ came to die for his people, how can there be any guarantee that the will choose it?
3) Is God in control of the universe or is it moving along by its own power?
Before we continue this dialogue I want to reiterate that belief in God's complete sovereignty does not mean that we are automatons, thereby having no choice. I whole-heartedly affirm that we have choice.
It's not just in engineering, but in plays, movies, etc. To say that God orchestrates the symphony does not mean that the violinist does not enjoy nor have a will.
I would say that God not only sets gravity in motion, but he sustains that it continue. Romans 11.33-36; Psa 41.3;Acts 17.28...If one molecule were out of God's control how is that it would not cause some cataclysmic reaction that God did not ordain?
God does not wire us to choose only what he wills. That is not what the Reformed doctrine of divine sovereignty teaches. Nor does it teach that we are robots. I do not deny we have a will. If our wills are free from God's sovereignty, then we have no guarantee of the promises in the Bible. I say that God inclines the will to seek, obey, and love him.
I am very sure I am not a Catholic. And I am pretty sure that once some of the misconceptions of the Reformed doctrine are explained rightly you will be convinced. I am planning on working on a paper on human will for my Systematic Theology II class. If you would like a copy I will send it.
It sounds like a lot of what you think the Reformers teach about freedom and responsibility is not what they teach. Better, what do you mean that they are free from God's sovereignty/will? You have not answered that yet. Once you do I should be able to explain where we differ and agree.
Just for the record...I did ask the question on April 11, 5 am.
Are you kidding? Look aty April 11, 5 am, not to mention the rest of the dialogue. It seems that you make statements of the human will being free from God's will (April 12, 9 am) but offer no explanation as to what "free" means. That is what my question entails. Your quote from "Reconciliation and Penance 16" is telling. It says all these things influence the human will, and then it lays out a big "but". It also does not define what "free" is. It just makes this statement without defining the word. It then goes on to say that to deny "freedom" (however the quote defines it - benefit of the doubt, maybe it is somewhere else in the writing, which I would like to see) denies human dignity is untenable.
I hope you don't consider this a cat and mouse game. I don't want to wrangle with words, but I want definitions to be clear, that is what I am aiming for by being direct with you in how you define "free". I appreciate you telling me now that it is "a will that is not coerced or manipulated in any way." Before I hadn't heard that from you.
What is telling about the quote I mentioned (I apologize for not being clearer about that; I was technically using it to refer to the fact that something is alluded to without explicating it) was that it claims that the human will is affected by many things "but the human will is free" as evidenced from experience and such - thus making an assertion without a defense of how (and like I said in my comment above, given the benefit of the doubt, maybe it is defined elsewhere). I believe that "free will" has not been defined and that there is this looming idea that everyone knows what is being referred to; I did not/do not know what that definition was/is referring to. The last two lines sounds as though the document is merely defining "will".
As for your definition, is someone always able to choose either one of two objects. For example, if you are offered two, three, or ten flavors of your favorite ice cream, could you always choose anyone of the flavors you would eat? In other words, is your will "free" to choose any option that sits before you?
As for my understanding of "free", it does not have to do with secret knowledge ( I am definitely not a gnostic). Like I said, I want to be absolutely clear on what your definition is. As you probably know it is easy to engage in a conversation with someone assuming your definition for a word (i.e. justification, sanctification, free, and will) and realise that you did not have the definitions right at the first. I sense your irrateness, and apologize for not explaining why I was asking my questions.
I hope you understand. When people begin to talk with those of the Reformed camp, they assume that we advocate some kind of robot-ness to the whole debate (as has already been evidenced). I merely wanted to put the other side on the defensive by asking all you how one even defines "free", in hopes that there would be common ground, rather than myriad assumptions.
As for free will, I will send you my paper once I get it done. I offer this snippet reluctantly because the Reformed understanding has been made into a strawman too many times and I know that people are ready to pounce on it...but here is a short explanation:
Since Adam's Fall the entire human race has been infected with sin (Original Sin, concupiscence). Scripture teaches that man is enslaved to sin, indeed, he is spiritually dead (Eph 2.1, Col 1.21 ). Man is an enemy of God. Because we are held captive by king sin we do not want to bow our knee to Christ...Our eyes have been blinded by unbelief and the devil (2 Cor 4.4). Due to this affection we are unable to choose anything other than sin. We need a miraculous work of God's grace to shine on our hearts and reveal the glory and beauty of Christ (2 Cor 4.6). He must take out our hearts of stone and give us hearts of flesh (promise fulfilled by the New Covenant in Christ). This is a work he does. It is glorious and gracious.
There is much more to be said. I will leave that for another time...I hope this helps.