I was embarrassed almost to the point of intimidation. The bullhorn toting preacher used the word hell more times in one message than you will find it in the entire scripture. He had one message. “Your sins will take you to hell.” Sadly he sounded enthusiastic about the prospects. He mocked passers by as ‘drunkards, whores, lesbians and homos.’ Unlike the Puritans in days gone by there was no tear in the warning. As I listened the thought occurred to me to simply go home. The other thought was to publicly withstand the scenario but the fomenting anger of the crowd was up to the withering scorn of the preachers.

A woman stood nearby passing out tracts. “I am a Christian I said.” It only increased her insistence that I take the tract. She was with them and warned me that we ‘cannot water down the message.’ Then I offended her intentionally by saying the preacher was more pornographic than the revelers. Jesus never mocked sinners of their impending doom he reserved his vitriol for the religious leaders. “Your preachers are mocking these people” I said to her, “they are not preaching the Gospel just condemnation.” She walked away and continued her work. I decided to continue mine.

Continue reading “Reflections on Mardi Gras Street Ministry” »

While most Christians debate Church and State with an eye toward trying to establish that our nation was founded as a ‘Christian’ nation,  let us instead think on politics as the Reformation and Radical Reformation traditions dealt with it.  On the one hand the legacy of the Reformation is the failed state religions of western Europe which have largely been laid aside in favor of secular nations.  On the other hand is the pacifist religious traditions that have weakened more and more over the five centuries.  In America we have the hybrid reality of vibrant churches that are largely without influence in the public square and while growing in numbers are flagging  in public influence.  Where do we go from here?

Was Jesus Political?

Obviously people believe they can separate religion and politics but Jesus did not have the luxury.  “Are you the King of the Jews?” asked Pilate of Jesus.  “Shall I crucify your king?” he further asked the chief priests. Clearly Jesus was caught in a political as well as a ‘religious’ conflict.
The Jewish leaders called Caesar their king and disavowed Jesus and as a result Pilate crucified Jesus under the banner proclaiming him “King of the Jews” in three tongues. (see John 18-19) If Jesus had tried to delineate this conflict as purely spiritual or as merely religious there would have been little ground to crucify him.  I mean who cares if a Jewish cult leader claims to provide eternal life?  Apparently they thought the claim of Jesus had radical political ramifications that could not be separated out in favor of peace.  After all his servants were calling him the promised anointed King in the line of David the conquering warrior king of Israel.   He was after all calling for people to give him an allegiance that exceeded even familial relations.  Jesus was political.

What Party Would Jesus Favor?

Kings do not fall in line with partisan politics the whole idea of Jesus being a Republican or a Democrat based on platform policy is to miss the
point of Jesus completely.  Kings do not run for election nor do they seek the favor of polls when making decisions.  Jesus is of a party that is as he told Pilate, “not of this world.” (John 18:36) No political party would be able to accomplish a platform in complete allegiance to Jesus rather the parties are given over to the influence of powers within the world.  In other words politics is OF this world.  That does not mean one is secular and the other spiritual.  Rather it means one is of the fabric of worldly values and principles and the other is not.  Jesus would no doubt have remained staunchly outside of either major political party in America.

So What Shall We Do?

Sentences cannot navigate paths that require volumes but in short we are called to belong to Jesus.  When we confess Jesus as LORD, we are making not just a confession of our faith but a profoundly political announcement of allegiance.  When we confess Christ we are swearing our allegiance to him.which in fact makes us by nature the citizens of two kingdoms.  Further
it assumes that the oath to Jesus takes a priority over every oath.  Thus every believer is sort of a Daniel in Babylon,  a Joseph in Pharaoh’s house, and an Esther in the kings harem.  We do not become the wielders of the power by virtue of position but we become the citizens of a kingdom in exile from that kingdom seeking to bring it to bear on this one.   We will find ourselves in lion’s dens, in dungeons, and in moments of extreme life risking possibilities.  We will learn that a solitary person who cannot be compromised by fame, or power, or safety is a weapon of war in the hand of God.

Christendom and Nero

Peter and Paul likely were casualties of Nero’s insanity and barbarism. Their only crime?  They could not swear allegiance to Rome’s Lord.  Being a Christian with eternal life did not get them in their problem it was being a person who would not and could not sell out or fall out with Jesus.  Yes heaven was their reward but earth was always their concern.  Bringing the values of heaven to bear on earth was their work.  We  need to join them.

What do you think?

Malcolm Smith

I was completely frustrated with trying to thoughtfully grasp and teach the mysteries of the Word of God.  Every  system of theology left me feeling as if someone from Mars was trying to explain the culture of Venus by looking through binoculars. Then I listened to a teaching on “Blood Covenant” by Malcolm Smith. I was completely undone. His teaching was like receiving your first prophetic word and feeling as if your mail had been intercepted. The concepts rose from the text rather than being imposed upon them. The insights resonated.  I was hooked and addicted. But Malcolm’s ministry had closed and moved out of the country, or so they said. It took another two years for me to find the cache of hidden treasure in a guy’s basement and another in the storeroom of a defunct lending library.  So I begged borrowed and cajoled until the gifts of grace were released to my custody.

For the next two years I listened to endless hour upon hour of teaching, in my car, on hikes, laying on the bed at night and hidden away in the quiet of my office. This led me to pursue other sources for the same kinds of things, I found some but not much. Slowly, the teachings became my own.  I began to learn to think in covenantal language and ways and the teachings made it from Malcolm’s lost tapes to my desk and into my own teachings. Bottom line? The teachings of Malcolm Smith had become one of the three or four most influential thinkers in my life. Then an internet search revealed that Malcolm’s ministry had revived in Bandera Tx.

Making my way to his west Texas conferences became a priority.  My first face to face encounter with Malcolm was at his 50^th anniversary in ministry celebration. It was a vastly understated gathering of friends. I was blessed to be there. Malcolm never talks about himself in his teachings, a very British quality. However, on this occasion he shared his personal testimony of 50 years in ministry.  The pastor that Jesus loves felt honored and blessed. Two years ago I introduced Malcolm to New Life City.  Next week he returns.  I cannot wait.  He is one of my fathers…and now one of my great friends.

Malcolm intends to preach on the topic Living in the Power of the Holy Spirit. I never tire of such things. Rearrange your schedule for this one … (find details elsewhere in the bulletin.)I will be front and center, as usual.

Weekend with Malcolm Smith

Fri Oct 23rd  7:00pm,   Sat Oct 24th  9:30am to 1pm

‘Living in the Power of the Holy Spirit’

That phrase is from the scriptures meaning three and a half years and indicating a time of tribulation and suffering.  Believers are called to wisdom when faced with such times in the Revelation of John.  We are also called to endurance.  Church, pay attention to your life during this season.  The American situation is worse than we think.  Our economy is being propped up artificially.  We are not surviving right now on good principles but on extreme measures. America has been devoted to living as pain free as possible. Thus we have accepted short term relief as a means of dealing with long term problems. Debt is the naïve assumption that the future will be better than the present. Thus it is a means of betting on future prosperity as a means of alleviating present distress.

Slow it down pastor, what are you saying.  I am urging you to be wise in your lifestyle right now.  Beware of quick fixes. Beware of financial partnerships.  Beware of people who promise big gain on investments. The world is full of unscrupulous people who will exploit you. Even more than that, the church is filled with naïve ones who believe anything. If something sounds too good to be true it likely is.  If good and proven people are warning you, pay attention to them even if you do not understand.  I am tired of wolves exploiting people.  They should be exposed to all.  Remember wolves use deception but devour those who give in to them.

It is time to live by good principles, minimize debt, take care with your assets. Realize that when people are under pressure they will do desperate things.  I have seen many believers seduced by such people who lie first to themselves and then to you. So live cautiously, wisely and with integrity.  Do not listen to schemes from unproven people. Especially distrust those who use the name of the LORD to induce you to join their schemes to find quick and easy riches. Obey the Lord. Stay close to his word. Spend wisely, give generously but not foolishly and put some away for the future.  Beware of selfish and lazy people who use spiritual words to cover themselves. False piety is often the means used by wicked people to cover themselves.  Those who will not work are not trustworthy and are unprincipled.

If you have a good job beware of discontent.  A secure position is better right now than a ‘dream job’ that comes with promises but not guarantees. Work with integrity.  Seek to make your employers prosper by your good efforts. Keep your promises.  In times like these short term difficulties are better than short term relief.  We are laboring unto the LORD.  We care about his name.  The favor of the LORD is our desire. Do not compromise yourself. Do not lie to yourself.  I am writing this for those who have ears to hear.  The scriptures warn us that lust and greed are a snare for us.  The scriptures warn us that the ‘love of money is the root of all sorts of evil.’   Let’s come through these times together.  I do not think I have ever written more sternly to warn people.  These are the words of a pastor who does not want to see his people deceived.  God bless you all as you consider these words.

A Public Statement on Ted Haggard

No one is defined by their worst moments.  To understand a person you have to walk with them for many years.  Gayle Haggard knew the real Ted before she knew about the fomenting torment of his soul.  She just did not know his darkest parts. We are all adept at hiding those bits of ourselves which are least appealing. The truth about Ted Haggard was seen in his day to day pastoring and leading of a congregation that grew to some 14,000 people. When I think of Ted I remember the guy who had time for a fellow pastor when he had thousands, literally thousands of people who could have said they needed him. So to me he is my friend, even though he may not even remember meeting with my wife and I in May of 2000 to counsel us about our future in ministry.

I believe the real Ted Haggard is the guy who rose to lead a the nation’s evangelicals, the guy who wrote books about everything from church life, to family to dieting, the guy whose magnetism drew a multitude to his local church and the guy who had and still has a great marriage to his wife Gayle.  You see it is the cumulated daily life of a man that measures him.  It is the daily grind that tells the truth about a man.  His season of secret sin does not invalidate his lifetime of devotion to Christ, to family, to friends and to the church.  But he did lose his grip on all the self-control that kept his darkest thoughts from public view.

What Do You Do With a Fallen Brother?

We all recoiled at the public fall of the man we ‘thought we knew.’ But should we?  Have we not lived long enough to know that these kinds of darkness often hide the most unlikely candidates? Admittedly, Ted was one of my heroes. He was one of those great souls that seemed to have it all together. He shinned like a flawless diamond. His public joy built a facade that was completely believable. When he fell I wept publicly.  But what should we do when a brother falls?  First, we should quiet ourselves and gather the wisdom of other sage leaders. Then we should approach it with fear remembering our own frailties. Did New Life Church do this? O that is not my point. I think they mostly did well and have done the best they could. Flawlessly? No, no more than the one they had to chasten. This article is not written in any way to question the dealings of others with Ted.  It is intended to speak of our dealings with him as a fellowship of Jesus.

We have to try to help one another and love one another even when the beauty has been betrayed by the beast within.  Ted’s story is important. It is about all of us. People everywhere struggle with wanting to do one thing and nevertheless doing quite the opposite. For some it is a raging anger, for others an unquenchable desire, for still others nagging greed. And all of it is swept along by the terror of exposure.  Fear of being truly known is the slave master that whips us into the shadows. We believe if we are truly known we will not be loved.  Bringing Ted Haggard to our church is intended to strike a blow at that demonic lie.  We are saying that having the curtain torn down and displaying the wizard as a mere man, a la Oz, does not make him worthless. It makes him dearer. So we welcome Ted to our church with open hearts and open arms.

We Are Loving and Forgiving a Brother

Ted may not be our own church member but he is a member of our body.  He belongs to the same Lord and loves the same Jesus as we.  In the scriptures there was a terrible sin exposed in the first letter to the Corinthians.  Paul did not hesitate to pass a judgment upon the man when his sin was exposed. Apparently the man was engaged in a sexual relationship with ‘his father’s wife.’  Hopefully a euphemism indicating no filial relation, perhaps a step mother.  Either way Paul said such an evil was not even found among Gentiles.  Paul told the congregation to turn him over to Satan.  Well apparently they did. And perhaps that same man is referred to in Paul’s second letter in chapter 2, we cannot be sure. However, the principle would still apply. Someone in the church was disciplined and apparently has deeply repented. Paul told them to re-affirm their love for him, 2 Cor. 2:8 and to forgive him vs 10 and spare them all from Satan’s deceptions vs. 11.

Therefore, we are having Ted in our church to share with him our forgiveness and to affirm our love to him.  We cannot do this as perfectly as his own church could but we can express the love of the larger body of Christ that was also wounded in Ted’s fall.  Above all we wish to express our love to Gayle and to regret with her that she ever had to taste the bitter gall of this pain.  So often those who love the sinner most are hurt worst by the sins.  Gayle and the children had no culpability in this and yet they too suffered the loss of so many dear relationships and comforts.  Her help in restoring her husband to honor should itself be honored.

What If…?

Indeed what if more is exposed or if he falls again?  The answer is simple. Love always risks.  Love is always ready to be tested, to be challenged, to be soiled by association.  Love never fails. All kinds of things can happen and will happen. When they do the blood of Christ will be sufficient and his association with sinners will continue. However, what if no one was willing to love Ted again? What if his family turned him out? What if every person that loved him now hated him? You already know the answer to that. We would be very poor indeed if that were the case.

A final thought.  Having Ted visit our church and testify to us, teach us and minister to us does not rise to the level of restoring him to what he lost.  That can only be done over a great deal of time and by higher power than our simple church.  He does not come as an ordained pastor, his credentials are not intact.  He does not come as a pastor.  He comes as a friend with a story to tell.  And we will hear his story and share ours with him. Perhaps we will weep together and perhaps we will even laugh, yes we should laugh too. One thing I believe is true we will all be left enriched by grace and kissed by peace.  No matter what let Christ have the last word for he is the one in whom we have trusted. He is the one who entered the darkness at noon for us.  He is the one who has taught us to love.  These are the thoughts of a pastor who has made a decision and does not regret it nor does he expect to do so.

Bless you all.

Alan Hawkins

The Genesis Debate

The Earth Was Created in the Recent Past (Young Earth Creationism)

This view is based on a literal rendering of the Genesis/Creation account. It maintains that ‘yom’ refers to a single 24 hour day and that there is no reason to take the passage any other way. Those who hold this view maintain, that the pattern of ‘evening and morning,’ in the text makes it clear that a normal day is in view. Furthermore, the fact that Sabbath law in scripture looks back to Genesis and treats the seventh day as a normal period of time and patterns the keeping of Sabbath upon the assumption that the day is a normal day.

To the scientific critiques of the Genesis account the Young Earth view maintains, first, that creatio ex nihilo will never satisfy a scientist therefore there is no need to reconcile the data with their views. Second, they point out that this view requires a supernaturalist worldview which is the normal pattern of the Bible. In other words God works through an instantaneous event rather than a process in scripture. Thus the pattern of suddenness as the way of God fits the Young Earth view. There is an increasing school of Intelligent Design scientists who work diligently to answer the questions of darwinianists. Finally, the Young Earth theorists maintain that the scriptures do not support an old earth because they remind us that ‘death came through Adam.’ Thus death came at the fall and not before.

The Earth is a Very Old Work of Art (The Day-Age Theory)

Old Earth theorists or Day-Age Theorists maintain that the days of Genesis are epochs of time not 24 hour days. They point out that the Sun was not created until day 4 making 24 hour days impossible prior to at least that point. They believe this theory allows for the appearance and scientific claim that the earth is very old. In addition they point out that the Sabbath is no longer a day but a state of being in Christ and thus an epoch or age. If that is so then no damage is done to scripture in believing that days were epochs in the Creation account. Finally they argue that God would have to create the world with at least the appearance of age and that God would not do that because it would constitute deception in a book that intends to offer revelation.

In defense of their view they point out other scriptural hints at the day-age idea. First the statement that with the Lord a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years a day. (Ps. 90:4) It is also noted that Habakkuk infers an old earth when speaks of “everlasting hills” and “eternal mountains.” They also argue that animal death is not in view when the scriptures claim death came by Adam. Like the recent earth view this view has a growing scientific community to support its view. Their goal is to harmonize Genesis with secular science.

Restoring A Destroyed Creation (The Restoration View)

The Restorative View has been called the Gap Theory because it maintains the existence of a gap between Genesis 1 and 2. Thus the creation account is really a restoration account. They point out that the first creation was Gen. 1:1 while the next verse speaks of a world that is ‘formless’ and ‘void.’ Thus it has the hint of chaos. They claim that the earth became corrupted by an angelic rebellion after Gen. 1:1 and that the Spirit ‘hovering’ over the earth is actually the Spirit guarding the ‘deep’ or the abode of darkness and rebellion.

It is claimed that this view accounts for the origin of Satan in the garden. To be sure all other views are left to speculate about this enemy in the garden. This view presupposes the angelic fall prior to the human fall. This view also maintains that animal death has a genesis prior to the first recorded death when God killed the animal and placed the skins on the naked fallen couple. The injunction by God for Adam to exercise dominion is much more sensible with the understanding that Satan is around to resist such action.

The Restoration View maintains that fall and restoration is a pattern throughout history.  Creation is followed by a demonic fall, followed by a restoration and then the fall of Adam. Adam’s seed continues to slide downward until God again destroys the world with the flood followed by another restoration. That brings us to our present era which is an ongoing downward moral spiral headed for final judgment and an ultimate final restoration in the New Heavens and New Earth.

In defense of restorationism it is maintained that even though no single passage commends the view, none is damaged by the view. Furthermore the contrast of ‘create’ (ex nihilo) and to ‘make’ (form or fashion) are seen as intentional descriptions of forming something out of that which had been marred. Like the Day-Age Theory this view allows for the fossil evidence to be explained as stemming from the prior chaos/restoration cycle. Lastly, it is pointed out that God’s declaration of ‘good’ is specific and not general. Thus the absence of the declaration is notable in the early section.

Literary Theme Over Literary Chronology (The Literary Framework View)

In the Literary Theme View the argument is simple. All other views have missed the point. Rather than being a chronology of creation Genesis is thematic. The author had no scientific intent or audience and therefore the need to reconcile with the scientific worldview is irrelevant and misplaced. If the author was doing polemic argumentation it was against pagan polytheists not against science. The author was trying to combat the worshipers of the creation in favor of the worship of the creator.

The framework of Genesis 1 is outlined as an answer to two problems. The problems are stated in verse two; formless and void. To solve the problem of formlessness God gives form by separation; light from darkness, heavens from waters, earth from waters. To solve the problem of void God fills; the light and darkness with celestial bodies, the heavens and waters with birds and fishes, the earth and waters with man and animals. Thus the creation account while informative is hardly considered science. The author is bringing a polemic against paganism.

Feedback Welcomed

Now you have a framework to work with, what would your reaction be. Which view best represents yours. Which view is weakest, which strongest. I find much of value in three of the four. Let’s discuss.

Stunning News from Fresh Fire Ministries

Two announcements came from the board of directors this week. www.freshfire.ca August 12 the board announced that Todd has begun legal proceedings to separate from his wife Shonnah. August 15 they announced that Todd has stepped down from the ministry due to an inappropriate relationship with a woman. The news is sad and every one of us is praying for the resolution of these matters.  This news follows a progression of events that is mystifying to casual observers.

On June 23 C Peter Wagner convened a meeting of 17 Apostles to bring ‘alignment’ and ‘commissioning’ to Todd. These two things were intended to endorse the Florida Outpouring and to bring Todd into accountable relationships for the ongoing ministry of revival. Within a week of that commissioning Todd was taking time off at the insistence of his overseeing board from Fresh Fire. In fairness this was a necessary action as Todd had been going for about 100 days with few days off.  For most of July Todd was not present at Lakeland and the meetings went on. Then very  suddenly the announcement was made that the large tent was being closed and the Outpouring was being moved from a venue of 10,000 to a venue of about 750. Then on August 6 Todd handed over total responsibility for the meetings to the local church pastor of Ignited Church. By August 11 the bad news began to be released.

On August 11 C. Peter Wagner announced that he was asking 10 apostolic leaders to come together to deal with the numerous questions that had come forth from the Florida Outpouring. Wagner stated that the group intends to examine 24 separate issues from the revival and bring forth answers in an open fashion for everyone to see. That was the same day of the announcement of Todd’s marriage problems. It appears that Wagner had no forewarning about the announcement. I was encouraged by Wagner’s intention as we all had unanswered questions about Todd and the revival.

What Should be Done?

First, we already know to pray for everyone involved in this. Second, we should ask what went wrong? How did all of this happen? To ascribe this to Satan is certainly not without foundation but it all too often deflects our own personal responsibility. So we should wait until the commissioning leadership of Revival Alliance has had an opportunity to respond. Third, we should all continue to look beyond these events and these people to the Lord and his good hand.

These events threaten to put us all in a bad light.  Lovers of renewal are already scrutinized by critics within the Christian family. Now these events give the whole world an opportunity to scorn our faith again. The seventeen apostolic leaders who went to Lakeland bear the brunt of the responsibility to handle this matter. We should expect them to deal with it and we should give them an opportunity. Todd’s personal failure is scandalous to the public but we all have had personal failure. We are all desirous to forgive Todd and see his family restored. The big question is why was this such a surprise to our apostolic leaders? What did they know about Todd’s marriage? And what action will they take now?

I for one hope we play this out just as publicly as we played out the endorsement of Todd Bentley.  Our repentance should be as public as our proclamation of revival. Let’s go on God TV and tell the world about our failure, our weakness and our courage to face problems openly and without fear. Todd will find forgiveness from his Christian family. The overseers will find understanding from the body of Christ. And we should expect to find them all open and transparent. I will have more to say about this.

Strangely Intimidated!

Yes I have been slow to post the first entry on the blog because I have been strangely intimidated by the simple technology. But I got over myself and dived in. So! Let me give an introduction. We are going to be examining a book by Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy called Across the Spectrum. It is a book that surveys theological positions that are considered to be within the ‘spectrum’ of orthodoxy by generally evangelical theologians. So far we have examined 3 major issues, they are;

The Inspiration Debate:

The two schools of thought include the Inerrantist View which claims the Bible to be without error of any kind, and the Infallibilist View, which sees the Bible as Infallible in matters of faith and practice. The Inerrantist View is probably best described by the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy of 1978. This view qualifies inerrancy by the claim that the Bible is inerrant in the original autographs. The major critique of this view is that those autographs are unavailable and cannot therefore undergo the scrutiny of the present copies. Defenders of this view point out that the manuscript evidence for scripture is amazingly consistent and that discrepancies in manuscripts are mostly limited to unessential details. The weakness of this view is that the endless qualifications of what is meant by ‘inerrant’ seem to weaken the original claim. Thus giving the Bible into the hands of its’ worst critics.

The Infallibilist View holds that the scriptures are inspired by God and are completely faithful to the intentions of God for faith and practice. This view admits that there are numerous ‘errors’ in the details of texts but that these so-called errors do not obscure the meaning or intention of God with regard to our faith. In other words, following the scriptures will not cause us to fall into erroneous behaviors. The advantage of this view is that it is less on the defensive than the Inerrantist View because it simply admits the textual difficulties and does not claim that they need be reconciled to establish the God-given authority of the voice of the text. The weakness is that this view has been open to more liberties on the part of those who want to maintain connection with orthodoxy while deviating from some orthodox positions.

The Providence Debate:

Is God sovereign over all things as in the Calvinist view, or has God limited his own control by granting freedom to his creatures as in the Arminian view? This is an endless intramural debate in the Christian family. Calvinists hold that all things, including the self-determined acts of individuals are ultimately caused by God. For the Calvinist life is planned and orchestrated by God and yet humans are still personally responsible for their choices. A Calvinist will point out for example that the death of Christ was so overseen by God that it could be said to have been done by both the hands of wicked men and the predetermined plan of God. (Acts. 2:23)

The primary objection to this view is that it makes God responsible for evil. Not so, says the Calvinist a doctor may inflict pain but he intends it for healing. In the same way God, who is our father may oversee a painful project in our lives with a redemptive intention. Such as in the life of Joseph, but because God intends it for good and accomplishes his good then he cannot be impugned for temporary or collateral pain. The intention of God being good is determinative in the goodness of an act. Therefore, no one can accuse the Lord of evil.

Furthermore, God’s intervention in our salvation is also necessary in this view. The Calvinist believes that because man’s will is in bondage to sin therefore he cannot choose God. Thus God must choose those he intends to save while passing over those he has not intended to save. Thus God’s providence is all-encompassing. (see Eph. 2) If God does all the work then he gets all the glory. So God’s providential care over his elect ones is to his own glory. No one chooses God so no one can take credit or boast before the Lord. His providence oversees all.

The Arminian on the other hand believes that God granted humans self-determining freedom. Thus limiting himself in the process. God does not control the freewill choices of humanity. For this reason Arminians contend, mankind can genuinely love God and can genuinely be responsible for moral failure. If God controlled all human choices then how could anyone be said to genuinely love God. Love requires a choice. Also this view makes mankind, not God to be the author of evil. Calvinist claim that human choice indicts man but not God but that human choice is not self-determined. The Calvinists sees no contradiction in that while the Arminian loudly protests.

For the Arminian, God’s desire for all to be saved, (I Tim. 4) is genuine and reflects that all may be saved. Thus human response to God is genuine and not predetermined. Furthermore the Arminian points out that prayer can influence the activity of God in the world. For the Calvinist, prayer is intended to reform and shape the thoughts of people to the will of God.

The Foreknowledge Debate:

This is the most controversial of the debates we have examined thus far. The Classical View of foreknowledge argues that God foreknows all that shall come to pass. In other words his foreknowledge is exhaustive, covering all things. The Open View maintains that God knows all that shall be and all that may be. The crux of this debate centers upon whether or not all future events are predetermined. The Classical View maintains that God knows all that shall come to pass because he has already preordained it to be. The Open View maintains that God has predetermined many things and thus knows them before they happen. However, this view maintains that God has left many things undetermined. In other words, while God knows every contingency, he has not predetermined every outcome. Thus some of the future is not available to be known until it comes to pass. While God knows every possible outcome he has not predetermined every act. God has left many things open to the freewill choices of humans.

Calvinists and Classical theologians have moved on every front to defeat this view and to condemn it as unorthodox. The idea of maintaining that anything is unknown to God is simply unthinkable them. Open Theists have countered that God is magnified by a view that sees him as completely competent to deal with every circumstance and to bring his good will to pass in the midst of competing wills. The Open Theists maintains that God limits his own knowledge by granting to his creatures genuine choice. They maintain that by definition an unpredetermined act cannot be known until it occurs. To the Classical theologian this makes wreckage of providence and leaves an uncertain future. It is seen as reducing God to being subject to the whims of man. Thus man is elevated above God. Open Theists counter that the accusation is simply untrue because God is able by his power to both accomplish everything his will intends and to countermand the free will acts of all rebels.

The Open Theist maintains that this view helps answer a great many Biblical difficulties. It removes direct responsibility for evil from God and places it squarely on humanity, it accounts for the natural readings of many texts where God is seen to be interacting with people in genuine relational ways, and it answers the question of the power and value of prayer. The Calvinists maintains that this view presents God as nothing more than a god or that it certainly lessens his glory and power. They furthermore state that it deviates from the entire history of Christianity in how God’s omnipotence is understood.

Your interactions with one another are welcomed…and while I will not respond to every post, I will check in to see what the questions and discussion looks like. This is a public forum and I reserve the right to remove any post that I wish. This will mainly apply to posts that are ill-mannered, coarse, or unnecessarily combative. This is a discussion forum and civility and charity are expected. Otherwise, have fun.

Pastor alan