I wrote several posts in response to some of my critics, for lack of a better term, and ended the third one with a reference to a co-worker of mine who said she was a strong Christian some years ago, then abandoned her faith because of things she found online by Bart Ehrman and other skeptics. Given what I was writing about, her timing was perfect because most Christians, and everyone else, buys into the secular notion, or uses the language to affirm it, that there are such a people as believers and non-believers. She said something that perfectly encapsulates this fiction: “Wow Mike, I had no idea that you were such a fervent believer.” The implication is, of course, that she is a “non” believer. It’s unfortunate that most Christians would never question her assertion. They should because her implication is not true, that there are such people as believers and not believers. Everyone is a “believer” whether they are religious or not. (more…)
I was going to write something on the dying of conservative radio icon Rush Limbaugh, and before I got to that I listened to this interview from the Dallas Theological Seminary’s The Table podcast about embracing our mortality. That’s quite the counter intuitive notion, especially in our secular age, so I had to check it out. Given I think about death a lot, my own, but also death in general, I found the discussion right down my alley. Dr. J. Todd Billings, the interviewee, wrote a book calledThe End of the Christian Life: How Embracing Our Mortality Frees Us to Truly Live. He should know about the topic. He was diagnosed with incurable cancer in 2012, so immanent death is something he can’t help thinking, and writing, about. The reality for all of us is that our death’s are immanent as well. It may happen in five minutes, or in 50 years, but it will happen before we know it and are ready for it.
This will be my final word in writing about the issues introduced on my book page, and discussed on Take 1, and Take 2. I’m kind of proud that I’ve been able to get Calvinists and Arminians to agree about something regarding salvation. In my experience discussing these issues, everyone regardless of their theology agrees with my current critic:
Only the Lord’s work prevails. . . . The Holy Spirit is God. He alone can regenerate hearts. . . . The means of grace are the means of grace, but the Spirit works through them when and where he pleases.
Good Calvinist that I am, I absolutely agree with this. The problem is the implication of the author’s assertion: when and where he pleases. If these words, all of them, were said outside of the current discussion, I wouldn’t even bother commenting on them because I believe they are biblical truth. The problem stems from what came previously, the assertion that nothing we can do in the raising of our children really matters, not ultimately anyway. I dealt with that as the straw man it is, playing God’s sovereignty off of human responsibility as if they are somehow, some way mutually exclusive. They are not, as even a cursory read through the Bible makes clear. (more…)
In my first post I addressed part of this misunderstanding, that “there is absolutely no correlation between faithful (or reasonably faithful) work in this with the outcome of personal faith.” The “work” is a reference to raising our children in the faith. The concern of my critic, and I think this is true for others who agree with him, is that I believe, “If you do X, then Y should result.” And I replied, You’re darn right I do! I want to be perfectly clear in this post as to why I think having a reasonable expectation of results is the biblical position, that whenever you do X, no matter what X is, it is reasonable to expect certain results. It could be raising children in the faith, it could be tending a garden, building a house, practicing to hone your art or craft, building a business, getting a degree, anything X human beings do. Can we be absolutely certain of or Guarantee results, or that we are in control of the results? Of course not! But to say that because of this it follows that we can’t then have a reasonable expectation of the results, or be confident that we can produce results is, well, unreasonable. And unbiblical. (more…)
I’ve given an overview of the misunderstanding, so I wont’ repeat it. I’ve taken what I think are the main points of disagreement by one critic who does a great job of distilling concerns some Christians have with what they think I’m arguing in the book:
As parents who have done everything we can to catechize, take our kids to church morning and evening, do evening devotions, etc., I can say: Only the Lord’s work prevails. Yes, hiding the Word in their hearts is key. But there is absolutely no correlation between faithful (or reasonably faithful) work in this with the outcome of personal faith. I fear that your approach, makes parental guilt a more oppressive burden. The Holy Spirit is God. He alone can regenerate hearts. I know that you say this. The means of grace are the means of grace, but the Spirit works through them when and where he pleases. I just worry that your approach is more, “If you do X, then Y should result.” I fear that’s more harm than help—for parents and children.
There is error here mixed with truth, and I want to be careful how I unpack it, but first I will address a criticism I’ve received that bears on my credibility. I was told in so many words that I believe what I believe because it just so happens that we’ve raised three children who have grown into adulthood and have not abandoned the faith. If any of them had, so the argument goes, I would not think the way I do. I can’t refute a hypothetical, but since I’ve affirmed that we can’t guarantee anything and are in control of nothing, the point is moot, an excuse not to engage my arguments. I will address exactly what I mean by these two affirmations of denial in due course. (more…)
Recent Comments