God chooses

I have recently enjoyed some lively discussion on the concept of God's free will and man's. The debate comes down to this: In the end, who is sovereign: God or me? You may not like to see it that plainly, but that's the debate. Did Jesus die just hoping that someone would trust him alone, or did he know who his atoning work would justify? I will make a few brief comments here and then copy a note I wrote to a friend after that.

Objection #1: "If God chooses then there is no reason for World Missions."
This argument says, "Hey, if they are going to get saved no matter what then I have no motivation to go." To that I say "Huh?" Motivation #1: God told us to go! Motivation #2: It's not just wishful thinking to think there are people in Genovia who will come to Christ (if I work hard enough and say all the right things)--no! God has WILLED that people of every tribe and tongue come to him. I go tell them in faith, not in my flesh. The great motivation to GO commit our lives to missions is that God has chosen some of every tribe and nation. Woooooo.

Objection #2: "If God chooses then why pray?"
This argument goes like this: "Since God has chosen those who will be saved and it is determined, why pray?" To that I say, "Huh??" If God allows uncle Jimmy to be sovereign over his salvation (by having the final say regarding if he is going to come to Christ or not), then I'd see your logic. Since Jimmy has "free will" and will ultimately decide to choose to follow God or not--don't pray. The logic: "God will not act decisively in any way to save Jimmy." Therefore, your logic is correct: pray to Jimmy not for him. But if God can act decisively and save jimmy, PRAY, PRAY, PRAY! God is sovereign. Woooooo.

Okay, here is my response to my amazing friend. Feel free to comment.

Hi Aaron, great note, and great thoughts. I'm not fond of everything he does, but RC Sproul has a great synopsis of this concept in "Grace Unknown." I'm editing this note as I go to make it fit--sorry for my brevity . . . 1. Though God is not "willing" that any should perish, that does not mean that he has chosen everyone to be saved. There are different meanings to the word "willing." The first is God's determined will (like "every knee WILL bow")--this is a fact. The second is God prescriptive will (God wills that none should bear false witness--but we ALL do). The third, and I believe the meaning Peter has in mind has to do with his desires. God doesn't WANT anyone to go to hell, but that doesn't mean he has chosen everyone. For instance, you don't WANT your amazing new baby to face pain and wars and disease, but you know she will. 2. God himself tells us that the majority of people will not come to be with Him in heaven--which rules out universalism. Jesus said in Matthew that "many" walk the broad road to destruction, but "few" will walk the narrow way to life. "Many" will say to him "Lord, Lord," and he will reply "Depart from me."

3. As you are implying, if we accept the concept of a limited atonement, we aren't saying that Jesus' atonement was not SUFFICIENT for every sin of all time (of course it IS!), but that it is not EFFICIENT (or intended) to cover every sin of all time. In the end, limited atonement simply teaches that Jesus did not die in vain, merely hoping that someone would believe, instead, he knew going in that his atoning work would accomplish exactly what he intended it to accomplish. 4. About works, we must work. No one can say that Christ has made him or her alive but not work--otherwise, James says, their faith is dead and useless. So here we simply come to a logical sequence. The only sequence that makes sense is God quickens (gives spiritual life), we respond with faith and subsequent works. The great illustration: (Ephesians 2 and) Lazarus. What did he contribute to his "life"? Nothing but his corpse (which God supplied). How did he come to life? Obeying the voice he heard AFTER HE ALREADY WAS MADE ALIVE.

5. Logical contradictions. Since it is ALL of grace and all who are genuinely saved MUST work, we are here at an impasse that none of my college profs or favorite philosophers want to rest. I take great delight to rest here. These two concepts are not resolved in Scripture, nor in any writings from the dawn of time until this one (and I won't even try). And we simply accept that they are both true: it is all of God' grace and we must work if our faith is genuine. In closing, let me encourage you to re-consider one phrase you used above. You said some are destined to heaven and some to hell. Let us remember together that we have all first chosen hell. We have gravely and selfishly rebelled against God in his heaven with our selfish and hateful ways. From the outset we have all chosen to hate God and to be doomed with Satan to everlasting judgment. So for each person who receives grace upon grace to understand and repent from his self-destructive shadow of a life, all the glory goes to Christ. He has graciously chosen to redeem SOME, and that is the fuel for my undying passion and love for him! I can love him only because he first loved me. I love wrestling these things with you! Jon

New invention: I lost my head

The family is the building block of all sane and decent civilization. Because of decent relationships in families girls and young ladies are protected and boys and young men learn to work, learn to serve others and learn to respect those young ladies. It's a beautiful thing when it operates like this.

And we know that this is God's plan for the family. He said as much in Genesis 2 when he said (about a man who had no parents) that the only reason any man would "leave" his father and mother would be that he himself was establishing a new family--one in which he was responsible to take care of (protect) one woman--namely, his wife. So it seems obvious, doesn't it? People are designed of God to live in tight relationships with their families. They live under the headship of their parents until such time that they are ready to establish their own homes. They are accountable to parents until they are accountable as parents (or at least mates).

(Obviously many are called to singleness. It seems in that case that we remain accountable to our parents for a longer period of time, and/or we also rely more heavily on the local church for relational accountability in that case.)

In steps WWI and the last 9o years of US history. Not only have we accepted the idea that young men must sometimes be disconnected from their own heads (in war, etc.), but then we embraced that as a value and actually force them out of that accountability relationship. Now we tell them that when the government views them as a free agent (18 years old), we do too. So "Go," we tell them. And they do.

We used to think that handling our responsibilities with care and in accountable relationships brought great freedom and a deep sense of accomplishment. Now we think that if we give them enough personal freedom that they will eventually become responsible.

It was a bad enough mistake with our boys. But how any dad or mom can think about giving their girls the above kinds of headlessness is completely beyond me. Case in point: The College Years.

I tell all the students I know that the college years are an invented forest that is dark and deadly. We beg you to disconnect from your parents, connect with your peers (we call this healthy socialization) and then be taught by some of the most questionable academics on the face of the earth. And it's not just accepted anymore. We thrust this twisted "rite of passage" on almost every young adult, even our girls.

So here's my bullet list of thoughts on this topic:

• I value the home even OVER education. Sure you can sometimes do both (I have a Master's degree). But every chance I get I tell anyone who will listen that the greatest goal a young woman can have in her life is to become a wife and mother.

• If becoming a wife and mother is your goal, keep a close eye on your debt load. Why go $20-$70K in debt for "education" if your goal is to be a great wife and mom.

• Live every day of your life embracing headship (familial accountability). Young man, you are under the authority and headship of your parents and family. College can't be viewed as years of free agency. They're not. Wise parenting is needed here. The wise parent finds a way to keep handing over more and more responsibility and the wise student freely embraces the ways of the family. So if son or daughter lives far away (military or school) they still view themselves as a "Smith," or "Davis"--and act in accordance with their head. They impose family rules on themselves because they are still under that father/mother until they establish their own home.

• Embrace the local church. If there is a "home away from home," it's a Christ-centered, Bible-saturated, God-adoring fellowship of believers. If you do move on to a military or school experience that is geographically separated from your family, get involved in this family of believers! Commit to serving. And no, (I say this in love) college ministries that meet on campus on some week night do not "count" for church attendance! You need to be serving (and not everyone sings or does Power Point). You need little old ladies coming up to you on Sunday mornings and telling you that you need more sleep because "you look terrible." You need to be surrounded by other solid families.

So some inventions need to be traded in. "Young adulthood" may be one of them. Just a thought.