In a different post the following conversation began…I’d love anyone’s help:
On October 28, 2009 at 11:51 am Kev Said:
Fred,
I see an opportunity to draw this conversation to something I’m VERY interested in. In the matter of Evangelism (which is my primary ministry) I need to be aware of what I’m really doing.
I read things like how people can resist clever speaking – such as we read in Ps 58:3-5. This tells me that Evangelism is not solely accomplished by argument.
You said;
I can’t create an experiment where that really works (choosing to believe something you know ain’t so).
That’s a very lucid observation.
On the other hand, I can resist believing (like my dad did). Any one can refuse to be open to a new belief…which is certainly willful.
I don’t know if a person can refuse to believe something. How would you demonstrate that by experimentation and observation?
Someone can refuse to consider something, and can even intentionally sabotage something they know to be true. I don’t think that one can any more wilfully disbelieve something they know to be true than they can believe something they know to be untrue.
The knowing, is believing (not in the Biblical sense).
I think if someone knows something to be true, they can refuse to put their faith in it. In this I believe faith and belief are two different things. I see this demonstrated in Romans 1. They know of God but they refuse to worship Him. (worship being beyond mere faith of course, but can not happen without faith)
So… when we are operating in Evangelism revealing the Gospel is of primary concern. The results have to be “up to God” of course. How do we assist someone in recognizing the difference between not believing and refusing to trust?
Kev
On October 28, 2009 at 1:55 pm Kev,
Thanks for the questions. I wasn’t as clear as I should have been (sound like a politician!). When I said ‘refuse to be open…’ I was aiming at the thought that someone can avoid getting in a position of coming to believe something…as when people won’t look at the facts. I think you are right in that if one looks at it they can come to believe (despite their desire not to), much like C.S. Lewis’s testimony.
As to ‘know something to be true’ and ‘put their faith in it’— I don’t see them as different things, but I do see different ‘things to believe’ calling for different responses, which we in turn call ‘know’ and ‘trust’, etc. In grappling for a good example I think of the post office. I suppose I could ‘know’ they’ll deliver my mail, but not ‘trust’ them to do so (so I don’t mail my letter…send it FedEx, etc.). But why? Why would I know they will…but don’t trust them to do so? There is surely more to the story.
Of course, I detest hypotheticals…what’s a real example you and I could think about together? I know that believing God is going to answer my prayer is different than believing that prayer works…yet, here too, the content shifts; believing in prayer generally is different in content than believe my (specific) prayer will be answered.
So, what’s something real we all wrestle with that could display the difference between knowing to be true and believing?
Thanks,
FRL
Hi Fred,
Thanks for the conversation. I’m confident there will be fruit.
Let’s use the post office example so long as it helps us. Air travel may well become helpful as an example to consider as we continue but the post office will allow for some humourous comments I hope.
To keep my post short I’m going to assume that those reading this post have read yours. Quotes will only make this too long to read. 🙂
You mentioned that the disconnect between believing and trusting indicates there is “more to the story.”
Let’s assume for a moment that the Post Office was actually perfect. If I didn’t know they were perfect, that would explain my lack of trust in them – given that they actually are perfect but I choose to send my mail through FedEx instead.
So is the disconnect actually a lack of revelation. If the Post Office Evangelist were able to reveal them as perfect to me, would I automatically trust them?
So, if one does not trust God does that then simply mean that God has not been properly revealed? Meaning that one can not help but trust what they know to be perfect.
OR
Can I know (fully) that the Post Office is perfect, and still choose FedEx? I THINK it is obvious that this can happen. I’m not convinced that people truly choose what is best.
Can the person truly know the perfection of God (believe) and yet choose to trust something/someone else?
Something we all wrestle with is sin. I read 1 John much differently than our Reformed Calvinist brethren do. In the moment of sin we are not abiding in Christ. The one born of Christ cannot sin – that is our new nature.
When we sin, it is “fruit” of us abiding in our flesh nature. We have chosen FedEx over the perfect Post Office. However, (I believe) Christians are aware of God’s perfection and all sufficency. So we believe, and know God’s attributes but we willingly seek to fufill our desire elsewhere.
We could surely argue that as the Christian learns more about God the less this will happen – and I do believe this to be true. This might indicate that it is still a problem with revelation. However, there are things that I personally know (and am assured of) about God that I still seek elsewhere from time to time. For example, concern for provision.
Thoughts?
Kev
Kev,
I agree with you about how to read 1 John…though I must admit, it appears in 1 John 1:7 that we sin while we abide (or what are we cleansed from) of walk in the light.
That notwithstanding, you though about believing in the perfection of the post office (God) is interesting. However, it seem like you are arguing against your statement that—
“I’m not convinced that people truly choose what is best”
…………….
It seems to me that you are saying that one not choosing God is based on an inadequate perception of His perfection (basis of confidence /faith).
In any event, I think it is safe to say that when we don’t believe in God…it is because we are unconvinced of His goodness, fairness, ability, etc. Of course, unconvinced is a ‘faith’ word; so, maybe one is aware of God’s perfection, but just doesn’t buy it.
It is the buying it that is faith (at least buying He is trustworthy).
So?,
FRL
Fred, interesting side conversation but I don’t think 1 Jn 1:7 indicates sin while abiding – but a cleansing from sin. The cleansing here is in the same sense as atoning for the objects in the Temple. They are cleansed to be made useful.
You said However, it seem like you are arguing against your statement that—
“I’m not convinced that people truly choose what is best”
Yes I am. I’m trying to see all aspects so that I can find that which is actually true – not just acceptable to me. I don’t looking silly if I happen to come to the true answer. 🙂
I think it IS a real possibility that the only hinderence to “true saving faith” is true revelation.
I’m thinking about 1 Cor 15 (as always) where Paul didn’t tell these doubting Christians to examine themselves for confidence. (which is also a side conversation.) He went back to the revelation that should give confidence. Likewise, when old Doubt’n Tom was unsure the Lord revealed His wounds to him. When Paul saw disorder in the Church (Corinth) he went back to revelation about Christ (..and Him crucified).
It seems that faith (which is the foundation that gives confidence for a person to be faithful) is directly related to a person’s CURRENT quality/quantity of revelation.
This seems very consistent, with only two exceptions. Romans 1, and my WORLDLY observation of people making poor choices.
(I’m really working this out in real time and am not trying to convince anyone of anything here.)
I think Romans 1 answers the confusion I have by saying that because they refused to worship (hardened their hearts) that God “turns them over.” This is the same as what happened with Pharoh – he hardened his heart and then God further hardened it. (our Calvinist Brethren tend to start reading the account a little later in the Text than I do.)
So.. .that leaves my experience that seems to be in conflict with my theory, or vice versa and my discomfort with the idea of what looks like “automatic” faith.
There is also the thing of when people “disbelieve” (refuse to receive a message) that the god of this age blinds their minds.
Am I going astray here?
Kev
On a different note…I just threw out 1 John 1:7; so let me be more specific. There verse says,
“But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.” (1 John 1:7, ESV)
If His blood is cleansing us from all sin, when is the sinning occurring? Or better, when did the sin occur?
My best read is that it happens while we walk in the light. My take on abiding is that we can stumble while walking, but the Spirit convicts us (hence 1 John 1:8-10). When we sin while abiding and confesses, etc., then we keep on walking (we don’t wallow in the darkness.
In this way we keep walking with Him without denying our humanness in this life.
Grace,
FRL
I THINK the intent of the passage is that we bring our sin out into the light – even just the fact of it. Like you say, walking with Him without pretending to be something we are not.
That way we can be productive. Is this a reformed position that is creeping into my interpretation?
Kev
Kev,
Actually, I think you are on to something interesting. If I understand your ‘thinking out loud’ here— you are saying that people don’t believe because they don’t see it (they are blind)…for if they see it, they will believe.
Is this right?
Thanks,
FRL
Fred,
Yep, that is what I’m thinking. That doesn’t really jive with my own personal take on how faith is “accomplished” but since I’ve been pondering your point about a man attempting to believe he is a woman I’ve been reconsidering.
I think this means that resistance to revelation comes before sufficant revelation occurs.
So, faith happens when sufficient revelation happens (one might go so far as to call it “irresistable”… oh boy.. ) but lower revelation can be resisted, possibly prompting God to “turn one over” to their sin. Lower revelation is not “irresistable” as demonstrated in Rom 1.
This is not how I have understood things. Can you poke some holes in this?
I wondering abou passages like Mark 4:10-12. Does this support or refute what I’m thinking? It seems that the people were given a lower revation (parables instead of plain speaking) on purpose so that they would see but not believe. As though if they were told plainly they would believe. The implications are something we should talk about after we come to some firmer standing.
James 2, the Demons believe that God is one and fear – but they are not (can not be) saved. They have partial revelation.
The problem with studying theology is how easy it is to see a pet doctrine in any verse… So I’ll stop here and see what you have to say.
Kev
If what I’m thinking is true it puts an end to the LS proponent’s contrived questioning of regeneration post faith that they say this would have the person having credit for believing. If faith is an automatic response to proper/full revelation then it is not meritous by any contrived viewing, and infact isn’t even a “decision.”
We should discuss implications after we know what is true so that the implications don’t color our study.. but this LS tactic is significantly irritating to me.. would be nice to be able to shut it down quickly.
Kev
Fred,
I think you are missing the boat with the analogies you are coming up with to say that believing in Christ is not a choice. You mentioned a person cannot “choose” to believe certain things and used the phrase, “choosing to believe things you know ain’t so”.
I’ve thought about this some more, and I’d like to give you a couple points that I don’t think you’re considering in your reasoning.
Before I do that, let me mention a couple reasons why this is important. This topic has bearing on the goodness of God. If a person’s choice is not involved in believing and it’s only a matter of God doing the persuading, the conclusion is all of the lost are lost only because God has decided not to persuade them. How can God punish people for something He has failed to do?
Secondly, my belief has had a practical effect in my life in that not only do I appeal to the intellect of people when sharing the gospel, but I appeal to their volition, just as Paul did when he said, “…we beg you, on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God…” (2Cor. 5:21). Even the command “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 16:31) implies a choice in responding.
Third, I don’t feel tension with certain verses which demonstrate God’s will is for people to be saved (1Tim. 2:4) but they, out of their own volition, reject him (Mt. 23:37). Even the verse I quoted above says, “…as God were pleading through us, we beg you…” (2Cor. 5:21). Paul wasn’t expressing only his own will in that passage but also God’s will. Several passages actually use the word “will” when speaking of someone’s decision to come to Christ (e.g. John 5:40). Other verses use the word “disobey” to speak of unbelief in Christ (e.g. Rom. 10:21; John 3:36; 2Thes 1:8) and the word “obey” to speak of belief (Rom. 1:5; 10:15). Wouldn’t the priority be to deal with verses like this before coming up with analogies that deny the clear implications of Scripture?
Well, I need to go to sleep. I will provide some points for consideration tomorrow or as the Lord allows.
Greg,
Thanks for your questions. Of course, it would be far better to ‘deal with the verses’ before coming up with analogies. Blogs don’t really display this sort of thing since they are just showing a sliver of one’s thinking. I’ve actually been thinking about this and studying it for over 30 years, and I assure you, it is the text that I am most concerned with. I also do not mean to communicate that ‘believing in Christ is not a choice’, but rather that it certainly involves our will…we have surely ‘obeyed the gospel’ in some sense when we believe. Instead, I am a skeptic about reducing ‘belief’ to choice; which is what I too often hear in theological circles and conversations.
You are correct when you say that one view resolves the tension with certain texts…yet, it also generates tension with other texts. Frankly, if it is all up to our choice doesn’t it mean God is irrelevant? And, the opposite too? This has been a longstanding debate between sovereignty and responsibility. We either hold to mystery or we don’t. Didn’t He choose us (Jn 15:16)?….or….as you say, didn’t we choose Him?
My observation is about how we come to believe and is not really about analogies so much as mechanisms. I’m not sure that we can really solve this one, but I simply remain skeptical. Since I see faith fundamentally as persuasion rather than ‘choice’ (Rom4:21), I wrestle with it from that understanding. All I’ve observed is that the mechanism of believing doesn’t appear to have an “I just chose to believe” in it. I feel we throw these kinds of statements out far too quickly and far too casually.
Practically, it takes us in a direction we might not want to persue in our evangelism…are we trying to persuade them to believe or get them to make a choice? The choice part, in my thinking, moves us away from ‘faith alone in Christ alone’.
Many thanks,
FRL
Fred,
I agree with you that faith is persuasion. In one sense, it seems we do not disagree on the nature of faith but how it comes about. If I were to give a definition of the word “driving” for example, I would most likely define the word in a way that describes the action without mentioning the concepts of volition or will even though a person’s volition is involved in the process of driving. In the same way, I think we agree on a definition of faith in a basic sense. It may take certain questions beyond the basic definition of the word to draw out our disagreement.
Given our agreement that faith is persuasion, please understand that I do not define faith merely as “choice”. I also do not see a person’s “choice” when it comes to believing being independent of God’s drawing, the presentation of God’s word, and other influences.
When you say that faith boiling down to “choice” makes God irrelevant, I would agree depending on how we define “boiling down”. Believing in Christ is not something a person spontaneously decides to do. It always involve’s God’s initiation. God draws. The person responds. If by “boiling down”, you mean that it would be wrong to subtract God’s part out of the equation, I agree with you.
A point where we may disagree is that I believe God draws all people. Several verses highlight the universal nature of God providing “light” (John 1:9); drawing (John 12:32); intrinsic, general awareness of God (Rom. 1:18-21), and conviction (John 16:8) — each of which may express a different shade of meaning — but all of which relate to the general idea of God providing truth for all people for the purpose of bringing them to Christ. So given that God initiates and pursues all people to some extent, I believe it would be correct in one sense to say the person’s response to God’s drawing does “boil down” to their volition.
What are your thoughts on this?
I am a little confused by some of your comments. On one hand you said, “I also do not mean to communicate that ‘believing in Christ is not a choice’, but rather that it certainly involves our will”. On the other hand, you said, “The choice part, in my thinking, moves us away from ‘faith alone in Christ alone’.”
Could you clarify how both statements can be true?
Thanks,
Greg
Greg,
We probably don’t disagree all that much…and, of course, I’ve simply been trying to explain my view (not analyze your view).
I certainly agree with the ‘drawing’ work of God, but i do think there must be something even more effectual concerning those who believe. I don’t see how Romans 8:30 is referring to something other than a special call upon the justified. So, a general call sure; but a special call, sure as well.
As to the last to comments. One certainly quits resisting God when he comes to faith in Christ, so volition must be in view. “Choice” seems to be very kin to commitment, or giving God one’s life / soul / etc. Salvation is really the reception of a gift not a giving of one (believers give themselves to the Lord in Rom 12:1-2). If salvation is really about ‘committing oneself’ (volition), then it isn’t really about believing as much as entrusting to another. This is a subtle but important part of the debate out there. Of course, regarding volition, I am talking about ‘choosing to believe’ rather than ‘choosing Christ’. That may make a difference in the discussion as well.
I don’t see how one can be convinced against his will, but I don’t see how I can use my will to believe. Instead, I become persuaded that the Person and Work of Christ secures my destiny when I believe.
Grace,
FRL
Greg, if an exact analogy could be given it wouldn’t be needed.
I think choice may only play a role in how the person reacts to general revelation. I know that pride can make a person resist a path of investigation. However once the truth is established for a person I do not believe they have any choice in believing or not.
The scriptures talk about people hardening their hearts. This is the only choice I see.
As a herald of the Gospel I beg people to be reconciled to God. I really do. But I wounded if repentance is less active than I had previously thought.
Again, I’m just thinking this through. This is an interesting discussion and I want to learn not debate or argue.
Kev
Fred, you said: One certainly quits resisting God when he comes to faith in Christ, so volition must be in view. “Choice” seems to be very kin to commitment, or giving God one’s life / soul / etc. Salvation is really the reception of a gift not a giving of one… .
In my mind, speaking of “choice” does not determine whether we are speaking of “giving” or whether we are speaking of “receiving”. In every day life, you can choose to give, but you can also choose to receive. Since you have a problem with the connotation you described, would you be comfortable of speaking of faith involving a choice to receive God’s gift of salvation? Could you also explain the difference of “volition” and “choice”?
Kev, doesn’t it seem strange to say choice plays a role in how a person responds to general revelation but not special revelation? Something that may help is one of the points I was going to make– the choice to believe in Christ is interconnected with other decisions a person makes such as how they respond to general revelation, conviction of sin, ect. Consider whether what I say fits with the verses– believing in Christ involves the choice of the person (John 5:40) but that choice is interconnected with other choices (John 5:44).
Kev and Fred, I have heard of some cases where a person concedes everything about the gospel is true. They are persuaded Christ the Son of God died for our sins, rose again, and guarantees eternal life by faith alone in Him. Yet the person decides, “God disgusts me. I don’t want the gift.” Stephen cited a case like this. To me, what’s missing is the person decided to receive the gift. In other words, he hasn’t believed in Christ “to” save him. Yet in other words, he hasn’t trusted in Christ. How would you differ?
My previous comment should read, “To me, what’s missing is the person has NOT decided to receive the gift.”
Fred – nice to see you’re getting posts up when you can. Thanks! 🙂
Greg,
Both of your questions are related (though I don’t think you intended them to be.)
You asked;
Kev, doesn’t it seem strange to say choice plays a role in how a person responds to general revelation but not special revelation?
and
They are persuaded Christ the Son of God died for our sins, rose again, and guarantees eternal life by faith alone in Him. Yet the person decides, “God disgusts me. I don’t want the gift.” ….. Yet in other words, he hasn’t trusted in Christ. How would you differ?
OK here’s my THINKING on this right now.
General Revelation is often reduced to Creation, but in this conversation I mean any and all revelation that is lower than what the person requires to actually put their faith in God. The amount of revelation required WILL be different per person – even though there is only one Gospel that must be received.
In your example the person recognizes the facts of the Gospel as true but has not trusted yet. At this point the person hasn’t received enough revelation to pursuade them. They haven’t been “convinced” to continue with Fred’s thoughts.
Since God IS good, if the person is still disgusted by Him they have not had Him revealed to them yet. They are still resisting what I call General Revelation.
When God (and themselves really) is truly revealed to them, they won’t be disgusted by Him.
It’s at that point that I don’t think the person has a “choice.”
OK try this on for size.
I used to be an avid video gamer. I spent a lot of time, effort and money in the persuit of the “suspension of reality.” My computer, and accessories were set up to make me believe I was in whatever game I was playing to the max possible.
So long as I maintained the “suspension of reality” I would be engroused in the game. However, the moment that suspension of reality was broken I could no longer believe I was “in” the game. I couldn’t decide, or choose to believe it because it had been revealed to me that I wasn’t in the game.
Prior to that event, I believed and acted as though I was IN the game. I closed my mind to distractions that would pull me out of that false belief. However, once my efforts to resist were overcome by reality there was no ammount of resistence that could stop me from KNOWING I was not in the game.
Does this make sense to you?
The Non-Believer can resist the things that ought to LEAD him to believe in God – but once the ACTUAL God of the Universe is revealed to him there is no longer any choice involved. He can’t just choose to believe he’s in the game because the reality is he’s not.
For me I had to come to the point that I was a terrible sinner, and God was amazingly good. I had to not only know that salvation was provided and available. I had to know that God was seeking me. It was only then that I had enough revelation about Him that I couldn’t help but trust.
For other people the details and the ammount of revelation is different, but I think the end result is the same – I couldn’t help but to trust Him.
thoughts?
Kev
hey… Glad yall are thinking! I might get on the laptop and off my Sprint Pre tomorrow…
Grace,
FRL