Our View of God Affects What We Do

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0 height="100%"><tr> <td valign="top" width=200 BGCOLOR="#003399" TEXT="#080000" background="040c8c00erkjxk.jpg"> <div> <B><U>Jon Zens</U></B></div> <div> <B>is an elder and teacher at the Word of Life Church in St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin and editor of the journal </B><I><B>Searching Together</B></I><B>.</B></div> <div> <B>  </B></div> <div> <B>This article is from the Spring/Summer 1986 issue of  </B><I><B>Searching Together</B></I><B>.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>To subscribe to this fine journal, contact Jon at: Searching Together, P.O. Box 548, St. Croix Falls, WI, 54024</B></div> <div> <B> </B></div> </td> <td valign="top" BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <FONT SIZE="7" COLOR="#000099" FACE="Brush Script MT" ><B>Restoration Ministries</B> </FONT>  |     <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Restoration Ministries"><U>home</U></A></div> <div>                                                   </div> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <IMG SRC="086f8900.jpg" border=0 width="504" height="144" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></div> <div> <B>Methodology Flows out of Theology</B></div> <div> <B>by Jon Zens</B></div> <div> _________________________________________________________________________________</div> <bR> <div> Often in the history of redemption men have departed from the ways of God because they have harbored low thoughts of the Almighty in their hearts. Among many which could be cited, a clear example of this is found in 1 Samuel 4:3-7. Israel and the elders felt that just the bringing of the Ark into their camp was a sure way to obtain God<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s favor in their battle against the Philistines.</div> <bR> <div> They were not entirely wrong in their thinking, for God indeed had ordained that the Ark be the place of His presence. However, they seriously erred in believing that God was somehow geographically isolated in the Ark, and in thinking that some inherent power, like that of God Himself, attended its very presence “<B>it</B> may save us” (v. 3). </div> <bR> <div> Although they did not have a pocket Old Testament to tell them about God, they should have known from His past self-revelations that He was “possessor of heaven and earth,” and that such a God could never be exhaustively contained in a given spatial location. They should have prayed as did Solomon <I>“behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You, how much less this house that I have built?”</I> (1 Kings 8:27). </div> <bR> <div> But what do we learn from this type of incident? We can readily see that<B> a person</B><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><B>*</B></FONT><B>s view of God directly affects the actions he takes.</B> It would appear that one of the underlying problems in contemporary Evangelicalism is a fundamental flaw in its view of God. This can be seen especially with reference to methodology in evangelism. We can highlight this by taking an overview of some past history that has led up to where we are today.</div> <bR> <div> <B>The 19th Century</B></div> <bR> <div> In the heart of the eighteenth century, a vibrant proclamation of the gospel was attended with great blessing, notably in the ministry of Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758). However, the status-quo Calvinism of roughly 1780-1830 lacked such vibrancy, and a host of these churches — who formally adhered to the Westminster Confession— drifted into Unitarianism. Their particular view of God<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s sovereignty led them to “wait” for God<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s activity, with the result that they saw no need for exertion on their part .</div> <bR> <div> It was in this context that Charles Finney appeared. He was appalled at the “death” and lack of practical compassion among the Calvinists. In the 1830<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s Finney began to preach, and his messages reacted strongly against a “wait-for-God” theology. Finney, unfortunately, went to the other extreme and almost exclusively emphasized peoples<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT> “free-will.“ How did Finney<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s theology come to develop as it did?</div> <bR> <div> After the death of Jonathan Edwards, Nathaniel William Taylor (1786-1858) developed what came to be known as the “New Haven School of Theology. “ Finney (1792-1875) was greatly influenced by Taylor<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s thought (cf. B.B. Warfield<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s <B>Perfectionism</B>, pp. 20-23). By 1825 he had inculcated the “New Haven” view into an evangelical Arminianism. Their doctrines and methods were centered in low thoughts of God. They rejected the biblical idea that God has the ability to control people. </div> <bR> <div> Said Tayor “Free moral agents can do wrong under all possible preventing influence” (quoted by James Wood in <B>Old & New Theology</B> [1845], p. 28). They also claimed that the personal blessedness of God was diminished by the existence of sin, and that God could not decree and elect unconditionally (Wood, p. 34). Said Finney “irrespective of your own choice, no election can save you, and no reprobation can damn you” (quoted by Wood, p. 34).</div> <bR> <div> Although not of the “New Haven” school, the sentiments of D.W. Simon and L.D. McCabe of the nineteenth century get to the heart of the issue:</div> <bR> <div> “God has constituted a creature, the actions of which he can only know as such when they are performed. In the presence of man, to a certain extent, even the great God condescends to wait, nay more, has himself so ordained things that he must wait, inquiring, ‘What will he do?’” (from Simon<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s <B>Reconciliation</B>, p 287, cited by A H Strong, <B>Systematic Theology</B>, p 285).</div> <bR> <div> “This new factor, the godlike liberty of the human will, is capable of thwarting, and in uncounted instances does thwart, the divine will, and compel the great I am to modify his actions, his purpose, and his plans, in the treatment of individuals and communities” (from McCabe<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s <B>Foreknowledge of God</B>, p 62, cited by Strong, p 359).</div> <bR> <div> These views become the basis for action and proclamation. In Finney<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s preaching, a new emphasis was discerned. “God is doing all He can to convert and save sinners — that if He could, He would convert many more than He does — that He converts as many as He can persuade to yield their hearts to Him — and other such expressions to the same effect” (Wood, p 32).</div> <bR> <div> Reacting to a theology where people passively waited for God to move, Finney shifted the focus of attention to the other end of the spectrum, and did all that he could to excite the “free will” of man to action. Salvation was placed in the hands of men, not in the purpose of God (Luke 18:27). A certain “sovereignty” came to be connected with man<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s will.</div> <bR> <div> A certain view of God, coupled with certain imagined abilities of men, led to all kinds of “New Measures,” such as the altar call, that were used to achieve evangelistic results. This “free-will” emphasis became prominent in the developing Evangelical movement in the later nineteenth century, notably in the ministry of D.L. Moody.</div> <bR> <div> <B>The Twentieth Century</B></div> <bR> <div> Has the outlook changed significantly in the twentieth century? It appears that in most ways the answer must be “no.“ Many evangelicals today are operating on the assumption that man<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s will is “on the throne,” and capable of thwarting God<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s salvation purposes. Less than Scriptural thoughts of God are still directly linked to faulty concepts of salvation and evangelism.</div> <bR> <div> From the popular theologian, H.C. Theissen — whose book is required in many Bible schools — we can see this correlation. First, he posits a weak view of the character of God with respect to His immutability.</div> <bR> <div> “God<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s immutability is not like that of the stone that does not respond to changes about it, but like that of the column of mercury which rises and falls according as the temperature changes” (<B>Lectures In Systematic Theology</B>, p 128).</div> <bR> <div> A column of mercury is entirely dependent upon the external circumstances. It is powerless to do anything about the environment. Certainly this is a poor picture of God<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s immutability. But notice, secondly, how this view of God consequently affects his outlook of man<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s part in salvation.</div> <bR> <div> Nor does [God<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s] omnipotence exclude but rather imply the power of self-limitation. God has limited Himself to some extent by the free will of His rational creatures. That is why He did not keep sin out of the universe by a display of His power; that is why also He does not save anyone by force” (<B>Lectures</B>, p. 126, cf. Strong, p. 288).</div> <bR> <div> The combining of these two viewpoints makes human decision the decisive factor. While proper emphasis must be given to man<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s response to the gospel, the tragedy of views like Theissen<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s is that they portray the situation as if God<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s will in salvation is no factor at all.</div> <bR> <div> The Scriptures, on the other hand, consider in the same breath <B>both</B> the human response and the divine purpose:</div> <bR> <div> <I>All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me will by no means be cast out</I> (John 6:37).</div> <bR> <div> <I>Many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul. When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the Word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed</I> (Acts 13:43,48)</div> <bR> <div> We live in a day when many Evangelicals stake a lot on “freewill.“ In terms of methodology (action taken), “free-will” is the peg upon which everything hangs. This is evident, for example, in the theology/methodology of singularly influential Evangelical, Billy Graham.</div> <bR> <div> The essential structure of his theology is “that God can know everything about the future without at the same time predetermining the future” (Joe E. Barnhart,<B> The Billy Graham Religion</B> [London, 1972], p. 126). In the face of the twin facts that God knows everything and that many will perish without Christ, Graham “resorts simply to both affirming and denying God<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s omnicience and omnipotence” (Barnhart, p. 127) “Freewill” becomes the grand solution to some knotty problems.</div> <bR> <div> “What Graham wants is to get his God off the hook, which is why the doctrine of free will is so utterly crucial to him. It appears to be the only way to save God from at least sharing the blame for hell. Graham treats [free will] as a kind of theological pack mule which is made to carry most of the heavy burden of his theology. So much hinges on this one elusive notion [of free will], and Graham uses it for all that it is worth. Graham admits that great hordes of men will actually be damned to everlasting torture. But how could this be if God did not so <B>want</B> it? It is clear why Graham must invoke the notion of free will. Without it, the Evangelical<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s God is going to appear to be sadistic” (Barnhart, pp. 127,128,132,134).</div> <bR> <div> Knowing from Scripture that God<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s foreknowledge is not limited, Graham ‘‘must continue attempting to ride two horses [absolute foreknowledge and predestination] going in opposite directions” (Barnhart, p. 128). He ends up in “theological hide-and-seek” (Barnhart, p. 130), and his viewpoint pushes him to the ultimate in theological contradiction:</div> <bR> <div> <B>“We may not be free to choose, because sin weakens our power of moral choice; but we are free to refuse. We can refuse to be chosen”</B> (Decision, Nov. 1969).</div> <bR> <div> Unfortunately, Graham gives the appearance of serving a God who is at the mercy of man<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s sovereign “free-will.“ When asked, ‘‘Was I predestined to accept Christ as my Savior?,” Graham replied:</div> <bR> <div> “Unfortunately, God has no power over the will of man. That is to say, He cannot save a person against His will, but at the same time, He is not willing that any should perish. He has made it possible for all men to be saved. But the Bible indicates that salvation depends upon man<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s willingness to be saved. It would be a kind of tyranny if God saved people against their will. The Bible indicates that God will do everything short of coercion to redeem people. But even He cannot save them against their will” (Reported by Erroll Hulse, “Berlin In Retrospect,” <B>Banner of Truth</B>, May/June, 1967, p. 6).</div> <bR> <div> The Bible assumes that fallen human beings left to themselves would <B>never</B> “be willing” to be saved (Romans 3:10-19). But in the day of His power, God brings the sinner to willingly embrace Jesus Christ from the heart. In salvation God does not redeem people <B>against</B> their will, rather, He gives them a new heart and a new spirit so that they <B>want</B> to be saved. </div> <bR> <div> The plan of salvation makes provision for <B>all</B> the needs of sinners — their need of a sacrifice for their sins by Jesus, and their need for renewal by the Holy Spirit. Christ dies for those who are “enemies” (Romans 5:10), and the Spirit brings these rebellious hearts to embrace the Lord.</div> <bR> <div> <I>“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”</I> (John 1:12-13).</div> <bR> <div> William Carey, the “father of modern missions,” combined so beautifully high thoughts of God and zeal for the gospel. Carey<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s theological/methodological perspective is so necessary for contemporary Evangelicals:</div> <bR> <div> “We are firmly persuaded that Paul might plant and Apollos water, in vain, in any part of the world, did not God give the increase. We are sure that only those who are ordained to eternal life will believe, and that God alone can add to the church such as should be saved. Nevertheless we cannot but observe with admiration that Paul, the great champion for the glorious doctrines of free and sovereign grace, was the most conspicuous for his personal zeal in the work of persuading men to be reconciled to God. Upon these points, we think it right to fix our serious and abiding attention” (“Form of Agreement, 1805, Serampore India,” cited in A.H. Oussoren,<B> William Carey: Especially His Missionary Principles</B>, Leiden, 1945, p. 274).</div> <bR> <div> We need a fresh appreciation of the greatness and sovereignty of God. The gospel Paul articulated led him to exclaim in doxology — <I>“For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever, Amen”</I> (Romans 11:36). The weak, frustrated, hands-tied God that people hear about in so many places negatively affects how people act/live before that God A W Pink observed in his day:</div> <bR> <div> “The ‘god’ of this twentieth century no more resembles the Supreme Sovereign of Holy Writ than does the dim flickering of a candle the glory of the midday sun. The ‘god’ who is now talked about in the average pulpit, spoken of in the ordinary Sunday School, mentioned in much of the religious literature of the day, and preached in most of the so-called Bible Conferences is the figment of human imagination, and invention of maudlin sentimentality” (<B>The Attributes of God</B>, Reiner Publications, 1967, p. 23).</div> <bR> <div> Many times during Paul<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s service for Christ he had good reason to be afraid. On one of those occasions the Lord spoke words of comfort to the apostle:</div> <bR> <div> <I>“Do not be afraid, but speak, and do not keep silent, for I am with you, and no one will attack you to hurt you, for I have many people in this city”</I> (Acts 18:9-10).</div> <bR> <div> These comforting words were founded on Christ<FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" >*</FONT>s sovereign purpose —<I> </I><B>“All that the Father gives Me will come to me”</B> (John 6:37, cf. 6:65, 17:2). Contemplation of these</div> <div> words from the Lord encouraged Paul, and <B>affected his actions</B> — <I>“he continued there a year and six months, teaching the Word of God among them”</I> (Acts 18:11). May our contemplations of the Almighty — gleaned from Scripture, not from carnal human notions — affect our living in practical ways.</div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>