At least that appears to be the rumor lately.Good grief. Either the grapevine has grown and wildly distorted a class discussion the other day, or some of my students weren’t paying a lick of attention to what I was really saying. Let’s set the record straight. Here’s a short summary of what I said in class…
When dealing with hurting people, counselors and ministers have to confront the issue of personal choices. There is an issue of volition (free will and choosing) that must be addressed. There are two positions that some Christian people-helpers take that are not particularly helpful.
Position #1 – All personal problems are the result of personal choice. People choose their problems. They need to choose differently. They need to stop what they are doing and choose to be obedient to God.
This approach overemphasizes the role of volition. Telling a depressed person to just choose different behaviors isn’t particularly helpful. Nor is telling the woman struggling with anorexia to “just eat something.” Nor is telling the man addicted to pornography to “just stop it.” We have to do more than that.
Position #2 – Choice is an illusion. People do not really make choices. God is sovereign and ordains (causes) everything that happens.
This approach rejects the role of volition. But neither will this approach suffice. It will not do to blame God for our bad decisions. This is a brand of hyper-Calvinism that may work for some in their academic offices, but is not effective in helping people overcome their problems.
To clarify the problem with this position, it was at this point I suggested that any student who holds this position (that choice is an illusion) could come by my office after class. I would immediately give them an “F” for the course. I went on to explain that I was sure they would feel unfairly treated and would quickly go to the Vice President to register a complaint. But here’s the problem…the person who holds this position has no right to complain about my “choice” as a professor. If they are unhappy with the “F” that seems arbitrary, their position insists that they actually see it as God-ordained and they should take up the issue with Him, not me.
Obviously I’m not really going to fail anyone just for being a Calvinist. Or an Arminian.
A dispensationalist? Maybe.
Posts
21 comments:
I have heard it said before that "There are some issues that look right on both sides of the coin and only in heaven will we fully be able to see where they meet"... Sounds like this is one of those issues for people.
-Eric Hudson
A dispensationalist? Maybe.
Nice. I'm with you.
"A dispensationalist? Maybe."
So you would give an F to someone for being right? Shouldnt it be the other way around? ;)
- Atrain Gunnels
I think what happened was that some people weren't paying complete attention in class and only caught the part about receiving an F...
--Kristi Lee
I agree this situation has gotten out of hand. If we deal with these two views as absolutes then we will always find struggle in which side of the controversy we stand. I hold to a strong view that God is sovereign over the good and bad. With this in mind I do not see the world in a fatalistic or hyper-Calvinistic view. I simply have come to the conclusion that I quintessentially understand God could shape the world through blessings and or despair. He has done it throughout the Bible and throughout the course of time. I do not see it wrong to debate the issue if it is bringing us all to a better understanding of who God is and how we might glorify Him better. If we take a look at Job for a quick illustration, Satan had to ask permission from God to act evil upon Job and still with that God limited his judgment upon him for the simple reason to the most righteous man alive that he still needs the divine hand of God. To say that God allows a 12 year old girl to be molested by her father or He takes loving parents away from good children by means of a car wreck, we simply do not have the means in which to understand why these things have occurred, but since they have, this means God has decreed them to be. I can not sit here and write this in clear conscious and state that this is the correct and only way to see it. It is only what has been revealed to me by God so far, and for anyone to say they have figured it out completely, on either side of the argument, are way to presumptuous and needs to understand that without decades of prayer and study are we ever going to be able to come to a logical and scriptural answer.
Jordy Burchfield
I'm not going to allow the comments to derail into a Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate. I just don't think it would be productive. But I just couldn't let this go.....
To say that God allows a 12 year old girl to be molested by her father or He takes loving parents away from good children by means of a car wreck, we simply do not have the means in which to understand why these things have occurred, but since they have, this means God has decreed them to be.
But I think we DO have a means in which to understand why. It is because we live in a fallen world where fallen people make bad decisions. I don't think God desires or causes little girls to get molested. I don't think God desires or causes children to lose thier parents in car accidents. That would make God the author of sin. But He does allow those things to happen. And He can (and does) bring good out of all circumstances.
See what you've done?..... I got all up on my soapbox. Or is that a blogbox? In any case, that's where I am now. Like all of us, I have a long way to go on my spiritual and theological journeys.
Isaiah 45:7... Romans 9:14-18...
I'll not get into a prooftexting war with anyone - especially anonymous anyones. I could offer my own prooftexts but neither of us would get anywhere or be any the wiser. Besides that is NOT good hermeneutics, is it? We should not let single passages (or chapters) of Scripture dicate how we interpret the whole of Scripture. It should be just the other way around. We start with the whole of Scripture and then use that to interpret single passages. Right?
And again, I'll not let the discussion deteriorate to Calvinism vs. Arminianism. It detracts from the whole point of the original post.
Failing all dispensationalist students now are we??? That sounds pretty interesting coming from someone whose very life is supposedly dedicated to helping others!! In order for someone to make such a bold claim, I would think that such a person would have devoted an enormous amount of time studying and researching dispensationalism for themselves, or at least they should have! It truly amazes me that someone without a theology degree, who doesn't really seem to know just what it is he believes, could take such a strong stance against a theological issue such as this.
Holy Toledo, Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous poster. Please relax a little.
(1) It would be nice if you left a name. Civil discussion and dialogue would be much easier if we could call each other by name.
(2) Because you disagree with me, you call my dedication to helping others into question?? That's quite an overreaction, isn't it?
(3) I don't have a degree in theology. But don't assume I don't know theology. Why in the world would you assume I don't know what it is I believe?
(4) This point is the most important one. So read this carefully.... I WAS JOKING. Of course, I'm not going to fail a dispensationalist.
You would do well to either give someone the benefit of the doubt or at least nicely ask a person to clarify what he meant before you go and attack his character.
"It truly amazes me that someone without a theology degree, who doesn't really seem to know just what it is he believes, could take such a strong stance against a theological issue such as this." - anonymous poster person
It truly amazes me how bold and courageous someone can be online. I bet you all of the money in my pockets against all of the money in your anonymous pockets that you would never, ever say that to Dr. New's face. Simply ridiculous.
Theology degrees are over-rated. Most of the nitwits espousing bad theology have one.
All I am saying is that far too often we stand behind the curtain of "This is NOT a Calvinist vs. Arminian Debate" or "This is NOT a Dispensational vs. Covenant Debate" all the while pushing our own point of view - no matter how Calvinistic or Arminian that view may be. Let's just call it what it is. It is in fact a DEBATE! - no matter what title we put on it.
Mr./Mrs. Anonymous,
If that's all your saying, then for heaven's sake why didn't you just say so?
You seem to think I am using this post as a sneaky way of pushing my beliefs on to others. You are obviously entitled to that opinion. But you are wrong.
Can readers tell what some of my beliefs are? Certainly. But I am NOT "pushing my own point of view" onto anyone.
Is there an Arminian vs. Calvinism controversy out there? Yep. Is there a dispensationalist vs. covenant debate? Yep. Is this post meant to be a forum for either of those? Nope. You can debate those issues all you'd like, just not here.
In any case, I accept your apology.
That's funny, because...oh, wait...NOPE Just as I thought, I NEVER offered an apology! I'm just calling it the way I see it!!!
Yes, of course, Mr./Ms. Anonymous.
Well, may God bless you and your ministry.
Hey not so apologetic anonymous guy, your views on dispensationalism, calvinism, arminianism, Dr. New, have little worth and value to the Lord and others if you fail to express them as one who esteems others highly; your unwillingness to dialogue in a gentle refreshing manner reveals either ignorance or arrogance on many fronts. Contunue to "call it the way you see it" and the bricks your throwing will form a house for you, around you with no windows or doors!!
I'd like to apologize for the avenue I chose in expressing my opinion. It was wrong of me to express it in that manner. However, I do feel that the issues discussed in a college level class should pertain to the material, and not all time spent on pushing anyone's agenda - whether that be a professor or a student. Once again, I do offer my apologies for any offence I might have caused.
I don't want to open another can of worms here, especially since this is an older blog...but it may just happen with what I am about to say because I want to point out the fact that many times in many of Dr. New's classes he has stated that any student going into helping services needs to strongly consider going to seminary school in order to get education/training in theology. On the same note he has also stated that if a student chose not to attend a seminary school that he believes that it is our responsibility as Christians (not Calvinists, not Armenians, etc.) CHRISTIANS...to learn about theology and know where we stand. He has stated how important it is and guess what? He practices what he preaches. I believe that Dr. New does state very clearly what he believes and that it is just fine if we do not agree with him. If fellow students try to listen to his beliefs with an open mind like those who oppose him are asking him to do, then I think you will see that he would really never ever judge you for your beliefs or condemn, or most importantly, FAIL you. I can think of many times people have made statements in class Dr. New has not agreed with and has never been condemning and certainly has not failed that person.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Dr. New has much more experience and knowledge than many of us, which has likely influenced his beliefs over time. Who is to say that some of us young aspiring college kids know more than he does about God's word? Dr. New has been studying God's word longer than some of us...even some of the older, non-traditional students at CBC. You do not have to agree with everything he says, but at least think about his position of authority and how he got to where he is today and consider that maybe ...just maybe...God has a hand in that. Wouldn't that be an accurate belief for some people out there reading? Let us not be closed minded, shall we?
-Danielle-
Oh, and I apologize. I meant to say "Arminian" and I meant to give kudos to the anonymous person for being mature enough to apologize.
-Danielle-
I realize that this post was under the "popular" category but good grief, It was extremely popular... or controversial which ever you prefer.
I had actually heard this rumor, in one form or another.
I think I agree with your position... I at least definitely find the "take an F up with God not academic affairs" section humorous. I seem to notice that people often want to see their "hyper" views in only certain situations as it suits them.
It is a hard issue though.. (Is God in complete control? Are we in complete control? Who chooses who?), I admit that I struggle with it often.
as I am rereading my post, I am afraid that none of my thoughts were coherent... I'm sorry.
Post a Comment