Posted by John L. Rothra on March 25, 2007 under Devotional/Teaching | 
I had the privilege to watch a tape of Jim Cymbala, pastor of the Brooklyn Tabernacle, preaching on prayer. His message revealed that Jesus reminded us that God’s house is to be a house of prayer. There are many churches that choose not to pray or treat prayer as a ritual to be done as specific times. Prayer has been demoted from a priority to a program in many churches.
However, Pastor Cymbala reminded me that prayer is about a relationship in which we fellowship and commune with God. It is when we come to God’s table and sup with him. It is in prayer that we are empowered for God’s work, seek God’s wisdom in life, and submit to his sovereignty. This does not mean that Scripture is not a source of wisdom or strength. This does not mean the Holy Spirit does not empower. On the contrary, prayer is a means by which God grants more faith. Prayer is about the fellowship and communion that takes place. Prayer is a vehicle used by the Holy Spirit to petition and offer supplication to God as well as bless us.
His sermon reminded me also about how often prayer is mental and not spiritual. We offer prayers in order to sound spiritual, preach with fancy words, or simply recite a memorized rhyme as if it’s a child’s poem. Prayers can be memorized verses, full of fancy words, and sound spiritual, but if there is no submission, communion, or fellowship, then it is not prayer but proclamation.
When we pray, do we seek to be with God, to come into the presence of the Creator? Or do we merely recite some lines and make our demands? As Pastor Cymbala highlighted, prayer is a trademark and badge of honor to Christians. Christians are to be know as praying people. Revivals throughout history began with and were sustained by prayer. The 120 in the upper room prayed before Pentecost came. Jesus prayed all the time, often leaving the crowd to pray. Peter and John, after being arrested and beaten by the Sanhedrin, went to a prayer meeting to seek God for strength. God’s people are known by their prayer.
I encourage everyone to spend time praying this week. Seek God’s presence, ask to fellowship and commune with your Lord and Savior. Ask him to draw you closer to him. Your walk in Christ will be stronger, your faith renewed, and your desire to serve God enlivened.
Posted by John L. Rothra on March 23, 2007 under Devotional/Teaching |
I’ve had the chance to get some responses to my argument for Reformed conditional election from some Calvinists. Their response often has two aspects: (1) they don’t understand my purpose and (2) they say I don’t understand how Calvinism defines ‘unconditional election.’ Therefore, I will respond to these criticisms of the article, beginning with the second.
Criticism: Misunderstanding of Calvinistic teaching of ‘unconditional election.’
I completely understand that Calvinists define ‘unconditional election’ as related to man being the condition, whether it be man’s work, faith, or possessions. The article begins by quoting Reformed theologian Wayne Grudem’s explanation.
Calvinists argue that election is “‘unconditional’ because it is not conditioned upon anything that God sees in us.” (original article)
Therefore, I acknowledge and understand the Calvinistic, or Reformed, definition of the terms. After presenting their view, I then seek to expand the definition of ‘unconditional’ based on its common English use (it is an English term used to qualify the election). Once the common definition is presented, I state that Calvinism does not use the term as it is most commonly understood. Instead, they constrain the definition to apply only to things related to man. They define ‘unconditional’ as referring only to conditions related to man and not all possible conditions.
In response, I seek to return to using ‘unconditional’ in its fuller sense of referring to all possible conditions, including God’s will. Therefore, since God’s will is a condition, or a qualifier of the election, I state that Reformed theology actually accepts a conditional election, but simply do not label it as such. Instead, they redefine ‘unconditional’ to meet their theology. This was done in order to distinguish their theology from that of Arminian theology, which sees man’s faith as a condition of election. Therefore, Calvinistic election is actually labeled ‘unconditional’ more in response to Arminian teachings than in relation to the Reformed doctrine of election.
It would seem logical to me that, in order to maintain academic objectivity, scholars would be willing to evaluate the terms used to describe a doctrine. This evaluation would include seeing if the terms accurately describe the doctrine fully. If the term must be redefined in order to fit a teaching, then the term may need revising or replacing.
This leads to the second criticism of the article.
Criticism: the purpose of the article is unclear.
It is here that I admit a failing on my own part: the purpose of the article was never presented. Therefore, I here present the purpose (I’ve also added an opening statement to the original article outlining the purpose and thesis). After contemplating Scripture, doctrine, and terms, I began to consider whether election was truly unconditional. This led me to determine that God’s will is a condition of the election. Therefore, I sought to open a discussion on the terminology used in Calvinistic theology.
The ideas presented are admittedly contrary to centuries of tradition. However, tradition should not be immune from examination. Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and others examined and criticized Roman Catholic tradition. Theological journals of full of articles that seek to evaluate traditional views. Therefore, just as many others seek to discuss and evaluate traditional views, I hope that scholars would be open to discussing the traditional terminology used regarding election.
Posted by John L. Rothra on March 20, 2007 under Devotional/Teaching |
After contemplating Scripture, doctrine, and terms, I began to consider whether election was truly unconditional. This led me to determine that God can be viewed as a condition of election. While this is not often considered, I seek to open a discussion regarding the terminology related to unconditional and conditional election. Are the terms used properly according to their normal use? Do they accurately describe the full sense of the view held about election? It is my view that both Calvinists and Arminians believe in conditional election; they differ on the condition.
Dogmatic Calvinists argue that election is “‘unconditional’ because it is not conditioned upon anything that God sees in us.”1 Dogmatic Arminians argue that election is dependent upon man’s faith. However, both miss the truth in order to disprove the other and define their terms in relation to the opposition.2
Election is conditional because it is limited to and stems from God’s sovereign will.
Webster’s dictionary defines unconditional as “not conditional or limited; unqualified.” In order for election to be truly unconditional, it cannot be limited by any preceding fact. However, election is limited by a preceding fact, namely, God’s sovereign will.
Election is not dependent upon man, as the Arminians teach, for Romans 3 teaches that no one is righteous nor seeks God. Furthermore, if man must act first, then man supersedes God.
Election is not unconditional because that would mean nothing limits or precedes election. However, election is limited by the bounds of God’s will.
Some may argue that this argument is not for conditional election, but for unconditional election. On the contrary, as mentioned earlier, in order to be unconditional, there must be no limitations or preceding facts. God’s sovereign will absolutely precedes and limits election so that only those whom God wills to be elect are in fact elected. Unconditional election would allow all to be elect despite the will of God.
Some may argue that Calvinists believe God’s will is inherent in unconditional election. If Calvinists truly believe that God’s will limits and precedes election, then they cannot hold to an unconditional election. Either God’s will limits election, resulting in conditional election, or it does not limit election, resulting in unconditional election. One cannot believe in an election that is both limited and unlimited at the same time, even if it is couched in vague terms such as ‘inherent.’
Therefore, election is something restricted by and done according to God’s willful choice. Contrary to the dogmatism of many Calvinists and Arminians, election is conditional upon God’s will. To quote Reformed theologian W. R. Godfrey, “the foundation of [election] is simply the good pleasure or will of God.”3
1Wayne Grudem,
Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 679.
2Ibid., 674-79.
3Sinclair B. Ferguson, David F. Wright, and J. I. Packer, eds., New Dictionary of Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988), s.v. “Predestination.”
Posted by John L. Rothra on March 15, 2007 under Evangelism |
The time in Ohio seemed to fly by too quickly. The services were wonderful, the testimonies were motivating, and worship took place as lives began to be changed. I want to thank everyone who helped and participated. Your effort, dedication, service, and love for God came through. Prayers were answered as God moved at Hope Community Fellowship. Even now, as I write this, it is my prayer that God moves just as mightily at my own church as he did in Ohio!
Praise God!
Posted by John L. Rothra on March 10, 2007 under Evangelism |
The time has come for me to return to Hope Community Fellowship in Columbus, Ohio. Last March I preached revival services there; this year I return to preach revival services again. I am excited about what is going to happen this year. It seems as though this semester has been extremely busy at school, home, work, and church, more so than any previous semester. Nevertheless, my family and I press on in faith knowing that God has something wonderful planned.
We’ve had our ups and downs the past few months. Things have not always gone according to our plans. But we know things will work out for God’s glory, so we maintain our faith.
In that faith, I know God has something planned for Hope Community Fellowship. I’m not sure what it is, but I pray it is a revival. How I would love to experience such a powerful movement of the Holy Spirit. To experience something like what Jonathan Edward, John Wesley, George Whitefield, Gilbert Tennet, Evan Roberts, Charles Finney, Billy Sunday, and other have experienced would be more than I can imagine. These men all went through and experienced parts of the great awakenings that swept the United States and Europe. In these awakenings, hundreds of thousands were saved and many more experienced a deeper renewal and closeness with God.
As I depart today, it is my prayer that God does a mighty work at both the church I pastor, Union Hill Baptist Church in Alvord, Texas and at Hope Community Fellowship. It is my prayer that God uses me to bring him all the glory. I pray he gives me safe travel to Columbus and back home again. I pray God moves in your life and that you can experience the hope and joy of a close relationship with God through faith in Jesus.
