Heart of the Matter Broadcast

Live from Salt Lake City, Utah, this is Heart of the MatterTGNN’s original show where Shawn McCraney deconstructed religion and developed fulfilled theology. where we do all we can to worship God in Spirit and in Truth. I’m Shawn McCraneyFounder of TGNN and developer of the fulfilled perspective—calling people to faith outside of religion., your host.

Navigating Exiting Mormonism

Show 47 524
Free Will?
November 15th 2016

We’ll it appears that 2017 is going to be a fail in terms of Guests. I’ve chummed the waters and thrown out a number of baited lines but in the end could only land a few. It’s not supposed to be. For this reason – we are going to use the year to provide the people exiting from Mormonism a set of important clarifications that we believe will assist them in their journey out of Mormonism and into a genuine Christian walk. So we are literally going to examine (in depth) four areas I believe every person exiting Mormonism needs to understand before picking a church to attend. More on that later.

Also, let me plug our website store where you can find all manner of reasonably priced objects to purchase – books, t-shirts, music, films – check it all out at www.hotm.tv. We would also petition you – if you are so lead and inclined – to do two things for us. First, include this ministry in your prayers to the Living God. They mean so much to our survival and my ability to not go off the rails. Secondly, tell your family and friends about the ministry. To date we have over a thousand hour long presentations of information to be considered, five books, and other things that are all aimed to get you to think, to believe, and to place your faith in God without religion. If led, please tell your friends about these resources – all of which are free to seeking souls.

A Moment from the Word

And with that, how about a moment from the Word.

(RUN FROM THE WORD HERE PLEASE)

I am not going to present my opinions on anything in our From the Word. No added commentary. I am simply going to read several passages that popped out to me this past week in my personal studies. I’m have NOT prepared any verses nor looked up passages to support whatever point you might take from this brief reading. These passages are truly from my study this past week and all of them caused me to say, “huh,” when I came upon them. They caused me to wonder. And while I will not make any commentary I will add emphasis which admittedly is a form of commentary so its not totally free of persuasion. So here we go. Five passages.

Exodus 33:20
And God said (to Moses), Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

Deuteronomy 4:39
Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

1st Corinthians 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Revelation 1:1
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him (long beat) to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

And finally Revelation 3:20-21, where Jesus says:

3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Board of Direction

And with that, let’s go to our Board of Direction.

(RUN BOARD OF DIRECTION HERE PLEASE)

We left off with discussing the Gospel or Good News a few weeks back (before Adam’s Road and the Matt Slick visit along with some other shows).

The presence of the Good News automatically brings us to a number of questions: Who is it for, this Good News, which we defined as the fact that “Jesus came and did what we could not do. All who look to Him and His finished work by faith are saved by God’s grace from sinMissing the mark of faith and love—no punishment, just lost growth or peace. and deathSeparation from God—now overcome. Physical death remains, but it no longer separates us from life with God. and become children of God.” That is the Good News. We noted that there is nothing in it about the Trinity, or Eternal punishment, or eschatologyStudy of “last things”—TGNN teaches all biblical eschatology was fulfilled in 70 A.D. More, or reading the Bible every day –

The Good News and Its Reception

“Jesus came and did what we could not do. All who look to Him and His finished work by faith are saved by God’s grace from sin and death and become His children.” In the face of this, who is this good news for? All men or some. And how is it received? Does God push it into a limited number of people according to His good pleasure and will or does He offer it to all and allow them to choose to receive it or not. The debates over the answers to this have long raged, right? Nothing new within the body of believers.

Today we have men like Dr. Leighton Flowers vs Dr. James White. Yester-year we had our Calvin and our Arminius. Before them there was Luther and Erasmus, and before them Augustine and Pelagius. Isn’t it interesting that with the exception of Flowers and White (for the time being) the rest of these men are long dead and they are either with God – or they not – views, opinions, education and insights or not. And Dr. Flowers and Dr. White will also either be with God . . . or they will not.

The Role of Opinions in Faith

Is it their views that will put them in good standing with God. Hardly. In the end I believe the Bible teaches that it will be whether they received the Good News by faith . . . or not, that – “Jesus came and did what we could not do and all who look to Him and His finished work by faith are saved by God’s grace from sin and death and become children of God.” I liken all the disparate views out there (even though I admittedly do have and teach my own) to a giant family holding a wonderful picnic full of fun, games, food and love. But attending the picnic are a set of argumentative “know-it-all” brothers who cause division at every family gathering because they demand to constantly express their overbearing opinions on everything under the sun.

I mean there are 130 members of this family who all get along at these extravagant parties – except for these two brothers. And once they get the division going they rile everyone else up, and causes tension, and finger-pointing and ultimately fighting and division. This is what it’s like in the body when we allow the ardent dogmatic opinions of our “know-it-all” few (no matter how well intentioned) to ruin the day (and the peace) for the rest of us.

Uniting in Faith and Love

So what’s the solution? Let me go to the Board. I believe the rest of the family can come first decide to come together, far outnumbering the “know it alls,” and at the first sign of division collectively inform the brothers to either just keep their opinions to themselves and join in the love and fun or sit in separate corners. But the in-fighting has GOT to stop. This is a major call of Alathea Ministries to the world of Christian believers – to united in faith in Him and tell the “know it alls,” and “the overzealous,” and “the dogmatists,” and the “you better comply or you’re going to hell’ers” and “the this-ers and the that-ers” that their opinions are welcome to be shared but they are not appreciated when they become the standard everyone has to accept and/or they are used to divide.

I am not taking about quelling diverse views or forcing people to accept the same views. Never. I’m merely saying that we ought to try and adopt an approach within the faith that says: If you claim that, “Jesus came and did what we could not do, and that “All who look to Him and His finished work by faith are saved by God’s grace from sin and death and become children of God . . .” Then PLEASE set everything else aside and let the Spirit of love work amidst these ancillary views of things that have historically divided the faith.

But . . . here comes the tricky part (and if it wasn’t tricky and difficult we would have been successful centuries ago at solving it but because it is so darn tricky it’s taken a long time for us to even broach the subject, but we have to ask – “How do we proceed in our day to day NON PICNIC environs?” In other words, how do we maintain open subjective peace with all believers while (LISTEN)

Agreement on the Good News

Continuing to teach and promote how we see things relative to the Word in our respective gatherings?

I have toiled over this question for years and have come to believe that it first comes down to an initial agreement on the Good News. For instance, if people can agree that the Good News is defined as: “Jesus came and did what we could not do and that all who look to Him and His finished work through faith are saved by God’s grace from sin and death and become children of God.”

Then, if this is the agreed upon Good News (and it is received by grace through faith) then EVERYTHING ELSE – EVERYTHING ELSE – EVERYTHING ELSE . . . ought to be seen as an ancillary side issue. If you’re a Mormon and you come to the picnic and agree with the Good News but want to also preach Joseph Smith, or temples, or priesthood or water baptism – shut the fluck up and join the party or go to the corner – we’re here to enjoy the Good News, not fight about the disputable.

If you are a Five Point Calvinist and come to the picnic, enjoy yourself – eat, drink, and rejoice in the love in Christ – but if you start talking about the elect, and determinism – go to the corner – please. Your days are done. Leave the disputables, the non-essentials, the unknowns, and divisionary at home, or at the pulpit where others gather to hear your views – but please stop dividing the body who have received the Good News and rejoice in it.

Preaching and Teaching Individual Beliefs

Get it? The Good News is at our core, it is Christ Jesus born, lived, died, raised, ascended, taking His place at the right hand of God. But then, how do we approach preaching and teaching things that we individually believe (so deeply) which are contrary to the views of other people who have received the Good News too?

So first, we agree to the Good News. We let it rest as the foundation upon where we stand, live, and enter into life after death. Then we allow all men and women who have received the Good News to be seen as both “our family in the faith” and free to receive and believe any other tenet as they are so led and inclined.

Third, before God, we honestly and openly teach as we believe we have been led and instructed. If we believe the trinity we teach it. If we believe the binity we teach it. If we believe in One God we teach it. If we believe in water baptism we preach it. If we believe in eternal punishment or in an imminent second comingChrist’s return, fulfilled in 70 A.D., ending the old covenant—not the world. we preach and teach it. Then finally those who hear our teachings decide for themselves, by the Spirit and through the Word, if they accept these honest teachings or not.

If they accept them they remain in that respective gathering or church. If they reject them they walk – finding another church or religious organization that teaches according to the dictates of their consciences. This approach leaves the onus of proof on the pastor and the congregate themselves – placing the responsibility for receiving or rejecting all teachings on the presenter and the recipient.

Therefore, while enabling all people to seek after the views that echo or resonate with them spiritually, this approach reiterates the fact that all of us are personally responsible not only for the views acquired and kept but more importantly all of us are expected to let others believe as they are so led – without judgment or criticism or castigation. So there we go.

The Gospel: Who is it For?

Let’s continue our discussion on the Gospel. And in accordance with what I just said, I am going to now teach what I believe to be true but not criticizing those who believe differently. In the face of the Good News we discussed five weeks ago we come back to a question I posed in our Board of Direction section: Who is it for and how is it received.

On the question “who is it for?” there are some general thoughts in the Body of Believers:

1. First, some say the Gospel is only for God’s elect.

Others say it is for all human beings. I personally believe that the Good News is for all human beings and I frankly believe that it will sometime and in some way affect all human beings in the positive – whether they receive

Exploring the Reception of the Gospel

To the bigger question, how is the Gospel received? What I mean by this, is it imposed upon human beings (those who God has elected of His own free will) or do human beings choose to receive and/or reject it?

I am not going to attack the views of Five Point Calvinists who claim that Free Will is a lie and that it is God who elects and decides who will receive the Good News AND who will not. That is one view and people have their right to it. But I will say this:

The Spirit is Primary and Preferential. And the Spirit tells me that this Reformer view is errant. But the spirit tells them that it is correct. So . . .

The Role of Scripture and Church History

Two – the scripture is secondary and referrential. Of course, I believe that scripture (contextually read and understood) supports what the Spirit tells me about free will. But so do Five Point Calvinists – so we must ask what else is there besides the Spirit and the Written Word? Three, church history is tertiary and deferential – and so, deferring, we look back respectfully to what was taught anciently and use these things to help our support or destroy our views.

Now, I do not believe that ancient views establish present views – there are far too many thoughts in contradiction with scripture in the annuls of church history to give it authority to establish doctrine. But in cases like this where the Spirit and the Word are not solving an impasse it might be beneficial to look at what those who came before us had to say about the subject matter, in this case, free will. To me, the closer we get to the apostolic age and the things said by the non-canonical writers closest to them, the closer the information will be to the truth we are seeking to find.

Ancient Teachings on Free Will

Of interest, one of the most respected scholars of Reformed Theology (Calvinism) one Lorraine Bottner – who says there is “no free will”) admits that there are really no teachings on determinism (which is another way to say that there is no free will) prior to the life of Augustine (who greatly, greatly, greatly influenced Calvin and his ideas). So what do the earlier ancients, prior to Augustine (remember who lived mid 300’s AD), have to say about the idea of free will?

Now before we answer this the defense many determinists will use against the quotes I’m going to provide, will say, “Well that guy also said this stupid thing or another, so they can’t be trusted.” Or “that guy was full of heresy.” But this is really very unfair because it shows that we will use and appeal to the things others have said which support our views but we will discount them and their spiritual integrity when they differ from us. Really not a good practice, folks.

I propose that going back as close as possible to the apostles we discover the following regarding free will:

• It was taught – abundantly.
• That determinism was not.
• So either Augustine some 300 years after Jesus knew something that those who were closest to the apostles didn’t on the subject OR he was wrong – and so are the Reformed interpretations of scripture.

Speaking of the early church non-apostolic leaders and writers, Jean Calvin once wrote:

‘Moreover although the Greek Fathers, above others, and especially Chrysostom, have exceeded due bounds in extolling the powers of the human will, yet all ancient theologians, with the exception of Augustine, are so confused, vacillating, and contradictory on this subject, that no certainty can be obtained from their writings.’ (John Calvin, Institutes, book 2, chapter 2, section 4)

So from one of the pillars of Deterministic thought we get the idea that the early church leaders – except Augustine in 300 AD – were all “confused, vacillating and contradictory on the subject of free will.” I would suggest that contrary to this claim of Calvin the earliest church leaders were actually pretty certain and clear on the subject – and will prove this over the next two or three weeks.

Contrary to Calvin’s assessment, Augustine was perhaps the most ‘confused, vacillating, and contradictory’ of the early fathers. And as we will soon see, the early church consensus stands against the Augustinian-Reformed monergist interpretation of predestination as they have interpreted Romans 9–11.

For your information, fans of sovereign predestination are known as monergists, which means that God saves people through a spiritual regeneration irrespective.

Exploring Salvation: Monergism vs. Synergism

of the will of the individual. Synergism is the idea that salvation is a two way street one where God extends salvation but a person must receive through their own free will. In other words (and this is something so vitally important to the reception of the Good News) was monergism the central component of orthodox theology relative to soteriology or was synergism? Calvinists (monergists) say that there is no free will and God is the one who causes a person to be saved without the input of the individual. Synergists suggest that man must receive what God offers.

Historical Perspectives on Free Will

Writes Mako: “Before Augustine’s debates with the Pelagians, and arguably in Augustine himself (he did write The Freedom of the Will) there is no evidence that anyone interpreted Romans 9 – 11 to support a ‘double predestination’ or a ‘sovereignty of God’ view that is logically mutually exclusive with human free will.“ Even more damaging to the Augustinian monergist tradition is the fact that Augustine did not understand Greek well enough to translate Romans into Latin. American Eastern Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart attributes Augustine’s mistake about Paul’s definition of ‘predestination’ to his unfamiliarity with Greek, which had a more flexible sense of the word than Latin.

Greg Boyd notes, “This in part explains why Calvin cannot cite ante-Nicene fathers against his (contemporary) libertarian opponents (for example in a debate with a man named Pighuis). Boyd continues: “Hence, when Calvin debates Pighuis on the freedom of the will, he cites Augustine abundantly, but no early church fathers are cited.” So let’s look to some quotes from the earliest ancients on the idea of free will, on the monergist position versus the synergist position, and see if they can help us with the debate.

Quotes from Early Church Figures

Clement of Rome (died circa 99 AD) NOTE: (Tradition has identified him with the Clement who is mentioned in Philippians 4:3, who would have thus known Peter and Paul personally. He was the third or fourth bishop of Rome.) Clement of Rome wrote:

“For no other reason does God punish the sinner either in the present or future world, except because He knows that the sinner was able to conquer but neglected to gain the victory.” (Clement of Rome, Recognitions 111. 23, V. 8, IX. 30.)

Okay. Good but not decisive.

The Epistle of ‘Mathetes’ to Diognetus (date 1st – 2nd century, once attributed to Justin Martyr) (The true author of this Epistle is unknown as ‘Mathetes’ was not a proper name but means ‘a disciple.’ Possibly he was a disciple of the apostles, because of this comment provided in his writings: “‘I do not speak of things strange to me, nor do I aim at anything inconsistent with right reason; but having been a disciple of the Apostles, I am become a teacher of the Gentiles’ – chapter 11, verse 1) So what does he say?

‘As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Savior He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God. As calling us He sent Him, not as vengefully pursuing us; as loving us He sent Him, not as judging us.’ (Epistle to Diognetus, chapter 7, verse 4)

Also . . .

“And do not wonder that a man may become an imitator of God. He can, if he is willing.” (Epistle to Diognetus, chapter 10)

Then there is . . .

Ignatius of Antioch (30 – 107 AD, traditionally held to be a disciple of the Apostles John and Peter) said-

“…and there is set before us life upon our observance [of God's precepts], but death as the result of disobedience, and every one, according to the choice he makes, shall go to his own place, let us flee from death, and make choice of life.” (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, ch.5, long version)

Also . . .

“If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice.”

(The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, ch.5, long version)

Then we have the Shepherd of Hermas a book (circa 100 AD) that is quoted by a Christian monk named John Cassian who using the book wrote:

‘For it was not given only to David to think what is good of himself, nor is it denied to us naturally to think or imagine anything that is good. It cannot then be

Human Will and Divine Assistance

Doubt exists that there are by nature some seeds of goodness in every soul implanted by the kindness of the Creator: but unless these are quickened by the assistance of God, they will not be able to attain to an increase of perfection, for, as the blessed Apostle says:

‘Neither is he that planteth anything nor he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase.’

Free Will and Choice

But that freedom of the will is to some degree in a man’s own power is very clearly taught in the book termed the Pastor [i. e., the Shepherd of Hermas], where two angels are said to be attached to each one of us, i.e., a good and a bad one, while it lies at a man’s own option to choose which to follow. And therefore the will always remains free in man, and can either neglect or delight in the grace of God. For the Apostle would not have commanded saying:

‘Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,’ had he not known that it could be advanced or neglected by us. But that men might not fancy that they had no need of Divine aid for the work of Salvation, he subjoins: ‘For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do, of His good pleasure.’ And therefore he warns Timothy and says: ‘Neglect not the grace of God which is in thee;’ and again: ‘For which cause I exhort thee to stir up the grace of God which is in thee…’ (John Cassian, Conferences, XIII.12, emphasis added)

Continuation

We’ll stop there . . . and continue with more next week.

Let’s open up the phone lines:

(801)

SPOT PLEASE

EMAILS