Don't let me get me

God is both willing (John 6:39) and able to preserve us (Jude 24). To this Robert Shank responds "Our keeping ourselves in His love, in full anticipation of the mercy of our Saviour unto eternal life, is prerequisite to his safekeeping of our souls. We can trust Christ to save us, and we can trust Him to keep us; but we must trust Him." (Shank. Life in the Son. p. 279) But as Pink said: "I’m a hazard to myself, Don’t let me get me, I’m my own worst enemy". If God's not protecting us from ourselves, He's not protecting us. God saves us from the inside out.

Shank is really right about one thing and really wrong about another. We do need to trust Christ, but that's not an a prerequisite for His protection - faith is the instrument of His protection (1 Peter 1:5). Peter understood Christ's protection through experiencing trials; trials he failed but his faith failed not due to Christ's intercession (Luke 22:31-32). Shank sees Peter as a special case "that does not govern what may be true in other instances". (Shank p. 360) But the problem is twofold: 1) we see that faith is God's tool to protect us not something God requires before He will protect us and 2) if God could protect Peter through faith, He can protect us through faith. Shank grants that God is willing to protect us: "It is not the Father's will that any who come to Jesus should subsequently be lost." (Shank p. 360) So if He's willing and able, what's the hold up?

God promises not only the end (eternal life), but also the means (His protecting of our faith). He will "keep us strong" (1 Cor 1:7-9). Again, Shank puts the cart before the horse. He says: "The great promises of the faithfulness of God in performing His work of grace in our hears by His Spirit until the day of Jesus Christ all assume a corresponding faithfulness on the part of man." (Shank. p 110) But God's grace is what keeps us strong. He keeps us blameless (1 Thess 5:23-24). He strengthens us and protects us from the evil one (2 Thess 3:3). He will carry out His work in us (Phil 1:6). God doesn't wait on us to be faithful to protect us; He protects us by keeping us faithful.

Comments

J.C. Thibodaux said…
But as Pink said: "I’m a hazard to myself...."Took me a second to snap to, when I read 'Pink,' my first impression was A.W. Pink. Lol.
May 22, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Godismyjudge said…
Lol... A.W. Pink is an expert on some things, but I needed an expert on self anoyance.

God be with you,
Dan
May 22, 2009 at 7:09 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more