Deism, & the Foreknowledge of Free willers

DEISM, n. the belief or system of religious opinions of those who acknowledge the existence of one God, but deny revelation: or deism is the belief in natural religion only,
or those truths, in doctrine and practice, which man is to discover by the light of reason, independent and exclusive of any revelation from God. Hence deism implies infidelity or a disbelief in the divine origin of the scriptures. (Websters 1828 Dictionary)

Depending on who you read after, some of our founding Father's were Deists. Thomas Jefferson for sure. Most evangelicals would claim that deism, as defined above, to be rank heresy.

However, it is interesting to me how deism, the idea that God created the world like a clock, wound it up, and then let it run its course without interfering, has influenced many churches to embrace deism in their view of salvation.

Let me explain.

The Bible teaches what theologians call The Sovereignty of God.

Eph 1:11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,

Dan 4:35 All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven And among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand Or say to Him, "What have You done?"

God is in charge of sparrows, lillies, and knows the number of hairs on everyone's head. Nothing takes place without his knowledge and even more so His direct, sovereign will directing the course of every aspect of the universe!

If he is not Soveriegn, then He is not God, whoever and whatever controls Him is.

Lot's of people like to say that all the verses in the Bible that deal with predestination and forknowledge of God regarding salvation happen like this.

"God knew everybody who was going to accept Him, and those are the ones he predestinated."

Do you see a problem with these two competing ideas?

Is God Sovereign over all acts or does He just forsee what will happen?

Even more seriously, these people are claiming that God forsaw that people would choose him for salvation. Now could there be ANY greater work or deed on the part of man, than to repent of their sins and put their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation?

SO,

Is salvation by grace or is it by debt (God owes us for choosing him)?

Is God sovereign over the flowers, grass and hair, but not the sinner?

Embracing free will is nothing more than embracing a form of deism, (What you practice is what you believe) it is putting man on the throne of salvation and not God, and it attacks the very nature of salvation being from the Lord,(the author and finisher of our faith) by grace alone and says, people do have a little bit of good in them, (Actually a lot of good, making the greatest possible act of goodness from within- choosing God) God sees their good and wise choice, and decided on the basis of what they chose, to become their God. (He does after all owe it to them if they call him on His promise to save them)

Ludicrous! Abandon your deism, submit to God on the throne of all things, believe the Scriptures that teach there is none that do good or seek after God.

To choose or be chosen

One resounding tune that gets struck in many of my Sunday School classes is the open string E chord of "But that is why each man has free will..."

I would heartily recommend to everyone interested in the subject of Free will to read the Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther. The book is his response to Erasmus who debated with Luther on whether or not man chooses God for salvation or if God chooses man.

For me, I think we make it too difficult. Let the Bible mean what it says:
Romans 3:10-11 As it is written: "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NO, NOT ONE; 11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS; THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS AFTER GOD.

1. How many people are there who have good (righteousness) in them?
2. How many seek after God?

What further evidence do we need to prove that none will choose God?

Who then will come to God for salvation?
Joh 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;

Who will come to God through Christ?

Book Review

On Christian Liberty by Martin Luther

To tell you what I think of the book, I was in the middle of reading it when I stopped and went to Amazon and ordered 5 copies for our church book table. I also plan to give a few away to people I believe would benefit from its contents.

Luther expounds the idea that Christians are liberated (free) from sin and death,

"Our faith in Christ does not free us from works but from false opinions concerning works."

He again and again assaults the notion that our justification comes from works,

"God cannot be worshiped unless you ascribe to him the glory of truthfulness and all goodness which is due Him. This cannot be done by works but only by the faith of the heart. Not by the doing of works but by believing do we glorify God and acknowledge that he is truthful."

Brilliantly explains how this does not give us license for vice but frees us to love our neighbor.

"I will do nothing in this life except what I see is necessary , profitable, and salutary to my neighbor, since through faith I have an abundance of all good things in Christ."

If I had to choose a favorite part of the book, it would be his brilliant explanation of how to live in this world as being free in Christ but bound to love all men. He uses the example of how Paul had Timothy circumcised because of the weak Jews, young in the faith, but refused to circumcise Titus because older Jews were requiring it for salvation.

This principle applies to so many things to Christians today as we attempt to navigate every issue that causes division, church splits, and denominations.

"The Christian must take a middle course and face those two classes of men. He will meet first the unyielding, stubborn ceremonialists who like deaf adders are not willing to hear the truth of liberty (Ps 58:4) but, having no faith, boast of, prescribe, and insist upon their ceremonies as means of justification. Such were the Jews of old, who were unwilling to learn how to do good. These he must resist, do the very opposite, and offend them boldly lest by their impious views they drag many with them into error."

Another quote that made me laugh out loud comes after he has explained his two theses:

"Finally, something must be added for the sake of those for whom nothing can be said so well that they will not spoil it by misunderstanding it. It is questionable whether they will understand even what will be said here."

You do yourself a disservice in not reading this book.