I need some help responding to some issues in Wild at Heart. I briefly presented a few objections to my pastor and actually received a response! :shocked: Here are the issues, some of which I think I can respond to, but I would like some input. I don't have a lot of reformed people around to talk this out with. I'm kind of a newbie flying solo.
Any further issue with this book that you can think of would be helpful additions to this discussion as well.
[b:446ab7a488]1. God has a sense of adventure, and He put this into man at creation.[/b:446ab7a488]
[DC] - This said in the context of the idea that God takes risks. Man has a sense of adventure (to explore, discover, learn), but does God? What does that imply?
[b:446ab7a488]2. That God wanted Adam to be wild and undomesticated is not an idea that can be supported from the Scriptures; but neither can it be disproved.[/b:446ab7a488]
[DC] - God made Adam a gardener. Gardener ... wild ... gardener ... wild ... ???
[b:446ab7a488]3. Christ's temptation was a risk and could have resulted in failure.[/b:446ab7a488]
[quote:446ab7a488]The problem here is, I think the tension between predestination and free will. Does the fact that God knows the outcome of everything take away the freedom that man has to choose between good and evil? If man truly has a choice, then notwithstanding the fact that God knew the outcome, he was taking a risk in creating man with the ability to choose. A little farther down there is a concern raised that God takes risks and enjoys danger and that this thought raises the danger of failure.
I think that I can clearly demonstrate that God does take a risk by pointing to the incarnation. Scriptures tell us that Christ was tempted in all things. By definition, temptation requires the individual an ability to choose among a variety of different options, all of which are valid ad real. If it wasn't possible for Jesus to make a choice contrary to the will of God, then he wasn't really tempted. I think the Gethsemane account is a powerful demonstration of the reality of the temptation. Further, if Christ wasn't really tempted, with the ability to contrary to the Father's will, then you have a problem with the humanity of Christ.[/quote:446ab7a488]
[DC] - There seems to be a confusion between omniscience and predestination occuring here, but the real concern is over the second paragraph. Does predestining the success of Christ's temptation make it less tempting? Christ had no sin nature, so by what lusts was Christ "being drawn away and enticed"? Was this temptation completely identical to our own, or was it just the same tactics used to no effect because Christ had no sin nature to appeal to?
[b:446ab7a488]4. Christians' hearts are good.[/b:446ab7a488]
[quote:446ab7a488] I don't teach that everybody's heart can be good. I teach that Christians' hearts are good, made good by the work of Christ. . . . We still battle a sin nature. We fight sin, and in Wild at Heart and in Waking the Dead I say you must crucify it daily. But the Scriptures never say to crucify your heart. What [my critics] need to be reassured of is, by referring to "heart," I do not mean "emotion." I mean "our deepest thinking." . . . Because our real convictions lie in our hearts. It's not cognitive processing, it's conviction, real belief. I'm not just saying "feelings"; I am talking about real thinking, which is actually done in your heart, according to the Scriptures[/quote:446ab7a488]
[DC] - Given that our sanctification/glorification is not perfected, can we really say that the Christian's heart is good? Also, how do you tell the difference between your heart and your sin nature?
[b:446ab7a488]5. this book is not a theological treatise, it's a devotional book.[/b:446ab7a488]
[DC] - Is this an excuse for loose treatment of theology?
Thanks for your help.
DC
[Edited on 2-13-2004 by DexCisco]
Any further issue with this book that you can think of would be helpful additions to this discussion as well.
[b:446ab7a488]1. God has a sense of adventure, and He put this into man at creation.[/b:446ab7a488]
[DC] - This said in the context of the idea that God takes risks. Man has a sense of adventure (to explore, discover, learn), but does God? What does that imply?
[b:446ab7a488]2. That God wanted Adam to be wild and undomesticated is not an idea that can be supported from the Scriptures; but neither can it be disproved.[/b:446ab7a488]
[DC] - God made Adam a gardener. Gardener ... wild ... gardener ... wild ... ???
[b:446ab7a488]3. Christ's temptation was a risk and could have resulted in failure.[/b:446ab7a488]
[quote:446ab7a488]The problem here is, I think the tension between predestination and free will. Does the fact that God knows the outcome of everything take away the freedom that man has to choose between good and evil? If man truly has a choice, then notwithstanding the fact that God knew the outcome, he was taking a risk in creating man with the ability to choose. A little farther down there is a concern raised that God takes risks and enjoys danger and that this thought raises the danger of failure.
I think that I can clearly demonstrate that God does take a risk by pointing to the incarnation. Scriptures tell us that Christ was tempted in all things. By definition, temptation requires the individual an ability to choose among a variety of different options, all of which are valid ad real. If it wasn't possible for Jesus to make a choice contrary to the will of God, then he wasn't really tempted. I think the Gethsemane account is a powerful demonstration of the reality of the temptation. Further, if Christ wasn't really tempted, with the ability to contrary to the Father's will, then you have a problem with the humanity of Christ.[/quote:446ab7a488]
[DC] - There seems to be a confusion between omniscience and predestination occuring here, but the real concern is over the second paragraph. Does predestining the success of Christ's temptation make it less tempting? Christ had no sin nature, so by what lusts was Christ "being drawn away and enticed"? Was this temptation completely identical to our own, or was it just the same tactics used to no effect because Christ had no sin nature to appeal to?
[b:446ab7a488]4. Christians' hearts are good.[/b:446ab7a488]
[quote:446ab7a488] I don't teach that everybody's heart can be good. I teach that Christians' hearts are good, made good by the work of Christ. . . . We still battle a sin nature. We fight sin, and in Wild at Heart and in Waking the Dead I say you must crucify it daily. But the Scriptures never say to crucify your heart. What [my critics] need to be reassured of is, by referring to "heart," I do not mean "emotion." I mean "our deepest thinking." . . . Because our real convictions lie in our hearts. It's not cognitive processing, it's conviction, real belief. I'm not just saying "feelings"; I am talking about real thinking, which is actually done in your heart, according to the Scriptures[/quote:446ab7a488]
[DC] - Given that our sanctification/glorification is not perfected, can we really say that the Christian's heart is good? Also, how do you tell the difference between your heart and your sin nature?
[b:446ab7a488]5. this book is not a theological treatise, it's a devotional book.[/b:446ab7a488]
[DC] - Is this an excuse for loose treatment of theology?
Thanks for your help.
DC
[Edited on 2-13-2004 by DexCisco]