The standard objection to Calvinism is that predestination implicates God in evil. I've fielded that objection on multiple occasions, so I won't rehash my arguments. I will say that it comes down to two stark alternatives:
i) Every evil happens for a good reason
ii) Evils happen for no good reason
Whichever box you check, it will be a hard truth.
But now I'd like to draw attention to one of the practical values of predestination. Nabeel Qureshi is a Muslim convert to Christianity. He's become perhaps the most high-profile Christian apologist who specializes in Islam. Lately, he's been struggling with what, if nature takes its course, is terminal cancer. He's done a running series of videos updating his diagnosis and treatment. Here's the latest:
It's painful to watch these videos in chronological order, because he starts out very upbeat and optimistic, but is forced to move the goal post as his prayer for miraculous healing goes unanswered (thus far). In earlier installments, he talked about how Scripture encourages "presumptuous" faith. (What Sam Storms calls "expectant faith"). He said in light of this that he must believe God has in fact healed him. But sadly, that hasn't happened.
In his latest update he says Jesus healed everyone who came to him, or everyone who was brought to him. He infers from this that it is God's will to heal everyone.
The problem with Nabeel's position is that, despite the best of intentions, his setup means faith in Scripture is bound to lose. Even though he knows in advance that God doesn't miraculously heal everyone, or every Christian, he's pitting Scripture against undeniable experience to the contrary. But that guarantees confusion and disappointment at best, and bitter disillusionment at worst.
What he needs is a more robust theology of providence. It's a false dichotomy to pit Scripture against providence. To some degree, we can infer God's will from providence. For providence mirrors God's decretive will. The past is the record of God's plan for the world, up to that point.
So there's nothing faithless about inferring that it's not God's will to miraculously heal everyone, or every Christian in particular, from the fact that God doesn't heal everyone. History in itself, is a reflection of God's will.
I'd also point out that Nabeel's appeal to the Gospels is misleading, even thought that's not his intention. Assuming that Jesus healed everyone who came to him, or everyone who was brought to him, that's an infinitesimal fraction of all the ailing people whom he didn't heal. Most people didn't come to Jesus for healing for the simple reason that most people didn't know he existed. Outside the ambit of Judea and Samaria, he was unknown. So consider all the ailing people who never had an opportunity to seek him out for healing. Not to mention people living on other continents.
And that's just in reference to his public 2-3 year ministry. Consider the multiplied millions of people throughout human history whom God hasn't healed, both before and after the Incarnation. So Nabeel's sample is quite unrepresentative.
Which is not to deny that some people are miraculously healed. But he's framed the issue in such a way that faith in Scripture will inevitably be dashed by rude experience. That's a recipe for professing Christians to become alienated from the faith. They had a false expectation, based on their misunderstanding of Scripture. When that collides with unyielding reality, they lose their faith. Or, at the very least, suffer a crisis of faith.
Do you think that Scripture encourages "presumptuous" faith (e.g., Mark 11:24)?
ReplyDeleteI guess perhaps a better way to ask the question is, How should we understand Mark 11:24?
DeleteI think it's an encouragement to boldness in prayer. But surely Jesus knew that promise isn't literally or universally true, or even generally true. So it's hyperbolic. And Jesus was fond of hyperbole.
DeleteI have not yet read AP's post yet though I have it open in another tab. Two comments however:
Delete1) I prefer to call it proleptic faith. John Piper argues based on Mk 11:24, James 5:15 and 1 Cor. 12:9 that some people have a special gift of assurance. It is not the norm.
I have seen something close to it once in my life where a friend of mine, a university prof, was getting trounced on by an atheist colleague and one other person as regards matters theological and biblical. He was not apologetically sophisticated and initially very disturbed. So he sent out prayer requests via phone and then just grew in confidence that God would do something before the end of the day. He said as much to them, viz. that God will do something remarkable before the end of the day to vindicate him. Just watch. They sneered. Well before the end of the day, as they collaborated on their research, they happened upon an amazing idea that resulted in a major paper in accounting being published in a major journal. It was huge. The colleague became a believer subsequently. My friend gave him Lewis' Mere Christianity to read. He read it 6 times!
1.1) George Muller and prior to him, the Pietist Auguste Francke seemed to have exercised such faith.
2) As Job said "words as wind come from the despair within" (paraphrase). It is tough to put our thoughts together when we are going through a painful trial. Words as wind will come. Gotta pray for Nabeel!
In Him,
~ Raj
Raj, yes Mueller made a distinction between the "grace of faith" and the "gift of faith". The former is something one can and should grow in, while the latter is a deposit or endowment of faith directly given by God for something which God clearly intends to do. Made clear by the giving of that kind of (gift of) faith. Mueller denied that one can grow in the grace of faith for physical healing. While I and others do believe one can cultivate it.
DeleteHere's a Mueller quote:
"It pleased the Lord, I think, to give me in some cases something like the gift (not grace) of faith, so that unconditionally I could ask and look for an answer. The difference between the gift and the grace of faith seems to me this. According to the gift of faith I am able to do a thing, or believe that a thing will come to pass, the not doing of which, or the not believing of which would not be sin; according to the grace of faith I am able to do a thing, or believe that a thing will come to pass, respecting which I have the word of God as the ground to rest upon, and, therefore, the not doing it, or the not believing it would be sin. For instance, the gift of faith would be needed, to believe that a sick person should be restored again, though there is no human probability: for there is no promise to that effect; the grace of faith is needed to believe that the Lord will give me the necessaries of life, if I first seek the kingdom of God and His righteousness: for there is a promise to that effect. (Matt. vi. 33.)"
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26522/26522-h/26522-h.htm
It's interesting that Mueller believed the grace of faith could be developed for material provisions.
QUOTE:
Think not, dear reader, that I have the gift of faith, that is, that gift of which we read in 1 Corinthians 12:9, and which is mentioned along with “the gifts of healing,” “the working of miracles,”prophecy,” and that on that account I am able to trust in the Lord. It is true that the faith, which I am enabled to exercise, is altogether God's own gift; it is true that He alone supports it, and that He alone can increase it; it is true that, moment by moment, I depend upon Him for it, and that, if I were only one moment left to myself, my faith would utterly fail; but it is not true that my faith is that gift of faith which is spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12:9....It is the self-same faith which is found in every believer...for little by little it has been increasing for the last six and twenty years."
END QUOTE
QUOTE:
DeleteOne thing more. Some say, “Oh, I shall never have the gift of Faith Mr. Mueller has got.” This is a mistake—it is the greatest error—there is not a particle of truth in it. My Faith is the same kind of Faith that all of God's children have had. It is the same kind that Simon Peter had, and all Christians may obtain the like Faith. My Faith is their Faith, though there may be more of it because my Faith has been a little more developed by exercise then theirs; but their Faith is precisely the Faith I exercise, only, with regard to degree, mine may be more strongly exercised. Now, my beloved brothers and sisters, begin in a little way. At first I was able to trust the Lord for ten dollars, then for a hundred dollars, then for a thousand dollars, and now, with the greatest ease, I could trust Him for a million dollars, if there was occasion. But first, I should quietly, carefully, deliberately examine and see whether what I was trusting for, was something in accordance with His promises in His written Word.
END QUOTE
More of my collected Mueller quotes
Although I am in mid-read on this issue ... still processing... I want to comment on this particular Mueller quote. So if its been addressed below, pls let it pass.
Delete~ People tend to see and process the world through their gifts. So with regards to the woes of the Church, the person with the gift of evangelism will say "Not enough outreach. Thats why we are struggling". The person with the gift of counseling will say "Not enough love. Thats why we are dying". The person gifted in apologetics will say "Not enough apologetics. We simply are not engaging the world of ideas. This is whats wrong with the church".
The thing is that these folks often only partially right. So when I see Mueller say that everyone can have the same kind of faith that he had, I am not so sure. I am inclined to believe that Mueller had some kind of special gift of faith. Mueller had a gift that not all of us have - like with every gift.
Note: I make a distinction between faith that is general in character and faith that is specific. The former when exercised falls back on God's character and has no knowledge of the outcome of a trial. The latter when exercised also falls back on God's character but also involves a knowledge of what will actually take place. Its like you have been given a slice of God's foreknowledge to act upon. The George Mueller story about the steamer and the fog is quite amazing!
~ Raj
Raj, if you're referring to the incident I'm thinking of, I read about it around 18 years ago from an article by Ron Rhodes and I'm still amazed by Mueller's boldness, expectancy and confidence before God.
DeleteIt's reminds me of Hudson Taylor's account of praying for wind. He recounts it on page 23 of THIS BOOK.
DeleteSo sad to hear of Nabeel's cancer. I would hope he's received counsel from others to straighten out his assumptions. I'll pray for him.
ReplyDeleteFor Quill's question, I don't think Mk 11:24 or any verse like it teaches a "presumptuous" kind of prayer, but rather, implied is that we ask according to His name (purpose, etc.). Is my understanding correctly applied in this case?
If anyone is interested, here's my blogpost:
ReplyDeleteA Response to Steve Hays' Comments Regarding Nabeel Qureshi's Illness
http://charismatamatters.blogspot.com/2017/01/a-response-to-steve-hays-comments.html
I'm coming from a Calvinistic Continuationist (even "Charismatic") perspective.
I've only watched up to part 11 of Nabeel's vlogs. I'm going to watch the rest of them now. I'll probably rework my blogpost to reflect these latter vlogs.
AP,
Delete"While providence can give us a hint as to what God might have decreed, it's not infallible."
Not sure what he means by infallible. Also, his statement about all believers being healed at the cross, in this discussion seems out of place. Were my herniated L4 and L5 healed at the cross? Not sure where he's going with all that, but I know infallibly God decreed my bewilderment.
AP:
Delete"While providence can give us a hint as to what God might have decreed, it's not infallible."
Unclear what he means. In Calvinism, God has predestined whatever happens. We don't know the future, but once events are past, that's infallible evidence of God's decretive will.
The reason I qualified my statement ("To some degree, we can infer God's will from providence") is that knowing what God predestined isn't the same thing as knowing why he predestined it. Knowing what God has predestined doesn't ipso facto give us any insight into God's rationale. His long-term objectives.
"I do think we ARE Biblically warranted to exercise "expectant faith" with the understanding that God is sovereign and has the right (due to authority, perfect wisdom mixed with love) to refuse to positively answer a prayer request. I don't think this position is logically contradictory."
It is logically contradictory. It means Christians should cultivate false expectations.
" Jesus clearly taught that we are warranted to believe we've received something by faith, and according to truth, even if it hasn't already arrived or manifested in current earthly fact…If a promise never arrives in this Age, then God may have decreed for it to arrive in the next Age."
But that's special pleading. Many of our prayers are for the here and now, not the hereafter. So if the prayer request hasn't arrived or manifested in a current earthly fact, that means we didn't get way we prayed for, which is not what AP's prooftexts says.
AP is giving people like Nabeel false hope and false assurance. That results in a hard landing if their hopes are dashed.
DeleteRA wrote: Not sure what he means by infallible. Also, his statement about all believers being healed at the cross, in this discussion seems out of place.
DeleteI didn't write clearly on what I meant by "infallible". I'll rephrase that in my blog. I meant that *we* cannot infallibly infer what God's 1. future decree or 2. ultimate purpose is based on past providence. For example, for nearly 50 years in the 4th century the Arians gained dominance in the Church. Yet that wasn't a sure indicator of which theology was right. Nor did Athanasius think his being forced to leave his episcopal see (in different ways) FIVE TIMES gave him an indication that Nicaea was wrong despite the fact that there were more Arian councils convened than those which affirmed a homoousian understanding of Christ. Same thing with Luther and the rest of Christendom. The man who was invalid for 38 years (John 5) was probably waiting by the pool for years in hopes that he might be healed by God (apparently via an angel). For all we know he was by that pool for over 10 or 30 years waiting in hope. He didn't give up after a year. Faith and persistent in prayer is taught by Jesus, often in the context of healing.
Regarding being healed at the cross, notice I wrote "in principle". Spurgeon said, "We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, BUT ARE SAVED, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it." (Sermon 181, New York Street Pulpit, IV, p. 135) [bold and all caps by me- AP]
Similarly, Christ "healed" (so to speak) all believers at the cross since all of salvation was purchased and provided for at the Cross. Every redemptive blessing flows from the Cross. In Hebrew understanding salvation and shalom encompassed every aspects of man and his relationship with God. While Hellenism liked to make distinctions between soul and/or spirit and body, Semitic cultures like to see human beings holistically. Yet even then, in the NT the word "soter" (and its various forms) include both the salvation of the soul and the body (among other things). That's why "soter" is translated sometimes in the sense of saved and sometimes in the sense as healed.
D. A. Carson wrote:
It is also argued that because "there is healing in the atonement," as the slogan puts it, every believer has the right to avail himself or herself to the healing benefit secured by the cross. Sadly, noncharismatics have sometimes responded to this by denying that there is healing in the atonement – a position that can be defended only by the most strained exegesis. Of course there is healing in the atonement. In exactly the same sense, the resurrection body is also in the atonement – even though neither charismatic nor noncharismatic argues that any Christian has the right to demand a resurrection body right now. The issue is not "what is in the atonement," for surely all Christians would want to say that every blessing that comes to us, now and in the hereafter, ultimately flows from the redemptive work of Christ. The issue, rather, is what blessings we have a right to expect as universally given endowments right now, what blessings we may expect only hereafter, and what blessings we may partially or occasionally enjoy now and in fullness only in the hereafter.-
D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14; Baker Books, 2000 (original: 1987); p. 175-176 [as copied from Vincent Cheung's Biblical Healing (2012), p. 9]
I added the bold in the Carson quote above.
DeleteWayne Grudem wrote:
All Christians would probably agree that in the atonement Christ has purchased for us not only complete freedom from sin but also complete freedom from physical weakness and infirmity in his work of redemption. And all Christians would also no doubt agree that our full and complete possession of all the benefits that Christ earned for us will not come until Christ returns: it is only "at his coming" (1 Cor. 15:23) that we receive our perfect resurrection bodies. So it is with physical healing and redemption from the physical sickness that came as a result of the curse in Genesis 3: our complete possession of redemption from physical illness will not be ours until Christ returns and we receive resurrection bodies...When people say that complete healing is 'in the atonement,' the statement is true in an ultimate sense, but it really does not tell us anything about when we will receive 'complete healing' (or any part of it).- Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology; Zondervan Publishing House, 1994; p. 1063. [as copied from Vincent Cheung's Biblical Healing (2012), p. 9-10]
Steve wrote: In Calvinism, God has predestined whatever happens. We don't know the future, but once events are past, that's infallible evidence of God's decretive will.
Agreed. Again, it was my mistake in not being clear how I used the word infallible.
The reason I qualified my statement ("To some degree, we can infer God's will from providence") is that knowing what God predestined isn't the same thing as knowing why he predestined it.
Agreed. That's why I make a distinction between God's Will of Decree and what I call God's Will of Device in one of my blogposts HERE.
I wrote "2. DEVICE (or intention, purpose)
This will [God's will of Device or Purposive will] explains God's purposes for His decrees which may be multivalent (i.e. with multi-purposes and levels). I'm using the word "device" in the sense of plan or plot. Webster's online dictionary gives as one of the definitions of "device" as "something devised or contrived". So, for example, God may decree the exact same calamity on two different people yet for opposite purposes. In the one case it's an expression of divine retributive punishment and in the other a case of divine chastisement and remedial fatherly discipline for the believer's betterment and good............"
CONT.
Knowing what God has predestined doesn't ipso facto give us any insight into God's rationale. His long-term objectives.
DeleteI think that's why we should never give up hope that God may heal us. Otherwise, the most consistent thing to do is stop going to a doctor if we're not cured after the 3rd or 7th time.
It is logically contradictory. It means Christians should cultivate false expectations.
There are different types of promises God makes. Some are more conditional than others. Some more central to God's plan for individuals and/or groups. For example, God's promise for sanctification is more central, primary and has greater priority than God's promise of healing. Yet, we're expected to pray and strive for moral sanctification even though physical sanctification is included in sanctification in the broadest sense of the word.
Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.- 1 Thess. 5:23
Also, while God has decreed every sin which we have ever or will ever commit (including those yet future), that's no excuse not to strive for greater and more consistent holiness. Similarly, one's state of sickness need not be stationary (indeed, sickness often progressively worsens). But just as sanctifiation can fluctuate better and worse, so sickness may do so on account of prayer for healing. Sometimes healing is like justification in the sense that it's instantaneous, other times it's progressive like sanctification (cf. the blind man whom Jesus prayed for twice, or the fig tree that progressively withered and died).
But that's special pleading. Many of our prayers are for the here and now, not the hereafter.
I anticipated that objection when I mentioned prayer for children.
So if the prayer request hasn't arrived or manifested in a current earthly fact, that means we didn't get way we prayed for, which is not what AP's prooftexts says.
I've never believed or said that we can pray for things irrespective of God's will, or commands or moral requirements. For example, we can't pray for having an adulterous relationship. We can't pray for something contrary to God's decrees. However, God's decrees regarding the future are hidden from us. Nevertheless, we have God's general will (dispositional will, if not also Revealed/preceptive will) in Scripture regarding things like healing. It's throughout Scripture. For example, Ps. 103:3; James 5:14ff; Exo. 15:26; 23:25; Matt. 8:16 which is an inspired commentary on Isa. 53 which includes physical healing. F.F. Bosworth's book Christ the Healer makes a better argument than I can make here.
AP is giving people like Nabeel false hope and false assurance. That results in a hard landing if their hopes are dashed.
DeleteI don't take the stand of classic Pentecostalism that God's will for healing is so simple and singular such that in EVERY sense and way it is God's unquestionable will that all be healed. Our expectancy doesn't obligate God to grant us what we desire. All prayer should always have the qualification if it be in accordance with God's wisdom and love, which may go contrary to our expectations or even God's general will. I don't think we should be lacking expectation when we pray for greater sanctification (though God may have decreed we commit murder 3 years from now). Similarly, I don't think we should be lacking expectation when we pray for healing.
"Our expectancy doesn't obligate God to grant us what we desire. All prayer should always have the qualification if it be in accordance with God's wisdom and love, which may go contrary to our expectations or even God's general will."
DeleteThat, however, is not what your prooftexts say. And that's a backdoor admission that it's not God's will to heal everyone.
"I think that's why we should never give up hope that God may heal us."
DeleteThere comes a point when it's too late for miraculous healing. Nabeel has had weeks of chemo. He prayed for miraculous healing. Didn't happen. He's now facing a month and a half of chemoradiation. Even if that destroys the cancer, it wouldn't be a miraculous cure. And after that he's facing a gastrectomy. There's a point beyond which one has passed the last exit for a miraculous cure. The prayer went unanswered every step of the way, it was ordinary providence and medical science from start to finish.
Even if God were to miraculously give him a spanking new, cancer free stomach after the chemo, chemoradiation, and gastrectomy, he didn't pray to go through all that hell. To the contrary, the prayer was to avoid all that.
That, however, is not what your prooftexts say. And that's a backdoor admission that it's not God's will to heal everyone.
DeleteYes, it's not God's will of decree to heal everyone. But if there are more than one kind of wills with God, then in those other types of wills God may will healing for all. As you know Piper believes there's a secondary sense in which God wills everyone to be saved. I don't see why that can't be extended to other aspects of salvation like healing. I see God's will of delight (what Sproul calls dispositional will) as at least one grounding for such universal healing. In addition to that, I also think the Bible offers healing according to one's faith. If true, then that means there's a secondary sense in which it's also God's preceptive will to heal the sick. So, for example, while Jesus sometimes sovereignly healed people (e.g. the invalid in John 5), He also often connected one's healing to their degree of faith. He would say things like "your faith has healed you" or "according to you faith let it be done to you" (Matt. 9:22; Matt. 9:28-29; Matt. 8:13; Matt. 17:19-20; Matt. 9:2; Matt. 15:28; Mark 5:34; Luke 8:48; Mark 9:23; Mark 5:36; Luke 8:50; Luke 7:9-10; cf. Acts 14:9). If that was true during His earthly ministry, I don't see why that's can't be true now. He even rebuked people for their lack of faith for healing or deliverance. Does that automatically condemn everyone who fails to be healed during this interadventual period? Maybe some, but definitely not all. We don't have Christ present with us bodily like those during Christ's earthly ministry. Surely having Christ here with us would bolster and boost our faith.
The prayer went unanswered every step of the way, it was ordinary providence and medical science from start to finish.
We can never know if it was only ordinary providence and medical science. Some of the improvement might have been due to extraordinary providence in combination with ordinary providence. I don't see why a miraculous answer to prayer couldn't be partial or progressive or incremental or why miraculous answers must be instantaneous and complete. Or why God couldn't combine extraordinary providence with ordinary providence. One possible example of such a combination could be the case of Bruce Van Natta: https://youtu.be/CMRwPyhhTXs
CONT.
Even if God were to miraculously give him a spanking new, cancer free stomach after the chemo, chemoradiation, and gastrectomy, he didn't pray to go through all that hell. To the contrary, the prayer was to avoid all that.
DeleteDavid had to go through hell before the promise that he would be king was eventually fulfilled.
Abraham waited years for God's promise of a son to be fulfilled. Surely that was difficult for him. Sometimes he doubted and that's why he had a child through Hagar. But seen from a wider perspective of his life, God's reckoned Abraham as having a steadfast faith. Just as David is described as having walked in integrity of heart and uprightness, doing according to all that God commanded, being a man after God's own heart (1 Kings 9:4; 3:14; 11:4, 6 ); despite the fact that he wasn't truly perfect.
As Paul says of Abraham:
19 [Abraham] did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb.20 No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God,21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised.- Rom. 4:19-21
If it wasn't immediately (as I read it), Joseph may have eventually inferred that his dream was divinely given and that he would one day rise above his brothers. If so, then the dream functioned as a virtual promise from God sometime in his life. Yet he nevertheless had to go through the hell of being accused of rape, jailed etc. I'm sure he would have preferred not to have gone through that hell. John the Baptist had doubts in prison whether he really was the forerunner of the Messiah. Presumably they were resolved before he was beheaded.
"For providence mirrors God's decretive will. The past is the record of God's plan for the world, up to that point."
ReplyDeleteGreat way of putting it.
I can't figure out something. If he concludes that God heals all who come to Him, then does he think most who claim to have prayed really haven't, at lesst not in faith? I can't help but think that the sort of thing described here can easily pave the way to the prosperity gospel at least as it applies to physical well-being. A twisted view of we have not because we ask not. Or maybe he has evolved to that view already? Given he can't deny that God hasn't healed all who'd claim to hsve come to Jesus, is he now saying or about to say that those people lacked strong enough faith? Very sad.
I can't figure out something. If he concludes that God heals all who come to Him, then does he think most who claim to have prayed really haven't, at lesst not in faith?
DeleteYes, that's due to a lack of faith. But since—as per Calvinism—faith is the gift of God, we shouldn't get to down on ourselves or (and especially) others if they don't get healed. By faith, I'm referring to both the "grace of faith" and the "gift of faith" that George Mueller distinguished (see my comments and Mueller quotes to Sivraj Jarvis above).
I can't help but think that the sort of thing described here can easily pave the way to the prosperity gospel at least as it applies to physical well-being.
The prosperity Gospel is GENERALLY right regarding healing and provision according to faith. They are wrong in assuming PARTICULARLY that it always excludes difficulties, persecution, martyrdom, sickness even poverty etc. God brought sickness to Job (Job 1:21-22; 2:10; 42:11 cf. Deut. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6; Ps. 119:71, 67, 75). I don't define prosperity as having millions of dollars. Prosperity is having enough to be able to fulfill God's assignment for you. So, for example, for some that might be just a bowl of rice once a day while he is imprisoned (according to God's assignment and will) for standing up for Christ. While, for another person God's will might be to prosper her to become a multi-millionaire so that she can fund missions, evangelism and apologetics. See the above quotations where Mueller virtually believed in prosperity according to faith.
Or maybe he has evolved to that view already? Given he can't deny that God hasn't healed all who'd claim to hsve come to Jesus, is he now saying or about to say that those people lacked strong enough faith? Very sad.
Was it cruel for Jesus to tell the father of the demoniac "If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes?" (Mark 9:23)? Was it cruel for Jesus to chastise Peter for not continuing to walk on water?
"Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?" "- Matt. 14:31
Was it cruel of Jesus to rebuke the disciples that it was because of their lack of faith that they couldn't deliver the demoniac even though they should have been able to?
"19 Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, "Why could we not cast it out?"20 He said to them, "Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you." "- Matt. 17:19-20
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGod's requirements are not based on our ability to perform them. That was one of the major points Luther made in his Bondage of the Will. Just because God commands perfect obedience (or in this case faith), doesn't mean we're naturally able to fulfill it. That's the Pelagian error. That's why Pelagius vehemently disagreed with Augustine's prayer, "Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." God's moral law isn't adapted to our abilities (fallen or redeemed).
DeleteSimilarly, God's conditional promises are not adapted to our ability to fulfill the conditions of faith (and/or obedience, if such is additionally required). God promised Abraham Isaac and then tested His faith by commanding him to sacrifice him. That approximately 24 hour period for Abraham was a hellish trial of faith. Sometimes faith requires action (e.g. Jesus telling the 10 lepers to go to the priests, or the blind man to wash off mud from his eyes; Naaman dipping in the Jordan 7 times, the Israelites circling Jerico etc. ).
As I quoted Calvin in my blogpost:
"You know however that our duties by no means depend on our hopes of success, but that it behooves us to accomplish what God requires of us, even when we are in the greatest despair respecting the results."--John Calvin, letter to Philip Melanchthon, March 5, 1555
(Jules Bonnet, ed., Letters of John Calvin, vol. 6, p. 158).