I am going to spend this post studying John Howard Yoder and particularly his book The Politics of Jesus written in 1972.

Here is what Wikipedia says about him.

John Howard Yoder (December 29, 1927 – December 30, 1997) was a Christian theologian, ethicist, and Biblical scholar best known for his radical Christian pacifism, his mentoring of future theologians such as Stanley Hauerwas, his loyalty to his Mennonite faith, and his 1972 magnum opus, The Politics of Jesus

It is obvious from his books that Yoder is a pacifist who strongly believes that it is not God’s will for us to be constantly killing each other through politically invoked wars. Of his many books, the most widely recognized has undoubtedly been The Politics of Jesus; it has been translated into at least ten languages.

The book was written in 1972. In it, Yoder argues against the then popular views of Jesus, particularly those views held by Reinhold Niebuhr, which he believed to be dominant in the day. Niebuhr argued for he called Realism philosophy. Yoder felt this philosophy failed to take seriously the call or person of Jesus Christ. For me here is one of the most notable quotes from the book:
Recent systematic tradition tells us that we must choose between the Jesus of History and the Jesus of dogma. If Jesus is the divine Word incarnate, then what we will be concerned about is the metaphysical transactions by means of which he saved humanity by entering into it. We will then leap like the creed from the birth of Jesus to the cross. His teachings and his social and political involvement will be of little interest and not binding for us. (underlining is mine)

He goes on to say that we seek to understand the “Jesus of history” as well as the Jesus of dogma. In other words the life of Jesus was meant to teach us how to live our lives and was therefore a very important part of our existence.
Yoder attempted to demonstrate by the Gospel of Luke and parts of Paul’s letter to the Romans that, in his view, a radical Christian pacifism was the most faithful approach for the disciple of Christ. He argued that being Christian is a political standpoint, and Christians ought not ignore that calling. He believed the primary responsibility of Christians is not to take over society and impose their convictions and values on people who don’t share their faith, but to “be the church.” By refusing to return evil for evil, by living in peace, sharing goods, and doing deeds of charity as opportunities arise.
In my opinion The Politics of Jesus is a little dry and boring in places, but if you hang in there it is a book well worth reading. The book was named by evangelical publication “Christianity Today” as one of the most important Christian books of the 20th century. I’m not sure of that but for those interested in the philosophy behind Christian pacifism it is a good book to have on your shelf.

On the last post I let it be known that I am definitely not a Calvinist. I will give you a few more reasons on this post. Some time ago I read a book entitled Why I am not a Calvinists by Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell that very much influenced my views of Calvinism. For those of you who need some more info about Calvinists I suggest you look up the word on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism.

 Here is an excerpt from the book:

Does God love all of us and desire our well-being? Calvinists cannot answer this question in the affirmative without equivocation and inconsistency. The breathtaking vision of God’s Trinitarian love is obscured by the Calvinists claim that God passes over persons he could just as easily save and thereby consigns them to eternal agony. The exhilarating message of the gospel that should be good news to all sinners is muted by the Calvinist claim that only the elect are truly able to join the dance. While Scripture teaches that not all will come, the Calvinist account of why this is so ultimately goes back to God’s choice to save those persons rather than their refusal to accept the invitation. Indeed Calvinists hold that God’s sovereign choice not to save some sinners enhances his glory. By subordinating love to will, Calvinism fails to glorify God as he has revealed himself in history and ultimately in the incarnation of his Son.

This is one of the biggest problems I have with Calvinism that they put God’s power/will far above His love. They seem to be deathly afraid of the word “works” and therefore are not willing to even give man the power to accept God’s grace so they say it is God’s will that you are going to hell because He did not chose you for salvation. No matter how much debating of Calvinist theology I am exposed to I will not accept that position as it is totally foreign to my personal understanding of the teaching of Jesus Christ.  

Here is another quote that I found helpful:

The love of God as revealed in the incarnation is not a matter of mere words but the Word made flesh who actively seeks the well-being of his fallen children. A love that is truly and passionately promotes the well-being of the beloved, even when it is costly, is the sort of love that has existed from all eternity in the Trinity and was revealed in the life of Jesus. This kind of love, moreover, that God commands his children to by following his example (1 Jn 3:16-18). Because God loves ALL sinners in this fashion and actively works to promote their eternal well-being, this is rejoicing in heaven when one of them repents (Lk 15:7-10). A God who commands this sort of love and who positively delights in repentance of sinners surely has no need or desire to show his sovereign power by passing over some fallen humans, nor would he truly glorify himself by doing so. This is why we are not Calvinists. Our reasons are not merely personal but rather they are theological, philosophical and most of all biblical.

I don’t often do this but here are some bible verses that also reflect my views against Calvinism 

John 6:40

My Father wants all those who see the Son and believe in him to have eternal life. He wants me to bring them back to life on the last day.”

1 Tim 2:3-7

‎This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men — the testimony given in its proper time.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord isn’t slow to do what he promised, as some people think. Rather, he is patient for your sake. He doesn’t want to destroy anyone but wants all people to have an opportunity to turn to him and change the way they think and act.

  I am going to spend the next few posts reviewing books that I have recently read or reread. I must admit that the emphasis of these current reviews are to generally show areas that some, if not many, Christians believe but I tend to disagree with. As always, even if as I disagree with these things I will respect your not seeing things the same way. It is not for me to judge you, God will do that to all of us in His time.

This post is a book by RC Sproul entitled “Essential Truths of the Christian Faith”. For brevity I will be using some terms (Calvinism, Arminianism, Pelagianism) some of you may not be familiar with. I apologize in advance for that. I’m sure I will be covering those topics in a future post but do not want to take the space to do that here. I would encourage you to look them up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page .

 As usual, I am going to be the contrarian here and say this is a pretty good book but… I have read the book a couple of times and for the most part it is helpful. Generally the book is informative but there are exceptions to that. Mr. Sproul is indeed a gifted writer. As I read this book I had to keep reminding myself that Sproul is a good little Calvinist and there are other opinions on what God’s true theology might be. Mr. Sproul goes out of his way to mention that , yes, there are some who align with Calvinism who are “hyper-Calvinist” and therefore not representative of the true Calvinist doctrine but he never says the same thing of Arminian theology he puts them all in the same boat. That is patently Calvinist and patently unfair. I totally agree that “Open Theology” and Pelagianism is not from God and is, even if Sproul refuses to say it, “hyper-Arminism”.