Sunday, August 19, 2012
Life Changes
I'm moving tomorrow. This place I've lived for the past 16 years is no longer my base of operations. That is moving to a 16x13 room at George Fox University, in Newburg. I'm ready for it, a change is welcome. Not that I don't like it here, or that it has worn it's welcome thin, but it's part of a natural process, which I'm happy to take part in! Plus amazing classes, which I can't wait to start.
God's Sovereignty and Man's Will
Lately I've been really interested in the interplay between God's sovereignty and man's free will. The majority of the time a topic like this arises, it becomes focused on Armenianism versus Calvinism. I want to go beyond that subject, important as it may be. As a friend recently mentioned, what we often understand theologically appears as a mystery when worked out in practical life. I think sometimes starting with a particular ideology in mind we lose valuable information. Holding to any particular "isms" too strictly can often stifle any new revelation that we initially think may cause conflict with our presuppositions.
What sparked my recent interest was something mentioned in a recent sermon by my father. He mentioned we should be grateful to the saints that came before us who passed the gospel down, through generations and seasons of persecution, to us. This is very true, and I began to think it may be important to specify what we are thankful for. Too often it is easy to suppose the implication is that we should be grateful to them for our salvation. That when we stand in heaven, we will approach these people with thankfulness that they brought us salvation, that because of them we are saved. Intentionally or not, I have seen this taken by people as though we should be grateful towards them for bringing us our salvation.
This is where the interplay between God's sovereignty amd man's will comes in. When we think about it in light of scripture, we see that no man is responsible for our salvation. It's not brought about by works. God's grace is responsible. If that saint, or missionary had not brought the gospel to us, God's grace would have found another way. Romans 1 speaks of God's revelation of His nature through the natural world, Genesis 14 of Melchizedek, not a Jew, but a High Priest of God, Acts 10 of Cornelius, a devout servant of God, though having never been told of Him, and Acts 16, of the Macedonian Man, crying out to God for someone to reach them. This is often called Natural Theology, those who are saved by Christ's grace, which they have come upon without the use of scripture. To be fair, we should specify between salvation through grace and the total gospel. Because it is also said in Romans 10 "how can they be saved unless someone is sent"? Many theologians interpret this passage as referring to the whole and complete gospel, as given by Special Theology, through scripture. These examples prove that God's grace can find its way to anyone, whether or not they are reached by a Christian.
I feel no need to be grateful towards any saint for bringing me knowledge of God's grace. If they had not, scripture demonstrates Grace would have found its way to me despite. What I do feel grateful for is that they were willing to bring the full gospel, which many would not know, as it comes specifically through scripture, thus fulfilling the biblical mandate. In the next life, I will not thank them saying, "because of your willingness I was saved!" It is because of God's grace I was saved. What I would say is, "thank you for your willingness, despite knowing my salvation didn't depend on you."
Now, let's bring it to the modern day, in our practical lives. It's been implied, through sermons and casual conversation, that when we feel the Spirit's influence to witness, and do not, that might have been their only chance. "They could die today, and you didn't share the gospel!" When I don't witness to someone, I don't feel guilty because of the implication that "because of my fear I'd risk letting someone spend eternity in hell." I feel guilty for disobeying God's conviction, for not allowing myself to be used by Him. I think it's a misguided concept that they could spend eternity in hell because you or I didn't witness to them. That person's salvation isn't determined by my obedience to God's commands, it's determined by God's grace and will, and their receptiveness to His Spirit.
To prove my point, if the evangelized's salvation were determinate by our obedience, God would be leaving people's salvation up to a third party's works, something that would cause a theological conflict. Salvation is between one man and God. There are numerous examples both in scripture and in our experience when someone is given numerous chances to change their ways and come to Him. He doesn't give up. He is faithful when we are unfaithful. How can their salvation, given without merit, be determined by your or my (a third party's) obedience to God's commands? If it was, it would paint a picture of a very petty, small God, who would withhold his grace to another, if His followers didn't do their duty. A picture of a God who is unable to reach someone unless we do it for Him. Luckily, salvation is determined by two things, grace and a willingness to follow Christ, and it's between the person and Christ, not a third party's obedience.
In the end, the distinction of what we are grateful for makes it all the more beautiful. Those saints and missionaries before me went, despite the fact that they didn't have to. My salvation did not rest in their hands, yet they were willing to be God's vessels. And contrary to what may be thought, it doesn't make it easier to neglect our duty. It doesn't make light of disobedience, it just places the honor where it is due; on God. If the love of Christ compels me to share and do not, I've done wrong. But we mustn't take one person's neglect to an illogical extent, which then condemns another. I think of the Macedonian man, crying out for someone to come to them. Natural Revelation of the truth had been given him, and yet he longed and cried out for more. The clarity and joy of the full gospel of Christ is such that it's behooves us to share such beauty with the world.
What sparked my recent interest was something mentioned in a recent sermon by my father. He mentioned we should be grateful to the saints that came before us who passed the gospel down, through generations and seasons of persecution, to us. This is very true, and I began to think it may be important to specify what we are thankful for. Too often it is easy to suppose the implication is that we should be grateful to them for our salvation. That when we stand in heaven, we will approach these people with thankfulness that they brought us salvation, that because of them we are saved. Intentionally or not, I have seen this taken by people as though we should be grateful towards them for bringing us our salvation.
This is where the interplay between God's sovereignty amd man's will comes in. When we think about it in light of scripture, we see that no man is responsible for our salvation. It's not brought about by works. God's grace is responsible. If that saint, or missionary had not brought the gospel to us, God's grace would have found another way. Romans 1 speaks of God's revelation of His nature through the natural world, Genesis 14 of Melchizedek, not a Jew, but a High Priest of God, Acts 10 of Cornelius, a devout servant of God, though having never been told of Him, and Acts 16, of the Macedonian Man, crying out to God for someone to reach them. This is often called Natural Theology, those who are saved by Christ's grace, which they have come upon without the use of scripture. To be fair, we should specify between salvation through grace and the total gospel. Because it is also said in Romans 10 "how can they be saved unless someone is sent"? Many theologians interpret this passage as referring to the whole and complete gospel, as given by Special Theology, through scripture. These examples prove that God's grace can find its way to anyone, whether or not they are reached by a Christian.
I feel no need to be grateful towards any saint for bringing me knowledge of God's grace. If they had not, scripture demonstrates Grace would have found its way to me despite. What I do feel grateful for is that they were willing to bring the full gospel, which many would not know, as it comes specifically through scripture, thus fulfilling the biblical mandate. In the next life, I will not thank them saying, "because of your willingness I was saved!" It is because of God's grace I was saved. What I would say is, "thank you for your willingness, despite knowing my salvation didn't depend on you."
Now, let's bring it to the modern day, in our practical lives. It's been implied, through sermons and casual conversation, that when we feel the Spirit's influence to witness, and do not, that might have been their only chance. "They could die today, and you didn't share the gospel!" When I don't witness to someone, I don't feel guilty because of the implication that "because of my fear I'd risk letting someone spend eternity in hell." I feel guilty for disobeying God's conviction, for not allowing myself to be used by Him. I think it's a misguided concept that they could spend eternity in hell because you or I didn't witness to them. That person's salvation isn't determined by my obedience to God's commands, it's determined by God's grace and will, and their receptiveness to His Spirit.
To prove my point, if the evangelized's salvation were determinate by our obedience, God would be leaving people's salvation up to a third party's works, something that would cause a theological conflict. Salvation is between one man and God. There are numerous examples both in scripture and in our experience when someone is given numerous chances to change their ways and come to Him. He doesn't give up. He is faithful when we are unfaithful. How can their salvation, given without merit, be determined by your or my (a third party's) obedience to God's commands? If it was, it would paint a picture of a very petty, small God, who would withhold his grace to another, if His followers didn't do their duty. A picture of a God who is unable to reach someone unless we do it for Him. Luckily, salvation is determined by two things, grace and a willingness to follow Christ, and it's between the person and Christ, not a third party's obedience.
In the end, the distinction of what we are grateful for makes it all the more beautiful. Those saints and missionaries before me went, despite the fact that they didn't have to. My salvation did not rest in their hands, yet they were willing to be God's vessels. And contrary to what may be thought, it doesn't make it easier to neglect our duty. It doesn't make light of disobedience, it just places the honor where it is due; on God. If the love of Christ compels me to share and do not, I've done wrong. But we mustn't take one person's neglect to an illogical extent, which then condemns another. I think of the Macedonian man, crying out for someone to come to them. Natural Revelation of the truth had been given him, and yet he longed and cried out for more. The clarity and joy of the full gospel of Christ is such that it's behooves us to share such beauty with the world.
All My Previous Posts
Just now coming back to the blog, I moved all the posts from years ago to a new blog, Earliest Writings, which can be found at http://iansearliest.blogspot.com/.
Friday, August 17, 2012
Old Testament & New Testament Contrast
One of the most common arguments one hears when discussing scripture with its critics is the attempt at using scripture against the Christian. It's a common and effective form of rhetoric; take your opponents own argument, and use them against him/her. In order to do so, however, one must fully understand said arguments. The problem arises when the critics often don't fully understand Biblical interpretation, as well as historical and cultural context. The most common example is citing the fact that the Bible forbids wearing clothing woven of several different fabrics, shaving the corners of your beard, and eating meat out of a dish which once contained milk as a valid argument against other Christian moral mandates. Or, when saying that God is merciful, and giving scriptures as support, the critic will cite examples of Israelite brutality "at the command of God". Here I want to look at the historical context of Old Testament vows, blessings, and contracts.
The Old Testament approach to vows, blessings, commandments and contracts is different than those practiced today. When Isaac blessed Jacob, having been deceived to think he was Esau, he did not retract the blessing and inheritance upon realizing his err. In modern legal terms, or more broadly in terms of "justice" he would have every right to retract. A vow made upon a false premise, one brought about by deception, can validly be seen as no vow at all. Another example is the man who gives thanks God, saying "As a thanksgiving offering I will sacrifice to you the first thing that walks out of my door". Well duh retard, it's your favorite daughter. Who or what else will walk out of a persons house? He made an incredibly foolish vow. Doesn't matter, has to kill his daughter, despite the fact that God hates human sacrifice. By today's standard of justice it would be determined that since the daughter did nothing wrong, she couldn't be held accountable with her life for her fathers foolishness.
Think however, of the biblical account describing where the Hebrews became established as a people and received God's law. They've just left Egypt, where they have lived for 400 years. Egypt: a land where an all-powerful pharaoh rules the land completely. His word is law, and punishment is harsh. They've been slaves without rights for hundreds of years. As an example, fast forward thousands of years to the American Reconstruction after the Civil War. Men like Booker T. Washington and George Washington Carver recognized that after hundreds of years of slavery, newly freed African slaves had no idea how to function in society. They didn't know how to care for themselves, they didn't know how to work without being forced, they didn't know how to educate themselves etc. Let's call it's PTSSD. Post Traumatic Slavery Stress Distorter.
I believe the same thing happened with the Hebrews as the new African-Americans: they whined to Moses, wanted to return to slavery for the protection and food, they cried for food, they cried for water, they cried for meat. So God gives them Mosaic law. An incredibly complex, detailed series of commands covering nearly every aspect of social, religious, governmental, and everyday health. There was no room for individual practice. There was no room for Romans 14. There was no room for individual influence under the Holy Spirit. How would they have been able to handle it? The freedom of the New Testament covenant would have been squandered and abused! It is reminiscent for them of that which they understand; authority. To us, it looks binding, oppressive and violent. It's no coincidence that the majority of the scriptures cited by Biblical critics as evidence of "contradiction", "brutality", and "oppression" come from Mosaic Law.
For hundreds of years God used this model, and we know that the nature of God never changes. He is the same "yesterday, today and forever". Yet the New Testament, which i the model and covenant for modern day Christians, is completely different. One of me main themes is the supremacy of grace through Christ over the law, given through Moses. It emphasizes freedom of the believer, rather than the oppression of the law. (Remember that when speaking of the law, I refer to Mosaic law). Paul explains that grace allows for a much wider level of variety in practice than the law. Romans 14 famously illustrates this. One man may eat anything, since his faith is strong. Another, who's faith is weak eats only vegetables. Whatever you do, do it in love with consideration for your brother, that you might not cause him to stumble. In most of Paul's epistles, there is a list of sins repeated. The list is very similar every time. It covers everything from murder, adultery, drunkenness, greed etc. If you've read the epistles, you no doubt can recall this list, it's the same moral code of conduct Paul chooses to give to every church. The rest of the New Testament, however, concerns itself with the individual problems of each church, most of which comes down to a disagreement between believers over how one should practice Christianity, and how one should mix with culture. Every time a subject such as this arises, Paul's answer is grace. Contrast this with the inability to eat meat from an animal with cloven hooves, wear clothes made of different materials at once, or using the same bowl to cook meat, or contain milk.
Another contrast is that we're told in the New Testament to test the spirits to see if they are of God. In order to do this, we're to question them according to scripture, to see if they speak truthfully. This practice doesn't exist in the Old Testament. People obey the word of God or an angel, without question, even when those commands seem sometimes contradictory to Gods nature, or word. Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac is a perfect example. God would later make commandments to the Jewish people forbidding human sacrifices. If He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, then he didn't change his mind after the Abraham event. In the New Testament, God speaks directly to men very little. Instead, the Holy Spirit acts as man's guide or Godly influence. What we see isn't a change in God's nature, but his methods towards man. God recognizes the ever changing norms and social status of humans, and while his nature of love, holiness, redemption and justice hasn't changed, his methods have evolved accordingly. Hence the sharp difference between redemption in the Old Testament, and New. Hence the ever changing covenants with His people. Hence the different methods of communication between God and man over the ages.
I dont claim this to be an answer to all the dioemmas presented by the shocking accounts of conquest and genocide of the conquest of Canaan. Nevertheless,it is still usefull.This helps clarify two theological, and practical problems. One, the seeming disparity in nature and conduct of God and His people in the Old Testament and New. And two, how we are to live as Christians in an ever evolving culture. The message of the New Testament would seem to imply that theological essentials should never be compromised, along with basic moral truths, but it treats culture rather liberally.
The Old Testament approach to vows, blessings, commandments and contracts is different than those practiced today. When Isaac blessed Jacob, having been deceived to think he was Esau, he did not retract the blessing and inheritance upon realizing his err. In modern legal terms, or more broadly in terms of "justice" he would have every right to retract. A vow made upon a false premise, one brought about by deception, can validly be seen as no vow at all. Another example is the man who gives thanks God, saying "As a thanksgiving offering I will sacrifice to you the first thing that walks out of my door". Well duh retard, it's your favorite daughter. Who or what else will walk out of a persons house? He made an incredibly foolish vow. Doesn't matter, has to kill his daughter, despite the fact that God hates human sacrifice. By today's standard of justice it would be determined that since the daughter did nothing wrong, she couldn't be held accountable with her life for her fathers foolishness.
Think however, of the biblical account describing where the Hebrews became established as a people and received God's law. They've just left Egypt, where they have lived for 400 years. Egypt: a land where an all-powerful pharaoh rules the land completely. His word is law, and punishment is harsh. They've been slaves without rights for hundreds of years. As an example, fast forward thousands of years to the American Reconstruction after the Civil War. Men like Booker T. Washington and George Washington Carver recognized that after hundreds of years of slavery, newly freed African slaves had no idea how to function in society. They didn't know how to care for themselves, they didn't know how to work without being forced, they didn't know how to educate themselves etc. Let's call it's PTSSD. Post Traumatic Slavery Stress Distorter.
I believe the same thing happened with the Hebrews as the new African-Americans: they whined to Moses, wanted to return to slavery for the protection and food, they cried for food, they cried for water, they cried for meat. So God gives them Mosaic law. An incredibly complex, detailed series of commands covering nearly every aspect of social, religious, governmental, and everyday health. There was no room for individual practice. There was no room for Romans 14. There was no room for individual influence under the Holy Spirit. How would they have been able to handle it? The freedom of the New Testament covenant would have been squandered and abused! It is reminiscent for them of that which they understand; authority. To us, it looks binding, oppressive and violent. It's no coincidence that the majority of the scriptures cited by Biblical critics as evidence of "contradiction", "brutality", and "oppression" come from Mosaic Law.
For hundreds of years God used this model, and we know that the nature of God never changes. He is the same "yesterday, today and forever". Yet the New Testament, which i the model and covenant for modern day Christians, is completely different. One of me main themes is the supremacy of grace through Christ over the law, given through Moses. It emphasizes freedom of the believer, rather than the oppression of the law. (Remember that when speaking of the law, I refer to Mosaic law). Paul explains that grace allows for a much wider level of variety in practice than the law. Romans 14 famously illustrates this. One man may eat anything, since his faith is strong. Another, who's faith is weak eats only vegetables. Whatever you do, do it in love with consideration for your brother, that you might not cause him to stumble. In most of Paul's epistles, there is a list of sins repeated. The list is very similar every time. It covers everything from murder, adultery, drunkenness, greed etc. If you've read the epistles, you no doubt can recall this list, it's the same moral code of conduct Paul chooses to give to every church. The rest of the New Testament, however, concerns itself with the individual problems of each church, most of which comes down to a disagreement between believers over how one should practice Christianity, and how one should mix with culture. Every time a subject such as this arises, Paul's answer is grace. Contrast this with the inability to eat meat from an animal with cloven hooves, wear clothes made of different materials at once, or using the same bowl to cook meat, or contain milk.
Another contrast is that we're told in the New Testament to test the spirits to see if they are of God. In order to do this, we're to question them according to scripture, to see if they speak truthfully. This practice doesn't exist in the Old Testament. People obey the word of God or an angel, without question, even when those commands seem sometimes contradictory to Gods nature, or word. Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac is a perfect example. God would later make commandments to the Jewish people forbidding human sacrifices. If He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, then he didn't change his mind after the Abraham event. In the New Testament, God speaks directly to men very little. Instead, the Holy Spirit acts as man's guide or Godly influence. What we see isn't a change in God's nature, but his methods towards man. God recognizes the ever changing norms and social status of humans, and while his nature of love, holiness, redemption and justice hasn't changed, his methods have evolved accordingly. Hence the sharp difference between redemption in the Old Testament, and New. Hence the ever changing covenants with His people. Hence the different methods of communication between God and man over the ages.
I dont claim this to be an answer to all the dioemmas presented by the shocking accounts of conquest and genocide of the conquest of Canaan. Nevertheless,it is still usefull.This helps clarify two theological, and practical problems. One, the seeming disparity in nature and conduct of God and His people in the Old Testament and New. And two, how we are to live as Christians in an ever evolving culture. The message of the New Testament would seem to imply that theological essentials should never be compromised, along with basic moral truths, but it treats culture rather liberally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
