To begin a discussion on freedom and sovereignty, we should be clear about what sovereignty is. I think we have a general assumption in the church that, because God made everything, he is ultimately responsible for everything he made. He has a plan for it. He controls it. Psalms 103:19 seems to support this assertion. The Lord has established his throne in the heavens, and his sovereignty rules over all. However, sovereignty is also attributed to the city of Damascus in Isaiah, and King Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel. In John 14, Jesus calls Satan the "ruler of this world." Really? How can any other power be ascribed such authority if, ultimately, God is ruler of all? There can be no doubt that God created free systems. Before men were even created, there was a rebellion in heaven and a third of the angels chose to leave the authority of God for the authority of Lucifer. One could say that God intended such a thing from the beginning--a Willy Wonka and Slugworth scenario--but perhaps the truth is just as simple as it is presented. They didn't want to be under God's thumb. Have you ever felt that way? Anyone? Anyone? Then God creates man, another type of free creature. Before long, man has rebelled, and God is setting new parameters for their relationship. In Romans 1, Paul talks about God turning man over to his own depravity, as if to say, "Fine. If you think you can do it better, go ahead." But does that mean God is no longer responsible for these people? Are they truly free of him? In all of the free systems of creation, there are rulers and authorities. From fish to angels, there is a struggle for power and authority. These "ranks" are clearly seen in creation (just watch the Dog Whisperer) and written about in scripture. Life is dominated and defined by these struggles. Living in a Democracy, we participate in this struggle every day. Who is in charge? What authority do they have? How can we have more personal freedom, more rights? Should we rebel? Should we impeach? Jesus talks about this struggle in his parable of the strong man's goods. He says, "If you want to plunder the strong man's possessions, you must first bind the strong man." In other words, you must be stronger. In the spiritual realm, this has nothing to do with steroids and everything to do with authority. When God created man and told him to fill the earth and subdue it, there was some authority given there. The fact that a Spirit of Truth is given to counteract the Father of Lies proves, to some degree, that our freedom remains. Spiritual powers are asking us to trust them, to relinquish our freedom and place it in their control. Apparently, this is our choice. If we surrender our freedoms to God, we live. If not, we die. Spiritually speaking. But above all created beings is one uncreated being. The strongest of the strong men. The ultimate authority. God didn't ask permission to send his son into the devil's world (both Jesus and Paul claimed this), but the devil had to ask permission to "sift Peter like wheat." There is no Biblical evidence that the devil has to ask permission to deal with people that belong to him. Only those that belong to God. Here is my opinion. Feel free to weigh in. God's sovereignty means that no one can tell him what to do. He is the only being that has no authority over him. The ONLY being. That means that if he wants to do something he can go ahead and do it. If God wants to create the world and let it spin alone in the universe, that is his prerogative--and he would still be considered sovereign! Sovereignty means that God can do whatever he wants. Rather than assuming that God is controlling everything, it is better to ask: What does God WANT to do? And don't assume the answer. Food for thought: Why would Jesus pray, "Thy will be done on earth as is it in heaven"? Wouldn't God's sovereignty assume that God's will is being done on earth the same as in heaven?
About Me
- John Barnts
- If you would like to get on a Frank Update e-mail list, send your request to johnb(at)villagechristian.org. You may also use that address for private questions or comments.
13 comments:
I think.....God is on the throne ruling and reining in heaven and Jesus is telling us how to pray,to desire that He rule and reign in our hearts here on earth.
Interesting points. First, I agree that God's sovereignty means that He is not accountable to anyone. If He wants to create a rodent with a duck-like bill, webbed feet, and a tail like a beaver, His authority isn't a question. He has a reason to create the Duck-Billed Platypus and He is the ultimate power and authority in the universe, so He did.
However, I think that we should still assume that God is in control of everything. But not like a puppet-master pulling strings - this goes here, that goes there. But rather as a Father watching His children playing on a swing set knowing that His child is going to make the decision to jump out of the swing, land on their tush, and knock the wind out of themselves. Was He still in control? Absolutely, He could have yelled at the child and said "DON'T" but control sometimes means to release it and let ourselves be hurt in order to learn. God's control and sovereignty doesn't remove our freedom, it only reinforces it.
We should always ask what God wants and work towards that goal in our lives, whether work, personal, church, or family related; our hope secured in the freedom of and the submission to the Creator of the world.
Last, it is obvious that God's will wasn't being done here on earth in the days of Jesus (or today). To teach us to pray "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" I think we should remember Jesus' perspective. He came from Heaven where when God said "Go and Do" it was "gone and done". Even in our willingness to obey, don't we still all drag our feet at times and go "NOOOO, I don't wanna and you can't make me" only to find out that we do it later in protest. Imagine what it would be like to obey Him and His will the same way it will be in heaven! How amazing that will be!!!
I sense an interesting contradiction. Most Christians say that God is in control and does everything for a reason. However, they also pray like crazy, trying to resist temptation, asking for healing, asking for direction, and so on. Why not just relax?
In the book, This Present Darkness, we see a God that seems caged. The devil is running rampant in a small town, but God must wait until his people pray him out of his cage. Then God runs rampant. It seems that, in the perspective of most Christians, God's sovereignty is used more as a term of comfort than reality.
If God truly is working all things together according to his perfect will, what is the point of prayer? Or the devil for that matter? They become as useless as farming tools on a McDonalds menu.
(I have more posts coming on this by the way, so these are just initial thoughts to stir the pot)
You pot stirrer, you!
I never actually thought of it as a contradiction, but can see how it could be. If God was working all things towards His perfect will, why allow humans (or angels) to have free will? I think since sin entered the picture, God is working towards restoring His perfect will which will be completed after Jesus' return.
I don't think that God's original dream for humankind was the fall of man and the death of His son. God has many times been seen to change his mind (i.e. agreeing with Abraham that if they could find one good person in Sodom/Gomorrah, he wouldn't destory it; God telling Moses that he was going to destroy Israel and start over with him until Moses pleaded with Him not to).
His perfect will is a much grander scheme than our little puny brains can handle. We have probably messed it up more times than we have helped it.
We have total and perfect freedom in Christ - and because of that freedom, I choose to submit myself to His sovereignty.
It does sound like a contradiction. How do we explain that?
How do we, the Church, come to our conclusions about these kinds of questions? Answer: by diligently studying the Scriptures and learning from pastors that rightly divide the Word of Truth and by being sharpened by others in the Body as we fellowship with them. This way our conclusions are primarily based upon the written Word and not what we think “ought” to be true. Jesus told the Pharisees that they erred because they knew not the Scriptures; WE err, too, due in large part to the same reason (sin affecting our ability to understand the Truth being the other main reason). It is absolutely clear from Scripture that God is ABSOLUTELY in control of every moment, so when we read that God “changed His mind” or “repented” we must understand that Scripture interprets Itself (and governs other Scriptures that may seem to be “incongruent” at first blush) AND that God used many different people with their different styles of writing to record His Truth. From a particular author’s point of view, it may have seemed that God DID acquiesces to his (or another’s) petition but this does not mean that God did not already ordain everything to happen the way it did/is happening. The question was posed, “If God truly is working all things together according to his perfect will, what is the point of prayer? Or the devil for that matter?” and “Most Christians say that God is in control and does everything for a reason. However, they also pray like crazy, trying to resist temptation, asking for healing, asking for direction, and so on. Why not just relax?” Again (referencing my other posts), we MUST answer these theological questions BIBLICALLY and not philosophically. The answer to these questions is very simple: we (strive to) act to obey God and bring glory to Him. That’s it. We pray simply because God commands us to pray for one another. If Christ “is our life” (Colossians 3:4) then it is our desire to OBEY Him. Obedience like this also demonstrates that GOD is God and we are not; it is humble submission, which is a very good thing. Why not just “relax” when it comes to spreading the Gospel, for example? Because we are “bought with a price” and it is our goal to strive to please the Lord Jesus, Who purchased us with His own Blood. We do not belong to ourselves but to our Master; therefore, we do not seek to satisfy ourselves but Him. Our WHOLE PURPOSE in life is to bring glory to our Master and Lord…and He commands us to pray and spread the Gospel and, by doing so, He allows us to enter into His work through the “means” of our obedience. In other words, according to His decree from eternity past, when we pray, He will respond (according to His own will) and when we share the Gospel with a lost person (God’s enemy) then He gives spiritual life to those He desires. He ordains the “ends” (people entering into Life from Death, for example) AND the “means” (His Church spreading the Gospel to a dying world).
The devil exists for the SAME purpose any OTHER creature exists: to bring glory to God. Think about this: the angels were created as holy beings; sinless. Their purpose was (and is today) to glorify God, to serve Him and worship Him. When the one-third of them fell, they were INSTANTLY judged with no hope of redemption; there would be NO CHANCE OF REDEMPTION offered to any of them…ever. But there was much more to God’s character that He evidently wanted to be glorified. Enter: the human race, upon which He WOULD show grace and mercy and redemption. So, the angels were created perfect (and God was glorified), some of them sinned and He judged them (and He was glorified), God created man with the capacity to choose sin and he did and was judged for it (and God was glorified) and mankind is the recipient of the common grace that God shows to all men by causing rain to fall on the just and the unjust, for example (and He is glorified) and He extends particular, saving grace upon some (and He is glorified). Therefore, so far as we know, He has created everything in time and space that is necessary for Him to receive all the glory He is due. AT THE END OF TIME, He is going to create a New Heavens and New Earth WITHOUT the possibility of sin EVER affecting our existence and His Church will forever worship and discover Him throughout eternity (Jeremiah 32:37-40, Ezekiel 36:26) ((and He will be glorified)). THIS is the ultimate purpose for the Creation and all that has/will transpire within it. Soli Deo Gloria!
David,
I have been working at a Presbyterian church the past six years (I am a musician) and working at a Christian school where a majority of the instructors are Calvinist. I recognize your slant, though I'm sure most Reformed people don't see it as a "slant" but a straight-forward approach to the word of God.
Let me assure you, I have traveled these roads in both directions (Arminian and Calvinist) and have spent much time poring over the works of Calvin, Luther, Sproul, Piper, White, and Horton, among others. Every time I would ask my pastor a question, he would recommend a book. I would read it, ask more questions, and get more book recommendations.
However, the ends of some of these trails of thought can lead to some very dark places where God looks a lot like the Devil. He can look like a liar (expressing emotions and hopes about things through prophets that he clearly does not intend to fulfill), a manipulator (changing hearts to accomplish damnation or salvation to appease his wrath and mercy), and a braggart (all for my glory). That's the exact nature of Satan. Jesus was not like that. In fact, he called the Jews the children of the devil for having those very qualities.
When God is made to look like the devil, I quickly take a U-Turn, assuming that I'm coming to wrong conclusions. God cannot act contrary to his nature. As I'm turning, I see a sign in my rear-view mirror where Calvin posted his explanation for the dead end: "These things are hidden in the mystery of His sovereign will."
In other words, when Calvin saw the bottom lines of his arguments (he was a lawyer, and heavily influenced by Augustine) that would make God a tyrant, he just shrugged his shoulders and said, "That's what the Bible says, we'll never understand it."
This is one of Calvin's bottom lines that cannot be ignored: God creates some men for the strict purpose of damning them. And why? To appease his wrath and accomplish judgment. That's like me making a faulty cup just to smash it for being faulty. That makes me look good, how?
There are plenty of happy Arminians that read the same Bible and ignore the Calvinist verses, and plenty of Calvinists that ignore the Arminian verses.
Calvinist don't believe that God is not willing for any to perish, as the Bible clearly states. Or that God loved the entire world enough to send his Son to save it. They have to insert the words "the elect" into about a hundred verses to make sense of God's love for some people. It's ridiculous. However, if you're reading these posts, you'll see that I am not a strict Arminian either.
When my Buddhist uncle reads the words of Jesus, he sees Buddhism. When a Calvinist reads Jesus, he sees Calvinism. The key is to let the Holy Spirit guide your understanding. Don't just pray for clarity then assert a system that pushes his activity out completely. Read with a calm, submissive mind and assume nothing. Let him speak or not speak. Then you'll begin to see.
Calvin read the scripture through Augustine's glasses. Try not to read scripture through Calvin's glasses. Things can get foggy, and God's white robes can start looking gray, which we redefine as "the new white."
Hey John,
I would argue that we get confused about God (or what WE THINK He SHOULD look like) when we approach the Word with our presuppositions and/or traditions in force. I have mentioned this several times before but it cannot be ignored. When we read texts of Scripture and understand them to reveal God as a liar, manipulator or a braggart, it is usually because we PRESUPPOSE many things: the text should be understood from our 21st Century perspective, it ought to be easily understood with minimal “work” on our part, that God is on the same “plane” as man and is, therefore, to be regarded/judged the same way we make judgments on people, that God is not worthy of the claim He is making or the attitude He is demonstrating, etc. Using the examples you cited, (and I am still interested in a response from you regarding the Jeremiah and Ezekiel verses I cited in “The Ruler of This World”) to say that some texts teach that He is a liar PRESUPPOSES (at least) that we are considering the text without bias AND that we fully understand it (I acknowledge that you don’t actually conclude that God is a liar, etc. but do a “U-turn” when they SEEM to be saying that…but hear me out); to say that He is a manipulator PRESUPPOSES (at least) that He doesn’t have the right to do what He is causing to happen; and to say that He is a braggart PRESUPPOSES (at least) that He is UNWORTHY of acting solely for His own glory. It is by employing the literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutic that I mentioned in other posts that we put space between our own biases and what the text actually means. My personal experience was of “fighting” these Sovereignty Issues for a period of about 3 years before finally succumbing to them as the Truth of Scripture. I was not coerced by anyone and did not seek to find acceptance by any person, rather, upon reading and re-reading Scripture, I could not ignore the texts that seemed to contradict each other as I understood them. I knew that, if I found contradictions, then the problem was with my understanding, not with God’s Word. The truth of the matter is that I PRESUPPOSED that God is powerful enough to know what He intended to communicate, to keep His Word preserved and to help His children makes sense of the “things revealed” (Deuteronomy 29:29) rather than leaving them to believe that man tainted the pure word of God over the centuries, that many of the things “revealed” are actually “the secret things”, that there ARE contradictions taught in the Bible, etc.
I do not endeavor to be called a Calvinist. I have never read the Institutes and do not desire to be aligned with John Calvin or anyone else. My desire is to please my Savior and to understand His Word. Men are fallen and ALL are imperfect. Luther had, in my estimation, an unbiblical view of the Jewish race but I deeply respect his work in reforming the Church. Calvin was also a mere man with whom I wouldn’t expect to agree at every point; the same holds true (potentially) with ANY person.
To use an example about Calvin that you cited, you said, “This is one of Calvin's bottom lines that cannot be ignored: God creates some men for the strict purpose of damning them. And why? To appease his wrath and accomplish judgment. That's like me making a faulty cup just to smash it for being faulty. That makes me look good, how?” Using philosophy, tradition and what we presuppose to be true about all things concerning the matter, it may seem “unfair” or “unjust” or “un-whatever.” If we use our correct hermeneutic and put aside our biases, then we can simply believe in faith that the following is true: “What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And HE DID SO TO MAKE KNOWN THE RICHES OF HIS GLORY UPON VESSELS OF MERCY, WHICH HE PREPARED BEFOREHAND FOR GLORY, EVEN US, WHOM HE ALSO CALLED…Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something on the wheel. But the vessel that he was making of clay was spoiled in the hand of the potter; so he remade it into another vessel, AS IT PLEASED THE POTTER TO MAKE. Then the word of the LORD came to me saying, ‘Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?’ declares the LORD. ‘Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel’” (Romans 9:22-23 and Jeremiah 18:3-6). The Apostle Paul even brings up the Hypothetical Objector in Romans 9:19-21, “You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?’ ON THE CONTRARY, WHO ARE YOU, O MAN, WHO ANSWERS BACK TO GOD? The thing molded will not say to the molder, ‘Why did you make me like this,’ will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?” Unfortunately, MUCH of the professing Western Church is aligned with this Objector and NOT with God, Who 1) has acted in this manner often throughout Scripture, 2) has never revealed that He is obligated to give an account of His actions to anyone, and 3) is ENTIRELY worthy to do as He pleases, since He is HOLY, JUST AND PERFECT…unlike any man.
I do not believe the Bible is divided into Arminian verses and Calvinist verses, rather that it is Truth without contradictions. You said that the Bible clearly states that God is not willing for “any” to perish and I would agree. But the question that is begged is, “who are the ‘ANY?’” By employing our l-g-h hermeneutic we FOLLOW THE PRONOUNS in 2 Peter 3:3-9, “Know this first of all, that in the last days MOCKERS will come with THEIR mocking, following after THEIR own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.’ For when THEY maintain this, it escapes THEIR notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not let this one fact escape YOUR notice, BELOVED, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward YOU, not wishing for ANY to perish but for all to come to repentance.” We see that, by following the pronouns, the text defines the “any” as the “Beloved;” that is, the Elect. God is not willing that any of the Elect perish but that all of them come to repentance.” Peter is CLEARLY mentioning 2 groups of people: mockers and the Beloved, to whom he is speaking. Much, much more could be said concerning this. I don’t believe that God sent His Son to save the entire world because the Scriptures CLEARLY (when interpreted with a l-g-h hermeneutic) do not teach it, NOT because anyone else held/holds the position. Jesus said in John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that ((‘all the believing ones’ OR ‘all the ones believing’)) in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” There is no Greek word for “whosoever” but, for the sake of a translation that is easy to understand, most English versions use the word “whosoever” or “whoever” which can imply that it is entirely up to any person to believe. Let me posit this question to anyone who professes Christ as their Lord and Savior: Why did you accept the Lord Jesus whereas your neighbor didn’t? Are you more spiritual than the one who rejects Christ? Are you more intellectual or more sensitive to such things? The answer is: there is NOTHING special about anyone who accepts Christ. The fact is they are called (Romans 8:28-30, John 1:12-13) and are given the faith and grace to believe (Ephesians 2:8-9) and that they are given repentance (2 Timothy 2:25) through the preaching of the Word (James 1:18, 1 Thessalonians 2:13). There are MANY, MANY Scriptures that teach this; too many to list now but I would be happy to cut and paste them later if it warrants doing. It is because of these many Scriptures—the ones I could not get away from—that led me to finally submit to this truth. Let’s face it, we are taught from the cradle to the grave that WE control our destiny; that if we work hard enough for something then our “payoff” is that for which we strove; this is a CULTURAL “truth.” The BIBLICAL Truth is that every human deserves God’s wrath—right now—and God extends grace to some, but is in NO WAY OBLIGATED to do the same to everyone. This is what the Whole of Scripture teaches but our presuppositions and traditions refute this vehemently. This kind of teaching is an affront to man’s pride…but is biblical nonetheless.
People may “see” what they wish in any given text, but if it is incongruous with other texts or the tone of the rest of the Scriptures, then they must acknowledge that there is a problem with their theology, NOT just simply regard the Bible to mean one thing to one person and another to someone else. And I agree that we should not view the Word through ANY “system.” We SHOULD, however, use the proper “tools” of biblical interpretation to arrive at our conclusions. It is important to remember also that only those with the indwelling Spirit of God can understand the Scriptures; a Buddhist or any other lost person CANNOT understand them (1 Corinthians 2:14).
I do not “see” the Bible through anyone else’s lenses; this is true because I have not read anyone else by whom to be “swayed.” Your admonition not to read Scripture through other’s lenses because “things can get foggy” is a bit ironic, I think. I understand the Scriptures to teach many different SIMULTANEOUS truths that fly in the face of man’s pride and man’s culture…but do not see anything “foggy.” God is loving and merciful AND He is wrathful, He commands that EVERYONE repents BUT only gives saving grace to those that He desires to do so, He holds man accountable for his actions AND uses man sinfulness to accomplish His desires. There is nothing “foggy” about any of these truths because there is overwhelming Scriptural evidence of these things. I cannot merely label them as “foggy” or “erroneous” because I do not like them somehow. “I” am not the Straight Stick of Truth, the Word of God is.
David,
I have so much to say in response that I'm not even sure this is the most appropriate place to write it. The truth is, I have read the entire scriptures at least 15 times, I have been studying and teaching these things for the past 13 years in my home bible study, and I absolutely share your same passion to make sure things are contextually correct and honorable to God's nature and character.
Despite the large number of posts on this site, I have not actually begun to teach anything. I have only been "stirring the pot" and drawing interest and opinions out to the open. I plan to start teaching on my next post.
Now, assuming you have read the Bible with great care, you must have seen God's seemingly turbulent personality in the prophets. In one case, he urges ("Come let us reason together...") in another case, he encourages (you will be called, "my delight is in her," and your land, " married", for the LORD delights in you), in another he condemns (behold, I dry up the rivers with my rebuke, I make the sea a wilderness), and in the verses you cited, he asserts his dominion and absolute authority.
You can't choose one of these qualities and submit the others to it. Jesus was equally passionate. Take for example the case of the Caananite woman where one moment he was calling her a Gentile dog, and the next he was impressed by her faith, and the next he was casting a demon out of her daughter. There are many cases in the prophets where God seems to be vascilating between his love for Israel and his frustration with their wayward hearts.
Have you ever met a lover before? If so, you can understand how God acts and reacts in scripture. Whenever these "dominion rants" emerge, they are always in response to a complaint or rejection of him, they are not simply statements of theology.
However, even though everything God says about himself is true, how often does he soften up and make promises like he did in the verses you mentioned, verses of hope: "In those days I will take out your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will write my law on your hearts..." He is telling them about the coming of the spiritual kigdom, about the new covenant. It is a passage of hope, not manipulation. Besides, the people he was talking to didn't live long enough to receive those things. He was talking about his intention for their descendants.
Of course, we see that the descendants rejected his offer, so God had to go into the "streets and alleys" to invite people to join. In other words, he had to graft the Gentiles into the new vine because the Jews rejected him and ultimately killed him. Paul said in Romans 11 that it was because of their disobedience that they were grafted out. But then he warns the Gentiles not to get too arrogant or then can more easily be grafted out and the Jews grafted back in.
In fact, the entire context of the verses you quoted from Romans 9 had to do with this sad fallout of the Jewish nation. It was the fig tree that wasn't ripe. It was the wedding guests that didn't show. Many of the Jews missed the shift from physical nation to spiritual nation, abandoning the rich promises and heritage they had. Paul writes quite a bit about this in Romans.
However, Paul goes on to say that, ultimately, this rejection will turn out for the salvation of the whole world because the Gentiles will receive the gospel, then the Jews will ultimately get jealous and return, allowing the gospel to spread to the entire world.
When Paul rants about "How can you tell God what to do?" and talks about the potter and the clay, it is just like the rants in Job and the prophets. He is basically reminding the people that, despite how they feel, God can do whatever he wants, however he wants, no matter how evil or wrong it may seem to be. That is his perogative. In that, David, I think we would all agree.
But, for me, this is where I begin to see warning flags when reading your posts. You seem to have a very dear relationship with the scriptures, but I don't sense a strong connection with God Himself. I'm not challenging your Christianity, I'm just asking if you truly know him. How often have you brushed up against his personality? How much has He spoken to you? When that relationship is in place, the fear and love of God that you experience FOR REAL can help you gain a clear perspective of why and when God says what he says. There is no contradiction, because God loves passionately, which means he responds in grace, mercy, or judgment depending on the nature of the relationship.
Examine the relationships in scriptures, not just the theology. Again, if you want pure theology, you need to look at sermons, don't pick through prophetic rants, poems, or stories, not that there is nothing to be gained from observing the personality of God and man interacting. Far from it!
I hope my challenge does not upset you. I don't mean it to. And feel free to deny my assertion outright. In 1998 I believed EXACTLY what you have been writing. But since my relationship with God became more genuine, my perspective began to change. He is a lot more like a real person to me now than a distant, unknowable deity that rules the earth in the mystery of his will.
Hey John,
Such is often the case with written communication, it seems that we haven’t, well, communicated. And to be FRANK ;), is seems that you’re being extremely presumptuous about my “experience” with the Lord. It looks as if I’ve been “type cast,” as it were. Apparently, you had a particular experience in a Reformed fellowship and you are assuming that THAT is exactly “where” I am coming from. It also appears that your experience (or perhaps your FEELINGS about your experience) are hindering your ability to just consider what I’ve taken the time to post and NOT presume anything “beyond” what I’ve said. When you say, “You can't choose one of these qualities and submit the others to it. Jesus was equally passionate” I wonder if you remember that I said, “I understand the Scriptures to teach many different SIMULTANEOUS truths that fly in the face of man’s pride and man’s culture…but do not see anything “foggy.” God is loving and merciful AND He is wrathful, He commands that EVERYONE repents BUT only gives saving grace to those that He desires to do so, He holds man accountable for his actions AND uses man sinfulness to accomplish His desires.” My point was that God IS loving, merciful, longsuffering, just, holy, AND wrathful, jealous, sovereign, etc. I was using the Scriptures that I used to address the topic that the blog was addressing…NOT to demonstrate that I believe God is an “unknowable deity that rules the earth in the mystery of his will”; it grieves me to think someone could endeavor to understand the Word and walk away with such an opinion of God. Frankly, to conclude THAT from what I’ve posted is quite a leap. Now, perhaps you know people who would agree with what I’ve posted and WHO DO view God this way…it STILL is not what I articulated. I made the point, for example, that Jesus was/is passionate by the way He wept over the fact that the Jewish Leaders were not allowing those under their authority to learn about the true Messiah EVEN THOUGH the Triune God of Creation WAS/IS sovereign over the situation. An dispassionate, unrelational God-Man would not have acted thus. And I would argue that God did not vacillate between His love and frustration for Israel but CONTINUED to love them DURING His frustration…for His Name’s sake: “For the sake of My name I delay My wrath, and for My praise I restrain it for you, in order not to cut you off. Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tested you in the furnace of affliction. FOR MY OWN SAKE, FOR MY OWN SAKE, I WILL ACT; FOR HOW CAN MY NAME BE PROFANED? AND MY GLORY I WILL NOT GIVE TO ANOTHER” (Isaiah 48:9-11). This does NOT demonstrate that He is distant or unknowable; it DOES show that He is passionate about His Chosen AND that He is acting ULTIMATELY for His Own glory AND that He is WORTHY of doing so.
Another way I would respond to your saying, “You can't choose one of these qualities and submit the others to it” is to say that you cannot ignore sovereignty as expressed in the Text of Scripture so as to emphasize any/other characteristic(s) of God. The Scriptures “paint” a complete picture of the Nature of God; all of His characteristics, but to try to emphasize man’s supposed autonomous freedom and/or to try to demonstrate that God is as whimsical and/or reactionary as man is to discredit/ignore what Scripture DOES TEACH about God’s sovereignty. We MUST consider ALL the truths that are taught in the Word concerning God’s Nature whenever one of them is being highlighted by the Text…nothing more, nothing less.
I wholeheartedly AGREE with you that the Jeremiah and Ezekiel texts I cited were about hope. It is MOST CERTAINLY a hopeful, encouraging promise! I NEVER articulated nor intended to convey that I felt that God was being “manipulative.” The fact is, He reveals JUST HOW He will bring about this promise concerning Israel. It ISN’T because of ANYTHING that Israel is going to do (because they—or any people—could never return to God on their own initiative((Romans 8:7-8))); it IS due to what GOD IS GOING TO DO. God says to Israel in Jeremiah 13:23, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots ((answer: NO))? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil ((which I WHY God will have to give new spirits and hearts of flesh)). Verses 24-25 reveal that God judged Israel by scattering them “like drifting straw to the desert wind.” He establishes in Jeremiah 6:10 that Israel CANNOT listen to Him but goes on throughout the Book in judgment (for not listening to Him) AS WELL AS pleading with Israel to return to Him. What a PASSIONATE, COMPASSIONATE GOD Who would chose ANY PEOPLE GROUP OR INDIVIDUAL PERSON to set His love upon them and to chase after them even though they loved their sin! You know, the Scriptures don’t need me to defend God’s mercy, love, compassion, passion, etc; ALL of His attributes are there to be seen and to inspire awe and reverence and great love! So, the Jeremiah and Ezekiel verses I referenced ARE eternally hopeful and encouraging, which was my ultimate point. Praise God for His sovereignty to do such a thing for a HELPLESS people!
I honestly do not know how you could come to your conclusion when you wrote: “You seem to have a very dear relationship with the scriptures, but I don't sense a strong connection with God Himself.” The Scriptures are WHERE we learn WHO God is…so that we know how to relate to Him…so that we can LOVE and obey HIM (2 Timothy 3:16, Hebrews 1:1-2, 2 Peter 1:3). Jesus, the Word, is the Standard BY WHICH we measure all of our “experiences.” The Word tells us just how caring and compassionate is our Savior, that, because of what He has done for us, we may go confidently before the throne of grace to receive mercy and grace in time of need (Hebrews 4:16); I TRUST the fact/Truth that my Savior is willing AND able to meet me and help me in the many areas I need it and DEPEND upon this Truth DAILY. And to know the Scriptures IS theology; there is no way “around” it (as if there would be some REASON to avoid it). We are exhorted to know the Word (Colossians 3:16) and to desire/teach sound doctrine, which is “theology” (1 Timothy 4:6). I would respectfully caution you NOT to avoid sound doctrine for the sake of experience: “for false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order to lead astray, if possible, the elect” (Mark 13:22).
In response to your statement, “Again, if you want pure theology, you need to look at sermons, don't pick through prophetic rants, poems, or stories” I would respond by saying that we don’t necessarily learn sound doctrine (theology) from sermons, while that is certainly the hope. As I said, knowing the Word of God and rightly dividing It IS theology and EVERY Christ-professor is CALLED TO THIS. And by the terms “prophetic rants,” “poems” and “stories” I wonder if you are revealing a low view of Scripture. “ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired by God and PROFITABLE for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness SO THAT THE MAN OF GOD MAY BE ADEQUATE, EQUIPPED FOR EVERY GOOD WORK” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Don’t “shelve” or diminish the necessity of the Truth for experience because, again, the Word DEFINES godly experiences and the two CANNOT be “divorced” from one another.
Finally, when you say, “But since my relationship with God became more genuine, my perspective began to change” I truly wonder HOW your relationship “became more genuine.” Was it by embracing the Scriptures all the more or was it by distancing yourself from a biblical focus…or, perhaps, neither? I am genuinely curious.
Well, so much for written communication! ;) I hope this clears up some things. I am certainly aware that some Reformed congregations can have a joyless, academic and legalistic flavor to them; THAT is a pity…AS WELL AS disobedience to the One they profess…
Hey David,
You're right about my experience at my church. The people here snicker at the idea that we can (or even need to) hear from God. They think that, because we have the Scriptures, we need nothing more to know what is required of us, or who God is. In fact, to hear from God is dangerous. How do you know if you're not listening to a demon? Or your own mind? Or your emotions? It's not safe.
Last year a man came to me and shared stories of how it seemed that God was working him through a situation where he had been a slave to his father for 40 years. He said that he felt God was speaking clearly to him, but he didn't want to admit it. When I heard his stories, I was convinced that God was trying to reach him and interact with him. He wanted to bring him to freedom in this one area with some specific guidance. I encouraged him to share his story with the pastor. Ultimately the pastor didn't let him share his testimony because, apparently, God doesn't speak to people anymore. We already have the "Word" of God.
A "word" is a thought expressed. It is the invisible becoming visible. Although we can call Scriptures the "word" of God (and it can be) the Bible always calls itself the Scriptures. We often misinterpret "word" to mean scriptures when it is talking about the "living and active" Word of God which Jesus claimed to BE and which the Holy Spirit has become through Him (see John 16 how the Holy Spirit is here to manifest Christ to the Church).
When David said, "Thy word have I hid in my heart," he was not talking about the NIV bible under his arm. He didn't have the Scriptures to memorize. He had a real, living fellowship with God, which continued for the rest of his life. This is the living word I'm talking about.
When Paul was saying that all scripture is inspired, he was not referring to the letters he wrote or the gospels. Can we then say that only the Old Testament is inspired? What does inspired mean? You must have read my comment about Hannah's prayer and the words of David and so on. We can so often make poetry, prayers, and songs into science and theology by thinking that "inspired" means people went into a trance so that God could write his own words through people rather than these people writing from their own experiences.
When God spoke through the prophets, that was directly from the source. The rest are chronicles of real, living people that knew God and shared that knowledge and relationship. It doesn't mean that David's desires were always pure, or that his words were always theologically correct. But we can understand quite a lot of what it means to be "a man after God's own heart." He was flawed, yes. But he was humble. He was obedient.
I am not disregarding the Scriptures by any stretch, but I am asserting that we need an interpretor beyond hermanuetics. I have posted on this topic at length below, so it would probably be better to just refer you to those posts. I would enjoy your responses.
The reason why I have called you a Calvinist is because of your constant reference to Total Depravity, Uncondition Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistable Grace . . . (I haven't heard from the P yet). Also your emphasis on the scripture (sola scriptura) without regard for the Holy Spirit, and an emphasis on sovereignty. That is Calvinism. It's okay, I know and like a lot of Calvinists, but that is what I see in your posts.
When I said "my relationship became more genuine," I mean it became more like it was with the people who actually wrote the scripture--interactive and real. Even though I had studied the scriptures before 1998, it wasn't the same as afterward. My testimonies are written out below. Maybe then you can have a clearer idea of why I keep going back to this point.
I hope you understand that, in saying the things I said, I am trying to encourage you to seek a relationship with God that does include more interaction and more "experiences," though it seems that you don't trust them. The truth is, the entire Bible is written by people that had experiences with God, and it was those experiences and the ensuing relationship that changed their lives.
Sorry, but one more thing to add, which I should have just put at the onset. I can sum up my thoughts in one caution of Jesus from John 5:39-40:
"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life."
I may be WAY off base on this one. I just think it's an important point.
As noted, the mystery of foreknowledge and God’s will is summed up in the first chapter of Job. Satan’s contention is that God is a Puppet Master and that our love for God is all programmed and rigged. We also learn that Satan runs the world except where the Hand of God protects us.
When God wants us to play a role, it gets done as through Jonah or Tamar. The details may be random, but the results are as God wills. In the end, we choose to do God’s will out of love; not because we are to be rewarded; and not because we seek to avoid punishment. Again, review the book of Job. The long labored arguments in Job demonstrate how difficult it is to understand the love relation of One vs. a power relation. In 1John 4, we learn that God is love. In 1Corinthians 13, we learn what love is. Then getting back to 1John 3, we see how difficult it is to practice God’s idea of love. In Matthew 19: 16-26 we can see ourselves as rich rulers who are stuck in the world and needing the grace of God to enter His kingdom. In understanding a kingdom of love, it is useful to note that: “Then comes the end, when He delivers the Kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.” (1Corinthians 15: 24) There simply will be no sovereignty to discuss in the Kingdom.
And somewhere in the long discussions, it has been mentioned that we have not yet arrived at the Kingdom and there is much to pass before “…God may be all in all.” (1Corinthians
David, I have been reading your posts and thinking about them. It is clear you are well read in Scripture. And it is also clear to me that you are so well read because you desire to honor God by knowing Him rightly. I can sense a sincerity in your writing and I have enjoyed seeing your heart in these discussions. So, it has been nice "getting to know you" in a sense. Welcome to Frankland. :)
I wanted to share a couple of my thoughts about your posts on this blog in particular because I think they could be helpful. I know that being unbiased in approaching Scripture is very important to you, and that makes a lot of sense, because if you want to interpret something clearly, you need to try to read and understand without forcing your own desires or ideas into the text in some way, as you pointed out. I don't know if it is really possible to read without any bias, though. We can get close, but only a truly pure heart can see clearly and know the Truth, and it is the Spirit of God who gives us such a heart. I think you would agree with that statement.
Its at that point that I am feeling you limit what you can know and understand about God, because you lean on proper hermeneutics as your guide, and not the Spirit of God.
You said, "It is important to remember also that only those with the indwelling Spirit of God can understand the Scriptures; a Buddhist or any other lost person CANNOT understand them..." But earlier in the post you said, "If we use our correct hermeneutic and put aside our biases then we can simply believe in faith that the following is true [quoted scripture]." There is a contradiction that I see there. A proper hermenuetic is an intellectual tool for determining the meaning of a text. Any human being with reasonable intelligence can use it. But as you said, only one with the Spirit of God can rally know and understand the Scriptures. This seems to suggest that there is a supernatural (ie not resting on mere intelligence) element to the understanding a believer receives. Jesus said to Peter, when Peter confessed to Him that He was the Messiah, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father..." And later we read in 1 John "As for you, the anointing [Holy Spirit] you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit — just as it has taught you, remain in him." Not only do we see that it is the Spirit teaching us who have believed in Jesus Christ, but we are charged to "remain in Him." I do not believe this is a charge to "keep the faith" but rather a charge to walk in the Spirit. That is, to learn to discern the will and guiding of God's Spirit, by Whom we will also gain a clear understanding of Scripture.
I do not believe it is possible to read any text without bias. We are raised from birth with values and belief systems that are totally "under the radar" of our consciousness. We cannot ever know them all much less deny them in light of some more "neutral" values or beliefs or desires. As men we are creatures who change and can be influenced. You said that you did not read the writings of other men in order not to be biased to their ideas or viewpoints, but the problem is that if you have ever heard a sermon and thought it was good, then you have been influenced by the thoughts or ideas of another man. It seems possible to me that while you never read Calvin's writings, you may have heard someone else teach on them and perhaps they have woven their way in without your knowledge or consent. (I am not familiar with him, that is just an example, a "per se" off the previous posts).
The main thing I wanted to share with you is this, that we can read a text about a person, but the only way to know a person is to be with them one on one. I could write my whole life story to you here but you would not know me, as I cannot know you. But my husband DOES know me, and I would guess that your wife knows you very very well. She did know that you would enjoy commenting on this blog, afterall. :) I thought of this analogy for my idea--let us say that we needed to know Abraham Lincoln in order to live forever. We would go out and read everything we could find about him and study it dilligently, visit the places he lived and worked, do archeaology...but even if I spent my entire life doing these things, would I say that I KNEW Lincoln? WOuld I be qualified to go to Lincoln heaven? No, I would only be a Lincoln scholar. Lincoln's wife, on the other hand, we could say truly knew him. Abraham Lincoln is dead and we cannot know him now, but Jesus Christ is alive and indwelling us by His Spirit, and we CAN know Him today, as we know our spouses and friends. The Scriptures are a true guide, but they alone will not show us Jesus or the Father, only point us TO Him, like a freeway sign. Freeway signs could be misread or misunderstood easily, so thankfully we have the objective standard, the Truth Himself, living within us to guide us.
Post a Comment