This is for my theologically minded peeps, nobody else will care so just move on.... You have been kindly warned :-)
-----
In this comment thread (from the URL: http://sbcvoices.com/the-appeal-of-calvinism-to-young-pastors/) "Jim G" gives a great defense of non-Calvinism based on both Scripture and church history... which are two of the things that keep me from being Calvinist - the main one is the witness of the Spirit to Scripture. For my part, I've never had the Spirit communicate to me such a great sadness and disappointment in me personally as when I toyed with Calvinism... just my subjective .02.
Anyway, after almost a decade of intense study of Calvinism, the Reformers (good and bad), and early church history I end up very non-calvinistic. I know that's a weird thing to hear for folks that are indeed Calvinist and strongly so. Especially folks in or through seminary that didn't read the early church writers comprehensively but only by assignment.
The thread below is a great explanation for why folks like me (and Jack Graham of Prestonwood, Robert Jeffress of 1st Baptist Dallas, the late Adrian Rogers, and many, many more, etc..) either aren't Calvinist or are very non / anti calvinist... we know too much to go there. This guy "Jim G" give a good summary of what that means with one exception: he makes the statement that the first 300 years of church writers never mention things included in Calvinism... that's actually incorrect. They did, they just called them by different terms - a comprehensive reading shows that to be true. They didn't use the term "God's Sovereignty".. they assumed that to be true. They instead used the term "free will". They used the term "fate" and its variants more than "determined", etc.
The concerning part, and this is something everyone reading this needs to consider very, very carefully, is that it's not that these ideas were UNKNOWN by the church. They were known. It's just that they were never known INSIDE the church, only outside of it. That should give everyone who considers themselves a Calvinist great pause.
To make matters worse, they were known outside of the church with a particular body of thought held among various groups. Who were these folks? They were the gnostics - depending upon the specific group (there were many), they were a mix of run of the mill paganism, greek paganism, middle eastern (mostly Persian) paganism, and sometimes a splash here and there of Judaism.
These were the ancient heretics who believed and taught a variety of untruths that Satan tried to use to bring down the church: that Jesus wasn't really divine. That He really didn't incarnate. They denied the Triune nature of God, etc... Docetism, Sabellianism, etc. were all taught by various gnostic groups. But they also taught that divinity (the Aeons in their view) had determined that some people would go to paradise upon their death, and that others would go to torment. There wasn't anything these people could do about their fate because divinity had predetermined it. Those that would be saved would be saved, and those that would be damned would be damned, and all of this based simply upon what divinity had decided for divinity's own reasons, hidden or otherwise.
The early church fought against this with everything they had, and they won the battle up until Augustine. Before he became a Christian (and I certainly believe he was) he was a follower of a man named Mani. Mani was a gnostic. I believe, as many people do, that these ideas crept into Augustine's Christianity. Augustine couldn't read Greek so he had to rely on a translation of the New Testament: Jerome's, which has many errors. But to put it bluntly, no one who wrote anything in the church for the first 300+ years believed what Augustine did on these matters. Not the Apostles, not the men who knew the apostles and wrote for us in the early church (Clement, etc.), and not the men who knew the men who knew the Apostles (Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc.).
I know people don't like to have their ideas challenged, I understand that. And I especially know people don't like to have their theology of choice challenged, but the way I see it there isn't anything more important for a Christian but to get right what they can get right... especially in regard to God's nature and character. I don't know where the dividing line is, but if we go too far astray in how we represent (or misrepresent Him), we'll make an idol out of Him just like ancient Israel.
So what's the big deal with Calvinism? The big deal is that it was never a part of historical Christianity early on, the parts of it that can be identified in the earliest church history were held not by Christians but instead by philosophical Pagan gnostics, and it distorts the nature and character of God. It makes Him out to be like Allah, and not like YHWH (Yahweh).
---------------
Chris (the Calvinist in the discussion)
I don’t dispute that, but as I think the teachings of Calvinism come straight from the Bible, what has led to a resurgence of Calvinism is not any psychological effect or comfort but careful biblical study. Attributing a return to Calvinism to various sociological or psychological factors is akin to saying the return to Calvinism is more about zeitgeist than biblical study. While various trends and such can prepare people to better understand or receive this biblical teaching, the source of the resurgence remains God’s Word.
I know non-Calvinists will disagree, but such is the nature of belief, conviction, and disagreement – one side is wrong and the other is right. I know which of those categories I am in. :)
8 Jim G. July 15, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Hi Chris,
I think you see Calvinism in the Bible based on more than direct Bible study. Your presuppositions lead you to accept Calvinism. I’ve studied the Bible too and I don’t see the points of Calvinism clearly at all, with the exception of total depravity (which virtually all Protestant thinkers affirm). So saying “It is in the Bible” without discussing the presuppositions underlying the 5 points does not further discussion.
I also think it is historically instructive that Calvinism as a system was not developed until fifteen centuries after Christ, and after the philosophical shift of the late Middle Ages which leads one toward the idea of divine determinism. Even what became some of the five points of Calvinism were not espoused really until Augustine in the 4th-5th century (he upheld T and U to the best of my memory). The rigid double-predestination of Gottschalk in the ninth century was condemned as heretical. The logical order of God’s decrees was not discussed (to my knowledge) until the Reformed scholastics under Theodore Beza. So we are only talking about the last quarter of all church history. But it has been important in Protestant history outside of the Anabaptist tradition.
Jim G.
9 Chris Roberts July 15, 2011 at 11:37 pm
“I think you see Calvinism in the Bible based on more than direct Bible study. Your presuppositions lead you to accept Calvinism.”
The problem with this view is it eliminates any possibility of confidence in what the Bible teaches. One can never be sure, “This is what the Bible says.” One can only say, “This is what I think the Bible says, but maybe it’s just my presuppositions…” In that case, everything becomes suspect.
But while presuppositions will play a role in anyone’s thinking, they do not determine belief, particularly when considering the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit. A whole host of epistemological questions remain, but at the very least I’ll say it is overly simplistic – and dangerous – to ascribe someone’s conclusions to their presuppositions.
As for the historical development of Calvinism, considering the stagnant nature of Catholic theology during much of the middle ages, it is hardly an argument against Calvinism that we don’t find many people talking about it between Augustine and Calvin. Many of our Protestant beliefs were absent during that same timeframe but reappeared during the Reformation, just when we see Augustinianism make its return as Calvinism.
10 Jim G. July 16, 2011 at 12:12 am
Hi Chris,
I want to uphold biblical certainty as much as you do. But herein lies the rub…I am going to assume you are a Christian man who desires to earnestly follow the Spirit and seek the truth in the Scriptures. So am I. But I don’t see Calvinism leaping from the pages of the biblical text as you seem to. We can take two approaches:
1. We can say that one of us is truly following the Spirit and the other is at best misguided for not seeing what is so plainly there.
2. Or we can realize that on this issue our presuppositions play a real role in determining what we see clearly and what we (relatively speaking) ignore.
You seem to be taking approach number one, while I am at number two. You accuse me of being overly simplistic and borderline dangerous for my stance, but don’t you see the danger in yours? Presuppositions will steer you toward one group of conclusions and away from others.
I think you also misunderstand my historical argument on two fronts. First, I think it is interesting that 300 years pass between the close of the age of the apostles and Augustine. There were some extremely astute theologians during that period (Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Ambrose, Hilary, etc.) and none of them mention what would become Calvinism. That is not an argument, just an observation.
Second, I would strongly oppose the idea that Catholic theology was stagnant in the Middle Ages. While there was a period of relative inactivity for about four centuries, that era was bookended by two giants in the area of salvation – Maximus the Confessor and Anselm of Canterbury. Close on the heels of Anselm came Abelard and Bernard (a real influence of Calvin’s) and later Aquinas – on anyone’s short list of the greatest theologians of all time. After Aquinas comes Scotus and Ockham, who laid the groundwork for late Medieval nominalism, which was the underlying philosophy for much of the Reformation.
Finally, the only thing “Protestant” about Augustine is that the magisterial reformers agreed with his views on predestination and election. He is thoroughly Roman Catholic.
In the end, saying Calvinism is obviously biblical is hindering real brothers who don’t agree. I think it implies we are somehow less capable in rightly dividing the word of truth. That is why I choose option 2 above, but you are free to disagree with me.
Jim G.
11 Chris Roberts July 16, 2011 at 12:23 am
“You accuse me of being overly simplistic and borderline dangerous for my stance, but don’t you see the danger in yours? Presuppositions will steer you toward one group of conclusions and away from others.”
Recognizing the presence and role of presuppositions is not the same as saying someone’s opinions are formed because of their presuppositions. As mentioned before, such a position undermines conviction and leaves everything in uncertainty. If there is to be the possibility of firm convictions, there must be the recognition that people can discern and understand the truth, not simply inherit it through environment and other factors shaping presuppositions.
“First, I think it is interesting that 300 years pass between the close of the age of the apostles and Augustine. ”
How much time passed between the close of Scripture and the firm establishment of the doctrine of the Trinity? And we consider trinitarian theology a primary issue while Calvinism is not. All biblical theology is as old as the Bible. Calvinism did not enter the scene with Calvin nor with Augustine but with Paul and Peter and other writers of Scripture – so ultimately they were given by God himself. But that they are found in Scripture does not mean they were immediately understood in all their fullness. We can see a development with many doctrines, even with the formation and authority of the Bible itself.
And yes, certainly there are bright spots in the middle ages, but they were exceptions to a period aptly named the dark ages.
“Finally, the only thing “Protestant” about Augustine is that the magisterial reformers agreed with his views on predestination and election. He is thoroughly Roman Catholic.”
That would be difficult since Roman Catholic did not yet exist as such, nor did many of their more problematic doctrines – at least nothing like we know them today. What was Augustine’s view on Mariology? On praying to the saints? On purgatory? On justification by faith vs works? When considering specifics, he does not look all that Roman Catholic.
12 Jim G. July 16, 2011 at 1:18 am
Hi Chris,
I’m not going to convince you about presuppositions, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I don’t think you are getting my point. In the case of Calvinism, your firm conviction is something with which I disagree. We have the same biblical text. We have presumably the same Spirit. We have the same principles of hermeneutics. What is left but differing presuppositions?
I don’t think it is fair to compare Calvinist-type doctrines and the Trinity. While it is true that the final formulation of the doctrine came in 381, it is a refinement of what the church had always believed, and there is plenty of evidence to that effect from the preceding centuries. The Calvinistic-type doctrines are just plain absent until Augustine. For the formation (or better, the recognition) of the canon, the argument above for the Trinity suffices there also.
The Middle Ages are not the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages are a relatively small segment of the Middle Ages.
I’m going to say this as kindly as I can, but you need to read Augustine at face value, and not backwards through the eyes of the Calvinistic teachers, who take the pieces of Augustine that they like and make him a pre-Protestant. The Roman Catholic Church sees him as the greatest of their theologians. While I think he says some very great and profound things, he is fully and completely Roman Catholic, even anachronistically. While Gregory the Great at the close of the 6th century is seen as the first real “pope,” there is plenty about Augustine that resonates with Medieval and Modern Catholicism – they patterned it after him!
As for your questions, Augustine affirmed the total sinlessness of Mary based on her role as theotokos (On Nature and Grace 36:45). Augustine advocated the perpetual virginity of Mary (Sermon 186). Augustine advocated the communion of the saints and their prayers for us, as well as remembering them at the Eucharist (Letter to Faustus the Manichean, The City of God 20 and 22). Augustine advocated prayers for the dead (Sermon 172). Augustine affirmed and was the seed for the later development of purgatory (City of God 21). Augustine invented the terminology of justification (of imputation as well as infusion) the reformers so battled against. And while we’re at it, he affirmed the primacy of Peter in multiple writings, the mass, apostolic succession, baptismal regeneration, ex opere operato grace, and just about everything else associated with Roman Catholicism.
Jim G.
13 Chris Roberts July 16, 2011 at 1:50 am
“We have the same biblical text. We have presumably the same Spirit. We have the same principles of hermeneutics. What is left but differing presuppositions?”
There are other things, but they don’t bear mentioning now. But I am curious, if you boil the difference down to just presuppositions, do you see any way of convincing those with different presuppositions? How do you convince a Calvinist to be a non-Calvinist, or vice versa, if you are running up against engrained presuppositions?
“The Middle Ages are not the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages are a relatively small segment of the Middle Ages.”
Not really wanting to jump into a semantic debate about historical periods, but this is not the case. The terms are generally synonymous. The dark ages or middle ages are seen as starting with the fall of Rome and continuing until the Renaissance. Whenever dark ages refers to a specific portion of the middle ages instead of the whole, it still encompasses most of that period. It is not a particularly historically precise term but more a general recognition that during this 1000 year period there was a great deal of corruption and stagnation, trends seen both in society and in the church. Pick whatever term you like, during this period of history, the Catholic church was full of increasing corruption – both in its teachings and in its leadership. There is a reason the Reformation took place.
“I’m going to say this as kindly as I can, but you need to read Augustine at face value, and not backwards through the eyes of the Calvinistic teachers, who take the pieces of Augustine that they like and make him a pre-Protestant.”
My knowledge of Augustine and other teachers before and since is not comprehensive enough for me to argue one way or another with any depth. I know just enough Augustine (from Augustine himself, not from what others have said about him, but it’s been enough years since I’ve read Augustine that what I remember is pretty rusty) that I am not inclined to accept your analysis of his Roman Catholic ways. But as I say, my knowledge is not comprehensive enough to argue with any detail.
But it doesn’t change anything. We certainly need to look with suspicion on any teaching which is largely absent from church history, but such absence does not finally determine what we believe. An obvious example is believer’s baptism by immersion. Baptists do not reject the practice just because it is almost entirely absent for most of church history; we embrace it because it is what the Bible teaches. So this goes back to my original point: Calvinistic convictions come from Scripture.
-------------
And me again... sorry Chris, Calvinistic convictions come from a misinterpretation of Scripture and its historical context.
God bless to all.
There was an error in this gadget
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Monday, September 17, 2012
Treasures And Worry
19 "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
25 "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?
27 Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life ? 28 "And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?
31 So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
(Matthew 6 - Jesus Christ)
-----
1. Always live in view of eternity - don't get wrapped up here. This isn't it. This is a testing field to see who will trust God as He has indicated we should, and who will try to be their own god. Most will fail the test, but multitudes will succeed. First, make sure your soul is saved (John 3) - then, allow the saved soul to triumph in the power of Christ (Romans 7). This particular fight is how God grows us up. It isn't fun, but it is necessary and unavoidable (James).
The sins of Eden were: not really trusting God, not really trusting that God was operating from the best motives, allowing an outside influence to damage the trust and obedience that are God's due, and trying to be one's own god and grabbing the reigns of one's own life rather than submitting to the Lord. And all this for the purpose of self advancement in direct contradiction to what God had commanded. Seeking to be the captain of one's own fate is a death sentence. Don't do it. Distrusting God is a death sentence. Don't do it.
Having stuff is okay. Your stuff having you is not okay. If you can survey your earthly existence and you know you could walk away from it for the sake of Christ (and the idea of doing it 'for Christ' is critical - this is not generic self denial. Destitute selfishness and Godly selflessness are not the same), then you truly have no earthly treasure because you have found heavenly treasure.
2. People are much more valuable than animals to God. How you feel about this is a good barometer of your spiritual health. Some feel they can treat animals any way they want. This is unGodly and is also a barometer of one's spiritual health. God says:
A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.
Proverbs 12:10
Are you being righteous or cruel? The dominion God gave us over creation is a position of power and care. It is not a position of power and careless or indifferent brutality. The first is like God. The second is like Satan. Choose your God.
We have an oddity in America today where it seems the needs of animals are sometimes placed over the needs of people. That attitude does not come from God. Owning and loving pets is great (my house is a zoo), but being unable (or unwilling) to love your fellow human made in God's image indicates that you don't have God's love inside of you (or are suppressing it), which means you don't have Christ inside of you (or you are disobedient), which means that when you die everything will not be all right, and you will not go to Heaven to be with the Father (or you will make it as one barely plucked out of the fire). Stop that and fix it. If you aren't saved, then surrender to Christ and die to yourself so you can live. If you are saved, then remember what you are in Christ - the unlimited power that Christ desires to exert through you, and slip back off the throne and let God do His work.
Daily, give up yourself (Matt 16:24-26), place your faith in Christ (John 6:28-29), and let God change you into the person He wants you to be (1st John). The picture of a Christian in 1st John is of a fully mature Christian, and that can take a short amount of time (like Stephen in Acts), or it can take a lifetime (The Apostle John). But you should at least be on the right road. If progress is slow, stop rebelling - stop bowing up at God.
Loving others does not mean approving of their actions, and it does not insulate them from justice and punishment, even death at the hands of God instituted government and ideas, such as just war. The God Who commanded we love our neighbor is the same God who instituted the death penalty for murder (Gen 9:6). He is the same God who allows death in the line of valid self defense and the defense of others (Exodus 22:2-3). Loving our neighbor means loving and considering them as we love and consider ourselves. It means having their best interests at heart and working towards that task when we see a need and are equipped to address it. God doesn't demand that we give up our own necessities, but He does demand that we give out of the surplus He has provided us. The most important need anyone has is to have saving faith in Jesus Christ. Not food, not clothes, not shelter. Seek ye first the kingdom of God, then the rest. But truly, some are in such crisis that they cannot hear. So a meal, clothes, and shelter for the antecedent purpose of sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the communication that those things come from Christ because He loves them? That works.
3. If you claim to have put your trust in God, don't worry. Worry indicates not really trusting God, not trusting Him to do what He promised, or forgetting Who He is and who you are. It can be really, really hard to let go - especially when you have a family and are 'in charge'. Pray for peace and increased faith. God answers. It usually takes the increasingly intense form of asking, seeking, and knocking - but God answers. Show Him you are serious. As our ancient brothers and sisters in Christ said: wrestling with God is a violence in which He delights.
4. God, and the pursuit of Him, must always come first. It is always job #1. When that is done, all else that is truly necessary falls into place. Make sure your list of 'what is necessary' matches God's to achieve the best results.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Are You Really Believing God's Gospel?
Have you ever wondered how it is that there are so many people that claim to be in right standing with God, but when all these folks are taken together and considered as a whole, you find they believe so many different and contradictory things?
This is of course the age old question since the inception of Christianity: is there really only one way to God: faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ, or some other way?
In the ninth chapter of Romans, the Apostle Paul addresses this question as part of a larger thought about how God has provided for the salvation of mankind. In his commentary on this part of the New Testament, Richard Lenski has provided some great thoughts on verses 30-33 (shown below) that I wanted to share.
In discussing how the Jews missed God's salvation because they pursued it by human effort at following law (not just the Mosaic law but all such law), and how the Gentiles actually apprehended salvation because they went about it as God commanded (by faith), Lenski offers these comments in answer to the question: "Why did Israel fail?" (my comments underlined).
Obviously this has great meaning for those that do not have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, but it is equally as important for those that are 'saved', as we call it inside the church.
Why?
For the same reason that it was important to the Christians at the church in Galatia. They started off so well under the instruction of Paul, but along the way other people came along and interjected a different gospel: not a gospel of grace and their responsibility of a faithful response, but instead a gospel that included 'faith' alongside human works toward following the Jewish law. This included all areas of Jewish observance, including circumcision. The Apostle, but more importantly the Holy Spirit through Paul, had some strong words for those allowing themselves to be pulled away from the bona fide gospel:
This is quite stern, isn't it? After all, Paul is writing this to true Christians - to people that have believed and received the Spirit (Galatians 3:1-3). Listen to how important it is not to accept a corrupted Gospel. Listen to the consequences the Holy Spirit points out through Paul:
v. 2 "if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all." If Christ is of no value, that means no salvation through Christ - for this is the value that Christ provides.
v. 4 "you who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace". How horrible. To be separated from Christ is to be outside of His saving power. To have fallen away from grace is to be separated from the saving effects of that same grace.
In v. 2 Paul calls out in a specific exclamation: 'ide!' - pay attention! take notice! Or as it is rendered in the NIV: 'Mark my words!'. These things are critical to the attainment or loss of eternal life and Paul wants them understood as such.
Paul is telling these Christians that if they allow themselves to be circumcised in order to pursue a relationship with God, that Christ will be of 'no value to them at all'. Consider the Greek phrase that underlies this translation - the wording is so strong: 'ouden ophelesei'. 'Ouden' is a negating term. It means 'no', 'not at all'. In fact, it is so strong that it removes any possibility of doubt and it excludes any exceptions at all. It is 'no' in the strongest, most absolute terms. 'Ophelesei' means 'assistance', 'help', 'aid', 'profit', 'benefit'. If they step away from salvation by faith and only by faith, they lose the benefit of Christ completely.
In v. 4 Paul warns them that if they seek justification from the law rather than on account of Christ, they have been 'alienated from Christ' and 'fallen away from grace'. Consider the Greek under this translation - it is chilling: 'katergethete apo Christou' - 'katergethete' means 'to cause something to be unproductive', 'to use up or exhaust something', 'to cause something to lose its power or effectiveness', 'to invalidate something', 'to make something powerless', 'to abolish', 'to wipe out', 'to set aside'. Paul is saying that if these Christians do these things, they will be totally and completely removed from the power and effectiveness of Christ. 'Exepesate charitos' - 'exepesate' means 'to fall away from a favorable condition', 'to lose something'. 'Charitos' in this context means God's saving grace. It means 'a beneficial disposition towards someone', 'gracious care', 'gracious favor', 'goodwill', 'the practical application of all these things: favor, goodwill, care, a precious gift'. 'Grace' is all of these things. In essence, it is being willing to love and applying love.
For these Christians to be circumcised in the Jewish manner for the Jewish reason (to enter a covenant with God) means that the benefit they had from Christ by faith would be totally and completely nullified. This portion of Scripture isn't talking about people that merely professed faith in Christ. These are people that truly are 'saved' and are in danger of losing their salvation by falling away from Christ and His grace. One cannot fall away from something one does not possess. Paul isn't talking about the loss of opportunity to be saved through Christ, but the actual loss of salvation in Christ one already possesses. This isn't talking about some external force snatching these Christians from God's hands, that is impossible. This is talking about people in God's hands deciding to jump by accepting a different gospel. There is no part of Scripture that indicates God holds on to people against their will.
This is how important it is to protect the integrity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ at all costs. It is the only way to God that He has given for anyone to be saved. To deviate from God's plan of salvation by and only by Jesus' completed work on the Cross is to either not attain to salvation at all, or to lose it having once possessed it.
The modern church, at least in the West, is awash in counterfeit 'gospels':
If you can envision a corruption of the gospel, it surely exists out there somewhere. All of these other gospels claim to be genuine, but in one place or another they contradict what God has clearly said.
The only Gospel God has provided is one that is truly 'out of' faith, first to last. Faith first exercises itself in repentance (agreeing with what God says about our sin and being willing to turn from it - this is faith exercised as trust in what God says about our sin), and after this it accepts Jesus' work on the cross as its own. This is true faith exercised as active trust in God's words concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment. And this faith has to be *your* faith. God has to enable it by making His promise (which He has done), but you have to exercise it once its possibility is born in you. Only you can do this. No one can repent for you, and no one can give you to God. Those actions must be your own.
The idea of forgiveness from God that is applied only to those that believe His promise is found all throughout God's word. In the Old Testament it is found in the sin offering, the whole burnt offering, and the offering given on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement). The sacrifice of Yom Kippur, for instance, was for all of Israel. God provided it so that any and all sin could be forgiven, and the one sacrifice given for all was sufficient to do so. But the benefits of the sacrifice were only applied to those that truly repented and believed as God indicated they should: with a whole heart and with all their soul. If this wasn't done, the benefit of the sacrifice that could have been theirs was lost, left on the table because of an unrepentant and disbelieving heart. In the cross of Christ, we have that offer of salvation made universally to all mankind, and any and all who will accept it will be rescued, for all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.
My hope for you is that you find the little gate that leads to the narrow path of salvation. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. He is the only salvation that God has offered. Before it's too late, allow His words to convict you of your sin, repent (change your mind and turn away) from what God shows you, and turn to Him in trust to save you.
This is of course the age old question since the inception of Christianity: is there really only one way to God: faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ, or some other way?
In the ninth chapter of Romans, the Apostle Paul addresses this question as part of a larger thought about how God has provided for the salvation of mankind. In his commentary on this part of the New Testament, Richard Lenski has provided some great thoughts on verses 30-33 (shown below) that I wanted to share.
Romans 9:30-33 (NIV)
(30) What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith;
(31) but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.
(32) Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.”
(33) As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”
In discussing how the Jews missed God's salvation because they pursued it by human effort at following law (not just the Mosaic law but all such law), and how the Gentiles actually apprehended salvation because they went about it as God commanded (by faith), Lenski offers these comments in answer to the question: "Why did Israel fail?" (my comments underlined).
"Why not?" (verse 32): Why did Israel fail? (The Greek word) 'Diati' asks for the reason; (had Paul meant to explain the 'purpose', as if God had Himself caused or decreed their fall, he would have had to use the Greek word) 'Inati', the express Greek term which asks for purpose rather than observed consequence.)
Paul gives the answer in a nutshell with two phrases which need no verbs in the Greek although, when translating them into English, we must supply something. Both are 'ek' phrases (Greek word meaning by, out of, sourced from, originating from) like the one found in v. 31 and point, not merely to the means employed, but to the source, the fountain, the starting point, which goes deeper than the idea of means (typified by the Greek word 'dia': means, mechanism, etc., but not source).
The Jews refused to let God, His Word, and even their law teach them that 'from faith' alone righteousness before God comes, and they obdurately persisted in the fiction that it comes only 'from works'. (Here Paul does not include the Greek article. Had he done so he would have meant 'the' Mosaic law, i.e. the Jewish law. In Greek when the article is omitted the author means essence, substance... something qualitative and not pointing out a specific instance thus the idea here is of any law that might make one acceptable to God. The Jew's great blunder was that they refused God's word and instead tried to pursue salvation by human effort as typified by pursuing laws of righteousness, be they the Mosaic law or the less specific, general moral laws recognized by all of humanity.)
The more Jesus tried to teach them that faith in God's promise was the only source, the more they clung to works and fought faith.
The fearful difference between faith and works is the fact that 'faith', being trust, relies on complete dependence on another, on God, on Christ, on the promise and the mercy (which is what Romans is all about), while 'works' repudiate such dependence and rely on man's own ability and attainment.
Faith permits God to put it wholly and completely under obligation to Himself; works not only repudiate this obligation to God but insist on putting God under obligation to the man who does the works, and the Jews tried to obligate God by means of even false works.
Here we have additional light on v. 11: "not from works (obligating God ) but from Him Who calls (letting God obligate us by His call of grace)." Here is light, too, on the promise and the mercy, both of which obligate us because both are graciously extended without obligation to us on the part of God.
(What Lenski is saying is this: There is indeed an obligation placed upon God as regards salvation, but it is an obligation that no man can place on Him. It is instead an obligation that God has placed upon Himself. In His love He truly wishes to save everyone, but the demands of His holiness and justice must be met less God Himself become guilty of sin: sin demands a price, and no forgiveness could be given until that price was addressed. So out of His love He obligated Himself to meet His very own justice by placing Jesus on the cross as payment for our sin (He carried them in His own body), and then crushing Him to satisfy the demands of His own holiness and justice. This obligation God placed on Himself being accomplished (the price being paid), He then was able to take on the obligation of saving all those who accept His work by faith.
There is also an obligation laid upon us by God, but it has nothing to do with the work of salvation. He has reserved that for Himself. The obligation that He has laid upon us is simply the obligation of trustful response. In His Sovereignty, this is simply what God has decided to do. God promises to do this, and thus obligates Himself, and He has made the condition of salvation the simple act of accepting His power and promise as true and doing so personally. When a person truly does this, God comes to live inside of them and He begins to change them to be what He wants them to be: one who follows God's law, not by effort-full striving, but by pure nature. Holiness and righteousness are what we lack, and they are the goal of our salvation. Any ideas of 'God's salvation' that omit or dismiss personal holiness and righteousness are not from God.
At the end of the day, rejection of the promise and reality of Christ takes two forms: either outright disbelief that God saves people only through faith (which is calling God a liar), or outright rejection of salvation by faith as nonsensical (which is calling God ignorant and irrelevant).
The only valid obligation placed upon us is the one God Himself gives us by the very offer of His promise of salvation. When we try to save ourselves by our own 'good' behavior, we are in essence seeking to place an obligation upon ourselves to be 'good enough' for God to save us. God says this way can save no one - it is impossible. The only valid obligation we have is to simply believe and accept the promise God has made)
The further the Jews went with their 'works', the farther they got away from God who is reached only by faith, and when they had fully hardened themselves in the falsehood of 'works', God's punitive and judicial hardening set in. Having sealed their own doom, God too sealed it for them.
Paul clothes this thought in Scriptural language: "They stumbled against the stone of the stumbling", and then follows this with the Scripture itself. The Greek is stronger than the English: "they struck against the stone of striking against" or, "they smashed", etc. And 'proskomma', with its suffix -ma, indicating results (see Robertson's Greek grammar, section 151) equals the accomplished smashing.
This is not a stone over which one may merely stumble and recover oneself but one against which one runs with his entire body and smashes it entirely; it is like knocking one's brains out. The stone itself is of such a size, and its very character produces such a dire result. The fact that Paul has Christ in mind is beyond question, Christ in His effect on unbelieving workers of law.
--R.C.H Lenski - "Interpretation Of Romans" pp 636-637
Obviously this has great meaning for those that do not have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, but it is equally as important for those that are 'saved', as we call it inside the church.
Why?
For the same reason that it was important to the Christians at the church in Galatia. They started off so well under the instruction of Paul, but along the way other people came along and interjected a different gospel: not a gospel of grace and their responsibility of a faithful response, but instead a gospel that included 'faith' alongside human works toward following the Jewish law. This included all areas of Jewish observance, including circumcision. The Apostle, but more importantly the Holy Spirit through Paul, had some strong words for those allowing themselves to be pulled away from the bona fide gospel:
Galatians 5:1-7 (NIV)
(1) It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
(2) Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.
(3) Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.
(4) You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
(5) But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope.
(6) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
(7) You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth?
This is quite stern, isn't it? After all, Paul is writing this to true Christians - to people that have believed and received the Spirit (Galatians 3:1-3). Listen to how important it is not to accept a corrupted Gospel. Listen to the consequences the Holy Spirit points out through Paul:
v. 2 "if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all." If Christ is of no value, that means no salvation through Christ - for this is the value that Christ provides.
v. 4 "you who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace". How horrible. To be separated from Christ is to be outside of His saving power. To have fallen away from grace is to be separated from the saving effects of that same grace.
In v. 2 Paul calls out in a specific exclamation: 'ide!' - pay attention! take notice! Or as it is rendered in the NIV: 'Mark my words!'. These things are critical to the attainment or loss of eternal life and Paul wants them understood as such.
Paul is telling these Christians that if they allow themselves to be circumcised in order to pursue a relationship with God, that Christ will be of 'no value to them at all'. Consider the Greek phrase that underlies this translation - the wording is so strong: 'ouden ophelesei'. 'Ouden' is a negating term. It means 'no', 'not at all'. In fact, it is so strong that it removes any possibility of doubt and it excludes any exceptions at all. It is 'no' in the strongest, most absolute terms. 'Ophelesei' means 'assistance', 'help', 'aid', 'profit', 'benefit'. If they step away from salvation by faith and only by faith, they lose the benefit of Christ completely.
In v. 4 Paul warns them that if they seek justification from the law rather than on account of Christ, they have been 'alienated from Christ' and 'fallen away from grace'. Consider the Greek under this translation - it is chilling: 'katergethete apo Christou' - 'katergethete' means 'to cause something to be unproductive', 'to use up or exhaust something', 'to cause something to lose its power or effectiveness', 'to invalidate something', 'to make something powerless', 'to abolish', 'to wipe out', 'to set aside'. Paul is saying that if these Christians do these things, they will be totally and completely removed from the power and effectiveness of Christ. 'Exepesate charitos' - 'exepesate' means 'to fall away from a favorable condition', 'to lose something'. 'Charitos' in this context means God's saving grace. It means 'a beneficial disposition towards someone', 'gracious care', 'gracious favor', 'goodwill', 'the practical application of all these things: favor, goodwill, care, a precious gift'. 'Grace' is all of these things. In essence, it is being willing to love and applying love.
For these Christians to be circumcised in the Jewish manner for the Jewish reason (to enter a covenant with God) means that the benefit they had from Christ by faith would be totally and completely nullified. This portion of Scripture isn't talking about people that merely professed faith in Christ. These are people that truly are 'saved' and are in danger of losing their salvation by falling away from Christ and His grace. One cannot fall away from something one does not possess. Paul isn't talking about the loss of opportunity to be saved through Christ, but the actual loss of salvation in Christ one already possesses. This isn't talking about some external force snatching these Christians from God's hands, that is impossible. This is talking about people in God's hands deciding to jump by accepting a different gospel. There is no part of Scripture that indicates God holds on to people against their will.
This is how important it is to protect the integrity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ at all costs. It is the only way to God that He has given for anyone to be saved. To deviate from God's plan of salvation by and only by Jesus' completed work on the Cross is to either not attain to salvation at all, or to lose it having once possessed it.
The modern church, at least in the West, is awash in counterfeit 'gospels':
- the gospel of material health and wealth
- the gospel of name it and claim it: the gospel of make a wish, any wish
- the gospel of works first to last: earned salvation
- the deterministic gospel where God doesn't really desire to save everyone. He only desires to save a few and He saves them not by influence (revelation) and response (conviction and active trust), but rather He imposes faith via cause and effect by 'regenerating' them. Not so that they will be merely enabled to trust Him, but in a way that they will trust Him of necessity. The regeneration is prior to faith and is a saving act in and of itself because it leads irresistibly to faith. This gospel says that the unregenerate sinner is outside the power of God's revelation and conviction until they are reborn in regeneration. I might be wrong but it seems to me that this gospel presents a less than omnipotent God, it seems to me that it slanders His character in that it claims He says one thing but means another regarding who He truly desires to save, and it definitely places the new birth prior to the personal exercise of faith. It is not a gospel of salvation by faith first to last, it is a gospel that says salvation is to or towards faith, not sourced from faith.
- the gospel of initial faith but salvation maintained by works
- the gospel awash in the 'means of grace', namely the Roman sacraments - meaning that it is through these physical actions that God bestows His grace, rather than by simple, childlike trust in God's promise.
If you can envision a corruption of the gospel, it surely exists out there somewhere. All of these other gospels claim to be genuine, but in one place or another they contradict what God has clearly said.
The only Gospel God has provided is one that is truly 'out of' faith, first to last. Faith first exercises itself in repentance (agreeing with what God says about our sin and being willing to turn from it - this is faith exercised as trust in what God says about our sin), and after this it accepts Jesus' work on the cross as its own. This is true faith exercised as active trust in God's words concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment. And this faith has to be *your* faith. God has to enable it by making His promise (which He has done), but you have to exercise it once its possibility is born in you. Only you can do this. No one can repent for you, and no one can give you to God. Those actions must be your own.
The idea of forgiveness from God that is applied only to those that believe His promise is found all throughout God's word. In the Old Testament it is found in the sin offering, the whole burnt offering, and the offering given on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement). The sacrifice of Yom Kippur, for instance, was for all of Israel. God provided it so that any and all sin could be forgiven, and the one sacrifice given for all was sufficient to do so. But the benefits of the sacrifice were only applied to those that truly repented and believed as God indicated they should: with a whole heart and with all their soul. If this wasn't done, the benefit of the sacrifice that could have been theirs was lost, left on the table because of an unrepentant and disbelieving heart. In the cross of Christ, we have that offer of salvation made universally to all mankind, and any and all who will accept it will be rescued, for all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.
My hope for you is that you find the little gate that leads to the narrow path of salvation. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. He is the only salvation that God has offered. Before it's too late, allow His words to convict you of your sin, repent (change your mind and turn away) from what God shows you, and turn to Him in trust to save you.
Sunday, July 08, 2012
Thursday, July 05, 2012
George W. Bush and the Sovereignty of God
In April of 2006, George W. Bush made a comment to the press that has always stuck with me because it was said in such a "Bushy" way.
This particular statement was made by President Bush in regards to Don Rumsfeld staying on as Secretary of Defense. Amid some of the problems in Iraq, the abuses at Abu Ghraib, etc. many people were calling for the head of Don Rumsfeld on a stick (or something worse), and there was speculation everywhere that Bushy (a nickname of kindness in my family by the way, not insult) was going to kick him out of the administration.
In regard to these speculations, the President said this:
The phrase that stuck with me as both kind of funny and very true was: "I'm the decider". Funny because it is a quintessential "Bushism", but very true because like all other cabinet posts - the SecDef serves at the will and pleasure of the President.
What struck me was that this term, "The Decider", is probably the best way to describe God's Sovereignty over all existence. In every ultimate way that exists, God is "The Decider".
This is what it means to be truly Sovereign. If God didn't have the ultimate decision making authority for anything and everything, then He wouldn't be God. If there were two, or three, or four similar beings that somehow divided Sovereignty amongst themselves, then none of them would be God either because they would all have areas that were out of their control, areas where they in fact were not sovereign. Therefore if we have a God, God must be both truly Sovereign and truly One. It really is just that simple. (How this works for the Biblical concept of the Trinity is saved for another post).
So with this being the case, any reasonable person should be asking some questions, like what is it that God has decided? And is there any way we can even know?
When we talk about God being the Great Decider, we really can only talk about two different things: ideas about how this works. Ready?
I will say that either option can make some people very, very uncomfortable - perhaps even angry. There are a whole range of options there for things that put bootprints all over some very fervently held theology. I get that. If you are one of those folks, I apologize if I upset you or made you mad. I just ask that you please stick with me here. My purpose is to show what man says, and then to show what God says. Hopefully we can all agree that what God says is the true thing, and therefore the only really important thing.
Okay, that's the context. Now on to: why should anyone even care?
Well, I believe that if we care about others we should care. If we love others as God told us to, we should care. But more importantly, if we really want to know what God is like - we should care. Because this question goes right to the very heart of Who and What God is.
Some, in pursuing this question and seeking to answer it from God's revelation of Himself in creation and the Bible, have come to the conclusion that 'what' God has decided can be no less than everything. This everything is not like option #2 above, but it's like #1: God hasn't given His creatures an authority to make any real choices. Rather, He has already decided all of their 'choices' for them. This particular flavor of reasoning goes like this - and it is very logical and cohesive:
There are many different ways to go when writing about this subject, but what I want to cover for now is this: If there are things in God's Word, the Bible, that can seem to support a hard deterministic theology (and there certainly are), is there anything clearly stated in God's Word that would rule out such an idea? Because after all, we know that the proper way to interpret the Bible is to let it interpret itself - it is its own guidebook. We are to hold to the whole council of God, not just the parts we like.
Is there anything in God's revelation of Himself to us that would lay the axe to the root of the idea that all is determined and we are simply marionettes playing a predetermined part in this thing we call life? Because just like any idea that is held to be universally true, if it can be shown false at any point then the whole idea comes tumbling down. If an all encompassing determinism is to be true, then it must be true in an all encompassing way with no exceptions. Agreed?
Now to be sure, the vast majority of the Bible is full of God speaking to us, giving us commands and warnings, as if we really had a will to obey Him or not. But the adherents of deterministic theology simply counter with the statement that God is simply using these commands and warnings to carry out His predetermined will: the commands and warnings are simply the mechanism (the means) He uses to bring His predetermined will to fruition in time. Those that He has already decided to save will obey Him. Those that He has decided to pass over will disobey Him. The fact that these things in the Bible seem like real commands and warnings are just all part of the plan of God in carrying out His will - His eternal decrees. They aren't meant to be 'real' commands and warnings that people can truly obey or observe.
Thus this philosophy tries to hold with one hand their interpretation of the Sovereignty of God, and with the other hand hold on to what we all realize to be true within ourselves (that we have a will and can make real decisions); but all the while they eventually and fully deny the second in favor of their interpretation of the first, because ultimately anything a person wills has already been fully and finally willed by God. Any claims of a real 'will' in man are therefore nullified because man's will is really just a marionette proxy for God's will.
For my take on the argument against this type of idea, please consider the following:
In 722 through 721BC, God gave a portion of His chosen, elect people of Israel over to a conquering foe in the form of the Assyrian Empire under the leadership of Shalmaneser V and his brother, Sargon II. The portion that God gave over was the northern kingdom of Israel. God allowed the southern kingdom of Judah to survive until 586BC, when He gave them over to the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar.
If you wonder why God would ever do such a thing to His chosen people, just read Jeremiah 19. God lays it all out for anyone to read and understand.
If you'll read Jeremiah 19, as well as the other prophets that God sent to Israel to warn them to obey Him because His judgment was coming - prophets such as Amos, Isaiah, etc.; you'll quickly learn that God's main issue with Israel was that they lost faith in Him and kept on disobeying Him. In essence, they lost respect for Him. They thought they could go through the motions of worshiping God as He had specified, but then go and sin however they wanted. This unrepentant sin led them into other sin such that they oppressed the poor and denied justice to the most vulnerable people in society. At the same time the wealthy (who got that way by oppressing the poor, not by earning it honestly), were building for themselves multiple houses: mansions filled with luxury and wealth.
Israel thought that God was blessing them, but they came to realize that God was simply giving a stubborn and sinful people enough rope to hang themselves. This time could have been used for repentance but they refused, thus it turned the other way. They were so self deceived, they even called out for "The Day of the Lord". They cried out for Judgment Day, thinking that God would come to destroy His enemies: all those that weren't Israel. To their horror, Israel discovered that they had made themselves God's enemy - and when God showed up they were destroyed along with God's other enemies. (The book of Amos is a chilling reminder to the modern Church in the west to shape up. We are treading in Israel's footsteps).
Part of Israel's sin involved worshiping other gods like Baal and his consort (the Queen of Heaven) and Molech, among others. It is to this particular that I want to turn to talk about God's Sovereignty: specifically, about what some say about God's Sovereignty (that He determines everything so that we are merely following His hidden decrees made in eternity past). I want to contrast that idea with what God says about Himself.
In the dread chapter 19 of Jeremiah, we find the following statement from God about Israel in verses 4 and 5:
What an interesting statement for God to make if in fact He has determined each and every action all people will ever take from eternity past, no?
God actually gives us this message not once, not twice, but a full three times in Jeremiah: 7:30-32, 19:4-5, 32:35.
He explicitly says in regard to Israel sacrificing their children by burning them alive: "something I did not command or mention..."
And then God adds something very interesting. He says: "...something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind."
If you claim to believe that the Bible is God's Word, as I do; and you claim that it is infallible - meaning that as it was given to us it truly and accurately is the Word of God, as I do; and if because of these things you hold to God's Word as the anchor for you entire life: your thoughts, your conclusions, your actions, and your future; as I do - then you must deal with God's dealings through Jeremiah.
And if you believe that when we speak of God's Sovereignty and human will that we are talking about things with eternal ramifications - both in their genesis and in their future eternity; and that anything we read in God's Word falls under the authority of God's Sovereignty, then you must deal with His Word in all honesty of heart and mind.
What we read here is not somehow exempt from God's Sovereignty; it is not somehow exempt from any eternal decrees God has or has not given. And it is not exempt from a faithful display of God's nature. God does not sin and bear a false witness - in fact, He cannot because He is holy.
In regard to this vignette out of Israel's history, God tells us three things concerning this particularly horrible sin of child sacrifice of which Israel was guilty. But in doing this, God is telling us something very important about His eternal nature and His Sovereignty - how He has decided to administer His creation:
Do you see and understand what God is saying?
The fact that Israel had done such things didn't find its cause in God. The cause of these things was outside of God. He didn't command them (tsavah), He didn't mention them in any way (dabar), nor did it ever even enter His mind, His heart, His very self (leb) that Israel should do such things. This means these actions could not have been part of a supposed eternal decree of God.
Well, if the will that caused this sin didn't come from God then where did it come from? These things that Israel did weren't some type of reflex action or natural phenomenon - they were clearly decisions.
The mechanism God has given in His creation to make decisions is a will. In fact, that is the express purpose and function of a will: to make decisions. God is telling us that the will that caused these sins wasn't His, and not only that - His will had absolutely nothing to do with them in any way at all.
Where then did the sinful will come from?
It came from Israel themselves. If God is the only 'Decider', how can this be true? The answer is that it cannot be true if God is the only 'Decider'. It can only be true if God, as the Sovereign of everything that exists (the ultimate Decider) has exercised His will in such a way that He has allowed our wills to make true, undetermined choices.
That is the only option if we are to believe what God says about His own Sovereignty. He has exercised His all controlling Sovereignty in a way that has gifted us with a true will so that we are true personal creations and not pre-programmed marionettes. This will, while at all times under the influence of God because He is God, can also make decisions that have nothing to do with the express will of God at all - as is the case above with ancient Israel.
How this intersects with God's decisions concerning how a person is saved from their sin by the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross requires its own explanation. But suffice it to say that if we hold the Bible to be true, God has not made the decision to bring into being a pre-determined universe. And I'm so glad that He hasn't.
Use the ability and time that God has given you to make the right decision concerning His Son Jesus Christ. Allow His words to convict you of your sin, turn from what He shows you about yourself, and give Him everything that you are. If you do, you will find life and you will never be the same again.
This particular statement was made by President Bush in regards to Don Rumsfeld staying on as Secretary of Defense. Amid some of the problems in Iraq, the abuses at Abu Ghraib, etc. many people were calling for the head of Don Rumsfeld on a stick (or something worse), and there was speculation everywhere that Bushy (a nickname of kindness in my family by the way, not insult) was going to kick him out of the administration.
In regard to these speculations, the President said this:
"I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."
The phrase that stuck with me as both kind of funny and very true was: "I'm the decider". Funny because it is a quintessential "Bushism", but very true because like all other cabinet posts - the SecDef serves at the will and pleasure of the President.
What struck me was that this term, "The Decider", is probably the best way to describe God's Sovereignty over all existence. In every ultimate way that exists, God is "The Decider".
This is what it means to be truly Sovereign. If God didn't have the ultimate decision making authority for anything and everything, then He wouldn't be God. If there were two, or three, or four similar beings that somehow divided Sovereignty amongst themselves, then none of them would be God either because they would all have areas that were out of their control, areas where they in fact were not sovereign. Therefore if we have a God, God must be both truly Sovereign and truly One. It really is just that simple. (How this works for the Biblical concept of the Trinity is saved for another post).
So with this being the case, any reasonable person should be asking some questions, like what is it that God has decided? And is there any way we can even know?
When we talk about God being the Great Decider, we really can only talk about two different things: ideas about how this works. Ready?
- The first is that God has exercised His Sovereignty in such a manner that He is the only "Decider". Each and every event in space/time as well as every decision made by any creature with a will has already been made and determined by God. So in other words, this option would be a hard determinism. If we see something that looks like a will making a real decision (like the fact that a few minutes ago I decided to eat a mondo bowl of Cheerios), what we are witnessing is really an illusion because God has already determined everything ages ago in eternity past. That's idea #1: God is the sole "Decider" leading to a hard determinism. Humans, or anything else with a 'will', when acting through that will are really just playing a programmed part that God has already dictated.
- The second, and it is not compatible with the first, is that God has exercised His Sovereignty in such a way that He has purposely left room for other decision makers. This means that in essence, God has given certain of His creatures a measure of sovereignty over their own minds such that they can make real choices that are really their own real choices. These choices are sourced from their will, and not God's. In His Sovereignty He both rules and overrules, meaning that although He allows His creations to make truly bona fide choices - He overrules the consequences of their actions in order to fulfill His own purpose. He remains the ultimate Decider, because in His Sovereignty He has decided that this should happen. He remains in control as God because nothing that happens is outside of His control. He controls either through determining what will happen, or where He has allowed other wills to truly be exercised, He controls the consequences of the actions performed by these other wills.
I will say that either option can make some people very, very uncomfortable - perhaps even angry. There are a whole range of options there for things that put bootprints all over some very fervently held theology. I get that. If you are one of those folks, I apologize if I upset you or made you mad. I just ask that you please stick with me here. My purpose is to show what man says, and then to show what God says. Hopefully we can all agree that what God says is the true thing, and therefore the only really important thing.
Okay, that's the context. Now on to: why should anyone even care?
Well, I believe that if we care about others we should care. If we love others as God told us to, we should care. But more importantly, if we really want to know what God is like - we should care. Because this question goes right to the very heart of Who and What God is.
Some, in pursuing this question and seeking to answer it from God's revelation of Himself in creation and the Bible, have come to the conclusion that 'what' God has decided can be no less than everything. This everything is not like option #2 above, but it's like #1: God hasn't given His creatures an authority to make any real choices. Rather, He has already decided all of their 'choices' for them. This particular flavor of reasoning goes like this - and it is very logical and cohesive:
- Because God is truly Sovereign, there is nothing outside of His control. If there were things outside of His control, then He would not be God.
- Because of this, for God to reign as God, He must exercise His Sovereignty in such a way that everything that happens is according to His design (His eternal decrees). In all things He is the only real Decider.
- This means that there is no such thing as an action in the physical world or the spiritual world that can really go one way or another to make an event happen. To use philosopher speak, this means that there is no such thing as true contingency.
Tomorrow I'll be driving on a road somewhere and I'll have the choice of turning left or right, or proceeding straight ahead. It seems like I have a real choice I can make but in reality I don't. Long ago before anything existed God decided which way I would go on this particular day at this particular juncture, and by His eternal decree He makes sure that happens. Anything like this that seems to have real contingency about it is just an illusion, because God has decreed for certain all the things that lead up to my 'decision' (the time of day, the thoughts in my head, my brain and body chemistry, etc.) such that I will do what He has already decided I will do.
There are many different ways to go when writing about this subject, but what I want to cover for now is this: If there are things in God's Word, the Bible, that can seem to support a hard deterministic theology (and there certainly are), is there anything clearly stated in God's Word that would rule out such an idea? Because after all, we know that the proper way to interpret the Bible is to let it interpret itself - it is its own guidebook. We are to hold to the whole council of God, not just the parts we like.
Is there anything in God's revelation of Himself to us that would lay the axe to the root of the idea that all is determined and we are simply marionettes playing a predetermined part in this thing we call life? Because just like any idea that is held to be universally true, if it can be shown false at any point then the whole idea comes tumbling down. If an all encompassing determinism is to be true, then it must be true in an all encompassing way with no exceptions. Agreed?
Now to be sure, the vast majority of the Bible is full of God speaking to us, giving us commands and warnings, as if we really had a will to obey Him or not. But the adherents of deterministic theology simply counter with the statement that God is simply using these commands and warnings to carry out His predetermined will: the commands and warnings are simply the mechanism (the means) He uses to bring His predetermined will to fruition in time. Those that He has already decided to save will obey Him. Those that He has decided to pass over will disobey Him. The fact that these things in the Bible seem like real commands and warnings are just all part of the plan of God in carrying out His will - His eternal decrees. They aren't meant to be 'real' commands and warnings that people can truly obey or observe.
Thus this philosophy tries to hold with one hand their interpretation of the Sovereignty of God, and with the other hand hold on to what we all realize to be true within ourselves (that we have a will and can make real decisions); but all the while they eventually and fully deny the second in favor of their interpretation of the first, because ultimately anything a person wills has already been fully and finally willed by God. Any claims of a real 'will' in man are therefore nullified because man's will is really just a marionette proxy for God's will.
For my take on the argument against this type of idea, please consider the following:
In 722 through 721BC, God gave a portion of His chosen, elect people of Israel over to a conquering foe in the form of the Assyrian Empire under the leadership of Shalmaneser V and his brother, Sargon II. The portion that God gave over was the northern kingdom of Israel. God allowed the southern kingdom of Judah to survive until 586BC, when He gave them over to the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar.
If you wonder why God would ever do such a thing to His chosen people, just read Jeremiah 19. God lays it all out for anyone to read and understand.
If you'll read Jeremiah 19, as well as the other prophets that God sent to Israel to warn them to obey Him because His judgment was coming - prophets such as Amos, Isaiah, etc.; you'll quickly learn that God's main issue with Israel was that they lost faith in Him and kept on disobeying Him. In essence, they lost respect for Him. They thought they could go through the motions of worshiping God as He had specified, but then go and sin however they wanted. This unrepentant sin led them into other sin such that they oppressed the poor and denied justice to the most vulnerable people in society. At the same time the wealthy (who got that way by oppressing the poor, not by earning it honestly), were building for themselves multiple houses: mansions filled with luxury and wealth.
Israel thought that God was blessing them, but they came to realize that God was simply giving a stubborn and sinful people enough rope to hang themselves. This time could have been used for repentance but they refused, thus it turned the other way. They were so self deceived, they even called out for "The Day of the Lord". They cried out for Judgment Day, thinking that God would come to destroy His enemies: all those that weren't Israel. To their horror, Israel discovered that they had made themselves God's enemy - and when God showed up they were destroyed along with God's other enemies. (The book of Amos is a chilling reminder to the modern Church in the west to shape up. We are treading in Israel's footsteps).
Part of Israel's sin involved worshiping other gods like Baal and his consort (the Queen of Heaven) and Molech, among others. It is to this particular that I want to turn to talk about God's Sovereignty: specifically, about what some say about God's Sovereignty (that He determines everything so that we are merely following His hidden decrees made in eternity past). I want to contrast that idea with what God says about Himself.
In the dread chapter 19 of Jeremiah, we find the following statement from God about Israel in verses 4 and 5:
Jeremiah 19:4-5 (NIV)
4 For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned sacrifices in it to gods that neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent.
5 They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.
What an interesting statement for God to make if in fact He has determined each and every action all people will ever take from eternity past, no?
God actually gives us this message not once, not twice, but a full three times in Jeremiah: 7:30-32, 19:4-5, 32:35.
He explicitly says in regard to Israel sacrificing their children by burning them alive: "something I did not command or mention..."
And then God adds something very interesting. He says: "...something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind."
If you claim to believe that the Bible is God's Word, as I do; and you claim that it is infallible - meaning that as it was given to us it truly and accurately is the Word of God, as I do; and if because of these things you hold to God's Word as the anchor for you entire life: your thoughts, your conclusions, your actions, and your future; as I do - then you must deal with God's dealings through Jeremiah.
And if you believe that when we speak of God's Sovereignty and human will that we are talking about things with eternal ramifications - both in their genesis and in their future eternity; and that anything we read in God's Word falls under the authority of God's Sovereignty, then you must deal with His Word in all honesty of heart and mind.
What we read here is not somehow exempt from God's Sovereignty; it is not somehow exempt from any eternal decrees God has or has not given. And it is not exempt from a faithful display of God's nature. God does not sin and bear a false witness - in fact, He cannot because He is holy.
In regard to this vignette out of Israel's history, God tells us three things concerning this particularly horrible sin of child sacrifice of which Israel was guilty. But in doing this, God is telling us something very important about His eternal nature and His Sovereignty - how He has decided to administer His creation:
- This sin of Israel is something [He] did not command...: The Hebrew word here is 'tsavah'. It means to 'command, to order, to instruct, to dictate'. Most certainly because God is God, this is His right. But in this message to us, God is saying that He did not exercise His Sovereignty in this direction: He did not command Israel to do such a thing.
- This sin of Israel is something [He] did not mention...: The Hebrew word here is 'dabar'. Unlike 'tsavah' that always means a command, 'dabar' is a more general term that simply means communicated speech. It can mean a command, but in the context of this verse it's clear that since God has already said He has not commanded this thing for Israel, when He now mentions 'dabar', He is talking about it's other meanings, which are: 'to say, to speak, to promise, to mention, to communicate'.
- This sin of Israel is something that did not enter His mind: This doesn't mean that this was somehow outside the realm of God's omniscience (the fact that He perceives and knows everything). It means that any determination on God's part that Israel should do this horrible thing never even entered His mind. The Hebrew word here for mind really means heart: 'leb' - 'heart'. It has the metaphorical meanings of: 'inner person, center of being, the self, the place where both thought and emotion originate, conscience, mind, understanding'.
Do you see and understand what God is saying?
The fact that Israel had done such things didn't find its cause in God. The cause of these things was outside of God. He didn't command them (tsavah), He didn't mention them in any way (dabar), nor did it ever even enter His mind, His heart, His very self (leb) that Israel should do such things. This means these actions could not have been part of a supposed eternal decree of God.
Well, if the will that caused this sin didn't come from God then where did it come from? These things that Israel did weren't some type of reflex action or natural phenomenon - they were clearly decisions.
The mechanism God has given in His creation to make decisions is a will. In fact, that is the express purpose and function of a will: to make decisions. God is telling us that the will that caused these sins wasn't His, and not only that - His will had absolutely nothing to do with them in any way at all.
Where then did the sinful will come from?
It came from Israel themselves. If God is the only 'Decider', how can this be true? The answer is that it cannot be true if God is the only 'Decider'. It can only be true if God, as the Sovereign of everything that exists (the ultimate Decider) has exercised His will in such a way that He has allowed our wills to make true, undetermined choices.
That is the only option if we are to believe what God says about His own Sovereignty. He has exercised His all controlling Sovereignty in a way that has gifted us with a true will so that we are true personal creations and not pre-programmed marionettes. This will, while at all times under the influence of God because He is God, can also make decisions that have nothing to do with the express will of God at all - as is the case above with ancient Israel.
How this intersects with God's decisions concerning how a person is saved from their sin by the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross requires its own explanation. But suffice it to say that if we hold the Bible to be true, God has not made the decision to bring into being a pre-determined universe. And I'm so glad that He hasn't.
Use the ability and time that God has given you to make the right decision concerning His Son Jesus Christ. Allow His words to convict you of your sin, turn from what He shows you about yourself, and give Him everything that you are. If you do, you will find life and you will never be the same again.
Tuesday, June 05, 2012
What is God's Glory? Devastating Love
Are we sure we recognize God's Glory when we see it?
I ask the question because most often when we hear God's glory taught we are led to think of the Shekihnah Glory. - the great, awesome, fearsome, totally overwhelming phenomenon of God's visible presence. It is described as a 'shining', a 'light' - it is effulgence in its most perfect and absolute form. And all of these things would be true according to the manner in which God revealed Himself in the Old Testament as well as in the Revelation given to the Apostle John.
But in the New Testament as a whole, this is no longer presented to us as the ultimate expression of God's Glory. Of course we do have the event on the Mount of Transfiguration, where for a moment Jesus is clothed again with His heavenly splendor before His death, resurrection, and ascension. But interestingly enough it isn't this event that the Apostle John highlights as the ultimate example of God's glory.
The event that John held forth as the ultimate expression of God's nature - His glorious nature - was of a very different kind - something that we would never of have guessed on our own.
It's a good reminder to us that unless God reveals Himself to us, we can't know who and what He is. The recognition of this helps us to separate the wheat from the chaff of our thoughts and impressions about God. It helps us from straying into a God dishonoring theology based on logic rather than revelation.
Some who would honor 'god' seek to do so almost exclusively based upon judgement of sin. Islam comes to my mind first and foremost for this view, although there are pseudo-christian sects (lowercase 'c') that do the same thing against whatever thing they hate the most: It could be homosexuality; it could be merely a certain ethnicity such as being Jewish or of African descent that invites attack.
Others would seek to honor 'god' exclusively for his love. This could be folks that would be called 'universalists' - those that believe a good, loving god would never send anyone to hell so therefore since we know God is loving - everyone must in the end be A-OK.
Yet others get closer to the truth and understand that God speaks of both His love for sinners and His justice against sin, so surely any 'ultimate' expression of His nature must involve at least both of these things.
This is very, very close to what God has revealed - but it isn't yet quite right. We have the building blocks in place but the question of emphasis remains.
Among the many threads that run through the Gospel of John: the eternity and Deity of the Logos (Jesus), His role as the Creator God and sustainer (the One who works 'sunistemi' - literally, 'to hold together so that existence is possible') of everything that exists, His role as light in the darkness so that all men can believe, among others... in and among all of these threads (which are themselves expressions of God's Glory), we come to the very best, the very brightest, the most shocking display- what in his Gospel the Apostle John points out as the very greatest - public display of God's Glory.
Do you know what it is? :-)
John 12:23-32 (NIV)
God has determined that the ultimate expressions of His glory are to be found in the sacrificial death and bodily resurrection and ascension of His Son. And all of this motivated by the truth of His love as expressed in John 3:14-21.
The Holy Spirit through the writer to the Hebrews brings this point home by pairing Jesus as the ultimate image of God's glory with His death on the cross as the ultimate applied expression of that glory.
Hebrews 1:1-4 (Amplified Bible)
And through Isaiah and John the Baptist - Isaiah 40:3-5 (NIV)
In all of the ways that God has ever spoken to us about Himself, Jesus is the clearest and finest description He has ever and will ever provide this side of Heaven. This ultimate message from God drives home the truth of His loving nature with the exclamation point of the cross.
I believe William Temple probably said it best - from "Readings in St. John's Gospel" (1950), London: MacMillan - Notes on John 1:14):
This of course begs the question: is what William Temple said correct?
After all, we can look at a passage of Scripture like Romans 3:25-26 (NIV):
Great truth here right? In the cross God is indeed really doing two things in acting out His nature: He is being 'just', and He is being 'the One Who justifies those who have faith in Jesus'. 'Just' in that He isn't letting sin go unpunished - because if He did that He would instantly become sinful Himself, and the 'Justifier' in that by faith in Christ's death on the cross we can accept God's justice against sin that fell on Christ and we can go free.
And if we didn't look at or know anything else, we might be led to believe that these are the only two things going on, and that they get equal billing. God being 'just' against sin, and God being 'the Justifier' in regards to sin and Jesus on the cross. Perhaps a 50/50 split with God being if you will (and yes, these are inaccurate and gross terms - stick with me ) 50% justice against sin and 50% love for the sinner?
I just bring this up because one comes across this idea so much when discussing theology and the cross. God's love is made just another one of His attributes like perhaps His justice, and some make it seem there is this tension in God (or what we perceive as tension) - this spirit says things like: 'God's seething ocean of wrath being held back by the damn of His love' - stuff like that - things that seem to indicate God is in tension with Himself and therefore one can extract a theology full of 'tensions' and we're told we should just live in those tensions because that's how God is, or that's the only way we can understand Him in our state as fallen creatures. I think you know what I mean.
The issue at hand though, is to make sure we represent God correctly. What we must not do is slander Him by saying something about Him that He hasn't said about Himself. If you ever listen to any of my preaching you'll recognize this as one of my 'tag phrases' I bring in all the time. I'm very incensed about it, and I am so because I know my Bible and I know my God. I hate to see Him misrepresented, but most especially in a way that hurts those who need Him the most.
That would be horrible, because the reason we are still here - the reason we are still on Earth and not in Heaven - is to be a witness to Who God is and What it is that He has done. We are to witness and teach in the very name of God. 'Name' means His nature and character. If we misrepresent or distort that, we've totally failed at the job He gave us to do, and to make things worse - it will have been unnecessary because He gave us enough information that we didn't have to make that mistake.
We don't have to be like Job's group of well meaning but eventually worthless friends - you know, the ones that God got so angry with because they attributed things to Him that He had not attributed to Himself - I call it the sin of Eliphaz, but whatever. We don't have to be on that road. We get to be like the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament Apostles, in the sense that God has given us enough through them so that we know how God Himself defines where the different emphases should go.
I kind of think this latter approach is a better idea. Instead of guessing, instead of trying to derive something with a logical approach that may or may not be ultimately rational (ultimately true), why not just read what God has said?
Please consider:
In the Old Testament we have Moses asking to see "God's Glory".
Exodus 34:5-7 (NIV):
(Here God proclaims His name twice - 'the LORD, the LORD' is 'Yahweh, Yahweh' - this is God's personal name. He is emphasizing through repetition that He is a personal God. He isn't some metaphysical force or simply a set of moral concepts - He is a person. He made us in His image as persons and He relates to us on a personal level.
(Just as an aside, what one finds going forward in all of God's revelation is that this means He doesn't deal with us on a 'cause and effect' level. That is reserved for objects, not people. How He has determined to deal with us, because of His nature and the nature He gave us, is 'influence and response'. These two approaches are drastically different and the realization of that will have profound implications for which body of theology one perceives as correct. All I'm asking is that we see what God has said so that we can see correctly.)
He says He is 'compassionate' (Hebrew rachum).
He says He is 'gracious' (Hebrew chanun).
He is 'slow to anger' (that's an excellent thing in someone both Holy and omnipotent, no?) - (Hebrew 'areke 'ap - literally 'slow to the face' - 'slow to be hot in the face' - 'slow to flush with fury'. What makes God angry? Sin.
He says He is 'abounding in love' (Hebrew rab chesed) - literally 'super-abounding in unfailing, loyal, devoted, and kind love' (also something wonderful in One omnipotent - praise the Lord that He isn't Allah).
He says He is 'abounding in faithfulness' (Hebrew rab 'emet) - literally 'super-abounding with faithfulness, reliability, and trustworthiness. As compared to everything that is false and bad, this expression of Himself says that He is everything that is true and good, and completely so' - crying as I type this by the way. Isn't God wonderful?
If you study Torah, and I really think that's something that mature Christians should maybe do if they ever have time, you can learn some really interesting things about Hebrew and what God has said about Himself (and this offered of course with all the appropriate caveats for those in Christ reading those who aren't). I'm a newbie at it but I do really like it. Please let me share with you what God has shown me.
Take our first two words above: compassionate (rachum) and gracious (chanun).
Rachum (compassionate) has a really specific meaning. It means compassion that is exercised before a crisis arises. It can anticipate a crisis - and most usually does, but it is compassion that is perhaps lying under the surface. It is the positive face - the attitude of being willing to love as a verb (which is what mercy is - applied love) that leaves one open to respond favorably should the situation arise. I think of it as love on its toes but not yet in action. It's love coiled to strike.
Then we come to chanun (gracious). Again, a really specific meaning. It means compassion that is exercised during a crisis. But more than that, it is the compassion that acts in a time of crisis to positively rescue the one who cries out for mercy. It is, as the Hebrews describe, the word in their language such that when one cries out for mercy to one who can provide it, and such is the cry - and such is the one who is rachum - poised to strike with love, that he cannot and will not ignore the request for mercy. To do so would be to deny Himself and His glory, His very nature of saving love.
This doesn't override God's Sovereignty, it doesn't somehow even influence God's Sovereignty, for He is the one who has decided to be rachum. Rachum both invites and waits for the cry for mercy that results in chanun.
But it gets even better.
Rachum (compassionate) has a flavor to it in that it contains within it the idea of logical reasoning... meaning that it takes mitigating circumstances into account. It is love on its toes and coiled to strike, but love that has eyes, and love that has a brain, and it is considering how and when, and how much it will do, and what it will do. It's openness to act has a plan. It is the father of the prodigal out on his porch each and every night - staring down the road to destruction, tears streaming down his face as he waits for his wayward son to turn and cry for mercy.
Chanun (gracious) has a flavor to it in that it does not consider logical reasoning. It is love that when let loose, sweeps in like a tsunami burying everything in its wake. It is the passion, it is the rush, it is the trigger of rachum being pulled and all of the loving planning being actualized at once in a sudden expression of overwhelming, completely sufficient action that is pure, devastating love.
It is the plan of love made real. It is the father of the prodigal hiking up his robe and in the most undignified manner possible for an ancient Jewish man, RUNNING to his son who has turned... FALLING upon his son not with anger but with forgiveness and love... pulling him to himself, kissing him on the head, on the neck, on the face... not even letting his son finish his speech of repentance before he shushes him with his lips.. restoring his son to his rightful place, and doing so with tears of joy.
It is the father that has been planning for the son in the event he returned. The fatted calf is ready, the runners are ready to fetch his friends. All of the planning and the waiting are over and chanun has come and is realized. Not because the father made the son turn, the son had to do that himself. But chanun was possible because the father left open the possibility for turning because he exercised rachum. And when the son turned, the father broadsided him with chanun.
I ask you: how great is our God?
Our great God says He maintains this stance to 'thousands' (Hebrew 'elef - objectively it means 'thousand', but subjectively it means 'a whole, whole bunch'. It's the largest category for numbering and can be repetitively extended to represent large numbers. In our day and age we would probably have to say billions or trillions - the largest numbering groups that people know - to get the same effect as the Hebrew here). Maintain (Hebrew natsar - actively guarding, maintaining, preserving this stance so that when the time for action comes all will be ready to forgive each and every type of sin and rebellion that can exist - God here gives a comprehensive list showing that in His rachum and His chanun, there is nothing so bad for which He will not answer the cry for mercy.. absolutely nothing. There is no color of sin that cannot be washed away in the blood provided by God's rachum and chanun).
And after all of this.. this utter multitude of love and care that God expresses toward us from within Himself. After all of this flood comes a single word concerning judgment. The massive expression of love comes first and is primary - overwhelmingly so. The single word of judgment comes last and is secondary - overwhelmingly so.
Yet, says the Lord, literally 'He does not leave the guilty unpunished'. And "He punishes the children for the sins of the fathers to the third and fourth generations".
I'll set aside the first clause for a moment so I can address something that's very important. It's critical to understand what God is saying here, and it is tied in with the first clause all the way to the cross of Jesus Christ: the very Glory of God about which we are speaking.
The full expression of this troubling phrase is found in Exodus 20:5-6 (NIV):
This is actually part of the Ten Commandments and it is an explanatory note that God is giving for the second commandment where He prohibits idolatry - the worship of anything but Himself.
In verse 5 above God explains that if Israel entertains idolatry the result will be generational apostasy - a falling away from the faith across generations. This was born out in Israel's history - in fact, it IS their history.
God further qualifies what is going on here. Look at the end of verse 5:
God explains that those who sow to the wind, reap the tornado. Walking away from God to serve other gods invites disaster, and God will see to it that it happens. "Those that hate me", and "those that love me", are to be understood in the normal, Hebraic poetical sense - this particular example is an elliptical phrase that is comparing and contrasting opposites. 'Hate' means not to prefer, not to choose, not to be in relation with; whereas 'love' means to prefer, or to choose, or to be in relation with.
God is saying that if Israel finds serving Him uncomfortable or unprofitable, and they decide to have other gods - if they decide not to prefer him, then they are ruining themselves and their children across generations as well. And this is sadly true. History shows that it only takes one generation for a God fearing people to fail to train their children in the way they should go before apostasy and disaster strike. In the US it was the 1960s. And these types of events have ripple effects that are not quickly reversed. They lead to things like rampant infant murder, Columbine, and one crazed naked guy eating another naked guy's face. Most usually, things must get very, very bad before they get better. This is effectively the story of Israel in the Old Testament.
But to those that 'prefer God' above all others (and prove it by keeping His commandments), He shows love ('asah chesed - He definitively and without doubt makes unfailing and completely trustworthy love happen). And this isn't to the few as is the punishment for rebellion. It is to the many, 'thousands' - the largest category for counting things ancient Hebrew had (elef).
But this all ties in with "He does not leave the guilty unpunished".
In light of Exodus 20 and God's expansion of what these paired phrases mean, I believe we are talking about the very New Testament message of faith verses unbelief.
God does not leave those guilty of 'not preferring Him' - not believing in Him - unpunished. This sin of 'passing over God for something else' will be punished, and the nature of it will carry on to subsequent generations.
But to those that 'prefer Him to all others' - those that put faith in Him as He has indicated we should - these receive all the blessings of God's rachum and chanun.
But how can God plan love (rachum) and exercise love (chanun) for those we know are sinners? If God must punish the guilty, why is there even the possibility of God's blessing?
Because of God's nature. His Glory is a saving glory - that's what His glory means. He devises ways to save sinners (2nd Samuel 14:14), and He delights in doing so. He is an equal opportunity savior. Towards this end He created the principle of a substitute. Where a proper substitute exists, God has made it possible for sin and its guilt to literally be passed from one entity to another, so that the innocent can take the place of the guilty - and the guilty can take the place of the innocent.
This 'great exchange' was foreshadowed in the Old Testament sacrificial system (rachum), but actualized in the cross of Jesus Christ for all who turn and cry for mercy to the Father. When that happens, chanun is freed to rampage in the wild abandon of unhindered love - because the price of justice has been paid, the separating wall has been torn down - and the God who planned love, and unleashed love upon the sinner's cry for mercy - this One is now a friend, not a foe. And all of this by His rachum: His calculating, planning, broadcasted love.
Look again at what we've seen from God's Word. Please tell me, from your heart, where God puts the emphasis.
Is it on His judgment? Or is it on His planned and applied love that we call grace?
Tell me please, how from this or anywhere else in God's Word one can get the idea that there is anything resembling even a moderately equitable split between God's judgement and His saving love as it pertains to us? You see, God has decided in His Sovereignty to make His justice work on our behalf, rather than against us, so that we can be saved. God's rachum puts Him in our corner, even in His judgment - if only we will cry to Him for salvation.
The Apostle James tells us, he rather exults in telling us - and this is the Holy Spirit speaking because this is Scripture, that for those that will accept it - "mercy triumphs over judgment!":
And in closing, the great verses that are life:
Those that 'prefer God and His rachum' may have it, simply by crying out to the Lord for salvation - for everyone who calls upon the Lord will be saved (chanun).
Those that refuse to 'prefer God and His rachum', who turn their back on the Son, will not have it. They will receive, from a broken-hearted God - balanced on the balls of His feet, ready and willing with rachum to save yet never asked, they will receive all that He has left: the very thing God calls 'His strange, not normal, and alien task of judging those He wishes to save'. His judgment will fall, and they will be lost - and this without remedy. How sad, and how utterly stupid.
I hope this has broken your heart, and I hope you use it to break the heart of someone you love.
For a broken and contrite heart please God. Through that shattered lens His rachum can be clearly seen. When this happens, turning is possible. God's offer of grace is made known. And when turning happens, the very nanosecond it happens, God's chanun springs into action to save, and THAT without remedy.
God bless.
I ask the question because most often when we hear God's glory taught we are led to think of the Shekihnah Glory. - the great, awesome, fearsome, totally overwhelming phenomenon of God's visible presence. It is described as a 'shining', a 'light' - it is effulgence in its most perfect and absolute form. And all of these things would be true according to the manner in which God revealed Himself in the Old Testament as well as in the Revelation given to the Apostle John.
But in the New Testament as a whole, this is no longer presented to us as the ultimate expression of God's Glory. Of course we do have the event on the Mount of Transfiguration, where for a moment Jesus is clothed again with His heavenly splendor before His death, resurrection, and ascension. But interestingly enough it isn't this event that the Apostle John highlights as the ultimate example of God's glory.
The event that John held forth as the ultimate expression of God's nature - His glorious nature - was of a very different kind - something that we would never of have guessed on our own.
It's a good reminder to us that unless God reveals Himself to us, we can't know who and what He is. The recognition of this helps us to separate the wheat from the chaff of our thoughts and impressions about God. It helps us from straying into a God dishonoring theology based on logic rather than revelation.
Some who would honor 'god' seek to do so almost exclusively based upon judgement of sin. Islam comes to my mind first and foremost for this view, although there are pseudo-christian sects (lowercase 'c') that do the same thing against whatever thing they hate the most: It could be homosexuality; it could be merely a certain ethnicity such as being Jewish or of African descent that invites attack.
Others would seek to honor 'god' exclusively for his love. This could be folks that would be called 'universalists' - those that believe a good, loving god would never send anyone to hell so therefore since we know God is loving - everyone must in the end be A-OK.
Yet others get closer to the truth and understand that God speaks of both His love for sinners and His justice against sin, so surely any 'ultimate' expression of His nature must involve at least both of these things.
This is very, very close to what God has revealed - but it isn't yet quite right. We have the building blocks in place but the question of emphasis remains.
Among the many threads that run through the Gospel of John: the eternity and Deity of the Logos (Jesus), His role as the Creator God and sustainer (the One who works 'sunistemi' - literally, 'to hold together so that existence is possible') of everything that exists, His role as light in the darkness so that all men can believe, among others... in and among all of these threads (which are themselves expressions of God's Glory), we come to the very best, the very brightest, the most shocking display- what in his Gospel the Apostle John points out as the very greatest - public display of God's Glory.
Do you know what it is? :-)
John 12:23-32 (NIV)
23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.
24 I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.
25 The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.
26 Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.
27 “Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour.
28 Father, glorify your name!” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.”
29 The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.
30 Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine.
31 Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out.
32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.”
God has determined that the ultimate expressions of His glory are to be found in the sacrificial death and bodily resurrection and ascension of His Son. And all of this motivated by the truth of His love as expressed in John 3:14-21.
The Holy Spirit through the writer to the Hebrews brings this point home by pairing Jesus as the ultimate image of God's glory with His death on the cross as the ultimate applied expression of that glory.
Hebrews 1:1-4 (Amplified Bible)
1 IN MANY separate revelations [ each of which set forth a portion of the Truth] and in different ways God spoke of old to [our] forefathers in and by the prophets,
2 [But] in the last of these days He has spoken to us in [the person of a] Son, Whom He appointed Heir and lawful Owner of all things, also by and through Whom He created the worlds and the reaches of space and the ages of time [He made, produced, built, operated, and arranged them in order].
3 He is the sole expression of the glory of God [the Light-being, the out-raying or radiance of the divine], and He is the perfect imprint and very image of [God’s] nature, upholding and maintaining and guiding and propelling the universe by His mighty word of power. When He had by offering Himself accomplished our cleansing of sins and riddance of guilt, He sat down at the right hand of the divine Majesty on high,
4 [Taking a place and rank by which] He Himself became as much superior to angels as the glorious Name (title) which He has inherited is different from and more excellent than theirs.
And through Isaiah and John the Baptist - Isaiah 40:3-5 (NIV)
3 A voice of one calling: “In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.
4 Every valley shall be raised up,every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level,the rugged places a plain.
5 And the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all mankind together will see it. For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.”
In all of the ways that God has ever spoken to us about Himself, Jesus is the clearest and finest description He has ever and will ever provide this side of Heaven. This ultimate message from God drives home the truth of His loving nature with the exclamation point of the cross.
I believe William Temple probably said it best - from "Readings in St. John's Gospel" (1950), London: MacMillan - Notes on John 1:14):
"The Incarnation was an act of sacrifice and of humiliation - real however voluntary. But that is not the last word. For the sacrifice and the humiliation ARE the Divine Glory. If God is love (1st John 4:8, 4:16), His glory most of all shines forth in whatever most fully expresses love. The cross of shame IS the throne of glory."
This of course begs the question: is what William Temple said correct?
After all, we can look at a passage of Scripture like Romans 3:25-26 (NIV):
25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
Great truth here right? In the cross God is indeed really doing two things in acting out His nature: He is being 'just', and He is being 'the One Who justifies those who have faith in Jesus'. 'Just' in that He isn't letting sin go unpunished - because if He did that He would instantly become sinful Himself, and the 'Justifier' in that by faith in Christ's death on the cross we can accept God's justice against sin that fell on Christ and we can go free.
And if we didn't look at or know anything else, we might be led to believe that these are the only two things going on, and that they get equal billing. God being 'just' against sin, and God being 'the Justifier' in regards to sin and Jesus on the cross. Perhaps a 50/50 split with God being if you will (and yes, these are inaccurate and gross terms - stick with me ) 50% justice against sin and 50% love for the sinner?
I just bring this up because one comes across this idea so much when discussing theology and the cross. God's love is made just another one of His attributes like perhaps His justice, and some make it seem there is this tension in God (or what we perceive as tension) - this spirit says things like: 'God's seething ocean of wrath being held back by the damn of His love' - stuff like that - things that seem to indicate God is in tension with Himself and therefore one can extract a theology full of 'tensions' and we're told we should just live in those tensions because that's how God is, or that's the only way we can understand Him in our state as fallen creatures. I think you know what I mean.
The issue at hand though, is to make sure we represent God correctly. What we must not do is slander Him by saying something about Him that He hasn't said about Himself. If you ever listen to any of my preaching you'll recognize this as one of my 'tag phrases' I bring in all the time. I'm very incensed about it, and I am so because I know my Bible and I know my God. I hate to see Him misrepresented, but most especially in a way that hurts those who need Him the most.
That would be horrible, because the reason we are still here - the reason we are still on Earth and not in Heaven - is to be a witness to Who God is and What it is that He has done. We are to witness and teach in the very name of God. 'Name' means His nature and character. If we misrepresent or distort that, we've totally failed at the job He gave us to do, and to make things worse - it will have been unnecessary because He gave us enough information that we didn't have to make that mistake.
We don't have to be like Job's group of well meaning but eventually worthless friends - you know, the ones that God got so angry with because they attributed things to Him that He had not attributed to Himself - I call it the sin of Eliphaz, but whatever. We don't have to be on that road. We get to be like the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament Apostles, in the sense that God has given us enough through them so that we know how God Himself defines where the different emphases should go.
I kind of think this latter approach is a better idea. Instead of guessing, instead of trying to derive something with a logical approach that may or may not be ultimately rational (ultimately true), why not just read what God has said?
Please consider:
In the Old Testament we have Moses asking to see "God's Glory".
Exodus 34:5-7 (NIV):
5 Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD.
6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness,
7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.”
(Here God proclaims His name twice - 'the LORD, the LORD' is 'Yahweh, Yahweh' - this is God's personal name. He is emphasizing through repetition that He is a personal God. He isn't some metaphysical force or simply a set of moral concepts - He is a person. He made us in His image as persons and He relates to us on a personal level.
(Just as an aside, what one finds going forward in all of God's revelation is that this means He doesn't deal with us on a 'cause and effect' level. That is reserved for objects, not people. How He has determined to deal with us, because of His nature and the nature He gave us, is 'influence and response'. These two approaches are drastically different and the realization of that will have profound implications for which body of theology one perceives as correct. All I'm asking is that we see what God has said so that we can see correctly.)
He says He is 'compassionate' (Hebrew rachum).
He says He is 'gracious' (Hebrew chanun).
He is 'slow to anger' (that's an excellent thing in someone both Holy and omnipotent, no?) - (Hebrew 'areke 'ap - literally 'slow to the face' - 'slow to be hot in the face' - 'slow to flush with fury'. What makes God angry? Sin.
He says He is 'abounding in love' (Hebrew rab chesed) - literally 'super-abounding in unfailing, loyal, devoted, and kind love' (also something wonderful in One omnipotent - praise the Lord that He isn't Allah).
He says He is 'abounding in faithfulness' (Hebrew rab 'emet) - literally 'super-abounding with faithfulness, reliability, and trustworthiness. As compared to everything that is false and bad, this expression of Himself says that He is everything that is true and good, and completely so' - crying as I type this by the way. Isn't God wonderful?
If you study Torah, and I really think that's something that mature Christians should maybe do if they ever have time, you can learn some really interesting things about Hebrew and what God has said about Himself (and this offered of course with all the appropriate caveats for those in Christ reading those who aren't). I'm a newbie at it but I do really like it. Please let me share with you what God has shown me.
Take our first two words above: compassionate (rachum) and gracious (chanun).
Rachum (compassionate) has a really specific meaning. It means compassion that is exercised before a crisis arises. It can anticipate a crisis - and most usually does, but it is compassion that is perhaps lying under the surface. It is the positive face - the attitude of being willing to love as a verb (which is what mercy is - applied love) that leaves one open to respond favorably should the situation arise. I think of it as love on its toes but not yet in action. It's love coiled to strike.
Then we come to chanun (gracious). Again, a really specific meaning. It means compassion that is exercised during a crisis. But more than that, it is the compassion that acts in a time of crisis to positively rescue the one who cries out for mercy. It is, as the Hebrews describe, the word in their language such that when one cries out for mercy to one who can provide it, and such is the cry - and such is the one who is rachum - poised to strike with love, that he cannot and will not ignore the request for mercy. To do so would be to deny Himself and His glory, His very nature of saving love.
This doesn't override God's Sovereignty, it doesn't somehow even influence God's Sovereignty, for He is the one who has decided to be rachum. Rachum both invites and waits for the cry for mercy that results in chanun.
But it gets even better.
Rachum (compassionate) has a flavor to it in that it contains within it the idea of logical reasoning... meaning that it takes mitigating circumstances into account. It is love on its toes and coiled to strike, but love that has eyes, and love that has a brain, and it is considering how and when, and how much it will do, and what it will do. It's openness to act has a plan. It is the father of the prodigal out on his porch each and every night - staring down the road to destruction, tears streaming down his face as he waits for his wayward son to turn and cry for mercy.
Chanun (gracious) has a flavor to it in that it does not consider logical reasoning. It is love that when let loose, sweeps in like a tsunami burying everything in its wake. It is the passion, it is the rush, it is the trigger of rachum being pulled and all of the loving planning being actualized at once in a sudden expression of overwhelming, completely sufficient action that is pure, devastating love.
It is the plan of love made real. It is the father of the prodigal hiking up his robe and in the most undignified manner possible for an ancient Jewish man, RUNNING to his son who has turned... FALLING upon his son not with anger but with forgiveness and love... pulling him to himself, kissing him on the head, on the neck, on the face... not even letting his son finish his speech of repentance before he shushes him with his lips.. restoring his son to his rightful place, and doing so with tears of joy.
It is the father that has been planning for the son in the event he returned. The fatted calf is ready, the runners are ready to fetch his friends. All of the planning and the waiting are over and chanun has come and is realized. Not because the father made the son turn, the son had to do that himself. But chanun was possible because the father left open the possibility for turning because he exercised rachum. And when the son turned, the father broadsided him with chanun.
I ask you: how great is our God?
Our great God says He maintains this stance to 'thousands' (Hebrew 'elef - objectively it means 'thousand', but subjectively it means 'a whole, whole bunch'. It's the largest category for numbering and can be repetitively extended to represent large numbers. In our day and age we would probably have to say billions or trillions - the largest numbering groups that people know - to get the same effect as the Hebrew here). Maintain (Hebrew natsar - actively guarding, maintaining, preserving this stance so that when the time for action comes all will be ready to forgive each and every type of sin and rebellion that can exist - God here gives a comprehensive list showing that in His rachum and His chanun, there is nothing so bad for which He will not answer the cry for mercy.. absolutely nothing. There is no color of sin that cannot be washed away in the blood provided by God's rachum and chanun).
And after all of this.. this utter multitude of love and care that God expresses toward us from within Himself. After all of this flood comes a single word concerning judgment. The massive expression of love comes first and is primary - overwhelmingly so. The single word of judgment comes last and is secondary - overwhelmingly so.
Yet, says the Lord, literally 'He does not leave the guilty unpunished'. And "He punishes the children for the sins of the fathers to the third and fourth generations".
I'll set aside the first clause for a moment so I can address something that's very important. It's critical to understand what God is saying here, and it is tied in with the first clause all the way to the cross of Jesus Christ: the very Glory of God about which we are speaking.
The full expression of this troubling phrase is found in Exodus 20:5-6 (NIV):
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
This is actually part of the Ten Commandments and it is an explanatory note that God is giving for the second commandment where He prohibits idolatry - the worship of anything but Himself.
In verse 5 above God explains that if Israel entertains idolatry the result will be generational apostasy - a falling away from the faith across generations. This was born out in Israel's history - in fact, it IS their history.
God further qualifies what is going on here. Look at the end of verse 5:
"for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,"Now look at verse 6:
but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
God explains that those who sow to the wind, reap the tornado. Walking away from God to serve other gods invites disaster, and God will see to it that it happens. "Those that hate me", and "those that love me", are to be understood in the normal, Hebraic poetical sense - this particular example is an elliptical phrase that is comparing and contrasting opposites. 'Hate' means not to prefer, not to choose, not to be in relation with; whereas 'love' means to prefer, or to choose, or to be in relation with.
God is saying that if Israel finds serving Him uncomfortable or unprofitable, and they decide to have other gods - if they decide not to prefer him, then they are ruining themselves and their children across generations as well. And this is sadly true. History shows that it only takes one generation for a God fearing people to fail to train their children in the way they should go before apostasy and disaster strike. In the US it was the 1960s. And these types of events have ripple effects that are not quickly reversed. They lead to things like rampant infant murder, Columbine, and one crazed naked guy eating another naked guy's face. Most usually, things must get very, very bad before they get better. This is effectively the story of Israel in the Old Testament.
But to those that 'prefer God' above all others (and prove it by keeping His commandments), He shows love ('asah chesed - He definitively and without doubt makes unfailing and completely trustworthy love happen). And this isn't to the few as is the punishment for rebellion. It is to the many, 'thousands' - the largest category for counting things ancient Hebrew had (elef).
But this all ties in with "He does not leave the guilty unpunished".
In light of Exodus 20 and God's expansion of what these paired phrases mean, I believe we are talking about the very New Testament message of faith verses unbelief.
God does not leave those guilty of 'not preferring Him' - not believing in Him - unpunished. This sin of 'passing over God for something else' will be punished, and the nature of it will carry on to subsequent generations.
But to those that 'prefer Him to all others' - those that put faith in Him as He has indicated we should - these receive all the blessings of God's rachum and chanun.
But how can God plan love (rachum) and exercise love (chanun) for those we know are sinners? If God must punish the guilty, why is there even the possibility of God's blessing?
Because of God's nature. His Glory is a saving glory - that's what His glory means. He devises ways to save sinners (2nd Samuel 14:14), and He delights in doing so. He is an equal opportunity savior. Towards this end He created the principle of a substitute. Where a proper substitute exists, God has made it possible for sin and its guilt to literally be passed from one entity to another, so that the innocent can take the place of the guilty - and the guilty can take the place of the innocent.
This 'great exchange' was foreshadowed in the Old Testament sacrificial system (rachum), but actualized in the cross of Jesus Christ for all who turn and cry for mercy to the Father. When that happens, chanun is freed to rampage in the wild abandon of unhindered love - because the price of justice has been paid, the separating wall has been torn down - and the God who planned love, and unleashed love upon the sinner's cry for mercy - this One is now a friend, not a foe. And all of this by His rachum: His calculating, planning, broadcasted love.
Look again at what we've seen from God's Word. Please tell me, from your heart, where God puts the emphasis.
Is it on His judgment? Or is it on His planned and applied love that we call grace?
Tell me please, how from this or anywhere else in God's Word one can get the idea that there is anything resembling even a moderately equitable split between God's judgement and His saving love as it pertains to us? You see, God has decided in His Sovereignty to make His justice work on our behalf, rather than against us, so that we can be saved. God's rachum puts Him in our corner, even in His judgment - if only we will cry to Him for salvation.
The Apostle James tells us, he rather exults in telling us - and this is the Holy Spirit speaking because this is Scripture, that for those that will accept it - "mercy triumphs over judgment!":
And in closing, the great verses that are life:
Jn 3:14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,
Jn 3:15 that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
Jn 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Jn 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
Jn 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
Those that 'prefer God and His rachum' may have it, simply by crying out to the Lord for salvation - for everyone who calls upon the Lord will be saved (chanun).
Those that refuse to 'prefer God and His rachum', who turn their back on the Son, will not have it. They will receive, from a broken-hearted God - balanced on the balls of His feet, ready and willing with rachum to save yet never asked, they will receive all that He has left: the very thing God calls 'His strange, not normal, and alien task of judging those He wishes to save'. His judgment will fall, and they will be lost - and this without remedy. How sad, and how utterly stupid.
I hope this has broken your heart, and I hope you use it to break the heart of someone you love.
For a broken and contrite heart please God. Through that shattered lens His rachum can be clearly seen. When this happens, turning is possible. God's offer of grace is made known. And when turning happens, the very nanosecond it happens, God's chanun springs into action to save, and THAT without remedy.
God bless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)