“To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.” (2 Corinthians 12:7-10)
The time of mega-churches is upon us. Let us all come to the personalities. Let us all come to the beautiful building, landscaped to perfection to find a God that builds people up, to find a God that only wants to bless us, to find a God that wants to take us to the next level of success!! Let us all gather together and speak of the wonderful things we have done. Let us all gather together and look beautiful. Let us have the most majestic music. Let us have the best lighting, the right pews, the camera front and center. Make sure to record the sermon because the words of one could save the souls of many. Let us gather together as does the rest of the world, to feel better, to feel right, to be secured that God will provide!! Amen.
Please excuse my skepticism (and I pray it does not turn into cynicism), but no, I do not agree. I am not stating that the mega-church is an evil institution or one that should not exist. Praise God that so many are coming to Him. Let us not forgo meeting together. This is a beautiful thing. But I worry. Perhaps, in the fog of personalities and structure within the church, many have missed the central personality: Jesus, one who did not seek out crowds to be noticed, who made Himself nothing to save us, who only did the will of His Father. He was never “puffed up” with Christian pride. He only obeyed the command of His Father.
Are we directing people to Christ in our churches or are we simply directing them at us or at themselves or at false hope? I am disheartened by the loss of focus on the Gospel: we are sick and we need a doctor. We are not in anything new people. The struggle between good and evil has been going on since the beginning of time. Why do we keep looking around us for saviors? There is only one savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. He saved us by becoming nothing and yet we believe that he died for us to become everything. Do we not?
I can tell you right now that there are many churches in America preaching a gospel that obscures the Truth of freedom in Jesus Christ. What have we become: a church where we go to feel good about everything that we have? The youth of our country are left searching for a Jesus that does not represent the comfortable middle class. I believe many in this country are searching for the true Jesus that is often obscurred by prideful strides to be the best we can be, to be successful.
Perhaps it is time for us to stop pleading with the Lord. What is your thorn? Do you struggle with intense social anxiety? Masturbation? Pornography? Alcohol? Drugs? Or maybe it is image? Maybe you are so concerned with the way you look that you just cannot seem to enjoy the beautiful things that are going on outside of yourself. Whatever, it is, have you accepted that you cannot fix it? Have you accepted that it will never fully be fixed on this side of heaven? Or are you still pleading . . . please God, take this away; or, if I just do this maybe it will go away. Perhaps, you are a recovering sex addict. Maybe if you just help enough old ladies cross the street, the thorn, the pain of the past addiction, or not being able to escape your struggles with lust, maybe they will just go away. Maybe there will come a morning when you will wake up and they will not be there anymore. I must tell you that if this is your hope, you are hoping in the wrong thing. If your hope is to have the thorn in your flesh removed, that temptation that you just cannot seem to escape, you are missing the point! Your hope must be only in Jesus Christ, who resisted all temptation and was crucified on a Cross for you! If Jesus had to suffer, why should you expect to escape suffering for Him?
In the midst of our pain and suffering as we desperately plead with the Lord, we hear the same thing from Jesus that Paul heard: “My grace is sufficient for you.” This is not the answer I want and I imagine it is not the answer you want either. I want the answer that gives me the American Dream of happiness. I want things to be easy. I want to be recognized for my gifts, not my weakness. I want to be recognized for my talents, not my wretchedness. But this is not the answer Jesus gives us.
“Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me.” The young people of this country, myself included, are looking for transparent leaders. We are looking for leaders who practice what they preach. We are looking for leaders who preach about their weaknesses. God does not raise up strong men to preach the gospel, he raises up weak men, men who find their strength in the Lord Jesus Christ, who find their security in God alone, not from their money, from their car, from their wife, from their wit, from their own personality, from their eloquence, from their morality, or so-called holiness. Power comes from God and God alone. Give me honesty, point me to the Truth of the Gospel, don’t point me to yourself.
What is the picture of a perfect Christian leader? Married by 25, seminary graduate, a large family, always smiling, project the qualities, project the faith. I am 24 years old, soon to be 25 and I can see right through projection. I can see right through it. I believe that my generation is a prophetic generation. One that will no longer tolerate the “everything is OK mentality.” We see this in the angst of much of American pop culture. I cannot recall the group (I think My Chemical Romance) or the song, but I remember hearing this lyric, “I am not OK,” being screamed by a guy in his early twenties, dressed in black, with black hair, and black eyeliner. Perhaps, this scream is more truthful than most of what is being presented in churches today. At least it is honest. We are not OK. We are sick and we need a doctor. Everyday, we need a doctor.
Let us not forget that the Gospel is one that tells us: when we are weak, then we are strong because Christ’s power is made perfect in our weakness. As our generation cries out, “I am not OK,” I pray that the message of the Gospel hits them at the core of their being. None of us are OK. None us are doing just fine. It is the realization of this everyday that draws us to Christ, our weakness, our inability to even just be “OK,” draws us to Christ. It is in that place that God tells us he wants us to be much more that just “OK.” He wants us to live as His sons and daughters, created in His image, a member of the priesthood of believers. It is the scream, “I am not OK,” where Christ steps in and speaks this to us, “Surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age (Matt. 28:20).”
In this instance, as Jesus speaks his words of truth to us, we no longer have to worry about being OK. We just live in His presence. We choose to live in the tension of the now and the not yet. The words of the Holy Spirit bestowed upon us by Jesus Christ, are always speaking to us. We must learn to embrace the tension, not living in the hope of attaining some type of equilibrium in this life, but living in the hope of the resurrection: There will be a day when our bodies will resurrect and will spend eternity with God! We are creatures constantly given a choice to embrace the power of God and the hope of the resurrection in the midst or our pain or to run from our pain in a futile effort to feel OK.
To my generation: You are right. “We are not OK.” We are sick. America is sick. Our world is sick. I am sick. We all need the only one who can save us, Jesus Christ, and not on our terms, but on His terms. Repeatedly, the Bible calls us to suffer for the sake of Christ, to endure sufferings, to endure trials, to press on in the face of suffering, to run the race towards the prize. The pain of the “not yet” rips at our mind, body, and soul everyday, but we must endure, not because we hope to feel better, but for the sake of Christ! Amen.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
I Know Nothing Apart From God
Sometimes in our pride and puffed-up knowledge, we may attempt to "penetrate the divine wisdom of God." (Calvin said this somewhere in his Institutes of the Christian Religion). This blog is one where I desire to express myself and what God is doing in my heart and mind. I never want to say that I have any type of final word on any issue. There are times when I become so confused that the only thing I can hold onto is the fact (and I mean fact) that God loves me and I love Him. Sometimes there is nothing else, but this.
The Apostle Paul wrote this to the Ephesians:
I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints (vs 17-18).
Knowledge only comes from God. I know nothing apart from God. Without faith in God, I have nothing. Without a heart-knowledge of God (the enlightening of the eyes of my heart by the Holy Spirit that Paul speaks of), I have no head knowledge, my existence means nothing, and I am in utter despair. I might as well be dead without God and His Son. I am nothing other than a Christ follower and a son of the most high God.
Therefore, I must say that I can only write what I write because of God and for no other reason. I just don't know about the question of human choice (I am referring to an earlier post where I boldly and pridefully try to answer this question, while at the same time trying to dismantle Luther's The Bondage of the Will and Calvin's soteriology), but I do know the Gospel, that Jesus Christ came into this world to save sinners (Romans 5:8). I know that I am loved by God and that I love God.
I am in crisis over the question of free will, but I must affirm that I know nothing apart from God. I will post a detailed response to Luther's The Bondage of the Will in a later post when I have more time. I hope and pray that Scripture and the Holy Spirit will be guides as I continue to come to grips with this issue.
The Apostle Paul wrote this to the Ephesians:
I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints (vs 17-18).
Knowledge only comes from God. I know nothing apart from God. Without faith in God, I have nothing. Without a heart-knowledge of God (the enlightening of the eyes of my heart by the Holy Spirit that Paul speaks of), I have no head knowledge, my existence means nothing, and I am in utter despair. I might as well be dead without God and His Son. I am nothing other than a Christ follower and a son of the most high God.
Therefore, I must say that I can only write what I write because of God and for no other reason. I just don't know about the question of human choice (I am referring to an earlier post where I boldly and pridefully try to answer this question, while at the same time trying to dismantle Luther's The Bondage of the Will and Calvin's soteriology), but I do know the Gospel, that Jesus Christ came into this world to save sinners (Romans 5:8). I know that I am loved by God and that I love God.
I am in crisis over the question of free will, but I must affirm that I know nothing apart from God. I will post a detailed response to Luther's The Bondage of the Will in a later post when I have more time. I hope and pray that Scripture and the Holy Spirit will be guides as I continue to come to grips with this issue.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
My second post was about my views on human choice and God’s sovereignty. For those of you who found this post confusing because I did not fully explain the concepts and thinkers I was using, let me offer my apologies. This post is specifically for you. (Just so I am citing my sources. The majority of this information came from Dr. James Railey’s Systematic Theology notes.)
John Calvin (1509-1564) is regarded as one of the greatest systematic theologians ever. His writings are vast and his biblical commentaries are exhaustive. He obviously had a very high view of Scripture. His major tenet is God’s sovereignty. In other words, God is not altered, impacted, or changed in any way by us. Some present-day examples of Calvinist denominations are Presbyterian, Reformed, Congregationalist, and some Baptists. While his writings are vast, scholars have summed up his basic beliefs in an acronym: TULIP
Total Depravity—the fall left human beings totally incapable of making themselves right before God
Unconditional Election—God has chosen some to be saved
Limited Atonement—God has provided the atoning sacrifice through Christ for those whom he has elected; the inevitable conclusion is that grace is not available to all
Irresistible Grace—the elect WILL be saved
Perseverance of the Saints—the elect WILL make it (once saved, always saved)
James Arminius (1560-1609) was a member of the Dutch Reformed Church (historically, extremely Calvinistic), who challenged Calvin’s theology with two major points of contention: 1) Calvinism made God the author of sin and 2) Calvinism denied human freedom. His writings are not nearly as vast as Calvin’s. Some present-day examples of Arminian denominations are Assemblies of God, Methodists, many Baptists, and most Pentecostal groups. His beliefs can be summed up with the acronym: TCURP
Total Depravity—although I am totally fallen and cannot save myself, I still must respond to God with belief
Conditional Election—God’s foreknowledge beforehand of my response (God exists outside of time)
Unlimited Atonement—Jesus has died for all, grace is available to all
Resistible Grace—his grace can be resisted meaning that people can choose not to believe
Perseverance of the Saints IF . . . —saints must persevere (work and struggle for righteousness); salvation can be lost, but this would be a major struggle
So this is Calvinism and Arminianism in a nutshell. Where does Luther fit in? Martin Luther (1483-1546) is sometimes called the “Father of the Reformation.” It was his writings and actions that began the Protestant Reformation of the early sixteenth century. Lutheran churches are present-day examples of those who adhere strictly to Luther’s theology. His major tenets are:
1) Sola Scriptura—the supremacy of Scripture
2) Sola Gratia—salvation is by grace and only grace
3) Sola Fide—through faith (response that is drawn from grace)
In his soteriology (view of salvation), Luther is almost entirely in-line with Calvin. He simply puts his this way: salvation is by grace through faith. However, faith is not a choice, but rather it is the “response drawn from grace.” Luther does not believe that free will exists. He makes this claim boldly and authoritatively in his book, The Bondage of the Will. So faith is not based on human action, but rather on what Calvin would call, “the irresistibility of God’s grace.” So, the choice to believe does not exist for Luther. We either encounter God’s grace or we do not.
A final thought:
A friend (thanks Chris) recently enlightened me with this knowledge: Luther questioned the validity of the Book of James (As far as I know, Calvin would not agree with this). He called it the "straw gospel." In other words, he questioned whether or not it should even be in the Bible. This is interesting in light of Sola Scriptura. How can we question the canonicity of one book without questioning the canonicity of all books? Furthermore, how can we hold Scripture to be supreme when we desire to remove entire books of the Bible?
Unfortunately, it is not possible. At the present time, if we are to call ourselves followers of Christ, we have no choice but to accept all Scripture as God-breathed. Without this foundational belief, our identity as Christians begins to fall apart. For example, what if I want to believe that Christ did not come in the flesh, but only appeared in spirit form on this earth (this is the major tenet of Gnosticism by the way). Now that I have this foundational belief, I can approach Scripture and just simply remove anything that does not support my view. I could take out major chunks of the Gospels. I could remove the majority of the Apostolic letters. I mean, why not? If all of Scripture is not God-breathed, then what does it matter?
Thoughts?
John Calvin (1509-1564) is regarded as one of the greatest systematic theologians ever. His writings are vast and his biblical commentaries are exhaustive. He obviously had a very high view of Scripture. His major tenet is God’s sovereignty. In other words, God is not altered, impacted, or changed in any way by us. Some present-day examples of Calvinist denominations are Presbyterian, Reformed, Congregationalist, and some Baptists. While his writings are vast, scholars have summed up his basic beliefs in an acronym: TULIP
Total Depravity—the fall left human beings totally incapable of making themselves right before God
Unconditional Election—God has chosen some to be saved
Limited Atonement—God has provided the atoning sacrifice through Christ for those whom he has elected; the inevitable conclusion is that grace is not available to all
Irresistible Grace—the elect WILL be saved
Perseverance of the Saints—the elect WILL make it (once saved, always saved)
James Arminius (1560-1609) was a member of the Dutch Reformed Church (historically, extremely Calvinistic), who challenged Calvin’s theology with two major points of contention: 1) Calvinism made God the author of sin and 2) Calvinism denied human freedom. His writings are not nearly as vast as Calvin’s. Some present-day examples of Arminian denominations are Assemblies of God, Methodists, many Baptists, and most Pentecostal groups. His beliefs can be summed up with the acronym: TCURP
Total Depravity—although I am totally fallen and cannot save myself, I still must respond to God with belief
Conditional Election—God’s foreknowledge beforehand of my response (God exists outside of time)
Unlimited Atonement—Jesus has died for all, grace is available to all
Resistible Grace—his grace can be resisted meaning that people can choose not to believe
Perseverance of the Saints IF . . . —saints must persevere (work and struggle for righteousness); salvation can be lost, but this would be a major struggle
So this is Calvinism and Arminianism in a nutshell. Where does Luther fit in? Martin Luther (1483-1546) is sometimes called the “Father of the Reformation.” It was his writings and actions that began the Protestant Reformation of the early sixteenth century. Lutheran churches are present-day examples of those who adhere strictly to Luther’s theology. His major tenets are:
1) Sola Scriptura—the supremacy of Scripture
2) Sola Gratia—salvation is by grace and only grace
3) Sola Fide—through faith (response that is drawn from grace)
In his soteriology (view of salvation), Luther is almost entirely in-line with Calvin. He simply puts his this way: salvation is by grace through faith. However, faith is not a choice, but rather it is the “response drawn from grace.” Luther does not believe that free will exists. He makes this claim boldly and authoritatively in his book, The Bondage of the Will. So faith is not based on human action, but rather on what Calvin would call, “the irresistibility of God’s grace.” So, the choice to believe does not exist for Luther. We either encounter God’s grace or we do not.
A final thought:
A friend (thanks Chris) recently enlightened me with this knowledge: Luther questioned the validity of the Book of James (As far as I know, Calvin would not agree with this). He called it the "straw gospel." In other words, he questioned whether or not it should even be in the Bible. This is interesting in light of Sola Scriptura. How can we question the canonicity of one book without questioning the canonicity of all books? Furthermore, how can we hold Scripture to be supreme when we desire to remove entire books of the Bible?
Unfortunately, it is not possible. At the present time, if we are to call ourselves followers of Christ, we have no choice but to accept all Scripture as God-breathed. Without this foundational belief, our identity as Christians begins to fall apart. For example, what if I want to believe that Christ did not come in the flesh, but only appeared in spirit form on this earth (this is the major tenet of Gnosticism by the way). Now that I have this foundational belief, I can approach Scripture and just simply remove anything that does not support my view. I could take out major chunks of the Gospels. I could remove the majority of the Apostolic letters. I mean, why not? If all of Scripture is not God-breathed, then what does it matter?
Thoughts?
Friday, September 14, 2007
Psychology is Dead without Jesus Christ
Psychology is dead without Jesus Christ. Without Christ at the center, the study of the mind and human behavior will accomplish nothing. Check out the story below. I am on Exodus International's email list. You can learn more by going to their website: www.exodus.to. As always, I welcome comments, questions, challenges, etc.
Former Homosexuals Applaud Research Showing Sexual Orientation Change Possible
Nashville, TN- Leaders of the world's largest outreach to those dealing with unwanted homosexuality commended recent research showing change in sexual orientation to be possible at a press conference today in Nashville. The study, released by InterVarsity Press yesterday, is the first longitudinal, peer-reviewed, scientific research of its kind on this topic to date.
Researchers Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse released the results of a three-year study during an address at the American Association of Christian Counselors World Conference. Their findings indicate that religiously mediated sexual orientation change is possible for some individuals and does not cause psychological harm to the patient, on average. These conclusions directly contradict the claims of both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association that state that change in sexual orientation is impossible and attempting to pursue this alternative is likely to cause depression, anxiety or self-destructive behavior. The major findings of this study are reported in full in the book Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation (InterVarsity Press).
Former American Psychological Association President, Nicholas A. Cummings, Ph.D., Sc.D., praised the research methods of Jones and Yarhouse, "This study has broken new ground in its adherence to objectivity and a scientific precision that can be replicated and expanded, and it opens new horizons for investigation." In the absence of any scientific, peer-reviewed research on this topic, Exodus International funded the research conducted by Jones and Yarhouse.
Alan Chambers, a former homosexual and President of Exodus International, responded to the study findings at today's press conference, "Finally, there is now scientific evidence to prove what we as former homosexuals have known all along - that those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attraction can experience freedom from it. For years, opponents of choice have said otherwise and this body of research is critical in advancing the national dialogue on this issue."
Chambers, who was joined by researcher Dr. Stanton Jones at the press conference today, added, "Anyone who has undergone the life-changing process of leaving homosexuality behind will tell you that it is not an easy one. However, for thousands of us, the journey has been well worth it and we are grateful that these study findings give credence to our existence as men and women whose lives have been transformed by Jesus Christ.
Former Homosexuals Applaud Research Showing Sexual Orientation Change Possible
Nashville, TN- Leaders of the world's largest outreach to those dealing with unwanted homosexuality commended recent research showing change in sexual orientation to be possible at a press conference today in Nashville. The study, released by InterVarsity Press yesterday, is the first longitudinal, peer-reviewed, scientific research of its kind on this topic to date.
Researchers Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse released the results of a three-year study during an address at the American Association of Christian Counselors World Conference. Their findings indicate that religiously mediated sexual orientation change is possible for some individuals and does not cause psychological harm to the patient, on average. These conclusions directly contradict the claims of both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association that state that change in sexual orientation is impossible and attempting to pursue this alternative is likely to cause depression, anxiety or self-destructive behavior. The major findings of this study are reported in full in the book Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation (InterVarsity Press).
Former American Psychological Association President, Nicholas A. Cummings, Ph.D., Sc.D., praised the research methods of Jones and Yarhouse, "This study has broken new ground in its adherence to objectivity and a scientific precision that can be replicated and expanded, and it opens new horizons for investigation." In the absence of any scientific, peer-reviewed research on this topic, Exodus International funded the research conducted by Jones and Yarhouse.
Alan Chambers, a former homosexual and President of Exodus International, responded to the study findings at today's press conference, "Finally, there is now scientific evidence to prove what we as former homosexuals have known all along - that those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attraction can experience freedom from it. For years, opponents of choice have said otherwise and this body of research is critical in advancing the national dialogue on this issue."
Chambers, who was joined by researcher Dr. Stanton Jones at the press conference today, added, "Anyone who has undergone the life-changing process of leaving homosexuality behind will tell you that it is not an easy one. However, for thousands of us, the journey has been well worth it and we are grateful that these study findings give credence to our existence as men and women whose lives have been transformed by Jesus Christ.
A Short Response to Martin Luther's The Bondage of the Will
This post was originally written within an email response I wrote to someone who said that by not agreeing with Luther in The Bondage of the Will, I am also not agreeing with Paul in the Book of Romans. I respect deeply the person with whom I was corresponding and most certainly do not think that what is written below is absolutely true or that my interpretation of the Bible is without errors. This post is certainly limited in its scope and barely scratches the surface of many of the issues raised. But, if nothing else, it gives you a picture of my views on human choice. As always, I ask for any questions or challenges. (And if you would like some very basic information on John Calvin, James Arminius, and Martin Luther, please see one of my posts above.)
Let me begin by saying that I could not have more respect for Martin Luther (I often mention that I share the name Martin with two of the greatest reformers to ever walk the earth, Martin Luther and Martin Luther King). What we believe about the centrality of Scripture over Tradition in Protestantism, we owe not just to the God-given wisdom of Luther, but to His courage. I would say he choose to respond to what God was calling him to do. This however does not mean that I have to agree with the inevitable conclusions of his theology in The Bondage of the Will.
My biggest issue with Luther is that he leaves no room for the decision of the human being to follow Christ. Luther says we are saved by grace through faith. What is faith? If it is a response to grace (as I believe Luther would say), doesn't a response imply a human choice? I can choose to respond or not to respond.
We are saved by grace, but we must choose to either accept or reject this grace. Romans 3:22: "This righteousness from God comes from faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." "To all who believe." Why did Paul say this? Because there is no point in offering something to people, if you already know who will and will not accept it. Why offer it freely? Why even bother? If there is no choice, in essence, isn't Luther saying exactly what Calvin is saying in that Jesus is really only a mechanism for God's grace and not really the offering of God's free grace to all people, Jew or Gentile.
The passages you quoted from Romans 7 and Romans 9 do seem to prove your position. But these passages are meant to be looked at in light of all of Romans, which does not paint a picture of a God who asks us to make no choices. Romans 12 specifically is a strong testament to the importance of followers of Christ choosing to do good (offering our bodies as living sacrifices). I read Romans 7 as a honest and beautiful depiction of the despondent situation Paul would be in if he were saved by works and not by grace. Look at Romans 8:1 when Paul writes, "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death." Oh praise God, my frustration over the fact that I live in a sinful world, that I cannot seem to escape the sin around me, that I continue to sin even after accepting God's grace, does not mean I am going to hell, but this does not excuse me from making the choice to offer myself as a living sacrifice to God. I would argue further that this is not a one time decision. We must do this everyday. In the face of temptation, we must choose to throw ourselves at the foot of the Cross, sacrificing our sinful nature and allowing God to empower us to choose what is good.
Romans 8:28-29a says this (this is NIV, by the way): "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son." "For those who love him" implies that we must love God, in other words we must believe in Him and accept his will for our lives. Is not love a choice on the part of the follower of Christ? God's love for us beckons us to love Him, but it certainly does not force us to love Him. Also, notice how it says, "for those God foreknew, he also predestined" This seems to point to a view of predestination that presents an idea of God outside of time. (Time is a created thing. Therefore, God knows what will happen, but he does not force what will happen.) The final section of the passage says, "to be conformed to the likeness of his Son," which means that salvation is a daily process. Christ has already died and resurrected. We are still living on this earth and therefore we still struggle with temptation. We are called to resist sin. In the moment where pornography is staring me in the face, there is a choice that exists. I can give into the temptation or I can choose to resist and once again sacrifice my sinful nature. If human choice does not exist, what do I tell a person to do in this situation? Just pray and if God does not remove the desire, go ahead and sin. I mean this is kind of what absence of human choice sounds like to me. How are pastors to be pastoral if they cannot direct their congregation with biblical advice and counsel? We are daily being "conformed to the image of Christ," which requires daily sacrifice on our parts.
Chapter 9 is a description of God's Sovereignty in the face of Israel's disobedience and then a pointing to God's sovereign choice, God's sovereign election, in the person of Jesus Christ to save all who believe in Him. It is not meant to be a proof text for the abolition of man's ability to choose to accept or choose to reject God's free offering of grace through the person of Jesus Christ. In fact, it would seem that it becomes a proof text for my position.
So, I would say that my statement about disagreeing with the inevitable conclusion of Luther's The Bondage of the Will is not in contradiction to the writings of Paul, specifically in Romans.
Let me begin by saying that I could not have more respect for Martin Luther (I often mention that I share the name Martin with two of the greatest reformers to ever walk the earth, Martin Luther and Martin Luther King). What we believe about the centrality of Scripture over Tradition in Protestantism, we owe not just to the God-given wisdom of Luther, but to His courage. I would say he choose to respond to what God was calling him to do. This however does not mean that I have to agree with the inevitable conclusions of his theology in The Bondage of the Will.
My biggest issue with Luther is that he leaves no room for the decision of the human being to follow Christ. Luther says we are saved by grace through faith. What is faith? If it is a response to grace (as I believe Luther would say), doesn't a response imply a human choice? I can choose to respond or not to respond.
We are saved by grace, but we must choose to either accept or reject this grace. Romans 3:22: "This righteousness from God comes from faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." "To all who believe." Why did Paul say this? Because there is no point in offering something to people, if you already know who will and will not accept it. Why offer it freely? Why even bother? If there is no choice, in essence, isn't Luther saying exactly what Calvin is saying in that Jesus is really only a mechanism for God's grace and not really the offering of God's free grace to all people, Jew or Gentile.
The passages you quoted from Romans 7 and Romans 9 do seem to prove your position. But these passages are meant to be looked at in light of all of Romans, which does not paint a picture of a God who asks us to make no choices. Romans 12 specifically is a strong testament to the importance of followers of Christ choosing to do good (offering our bodies as living sacrifices). I read Romans 7 as a honest and beautiful depiction of the despondent situation Paul would be in if he were saved by works and not by grace. Look at Romans 8:1 when Paul writes, "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death." Oh praise God, my frustration over the fact that I live in a sinful world, that I cannot seem to escape the sin around me, that I continue to sin even after accepting God's grace, does not mean I am going to hell, but this does not excuse me from making the choice to offer myself as a living sacrifice to God. I would argue further that this is not a one time decision. We must do this everyday. In the face of temptation, we must choose to throw ourselves at the foot of the Cross, sacrificing our sinful nature and allowing God to empower us to choose what is good.
Romans 8:28-29a says this (this is NIV, by the way): "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son." "For those who love him" implies that we must love God, in other words we must believe in Him and accept his will for our lives. Is not love a choice on the part of the follower of Christ? God's love for us beckons us to love Him, but it certainly does not force us to love Him. Also, notice how it says, "for those God foreknew, he also predestined" This seems to point to a view of predestination that presents an idea of God outside of time. (Time is a created thing. Therefore, God knows what will happen, but he does not force what will happen.) The final section of the passage says, "to be conformed to the likeness of his Son," which means that salvation is a daily process. Christ has already died and resurrected. We are still living on this earth and therefore we still struggle with temptation. We are called to resist sin. In the moment where pornography is staring me in the face, there is a choice that exists. I can give into the temptation or I can choose to resist and once again sacrifice my sinful nature. If human choice does not exist, what do I tell a person to do in this situation? Just pray and if God does not remove the desire, go ahead and sin. I mean this is kind of what absence of human choice sounds like to me. How are pastors to be pastoral if they cannot direct their congregation with biblical advice and counsel? We are daily being "conformed to the image of Christ," which requires daily sacrifice on our parts.
Chapter 9 is a description of God's Sovereignty in the face of Israel's disobedience and then a pointing to God's sovereign choice, God's sovereign election, in the person of Jesus Christ to save all who believe in Him. It is not meant to be a proof text for the abolition of man's ability to choose to accept or choose to reject God's free offering of grace through the person of Jesus Christ. In fact, it would seem that it becomes a proof text for my position.
So, I would say that my statement about disagreeing with the inevitable conclusion of Luther's The Bondage of the Will is not in contradiction to the writings of Paul, specifically in Romans.
An Email Response: Why I Started this Blog
I wrote this email in response to some questions raised by a seminary student in Virginia. While writing it, I realized that I write best when I am asked questions or more specifically, when I am challenged. I preface this post by saying that I have great respect for the fellow student who wrote to me. He agrees with most of what I have written. I especially respect his demeanor in writing me. He is a kind person and has a great heart. With that said, I welcome all responses, questions, and challenges. I love a good debate!
I'll begin with my understanding of the theology of John Calvin, which I'll admit is not extensive as I have not delved into any of Calvin's systematic theology. If I understand Calvin correctly, he says that our salvation does not depend on any type of choice to believe on our part, but instead on whether or not we are one of God's elect. I guess I would ask, even if he does acknowledge that free will exists (which I was not aware of), what is the point of acknowledging that it exists? If the major question of our existence is salvation, and according to Calvin, our salvation is determined by God's election, not the Cross and Resurrection (which is really only a mechanism for God's election in Calvin's theology) or by any human choice to believe, then what point is left for free will? Perhaps, Martin Luther puts it more clearly in The Bondage of the Will, when he simply makes the point that free will does not exist, meaning our will is either bonded to sin or to the will of God. (I do not agree with this, but at least Luther is able to make a clear statement about free will within his theology of being saved by faith, not by works.) In Calvin's theology, it would seem that the only logical conclusion left for free will is that it does not exist. For that matter, if the will is broken, then it is not really free is it? Luther makes this clear in his theology. Excuse my ignorance if I am making any incorrect assumptions, but I feel that my understanding is pretty clear. And please, if you would, correct any misunderstandings I may have. That is after all how people learn.
I disagree with your view of sex however. At some point in my studies, I will go through the Scriptures and count how many times people are warned against sexual immorality, in the Old and New Testament. What a task! Yes, our desires are too small! This is just the point. Sex is meant to be the consummation of marriage. I would go as far as to call it part of the sacrament. In my understanding of sex, if you have sex with someone, you are married to them. Is this not the Old Testament understanding of sex and furthermore, also, the New Testament understanding of sex? Furthermore, just because people in the Old Testament went around having sex with a bunch of people does not mean it was OK. In other words, just because polygamy was practiced in the OT does not mean it is acceptable to God.
God destroyed entire civilizations because of sexual immorality. (And if you want to disagree with me about Sodom and Gomorrah, I will just point to the story of Gibeah and the destruction of the Benjamites in Judges, especially Judges 19:22) It is clear this has been a problem since the beginning of time. You want a sacramental view of sex, read Song of Songs. Wow! Sex is a beautiful thing, when it is practiced within God's intentions for it, a monogamous relationship. You think that sex addicts enjoy sex? Absolutely not! Sex is a compulsion for them. It slowly loses its pleasure until they reach the point where it has no pleasure. Thank God for C.S. Lewis's thoughts on desire! God wants to fulfill our desires abundantly and yet we continue to look for ways to deny this by questioning what is clear in His Word. So, from the biblical viewpoint, and according to God's intention, sex and marriage should never be separated.
Just to paraphrase some of the other questions you raised: First, you asked, "As pastors and leaders today, are we called to make the Gospel understandable and convincing to today's generation?" Absolutely, but not at the expense of Truth. The Gospel is offensive in its very nature. We are called to make it understandable, but not palatable.
Second, you ask about the problem of pain (Theodocy; Thanks for bringing up that term by the way. I am not familiar with it, as I have just started my season in seminary). I would never attempt to make light of the pain and suffering of those struggling with bodily disease and mental illness by saying to them, "Pain is just a part of life." This would be incredibly insensitive and I consider myself a sensitive person. And if you notice in my previous email, I did not attempt to pose an answer to the why question, but I only pointed to the only one who has an answer, Christ. And Christ did not give an answer to Paul either, other than to say my grace is sufficient for you. I would never try to answer the question, "Why is there so much suffering in the world?," except by pointing to Christ. This may be inadequate for people, but why is it that I can meet people who have more joy than I do and yet they are dying of cancer? Only that person and Christ can answer that question.
To even compare my suffering to that of Paul is somewhat ludicrous, but I will do it anyways. What I am saying is that Paul followed God's will despite his suffering. I am not saying that God wants us to suffer or experience pain. What I am arguing against is what I perceive to be an American culture of escapism. Are you lonely, turn on the TV? Are you depressed, have you tried alcohol or drugs. Are you horny, look at pornography or go out and have a one night stand? I am not trying to say that we should just grin and bear our pain, but that we should do God's will in spite of the pain that we feel. At the risk of sounding cliche, we need to "take up our cross and follow Jesus." There will be ecstatic joy, those glimpses of heaven, there
will be intense pain, the times we have to call out to God and nothing else, but we will be following God's will, we will have the fulfillment of a life centered on Christ. I absolutely love the Book of Lamentations because it is honest about pain, but my favorite parts of the book are when the author gives praise to God in the midst of his pain. I especially like Lamentations 3:55-58 because it is similar to Psalm 30, one of my favorites. If you recall, I read the closing of it at the end of my testimony. The Lamentations verses are as follows:
I called on your name, O Lord, from the depths of the pit. You heard my plea: "Do not close your ears to my cry for relief." You came near when I called you, and you said, "Do not fear." O Lord, you took up my case; you redeemed my life.
And to answer your question of divisiveness within the church, I am concerned with this, but not at the expense of Truth. As I have said before, the Gospel is offensive, but it is more importantly True. I am concerned with making the Gospel understandable to people, but I am not worried in the least with making it palatable. Why should I be? The Christian life is hard, but is right, good, and rewarding beyond description. I would not trade it for anything in the world. I would never tell people that following Christ is easy. The Son of Man had no place to lay His head, why should we make concessions when we are preaching the Gospel?
OK, your next question was about walking the line between grace and holiness. I take the position of Bonhoeffer and say that many in the church are ascribing to cheap grace. The grace that God gives us through the person of Jesus Christ calls us to give up our life for the cause of Christ. A true encounter with Jesus Christ changes every part of our being. Again I must ask, why make concessions just because people disagree with us? The Apostle Paul certainly did not. What if he had agreed with those who said that Christ did not come in the flesh? The Gnostics who would say our souls are trapped in our bodies and salvation comes through some type of "special, spiritual knowledge." Furthermore, what if he said, that because our bodies do not matter, we can do whatever we want. He did not. He stood up over and over again and defended the Gospel, not to judge others, as he considered himself the worst of sinners, but to defend the cause of Christ!
No, the grace I know is a grace that calls me to the fullest life I could possibly imagine, more full than any talk of holiness could ever offer me. I get tired of talk about holiness in the church. I am called to submit to the will of God and boldly follow Him. We need to make the Gospel understandable yes, but palatable, absolutely not!
I think your final question was about anachronism. Well, in fact this is my critique of John Boswell's treatment of the Scripture in Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. He is extremely anachronistic in his view that what Paul was condemning in Romans 1 was not homosexuality, but heterosexuals going against their natural sexual orientation and practicing homosexuality. Those who are "born homosexual" are therefore practicing what is natural to them. This argument assumes that Paul would have had a knowledge of sexual orientation, which he absolutely did not! In Romans 1, Paul says that men having sex with men and women having sex with women is a result of idolatry, of lifting up created things over Creator God. Sexual orientation is a 20th century phenomenon that I wish did not exist. Why should I identify myself with who I have sex with? Isn't this what the homosexual agenda is defending? I can have sex with who I want and I am going to be proud about it, raising created men and women over and above Creator God. This is idolatry! I am not talking
about the repentant person who struggles with homosexual thoughts. I am talking about those who claim that if you do not accept that they can have sex with any adult they choose, any way they want, then you are a bigot. No, the Gospel is offensive and if it offends you that is just fine with me. This has nothing to do with judging other people. I do not do this, but I do stand up for the Truth.
I'll begin with my understanding of the theology of John Calvin, which I'll admit is not extensive as I have not delved into any of Calvin's systematic theology. If I understand Calvin correctly, he says that our salvation does not depend on any type of choice to believe on our part, but instead on whether or not we are one of God's elect. I guess I would ask, even if he does acknowledge that free will exists (which I was not aware of), what is the point of acknowledging that it exists? If the major question of our existence is salvation, and according to Calvin, our salvation is determined by God's election, not the Cross and Resurrection (which is really only a mechanism for God's election in Calvin's theology) or by any human choice to believe, then what point is left for free will? Perhaps, Martin Luther puts it more clearly in The Bondage of the Will, when he simply makes the point that free will does not exist, meaning our will is either bonded to sin or to the will of God. (I do not agree with this, but at least Luther is able to make a clear statement about free will within his theology of being saved by faith, not by works.) In Calvin's theology, it would seem that the only logical conclusion left for free will is that it does not exist. For that matter, if the will is broken, then it is not really free is it? Luther makes this clear in his theology. Excuse my ignorance if I am making any incorrect assumptions, but I feel that my understanding is pretty clear. And please, if you would, correct any misunderstandings I may have. That is after all how people learn.
I disagree with your view of sex however. At some point in my studies, I will go through the Scriptures and count how many times people are warned against sexual immorality, in the Old and New Testament. What a task! Yes, our desires are too small! This is just the point. Sex is meant to be the consummation of marriage. I would go as far as to call it part of the sacrament. In my understanding of sex, if you have sex with someone, you are married to them. Is this not the Old Testament understanding of sex and furthermore, also, the New Testament understanding of sex? Furthermore, just because people in the Old Testament went around having sex with a bunch of people does not mean it was OK. In other words, just because polygamy was practiced in the OT does not mean it is acceptable to God.
God destroyed entire civilizations because of sexual immorality. (And if you want to disagree with me about Sodom and Gomorrah, I will just point to the story of Gibeah and the destruction of the Benjamites in Judges, especially Judges 19:22) It is clear this has been a problem since the beginning of time. You want a sacramental view of sex, read Song of Songs. Wow! Sex is a beautiful thing, when it is practiced within God's intentions for it, a monogamous relationship. You think that sex addicts enjoy sex? Absolutely not! Sex is a compulsion for them. It slowly loses its pleasure until they reach the point where it has no pleasure. Thank God for C.S. Lewis's thoughts on desire! God wants to fulfill our desires abundantly and yet we continue to look for ways to deny this by questioning what is clear in His Word. So, from the biblical viewpoint, and according to God's intention, sex and marriage should never be separated.
Just to paraphrase some of the other questions you raised: First, you asked, "As pastors and leaders today, are we called to make the Gospel understandable and convincing to today's generation?" Absolutely, but not at the expense of Truth. The Gospel is offensive in its very nature. We are called to make it understandable, but not palatable.
Second, you ask about the problem of pain (Theodocy; Thanks for bringing up that term by the way. I am not familiar with it, as I have just started my season in seminary). I would never attempt to make light of the pain and suffering of those struggling with bodily disease and mental illness by saying to them, "Pain is just a part of life." This would be incredibly insensitive and I consider myself a sensitive person. And if you notice in my previous email, I did not attempt to pose an answer to the why question, but I only pointed to the only one who has an answer, Christ. And Christ did not give an answer to Paul either, other than to say my grace is sufficient for you. I would never try to answer the question, "Why is there so much suffering in the world?," except by pointing to Christ. This may be inadequate for people, but why is it that I can meet people who have more joy than I do and yet they are dying of cancer? Only that person and Christ can answer that question.
To even compare my suffering to that of Paul is somewhat ludicrous, but I will do it anyways. What I am saying is that Paul followed God's will despite his suffering. I am not saying that God wants us to suffer or experience pain. What I am arguing against is what I perceive to be an American culture of escapism. Are you lonely, turn on the TV? Are you depressed, have you tried alcohol or drugs. Are you horny, look at pornography or go out and have a one night stand? I am not trying to say that we should just grin and bear our pain, but that we should do God's will in spite of the pain that we feel. At the risk of sounding cliche, we need to "take up our cross and follow Jesus." There will be ecstatic joy, those glimpses of heaven, there
will be intense pain, the times we have to call out to God and nothing else, but we will be following God's will, we will have the fulfillment of a life centered on Christ. I absolutely love the Book of Lamentations because it is honest about pain, but my favorite parts of the book are when the author gives praise to God in the midst of his pain. I especially like Lamentations 3:55-58 because it is similar to Psalm 30, one of my favorites. If you recall, I read the closing of it at the end of my testimony. The Lamentations verses are as follows:
I called on your name, O Lord, from the depths of the pit. You heard my plea: "Do not close your ears to my cry for relief." You came near when I called you, and you said, "Do not fear." O Lord, you took up my case; you redeemed my life.
And to answer your question of divisiveness within the church, I am concerned with this, but not at the expense of Truth. As I have said before, the Gospel is offensive, but it is more importantly True. I am concerned with making the Gospel understandable to people, but I am not worried in the least with making it palatable. Why should I be? The Christian life is hard, but is right, good, and rewarding beyond description. I would not trade it for anything in the world. I would never tell people that following Christ is easy. The Son of Man had no place to lay His head, why should we make concessions when we are preaching the Gospel?
OK, your next question was about walking the line between grace and holiness. I take the position of Bonhoeffer and say that many in the church are ascribing to cheap grace. The grace that God gives us through the person of Jesus Christ calls us to give up our life for the cause of Christ. A true encounter with Jesus Christ changes every part of our being. Again I must ask, why make concessions just because people disagree with us? The Apostle Paul certainly did not. What if he had agreed with those who said that Christ did not come in the flesh? The Gnostics who would say our souls are trapped in our bodies and salvation comes through some type of "special, spiritual knowledge." Furthermore, what if he said, that because our bodies do not matter, we can do whatever we want. He did not. He stood up over and over again and defended the Gospel, not to judge others, as he considered himself the worst of sinners, but to defend the cause of Christ!
No, the grace I know is a grace that calls me to the fullest life I could possibly imagine, more full than any talk of holiness could ever offer me. I get tired of talk about holiness in the church. I am called to submit to the will of God and boldly follow Him. We need to make the Gospel understandable yes, but palatable, absolutely not!
I think your final question was about anachronism. Well, in fact this is my critique of John Boswell's treatment of the Scripture in Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. He is extremely anachronistic in his view that what Paul was condemning in Romans 1 was not homosexuality, but heterosexuals going against their natural sexual orientation and practicing homosexuality. Those who are "born homosexual" are therefore practicing what is natural to them. This argument assumes that Paul would have had a knowledge of sexual orientation, which he absolutely did not! In Romans 1, Paul says that men having sex with men and women having sex with women is a result of idolatry, of lifting up created things over Creator God. Sexual orientation is a 20th century phenomenon that I wish did not exist. Why should I identify myself with who I have sex with? Isn't this what the homosexual agenda is defending? I can have sex with who I want and I am going to be proud about it, raising created men and women over and above Creator God. This is idolatry! I am not talking
about the repentant person who struggles with homosexual thoughts. I am talking about those who claim that if you do not accept that they can have sex with any adult they choose, any way they want, then you are a bigot. No, the Gospel is offensive and if it offends you that is just fine with me. This has nothing to do with judging other people. I do not do this, but I do stand up for the Truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)