I'm a know-it-all. I like to know more than everybody else about everything, so I can show them that I know more than them about everything, not for solely egotistical purposes (though that's part of the game) but also to feel like I'm contributing to a battle against ignorance. However, the verse that has been running through my mind has been 1 Corinthians 1:27, speaking about God using foolish things to shame the wise. The whole 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 passage reads as follows:
26 Brothers, consider your calling: Not many are wise from a human perspective, not many are powerful, not many of noble birth. 27 Instead, God has chosen what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen what is weak in the world to shame the strong. 28 God has chosen what is insignificant and despised in the world--what is viewed as nothing--to bring to nothing what is viewed as something, 29 so that no one can boast in His presence. 30 But it is from Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became God-given wisdom for redemption, 31 in order that, as it is written: The one who boasts must boast in the Lord.
Last night, I was hanging out with a couple of my friends. We had found a Book of Bible Names and started reading through them. We got to Jethro, and I, being from a small town in Alabama, though it hilarious and exciting that a Jethro was in the Bible. None of my companions were as amused as I was because, evidently, this is common knowledge.
By no means am I calling my friends, some of the brightest people I know, foolish and me wise, but I have read the Bible in its entirety, yet Jethro, Moses's mentor, seemed to have fallen through the cracks in my reading. I study Calvinism and Arminianism backwards and forwards to dive deep into the mysteries of God, paying no attention to the road signs along the way. My collection of knowledge has become so narrow in scope lately that my brain refuses to acknowledge the forest, only looking at the tree.
Having said that, I'm not going to stop studying the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. It's my favorite subject in theology (I call it my crack), but this small incident was a humble reminder to my insignificant knowledge of God. Yet, my insignificance is what God uses. Though my wisdom is shamed when it is brought in a boastful light, my humility is used so that what others view as insignificant can be seen as the most significant part of human life. Why? Because, by God's logic, if no one can boast about anything in His presence, then why not use what, to these imperfect creatures seems mundane and meaningless, to bring to light what is most meaningful and groundbreaking?
David was small. Goliath was big. David hurled a stone at his head and killed him in one shot.
Peter was working one of the most mundane jobs of the time. More than that, Jesus told him to go out into the deeper parts of the water where, on any ordinary given day, there would be no (or an insignificant) amount of fish. Yet, this was no ordinary day. They almost broke their nets with how much fish they caught.
Christ was shamed upon the cross, so that we could boast in the Lord. If you don't know what boast means, it's similar to "brag." We have bragging rights. It's the only thing we have bragging rights to. We can be statistically the best at something. Maybe no one else will come along to claim the accolade, but that's doubtful. But for the purpose of the illustration, let's say there will never be anyone faster than Usain Bolt (he prophesied so himself). So what? You can run a short distance at record speeds. I'm not trying to make light of the accomplishment he has. It's remarkable, really, but you can't run when you're dead.
When we're dead, our body will be doing one thing for a longer time than anything else it has ever done: decompose. What does one's soul do during that time? Great question. It is either boasting in the Lord or burning in hell because that's all we are guaranteed in this life: death. Remarkably, we are guaranteed one of two paths in the afterlife, and it's not about where the dice lands. It's not about your lifestyle. Paul was the Hitler of his day, and half the New Testament is written by him, so enough with this "it's too late for me" crap. Samson was a psycho. Noah was a drunk. Joshua was a spoiled brat who was sold into slavery. Adam was whipped. Eve was gullible. Jacob was a liar. Peter denied Jesus during his lifetime (not after his death). And I am a pretentious hypocrite shamed by small circumstances. I'm not trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill, but I'm always humbled when I meet people who were baptized when they were eight and know all of these Bible stories, so to puff up my chest, I start a conversation on predestination, ironically, the only subject in theology that eventually ends with, "I just don't know."
God became shame to take away our shame. God became sin to take away our sin. God unleashed His wrath on Himself (as His Son) to prove three days later than sin has no hold on God nor us, so that we might boast in the only thing we can ever boast in: the Lord.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Arminianism v. Calvinism - Chosen By God
So I've embarked on a self-induced study (/torture) of Arminianism versus Calvinism. For those of you who aren't familiar with either, Calvinism is typically defined by God's love for those whom He chose to save for the beginning for His ultimate glory. Arminianism is defined by the love of those for God who are saved by Him for His ultimate glory (as of right now, my understanding of Arminianism is elementary at best, so bear with me).
I have decided to do updates on the books that I will read as I finish them. I won't necessarily share any of my beliefs on the subject or how it is affected which way I sway, but I will do my best to give a fair and unbiased opinion towards the author's take on the subject at hand.
I just recently finished Chosen By God by R.C. Sproul, an Arminian converted to Calvinism. He lays out the Five Points of Calvinism (TULIP) in excruciating detail. He doesn't necessarily walk through TULIP. He more or less talks about them as he comes up. I'll give you a brief summary:
Total Depravity
He describes total depravity as not necessarily ultimate depravity as much as "rooted" depravity, meaning that it's not so much that every decision we have ever made is a selfish one (though an argument can be made for this), but it is that we are born with sin rooted at the core of our very being. For this reason, we are separated from God and need his initiating reconciliation.
Unconditional Election
This is the point that most people have a problem with. It is the idea that God pre-ordains people from the beginning to Heaven or to Hell. You don't have a choice in the matter. Sproul prefers to refer to it as "sovereign election," contesting that, according to His ultimate wisdom, He placed the desire for loving Him in the hearts of those whom would be saved. To paraphrase him, God doesn't save people who wouldn't want to be saved. In regards to the flip side, Sproul attests that it isn't so much as God condemns people to Hell so much as He turns them over to their sin, something that happens time and time again in the Old Testament. By releasing them into their sin and not placing that divine desire in their hearts, their destination is Hell. However, this was more or less a technique used by God in the Old Testament as a way of ultimately turning the people of Israel back to God (though the condemnation of many for the salvation of few is not entirely out of the question as we will see in the next section).
Limited Atonement
If you have a problem with Calvinism, it rests here. The idea that Christ only died for those whom are saved is an abrasive theology. Beyond that, God chose them to begin with, so you not only are not independent, but the blood of Christ is an exclusive matter to a "members only" club that you can do nothing to be a part of. You just have to wait for the invitation. Sproul redefines it as "definite atonement." He agrees the Christ died for the sins of all humanity. Otherwise, He wouldn't be loving towards humanity, and there would be no grounds to send people to Hell simply for sinning. There has to be rebellion against a covenant for there to be punishment. Thus, the covenant was made in blood. However, only those who he foreknew and foreloved are reconciled with the blood of Christ. It's not so much that God couldn't save those who are damned. It is that God chose to save those who aren't. As Sproul says in the beginning, it's not the saved people that are the problem in this debate. It's the unsaved. However, he makes the valid point that the idea of limited atonement stems from the idea that God chose to save only a number of people and condemn a number of people for His ultimate glorification, and if some have to go to Hell so others can go to Heaven (not that God is limited to this but in His ultimate wisdom He chose this), then so be it.
Irresistible Grace
I've heard this more so described as "overwhelming grace." To be honest, I can't remember if Sproul used the same analogy, but he describes it in a similar manner. The typical connotation is that the free gift that God gives to his elect are forced upon them with no choice on their end of the manner. Sproul makes the argument that it is not so much irresistible by God's power, but it is irresistible through our want. In that moment when God reveals Himself to you, according to Sproul, you want nothing else. You are drawn to Him because he drew you, and you run freely into His arms.
Perseverance of the Saints
This is the "once saved, always saved" chant of the Baptist church. If you consider yourself a three-point Calvinist, you usually embrace this, irresistible grace, and total depravity. It is the idea that the Holy Spirit's dwelling within you is so powerful that you could not fall from the Hand of God. Sproul renames this "preservation of the saints." It's not so much that the Holy Spirit's driving power overpowers your own will as it is that God won't let you go. He already chose you, and He isn't going to change is mind.
He makes a good argument for Calvinism. If nothing else, I feel like I could, for the fun of it, debate with a committed Arminian on the subject in good ol' fashioned theological fun. I would recommend it to anyone, but I would really stress reading it in its entirety. The idea of reading about a theology that says you have no choice in your ultimate destination doesn't mesh well with the mentality of American self-determination.
I have decided to do updates on the books that I will read as I finish them. I won't necessarily share any of my beliefs on the subject or how it is affected which way I sway, but I will do my best to give a fair and unbiased opinion towards the author's take on the subject at hand.
I just recently finished Chosen By God by R.C. Sproul, an Arminian converted to Calvinism. He lays out the Five Points of Calvinism (TULIP) in excruciating detail. He doesn't necessarily walk through TULIP. He more or less talks about them as he comes up. I'll give you a brief summary:
Total Depravity
He describes total depravity as not necessarily ultimate depravity as much as "rooted" depravity, meaning that it's not so much that every decision we have ever made is a selfish one (though an argument can be made for this), but it is that we are born with sin rooted at the core of our very being. For this reason, we are separated from God and need his initiating reconciliation.
Unconditional Election
This is the point that most people have a problem with. It is the idea that God pre-ordains people from the beginning to Heaven or to Hell. You don't have a choice in the matter. Sproul prefers to refer to it as "sovereign election," contesting that, according to His ultimate wisdom, He placed the desire for loving Him in the hearts of those whom would be saved. To paraphrase him, God doesn't save people who wouldn't want to be saved. In regards to the flip side, Sproul attests that it isn't so much as God condemns people to Hell so much as He turns them over to their sin, something that happens time and time again in the Old Testament. By releasing them into their sin and not placing that divine desire in their hearts, their destination is Hell. However, this was more or less a technique used by God in the Old Testament as a way of ultimately turning the people of Israel back to God (though the condemnation of many for the salvation of few is not entirely out of the question as we will see in the next section).
Limited Atonement
If you have a problem with Calvinism, it rests here. The idea that Christ only died for those whom are saved is an abrasive theology. Beyond that, God chose them to begin with, so you not only are not independent, but the blood of Christ is an exclusive matter to a "members only" club that you can do nothing to be a part of. You just have to wait for the invitation. Sproul redefines it as "definite atonement." He agrees the Christ died for the sins of all humanity. Otherwise, He wouldn't be loving towards humanity, and there would be no grounds to send people to Hell simply for sinning. There has to be rebellion against a covenant for there to be punishment. Thus, the covenant was made in blood. However, only those who he foreknew and foreloved are reconciled with the blood of Christ. It's not so much that God couldn't save those who are damned. It is that God chose to save those who aren't. As Sproul says in the beginning, it's not the saved people that are the problem in this debate. It's the unsaved. However, he makes the valid point that the idea of limited atonement stems from the idea that God chose to save only a number of people and condemn a number of people for His ultimate glorification, and if some have to go to Hell so others can go to Heaven (not that God is limited to this but in His ultimate wisdom He chose this), then so be it.
Irresistible Grace
I've heard this more so described as "overwhelming grace." To be honest, I can't remember if Sproul used the same analogy, but he describes it in a similar manner. The typical connotation is that the free gift that God gives to his elect are forced upon them with no choice on their end of the manner. Sproul makes the argument that it is not so much irresistible by God's power, but it is irresistible through our want. In that moment when God reveals Himself to you, according to Sproul, you want nothing else. You are drawn to Him because he drew you, and you run freely into His arms.
Perseverance of the Saints
This is the "once saved, always saved" chant of the Baptist church. If you consider yourself a three-point Calvinist, you usually embrace this, irresistible grace, and total depravity. It is the idea that the Holy Spirit's dwelling within you is so powerful that you could not fall from the Hand of God. Sproul renames this "preservation of the saints." It's not so much that the Holy Spirit's driving power overpowers your own will as it is that God won't let you go. He already chose you, and He isn't going to change is mind.
He makes a good argument for Calvinism. If nothing else, I feel like I could, for the fun of it, debate with a committed Arminian on the subject in good ol' fashioned theological fun. I would recommend it to anyone, but I would really stress reading it in its entirety. The idea of reading about a theology that says you have no choice in your ultimate destination doesn't mesh well with the mentality of American self-determination.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
I'm a cheating preacher
Every time I am asked to give a message (albeit, I can only count that number on one hand), I feel like a cheater. I have to try and depict a perfect love for me that I not only do not deserve but that comes from a perfect being that I put below other things in life. I cheat on God. I never think God is enough for me or can do enough for me when trials come. Something will come up in my life, and God will say "I've got it," to which I will respond, "no, let me carry that," as if He is some frail old lady that can barely lift her groceries.
He. Is. God.
He is Jehovah. He is Yahweh. He is Jesus. He is Holy. He is Redemption. He is Passion. He is blood poured out for cheating, lying followers like me who look for other things in life to appease my desires when all I have ever needed was Him, and why does He do it? Well, let's first examine why I do it.
Because seeing is believing. I can't see God. I wasn't there when Jesus was tortured and raised from the dead. I didn't see the miracles of healing the sick, resurrecting the deceased, and forgiving the sinful occur. If someone tells me anything, I have to get it straight from the horse's mouth. I'll believe that Homer wrote The Odyssey and that the events are alluded to historical events that may or may not have actually happened. I can attribute that to human error and the evolution of legend, but to believe that God inspired an entire treatise on how He saved humans (be they chosen beforehand or chosen for themselves) for His own glorification and victory against Hell? I'd have to see it to believe it.
But it's written down for me. Not good enough.
But I'm saved. Still not good enough.
But I'm called to preach. Still not good enough.
But the cravings of my soul are to learn more and more about the God by reading the Bible that is so too good to be true. Still not good enough.
When will God be good enough? As if we aren't bad enough to begin with. We desire hell naturally. Not intentionally. Not directly. Not consciously, but it's the easier route with the worst possible outcome while Heaven is the hardest route with the best possible outcome. Two routes. Two outcomes. Yet, I cheat on God constantly with my desire for Hell, not because I actively desire Hell but because I constantly believe that it's what I deserve, and I, being the "righteous judge" in this situation, condemn myself to the burning walls of afterlife, to which He says, "I'm not letting you go. No. You said in Birmingham that you loved Me, and you meant it. I know. I know the hearts of men, and I saw it straight through your core. You actively professed your love for me in front of hundreds, and I welcomed you home. No, Evan. You're not getting out of this one. Death can't even do us part. I know you deserve Hell. You know you deserve Hell, but I'm giving you Heaven. Don't offer me anything in return. It's not enough. I want you. That's all I want. I want you to be in constant love with Me. Not with Hell."
But why? Why does God love the imperfect beings that He made? Because He made them. We're not awesome. We're not cool. We're not the next best thing. We screwed up to the point that creation itself, according to the Bible, is experiencing labor pains because of our sin. That's not pantheism. That's telling you that the difference between the Garden of Eden and the Garden of Gesthemane is that things in the Garden of Gesthemane die. The Garden was meant for eternity.
But He made us because He loves us and He loves us because He made us. I'm a cheating preacher. I preach for people to know about how good the God is that I cheat on every day. The messed up part is He's telling me to do it. He wants me to do it, so what choice do I have (be it by guilt or by reason) to do what He says?
He. Is. God.
He is Jehovah. He is Yahweh. He is Jesus. He is Holy. He is Redemption. He is Passion. He is blood poured out for cheating, lying followers like me who look for other things in life to appease my desires when all I have ever needed was Him, and why does He do it? Well, let's first examine why I do it.
Because seeing is believing. I can't see God. I wasn't there when Jesus was tortured and raised from the dead. I didn't see the miracles of healing the sick, resurrecting the deceased, and forgiving the sinful occur. If someone tells me anything, I have to get it straight from the horse's mouth. I'll believe that Homer wrote The Odyssey and that the events are alluded to historical events that may or may not have actually happened. I can attribute that to human error and the evolution of legend, but to believe that God inspired an entire treatise on how He saved humans (be they chosen beforehand or chosen for themselves) for His own glorification and victory against Hell? I'd have to see it to believe it.
But it's written down for me. Not good enough.
But I'm saved. Still not good enough.
But I'm called to preach. Still not good enough.
But the cravings of my soul are to learn more and more about the God by reading the Bible that is so too good to be true. Still not good enough.
When will God be good enough? As if we aren't bad enough to begin with. We desire hell naturally. Not intentionally. Not directly. Not consciously, but it's the easier route with the worst possible outcome while Heaven is the hardest route with the best possible outcome. Two routes. Two outcomes. Yet, I cheat on God constantly with my desire for Hell, not because I actively desire Hell but because I constantly believe that it's what I deserve, and I, being the "righteous judge" in this situation, condemn myself to the burning walls of afterlife, to which He says, "I'm not letting you go. No. You said in Birmingham that you loved Me, and you meant it. I know. I know the hearts of men, and I saw it straight through your core. You actively professed your love for me in front of hundreds, and I welcomed you home. No, Evan. You're not getting out of this one. Death can't even do us part. I know you deserve Hell. You know you deserve Hell, but I'm giving you Heaven. Don't offer me anything in return. It's not enough. I want you. That's all I want. I want you to be in constant love with Me. Not with Hell."
But why? Why does God love the imperfect beings that He made? Because He made them. We're not awesome. We're not cool. We're not the next best thing. We screwed up to the point that creation itself, according to the Bible, is experiencing labor pains because of our sin. That's not pantheism. That's telling you that the difference between the Garden of Eden and the Garden of Gesthemane is that things in the Garden of Gesthemane die. The Garden was meant for eternity.
But He made us because He loves us and He loves us because He made us. I'm a cheating preacher. I preach for people to know about how good the God is that I cheat on every day. The messed up part is He's telling me to do it. He wants me to do it, so what choice do I have (be it by guilt or by reason) to do what He says?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)