Why Definitions are Important
The most important class I ever took in college was the class on Psychology of Religion. This class taught me a lot on the way people think, and though I certainly don't think about Christianity now the way I did then, it did teach me a great principle: what is the definition of a term, and who is defining it?
It's very easy to think that two people are on the same page with a particular term of use, but after close inspection, they could not be farther apart. Let's take a simple example: A person says, "It's a nice day out there." Now, without any other information, someone might agree. But what if we're in New England, and it just barely broke 40 degrees in the winter--a person from Florida would think it to be "cold" or "freezing", whereas a person from that area might consider it warm.
How does this relate to the topic of theology? Well, as I have said before, theology is the study of God, and as a result, over the centuries, "systematic" theology or doctrine has been put forth by men of God to articulate the way one views God. Definitions are very important in this venture.
So let's throw out a term, which is not necessarily doctrinal or theological, but a term that comes up in the discussion: free will. Now, we would all agree that we make choices every day, right? However, put an Arminian and a Calvinist side by side, and they would view those choices differently. Arminians would view humans as having a free will that is capable of walking away from God and abandoning the faith--they would view the world as fallen, but each human fully capable of accepting the Gospel or not. Calvinists would state that man is depraved, and that while humans make choices, their will is so impaired by their sinful motivations and desires, that it can do nothing but sin (predisposed to it, as it were)--so in this sense, the will is not really "free" in the way that the Arminians would say it is (This discussion encompasses the differing views on the degrees of depravity and the role of God and man in salvation).
Let's take another term: free grace. It's my understanding that the Arminians would view this as stating that the grace that Christ gives in salvation is free to all, meaning that all could be saved (a more universal approach). Calvinist would view the term as meaning that grace is free to those who are drawn to Christ (a more limited approach), in the sense there is nothing that a person does to earn this grace (though it must be noted that neither do the Arminians view it as earning grace, just a matter of who it is available to). This term relates more to the atonement, which I might post about more at a later time.
A reality that any Christian has to deal with is: some choose Christ and some do not when presented with the truth of the Gospel. Why is this the case?
My pastor has been preaching from the gospel of John over the past several weeks, and we have recently come to John 6, where Jesus performed the miracles of feeding the 5000 (and likely more) and walking on water. At the end of the chapter, Christ points out some things to his disciples. In verse 44, He says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws Him." In verse 63, He says, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail." Many disciples "turned back and no longer walked with him" after hearing "that no one can come to unless it is granted him by the Father." (v. 65-66)
So coming to the application of the definitions above, how does the Father draw? Seemingly, through the work of the Holy Spirit. In John, multitudes are hearing Jesus speak, and witness spectactular miracles--yet, there are some who turn away and do not follow Christ. Why is this? Did they merely "will" not to? They were walking with God incarnate! Why didn't they see and understand? Perhaps because the Spirit did not move in them to give them understanding, as the Father foreordained. My pastor pointed out that God does not actively work to condemn those that do not come to Him, but simply leaves them to themselves and their sin, so that they would receive justice; in His grace, He moves through the Spirit in others, to awaken them to the Truth, and never lets them go. Jesus said, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." (v. 37).
Many preachers and church leaders today make telling stories a great part of their sermon, thinking that it can be relevant way to communicate the Gospel to others and it is more understandable; my pastor correctly pointed out that many of them incorrectly point to Jesus' ministry as a reason for doing so. Yet, if one examines the Scriptures, Jesus told such stories as a form of judgment, because in such stories as the parable of the farmer and seeds, some would be awakened to deeper truth in the story (or the thought would be put in their minds to pursue it), but others would see it simply as a story about the farmer and his planting of seeds. The disciples had to ask on some occasions about the meanings of the parables, since their meaning was not altogether clear, and Jesus indicates that the secrets of the Kingdom were given to some, but not to all.
And yet, the tension that must be dealt with is humans are held responsible for choices, yet God has chosen before time in whom His Spirit will move.
It's very easy to think that two people are on the same page with a particular term of use, but after close inspection, they could not be farther apart. Let's take a simple example: A person says, "It's a nice day out there." Now, without any other information, someone might agree. But what if we're in New England, and it just barely broke 40 degrees in the winter--a person from Florida would think it to be "cold" or "freezing", whereas a person from that area might consider it warm.
How does this relate to the topic of theology? Well, as I have said before, theology is the study of God, and as a result, over the centuries, "systematic" theology or doctrine has been put forth by men of God to articulate the way one views God. Definitions are very important in this venture.
So let's throw out a term, which is not necessarily doctrinal or theological, but a term that comes up in the discussion: free will. Now, we would all agree that we make choices every day, right? However, put an Arminian and a Calvinist side by side, and they would view those choices differently. Arminians would view humans as having a free will that is capable of walking away from God and abandoning the faith--they would view the world as fallen, but each human fully capable of accepting the Gospel or not. Calvinists would state that man is depraved, and that while humans make choices, their will is so impaired by their sinful motivations and desires, that it can do nothing but sin (predisposed to it, as it were)--so in this sense, the will is not really "free" in the way that the Arminians would say it is (This discussion encompasses the differing views on the degrees of depravity and the role of God and man in salvation).
Let's take another term: free grace. It's my understanding that the Arminians would view this as stating that the grace that Christ gives in salvation is free to all, meaning that all could be saved (a more universal approach). Calvinist would view the term as meaning that grace is free to those who are drawn to Christ (a more limited approach), in the sense there is nothing that a person does to earn this grace (though it must be noted that neither do the Arminians view it as earning grace, just a matter of who it is available to). This term relates more to the atonement, which I might post about more at a later time.
A reality that any Christian has to deal with is: some choose Christ and some do not when presented with the truth of the Gospel. Why is this the case?
My pastor has been preaching from the gospel of John over the past several weeks, and we have recently come to John 6, where Jesus performed the miracles of feeding the 5000 (and likely more) and walking on water. At the end of the chapter, Christ points out some things to his disciples. In verse 44, He says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws Him." In verse 63, He says, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail." Many disciples "turned back and no longer walked with him" after hearing "that no one can come to unless it is granted him by the Father." (v. 65-66)
So coming to the application of the definitions above, how does the Father draw? Seemingly, through the work of the Holy Spirit. In John, multitudes are hearing Jesus speak, and witness spectactular miracles--yet, there are some who turn away and do not follow Christ. Why is this? Did they merely "will" not to? They were walking with God incarnate! Why didn't they see and understand? Perhaps because the Spirit did not move in them to give them understanding, as the Father foreordained. My pastor pointed out that God does not actively work to condemn those that do not come to Him, but simply leaves them to themselves and their sin, so that they would receive justice; in His grace, He moves through the Spirit in others, to awaken them to the Truth, and never lets them go. Jesus said, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." (v. 37).
Many preachers and church leaders today make telling stories a great part of their sermon, thinking that it can be relevant way to communicate the Gospel to others and it is more understandable; my pastor correctly pointed out that many of them incorrectly point to Jesus' ministry as a reason for doing so. Yet, if one examines the Scriptures, Jesus told such stories as a form of judgment, because in such stories as the parable of the farmer and seeds, some would be awakened to deeper truth in the story (or the thought would be put in their minds to pursue it), but others would see it simply as a story about the farmer and his planting of seeds. The disciples had to ask on some occasions about the meanings of the parables, since their meaning was not altogether clear, and Jesus indicates that the secrets of the Kingdom were given to some, but not to all.
And yet, the tension that must be dealt with is humans are held responsible for choices, yet God has chosen before time in whom His Spirit will move.
posted by Dan B. @ 10:57 AM
2 Comments:
At 9:35 PM ,
Mr. Hibbity Gibbity said...
Sounds to me like you're bordering "dangerously" close to predestination.
Why can't there be a "middle ground", of sorts, between the two opposing views?
Why not have a God that knows all and sees all, but who doesn't forcibly manipulate events/people to achieve His goals?
And yet, even as I write, I'm reminded of the Israelites in Eygpt. I remember a passage which describes how God hardened Pharoah's heart.
I believe C.S. Lewis struggled with this very same issue.
Again, it is my belief that God is omniscient and can see all possible outcomes; ultimately, He also knows who will and who won't accept Him.
Then again, if He did create everything that we see, hear, touch and smell . . . and even time itself, one has to ask whether or not He knowingly set events in motion that would eventually create unbelieving John Doe down the street.
Also, if He knows us before we are born and He is the one that imprints upon us our souls, then does He create some with unbelieving spirits?
Or perhaps, another way to look at it might be that this is not the world which He originally created.
Yes, He did create it, but it's been tainted by sin and has suffered accordingly. As humans, we are trapped in husks that wither and die and we are crippled by a sin nature handed down to us from Adam.
So perhaps, instead of questioning God on the matter, we should look at ourselves.
If Adam and Eve (and subsequent generations) hadn't sinned, reality, as we know it, would be vastly different.
And so, maybe, as humans, it's our own fault that John Doe down the street is an unbeliever.
Just a thought.
Still, that doesn't really tackle the passages about God calling people. But again, He knows all.
A bit simplistic, maybe, but it's the best I've got.
At 12:24 PM ,
Dan B. said...
Hibbity (hehe),
I'm not bordering. I'm there. There may be a middle view, and I'm just not aware of it.
However, whether one takes one view or the other, if one truly calls on the name of the Lord and it is saving faith, then the view on this topic doesn't matter. (In other words, somebody doesn't have to agree with me on the election issue--we may disagree yet both be saved and Christians)
God's sovereignty is something to be reckoned with in the Bible. As I have said in previous posts, I didn't always think this way.
Again, it is my belief that God is omniscient and can see all possible outcomes; ultimately, He also knows who will and who won't accept Him.
Let's take a look at that. Being omniscient as He is, He knows all which is what makes Him God. Now, if we take the above statement and want to think that God just allows events, then we might almost think that God is reactionary. In other words, those that emphasize free will would analyze the election discussion in Romans as God's foreknowledge of who would choose Him. Then, knowing that they would choose Him, He chose them. Do you follow?
The problem with that is that His choosing then is based on something within us--our choosing Him. However, if we take Paul at his word, there is no one righteous, not even one. We are depraved, and in a sinful state, we have no desire to choose God.
As far as creation is concerned, I would posit that He had in His plan all along that sin would come in the world so that He could redeem it. So, before the foundation (and yes even before creation), he planned redemption. Why? Because it would bring Him glory and it pleased Him to do it.
As for creating "unbelieving souls"--I would state that we were all created in a state of unbelief because of the sin that entered the world. It pleased the father to set His affections (His mercy, through the regenerating power of His Holy Spirit) on some, but left others to their natural end (that we would all suffer without His grace).
So the hard tension is: it is John Doe's fault that He is unbelieving (human responsibility), but it is God that must save. We all share the curse of Adam's sin, but it is Christ alone that saves. Those that are unbelieving simply receive the justice they deserve.
I'll post more on this later.
In his grip,
D.B.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home