My Calvinist friends (hi Ryan!) should be relieved to know that I found a new hobby: resurrection apologetics! Not only is it cooler, it is more unifying to the body of Christ.
However, I hope you will forgive me if I offer some thoughts on monergism... (i.e. Calvinism by its technical term) You'll have to, so let's get cracking.
OK, so I was reading Arminian Perspectives, the blog of Ben Henshaw. I came across this quote:
"Calvinists often argue that God’s love has failed if Christ’s atonement was made for all and yet not all are saved. I find it strange that Calvinists, who are so quick to criticize Arminians for holding to a man centered religion, argue that unless man responds to God’s love in saving faith, then His love for them has somehow failed. How is it that they feel comfortable equating the success or failure of God’s love with man’s response to that love? Is the nature or validity of God’s love dependant on man’s response? Doesn’t that seem a little man centered?"
I thought that was a cool quote. It got me thinking: it's true, Calvinists do claim to be more God-centered and almost invariably end up painting Arminians as man-centered worshipers of free will in some way or another. But think about this:
In synergism, you look at a person and say, God has given them grace, grace enough for them to be saved. Then you ask, how have they responded to it? In monergism, you look at a person and ask, have they responded to God? Then, and only then, you conclude that God gave them saving grace.
Synergism: God wants this man and is drawing him toward Himself. What will he do with it?
Monergism: What did the man do with it? All right, then God wanted him and irresistibly drew him.
It is interesting how the theology that claims to be more God-centered actually puts God second in the equation. The only thing is, monergists would stipulate that man's response to God is invariably His grace, therefore the grace and the response are synonymous. But it still seems like a weird way to think of things, because in monergism, everything is essentially an extension of God's sovereign (read: exhaustively manipulative and controlling) will.
Another thought I had on monergism lately is the whole "only grace" thing. Essentially, salvation is broken down into two components: God's grace and man's response. Monergism claims that these two are synonomous, whereas synergism sees them as two different parts which are mutually exclusive, though the latter cannot work without the former and the former will not work without the latter.
Basically, monergists argue that their system is the only one that is truly "only by grace", because every part of salvation is performed by God. But here is the problem: in synergist's haste to deny this and clear their doctrines from the charge, they miss the real problem with monergism.
As I write the next paragraph after this one, remember very clearly that there is a distinction between an offered gift and one's acceptance of a gift. A quick deviation: If a rich man offers me a $60,000 car, can we really say that I earned the car just because I said, "wow, sure, thanks!" and accepted it? Can we say that the car I got was not a hundred percent of the rich man's grace? Frankly, I think the reason that monergists are so quick to shortchange man's responsibility in salvation is because they cannot understand how great a price Christ paid and how great a gift we have been offered.
Now, on to my real point. If the reason a person accepts the gospel is 100% because of a special grace he has been given, then, doesn't it logically follow that the reason a person doesn't accept the gospel is 100% because of a lack of that special grace? Essentially, monergism steals human responsibility. And it gets worse when many monergists resort to compatibilism: when you confront them about this, they say, "of course! Man is completely responsible! And God is completely sovereign! It's all a divine mystery!" Daniel Gracely compared it to a rocking horse: Calvinist riders push forward with all their might toward God's sovereignty, but when you point out that they are really left with a strange God, they fall backward on man's responsibility. And so, they maintain an illusion of movement, even though they're really going back and forth. Frankly, I have no problem with mystery, but embracing blatant contradictions is sick.
Here's another thought on monergism... who is more sovereign, a king ruling a nation, or a kid in a sandbox? Everyone is quick to affirm that the king is more sovereign. But monergists, with their lines of argumentation, often end up suggesting the latter (though they have no idea). They suggest that God is more sovereign if He is more controlling. The kid in the sandbox has more control over his toys than the king does over his subjects. So why is the king more powerful, even though he has less control? Some may say it has to do with the size of the kingdom. OK. Just blow up the kid and the sandbox until it and the kingdom are the same size. The king is still more sovereign. Why? He has less control, but he is more sovereign? He is more sovereign because of the fact that he is ruling over creatures with wills - wills that can choose.
In fact, that is the real distinction between a man and a maniquin. The man can choose, the maniquin can't. What other distinctions are there? That the man is alive and the maniquin isn't? All right, then what is the distinction between a live man and a dead man? One has a soul, the other doesn't? But what does having a soul entail? It means being alive, which means being able to think, and reason, and choose option A over option B, to make a genuine choice for yourself. If your choices are all chosen for you (no matter how compatibilistically), why are you called a will, a soul, an individual?
That's where monergism has always gone nutty. Remorse, regret and repentence only make sense under synergism. "I'm so sorry, I feel so bad for doing x." As opposed to? In monergism, it should be, "I'm so sorry, I feel so bad for doing x, even though I could not possibly have done otherwise". Frankly, I don't know what regret is under monergism. (And using Romans 9:16 to defend this doctrine is sort of odd, since it is the only scripture that could possibly refer to people getting blamed for what they were predestined to do, yet that reading is flawed.) What do you regret, that you did what you had to do? That you did what you were predestined to do? Really, it comes down to regretting that God did not give you more grace, regretting what Adam and Eve did, not regretting what you did. Monergism, in my opinion, is a staunch rehashing of the blame game.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
Greg Boyd and the Gap Theory
So, I found out today, a bit to my disappointment, that my favorite theologian, Greg Boyd has gone in for the gap theory. In an article written for the book Creation Made Free: Open Theology Engaging Science, Boyd undertakes to show how evolution can be thought of as cosmic warfare.
I have not yet finished Boyd's article, but I think the premise is rather good. If the gap theory is true and before the creation of man there were millions of years of evolution, viewing that evolution in terms of cosmic warfare would be the single best way to view it.
But I just have some problems with the gap theory. It doesn't seem to fit a normal reading of the Bible. I agree with gap theorists that the Hebrew yom does not necessarily mean a day of twenty-four hours (take a look at all the word uses). But the phrase "there was evening and there was morning, one day" (as it should literally be translated) seems to suggest an actual period of twenty-four hours.
This is not nearly my biggest problem with the gap theory. One of my biggest problems is that the gap theory is usually formulated to accommodate evolution into the Bible. I have no problem with evolution in general. I agree that species adapt and change, even from species to species. I do note, however, that there are genetic limitations on how much a certain kind (that is the biblical term) of animal can change. Evolutionists know this, which is why they usually posit mutation as the means by which animals evolve. Mutation, though, does not add genetic information. There's simply no way to add genetic information to the genome, as opposed to changing or destroying it. (Watch Richard Dawkins try to answer this question.)
But that is a tangent. The main problem is that the literal reading of the Genesis account is destroyed by the gap theory. In Genesis 3:20, Adam names his wife Eve, because "she would become the mother of all the living". In the gap theory, she would not indeed become the mother of the entire human race.
Now, here is the kicker. We note in Gen 1:14-19 that the lights in the sky are only created on day four. Some evolutionists scoff at this, but it's up to them to show that the sun's and star's light was needed before day four. Was it needed for the plants on day three? Not really. If you read Genesis 2:4-7 it is quite obvious that while God planted the seeds on the third day, they didn't sprout up until after the sixth day. (Even if full-grown plants had been created on day three, they would not have needed light for at least another day.) Sure, on day one God created light (as in, the concept), but did not create actual lights until day four. Wavelenths still function in the dark. But this poses a problem for gap theorists. Evolution typically supposes that the sun evolved long before plant and animal life.
There is also a problem in that, as I noted, per Gen 2:4-7 it does not appear that plants God created actually sprouted until after the sixth day. If the yom represent long periods of time, such as millions of years - that's one long sprout.
Overall, I just don't think the gap theory fits well with the book of Genesis. I've never been impressed by the "evidence" for evolution, and from my limited reading I am quite happy with a literal six twenty-four hour day reading of Genesis.
I still like Boyd, and while I recommend his books and will not drop him off the list as my favorite theologian, I rather disagree with him on this issue. I don't think it's a salvation issue at all, though, and though he certainly seems to be wrong here, in general I love the work he is doing for the kingdom.
I have not yet finished Boyd's article, but I think the premise is rather good. If the gap theory is true and before the creation of man there were millions of years of evolution, viewing that evolution in terms of cosmic warfare would be the single best way to view it.
But I just have some problems with the gap theory. It doesn't seem to fit a normal reading of the Bible. I agree with gap theorists that the Hebrew yom does not necessarily mean a day of twenty-four hours (take a look at all the word uses). But the phrase "there was evening and there was morning, one day" (as it should literally be translated) seems to suggest an actual period of twenty-four hours.
This is not nearly my biggest problem with the gap theory. One of my biggest problems is that the gap theory is usually formulated to accommodate evolution into the Bible. I have no problem with evolution in general. I agree that species adapt and change, even from species to species. I do note, however, that there are genetic limitations on how much a certain kind (that is the biblical term) of animal can change. Evolutionists know this, which is why they usually posit mutation as the means by which animals evolve. Mutation, though, does not add genetic information. There's simply no way to add genetic information to the genome, as opposed to changing or destroying it. (Watch Richard Dawkins try to answer this question.)
But that is a tangent. The main problem is that the literal reading of the Genesis account is destroyed by the gap theory. In Genesis 3:20, Adam names his wife Eve, because "she would become the mother of all the living". In the gap theory, she would not indeed become the mother of the entire human race.
Now, here is the kicker. We note in Gen 1:14-19 that the lights in the sky are only created on day four. Some evolutionists scoff at this, but it's up to them to show that the sun's and star's light was needed before day four. Was it needed for the plants on day three? Not really. If you read Genesis 2:4-7 it is quite obvious that while God planted the seeds on the third day, they didn't sprout up until after the sixth day. (Even if full-grown plants had been created on day three, they would not have needed light for at least another day.) Sure, on day one God created light (as in, the concept), but did not create actual lights until day four. Wavelenths still function in the dark. But this poses a problem for gap theorists. Evolution typically supposes that the sun evolved long before plant and animal life.
There is also a problem in that, as I noted, per Gen 2:4-7 it does not appear that plants God created actually sprouted until after the sixth day. If the yom represent long periods of time, such as millions of years - that's one long sprout.
Overall, I just don't think the gap theory fits well with the book of Genesis. I've never been impressed by the "evidence" for evolution, and from my limited reading I am quite happy with a literal six twenty-four hour day reading of Genesis.
I still like Boyd, and while I recommend his books and will not drop him off the list as my favorite theologian, I rather disagree with him on this issue. I don't think it's a salvation issue at all, though, and though he certainly seems to be wrong here, in general I love the work he is doing for the kingdom.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Various Skeptic Articles Refuted, etc.
OK, so in between writing up the transcript for my interview with Barrie Schwortz (which was awesome!) I am working on a paper concerning the resurrection of Jesus. Specifically, I want to use it as a sort of tract for skeptics, and a general handout paper that can be of use.
It's actually evolving into two essays, one concerning the historical evidence for Christ's resurrection, and one concerning medical testimonies to people who have had near-death experiences, or actually been resurrected from the dead.
Yes, I am completely serious.
There are, in fact, many well-documented cases of what many extremely skeptical scientists, including atheists, admit are not just near-death but post-death experiences. Until my article arrives, see Gary Habermas' videos. There are nine parts, all worth watching.
Anyway, in my research I have encountered many naturalistic pieces arguing against the resurrection. While they hit high on search engine lists, they are often of shoddy quality and are easily refuted, usually by the entertaining J.P. Holding. His counter-articles, on the other hand, rarely overtake the skeptical articles he refutes in terms of search engine placement. As such, I would like to post a list of skeptical articles and their refutations (usually by Holding).
Review of Lee Stobel The Case for Christ by Jeff Lowder (skeptical)
Lowder on the Case for Christ, Refuted by J.P. Holding (rebuttal to above)
The Case Against The Case for Christ by Scott Bidstrup (skeptical)
Scott Bidstrup vs. The Case for Christ by J.P. Holding (rebuttal)
Why I Don't Buy The Resurrection Story by Richard Carrier (skeptical)
Richard Carriers' Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story - A Refutation by J.P. Holding
The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave, book by Richard Carrier (skeptical)
The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave Refuted by J.P. Holding (rebuttal)
The Historicity of the Empty Tomb Evaluated by Peter Kirby (skeptical, similar to book chapter refuted below)
Jesus Beyond the Grave Refuted: Peter Kirby's Chapter (rebuttal)
Just a few things... fun stuff, and I'm really starting to like Holding. He also refuted (soundly) Carrier's article, Did No One Trust Women? (Forum discussion here.) Unfortunately, that rebuttal is no longer online, since Holding is hoping to publish such material in book form in his upcoming Defending the Resurrection. However, Holding was kind enough to send me the old page.
Anyway, some cool stuff. Maybe more later.
It's actually evolving into two essays, one concerning the historical evidence for Christ's resurrection, and one concerning medical testimonies to people who have had near-death experiences, or actually been resurrected from the dead.
Yes, I am completely serious.
There are, in fact, many well-documented cases of what many extremely skeptical scientists, including atheists, admit are not just near-death but post-death experiences. Until my article arrives, see Gary Habermas' videos. There are nine parts, all worth watching.
Anyway, in my research I have encountered many naturalistic pieces arguing against the resurrection. While they hit high on search engine lists, they are often of shoddy quality and are easily refuted, usually by the entertaining J.P. Holding. His counter-articles, on the other hand, rarely overtake the skeptical articles he refutes in terms of search engine placement. As such, I would like to post a list of skeptical articles and their refutations (usually by Holding).
Review of Lee Stobel The Case for Christ by Jeff Lowder (skeptical)
Lowder on the Case for Christ, Refuted by J.P. Holding (rebuttal to above)
The Case Against The Case for Christ by Scott Bidstrup (skeptical)
Scott Bidstrup vs. The Case for Christ by J.P. Holding (rebuttal)
Why I Don't Buy The Resurrection Story by Richard Carrier (skeptical)
Richard Carriers' Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story - A Refutation by J.P. Holding
The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave, book by Richard Carrier (skeptical)
The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave Refuted by J.P. Holding (rebuttal)
The Historicity of the Empty Tomb Evaluated by Peter Kirby (skeptical, similar to book chapter refuted below)
Jesus Beyond the Grave Refuted: Peter Kirby's Chapter (rebuttal)
Just a few things... fun stuff, and I'm really starting to like Holding. He also refuted (soundly) Carrier's article, Did No One Trust Women? (Forum discussion here.) Unfortunately, that rebuttal is no longer online, since Holding is hoping to publish such material in book form in his upcoming Defending the Resurrection. However, Holding was kind enough to send me the old page.
Anyway, some cool stuff. Maybe more later.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Shroud of Turin Interview
All right, so tomorrow I'm hoping to talk to Barrie Schwortz from the Shroud of Turin website. Barrie has worked on official investigations of the Shroud with many prestigious groups, including members of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He has been investigating the Shroud since 1978.
Barrie (he insists I call him by his first name) is Jewish, so when he was asked to work on the Shroud he felt a little uneasy about being part of a "Christian" project. But a friend of his encouraged him to go for it and do the best he could do. So he did, and though he is still Jewish, he now believes that the weight of the evidence points to the Shroud being the genuine burial cloth of Christ.
Barrie was kind enough to agree to an interview, so I hope to talk to him tomorrow at three. I have a lot of questions to ask about the authenticity of the Shroud, so I am looking forward to it.
Here are the questions I am planning on asking thus far.
If you have any questions of your own you would like to ask Barrie Schwortz about the Shroud, let me know. I'm trying to get a good feel for the facts surrounding the Shroud with my questions.
Barrie (he insists I call him by his first name) is Jewish, so when he was asked to work on the Shroud he felt a little uneasy about being part of a "Christian" project. But a friend of his encouraged him to go for it and do the best he could do. So he did, and though he is still Jewish, he now believes that the weight of the evidence points to the Shroud being the genuine burial cloth of Christ.
Barrie was kind enough to agree to an interview, so I hope to talk to him tomorrow at three. I have a lot of questions to ask about the authenticity of the Shroud, so I am looking forward to it.
Here are the questions I am planning on asking thus far.
What is the Shroud supposed to be?
When was the Shroud of Turin discovered? Why is it called the Shroud of Turin, and where has it been over its lifetime?
How did you get involved in the Shroud research?
When did you work on the Shroud? Who was involved in the investigation?
How do you think the image was imprinted onto the Shroud?
Why do you think the Shroud is authentic? I mean, it sounds like something out of an Indiana Jones film! Couldn't it just be a medieval hoax or a modern gimmick? Couldn't the man on the Shroud be someone other than Jesus?
Do you know anything about Luigi Garlaschelli, the Italian scientist who reportedly recreated the Shroud of Turin to show that it is a fake? He apparently wrapped one of his students in cloth, covered the cloth with pigment, baked it in an oven, and then washed it. He basically used materials that would be available during medieval times, so he has decided that it was a gimmick created by middle age artisans. In medieval times especially, fake “Christian” relics were very common.
What about radiocarbon dating done on the cloth? It reveals that the cloth is from the 13th or 14th century, not from the time of Christ, right?
In your estimate, do you think the Shroud lends evidence to Christianity? Has your view of Christianity changed since your investigation on the Shroud?
If you have any questions of your own you would like to ask Barrie Schwortz about the Shroud, let me know. I'm trying to get a good feel for the facts surrounding the Shroud with my questions.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Home Churches
So, I've been having this idea going through my head lately and I don't want to shake it. Many of my friends probably know that I want to go into pastoral ministries, i.e. pastoring a church.
Here's the thing that's been hitting me... when the church was first established, the believers met in houses. See Acts 8:3, Romans 16:5, 1 Corinthians 16:19, Philemon 1:2, Colossians 4:15, etc...
There is no mention in the New Testament of believers raising buildings for their churches. Instead, they met in churches held in believer's homes.
So I guess it's now something of a dream of mine... to restore this practice. I know Xenos Christian Fellowship does it. I've really benefited from their ministry.
I just think this makes more sense for a lot of reasons.
Here's the thing that's been hitting me... when the church was first established, the believers met in houses. See Acts 8:3, Romans 16:5, 1 Corinthians 16:19, Philemon 1:2, Colossians 4:15, etc...
There is no mention in the New Testament of believers raising buildings for their churches. Instead, they met in churches held in believer's homes.
So I guess it's now something of a dream of mine... to restore this practice. I know Xenos Christian Fellowship does it. I've really benefited from their ministry.
I just think this makes more sense for a lot of reasons.
- It's personal. People get into the ministry when it's so down-to-earth and in-your-face. It's way easier to build strong relationships with other believers when you're meeting in homes instead of in huge, impersonal church buildings.
- It allows for rapid church growth. It's tough to build the church of Christ when you keep having to build buildings.
- It's great for times of persecution. You get privacy and can easily go underground if necessary.
- It's informal. Instead of being en garde to make sure you look good and are acting proper in your social context, you can have simple fellowship with other believers. Instead of being conscious of the social otherliness of church, this way church comes into your own personal life.
- It's inexpensive. It allows believers to concentrate their funding on expanding the church of Christ and reaching out financially to more people instead of paying to heat a huge building and reupholster the pews.
- It encourages sacrifice. When the church is right in a house, believers will have to provide to keep it going. They will offer their talents and time (and be taken up on the offer) more readily.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Does God Learn?
I hear a lot of open theists say that God "learns" about what is going on in the universe. In other words, God learns what human beings are doing, He learned about evil when mankind created it, etc.
Although I do think open theism is quite biblical and preserves God's sovereignty quite well, I don't feel comfortable saying that God learns.
You see, learning implies a struggle to gain information. When I learn, I have to study hard and make an effort to retain the information. For God, the process is completely devoid of effort, because He is omnipotent.
When a new fact comes into existence, then, God knows it instantly. Typically with the Platonic model of God, it is believed that when a being changes, it can only change for better or for worse. Since God is perfect, He can never change for the better or for the worse, so He can't change at all. Therefore, God's knowledge can never change at all. I disagree that changes are always from better to worse. In the Bible, God's character is revealed as unchanging, (i.e. I am the Lord, I do not change) but not in a Platonic sense. In fact, in the incarnation, God became man, that is, He changed.
It has to be this way, then. Here's the thing. If God has sequence (which the Incarnation assumes) then He is in 2009 right now with us (although He doesn't experience time in a measurable way). I am alive right now. Therefore, the statement "Cameron Versluis is alive" has a truth value of "true". If I were to die, the statement "Cameron Versluis is alive" would suddenly have a truth value of "false". Therefore, for a creature to have perfect knowledge over a course of time, the content of their knowledge would have to change.
If, however, God were completely immutably outside of time, as Plato affirmed (and as I myself have affirmed in the past) then the statement "Cameron Versluis is alive" would have a truth value of "true" yet "false"!
So, it does make most sense for God to have sequence, even if He doesn't have a measurable sequence. 2 Peter 3:8 makes this clear. God is going to bring judgment on the earth, but He has not yet. Therefore, He is in the "before" the judgment. Yet, you can't say it will be "x years" for God until the judgment, because His sequence is not measurable.
Now, back to what I was talking about. If I were to die, the truth value for "Cameron Versluis is alive" will suddenly negate. If you were to have the idea that I was alive, it would be a mistaken idea. But, if the truth value suddenly changes, then an omniscient being would recognize that it had changed and instantly the content of its knowledge would change.
God, then, does not "discover new facts" or "learn" as if He had to make some sort of careful effort to do it the right way. This is why I have been uncomfortable with open theists using these terms. Instead, God's simply knows. As David said, God knows when he sits and knows when he stands.
Anyway, some thoughts on open theism and God's knowledge...
Although I do think open theism is quite biblical and preserves God's sovereignty quite well, I don't feel comfortable saying that God learns.
You see, learning implies a struggle to gain information. When I learn, I have to study hard and make an effort to retain the information. For God, the process is completely devoid of effort, because He is omnipotent.
When a new fact comes into existence, then, God knows it instantly. Typically with the Platonic model of God, it is believed that when a being changes, it can only change for better or for worse. Since God is perfect, He can never change for the better or for the worse, so He can't change at all. Therefore, God's knowledge can never change at all. I disagree that changes are always from better to worse. In the Bible, God's character is revealed as unchanging, (i.e. I am the Lord, I do not change) but not in a Platonic sense. In fact, in the incarnation, God became man, that is, He changed.
It has to be this way, then. Here's the thing. If God has sequence (which the Incarnation assumes) then He is in 2009 right now with us (although He doesn't experience time in a measurable way). I am alive right now. Therefore, the statement "Cameron Versluis is alive" has a truth value of "true". If I were to die, the statement "Cameron Versluis is alive" would suddenly have a truth value of "false". Therefore, for a creature to have perfect knowledge over a course of time, the content of their knowledge would have to change.
If, however, God were completely immutably outside of time, as Plato affirmed (and as I myself have affirmed in the past) then the statement "Cameron Versluis is alive" would have a truth value of "true" yet "false"!
So, it does make most sense for God to have sequence, even if He doesn't have a measurable sequence. 2 Peter 3:8 makes this clear. God is going to bring judgment on the earth, but He has not yet. Therefore, He is in the "before" the judgment. Yet, you can't say it will be "x years" for God until the judgment, because His sequence is not measurable.
Now, back to what I was talking about. If I were to die, the truth value for "Cameron Versluis is alive" will suddenly negate. If you were to have the idea that I was alive, it would be a mistaken idea. But, if the truth value suddenly changes, then an omniscient being would recognize that it had changed and instantly the content of its knowledge would change.
God, then, does not "discover new facts" or "learn" as if He had to make some sort of careful effort to do it the right way. This is why I have been uncomfortable with open theists using these terms. Instead, God's simply knows. As David said, God knows when he sits and knows when he stands.
Anyway, some thoughts on open theism and God's knowledge...
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Faith and Works
So, I just had a few thoughts on faith and works.
Way back when, Martin Luther opposed the Catholic's translation of a phrase of Jesus we now translate "repent". At the time, Catholics translated it "do penance". Martin Luther, on the other hand, called for a new translation, ushering in his new concept of justification by faith alone.
Out of these two, I would side with Luther. But I agree with N.T. Wright, I think Luther took it too far. The word μετανοέω (metanoeó, repent) means to change one's mind and purpose, according to Strong's. As I recently heard a pastor explain it, when you're headed down the wrong way on a one-way street and cars are coming at you in all three lanes, repenting means turning the car around.
Repentence calls for a lifestyle change: living a radically different life, one like Jesus lived. Yet, we often view the "repent" command as a synonym for "believe" or just "feel bad".
I think we've taken it to the point where we've gotten a drive-thru Jesus. Just have a little faith and you're cool. You're going to heaven, be happy.
But I think Jesus called for a lot more than that. He wanted our works to glorify Him. I don't mean to challenge Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone. I agree with that. But here's the thing. As I see it, it's exactly like loving someone. If you tell someone you love them but never do anything to show it, how genuine is your love? You build up love by the things you do for another person. You're not a good friend because you do good stuff for a person, you're a good friend because you love them. At the same time, your love is built up by the things you do for them.
Similarly, we build up our love and our trust for God when we do what He says. As I see it, maybe works shouldn't be thought of as a byproduct of faith and trust, but as simultaneous with faith and trust. Read Hebrews 11. By faith, Abraham uprooted his house and moved. He didn't just sit there with his faith switch on. His faith was lived out in a real, tangible response to God.
Another thing I might like to note is the definition of "works". What exactly constitutes a work? I think the reason people get so up-in-arms about the concept of works is because they associate it with legalism, i.e. the Pharisees trying to be justified by the works of the Law. But what I'm talking about here is real acts of faith before God. Like, daring to help someone who's hurting. Bringing good news to the poor. Answering the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Here's how John Fletcher saw it. Faith and works are like two oars on a boat. You have to push on both of them simultaneously. If you let slack with the left oar, you turn in circles. If you let slack with the right oar, you turn in circles. It doesn't matter how hard you work the left oar if you're not also working the right one.
Thus, I don't see the tension between salvation by works and salvation by faith alone. Sure, faith is what justifies us, but faith without works is dead. Is a dead faith a saving faith? I think not.
Adding works to salvation seems heretical today. We've got antinomian eternal security advocates running around all over the place. It's like, just say the Sinner's Prayer and you're clean. Now do whatever you want. But works was a huge part of what Jesus talked about. Actually, I think Jesus might be labeled a Pelagian heretic if He were to show up today. Live out your faith. As James says, faith without works is dead. Let's ditch the drive-thru model of Jesus and return to the real one.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
Way back when, Martin Luther opposed the Catholic's translation of a phrase of Jesus we now translate "repent". At the time, Catholics translated it "do penance". Martin Luther, on the other hand, called for a new translation, ushering in his new concept of justification by faith alone.
Out of these two, I would side with Luther. But I agree with N.T. Wright, I think Luther took it too far. The word μετανοέω (metanoeó, repent) means to change one's mind and purpose, according to Strong's. As I recently heard a pastor explain it, when you're headed down the wrong way on a one-way street and cars are coming at you in all three lanes, repenting means turning the car around.
Repentence calls for a lifestyle change: living a radically different life, one like Jesus lived. Yet, we often view the "repent" command as a synonym for "believe" or just "feel bad".
I think we've taken it to the point where we've gotten a drive-thru Jesus. Just have a little faith and you're cool. You're going to heaven, be happy.
But I think Jesus called for a lot more than that. He wanted our works to glorify Him. I don't mean to challenge Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone. I agree with that. But here's the thing. As I see it, it's exactly like loving someone. If you tell someone you love them but never do anything to show it, how genuine is your love? You build up love by the things you do for another person. You're not a good friend because you do good stuff for a person, you're a good friend because you love them. At the same time, your love is built up by the things you do for them.
Similarly, we build up our love and our trust for God when we do what He says. As I see it, maybe works shouldn't be thought of as a byproduct of faith and trust, but as simultaneous with faith and trust. Read Hebrews 11. By faith, Abraham uprooted his house and moved. He didn't just sit there with his faith switch on. His faith was lived out in a real, tangible response to God.
Another thing I might like to note is the definition of "works". What exactly constitutes a work? I think the reason people get so up-in-arms about the concept of works is because they associate it with legalism, i.e. the Pharisees trying to be justified by the works of the Law. But what I'm talking about here is real acts of faith before God. Like, daring to help someone who's hurting. Bringing good news to the poor. Answering the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Here's how John Fletcher saw it. Faith and works are like two oars on a boat. You have to push on both of them simultaneously. If you let slack with the left oar, you turn in circles. If you let slack with the right oar, you turn in circles. It doesn't matter how hard you work the left oar if you're not also working the right one.
Thus, I don't see the tension between salvation by works and salvation by faith alone. Sure, faith is what justifies us, but faith without works is dead. Is a dead faith a saving faith? I think not.
Adding works to salvation seems heretical today. We've got antinomian eternal security advocates running around all over the place. It's like, just say the Sinner's Prayer and you're clean. Now do whatever you want. But works was a huge part of what Jesus talked about. Actually, I think Jesus might be labeled a Pelagian heretic if He were to show up today. Live out your faith. As James says, faith without works is dead. Let's ditch the drive-thru model of Jesus and return to the real one.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
