In Matthew 25:31-46, sheep and goats are judged on the basis of their own actions and not on their beliefs about their standing as justified before God based on the actions of another. Beliefs only get any of us so far. Action is the name of the game.
Nonetheless when Paul urges the Philippians to, “...work out your salvation with fear and trembling," he suggests the interplay of belief and action.
This blog is a work in process, so not only are there unfinished thoughts scattered here and there, but there are also posts written years ago espousing views I no longer hold. So this can be considered a sort of systematic theology. It's an index of my most concrete ruminations available.
TULIP
Advice for those college-bound
Fencing the table
Examining ourselves before participation in the Eucharist
Voting
What it's all about
Regarding the national day of prayer
On Catholic tradition
The much debated Romans 13:1-7 - here, here, and here.
Catholic and Protestant co-existence
Marks
The Freedom of God
Already/Not Yet
To be continued...
7 comments:
thanks
Foreknowledge meaning?
God's eternal awareness of the faith-choice you would make in your life according to which he predestined you?
Or the eternal (and unconditional) choice of you which he made in love which led to his predestinating (predetermining, planning) your justification, sanctification (conforming to Christ in obedience), and glorification?
A literal translation of the Greek in Romans 8:29a looks something like this:
"for those he chose beforehand (proginosko), also he predetermined (proorizo) to become like his Son in form (or appearance)..."
Just curious which view you perceive to be more biblically accurate? How do election and adoption fit in with your view of foreknowledge? (Eph. 1:4-5) Thinking and studying through these things myself. BTW, do you think Paul wrote both Romans and Ephesians?
On a more personal note, I am so sorry I missed you a few weeks ago. My wife went into labor that Friday night, and Avery Elisabeth was born at 5:34pm Saturday. I'm a Daddy! (For six weeks now... wow!)
Love you, brother.
Matt
Also, I love your final Bonhoeffer-esque statement. This theme is consistent in the teachings of the NT. Jesus does for us what we cannot do for ourselves (live a completely holy life, atone for sin, achieve resurrection, mediate between God and his people, etc.), but demands of us what we can do (love the Lord your God... and your neighbor as yourself. Take up your cross daily and follow me. etc)
You've got it. He died so we wouldn't have to... and to show us that we must also.
We cannot claim Christ as our Savior and not be conformed to his (dying) image. We must live on the Calvary road.
Matt, Congratulations on the new baby!!! The name has a nice ring to it too. Have you taught her how to throw a football yet? That is key, my friend. Oh, and the tomahawk chop. F-L-O-R-I-D-A S-T-A-T-E.
Now it's funny you bring this particular point up because that is the one of the three lines in there that I feel least confident about. Not that I think it's wrong, I mean I pretty much pulled it straight out of the two verses mentioned, but the question you asked really gets to the meat of the question. You definitely make me nervous to answer because of this shakiness and my complete overlooking of Ephesians 1:4-5 which is far more clear in stating what exactly it is that we are being predestined to, than either of the two verses I offered.
I have never thought about the issue of authorship before. I guess I've never questioned that it was Paul. It's impossible to say, for me at least, whether he wrote it or not. My guess is that one argument against Paul's authorship is a comparison between the wording of the three verses which seems to slightly (ever so slightly) change their meaning. But I don't think this is a good argument. He was perfectly capable, as we are today, of using different language to describe the same idea. I think we expect Paul to be a systematic theologian with strictly defined terminology with eternity hanging in the balance of each nuanced word. While Paul understood more than I'll ever know about God (there's another can of worms that would make for interesting conversation) I think his primary mission was evangelism and he was certainly capable of rhetorical flourishes which some would call a sloppy use of language, as opposed to strict denotation textbook style. Anyway, maybe that's not an argument against his authorship, but I think it's fun to explore anyway, in light of a comparison between these three verses (two of which being, presumably Paul's).
One other argument for later authorship, just going by the wording change between these verses is that Ephesians seems more exclusionary (i.e. chosen people of God) whereas Paul's message was inclusionary (i.e. Genitle mission or meat sacrificed to idols). But honestly, I think this is grasping at straws. So I'm going assume Paul wrote it unless something tells me otherwise. And that is where I get shaky because Eph. 1:4-5 totally takes the concept laid out in the other two verses into a whole new stratosphere. Have you noticed I'm still dancing around your question? And yes, I can dance!
Here is where mincing words begins. For example, I've heard it said that the "in Him" in v. 4 is key to the "chose us" in v. 4. They would say that he chose us because we are in him. Interesting, but all I can say about that idea is it's worth exploring. The next point at which to mince words is where it says "that we should be holy and blameless before Him". Was Paul talking about salvation here? It seems like it in the systematic theologian sense of the words he uses, but remember that I think that Paul plays a little fast and loose with words sometimes. Don’t get me wrong, not in a bad way by any means, but he was writing persuasive letters to people he loved and genuinely was concerned for. I’m starting to go on forever and I still haven’t got to the point. And since I have to do laundry, wash dishes, pack, and then go out of town for Christmas in a couple days, I won’t be able to finish my response till I get back at the beginning of January. But thanks for the comment on my post. Those are the kind of comments I need: the ones that not only challenge me but also show me where I can go next in my exploration of whatever topic I’m writing about. And I promise I won’t avoid the question when I get back.
Ok, so I avoided the question longer than I thought I would. But I've got to start by saying this: I think I wrote what I wrote, that is I stopped short of saying what I meant by foreknowledge. I did that for a reason. I want to keep writing in this post what I firmly believe. I want to write what I think is the core of Christianity, my Christianity at least. Defining foreknowledge, for now at least, is on the outskirts of my certainty.
And that I think is where each denomination is at its weakest: in its distinctives. Ben Witherington writes about this and essentialy says that each denominations weakest point is in its most distinctive doctrine, as opposed to "that which has been believed in all places, at all times, by all people", i.e. the little 'c' definition of the word catholic. Examples Witherington gives are Dispensationalism in its doctrine of rapture, Wesleyanism in its doctrine of perfection, and Calvinism in its doctrine of perseverance of the saints.
That's not to say that the 'P' in TULIP is not absolutely true, its simply to say that this point is the exegetically weakest (from what I've heard & read) doctrine of the Calvinist system. My point is that it is sad that this doctrine that divides the church is actual not a strongly proven exegetical fact on par with bodily ressurection, salvation by faith, etc.
Now, to be honest with you, I was leaning foreknowledge as in God's awareness of faith-choice. To me that's based on the scope of my reading of the Bible where I see that implicitly, though I admit, the Ephesians passage seems to contradict that explicitly. Maybe I should start by telling you what I WANT to believe, so you can see my biases. I WANT to believe that God predestines every last person on the face of the earth to salvation. I also WANT to believe that every last person on the face of the earth is going to be saved in the end. I WANT to interpret the two verses I gave this way: Those that God knew ahead of time would be his people he predestined to sanctify them to make them more like Christ.
It's strange but I hold out hope that Nero, Hitler, child molesters and serial killers all participate in "the life of the world to come," whether that by the people of earth taken to heaven or the God of heaven come to earth. Yet there is still the tug in me that tells me that's not true.
Hopefully I've given you a better idea of where I'm coming from in the above though I still am attempting to evade a direct answer. I would like to explore that 'P' in TULIP in writing in the near future. To me it seems to be the Weezer's proverbial string in the sweater so that you could sing, "if you want to destroy my TULIP, pull this 'P' as I walk away, as I walk away" And to continue the song analogy, I wonder if the TULIP will soon be naked. P.S. This is not to say anything about Calvin. I've read Institutes and the concepts of TULIP are at the very most 10% of it.
Thanks for getting back to me. I love you, man. A few quick things:
If foreknowledge is on the outskirts of your certainty, I'm curious why you included a pseudo-definition ("predestined according to... not the other way around") in your statement?
Each denomination is weakest where it is "strongest" - agreed. And there is a saying I like: On essentials, unity. On non-essentials, diversity. In all things, charity.
However, I tend to think "that which has been believed by all people, at all times, in all places" is a bit of a myth. In my reading of the New Testament, it seems that the apostles were always contending for the true Gospel as opposed to a perverted Gospel that was prevalent inside the Church, even in its infancy. I'm all for catholicity, especially in the cause of global missions and social justice. But I do think that divisions run deeper that an idealogical commitment to a doctrine such as Perseverance of the saints. Those doctrines represent differing levels of exegetical and theological integrity, not to mention differing views of the character and nature of God, Jesus Christ, the written Word, etc. Unity is more complicated than finding and emphasizing common ground. Still, I grieve with you over unnecessary divisions.
I look forward to your investigation of TULIP and especially the P. I fully agree that if you pull the proverbial P string, then the whole Calvinist system will collapse. I think that exegetically, theologically, and rationally TULIP all hangs together and each point rests on another. You cannot separate them, and no one can be a true 3 point Calvinist. But I think that point at which you have the most trouble is not with perseverance but with unconditional election (hence the foreknowledge question). Or perhaps limited atonement (hence the hope for all humanity to partake in God's Kingdom, which I share and yet along with you know not to be the case).
My take on Calvinism is that it should not be characterized in a 5-point system (though I believe it to be true). Rather, at least in our day, the doctrines of TULIP should unfold naturally as we re- tell the big story of God and man and redemption which he has given us in the Bible. And our faith should certainly find its center at "Christ, and him crucified," and nowhere else. This shift alone within the church would bring much unity.
I look forward to continuing this dialogue in future posts.
Indeed, let's continue the discussion in future posts. But let me tidy up a few loose ends here before I move on. First of all, you're making me think too hard. Easy! No, seriously, I want to be challenged, and your comments are especially to the point.
The reason I emphasized "not the other way around" is because whatever foreknowledge does mean, I think it is important to organize Paul's doctrine in the order as he would have it. I get the impression that most Reformed-types would say that God's knowledge of the future is due to his planning (read: scripting) of the future. Here is a verse which implies the exact opposite, that his planning is due to his knowledge of the future, and I thought it was important to emphasize that. Perhaps that is more clear?
I think you're absolutely right about the myth of a homogenous early church. You point out the New Testament evidence and to me it does seem that Paul is working overtime trying to hold a fragile coalition of the oftentimes unwilling.
I also agree that the divisions are deep, but then I think that if our unity is in Christ, then divisions shouldn't draw us inward toward those who are more like us but rather "send" us outward toward those who are less like us. If the Roman Catholic is truly lost, blind, and hurting then what good does it do us to build a wall. Let me make it clear that I'm not saying that we give up any of our beliefs, but I am suggesting that we commune with "dine with sinners" as much or dare I say more often than with saints. (Disclaimer: I'm not not suggesting that we let our maleable-minded five-year olds hang out with Satanists, but mature Christians need to ACTIVELY seek out "the other".
Instead of writing about perseverance, I'm going to post links to a series done by Scot Mcknight who appears to have taken a similar path to me in move away from Calvinism. I'm sure you will have heard the argument before, but to me it is a large part of why I have trouble with TULIP. Let me put it this way: I have the most trouble with "P" in that I don't agree with it. I have the most trouble with "U" in that I don't understand how it relates to foreknowledge.
And I agree with you, Calvinism is at its worst when it is boiled down to an acronym. I find the narrative more agreeable (funny how that works; don't ask me to explain).
Post a Comment