Someone once asked a pastor about me, "How can Stan believe that stuff?" (He had recently discovered that I was -- gasp -- a "Calvinist".) The pastor told him, "If you had read the books that he reads, you'd believe it, too." I found that kind of sad. You see, it is true that I have come to the conclusions I've come to because of the books I read, but those books are the books of the Bible. I believe what I believe because it's the only conclusion I can reach from what I read in the Word.
This, of course, is the problem with tags. I'm tagged as a "Calvinist" because I believe things that "Calvinists" believe. But I don't believe them because of someone named John Calvin. I came to those beliefs long before I ever read Calvin (and I've only read the abridged version of his Institutes of the Christian Religion). I remember reading R.C. Sproul's The Holiness of God which does not (as far as I can recall) address the question at all. I told the pastor about it and he warned me, "You know, that Sproul is a dangerous guy. He's a Calvinist." I was frankly confused because (at the time) I had no hint of it.
No, it was the Bible that led me to this. When I read the biblical description of Natural Man, it seems we're a lot worse off than other theological perspectives will allow. We're only mostly dead, not actually dead (at least not in any discernible sense). Sure, we're hostile to God, but we can still choose His side. And all that stuff about being unable to comprehend spiritual things doesn't mean that we're not actually able to understand them, does it? Being inclined only to evil is a bad thing, but surely there are other inclinations as well, right? Sure, the flesh profits nothing, but at least it can produce the right choice, right? So I was forced to lay my theology next to this (and more) and come up with a rational way to explain how I could manufacture faith, overcome my natural hatred for God, and respond "from the grave". I was stuck.
Then I had to ask, "Well, if we're so bad off, on what basis does anyone get saved?" How does a slave to sin get freed from that slavery? And the Bible told me that we were chosen not on the basis of our own choice or action, but on the basis of His own purposes. Calvinists call that "unconditional election".
Still, if I'm so bad off and if I am intrinsically in conflict with God, on what possible basis can that change? Well, it would apparently take ... an act of God. Left to my own inclinations, I would (and had) resist God's efforts. It was a given. But I read in John that God draws people to Himself (and, as it turns out, that term is the same concept as "drawing water" ... not something that the water can resist), that "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me." So apparently, despite all the resistance of which we are capable, when God so chooses He can overcome our objections and bring us to Himself. 1 John 5 told me that before I believed in Christ I was born again. It's what those crazy Calvinists call "Irresistible Grace".
At this point I was in trouble. My upbringing told me a different story. I was the one who chose God. It was my faith and my repentance and my choice that brought me to Christ. I had (incomprehensibly) responded as a spiritually dead Man and, because of that response, was made alive after I chose in faith. Now none of this made any sense. It appeared to me, from all I was reading, that it was the reverse. It looked as if the only possible conclusion was that God gave me new life before I came to Him, and that it was this new life complete with faith (which I originally thought I manufactured, but later found was a gift from God) that enabled me to respond. Apparently God didn't look down the corridor of time and figure out that I would choose Him. Apparently He chose me and did all that was necessary to make me His own. And I well knew that nothing within me deserved any such thing, so there was no sense of arrogance included in this package. Instead, it was awe. It was all God.
Well, from there it got easier. As I continued to pore through Scripture, the whole thing began to make sense. Verse built upon verse, passage upon passage, doctrine upon doctrine. Small things like the gift of faith instead of building my own and large concepts like the actual Sovereignty of God came into clear view. I found the entire set of doctrines in the Gospel of John alone, let alone the rest of Scripture. Once I described it to a friend like cogs in a machine. Until I got this in my brain, the cogs kept binding. Suddenly they were meshing perfectly and running smoothly. Everything was in alignment.
I don't believe that you have to agree with me to be a Christian. I don't believe that perfect theology makes a Christian. (Good thing, since I'm pretty sure I haven't arrived at "perfect theology".) But I've read through the Scriptures and I've thought through the ideas and I've examined it from both sides and this is where I fall. It's a very comfortable place to be. Some argue that doctrine isn't applicable. This is. So, if it is true that reading the books I read will lead you to the same conclusions I've reached, then I highly recommend it. The books are the books of the Bible, and ... trust me ... it's in there.
21 comments:
Stan,
I hope one day we can meet in person and talk over coffee. One of the great things about blogs is meeting people so much like yourself over a long distance that you might have otherwise never met. I talked with Dan over at the Bumbling Genius and with him it's pretty much the same way.
I read a lot of books (as much as I have time, which is not much these days) and most people at church and within the family also talk about how many book I read. But I constantly have to remind them that all those other books are supplements to the books that matter most. For example, i'm reading 'The Cross of Christ' by John R.W. Stott right now and it is a wonderful source that is reinforcing much of what I already know from scripture and is giving me some great new insights on how to present the case more concisely and effectively. I'm also very much looking forward to acquiring and reading through Emil Brunner's 'Mediator' and 'Man in Revolt' which is extensively footnoted in Stott's work. (I have read 'The Divine Imperative' and it is a wonderful treatment. Brunner is not mentioned much but was an unbelieveably gifted thinker and theologian).
Anyway, I completely agree that we build our knowledge through study of the Word and the conclusions will ultimately get us 'tagged' by some system or other. If it aligns with the Word (in other words, if it's true) then the tag doesn't mean half so much as the feeling of peace when, as you said, the cogs are free and everything is running smoothly.
Also, doctrine is important. Hard for me to understand how we can be faithful to fulfill the command to teach sound doctrine if we deny the necessity for doctrine. I'm kinda quirky that way.
One of the nicest things that has happened to me through this blog was to actually get to meet and know Dan from Bumbling Genius. He's now a good friend and a rare opportunity to dialog over shared beliefs and perspectives.
So ... where would I have to be to meet with you over coffee? (I'm in Arizona.)
"If you had read the books that he reads, you'd believe it, too." Such truth in those words!
Hi, Cammie, and welcome. Always like to get comments from new people.
Well I would surely benefit by a sit down over coffee, but I live in the People's Republic of Illinois and have little means by which I could arrange travel at this time.
I appreciate your once again covering this topic while I continue my reading. I don't know from Calvin, but the issue of "Natural Man" has piqued my interest. I've just looked over 1 John 5 and have not seen where it says "before I believed in Christ I was born again". Could you provide more detail as to which verse it is? Thanks.
Stan,
It's just a hop, skip, jump and plane ride over here to North Carolina. I live in the Burlington area, which is a little north and east of center right off of I-40.
It would probably be a bit difficult to shoot over for a cup, but who knows maybe on the east coast swing portion of your next contiguous US vacation trip we could get together. I know a lot of good coffee joints in the area.
Until then it's a pleasure reading your posts daily and being able to share a little back and forth.
1 John 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of Him.
Note the verb tenses. "Everyone who believes" currently "has been born of God" present perfect tense. We use the present perfect to say that an action happened at an unspecified time before now. Thus, anyone who now believes was before now born again. Or, "born again" precedes "believes".
Stan,
I checked 10 different Bibles just for comparison.
New Internat'l Version, King James, New Kind James, NASB, Wycliff, and Contemporary English Version all say, "Everyone who believes...IS born.
ESV, Young's Literal and HCSB all say HAS BEEN.
This leads me to believe that, at least in 1 John 5:1, tense isn't used to denote that belief is a result of being born again as much as it being a sign of having been born again.
However, in my very same NIV, 1 John 4:7 says, "Dear friends, let us love one another,for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God." I haven't checked this against the other nine versions, but it seems that it isn't using tense in the manner you suspect.
I still, though, believe that God draws us to Him, but that it can be accomplished simply by the appeal of His message. I think it appeals to even those who reject Him, but for all who were hostile the appeal existed to one degree or another, depending on the level of hostility (for lack of a better metaphor).
I would say that the notion, to me anyway, seems to be more of hearing the message, perhaps even seeking something that makes the message worth a listen to an othewise hostile Natural man, and then at some point, BING!, the light goes on and there is understanding enough to now be actually reborn. Now belief is certain (as certain as it can be for an imperfect human) to a degree it wasn't before. I think it's a tough call to say that belief came after when it seems to be more of a simultaneous deal at best.
But I study on. I'm fascinated by this.
Marshall,
First, it isn't being used in the manner I suspect. It is being used in the manner that Greek scholars who study this stuff translate it, and the most literal translations all put it in present perfect tense indicating a prior condition, not a resulting condition. That is, it's not my opinion. It's what the translators -- those guys who study and know the language -- tell me. (Note that the most literal translations use the phrase "has been", not the more ambiguous "is".)
Second, "is" doesn't help the argument. That is, "He who believes" (now) "is" (as in, a condition that already exists, not a condition that is brought about by) born again. (Note, by the way, that 1 John 4:7 has the same implications ... and you'll find the same ambiguity between translations. The most literal will say "has been", and the rest will say "is" ... and these can mean exactly the same thing.)
"I still, though, believe that God draws us to Him, but that it can be accomplished simply by the appeal of His message."
Here's the issue (still). "God draws us to Him." He does it by the message. He does it even to those who reject Him. All well and good. No disagreement. (Understand that you're using "draw" in a sense that I don't, but here I'm using it as you intend -- "woo", "call", "appeal".) So, here we are, all being wooed by God to come to Him. I have said that the Bible indicates in 1 John 5 and John 3 and in other places (you've pointed to 1 John 4) that the only way by which a Natural Man can properly respond to that "wooing", that "calling", that "appeal" from God, is if God first changes the nature of the Man. You argue that the change in nature (we call it "born again" or "regeneration") occurs after this Natural Man produces the necessary faith and makes the right choice. What you have not offered is a single explanation of how that is remotely possible given the biblical description of Natural Man. You simply assume that Natural Man -- spiritually dead, operating only in the flesh (because he is, after all, spiritually dead), hostile to God, incapable of understanding the things of God, unable to see the kingdom of God, a slave to sin, under the power of the god of this world, inclined only to evil -- how this person is able to overcome all that to muster the faith and make the right choice before God produces a change in his nature. Is this not, at the very least, a phenomenal undertaking for which we would each have reason to boast? And wouldn't Jesus be at least slightly misguided when He said that the flesh profits nothing, since it is the flesh that was able to produce this amazing, even heroic effort of overcoming everything in the way to muster the faith and make the right choice? I mean, that's not nothing, is it?
So, I've suggested that the Bible is so abundantly clear on the condition of Natural Man so as to make synergistic regeneration an impossibility. I've also suggested from Scripture that the answer to this impossibility is that God performs the regeneration necessary before the faith is exercised, the only possible answer. It cannot be "God and" (synergy) because the "and" part of that equation (Natural Man), biblically, lacks anything to make it happen. I have yet to hear (from you or anyone else) a single suggestion as to how it is that Natural Man overcomes his own nature to produce this outstanding event of faith and choice. It's treated by almost everyone as, "What? Seems easy to me. What's the problem?" The problem is the nature of Man and it isn't trivial. Any suggestions on how that is overcome?
The only answer I can find is what is referred to as "monergism" (as opposed to synergism). I suggest the following for further study on the topic:
Theopedia
Gotquestions.org
A Simple Explanation of Monergism
Monergism versus synergism
Four links???!!! Good gosh!
Well, I AM seeking answers here, ain't I?
What I want to point out is that I still haven't seen that the description of Natural Man is anything more than just that--a description--and not meant to suggest that he is incapable UNTIL he turns to answer the lure of God. (This is all very clumsy for me as I am in the middle of it, so it's hard to articulate where I'm at. Bear with me.) So I'm still dealing with THAT issue-- still not beyond it--still workin' on it.
In the same way, the question would be is that truly what the original texts were saying (with regard to the 1 John stuff), or a best guess by most (or some)scholars. The point here is that I wouldn't have read it in that manner, even with the literal translations. I will say that part of my position is guided by, or concurs with, the notes in my study Bible (much the same way as your opinion aligned with Calvin's). My Book speaks of it as a sign of being born again and I don't think tenses necessarily change that. In a sense, that could also mean what you're saying.
But again, I'm still digging.
Of course, four links may be somewhat of an overkill, but I figured if you were doing the research, they might come in handy.
"What I want to point out is that I still haven't seen that the description of Natural Man is anything more than just that--a description."
Yeah, you lost me there. If it is a description (and an accurate description), then the conclusions (like "not able") are accurate ... based on the accuracy of the description. As an example, when I say that Natural Man is not able to understand the things of God, it's a conclusion I reach from a description like this:
"Natural Man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14).
From that I conclude, however much of a stretch it might seem, that Natural Man does not and cannot accept the things of Spirit of God. I know ... a stretch ... but the description requires it, doesn't it?
I don't really understand your distinction between "description" and "not able", but whatever else you make of the descriptions of Man, you have to incorporate them into your model of how that being responds to God. As an example, I say, "Man has two arms and two legs" and now I have to incorporate that description into, "So ... how does he fly?" The only way to do that is ... to say he doesn't without external help. Just taking one, then, if Natural Man is dead in sin, you'll need to explain how this spiritually dead Man is capable of responding to the Spirit of God.
We use the word home because the one word utterance is much better than always saying "the place where I keep all of my stuff and sleep, and eat, and prepare my meals". That one syllable, home, conveys all that information, and more, always. In the same way, the word Calvinism conveys a ton of information about your belief system, that's all.
I like your pastor's assessment of you. It is a good example of what I have come to call an ex nihilo statement. It is from the perspective of nowhere. I mean it's not like your pastor ever read a book, or was in his life ever exposed to any particular thought form through book, teacher, or whatnot; one of the advantages I guess of existing nowhere all your life :).
"Calvinism" is indeed shorthand for a broad spectrum of doctrines. Too bad it is connected to "Calvin" ... since it isn't.
Stan and Marshall,
I'm coming in late and you two are having a great discussion so i'm going to leave that alone.
I would mention that in my readings, the problem some thinkers have had with the notion of Natural Man, is that man is not a completely natural being (they site emotions, conscience and the like). Some have said man (since he was created in the image of God) is sort of in-between, not fully natural (as atheistic evolutionists, naturalists, materialists, etc. would argue) nor is he supernatural. I think the way i've also heard it put is that man is semi-transcendent.
Some of this gets really fuzzy for someone with my mental capabilities, but as to your points, this in-between state of man (created in the image of God, but with a sin nature) would provide for the possibility of man moving toward God upon being wooed.
Personally, I would be termed a Calvanist as I agree with Stan simply because although the above arguments may be interesting to ruminate on; as Stan pointed out, I don't know of any scripture that would support the notion of man having the ability to make a positive move toward God. I hope this doesn't muddy the water, just present some things that Marshall might run into along the way in his study.
Ultimately, as with other issues, we must follow what is clear from scripture. If our thinking is not clearly supported by scripture, then we can continue the thought process but hold any staunch disagreements in abeyance until such direct support is found. Just my two cents.
Jeremy: "I don't know of any scripture that would support the notion of man having the ability to make a positive move toward God."
That's where I'm stuck. Sometimes, in fact, this theology doesn't feel very nice. "What? What?! Man doesn't have the ability to make a positive move toward God?" Sounds kinda harsh. But it's what I read in the Bible, so I'm stuck with it.
Like Luther, "Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me."
Jeremy: "the problem some thinkers have had with the notion of Natural Man, is that man is not a completely natural being"
I'm afraid that will unnecessarily muddy the waters. The concept of "Natural Man" as I'm using it simply refers to "Man in his natural habitat", so to speak. It is "Man in his unaltered condition". It refers to "humans as they are naturally". Whether or not they are part of nature or something transcendent won't matter with that usage.
Stan,
Always good to define terms. Always difficult to keep those definitions in the forefront as discussions move forward.
We do advocate for man being more than just a meat machine, just drives and reactions, DNA nothing more. To do this we can, and rightly so, reference emotion, conscience, etc. to say that we are more than just material. Moving on and talking about natural man does require some careful and consistent reminders of what we mean by those terms.
"Man in his unaltered condition"
YES! THAT'S what I'm trying to say when speaking on the definition of natural man. The Bible speaks of his "unaltered condition" or how is in while still a natural man. It doesn't seem to speak to the notion that he can't be drawn away from that condition, but that while "unaltered", he can't think in spiritual terms. We are always in some state unaltered until some sort of data or input alters us. Until that point, we see things one way, or are incapable of seeings things any other way than we do. We must be altered. It doesn't really seem to imply cause.
Now you seem to believe that God does the altering, and I don't disagree, but, the free will to choose based on that alteration is man's as God had endowed him with that ability. God still draws natural man to Him, either by man stumbling upon the Message accidently (and God placing before him the Message), having been preached to, or having a void in his heart he is intent to fill and then searching until hearing the Word and deciding, "Yes. This is what is true."
It seems to me that I recall being taught that we are to throw off our old selves and be born again. I believe that is Scriptural, though I'm not one to know the actual chapter and verse source (meaning I'll have to read and find it). This implies a conscious decision to be born again, to change one's ways and put one's trust in the Lord. If I can find that such a verse exists as I recall it, then it'll make things that much harder to resolve.
Marshall Art: "It doesn't seem to speak to the notion that he can't be drawn away from that condition, but that while 'unaltered', he can't think in spiritual terms."
I'm trying to figure this out. Let's move to something ... less controversial. A fish breathes its air through its gills in water. You stand at the shore and woo and call and urge and encourage that fish to come out of the water and breathe air where it is easier and more readily available. So, what, exactly, can that fish do "unaltered" to accomplish this wonderful feat? Doesn't it require an alteration? Won't that fish need a fundamental change to its nature to be able to pull this off?
More importantly, you said that the Bible doesn't seem to speak of the notion that "he can't think in spiritual terms." I'd question that statement. Paul, for instance, describes us as "dead in sin". If it is not physical death (obviously) and it is not spiritual death (apparently), then ... what is it? Seems like, in the final analysis, it's not really anything at all. Paul's use of the word "dead" was pretty much meaningless. But, of course, it can be argued that this is just my implication, not a genuine intent. So what about when Paul wrote, "Natural Man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned"? Doesn't that say explicitly that Natural Man lacks the ability to understand the things of God? Doesn't it say quite clearly that Natural Man does not and cannot accept the things of God?
Marshall Art: "It seems to me that I recall being taught that we are to throw off our old selves and be born again."
I don't doubt that that's what you were taught (lots of us were taught). So here's what I recommend. Find that in Scripture. Anywhere. In fact, find the notion of "free will". No, no, I'm not denying that we have the ability to choose ("will"), but find anything that addresses the freedom of that will. Go further. Show me something in Scripture that says that we must "accept Christ". I'm not narrow-minded. It doesn't have to be exactly those words. Something similar will do. You see, I know that the term "receive" is in there (John 1:12, for instance), but that's a passive term. Where is there a command to choose Christ?
But we're still at the bottom here. Your description (that whole "God still draws natural man to Him, either by man stumbling upon the Message accidently (and God placing before him the Message), having been preached to, or having a void in his heart he is intent to fill and then searching until hearing the Word and deciding, 'Yes. This is what is true.'") is certainly the common belief. It is certainly what you (and I) have been told. Unfortunately, I cannot find it anywhere in my Bible, nor can I offer the slightest suggestion, based on all the other biblical descriptives of Man, of how such a person can accomplish it. The biblical deck is stacked against us. We are blinded by the god of this world. We inherently hate God. We are spiritually dead. With just those, in mind (and not the pile of other descriptives), what could possibly cause the result you suggest of suddenly recognizing the truth? Given the host of problems in natural man, how does one "throw off our old selves and be born again"? And, given that host of problems and conditions, if you succeed in that, is that not a massive achievement, absolutely worthy of boasting? I mean, I would think that a fish that pulled itself out of the water and managed, through its own efforts, to survive on land would certainly be worthy of praise. How much more we who are much worse off?
The difference between us and the fish is that what we're talking about is something to that, at least to the limits of our human capacity we do have the ability to comprehend enough upon which to make a choice. For some, they will not see the benefits of choosing Christ. But this is no different than those who do not see the benefits of delaying self-gratification and saving for a rainy day and other choices we make in life. You can preach good economics or good fiscal policy and they just never see it and continue to vote for buffoonish Democrats.
But others of us understand, for whatever reason sealed the deal of us the benefits to us eternally, that we do have a spiritual stake that must be considered. In my case, for example, I never had an epiphany that some speak of in being born again. Though raised Roman Catholic, and having been one who always enjoyed hearing Bible stories as a kid, my belief was mostly a matter of rational thought, seeing what I consider solid (enough) proofs that justified what I felt inside, yet I never felt I had a choice to believe, but I did for some time choose to ignore it all. It was all that proof that brought me back. I chose to relent instead of fight against it. At the same time, I'm constantly struggling still against that part of me that IS Natural Man.
I say all this because it strikes me that I've never met anyone who I was convinced is totally and completely beyond having traces of Natural Man still tugging at them. So, while we accept Christ as Lord, we're still Natural Man without a full understanding of the spiritual (which is impossible while we physically live), but we are saved by our belief and faith in and acceptance of Jesus Christ.
In other words, how common is doubt amongst even the most devout followers of Christ. I'd much prefer I never again have the slightest wisp of doubt enter my mind. I'd much prefer that I could be more sure, more devout, more able to deal with my temptations, more Christian. Am I lost? Am I without hope? I ask because by all measure I seem to be more Natural man than Spiritual no matter how badly I want it. All this time I had put my faith in Jesus.
Now, though I insist that I have made a choice, I also insist that it came to pass because I was exposed to the truth and it made sense to me. My early feelings could have been the culture in which I was raised or it could actually have been God constantly reminding me that He does exist and I'd best pay attention. I don't know which and don't much care except that I was compelled to study and read the Word, as well as apologetics and other sources of instruction. I realized there's nothing I can do BUT accept Christ, and there's nothing I can do to overcome my natural state completely and that's what Christ's sacrifice covers. So there's no boasting over making the obvious choice. To me, one is an idiot for not doing as well.
Bottom line (at this point when I haven't yet checked out your links, nor finished my other readings) is that I don't see any difference between the Natural or the Spiritual except that the latter has accepted Christ after being drawn to Him by whatever means God laid in his path. To put it another way, Spiritual man more closely resembles (in appearance and living) Natural man. He's just saved.
Post a Comment