I like words. That's a fun word. "Fusillade". Don't know why. I just like it. It means "a volley of shots" or "a sustained attack".
So what?
I am a person that likes to examine things. I don't merely want to know what I think is true; I want to know the truth. Because I've found in the past that sometimes what I have believed to be true was, after all, not true. Simple things, complicated things, political things, spiritual things. I've found I've been wrong on all sorts of things. So, given a valid source of information and the proper set of arguments, I change my mind. I'm not nearly as interested in fighting or even in defending my position as I am in the truth. If I don't have it, I want it. If I have it, I want to keep it. And even share it.
So I grew up as what I thought was a Calvinist. By that I meant that I believed Once Saved, Always Saved (OSAS). Those Arminians, you see -- they believe you can lose your salvation. I knew better. It wasn't until I was well into adulthood that I discovered that not only was I a four-point Arminian, but that the one point I held that seemed Calvinist wasn't even accurate. Oh, no. For all intents and purposes, I was of the Arminian persuasion. And then I got hit with a barrage of Scriptures. They (the Scriptures) told me that the condition of Natural Man was not sin-sick, but dead. We aren't mostly inclined to evil; we are only inclined to evil. We aren't apathetic toward God; we are hostile to God. It's not that we don't do enough good. Natural Man does no good. All this and more. So when the evangelist walks into the graveyard with his best offering of the Gospel, he is offering it to dead people. "It's okay," he'll tell them. "Take your time. The buses will wait. Come to Jesus!" And he's right ... except that it's dead people he's talking to. The only way they can respond is if they are given life to respond, and that doesn't lie within their capabilities. There is only one Lifegiver. And when He gives life, they respond. They surely do come. They respond from the heart in faith, repenting and believing. And when they do, He casts out not one. He insures that every one of them perseveres to the end. All this I've found in the pages of Scripture in opposition to what I originally believed.
Now they (other Christians) tell me that I'm wrong ... again. They tell me that we're mostly dead in sin, but not entirely dead. They tell me that we certainly can understand the things of God -- Paul meant something different (1 Cor 2:14). They tell me that we make the choice and God chooses us for it. They assure me that a God who didn't freely offer this to all with the intent that all be saved and that all can come -- nothing at all stands in their way -- would not be a loving God.
Me? I'm a person that likes to examine things. So I want to know how this works. How can we be "dead in sin" but not? What did Paul mean when he said, "Natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Cor 2:14) if he didn't mean that Natural man does not accept the things of God and cannot understand them? What did David mean and Paul when he quoted him when he said, "There is none who does good" if he didn't mean there is none who does good, or "There is none who seek after God" if we all know that it is common and prevalent? When John wrote that we "were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13) and Paul wrote, "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" (Rom 9:16), in what sense does it all depend on our free will? If Jesus said that the flesh profits nothing and I'm supposed to believe that the flesh can produce the necessary faith and repentance to profit me salvation, how do I align these?
You see, I'm asking questions. I want to know how all of these Scriptures (and so much more) should be understood since they aren't to be understood as they appear to be intended. And all I typically get in response is a fusillade. (See? I worked that word in there.) I get a volley of shots over the wall. "You're wrong! Everyone knows it! You don't get it!" I've never actually seen, "Look, let's sit down and calmly examine the Scriptures in question to see how you've missed the point." No, it's that doggone fusillade. It is usually angry and rapid fire and aimed at my heart. I just want to know. But I'm not likely to get a calm give-and-take on this. Apparently it's a "hill too far", a point of contention that requires shooting rather than diplomacy. I don't know. Maybe "fusillade" is not such a fun word after all.
10 comments:
I think I have actually had a fairly calm dialog with you on this topic before. It seems to me we reached an impasse, but that doesn't mean the conversation wasn't a calm examination of the scriptures on each side. As these conversations are something I find a strange joy in, I'm always open for another :)
Yes, Josh, a fairly even-tempered discussion. Your approach, as I recall, was to eliminate historical, orthodox Omniscience in favor of the new Open Theism where God cannot know the future. This absolves Him then of all blame.
I don't know that it actually answers the questions I asked and I do know it doesn't do it to my satisfaction (because I'm stuck with Jesus's promise to send His Holy Spirit to lead His own into the truth and Open Theism would require that He failed to accomplish this until the late 20th century).
To be fair, though, what I would really like is the opportunity to sit down face to face with someone. Frankly, electronic dialog can be the most contentious simply because it doesn't carry any of the personal connection that tempers tempers. (Yeah, I am playing with words. It's just one of the things I do.)
As far as the age of a theological view giving it merit. The following links to a timeline of open theism.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/132763616/Open-Theism-Timeline-by-Tom-Lukashow
It also doesn't contain Calcidius the interpreter of Plato that first applied these ideas to Christianity in the 4th Century.
This puts the thoughts and ideas of open theism in the same timeline as the Reformation.
I agree that face to face conversation on theological topics is superior to online, but I find there are few people as interested in these discussions as I.
Isn't it interesting that one of the best-known earlier followers of this theology (16th century) was Socinus, who was best known for Socinianism, a heresy that "rejected the views of orthodox Christian theology on God's knowledge, on the doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ." I find it interesting that the articles on it indicate that it is indeed a rejection of "orthodox Christian theology" on God's Omniscience.
But, then, when we go down that path, we're opening up an entirely new set of questions, Scriptures to answer, and all. And I still haven't figured out how denying the historical, orthodox view of God's Omniscience answers the biblical questions I'm asking.
"What did Paul mean when he said..."
Again, I believe it simply means that while we are in the state, so to speak, of being "Natural man", we do not understand the spiritual. I still don't see anything that speaks of that transition period that takes us from natural man to God's own. If He leads us, He must lead us from someplace to another. "Natural man" is where we were. One of His is where we end up. Not all of us, but those who answer the call, those who choose Him over themselves.
I have to say, if I have not said it yet, that I struggle with articulating what I find wrong with what you say (your understanding of what Scripture is saying) and what I feel is a very possible alternative that does not conflict with what Scripture says. There is some "in between" that does not seem directly addressed by Scripture that would make the issue more clear...at least to me.
That's fine, Marshall. When you come up with a helpful explanation of how "dead in sin" doesn't mean "actually dead in any way" and "hostile to God" can be overcome on my own and "the flesh accomplishes nothing" means the same as "the flesh is able to produce all the faith and repentance required to accomplish my salvation" and how "there is none who does good; no, not one" means "anyone at all can do good just fine by coming to Christ", then perhaps we'll be making some headway in my confusion over the issue(s).
Think of it this way: Jesus talks about His own hearing His voice. Were they always, from birth and on through childhood into adulthood totally down with the program, or were they at any point examples of "natural man"? And why would He encourage us to "choose life" if we were among the elect? Is He speaking to those dead in their sin or those who need not "choose life" because they are among the elect already? I don't know better how to explain the conundrum that your position presents in light of such verses as I have read that suggest we "choose life" or walk the narrow path, etc.
What's more, I don't dispute what the verses you use are saying, but rather I don't necessarily find that your position on these verses is entirely on the money. There is something missing on which I cannot quite put my finger, and trust me, it is more frustrating for me to seek the answer (to a question I'm not sure how to ask) than it may be for you to constantly have me seek it.
I just have to ask, Marshall. I have said -- repeatedly, constantly, unabashedly, without fail -- that we need to choose Christ. That is clearly God's command. I don't deny it or disagree with it. Now, we aren't told why God makes the command. We're just told that He does. So I agree with Scripture that we need to choose Christ. So what is it about being "elect" (which, by the way, is not negotiable -- the Bible is full of the concept of "the elect" starting with Adam through Noah through Abraham and Israel on through just about every single book in the New Testament) that would preclude "choose Christ"? You understand, I'm sure, the difference between the imperative and the indicative. If I said, for instance, that "In order to get to the moon, you need to leave the Earth", you would not understand that to mean "everyone can". It is an imperative -- "To do this you must do that." It is not an indicative -- "Telling you to do that means that you can." So I'm not sure how "elect" means "It's a problem that we are told to choose."
The problem for me is that there is a host of Scriptures that give a condition of Natural Man that seems to preclude "choose Christ" and others that indicate that God does a work in individuals to enable them to "choose Christ" and "We just muster it up ourselves" doesn't seem to fit any of them.
But, as I indicated to Josh, my preference would be to be able to sit down with someone, face to face, and discuss these things with open Bibles and open hearts, brother to brother, to examine what the Scriptures say and how to align them. It is woefully difficult to do electronically. So you let me know when you'll be in town and we can sit down and talk. It will be fun!
"The problem for me is that there is a host of Scriptures that give a condition of Natural Man that seems to preclude "choose Christ"..."
And the problem for me is that none of that host of passages you've offered suggests anything more than that such a condition exists in Natural Man, but not that he is fixed in that condition forever without end amen. The notion that God does a work in individuals does not mean that God has not endowed us with the capability of hearing His call and responding or not responding. Some might call it "conscience" (and I always regarded conscience as more of a spiritual tug in the right direction--possibly God Himself) when they struggle with maintaining their own preferences vs responding to that nagging reminder that they are doing wrong. These people choose to follow their conscience or their base desires. I feel that such is a not too distant understanding of this transition between one condition (Natural Man) and another (Christian).
AS to meeting, I hope to one day meet with as many of my blogger friends as possible, you included. I might have to retire first in order to get it done properly (calculating the nearness of that lofty goal with my financial guy now). Anyhow, what town are you in (or near)? I'm in the the NW suburbs of Chicago in the People's Republic of Illinois.
See, this is why I, at times, hate electronic communications. I'm pretty sure that I've never suggested, thought, felt, hinted, even leaned toward in any way a sense of "he is fixed in that condition forever without end." I would, in fact, be a total nutjob to believe it. I thought I've repeatedly suggested that God is the one that changes the condition of Natural Man from "dead" to "alive in Christ", from "hostile" to loving God, from "blind" to "see". He does it certainly. He can't fail when He does it.
So when I read the biblical explanation of Natural Man -- his failures, shortcomings, and inabilities -- I can either conclude, as you have, "But, of course, none of these are actually limiting factors" or I can conclude "He really is as bad as all that and only a supernatural intervention -- a divine infusion of new life -- can change him." We read "the god of this world has blinded them." You understand "God has endowed us with the capability to hear His call." We read "Natural Man cannot understand the things of God." You understand that to mean that he can. We read "the flesh profits nothing" and you understand that to mean that we are, in the flesh, fully capable of doing all that is needed to obtain salvation. I don't know how to come to these conclusions myself.
Oh, and I'm in the Phoenix area.
Post a Comment