You know that word, right? It refers to those born under the sign of Capricorn. No, just kidding. The word means "actions arising from caprice." (Thanks, Merriam-Webster.) It means "subject to, led by, or indicative of a sudden, odd notion, or unpredictable change; erratic." Now, of all persons, this cannot be a word to describe God. Can it?
I pointed out that Scripture teaches that God chooses whom He will save without regard for what we choose or what we do (John 1:12-13; Rom 9:18). He specifies that Jacob was chosen over Esau before they were born apart from anything good or bad they would do (Rom 9:11). The common response to that is, "If God chooses for no reason, that is the definition of 'capricious'." So since Scripture teaches that God's choice is not based on the chosen and since "no reason" = "capricious," apparently God is capricious.
So far the arguments are sound ... with a single exception. The Bible clearly teaches that God's choice is not predicated on our choices or actions, but it does not say it is not predicated on anything. In fact, it does have a basis. And if His choice has a basis -- not "unpredictable" or "erratic" -- then He isn't capricious. What basis does Scripture offer? "For though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls ..." (Rom 9:11). God's choice of Jacob over Esau, Isaac over Ishmael -- anyone to whom God chooses to show mercy as opposed to anyone to whom He chooses not to show mercy -- is not based on the one who receives mercy, but on God, on His purposes, on His choice, on Him. It is aimed at removing false glory from pretenders who think they can say, "I chose Him. I figured it out. I got it." Furthermore, the purpose was "to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory" (Rom 9:23). God chooses entirely on His own so He is magnified and not the chosen, so He is glorified and not the chosen, so His purposes are met.
You may not like that. You may not think it's a good purpose. You may not think it's a valid basis. That's fine. The Bible doesn't look for your opinion on it. You're free to have your own view. But that's just what the Bible says, so I'm going to go with that. Not capricious.
11 comments:
You've been on quite a roll lately. Well done.
I'm curious. Is there a proper term to describe someone who claims to be a Christian, but denies or is extremely skeptical of anything that hints at the supernatural?
The technical term would "skeptic" at best and "unbeliever" otherwise.
How? What? Be a part of a mono-theistic religion but not believe in the supernatural? What kind of new age insanity is this? That's like saying "I'm a Vegan but I only eat meat". The two positions are simply opposites. Hello, I'm a Christian, but Christ was just a normal human being, who didn't perform any miracles and there is no God or angels. At that point, what's the reasoning to claim Christianity at all? Just accept you're an atheist.
I have a question similar to Craig's, but I'm going to just let it go.
Good post, by the way.
Thanks, it seems that there's an element of Deism in the rejection of God/Jesus' supernatural involvement in our world, but Deists don't necessarily believe that Jesus is God as I understand it.
Yes, David, if there is no supernatural, there is no God and there is no Christianity, so no one can be a Christian and an atheist at the same time (despite some who claim to be). (Seriously.) And, yes, Craig, rejection of Jesus as God is rejection of Jesus's own claims, so you can't be a "Christian" while rejecting Christ. But "suppressing the truth about God" is our fundamental problem (Rom 1:18-19).
David,
I'm not saying that I disagree with you at all. It's that I'm seeing two threads of "christianity" recently that I'm struggling to categorize.
One is the "chirsitain atheist". The folks who want the benefits they perceive in Christianity, but without all the baggage of Jesus as the individual He said He was. the reality is that they're just atheists who want to borrow some degree of Christian morality to legitimize themselves.
The other is the folks who say they're Christian, use a lot of Christian terms, but always have some excuse to explain away the supernatural aspects of Jesus' ministry. Those things are either myth, or legend, or it's just not understood correctly. They're usually the folks who jump on the Darwinian bandwagon. They just don't believe in magic and seemingly don't want a magical Jesus.
The problem is that they seem to sincerely believe that they're Christians. I just don't see how you can separate YHWH, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit from the supernatural. It's clearly an attempt to limit God based on our human limitations.
I agree that stripping God of His supernatural is absurd, I'm just trying to figure out of there's a term for this particular "heresy".
Stan,
Thanks, as usual.
I would imagine there isn't a name for it, yet. Just find some prominent person that teaches it and name it after them like all the other heresies.
David,
You may be right.
Post a Comment