Romans One
Ok, so I am writing at work, off the clock though so don't scold. And the only Bible I have here is THE MESSAGE, which most hard core scholars would argue isn't even really a Bible. The cover identifies it as "The Bible in Contemporary Language". It is not broken down into verses, so it is a little hard to reference parts, and the "translators" took a lot of license in how they put things. It mentions train tracks and cotton candy, not exactly Biblical terms.
But, there is a discussion going on in my "Questions" post which led me to write the prior piece about seeking God, and this one on Romans 1, which is really about the same thing. Do people seek God, and can God be known outside the Scriptures, and was there, is there salvation for people who never heard the gospel...
This is how THE MESSAGE puts it.
" But God's angry displeasure erupts as acts of human mistrust and wrongdoing and lying accumulate, as people try to put a shroud over the truth. (wow to put a shroud over truth, powerful way to put it huh?) But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is. By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can't see: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery of His divine being, so nobody has a good excuse. What happened was this: People knew God perfectly well, but when they didn't treat Him like God, refusing to worship him, they trivialized themselves into silliness and confusion so that there was neither sense not direction left in their lives. They pretended to know it all , but were illiterate regarding life. They traded the glory of God who holds the whole world in His hand for cheap figurines you can buy at any road side stand."
One of my commentors suggested that even though the nature of God has been revealed to man from creation and through creation, no one ever got it until Jesus. I believe there were natives in Africa and the Americas who did get it, even before - no - especially before the missionaries came. They knew and worshiped the Creator rather than the creation, they recognized the Spirit of God long before Pentacost. And when the missionaries had sense enough to realize that, they were very willing to accept the Word made Flesh as soon as they heard the "rest of the story". Well, time to go home. Pastor Art should have dinner ready by now. Tuesday night - worship practice and dance team! Yeah!
57 comments:
Great job, Maryellen. Seek the truth and you will find it :). Don't stop.
Sorry
Paul is referring to any and all gentile/pagans who have ever lived, are living now, or will ever live. All are without excuse. Native America is not exempted from this.
Chapter 2 talks about Israel which is a whole different matter. You cannot lift this out of the context of the entire letter which point is, that all are without excuse,Jew or gentile, all have sinned and fall short of the glory, and no one seeks God. Whether they acknowledged a "great spirit" is irrelevant. They also worshipped mountains, rocks, and other gods and there creation stories do not match up with Genesis. Paul is saying God turned them over to depravity. Are you saying that the native americans were saved by a special dispensation? Is this not predestination, but only for the indigenous peoples? Then Paul is wrong and Christ need not have come. Without faith in Christ there is no salvation.
A comment on "The Message":
When I took some extra seminary courses two years ago, I was surprised -- over and over and over -- that when we delved into the nuances of the original Greek, that The Message (I only have the NT so that's all I'm really commenting on) was one of the most accurate translations!
Go figure. Hadn't heard about the cotton candy, though...
Jesus said that He is the only way to the Father, He is the one who will make the call, based on what he knows about the heart of each individual. His blood redeemed the world, opened the gates of heaven of all who would believe. Yet he says some will think they should get in, and not make it. It is not at all irrelevant that some Native American tribes believed in The Great Spirit and the idea that all Native Americans worshiped mountains, rocks, etc is false and I am surprised to hear it from you Chris. The Navajo did not worship the four sacred mountains any more than the Jews worshiped Sinai. False gods are another story but if I get into that now, I'll be late for worship practice.
I did not mention any specific tribe by name. There are tribes that worship nature, the moon, the sun, etc.
I say again Paul's point is that all men are sinners and without excuse.
Christ is the only way, but nowhere does it say that we get in based on our "good" hearts. Jeremiah 17:9-10
By grace through faith in Christ is the only way you come to salvation.
actually there is a place in the Bible that says that God judges the heart...several places perhaps
but I am not near my study Bible or concordance so I can't find it just now. I know you didn't mention any particular tribe Chris, you seemed to be making a vast generalization. I know your take on Romans 4 and you know mine. Ofcourse we are all sinners, I am not disputing that fact, it is the seeking after God that I am talking about.
maryellen - there is a name for what you're talking about. It's called accesibilism, and it has to do with the salvation of the unevagelized. Accesibilism states that God in his mercy (and as revealed to humanity in nature ie. general revelation) gives faith in him and in Christ to people so they may respond to him in faith. Agreed, no one seeks God except those he calls to himself, but the bible never says that God doesn't call people in tribes in the jungle somewhere. These people would be saved by the death of christ, not by their "goodness", which no human truly has. This is much more believable to me than sinners not having access to salvation simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you want to read a good book on the subject, Dr. Terry Theissan has written "Who Can Be Saved?" (I link to it on my site), and it is well worth it.
Yes God judges the heart.
It is already understood in the passages that the hearts of men are deceitful, evil, whatever. So the judgement is pre-qualified, so to speak. The hearts of men will be found lacking, because they are lacking. Of course God can reveal Himself and save whomever He wants. The question is, is that what He is doing. We sem to leave out Romans 9 in these discussions and the issues of a sovereign God.
A far as my generalizations. Most of the tribes of North America attribute spirit life to inanimate objects in their traditional spiritulaity, regardless of whether they worship them or not, this is animism.
I go back to Romans 1. The point is men see creation, know there is a creator, and still refuse to worship Him. The point of Romans in its entirety is all men need salvation as no one worships God ,no one seeks God no one wants God. No one comes to Jesus unless the Father draws them, and no one comes to the Father but through the only begotten Son. This is done by the sovereign choice of the Father. God's will is revealed not only in what He does, but also in what He doesn't do.
thanks Grey Owl...
just for the record...this is my take on Free Will, as expressed by a friend:
Free will is only free will if we can make one of two choices. If there is no possibility that we will make any but one of the choices it is not free will, it is illusion. If God knows every choice we will make ahead of time, then what we will "choose" is pre-ordained. This is not free will. If it was as such, you would have no need to suggest I do good works, since my decision to do so would only be an illusion.
This is not so. We have choices. When we make them, God knows why we made the decision. This doesn't mean he knew that we would. God knows all of the possibilities, but leaves it up to us to do as he would have us do. If we don't, he re-orchestrates so the plan can come into fruition. Your life is not being micro-managed by God. You are being watched, your deeds are being recorded, but they are your choices. True choices that none including you know for certain you will make until they are made. The only way that God could know what your decisions would be without robbing your right to free will would be if he existed completely outside of your world, such that he had no impact. If he was only an observer. He is not. God plays in the game beside you whether his presence is acknowledged or not.
well said Wanderer...
Chrisp - even in Romans 1 the fate of the unevangelized is not sealed. Scripture is clear about the fates of two groups of people: the sinners and the faithful. These can be further described as "those who reject christ" and "those who accept him". BUt as for the Third Category - those who have never heard of Christ - nothing is said about them except that God is revealed to them as well, through nature. Scripture makes no claims about that group as a whole, just that God is righteously angry towards all the men who "suppress the truth by their wickedness" (rom 1:18). It does not say that all of the unevangelized do this, only that some do and are justly condemned. It says in v. 21 that they did indeed "know God" - does this preclude that none of them who knew God would be faithful? By no means! That is a great leap in reasoning, one which I do not believe is responsible to make.
Let me be clear: I do not believe that other religions save, or that people can earn their way into heaven by being good. Only christ saves - but if he will save the unevangelized is the question here. I tend to lean in the direction of hope, and I believe I am justified to do so. Can we agree to disagree?
Maryellen - though I am not an arminianist, one of the best descriptions of the balance of providence and free will I've ever heard goes like this: "Salvation in Christ is a house; outside there is a sign saying "All who desire may enter", yet once you walk inside you turn around and see a sign over the door that says, "Chosen from the beginning of time."" I think what you describe in your most recent comment is Open Theism, which many people think is heresy but I've never been able to get too worked up about it. I may know some good books about it though if you're interested.
yep, and it was open theism that got me going on this blog stuff to begin with...
I am basically a weslyan, with a leaning toward catholism, but who knows...things like this give me a headache...don't know why i bring them up in the first place...
I most heartily apologize if my enthusiasm for dialogue contributes to your ache of the head! I know I can be a bit overbearing at times... I enjoy chatting with you maryellen, and I'd love it if you stopped by my site sometime in the future. You're always welcome!
I like the first part of chapter two that puts the jews (or we might plug ourselves in there because we believe) and the gentiles (the pagans, the native americans, everyone else) on the same plain. We must remember formost that we're all seekers. We are not to judge because we're guilty like everyone else. "Saved" or "unsaved" we're all in need at different levels we all need to be saved even if we're "saved."
/This is long and from a larger piece of work I am currently writing. However it speaks to this exchange. A professor of both Maryellen and mine said that one does not truly know a man or woman until you read them. And another said if you can not write it you do not know it. Putting together this wisdom has brought me to the conclusion that the reason is that writing reveals thought over ideas and the depths of ones belief. Reading those thoughts exposes inconsistencies of logic or conclusions based on consistent analysis or authoritarian puppetry and a number of other inner aspects easy to hide in just speaking because writing does not allow the audience to be read as easily. Is the God depicted from Scripture without the influence of theological filters of the last 500 years the same God the more I hear conclusions and read these “authorities” I see more twisted perversion, xenophobic conclusions, and a different Gospel then I see the God of the Fathers - the God of Creation. This disturbs me because the conclusions given have lead in the past to such actions as manifest destiny, the holocaust, the inquisitions of the middle ages and their justifications!!!
I have not wanted to get into this but the above reasons overwhelm me let the chips fall where they may the kingdom is much more important!!
... At the opening of time before the event in time of the Fall, Man - male and female meet daily face to face with their Creator Gen.3:8f. By the time of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt the presence of Yahweh could hardly elicit meeting Him face to face Ex.19:18f. If we take the writer of Hebrews at his word then Yahweh did not change from Eden to Sinai; man did Heb.13:8. Knowing this to be true and motivated by His mercy to answer the longings of man’s heart to return to their first love (see earlier Scripture references) He enacted His plan. The complete understanding of this plan He gave to Abraham’s children as promised, “in him all the nations of the Earth will be blessed”, Gen.12:3, 18:18, Gal.3:29 and others. As this plan unfolds the narrowing of the purveyors of the plan becomes evident. Abraham probably meet the condition of Romans 1 by not worshiping the creation and exchanging the Creator’s glory for His creation’s glory.
This opens the pages of undefiled revelation. One of the aspects of Abraham’s character spoken of as why he is designated is,
“that he may command his children and household after him to keep the way of Yahweh
by doing righteousness and justice;
in order that Yahweh may bring upon Abraham what He has spoken about him”
Gen.18:19
Following Salvation History this narrowing separating hallowing continued until the incarnation of the Son of David/ Son of God - Jesus.
Paul understanding this talks about the ignorance of the Nations to the complete plan but pointing to the indicators of the incomplete knowledge in Acts 17:28 affirming the Athenians’ understanding that there exists a creator although beyond their comprehension who’s poets said, “For we also are His offspring”. In Romans, 1:18f and again in Ephesians 4:17f Paul refers to ignorance of the Torah as the reason for their past lives. Paul makes quite clear that ignorance does not justify sinners. It is just the facts explaining their condition.
Peter makes clear as well that ignorance brought about lust and our new understanding will bring about holiness 1st Peter 1:14f echoing his teaching on Solomon’s Portico concerning the ignorance of the rulers which lead to Jesus’ death, Acts 3:17.
With the dissipation of understanding from Adam’s generation to Paul’s generation the message of the head crusher, Gen. 3:15, became only an echo of His reality. Therefore putting together the darkening of man’s heart and the confusion and dissipation of our mental capacities and the intrusion of Lucifer’s distortion through lies, Yahweh designated a people to vehemently keep accurate account of the mind of Christ until the incarnation. (The dissipation and detraction from Adam’s untutored ability to name unquestionably the animal kingdom to our state of computer dependence concerning information followers the 2nd Law of thermodynamics’ dissipation seen in nature applied to mental capacity and our spiritual estate as well - theologically called original Sin) The only way to preserve the integrity of truth was to put it in writing. In His wisdom Yahweh locked the meaning of His communication with man into closed systems of understanding so that the information would not change over time or be influenced or lost in the changing of historical cultural settings. This is why the specific defined languages and cultures that died out forming an unchanging setting, that had specific definition and an unchanging instruction were chosen ( Both Greek and Hebrew are cotemporary languages but are not identical to the Biblical forms and there has been a gap in their usages from then to today forming a closed understanding like a picture seals the image of a person at the time of shooting even though the person is still living). Once we understand the historical setting and context we can accurately find application to any and all “living cultures” therefore the “living word” speaks into each generation and culture because an unchanging standard can be known and compared to current cultures. Moreover as Paul informs us,
“…That which is known about God is evident within them,
for God has made it evident to them.
For since the creation of the world
His invisible attributes, His eternal power
And divine nature have been clearly seen,
Being understood through what has been made,
So they [mankind] are without excuse.”
Paul goes on to explain the condition of mankind. We have become worshipers of the work of the hands of the Creator instead of the Creator, making us fools. Nowhere does Paul say that this indicates that every single individual who ever lived has no hope but, damnation! What Paul is saying going back to verse 18 is that the wrath of Yahweh was poured out on Jesus because men saw the evidence, understood His existence, generic though it may be, and instead of worshiping what they understood to be true they turned away.
Justice and mercy are the nature of Yahweh just as much as wrath. Jesus when teaching about coming to the Father says that,
“… No one comes to the Father, but through Me.”
John 14:6
Jesus did not say no one comes to the Father "until" Me, which has become the teaching and thinking of the dominant theological minds of the modern world. [Is He eternal pre - existent or not?] This has left untold millions of people worm eaten and burning. (I say to those who teach this you must be logical and consistent or this teaching has no foundation at lest not from Scripture.) Who were the ones who came out of their graves upon Jesus’ death Matt. 27:52-53, they are called “saints” did they all die in Jesus’ lifetime and except Him as their personal lord and savior confessing His name?, I don’t think so but they are called saints anyway!
Consistent Scriptural application provides a more probable explanation. They would seem to be those Paul speaks about who saw the clear evidence and honored Him as God not exchanging the lie for the truth they understood. These people lived by FAITH lived by what they could not see but did understand. [How is that different from us today? I mainly have in mind unreached people groups; do we honestly believe Hell is their lot because we have not told them. If so, then it follows that salvation comes as a result of our words not Christ’s] It stands to reason that if there is any reality to the unseen becoming seen and being revealed as image, then when these people who worshiped the Creator saw Him in Christ then through Him they would be allowed to go to the Father.
Today the time of ignorance is over Acts 17:30-31. We MUST tell who have not heard Rom.10:14f so they can believe. However this does not eliminate the multitudes who worshiped the Creator namelessly and are now through Christ and His mercy triumphant - ting over justice with the Father! What Moses saw in Heaven until the day that the rehearsals became the completed action seen Eph.3:9f, Colo.2:15 must be spoken into all the Nations. What then must we speak and from what starting point is the source materiel?
Pastor Art
Preach it, pastor. Nicely said.
Grey Owl, do not worry about your enthusiasm for dialogue, I am, after all, married to Pastor Art, my head almost never doesn't ache...
Wes, I already brought up Romans 2 and yes I have already put the church there.
Both chapters 1 and 2 are speaking of all men who have ever lived Jew or Gentile. Ephesians 2 speaks of the same. To the apostle Paul there are only two kinds of "sinners", jews and gentiles, i.e. everybody else.
Were there any saved who did not hear the Gospel. Of course not. No one is saved except by Faith, through the hearing of the Word.
Romans 10 says
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word. Romans 10 also asks "how will they HEAR if someone is not sent?"
1 Peter 3: 18-20 and 4:6 provide the answer.
Were there any saved who lived before Jesus did? Yes, because Christ Himself descended into hell and preached it.
Jesus said, "Abraham saw my day and was glad." Abraham came to the faith that was accounted unto him as righteousness because he saw Christ. There is no other way.
David wrote Psalm 32 because he believed in Christ. It was foretold to him that the Messiah would come from his lineage. He knew. Anyway, referring back to Peter, they all heard it from Jesus Himself.
So back to the issue , no one was ever saved by looking at creation.
At the risk of repeating this for the 100th time. Paul is saying that men refused to acknowledge the Creator even while looking at creation. That is the sin.
As for the free will theory, there is no Scriptural evidence that God does not have complete foreknowledge, and plenty that supports the idea that He does.
God has a pre-determined plan and His will be done, reghardless of our choices.
Our agenda as the Church is to preach the Word scripturally and in power. The scriptures are one whole complete Word.
One more question if I may,
Where does it say anywhere, Bible or wherever, that we have a "right" to a free will?
One more thought re: free will.
You said ,
"Free will is only free will if we can make one of two choices. If there is no possibility that we will make any but one of the choices it is not free will, it is illusion. If God knows every choice we will make ahead of time, then what we will "choose" is pre-ordained. This is not free will. If it was as such, you would have no need to suggest I do good works, since my decision to do so would only be an illusion."
First of all your argument only works if we truly have free will.
The argument does not prove free will exists, it pre-supposes its existence. That has never been my point. My point is, we haven't a clue what free will is.
Second, God even knows that I am going to suggest that you do good works. From His side of things it is all pre-determined and known. From our side it isn't. The point of Romans 9 is, that none of us have any right to argue over who, where, and what we are. His will be done. He told us to pray that, not Father bless our choices.
Choose away. He exists for Himself and His glory alone.
chrisp - I tend to agree with you about free will; I'm a monergist to the core. But re: salvation of the unevangelized, I've read books by and spoken with many well-learned theologians about this topic. It's been very central to my faith, and I've worked hard to understand it. No offence, but I'm going to trust their interpretation of the first two chapters of Romans - as well as most of the rest of it. I'm afraid I simply don't think you're right about this. Can we agree to disagree?
what is blogging about anyway...the agreement to disagree or a platform to proclaim some truth or other, or just a place to let off steam...or perhaps to find kindred spirits, new friends,
I confess to a slight feeling of pride when the comment number goes up...but I need to be careful, the last time I made a confession on my blog, it came back and bit me on the behind...
Grey Owl
Would you please provide the names of these theologians for my own information?
Maryellen,
Perhaps blogging is about all the above. We can manage our own blogs as we wish, and if we are imposing on someone else's, then we no longer have to come and comment.
As for your last comment, perhaps the one thing a blog isn't, is a confessional.
Leadership has a responsibility to the body they serve, and I will die for the one I which serve.
chrisp - the best direction I can point you in is to Dr. Terry Thiessan, author of "Who Can Be Saved?" and professor of systematic theology at Providence Seminary in Manitoba, Canada. The book is available off of amazon for about 15$ US used. I've also had a few phone and in person conversations with him about this issue while I was figuring it out. He's the best one to start with because he has devoted years of study to this topic, plus he used to be an ecclesiocentrist so he knows both sides of the issue. A few others I've chatted with haven't written on the topic, but still had a great deal of wisdom they were willing to share. So start with Theissan and I'll name-drop a bit more later if necessary.
"We plough the fields and scatter the good seed on the land, but it is fed and watered by God's almighty hand..."
We will never know which of the seeds sprouted -- some don't ever. Yet we plant.
And what of the seeds scattered by the wind? The plants that grow without the effort of a farmer or a gardener? Are they less of a plant because they grew without our control?
It seems a futile argument here. We want things to be predictable -- do "a" and "b" will follow. Don't do "a" and "b" will not follow. Life isn't like that, as we all know by now. Like the workers in the parable, some worked for a long time at an agreed upon wage -- and in the last minute, the boss hired on workers for the same wage -- who in the end barely worked at all. "UNFAIR!" shouted the original workers. How can you pay them the same when we clearly have toed the line longer, worked harder, loyally followed you -- HOW DARE YOU let them reap the same rewards as US!?
In the end, it's not our job to decide who gets paid what, or who will sprout and who won't, or who's entitled and who's not -- our job is to scatter seeds.
How you go about that is between you and God.
I appreciate your thoughts Kim.
And I value everyone's comments, especially Pastor Art's.
good question Jason, I'll look into it.
Dr. Tiessen was one of my favourite prof's at Providence two years ago. His classes on historical theological development have been an unending resource to me in my own thinking and writing.
While I'm not quite as Calvinistic as Grey Owl or Dr. Tiessen, what I really appreciated about Dr. Tiessen was that he was firm in his convictions and humble and gracious to everyone whether they agreed with him or not.
He actually refers to himself as a "reluctant Calvinist" because he struggles with some of tenets of Calvinism, but became convinced of Calvinism through his own study of Scripture. I can respect that -- it's honest about the struggles and shows integrity in his own study of Scripture.
Again, I'm not completely on the same page as Dr. Tiessen, but I respect him for his faith, graciousness, and love of the Word of God.
Chris - my words do pre-suppose free will, but then what difference does it make? If my will is free, my words stand. If not, then it doesn't matter, I am just a puppet for someone else's amusement. I will still live my life the way I see fit becaue apparently God makes it so. Where is the personal responsibility in this second version? It sounds like a dangerous teaching.
As I said, we can make all the free will choices we want. God has already anticipated (foreknown) everything. I never said we are puppets. The confusion over free-will vs. pre-destination is exacerbated by both sides as no one really understands it from a biblical pov. If God does not have complete foreknowledge, I consider that to be the more dangerous teaching as we can stay one step ahead of Him. The logical conclusion is that since God does not know, and apparently we are aware of this "fact" this is like a bunch of little kids tricking their dad. IOW we have the upper hand. Not what the Word teaches, my friend.
The God of the Bible is neither a puppet master nor an abusive parent who loves some of his children, but not all of them. He is a covenant God, who took more time creating humans than he did any other of the creations in the universe. He molded us and modeled us after himself. He put within ever immortal soul a hunger for truth and light. From the Torah to the Revelation He revealed Himself as both merciful and just, and urged his most loved of creation to choose Him and His way. The very word IF in the covenants indicates that we have always had a choice. He knows the hearts of man, he created them. Little kids may try to trick their dads, or their moms, or their teachers, or their peers. Just because little kids are naughty, selfseeking, and unwise doesn't mean they have the upper hand.
"Just because little kids are naughty, selfseeking, and unwise doesn't mean they have the upper hand."
No, they just operate under the deception that they do.
Eternity may be in the heart of man, but not the desire to seek the God who is eternal.I never said He is abusive, and complete foreknowledge does not give us a God who is.
Chris P.,
You say: "I never said He is abusive, and complete foreknowledge does not give us a God who is."
God is omnipotent, and thus can shape everything to His will. If as a parent, you see your child reaching out towards a hot stove, and know without interference he is going to touch it and burn himself, what do we call you if you let them do it anyway? Abusive. What if you see even an unrelated adult pick up something you know to be lethal, but don't stop them from drinking it? You are responsible for their death.
If we have the choice to save ourselves or not through our actions AND we are going to choose the wrong path AND we God knows all of this ahead of time AND He allows us to do it anyway...What do we call that? Surely not a loving God.
Regularly comments are found in the Bible about our choices, and the results therein. What kind of God knows that the planet will rebel against him, lets it happen and then destroys all but one family in retribution. If God knows every step we will make, and lets us damn ourselves anyway, that is not a loving God.
I don't use this last as an argument against God knowing every minute of what will happen for eternity if he lets things go without intervention (although I don't believe He does, not that it matters since he has the power to push things back into the mold). Rather to present the question in context with this one. Is God a loving God?
I would say that a devil's hell as described in the Holy Bible is pretty abusive...and if God has elected to send a majority of people to that hell, than what is the logical conclusion to draw? Ofcourse, you didn't say he was abusive...those elect few who receive the reward wouldn't call Him abusive either...
but see, He isn't abusive, He is pure LOVE...mercy will triumph over justice...and He calls all men to come unto him...and he gives them the freedom to chose.
Oh My, With all of this, I don't think anyone will ever read this, but I'l quote it anyway:
I'll quote C.S. Lewis, gain what you want from it:
The world does not consist of 100 per cent Christians and 100 per cent non-Christians. There are people who are slowly ceasing to be Christians but who still call themselves by that name...There are other people who are slowly becoming Christians though they do not yet call themselves so. There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by him that they are his in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God's secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it.
teresa, i appriciate the CS Lewis quote, he is a well respected author but I'm not sure he would have described himself as a theologian. The book I am reading - I'm on page 40 now, warns against engendering a spirit of heresy hunting, as well as contributing a schism - making a rent in the Church of Christ.
In the first of the Narnia books, a wise old professor laments "logic, simple logic - what do they teach in those schools?" Unfortunately logic does not always work in matters of the Spirit. Chris P. says it's all there to understand - but if someone should understand it differently than he, they are wrong. Jason says there are mysteries about God that we just can not understand - which is where we just have to let God be God. But both men agree that some people are predestined to damnation. Logic. Here is the "logical" statement that I cried out in my "for crying out loud" post. If God never forsakes his elect, and I have been forsaken, then it follows that I am not one of His elect." Wanderer said that predestination was a dangerous teaching. He comes at the whole thing from an ex-catholic turned pagan point of view. But I think he's right. Take a depressed person, one who perhaps feels rejected by the body of Christ, and convice them that some people are predestined for damnation, in the midst of the dark night of the soul, or the refiners fire, they could very well just give up.
I continue to be amazed at the huge amount of times that people use the "God uses foolish things to shame the wise" as an excuse for having bad logic.
Pastor Art - I thank you for the defense of my potential for contribution. (Provided that is what was the intent, I don't want to accuse you falsely of doing so.)
Jason - The last place you need to look for wisdom is from us Pagans? Have you noted the history behind many of the rituals of worship by the church? Primarily the RC church, but many borrowed for later use by others.
I don't think there is a "last place" to look for wisdom if it bears out that it is.
I watched a game show the other days and correctly declared a writer to be the only one on the list to win an academy award. I don't remember his name now. He wrote "My fair lady." I didn't know the latter at the time, nor do I remember his name now. I was just accidentally right.
Now I don't advocate people regularly gambling on someone being accidentally correct, but you are awful quick to discount me without knowing my background.
I hardly think MaryEllen looks to me for salvation, however she rightly recognizes that I have a head on my shoulders. Before you attack my background you should consider what your thought on my writing on a given topic seemed to hold merit before you consider my background.
When God speaks to you, sometimes it will be through a pastor, sometimes a pagan, sometimes an atheist, maybe a song on the radio. The source doesn't matter, if God wants you to know something, he will provide enough avenues for you to hear it and consider.
So folks what is it; Free will or pre-destined? Wanderer is now saying that a God who allows free will is abusive, and Maryellen is saying that a God who allows you to freely choose hell-fire is merciful. How does any of this contradict pre-destination? How is God predestining someone to hell less merciful than God who foreknows all things allowing you to freely choose hell? If He loves you would He not interfere, as Wanderer suggests, and keep you from burning yourself on the hot stove? Where is the divine "gift" of free will mentioned in Scripture, and where does it say that it is the truest sign of God's love?
Please do not tell me that the Creator is on the same learning curve as the creation. It is found nowhere in Scripture.
Chris, my friend, if you are going to comment, please read carefully the comments made and watch your sarcaatic tone of "voice"
Wandered did not say that a God who has given us free will is abusive...his "pagan" take on free will is that God gives us freedom to choose but constantly interacts with us, pointing us in the right direction, helping us make wise choices, allowing us to learn from our mistakes always ready to forgive and help us pick up the pieces. My take on an abusive God is one who would willingly, delibertly create humans who are destined for a devil's hell. I did not say that a God who allows us freely to choose hell is merciful.
Are you now actually denying our ability to choose anything? Are you denying that we have a "free will" at all? I don't want to jump ahead in the book I am reading, but there is a difference between the calvinist concept of personal and double predestination, and the predestination that is a Biblical teaching. They are not the same. Don't ask me to explain the difference now, I have to finish the book, and some word studies before I can effectively defend that statement.
As for Wanderer...your comments are always welcome, your ideas valued...you know where I stand on the Truth of Jesus, the Truth that is Jesus, and I know where you stand on the quest for truth. I am sorry that your ideas are not always valued and your words sometimes twisted here...just know "the thoughts expressed here are not neccessarily the opinions of the Blog Management"
Maryellen - I think that you have a forum here to be proud of. You don't owe anyone an apology for the behavior of others on your site - and, if you feel like I've ever been ungracious, then I apologize. It is my desire to seek truth with like minded folks, and I enjoy posting my thoughts here. If they ever become unwelcome, please let me know.
Grey Owl, no problem
Jason, I'm sure Pastor Art will answer your question soon, I am also sure that he did not intend to suggest anyone should worship the stars, or any other part of creation...probably somthing like, the heavens declare His glory.
First of all I do not have a "sarcastic tone"
Second I am not defending or promoting supralapsarian theology, i.e. hyper-calvinism. Why does anyone think that I am? I go to Scripture and question all theologies based on what Scripture actually says. Literally.
Third I was pointing out the inconsistencies of the statments made.
In our rush to crush everything "western" out of the church we are missing the point.
Romans 1 demonstrates that no culture/men that has ever existed seeks God of its own accord.
Abraham was chosen and called by God, Israel was chosen and called by God, as were all the patriarchs, prophets, apostles and belivers who ever lived. No one ever woke up one day and said, Gee I think I'll take Jesus. To suggest otherwise is to directly conradict Jesus' own words. You are right there is Biblical pre-destination and so far it hasn't been talked about on any blog that I have visited. A thorough study of world history will show that men, including those who call themselves the church, have ever been in a struggle for control of their own and other's fates. Babel and the dispersion/creation of cultures is simply God's way of exposing all things, and its effect is not over yet.
One more question, since Romans 9 states that we have no "right" to question anything God says does or desires, who are we to define what is abusive, since sovereignty implies He can do whatever He wants and desires?
God could care less who we say He is. Who does He say He is?
Chrisp -
fourth, you've ignored several questions that I and others have asked of you. I'm not interested in arguing, and I'm not interested in "beating you" or "winning." But it does tend to bother people when you make statements and then ignore their responses or simply say, "Well I'm right because my interpretation of scripture is the right one." Pastor art, maryellen, myself and several others have been referencing the bible and doing so, in my opinion, responsibly.
I know many men and women wiser than I who are able to agree to disagree about these issues, regardless of which side they hold. I think Maryellen is right to ask for respectful tones while we're here. Her house, her rules.
Chris P.,
You weren't in fact pointing out inconsistencies. In order to do so, you would have to point out what we said. You incorrectly interpreted my words to indicate that a God allowing free will was abusive. This being the antithesis of what I was saying. Then you summed up what you claimed MaryEllen's point to be. Even if our two sides were inconsistent, that wouldn't be unreasonable to expect.
If you do find my comments inconsistent, please provide the examples of such, rather than summing up (incorrectly) what I am saying and attempting to elicit blanket agreement that my points are incorrect without addressing the points. The discussion will progress much better that way.
Jason, this whole salvation debate comes from the question of what happened to the millions of people who died without hearing the gospel. I think Romans 1 addresses that subject very well. As far as missionaries and the great commission, we need to do what Jesus commanded us to do, make disciples, baptizing them, and teaching them to obey everthing Jesus Commanded. Jesus saves! I can't believe how many comments this post has gotten...not that I don't like the attention and all, but maybe you boys should go over to Chris's house to "play" for a while.
plus, pastor art and i have never said the gospel is not necessary for salvation, but the way it has been presented, and the european bias, has proven uneffective in many areas of the world, european and more recently amercian cultural norms and customs have been presented by the church as righteousness. When one of my native american friends asks me if his grandmother is burning in hell because she died without ever hearing the gospel, i will point to romans 1 and say, God knows the heart and Jesus decides who gets into the kingdom of God. He is a loving and merciful God who has revealed himself in the glory of his creation. Is it enough to just honor the creator today? No. This is sounding too mixed up, even for me.
But the danger of damnation is far greater for those who have heard the message of Christ and rejected it, and even worse for those who have twisted it into something that Christ never intended it to be. But then again, back to the original arguement, if the doctrine of divine election and personal predestination is correct...none of this matters anyway. If you are meant to get in you will, if you never hear, or reject what you hear, hell fire will be just as hot for those God has predestined for damnation.
All this proves that the Gospel was never meant to be presented in any kind of contextualized format, i.e. European, indigenous, or whatever. there is no contextualized evangelism, but there can be contextualized worship, that is after evangelization/belief. If evangelism was meant to be contextual that would mean the Europeans would have had to adopt native dress,customs, and culture, IOW be fakes and/or wannabes i.e. something that they were not. Jesus Christ and Him crucified is sufficient, as it is the Father who draws men to the Son and only those who come through the Son can come to the Father. Lift up the Son and He does the drawing.
One more thought, why do we act as if God did not know what the westerners would do? Whatever has been allowed, it is His plan. Romans 1 says that God is evident in creation and that men refuse to acknowledge Him. The point of Romans in its entirety is that all men are damned, are without excuse and are in need of salvation by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves. If Romans 1 is saying that some men are pre-disposed to believe before hearing the Gospel then that is pre-destination.
Wanderer I am pointing out that you and Maryellen are contradicting each other. I agree with your point. Would any parent allow their three year old child to go play on the freeway?
So our free will is limited just as the child's is. If we had complete free-will would He bother correcting us? Our choices are limited by His sovreignty. That has always been my point. From our side we may think that we are shaping the future. From His side it is all a done deal. The Father works through the Church in time, but He exists in eternity
Grey Owl
What questions did I ignore,and I'm not referencing Scripture, but you are? I wonder who is actually not reading the comments.
Chrisp - please read what I said. I never said that you weren't referenceing the bible, I was pointing out that we all were at some point in this conversation.
As for the questions, I'm afraid I don't have the patience to scroll back through all the comments and point out all the places where you ignored someone's legitimate questions in order to poke holes in their argument. Admittedly, it is difficult to keep track of "who said what", and especially here on the Net the tendancy among many of us is to "go for the jugular" to save time and energy. I know for myself I asked several questions on marellen's other post, the one with 30 comments right now (about the hurricane I think) that you did not answer. Whether it was intentional or unintentional, it can make people feel slighted or ignored.
Back on the other post I said this: "I (try to) always enter into a conversation like this with an open heart, laying my beliefs on the line in pursuit of truth. If something I believe is shown to be false then I must abandon it. That is the only way these kinds of conversations work; both parties have humility about their own understanding and admit the possibility from the get-go that they may be wrong. Otherwise it's he-said she-said, and nothing gets accomplished. I'm asking this in all sincerity: are you in this conversation to pursue truth, or are you here to prove those that disagree with you (and your interpretation) wrong?"
This is probably my last comment on this one, it's getting a little out of hand - plus maryellen has requested (politely) that we move this elsewhere. Maryellen, I've enjoyed this quite a bit, and while I won't be "playing at chrip's" I did have fun while it lasted. God bless.
Okay, Chris, this post has gotten a little long, but I will put this in a way that occurred to me this morning to clarify what I meant. Not to convince you, just to put out my point of view. As so many people have read this for so long, I put this here instead of taking it elsewhere for the reason of attempting clarity to all. Here goes.
I am a story writer and a story teller. While not the case for all, these two aspects are different for me.
As a story writer, I carefully craft who does what, who says what, until I reach the conclusion I intend.
As a story teller, my wife sits back and I just let the story flow from me as I speak. Frequently, this is much different. I figure out the personalities of the characters, then I present the situations. As for their dealing with the situations, I am as much a viewer as my wife, since I don't choose the players' reactions, but rather craft them according to the creatures I have created. In this case, I still have intentions of how it should end, or where the major points are. If it gets out of hand on a tangent, I change the perameters to bring it back to my plan.
In the first, I plan it all, and the characters are merely extensions of the drama I plan and doing their part much as machinery.
In the second, I feel these characters have developed some level of a life of their own. I have come to hate my own characters as a result of the practice. Still, I have control and in the end I mold things to get where I want.
If you replace me with God, the first is not free will. It is a part in the machinery. The second is free will, yet I am still omniscient in their world and omnipotent, and my plan is met. This doesn't mean I can't be surprised or disappointed by the turns.
At another angle, the first group of characters in a human/God relationship could not be held responsible by a just God. The second still could, since they had a legitemate choice.
Jason - your example of the potter creating a pot for the sake of its own destruction is my primary example of an unjust God who neither deserves to be worshipped nor provides us a fair option to do so.
Wanderer
Is God sovereign or not? If He is, whatever He does is just, since He is the only being that is all good and all holy. He would have to know the end from the beginning, His words btw, Isaiah 46: 8-11 in order to make all things work together for good. Romans 8:28
The God of open theism is merely a God who spends all His time putting out fires, since He is reacting to our choices that He doe snot foreknow.
His ways are not our ways nor His thoughts our thoughts, so let us understand that which He has sovereignly chosen to reveal, and keep our opinions out of it. Doesn't anyone go to the Scriptures for anything anymore?
God is not telling a story. Lord, deliver us from the cancer of post-modernism.
Grey Owl, You are the first person to accuse me of not answering a question. I am usually criticized for going into too much detail, and answering every point.
Also your "choice" not to come play at my blog, while wholly irrelevant to me, says a lot about you. Interesting.
Chrisp - I'm not sure if you think that me not "playing" at your blog says good things or bad things about me.
Just to clarify, I don't post at your site because I don't think it needs/deserves my validation. I post here because as I've come to know maryellen I've grown to appreciate her point of view. I'll chat with you (and others) here because I enjoy conversation and I want to foster respectful discussion and help maintain balance. Like if we were at a party at her house - it would be rude to ignore people involved in the conversation.
I've been you your blog and seen the way you treat people who disagree with you. I also suspect that you are more interested in being "right" than in seeking truth. That's not something I can support, so I don't comment there. This isn't a judgement or a criticism; you have just as much right to your opinions as anyone, and just as much right to run your blog however you want. And for what it's worth I hope (and pray) that your ministry is both pleasing to God and effective. I hope that you and I can continue to meet and chat respectfully, and when necessary agree to disagree.
No offense Grey Owl, but you don't know me at all. If you notice, I am only hard with those who claim to be believers, and then profess their subjective doctrines as Truth. God is absolute. Let's start there. I am more interested in God and His Word being proclaimed. I never worry about being right. "Let God be true and every man a liar."
He is not the God of opinion (Laodicea) or feelings.
Subjective doctrine? I'll need a definition of that.
I think we've taken up quite enough of maryellen's space. If you still feel like chatting, chris, my email is on my website : highargument.blogspot.com. Other than that I think it may be best to lay this "comment heavy" post to rest. Maybe give maryellen a break from playing referee.
Chris P.,
You say: "I am only hard with those who claim to be believers, and then profess their subjective doctrines as Truth."
I have never claimed to be a "believer" by any definition you might be hinting at, yet I think you and I have debated more strenously than any other two out here. I know I do it partially to present a different point of view, partially for fun. You don't seem to be having fun. Why then do you keep arguing so strenously about scripture to me? Surely you realize this has little more impact on me than quoting Greek Philosophers. Inspired writing? Yes. Final answer? No. The fact that the two of us will never agree on that point is probably a good reason why the two of us being primaries in a 67 comment reply section is probably well past the point of usefulness to anyone.
While I am serious about presenting my point of view to others if they are interested, and have been invited to continue to do so, perhaps you and I should acknowledge a general stalemate rule? Maybe limit ourselves to a comment a piece, and a rebuttal apiece (in regards solely to each other) and then just assume we aren't going to agree?
Jason - I never said God gave everyone what they deserved. That would be absurd. Equally absurd is the thought that God would waste his time watching a world of his creation and not interacting with it.
This doesn't compete with sovereignty. Talk to God. When he answers, tell me if you felt like he cared. If he cares, he interacts. No need to do so if all is a given.
You have all still failed to answer the basic question I posed that I feel everyone must consider. All of those lessons in the scripture (not hypocritical in context with the above statement, for those I ask have a different respect than I for the scripture.) all of those lessons give admonition after admonition about making the right choice and the cost for failing to do so. Why would such admonitions be necessary if the decision was a foregone conclusion?
No offense taken, Pastor Art. One thing that you only partially hit on, but I would like to add to is this: If you want me to listen to you (an example, not you specifically) then you must show that you are at least listening to me. Even if you are in complete disagreement. I think this is true for most people. If you repeat what I have said while trying to reach me, I am more likely to listen to what you have to say, even if you only did so to refute what I said.
Post a Comment