This post is a follow-up to the FBCTW College Bible study on 7/6/2008.
“My name is will, God’s will!” “It’s not in God’s will for us to be together anymore.” “I don’t know which color carpet God wants me to have?”
The term God’s will has become a rather nebulous concept within Christian circles, mostly because the term will has several meanings in and of itself. Will can refer to one’s desires, purposes, plans, intentions, and motives. The same is true of God, and when we or the Scriptures refer to His will, in one sense we refer to his desires, law, and precepts. At other times, the reference is to his purpose, plans, intentions, and counsel. Although God’s attribute of purpose is distinct from God’s other attributes, it is strongly related to his other attributes, especially that of His holiness, love, independence, omnipotence, and omniscience.
When we fail to note the distinction between God’s will of purpose from that of His desire or precept, confusion is the common result. Often times, when we think of us following God’s will, we think of some spiritual tightrope that God has set before us that if we do not precisely follow, we fall to our doom—not to mention frustrate God in his purposes. Just listen to the way many describe our place in relation to God’s will! These descriptions of God’s will make Him seem so dependent on human beings! This is simply not biblical.
First, we will cover God’s will in terms in his purposes, decrees, and plans. Then we will cover it in terms of desire, law, and precepts.
God has a unified purpose in the creation of the world and all that happens in it—and that purpose is to reveal his glory and majesty. Like the plot of a great book or movie, God’s overall purpose has many “sub-plots”—individual persons and events—that piece together to produce His masterpiece that accomplishes its chief end. The main character in His plot is Jesus Christ and the climax is His life on earth. Everything centers on this event. [Eph 3:11]
God, in his grace, involves us in his purposes and plans, but we as the creature cannot frustrate the plans of the Creator! Compared to greatness of God, I am but a drop of water compared to the vastness of earth’s oceans, and all of humanity might be slightly more than a bucket. Therefore, if I or the entire human race were to oppose God in his purposes, we would be like a penny stopping a freight train! Whatever God purposes, He does. We must know, understand, and accept this. That is why Paul says:
33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! 34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become His counselor?” 35 "Or who has first given to Him And it shall be repaid to him?" 36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen. Romans 11:33-36
This is the foundation of Romans 12:1-2. There is no one sovereign over God—He is the sovereign. He has no need for our advice or service to accomplish his ends. The counsel of Scripture allows for no other interpretation: Job 12:13-25, 23:13, 42:2; Psalm 33:1-22, 115:1-3, 119:89-91, 135:6, all of 139; Daniel 4:34-35; Proverbs 19:21; Acts 2:23, 4:27-28; Romans 8:28; Ephesians 1:11. [Many others]
Whether we are in submission to or rebellion against God, God will accomplish his purpose through us—and judge us for our rebellion if that be the case.
However, when we view God’s will in terms of his desires, precepts, and law, it is clear that this is not always done. Only in terms of God desire for our behavior can we be “out of God’s will.” God consistently commands us to obey his will, so obviously He desires our obedience. However, even as believers, we consistently rebel against God’s laws! Paul confirms this in Romans 12:1-2:
1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove [test, determine, or evaluate] what is that good and acceptable and perfect will [purpose] of God.
Clearly, God is commanding us through the apostle Paul to be transformed [metamorphoomai] by the renewing of our minds. God desires that our minds be transformed by the disciplines of the Christian faith: the study of the Word of God, prayer, and service in the body of Christ. This is also not always done.
This brings us some interesting questions. Does God purpose evil? Clearly by his hatred of it, God does not desire it! Therefore, how can God purpose something that He does not desire? If He does purpose evil, is not God responsible for it? How can I trust a God who is responsible for evil? If we cannot thwart God’s plans, how does that relate to our freedom of choice?
These are substantial questions that will be addressed in coming FBCTW Bible Study, and a short answer here will not do justice to the questions themselves. However, some of the questions must briefly be addressed in order to complete the topic of God’s will and purpose.
God Himself does not commit evil, nor does He tempt people to commit evil. His nature is good—and his knowledge is perfect. He knows the inclinations and motives of our hearts, even better than we do! Evil has a place in God’s overall perfect plan, and God purposefully allows men to act in evils ways, knowing exactly what they will do, with the intention to bring about a greater good and reveal a greater glory of Himself by His use of those actions!
Although the commission of sin stirs up anger is displeasure in God, in patience God permits it to exist for a greater good. How this is so lies within the unsearchable wisdom of God, and when these horrendous acts of wickedness take place, God is not obligated to reveal to us how they are a part of his plan. However, we must know they are for our [believers] and His good!
Take note of the parent who must let his child do something that might hurt him in order that the child may learn an important lesson that would not be learned if the parent kept trying to protect the child. Both the parent and the child are hurt by what takes place, but it is for the child’s good. So it is with God and us.
The story of Joseph and the crucifixion of Christ are clear examples of this. Think of how much it hurt God to see His Son experience what He did on Calvary! On the other hand, what a glorious revelation of God’s love, grace, wrath, and justice in Christ’s Work!
Now, how are we to know and be in God’s will? From Romans 12:1-2, it is clear that in order for us to know, test, examine, and prove God’s good, acceptable, and perfect purpose, we must continually be transformed by the renewal of our minds. What does “be transformed by the renewing of your mind” mean?
It means first and foremost that we must be born-again—regenerated by the power of Christ’s resurrection. That is the beginning of the metamorphosis. That means we must have trusted Christ and His work alone as the only means to a relationship with the Father and eternal life! If we have not done so, we cannot be “in God’s will.”
It means that we must study His Word so that it becomes the guiding principle of our lives. We must be in surrender to the wisdom therein.
It means that we should be in prayer, fervent and consistent prayer.
It means that we serve the body of Christ—the church—through a local congregation of genuine believers.
When we are doing these things, we are in “God’s will”—regardless of what career we may choose, or the person we marry. In fact, when we are truly conformed to Christ’s image, we tend to make wise decision in these major choices—even when God doesn’t clearly show us the decision to make. When we conform to God’s desire, we have freedom in knowing that we cannot frustrate God’s purpose.
To sum it up: To be in God’s will is to do God’s will. To do God’s will is to live like Christ. The rest falls into its place by the awesome sovereignty of God.
Here is Daniel's explanation of Unconditional Election:
Unconditional election - those who are elected by God for salvation are not elected based upon any work or quality of their own. There are no conditions they must meet in order to become the elect, God simply chose them (apparently arbitrarily since "there is no partiallity with him," which is very problematic). This is necessary because our depravity and the corruption of our wills is SO total that if God did not choose for us, then no one would be saved at all. Unconditional election is aimed at the same problem (our broken will) as Wesley's prevenient grace. If Unconditional election is true, then surely God, who wants everyone to be saved according to 1 Tim. 2:4, would therefore act in accordance with his own will and elect everyone for salvation unconditionally, to do otherwise would seem to imply some imperfection in God if he wills one thing (universal salvation) and then acts to ensure it can never happen. Thus if I believed in unconditional election I would immediately be a universalist Calvinist. I am of the opinion that we are elected according to the foreknowlege of God on the condition of our faith in Christ and our consequent and necessary participation in the covenant and the covenant people of God, and that all humans are called to do that by the grace of God, though many reject this calling.
The Scriptures are clear that God has chosen those whom He would save and did so before the foundations of the world, and these are "predestined" to be conformed to the image of his Son: (Ephesians 1:1-11, 2 Timothy 2:8-9, Romans 8:28-30; 1 Peter 1:2). This choice is not arbitrary, and no Calvinist would ever say so. When the Scripture says that "there is not partiality with God, " particularly in the New Testament, it is in the context of the comparison of peoples, Jews to Greek or slaves to free. (i.e. Romans 2:10-11, Acts 10:34, Ephesians 6:9). We are chosen and predestined according to God's purpose and for His good pleasure. God had a purpose in choosing whom He does for salvation, but the basis of this choice is not any foreseen quality, attribute, or work of that person--it is by grace and grace alone.
1 Timothy 2:4 is the best verse in the Scripture to support Daniel's point, but the comments in 2:4 are made in passing. They are not the primary point of the text. The point of the context of 1 Timothy 2 is not that God wants every human being to be saved--it concerns godly practice and behavior. It could be credibly argued that "all men" of 2:4 could contextually mean "all kinds of men" for Paul is urging Timothy to pray "for kings and all who are in authority" (1:2). In most cases that the term all men (or whole world, all people, all, etc) is used, it is qualified by the context to a specific group of people. Rarely, save the cases in which all of man is described as fallen, does "all" or "world" refer to literally everyone. Not even in John 3:16.
There are passages in which the entire point concerns the doctrine of election by grace. Romans 8:28-30, Romans 9, Ephesians 1:1-11 with the support of 2:1-10, John 6:37-40,44,65, John 10:1-30, for examples.
First, let's look at these passages. In Romans 8:28-30, Paul tells us that "whom (or those) He foreknew, He predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son." The predestined are then called, and the called are then justified, and the justified are then glorified. The word foreknew is proginosko in the Greek. It is simply a compound word combining pro (before) and ginosko (know). In both the English rendition cited and in the Greek, "those" or "whom" is a plural term acting as the direct object of "know." The object of God's foreknowledge isn't a mere choice or act, quality or merit; it is a set of persons. In every case that the word ginosko is used with a human being as the object of that verb, it refers to a relationship of some sort. It could be an acquaintance, or it could even be sexual, but it never refers to a knowledge of a set of facts. In fact, the word ginosko is used in Matthew 7:23 when Jesus says, "I never knew you, depart from me!" Therefore, from the context, it is clear that there are those that God does not foreknow. The same "those" that are foreknown in verse 28 are the ones who are glorified in verse 30. From this passage, it is clear that not everyone is called, either.
This verse is telling us that God knew us in a relationship with Himself in eternity before [the best term we can use to describe the eternal nature of God's knowledge] that relationship came to be in time.
Romans 9 is even stronger: Paul begins by lamenting that the Jews do not know Christ, that he would surrender his own salvation for that of his kinsman. If there were a group of people that should have known that Christ was the Messiah, it should have been the Jews, they had the Law, the service of God, and the covenants--and were the race through which God chose Christ to come. But then Paul tells us that "they are not all Israel who are of Israel." The first Israel refers to the descendents of Abraham, the second refers to God's chosen people. This is a bold statement on Paul's part.
To substantiate this claim, Paul uses the Old Testament. God rejected Ishmael, but chose Isaac--both were sons of Abraham. Then Paul refers to Isaac's children and says God chose Jacob over Esau: "for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works [grace] but of Him who calls." Paul has just demonstrated that mere kinsmanship to Abraham does not make you one of the chosen of God. Then Paul, in response to a possible objection ("Is there unrighteousness with God?"), uses the story of Moses and Pharaoh as an example for God's sovereignty in election and concludes in verse 18:
Therefore He [God] has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
In other words: God can save whoever He wants to, and this salvation is not in a response to action by men. It is initiated by God and is applied to particular individuals. Paul knew people would say that it is not fair for God to not give everyone a chance--especially if it is God who hardens the hearts of men. "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?'"
Paul's answer is not one that satisfies the modern-day critic of Calvinism, who often poses this very objection when confonted with the doctrine of reprobation. Paul essentially says this: We are property, and God is the property owner. Because of our status as creatures, God can do as He wishes with us. "Who are you to reply against God? Shall the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'why have you made me like this?' Does not the potter have power over the same lump of clay to make one vessel for honor, and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endure with much longsuffering those vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"
Pauls couldn't be more clear. More to come on the UE in Eph 1 and 2, John 6 and 10, and others.
Labels: Theology
Take some time to read my friend Daniel Hixon's criticism of Calvinism. The criticism is brief and broad, covering a lot of topics an a short amount of space, so he doesn't develop some of his arguments as much as I would like. Daniel is a brilliant guy. In fact, I respect him very much because of his honesty when we have discussed issues in the past.
I was one of the "real-live" Calvinists Daniel engaged at LSU. I was let out of my cage from time to time, so that I can roam to-and-fro and debate to pesky Arminians. ;-). Of all the non-Calvinists I have ever debated, Daniel was one of the most gracious and honest opponents. We talked about it on many occasions, too.
To be honest this movement distrubs me a little...Reaction to this Calvinistic trend has been varied. Young and zealous Calvinists with their tight rational system with all of its certainty can come of [off] as (and sometimes may actually be) arrogant and narrow, not respecting the rest of us...
I cite this section because Daniel is right...and this arrogance is not limited to the young and the zealous. My wife and I have discussed this elitist tendency among Calvinists on many occasions, and because of this, we avoid "Reformed" churches. I know that some of my Calvinist friends might gasp at me saying this, but it is the general tendency when Calvinists get together. It's not that they "come off" as arrogant--the most vocal Calvinists typically are arrogant and elitist. This is ironic to me, because elitism is inconsistent with Calvinist theology, although it is often it an outcome when people let sinful arrogance reign in their hearts. I will explain this inconsistency more in a moment.
This elitism does not come out of the doctrine of election itself--it simply comes from thinking that we are right and the rest are wrong. It comes from the belief that we preach the truth and the rest preach blasphemies, and the arrogance is most apparent when we think that we have nothing to learn from Christians outside of the Reformed circles. You can see that I am speaking from experience...
Daniel gives his summary of the 5 points of Calvinism:
Total depravity - this expression does not occur in scripture, but if it means that "every inclination of all the thoughts of their hearts were evil, and that continually" that causes me to wonder why so many non-Christians do so many apparently good (or at least refrain from even more evil) things. Calvin himself addressed this problem with what he called "restraining grace" which is in my opinion very similar to what Wesley called "prevenient grace." Both of them ended up saying the same thing: we are totally depraved in theory, but it doesn't play out that way in practice (Calvin says we are able to refrain from some evil and Wesley says we are also able to freely choose to accept/reject Christ) all because the grace of God is already at work in every person.
When Daniel said, "this expression does not occur in scripture," he was attempting to bias his reader against Total Depravity. The term "prevenient grace", a term coined by John Wesley (the founder of Methodism, Daniel refers to his sermon against Calvinism) and central to his theology of man, also does not occur in Scripture. Neither does the word Trinity. Just because the actual term does not exist does not mean the concept is not taught in God's Word.
His quoted definition is the correct definition of Total Depravity: every inclination of all the thoughts of our hearts, apart from the redeeming work of Christ, are evil, and on that continually. The definition is a citation out of Genesis 6 and 8. Reformed theologians qualify this "restraining grace" a bit more than Daniel does, and most common term is "common grace." Common grace comes several forms, with the most evident one being human government. The influence of the church upon society is another form of common grace. It is common grace that prevents the human heart from plunging into anarchy, as can be seen when the presence of certain forms of common grace, such as government, are removed.
However, common grace more often affects man's action rather than his motive. It keeps people from doing evil, but it doesn't necessarily stop man from desiring it. Most Calvinists, myself included, believe that altruism in an unbeliever is rare at best, if not impossible. Even when good is done, it is done with corrupt motives. Common grace also does not save; it does not change the obstinate heart of the sinner to be able to accept Christ.
In fact, Wesley's "prevenient grace" is an outflow of his belief in something similar to total depravity. Wesley did believe in severe noetic effects of sin; sin impeded man's ability to come to Christ. In Wesley's doctrine of prevenient grace, God temporarily removes the effects of sin when the gospel call is made so that a persons response to the gospel is truly his own without any influence from God or sin. Prevenient grace is what make a "free choice" possible. In common grace, God does not remove the corruption of sin, he merely limits its capabilities through external means. In prevenient grace, the corruption is removed for the purpose of "free choice." Hence, these concepts are not one in the same.
Total depravity is not a "theory." It is a consistent teaching of Scripture, and it is the basis of biblical grace (Eph 2). Before Christ, my will was a slave to sin to do its bidding. It's reality can be seen, for we all know what we are truly like we no one is looking, and we see what people (and governments) can do when accountability is removed.
There is a biblical basis for Total Depravity and Common Grace. Genesis 6 and 8 cite Daniel's definition almost verbatim. Psalm 14, John 6:44; Romans 1-3; Isaiah 53:6; Ephesians 2:1-10; Romans 13; among many others. If you need more, let me know.
More to come...wifey says it's time for bed.
Labels: Theology
In chapter 16, we come to Miller's idea of worship. He begins with saying that there are many things in Christian spirituality that are confusing. Well, he says that they are more than confusing, they are contradictory:
There are many ideas within Christian spirituality that contradict the facts of reality as I know them...Love...beauty. Jesus as God.
If these ideas contradict the facts of reality, are they even real? Essentially, Miller is trying to say that many ideas and concepts within the Christian faith are difficult to understand--and some are impossible to fully understand. I would certainly agree with this, but I would not use the term contradiction to categorize these difficult ideas. Tense, of course. Indescribable, in some ways, yes. Contradictory, never. The definition of contradiction is this: if statement A is true, then statement B is false, and if statement B is true then statement A is false. One must true and the other false. If both can be false, but at most one can be true, then we have concepts that are contrary, but not contradictory. In a contradiction, one statement must be true and the other false.
A married bachelor, a circle square, a smart Democrat (little joke at my friend Donald Miller's expense): these are contradictions. Three Persons in one Godhead? Not a contradiction. It is a difficult concept to comprehend and explain, but categorically, it is not a contradiction. Love is not a contradiction simply because it is not a tangible thing, and neither is beauty a contradiction because of its subjective nature.
I have a friend who is a seminary student who criticizes certain Christian writers for embracing what he call "mysticism." I asked him if his statement meant that he is not a mystic. Of course not, he told me. I asked him if he believed in the Trinity. He said he did. I asked if he believed that the Trinity represented three separate persons who are also one. He said he did. I asked him if that would be considered a mystical idea. He just stood there thinking.
You cannot be a Christian without being a mystic.
Three separate persons in one God would certainly be a mystical (as in impossible) idea--but it is not the definition of the Trinity. This is an uninformed statement on Millers part, and it doesn't prove his point. First, no orthodox theologian would ever say that the Persons of the Trinity are separate--that would be tritheism. The proper term is distinct: three distinct Persons of the one divine essence.
Second, Miller hijacks his friends argument by redefining mysticism. There is an ancient form of philosophical practice and belief called mysticism, and these ideas have influenced many Christian thinkers. The Christian form of mysticism is most often expressed in gnosticism, although there are other forms of mystic Christianity. There are teachings in mystic and gnostic practices that are contrary to Christian belief. Miller redefines mysticism in etymological terms alone: mysticism is the belief in anything mysterious and unexplainable. Of course, we Christian have many beliefs that are mysterious...but that is not the mysticism Miller friend is talking about.
In the entirety of this chapter, Miller seems to think that he knows he is right because he "feels awe." We essentially should never engage God intellectually, only emotionally. Fearing God and being in awe of God are the path to wisdom, says Miller. However, the intellectual engagement of God's nature is not an act of reducing God to math (something Miller accuses theologians of doing), in fact, it can spark incredible feelings of awe, wonder, fear, and humility. In fact, Solomon says in Ecclesiastes that with much wisdom comes much despair...
At the end of the day, when I am lying in bed and I know that the chances of any of our theology of being exactly right are a million to one, I need to know that God has things figured out, that if my math is wrong we are still going to be okay...I don't there there is any better worship than wonder.
Miller, there is no possible way for you to know that God has things "figured out" (as if He has to think through these things) if your theology has a "million to one" chance of being "exactly right." This is purely emotional rambling...
Also, God isn't sitting up in heaven trying to get us to sit down and wonder all day long. Worship is best expressed in obedience. We can wonder all day long, but if we fail to obey God's commands, we do not respect Him, and wonder and disrespect can coexist. Reverence and obedience together cannot coexist with disrespect.
Lastly, which will be the final critique I make in this book (although I could make many more), Miller tells us in the next chapter:
I began to attend a Unitarian church...The people were wonderful...I was comfortable there...I did not like their flaky theology, though...
In respect to his "million to one" comment, he has no right to criticize the Unitarians of flaky theology. If he can't be certain of his own, then he forfeits his ability to judge the theology of others--unless Miller wants to be a hypocrite...
All in all, I judge this book to be a great glimpse into shallow emotionalism, but as far as a source of spiritual growth, it's not a good resource. Miller is inconsistent in his own theology and offers us nothing of real substance outside of his demand to "feel God." In fact, I think this book can be dangerous to someone who doesn't think critically about spiritual issues. He advocates an perspective of anti-intellectualism (thinking about God is dangerous) and fails to engage God's revelation in the Bible at all. Not one verse is cited verbatim, some are alluded to, but no unbeliever will ever know which words are Scripture and which are Millers. When Miller does directly attribute his words to a biblical source, he doesn't tell you where to find it.
The gospel that Miller presents is a social gospel intended to save us from our own "self-addiction" to an awareness of social causes that we need to follow. There is no demand for repentance, no explanation of God's wrath and anger, and no discussion of what Christ actually did on the cross. Christ is here to fix up the mess of my life and make me feel good about myself. It's all about me and what I can gain from "Christian spirituality"; The god of this book looks nothing like the God of the Bible. He is passive, waiting, drunk with love, figuring things out, incapable of truly revealing Himself to a point where we can be certain, risking Himself--among other near-blasphemous ideas. Hence the reason I use the word dangerous.
Labels: Book Reviews, Theology
Chapter 13 is titled "Romance." It's was one of the most humorous chapters in the book to read. In it, Miller presented the analogy of human marital love with that of God's love for us. His anecdotes of dating and "finding the one" were hilarious and easy to empathize with, but again, we should not use romance as a metaphor of God's love. He does not seduce us with flowers, a nice restaurant, and candles. His love is expressed in terms of action and commitment, not mere romantic feelings.
"I mean that to be in a relationship with God is to be loved purely and furiously. And a person who thinks himself as unlovable cannot be in a relationship with God because he can't accept who God is; a Being that is love...," Paul says... [Pages 146-147]
In order to understand the theological implications of this comment (which is spoken by a married friend of Miller's, but Miller's tone indicates that he buys into it), one must understand that this comment is an enthymeme--a conclusion drawn from unmentioned premises. The premise is this: God's love for mankind is rooted in man's "being lovable." In other words, God's love in not rooted in God's character alone--despite whatever condition in which man may be. No, rather, it is also grounded in qualities that man possesses that make him lovable. Several times in the book Miller has qualified God's love as "unconditional", but now he tells us that man is "lovable." God's love cannot be unconditional if we deserve it, and if we do not deserve God's love, then we are not inherently lovable.
If God's love is truly unconditional (which it is), then it matters not that man is lovable (which he is, in fact, not). If man were lovable, possessing the qualities that deserve God's love, then the idea of free grace is completely obliterated. If you need more proof that Miller buys into this man-centered theology, listen to the closing words from a play Miller wrote, which are also the closing words of chapter 13.
God risked Himself on me. I will risk myself on you. And together, we will learn to love, and perhaps then, and only then, understand the gravity that drew Him, unto us.
Miller completely has it backwards here. Biblically speaking, it is God who draw us to Him. Here, Miller seems to think that somehow we have something, some quality, some attribute, who knows what, that created a "gravity that drew [God] unto us." It is God who is drawn to us in Miller's theology. We are the center of God's universe.
Moreover, I hate the word "risk" in relation to God. In order to truly say that God took a risk, one must also say that God does not know something. The concept of risk depends on the concept of chance, and chance depends on a lack on knowledge. These words of Miller's are an appeal to warm fuzzies that carry severe theological consequences. For you logicians and mathematicians:
God + Risk < Omniscience
For the rest of you, this means that if God could take a risk, God cannot be omniscient--He knows less than everything.
Chapters 14 and 15 deal with the importance of community. This is decent content, besides the endorsement of profanity [Page 179]. The devil's goal is to get you to cuss. ;-) (See my previous reviews to get this joke). Chapter 16 concerns the importance of faith involved with giving. This is also decent material, besides the bashing of conservatives on page 188.
Next review will complete chapters 17 - 20, and thus finish the book.
Labels: Book Reviews, Theology
Happy 2007 to all!
In chapter 12, Miller gives us his idea of the institution of the church. He begins the chapter with the admission of his antipathy for institutions--especially corporations. (Who published this book?) He is not saying that institutions are bad, just that he doesn't like them. Some people have a dislike for pizza, Miller doesn't like institutions. "Those people never want to just talk; they always have an agenda." What would your agenda be, Don?
He does admit to the necessity of institutions and corporations, but he still doesn't like 'em. "It's my right." Yes, Miller it is. You have a right to dislike institutions, but then use them for your own personal gain and notoriety. Thomas Nelson (the publisher of your book) is a corporation. The newspapers and magazines that run your columns are institutions. This hostility for institutions also was for the church--until he found on he liked, Imago Dei in Portland.
"It doesn't do any good to bash churches." Yet between here and the end of the book, he caricatures politically conservative evangelical churches on a regular basis--even on the next page.
I felt like people were trying to sell me Jesus. I was a salesman for a while, and we were taught that you are supposed to point out all the benefits of a product when you are selling it. That is how I felt about some of the preachers I heard speak. They were always pointing out the benefits of the Christian faith. That rubbed me wrong....Did they have to talk about spirituality like it's a vacuum cleaner. I never felt like Jesus was a product. I wanted Him to be a person. Not only that, but they were always pointing out how great the specific church was. The bulletin read like a brochure for Amway. They were always saying how life-changing some conference was going to be. Life-changing?... [Page 131]
If this isn't bashing, I don't what is. I also hold in suspicion similar marketing tactics churches use to win converts. The presentation of the gospel should be based upon Scripture alone. However, isn't Miller also trying to "sell" his version of Jesus in this book? Why write a 240 page book to "sell" "Christian spirituality"? That rubbed me wrong. Miller can't have his cake an eat it too. In all honesty, Miller comes off as a hypocrite throughout this book. I agree that people often turn Jesus into a product, but is it intentional? Do the churches here in the South see Jesus as a nonperson product? Of course not. This is nothing more than a caricature--a straw man. If you need more evidence of Miller's hypocrisy in light of the citation above, take a look at the endorsements on the back cover of the book.
"Think of Donald Miller as ... Anne Lamott with testosterone, and this fresh memoir-like collection of essays as his version of Traveling Mercies. Miller's words will resonate with any believer who has ever grappled with the paradoxes of the faith." -- Christianity Today
"It's hard to find people who write about God from a position of commitment but still sound as if they're being human and honest ... Donald Miller is such a person." -- John Ortburg
"Donald Miller writes like a good improv solo--smooth, sweet, surprising, uplifting, and full of soul and fury and joy. When I finished the last page, I felt warmed, full of hope, and confident that this great book will echo with beauty in many, many lives just as it is doing in mine." -- Brian McLaren
For anyone wondering if the Christian faith is still relevant in a post-modern culture,
For anyone thirsting for a genuine encounter with a God who is real,
For anyone yearning for a renewed sense of passion in life...
Blue Like Jazz is a fresh and original perspective on life, love, and redemption.
Do I need to say anymore? To me, this is pure hypocrisy. He should have thought twice about allowing endorsements such as these on the cover of his book when he criticizes churches for advertising a conference as "life-changing" (a practice that bothers me as well) inside its covers.
From here, Miller discusses Mark Driscoll, Pastor of Mars Hill is Seattle who is known for vulgarity in his sermons. In this section [Pages 135-136], Miller dismisses as superstitious those who might object to Driscoll's vulgarity. "I think some of my friends believed that that is was the goal of the devil to get people to say cusswords, so they thought Mark was possessed or something, and they told me I should not really get into anything he was a part of." Nice preclusion, Don. Of course, no one might have legitimate concerns about vulgarity in the pulpit and pastorate. You can't criticize someone for being authentic--and cussing is authentic.
Read 1 Timothy 3. A bishop (office of clergy/pastor) should be above reproach, in control of his impulses, modest, decent, and well- behaved. The interesting thing about Driscoll is that his theology is good--but is behavior is questionable at best, and indecent at worst. Driscoll then introduces Miller's current pastor, Rick, to Miller. "At the time, we [Rick and Miller] both chewed tobacco" and Rick "said a few cusswords but not as bad as Mark." Rick is the pastor at Imago Dei, a church that now has a substantial congregation. Do these men have the characteristics outlined in 1 Timothy 3?
Miller then talks about how great a church Imago Dei is [Page 136]. Isn't this doing the same thing as those churches he didn't like?
On page 137, Miller tells us, "I speak from the pulpit at Imago from time to time, and I am completely comfortable saying anything I like." This is very troubling to me, especially as one who preaches from time to time. II should never feel "completely comfortable" saying my thoughts from the pulpit. The pulpit is not meant to be a forum for the exchange of trendy ideas, it is meant to the the place in which men of God preach the Word of God. Nothing more, and certainly nothing less. Miller has made it clear that he does not sense a responsibility to preach and teach truth when he enters the pulpit. It's more important that he be "authentic."
I've read the rest of the book now. For this point on, I will address any issues that I really liked or issues of grave concern for me. Honestly, I had more issues of concern than things I liked--simply because of the book's inconsistency and popularity.
Labels: Book Reviews, Theology
First, Happy New Years. You can see that my wife and I have no life, because I am blogging on New Year's Eve. But, it could be worse. I could be reading my blog on the evening of New Year's Eve ;-).
Chapter 11 is titled "Confession." It is an interesting chapter, to say the least. In it, Miller defines "Christian spirituality" for us. In my opinion, Miller hijacked the term Christianity to mean something that it does not mean. He tells us, "Stop ten people on the street and ask them what they think of when they hear the word Christianity, and they will give you ten different answers." I'm sorry, but in all likelihood, the ten people you stop on the street probably are not going to be Christians either. Should we use the ignorance of a lost world to dismiss using a term rich with both diversity and history?
Sure, many people in the past have had horrible experiences with those who claim to be ambassadors of "Christianity", but that doesn't mean we should abandon the term Christianity. In fact, when we define the term correctly, we must face and address the sinful parts of our faith's history.
For me, the beginning of sharing my faith with people began by throwing out Christianity and embracing Christian spirituality, a nonpolitical mysterious system that can be experienced but not explained. Christianity, unlike Christian spirituality, was not a term that excited me. And I could not in good conscious tell a friend about a faith that didn't excite me. I couldn't share something I wasn't experiencing. And I wasn't experiencing Christianity...It felt like math, a system of rights and wrongs and political beliefs, but it wasn't mysterious; it wasn't God reaching out of heaven to do wonderful things in my life... [Page 115-116]
If Christian spirituality "can...not be explained", then why write a 240 page book about it? I couldn't, in good conscious, tell a friend about a faith I couldn't explain, either. There are aspects of the Christian life that are subjective to one's own experience. If there is no experience of conversion, it makes no sense to say that conversion took place. Every good and honest theologian has experienced the Christian life, the difficulties and the blessings. There is no feeling in the world like that of knowing that you have been redeemed from your sin and that you stand approved and love in the sight of God. Before that feeling, there must be a inward experience of conviction, remorse, and dread due to sin, "Turn your wrath from me, a sinner." (Luke 18:13)
But, a good theology is not rooted in experience, rather it is meant to explain the experiences of the Christian life--to define what experiences are of God and which are not. To Miller, experience defines truth. Biblically, truth should define and qualify experience. To me, Miller is an intellectual and attempts to portray himself as an intellectual, but he embraces contradiction at many turns. We wants to tell his friends about an unexplainable faith. Belief is something that chooses us and something we choose. He tries to make fashionable a belief that is, by nature and his own admission, unfashionable. This is either anti-intellectualism or doublespeak to please all of his readers.
For the rest of the chapter, Don tells us of the time when he and his friends built a confession booth on Reed's campus during Ren Fayre, a festival in which the campus is shut down and the students party to their hearts' content. Anything goes, too. Sex, drugs, binge drinking, all sorts of stuff. The confession booth is not what you may think, though. The booth is for Miller and his friends to confess the sins of the church to the students at Reed. An interesting idea, but it bothers me that he feels obligated to apologize on behalf of the Christian faith in order to share his faith. I understand the need to break the ice, but this is not the way. Nowhere in the New Testament do you see preachers and evangelists apologizing on behalf of those Jews who got things wrong about the Messiah. This approach to win converts is to make the unbeliever feel good about the Christian faith, not to make unbeliever aware of his sin and understand his need for God's provision.
Labels: Book Reviews, Theology
Chapter 9 is titled "Change." In this chapter, Miller discusses his transformation from a fundamentalist variety of Christianity to one that is more "personal" and "authentic"--the time in which he made his true commitment to Jesus Christ. Miller paints a nice picture with his words concerning his experience in the Grand Canyon, under the vast amounts of stars, making his peace with God.
However, the interesting part for me came at the end of the chapter.
As I lay there, it occurred to me that God is up there [beyond the stars in the sky] somewhere...this time I felt it, I realized it, the way a person realizes that they are hungry or thirsty. The knowledge of God seeped out of my brain and into my heart. I imagined Him looking down to this earth, half angry because his beloved mankind had cheated on Him, had committed adultery, and yet hopelessly in love with her, drunk with love for her...
...I am wanted by God. He is wanting to preserve me...
To describe God as "drunk with love" more than bothers me. To me, this sentiment makes God seem emotionally out of control. God's actions are not driven by emotion. If this is Miller's "knowledge of God", then He doesn't know the God of the Bible very well. God is not "in love" with creation. Matter a fact, God is more than "half-angry"; He is wrathful. To say that God is "in love" transforms God's love from something that is expressed in selfless action to that which is expressed in mere romantic feelings. Such romanticism may make the reader have warm fuzzies, but it does not express God's hostility, wrath, and judgment towards sin. A depraved sinner has little problem believing in a God who overlooks sin, but only those sinners convicted by God's grace accept a God whose holy (a word yet to be discussed by Miller) love still demands a propitiation for sin...
Miller opens chapter 10 like this:
My most recent faith struggle is not one of intellect. I really don't do that anymore. Sooner or later you just figure out there are some guys who don't believe in God and they can prove He doesn't exist, and some other guys who do believe in God and they can prove He does exist, and the argument stopped being about God a long time ago and now it's about who is smarter, and honestly I don't care.
This is one of the most arrogant and judgmental statements in the entirety of the book (besides the consistent stabs at Republicans). The now all-wise Miller dismisses--in a mere half-paragraph--the need of a field of study that generations of brilliant Christians have devoted their entire lives to: apologetics. Augustine, Anselm, Pascal, Luther, Calvin, C. S. Lewis, Van Til, Clark, Ravi Zacharias (a name mentioned favorably by Miller later in the book), and a host of others all have wasted their mental capacities in demonstrating that they are smarter than the atheists. Of course they had no genuine devotion of Christ--as least not a strong as Miller's.
Honestly, I wanted to stop the book review at this point. This run-on sentence is completely irresponsible and hypocritical--the smugness of the tone implied that he was smarter than those whom he was critiquing.
...I realized that believing in God is much like falling in love as it is like making a decision. Love is both something that happens to you and something you decide upon.
This is the definition of synergism without using theological terms. There are many astute theologians (Norman Geisler, for example) that are synergists; they believe that conversion is the result of a cooperation of the human will with the divine. If the human will does not cooperate, there is no conversion. I am a monergist; I hold that the human will cannot cooperate with the divine influence, unless the divine manifests a change within the obstinate heart of the human being. Ultimately, conversion is the result of God's providential influence over the heart of the sinner--not the sinner's cooperation.
According to Miller, belief is something that "happens to you" [the divine will] and something "you decide upon" [the human will]. To justify this theology, Miller cites no Scripture, no astute theologian; only anecdotal evidence based solely in his experience as a Christian.
Can you imagine if Christians actually believed that God was trying to rescue them from the pit of their own self-addiction? Can you imagine? Can you imagine what Americans would do if they understood over half of the world was living in poverty? Do you think it would change they way they live, the products they purchase, and the politicians they elect? [Page 106-107]
God is not trying to rescue us from "the pit our own self-addiction." God does not try to do anything--He does all He intends to do (Isaiah 46:10). He does not need us to cooperate in order to rescue us, and when He does rescue us, He saves us from the pits of a fiery and eternal hell!
Don, I forgive you for the shameless liberal plug in the second half of this excerpt--even though it is a non-sequitur.
The problem with Christian belief--I mean real Christian belief, the belief that there is a God and a devil and a heaven and a hell--is that it is not a fashionable thing to believe. [Page 107]
Miller then goes on to criticize the attempts of the church to make Christian belief to seem cool--which to me completely undermines a purpose of this book. The whole book is an attempt to make Christianity seem more appealing to his audience--to make it seem exciting, cool, and something that agrees with the political left. Yet again, Miller comes off as a hypocritical to me, and if I were an unbeliever, I would not only think this repackaged Christianity as uncool, but dishonest as well. Kudos on finally mentioning hell, though. It's about time.
All great Christian leaders are simple thinkers. Andrew [an activist friend of his who is known for protesting conservative politics] doesn't cloak his altruism in a trickle-down economic theory that allows him to spend fifty dollars on a round of golf to feed the economy and provide jobs for the poor. He actually believes that when Jesus says to feed the poor, He means that you should do this directly.
More conservative caricatures. Most evangelical Christians who are politically conservative, that loathsome Religious Right, are so because of moral issues like abortion, euthanasia, and gay-marriage--not for economical issues. Most of them don't even know what trickle-down economic theory is. Some do. However, contrary to Miller's stereotype, when compared to any demographic in the nation, this group gives more in direct charitable contributions to churches and organizations that give to the poor--both in numbers and percentages of annual income. They are extremely generous on the whole--save the prosperity theologians. Honestly, these subtle condemnations of Republican Christians are too numerous--and I needed to get this off my chest. I promise to stick to theology from now on.
From here Miller makes some great points: Miller criticizes postmodernity (although he seems a bit post-modern in his theology). It's "another tool of Satan to get people to be passionate about nothing." Agreed. On the last page of Chapter 10, Miller tells us, "Jesus is the most important figure in history, and the gospel is the most powerful force in the universe." Again, agreed. However, what is the gospel? What gives the gospel it's power? These questions Miller has not clearly answered.
Labels: Apologetics, Book Reviews, Theology
I am honored to have James White, a well known Christian apologist and Reformed theologian, answer a question I submitted to him on his radio broadcast. Here is a link to the recording, and he answers my question starting at 18:43. (18 min and 33 seconds).
As I was reading Matthew, I came across this in 11:20-23:
20 Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: 21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you."
Those of you who read my blog on a regular basis know that I am Reformed in my theology, and have been so since 2002. I believe that the whole counsel of Scripture supports the Calvinist position, and I have heard few credible arguments against it--and no "unanswerable" ones.
However, there are times that I come across verses that seem to support the opposing position. The first "point" of Calvinism is Total Depravity, which describes humankind as completely fallen and depraved in nature. His inclination is always toward sin and rebellion, and because of this nature, man has not the ability to choose God on his own. Left to his own devices and given a choice between himself, an idol, or God, God would never be his choice.
I noticed that an implication could be drawn from the passage above that undermine the doctrine of Total Depravity. So I sent James White this email:
As a Calvinist, I have a question about Matthew 11:23..[Citation of the Verse]...and its implication on Reformed Theology, particularly Total Depravity. I've heard Reformed preachers say that it shows that God does not intend for all to be saved, which I agree with, I see that it demonstrates that God chose not to show them such mighty works and not give them the opportunity to repent.
However, if an opponent of Reformed theology were to use this verse in connection to Total Depravity--not necessarily God's election--and argue the verse in this manner:
"This verse implies that man is not totally depraved, for Jesus even said that if the people of Sodom would have seen his works, they would have believed--implying that they have the ability to believe."
How would you respond?
I haven't personally recieved this objection, but I as I was reading this verse, I noticed that it could be taken in such a way.
Thanks.
Brent Railey, Baton Rouge, LA
Dr. White's response was quite lengthy, about 7 minutes, and it was quite good. It was the approach I would have taken with my deficient ability to analyze the Greek, and the approach is called the Analogy of Faith--let Scripture interpret Scripture. No Scripture should ever be interpreted in isolation to a point that it is contrary to the general teaching of the Bible. Essentially, the opponent has tried to unpack the assumptions behind Jesus' words, and has not done a good job of it.
I know that there aren't cookie cutter answers for every Arminian verse in the Bible, and I wasn't looking for one. I only wanted to see if I was overlooking something obvoius in the text. The overall concern of the text is the proclamation of judgment. Christ makes a comparison of the Jewish cities to those of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, and Christ deemed it important to tell them that those cities would have repented had they seen Christ's works. Hence, because the Jews were more hardened, they face harsher judgment.
The works of Christ are not the works of a mere man--they are the work of God. Christ said that it would have taken a work of God to penetrate the hearts of those in Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom and cause them to repent. Without them, they obviously didn't repent. Hence, there is no implied ability in this text, or else Christ would have said "some did believe all on their own." In fact, there is an equal, if not a heavier, implication that it would have required a work on God's part to cause those in Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom to repent.
Even if the above implication [that man has the ability to repent] were true, the opposing postion has not gained any ground on this passage. If God intends and desires all to be saved, why didn't God show Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom his mighty works?
Labels: Theology
Labels: Apologetics, Theology
The title of chapter 6 is "Redemption." I was hoping for some discussion of the theology of Redemption (I know this is not a theology book, but even in devotional and inspirational reads, theological concepts are dealt with on a consistent basis). One would think a chapter titled "Redemption" would include a discussion of the purchase that took place at Calvary, but Miller doesn't discuss it at all. It wasn't his intention: The chapter began with the experience of redemption, but never discussed its mechanics, and ended with the struggle with sin for the believer.
Some of the content was good. I loved the honesty about the struggle of sin after conversion, and I appreciated his candid discussion of the particular vices with which he struggled. Conversion does not make the believer sinless. In fact, it amplifies the struggle to level unknown before. Before conversion, the new believer was unaware as to how sinful he truly was. After conversion, God's holy love reveals to us the innermost depths of our sin for the rest of our life. It can be most despairing, to say the least, in the midst of such struggle with sin.
On page 60, Don tells us, "Joy is a temporal thing. Its brief capacity, as reference, gives it its pleasure." Biblical joy is never meant to be a temporal thing, for it rests in the grace and everlasting promises of God to his creatures. Moreover, Miller seems define every Christian experience in merely subjective and emotional terms. Faith is "something we feel." Joy is compared to a new couple "feeling" in love.
The closing paragraph of chapter 6 is one that I empathized with:
My answer to this dilemma [of loving to do sinful things] was self-discipline. I figured that I could just make myself do good things, think good thought about other people, but that was no easier than walking up to a complete stranger and falling in love with them. I could go through the motions for a while, but sooner or later my heart would testify to its true love: darkness. Then I would get up and try again. The cycle was dehumanizing.
This was a nice a segue into the next chapter [7], titled "Grace." At the beginning of this chapter, Don discusses his experience as a "fundamentalist." Then he discusses the experience of his pastor's similar experience. This is the first time that Miller mentions the death of Christ for the forgiveness of sins. [Page 82] It was mentioned during Miller's telling of his pastor's conversion experience--but it was mentioned as a part of the story with no explanation as to its necessity. From this point on, I get a confusing message as to what the grace of God is. Miller does not describe God's grace as necessary for conversion, and he never describes grace in terms of our complete unworthiness of it. Although he does asks himself, "Who am I to think myself above God's charity?" [Page 85], not once does he say that he is completely undeserving of God's charity. He does imply that it can't be earned, but that is something entirely different than saying that man deserves the opposite of charity and love: condemnation.
On the final page of the chapter, we get an interesting message from Miller as to what enables us to love God.
...Rick loves God because he accepts God's unconditional love first.
Rick says that I will love God because he first loved me. I will obey God because I love God. But if I cannot accept God's love, I cannot love Him in return, and I cannot obey him...The ability to accept God's unconditional grace and ferocious love is all the fuel we need to obey Him in return...God woos us with kindness, He changes our character with the passion of His love.
From whence does this ability to accept God' grace and love come? Is it something within the capacity of fallen humanity to do? In reference to Ephesians 2:1-10, Can the dead in sin raise themselves to life? From this, I must assume that Miller thinks that man must enable himself to love God by accepting the free gift of grace. However, biblically speaking, the acceptance of grace by faith is a part to the grace itself. Apart from God's calling, we could neither experience nor desire his grace.
Let me clarify: Is my ability to truly love and obey God contingent upon my ability to accept God's grace? Or, is my ability to accept, love, and obey wholly dependent on the grace of God in which He tames my rebellious heart even when I would not come. In Miller's theology, God apparently cannot change our character unless we let Him. Biblically, God must change our character for us to even trust Him.
Miller is correct in saying that our ability to obey God is wholly dependent on the grace of God--Miller is wrong in saying that accepting God's love is what grants this grace. In fact, accepting God's love is an act of obedience itself, so how can we do it apart from God's grace?
In chapter 8, Miller makes some of the strongest points of the book insofar--and he makes one of his strongest theological assertions yet. He discuss the Christian tendency to use God for their own ends and egos--instead of serving Him for his purposes. In a story in which he dialogues with Moses, Miller says this:
"Don," Moses responds, "...I want you to understand that God has never been nor ever will be invented. He is not a product of any sort of imagination. He does not obey trends. And God let us out of Egypt because you people cried out to Him. He was answering your prayers because He is a God of compassion. He could have left you to Satan. Don't complain about the way God answers your prayers....Your problem is no that God is not fulfilling, your problem is that you are spoiled." [Page 92]
Amen. Then we come to this:
...God is not here to worship me, to mold Himself into something that will help me fulfill my level of comfort.
Not much to more I could say. I only hope this is what Miller actually practices throughout the rest of the book, for the god he has presented so far is a god more of human imagination than revelation.
Labels: Book Reviews, Theology
I love to hike in the Sierra. One time recently I was on a hike, by myself. I had gone four or five miles back to a beautiful lake. Circling around to the back side of the lake, I took some pictures. Up the rocky shore, I saw a spot that looked like it would be a perfect vantage point for a great picture. So I started to make my way across the rocks to this spot -- when suddenly the bank gave away under my feet! The rocks tumbled and rolled, and so did I. In a flash, I found myself dunked in the lake.
I was fine, but what a terrible feeling it was. It's a terrible feeling to trust yourself to something, to put all your weight on it, confidently, and then find that it can't hold you. It's a terrible feeling when your support collapses from under you. It's a terrible feeling when the very ground gives way beneath you, and you fall.
To what shall we trust our souls? To whom? Who or what can bear our weight, the weight of our sin and guilt, of our immortal selves? If we trust our souls to any mere mortal, no matter how holy or saintly, no matter how godly -- they are sinners, too, and they cannot hold us. They will collapse. Joseph cannot hold us. He would collapse. Mary cannot save us. She would give way. No mere child of Adam can hold the weight of our sin and need. All would dissolve into rubble beneath us.
Only Jesus can support us. He shows us this in His cry from the Cross: It is finished!
Know well: this is no cry of despair. Jesus does not say, "I am finished." No, it is a cry of victory. The Greek tetelestai means that it has been brought to consummation, to perfect completion. The word was used of bills that had been "paid in full."
When our Lord cries thus on the Cross, He is signifying that He, He Himself, He alone in His own person, had fully paid every last farthing, every penny, of His people's debt to God. He had left nothing undone of what the Father's plan of salvation required. Alone, unaided, hanging on the cross, under the holy wrath of God for sinners, Jesus Christ made full atonement for all the sins of His people.
And now we believe Jesus, or we do not. If we look to "Jesus-and" -- to Jesus and our pastor, to Jesus and Mary, to Jesus and any other mortal or any other sect or any other practice or any other thing -- then we do not believe Jesus. We do not accept His word, "It is finished."
We must look to Jesus, to Jesus alone, for salvation. We must trust ourselves to the One who cried "It is finished!"
Again, confidence is derived from something--It must rest on something. It has to put its full weight upon something. I would offer this: To rest your confidence in anything other than Christ and his Work is to essentially tell Jesus, "No, it is not finished."
Labels: Theology
Most true Christians have struggled at some point in their walk—especially in the times in which they constantly stumble and succumb to temptation—with doubt as to the reality of their salvation. I know I’ve been there, and I know my wife has been there as well. There is a reason for this: we are constantly, albeit unconsciously, inserting our merits and qualities into the work of salvation. You can see this is true in the questions we ask ourselves and the thoughts of our minds in our times of overwhelming doubt.
“Did I really commit my life to Christ?”
“Did I walk the aisle for the right reason?”
“I simply sin too much to be saved.”
“I do not do enough good things.”
“I certainly don’t have the Christian life that John or Sally has.”
Look at these typical thoughts of doubt. Analyze them. Think of the other contemplations you’ve had in times of doubt and analyze them.
In such thoughts, who is indicated as the object of our trust? I would offer that it is not Christ, but ourselves. When we have such thought of doubts, we are actually trusting in a commitment we have made, or perhaps a prayer we once prayed, or in the works of our hands to bear evidence to ourselves of our own salvation. We are not trusting on the unchanging, immutable promise of God manifested in his Word (and I mean both the Person of Christ and the Scripture).
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. Romans 3:19-30
This is one of my most favorite passages in all of the Bible, and it is one among many that helped me put away my struggle with doubt forever. Most of us who partake in an evangelical church, particularly Baptist, can quote Romans 3:23 by heart. However, that is the concluding remark and summarizing statement of a point that has taken Paul nearly three chapters to make: The purpose of the Law was to bring the knowledge of sin, and the all the world (and in this case world refers to all of its inhabitants) is guilty before God by the judgment of the Law. Romans 3:24 starts Paul's next point—redemption in Christ.
Look a the terms used in verses 24-26: justified, grace, redemption, propitiation, blood, faith, and righteousness. These words paint a picture of substitution—especially the word propitiation, which refers to an offering that becomes the object of God's wrath in the place of the offender. At Calvary, God made Jesus Christ, "who knew no sin to be sin for us." (2 Corinthians 5:21) In the Greek, "for us" uses the term huper, which indicates that God made Christ to be sin on our behalf. As Spurgeon would put it: Christ became sin in our stead. God took the guilt of sin and placed it upon perfect and blameless Christ, and then He released his wrath toward sin upon Christ. Christ bore within Himself the penalty that was due us. He paid the price on our behalf.
His Work accomplished that which we ourselves could never accomplish.
How does this connect to the doubt of our salvation? To doubt our salvation is to essentially say this: The accomplishment of Christ is not enough. We must do something to add to it—something to perfect it.
In fact, our faith and commitment to Him are part of the redeeming effects of Christ's work—particularly of His resurrection. In order for grace to be grace, there can be no work or effort on our part to perfect that which Christ, the everlasting Son of God, has accomplished. By the power of His resurrection, we were by grace brought to life from spiritual death so that we may come to Christ through faith. By the power of Atonement on the cross, our sin has been forever removed from our account. Every aspect of our conversion to and salvation in Christ is a miracle powered by completed work of Christ Jesus, in His life, in His death, and in the resurrection.
To doubt our salvation is to say that we had some work in it; that some choice or action of ours can perhaps revoke it or make it void; that our conversion was not a miracle of resurrection accomplished by the living God, but something we accomplished on our own. It is to say that Christ Himself did not do enough to effect our salvation.
Therefore, doubt is an offence to the cross of Christ. Once I understood this, I've never struggled with doubt since. In fact, the placement of my trust has further centered toward the Living Christ and his completed, imperishable Work and further away from any merit, work, or quality of my own. If salvation were dependent upon me in any way, doubt is what should reign in the vacuum on my sinful heart.
Labels: Theology
Exist~dissolve and Deviant Monk both have have charged Reformed theology of pantheism, the belief that there is no distinction between God and the creation--God is all and all is God. Exist tells us:
If one begins from the foundation of the "eternal decrees of God," I see no way in which one can avoid a thoroughly materialist conception of God’s relationship to creation. Related to this, I object to the way in which the Reformed crowd explicates the "sovereignty" of God. As the language which the Reformed crowd utilizes betrays, the Reformed conception of God’s sovereignty is utterly materialist, for it proceeds from the basis of phenomenological investigation. In other words, my experience (and actually the necessary conclusions of Reformed confessionalism) of Reformed sovereignty-speak is that God’s sovereignty is ultimately expressed through expression in the temporal/causal sphere. However, by doing this, Reformed theology has ultimately (although perhaps not consciously) reduced God’s sovereignty to that which exists—but if this happens, there is no way in which to separate that which is created from the being of God, for the very description of the nature of God is based upon creation. While I will be the first to admit that it is difficult, if not impossible to speak about God’s sovereignty apart from that which is created (for our language is ultimately linked to our createdness), I also do not believe that this admission requires the gross reduction of God’s sovereignty to causality and over-power which I understand Reformed theology to advocate.
It is this fundamental presupposition which leads to the rest of the errors which I see within Reformed theology, whether one is speaking of Christology, atonement, soteriology, etc. They can all be traced back to this fundamental assumption about the nature of God’s relationship to creation, a relationship which I cannot but see as a philosophical pantheism.
The charge of pantheism is not something that we should take lightly. However, according to exist, our concept of the sovereignty of God is a "fundamental assumption." He tells us that the Reformed explication of God's relationship to creation is not a conclusion of Sola Scriptura, but the opposite--a presupposition. I cannot agree with such a claim. The Reformed "sovereignty-speak" is entirely derived from claims of the Biblical authors, some within quotes of "Thus says the LORD." I give an abbreviated list of examples (all NKJV):
12 "And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good? 14 Indeed heaven and the highest heavens belong to the Lord your God, also the earth with all that is in it. 15 The Lord delighted only in your fathers, to love them; and He chose their descendants after them, you above all peoples, as it is this day. 16 Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer. 17 For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe. 18 He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. 19 Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. 20 You shall fear the Lord your God; you shall serve Him, and to Him you shall hold fast, and take oaths in His name. 21 He is your praise, and He is your God, who has done for you these great and awesome things which your eyes have seen. 22 Your fathers went down to Egypt with seventy persons, and now the Lord your God has made you as the stars of heaven in multitude." Deuteronomy 10:12-22
1 Then Job answered and said: 2 "Truly I know it is so, But how can a man be righteous before God? 3 If one wished to contend with Him, He could not answer Him one time out of a thousand. 4 God is wise in heart and mighty in strength. Who has hardened himself against Him and prospered? 5 He removes the mountains, and they do not know When He overturns them in His anger; 6 He shakes the earth out of its place, And its pillars tremble; 7 He commands the sun, and it does not rise; He seals off the stars; 8 He alone spreads out the heavens, And treads on the waves of the sea; 9 He made the Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades, And the chambers of the south; 10 He does great things past finding out, Yes, wonders without number. 11 If He goes by me, I do not see Him; If He moves past, I do not perceive Him; 12 If He takes away, who can hinder Him? Who can say to Him, 'What are You doing?' 13 God will not withdraw His anger, The allies of the proud lie prostrate beneath Him." Job 9:1-13
1 Then Job answered and said: ... 13 "But He is unique, and who can make Him change? And whatever His soul desires, that He does. 14 For He performs what is appointed for me, And many such things are with Him. 15 Therefore I am terrified at His presence; When I consider this, I am afraid of Him. 16 For God made my heart weak, And the Almighty terrifies me; 17 Because I was not cut off from the presence of darkness, And He did not hide deep darkness from my face." Job 23:1,13-17
1 Then Job answered the Lord and said: 2 "I know that You can do everything, And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You." Job 42:1-2
4 For the word of the Lord is right, And all His work is done in truth. 5 He loves righteousness and justice; The earth is full of the goodness of the Lord. 6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. 7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; F26 He lays up the deep in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the Lord; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. 9 For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. 10 The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect. 11 The counsel of the Lord stands forever, The plans of His heart to all generations. Psalm 33:4-11
1 Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, But to Your name give glory, Because of Your mercy, Because of Your truth. 2 Why should the Gentiles say, "So where is their God?" 3 But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases. 4 Their idols are silver and gold, The work of men's hands. Psalm 115:1-4
5 For I know that the Lord is great, And our Lord is above all gods. 6 Whatever the Lord pleases He does, In heaven and in earth, In the seas and in all deep places. 7 He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain; He brings the wind out of His treasuries. 8 He destroyed the firstborn of Egypt, Both of man and beast. 9 He sent signs and wonders into the midst of you, O Egypt, Upon Pharaoh and all his servants. 10 He defeated many nations And slew mighty kings-- 11 Sihon king of the Amorites, Og king of Bashan, And all the kingdoms of Canaan-- 12 And gave their land as a heritage, A heritage to Israel His people. 13 Your name, O Lord, endures forever, Your fame, O Lord, throughout all generations. 14 For the Lord will judge His people, And He will have compassion on His servants. Psalm 135:5-14
11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end. 12 I know that nothing is better for them than to rejoice, and to do good in their lives, 13 and also that every man should eat and drink and enjoy the good of all his labor--it is the gift of God. 14 I know that whatever God does, It shall be forever. Nothing can be added to it, And nothing taken from it. God does it, that men should fear before Him. 15 That which is has already been, And what is to be has already been; And God requires an account of what is past. Ecclesiastes 3:11-15
24 The Lord of hosts has sworn, saying, "Surely, as I have thought, so it shall come to pass, And as I have purposed, so it shall stand: 25 That I will break the Assyrian in My land, And on My mountains tread him underfoot. Then his yoke shall be removed from them, And his burden removed from their shoulders. 26 This is the purpose that is purposed against the whole earth, And this is the hand that is stretched out over all the nations. 27 For the Lord of hosts has purposed, And who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, And who will turn it back?" (Note: God is speaking in first-person) Isaiah 14:24-27
5 "To whom will you liken Me, and make Me equal And compare Me, that we should be alike? 6 They lavish gold out of the bag, And weigh silver on the scales; They hire a goldsmith, and he makes it a god; They prostrate themselves, yes, they worship. 7 They bear it on the shoulder, they carry it And set it in its place, and it stands; From its place it shall not move. Though one cries out to it, yet it cannot answer Nor save him out of his trouble. 8 Remember this, and show yourselves men; Recall to mind, O you transgressors. 9 Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,' 11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it. 12 "Listen to Me, you stubborn-hearted, Who are far from righteousness: 13 I bring My righteousness near, it shall not be far off; My salvation shall not linger. And I will place salvation in Zion, For Israel My glory." (Note: God is speaking in first-person) Isaiah 46:1-11
24 So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: "Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who by the mouth of Your servant David have said: 'Why did the nations rage, And the people plot vain things? 26 The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the Lord and against His Christ.' 27 For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. 29 Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, 30 by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus." Acts 4:24-30
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "... 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings...for in Him we live and move and have our being" Acts 17:22,24-26
20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Does not the potter have power [gk: exousia] over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? Romans 9:20-21
To God our Savior, Who alone is wise, Be glory and majesty, Dominion and power, Both now and forever. Amen. Jude 25
Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created. Revelation 4:11
Exist tells us that we "reduce God's sovereignty to that which exists." As opposed to what? What else is there for God to rule--Himself? How can God be sovereign over something that does not exist? Even if it does not materially exist, and is a mere thought of God, it still exists in a non-material way and is a creation of sort subject to God's authority. Exist goes on to say, "I will be the first to admit that it is difficult, if not impossible, to speak about God’s sovereignty apart from that which is created." Then where is the argument? How are we to speak of God's rule and reign over all of creation (the meaning of sovereign), if doing so only reduces his sovereignty to that which exists? Do not the verses quoted above, some even attributed as direct citations of God, relate God's sovereignty to that which is created? It seems to be that Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Job, John, and Paul all are guilty of the same charge of pantheism. Even if you totally deny the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which exist does not, we have at minimum an expression of what the human authors thought of God's sovereignty.
The definition of sovereign concerns power, right, and authority. In personal correspondence, exist stated that he would rather not use the term because it had been hijacked by the Reformed crowd. However, do not the above passages demonstrate that God rules and reigns over his creation? In fact, does not the term sovereign imply a relationship between ruler and subject, even if it is between a person and himself as some new-agers would say?
They may respond to my answer in this manner: The way that the Reformed explain God's will practically restricts God to doing what He wills--thereby defining His will and actions by what comes to pass in time and space. How then do you differentiate that which is necessarily God and that which is creation?
Let me begin with an illustration: When a playwright writes a play, he is sovereign over it. By his pen he determines all the qualities of the play, he develops the characters, he dictates the events through the plot, and determines an end. If we were to look at that play, we would gain some insight into the personality and attributes of the playwright, such as style or intelligence. We may also be able to determine a theme or moral to this play. However it does not follow the play is the playwright. Although, by his pen, he determined the entire course of events for that play, that play does not define or limit him.
The relationship between God and his creation is as a the relationship between the playwright and his play--even to a greater extent. If God has determined in eternity what would happen within His creation in time and brought those plans to fruition, it is a huge logical fallacy to conclude that God is the creation. The sovereignty of God is not something merely "expressed." It has far greater implications than that. God's sovereignty is something that necessarily is by the very nature of his being. We experience it in the spatial/temporal sphere, but it is not limited to that realm. All that and who exist belong to God and are subject to his authority--this is Paul's inescapable point in Romans 9.
How are we to tell that which created from that which is God? Any material object, created being (other the man Jesus), event in time is not God, although his "pen" has brought them pass. God himself is completely unobservable and invisible, hence the necessity of revelation both through his word and by his Son. God is not the god of pantheism, totally imminent and not at all transcendent. God is not the god of deism, totally transcendent and not at all immanent. God is both transcendent--above, beyond, and totally distinct from the creation--and immanent--working behind and in all the affairs, events, things, and beings in creation to bring his purposes of creation to fruition.
However, in humility, we must admit the difficulties of explicating the actions of an eternal God within a creation in bondage to time. We limited in our expressions to temporal and spatial terms--and there are many aspects of God that we can neither know nor express because they are beyond comprehension, nor have they been revealed to us. On the other hand, what God has revealed to us by his words and his Word, we can claim as truth and trust the message of them to be true.
Labels: Apologetics, Theology
