Arminianism – LOVE | ACCEPT

Who’s Up for (the exciting conclusion to) An Honest Reading? John 6:37-40

Theological discussion in various venues often pits one position of belief against its opposites. Supporters of one position or another like to issue proposition statements of the form ‘If they would give _____ an honest reading’, ‘once I gave ______ an honest reading’,’ you can’t read _________ honestly and still believe’ or various other permutations that are meant to couch the idea that your position is unsupportable in the light of clear interpretation. In other words, the veiled inference is that theological presuppositions have colored your interpretation of the text and if you would put them aside and engage an honest reading of the text, you would certainly see the validity of the opposing position. Let’s see if that’s a valid argument…

Before we jump into the conclusion of this series, let’s have a look at how proof-texting works so that the danger in the practice becomes apparent. Suppose we want to ‘prove’ the horrible doctrine of infanticide exists in the Bible. [Atheist polemics use this argument all the time.] The proof-texter searches the Scriptures looking for individual verses or passages that appear to support this abhorrent practice so that they can proclaim the ‘truth’ that God approves the killing of children for pleasure or sustenance and they find these passages:

Psalm 137:9 - he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

2 Kings 6:28-29 – She answered, “This woman said to me, ‘Give up your son so we may eat him today, and tomorrow we’ll eat my son.’ So we cooked my son and ate him. The next day I said to her, ‘Give up your son so we may eat him,’ but she had hidden him.”

God killing the first born, the Flood, etc. Okay, a quick show of hands. Who believes that God advocates or even suggests a doctrine of infanticide?

No one? Why not?

Because we know the dishonesty of pulling a passage from its context to try to make it match our desired meaning. We know that we are not free to dismiss the surrounding circles of context in the process of developing doctrine and yet, we continue to do so.

The Honest Reading

In the previous post we looked at the importance of making sure that the language we are reading (in this case English) holds the same meaning in the text as it did in the author’s original language. In the passage we are studying, there weren’t any surprises for the honest reader but the reader who wants to load a theological presupposition into the passage might find a bit of difficulty.

Continue reading “Who’s Up for (the exciting conclusion to) An Honest Reading? John 6:37-40”

Who’s Up (today) for An Honest Reading? John 6:37-40

All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” (Jn 6:37–40)

It’s All Greek to Me

Yesterday we looked at the various contextual levels in which the reader encounters a bible passage. To avoid mishandling a text or inappropriately proof-texting out of context we need to recognize the material that surrounds the passage to varying degrees of immediacy. We close by turning our attention to the language used by the original author and how well our modern translations accord to the original meaning of the words used. This will come as a shock to some but the Bible was not delivered in Elizabethan English. God elected to transmit His truth through authors in Hebrew and Greek for the most part and if we are going to delve beyond our English (or whatever translated language we read) we need to dive into the original texts. Caution is advised here; words in Greek and Hebrew often have ranges of meaning just like their English counterparts and it is easy to manipulate the interpretation of a passage

Continue reading “Who’s Up (today) for An Honest Reading? John 6:37-40”

Who’s Up (again) for An Honest Reading? John 6:37-40

A Text Without a Context May Be a Pretext

We closed our discussion yesterday with a brief discussion of the necessity for recognizing context in interpreting biblical texts. In all cases, we want to avoid the interpretive error of proof texting which, unfortunately, has become a substitute for sound exegesis. In our pursuit of an honest reading, let’s have a look at the context in which this passage occurs, starting from the immediate and moving outward.

Continue reading “Who’s Up (again) for An Honest Reading? John 6:37-40”

Who’s Up for An Honest Reading? John 6:37-40

Given the earlier promise of Jesus recorded by the Evangelist John in 3:16-17, the power of the good news that brought many to believe in Samaria recorded in 4:39, and his repetition of the earlier promise for any who believe spoken in 5:24, an honest reading of this passage leads the reader to two conclusions.

Continue reading “Who’s Up for An Honest Reading? John 6:37-40”

The Calvinist Canard of Honest Reading

Like an AM radio signal, the amplitude of the eternal rhetorical war of theology is ratcheted up and wound down by adherents of a particular camp. A recent campaign of bomb throwing posts ignited an insignificant skirmish that left no dead but encouraged the chest thumping of one group to rise to deafening levels. The posts were of the typical ‘Arminians are Pelagians (Sovereignty deniers, Grace deniers, Works lovers, Depravity diminishers, et. al. ) who probably put catsup on their hot dogs’ offerings that regularly appear on this particular blog and, unsurprisingly, generated sound pressure in the echo chamber of Townsend-Blackmore-Young proportions. Continue reading “The Calvinist Canard of Honest Reading”

You, Theologian : Where We Begin

As we accept our call to be theologians, the next logical question is to ask what that means. Many in the Christian community will default to the image of the sequestered scholar, surrounded by mountains of books and poring over the scattered papers piled before him. Theology, in this narrow view, is a field with high barriers to entry, only to be approached by a select few while the rest of us wait to receive their wisdom. Nonsense. This stereotype is not only damaging to the faith, it is flat out wrong. Go look in a mirror Christian. There is a theologian. Regardless of background, social group, education, or denomination even, you and I are called to be theologians and our theology is formed in two ways. One is by our experience of being a Christian. This is known as our embedded theology.

Our first order theology comes from the Christian environment that surrounds us. This environment, usually our church and this immediate community, usually drives what we believe about our faith. Since every church believes itself to be living by Christian principles, the initial framework of how we think about faith is organized on a similar framework to that which guides our church. The practices, stated doctrine, and general atmosphere give us some idea of what it means to be a Christian. We trust that those who developed the doctrines and traditions knew what they were doing and this confidence tells us we can accept these things without too much worry.

This is as far as many believers will ever go. If our church teaches it, regardless of the initial reasons, it’s good enough for us. Embedded theology works well for a while but some cracks in the firmness of the foundation begin to show when it is challenged. The first challenge often arrives in the form of a comparison between our church and our neighbor’s church. We may worship within a tradition that has a dry tradition toward alcohol and so we live as teetotalers. One fine summer day our neighbor Ed invites us over for a barbecue. Ed and his family are Christians who go to a different church but we still look forward to some fine fellowship. Knocking on the door brings Ed quickly to answer it, swinging the door wide with the hand that isn’t gripping his beer. Beer! Your embedded theology sends a message to your brain: smile, but watch this guy carefully since you know that no Christians use alcohol.

The barbecue is fine and later, as you nurse your third cola, you get a chance to talk to Ed alone. “Say Ed,” you say. “I noticed you drink beer.”

“Yep, I have a couple now and then. Why?”

You don’t want to lecture (but secretly you do) so you put a big smile on your face and say “Well, my pastor speaks against alcohol at least once every couple of months. I was just wondering how often yours does.”

“I’ve only heard him talk about it once.” Ed replies and takes the last sip of his beverage. “He taught us that the Bible talks about drunkenness but doesn’t say we must not drink alcohol. Didn’t Jesus drink wine?”

So it seems that some Christians do drink alcohol. How can the Bible teach both things? We trust our embedded ideas but often find them quickly challenged.

Second order challenges are much more difficult for this type of theological thinking. Imagine the family of the child who wandered away at the beach and got too close to the surf. She was swept out of reach of her searching parents and they lost her. How will the shallow theology of our community answer this tragedy. Why did God take the child? Were the parents secret sinners who were being punished? Was the child herself punished? Embedded theology is usually to fragile to deal with something like effectively. To come to grips with a loss like this requires a depth in the answers. It requires an intentional approach to theological questions. It requires that we practice deliberative theology.

Deliberative theology begins work right where we are by setting forth to reflect upon our embedded convictions. We question the beliefs that we have taken for granted and seek to place them among the spectrum of Christian belief on a subject. The deliberative approach looks into the various positions and seeks to understand that which is most satisfactory. Sometimes this is easier said than done since seeking answers outside of our narrow understanding can lead to challenges that we would rather not face. Beloved traditions and beliefs can be toppled in an instant and many will retreat to the shallow end of the pool when this threat becomes too real.

Sadly, we discover our need for a more intentional approach to theological thinking when the deeper tragedies of life occur. Our embedded beliefs prove unsatisfactory to answer the questions we have and we embark on a quest to understand. When we are prepared to set aside simply believing what we are told to believe and to make the effort to understand why we believe what we believe, we finally grow and mature as Christians. We see God as more than just Daddy. We seek out a deeper knowledge of His revealed nature and character. The result is a more satisfying faith and a more complete worship. We are living out our calling.

image by rogilde

You, Theologian

I’ll move right to the conclusion. You and I, if we are followers of Christ, are called to be theologians. We, as Christians, have a tendency to assign this title only to a small sampling of our community, perhaps to pastors or scholars but this is wrong. To be a theologian has little to do with academic achievement or vocational calling. Rather, it has everything to do with processing all of our thoughts and actions through the filter of what we understand it to mean to be a Christian. To put this another way, our decision to speed a little on the way to work should be processed not only through the filter of civil law but through the notion of what it means to be a Christian who is disrespecting civil law and representing Christ as you do so. The witness you and I present to the world in the course of our daily lives reflects our understanding of the faith. We are not given the luxury to compartmentalize and separate life from life in Christ.

Theology is not some arcane art, to be grasped by a select few who have made the epic journey across the wild and unforgiving seas, fighting dragons as we go. Theology is the knowledge and understanding that you and I have of God. Theology is dual-faceted and it encompasses our doctrine and the resulting practice that comes from applying that doctrine. Doctrine can be generally defined as our beliefs about the nature of God and His actions, who we are as His created beings, and what He has done to restore our damaged relationship with Him. To the extent that we find our understanding in line with those of historic Christianity is the degree of our orthodoxy. The behaviors that result from this understanding are the external display to those around us of what our doctrine is. Orthopraxy defines our allegiance to our doctrine through the act of daily living. Say and do are not separated in theological reflection.

The tools of theological reflection are within the grasp of all Christians. We find our content in the sixty-six books of the Bible, the revealed word of God to and for His people. We bring to this content an assent to our personal biases and suppositions and are honest in admitting how they might tint our reflection. Finally, we bring our faith to bear on the whole of the endeavor. We believe in God who has revealed Himself to us in numerous and varied ways yet remains elusive. We have yet to be privileged to see Him face to face and so we trust. Here, we come full circle. Some have described theology as faith that is seeking understanding and this is is an excellent baseline definition. To understand what you believe and why you believe it and then apply this structure to your life, this is the task that you are called to Theologian. Godspeed.

image by size8jeans

God and the Biblical Zombieland

To paraphrase the serpent, “Did the Bible truly say that you are dead?”

I recently addressed a challenge issued by a Calvinist brother who wanted to establish his core arguments around the notion of humanity being unable to respond to God due to their deceased condition. Zombies, I thought, we’re all zombies walking around (though not feasting) until the moment we are brought back to life by the grace of God. Are we truly bodies without souls hungrily seeking to satisfy the emptiness but finding no relief? Is this the portrait of humanity that the Bible portrays?

The proof text was, as you probably already guessed, Ephesians 2:1:

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins,

We might as well put up the parallel verse in Colossians (2:13) as well:

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ.

Well, as long as we’re at it, we should include a verse from Romans (5:12) that provides a similar thought:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned–

Death in these verses is often, either by casual reading or theological filter, interpreted to mean that the soul has died as the body has died. By extension then, the unsaved are bodies walking around with dead souls. Souls that are unable to hear, recognize, or respond to God’s call to repentance and belief. Dead, dark souls. What we need to ask is whether or not spiritual death is the same as physical death in the language of the Bible.

Our answer, found in the pages of the Bible, is that there are three forms of death mentioned. In the scope of all of scripture, death includes a spiritual, physical, and eternal death. The Bible informs us that the common thread among all of them is separation:

Physical death is separation of the soul from the body.
Eternal death is permanent separation from God. (Rev 19:20, 20:10)
Spiritual death is holy separation from God (Isa 59:1-2)

Separation does not mean spiritual annihilation, contrary to a popular theological position. If it did then that destroyed, actually non-existent, soul would not be able to hear and respond to God. Yet,

The “dead” can still perceive the truth of God (Rom 1:20)
Adam and Eve were “dead” but still heard and responded to the voice of God (Gen 3:10)
The “dead” are able to believe (Col 2:12-13 n.b. We should always read verses in context)

Without the demonstration of annihilation and the destruction of the soul, the spiritual death must be seen as portrayed in the scriptures: a soul that is separated spiritually from God but that retains the ability to hear and respond. As demonstrated from the scriptures above, we must agree that the unregenerate soul is able to hear and respond positively to God. The image of God embedded in humankind was not erased by the Fall (Gen 9:6, James 3:9), rather, it has been marred and defaced, separating us from the Father. If it were otherwise (ie: the soul was destroyed/annihilated) then God would not be able to call on His people to believe (John 3:16-18, Acts 16:31;20:21).

Four Knows for Talkin’ Theology

Writing blog entries about theology seems so easy on the surface. Identify a particular point or doctrine that you want to share, defend, or critique and lay out your thoughts. The thesis can be drawn from Scripture, a systematic, or the writings of another theologian followed by an explanation of the position that the writer wishes to stake. The words that underscore that position can be the author’s own or quotes/texts pulled from other sources and cited. All of this is well and good, but theology is not the same as discussing baseball, it has life altering implications.

Because theology concerns God, we who choose to write on the topic have a responsibility that goes far beyond the ethic of the normal social contract. Theology impacts lives even when it is unstated and has become a cultural norm. Before we defend, critique, or even propose a specific theological construct or an entire framework, we must consider the impact of our position in light of its impact on God’s people. We are not operating in a vacuum where these beliefs and behaviors affect no one, a fact that we need to carefully consider before pushing the first words out into the cybersphere.

While I’m certain that I have exhibited a disregard for each of these at some point in my time as a theologian (and we’re all theologians), here are four rules that I try to apply to anything I do in this sphere, whether it is writing here or for publication, in preaching, and in the way I live out the theology. You might find them helpful as well or may have some additions that we can all utilize.

Know Your Theology Beyond Proof Texts

God did not limit his revelation to specific texts in the Scriptures. The first rule in theology is to consider every doctrine or position in light of the entirety of God’s revelation. Though you may disagree with his theology, Wesley utilized what has been labeled his Quadrilateral as a way of studying and organizing his understanding. This included the use of the complete Scripture (OT & NT), Tradition in the form of church history and the Spirit’s movement, Reason in the form of rational thinking and sensible interpretation, and Experience in examining a Christian’s personal and communal journey in Christ. Proof texting often fails to consider the ever widening circles of context and more often than not, another text can be found to show the point in a different light.

Know Any Theology That You Are Going to Label as Incorrect

I am less and less surprised at the number of critiques that I encounter in which the author rails against a certain theology or doctrine by using caricatures or incorrect representations of the belief (this happens with political discussion as well.) Before taking a critical position, we must have a relatively thorough and accurate knowledge of the development, the scriptures, and the persons involved in the doctrine we critique. If we rely on the opinions of others or a surface deep understanding of the doctrine, knowing only that it differs from our own, we do not serve God well in simply creating dissent among the body. Worse yet, we promulgate a shallow belief system that risks getting adopted by others. As an example, survey the number of times that Mormonism is declared heretical by an author who does not know the history of belief system or how many times Arminian belief is associated with Pelagius.

Know the Practical Application of Your Theology

All theology is practical. Every aspect of God has some effect on His relationship with His people. We are incorrect to treat theology as separate from life. The doctrines and beliefs that we hold are meant to affect our lives in practical ways, shaping the way in which we interact with the world, other people, and God himself. Arguing the different views of Atonement is one thing but how often do we think about the practical impact of believing the Penal substitution view against the Ransom, Moral Influence, Example, or Governmental positions? Each of these beliefs has a different impact on the worldview of the believer and how he or she interacts with God and the world.

Know God

This would seem to go without saying but it is so easy to find ourselves devoting enormous energy to knowing about God and less and less time knowing God. I can express my thoughts about my wife and child very well because I know them intimately. I have a deep relationship with each of them and have lived in close proximity for many, many years. Writing about your family would be much different because I can know only what you let me know or I can observe for myself. The same applies to those who choose to write about God; we must know Him intimately. We must be in tight relationship with Him and His Spirit. Not only will the Spirit guide our work but will also help us in withdrawing from battles that our worldly reactive side would choose to engage.

God bless each and every one of you who furthers the work of the kingdom in your writing and thinking. If I’ve missed or misstated something, I’ll look forward to reading your suggestions.

Calvinists and the Political Left

Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. (Eph 4:3)

It’s taken me awhile to understand the uneasy feeling I get when I get the urge to post a comment to a Calvinist blog. Will my words be considered as a Brother in Christ or will I be vilified and subjected to ad hominem attacks that avoid the content of the post? Anymore these days, I am finding more and more that some of those theobloggers who claim the name Calvinist or Reformed default to the latter. What has brought this to a head is the current hyper-focus on politics due to the back to back conventions and specifically, the fevered attempts to defile the name and reputation of Governor Palin over the past few days. Sadly, what I have discovered is that there is a body of these Calvinist bloggers who are indiscernible from the left-wing chattering classes. This clique will brook no wavering from the TULIP line, refusing to engage any idea that challenges it and, because the challenger is considered to be somehow heretical, he or she must must be burned in the electronic town center.

Contrary to the repeated calls to unity within the body that can be found in the Scriptures, there is an increasing body within the Body that have chosen to attack rather than respond. I’ll give you a recent example (and yes I know, I should have known better) which occurred when I foolishly chose to leave a comment on the Pyromaniacs blog. In an attempt to stir further dissension within the body, a question was posted inviting response from Arminian readers. The trouble with the question was that it was a false dilemma; Arminian theology offered no different view on the topic than that of the Calvinist framework and I wrote just that in my response. Expecting a biblical challenge or theological counterpoint, imagine how disheartening it was to check back later to find that the entire response was an attempt to make a mockery of my screen name.

It’s a bit troubling to find this in any context but to get this response by the Pyros main man Phil Johnson certainly diminishes any positive reputation that he might have gained outside of his close knit little community. Attempting to misstate the intention of my Greek to English transliteration meant (ironically in their eyes) Slave Christ, a perfect definition of Arminian theology. Mistakenly responding back that this obviously not the intent, referring to Rom 1:1 in the Greek, and restating the original answer to the provocative question, my gift was a further lambasting that remained off topic.

I don’t share this to gain sympathy. I’m a big boy and mature enough to handle people like this. The reason that I post this is because the level of conversation about God should not be descending into the the same kind of rancor, vitriol, and immature attack mentality that we see from the left wing of the political establishment and their media sycophants aimed toward those of the opposing party. Personal attacks and hyperbolic caricatures replace substantive discussion of an issue. The assumption is that if you do not agree with the liberal mindset, well you simply are too stupid to even engage and you must be the recipient of character destruction and mockery.

Christ didn’t die for a Church divided by this kind of worldly dissension. There are topics to which forceful comment and righteous anger are appropriate (Todd Bentley for example) in a Christian context but theological differences on non-essentials are not among them. To mirror the world’s approach to discussing differences runs counter to being in the world but not of it. Shall we all just go to our corners and talk only amongst ourselves?

Update: Check out the comments at the end of this posting. While not as mocking, you can witness how the discussion that disintegrates in not on how the post writer constructed his argument or the content of his statements. The Calvinist cries martyrdom (no doubt scrawling Ichabod on the doorframe) as he leaves the conversation. Talk scripture in context, don’t send me to Pink or Piper. We’ve got learn to think for ourselves rather than relying on other theologians all the time.