No question that the doctrine of unconditional election gets many folks fired up. It seems to be one of the most fiercely debated doctrines of the Bible. Many are repulsed by it. Others think it’s not Biblical, fair or just. 
But the relevant passages are many, and they are not easy to explain away.
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.– Romans 8:29-30
The problem is how to reconcile God’s sovereignty in saving man, with man's free will to choose or reject God. While they look like irreconcilable polar opposites, both concepts are Biblical, and clearly require Paul's statement in Romans 11:33, “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!”
Until now, predestination ideas were completely off limits in my self-imposed cycle of prejudice where my pre-judged mind learned only enough about the “chosen” to avoid learning more. And armed minimally with the concept of free will, I rejected predestination ideas outright and stayed in my comfort zone.
But lately, the doctrines of unconditional election and irresistible grace jumped on my radar and grabbed my attention. The culprit is a desire to explore God's sovereignty and grace. Components of the doctrines of grace are often summarized by the acronym "tulip."
T-Total depravity of man
U-Unconditional election in which merit plays no part
L-Limited atonement to those who God selected
I-Irresistible grace
P-Perseverance of the saint
Wow! After reading John 6, 10, 17, Romans 1, 8-11, and Ephesians 1, I must confess that my smug cycle of prejudice against the doctrine of unconditional election has been thoroughly challenged! Now, the tension begins.
How about you? How do you read and interpret these passages?
But the relevant passages are many, and they are not easy to explain away.
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.– Romans 8:29-30
The problem is how to reconcile God’s sovereignty in saving man, with man's free will to choose or reject God. While they look like irreconcilable polar opposites, both concepts are Biblical, and clearly require Paul's statement in Romans 11:33, “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!”
Until now, predestination ideas were completely off limits in my self-imposed cycle of prejudice where my pre-judged mind learned only enough about the “chosen” to avoid learning more. And armed minimally with the concept of free will, I rejected predestination ideas outright and stayed in my comfort zone.
But lately, the doctrines of unconditional election and irresistible grace jumped on my radar and grabbed my attention. The culprit is a desire to explore God's sovereignty and grace. Components of the doctrines of grace are often summarized by the acronym "tulip."
T-Total depravity of man
U-Unconditional election in which merit plays no part
L-Limited atonement to those who God selected
I-Irresistible grace
P-Perseverance of the saint
Wow! After reading John 6, 10, 17, Romans 1, 8-11, and Ephesians 1, I must confess that my smug cycle of prejudice against the doctrine of unconditional election has been thoroughly challenged! Now, the tension begins.
How about you? How do you read and interpret these passages?
Posts
38 comments:
Good morning! To start off our week, here are some preliminary thoughts before we tiptoe through the tulips!
For me, the first question to confront is the headline blog -- What are we prepared to accept when we say God is sovereign?
Easy to acknowledge. Really tough to apply. Especially when it challenges our sense of fairness, choice, and free will.
Amazingly, Moses, David, Job, Isaiah, John, Peter and Paul did not appear to struggle with these concepts like we do. Their many and frequent declarations of God’s sovereignty are articulate and compelling.
I’m convinced that the way we answer what we mean by God’s sovereignty makes a big difference on how we resolve the cluster of issues wrapped around predestination and unconditional election. For me, clarity on this question is fundamental to a productive discussion on predestination.
Would it be fair to assume that our traditional ideas of fairness, great controversy, justice, choice, resistance to being God's puppets and sense of free will, are underlying presumptions many of us bring to the question, often without realizing how embedded they are in our thinking.
Fair enough?
Here is a starter definition: “The sovereignty of God may be defined as the exercise of His supremacy, His infinite rule, His authority and power. Being infinitely elevated above the highest creature in authority, nature, and being, He is the Most High Lord of heaven and earth and all creation whether angels or the heavenly hosts. Basically, God’s sovereignty means that He is the Supreme Ruler who immanently and personally rules over all the affairs of the universe—and this includes our personal lives both as individuals and as a local body of believers. God’s sovereignty is a place of rest for the child of God, as well as a cause of worship.” – Hampton Keathley.
Three questions:
1...What do you think of this definition of God’s sovereignty? Is it Biblical? Is it complete?
2...If so, how should you interpret Exodus 9 and Romans 9 which say that God raised up Pharaoh so that God could demonstrate God’s power and glory through Pharaoh?
3...How is your view of God's fairness affected if you admit that God gives life to sinful people like us who really deserve to die?
Please tell us what you think and feel?
Good evening! Thanks for taking on this difficult and emotional topic. It is an important debate. As I’ve read other Christian blogs, I've sensed a growing interest in predestination among many ministers and believers. Highly respected ministers and blogs are full of the topic. I know that Dr. John Piper, for example, has been a leading voice in this debate. His blog, Desiring God, is a refreshing one, and he is an excellent author, pastor and expositor of the Bible. So, let me say that predestination is a complex, but well articulated doctrine that requires careful study, and should not be dismissed outright.
To your first question, I agree with the definition of God's sovereignty. God is God who can do whatever God wants to do. Yes, God is El Elyon, a Sovereign God!
However, you can count me as among those who think the doctrines of predestination are weak, and who will argue here against the attraction of the tulips those Calvinists are so fond of growing. And God's sovereignty is not questionied in my arguments. I agree that there are many Bible passages that can be interpreted to reach the conclusions of Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin, and I agree that they are difficult passages to interpret the other way. BUT, when read in context, I don’t believe they are as compelling. To this point, I know there are many points in which the Bible directly contradicts those Calvinistic assertions described here or elsewhere. It's important to remember that the doctrine of predestination was not defined or accepted for three to four hundred years after Christ. Same thing for the trinity doctrine, by the way.
I’m convinced that the Achilles heels of predestination are the doctrines of limited atonement and unconditional election! Arguably one doctrine, they both run against the core of the gospel Jesus gave us. There is no Biblical basis for the idea that God sent his Son to die only for those whom he favors and elected. In fact, John 3:16 says God so loved the “world”… and that “whosoever” believeth in him shall have everlasting life. The main gospel point that Christ died for ALL is a main theme that is repeated in the books of John, Romans, Hebrews, 2nd Corinthians, and throughout the New Testament! There is no wiggle room from those points. Whosover does not mean some. All means all. All does not mean some.
Yes, the terms and concepts of “predestined” are in the Bible. I don’t doubt predestination passages. But they are NOT exclusive. When read without the framework of predestination, the often quoted predestination texts in Romans 8:29-30 and Ephesians 1:4-6 are definitely inclusive, not exclusive. Also, there are many points quoted by Calvinists for support that are way out of context! Like the one in which Jesus John says in John, “You did not chose me, but I chose you!” Many folks use this to describe the election of some. Jesus was speaking to his disciples about how he selected them; he was NOT describing God’s salvation process. Being chosen or elected does not mean elected or chosen for salvation. It just means chosen.
The element in the predestination discussion that I find strangely absent is the role of faith, which is so central in both testaments to the relationship with God or Jesus. I don't see much discussion about the importance of faith in God and Christ in the lives of believers as part of the doctrines of election or irrestible grace. Please show me I'm wrong here because my observations are based on the absence of the doctrine of faith in the tulips.
I always thought of God as fair and just. Predestiation seems neither fair or just. How does God decide who to elect?
Can someone please explain to me, how we can place our Faith in a God, who we say is sovereign and just, yet we then must say that it is up to man to complete his work. When I read "all" and "world" I am perfectly fine with "all" meaning "all that he is saving" Otherwise why do any perish? As for being Fair and Just, I would ask to whom Fairness Standard are we using? And how do we address the context of the many verses in which Jesus claims "no one can come to the Father unless the Father draws them...(John 6:44) and others I have not taken the time to add.
God’s fairness and justice is an emotional issue to many because we need to say, “my God is just and fair.” But, if we first believe that God is sovereign, then we don't need to believe he is fair and just because his sovereignty makes irrelevant what we think of his fairness or justice. Accepting God’s sovereignty as I see it means trusting God's actions to be fair and just even when those actions radically challenge our human sense of fairness and justice. There is a “great controversy” theory taught by some denominations that God somehow needs to prove his justice to his created beings and to the rest of the universe who are watching the salvation drama unfold on earth.
I wonder what a sovereign God thinks of that theory!
Interesting thoughts and comments. If God truly is sovereign, doubtful He'd need to prove anything to anyone & especially unlikely He'd need us to help finish anything (all finished at the cross, right?). Here's hoping that His sovereignty also includes the ability to save people no matter what denomination and/or belief system.
I don't know anything about TULIP or predestination....just still banking on the hope that God will draw ALL men to Him --sometime & somehow....i.e., maybe when (if) He comes, some folks, esp. the skeptics like me, will finally have enough faith in the whole concept. Wouldn't a sovereign & loving God allow for a few last minute decisions in order to accomodate/include all? particularly if He had already died/paid for sins? Maybe He's sovereign, loving & inclusive beyond our wildest imaginations. That would take some of the fear out of the whole ordeal.
Karen
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Karen Anonymous. Your picture of a "sovereign, loving and inclusive God beyond our wildest imaginations" is most attractive.
I posted something last night, but it's not showing up here. Hmm.
Not sure why it did not show because this latest post just showed up. Please try again.
Ok, so not sure what happened to my post from last night....
LIG, not trying to corner you here….just wondering what your thoughts are with regards to what Kelly & Id wrote above. You mentioned that for you, God’s fairness & justice are irrelevant given His sovereignty (how convenient! ;-) But surely you have some other thoughts on this & I’m truly curious what they are. Also, you wrote that my picture of 'a S, L & I God beyond our imaginations' is most attractive. So does that mean that you believe God WILL draw all to Him & none will perish?
Karen
Oooy-yay-yaayyy Anonymous Karen!
Ya do know how to put the someone in the corner even without claiming you are doing so!
Well done! I owe you an answer, and will have to think, pray and read more because I need to balance what I say between what I want to believe, and what I think I read from the Bible's overall themes. There is tension no doubt that I have to resolve with reasoning.
I heard a statement yesterday that is both profound and relevant... ..."You can't reason someone out of a position in which they did not reason in."
And yes, I want to do my best to reason in.
And hey, I'll also call my life lines out there to jump into this discussion and help me out. Help! Help!
The issue of God’s sovereignty is fascinating. Here are my first blush thoughts. If God is indeed all powerful, His sovereignty is a given and His judgment and selection of favored persons or peoples are His alone to determine. Our feeble objections, protestations and declarations of injustice mean squat…nothing…natha.
However, if we accept the Bible and the teachings of Jesus as authoritive and divine we come to realize that God, Himself, although sovereign, has set self imposed parameters on His sovereignty. He has established criteria for fallen mankind to restore oneness with the Creator. This was a covenant…this was the promise of the Messiah. If…whether it is through acceptable-obedience or faith, mankind meets God’s standard we, she or he becomes justified before Him and therefore eligible for restoration with God in the form of a Heavenly-home or some other form of euphoric existence.
Does God have the power to be arbitrary? You be he does, after all He is God but He chooses not. If, on the other hand, the selection process is fixed, then God is a fraud and mankind has been sold a very unkind “Bill of Goods.” Is a God who favors anyone over anyone else on earth worth worshiping?
Israel (One who wrestles with God) aka Always Doubtful.
LIG, your spiritual make-up seems vastly different from mine (your ability to trust, etc.). So I can understand why it might throw you to tease out some of this stuff. Add to that the fact that you're probably affiliated with some form of organized religion/denomination....so it's not comfortable to question? Just a hunch. Love the quote about not being able to reason someone out of a position.....
Israel/AD, I agree.. I also think it makes a difference whether or not the selection process is fixed. And like Id asked, how does God decide who to elect?
I think that if God is going to save folks w/ different belief systems (maybe save not just Christians?), then He'll surely have a plan to accommodate different personality types & possibly save folks who just can't quite spiritually pull it all together. Hopefully I'm not looking for cheap grace.... just trying to visualize what the ultimate free gift & unconditional love would look like. But then, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Karen
Thanks for your comments and teases, KA ( Karen Anonymous) and AD! Excellent thoughts and conversation. I'm so glad you jumped in, KA. And I can always count on Always Doubtful to inject refreshing thinking and challenges, so thanks for answering my call for help, AD. And KA, AD will tell you that there is no problem with questioning or challenging here because that is what we do at Stretch.
I was teasing about being in a corner, simply because I now have to reason my conclusions on Biblical themes, selective and biased by definition, because I chose them. To have a common frame of reference, we try to reason based on Scripture, even if imperfect deductive versus inductive reasoning. Hence the quote on “reasoning in.”
At Stretch, you are spot on to question and probe KA and AD, even if it’s me. … LOL. So let’s try to reason in. I’ll try one point at a time so we can continue this conversation.
Seriously, I think the theme of a God’s sovereignty is clear in Scripture without proof texting. It is after all, the concept of God as God since he is our creator. However, since TULIP was context of the God’s sovereignty, I thought I’d start with many of the Biblical texts found by Calvinists to establish God’s sovereignty. Here is a link to review those texts which I found helpful to me: www.calvinistcorner.com/verses.htm#God%20softens%20hearts
LIG Assertion #1. So, if we agree that God is sovereign, by definition, our views on whether he is fair or not, really are irrelevant, not to us, but to the idea of God’s sovereignty. And that means, agreeing that how God saves has to be fair and just, even if we don’t understand or agree with it. That is what sovereignty means. Now we may choose not to worship God who we deem to be unfair, and that is our choice.
AD made the point that he thinks God, through Jesus life, made "self imposed" parameters on his sovereignty. And interesting assertion that I'm not sure I know where to find in Scriptures, so I'll invite AD to elaborate further.
The issue of what God's sovereignty becomes more complex when we assign other attributes to God like all knowing and all powerful and everywhere present. For example, if we agree that God is all powerful, he certainly can soften and harden our hearts as many Scriptures show. But then, those aspects call into question God's fairness because we also attach another powerful attribute to God as a loving God.
Your thoughts?
LIG:
No argument from me that the Bible has been touched by God and is conduit through which God's message can accessed. The problematic issue is that there are too many messages that can be accessed through scripture.
Assertions of obedience vs. faith, predestination vs salvation to all can all be justified by scriptural evidence. Ah there's the rub.
But in accepting the inperfections of the Bible, are we willing to accept other scriptures as inspired?
Here's what 1 billion other "followers of our God" think of our scripture: "The Torah and the New Testament are an incomplete mishmash of texts redacted by humans, whereas the Quran was recited by God and is therefore perfect, correct in all ways, superseding and conclusive of all revelation.
Is the Quran a book touched by God and a conduit through which God's message can be accessed?
Israel/Always Doubtful
LIG and Karen Anonymous:
LIG asked that I embellish a bit on the self-imposed perameters God has established to his sovereignty. While I know of no specific verse of scripture that clearly declares perameters, all of scripture asserts God's love and patience and long-suffering and tolerance and desire to restore his fallen children to oneness. These traits of God set the perameters. Does God in his sovereignty have the power to wipe away, at any time all of us...the victims of sinful nature in a sinful world??
Of course He does but The Bible and other inspired scriptures declare God's love and the means and method's with which mankind can find a way home.
I seriously doubt that God would invite all to salvation only to turn the majority away with the declaration that "well I didn't really mean you."
And by the way, when I say all...I mean ALL MANKIND, not just those who belong to the fratenity of Christians.
Wouldn't really make much sense any other way, would it?
Israel/Always Doubtful
Hey Israel/AD, we are so like minded on all this; everything you just wrote resonates well with me. But I think some Christians get nervous with such loving inclusivism because it teeters on Universalism.
Love this discussion. I totally agree that God is sovereign & buy into the starter def that LIG provided in the first post. And yes, God can do what He wants & we have to deal with it.
But, I still want to know what LIG & AD & anyone else personally believe. I just want the bottom line….no need for elaborate texts, etc. I’ll assume that your opinion is based on your interpretation of the Bible, opinions, other authors, sermons you’ve heard,etc. Do you believe in predestination & that God has already decided who He wants to save?
The first anonymous poster on this thread said clearly that he/she thinks the doctrines of predest. are weak & that you can’t have doctrines that run against the overall theme of the gospel…..all means all, not some, etc.,etc. (hope I correctly summarized!)
I agree with the first anonymous poster. I also believe that God predestined ALL of us to be saved. He died for all sins (so everyone should be heaven-eligible, right?) And because He’s sovereign, He’ll figure out a loving & inclusive way to draw everyone to Him.
I simply cannot reconcile a loving God – one who’s supposed to be more loving than our earthly fathers - with a God who already determined that some folks don’t have an ice cube’s chance in hell to be saved.
Thanks for reading,
Karen
P.S., LIG, you are the king of being diplomatic! (and supportive). Thx for running this gig.
Just to clarify my earlier post. My belief is that God's sovereignty most certainly allows for him to chose from all of the lost, ones whom he wants for himself. I look to the way Abram was selected(Israel) Called from within a family that worshiped idols, and yet God called him and thus began his relationship with his called and chosen people. I guess in my world I look at it this way, if I choose to give to one of my children something of much worth and not to another, does that mean that I am an unjust and unloving father? I believe not because I love my children equally... differently but equally. So my belief is as follows... God chooses whom he wants, calls them to him, they respond accordingly with a repentant faith in Christ. Why and how is still beyond me, but I will leave that up to faith to!
Kelly,
You ask is it unjust or unfair if you give one child I gift of great worth and not the others. I think the answer is yes it is unfair and unjust to do such a random thing. If the gift is eternal reward, and the nongift damnation, based upon randomness, that certainly seems unjust, unfair and unloving.
ld
Dear Anonymous:
You ask for my ungarnished beleif on the matter of Predestination. Here it is. I completely, unquestionably, without qualification disagree with the concept/doctrine of Presestination in any way, shape or form regardless of packaging or perspective.
I do recognize though how one can draw the conclusion of Presdination from linking various scriptural texts. But so can others justify beleifs that run the gamut from reasonable to the bizarre. Shakespeare once said "Any fool in error can find scripture to support his point-of-view.
My fundemental disagreement with Predestination is only exceeded by my rejection of Christianity as God's only relevent revelation.
While I may be "out-of-sync" my belief is that the God who created this Heaven and Earth is indeed the God of all humankind...that He has revealed Himself to all humankind in myriad ways. To cast Him as the exclusive property of Christianity reduces Him to tribal-god status.
To claim that the 70% of earth's population that is not Christian would be classified as clueless and without hope competes at the apex of arrogance for top honor.
Samir Selmanovic, Author of "Its Really All About God", sums it up nicely for me with the statement; "If God created all humanity but gave life-giving knowledge...usually referred to as revelation...to only some of humanity, could God in any meaningful sense be thought of as the One God and not only as a god?"
I am a Christian because of the Teachings of Jesus and my beleif that he was annointed by God to enlighten the world through his life and the body of knowledge he shared. However, I also believe that there have been others annointed by God to enlighten and add clarity to God's love and compassion for humankind.
Israel/Always Doubtful
Hey AD/Israel,
I cut/pasted & printed what you just wrote because it represents spot-on what/where I think I’ve recently arrived at in my spiritual journey, though could never articulate it as well as you have.. I’ve been struggling with trying to believe within Christian only & Bible only boundaries, but could never make all that congruent with a God who truly loves us like crazy.
That being said, I’ve spent the majority of my weekend being envious of others (on this board & elsewhere) who believe differently. I’m envious of their faith & trust & ability to be ok with not understanding the tough stuff. My life would be easier if I had those qualities! And it would free up some time & energy to get on with the important stuff like luvin’ on others.
Karen
Hello Stretchers! I am new at this, but am excited to read and comment now and in future and join in all the fun!
Hello The Seeking Wolf! Glad to have you on board. Amen!
Looks like an energized bunch here. Fascinating topic. Right out of the gate, I disagree with most conclusions of predestination in the TULIP formulation as I’ve understood them on a superficial level thus far, although I hold the possibility that I may change views when studying the doctrines and Biblical logic more. I also have to say in honesty that I have not spent much time or depth studying the doctrines of predestination which I’m about to challenge. I'm sure others are more solid in their understanding of TULIP.
Having said all that, I'm not ready to dismiss as fools the Bible scholars and theologians who quote predestination texts. This group includes the likes of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, early Martin Luther (On the Bondage of the Will), or preachers like Charles Spurgeon or John Piper with sharper spiritual minds and Biblical understanding than mine. Although I believe the Shakespeare line is applicable to me now, I’ll do my best to offer a credible alternative to predestination doctrines using other Biblical texts that repeat the principle that Christ died for all, and in my view, refute predestination concept that Christ died only for some.
Shakespearean fool notwithstanding, I offer some texts (solid ones I think) that Arminius and others used to challenge predestination, especially limited atonement that --- “Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself a ransom for all–this was attested at the right time” (1 Timothy 2:5-6). “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9 NIV). “We have put out hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe” (1Timothy 4:10). “Christ ‘gave himself as a ransom for all men’ (1 Timothy 2:6). ‘We are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died’ (2 Corinthians 5:14-15). “My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense–Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:1-2 NIV). ‘For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost’ (Luke 19:10). “Jesus suffered death, so that by the grace of God, he might taste death for everyone’ (Hebrews2:9). ‘Just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men’ (Romans 5:18).” “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone” (Hebrews 2:9 NIV).
As I read these verses, they also led me to understand that since Christ died for all means the whole world, not just the Christian world. Consequently I imagine that others on this blog might be surprised to learn of Biblical references that support their beliefs of a much more inclusive God, although they might not feel they need the texts. I would like to think the beliefs we hold are informed by Scriptures, even though I agree that ability to reason is one of the gifts God gave us. So I think reasoning in with the Bible does not qualify for Shakespeare fool. I would also have to agree with Selmanovic statement that it makes no sense for God to reveal life giving knowledge only to some if he is a God of all. So, in my opinion the idea that Christ died only for some, does not find enough support in Jewish and Christian Scriptures.
Hi Gang,
There is the theory out there that God will judge folks according to their responses to "truth". So basically we'll all be held responsible for the special truth we've been exposed to. And the 70% population who've not heard the Christian message and/or special denomination messages won't be lost. I'm not at all saying that I buy into that. But those old tapes run steady & strong in my head.
I wish salvation wasn't such a fear-based concept for me. That's why these bloggersations have been good for me.
Karen
Hey everyone, some provocative stretching here. Enjoying your comments!
Here are some challenges for further discussion, so be sure to jump in with your thoughts.
First, I agree that it makes no sense that a loving and sovereign God, who sent his son to save ALL, would create a narrow gate that keeps out 70% of the world (who are non Christians) from experiencing the power and beauty of his saving graces.
Therefore, on that basis, I have faith that God has made provision to communicate with everyone about his love and grace. Which includes the Koran.
While we may look to the Bible for answers to this question, I’m not sure it provides the specificity and/or broader thinking we need to answer questions that are outside the context of the Judeo-Christian culture, any more than the Koran (I’m guessing) is able to reconcile or tolerate those whose beliefs are radically different from its teachings.
Second, while it may be correct to say that…”there are too many messages that may be accessed through scripture,” I don’t see how that issue is tied to the Bible, Torah…..or, for that matter, the Koran per se.
Instead, I see it tied to the cultural eyes and minds of the beholder/interpreter of sacred writings or other writings because this is a fundamental nature all forms of communications.
Often, it also reflects the reader’s communication preference, prejudices, or state of acceptance or faith, and their cultural appetite to question, debate and challenge authority, written or spoken.
And it also reflects the degree of access to the writings and commentaries themselves, but also to the history and stories behind the writings, and respective clergies or story tellers, and especially, with the freedom allowed within those cultures to challenge religious “truths.”
Third, with regards to the statement… “Here's what 1 billion other ‘followers of our God’ think of our scriptures…as a mishmash, etc,” I’m not sure where that sweeping statement gets us, or what that means since traditional Jews also believed the same about the Torah. And ditto for traditional Christian beliefs about the Bible.
In my view, it’s not a stretch to assume sacred writings relevant for people of faith in one culture are by faith accepted as authority and respected and understood by people of faith in that culture, but more alien and suspect to people of faith outside that culture.
What’s more, I’m not sure how one billion non Christians are any better assessors on the faith assumptions of the Old and New Testaments, than one billion Christians or Jews are valid assessors on the faith assumptions of the Koran.
For the most part, spiritual assessments are made and accepted in faith by those seeking God within the comfort zone and lenses of those cultures. To say how people outside the religious culture view the writings of those inside a culture is to simply raise the obvious issue of cultural bias that confronts most of us by definition--Christian and non Christian.
As I see it, people of faith in each belief system accept what our cultural traditions have preserved, embedded and glorified so we are often not aware of our biases and assumptions, even with our questions.
Moreover, people in some cultures are more inclined to investigate for themselves beyond what their respective teachers or sacred writings tell them. I think of the impact the reformation, democracy, printing press and religious freedom have made on our appetites to challenge religious doctrines, authorities and church policies. In many cultures and periods, both LIG and I/AD would be burned at the stake.
And to that, I say, YIKES!
And to Kelly...Welcome to Stretch. Great to see you step in. Please feel comfortable to stretch here, and don't hold back. And it looks like ld is responding to your comments with some of his assertions.
Hi,
LIG wrote:
"Therefore, on that basis, I have faith that God has made provision to communicate with everyone about his love and grace. Which includes the Koran."
I like this! I find it very hopeful & inclusive (uses the word "everyone").
I don't know anything about the Koran or other world religions. But I'm thinking of studying some of them. Guess each person needs to find his/her own pathway to God. Surely one of them will work for me...I've felt a little let down by Christianity.
Karen
Good morning, Karen Anonymous,
Feel free to ignore this question, or to respond privately to me at abrion@gmail.com....but since you raised the question in dialog, I wonder....
Whether you feel let down by Christianity (which is religion)
Or let down by human accounts of God's punitive actions in the OT?
Or, let down by God?
The reason I ask is that we get them intertwined...for example as believers, we often, almost always, fail to represent the love Christ asks us to represent well. So the failure is ours as Christians. But yet, I know of no other human representatives (I'm not saying there are none) of whatever religion or non religion who do it any better either. It is a fact of our human existence that while we strive to love well, we often fail.
When we look to Christ, especially in his actions and commandments of love he required, it seems that most of his rebukes went to those who represented God, the organized religious leaders. They too, failed to represent God well, in Jesus view.
Or is your question, like mine was in another post here in which I asked "Is the Jewish God of Moses, the same as the Christian God of John? Because they seem so different to me. Take a read on that post below, and let me know if that helps with your question of OT acts of God that are hard to reconcile. Like the flood, killing of the Egyptian first born children, genocide of Canaanites. I agree with you! Those are very hard to understand and reconcile with a God of love Christ told us about. But maybe, that's why Christ came.
Your thoughts?
Whew! Lots to read & think about - which will have to wait until late tonight since I'm heading out for some Christmas shopping. I haven't read any of the bloggersation on 'Jewish God vs. Xtian God of John'. I'll take a look at that later too.
Does Toledo First pay you to be a spiritual mentor here? I'm not from your church, so hope it's ok that I utilize this blog!
Karen
LOL...KA.
No churches involved here. Then it wouldn't be any fun! Especially if I were paid for it.
I knew already you aren't getting paid. Just feeling gratitude that you've been supportive & responsive to my posts!
There is so much on this blog that I haven't read. I just read some interesting stuff on 'does God save only those who believe certain things about Jesus. Many of my questions have already been hashed out elsewhere on this blog...I just need to get readin' !
KA
Hey Karen Anonymous...are you in hibernatin' mode now that Christmas is over? That's code for I miss your posts! LOL Feel free to jump in anytime soon!
Let me share with you a couple of issues that I’ve been trying to work through my mind recently.
The issues that follow are a result in my review of the Book of Job… not as a parable but with literal meaning.
1. Job Chapters 1 and 2: In response to Satan’s boasting that matters on Earth are quite mundane and easily under his control, God asks Satan “have you considered my servant Job, he is blameless and upright…he abstains from and shuns evil” Please…stop here…let’s not gloss over that statement…this is God Himself declaring Job as blameless and upright. Job is not being judged by man’s silly and superficial criteria; this is God stating that Job is blameless. It would seem that blameless, in this instance, equates to sinless because if Job had been sinful, he would not have been blameless.
?How did Job achieve such stature in the eyes of God? Satan seems to think that Job is blameless (sinless) (because God protects him with a barrier that prevents Satan from “getting at” Job. (How can he sin if Satan can’t even tempt him?) But on a theological note, blameless(ness) seems to fly in the face of Paul’s theology of man being incapable of achieving blameless(ness) or achieving an acceptable standing with God. Additionally, if we are, as Paul suggests condemned by Original Sin, how can Job be blameless?
? Was Job able to achieve that which Paul suggests as being impossible? Paul declared himself as a wretched man whose righteousness was as a filthy rag. Apparently Job’s righteousness was not considered a filthy rag. No, far from it…Job was considered by God Himself “blameless.”
2. As documented in the Book of Job, Satan is hanging around heaven with free and unimpeded access chatting casually and making a side bet with God, not dissimilar to the movie Trading Places in which the characters, Randolph and Mortimer Duke played by Don Ameche and Ralph Bellamy, wager whether circumstances can destroy a man’s life and turn him to crime. Now as we see the celestial wager between God and Satan unfold in the Book of Job, God wins the “gentleman’s bet” but at what cost? How much pain, suffering, anguish, heart-ache occurs compounded by the loss of Job’s 10 children and the slaughter of an undocumented number of servants? Now, being servants, may not have meant much in Job’s day but, by today’s standards they would still be classed as human beings. What about their lives, their dreams, their families, their standing with God???? Is it true, as some convincingly claim, that God is a sovereign God who doesn’t have to answer to or explain Himself to anyone… that He selects those whom he chooses to select and the rest of us are merely wallpaper to serve as a backdrop for circumstances to be played out for those who truly matter to God? See Romans 9: 18. “Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy and hardens whom he wants to harden.” Shakespeare said “All the world is a stage and all men and women merely players. They have their exits and entrances.” Are the sufferings and tragedies of those of us who play bit parts or merely make cameo appearances just collateral damages to add color to the drama being played out in the lives of God’s “chosen ones”?
Can we reconcile Jesus, with his message of unqualified love and forgiveness, being the “only begotten Son of the Sovereign God” who chooses whom He wishes and arbitrarily adds the rest of us to the cast just to thicken the plot or make the story of His chosen ones more interesting? For some reason that just doesn’t seem right.
Israel aka Always Doubtful
Israel aka Always Doubtful, these are good questions! Not sure I can make the leap that blameless to Job or God means sinless. “Even if I were innocent, my mouth would condemn me; if I were blameless, it would pronounce me guilty” [Job 9:20]. The Bible also calls Noah and Abraham blameless or righteous, but they obviously weren't sinless either [cf. Genesis 9:21; Genesis 12&20].
Alden Thompson in his book Who’s Afraid of the OT God speaks to some of your questions in Job. I'd recommend chapter 2 starting around page 28. Nutshell: He suggests that God loves freedom for everyone [not just some who are pre-destined] so much that, when falsely accused, God even grants demonic forces the freedom to rule. For a while. And the price, as the book of Job explains, is high. Yet God has not abdicated completely his control. Just as he set limits on Satan’s attack of Job [Job 1:12], so he has put some limits on the spread of evil [Revelation 7:1-3] until the day comes that death dies [Revelation 20:14] and evil ends entirely [Revelation 21:4]. The good news of the Great Controversy is that God wins. Eventually. Until he does, it’s gonna be tough for us to reconcile lots of things [trinity, pre-destination, suffering etc.] because now we only know in part [1 Corinthians 13:12]. But I think he loves that we try!
Specifically, IMHO regarding election, I don’t believe God chooses anyone to be lost. 1 Timothy 2:4 says God desires that everyone would be saved. Implying otherwise seems contrary to the basic understanding that God claims to be love [1 John 4:8]. And Jesus was apparently so sure of this that he determined before the creation of the world to die for anyone in it if necessary so they could be saved [Revelation 13:8]. This was obviously before original sin. Is any of this helpful?
Israel,
Alden Thompson used to give me these quotes from time to time:
"Don't believe anything about God that would make you think less of him, for it cannot be true. We cannot imagine God to be greater than he is."
"God is all you can honestly wish him to be, and infinitely more."
-George MacDonald
And how about this one?
"People who are born even-tempered, placid and untroubled, secure from violent passions and temptations to evil; those who have never needed to struggle all night with the Angel to emerge lame but victorious at dawn, never become great saints."
-Eva LeGallenne
Courage.
Post a Comment