In the Valley
My spiritual life is a roller coaster. One minute, my heart cannot help but overflow with jubilant praises to God. He is so good! The next minute, I'm longing for his living water to touch the parched tongue of my soul, as I wander in the desert. One minute, I'm proclaiming my trust in His word. The next, I am angry with Him for making it so confusing.Though the mountain peaks with Christ have been many, tonight I am in the valley. I've heard it said that mountains only exist because they are surrounded by valleys, and our journeys with Christ are a long hike through the mountains. The plains are in heaven.
Tonight, I am in the valley. The Sun has set behind the mountain. It's dark here in the valley. And humid. I must be in the rainforest. It's hard to breathe, let alone cry out to God. I'm too tired to pray. Not physically. No... it's 2 AM and I can't sleep a wink. Why? Theology. How many of you (who have neither an exam to take or paper to turn in the next day) stay up 'til 2 AM because of theology? OK, other than insane college guys who do so for the thrill of it, or because they don't know any better. I mean people who normally go to bed by 10. How many?
How many of you are plagued by insomnia due to questions of the nature of God's sovereignty? If at least one other person is, I might have a traveling partner down here in this dark, thick, rainforest valley. The rest of you who would scoff at such absurdity as pondering the relationship between the present and the eternal will simply be of no help to me in this time, except to pray--if you can muster up enough empathy to do so.
A couple of days ago, I elaborated on my affection for God's Word. Tonight I lament my frustration with it. It seems that people like myself who have big questions that demand definitive answers will be driven to a life of either rigorous scholarship or utter apathy. Who can sanely, consistently exist in a state of mind in which one's day-to-day decisions are based upon premises which are being perpetually called into question?
After surveying the Bible with regard to Calvin's doctrine of predestination, I see no more than four intellectually honest options available to me. Either (a) I give in to the very theology that has brought me into this treacherous valley and learn to employ the hermeneutical gymnastics one needs in order to explain away words like "all" and "world", (b) I concede that the Bible as we know it today is not God's Word, (c) I admit that our current Bible is God's Word, but we have a cruel God who takes great pleasure in tormenting us with seemingly irreconcilable contradictions therein, or, most likely, (d) I am a deranged madman who needs a highly skilled spiritual doctor.
Here's some of the scriptural meat from which I got the spiritual food poisoning I am now suffering from:
Matthew 11:27
Matthew 16:16-17
Matthew 24:22
John 6:44,45,65
John 5:21
John 6:37
John 15:16
Acts 2:39,47
Acts 13:48
Acts 16:14
Romans 3:10
Romans 9:10-18
Ephesians 1:4-5
2 Thessalonians 2:13
If the truth shall set me free, then why do I feel so in bondage?
These words from an early Delirious song speak the language of my soul tonight. May you take comfort in them as well:
Find me in the River
Find me on my knees
I've walked against the water
Now I'm waiting, if you please
I've longed to see the roses
But never felt the thorns
I've worn my pretty crown
But never paid the price
Find me in the River
Find me there
Find me on my knees
With my soul laid bare
Even though you're gone
And I'm cracked and dry
Find me in the River
I'm waiting here
Find me in the River
Find me on my knees
I've walked against the water
Now I'm waiting, if you please
I didn't count on suffering
I didn't count on pain
But if the blessing's in the valley
Then in the River I will wait
Find me in the River
Find me there
Find me on my knees
With my soul laid bare
Even though you're gone
And I'm cracked and dry
Find me in the River
I'm waiting here
For You.
First let me say that I am praying for you, Matt. I cannot sympathize with your level of theological distress, but I can pray for you.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, though, let me say that you may be experiencing this spiritual "food poisoning" because you're eating food you were not meant to digest.
There is a level of analysis common to western thought that would have seemed ridiculous to the eastern minds that wrote the Bible. When we try to consume the scriptures at that level, heartburn is inevitable because we are going beyond "getting the message" and trying to pin God down to our own rubric of logical hypothesis. We're trying to turn the wonder and myster of God into science and math.
Remember to read the whole Bible, and understand it as such. Look over those scriptures again, as if you had never heard of Calvinism, and take them in context of the writer or speaker's broader message.
Does God choose us? Or do we choose him?
I think the answer is yes.
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. (John 15:16)
ReplyDeleteThanks for the shout outs to my Daddy. :)
I'm getting together with Pastor James sometime in the next week or two to talk things through.
Are you sure that when Jesus said, "I chose you" that the word "you" is singular and not plural?
ReplyDeleteGod chose us, as a group, to comprise church. That doesn't necessarily mean that he hand-picked the individuals who would make up the church.
This jives with the thinking behind the phrase, "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son..." It doesn't say he predestined us to be SAVED, it says he predestined that we should be conformed to his Son. He has planned ahead what he is going to do with those who accept his salvation.
But if you instantly think of Calvinism every time you read the word "predestined" or "chosen" you'll get steered off track. Seriously... look at the whole passage and you'll notice that he's not talking about who will be saved, but he's talking about God's interaction with those are saved.
"...with those who are saved" that is.
ReplyDeleteOh, yeah. Totally. Romans 8:29 in no way supports Calvin's soteriology. Neither does Ephesians 2:8-9. What little Greek I do know easily demonstrates that the "gift" is salvation, not faith.
ReplyDeleteOne of the key verses that I have been unable to interpret (and stay hermeneutically honest) in any other sense but Calvin's, however, is Acts 13:48. It's pretty clear-cut: "all who were appointed for eternal life believed." ESV and NASB render it, "as many as were appointed believed," which I've thought could mean that God appointed a specific number of individuals who would believe in this particular instance, but not necessarily particular individuals, but that's a pretty far stretch. In John 5:21 we're told that "the Son gives life to whom He wishes," which if taken at face value could obviously refer to the fact that no one enters the Kingdom against God's will, but such an interpretation makes the phrase "to whom He wishes" empty baggage. Then ch. 6:37 tells us that, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." (And the first part of the verse is clearly referring to people and not something else.)
Acts 2:38-39 says that God gives the gifts of "forgiveness of sins" and "the Holy Spirit" to "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself (ESV)." Because of this verse, we know that God does not merely give a blanket call to all of humanity (as I previously assumed), unless we adhere to a universalistic salvation, which is obviously denied by other scriptures.
Acts 16:14 speaks of Christ "opening the heart" of an individual woman to hear and comprehend what Paul was teaching, unto salvation.
And then Romans 9:10-18 has always haunted me, and for good reason. This is probably Paul's most explicit and adamant portrayal of the imposition of God's will on the destinies of individual lives. He talks about "loving" Jacob and "hating" Esau even before they had done anything "either good or bad", and the reasoning for this is "in order that God's purpose in election might continue". Then he rebukes those who feel that this is unjust, asserting that "God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy," and then explaining that this mercy "depends not on human will or exertion [note he is separating 'will' from 'works'] but on God." The opposite of this mercy is hatred, and no one whom God hates is saved; therefore, mercy, here, indicates favor, and the implication of this is salvation (I realize this is a painfully brief explanation, and will be happy to expound if need be). Accordingly, this would render the passage as inherently meaning, "God will save whom He wants to save, and this is dependent upon neither a person's will nor his works."
I don't know, man. I'm still in the learning process. But I've given a lot of thought to the "corporate predestination" theory, and it seems like a good hunch, but little more. Understanding the "you" in John 15:16 (and other passages where Paul is addressing a group of people) as plural would not help us determine whether he is referring to that particular group of believers or the Church at large. What we have to do (and I have yet to do this) is examine the rest of Paul's writings and see how often (if ever) "you" is linked to "the universal Church". In English, we have no way of differentiating, but in the Greek we do, so I'll cross that bridge once I'm able to seriously look at the Greek.
This is all a prime example of why biblical languages are so essential to a preacher or teacher of God's Word. The English language is just plain different from the original languages. For many many Greek and Hebrew words and phrases, there is no concise English equivalent, so any definite understanding of many of the nuances of the Bible is next to impossible without (a) believing what someone else tells you it means, or (b) learning to read it for yourself. Call me Martin Luther if you like, but I'm really to the point where I'm downright tired of scriptural debates that are based more on systematic theologies than on original textual analysis. Up to this point in my life (and still today), I have relied on systematic theology and not God's actual Word to glean and argue for my understanding of scripture.
Anyway, I'm really not equipped for an all out debate, and I'm far from sold on Calvin's soteriology. I'm just trying to be as honest as I can, regardless of how it rubs me, and trust that God'll work things out in His timing.
I didn't feel depressed yesterday or today, so that's a huge plus. Thanks again for the prayer.
"When hope is lost, I'll call you Savior.
When pain surrounds, I'll call you Healer.
When silence falls, you'll be the song within my heart.
I will praise you.
I will praise you.
When the tears fall, still I will sing to you.
(Tim Hughes)
In reading through Matthew this morning, I hit upon 22:14, the last line of the parable of the wedding banquet: "For many are invited, but few are chosen."
ReplyDeleteIf a Calvinist were given liberties to re-write this verse, he would change it to, "For few are invited, and they are called the chosen."
Calvinists don't seem to have a place to put this verse. Do they believe that God invites people that he knows will show up unready, as one character in the parable does, so he can throw them out? In other words, does he still invite people who are "unchosen" in advance? That seems terribly illogical and cruel at the same time, which I know is how you and I often feel about Calvinism anyway. But we can't escape the fact that Matthew 22:14 suggests that God invites many people into eternal life who either reject the invitation, or who pretend to accept it while showing no interest in the actual things of God, and thus are thrown back out. That is not Calvinism.
But for the sake of argument, let's say for a moment that all those pro-Calvinist verses actually do mean that God has chosen people in advance. Even if that were the case, I have still never heard a good argument against the idea that God pre-destines people based on his foreknowledge of their lives. I've only heard that Calvinism doesn't believe that... but I've never heard a good case against it.
Ultimately, I cannot refute Calvinism. I don't think anyone can. But you have to remember that it stands, with its dozen or so supporting passages, as an underdog against an onslaught of scriptures that would lead us to believe that we really have free will to make our decisions, including about our salvation. That's why I do not disrespect those who take pre-destination seriously, but I have trouble with those who believe that free will has no part to play in our salvation.
But the fact is that scriptures do not fight each other. That's why I've chosen a both-and philosophy, coupled with a pragmatic application. If Calvinism is true TO ANY EXTENT (and it could well be,) that is really God's business, not mine. My free will is my business, so I must use it wisely. Ultimately, I don't think that God is pleased when we spend any significant amount of time debating HIS business, to the detriment of carrying out that which he has given US to do.
As ironic as it may sound (in lieu of my earlier "irrelevance" post), I'm probably not going to be a very feisty debater this go around, just simply because I'm not standing on any firm ground. I'm mostly reacting to a variety of seemingly contradictory passages and trying to figure out what they're really saying... not quite to the re-systematizing phase yet. My mind's yet to be made up. That said, I will emphasize that we have to take care to avoid judging God by our own standards--of cruelty, for example. It seems terribly cruel to me that God would "invite" some whom he was pre-planning to throw to the dogs. And, believe it or not, many Calvinists feel the same way. Some of them reject "double-predestination", although I don't see any logical way out of it. It seems like little more than attempt to ease their consciences about God's character. They want to keep the "positive" traits and explain away the "negative" ones. I'll be the first to admit that I want to do this at times. I know I shouldn't, but that doesn't change how I feel. My main barrier to accepting Calvinism is, to be totally frank, my feelings. I suppose, then, that my biggest priority in all of this is to seek God's sanctification of my feelings. That ought to be at the top of my prayer list, even before showing me the "Truth".
ReplyDeleteI like your thought-process though. You seem to be suppressing the part of you (that we all have) that wants to curl up like a porcupine into defense mode, and that's always a good thing. Honesty with yourself and with God is always a good thing. I'm still working on that. I think we all are. Let's keep it up!
Grace, brother.
Oh, I forgot to mention a more theological observation that I was planning to throw out there...
ReplyDeleteThis is probably nonsense (I've never heard it expressed before), but I've had this idea that God is driving a fishing boat throughout the ocean of human souls, casting into particular bodies of water...but not others. This is his "invitation" to "many". In each of those coves, some will bite; others will not.
I have wondered if God might outright predestine some, condemn some, and offer an invitation to some, which can be accepted or rejected. Those he predestines (to heaven and to hell) are the exception. They are the "great men and women of faith" that He wills to hand large kingdom responsibilities to... the great heros of the Old Testament, the apostles, etc. The rest of humanity is split into those who receive an invitation and those who do not. Of those who receive the invitation, some will accept it and inherit eternal life.
Now we might say that the mere fact of the inconsistency inherent in this view is enough to ignore it, but does God not hold the prerogative to do as He pleases without altering His character? I think so.
Just an idea...
I've think we've come to an appropriate end for this dialogue... both of us open and confessional of our uncertainties.
ReplyDeleteI actually like the fishing metaphor. I think it would be unwise to start scanning scripture for supporting evidence of this theory, but if nothing else it reminds us that salvation is God's business, and we can't tell him how to do it. We can't really even explain how it's done.
We have to have to always come back to what is our domain. If I am given the responsibility to choose to follow, then may I always do that. Because if there's anything I can guarantee you, it's that, on judgment day, God will be far FAR more concerned about how we handled our own responsibilities, than about whether we had HIS ways figured out. In fact, he has practically guaranteed that we will not figure him out (God's ways/thoughts are higher than man's ways/thoughts.)
I wish the topic was irrelevant to the everyday practice of our faith... :-\ Unfortunately, the issue is at the forefront of many debates about cultural relevance and contextualization, particularly in ecclesiastical discussions. Something interesting I've noticed is that it was easy to ignore the issue down there, but up here, outside of Roman Catholicism, Reformed churches are the norm rather than the exception. Blessings to you as you continue to enjoy the priviledges of the majority view. :)
ReplyDeleteGrace...