Search This Web Site:

Craig L's Blog

Commonplace Holiness

Category: Theology

  • The Ecstatic Structure of Human Spirituality

    The Ecstatic Structure of Human Spirituality

    Last week I posted on “What is Spirituality?”. This was my attempt to get a handle on what it might mean to call something “spiritual.” While spirituality is certainly a subjective phenomenon, I believe there is a way of talking about it and analyzing it, to some extent. I said:

    Human spirituality is self-transcendence. A spiritual experience is something that lifts us beyond our selves. The true essence of spirituality is to love God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind; and our neighbor as much as we love our own self. (See Luke 10:27, etc.) There is both a vertical (God-ward) axis and a horizontal (other-ward) axis to this. But, spirituality is always being lifted out of ourselves. Spirituality connects us with God, with the community of faith and with the needs of other people outside the community of faith. These vertical and horizontal axes correspond roughly with the idea of God’s transcendence and God’s immanence. Traditionally, Christian theology has affirmed both God’s transcendence and God’s immanence.

    Here is another way of saying it: there is an ecstatic structure to human spirituality. A spiritual experience is something that lifts us beyond ourselves. It may provide us a sense of connection to a higher reality or it may provide us with a sense of connection with other people. Or, it may do both. But, in any case, it lifts us beyond ourselves — outside ourselves.
    I realize that this assertion (especially the language of “ecstasy”) is very much open to misinterpretation, so I feel the need to say more about it.

    As with many things, it was Wolfhart Pannenberg that first drew my attention to this:

    In all their forms of manifestation the works of God’s Spirit have an ecstatic character.

    — Systematic Theology, Volume 3 page 135.

    If this is so, then we would expect there to be a close connection between spiritual experiences and emotion. A spiritual experience is bound to be an emotional experience. It can hardly help but be!

    People who come to a new-found realization about life — and make new commitments to God — are bound to feel emotional about it. People who feel a new or renewed bond with others are bound to experience this as an emotional experience. So, if we are going to renew the church spiritually it will (of necessity) be an emotional thing. People will be lifted out of themselves.

    Personalities differ, so the nature of these emotional experiences — and the expression of these emotions will differ. Nonetheless, emotion can be expected.

    But, while spiritual experiences are bound (in the nature of the case) to be emotional experiences, the inverse is not true. Emotion, per se, is not spiritual. Emotional experiences are not necessarily spiritual. So, while emotion should be expected, it is not demanded. If we focus our attention on the emotional component of spirituality, we, in fact, get off track.

    Emotion is the side effect of spiritual connection. It is expected but not demanded — nor do we know the form such emotions might take. Individuals (as I said) will respond differently.

    Part of the problem here is within the very word: “ecstatic.” This naturally makes us think of something irrational and out-of-control. But, this is not what is meant at all. In no way would should we set rationality and spirituality at odds with one another. They should, in fact,  support one another. In explaining the statement above, Pannenberg goes on to say:

    Wolfhart Panneenberg (1928–2014)

    But we must rid this statement of any idea of irrational states of intoxication. Ecstasy can mean that creatures, while outside themselves, are supremely with themselves. The reason for they lies in the ecstatic structure of living phenomena. Every living thing lives its life by existing outside itself, namely, in and by the world around it. On the stage of human life, too, the Spirit gives life by lifting individuals above their particularity and finitude; their spontaneity of self-transcendence is only the reverse side of this. The forms of human conduct and experience we call ’spiritual’ in the narrower sense also have ecstatic features for those who experience them, most intensively perhaps in productive spiritual experiences of artistic inspiration, or in insights that come by sudden bursts of illumination, though also in the experience of inner freedom from the stifling bondage that was seemingly invincible. This applies already in a general way to the basic trust with which, in spite of all disillusionment, we constantly open ourselves to what is around us, to the world. And it applies especially again to trusting faith in the God who encounters us in Jesus Christ.

    — Systematic Theology, Volume 3 page 135.

    It is natural for human beings to look beyond themselves — in fact, really, we must. So, it is natural for human beings to try to place their own lives in a larger context of meaning. Thus, in this sense, people are naturally religious. Or, it might be better to say: naturally spiritual. We find ourselves asking what life is about, how we ought to act (not just what’s convenient or best for ourselves — but what is right), and where we fit into the scheme of things.

    In this sense, we can see that the struggle is not: atheism vs. religion. Various religions address the questions of meaning and morality in different ways. Atheism is a denial: either: there is no meaning / morality; or: the theistic God (granting for the moment we could arrive at a common idea of God) is not the basis of meaning / morality. But, a denial does not end the question. It is just a subtle way of saying: “You can’t ask that question.” Pannenberg continues:

    This faith [in Jesus Christ] lifts us above our particularity inasmuch as God is powerfully present to us as the light of our final future and assures us at the same time of our own eternal salvation. By the event of this elevation of our own particularity, we as individual believers are also linked with others in the fellowship of believers, a fellowship whose common setting is the extra nos* of faith in the one Lord. The ecstatic integration of this fellowship by the Spirit into the common praise of God can mediate the sense of initial removing of alienation between this and that individual and therefore also the antagonism between individual and society.

    — Systematic Theology, Volume 3 pp. 135 & 136.

    Legitimately spiritual experiences support the Christian Gospel’s call for us to love God with all out heart, mind, soul and strength; and our neighbor as ourselves. Spirituality turns us outward toward God and outward toward other people.

    John Wesley says that the evidences of genuine Christian re-birth include “the love of God” and “a sincere, tender, disinterested love for all [human]kind.” Having such a love kindled in our hearts will, of necessity, be an emotional experience.

    But, not all emotional experiences mean more love.  

    *The Latin term extra nos (in the last quote above) means “outside of us.” It is commonly used by Lutheran theologians — and others, of course — in discussing the Theology of the Cross. So, the grace and forgiveness and reconciliation and righteousness a believer receives by faith in Christ is extra nos — a gift received from outside the self.  

  • What is Spirituality?

    What is Spirituality?

    Oddly enough, Christians often have a difficult time talking meaningfully about spirituality.

    It is as if words fail us at this point. We are at the edge of a mystery. We are talking about the ways of God — and the ways in which humans find connection with God. We are not used to thinking of this as something which is open to analysis and investigation. After all: “The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8 NRSV).

    (more…)
  • Reflections on the Last Judgment

    Reflections on the Last Judgment

    In the following paragraph from his book Reason for Hope: The Systematic Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg (1989) Stanley J. Grenz does a good job summarizing some themes in Pannenberg’s view of the final judgment:

    On the basis of [the] function of Jesus’ message [as the criterion of God’s judgment]  and the New Testament emphasis on the all-encompassing love of God (e.g., Matt. 8:11; John 10:16), Pannenberg asserts that correspondence with the will of God as reflected in Jesus’ proclamation — that is, the command to seek first God’s kingdom and the double command to love — rather than an actual encounter with the Christian message, is the basis of final judgment (Matt. 25:41ff.).

    The step in this direction is prepared by a thesis, developed in the Christology and ecclesiology sections, that love for others entails participation in God’s love for the world. This understanding of the criterion for judgment means that persons who live in accordance with Jesus’ message will be included in the divine salvation, whereas nominal Christians may find themselves excluded. To the resultant question, If an encounter with Jesus is not the sole condition for salvation, what is the Christian’s advantage? he replies that Christians have the advantage in that they know what the standard of judgment is. Although he emphasizes the universality of the possibility of salvation in this manner and even moves the concept of eternal condemnation to that of a border situation, Pannenberg is unwilling to embrace universalism.

    This resonates very well with the sense I remember getting from my initial reading of Volume 3 of Pannenberg’s Systematic Theology.

    There is so much here to like. This fits very well with the Wesleyan themes that: (1.) “without holiness no one will see the Lord” and that, in turn, (2.) the essence of this holiness is love to God and love for other people. It sets this theology apart from the common variety of evangelicalism which posits salvation either by creed or by a particular religious experience. Faith in Christ is the doorway into holy living. A faith that makes no difference in a person’s life is a dead faith — or, as Wesley would point out the faith of the devil and the demons! This is not saving faith. Faith brings a person’s life into ever-growing continuity with the will of God revealed in Christ.

    The proclamation of Jesus was

    “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.” (Mark 1:15 NRSV).

    This also was the proclamation entrusted to Jesus’ disciples. It is a message which is moral to the core — it calls for a change in attitude and a change in life. It calls us to align ourselves with God’s purposes — for our lives and for our world. We turn. We leave the past behind. We begin anew. We seek God’s will and God’s Reign — however imperfectly we may understand, and however imperfectly we may see it realized. It is a call to change our ways.

    We do not have the right to turn it into something else. How can it become merely “change your worldview” or “put a check-mark in this box” — when the call is to repent, and to believe and become a part of the redemptive work of God in the world?

    Nevertheless, this understanding of the Last Judgment also calls us to look beyond the church itself — to God’s will and purpose for all the human race. Thus, it resonates well with the New Testament’s inclusive vision.

    “For [God] will repay according to each one’s deeds: to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.” (Romans 2:6-16 NRSV)

    The God proclaimed by Jesus is not a parochial God whose concern is only for a small club or group. God’s purposes have to do with all humanity — and God’s Spirit has been sent upon all flesh. We know there is salvation and new life in the name of Jesus. All who know Christ then proclaim this — and what faith in Christ’s name will mean in the conduct of their lives. But, God’s purposes are greater than we know. And, God’s purposes in Christ are expansive. “… in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself….” (2 Corinthians 5:19 NRSV). “Then Peter began to speak to them: ‘I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.’” (Acts 10:34, 35 NRSV.)

    The benefit of the death of Christ is not only extended to such as have the distinct knowledge of his death and sufferings, but even unto those who are inevitably excluded from this knowledge. Even these may be partakers of the benefit of his death, though ignorant of the history, if they suffer his grace to take place in their hearts, so as of wicked men to become holy.

    — John Wesley, “A Letter to a Person Lately Joined with the People Called Quakers”

    So, this is another reason I like the way this is formulated: it expresses an appropriate hope for all people. This is what I keep calling “Hopeful Inclusivism.” It is not necessarily a doctrine of universal salvation, but it is a hopeful doctrine of universal grace.

    And, it reminds us that that religion per se is not that hope. All people are called to hear and heed the message of Christ — and that includes religious people. The name of Christ is no shield from repentance and faith. The name of Christ does not relax the urgency of God’s call to new life, to discipleship and service. Christ is our way into the life God calls us to live. I don’t think there is anything so obnoxious to God as false, unrepentant, religion.

    And, yet, while affirming a universalistic hope, this did not push Pannenberg to complete universalism. It is true that in Christ there is hope for all. It is true that in Christ we know that God is loving and just — and thus, will deal with all people with justice and fairness. But Pannenberg still leaves room for the possibility of eternal damnation as, as Grenz says, “a border situation.”

    In fact that’s one of the things that surprised me when I first read the last part of Pannenberg’s Systematic Theology. As I read along I thought sure we were about to arrive at universalism — maybe on the next page. But, no! Surely, we can hope for the salvation of all. We would wish for it. But, Pannenberg still felt that there are some who will resist God and God’s will and purpose — however expansively defined — even to the very end.

    Certainly David Bentley Hart has made a strong case — formally irrefutable, really — for an ultimate universalism in his book That All Shall Be Saved (2019). I’m not sure what Pannenberg would have said to that. II feel no one should resist the idea. Ultimate salvation is a hope consistent with the character of the God we know through Jesus Christ. Yet, there is much about eternity, the nature of the human consciousness and will, etc. that we do not understand. We do not dare undermine the warnings of proximate moral judgement in the light of ultimate salvation, anyway. The reality of Judgement is clear.

    So, as I say, there is much to like (at least from from my admittedly idiosyncratic point of view) in this perspective on the Last Judgement. But, I do have some disagreements, as well. This (again, quoting from Grenz) seems terribly inadequate to me:

    To the resultant question, If an encounter with Jesus is not the sole condition for salvation, what is the Christian’s advantage? he replies that Christians have the advantage in that they know what the standard of judgement is.

    — Stanley J. Grenz, Reason for Hope: The Systematic Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg (1989).

    There is salvation and life in the name of Christ. There is the growing experiential knowledge of God’s will — discovered through Scripture and prayer and service and worship and interaction with others. Through faith in Christ these things become Means of Grace to lift us higher into the life of faith. Through them The Holy Spirit works in our inner lives to bring us into conformity to Christ.

    But, God’s will for the human race is that we come to reflect God’s character. “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” And, this is what God is seeking from beginning to end.    

  • Toward a Wesleyan Eschatology

    Toward a Wesleyan Eschatology

    Here’s a question that often comes up: Where do John Wesley and his early followers fit in the familiar end-time schemas of a-millennial, post-millennial and pre-millennial (and it’s pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib flavors)?

    People looking for information about this find that there is very little available. Here’s the reason: John Wesley doesn’t fit any of these schemas exactly. He has been claimed by both pre-millennialists (Christ returns to establish an age of peace and righteousness on earth) and post-millennialists (an age of peace and righteousness on Earth is established through the advancement of Christian faith, and then Christ returns). And, individual quotations from his works can be lifted out both to support or refute both viewpoints.

    First, let me note Wesley’s approach to the book of Revelation, as a way of introducing and illustrating the problem.

    (more…)
  • Calvinism and John 6:44

    Calvinism and John 6:44

    An email and my response:  

    Hello Mr. Adams,  I read with interest your comments on Calvin's comments on John 3:16 on your web site. I was wondering what your thoughts are on Jesus' words as recorded in John 6:44:  “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (NKJV)  (It is unfortunate that English editions tend to translate the Greek as "draws" rather than the more accurate "compels" — especially since it is also translated more accurately as "dragged" elsewhere.)  Have you considered that perhaps Calvin's "on the other hand" was intended to recognize what the whole of scripture says about this issue?   He just may have been appealing to theology that is rooted in scripture itself.

      In the first place, I would like to point out that my correspondent is attempting to play one Scripture off another. So, we are playing dueling Scripture passages here. Since the meaning of John 6:44 seems closely tied to its context, using it to fend off the idea of God’s universal love in John 3:16 (which seems to me to have a more general meaning) is a bad idea.

    The context here has to do with the relationship of the Father and the Son. Jesus is claiming that the Jews are rejecting him because (in actuality) they have rejected the Father.

    So, the context of this passage is not a discussion of whether God has chosen to send the mass of humanity to an eternal Hell, while choosing to arbitrarily save (by compulsion: “dragged”) a few. The context concerns why these particular Jews have not been drawn to Jesus as Messiah and Son, while others have. And, Jesus asserts here that it is because they have first rejected the Father and the testimony of the Scriptures.

    Jesus denounces their claim to knowledge of the Father. He asserts that their resistance to the Father & the message of the Scriptures is the reason they have not subsequently been drawn to the Son. The point is made repeatedly. “And the Father who sent me has himself testified on my behalf. You have never heard his voice or seen his form…” (John 5:37). “You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf.” (John 5:39). “How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God?” (John 5:44). “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?” (John 5:46, 47). And, earlier in chapter 5 it is stated the other way around: “Anyone who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.” (John 5:23).

    Thus the point is that the Jews who are rejecting him are doing so because they have first rejected the Father. But, Jesus asserts that those who acknowledged the Father were “drawn along” into acknowledging the Son.

    My correspondent is right in saying that ἕλκω can mean “dragged.” It is a stronger word than is evident in our translations. In John 21:6 & 11 it is used of the drawing of fish in a net, in John 18:10 of the drawing of a sword, in Acts 16:19 & 21:30 of forcibly dragging the apostles through the streets, and in James 2:6 of being dragged into court.

    But, the context tells us what Jesus means. Those who acknowledge the Father and the testimony of the Scriptures are compelled to also acknowledge the Son. However, the same word (ἕλκω) is also used in John 12:34 where Jesus says : “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (NRSV) If ἕλκω always means “forcibly dragged” then this passage would have to mean that all people (πάντας) are saved — universalism — something Calvinists do not generally affirm. Yet, in Matthew 23:37 (parallel in Luke 13:34) Jesus says: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.” Thus, it appears, that Christ desires to draw to Himself people who are nonetheless unwilling to come! And, they do not. It is not that God chooses to arbitrarily save a few by divine compulsion. Though the Cross of Christ, He draws all. But, all do not come.

    John Fletcher (1729-1785)

    And, here, I think is where we get to the crux of the matter. The Bible continually assumes human moral responsibility. These Jews were responsible for their rejection of the Father and their rejection of the testimony of the Scriptures. It is everywhere assumed that a choice can be made, and that people can be held responsible for their choices.

    The early Methodists objected to Calvinism on practical grounds, and not simply on theoretical grounds. Fletcher opposed what he called “Solafideism” because it was antinomian (“against the Law of God”): it undermined human moral responsibility through an appeal to God’s unconditional election to salvation.

    Clearly, if you are saved, and you can’t be un-saved, and it is solely God’s choice — then it doesn’t matter what you do. Nothing is riding on it. While classical Calvinists never drew this conclusion, some people were willing to follow the logic of Calvinism to this inevitable conclusion. And, this is one of the things Arminians and Wesleyans and Methodists have always found objectionable: allowing an appeal to grace to undermine our responsibility to respond to God. A call to repentance, for example assumes the ability to respond. And, so forth.

    In many, many ways the Bible continually assumes both the capacity to respond and the responsibility to respond. And, to my correspondent’s question “Have you considered that perhaps Calvin’s ‘on the other hand’ was intended to recognize what the whole of scripture says about this issue?” I have to give a terse: “No.” And, a too-quick harmonization of one Scripture with principles a person thinks they have derived from another is always dangerous. What do we mean by a “theology that is rooted in scripture itself”?

    John Calvin (1509-1564)

    I think Calvin came to his theological views, to a large extent, by way of Augustine. Certainly Augustine also appealed to Scripture for support of his views (though he was no Bible scholar), but his views were also shaped by the controversies of his day and the personal issues they raised for him.

    None of us comes to the Scriptures in a vacuum. The notion that one simply shakes out all of the Bible’s teachings on the floor and arranges them systematically like a jigsaw puzzle is a mistake.

    All of us have been influenced by preachers and Bible teachers. And, I wouldn’t say that is a bad thing — far from it. It’s a good thing. Not everything Augustine or Calvin said is wrong. I agree with much of what they said. They both can be read (critically) to great benefit. But, I also believe some legitimate objections can and should be raised against much of what they said.

    Look folks: not everything Wesley or Fletcher or Clarke or their followers said is right, either. Nevertheless, if we read critically we can benefit from the insights of all.  

  • Obedience and the Spirit of Truth – John 14:15-21

    Obedience and the Spirit of Truth – John 14:15-21

    The themes in this section of the Gospel of John resonate well with the themes I am often addressing at this web site. Jesus calls his followers into a life of obedience — and promises the power and presence of the Holy Spirit to them.

    In the Gospel of John, we see Jesus preparing his disciples for the days to come with a long discourse: it begins in Chapters 13 and runs through chapter 16, with a closing prayer added in chapter 17. The passage I’m discussing today is just a brief snippet from that longer discourse. This passage is memorable because in contains of the promise of the Holy Spirit. But, it is framed on either side by a challenge to keep Christ’s commandments.

    (more…)
  • On Having Enemies – Psalm 57:3

    On Having Enemies – Psalm 57:3

    יִשְׁלַ֤ח מִשָּׁמַ֨יִם ׀ וְֽיוֹשִׁיעֵ֗נִי חֵרֵ֣ף שֹׁאֲפִ֣י סֶ֑לָה יִשְׁלַ֥ח אֱ֝לֹהִ֗ים חַסְדּ֥וֹ וַאֲמִתּֽוֹ׃

    “He will send from heaven and save me, he will put to shame those who trample on me. Selah. God will send forth his steadfast love and his faithfulness.” (NRSV.)

    Recently I posted some thoughts about the first phrase in Psalm 57:3: “[God] will send from heaven and save me….”

    The next phrase (“he will put to shame those who trample on me”) points up one of my long-standing problems with the Psalms. When I first began to read the Psalms, as a young man, I was put off by the recurrent theme of “enemies.” Praying to God in the midst of confusion and need I could understand. Praying to God in times of distress and suffering I could understand. But, the frequent and recurrent theme of persecution by enemies was something with which I could not connect. Or, maybe I just didn’t want to connect with it.

    (more…)
  • Calvin on John 3:16

    Calvin on John 3:16

     “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.” — John 3:16 (NRSV).

    JOHN CALVIN COMMENTS (my responses have a white background):

    John Calvin (1509-1564)

    “’That whosoever believeth on him may not perish.’ It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term world, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.”

    Um. Okay. I think I’m with you there, brother John.

    “Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father — that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.”

    Whoa! What do you mean “on the other hand”? Umm… Now you seem to be dodging out of it all by appealing to a theology that is rooted in something else,  John. Here you are clearly leaving exegesis behind and trying to reconcile the verse with a preconceived theology. How can ‘life’ be promised to those incapable of receiving it? It can’t. How can God ‘invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers’ (as you say) if God is choosing to withhold the ability to believe from some? You can’t have it both ways. I mean, I know you’re a logical guy, John. Isn’t it possible that Augustine was wrong in the Enchiridion — where this same logical inconsistency can be found?

    “Still it is not yet very evident why and how faith bestows life upon us. Is it because Christ renews us by his Spirit, that the righteousness of God may live and be vigorous in us; or is it because, having been cleansed by his blood, we are accounted righteous before God by a free pardon? It is indeed certain, that these two things are always joined together; but as the certainty of salvation is the subject now in hand, we ought chiefly to hold by this reason, that we live, because God loves us freely by not imputing to us our sins. For this reason sacrifice is expressly mentioned, by which, together with sins, the curse and death are destroyed. I have already explained the object of these two clauses, which is, to inform us that in Christ we regain the possession of life, of which we are destitute in ourselves; for in this wretched condition of mankind, redemption, in the order of time, goes before salvation.”

    What! Now you seem to be having problems with your earlier statement that [faith] ‘frees us from everlasting destruction.’ Do you mean: ‘faith bestows life upon us’ (as you said earlier) or: ‘life’ (through grace) bestows faith upon us? Now you are saying that redemption precedes salvation, because the ability to believe is itself the result of that salvation. If the ability to believe is wholly the decision of God, then it is God who has determined the issues of life and death. It is your theology that has dictated that: “redemption, in the order of time, goes before salvation” — not the text itself. I agree that part of the message of this verse is ‘that in Christ we regain the possession of life, of which we are destitute in ourselves’ but it is also a universal offer of eternal life (thus, it says: “whoever”) — a possibility your theology does not seem to allow for! In my opinion, making sense of this verse requires a concept of Prevenient Grace, which allows fallen humans to respond with faith to the offer of life. Otherwise, from your point of view, the verse should read either:

    “For God so loved the elect that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who belongs to the elect and, thus, has faith, may therefore believe in him unto eternal life.”

    or more simply:

    “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who has eternal life may believe in him.”

    But, surely you see, don’t you, it doesn’t say either of those things. You’ve turned it around backwards. This is no longer the Scripture with which you began.

    (Start gathering the wood again, boys, I think there’s another heretic in town.)      

  • The Pre-Tribulational “Rapture” is Not Taught in the Bible

    The Pre-Tribulational “Rapture” is Not Taught in the Bible

    QUESTION: Where is the Pre-Tribulational Rapture of the Church taught in the Bible.

    ANSWER: It is not taught in the Bible. It is the implication of a theory of interpretation of the Bible known as Dispensationalism.

    I’m old enough to remember the Larry Norman song “I Wish We’d All Been Ready” (used extensively in evangelism). It was part of a a fear-evangelism tactic used to scare people (especially young people) into accepting Jesus as Savior before it was too late. Here are some of the lyrics:

    A man and wife asleep in bed
    She hears a noise and turns her head he’s gone
    I wish wed all been ready
    Two men walking up a hill
    One disappears and ones left standing still
    I wish wed all been ready

    [Chorus]
    There’s no time to change your mind
    The son has come and you’ve been left behind

    — source: https://www.lyricsondemand.com/larry_norman/i_wish_wed_all_been_ready

    I also remember the evangelistic film churches used to show: “A Thief in the Night.”

    Many years after all that, I also remember the brief furor that was caused by a booklet that gave 88 reasons why Jesus was returning in 1988. Then after that, Harold Camping predicted Jesus’ return on May 21, 2011. Over the years, many of the predictions of end-times prophecy teachers have failed — some quite spectacularly — but, this is quickly forgotten when a new round of predictions starts up again.

    The doctrine of the Rapture has been a staple of American fear-evangelism for a long time. In this teaching, Jesus will return secretly to remove all true Christian believers from the world — then a time of horrible Tribulation will ensue. And, it is still commonly taught by certain well-known “prophetic” teachers.

    Evangelical and conservative Christians pride themselves on their devotion to the Bible. Yet, there are certain common features of conservative Christian teaching about the return of Christ which have little or no backing from the Scriptures. Specifically, the teaching that Christ will come silently and secretly to take believers out of the world, seven years before he returns in glory, is a teaching the lacks Biblical support.

    (more…)
  • The Intention to Pray – Psalm 57:2

    The Intention to Pray – Psalm 57:2

    Psalm 57 begins with a cry to God for mercy: “God help me!”

    Human nature being what it is: there is no prayer more basic to our experience. It may not be the ideal prayer. But, it’s the most common one. There isn’t a person living who hasn’t at some time in their life cried out: “God help me” — even if they weren’t certain whether there was Anyone or anything to whom to cry.

    But, the prayer in verse 1 is not just general, it is also very personal and intimate: “…for in you my soul takes refuge; in the shadow of your wings I will take refuge….” This is followed by a statement of intent. In a sense, this statement implies a rationale for prayer. Verse 2 (Hebrew, verse 3):

    אֶקְרָא לֵֽאלֹהִ֣ים עֶלְי֑וֹן לָ֝אֵ֗ל גֹּמֵ֥ר עָלָֽי׃

    “I will cry to God Most High, To God who accomplishes all things for me.” (NASB).

    Why do we pray? Why is it even possible or appropriate to bring our personal requests and needs to God? Because God accomplishes things for us, in answer to our requests.

    Prayer operates on a hypothesis. As it says in Hebrews 11:6: “…for whoever would approach [God] must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.”

    As we walk with God, and find our faith confirmed in experience, our trust grows stronger and deeper. We say to ourselves: “God has not failed me in the past. God will not fail me now.” So, it is in this instance. Experience has produced confidence. God is the One who brings things to pass.

    It seems strange at first glance that the initial cry of mercy is followed by a declaration of intent:

    “I will cry to God Most High, To God who accomplishes all things for me.”

    The idea here is that at all times — and especially in times of need and stress — the psalmist intends to call upon God.

    Think about it. Prayer is often a last resort for us. When all other sources of help have been exhausted, then we seek out the place of prayer — and request the prayers of others. This verse says it should be more of a first resort.

    Sometimes a church gets involved in a visioning process. Sometimes this is fruitful and sometimes it isn’t. But, for a lot of people this process is frustrating — even maddening. It’s a process of reflection and prayer. It will be fruitful only as people seek God and God’s will. But, it’s hard. Our impulse is to do, to go get ideas from somewhere, to make a plan, etc. — sadly, our first impulse is not the impulse to pray. Sometimes we are in the waiting time.

    But, it is those who wait upon the Lord who find strength. But, someone who says: “I will cry to God Most High, To God who accomplishes all things for me” is someone who resorts to God in all circumstances.

    This is someone who has the intention to pray. If I have the intent to pray, I will rise in the morning and seek God. If I have the intent to pray, I will find times during the day to seek God. I will be bold enough to ask — for myself and for others. I will look expectantly for answers.  

    A PRAYER.

    Lord God
    we praise you for your steadfast love and mercy.

    We have learned from experience to trust You.
    We have found You to be faithful.
    We have found in You a continual source of hope and life.

    Keep us in the place of prayer.

    In uncertain times, keep us in prayer.
    In times of joy and fulfillment, keep us in prayer.

    We seek You now.
    It is our intent to seek you always.
    Our God
    who may always to be found in Jesus Christ. Amen.