This post is a quick reflection on a philosophy class I just finished concerning Reason and Faith. I have not hammered out my thoughts nor did I proof-read this post. With that said, please read with mercy in light of that fact, and return in a few weeks for an updated version.
We know that belief-that God exists is not enough for salvation. Salvation is relationship with God. While I might believe that the president of the United States exists, this by no means suggests that I am in relationship with Barrack Obama. Likewise, one might know of God without knowing God personally. But many suggest that humans can only “know” things through natural inference. Natural inference does not allow for us to enter into spiritual relationship with God. There are some who suggest that faith is just a form of belief of the mind. However, many Christians suggest that faith is a matter of the soul/spirit and not merely a matter of the mind. If this is the case, can faith ever be effective? Can it ever overcome doubt?
There have been philosophers that have pointed out that we are only able to reason from experience. Our language is built upon experience, and we explore ideas by forming them into words. Thus, God cannot reveal anything to us that we cannot understand from experience. We cannot say, suggests this line of argumentation, that God gives us any special revelation that we could not arrive at from experience. And, even if He can, it does not do anyone else any good because we have no words from experience to explain what has been revealed. In other words, God cannot, or, at very least, does not have to, reveal anything new to us. With this in mind, these philosophers contend that all the knowledge that we can ever affirm, we learn through natural methods of reasoning from past experience. Thus, faith has little to do with the statement: “I know God.” Is this really the case?
Although the argument about beliefs might not deal exactly with faith itself, I find that it does have implications for some persons’ views of faith. For example, many Christians would argue that faith is a higher ability than reason. In addition, many would also posit that faith informs reason. In light of the above reasoning, can this be the case? Can we claim that “belief-that,” a product of the mind, can be informed by, “belief-in” (faith), a product, arguably, of a higher function? If faith is beyond humans’ natural experience and is not developed from experience, can it still inform the mind which understands from experience?
I think there is a way that faith can be helpful to reason, even if reason only affirms what we know from experience. Faith might be a quality that, among other things, somehow strengthens our already formed beliefs of the mind.
For example S might believe through reasoning from evidence that G probably exists. Let’s say that S was willing to place a value of 55% to this assuredness of G’s existence. Let us also imagine that S has tried with all his might to find evidence for G, but still is only somewhat sure and holds some doubt. Could it not be the case that G has a power to reward S if S chooses, on account of his desire for relationship with G, to trust G in spite of lingering doubt. Suppose G provides that faith, a quality He provides if S desires to exercise it, is such a quality that it causes the mind to become more certain in previously held beliefs. Thus, because S decides to place his faith by gradually raising S’s assurance of G’s existence, until it eventually reaches 100%. This could be accomplished by some relation of soul and body, in which a soul that has faith has the ability to cause the body to be a healthier functioning machine so that the mind can more easily replace doubt with trust.
I am not exactly sure how this might work, but let’s think of one possibility to show that it is at least logically consistent. It is natural for our feelings to play a part in the strength of our beliefs. Feelings do not have to be the direct result of beliefs. When I look at my wife and my heart flutters, I do not experience this love just because I believe she exists and loves me back. My feelings for her are deeper than my beliefs about her. If we believe in unconditional love, we must affirm this. Thus, feelings can be something other than beliefs that yet effects belief.
If faith is beyond reason, does that still mean it cannot influence our emotions? I see no reason that it cannot. When feelings are heightened, our beliefs are impacted. For example, when I hear a bump in the night, I might think nothing of it at first, but then I begin to think of the safety of my wife and daughter. The emotion of fear begins to drive my belief that there is someone in the house until I become almost certain of this.
Faith might not be a mere belief that God is present, but an overwhelming feeling that He is reaching out to our heart. While our mind might not think much of His presence at first, the feeling lingers and will not leave us alone: the stronger the feeling, the stronger the belief.
Thus, we do not have to affirm that faith is just another species of belief that is formed in the mind of man. It is a gift from God that is more likened to feeling than ascent to truth, seeded in the heart, to keep us grounded in His love. While there have existed times in my walk in faith that I might have thought, “what if God is not there?” there has been something much deeper within my being that has kept me rooted in my walk, and I believe this is the quality of faith. Praise God!
Monday, August 16, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
The Crutch of Inbred Sin
“What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? –Saint Paul, Apostle of Christ
Reliance upon sin for the Christian is deplorable; we are surely to utterly rely on Christ and no other. Yet we often defer to our inbred impurity as excuse for wrongdoings. It is true that our perfection is not realized at the moment of conversion. Sin still lives within. However, while it lives within, it has no more dominion when Christ’s Spirit resides on the throne of the heart. Can we deny this? Is it not the case, as St. Paul suggests, that in light of the Spirit, if we focus upon Him, we remain in His will and do not have the opportunity to sin (Galatians 5:16)? Voluntary sin on behalf of the Christian is thus an act of volition in which one diverts His gaze from God Most High. In light of this, are we justified in the acclimation that “the Devil made me do it?”
As a matter-of-fact, I must recognize infirmities and psychological ills. In this consideration, I recognize such evils that result from these conditions of the human being to be involuntary and unrecognized as sin by the offender. In His mercy, God extends grace to us when we are guilty of such transgression. The above query deals with those sins that we recognize as such and participate in them nevertheless. This is the nature of such sin that we attribute to inbred sin. To attribute it as such is to recognize it as sin. So, I ask again, are we justified, in light of our known sin, to say, “I cannot but help to sin. It is in my nature”?
If it is an act of volition, how can we say such things? One might object, “I am weak, and my brokenness is such that I cannot help but sin. I would respond, “Do you not call yourself a follower of Christ and, as such, do you not proclaim to have Him living within? If so, then is it by your power that you live, or by His?” In light of the multitude of sin we are capable of committing in our life, it is easy to say that I might become overwhelmed and must submit to my nature at some point in time. However, think of each potential sin as it presents itself through initial temptation. Reflecting on each potential sin, one at a time, do we not have the ability to deny our temptation by appealing to the power of Christ within, or is that power too weak?
In order of the severity of their impact, think upon sin from least to greatest. The white lie: are you unable, with Christ’s power, to deny your desire to lie and instead tell the truth? The act of stealing: are you unable, with Christ’s power, to deny your desire to steal and instead trust Him for sustenance? The act of murder: are you unable, with Christ power, to deny your desire to kill and instead learn to love others as Christ loves you? When temptation comes our way, cannot Christ lead the heart away from such contemplations, or is His model prayer said in vein when we say, “Lead us not into temptation”?
When we approach sinful acts in this manner, we surely affirm Christ’s power over each, but in real life circumstances we too often circum to our temptations and use our inbred sin as an excuse. Sin has no power over those who are in Christ. While it lingers until we are perfected in Him, it cannot, or, at very least, should not reign. But, in order to realize this truth, we must trust in His power, and this is as much a plea for myself to follow as it is my message to you.
While we are capable of sin, even as Christians, and still have an advocate with the Father if we do fail, we do not have to do so. Sin should be the rarest of exceptions and never the rule. He has the power to deliver if we be vigilant enough to recognize our temptations and then lean utterly upon Him.
Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: Casting all you care upon Him; for He cares for you. Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. But the God of all grace, who has called us unto His eternal glory by Christ, after that you have suffered a while, make you perfect, establish, strengthen, settle you. To Him be the glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen –I Peter 5:6-11
Reliance upon sin for the Christian is deplorable; we are surely to utterly rely on Christ and no other. Yet we often defer to our inbred impurity as excuse for wrongdoings. It is true that our perfection is not realized at the moment of conversion. Sin still lives within. However, while it lives within, it has no more dominion when Christ’s Spirit resides on the throne of the heart. Can we deny this? Is it not the case, as St. Paul suggests, that in light of the Spirit, if we focus upon Him, we remain in His will and do not have the opportunity to sin (Galatians 5:16)? Voluntary sin on behalf of the Christian is thus an act of volition in which one diverts His gaze from God Most High. In light of this, are we justified in the acclimation that “the Devil made me do it?”
As a matter-of-fact, I must recognize infirmities and psychological ills. In this consideration, I recognize such evils that result from these conditions of the human being to be involuntary and unrecognized as sin by the offender. In His mercy, God extends grace to us when we are guilty of such transgression. The above query deals with those sins that we recognize as such and participate in them nevertheless. This is the nature of such sin that we attribute to inbred sin. To attribute it as such is to recognize it as sin. So, I ask again, are we justified, in light of our known sin, to say, “I cannot but help to sin. It is in my nature”?
If it is an act of volition, how can we say such things? One might object, “I am weak, and my brokenness is such that I cannot help but sin. I would respond, “Do you not call yourself a follower of Christ and, as such, do you not proclaim to have Him living within? If so, then is it by your power that you live, or by His?” In light of the multitude of sin we are capable of committing in our life, it is easy to say that I might become overwhelmed and must submit to my nature at some point in time. However, think of each potential sin as it presents itself through initial temptation. Reflecting on each potential sin, one at a time, do we not have the ability to deny our temptation by appealing to the power of Christ within, or is that power too weak?
In order of the severity of their impact, think upon sin from least to greatest. The white lie: are you unable, with Christ’s power, to deny your desire to lie and instead tell the truth? The act of stealing: are you unable, with Christ’s power, to deny your desire to steal and instead trust Him for sustenance? The act of murder: are you unable, with Christ power, to deny your desire to kill and instead learn to love others as Christ loves you? When temptation comes our way, cannot Christ lead the heart away from such contemplations, or is His model prayer said in vein when we say, “Lead us not into temptation”?
When we approach sinful acts in this manner, we surely affirm Christ’s power over each, but in real life circumstances we too often circum to our temptations and use our inbred sin as an excuse. Sin has no power over those who are in Christ. While it lingers until we are perfected in Him, it cannot, or, at very least, should not reign. But, in order to realize this truth, we must trust in His power, and this is as much a plea for myself to follow as it is my message to you.
While we are capable of sin, even as Christians, and still have an advocate with the Father if we do fail, we do not have to do so. Sin should be the rarest of exceptions and never the rule. He has the power to deliver if we be vigilant enough to recognize our temptations and then lean utterly upon Him.
Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: Casting all you care upon Him; for He cares for you. Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. But the God of all grace, who has called us unto His eternal glory by Christ, after that you have suffered a while, make you perfect, establish, strengthen, settle you. To Him be the glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen –I Peter 5:6-11
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Is Equality an Established Truth?
Most sane human beings have some sort of ethic from which to operate based in a phenomenon known as morality. Morality seems to be an inescapable quality that humanity upholds and from which we establish laws to which we hold each other responsible to follow. The ethic of equality that we, especially in the United States, hold seems to be a peculiar and particular assumption that must be firmly grounded in other beliefs (i.e. humans have value, etc.). Equality that grants each person a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness must be based on the fact that each human has been created with such rights. But, what overarching law demands this equality?
It would seem that if it were the case, as many assume, that humanity arrived on the scene through a very gradual, unsupervised process of natural selection (NS), there would be no other laws of morality than those created by the creatures that arrived from this process. Or, as the proponents of Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian suspect, NS might, out of necessity, demand “survival of the fittest” (SOF). The ethic of equality seems to assume a prior law set in place before humanity, not set by humanity, and although NS might precede humanity, it does not seem to grant equality; in fact, SOF seems to preclude such a law.
Most people base basic human rights on the basis of a divine authority. In other words, we establish our equality on the fact that we are created by a God who has established order as such. However, there have been some in recent times that have tried to establish the basic right of equality without the need for a higher authority. Can this be the case?
I might be able to write a lengthy dissertation on the topic, and someday I might do just that. But today I have a simple thought. So, for now, consider the following: There have been philosophers in the past that attempt to establish an ethic based on the ambiguity of our existence. One such philosopher Simon De Beauvoir claims that, since we are the highest being, at least that we know of, it is our responsibility to establish the rights of others and live peaceable lives based on our own ability to take charge of our fate. She argues that if there is no higher being, we are duty-bound to take control.
While these philosophers establish a need for humans to be responsible in forming ethics and laws, it still seems that the basic right of equality is not so basic without the assumption of the existence of God. Why is it my responsibility to establish equality for persons weaker than myself? If it were the case that there were no God and SOF was our highest governing truth, it might be argued that it is human duty to exploit and expose the weakness of others, ethnically or otherwise, so that we might weed out disease, figuratively or otherwise, that is spread by their weakness and incapability.
I know that the previous statement is a disagreeable one, and it is so for good reason. I submit that it is disagreeable because equality of all humanity is a basic truth grounded in God, otherwise it could not be rightly considered basic at all. If one believes in equality for all, the existence of God seems to be the most reasonable explanation of the existence of such a basic truth.
It would seem that if it were the case, as many assume, that humanity arrived on the scene through a very gradual, unsupervised process of natural selection (NS), there would be no other laws of morality than those created by the creatures that arrived from this process. Or, as the proponents of Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian suspect, NS might, out of necessity, demand “survival of the fittest” (SOF). The ethic of equality seems to assume a prior law set in place before humanity, not set by humanity, and although NS might precede humanity, it does not seem to grant equality; in fact, SOF seems to preclude such a law.
Most people base basic human rights on the basis of a divine authority. In other words, we establish our equality on the fact that we are created by a God who has established order as such. However, there have been some in recent times that have tried to establish the basic right of equality without the need for a higher authority. Can this be the case?
I might be able to write a lengthy dissertation on the topic, and someday I might do just that. But today I have a simple thought. So, for now, consider the following: There have been philosophers in the past that attempt to establish an ethic based on the ambiguity of our existence. One such philosopher Simon De Beauvoir claims that, since we are the highest being, at least that we know of, it is our responsibility to establish the rights of others and live peaceable lives based on our own ability to take charge of our fate. She argues that if there is no higher being, we are duty-bound to take control.
While these philosophers establish a need for humans to be responsible in forming ethics and laws, it still seems that the basic right of equality is not so basic without the assumption of the existence of God. Why is it my responsibility to establish equality for persons weaker than myself? If it were the case that there were no God and SOF was our highest governing truth, it might be argued that it is human duty to exploit and expose the weakness of others, ethnically or otherwise, so that we might weed out disease, figuratively or otherwise, that is spread by their weakness and incapability.
I know that the previous statement is a disagreeable one, and it is so for good reason. I submit that it is disagreeable because equality of all humanity is a basic truth grounded in God, otherwise it could not be rightly considered basic at all. If one believes in equality for all, the existence of God seems to be the most reasonable explanation of the existence of such a basic truth.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Faith is to the Soul as Reason is to the Body
As a person’s body cannot rightly be said to be whole without both flesh and bone, so the human cannot be said to be whole without both body and soul. Like flesh and bone, these components cannot function properly without each other (at least in this life); however, we can, as we do with flesh and bone, speak of each separately and diagnose each part of the greater whole.
With this in mind, we must understand that each part works with the other for the good of the whole, yet they each operate with different capacities. The brain operates with reason and observation. When it ponders an object of its interest, it begins to formulate ideas based on previous experience and knowledge that can be expressed in language. The soul, on the other hand, operates with faith. When it ponders an object of its interest, it begins to form a relationship to the object that cannot fully be explained by human language.
Thus, doubt and faith are both capacities of the greater whole, yet each one works on a separate level of the human being. Doubt comes from gaps in reason. However, faith is a product of the soul. As John Wesley pointed out, faith lies in the hidden heart of man. With this in mind, we need not assume necessarily that doubt is to be an indication of “weak” faith, unless the doubt cripples the relationship between God and person (I will speak more to this in a moment).
Because of these phenomena of human function, we might better understand why the Christian who is plagued by doubt might yet hold dearly to faith. While the mind might have severe trouble in its understanding of God, producing doubt, the soul, in relation to the Father, has no trouble relying and trusting the object of its desire (if we can rightly call God object). As modern psychology has indicated, many factors can contribute to a strained mind. Thus, some people do not have the capacity to “believe” properly because of plaguing anxiety and the like, and the gracious and patient God of Creation mercifully understands such issues.
While I hope that this can be digested as a word of hope, I must not neglect a word of warning. This distinction between faith and doubt does not suggest that doubt cannot penetrate to the soul and hamper faith. Doubt can become cancerous if not rightly understood. If one allows doubt to overpower the mind, the person can become so obsessed that the heart has no power in which to operate. As bone cancer can cripple the whole body, so doubt can cripple the whole person, if he or she does not actively allow faith to inform reason.
Properly align your faith and reason, properly accepting the capacities of each so that common human malfunction does not cripple your joy in relation to the Father. He is patient, kind and loving. If your mind has trouble accepting, but your heart wishes to hold on, take this as an indication that He has your heart and smile because you are His beloved, even when this fact is almost impossible to fathom.
With this in mind, we must understand that each part works with the other for the good of the whole, yet they each operate with different capacities. The brain operates with reason and observation. When it ponders an object of its interest, it begins to formulate ideas based on previous experience and knowledge that can be expressed in language. The soul, on the other hand, operates with faith. When it ponders an object of its interest, it begins to form a relationship to the object that cannot fully be explained by human language.
Thus, doubt and faith are both capacities of the greater whole, yet each one works on a separate level of the human being. Doubt comes from gaps in reason. However, faith is a product of the soul. As John Wesley pointed out, faith lies in the hidden heart of man. With this in mind, we need not assume necessarily that doubt is to be an indication of “weak” faith, unless the doubt cripples the relationship between God and person (I will speak more to this in a moment).
Because of these phenomena of human function, we might better understand why the Christian who is plagued by doubt might yet hold dearly to faith. While the mind might have severe trouble in its understanding of God, producing doubt, the soul, in relation to the Father, has no trouble relying and trusting the object of its desire (if we can rightly call God object). As modern psychology has indicated, many factors can contribute to a strained mind. Thus, some people do not have the capacity to “believe” properly because of plaguing anxiety and the like, and the gracious and patient God of Creation mercifully understands such issues.
While I hope that this can be digested as a word of hope, I must not neglect a word of warning. This distinction between faith and doubt does not suggest that doubt cannot penetrate to the soul and hamper faith. Doubt can become cancerous if not rightly understood. If one allows doubt to overpower the mind, the person can become so obsessed that the heart has no power in which to operate. As bone cancer can cripple the whole body, so doubt can cripple the whole person, if he or she does not actively allow faith to inform reason.
Properly align your faith and reason, properly accepting the capacities of each so that common human malfunction does not cripple your joy in relation to the Father. He is patient, kind and loving. If your mind has trouble accepting, but your heart wishes to hold on, take this as an indication that He has your heart and smile because you are His beloved, even when this fact is almost impossible to fathom.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Is The Reception of Faith in Christ to Be Considered Works Righteousness?
A Wesleyan’s Perspective Briefly Stated
Note: Below I describe a few select opinions of Christian understanding that differ from that of my own. These statements are brief and are not intended to sum up any one particular tradition of thought, nor are they intended to stereotype any particular person into one way of thinking. If it were my intention to discuss vast differences between my thought and the thoughts of others (although there are particular thought traditions below that I do wish to distance myself from, and these are the traditions of thought that contradict orthodox faith by either affirming works righteousness as a means of salvation or affirming universalistic claims of salvation), I would be sure to spend much time on the topic. However, it is my hope and desire to clearly express my own thoughts and maybe even demonstrate how similar they might be to those who differ in opinion, if only semantically.
In reading the Scriptural writings of Paul in his epistle to the Galatians (3:11-14-as well as many places elsewhere. I explicitly mention this epistle because it is the area of my study at this time), he makes clear the issue associated with works righteousness. Works is an attempt to perfect the will of God through an impossible task of the self trying to flawlessly obey the law. By this, the one performing the work hopes to enter into the will of God for the purpose of salvation. On the other hand, reception of faith is an act that is entirely other, if one wishes to call it an act at all.
Merely because something is an action does not constitute it as a work. Reception of faith is not an attempt by the individual to earn salvation. The one who truly receives Christ knows he or she has no means of saving the self, and it is only the grace of God that delivers us from sin. Reception is a passive act of submitting to God so that He might work in us (the term passive is not meant to remove responsibility from the individual. The term is used to denote that it is not the human action that is the active agent in salvation, even though it is a crucial aspect in the process). It is also important to note that it is not the human’s acceptance that is the initiating factor is salvation. The term “reception” needs to be understood as a response in that it is an action empowered by an already active action of God.
Many have tried to credit or discredit the action of reception by equating it to works righteousness. However, before one can categorize an action as a work, he or she must have a functioning definition of the term “works.” Merely claiming that a work is any action is to haphazardly dismiss the specifics that the scripture gives about the term. In our common everyday understanding of language, we hardly equate all actions with work. For example, we would hardly call the action of sleep an act of work. Similarly, we need to specify our theological understanding of works. To restate my definition from above: Works is an attempt to perfect the will of God through an impossible task of the self trying to flawlessly obey the law.
If we do in fact affirm along with traditional Christianity that we are totally depraved-we have no means of developing a healthy faith on our own- we must also affirm that it is only by God that we receive the gift of faith. With these affirmations, we are left with an inescapable consequence: Someone must be responsible for the detriment of those who never obtain faith.
In the opinion of some, it can be affirmed that God is ultimately responsible for the salvation and damnation of all humans. This affirmation is referred to as double predestination. Some assume that the sovereignty of God cannot be affirmed without this previous affirmation. A powerful argument used to affirm this assumption is the statement that God can do as God pleases, for He is God. There is not much that could be said to counter this argument, if it were the case that God did have such motives. However, we are given information about the resolute love of God by God Himself that seems to counter this claim.
For others, God’s sovereign choice of determining our ultimate fate does not leave man free from guilt. In this line of thought, even if God chooses to deliver some from sin, it is still the sin of the individual that made him or her guilty in the first place. Election is then a merciful act of allowing some to be pardoned for no other reason than it pleases God. Once again, if this was God’s prerogative, our protest would not mean much at all, for God is God. Yet, for many, including myself, it seems intuitive that the just God of Scripture would have the ability and desire to offer this gift to all.
Many, like me, that do hold this intuition that God wishes to offer this gift to all, unlike me, believe that no matter what one does, he or she will be saved by God’s divine election of all humanity. For the Universalist, God pardons all, no matter the condition of the heart. If this was the will of God, so be it. However, His holiness is described as such that this claim seems to contradict His very character.
There are still some that insist that works are a part of our way to salvation. While they might affirm that Christ is involved, some suggest that humans must grow into salvation, and once again, if this was God’s intention, I am sure it could be done in this manner. The problem with this thought is that it is a confusing of the Scriptural message of Christian life. Christian life is indeed to be marked by works of righteousness, but only after one is previously saved. There are no good works done by humanity unless the Spirit already dwells within, and the Spirit cannot dwell within until one has previously been justified by Christ. Never should we confuse the two crucial doctrines of justification and sanctification. Neither facet of our salvation should be ignored, but their proper order must also be understood.
Now that I have given a very brief and admittedly somewhat deficient account of what some Christians hold to be the proper means of salvation, I will leave you with my thoughts on the subject, thoughts not derived from my own imagination (not to suggest other’s thoughts are derived from their imagination), but from my humble interpretation of God’s will for us as I prayerfully understand it.
While humanity has been totally depraved of its moral image and has no means within its self in which to be saved, God’s grace is such that He might restore in each of us the ability to be called forth. If it is the case, as Scripture suggests, that God wishes for no man to perish, and if it is true that Christ’s sacrifice was intended for all, then all must have the opportunity and thus be held responsible for his or her eternal state (while there might be questions concerning those who never here the Gospel, this is not the time to discuss their possible fate. Although I will suggest that God’s grace extends to all, and He will fairly treat all He does judge). However, this responsibility is not to be accompanied with a pride of self accomplishment, for it is still by His grace that we are afforded such an opportunity. By His grace, fallen humans are given the ability to understand their hopelessness apart from Him and are given the choice to receive His will.
While works is a self righteous attempt to earn salvation, reception of faith as a gift of God is a passive action of allowing God to do for the individual what He has wanted to do for that person all along, but has waited for the person to want to rely on God so that he or she is not mandated into a relationship that is based on force, but rather based on love and dependence. True relationship must be a mutual interaction.
The submissive response of opening one’s heart to receiving faith is not an action of self-deliverance because it remains God who must perform this work. In truth, one could keep his or her heart open all he or she wished and it would amount to nothing unless God decided to act. Fortunately we are given the promise that those who are willing will receive.
However one may wish to look at the situation of faith, orthodox Christian teaching remains firm that it is not by any works that we are saved. We are saved only by the grace of God the Father through the sacrifice of His only Son, Christ, who sends us the power of the Holy Spirit to live as His people.
Now go and live in His promise as His people.
Note: Below I describe a few select opinions of Christian understanding that differ from that of my own. These statements are brief and are not intended to sum up any one particular tradition of thought, nor are they intended to stereotype any particular person into one way of thinking. If it were my intention to discuss vast differences between my thought and the thoughts of others (although there are particular thought traditions below that I do wish to distance myself from, and these are the traditions of thought that contradict orthodox faith by either affirming works righteousness as a means of salvation or affirming universalistic claims of salvation), I would be sure to spend much time on the topic. However, it is my hope and desire to clearly express my own thoughts and maybe even demonstrate how similar they might be to those who differ in opinion, if only semantically.
In reading the Scriptural writings of Paul in his epistle to the Galatians (3:11-14-as well as many places elsewhere. I explicitly mention this epistle because it is the area of my study at this time), he makes clear the issue associated with works righteousness. Works is an attempt to perfect the will of God through an impossible task of the self trying to flawlessly obey the law. By this, the one performing the work hopes to enter into the will of God for the purpose of salvation. On the other hand, reception of faith is an act that is entirely other, if one wishes to call it an act at all.
Merely because something is an action does not constitute it as a work. Reception of faith is not an attempt by the individual to earn salvation. The one who truly receives Christ knows he or she has no means of saving the self, and it is only the grace of God that delivers us from sin. Reception is a passive act of submitting to God so that He might work in us (the term passive is not meant to remove responsibility from the individual. The term is used to denote that it is not the human action that is the active agent in salvation, even though it is a crucial aspect in the process). It is also important to note that it is not the human’s acceptance that is the initiating factor is salvation. The term “reception” needs to be understood as a response in that it is an action empowered by an already active action of God.
Many have tried to credit or discredit the action of reception by equating it to works righteousness. However, before one can categorize an action as a work, he or she must have a functioning definition of the term “works.” Merely claiming that a work is any action is to haphazardly dismiss the specifics that the scripture gives about the term. In our common everyday understanding of language, we hardly equate all actions with work. For example, we would hardly call the action of sleep an act of work. Similarly, we need to specify our theological understanding of works. To restate my definition from above: Works is an attempt to perfect the will of God through an impossible task of the self trying to flawlessly obey the law.
If we do in fact affirm along with traditional Christianity that we are totally depraved-we have no means of developing a healthy faith on our own- we must also affirm that it is only by God that we receive the gift of faith. With these affirmations, we are left with an inescapable consequence: Someone must be responsible for the detriment of those who never obtain faith.
In the opinion of some, it can be affirmed that God is ultimately responsible for the salvation and damnation of all humans. This affirmation is referred to as double predestination. Some assume that the sovereignty of God cannot be affirmed without this previous affirmation. A powerful argument used to affirm this assumption is the statement that God can do as God pleases, for He is God. There is not much that could be said to counter this argument, if it were the case that God did have such motives. However, we are given information about the resolute love of God by God Himself that seems to counter this claim.
For others, God’s sovereign choice of determining our ultimate fate does not leave man free from guilt. In this line of thought, even if God chooses to deliver some from sin, it is still the sin of the individual that made him or her guilty in the first place. Election is then a merciful act of allowing some to be pardoned for no other reason than it pleases God. Once again, if this was God’s prerogative, our protest would not mean much at all, for God is God. Yet, for many, including myself, it seems intuitive that the just God of Scripture would have the ability and desire to offer this gift to all.
Many, like me, that do hold this intuition that God wishes to offer this gift to all, unlike me, believe that no matter what one does, he or she will be saved by God’s divine election of all humanity. For the Universalist, God pardons all, no matter the condition of the heart. If this was the will of God, so be it. However, His holiness is described as such that this claim seems to contradict His very character.
There are still some that insist that works are a part of our way to salvation. While they might affirm that Christ is involved, some suggest that humans must grow into salvation, and once again, if this was God’s intention, I am sure it could be done in this manner. The problem with this thought is that it is a confusing of the Scriptural message of Christian life. Christian life is indeed to be marked by works of righteousness, but only after one is previously saved. There are no good works done by humanity unless the Spirit already dwells within, and the Spirit cannot dwell within until one has previously been justified by Christ. Never should we confuse the two crucial doctrines of justification and sanctification. Neither facet of our salvation should be ignored, but their proper order must also be understood.
Now that I have given a very brief and admittedly somewhat deficient account of what some Christians hold to be the proper means of salvation, I will leave you with my thoughts on the subject, thoughts not derived from my own imagination (not to suggest other’s thoughts are derived from their imagination), but from my humble interpretation of God’s will for us as I prayerfully understand it.
While humanity has been totally depraved of its moral image and has no means within its self in which to be saved, God’s grace is such that He might restore in each of us the ability to be called forth. If it is the case, as Scripture suggests, that God wishes for no man to perish, and if it is true that Christ’s sacrifice was intended for all, then all must have the opportunity and thus be held responsible for his or her eternal state (while there might be questions concerning those who never here the Gospel, this is not the time to discuss their possible fate. Although I will suggest that God’s grace extends to all, and He will fairly treat all He does judge). However, this responsibility is not to be accompanied with a pride of self accomplishment, for it is still by His grace that we are afforded such an opportunity. By His grace, fallen humans are given the ability to understand their hopelessness apart from Him and are given the choice to receive His will.
While works is a self righteous attempt to earn salvation, reception of faith as a gift of God is a passive action of allowing God to do for the individual what He has wanted to do for that person all along, but has waited for the person to want to rely on God so that he or she is not mandated into a relationship that is based on force, but rather based on love and dependence. True relationship must be a mutual interaction.
The submissive response of opening one’s heart to receiving faith is not an action of self-deliverance because it remains God who must perform this work. In truth, one could keep his or her heart open all he or she wished and it would amount to nothing unless God decided to act. Fortunately we are given the promise that those who are willing will receive.
However one may wish to look at the situation of faith, orthodox Christian teaching remains firm that it is not by any works that we are saved. We are saved only by the grace of God the Father through the sacrifice of His only Son, Christ, who sends us the power of the Holy Spirit to live as His people.
Now go and live in His promise as His people.
Friday, April 23, 2010
The Narrow Path… (as I see it)
Note: When I write something that is somewhat obscure, which I think this post might be, and yet, at least in my mind, is somewhat eloquent, I pray I am not being merely clever, which is often the case for obscure writings (they seem to have substance, but they really mean nothing). I hope what I have to say has meaning. I hope that at least some who read my thoughts expressed here will be impacted in a positive manner.
While the path is narrow, it is deep. The depth at which one walks is not to be seen as an indication that one is somehow greater than those closer to the surface, for many on the surface may still be far ahead of many who travel deeply. Those who travel deeply might not travel at this depth for any other reason than they were created too heavy to walk on the surface. These who travel deeply cannot spend much time on the surface without frantically thrashing to stay afloat. It is within their very nature to sink deeply into their surroundings.
This might be a warning to those who travel deeply and are pessimistic about the quality of the faith of those who might not be so deep. While it might be human pride that tells us that the deeper we are in understanding the more important we are, the truth is that the deeper we travel the more fragile we become. If one takes stock of the believers around him or her, it becomes painfully obvious that those closer to the surface seem to travel the path of relationship with God much easier than those who might be deeper in understanding. The truth about understanding is that the more you have, the more you realize you do not know.
Our depth is dictated by our inner capabilities. Many intellectuals have no other choice than to go deeper so that they can move ahead, for if they remain at the surface, all their energy is wasted trying to stay afloat. While we might wish to stay on the surface, God draws us deeper, and as soon as we see the merit to this deeper journey, God does not allow us to go any deeper. While it is our decision to submit to our abilities and travel as deep as we are able, our potential is limited by our Maker who keeps us from going too deep so that we might realize that we must rely on Him. It is His prerogative. Going beyond the point God has dictated leads us into blindness. For, if we do choose to go beyond where He intends, He will not travel with us, and we have no light to understand true reality. This, I fear, is the condition of so many intellectuals of today.
Here I must carefully clarify what I mean by depth, because there exists various types of depth. This depth has little to do with our depth in relationship with God. The depth I speak of is vertical. It is the depth to which we understand our point on the path. The depth of our relation, on the other hand, is more of a matter of how far we have traveled with God in faith and has little to do with the depth at which we understand, other than the fact that the being at the correct depth of understanding for each individual is a matter of faithfulness to God.
I have no all encompassing final application to make here. However, I do hope that this is not the end to your thought on the subject matter. I hope this is a kick-board for further meditation.
God bless.
-TM
While the path is narrow, it is deep. The depth at which one walks is not to be seen as an indication that one is somehow greater than those closer to the surface, for many on the surface may still be far ahead of many who travel deeply. Those who travel deeply might not travel at this depth for any other reason than they were created too heavy to walk on the surface. These who travel deeply cannot spend much time on the surface without frantically thrashing to stay afloat. It is within their very nature to sink deeply into their surroundings.
This might be a warning to those who travel deeply and are pessimistic about the quality of the faith of those who might not be so deep. While it might be human pride that tells us that the deeper we are in understanding the more important we are, the truth is that the deeper we travel the more fragile we become. If one takes stock of the believers around him or her, it becomes painfully obvious that those closer to the surface seem to travel the path of relationship with God much easier than those who might be deeper in understanding. The truth about understanding is that the more you have, the more you realize you do not know.
Our depth is dictated by our inner capabilities. Many intellectuals have no other choice than to go deeper so that they can move ahead, for if they remain at the surface, all their energy is wasted trying to stay afloat. While we might wish to stay on the surface, God draws us deeper, and as soon as we see the merit to this deeper journey, God does not allow us to go any deeper. While it is our decision to submit to our abilities and travel as deep as we are able, our potential is limited by our Maker who keeps us from going too deep so that we might realize that we must rely on Him. It is His prerogative. Going beyond the point God has dictated leads us into blindness. For, if we do choose to go beyond where He intends, He will not travel with us, and we have no light to understand true reality. This, I fear, is the condition of so many intellectuals of today.
Here I must carefully clarify what I mean by depth, because there exists various types of depth. This depth has little to do with our depth in relationship with God. The depth I speak of is vertical. It is the depth to which we understand our point on the path. The depth of our relation, on the other hand, is more of a matter of how far we have traveled with God in faith and has little to do with the depth at which we understand, other than the fact that the being at the correct depth of understanding for each individual is a matter of faithfulness to God.
I have no all encompassing final application to make here. However, I do hope that this is not the end to your thought on the subject matter. I hope this is a kick-board for further meditation.
God bless.
-TM
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Life Or Death?
If you died today, would you go to heaven? This is a popular question that many of us evangelicals like to ask of those we are concerned for. But where does this lead the mind that has been inquired? This projects thoughts of the future, the life to come. But our salvation is now; our reality of citizenship in the kingdom, although not yet consummated here on earth, is a truth we live in now. It is our present concern. Sure, this question implies one’s condition for the present moment in that it refers to today. Ultimately, however, the question concerns one’s status as a child of God, and the focus of this status is one’s security in the afterlife. In other words, this question reveals the inquisitor’s view of the purpose of salvation and the end goal of faith, which is going to heaven, and this assumption is almost blasphemous. Christ’s purpose for dying on our behalf is not to give us the gift of heaven, as if heaven is nothing more than a peaceful retirement community for the dead.
Christ did not come just so that we might live forever. He came to transform us into His image, to redeem our brokenness, not only in the future, but here and now, to bring us back to His original purpose of being in relationship with Him, to make us holy. This is the end goal of our faith. Heaven is the place where God and His holy people dwell until the restoration of all things when we shall once again live on Earth as citizens of the fully restored New Jerusalem. It is not a prize for simply claiming to be a Christian. I am not accusing everyone who asks this question of denying this reality; I have asked the question myself, and I have done so out of genuine concern for people I love. However, what I am suggesting is that this question can lead to false conclusions that have little to do with the redeeming cross.
Maybe the better question is this: Are you who God has called you to be today? Are you living a life of happiness in relation to God at this very moment? Does His Spirit witness with your Spirit today? In its best possible sense, the question of heaven is asking whether or not we will be in the presence of the Holy God in the future, in the life to come. However, the question should really be: are you living in His presence now? There is no future hope without present salvation. Present salvation is by no means a mere promise for a future life. Present salvation is given to us so that we might grow in holy love now. This is not a call for us to forget our hope for the future. Yet, our hope for the future should not be a cause for us ignoring our present reality before the Living God today.
In life or death our purpose is to, by His grace alone, be truly holy.
Christ did not come just so that we might live forever. He came to transform us into His image, to redeem our brokenness, not only in the future, but here and now, to bring us back to His original purpose of being in relationship with Him, to make us holy. This is the end goal of our faith. Heaven is the place where God and His holy people dwell until the restoration of all things when we shall once again live on Earth as citizens of the fully restored New Jerusalem. It is not a prize for simply claiming to be a Christian. I am not accusing everyone who asks this question of denying this reality; I have asked the question myself, and I have done so out of genuine concern for people I love. However, what I am suggesting is that this question can lead to false conclusions that have little to do with the redeeming cross.
Maybe the better question is this: Are you who God has called you to be today? Are you living a life of happiness in relation to God at this very moment? Does His Spirit witness with your Spirit today? In its best possible sense, the question of heaven is asking whether or not we will be in the presence of the Holy God in the future, in the life to come. However, the question should really be: are you living in His presence now? There is no future hope without present salvation. Present salvation is by no means a mere promise for a future life. Present salvation is given to us so that we might grow in holy love now. This is not a call for us to forget our hope for the future. Yet, our hope for the future should not be a cause for us ignoring our present reality before the Living God today.
In life or death our purpose is to, by His grace alone, be truly holy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)