I asked her how she planned to present herself to God, how well she was
doing in her program of cooperating with grace. She admitted that her
cooperation wasn’t perfect. I asked her what she makes of Galatians 3:10, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the book of the law” (emphasis added). She admitted that her
obedience isn’t perfect but she hoped that her best would be acceptable
to God. The late-medieval Franciscans had an expression for this view
of grace and justification: “To those who do what lies within them, God
denies not grace.” She is relying on what the medievals called
“congruent merit,” literally the merit of agreement or covenantal merit.
She’s hoping that God will impute perfection to her best effort. (Scott Clark relating a conversation he had with a Roman Catholic woman)
I find this medieval idea to be the nature of common American folk religion--indeed, it may be necessary for all self-propelling religion, since perfection is needed for salvation in most religions. And it's rooted everywhere in the modern sentiment that God won't care about what you believe and do as long as you try your best, as long as you try to be a good person. Hence, since perfection cannot be attained, rather than admitting that salvation is not possible if it is to be accomplished by us, one must resort to this type of thinking---namely, God is so gracious that He'll just reward our good intentions even when we fail to do good and perpetuate evil instead.
But the truth shall set you free, not the "almost-truth" or complete lie with good intentions. And God seems to judge those who may have good intentions but don't obey Him (Lev 10:1-3; 2 Sam 6:6). In other words, God looks at actions as good and evil, not just intentions; and if the whole of the truth and law revealed must be obeyed, then to have good intentions but fail in having good actions is to come under the curse of the law. For God to give salvation where salvation has not been achieved would be to deal out something not only unjust, but also to break His word and to become a liar when He said that such breaking of even one point of the law brings upon one the condemnation of the whole law. Hence, one who does evil or does not accomplish good in one thing becomes guilty of the entirety of the law, regardless of one's intentions and other deeds.
This means that the real gospel is the only true way to be saved. Christ is saved. We must be united with Him in His death and resurrection. We must be His body. He must be our Lord, our Owner. We are told that this unification comes through faith, and that God has had great mercy upon us and has given us grace, due to His great love for us even while we were sinners, so as to bring us to a faith-allegiance with Christ so as to be one with Him and be saved together with Him. He has accomplished the perfection required to be saved. Hence, only those united to Him by faith can be saved with Him. Saying otherwise is like a man who thinks he can deliver himself from death with good intentions. Such is nonsense in the physical world, and so it is also in the spiritual realm.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Monday, November 12, 2012
Why the Neo-Evangelical Argument against Abortion Is Not the Same as the Historic Christian Argument against It
There was a lot of discussion, once again, about abortion during this election cycle. Hence, the same arguments were used by both sides. The pro-choice group tends to diminish the idea that the fetus is human, so much so that it makes abortion a matter of "women's health," and a right for the woman to do whatever she wishes with her "own body"--thus emphasizing the idea that the fetus is a non-human entity and only the woman remains. Pro-life groups counter this by trying to argue that the fetus is, in fact, a distinct human from the mother, a scientific fact of course that seems to escape our society of supposedly scientifically-driven moralists.
To start off, the new argument is valid. Neo-evangelicals typically argue over whether the fetus is a human being with the same rights as any other human being. But this is more of a legal way of looking at the question. And, of course, this is where neo-evangelicalism needed to go once it started making an argument in the sixties that there were legitimate uses of birth control and abortion. It switched up on abortion, largely due to the work of Francis Schaeffer and John Warwick Montgomery, but it wanted to maintain its stance on birth control in general, and so a new path of argumentation against abortion, but for birth control, was forged.
But the historical argument was never concerned with whether the fetus had a soul or was a full human being yet. Those questions were completely irrelevant. Many Christian leaders believed the soul may not have been placed within a child until later in the womb or even as late as the birth itself. Again, it was irrelevant.
The reason why it was irrelevant is because the historical Christian argument against abortion, which also included the reason why they rejected contraception, was that it was a misuse of sex and a hindering of a human life that God may purpose to exist. In other words, it was an anti-creational act against humanity, against the role of the image, against creation and for chaos. It was anti-life and therefore pro-death. Hence, the use of sex that did not allow for procreation, either by contracepting or aborting the human that was projected to exist through the sexual act, is a sexually immoral act; and to willfully engage in a sex act that prevented a human being that may come into existence through it from coming into existence was an act worse than murder, as it did not even allow a human to exist in the first place.
Most Christian teachers saw abortion as the killing of the human that was coming, or had already come, into existence; and hence, it was murder; but since they considered contraception as a practice worse than murder, or at least its equivalent, it was irrelevant to argue whether the fetus was yet human.
Christians, as the people of God who worked toward life in all of their practices, including their sexual practices, had an obligation to be creational and work toward the human life God expressed was His revealed purpose of sex in creation. To work against it, was to be a chaotic agent, an agent of death, an agent that worked against God's purposes for the sexual act and against human life and preservation upon the earth. Hence, only the wicked use their sexual acts to prevent children from coming to be. They are the murderers of humanity. The sexually depraved, who distort sex into something that is merely for pleasure and self-fulfillment. There is no lifting up of the Creator in the obedience of Genesis 1:28-31.
Hence, anyone who aborted a fetus was participating in one of the most evil acts one could. It's why the Fathers considered it worthy of judgment. It's why Luther considered it a corruption of mankind for which eternal judgment was rightly handed out; and why people like Calvin believed one would definitively go to hell for the sin.
The argument is that such people do these evils because they are not people of life, i.e., Christians, at all; but rather destroyers of humanity, whether it be that the humanity they destroy already lives or is coming to be. Whether a person purposes to prevent a human life or destroy a human life that already exists was simply irrelevant to the historic Christian argument. It's a valid argument to make when discussing the legality of such a thing, but that should not be confused with the moral argument that has been historically made against it.
Of course, evangelicals won't like this argument, simply because it doesn't just condemn abortion, which many already see as an evil, but also contraception, which most within the past fifty years have come to believe is amoral and a matter of reproductive choice.
To start off, the new argument is valid. Neo-evangelicals typically argue over whether the fetus is a human being with the same rights as any other human being. But this is more of a legal way of looking at the question. And, of course, this is where neo-evangelicalism needed to go once it started making an argument in the sixties that there were legitimate uses of birth control and abortion. It switched up on abortion, largely due to the work of Francis Schaeffer and John Warwick Montgomery, but it wanted to maintain its stance on birth control in general, and so a new path of argumentation against abortion, but for birth control, was forged.
But the historical argument was never concerned with whether the fetus had a soul or was a full human being yet. Those questions were completely irrelevant. Many Christian leaders believed the soul may not have been placed within a child until later in the womb or even as late as the birth itself. Again, it was irrelevant.
The reason why it was irrelevant is because the historical Christian argument against abortion, which also included the reason why they rejected contraception, was that it was a misuse of sex and a hindering of a human life that God may purpose to exist. In other words, it was an anti-creational act against humanity, against the role of the image, against creation and for chaos. It was anti-life and therefore pro-death. Hence, the use of sex that did not allow for procreation, either by contracepting or aborting the human that was projected to exist through the sexual act, is a sexually immoral act; and to willfully engage in a sex act that prevented a human being that may come into existence through it from coming into existence was an act worse than murder, as it did not even allow a human to exist in the first place.
Most Christian teachers saw abortion as the killing of the human that was coming, or had already come, into existence; and hence, it was murder; but since they considered contraception as a practice worse than murder, or at least its equivalent, it was irrelevant to argue whether the fetus was yet human.
Christians, as the people of God who worked toward life in all of their practices, including their sexual practices, had an obligation to be creational and work toward the human life God expressed was His revealed purpose of sex in creation. To work against it, was to be a chaotic agent, an agent of death, an agent that worked against God's purposes for the sexual act and against human life and preservation upon the earth. Hence, only the wicked use their sexual acts to prevent children from coming to be. They are the murderers of humanity. The sexually depraved, who distort sex into something that is merely for pleasure and self-fulfillment. There is no lifting up of the Creator in the obedience of Genesis 1:28-31.
Hence, anyone who aborted a fetus was participating in one of the most evil acts one could. It's why the Fathers considered it worthy of judgment. It's why Luther considered it a corruption of mankind for which eternal judgment was rightly handed out; and why people like Calvin believed one would definitively go to hell for the sin.
The argument is that such people do these evils because they are not people of life, i.e., Christians, at all; but rather destroyers of humanity, whether it be that the humanity they destroy already lives or is coming to be. Whether a person purposes to prevent a human life or destroy a human life that already exists was simply irrelevant to the historic Christian argument. It's a valid argument to make when discussing the legality of such a thing, but that should not be confused with the moral argument that has been historically made against it.
Of course, evangelicals won't like this argument, simply because it doesn't just condemn abortion, which many already see as an evil, but also contraception, which most within the past fifty years have come to believe is amoral and a matter of reproductive choice.
Friday, November 9, 2012
The "Unequally Yoked" Passage in the Context of the Larger Message of 2 Corinthians
Sometimes when you go to school and have a particular interpretation of life, an event, a passage in Scripture, etc., you've been given a false correction, and would have been better had you never been "corrected." This has happened numerous times to me. The problem is that professors don't necessarily know all the facts, but since they're professors, students often figure they understand more than their parents, traditions, or selves. The problem is that professors often tell you what is currently trending in scholarly thought, but contemporary scholarly thought is also not necessarily a beacon of understanding in all things.
To give an example, I originally believed that the great commission read, "Go, preach the gospel . . ." and then was corrected in my undergrad that it was actually, "as you go, preach the gospel." Then, I was later told that participles take upon the force of an imperative when coupled with an imperative, and thus, it should read, "Go, preach the gospel . . ." Then I read a paper in my Advanced Greek Grammar class in grad school that made a good argument that participles only take upon the force of an imperative when they follow that imperative. When they precede it, they set up the situation for the imperative, so that it should read, "As you go, preach the gospel."
Another example is being "corrected" about the use of yom in Hebrew. The word yom, so I was told, could mean a longer period of time. When I studied the word further, I found that it was not used to mean a longer time period than a day at all. I was told the same thing about the word beyom, only to find that it too was not used to refer to a longer period of time.
I'm sure I could find a lot more examples of these things, but today I want to talk about a "correction" concerning the passage in 2 Corinthians that should have never been corrected.
When I became a Christian, I immediately came to the conclusion that a Christian should not date or marry a non-Christian. A Christian who loved Christ more than all things would not then seek an unbeliever as his or her mate for life, a mate that had no love for Christ within him or her. But when I read 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, I saw that the Scripture made the same argument that the Spirit had already made within me. To my shock, when I went into my undergrad, I was told that this text actually referred to business relationships rather than marriage.
Now, I would think that even if that were true, any prohibition to a lesser relationship would certainly include a greater one, so that a prohibition against entering into a business partnership because of a duty to avoid a demonic influence and partnership between the demonic and the Holy Spirit would prohibit a greater contract and partnership that did this to an even greater extent.
However, as I studied the message of 2 Corinthians, a message I'm sure is lost on most commentators of the book, I realized that the passage, even though more generic in its principle, directly prohibits any relationship with an unbeliever that even looks like marriage.
Here essentially is my argument in outline form:
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said:
and you will be my sons and daughters,
says the Lord Almighty.”
(2 Cor 6:14-18)
To give an example, I originally believed that the great commission read, "Go, preach the gospel . . ." and then was corrected in my undergrad that it was actually, "as you go, preach the gospel." Then, I was later told that participles take upon the force of an imperative when coupled with an imperative, and thus, it should read, "Go, preach the gospel . . ." Then I read a paper in my Advanced Greek Grammar class in grad school that made a good argument that participles only take upon the force of an imperative when they follow that imperative. When they precede it, they set up the situation for the imperative, so that it should read, "As you go, preach the gospel."
Another example is being "corrected" about the use of yom in Hebrew. The word yom, so I was told, could mean a longer period of time. When I studied the word further, I found that it was not used to mean a longer time period than a day at all. I was told the same thing about the word beyom, only to find that it too was not used to refer to a longer period of time.
I'm sure I could find a lot more examples of these things, but today I want to talk about a "correction" concerning the passage in 2 Corinthians that should have never been corrected.
When I became a Christian, I immediately came to the conclusion that a Christian should not date or marry a non-Christian. A Christian who loved Christ more than all things would not then seek an unbeliever as his or her mate for life, a mate that had no love for Christ within him or her. But when I read 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, I saw that the Scripture made the same argument that the Spirit had already made within me. To my shock, when I went into my undergrad, I was told that this text actually referred to business relationships rather than marriage.
Now, I would think that even if that were true, any prohibition to a lesser relationship would certainly include a greater one, so that a prohibition against entering into a business partnership because of a duty to avoid a demonic influence and partnership between the demonic and the Holy Spirit would prohibit a greater contract and partnership that did this to an even greater extent.
However, as I studied the message of 2 Corinthians, a message I'm sure is lost on most commentators of the book, I realized that the passage, even though more generic in its principle, directly prohibits any relationship with an unbeliever that even looks like marriage.
Here essentially is my argument in outline form:
The purpose of the letter is to convey to the Christian
community in Corinth that Christians are to see beyond the external, superficial
appearance of things, and instead they are to see things as they truly are in Christ. This underlying principle is displayed throughout the book and unifies its otherwise seemingly discorded parts.
I. Paul's apostolic authority is found in Christ, not
in external prestige and the external qualities one within the world’s systems
would normally identify as worthy of authority.
II.
The gospel itself cannot be discerned through
external means, and is instead something hidden from unbelievers who have been
blinded by Satan.
III.
Our experience of losing our lives here must see
beyond our experience to what God has prepared for us in the spiritual realm.
IV. Paul now does not consider any person according to the flesh, but as a new creation in Christ.
V.
False apostles often appear as messengers of the
light because Satan himself appears as an angel of light, but one must look
past appearances an evaluate their message according to the true apostolic
message they have received from Paul.
VI. What appears to be weakness in Paul is actually a display of God's power.
Although the passage does not explicitly refer
to any application of the principle, the principle of not being unequally yoked
must be seen in the context of the entire letter.
Hence, one must not assume
commonality with another person based upon superficial/external means, but based upon
spiritual allegiances, who one really is, and to whom one really belongs. Since
Paul is clear that this does not mean refraining from associating with
unbelievers (1 Cor 5:9-11), this relationship must be one where the temples are being joined
rather than merely existing side by side. In fact, Paul uses this analogy in 1 Corinthians 6:15-20 to refer to the joining of temples in a sexual union. The temple of Christ, he argues here, should not be joined to the temple of a sexually immoral person. In other words, the analogy of combining temples is an analogy that refers to a sexual relationship.
Furthermore, the string of descriptions (i.e., having something shared or in common, fellowship, harmony, agreement, inherited portion) all seem to refer to more than mere acquaintance at a public festival and certainly more than just a business relationship.
Hence, although we can view the text
more generically to apply it to other situations where the demonic influence of
an unbeliever should not be allowed in a believers life through a close
relationship (business, close friendship, etc.), the greatest and more
probably, most direct application would be to the marriage relationship with a
further application in our day to all romantic relationships and thoughts
leading up to that point. Thus, Paul’s statements here do, in fact, apply to
the marriage relationship into which one enters. It does not refer to the
marriage that has been previously made when both parties were unbelievers, as
Paul exhorts the Corinthians to stay in the state in which they were found in
Christ; but it does have application even for how one considers his or her
unbelieving partner’s advice and influence.
But the main emphasis here is concerning how a believer is to see the
world’s influence and the unbelievers therein as those who do not belong to
God, so as to direct their steps away from having close ties to unbelievers in
any aspect of their lives. Thus, he commands them to come away and be separate
from them in this sense.
This makes far more sense in the context, as the entire point of the work is to convey that Christians need to build their view of the world and other people based upon Christ and their reconciliation to God through Him, i.e., the gospel Paul has preached to them, rather than basing it upon a superficial assessment of the world and other people. When one seeks a marriage relationship, therefore, it ought to be based upon who one is in Christ and therefore accept or reject such a relationship based upon what is spiritually/eternally true of the individuals involved.
As the Corinthians are to evaluate Paul's ministry, the gospel, death, other people, etc. beyond the way the world thinks about these, so they are to think about romantic relationships/partnerships from an eternal perspective, according to the identity of the individuals in relation to Christ.
If Christ is the center of life, the true identity of the Christian as a new creation who needs to be reconciled to God in all things, dating or marrying an unbeliever is antithetical toward who he or she is and needs to be. There is nothing in common. There is no fellowship that can be had. There is no equal pull on the yoke that would bring one to his or her proper destination in Christ. The demonic pulls in one direction, toward destruction and death, and Christ pulls in another, toward holiness/reconciliation to God in all things and life.
But the final thing that makes me think that this directly refers to marriage (or, in application, any relationship that mimics marriage, e.g., dating, living together, etc., in our culture) is that fact that God will not be a Father to the person who does not separate him or herself from the demonic. The passage states that this adoption comes as a result of "coming out from them" and being "separate." Notice the language of "separate" as opposed to being joined together in marital/sexual union. But the key here is that judgment occurs, in accord with the judgment that takes place throughout the Old Testament when a believer unites with an unbeliever in sexual/religious union.
Our religions are contrary, and so a union with an unbeliever is a denial of the faith, a statement that one loves the demonic more than Christ, that he or she wishes to live contrary to the separation to which God has called him or her. Hence, being unified with the children of death causes one to remain in death, as one cannot be saved while deciding to inject a deadly poison into his or her soul.
So the passage makes little sense if this merely refers to business partnerships as some have suggested. It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense if referring merely to going to a festival with unbelievers, as the language used has little of that in context, and Paul would have already addressed this in 1 Corinthians 8-10 more specifically. It would be odd for him to address it here more generically. Instead, the passage makes sense within the context of the whole work when we understand that associations with unbelievers are fine and good (how else will you preach the gospel and do good to others in the world?), but entering into more intimate relationships with unbelievers is being unequally yoked and a rejection of one's allegiance with Christ in order to be aligned with the devil instead.
So there was never a need for a correction, and I'm sure it's done more damage than necessary to teach otherwise. Maybe professors, at least if they are Christian, should first stop and ask whether the Holy Spirit may have placed certain teachings within the community for a reason. Maybe it's because that teaching is the right one, and modern scholarship, which seems to have a lot of knowledge with very little understanding of how that knowledge fits together these days should be seen as second tier to the Church. Just my two cents on that.
“I will live with them
and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they will be my people.”
and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they will be my people.”
Therefore,
“Come out from them
and be separate,
says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you.”
and be separate,
says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
and I will receive you.”
And,
“I will be a Father to you,and you will be my sons and daughters,
says the Lord Almighty.”
(2 Cor 6:14-18)
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
The Kingdom Is Yet to Come
I put this on my FB page as a message to all American evangelicals and want to say it again here:
Monday, November 5, 2012
What All of My "Tolerant" Postmodern Friends Should Be Saying If They Were Consistent
I've found that I've matured in my understanding of religious beliefs, and am no longer judgmental of the religious views of others. After all, who is to say my expression of the truth is better than the beliefs of anyone else? I've advanced beyond the child-like stage of judging right and wrong, truth and error to one of acceptance and love. That's why I can celebrate the religious beliefs and actions of this couple as just as reflective of truth and good as my own. You would have to go back to that paleolithic belief that one can have certainty of truth and good to judge this couple, and that, My Friends, would be wrong (said with absolute certainty that it would be wrong). Some people like to instruct their children to guard their eyes, some people let their kids destroy themselves in their relationships, and some people throw acid on their children according to what they believe. It's immature and arrogant to judge the beliefs of others, and I am the height of maturity and humility. Therefore, I will be civilized and embrace this couple's actions as a legitimate expression of worshiping God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)