Theology Snack #5

Words are intriguing. The words we choose to use in conversation or in our writings should be chosen wisely. Some words are used "loosely." For example, how many times have you heard the word "awesome" in the past year? the last week?

Another word that seems to be used frequently is the word "miracle." One might say, "I was driving on fumes for weeks. It was a miracle that I made it that far." Or maybe, "I needed sugar and caffeine bad. I went to the store and grabbed the only soft drink left. It was a miracle!" Oh really? A miracle?

In the New Testament, certain events are called powerful deeds, wonders, and signs. They were manifestations of God through Jesus the Christ. Miracles pointed to the divinity of Jesus.

Throughout the last few centuries, the term "miracle" has been hotly debated. Liberal theologians believed that there was no need to believe in miracles but to simply have faith in the history of the Church. The liberal theologian also believed equating things in Scripture with a miracle was irresponsible if not done with other ancient documents. Of course, the Orthodox had major issues with this thought.

During the last century, the conversation has moved to not whether miracles take place, but the definition of such supernatural events. In other words, does God really intervene for your favorite baseball team to win in the bottom of the ninth, allow you to drive further on fumes because of your failure to plan, or enable your addiction to sugar and caffiene by providing the last soft drink? Probably not. On the other hand, we all know God still intervenes today. Visit with a surgeon some time.

What are your thoughts about miracles? Any stories to share?

A Theology Snack

One of the things I hope God uses this blog to do is encourage readers (as few as they are) to learn something. I hope to start a mini-theopedia to provide a definition for theological terms. The definition I provide is by no means the end all. In fact, I'm going to rely on Van Harvey's The Handbook of Theological Terms among others. I won't post paragraph after paragraph. However, I do hope the discussion starters will lead to some healthy dialogue. Hopefully, this weekly post will educate and encourage.

So here goes:

Faith = Faith is seen throughout Christian thought in one of two ways. 1) belief in some truth or something about the past; or 2) an orientation of the total person that may include belief but is best defined as trust, confidence, or loyalty. Theopedia states that a Reformed definition of saving faith must include knowledge and an assent to an aspect of trust.

The writer of Hebrews is clear about faith (11:1, 6). These are definitely verses to be considered.

What would you add, subract, or modify, in regards to your own definition of faith? Any examples of where you used that faith or where your faith has increased?

Election in Ephesians 1

Our survey of Perspectives on Election continues by turning to Ephesians 1. This particular chapter has been part of the heated debate regarding election for some time.

Dr. Ware focuses most of his attention on verses 4, 5, and 11. He is quick to state, "Paul brings to his mind and lips specific reasons for why God should by blessed, the first and second items he recalls and celebrates are our election in Christ (1:4) and our predestination to be adopted children through Christ (1:5)... the primary purpose for including this detail, it seems, establishes the fact that election of those whom God will save is God's choice pure and simple, a choice with which we had nothing to do and could have had nothing to do" (italics mine 13). I would be remiss if I didn't list a summary from Dr. Ware. "God works everything according to His will, but notice that nothing is said here (1:3-14) about God working things out according to our wills! In other words, all that God chooses is unconditional, including his predestination and election of us" (14).

Dr. Cottrell accuses Ware of using the "usual Calvinist spin" (61). Of course, Cottrell offers another interpretation of election - namely that Paul is speaking of a predestination of Jews and Gentiles. "I base this case on two facts: 1) the sudden shift from first person plural to second person plural in 1:13; and 2) the underlying theme of the letter in 2:11-3:21 i.e., God's eternal purpose of uniting Jews and Gentiles together through Jesus Christ in to a single body, the Church" (ibid).

Personal Observation

Dr. Ware maintains his argument of unconditional election based on verses 6, 12, and 14. However, he overlooks verse 13, despite 1:3-14 being one complete sentence. According to the NRSV, verse 13 reads, "In him you also, when you had heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and had believed in him, were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit;" (emphasis mine). Now is not the time and place to debate the participle use of "believed". However, it seems the seal of the Holy Spirit is based upon one acting on their knowledge - something Dr. Ware conveniently overlooks.

Any thoughts or disagreements?

More Weekend Fodder

Two weeks in a row - say it aint so! Two Saturdays in a row with something to say (other than Boomer Sooner). I'll use this post as some sort of confession, if you don't mind.

I learn best in dialogue - conversation with those around a table (literal or proverbial), some who may agree and those who may not. I've always been intrigued by attempting to understand what people believe and why. For example, almost a year ago, God allowed me to meet a man who was a pastor of a church just a few miles from the congregation I pastored. The pastor and I began having lunch and praying for one another. From time to time, we'd discuss theology. We agreed on much. We disagreed on a few things. The friendship during the previous year has blessed me in many ways.

One of the disagreements the pastor and I had was one of election - specifically how Scripture defines the Elect. Although I was sure of what I believed, our discussions led me to begin a deeper study on the subject. Reading some of his recent posts, I know we continue to disagree; however, we're still friends.

All that, to say this. There are blogs I've run across where the purpose seems to be arguing for one view over the other - even to the detriment of relationships. That was never the case with As The Crow Flies and will never be this blogs intent. Again, everyone should be allowed at the "table" to discuss the issues as they see them. Each one should bring coffee, beer, or whatever drink of choice, pull up a chair at the table, and share their opinion. The older I get, the more I realize I need to learn.

Recently, the Thursday posts have concerned election while reviewing Perspectives on Election. I've attempted to present two sides (Calvinism and Arminian). As I recently mentioned, there will be times that I also have a comment about the articles written. The debate between Calvinism and Arminians, the question of who and who is not elect, and how those elect are determined, is often somewhat heated. For that reason, some believe these are discussions that might be avoided. In other words, "There has always been disagreement and there will always be, why throw fuel to the fire?" My respectful response is: If we don't study (even the hard things in Scripture) then we've relegated our responsibility as believers to something that it should't be.

My attempt is not to convince anyone of my opinion. I'd really like to hear the opposing view. Again, that's the way I learn and that's how my faith is strengthened. I'll attempt to complete the study, without making it too tedious.

Thanks for hearing my "confession" and for listening. And if the study is something you're even remotely interested in, please join the discussion on Thursdays. If not, the table is open Tuesday-Friday as well.

Blessings!
Mike

"Election" in Acts

Today, we continue our study through the perspectives on election.

When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and praised the word of the Lord; and as many as had been destined for eternal life became believers. (NRSV)

Bruce Ware turns to his second text in Acts 13:48. Concerning the emphasized phrase above, Ware uses the Holman Christian Standard Bible and maintains, "One indisputable aspect of Luke's statement, 'All who had been appointed to eternal life believed,' is that God's appointment of those who would receive eternal life preceded the belief of these very people" (8). He goes on to say if those believed simply based upon their decision and no act of God, then why would Luke make so big of a point (ibid)? Ware maintains Luke is pointing out God's choosing. In other words, when the Gospel is presented to the Gentiles, according to Ware, it's because the Jews (as a whole) rejected the Gospel, whereas the Gentiles (as a whole) accepted the Good News. "In short, these Gentiles believed the Gospel, while Jews rejected the same saving message because God had chosen these very Gentiles to believe" (9).

The response to Ware is taken up by Jack Cottrell. As to this particular verse, Cottrell maintains the verb form of tetagmenoi "should be taken as middle voice, not passive" (60). In other words, Cottrell translates the verse, "As many as arranged themselves unto eternal life believed" or "As many as turned themselves toward eternal life believed" (ibid). How one translates the tense of the verb from the original language seems to make a difference.

Next week, we turn to the writings of Paul. Any thoughts in regards to the verse in Acts?

The Sovereignty of God

Some of you know I meet with some "Senior Saints" on Wednesday afternoons. Our conversations tend to be passionate about what they've been taught for many years, biases (theirs and mine) and how might those things be or not be a reflection of Christ. Yesterday was no exception.

We were discussing tragedy and the conversation turned to the Sovereignty of God. The discussion seemed to center on one important question. "Does God cause tragedies or does He allow them to happen?" Among those that were most vocal, there seemed to be an even split as to how many held each belief.

On the one hand, God's Sovereignty was defined as God being the creator and originator of all things. In other words, God is responsible for all we see so that He will be glorified. On the other hand, the argument was "God allows man free choice." In other words, God's creation was perfect, but because of man's free choice, God allowed man to "mess it up."

I take the latter view. I believe wholeheartedly that God gives man free choice to accept or reject His grace and love. I believe Adam and Eve came to a "fork in the road", when tempted by the serpent. Life was found on one path (obedience to God); death waited for them on the other (disobedience). After choosing the wrong path and experiencing the consequences, mankind has been incapable of life as it was intended. It's for that reason that man needs a Savior.

I understand my "Sovereigntists" friends would disagree. I hear them saying, "Allowing man a choice is existential or humanistic." I respectfully respond, "In allowing man to choose, God doesn't forfeit His sovereignty. He's still God and God alone. It's when man is given a choice and makes the right decision (obedience to God) that God is glorified all the more.

Take your blood pressure medication and let me hear your "beef".

More New Christians

One of the critiques of the Emergent Movement is "Because they're for everything, they don't stand for anything." Chapter 4 of The New Christians is about theology and specifically how theology should play a part in the world.

Jones attempts to argue Emergents believe theology is constantly changing. In other words, the failure to constantly filter theology through the context one finds himself in is harmful to he and the church as a whole. An example Jones gives is the Left Behind novels. How many people developed at least a part of their theology based upon what they read?

I know of people in churches that read the latest and greatest on the best seller list at the local Christian bookstore. Sadly, they're not sure how to filter what they read. Does it really add up to what Scripture teaches? And for that reason, their theology (as fragile as it is) is affected.

I'm with Jones in this chapter: "Good theology begets beautiful Christianity. Bad theology begets ugly Christianity."