MUSINGS ON THEOLOGY AND PREDESTINATION, PART SEVEN
Continued from Part Six
Perhaps one more word needs to be said in support of my understanding of predestination. The key is the biblical meaning of FOREKNOWLEDGE. “For those whom he FOREKNEW he also PREDESTINED…(Rom. 8:28f). If you are foreknown you will surely be glorified. This is our assurance. Understanding what FOREKNOWLEDGE means in this context is the key.
Arminians believe that God foreknows THAT certain individuals will believe the gospel and on that basis God elects them. That is not the way I understand the Scripture. Let me list my arguments for believing that FOREKNOWLEDGE in this context means that God has known us before hand in a particular way of choosing us. Foreknowledge is based on God’s eternal will of choosing and loving beforehand, not on the basis of what he foreknew we would do.
1. The English dictionary defines “foreknowledge” only as prescience, knowing something ahead of time. That is what we are familiar with in English. But the Bible was not written in English and all words anywhere are defined by the context.
2. It is true that the Greek word for foreknowledge in the Bible can mean “know beforehand, in advance” (II Pet. 3:17). But it also means “choose beforehand” (Arndt and Gingrich Greek Lexicon). In I Peter 1:20 we read, “He was CHOSEN before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake (NIV)” (KJ says “foreordained,” ESV says “foreknown”). Clearly, Jesus was not just known beforehand; he was chosen and foreordained to die on the cross.
Romans 11:2 is clearly not a passive foreknowledge or prescience when Paul writes: “God did not reject his people whom he foreknew.” The context speaks of God choosing Israel/the remnant by grace 11:5. Israel was a CHOSEN people and his remnant was chosen. God did not simply know them beforehand. God knows all things perfectly from eternity past. God’s foreknowledge in our salvation goes beyond prescience.
3. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that divine election is based on God’s foreknowledge that we would believe. NOWHERE does it say that.
4. Romans 8:28 does not say that God foreknew THAT we would do anything. It says God foreknew us. That is a big difference. He foreknew us, according to Romans 8:28; he did not simply foreknow that we would believe. That is extra canonical.
5. We are not free to pick and choose whichever definition we prefer. The context determines the meaning, and the context of Romans 8:28 clearly indicates a “choosing,” a knowing with a preference. All Greek lexicons affirm this.
For me this divine act of election is abundantly clear. It is equally clear that we have a responsibility to repent and believe; we have a responsibility to preach, teach, pray, evangelize and use all means possible to bring people to Christ. It is unbiblical to be passive in evangelism, to assume that the elect will be saved without your help or mine.
How do we resolve this dilemma of reconciling the divine act of election with our human responsibility? We cannot, anymore than we can resolve the mystery of the Incarnation.
Showing posts with label Theological Musings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theological Musings. Show all posts
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Friday, November 5, 2010
Theology of Predestination, Part Six
MUSINGS ON THEOLOGY AND PREDESTINATION, PART SIX
Continued from Part Five
I believe that the Bible teaches that on this side of the veil we pray for the lost, preach the gospel and plead with them, reason with them and beseech them to turn to Christ, to decide for Christ and to seek God with all their hearts. We should follow Paul and use all means to bring people to Christ.
How they are saved is the mystery. Daniel Whittle’s hymn speaks to this thought, “I know not how this saving faith to me He did impart, nor how believing in his Word wrought peace within my heart.” For five stanzas he confesses, “I know not why…I know not how…I know not what…I know not when…” “BUT I KNOW whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I’ve committed unto him against that day.” What is not clearly revealed in Scripture I leave with God to sort out. “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever” (Dt. 29:29).
On a different note, Paul had the audacity to say that “some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of good-will…But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice” (Phil. 1:15ff). If Paul could rejoice over the preaching of the gospel by those with false motives and malicious attitudes toward him, how much more should we rejoice when the gospel is preached by those who do not subscribe to the particular theology that we have adopted, and do not practice our forms of evangelism?
To make snide remarks about those who preach the gospel, to question their motives, to repudiate their efforts in evangelism because they do not dot the i’s and cross the t’s in their theology as we wish they would has brought me much pain and grief. We need bigger hearts and more humility to recognize that maybe we also have blind spots. Jesus taught us, “Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy.” We all need mercy because we all fall short.
“For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known” (I Cor. 13:12). In glory we will know more perfectly than we know down here. In the mean time we seek to follow Paul’s example of using “all possible means” to win men and women to Christ. And we do not become upset when others say that the sun sets when in fact we know that the sun only sets from our standpoint.
Continued in Part Seven
Continued from Part Five
I believe that the Bible teaches that on this side of the veil we pray for the lost, preach the gospel and plead with them, reason with them and beseech them to turn to Christ, to decide for Christ and to seek God with all their hearts. We should follow Paul and use all means to bring people to Christ.
How they are saved is the mystery. Daniel Whittle’s hymn speaks to this thought, “I know not how this saving faith to me He did impart, nor how believing in his Word wrought peace within my heart.” For five stanzas he confesses, “I know not why…I know not how…I know not what…I know not when…” “BUT I KNOW whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I’ve committed unto him against that day.” What is not clearly revealed in Scripture I leave with God to sort out. “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever” (Dt. 29:29).
On a different note, Paul had the audacity to say that “some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of good-will…But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice” (Phil. 1:15ff). If Paul could rejoice over the preaching of the gospel by those with false motives and malicious attitudes toward him, how much more should we rejoice when the gospel is preached by those who do not subscribe to the particular theology that we have adopted, and do not practice our forms of evangelism?
To make snide remarks about those who preach the gospel, to question their motives, to repudiate their efforts in evangelism because they do not dot the i’s and cross the t’s in their theology as we wish they would has brought me much pain and grief. We need bigger hearts and more humility to recognize that maybe we also have blind spots. Jesus taught us, “Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy.” We all need mercy because we all fall short.
“For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known” (I Cor. 13:12). In glory we will know more perfectly than we know down here. In the mean time we seek to follow Paul’s example of using “all possible means” to win men and women to Christ. And we do not become upset when others say that the sun sets when in fact we know that the sun only sets from our standpoint.
Continued in Part Seven
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Theology of Predestination, Part Five
MUSINGS ON THEOLOGY AND PREDESTINATION, PART FIVE
Continued from Part Four
Two aspects of our salvation cannot be reconciled or comprehended by our finite mind – God’s eternal election and Man’s responsibility.
The Bible teaches that man is born spiritually dead. That is biblical (Eph. 2). Exactly, what does this mean? The text does not explain the meaning of “dead.” Does this mean that he has no living, relationship with God, no spiritual life, no hope of life eternal? Clearly this is taught in the Bible (Romans 3:9-18; Ephesians 4:17-19). Does Ephesians 2 mean that man has no consciousness of God, no sense of right and wrong given by God, no spiritual sensitivities? Clearly this is not true (Romans 2:12-16).
Does the spiritual deadness of mankind mean that man is unable in any way to respond to the gospel until he is regenerated first by God? How do we logically put together this conundrum concerning God’s sovereign election, and mankind’s spiritual deadness with human responsibility to repent and believe the gospel?
Today we speak of the sun rising and setting, not simply because this is traditional but because this is the way it appears to our eyes; even though we know that the earth moves around the sun, not the other way around. In the same manner we may speak of man’s activities which lead to his salvation – indeed, they are commanded in Scripture – even while we understand that behind all of our turning, God is sovereignly working out his eternal purposes.
Ravi Zacharias, the brilliant apologist, makes various comments in his book, “Walking from East to West.” “But my hungers went unfulfilled until I FOUND HIM.” Is this semi-pelagian? Can a man find God or does God find him. He states, “I was very clear in my mind as I left the hospital with my mother that I had MADE A COMMITMENT to Christ. It was the most striking and MOST NOBLE-MINDED DECISION I HAD EVER MADE. My life now belonged to Jesus Christ.” Is the plea for people to “decide” for Christ semi-pelagian? Can those who believe in election and innate spiritual deadness of natural man call invite people to decide for Christ? When Ravi spoke to a hostile crowd, they quieted down and began to listen. “When I gave the invitation at the end, the response was overwhelming – nearly one hundred in that audience of just over two hundred RESPONDED TO THE INVITATION to turn their lives over to Christ.”
Is this unbiblical talk? Not in my book. We speak in human terms – choosing and deciding. At the same time we recognize that only God can bring new life to this person. Let us not become unbalanced by neglecting either the divine work of God in salvation or the human responsibility God has placed in our hands.
A critic of D.L. Moody cornered him, finding fault with Moody in his evangelistic crusades and altar calls. Moody responded, “And what is your method of evangelism?” The critic stuttered and replied that he had no method. “In that case, Moody said, “I like my method better than yours.”
Continued in Part Six
Continued from Part Four
Two aspects of our salvation cannot be reconciled or comprehended by our finite mind – God’s eternal election and Man’s responsibility.
The Bible teaches that man is born spiritually dead. That is biblical (Eph. 2). Exactly, what does this mean? The text does not explain the meaning of “dead.” Does this mean that he has no living, relationship with God, no spiritual life, no hope of life eternal? Clearly this is taught in the Bible (Romans 3:9-18; Ephesians 4:17-19). Does Ephesians 2 mean that man has no consciousness of God, no sense of right and wrong given by God, no spiritual sensitivities? Clearly this is not true (Romans 2:12-16).
Does the spiritual deadness of mankind mean that man is unable in any way to respond to the gospel until he is regenerated first by God? How do we logically put together this conundrum concerning God’s sovereign election, and mankind’s spiritual deadness with human responsibility to repent and believe the gospel?
Today we speak of the sun rising and setting, not simply because this is traditional but because this is the way it appears to our eyes; even though we know that the earth moves around the sun, not the other way around. In the same manner we may speak of man’s activities which lead to his salvation – indeed, they are commanded in Scripture – even while we understand that behind all of our turning, God is sovereignly working out his eternal purposes.
Ravi Zacharias, the brilliant apologist, makes various comments in his book, “Walking from East to West.” “But my hungers went unfulfilled until I FOUND HIM.” Is this semi-pelagian? Can a man find God or does God find him. He states, “I was very clear in my mind as I left the hospital with my mother that I had MADE A COMMITMENT to Christ. It was the most striking and MOST NOBLE-MINDED DECISION I HAD EVER MADE. My life now belonged to Jesus Christ.” Is the plea for people to “decide” for Christ semi-pelagian? Can those who believe in election and innate spiritual deadness of natural man call invite people to decide for Christ? When Ravi spoke to a hostile crowd, they quieted down and began to listen. “When I gave the invitation at the end, the response was overwhelming – nearly one hundred in that audience of just over two hundred RESPONDED TO THE INVITATION to turn their lives over to Christ.”
Is this unbiblical talk? Not in my book. We speak in human terms – choosing and deciding. At the same time we recognize that only God can bring new life to this person. Let us not become unbalanced by neglecting either the divine work of God in salvation or the human responsibility God has placed in our hands.
A critic of D.L. Moody cornered him, finding fault with Moody in his evangelistic crusades and altar calls. Moody responded, “And what is your method of evangelism?” The critic stuttered and replied that he had no method. “In that case, Moody said, “I like my method better than yours.”
Continued in Part Six
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Theology of Predestination, Part Four
MUSINGS ON THEOLOGY AND PREDESTINATION, PART FOUR
Continued from Part Three
This mystery of our salvation pertains to the so-called “order of salvation.”
Those in the Reformed camp believe that the steps leading to our salvation proceed in this order:
1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call, 4) effectual (or inner) call, 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (including both faith and repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, 9) glorification.
Those in the Arminian camp have a different order: 1) outward call, 2) faith, 3) election based on God’s foreknowledge that a sinner would believe the outward call of the gospel, 4) repentance, 5) regeneration, 6) justification, 7) perseverance, 8) glorification.
The only place in the Bible that I know of where there is an “order of salvation” explicitly enunciated is in Romans 8:28-30. The biblical order is this: 1) divine foreknowledge, 2) predestined, 3) called, 4) justified, 5) glorified. “Foreknowledge” is the key. Clearly, this is not a foreknowledge that a person would believe. Nowhere does the text teach this. Election is not based on God’s foreknowledge about anything in the person. God foreknows a person, and he does this in the sense that he sets his preferential love upon him (Rom. 11:2). Election proceeds from God’s foreknowledge of the person – his preferential love and choice of the person.
Having come to this personal conclusion, you might say this puts me into the Reformed camp. True, but not fully. I prefer to leave mystery where the Bible has mystery. The Bible teaches, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved” (Acts 16:31). From this text I gather that in order to be saved you must believe. That is what Scripture says. Can a person be saved without being regenerated or born again? Can a person be saved without believing? Faith in Christ is required before salvation is granted according to the text.
We are told, “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?” (Rom. 10:14,15). Clearly, man is not a puppet. Man has a responsibility.
I am well aware of the arguments made in defense of the Reformed position of the order of salvation but they depend on logical deduction not explicit biblical teaching.
I would prefer to emphasize what Scripture clearly teaches and joyfully embrace the mysteries which the Word of God reveals. As someone has said, on this side of the Pearly Gates we see a welcoming sign into heaven, “Whosoever will to the Lord may come.” That is biblical (Rev. 22:17). But on the inside of the Pearly Gates is this inscription, “You did not choose me but I chose you.” This is also biblical (Jh. 15:16).
Continued in Part Five
Continued from Part Three
This mystery of our salvation pertains to the so-called “order of salvation.”
Those in the Reformed camp believe that the steps leading to our salvation proceed in this order:
1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call, 4) effectual (or inner) call, 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (including both faith and repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, 9) glorification.
Those in the Arminian camp have a different order: 1) outward call, 2) faith, 3) election based on God’s foreknowledge that a sinner would believe the outward call of the gospel, 4) repentance, 5) regeneration, 6) justification, 7) perseverance, 8) glorification.
The only place in the Bible that I know of where there is an “order of salvation” explicitly enunciated is in Romans 8:28-30. The biblical order is this: 1) divine foreknowledge, 2) predestined, 3) called, 4) justified, 5) glorified. “Foreknowledge” is the key. Clearly, this is not a foreknowledge that a person would believe. Nowhere does the text teach this. Election is not based on God’s foreknowledge about anything in the person. God foreknows a person, and he does this in the sense that he sets his preferential love upon him (Rom. 11:2). Election proceeds from God’s foreknowledge of the person – his preferential love and choice of the person.
Having come to this personal conclusion, you might say this puts me into the Reformed camp. True, but not fully. I prefer to leave mystery where the Bible has mystery. The Bible teaches, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved” (Acts 16:31). From this text I gather that in order to be saved you must believe. That is what Scripture says. Can a person be saved without being regenerated or born again? Can a person be saved without believing? Faith in Christ is required before salvation is granted according to the text.
We are told, “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?” (Rom. 10:14,15). Clearly, man is not a puppet. Man has a responsibility.
I am well aware of the arguments made in defense of the Reformed position of the order of salvation but they depend on logical deduction not explicit biblical teaching.
I would prefer to emphasize what Scripture clearly teaches and joyfully embrace the mysteries which the Word of God reveals. As someone has said, on this side of the Pearly Gates we see a welcoming sign into heaven, “Whosoever will to the Lord may come.” That is biblical (Rev. 22:17). But on the inside of the Pearly Gates is this inscription, “You did not choose me but I chose you.” This is also biblical (Jh. 15:16).
Continued in Part Five
Theology of Predestination, Part Three
MUSINGS ON THEOLOGY AND PREDESTINATION, PART THREE
Continuation of Part Two
I find the truth of the Incarnation (which I discussed in Part Two) to be analogous to our Salvation.
Our salvation includes the Divine work of grace and our Human responsibility to respond to the gospel with repentance and faith, and to evangelize the lost. The two may appear to be contradictory but I embrace them both because God teaches this in his Word.
After many years of reading the Bible over and over again, I have concluded fully and unequivocally that God has chosen his people, he has predestined his elect, not on the basis of foreknowing what anyone would do, whether they would believe or not. God has truly chosen before the foundation of the world those whom he would save for reasons known to himself alone (Jh. 6:44; 10:26; Rom. 8:28-3). This foreknowledge of God by which God’s people are elect (I Pet. 1:1,2), is not a passive, intellectual knowledge beforehand of what we would do. God’s foreknowledge is active, favoring the object with love and care (Acts 2:23; Rom. 11:2). This is the Divine side of our salvation; God’s predetermined election of his people.
At the same time Scripture teaches that men and women have a responsibility to repent, believe, obey and turn to the Lord. They are not puppets. We are commanded to pray for the conversion of the lost, to witness and evangelize.
Let’s think of the ministry of Paul. He did not approach evangelism with a detached, passive attitude, as if the elect would be saved with or without his effort. He felt “unceasing anguish” for his lost Jewish brethren because they were lost (Rom. 9:2). He toiled and labored with sleepless nights and hunger (II Cor. 6:4f). Paul affirmed, “I have become all things to all men so that BY ALL MEANS I might save some.” Think of it! Paul used ALL MEANS to bring people to Christ. He strategized on how best to evangelize and decided that he should preach the gospel only in those cities with Jewish synagogues where he found the most responsive hearers.
How can we then put these two biblical truths together? On the one hand, God and God alone predestines those who will be saved. No one can be saved unless God chooses them and elects them and no one who is not elect will be saved. On the other hand, man must turn to God, repent of his sin, believe in Christ, confess with his mouth and obey the Word of God. How do we reconcile this paradoxical teaching of Scripture of God’s election and human responsibility to repent and believe?
When we become unbalanced, we over emphasize either the Divine or the Human. Those who focus on God’s election fear the use of all kinds of means – altar calls, evangelistic crusades, passionate persuasion to receive Christ. Those who over emphasize the Human erroneously think they can usher men and women into the Kingdom through many persuasive means, that salvation depends on them. In my book, both are wrong.
To be continued in Part Four
Continuation of Part Two
I find the truth of the Incarnation (which I discussed in Part Two) to be analogous to our Salvation.
Our salvation includes the Divine work of grace and our Human responsibility to respond to the gospel with repentance and faith, and to evangelize the lost. The two may appear to be contradictory but I embrace them both because God teaches this in his Word.
After many years of reading the Bible over and over again, I have concluded fully and unequivocally that God has chosen his people, he has predestined his elect, not on the basis of foreknowing what anyone would do, whether they would believe or not. God has truly chosen before the foundation of the world those whom he would save for reasons known to himself alone (Jh. 6:44; 10:26; Rom. 8:28-3). This foreknowledge of God by which God’s people are elect (I Pet. 1:1,2), is not a passive, intellectual knowledge beforehand of what we would do. God’s foreknowledge is active, favoring the object with love and care (Acts 2:23; Rom. 11:2). This is the Divine side of our salvation; God’s predetermined election of his people.
At the same time Scripture teaches that men and women have a responsibility to repent, believe, obey and turn to the Lord. They are not puppets. We are commanded to pray for the conversion of the lost, to witness and evangelize.
Let’s think of the ministry of Paul. He did not approach evangelism with a detached, passive attitude, as if the elect would be saved with or without his effort. He felt “unceasing anguish” for his lost Jewish brethren because they were lost (Rom. 9:2). He toiled and labored with sleepless nights and hunger (II Cor. 6:4f). Paul affirmed, “I have become all things to all men so that BY ALL MEANS I might save some.” Think of it! Paul used ALL MEANS to bring people to Christ. He strategized on how best to evangelize and decided that he should preach the gospel only in those cities with Jewish synagogues where he found the most responsive hearers.
How can we then put these two biblical truths together? On the one hand, God and God alone predestines those who will be saved. No one can be saved unless God chooses them and elects them and no one who is not elect will be saved. On the other hand, man must turn to God, repent of his sin, believe in Christ, confess with his mouth and obey the Word of God. How do we reconcile this paradoxical teaching of Scripture of God’s election and human responsibility to repent and believe?
When we become unbalanced, we over emphasize either the Divine or the Human. Those who focus on God’s election fear the use of all kinds of means – altar calls, evangelistic crusades, passionate persuasion to receive Christ. Those who over emphasize the Human erroneously think they can usher men and women into the Kingdom through many persuasive means, that salvation depends on them. In my book, both are wrong.
To be continued in Part Four
Monday, October 25, 2010
Theology of Predestination, Part Two
MUSINGS ON THEOLOGY AND PREDESTINATION, PART TWO
Continued from Part One.
The mystery surrounding the Incarnation is similar to the mystery surrounding the sovereign work of God and the human responsibility of responding to the gospel. I see an analogy between the Incarnation (the sovereign, eternal God becoming flesh) and God’s salvation of his elect.
We believe that Jesus is truly God (Jh. 1:1-14) and truly man (Lk. 2:40; Heb. 2:14). Think of it! God is infinite, all-powerful, all-knowing, self-existent, the eternal Spirit. Man is finite, limited in his power and knowledge, created out of dust, born in time with a corporeal body. This God-Man is both truly God and truly human. As Paul confessed, “Great is the mystery of godliness.”
In the early Church theories abounded, trying to explain this mystery so that it made logical sense, but one by one they were dismissed as heresies. The Christian Church finally concluded that Jesus is one Person with two Natures, a human nature and a divine nature, each being complete and perfectly joined in one Person. What does this really mean? Does this explanation really help me to comprehend the mystery of the Incarnation? This ecclesiastical conclusion may be true but it only raises more questions. For me, the Incarnation remains a mystery, but a mystery which I joyfully embrace and believe. Jesus was fully God and fully Man – the God-Man – whom we trust but cannot fathom in our finite minds.
The Christian faith is filled with mystery, theological truth that is beyond human comprehension. Instead of trying to make a water-tight logical system of beliefs, we need to embrace our faith joyfully by agreeing upon the truths that Scripture clearly teaches (Jesus is truly God manifest in a human body), rather than speculating and conjuring a rationalistic system of theology which can only divide the Church.
To be continued in Part Three
Continued from Part One.
The mystery surrounding the Incarnation is similar to the mystery surrounding the sovereign work of God and the human responsibility of responding to the gospel. I see an analogy between the Incarnation (the sovereign, eternal God becoming flesh) and God’s salvation of his elect.
We believe that Jesus is truly God (Jh. 1:1-14) and truly man (Lk. 2:40; Heb. 2:14). Think of it! God is infinite, all-powerful, all-knowing, self-existent, the eternal Spirit. Man is finite, limited in his power and knowledge, created out of dust, born in time with a corporeal body. This God-Man is both truly God and truly human. As Paul confessed, “Great is the mystery of godliness.”
In the early Church theories abounded, trying to explain this mystery so that it made logical sense, but one by one they were dismissed as heresies. The Christian Church finally concluded that Jesus is one Person with two Natures, a human nature and a divine nature, each being complete and perfectly joined in one Person. What does this really mean? Does this explanation really help me to comprehend the mystery of the Incarnation? This ecclesiastical conclusion may be true but it only raises more questions. For me, the Incarnation remains a mystery, but a mystery which I joyfully embrace and believe. Jesus was fully God and fully Man – the God-Man – whom we trust but cannot fathom in our finite minds.
The Christian faith is filled with mystery, theological truth that is beyond human comprehension. Instead of trying to make a water-tight logical system of beliefs, we need to embrace our faith joyfully by agreeing upon the truths that Scripture clearly teaches (Jesus is truly God manifest in a human body), rather than speculating and conjuring a rationalistic system of theology which can only divide the Church.
To be continued in Part Three
Theology of Predestination
MUSINGS ON THEOLOGY AND PREDESTINATION, PART ONE
Dear Rich,
Recently we had some vigorous exchanges about theology and predestination. Then everything went silent. I thought it would be helpful for me as well as you to record some of my musings on theology and predestination in order to clarify any misunderstandings.
To say that I have not been influenced by others in the formation of my theology would be both dishonest and stupid. I have graduated from Berean Bible School, Wheaton College, Wheaton College Graduate School, Gordon Divinity School (now Gordon Conwell Seminary), Fuller Theological Seminary, and attended Westminster Theological Seminary. I have taught Bible and Theology and studied books to prepare my courses. I have written books on theology. Of course! Others have played their part in shaping my theology, but I am Pennsylvania Dutch and a bit stubborn. I struggle in accepting other people’s thoughts unless I am persuaded by Scripture and I can be very slow in this. I want to submit only to the clear teachings of Scripture. My own theology has been largely shaped over the years through my reading and reading and reading of Scripture. Perhaps that explains in part why I am still in the process of developing a personal understanding of Scripture at the age of 74. It takes a life time to reinvent the wheel.
I notice that Scripture is not a SYSTEMATIC theological treatise. Men have sought to construct a system of theology but I have resisted “systems” of theology from the first day I heard of this in the early 1950s. Of course I must admit that even I have a “system” of theology with a coherent set of beliefs. But I prefer Biblical Theology to Systematic Theology because Scripture is not so clear at certain points. I live with paradoxes and mysteries without feeling a need to develop a tightly reasoned, logically coherent system of theology that makes rational sense but which is based on specious interpretations of Scripture. Where Scripture is not clear, let us accept this lack of clarity instead of foisting our logical clarity on it.
I begin my study of Scripture with total confidence in its absolute authority and inerrancy. Jesus, whom I have accepted as my Lord and Savior, clearly teaches his supreme confidence in the truthfulness, reliability and final authority of Scripture (Mt. 5:17-18; Jh. 17:17). Since he is my Lord, I bow to his wisdom. The apostles also taught the authoritative inspiration of Scripture (II Tim. 3:16).
To be continued in Part Two
Dear Rich,
Recently we had some vigorous exchanges about theology and predestination. Then everything went silent. I thought it would be helpful for me as well as you to record some of my musings on theology and predestination in order to clarify any misunderstandings.
To say that I have not been influenced by others in the formation of my theology would be both dishonest and stupid. I have graduated from Berean Bible School, Wheaton College, Wheaton College Graduate School, Gordon Divinity School (now Gordon Conwell Seminary), Fuller Theological Seminary, and attended Westminster Theological Seminary. I have taught Bible and Theology and studied books to prepare my courses. I have written books on theology. Of course! Others have played their part in shaping my theology, but I am Pennsylvania Dutch and a bit stubborn. I struggle in accepting other people’s thoughts unless I am persuaded by Scripture and I can be very slow in this. I want to submit only to the clear teachings of Scripture. My own theology has been largely shaped over the years through my reading and reading and reading of Scripture. Perhaps that explains in part why I am still in the process of developing a personal understanding of Scripture at the age of 74. It takes a life time to reinvent the wheel.
I notice that Scripture is not a SYSTEMATIC theological treatise. Men have sought to construct a system of theology but I have resisted “systems” of theology from the first day I heard of this in the early 1950s. Of course I must admit that even I have a “system” of theology with a coherent set of beliefs. But I prefer Biblical Theology to Systematic Theology because Scripture is not so clear at certain points. I live with paradoxes and mysteries without feeling a need to develop a tightly reasoned, logically coherent system of theology that makes rational sense but which is based on specious interpretations of Scripture. Where Scripture is not clear, let us accept this lack of clarity instead of foisting our logical clarity on it.
I begin my study of Scripture with total confidence in its absolute authority and inerrancy. Jesus, whom I have accepted as my Lord and Savior, clearly teaches his supreme confidence in the truthfulness, reliability and final authority of Scripture (Mt. 5:17-18; Jh. 17:17). Since he is my Lord, I bow to his wisdom. The apostles also taught the authoritative inspiration of Scripture (II Tim. 3:16).
To be continued in Part Two
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
