One of the things that often comes up in Theological studies is the concept of election and predestination. I am not planning on tackling the actual question in this post, I just wish to clarify the defintion and difference between the two terms.
Predestination, or προοριζο, means to choose ahead of time. This implies choosing something before it happens. This term is used six times in the New Testament.
Election, or εκλεκτοσ, means to be chosen to preform a duty or task. (e.g. a president or minister may be elected.) another definition is as follows: chosen: an exclusive group of people; "one of the elect who have power inside the government".
Now, we see that both terms are used in the Bible to refer to God's people at different times. However, we also need to remember that just because someone is elected, or elect, if you will, does not mean that it was chosen before time. A minister may be elected, but that is not a predetermined item. It takes the choice of those in the congregation. We have the same thing with a president. They are elect, but that does not mean they had no choice.
We also see that predestination also is a Biblical principle. However, we need to be careful in how we use these two terms. Although many people may use the two to mean the same thing, they most certainly do not. We may have an elect group of School board members, but that does not mean they were predestined to be there.
In other words, predestination requires election, but election does not require predestination. This is not an attempt to refute anyone's theory, just to define the terms thrown around as if they were interchangeable.
In other words, all people in a position of authority, privilege, or grace, are elect in their position. That includes presidents, parents, teachers, employees, employers, and most definitely Christians. We are elect. We are indeed an exclusive people chosen to preform a duty and fulfill a task. That is the meaning of being elect in any area of life.
For more examples of how we must make sure to use reasoning correctly in Theology, see this earlier post.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Sacrificing Stories
Today we were getting together with some friends and one of the guys mentioned that he didn't read fiction any longer. He viewed it as a waste of time. While I may say that anything indulged to excess is a bad thing, I am saddened at the thought of eliminating fiction entirely.
Why is that, you may ask? Aren't stories just for children? I would say that that is far from the truth. Stories carry over much truth, morals, and imagination. It helps us think, reason, process, and understand.
Jesus himself taught much in the form of fiction. His parables were not true in the sense that they actually happened here on Earth, but true in the sense that they taught us lessons and morals.
This gift of God, language and literature, is precious and can be used for great things. In fact, stories often outlive their teller, with authors who have died hundreds of years ago influencing the minds and lives of those who remain.
But even non-fiction stories often fall under the ax some people give literature. This is indeed a great tragedy when this occurs. Without it, so many things fall to the wayside. When God gave us the Bible, it was written mainly in story form for us to learn from. I am not saying that our writing is on par with the Holy Scriptures, but I do believe it is a wonderful medium that God has given us.
I'm not saying God doesn't convict some people of this. But I also believe that we shouldn't eliminate the good with the bad. Paul talks about denying things for the sake of denying them in Colossians 2:16-23. It is not good to assume that asceticism is good in all things. Sometimes self denial is a bad thing.
Bad? But I thought we were supposed to deny ourselves? Yes, but only in so far as it is actually good for us. If we eat to excess, we need to deny our impulses, that is one area I have had to continually deal with myself. But a person with bulimia or anorexia needs to make sure to eat enough. If they deny themselves food, it is not for their own good anymore.
A historical example that hits close to home for me would be the Anabaptists of Mexico. My parents grew up in a small colony there. Just a few generations ago, they were people of Godly faith and conviction. They denied themselves many things in order to focus more on holy things. Don't get me wrong, I believe that God does indeed deserve our attention. But if we are not careful with how we do it, people will adhere to what they see these spiritual people adhere to. And almost every time, we see that it only takes a generation or two to become a group that has no idea why they abstain from things, but they do so. In fact, it tragically becomes what Paul warns of, self-righteous self-denial.
So how can we avoid this? Well, one thing is to not put such an emphases on what we are not doing, and instead focus on what we ARE doing. Instead of talking about all the things we don't believe or do, instead work with the things we do believe and are doing. If we put our focus in the correct area, than each can follow his own God-given convictions and not attempt to instead follow someone else's.
Why is that, you may ask? Aren't stories just for children? I would say that that is far from the truth. Stories carry over much truth, morals, and imagination. It helps us think, reason, process, and understand.
Jesus himself taught much in the form of fiction. His parables were not true in the sense that they actually happened here on Earth, but true in the sense that they taught us lessons and morals.
This gift of God, language and literature, is precious and can be used for great things. In fact, stories often outlive their teller, with authors who have died hundreds of years ago influencing the minds and lives of those who remain.
But even non-fiction stories often fall under the ax some people give literature. This is indeed a great tragedy when this occurs. Without it, so many things fall to the wayside. When God gave us the Bible, it was written mainly in story form for us to learn from. I am not saying that our writing is on par with the Holy Scriptures, but I do believe it is a wonderful medium that God has given us.
I'm not saying God doesn't convict some people of this. But I also believe that we shouldn't eliminate the good with the bad. Paul talks about denying things for the sake of denying them in Colossians 2:16-23. It is not good to assume that asceticism is good in all things. Sometimes self denial is a bad thing.
Bad? But I thought we were supposed to deny ourselves? Yes, but only in so far as it is actually good for us. If we eat to excess, we need to deny our impulses, that is one area I have had to continually deal with myself. But a person with bulimia or anorexia needs to make sure to eat enough. If they deny themselves food, it is not for their own good anymore.
A historical example that hits close to home for me would be the Anabaptists of Mexico. My parents grew up in a small colony there. Just a few generations ago, they were people of Godly faith and conviction. They denied themselves many things in order to focus more on holy things. Don't get me wrong, I believe that God does indeed deserve our attention. But if we are not careful with how we do it, people will adhere to what they see these spiritual people adhere to. And almost every time, we see that it only takes a generation or two to become a group that has no idea why they abstain from things, but they do so. In fact, it tragically becomes what Paul warns of, self-righteous self-denial.
So how can we avoid this? Well, one thing is to not put such an emphases on what we are not doing, and instead focus on what we ARE doing. Instead of talking about all the things we don't believe or do, instead work with the things we do believe and are doing. If we put our focus in the correct area, than each can follow his own God-given convictions and not attempt to instead follow someone else's.
Friday, June 14, 2013
Giving to God
Father's Day is just around the corner. That means that this weekend there will be many young children who are going to get their father a gift. It's a wonderful thought, and both the father and child will most likely enjoy it. It's not unlikely that some kid will ask his father for five dollars or so to buy a gift of some kind. Excited, the child will pick out whatever small item they think their father would enjoy and gleefully give it to him. The father will enjoy the gift, and the thought behind it, but very few will do so because they actually think they profited five bucks. The money was theirs to give in the first place and as such was always really theirs.
In much the same way, we give gifts to our heavenly Father. We gleefully use what He has given us and wish to present something to Him. Just as gladly, He receives it, not because He profits out of our giving or generosity, but because of the spirit of giving that comes with it. This is why the Scriptures say, "the Lord loves a cheerful giver." It isn't the gift God is worried about, it is why, how, and who of the matter that He is concerned with. This is also why Jesus says that the poor woman had given far more to God than the rich had. God view us as His children in many ways, some we like and some make us feel rather childish, ironically. His view of gifts is not based on the value others put on the gift, but instead on how much dedication, personal sacrifice, or thought and caring was in that gift instead.
So this Father's Day, let us honor our earthly fathers, as the Law commands. But let us do so in a way that also honors our heavenly Father. Let us give of ourselves to Him, both in word and in deed.
In much the same way, we give gifts to our heavenly Father. We gleefully use what He has given us and wish to present something to Him. Just as gladly, He receives it, not because He profits out of our giving or generosity, but because of the spirit of giving that comes with it. This is why the Scriptures say, "the Lord loves a cheerful giver." It isn't the gift God is worried about, it is why, how, and who of the matter that He is concerned with. This is also why Jesus says that the poor woman had given far more to God than the rich had. God view us as His children in many ways, some we like and some make us feel rather childish, ironically. His view of gifts is not based on the value others put on the gift, but instead on how much dedication, personal sacrifice, or thought and caring was in that gift instead.
So this Father's Day, let us honor our earthly fathers, as the Law commands. But let us do so in a way that also honors our heavenly Father. Let us give of ourselves to Him, both in word and in deed.
Friday, June 7, 2013
Blasphemy or Blessing?
I have often heard people talk about how you can take the writings or teachings of some Theologian and stretch them out to what they think is a logical end; they become heresy. For example, if you take the ministry of Billy Graham and say that all he is trying to do is get people to pray a prayer. Now, as Christians we know that just words coming over your lips will not save anyone. But Graham preached repentance and turning from sin, not just a sinner's prayer. Now did he use the common sinner's prayer to a great extent? Yes indeed. But that was not the cornerstone of his faith, nor was that the only goal of his ministry. He preached, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." This is a very Biblical message. Matthew 3:2 Matthew 4:17
Other authors have also been accused of misleading people if you take their sermons or writings a step further. People like John MacArthur, T.D. Jakes, John Calvin, Martin Luther, and many, many modern authors have been accused of starting a thought process that leads to heresy or blasphemy if you follow it to what they would claim is its logical end. What are we as Christians to do about this? How do we know if these things are good or bad, blasphemy or blessing?
So what kind of extrapolation is correct or incorrect? Well lets take a look at a parable we are familiar with: The Prodigal Son of Luke 15:11-32.
In this story we have the Father, who represents God. We have the son who represents fallen mankind. We have the other brother who represents an unforgiving spirit. Jesus parable here is designed to show the forgiveness of God, and it does so quite well.
But what does it mean that the Father is intending to give an inheritance? Does this mean Jesus is implying God will die? And what of the friends in this story, are they the angels? What about the other son; for if the prodigal represents mankind, does that mean that the other brother is an example of another group of beings? And who are the farmer who employed him, or the false friends who forsook him? Does the famine mean something?
All these questions can be overwhelming. Some of them have answers, while others are nonsense. But which is which? How can we as discerning Christians know?
There are a couple of ways that we can learn to understand these parables and other teachings. The first thing we should do before we do any of this is pray. Ask God to lead you, His Spirit will reveal things we cannot understand.
God does require us to put in effort as well, however. We cannot pray and stop trying. We must persist. Therefore, we need to ask important questions about any teacher's teaching. Here are some of them.
1. Are the questions you are asking important to the main point?
Many interesting questions we may ask have nothing to do with the point the author was trying to make. The parable of the prodigal son has nothing to do with angels, therefore Jesus did not include them. This does not mean they have no part to play in our lives, it is just not the main point He was trying to make.
2. Does the author intend for you to draw this conclusion?
In the question, 'What about the inheritance, does this mean Jesus is implying God will die? ' We need to ask ourselves, What else does Jesus teach about the Father? Is there any teaching anywhere that we can use to assume that this is what Jesus meant? If not, we should not think that Jesus meant that here. He used a story to convey an idea about forgiveness, He was not trying to hide something dark or revolutionary in the story. Nothing that Jesus says here or anywhere else ever suggests that the Father will die, therefore, we cannot assume that is what He meant here either.
3. Is this direct Theology, or is it an example?
Direct Theology is based in absolute statements. These are things like: God is eternal, God created the heavens and the Earth, Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father is God.
These direct theological statements are not up for discussion and have a direct, absolute meaning.
Examples (types, parables, similes, metaphors, or any other literary device) are used to make a point. They are not meant to fit in absolutely all ways of interpreting them, only in the way they are first used. For example, Jesus is the door to God. That means He is the only way in. It does not mean that Jesus has hinges that can be turned or a lock that can be picked. When He says that He is the bread of life, that does not mean He gets moldy if you leave Him alone too long. Examples are only useful for explaining one meaning, not several, and will fall apart if you try to make them mean something they don't mean.
This is the most misused form of Theology in writing, to assume that an example can mean multiple things. Although some stretching may work with examples, (one could say the other brother in the Prodigal Son might be the self-righteous person) it does not work universally. For that reason, if a person is using examples, take the example to only mean what the author or speaker intends it to mean. Even Jesus parables can be twisted to mean things they don't.
If the issue you are discussing does indeed involve direct Theology, then it is important to understand the first two point here, namely, is that the point the author was making? If not, is it a sub-point the author did intend for you to draw? Sometimes these sub-points are intentional, but often times they are not. Sir Thomas Moore and Martin Luther were both men of God who lived in the same time, yet both understood the Church differently. They both followed the conviction that they felt was of God. Moore was killed for his, Luther lived a full life. Moore stayed in the Catholic Church, Luther left. Moore believed in the Sacraments, Luther did not. What were the implications of their beliefs? Do we agree with them? Were these the things Luther and Moore wanted us to take from their lives?
In the end, the point both Luther and Moore were making was this: We must follow the guidance of God in our lives even if that costs us church positions (Luther) or our very lives (Moore). Even if some of the beliefs these men had are things I would disagree with now, their lives were an example to be followed. They both lived in obedience to God to the best they could. Neither one was perfect, but nor were they expected to be. It is the heart, the motive if you will, that God looks to; and we are to try to understand that motive, not just the statement or action.
Other authors have also been accused of misleading people if you take their sermons or writings a step further. People like John MacArthur, T.D. Jakes, John Calvin, Martin Luther, and many, many modern authors have been accused of starting a thought process that leads to heresy or blasphemy if you follow it to what they would claim is its logical end. What are we as Christians to do about this? How do we know if these things are good or bad, blasphemy or blessing?
So what kind of extrapolation is correct or incorrect? Well lets take a look at a parable we are familiar with: The Prodigal Son of Luke 15:11-32.
In this story we have the Father, who represents God. We have the son who represents fallen mankind. We have the other brother who represents an unforgiving spirit. Jesus parable here is designed to show the forgiveness of God, and it does so quite well.
But what does it mean that the Father is intending to give an inheritance? Does this mean Jesus is implying God will die? And what of the friends in this story, are they the angels? What about the other son; for if the prodigal represents mankind, does that mean that the other brother is an example of another group of beings? And who are the farmer who employed him, or the false friends who forsook him? Does the famine mean something?
All these questions can be overwhelming. Some of them have answers, while others are nonsense. But which is which? How can we as discerning Christians know?
There are a couple of ways that we can learn to understand these parables and other teachings. The first thing we should do before we do any of this is pray. Ask God to lead you, His Spirit will reveal things we cannot understand.
God does require us to put in effort as well, however. We cannot pray and stop trying. We must persist. Therefore, we need to ask important questions about any teacher's teaching. Here are some of them.
1. Are the questions you are asking important to the main point?
Many interesting questions we may ask have nothing to do with the point the author was trying to make. The parable of the prodigal son has nothing to do with angels, therefore Jesus did not include them. This does not mean they have no part to play in our lives, it is just not the main point He was trying to make.
2. Does the author intend for you to draw this conclusion?
In the question, 'What about the inheritance, does this mean Jesus is implying God will die? ' We need to ask ourselves, What else does Jesus teach about the Father? Is there any teaching anywhere that we can use to assume that this is what Jesus meant? If not, we should not think that Jesus meant that here. He used a story to convey an idea about forgiveness, He was not trying to hide something dark or revolutionary in the story. Nothing that Jesus says here or anywhere else ever suggests that the Father will die, therefore, we cannot assume that is what He meant here either.
3. Is this direct Theology, or is it an example?
Direct Theology is based in absolute statements. These are things like: God is eternal, God created the heavens and the Earth, Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father is God.
These direct theological statements are not up for discussion and have a direct, absolute meaning.
Examples (types, parables, similes, metaphors, or any other literary device) are used to make a point. They are not meant to fit in absolutely all ways of interpreting them, only in the way they are first used. For example, Jesus is the door to God. That means He is the only way in. It does not mean that Jesus has hinges that can be turned or a lock that can be picked. When He says that He is the bread of life, that does not mean He gets moldy if you leave Him alone too long. Examples are only useful for explaining one meaning, not several, and will fall apart if you try to make them mean something they don't mean.
This is the most misused form of Theology in writing, to assume that an example can mean multiple things. Although some stretching may work with examples, (one could say the other brother in the Prodigal Son might be the self-righteous person) it does not work universally. For that reason, if a person is using examples, take the example to only mean what the author or speaker intends it to mean. Even Jesus parables can be twisted to mean things they don't.
If the issue you are discussing does indeed involve direct Theology, then it is important to understand the first two point here, namely, is that the point the author was making? If not, is it a sub-point the author did intend for you to draw? Sometimes these sub-points are intentional, but often times they are not. Sir Thomas Moore and Martin Luther were both men of God who lived in the same time, yet both understood the Church differently. They both followed the conviction that they felt was of God. Moore was killed for his, Luther lived a full life. Moore stayed in the Catholic Church, Luther left. Moore believed in the Sacraments, Luther did not. What were the implications of their beliefs? Do we agree with them? Were these the things Luther and Moore wanted us to take from their lives?
In the end, the point both Luther and Moore were making was this: We must follow the guidance of God in our lives even if that costs us church positions (Luther) or our very lives (Moore). Even if some of the beliefs these men had are things I would disagree with now, their lives were an example to be followed. They both lived in obedience to God to the best they could. Neither one was perfect, but nor were they expected to be. It is the heart, the motive if you will, that God looks to; and we are to try to understand that motive, not just the statement or action.
Monday, June 3, 2013
Tongue Trouble
If there is one thing that our local church service is not, it is loud. We have a particular organization in our service that is rarely changed, and; even then, it doesn't often involve much of what some might call vigor or vitality. We worship in quiet, other than the music and songs. Rarely is there a comment or voice from the pews, and the preacher's voice does not raise above a normal pitch on general occasions.
Some people, it seems, are bothered by such things. They believe in loud, fervent worship, maybe a chorus of amens, or speaking in tongues. What do you believe? Should we change our worship style? Is this calm and collected form of worship not led by the Spirit? Do we need some energy and vigor to show the new life in us?
This is a question that others have asked before us. Paul actually addresses this question to the Corinthians in the first book that he wrote to them. Paul tells them in chapter fourteen that they are not to be disorderly, nor does he wish they loud if it is not of use. He tells them that it is better to speak five words in a useful way than ten thousand words in a tongue. He also tells us that things need to be organized in order to be helpful. A flute or harp needs guidance and distinct notes in order to be understood and put to use, he claims, and in such a way the worship needs to be guided to be useful and understood. This does not mean that speaking in tongues is useless. Not at all. What he is saying is that speaking in tongues is a sign for unbelievers, but that in a gathering of believers there is to be understanding and order. He goes on to tell us that God is not a God of confusion but of peace. And being His children, we are to follow in His footsteps.
Does this mean that we are to give up speaking in tongues? Not at all. This gift, as Paul describes it, is to be used as a witness for unbelievers, and he firmly agrees with it. Indeed, Paul says he has spoken in tongues himself more than all of them. He goes on to explain that it is not useful if no one can understand it and therefore it is not edifying for the church. He tells them that there are much more useful gifts for them to have in their ministry to believers. He makes a point to tell them that only two or three should speak and the rest are to listen and weigh what is being said.
So what does that leave us with? Should we add speaking in tongues to our worship service? Thinking about it seriously leads us to a more basic question: why do we ask about speaking in tongues? Is it to build up the church? Is it to worship God? Or is it that we are curious and want to see what this looks like for ourselves? For many of us, it may just be the curiosity of seeing something unusual that attracts us to this.
In the end, if we attend a church that is filled with verbal affirmation or not, what matters is the heart of each of the people gathered there. If it is an issue that bothers part of our body of believers, than I believe it has become unprofitable to the unity in Christ. Yet we are also told to not forsake it entirely as it is useful for ministry. All I can say is this: We are reminded to be mature in our thinking; which may mean being discerning in wether we are actually serving Christ or just putting on a good show. And remember, Jesus had quite the words for those who just put on a 'good show.'
Some people, it seems, are bothered by such things. They believe in loud, fervent worship, maybe a chorus of amens, or speaking in tongues. What do you believe? Should we change our worship style? Is this calm and collected form of worship not led by the Spirit? Do we need some energy and vigor to show the new life in us?
This is a question that others have asked before us. Paul actually addresses this question to the Corinthians in the first book that he wrote to them. Paul tells them in chapter fourteen that they are not to be disorderly, nor does he wish they loud if it is not of use. He tells them that it is better to speak five words in a useful way than ten thousand words in a tongue. He also tells us that things need to be organized in order to be helpful. A flute or harp needs guidance and distinct notes in order to be understood and put to use, he claims, and in such a way the worship needs to be guided to be useful and understood. This does not mean that speaking in tongues is useless. Not at all. What he is saying is that speaking in tongues is a sign for unbelievers, but that in a gathering of believers there is to be understanding and order. He goes on to tell us that God is not a God of confusion but of peace. And being His children, we are to follow in His footsteps.
Does this mean that we are to give up speaking in tongues? Not at all. This gift, as Paul describes it, is to be used as a witness for unbelievers, and he firmly agrees with it. Indeed, Paul says he has spoken in tongues himself more than all of them. He goes on to explain that it is not useful if no one can understand it and therefore it is not edifying for the church. He tells them that there are much more useful gifts for them to have in their ministry to believers. He makes a point to tell them that only two or three should speak and the rest are to listen and weigh what is being said.
So what does that leave us with? Should we add speaking in tongues to our worship service? Thinking about it seriously leads us to a more basic question: why do we ask about speaking in tongues? Is it to build up the church? Is it to worship God? Or is it that we are curious and want to see what this looks like for ourselves? For many of us, it may just be the curiosity of seeing something unusual that attracts us to this.
In the end, if we attend a church that is filled with verbal affirmation or not, what matters is the heart of each of the people gathered there. If it is an issue that bothers part of our body of believers, than I believe it has become unprofitable to the unity in Christ. Yet we are also told to not forsake it entirely as it is useful for ministry. All I can say is this: We are reminded to be mature in our thinking; which may mean being discerning in wether we are actually serving Christ or just putting on a good show. And remember, Jesus had quite the words for those who just put on a 'good show.'
Friday, May 31, 2013
Is God Gone?
In our classroom this year, we read extensively about King Hezekiah. Now for those who don't know Judaean history, He was a great king of Judah. He was the son of an evil man named King Ahaz. His father killed his own son's as sacrifices to an idol. But Hezekiah was not like his father. He was a man of God. He followed God's path and obeyed God's law. During his reign Judah destroyed idols, repaired the Temple, and followed God's law as the Torah commanded. As King he saw the neighboring country of Israel be destroyed by Assyria while his nation of Judah prospered and avoided such destruction.
Sounds like a good life, huh? Due to his faithfulness, God gave him everything. But actually the story is a bit more complex than that. You see, we need to look at a very important part of the text here. Remember, this is the king that removed idol worship and restored the nation's worship of God at the Temple, both in word and deed. Now listen closely. Here is what happened in his relationship with God.
II Chron. 32:32"...God left him to himself."
What? What does this mean? God left Hezekiah to himself. God did not answer him. In context we see that Hezekiah had fallen to the chief of all sins. Pride. With all that Hezekiah had seen in his life, all the provisions God made for him and his nation, Hezekiah still became a proud man. And God left him.
Does it feel like God is gone in your life too? Does it feel like God has distanced Himself from you? What can we do about this?
The answer may be simple. Repent. That is the theme of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Jesus preached it. Paul preached it. John the Baptist preached it. The prophets preached it. We must repent if something has come between us and God.
Now sometimes it may be that we feel God has abandoned us and it is not related to our sin. God let Job go through serious trials to purify him, and Job felt as tough God had abandoned him as well. But God was not punishing Job, He was testing him.
Now, I don't know if this is something you struggle with. I do not know if you feel like God is distant. If you don't, that's truly wonderful; but if so, take a minute and think about this. Is there something in you life that has caused this distance? Is it some part of your life that needs to be surrendered to God? Please remember that God's love is not based on how perfect or imperfect we are, but His Spirit will not reside in a place of sin. God loves you, but He will not ignore problems in your life. The solution? Pray. Bring it to the Father.
Now it may be that this isn't your problem. Maybe you are being tested like Job. If that is the case, the solution will already sound familiar to you: pray. Bring it to the Father. No matter what it is we are going through we can surrender it to Him.
Does this advise sound too simple? It may sound simple, but the reality is that there isn't anything you can do to entice God. You can't bribe Him. Indeed, we cannot even do what He requires. So what is left? We pray and ask Him to do it for us. To give us the strength to be whom He wants us to be.
Sounds like a good life, huh? Due to his faithfulness, God gave him everything. But actually the story is a bit more complex than that. You see, we need to look at a very important part of the text here. Remember, this is the king that removed idol worship and restored the nation's worship of God at the Temple, both in word and deed. Now listen closely. Here is what happened in his relationship with God.
II Chron. 32:32"...God left him to himself."
What? What does this mean? God left Hezekiah to himself. God did not answer him. In context we see that Hezekiah had fallen to the chief of all sins. Pride. With all that Hezekiah had seen in his life, all the provisions God made for him and his nation, Hezekiah still became a proud man. And God left him.
Does it feel like God is gone in your life too? Does it feel like God has distanced Himself from you? What can we do about this?
The answer may be simple. Repent. That is the theme of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Jesus preached it. Paul preached it. John the Baptist preached it. The prophets preached it. We must repent if something has come between us and God.
Now sometimes it may be that we feel God has abandoned us and it is not related to our sin. God let Job go through serious trials to purify him, and Job felt as tough God had abandoned him as well. But God was not punishing Job, He was testing him.
Now, I don't know if this is something you struggle with. I do not know if you feel like God is distant. If you don't, that's truly wonderful; but if so, take a minute and think about this. Is there something in you life that has caused this distance? Is it some part of your life that needs to be surrendered to God? Please remember that God's love is not based on how perfect or imperfect we are, but His Spirit will not reside in a place of sin. God loves you, but He will not ignore problems in your life. The solution? Pray. Bring it to the Father.
Now it may be that this isn't your problem. Maybe you are being tested like Job. If that is the case, the solution will already sound familiar to you: pray. Bring it to the Father. No matter what it is we are going through we can surrender it to Him.
Does this advise sound too simple? It may sound simple, but the reality is that there isn't anything you can do to entice God. You can't bribe Him. Indeed, we cannot even do what He requires. So what is left? We pray and ask Him to do it for us. To give us the strength to be whom He wants us to be.
Prophecies and Problems
Paul talks about predestination on several occasions. Many things that were prophesied have come to pass. Does this mean that everything is predetermined?
We find in Scripture that many things are decided before they come to pass. Jesus birth was prophesied, as was His death and resurrection. The Israelites had many prophecies that were fulfilled in their era. We look to the book of Revelation as prophecy that is to come. So what is a Christian to make of all of this? Does this mean that all things are determined? That we have no choice whatsoever?
Let’s first take a look at the type of things that we consider prophecy. The Old Testament shows us much about prophecy. We see that God foretold the destruction of Israel and Judah through prophets. He told them when it would happen, and when the bondage would end. He gave specifics on much of their trials and tribulations. And they all came to pass.
In the New Testament we see much prophecy fulfilled by Jesus as well. We see that He came as prophesied, lived, died, and rose accordingly.
We also see some things that are to come. Future prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled to our understanding. What about those? Are they going to happen without fail? If so, what of free will?
Like most complex questions, this will most likely have complex answers. It’s not as simple as saying that God’s Will is immutable and all is set into motion already. If that was the case, we would not have any choice and all the times God specifically tells His people to choose would be lies. Not only that, but Jesus mourning over the city of Jerusalem would make no sense whatsoever if Jerusalem had no choice in the matter. If we say that all that happens in God’s Will we say that all sin is by God’s choosing. In doing so, we make God worse than the Devil. Sin is choosing to go against God’s Will, and therefore, God Himself cannot do it. Therefore, not all is God’s choice, for if it was His choice it could not be sin, for God cannot choose to sin.
So we can’t just shove it all under the rug of absolute predetermination. That would be far too simple. However, we must see that there are indeed things that God did predetermine. So what’s the difference? Can we know? Do we have all these answers?
The more I study this, the more information I get, but the hard it is for me to come up with an actual conclusion. The easiest thing for me to say would be that God is God and we cannot possibly keep up with Him. While that is true, that does not give us permission to be lazy in our thought and understanding. To not completely understand is one thing, to not try at all is quite another.
Let’s take a look at what types of prophecies God gives us. There are two basic kinds: conditional and unconditional.
Here is an example of a conditional prophecy.
If, instead, you reject My statutes, and if your soul abhors My ordinances so as not to carry out all My commandments, and so break My covenant, 16 I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that will waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you will sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies will eat it up. 17 I will set My face against you so that you will be struck down before your enemies; and those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee when no one is pursuing you. 18 If also after these things you do not obey Me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins. 19 I will also break down your pride of power; I will also make your sky like iron and your earth like bronze. 20 Your strength will be spent uselessly, for your land will not yield its produce and the trees of the land will not yield their fruit. -Leviticus 26:15-20
We see that God prophesies that these things will come to pass IF the people disobey. It is a conditional prophecy. More such prophecies can be found like this. For example, here God prophesies what will happen if the do obey Him.
“Then it shall come about, because you listen to these judgments and keep and do them, that the Lord your God will keep with youHis covenant and His lovingkindness which He swore to your forefathers. 13 He will love you and bless you and multiply you; He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, your grain and your new wine and your oil, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock, in the land which He swore to your forefathers to give you.14 You shall be blessed above all peoples; there will be no male or female barren among you or among your cattle. -Deut 7:12-14
Here is an example of an unconditional prophecy.
"And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced…" -Zechariah 12:10
"…Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:" - Luke 24:46
Do you see the difference? Unconditional prophecies, like God’s promise to send a Messiah, are not based on us. They are based on God, who does not change. The are predetermined because God already exists in the future just as well as He exists in the past and present. He is at all places and times in unison. Therefore, He can predict what He will do in the future because He is doing it there. Unconditional promises rest upon God and His unchanging existence.
Conditional prophecies, however, are not absolutes. God lays out parameters for His promise or warning and tells people what He will do if they obey or disobey. These prophesies rely on what we as humans do, and in that way are not absolute. The part that rests with God, e.g. the punishment or reward, is absolute because it relies on Him. In other words, Conditional prophecies only come into effect if we chose to do something first. These are based on what we as humans choose. It is interesting to note how many prophecies are conditional on human choice. This does not mean that God won’t do His part. No. It means that He will not do so until we have chosen. Almost, if not all, unconditional prophesies do not rely on man at all. They rely solely upon God. Since He exists at all times in all places, these prophecies do not undo the free will He has given us. Rather, they are only dependent upon Him, and therefore do not have a bearing upon our freewill. This does not diminish God’s power in the least, instead, it shows that His power transcends the limits of time that we as man cannot escape.
But what of prophecies of people that were yet to come, such as John the Baptist, Judas Iscariot, or Samson? Do they have any choice in the matter? Do these people still have freewill? If so, how? If not, who is to say that we have free will?
We see that people like John the Baptist and Samson were chosen by God before birth. However, between these two we find great differences. John the Baptist and Samson were both chosen by God to lead, both were filled or stirred by the Spirit of God, but Samson chose to follow his own desires and disobey the commands of God. He broke his part of the covenant. As a Nazarene, he was not to touch dead animals, not to drink wine, and never to cut his hair. As long as he was at least partially faithful, God worked through Samson. Once Samson broke the last part of his covenant with God, the Lord departed from him. If you look at the verses in the book of Judges chapters 14-16 we see that Samson's first departure began in his earlier days, yet he ruled as a judge for twenty years before his final breaking of his covenant with God. God was faithful till the end, but Samson broke the covenant. John the Baptist is a stark contrast. It appears that he was faithful though the entire calling.
So what can we take from this? That even with the filling of God's Spirit from a young age, we as people have been given the freewill to deny that Spirit. This is the great and terrible gift from God. No matter how much prophecy there is, God will still allow us to choose, just like Samson and John the Baptist. Does this mean that God is to blame? No, it means that even if we are made to serve Him, we can still choose to not do so. God is still all powerful, but He will not force His will upon us. If He did, we would have no choice in the matter at all. But throughout Scripture we see time and again that God calls us to make a choice, to serve Him or to deny Him. I pray that we may all realize the gravity of this gift and not abuse it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)