Author: Bob

Although having grown up in Tucson, AZ, I’m an upper Midwestern guy at heart having spent most of my adult life in Minnesota. I recently entered the "Buick stage" of life and have migrated to Florida. This blog is an attempt to explain the deconstruction of my Christian faith and better understand what I perceive as the discordant aspects of Christianity. Things which make life more enjoyable include rough-housing with the grandkids, strong black coffee, charcoal grilling, cutting wood on a table saw, playing chess, a good orthopedic surgeon and an occasional IPA. Please feel free to poke around and comment as you wish. I welcome cordial discussion and the insights of others with a different perspective and understanding.

Who Are the Elect, Anyway?

I’ve always found it fascinating to be using the same words, sharing common thoughts and themes, say, with Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses only to realize, for instance, who they believe Jesus to be is radically different from who I believe Jesus to be.  It often comes down to word definitions.  This got me to thinking – there certainly are significant theological differences between Calvinists and Arminians.  However, could a part of that division come down to word definitions?  In this case, what does the term “elect” mean” and who constitutes the “elect”?

The issue of “definitional differences” (that sure sounds philosophical!) occurred to me when I was looking up verses with which to flog Colleen in a previous post.  I stumbled across the topic of “Nations” in my NIV Topical Bible.  It states:

  • After the flood, humanity divided into various nations; God is King over all of them.  He picked out one of them, the descendants of Abraham, as his chosen nation.  The inhabitants of this nation became known as Israelites and later as Jews.  God commanded them to remain separate from other nations, especially by avoiding mixed marriages.  From the perspective of the Bible, humanity came to be divided between the Jew and the Gentile or between Jew and Greek.
  • God’s intention was never to reserve his promised blessing only for one nation but to make it available for all nations.  Already to Abraham he promised that in him all the nations of the earth would be blessed.  The prophets looked ahead to a time in which all nations would hear and respond to the salvation of God.  This was fulfilled when the gospel was preached to Jew and Gentile alike and the church was formed as the worldwide body of Jesus Christ.

So, the thought process of my feeble little mind goes like this:

  • In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve.  Were they the first people to be considered “the elect”?
  • After the flood, those on the arc dispersed and various nations were formed.  God chose the descendants of Abraham (the Israelites) to be “the elect”.
  • Through Israel (God’s elect), all nations would eventually hear and respond to the salvation of God and thereby become “the elect”.
  • Prophesy was fulfilled when Jesus came and preached to the Jews (the “old” elect) and the Gentiles (the “new” elect) alike.

So, what does this mean or prove?  In and of itself, I suppose, nothing.  Calvinists claim that one not yet saved can be an elected person – it’s just that God hasn’t yet brought that person to a point of salvation.  However, as I re-read verses Calvinists often quote to prove the concept of election, what I’m beginning to see is that it is the believers – those who have, by faith, trusted Christ for their salvation that are the elect.  Well, duh!  I can see my Calvinist friends thinking, “Well, what did you expect?  Who did you think the elect were – non-believers?”  THAT’S JUST IT!  THE ELECT ARE THE BELIEVERS.

Therefore, a person doesn’t become “elect” until he is a believer.  As such, being elect is not future oriented wherein a person will believe because God has elected him.  Rather, becoming elect occurs the moment a person believes.  Put another way, an elect person is a Christian.

As I read, for instance, Matt 24 where Jesus is talking about His second coming, it seems apparent that when Jesus uses the word ‘elect’ (verses 22, 24, 31) he is speaking about those who are already believers.

In conclusion, because God doesn’t want anyone to perish (1 Pet 3:9), everyone is called.  But clearly, not everyone responds.  And because everyone is called, everyone has the capacity to become “elect”.  But no one is “elected” until they believe.  So, who are the elect, anyway?  The elect are those who already believe.

Well then – let’s put this definition to the test.  I maintain that if some theory is true, it works in all situations i.e. if A=B and B=C, then A=C.  So, does this new definition (of who are the elect) work on a couple of verses I find troublesome?  For instance:

  • Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
  • 2 Thess 2:13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying word of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

Hmmm.  Perhaps it’s back to the drawing board.  I don’t quite understand it, but I sense that I’m onto something when it comes to the definition of “the elect”.  To that end, any thoughts or comments from readers would be appreciated.

Responding to Calvinist Arguments of Sam Storms (I)

An essay written by Sam Storms of Enjoying God Ministries http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/faith-and-repentance/ was sent to me by my good friend and ardent Calvinist, Colleen, to support her contention that God not only chooses certain individuals for salvation, but that He also gives them the grace to accept salvation and the faith to believe.

For the sake of easier reading and allowing responses to more specific points, I’ve opted to write three or four posts in response.  This is the first.

Mr. Storm’s begins his essay with the “hypothetical case of the twin brothers, Jerry and Ed.”  Mr. Storms explains how Jerry eventually comes to faith but Ed remained obstinate and indignant in his unbelief and asks the question: “What made Jerry and Ed to differ [as to Jerry obtaining eternal life and Ed damned to Hell]?”  Mr. Storms states that because of the total moral depravity of both Jerry and Ed, neither brother could or would believe.  In addition, the only difference between Jerry and Ed was God’s unconditional and sovereign grace extended by Jerry but not to Ed.  Therefore, God is the ultimate cause of Jerry’s salvation (and correspondingly, Ed’s damnation).  Mr. Storms then references Rom 9:11 to state, “[Jerry was elected] in order that God’s purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls.”

Chapter nine of Romans appears to be foundational to Calvinist thought regarding election.  After all, the word ‘elect’ is in there, right?  Perhaps if Romans chapter nine ended at verse twenty-nine; it might be easier to understand individual election.  However, Paul seems to provide his own summary of what he’s just been writing about starting with Romans 9:30, “What then shall we say?  That the Gentiles [a group of people – emphasis mine] who did not pursue righteousness have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, [again, a group of people – emphasis mine] who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.  Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.”

I find these words at the end of this chapter intriguing to say the least.  Gentiles have obtained righteousness through faith and the Israelites continued to strive for righteousness through the law – and continued to fail.  It appears that Paul is talking about masses of people and not simply of individuals i.e. individual election.  From the beginning, there was corporate election wherein the nation of Israel was God’s chosen people – caretakers of the law.  As was evident, however, no one could keep the law and so God, though His sovereign choice, allowed not only Jews, but also Gentiles (gosh, isn’t that in essence everyone else!), to enter into His presence and kingdom through faith.

Looking a little farther on, (Rom 11:22), Paul says that Israel was “broken off” because of unbelief.  Perhaps that’s something akin to “hardening of heart”?  Does God show mercy on people in response to their belief (faith) or unbelief (the law)?  The answer is yes!  Look at Rom 11:23 where Paul writes that if Israel would only have faith, they would be “grafted in”.  Notice, too, that there’s no indication of God choosing some over others.

Re-reading verse 11, perhaps we ought to take into account who (or what) is represented by Jacob and who (or what) is represented by Esau.  Did God make sovereign choices and were individuals affected by those choices?  Absolutely.  However, it doesn’t appear, to me anyway, that Rom 9:11 is a verse Calvinists can use to support the notion of individual election.

Election Confusion

Dear Colleen,

Thank-you for your clarification regarding my “taking on” the responsibility for my justification.  Reference your comment in https://martinsmercurialmusings.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/literal-vs-figurative-interpretation/ .  It’s taking me a couple of readings for this to sink in, so please correct me if I’m missing your point.  You think I am confusing the terms “free will” (having equal ability to accept or reject the gospel) with “free moral agent” (being free to do what I wish).

You make a distinction between free will and free moral agent that I don’t believe is taught in scripture.  There’s no ambiguity as the law tells me on which side of that demarcation line I’m standing.  I can know right from wrong (Romans 3:20b).  I think you and I would agree on this point.  However, I think where you and I diverge is you do not believe it is possible for people to voluntarily act contrary to their sin nature and are thus not able to choose (for ourselves and by our own efforts) to accept God’s God gift of salvation.  In other words, ultimately the reason that some are saved and others are not is because God (Himself) chose to save some and not others.

Some thoughts come to mind:

  1. Didn’t Jesus die as the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2)?  His blood covers it all.  Maybe this is a stretch – however, Jesus dying for the whole world’s sin implies, although I would agree it certainly doesn’t prove, that there is at least the potential for people to reach out to God if for no other reason than doesn’t He want to be our savior?
  2. Does God want anyone to perish?  Please read John 3:16, 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:4 if you answered ‘yes’.  Reading these verses, Colleen, I get the sense that there is every reason to believe God would choose everybody to be saved.  But that doesn’t mean that everyone will choose to believe.
  3. As I wrote in my post https://martinsmercurialmusings.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/struggling-with-calvinistic-arguments/ , I don’t think your reference to Romans 3:10 supports your contention that “no one seeks God”.

I believe your statements regarding divine election should be placed in the context of “corporate election” and not “individual election”.  Think of the “nation of Israel” or “the Gentiles”.  That said, I’ll certainly agree that John the Baptist, the twelve disciples, Paul, and other OT and NT people were individually chosen – heck, I’ll even use the word ‘elected’ if you’d prefer.  However, those are exceptions and not the rule and to that point, I disagree with your statement, “The Bible tells us (from Genesis to Revelation) that divine election is according to God’s sovereign good pleasure.  God is glad He chose some and not all.  It pleased Him to choose some for salvation out from among the mass of hell-deserving sinners.”

God is glad that He chose some and not all?  Please reference point #2 above.  Don’t angels rejoice when people are saved (Luke 15:10)?  If that is true, it certainly stands to reason that angels mourn when a soul is lost.  And is it not reasonable, then, to assume that these emotions are of God who would also rejoice when one is saved and mourn when one is lost?

Perhaps, Colleen, it’s not I who is confused about free will.  Perhaps you are confused between a “condition” and a “cause”.  You earlier referenced a quote by Greg Boyd so please allow me to return the favor.  This comes from the book Divine Foreknowledge pg 193-194:

  • “If we in any sense caused God to save us by exercising faith, that would imply that we merit something from God and thus are not saved solely by grace.  But this is not what freewill theists generally affirm or what Scripture teaches.  Rather, we hold that salvation is graciously given on the condition that one places their trust in the one giving it.  This no more makes salvation a merited reward than does my freely accepting a birthday gift makes this gift a reward.
  • Not only this, but most freewill theists believe that we fallen human beings would not even meet the condition of faith were it not for the gracious work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.  We agree with Calvinists that we cannot have faith on our own.  We simply reject the Calvinist view that the work of the Holy Spirit is irresistible.  People can and do resist the Holy Spirit and thereby thwart the will of God for their lives (Luke 7:30, Acts 7:51, Eph 4:30, Heb 3:8).  Hence, we affirm that if a person is saved, it is all to the glory of God, whereas if a person is damned, they have only themselves to blame.

I guess it comes down to free will.  I believe individuals have it and that scripture supports that belief.  You, on the other hand, do not believe individuals have free will and you believe scripture supports your belief.  Maybe we ought to flip a coin.  Heads I win, tails you lose.  That’s scriptural, isn’t it (Luke 1:9, Acts 1:17)?  You get a hold of John.  I’ll talk to Greg.  Your place or mine?  We’ll flip a coin, or if you prefer, roll a dice to see who’s right.  BTW, Colleen, did you pick-up on the “heads I win, tails you lose”?

The question does come to mind, how is it that you and I are supposed to understand all of this?  The book I referenced earlier, Divine Foreknowledge, is a fascinating look into four distinct views of God’s foreknowledge presented from the Open-Theism (Greg Boyd), Simple-Knowledge (David Hunt), Middle-Knowledge (William Craig) and the Augustinian-Calvinist (Paul Helm) perspectives.  Certainly I would be more comfortable if Christianity was akin to mathematics i.e. if A=B and B=C, then A=C.  Maybe that was what the law was all about.  However, the law and mathematics are not relationally oriented.  God is – and so too are people.  And even though you and I may diverge and disagree on matters of faith, I do appreciate your continued “relationship”, engaging me on these matters, and being a dear friend.

Most Sincerely,

Bob

Literal vs Figurative Interpretation

Dear Colleen,

As I was putting together my last post, I thought of asking you these questions:

Do you hate your husband?

Do you hate your children?

Do you hate any brothers or sisters you may have?

Are you enjoying any aspect of this life?

Well, sorry to tell you this, but if you don’t hate everyone and everything including your own life – well then, I regret to inform you that according to Luke 14:26-27 you are not a disciple of Christ.

I can almost see the smirk on your face and the shaking of your head.  But I’ve just told you what the Bible states.  However, you and I both know that this isn’t what the Bible teaches.  We’re obviously not taking a literal reading of this passage.  We’re not going to make dogma with this verse and justify hating people.  Rather, we both understand that this passage is hyperbole and relates to the cost of salvation.  But in a similar way, Colleen, I sense that you’re taking literal readings of particular verses and drawing interpretations and conclusions that I’m not sure were intended by the author.

Perhaps I’m completely missing something – and it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been told that!  Nevertheless, I look forward to any additional thoughts you may have regarding Rom 3:10-11 and Jn 4:23.

The more I think about it the more I keep coming back to the simplicity of believing as per the Apostle’s Creed.  And nowhere within the Apostle’s Creed do I see anything remotely indicative of Calvinistic thought.

Also, I don’t understand your previous comment, “(I) will never have that assurance (of salvation) as long as (I) try to take on the responsibility for that justification.”  What is it that I have previously said that leads you to conclude that I am taking on the responsibility for my own justification?

Most Sincerely,

Bob

Struggling with Calvinistic Arguments

Dear Colleen,

My struggle with Calvinism is, in part, due to scriptural references Calvinists use and subsequent arguments made which I believe to be a misapplication and misunderstanding of what scripture seems to teach.  If you’ll allow me, let’s consider the references you previously mentioned: Rom 3:10-11 and Jn 4:23

First, Rom 3:10-11, which says:

  • There is none righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.

You used this verse as an example that we are totally degenerate beings unable to reach out to God because of our sin nature.  As such, you believe it is God who must “enable” people (the elect) to desire the beauty of God righteousness.

If that were all the verses said, I could be more inclined to accept your argument.  However, verse ten begins with, “As it is written”.  My NIV Topical Bible indicates that Rom 3:10 is a reference to Isaiah 64:6-7, which is Solomon’s prayer of dedication after the Ark was brought to the temple.  As such, Paul is using an Old Testament reference regarding the inability of God’s chosen people (in this case, the Israelites) to keep the law.  Further, in Roman 3:20, Paul says:

  • Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

In the introduction to the book of Romans, my NIV Topical Bible states: “All human beings are in a desperate situation of sin and all stand condemned before God.  But God has provided us a way out of this horrible predicament by sending his Son Jesus to die for our sin.  By his grace, God regards those who believe in Christ to be righteous in his sight.  In faith, we must accept this gift of God and begin living the Christian life.”

With respect, Colleen, I submit that this passage in Romans chapter three identifies the futility of Paul’s intended audience (and us, too) of trying to justify themselves with the law.  In Rom 3:24, Paul states that we are “justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”  There’s no indication of election here and I do not see how you can use these verses in Romans as justification for man’s inability to seek God and therefore it is only because of God’s sovereign decree that a very few individuals – the elect – are saved.  I honestly don’t see that concept taught here.

Second, John 4:23, which says:

  • Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.

Related to this verse, you asked, who is seeking whom?  Presumably, you’re wanting to show how it is God who is seeking us and not us seeking Him.  And, I think you’re right – but probably not in the sense you think.  As I read through all of John chapter four, the overriding sense I get is that God wants people’s hearts and that God responds to people’s hearts.  This would seem to imply (but certainly doesn’t prove) that we have a choice in the matter.  It’s as though God doesn’t care about people’s “religious motions” i.e. practicing the law, performing rituals, etc.  That, to me, doesn’t indicate that God has already determined who will be saved and who will be damned.  Consider 2 Pet 3:9 which says: “[The Lord] is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”  With that thought in mind, I’m not convinced that when Jesus is speaking to the Samaritan woman, He’s teaching election and only referring to a very select few for salvation.  Instead, I believe Jesus to say that after He rises from the dead, the law will be over and we will worship in spirit and in truth.

I value your time and effort and I appreciate the opportunities you have afforded me to think through various concepts and issues that have been gnawing at me for a long time.  With that, I await your reply.

Most Sincerely,

Bob

The Peshitta and our Christian Faith

Below is a note from a very dear friend I recently reconnected with via Facebook.  On her Facebook page, Trula says that she is a very blessed [and] observant Messianic Jew in love with Yeshua (the Syriac name for Jesus).  Her life, and the sufferings she has endured, is a testament to her deep and abiding faith and belief in Yeshua as written about in the Peshitta – which, as I understand, is the standard version of the second century Christian Bible from the Syriac language.  I encourage readers to read Trula’s abridged letter to me and post any questions to her.  I have every confidence that Trula would welcome the opportunity to share more about her Christian faith as a Messianic Jew.

Dear Bob,

In the west, Christians attending a “Christian or denominational” Bible college or seminary will be learning from the framework or context of that particular denomination’s dogma.  Therefore, most Christian’s have never heard of the Hebrew original Brit Chadasha, Aramaic/Syriac Peshitta, the great body of liturgy of the ancient Oriental Church, the original church of Jerusalem, the Nazarenes, the missionary journeys of St. Thomas or the colloquial language spoken for 3,000 years in and around Mesopotamia during the time of Jesus.

The main problem is that western Christianity knows only half of their own anti-Semitic history and nothing of the Oriental church, which loved and accepted the Jews.  I’m sure you know that Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic and Matthew surely wrote in Aramaic and Latin, as he was a tax collector for the Romans.  Western Christianity doesn’t realize that the Gospels are full of Aramaic parables and idiomatic phrases that cannot be translated into English proficiently unless you speak the language and know the customs.

One of the customs practiced by the Oriental church (and the Hebrews as well) was the sacrament of sending the older used holy scripture scrolls back to God.  When it was necessary to make a new copy, a group of scribes (following the Jewish practice) was called for the work.  They were anointed with oil and sent to their task.  As soon as the copies were finished, the Council of the Elders was called to inspect the scroll’s integrity.  If a word or dot was misplaced, the entire scroll was disqualified and burned.  After the scrolls were approved, there was a ceremony consecrating the new copy of scripture and the older copy was burned to keep it from becoming defiled.

For further information, please visit the website http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com and look for the books:

  • Was the New Testament written in Greek?
  • Idioms in the Bible Explained and a Key to the Original Gospels

You can also read the Peshitta for yourself online at: http://www.lamsabible.com/

Most Sincerely,

Trula

Responding to a Calvinist’s Perspective on My Sheep

Dear Colleen,

In a previous response, you referenced Jn 10:27, which in the NIV says:

  • My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

As related to this verse, you indicated that faith is simple from the perspective that all we have to do is listen to His voice and follow Him.  Of course, according to Calvin, only the elect can hear His voice.  However, as I read and study Calvinist thought and perspective, it leads (for me, anyway) to all kinds of faith issues and theological problems – not the least of which is how God can love all as per Jn 3:16 and 1Pet 3:9 while predestining the vast majority of people to hell?  I’ve taken some liberty and altered the wording of Jn 10:25-28 from a Calvinist perspective.  It comes across harsher than I might wish.  However, it is what it is and I think I’ve accurately captured the Reformed concepts of election within this passage.

  • Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe because God has not granted you eyes to see and ears to hear.  Therefore, because of God’s sovereign election, you do not believe and are therefore eternally doomed.  The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me.  But let me repeat – you do not believe because God has already pre-determined from the foundation of the heaven and earth that you’re going straight to hell the moment you die.  I’ve already determined who my sheep are.  They listen to my voice.  I know them, and they follow me.  I give those lucky chosen few eternal life and they shall never perish.  No one can snatch them out of my hand.  You non-believers, on the other hand, who are not part of the elect because I don’t want to share eternity with you, are therefore not my sheep, and you folks, even though you didn’t have a choice in the matter, are eternally screwed!  Well, enjoy Hell because you folks get to experience my perfect wrath.  You’ve been created for the express purpose of Me sending you to Hell.”

Regarding sovereign grace and election per Jn 10:27 (or the passage for that matter), I don’t see that God unilaterally decided who would be his sheep.  Jesus doesn’t suggest that who were the believers and who were the non-believers was already decided before any of these people were born.  Could it be that Jesus, when He spoke these words, was actually talking to the Romans and Pharisees and whoever else was within earshot?  The author implies nothing other than some of the people immediately around Him were His sheep (believers) while others (i.e. Romans, Pharisees, non-believers, etc.) were not His sheep and therefore didn’t believe.

I welcome your comments.

Responding to a Calvinist’s Perspective on Faith

Dear Colleen,

Your response to my post on the simplicity of believing as outlined by the Apostle’s Creed went in a direction I didn’t expect and so I’ve created a new post.

First of all – we need a definition for faith and the best definition of faith (that I know of) comes from Heb 11:1, which in the NIV says:

  • Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Christian faith makes intrinsic sense (to me, at least) when boiled down to the simplicity of believing per the Apostle’s Creed.  However, you surprised me stating that God is the giver of faith in the same way that God predetermines who’ll be saved (and conversely – who will not be saved).  Perhaps from a Calvinist perspective that makes sense.  In your response you stated that faith is a gift of God according to Eph 2:8-9 and that (I’m quoting you here) “the scriptures tell us that we must be asking God for that faith because it is His gift to give.”  Really?  The NIV reads:

  • For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast.

That the English punctuation breaks Eph 2:8-9 into six “pieces” may or may not be significant.  Nevertheless, it’s an easy way to dissect these verses and so here’s my $0.02 worth as to why I disagree with your premise that God withholds faith from some while giving it to others:

  • For it is by grace you have been saved.  This is a demonstrative statement without ambiguity.  We are saved by grace.  The author doesn’t say we are saved by grace AND faith.
  • Through faith.  My trusty Webster’s Dictionary tells me that the word “through” is not only a preposition, it is also a “function word” used to indicate any number of things such as movement, time, means, completion, exhaustion, as well as to indicate acceptance or approval.  Could it be that God’s “approved way” of us receiving His grace (the free gift of salvation) is through faith?  There’s no indication here that God gives faith to some and withholds faith from others.
  • And this not from yourselves. Notice that the author uses the singular word “this” and not the plural word “these”.  I believe that the author is referring only to grace here.
  • It is the gift of God.  Again, notice that the author uses the singular word “it” and not the plural word “they”.  This would again seem to indicate that only one thought – in this case, grace, is being referenced.
  • Not by works. Self-explanatory – good deeds won’t cut it.
  • So that no one can boast.  Self-explanatory.

You’ll probably chastise me for re-ordering Eph 2:8-9.  However,  it makes my point – the author isn’t saying we must ask God for faith and that God may (or may not) give that person faith.

  • Through faith, you have been saved by God’s gift of grace.  You didn’t earn God’s grace.  Grace is God’s gift so don’t even bother boasting about your good deeds and actions.

With all due respect, Colleen, I think you’re making Eph 2:8-9 say something other than what it is saying.  These two verses state – we’re saved by grace.  Period.  From Eph 2:8-9 I don’t see that faith is a gift of God given to some and not given to others.  Rather, we’re saved by grace.   We’re saved by grace through faith.  We’re saved by grace through being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Well, there’s more I could add but this seems to be a good place to stop.

Take care, my friend.  I welcome and await your response.

The Free Will of the Wind

Dear Colleen,

What a delight to hear from you.  It’s been quite a while since we’ve written and I’ve been wondering how things have been with you.

First of all, I regret that the hyperlinks aren’t working and I can’t figure out how to fix them.  However, you can copy and paste the link into the “browser bar”.  I wish I was better at this internet stuff.

My struggle to understand God’s character and the nature of God’s will is about the same.  Many work and extraneous activities have somewhat limited my posting.  However, I recently posted about an insight from a photography trip experience to South Dakota’s Badlands last week.

The John Piper sermon you linked http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2009/3865_The_Free_Will_of_the_Wind/ has provided some thought.  As you know, I do take issue with Reformed theology in general and sovereign election in particular.  I’m not familiar with Dr. Piper’s work.  However, the little I have listened to and studied – particularly as it relates to God’s will gives me pause.  You can read a post I wrote regarding Dr. Piper’s perspective on Rom 12:1-2 pertaining to the will of God here: https://martinsmercurialmusings.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/14/

Here’s my $0.02 worth for what I see taught in this passage:

  • Vs3 Jesus declares to Nick that everyone must be born again to see the kingdom of God.
  • Vs4 Nick asks if Jesus is talking about one’s physical birth from their mother.
  • Vs5 Jesus explains that we have to be born of water and spirit.
  • Vs6 Flesh gives birth to flesh and spirit gives birth to spirit.
  • Vs7 Jesus tells Nick that he shouldn’t be surprised at this.
  • Vs8 The wind blows where it pleases – we can hear (the wind’s effect) but can’t see (the wind’s origin or destination).  Yet we can hear and see evidence of the wind.

Not being real familiar with this passage, I did a Goggle search on “Jn 3:8 commentary” and found the following sites:

Unfortunately, I “lost track” of which points came from which web site.  Nevertheless, the main points made by the above links include:

  • This is a play on words. “Spirit” can also mean “breath” or “wind.” Wind is something we can’t see, but we can see the affect it has.
  • There is no “litmus test” to prove that a Christian has the Holy Spirit, but the evidence is the changed life of the individual.
  • We can know the wind exists because we can see its affect on the things it touches and the sound it makes. We cannot see the wind, but we can see what it does. The Spirit is invisible to human eyes, but His work or regeneration can be clearly seen.
  • We cannot see God, but we can see what He does. Jesus said it is the same with those born of the Spirit of God.
  • We can see the result a spiritual birth has on those who experience the new birth. Nicodemus was rejecting what Jesus’ teaching. Even though the Lord explained it to him, Nicodemus didn’t understand or accept this truth. Jesus is saying to Nicodemus that he could see and know the wind was real and existed. Likewise, though not actually seen the Spirit also exists and spiritually changed the lives of men.
  • A baptismal ceremony can be seen.  However, the forgiveness, clean conscience, and receiving the Spirit cannot be seen.
  • Like the powerful wind, though invisible, its power is nevertheless profound.
  • Jesus tells Nicodemus that he shouldn’t reject a doctrine merely because he couldn’t understand it.  Neither could the wind be seen, but its effects were well known and no one doubted the existence or power of the agent.
  • Jesus’ idea to Nicodemus is, “You don’t understand everything about the wind, but you see its effects. That is just how it is with the birth of the Spirit.”
  • Jesus wanted Nicodemus to know that he didn’t have to understand everything about the new birth before he experienced it.
  • The Greek word pneuma can mean both wind and spirit, much like its Hebrew equivalent ruach. Both meanings are in fact present here. John uses this double meaning to make the point that the activity of the Spirit, much like the wind, can’t be precisely described, defined or contained.  However, its impact and results can certainly be experienced.

Honestly, Colleen, this is the first time I’ve seen Calvinist thought related to this passage in general and verse eight in particular.  To that end, I disagree with Dr. Piper’s comment that Jn 3:8 teaches “that being born again is decisively, ultimately, the work of the Spirit’s will, and secondarily and dependently the acting of our will.”  Dr. Piper, I believe, has a pre-determined outcome regarding sovereign election and will use Scripture in convoluted ways and twist logic and meaning to support that perspective.  It is my contention that the concept of “election” is corporate and not individual.  The book, Across the Spectrum, states on pg 144:

  • Paul’s concept of election in these passages is corporate, not individual.  The church is God’s elect people in the same sense that Israel was God’s elect nation.  According to this interpretation, before the foundation of the world God chose to have a people (the church) who would believe in him and would be predestined “to be holy and blameless before him in love.”  When a person chooses to be incorporated into this group by believing in Jesus, all that is predestined for the group now applies to that person.  Hence, Paul can say to all who have chosen to become part of the church, “He chose us [as a group] in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love.  He destined us for adoption as his children (Eph 1:4-5).  (This) interpretation is more plausible than the Calvinist interpretation, which depicts God as deciding who would (and thus who would not) believe in him before the foundation of the world.

Also, Dr. Piper also confuses those who are “threatened” or “thrilled” by Jn 3:8.  However, in fairness, that is a function of his (or probably any Calvinist’s) perspective based on their reading of those verses listed: Jn 6:44-45, Acts 13:48, Rom 9:15-16, Phil 2:12-13, Eph 2:8-9.  Suffice it to say that I have a different understanding (interpretation?) of those verses.  However, to keep this letter from becoming inordinately long, I’ll differ until later. Perhaps we could banter back and forth on our different perspectives.

In short, I’m not persuaded by Dr. Piper’s sermon that the wind Jesus refers to in Jn 3:8 is related in any way to Calvinistic thought.  Well, this probably isn’t the response you had hoped for.  Nevertheless, as always, I welcome your response and feedback.

Most Sincerely,

Bob

The Simplicity of Believing

When we arrived in the middle of the afternoon on a trip to South Dakota’s Badlands, it was hot, dry and dusty.  There was a bareness and an overriding appearance of nothing but wasteland.  The next morning it was bitterly cold with strong winds and some rain.  However, there was color and contrast to the land where before there appeared to be nothing.  Two inches of snow the following morning highlighted peaks, ridges, rock formations and other details.  Seeing the same landscape through different lenses (pun intended) was quite interesting.  Nevertheless, on whichever day, the more one looked at the same area of landscape, the more detail there was to see.  Still, the breadth and beauty of the land is missed if one only myopically looks at the incredible detail.

A good friend asked me the question: If one takes away all of the questions, all of the assumptions, all of the preconceived notions that we as believers have – what is left?  I wasn’t sure.  Readers of this blog know that I’ve been struggling to understand the nature and character of God.  In all honesty, my relationship to my heavenly Father has been at best distant as I’ve struggled through such issues as the will of God in the life of the believer and predetermination as advocated by ardent Calvinists.  This good friend put it like this: perhaps it all boils down to the simplicity of believing as spelled out in the Apostle’s Creed.

The Apostle’s Creed states:

  • I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth
  • And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord
  • Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary
  • Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell
  • The third day he rose again from the dead
  • He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty
  • From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead
  • I believe in the Holy Ghost
  • I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints
  • The forgiveness of sin
  • The resurrection of the body
  • And the life everlasting

Perhaps the will of God is indeed an impenetrable mystery.

Perhaps the debate between Calvinists and Arminians doesn’t really matter.

Perhaps it would be best to start again at the beginning – from the perspective that God is God and that through faith I am His child because Christ died on the cross to forgive my sins so that I can have fellowship with Him.

Is it so simple?

Can one just believe?

I don’t know.