I have written or mentioned quite a lot on Augustine and his Platonist influence that I believe influenced Calvin and scores of others into a "soft Gnosticism". Now I am not saying Augustine is not worthy to be read, on the contrary I believe him to have added some great thoughts to the historical Christian dialogue that continues even today.
Yet, many who push Augustine miss he was a Christian Mystic and influence many, including St. John of the Cross. Not only this but that Augustine was heavily influenced by Plato which could have gave a Gnostic twist to the Gospel.
Here is an article by Gordon R. Lewis at Christian Research Institute, (not to be confused with those whack job wannabees) which goes deeper into these ideas.
This is one of my posts for my Religious Studies Discussion Question this week.
The debate between Law and Grace seems an issue as one
may bring up such verses as “O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?” (James
2:19b). in contrast to Paul’s "For by grace are ye saved through faith;
and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man
should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9, KJV). Yet, things get more complicated
when Augustine’s reading of grace comes at the expense of attacking the Jews
for their love of the Law (Stowers 1997, 14). Furthering the issue that
Augustine read Paul in a Neo-Platonist way that creates a dualism instead of a
more holistic understanding of Grace (3).
People speak of Grace as a means that appears to cover
sin, or worse and excuse to keep sinning. While Grace very well does as such,
there seems to be a thin layered understanding of what Grace is. The often used
definition of “unmerited favor” seems shallow when one realizes that God has
shown His Grace throughout the Old Testament from the very first “sin” where
instead of instant death, God casts Adam and Eve out of the Garden lest they
eat of the Tree of Life and remain in their fallen state as immortals.
Furthering this idea is Cain and Able in which God marks Cain with a mark to
keep him safe from being murdered for his act of murdering his own brother. In
essence, God protects a murderer and it appears justice is not a priority to
God at least in this instance.
Gundry points out that ““Galatians 2:16a reads, “but
knowing that a person is not justified by works of the law, but through faith
of Jesus Christ.””, gives us a key insight that Grace cannot be earned. As Cain
did not earn Grace yet was saved from retribution or revenge, so we find faith
somehow preserves us from wrath as well as our “earned” wages of sin.
In the New Testament we have mainly two views of
justification. The Greek view brings with it the idea of justice with
punishment (Gundry, 2003, 357). While in Jewish thought, we have the idea of
amnesty or that the righteous prevail (357). Paul, who is writing to both
audiences, seems to fall more into the idea that the “righteous” will prevail
“through faith”. Paul uses the story of Hagar and Sara to show the contrast of
human effort versus the spiritual gift of Grace.
Paul's allegorizing of the conflict between Hagar and Sarah
in terms of the conflict between law and grace is, in our opinion, an example
of legitimate allegorizing for it rests on a genuine analogy. The univocal
element in the analogy can be clearly stated. As Ishmael was born of human
effort, so the Judaizers are seeking righteousness by human effort. And as
Isaac's birth was the result of God's gracious act in fulfilling his promise,
so it is with the people of God. By their birth of the Spirit, they become
children of the promise, members of Christ's body and citizens of the
"Jerusalem which is above." (Jewett, 1987, 175)
We see Paul’s view of “the righteous
shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:17) becomes clearer in the mini Romans of
Galatians. Chapter 3 of Galatians opens as if Paul is screaming:
3 You foolish
Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was
clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from
you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what
you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are
you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? (NIV).
Paul sincerely warns that human
effort leads only to the idea of rejecting the Cross of Christ and thus
accepting the Roman idea of being on the wrong side of justification, meaning
accepting God’s wrath over Grace. Paul’s argument is not only is Grace that
saves you, but also it is Grace that maintains you. Since Galatians was a mix
of Greek, Jew, saved, and unsaved people, this was purposed to allow the reader
to see the importance of Grace. Paul, in essence, shows us there is no other
means for truly being justified unless one humbly accepts the Grace that is
given by God through Christ. Ben Witherington points out that this was also a
time of persecution where the Christian would be singled out as denying the
worship of Lord Caesar (447). It would be easier to hide as a Jew as they were
an accepted religion to Rome. In a sense, Paul is calling those who believe to
come out and show themselves without fear and that by faith, God will bring
about the justification (in the Jewish view) for those who have faith as
Abraham showed with Isaac.
In Genesis 4:10, God states that
Able's blood calls to him from the ground. To kill someone called for equal
justice, meaning "an eye for an eye". Yet, instead of justice, Cain
receives a mark. Many view this mark as a curse, however if one realizes Cain
is marked so that no one else will judge and kill him. Cain should have been
judged and killed for murdering his brother, yet instead was shown grace by
means of the mark. I might point out that Hebrews 12:24 speaks of this very
thing I am presenting:
"You have come to Jesus, the one who
mediates the new covenant between God and people, and to the sprinkled blood,
which speaks of forgiveness instead of crying out for vengeance like the blood
of Abel."
This is a typology of what is a
deeper understanding of God's grace at the Cross. While we tend to believe we
enact the Cross, we do nothing. Romans 5:10 states clearly, "For if, when we were God's enemies, we
were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been
reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!"
In that verse we learn that even in
our fallen state and even being at odds against God so much as we are enemies,
we were reconciled at the Cross. That is the same as the mark of Cain. However,
as with Cain, we will die in our sins if we do not have the Life of Christ. The
point is that many people are content with the "forgiven" part and
still live in the desert outside of paradise as Cain chose to do, yet we also
have the Resurrection that gives us His Life or the Life of Christ Jesus
Did Cain escape punishment and never
had to face "justice" (as per the idea of Greek thinking)? To answer
that question we would have to be God. Yet, we are told that the wages of sin
is death and Cain did die. If so, then Cain paid his wages for his sin at his
death. One can only speculate what Peter means when he stated Jesus preached to
the imprisoned spirits from Noah’s age (2 Peter 3:18-21).
Without argument Grace is unmerited
favor. However there is much more depth than that to the definition. While I am
not fluent in Greek or Hebrew, scholars like Zimmerli point out that within the
Greek definition and root word for Grace is such words as "joy, rejoicing,
merriness" which to a degree seem to be expressions of emotions. If I be
so bold as to say that Grace is the emotion of loving joy God feels for us (Zimmerli
1981, 9:359-60).
Reference List
Gundry,
R. H. (2003). A survey of the new testament. (4th ed.). Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Jewett,
Paul King. 1987. "Children of grace." Theology Today 44, no. 2:
170-178. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed September
19, 2012).
Stowers,
Stanley K. 1997. A rereading of Romans: justice, Jews, and Gentiles. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Witherington,
Ben. 1998. Grace in Galatia: a commentary on Paul's letter to the Galatians.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed September 19, 2012).
Zimmerli,
ed. 1981. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 7th ed. Ed.
Gerhard Friedrich and Gerhard Kittel. Trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Vol. 9.
Grand Rapids: Eerdman.
What does the church do when faced with this huge swirling set of cultural movements and tensions? Most of us learned our trade, learned Christianity, and learned to preach and live the gospel within the resolutely modernist and industrial world. Some branches of Christianity, it is true, have managed to hold onto a premodern way of thinking and even of living, holding the modern world, let alone the postmodern world, at arm’s length. But most of us traditionally have articulated the gospel to people who thought and felt as modern people, particularly as “progress” people—people who thought that if they worked a little harder and pulled their weight a bit more strongly, everything would pan out. That modernist dream, translated into theology, sustains a sort of Pelagianism: pull yourself up by your moral bootstraps, save yourself by your own efforts. And since that was what Martin Luther attacked with his doctrine of justification by faith, we have preached a message, of grace and faith to a world of eager Pelagians. We have announced a pure spiritual message, uncorrupted by political and social reflection.
That looks fine to begin with. If you meet a Pelagian coming down the street, give him Augustine or Luther. But there are two problems with this procedure. First, of course, it is not what Saint Paul himself meant by justification by faith, but that is another subject for another day. Second, with the move to postmodernity, most of our contemporaries already, and all of them soon, will not be Pelagians any longer. Those who have abandoned the smokestack economy for the microchip, those who have denied all objective knowledge in favor of a world of feelings and impulses, those who have abandoned the arrogant Enlightenment “I” for the deconstmcted mass of signifiers, those who have torn down the great metanarrative and now play with different interchangeable stories as they come along—those who live in this world, which is increasingly our world, are not trying to pull themselves up by their moral bootstraps. Where would they pull themselves up to? Why would they bother? Who are “they,” anyway? Goal, motive, identity—all of these have been undermined by the shifting sands of postmodernity. Faced with this situation, many have tried—some are still trying—to deny the presence of postmodernity, to retain the modern world in which we felt so comfortable and in which (whether we realize it or not) we preached a modernist gospel. Many want to turn the clock back, culturally and theologically.
It cannot be done.
My proposal to you is that we should not be frightened of the postmodern critique. It had to come. It is, I believe, a necessary judgment on the arrogance of modernity, and it is essentially a judgment from within. Our task is to reflect on this moment of despair within our culture and, reflecting biblically and Christianly, to see our way through the moment of despair and out the other side. ~ N.T.Wright The Resurrection and the Postmodern Dilemma (Originally published in Sewanee Theological Review 41.2, 1998. Reproduced by permission of the author.)
In the past I have written on Platonism/Dualism has infused itself into Christianity. Someone stated I did not have any proof or whatever it was that he needed to be convinced as pointing out that Aquinas and Augustine were greatly influenced by Plato and in that brought those ideas into Christianity...
Now, Emergent Village has some great podcasts on this topic with two of the greatest living philosophers alive today... it is well worth a listen.
He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. -Titus 3:5-7
How can it?
Once one actually notices the context of Titus 3:5-7 one should notice that one must be saved first to be regenerated… notice the first three words of the paragraph.
“He saved us.”
This is written to those who are already saved, not to those who need to get saved. To say one must have a regenerate mind to receive the salvation gets things so out of whack… it is saying one must somehow get saved… before getting saved!
This is a teaching widely spread and is accepted. Yet, if one bothered to read the passage one might actually see the great salvation of our Great God!
We are saved by Grace…
By Faith…
Not of works…
It is Faith that is a gift… given to us that enables us to turn, we still must come to Christ and be regenerated as we must first receive the Holy Spirit to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit. If one has not yet been filled by the Holy Spirit then how can they be regenerated? Only after one come to Christ Jesus will they be regenerated and renewed by the Holy Spirit.
Note also these same people often teach of the wrath of God at the expense of God’s great grace… yet in the verses just before Titus 3:5-7 it is stated in verses 1 -4:
“Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men. For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,”
We are to be ready to do good works… to speak evil of no man… and to live after the kindness and love of God our Saviour. It isGod’s kindness that leads us to repentance… not His wrath nor regeneration.
We cannot be regenerated of our spirit if one has not yet received the Holy Spirit Who does the work or regeneration. That is why man must acknowledge his sin nature and turn to God for salvation. Until that takes place and pride is removed… only when man humbly bends his knee and cries out “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” The God will now act upon the faith He gave for one to cry out for deliverance… only then will He deliver and give New Life… only then can man enter in through the Kindness of God’s Merciful Grace… only then will man be given the Spirit of Life that is the regeneration of our Spirit, only then by Grace do we then mover forward to conform to the Image of Jesus… only then do we be transformed by the renewing of our mind…
To say one is regenerate before salvation is heresy upon heresy as it negates the Blood of Jesus. For what value then is it if man is regenerate with out the washing of the Blood of our sins?
Again, some appeal to Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin all mighty men of God in their way… but even men of great knowledge fall prey to prove their doctrine at the expense of what the bible actually teaches. Salvation is a process and it seems some teach that regeneration can come before the process even begins.
Pray we do not fall victim this error… and lead someone to receiving the Holy Spirit before they have even turned to God. That would be just foolishness. The Spirit woos but has yet to indwell… and then we are regenerated by Him.
Faith is the gift to see in a moment our sin, and to also see the kindness of God in Christ Jesus... it is then at that moment we receive the gift of Faith by Grace... It is trusting at that moment that even though we cannot see who we are to be, we still trust that God will be faithful to do it, and after that regeneration begins. Regeneration is coming into New Life in Christ... one cannot come into that Life before they come into His Life... It is again nonsensical.
Faith is more about God's faithfulness to us than what some call our own faith. Salvation is offered by Grace. In that we respond to knowledge that God has done all for us at the Cross by His Blood... and in His death and Resurrection. We must accept that we do nothing except fall at His feet to be saved. For, just as Jesus must be our very Life... He is our only Salvation. The just shall live by faith... we are justified at the Cross and saved by His Blood, and Live by His Life giving Spirit.
So, again, all one needs to do is read three little words that sum up the issue... "He saved us".
It seems rather sad that some are so bent at calling Christian Mysticism wrong… even satanic. They miss that many of the reformers were highly influenced by the Mystic Saints. Case in point is John Calvin who was greatly influenced by Augustine who is considered a Christian Mystic and also St. Bernard. (This is well noted in “Institutes: written by John Calvin as he refers often to both of these Christian mystics and build his thought from their thoughts.)
Noting first that both of these men were of the Catholic persuasion, then that they were “mystics” make me truly wonder at many who call themselves Calvinist today. I think they really have a short term understanding of history and even more how their own “system” of Theology came to be.
To cast Christian mysticism as satanic as many have, seems then that without realizing it, they have condemned Calvin to the pit of Hell for being influenced by two Christian Mystics.
Can one separated the influencer from the one influenced? I do see that one can, yet often without thinking we act as if Calvin or Luther just fell out of the sky one day and came up with something new, or as some say, reclaimed the old.
Yet, influences are that, they guide one to think on terms that they might not have considered, and it seems that Calvin himself was at least more open to things than many who claim his name…
(A bit of a side note here: I cannot ever be a Calvinist as it goes against the teachings of Paul in 1 Cor 1 where Paul is stating that we are to follow and be baptized into the Name of Jesus… so I see that by this I cannot take Calvin’s name as Calvin did not die for my sins, nor did he raise from the grave the third day… as far as I know he is still in his own grave waiting for the day of Resurrection. I am baptized into the Name of Jesus and am content in that as my identity.)
I see that anyone who blindly calls all Christian mysticism as Satanic have missed and possibly are missing a very important element in their faith… and that is intimacy with Jesus Christ. Calvin called this "unio mystica" or the "mystical union".
I am fully aware that this is way over simplified... But for discussion.... any thoughts?
blessings,
iggy
John CalvinFoundation laid by Augustine
John WesleyFoundation laid by Arminius
iggy
Foundation laid by Irenaeus and The Bible
T
Total Depravity - Human beings are so affected by the negative consequences of original sin that they are incapable of being righteous, and are always and unchangeably sinful; human freedom is totally enslaved by sin so we can only choose evil.
Deprivation - Human beings are sinful and without God, incapable (deprived) on their own of being righteous; however, they are not irredeemably sinful and can be transformed by God’s grace; God's prevenient grace restores to humanity the freedom of will.
Innocent until one sins – Man has a predisposition to sin. We have had our eyes open to see the difference between good and evil, given statutes and laws that step by step give us all the mercy and grace and forgiveness and blessings of God, yet have not the moral consistency to live it out. All men eventually sin thus only by sacrifice of blood can man be forgiven.
U
Unconditional Election - Since human beings cannot choose for themselves, God by His eternal decree has chosen or elected some to be counted as righteous, without any conditions being placed on that election.
Conditional Election - God has chosen that all humanity be righteous by His grace, yet has called us to respond to that grace by exercising our God-restored human freedom as a condition of fulfilling election.
Conditional Election modified– All have been forgiven once and for all through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Yet, not all are saved. Man must lay down his free will as a living sacrifice and receive the Life of Christ Jesus in order to be saved. Once one has converted, he is predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ.
L
Limited Atonement - The effects of the Atonement, by which God forgave sinful humanity, are limited only to those whom He has chosen.
Unlimited Atonement - The effects of the Atonement are freely available to all those whom He has chosen, which includes all humanity, "whosoever will."
Unlimited Atonement – Not only was the whosoever -will atoned for but the whole of creation. Except save the fallen Angels.
I
Irresistible Grace- The grace that God extends to human beings to effect their election cannot be refused, since it has been decreed by God.
Resistible Grace - God’s grace is free and offered without merit; however, human beings have been granted freedom by God and can refuse His grace.
Sustaining Grace – God’s grace sustains all creation. For if God so willed He could say, “no more” and nothing would exist. This is contrary to the character of God. There is the calling of the Holy Spirit or wooing, then the conversion. Conversion can be instant or may take a lifetime or be denied or forfeited, thus not accepting salvation and being later cast into the Lake of Fire.
P
Perseverance of the Saints - Since God has decreed the elect, and they cannot resist grace, they are unconditionally and eternally secure in that election.
Assurance and Security - There is security in God’s grace that allows assurance of salvation, but that security is in relation to continued faithfulness; we can still defiantly reject God.
Assurance and Eternal Security – Once one has gone through conversion he is no longer subject to this world, but is now subject to the works of Christ Jesus whose works are final and complete. No man can remove salvation from himself for it is not of himself as it is God’s salvation given to us by His Grace, through Faith in Jesus Christ
To sum it up, Calvinism denies that God is truly sovereign as He is subject to the system and is without a true free will. Armenianism puts too much on mans works to justify a person as only by the blood of Jesus are we justified and kept pure. It is not by works we are saved, nor is it by works our salvation is maintained, as it is God's salvation given to us through His Grace, through faith in His Son. A bit of a disclaimer, I wrote this up about 5 years ago, and re-reading it I am not satisfied with some phrasing or ideas.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book and would regard it as my favorite since Generous Orthodoxy. It was refreshing to finally read how many of the free floating thoughts of his past books have finally gelled. Brian McLaren states very clearly where he stands on things, which was often the confusion and frustration of his other books, (at least to those who do not understand the type of writing Brian does).
The book is made up of 10 questions, which each question being designed to help one think outside of the Greco/Roman view and look at the bible from a more Hebraic point of view. The basic view is that many Christians try to view Jesus from present backwards. In essence most will view Jesus through A.W. Tozer viewing Jesus through Luther of Calvin, viewing Jesus through Augustine and Aquinas and so forth (I just picked people at random and do enjoy many of these people’s writings myself.) While Brian does not ever say these views are invalid, one must recognize they come from a very Greco/Roman ala Platonist point of view. Instead Brian McLaren proposes that one will gain a much different view if they read the bible and develop the view of Jesus as He is slowly revealed in the OT.
Interestingly, I was taught this very idea as a young Christian, via a book called Christianity Is Jewish by Edith Schaeffer and in A New Kind of Christianity, Brian McLaren, does a great job in making his point of view clear through Scripture. After building the case for his point of view, Brian McLaren then turns to how this point of view will effect and bring to light questions. Brian then frames the rest of the book by working through the 10 questions.
I do understand why many people would find this book hard. In fact Brian addresses that in the book. If you have not read any of his books, I would advise to read this book before Secret Message of Jesus and Everything Must Change, as it will help bring understanding to those books. I was surprised though by who was uneasy with ANKoChristianity. Yet, as I read their thoughts I could see that these are not the typical, “Brian is a heretic” attacks, but more points of minor disagreement. Though, that is not always the case as some view that Brian may have gone off the rails a bit.
I see that I really could not find much I disagreed with. I would have to really go back and dig into the book again to find something I might disagree with. I might not have phrased something the exact same way, yet as in the case of homosexuality, if someone harps on his view without acknowledging that he also is speaking of a broader sense of sexual purity (of which even the heterosexual Christian community has some major ethical failures in) I would say that person missed the point and would question if their assessment of what Brian stated was accurately being portrayed. Again, I am not saying the things Brian is stating is easy to grasp or envision and I totally understand why those who are uncomfortable will be so. However, who ever said we should be comfortable as believers in Jesus?
The fourth step of this ladder of love is that whereby there is caused in the soul an habitual suffering because of the Beloved, yet without weariness. For, as Saint Augustine says, love makes all things that are great, grievous and burdensome to be almost naught. From this step the Bride was speaking when, desiring to attain to the last step, she said to the Spouse: ’set me as a seal upon thy heart, as a seal upon thine arm; for love—that is, the act and work of love—is strong as death, and emulation and importunity last as long as hell. The spirit here has so much strength that it has subjected the flesh and takes as little account of it as does the tree of one of its leaves. In no way does the soul here seek its own consolation or pleasure, either in God, or in aught else, nor does it desire or seek to pray to God for favours, for it sees clearly that it has already received enough of these, and all its anxiety is set upon the manner wherein it will be able to do something that is pleasing to God and to render Him some service such as He merits and in return for what it has received from Him, although it be greatly to its cost. The soul says in its heart and spirit: Ah, my God and Lord! How many are there that go to seek in Thee their own consolation and pleasure, and desire Thee to grant them favours and gifts; but those who long to do Thee pleasure and to give Thee something at their cost, setting their own interests last, are very few. The failure, my God, is not in Thy unwillingness to grant us new favours, but in our neglect to use those that we have received in Thy service alone, in order to constrain Thee to grant them to us continually. Exceeding lofty is this step of love; for, as the soul goes ever after God with love so true, imbued with the spirit of suffering for His sake, His Majesty oftentimes and quite habitually grants it joy, and visits it sweetly and delectably in the spirit; for the boundless love of Christ, the Word, cannot suffer the afflictions of His lover without succouring him. This He affirmed through Jeremias, saying: ‘I have remembered thee, pitying thy youth and tenderness, when thou wentest after Me in the wilderness. Speaking spiritually, this denotes the detachment which the soul now has interiorly from every creature, so that it rests not and nowhere finds quietness. This fourth step enkindles the soul and makes it to burn in such desire for God that it causes it to mount to the fifth, which is that which follows.
I have not ever heard of Anselm... as I just began to read a bit of his work... I love this part... as I often have this dialog in my own head.
BOSO. Just as right order requires that we believe the deep matters of the Christian faith before we presume to discuss them rationally, so it seems to me to be an instance of carelessness if, having been confirmed in faith, we do not eagerly desire to understand what we believe. Indeed, assisted by the prevenient grace of God I am, it seems to me, holding so steadfastly to faith in our redemption that even if I were not in any respect able to understand what I believe, nothing could wrest me from firmness of faith. Accordingly, I ask you to disclose to me that which, as you know, many are asking about along with me:viz., for what reason and on the basis of what necessity did God -- although He is omnipotent -- assume the lowliness and the weakness of human nature in order to restore it?
ANSELM. What you are asking of me exceeds my capacities. And so I fear to deal with matters too high for me, lest perhaps when someone suspects or even observes that I do not give him a satisfactory answer, he may think that I havedeparted from true doctrine rather than that my intellect is not powerful enough to comprehend this truth.
BOSO. You ought not so much to have this fear as you ought to remember that in a discussion of some problem it often happens; that God discloses what at first was hidden. Moreover, you ought to hope from the grace of God that if you willingly share those things which you have freely received, you will merit the receiving of the higher things to which you have not yet attained.
ANSELM. There is another reason why it seems to me that we cannot at all --or else can only scarcely -- deal amply with this matter now. For in order to do so we need an analysis of ability and necessity and will and of certain other notions which are so interrelated that no one of them can be fully examined apart from others. And so to deal with these notions requires a separate work --one not easy [to compose], it seems to me, but nonetheless not altogether useless. For an ignorance of these notions produces certain difficulties which become easy [to deal with] as a result of understanding these notions.
BOSO. Where these notions become relevant you can speak briefly about them, so that we may have the knowledge which is adequate for the present work but may postpone to another time the additional points which need to be discussed.
ANSELM. I am also very reluctant to honor your request both because the topic is very important and because just as it deals with Him who is beautiful in appearance above the sons of men, so it is also adorned with a rationale which exceeds human understanding. Hence, I fear that just as I am accustomed to become indignant with untalented artists when I see the Lord Himself portrayed with an uncomely countenance, so I may provoke indignation if I presume to explore such an elegant topic by an inelegant and contemptible discourse.
BOSO. This fear ought not to deter you, since just as you permit whoever can to say these things better, so you forbid no one who does not like your discourse from writing more beautifully. But so that I may exclude all your excuses: [remember that] what I am asking of you, you will be writing not for the learned but for me and for those who are seeking this solution together with me.
1-4But for right now, friends, I'm completely frustrated by your unspiritual dealings with each other and with God. You're acting like infants in relation to Christ, capable of nothing much more than nursing at the breast. Well, then, I'll nurse you since you don't seem capable of anything more. As long as you grab for what makes you feel good or makes you look important, are you really much different than a babe at the breast, content only when everything's going your way? When one of you says, "I'm on Luther's side," and another says, "I'm for Calvin," aren't you being totally infantile?
5-9Who do you think John MacArthur is, anyway? Or Brian McLaren, for that matter? Servants, both of them—servants who waited on you as you gradually learned to entrust your lives to our mutual Master. We each carried out our servant assignment. Augustine planted the seed, Rob Bell watered the plants, but God made you grow. It's not the one who plants or the one who waters who is at the center of this process but God, who makes things grow. Planting and watering are menial servant jobs at minimum wages. What makes them worth doing is the God we are serving. You happen to be God's field in which we are working.
9-15Or, to put it another way, you are God's house. Using the gift God gave me as a good architect, Calvin designed blueprints; Brian McLaren is putting up the walls. Let each carpenter who comes on the job take care to build on the foundation! Remember, there is only one foundation, the one already laid: Jesus Christ. (A twist on The Message)
I read from two different sources what John MacArthur thinks concerning salvation of Arminians... and really I ended up scratching my head... what does he really believe?
"So, they are diametrically opposed. The question comes, “Can somebody who holds an Arminian view be a Christian?” And I would hate to say they couldn’t be. I really believe that it is possible to be Arminian and to be a Christian…to misunderstand your human capability, to misunderstand the election, to misunderstand the extent of the atonement, even to misunderstand the irresistible nature of God’s saving grace, and even to think you could lose your salvation. But, at the same time--while being confused or ignorant of those things--to know that you’re a sinner and know that the only way of salvation is through Jesus Christ. I guess you could say that someone could be an Arminian and push those points far enough, where they could jeopardize my confidence that they really are a Christian. You could push the point of not being totally depraved far enough where you’re actually being saved by your own works, by your own belief, by your own ingenuity, by your own self-induced faith. And you could get to the point where you could really wonder whether someone understands that it’s all a work of God. But, I think it would be going too far to say someone who holds an Arminian view, or anyone who holds an Arminian view, is, by virtue of that view, not a Christian. I think there are people who just don’t understand rightly those things, but who know they’re sinners and who cry out in their sin for the Lord to save them. They don’t understand how what they’re doing works together with the great purposes and power of God, and consequently can’t give God fully the glory He deserves for all of that, but they could be genuinely saved, by hoping in Christ and Christ alone." Source
Or this?
"He (Spurgeon) preached that both predestination and (limited) free-will were simultaneously in full force. He believed that in the end that salvation was wholly of God from start to finish, and yet God secures the complete cooperation of our wills in so-doing. He decried both antinomianism and fatalism (only predestination) and Arminianism (only free will) and said that anyone who denied either of these two truths was engaged in heresy. He openly called both heresy. I tend to agree. I really like what this guy says since I had come to the same conclusions myself.
But he said something that confused me for a long time and said that John Wesley (a famous Arminian) was a man of God, yes he disagreed with him, but he said he had great respect for the man.
The best explanation I can come up for this is that Arminians are confused about how they came to Christ, but their definition of the atonement, and who Christ is is accurate, as is their view of sanctification (no striving by works), so it is possible Biblically to admit that Arminians are our brothers and sisters in Christ. It took me a lot of thought to get here however as at first glance I thought a heretical viewpoint always produces heretics who aren't saved.
The message I heard was that Arminians might be on the the right side of the line, but just barely, just a little more confused thinking about other related issues and the line is easily crossed.You don't have to get the finer points of theology to be saved, but certain basics are required and Arminianism appears to pass the test, barely, and only if you are willing admit that a faulty view of the atonment is not sufficient to block salvation.As time passes I realize that Spurgeon is essentially spouting double-speak, the definition of heresy is a soul-destroying perversion of either the Gospel or the nature of God. There is no such thing as a heresy that doesn't kill. Therefore, to be technically accurate,if you believe an Arminian can be a Christian, then to you, Arminianism is not heresy. However, many Arminians of today have swallowed enough other false doctrines to sink their ships so there is no need to argue about Arminianism. I for example was such a one. Spurgeon is consistent with most of his forebears however, including Augustine, who first faced a theology similar to Arminianism, and dealt with it as one would to a brother in Christ, and not as one would deal with a heretic who is outside the body. " Source
Now, talk about double speak! On one hand Arminians are saved, but are heretics and heresy kills... but as you keep reading John he is clear that they are not saved!
I have been in a discussion with someone on Twitter discussing 2 Cor 4:4 and that it seemed inconsistent with Paul's theology to state this commonly quoted verse.
2 Cor 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
For some reason that verse had always bothered me as I saw it did not fit with other verses that Paul wrote.
Like.
Romans 1: 25. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. 26. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
Notice it is God doing the deluding? Not Satan. Though I do think Satan plays a part in the turning from the knowledge of God, and adding to the “depraved mind”.
I also noted Paul stating things like:
Romans 3: 30. “since there is only one God,” I wondered why then Paul referred to Satan as the “god of this world”… it seemed that it was a bit of an exaggeration at best! LOL!
But the verses that made me wonder the most was in 1 Cor 8: 4. So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6. yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
If Paul was stating that there is only One God over and over here… and stating that “even if there are so-called gods”, then making a slighted reference to all the many “gods” and “lords” (possibly a reference to Caesar worship?) I just could not see him referring to Satan as a god, even in small letters. It seemed out of character for Paul… though he may at times go to extreme rhetoric as in the “height, width, depth of God’s love”…
Anyway I left it alone for quite a few years, but it still bothered me. Then about a year ago (maybe 3) I was reading Irenaeus and found that he was correcting how this passage should be read. Sorry for all the upcoming cut an past
Against Heresies Chapter VII.—Reply to an objection founded on the words of St. Paul (2 Cor. iv. 4). St. Paul occasionally uses words not in their grammatical sequence. 1. As to their affirming that Paul said plainly in the Second [Epistle] to the Corinthians, “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not,”3358 and maintaining that there is indeed one god of this world, but another who is beyond all principality, and beginning, and power, we are not to blame if they, who give out that they do themselves know mysteries beyond God, know not how to read Paul. For if any one read the passage thus—according to Paul’s custom, as I show elsewhere, and by many examples, that he uses transposition of words—“In whom God,” then pointing it off, and making a slight interval, and at the same time read also the rest [of the sentence] in one [clause], “hath blinded the minds of them of this world that believe not,” he shall find out the true [sense]; that it is contained in the expression, “God hath blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this world.” And this is shown by means of the little interval [between the clause]. For Paul does not say, “the God of this world,” as if recognising any other beyond Him; but he confessed God as indeed God. And he says, “the unbelievers of this world,” because they shall not inherit the future age of incorruption. I shall show from Paul himself, how it is that God has blinded the minds of them that believe not, in the course of this work, that we may not just at present distract our mind from the matter in hand, [by wandering] at large.
2. From many other instances also, we may discover that the apostle frequently uses a transposed order in his sentences, due to the rapidity of his discourses, and the impetus of the Spirit which is in him. An example occurs in the [Epistle] to the Galatians, where he expresses himself as follows: “Wherefore then the law of works?3359 It was added, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator.”3360 For the order of the words runs thus: “Wherefore then the law of works? Ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator, it was added until the seed should come to whom the promise was made,”— man thus asking the question, and the Spirit making answer. And again, in the Second to the Thessalonians, speaking of Antichrist, he says, “And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus Christ3361 shall slay with the Spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy him3362 with the presence of his coming; [even him] whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders.”3363 Now in these [sentences] the order of the words is this: “And then shall be revealed that wicked, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the Spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the presence of His coming.” For he does not mean that the coming of the Lord is after the working of Satan; but the coming of the wicked one, whom we also call Antichrist. If, then, one does not attend to the [proper] reading [of the passage], and if he do not exhibit the intervals of breathing as they occur, there shall be not only incongruities, but also, when reading, he will utter blasphemy, as if the advent of the Lord could take place according to the working of Satan. So therefore, in such passages, the hyperbaton must be exhibited by the reading, and the apostle’s meaning following on, preserved; and thus we do not read in that passage, “the god of this world,” but, “God,” whom we do truly call God; and we hear [it declared of] the unbelieving and the blinded of this world, that they shall not inherit the world of life which is to come.
It really made me start thinking again on all this…
I started to look at the verse again so see what it might really be saying.
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Who veiled the gospel? It is our own unbelief. How is the veil removed, by believing in Jesus. We learned all this in 2 Cor 3 The Gospel is veiled to those who are perishing.
I see it should read:
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The God Eternal has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
It then flows so that we now (again as we learned in 2 Cor 3: 16. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.)
Verse 5. For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. 6. For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
It is God who blinds the unbeliever so that they cannot see Christ. They can see Christ when God reveals Jesus to them as Paul teaches in 1 Cor 1: 18. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
Now here is my theory, call it conspiracy if you will. LOL!
Most of us are from the Protestant/reformed view. We spend our time in Calvin and Augustine and other 16th century guys who are well worth the read. I think many manuscripts are mostly from Alexandria which took a Platonist/ Gnostic view point of scripture. Somewhere I think we tossed the baby out with the bathwater in our zeal to attack the Roman Catholic Church. I had not read Irenaeus and when I did it was in my search to follow the disciples of John the Apostle. You might know Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of Ignatius and. So the linage is pretty straight forward as to what was taught from John. I see that maybe we just took to our own traditions instead of looking at our historians of past. Note many are pretty far out there, yet, some that we can see come from apostolic line of teaching, should be considered in their interpretations.
