Are we crafted, as human beings, even with "flaws," to fit an exact role at an exact time? God is sovereign; yes, even atheists and demons believe this, and shudder. But is God sovereign over your choice of Coca-Cola over Pepsi? Over whether you obey or disobey (in the moment and in the long-term)? Whether you hear or plug your ears? Whether you live or die (or rather, how long you die on this planet)? Whether the sky brings rain or hail; sand or locusts; sun or shade? Whether the nations war or kiss the Son? Whether you go to point A or point B? Whether you go to UC Irvine or Stanford? (Rhetorical answer: yes.)
All those questions came from a very simple chore of mine: that of cleaning my cat's litter box. It's actually a pretty funny thing, for our cat stays outdoors, and litter boxes are generally used as indoor substitutes for... you know, pooping. Whenever I walk by her box, she runs over to the box, sits in it, and starts to put on her best "don't-you-see-how-degrading-and-sad-my-life-is" cat-smile. I realize that doesn't make a lot of sense, buuuuuuut I figure you know at least ONE cat person, reader, who can empathize and explain this clause.
I really don't mind cleaning my cat's litter box. This is mainly because I simply can't smell very well. I have pretty lame allergies to lots of things, from the spring air to cat dander to pollen to dust. It's fun being me! I'm sure this poor sense of smell will come in handy when I start cooking for myself...
Thus, because I cannot smell well, it is a small sacrifice for me to clean up my cat's feces. If I were a [Gentile] slave back in Jesus's day, I would not have minded performing the lowest of services in washing the feet of guests. But foot-washing will have to wait for another day, if this log would be concise.
[Practical application: A wise friend of mine once said that it is a small sacrifice to sit in the middle of the backseat of a sedan, as no one else enjoys that spot's cramped leg space and tight elbow room. But in my case, such a sacrifice would be an inconvenience and safety hazard to a driver who over-utilizes his rear-view mirror.... cough, Calvin. Cough. Cough.]
You will say then unto me, "Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will?" (Romans 9:19)
No-- is the apostle Paul's appropriately stern answer. Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?
"But that's not an answer!" I cry. Yet the answer is obvious: God is sovereign over all things, for He is the I AM before all things.
Yet of course when I veer to the side of Coca-Cola, it is a choice of mine, though my taste buds may have been predeterminately inclined towards bitter over sweet. (This isn't true, except in the instance of Coke > Pepsi. I prefer root beer over both.) Anyways, such arbitrary choices that have (seemingly) no eternal weight are indeed chosen by God. A good Bible teacher of mine at Valley Christian didn't believe that. She held that God governs the decisions that matter (e.g. salvation via faith by grace in the Son), but that it was her choice to prefer Coca-Cola over Pepsi. And yet God will judge His creatures by their choices--whether they a) heeded the general call of nature to believe in the LORD and then beg forgiveness in the blood of His Lamb or b) covered their ears in stubborn refusal to rise from slumber. How can this be? For who CAN resist His will? (Rhetorical answer: No one can, no one has, and no one will.)
[The apostle Paul really likes rhetorical questions. I like that about him.]
This, from my noob's course on philosophy, is called the agent causation approach to free will. That is, free will doesn't exist on the ultimate scale, as something (Christians acknowledge this in the loving God, our heavenly Father, who created all things from the word of His command) ultimately caused everything that now is, and thus is ultimately responsible for everything that now is, both good and evil. However, free will does exist, as creatures make choices all the time and are held accountable for them.If you rob a store, then you serve time in prison. (I don't like prison. Scratch that example.) If you pull a cat's tail, then it will scratch you. If you kill a man, by man will you be killed. If you cheat on a test, you will not learn and probably will get caught, thus earning larger-than-lex-talionis punishments. If you forget to fill the car with gas, it will not run. If you start rumors, you will destroy your relationships. If you want to learn how to skateboard, you will need to be prepared to suffer many falls. If you would like to date/court a girl, you will need to set aside resources to spend quality time together. And so on, and so forth. Attic Greek even provides entire complex and nuanced forms of sentences to illustrate these if/then conditions.
(Modern) Philosophy presents a false dichotomy when it comes to free will. It doesn't take into account the sovereignty of an all powerful, all knowing, all present, and all benevolent God. Philosophers say that either determinism is or isn't compatible with free will. "Determinism" is the secular and atheistic view of sovereignty minus God, a universe spun wildly and mystically out of control, the perfectly yet randomly sculpted steering wheel intact but untouched. "Compatibilist" philosophers would say that determinism is compatible with free will, for freedom and responsibility for one's actions are compatible with a predetermined fate. On the other hand, "Incompatibilist" philosophers would say determinism isn't compatible with free will, for if all things have been determined (e.g. predestination), then one cannot be held truly free and responsible for one's actions.
[Can a murderer use this philosophy before a judge who is an eyewitness to the murder? Could he stand up, vow upon the Bible, and then proclaim the living God to be responsible for the murder and the murderer's bloodstained hands?
No. You won't wash your hands that easily before a merciful God who suffered in the place of a murderer.]
Back to philosophy. The agent causation approach falls under the "compatibilist" arch-category, and basically means this: "not all events are completely determined (predestined from eternity past), but are determined (chosen within our lifetimes) by agents, not events. Agents can be causes. Humans are exceptions to determinism (!). Agents cause their own wants, desires, preferences, and thus the actions that proceed from them."
[I understand, as a Christian, how this is fairly close to Christian theology regarding free will. Christians believe man, being bound by his sinful nature (depravity), is free to act however he pleases according to that depravity, thus producing the most abominable of sins. When a sinner is converted by grace through faith in the redemptive work of Christ's salvation and propitiation of obedience (how's that for a Greek clause!), (s)he is freed from the guilt and power of sin, and thus is free to act according to a new nature, a new man, the image of God being revived by the Holy Spirit. This is not to say Christians don't sin, nor does it assert that sinners cannot do rightly. This doctrine simply states what man is "free" to do. A Christian can foolishly bind himself to sin, as can an unregenerate sinner be constrained to do rightly.]
However, the philosophy regarding agent causation is flawed when it begins to refer to humans as being prime movers, causes within ourselves, and exceptions to determinism (predestination). Rather, we are agents with unwritten history and several moral obligations.
Agent Causation is, I believe, the best sub-category of modern philosophy that explains free will and determinism, for it operates with the dichotomy of
1. If determinism (predestination) is false, then events aren't caused, and chaos reigns. (Obviously chaos doesn't reign, e.g. mathematical laws, gravity, language, logic)
2. If we are not able to control events (predestination), then how can we be free and responsible?
In a sense, even Christians do not have free wills. The will of the Christian ought to be subjected to the will of Christ, that every knee should bow and every tongue profess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father... and in the face of all Caesars and idols who would demand primary loyalty. That the name and knowledge of the LORD would cover the earth as the waters cover the seas. That His people would rejoice in peace and song for His great deliverance. That His kingdom come and His will be done in earth as it is done in heaven.
An example of this non-freedom which will stick with me to my dying day is the example of a man who has a problem with lust. He has wicked desires to rape pretty girls who walk the streets at night in the dangerous side of town. Therefore, in a valiant effort to surrender his FREE WILL to rape or not to rape women, this man educates himself about the horrors and brutality of rape. He studies numbers and statistics of women who walk around afraid of the wicked potential of men to exercise their FREE WILL to take advantage of women. He joins accountability groups. (In my imagination, he finds counseling in a church by a caring pastor, and marries a beautiful Christian girl and lives happily ever after... until he has children and worries himself sick over his daughters.) Thus, he renders any action or choice of his to commit rape unthinkable and abhorrent to his very soul. He cannot choose but to NOT rape. Therefore, the action to NOT rape is an exercise of his FREE WILL, even if only by the consciously intentional narrowing of options.
You will say then, "Why should we evangelize or pray if God knows all things? Need we inform him of needs or praises or history? Need we evangelize?"
No. You err, foolish self, whenever you think this way. Because you are a tool, an agent, and a means in this world, you will be a light that doesn't hide itself under a bowl of "God-doesn't-need-me" disorder. And as for prayer, why do you question the love and grace of God, to always allow you to come into His throne-room with fear and trembling, as a child of the king who extends His scepter of iron in peace, covered in the blood of the Lamb? Why do you doubt the grace and lovingkindness of a Father who desires to use prayer as a means of grace and a provision for your thirsty soul and for change in this world. Prayers are not like coins in a slot machine, nor are they like last week's newspaper, soggy and forlorn on God's front lawn. Prayers are pleas for pardon, cries for courage, a persistent widow who seeks justice.
Christianity according to the Bible does not allow for fatalism. Even modern philosophy recognizes this about determinism. "Determinism does not automatically carry the implication that human action has no influence on events and therefore that freedom is an illusion." In other terms, the principle "If P, then had Q been the case, P would [still] have been the case" is false! "If determinism is true, your actions are beyond your control" (Van Inwagen, philosopher endorsing the incompatibilist approach to determinism + free will).
Philosophy asks the rhetorical question, "Does foreknowledge imply fatalism? What if you found a book titled Book of Your Life? Would you be controlled (thereby lacking free will) if someone (e.g. God) knew everything about you, past/present/future?"
"No." --The apostle Paul
All those questions came from a very simple chore of mine: that of cleaning my cat's litter box. It's actually a pretty funny thing, for our cat stays outdoors, and litter boxes are generally used as indoor substitutes for... you know, pooping. Whenever I walk by her box, she runs over to the box, sits in it, and starts to put on her best "don't-you-see-how-degrading-and-sad-my-life-is" cat-smile. I realize that doesn't make a lot of sense, buuuuuuut I figure you know at least ONE cat person, reader, who can empathize and explain this clause.
I really don't mind cleaning my cat's litter box. This is mainly because I simply can't smell very well. I have pretty lame allergies to lots of things, from the spring air to cat dander to pollen to dust. It's fun being me! I'm sure this poor sense of smell will come in handy when I start cooking for myself...
Thus, because I cannot smell well, it is a small sacrifice for me to clean up my cat's feces. If I were a [Gentile] slave back in Jesus's day, I would not have minded performing the lowest of services in washing the feet of guests. But foot-washing will have to wait for another day, if this log would be concise.
[Practical application: A wise friend of mine once said that it is a small sacrifice to sit in the middle of the backseat of a sedan, as no one else enjoys that spot's cramped leg space and tight elbow room. But in my case, such a sacrifice would be an inconvenience and safety hazard to a driver who over-utilizes his rear-view mirror.... cough, Calvin. Cough. Cough.]
[Greeking out! "Allergy" comes from two Greek words-- άλλος + έργον, which are "other" + "work," respectively. So "allergy" means "it works an other way," which is exactly what it means how we use the word in English. If you have an allergic reaction to a bee's venom, your body works/acts/responds in an other way.]
-------------------You will say then unto me, "Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will?" (Romans 9:19)
No-- is the apostle Paul's appropriately stern answer. Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?
"But that's not an answer!" I cry. Yet the answer is obvious: God is sovereign over all things, for He is the I AM before all things.
Yet of course when I veer to the side of Coca-Cola, it is a choice of mine, though my taste buds may have been predeterminately inclined towards bitter over sweet. (This isn't true, except in the instance of Coke > Pepsi. I prefer root beer over both.) Anyways, such arbitrary choices that have (seemingly) no eternal weight are indeed chosen by God. A good Bible teacher of mine at Valley Christian didn't believe that. She held that God governs the decisions that matter (e.g. salvation via faith by grace in the Son), but that it was her choice to prefer Coca-Cola over Pepsi. And yet God will judge His creatures by their choices--whether they a) heeded the general call of nature to believe in the LORD and then beg forgiveness in the blood of His Lamb or b) covered their ears in stubborn refusal to rise from slumber. How can this be? For who CAN resist His will? (Rhetorical answer: No one can, no one has, and no one will.)
[The apostle Paul really likes rhetorical questions. I like that about him.]
This, from my noob's course on philosophy, is called the agent causation approach to free will. That is, free will doesn't exist on the ultimate scale, as something (Christians acknowledge this in the loving God, our heavenly Father, who created all things from the word of His command) ultimately caused everything that now is, and thus is ultimately responsible for everything that now is, both good and evil. However, free will does exist, as creatures make choices all the time and are held accountable for them.
(Modern) Philosophy presents a false dichotomy when it comes to free will. It doesn't take into account the sovereignty of an all powerful, all knowing, all present, and all benevolent God. Philosophers say that either determinism is or isn't compatible with free will. "Determinism" is the secular and atheistic view of sovereignty minus God, a universe spun wildly and mystically out of control, the perfectly yet randomly sculpted steering wheel intact but untouched. "Compatibilist" philosophers would say that determinism is compatible with free will, for freedom and responsibility for one's actions are compatible with a predetermined fate. On the other hand, "Incompatibilist" philosophers would say determinism isn't compatible with free will, for if all things have been determined (e.g. predestination), then one cannot be held truly free and responsible for one's actions.
[Can a murderer use this philosophy before a judge who is an eyewitness to the murder? Could he stand up, vow upon the Bible, and then proclaim the living God to be responsible for the murder and the murderer's bloodstained hands?
No. You won't wash your hands that easily before a merciful God who suffered in the place of a murderer.]
Back to philosophy. The agent causation approach falls under the "compatibilist" arch-category, and basically means this: "not all events are completely determined (predestined from eternity past), but are determined (chosen within our lifetimes) by agents, not events. Agents can be causes. Humans are exceptions to determinism (!). Agents cause their own wants, desires, preferences, and thus the actions that proceed from them."
[I understand, as a Christian, how this is fairly close to Christian theology regarding free will. Christians believe man, being bound by his sinful nature (depravity), is free to act however he pleases according to that depravity, thus producing the most abominable of sins. When a sinner is converted by grace through faith in the redemptive work of Christ's salvation and propitiation of obedience (how's that for a Greek clause!), (s)he is freed from the guilt and power of sin, and thus is free to act according to a new nature, a new man, the image of God being revived by the Holy Spirit. This is not to say Christians don't sin, nor does it assert that sinners cannot do rightly. This doctrine simply states what man is "free" to do. A Christian can foolishly bind himself to sin, as can an unregenerate sinner be constrained to do rightly.]
However, the philosophy regarding agent causation is flawed when it begins to refer to humans as being prime movers, causes within ourselves, and exceptions to determinism (predestination). Rather, we are agents with unwritten history and several moral obligations.
Agent Causation is, I believe, the best sub-category of modern philosophy that explains free will and determinism, for it operates with the dichotomy of
1. If determinism (predestination) is false, then events aren't caused, and chaos reigns. (Obviously chaos doesn't reign, e.g. mathematical laws, gravity, language, logic)
2. If we are not able to control events (predestination), then how can we be free and responsible?
In a sense, even Christians do not have free wills. The will of the Christian ought to be subjected to the will of Christ, that every knee should bow and every tongue profess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father... and in the face of all Caesars and idols who would demand primary loyalty. That the name and knowledge of the LORD would cover the earth as the waters cover the seas. That His people would rejoice in peace and song for His great deliverance. That His kingdom come and His will be done in earth as it is done in heaven.
An example of this non-freedom which will stick with me to my dying day is the example of a man who has a problem with lust. He has wicked desires to rape pretty girls who walk the streets at night in the dangerous side of town. Therefore, in a valiant effort to surrender his FREE WILL to rape or not to rape women, this man educates himself about the horrors and brutality of rape. He studies numbers and statistics of women who walk around afraid of the wicked potential of men to exercise their FREE WILL to take advantage of women. He joins accountability groups. (In my imagination, he finds counseling in a church by a caring pastor, and marries a beautiful Christian girl and lives happily ever after... until he has children and worries himself sick over his daughters.) Thus, he renders any action or choice of his to commit rape unthinkable and abhorrent to his very soul. He cannot choose but to NOT rape. Therefore, the action to NOT rape is an exercise of his FREE WILL, even if only by the consciously intentional narrowing of options.
You will say then, "Why should we evangelize or pray if God knows all things? Need we inform him of needs or praises or history? Need we evangelize?"
No. You err, foolish self, whenever you think this way. Because you are a tool, an agent, and a means in this world, you will be a light that doesn't hide itself under a bowl of "God-doesn't-need-me" disorder. And as for prayer, why do you question the love and grace of God, to always allow you to come into His throne-room with fear and trembling, as a child of the king who extends His scepter of iron in peace, covered in the blood of the Lamb? Why do you doubt the grace and lovingkindness of a Father who desires to use prayer as a means of grace and a provision for your thirsty soul and for change in this world. Prayers are not like coins in a slot machine, nor are they like last week's newspaper, soggy and forlorn on God's front lawn. Prayers are pleas for pardon, cries for courage, a persistent widow who seeks justice.
Christianity according to the Bible does not allow for fatalism. Even modern philosophy recognizes this about determinism. "Determinism does not automatically carry the implication that human action has no influence on events and therefore that freedom is an illusion." In other terms, the principle "If P, then had Q been the case, P would [still] have been the case" is false! "If determinism is true, your actions are beyond your control" (Van Inwagen, philosopher endorsing the incompatibilist approach to determinism + free will).
Philosophy asks the rhetorical question, "Does foreknowledge imply fatalism? What if you found a book titled Book of Your Life? Would you be controlled (thereby lacking free will) if someone (e.g. God) knew everything about you, past/present/future?"
"No." --The apostle Paul
You have a C.S. Lewis-y way of explaining things. This is very profound, and it addresses a question I have had about how a Christian with a predestination worldview might view evangelism.
ReplyDeleteI do believe in predestination. For one thing, it's stated explicitly in Scripture. Secondly, looking at the events in my life leading up to my conversion, I can come to no other conclusion.
I also believe in evangelism.
I'm still not positive on how they correlate...?
It's funny, because I was reading Romans 9:19 the other day, and I seriously got irritated at it. That answer IS unsatisfactory! Bu then again, I as a lowly human being have no right to question this. Still though.... >:(
Oh ne!! I despise the C.S. Lewis explanation! But I think you're right. I tend to do what he does: he presents logic in a very wordy and roundabout way, not proposing the gospel until the very end, if at all. Sometimes he doesn't present the gospel (as in The Abolition of Man), but just leaves the reader hanging with the understanding: "Nothing of what I used to believe is true. Now what?"
ReplyDeleteThe correlation, as I was simply told, is this:
God chooses to use prayer (and evangelism) to accomplish predestined events. Did God need Joseph's brothers to ship him to Egypt? Did God need Elijah to command a drought and a downpour? Did God need Moses to pray and intercede for the rebellious and stiff-necked children of Israel? Did God need Moses to strike / speak to the Rock? Did God need David to strike down Goliath? Did God need any of the many prophets to deliver messages to the people? Did God need kings, though the people asked for them in sin, to demonstrate justice and mercy and humility and His mighty deliverance?
Does God need us to spread His name across the earth? Surely not. It's His delight that we delight in His delight.
Luke 15:7
HAHAHA, oh dear, I did NOT intend that to be insulting in the least! I like the guy quite a lot. (Though you do have a point about him being roundabout and such. That's the only meh part of reading him). What I meant by it that was that you do indeed present an idea logically, with deep simplicity and articulateness, interspersed with numerous comparisons to modern philosophical thought as well as examples taken from real life (and hypothetical situations). Reminiscent, in that sense, of Mr. Narnia--except perhaps with more Gospel. So, it was intended to be a good thing. ;)
DeleteYes, that makes a lot of sense, that God would use evangelism to reveal those whom He has predestined. I had an idea of that, and this confirms it. I still don't understand, though, how we can balance predestination (not that I'm challenging it) with the fact that it says in Scripture that God desires all men to be saved, when He has deliberately excluded some from His kingdom...? But then again, I suppose that's what the Romans verse angst is about, because it's unanswerable question. :P
ALSO (sorry, I suppose you've sort of become the OPC spokesperson for me ;) ) how does one defend infant baptism? That's one of the hardest things for me to deal with, and what Calvin and I have the most heated arguments about. It seems to me, unless I'm totally misinterpreting this, that infant baptism is based on the premise that the child WILL become a Christian (because, clearly they're not doing this by choice!) because they were raised in a Christian family. Otherwise, if God has not chosen them and they just happen to be baptized...well, then, that baptism will have gone to waste. :P
Oh yay! I love talking about paedobaptism (Greek for "infant"-baptism) and covenant, even if I'm not nearly as well-read on the topics as I should be. Well, here's a VERY brief answer.
DeleteIn the beginning, God made Adam and Eve. God made a covenant with them, ordering them to rule the earth, multiply, and not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They screwed up. God was merciful, and gave the promise of A SEED that would crush the serpent tempter's head. Adam and Eve had children. Cain murdered Abel. Seth was born. Cain is out of covenant; Seth is in the covenant.
Then man grew abhorrently evil, and only Noah was found righteous by the eyes of God. God wiped the earth, saving Noah AND HIS FAMILY, and gave the sign of a rainbow to ratify the covenant made with Noah. Noah's son Ham mocks his father's nakedness, and receives a covenantal curse placed on him AND HIS FAMILY.
Abraham enters. God makes a covenant with him AND HIS FAMILY with the mark of circumcision. Ishmael is born out of the covenant. Isaac is born in the covenant, for the child of a slave woman would not inherit the blessing of passing down the lineage of the promised SEED of Adam's covenant. Jacob + Esau are born, with the promise that Jacob will be in covenant, while Esau will not.
Moses leads Israel out of Egypt. God reiterates the promise to Abraham, saying He will be Israel's God, and the God of her children, and they would be His people.
-----
God also made a royal covenant with David, promising that his seed would never leave the throne of Israel (fulfilled in Christ... like the rest :) ), but that doesn't apply to households.
-----
We serve a God of covenant. This is the hope of a Christian couple whose children die in infancy, or even before being old enough to make a credible profession of faith. Because God destined to work through covenants, the signs were always placed on the children of believers. Circumcision is the most common analogy, being a type of baptism, as it was performed on male infants on the 8th day of their post-natal life, which definitively counts as being too young to say "I trust in Jesus's blood and righteousness to cover my sins."
I feel myself waxing towards the undesirable side of Lewis's style, but it's become morning and I DID promise this would be short-ish.
Summary:
Baptism is done to infants of believers because...
1. Circumcision was the sign and seal of being in the family, covenant, and people of God. It was God's stamp of being an Israelite male in good standing within the covenant of God.
2. Baptism is the equivalent sign and seal of the New Covenant (Testament), and the anti-type of circumcision (what circumcision was pointing to all along).
3. Baptism is not necessary for salvation, e.g.- thief on the cross.
4. Baptism is done on infants of believers because God works through covenants, and the New Testament continues the theme when the apostles say "This is for you, and your children" and baptize whole households.
5. Apostasy of baptized infants is incredibly sad. They heard the word preached from infancy, received the sign of inclusion within God's covenant, and perhaps even tasted the Lord's Supper. How fierce God's wrath must be towards those who willingly and knowingly abandon Jesus at the cross, retrieving their sins, not knowing they had never been purged in the first place! I don't think baptisms go to waste, just as "unsuccessful" evangelism (as we perceive our endeavors) never goes to waste: it either works towards a person's salvation or stands in testimony against them. That's scary, either way. But thanks be to God!
6. My friend is better at summaries than I:
"God put children into the covenant, he never has taken them out, therefore they remain in, and being in they must needs receive the covenant sign, as they always have." --Quaidius Gage
Thank you for this explanation, Joseph. It sheds a completely different light on the matter than I've looked on it before, and it makes a lot more sense. You can see how this has tension with adult baptism (the idea I grew up with)--you know, baptism isa sign of your personal, rational decision to follow Christ. And Jesus was baptized as an adult (even though he was circumcised as a baby). Those are the arguments. :P But I think I like this better because it enriches the New Covenant as it relates to and parallels the Old. Even though I agree that it is frightening to trust in the fact that either these children WILL be covenental children (was that the phrase you used in one of your other posts?) OR their rejection will be used as a testimony. Either way, my perspective is much broadened. Thanks for clearing this up. I'll be sure to ask you if I think of any other doctrinal question. :)
DeleteI'm sorry my explanation was so rushed, but I don't know if more words would help or not.
Delete1. I heard round-a-bout that UCI is one of your options for next year! If you do choose UCI, I'd be more than happy to invite and introduce you to the Bible study I serve... provided you wouldn't mind being the only blonde. :)
2a. Baptism *still* is considered all those things by paedobaptists--symbolic cleansing from sin, sign of the Holy Spirit, physical initiation to the physical church (presuming the spiritual), recognition of being Christ's disciple.
2b. But how then can a child profess his faith in such a manner? How can (s)he utter trust in Jesus when the child cannot speak or think coherently?
2c. A child is under the covenant of God because his/her parent(s) are.
2d. As a sign of inclusion (as circumcision was in the OT), it isn't a guarantee of salvation. It's a mark that declares God, just as a name like Christopher Dawkins declares "Christ-bearer" to its wearer's dismay.
2e. Numerous men of the OT turned away from God, despite externally manifesting the sign of being an Israelite.
2f. Numerous persons in the NT (to this day) turn away from God, despite being baptized. This is blasphemous.
2g. Should the sign no longer be administered to covenant children for the cases of apostasy, leaving the children of believers (who even credobaptists [spoken belief-baptism] would say are in God's covenant) to be physically numbered with spiritual Gentiles?
2h. Surely not. We don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. (It's so punny, I'm gonna die!)
^^^ I think that's a little bit more clear. The paedobaptist relies on covenant theology + the type-antitype relationship with circumcision, if you were interesting in key words to look up.
This response is long overdue--school and prom have been eating my soul... :P
Delete1. Well, a day ago I would have whole-heartedly accepted your lovely invitation, because I have indeed committed to Irvine and registered for housing. There was/is no doubt in my mind that I want to go there. However, God decided to throw me a curveball yesterday, and allowed me to receive the Pres. Scholarship at CSULB. Which really, *really* complicates matters. We're talking a $50,000+ scholarship here, which cannot be taken lightly--and I have until Friday to make a decision. :P I think most people would think I'd be nuts to turn down the scholarship. Free tuition, free everything come on. Not only would it benefit me (being debt-free is always a nice thing), but also my family, obviously. BUT... Having spent the night and two days at Irvine, I can honestly say that I felt more at peace there than anywhere else, and that I really disliked the tour and the vibe at CSULB. So, you can see where I'm torn. As far as emotions go, there is no question which one I would choose. But on the other hand... this could be a situation where God is telling me, "Hey--I'm giving you this amazing gift, an abundant provision for your education. It doesn't take much wisdom to figure this out." OR, this could be a test, like He's saying, "You know you felt a peace about UCI. Are you going to listen to Me, even though the future, financially, is far less certain than it would be at csulb? Or are you going to be distracted by this tempting offer and forfeit my plans for you?"
ANYWHO, sorry for the rant--I'm super stressed about this. Even though we're commanded not to worry. All that to say is...if you could shoot up a quick prayer for wisdom for me, that would be absolutely lovely. And also: if it turns out that UCI is the place, I will definitely take you up on your offer--I want to settle into a Christian niche, and your Bible study sounds really good. :)
2. Viewing this as symbolic--a sign of inclusion--would give this more sense. Because it contrasts slightly with the other way which is like, *after* you've been saved, that's pretty much your statement of faith. Which, as you said, a baby cannot do. But seen as a covenantal sign changes the perspective a bit. So what would one's statement of faith be, then, when they make that decision and they've already been baptized as a child?
3. Speaking of liturgical churches (I say speaking of, because my mind instantly went to Catholic baptizing, which is also infant), what do you think of Lutheranism? Calvin doesn't think they're okay...which, again, legitimate reasons seem in short supply. And also, to make this super controversial, do you believe Catholics are Christians? This always greatly interests me, especially in regards to how other Christians see this matter. :)
1. Oh, man. That's quite enticing, the no-debt status! And CSULB is a great school, not to mention the grand benefit of being close to home. Irvine is close, but it's still a 30-75 minute drive, depending on traffic. The con (and do NOT let this detract too much from the financial aspect of a college education) is that, according to my dear friends William, Ted, and Albert, the spiritual dynamic is quite different in that the Asian majority at CSULB is not known for its Christianity, whereas the Asian majority at UCI is. Once again, don't let this detract too much from your decision; at UCI, most (if not all) of the professors who taught me are firmly unbelievers. There are just more Christians out faithfully evangelizing to a population that firmly grasps the tenets of a secular humanism endorsed by public universities without differentiating from Cal State or University of California.
DeleteYes, I'll pray for you.
2 + 3a (lutherans). Presbyterians (derived from Calvin) are different from Lutherans (as far as I know; I'm sure my answer is insufficient) based on their differing views of the Lord's Supper. Pastors at the Orthodox Presbyterian churches my family has attended always "fence the table." That is to say, they are careful to warn the congregation that the "elements," the bread and the wine, signify the broken body and shed blood of Jesus, and that these elements are to be taken seriously as a perpetual remembrance of His atoning work on the cross because they, as symbols ordained by Christ at the last Passover, by nature are tokens and are the closest a person can get to touching salvation. I don't fully understand this, but Presbyterians would say it's not *just* bread and wine; something happens that turns them into either a means of grace to God's children or can be a dreadful curse "when taken improperly" (Lots of buzz about that. I Corinthians 11:23-34). I understand that Lutherans hold the sacrament in such high regard that they don't allow non-members of that local church to take of it, for fear of the non-lutherans drinking judgment to themselves. Stout Roman Catholics (and Luther was the first to revolt from this, and then Calvin) believe in trans-substantiation: the bread and wine *become* the body and blood of Jesus, and the Eucharist becomes beneficially cannibalistic. I know that these are not fair words, but many "Catholics" today don't believe this heresy that Jesus dies (mass) every week.
2+ 3b (catholics). I think if you believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and furthermore that He is the ONLY Way (no other religions), the ONLY Truth (no other divinely appointed words besides the Word of God given in the Old and New Testaments), and the ONLY Life (no other heaven or regimen for this life), then you'd be a follower of the Christ who demands complete surrender and total ownership. (After all, He bought us as is) That makes you a Christian. I'm sure plenty of Catholics fall into this category, just as plenty of "Christians" do not fall into this category. I, at any rate, cannot search the heart. However, this is not to lessen the value of a public profession of faith, which would be given in the midst of a church service, thereafter the baptized person would be called a "communicant" member of the church.
My, goodness! Put all these responses together, we could have a novel!
DeleteSo, my whole family has been agonizing over this all week, and we’ve finally come to the mutual consensus that UCI is the right place. I feel a certain peace about it; if I find out that I heard Him wrong, then I will deal with the consequences and trust that He will still work His will in it. But I can’t say that I haven’t bathed this in prayer. You know CSULB is going to be doing some massive cuts next year, or so says one of my dad’s friends, who is a professor there. It’s going to be a mess. But, yeah; financially, it’s obviously not as secure a situation as it would be going to CSULB… but then again, I guess that’s the point. Kind of hard to trust in God when you’ve got it all under control. Thanks for the prayer though…it’s definitely contributed a lot. So, yay! I don’t have to retract my SIR. ;)
At first glance, these two views don’t seem terribly disparate, as far as their stress on the serious nature of the elements. I suppose the Presbyterian view as to their nature falls just below the Lutheran (as far as how much it “transforms”), and then the Lutherans would go just below Catholicism’s transubstantiation? In any case, I really do like this level of respect, the idea that it is indeed some conveyance of grace.
One of the things that drove me on my long and complicated Catholic journey, as I like to call it [basically painstakingly researching and praying about the Church, trying to figure out if it was the “true” Church as it claimed, and if it was, if it was God’s will that I join it] was because I didn’t really like the way my church did communion. It seemed too flippant to me, just sitting there with cheap little bits of bread and grape juice. I wanted a deeper spiritual experience, I guess. I don’t know. And, of course, the Catholics take it much more seriously—after all, Jesus did say “this IS my body…this IS my blood” (their main go-to verse). And I truly admired the hushed reverence of the mass, as people walked humbly up to the altar with folded hands to take, what they believed, to be their Lord and Savior’s broken body. But—man, that was a really hard pill for me to swallow. I would sit there, respectfully not taking part in the Eucharist, and think to myself…this is just too WEIRD. Even His disciples thought he was being literal when He said those words. That’s why they were so outraged! [Of course, He wasn’t being literal, they were still blinded in their ignorance, like I was].
Yeah, that 1 Corinthians verse—that one really tripped me up when I was battling in my mind between Catholicism and Protestantism [which one to ultimately go with?!]! I was like, “If the sacrament truly is just a symbolic remembering once a month at church, then why the big fuss, Paul?” Hence, the controversy! Obviously, I’ve grown a lot since that whole one to two year process, and I’ve better grasped the spirituality I was hungering for in the Lord’s Supper, even if they don’t *become His body. Heaven on earth, simply REMEMBERING what He did should be enough for anyone! :P From what it sounds like, your church has a nice balance—proper respect [it deeply troubles me when my Grandmother, a non-believer, continued to take communion every time it was served. Not because I was being exclusive, but because…well, she wasn’t a believer!] minus the weirdness.
Ha, Blogger won't let me do it all in one post. ;)
Delete....
It’s true that many Catholics probably don’t believe, as you call it, this heresy of transubstantiation. But then again—the Church would call them cafeteria Catholics, not truly Catholics because they pick and choose which of the doctrines they choose to believe in.
I’m really glad you take this view of them idol-worshippin’ Catholics. ;) I feel the same way, now having more than a year’s objective distance from the whole researching and attending Mass ordeal. By the time I ultimately re-embraced (this time with a lot more knowledge, perspective, and subsequent solid conviction) my Protestant roots, I was…perhaps a little disillusioned by the church. Of course, that went away after a while. But it still irks me when people ignorantly condemn them, or make a distinction between “Catholics” and “Christians”. Even Admiraal thinks they’re a different religion. I’d say the *Church itself is Christian (as you say, they doctrinally embrace Jesus as the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The whole Mary/saint thing, Eucharist, and “works” thing being, in my opinion, a side point. Still radically serious matters, but still secondary to the Gospel). However, too many their members, from what I have personally seen, are ignorant and uneducated in their faith. And so their prayers THROUGH Mary too often become prayers TO Mary, at which point it becomes idolatry--and Jesus takes the role of the stern, judgmental father sitting in the backseat. (Of course, prayers through Mary could also be idolatry…but I get where they’re coming from. That was one of my main topics of interest). So, I’d say that, again as you say, just as you can’t generalize that every Christian at your or my church or at Valley are Christians, neither can you say that about the Catholics. But, I can’t help but have a spot of compassion for them. Their churches really are beautiful.
Oh man. I've never had to respond to a 2-post comment before! I feel honored.
DeleteWell, Re: UCI, I have three things to say:
1. There are plenty of Bible-thumpin' reformed churches and campus ministries in the area. I'd be happy to invite you to the Bible study I attend, and I could point you to a church or two in the area (my family currently attends an OPC in Westminster, only 15 minutes north of UCI).
2. Meal plan: DON'T get the largest sized meal plan. The quantities roughly equate to (assuming you don't stay on the weekends) 1.5 meals-per-day, 2 meals-per-day, or 2.5 meals-per-day. Trust me. You won't use them all; the cafeterias 1) get old. 2) feed you like a prison. 3) have generous take-out policies--after breakfast and lunch of snatching a banana and bagel, you're set for tomorrow's breakfast!
3. Oh. This assumes you were dorming. Anyways, dibs on your guest swipes!! If you're not dorming and plan to commute, there are a few people in the area besides myself that are also commuting, if you'd like to carpool.
Re: theology, Yup. I don't fully understand what goes on when I take the Lord's Supper, but it's more than a cracker and less than blood. It's a foretaste of heaven, and a reminder that God's love is strong, potent, and not to be trifled with.
Re: churches. Yup. There's something beautiful about stained glass and old architecture in that the architects of the past had to factor in decay and renewal, evening and morning, acoustics and cost. It's a topic for another day, but... should the protestants have destroyed stained glass windows of the 16th century? (i.e.- What constitutes idolatry?)
Have a blessed Lord's Day, and I look forward to seeing you on campus. Zot zot!
Also... write the foot-washing one, when you get around to it. ;)
ReplyDelete