After watching chicks go through the trauma of hatching all week and then arriving home to find Marcy’s newborn calf wobbling around, I realized how easy we mammals have it. For us the birth process is completely passive, mom does all the heavy work. Chicks have to peck their way into the world in several hours of exhausting labor. A very different way of entering into life.
Over the last several hundred years, the church has been debating the issue of how it is that we are saved. The Calvinists on the one hand argue that until God wakes our dead souls, we are completely helpless, unable to seek Him or gain any knowledge of Him. Even faith is impossible if God does not give it as a free gift. We are very passive, like we were in our own birth process. On the other hand the followers of Arminius argue that man must have a part in his own salvation, he must first seek God, then gain knowledge of Him and based upon that knowledge exercise faith in Him. Faith is the work of man, pecking your way into life.
Now obviously this little analogy is not going to end several hundred years of debate, but I’m still very thankful that Jesus did not tell Nicodemus, "You must be hatched again."
14 comments:
You must be hatched again
LOL ...
But, actually, the Greek word does mean hatched, and is only used analagously of humans.
*** NAH ... JUST KIDDING !!! ***
You got me on that one jfc - just as the 'hackles' on the back of my neck started to raise an inch - I saw the tagline!
What I find most interesting of all the 'debate' amongst religious types is the surnames of men (as to ownership) such as you mentioned "Calvinist" (of the teachings of Calvin) or "followers of Arminius" (of the teachings of Arminius) when people claim the name of Christ do they first 'bind' themselves to the doctrines of men, first?
(No, really?) or neglect the teachings of Christ and God's inspired Word for the 'private interpretation' of denominational spin designating their faith in accord with (first) the teachings of a group and their 'view' toward salvation or the scripture? Most men I meet first align themselves to the teaching of a 'official' & "recognized" body instituted by men & not as the apostle Paul put it "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." Those coming from someone who was witness of Him, and could speak those words. Looking at the 'bylaws' of human institutions I find but pale shadows of a former glory......
"For us the birth process is completely passive, mom does all the heavy work."
We are required to breathe aren’t we? Though for us "mature adults" this may seem like 'light work' as opposed to the "heavy work" of mom (or the Holy Spirit) to use an analogous reference, if I may. As for the chicken or the child, a lot or a little, they are oft soon tired after the day’s events!
Regards.
Scott said:
What I find most interesting of all the 'debate' amongst religious types is the surnames of men (as to ownership) such as you mentioned "Calvinist" (of the teachings of Calvin) or "followers of Arminius" (of the teachings of Arminius) when people claim the name of Christ do they first 'bind' themselves to the doctrines of men, first?
Well said. Articulately expressed and major Amen!!!!!!!!!!!
Settler:
The greatest thing about farm life is how it provokes us to think of our creator. Isn't it just awesome?!
Thanks for your comments all, even your rascally ones JFC.
Milkmaid, I agree that is one of the best reasons for what we are doing.
Scott, you raise some interesting points, and I want to thank you for interacting with my thoughts and throw a few more out here for you without getting too lengthy.
We are required to breathe aren’t we?
Where does God say that he requires us to breathe? Breathing is normally thought of less as a requirement for life than a sign of it. The fact of breathing is evidence of life, not a conscious, volitional requirement for it, it will normally take place whether I think about it or not, and whether I want it to or not. If I ask, "Is Scott breathing" you will know that what I am asking is whether you are indeed alive, not whether you want to be or are "trying" to be. If I were able to speak to a chick in the egg and tell it what would be required of it to enter into life outside the egg, I can imagine having something to say. But I can't imagine what useful advice I could give to a child in the womb, who is not required to perform any action in order to come into life. Mama chickens do not go into labor, and if there is anything in the whole chicken process that could be likened to a mother's labor in childbirth, that labor is performed by the chick itself.
Similarly, in the Bible sinners are not likened to sick people who must take medicine to be well, but to dead men who must be brought back to life. What exactly would a dead man contribute to the process of being raised from the dead. If he can do anything. . . well, he ain't really dead, just mostly dead.
. . .when people claim the name of Christ do they first 'bind' themselves to the doctrines of men, first?
It's worth pointing out that biblical doctrine articulated by a man does not by that articulation now become a doctrine of man. If that were the case we would all be reduced to either speaking only the words of scripture or only speaking error.
Looking at the 'bylaws' of human institutions I find but pale shadows of a former glory......
We definitely see things differently at this point, because I do not see the church descending from an early apex during the apostolic time and descending into a vortex at the end of history. Rather I believe that we are taught in the scriptures that through much tribulation the Church is moving from glory to glory in history, and ultimate glory at the end of history, a topic which I hope to post on at some point. The church is a divinely ordained human institution with a human administration and a human head - Christ (who, as I was recently reminded, still has ten fingers and ten toes). The fact that the Church is a human institution does not diminish it. After all, what other type of institution could it possibly be?
Therefore I do not take Paul's statement regarding following him as he followed Christ as a statement only he could make. I think Paul is leaving a powerful example of how leaders in his church ought to likewise lead by their own example of following Christ. All pastors and teachers ought to strive to be able to say the same thing Paul did.
I am to have no desire to follow any man except as He follows Christ, but this generally has meant, for me, that I ought to follow my elders, my minister and the many men in the history of the Church who have gone before us and left a godly example. They are not perfect, but *as* they follow Christ, I am to follow them.
I think it's more often than not unwise to represent oneself as a Calvinist, Arminian or whatever. But, while I want to be careful of labels, I still think it's proper to say that I follow John Calvin as he followed Christ. (When I finally got around to reading his writing directly, I found it to be very practical, warm, simple, and pastoral, and realized to what extent the man has been slandered.) This does not mean that I bind myself to the doctrines of men *first*, but that I do want to avoid one of the chief errors that arises out of the particlular world spirit of our individualistic age and culture: that of ignoring the fact that God has always, and continues now, to give to the Church some to be Pastors and some to be Teachers and if I want to be truly equipped as a Christian I need to submit myself to their authority - as they submit themselves to Christ's authority. The "just me and my bible" notion is just unbiblical.
So when I deal with an issue such as God's control over all things including the salvation of individuals, I see no point in pretending this issue fell out of the sky brand new in the present day. Actually, I could have gone back much farther in church history and referenced the Augustinians and the Pelagians, rather than the Calvinists and Arminians, but that would not have communicated nearly so quickly and concisely the general positions I was referring to.
I hope this clarifies a bit, since it is now grown quite a bit longer than the original post. :-)
Good dialogue here. I, for one, am both grateful and humbled by my Lord's work on my behalf. I did not struggle up in my own stength out of the miry clay in which I was entrenched, but was lifted out by His hand. As Luther wrote, "Did we in our own strength confide, the battle would be losing." I realize that he was not referring to the process of salvation, but just use that as a reference to the fact that if it had been up to me, a sinner, to save myself or even have a hand in it, I would still be unregenerate. Hope this all makes sense as I am not very articulate when it comes to Theology! By the way, I refer to myself as a follower of Christ, but I do hold to the teachings of the Reformed church.
You said:
I still think it's proper to say that I follow John Calvin as he followed Christ.
I really like this because when acknowledging his humanity there may be points where he deviated from Christ's teachings and we can accept the points where he remains and reject the points where he does not. I also note this with my preachers, teachers and elders.
We also need to be mindful of the wolves in sheeps clothing. Being much like the Bereans, if we search the scripture daily and go before God testing our resistance to such leaders (Knowing I am a stubborn gal, I need to fully reconcile my motives for questioning a teacher or elder. Meaning: Am I questioning Him because I don't want to submit because of my own stubborn will. Or would following the elders cause me to violate the word of God as I submit) we can determine with God's aid if these folks are truly false teachers and wolves in sheeps clothing.
We did just leave a church because following the elder's counsel would put us in violation of God's word. It took many months to come to this conclusion and many months of examining our own self will.
Because the modern church is watered down much these days, and because there is so much world in the church and less Berean type folks, and more of those who have a passive acceptence of teachings, it is harder to determine those false teachers.
One scripture I do keep in mind is the one where some identify themselves by who they follow. I follow Apollos, I follow Paul. Paul warns against this. I think we have to be very careful as the Settler points out here.
Now, I have been told that I adhere to most of the reformed doctrines. I really claim, I adhere to the bible. I don't know reformed doctrines (I am learning more at a snail's pace though) but when the dairy building gets put up, I think I will find more time to investigate the matter.
In the meantime, I feel it is my responsibility to search the scriptures daily and examine those who claim they are teaching the word of God to see if what they say measure up.
I also find comfort in the knowledge that teachers will be held accountable . It is a special position to teach with much responsibility.
“Breathing is normally thought of less as a requirement for life than a sign of it.”
Oh really? To this I might say, I know a skunk in Minnesota who might beg to differ with you………….having spent 24 hours immersed in a river of water, if he had words (or life), might convince you otherwise as to the whole “requirement” thing. No come to think of it………..breathing…………A Necessity of Life.
”Similarly, in the Bible sinners are not likened to sick people who must take medicine to be well…
Oh, really? Let’s see……….
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Mark 2:17
”It's worth pointing out that biblical doctrine articulated by a man does not by that articulation now become a doctrine of man.”
To this I agree, but might interject that in “speaking only the words of scripture” as it pertains to sound doctrine, we might avoid “speaking error”?
As KS pointed out (which was my focus) perhaps there is to much “we said, thee said…” I follow Apollos, I follow Paul. My only point is that we must all better strive to follow in the foot steps of the master, then another first. Hope this helped.
Regards.
Well Scott I agree with your last point wholeheartedly, and I'm sure all who call themselves Christians will feel likewise that they are striving to follow in Christ's footsteps.
Now, I have no desire to be contentious over my little illustration, but if you can fend off a few more friendly ripostes we can clank swords a bit more and possibly shave off a little more iron, as friends should do for one another.
Why did said skunk die if not to illustrate my point? I maintain that breathing is involuntary. You're doing it now while you are reading this and you don't have to will each breath into your lungs. You can prove this in five minutes by trying to stop yourself from doing it. The skunk is dead not because he failed to will his lungs to expand, but because he was unable to prevent them from doing so. He is not dead because he failed to breathe but because thanks to Tom he breathed the wrong substance.
Not only does breathing require no effort on the part of the breather, but a massive effort is required not to breath. I assure you that the skunk gave his best effort at not breathing - and failed. Breathing - the cause of skunkicide.
Now as far as the dead vs. sick analogy, I perhaps should have referenced the basis for my point. In Ephesians 2 Paul twice makes the statement that we were "dead" in our sins, but that in Christ we are made alive. Now it will not benefit us to pit Paul against Jesus, for Paul and Jesus spoke by the same Holy Spirit in the scriptures. And thank you for reminding me of this statement of Christ's words for they have much to teach us.
We know that Paul is not arguing with Jesus words, which he would certainly have been very familiar with. Either they are saying the same thing in different ways or they are saying different things that are both true. To the context, my friend, I love a good bible study!
The contexts of these two passages are as different as air and water.
What do we find? Who is Paul addressing? Who is Jesus addressing? I think it is safe to say that Pharisees and Ephesian Christians are different sorts of audiences and might be spoken to in different ways. Further we can see that Jesus statement is part of a reproval (in answer to yet another whiny "why" question from the Pharisees) while Paul's statement occurs in the midst of a beautiful and powerful encouragement in which Paul reminds them of whence they have come. Jesus is offering reproof to those convinced both of their own "wellness" and "righteousness" and the uncleaness and unrighteousness of Jesus friends. Later on Jesus brings this reproof to full volume in Matthew 23.
While Paul is offering the Ephesians a powerful reminder of the incredible power of God in saving them, Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees the way he nearly always spoke to them, in parables and dark sayings that they were supposed to go home and think about (see vs 13).
Now the question comes to mind, was Jesus saying that the Pharisees were really righteous and had no need of him? Was he saying that those tax collectors and "sinners" who came to him were really unrighteous? To answer this perhaps we should hear again the parable of the "righteous" Pharisee(Luke 18:9-14). [Pause for people to read] We can then see that it is proper to put "righteous" and "well" in quotes, since the Pharisees are in fact neither.
So. The people who were coming to Jesus are justified, they recognize their sin, beat their breasts and cry for mercy. They are the sick that Jesus is healing and Jesus naturally does not refer to them as those who are spiritually dead. The Pharisees on the other hand, convinced of their own righteousness and sure they do not need a physician, as do those who admit to sin, are accounted whitewashed sepulchres, full of dead mens bones.
Paul and Jesus are saying different things to different people for different reasons. Jesus is not telling the Pharisees that they are merely sick, for later he most emphatically tells them they are dead. He is telling the Pharisees that the repentant ones coming to Him are in need of a physician and that is "why" he is spending time with them.
I have "really" enjoyed delving into these texts and wish I had time to write even more. But it's late.
“Now, I have no desire to be contentious over my little illustration, but if you can fend off a few more friendly ripostes we can clank swords a bit more and possibly shave off a little more iron, as friends should do for one another.”
No problem-o and a friendly “on guard!” :)
It was actually the illustration that broke down, because to say the birth process is completely passive and that breathing requires no effort upon the part of the breather is to mislead the reader to error. Darwin made a similar error when he first handled the aspects of a “simple cell”, and that as it turns out the “simple cell” is some what more complex than one could have at first imagined. So it is with breathing, to suggest to the reader that such a process takes “no effort” on the part of the breather is to do them a disservice and to ignore basic biology.
See: http://www.holycross.edu/departments/biology/kprestwi/physiology/phys_pdf/Phys_Lect4_Respiration_pdf/Phys03_19_respSysMechanics.pdf
Concerning the skunk, again it was not breathing (which is necessary for life) but what he breathed, alas the watery grave!
But let’s not let our conversation rest on this particular ‘dead end’ if you will.
Quite honestly I was referencing Christ’s words, not as a comparison, but to a point. One that you; so aptly pointed out in detail. Sorry, perhaps I should have been clearer about that.
Such leads to the confusion of man made doctrine, the misapplication of physical and spiritual concepts. What exactly would a dead man contribute to the process of being raised from the dead? See a question such as this is ‘baited’ and in it lays a hook. What the author does not define is whether he is speaking about physical death or spiritual death, and confuses the issue. It is no different then the type of questions put to Christ when challenged by the shill as to whether it is lawful to pay the tax.
Let me use the bible as my answer, for it has been since the beginning my source,
"So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me."
When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face."
John 11:41-44 [Emphasis Mine]
And thus the key “The dead man came out” [Obedience]
So again to your question: What exactly would a dead man contribute to the process of being raised from the dead?
Answer:
Physically or spiritually obedience to the commands of God & His Word, and not so much as to the allegiance to the traditions of men or man made doctrines.
As you said with your analogy, I will say of this discussion…..it will not end several hundred years of debate, but allow me to rest my sword in the scabbard of II Timothy 3:16
“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;”
I think that is safer than to say:
The "just me and my bible" notion is just unbiblical.
Emily thanks for your encouragement, and Kansas for your additional comments.
You too Scott, thanks for making this a more interesting discussion:
Hmmm. . ., your sword is in the scabbard, huh? Maybe this means I should also sheath my own? I’m actually not sure whether this is a further challenge or a wish to desist.
But if you want to leave it in the scabbard just when this is getting good, you may and God bless you, and consider the following as merely defensive.
Briefly on breathing: My point has always been, not the lack of physical activity such as the contraction and relaxation of the muscles necessary for breathing, but the lack of conscious willing to activity. This seems simple enough to me.
Such leads to the confusion of man made doctrine. . .It is no different then the type of questions put to Christ when challenged by the shill
Is it perhaps possible that I believe that you are a confused propagator of man made doctrine, as you think I am? Merely asserting this of my statements while implying that my question is of the same sort the Pharisees baited Jesus with will need to be demonstrated more persuasively than you have. And since my (biblical, I am fully persuaded) doctrine is the one that gives the most glory to God and the least to man in this skirmish, I think your attack is directed at a position decidedly uphill from your own.
Now do not resort to the device of pointing out that I called this “my” doctrine while yours is obviously biblical. All of us can say to the other in effect, “I believe the Bible, what do you believe?” This proves nothing other than that we both believe “our” view to be the one that is aligned with the scriptures and therefore the correct one.
Let me use the bible as my answer, for it has been since the beginning my source,
More of the same device. Do you suppose that while you believe your doctrine to originate in the Bible that I am attributing mine to Star Trek reruns? No, I think we both believe the above about our doctrine, it's just that I don’t see the point in stating the obvious.
And thus the key “The dead man came out” [Obedience]
So again to your question: What exactly would a dead man contribute to the process of being raised from the dead?
Answer:
Physically or spiritually obedience to the commands of God & His Word, and not so much as to the allegiance to the traditions of men or man made doctrines.
Yeah, yeah, all right already on that last part. But the obedience of a dead guy is very interesting. Most translations, unlike the one you cite, render this in the sense that he who “was” dead, past tense, came out of the tomb. But the “was” appears to be supplied and I have no problem with the language as you state it, so lets just go with it: Dead guys can obey.
A dead guy is not available for an experiment, but I recall that Jesus also said that rocks would talk in certain circumstances and they are also dead, sort of. I just checked and rocks do not seem to obey my commands (maybe it's just these stubborn Missouri rocks), and I suppose we’ll have to assume that it would be the same with a dead guy. But if Jesus commands dead men or rocks, they obey. This leads to the conclusion that what is determinative is the commander, not the commanded. Yes, obedience occurs, but you have supplied your own concept, that the obedience “contributes” to the resurrection, implying that it might or might not occur, depending on the response. You would seem to have made the contributor of obedience determinative of resurrection, rather than the gracious authoritative command of God. This assertion that the dead man *contributed* obedience to the commands of God & His word is man made doctrine of the sort that has been taught in the Roman Catholic church for centuries and many Baptist churches for not much more than the past 150 years. Lazarus obedience is not a contribution, it is an irresistible response, just as the final resurrection will be. On the final day we will not be able to observe some people obeying the call to rise and some pushing the snooze button.
Your position, if I understand it, is that God has left man a necessary part in regeneration, without which it will not occur. If this is true, then that part that is left to man is the determinative part and leaves man, and not God, as the sovereign agency in regeneration.
But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 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.
Praise God for the beauty, clarity and simplicity of this statement. Where is boasting in obedience if even boasting in faith is vain?
A Note from this author:
I just wanted to say a BIG Thanks! to James for being so gracious & civil in our discourse. I too a James pointed out 'love a good bible study' unfortunately with time & distance and the limited medium of the electronic pen much is lost in translation, and can be oft misconstrued by the reader - leading to as I often say, more "heat than light". James you do well sir at not taking great offence at a little 'rib-poking' and not construing it as me slaughtering the sacred cows! Thank you again.
To what end does debate settles an issue? Let me say, not often. As James pointed out, the use of many *devices* which are employed along the way, can give weight to or against an argument or point made by the other author and influence the readers perception of the merits of a particular issue. I used mine as well James his, the ability of avoiding a full scale rock throwing contest I think is in knowing that your opponent is employing the techniques of debate, and taking the matter in stride. Many times I have seen this on other "discussions" result in a "bloody pummeling" after one opponent realizing he has entered the fray with a blunt sword and a handle engraved with the motto "Wits End"! (It is not a pretty sight.)
To the observers of our exchange I hope that your perception is not of James & I being "angry". I am not, and in this (if I may be so bold) will speak in good faith that he is not with me. So before you envision the "Hatfield’s & McCoy’s" feuding from their proverbial family farms - rest assured we are not!
As to the last scripture:
"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 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.
I say: Amen & Amen! Let our boasting be in scripture & our Sovereign Lord who is true & faithful!
[Breathing a sigh of relief] ::Grin::
Regards.
Ps. Though this author is not a big fan of "Star Trek" or a viewer of cable TV, I do enjoy watching seasonal episodes of "Stargate: SG1" to which I just received a loaned copy of Season 8. Retiring to the big couch in search of the elusive 'potato' grown there - I am: Scott A. Holtzman - signing off.
Scott, this has been a lot of fun. Like you I have seen a lot of internet assassinations take place, but you are a gentleman first to last and I really have appreciated your willingness to spend the time that you did on this. I remain a bit more optimistic about the prospects of discussion/argument contributing to positive change than you might be, but only when everyone stays calm.
[To any of you who may be worried about the tone of this discussion I say, be at ease, this sort of hammering out of differences is normal between men, and this one stayed well within the bounds of civil discourse. I had a similar sort of discussion with a guy from work last night over a few beers, something I'm sure I would enjoy equally well with Scott.]
And Scott, if I've misunderstood your meaning or demeanor in any way, I'm sorry, but as you allude, this kind of writing is difficult, and the immediacy of the internet and the lack of a good editor can stymy understanding. Sitting down over a brew is definately preferable as well as much more enjoyable, so if you're ever in the area. . . .
Enjoy your Stargate :-).
When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face."
John 11:41-44 [Emphasis Mine]
And thus the key “The dead man came out” [Obedience]
So again to your question: What exactly would a dead man contribute to the process of being raised from the dead?
Answer:
Physically or spiritually obedience to the commands of God & His Word, and not so much as to the allegiance to the traditions of men or man made doctrines.
The question to ask in the story of Lazarus is whether a dead man or a live man obeyed when Christ called him out of the cave. Until the point of his resurrection (a serious healing for one in need of a physician), Lazarus was rotting to the point of stinking (John 11:39). What obedience could he have contributed at this point when Christ called him to come out? None, he was truly dead. If a dead man obeyed Christ, then when his grave clothes were removed was his flesh still seething with worms. I do not think so. It wasn’t until the Lord sovereignly raised him from the dead that he was enabled to obey the command to come out, which is a picture of biblical salvation. That is why regeneration precedes conversion. One spiritually dead in his trespasses and sins is no more able to obey the commands of God to repent and believe than one rotting in the grave is able to obey the commands of God to rise up and walk. God must act first. Jesus is the resurrection and the life, not the will of fallen man, dead in his trespasses and sins.
Thanks Missouri Rev, for your excellent comments. I just love it when I agree completely and can say amen.
Amen.
Post a Comment