The Problem of (Free?) Will
In this, the second section of our book, we're beginning to look at the problem of will.
Remember that the question Luther is seeking to answer is simply this: What advances us on the path to righteousness?
In the first section, he obliterated our works as advancing us in any way. In fact, he said that seeking to obey the Law of God in order to gain righteousness before God was mortal sin. It cuts us off from grace.
In my Bible reading this morning, I came on this study note for Galatians 2:18 (in my ESV Study Bible, of course!) "Ironically, the one who is most clearly seen to be a sinner is not the one outside the law, but the one under it." So, following the teaching of Paul, Luther refuses to allow any righteousness-producing Law keeping. None.
In Galatians 1:10, responding to those who kept the Law so that they would look good to other slaves of the Law, Paul writes, "For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man [by obeying the Law], I would not be a servant of Christ." When we read Luther/Forde, we feel like they're saying something really shocking. But when we read Paul and personalize what he's saying, we're completely undone. Here's what I think might be a fair paraphrase:
"Are you seeking to approve of yourself or have other people (religious or irreligious) approve of you? Are you seeking to quiet your conscience by your own works or are you seeking God's approval that ONLY comes through Christ? If you are still trying to approve of your goodness and have others approve of you, you are not a servant of Christ. You're only serving yourself." Well, yipes.
So, there you have it. The Law does not advance us on the path to righteousness. Okay, now we come to an even thornier issue. Let's assume that we all acquiesce now to the fact that our obedience to the Law doesn't save or advance us; but certainly the choices we make can advance us, right? I mean isn't it a little bit like Ben Franklin's old saw, "God helps them that help themselves?" So, we make baby steps toward God and he supplies grace and we make more baby steps and he supplies more grace and on and on as we advance ourselves toward righteousness (with a little or a lot of help from God).
Here's the question at the heart of our musings: Do we make the decision to serve Christ? And when Paul/Luther/Forde all answer, "Nope. Sorry, you can't do even that," we want to pull our hair out and scream, "Oh yeah? But I remember when I went forward or prayed that prayer or...Don't tell me I didn't make that decision!" Can you see why the RC's wanted to kill Luther? Following St Augustine, Luther agreed that "without the aid of grace the will is bound and can do nothing to merit salvation...we are saved by grace alone." (49)
"Yeah, but what about the decision I made. I remember making it?!?" And here we get to the crux of the matter. The question isn't whether you made a decision or not. I remember the night in June of 1971 when I bowed my knees in my little apartment and prayed for God to take me and make me His. Again, the question isn't did I do that or not? Of course I did. The question is "Why?" Why did I bow the knee? Was it, as some in my family have said, "You're a good sort of person." But I know better -- if people had known me then, they would never say that. Am I particularly wise? Absolutely not. You see, that night in 1971 I had a will and it was free -- but it was only free to choose according to my nature. And my nature had been fallen and dead spiritually. But my humble prayer in 1971 was evidence of God's sovereign election and regeneration of my soul, of His prior work, making me alive to Him and inclining my heart to desire and giving me the strength to obey. My salvation is of the Lord and I freely choose to serve Him because He had so inclined my heart and made me alive to Him. And so, that night I prayed and my prayer was answered because it was in accordance with His will that He had already written on my heart.
Luther's point is that the very frustration that we feel when someone tells us that we don't have the ability or desire to choose God and that He must (and does! thankfully), choose for us is proof that we don't want Him to be our God. If it aggravates you that God chooses, you've made Luther's point. Forde writes, "But the point is that this kind of protest is precisely the proof of the pudding. It is evidence of theologians of glory at work defending themselves to the end. They actually admit that they cannot and will not "will" God to be God...The cross stands behind the question of the will. The cross itself is the evidence that we did not choose him but that he, nevertheless, chose us (John 15:16)." (51) If we could choose Him, the cross was a cosmic overreaction. Instead of sacrificing His Son and pouring wrath out on Him, God should have just given us better self-improvement instructions and a little help and we would be able to work it out. But, of course, that's not what he's done.
That's not to say that we don't choose things. We are free to choose according to our nature. So I can choose to blog or not to blog. But I will NEVER choose to humble myself before the cross of Christ and an all-sovereign God unless he inclines my heart to do so. So the question before us is simply this: Will you accept a choosing God? And the answer is, "No; not unless he inclines my heart to do so." (We'll get to the obvious next question of responsibility in a subsequent blog.)
Here is Thesis 13: "Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do it commits a mortal sin."
This thesis is the most offensive to the theologian of glory and was to Luther, "the highest and most important issue of our cause." (53) Since the fall, our will has been bound by sin and "hence not free." (54) "'Every one who commits sin is a slave of sin...So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.' Further backup comes from St. Augustine, "Free will without grace has the power to do nothing but sin." (54)
I'll end this now with one more quote from the book: "Sin makes it impossible for the will really to be called free because sin means an enslavement and bondage from which it is impossible for the will to escape. The self seeks its own self in all things, even in its piety."...Hence, "doing our best becomes a defense against the totality of grace."
Once again we are brought to the truth that what we must have is God's grace through the cross and God's grace alone. And then our hearts are where they should be and we're humbled and thankful and free amd filled with joy -- all to the glory of God. And that's the Christian life.
Remember that the question Luther is seeking to answer is simply this: What advances us on the path to righteousness?
In the first section, he obliterated our works as advancing us in any way. In fact, he said that seeking to obey the Law of God in order to gain righteousness before God was mortal sin. It cuts us off from grace.
In my Bible reading this morning, I came on this study note for Galatians 2:18 (in my ESV Study Bible, of course!) "Ironically, the one who is most clearly seen to be a sinner is not the one outside the law, but the one under it." So, following the teaching of Paul, Luther refuses to allow any righteousness-producing Law keeping. None.
In Galatians 1:10, responding to those who kept the Law so that they would look good to other slaves of the Law, Paul writes, "For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man [by obeying the Law], I would not be a servant of Christ." When we read Luther/Forde, we feel like they're saying something really shocking. But when we read Paul and personalize what he's saying, we're completely undone. Here's what I think might be a fair paraphrase:
"Are you seeking to approve of yourself or have other people (religious or irreligious) approve of you? Are you seeking to quiet your conscience by your own works or are you seeking God's approval that ONLY comes through Christ? If you are still trying to approve of your goodness and have others approve of you, you are not a servant of Christ. You're only serving yourself." Well, yipes.
So, there you have it. The Law does not advance us on the path to righteousness. Okay, now we come to an even thornier issue. Let's assume that we all acquiesce now to the fact that our obedience to the Law doesn't save or advance us; but certainly the choices we make can advance us, right? I mean isn't it a little bit like Ben Franklin's old saw, "God helps them that help themselves?" So, we make baby steps toward God and he supplies grace and we make more baby steps and he supplies more grace and on and on as we advance ourselves toward righteousness (with a little or a lot of help from God).
Here's the question at the heart of our musings: Do we make the decision to serve Christ? And when Paul/Luther/Forde all answer, "Nope. Sorry, you can't do even that," we want to pull our hair out and scream, "Oh yeah? But I remember when I went forward or prayed that prayer or...Don't tell me I didn't make that decision!" Can you see why the RC's wanted to kill Luther? Following St Augustine, Luther agreed that "without the aid of grace the will is bound and can do nothing to merit salvation...we are saved by grace alone." (49)
"Yeah, but what about the decision I made. I remember making it?!?" And here we get to the crux of the matter. The question isn't whether you made a decision or not. I remember the night in June of 1971 when I bowed my knees in my little apartment and prayed for God to take me and make me His. Again, the question isn't did I do that or not? Of course I did. The question is "Why?" Why did I bow the knee? Was it, as some in my family have said, "You're a good sort of person." But I know better -- if people had known me then, they would never say that. Am I particularly wise? Absolutely not. You see, that night in 1971 I had a will and it was free -- but it was only free to choose according to my nature. And my nature had been fallen and dead spiritually. But my humble prayer in 1971 was evidence of God's sovereign election and regeneration of my soul, of His prior work, making me alive to Him and inclining my heart to desire and giving me the strength to obey. My salvation is of the Lord and I freely choose to serve Him because He had so inclined my heart and made me alive to Him. And so, that night I prayed and my prayer was answered because it was in accordance with His will that He had already written on my heart.
Luther's point is that the very frustration that we feel when someone tells us that we don't have the ability or desire to choose God and that He must (and does! thankfully), choose for us is proof that we don't want Him to be our God. If it aggravates you that God chooses, you've made Luther's point. Forde writes, "But the point is that this kind of protest is precisely the proof of the pudding. It is evidence of theologians of glory at work defending themselves to the end. They actually admit that they cannot and will not "will" God to be God...The cross stands behind the question of the will. The cross itself is the evidence that we did not choose him but that he, nevertheless, chose us (John 15:16)." (51) If we could choose Him, the cross was a cosmic overreaction. Instead of sacrificing His Son and pouring wrath out on Him, God should have just given us better self-improvement instructions and a little help and we would be able to work it out. But, of course, that's not what he's done.
That's not to say that we don't choose things. We are free to choose according to our nature. So I can choose to blog or not to blog. But I will NEVER choose to humble myself before the cross of Christ and an all-sovereign God unless he inclines my heart to do so. So the question before us is simply this: Will you accept a choosing God? And the answer is, "No; not unless he inclines my heart to do so." (We'll get to the obvious next question of responsibility in a subsequent blog.)
Here is Thesis 13: "Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do it commits a mortal sin."
This thesis is the most offensive to the theologian of glory and was to Luther, "the highest and most important issue of our cause." (53) Since the fall, our will has been bound by sin and "hence not free." (54) "'Every one who commits sin is a slave of sin...So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.' Further backup comes from St. Augustine, "Free will without grace has the power to do nothing but sin." (54)
I'll end this now with one more quote from the book: "Sin makes it impossible for the will really to be called free because sin means an enslavement and bondage from which it is impossible for the will to escape. The self seeks its own self in all things, even in its piety."...Hence, "doing our best becomes a defense against the totality of grace."
Once again we are brought to the truth that what we must have is God's grace through the cross and God's grace alone. And then our hearts are where they should be and we're humbled and thankful and free amd filled with joy -- all to the glory of God. And that's the Christian life.
Hi Elyse, I'm really enjoying this theological study. Although, my head is getting dizzy from all the reading.
Here’s some research I came across. (first, second, and last paragraph only copied here as the article was very long)
I’m including this for those who have never studied Theology (myself). At the end I have an observation and a question.
Synergism is reference to the doctrine of divine and human cooperation in conversion. Synergism seeks to reconcile two paradoxical truths: the sovereignty of God and man's moral responsibility. Nowhere do these two truths so intersect as in the theology of conversion. One tradition within Christianity, the Augustinian, emphasizes the sovereignty of God in conversion (monergism or divine monergism). Calvin and Luther stood within this heritage. In the Small Catechism Martin Luther wrote: "I believe that by my own reason or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to him. But the Holy Spirit has called me through the Gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, and sanctified and preserved me in true faith."
BELIEVE
Religious
Information
Source
web-site
Our List of 1,000 Religious Subjects
E-mail
The other tradition, the Pelagian, emphasizes man's moral responsibility. Modified by such Roman Catholics as Erasmus of Rotterdam and such Protestants as James Arminius and John Wesley, this position stresses the freedom of the will. Erasmus said, "Free will is the power of applying oneself to grace." During the Lutheran Reformation the synergistic controversy occurred. Scholars debate whether or not Philip Melanchthon was a synergist. Certainly he wrote that "man is wholly incapable of doing good" and that in "external things" (secular matters) there is free will, but not in "internal things" (spiritual matters). In the second edition of his Loci, however (published in 1535), Melanchthon wrote that in conversion "Three causes are conjoined: The Word, the Holy Spirit and the Will not wholly inactive, but resisting its own weakness.... God draws, but draws him who is willing. . . and the will is not a statue, and that spiritual emotion is not impressed upon it as though it were a statue."
An Altenburg Colloquy (1568 - 69) failed to solve the controversy. By 1571, however, the Final Report and Declaration of the Theologians of Both Universities, Leipzig and Wittenberg, affirmed "consideration and reception of God's Word and voluntary beginning of obedience in the heart arises out of that which God has begun graciously to work in us." The Formula of Concord (1577) rejected synergism, endorsed Augustinianism, avoided the rhetoric of Flacianism and the tendencies of Philippianism, teaching "through... the preaching and the hearing of his Word, God is active, breaks our hearts, and draws man, so that through the preaching of the law man learns to know his sins...and experiences genuine terror, contrition and sorrow. . . and through the preaching of...the holy Gospel...there is kindled
Reply to this
Thanks for working at this so hard, JoAnne! Wow! So glad you're wrestling through these issues.
I think I'm missing the end of your comment, so perhaps you could post again. Thanks again!
Reply to this
...there is kindled in him a spark of faith which accepts the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake."
Okay!
Here’s something I find interesting.
In Revelation 2:21 God says that he gave Jezebel (JEZEBEL!) time to repent – but she was unwilling.
20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. 21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. 22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.
Observation: By giving someone time to repent signifies that God was willing for Jezebel to repent, but she was unwilling. It amazes me that God would even want her to repent. Not so amazing that she was unwilling. If God was so willing for her to repent, then why didn’t God's sovereign election and regeneration incline Jezebel’s heart to desire Him - and give Jezebel the strength to obey? Her salvation could have been of the Lord had she freely chosen to serve Him because He had so inclined her heart and made me her alive to Him. Right?
Reply to this
Thanks, JoAnne. If I understand your question, it is that it seems as though God wants Jezebel to repent and since she is "unwilling" God is thwarted in his will. That's a good question and I'm glad that you're thinking like this. Let me try to help you.
Perhaps a clearer passage to discuss this point over might be 2 Peter 3:9: "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish but that all should reach repentance." I think this is a clearer passage because there might be some discussion about whether "Jezebel" in Rev 2:21 is part of the church or not. For the sake of argument, let's assume that these passages are speaking to the unregenerate and that God doesn't delight in the death of the wicked but wishes that all should "reach repentance."
So...now we're left with a question: Does God have "wishes" that are left unfulfilled? If we answer "yes", in what sense can we say that he is God? Does being "God" by definition mean that everything he desires he gets? Isn't that the clear teaching of the Bible? ("Whatever the Lord pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps..."[Psa 135:6, 115:3] Dan 4:35, "...all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him "What have you done?" (See also Acts 4:28) Rather than pile up verses on God's sovereignty in the lives of peop;le, let's just say that God fulfills all his plans in the lives of all people.
So again, we're back at our question: Does God have wishes that are left unfulfilled? The answer is obviously "no." So then, what are we to make of passages like the one you quoted from Rev and the one above from 2 Peter? My guess is that you wouldn't agree with universal salvation, i.e., that since God wishes to save everyone he will. We know from the testimony of Scripture again, that universal salvation is incorrect.
So, again...what are we to make of verses that seem to say that God isn't getting his way? We could go the way of those who say that God wishes for something but man thwarts his wishes. This would mean that man is (at least when it comes to salvation) more powerful than God -- for if God truly desires something and man can thwart him, then God isn't sovereign -- in which case we run head on into the verses (and many others like them) above. So, what can we do?
I think that what we do with verses like this is to say: Yes, there is an outward call that is truly extended to all people. That's why we preach the gospel to everyone and command them to repent and believe. This outward call is true and not a play on words. He called Jezebel to repent. He calls men everywhere to repent. This is God's revealed will. This outward call will be resisted in everyone who is spiritually dead for they cannot respond to it. God is by nature merciful and kind and isn't like some wicked demagogue finding glee in punishing his creation. He calls them to repent.
There is also, however, an inward call. This inward call is done by the Spirit as he works regeneration so that when the outward call is heard, an inward call is heard also and a person repents and is saved. That's why some people repent and some don't. That's why you could have heard the gospel message a thousand times and then one time it makes sense and you repent. I didn't repent when I heard the gospel message in 1971 because I had become wiser or holier. I wasn't looking for God. I was looking for a party. But God sent Julie with the outward call that wasn't anything different from what I had heard a hundred times in my Lutheran childhood. But this time I responded. Why? Because I had been made alive and could hear it. My heart had been regenerated and I had been born again. Then, she spoke the word, I heard it (as though it was for the first time-- because it really was the first time that I had ears to hear it) and my heart was inclined to respond and I believed and turned to him.
So...here's (sorry this is so long!) my answer. God loves to demonstrate his mercy. He extends mercy to all who will have it. It's not a question of whether he loves repentance or not. It's a question of our ability to respond. And...as Luther points out...our ability to respond is completely dependent upon God's prior work in our souls.
One more thought: when Jesus commanded Nicodemus to be born again, was that something Nicodemus could do or not? Nicodemus rightly answers, "what???? how am I supposed to do that???" that's the point. You can't. I can't. Salvation is of the Lord who is merciful, who loves his mercy and loves to demonstrate it even though people don't/can't/won't respond.
Reply to this
Hi Elyse!
Thanks for your response. I’m not dumb enough to get into a debate on a subject that has been unresolved by brilliant Theologians for centuries; I’m also learning as I go. But I do have some thoughts which I will post at the end. Wikipedia: “Advocates of both Arminianism and Calvinism find a home in many Protestant denominations, and sometimes both exist within the same denomination as with the Puritans. Faiths leaning at least in part in the Arminian direction include Methodists, Free Will Baptists, General Baptists, Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Church of the Nazarene, Seventh-day Adventists, The Salvation Army, Mennonites, Pentecostals, and Charismatics. Denominations leaning in the Calvinist direction are grouped as the Reformed churches and include Particular Baptists, Reformed Baptists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists. The majority of Southern Baptists, including Billy Graham, accept Arminianism with an exception allowing for a doctrine of eternal security.[6] [7] [8] Many see Calvinism as growing in acceptance,[9] and some well-known Southern Baptists such as Albert Mohler and Mark Dever have been trying to lead the Southern Baptist Convention to a Reformed theological orientation. The majority of Lutherans hold to a third view of salvation and election that was taught by Philip Melanchthon.”
From my limited studies, this is what I’ve concluded:
Jezebel (those who do not believe) was unwilling. She was unwilling because she loved darkness instead of light because her deeds were evil. Because of that, she was already condemned by God’s wrath.
Romans 1:17 talks about God’s Righteousness revealed by faith through the Gospel. Romans 1:18 talks about “God’s wrath being revealed against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness…v21 for although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God …their foolish hearts were darkened…v24 Therefore God gave them over (God’s Sovereignty) in the sinful desires of their hearts…a depraved mind. Romans 1:8 “But for those who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.
I loved what Jesus said to Nicodemus. He talked about being born of God’s Spirit. He began to preach the gospel to him! The power of the gospel produces the faith.
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world…(we all know) vs18 Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
Vs 19 THIS IS THE VERDICT: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Vs 20,21 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the TRUTH comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”
Reply to this
Thanks, JoAnne, for your comments. I love this!
I'll just comment a bit on what you said in your last post and then I'm going to move through this section on the will in the blog pretty quickly. Needless to say, you and I probably won't come to a consensus about this and that's fine. As you say, brilliant theologians have been talking about this for centuries.
However....simply because there has been discussion on this topic for centuries doesn't mean that there isn't true truth that can be known. While it may be true that there will continue to be disagreements, truth is available. I'm saying all that simply to say that just because there are well-known differences of opinion we aren't excused from being good Bereans
For me, my studies through the years (from the same roots that you came from too!) have led me to a position of certainly about free will. I do have free will in the sense that I will always freely choose according to my nature. Before Christ made me alive, I was "dead in trespasses and sins". But now that I have been given life by the Spirit, I am free to choose to believe and obey or not.
I just have a few questions for you to consider and I'll let this discussion go for now.
You say that Jezebel loved darkness rather than light. Okay, right. But why? What makes you or me any different from Jezebel? Yes, we love the light, but why? My perspective is that we are all Jezebel, we all love darkness unless God changes our hearts. So, I believe that I love the light now because God has inclined my heart to do so in an act of loving particular grace. Why do you love the light JoAnne?
The passage in Romans 1 is talking about God's general revelation (what can be known about God through nature). All people have this outward witness. As Psalm 19 teaches, nature itself speaks to us of God. But we all will naturally supress this revealed truth and so God's wrath rests on all people and he gives them over to what they naturally love (sin). This passage actually proves my point. The unregenerate have a witness to truth but refuse in their sin and blindness to acquiesce to it. This is because they are spiritually dead. The rest of Romans, particularly starting in at the end of chapter 3 illuminates the truth that both the religious (Jews) and irreligious (Gentiles) are all under condemnation because they have the natural law (Gentiles) and the moral law (Jews) and yet NONE of them do it! (3:10ff) So, what does God do? He grants some (not all, surely) righteousness by faith. He "gives life to the dead and calls into existance the things that do not exist." (4:17). God brings life to the elect and they repent and believe. Otherwise you have to say that there is something intrinsically good about you that isn't present in unbelievers.
You are right that Jesus preached the gospel to Nicodemus and that gospel created faith. Exactly. The word preached creates life and faith in our hearts so that we live and believe. But Jesus preached to many people and not all believed. Why? Because on our own we ALL love darkness rather than light. But while we were helpless sinners Christ died for the UNGODLY (Rom 5:6). Do UNGODLY people choose to love light and lay down their lives for their enemies? What makes the difference? JoAnne, why do you love God? If you were once ungodly, why are you now godly?
Great discussion! Love you!
Reply to this
Elyse, I am thinking alot about this. I am also going to take Theology in Bible College in the fall quarter this year. To answer your question about WHY? I don't know why. The furtherest back that I can remember hearing about Gos is when the Church of Christ rented a house in our neighborhood and everyday after school the kids could go there and hear Bible Stories, crafts, etc. That's the earliest I remember hearing about Jesus. As a child I just accepted it all and it stayed with me because even though our family hardly ever went to church I would always read the Bible. I didn't understand anything I was reading. I just remember in Jr. High praying on my own to God (no church still) and saying,"God I don't know which religion is right, but I believe the Bible is true. Please don't let me get involved in a wrong religion. Then I would read everything I could. Went to the weird bookstores where all the Pyschic New Age stuff was found, read the Pearl of Great Price and the little book the Jehovah Witnesses gave me, etc. But it wasn't until we moved to CA from Texas, and I went to Horton Plaza that Sunday and got invited back to church that night by the ,downtown Plaza street witnessing team from BMT that I started going to church regularly and hearing the Word of God is what changed my heart. That's as simple as it gets for me. The "why", I don't know if I can just understand it. I just accept that it's a mystery and I'm glad it happened. I'm glad someone took the time to go to Horton Plaza, took me to church, gave me a ride home. Took our family to the grocery store and Laundry mat cause we didn't have a car. Showed us God's love. That's why. I love you too and this is a wonderful study! Thank you!
Reply to this
Great, JoAnne. I'm glad that you're going to take a class and that you're wrestling with the "why" question. I believe that the Bible teaches that the "why" question is answered simply: because God spoke life into your darkened dead soul and inclined your heart to pray and you did and he answered. Keep wrestling, girl. This is great.
Reply to this
Let me recommend "Bible Doctrine" by Wayne Grudem for a good study of theology, too. A good, concise, reader-friendly resource by a fellow who would be where I assume you are as far as the gifts are concerned but would also have a good strong theology that will help clear up the questions a bit.
Reply to this
Thanks! I will order that book.
Reply to this
Jo anne- I started "on being..." while I am also reading "Erasmus & Luther discourse on free will "
could Elyse describe what it 'looks like' when a Christian lives their life through lens of 'the theology of the Cross" I know, I know go ask yourself. I will ( hee hee )
Reply to this
Hi again, Jim.
Don't think I'm giving you the run around but I would like to hear what some of our other readers (and there are plenty of you!) would say to answer this question. I know what it's like for me but I'd like to hear how the cross is fleshed out in the lives of others.
So, who will answer James' question: What does living your life through the lens of the theology of the cross look like? In what ways is it different from living on the "glory road"? Thoughts?
Reply to this
I can't say positively how a TOTC[ross] translates into Christian living. But I can say negatively what is involved in rejecting a TOG[lory].
When you reject a TOG, you no longer look at your own piety for assurance of eternal life, or lack thereof in fear of hell. You look outward to Christ's merit imputed to you and his passive obedience on the cross which turned away God's wrath. (These two constitute the terror of the free-fall into grace).
When you reject a TOG, you no longer consider bad things that happen to you as punishment for your own failures as a Christian. Rather, you understand that like Job and Jesus, bad things that happen to you are, or may be, a sign of approbation.
When you reject a TOG, you see your own speculations regarding God's essence as worthless. You no longer view God as the supreme being (infinitely quantitatively above us) but one who is infinitely qualitatively distinct from his creation.
When you reject a TOG, you begin to realize that giving to missions [to pick an example] ain't gonna' result in you being blessed in any way. You can't make deals with God.
When you reject a TOG, you realize that you are not in heaven yet, but in the desert as an exile in the time between the times and you will be trudging through it until the day you die.
When you reject a TOG you have to be on guard against an under-realized eschatology - which one can do by looking at the cross with the resurrection in mind. Here you may look at yourself in the sense that one needs to know that he too awaits the resurrection of the dead, and that your own death is merely the first resurrection.
Reply to this
Bruce, thanks for writing back. I should have tried this 'biog' thing long ago but when I saw someone I knew, (especially one of my teachers from BBC) I was intrigued and am now hooked. What I am trying to get at for now is- could one tell from observation between believer X and believer Y if X lived with the understanding of Luther's- a theology of the Cross and Y lived without such understanding/insight but was otherwise a true believer?
Thanks for helping me out
Jim
Reply to this
Hi again, Jim, I forgot that I was one of your teachers at BBC. Actually I hardly have any velcro left in my skull at all now, so you could tell me that I actually taught you 10 classes and I would have to believe you because I just don't remember...
Anyway, thanks also to Bruce for your succinct post on what a theology of glory looks like. It's good to hear from you, too, my friend.
I suppose, Jim, that the answer to your question is both yes and no...and I'm sorry that we're not scratching your itch exactly, but keep trying. We may get there eventually.
So, to answer your question, "Could one tell from observation between believer X and believer Y if X lived with an understanding of the theology of the cross and Y lived without it but was otherwise a true believer?"
Yes, I think you might tell the difference, not because you can look inside the person's heart but you can see the fruit that grows from his life. So, in once sense, believer X would probably seem less anxious, less judgmental, less demanding, less selfishly ambitious -- more at peace with his God and the world. Of course, this peacefulness might simply be part of the person's personality and have nothing to do with his theology, which is why I said "might" above. But still I do think that there is a joy, zeal, peace, delight, humility, coupled with awareness and sorrow over sin in the life of believer X that might be less evident in the life of believer Y.
And then, not to equivocate too very much, "no", you can't tell with certainty. We are never free to judge anyone else's heart or to really know what's going on there, since the heart is hidden and deceptive.
The question for me is not "Can I tell if someone else is living with this understanding?" but rather "Am I growing in understanding the full benefits of the cross and is that knowledge impacting the way that I treat my husband, my neighbor, my dogs?" And that is always a matter of prayer for me and a matter of soaking my soul (drowning would be more accurate) in gospel truth BEFORE I get to all the things I know I need to do everyday and then praying all day that my heart's interaction with the Lord would be filled with grateful love and my interactions with people will be filled with patience, grace, understanding and truth.
If this doesn't scratch it, let me know and I'll try to do better. Have a great day resting in Christ's perfect obedience.
Reply to this
Yes, this is good ( and tasty ) I'll be chewing on it.
Jim
Reply to this
Thanks Bruce S. for posting big words that I have to go to the dictionary to find out what they mean. (I love learning new words - just wish I could remember them better without too much effort on my part). Jim - I love your questions. This whole TOTC VS TOG can seem very judgmental towards others at first glance until you realize the examination is directed towards each individual’s own heart. In other words, we are all battling our carnal nature which seeks glory for itself - NO ONE HAS ARRIVED (that’s why you can’t see what it looks like 100% of the time. I think the best we can see are the glimpses of Christ in us – the hope of glory – when we die to our sinful nature and His light shines through. This happens in all of our lives, as true believers and followers of Christ, throughout our lives in so many wonderful ways as we learn, stumble, repent, serve and grow in Him. Thank God for the IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS of Jesus Christ that is ours through faith in His name! Bruce S. – God doesn’t make deals with us, but he does deal with us. He honors His word. His word says, “It is more blessed to give than to receive”. I’ve found this to be true. I like receiving – but being on the giving end is so much better.
Reply to this