There are any number of abused vocabulary words in Christendom. Today's sermon inspired this posting by the pastor's interesting use of the word "world," as seen in first John. I want to make it clear as I write that I respect the man greatly, and I think he's a terrific teacher. We have our doctrinal differences, but I'm very pleased with his spirit and willingness to study the Word.1 So please don't take this as a harrangue against him; it's not.
The church is strongly against limited atonement (the doctrine that Jesus died especially for the elect), and they use 1 John 2.2 as evidence for their position.2 In this verse, they take the word "world" to mean "all men without exception."
The verse in question says, "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." Their interpretation of the verse is common, and I won't even say it's wrong. I simply want to point out an inconsistency in how the word is used.
This morning, we moved on, arriving shortly at verse 15: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." In this case, the pastor exegeted the verse explicitly as a system. It's certainly true that words have many uses, and the word "world" is one such.
I'm trying to avoid falling into a linguistic trap here; I really do think that we can use the word world to speak of its inhabitants. But there are other meanings in Scripture, also, and perhaps more prominent.
The Greek word is KOSMOS. We take from it our words "cosmos" and "cosmetic." KOSMOS speaks to an ordered system, and so it is used of a woman adorning herself (1Pe 3.3), of the world in which we live (Jn 1.10), things of the world (Mk 8.36), philosophies and religions of the world (1Co 3.19; Ga 4.3,4; Co 2.8), and people in the world (Jn 7.7; the "world" cannot hate—people do).
With all of these meanings of the world, we can imagine that the issue is a bit more complicated than it would appear at first blush. The frustrating thing for me in this situation is that the nuances of the word aren't examined. Naturally part of this frustration stems from a doctrinal difference I have with the church, but I think the point is an important one nonetheless. Such vocabulary abuse is especially common with the word "saved," and it dramatically influences the way that people read the Word. If we're intent on reading "all men without exception" instead of carefully considering that the world is a religious system, for instance, we may find ourselves in a heap of exegetical trouble.
[1] Calvary Chapel describe themselves as the link between pentecostal and baptist theology. They are, if it's even possible, three point Calvinists (they do not hold to Limited Atonement or Irresistable Grace; in this, I think they're essentially Lutheran), and hold that the spiritual gifts are still present. I'm a cessationist and agree with Calvin on most things. Double predestination gives me fits some still.
[2] The real difficulty with this understanding is that it fails to really capture what we read of redemption in the parables of Matthew 13. The hunter buys the field (the world) to get the treasure (the elect) inside of it. We may understand, too, that part of redemption is a redemption of creation, as in Romans 8. I guess I don't really care much for CS Lewis' theology in the main, but he was spot on when he wrote, "The reason we loved the old Narnia so much is because it was a little like this" (The Last Battle).
It's also often argued that his death was enough for all and applied only to the elect. I tend to apply Romans 5 and other passages in the sense that Christ's death removed Adam's transgression from the race; in this sense, his death was universal.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Orthodoxy
I have had a bit of writer's block lately, and I have not had much time to exercise it out of my system these past few days.
I have spent some time reading Chesterton's Orthodoxy in the past week, along with some other books. (It's available online at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.) It is an interesting work; Chesterton's brand of thought it not so prevalent today. He would eat most journalists for lunch. It's scary to think that the early 1900s had Chesterton, but we just get Andy Rooney.1
I have spent some time talking with friends about morals and moral authority, also. It is a difficult thing to summarize (and I have tried), made all the more so because I am not at liberty to divulge their stories. Suffice it to say that any attempt at relative morality really defeats itself.
Tim Enloe (blog at right) also wrote a couple small biographical sketches recently that readers might be interested in. Boethius among others—they're short, to the point, and easily digestible. Pick'em out.
[1] I have often thought it ironic that a man who has no reason to complain is paid to do so on a regular basis.
I have spent some time reading Chesterton's Orthodoxy in the past week, along with some other books. (It's available online at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.) It is an interesting work; Chesterton's brand of thought it not so prevalent today. He would eat most journalists for lunch. It's scary to think that the early 1900s had Chesterton, but we just get Andy Rooney.1
I have spent some time talking with friends about morals and moral authority, also. It is a difficult thing to summarize (and I have tried), made all the more so because I am not at liberty to divulge their stories. Suffice it to say that any attempt at relative morality really defeats itself.
Tim Enloe (blog at right) also wrote a couple small biographical sketches recently that readers might be interested in. Boethius among others—they're short, to the point, and easily digestible. Pick'em out.
[1] I have often thought it ironic that a man who has no reason to complain is paid to do so on a regular basis.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
How God Loves Us
On a day we celebrate love (and oftentimes, so many lesser things), it seems fitting to write about the love God has for us. The typical chapter on love is 1 Corinthians 13—the "love chapter." So many times we see this quoted in the context of our love for one another; but it seems worthwhile to examine it from the vertical perspective, too.
The quotes are somewhat adapted from the KJV.
"Love is patient and kind." Literally, "Love suffers long." The Greek is more the idea of enduring what may be changed or moderating temper rather than bearing up under circumstances beyond our control. Romans 2.4 speaks about this dramatically:
The context of Romans two is not morale-boosting, as the Spirit is rather systematically destroying any notion of righteousness through moral living. But tucked in this verse is the understanding that God is patient with us in our sin, and that he leads us to repent. The word "kind" here is the verb form of the word "goodness" in Romans 2.4.
So we see that God demonstrates his love in two clear ways: he puts up with our sin and failure, and he brings us out of both.
"Love does not envy, is not boastful, is not puffed up." These three attributes encapsulate so well the incarnation:
(Philippians 2.) Not having experienced glory fully, it is difficult for us to wrap our heads around what Christ did by coming to Earth. We know that the cross was agony, but I think we might consider, too, that simply limiting himself to our form and likeness was as much, if not more, to endure. God expresses his love through the incarnation, an act of calculated humiliation—exactly the opposite of envy, boasting, and arrogance.
"Love does not behave unbecomingly, does not seek her own, is not easily provoked." Perhaps we overdo it here when looking at these characteristics of love—I think it's fairly obvious that Christ exhibits them all, but it is difficult (for me, at least) to relate them personally to our redemption. It seems fitting to quote Isaiah 42:
"Love thinks no evil, rejoices not in iniquity, but in the truth." Thinks no evil is literally, "keeps no record of wrong-doing." It staggers the imagination:
How does God show his love for us? He casts away and forgets our sin. We find two words in the New Testament translated "forgive." The first is a legal word (whence we get the word translated "grace"); it is the payment of a debt owed by a benefactor on behalf of one who can't pay. The second word is a word of fellowship, and it (somewhat too literally) means "to make [something] go away." We might render it more aptly as "to forget." It's the word we see in 1 John 1:9, that when we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive them.1
It's amazing to me that God doesn't keep a record of our sin.
"Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things." The middle section is the harder; but I think it is clear from Christ's sufferings that he did indeed bear and endure all things. But he also hoped:
I think, perhaps, that "believes all things" and "hopes all things" are analogous here, or at least that is what I'm going to say; this blog posting is getting rather long.
[1] One of the great lessons of this passage is that confession is an agreement. We admit our sin, and we agree with God that yes, it's sin, and yes, he's taken care of it. Our fellowship with him is restored when we are brought to two realizations: first, that we are sinners, and second, that he has made us righteous through the sacrifice of Christ.
For awhile, I think the Roman Catholic Church taught that one's sins weren't forgiven unless he confessed (at least Shakespeare takes this point up in Hamlet, though I suppose he wasn't a theologian). This verse certainly doesn't support that position, because it talks about fellowship, not the answering of the sin debt.
The quotes are somewhat adapted from the KJV.
"Love is patient and kind." Literally, "Love suffers long." The Greek is more the idea of enduring what may be changed or moderating temper rather than bearing up under circumstances beyond our control. Romans 2.4 speaks about this dramatically:
Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
The context of Romans two is not morale-boosting, as the Spirit is rather systematically destroying any notion of righteousness through moral living. But tucked in this verse is the understanding that God is patient with us in our sin, and that he leads us to repent. The word "kind" here is the verb form of the word "goodness" in Romans 2.4.
So we see that God demonstrates his love in two clear ways: he puts up with our sin and failure, and he brings us out of both.
"Love does not envy, is not boastful, is not puffed up." These three attributes encapsulate so well the incarnation:
6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
(Philippians 2.) Not having experienced glory fully, it is difficult for us to wrap our heads around what Christ did by coming to Earth. We know that the cross was agony, but I think we might consider, too, that simply limiting himself to our form and likeness was as much, if not more, to endure. God expresses his love through the incarnation, an act of calculated humiliation—exactly the opposite of envy, boasting, and arrogance.
"Love does not behave unbecomingly, does not seek her own, is not easily provoked." Perhaps we overdo it here when looking at these characteristics of love—I think it's fairly obvious that Christ exhibits them all, but it is difficult (for me, at least) to relate them personally to our redemption. It seems fitting to quote Isaiah 42:
2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. 3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.
"Love thinks no evil, rejoices not in iniquity, but in the truth." Thinks no evil is literally, "keeps no record of wrong-doing." It staggers the imagination:
Psalm 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.
Isaiah 38:17 Behold, for peace I had great bitterness: but thou hast in love to my soul delivered it from the pit of corruption: for thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back.
Jeremiah 50:20 In those days, and in that time, saith the LORD, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found: for I will pardon them whom I reserve.
Micah 7:19 He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.
How does God show his love for us? He casts away and forgets our sin. We find two words in the New Testament translated "forgive." The first is a legal word (whence we get the word translated "grace"); it is the payment of a debt owed by a benefactor on behalf of one who can't pay. The second word is a word of fellowship, and it (somewhat too literally) means "to make [something] go away." We might render it more aptly as "to forget." It's the word we see in 1 John 1:9, that when we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive them.1
It's amazing to me that God doesn't keep a record of our sin.
"Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things." The middle section is the harder; but I think it is clear from Christ's sufferings that he did indeed bear and endure all things. But he also hoped:
Psalm 22:9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
I think, perhaps, that "believes all things" and "hopes all things" are analogous here, or at least that is what I'm going to say; this blog posting is getting rather long.
[1] One of the great lessons of this passage is that confession is an agreement. We admit our sin, and we agree with God that yes, it's sin, and yes, he's taken care of it. Our fellowship with him is restored when we are brought to two realizations: first, that we are sinners, and second, that he has made us righteous through the sacrifice of Christ.
For awhile, I think the Roman Catholic Church taught that one's sins weren't forgiven unless he confessed (at least Shakespeare takes this point up in Hamlet, though I suppose he wasn't a theologian). This verse certainly doesn't support that position, because it talks about fellowship, not the answering of the sin debt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)