|
And now faith, hope, and love remain, these three, and the greatest of these is love. I shall walk at liberty, for I have sought your precepts. |
GregI've noticed that some people will go to a text to argue for a certain theological view, and they seem to think the explanation they offer settles a theological dispute, perhaps on grammatical grounds. I think it is important to remember that when it comes to a passage of scripture, "scoring (grammar) points" in a few verses of scripture cannot possibly, in and of itself, prove or disprove a theological view. I'm not knocking the technical work of the grammarians, not at all. Without their contributions, we would be up a creek without a paddle. My point is, the grammarians disagree, all the time, so to understand the truth of scripture, we must weigh grammatical arguments with the overall message of scripture. I think the Bible is a simpler book than what many theologians have made it. What did Moses teach? What did God tell us through Abraham? How did the Hebrews understand God's promises concerning a Messiah? I think it odd that trinitarian apologists have argued that we must interpret the Hebrew scriptures by the NT scriptures, when in fact, the opposite must be true.
Take, for example, the disputed doctrine of the pre-human existence of Jesus. No matter one's interpretation of the prologue, for example, and one can even bring his interpretation of Hebrews 1 and/or Colossians 1 alongside his interpretation of the prologue, this alone does not determine the truth of who/what Jesus is, whether one is a Trinitarian, Arian, or Biblical Unitarian. I was a Trinitarian, with a brief stop as a Binitarian/Arian of sorts, and I landed on Biblical Unitarianism because I think it is the best paradigm for understanding the totality of scripture. I don't say that to fight with those of the Arian persuasion. I admit that some passages of scripture, without taking the totality of scripture into account (which some of them would counter by saying the same in return against the BU view), seem to support the Arian view. I just don't think it's the best fit with all of the scriptural data. That God is triune, on the other hand, is preposterous, in my opinion. My point is, I don't think that BU interpretations of the prologue (or Col. 1, or Heb. 1, or some of John's sayings) prove the BU position by themselves, but the same goes for Arian interpretations of those same passages, so I think we should show wisdom and restraint instead of thinking "my" view of a certain passage (or grouping of a few passages), alone "proves my point." The more I have come to understand the Kingdom message of the scriptures, to me, the BU interpretations fit better, and consequently who/ what Jesus is made more clear. I think we should all remember, while textual variants and grammatical disputes can be instructive, the Kingdom message of God is bigger than those few disputed passages. What paradigm allows us to look at them as having cohesion with the revelation of God through the Hebrews about the Messiah/Christ, a human being? This, I think, is the proper paradigm for interpreting the passages mentioned above.
0 Comments
GregYahweh is good and upright... (Psalm 25:8a REV).
No one should say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself does not tempt anyone (James 1:13 REV). As I understand things, in our universe, all things fall under the rules of physical necessity (essentiality, laws of nature) - or - the rules of moral action (free will, choices, laws of moral agency). The ability to do good falls under the rules of physical law (the ability itself is not chosen). Actual goodness falls under the rules of moral action (it is freely chosen, it is volitional). There are only two options for explaining how or why God is good. 1. God's goodness is "physically" essential because of who/what he is. Goodness is a part of his "physical" essence. 2. God's goodness is by choice; it is an active and free moral action. Accordingly, there are only two options for explaining the fact that "God cannot be tempted by evil." It is due to: 1. A physical necessity 2. His firm determination to be holy. In other words, it isn't about an inability, but rather an aversion to evil. I think the answer in both instances is number 2. Otherwise there would be no virtue in God's goodness, because it would be physically necessitated, and not the result of moral agency. Moreover, since human beings are moral agents like our Creator, the command to be holy as God is holy must be founded on moral principles rather than physical necessities, for we have no control over our physical constitution. We do, however, have free will and we are expected to do good and eschew evil. I think it is important to understand that God is a free moral agent like his creatures. God has the ability to do right or wrong, but God in his perfect holiness always chooses to do good. This is why I take the phrase "God cannot be tempted by evil" as a volitional aversion to sin, not a physical necessity. God could choose to be unloving or unholy, but he never has, nor will he. There is nothing, to my knowledge, that could motivate God to be unholy. Yet things are different for human beings, and this includes the Lord Jesus. The scriptures teach us that Jesus was tempted in all ways that we are, though he never sinned. Temptation itself is not sin. It was not a sin for Jesus to be tempted. Jesus had normal human appetites, due to the laws of physical necessity. God has created all human beings with certain appetites, and they can be fulfilled lawfully or unlawfully, or even denied altogether. The claim by some "Jesus is God" believers is that Jesus only faced "external" temptation and he didn't have real human appetites that would cause that which was forbidden to him to still appeal to his flesh, but that is just nonsense. Jesus was resolute in his denial of that which was forbidden to him, but that doesn't mean he didn't feel the pull of temptation. He was a real man, plain and simple. Humans have appetites that God does not feel. Jesus experienced the same appetites as all human beings. Jesus could not be tempted by these appetites (in his human nature) and also not tempted by these appetites (in his so-called divine nature), as trinitarians claim - that just doesn't make sense. This is one way that we know Jesus is not God in the trinitarian sense of the word. God's goodness is the result of choice, not physical necessity. He is unable to be tempted in all ways that we are, but he does have the ability to be unloving or unjust (as we do), yet he always chooses what is good and right (we have not). If his holiness is not the result of choice, it is not virtuous or praiseworthy. Nothing less than volitional conformity to moral law can be holiness, or righteousness, and that is true of God, and of all moral agents. Goodness (and evil) is a moral matter, not a constitutional matter. GregAll of us have experienced life's hurts, with some of us experiencing more pain than others. I am not referring to inconveniences and minor issues like hurt feelings and bruised egos; I am thinking of life changing tragedies and occurrences that weigh heavy on our minds and tear at our emotions. In some extreme instances, events occur that lead us to despair, maybe even to the point where we no longer value our lives and we wish for our own demise, just to make the pain and suffering go away. How do we continue, day-by-day, with so much sorrow and heartache?
I remember well a tragedy that occurred in my family on December 15, 2001. My family had experienced the loss of elderly family members in my youth, but this was an incident that was shocking and unexpected. My parents and I, along with my younger sister, were traveling along the highway, following behind my grandfather, grandmother, and a friend of theirs. We were on the way home from being out of state and I was driving behind my grandfather who was driving their van. He pulled over to the side of the road, and I pulled in beside him. I don’t remember the conversation, but I think it had something to do with making sure we were on the right path toward home. He pulled back out on the highway, and we drove a short distance. My grandfather pulled up to what may have seemed like a four-way intersection, but in fact there were only stop signs for us and what would have been oncoming traffic. Vehicles coming from the left or right did not have a stop sign. My grandfather eased out into the road, and I saw a pickup truck barreling toward the van. I do not remember the specifics of the truck, only that it was not a small vehicle. I could see what was about to happen and I still remember saying: “Oh, Papa.” A moment later, a horrific collision occurred as the truck broadsided my grandfather’s van. I remember seeing the caps flying off the wheels of the van, and the van veering to the right, off of the road and into an open field. I rushed to the side of the road and parked the vehicle, and we ran to the van. I ran straight to the open window of the driver’s side of the vehicle and my grandfather was unconscious. I grabbed his arm, and I could feel that he had an extremely rapid pulse. My mother climbed into the vehicle and was desperately attempting to give rescue breaths to my grandfather as he sat upright in the driver’s seat. I remember seeing the shock and bewilderment on my father’s face, as well as the voice of my grandmother who was injured, but conscious. My grandfather’s pulse stopped. His life had passed. I walked away from the vehicle and out into the open field. I don’t remember exactly what I was thinking, but if I recall correctly, my thoughts were directed toward God, life, death, and the days ahead. Other people stopped to assist, including a lady that prayed with us. One minute life was like normal – and the next it was turned upside down. My grandfather was no longer with us. My grandmother spent several nights in a nearby hospital. My mother’s two brothers arrived, along with some friends, and my grandmother was released. Their friend had survived the accident too. Christmas was a lot different that year. Traditionally, we had met at the house of my grandparents, and there was lots of good food and laughing and storytelling. This gathering was filled with tears and sadness. It was painful to lose my grandfather this way, but I am certain that my grandmother, my mother, and my uncles felt the pain more intensely than the rest of us. In God’s design, a married man and woman have the closest and most intimate relationship to be found on earth. Losing a husband or a wife is heart wrenching. The relationship between parents and children is not far behind. How do people cope when faced with a tragedy that separates husband and wife, or parent and child? The ultimate hope is that one day, all those who followed (or will follow) Jesus as Lord will be resurrected to eternal life and loved ones will be reunited to enjoy the blessed new creation. In the meantime, we must trust in the Lord, while finding hope in the better things of life that come through fellowshipping with family and the saints of God. Follow Christ who is our hope. Apart from him there is no hope. Spread the message of hope. Be a beacon of hope for others, even in the little things in life. |
Greg and KariWe are a Christian couple committed to following the one true God, the Father, and the one Lord Messiah, his only begotten Son. Categories
All
|