Go read Matthew 27.
Or, you could just read it here.
"Then Jesus shouted out again, and he released his spirit. At that moment the curtain in the sanctuary of the Temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, rocks split apart, and tombs opened..."
Matthew says that Jesus' spirit departed from him at the Cross.
There's an interesting point to notice, however. In the Gospel of Matthew, he never uses the word “spirit” to talk about the human idea of spirit. Ever! Every time he ever uses the word "spirit" in his Gospel, he's referring to the Holy Spirit. Therefore, he must be referring to the Holy Spirit leaving Christ. That makes sense to me, because if God turned his back on Jesus, then I don't think the Spirit would still be there.
The point of this little exegesis is to point out another question: when Jesus says "blessed are the poor in spirit," what exactly does he mean?
Let's start at the beginning of that line. I think we all know what "blessed" means, so there's no need to go there. The first word deserving of exegesis is "poor." What kind of poor is Jesus talking about? Is he talking about being economically poor and having no money? Surely not. There are people with money that love and serve God with everything they are. Some would use this as an opportunity to bring up Matthew 19, but let's not go there. That's another post for another day.
So, back to the beatitudes. We've ruled out economic poverty as the meaning of this verse. Time for a little word study! The word that would have been translated as “poor” in the Greek is synonymous with “beggar.”
Then, you take that in hand with the "spirit." He couldn't have meant the human spirit, as we've already established that Matthew doesn't use the word in that context in his Gospel. Again, he must have been referring to the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, the “poor in Spirit” would have been translated as those who beg for the Holy Spirit. God knows that we don't have a good spirit on our own. He wants to give us His spirit, the Holy Spirit. Asking for it is an admission that we can't do it on our own and that we need Him to live life. “Blessed are those who are poor in Spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of God.” Jesus is telling us, "Blessed are those who ask God for his Spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of God."
That's nuts.
That's also amazing.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Calvarminianism: A Followup, Part III
Now, in my previous posts I have chronicled my mind's journey as I work my way through Calvinism and Arminianism. While purposefully avoiding Scriptural study on the matter I have worked out that Calvinism makes sense for the most part. [Arminianism makes sense too, but that's another post for another day.]
There is, however, one point that I cannot reconcile: that of irresistible grace. I can't bring myself to believe that the grace given by Christ is irresistible in my mind studies. I can't say that it is or isn't definitively; as you recall, I am going with what makes sense in my head before I go for what the Scriptures say, in an attempt to get a fuller understanding of the whole debate.
In observation of my own life and the world around me, I can't argue that the grace is irresistible. Case in point: if the grace is irresistible, how can we reconcile all the Christians that backslide/fall away/lose the faith on a regular basis?
Now, I am not saying that God can't bring them back, because I'm not one to believe that our salvation is works based. If they can fall away and go to Hell because they fell away, that makes our salvation works-based and makes their sin stronger than God and his grace. [This sounds strangely familiar...?]
I can say this because I have personally fallen away several times. I have quit chasing God with the fervor that I have once had. I have now come back to Him, but this fact definitely does not necessarily offer evidence of its irresistibility.
Some might say that the fact that I came back is evidence that the grace is irresistible, but I can't argue that the grace is irresistible for that very reason, because there are many people who I would say do not come back. They still go to Heaven, but they don't come back to serving God in their earthly lifestyle.
On top of that, some would argue the fact that you came to God in the first place is evidence of the irresistible grace. I don't think so. Some might also argue that the fact that you go to Heaven in the end is evidence of irresistible grace. I have heard this argument before, and it is amongst the most illogical arguments I have ever heard. That's a whole other point, and it's not going to cut it.
Maybe I'll get this all figured out. In the meantime, I'm going to move on. Consider this one a mark for Arminianism.
There is, however, one point that I cannot reconcile: that of irresistible grace. I can't bring myself to believe that the grace given by Christ is irresistible in my mind studies. I can't say that it is or isn't definitively; as you recall, I am going with what makes sense in my head before I go for what the Scriptures say, in an attempt to get a fuller understanding of the whole debate.
In observation of my own life and the world around me, I can't argue that the grace is irresistible. Case in point: if the grace is irresistible, how can we reconcile all the Christians that backslide/fall away/lose the faith on a regular basis?
Now, I am not saying that God can't bring them back, because I'm not one to believe that our salvation is works based. If they can fall away and go to Hell because they fell away, that makes our salvation works-based and makes their sin stronger than God and his grace. [This sounds strangely familiar...?]
I can say this because I have personally fallen away several times. I have quit chasing God with the fervor that I have once had. I have now come back to Him, but this fact definitely does not necessarily offer evidence of its irresistibility.
Some might say that the fact that I came back is evidence that the grace is irresistible, but I can't argue that the grace is irresistible for that very reason, because there are many people who I would say do not come back. They still go to Heaven, but they don't come back to serving God in their earthly lifestyle.
On top of that, some would argue the fact that you came to God in the first place is evidence of the irresistible grace. I don't think so. Some might also argue that the fact that you go to Heaven in the end is evidence of irresistible grace. I have heard this argument before, and it is amongst the most illogical arguments I have ever heard. That's a whole other point, and it's not going to cut it.
Maybe I'll get this all figured out. In the meantime, I'm going to move on. Consider this one a mark for Arminianism.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Calvarminianism: A Followup, Part II
Limited atonement and unlimited atonement. The Calvinist TULIP theology holds that atonement is limited only to the elect. The Arminianist counter-theology says that atonement is unlimited to all but only does any good, if you will, for the elect.
This problem is rather difficult to solve: we've always been taught that Christ died for all, but Scripture clearly states that Christ died for the elect. [Acts 20:28, for one reference.] This is one of the first times in this Calvarminianism series that I will use Scripture exclusively rather than Scripture combined with observations, because it's impossible to observe how Christ died in the modern world.
If atonement were unlimited, God would be unable to mete out justice on those who are not elect because their sins would be atoned for. [Calvinism 4, Arminianism 1.] If Christ died for all and the atonement of that death were unlimited, the blood-screen that Christ provided for the elect would protect the non-elect from the just punishment that they deserve: an eternity in Hell. Keep in mind that all of us deserve Hell, but that some of us were elected into salvation due to God's sovereignty. If atonement were unlimited, then God would not be able to be a just God and deal out justice to those who do not trust Him or believe in Him. Limited atonement limits Christ's atonement to the elect, which therefore enables God to measure justice on those who closed their hearts to Him.
Again, I am not perfect, I am not a theologian, I do not have a doctorate, and I do not claim to have all the answers. What I have just written makes sense now, but I will continue to learn more about this subject as my study of Scripture furthers itself. In the meantime, my status as a Calvarminianist is continuing to dwindle steadily.
Times appear to be changing: currently the score is Calvinism 4, Arminianism 1. To be continued, again.
This problem is rather difficult to solve: we've always been taught that Christ died for all, but Scripture clearly states that Christ died for the elect. [Acts 20:28, for one reference.] This is one of the first times in this Calvarminianism series that I will use Scripture exclusively rather than Scripture combined with observations, because it's impossible to observe how Christ died in the modern world.
If atonement were unlimited, God would be unable to mete out justice on those who are not elect because their sins would be atoned for. [Calvinism 4, Arminianism 1.] If Christ died for all and the atonement of that death were unlimited, the blood-screen that Christ provided for the elect would protect the non-elect from the just punishment that they deserve: an eternity in Hell. Keep in mind that all of us deserve Hell, but that some of us were elected into salvation due to God's sovereignty. If atonement were unlimited, then God would not be able to be a just God and deal out justice to those who do not trust Him or believe in Him. Limited atonement limits Christ's atonement to the elect, which therefore enables God to measure justice on those who closed their hearts to Him.
Again, I am not perfect, I am not a theologian, I do not have a doctorate, and I do not claim to have all the answers. What I have just written makes sense now, but I will continue to learn more about this subject as my study of Scripture furthers itself. In the meantime, my status as a Calvarminianist is continuing to dwindle steadily.
Times appear to be changing: currently the score is Calvinism 4, Arminianism 1. To be continued, again.
Calvarminianism: A Followup, Part I
I've now been educated on Calvinism and some of its supporting Scripture, thanks to a late-night table conversation with someone who knows more about it than I do. I have now temporarily changed my views about election. I can't say permanently because I'm completely liable to change again later. However, after this conversation the concept of election has started to make more sense to me.
Election is unconditional according to Calvinism, and conditional according to Arminianism. Unconditional election holds that God in His sovereignty has elected those who will be saved, regardless of their deeds or faithfulness to Him. Conditional election, however, holds that God only elects people if they will be faithful to Him.
Keep in mind that unless otherwise stated, my views are currently based on pure observation and not on Scriptural study. In this series of posts I am going to attempt to make observations first, and then use Scripture to interpret them correctly.
In my observations, election is obviously unconditional. [Calvinism 3, Arminianism 2.] If election were only conditional, then why in the world are there Christians who have far backslidden and no longer move with God or even speak with Him? I am not, not, not condemning anyone for ever having backslidden from God. I am merely making a point.
If election is conditional, then drug addicts who see God are completely screwed. If election is conditional, then the people who accept Christ on their deathbed are completely screwed. If election is conditional, then anyone who backslides from God is completely screwed. That doesn't make sense.
Unconditional election makes more sense than conditional election. Election as a whole, however, is infinitely viewed as unjust, prejudiced and downright nonsensical. Why would a God who loves people elect certain people to be saved and disallow certain people from being saved? The answer is simple, and easily defeats all claims of injustice, prejudice and nonsense.
God has mercy on us. A just God would punish us all by banishing us all to Hell for all of eternity. A merciful God offers mercy to those who choose to take it. Obviously, we all know that there are people who are never going to get saved no matter what happens. We know this because many, many people populate Hell at this very moment. The answer is that God's election [and his sovereignty] is far sufficient to encompass all who will make the decision to trust him and take his offer of mercy. We have to trust that even though our tiny little minds can't comprehend it, our great big God who had the infinite intelligence to create the planets and the universe and every living cell and all the millions of processes that keep our lives running as they do also had the infinite intelligence to elect all who would come to Him.
Keep in mind, folks, that I am not perfect, I am not a theologian, I do not have a doctorate, and I do not claim to have all the answers. These conclusions that I have published in this article could change; they make sense to me right now, and as I learn more the views listed here could change. In the meantime, my status as a Calvarminianist is dwindling.
Currently, the score is Calvinism 3, Arminianism 2.
To be continued.
Election is unconditional according to Calvinism, and conditional according to Arminianism. Unconditional election holds that God in His sovereignty has elected those who will be saved, regardless of their deeds or faithfulness to Him. Conditional election, however, holds that God only elects people if they will be faithful to Him.
Keep in mind that unless otherwise stated, my views are currently based on pure observation and not on Scriptural study. In this series of posts I am going to attempt to make observations first, and then use Scripture to interpret them correctly.
In my observations, election is obviously unconditional. [Calvinism 3, Arminianism 2.] If election were only conditional, then why in the world are there Christians who have far backslidden and no longer move with God or even speak with Him? I am not, not, not condemning anyone for ever having backslidden from God. I am merely making a point.
If election is conditional, then drug addicts who see God are completely screwed. If election is conditional, then the people who accept Christ on their deathbed are completely screwed. If election is conditional, then anyone who backslides from God is completely screwed. That doesn't make sense.
Unconditional election makes more sense than conditional election. Election as a whole, however, is infinitely viewed as unjust, prejudiced and downright nonsensical. Why would a God who loves people elect certain people to be saved and disallow certain people from being saved? The answer is simple, and easily defeats all claims of injustice, prejudice and nonsense.
God has mercy on us. A just God would punish us all by banishing us all to Hell for all of eternity. A merciful God offers mercy to those who choose to take it. Obviously, we all know that there are people who are never going to get saved no matter what happens. We know this because many, many people populate Hell at this very moment. The answer is that God's election [and his sovereignty] is far sufficient to encompass all who will make the decision to trust him and take his offer of mercy. We have to trust that even though our tiny little minds can't comprehend it, our great big God who had the infinite intelligence to create the planets and the universe and every living cell and all the millions of processes that keep our lives running as they do also had the infinite intelligence to elect all who would come to Him.
Keep in mind, folks, that I am not perfect, I am not a theologian, I do not have a doctorate, and I do not claim to have all the answers. These conclusions that I have published in this article could change; they make sense to me right now, and as I learn more the views listed here could change. In the meantime, my status as a Calvarminianist is dwindling.
Currently, the score is Calvinism 3, Arminianism 2.
To be continued.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Letters by a Modern Mystic
Frank Laubach was born on September 2, 1884. He was a pastor in a relatively large congregation. Right around 1930, he became dissatisfied with the fact that after more than fifteen years as a pastor, he was still not attempting to seek God's will for his life every day.
Thus, he began an experiment to see if he could keep God in his mind for one second of every minute. He chronicled the results of this experiment in a book called "Letters by a Modern Mystic." Following is a series of excerpts from this book, highlighting some of the results of his experiments. Emphasis has been added.
By the way, I found this book in my local library, and upon checking it out I discovered that it's only been checked out seven times in the last fifty years.
"For the past few days I have been experimenting in a more complete surrender than ever before. I am taking by deliberate act of will, enough time from each hour to give God much thought. Yesterday and today I have made a new adventure, which is not easy to express. I am feeling God in each movement, by an act of will – willing that He shall direct these fingers that now strike this typewriter – willing that He shall pour through my steps as I walk – willing that He shall direct my words as I speak, and my very jaws as I eat!"
"January 29, 1930 – Only one thing now
I feel simply carried along each hour, doing my part in a plan which is far beyond myself. This sense of cooperation with God in little things is what so astonishes me, for I never have felt it this way before. I need something, and turn round to find it waiting for me. I must work, to be sure, but there is God working along with me. To know this gives a sense of security and assurance for the future which is also new to my life. I seem to have to make sure of only one thing now, and every other thing “takes care of itself,” or I prefer to say what is more true, God takes care of all the rest. My part is to live this hour in continuous inner conversation with God and in perfect responsiveness to his will. To make this hour gloriously rich. This seems to be all I need think about."
"March 1, 1930 – Undiscovered continents of spiritual living
The sense of being led by an unseen hand which takes mine while another hand reaches ahead and prepares the way, grows upon me daily. I do not need to strain at all to find opportunity. It plies in upon me as the waves roll over the beach, and yet there is time to do something about each opportunity... And I must witness that people outside are treating me differently. Obstacles which I once would have regarded as insurmountable are melting away like a mirage. People are becoming friendly who suspected or neglected me. I feel, I feel like one who has had his violin out of tune with the orchestra and at last is in harmony with the music of the universe."
"March 23, 1930 - Can we think His thoughts all the time?
You and you and you and I do experience fine fresh contact with God sometimes, and do carry, out his will sometimes. One question now to be put to the test is this: Can we have that contact with God all the time? All the time awake, fall asleep in His arms, and awaken in His presence, can we attain that? Can we do His will all the time? Can we think His thoughts all the time? Or are there periods when business, and pleasures, and crowding companions must necessarily push God out of our thoughts? “Of course, that is self-evident. If one thinks of God all the time, he will never get anything else done.” So I thought too, until now, but I am changing my view. We can keep two things in mind at once. Indeed we cannot keep one thing in mind more than half a second. Mind is a flowing something. It oscillates. Concentration is merely the continuous return to the same problem from a million angles. We do not think of one thing. We always think of the relationship of at least two things, and more often of three or more things simultaneously. So my problem is this: Can I bring God back in my mind-flow every few seconds so that God shall always be in my mind as an after image, shall always be one of the elements in every concept and percept? I choose to make the rest of my life an experiment in answering this question...
Someone may be saying that this introspection and this struggle to achieve God-consciousness is abnormal and perilous. I am going to take the risks, for somebody ought to do it, in this day when psychological experimentation has given a fresh approach to our spiritual problems. If our religious premises are correct at all then this oneness with God is the most normal condition one can have. It is what made Christ, Christ. It is what St. Augustine meant when he said "Thou hast made us for Thyself, and our souls are restless until they find their rest in Thee." I do not invite anybody else to follow this arduous path. I wish many might: We need to know so much which one man alone cannot answer. For example: "Can a laboring man successfully attain this continuous surrender to God? Can a man working at a machine pray for people all day long, talk with God all day long, and at the same time do his task efficiently?" "Can a merchant do business, can an accountant keep books, ceaselessly surrendered to God?" "Can a mother wash dishes, care for the babies, continuously talking to God?" "Can a politician keep in a state of continuous contact with God, and not lose the following of the crowds?" "Can little children be taught to talk and listen to God inwardly all day long, and what is the effect upon them?" Briefly, is this a thing which the entire human race might conceivably aspire to achieve? Do we really mean what we say when we repeat "the highest end of man is to find God and to do his will" all the time?
If you are like myself this has been pretty strong diet this afternoon. It may even prove discouraging. So I will put something simpler and more attainable: "Any hour of any day may be made perfect by merely choosing. It is perfect if one looks toward God that entire hour, waiting for his leadership all through the hour and trying hard to do every tiny thing exactly as God wishes it done, as perfectly as possible. No emotions are necessary. Just the doing of God's will perfectly makes the hour a perfect one. And the results of that one perfect hour, I believe, will echo down through eternity."
"April 18, 1930 - The possession of God has caught me up
I have tasted a thrill in fellowship with God which has made anything discordant with God disgusting. This afternoon the possession of God has caught me up with such sheer joy that I thought I never had known anything like it. God was so close and so amazingly lovely that I felt like melting all over with a strange blissful contentment. Having had this experience, which comes to me now several times a week, the thrill of filth repels me, for I know its power to drag me from God. And after an hour of close friendship with God my soul feels clean, as new fallen snow."
"April 19, 1930 – Incessant submission to God has proven extremely difficult
This conscious, incessant submission to God has proven extremely difficult, and I have surrendered for the past few days. And today and yesterday I saw evidences of the result. In an effort to be witty I have said biting things which have hurt the feelings of others, and have been short and impatient. I tremble, for I have told at least one of these men of this experiment, and he will think this is the result. It is very dangerous to tell people, and yet, I must tell and I must start over now and succeed. This philosophy that one can begin all over instantly at any moment, is proving of great help.
If this record of a soul struggle to find God is to be complete it must not omit the story of difficulty and failure. I have not succeeded very well so far. This week, for example, has not been one of the finest in my life, though it has been above the average. I have to make a greater effort next week. I have undertaken something which, at my age at least, is hard, harder than I had anticipated. But I resolve not to give up the effort."
"April 22, 1930 – Open toward God and wide awake
The “experiment” is interesting, although I am not very successful, thus far. The idea of God slips out of my sight for I suppose two thirds of every day, thus far. This morning I started out fresh, by finding a rich experience of God in the sunrise. Then I tried to let Him control my hands while I was shaving and dressing and eating breakfast. Now I am trying to let God control my hands as I pound the typewriter keys. If I could keep this morning up I should have a far higher average today than I have had for some time."
"May 14, 1930 – It is working
Oh, this thing of keeping in constant touch with God, of making him the object of my thought and the companion of my conversations, is the most amazing thing I ever ran across. It is working. I cannot do it even half of a day - not yet, but I believe I shall be doing it some day for the entire day. It is a matter of acquiring a new habit of thought. Now I like God's presence so much that when for a half hour or so he slips out of mind - as he does many times a day - I feel as though I had deserted him, and as though I had lost something very precious in my life."
"May 24, 1930 - Souls dead to God look sadly out of hungry eyes
This has been a week of wonders. God is at work everywhere preparing the way for his work in Lanao. I shall tell you some of the wonders presently. But just at this moment you must hear more of this sacred evening. The day had been rich but strenuous, so I climbed "Signal Hill" back of my house talking and listening to God all the way up, all the way back, all the lovely half hour on the top. And God talked back! I let my tongue go loose and from it there flowed poetry far more beautiful than any I ever composed. It flowed without pausing and without ever a failing syllable for a half hour. I listened astonished and full of joy and gratitude. I wanted a dictaphone for I knew that I should not be able to remember it - and now I cannot. “Why,” someone may ask, “did God waste his poetry on you alone, when you could not carry it home.” You will have to ask God that question. I only know He did and I am happy in the memory."
"June 3, 1930 - Begin to build heaven
This experiment which I am trying is the most strenuous discipline which any man ever attempted. I am not succeeding in keeping God in my mind very many hours of the day, and from the point of view of experiment number one I should have to record a pretty high percentage of failure. But the other experiment - what happens when I do succeed - is so successful that it makes up for the failure of number one. God does work a change.
The moment I turn to Him it is like turning on an electric current which I feel through my whole being. I find also that the effort to keep God in my mind does something to my mind which every mind needs to have done to it. I am given something difficult enough to keep my mind with a keen edge. The constant temptation of every man is to allow his mind to grow old and lose its edge. I feel that I am perhaps more lazy mentally than the average person, and I require the very mental discipline which this constant effort affords. So my answer to my two questions to date would be
1. “Can it be done all the time?” Hardly.
2: “Does the effort help?” Tremendously. Nothing I have ever found proves such a tonic to mind and body."
This will be continued later.
Thus, he began an experiment to see if he could keep God in his mind for one second of every minute. He chronicled the results of this experiment in a book called "Letters by a Modern Mystic." Following is a series of excerpts from this book, highlighting some of the results of his experiments. Emphasis has been added.
By the way, I found this book in my local library, and upon checking it out I discovered that it's only been checked out seven times in the last fifty years.
"For the past few days I have been experimenting in a more complete surrender than ever before. I am taking by deliberate act of will, enough time from each hour to give God much thought. Yesterday and today I have made a new adventure, which is not easy to express. I am feeling God in each movement, by an act of will – willing that He shall direct these fingers that now strike this typewriter – willing that He shall pour through my steps as I walk – willing that He shall direct my words as I speak, and my very jaws as I eat!"
"January 29, 1930 – Only one thing now
I feel simply carried along each hour, doing my part in a plan which is far beyond myself. This sense of cooperation with God in little things is what so astonishes me, for I never have felt it this way before. I need something, and turn round to find it waiting for me. I must work, to be sure, but there is God working along with me. To know this gives a sense of security and assurance for the future which is also new to my life. I seem to have to make sure of only one thing now, and every other thing “takes care of itself,” or I prefer to say what is more true, God takes care of all the rest. My part is to live this hour in continuous inner conversation with God and in perfect responsiveness to his will. To make this hour gloriously rich. This seems to be all I need think about."
"March 1, 1930 – Undiscovered continents of spiritual living
The sense of being led by an unseen hand which takes mine while another hand reaches ahead and prepares the way, grows upon me daily. I do not need to strain at all to find opportunity. It plies in upon me as the waves roll over the beach, and yet there is time to do something about each opportunity... And I must witness that people outside are treating me differently. Obstacles which I once would have regarded as insurmountable are melting away like a mirage. People are becoming friendly who suspected or neglected me. I feel, I feel like one who has had his violin out of tune with the orchestra and at last is in harmony with the music of the universe."
"March 23, 1930 - Can we think His thoughts all the time?
You and you and you and I do experience fine fresh contact with God sometimes, and do carry, out his will sometimes. One question now to be put to the test is this: Can we have that contact with God all the time? All the time awake, fall asleep in His arms, and awaken in His presence, can we attain that? Can we do His will all the time? Can we think His thoughts all the time? Or are there periods when business, and pleasures, and crowding companions must necessarily push God out of our thoughts? “Of course, that is self-evident. If one thinks of God all the time, he will never get anything else done.” So I thought too, until now, but I am changing my view. We can keep two things in mind at once. Indeed we cannot keep one thing in mind more than half a second. Mind is a flowing something. It oscillates. Concentration is merely the continuous return to the same problem from a million angles. We do not think of one thing. We always think of the relationship of at least two things, and more often of three or more things simultaneously. So my problem is this: Can I bring God back in my mind-flow every few seconds so that God shall always be in my mind as an after image, shall always be one of the elements in every concept and percept? I choose to make the rest of my life an experiment in answering this question...
Someone may be saying that this introspection and this struggle to achieve God-consciousness is abnormal and perilous. I am going to take the risks, for somebody ought to do it, in this day when psychological experimentation has given a fresh approach to our spiritual problems. If our religious premises are correct at all then this oneness with God is the most normal condition one can have. It is what made Christ, Christ. It is what St. Augustine meant when he said "Thou hast made us for Thyself, and our souls are restless until they find their rest in Thee." I do not invite anybody else to follow this arduous path. I wish many might: We need to know so much which one man alone cannot answer. For example: "Can a laboring man successfully attain this continuous surrender to God? Can a man working at a machine pray for people all day long, talk with God all day long, and at the same time do his task efficiently?" "Can a merchant do business, can an accountant keep books, ceaselessly surrendered to God?" "Can a mother wash dishes, care for the babies, continuously talking to God?" "Can a politician keep in a state of continuous contact with God, and not lose the following of the crowds?" "Can little children be taught to talk and listen to God inwardly all day long, and what is the effect upon them?" Briefly, is this a thing which the entire human race might conceivably aspire to achieve? Do we really mean what we say when we repeat "the highest end of man is to find God and to do his will" all the time?
If you are like myself this has been pretty strong diet this afternoon. It may even prove discouraging. So I will put something simpler and more attainable: "Any hour of any day may be made perfect by merely choosing. It is perfect if one looks toward God that entire hour, waiting for his leadership all through the hour and trying hard to do every tiny thing exactly as God wishes it done, as perfectly as possible. No emotions are necessary. Just the doing of God's will perfectly makes the hour a perfect one. And the results of that one perfect hour, I believe, will echo down through eternity."
"April 18, 1930 - The possession of God has caught me up
I have tasted a thrill in fellowship with God which has made anything discordant with God disgusting. This afternoon the possession of God has caught me up with such sheer joy that I thought I never had known anything like it. God was so close and so amazingly lovely that I felt like melting all over with a strange blissful contentment. Having had this experience, which comes to me now several times a week, the thrill of filth repels me, for I know its power to drag me from God. And after an hour of close friendship with God my soul feels clean, as new fallen snow."
"April 19, 1930 – Incessant submission to God has proven extremely difficult
This conscious, incessant submission to God has proven extremely difficult, and I have surrendered for the past few days. And today and yesterday I saw evidences of the result. In an effort to be witty I have said biting things which have hurt the feelings of others, and have been short and impatient. I tremble, for I have told at least one of these men of this experiment, and he will think this is the result. It is very dangerous to tell people, and yet, I must tell and I must start over now and succeed. This philosophy that one can begin all over instantly at any moment, is proving of great help.
If this record of a soul struggle to find God is to be complete it must not omit the story of difficulty and failure. I have not succeeded very well so far. This week, for example, has not been one of the finest in my life, though it has been above the average. I have to make a greater effort next week. I have undertaken something which, at my age at least, is hard, harder than I had anticipated. But I resolve not to give up the effort."
"April 22, 1930 – Open toward God and wide awake
The “experiment” is interesting, although I am not very successful, thus far. The idea of God slips out of my sight for I suppose two thirds of every day, thus far. This morning I started out fresh, by finding a rich experience of God in the sunrise. Then I tried to let Him control my hands while I was shaving and dressing and eating breakfast. Now I am trying to let God control my hands as I pound the typewriter keys. If I could keep this morning up I should have a far higher average today than I have had for some time."
"May 14, 1930 – It is working
Oh, this thing of keeping in constant touch with God, of making him the object of my thought and the companion of my conversations, is the most amazing thing I ever ran across. It is working. I cannot do it even half of a day - not yet, but I believe I shall be doing it some day for the entire day. It is a matter of acquiring a new habit of thought. Now I like God's presence so much that when for a half hour or so he slips out of mind - as he does many times a day - I feel as though I had deserted him, and as though I had lost something very precious in my life."
"May 24, 1930 - Souls dead to God look sadly out of hungry eyes
This has been a week of wonders. God is at work everywhere preparing the way for his work in Lanao. I shall tell you some of the wonders presently. But just at this moment you must hear more of this sacred evening. The day had been rich but strenuous, so I climbed "Signal Hill" back of my house talking and listening to God all the way up, all the way back, all the lovely half hour on the top. And God talked back! I let my tongue go loose and from it there flowed poetry far more beautiful than any I ever composed. It flowed without pausing and without ever a failing syllable for a half hour. I listened astonished and full of joy and gratitude. I wanted a dictaphone for I knew that I should not be able to remember it - and now I cannot. “Why,” someone may ask, “did God waste his poetry on you alone, when you could not carry it home.” You will have to ask God that question. I only know He did and I am happy in the memory."
"June 3, 1930 - Begin to build heaven
This experiment which I am trying is the most strenuous discipline which any man ever attempted. I am not succeeding in keeping God in my mind very many hours of the day, and from the point of view of experiment number one I should have to record a pretty high percentage of failure. But the other experiment - what happens when I do succeed - is so successful that it makes up for the failure of number one. God does work a change.
The moment I turn to Him it is like turning on an electric current which I feel through my whole being. I find also that the effort to keep God in my mind does something to my mind which every mind needs to have done to it. I am given something difficult enough to keep my mind with a keen edge. The constant temptation of every man is to allow his mind to grow old and lose its edge. I feel that I am perhaps more lazy mentally than the average person, and I require the very mental discipline which this constant effort affords. So my answer to my two questions to date would be
1. “Can it be done all the time?” Hardly.
2: “Does the effort help?” Tremendously. Nothing I have ever found proves such a tonic to mind and body."
This will be continued later.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Calvarminianism?
John Calvin versus Jakob Arminius.
The two presented Reformation-era doctrines that divided Christians for a long time, and still do to a degree today.
Calvin presented The Five Points of Calvinism, called TULIP: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints. This acrostic argues, in order, that man is completely depraved on his own and cannot save himself, that God elects who will be saved with no respect to the life or deeds of that person, that Christ died for only the elect, that God's grace is irresistible to the elect, and that once an elected person is saved that they will always be saved.
Arminius, on the other hand, affirmed one point and repudiated the rest: conditional election, unlimited atonement, total depravity, resistible grace, and conditional perseverance. These articles argued, again in order, that God's election was only to those whom He knew would be faithful to Him, that atonement is unlimited to all but only affects the elect, that man is completely depraved [as in Calvinism,] that God's grace is resistible thanks to free will, and that perseverance of the saints is conditional to their remained faithfulness to God.
Some of these points, in my personal, uneducated, un-doctorated opinion, contradict each other. For instance, it appears to me that conditional election and limited atonement would go together, rather than opposing each other. On top of this, I can't help but wonder if either Calvinists or Arminianists are entirely correct in their views; is it possible that the "correct answer" lies somewhere in a marriage of the two?
I am not entirely decided on my opinions on these, and this is going to be an ongoing series of posts as I determine my views, but as it stands this evening I think my beliefs are as follows: election is nonexistent, atonement is unlimited, man is totally depraved, grace is resistible and the saints are preserved indefinitely.
Does that make me a Calvarminianist?
Don't quote me on that.
The two presented Reformation-era doctrines that divided Christians for a long time, and still do to a degree today.
Calvin presented The Five Points of Calvinism, called TULIP: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints. This acrostic argues, in order, that man is completely depraved on his own and cannot save himself, that God elects who will be saved with no respect to the life or deeds of that person, that Christ died for only the elect, that God's grace is irresistible to the elect, and that once an elected person is saved that they will always be saved.
Arminius, on the other hand, affirmed one point and repudiated the rest: conditional election, unlimited atonement, total depravity, resistible grace, and conditional perseverance. These articles argued, again in order, that God's election was only to those whom He knew would be faithful to Him, that atonement is unlimited to all but only affects the elect, that man is completely depraved [as in Calvinism,] that God's grace is resistible thanks to free will, and that perseverance of the saints is conditional to their remained faithfulness to God.
Some of these points, in my personal, uneducated, un-doctorated opinion, contradict each other. For instance, it appears to me that conditional election and limited atonement would go together, rather than opposing each other. On top of this, I can't help but wonder if either Calvinists or Arminianists are entirely correct in their views; is it possible that the "correct answer" lies somewhere in a marriage of the two?
I am not entirely decided on my opinions on these, and this is going to be an ongoing series of posts as I determine my views, but as it stands this evening I think my beliefs are as follows: election is nonexistent, atonement is unlimited, man is totally depraved, grace is resistible and the saints are preserved indefinitely.
Does that make me a Calvarminianist?
Don't quote me on that.
Monday, March 3, 2008
I hate....
having to clarify myself. Folks have read my articles and claimed that I'm saying that you shouldn't go to church, or that I'm giving people permission to drink and smoke.
These people need to read more clearly.
I didn't say not to go to church. I didn't say that church attendance is outdated or unimportant. I merely made the point that you are no less of a Christian if you don't go to every weekly service and event. Personally, I attend church every week for a variety of reasons, but rest assured, believing that I'm going to Hell if I don't go is not one of them.
The flu just hit pretty hard around here, and I got sick on a Thursday night. I stayed at home all day Friday and Saturday, unable to speak clearly and coughing constantly. By Sunday morning, I could talk again but I was still coughing and did not want to spread the virus/bacteria/whatever [you can tell that I'm not a science major] to my fellow church-goers. Fast-forward 100 years when I've just died and I'm standing before God. He says, "I would let you in, but back in 2008 you got sick and didn't go to church on a Sunday. Sorry!"
Wait. What in the...? Because I was sick and didn't go to church one day, I'm going to burn in Hell for all eternity? I don't think so. If you believe this way, you are devaluing the abounding grace and mercy of God Himself. Surely you haven't attended church every Sunday for your whole life; by your own judgment, you have just rendered yourself into Hell the same way you rendered me. On top of that, I can't bring myself to believe that I can do something or not do something and go to Hell for it. Salvation is supposed to be unconditional, and not based on any action of our own aside from believing in God; if I can gain my salvation for going to church every Sunday, or any other works, then that would mean that I could do something to lose it.
Speaking of judging, there was a reason why the Bible said, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." This is not saying that you should not judge people. There are instances in which you must judge people and places and make decisions based on this; if you did not judge a partygoer's behavior, you wouldn't see that he was drunk at the time and you would get into a car with him driving! This is saying that when you judge someone, the way you judge is going to be the same way that you are judged. But, that verse is a different rant for a different day.
I'm going to continue my clarification of myself on a later day, despite my distaste for self-clarification. It's like quoting yourself: "Well according to established psychologist Dr. PJ McDoogal, the human brain works in a self-promoting way. Hey, what do you know? I'm Dr. PJ McDoogal!"
Can you see how ridiculous that is?
These people need to read more clearly.
I didn't say not to go to church. I didn't say that church attendance is outdated or unimportant. I merely made the point that you are no less of a Christian if you don't go to every weekly service and event. Personally, I attend church every week for a variety of reasons, but rest assured, believing that I'm going to Hell if I don't go is not one of them.
The flu just hit pretty hard around here, and I got sick on a Thursday night. I stayed at home all day Friday and Saturday, unable to speak clearly and coughing constantly. By Sunday morning, I could talk again but I was still coughing and did not want to spread the virus/bacteria/whatever [you can tell that I'm not a science major] to my fellow church-goers. Fast-forward 100 years when I've just died and I'm standing before God. He says, "I would let you in, but back in 2008 you got sick and didn't go to church on a Sunday. Sorry!"
Wait. What in the...? Because I was sick and didn't go to church one day, I'm going to burn in Hell for all eternity? I don't think so. If you believe this way, you are devaluing the abounding grace and mercy of God Himself. Surely you haven't attended church every Sunday for your whole life; by your own judgment, you have just rendered yourself into Hell the same way you rendered me. On top of that, I can't bring myself to believe that I can do something or not do something and go to Hell for it. Salvation is supposed to be unconditional, and not based on any action of our own aside from believing in God; if I can gain my salvation for going to church every Sunday, or any other works, then that would mean that I could do something to lose it.
Speaking of judging, there was a reason why the Bible said, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." This is not saying that you should not judge people. There are instances in which you must judge people and places and make decisions based on this; if you did not judge a partygoer's behavior, you wouldn't see that he was drunk at the time and you would get into a car with him driving! This is saying that when you judge someone, the way you judge is going to be the same way that you are judged. But, that verse is a different rant for a different day.
I'm going to continue my clarification of myself on a later day, despite my distaste for self-clarification. It's like quoting yourself: "Well according to established psychologist Dr. PJ McDoogal, the human brain works in a self-promoting way. Hey, what do you know? I'm Dr. PJ McDoogal!"
Can you see how ridiculous that is?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
