I have decided to not merely do separate posts on each section I divide Romans into because it would cause me to miss over too many issues in certain chapters or I would have to write much longer posts (my length is usually fairly long as it is). Instead, it will be done more by ear, and I may do one chapter in a certain post or I may do more than one in another post.
In Romans 2, Paul proclaims that being a Jew and having part in the Jewish system (the Law, circumcision, etc.) does not mean that judgment will be partial to the Jews, but instead each man will be judged by what they know and what people know, whether Jews or Gentiles, is not very different. This leads the hypothetical Jew to ask what benefit was there to being a Jew and having circumcision (which signifies being in covenant with God), as Paul writes in 3:1. Paul responds that there were many. However, he mentions only one at the time, that is, that they had the oracles of God. They were vehicles of God's speaking to the world. Another way of putting it is that they were God's prophetic nation.
However, this would not satisfy the objections of the hypothetical Jew. God had made a promise that the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would flourish. God was to be faithful towards their children, and yet some did not trust in God. Does God cease to be a faithful God who is true to His word because of the lack of trust that some of the Israelites had? In other words, is God breaking His promise? Paul's answer is no. Even if everyone lies, God is going to be found to be truthful. Furthermore, the unrighteousness of humanity goes on to serve to show that God is righteous.
That leads up to the next hypothetical objection. If humanity's unrighteousness displays that God is righteous, is God then unrighteous? Is God an accomplice or a partaker in that unrighteousness? Paul's answer is not like a juridical argument that shows specifically how God is not an accomplice, but rather he simply states that God must be righteous, or otherwise there can not be way that He could possibly judge the world, since He Himself would be unrighteous. Paul logically shows that God is not unrighteous, but he doesn't show how God is cleared, as if he feels like there is no need to clear God.
One matter of exegesis in verse 5. There Paul refers to the righteousness of God, but here the context is clearly in reference to God's own nature. Should we not conclude that every usage of this phrase in Romans refers to God's own character, instead of more specifically the character that we are to have in this life? Not necessarily. To dive a little bit into the Greek, in 3:5 the word order has God first, whereas in the other passages, righteousness is mentioned first. This word order serves to show the emphasis that Paul is given to the concept. In other passages where righteousness is mentioned first, Paul is concern about the ethical realm. However, in 3:5 Paul is concern about more about the vindication of God Himself. Furthermore though, this usage, though a bit fluid, never has a drastically different meaning in its different usages, but rather it only has different emphases.
Moving on further, Paul presents yet another hypothetical objection. If a person's unrighteousness shows the very nature of God and His justice, something good comes from of it. Why then does God still judge when something good comes from it? The objection is taken further to apparently be a justification for wickedness in saying that a person should sin so that God might be glorified. Paul does not directly debunk this claim, but allows its foolishness that is apparent to be its own down fall while he simply states that God's condemnation of that person is just (irregardless of what good may come from it).
Now all that Paul has stated applies to the Israelites. As the prophets (the oracles) repeatedly make witness to, they too fell under God's judgment. Or in other words, even though God made a promise to be faithful to the descendants of Israel (in which He has still kept the promise, which Romans 9 gets into), the judgment of the unrighteous ones among the Israelites displays God's glory and righteousness as well. It serves to teach the other Jews how one should live by their example of disobedience (see 1 Corinthians 10:1-12 for a similar idea).
Considering that the Israelites had examples in their past that show God's judgment and that they had the oracles of God to teach them, the hypothetical Jew might conclude that they were better morally that the Gentiles, since they had a plethora of ethical teachings and examples to guide them. However, Paul's answer is that both Jew and Greeks have fallen into sin. He goes on to show this by compiling a set of quotations from Psalms and Isaiah in 3:10-18. These books spoke to those under the Law, and therefore it was directed to the Israelites and showed that they too were guilty of sin.
One other point to make here though. These verses are commonly taken here as if Paul's purpose here is to establish the universal nature of humanity (especially for both unbeliever and believer). That is not his purpose though. His purpose is to show that the Law spoke against the Israelites and their sinfulness. Therefore, we can not draw conclusions on the nature of humanity based upon Paul's usage of these quotations, but rather we can only derive conclusions on them from the context in which they came from. Of course one must allow for literary techniques, such as hyperbole, to be used, especially in the Psalms. However, since human nature and exegesis of Psalms is beyond the scope of this post, I will leave it at that other than to reemphasize that Paul is not trying to establish in and of itself a universal teaching on the nature of humanity, but only to show that the Jews too were guilty.
At this point then, in verse 3:20, Paul explains why the Israelites were not better ethically than the Gentiles. The reason is, simply enough, that the performing of the works of the Law in and of themselves makes no one righteous before God. The reason is because the Law only teaches about sin, but it does not teach us everything to do that is right. In other words, it is not a perfect, all-encompassing moral code that teaches everything there is about righteousness. There are "gaps" in its teaching (although I would say there are certain reasons for those "gaps," but one can get some of my thoughts on that here, although I have modified my views a bit since then). One could do everything it says and that by itself would not make a person righteous before God (justified).
Once again, when we see the context, justification is to be taken as judicial, but with a regard for the ethical status of the person. To be justified is to be righteous in character in God's eyes. Keep in mind that 1-19 has the theme of unrighteous acts and Paul's shows that the Israelites were guilty of being heinous sinners. Therefore, when Paul explains why, we must see justification with some regard for ethical matters, or Paul statement makes no sense. There is more to say about the nature of justification, but I will save that for chapter 4 (although one can view my exegesis on Romans 3 and 4 to know what I say about justification in chapter 4).
Now, if the Law can not justify because it only teaches about sin, but not a comprehensive teaching on righteousness, then in what manner of life must a person follow in order to be seen as righteous by God? Or, how can we have that complete teaching on righteousness? That is the issue Paul addresses in 3:21-26. But before I go further, I have a couple points of translation to make.
First off, in regards to faith and where it should be translated as "faith in Christ," "the faith of Christ," or "the faithfulness of Christ," I believe the second option is the proper translation. I will not go into detail as to why, but I will say in my study of the phrase and the context of its usages, I find it only makes sense if we render it "the faith of Christ." I can go into detail behind my rationale for that (although I give a bit in my exegesis of Romans 3-4), but I will reserve that for later explanation if it is needed. Secondly, in Romans 3:25 I am of the opinion that the proper translation would be "God publicly displayed Him through faith as a mercy seat by His blood." Once again, I can explain my rationale for that, but at a later time in another post or in the comments section.
Now in Romans 3:21, we should see the contrast between the knowledge of sin that comes by the Law in verse 20, and the righteousness of God being disclosed (or rather being given as knowledge to others). What Paul is bringing about then is something that reveals what righteousness truly is. How then is this righteousness revealed? Through the faith of Jesus Christ. Recall back to Romans 1:17 where it is said that the righteousness of God is revealed from faith. Paul is now building upon that and established that the moral character that God has that we too are to have is revealed in the trust that Jesus had in God in His time on the earth. By His trust, He endured the sin of others to the point of death while never fighting back. It would require great faith in the resurrection for Him to allow Himself to be captured by the Father's will and then to be able to endure the temptation that being insulted might in turn cost. In other words, Jesus' trust in God enabled Him to totally reject Himself for the will of the Father.
Now, Paul goes on to say it is revealed to all who believe. He is establishing that regardless of Jew or Gentile, the righteousness of God is for everyone (as opposed to the Law of Moses itself which was purposed only for Jews and Jewish converts). The reason it is available for all is because all have fallen short of the glory of God and need knowledge of this righteousness. It was necessary for the Jew too because the Law was obviously not making Israelites holy and obedient to God. I will also say more on the "glory of God" in a moment.
Those who believe as spoken of in verse 22 are justified by the grace that is in the redemption of Jesus Christ. Paul says two things in this. By having the righteousness of God revealed through the faith of Christ, they too could be justified by God by trusting in God also. But it goes further than this to say that it was possible for them through the redemption (the freedom) in Jesus Christ. In other words, justification is merely obtained by trying to mimic Jesus Christ and His trust in God, but it is only possible through a change of life that is had in Jesus Christ (which is in part through His death, as Paul establishes in Romans 5, 6, and 8). By the redemption, we are enabled to follow through in the pattern that Jesus has set forth for us.
Now Paul in verse 25 goes on to explain what he has spoken of in 21-24. There are a few things to take note of.
First off, he speaks of Jesus as a mercy seat. In the Old Testament, the mercy seat was the place where atonement was made. But furthermore, it was the place where the cloud of God (what might also be termed the presence or the glory of God) would appear. So, in referring to Jesus as the mercy seat, Paul says that he both is an atonement, but the very place where the presence of God is. So by being the very presence of God (or as Hebrews puts it, the exact representation), He is capable of revealing the type of righteousness that God has.
Secondly, Jesus is said to be revealed publicly. This is significant because the holy of holies, in which the mercy seat was placed, was not to be entered by just anyone but only by the high priest AFTER he had atoned for his own sins. So in the Old Testament, the mercy seat was private, but in Romans the mercy seat of Jesus Christ is publicly shown. Furthermore, God tolerated the sins of the people whom should not at all enter into the presence of God in the mercy seat. Beforehand, all people had fallen short of the mark necessary to enter into the presence of God (or the glory of God). But now God tolerates it (not forgives it though there) in order that He may show His righteousness that He has that we are to live by in this life. Or as verse 26 explains it, in order that God might be righteous and "the one who justifies those who have the faith of Christ." In order for God to continue to be righteous and accept the sinners, He needs to make it possible for humanity to live righteously (which needs both knowledge and the spiritual freedom to do so). In order for humanity to reach that level, they must know the standard they are to follow, which is revealed in Christ Jesus.
Finally, note that it is says that Jesus was publicly demonstrated through faith. This may be a bit awkward if this refers specifically to our faith being the means of public demonstration. However, if it is Christ's faith, it makes more sense for faith to be the means of public demonstration in blood, as His truth in God allowed Him to go upon the cross.
Now this brings us to the hypothetical objections again. The first question asks where is the place for boasting in all this. The meaning is, how can we claim that we have worked up to the point where we are justified. But Paul states this is excluded and that it is excluded by the law of faith. Now Paul doesn't deny the importance of works here, but rather begins to establish that a trust is the foundation upon which justification may be had initially (I will build more upon that in chapter 4 though) and that works themselves do not bring us up to the level that we may be justified (that is not to say anything about the roles of works after justification has been obtained).
Now the hypothetical Jewish objector wondered if the exclusion of boasting was by the a law of works, which in context is in reference to the works of the Law (of Moses). As Paul states, it is by a law based upon faith (note that law and righteousness have a natural relation to each other). The reason is because the works of the Law can not hope to change a person that they might become justified. And why is this? Because God is God of both Jews and Gentiles and so that both groups may be justified.
This leads us to our final objection in chapter 3. The hypothetical Jewish objector might suppose that Paul was denying the Law, saying that it is now nullified because of this doctrine about faith. Perhaps in mind here is the words of Jesus here in Matthew 5:17-18. What Paul says simply is that is not the case. It remains established. It is not of no value. It is not nullified. How this is the case Paul does not address much, but what little he does is in Romans 8 (which we will address when we get there).
Now, for my next post, chapter 4.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Friday, November 9, 2007
The tasks of the theologian
I've been thinking the past few minutes about what the tasks of a theologian are to be. I am giving my list that I have so far, but I am wanting to hear from everyone else too
1) To combine revelation, reason, and experience - Revelation is primarily contained in the Scriptures, however, I think the Bible is a combination of revelation (which comes from God), and reason and experience (which comes from man, though maybe through the agency of God). This synthesis is to go merely beyond a regurgitation of the Biblical texts however, but it is to go into the gaps where the Scriptures due not speak much, or at all, and find meaning. One must tread carefully in this task though because it relies heavily on interpretations of all three things and interpretations can vary drastically in their correctness or the lack thereof.
2) To discern the true meaning or meanings of the Biblical texts - And so exegesis in implied in the work of a theologian. However, it also includes the synthesis of revelation, reason, and experience in order to fully understand the meaning and applications of the texts. However, one must be careful that the do not dictate the writers agrees with or talks about the theologian's own theological synthesis (which is where exegesis can serve as a check from such errors).
3) To explain the meanings of the Biblical texts in modern day understanding for the average person to understand - The Biblical text, while can be understood for the most part by the layman, does have many cryptic parts. Furthermore, for those who are not well read in the Bible, the language can become confusing and as a result lose its meaning when one teaches those people. Therefore, the theologian must know not only the language of the past in the Biblical texts, but the language of the present and put it into ways that the contemporary culture can understand it. One must be careful though in their attempt at "translation," that they do not water down the message.
4) To bring out the the practical applications of our theological understandings - The theologian is merely to set out theological beliefs for the mere sake of beliefs, but they must demonstrate the practical reasons for which one should believe and what the implications are for living and growing in the Christian life.
5) To foster the purpose of the Christian live - That is, to love God with everything, to love our neighbor in the exact same way that we care for our own lives and well-being, and to be joyful in this world, with all three being true completely and without contradiction with the others. If this is not performed, then the theologian has definitely failed, no matter how much they excel in the other areas.
1) To combine revelation, reason, and experience - Revelation is primarily contained in the Scriptures, however, I think the Bible is a combination of revelation (which comes from God), and reason and experience (which comes from man, though maybe through the agency of God). This synthesis is to go merely beyond a regurgitation of the Biblical texts however, but it is to go into the gaps where the Scriptures due not speak much, or at all, and find meaning. One must tread carefully in this task though because it relies heavily on interpretations of all three things and interpretations can vary drastically in their correctness or the lack thereof.
2) To discern the true meaning or meanings of the Biblical texts - And so exegesis in implied in the work of a theologian. However, it also includes the synthesis of revelation, reason, and experience in order to fully understand the meaning and applications of the texts. However, one must be careful that the do not dictate the writers agrees with or talks about the theologian's own theological synthesis (which is where exegesis can serve as a check from such errors).
3) To explain the meanings of the Biblical texts in modern day understanding for the average person to understand - The Biblical text, while can be understood for the most part by the layman, does have many cryptic parts. Furthermore, for those who are not well read in the Bible, the language can become confusing and as a result lose its meaning when one teaches those people. Therefore, the theologian must know not only the language of the past in the Biblical texts, but the language of the present and put it into ways that the contemporary culture can understand it. One must be careful though in their attempt at "translation," that they do not water down the message.
4) To bring out the the practical applications of our theological understandings - The theologian is merely to set out theological beliefs for the mere sake of beliefs, but they must demonstrate the practical reasons for which one should believe and what the implications are for living and growing in the Christian life.
5) To foster the purpose of the Christian live - That is, to love God with everything, to love our neighbor in the exact same way that we care for our own lives and well-being, and to be joyful in this world, with all three being true completely and without contradiction with the others. If this is not performed, then the theologian has definitely failed, no matter how much they excel in the other areas.
Synopsis on Romans (Part 1 - Chapters 1-2)
I recently had a rather short but invigorating discussion with Chris Tilling on the nature of many things, some theological such as the atonement, but also in regards to more important matters such as the evil that is coffee, tea (except green tea), and chocolate (Chris is still in a poor, pitiful, depraved state when it comes to proper knowledge about the evil of such things. I blame it on Wright). But among other things, we also talked about the whole "righteousness of God" thing and the blasphemous assertions that N.T. Wright makes about it (oh wait... I forget, I am not John Piper!). At which point, he then begged me to enlighten the world with my oh so great wisdom regarding the topic, to correct the errors of the Wrightianists and the Piperians.
Seriously though, Romans has been a letter I have studied for a few years now since it has been made such a pivotal part of Christian theology. I have come to a somewhat different understanding on the book because of what I found to be weaknesses with both the classical Reformed view and the New Perspective view. I have even gone to the point of having the inspiration to write a commentary down the road on the book once I get a grasp of Greek to enlighten to world (though I might instead bring it into darkness). So I am going to give a summary of my view on what I believe Paul is talking about in Romans. By implication, it will address the book of Galatians, but I am not pursuing that mainly because Paul addresses somewhat different questions which would only obscure this series.
Before starting though, let me mention that I have written two posts in the past on Romans (which you can read here and here).
I believe the book of Romans can be divided into 5 sections. Chapters 1-2 discuss the issues of sin and righteousness. Chapters 3-6 discuss the righteousness of God vs the Law of Moses, faith, and the redemption that is in Christ. Chapters 7-8 is kind of a miscellaneous section, though one might say it a development of a person from being under the Law, to being freed by Christ, to having the benefits of the Spirit working in their lives, to looking for the hope of complete redemption (including the creation and the body) and to endure in the face of sufferings because of what is to come. Chapters 9-11 is focused upon the situation with Israel. Finally, chapters 12-16 is focused primarily upon practical matters of behavior. This post will focus upon Chapters 1-2.
Chapter 1 has a contrast between verses 16-17 and 18-32. In the former, Paul explains the nature of the Gospel is power is for that who believe and that God's righteousness is revealed by faith, likewise, to those who trust God (I ascribe to the meaning of faith in Romans the meaning of trust in God, especially to fulfill His promises and to be merciful, and not merely intellectual and creedal acceptance). These two verses I believe set up the primary issues through which Paul develops in the following chapters: the power that is present in salvation and the way that God's righteousness is shown to the world.
The first is rather self-explanatory, but let me clarify my meaning about God's righteousness. Wright says this refers to the covenant faithfulness of God. On the other hand, Piper maintains that it is God's commitment to do what is right. On a purely technical definition that Paul is giving this phrase, I will agree with Piper's assessment more or less. He even goes on to state it is something that we should have but that we do not, and I will agree that in a "natural" state we will not. However, in the end where most Reformed theologians will take that (and I am sure Piper does being Reformed, though I haven't read through his works on the matter) is to say that Christ's righteousness (therefore God's righteousness) is imputed to believers. I, on the other hand, would ascribe that Paul is trying to emphasize the moral standard which we as Christians are to live by in this world (to have a righteousness/perfection like God; see Leviticus 19:2 and Matthew 5:48). Furthermore, the nature of God's righteousness is shown to those who trust God by others who have trust in God (most perfectly by Jesus Christ's trust in God, which I will go into in my next section).
Paul then goes on to contrast the gospel and God's righteousness with the wrath that comes upon "the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" (vs. 18). First off, the contrast is between the gospel and wrath and "the righteousness of God" and "ungodliness and unrighteousness." So this is one reason why I ascribe a moral connotation to "the righteousness of God." Secondly though, Paul describes the further and further falling into depravity that certain man came into in a step by step process. With each act of disobedience, God gave the sinners into a deeper level of sinfulness (which could also be referring to as hardening, which is discussed in Romans 9).
Now this is speculation on my part that I am not as confident in, but it may be possible that Paul was purposely just building up the wickedness and depravity of these people (they were probably Gentiles) further and further in order to get some of his Jewish audience to get into an emotional state of presumably righteous indignation against such disobedience. But then all of the sudden, Paul turns the tables in Chapter 2. All those people who were condemning such wickedness, Paul shows to be condemned because they do the exact same thing without repentance. Many of the readers were not better off than those people whom Paul had described and so, unless they repented, would have the same punishment brought upon them. Now Paul doesn't explicitly state that he is directed this towards Jews, because it is probably his purpose at least in part to apply this to everyone who might be such hypocrites, but no doubt Paul had the Jewish population particular, as we can see when we look at what Paul states later on in this chapter.
Paul explains that there will be a judgment of everyone's deeds and that there will be no partiality for the Jews in this judgment. Everyone who desires good will receive eternal life, whereas everyone who obeys unrighteousness will receive wrath (the same wrath as mentioned in Romans 1:18). However, not merely is the same standard applied to everyone, but it is applied to the Jews first and then the Greek (and all Gentiles). Salvation is for the Jews, and so they are first in line, so to speak, to receive the blessings. But likewise, because they have such a privileged position, they will also be the first to receive punishment for which they had done (I will develop the meaning of this concept further in the post on 9-11).
Moving further, the impartial judgment is described in terms of the Law (the Law of Moses to be specific). Everyone who has the Law will be condemned (that is, to be sentenced to death) by it if they disobey it, and everyone who do not have the Law will also be put to death even though they don't have the law. The conclusion that is to be drawn then is that it is the ones who have and follow the Law that are deemed as righteous (justified) by God. Justification/acceptance by God is not automatic by merely having knowledge of the Law (and therefore by implication, by being a Jew).
But there may be a question (though Paul doesn't explicitly state it) as to whether the judgment is really impartial because if the Gentiles perish without the Law, and the Jews perish with the Law, does that mean then that there are different standards, therefore there is some partiality? Paul states that some of the Gentiles instinctively do the things of the Law and therefore have a law in themselves. In other word, the same basic things that are contained in the Law of Moses, the rest of the world has because, as Romans 1:20 says, God's qualities can be seen by the world (although, I would add, maybe not perfectly). The implication is that people have a conscience that can condemn or defend them when Jesus comes to judge.
At this point then, Paul asks those who are Jews that boast in God, have the Law, and feel they can instruct the blind if they do the same thing they teach. Many of them don't, and as a result they are part of the reason that the Gentiles blaspheme God. Now, Paul states that circumcision (which can stand for the whole Jewish system) is of no value itself if there is one does not in turn practice things of the Law. Therefore, the person who is true Jew in meaning and the one who is truly circumcised (circumcised in the heart) are those who keep the Law and so is inwardly a Jew and not only a Jew by name, since God's people were to be obedient. Paul concludes this chapter with two things: 1) that this circumcision was by the Spirit instead of by the letter of the Law (more specifically by the standards set forth in the Law of Moses in writing) and 2) that these people do not seek to be praised by men (or in other words, to be seen as good teachers as is implied by the context) but rather to be praised by God).
A couple of comments to add about Romans 2:13 before I conclude this post. First off, as is indicated by context, justification is referring to the character of the person. This has implications for the following usages of the word because it would be problematic to assign a fluid usage of the word where it means a declaration of character in one part, but soon after it means something significantly different. Secondly, there may seem to be a conflict between this verse and the teachings laid out in Romans 3-4. However, if one notes the context, the idea is doing what was intended by the Law, the very intent of the Law (or the spirit of the Law), whereas in Romans 3-4 it is referring to trying to be justified by a strict observance of the letter of the Law (as mentioned in 2:29). Certainly, Paul did not mean to say those that did not have the Law but did the things of it follow the strict, literal things prescribed in the Law of Moses, because how can we expect them to have such a detailed knowledge of something they never saw?
And so that concludes my synopsis on the first two chapters. I find that these two chapters set the stage for the following chapters (as one might expect), such as the way righteousness is revealed, the power in salvation (although those two are mentioned only briefly), justification, the problem of sin, issues regarding the Law, and the meaning of being a Jew. All these issues are thoroughly addressed by Paul in the following chapters. Therefore, in my future posts, I will probably reference heavily these two chapters just to give the context of the letter.
Seriously though, Romans has been a letter I have studied for a few years now since it has been made such a pivotal part of Christian theology. I have come to a somewhat different understanding on the book because of what I found to be weaknesses with both the classical Reformed view and the New Perspective view. I have even gone to the point of having the inspiration to write a commentary down the road on the book once I get a grasp of Greek to enlighten to world (though I might instead bring it into darkness). So I am going to give a summary of my view on what I believe Paul is talking about in Romans. By implication, it will address the book of Galatians, but I am not pursuing that mainly because Paul addresses somewhat different questions which would only obscure this series.
Before starting though, let me mention that I have written two posts in the past on Romans (which you can read here and here).
I believe the book of Romans can be divided into 5 sections. Chapters 1-2 discuss the issues of sin and righteousness. Chapters 3-6 discuss the righteousness of God vs the Law of Moses, faith, and the redemption that is in Christ. Chapters 7-8 is kind of a miscellaneous section, though one might say it a development of a person from being under the Law, to being freed by Christ, to having the benefits of the Spirit working in their lives, to looking for the hope of complete redemption (including the creation and the body) and to endure in the face of sufferings because of what is to come. Chapters 9-11 is focused upon the situation with Israel. Finally, chapters 12-16 is focused primarily upon practical matters of behavior. This post will focus upon Chapters 1-2.
Chapter 1 has a contrast between verses 16-17 and 18-32. In the former, Paul explains the nature of the Gospel is power is for that who believe and that God's righteousness is revealed by faith, likewise, to those who trust God (I ascribe to the meaning of faith in Romans the meaning of trust in God, especially to fulfill His promises and to be merciful, and not merely intellectual and creedal acceptance). These two verses I believe set up the primary issues through which Paul develops in the following chapters: the power that is present in salvation and the way that God's righteousness is shown to the world.
The first is rather self-explanatory, but let me clarify my meaning about God's righteousness. Wright says this refers to the covenant faithfulness of God. On the other hand, Piper maintains that it is God's commitment to do what is right. On a purely technical definition that Paul is giving this phrase, I will agree with Piper's assessment more or less. He even goes on to state it is something that we should have but that we do not, and I will agree that in a "natural" state we will not. However, in the end where most Reformed theologians will take that (and I am sure Piper does being Reformed, though I haven't read through his works on the matter) is to say that Christ's righteousness (therefore God's righteousness) is imputed to believers. I, on the other hand, would ascribe that Paul is trying to emphasize the moral standard which we as Christians are to live by in this world (to have a righteousness/perfection like God; see Leviticus 19:2 and Matthew 5:48). Furthermore, the nature of God's righteousness is shown to those who trust God by others who have trust in God (most perfectly by Jesus Christ's trust in God, which I will go into in my next section).
Paul then goes on to contrast the gospel and God's righteousness with the wrath that comes upon "the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men" (vs. 18). First off, the contrast is between the gospel and wrath and "the righteousness of God" and "ungodliness and unrighteousness." So this is one reason why I ascribe a moral connotation to "the righteousness of God." Secondly though, Paul describes the further and further falling into depravity that certain man came into in a step by step process. With each act of disobedience, God gave the sinners into a deeper level of sinfulness (which could also be referring to as hardening, which is discussed in Romans 9).
Now this is speculation on my part that I am not as confident in, but it may be possible that Paul was purposely just building up the wickedness and depravity of these people (they were probably Gentiles) further and further in order to get some of his Jewish audience to get into an emotional state of presumably righteous indignation against such disobedience. But then all of the sudden, Paul turns the tables in Chapter 2. All those people who were condemning such wickedness, Paul shows to be condemned because they do the exact same thing without repentance. Many of the readers were not better off than those people whom Paul had described and so, unless they repented, would have the same punishment brought upon them. Now Paul doesn't explicitly state that he is directed this towards Jews, because it is probably his purpose at least in part to apply this to everyone who might be such hypocrites, but no doubt Paul had the Jewish population particular, as we can see when we look at what Paul states later on in this chapter.
Paul explains that there will be a judgment of everyone's deeds and that there will be no partiality for the Jews in this judgment. Everyone who desires good will receive eternal life, whereas everyone who obeys unrighteousness will receive wrath (the same wrath as mentioned in Romans 1:18). However, not merely is the same standard applied to everyone, but it is applied to the Jews first and then the Greek (and all Gentiles). Salvation is for the Jews, and so they are first in line, so to speak, to receive the blessings. But likewise, because they have such a privileged position, they will also be the first to receive punishment for which they had done (I will develop the meaning of this concept further in the post on 9-11).
Moving further, the impartial judgment is described in terms of the Law (the Law of Moses to be specific). Everyone who has the Law will be condemned (that is, to be sentenced to death) by it if they disobey it, and everyone who do not have the Law will also be put to death even though they don't have the law. The conclusion that is to be drawn then is that it is the ones who have and follow the Law that are deemed as righteous (justified) by God. Justification/acceptance by God is not automatic by merely having knowledge of the Law (and therefore by implication, by being a Jew).
But there may be a question (though Paul doesn't explicitly state it) as to whether the judgment is really impartial because if the Gentiles perish without the Law, and the Jews perish with the Law, does that mean then that there are different standards, therefore there is some partiality? Paul states that some of the Gentiles instinctively do the things of the Law and therefore have a law in themselves. In other word, the same basic things that are contained in the Law of Moses, the rest of the world has because, as Romans 1:20 says, God's qualities can be seen by the world (although, I would add, maybe not perfectly). The implication is that people have a conscience that can condemn or defend them when Jesus comes to judge.
At this point then, Paul asks those who are Jews that boast in God, have the Law, and feel they can instruct the blind if they do the same thing they teach. Many of them don't, and as a result they are part of the reason that the Gentiles blaspheme God. Now, Paul states that circumcision (which can stand for the whole Jewish system) is of no value itself if there is one does not in turn practice things of the Law. Therefore, the person who is true Jew in meaning and the one who is truly circumcised (circumcised in the heart) are those who keep the Law and so is inwardly a Jew and not only a Jew by name, since God's people were to be obedient. Paul concludes this chapter with two things: 1) that this circumcision was by the Spirit instead of by the letter of the Law (more specifically by the standards set forth in the Law of Moses in writing) and 2) that these people do not seek to be praised by men (or in other words, to be seen as good teachers as is implied by the context) but rather to be praised by God).
A couple of comments to add about Romans 2:13 before I conclude this post. First off, as is indicated by context, justification is referring to the character of the person. This has implications for the following usages of the word because it would be problematic to assign a fluid usage of the word where it means a declaration of character in one part, but soon after it means something significantly different. Secondly, there may seem to be a conflict between this verse and the teachings laid out in Romans 3-4. However, if one notes the context, the idea is doing what was intended by the Law, the very intent of the Law (or the spirit of the Law), whereas in Romans 3-4 it is referring to trying to be justified by a strict observance of the letter of the Law (as mentioned in 2:29). Certainly, Paul did not mean to say those that did not have the Law but did the things of it follow the strict, literal things prescribed in the Law of Moses, because how can we expect them to have such a detailed knowledge of something they never saw?
And so that concludes my synopsis on the first two chapters. I find that these two chapters set the stage for the following chapters (as one might expect), such as the way righteousness is revealed, the power in salvation (although those two are mentioned only briefly), justification, the problem of sin, issues regarding the Law, and the meaning of being a Jew. All these issues are thoroughly addressed by Paul in the following chapters. Therefore, in my future posts, I will probably reference heavily these two chapters just to give the context of the letter.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Can an unbeliever be a theologian?
I'm in a posting frenzy today.. In part due to the fact that I really want to put off doing my outlines of Wesley's sermons for one of my classes.
Jim West wrote a post on whether a theologian must believe. Josh McManaway did here too. I shall now proceed to give my obviously oh so enlightened answer to this question.
It depends on what type of theologian you are talking about. Are we talking about a Biblical theologian, whose theology is purely derived from Biblical statements and based upon propositional logic? If so, then I would say, maybe a bit suprisingly, no. I do not believe a person must be a believer to be a Biblical theologian. Any person can study the text of the Old Testament and New Testament and attempt to bring out the meaning from it and then build a system based upon the interpretations of the different texts. Certainly, a true believer may find ti a bit easier because they first of all experience what they are reading about and, secondly, they have the Holy Spirit who can guide them in understanding the Biblical texts. However, an unbeliever is perfectly fit to come to the same observations that believers do.
However, if we expand theology beyond the point of interpretations of Biblical texts and their synthesis, then I would answer a theologian must be a believer. Take a look at the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, where scripture, reason, tradition, and experience are all sources for theology. The first three may be had by all, whether believers or not. However, experience of the Christian religion is the exclusive realm of true Christians. Where there are gaps in the biblical texts, in reason, and in tradition, experience (and the interpretation of such experiences) allow us to attempt to fill in the gaps. Theology is supposed to be more than an intellectual exercise. It is to also be personal. This is because theology can not be discovered through a scientific process of observation, unlike most other fields of knowledge.
An unbeliever talking about theology is like a person who never experienced soccer by watching or playing it being a soccer coach (apologies to many parent coaches). How can they truly understand the nature of the game? Likewise, how can an unbeliever truly understand the nature of theology and discover deeper truths in theology if they do not experience it? They might could possibly get things right on occasion, just as the soccer coach with no experience at all in the sport. As they sometimes say "even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then."
Jim West wrote a post on whether a theologian must believe. Josh McManaway did here too. I shall now proceed to give my obviously oh so enlightened answer to this question.
It depends on what type of theologian you are talking about. Are we talking about a Biblical theologian, whose theology is purely derived from Biblical statements and based upon propositional logic? If so, then I would say, maybe a bit suprisingly, no. I do not believe a person must be a believer to be a Biblical theologian. Any person can study the text of the Old Testament and New Testament and attempt to bring out the meaning from it and then build a system based upon the interpretations of the different texts. Certainly, a true believer may find ti a bit easier because they first of all experience what they are reading about and, secondly, they have the Holy Spirit who can guide them in understanding the Biblical texts. However, an unbeliever is perfectly fit to come to the same observations that believers do.
However, if we expand theology beyond the point of interpretations of Biblical texts and their synthesis, then I would answer a theologian must be a believer. Take a look at the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, where scripture, reason, tradition, and experience are all sources for theology. The first three may be had by all, whether believers or not. However, experience of the Christian religion is the exclusive realm of true Christians. Where there are gaps in the biblical texts, in reason, and in tradition, experience (and the interpretation of such experiences) allow us to attempt to fill in the gaps. Theology is supposed to be more than an intellectual exercise. It is to also be personal. This is because theology can not be discovered through a scientific process of observation, unlike most other fields of knowledge.
An unbeliever talking about theology is like a person who never experienced soccer by watching or playing it being a soccer coach (apologies to many parent coaches). How can they truly understand the nature of the game? Likewise, how can an unbeliever truly understand the nature of theology and discover deeper truths in theology if they do not experience it? They might could possibly get things right on occasion, just as the soccer coach with no experience at all in the sport. As they sometimes say "even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then."
I'm a genius! AND Proof that Google is better than Yahoo
According to this site here, my blog reading level is at the undergrad level. However, every separate post that I checked put my posts at the genius level. I am truly baffled by this. Is my profile text so dumb that it brings down my level from genius to undergrad (that would be pretty impressive since my personal info is only two sentences).
Secondly, it proves I am superior that many of those other blogs out there, like Chris Tilling's and Jim West's. Heck, it is even higher than Ben Witherington's. Guys like Myers and Leithart have postgraduate levels though, so expect me to add some 5 and 6 syllable words to my profile info in order to meet their level.
So this clearly means that my blog is superior to many of those other blogs. Either that or no one can read what the heck I write.
Also, if you put in Google.com, it will come out at a genius level. Whereas Yahoo.com comes out at a junior high level. Proof that Google is better. It makes you smarter.
Secondly, it proves I am superior that many of those other blogs out there, like Chris Tilling's and Jim West's. Heck, it is even higher than Ben Witherington's. Guys like Myers and Leithart have postgraduate levels though, so expect me to add some 5 and 6 syllable words to my profile info in order to meet their level.
So this clearly means that my blog is superior to many of those other blogs. Either that or no one can read what the heck I write.
Also, if you put in Google.com, it will come out at a genius level. Whereas Yahoo.com comes out at a junior high level. Proof that Google is better. It makes you smarter.
Scholars, laymen, and the principle of clarity
This post is actually in response to Chris Tilling's post Piper and the clarity of scripture and some comments made to the post (at the time of my writing this, nine comments). However, it is a far too detailed response to post under his comments, so I post it here instead.
"For the ordinary layman who wonders what to do when scholars seem to see what you cannot see, I suggest that you stay with what you can see for yourself" - John Piper
I find this principle to be actually sound, to a certain degree. However, there are a few caveats.
First off, what is seemingly clear to one person may be in opposition to what it seemingly clear to another person. Clarity is subjective, as it is based upon our knowledge of the world and the topic (or in this case, the Biblical text) that we are focusing upon. For instance, a person who has barely read the book of Romans and any study upon the Greek language might take peace in Romans 5:1 to refer to inner peace of the mind. However, a person who has studied Romans thoroughly and/or studied Greek (at least the lexical meanings of certain words) might understand peace not to be referring to internal state of harmony, but rather a lack of hostility between man and God. What is clear to one is not clear to the other. And the knowledge we have obtained is an influence upon what is clear.
We also have to realize that we do not have the exact knowledge that the authors of the Bible had. Our understanding of a certain word may be somewhat different form the corresponding word in Greek. In other words, there is no exact one-for-one correspondence between words of different languages. Therefore, if we read a translation of the Bible, we will likely use our understanding of the words of the translation (unless we know the Hebrew/Greek and have studied Hebrew/Greek). As a result, we may emphasize a certain aspect of the meaning or connotation of that word that the author did not intend to convey, but there is not simply way of knowing that without deep study (and even then there is no certainty we will come to understand the very precise meaning of the author). So what we take as clear is in fact only clear if the Bible was written in our language and culture, which it was not. So a scholarly approach is often times beneficial.
However on the flip side, there is more often times than not a great similarity between our understands and the understanding of the author, so laymen can be qualified to make certain judgments without the need of scholarly studies. A certain phrase I keep remembering in the relationship between scholars and laymen is that "Most laymen can do 80% of what most scholars do." It is that 20% that gets more focus though because we tend to differentiate groups instead of thinking about their similarities. And I think scholars would do well to learn that. It would keep them a bit humble so as to not to over estimate their abilities or intelligence level.
I also think that scholars would do well to understand that the principle of clarity is a good principle to apply at times, keeping in mind it is a PRINCIPLE and not a RULE. Why? First off, many scholars are the types of people that keep asking questions about certain areas of knowledge and they will look for evidence to answer those questions. However, it is very naive to think this pursuit is purely unbiased (there is no such thing as a truly unbiased person). Often times questions arise about Biblical texts because it creates a difficulty in the mind of the scholar. Sometimes it is the text that needs to be reinterpreted, and sometimes a change of beliefs are needed. However, human nature would tend towards the former than the latter. So the scholar then asks questions and brings up difficulties with texts that need not actually be brought up, and so he may arrive at a new interpretation, regardless of what the text says. Here, the principle of clarity would be useful. Sometimes the imagination of scholars is greater than the actual evidence, and sometimes scholars out of pride believe their beliefs. In the subconscious they see their interpretations and their abilities to seek answers validating their new interpretations (all people do suffer from pride, but scholars are more prone to suffer from intellectual pride).
The result is that scholars would do well to look back at the text and see if they are trying to create something where there is nothing.
Likewise, laymen would do well to be content that they don't have as great of a potential without further study to obtain truth in regards to the text without further study (which would make them closer to scholars). Knowledge isn't a right, nor must all truth be apparently obvious to the unstudied.
And also, scholars would do well to rid themselves of the idea that laymen are ignorant buffoons who know nothing. Just because they haven't attained to your perceived level of intelligence (when it fact it may be nothing more than a self delusion) doesn't mean they can not understand or that they are not qualified to make judgments on the Bible. Sure there are abuses by laymen without scholarly knowledge, but there are also abuses by scholars with knowledge. The problem lies in how people approach the pursuit of knowledge (what principles do they use and when do they use them), not how much or dedicated they are to that pursuit.
So in summary, both the principle of clarity and the principle of study should be used together. They are not mutually exclusive principles either. Also, some so-called scholars have to stop believing the press they give themselves and laymen have to be content to recognize that they may not obtain as much truth.
Sorry for the somewhat emotional response. Chris' post topic (and not Chris himself by any means) struck a chord with me.
"For the ordinary layman who wonders what to do when scholars seem to see what you cannot see, I suggest that you stay with what you can see for yourself" - John Piper
I find this principle to be actually sound, to a certain degree. However, there are a few caveats.
First off, what is seemingly clear to one person may be in opposition to what it seemingly clear to another person. Clarity is subjective, as it is based upon our knowledge of the world and the topic (or in this case, the Biblical text) that we are focusing upon. For instance, a person who has barely read the book of Romans and any study upon the Greek language might take peace in Romans 5:1 to refer to inner peace of the mind. However, a person who has studied Romans thoroughly and/or studied Greek (at least the lexical meanings of certain words) might understand peace not to be referring to internal state of harmony, but rather a lack of hostility between man and God. What is clear to one is not clear to the other. And the knowledge we have obtained is an influence upon what is clear.
We also have to realize that we do not have the exact knowledge that the authors of the Bible had. Our understanding of a certain word may be somewhat different form the corresponding word in Greek. In other words, there is no exact one-for-one correspondence between words of different languages. Therefore, if we read a translation of the Bible, we will likely use our understanding of the words of the translation (unless we know the Hebrew/Greek and have studied Hebrew/Greek). As a result, we may emphasize a certain aspect of the meaning or connotation of that word that the author did not intend to convey, but there is not simply way of knowing that without deep study (and even then there is no certainty we will come to understand the very precise meaning of the author). So what we take as clear is in fact only clear if the Bible was written in our language and culture, which it was not. So a scholarly approach is often times beneficial.
However on the flip side, there is more often times than not a great similarity between our understands and the understanding of the author, so laymen can be qualified to make certain judgments without the need of scholarly studies. A certain phrase I keep remembering in the relationship between scholars and laymen is that "Most laymen can do 80% of what most scholars do." It is that 20% that gets more focus though because we tend to differentiate groups instead of thinking about their similarities. And I think scholars would do well to learn that. It would keep them a bit humble so as to not to over estimate their abilities or intelligence level.
I also think that scholars would do well to understand that the principle of clarity is a good principle to apply at times, keeping in mind it is a PRINCIPLE and not a RULE. Why? First off, many scholars are the types of people that keep asking questions about certain areas of knowledge and they will look for evidence to answer those questions. However, it is very naive to think this pursuit is purely unbiased (there is no such thing as a truly unbiased person). Often times questions arise about Biblical texts because it creates a difficulty in the mind of the scholar. Sometimes it is the text that needs to be reinterpreted, and sometimes a change of beliefs are needed. However, human nature would tend towards the former than the latter. So the scholar then asks questions and brings up difficulties with texts that need not actually be brought up, and so he may arrive at a new interpretation, regardless of what the text says. Here, the principle of clarity would be useful. Sometimes the imagination of scholars is greater than the actual evidence, and sometimes scholars out of pride believe their beliefs. In the subconscious they see their interpretations and their abilities to seek answers validating their new interpretations (all people do suffer from pride, but scholars are more prone to suffer from intellectual pride).
The result is that scholars would do well to look back at the text and see if they are trying to create something where there is nothing.
Likewise, laymen would do well to be content that they don't have as great of a potential without further study to obtain truth in regards to the text without further study (which would make them closer to scholars). Knowledge isn't a right, nor must all truth be apparently obvious to the unstudied.
And also, scholars would do well to rid themselves of the idea that laymen are ignorant buffoons who know nothing. Just because they haven't attained to your perceived level of intelligence (when it fact it may be nothing more than a self delusion) doesn't mean they can not understand or that they are not qualified to make judgments on the Bible. Sure there are abuses by laymen without scholarly knowledge, but there are also abuses by scholars with knowledge. The problem lies in how people approach the pursuit of knowledge (what principles do they use and when do they use them), not how much or dedicated they are to that pursuit.
So in summary, both the principle of clarity and the principle of study should be used together. They are not mutually exclusive principles either. Also, some so-called scholars have to stop believing the press they give themselves and laymen have to be content to recognize that they may not obtain as much truth.
Sorry for the somewhat emotional response. Chris' post topic (and not Chris himself by any means) struck a chord with me.
The psychology of redemption, sinfulness, and righteousness (part 2)
For the next part of this discussion on the psychology of redemption, lets look in detail the relationship between the different parts of the chart I posted previously:
Emotions -> Will - The emotions are the primary influence upon our choices. While certainly we try to include reason in our choices, when it comes down to it, all our decisions are based upon our desires and fears (reason merely becomes a vehicle to decide what would best fulfill our desires or our fears). If we greatly desire something, we are almost certainly going to make a choice that obtains our desire. If we fear something, we will most likely make a choice that will allow us to avoid what we fear. At least, this would be the case if our emotional center was a unified whole with no internal contradictions. However, we as humans are conflicted. For instance, we may desire two things that are in opposition. Or we may desire something that we also fear. Or we may fear two options, one of which must be chosen.
Take the example of the person desiring to lose weight. They have a goal of losing weight, but however they also have a desire to taste certain foods that would hinder their progress towards reaching their goal of losing weight. What generally happens? Over all people, the average response would be to eat the food instead of refraining so as to be more likely to lose weight. Why? The desire for the pleasure that comes from the taste of food is greater than the desire to refrain and make it easier. Why is that? Two reasons. First off, an experience that can be had immediately will draw a stronger response than something that will take longer, especially if it means the immediate desires are not met. Or in other words, immediate gratification. But it goes deeper than that. The taste of good directly evokes an emotional response of pleasure. On the other hand, losing weight only indirectly produces an emotional response (by attracting mates, by allowing for greater athletic ability, by allow for a longer lifespan, etc.). While those too are desires, they are not as influential upon deciding to do things that only indirectly obtain those things. So in order for the person to be more likely to choose to refrain from eating food that might taste good but would hinder their weight loss goal, they would have to develop a greater desire for those things. But desires can not simply be increased by the snapping of the finger (nor can fears be decreased like that), but it takes a concentrated effort over time to change the desires of the person.
Now while emotional desires and fears place a strong influence upon our choices, they do not dictate each individual choice but rather they determine what we will probably pick. For instance, the person may have a stronger emotional desire to eat the food instead of refraining, but in certain instances they may actually refrain. However, this will probably not continue over the long run. More often than not, they would choose to eat, but there may be a few times where they choose not to. Our choices are not simply a matter of the strongest desires or fears, or otherwise there is not true concept of choice. Rather, our own ability to choose may pick something that is not as strong of a desire or that we fear more, but this less frequent.
Will -> Emotions - As I just mentioned, often times we have to increase our desires or decrease our fears in order to change the choices we make over the long run. However, we have partial control over our emotions, but not total. For instance, how many times do people who fear something that they have to do try to tell themselves not to fear it? They will try many techniques, such as focusing on something else, or analyzing the situation to see how irrational it is to have that fear, etc. The disheartening result is that often times our fear remains, and it can inhibit us from making the proper choice,
So is it impossible for us to overcome our fears or to reduce our desires? No. It is possible, however it is a complicated process often times. For instance, many people have overcome strong phobias through a process. Often times these processes include experiencing the thing that cause the phobia in progressively greater manners and thinking rationally about the fear and the object of fear. However, often times another party is necessary to encourage, if not force, the person to experience their phobia, or otherwise the person would as a result of their fear avoid it, not matter how much they think rationally about their phobia. So on one hand, merely thinking and trying to choose not to fear something does not free someone from that fear. But, without the cognitive process of thought and desiring not to be fearful of a certain object, the person would probably not overcome their fear either. In other words, the affect our choices have upon our emotions do exist, but are minimal. However, their real power is that they are the catalyst for other things that influence our emotions (our habits and actions, or the experience of our actions to be precise). Without a choice to overcome our fears, we probably won't overcome our fears, but in conjunction with facing our fears, our choices can help us to change our fears (and also change our desires).
But it would be overly optimistic to say that we all can simply overcome any desire or fear with great success (even if it is not as strong as a phobia). The desires and fears we are making choices to change are the same things that are influencing our choices. So it essentially becomes a tug of way between the desire or fear we are trying to change and our choice to change (or actually, our desire to change that influences our choice). Often times the status quo wins out and we are unable to change our desires and fears significantly on our own. Often times, external motivation is necessary but even then this in and of itself can fail to produce a change.
Knowledge -> Will - As I mentioned in my previous post, it is not precise to say knowledge alone by itself influences our choices. It would be more proper to say that knowledge only affects our choices in conjunction with the desire to make choices based upon knowledge. So, those who endeavor to make choice purely based upon reason have a stronger desire to make choices based upon reason. On the other hand, our emotions only influence our will based upon our knowledge (whether true or not) of what will happen with certain choices. A suitable metaphor is to say the emotions are the automobile, our will is the driver, and the knowledge is the head lights. Emotions are the primary influence upon our choices, but knowledge informs us what will happen with certain choices, which is what evokes our emotion responses and so influences our choices. Furthermore, just like a car can continue to drive with dim or no light, so can the emotions influence us without much knowledge. However, if the lights are working but the vehicle isn't, the lights serve do not help to make the car move, just as knowledge without the emotions does not influence our choices.
But looking back at the desire to be rational, a person may think if they make a certain choice, it will come out with the best outcome. However, often times, there are other desires that contradict the desire to make actions based purely upon knowledge. It is in fact a myth (with the exception of those who are brain damage in emotional areas) that people may be purely rational. Other things serves to influence our choices and do things that influence our choices in another direction, and may even influence our reason and our perception of the knowledge that we have. So knowledge (and reason) can influence us, but it is just like any other emotional desire or fear.
Now one might say then, in this chart, that knowledge may simply be a specialized desire that influences us and thus it might be properly listed under emotions. This can certainly be said, however knowledge is itself a big enough influence upon our choices to merit its own separate part.
I know that this is a rather complicated look at these things, but it is rather unavoidable in order to develop the point I am trying to bring out. One should keep in mind that my explanations are in fact just a very simple explanation for very complex processes. I am in fact only trying to bring out the points that have relevance to the topic of redemption, sin, righteousness (which I will tie in after I finish going through the chart).
The next post in this series will focus upon the relation between emotions and habits. Then the fourth post will look at how actions are influence by habits and choices, and how actions affect our emotions. After that, I will tie them into an understanding of redemption, sin, and righteousness.
Emotions -> Will - The emotions are the primary influence upon our choices. While certainly we try to include reason in our choices, when it comes down to it, all our decisions are based upon our desires and fears (reason merely becomes a vehicle to decide what would best fulfill our desires or our fears). If we greatly desire something, we are almost certainly going to make a choice that obtains our desire. If we fear something, we will most likely make a choice that will allow us to avoid what we fear. At least, this would be the case if our emotional center was a unified whole with no internal contradictions. However, we as humans are conflicted. For instance, we may desire two things that are in opposition. Or we may desire something that we also fear. Or we may fear two options, one of which must be chosen.
Take the example of the person desiring to lose weight. They have a goal of losing weight, but however they also have a desire to taste certain foods that would hinder their progress towards reaching their goal of losing weight. What generally happens? Over all people, the average response would be to eat the food instead of refraining so as to be more likely to lose weight. Why? The desire for the pleasure that comes from the taste of food is greater than the desire to refrain and make it easier. Why is that? Two reasons. First off, an experience that can be had immediately will draw a stronger response than something that will take longer, especially if it means the immediate desires are not met. Or in other words, immediate gratification. But it goes deeper than that. The taste of good directly evokes an emotional response of pleasure. On the other hand, losing weight only indirectly produces an emotional response (by attracting mates, by allowing for greater athletic ability, by allow for a longer lifespan, etc.). While those too are desires, they are not as influential upon deciding to do things that only indirectly obtain those things. So in order for the person to be more likely to choose to refrain from eating food that might taste good but would hinder their weight loss goal, they would have to develop a greater desire for those things. But desires can not simply be increased by the snapping of the finger (nor can fears be decreased like that), but it takes a concentrated effort over time to change the desires of the person.
Now while emotional desires and fears place a strong influence upon our choices, they do not dictate each individual choice but rather they determine what we will probably pick. For instance, the person may have a stronger emotional desire to eat the food instead of refraining, but in certain instances they may actually refrain. However, this will probably not continue over the long run. More often than not, they would choose to eat, but there may be a few times where they choose not to. Our choices are not simply a matter of the strongest desires or fears, or otherwise there is not true concept of choice. Rather, our own ability to choose may pick something that is not as strong of a desire or that we fear more, but this less frequent.
Will -> Emotions - As I just mentioned, often times we have to increase our desires or decrease our fears in order to change the choices we make over the long run. However, we have partial control over our emotions, but not total. For instance, how many times do people who fear something that they have to do try to tell themselves not to fear it? They will try many techniques, such as focusing on something else, or analyzing the situation to see how irrational it is to have that fear, etc. The disheartening result is that often times our fear remains, and it can inhibit us from making the proper choice,
So is it impossible for us to overcome our fears or to reduce our desires? No. It is possible, however it is a complicated process often times. For instance, many people have overcome strong phobias through a process. Often times these processes include experiencing the thing that cause the phobia in progressively greater manners and thinking rationally about the fear and the object of fear. However, often times another party is necessary to encourage, if not force, the person to experience their phobia, or otherwise the person would as a result of their fear avoid it, not matter how much they think rationally about their phobia. So on one hand, merely thinking and trying to choose not to fear something does not free someone from that fear. But, without the cognitive process of thought and desiring not to be fearful of a certain object, the person would probably not overcome their fear either. In other words, the affect our choices have upon our emotions do exist, but are minimal. However, their real power is that they are the catalyst for other things that influence our emotions (our habits and actions, or the experience of our actions to be precise). Without a choice to overcome our fears, we probably won't overcome our fears, but in conjunction with facing our fears, our choices can help us to change our fears (and also change our desires).
But it would be overly optimistic to say that we all can simply overcome any desire or fear with great success (even if it is not as strong as a phobia). The desires and fears we are making choices to change are the same things that are influencing our choices. So it essentially becomes a tug of way between the desire or fear we are trying to change and our choice to change (or actually, our desire to change that influences our choice). Often times the status quo wins out and we are unable to change our desires and fears significantly on our own. Often times, external motivation is necessary but even then this in and of itself can fail to produce a change.
Knowledge -> Will - As I mentioned in my previous post, it is not precise to say knowledge alone by itself influences our choices. It would be more proper to say that knowledge only affects our choices in conjunction with the desire to make choices based upon knowledge. So, those who endeavor to make choice purely based upon reason have a stronger desire to make choices based upon reason. On the other hand, our emotions only influence our will based upon our knowledge (whether true or not) of what will happen with certain choices. A suitable metaphor is to say the emotions are the automobile, our will is the driver, and the knowledge is the head lights. Emotions are the primary influence upon our choices, but knowledge informs us what will happen with certain choices, which is what evokes our emotion responses and so influences our choices. Furthermore, just like a car can continue to drive with dim or no light, so can the emotions influence us without much knowledge. However, if the lights are working but the vehicle isn't, the lights serve do not help to make the car move, just as knowledge without the emotions does not influence our choices.
But looking back at the desire to be rational, a person may think if they make a certain choice, it will come out with the best outcome. However, often times, there are other desires that contradict the desire to make actions based purely upon knowledge. It is in fact a myth (with the exception of those who are brain damage in emotional areas) that people may be purely rational. Other things serves to influence our choices and do things that influence our choices in another direction, and may even influence our reason and our perception of the knowledge that we have. So knowledge (and reason) can influence us, but it is just like any other emotional desire or fear.
Now one might say then, in this chart, that knowledge may simply be a specialized desire that influences us and thus it might be properly listed under emotions. This can certainly be said, however knowledge is itself a big enough influence upon our choices to merit its own separate part.
I know that this is a rather complicated look at these things, but it is rather unavoidable in order to develop the point I am trying to bring out. One should keep in mind that my explanations are in fact just a very simple explanation for very complex processes. I am in fact only trying to bring out the points that have relevance to the topic of redemption, sin, righteousness (which I will tie in after I finish going through the chart).
The next post in this series will focus upon the relation between emotions and habits. Then the fourth post will look at how actions are influence by habits and choices, and how actions affect our emotions. After that, I will tie them into an understanding of redemption, sin, and righteousness.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Christ's atonement and the Holy Spirit
I do still plan on continuing my series on the psychology of redemption, but I have something else to post about pertaining to the topic some.
As I was thinking this early morning due to my insomnia, I had some speculative thoughts on the relation between Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and how the two are joined together to bring a man to salvation. It isn't necessarily brilliant, nor can I say it has never been taught, but it is something I have never seen.
First off, I constantly ruminate on how Christ's death and resurrection affords us salvation. Not the analogy one might use to describe the atonement, but to go further and try to identify why Jesus' work is effective. What makes Jesus' death capable of saving us? This becomes especially true as I deny any idea of God being angry and taking His anger out of Jesus to calm Himself in order to forgive us. I admit that is a very simple explanation and if true it would explain why the atonement is effective since it directly affects God and His emotions. Seeing as how though I ascribe to atonement freedom from sin, which as a result brings about forgiveness, I have difficulty seeing what change the atonement makes that allows for redemption to be possible.
So in considering this topic, I always have to remember two points. First off, I do not perceive the spiritual realm (or perhaps more properly speaking, the non-material realm) in totality, or even in anything more than a minuscule amount. Considering that, I must be careful not to be too speculative or to be too dogmatic in my speculation. Secondly, I have to accept God's divine freedom and that He is not bound by our logical understandings. So then perhaps God makes the method of the atonement what saves us purely because it pleases Him. The result may be that there is no answer I can give and it is merely because God wills it so. Ultimately, all things are because God wills it so, or otherwise we would say that God is bound by some laws, rules, or will that are external to Himself.
Anyways, I was studying Romans 5:5 to study the phrase "the love of God" because in my reading about John Wesley, he is a fan of using this phrase. In my study of that verse, I noticed the whole second part of the verse "the love of God has been poured out in [or on] our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who was given to us." Generally speaking, "poured out" here is taken to be referring to the pouring out of merely love (if the phrase "love of God" is taken as God's love for us and not our love for God) or the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. However, I couldn't help but notice the language of "poured out" is used in Matthew 26:28 to refer to Jesus' own blood and it is also used in that manner Matthew 23:35, which suggests the word could be used in reference to blood (metaphorically referring to the slaying of a person). Could Paul be making an implicit reference to Jesus? In my opinion, he does, since the chapters of 5 (and 3-6 as a whole) put Christ and His relation to our redemption at the forefront, whereas God's love and the Holy Spirit are barely mention in this chapter (and 3-6 as a whole). As Paul goes on in verses 6-8 to explain his statement in verse 5, he talks about the love of God displayed by Christ dying for sinners. Therefore, I conclude that it is in fact an implicit reference to Jesus' blood (and metaphorically, His death).
However, to be fair, the word for "poured out," exchunnw, can also be used to refer to the giving of the Holy Spirit, such as in Acts 10:45. This reflects a Lukan usage, which may be a result of influence of Paul upon Luke and therefore one might seeing "poured out" referring to the Holy Spirit, reflecting a thought of Paul that was handed down to Luke. But, given the context I am more inclined (though not terribly certain) to see an implicit reference to Christ' sacrifice provided by God out of love than a "pouring of the Spirit."
So if I am indeed correct, then Paul goes on to state this love of God through Christ is brought upon the heart (as if to bring about a moral change in the person) through the Holy Spirit. It is as if Paul attributes the efficacy of God's love through Christ's death coming by the work of the Spirit. Or in more practical terms, the person is not changed by Christ's death if the Holy Spirit does not work. To speaking analogically, the Spirit is to Christ' blood, as a sponge is to water. A surface is cleaning by water when the sponge rubs against the surface, so likewise the heart is cleansed by Christ's blood when the Spirit is rub against the heart.
However, is there any idea that might be similar to this presented anywhere? I would say indeed there may be. In Romans too. In Romans 8:11, it is said if anyone has the Spirit, "[God] who raised Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through the Spirit who dwells in you." Right here, God is spoken of as bringing about the resurrection through the Spirit. However, Paul also relates this resurrection with Jesus' own resurrection. There seems to be a relation between the believer's resurrection and Jesus' resurrection. This relation is not without precedent either, as Romans 6:1-12 speaks of the believer following in the manner of Jesus' own death and resurrection in matters of the moral life. Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 15:20-26, Paul states that by Jesus' resurrection, there will be a resurrection from the dead of humanity in general. So there is a linking between Jesus' resurrection and believers following in His pattern.
So this gets me to my point. The sacrifice of Christ is efficacious only through the Holy Spirit's work in the believer to mold them to the pattern of Christ. By this though, I mean further than a merely being molded to His moral example/pattern, but to His example/pattern in the submission to righteousness and the avoidance of sin even to the total rejection of oneself by death, and His resurrection from the dead. And Paul does speaks earlier in Romans 8:10 of Christ being in us, where one would generally expect the Spirit of God or the Spirit of Christ to be written, as if to say to have the Holy Spirit is to also be in union with Christ spiritually.
Now in saying this, it is important to emphasize that I am not speaking of a mere example that would give us merely moral inspiration and some type of future hope. What I am speaking goes beyond that in saying that we are given the spiritual strength of Christ who overcome sin in death on the cross to become free from sins ourself and given the spiritual power (though we do no exercise it on our own volition but God does) that raised Christ from the dead which will raise us too from the dead also.
It this is the case, here are a few implications:
1) All forms of substitutionary/satisfaction theories become incorrect except as analogies that can describes parts of what happens as a result of Christ's death for believers. However, an analogy is not necessarily reality.
2) Christus Victor and other similar atonement theories are also shown to be merely analogies that only explain part of the results of Christ's death for believers.
3) The whole life of Christ is viewed as important for redemption and not merely His death (though His death one might say is where the ultimate victory and strength over sin is obtained by Christ for the believer in spiritual union) since we are united with Christ who didn't merely come to the earth for a few moments, died, and then rose from the dead three days later. This does have some similarities with Irenaeus' recapitulation theory, though there are some distinct differences between the two.
4) It is totally people who are changed by the atonement whereas God remains the same, except in accepting the changed people whom He formerly condemned when they were unchanged. Christ solves the problem of humanity's sinfulness directly through the Holy Spirit, and not God's anger with sinful humanity.
Now this is all speculation based upon a few words of the Bible that I have tried to peace together. Furthermore, I have no idea if there is an precedent for this in theological history (I am inclined to say there is because it is doubtful I am that original) as I have never heard of that. Also, it requires a lot of study of some other parts of Scripture in a bit more detail, both verses that might be for the idea and against it.
Oh and maybe this is just my insomnia kicking in and deluding me.
As I was thinking this early morning due to my insomnia, I had some speculative thoughts on the relation between Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and how the two are joined together to bring a man to salvation. It isn't necessarily brilliant, nor can I say it has never been taught, but it is something I have never seen.
First off, I constantly ruminate on how Christ's death and resurrection affords us salvation. Not the analogy one might use to describe the atonement, but to go further and try to identify why Jesus' work is effective. What makes Jesus' death capable of saving us? This becomes especially true as I deny any idea of God being angry and taking His anger out of Jesus to calm Himself in order to forgive us. I admit that is a very simple explanation and if true it would explain why the atonement is effective since it directly affects God and His emotions. Seeing as how though I ascribe to atonement freedom from sin, which as a result brings about forgiveness, I have difficulty seeing what change the atonement makes that allows for redemption to be possible.
So in considering this topic, I always have to remember two points. First off, I do not perceive the spiritual realm (or perhaps more properly speaking, the non-material realm) in totality, or even in anything more than a minuscule amount. Considering that, I must be careful not to be too speculative or to be too dogmatic in my speculation. Secondly, I have to accept God's divine freedom and that He is not bound by our logical understandings. So then perhaps God makes the method of the atonement what saves us purely because it pleases Him. The result may be that there is no answer I can give and it is merely because God wills it so. Ultimately, all things are because God wills it so, or otherwise we would say that God is bound by some laws, rules, or will that are external to Himself.
Anyways, I was studying Romans 5:5 to study the phrase "the love of God" because in my reading about John Wesley, he is a fan of using this phrase. In my study of that verse, I noticed the whole second part of the verse "the love of God has been poured out in [or on] our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who was given to us." Generally speaking, "poured out" here is taken to be referring to the pouring out of merely love (if the phrase "love of God" is taken as God's love for us and not our love for God) or the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. However, I couldn't help but notice the language of "poured out" is used in Matthew 26:28 to refer to Jesus' own blood and it is also used in that manner Matthew 23:35, which suggests the word could be used in reference to blood (metaphorically referring to the slaying of a person). Could Paul be making an implicit reference to Jesus? In my opinion, he does, since the chapters of 5 (and 3-6 as a whole) put Christ and His relation to our redemption at the forefront, whereas God's love and the Holy Spirit are barely mention in this chapter (and 3-6 as a whole). As Paul goes on in verses 6-8 to explain his statement in verse 5, he talks about the love of God displayed by Christ dying for sinners. Therefore, I conclude that it is in fact an implicit reference to Jesus' blood (and metaphorically, His death).
However, to be fair, the word for "poured out," exchunnw, can also be used to refer to the giving of the Holy Spirit, such as in Acts 10:45. This reflects a Lukan usage, which may be a result of influence of Paul upon Luke and therefore one might seeing "poured out" referring to the Holy Spirit, reflecting a thought of Paul that was handed down to Luke. But, given the context I am more inclined (though not terribly certain) to see an implicit reference to Christ' sacrifice provided by God out of love than a "pouring of the Spirit."
So if I am indeed correct, then Paul goes on to state this love of God through Christ is brought upon the heart (as if to bring about a moral change in the person) through the Holy Spirit. It is as if Paul attributes the efficacy of God's love through Christ's death coming by the work of the Spirit. Or in more practical terms, the person is not changed by Christ's death if the Holy Spirit does not work. To speaking analogically, the Spirit is to Christ' blood, as a sponge is to water. A surface is cleaning by water when the sponge rubs against the surface, so likewise the heart is cleansed by Christ's blood when the Spirit is rub against the heart.
However, is there any idea that might be similar to this presented anywhere? I would say indeed there may be. In Romans too. In Romans 8:11, it is said if anyone has the Spirit, "[God] who raised Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through the Spirit who dwells in you." Right here, God is spoken of as bringing about the resurrection through the Spirit. However, Paul also relates this resurrection with Jesus' own resurrection. There seems to be a relation between the believer's resurrection and Jesus' resurrection. This relation is not without precedent either, as Romans 6:1-12 speaks of the believer following in the manner of Jesus' own death and resurrection in matters of the moral life. Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 15:20-26, Paul states that by Jesus' resurrection, there will be a resurrection from the dead of humanity in general. So there is a linking between Jesus' resurrection and believers following in His pattern.
So this gets me to my point. The sacrifice of Christ is efficacious only through the Holy Spirit's work in the believer to mold them to the pattern of Christ. By this though, I mean further than a merely being molded to His moral example/pattern, but to His example/pattern in the submission to righteousness and the avoidance of sin even to the total rejection of oneself by death, and His resurrection from the dead. And Paul does speaks earlier in Romans 8:10 of Christ being in us, where one would generally expect the Spirit of God or the Spirit of Christ to be written, as if to say to have the Holy Spirit is to also be in union with Christ spiritually.
Now in saying this, it is important to emphasize that I am not speaking of a mere example that would give us merely moral inspiration and some type of future hope. What I am speaking goes beyond that in saying that we are given the spiritual strength of Christ who overcome sin in death on the cross to become free from sins ourself and given the spiritual power (though we do no exercise it on our own volition but God does) that raised Christ from the dead which will raise us too from the dead also.
It this is the case, here are a few implications:
1) All forms of substitutionary/satisfaction theories become incorrect except as analogies that can describes parts of what happens as a result of Christ's death for believers. However, an analogy is not necessarily reality.
2) Christus Victor and other similar atonement theories are also shown to be merely analogies that only explain part of the results of Christ's death for believers.
3) The whole life of Christ is viewed as important for redemption and not merely His death (though His death one might say is where the ultimate victory and strength over sin is obtained by Christ for the believer in spiritual union) since we are united with Christ who didn't merely come to the earth for a few moments, died, and then rose from the dead three days later. This does have some similarities with Irenaeus' recapitulation theory, though there are some distinct differences between the two.
4) It is totally people who are changed by the atonement whereas God remains the same, except in accepting the changed people whom He formerly condemned when they were unchanged. Christ solves the problem of humanity's sinfulness directly through the Holy Spirit, and not God's anger with sinful humanity.
Now this is all speculation based upon a few words of the Bible that I have tried to peace together. Furthermore, I have no idea if there is an precedent for this in theological history (I am inclined to say there is because it is doubtful I am that original) as I have never heard of that. Also, it requires a lot of study of some other parts of Scripture in a bit more detail, both verses that might be for the idea and against it.
Oh and maybe this is just my insomnia kicking in and deluding me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)