Occasionally while on the internet I get sucked into the proverbial “rabbit hole”; Someone links to someone who links to someone…and on it goes. Before long I’ve looked at a couple dozen pages and I’ve forgotten what I started looking at in the first place. Occasionally (very rarely) do I find things that are intriguing enough to post about but tonight was different…
Per my blog reader I started at ysmarko.com which contained the post entitled Emergents Cohorts and Denom Groups being an R.C.A. (Reformed Church of America) youth pastor I was drawn to this section of the post
Reformergent (Reformed) — this group is somewhat different from the others because it’s “interested in the interaction between Reformed theology and the emerging church movement.” Chris Case is the main man “minding the (occasional) gap.”
Excited to see what Reformed folk were adding to the “conversation” I strolled over to Reformergent to see what they were all about.
Which eventually led me to the post “The Contexualization Condrum” with the opening lines:
Recent posts by Phil Johnson and Andrew Jones, with added statements by John MacArthur, have recently caused a bit of conversation about the topic of Contextualization. Phil has a good exegesis of the text regarding Mars Hill…(emphasis mine)
Not being a gracious reader I assumed that this guy, Chris Case, at Reformergent must have not been reading the same Phil Johnson that I’ve been reading. Deciding that a look at the Pyro blog was in order; I trotted over and the very first post I see catches me off guard. Not for any other reason than Phil seems to take exception to being categorized as a hyper-calvinist or he takes exception to the definition of a hyper-calvinist; I’m not really sure. Uh…Anyway…where was I? Oh yeah…so the guy who says(maybe) Phil is a hyper-calvinist, C. Micheal Patton, runs reclaimingthemind.org. Which is an excellent blog about a lot of things but he had a great article entitled “What do you mean God is sovereign?’ Four Options”. Which in of itself was a great post but what I found most encouraging was the interaction between two commenter’s on that post. Here are their comments in their entirety.
******on 18 Apr 2008 at 2:05 am #
Hi,
I believe option two is the only rational, and importantly, the Biblical one. All the rest does not fit in with the picture the Bible paints God to be. In my opinion, option one comes close to the Islamic god. Option three seems to a dis-interested or at best, a moody god. Option four, an impotent god. Since the Bible clearly teaches God to have given us some free will, and is “intimately acquainted” with all our ways, and is very much potent, these options do not hold much water. God of option two is the Biblical God.
**** on 18 Apr 2008 at 2:24 am #
******,
I would be careful for using that term “biblical God”. There are devout Christians who claim to be “biblical” that would fall in all 4 of these categories. Thus, to claim your view to be the “biblical God” borders on narrow-mindedness and arrogance. There are lots of things that are “biblical” that are not orthodox in any case, and I personally wish Christians would completely drop the word from their vocabulary. It’s mainly used as ammunition for claiming that the person who holds to the “biblical view” is right and everybody else is wrong. Also, you could find proof-texts for all 4 views and thus claim to have the “biblical God”. I do believe there is such a thing as a “biblical God”, but that we can capture this in its entirety and have the audacity to think we’re completely right on everything just falls short of the mark. We all bring our own biases and sets of lenses to the text, regardless of how objective or “biblical” we claim to be. Sorry to rant, I’m not trying to be mean or get mad at you, I’m just trying to persuade you to be very cautious in using that term. Thanks
****
******on 18 Apr 2008 at 3:00 am #
****,
Thanks for your comments. This is the first time we both are interacting, and from reading your responses to other posts and comments, I should say that I like the way you interact, balancing sound arguments with humility.
Now, I am sorry that I come out as someone who is “completely right on everything”, but trust me, I never had such a thought anywhere in the recesses of my heart. What I was trying to say was that from studying the Bible in its entirety (not picking verses), we can safely come to the conclusion that option two depicts the God of the Bible more accurately than the other options. As you know, proof-texting don’t help much.
Thanks, brother, for your concern.
Occasionally my “Rabbit Hole” journeys lead me to some buried treasure. Tonight was one of those nights.
7 Comments(+Add)
That was a good discussion on God’s sovereignty. A man who was born blind is led to a building and he is placed in the building’s shadow that is 500 stories tall. He is then asked to describe the building, and specifically, the top floor inside and out.
That man has a greater chance of arriving at a semblance of accuracy than do we as we attempt to systemize and give an overarching desription of God’s sovereignty. Just the basic definition implies a separateness to which nothing can ever commute, especially the mind of a man.
Can we imagine God’s omniscience? Can we imagine the millions upon millions of molecules on the head of a pin? And then can we realize that God sees, knows, and understands the revolution of every electron, not just as it is happening in each present moment, but the past, present, and future revolutionary history of every single electron on that pin head. And even the word “knows” is infinitely deficient and is for our understanding of His understanding because it assumes some thought process which God does not require.
Can we imagine His omnipotence? To say He can do anything is to reveal the diminutive nature of the tenents of our ground rules for understanding. Ask that same man born blind to describe the color red and you will recreate a small part of the dilemma facing a human being capturing some complete understanding of a small part of the essence of God.
And all His “attributes” exist together in infinite and eternal unity and from our perspective under the heading “sovereign”. And we define that sovereignty in some neat little theological packages and even provide ourselves with a choice. Which one will I choose? Which one comes closest to my deep accurate assessment of the eternal theos?
Don’t worry, I do it to, and this August God loves for us to seek Him, another complete mystery. As long as we do it with the bedrock knowledge that we are not even touching the hem of His garment. But there is one event in which this Eternal Sovereign pulled back the veil and allowed us an actual glimpse into His essence, His Person, the revelation of the YHWH.
Stare at the cross and you will see God displaying Himself fully for whosoever will. Around that one seemingly obscure event, that one dead Jew on Roman planks, around that one death from Judah’s loins, revolves God in all His glorious sovereignty distilled and poured out on us who seek Him now. Selah…
“Can we imagine God’s omniscience? Can we imagine the millions upon millions of molecules on the head of a pin? And then can we realize that God sees, knows, and understands the revolution of every electron, not just as it is happening in each present moment, but the past, present, and future revolutionary history of every single electron on that pin head. And even the word “knows” is infinitely deficient and is for our understanding of His understanding because it assumes some thought process which God does not require.
Can we imagine His omnipotence? To say He can do anything is to reveal the diminutive nature of the tenents of our ground rules for understanding. Ask that same man born blind to describe the color red and you will recreate a small part of the dilemma facing a human being capturing some complete understanding of a small part of the essence of God.
And all His “attributes” exist together in infinite and eternal unity and from our perspective under the heading “sovereign”.”
Well Rick, thanks for putting God into that neat little theological package.
Rick,
I implore you…
Please, please, please, please, PLEASE!!!
Do NOT pick up that rope.
The problem is, nc, is I do not see any rope??
Inq’s last line struck me as bait…
I received it as good natured sarcasm and even a subtle approval. We’ll see…
I said good, not great!