In the legal world one of the defining principles of testing a document to see how important it is is the check for purpose, that is to ascertain why the document was written and for whom. As is the case with most pieces of writing, they usually are written to convery either an idea or a set of ideas in a logical form such that conclusions can be drawn, or in the case of a story, such that a plot can be established and moral points drawn from it.
Why then am I talking about such a principle with relation to the bible? Surely such a work is above scrutiny. Well obviously not since more has been written on this one document than any other work in history. The book itself asks us to test the spirits, to tell whether they come from God or not; why not test God's own work against itself - in fact that is one of the great tests of a public work, to check for inconsistancies.
So then armed with this... it's the Predestination vs Free-Will conflict challenge.
The Bible makes no attempt to reconcile the ideas and the only mention of them side by side is in a small passage part way through Romans 9. Now obviously prima facie suggests that there is a conflict but this actually negates the first test of a document - the check for purpose.
This is a question for philosophers and cleary within the context of the Bible, it is not a discourse on philosophy. The book is however a discourse on how God works through, talks to, is connected to, relates to and is Lord of the people of this meager bit of dirt we call earth. Although the two themes run pretty well much through the book, they're still only with regards how God is working and in relation to us; both are proven and both can be said to fit in all circumstances because the benefit of hindsight adds the necessary conclusions to things to tie them up.
The Bible doesn't for instance give us a detailed picture of geography (though things can be found and proven to have existed), it doesn't tell us a lot about nature and science generally, nor in all honesty a great deal about history (though it can be referenced and supported by other source documents). We don't ask these questions of the text, because we know that it isn't going to tell us.
BJD says this here:
And I refuse to compromise on either statement just so they fit into our feeble logical constructs. Or so we can use God's sovereignty as a cop out for not being doing the things that God has clearly called us too - being Holy and telling others about Jesus.
The logical outflow from this is, why then are we looking for an emperical answer to an abstract question? The Jews demanded miracles and the Greeks wanted hard facts but the Bible offered an answer to both which by all accounts has to be about the most stupid thing ever suggested (of course it is ridiculous that the world can be saved by God himself entering it and then dying for the very people who rejected him in the first place). Even that passage from Romans 9 isn't there to answer the question but to show God's grace and mercy.
I think therein lies the answer as to why these ideas will never be resolved. If either of them actually are, then man's responsibility and God's grace are both negated in one foul swoop. It is an entirely arrogant proposition to suggest that we aren't the cause of our own sin, in fact the proposition proves the arrogance and therefore the cause.
Refusal to compromise is indeed a most excellent cause and one worth fighting for but I come at this from a slightly different angle and suggest that the argument in the first place is largely irrelevant. There are many things in this world that I do not understand or care about (aliens, evolution, seven days) but again those last few words "God has clearly called us too - being Holy and telling others about Jesus" should give us more than enough reason not to worry - especially since time is short.
No comments:
Post a Comment