This material concludes the essay begun in Being Fully Convinced; a study inspired by a reading of Romans 14:5 and 14:23. If my thoughts are not convincing then at least they may induce some to consider the points therein:
Now in conclusion I do want to make a specific point. All this being said (read the last post please) about antimonies and their resolutions, there is an antinomy that cannot be easily sidestepped as Paul does here in Romans 14. It is what exists between reformed and Arminian theology. We preach God's irresistible grace whereas they preach that God's grace is resistible since otherwise it would suppose that God is infringing upon our free will. This is a true antinomy that cannot be resolved. There are those who say that the Bible teaches both and give proof texts for evidence. But this admission alone violates human reason. But going further, its acceptance is not a sign of faith either. On the contrary, it is blind adherence to what is not certain. It would be better to believe in one or the other but not both. Because believing that the Bible teaches both is to embrace intellectual suicide which is exactly where modern man finds himself. Maturity is acknowledging our weakness or acknowledging our immaturity. Resisting what we are uncertain of is faith and pleases our Lord, but accepting something as truth without being certain is no faith at all but sin. We read this in Hebrews 11:1. We are designed to reject what is antithetical to the truth of God. At first we go to the scriptures in order to resolve the dilemma. We try to dialectically resolve it by making it mesh with our present understanding of scripture. But we, if we are honest, discover that what we have is a full blown contradiction that has no conciliatory resolution in it. Something cannot be one way and also its antithesis at the same exact time and place. There is such a thing as mystery; but I am not dealing with the unexplainable. Yes, we might not be able to fully comprehend the things of God; but one thing we do know and can recognize: we know when a body of doctrine conflicts with what we do know about God. How we resolve it may mean keeping the false teachings until God himself sets us straight in our immaturity and weakness or, in faith, rejecting it and asking God for clarity of mind. Even though we walk in faith we are still ignorant of many things; unaware that we do not walk totally on the path of truth. But when our brother approaches us, as Aquilla and Pricilla did with Apollos, we must deal with immediacy the now obvious conflict. Not dealing with the conflict, but setting it aside, may come from believing that the other is in the wrong. But that particular belief may merely be a dogmatic assertion that he is wrong without any real evidence to back it up. One may say that both are right but the contradiction stands clearly before all eyes. Refusing to acknowledge the contradiction may be the only open door. For the only other possible explanations are dead ends and are unacceptable as arguments. One merely argues around and around using different (but same) examples to "prove" the point that the Bible teaches both - a thesis and its antithesis as equally valid. Or, one might argue ad infinitum (infinite regress) about how scripture upholds the conflicting position. This position is called infinite regress simply because in bringing up scriptural proofs for one position there is always an alternate way of interpretation - this will go on forever without any possible hope of resolution. This is especially the case with reformed and Arminian doctrines. In fact on every corresponding point between the two forms we have complete and utter contradiction. There can be no possible synthesis - there is nothing dialectic here! No doubt many have tried for years to synergize the two but Arminians have only agreed with us in rhetoric only. Make no mistake about it, it is the rhetoric; the language, that has promoted and fostered the ignorance and acceptance of the both doctrines as coequals in the church.
But refusing to acknowledge the contradiction is intellectually dishonest. After all, don't we want to know - for certain? We are dealing with certainty in faith here - I am not talking about epistemological absolutism which has long gone the way of the Dodo so it seems. Relativistic thought pervades the culture in which we live now and we must have a response against it - even if it is rejected offhandedly. If there is anything that causes our arguments to be justified, it is our faith; and this must be grounded on a firm, solid foundation. Else the storms of life that come our way will shake us to the very core and forthwith thrust us into a belief system that stands contrary to the one we say we hold too with all of our heart. Yet, to the world's eye, our Christianity looks no different to them than to the philosophic system they currently hold loosely. Their advantage is that they hold it loosely. They are ready to dispose of it if it proves too restrictive of the freedom they think they enjoy. They scoff that we have not the freedom to throw ours away - for they see little difference between ours and theirs. Some Christians despair of life as they do. What hope do we have to offer when some Christians are willing to accept contradiction in their belief system; blindly they keep it instead of tossing it away as does the world? The world scoffs because they toss theirs and embrace another never really ever dealing with root issues. But he world cannot tolerate contradiction. The moment they sense an imbalance in their system it is tossed or amended or somehow rectified. But we are suppose to be fully satisfied in ours. But our teeth are clenched and we suffer through the pain of unanswered questions when we should be trusting our all powerful God who is able. Heck they are more free than we!
So let's deal with these differences head on and not be intellectually dishonest; let's not argue the same weak things that have been met time after time with the same crushing hammer blow and let's certainly not simply ignore the argument at hand. Lastly, let's not make a dogmatic assertion that simply cannot stand up to the heat. But in humility acknowledge the arguments on the other side and consider them carefully. The free will argument that the Arminians say we violate is easily combated and returned as is every other argument that violates (we feel) God's sovereign grace as it is poured out on an undeserving race.
-Joe
No comments:
Post a Comment