This we believe?

Amy Reardon on the courage to seek truth

M

y only goal in life is to know God. In that pursuit, it is important to release theological prejudices that have been formed through naïve interpretations of the Word. Some of these prejudices are misunderstandings from my childhood devotions, when I waded without assistance through my bulky King James Bible. Others are malformed doctrine laced into my thinking by the Church. I was blessed with capable teachers at my corps and well-educated, articulate teachers at the Christian schools I attended until university. They taught me what they had been taught, and they did it well. The problem is evangelicalism itself.

This strand of Christianity, which rightly desires to cling to the Word of God as ultimate authority, has occasionally substituted the musings of theologians for Scripture. Think, for example, of Calvin’s doctrine of double predestination (God has not only elected some persons for salvation, but also un-elected the rest), which even the Calvinists, for the most part, reject.

John Wesley drew his theological conclusions from four sources: Scripture, tradition, reason and experience. His definition of “tradition” was that which had been revealed to the Church extra-biblically, particularly in the few centuries after Christ. “Experience” referred to what God revealed to him individually. Reason was valuable because it was part of God’s image in us. But above all, Wesley was “a man of one book”, the Bible. In 1964, Albert Outler coined the term “Wesleyan Quadrilateral” in reference to Wesley’s Scripture/tradition/reason/experience grid. Outler later regretted this term because it inaccurately implied that each sources bore equal weight in Wesley’s thinking. The Bible was the centerpiece, and the other three sources were under its authority. Furthermore, Wesley said that Scripture should be interpreted afresh with each generation.

I have no desire to underestimate what Wesley called “tradition.” Some Christians believe they are wise enough to understand all that God would have us know by simply reading the Bible and interpreting it for themselves. They uphold Scripture and experience, but reject tradition, and sometimes reason. These individuals seem unaware of how the wisdom of Christians throughout the ages has influenced their thinking. Those raised within the Church wear the lenses of centuries of interpretation and influence whenever they open their Bibles. A classic example of the value of tradition is the doctrine of the Trinity. Trinity is consistently taught but not encapsulated within Scripture. Early Christians who, under direction of the Holy Spirit, argued and struggled over heresies in the Church, established the Church’s understanding of this biblical teaching. I’m convinced that our comprehension would be muddled today if the ancients had not been led by God to develop Trinitarian theology and give us the word “Trinity”. It is likely that arianism, docetism and other early church heresies would still run rampant were it not for the councils that verbalized the nature of the triune God.

My concern is that in deference to tradition we have ceased to re-evaluate doctrine and reinterpret Scripture. (I am very grateful for the Army’s Doctrine Council, which continually revisits our own doctrines). In the last century, the squeeze of evangelicalism tightened. Rebuffing anything that might hint at ecumenism, we fertilized our homespun doctrines to distinguish ourselves as evangelicals. Much of our dogma, developed by long-dead theologians, was set in stone. Anyone voicing a different idea was defamed.

As example, I cite the theology of “the last things.” Some branches of evangelical Christianity have espoused suppositions that are difficult to defend scripturally. We have been taught that the moment we die we go to Heaven. By “Heaven” we mean “the seat of order of things eternal and consummately perfect, where God dwells and other heavenly beings”. This is the Greek word “ouranos” – the locus of God, if I may. But this is different from what Jesus promised the thief on the cross in Luke 23:43. He said to him, “Today you will be with me in paradeisos” – paradise. The two Greek words are not synonymous. John Wesley called paradise “the porch of heaven” and understood it to be the temporary home of the departed saints until the time of the final resurrection. Many evangelicals recoil at such an idea because it smacks of Roman Catholicism.

Jesus told his followers in John 14 that he went to prepare a place for them in his father’s house – implying something more along the lines of ouranos than paradeisos. He does not promise direct transference to ouranos upon death. Jesus promised his own presence in Paradise to the thief, and Paul implied in II Corinthians 5 that to leave the body is to enter the presence of Christ. One might conclude that Jesus is present both in Heaven and in Paradise. Perhaps he moves between the two, as God the Father seemed to move between Heaven and Adam and Eve’s Eden. It is difficult to brush aside the many references to some sort of pre-Heaven where the saints reside, as well as a pre-Hell for the sinners (Purgatory, Sheol, Hades).

There are other theological traditions that some present-day evangelicals are bold enough to reexamine. Clark Pinnock, a Canadian Wesleyan/Arminian theologian, is one of a small group who has proposed the radical concept of open theism. This doctrine suggests that God has confined himself to temporality and chooses not to know all of the future in order that he may work in genuine collaboration with the humans he created. Pinnock and his associates have endured many public “dressings down” by their fellow evangelicals. And yet, his ideas are so well supported by Scripture that they must be given serious consideration. Pinnock can find no biblical support for the utter immutability of God, but plenty of instances where God changes his mind in response to his humans (see Genesis 18: 22 ff, Joel 2:13, Jonah 3:10). This is not what we have been taught to believe. But haven’t we always scratched our heads at verses such as Jonah 3:10? “When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it” (NRSV).

It is not my purpose here to convince anyone that open theism is right. However, I will unflinching stand in agreement with Pinnock on the following claim: “Human traditions, while needed to render the word of God intelligible, must be continually scrutinized for soundness and relevance. They are subject to correction and updating.”

I was discussing the idea of reexamining theological tradition with a young man named Joe. His response was as admirable as it was succinct: “I want to know truth. Even if I don’t like it.” We turn our backs on new ideas because they are uncomfortable for us. But if we really want to know God, we mustn’t be afraid to examine his revelation to us so that we may understand it for what it is, not for what we want it to be.

The Worldwide Church of God was once a cult, based in Pasadena, California, just down the street from the corps I used to attend. After founder Herbert Armstrong died in 1986, the church began to reexamine its beliefs. Over the next few years, the denominational leadership repented of its doctrine and turned from cult to evangelical. The church doctrine was rewritten and, though they lost many of their people, the international body turned to the truth. (The amazing story can be found here). I cannot imagine how hard it must have been for the leaders to admit they had been wrong. On their website, they testify to God’s grace: “Today, the leaders of the Worldwide Church of God reject Armstrong’s doctrinal errors, but we do not hide our past. Rather, we acknowledge that our errors were deep and serious, but that Christ has rescued us from them.”

Evangelicalism does not need such a dramatic reformation. But do we have the courage to let go of comfortable ideas when confronted with notions that are truer to the Word? Are we committed to knowing God?

Writer: Amy Reardon is a Salvation Army officer living and serving in Seattle, Washington. She grew up in Southern California and takes great pride in having been a UCLA Bruin. She loves to sing, play the euphonium, read, talk theology, travel and go to the movies. She loves almost any kind of music, from hip hop to opera, and really wishes she were a better dancer. Amy is married to Rob and they have three sons: Kyle, Wes and David. Together they comprise the loudest, craziest family on the block.

Friday, June 8th, 2007 Belief, Ecclesia

22 Comments to This we believe?

  1. Amy:

    You are so right. Faith needs the ongoing renewal of questioning.

    Even if humans could know God perfectly there would are incapable of expressing that knowledge perfectly. And the “received wisdom” is just that, received by imperfect humans.

    All we can do is get closer to that knowledge, but as soon as we shut the door to discussion through whatever means be they edict, apathy, tradition, smugness, complacency we enter the realm of willful ignorance.

    Thanks,

    Andrea

    PS You seem to categorize Purgatory as a sort of pre-Hell. In my understanding it’s a purification zone before entry to Heaven for those with outstanding venial sins.

    2. Andrea614Regent on June 9th, 2007

  2. Thanks, Andrea. “Willful ignorance” is a lot easier, a lot more comfortable, but pursuit of the truth is rewarding. There could be nothing sweeter than to truly know God and his truth.

    About Purgatory, there are different understandings of its purpose. I recommend Donald Bloesch’s book, “The Last Things.”

    Every blessing to you,
    Amy

    3. Amy Reardon on June 10th, 2007

  3. Thanks Amy! You have very eloquently put across something that I believe wholeheartedly in. It is essential that we continue to evaluate our beliefs. It is worth noting that evangelicalism was born out of a questioning of theology in the first place and the evangelical tradition has split like no other part of the Church because of constant evaluation. However, it still seems to have come to the point that if you question any part of the ‘truth’ as laid down by one’s denomination, you border on heresy! Possessing the ‘whole truth’ is something we can never do, and learning from other traditions and thoughts is essential.

    4. Graeme Smith on June 11th, 2007

  4. G’day Amy,

    An excellent picture and a thought provoking article. As a habitual iconolast I’m all for wise and open conversations about God and his plans for us.

    Played your euphonium much lately?

    Grant

    5. Grant on June 11th, 2007

  5. Thanks, Graeme and Grant. I thought I might be taking a bit of a risk with this piece, but it is great to know there are kindred spirits out there. Nice to be in such respectable company. Graeme, I appreciate your comment about evangelicalism having grown out of the spirit of free thought. Ironic, isn’t it?

    Alas, Grant, in January I took a leave of absence from the band for the first time in my life. I hope to rejoin after the summer…I really miss it.

    6. Amy Reardon on June 12th, 2007

  6. Thank you for a thought-provoking and relevant piece.

    I wonder if you would agree that reexamining theological tradition can lead to deeper error as well as deeper truth. For example, while I believe we have gained from modifying the Booths’ hubristic eschatology, I cannot say the same about holiness doctrine. While there has been a helpful attempt at balance following over-emphasis on ‘crisis’, we now have lower expectations about freedom from sin and have relocated Baptism in the Holy Spirit to coincide invariably with conversion. Both of these modifications seem to me to stem from loss of experience, this in turn caused by the pervasive effects of acute spiritual decline in the Western territories. In my view, this has clouded the Bible’s high and buoyant vision of the life of holiness. We are further from the Bible than we used to be.

    I’m up for what you’re proposing - it’s a matter of deep necessity - but shouldn’t we be conscious of context, acknowledging that we reexamine theology largely appropriated in revival in the dramatically different atmosphere of decline? How can this be factored into the vital task of asking afresh, ‘What do the Scriptures say?’

    Thanks again - blessings,
    Matt

    7. Matt Clifton on June 12th, 2007

  7. Hi Amy,
    This was a thoughtful piece and full of grace for sure. And I agree that it was risky of you to put it out there.
    A few years back I admitted to some folks that openness theology was intriguing to me. That I was even open to openness put me in a camp of being considered a potential heretic by some of my brothers and sisters around me.
    Over time however, I concluded that openness, like calvanism and arminianism, was just another attempt at systemetizing theology and God and therefore was not scriptural. God cannot be systemetized. The bottom line is that God sometimes acts like a Calvanist and other times is Wesleyan and other times is Barthian and others He’s open. He’s God so He gets to be whatever He wants to be. And that’s good enough for me.
    Evangelicalism may very well fit into this camp too. It certainly seems to be a modern construct which has somehow divided Christianity in ways that were never meant to be according to scripture.
    Just some thoughts. Keep on putting yourself out there. This is good stuff.
    Peace,
    Dion

    8. Dion Oxford on June 12th, 2007

  8. Matt
    re your observant ‘deeper errors’. One of my favourite C.S Lewis quotes is: “What we see when we think we are looking into the depths of scripture may sometimes be only the reflection of our own silly faces”

    re baptism of the spirit. I think Salvation Story p97 has it absolutely right “The baptism of the Holy Spirit may therefore be considered as distinct from being filled with the spirit. Baptism happens once at the beginning of Christian experience, while infilling happens repeatedly throughout the Christian life”.

    Amy, re your eupho. I hope your still practising at home?

    9. Grant on June 12th, 2007

  9. Matt,

    You need to be careful that you don’t end up typing yourself as a “one-note-johnny” in other people’s minds. Possibly for you all roads lead to the “holiness question” because you see this as fundamental - but this is not so for everyone. The temptation to use any and every discussion of theology and/or biblical studies as a pretext to hammer away at the “holiness question” might be one you want to resist at times. I am suspicious of easy answers and everything - most things - cannot simply be reduced to one simple cause or problem…or error. I would also argue your point that we are in a “period of decline” versus a “period of revival” back then…personally I’m thinking that the romanticized nostalgia that we in the Salvation Army (over)indulge in may be a greater evil than divergent views on what holiness is and how it is to be obtained.

    And…while I’m going on record - I think that Clark Pinnock’s book “Most Moved Mover” is brilliant - thank God that someone, finally, has put together a coherent Arminian theology as a balance to the over-reach of the theological determinists (which covers the vast majority of the books published in Evangelicaldom and read by Christian leaders). Dion - Pinnock has actually, as far as I can figure, de-systematized theology - he is a theological minimalist.

    Amy - you rock.

    Geoff

    10. Geoff Ryan on June 13th, 2007

  10. Thank you Geoff - good to hear from you.

    What we write reflects our passions and priorities and, yes, I do concentrate on issues I believe to be deeply significant. I take your point - I have to balance that with other friends who encourage me to stay ‘on message’.

    I am aware of many temptations - the one you mention, however, is not one of them. If you can direct me to any examples where I have given way, I would be grateful. In my post above, holiness is used as an example to ask a question which is not about holiness. It was the best example that came to mind of detrimental modifications to theology.

    Yes, there are no easy answers. But, for better or worse, I believe in attempting to find and propose answers. The Army’s situation in the West is crushing in its complexity - I have tried to reflect on scripture to form an overarching narrative to help me navigate the maze of officership in the 21st century. Doing so has tempered my anguish. And yes, the categories of revival and decline are axiomatic - always happy to defend that. Not having the time to write a thesis, and often subjected to a word count, sometimes I have to distil that narrative into apparently simplistic propositions. I’m sorry if you feel I’ve ever done injustice to the way things are.

    Thanks again - trust you and the family are well.

    Blessings,
    Matt

    11. Matt Clifton on June 13th, 2007

  11. Matt, I appreciate your thoughts and agree that error is always a possibility. We see through a glass dimly. I think you’ll agree, though, that that shouldn’t stop us from thoughtfully questioning the positions we’ve embraced. As far as holiness goes, let me go on record as saying that I believe firmly in the possibility of living in victory over sin. It is the testimony of Scripture, and it is also only reasonable to expect that the Holy Spirit can give the strength if we willingly submit to him. I have read your thoughts on this subject in The Officer. You and I might vary, however, as to how a Christian gets to that point, and we might have a healthy debate on eradication (not sure where you fall on that). I believe I have a piece on holiness coming out in the next Officer,should you be interested in my “spin”.

    Dion, thank you for your kind encouragement. I thought open theism was heresy until I decided to read it for myself instead of agreeing with someone else’s assessment like a mindless drone. The concept both excites and frightens me - I’m not sure where I fall yet. But I don’t agree that it systematizes God. Like Geoff, I find it freeing from exactly that. Pinnock seems to look at Scripture and accept what it says without attaching a series of caveats, disclaimers, etc., as traditional theism must sometimes do to keep itself from unravelling. Bravo, Pinnock! I will agree with you to the extent that God approaches his people in different ways because he has created us so differently. But I don’t know that I can define God’s nature under a multitude of theisms or theological schemes without finding prohibitive contradictions. Although I may not agree totally, I find your thoughts quite interesting and I’m glad you shared them.

    Grant, you have put me under conviction and I promise to practice before week’s end. And I trust your cornet is not collecting dust somewhere?

    I hope all you friends are experiencing victory in the war today and are not “grow(ing) weary in doing what is right.”

    12. Amy Reardon on June 13th, 2007

  12. Amy,

    Thanks for such a sensitive and thoughtful piece. Your point is well-taken; we Evangelicals must be open to regular re-examination of our fundamental beliefs. Our hope must be built on Truth itself, not our current understanding of that Truth.

    Recognizing the many excellent points you raise, let me offer an observation on just one. In my view, our use of Wesley’s Scripture/tradition/reason/experience model is in need of updating. We err if we see these as independent pillars supporting our doctrines. Correctly understood, each is related to the others. For example, what we call ‘Scripture’ (or, ‘the canon’) is the result of a traditional application of reason to the documents available, with personal and communal experience with the documents being one of the tests for canonicity.

    We must affirm God’s revelation in history, and seek it today.

    Thanks again for your courage - and encouragement - to continue to seek Truth.

    13. Dave Carr on June 13th, 2007

  13. Dave, while Wesley viewed Scripture as sort of the master of the other three elements, you make a great point regarding the canon’s dependence on on reason, tradition and experience. I think even Wesley would have appreciated that observation!

    14. Amy Reardon on June 13th, 2007

  14. Thanks Amy - look forward to reading that piece.

    Another question that occurs to me concerns the soldier’s covenant. Given that we publicly bind ourselves for life to an explicit list of doctrines, does that conflict with the imperative to reexamine? Or are they non-negotiable for you?

    Doesn’t the soldier’s covenant effectively signal the end of enquiry into matters that are profoundly intangible (after all, it’s not as if we sign up to “I believe that 1+1=2″)? If I can be frank in order to illustrate, some clauses in Article 11 have caused me huge difficulty since I signed the covenant many years ago. I am uneasy about the possible outcomes of pursuing open, honest enquiry into these things, not wanting to jeopardise my covenant or ministry. But I cannot help believing passionately in the principle of ongoing enquiry, right to the metaphysical level. Can you see the tensions?

    A resolution, anyone?

    15. Matt Clifton on June 15th, 2007

  15. Enjoyed reading your article Amy - I made the mistake yesterday of indulging a couple of Jehovah’s witnesses on my doorstep - why did I do that? Fundamentalism I know is the extreme end of evangelicalism, but ‘open minded’ they were not, and evangelicalism understood wrongly, courts fundamentalism, with its safe, certain, defined answers, at its peril.

    Thinking about your comments on getting to the heart of the truth about the word, I was reflecting on the hermeneutical task of translating the word so that it can speak in today’s horizon, from the distant horizon in which it was written and understood - that’s always going to be a demanding option that prohibits easy, slick and casual interpretation and allows for ongoing re-assessment and re-appraisal.

    How on earth for example did we get our doctrine of ‘the immortality of the soul’? when the Bible so clearly talks about the resurrection of the body? But then its an expensive business having to stump up the cost of a new Salvation Army Act, and clearly our search for truth must in some minds be secondary to more pressing realities?

    Mind you I’m not sure I’d want us to embrace ‘purgatory’ just when the Roman Catholics are dumping it as unbiblical.

    How about a re-assessment of the idea that using the imagery of bread, wine and water is an unhelpful and unnecessary tradition…only kidding…

    Thanks Amy

    David Taylor

    16. David Taylor on June 15th, 2007

  16. Matt, regarding the soldier’s covenant. I agree there is a considerable tension in that particular area and I’m not sure that it is fully resolvable! Personally, as I look at scripture, our doctrines are one of a number of lenses through which I have to consider the meaning of the passage I am reading.

    Regarding the danger of deeper error. I would suggest that most often this is a result of individual interpretation of scripture. One of the things I’ve begun to understand is that when one person is set up as the sole interpreter of God’s Word there is a danger of error. Hence the Biblical charge to test teaching against the word to protect us against false teaching. Over the last few years I have gained so much from the discussion of the Bible within a small group.

    Of course error can come out of group discussion, but I would suggest that it is more likely during individual study. This is something that has only been possible for a small part of the history of the Church as the ability for individual to have their own copy of the Bible has become available.

    Amy & Grant, (just to add to the sub-plot of this thread) it looks like I’ll be dusting off my cornet after 10 years when I get back to the UK in August!

    Graeme

    17. Graeme Smith on June 15th, 2007

  17. Matt, I’m glad you brought up the tension re. our commitment - covenant - to our doctrine and our need (obligation?) to make “honest enquiry.” I really struggle with this. Like you, I have some questions about the 11th doctrine. But that is a private struggle, not one that I would share with people I teach, etc., and I would not teach anything contrary to the doctrine. I was scanning through part of Salvation Story the other day and noticed that there are some things (in the exposition, not the doctrines themselves)you can take one of two ways. They are worded carefully so that the doctrine council didn’t box themselves in - at least that’s how it read to me. Hmmm, I’m at camp just now and don’t have the book with me, so I can’t be specific. Sorry about that.

    David, I hope you always do entertain Jehovah’s Witnesses! Funny you should say that, because this article originally opened with a story about a JW who used to visit me weekly, but it didn’t work like I wanted it to, so I cut it. Are you familiar with Vincent Donovan’s book, Christianity Rediscovered? It is a favorite of mine. Donovan was one of the early missionaries to the Masai, and he discusses his struggle to make Scripture understandable to them, but also his uncomfortable awakening to how Westernized the gospel had become in the hands of the church.

    And in response to Graeme: Solo interpretation of the Bible is terrifying! Here’s a pet peeve of mine: arrogant kids who think that it is a waste of time to read commentaries or the reflections of others on Scripture. They think they can open their Bibles and understand everything, and nothing that God has revealed to anyone else is relevant. I’m not saying that everyone should sit around reading commentaries, but I have actually had young people ridicule me for studying commentaries, for learning the original biblical languages, for reading the great Christian writers and thinkers, etc. Listen, I am going to get off this soapbox right now before I REALLY get carried away!

    Blessings to you all,
    Amy

    18. Amy Reardon on June 15th, 2007

  18. Thank you all for the interesting discussion. Sorry that I am coming in late…

    Understanding the footing of any theological tenet is critical, and it seems that this discussion finds it point of tension in the distinction between reconstructive and deconstructive thought. Basically these are two different ways of approaching postmodernism. Deconstructivism sees no real value in any established belief, so it tears it down and tries to build up its own system or anti-system. Reconstructive thought recognizes that our epistolomological reasoning has changed but there is still value in older ways of getting at that truth.

    Just a word about the “biblical grounding” of open theism. Pinnock is someone who is more or less a scholar within the realm of philosophical theology ( I love his book “A Wideness in God’s Mercy). Other leading open theology folks like John Sanders and William Hasker are both philosophers. I have really not found their exegetical work compelling, and I find it interesting that no esteemed scholar within the realm of biblical studies has come to their aid. To make it overly simplistic, I have a hard time not seeing these statements in the Bible as being anthropomorphisms (I know Pinnock deals with this, but his answer isn’t compelling to me).

    For me, assuming that God changes his minds presupposes that he looks at time within our confines. As a Wesleyan I grant that it is a mystery that God can know all things without causing them. I can not explain this rationally, but neither can I explain the Resurrection or creation ex nihlo –this doesn’t diminish my belief in these doctrines. I find comfort in my ministry affirming the truth that God doesn’t change.

    19. Andy Miller on June 16th, 2007

  19. Quite often the most difficult battle we must fight is against our own opinions and ideas. We naturally have a hard time embracing or even tolerating those things that contradict our absolutes. The examples listed in the above comments such as the immortality of the soul, details of doctrine eleven (specifically eternal punishment I assume - forgive me if I’ve assumed wrong), and the rigidity of true holiness place us at odds not only with each other, but with our comfortable ideals. The attribute of God that is too easily forgotten is His unpredictability and His refusal to fit a mold. See Romans 9. I’ve heard people say, “I can’t believe God can be like that”. How very limiting is this? Think of Pharaoh, Judas, Esau, and the priest Eli. God was ruthless in dealing with each of them. In the case of Judas, the consequences were eternal. Every goat on the left of Christ was sent into ETERNAL PUNISHMENT and it’s the same in every version. Concepts like hell, eternal punishment, wrath, and maybe even election in postmodern years seem to break God out of the popular and comfortable ideas we have of Him. Insisting on keeping our god shaped and colored as we see fit is not ongoing renewal of theological questions… it is stubbornness. Nothing more. If there was more honesty rather than opinion in scriptural study, our idea of God might be more like God’s idea of God.

    Having said all this, I did appreciate the article Ms. Reardon. It was great food for thought.

    20. Matt Kean on June 16th, 2007

  20. Matt, I think you bring a valuable point up here. It is of course correct that we should not try to shape God solely on the basis of current thought. However, at the same time it would be wrong to think that humanity’s understanding of God has already reached its zenith.

    Whilst I agree that we should base our thinking on scriptural study, it is almost impossible for that same study to be unclouded by our individual opinion. Having a personal opinion does not necessarily mean that we constrain God in anyway. The essential thing is that we allow the Spirit into our study and let that same Spirit aid us in our study.

    Andy, it is good to know that I am in good company when it comes to my understanding of some of the mysteries of God. My humanity insists that there must be an answer to these sorts of issues, but my soul is at rest that there are some things that it is simply not possible for us mere humans to comprehend!

    21. Graeme Smith on June 17th, 2007

  21. As a former Salvationist, I am troubled by the fact that any Christ-centered Christian would embrace any of Clark Pinnock’s ideas. The “open theism” that he teaches clearly undermines the power and majest of our Lord Jesus Christ and consistently undermines the “whole counsel of God.” I can see why some Salvationists would look to this as comforting.

    As someone who was raised and taught that God cannot control our response, I guess it would be appealing to assume that God’s power is limited. But when we look at the whole counsel of God as defined by the scriptures, we see that God is all powerful. The question I would pose is this; why would we want to serve, worship, and entrust our lives to him? Why pray? Why seek the Holy Spirit’s guidance? If God doesn’t know the future, then why did Jesus Christ promise the thief that he would be in paradise, if he did not know the future? Why did he foretell his death, burial, and ressurection? These are but a few questions we must deal with and believe me there are many more.

    The fact is, God is all powerful, he does know the future, and his sovereignty is not a myth but a real fact of history, experience, and more importantly truth. The truth of God does not depend on experience, reality, or even belief. Truth is true, whether we believe it or not and the truth is God is SOVEREIGN!

    You can reject his sovereignty, reject his all-powerful nature, but when the tough times come, when the rain falls (and it falls on the righteous and unriteous alike), then the only comfort that will pull you through is the Holy Spirit himself. And knowing that the Holy Spirit is sovereign over all matters of heaven and earth, then the tough times will be given perspective, meaning, and most importantly hope.

    22. Chris on June 1st, 2009

  22. This is an amazing article, Amy. Wow! You really put yourself out there. Great stuff!!!

    I can’t resist the opportunity to teach here. In the first century, those who were stoned were placed at the edge of a cliff with their hands tied. After being pushed off and landing on the ground a few stories down, those who believed that they were guilty were permitted to throw one rock, hoping it would hit the guilty person.

    If the person survived, they were allowed to get up and leave.

    What is relevant for this article has to do with their opportunity to repent. Before they were cast off the cliff, the person was given permission to repent. If the person admitted guilt, they were still pushed off and stoned, but the one who repented was told that he would go to paradise upon his death, while the one who refused would not.

    While on the cross, one man would not admit his sin, while the other did and was told (as all first-century “repenters” would have been) “…today you will be [with me] in paradise” (Luke 23:43).

    Thanks again, Amy.

    In His dust,
    Johnny

    23. Johnny Gainey on June 2nd, 2009

Leave a comment

Advertise with theRubicon

Categories


Sound and Fury