Degrees of Grace

Soteriology, the study of salvation, is particularly fascinating especially in the modern context. There are so many different religions, philosophies and schools of thought on the afterlife (if there is one at all) and what it takes to get there. Even within Christianity there are significant variations in theology, especially when one begins to fully examine the details of belief systems. And that is one of the main reasons I'm excited about this course. I'd like to see what everyone believes and examine my beliefs as well. When I really consider it, I've never thought too much and drilled down on my beliefs when it comes to salvation. Without a course like this, the opportunity to discuss such concepts is rare. Anecdotally speaking, everyone I've ever met wants their life to matter. Even those that don't believe in God want their existence to have some purpose. And who can blame them? Since the beginning, I think man has always believed that there has to be something more than us. Something beyond, something bigger. However, nearly everyone I know goes about their quest for eternal significance and security in a very temporal way. Even the followers of Christ I know struggle with answers in terms of the Scriptural illumination in regards to salvation. I'm excited learn so much more about this.

Is the New Testament the final chapter? Does God intend to reveal more? These are related questions both leaders in the church and lay people wrestle with as the follow Christ. One important reality is the Scripture doesn’t contain all of God’s past revelation. Everything said to the Old Testament Prophets isn’t necessarily recorded and nature qualifies as revelation (Ryrie). So, does that mean anything for the future? Many Charismatics and Pentecostals certainly believe so. In fact, they believe the revelation through the Holy Spirit never stopped. With a focus on the experiential aspect of the Holy Spirit, many folks believe the modern-day revelation takes precedence over all the Scripture, both the Old Testament and New Testament. Obviously, that could create some serious issues with reliability and infallibility considering interpreting personal revelation can be extremely subjective. What happens when these revelations contradict one another? By what standard do you measure new information revealed to humans? This is why many conservative followers of Christ have harkened back to Luther’s solo scriptura motto. After all, what can trump the inerrant Word of God? If not revelation, then perhaps the modern era is about illumination as opposed to revelation. The difference? Revelation is thought of as complete, while illumination is just the opposite. Illumination is anything but complete because it’s an exploration of what has already been revealed by the Holy Spirit through Scripture. As an aspiring theologian, I am absolutely positive that I’ll never even scratch the surface of what God has already revealed even with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I’m not sure I could even handle anything new God would reveal!

One of the most pressing questions folks have about the Bible is related to its authorship. Many don’t believe it is the Word of God because it was written by men. How can something be of God possessing all of His attributes when human beings actually put the words on paper? What role does the Spirit play? These questions aren’t just a challenge for non-believers but also for followers of Christ. The best explanation lies in the ability to understand the term inspiration. 2 Timothy 3:16 states “All Scripture is inspired by God…” Pretty clear statement, but opens the door for the question: what does inspired mean? Was it just God as a Divine muse? The definition as provided in Ryrie’s “The Holy Spirit” is “God’s superintending human authors so that, using their own individual personalities, they composed and recorded without error His message to man in the words of their original writings in the Bible.” This definition paints a clear picture of an incredible Divine-human collaboration to reveal the message God wanted us to have. It also takes the term inspiration (only used once in the Bible, 2 Tim 3:16) and gives a far greater depth than understood by modern language. This definition also brings with it three attributes of scripture: infallibility, authority and that it was necessary to use words (Ryrie). Removing the perceived interference of man allows for these attributes to stand on the character of God, the source. A Holy God is by definition infallible and therefore authoritative as well. And the last attribute is important because a true record can only be kept with the written word. I also found it interesting and furthered my understanding of the Trinity that Ryrie credits God as the source of Scripture (and truth in general) and the Holy Spirit as the actual author (citing 2 Peter 1:21). Man simply served as the agent to record, however they were able to express their unique personalities as mentioned above. Otherwise, I imagine every book would have sounded exactly the same with the same syntax, grammar and style. Somehow there is great beauty in that mosaic of personalities incorporated with the Revelation of God.

Calvinism and the idea that one is regenerate before belief is at odds with the free grace theology which requires man to accept the gift of salvation. In both beliefs, the Holy Spirit plays a critical role. On both sides are great, influential supporters that are far more brilliant than I can ever hope to be. Like most biblical disagreements, the conflict concerns a fundamental truth that greatly impacts practical application. This particular instance is regarding salvation, the chief focus of the church in this age. Obviously, that means it’s a pretty big deal and an important concept to properly comprehend and be able to explain. When analyzing the Scriptures held by both sides, it becomes clear that understanding the terminology of condition and position is critical. In my best words, position speaks to the legal (or forensic as some call it) standing in the Kingdom of God. Through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, the substitutionary atonement, we are no longer found guilty of being the sinful person inherent in our nature. Not only are we not found guilty when we are judged, we are found to be “holy, blameless and above reproach” according to Colossians 1:22. That can only be achieved through the blood of Jesus, which I believe both sides would agree upon despite having different opinions in actual application. Condition refers to your current state in this world. Your life and everything contained there within. Even though we may be positionally regenerate, this indwelling of the Holy Spirit does not always change the condition of the believer. Referred to as “carnal Christians” in many texts, these folks are considered by many to be those who have eternal salvation but have no change in their life brought about by the Holy Spirit. Some dispute there could even be such a person, arguing that showing no/few signs of the indwelling of the Spirit would mean they were never rengenerate to start. An example of a text with conflicting viewpoints on interpretation is Ephesians 2:5-6, “even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” The 5 Point Calvinist perspective states this means man has no part in salvation because we were dead, meaning a person would have no agency. Essentially, not only did God to all the work of salvation, He gave you faith before you could believe. This speaks to both position and condition. The counterpoint would be that this verse is referring only to position. Meaning that man is dead and has no ability to change his legal standing with God, but this may not refer to the quality of his everyday life associated with the work of the Holy Spirit.

Having already discussed the Glory Cloud at Bethel I wanted to delve a little deeper. In my research I came across this video, with the Pastor Bill Johnson discussing many of the signs and wonders that have manifested around he and his church over the years. With an attitude adopted from 1 John 4:1-3 of “testing the spirits” I press forward to evaluate not with my opinion or emotions, but whether they confess that Jesus has come in the flesh is from God. One of the previous signs Pastor Johnson mentions is the falling of feathers, sometimes in the sanctuary and sometimes out to dinner. He refers to Psalm 91:4 which states “He shall cover you with his feathers, and under his wings shall you trust: his truth shall be your shield and buckler.” There is the obvious, literal connection, but without additional context it would be impossible to understand why such a thing would happen. Johnson also talked about additional moments of gold falling from the sky for himself and others. The one that really made my uneasy was the assertion that God visibly manifested Himself in/on Johnson to someone in a grocery store. The person reacted similarly as recorded in Scripture and fell to the floor. But the idea that God would manifest Himself upon a man, even a holy Christ follower, is difficult to accept. It just seems unnecessary. Having sent His Son Jesus, who Himself was completely Divine in nature, to pay for our sins is sufficient manifestation for all of eternity. Why would there need to be anything else or in addition to that completed work of salvation? In my final reflection on this video, I don’t remember Pastor Johnson delivering any clear gospel message, or even mentioning the name Jesus at that. In my understanding of the New Testament, miracles, signs and wonders usually directly correlated to a significant salvation event for a crowd or even individuals. Although there is much evidence that some of the wondrous events of Jesus and the apostles were unique to that point in time, if you were to see something similar now, I would assume it would always be connected to the gospel.

Recently, a few of my Worship Leader friends drew my attention to a phenomenon happening at Bethel Church in Redding, CA. According to folks attending the worship services and the leadership of the church, a “Glory Cloud” appeared in the sanctuary during worship. This cloud dropped what has been described as gold dust on the crowd, which you can see in the video above. As you can imagine, the reaction of the crowd and the thousands viewing on YouTube later has made this a fairly hot topic. Apparently, this has happened fairly often (along with other “signs”). Many folks I respect seem to be in awe of such an event and credit it to Bethel as a sign that they are pleasing the Lord with their worship. I am far more skeptical, particularly as I reflect on John MacArthur’s discussion of Signs & Wonders in Charismatic Chaos. While I intend no harm to Bethel or have any desire to judge them unfairly, I also want to evaluate everything through the lens of Scripture. Best case scenario would mean that everything is consistent with the Word. Worst case would be the kind of false wonders discussed in 2 Thessalonians. Either way, I want Scripture to be the foundation for my conclusion. My first thought was “what exactly is it?” The term they use is “Glory Cloud,” which is quite non-specific. Is it the glory of God? If that was the case, my presumption would be that the audience would be scared to death and fall on their faces. I don’t think Scripture demonstrates one can stay composed in the presence of the glory of God (Matthew 17:5-7, Isaiah 6). In the video, the pastor really doesn’t make an effort to explain the occurrence either. Beyond the “what” question, I also ask why? To what end does this advance the Kingdom and glorify God? Any proper consideration seems to generate more questions than answers.

Recently I was reading an article on a very prominent evangelical church website (http://visionroom.com/the-quest-for-community-2/) designed to guide church leaders to be more effective in ministry. The article was entitled “The Quest for Community”, which seemed quite a noble pursuit. However, I was surprised at some of the language central to the article and the assumptions it seemed to make about the Holy Spirit in explaining how to build community within the next generation. “Postmoderns are not willing to live at even an arm’s length from experience. They want life to explode all around them. And the more extreme the better.” This seems to be the central thesis of the article, drawing a direct connection between providing an experience and building a community of believers within the church. And clearly the more extreme the experience, the better for this generation and therefore, better for community. This is potentially dangerous thinking, over-emphasizing feelings and the five senses over Scripture and discipleship. What biblical truth must this experience be grounded in? This reminded me of many of the discussions within John MacArthur’s “Charismatic Chaos” regarding those who say experience trumps the inerrant word of God. If this were just one statement within an article that further elaborates on the role of the Holy Spirit, it wouldn’t be as egregious. This statement gave me some hope… on the surface: To be sure, experiences can become idolatrous as well as addictive. Postmoderns collect experiences like moderns collect stuff. The church must offer Christ-initiated–or what Donald Whitney calls “Scripture-induced”–experiences. Scripture is mentioned and a warning around the potential idolatry of sensory-focused ministry is a good step. However, when you evaluate the sum of these three sentences the take-away seems to be contradictory. Experiences can be addictive and idolatrous so the church must feed the post-modern addiction by offering experiences “induced” by the Scripture. The use of “induced” also stands out as a less forceful word. It seems to imply Scripture influences the experience but may not be the catalyst. The article continues: “Someday I will hold up my Bible before a congregation, shake it, and yell at the top of my lungs, ‘This is not a book about propositions and programs and principles. This is a book about relationships.’ “ Yes, relationships are a critical piece of the Bible. The relationship between God and man comes to mind. But with the context of the article, the lack of definition is concerning. The final statement of the article brings to light much of the conflict within the article: “eBay may just be the closest experience of small-town America available to postmoderns… Where else can they participate so fully and have their lives changed by the experience? Nowhere else. Except, perhaps, the church. And isn’t that what the gospel is all about?” No, I don’t think lives changed by experience is what the gospel is all about. I’m only an amateur theologian, but that seems to be a direct contradiction to Scripture. The gospel is about God sending His Son to die on the cross to atone for our sins. Paul says it much better in Titus 3:5: “But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” Any other focus, including experience, with which to build a church community is dangerous and seemingly missing the point

Typically at the start of any course, one has at the very least a cursory understanding of the subject at hand. Certainly not all the details, but a working knowledge of the topic. I can say that although I had no clue about the term “pneumatology”, as a Christ follower and reader of the scriptures I felt I was at least basically familiar with the Holy Spirit. But even with that familiarity, I missed a gigantic point fundamental to understanding the Holy Spirit: The Holy Spirit has a personality. More specifically, The Spirit is not an “it” but a “He”. So many of the verses that demonstrate the personality of the Spirit I’ve just overlooked, not making the connection with the attributes. For so many years I’ve used “it” to describe the Holy Spirit and I truly feel bad. I know it was ignorance, but still not a proud moment. Not that the Spirit is a human being. That’s a major difference that would alter the theology and call into question the Deity. By personality, it means the Spirit has a mind, emotions and a will. In Ephesians 4 it tells us He is grieved by the way we live. 1 Corinthians 12 shows the will of the Spirit when distributing gifts. The mind or intellect is the most fascinating for me. It distinguishes the Holy Spirit as a personality, not just an entity or a thing. 1 Corinthians 2:10-13 illustrates that most clearly: “For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.” 

I’ve yet to meet one person who was actually familiar with the term Pneumatology. And I work at a church. Honestly, I’ve had the opportunity to discuss it fairly often since I mention the word every time I’m asked what class I’m taking at Grace School of Theology. Even a few of the pastors I asked, who obviously know the term, took some time to find the answer in their mental database. It felt like I could see the wheels the turning as they tried to remember their seminary training. As silly as that illustration is, it actually reveals a great deal about the common perception of the Holy Spirit. Most people, even those that have spent a great deal of time in church, are still confused about who the Spirit is and His purpose in our lives. There is often a great deal of mystery, almost mythology about the Spirit. Before I came to know Christ, I’d only known the term “Holy Ghost” which brings to mind very specific and theologically incorrect imagery. I was literally thinking of a Scooby-Doo-esque, floating white sheet type of ghost. Obviously that is not the same Spirit found throughout Scripture. As class started and we began to unpack what the Bible says about the Spirit, much of the confusion was washed away. Turns out, there is actually a great deal of information in the text. And not just any information, valuable information about how to live a “victorious Christian life” as Dr. Anderson would say. Very excited about the class and its impact on my studies and my life.  

Can a Christian ever be "perfect" here on this Earth? Is a sinless existence possible through the Spirit? As is often the case in theological matters, the answer is complicated. However, it is incredibly important. So many followers of Christ living unfulfilling, boring spiritual lives or those consistently bogged down in familiar, repeated sin The question of Spirit-filled perfection in our flawed human state is an important question for all authors in "Five Views of Sanctification", which explores the Wesleyan, Reformed, Pentecostal, Augustinian-Dispensational and Keswick approaches to leading a holy life. The Keswick perspective as represented by author J. Robertson McQuilkin tackles the their view with an engaging and clear exploration of their path to sanctification. With that said, when it comes to the perfectionism question, things are muddy. Authors like BB Warfield and even some of those representing the other perspectives in this book, assert that the Keswick's do indeed teach perfectionism. This is where we have to dig deep and begin defining some of the terms often treated as a given. McQuilkin admits that "some Keswick speakers have spoken of a spiritual condition in which one is not able to sin." That sounds like strong proof of perfectionism. However he goes on to further explore the definition of sin, which is critical to addressing the question. Although, sin seems like a word that would have a fairly simple definition considering its centrality to Christian doctrine. As I've found, that's exactly why the definition is so complicated. He seems to frame the discussion with two basic possible definitions on sin. One is the "deliberate violation of the known will of God". The other is "falling short of the glory of God". For the former, McQuilkin believes that it's not just possible, but expected of all Christians. The power of the Spirit can lead a believer not to overtly and deliberately sin. However with the latter, he takes the posture that such perfection is impossible aside from Jesus, as we will always fall short of His standard. So essentially, perfection is somewhere between expected and impossible. While he later goes on to correctly define perfection in the first scenario as maturity, the tension around the possibility of perfection is no more resolved.

So what is theology and why is it important to the average person? In his book Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Theology, Wayne Grudem defines systematic theology via John Frame as "any study that answers the question, 'what does the whole Bible teach us today?' about any given topic." Simple enough, right? But for whatever reason, the term theology seems to engender intimidation in the typical layperson. That was certainly the case for me, pre-seminary. I think one of the biggest issues is the implied definition. Whether you use Grudem's or the even simpler Ryrie definition of "thoughts about God", it's a fairly simple concept represented with a sophisticated word. The connotation of the word, not the definition, seems to create a feeling of inaccessibility, especially among folks like myself who are less academically inclined. This disconnection from theology also results in a disconnection to doctrine, which ultimately creates the true issue: a significant disconnection from Scripture. After all, the whole of proper Christian theology, doctrine, church policy and individuals' life decisions should be rooted in Scripture. As believers, we consider it to be the Word of God, the only consistent and universally accessible authority on how to lead our lives. If we are not grounded with Scripture at the foundation, we are merely trusting our feelings, experiences, ethics or advice to make decisions, both great and small. Which means the course of our lives is largely in the hands of ourselves and our inner circle of loved ones... not the Almighty God. I think for many believers, prayer and blind reliance on the Holy Spirit allows them to function and not completely lose their way. But when you add the influence of Scripture to that equation, the lives of Christ followers will start to bear abundant fruit. That's not just a theory, I've seen the results in my life and the lives of those that surround me. I do believe that the average Christian reads the Bible, but like my personal experience, periodic reading (even if it's consistent) can't replace the depth and breadth of intentional theological study. That depth and breadth provide a comprehensive and complete system of thought incorporating the entirety of the Scripture. Does this mean everyone should go to seminary? I don't think so. Although I believe more should. I think it means people should engage in some form of Bible study at the appropriate level. And the local church has fallen woefully short in providing these resources to the average person. Instead of focusing on content that stimulates theological growth, they typically opt for content that will drive the highest numbers to the corresponding ministry. This gives Christians, especially those that didn't grow up in the church, the spiritual equivalent of fast food. Quick, easy and tastes good at the time but ultimately doesn't provide the nutrition one truly needs to grow and be healthy. I hope my story and influence in my local church can encourage more people toward pursuing theology, a deeper connection to Scripture and therefore God.

On the verge of completing my first class as a seminarian, I'm struck not just with the actual content of Christology and Ecclesiology but with the pursuit of theology in general. The in-depth study of Jesus and His Church is an excellent place to start, as those are two fundamental pieces that impact everyday Christianity. However, the entire process of formal theological study and it's unlimited value to the Christ follower has been revealed as an untapped resource. I wasn't raised in the church. I'm not sure if that's significant, but it feels like it should be mentioned. Without getting into too much depth, I found faith in high school and have pursued growth through personal study and various church and para-church organizations since then. Virtually every year has presented new revelations and insight inconceivable in the previous year. This seemed like the "normal" path of growth as a Christian. It certainly didn't seem too different from what my peers and even those I looked up to were doing. I assumed and was content with the idea that the rest of my life would follow a similar pattern. I was incorrect. After various career changes, I found myself working for a church. I soon came to realize that I never developed an organized biblical or theological foundation, which was a detriment to my service in the church. I was capable and passionate, but the years of one-off, piecemeal teaching created a knowledge base and the outline for a way to think, but left gaps needed to be filled. Even enrolling in seminary wasn't knowingly a choice in that direction, but has been a byproduct. Truthfully, I didn't understand the depth of what I was missing until I was waist deep in theology reading and homework. Now, I realize that intentional theology training is essential for every believer. It is absolutely mandatory for a mature spiritual life. A Christian doesn't have to go to seminary, but they MUST study theology. Part 2: So what is theology and why is it important to the average person?

I began exploring Radmacher's doctrine for the local church in a previous post. It's definitely worth reading first before you dive into this post. In the theoretical, academic realm, Radmacher can be an absolutist in his assessment of the local church. However until humans are constructed with a "salvation indication light", it will never be quite this objective. To be fair, I generally agree with him but I think his hypotheses are underdeveloped as it relates to practical application. Much of Radmacher's point may be illuminated by a discussion of the term membership, which is never adequately defined. What exactly does church membership mean? If it is simply the administrative process of indicating your inclusion in an organization, then it is not nearly as challenging... and not nearly as critical. Then it's just a matter of asking questions in the form of an interview or application and assessing the candidate's spiritual state. Although this still doesn't nullify the fact that salvation is solely the matter of God and His personal relationship with an individual. And in that case, why would an unbeliever even want to be a member? It would be like filling out paperwork for a gym membership where you won't exercise, with no intention of ever getting fit anyway. I believe he implies that membership goes further. In the quote from Part 1, Radmacher seems to indicate more than an administrative process when he says "intimacy of local fellowship." It feels like he means being an active participant in the community, direction and ministry of the local church. While I understand using anecdotal experience to counter an academic point isn't quite comparing apples to apples, real-life application is the ultimate laboratory of theory. I've observed first-hand the life change of people who found the church before they experienced salvation. They wouldn't have described it that way before their re-birth, but it was ultimately the outcome of their journey. There is a famous story in our church of two people who accepted Christ while on a mission trip through our church to build houses in Mexico. They were compelled to serve the Kingdom before they came to faith. Does that mean they were already saved before, but had never experienced an outward manifestation? Does it mean the church erred in allowing them to participate? Or is this the exception that proves the rule? I'm not convinced salvation is quite as linear as we'd like to believe. Clearly for God it is objective, orderly and simple in the spiritual realm, but the manifestation here on earth simply isn't as tidy. In the same chapter, Radmacher posits that a healthy local church should grow both qualitatively and quantitatively. He seems to mean qualitative growth as the sanctification of believers and quantitative growth as the adding of new believers to the congregation. However, I'm not sure the two terms are mutually exclusive. Couldn't a non-believer grow qualitatively before their salvation? As experience in our ministry seems to have demonstrated, some people are served by belonging to the local church and the "intimacy of fellowship" before they can be counted among God's elect in the Body of Christ. And that brings up an entirely new question...

As a church employee and active participant in the ministry, "The Nature of the Church" by Earl D. Radmacher was of particular interest to me. Ecclesiology, in general, is incredibly important to me in forming a scripture-centered view of the daily operations of the local church. Exploring the purpose of Christ's church in an academic and theoretical manner helps me determine how to function within and guide my local church. Essentially, the doctrine I embrace now as a student will determine the decisions and actions I support as a future leader. This where the rubber meets the road, where academic study and theory become action. And what is learning without application? In the chapter The Doctrine of the Local Church, Radmacher states the church should only include the "regenerate" as members. In my understanding of his term, he means that only Christians should be members. Therefore non-Christians, unbelievers, should not be members. In his words he says the church must "maintain an eternal vigilance to see that only those who are truly born again share in and create the intimacy of the local fellowship." He calls this the purity of the church. Of course, he also cites The Great Commission in Matthew 28:19 to establish the local church as the primary mode of evangelism. So my big question that's not addressed in the book is how do you balance evangelism and purity? The lengths Radmacher goes in arguing for the purity of the local church contrasted with the lack of depth in terms of evangelism speak to an imbalance of purpose. How does one create "disciples of all nations" without "the intimacy of local fellowship"? This would all be made MUCH clearer if salvation were easy for man to determine. If salvation were signing a paper or some other tangible representation of regeneration, the admission of new people into church membership would be simple. If a physical light was actually visible in someone who has been reborn, a local church could just admit all those non-believers the minute their light began to shine. However, the real world and the spiritual lives of those that live in it are far more complex. How can one TRULY know, when salvation is clearly God's work? In my observation, regeneration is not always the radical overnight change Radmacher describes. At least not as an outward representation. Often those that are recently born again fall right back into the patterns of sin that marred their life before God called them. Do their words or actions indicate they weren't REALLY saved? Or is this just an indication of the difficult journey of sanctification? The distinction between salvation and sanctification is very difficult to assess. A term I've heard used for salvation is "crossing the line of faith", which embodies our dilemma. According to Radmacher, in our role as stewards of Christ's church we should only include those who have crossed "the line"... except that only God knows exactly where the line is. And the behaviors of those on both sides of the line are often the same. How rigid can we be without absolutes?

I have no pre-conceived notion that I may solve this debate, or answer the question with any finality. Men much smarter than I have dedicated their lives to such pursuits. In fact, I'm just hoping to begin to surface a few issues, but not all, and explore them superficially. This is dipping a toe in the proverbial water, as opposed to a swim. As a novice theologian, I sincerely hope this sparks some thought among anyone that reads this post and drives people to a further pursuit of God. "...I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live..." - Ezekiel 33:11 Of the great ongoing theological disagreements, none stands out quite like Predestination. It is a fundamental question, one that ties together creation and salvation in one volatile topic. Truth be told, you could write a book just unpacking the various uses and meanings of the word predestination. While it has been defined by many, it doesn't appear the word means the same thing to everyone that uses it. When I hear the word, I actually think of what has been defined as "double predestination" from the teachings of Augustine. Summarized more clearly, double predestination is the concept that some are created for Heaven and others for Hell. As Gurdem says in Systematic Theology, the term assumes "that both election (for believers) and reprobation (for unbelievers) are carried out the same way by God and have no essential differences between them, which is certainly not true." Dr. Anderson pointed out that if this were the case, reprobate man is merely an instrument of God. And instruments cannot be held accountable for their actions, as the controller of the instrument is responsible. Shotguns can't be convicted of murder. Therefore God, as the only moral agent, would be the author of evil. And if you believe in the concept of a Holy God, that's simply impossible. Getting back to the words, double predestination and predestination don't mean the same thing. However, it's a useful start because in that statement, Grudem introduces two important words: election and reprobation. Election refers in some fashion to God's sovereign choice for the salvation of individuals. Reprobation is the sovereign choice to not save others and punish them for their sins. Both occurring in "eternity past." (Grudem) Frankly, this is where the discussion gets very impractical for me. While I think discussing God's will is a noble pursuit, it it impossible to truly understand or explain the inner workings of the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God. There will never be a final word on this earth as it relates to predestination. In a practical sense, the discussion shouldn't alter anything in our day to day life. Our charge as followers of Christ to the Great Commission isn't compromised. We are to take the good news of salvation to the ends of the earth, and it is important we never worry ourselves with the matter of who is elect and who is reprobate. That is for God to decide... or rather, God has already decided.

Now that I'm experiencing deeper theological training through seminary, particularly in the area of the life, mission and attributes of Christ, my mind sees the world differently. The content is building a stronger filter with which I processes information. That is a fantastic outcome. However, it has also made it difficult to listen to worship music without evaluating the theology. Over time I'm sure I'll appreciate it, but for the time being, a song is no longer just a musical experience. With that said, it's also brought a greater appreciation for worship songs with rich theology like "Nothing But the Blood". While the lyrics are simple, few songs speak to the complete sufficiency of Christ's blood to redeem humanity in our sin than this one. It speaks to how futile our efforts are in light of His sacrifice.

One of our pastors once said something to the effect of "our biggest problems people face aren't behavioral or emotional, but theological." When I see these simple, "feel-good" pictures and phrases popping up all over blogs, often from folks who are followers of Christ, I understand what he means. Life isn't about self-confidence boosting statements or positive slogans, but following Christ in obedience. And theology serves the latter goal splendidly as Ryrie states in Basic Theology, "... holy living must be based on healthy theology." The statement above simply isn't theologically accurate and therefore aligning yourself to it will not result in holy living. And if you're not pursuing holy living (we all fall short of actually achieving that goal), then you're missing the entirety of Christ's purpose. As I grow in my theology, I sincerely hope my actions and words will reflect holy living.