Spurgeon on Election
From Morning and Evening, Daily Devotions:
“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me.” - John 6:37
This declaration involves the doctrine of election: there are some whom the Father gave to Christ. It involves thedoctrine of effectual calling: these who are given must and shall come; however stoutly they may set themselves against it, yet they shall be brought out of darkness into God’s marvellous light. It teaches us the indispensable necessity of faith; for even those who are given to Christ are not saved except they come to Jesus. Even they must come, for there is no other way to heaven but by the door, Christ Jesus. All that the Father gives to our Redeemer must come to him, therefore none can come to heaven except they come to Christ.Oh! the power and majesty which rest in the words “shall come.” He does not say they have power to come, nor they may come if they will, but they “shall come.” The Lord Jesus doth by his messengers, his word, and his Spirit, sweetly and graciously compel men to come in that they may eat of his marriage supper; and this he does, not by any violation of the free agency of man, but by the power of his grace. I may exercise power over another man’s will, and yet that other man’s will may be perfectly free, because the constraint is exercised in a manner accordant with the laws of the human mind. Jehovah Jesus knows how, by irresistible arguments addressed to the understanding, by mighty reasons appealing to the affections, and by the mysterious influence of his Holy Spirit operating upon all the powers and passions of the soul, so to subdue the whole man, that whereas he was once rebellious, he yields cheerfully to his government, subdued by sovereign love. But how shall those be known whom God hath chosen? By this result: that they do willingly and joyfully accept Christ, and come to him with simple and unfeigned faith, resting upon him as all their salvation and all their desire. Reader, have you thus come to Jesus?
Spurgeon does not describe election as a robotic control of will over the believer, but by the irresistable enticement of God’s mercy, love, and grace. It’s not that he imposes His will on us, but that his offer is just that good, that we cannot resist it. This is a fundamental misunderstanding over Calvinism, Election, and many aspects of Reformed Theology. Gospel grace instead of religiously instilled fear is our motivation for good works, loving our God and our neighbor, and living a life centered on God. Man influences with Power, God influences with a Love backed by a power infinitely strong enough to follow through with that love.
This is my favorite line, and is just beauty incarnate:
Jehovah Jesus knows how, by irresistible arguments addressed to the understanding, by mighty reasons appealing to the affections, and by the mysterious influence of his Holy Spirit operating upon all the powers and passions of the soul, so to subdue the whole man, that whereas he was once rebellious, he yields cheerfully to his government, subdued by sovereign love.
Posts
The election of God - this is pure guesswork on Spurgeon’s part - and anyone that follows after him into this idea of the elect. How can one know the mind of God? We may see dimly now - but we do see dimly on such issues.
Also the doctrine is meaningless in it’s best of uses. The idea someone is in the elect is not something we can so much as even pinpoint to exactness. For all we know, everyone in these blogs may very well think they are part of the elect (we’d be stupid not to think that BTW) and actually not be at all. None of us can make these claims - we are not gods.
As much as you think Spurgeon is not making us into robots - he is. If someone is elected and tries to reject - they cannot do it (according to Spurgeon)…at least he doesn’t explain how they can resist it.
We are people created with choice - and predestination is something we can wonder in amazement about - but it’s meaningless in that it means nothing here and now - we do not have those answers. What we know we have is choice.
I do not disagree choice in choosing right and wrongs is part of the plan of God - I think it is bang on personally. However, my disagreement when it comes to choice is about what ‘belief in God’ means. It is there where I rightfully divide a line in the sand. Most people think belief is something simply that we ‘can believe about God’ (mental alone)…I disagree 50%.
If one holds a belief about God and claims that makes them a Christ follower - then I ask for verification of that claim. One’s life should reflect the choices one makes in serving God. A person should become more moral in many ways for example. I say if it does not make help them in morality/daily living - their faith is meaningless.
I can make this claim about statements of faith in most denominations - where 10 claims are made about God (and bible) that mean and show nothing. Those are beliefs (mental) that have no effect on the life of the person holding them.
EX: God has chosen his elect from this earth to share paradise with. So what? I do not know God’s mind on this matter nor will He likely reveal it to me so I can.
I find statements of faith make people think they think like/for God. Almost as if they have cracked some code into God’s mind - and they can make decisions based on those high and lofty statements they swear to uphold. If they can just live a good and moral life - should be good enough for all of us.
SVS,
A few things…
1.) You assume free will. Those words are nowhere in scripture. Not one. “Election” and “elect” however, is everywhere (Romans 9:11; Romans 11:28; 2 Peter 1:10; Joshua 24:3; Matthew 24:22, 24, 31; Mark 13:20, 22, 27; and Luke 18:7 to name a few…). It’s concept is thematic of scripture as a whole. It is not “pure guesswork” by any stretch, and the burden of proof is on those who claim otherwise.
2.) I wholeheartedly agree that we cannot, in any way or degree, judge the election of others. However, we are allowed, and indeed called to take hope in our own election. We are made members of the people of God by right belief, covenantal participation in the sacraments, and then responding to that right belief with our actions. Hence my harping on works as a “result” of grace, and not the other way around…
3.) There is no “code” that needs cracking. Only put God’s word into context and let it speak for itself. If we enter into the context of Scripture, and understand where it ends and our context begins, we will be able to see what God has revealed about Himself. All else is speculation, to be sure. But we can know what God has revealed with certainty. This is neither arrogance, nor close-mindedness, only trusting God’s own words about Himself.
“If we enter into the context of Scripture, and understand where it ends and our context begins, we will be able to see what God has revealed about Himself.”
Now HERE’S some Calvinism I might subscibe to!
Thanks, Bradley.
Also, I’ve been finding Keller’s book to be very good. I didn’t read every single page, but almost, and the arguments are very good. It’s been refreshing — very sharp and sensitive.
Chris,
That’s great! I knew you’d enjoy it… it is very refreshing…
And yeah, believe it or not, that is what Calvin believed as well… many perceive Calvinism as hyper-calvinism, and that would not be the kind that you would subscribe to.
Bill,
the words “free will” may not be in scripture but the word “believe” is everywhere. To have the ability to believe for not believe something a demonstration of free will.
Rover,
(I guess you are referring to me?) To believe or not believe absolutely involves choice, but it is the choice to believe in something that is true. It is a recognition of truth, and does not necessarily bring that truth about. While it COULD be applied as you say, it is absolutely not a clear cut proof of it.
Bill,
sorry for not addressing you properly, I am new to this blog thing. thanks for your response, though I am not sur)*e I understand it. If I can believe and if I can have “faith” then I have a choice to make. I must choose to believe or to have faith. If I choose to have faith I am trusting in Christ. Surely my trust in Christ brings about salvation. Jesus was often angry because Israel chose not to believe. He percieved that they had a choice and they were choosing not to believe. They resisted the Holy Spirit, which again is a choice only available to those who have a free will in this narrow regard. I would appreciate your thoughts on this.
thanks
sorry I meant brad!
Rover,
“If I can believe and if I can have “faith” then I have a choice to make. I must choose to believe or to have faith.”
There is a gap in this logic connecting to biblical principles. Consider love. You might also say that love is a choice, and since I am commanded to love my neighbor as myself, I am choosing to love him or her. But where then does John pull this from “We love because he first loved us.” (1 John 4:19)?
Brad’s point (I think) is that our ability to choose something comes first from God’s decision to make it an option. In all things, God is the primary mover, and we are called to respond.
Put another way, by most definitions of free will, I am truly free if I make a choice, but have the option to choose something else. However, this cannot hold up to the world we live in. I do not have the ability to choose to fly in the next 3 seconds. Does this mean I dont have free will? Not at all. My ability to choose is naturally hindered by the options I have available to me. Applying this to the bible then, what John is saying in his letter is that I only have the option to love because God has first loved me. He has made the option available in a way that otherwise would be as impossible as me flying in the next 3 seconds.
But it must be made clear, the context in which the Bible describes its commands (those things that God has made an option), they are always given to those whom He has made His people.
thanks Mike,
I defined free will as being “narrow”. I do not have free will in every regard, but in believing or not believing I have free will. You point out that love is an option granted us by God and you are right. But it is an option nonetheless. Why would Christ be dissapointed in the unbelieving world’s lack of love for him if they didn’t have the option of loving him? I know you are arguing from a Calvinist point of view so you don’t have to spend time educating me on that perspective but the logic seems flawed. You cannot fly because you do not have the ability to fly, but sinful man can choose to trust Christ because Christ, the second Adam, has given us the ability to choose. Sin entered the world through one man and life enters through another. Not all men are not saved, but all have God’s grace provided to them to give them the ability to choose. When we stand before the judgement seat of Christ He will evaluate whether we trusted in Him for salvation or not. God is a righteous judge and will judge hold us accountable for what we did with the option he gave us. Is it logical to for one of the non-elect to stand before Christ and be held accountable for a choice he didn’t really have? The logic of your potential reply that He did not have to save any of us does not answer the question. If He will judge us on what we did with the Gospel will this judgement be a sham? Those who believed only believed because He irresistably caused them to believe and those who did not believe never really had a choice. This does not sound like justice and you are right in stating that this is not free will.
sorry for all of the grammatical errors, but I guess they are not as bad as my theological errors. lol
Mike,
Thanks for responding in a timely manner when I couldn’t. I agree wholeheartedly.
Rover,
Calvinism is not opposed to affirming human responsibility. Calvin himself talked about the apparent contradiction (to western understanding) that scripture affirms both human responsibility and divine sovereignty. Hyper-Calvinism ignores the former and overemphasizes the latter. We can absolutely affirm, as Paul wrote, that salvation is by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8). Grace (election) is the enabler (instrumental/means), and faith is our tool through which that salvation (already given) is accessed. That choice cannot be made apart from God’s choosing us first (1 John 4:19).
And maybe read Spurgeon’s devotion again. He so beautifully affirms that yes, we choose to put our faith in God, but it is a choice that is irresistibly made… it’s just that good.
“You assume free will. Those words are nowhere in scripture. Not one. “Election” and “elect” however, is everywhere” (Brad)
I agree the term is everywhere (which I am more than willing to discuss) but just because free will is not in the bible as a term anywhere doesn’t make it false…it is too obvious to assume something like that (and beyond irrational).
In fact free will is the one of the first thing God endued us with in Genesis 3. Apparently from the onset of creation Adam and Eve had the ability to choose (ie: the fruit scenario and disobedience to God).
As far as election goes, I am saying no one can do anything with the doctrine – it is useless. It may very well exist – but so what – what can we do with it? In all actuality my free will trumps my election in the present state of things – because I know I can make choices but I am not sure of what election has to do with anything or if I am involved in that process? If I am not involved than it’s a useless doctrine (to me).
2 Peter 1:10 “Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.”
Peter mentions making your calling ‘sure’? Peter seems to believe choice is evidently part of the process – and that election – is something that can ‘fall’ by our decisions? How is it we can rule one’s free will out of the process of faith…we cannot.
As for Mike declaring the flimsiness of free will – and God moving first then us responding – Mike makes free will subject to predestination…and to me that is illogical. I can ask Mike for a response – he has a choice to make – but none of us know if he will do it or not. That’s called choice.
I bring up Adam and Eve to thrown holes into the idea of ‘Brad’s point (I think) is that our ability to choose something comes first from God’s decision to make it an option’. Well Adam and Eve had an option – and for some reason unbeknownst to God – they choose to eat from a tree they were not allowed to. If God was sooooo great – why did they eat the fruit they were asked not to? Touché Spurgeon!
But being the elect or not being the elect – which I see as chosen – is about our choice also in the matter. We have to choose to be in the elect – it is not forced upon us by no means. And to be in the elect is to ‘practice certain qualities’ – which means there are teachings we are to abide by (I use the gospel of Matthew concerning Jesus’ teachings). The elect will behave a certain way – but behavior is a choice also. I could care less about election in all honesty (as a doctrine it hasn’t made my life any better) – but if it is crucial – then explain it’s use?
Brad,
there really is no difference between Calvanism and Hyper-Calvanism. The only difference is that HC is more honest. If we must be chosen before we can choose then there is no choice.
Calvanism affirms human choice with lip service only. Can an unbeliever choose to trust Christ for Salvation? No! claims Calvanism. Will he still be responsible for not choosing Christ even though he had no choice? Yes, claims Calvanism. Can grace be irresistable and still a choice? What is so wrong with accepting the plain teaching of the Bible that Christ chooses those who cease to work for salvation and choose to trust him for their salvation? I will ask again. If God only chose a few to be saved and this had nothing to do with them choosing Christ then why didn’t he choose everyone to be saved? We were all sinners, yet he will choose Jeffry Dalmer over Mother Theresa for no reason apart from His own glory. She will spend eternity in torment (not torture), yet Dalmer will enjoy God’s blessings for ever and ever. Seems odd to me.
Rover,
The best two books I have ever read on the subject are Why I Am Not a Calvinist and Why I Am Not an Arminian. I was raised United Methodist (Arminian) and am now at a Calvinist Seminary, so I kinda have a unique perspective regarding this discussion. The scenario you depict is Arminian through and through, and I ultimately have no problem with a Christian holding that viewpoint (it is a non-essential).
But obviously I have made the personal choice based (i believe) on the weight of scripture that the Calvinist position utilizes a more biblical basis to describe the nature of God’s salvific work among mankind. I highly recommend reading those books because each was written by some of the foremost theologians in the respective viewpoints.
What I found most startling was the disparity in the usage of scripture to back the Arminian viewpoint, and their preference for Western logic systems. When dealing with a Near-Eastern faith, to me that seems akin to forcing a square peg into a round hole and getting upset when it doesnt work out like you think it should. Anyways, I digress.
SocietyVs and Rover,
First let me say, I believe fully in Human Responsibility/Free Will. The only problem I have is when people speak of it without reference to God’s Sovereignty. The bible speaks of them together, the sovereignty usually explicitly and the free will usually implicitly. So no, I do not deny the existence of free will, but I do deny that it exists outside of God’s election. Let me put it to you in two ways, one seen in God as Creator, and the other as Redeemer:
Creator:
What choice did Adam and Eve have in being created? How did they earn God’s favor and so merit life itself? In what way did they force God’s hand to make Him create them?
Redeemer:
In what way did Abraham earn his calling (Joshua 24:2-3)? How did sinful Israel merit redemption from Egypt (Exodus 19:4)? Did I send Christ to die on the cross, or did God send Jesus on my behalf while I was still His enemy (Romans 5:10)?
Mike,
I appreciate you dealing with my questions. I know it must get tedious for you. If I my address your points:
Creator: Adam did not have a choice in being created but he did have a choice as to whether or not to obey God in the garden. Your argument that Arminians believe that we have free will in everything is fallacious. I have already admitted that the bible, in fact, life does not teach total free will. Logic does not teach total free will so I would be a fool to believe in total free will (no comments please). But once created Adam was given a choice by a soveriegn God.
Redeemer: Abraham had nothing to do with his call, but he had everything to do with responding to the call. Israel was redeemed from Egypt, yet they chose to disobey and almost all died in the desert in unbelief. God sent Christ to die on the cross. He will judge mankind by what they did with that propitiation for sin. There really is no contradiction between God’s soveriegnty and freewill. To claim that it is a misunderstaning of the Eastern mind is very esoteric but highly inaccurrate. Thanks for recommending the books. I assure you I have read them on multiple occassions. Again, I thank you for you time and for your response. You seem to want to ride the fence between wether or not we really have a choice when confronted with the Gospel. Without quoting someone else can you tell me if we truly have a choice or not?
Rover,
It isnt tedious at all. In fact, I feel like we are glorifying God by discussing Him so intently! So I welcome the discussion and appreciate your willingness to continue the dialogue.
“Your argument that Arminians believe that we have free will in everything is fallacious.”
My intent with this line of thought was not to attribute it to Arminians, but rather to show that Arminians already limit their understanding of free will to be within the bounds of what is possible. This places the Arminian camp significantly closer to the Calvinist camp than often many are willing to admit.
“Abraham had nothing to do with his call, but he had everything to do with responding to the call.”
This is exactly our point! We distinguish between the initiation of the Covenant and obedience to the Covenant. God is completely responsible for electing us into His covenant, but we are completely responsible for how we respond to it. That is why (as you mention) the first Exodus generation perished in the desert: lack of covenant faithfulness. It is the choices of those already in the covenant (which they make freely, but only in the confines we have already discussed) that God’s covenant blessing and covenant curse come from.
The best example of this in one concise chunk is Exodus 19:3-6. Verse 4 discusses God’s work in redeeming the people (Sovereignty). Then Verse 5-6 discusses the rewards for Covenant Faithfulness (Free Will).
“There really is no contradiction between God’s soveriegnty and freewill.”
I agree completely (so does Calvin).
“To claim that it is a misunderstaning of the Eastern mind is very esoteric but highly inaccurrate.”
I was actually blaming the Western mind for creating a conflict that didnt bother anyone in the original audience.
“I assure you I have read them on multiple occassions.”
I didnt realize that you had read them already!
“You seem to want to ride the fence between wether or not we really have a choice when confronted with the Gospel.”
Very astute. I do hesitate to comment on things that angels long to look into, but the best that I can do is this: I am not God. From my limited perspective and the biblical account, it seems that I am held accountable for my choices in a very real fashion. It also seems that the very sovereign God moved before time to choose me, knowing the very hairs on my head, bearing every one of my sins on the cross before I was born, and saving me from suicide before I even recognized His existence (for more on that, look for my next post). So to answer your question directly, when it comes specifically to the issue of salvation, I think God’s sovereignty kicked my free will’s butt.
Mike,
So you are not a 5 point Calvanist? You do not believe that God’s call is irresistable? IIf that is the case, then I agree with you in that regard. But just in case I am misreading you, perhaps you could “clearly” tell me if we are predestined to salvation because God knows we will believe or if we are predestined to salvation regardless of belief, ie, we are irresistably caused to believe.
I think God’s sovereignty kicked my free will’s butt.
How?
Rover,
I am, in fact, a Five Pointer. Thats what I meant when I said God’s sovereignty kicked my free will’s butt. Whenever I try to imagine my intentions overpowering God’s, they come up woefully short. He has adopted me, I have been grafted into Him, He drafted me into war, etc. It is all His effort. I am now called to respond, thus receiving either covenant blessing or covenant curse, but I am His nonetheless.
“He drafted me into war, etc.” -Mike
just like HE made Bush go to war unjustly? That sounds like God… or not.
and when we’re talking election, which exactly are we talking about?
1. Meticulous sovereignty: God is the instrumental cause behind every action and reaction there has ever been. In other words, you chose white socks instead of the black socks because God caused it to happen. You have an itch on your eyebrow right now because God is actively causing it. In other words, every molecule that bounces into another is a result of God active agency in being the first and instrumental cause to the action.
This position holds little or no tension with regards to the human will and the divine will.
God is actively controlling everything.
Adherents: Hyper-Calvinists and some Calvinists
2. Providential sovereignty: While God is bringing about his will in everything (Eph 1:11), his will is not the instrumental cause of all that happens. God’s will plays a providential role in “causing” all things. In other words, all that happens happens because God did in some sense will it, but secondary causes are usually the instrumental cause behind the action. In the case of your socks, you chose them because you decided to, but it was also part of God’s will. God allows evil as it is part of his imperfect will to bring about a perfect end, but he is not the instrumental cause of evil.
This position holds much tension with regards to human will and divine will.
God is in control of everything.
Adherents: Calvinists and some Arminians
3. Providential oversight: Here God’s sovereignty is more of an oversight. He has a general plan, but is not married to the details. When necessary, God will intervene in the affairs of humanity to bring about his purpose, but this does not necessarily involve an intimate engagement with all that happens. God does not care what color socks you pick unless it somehow effects his meta plan.
This position holds much tension with regards to human will and divine will.
God could control everything, but only controls some things.
Adherents: Arminians and some Calvinists
4. Influential oversight: Here God’s sovereignty is self-limited. God could control things, but to preserve human freedom, he will not intervene in the affairs of men to the degree that the human will is decisively bent in one direction or another. He is hopeful that his influence will be persuasive to change a person’s heart or to guide them to his will, but is not sure if this will happen. Being all-wise, however, God will make strategic moves in people’s lives that will manipulate the situation to his advantage.
This position holds little or no tension with regards to the human will and the divine will.
God could control everything, but decides only to influence.
Adherents: Open Theist Arminians and some Arminians
I’d be the influential… as i’m not a puppet on a string and i refuse to believe that all the injustice in the world are a result of “God’s Will” like in the first few examples and in Mike’s quote. that’s just too simple and magical for me to believe as it ignores the complex reality that we live in.. but it proves the point that what is clear and wrong will always be more acceptable than what is vague and right.
Luke,
“just like HE made Bush go to war unjustly? That sounds like God… or not.”
I cant tell if you are joking or if you actually mistook my paraphrase of Ephesians 6 as justification for the war in Iraq.
Because I have problems with the wording of both, I am gonna sit inbetween Providential Sovereignty and Providential Oversight.
I’m saying Ephesians 6 has been misused by the romans among us… here’s how John Dominic Crossan draws the two lines between Roman Theology (Roman Empire that is) and Jesus’ Theology:
Roman states that justice is punitive and they bring Piety, war, victory and peace through commerce and superior firepower.
Jesus states the opposite, namely that God’s justice is Distributive (one not favored over the other) and He brings covenant, nonviolence, justice and peace through communion with neighbor and God.
the problem is that we let Roman Theology bleed over into Jesus’… Paul is really walking a tight line here in Ephesian 6 and can and usually causes ppl to try to fuse two things that weren’t meant to be fused.
Luke (and whoever else commented in #24),
It is clear that there are two people who commented in #24 because I have never seen the “real” Luke quote Crossan. As a result, I am certain that someone else wrote that section of the comment. On the other hand, I have heard Luke speak several times on the covenantal, non-violent nature of the Gospel, so those portions of the text must be original to him.
I dont really believe there were two people who contributed to #24, but my point is that Crossan’s argument uses extraordinarily poor reasoning to reach his conclusion. He is in essence picking a conclusion and arguing backwards from it. For more on the theological man-handling of Crossan, see N.T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God.
The Old Testament is filled with descriptions of the people of God being warriors, YHWH Himself is described as fighting on behalf of His people. Those descriptions were given to God and His people long before the Roman empire existed. It makes sense that a Jewish sect would use Jewish terminology, but couch it in language that reflected the current state of warfare. In the case of Ephesians 6, Paul was in prison and looking at the armor the Roman soldiers guarding him were wearing.
“my point is that Crossan’s argument uses extraordinarily poor reasoning to reach his conclusion. ” -Mike
spoken like someone who hasn’t read Crossen. even if you don’t agree with Crossen on all things, and there’s not one theologian i can name in which i do 100%, this model is extremely accurate. one must have the “holy trinity” of Jesus to make an accurate portrait of him and that trinity is Jesus in the 1st century, as a Jew, living under the Roman Empire… remove one of those and it’s like playing bball without a hoop, anyone can be Jordan.
“The Old Testament is filled with descriptions of the people of God being warriors” -Mike
and since the Bible is the literal word of God, this must be accurate…. or it’s symbolic language used to show how powerful God is… or it’s complete crap of a writer from an oppressed society hope’n that God is on their side and fighting against their enemies… not realizing that if God is the God of creation, there is no us vs. them, there is only us (which would be exactly what you imply in your statement “couch it in language that reflected the current state of warfare.”)
Luke,
I completely recognize and agree that “Jesus in the 1st century, as a Jew, living under the Roman Empire” are all important contextual factors in how we read the scripture. I disagree that these elements change the content of the message, only that they influence its presentation. Crossan would remove elements on this logic, and that is where I think he falls tragically short.
“or it’s complete crap of a writer from an oppressed society hope’n that God is on their side and fighting against their enemies”
You are certainly free to pick and choose which scriptures you like, but that is where we are gonna lose each other.
“which would be exactly what you imply in your statement”
If it came across I was implying anything, I am sorry for the confusion. I only meant what I said, that in Eph 6 Paul was taking the highly Jewish metaphor of the people of God being warriors and contextualizing it in his current jail situation with a guard right outside his cell. Therefore, the pieces of armor reflect the armor those soldiers were wearing. It does not give us the right to throw it out because those soldiers were Roman.
mike, you’re missing my point… we make a mistake in thinking that God is a warrior fighting on our side… God doesn’t have a side if God is love. what i AM saying is that Paul is using a metaphor that people confuse for ACTUAL ARMOR. What Paul is doing in Eph 6 is using an Articulated Metaphor i.e. pulling an image from current context and using it against it’s intended purpose. Articulation gives people some sense of figuring out their socio-economic or class location or social position… in this instance Paul is saying that Christians have the armor of Christ and it is NOTHING like the Roman kind.
“I disagree that these elements change the content of the message, only that they influence its presentation. ” -Mike
once again spoken like someone who has never read Crossan… you can’t disprove something if you’ve never personally read it. For example, I’ve read Richard Dawkin’s book the God Deillusion… i have yet to read the response, The Dawkin’s Dellusion… why? Because i wouldn’t have my own reading of the text to compare it against. N.T. Wright is a wonderful theologian, but if you just read the bad points of Crossen you’re just getting it second hand without having to think about it for yourself.
now of COURSE reading the Gospels with those lenes will change the story… not totally, but you’ll get a deeper sense of it. It makes you understand how Jesus was in direct opposition to Rome and also understand why Pilate got it right and didn’t let Jesus die an old man in his bed. Jesus’ process was all about programmatic non-violence. so when Paul states that we are to be warriors, it’s not anything like how the rest of the world thinks of warring.
Luke,
“what i AM saying is that Paul is using a metaphor that people confuse for ACTUAL ARMOR. ”
We are obviously completely missing each other. I dont know anyone who thinks that Ephesians 6 refers to actual armor a Christian is supposed to suit up in, go to work, and take off when he/she comes home for the day. So I dont know what point you are making. Paul is rather clearly speaking about a spiritual war, so the Roman antithesis he is addressing here is the lack of physical armament, and the need for spiritual armament.
Lets not forget that this entire conversation is an aside from my comment about God choosing me to fight in His army. This is biblical language through and through, so I dont see what the problem is with borrowing it.
re-read what i’m saying, esp. “so when Paul states that we are to be warriors, it’s not anything like how the rest of the world thinks of warring.”
to the average joe, it looks like you are adopting a Roman theology when you should be adopting Jesus’ version. it’s not all together clear if you are or not.