Contra our beloved editor and illustrious 2nd Vice-President of the Southern Convention of Great Commission Baptists, this post will reference Calvinism. Please, feel free to ignore the substance of the post and keep bickering over whether the lost people in your neighborhood are saved by grace because they believed because the Spirit moved when you told them or whether they are saved by grace because the Spirit moved when you told them and they believed. My dog in that fight is this: are you telling them? Because I think we cannot escape that we are commanded to do so.
I am going to tell you a story. It’s a story about grumpy, divisive Calvinists and features a moderate college professor. It happened on a Cooperative Program supported campus in an old-line state that keeps more than 50% of its CP giving in-state. So, everything you’ve ever wanted to flame in Southern Baptist life is right here. Including me.
Back in the heady days of the late 1990s, I was a Biblical Studies major at Ouachita (WASH-it-aw) Baptist University. I was a part-time youth minister, teaching a small youth group that included 2 college-age kids older than I was. I was working for a pastor who had a Th.D. from Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, which I would later attend for a time. (Failing to attend also for times and half-a-time resulted in no degree for me.)
One year, I was taking History of Preaching, because it was a class that applied to either major I was interested in: it worked for the Religion Department, it worked in the Speech Department. The speech professor had Divinity degrees from Southwestern and speech degrees from USC. This was the only class he taught that connected with the RELG prefix, as he was perhaps a shade more moderate than the Religion Department was in those days. During that year, I was invited by one of my fellow students to attend a “Founder’s Society” meeting with him. Not knowing anything about what that would mean, I went. There was a group of about 10 students who met in the library (not in Berry Bible Building–apparently, no official blessing from the Religion Department) and talked theology and history. It was fun. It was more fun when we met in the Student Center: no Cokes in the library, after all.
After a few meetings, it was decided that we would take this TULIP acronym and each week, study a different doctrine. We drew letters, and I got “U.” It was my task in the next couple of weeks to construct a short presentation on how the Bible presented this doctrine.
Except I could not do it.
The Religion Department had beaten into my head, already, a need to see all of Scripture in context with itself. A need to see texts in context, a need to build theology based on the whole character of God as revealed in Scripture rather than working down the proof text crib sheet.
What I found was that God has unconditionally elected the saved to become like Christ. What I found is that the sovereignty of God is weakened by the free agency of man. Rather, a God that remains sovereign and in control even in a universe filled with free agents is that much greater in my conception.
Then, I was derided for my opinion, my apparent low-view of Scripture, and my insult to the power of God. It was enough for me to swear off the Calvinist view for a good many years. (now, to be fair, I’ve met Tom Ascol, and I use his name since he’s the big dog at Founder’s, and he was nothing like this–I now attribute the behavior of immature college students to a mixture of total depravity and being immature college students.) The speech professor, though, challenged me to see what I could learn from that interaction. I couldn’t bring myself to see it then, but after the sermon I heard last Sunday, I realized what happened.
That fledgling Founder’s Society group spit in my eyes.
And it was a good thing. Why?
Because I was blind. Take a look at John 9, the first part of the story. In John 9:6, Jesus spits on the ground to make mud, then spreads it on the eyes of a man born blind. The man regains his sight–but think about this? How often do we like to have spit put on us? Not very, right? Right.
When my views are mis-characterized or degraded, when I am caricatured, I feel spat upon. I usually respond the same way: I feel hurt and insulted. My typical response is to get even: tell these people to stop spitting on me, stop putting me down.
Yet the truth is this: God can use that spit to help me see better. I learned in my first interactions over theological debate how to better formulate an argument. I learned how to dialogue with those I disagree with.
In short, what was disgusting became something that made me better. Now, having been challenged and sharpened over the years, I see doctrine more clearly, and even see the doctrines of grace more clearly–clearly enough that I’d fail the “Calvinist Screening Test” that some advocate using in the SBC.
But rather that take every shot at Calvinist views as an insult, I take them as more mud to help me see better. Rather than seeing every Calvinist that insists I still don’t fully understand the Gospel because I’m not “all-in” on the Abstract of Principles, it is a challenge to clean more out and see more clearly.
So go ahead, spit in my eyes. If I am blind that may help me see. Even if all I see more clearly is you.
And no, I don’t mean literally. I haven’t been literally spat upon since high school when the jocks used to do that to us nerds walking down the hall.
Thanks for posting this Doug.
I too find it ironic that I’m the one accused of a low view of God because I believe God is so sovereign that he can accomplish his purpose through the free acts of men and angels.
It helps me avoid some dilemmas that way, if God is totally sovereign and man is totally free at the same time.
Let me use my great depths of influence over here to push you to another blog post:
http://www.annhibbard.com/2013/02/bold-though-incomplete.html
Think about this: is there not a good point here? We can preach Christ even if we are not 100% clear on all the details. And we ought to receive correction and growth like Apollos did: willingly.
Doug,
This is a phenomenal post. Sorry, I know that this comment won’t help you b/c it isn’t spitting in your eyes…but I found this to be tremendously helpful.
“a God that remains sovereign and in control even in a universe filled with free agents is that much greater in my conception.” Excellent quote. I might add, not only is this concept greater in my conception but also much more above my comprehension. It would help if we would all realize and readily admit that there is much of which we cannot be absolutely certain. I have often thought that if we operated in love and humility, focused on God’s kingdom and not our own, then this would not be a “controversy.” A conversation? Yes, but not a controversy;… Read more »
Pastor Bill,
It should be a conversation not a controversy.
May we at the ends be franchised by the middle.
Amen, Doug. I’m wondering if part of this whether your real, primary goal is to convince others that you see, or whether it is to see more clearly than you do now. Is your goal making sure that others see you the way you see yourself, or improving the vision you have now? Are you more concerned about other’s vision of you, or about your own vision (which can at best be characterized as ‘seeing through a glass darkly’ anyway)?
Ben, I am convinced of the sincerity of those who disagree with me. I also am convinced of the truths I hold [or why should I hold them?]. But I have been through much real face to face debate on C non-C that I have seen that there are answers for some disagreements and no answers [as of yet] in other areas. But I seeing it does not mean my vision is clear. But how does one know if what they think they see is 100% clear? I have been told many times that after getting new spectacles the person… Read more »
parsonsmike: I don’t think I disagree with any of that. “But how does one know if what they think they see is 100% clear?” Given “we see through a glass darkly”, should we expect to get to 100% clear sight in this lifetime? I’ll also note that not all are convinced of the sincerity of those who disagree with them. There are some in the church who are still operating in the Bulveristic mode of the (at least modern) world, where if someone disagrees with you, it must be due to some taint in them, and your duty is to… Read more »
We drew letters, and I got “U.”
I know this was not the main point of your post, but I think there is a secondary lesson as well. Since the participants were assigned topics rather than asked what topics they were settled on and would like to teach, perhaps the group dynamic should have been an expectation that everyone might not come back from their research with conclusions that completely fit the majority opinion of the group, and thus some friendly debate might have been anticipated by all sides.
‘To be holy is to see with the Eyes of Christ’
(Origin)
‘I am the Light of the World’
He is the Light by which we see; He is the Light without which we stumble
In Greek, ‘soter’ means ‘healer’ . . .
in Latin, ‘soter’ translates to ‘salvatore’ (savior) and it is related to the English word ‘salve’
Jesus makes a ‘salve’, a healing balm to heal the man’s blind eyes
Jesus takes this man who was isolated and restores the man back into the community of those who can see
None of the standard Greek Lexicons I found tied the word Soter to the word healer. It is a Savior – one who rescues from danger or threat. Do you have any evidence from a lexicon to back up your assertion? I certainly could find none. We do not get to just make up meanings for words. A Savior is one who delivers from danger. We were in danger of hell because of our sins, but JEsus rescued us – he delivered us from death and hell through his death on the cross. When we repent of our sins and… Read more »
Dave, semantic range of Soter – deliverer, a preserver, a savior, a redeemer. One idea is a savior who snatches a person from some terrible disaster that leads to perishing.
By the way, “We Drew Letters and I Got U” sounds like it would be a tremendous country music love song.
Looking for the like button.
Sorry, Christiane, but even if we didn’t know better based on lexicons a quick Google search shows your “word study” to be based on fallacious etymologies. Quite a few of us have actually spent time studying the original languages (and even Latin which, while it is the language of some early Bible translations, is NOT an original language used in the Bible), so you’re going to have to do better than that.
I think part of the problem is that some of us want to be like Jesus in that we get to do the spitting.
Where’s the ‘like’ button?
‘By His Wounds you have been healed.’
Do you have a point? Does the Hebrew equivalent for soter appear in he verse?
Hi DAVID, perhaps this may help a bit: “The word “salvation” is the translation of the Greek word soteria which is derived from the word soter meaning “savior.” The word “salvation” communicates the thought of deliverance, safety, preservation, soundness, restoration, and healing.” the source: “Soteriology – The Doctrine of Salvation Study By: J. Hampton Keathley, III” the link: http://bible.org/article/soteriology-doctrine-salvation DAVID, Hopefully, this Dr. Keathley is an acceptable scholar for you, and it did take me some time to find this reference so that I could reply to your concern. (not bad for me today, ’cause I had a cataract removed… Read more »
Christiane: I’m not Dave, but since I commented above I will do so here. I’m not trying to carry on a meaningless argument, and I will not comment further on this. Keathley’s background is solid. He’s a Dallas Theological Seminary grad and has some impressive credentials. No problem there. I would point out to you that he uses the word “healing” one time in the whole of his article that you reference. He never goes any further with it and he never expands on “healing” as it relates to “soteria.” I would deduce that “healing” is not high on his… Read more »
Hi DALE,
check out the root word in Greek ‘sozo’ . . .
you have to take ‘soter’ back to where it originates to understand my meaning
The root word (verb) does not support your point any more than the noun does. “To rescue from disease” is one of the contextual uses of the term, but the primary usage, in both lexicons and context, is to rescue or deliver from death or danger.
You just don’t get to force a meaning on words and biblical texts because you like that meaning better than you like the clear meaning of the text.
Christiane:
I said I wouldn’t comment further, but for clarification I will.
I DID look at the root word “sozo.” It’s right there alongside “soteria.” As Dave points out, the meaning can’t be stretched beyond the bounds of a proper word study.
I’m not trying to get your meaning, I’m trying to understand the word within it’s proper scriptural context. I would suggest that each of us do that when we try to make a case from the languages.
Now I’m done.
To help out here: There is no noun translated “healer” in the NT that I have found in any translations as of yet (although there is at least one paraphrase that uses it), but there is a word translated “physician”: “iatros”. The verbs for “heal” are “iasis” and “therapeuo”. (Interestingly, “physician, heal yourself” in Luke 4:23 is “iatre therapeuson seauton”.) For “sozo” to mean “heal” is a very, very narrow semantic domain. Jesus is referred to as the great physician, but that is in the same sense that he is referred to as the good shepherd: as analogous rather than… Read more »
somehow did I touch a nerve in Southern Baptist life by referencing ‘healing’? sounds like I may have done this inadvertently (sorry) I can assure you that in my faith, we take God’s promise ‘I am the Lord your Healer’ seriously in ALL ways . . . body, soul, mind, and spirit a hospital where I worked had a sign, this: ‘we bandage the wound; God heals it’ But in our Christian faith, we come to know a ‘healing’ that does rescue us from ALL harm, and we come to know the One who rescues us by many Names The… Read more »
You did not touch a nerve, you just advocated something that is not supported by sound lexical study, hermeneutics or theology. From years of observation, I would guess that you do not support the theology of the Bible – that we are lost sinners destined for an eternal hell until God saves us from our sins. I would suspect that you want a more “positive” and therapeutic theology that emphasizes how Jesus wants to make us all feel better and bring wholeness to our lives while ignoring the fact that we are hell-deserving sinners outside of the atonement of Christ.… Read more »
“” in our Christian faith,”” After reading your posts for a couple of years now, I think that perhaps those four words say more about where you put your eternal trust than anything else. Many put their trust in a parochial faith that is not a faith which rests on the solid foundation of the Bible. In this regard, there is not “healing, rescue, or salvation” regardless of how much one Google’s the word. The Bible simply places a very small significance on the body as opposed to the soul–salvation as opposed to healing. People like Mother Teresa blur the… Read more »
Most words are used in a variety of ways. But when we do word studies, we do not get to pick whatever word meaning we like and make that the dominant meaning. Clearly, both from lexicons and context, the dominant meaning of soter is Savior, not healer. The Savior is one who rescues us from death and from our enemies. Jesus came to rescue us from death and hell, the future our sins had earned us. He did not come just to make us happy, to make us feel good about ourselves or to give us a giant group hug.… Read more »
Hi DAVID, The stories of Christ’s healing were meant to show that He had the power to forgive sins . . . if the term ‘The Great Physician’ is taken ‘literally’, we only see it in a limited way, but if we see it as representing the healing of our brokenness of soul and spirit, we begin to understand how it was that Our Lord chose to use that way to help people to know Who He was. If I see a connection with the Lukan Gospel (St. Luke was a physician) and with the picture of Our Lord compassionately… Read more »
That’s cute, Dave. I see you’re pressing the matter… you want it cleared up.
A great issue I’ve been aware of for some time is our truncated version of the gospel, something to which N. T. Wright pointed throughout his popular works. As a profound New Testament theologian, he has picked up on some things we pass by. For example, do we really view the gospel as totalistic? Do we really grasp the narrative of Scripture? Are we truly living according to our eschatological hope? Do we employ a language of the future that beckons us forward and do we know that a new humanity and new creation are in the making right now?… Read more »