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; it would be a discussion and not a debate. This problem in the SBC is not about theology but about our wicked and prideful hearts — seeking power, control, and our 15-minutes of fame. I am ashamed and discouraged as I witness the rancor and accusation and slander being thrown about in the SBC. The distrust of fellow brothers in Christ and the disparaging of co-laborers in the gospel is an offense to the the kingdom of God — and is too often done under the facade of congeniality. (I am speaking in generalizations not attributing these qualities universally to all those engaged in discussion.)
Well… I didn’t intend on saying most of that. But maybe it can serve as a representative cry from the disenfranchised middle.
Thanks for the post Doug…. especially the forward.
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 can now see things they never thot possible to see before. The problem was their understanding was skewed because their vision was skewed. That is physical.
But it works in the spiritual realm as well. So we have our perspective and hold it sincere. But God sometimes has spitty dirt rubbed in our eyes so that we might see clearer than before. That is not to endorse any view as infallible, certainly not mine. But I sincerely believe it or I wouldn’t hold it or speak it.
And it works in soteriology as well. For tghe unsaved are blind to the Gospel… 2nd Cor 4…
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
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 hammer on that perceived taint. There are others who, on some level, are more concerned with being perceived as right, or perceived (in their own eyes) “correctly”, than with the pursuit of improving their own vision. I see Doug’s post as a corrective to the latter group.
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 believe in him, we are delivered. That seems to be the consistent meaning of the word.
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 and a lens implanted this a.m. and am on some medication)
if not acceptable, I apologize, but it’s the best I could do for you this evening under the circumstances
In my own Church, ‘soter’ from the VERY early Greek is connected to health and healing, (among other meanings)
so the references were plentiful,
but I wanted to try to communicate in a way that was more meaningful for SBCvoices
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 list of uses for the word “soteria.”
In addition, Kittel’s “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament” (a standard scholarly work to which all reputable students of Greek defer) has this to say about “sozo” the root word from which “soteria” comes–“NT “soteria” does not refer to physical health, political liberation, or release from demonic powers.”
As to your “own Church”, the only references that might have to do with “soteria” as “healing” are ones which we Baptists would consider extra-biblical, thus they are without merit in determining the NT meaning of the word. Only in Gnosticism is “soteria” equated with “healing.” That would be a VERY early Greek that is quite suspect, in my opinion.
Again, attempting to tie the Latin word to the Greek word in some etymological fashion is tenuous at best. The etymology of “salve” is related to an Old English word “sealf” (meaning “healing ointment”) which is a derivation of a West German word “salbo” (meaning “oily”) and is related to Old Saxon “salba,” Middle Dutch “salve,” Dutch “zalf,” Old High German “salba,” German “salbe” all of which carry the meaning “ointment” and all of which descend from the Proto-Indo-European “selp” which means “fat, butter.” Every dictionary and etymological search I did came up with the same result.
So……the references may be plentiful, but make sure they support your assertion when you use them.
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 definitive.
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 Good Shepherd, The Great Physician, ‘Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior’, The Risen Lord
In Philippians 2, He is the One of whom is said this:
‘Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him,
and given Him a Name which is above every name:
That at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow . . . “
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.
It is because I am familiar with your theology that I took the time to answer it.
Biblical hermeneutics, theology and word study do not permit the interpretation you are trying to force on the text.
“” 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 lines at times between “good works” and “true faith.” Mother Teresa’s own writings reveal she sometimes could not distinction the two.
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. He came to save us from the eternally horrifying destiny our sins had created.
He is a savior because he rescues us from sin, death and hell.
And I am thankful that he does.
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 healing the sick, I also know that the ‘peace of the Lord’ is His true healing that stays with us in the midst of our own suffering. My own Family are medical people, but they too stand by the bedsides of dying parents and weep. The gift of life is in the Hands of the Giver of Life, I am very aware of this, and I join you in being grateful to Our Lord for His infinite mercy.
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? There is so much more for us to affirm and embrace as Christians, yet it doesn’t make its way into seminary training, for we never hear it from the pulpits. Our preaching is so often limited, and our faith consequently anemic. Christianity has so much more to offer. And Calvinism just doesn’t go far enough. All too often it’s jsut an intellectualized version of fundamentalism, with the exception that some Calvinists seem to allow for an occasional glass of wine or beer. At this time, we are most in need of ecumenical dialogue. And I don’t mean the kind that aims toward institutional unity or that seeks to water down religion. I mean the kind that seeks to learn everything it can from each tradition in order to arrive at a more well-rounded view of the faiht. I find most of what’s said uninteresting and uninspiring. I think Christianne is trying to break that up. I don’t read much more into it. No one at all is saying much about the future–I mean our eschatological hope. I’ve come across nothing of consequence regarding this. Instead, what I’m seeing in page after page, and I’ve followed this site for sometime now, is an in crowd of mostly men who argue mostly about traditionalism and calvinism, and who either pat each other on the back in agreement or argue if the material is unpleasant.