So… how do we move ahead with this discussion of perseverance of the saints? For now, we don’t. That is, I feel like some good discussion has taken place. I’ve stated some of my views and had a chance to hear the views of others. I’m ready to move on to something else, but let me state a few things:
(1) I remain unconvinced by the arguments for POTS (perseverance of the saints). In a similar way, I don’t buy into predestination. Nor do I see the Bible as teaching that God controls each and every thing that happens in this world.
(2) I don’t see our understanding on this issue as a question of fellowship. There are some things in the Bible that aren’t clearly stated, and I have to believe that is because God doesn’t see it as necessary that we be in full agreement on those things.
(3) I don’t see this issue as having a practical effect on our actions. Those who believe in perseverance of the saints still believe in encouraging one another, growing in holiness, etc. Some that are smarter than I may be able to point out a difference, but I haven’t seen it.
Still, if you haven’t had enough of this discussion, take heart. Jay Guin is taking it up again. I, on the other hand, plan to move on to some other topics for now.
Tim,
Like you, I feel that some of this discussion has been good and beneficial. I also agree 100% when you wrote: “I don’t see our understanding on this issue as a question of fellowship.” and also when you wrote : “I don’t see this issue as having a practical effect on our actions. Those who believe in perseverance of the saints still believe in encouraging one another, growing in holiness, etc.”
There may be little, if any difference in the way one would pastor one congregation or another. I find great comfort in my belief that God’s love for me is eternal, unconditional and immutable; that he will cause me to persevere and stand before him on that final day. I am sure you find great confidence in God’s love for you and the assurance that he will be there for you and give you aid as long as you want him to, which I assume is forever.
So maybe this is a good place to leave it for now. I hardly knew you at all before this exchange (just saw your comments on other blogs) and I feel like I know you better now. God speed and Que Dios te bediga. Did I say that right? I haven’t used my Spanish is 15 years.
Peace,
Randall
Bediga should be bendiga, but other than that, you got it right.
It’s been good to get to know you Randall. I’ve learned a lot from your comments. Though not in agreement, I hopefully have a better understanding of what I disagree with. :-)
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim,
To the extend that you have a better understanding of what you disagree with, well, I have succeeded to that extent. I don’t think either one of us thought the other would undergo a sea change in their thinking and approach to scripture. The underlying premises such as the nature and attributes of God and man influence much of how we read scripture and thus impact the outcome of our reading.
Thanks for correcting my Spanish. It was a simple typo to have left out the “n” in bendiga. I used to travel extensively and frequently in Latin American, on the continent, in Central America and some of the islands, but so many years ago. I regret I never got to spend much time in the southern cone and never got to Buenos Aires even once. My favorite Spanish language author was a porteno named Jose Luis Borges. I appreciated his short stories even more than the novels of Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Did you ever read Emma Zunz by Borges? There is an English language translation, but not surprisingly, it does not do justice to the original. And for me, reading literature, with the nuances of what otherwise might be a common enough word, proved challenging.
Peace,
Randall
I’m a fan of “twist at the end” stories, so many of Borges’ short stories are right up my alley. I must confess, though, that I read many of them in an English translation (when my Spanish wasn’t good enough to handle the original). I should go back and read the original.
There’s a fascinating book of dialogues between Borges and Ernesto Sábato. I especially love some of their comments on translations; some insights for those of us that deal with biblical translations. If you ever run across “Diálogos: Borges-Sábato” don’t hesitate to pick it up.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I’ve read writers who truly believe that unless God is in control of every single atom in the cosmos, that one atom running amok could undo all His promises. I believe that Scripture teaches us that God can control many things, but an all-controlling God deconstructs the concept of sin, and Scriptures teaches about sin a lot more than it teaches about God’s control.
Tim,
I have been doing some studying in the Prophet Joel, and I find a few things with it to be very troubling. First, he never mentions any sins of his people. He does want them to return to him (2:12-13), but he says nothing about their having gone after Idols, having taken advantage of the poor, or of having done anything else wrong. He says plenty against the nations around them, the nations that have taken advantage of them (3:3-6, 13, 19-21), but he says nothing about what Judah or Israel have done wrong. We can eisegete lots of sins into the book, but we can’t exegete any out of it. {Finish the phrase: God said, “I will repay you for, __________.”}
When God talks about blessing them again, he says that he will repay them or recompense them for their years under the armies of locust that he had sent against them (2:25). After a conviction has been served, authorities only repay convicts if their conviction was wrong; if they were innocent but served their sentence. This certainly does not sound like Pat Robertson. It sounds like God is saying that he will repay them for what he has done against them.
I never see any evidence in Judah’s history that they were as righteous as Job, but the Job story might be a better paradigm for reading Joel than typical prophetic message of: you sinned, God is punishing, you need to repent, and he will bless. Maybe the exodus paradigm would be better. They suffered as slaves, but not for their sins.
Jay,
That’s interesting. I’m planning on doing some work on the minor prophets soon and will keep that in mind as I study Joel. Joel is an interesting book to study when disasters strike.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim,
i think i know what you mean by God “controlling” everything, so i think i’d agree. But i think there’s very significant senses in which He does control everything. He better, or else i’m wasting my breath during certain prayers i’ve said. And if He doesn’t control everything, i wonder if there are things that could effect my salvation outside His control. He has to be sovereign in order to get His promises fulfilled.
But do i think God *causally determines* all things that take place? Definitely not. But i think there are means of “control” which do not require causal determination.
–Guy
Guy,
Thanks for the comment. I definitely believe in a God who is active in this world. Years ago, someone commented, “We only pray because we’ve been commanded to, not because we believe God is going to do anything.” He was serious. I was stunned. What a terrible way to live life.
In a poor analogy, I would say that my view of God’s control is similar to what I see with my relationship to my dogs. I’ve determined limits to where they can go, what they can do (even though they don’t see the good in those limits). I show up at times and feed them, play with them, etc. But I also give them freedom of movement, etc., within the limits I’ve set up.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim,
i think we’re on the same page then. Years ago i would’ve defended what now makes me uncomfortable to hear others come close to saying–your garden variety CoC deism regarding the activity of God in the world. i don’t buy into the popular vanilla-evangelical idea that God has a specific plan for every moment of every individual’s life. People turn down job offers and even break off relationships with good potential spouses all because they prayed and felt like they couldn’t determine whether it was God’s “specific will for their lives.” (i do believe He has a general plan–one scheme of redemption in history–and every person everywhere at every moment does play some role or another in that general plan.)
But this isn’t what i was raised hearing. i was raised hearing nearly the opposite idea. God stuck around for a while and did a few things, but then He finished His book and walked away, and now Him being “active in our lives” means nothing more than we read the book, hopefully understand it, and react one way or another. i grew up hearing that the natural course of events basically operates every bit as mechanistically as any enlightenment-era scientist would describe it: a clock wound up then left to run more or less.
That i no longer buy. The Bible portrays God as very active especially in the carrying out of natural processes and “laws.” The Bible also portrays Him as actively involved in the historical path of His chosen people. God intervened and arranged circumstances for the betterment and success of His people in both OT and NT. i don’t see why i should think that ceased with the close of the NT canon.
My apologies–i now feel like i hijacked the post away from the topic. Not my intention. i think a lot of these matters are inter-related though. If one was a closet deist, it’s likely he wouldn’t think God does much if anything in order to help saints persevere.
i really enjoy your blog,
–Guy