April 25, 2022 (Monday)
I am deeply concerned that students of the Bible are not
taught to recognize the difference between Scripture, conviction, and
preference. In and of themselves, conviction and preference are not wrong if we
understand them for what they are. However, if we argue or impost convictions
and preferences on others, we may be crossing a Pharisaical line. The issue at
stake is knowing what is what.
Convictions are our "absolutes." These are the
things we will die for, but that does not mean they are healthy, true, or
correct. An unwillingness to critically examine our convictions is a symptom
that we may be in trouble. Preferences are things we prefer, but if necessary,
can be tweaked, compromised, or abandoned. Being stubborn about what we prefer
causes trouble. The trouble is when we do not understand the differences
between conviction and preference for the truth.
Let’s use what on the surface appears to be a simple
statement: "For
God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him
should not perish but have eternal life." [John 3:16 ESV] In this verse (Scripture), there are
three assertions made by Jesus. These declarations are made without support or
reason. In other words, Jesus does not tell us why they are true or what they
mean.
If we break this down, what Jesus said is true. It is
Scripture, and as such, is absolute and conclusive. However, our understanding
of the meaning of the three assertions needs to be examined. This discussion is
what we call "theology." It is here where we must hold a certain
element of plausibility versus uncertainty.
First assertion: "For God so loved the world." I
think we are safe to assume "God" is the God of the Bible, or as
Jesus addressed Him: "Father." What Jesus called "the
world," I would assume, means all people everywhere at all times without
exception, theologically calling it "universal love." The sticky part
about God’s love is the benefit it gets an individual. Does God’s love (alone)
save people? Not at all. Thus, the necessity of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross.
This verse tells us that God the Father is motivated by absolute love. In
honesty, everything beyond the assertion is my conviction.
I have to recognize that others may see things differently
than I do. Some might have the conviction that God’s love is only reserved for
those who are the "elect." Those who hold to the doctrine of
"election" cannot hold to God’s universal love without some mental
gymnastics. One proof of rejection would be from Romans 9:13. In God’s
sovereign election, he "hated" Esau, who became a type for those who
were not chosen for salvation. One way to squirm out of the apparent
inconsistency between God’s love and God’s election (and slide into a
"hyper" or "hard-shelled" belief system) is to think of
love at different levels, with absolute love reserved for the elect (Carson).
Another way is to condition love (or the experience of God’s love) on obedience
(Carson). I cannot deny the plausibility of these suggestions.
Which way one chooses to believe is a matter of preference.
The perspective is chosen because we want to believe it.
No comments:
Post a Comment