Scripture, conviction, or preference? #3

April 28, 2022 (Thursday)

 

We have been taking John 3:16 in bit size chunks. The goal is to learn to distinguish between Scripture, conviction, and preference. “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] Let’s look at the last part.

 

First, we have established that God’s love is Scripture. My conviction is that this love is universal, not just for the elect. My preference is to understand God’s loving offer of salvation is open to everyone who will respond positively to God’s love. I justify the preference because I know that some Bible scholars indicate that the offer of salvation is limited. I reject the idea that salvation is reserved only for a specific group.

 

Second, God giving Jesus as a sacrifice is Scripture. My conviction is that Jesus is "God the Son" and that He is fully God and fully human. My preference is to hold onto the historic hypostatic union understanding. I justify the preference because I do not understand the dynamics of that relationship. I also do not know how to understand Jesus’ saving work in any other way. I reject the idea that Jesus became "the Christ" (or divine) at a specific event and then reverted to being human at the crucifixion. (Uggh... Just when you thought I would avoid heavy theology, I go and do it.)

 

This brings us to the point of what Jesus is saying,"... that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." The specific statement, "Whosoever," indicates an open invitation to salvation. Also Scriptural is this belief that provides "salvation" from perishing and eternal life. My conviction is that there is an eternal Heaven to gain and an eternal Hell to avoid by the individual's choice to believe. My preference is to believe that God has not directly destined anyone for eternal Hell and that each individual is responsible for their own actions, attitudes, and choices (and eternal destiny). I reject the idea that this makes the individual the sole determiner of salvation. In fact, I would go so far as to say that pitting the sovereignty of God against the free will of humans as polar opposites is nonsensical.

 

Here’s our problem: Where Scripture is silent, we want to take the spackling and fill in the gap so we have a smooth transition from idea to idea (or between ideas). Theologians feel we must have a single defendable position that cannot be compromised. This occurred during all the bickering over the nature of Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit from the first century onward and all the other theological positions we created. However, it makes sense that God left blanks in our understanding to make room for faith (something not seen, not realized, and not provable… see Hebrews 11:1). If you understand it, then it is NOT faith. There are many things left unexplained, such as the sovereignty of God and the free will of humans coexisting at the same time.

 

Here’s the question: Is it blasphemy to twist Scripture to pit two things our cultural understanding states as opposites against each other when God clearly never defined them as opposites? Thinking “free will” somehow challenges the sovereignty of God is like thinking a spit ball can destroy a tank. Thinking the “sovereignty of God” removes any choice is like claiming a fish is drowning in the ocean.

 

Put the putty knife down and back away from Scripture. My suspicion is that much of our theology is actually only preferences. We are just spackling to cover our lack of genuine faith.