SIDE NOTE > Thinking theologically...
Implications of an ordo salutis:
How does Jesus save us?
i once heard a preacher/teacher tell me (among others) that my salvation comes in a particular order. He emphasized three things (he could have chosen more).
His language was very interesting. He kept saying that "the gospel" is not merely about "justification." The "gospel" is "about regeneration, justification and sanctification."
This led me to ask a simple question. If the "gospel" is "about regeneration, justification and sanctification", what am i regenerated to believe?
This teacher had no real answer to this question. I believed everything he said that night about regeneration, justification and sanctification - all important biblical themes. He presented all three in lively, clear colors with great biblical support. But very little was said about putting one's faith in Jesus (it was assumed of course).
Jesus' interaction/discourse with Nicodemus reported in John 3 is often cited as a proof-text for the necessity of regeneration. This is fine. But what Jesus tells Nicodemus is "unless one is born again one cannot see the kingdom of God... unless one is born of the water and the Spirit, one cannot enter the kingdom of God." My guess is that this passage might be the #1 proof-text for the doctrine of regeneration. However, the result of regeneration - seeing and entering the kingdom of God - in the very passage, is often left to the side.
How does this relate to our questions about the gospel?
posted by robby @ 4:49 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Hi robby, I came in off Jim's blog. Interesting post. I want to know more about this proof texting thing. Any where you can direct me?
Hi,
Are you looking for examples of "proof-texting"? If so, I'm using the term loosely to refer to a tendency I hear in (my circles) where we like to talk about a "gospel" that gives assurance of eternal life but rarely mentions the kingdom of God. When i hear people speak of the "kingdom" the term is often used euphemistically (generalizing, vague) to refer to Christian stuff (ministries, Church budgets).
Inside this general trend (and I am generalizing with respect to my own personal experience... = "light research" = "they say" - so take this with a grain of salt), I hear people talk about regeneration, justification and sanctification - the effects of believing the gospel in the life of the individual believer. But what if the gospel has reference to the kingdom? What if the result of regeneration is seeing and entering God's kingdom? And what if we are very interested in language about regeneration for personal salvation but have no interest in God's kingdom?
I wonder if we've exchanged something we call "th'gospel" for the one Jesus announced, embodied, inaugurated - so that we can have assurance of salvation without counting the cost of allegience to the King and entering his kingdom.
Hi Robby, you are so far above and beyond me, it is not even funny.
What is the first epistle? Romans. I took a bible quiz, and that is the book I am. I have a Shepherd's notes, an Orthodox Study Bible. That is about where I am with Saint Paul.
To be honest, the proof texting I was referring to was referred to on this thread by a poster named yours truly:
"Whether you view homosexuality as sin may depend greatly on how you view scripture. To exclude homosexuals from Christianity, people use "proof texting." It is the same technique used in the past to support other forms of bigotry, i.e. most notably, slavery. Quotes from the Bible are used today to support discrimination against women and against racial minorities.
Proof texting is the use of a single scripture that seems to pertain to a certain topic as proof of God's opinion concerning that topic.
Three things are ignored in proof texting:
- The cultural setting of the original scripture
- The original meaning of the language of the times in which it was written
- The overall messages that surround the text and appear throughout the entire Bible
Subtle errors are being made by those who claim that they are preaching the truth based on "inerrancy" (without error) of scripture. What those persons are actually claiming is unerring understanding and inerrant interpretation of scripture.
We must know several things in order to better understand the meaning of a verse of scripture:
- The social context in which the words of the te-t were written; what is the society, what is the culture?
- What specific situation prompted the text?
- How does the text relate to the overall view of the writer?
- How does the text relate theologically? How is it seen in light of the whole message of the Bible -how does it relate to every other text?
- How does it fit into the overall picture of Biblical faith?
Everyone to some degree interprets the Bible in light of the language and the time in which it was written. For example, the Bible says, "If thy right eye offend thee pluck it our...If thy right hand offend thee cut it off.” (Matthew 5:39-30 KJV) You don't see many one-eyed, one-armed preachers enforcing this precept in a literal fashion today."
Then the person goes into an exegesis.
hi olympiada,
Well, it is quite obvious that your own answer to your question about proof-texting is much superior to mine! i took your question as an opportunity to clarify what i was really concerned about - but really didn't answer your question, did i?
One thing about the answer you supplied: some time proof texts come in strings (many verses strung together). They are not always single verses and they are not always wrong. Depending upon who's using the term, it can carry positive or negative connotations.
Some people use the term to label the use of scripture to defend a position. This is not necessarily wrong. But when passages are used without consideration for the original contexts (social and literary), the rest of the canon, etc. (as you wrote!!!) then such "proof" can be less than genuine / helpful.
Thanks,
robby
Robby
I did not write that brilliant piece of theology, somebody else did.
I am just a poor simpleton, trying to get a clue!
Currently I am embarking on the biblical studies of creation vs. evolution.
Post a Comment
<< Home