Properly understood -- which is no small feat, mind you -- the doctrine of election should make a Christian extremely humble. Here I am, a miserable sinner, without merit in the eyes of God, selected nonetheless for salvation by a merciful Creator. What did I do to deserve this? Nothing. What should be my response? Immense and everlasting gratitude, praise and worship.
There are many challenges and difficulties that swirl around in my mind regarding the doctrine of the elect. I choose at this point in my life to simply set that doctrine aside. Perhaps one day I will come to understand and accept it better. For now, it is a stumbling block.
Note: it is things like this that Alistair Begg was referring to when he said, "Don't worry about the things you don't understand; worry about the things you do understand." I don't understand the doctrine of the elect. Really, I don't. I could obsess over it and allow my lack of understanding to draw me away from the more basic elements of spiritual obedience. Or I stop thinking about it and focus rather on Jesus.
* * *
As for the C.S. Lewis argument regarding making a choice about Jesus based on an evaluation of his claims set in stark relief ... there are some who don't believe because they won't believe. At that point there's little you or I can do, other than present an example of a humble and obedient follower of Christ.
"If one doesn't believe The Bible then Christ can indeed be ignored." -- You bet, including beloved things like "Blessed are the peacemakers" and the rest of the things people hold up as evidence of Jesus being a special teacher or all-around good chap. How do we know that? If the Bible isn't to be believed, how do we even know that he existed? Or that he wasn't really an awful charlatan? I don't see any way to accept a portion of the Bible's portrayal of Jesus without accepting the whole of it. On what basis does one select only those parts they wish to select?
At that point the counter-argument is usually that there are many part of the Bible they feel can be rightly dismissed. The Book of Genesis, for instance. Or the account of Jonah and the fish. Or whatever. Fair enough. But we're talking about here is a relatively thin slice of the Bible, and the account of one man. Cherry-picking within that sub-section becomes less supportable.
"We believe that he did live, was a good preacher, but was hyped up by people who wanted to make money out of keeping the masses in line." This argument falls apart on the face of it. First of all, shortly after the crucifixion, the 11 remaining disciples were locked in a room, fearful for their lives. 49 days later they were boldly preaching Christ resurrected. What was the origin of their faith? Why would people fearful for their lives suddenly become so emboldened?
Secondly, those who wrote the Gospels included some remarkable details that lends to the authenticity of the report. One of the most striking is the role of women in the narrative. At that time women were considered completely unreliable witnesses. They were not permitted to testify in courts of law. Yet right there in the middle of the post-crucifixion story is an incredibly prominent role for women -- "the 11 disciples were huddled in a room, frightened for their lives. But the brave women went to the tomb and found it empty." What? That denigrates the male disciples and would serve to cast doubt on the witness because it was women who reported the empty tomb. To include women in such a role given the societal context at that time means the authors were either incredibly foolish ... or were writing the truth.
Third, what part of the Biblical message -- not the middle ages, corrupt Roman Catholic Church message, but the original Biblical message -- involves any "keeping the masses in line?" And for what benefit? And to whom would this benefit flow? The early message was fairly simple:
"When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:37-38, NIV)That later generations of sinful man took that message and corrupted it for their own personal gain is a separate issue. But the original message provides little in the way of personal gain for those who wrote the Gospels. The Bible speaks of none of the original disciples as men of means. More commonly, they were quite poor.
Fourth, if Peter and John and Stephen and Paul knew the message was built on a lie, why would they go out and get themselves killed for it? Particularly since there was no personal gain to be had by preaching the message. Some counter-argue that people often follow a leader or a message to their death -- witness the various cults. But we're not talking about people who come later and are persuaded by the false message; we're talking about people who authored the false message. Name me one example in history where someone knowingly and deceitfully fabricated a lie, then was willing to go out and die for that lie.
Deep breath. Breathe in ... breathe out.
I fully understand the temptation to not believe the Gospel narrative. But I believe it's an conscious act of will to not believe it. Because a reasoned, thoughtful analysis of the facts that are on the table leads a sensible person to conclude that the events as portrayed are true. And that's where C.S. Lewis's argument comes in -- if true, then it is of incredible significance.
To those who choose not to believe ... well, what can be done about them?
Nothing. Pray for them. "Treat them as you wish to be treated." Love them even when they mock you because of your faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment