Jesus the Logos- When a 140 characters aren’t enough

I’ll do a lot of these. consider them long Tweets.

Jesus is the Logos, meaning he IS “ology”. The study of Theology must start with Christology, was He is the God we are studying. When we study the Word (the Bible) we are studying a man. The Word is living and active because He is living and active. Scripture is supreme because He is supreme. Scripture is absolute because He is absolute.

Our interpretive lens when looking at scripture is the in dwelling Holy Spirit testifying of Jesus- The Word. We can asks questions about the Word, theorize, and make assumptions, and even make idealogical constructs. But at the end of the day all such thoughts fall into the category of speculation. Only by revelation given us by the Holy Spirit testifying of the Logos can we really know what we know. Therefore our epistemological center  comes from another realm, another age, another place.

Faith is the evidence of things unseen and unknown. Revelation is the evidence that faith can see.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Jesus the Logos- When a 140 characters aren’t enough

  1. Zach,

    (This is totally unrelated to this particular blogpost, sorry! : ) )

    I’m 17; a green and aspiring theologian, and I was wondering, what exactly is wrong with the Calvinist picture of the sovereignty of God, and the specific doctrines of total deprivaty, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistable grace, and preserverance of the saints, which flow out of it. I myself am not a Calvinist, though some of my favorite preachers (I.E. John Piper) and some of my “mentors” are die hard Calvinists, and seem to present extremely biblically solid arguments in favor of their views. However, in spite of this, something just doesn’t seem to add up. I’m trying to wrap my mind/heart around the correct understanding of soteriology, God’s sovereignity, His grace, and Calvary, so I can then address the TULIP with the proper (biblical) understanding of these things. The problem is, I’m young, and inexperienced, and there is so much information out there. However, much of the traditional concepts of soteriology/sovereignity of God aren’t entirely biblically based and/or don’t have solid exegitical arguments.

    Yes, I am aware of the length/depth/time to adress something like this would take, so a summary would be sufficient. Though, a blog series on Calvinism would be AWESOME! Also, if you don’t have the time to go in depth on this issue, maybe you could point me to a blog/book/sermon that does? Thanks. God bless!

  2. Dorren,

    Thank you for your question. I love this subject.

    I would not say that there is anything wrong with Calvinism, I would say it’s a lens that many like John Piper prefer to view scripture through. The antithesis obviously being Arminianism.

    I personally do not subscribe to Calvinism as I’m sure you gathered by your question.

    In order to break it down into the simplest parts. The crux of the disagreement is the understanding of human will. In terms of God’s sovereignty I lean closer to the Calvinist understanding of sovereignty, because it’s Biblical. Job 38 alone makes it clear that nothing happens in the natural apart from God’s direction. Everything from the flower blossoming to a hurricane hitting the land, all is His sovereign will.

    However where I differ is in the matter of human choice. Where the Calvinist view would say that God super imposes my will (irresistible grace) and i choose him by his sovereign choosing I do not believe is COMPLETELY Biblical. though part of it is.

    Meaning this. John 6:44 Says that NO ONE came come to Jesus apart from the Father drawing them to the Him. In other words the Father compels hearts toward Jesus. But I believe that ultimately all men have a choice to accept or reject His drawing. Hebrews 6:3-7 talks about those who receive then reject that complusion and “fall away”.

    Here is the premise, Human will MUST be intact be God is looking for a people who will Love Him freely. Loving Him is obeying Him, Loving Him is the greatest way we give Him the glory we were created to give Him.

    This is why God uses the allegory have a husband trying to woo a harlot in the Book of Hosea. Specifically Hosea 11 God breaks down his unwillingness to superimpose him self onto their will and make them love Him. Instead He says He will draws them with cords of loving kindness.

    We love Him because He first loved us. Not because He made us love Him and we no can’t resist that which he made us do, while making others not love Him and destined for torment.

    Again it’s a lens through which to view scripture. I have gained MUCH from Calvinism, I’ve also gained much from Lutheran, Catholic, and Charismatic views of Scripture. How do you know which one is correct?

    John 14:26; I Cor. 2:10; Eph 1:17 The Holy Spirit draws all the lens’ together and helps us discern the most excellent understanding of doctrine, in order that we may worship Him more excellently.

    You can study all you want, but if I were you, I would read the word and nothing else before you go deep into the Theological breakdowns. Having a foundational understanding of the Word First will help you discern it. Because it’s living, it’s acitive.

    Hope that helped a little bit as you said these are HUGE topics to cover. However I may take you up on writing a blog series.

    If you want to understanding Calvinism etc. I think the book “What is Reformed Theology” by R.C. Sproul is very helpful in getting an understanding of it.

    Feel free to ask anymore question you may have. I’d be happy to go on a journey to finding the answer with you!

    much love

  3. Zach,

    Thanks a whole lot for your [quick] response/summary! It was very helpful. I’ll make sure to check that book (What is Reformed Theology) out. As you said, I MUST ask the Holy Spirit for wisdom/revelation concerning the scriptures in accordance with seeking the heart of Jesus, as opposed to seeking the scriptures for the sake of it (as what was going on in John 5:39-40). A desire to pursue theology should bubble out of a desire for intimacy [with the Trinity].

    And thanks for your offer to answer anymore questions I have! I’ll take you up on that.

    My first Q comes from John 3:19-21
    John 3:19-21 (ESV)
    19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

    For some reason, when reading this, it seems to me that the judgement (in this passage) is based soley on work. Those who loved darkness love it because their works are evil, and on the flipside, those who love light love it because they do what is true, as if those who do what is true come to the light, BECAUSE they do what is true, only to find out that (once in the light) the things they were doing that were true were carried out IN God, apart from the light? This text is very confusing to me. Don’t men do evil works BECAUSE they love darkness, rather than loving darkness because they do evil works? And as for the other group, apparently it’s possible to do “what is true” in darkness apart from the light? Or, true works can be carried out in God in darkness? I don’t understand. : (

    My second Q is about the atonement (propitiation).

    1 John 2:2 (ESV)
    He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

    1 John 4:10 (ESV)
    10In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

    2 Peter 2:1 (ESV)
    1But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

    What did Christ’s death accomplish? Was the wrath of God transferred from our (all men or just the elect’s) “account” to Jesus’ “acount” the day He was crucified? If it was, then how could the wrath of God ever be dispensed again? Obviously, it will be (is being) dispensed on many. So then, my question remains. For Calvinists, their “answer” to this “problem” is to simply say that Christ died for the elect only, and not all men. If that is true, then the elect don’t need to believe for the purpose of being “saved”. They are all ready “saved”. Obviously, that isn’t true, for belief [in Christ] is required (as Calvinists and Arminians contend). Still, if the lamb was slain from the creation of the world (Revelation 13:8), and His being slain resulted in propitiation, how could Ephesians 2:3 even be possible?

    Ephesians 2:3 (NIV)
    3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.

    If the lamb was slain from the creation of the world, resulting in propitiation, how could anyone ever be an object of wrath? Or, if you take the other way of translating Revelation 13:8, that the book of life was written before the foundation of the world, rather than the lamb being slain before the foundation of the world, Ephesians 2:3 still couldn’t be true, because this was obviously written after Christ’s death. His death all ready propitiated the wrath that they deserved (apparently). So then how could they have ever been objects of wrath? Were they objects of wrath before time began? How could that be possible if they hadn’t sinned? In other words, it seems as if the standard understanding of the atonement seems to imply that God’s wrath was propitiated, we were imputed with righteousness, and justified AT Christ’s death. If that’s the case then why is repentance/belief neccesary? For either all men or just the elect? Obviously, repentance/belief is neccesary, so, what is the right way to view Christ’s death? Did it make propitiation, imputation, and justification AVAILABLE to all men, if they would believe? Did it make a transfer from our “acount” to Christ’s “account” possible, rather than actually doing it in that moment? So that when we believe the transaction takes place? This HAS to be the case because obviously, there are people who will be condemned and will suffer wrath. But, according to 2 Peter 2:1, Christ bought false teachers and yet they STILL will suffer wrath. Ugh. I don’t understand.

    Lastly, my third Q. It seems as if Calvinists seem to equate God’s drawing of men with salvation. For instance, they believe that you are regenerated before you actually believe, because God (the Holy Spirit, and irresistable grace) are working within you so that you can believe, and this cannot happen to/with/in a totally deprived man, so the logic is that they must all ready be regenerated. A totally deprived man cannot respond to the drawing of God (even though that’s the purpose of the drawing), so God must regenerate him in order for him to respond, thus he is all ready saved before he believes. In other words, the presence of grace/the Holy Spirit’s drawing/conviction in/to a man can only result in salvation. Why is this?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s