So some of you may know that in addition to getting my law degree from the University of Kentucky, I also obtained my MBA. Now I loved taking business classes in general, but I hated the accounting classes. Those were my worst. About the only thing that I remember from them is the LIFO and FIFO accounting methods. Also known as the Last-In, First-Out and First-In, First-Out. I can't tell you what that means anymore but recently I have discovered a new system for the way I live my life.
I have a friend who has told me during several conversations over the past few months that he does not listen to secular music. He also chooses not to watch movies that are rated R. I could never understand why he thought that was such a problem. I have always watched rated R movies and listened to secular music and I never thought that it was a problem for me. That is until recently.
Over the past few months I have noticed that what I call my "thought life" has not been the greatest. I was quick to anger at times and had I been in a different work environment, probably would have said a few choice words at times. I have also noticed that my thoughts have not been exactly of the purest caliber lately as well. I was really struggling with this over the past month and I spent quite a bit of time praying and talking to God about it.
I decided that I needed to change my thought process. I needed a better "filter". I decided to start listening to Christian rock as opposed to secular rock and to stop watching the rated R movies. I also started reading my Bible more and listening to podcasts from people like Andy Stanley at North Point in Atlanta, Erwin McManus at Mosaic in LA, Craig Droeschel at LifeChurch.tv in Oklahoma City and even John McArthur with Grace to You.
I thought that this was going pretty well for me until I listened to a podcast from Andy Stanley. He was talking about how people get so caught up in their "filters". When they accidentally say a bad word, or think an impure thought, they say that they had a breakdown in their "filter". I know I felt that way. The problem he said was not with the filter, but with the heart. I thought he was crazy. I didn't have a heart problem, I just had a problem with my "thought life." He referred to Matthew 15:18 where Jesus tells the disciples that "the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean". I was floored when I went back to read that myself. But I was thrilled that God had revealed that to me.
So now I know that I have a heart problem. I realized that my "filter" was my own effort to change myself. I know that I cannot change myself without His help. So I have decided to continue to listen to Christian music and Christian podcasts. I continue to read the Bible and pray for God's help with this issue. I have decided to avoid the music that I once listened to on a regular basis that was full of bad language and the movies that I once watched that also contained bad language or images of sexually explicit conduct. This weekend it occurred to me. God is helping me to develop a new heart through His new plan for my life. I have dubbed it GIGO: God-In, God-Out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Great post. When you start writing you GIGO devotional book you can call it GIGObytes. JK
Some thoughts that hit me while reading... I'm not sure how well they relate, but they should at least spark interesting thinking and conversation.
Augustine wrote some pretty substantial works on the will. It was all in response to a man named Pelagius who was a British monk in the 5th century who had been teaching heresy in Rome. He taught that by continued effort, we could essentially save ourselves and live free of sin. He further taught that Christ moves toward us to effect salvation in response to us first moving toward him seeking it.
The problem with this is that it goes against Scriptural understandings of God's sovereignty, particularly in salvation. The Bible says there is none who seek God. It also says that Jesus first loved us, and Jesus said that no man can come to the Father unless the spirit draws him.
Augustine saw to the heart of Pelagius' assertions and rightly considered them to be based in a faulty understanding of the workings of the will. Pleagius was basically saying that man can choose to come to Christ and to live a sin free life. So, it was an assertion fo free will. The problem this presented for Augustine, was not so much post-conversion, but prior to it. How can a lost man choose Christ of his own will when Scripture has plainly taught that unless the Spirit draws him first he cannot even come to the Father? He answered by saying he cannot. Pelagius' claimed Augustine's answer failed to accommodate for free will. Augustine further articulated his answer by explaining the working of the will.
It's like this: A person does have free will, but before regeneration the will is only free to choose from unregenerate options. He is not also free to choose from the same options a believer is free to choose from. His choices, while free within that limitation, are also enslaved to the unregenerate state. Thus Paul could state we were once slaves to sin. A man cannot and will not choose of his own regenerate will to follow after the things of God. This is only a result of rebirth, of salvation. After salvation, because our bodies are part of fallen creation, we still struggle against the choosing to sin, but we now have the freedom to choose the good and to be to enslaved to it. Thus Paul could say, "I see another law at work in the members of my body. When I want to do good, evil is right there with me." And, "Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free this body of death? For the good I want to do, I do not do. But the thing I do not want to do, this I do." The overarching point here is, again, that regenerate persons have the possibility and the ability to choose in accordance with the will and, as seen when they sin, with the flesh. The lost person has only the second option. The will is no less free to make choices before salvation, but only those in accordance with its condition. Therefore Scripture is not at odds with itself when it asserts man's free will and his inability to come Christ unless first effected by grace to do so.
I like this analogy. Its an analogy, so don't run too far with it. Though I do think this one holds together longer than most. Really the only suspension of reality we have to suppose for it work is the idea that the thought life of animals is more involved than it is. Since it is not very involved, and certainly not very ordered, if you take the analogy at face value I think it will quite easy to understand and impacting. Here it is...
An elephant is free to make only elephant choices. He is not free to goose choices. He cannot change himself into a goose because he is an elephant. Until something transforms into a goose he will not be free to make goose choices. Once has been transformed into a goose, then he is free to make goose choices.
Pretty simple, but the problem for this analogy is obviously that once we become Christ followers, once we are transformed, we still have to carry around our old elephant skin till it dies. And until the day it does it will wage a war against our transformed spirit.
Augustine's point is that the sin is the inclination of the will. The will is free to act, but within the confines of its inclination. Our elephant cannot act like a goose because it has neither the ability nor the inclination to do so. Its the same with the will. We sin by necessity, not by compulsion. The will is not free to good until it is freed by grace.
This only a touch on his treatment of the topic. He and Pelagius wrangled over the idea of original sin, and exactly how grace is effective. Those are the two big ones that are on either side of these discussions about the will, but maybe we'll get there another time. If you want to, you can generally find Augustine's works pretty cheap at online stores and what not.
Here's a verse for thought.
Phil 2:13
For it is God who works in you to will and to act according to His good purpose.
Hey man great thoughts. Eveytime I read your comments I have to get the dictionary, thesaurus, concordance and excedrine migraine out. Just kidding. I think it is great that you are so deep in thought about these things Dave, it challenges me to think things through on a deeper level. I also liked the analogy of the elephant and the goose. My only question is that if the Spirit draws us to God, then has God already determined prior to our physical existence who will be drawn and who will not be drawn?
First let me say this...I think the answer to that question is an absolute that God knows the answer for sure. For centuries Christians have grappled over that one and therefore we have different theological systems, namely Arminians and Calvinists.
Secondly, let me say this...how YOU answer that question, I think, largely depends on what you believe about God's sovereignty. How sovereign is He? Is He in complete now? Was He at creation? Predestination? Election? Were the Deists right to maintain that He set up the world according to certain rules, and then wound it up like a clock and let history run?
Then you have to answer more questions. What does God's all knowing (omniscience) mean? Does He just know absolutely now, or has He always known absolutely everything?
Then I would toss back one final thought for the question you posed. God exists outside of time. He does restrain Himself for our benefit to work within the limits of time, but His perspective allows Him at once to see and know fully the past, present, and future. He holds time like you hold that pen on your desk. It is simply another part of His creation. So, to me, the Q & A and argument over the question you posed has been more focused on whether or not can gain new knowledge as history progresses. If He can, then it is safe to say He may not have known or chosen who would be saved, but if His infinity (eternal attributes) is to be believed, then He must therefore already know EVERYTHING. If He failed to know everything, then how could we call Him omniscient (all knowing)? To me, that is the extent of God's sovereignty. He is the source of anything and everything, and is even able to make those things that appear as affront to His glory (sin) glorify Him. That's what He did in Christ on the cross. That's He will do at the last judgement when the Church will stand with Him and affirm and celebrate His righteous justice in seeing some of His creation depart for Hell. We may not even feel sadness at that moment watching loved ones receive their punishment because in our redeemed and glorified state we will have no appetite nor sympathy for sin in any capacity, and God's justice will be one means of our praise. Thus even sin will have its part in promoting God's glory as we glory in it final destruction.
So for me, "prior to, after, while," can be terms useful for us to mentally approach or understand God's working with humans, but I try to see the question from what I can grasp of God's perspective, I am forced to bow His wisdom and position. He knew what it was like "before" it began for us. He knows everything about it "now." And, as Revelation and the Prophets proves He know what it will be like "then." Though we have hard time understanding anything that is not linear, when we approach God we must consider that HE IS. "I AM who I AM." His name (remember this?) is the verb "to be." He just is, all the time. Not was, not will be. At all times, for all ages, He is. His is not limited to linear existence as our perishable bodies are. Indeed everything in this sphere of creation is. Even the very words I am writing start and stop, thus the term 'eternal' does not accurately describe what it means. god never had a point of beginning, and of course He will never end. Therefore, whether I a saying this 500 years ago, today, or 9000 years in the future, He is.
So to talk about whether or not He has pre-determined who will be drawn and who will not, it is good to make sure a theory of eternity can be reconciled with any conclusions. Furthermore, there are Scriptures which answer your question with an emphatic "Yes." This provides a problem for many people because it makes a part of God seem inconsistent with human free will and God's attribute of lovingkindness. Here I default again to Augustine.
Sovereignty even challenges some of my own perceptions of God. People fall to pieces here because they think this necessarily suggests that some were not given opportunity by God to be saved. I am no way smart enough to explain this, but that book you ordered deals with this subject in one of the chapters. But for me, I would rather admit that there are some things about Him I struggle to like, than to fashion Him after how I would like for Him to be.
come on man???? where's the goods????
all this talk about blogging, and nada. Let the profundity flow Ruckus.
Love ya man (heterosexually)
GREAT post, bro. This is very challenging and thought-provoking. I can't compete with the dissertion-dialogue between you and Campbell so I'll just leave it at "Great". You da man.
Post a Comment