Koala-spis
Povzetek
Ceprav obstajajo razlicni kljucni principi hermanevtike dispenzacijske teologije, bomo pogledali tiste, za katere zagovorniki sami trdijo, da so kljucni ter jih kriticno ocenili. Dva najbolj pomembna principa sta: razlika med Izraelom in Cerkvijo in dosledna dobesedna razlaga cele Biblije. Nas zakljucek je, da ti principi, ceprav pravilno poskusajo braniti avtoriteto Biblije in njeno njeno nezmotljivost, prav tako napacno razumejo naravo Cerkve kot Bozjega ljudstva, novega clovestva Judov in Poganov, ustanovljenega v Kristusu (Ef 2:13-18). To novo clovestvo ima tako skupne kot razlicne karakteristike od Bozjega ljudsva v Stari zavezi. Drugic, ne upostevajo literarnega zanra teksta in koncno, ne upostevajo Kristocentricne hermanevtike Stare zaveze kot to vidimo v primeru Apostolov, to je, nacin na katerega Nova zaveza interpretira Staro zavezo in vidi njeno izpolnitev v dogodku Kristusa.
Synopsis
Despite different views on what the key hermeneutical principles are in dispensationalism, we look at those that dispensationalists themselves claim to be the guiding principles. The two most important principles they set out are: the distinction between Israel and the Church and consistent literal interpretation across the whole Bible. We conclude that these principles while rightly trying to defend the authority of the Bible and its inerrancy, they also first, fail to see the nature of the church as God's people, a new humanity of Jews and Gentiles, established in Christ (Eph 2:13-18). This new humanity has its continuity and discontinuity with the people of God from the Old Testament. Second, they fail to see the literary nature of the texts and finally, they fail to employ Christological hermeneutics of the Old Testament as we see in the example of the Apostles, that is, the way New Testament uses the Old Testament and sees its fulfilment in the event of Christ.
What is dispensationalism?
What has become to be known as "dispensationalism" refers to a theological system with beginnings in the nineteenth-century Plymouth Brethren movement in Britain, and particularly John Darby (1800-1882). It has been systematised later by Lewis Sperry Chafer in his Systematic Theology (1948), and particularly by the authors of Scofield Reference Bible (1909, reprinted in 1917, and revised in 1967). General feature of dispensationalism is seeing God's outworking of his plan for the world through different stages in history, commonly called "dispensations." Ryrie, one of the main proponents of dispensationalism in the second half of the 20th century, says that dispensation is "a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God's program." Other features have gone through some modifications since its beginning. One important change had to do with the understanding of the new covenant. Philadelphia College of Bible emphasised that there is only one new covenant. Before that, new covenant promises were considered to be for future Israel only; the church had no part in any of them. Then the revision was made by Chafer who argued for the two covenants, one for national Israel (Jer 31:31-34, Heb 8:7-12) and one for the church (Lk 22:20). Scofield later argued for one new covenant with an "already-not yet" fulfilment emphasising the "not yet." Another challenge came in the '90s touching upon the issue between "literal" and "spiritual" understanding. This led to so called "progressive dispensationalism" of which one well known proponent is Darrell E. Bock. The difference here is that he holds a complementary view of the relationship between the Old and New Testament. This view claims to be more integrative in the way it exegetes the Bible and more consistent in historical-literary interpretation. Bock explains the distinction between Israel and the church as applying it to a specific aspect of the structure of God's plan. They are distinctive in structure but not in theological-redemptive makeup of God's people. Abraham is the father of all who believe because all are saved on the basis of faith (Rom 4). All are headed for a destiny of total reconciliation where all shall be one (Rom 8, Rev 21-22).
Thus today we can make a general distinction between so called "traditional" and "progressive dispensationalism". In this essay we will asses the hermeneutics of traditional dispensationalism.
Essential characteristics
The first of the essential characteristics of traditional dispensational system according to Ryrie is: "consistent use of the hermeneutical principal of normal, plain, or literal interpretation. This principle does not exclude the use of figures of speech, but insists that behind every figure is a literal meaning." Other characteristics are: "Applying this hermeneutical principle leads dispensationalism to distinguish God's program for Israel from his program for the church. Thus the church did not begin in the OT but on the day of Pentecost, and the church is not presently fulfilling promises made to Israel in the OT that have not yet been fulfilled."
As Blaising correctly observed, we can see that literal interpretation and different dispensations (and other principles) are not exclusive features to dispensationalism. What then are really the distinguishing hermeneutical principles of dispensationalism? Paul S. Karleen claims that different hermeneutics is not the issue but that different assumptions in thinking are. Block on the other hand assumes that all interpret Scripture literary; the difference is how one relates the results of canonical integration. Then again Herbert argues that more central issue is "presuppositional preference of one testament over the other that determines a person's literal historical-grammatical hermeneutical starting point." He claims that New Testament approach tries to use the New Testament to bring into focus divine author's intent of an Old Testament text and thereby clarifies the human author's meaning. And he continues' "For dispensationalists, however, their historical-grammatical hermeneutics keeps a reference point in the Old Testament." And finally, Shepherd claims that literalism is not the fundamental principle, but inerrancy of Scripture is. These views are helpful to prevent false accusations against non-dispensationalists (as though they don't hold to literal meaning or different dispensations) and to see that there are other factors involved. But we will asses the hermeneutical principles as dispensationalists themselves have set them up. The first most important principle we will deal with is the distinction between Israel and the church and second principle is consistent literal interpretation which also touches upon the issue of fulfilment and author's meaning.
Distinction between Israel and the Church
We will argue that the distinction between Israel and the Church in dispensationalism is not the direct result of consistent literal reading but the presupposition which governs the other principles and is thus the governing hermeneutical principle of dispensationalism as a whole. In assessing this distinction we will argue that the distinction fails to see the true nature of the church and the continuity and discontinuity of God's dealing with his people.
Bock himself said of traditional dispensationalists that: "the rules of the game are determined principally before one reads the text. In effect, competing readings are ruled out by definition before the passages are looked at in their exegetical and canonical contexts." This reference is made in connection to their dispensational presupposition. Ryrie himself also claims that: "the understanding of God's differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies."
Which leads him to conclude that "the essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the Church." This means that before we come to interpret the text we need to distinguish different dispensations (and hence the distinction between Israel and the Church).
Non dispensationalists are sometimes guilty of the lack of clarity when it comes to the relationship between Israel and the church. They often speak of the church as though it overrode Israel because they rejected their Messiah. Stanley Grenz, when he speaks of the fulfilment of Joel 2 in Acts 2, says that Peter applied the vision not to national Israel but to the church. Statements like this can ignore the outworking of God's plan through Israel. Thus Bock sees that non dispensationalists argue that Israel becomes subsumed in the church, and dispensationalists argue that Israel retains an identity in God's plan. But in fact this is not true, when we define what church is and what her characteristics and roles are.
When Ryrie ponders that idea, he goes first to the New Testament. He sees the church distinctive in her members (Jews and Gentiles) and her new relationship: being in Christ and his indwelling in her. This is new, because these things were not experienced by the people of God in the Old Testament, claims Ryrie. He then claims that the living organism indwelt by Christ in which Jews and Gentiles are on equal basis is described as a mystery unknown in Old Testament times (Eph 2:15 only after Christ). "Since the church is the body of Christ the church could not have begun until Pentecost." Saying this fails to some extent to see both what the notion of the term "church" means and how it came about. Firstly, the term "church" (ekklesia) is used to refer to the gathering of God's people. In this sense it is used both in the Old and New Testament only that in the latter it became the dominant term for God's people (Deut 4:10, 9:10, Judg 20:2, 21:5, 8 etc.). Although the whole nation of Israel was chosen as God's people in the Old Testament the theology of remnant especially in the prophets implies that only some were really God's people. There were instances where the whole Israel was called "not my people" (Hosea 1:6-9).Thus at the end only the faithful remnant would remain (Hosea 1:10-11 from Judah, Isaiah 1:9, 4:2-6, 11:10-12). So we can understand why Paul talks about the outward and inward Jew (Rom 2:28-29), why he says that not all Israel is Israel (Rom 9:6) why he speaks of the remnant (Rom 9:24-29) and the incorporation of the Gentiles. There are also other important features which are new, to which Ryrie rightly points out, but those do not mean that there is such a sharp discontinuity.
As another proof, Ryrie points to the fact that Jews as a nation are mentioned even after the church was born (1.Cor 10:32). His conclusion is that the "use of the word Israel and church shows clearly that in the New Testament national Israel continues with her own promises and that the church is never equated with a so-called 'new Israel' but is carefully and continually distinguished as a separate work of God in this age." But how else, or by what other name, could Paul address the Jews? They did not physically cease to exist with Christ. As we said, Gentiles did not subsume Israel. Israel and the Church are not exclusive terms. Paul explains this in Rom 9:6-16. His conclusion is that Abraham's offspring are the children of promise and not the natural descendants. And we see that the children of promise are from both, natural descendants (from amongst the Jews) and from unnatural descendants (from amongst the Gentiles). Ryrie agrees with this when he says that believers of this age are Abraham's seed but not the only seed. But Ryrie's treatment of Rom 9:6 is peculiar. He says that the verse is not saying that "spiritual remnant within Israel is the church . It simply distinguishes the nation as a whole from the believing element within the nation." We don’t know what is the point of the remnant other that distinguishing them from the unbelieving element which is not acceptable to God and thus not heirs of the promises. That is exactly Paul's point in Rom 9:30-10:4.
Therefore it is not true that the church did not feature at all in the Old Testament or that there was no place for Gentiles in the promises. As Israel was the light to the world Gentiles could and did come to know God through them (Ruth, 1 Kings 10:6-9; Dan 2:46-48; 3:28-30; 4:34-37). But even greater incoming of Gentiles was promised and we see its fulfilment in the book of Acts because the eschatological age has dawned with the death and resurrection of the Christ (Is 11, 45:20, 66:19-21).
Now in the new covenant there is single new humanity (from among Jews and Gentiles) promised in the Old Testament and established in Christ (Eph 2:13-18), which is called "the church."
Literal interpretation, fulfilment and author's intent
Second most important hermeneutical principle in traditional dispensationalism is the use of consistent literal interpretation. Ryrie explains literal as the "interpretation that gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking. It might also be designated plain interpretation so that no one receives the mistaken notion that the literal principle rules out figures of speech. Symbols, figures of speech, and types are all interpreted plainly in this method, and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. Ryrie claims that the difference is in the consistent use of this principle in all of the study of the Bible. The charge against non dispensationalists is that they allegorise and spiritualise prophecies. We will argue that while we are also committed to the same (or similar) consistent literal reading, dispensationalism does not take into account the genre of the text and the possibility of both literal and non literal fulfilment, thus they split passages into fulfilled/unfulfilled. Furthermore, dispensationalism does not take into the account the way Apostles (thus the New Testament) explain and use the Old Testament.
Dispensationalists are right to protect the literal reading of the Bible, particularly in the light of liberal theology which seeks to undermine the authority of the Bible as God's word. Thus we are also committed to read the text literally, of course having in mind the different genres of the text. We need to keep in mind that one book, or even one passage may contain different genres (Dan 1-6 and 7-12 or Psalm 22:1-5 and 22:6, 12-18). For this reason the content of the prophecies can be literal, metaphorical or symbolical and thus fulfilment would correspond accordingly. Ryrie claims that Jesus' ministry, death and resurrection were fulfilled literally and therefore we must interpret everything literally. It is true that some things were fulfilled literally because they were meant to be literal but not all (Is 22:22, Ps 118:22, Zech 13:7-14:20). But how do we know what is literal and what is not? Here dispensationalist employ the consistent literal reading which in our mind misses the way the Bible interprets itself. When we look into the New Testament we can see what aspects of Jesus' ministry, death and resurrection and its consequences were meant to be literal and what metaphorical. Thus we hold prophetic units together rather than splitting them. One example is Joel 2 and Acts 2. Joel 2:28-32 comes just after a promise of abundance of resources for Israel. After this Israel is to expect the outpouring of the Spirit on all people (v. 28) and wonders in the heavens and on earth, blood and fire and billows of smoke (v.30-31). Now, when we look at Peter's speech in Acts 2:14-24 we see that he claims that all these things happened in the time of Pentecost (the Spirit was given, wonders) and the ministry of Jesus (v.22, wonders). But we notice that the promise of wonders on heaven and on earth, blood, fire and smoke were not all fulfilled literally neither in Jesus' ministry nor at Pentecost even though Peter is quoting Joel 2 as the fulfilment at Pentecost (nor was the abundance of resources in Israel fulfilled literally) but they were all fulfilled nevertheless. Johnson argues against this by saying that Peter does not use the word "fulfilment", which is really beyond what the marks of fulfilment are. Other than claim, that only the giving of the Spirit was fulfilled. Thus we don't claim that we decide what is literal and what is metaphorical but that we look into the New Testament to see what the nature of fulfilment was. Dispensationalists don't take this into account when they insist, as Johnson does, that the promise must only include the original recipient and the original form. We can't presume to know what things have been fulfilled and what not without measuring it with the New Testament, as truth was both revealed and concealed in the visions. Walke rightly says that "If God promised the fathers $5 and he rewards them with $5,000, is he unfaithful?"
This expression reminds us that God's intention may be richer than human authors were aware (1 Peter 1:10-11). Here we might see how Shepherd is correct in saying that dispensationalists try to defend the factual inerrancy of the Bible. Namely if God has promised Israel earthly kingdom, how can this not be? Thus they resort to literalism. Dispensationalists then don't recognise the final and full revelation of God in the New Testament particularly in the person of Jesus Christ (Heb 1:1-3). They actually don't hold Christocentric hermeneutics. That is not say that New Testament denies Old Testament but it nevertheless gives the full picture (full as it is meant to be given) whereas the Old Testament was its shadow. This is because the revelation of the Father through his Son is the ultimate one to which the Old Testament was pointing to through its types (shadows) (Heb 3:1-6, 5:1-9; 7:23-10:18).
Conclusion
We have seen that while dispensationalism rightly tries to protect the Bible as the word of God and its inerrancy, it also fails to understand the literary mode of Biblical books. Shepherd claims that dispensationalism reflects the Baconian system of induction and classification, and thus scientific approach to reality and thus the Bible. As a result, it splits prophetic text into fulfilled/unfulfilled bits according to what fits reality. Furthermore, it fails to understand the flow of Biblical thought – there are not two hopes in the Bible, one for Israel and the other for the church (thus also nations). And most importantly, is fails to understand the centrality of the Christ event of which the whole New Testament testifies. Thus dispensationalists do not have the Christocentric hermeneutics which we see Apostles use. We will conclude with a quote from Waltke, which captures the main miss of dispensationalism:
"Though many Jews are yet to be saved and become a part of the one true people of God in Christ, the new man, God will never set them either apart or above saved Gentiles in Christ or restore to them the 'weak and beggarly' shadows of the Old Testament."
Bibliography of Sources Cited
Bateman, Herbert W. IV. 'Dispensationalism Yesterday and Today'. Pages 21-60 in Three central issues in contemporary dispensationalism. Edited by Herbert W. Bateman IV. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999.
Bock, Darrell L. 'Hermeneutics of progressive dispensationalism'. Pages 85-101 in Three central issues in contemporary dispensationalism. Edited by Herbert W. Bateman IV. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999.
Doyle, Robert C. Eschatology and the Shape of Christian Belief. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1999.
Grenz, Stanley J. The Millennial Maze. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992.
Johnson, Elliot E. 'Covenants in traditional dispensationalism'. Pages 121-155 in Three central issues in contemporary dispensationalism. Edited by Herbert W. Bateman IV. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999.
Johnson, Elliot E. 'A traditional Dispensational Hermeneutics'. Pages 63-76 in Three central issues in contemporary dispensationalism. Edited by Herbert W. Bateman IV. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999.
Karleen, Paul S. 'Understanding covenant theologians: A study in presuppositions'. Grace Theological Journal 10.2 (1989): 125-138.
Knox, Broughton D. 'The Church'. Pages 7-103 in D. Broughton Knox Selected Works, Volume II: Church and Ministry. Edited by Kirsten Birkett. Kingsford NSW: Matthias Media, 2003.
Poythress, Vern S. 'Response to Paul S. Karleen paper "Understanding covenant theologians"'. Grace Theological Journal 10.2 (1989): 147-155.
Poythress, Vern S. Understanding Dispensationalists. 2nd Edition. New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1994.
Ramesh, Richard P. 'Selected Issues in Theoretical Hermeneutics'. Bibliotheca Sacra Vol. 143, No. 569 (Jan-Mar 1986): 14-25.
Ryrie, Charles C. 'Dispensation, Dispensationalism'. Pages 321-323 in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.
Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism. Revised and expanded edition, Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.
Shepherd, William H. Jr. 'Revelation and the Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism'. Anglican Theological Review Vol. 71, No. 3 (1989): 281-299.
Sterrett, Norton T. How to Understand Your Bible. Downer Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1974.
VanGemeren, Willem A. 'A Response'. Pages 331-346 in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
Waltke, Bruce K. 'A Response'. Pages 347-359 in Dispensationalisn, Israel and the Church. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
Other works consulted
Johnson, Elliot E. 'Author's Intention and Biblical Interpretation'. Pages 407-429 in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible. Edited by Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus. Grand rapids: Academie Books/Zondervan, 1984.
torek, oktober 25, 2005
torek, maj 31, 2005
Bog, ki je bogat v milosti
Naslednji prispevek je prevod poglavja iz knjige The Everlasting God, D. Broughton Knox.
Bog, ki je bogat v milosti
"Večni Božji namen, da odreši tiste, ki jih je izbral v Kristusu"
Predmet predestinacije pogosto zmede kristjane. Vprašanje, kako razmišljati o predestinaciji, je pomembno; vpliva namreč na naš odnos do življenja in odrešitve in na naše zaupanje in radost v Bogu. Doktrino predestinacije je lahko določiti: Od vedno je Bog izbral nekatere za odrešitev v Kristusu, druge pa je prepustil njihovi lastni odločitvi upiranja Njemu. Nad nekaterimi ima usmiljenje in jih pritegne h Kristusu, druge pa je zakrknil tako, da jim dovoli zakrkniti sebe, ali še bolje, da jih zakrkne in zaslepi hudič, čigar služabniki so prostovoljno postali.
Po naravi nam doktrina predestinacije ni všeč, ker po eni strani izgleda, kot da smo lutke, po drugi pa, da je nepošteno do drugih. Pa vendar to doktrino uči Biblija, v večji meri, kot je potrebno. Temeljena je na Božji naravi, ki je neodvisen in milosten; temeljena je na naravi človeka, ki je upornik in mrtev v grehu; in temeljena je na odrešitvi, ki je brezplačni dar.
Temeljni koncept krščanske vere je, da je Bog milosten. To je jasno razodeto v stari zavezi, ko je Bog oznanil svoj karakter Izraelovim otrokom, v zgodnjih dneh tavanja po puščavi: In GOSPOD je šel mimo njega in klical: "GOSPOD, GOSPOD, usmiljen in milostljiv Bog, počasen v jezi in bogat v dobroti in zvestobi, ki ohranja dobroto tisočem, odpušča krivdo, upornost in greh, toda nikakor ne oprosti krivde, ampak obiskuje krivdo očetov na sinovih in na sinov sinovih, na tretjih in na četrtih", (2.Mz 34,6-7 SSP). Božje nežne milosti so nad vsemi Njegovimi deli. Božja ljubezen je motiv za odrešitev: "Bog je tako ljubil svet, da je dal svojega edinorojenega Sina."
Ampak zapomniti si moramo tudi enako pomembno resnico (in to smo najbolj pripravljeni pozabiti), ki je, da je Bog Stvarnik vsega in neodvisen Gospod nad vsem, kar je ustvaril. Njegovo neodvisno gospostvo ni samo nad neosebnimi dogajanji v naravi, ampak tudi nad življenji moških in žensk, ki so del Njegovega stvarstva. Njegova neodvisnost v naših življenjih ni izražena na neoseben način, ampak skozi našo naravo, ki jo je On Sam ustvaril. Misliti, da se je Bog oddaljil od kateregakoli področja in predal svojo neodvisnost, bi bila nemogoča misel. Misliti, da je Bog nezmožen ostati neodvisen, ker je ustvaril moške in ženske s pravo človeško naravo in človeško voljo, bi bilo nesmiselno. Biblija jasno uči in zdrava pamet potrjuje, da je Bog neodvisen nad vsem, kar je ustvaril, nad velikim in malim, nad moškimi in ženskami, njihovimi deli, mislimi in voljo in celo nad hudobnimi ljudmi in njihovo voljo. On je suveren nad smrtjo, On lahko obudi mrtvega po svoji besedi tako lahko, kot je ustvaril stvarstvo iz ničesar. Njegovo vladarstvo ni nič manjše zaradi človekovega upora Njemu.
Biblija jasno govori, da nihče od nas ni pravičen, niti eden ne; vsi smo se obrnili stran, vsi smo pod Božjo obsodbo in brez moči, da bi sami okrevali. Nihče od nas ne more biti rešen, če nas Bog ne odreši. Kot je Jezus rekel: Nihče ne more priti k meni, če ga ne pritegne Oče, ki me je poslal, in jaz ga bom obudil poslednji dan, (Jn 6,44 SSP). Kot je rekel Jeremija: Ali more Etiopec spremeniti svojo polt, panter svoje maroge? Pa bi vi zmogli delati dobro, vi, ki ste se navadili hudega, (Jer 13,23 SSP). Ali s Pavlovimi besedami: Kajti meseno mišljenje je sovraštvo do Boga, ker se ne podreja Božji postavi in se podrejati tudi ne more. Tisti, ki živijo po mesu, ne morejo biti všeč Bogu, (Rim 8:7,8 SSP). Zaradi tega, ker se odločimo delati, kar vemo, da je narobe, nas Bog prepusti naši odločitvi. To je pošteno, ampak ob enem pomeni za vse nas pekel, večna oddvojitev od Boga, pomeni zunanja tema, kjer je jok in škripanje z zobmi. Ni nobene razlike; vsi smo grešili. Z neubogljivostjo, smo sami sebe odrezali stran od Boga, izvira življenja. Odrinili smo se v smrt, v fizično smrt, ampak še bolj pomembno, v duhovno in večno smrt. Mi smo mrtvi, pravi Pavel, v naših prestopkih in grehih. Po naravi smo otroci jeze, pod Božjo večno obsodbo smrti. Mrtvi ljudje se ne morejo sami rešiti. Mi potrebujemo novo življenje, popolnoma nov začetek, novo stvarstvo, kot je bilo, duhovno vstajenje, novo rojstvo, kot je Jezus rekel Nikodemu. In Bog, Stvarnik, neodvisni Gospod lahko prinese to korenito spremembo in nov začetek, to novo stvarstvo, to duhovno vstajenje. Rojeni moramo biti po moči Božjega Duha. Doktrina predestinacije je preprosto posledica človeške narave, smrti v prestopkih in grehih in posledica Božje narave, dobrote in milosti in Njegove neodvisnosti in moči, skozi katero On ponovno ustvari tiste, ki so mrtvi v njihovih grehih, da so Njegovi sinovi in hčerke. Odloča se na podlagi svoje modre in ljubeče in pravične volje.
Biblijski temelj
Veliko je odlomkov v Pismu, ki učijo doktrino izvolitve in predestinacije. Ena ali dve ilustraciji bosta dovolj. Pavel je zapisal: Pred stvarjenjem sveta nas je izvolil v njem, da bi bili pred njegovim obličjem sveti in brezmadežni. V ljubezni nas je vnaprej določil, naj bomo po Jezusu Kristusu njegovi posinovljeni otroci. Takšen je bil blagohotni sklep njegove volje,… (Ef 1,4-12 SSP). Pavel je tudi napisal: Mi pa se moramo zmeraj zahvaljevati Bogu za vas, od Gospoda ljubljeni bratje, ker vas je Bog izvolil, da s posvečenjem Duha in z vero v resnico postanete prvina odrešenja, (2.Tesaloničanm 2,13 SSP). Peter je napisal njegovo pismo tistim, katere je opisal kot 'izvoljenim, po vnaprejšnjem vedenju Boga Očeta'. Luka je opisal rezultat Pavlovega in Barnabovega oznanjevanja z besedami: in tisti, ki so bili določeni za večno življenje, so sprejeli vero, (Apd 13,48 SSP). V Rimljanom 8,28-29 je Pavel napisal: Sicer pa vemo, da njim, ki ljubijo Boga, vse pripomore k dobremu, namreč njim, ki so bili poklicani po njegovem načrtu. Kajti tiste, ki jih je že vnaprej poznal, je tudi vnaprej določil, naj bodo skladni s podobo njegovega Sina, da bi bil ta prvorojenec med mnogimi brati (SSP). Ampak v naslednjem poglavju, Rimljanom 9, Pavel še bolj opisuje doktrino predestinacije. Najprej pove, da je Bog izbral Jakoba in ne Ezava preprosto zaradi Njegove lastne odločitve. Nič ni bilo v otrokoma, kar bi vplivalo na Njegovo odločitev. Apostol zaključuje: Bog se torej usmili, kogar se hoče, in zakrkne, kogar hoče, (Rim 9,18 SSP). Nato je v preostanku poglavja apostol zelo jasen, na način kako razlaga, da Božja odločitev ni pogojena z ničimer kar je v tistih, ki so vnaprej določeni.
Intelektualni problem
Doktrina predestinacije prinese intelektualni, kot tudi moralni problem. Intelektualni problem je glede odnosa do naše volje, za katero vemo, da je resnična volja. Moralni problem pa je vprašanje poštenosti Božje odločitve: zakaj eden in ne drugi?
Filozofska teologija se spotika nad tem problemom, vendar ni težav v izkušnji spreobrnjenega, obnovljenega kristjana. Na primer, kristjan, ki ima osebni odnos z njegovim nebeškim Očetom, moli s polnim zaupanjem Bogu, za modrost pri življenjskih težavah. V tem sledi številnim duhovnim opominom, da preda svojo pot Gospodu, ki ga bo usmerjal. Ko se kristjan ozre nazaj na svoje življenje jasno vidi, da je Bog izpolnil in izpolnjuje obljubo, da bo odgovoril na to molitev za modrost, pa vendar je le-ta prišla po izključno naravnih poteh. Kristjanove naravne, od Boga dane sposobnosti, niso nikoli odstranjene, zato da bi ga lahko Bog vodil v situaciji, v kateri je, ravno zato, ke se tega nikoli ne zaveda. Vsak korak na poti je njegov, vsako odločitev, če ima te specifične sposobnosti, stori sam po razmskemu pretehtanju in odločitvi, ali pa tudi po vplivu prijateljev in njihovi razumski modrosti. Tako se kristjan zaveda obeh realnosti: vse obsegajočega Božjega vodstva in resničnega delovanja njegove narave in okoliščin, ko prejema vodstvo (modrost). Razum teško združi ta dva pojma, medtem ko izkušnje ne.
Svobodna volja
Problem razumevanja odnosa Božje volje do ustvarjene volje, naj ne bi bil rešen skori zanikanje Božje neodvisnosti, kot če bi skozi stvaritev človeške volje in volje demonov On omejil področje znotraj Njegovega stvarstva, nad katerim bi se odrekel svoji kontroli. Ne samo da to nasprotuje celemu razodetju, ampak bi bilo tudi neznosno in zastrašujoče, če bi bilo res in molitev in zaupanje bi postala nemogoča. Bog sebe na noben način ni omejil. Biblija take ideje sploh ne pozna.
Čeprav je naša volja svobodna volja, je nepravilno reči, da je naša volja neodvisna od Božje volje. Možnost tega koncepta je bil napačen predlog hudiča Adamu, zagrabljen od človeka, ampak vsekakor ne dosežen od njega, čeprav človek misli, da je to on dosegel in da je v bistvu svoboden od Božje vsemogočnosti. Adamova napaka je bila, da je mislil, da če se bo uprl Bogu, bo postal vsemogočen. Ampak nobeno bitje nikoli ne more postati vladajoč nad njegovim vsemogočnim Stvarnikom in nobena volja ne more biti svobodna, če to pomeni, da je neodvisna od Stvarnika.
Svoboda, to pomeni stvarnost naše volje, ni prekršena od Božje vsemogočnosti, ker On udejanja svojo vsemogočnost samo v skladu z naravo Njegovega stvarstva. Tako ko dela v nas, On dela skozi našo naravo, katero je ustvaril in katero je v naprej videl in določil načrt, katerega je zares On ustvaril z namenom, da izpolni svoje odloke. Tako Bog, ki vrši svojo mogočno voljo, se nam kaže popolnoma naravno, to pomeni, v skladu z naravo stvari, kot v primeru Božjega vodstva in zaščite. Problem usklajevanja Božje vsemogočnosti in realnosti naše volje ostaja v našem intelektu, ampak to ni problem izkušnje ali razodetja, katero je jasno in ne izpodkopava te teme.
Vztrajanje
Čeprav se spreobrnjeni kristjani medsebojno strinjajo o realnosti Božjega vodstva in zaščite, so se kljub temu porajala razližna mnenja glede vsemogočnosti Boga v preobrazbi upornega grešnika v Božjega sina, v novega človeka v Kristusu in v njegovo ohranitev do konca. Moramo reči, da ni mogoče zanikati, da Pisma vsemogočno podpirajo vsemogočnost Boga v vseh ozirih odrešenja in ostalih zadev človeštva. Včasih nekateri nasprotujejo temu, ko pravijo, da je grajanje, karanje in opozorjanje pisem dokaz, da je nevarnost, da Božji izbrani odpadejo od vere in ne vztrajajo do konca. Tak način razlaganja pomeni, nepoznavanje pomena karanja in opozarjanja. Bog deluje skozi našo naravo, ko vodi svoje otroke v slavo, dela z njimi skozi njihov odziv na njegovo Besedo. Njihove obnovljene volje bodo z veseljem sledile njegovim grajanjem in si vzele k srcu opozorila. Vedno ostaja resnično, da kdor ostaja v grehu ne bo videl Božjega kraljestva. Pavel je poudaril z opozorilom, da sleparji, pijanci, malikovalci in častihlepni ne bofo podedovali Božjega kraljestva. To ostaja kot dejstvo. Vsi vemo, da se v vsakem trenutku lahko odločimo za te stvari in tako odpademo in smo za večno pogubljeni. Vsekakor, prepuščeni samemu sebi, je zagotovo, da bomo padli v en ali drug način grešnega življenja. Vendar, po Božji milosti tega ne storimo, kajti opozorila so način, po katerih nas Bog rešuje od teh pogubnih padcev, tako kot je opozorilo pred prepadom dovolj, da prepreči padec vanj. Samo opozorilo ni dokaz, da je nekdo že padel preden je opozorilo bilo postavljeno, ali da bo nekdo padel v prihodosti. Zgolj namiguje, da če boš prezrl opozorilo, boš umrl. Nikomur ga ni treba prezreti. Pravzaprav, ga nihče ne bo, kdor ga prebere. Prav tako so v Pismih opozorila zato, da zagotovijo naše vztrajanje do konca in prav to tudi dosežejo.
Odrešenje je po veri, ki se izraža v poslušnosti[1]. Vera in poslušnost sta naše osebno delo, vendar sta tudi delo Boga v srcu vernika. Bog deluje skozi našo naravo in je v tem procesu ne uniči ali umakne in tudi narava sama ni v oviro njegovemu delovanju. Vedno moramo imeti v mislih to, da Bog izvaja svoje načrte skozi naravo svojega stvarstva. Ne more najti narave, katero je ustvaril, ki bi bila v napoto njegovi volji. Kljub temu je ustvaril moškega in žensko z odgovorno naravo in pravo voljo. V klicanju njegovih izvoljenih in vodenju k slavi, Bogu ni potrebno umakniti ali prevoziti naše volje, temveč doseže svoje namene, ki so bili določeni že pred ustanovitvijo sveta, skozi našo svobodno voljo. Tako sta vera in poslušnost Božje delo in hkrati naše delo. Ker je vera delo človeka, moramo oznanjati evangelij in prepričevati ljudi naj verujejo in tudi mi samo moramo verovati in vztrajati v naši poslušnosti.
Gotovost
Ideji kot sta vera v Božjo zvestobo, da bo ohranil naše duše, katere smo mu predali in dejavnost, ki zagotavlja našo izvolitev, gresta z roko v roki. Nista si različni niti v navideznem nasprotuju, temveč se dopoljnjujeta, kajti Bog je tisti, ki dela v nas, ko mi delamo. Bilo bi zmotno misliti, da je popolna gotovost o dokončni ohranitvi (vztrajanju) neskladna z opozorili in grajami proti odpadu in tako vzeti citate teh opozoril, kot dokaz, da pisatelji Biblije niso verjeli v predestinacijo in dokončno ohranitev, ko pa so sami trdili, da prav to verujejo. Prav tako je napačno misliti, da je volja svobodna (neodvisna) od svojega stvarnika. To je odnos upornega človeka, vendar to ni resnično v realnosti. Ne moremo biti svobodni (neodvisni) od stvarnika, niti si tega ne bi smeli želeti. Za nas je dovolj, če smo svobodni (neodvisni) od vpliva vsega, kar ni Bog. Kot grešniki smo daleč od tega, d bi bili svobodni v tem smislu, saj smo vedno sužnji našim strastem in zavedeni od hudiča. Vendar obnovljeni v Kristusu postanemo svobodni v edinem smislu, kot je ustvarjeno bitje lahko svobodno, to je- svobodno, da sledi naravi, da ni od Boga; ne svobodni od Darovalca, temveč le zares svobodni, ko se odziva vsepresegajoči Božji milosti, prav v tem smislu, kot je naša narava tudi ustvarjena.
Moralni problem
Moralni problem v zvezi z naukom o predestinaciji se poraja iz našega občutka za to, kaj je pošteno in kaj ni. Poštenost, pravičnost in pravica so temelji naših medsebojnih odnosov. Vendar pa stojimo na spolzkih tleh, če vzamemo te občutke za poštenost (oziroma to, kar mi mislimo, da je pravično do nas in drugih) kot kriterij za presojo Boga v njegovem ravnanju z njegovim upornim stvarstvom. Upornik si zasluži le obsodbo in ustrezno kazen. Ker pa odrešenje sodi v območje usmiljenja in ne kazni, je težko videti, kako lahko pojem poštenosti sploh igra kakšno vlogo pri tem. Če bi se Bog odločil biti pošten in pravičen do nas upornikov je jasno, da si vsi zaslužimo in bi vsi prejeli kazen. Toda milost je prevladala in milost je izven območja pravičnosti.
Sodnik vse zemlje bo ravnal v skladu s pravičnostjo, v to smo lahko prepričani, vendar mu mi ne bomo sodili. Zelo nevarno bi bilo, če bi naš čut za pravičnost, postavili kot kriterij, po katerem naj Bog obravnava nas upornike in kako naj razdeli njegovo nezasluženo milost, še posebej, če posledice naše presoje letijo naravnost proti resnici razodetja, kot nam je bila dana.
Sveto pismo neprenehoma govori, da sta odrešenje in večno življenje Božja darova. Z darom razpolaga darovalec; lahko ga podari ali pa tudi ne. Tako je tudi z milostjo. Z njo razpolaga tisti, ki je usmiljen. Lahko da izkaže usmiljenje, ali pa tudi ne. Odrešenje je dar. Darovalec ga lahko podari, ali pa tudi ne. Če se odrešenje lahko zasluži, potem o njem ne moremo reči, da je dar. Tako postane nagrada za zasluge, plačilo ki si ga zaslužimo. Toda odrešenje je v popolnosti dar- od začetka do konca. To pa pomeni, da mora biti podarjeno v skladu z Božjo voljo in odločitvijo. Narava odrešenja kot daru, iz usmiljenja priskrbljeno odrešenje, je v tesni povezavi z naukom o Božji popolni svobodi (neodvisnosti) v izbiri in predestinaciji.
V Kristusu
V nas samih ne obstaja nič, kar bi zaslužilo Božjo naklonjenost, ampak zgolj Božjo obsodbo. Pa vendar kristjani izkusimo to čudovito naklonjenost, saj živimo v miru z Bogom v odpuščanju, v veselju njegove prisotnosti in ljubezni do njega in do drugih v njegovem Duhu, v veri v vsakodnevnem življenju in v trdnem upanju glede prihodnosti ter v vsakodnevnem druženju z njim v molitvi in poslušanju njegove besede. Ta odnos z Bogom je Božji dar in izvira izključno iz njegove pobude. Jezus je dejal svojim učencem: Niste vi mene izvolili, ampak sem jaz vas izvolil in vas postavil, da greste in obrodite sad in da vaš sad ostane; tako vam bo Oče dal, kar koli ga boste prosili v mojem imenu, (Jn 15,16 SSP).
Bog je suveren v odrešenju
Najjasnejši zgled Božje suverenosti v odrešenju je Pavel (glej Apd 9,1-22). Jasno je, da zasluge za njegovo spreobrnjenje pripadajo izključno Bogu. Potrebno je bilo uporabiti "posebne prijeme", da bi se to izbrano posodo pripeljalo v kraljestvo. Enako velja za spreobrnjenje slehernega, četudi ponavadi vse skupaj ni tako spektakularno. Pobuda je izključno na strani Boga. Temu mora biti tako, saj smo sami po sebi slepi in nezmožni videti resnico. Mišljenje mesa je v sovraštvu do Boga in se ne podreja Božji volji, ker se tudi ne more. Bog mora posredovati. Le on je zmožen odpreti oči duhovne slepote, odvzeti kamnito srce ter na novo ustvariti osebni odnos z njim. Kajti, ko je človek v Kristusu, pravi Pavel, je nova stvaritev (2.Kor 5,17), da pa je temu tako, gredo zasluge le Bogu stvarniku.
Nauk o predestinaciji in o suverenosti Boga v odrešenju sta isti zadevi: On je ta, ki določa koga bo posvojil kot sina. On je ta, ki iz mrtvih grešnikov ustvari žive svetnike. Celo naš odziv vere je njegov dar, ki ga podarja v skladu s svojimi nameni. Pavel na primer, pravi Filipljanom, da je Božji dar njim to, da verujejo v Jezusa: Vam je bilo namreč milostno dano, ne samo da v Kristusa verujete, ampak da zanj tudi trpite, (Flp 1,29 SSP).
Pogosto je v Svetem pismu rečeno, da je kesanje Božji dar, kar je povsem razumljivo, saj smo sami po sebi povsem nemočni samo-ozdravitve in spreobrnjenja od egocentričnega življenja k Bogu-centričnem življenju. Če se kdo pokesa na tako skrajen način, mu je to podaril Bog. Kristjan, ozirajoč se nazaj, na lastne izkušnje ve, da je to resnica. Ve, da bi brez Božje milosti še vedno živel staro življenje egocentričnosti in greha.
Predestinacija je polna tolažbe
V nauk o predestinaciji ne moremo verjeti po naravni poti. Vanj verujemo, ker ga jasno uči Pismo, ko pa se ga trdno oprimemo, ima na nas zelo razbremenjujoč vpliv. Evangelist, ki ve, da je Bog suveren v odrešenju, se ne čuti primoranega uporabljati različna pomagala, ki naj bi ljudem pomagala pri spreobrnitvi saj zaupa Bogu. Zanašal se bo predvsem na molitev in oznanjevanje jasne resnice evangelija v kontekstu ljubezni in odnosov, kajti ve, da je beseda o križu Božja moč za odrešitev. Tako se ne bo prisiljen zateči k raznim metodam in pripomočkom, ki bi bili nevredni evangelija, ki mu je bil zaupan, saj ve, da je Bog tisti, ki podarja kesanje in vero, ko udejanja svoje milostne in odrešujoče namene. Da bi dejstvo, da je Bog suveren v odrešenju služilo kot izgovor za otopelost v molitvi ali za površno pripravo bodisi pridigarja ali posameznega kristjana, je povsem napačno. Predestinacija tudi ni izgovor, da ne oznanjamo evangelija (češ, da bo Bog tako ali tako rešil tiste, ki jih je izbral), saj Bog udejanja svoje usmiljene namene preko nas, preko naše narave in naših darov, zato naj bi bili ubogljivi in izkoristili darove in priložnosti. Za to smo namreč odgovorni in bomo dajali odgovor pred Božjim sodnim prestolom.
V tej dilemi obstajata dve plati, ki jima ne moremo uiti. a.) Bog je suveren v odrešitvi in b.) mi smo odgovorni v naši poslušnosti. Pisec Apostolskih del ni našel nobenega nasprotja v tem V Apd 13,48 je pripisal izid Pavlovega in Barnabinega oznanjevanja, Božji suverenosti: Ob teh besedah so se pogani razveselili in poveličevali Gospodovo besedo; in tisti, ki so bili določeni za večno življenje, so sprejeli vero, (SSP). Nekaj vrstic za tem (14,1) pa pove drugače in pripiše izid gorečnosti[2] oznanjevalcema: Podobno se je zgodilo v Ikóniju: šla sta v judovsko shodnico in govorila tako, da je velika množica Judov in Grkov sprejela vero (SSP). Obe resnici veljata istočasno: Bog je suveren in mi smo odgovorni.
Cilja pogubljenih in rešenih sta tako daleč narazen, kot si ne moremo misliti. Bilo bi neznosno, če bi naše blagoslovljeno stanje v tej veliki razliki, pripisovali kakšni naši kreposti ali pameti ali kakšnemu drugemu odzivu znotraj nas. Pošastno bi bilo, če bi sebi pripisali zasluge za to dejstvo, da smo prejeli neizrekljiv blagoslov; namreč, da smo dediči Božjega kraljestva, da je njegovo ime zapisano na naših čelih, da ga bomo gledali v obraz in bivali v njegovi prisotnosti vekomaj. S tem bi se ponašali, če bi naše odrešenje bilo odvisno na kakršen koli način od naše odločitve, neodvisno od Božje vnaprejšnje odločitve.
Nauk o predestinaciji nas varuje, da nas ne pogoltne brezbožni nauk, ki bi učil, da se imamo zahvaliti za to ker smo mi v nebesih in drugi v peklu, neki naši odločitvi ali našem odzivu. Prepuščeni sami sebi, smo vsi na istem, izgubljeni po lastnih zaslugah. Razliko med tistimi, ki so pogubljeni in tistimi, ki so rešeni je pripisati Božji odločitvi pred stvarjenjem sveta. Bog je pravičen, moder, ljubeč in se usmili kogar hoče.
Nevera
Nevera, poslušalcev evangelija, bi morala oči oznanjevalca napolniti s solzami in srce z žalostjo, kakor pri Jezusu in Pavlu, vendar oznanjevalec ve, da nevera poslušalcev evangelija ni izven Božjih namenov izvolitve. Tako ne bo izgubil poguma niti ga to ne bo odvrnilo od poslanstva, da oznani evangelij vsemu stvarstvu. Spoznanje Božje predestinacije ga bo osvobodilo pritiska in mu pomagalo opustiti nevredne metode in izognil se bo psihološko škodljivemu preiskovanju sebe. Pri sebi bo vedel, da je Gospodov služabnik in glasnik, ki zbira Božje ljudstvo: Zakaj jaz sem s teboj. Nihče se te ne bo dotaknil, da bi ti storil kaj zlega, kajti v tem mestu imam veliko svojih ljudi, (Apd 18,10 SSP), oziroma Kristusove izbrane: Poslal bo svoje angele ob močnem donenju trobente in zbrali bodo njegove izvoljene od štirih vetrov, od konca do konca neba, (Mt 24,31 SSP), kakor hoče Božja večna volja in njegov namen, namen za katerega nam Pismo razodeva, da je neskončen in vse presegajoč blagoslov svetu.
Predestinacija ni utemeljena na vnaprejšnjem vedenju
Ko premišljujemo o tem nauku, moramo iz misli izključiti vsakršen pojem, ki bi namigoval, da je Božja predestinacija utemeljena v tem, da je on vnaprej vedel, kako se bomo mi odzvali na evangelij, ali pa, da temelji na kreposti naše vere. Božja odločitev temelji izključno na njem samem torej, na njegovemu karakterju. Mojzes je jasno vedeti, da Božja izbira Izraelcev ni utemeljena v čemurkoli kar bi bilo v njih samih: GOSPOD se ni nagnil k vam in vas izbral zato, ker bi bili številnejši od vseh drugih ljudstev, saj ste najmanjši izmed vseh, temveč zato, ker vas ljubi in hoče držati prisego, ki jo je dal vašim očetom, vas je GOSPOD izpeljal z močno roko in vas rešil iz hiše sužnosti, iz roke egiptovskega kralja faraona (5.Mz 7,7-8 SSP). Naše odrešenje je posledica Božjega usmiljenja, milost pa je vedno nezaslužena.
Pavel je prepoznal problem nauka o predestinaciji, vendar se ni izmuznil iz problema tako, da bi rekel, da so Božje odločitve utemeljene v njegovem vnaprejšnjem vedenju našega odziva, saj to ni res. Ravno nasprotno, naš odziv, naša reakcija je utemeljena na Božji vnaprejšnji odločitvi. Njegove odločitve pa so utemeljene le v njem samem, v njegovi dobroti in usmiljenosti, njegovi modrosti in volji. Ne smemo si dovoliti, da bi posvojili rešitev, za katero Pavel ne ve, medtem ko se ukvarja s problemom predestinacije. Pa vendar, Bog ne zakrkne grešnikovega srca tako, da grešnik ne bi zakrknil lastnega srca. Pavel pravi: Bog se torej usmili, kogar se hoče, in zakrkne, kogar hoče, (Rim 9,18 SSP), pa vendar drugje pravi Pismo: Ne zakrknite svojih src kakor v Meríbi, kakor na dan Mase v puščavi, (Ps 95,8 SSP). Za faraona pravi Pismo oboje- da mu je Bog zakrknil srce in da je faraon zakrknil lastno srce, kajti oboje velja istočasno. Faraonova volja je znotraj suverene volje Boga. Želel si je zakrkniti srce in Bog si je želel, da faraon zakrkne srce, tako da bi iz greha faraona Bog prinesel odrešenje svetu.
Grešniki nimamo pravice biti jezni na Boga glede na to, kako se stvari odvijajo. vsi si zaslužimo Božjo kazen in če kazni ne doživljamo v polnosti sedaj, se imamo zahvaliti le Božji potrpežljivosti. Grešniki nimamo od Boga kaj zahtevati, nimamo pravice biti jezni nanj, saj si vsi zaslužimo veliko več, kot se nam lahko zgodi v sedanjosti. Če že prejemamo kakšen blagoslov in še posebej če prejemamo obnovo prijateljstva skozi odrešitev po Jezusu, je temu tako, ker je Bog usmiljen.
Vedno moramo imeti v mislih obe strani resnice istočasno. Na eni strani je Božja suverenost brez katere ne bi bil nihče rešen in na drugi strani naša odgovornost, da se odzovemo z zaupanjem evangeliju. Pavel je uspešno branil obe strani v Rim 9-11 poglavju. V devetem poglavju je poudaril Božjo suverenost v predestinaciji oziroma izbiri in končal debato na to temo v enajstem poglavju, ko je opomnil bralce, da so ljudje pogubljeni zaradi lastne nevere, kajti če njegovi bralci želijo biti rešeni, naj vztrajajo v veri, sicer bodo pogubljeni tako kot ostali. Pa vendar ne smemo zaključiti, da ta vera izvira iz nas. To je prav zares naša vera, vendar je Božji dar nam. Ker pa je ta vera Božji dar, lahko z zaupanjem zremo v prihodnost, da nam bo še naprej milostno podarjal, da bomo verovali. Kakor pravi pismo Hebrejcem, bo Kristus dokončno odrešil tiste, ki po njemu prihajajo k Bogu: Dokončno lahko odreši tiste, ki po njem prihajajo k Bogu, ker vedno živi, da posreduje zanje, (Heb 7,25 SSP). Če smo torej izmed Kristusovih ovac, nas ne more nihče iztrgati iz njegove roke: Dajem jim večno življenje; nikoli se ne bodo pogubile in nihče jih ne bo iztrgal iz moje roke, (Jn 10,28 SSP). Naša gotovost glede prihodnosti (in vsi bi morali imeti to gotovost) temelji na Bogu in ne na nas samih, saj je Bog obljubil da bo zvest in da bo to kar je začel v nas, tudi dokončal: Prepričan sem, da bo on, ki je začel v vas dobro delo, to delo dokončal do dneva Kristusa Jezusa, (Flp 1,6 SSP).
Zelo pomemben vidik nauka o predestinaciji je ta, da je Bog zvest in da v njegovo zvestobo lahko zaupamo. On se bo držal obljube, saj je zvest in bo to izpolnil (1.Tes 5,23-24; 1.Kor 1,8-9). Če bi naše odrešenje bilo odvisno od nas, bi bilo zares predrzno trditi, da nas v prihodnosti čakajo nebesa. Ker pa je odrešenje v popolnosti Božji dar, lahko hvaležni zaupamo v njegovo zvestobo, da bo dokončal odrešenje tistih, katere si je izbral pred ustanovitvijo sveta. Popolnoma mirni, pravzaprav z veseljem lahko sprejemamo stvari, katere njegova dobrota dopusti, da vstopijo v naša življenja, vedoč, da vse stvari pripomorejo k dobrim tistim, ki ga ljubijo, tistim, ki so poklicani po njegovem načrtu.
Pavel konča razpravo o tej temi v 9-11 poglavju pisma Rimljanom. Bralce opomni na Božjo modrost, ki se kaže v nenavadnem in nepričakovanem dogodku- da s tem,ko je Božje ljudstvo zavrnilo Mesijo, je blagoslov prešel na pogane, medtem ko bodo zaradi Božjega dela med pogani, Judje spreobrnjeni. posebej naglasi Božjo modrost in spoznanje, ki je vse vklenila v neposlušnost, da bi vsem izkazala usmiljenje. Božja modrost nam ni do potankosti razodeta. Ne razumemo vsega, kar se skriva v Božjih namenih glede predestinacije. Toda zaupamo lahko v njegovo modrost in verujemo, da bo v prihodnost še bolj polna glede blagoslova za svet, kot je sedanjost.
V tistih, ki so od Boga izbrani, da bi bili njegovi sinovi in hčere, bi se morala nahajati globoka hvaležnost za izkazano usmiljenje, pa tudi globok občutek odgovornosti. Izbrani smo bili zato, da bi postali značajsko podobni Jezusu. takšna je Božja volja za nas, zato naj bi vedno v življenju strmeli k cilju, da bi postajali podobni Božjemu Sinu. Kako veličasten namen ima Bog z nami. Izbrani smo bili njemu v slavo, v slavo veličastva njegove milosti. Naša življenja bi morala odsevati Božjo slavo in hvalo. Izbrani smo bili, da bi bili deležni blagoslova in da bi bili v blagoslov, da bi s svojim življenjem in besedami blagoslovili druge s spoznanjem o Kristusu. deležni smo velikega privilegija in tudi odgovornosti. Ì
Vprašanja za diskusijo
A. Vprašanja na podlagi članka
1. Zakaj doktrina predestinacije zmede kristjane?
2. Kaj pravi doktrina predestinacije?
3. Zakaj je pomembna?
4. Kaj pomeni, da je Bog vsemogočen, neodvisen (suveren)?
5. Kaj je težava v zamisli, da se je Bog omejil v področju človeške volje?
6. Ali je Bog pošten?
7. Kakšno je odnos med milostjo in pravičnostjo?
8. Kakšno tolažbo vsebuje doktrina predestinacije?
9. Ali se lahko hvalimo o naši odrešitvi?
10. Zakaj ideja o gotovosti odrešitve ni predrzna?
11. Ali je izbira (predestinacija) na podlagi vnaprejšnjega vedenja še vedno milost?
B. Sorodna vprašanja
1. Kako kristjani sprejemajo Božje vodenje?
2. Zakaj si doktrina o predestinaciji in potreba po evangelizaciji ne/nasprotujeta?
3. Kako Bog oznani evangelij nekristjanu?
C. Proti ideje
1. K zanikanju te teme, kristjani pogosto citirajo 1.Tim 2,4 in 2,6. Kako smiseln/prepričljiv je ta ugovor? (vendar pozor: nasprotniki ideje o predestinaciji narobe citirajo to idejo, namreč takole: da je Bog določil nekatere za odrešitev, druge pa je določil za pogubljenje). Za definicijo glej začetek članka.
2. Ali je ideja, da smo (bili) duhovno mrtvi in slepi, skladna s tem, da se sami po sebi odzovemo na (sprejmemo) evangelij? Zakaj je ali ni? Glej tudi 1.Kor 2,12-16.
3. Pojavlja se tudi ugovor, da ta ideja prinaša: a.) neaktivnost v oznanjanju evangelija, b.) avtomatičnost pripisovanja odrešenja izbranim ljudem, brez njihovega sodelovanja, c.) nesvobodnost človeka (postane stroj), d.) neodgovornost človeka (še posebej kristjana) za svoja dejanja. Kaj bi rekel na te ugovore?
D. Biblijski odlomki
1. Efežanom 1,4-12.
2. Rimljanom 8,28-39.
3. Janez 15,1-17
4. Apostolska dela 4,23-31; 13,48-15,1.
[1] Pozor: Ne pravi, da je vera poslušnost, ali da je poslušnost vera. Ker vere ne vidimo vemo, da nekdo veruje, ker se podreja (je poslušen) Bogu.
[2] Svetopisemski tekst nam ne daje povoda, da bi zaključili, da sta oznanjala goreče, kot navaja avtor. Besede sta oznanjala tako,.. nam ne dajo v tem tekstu povoda, da bi sklepali da gre za gorečnost, pogumnost, glasnost, moč prepričevanja,… saj bi v takem pomenu, bil odziv poslušalcev odvisen od oznanjevalca in to bi bilo proti miselnosti iz 1.Kor 2:1-5. Kvečjemu bi lahko zaključili, da sta zvesto oznanjala evangelij, torej, da nista nič izpustila oziroma sta povedala bistveno, pa tudi to je le domneva.
Bog, ki je bogat v milosti
"Večni Božji namen, da odreši tiste, ki jih je izbral v Kristusu"
Predmet predestinacije pogosto zmede kristjane. Vprašanje, kako razmišljati o predestinaciji, je pomembno; vpliva namreč na naš odnos do življenja in odrešitve in na naše zaupanje in radost v Bogu. Doktrino predestinacije je lahko določiti: Od vedno je Bog izbral nekatere za odrešitev v Kristusu, druge pa je prepustil njihovi lastni odločitvi upiranja Njemu. Nad nekaterimi ima usmiljenje in jih pritegne h Kristusu, druge pa je zakrknil tako, da jim dovoli zakrkniti sebe, ali še bolje, da jih zakrkne in zaslepi hudič, čigar služabniki so prostovoljno postali.
Po naravi nam doktrina predestinacije ni všeč, ker po eni strani izgleda, kot da smo lutke, po drugi pa, da je nepošteno do drugih. Pa vendar to doktrino uči Biblija, v večji meri, kot je potrebno. Temeljena je na Božji naravi, ki je neodvisen in milosten; temeljena je na naravi človeka, ki je upornik in mrtev v grehu; in temeljena je na odrešitvi, ki je brezplačni dar.
Temeljni koncept krščanske vere je, da je Bog milosten. To je jasno razodeto v stari zavezi, ko je Bog oznanil svoj karakter Izraelovim otrokom, v zgodnjih dneh tavanja po puščavi: In GOSPOD je šel mimo njega in klical: "GOSPOD, GOSPOD, usmiljen in milostljiv Bog, počasen v jezi in bogat v dobroti in zvestobi, ki ohranja dobroto tisočem, odpušča krivdo, upornost in greh, toda nikakor ne oprosti krivde, ampak obiskuje krivdo očetov na sinovih in na sinov sinovih, na tretjih in na četrtih", (2.Mz 34,6-7 SSP). Božje nežne milosti so nad vsemi Njegovimi deli. Božja ljubezen je motiv za odrešitev: "Bog je tako ljubil svet, da je dal svojega edinorojenega Sina."
Ampak zapomniti si moramo tudi enako pomembno resnico (in to smo najbolj pripravljeni pozabiti), ki je, da je Bog Stvarnik vsega in neodvisen Gospod nad vsem, kar je ustvaril. Njegovo neodvisno gospostvo ni samo nad neosebnimi dogajanji v naravi, ampak tudi nad življenji moških in žensk, ki so del Njegovega stvarstva. Njegova neodvisnost v naših življenjih ni izražena na neoseben način, ampak skozi našo naravo, ki jo je On Sam ustvaril. Misliti, da se je Bog oddaljil od kateregakoli področja in predal svojo neodvisnost, bi bila nemogoča misel. Misliti, da je Bog nezmožen ostati neodvisen, ker je ustvaril moške in ženske s pravo človeško naravo in človeško voljo, bi bilo nesmiselno. Biblija jasno uči in zdrava pamet potrjuje, da je Bog neodvisen nad vsem, kar je ustvaril, nad velikim in malim, nad moškimi in ženskami, njihovimi deli, mislimi in voljo in celo nad hudobnimi ljudmi in njihovo voljo. On je suveren nad smrtjo, On lahko obudi mrtvega po svoji besedi tako lahko, kot je ustvaril stvarstvo iz ničesar. Njegovo vladarstvo ni nič manjše zaradi človekovega upora Njemu.
Biblija jasno govori, da nihče od nas ni pravičen, niti eden ne; vsi smo se obrnili stran, vsi smo pod Božjo obsodbo in brez moči, da bi sami okrevali. Nihče od nas ne more biti rešen, če nas Bog ne odreši. Kot je Jezus rekel: Nihče ne more priti k meni, če ga ne pritegne Oče, ki me je poslal, in jaz ga bom obudil poslednji dan, (Jn 6,44 SSP). Kot je rekel Jeremija: Ali more Etiopec spremeniti svojo polt, panter svoje maroge? Pa bi vi zmogli delati dobro, vi, ki ste se navadili hudega, (Jer 13,23 SSP). Ali s Pavlovimi besedami: Kajti meseno mišljenje je sovraštvo do Boga, ker se ne podreja Božji postavi in se podrejati tudi ne more. Tisti, ki živijo po mesu, ne morejo biti všeč Bogu, (Rim 8:7,8 SSP). Zaradi tega, ker se odločimo delati, kar vemo, da je narobe, nas Bog prepusti naši odločitvi. To je pošteno, ampak ob enem pomeni za vse nas pekel, večna oddvojitev od Boga, pomeni zunanja tema, kjer je jok in škripanje z zobmi. Ni nobene razlike; vsi smo grešili. Z neubogljivostjo, smo sami sebe odrezali stran od Boga, izvira življenja. Odrinili smo se v smrt, v fizično smrt, ampak še bolj pomembno, v duhovno in večno smrt. Mi smo mrtvi, pravi Pavel, v naših prestopkih in grehih. Po naravi smo otroci jeze, pod Božjo večno obsodbo smrti. Mrtvi ljudje se ne morejo sami rešiti. Mi potrebujemo novo življenje, popolnoma nov začetek, novo stvarstvo, kot je bilo, duhovno vstajenje, novo rojstvo, kot je Jezus rekel Nikodemu. In Bog, Stvarnik, neodvisni Gospod lahko prinese to korenito spremembo in nov začetek, to novo stvarstvo, to duhovno vstajenje. Rojeni moramo biti po moči Božjega Duha. Doktrina predestinacije je preprosto posledica človeške narave, smrti v prestopkih in grehih in posledica Božje narave, dobrote in milosti in Njegove neodvisnosti in moči, skozi katero On ponovno ustvari tiste, ki so mrtvi v njihovih grehih, da so Njegovi sinovi in hčerke. Odloča se na podlagi svoje modre in ljubeče in pravične volje.
Biblijski temelj
Veliko je odlomkov v Pismu, ki učijo doktrino izvolitve in predestinacije. Ena ali dve ilustraciji bosta dovolj. Pavel je zapisal: Pred stvarjenjem sveta nas je izvolil v njem, da bi bili pred njegovim obličjem sveti in brezmadežni. V ljubezni nas je vnaprej določil, naj bomo po Jezusu Kristusu njegovi posinovljeni otroci. Takšen je bil blagohotni sklep njegove volje,… (Ef 1,4-12 SSP). Pavel je tudi napisal: Mi pa se moramo zmeraj zahvaljevati Bogu za vas, od Gospoda ljubljeni bratje, ker vas je Bog izvolil, da s posvečenjem Duha in z vero v resnico postanete prvina odrešenja, (2.Tesaloničanm 2,13 SSP). Peter je napisal njegovo pismo tistim, katere je opisal kot 'izvoljenim, po vnaprejšnjem vedenju Boga Očeta'. Luka je opisal rezultat Pavlovega in Barnabovega oznanjevanja z besedami: in tisti, ki so bili določeni za večno življenje, so sprejeli vero, (Apd 13,48 SSP). V Rimljanom 8,28-29 je Pavel napisal: Sicer pa vemo, da njim, ki ljubijo Boga, vse pripomore k dobremu, namreč njim, ki so bili poklicani po njegovem načrtu. Kajti tiste, ki jih je že vnaprej poznal, je tudi vnaprej določil, naj bodo skladni s podobo njegovega Sina, da bi bil ta prvorojenec med mnogimi brati (SSP). Ampak v naslednjem poglavju, Rimljanom 9, Pavel še bolj opisuje doktrino predestinacije. Najprej pove, da je Bog izbral Jakoba in ne Ezava preprosto zaradi Njegove lastne odločitve. Nič ni bilo v otrokoma, kar bi vplivalo na Njegovo odločitev. Apostol zaključuje: Bog se torej usmili, kogar se hoče, in zakrkne, kogar hoče, (Rim 9,18 SSP). Nato je v preostanku poglavja apostol zelo jasen, na način kako razlaga, da Božja odločitev ni pogojena z ničimer kar je v tistih, ki so vnaprej določeni.
Intelektualni problem
Doktrina predestinacije prinese intelektualni, kot tudi moralni problem. Intelektualni problem je glede odnosa do naše volje, za katero vemo, da je resnična volja. Moralni problem pa je vprašanje poštenosti Božje odločitve: zakaj eden in ne drugi?
Filozofska teologija se spotika nad tem problemom, vendar ni težav v izkušnji spreobrnjenega, obnovljenega kristjana. Na primer, kristjan, ki ima osebni odnos z njegovim nebeškim Očetom, moli s polnim zaupanjem Bogu, za modrost pri življenjskih težavah. V tem sledi številnim duhovnim opominom, da preda svojo pot Gospodu, ki ga bo usmerjal. Ko se kristjan ozre nazaj na svoje življenje jasno vidi, da je Bog izpolnil in izpolnjuje obljubo, da bo odgovoril na to molitev za modrost, pa vendar je le-ta prišla po izključno naravnih poteh. Kristjanove naravne, od Boga dane sposobnosti, niso nikoli odstranjene, zato da bi ga lahko Bog vodil v situaciji, v kateri je, ravno zato, ke se tega nikoli ne zaveda. Vsak korak na poti je njegov, vsako odločitev, če ima te specifične sposobnosti, stori sam po razmskemu pretehtanju in odločitvi, ali pa tudi po vplivu prijateljev in njihovi razumski modrosti. Tako se kristjan zaveda obeh realnosti: vse obsegajočega Božjega vodstva in resničnega delovanja njegove narave in okoliščin, ko prejema vodstvo (modrost). Razum teško združi ta dva pojma, medtem ko izkušnje ne.
Svobodna volja
Problem razumevanja odnosa Božje volje do ustvarjene volje, naj ne bi bil rešen skori zanikanje Božje neodvisnosti, kot če bi skozi stvaritev človeške volje in volje demonov On omejil področje znotraj Njegovega stvarstva, nad katerim bi se odrekel svoji kontroli. Ne samo da to nasprotuje celemu razodetju, ampak bi bilo tudi neznosno in zastrašujoče, če bi bilo res in molitev in zaupanje bi postala nemogoča. Bog sebe na noben način ni omejil. Biblija take ideje sploh ne pozna.
Čeprav je naša volja svobodna volja, je nepravilno reči, da je naša volja neodvisna od Božje volje. Možnost tega koncepta je bil napačen predlog hudiča Adamu, zagrabljen od človeka, ampak vsekakor ne dosežen od njega, čeprav človek misli, da je to on dosegel in da je v bistvu svoboden od Božje vsemogočnosti. Adamova napaka je bila, da je mislil, da če se bo uprl Bogu, bo postal vsemogočen. Ampak nobeno bitje nikoli ne more postati vladajoč nad njegovim vsemogočnim Stvarnikom in nobena volja ne more biti svobodna, če to pomeni, da je neodvisna od Stvarnika.
Svoboda, to pomeni stvarnost naše volje, ni prekršena od Božje vsemogočnosti, ker On udejanja svojo vsemogočnost samo v skladu z naravo Njegovega stvarstva. Tako ko dela v nas, On dela skozi našo naravo, katero je ustvaril in katero je v naprej videl in določil načrt, katerega je zares On ustvaril z namenom, da izpolni svoje odloke. Tako Bog, ki vrši svojo mogočno voljo, se nam kaže popolnoma naravno, to pomeni, v skladu z naravo stvari, kot v primeru Božjega vodstva in zaščite. Problem usklajevanja Božje vsemogočnosti in realnosti naše volje ostaja v našem intelektu, ampak to ni problem izkušnje ali razodetja, katero je jasno in ne izpodkopava te teme.
Vztrajanje
Čeprav se spreobrnjeni kristjani medsebojno strinjajo o realnosti Božjega vodstva in zaščite, so se kljub temu porajala razližna mnenja glede vsemogočnosti Boga v preobrazbi upornega grešnika v Božjega sina, v novega človeka v Kristusu in v njegovo ohranitev do konca. Moramo reči, da ni mogoče zanikati, da Pisma vsemogočno podpirajo vsemogočnost Boga v vseh ozirih odrešenja in ostalih zadev človeštva. Včasih nekateri nasprotujejo temu, ko pravijo, da je grajanje, karanje in opozorjanje pisem dokaz, da je nevarnost, da Božji izbrani odpadejo od vere in ne vztrajajo do konca. Tak način razlaganja pomeni, nepoznavanje pomena karanja in opozarjanja. Bog deluje skozi našo naravo, ko vodi svoje otroke v slavo, dela z njimi skozi njihov odziv na njegovo Besedo. Njihove obnovljene volje bodo z veseljem sledile njegovim grajanjem in si vzele k srcu opozorila. Vedno ostaja resnično, da kdor ostaja v grehu ne bo videl Božjega kraljestva. Pavel je poudaril z opozorilom, da sleparji, pijanci, malikovalci in častihlepni ne bofo podedovali Božjega kraljestva. To ostaja kot dejstvo. Vsi vemo, da se v vsakem trenutku lahko odločimo za te stvari in tako odpademo in smo za večno pogubljeni. Vsekakor, prepuščeni samemu sebi, je zagotovo, da bomo padli v en ali drug način grešnega življenja. Vendar, po Božji milosti tega ne storimo, kajti opozorila so način, po katerih nas Bog rešuje od teh pogubnih padcev, tako kot je opozorilo pred prepadom dovolj, da prepreči padec vanj. Samo opozorilo ni dokaz, da je nekdo že padel preden je opozorilo bilo postavljeno, ali da bo nekdo padel v prihodosti. Zgolj namiguje, da če boš prezrl opozorilo, boš umrl. Nikomur ga ni treba prezreti. Pravzaprav, ga nihče ne bo, kdor ga prebere. Prav tako so v Pismih opozorila zato, da zagotovijo naše vztrajanje do konca in prav to tudi dosežejo.
Odrešenje je po veri, ki se izraža v poslušnosti[1]. Vera in poslušnost sta naše osebno delo, vendar sta tudi delo Boga v srcu vernika. Bog deluje skozi našo naravo in je v tem procesu ne uniči ali umakne in tudi narava sama ni v oviro njegovemu delovanju. Vedno moramo imeti v mislih to, da Bog izvaja svoje načrte skozi naravo svojega stvarstva. Ne more najti narave, katero je ustvaril, ki bi bila v napoto njegovi volji. Kljub temu je ustvaril moškega in žensko z odgovorno naravo in pravo voljo. V klicanju njegovih izvoljenih in vodenju k slavi, Bogu ni potrebno umakniti ali prevoziti naše volje, temveč doseže svoje namene, ki so bili določeni že pred ustanovitvijo sveta, skozi našo svobodno voljo. Tako sta vera in poslušnost Božje delo in hkrati naše delo. Ker je vera delo človeka, moramo oznanjati evangelij in prepričevati ljudi naj verujejo in tudi mi samo moramo verovati in vztrajati v naši poslušnosti.
Gotovost
Ideji kot sta vera v Božjo zvestobo, da bo ohranil naše duše, katere smo mu predali in dejavnost, ki zagotavlja našo izvolitev, gresta z roko v roki. Nista si različni niti v navideznem nasprotuju, temveč se dopoljnjujeta, kajti Bog je tisti, ki dela v nas, ko mi delamo. Bilo bi zmotno misliti, da je popolna gotovost o dokončni ohranitvi (vztrajanju) neskladna z opozorili in grajami proti odpadu in tako vzeti citate teh opozoril, kot dokaz, da pisatelji Biblije niso verjeli v predestinacijo in dokončno ohranitev, ko pa so sami trdili, da prav to verujejo. Prav tako je napačno misliti, da je volja svobodna (neodvisna) od svojega stvarnika. To je odnos upornega človeka, vendar to ni resnično v realnosti. Ne moremo biti svobodni (neodvisni) od stvarnika, niti si tega ne bi smeli želeti. Za nas je dovolj, če smo svobodni (neodvisni) od vpliva vsega, kar ni Bog. Kot grešniki smo daleč od tega, d bi bili svobodni v tem smislu, saj smo vedno sužnji našim strastem in zavedeni od hudiča. Vendar obnovljeni v Kristusu postanemo svobodni v edinem smislu, kot je ustvarjeno bitje lahko svobodno, to je- svobodno, da sledi naravi, da ni od Boga; ne svobodni od Darovalca, temveč le zares svobodni, ko se odziva vsepresegajoči Božji milosti, prav v tem smislu, kot je naša narava tudi ustvarjena.
Moralni problem
Moralni problem v zvezi z naukom o predestinaciji se poraja iz našega občutka za to, kaj je pošteno in kaj ni. Poštenost, pravičnost in pravica so temelji naših medsebojnih odnosov. Vendar pa stojimo na spolzkih tleh, če vzamemo te občutke za poštenost (oziroma to, kar mi mislimo, da je pravično do nas in drugih) kot kriterij za presojo Boga v njegovem ravnanju z njegovim upornim stvarstvom. Upornik si zasluži le obsodbo in ustrezno kazen. Ker pa odrešenje sodi v območje usmiljenja in ne kazni, je težko videti, kako lahko pojem poštenosti sploh igra kakšno vlogo pri tem. Če bi se Bog odločil biti pošten in pravičen do nas upornikov je jasno, da si vsi zaslužimo in bi vsi prejeli kazen. Toda milost je prevladala in milost je izven območja pravičnosti.
Sodnik vse zemlje bo ravnal v skladu s pravičnostjo, v to smo lahko prepričani, vendar mu mi ne bomo sodili. Zelo nevarno bi bilo, če bi naš čut za pravičnost, postavili kot kriterij, po katerem naj Bog obravnava nas upornike in kako naj razdeli njegovo nezasluženo milost, še posebej, če posledice naše presoje letijo naravnost proti resnici razodetja, kot nam je bila dana.
Sveto pismo neprenehoma govori, da sta odrešenje in večno življenje Božja darova. Z darom razpolaga darovalec; lahko ga podari ali pa tudi ne. Tako je tudi z milostjo. Z njo razpolaga tisti, ki je usmiljen. Lahko da izkaže usmiljenje, ali pa tudi ne. Odrešenje je dar. Darovalec ga lahko podari, ali pa tudi ne. Če se odrešenje lahko zasluži, potem o njem ne moremo reči, da je dar. Tako postane nagrada za zasluge, plačilo ki si ga zaslužimo. Toda odrešenje je v popolnosti dar- od začetka do konca. To pa pomeni, da mora biti podarjeno v skladu z Božjo voljo in odločitvijo. Narava odrešenja kot daru, iz usmiljenja priskrbljeno odrešenje, je v tesni povezavi z naukom o Božji popolni svobodi (neodvisnosti) v izbiri in predestinaciji.
V Kristusu
V nas samih ne obstaja nič, kar bi zaslužilo Božjo naklonjenost, ampak zgolj Božjo obsodbo. Pa vendar kristjani izkusimo to čudovito naklonjenost, saj živimo v miru z Bogom v odpuščanju, v veselju njegove prisotnosti in ljubezni do njega in do drugih v njegovem Duhu, v veri v vsakodnevnem življenju in v trdnem upanju glede prihodnosti ter v vsakodnevnem druženju z njim v molitvi in poslušanju njegove besede. Ta odnos z Bogom je Božji dar in izvira izključno iz njegove pobude. Jezus je dejal svojim učencem: Niste vi mene izvolili, ampak sem jaz vas izvolil in vas postavil, da greste in obrodite sad in da vaš sad ostane; tako vam bo Oče dal, kar koli ga boste prosili v mojem imenu, (Jn 15,16 SSP).
Bog je suveren v odrešenju
Najjasnejši zgled Božje suverenosti v odrešenju je Pavel (glej Apd 9,1-22). Jasno je, da zasluge za njegovo spreobrnjenje pripadajo izključno Bogu. Potrebno je bilo uporabiti "posebne prijeme", da bi se to izbrano posodo pripeljalo v kraljestvo. Enako velja za spreobrnjenje slehernega, četudi ponavadi vse skupaj ni tako spektakularno. Pobuda je izključno na strani Boga. Temu mora biti tako, saj smo sami po sebi slepi in nezmožni videti resnico. Mišljenje mesa je v sovraštvu do Boga in se ne podreja Božji volji, ker se tudi ne more. Bog mora posredovati. Le on je zmožen odpreti oči duhovne slepote, odvzeti kamnito srce ter na novo ustvariti osebni odnos z njim. Kajti, ko je človek v Kristusu, pravi Pavel, je nova stvaritev (2.Kor 5,17), da pa je temu tako, gredo zasluge le Bogu stvarniku.
Nauk o predestinaciji in o suverenosti Boga v odrešenju sta isti zadevi: On je ta, ki določa koga bo posvojil kot sina. On je ta, ki iz mrtvih grešnikov ustvari žive svetnike. Celo naš odziv vere je njegov dar, ki ga podarja v skladu s svojimi nameni. Pavel na primer, pravi Filipljanom, da je Božji dar njim to, da verujejo v Jezusa: Vam je bilo namreč milostno dano, ne samo da v Kristusa verujete, ampak da zanj tudi trpite, (Flp 1,29 SSP).
Pogosto je v Svetem pismu rečeno, da je kesanje Božji dar, kar je povsem razumljivo, saj smo sami po sebi povsem nemočni samo-ozdravitve in spreobrnjenja od egocentričnega življenja k Bogu-centričnem življenju. Če se kdo pokesa na tako skrajen način, mu je to podaril Bog. Kristjan, ozirajoč se nazaj, na lastne izkušnje ve, da je to resnica. Ve, da bi brez Božje milosti še vedno živel staro življenje egocentričnosti in greha.
Predestinacija je polna tolažbe
V nauk o predestinaciji ne moremo verjeti po naravni poti. Vanj verujemo, ker ga jasno uči Pismo, ko pa se ga trdno oprimemo, ima na nas zelo razbremenjujoč vpliv. Evangelist, ki ve, da je Bog suveren v odrešenju, se ne čuti primoranega uporabljati različna pomagala, ki naj bi ljudem pomagala pri spreobrnitvi saj zaupa Bogu. Zanašal se bo predvsem na molitev in oznanjevanje jasne resnice evangelija v kontekstu ljubezni in odnosov, kajti ve, da je beseda o križu Božja moč za odrešitev. Tako se ne bo prisiljen zateči k raznim metodam in pripomočkom, ki bi bili nevredni evangelija, ki mu je bil zaupan, saj ve, da je Bog tisti, ki podarja kesanje in vero, ko udejanja svoje milostne in odrešujoče namene. Da bi dejstvo, da je Bog suveren v odrešenju služilo kot izgovor za otopelost v molitvi ali za površno pripravo bodisi pridigarja ali posameznega kristjana, je povsem napačno. Predestinacija tudi ni izgovor, da ne oznanjamo evangelija (češ, da bo Bog tako ali tako rešil tiste, ki jih je izbral), saj Bog udejanja svoje usmiljene namene preko nas, preko naše narave in naših darov, zato naj bi bili ubogljivi in izkoristili darove in priložnosti. Za to smo namreč odgovorni in bomo dajali odgovor pred Božjim sodnim prestolom.
V tej dilemi obstajata dve plati, ki jima ne moremo uiti. a.) Bog je suveren v odrešitvi in b.) mi smo odgovorni v naši poslušnosti. Pisec Apostolskih del ni našel nobenega nasprotja v tem V Apd 13,48 je pripisal izid Pavlovega in Barnabinega oznanjevanja, Božji suverenosti: Ob teh besedah so se pogani razveselili in poveličevali Gospodovo besedo; in tisti, ki so bili določeni za večno življenje, so sprejeli vero, (SSP). Nekaj vrstic za tem (14,1) pa pove drugače in pripiše izid gorečnosti[2] oznanjevalcema: Podobno se je zgodilo v Ikóniju: šla sta v judovsko shodnico in govorila tako, da je velika množica Judov in Grkov sprejela vero (SSP). Obe resnici veljata istočasno: Bog je suveren in mi smo odgovorni.
Cilja pogubljenih in rešenih sta tako daleč narazen, kot si ne moremo misliti. Bilo bi neznosno, če bi naše blagoslovljeno stanje v tej veliki razliki, pripisovali kakšni naši kreposti ali pameti ali kakšnemu drugemu odzivu znotraj nas. Pošastno bi bilo, če bi sebi pripisali zasluge za to dejstvo, da smo prejeli neizrekljiv blagoslov; namreč, da smo dediči Božjega kraljestva, da je njegovo ime zapisano na naših čelih, da ga bomo gledali v obraz in bivali v njegovi prisotnosti vekomaj. S tem bi se ponašali, če bi naše odrešenje bilo odvisno na kakršen koli način od naše odločitve, neodvisno od Božje vnaprejšnje odločitve.
Nauk o predestinaciji nas varuje, da nas ne pogoltne brezbožni nauk, ki bi učil, da se imamo zahvaliti za to ker smo mi v nebesih in drugi v peklu, neki naši odločitvi ali našem odzivu. Prepuščeni sami sebi, smo vsi na istem, izgubljeni po lastnih zaslugah. Razliko med tistimi, ki so pogubljeni in tistimi, ki so rešeni je pripisati Božji odločitvi pred stvarjenjem sveta. Bog je pravičen, moder, ljubeč in se usmili kogar hoče.
Nevera
Nevera, poslušalcev evangelija, bi morala oči oznanjevalca napolniti s solzami in srce z žalostjo, kakor pri Jezusu in Pavlu, vendar oznanjevalec ve, da nevera poslušalcev evangelija ni izven Božjih namenov izvolitve. Tako ne bo izgubil poguma niti ga to ne bo odvrnilo od poslanstva, da oznani evangelij vsemu stvarstvu. Spoznanje Božje predestinacije ga bo osvobodilo pritiska in mu pomagalo opustiti nevredne metode in izognil se bo psihološko škodljivemu preiskovanju sebe. Pri sebi bo vedel, da je Gospodov služabnik in glasnik, ki zbira Božje ljudstvo: Zakaj jaz sem s teboj. Nihče se te ne bo dotaknil, da bi ti storil kaj zlega, kajti v tem mestu imam veliko svojih ljudi, (Apd 18,10 SSP), oziroma Kristusove izbrane: Poslal bo svoje angele ob močnem donenju trobente in zbrali bodo njegove izvoljene od štirih vetrov, od konca do konca neba, (Mt 24,31 SSP), kakor hoče Božja večna volja in njegov namen, namen za katerega nam Pismo razodeva, da je neskončen in vse presegajoč blagoslov svetu.
Predestinacija ni utemeljena na vnaprejšnjem vedenju
Ko premišljujemo o tem nauku, moramo iz misli izključiti vsakršen pojem, ki bi namigoval, da je Božja predestinacija utemeljena v tem, da je on vnaprej vedel, kako se bomo mi odzvali na evangelij, ali pa, da temelji na kreposti naše vere. Božja odločitev temelji izključno na njem samem torej, na njegovemu karakterju. Mojzes je jasno vedeti, da Božja izbira Izraelcev ni utemeljena v čemurkoli kar bi bilo v njih samih: GOSPOD se ni nagnil k vam in vas izbral zato, ker bi bili številnejši od vseh drugih ljudstev, saj ste najmanjši izmed vseh, temveč zato, ker vas ljubi in hoče držati prisego, ki jo je dal vašim očetom, vas je GOSPOD izpeljal z močno roko in vas rešil iz hiše sužnosti, iz roke egiptovskega kralja faraona (5.Mz 7,7-8 SSP). Naše odrešenje je posledica Božjega usmiljenja, milost pa je vedno nezaslužena.
Pavel je prepoznal problem nauka o predestinaciji, vendar se ni izmuznil iz problema tako, da bi rekel, da so Božje odločitve utemeljene v njegovem vnaprejšnjem vedenju našega odziva, saj to ni res. Ravno nasprotno, naš odziv, naša reakcija je utemeljena na Božji vnaprejšnji odločitvi. Njegove odločitve pa so utemeljene le v njem samem, v njegovi dobroti in usmiljenosti, njegovi modrosti in volji. Ne smemo si dovoliti, da bi posvojili rešitev, za katero Pavel ne ve, medtem ko se ukvarja s problemom predestinacije. Pa vendar, Bog ne zakrkne grešnikovega srca tako, da grešnik ne bi zakrknil lastnega srca. Pavel pravi: Bog se torej usmili, kogar se hoče, in zakrkne, kogar hoče, (Rim 9,18 SSP), pa vendar drugje pravi Pismo: Ne zakrknite svojih src kakor v Meríbi, kakor na dan Mase v puščavi, (Ps 95,8 SSP). Za faraona pravi Pismo oboje- da mu je Bog zakrknil srce in da je faraon zakrknil lastno srce, kajti oboje velja istočasno. Faraonova volja je znotraj suverene volje Boga. Želel si je zakrkniti srce in Bog si je želel, da faraon zakrkne srce, tako da bi iz greha faraona Bog prinesel odrešenje svetu.
Grešniki nimamo pravice biti jezni na Boga glede na to, kako se stvari odvijajo. vsi si zaslužimo Božjo kazen in če kazni ne doživljamo v polnosti sedaj, se imamo zahvaliti le Božji potrpežljivosti. Grešniki nimamo od Boga kaj zahtevati, nimamo pravice biti jezni nanj, saj si vsi zaslužimo veliko več, kot se nam lahko zgodi v sedanjosti. Če že prejemamo kakšen blagoslov in še posebej če prejemamo obnovo prijateljstva skozi odrešitev po Jezusu, je temu tako, ker je Bog usmiljen.
Vedno moramo imeti v mislih obe strani resnice istočasno. Na eni strani je Božja suverenost brez katere ne bi bil nihče rešen in na drugi strani naša odgovornost, da se odzovemo z zaupanjem evangeliju. Pavel je uspešno branil obe strani v Rim 9-11 poglavju. V devetem poglavju je poudaril Božjo suverenost v predestinaciji oziroma izbiri in končal debato na to temo v enajstem poglavju, ko je opomnil bralce, da so ljudje pogubljeni zaradi lastne nevere, kajti če njegovi bralci želijo biti rešeni, naj vztrajajo v veri, sicer bodo pogubljeni tako kot ostali. Pa vendar ne smemo zaključiti, da ta vera izvira iz nas. To je prav zares naša vera, vendar je Božji dar nam. Ker pa je ta vera Božji dar, lahko z zaupanjem zremo v prihodnost, da nam bo še naprej milostno podarjal, da bomo verovali. Kakor pravi pismo Hebrejcem, bo Kristus dokončno odrešil tiste, ki po njemu prihajajo k Bogu: Dokončno lahko odreši tiste, ki po njem prihajajo k Bogu, ker vedno živi, da posreduje zanje, (Heb 7,25 SSP). Če smo torej izmed Kristusovih ovac, nas ne more nihče iztrgati iz njegove roke: Dajem jim večno življenje; nikoli se ne bodo pogubile in nihče jih ne bo iztrgal iz moje roke, (Jn 10,28 SSP). Naša gotovost glede prihodnosti (in vsi bi morali imeti to gotovost) temelji na Bogu in ne na nas samih, saj je Bog obljubil da bo zvest in da bo to kar je začel v nas, tudi dokončal: Prepričan sem, da bo on, ki je začel v vas dobro delo, to delo dokončal do dneva Kristusa Jezusa, (Flp 1,6 SSP).
Zelo pomemben vidik nauka o predestinaciji je ta, da je Bog zvest in da v njegovo zvestobo lahko zaupamo. On se bo držal obljube, saj je zvest in bo to izpolnil (1.Tes 5,23-24; 1.Kor 1,8-9). Če bi naše odrešenje bilo odvisno od nas, bi bilo zares predrzno trditi, da nas v prihodnosti čakajo nebesa. Ker pa je odrešenje v popolnosti Božji dar, lahko hvaležni zaupamo v njegovo zvestobo, da bo dokončal odrešenje tistih, katere si je izbral pred ustanovitvijo sveta. Popolnoma mirni, pravzaprav z veseljem lahko sprejemamo stvari, katere njegova dobrota dopusti, da vstopijo v naša življenja, vedoč, da vse stvari pripomorejo k dobrim tistim, ki ga ljubijo, tistim, ki so poklicani po njegovem načrtu.
Pavel konča razpravo o tej temi v 9-11 poglavju pisma Rimljanom. Bralce opomni na Božjo modrost, ki se kaže v nenavadnem in nepričakovanem dogodku- da s tem,ko je Božje ljudstvo zavrnilo Mesijo, je blagoslov prešel na pogane, medtem ko bodo zaradi Božjega dela med pogani, Judje spreobrnjeni. posebej naglasi Božjo modrost in spoznanje, ki je vse vklenila v neposlušnost, da bi vsem izkazala usmiljenje. Božja modrost nam ni do potankosti razodeta. Ne razumemo vsega, kar se skriva v Božjih namenih glede predestinacije. Toda zaupamo lahko v njegovo modrost in verujemo, da bo v prihodnost še bolj polna glede blagoslova za svet, kot je sedanjost.
V tistih, ki so od Boga izbrani, da bi bili njegovi sinovi in hčere, bi se morala nahajati globoka hvaležnost za izkazano usmiljenje, pa tudi globok občutek odgovornosti. Izbrani smo bili zato, da bi postali značajsko podobni Jezusu. takšna je Božja volja za nas, zato naj bi vedno v življenju strmeli k cilju, da bi postajali podobni Božjemu Sinu. Kako veličasten namen ima Bog z nami. Izbrani smo bili njemu v slavo, v slavo veličastva njegove milosti. Naša življenja bi morala odsevati Božjo slavo in hvalo. Izbrani smo bili, da bi bili deležni blagoslova in da bi bili v blagoslov, da bi s svojim življenjem in besedami blagoslovili druge s spoznanjem o Kristusu. deležni smo velikega privilegija in tudi odgovornosti. Ì
Vprašanja za diskusijo
A. Vprašanja na podlagi članka
1. Zakaj doktrina predestinacije zmede kristjane?
2. Kaj pravi doktrina predestinacije?
3. Zakaj je pomembna?
4. Kaj pomeni, da je Bog vsemogočen, neodvisen (suveren)?
5. Kaj je težava v zamisli, da se je Bog omejil v področju človeške volje?
6. Ali je Bog pošten?
7. Kakšno je odnos med milostjo in pravičnostjo?
8. Kakšno tolažbo vsebuje doktrina predestinacije?
9. Ali se lahko hvalimo o naši odrešitvi?
10. Zakaj ideja o gotovosti odrešitve ni predrzna?
11. Ali je izbira (predestinacija) na podlagi vnaprejšnjega vedenja še vedno milost?
B. Sorodna vprašanja
1. Kako kristjani sprejemajo Božje vodenje?
2. Zakaj si doktrina o predestinaciji in potreba po evangelizaciji ne/nasprotujeta?
3. Kako Bog oznani evangelij nekristjanu?
C. Proti ideje
1. K zanikanju te teme, kristjani pogosto citirajo 1.Tim 2,4 in 2,6. Kako smiseln/prepričljiv je ta ugovor? (vendar pozor: nasprotniki ideje o predestinaciji narobe citirajo to idejo, namreč takole: da je Bog določil nekatere za odrešitev, druge pa je določil za pogubljenje). Za definicijo glej začetek članka.
2. Ali je ideja, da smo (bili) duhovno mrtvi in slepi, skladna s tem, da se sami po sebi odzovemo na (sprejmemo) evangelij? Zakaj je ali ni? Glej tudi 1.Kor 2,12-16.
3. Pojavlja se tudi ugovor, da ta ideja prinaša: a.) neaktivnost v oznanjanju evangelija, b.) avtomatičnost pripisovanja odrešenja izbranim ljudem, brez njihovega sodelovanja, c.) nesvobodnost človeka (postane stroj), d.) neodgovornost človeka (še posebej kristjana) za svoja dejanja. Kaj bi rekel na te ugovore?
D. Biblijski odlomki
1. Efežanom 1,4-12.
2. Rimljanom 8,28-39.
3. Janez 15,1-17
4. Apostolska dela 4,23-31; 13,48-15,1.
[1] Pozor: Ne pravi, da je vera poslušnost, ali da je poslušnost vera. Ker vere ne vidimo vemo, da nekdo veruje, ker se podreja (je poslušen) Bogu.
[2] Svetopisemski tekst nam ne daje povoda, da bi zaključili, da sta oznanjala goreče, kot navaja avtor. Besede sta oznanjala tako,.. nam ne dajo v tem tekstu povoda, da bi sklepali da gre za gorečnost, pogumnost, glasnost, moč prepričevanja,… saj bi v takem pomenu, bil odziv poslušalcev odvisen od oznanjevalca in to bi bilo proti miselnosti iz 1.Kor 2:1-5. Kvečjemu bi lahko zaključili, da sta zvesto oznanjala evangelij, torej, da nista nič izpustila oziroma sta povedala bistveno, pa tudi to je le domneva.
četrtek, april 28, 2005
Opravičenje-posvečenje
Synopsis
The reformation brought different understanding of justification and sanctification from the traditional Roman Catholic theology. With justification understood to be declarative and imputed in nature and sanctification being more and more seen in the same light rather than in merely moralistic and progressive terms. The nature of the relationship between justification and sanctification is therefore such that they are distinct but inseparable as they are both achieved by Christ for us and are received by the believer at the same time by faith. Such relationship eliminates the steps in salvation, interchangibility of the terms and the cause-effect view. Consequences of misunderstanding the relationship are primarily soteriological but also eschatological. Assurance of salvation thus comes under the responsibility of men and the eschatological outcome is not certain. This is seen mainly in the Roman Catholic teaching on the subject as it also influenced some of the modern Christian thought.
***
New developments in understanding the relationship between justification and sanctification were made during the reformation era. Definitions were drawn on both sides, usually in the opposite directions. Here are two examples:
"This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy becomes a friend..." (Council of Trent 6th session, ch. 7)
"Christ, therefore, justifies no man without also sanctifying him...Though we distinguish between them, they are both inseparably comprehended in Christ." (Calvin Institutes III, XVI, 1)
The first example makes sanctification (understood in moral sense) as a subset of justification where as the second puts justification and sanctification side-by-side, almost parallel and centred on Christ. As we continue we will try to untangle the meanings and relationship between these two terms and identify some consequences, drawing examples mainly from the Roman Catholic church’s[1] understanding.
In most literature justification is debated separately from sanctification with much more emphasis on the former. Writers tend not to draw a direct relationship between justification and sanctification unless they see sanctification merely as moral goodness. Besides this, the understanding of justification and even sanctification in literature has been so diverse and opposed to each other that we need to provide a basic definition of both terms along with some historical development of their understanding. So we will start with a definition and some historical understanding, before we continue to discuss the relationship between these two. The consequences of misunderstanding will be discussed in the last part of our essay.
Definitions
Both Roman Catholic and Reformed theology uses the term "justification" for explaining the status of sinful humankind before a just God. It has mainly been explained with juridical and forensic connotations.[2] The word "justification" is commonly taken as the translation and understanding of the dikaioVw word in Greek, LXX and NT.[3] It deals with the question, "How can I be right with God?"[4] The basic meaning of justification would be the declaration of God that the individual is not guilty, and therefore not liable to punishment. However there is a great controversy between Roman Catholic and Reformed thought about the nature and grounds of justification, which will be discussed in our next section on historical understanding of justification.[5]
Sanctification is a translation of the a&gia"- word group and is at the same time also translated as "to make holy, consecrate, dedicate, set apart" and can refer to both objects and persons.[6] It is also described with the adjective a&gio". There are usually two ways of describing sanctification in theology. One refers to the state of being holy, set apart (e.g. for God), belonging to (e.g. Christ) or dedicated to a particular purpose of God. The other refers to moral goodness of an individual. This latter view also gradually came to predominate.[7] In Roman Catholic theology the term is used solely in this second sense and is never discussed apart from justification. Again there is a great controversy between Roman Catholic and Reformed understanding of the two senses of sanctification as it is also among Reformed streams of thought.[8]
Historical Relationship between justification and sanctification
It is sufficient for our purposes to look into the council of Trent to see the RC understanding of justification because the council was convened in response to issues raised by the Reformation period and their conclusions are still valid today since neither Vatican I nor Vatican II debated the doctrines of justification and sanctification.[9] Crossan points out that "Any declaration of justification that does not conform to inner reality is sinful and must never be done by a human judge, as of course it is never done by the divine Judge.”[10] The dilemma is obvious and we will see next how the RC church sought to resolve it.
RC understanding of justification follows Augustine's view that the sinner is actually made righteous in justification. Toon claims that Augustine briefly considered the possibility that "to justify" means "to pronounce righteous", but he rejected that possibility.[11] Furthermore Augustine held that justification is the initial event and process throughout life.[12] Trent affirmed this position in its sixth session. Chapter V describes the beginning of justification in adults which proceeds from the predisposing grace, which is also called "helping grace" in order that they might convert themselves to their own justification by cooperating with that grace.[13] Chapter VII reaches the highpoint of their understanding of the relationship of justification and sanctification as it states: "This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gift whereby an unjust man becomes just."[14] The amount of justification received depends on the Holy Spirit and the disposition and cooperation of the individual.[15] In other words, the more one lives righteously the more he is justified.[16] By justification we are sanctified and by being more sanctified we are more justified, while at the same time the initial justification needs the preparation and cooperation of the person as well.[17] But that is not the end. According to Trent the person may loose justification and again obtain it. Chapter XIV says that "Those who through sin have forfeited the received grace of justification, can again be justified when, moved by God, they exert themselves to obtain through the sacrament of penance the recovery, by the merits of Christ, of the grace lost...For on behalf of those who fall into sin after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of penance..."[18] All this shows that justification is imparted, that justification is dependent of sanctification and that sanctification is a subset of justification. The relationship between justification and sanctification is therefore interdependent in RC theology. The consequences of such understanding of the relationship between justification and sanctification will be discussed in our final part of the essay.
Martin Luther was the first one to deviate from this view. But as Luther started as a RC, it is not surprising that his view of justification in his early years was not much different. He tended to understand justification as a process of "becoming" as McGrath points out.[19] But later, perhaps under the influence of Melanchthon, he came to regard justification as an event, which was complemented by the distinct process of regeneration (i.e. sanctification) and interior renewal through the action of the Holy Spirit.[20] Luther was of course quite clear that the righteousness was external and never belonged personally to the sinner but to Jesus Christ.[21] This is developed in Luther's idea of every Christian being simultaneously sinful and just and he remains sinful until he receives a new body. Toon concludes that Luther had no doctrine of growth in sanctification even though he regarded justification as including daily renewal of the new nature.[22] Though Luther himself may dispute this as he said "For we perceive that a man who is justified is not yet a righteous man, but is in the very movement or journey toward righteousness."[23] The difference then between Luther and RC doctrine is the nature of justification and that grace and sin are not exclusive or contradictory so there is no absurdity in Christian being simultaneously just and sinful (simul Justus et peccator).[24]
Thus Luther made no conceptual distinction between justification and sanctification as justification included regeneration and renewal.[25] This might be confusing compared to the RC position, however in practice it meant that the works of regeneration are the proof of faith and therefore of justification. As Luther said, "I say, therefore, that works justify, that is they show that we have been justified [...] for the works indicate weather I have faith [...] In God's eyes that distinction is not necessary, for he is not deceived by hypocrisy. But it is necessary among men, so that they may correctly understand where faith is and where it is not."[26]
The one who did distinguish justification and sanctification even more than Luther was Calvin. Referring to 1 Cor. 1:30 Calvin said "Christ, therefore, justifies no man without also sanctifying him."[27] Thus for Calvin justification and sanctification are two distinguishable concepts but which are not received separately. He refutes the high value of our works that the RC church wants to maintain. We join Calvin's view that even if we were able to preform absolutely pure works yet one sin is sufficient to extinguish all remembrance of former righteousness (Ezekiel 18:24, James 2:10, Galatians 3:10).[28] The works are therefore the result of sanctification or as Calvin calls them "the fruits of regeneration"[29] and as they are God's gift they are not the cause of either justification or sanctification but rather proof of it.[30]
Calvin explains that Bible passages which suggest good works as a cause of salvation should be read in the light of the administration of the salvation where good works are the means of the only cause, which is God's call (Rom 8:30).[31] Thus justification and sanctification are both the declaration of God, on the one hand that a sinner is righteous on account of Christ's propitiory work because he is in Christ by faith and on the other hand that the sinner is declared holy because he is in Christ by faith (on sanctification Jn 17:17,19; 1 Cor. 1:1, 6:11; Eph 5:26; 2 Thes 2:13; Heb 2:11, 10:10). The seemingly progressive element of sanctification is because works of righteousness are not done to become more sanctified but are done because we are sanctified (Rev 22:11). White is right in saying that justification and sanctification are not separate in time as seen in 1 Corinthians 6:11 but why then does he speaks of sanctification as merely progressive?[32] Hoekema starts to explain very well when he looks at the OT meaning of being holy and he concludes: "What is conveyed by the word qādosh, therefore, is that God's people are to be set apart for God's service and that they should avoid whatever is displeasing to him."[33] This was done by God through faith even in NT (Eph 5:25-26; Acts 26:18).[34] But Hoekema suddenly changes to progressive sanctification when he expounds Rom 6:1-6 and concludes that "Sanctification, therefore, must be understood as dying to sin in Christ and with Christ."[35] Note the progressive sense of the word "dying." Still further, he goes on to introduce, we believe without reason, the sanctification as the image of God.[36] This allows him to connect all Biblical references, which speak of the change of a Christian to the likeness of God, as progressive sanctification. Thus sanctification, according to Hoekema, becomes strictly the matter of moral character. In this way older Christians should be less sinful (more like Christ) as the result of progressive sanctification. We are not saying that there is no place for moral improvement as Luther said "No one is so good that he does not become better, and no one is so evil that he does not become worse, until at last we come to our final state."[37] So at the end it seems that the progressive sanctification that Hoekema proposes looks similar to the division of Christians to "carnal" and "spiritual" and the possibility of order of salvation that he rightly rejects at the beginning of his book.[38] So Hoekema's definitive sanctification is slightly different to ours.[39]
Therefore the relationship between justification and sanctification is of such nature that first, they are inseparable because they are both secured on the cross once and for all for the benefit of those who are in Christ. Second, they don't occur in temporal order.[40] Third, they are not interchangeable, that is, justification is not sanctification and sanctification is not justification.[41] Fourth, one is not the consequence and thereby proof of the other.[42] And fifth, as they belong indissolubly together they call the Christian to live according to his new nature "be what you are" and not "be what you will become" (2. Cor 5:17). Peterson puts it rightly when he says: "we are to live out that consecrated relationship in terms of practical holiness."[43]
Consequences of misunderstanding
The consequences of misunderstanding the relationship between justification and sanctification in modern Christian though are really the variants of RC theology expressed in various streams of Christian thought. We will discuss the consequences of misunderstanding the relationship identified in the previous paragraph.
First, if we separate justification and sanctification then the consequences are either assigning them to different source (e.g. justification to God's activity and sanctification as our activity) or make one the consequence of the other. Those who hold such a view understand sanctification in purely moralistic terms. That is, it is seen as the order of salvation commonly found in Pentecostal theology of which Wesley has been a key forerunner. He was, as Pentecostals usually are, concerned with what is happening with the believer now, what is he doing now (namely sanctify himself) rather than simply claiming the status of being justified, as that was only the initiation into Christian life.[44] Hoekema helpfully shows us how series of successive experiences as the way of salvation is wrong.[45] Such separation of the terms puts them into a kind of temporal order and as one – sanctification, being the consequence of the other – justification. In practice this means that our sanctification – our moral works, prove that we have been justified. The problem with this is how much work is needed to prove this and who will discern it? The solution to the problem is found, as it always is in matters of human morality, by lowering the standards of morality.[46] The consequence of this is thus the constant meditation on the sanctification as a moral renewal to keep up the assurance of justification. It also shifts the focus from the gospel and tends to see it only important and significant as the entry point into Christianity. The achievement of Christ is not taken seriously enough since it deduces sanctification from his accomplishment (Heb 10:10).[47] The assurance of our salvation is diminished as we will demonstrate that again and again.
Second, if in the relationship between justification and sanctification the latter is the subset of the former then soteriology also suffers as faith in Jesus Christ merges into obedience.[48] We have already seen this in the statement on justification in the council of Trent. The result is that the increase of sanctification causes the increase of justification as faith cooperates with good works.[49] In other words, it is a circle feeding on itself with the aid of sacraments.[50] The consequence of such view, as Catholic scholars see them, is the insistence of moral theology and pastoral practice on sacramental life.[51] The doctrine of sacraments is another topic that we won't go into but such theology gives our works and capabilities much more merit that they deserve. Even if we were able to preform, as God wanted, we could only say that we have only done our duty (Lk 17:10).[52] And again this causes absolute no assurance of salvation as all is in progress and depends on the cooperation of the individual.
Pastorally less troubling consequence is the understanding of eschatology. Luther's eschatology is dialectical (neither realized eschatology nor futurist eschatology) on the basis of his claim that a Christian is both just and sinful at the same time.[53] Thus in Luther the outcome of the final judgement is already known due to the cross.[54] On the contrary, the RC understanding of the relationship between justification and sanctification makes the final status of a person unresolved since it changes all the time.[55] Thus it is a matter of arrogance for a RC Christian to claim to know the outcome of the final judgment. Furthermore they believe that the sanctification process continues even after death while the soul of the deceased is in purgatory where, by the prayers and merits of people still alive, can gain access into heaven. Ideally RC eschatology is fully realised as a person is made righteous and lives out that imparted righteousness (is being sanctified). In this way he progresses to achieve righteousness, which Protestants claim to posses only in the new creation. Actually RC claim there are only a few such people attaining perfect sanctification who throughout history have been called “saints”. But practically we experience people as sinful and so they need to undergo the sacramental system for the remission of sins and therefore realised eschatology is far from the reach and one never knows the outcome only hoping for the best.
Conclusion
We have seen the stark contrast of the relationship between justification and sanctification as understood by RC and reformed theology. On one hand, the RC church claims that sanctification is the subset of justification where both are reoccurring process of mere declarative nature. On the other hand, reformed understanding claims that justification and sanctification are two distinct themes but they also belong indissolubly together because they are results of the cross at the same time thus eliminating the temporal sequence between them. They are also understood as being declarative in nature where righteousness is imputed and sanctification does not have degrees of being more or less sanctified.
We have also examined the consequence of misunderstanding the relationship observed mainly in RC theology some elements of Pentecostal theology are of the same nature and therefore also have the same consequences. We have seen that the most important consequence of misunderstanding this relationship is the soteriology being handed into man's hands, which results in the lack of assurance of his salvation. We saw that the same occurs in the RC understanding as also in the Pentecostal understanding of the order of salvation. Furthermore another consequence reaches also into the understanding of eschatology where the RC understanding operates on realised eschatology while not being certain about the future eschatology regarding salvation.
Bibliography of Sources Cited
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Vol IV, part 2. Edited by Bromiley G. W. and Torrance T. F. Translated by Bromiley G. W. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958.
Cobb, John B. Grace and Responsibility: A Wesleyan Theology for Today. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995.
Crossan, D. M and Tavard G. H. 'Justification'. Pages 75-80 in Vol. 8, 2nd ed. of the New Catholic Encyclopedia. Edited by Berard L. Marthaler. Michigan: Gale, 2003.
Doyle, Robert C. Eschatology and the Shape of Christian Belief. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1999. Repr. 2002.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Michigan: Baker books, 1988.
Hoekema, Anthony A. Saved by Grace. Grand Rapids/Carlisle: Eerdmans/Paternoster press, 1994.
Jensen, Peter. 'Tending the flock: the pastoral implications of justification by faith' in Justification and Christian Assurance. (ed. Gibson R. J.; Adelaide: Openbook publishers, 1996.
McGrath, Alister E. Reformation Thought, An Introduction. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1999.
Packer, J. I. 'Justification'. Pages 593-7 in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1984.
Peterson, David. Engaging with God. Leicester: Apollos, 1992.
Toon, Peter. Justification and Sanctification. Illinois: Crossway Books, 1983.
White, R. E. O. 'Sanctification'. Pages 969-71 in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1984.
Wright, David F. and Sinclair, Ferguson B. 'Justification'. New Dictionary of Theology in The Essential IVP Reference Collection on CD-ROM. Logos Library System Version 2.1g. 1995-1999. Print. ed.: Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright, ed. New Dictionary of Theology. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity 1988.
Primary sources
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge 1 vol. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989 [1559].
Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Translated by Schroeder H. J. Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, 1978 [1547].
Luther, Martin. ‘The Disputation Concerning Justification’ in Luther’s Works (American Edition), Volume 34. Edited by Franklin Sherman. Translated by Lewis W. Spitz. 55 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.
_____. 'Lectures on Romans' in Luther’s Works (American Edition), Volume 25. Edited by Hilton C. Oswald. Translated by Jacob A. O. Preus. Saint Louis: Concordia, 1972.
Endnotes
[1] This term will be shortened as RC from now on.
[2] Crossan, D. M. and Tavard G. H., 'Justification', NCE 8:76, David Wright, 'Justification', New Dictionary of Theology in The Essential IVP Reference Collection on CD-ROM. Logos Library System Version 2.1g. 1995-1999, n.p., John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion Book III. (trans. Henry Beveridge; 1 vol.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989 [1559]), 37-38, Packer, 'Justification', EDT, 593-4, Millard Erickson J, Christian Theology (Michigan: Baker Books, 1988), 954-5.
[3] Packer, 'Justification', EDT, 593, Crossan and Tavard, 'Justification', 8: 76.
[4] Millard, Christian Theology, 955.
[5] There is also a controversy over justification in Reformed understandings but much smaller. We will mention it in our next section on justification.
[6] White R. E. O., 'Sanctification', EDT, 969.
[7] Millard, Christian Theology, 968.
[8] This time, the controversy in Reformed understandings is greater than before.
[9] Crossan and Tavard, 'Justification', 8: 90. Also see Canon 33 of the Council of Trent, VI.
[10] Crossan and Tavard, 'Justification', 8: 77.
[11] Peter Toon, Justification and Sanctification (Illinois: Crossway Books, 1983), 48.
[12] Toon, Justification, 48.
[13] Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (Trans. Schroeder H. J. Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, 1978 [1547]), 31-2.
[14] Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 33.
[15] Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 33.
[16] Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 36. This increase of justification through works is thoroughly described in Chapter X.
[17] Except in the case of an infants where they receive the infusion of sanctifying grace at baptism.
[18] Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 39.
[19] Alister McGrath E., Reformation Thouight, An Introduction (3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1999), 126. That was in years 1515-19.
[20] McGrath, Reformation, 126. That was in years around 1530.
[21] Martin Luther, ‘The Disputation Concerning Justification’ in Luther’s Works (American Edition), Volume 34 (ed. Franklin Sherman; trans. Lewis W. Spitz; 55 vols; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 153.
[22] Toon, Justification, 59.
[23] Luther, 'Justification', 152.
[24] Toon, Justification, 61.
[25] Toon, Justification, 63.
[26] Luther, 'Justification', 161.
[27] Calvin, Institutes Book III, 99.
[28] Calvin, Institutes Book III, 80.
[29] Calvin, Institutes Book III, 87.
[30] Calvin, Institutes Book III, 86-7.
[31] Calvin, Institutes Book III, 88.
[32] White R. E. O., 'Sanctification', 970.
[33] Anthony Hoekema A, saved by Grace (Grand Rapids/Carlisle: Eerdmans/Paternoster press, 1994), 193.
[34] Hoekema, By Grace, 194-6.
[35] Hoekema, By Grace 194.
[36] Hoekema, By Grace, 197.
[37] Martin Luther, 'Lectures on Romans' in Luther’s Works (American Edition), Volume 25 (ed. Hilton C. Oswald; trans. Jacob A. O. Preus; Saint Louis: Concordia, 1972), 435.
[38] Hoekema, By Grace, 14-27.
[39] Hoekema says that definitive sanctification means that the work of the Holy Spirit causes us to die to sin, to be raised with Christ, and to be made new creatures and is the beginning of the process. Hoekema, By Grace, 208.
[40] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatic (Vol IV part 2; eds. Bromiley G. W. and Torrance T. F.; trans. Bromiley G. W.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958), 501-3, 507.
[41] Barth, Church Dogmatics, 505.
[42] Luther thought that sanctification is the proof of justification.
[43] David Peterson, Engaging with God (Leicester: Apollos, 1992), 177.
[44] John Cobb B., Grace and Responsibility: A Wesleyan Theology for Today (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 100.
[45] Hoekema, By Grace, 16-17. He points the false understanding of the salvation as a series of regeneration, conversion, justification, sanctification, perseverance.
[46] Peter, Jensen, 'Tending the flock: the pastoral implications of justification by faith' in Justification and Christian Assurance (ed. Gibson R. J.; Adelaide: Openbook publishers, 1996), 126.
[47] Or as Barth puts it "But it (the action of God) [sic]accomplishes the two together. The one is done wholly and immediately with the other", Barth, Church Dogmatics, 502.
[48] Barth, Church Dogmatics, 504.
[49] Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 36.
[50] If death breaks the circle at the point when a person is in a state of having venial sin, the person ends in purgatory.
[51] Crossan and Tavard, 'Justification', 8: 90.
[52] Jensen, 'Tending the flock', 123.
[53] Robert Doyle C., Eschatology and the Shape of Christian Belief (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1999. Repr. 2002), 165.
[54] Doyle, Eschatology, 166.
[55] As he commits sin, falls from grace of justification, undergoes the sacraments and is justified again. Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 39.
The reformation brought different understanding of justification and sanctification from the traditional Roman Catholic theology. With justification understood to be declarative and imputed in nature and sanctification being more and more seen in the same light rather than in merely moralistic and progressive terms. The nature of the relationship between justification and sanctification is therefore such that they are distinct but inseparable as they are both achieved by Christ for us and are received by the believer at the same time by faith. Such relationship eliminates the steps in salvation, interchangibility of the terms and the cause-effect view. Consequences of misunderstanding the relationship are primarily soteriological but also eschatological. Assurance of salvation thus comes under the responsibility of men and the eschatological outcome is not certain. This is seen mainly in the Roman Catholic teaching on the subject as it also influenced some of the modern Christian thought.
***
New developments in understanding the relationship between justification and sanctification were made during the reformation era. Definitions were drawn on both sides, usually in the opposite directions. Here are two examples:
"This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy becomes a friend..." (Council of Trent 6th session, ch. 7)
"Christ, therefore, justifies no man without also sanctifying him...Though we distinguish between them, they are both inseparably comprehended in Christ." (Calvin Institutes III, XVI, 1)
The first example makes sanctification (understood in moral sense) as a subset of justification where as the second puts justification and sanctification side-by-side, almost parallel and centred on Christ. As we continue we will try to untangle the meanings and relationship between these two terms and identify some consequences, drawing examples mainly from the Roman Catholic church’s[1] understanding.
In most literature justification is debated separately from sanctification with much more emphasis on the former. Writers tend not to draw a direct relationship between justification and sanctification unless they see sanctification merely as moral goodness. Besides this, the understanding of justification and even sanctification in literature has been so diverse and opposed to each other that we need to provide a basic definition of both terms along with some historical development of their understanding. So we will start with a definition and some historical understanding, before we continue to discuss the relationship between these two. The consequences of misunderstanding will be discussed in the last part of our essay.
Definitions
Both Roman Catholic and Reformed theology uses the term "justification" for explaining the status of sinful humankind before a just God. It has mainly been explained with juridical and forensic connotations.[2] The word "justification" is commonly taken as the translation and understanding of the dikaioVw word in Greek, LXX and NT.[3] It deals with the question, "How can I be right with God?"[4] The basic meaning of justification would be the declaration of God that the individual is not guilty, and therefore not liable to punishment. However there is a great controversy between Roman Catholic and Reformed thought about the nature and grounds of justification, which will be discussed in our next section on historical understanding of justification.[5]
Sanctification is a translation of the a&gia"- word group and is at the same time also translated as "to make holy, consecrate, dedicate, set apart" and can refer to both objects and persons.[6] It is also described with the adjective a&gio". There are usually two ways of describing sanctification in theology. One refers to the state of being holy, set apart (e.g. for God), belonging to (e.g. Christ) or dedicated to a particular purpose of God. The other refers to moral goodness of an individual. This latter view also gradually came to predominate.[7] In Roman Catholic theology the term is used solely in this second sense and is never discussed apart from justification. Again there is a great controversy between Roman Catholic and Reformed understanding of the two senses of sanctification as it is also among Reformed streams of thought.[8]
Historical Relationship between justification and sanctification
It is sufficient for our purposes to look into the council of Trent to see the RC understanding of justification because the council was convened in response to issues raised by the Reformation period and their conclusions are still valid today since neither Vatican I nor Vatican II debated the doctrines of justification and sanctification.[9] Crossan points out that "Any declaration of justification that does not conform to inner reality is sinful and must never be done by a human judge, as of course it is never done by the divine Judge.”[10] The dilemma is obvious and we will see next how the RC church sought to resolve it.
RC understanding of justification follows Augustine's view that the sinner is actually made righteous in justification. Toon claims that Augustine briefly considered the possibility that "to justify" means "to pronounce righteous", but he rejected that possibility.[11] Furthermore Augustine held that justification is the initial event and process throughout life.[12] Trent affirmed this position in its sixth session. Chapter V describes the beginning of justification in adults which proceeds from the predisposing grace, which is also called "helping grace" in order that they might convert themselves to their own justification by cooperating with that grace.[13] Chapter VII reaches the highpoint of their understanding of the relationship of justification and sanctification as it states: "This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gift whereby an unjust man becomes just."[14] The amount of justification received depends on the Holy Spirit and the disposition and cooperation of the individual.[15] In other words, the more one lives righteously the more he is justified.[16] By justification we are sanctified and by being more sanctified we are more justified, while at the same time the initial justification needs the preparation and cooperation of the person as well.[17] But that is not the end. According to Trent the person may loose justification and again obtain it. Chapter XIV says that "Those who through sin have forfeited the received grace of justification, can again be justified when, moved by God, they exert themselves to obtain through the sacrament of penance the recovery, by the merits of Christ, of the grace lost...For on behalf of those who fall into sin after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of penance..."[18] All this shows that justification is imparted, that justification is dependent of sanctification and that sanctification is a subset of justification. The relationship between justification and sanctification is therefore interdependent in RC theology. The consequences of such understanding of the relationship between justification and sanctification will be discussed in our final part of the essay.
Martin Luther was the first one to deviate from this view. But as Luther started as a RC, it is not surprising that his view of justification in his early years was not much different. He tended to understand justification as a process of "becoming" as McGrath points out.[19] But later, perhaps under the influence of Melanchthon, he came to regard justification as an event, which was complemented by the distinct process of regeneration (i.e. sanctification) and interior renewal through the action of the Holy Spirit.[20] Luther was of course quite clear that the righteousness was external and never belonged personally to the sinner but to Jesus Christ.[21] This is developed in Luther's idea of every Christian being simultaneously sinful and just and he remains sinful until he receives a new body. Toon concludes that Luther had no doctrine of growth in sanctification even though he regarded justification as including daily renewal of the new nature.[22] Though Luther himself may dispute this as he said "For we perceive that a man who is justified is not yet a righteous man, but is in the very movement or journey toward righteousness."[23] The difference then between Luther and RC doctrine is the nature of justification and that grace and sin are not exclusive or contradictory so there is no absurdity in Christian being simultaneously just and sinful (simul Justus et peccator).[24]
Thus Luther made no conceptual distinction between justification and sanctification as justification included regeneration and renewal.[25] This might be confusing compared to the RC position, however in practice it meant that the works of regeneration are the proof of faith and therefore of justification. As Luther said, "I say, therefore, that works justify, that is they show that we have been justified [...] for the works indicate weather I have faith [...] In God's eyes that distinction is not necessary, for he is not deceived by hypocrisy. But it is necessary among men, so that they may correctly understand where faith is and where it is not."[26]
The one who did distinguish justification and sanctification even more than Luther was Calvin. Referring to 1 Cor. 1:30 Calvin said "Christ, therefore, justifies no man without also sanctifying him."[27] Thus for Calvin justification and sanctification are two distinguishable concepts but which are not received separately. He refutes the high value of our works that the RC church wants to maintain. We join Calvin's view that even if we were able to preform absolutely pure works yet one sin is sufficient to extinguish all remembrance of former righteousness (Ezekiel 18:24, James 2:10, Galatians 3:10).[28] The works are therefore the result of sanctification or as Calvin calls them "the fruits of regeneration"[29] and as they are God's gift they are not the cause of either justification or sanctification but rather proof of it.[30]
Calvin explains that Bible passages which suggest good works as a cause of salvation should be read in the light of the administration of the salvation where good works are the means of the only cause, which is God's call (Rom 8:30).[31] Thus justification and sanctification are both the declaration of God, on the one hand that a sinner is righteous on account of Christ's propitiory work because he is in Christ by faith and on the other hand that the sinner is declared holy because he is in Christ by faith (on sanctification Jn 17:17,19; 1 Cor. 1:1, 6:11; Eph 5:26; 2 Thes 2:13; Heb 2:11, 10:10). The seemingly progressive element of sanctification is because works of righteousness are not done to become more sanctified but are done because we are sanctified (Rev 22:11). White is right in saying that justification and sanctification are not separate in time as seen in 1 Corinthians 6:11 but why then does he speaks of sanctification as merely progressive?[32] Hoekema starts to explain very well when he looks at the OT meaning of being holy and he concludes: "What is conveyed by the word qādosh, therefore, is that God's people are to be set apart for God's service and that they should avoid whatever is displeasing to him."[33] This was done by God through faith even in NT (Eph 5:25-26; Acts 26:18).[34] But Hoekema suddenly changes to progressive sanctification when he expounds Rom 6:1-6 and concludes that "Sanctification, therefore, must be understood as dying to sin in Christ and with Christ."[35] Note the progressive sense of the word "dying." Still further, he goes on to introduce, we believe without reason, the sanctification as the image of God.[36] This allows him to connect all Biblical references, which speak of the change of a Christian to the likeness of God, as progressive sanctification. Thus sanctification, according to Hoekema, becomes strictly the matter of moral character. In this way older Christians should be less sinful (more like Christ) as the result of progressive sanctification. We are not saying that there is no place for moral improvement as Luther said "No one is so good that he does not become better, and no one is so evil that he does not become worse, until at last we come to our final state."[37] So at the end it seems that the progressive sanctification that Hoekema proposes looks similar to the division of Christians to "carnal" and "spiritual" and the possibility of order of salvation that he rightly rejects at the beginning of his book.[38] So Hoekema's definitive sanctification is slightly different to ours.[39]
Therefore the relationship between justification and sanctification is of such nature that first, they are inseparable because they are both secured on the cross once and for all for the benefit of those who are in Christ. Second, they don't occur in temporal order.[40] Third, they are not interchangeable, that is, justification is not sanctification and sanctification is not justification.[41] Fourth, one is not the consequence and thereby proof of the other.[42] And fifth, as they belong indissolubly together they call the Christian to live according to his new nature "be what you are" and not "be what you will become" (2. Cor 5:17). Peterson puts it rightly when he says: "we are to live out that consecrated relationship in terms of practical holiness."[43]
Consequences of misunderstanding
The consequences of misunderstanding the relationship between justification and sanctification in modern Christian though are really the variants of RC theology expressed in various streams of Christian thought. We will discuss the consequences of misunderstanding the relationship identified in the previous paragraph.
First, if we separate justification and sanctification then the consequences are either assigning them to different source (e.g. justification to God's activity and sanctification as our activity) or make one the consequence of the other. Those who hold such a view understand sanctification in purely moralistic terms. That is, it is seen as the order of salvation commonly found in Pentecostal theology of which Wesley has been a key forerunner. He was, as Pentecostals usually are, concerned with what is happening with the believer now, what is he doing now (namely sanctify himself) rather than simply claiming the status of being justified, as that was only the initiation into Christian life.[44] Hoekema helpfully shows us how series of successive experiences as the way of salvation is wrong.[45] Such separation of the terms puts them into a kind of temporal order and as one – sanctification, being the consequence of the other – justification. In practice this means that our sanctification – our moral works, prove that we have been justified. The problem with this is how much work is needed to prove this and who will discern it? The solution to the problem is found, as it always is in matters of human morality, by lowering the standards of morality.[46] The consequence of this is thus the constant meditation on the sanctification as a moral renewal to keep up the assurance of justification. It also shifts the focus from the gospel and tends to see it only important and significant as the entry point into Christianity. The achievement of Christ is not taken seriously enough since it deduces sanctification from his accomplishment (Heb 10:10).[47] The assurance of our salvation is diminished as we will demonstrate that again and again.
Second, if in the relationship between justification and sanctification the latter is the subset of the former then soteriology also suffers as faith in Jesus Christ merges into obedience.[48] We have already seen this in the statement on justification in the council of Trent. The result is that the increase of sanctification causes the increase of justification as faith cooperates with good works.[49] In other words, it is a circle feeding on itself with the aid of sacraments.[50] The consequence of such view, as Catholic scholars see them, is the insistence of moral theology and pastoral practice on sacramental life.[51] The doctrine of sacraments is another topic that we won't go into but such theology gives our works and capabilities much more merit that they deserve. Even if we were able to preform, as God wanted, we could only say that we have only done our duty (Lk 17:10).[52] And again this causes absolute no assurance of salvation as all is in progress and depends on the cooperation of the individual.
Pastorally less troubling consequence is the understanding of eschatology. Luther's eschatology is dialectical (neither realized eschatology nor futurist eschatology) on the basis of his claim that a Christian is both just and sinful at the same time.[53] Thus in Luther the outcome of the final judgement is already known due to the cross.[54] On the contrary, the RC understanding of the relationship between justification and sanctification makes the final status of a person unresolved since it changes all the time.[55] Thus it is a matter of arrogance for a RC Christian to claim to know the outcome of the final judgment. Furthermore they believe that the sanctification process continues even after death while the soul of the deceased is in purgatory where, by the prayers and merits of people still alive, can gain access into heaven. Ideally RC eschatology is fully realised as a person is made righteous and lives out that imparted righteousness (is being sanctified). In this way he progresses to achieve righteousness, which Protestants claim to posses only in the new creation. Actually RC claim there are only a few such people attaining perfect sanctification who throughout history have been called “saints”. But practically we experience people as sinful and so they need to undergo the sacramental system for the remission of sins and therefore realised eschatology is far from the reach and one never knows the outcome only hoping for the best.
Conclusion
We have seen the stark contrast of the relationship between justification and sanctification as understood by RC and reformed theology. On one hand, the RC church claims that sanctification is the subset of justification where both are reoccurring process of mere declarative nature. On the other hand, reformed understanding claims that justification and sanctification are two distinct themes but they also belong indissolubly together because they are results of the cross at the same time thus eliminating the temporal sequence between them. They are also understood as being declarative in nature where righteousness is imputed and sanctification does not have degrees of being more or less sanctified.
We have also examined the consequence of misunderstanding the relationship observed mainly in RC theology some elements of Pentecostal theology are of the same nature and therefore also have the same consequences. We have seen that the most important consequence of misunderstanding this relationship is the soteriology being handed into man's hands, which results in the lack of assurance of his salvation. We saw that the same occurs in the RC understanding as also in the Pentecostal understanding of the order of salvation. Furthermore another consequence reaches also into the understanding of eschatology where the RC understanding operates on realised eschatology while not being certain about the future eschatology regarding salvation.
Bibliography of Sources Cited
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Vol IV, part 2. Edited by Bromiley G. W. and Torrance T. F. Translated by Bromiley G. W. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958.
Cobb, John B. Grace and Responsibility: A Wesleyan Theology for Today. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995.
Crossan, D. M and Tavard G. H. 'Justification'. Pages 75-80 in Vol. 8, 2nd ed. of the New Catholic Encyclopedia. Edited by Berard L. Marthaler. Michigan: Gale, 2003.
Doyle, Robert C. Eschatology and the Shape of Christian Belief. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1999. Repr. 2002.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Michigan: Baker books, 1988.
Hoekema, Anthony A. Saved by Grace. Grand Rapids/Carlisle: Eerdmans/Paternoster press, 1994.
Jensen, Peter. 'Tending the flock: the pastoral implications of justification by faith' in Justification and Christian Assurance. (ed. Gibson R. J.; Adelaide: Openbook publishers, 1996.
McGrath, Alister E. Reformation Thought, An Introduction. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1999.
Packer, J. I. 'Justification'. Pages 593-7 in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1984.
Peterson, David. Engaging with God. Leicester: Apollos, 1992.
Toon, Peter. Justification and Sanctification. Illinois: Crossway Books, 1983.
White, R. E. O. 'Sanctification'. Pages 969-71 in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1984.
Wright, David F. and Sinclair, Ferguson B. 'Justification'. New Dictionary of Theology in The Essential IVP Reference Collection on CD-ROM. Logos Library System Version 2.1g. 1995-1999. Print. ed.: Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright, ed. New Dictionary of Theology. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity 1988.
Primary sources
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge 1 vol. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989 [1559].
Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Translated by Schroeder H. J. Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, 1978 [1547].
Luther, Martin. ‘The Disputation Concerning Justification’ in Luther’s Works (American Edition), Volume 34. Edited by Franklin Sherman. Translated by Lewis W. Spitz. 55 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.
_____. 'Lectures on Romans' in Luther’s Works (American Edition), Volume 25. Edited by Hilton C. Oswald. Translated by Jacob A. O. Preus. Saint Louis: Concordia, 1972.
Endnotes
[1] This term will be shortened as RC from now on.
[2] Crossan, D. M. and Tavard G. H., 'Justification', NCE 8:76, David Wright, 'Justification', New Dictionary of Theology in The Essential IVP Reference Collection on CD-ROM. Logos Library System Version 2.1g. 1995-1999, n.p., John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion Book III. (trans. Henry Beveridge; 1 vol.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989 [1559]), 37-38, Packer, 'Justification', EDT, 593-4, Millard Erickson J, Christian Theology (Michigan: Baker Books, 1988), 954-5.
[3] Packer, 'Justification', EDT, 593, Crossan and Tavard, 'Justification', 8: 76.
[4] Millard, Christian Theology, 955.
[5] There is also a controversy over justification in Reformed understandings but much smaller. We will mention it in our next section on justification.
[6] White R. E. O., 'Sanctification', EDT, 969.
[7] Millard, Christian Theology, 968.
[8] This time, the controversy in Reformed understandings is greater than before.
[9] Crossan and Tavard, 'Justification', 8: 90. Also see Canon 33 of the Council of Trent, VI.
[10] Crossan and Tavard, 'Justification', 8: 77.
[11] Peter Toon, Justification and Sanctification (Illinois: Crossway Books, 1983), 48.
[12] Toon, Justification, 48.
[13] Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (Trans. Schroeder H. J. Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, 1978 [1547]), 31-2.
[14] Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 33.
[15] Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 33.
[16] Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 36. This increase of justification through works is thoroughly described in Chapter X.
[17] Except in the case of an infants where they receive the infusion of sanctifying grace at baptism.
[18] Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 39.
[19] Alister McGrath E., Reformation Thouight, An Introduction (3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1999), 126. That was in years 1515-19.
[20] McGrath, Reformation, 126. That was in years around 1530.
[21] Martin Luther, ‘The Disputation Concerning Justification’ in Luther’s Works (American Edition), Volume 34 (ed. Franklin Sherman; trans. Lewis W. Spitz; 55 vols; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 153.
[22] Toon, Justification, 59.
[23] Luther, 'Justification', 152.
[24] Toon, Justification, 61.
[25] Toon, Justification, 63.
[26] Luther, 'Justification', 161.
[27] Calvin, Institutes Book III, 99.
[28] Calvin, Institutes Book III, 80.
[29] Calvin, Institutes Book III, 87.
[30] Calvin, Institutes Book III, 86-7.
[31] Calvin, Institutes Book III, 88.
[32] White R. E. O., 'Sanctification', 970.
[33] Anthony Hoekema A, saved by Grace (Grand Rapids/Carlisle: Eerdmans/Paternoster press, 1994), 193.
[34] Hoekema, By Grace, 194-6.
[35] Hoekema, By Grace 194.
[36] Hoekema, By Grace, 197.
[37] Martin Luther, 'Lectures on Romans' in Luther’s Works (American Edition), Volume 25 (ed. Hilton C. Oswald; trans. Jacob A. O. Preus; Saint Louis: Concordia, 1972), 435.
[38] Hoekema, By Grace, 14-27.
[39] Hoekema says that definitive sanctification means that the work of the Holy Spirit causes us to die to sin, to be raised with Christ, and to be made new creatures and is the beginning of the process. Hoekema, By Grace, 208.
[40] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatic (Vol IV part 2; eds. Bromiley G. W. and Torrance T. F.; trans. Bromiley G. W.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958), 501-3, 507.
[41] Barth, Church Dogmatics, 505.
[42] Luther thought that sanctification is the proof of justification.
[43] David Peterson, Engaging with God (Leicester: Apollos, 1992), 177.
[44] John Cobb B., Grace and Responsibility: A Wesleyan Theology for Today (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 100.
[45] Hoekema, By Grace, 16-17. He points the false understanding of the salvation as a series of regeneration, conversion, justification, sanctification, perseverance.
[46] Peter, Jensen, 'Tending the flock: the pastoral implications of justification by faith' in Justification and Christian Assurance (ed. Gibson R. J.; Adelaide: Openbook publishers, 1996), 126.
[47] Or as Barth puts it "But it (the action of God) [sic]accomplishes the two together. The one is done wholly and immediately with the other", Barth, Church Dogmatics, 502.
[48] Barth, Church Dogmatics, 504.
[49] Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 36.
[50] If death breaks the circle at the point when a person is in a state of having venial sin, the person ends in purgatory.
[51] Crossan and Tavard, 'Justification', 8: 90.
[52] Jensen, 'Tending the flock', 123.
[53] Robert Doyle C., Eschatology and the Shape of Christian Belief (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1999. Repr. 2002), 165.
[54] Doyle, Eschatology, 166.
[55] As he commits sin, falls from grace of justification, undergoes the sacraments and is justified again. Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 39.
Naročite se na:
Objave (Atom)
