There is this legend about a sword that was magically embedded into a stone. Whoever removes the sword from the stone shall be the rightful king of the land. The people could try if they wished to draw the embedded sword, but alas, they could not. Only the rightful king would be able to do it, and when the right young boy came along, that's just what he did; he was able to draw Merlin's sword right out.
.
Now that is just make-believe, but that's what came to mind in the previous post as we were talking about a particular verse.
.
I am grateful for all the contributions to our conversation. Let me point us to one of the comments. In our last comment string, I like what Taliesin said in reference to John 3:16. He said:
.
Whosoever will may come, but only the elect ever will. Just a few chapters later in John (6:44), Jesus says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."
.
Here's the whole verse: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life."
.
As I read this, the sword in the stone came to mind. Anyone who believes shall not perish, but ONLY those who believe shall not perish. Just like the sword... anyone who pulled that sword out could be king, but only the one who drew it out would be king.
.
Image by Vanita
Posts
33 comments:
Enchanting interpretation.
A tangent:
I recently learned that the sword in the stone was not Excalibur. Excalibur was given to King Arthur by the "Lady of the Lake" after he broke Merlin's sword in battle.
Hey Craver, I wrote that, not taliesin.
In fact, this is what I wrote down......
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."
John 3:16
I believe the word I am looking at here is "whoever". I take that as to mean "anyone" or "all". It is not saying nor is it meaning that only a few or only the elect will not perish but "whoever believes in Him will not perish".
You're absolutely right. I'm so embarrassed. It was my intention to pull Tal's comment so that it could be framed in a positive format. When I read yours, I decided not to do a direct quote from you, but use Tal's response instead, for fear that it could be misinterpreted as picking on you. I was at a different computer, and talking with the kids and watching a DVD at the same time. Somehow, I copied the wrong quote.
I goofed. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. I will change it right away.
Hello Craver, sorry I have not posted you gift yet but I will go to the Post Office in the morning.
Martin, I'm dancing with anticipation!
Craver,
Hubby and I are still mulling over a few of the finer points of TULIP.
How do you reconcile evangelism to election?
Eve,
I know you asked Craver but I thought I'd offer this -
There's a book that somewhat tackles the topic of evangelism relative to the reformed (calvinist) view. It's by J.I. Packer called Evangelism & The Sovereignty of God.
Sorry, Craver for jumping in...
BTW, great discussion on your last post with humility and graciousness displayed - I chose to sit by the sidelines but I suspect you can guess my sentiments.
Eve,
Not Craver either, but let me give you a thought about evangelism and election.
Election is often misunderstood to mean that God saves the elect apart from any means. But the Reformed (and, I believe, Biblical) understanding of election is that God not only chooses, but also ordains the means by which that choice will be affected. So, God not only chose me, but as a part of that choice ordained my older brother to be a witness to me, a pastor to preach the gospel to me, and a Gideon to give me a New Testament, the reading of which would bring me to faith.
Hope that helps.
"Election is often misunderstood to mean that God saves the elect apart from any means. But the Reformed (and, I believe, Biblical) understanding of election is that God not only chooses, but also ordains the means by which that choice will be affected. So, God not only chose me, but as a part of that choice ordained my older brother to be a witness to me, a pastor to preach the gospel to me, and a Gideon to give me a New Testament, the reading of which would bring me to faith."
So does nobody have any free will at all? It sounds like God is holding all of these players like puppets, knowing and orchestrating their every move.
LM, (stomping foot) who does He think He is, anyway... God?
Our free will cannot override God's free will.
I believe this is why it is so difficult for many (of us) Americans to truly humble ourselves before God. We have a basic understanding of our rights that is in conflict with the sovereignty of God.
Eve, if you and Todd would like to have a FREE copy of that J.I. Packer book, email your shipping address to me, and I will be happy to arrange that for you.
So can we say God wanted Adam and Eve to sin? If their free will choice couldn't override his?
Llama Momma,
The Westminster Confession of faith puts it this way (3.1):
God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: (Eph. 1:11, Rom. 11:33, Heb. 6:17, Rom. 9:15,18) yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, (James 1:13,17, 1 John 1:5) nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (Acts 2:23, Matt. 17:12, Acts 4:27–28, John 19:11, Prov. 16:33)
I cannot reconcile how both are true, but it seems to me that is what the Bible teaches. Both in tension.
I don't like this going back and forth on an issue when Scripture supports both views. Although the discussions have been very respectful, Scripture does indeed support both C & A views.
As usual, my 2-cents worth.
LL, Augustine had a chart, divided into four sections which is often used to explain this. I usually draw it on a chalkboard, and I don't know where to find it off-hand. I wish I could do that now.
JJ, I heard a sermon once, where the pastor gave an outline explaining biblical prophecy to show that Hitler was "the antichrist." Then he did the same for another famous historical person, and then explained that you can find a way to fit Scripture so that it looks like one has proven something, but it may actually be error.
That's why I love "Living By The Book" by Hendricks and Hendricks. We used that book for a course on how to study the Bible. Long story short, I came out of that spending a WHOLE lot more time in observation before presuming to be able to make a decent interpretation. But you can't end your study at interpretation, application must follow.
That being said, you would have to be real lucky to arrive at a good application without good interpretation. And good biblical interpretation does not usually proceed from rushed or casual observation.
As I said before, I mulled over the doctrines of grace for about a year, while reading through the whole text of the Bible. My conclusion was that my former beliefs were Arminian, and that the Remonstrance did not have the solid support from Scripture that the five points of Calvinism had. I did not see an equally valid interpretation on both sides of this issue.
I know you don't like talking about this. It's not the only toy in my yard; we'll get on to other things, but to everything there is a season, and it was the right time for me to address this. Thanks for being patient.
Well, in any case, looking forward to your next post!
G'day Craver,
We all find swords in rocks, every day of our lives.
And all we need is faith, to extricate them.
Keep smiling
David
Dearest Craver...
okay, just one more really important question...
you'll still eat at my lunch table, won't you?
(Chips, anyone?)
JJ, that brings a smile to my face.
Speaking of smile, say hello to David McMahon, a cool dude from Down Unda. He's great with pics and words and --Heyyyyy, did somebody say lllunch???
There are no dandelions in those chips, right LL?
Craver the Calvinist!? Yes, Craver, come to the "darkside" of Christianity...
(drives by Craver's house only to find it inundated with tulips)
Nope, just pure unadulterated oozing-with-fat-and-salt-deep-fried-potatoes. Organic, of course. :)
The key is the "T" in tulip.....
Hey Craver - got an extra copy of that book for a local? I was just discussing this with a friend last night and I'd love to read it!
Thanks Craver!-as long as you don't mind shipping it to Canada?
have a good Sunday craver!
To all you fathers out there....
Happy Father's Day!!
Good post, and discussion. I never seem to get tired of thinking on this things.
I love how God's pupose can not be thwarted. He is going to do all His will. Some would say He doesn't, because there are people who do not receive eternal life, but I always say, if God wanted to, couldn't He save all people?
"and then explained that you can find a way to fit Scripture so that it looks like one has proven something, but it may actually be error."
I agree, but I think it also goes to show that it's possible for the Calvinist view to be in error. I know plenty of people who have studied just as much, if not more, and come out with a different perspective.
The trouble I have, is that if this doctrine is essential to understanding the Gospel, why isn't the Bible definitively clear? And I know you're about to tell me it is, and point me to passages. But my point is, this has been debated for YEARS, and there are intelligent, God-fearing and loving people on both sides. And yet on essential points like "Jesus died on the cross for our sins", for the most part are not disputed in the same way.
Personally, I know of no Calvinist or Arminian who would say that this issue is essential for salvation. But that does not mean that it is irrelevant in the Christian's life. Our love for the Lord is made manifest (among other ways) by a yearning and reverence for His Word. And the depths of its riches has never been fully mined... by anyone. Still, we keep digging up treasures for His glory and our joy.
We'll be moving along to another topic soon. It is a good thing that we have given this some serious thought.
I like how you say this, SP. There are intelligent opinions on both sides of this issue.
I'm learning not to put God in a box because He keeps surprising me. Which isn't to imply that theology puts God in a box, but for me -- an intellectual Christian for years before I truly believed -- I hesitate to put a label on God or my faith or even my theology at this point.
I am learning from scripture and growing and changing how I view God from what I find in the Bible. And I simply cannot get enough of Jesus. Talk about radical! He turned it all upside down, and continues to turn it all upside down, for me anyway.
Spaghetti... maybe it is essential and maybe not, for understanding the gospel and its requirements for one who would live it out. I know Craver is about to move on to other thoughts, so I started the next stage of the conversation over on Seedlings... trying to think about the potential Practical Implications of one view or the other.
Post a Comment