Our will is free in Christ Jesus

Greg Krehbiel over at crowhill.net ponders the usefulness of free will. So much so that he denies the existence of it. Well, at least how he defines all the rest of us understanding it.

I have always thought of free will as the grace (gift) to choose God's will.

God gives us gifts out of love. The gift is given. Free will is in the use of his gifts. For God gives us the ability to use his gifts. As a creature we cannot use anything by our own power. We are dependant upon God to give us the power to use it. It is within the ability to use a gift that our free will comes into play. Without God we have no ability to use a gift. With God we have the ability to use a gift. So when we use a gift it is by God’s grace and power that we can use it. When we refuse to use a gift we are choosing nothing and that is not something given to us by God. It is returning to a graceless state of powerlessness. It is a rejection of the grace we have been given to use his gifts and therefore against the will of God. It is sin. So God gave us the gift of obedience and told Adam to not eat of the fruit. When Adam ate of the fruit he did not use the gift that was given to him by God to accomplish God’s will, and so he sinned. All of sin comes down to that rejection of God's will (i.e. refusing the gift). The greatest thing about the incarnation is that the gift that God has given us is himself. That is why rejecting that gift is damnation.

In other words, rejection of the gift is based in the freedom of the gift. God gives us the grace to accept or use the gift, yet we can still 'choose nothing' (i.e. refuse the gift) and remain without God's grace. All of God's gifts are freely given, but they are not without cost. We can not pay that cost, and so we can not 'choose' to accept. Our acceptance has already been paid for and so any 'choice' to accept is not our own. So in a way Greg is right. However, we can choose to reject, because there is no cost in receiving nothing.
(Read More)

Division

Chris Hilliard comments here and here in response to some things I said about dividing Christ's body, the Church.

I think we can all agree that Christ built his Church. He is explicit that he has done so. We can see this in Saint Matthew's gospel,¹ when Jesus says, "I will build my Church." There are numerous places in Scripture where the Church is called Christ's Body and that we are members of that Body.² I also think it is clear that there can only be one Body. Christ does not have two bodies, but one. The Church, which was given Christ's authority, in a unique way to Peter³ and in a more general way to the apostles united with Peter⁴ , cannot teach two opposing things and call them both truth.

Following this, one thing simply cannot exist which Mr. Hilliard seems to claim does. When division happens over a truth of the faith, both groups cannot claim to be the Church proclaiming the truth. Christ promised that what was bound on earth by Peter and the apostles (and their successors)⁵ would be bound in heaven. God will not call something true which is false. One group has separated themselves from God's given authority and therefore the truth.

That is why division is ugly, a scandal, and sinful. That is why our Lord prayed for the unity of his followers.⁶ It is why he says that the result of that unity is, so that the world may know that the Father has sent Jesus and loves them. Disunity causes a fractured witness of Christ which results in the world not knowing that the Father sent Jesus which blinds them to his love. That seems like a pretty strong indictment against division to me.

Here are the Scripture verses (his comments in parenthesis) Mr. Hilliard uses in support of his statement that division is necessary,

If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private. If he listens to you, you have won your brother (reconciliation and unity, God's ideal and design). 16 But if he won’t listen, take one or two more with you, so that by the testimony of two or three witnesses every fact may be established. If he pays no attention to them, tell the church. But if he doesn’t pay attention even to the church, let him be like an unbeliever and a tax collector to you (in other words, separate/divide, which is not the ideal but is necessary).
Matt 18:15-17 (HCSB)

And if anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter (and is unified with us in this, God's design and ideal), take note of that person; don’t associate with him (separate, not the ideal but the God commanded necessity), so that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet don’t treat him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother. 2 Thess 3:14-15 (HCSB)

If the logical results of the triage system Mr. Hilliard espoused in his blog entry were the above I would have no problem with it. However, the logical result of the triage system is for real divisions to happen. Not the Church excommunicating an individual in the hopes of his repentance. Not an individual shunning somone so that his shame will bring him to repentance. With the triage system, you do not get those results. You get two people or groups who divide to spread their 'truth' to others and whose witness about the other person is, 'I don't think he is right about this, but since no one can really know for sure about this stuff he doesn't need to repent. After all it's a second tier doctrine so he is going to heaven.'

I am going to suspend the fact that I (and the Church) do not believe Mr. Hilliard's community has the apostolic authority to render these judgments for the sake of going through his argument. (I do not mean that as a cheap shot, I am sure there are things he does not believe that the Catholic Church claims and I would not expect him to pretend that he does.) What you get is a scenario like this: 'Chris and I go to the same church. I don't agree with Chris about doctrine X. Since our church agrees with his interpretation, I should listen to the church. However, I believe this is a second tier doctrine even though they think it is a first tier doctrine. Since I disagree with my church on something they believe is necessary for salvation, I should go over to this other church (or start my own for that matter) where the truth (according to me) is taught.'

This is just one of many scenarios that could result from the system. I do not want to belabor the point by giving you seventy more, but the chaos that results from this system would make it all too easy. There are two major flaws with this system. One is the premise that there are things that can not be compromised (2nd tier), yet we can all still be one Body if we disagree about them. Let me put it as simply as I can. I believe X is true. You believe Y is true, which says X is false. This doctrine is so important to us that we divide. How can either one of us claim to proclaim the Gospel if we divide the Body of Christ? There are really only two possibilities. One of us is wrong or this thing we disagree about is trivial. Which is it? If it is the first then I can not in good conscience say that your group is the Church and we are also the Church while you preach a lie as truth. If it is the second, you are my brother in Christ and we should not be divided. Two people proclaiming two opposing 'truths' cannot claim to be one in Body.

The second and more important problem is there is no one with apostolic authority (which is from Christ himself) to make judgments about what is the truth. In fact, except for the fact that the system assumes someone has the authority to decide what teaching goes in what tier, it is designed around the fact that no one has the authority to tell people what the truth is. Its whole purpose is that. It sets out to make it easier for those who do not have an authority to easily separate what is important and what is not. I think I have shown it comes up short. Like I said before, this gets down to authority and that is a different, but related topic. Maybe that topic might be breached in a separate entry, but for now I will leave it at that.

---

All Scripture quotations taken from the RSV 2nd Catholic Edition, unless otherwise noted.

Footnotes

[1] Matthew 16:18 ^
[2] 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Romans 12:4-5; Ephesians 4:1-4, 15-16; etc. ^
[3] Matthew 16:19 ^
[4] Matthew 18:18 ^
[5] 2 Timothy 2:1-2 ^
[6] John 17:20-23 ^
(Read More)

The significance of the hierarchy of truths

The basic message of this blog entry is that there is truth, but some of it is not essential or even significant. Now I am not sure if the author, Chris Hilliard, Pastor of Newell Baptist Church, realizes that is the road he has gone down, but it certainly seems to be where he has landed.

Mr. Hilliard references a system of theological triage that he uses to divide up God's truth into categories of: essentials to be considered Christian (1st tier), non-salvific doctrines that should not be compromised (2nd tier), and things everyone agrees we just are not sure about (3rd tier).

There are some basic problems with this system. The first is the fractured nature of the communities (and therefore fractured witness to Christ - see John 17:20-23) that this type of thinking causes. Specifically by the second tier truths. Things that everyone agrees are important, because each group considers them clearly revealed in God's Word. So important that these Christians are no longer in communion with each other if they disagree about them. Our Lord and Saint Paul had a few things to say about divisions and lack of unity. They were not positive things.

You do not divide the Body of Christ. It is as plain as that. Christ has one body, even though it has many parts. As Saint Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12:12, "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ." And in Ephesians 4:1-4, "I therefore...beg you to walk...with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit..." Saint Paul warns about those who cause divisions in Romans 16:17, "I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them."

The first thing anyone who casts themselves off of the body must know is that they will perish. Again Saint Paul says, "If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell?...If all were a single organ, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body." (1 Corinthians 12:17, 19, 20) Without the body, the parts lose their meaning and ability to function as Christ intended.

I have no suggestions for those in Protestant communities on how to resolve this issue amongst themselves except to take a good hard look at what their forefathers did by casting themselves off of the body in protest. If nothing else it should be plain to all that formally separating themselves from Christ's Church has only guaranteed that error is being taught as truth. Every time a group splits from another over a 1st or 2nd tier issue, only one of them can have the truth (they both could be wrong of course, but let us give the benefit of the doubt). If the original group had the truth then the new group has left over something that they were wrong about. Not only were they wrong, but it is now incorporated into their teaching as truth. Multiply that by every denomination you find in just your local phone book and you can see how quickly error is disseminated. Even if the new group is the one leaving the error it quickly becomes impossible for one group to recover all of the truth. That is why humans apart from the protection of God can not undertake such an enterprise as spreading the Good News within the fullness of Truth. That is why Christ took it upon himself to build his Church and promised to always be with her. (Matthew 16:18 & 28:19-20)

The Catholic Church proclaims a hierarchy of truths. An article from Catholic Faith magazine gives a good overview of the hierarchy of truths. In the article Cardinal Schönborn, the general editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is quoted from the Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 42, "the 'hierarchy of truth' does not mean ‘a principle of subtraction,’ as if faith could be reduced to some ‘essentials’ whereas the ‘rest’ is left free or even dismissed as not significant. The ‘hierarchy of truth . . . is a principle of organic structure.’ It should not be confused with the degrees of certainty; it simply means that the different truths of faith are ‘organized’ around a center." Simply put everything that God has revealed to us through his Son, Jesus Christ, is important. Just because I am personally less certain about something does not make it less truthful or significant. It certainly does not mean that I no longer have to believe it.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that the three tier system was how things should be done. Another underlying problem quickly becomes apparent. Who gets to decide what truth goes in what tier. Mr. Hilliard readily admits this, by some examples of what would go in which tier, at the end of his entry,

Personally, I believe we have allowed some 3rd tier doctrines to come into the argument and confuse us. Is baptism by immersion a 1st tier, 2nd tier, or 3rd tier? Is it necessary for salvation? No. Is it clear in Scripture? Yes. Thus it’s second tier. Is being a continuationist/cessationist a 1st tier doctrine? Is it necessary for salvation? No. Is it a second tier issue? Is it absolutely clear in Scripture? Debated, in my opinion. Thus, it’s a 3rd tier doctrine.

By his own reckoning his first example of baptism should be 3rd tier because someone (for instance a Catholic) finds the proposition that baptism is not necessary for salvation incorrect (i.e. debatable). He proceeds to say that being a continuationist/cessationist is debatable as to whether it is clear in Scripture. He then qualifies that statement with 'in my opinion.' Because he has decided that it is debatable it is third tier. As you can see most things quickly degenerate into 3rd tier (and by definition inconsequential) truths. It makes you wonder where this system of 'theological triage' would be rated amongst its own tiers...

Mr. Hilliard concludes,

If the BFM is simply a confession of 1st tier doctrines, then I believe we should be held accountable to them. If the BFM is a confession of 1st and 2nd tier doctrines we must ask whether or not we should be held accountable to it as well. If 2nd tier doctrines are as I defined them, I could possibly see the merit in saying yes. But, the problem with the BFM is that it contains what I believe are 1st, 2nd, and possibly even 3rd tier doctrines. Plus, I believe many are beginning to confuse 2nd and 3rd tier doctrines. And as long as the possibility lies that 3rd tier doctrines are currently a part of the BFM or might be in the future, we must not let the BFM become a “creed”.

So we have the logical result of this system, the removing or de-emphasizing of truth in order to rally around the 'essentials'. Who gets to decide what those 'essentials' are is pretty much left up for grabs. As the previously referenced article points out, "Sometimes a person does not see that the denial of one truth leads to the denial of another." It is pretty scary to see how quickly some truths are abandoned when we abandon the truth that Christ protects his Bride.

UPDATE - 6/28/07: See Division post for continuation of conversation.
(Read More)