Does God discipline those whom God loves?
Is being a follower of Jesus primarily about experiencing and living in God'south beloved, or primarily about living out the disciplines of discipleship? Is information technology near knowing that we are loved and accepted every bit we are, or about the need for change and transformation on the journeying from sin to conservancy? Is information technology about allowing God to exercise his sovereign work in us, or most the things nosotros need to do in response to his dearest? To each of these questions, love Reader, I am certain y'all are crying 'False dichotomy!'—and yet many church contexts and cultures lean to ane of these rather than the other, and information technology shapes the preaching, educational activity and general ethos of the church building customs.
Does God disciplines those whom God loves? At beginning glance, this question is easy to respond in the light of Prov 3.12: clearly, yes. But a single text cannot settle an issue, especially a text that talks of discipline in physical ways ('spare the rod and spoil the child…'; compare Prov thirteen.24) which we at present detect problematic for all sorts of reasons. And yet the principle is reappropriated in the new covenant in Hebrew 12.6, and in the context of the eschatological struggle between the power of sin and the work of the Spirit, as an illustration of what it means to exist children of God—so it is not easily set aside.
Simply the question needs to be grappled with for at least two specific reasons. The first is in response to the ever-common mantra 'Love is dearest'. Well, it isn't. Honey is sometimes cocky-seeking love, manipulative love, co-dependent beloved, immature love, needy love, indulgent love, self-giving love, or selfless dearest—and not all of these could claim to accurately picture the love that God has for u.s.a. in Jesus, poured into our hearts by the Spirit (Rom 5.v). To proclaim that 'God is beloved' without explaining what this love looks like is at best meaningless, and at worst misleading.
The 2d reason is our ongoing struggle to actually understand the Jesus we meet in the pages of the gospels. On the 1 hand, here we find the Jesus who is radically inclusive and welcoming, who preaches the coming of the kingdom of God to the unexpected and the marginal, who confronts the powerful and the religiously conceited, and who brings healing and forgiveness to those who never expected it. On the other hand, here we also notice the Jesus who does not shy away from the reality of God's sentence, who urges a response to his message without which there will be catastrophic consequences, and who is ferocious in his condemnation of those who refuse to mind. Having flung open a wide gate of invitation, Jesus directs united states of america to a very narrow path of discipline and discipleship if nosotros are to follow him. At one moment it is all about God'south grace; at the next information technology all hinges on our response. Information technology is the same Jesus warmly inviting the states to 'Come up to me, all who are weary and heavy laden, and I volition requite you residual' (Matt 11.28) who also warns us that 'Unless you apologize, you lot too will all perish!' (Luke 13.3). Many traditions in the church focus on one of these Jesus' and not the other—simply nosotros are not post-obit the real Jesus unless nosotros listen to both.
Andrew Wilson has just published a revised version of his PhD looking at only this question in Paul's first alphabetic character to the Christians in Corinth. Wilson is Teaching Pastor at King's Church, London, which is office of the NewFrontiers network, and a regular contributor to the U.k. Think Theology blog. His thesis,The Alert-Assurance Relationship in ane Corinthians, is published in the unaffordable-to-mere-mortals WUNT II series past Mohr Siebeck—but I hope that it will exist made available in a more attainable form in the hereafter.
The focus of Wilson'south study is the strange tension—contradiction fifty-fifty—in 1 Corinthians between Paul's statements of assurance to his readers, of God's faithfulness and their own resultant assured persistence in faith, and his stark warnings of judgement and faith which could result in their falling away from salvation. It is striking that Paul begins his letter—which contains rebukes for some serious pastoral, ethical and theological errors—with a deep note of balls which has often been cited by succeeding generations of believers:
He will likewise go along you business firm to the cease, so that yous will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, who has called you into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. (1 Cor ane.8–ix)
and this parallels other statements of assurance in his messages, such as Phil 1.6. Yet this contrasts sharply with serious warnings in the passages that follow, the one most often quoted in current debates coming in chapter vi:
Or exercise yous not know that wrongdoers (adikioi) will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do non exist deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male person prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (ane Cor six.ix–10).
Paul goes on to say 'such were some of you—but you accept been washed…' but this does not negate the warning. Paul appears here to exist entertaining the possibility that some of his readers might indeed behave like theadikioi and so might indeed forfeit their bodacious inheritance, else his warning is a rhetorical flourish only without whatsoever bodily persuasive event. The contrast between balls and warning comes most clearly in the chapters about 'idol meats' in chapter 8 to 11, where Paul not only applies the lessons from the Exodus wilderness wanderings (where a generation failed to attain what God had planned for them) to the Corinthians—but even includes himself in the warnings he is giving to others:
Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only i gets the prize? Run in such a manner as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They practice it to get a crown that volition not terminal; simply we exercise information technology to get a crown that will final forever. Therefore I do non run like someone running aimlessly; I do not fight similar a boxer beating the air. No, I strike a accident to my body and make it my slave and then that after I have preached to others, I myself will not exist disqualified for the prize. (1 Cor 9.24–27)
Paul appears here to entertain the possibility of his own disqualification as something real, not imagined—despite the repeated assurances he gives of God's faithfulness.
Given the awkward tension here, it is not surprising to find that some commentators dismiss Paul'due south warnings equally mere rhetorical strategy in gild to persuade the Corinthians of his concerns, whilst never actually doubting the statements of assurance. Others have taken the reverse interpretive strategy, and supposed that Paul's assurances are there merely to endear himself to the Corinthians through flattery, when the warnings are the serious content of his message. Wilson takes one of each of these (Judith Gundry and B J Oropeza) as his conversations partners through an exegesis of each of the important passages in 1 Corinthians. Following an introduction to problems in the interpretation of Paul (which is comprehensive and quite compressed, and so challenging for anyone without a basic awareness of the key debates) and an overview of questions about 1 Corinthians (which he believes to be a unity), he turns to each warning or assurance passage in plough to explore their significance within the overall movie. His approach is sensible and accessible, and he is not afraid to accept on the 'big guns' in commentary with his ain view, giving good reasons where he disagrees with others. I was impressed with Wilson'southward willingness to turn aside when necessary, for instance to address the question of whether Paul's language in 1 Cor 15.22 really has universalist implications, simply his ability not to exist distracted past tempting complications inviting comment, such as the significant of the terms in one Cor half dozen.9 and the myriad of interpretive issues in 1 Cor 11.
Maybe not surprisingly, Wilson concludes that the ii options noted, which downplay either the warnings or the assurances, are not persuasive—merely he does so based on exegesis rather than reaching for wider theological assumptions. Instead, he argues that these two things must be held in tension and, further, that this does not arise from the incoherence of Paul's thinking, merely from a deliberate and measured understanding of the inter-relationship betwixt grace and obligation, and a theological anthropology which sees divine and homo activity equally an integrated partnership. Moreover, we encounter exactly the same tension at piece of work in all Paul's other letters.
Paul is confident that all of his converts will persevere in faith, yet he besides insists that they must exist diligent to persevere and live lives of ethical propriety. That is how Paul can assure the Romans that the eschatological verdict over their lives is already secure, and yet insist that everyone volition be judged in accord with their works (Rom 2.vi–11, iii.21–26, 5.i–xi). It is how he can assure all those in Christ that they are, in a existent sense, already glorified and inseparable from God's love, and nevertheless plead with Gentiles to keep in gods kindness lest they be cut off. It is why he uses such stiff linguistic communication most approaching the judgement seat of Christ mindful of the take chances of 'destroying' one's brothers and sisters, despite his conviction that believers will be kept safe from every created thing. (p 166)
Only Wilson also notes that, in this tension betwixt assurance and alarm, Paul's own preaching and teaching (which he talks of u.s. 'the word of God', 1 These 2.13) has a pivotal part as the agent of God'due south action.
Paul believes that, equally a effect of gods faithfulness, grounded in the Corinthians' participation in Christ, and through the agency of divine grace at work inside them by the Spirit, his urgent warnings will somehow be efficacious: God will bring about a response of repentance and obedience inside the church, and volition ensure that they go on in organized religion rather than falling into devastation. (p 168)
In other words, if Paul were to fail to give warnings for the Corinthians to heed, the danger of devastation which he paradoxically warns of might actually come up well-nigh. And Paul himself is not exempt from this paradox.
The grace of God, for Paul, is finally responsible for effecting his labour in the gospel, and ensuring that the original grace-gift does not prove empty, but this in no way diminishes the need for Paul's difficult piece of work, no reduces him to a passive vehicle through God acts unilaterally. Paul strives, merely with the free energy which God has powerfully worked within him.
These conclusions sit comfortably alongside the observations of John Barclay near the nature of grace and its relation to human action and the need for response—though Wilson has some minor questions well-nigh Barclay's approach whilst largely agreeing with information technology.
This is why I hope that some form of this thesis will be made more widely bachelor in the time to come. Wilson non only enables us to read this issue in Paul better; he also alerts united states of america to the demand to read more carefully other parts of the New Testament, and indeed the whole of Scripture (including of grade the dramatic linguistic communication of both assurance and threat in the Book of Revelation). More than that, Wilson alerts us to something absolutely vital in our electric current debates about grace and ethics: that the grace of God is a free gift offered to all regardless of worth; but it is also a costly gift which demands a response and which cannot be treated lightly.
And the lessons here volition too shape our preaching and our pastoral strategies, as we proclaim the abundant generosity of God and gear up out the costly demands of the gospel. Do travel to a library near you and dive into this important study.
Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you take valued this mail, would you considerdonating £1.twenty a calendar month to support the product of this web log?
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is washed on a freelance basis. If you take valued this post, y'all can brand a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that appoint with the content of the post, and share in respectful debate, tin can add real value. Seek first to understand, then to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to larn from their perspectives. Don't view debate equally a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/does-god-discipline-those-whom-god-loves/
Post a Comment for "Does God discipline those whom God loves?"