Monday, February 01, 2010

Created, But Fallen. Fallen, But Created


Here's a blog post from Tullian Tchividjian (Don't ask me how to pronounce his name)from The Gospel Coalition on the paradox of our own sinfulness, as believers, in spite of being redeemed.


Over a year ago, my friend Mike Wittmer, author of Heaven is a Place on Earth
and Don’t Stop Believing, blogged about how postmodern innovators in the church
(”emergents”) are challenging the age old asssumption that people are born
broken, crippled by the guilt and pollution of original sin. He deals with
emergent leader Doug Pagitt’s book A Christianity Worth Believing where Doug
“devotes fifty pages to debunking the myth of total depravity and the Reformed
standards, such as the Westminster Confession, which teach it. He says that
original sin implies that people ’suck’, and if there is one thing we know from
watching a newborn child, it is that people ‘don’t suck.’”
---It can be a tough thing to grapple with if you get stuck on the "we suck" part. That, of course, would be the bad news. Per haps the Good News of the Gospel can help with that?


Mike offers a corrective to Doug’s radical misunderstanding by writing:

As with most of the issues raised by postmodern innovators, the solution
is not to opt for one side or the other but to embrace both. We must follow
Augustine, who learned from his battles with Manicheism on one extreme and
Pelagianism on the other, to say that people are created but fallen, and fallen
but created. People are created in the image of God, and so they have
enormous value and, through common grace, the ability to do good to others. But
people are also born rebels. We may often be good to each other, but none of us
is good toward God.
Adam and Eve bit the fruit in a futile bid to be
like God, and their children have not stopped chasing the dream.
---So, we're good AND bad. Sounds fair. Like Amazing Grace suggests, God saved a wretch like me. Some folks from the Emergent groups (and others) think we are born good. I don't know about you, but I never had to teach my daughter to be selfish. Of course, many in the secular realm like to push the idea that we are good because it is good for our self esteem. But could it be it is because there is little redemption without Christ?


Mike is saying the same thing that Cornelius Plantinga wrote in his book Beyond
Doubt:

People tend to make two mistakes when they think about the
redeemed life. The first is to underestimate the sin that remains in
us
; it’s still there and it can still hurt us. The second is to
underestimate the strength of God’s grace
; God is determined to make us
new. As a result, all Christians need to say two things. We admit that we are
redeemed sinners. But we also say boldly and joyously that we
are redeemed sinners.
---I think that is an important distinction to make in relation to our own sinfulness in the face of a Holy God who has redeemed us for His purpose. Because we couldn't have done it on our own; and thank the lord...we don't have to.

D.B.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good brief and this mail helped me alot in my college assignement. Thank you on your information.

Cross Reference said...

The problem is with thinking that all men are created in the image God when only one was, Adam. Everyone else is by pro-creation to a fallen person no longer related to God as intended by Him. Understanding this is key to understanding the present condition of un-regenerate mans’ relationship to God. It is that relationship that Jesus Christ restored by canceling out Adam's transgression. Jesus made it possible for un-regenerate man to be regenerated for the purpose of advancing toward the supreme purpose of God for his life, i.e., son-ship in the Father. (cf Rom. 8:28; 1 Cor. 15:20, 23; Jas. 1:18) It is only that man, by virtue of the new birth provided him that it can said of him, that “he is created in the image of God” (Jn 3:3, 5).

One might say, that is well and good but how come I still sin? To arrive at the proper answer is know the reason Adam sinned because our still sinning is based upon what he was confronted with before he transgressed. It was his failure to give up his rights to himself that he fell. Ok you say but, how could Adam have felt that way about things, having no sin nature? Why didn’t he choose God’s way?

Here: “For to vanity was the creation made subject--not of its will, but because of Him who did subject it --in hope, . . .” Romans 8:20 (YLT)

In a word: “Vanity”. Vanity is not sin. Whereby, God could never subject man to sin, His Holiness forbids Him. Therefore, When we say man [Adam] was created in the image of God, vanity must be that part of man’s nature, the godlike part of him, patterned after the Nature of the Creator, but not of His Divine substance that can never be corrupted but of human substance that can be. To understand this necessitates our need to understand that even Jesus was subjected to the same pull upon His nature in His earthly life as Adam, being every bit of the creature as He was the Word of God of Heaven. (Paul understood this in Rom 7:23). It was this part of Him Satan saw as being vulnerable as he did with Adam when he tempted Jesus in the wilderness. However, the power to resist that was in Jesus was not in Adam, who was on his own. However, our privilege and fortification, the same power to resist as Jesus possessed, is ours if we confess Him and to confess Him is to demonstrate our love affair with Him in the Father. “And in that day you shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.” John 16:23 (KJV)

Vanity is the pull upon us [to reveal our allegiance] and every bit the strength of God. It is every bit god to those who don’t belong to Him. In our biological life it is revealed as, “hunger”. In fallen creation, at some point, hunger must be satisfied. No so with a redeemed saint. Again, Jesus being our example by keeping His body under subjection to the Father, fully submissive to His Mind: “But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.” John 4:32 (KJV) (cf Rom 7:23; 1 Cor. 9:27)

Why was Adam subjected to such a power in himself except it was the only way for God to test his allegiance, his allegiance being that relationship by which he might have advanced towards the next step of God’s Ultimate Intention for him, i.e., to fill the universe with the presence of God, in Divine Human Flesh by the means of pro-creation.

All of this is based upon the eternal “cross principle” set in the Mind of God and worked out in the lives of those called by His Name. The man of God must be willing to lay down his life for this accomplishment. Adam was given the first test. Being restored by Jesus to that condition before the fall does not extricate us from that which Adam was subjected, (Rom 8:20) that which was the cause of his fall. The issue of our allegiance is still with us as the means of testing our progress in learning the Father and towards Joint-heir-ship in Christ Jesus.

Kwame E. said...

Wait a minute, Derrick: how do you pronounce his name?

Anyway, right on. The article highlights one reason that I take such a low (yet also realistic) view of people: they can't seem to wrap their minds around truths or ideas which, at first glance, may appear to be contradictory but aren't.

*******

On another note, per the second comment above, James 3.8-9 comes to mind:

<<8 But the tongue can no man tame; [it is] an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. 9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.>>

Unless one can show that likeness of God and God's image are not identical, everyone is made in God's image.

D.B. said...

Kwame, I've heard his name pronounced one time, but I don't remember any more.

I, too think it is one of those things where it seems like a contradiction, but it's not. I don't claim to fully understand how it works, but I don't think that means it is untrue. (Other examples...Trinity, computers, cars- Don't know how they work, but they seems to.)

For me, it is also something that actually brings me a bit of comfort, in a strange way. It keeps me grounded in Christ. My continued sin, is not a matter of my trying to excuse my sin...if that were the case, I wouldn't even mention that I still struggle in some areas.

It helps me not become self-righteous and think I am much better than those sinners in the world. Nope. I think Chuck Smith said it this way. I am no better than you. I am simply one beggar telling another beggar where to get bread.

Now, hopefully, when I sin, it looks different than those who do not know Christ. But I sure haven't got a complete grasp on my tongue, my thought life, even if the outside looks pretty good.

And I suppose that if there were no sin in my life, there would be no reason for sanctification. I could be mistaken, but that is why I am so thankful for the grace of God as I work throught hese things. Sounds like good news to me.

Cross Reference said...

Hello Kwame!

You wrote:

"If I read those comments correctly, you're saying that hell amounts to more or less of an existential condition (or a place having this condition) in which good things like love, kindness, compassion aren't exercised by anyone--but also where interpersonal hatred is given free reign."

Free? Interpersonal? Try believing that Hell will be the most alone experience ever possible to the spirit of one who winds up there. In addition, amplified hatred and aloneness won’t be from any kind of freedom given but of the consequence of a man’s rejection of God. There is no other inclination available whereby those in Hell can do anything but to hate and curse God, being that the whole of their dispositions is given over to a finality entirely predicated upon the wrong choice in life, i.e, rejection of God. That one statement should be enough to convince anyone that Hell is on Earth. In other words, no matter how bad things can get on Earth due to mans' irrational behavior, God's presence can still be observed. Only a reprobate would say otherwise. Ergo, being in Hell is to exist in death. Death and terror reign where God isn't. That is just one more reason Jesus resurrected. Death could not hold Him.

God is also “Light”. “In Him there is no darkness”. In Hell there is permanent darkness.

Keep in mind, man cannot die in the sense his spirit lives forever and must reside somewhere upon leaving this life upon Earth. “And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” “then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.” Ecclesiastes 12:7 (NASB77) Acts 7:59 (KJV) See also: Job 34:14; Ecc.3:21 and Luke 23:46. Having said that, I hasten to add that if it is NOT reconciled by the Blood of Jesus Christ, the spirit of a man CANNOT return to God. Therefore, it has no other place to go but to Hell, a place that was never intended for man.

Cross Reference said...

I wrote:

"That one statement should be enough to convince anyone that Hell is on Earth."

It should read: That one statement should be enough to convince anyone that Hell is NOT on Earth.

My apologies.

D.B. said...

Ken, I'm not sure you are posting on the right post. Did you mean to post that on the Hell Blog entry?

Cross Reference said...

Hi Derrick. Yes. Thank you. Even though I do proof read I find I still miss things. My apologies and thank you.

I think I will train myself to wait until a time later, do a review before posting and then see if that helps.

D.B. said...

I think you posted enarly the same thing on both is all. :-) Not a problem.

Anonymous said...

If Kwame has such a "Low ( yet also realistic ) view of people", does he also have a low opinion of himself? I didn't think so. Not much of a Christian way of writing, is it? I am amused by how D.B. asks for names on anonymous posts he does not care for, yet lets the anonymous posts that agree with him go right on by.

D.B. said...

You'll have to ask Kwame about the other issue, though I imagine you don't really care. Nor do you offer any kind of counter argument.

The other anonymous posts are accepted not simply because I may agree with them, but because they are not being unecessarily antagonistic. I don't care if folks disagree with me.

I just don't have the time for folks who are intellectually dishonest and simply attack me or my fellow bloggers without any real content or argument to their post.

At least with Ken, he generally offered up some resons to support why he believed what he believed. You have yet to offer anything more than juvenile attacks. That is why I am done posting your comments. And that is why I ask for names, particularly if someone is not man or woman enough to do more than what you are doing.

Kwame E. said...

Anonymous said:

<<If Kwame has such a "Low ( yet also realistic ) view of people", does he also have a low opinion of himself? I didn't think so. Not much of a Christian way of writing, is it?>>

1. I don't recall ever writing "low ( yet also realistic ) view of people"; and the Google search function wouldn't work when I tried it, so I can't find any such comments right now.

In any case, I take both a low and high opinion of people, as does the Bible itself. In relative terms, humanity is great. For one thing, people are made in God's image and certainly are to be respected on that basis. Or if there were a burning building with both animals and evil people trapped in the building and it was in my power to save one or the other, I'd choose those human beings over cute, cuddly animals every time.

At the same time, I take the words of Proverbs and of the New Testament seriously such that I recognize a number of things. One of those things is that post-Edenic humanity is fallen and bent toward evil. Another is that there are and will be foolish people in the the world, till the very end. Still another, which I take from the book of James, is that no one is perfect in knowledge and understanding.

And that's what a comparison of the Creator and fallen humanity does: it reveals that despite whatever pride humanists may have concerning humanity, at some point this pride should give way to shame. We're not as wise and as good as some of us think we are.

2. "does he also have a low opinion of himself?"

I take a relatively low opinion of every mortal human being: no exceptions, for none of us is perfect.

3. "I didn't think so."

You thought wrong, didn't you?

4. "Not much of a Christian way of writing, is it?"

Actually, yes it is. And if you want to me start citing chapter and verse to make the "yes" more persuasive, that can be arranged.

Kwame E. said...

<<1. I don't recall ever writing "low ( yet also realistic ) view of people"; and the Google search function wouldn't work when I tried it, so I can't find any such comments right now.>>

Correction: the embedded search engine was working after all, at the top of the page. It also failed to find any use of the phrase "low ( yet also realistic ) view of people" within this blog.

Anonymous said...

It's right there in this posting, Kwame. Keep looking.... Right here, on " Created, But Fallen. Fallen, But Created." You said it... Why don't you just admit it... 02/02/2010, 4:08 pm. ...... Kwame said," The article highlights one reason that I take such a low ( yet realistic )view of people........"

D.B. said...

I think he said he couldn't find it (that seems different than denying he ever said it, especially when he then explained why he said it (orsomething like it) in the first place. Do you have a problem with his reasoning?

Kwame E. said...

Anon wrote:

<<It's right there in this posting, Kwame. Keep looking.... Right here, on " Created, But Fallen. Fallen, But Created." You said it... Why don't you just admit it... 02/02/2010, 4:08 pm. ...... Kwame said," The article highlights one reason that I take such a low ( yet realistic )view of people........">>

1. Derrick's right: I never denied that I said it. I just didn't recall saying it; plus I never thought to do page search for the phrase, though a blog search through Google obviously came to mind.

See there? Yet another proof that no one's perfect. ;)

2. Secondly, you'll notice that after I said--

<<1. I don't recall ever writing "low ( yet also realistic ) view of people"...>>

--in comments above, I immediately went on to say:

<<In any case, I take both a low and high opinion of people, as does the Bible itself....>>

That hardly sounds like the statement of someone trying to hide from words he had just spoken.