From a commenter:
“You seem to be uncharacteristically meandering in this post.”
No, I’m drawing some basic distinctions, which is quite characteristic of how I write.
“For instance, you correctly identify that it is via the Holy Spirit that we are connected to Christ, rather than having some kind of strange, unworkable physical connection to the man Christ Himself), yet after acknowledging this you go back to talking about all the problems one encounters when one tries to connect with Christ Himself, and that the solution is to accept what the world offers in terms of emotional connection with physical beings (etc.) as if you've forgotten what you just stated regarding the Holy Spirit.”
i) We connect to Christ through the Holy Spirit engendering faith in the Gospel as the object of faith.
That connection is genuine and indissoluble.
But it is still an object of faith rather than sight.
It is not the same thing as being with Christ. It is not the same thing as the intermediate state or the Second Coming.
ii) There is no short-term solution. The solution occurs, either at death or the Parousia.
iii) A relationship with Christ is not a substitute for other relationships, just as other relationships are not a substitute for Christ.
Loving Christ is not a substitute for loving a woman. Loving a woman is not a substitute for loving Christ.
These are not necessarily rival affections, although they can be for unbelievers, and they can also be for believers unless we’re vigiliant and diligent.
At the same time, the love of one can also reinforce the love of another.
“Calvin was strong on the theme that we aren't to pretend that this world holds anything for us.”
I wasn’t offering an exposition of Calvin. I wasn’t citing Calvin as my authority.
What I did cite was the outlook of Scripture.
Calvin’s position, as you summarize it, isn’t distinctive to Calvin. It’s the typically mystic view of the “world” as a spiritually perilous distraction.
And it can have that effect if we lose our sense of priorities.
“ We're not only strangers here (in the world, not of the world), but we don't desire the things of the world.”
I don’t agree. This slithers over semantic equivocations. Johannine usage is not synonymous with the sensible world.
I don’t agree that we are strangers here. To the contrary, it’s the Devil and the children of darkness who are trespassing on God’s property. They are the squatters, we are the heirs.
I do not cede God’s world to the enemy, to the usurper.
“Our hope is in the higher world.”
Yes and no. A Christian will leave this world behind when he dies. But he will return one day to a renewed heaven and earth. That’s what the resurrection is about.
And assuming that some of his friends or family are saved, he will take them along with him to heaven.
“Calvin made this a theme because the natural pull for a Christian is in the other direction, to justify indulging in and attachment to worldly things because it just sounds weak (some would also inevitably say 'gnostic') to disdain this world and have our eye and hope on the higher world. In other words Calvin said: ‘Yeah, yeah, I know the arguments and the sentiments about not disdaining the flesh and the good things of this world, blah, blah, but you're a Christian, are you not? You disdain this world and you have your hope in the higher world. As wimpy as that sounds, and as much as the world can and will accuse you of being weak, you have to get over the hump of conforming to what the world wants you to be attached to and you have to get over justifying your attachmenet to worldly things, and fully have your mind and heart and will set on the higher world.’"
This viewpoint is one-sided to an unbiblical degree.
We live in a fallen world. But it is still God’s world. A world conserved by common grace and providence.
The idea of “detachment” owes more to Buddhism than the Bible.
We can become overly attached, but to disdain natural goods is to disdain the divine giver of the goods (1 Tim 4:4).
This is not a case of conforming to what the “world” wants us to want; rather, this is a case of loving what God does as well as what God is. God made the world. Should we disdain his handiwork? His attribute are revealed in action.
Let us also remember that in Calvin’s time, life was pretty disagreeable. Food was scarce. Poverty was widespread. Infant morality was high. Medical science was nonexistent. You were at the mercy of the climate. Protestants were martyred for their faith.
Under those circumstances, you naturally take a pretty dim view of life on earth. You keep your bags packed and travel light.
Every Christian must be prepared for that. But every Christian isn’t called to that.
“The fact is: there is necessity for Christian families and family men. Obviously. Yet that's not an end in itself.”
Depends on what you mean. It’s a comparative value, not a superlative value. Not the highest good, but still a good in its own right.
“A Christian is not defined as somebody who is married with kids.”
Which is not the argument. A family doesn’t not make you a Christian. But what about a Christian family man?
The question is whether a Christian can serve God, live for God, experience God, in part, as a husband and father (or wife and mother).
Is this, of itself, a spiritual vocation for a Christian? Isn’t a domestic way of life the lifestyle to which many or most Christian are called?
Or does this pull us away from God? You already have my answer.
You state: "It is not the same thing as being with Christ." regarding having the Holy Spirit in you. I think you are not thinking as a trinitarian here, and it's here where Calvin has something to teach you if you'll allow him (which is why I referenced Calvin throughout my response). Calvin is particularly strong on this subject.
ReplyDeleteWhen you are regenerated you are NOW in the heavenlies with Christ as well. You sound like an atheist, frankly, on this subject, demanding sensual evidence, and being outer-directed solely.
You write: "I wasn’t citing Calvin as my authority. What I did cite was the outlook of Scripture."
Neither was I, I'm a Calvinist because I see Calvinism as pure religion, to use Warfield's phrase. And biblical (and need I qualify that as not being absolute regarding every jot and tittle that came off of Calvin's pen?) Forgive me for assuming too much on a blog that just recently has stated it is default Calvinist. I guess it's Calvinist until 'all it holds dear' is challenged.
You write: "Calvin’s position, as you summarize it, isn’t distinctive to Calvin. It’s the typically mystic view of the “world” as a spiritually perilous distraction."
Hmm. You won't give that up, eh. OK, Calvin never said what I said he said. (Check out his Institutes...) And, of course myself and Calvin have to have thrown at us the all-purpose defensive tactive of the accusation of "Gnosticism!"
Also, this is what happens when you allow the devil to delete things like references to fasting out of your Bible.
You write: "I don’t agree that we are strangers here. To the contrary, it’s the Devil and the children of darkness who are trespassing on God’s property. They are the squatters, we are the heirs. I do not cede God’s world to the enemy, to the usurper."
This world is the Kingdom of Satan, like it or not. The illusions and temptations and false idols that you've yet to recognize are part and parcel of the devil's kingdom. Once you begin to see it you enter a new stage of the faith, Steve. The Holy Spirit is not as limited as you currently think Him to be. He guides one into knowledge and practice and goals once one sees the world for what it is.
In fact, what is a Christian's life? Sanctification is not a terrible overall answer.
You write: "The idea of “detachment” owes more to Buddhism than the Bible."
I wasn't making any reference to what Buddhists call 'detachment', not that most people know, or most Buddhists know, that that term means or refers to.
Lloyd-Jones described the average Christian in his litany of types, and you didn't like what you read. It struck home. It stung. So you accused him of really being of the mystical (etc.) type.
Basically what I saw in your post was what I called meandering in the sense that you were searching, as you were writing, for a defense against what Lloyd-Jones wrote in describing the average Christian's view of what life constitutes. He was accurate. His understanding of what Paul was getting at, though, was less accurate. But Lloyd-Jones is not John Calvin.