Faith-Ful lives
“That you may become wise unto salvation.” This oft-used phrase is a serious misquote. The full passage (2 Tim. 3:15) reads “…wise unto salvation through faith.” Salvation is through faith, not knowledge. “Becoming wise” means that we learn that salvation is through our faith in God’s grace; it is not through our knowledge of Scripture.
Bible study and knowledge have the goal of changing our character so that we can lead faithful lives. When we break down Bible knowledge into specific Bible doctrines, then we can connect each teaching into an aspect of faith. When we know something to be true about God’s plan and purpose, then that doctrine should directly affect our way of life.
Two methods of investigation will guide this pursuit: context (or intent), and implication. Context is familiar to us; when we read a passage in context we discern the writer’s intent. For example, no Bible passage can contextually argue against the orthodox triune God, because that would be anachronistic. Therefore, any passage used to argue against Trinitarian teaching, as applicable as it might be in theory, must have an immediate, contextual meaning. There must be something more than using a passage to disprove the erroneous teachings of orthodox Christianity. That “something more” should direct us to the moral intent of the writer.
The second tool for properly applying the teachings of Scripture to our lives is implication. Implication tells us what must follow given a certain state of affairs. For instance, if God resurrected Jesus from the dead, that implies that God is greater than Jesus. It would also imply that Jesus was not God, that Jesus was mortal, and that if Jesus is now immortal, that became the case only after God raised him. As for how this applies to our lives, Paul informs us that our belief in this fact leads us to acceptance of our faith, and hence a relationship with God that develops our characters through suffering (Rom 4:23-5:4).
First principles are not given as a set of Scripture; they are selected teachings that define our body. They are a way of saying what’s really important, so important that to not believe them would exclude one from the household of faith. However, does it take much faith to accept them as true? Is it very hard to believe in the unity of God? That seems to be a given of the universe. True, a dead person rising to immortality is totally contrary to our experience, but it is easy to believe given the existence of God, and the implausibility of alternate explanations to the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection. It is relatively easy to believe that God exists and that God raised Jesus from the dead; that takes little faith. It takes much faith to live according to that belief.
If the only function of fundamental teachings is to define who we are (or as it often unfolds, who we aren’t), then they are not functioning as principles, but merely truths to be received. A principle is not a principle unless it serves as a principle, a guiding precept by which we live. Earth’s surface is about 70% ocean. That is a fact, but there is no special moral meaning or application in this fact. Likewise, the fact that God is one, or that God raised Jesus from the dead are just facts of the universe if all they are is something to be accepted as true. Bible truths, especially those we elevate to the status of “First Principles,” must do more than occupy the “T” column in our minds.
We will investigate three “First Principle” Bible teachings and look for the daily life applications that inhere in these teachings. The three I have chosen for this article are the unity of God, the sinfulness of all humans, and the promises to Abraham.
1 A. There is ONE God
God is one — not three. That is how this doctrine usually hits the road. We feel comfortable that we can refute the orthodox view on this issue because we have Scripture to back us, and because of the historical development of the doctrine after the New Testament era. However, two problems arise when handling the unity of God as primarily as a negation of Trinitarians. First, every orthodox Christian identifies as a monotheist. Of course they believe in one God, one eternal omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent deity. However, their God is somehow divided into three entities, all of whom comprise one God. If you have ever discussed monotheism with a conventional Christian, you know how futile these dialogues can get. There is no traction in taking a monotheistic stance, because your interlocutor will be right there with you.
The second problem, already noted above, is that no Bible passage can contextually argue against the Trinity because that doctrine considerably postdates the writing of the New Testament. We can truthfully say that the Bible does not teach the trinity, but it would be anachronistic to say that the Bible argues against it. Anti-Trinitarian argumentation must use Scripture indirectly and build itself systematically from the foundation teachings about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
What then do we do with “there is only one God”? We follow the two leads posted at the beginning of the article: context and implication.
The context of monotheistic passages in Scripture is largely, if not invariably, warnings against idolatry and false gods, the gods that are inventions and projections of humans, gods of limited power. The pagan polytheistic cultures of ancient Near East featured many gods and idols of wood, stone, clay, and metal, idols who have mouths but speak not, who have ears but hear not, eyes but see not, hands but work not, wombs but bear not.
When we read the context of “proof texts,” such as Deut 6:4, Isa 44:6, and 1Cor 8:4-6, we get the flavor of monotheism: don’t worship made-up false gods, the work of craftsmen, because they are but the creations of humans, whereas yhwh, the true God of Israel, created the universe. To worship a false god is folly because it will get you nowhere; these gods are powerless. Worse, they manifest the projections of base human behavior, and thus often invoke human sacrifice, ritual prostitution, sacrifices to gain favor, and orgies to insure procreative success and a good harvest.
In the New Testament Paul informs us that covetousness (greed, NIV) is idolatry (Col 3:5). This doesn’t need any explanation, but it might need some expansion. Any sort of greed, desire, “need,” “must have,” or whatever it is in this mortal, material realm that we strive for becomes a false god and we thus negate our monotheism. “You cannot serve God and mammon” (Matt 6:24) is the clearest New Testament statement about monotheism. The NIV renders these opposing objects of devotion as “God and Money,” with a capital “M,” to identify the two as the possible masters of our lives, to whom only one we can give our devotion.
Another implication
There exists one obvious yet under-appreciated aspect of monotheism. It’s the ellipsis that follows “there is only one God.” Stated fully, the doctrine would read, There is one God, and it’s not you. We lack omniscience, so we will reserve to God alone when and how the kingdom will come about. We do not presume to know things only God, who is eternal, and therefore outside of history, can. Unfortunately, such seems to be the nature of much prophetical exposition.
Also, we do not know the motives of our fellow servants, thus we cannot know who is guilty and who is not, who is a believer and who is not. God looks on the heart; we cannot. This is the basis of “do not judge.” To judge is to say you know another’s motives. This execrates the doctrine of monotheism.
2 A. Human Nature is Sinful
This first principle is about us, so it should have an easy time moving into the moral teaching sector. Theologically and conceptually, it complements the doctrine of monotheism. If there is one God, then all other sentient beings are not God; the label for that group is “sinners.” This is not necessarily pejorative, rather it is a statement of relationship. There is one perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, omnibenevolent being, the God of the Bible, yhwh, and there is every other thinking being. These beings, collectively known as “humanity,” are the only other entities in the universe able to relate to God. Unlike God, they have finite time lines, minuscule knowledge and meagre power. Because of these limitations, they have a constricted perspective on their world; add in a few other factors inherent in their biological constitution, and you have a creature given to self-interests, hence, a sinner. We need not look far into human experience to validate the veracity of “all have sinned.”
The usual context of proof texts on humanity’s sinful nature is salvation by grace and faith, not by works (e.g., Rom 3:23-24, Gal 3:22). These texts place all of us entirely in God’s debt, not vice-versa because of our works. This reflects the theological basis of our nature, for if something within our power could effect salvation, then we must have some immanent “goodness.” Without going to Calvinistic excess on this matter, we affirm that we are entirely dependent on God’s grace for living both now and forever in our Lord’s kingdom.
We will look at three implications that follow from this teaching: (1) we’re no better or worse than anyone else, (2) we need forgiveness, and (3) we need to grow spiritually. Each of these has two areas of application: our own sinfulness and the sinfulness of others.
The first implication, about belonging to the common group of humanity, forms Bible’s teaching on humility. Indeed we do have individual strengths, spiritual capabilities, and virtues, but these attributes cannot remove us from the lot of humanity. We never attain “no further improvement needed” status. Our best virtue is awareness of where we lack virtue. Thus, we always belong in the common pool of “sinners.” In short, humility is the demonstration of our belief in this first principle.
How does it work with respect to others? We can humble ourselves by being aware of our limitations, but how do we apply humility to others? One way is to refrain from the adulation we often assign to the leaders of our community. We ought not celebrate, elevate, or idolize our leaders or any outwardly faithful and devoted brother or sister. We hope that inside they are the person they appear to be, but we don’t know that, and not being omniscient (see above on monotheism), we can’t know that. People can do helpful acts and useful service, and we properly thank them for that. However, no one, no matter how well-known they become in our community, is immune to the impulses and weaknesses of our nature. No one is excluded, so don’t be surprised when you hear about the lapses of even esteemed members of our community. The teaching “all are sinful” is not merely a theological truth. Sadly, there will be real instances in our midst.
Forgiveness, the second implication, is a major Bible topic. That we need to ask God for forgiveness is a foundation of our faith. Praying for forgiveness implies that we are aware of our sins, and that must mean something beyond the general “be merciful to me a sinner,” as true as that is. Praying for forgiveness of specific sins is the first step in overcoming them. The vital practice of forgiveness is a direct outgrowth of a theological first principle. God forgives us, as we forgive those who sin against us. If we are all sinners, we all need forgiveness. We practice the model God shows by forgiving others whose behaviors negatively affect our lives.
Overcoming sin is the third major implication of the doctrine “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23). Being in a sinful condition is not intractable, as in “I’m a sinner and there’s nothing I can do about it.” This first principle gives us the starting point from which we begin our spiritual journey. We may never escape our nature or our label, but we don’t have to act like sinners, either. This doctrine demands our fullest attention; it summons and challenges us to do better each day, to apply at a personal level what the Bible tells us at a theological level.
What does this imply for living in an ecclesial environment of like individuals? Two Biblical directives derive straight out of this doctrine. One, the admonition to practice patience, tolerance, forbearance, and long-suffering (e.g., Rom 15:1). Remember, we are all working on our individual growth, each with a different background, capability, desire, intent, and other factors. We’re all at a different place in our journey. Two, we have the admonition to help each other (Rom 15:2,14; Gal 6:2) by providing positive support and nurturing help to each of our beloved, but sinful, brothers and sisters. Condemnation, gossip, criticism, and judging do not strengthen a community of sinful people; they weaken and fracture it.
If all humans are sinful, we need to do something about how we live. We practice patience with others, we help them, we strive for ourselves to overcome our specific deficiencies, we seek for forgiveness from God, and we offer forgiveness to anyone who might have caused us harm or distress. So many virtues stem from this fundamental truth.
3 A. The Promises to Abraham
God promised the patriarch Abraham an inheritance of land and a descendant through whom he, and many others, would inherit that land eternally. These promises are initially stated and developed in Genesis 12-22, and they find further reinforcement frequently throughout the Bible. They are fundamental to Christianity, but how do we derive specific moral teachings from the first principle we call “the Promises to Abraham?”
I chose this doctrine as the third example for this article because it doesn’t seem to lend itself to moral application. The Promises are historical, something to be known and believed. How do God’s promises to Abraham, made some four millennia ago, affect our lives today? How do we go beyond the practical use of the Promises as an item of catechism, to be recited at a baptismal interview?
Paul nominates Abraham as the icon of faith, writing in Rom 4:9-12 that he received the promise, which antedated his circumcision, because of his faith. Therefore Abraham, the father of the Jewish people and the faithful nation of Spiritual Israel, was an uncircumcised Gentile when God counted his faith as righteousness! Just what did he believe? Abraham doubtless believed many things about God, but Romans 4 emphasizes two: forgiveness of sins and life from the dead. Life from the dead is prefigured twice: in Isaac’s conception and birth (Rom 4:18-19) and in the figurative offering of Isaac (Gen 22:5, Heb 11:17 19). The Hebrew verb translated “return” in Gen 22:5 is first person plural — we will return, indicating Abraham’s faith that God would either resurrect Isaac or provide a way out, which did happen with the entangled ram. These providential acts in Abraham’s life proved a fortiori that God could solve any human problem.
Paul taught Abraham’s belief in forgiveness by inserting Psa 32:1-2, concerning God forgiving and justifying the ungodly through faith, into the discussion of Abraham’s trust in faith, not works (Rom 4:5-8). This quote implies Abraham himself knew he was forgiven and counted righteous not by his own goodness or deeds, but by his trust in God.
Abraham’s paradigmatic faith is representative and exemplary, to be emulated by us (Rom 4:24). Our faith is not based on believing that God made promises to Abraham, but on emulating the faith of Abraham, believing with him that God forgives sin (the ultimate abstract blessing) and God raises the dead (the ultimate tangible blessing).
It is necessary to believe that God made promises to Abraham, and God reckoned Abraham’s belief in those promises as righteousness, because that is a true and fundamental fact. However, believing the fact is not faith. We become heirs of the promise not because we believe about Abraham, but because we believe like Abraham. Therefore, if our faith is like Abraham’s, we always believe that God can forgive us, no matter how badly we might stray, and we always have hope, no matter how dire our situation. That is the faith of Abraham.
Conclusion
The three doctrines treated above certainly have more to offer in this light, and there are many other fundamental doctrines. Think of what you could do with the doctrine of the devil, for instance. No outside tempter means we have no excuses for our behavior, period. We take full responsibility for our actions. What of baptism by immersion, or that the Holy Spirit is God’s power, or the Kingdom of God on Earth? What are the real-life implications of these fundamental teachings? If you have a first principles class in your ecclesia and fail to take these teachings to their moral extent, you are teaching facts, not principles.
Finally, please see the big picture here. Our morality is not an add-on to our first principles. We do not have truths to be believed, and then a separate set of virtues, values, and behaviors. We directly derive morals, values, and conduct from the facts that comprise the essentials of Christianity. If we have a document worth calling a Statement of Faith, it must comprise the principles through whose application we form our way of life. Effective Bible study always has as its final question, “Now that I have learned this, how do I then live?”
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One