 |
| Dr. Paulson- First, thanks for taking a minute to think through some questions with me. As always, your insight and discernment are very helpful. But there is more to the conversation that I am struggling with. ONe of the most important things I have learned thus far this semester is that I am first and foremost a theologian of proclamation, not speculation. I never realized it until now, but this is something that is dear to me. Always of first importance is how a doctrine or an idea is proclaimed by God, and how it proclaims God is of first importance. I obviously then look at soteriology as being central to that proclamation. We proclaim, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved," and "Christ forgives sins; receive forgiveness." Is God deceiving us. Can we really not receive, accept, call on, believe, choose? This language permeates the proclamation of the gospel throughout the scripture. Is it the dangling of a false hope in front of us? Now, it is important to understand that I am in no way saying that we can make our own salvation, can approach God on our own, or do anything to earn or merit our salvation, which is a free gift of God. Yet, in this same breath, we talk of relationship. Yes, we are defined by our relationship to God. In this relationship, we have our worth, our being, our person. Without God, we are nothing. Yet, I would assert that this relatinship is a relationship, where two are related one to the other, instead of a relationship where one is a "block of wood" as you put it yesterday. It would seem to be just as damaging to assert that the human is a block of wood as it would to assert that God is. Instead, why can it not be a true relationship, true to the metaphor as we understand it humanly. We do not need to assert that God and the human play the same role in a relationship to asser that both are active and involved in that relationship. If we do not have this understanding, how do we understand God as judge, angry with creation. If God's anger is righteous, then there must be a sense of responsibility on the part of the creatures, some missed opportunity or forfeited trust. If not, if the relationship is one-dimensional, what do we make of the dynamic life of God? I would assert that relationship is precisely the right metaphor for looking at our lives, and that God truly calls us into relationship. Obviously, I've brought up a number of points, and the discussion could go on infinitely, but I think I've at least finished my point a bit. I also want to return briefly to the original question, concerning Christ as both subject and object of faith. Doesn't this prove in some way incompatibile with the biblical understanding of the nature of faith, especially as put forth in Hebrews 11:1. Is Christ in some way hoping for and unable to see Himself which allows this understanding of faith to ring true? Faith seems to presupose lack of objective proof. There seems to be room for doubt presupposed in faith, room for sin. Is this present in Christ so as to make Christ's faith faith? Thanks again. I deeply value your insight, and am truly enjoying the pursuit of God's truth. James |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Faith in God |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
| Faith in God: Discussing the Nature of Faith |
| Here we look at a fragment of a conversation concerning the nature of faith. It began with the assertion that Christ is both the subject of faith (that which believes) and the object of faith (that in which faith is placed), or put more theologically, Christ is both the fides qua and the fides quae. Here we look at part of the struggle of coming to grips with the nature of faith, the nature of humanity, and, finally the nature of God and God's activity in the world. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|