Posts Tagged ‘ George MacDonald ’

Total verdorben…

…der Mensch. So verdorben, dass er nicht auf das Evangelium reagieren kann, ohne dass Gott ihn vorher dazu befähigt hat. So versteht Calvin das Neue Testament. Für ihn war diese Verdorbenheit gleichzustellen mit der Unfähigkeit, heilige Entscheidungen zu treffen. Innerhalb reformierter Kreise findet man verschiedene ‚Levels‘ , was die Schlussfolgerungen aus diesem Dogma angeht. Manche, wie Tim Keller, beschränken sich darauf, Gott als Initiator in der Errettung zu verstehen. Das kann auch einfach nur bedeuten, dass Gott immer den ersten Schritt geht, von uns aber auch einen Schritt (den Vertrauensvorschuss) erwartet. Diese Sichtweise teile ich auch. Andere, wie R. C. Sproul, ziehen die Schlussfolgerung, dass Gott sich ein paar Leute aussucht, die dann wiedergeboren sein lässt, damit sie danach an Jesus glauben können. Meiner Meinung nach eine absurde, alberne und falsche Logik, die aus dem Wunsch, der Bibel und dem Evangelium (nach Calvin) treu zu bleiben, entsprungen sein muss.

Ich glaube, den Wunsch zu verstehen, dem Evangelium der Gnade Gottes treu bleiben zu wollen. Und dazu gehört auch der entschlossene Kampf gegen alle Werksgerechtigkeit. Doch warum verstehen viele Calvinisten die ‚Entscheidung für den Glauben an Jesus‘ als ein gutes Werk (was nicht die Grundlage für unsere Errettung sein kann)? Weil Gott Gott ist und weil Menschen Menschen und gefallen sind, muss Gott der Ursprung und die Grundlage für alle Errettung sein. Im Menschen gibt es nichts Gutes, nichts Geistliches, an das sich Gott wenden, das er ansprechen könnte, um Interesse für das Evangelium zu bewirken. Dem stimme ich zu. Aber muss Gott erst irgendetwas Gutes in den Menschen hineinlegen, bzw. ihn geistlich zum Leben erwecken, bevor er ihn mit seiner Botschaft erreichen kann? Ich glaube nicht. Und der Grund dafür ist ein sehr praktischer:

Warum entscheiden sich Menschen für ein Leben mit Jesus? Welche Motivation findet man – welche nicht? Hier ist mein persönliches Fazit: Die häufigsten Gründe sind Verzweiflung, Frustration, Schuldgefühle, Wunsch nach Glück und Erfüllung, manchmal einfach Neugier. Moralisch bewertet sind diese Gründe im besten Fall einfach im Menschsein begründet – oder, und das ist eigentlich relativ häufig, es sind sogar selbstsüchtige Gründe. Wenn ich mich für Jesus entscheide, weil ich etwas Gutes für mich suche, ist das streng genommen eine egoistische Entscheidung. Und „nichts, was selbstzentriert ist, ist christlich“ (Finney). Es widerspricht eigentlich allen geistlichen Lebensprinzipien. Aber eigentlich sollte man (auf dem Hintergrund der Verderbtheit des Menschen) nichts Anderes erwarten. Ich strecke mich als Sünder zu ihm aus. Weil ich nichts Anderes zu bringen habe. Weil ich mich selber nicht bessern kann. Und ändert sich das im Laufe meines Lebens als Christ? Nicht wirklich. Es bleibt dabei, dass ich mich als Sünder zu ihm ausstrecke, in der Hoffnung auf sein Mitleid, in dem Wissen, dass ich mich nicht selber aus dem Schlamm ziehen kann.

Die einzigen zwei geistlichen Motivatoren für eine Bekehrung wären a) der Wunsch, Gott durch Gehorsam die Ehre zu geben oder b) das Wohl aller Mitmenschen durch die eigene Bekehrung zu suchen. Kennt ihr jemanden, der sich aus diesen Gründen bekehrt hat? Ich auch nicht. Auch hier ist der Grund offensichtlich: diese Motivationen wären geistlich, und sind deswegen von einem fleischlichen, gottlosen Menschen nicht zu erwarten.

Aus dieser Begründung heraus lehne ich das (vielleicht etwas Extremere) Verständnis der völligen Verderbtheit ab. Ich halte es für nicht schriftgemäß (bzw. in Calvins jungem, unreifen Eifer darüber hinausgehend), und auch nicht für notwendig, um an ein Evangelium der Gnade glauben und eine Werksgerechtigkeit auf Seiten des Menschen ablehnen zu können. Natürlich kann sich ein Sünder zu Gott ausstrecken. Aber nicht mit reinen Motiven, oder aus heiligen Gründen. Sondern als Sünder eben.

Smoke

Lord, I have laid my heart upon thy altar

But cannot get the wood to burn;

It hardly flares ere it begins to falter

And to the dark return.

Old sap, or night-fallen dew, makes damp the fuel;

In vain my breath would flame provoke;

Yet see – at every poor attempt’s renewal

To thee ascends the smoke!

‚Tis all I have – smoke, failure, foiled endeavor,

Coldness and doubt and palsied lack:

Such as I have I send thee! – perfect Giver,

Send thou thy lightning back.

(George MacDonald)

Werbeanzeigen

God – speaks Greek to me?

„Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everybody. You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tabets of human hearts. Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God. Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. He has made us competent ministers of a new covenant – not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.“ (2 Cor. 3,1-6)

Yesterday I had another conversation with another friend of mine. He studied koine Greek at a Theology School and we talked about how to use or not to use Greek word and/or grammar studies for a regular Biblestudy. In his „Lectures to my students“ Spurgeon wrote, that in his opinion, preachers only quote the Greek to impress their hearers. So my friend and I talked about the tendency to do that and asked ourselves in how far it really does benefit the hearers.

One thing that is often overlooked among us evangelical lay preachers/theologians is the fact, that koine Greek is a dead language. That means that we depend on findings of other writings to give us insights on when which words or tenses were used. The more writings we have to compare, the more we will understand the language of the Bible. Now that means that we understand the language of the Bible today better than 50 years ago. Which is a real problem when my Greek lexicon is that old… It also means that we will understand the language of the Bible better 50 years from now then we do at this present time. So we should be careful not to build our theology on word studies in the Greek. We don’t have a holy language, like the Muslims do, because our book did not come down from heaven completed. It was rather a beautiful, God-in-time-and-space-kind-of-organic-process, we call it inspiration.

Which language does God speak? Does he speak Hebrew, Aramaic or koine Greek? Yes and No. God is Spirit. His language is not a human language, but a spiritual language. He uses human language, but a language can never embody the truth like the person of Jesus Christ. Everything human is earthly. Everything earthly is temporal, imperfect. Just as God cannot and does not live in a building build by human hands and is not served by human hands, he cannot be fully contained in human language. Not even the Bible languages. But also generally speaking are the thoughts, ideas and realities behind the words bigger and better than the words themselves. Words are only shells. Even Bible words.

George MacDonald writes in the Chapter „Truth is of the Spirit, not the letter“: „God has not cared that we should anywhere have assurance of his very words – not merely because of the tendency in his children to word worsip, false logic, and corruption of the truth, but also because he would not have his people oppressed by words. For words, being human, therefore but partially capable, could not absolutely contain or express what the Lord meant. No matter how precise the words used, to be understood the Lord must depend on the spirit of his disciple. Seeing it could not give life, the letter should not be throned with the power to kill. It should be only the handmaid to open the door of the truth to the mind that was of the truth.“

For this reason the early Christians were somewhat sceptical when they first heard of the idea of a Christian Scripture Canon. For them, this was one of the differences between the Old and the New Covenant. The Christian Faith was something that was passed on and lived out by the believing community of Jesus followers. Why would we want to go back to serving the letter? But in order to defend orthodoxy against heresy, the church fathers rightly judged that clear definitions of what Christians believe and what they reject were necessary.

William Law writes: „…every kind of virtue and goodness may be brought into us by two different ways. They may be taught us outwardly by men, by rules and precepts; and they may be inwardly born in us, as the genuine birth of our own renewed spirit. In the former way, as we learn them only from men, by rules and documents of instruction, they at best only change our outward behavior, and leave our heart in its natural state, only putting our passions under a forced restraint, which will occasionally break forth in spite of the dead letter of precept and doctrine.“ He goes on to say, that this is still the first stage in spiritual growth, just as the law (the letter) was a schoolmaster to the gospel. And that after all Scripture cannot do more than point us to the living Word. Words in themselves are dead. Even written words. Even New Testament words – apart from the life-giving and life-changing Spirit.

Andrew Murray comments on this: „In answer to the scruple that this appears to derogate from Scripture, we are reminded of the difference between Christ, the living Word, and the letter of Scripture. We are told that this is the very way to exalt Scripture when we own it to be the faithful and only direction to Him who is the true light of men. Just as the highest honor a disciple of John the Baptist could confer on his teacher was to leave him and go to Christ, so the Scriptures, the more we study and rejoice in them, will only have their full effect upon us as they daily point us to Christ.“

E. M. Bounds writes: „The preaching that kills may be, and often is, orthodox – dogmatically, inviolably orthodox. We love orthodoxy. It is good. It is the best. It is the clean, clear-cut teaching of God’s Word, the trophies won by truth in its conflict with error, the levees which faith has rasied against the desolating floods of honest or reckless misbelief or unbelief; but orthodoxy, clear  and hard as crystal, suspicious and militant, may be but the letter well-shaped, well-named, and well-learned, the letter which kills. Nothing is so dead as a dead orthodoxy, too dead to speculate, too dead to think, to study, or to pray.“

I wonder how much I have fallen into the same trap as the scribes, who wouldn’t accept the living Word when it came to them, because it didn’t fit their interpretations of the written word. Jesus is everything the Bible reveals him to be. And it is – in one sense – all we need to know about him. But yet Jesus is bigger than the Bible. That might sound shocking or even heretical. But in reality, everyone who doesn’t agree with that statement is an idolatrer – because he doesn’t only worship the Jesus of the Bible but Jesus and the Bible. And that’s wrong. The Bible is only means to an end. And that End is God.

Werbeanzeigen