The only one with the authority to dismantle your belief in God,
Is God, Himself.
Faith vs Works- What About Those that Can’t?
The Paradox)
We’ve already spent a good while discussing salvation, and whether it comes by faith or works. In the last post, I encouraged us to accept each of the different messages in scripture, even if they initially seem contradictory to us. I said we should accept that Jesus meant it when he declared that belief and baptism were necessary to be saved and also believe it when Paul said that salvation is purely by grace through faith. By accepting both positions, we allow space for God to explain how this works. So long as we reject one side for the other, we shut ourselves off from the revelation of how God bridges the gap between.
So let us accept the primacy of both faith and works and be comfortable in the paradox that we find there. Jesus said that baptism was one of the steps necessary for salvation, and so we accept it, but he also said that “God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.” Such a plan of universal salvation sounds wonderful, but how can that work when the majority of God’s children, billions and billions of souls, have lived and died without ever knowing the name of Jesus, and never having the opportunity to be baptized in his name? Did Jesus come to save the world, or to create conditions that would exclude it?
We do not want to dismiss Jesus’s command to be baptized, but neither do we want to dismiss his claim of universal reclamation. Is it possible that God has ordinances that are necessary for salvation, and that those who died without those ordinances could still be saved?
The Solution)
There is in my LDS theology, and apparently in the practices of the early Christians, a practice of performing the ordinances of salvation for the dead, including baptism. Not as a way of forcing those that have gone before into Christian faith, but with the understanding that the individual soul may freely accept or reject the ordinance according to the alignment of their heart.
I know that suggesting this solution might be controversial outside of the LDS faith, but the practice is explicitly spoken approvingly of by Paul:
Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
-1 Corinthians 15:29
Problems Resolved)
This theology of proxy ordinances resolves the issue that we raised just prior, explaining how baptism can be required for salvation but also how those who died without access to it can still be part of Christ’s universal invitation to salvation, but that is not all. This theology also answers the very debate that we began this study with: faith vs works.
By accepting the practice of baptisms for the dead, we can see why Paul speaks so emphatically about the sufficiency of faith alone. We can now understand that if a person conforms their heart and will to the Almighty, then that is what is absolutely essential in this life, because then they can accept the ordinances of salvation in the next one. If a man spends his life cultivating a believing and submissive spirit but dies without knowing Jesus or without being able to perform all the necessary ordinances, it is alright. He got his heart right, and Christ and his church will take care of the rest.
Some works and ordinances are still required for salvation, but those that accept Jesus in true faith can rest comfortable in the knowledge that whether they die tomorrow or in eighty years, God has made a way for all those necessary works to all be accomplished. We have no more argument of faith vs works, we see the false dichotomy for what it is, and we are able to fully embrace the primacy of both.
Now I realize that not all of my readers may be able or willing to accept this doctrine of baptisms for the dead. If that is you, no worries. I would still urge you to keep a mind open to finding some way in which the scriptures can all be satisfied, both the ones that suggest that faith is the key to salvation, and also the ones that say certain ordinances are necessary also. Do not accept arguments that ask you to reject half of the scriptures on the matter, or which require you to twist their interpretation in unnatural ways. Let your beliefs follow the natural interpretation of God’s word, and not the other way around.
Anyway, this is where I will conclude the study. I hope, if nothing else, it has opened up some new questions and new considerations for you. May God lead you to reject the false dichotomy of faith vs works, and to embrace both as beautiful and essential parts in His plan for mankind.
Unrealized Potential
Unspent things have no value
Dollars, thoughts, effort
They are only potential until they are given away
Life itself is only idleness
Until it is offered for something greater
It finds it value in being sacrificed
Grit vs Surrender- Autonomous or Not?
The Mixed Man)
Yesterday I shared about my personal struggle with addiction, and how I only found liberation as I surrendered my will to God, taking the steps that He set before me and not my own. Then, true healing and freedom blessed my life, but I want to be very clear that it did not, and never could have, come about in the way that I wanted it to. I had to do things that I didn’t want to do, but that God chose for me.
This points to an interesting paradox in the gospel. Autonomy is essential to God’s plans for us. Right from the beginning, God created a man and a woman who were designed with the capacity to make their own choices, and He even gave them a tree to exercise their choice one way or the other.
“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee,” (Moses 3:17).
If God did not mean for man to make his own choices, God never would have set things up this way.
But also, part of God’s plan is that man should surrender his will. Thus, we are all meant to have the ability to choose our own path, but to then give it up to the Father.
“Submit yourselves therefore to God,” (James 4:7).
“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service,” (Romans 12:1).
The Ultimate Example)
Notice how Jesus followed this pattern perfectly. His autonomy was supreme and no one else had any power over him:
“I lay down my life. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again,” (John 10:18).
Of course, when it actually came time to lay down his life, Jesus’s own will, his autonomy, pulled him from it. It was his desire that “this cup would pass from him.” Even so, he surrendered that autonomy, declaring to his Father, “not as I will, but as thou wilt,” (Matthew 26:39).
Tomorrow let us think some more about what this means for us personally. We will consider questions such as, how do so many of us, even Christians who fully believe the message of the Bible, fall into this false belief that we can satisfy God while holding onto our autonomy? And what does it look like to truly surrender to the will of the Lord?
Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 34:4-7
4 And he hewed two tables of stone like unto the first; and Moses rose up early in the morning, and went up unto mount Sinai, as the Lord had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tables of stone.
5 And the Lord descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord.
6 And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
Moses brings two new tables into Mount Sinai as instructed. The Lord passes before him, and while we do not hear about Moses being covered in the cleft of the rock by the hand of the Lord, presumably that transpires as described in the previous chapter.
It seems particularly appropriate that the Lord’s introduction, beginning in verse 6, particularly focuses on His patterns of justice and mercy, given that those are the qualities being weighed in His meeting with Moses today. Moses and the Lord are here to sanctify their agreement for Israel to be restored to God’s good graces, to be transferred from God’s justice to His mercy.
Verse 7 might initially sound contradictory to some. Is God merciful or does He dole out punishment? Will He forgive iniquity or refuse to clear the guilty? But I believe that is the whole point of this passage, to highlight that God does both. He is perfect justice, and He is perfect mercy. But isn’t that impossible? Aren’t those two mutually exclusive, at least in regard to any individual infraction? To man, perhaps so, but not to God.
These may sound like strange riddles, assertions with no basis, but the delight of the gospel is to take seeming paradoxes like these and beautifully resolve them. This particular riddle finds its answer in the person Jesus Christ.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
-Isaiah 53:5-6
Does God dole out justice for transgression or provide undeserved mercy. Both. The justice is met in Christ, and the mercy comes through Christ to all of us. The two natures of God’s judgment described in today’s verses are entirely accurate.
A Blessed Curse
Only those that are most dedicated to evil are destroyed by God. For all the rest of us, even when He curses us, it is a curse designed to teach and even save us. The very tribulation that we think will ruin us, ends up being the vehicle for our salvation. It feels like a death, but it holds the seed of life. Thus, by His grace, even God’s curses are blessings.
The Paradoxical Gospel
One of the most intriguing elements of the gospel is its reliance upon seeming paradoxes. The only way to save your life is to lose it. Christ overcame the world by letting himself be defeated by it. We only find the strength to overcome our vices when we admit defeat and surrender to Jesus. We are saved by grace, but that salvation is then evidenced by our works. In our relationships with our fellow man we are supposed to return good for evil.
It is a fascinating concept, and perhaps one day I will do a more in-depth study as to why this pattern of paradox is so prevalent in the gospel. One reason that is apparent to me now, however, is that it allows God to hide His path in plain sight. Consider the last example in the above paragraph, which is that we are to return good for evil. Jesus was absolutely clear on this point. Here are his words in Matthew 5:44:
But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.
Returning kindness for cruelty goes against our human nature. It seems completely illogical. It only seems consistent that we would do good to those that do us good, and evil to those that do us evil. In the spirit of fairness, we would at least need to hurt our enemies just as much as they hurt us, and then perhaps we could build a new, more positive relationship since we were back on even ground.
But that isn’t what Christ commands us. He commands us to love even while we are the one at a disadvantage. It isn’t logical and it isn’t natural, but it is a surefire way to experience a slice of heaven here on earth. Genuinely forgiving an enemy brings a buoyancy and cheerfulness to the heart that defies all reason. And so, the evil suffered was actually the potential for good, a beautiful blessing in disguise.
And this is no secret. All of these counter-intuitive, paradoxical behaviors that unlock the greatest joy have already been laid out before us. The proliferation of the Christian gospel has made it so that all of us know that turning the other cheek will make us walk hand-in-hand with God. We all know the way, but few there be that take it because it requires us to go against our own nature and embrace the paradox.
This combination of free knowledge, but paradoxical requirement means that no one will join God by accident, but everyone that sincerely wants to join God may do so. It is an ingenious solution that allows God to save every soul that really wants it.
Surrender to Mercy
When we surrender to God’s justice
We finally meet His mercy instead
Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 23:9
9 Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
God had already commanded the Israelites not to vex or oppress any foreigner living among them, but now He repeats that directive a second time, and once again the reason given is that the Israelites had themselves been strangers in a strange land, and so they knew the heart of those that lived such a life.
This is an interesting logic, a sort of divine paradox, to say that because the Israelites were themselves oppressed when they were the foreigners, that they therefore must not oppress any foreigners themselves. Our human tendency is far more inclined towards “since you did it to me, I get to do it to you.”
Recall that when Israel departed Egypt a mixed multitude went up with them, which means foreigners in their midst. These may have been other slave nations that had served under Egypt, but it may also have been some of the Egyptians themselves. Furthermore, after they entered the Promised Land some immigrants of their own enemies would come live among them, such as Ruth who came from Moab. Thus, when God says to not oppress the stranger, He is including strangers that came from lands that were directly hostile to Israel. It would be absolutely natural to let their anger against those enemies loose upon the immigrants that came from them, but God required His people to take the higher road, to return kindness for offense.
The Chicken or the Egg?
The Paradox)
We’ve all heard the classic dilemma, “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” Most people merely see this as an amusing puzzle, and quickly discard it as having no suitable answer.
But really, it is a very serious question, one that was posed by Aristotle himself over 2,400 years ago! The fact that we are still talking about it to this day, and still shrug it off without any clear explanation is a very alarming fact!
Now, to the creationist, the question really isn’t that troubling. If God created the Earth, the atmosphere, the seasons, and the universe as we know it, is it really any stretch to say that He could have architected the egg-bearing chicken also? And whether He did that with an egg or a mature fowl doesn’t really matter, He could have begun with either without any paradox.
But the materialist throws out the idea of an omnipotent creator, and puts in His place the forces of undirected, spontaneous evolution. Darwinism states that neither the chicken nor the egg came first, but a single-celled organism which, through a lengthy process of mutation and natural selection, developed into the species that we now call the chicken.
And I might concede that this would be a possibility, if we could agree that the evolution would have to have been a tool purposefully directed by the hands of an intelligent creator. But if one insists that this evolution occurred totally at random, which is the position of modern science, well that’s just plain ridiculous.
The Requirements)
Again, the proposal is that the chicken would have had to originate as some sort of single-celled organism, one which reproduced by dividing itself in half, but eventually it evolved into a creature that reproduced itself via a fertilized egg. This would mean that at some point in between there would have been a creature that still reproduced asexually, but which was also gradually developing sexual organs. Organs that eventually were able to produce and lay an egg, but initially this egg would not yet have been functional.
This means that the pre-chicken was expending energy and effort, giving up nutrients of its own body, subjecting itself to a more vulnerable state, all to produce something that was—for the time being—useless. And again, this might be acceptable if some Higher Power was requiring the life form to undergo this process, but it according to the laws of natural selection, this would mean that the species had a detrimental mutation which would have led to its extinction, not to its flourishing. This unnecessarily-handicapped pre-chicken simply would have been overrun by all the other variants that weren’t wasting energy laying undeveloped eggs.
And that’s just the matter of the chicken and the egg. But by itself, a female chicken still cannot produce a fertilized egg. Just as the species would have had to evolve from a replicating cell into a chicken that had embryonic and adult stages, it also would have had to evolve itself into male and female forms also. Thus it had go from being sexless to having sexed versions, but at least for a time those two halves would still have been reproducing asexually until they evolved into full sexual maturity. That means that there would now be two separate strands of random mutation, each evolving separately from one another, but somehow also in perfect tandem, developing in complementary ways, remaining compatible with one another once they both reached full sexual capability.
A Valid Question)
So as it turns out, the childhood question of “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” is actually a very weighty matter. It has all manner of scientific and metaphysical implications. 2,400 years later it still pokes holes in the most airtight theories of man and leaves us either with a stronger belief in our divine creator, or else a greater confusion of this inscrutable world.
Spiritual Wanderings 