I'm working through a few thoughts before I finish my "Burn Your Noodle" provocations. Specifically, I'm thinking about Supralapsarianism, Infralapsarianism, and sublapsarianism. I know that those words might put you on the edge of your seat with anticipation, but they have brought me to the edge of madness with the implications. I believe that John Calvin was right when he said, "The predestination of God is truly a labyrinth from which the mind of man is wholly incapable of extricating itself. But the curiousity of man is so insistent that the more dangerous it is to inquire into a subject, the more boldly he rushes to do so. Thus when predestiantion is being discussed, because he cannot keep himself within the proper limits, he immediately plunges into the depths of the sea by his impetuosity" (Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and the Thessalonians.) More on that sort of thing in "noodle burning 3".
In the meantime I have another fun problem for everyone, myself included, from the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians chapter 7 verse 14. I will quote the passage here, the context concerns Paul's teaching on marriage and why a believer should stay with an unbelieving spouse if the unbeliever is content to stay:
The unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
Here's are some thoughts to ponder: How can an unbelieving spouse be said to be "holy"? What are the implications of how faith and grace work through a believer in the marriage union? How can it be said that children are "unclean" if they belong to an unbelieving couple, and how does having a believing parent make them holy? I'll anxiously await your thoughts in the comment section.
Posts
Covered in Writing
12 years ago
9 comments:
They are "holy", or set apart, in that they will have some influence coming to them from the believing person...
Off topic -
Huckabee? Huckabee? I am so not tracking with you Brad...
al sends
JD,
That's what I've been reading. I guess my question revolves around how influence equates to actual, not possible, holiness. How can someone be holy and lost at the same time?
Sure Brad, pick the hard ones.
I think JD has a decent explanation. There is a sanctifying effect when at least one parent is a believer. Of course grace is not imputed from the parent but from Christ.
Al, come on bro...we're on a roll here. Don't slam the best candidate we got running. :)
Al,
Off topic...who did you think I'd say, Ron Paul?
:)
ummm... I have a Ron Paul sticker on my truck.
al sends
nuts... my daughter was logged on...
al sends
Jim,
Not trying to be dense here, just thinking through the nature of sanctification. (That's what I'm doing in my devotions right now, going through 1 Corinthians and highlighting areas that deal with sanctification.) So let me ask you what you mean by "sanctifying effect" in the above statement.
Maybe I should ask this, "What do you guys think 'holiness' is?" Remember, Paul calls unbelievers holy here.
Brad,
I have thought about that passage before as well and never really came up with a totally sufficient answer.
Sanctified and holy carry the same connotation, that being one who is set apart. We are declared holy in Christ and are being sanctified daily.
I think parents have the awesome responsibility of being the protector of their children. This has much more to do with the spiritual realm that simply keeping them physically safe. Hence a believing parent will exercise great spiritual authority in the life of a child thereby giving protection from the demonic realm.
Similarly in the OT, God considered the offspring of the heathen just as unclean as their parents. So too the children of believers are "covered" by the holiness of their parent. Once they reach the age of understanding they will have to choose for themselves whether or not to follow Christ.
Post a Comment