Your View of Gods Grace: Is It Simple, Or Simplistic?
Scripture has its own definitions of its words. That is a simple statement. Or is it? Perhaps it only appears simple. Perhaps it is instead, what it is; a simplistic one?
Yea; hath God said. With that seemingly simple question the ruin of mankind was set into motion.
Why? Was it because God, in His grace, would simplistically forgive all wrong and just leave things as they were?
Notice I used the word simplistically, as compared to the word simply. For in the context here, those two words describe two different ways of looking at things.
Simplistic: The tendency to oversimplify what one is looking at by ignoring all the various aspects that go into making it what it is.
Simple: Easy to understand, plain.
A child crawling under a sink, grabs a bottle of liquid, and thirsty, begins to drink from it, in its simplistic understanding that liquid quenches ones thirst. A simple example, of a problem created due to a simplistic looking at things not considering all the details those crucial differences between "safe" and "non-safe" liquids.
Far too many do that with Scripture oh, here is a passage, gulp, gulp, gulp, munch, munch, munch not eating or drinking right for their spiritual type, due to their simplistic view that there is not need to read the labels, as the door to the grocery store was found open to all departments therefore, there is no difference between Draino having been intentionally placed in one aisle, and Orange juice in another that door at the front said welcome to the whole store. Heck, Ill even go in the back, if I feel like it!
By the simplistic understanding of many, grace is grace and that is all there is to it. The problem with their simplistic view ignoring the complexities involved is that it and perhaps unintentionally on their part; God knoweth ignores the complexities of Gods grace.
As an example, just now, as I was writing that statement, I added the phrase perhaps not unintentionally on their part. Why? Because to have made my statement without that detail would have been to have made a simplistic statement - would have been to ignore the complexities, one important detail regading how they may have formed their conclusion that perhaps they mean well, despite their obvious, though, again, perhaps unintentional, ignorance of the subject.
I mean, at least considering the complexities of judging such conclusions is much fairer toward them than their having simplistically concluded that others wrong obviously, without having first actually studied out the details of the other sides of the argument.
Allow me to state my Genesis 3 example again, but this time, with a bit more detail, or complexity:
Yea; hath God said. With that seemingly simple question the ruin of mankind was set into motion.
Why? Was it because God, in His grace, would simplistically forgive all wrong and just leave things as they were?
Not according to the deails found in Genesis. For there, while we do see Gods grace in what He gave Adam and Eve prior to their fall, we also see His righteous judgment in His having barred them entrance to some of what He had given them. We see Him in His righteous judgment, having to bar them, in that lifetime, from the tree of life, for their disobedience.
The atheist will find holes in that argument. Partly because he wants to, but also, because he looks at that account simplistically without first attempting to take in all its details, its complexities.
Of course, some might simplistically conclude I am talking about Adam and Eve, and atheists, and grocery stores, and all that, rather than what all those details were used for by me to point out that there is a difference between looking at things simplistically 'it says this to me, therefore it means this' that there is a difference between looking at things that way, and looking at them simply 'it says this; still, I might to be a bit wise about my conclusion; let me do some studying; see what all else is involved in arriving at its correct meaning; what its various details might be...'
That is what Einstein, a man known for his genius in his study of the complexities of physics its various details that is what he meant when he concluded that everything should be made simple, not simpler. That difference between understanding the various aspects of something, as compared to simplistically concluding from what little one has bothered to research on it.
At a gathering in his honor once, a teenager approached Einstein and asked him what he did for a living. When he replied I study physics, the teenager replied, Oh, I already studied that last semester.
That is the mind of far too many "Believers" in "God's" Word - in their mind, theyve already studied grace in all its details. How it worked under the Law, how it works God forbid under grace. Done, settled. These Mid-Acts people are wrong. End of story.
Still, at least on my end here: while on the one hand, there is admittedly a simplistic tendency on my own part to conclude that there is no getting through to their simplistic outlook, at the same time, I believe that to leave things at that simplistically; as they have left grace in their own understanding - would be just as simplistic of me. Therefore, I have attempted to communicate the above to them for their sake, as well as for our own:
10. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 11. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences. 2 Cor.5.
For, if we, in that day, have turned out sound, others finding out then will not have been the appropriate time. For that passage not only clearly implies of the complexities of Gods grace, but reveals we are expected to attempt to get these things correctly now, not then.
Hopefully, the necessity of having studied out the various details of this issue Gods grace in the past in contrast to how His grace works now - is made manifest in their conscience now, not then, at the Judgment Seat of Christ.
Unless, of course, reminding us both, of that passage, is, simplistically viewed as, legalistic.
For the truth of this matter towards these individuals, for me, at least; for I dare not speak for others, is, Not for that we would have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand, 2 Cor. 1:24
In the spirit of Eph. 4:16
Dano
Scripture has its own definitions of its words. That is a simple statement. Or is it? Perhaps it only appears simple. Perhaps it is instead, what it is; a simplistic one?
Yea; hath God said. With that seemingly simple question the ruin of mankind was set into motion.
Why? Was it because God, in His grace, would simplistically forgive all wrong and just leave things as they were?
Notice I used the word simplistically, as compared to the word simply. For in the context here, those two words describe two different ways of looking at things.
Simplistic: The tendency to oversimplify what one is looking at by ignoring all the various aspects that go into making it what it is.
Simple: Easy to understand, plain.
A child crawling under a sink, grabs a bottle of liquid, and thirsty, begins to drink from it, in its simplistic understanding that liquid quenches ones thirst. A simple example, of a problem created due to a simplistic looking at things not considering all the details those crucial differences between "safe" and "non-safe" liquids.
Far too many do that with Scripture oh, here is a passage, gulp, gulp, gulp, munch, munch, munch not eating or drinking right for their spiritual type, due to their simplistic view that there is not need to read the labels, as the door to the grocery store was found open to all departments therefore, there is no difference between Draino having been intentionally placed in one aisle, and Orange juice in another that door at the front said welcome to the whole store. Heck, Ill even go in the back, if I feel like it!
By the simplistic understanding of many, grace is grace and that is all there is to it. The problem with their simplistic view ignoring the complexities involved is that it and perhaps unintentionally on their part; God knoweth ignores the complexities of Gods grace.
As an example, just now, as I was writing that statement, I added the phrase perhaps not unintentionally on their part. Why? Because to have made my statement without that detail would have been to have made a simplistic statement - would have been to ignore the complexities, one important detail regading how they may have formed their conclusion that perhaps they mean well, despite their obvious, though, again, perhaps unintentional, ignorance of the subject.
I mean, at least considering the complexities of judging such conclusions is much fairer toward them than their having simplistically concluded that others wrong obviously, without having first actually studied out the details of the other sides of the argument.
Allow me to state my Genesis 3 example again, but this time, with a bit more detail, or complexity:
Yea; hath God said. With that seemingly simple question the ruin of mankind was set into motion.
Why? Was it because God, in His grace, would simplistically forgive all wrong and just leave things as they were?
Not according to the deails found in Genesis. For there, while we do see Gods grace in what He gave Adam and Eve prior to their fall, we also see His righteous judgment in His having barred them entrance to some of what He had given them. We see Him in His righteous judgment, having to bar them, in that lifetime, from the tree of life, for their disobedience.
The atheist will find holes in that argument. Partly because he wants to, but also, because he looks at that account simplistically without first attempting to take in all its details, its complexities.
Of course, some might simplistically conclude I am talking about Adam and Eve, and atheists, and grocery stores, and all that, rather than what all those details were used for by me to point out that there is a difference between looking at things simplistically 'it says this to me, therefore it means this' that there is a difference between looking at things that way, and looking at them simply 'it says this; still, I might to be a bit wise about my conclusion; let me do some studying; see what all else is involved in arriving at its correct meaning; what its various details might be...'
That is what Einstein, a man known for his genius in his study of the complexities of physics its various details that is what he meant when he concluded that everything should be made simple, not simpler. That difference between understanding the various aspects of something, as compared to simplistically concluding from what little one has bothered to research on it.
At a gathering in his honor once, a teenager approached Einstein and asked him what he did for a living. When he replied I study physics, the teenager replied, Oh, I already studied that last semester.
That is the mind of far too many "Believers" in "God's" Word - in their mind, theyve already studied grace in all its details. How it worked under the Law, how it works God forbid under grace. Done, settled. These Mid-Acts people are wrong. End of story.
Still, at least on my end here: while on the one hand, there is admittedly a simplistic tendency on my own part to conclude that there is no getting through to their simplistic outlook, at the same time, I believe that to leave things at that simplistically; as they have left grace in their own understanding - would be just as simplistic of me. Therefore, I have attempted to communicate the above to them for their sake, as well as for our own:
10. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 11. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences. 2 Cor.5.
For, if we, in that day, have turned out sound, others finding out then will not have been the appropriate time. For that passage not only clearly implies of the complexities of Gods grace, but reveals we are expected to attempt to get these things correctly now, not then.
Hopefully, the necessity of having studied out the various details of this issue Gods grace in the past in contrast to how His grace works now - is made manifest in their conscience now, not then, at the Judgment Seat of Christ.
Unless, of course, reminding us both, of that passage, is, simplistically viewed as, legalistic.
For the truth of this matter towards these individuals, for me, at least; for I dare not speak for others, is, Not for that we would have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand, 2 Cor. 1:24
In the spirit of Eph. 4:16
Dano
