I was watching a gospel presentation on the web the other day. You know, one of those dynamic slide presentations that have a nice piano playing in the background, warm colors, and leaves you wishy washy at the end. Well, this site walked people through the Gospel telling what Christ did and how it is we can have eternal life. At the end of the presentation people were called upon to say this prayer:

“Lord Jesus, I know I am a sinner and don’t deserve eternal life. But I believe you died and rose from the grave to purchase a place for me in heaven. Lord Jesus, come into my life; take control; forgive my sins and save me. I repent of my sins and now trust in you to save me. I accept the free gift of eternal life.”

So far so good, right? Well, yes . . . but . . . I am not going to pick the prayer apart with a theological fine tooth comb, but I do want to show you what the next slide in the presentation said. Here it is:

• If you have truly repented (turned away; forsaken) from your sins
• Placed your trust in Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death
• And received the gift of eternal life
• You are now a child of God forever.

Now, I don’t know about you, but that first bullet point has me slightly concerned. Now I am not sure I am a child of God. Has anyone forsaken their sins? I have and continue to try, but no luck yet. Continue Reading »

Join us in reclaiming the mind for Christ. Start The Theology Program in your church.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This is the first post in an occasional series that will appear on this blog, dealing with frequently asked questions (FAQ) about the doctrine of the Trinity. This series will not be providing an overview of the biblical teaching concerning the Trinity. For such an overview, please see my outline study on the Trinity, which cites about a thousand pertinent biblical references. If you have a question on the Trinity not addressed in that outline study and that you would like to see answered here, please email us with your question, and we will consider it for inclusion here. You can find our email address by visiting our ministry’s home page and clicking on “Email” in the upper right corner.

The first question I will address is perhaps one of the most popular objections to the doctrine, even though it does not address the positive evidence for the Trinity in Scripture. Here it is: If belief in the Trinity is essential for salvation, why is the doctrine not clearly or plainly set out, in so many words, in the Bible? Why does the Bible never say “God is a Trinity” or “There are three persons in the one God,” or something equally explicit as an affirmation of the doctrine? And if no such statement is there in the Bible, how can belief in the doctrine be essential for salvation?

The short answer is that it is not quite accurate to say that belief in the doctrine of the Trinity is essential for salvation. Doctrinal accuracy on any theological subject is in any case at most a litmus test or barometer of the genuineness of a person’s salvation, not a prerequisite for receiving the gift of salvation. There is no theology exam on which a person needs a passing score before God will accept that person’s trust in him for salvation. We are saved by God’s grace through faith, that is, through our trust and reliance on God’s gift of salvation in Christ (Rom. 3:21-26; Eph. 2:8-10; Tit. 3:5-8). On the other hand, deviation from the basics of sound Christian doctrine can be evidence that a person is either immature in faith (see Acts 18:25-26) or has not genuinely come into a saving faith relationship with Christ (Rom. 16:17-18). Resistance to doctrinal correction would generally be a tip-off that the latter problem is the case. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Join Michael Patton and Rob Bowman as they continue their discussion on the destiny of the unevangelized.

 

 Standard Podcast [28:35m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (2716)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Join Michael Patton and Rob Bowman as they discuss the destiny of the unevangelized.

 

 Standard Podcast [27:38m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (2178)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Here is an email question that I just received with the response to follow:

Good Afternoon:
I am writing to you under emotional pangs, as I wrestle with the Scriptures, and what I hear from certain others who are Christian.

The husband of a friend of mine committed suicide. My friend, I know well, and her love and defense of the Scriptures. But I only know of her husband’s belief by what she tell me, and his attendance to church. She said he prayed a lot and loved God, her and their children.

But he yielded to suicide. And from what I understand, this was a long term fight to avoid that. He subsequently said he was going for walk, and he was found in a park, after shooting himself.

Here is a man who “claimed” to love Jesus, but his actions to me, deny his having made Jesus Lord and Master over his life. Rather, he must have had Satan as master.

I used to believe in “free will” but after a long study of the Sovereignty of God, I changed my mind. That study took several years. So I can’t say this man had free will unless he remains outside of God’s Lordship, where he does what the flesh does…. denies the power, promises, and love that God has living within us.

The pastor at the services said what my friend said, he is in heaven, due to the Grace of God.

But how can a person be tempted to kill himself then actually follow through with it, if he has Life in him? And Hope. These reign over Death and Hell.

My Response

Thanks for the questions. These are very good questions, and necessary to struggle with.

You said: “But how can a person be tempted to kill himself then actually follow through with it, if he has Life in him?”

How could David have killed Uriah? How could Peter have denied Christ. How could John have fallen down and worshiped an angel? How could Paul struggle with sin the way he does in Roman 7? Why would Paul exhort Christians to “walk in the spirit and therefore not carry out the deeds of the flesh” if it was a foregone conclusion that Christians cannot walk in the flesh? How could the Galatians (whom Paul considers “brethren”) have turned back toward the law after knowing Christ? How could the Corinthians live as spiritual babes, living in strife, jealously, and envy? Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I have heard this since I was a very young Christian. It seemed somewhat reasonable as it was explained to me by pastors in sermons and by Christians as they explained the seriousness of sin. The claim goes something like this:

All sin is so bad that even the smallest of sins deserves eternal punishment in hell. It does not matter if it is losing your temper at a lousy referee, not sharing your Icee, or speeding 36 in a 35, every sin deserves eternal torment in Hell. Why? Although it may seem unreasonable to us (as depraved as we are), it is fitting for a perfectly holy God who cannot be in the site of sin, no matter how insignificant this sin might seem to us. In fact, there is no sin that is insignificant to God. Because He is infinitely holy, beyond our understanding, all sin is infinitely offensive to Him. Therefore, the punishment for all sin must be infinite.

I have to be very careful here since I am going against what has become the popular evangelical way to present the Gospel, but I don’t believe this is true. Not only do I not buy it, I think this, like the idea that all sins are equal in the site of God, is damaging to the character of God, the significance of the cross, and I believe it trivializes sin. Let me explain.

First off, I don’t know of a passage in the Bible that would suggest such a radical view. It would seem that people make this conclusion this way:

Premise 1: Hell is eternal
Premise 2: All people that go there are there for eternity
Premise 3: Not all people have committed the same number or the same degree of sins
Conclusion: All sin, no matter how small, will send someone to hell for all eternity

The fallacy here is that this syllogism is a non-sequitur (the conclusion does not follow from the premises). Could it be that people are in Hell for all eternity based upon who they are rather than what they have done?

Think about this. Many of us believe that Christ’s atonement was penal substitution. This means that it was a legal trade. God counted the sufferings of Christ and that which transpired on the Cross as payment for our sins, each and every one. Therefore, we believe that Christ took the punishment that we deserved. But there is a problem. We are saying that we deserve eternal Hell for one single sin, no matter how small. I don’t know about you, but I have committed enough sins to give me more than my share of life sentences. I have committed sins of the”insignificant” variety (I speed everyday) and significant variety (no description necessary!). So, if Christ were only to take my penalty and if I deserve thousands upon thousands of eternities in hell, why didn’t Christ spend at least one eternity in Hell? Why is it that he was off the Cross in six hours, payment made in full? Combine my sentence with your sentence. Then combine ours with the cumulative sentences of all believers of all time. Yet Christ only suffers for a short time? How do we explain this?

You may say to me that I cannot imagine the intensity of suffering that Christ endured while he was on the cross. You may say that the mysterious transaction that took place was worse than eternity in Hell. I would give you the first, but I will have to motivate you to reconsider the second. Think about it. Do you really believe that the person who has been in hell for 27 billion years with 27 billion more times infinity would not look to the sufferings of Christ and say, “You know what? Christ’s six hours of suffering was bad. It is indeed legendary. But I would trade what I am going through any day for six hours, no matter how horrifying it would be.” You see, what makes hell so bad is not simply the intensity of suffering, but the duration. Christ did not suffer eternally, so there must be something more to this substitution idea and there must be something more to sin.

I believe that Christ did pay our penalty. I believe that hell is eternal. But I don’t believe that one sin sends people to hell for eternity. Sin is trivialized in our day. Sin is first something that we do, not something that we are. In other words, people think of God sitting on the throne becoming enraged (in a holy sort of way) each time that someone breaks the speed limit. It is only the cross of Christ that makes Him look past the eternally damning sin and forgive us. Don’t think that I am undermining the severity of sin, but I am trying to bring focus to the real problem that has infected humanity since the Garden.

The real problem is that we are at enmity with God. From the moment we are born, we inherit the traits of our father Adam. This infectious disease is called sin. This disease issues forth into a disposition toward God that causes us to begin life with our fist in the air, not recognizing His love for us or authority over us. It is rebellion. While this rebellion does act according to its nature, the problem is in the disposition, not so much the acts. When we sin, we are just acting according to the dictates of our corrupt nature. But the worst of it—the worst sin of all—is that we will never lower our fist to God. We are “by nature, children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3) and as a leopard cannot change his spots, so we cannot change our rebellious disposition toward our Creator (Jer. 13:23).

This disposition is that of a fierce enemy that cannot do anything but fight against its foe. Paul describes this:

Romans 8:7-8 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

We are of the “flesh,” therefore we commit deeds according to the flesh. Does this mean that the person in this state does no good at all? Well, it depends on what you mean by “good.” Can an enemy of God love his neighbor? Of course. Enemies of God can and do all sorts of acts that the Bible would consider virtuous. But from the standpoint of their relationship with God, they cannot do any good at all (Rom. 3:12). Giving a drink to someone who is thirsty with the left hand while having your right hand in a fist clinched toward heaven does not count as “good” before God. Why? Because we are in rebellion against Him. This is our problem.

This I propose is the only sin that keeps people in Hell for all eternity.

It is important to understand that hell not is filled with people who are crying out for God’s mercy, constantly hoping for a second chance. People are in hell because they have the same disposition toward God that they had while they were walking the earth. They do not suddenly, upon entrance into Hell, change their nature and become sanctified. They still hate God. People are in hell for all eternity, not because they floated a stop sign, but because their fists are still clinched toward God. They are not calling on His mercy. They are not pleading for a second chance. They are in hell for all eternity because that is where they would rather be. It is their nature. As C.S. Lewis once said, “The doors of hell are locked from the inside.”

Christ, on the other hand, was the second Adam. He did not identify with the first either in disposition or choice. He gained the right to be called the second Adam who would represent His people (Rom. 5:12ff). He is not spending eternity in Hell because he was never infected with the sinful nature which caused him to be at enmity with God. His fist was never clinched toward the heavens.

Will one white-lie send someone to Hell for all eternity? No! To say otherwise trivializes sin and makes God an overly sensitive cosmic torture monger. Sin does send people to Hell. People will be punished for their sins accordingly. But the sin that keeps people in Hell for all eternity is the sin of perpetual rebellion.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

It must be said at the outset that this blog is in no way meant for me to put an essential line of demarcation concerning the issues of Calvinism and Arminianism. It is no secret to most that I hold strongly to the Reformed doctrines of grace. But it is equally no secret that I have deep respect for the godly character and scholarship of many of the Arminian persuasion that believe differently than I. It is my prayer that this post may serve as a place where robust and strong theological conversation can take place in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trustworthy representation. Having said that, I thought it time for me to blog a few thoughts on the Arminian doctrine of Prevenient grace.

Prevenient grace is a doctrine held by those who are theologically identified as Arminian. Prevenient grace literally means “grace that comes before.” Prevenient grace is the Arminian answer to the Calvinistic doctrine of Irresistible grace. It is important to note at the outset that both Calvinists and Arminians believe that people are born sinful. To make this a little more clear, both sides agree that all people are born with an inherent disposition of antagonism toward God. Both Calvinists and Arminians reject what is know as Pelagianism. Pelagius, a fifth-century British monk, taught that people are born neutral, neither good nor bad. Pelagius believed that people sin as a result of example, not nature. Augustine, the primary opponent of Pelagius, responded by teaching that people are not born neutral, but with a corrupted nature. People sin because it is in their nature to sin; they are predisposed to sin. Both Calvinists and Arminians agree with Augustine believing the Scriptures to teach that people are born with a totally corrupt spiritual nature, making their disposition toward God perpetually antagonistic. Therefore, according to both sides, people are absolutely helpless without God’s gracious, undeserved intervention. This is an important mischaracterization of Arminian theology that adherents to my position fail to realize. Arminians believe in the doctrine of total depravity just as strongly as Calvinists.

This adherence to total depravity makes the Arminian doctrine of Prevenient grace necessary. A former Wesleyan theology professor of mine who believed in Prevenient grace once called it the “ingenious doctrine.” Why? Because according to Arminians it allows them to hold to the biblical and orthodox position of total depravity, yet also allows true free will. You see, according to Calvinists such as myself, if people are in such desperate condition, being inclined toward enmity with God from birth, and unable to change their condition on their own (as a leopard cannot change its spots - Jer. 13:23), having no “free will” to choose against this depraved nature, then the only way to answer the question, How is anyone saved? is to answer that the will of God saves them. In other words, if our will could not change our disposition, then God must have changed our will for us. Up to this point, both Calvinists and Arminians could agree. But the Calvinist will say that God’s intervention is radical. In our depraved state, God comes into our lives and opens our eyes to His beauty. This intervention happens by means of saving or “irresistible” grace. In our helpless and angry position, while shaking our fists at God, God sovereignly and autonomously regenerates us. Once regenerated, we trust and love the Lord because our nature has been transformed by Him. Therefore, God is the only one to credit for our salvation seeing as how we did not play a part in its genesis (this is sometimes referred to as monergism). But, according to Calvinists, God does not give this gift of saving grace to all people, only the elect. Otherwise, all would be saved.

How do Arminians deal with our depraved condition? Well, they reject the Calvinistic doctrine of “irresistible” grace believing that it does violence to the necessary freedom that must exist for God to have a true loving relationship with man. But something, nevertheless, must make belief possible. In comes Prevenient grace. This is an enabling grace that comes to the aid of all people so that their disposition can be made capable of receiving the Gospel. It does not save them as the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace, but it makes the savable. In essence, Prevenient grace restores people to a state of ability. As Adam before the fall was not predisposed toward sin, being able to make a true free will decision, so people, once affected by Prevenient grace are brought dispositionally to Garden of Eden type conditions. God’s grace comes to the aid of all fallen sinners restoring freedom of the will. Now, it is up to the individual to make an unbiased choice for or against God. Voila! With the doctrine of Prevenient grace, total depravity and true freedom can be harmonized. Ingenious, right? Not exactly.

I agree with Calvinist commentator and theologian Tom Schreiner that “Prevenient grace is attractive because it solves so many problems [for the Arminian] . . .” but I also believe that it creates more problems than it solves. I am going to briefly list the two major problems that I see with the doctrine of Prevenient grace, but I, as always, want to remind you that there are many great men in the history of the church and in contemporary Evangelical philosophy and theology that do not see things the way I do. I encourage you to seek out their position from them in addition to reading my analysis.

1. Lack of Scripture: The biggest issue that Calvinists have traditionally had with the doctrine of Prevenient grace is its lack of biblical support. Tom Schreiner’s quote above is incomplete; it concludes with this, “. . . but it should be rejected because it cannot be exegetically vindicated.” While Prevenient grace may solve problems and allow Arminians to hold to an orthodox understanding of depravity, the biblical support for the doctrine is very difficult to find. Most Arminians would agree that direct and explicit support from Scripture is not there, but they would say that the concept is necessitated from other explicit teachings. Most importantly, God commands and desires that all people are to repent of their sin (Acts 17:30, 2 Pet. 3:9, et al) and holds them responsible if they do not. This assumes that “all people” have this ability, otherwise God’s desire is hopeless and His command is useless. While there may be some mystery in the fact that God desires the salvation of all and commands all to repent, this does not necessitate nor justify, in my opinion, the insertion of a fairy complected and even more mysterious doctrine of Prevenient grace. In other words, it could be conceded that God commands all people to repent because sin is at issue. People have violated God’s law. This necessitates God to act as God in accordance with His righteous character and reveal the violation of sin, even to those who have no ability to change on their own. In this case, God’s command is true and genuine. Even if no one were to respond, their sin is made manifest and God’s righteousness is exposed through God’s command. It can also be conceded that God does truly desire the repentance of all people, even if people do not have the ability to repent. God’s desire in this case is mysteriously not going to be an active agent in bringing about the salvation of some. Why? I don’t know. But my ignorance in this matter does not justify the implication of Prevenient grace. God can passively desire things that He does not actively will to come about.

2. It does not really solve any problems: Lets assume that we could overcome the difficulties of the lack of Scriptural support of Prevenient grace. Let’s say that I give the Arminians the benefit of the doubt and say that it is possible to interpret the biblical data in such a way that all people receive an enablement that neutralizes their antagonistic disposition toward God. God then would come to each person sometime in their lives and graciously restore their will to the point that they don’t have any predisposed inclination toward rejection or acceptance of the Gospel. What would this look like? First, this “balancing the scales” of the will makes any choice, good or bad, for God or against, impossible. Why? Because each person would be suspended in a state of perpetual indecisiveness. They would have no reason for choosing A rather than B. If there is no reason to choose one over the other, then all choices, if they were made, would be completely arbitrary. You see, we make choices according to who we are. If “free will” of the Arminian variety is going to be responsible for making the choice, and this will is neutralized by Prevenient grace, then there is nothing compelling you (character, upbringing, disposition, the Holy Spirit, genetics, etc.) to make any decision whatsoever. Who you are, the primary factor behind every choice, is taken away. There is no “you” to make the choice. It is arbitrary. It does not solve the “loving relationship”problem to say that God is pleased to have a relationship based upon the arbitrary decisions of people. Therefore, in order to hold to the doctrine of Prevenient grace, one is left with either perpetual indecisiveness or an arbitrary choice. Neither of which solves any problems.

Not only this, but lets do the math. Prevenient grace neutralizes the will, making the will completely unbiased toward good or evil. Therefore, this restored “free will” has a fifty-fifty shot of making the right choice. Right? This must be. The scales are completely balanced once God’s Prevenient grace has come upon a person. What would you expect to see if this were the case? Well, I can flip a coin and pretty much expect that the coin would land on heads just as many times as tails. The same should be the case with salvation. You should expect that just as many people to trust the Lord as those that don’t. But just a cursory look through Scripture tells us that this is not the case. For the most part the number of unbelievers has been dramatically higher than that of believers. Take the time of the flood for instance. How is it that out of millions of people (probably much more), there was only one who was found to be righteous? That would be like me flipping a coin a million (or more) times and it landing on tails 999,999 times and only landing on heads once. Impossible. Christ even explicitly said that there will be and always have been many more people who don’t believe than those that do (Matt. 7:14). How can this be if Prevenient grace created a situation of equal opportunity for all people? It can’t.

Now I don’t want to be accused of building a straw man here so I will attempt to represent how Arminians would respond to this. They would say that the contributing factors that influence people’s freedom are those in the outside world. As the snake came from the outside and influenced Adam’s otherwise neutral will, so also outside influences such as culture and family influence people’s will. Therefore, in the time of Noah, the reason why there was only one righteous person on the earth is because the culture had become so corrupt that God could not be found. This is why God destroyed everyone with the flood. This makes some sense, but in reality it simply re-introduces the same problem that Arminians are desperately attempting to avoid - divine unconditional election.

Let me explain. If outside influences play such a large role in influencing Prevenient-grace-restored-people in their choice for or against God, doesn’t that make God the determining factor in whether they are saved or not? If you had a choice, knowing that outside influences were going to play such a big role in the decisions you make, would you want to be born to a family of believers who teach and live the Gospel in a culture of believers that do the same, or would you rather be placed in a committed Muslim home in a Muslim country where the Gospel is unable to give a testimony of God? In other words, would you rather be placed in a Garden with the snake or without the snake? Of course you would say you want to be placed in the environment where the outside influences for belief in God would be most prominently exemplified. Why? Because you have a better chance. Maybe the odds are not perfect, but they would still be much better. Let’s face it, if you were in the preflood world at the time of Noah, as nice a person as you are today, I seriously doubt that you would have followed Noah rather than the rest of the world.

The problem is that you do not decide where you live or when you will be born. You do not determine your outside influences, God does.

Acts 17:26 ²⁶ And He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation.

This passage tells us that God determines the outside influences that are the ultimate influence, the determining factor, in our choice. God chose where you would be born, when, and to what family you would belong. Therefore, God’s sovereign unconditional choice is still the ultimate and determining cause in our salvation. This is the very problem that Arminians seek to avoid with the doctrine of Prevenient grace.

If Arminians were to respond by saying that God gives more grace to those in the most depraved conditions, this would not explain why it is that people in cultures and families that are godly have a higher percentage of believers. We are back to flipping the coin. It does not work either way.

In conclusion, I don’t believe that there is a reason for Prevenient grace outside of a prejudiced view of what some believe must be in order for the truth to be palatable. Since it really does not solve any problems, it is, in my opinion, superfluous and misguided. Even if it may seem more palatable to say that all people have equal opportunity to accept the Gospel, the palatability of a doctrine does not determine its veracity. This is why I reject the doctrine of Prevenient Grace.

As always, I do hope and pray that I have represented the position fairly and accurately. Any comments are welcome.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Believing in the sovereignty of God is not an option of yes, no, or maybe within the Christian context. If the Bible is our authoritative guide, one must believe that God is sovereign. It is not unlike the issue of predestination. That God predestines people to salvation is not up for debate, what is up for debate is what it means that God predestines.

Both Calvinists and Arminians agree that God is sovereign, but they will often disagree as to what this means.

Here are the four primary options:

1. Meticulous sovereignty: God is the instrumental cause behind every action and reaction there has ever been. In other words, you chose white socks instead of the black socks because God caused it to happen. You have an itch on your eyebrow right now because God is actively causing it. In other words, every molecule that bounces into another is a result of God active agency in being the first and instrumental cause to the action.

This position holds little or no tension with regards to the human will and the divine will.

God is actively controlling everything.

Adherents: Hyper-Calvinists and some Calvinists

2. Providential sovereignty: While God is bringing about his will in everything (Eph 1:11), his will is not the instrumental cause of all that happens. God’s will plays a providential role in “causing” all things. In other words, all that happens happens because God did in some sense will it, but secondary causes are usually the instrumental cause behind the action. In the case of your socks, you chose them because you decided to, but it was also part of God’s will. God allows evil as it is part of his imperfect will to bring about a perfect end, but he is not the instrumental cause of evil.

This position holds much tension with regards to human will and divine will.

God is in control of everything.

Adherents: Calvinists and some Arminians

3. Providential oversight: Here God’s sovereignty is more of an oversight. He has a general plan, but is not married to the details. When necessary, God will intervene in the affairs of humanity to bring about his purpose, but this does not necessarily involve an intimate engagement with all that happens. God does not care what color socks you pick unless it somehow effects his meta plan.

This position holds much tension with regards to human will and divine will.

God could control everything, but only controls some things.

Adherents: Arminians and some Calvinists

4. Influential oversight: Here God’s sovereignty is self-limited. God could control things, but to preserve human freedom, he will not intervene in the affairs of men to the degree that the human will is decisively bent in one direction or another. He is hopeful that his influence will be persuasive to change a person’s heart or to guide them to his will, but is not sure if this will happen. Being all-wise, however, God will make strategic moves in people’s lives that will manipulate the situation to his advantage.

This position holds little or no tension with regards to the human will and the divine will.

God could control everything, but decides only to influence.

Adherents: Open Theist Arminians and some Arminians

Here are some charts that might help.

This first one is God’s relationship to evil. Please note: the definitions below are that of emphasis, not necessarily exclusivity—there will be overlap with some of the concepts.

I write this for many reason:

1. To give the spectrum of belief with regard to the issue of divine sovereignty.

2. To clear up some misconceptions about both Calvinists and Arminians. Most Arminians see Calvinists as only associated with number 1 (meticulous sovereignty). As well, most Calvinists see Arminians as associated necessarily with number 4 (influential sovereignty). To do this is to construct many possible straw-men representations.

Notice, according to my argument, an Arminian holding to number 2 can actually hold to a stronger view of divine sovereignty than a Calvinist holding to number 3 (although this is not typical). If that does not confuse your categories, I don’t know what will!

3. To create some new charts!

Where do you stand?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

According to N.T. Wright, justification is a subset of election, which, in turn, is an issue of ecclesiology. Justification therefore is intrinsically tied to being a part of the covenant community. Jews were by definition part of this community and, because of this, they were justified de facto. In Wright’s understanding, the Jews of Paul’s day, including Paul himself, were not seeking to justify themselves by their own works, but to remain a part of the covenant community. Therefore, the traditional Augustinian/Reformed view of justification by works vs. justification by faith is not what is a issue with Paul. In other words, the Jews never believed that they were justified by works. Wright believes that justification = “To be declared righteous due to initiation into the covenant community,” not “To be de righteous do to the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.”

Piper argues that such a definition cannot bear the weight of the New Testament text, especially Paul. Using Romans 3 and 4, Piper demonstrates that justification is not a recognition of a status with in a covenant community, but a declaration of a position before God. Piper notes, “. . . [J]ustification does not denote or mean covenant membership, but it does imply covenant membership” (p. 44).

This leads to a further review of Wright’s understanding of Justification in Chapter three. Here Piper gets to the heart of the issue admitting that the nuances of the covenant community definition of justification are not as serious, but provide a framework for Wright’s understanding of ultimate justification being yet future.

This eschatological view of justification departs from the traditional forensic view in that justification is not something that people acquire when they trust in Christ, but that which people may acquire during judgment. The vindication of God does not come at the cross, but during the final judgment. While the judgment came at the cross, those who place their faith in Christ will not be ultimately justified until the end. This justification provides us with a status, but not a reality of being righteous as God is righteous. This is in distinction to the traditional Protestant understanding of imputation, where Christ’s righteousness is declared to be ours immediately upon faith in Christ.

Piper defends the traditional view of imputation by posing that Wright fails to see righteousness not only in terms of what God does, but who God is (p. 63). Piper defines God’s righteousness as “his unwavering commitment to act for the sake of his glory.” This righteousness is given to us through imputation.

I agree with Piper. While I appreciate the questions that Wright brings to the table, it seems that he fails to understand the theological implications that are tied to the doctrine of imputation. Imputation has necessary connections to Christ’s role as the second Adam. Our identification with the first Adam is actual and forensic at the same time. We are born sinful with respect to our nature and have been declared guilty because the human race, in Adam, has been declared guilty, and we are part of that race. In this sense, we are hidden in the first Adam’s unrighteousness. Call this imputation, call it identification, call it headship, call it whatever seems best (terminology is not something I would die for), but we must understand how we are connected to Adam outside of Christ. We are found “in Adam” without justification.

Romans 5 is certainly not about our identification with a covenanted community, but with a representative head. This is where I really don’t understand why Wright parts ways with the doctrine of imputation. Christ, as the second Adam, serves as our new representative head. I guess one could say that Christ is the covenanted community just as was Adam, but this would just be semantics and would fail to sufficiently recognize the differences.

Whatever the Jews believed at the time, Paul sought to correct this by showing that the headship of Adam was the problem not only of the Jews, but the entire human race. Death was a result of the sin of Adam. Righteousness and life is the result of the righteousness of Christ. Just as Adam’s sin was imputed to the human race, so is Christ’s righteousness imputed to all who believe, in the same way. That is the key. If it is not the same way, then Paul’s argument of Romans 5 makes no sense.

Since Christ is the second Adam, we must be found “in Him” by a legal forensic declaration. While we don’t have a righteousness that is our own, we have been declared righteous (justified), through the imputation of an alien righteousness. Without this imputation, we would forever be identified with the first Adam and, hence, his sin, resulting in death.

In this, the imputation is both a biblical and theological necessity.

I don’t think we have misread Paul, even if our understanding of this is not perfect. I think that their is a sense which we can talk about “future justification” as a final vindication of the forensic justification that has already taken place.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

John Piper has proven once again that underneath his passionate commitment to exposition and inspiration, his thinking, judgment, and exegetical rigor is not clouded by emotional commitments and traditional brick walls. Piper represents that rare combination between the pastor, theologian, and exegete. His most recent work The Future of Justification is a scholarly defense of the Gospel in the wake that has left many scrambling toward the reinterpretation of justification by NT Wright and those who are mesmerized by the “New Perspective on Paul” (henceforth NPP).

Piper describes the purpose of his book: ”I hope that the mere existence of this book will the stakes in the minds of many and promote serious study and faithful preaching of the gospel, which includes the good news of justification by faith apart from works of the law (Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16).” Piper believes that the NPP as represented by NT Write is another Gospel. Yet at the same time Piper does not assume that being justified means that one has a right view of Justification: “I do not infer Wright’s defective view of justification to mean that he is not himself justified.” I appreciate his perspective. Yet he is quick to point out the seriousness of departure from a pure representation of the Gospel.

Piper begins by giving eight dangers of Wrights NPP:

1. The Gospel Is Not about How to Get Saved
2. Justification Is Not How You Become a Christian
3. Justification Is Not the Gospel
4. We Are Not Justified by Believing in Justification
5. The Imputation of God’s Own Righteousness Makes No Sense At All
6. Future Justification Is on the Basis of the Complete Life Lived
7. First-century Judaism Had Nothing of the Alleged Self-Righteous and Boastful Legalism
8. God’s Righteousness Is the Same as His Covenant Faithfulness

The successive chapters deal with each of these dangers. Before this, he give a warning about methodology seeking to address the problem of emphasizing on a particular exegetical conclusion without balancing this out systematically with the rest of Scripture. According to Piper, exegesis, Biblical theology, and systematic theology are all ultimately necessary in coming to a valid understanding of truth. Implied is a direct warning to Wright and other NPPers to move beyond their focus on cultural analysis of a particular text so that the Scriptures can speak in wholistically. He also warns against the growing tendency among scholars and lay-people alike to disregard traditional understanding in favor of novelty. While not disregarding anything new, Piper says that older establish interpretations must be allowed to glow “with similar exuberance” (p. 37).

Wright essentially believes that “discussions of justification in much of the history of the church, certainly since Augustine, got off on the wrong foot at least in terms of understanding Paul and they have stayed there ever since” (p. 37). In essence, Wright believes that Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox have misunderstood Paul, Judaism, and Justification for the last 1500 years. Wrights courage to challenge traditional understandings with “fresh” “innovative” thought is cautioned against by Piper with an admonishment concerning out love affair with novelty: “My own assessment of the need of the church at this moment in history is different from Wright’s: I think we need a new generation of preachers who are not only open to new light that God may shed upon his word, but are also suspicious of their own love of novelty and are eager to test all their interpretations of the Bible by the wisdom of the centuries.” He goes on, “The point here is simply to caution that his celebration of ‘delighted innovation’ may confirm a neophilia of our culture that that needs balancing with the celebration of the wisdom of the centuries precisely for the sake of faithfulness to the biblical text.”

I find this exhortation alone worth the price of the book.

Considering people’s “love affair” with the novelty (”neophilia”):

• What examples have you come across with regards to this tendency?
• How have you been tempted to be caught of in this love affair?
• Why do you think we have this tendency to be neophilites?
• What are the promises and perils of neophilia?

More to come.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

My view of what I call “progressive orthodoxy” allows for maturation and development in our understanding of orthodoxy. Here is the definition I gave in the last blog:

Progressive Orthodoxy: The belief that the ultimate authority for the Christian faith is found only in the Scriptures (sola Scriptura) and that orthodoxy is a progressive development of the Church’s understanding of the Scriptures. Progressive orthodoxy, like paleo-orthodoxy, seeks the consensus of the Church throughout time for the core essential theological issues, finding most of these in the early church expressed in the ecumenical councils. But it also believes that our understanding of these issues can and may mature both through articulation and added perspective. This "maturing" does not amount to any essential change, but only progressive development as theological issues are brought to the table of church history through controversy and exegetical discovery.

Here is how it looks so far:

The question are many at this point. Here are some of them:

• How does this “maturing” process take place? This is not an easy question to answer for every tradition will claim that their maturation is the correct one.
• Once a doctrine as “matured” does this mean that it’s mature form is the “new” orthodoxy?
• What if someone rejects the maturation in favor of its immatured form? Are they still “orthodox” in an immature sense?
• What if some person, tradition, or institution favors a form that has matured slightly differently? Are they “unorthodox”?

Let me give you some examples:

I believe in doctrine of salvation by faith alone (sole fide). This means that the sole instrumental cause of justification, from a human standpoint, is faith without the addition of any works, including baptism. But this doctrine, as such, was not fully articulated until the time of the Reformation. It was not until then, due to the controversy that arose, that the church was forced to mature in this particular aspect of soteriology (salvation). But I have a problem. The church, until this time, generally accepted some form of works-based justification, whether it be through baptismal regeneration, or the addition of some other good work.

The same thing can be said about my view of the atonement. I believe in what is called the vicarious substitutionary view of the atonement. This means that I believe that Christ served as the substitute for man (or the redeemed), taking their punishment and making it his own while on the cross. Yet this doctrine only existed in seed form until the time of Anselm. Anselm, in the 11th century, introduced the church to the “satisfaction” theory of the atonement. This was more fully developed later by John Calvin. It now goes by the name “substitutionary” or “penal” atonement. What of those who did not believe such before Anselm or Calvin?

For both of these (and others), I have a few options:

1. I could say that before these doctrines were understood and articulated according to my current Protestant understanding, no one was truly saved or, at the very least, orthodox. (Radical Restorationism)

2. I could say that these doctrines did exist before, just in unarticulated form. (Oden?)

3. I could say that these doctrines did exist in the earliest church, but the church became corrupted and lost them. (Reformers)

4. I could say that their immature state was sufficient for the time, but is now insufficient. (Conservative Progressives)

5. I could say that these developments, while true, don’t really matter with regards to defining orthodoxy. (Emerging)

I am torn by some of these. The only one that I reject outright is #1. I also have some problems with #4. The rest may contain truth. In fact, the answer may lie in a combination of 2-5. It depends on the issue at hand. In other words, I don’t think any one of these comprehensively explains the maturation of orthodoxy for all issues. Some beliefs I believe were held by the early church and later corrupted (e.g. sola Scriptura). Some were just assumed without question and the lack of questioning amounted to their immaturity (e.g. baptismal regeneration). Some, once questioned, did reveal orthodoxy as it should be understood by all (sola fide). Some came into later maturation, but should not have any bearing on historic Christian orthodoxy (Calvinism, dispensationalism, rapture, etc.).

Next, I will try to chart out (you know how I love charts!) the way this would look with respect to Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox orthodoxy.

Go to Part 4

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I have someone who is very close to me who will not be broken. I don’t really know how I desire him to be broken, but conversations with him are always very frustrating. Maybe I want to crack his head open and see what is inside, to gaze where only God can see . . . I don’t know. What I want to know is Does he really know Christ? My heart says “I hope” but my mind says “It can’t be.”

If you were to look at the life of this friend—his entire life—you would not suspect that he has ever broached the throne room of God. You would not expect that he has ever humbly bowed at the cross, understanding his own condition or the power of its shadow. I have never seen him read his Bible and I have never heard him honor Christ with his words. His life is one of constant pursuit of what the world has to offer and it completely controls his emotional state. Comforting him with spiritual talk is useless as you will get the gaze of ridicule and quickly share in the humility of having your conversation cut short by awkward silence.

Yet, when push comes to shove, this guy will give you his testimony. Every once in a while he will tell you why you don’t need to be worried about his spiritual condition. He will confidently tell you of the time when he was twelve years old and walked the aisle at Church to accept the Gospel. Once his tale is complete, he has exhausted his ability to have a spiritual conversation and the awkward silence ensues.

Is this guy saved? Can it be that he truly walked the aisle so long ago and has not flexed a spiritual muscle since? Why is he so secure in his salvation?

The only comfort I ever received concerning his spirituality was a list of verses on a small piece of paper hanging in his office. The heading of the paper read “The Security of the Believer.” On it were all references to those passages that teach “once-saved-always-saved.” This unqualified doctrine was something that he was taught immediately after his saving experience. This is what he banked on.

I have changed quite a bit over the years with regards to this doctrine. Don’t start squirming fellow Calvinists, there are not many things I believe in stronger than the security of the believer. But there are some who do need to squirm.

I am going to tell the “Parable of the Race.” You may have heard it before, but I am going to modify it quite a bit for our purpose.

“In a town of boredom called Mundane, there was a great announcement. It was the announcement of a race. A great race that all could enter. A race that would rescue them from boredom. Most people did not believe that such an event would be held in Mundane so they scoffed. Others immediately prepared with great enthusiasm and joy.

Both the scoffers and the enthusiasts arrived at the appointed place on the day of the race. The scoffers sat and watched while the others prepared to run by stretching and making sure their shoes were tied. They lined up looking ahead with the intensity, fear, and excitement that accompanied such an event.

The gun sounded and off they went. Yet something very curious and unexplainable happened. They all stopped running after they had passed the starting line. Not only this, but they acted very peculiar. One person fell on his knees crying, thanking God that he crossed the starting line. Others gave each other high fives and hugs shouting, “Hooray, we are now race runners, we are now race runners.” Some shook hands and congratulated each other. One group relaxed and complemented one another on how well they crossed the starting line. Five or six others all gathered together and formed a prayer circle. They prayed that others would cross the starting line as they had.

Many others wanted to experience this joy so they decided to start the race as well. They were immediately stopped by the well-wishers who had started before them. They decided to stay as well. After a few days, there were people handing out pamphlets along with a certificate to all those who crossed the starting line. The pamphlet told them that once they had started the race they were guaranteed to finish. The certificate was to recognize their achievement in finishing the race even before they finished.

After a month or so, there were so many who had crossed the starting line that they decided to build a town right there. They called this town “Starting Line.”

The spectators were confused. “I thought a race had to be finished,” they said to one another. They interviewed the people of Starting Line. “Why did you start the race and not continue?” they would ask. This made the people of Starting Line very uncomfortable. They would immediately show their certificate saying that they were guaranteed to finish. When people would encourage them to run the rest of the race, they would be ridiculed for not trusting God. They were called legalists and were accused of trusting too much in their own ability to finish the race.

Finally, many in the crowd became fed up with those in Starting Line and began to run the race without them.”

This parable illustrates a problem that we have in the church today. There are many people who are very comfortable in their profession of faith they made so long ago. So comfortable are these people that they never make any further moves in their walk with God. Like my friend, they rely upon the “once-saved-always-saved” doctrine that they were taught immediately upon conversion.

I don’t have a problem with teaching once-saved-aways-saved, but I would qualify it a great deal. Let me be plain and clear. The doctrine of God’s grace is radical. It is absolutely radical. It is unbelievably radical. God gives us an unspeakable gift free of charge. We don’t owe God anything for it. Neither is it on lay-away. In fact, it would be very offensive to God for us to even try to pay for it. It is priceless. Yet this gift, from a human point of view, is received by faith. Faith is the evidence of our salvation. It is the instrumental cause of our salvation. Faith is the evidence that we have entered into the race. But what we fail to emphasize is often more destructive to the Christian faith than not telling the Gospel at all. We fail to tell people that there is a false kind of faith. There is a faith that crosses the starting line, but never completes the race. Their is a faith that does not save.

Paul encourages the Corinthians:

“Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you– unless indeed you fail the test?” (2 Cor. 13:5)

The author of Hebrews says:

“Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it.” (Heb. 4:1)

In Revelation, it is only those who overcome who are promised eternal life:

“He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” (Rev. 2:7; emphasis mine)

James speaks about a faith that does not save:

“What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?” (Jam. 2:14)

Remember in the parable of the soils in Matthew 13, there are three types of seeds that sprout (start the race), but only one truly takes root (finishes the race).

I believe that once a person is truly saved, he or she will never lose that salvation. John 10:28 is all I need for this. Yet I think we need to warn people that not all faith is true faith.

If you have crossed the starting line, great! Bravo, hooray, and congrats. But, from a human point of view, this is no guarantee that you will cross the finish line. The doctrine is not called “Once-Saved-Always-Saved,” but “Perseverance of the Saints.” Both need to be balanced. We all need to question whether or not our faith is the kind of faith that saves. We do a great disservice to the Gospel to make it a priority to immediately alleviate any anxiety or doubt of salvation in those who profess faith. We may be giving them a false sense of security that they will take to their grave. This may be what happens to my friend. I fear the worst. On the day of judgment they will say “Lord, Lord, didn’t I cross the starting line? Wasn’t I a race runner?” He will respond, “Depart from me. I never knew you.”

There is a healthy tension concerning our salvation that should follow us our entire Christian walk.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Since the blog “The Day I Became a Calvinist“ is way too long, I thought that I would take a very good question concerning the tension that Calvinism allows and post it along with my answer here. I guess it is Calvinism week here at Parchment and Pen!

_____________________________________ 

Michael . . . Please explain the statement, “The point is that Calvinism is the only system that allows tension.”

How does Calvinism allow for tension? I am trying, I just cannot see it.

I do see both sides of the issue and really appreciate why people struggle and fall out on both sides trying very hard to stay true to the text. Yet, I still cannot understand how Calvinism allows for tension. 

___________________________

My answer: 

Calvinism is the only system that can allow for tension. I am not saying that all Calvinists do. Some, for example, will deny God’s universal love to resolve the tension concerning God’s love and His unconditional election. But the most respectable Calvinists that I know of do not. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Since the blog “The Day I Became a Calvinist“ is way too long, I thought that I would take a very good question concerning the tension that Calvinism allows and post it along with my answer here. I guess it is Calvinism week here at Parchment and Pen!

_____________________________________ 

Michael . . . Please explain the statement, “The point is that Calvinism is the only system that allows tension.”

How does Calvinism allow for tension?  I am trying, I just cannot see it.

I do see both sides of the issue and really appreciate why people struggle and fall out on both sides trying very hard to stay true to the text.  Yet, I still cannot understand how Calvinism allows for tension. 

___________________________

My answer: 

Calvinism is the only system that can allow for tension. I am not saying that all Calvinists do. Some, for example, will deny God’s universal love to resolve the tension concerning God’s love and His unconditional election. But the most respectable Calvinists that I know of do not.

Arminianism, as a theological system, solves the tension once and for all by saying that God loves everyone, therefore, He could not have unconditionally elected only some. For this reason, they will define election in a conditional sense. He must have elected all "in Christ" or His election must be based upon foreknowledge. Either way, conditional election is a necessary part of the Arminian system. Therefore, tension does not exist.

My point is that Calvinism does not have this “problem.” It is important to understand that a denial of God’s universal love is not a necessary component of Calvinism (even though some do). Neither is a denial of universal atonement. One can be a Calvinist and believe that Christ’s atonement has universal application, whether it be ontological (four point Calvinists), potential (Calvin himself), or some nuanced practical (John Piper).

In the end, you can be a Calvinist who affirms both unconditional election and God’s universal love, atonement, and desire for none to be lost. I know it sounds contradictory, but this is my point. Calvinism allows for this tension. John Piper, Tom Schriener, and Michael Horton, and other contemporary Calvinists, including myself, believe that God loves all people, does not want any to perish, but has only elected some. We must live with this tension.

Tension does not make the view right, but it does evidence, to me, exegetical integrity. It is like text criticism. When people are comparing manuscripts that don’t agree, the temptation is to go with the reading that resolves any tension. But good text critics know that this lacks integrity. That is why one of the basic principles of text criticism is “The harder reading is usually the best.” Usually is the key word. While Calvinism allows for “the harder interpretation,” it does not mean that it is the correct one. But one must take this into consideration.

Arminians, because of their absolute and necessary denial of unconditional individual election, have alleviated their system of such problems. In other words, they go with the reading that resolves any apparent conflict—theological or emotional. My own thoughts are that their system is, to some degree, as it is defended today, a product of the enlightenment. Why? Because they can’t live with the unresolved tension. Either God loves all people and has conditionally elected everyone, or God does not love all people and has only unconditionally elected those He loves.

It is the same thing with Jehovah’s Witnesses with regards to the doctrine of the Trinity (although, not the same level with regards to orthodoxy). JWs cannot live with the tension of their being one God and three persons. Therefore, they deny the persons to resolve this tension. The problem is that they have to deny clear biblical teaching to do so.

There are five main things that I think serve as illustrations as to how I believe the Christian faith, properly grounded in Scripture, must live with tension (though not contradiction):

1. Creation ex nihilo (out of nothing). How can something come from nothing?
2. Trinity. How can God be one and three?
3. Incarnation. How can an eternal timeless God become man?
3. Hypostatic Union. How can one person have two complete natures, God and man?
3. Election. How can God have elected only some but love all?

Each time these issues are resolved, I believe that more than likely you have embraced a false doctrine of some sort and to some degree. Therefore, don’t try to resolve it. Just live with the tension.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

There are a few things that people never forget. The details of certain tragedies and trials stay by your side and the vivid details remind you of their significance. People remember where they were when the planes hit the World Trade Centers. I was leaving for work and glanced at the TV. People remember where they were when the first space-shuttle exploded. I was in eighth grade down by the snack machine getting Bugles. I remember where I was when I was told about my sisters death. I was driving down 635 just passing Preston Rd. I remember where I was when I was told about my mothers aneurysm. I was sitting on the couch on the middle cushion with cereal in my mouth. We remember certain events because of their significance. Unfortunately, most of these are tragic. It is funny to bring this up in this context, but most Christians remember where they were when they first heard about God’s election - predestination. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Provided by
 
D.A. LaGue

In 1734, Jonathan Edwards, theologian and colonial pastor in Northampton Massachusetts, found his congregation in an ‘unusual ruffle,’ over the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Edwards is considered by many to be the greatest theologian in American history and has been described as the most brilliant thinker this continent has ever produced. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

First Things is brought to you live on Connection Gate

Join us today as week seek to understand why Paul and James seem to be at odds concerning justification.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

First Things is brought to you live on Connection Gate

Join us as we talk about the recent discussions concerning Roman Catholic and Evangelical relations. Here we will discuss why Catholics believe in justification by faith and works. (Or at least we will try to get to it!)

Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!