Category: Calvinism

Four Knows for Talkin’ Theology

Writing blog entries about theology seems so easy on the surface. Identify a particular point or doctrine that you want to share, defend, or critique and lay out your thoughts. The thesis can be drawn from Scripture, a systematic, or the writings of another theologian followed by an explanation of the position that the writer wishes to stake. The words that underscore that position can be the author’s own or quotes/texts pulled from other sources and cited. All of this is well and good, but theology is not the same as discussing baseball, it has life altering implications.

image Because theology concerns God, we who choose to write on the topic have a responsibility that goes far beyond the ethic of the normal social contract. Theology impacts lives even when it is unstated and has become a cultural norm. Before we defend, critique, or even propose a specific theological construct or an entire framework, we must consider the impact of our position in light of its impact on God’s people. We are not operating in a vacuum where these beliefs and behaviors affect no one, a fact that we need to carefully consider before pushing the first words out into the cybersphere.

While I’m certain that I have exhibited a disregard for each of these at some point in my time as a theologian (and we’re all theologians), here are four rules that I try to apply to anything I do in this sphere, whether it is writing here or for publication, in preaching, and in the way I live out the theology. You might find them helpful as well or may have some additions that we can all utilize.

Know Your Theology Beyond Proof Texts

God did not limit his revelation to specific texts in the Scriptures. The first rule in theology is to consider every doctrine or position in light of the entirety of God’s revelation. Though you may disagree with his theology, Wesley utilized what has been labeled his Quadrilateral as a way of studying and organizing his understanding. This included the use of the complete Scripture (OT & NT), Tradition in the form of church history and the Spirit’s movement, Reason in the form of rational thinking and sensible interpretation, and Experience in examining a Christian’s personal and communal journey in Christ. Proof texting often fails to consider the ever widening circles of context and more often than not, another text can be found to show the point in a different light.

Know Any Theology That You Are Going to Label as Incorrect

I am less and less surprised at the number of critiques that I encounter in which the author rails against a certain theology or doctrine by using caricatures or incorrect representations of the belief (this happens with political discussion as well.) Before taking a critical position, we must have a relatively thorough and accurate knowledge of the development, the scriptures, and the persons involved in the doctrine we critique. If we rely on the opinions of others or a surface deep understanding of the doctrine, knowing only that it differs from our own, we do not serve God well in simply creating dissent among the body. Worse yet, we promulgate a shallow belief system that risks getting adopted by others. As an example, survey the number of times that Mormonism is declared heretical by an author who does not know the history of belief system or how many times Arminian belief is associated with Pelagius.

Know the Practical Application of Your Theology

All theology is practical. Every aspect of God has some effect on His relationship with His people. We are incorrect to treat theology as separate from life. The doctrines and beliefs that we hold are meant to affect our lives in practical ways, shaping the way in which we interact with the world, other people, and God himself. Arguing the different views of Atonement is one thing but how often do we think about the practical impact of believing the Penal substitution view against the Ransom, Moral Influence, Example, or Governmental positions? Each of these beliefs has a different impact on the worldview of the believer and how he or she interacts with God and the world.

Know God

This would seem to go without saying but it is so easy to find ourselves devoting enormous energy to knowing about God and less and less time knowing God. I can express my thoughts about my wife and child very well because I know them intimately. I have a deep relationship with each of them and have lived in close proximity for many, many years. Writing about your family would be much different because I can know only what you let me know or I can observe for myself. The same applies to those who choose to write about God; we must know Him intimately. We must be in tight relationship with Him and His Spirit. Not only will the Spirit guide our work but will also help us in withdrawing from battles that our worldly reactive side would choose to engage.

God bless each and every one of you who furthers the work of the kingdom in your writing and thinking. If I’ve missed or misstated something, I’ll look forward to reading your suggestions.

Calvinists and the Political Left

Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. (Eph 4:3)

It’s taken me awhile to understand the uneasy feeling I get when I get the urge to post a comment to a Calvinist blog. Will my words be considered as a Brother in Christ or will I be vilified and subjected to ad hominem attacks that avoid the content of the post? Anymore these days, I am finding more and more that some of those theobloggers who claim the name Calvinist or Reformed default to the latter. What has brought this to a head is the current hyper-focus on politics due to the back to back conventions and specifically, the fevered attempts to defile the name and reputation of Governor Palin over the past few days. Sadly, what I have discovered is that there is a body of these Calvinist bloggers who are indiscernible from the left-wing chattering classes. This clique will brook no wavering from the TULIP line, refusing to engage any idea that challenges it and, because the challenger is considered to be somehow heretical, he or she must must be burned in the electronic town center.

Contrary to the repeated calls to unity within the body that can be found in the Scriptures, there is an increasing body within the Body that have chosen to attack rather than respond. I’ll give you a recent example (and yes I know, I should have known better) which occurred when I foolishly chose to leave a comment on the Pyromaniacs blog. In an attempt to stir further dissension within the body, a question was posted inviting response from Arminian readers. The trouble with the question was that it was a false dilemma; Arminian theology offered no different view on the topic than that of the Calvinist framework and I wrote just that in my response. Expecting a biblical challenge or theological counterpoint, imagine how disheartening it was to check back later to find that the entire response was an attempt to make a mockery of my screen name.

It’s a bit troubling to find this in any context but to get this response by the Pyros main man Phil Johnson certainly diminishes any positive reputation that he might have gained outside of his close knit little community. Attempting to misstate the intention of my Greek to English transliteration meant (ironically in their eyes) Slave Christ, a perfect definition of Arminian theology. Mistakenly responding back that this obviously not the intent, referring to Rom 1:1 in the Greek, and restating the original answer to the provocative question, my gift was a further lambasting that remained off topic.

I don’t share this to gain sympathy. I’m a big boy and mature enough to handle people like this. The reason that I post this is because the level of conversation about God should not be descending into the the same kind of rancor, vitriol, and immature attack mentality that we see from the left wing of the political establishment and their media sycophants aimed toward those of the opposing party. Personal attacks and hyperbolic caricatures replace substantive discussion of an issue. The assumption is that if you do not agree with the liberal mindset, well you simply are too stupid to even engage and you must be the recipient of character destruction and mockery.

Christ didn’t die for a Church divided by this kind of worldly dissension. There are topics to which forceful comment and righteous anger are appropriate (Todd Bentley for example) in a Christian context but theological differences on non-essentials are not among them. To mirror the world’s approach to discussing differences runs counter to being in the world but not of it. Shall we all just go to our corners and talk only amongst ourselves?

Update: Check out the comments at the end of this posting. While not as mocking, you can witness how the discussion that disintegrates in not on how the post writer constructed his argument or the content of his statements. The Calvinist cries martyrdom (no doubt scrawling Ichabod on the doorframe) as he leaves the conversation. Talk scripture in context, don’t send me to Pink or Piper. We’ve got learn to think for ourselves rather than relying on other theologians all the time.

Challenging God’s Sovereignty II

The fact that God is sovereign need not be established, as I previously wrote here. The sovereignty of God is an essential aspect of who He is and it is not contingent on any other thing. We shall leave that as an established fact.

To proceed in light of the already established fact of non-contingency, we can state that God’s sovereignty in no way depends on either the fact or mode of election. Shank states this best when he says “God is sovereign, regardless of whether He elects, or does not elect…whether he elects some, or all…whether election is conditional, or unconditional.” Does the establishment of this sovereignty then demand, as Calvin and his framework do, the corollary doctrine of unconditional election?

Calvin says “God’s grace is illustrated by the fact that he does not give away salvation indiscriminately, but gives to some what he denies to others. Ignorance of this great truth detracts from God’s glory and prevents true humility.” (Institutes 3:21:1) He continues, pointing to Romans 11:5-6 for his evidence, “Paul maintains that the principle can be understood only if works are set on one side and God is seen to elect those whom he has predestined.” (ibid) [Romans 11:5-6: So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.] Calvin’s contingent will also take us to Romans 9 as proof of (the already established) sovereignty, most often to 9:6-29.

As we search the scriptures for further word on God’s sovereign love and choices, we also find it in evidence here:

For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. (Rom 11:32)

and here

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. (Titus 2:11)

and here

This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:3-4)

There are numerous other texts that propose a different election, one that is corporate and universal and conditional. Does this election challenge the sovereign God? In no way! The method or basis of election has no bearing on the truth of His sovereignty. Given the scriptural voices that emphasize the universal nature of grace, should the doctrine that establishes a conditional election rooted in an assumed decree continue to stand? Is God who clearly biblically offers an election in Christ universally to all men, challenged in His sovereign choices by this very offer?

The Glib Calvinist Needs to be Reformed

As I prepared to educate myself in the areas in which Calvinist believers are victimized as portrayed by Craig Brown in The Five Dilemmas of Calvinism, I thumbed through the chapters to get a feel for what was coming in the little book. The casually vituperative author appears unsophisticated with regard to the important distinctions between Calvinist and Arminian theology as suggested by the first passage my eyes landed upon;

We will look at each of the five points of Calvinism, which are summarized by the acronym TULIP, and the Arminian response. (Arminians also have a flower, the daisy, because their doctrinal system says, in effect, “He loves me, He loves me not.”)

Perhaps I should just go ahead and offer this up on eBay for a quarter right now…

Challenging God’s Sovereignty

God is sovereign, period. Challenges to the contrary are often interesting and fiery, like an argued third strike in a close contest. Voices will be raised, faces brought into close proximity and colorful words and phrases will pepper the debate but, in the end, the conclusion is the same. God is sovereign, the plate is vigorously swept and it’s ‘batter up!’ 

God is the supreme, superior being accountable and subordinate to no other. If any of these were not true, He would not be God. It is primary among His attributes as we consider the nature of God. “He is before all things and in Him all things hold together.” (Col 1:17) In the course of theological discourse, particularly with respect to election, Calvinists aver that Arminian theology strips God of his sovereignty and the Arminians in turn, accuse Calvinists of viewing sovereignty as God’s exclusive attribute, dismissing other aspects of His character. Neither extreme is true, of course, but it is the various forms of this argument that comprise one of the major components of the superheated rhetoric that serves as theological discussion in the world of the Theobloggers.

God’s sovereignty means that he is completely free to act in any way He wishes in accord with His own nature. He can create, order, and ordain anything in any fashion that he wants to. At the same time, he cannot do what is not possible (according to the way he has ordered the universe) such as making a circle a square nor will he act in any way contrary to His character. We can agree with the plain reading of the following section  of the Westminster Confession of Faith which states:

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatever comes to pass”

Given the truths that God rules over all things (1 Chron 29:11-12, Ps 29:10) and He is in control of all things (Job 42:2, Dan 4:35) why then is the issue of human free choice often portrayed as a despicable attempt to wrest His sovereignty away? The answer, which sounds odd, is that it cannot be, because the sovereignty of God need not be established and therefore cannot be contested. It simply is. As I stated earlier, it is an essential attribute of who and what He is. Because it [sovereignty] is not contingent upon any action that He takes, God’s sovereignty is not challenged by whether he elects or not, whether he elects some or all, and whether that election is conditional or unconditional. It is not contested by the free will of men nor is it opposed by the belief in limited atonement.

Now, we can begin the discussion without the threat of that canard.

John 3:16 ~ Hope for All?

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (NIV)

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJV)

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. (NASB)

Perhaps the best known all Bible verses, John 3:16 is a “twenty-six-word parade of hope: beginning with God, ending with life, and urging us to do the same.” (Lucado) It is a safe bet to say that a majority of Christians have memorized this verse and though not many would correctly place it in the context of a conversation with Nicodemus, most would be able to apply the first rule of hermeneutics to it; the plain reading of a passage is usually the best. Theologically, Arminians will point to the passage containing this verse ( 3:16-18 ) as one of many supporting a universal atonement while Calvinists will draw a finer point to the verse saying that Jesus was simply teaching only that atonement was not racially specific, that it would include both Jews and Gentiles (i.e. the World).

I recently read an exegetical study of this passage that was presented as the authoritative, final word (implied by the author and insisted upon by the blog poster who archived it) in the Calvinist/Arminian appropriation debate over the passage. Logically, a reader’s approach where there seem to be two clear-cut sides to a debate is to assume that if one side is right, the other must be wrong. Perhaps (as Blomberg, Klein, & Hubbard point out), given a specific text, the reader must consider the possibility that the verse has only a single meaning or whether it may accommodate several possible meanings on multiple levels. While going to the Greek is a necessary step in studying a New Testament verse, there is much more to consider when settling on the meaning of a passage. Responsible hermeneutics stands against the tendency to “proof-text” and pull verses out of their context and overall meaning in order to support or refute a specific doctrine.

Context

The verse we are studying comes from the widely beloved Gospel of John, the book in the quartet of canonical gospels that stands apart from the Synoptics. Though there is no explicit claim of authorship within the book itself, it is generally accepted to have been written by the apostle John, “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Dating for the letter ranges from early second century ( 110-125 ) to mid to late first century (50 – 95), the exact choice of which does not affect the interpretation of our passage. What is important to note in examining the time in which the gospel is written is that an accurate interpretation is reliant upon an understanding of Judaism in the first century as it forms a thread throughout the book.

An outline of the book most often divides it into two larger parts: The Book of Signs (miracles) chapters 1 – 12 and The Book of Glory 13 – 20 with an epilogue in chapter 21. The subsections within the Book of Signs shows Jesus interacting with the institutions of Judaism and showing how His coming replaces a  Jewish symbol with something infinitely greater (water->living water; manna->living bread, etc.).  We find the verse under study in the Book of Signs in the third ‘sign, following the miracle at Cana where the Lord changes water into wine and the cleansing and the replacement of the Temple for worship. In the third sign, the Lord is approached by the Pharisee Nicodemus. Here, Jesus will reveal that his “glorification on the cross will be the turning point in which Judaism discovers its dissolution and renewal.” (Burge)

The Text

The near context of 3:16 is the encounter between Jesus and Nicodemus. In order to properly understand this verse, it is especially critical to place it in the near context and not to approach it as a discrete sentence. The context passage we will look at is 3:1-21 with the introductory verses of 2:23-25 included.

Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. He did not need man’s testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man.

3 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”

“How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”

Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”  (John 2:23 – 3:21  NIV)

The tail of Chapter Two follows the Lord’s clearing of the Temple and it leaves us with the editorial note on His knowledge of the corruption in the hearts of all men ( Gk. anthropos ). John introduces Nicodemus by linking his inner heart to that of all men mentioned previously ( “Now there was a man of the Pharisees” Gk. anthropos ) despite the recognition of his earthly authority that follows. He comes from the darkness to meet and interview Jesus and begins with an assessment of the stature of the Lord. Interestingly, Jesus responds with an answer to a question that was not asked, telling the Pharisee that one must be born again before gaining entry to the kingdom of heaven. A back and forth ensues with Nicodemus asking first how it is possible and then how can it be done until Jesus answers, a bit short perhaps, “you are a very prominent teacher of the very favored people of Israel and you don’t understand this?” [ Both Israel and teacher are preceded by the definite article lending this emphasis.]

The passage shifts to discourse on the part of Jesus starting in verse 10, with Nicodemus as His audience. Jesus says to him that if he, of all people, cannot see that the new birth was built on OT teaching, how would he be able to understand greater things. Verse 11 is often seen by commentators as a comment introduced by the author repeating a statement commonly spoken in the synagogue of the day repeating the Lord’s sentiment of verse 10. The Lord expresses the doctrinal challenges of Judaism through Nicodemus; if he were unable to understand matters that had been illustrated by material experience, he (and his fellow Jews) would be unable to grasp that which had no earthly analogy (Tenney).

Jesus draws an illustration from the Jewish Scriptures to make His meaning explicit . He refers back to a story recorded in Numbers 21 in which Moses is instructed in the way by which men and women could be saved from their venomous snake bites (death being the penalty for the rebellion against God). He is told to hoist a bronze snake upon a standard so that anyone who looks upon it might live. It was no doubt a startling image for Nicodemus, the serpent being the image of sin under judgement. In the same way, Jesus explains, the Son of Man must be lifted up so that everyone who believes in him may be saved. This is an important statement that the reader must not dismiss too quickly in order to get to 3:16 because the two are intertwined. Note the points of comparison that we must be aware of:

  1. The bronze serpent was prepared by the command of God.
  2. It was a symbol of salvation to men who were under the condemnation of sin and suffering from its effects.
  3. The curative power was available on the basis of faith rather than works – one need only look upon the serpent.
  4. The serpent was lifted on a banner staff ( a cross shaped implement ). John uses an important word (hypsoō) that is translated as “lifted up”, to be used again of the passion of Christ (8:23, 12:32,34)
  5. The destiny of the individual was determined by his or her response to God’s invitation.

A principle of hermeneutics that must not be violated when exegeting a typological passage is that we are not free to use our ingenuity to read into the text comparisons between the type and antitype upon which the text is silent.  James White publishes just such a bit of wishful thinking when his eisigesis of the type-comparison reads in a particularity needed to support his Calvinist theology. Specifically, he attempts to link a limited efficaciousness of the bronze serpent to the people of Israel and the proposed limited atonement offered through Jesus. He says [the serpent was] “only a means of deliverance for a limited population” reading into the text something that is both physically true but not theologically applicable. Does the text indicate that others outside the community are suffering from the snake venom? Are outsiders even present at the moment of redemption (the serprent being raised) to gaze upon it only to die? The answer to both is that we do not know but the text does not indicate in the affirmative.

At verse 16 we encounter an aspect of the original text that requires us to make a decision. Lacking quotation marks, orthographical marks, or an editorial break by the Evangelist, the words in many bibles continue in red leading the reader to assume that they are the words of the Lord. Many commentators disagree with the identification of the speaker indicating that the words in 16-21 are a commentary included by John to amplify the teaching of Jesus in the preceding verses. Carson points to the unique verbiage used in this pericope as being specific to John as one way of identifying authorship with Burge pointing to the tense of the immediate verse (16) as pointing to the already occurred death of Christ as further evidence of this break.

I will separate a closer examination of verse 16 for another section so I close out the textual context by looking at the Evangelist’s words in 17-21. Starting with ‘For’ (gar) in verse 17, he comments on the preceding verse extending the mission of the Christ in saving the world. Those who believe in the Savior will be saved while those who elect not to believe stand condemned in their sin. Their judgement due to their innate depravity is the default end; only by salvation can this terminus be changed. This is  the emphatic conclusion that John concludes the passage with. Interestingly, Nicodemus offers no counter or conclusion of his own.

The Greek

Verse 3:16 in the original text reads as follows:

Outwj gar hgaphsen o` qeoj ton kosmon( wste ton uion ton monogenh/ edwken( ina paj o`pisteuwn eij auton mh. apolhtai allV ech| zwhn aiwnionÅ

Translated directly, it reads as:

image

The first phrase ‘For God so loved the world’ leads to the first interpretive question; why is the verse not translated “God thus loved the world?” This might be expected given that the conjunction ‘for’ references the preceding verses and an example of God’s love that foreshadowed the Savior’s sacrificial act and the succeeding phrase which describes the uniqueness of the gift that fulfills it. In his exegetical paper, White dismisses any emphasis to God’s love opting for the straight translation of ‘in this way’ so we must ask if there is support for reading the adverb with emphasis or simply causation. Houtos in this context takes the form of an emphatic adverb (Lowe-Nida – 78.4) denoting a high degree. With God the author of the love and the resulting action being that He sacrifices His Son on the behalf of those He loves, contextually the English ‘so’ is the appropriate translation. Carson (The Gospel According to John) provides this grammatical structure in support of this reading, “houtos plus hoste plus the indicative instead of the infinitive emphasizes the intensity of the love.”

The second word of interest is ‘world’ or kosmos in the Greek. Some will attempt to apply a particularity to this word (e.g. world means only ‘the elect’) that is not justified by the context. An example of this attempted textual sleight of hand is written in The Five Points of Calvinism by Palmer where he says:

The answer to this objection [i.e. Christ is the propitiation  for the sins of the whole world] is that often, the Bible uses the words world and all in a restricted, limited sense.

Palmer attempts to support this assertion by comparing verses such as John 4:42 (Jesus is the savior of the world) and John 1:29 (He takes away the sin of the world) with Luke 2:1,2. In this verse Caesar Augustus calls  for a census of all of the Roman world to which Palmer (who, we should note conveniently does not quote the verse and leaves out the qualifier Roman) points out that all is not all. “For the Japanese, Chinese, and Anglo-Saxons did not enroll themselves.” Remember, context is important in interpretation and when we jump from the Johannine to the Lukan corpus we must make one shift but secondly, it is absolutely clear that the Doctor used world in a geographic sense in this verse, far different than the Johannine verses he compares it to. Despite any inferred megalomania on the part of the Caesar, it is clear that context clearly defines the usage and removes it from the theological discussion.

White’s paper attempts to maneuver the reader into the same territory staked out by Palmer. He states, “The wide range of uses of kosmos (world) in the Johannine corpus is well known.” The noun kosmos appears in the NT 186 times, with 78 occurrences in John’s gospel, 24 in his epistles, and 3 in Revelation. Verbrugge (The NIV Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words) and Kittel (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) agree that there are nuances to the word but in each case, they are all encompassing. It can mean (a) the universe or the world as the sum of all created things, (b) the sphere or place of human life, or (c) the whole of humanity. Each of these is linked by the thread of being a way of stating the totality of a created thing without a hint of particularism.

In John, the author’s use of kosmos is consistent in meaning the entire realm of humanity that stands in opposition to God while the context defines the different aspects of this totality to which it speaks. In 3:16 we must examine the kosmos in light of it being the object of God’s love. It is the very reason that God’s emphatic love is so astounding; even though the entirety of world is so utterly depraved, God loves it as His created order.  Continuing, we must examine the word in terms of the immediate context which includes verse 3:17. If there were a particularity to kosmos in 3:16 how would the same word be interpreted in verse 17?  Does the Lord come into a world (Jn 1:9) in which some are not condemned prior to His work upon the cross? No, the Son of Man came into a world already lost and condemned so that He might offer salvation to those who would believe. That is why Jesus is called the ‘Savior of the World’ (Jn 4:42). That some will not be saved is made clear in verses 18-21 but this does not modify God’s mission in sending the Son.

Though the world is thoroughly corrupted and stands under His judgment, the Creator loves His creation with such intensity that He gives it the most gracious gift possible, His only Son ( hoste ton huion monogene edoken.) There is little disagreement regarding the greatness of the Son in whom we are to place our faith but we do see an emphasis in this clause on the greatness of the gift. John places the object before the verb ( ton huion  before edoken ) emphasizing the unique, love-driven aspects of this gift. This gift, the one and only/only begotten Son ( monogenes ) is the ultimate act of grace, giving something of such uniqueness and value to a creation so utterly undeserving.

The result clause of the verse demonstrates the gift of grace that affords the salvation to all who will believe in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. The Greek phrase hina pas ho pisteuon is translated that whoever believes, a smoothing of the more wooden direct translation [in order] that all the one’s believing. The participle pisteuon form of the verb to believe (pisteuo) tells us something about the all/everyone who (pas) which precedes it, they are the ones who are believing. Many times, in order to read a specific theological system into this verse, the emphasis is placed on what it does not say (e.g. White’s exclamation that this phrase does not in any way introduce some kind of denial of particularity to the action.) This eisigesis is unnecessary since the full dimension of the Savior’s work is restated again in verses 18-21. Jesus’ ultimate purpose is the salvation of those in the world who believe in him (eis auton). Who is encompassed in this circle of possibility? All those men and women who exist in this world but who, by their depraved nature, habitually turn toward darkness by default. 

The final clause provides the promise given to those who believe in the Savior, they shall not perish but have eternal life ( me apoletai all eche zoen aiwnion.) The Greek word appolymai provides a starkly contrasting word to the idea of life eternal ( zoen aionion ) in that it describes something that is lost, destroyed, or has disappeared through violent ends. The believer will experience the opposite; they will posses or hold on to (eche) the new, eternal life to replace the old finite one.

Commentary

The Calvinist will read this passage through the lens of humankind’s inability to believe. The theological construct posits that due to their thoroughly depraved nature, man cannot take advantage of this offer as he will not, of his own volition or will, believe in the redemptive work of the savior. The Calvinist may occasionally agree that the offer of eternal life is to all is implicit in this verse but turn right around and say that it is impossible to redeem outside of the abilities provided to the elect. In other words, man has no way on his own to take advantage of this promise. This verse ( and others of similar dimension: 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned; 6:37 whoever comes to me I will never drive away; Rev 22:17 whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.) causes the Calvinist to apply unwarranted definitions to the terms all, whoever, everyone, world, et al. in which they find that each means only a specific group, an interpretation unsupported by the context.

There is further a disturbing practice amongst Calvinist interpreters to reach for the negative space in a passage in their search for theological support. White’s paper on this verse (which prompted this study) is wrought with highlights of what is not written in the text rather than what is. For example, he examines the clause ‘whoever believes’ and tells us that these words [do] “not in any way introduce some kind of denial of particularity to the action.” Granted, this may be true but is the conclusion warranted by either the author or the context? Does John go on to define whoever as those elected prior to the creation to receive eternal life? I do not believe the answer to either of these questions is in the affirmative. Attempts to limit the scope of this passage and others of similar dimension to a select few require eisigesis driven by theology rather than careful exegesis driven by the text alone, which should then in turn, be reflect in our theology. A sober example of reading one’s theology into this passage is given by John Owen as he restates the passage in his own words:

God so loved his elect throughout the world, that he gave his Son with this intention, that by him believers might be saved. (Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ)

Besides the fact that this interpretation is in no way supported by the Greek text, it runs directly counter to God’s repeated command not to add or subtract from His word (Dt 4:2).

Another attempt at constraint is found in the oft-repeated Calvinist response that non-Calvinists are mis-characterizing or misunderstanding God’s love. Again we reach to the negative;  by leaning on the Lord’s words in Isaiah 55:9 ” As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” for support, the Calvinist is prompted to say that we cannot understand God’s love in human terms. This of course is the foundation for their definition of love in supralapsarian terms; God shows His love in His way by creating some for redemption and others for destruction and we are not to attempt to understand how this demonstrates His love, simply accept it. To the contrary though, the Genesis account shows us that the image of the creator was sullied by original sin, our innate sense of love was not removed. I believe that it is from the creator that we reserve the ability to love others contrary to our self-serving nature which would naturally see others as competition. 

For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.

So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.

2 Co 5:14-19

That God desires all (meaning all and not some nor a few select) men to be saved is clearly stated throughout the Bible. If John is unsatisfactory, we can turn to Paul who says “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved to come to a knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim 2:3-4) or Peter who turns the phrase “He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Pet 3:9). Had the Lord intended to convey the meaning of some men or a very narrow spectrum of humankind, was it not possible for the Spirit to clearly convey this to the authors? Spurgeon himself comments on those manhandle the text in an attempt to extract a theological truth that is absent. He says “‘All men,’ they say–that is, some men; as if the Holy Ghost could not have said some men if had meant some. All men, say they; that is some of all sorts of men; as if the Lord could not have said ‘All sorts of men’ if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written ‘all men,’ and unquestionably he means all men.” (Spurgeon, his sermon “A Critical Text – C.H. Spurgeon on 1 Timothy 2:2-4)

Wearing the Scarlet Letter C

To critique something carries with it a far different connotation than simply criticizing something. For example, I can criticize Senator Obama for his empty rhetoric about change. That is simply voicing my opinion in a rather negative sense without investing too much effort into discovering what lies behind his words. On the other hand, to critique some means that you have read it critically, paying attention to the arguments of the author and voicing either positive reinforcement or a contrasting position. A critique is often distinguished by the existence of arguments and facts supporting the critical positions of the critic. For this I’ve been condemned.

I do not suffer theological fools lightly. Teaching God’s word, exclaiming His promises, and writing and speaking of Him is something that I take quite seriously. I read many people who have staked out theological positions and yet they are unable to support these positions when challenged. Someone taught them A or they read B in a book and it is therefore assumed to be fact. Theology demands more than this however. To speak of God and His Church and the theological tenets that undergird it requires more than single source scholarship. If, for example, you are going to argue against Arminian or Calvinist theology it is incumbent upon you to be well versed in the correct positions, sources, and scriptures of both before exclaiming one side or the other is correct. What we encounter many times are believers who study in one theological school of thought, read only those sources and their interpretations of opposing positions, and form their opinions and beliefs without determining how correct their sources might be.

I recently critiqued a posting published on another blog that taught the authors beliefs about Calvinism. As I said in my earlier piece, after attempting to engage the author to discover the source of the facts she presented through her comments section, it appeared that she resented the challenge and deleted the comment without reply. BECAUSE false teaching is far more dangerous to those who read and are affected by it than simply poor teaching that is factually correct, I decided that it was appropriate to address the piece and write a corresponding post for anyone who cared to read it. It appears that the author is a bit upset about this, posting two (uncommentable) responses on her blog here and here.  I don’t know why she chose this avenue rather than posting a comment here so we could engage the conversation and I could clarify any issues that arose that brought her distress. I will try to address them here.

She says:

Hopefully people realize that each of us have our own name that’s for the purpose of others to respectfully use when they want our attention. To call attention to a person by using his or her name (especially without that person’s approval) for the sake of degrading him or her is gossip. It’s usually done out of the motive of pride. You can’t look good in the eyes of God by trying to make others look bad in the eyes of the world.

Dear sister, your name is published as the name of your blog. If you don’t want others to know your name, perhaps a nom de plume would serve you better. Regardless, it bothered you and I have corrected it, redacting my original posting so that you name does not appear. Now, on to your other issues of being degraded and gossiped about. If challenging your arguments about the God of the universe, the merciful God of love is degrading to you then all I can suggest is that you stop writing about Him and presenting theological opinions that are not universally shared. (Especially when you refer to those who believe them to be “duped” and “deceived”.”  You cannot expect to post something on a public blog and have no one question it, can you? Gossip is a very serious charge as well but, as I understand it, gossip is speaking ill of someone rather than addressing them directly. Since there is no way of addressing your faulty analogy directly but considering the damage that it might do to a non-believer who accepts it as fact, I decided to address it. No one is trying to make you look bad; we are simply valuing the truths of God above your need not to be challenged.

I take from your later posts that you feel attacked and this is certainly not the case. You are challenged though. Your posting entitled “Are you looking for trouble” goes on to excoriate those (and I assume myself among them because of the clever Jacob jab) who hate you because your beliefs are right. Again, you are taking theological liberty with the word of God. No one hates you or is attacking you or is threatening or denigrating you and your Christian beliefs but if you are associating the word of God with the analogy that you laid out in the earlier post, you had best be prepared to teach others from where you derive this theological position. Calvinists, Arminians, Pentecostals: they all support their theology all the time. You are not being martyred as your post attempt to convey.

My dear sister also wrote:

I knew that my refusal to permit someone, who disagreed with my expression of faith on my Calvinism Analogy post and believed I should permit him to publish his negative comment on my weblog, would seek revenge because of my exercising my right to protect the honor of what I believe on my site, but to do so on a blog he names Love Acceptance Forgiveness?!?! Oh well . . . I guess that says it all — actions speak louder than words. I won’t even mention names. I don’t want to be a hypocrite by not honoring what I said in my post on the Golden Rule found in Matthew 7:12. He knows who he is and so does God, so please don’t google his blog. Such a thing could not bring glory to God.

Revenge??!! Why would I seek revenge? I have in no way been harmed by your words. No one challenged your honor or what you believe. I simply asked you to support it scripturally before some other impressionable person read it and accepted it as fact. And yes, sister, in great love and humility I did apply the golden rule as our Lord voiced it:

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Mt 7:12

I would fully expect that if I write or preach on the word of God, on the theological positions that I take, or the way that I live out my calling as a servant of Christ and someone finds something incorrect in it that they will challenge me out of love. I take no greater risk than incorrectly speaking of or for God and I hold others to this same accountability. You included yourself in my purview by posting your theological opinions.

And yes sister, I do know who I am and so does God. Humbly I kneel before him, grateful that his grace covers me and and my family and that he knows my name.

God Bless.

Critiquing the Calvinist Critic

How an author treats the comments posted in response to something they have written tells the reader quite a bit about the strength of their convictions. In a dynamic forum such as a blog, one should be prepared to defend what has been written. If I voice an opinion or state something as fact, readers are free to disagree, point out the flaws in my thinking, correct what I interpret as fact, and generally call me to task if there are damages that result from my words. The comments tool that appears at the bottom of most blog postings gives the readers an opportunity to immediately make their thoughts known, not only to myself but to all of the others who might read the same piece. Blog software generally allows for a ‘moderation’ setting, giving the author the chance to review the comments before he or she displays them. Often, this is for the purposes of filtering the language, etc. so as to maintain a predetermined level of civility in the discourse. Occasionally, it is used to hide from opinions different than yours, to shield the weakness of your position from the buffeting of opposing arguments and facts. On most issues, we could dismiss this weakness as simple cowardice and not be too concerned with reading that writer again, but when the eternal destiny of the human soul is the topic being discussed, it is too important to let pass.

Recently I came across this piece, ‘Calvinism Analogy’ by REDACTED on her blog. I began reading with interest as a theologian but quickly saw the tenor of the post when she casually refers to Arminian believers as “duped” and “self-deceived”. Her exact words are:

Calvinism is a theological expression describing those who believe man, by his own “free” will, is not able to sincerely “accept Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and savior” and to confess Him as Lord. People who are duped in this way are called Arminians. The reason self-deception happens is because human nature is corrupted with pride and Arminian theology complements this.

The factual error here is simple but important: the assumption is that Arminian theology does not account for the total depravity of man [which of course it does] and the necessity of the sovereign grace of God [again, which it does]. Whether through malicious intent or ignorance of the facts, Ms. REDACTED sets up a straw man argument to support her attempt at analogy. She goes on to point out that Arminians are further guilty of misinterpreting the word ‘all’ and the ‘world’ throughout the Bible. Most of you who study theology are familiar with the Calvinist/Arminian arguments on these words so you already know the direction that her thoughts take.

She continues then, after presenting these incorrect arguments in favor of the Calvinist position, to give us her analogy:

I sometimes equate salvation to be a bit like we’re dogs at the pound awaiting our death sentence. God is the dog lover looking to adopt. He decides what dogs He wants, goes home to prepare a place for them, and then comes back to bring them home. I know it’s not quite like that (especially since God elects His children before they’ve even been conceived), but still in all, it describes love. Dog lovers don’t adopt every single dog that has ever been born and/or is alive; but yet one can still be a lover of dogs even if he never adopts more than just one dog.

Here is where Ms. REDACTED thoughts really run into trouble. Her scenario positions the dogs in the pound as though they were magically created or simply the products of biological interaction between other dogs. God, in her mind, is this distant observer of the kennel, graciously coming in and granting freedom to one or two of the creatures while leaving the rest to their destiny. The problem here is that God is not a distant observer but he is intimately involved in the creation of the creatures:

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. (Psalm 139:13)

“Your hands shaped me and made me.

Will you now turn and destroy me?

Remember that you molded me like clay.

Will you now turn me to dust again?

Did you not pour me out like milk

and curdle me like cheese,

clothe me with skin and flesh

and knit me together with bones and sinews?

You gave me life and showed me kindness,

and in your providence watched over my spirit. (Job 10:8-12).

Her analogy of the Calvinist supralapsarian position is better voiced (using the same language) portraying God as the breeder of the dogs. He purposely creates many dogs, some intentionally created for eternal torment and destruction while some are adopted and saved. Not only did he create them, He continues to create them centuries after the original genetic sin that infected their parents occurred.

What is most troubling about this posting is the not inaccuracy of the arguments (you can read similar threads every day) or the poorly constructed analogy (for which the author claims to have been praised) but the fact that when her facts and illustrations are challenged theologically she refused to engage. A lovingly worded response was posted in the comments of her blog asking for Scriptural and textual support to the various incorrect assertions made in her writing and gently providing an alternative view on her analogy which fell into “awaiting moderation” limbo. Apparently unwilling to support her thoughts are address the Scriptures, the author chose to simply delete the comment as thought it never happened, thereby cementing her notions as correct and worthy of praise.

Teaching about God and His ways is a risky endeavor and not one to be taken lightly like this (“Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”) If you think that I have erred in discussing ideas that have eternal importance, I expect that you will correct me and likewise others who presume to teach should also stand ready to be challenged. The souls of men and women are at stake in these types of discussions as they read them and accept the ideas as fact and simply having your feelings hurt by a theological challenge is not an acceptable reason to avoid engagement. Blog authors are free to run their world however they like, but to speak of about God is another dimension altogether.

Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort toe keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. (Eph 4:2-3)

The Calvinist Perspective on Sanctification

Sanctification as viewed by historical Calvinists can be summarized quite simply: Putting off the Old and putting on the New Man. As voiced by the preeminent American Calvinist Charles Hodge:

Such being the foundation of the Scriptural representations concerning sanctification, its nature is thereby determined. As all men since the fall are in a state of sin, not only sinners because guilty of specific acts of transgression, but also as depraved, their nature perverted and corrupted, regeneration is the infusion of a new principle of life in this corrupt nature. It is leaven introduced to diffuse its influence gradually through the whole mass. Sanctification, therefore, consists in two things: first, the removing more and more the principles of evil still infecting our nature, and destroying their power; and secondly, the growth of the principle of spiritual life until it controls the thoughts, feelings, and acts, and brings the soul into conformity to the image of Christ. (Hodge, Systematic theology.)

This definition of sanctification emphasizes the progressive nature of the process inherent in the Calvinist doctrine. [ It should be noted that sanctification as discussed here is less a Calvinist only perspective and can be more correctly term Reformed, as many Arminian theologians would agree with the tenets presented.] Calvin himself agrees with the sequence of Christian event placing it after justification and prior to the perfection of glorification.

The reformed picture of the process is that of a progressive increase in the believer’s holiness replacing the inherited corruption that marks all of humanity. This progress continues from the moment of regeneration until the believer returns home to the Lord, rarely without struggles and temporary setbacks. An important distinctive between Calvinists and Arminians (though by no means should it be considered universal to their doctrines) is the idea of perfectionism. The idea that a believer can become perfect, that is completely without sin, in this life is not held within general Calvinist doctrine. Two points in scripture support this postion:

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives. (1 Jn 1:8-10).

And Paul’s well known discussion of our struggles:

What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “Do not covet.” But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. (Rom 7:7-8:1)

Conclusion

The view of sanctification as a lifelong process through which the Christian will be gradually transformed in holiness, steadily moving in image towards the likeness of our Savior Jesus Christ. It is generally accepted that perfection in holiness will not be achieved until the moment of glorification in the Lord’s presence. This is representative of the majority view of the Protestant Church (Calvinist and Arminian together) and finds it way into the belief systems of most identifying as Christians.