Category: Christianity

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)

Sacrifice Your Soul

Nearly one full week of this glorious Lenten season has passed and many feel the pangs from the sacrifice of chocolate or television but what of those who have sacrificed their life, the control of their soul given fully to the King of Kings. Isaiah speaks of the sacrifice of Christ, the King James version best translating the Hebrew word for soul where the NIV and others insert life:

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (Isa 53:10)

The sacrifice of the soul was damnation and yet He gave of it joyfully, trusting fully in the Father’s divine plan. Brothers and sisters, we too must give of ourselves all the way down to our soul. We often give of our time, our treasure, our bodies even but we protect our soul, preferring to keep it under our own control. Release it! Trust in the Father and the sacrifice of the Lord. We have nothing to lose and the Kingdom to give. As we move towards the Cross and the Resurrection, give up not your feasting but the control of your soul to the Father. He will raise us all up in the end.

Lent Sunday One

lent Our reflection for the first Sunday of Lent this year comes from Daniel.

So I turned to the Lord God and pleaded with him in prayer and petition, in fasting, and in sackcloth and ashes.

I prayed to the Lord my God and confessed:

“O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands, we have sinned and done wrong. We have been wicked and have rebelled; we have turned away from your commands and laws. We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.

“Lord, you are righteous, but this day we are covered with shame—the men of Judah and people of Jerusalem and all Israel, both near and far, in all the countries where you have scattered us because of our unfaithfulness to you. O Lord, we and our kings, our princes and our fathers are covered with shame because we have sinned against you. The Lord our God is merciful and forgiving, even though we have rebelled against him; we have not obeyed the Lord our God or kept the laws he gave us through his servants the prophets. (Daniel 9:3-10)

Peace be with you.

Lent with Joel

Our reflection today is short and simple; the call of the Lord is for all of His children to return to Him from whatever distance we have placed between us.

“Even now,” declares the Lord,

“return to me with all your heart,

with fasting and weeping and mourning.”

Rend your heart

and not your garments.

Return to the Lord your God,

for he is gracious and compassionate,

slow to anger and abounding in love,

and he relents from sending calamity. (Joel 2:12-13)

The sacrifice of our Lord and His grace are the only things that enable us to return to the security of His arms. This season reminds us of this sacrificial action and the love in which it is rooted. Be blessed today.

Lent with Leonard

The Church can ask herself today, is this what our Savior sacrificed His life for? Did He give us the Church so that we can be comfortable, occasionally running guerilla missions out into the world and then returning to the safety of the sanctuary? As I think about the spiritual state of much of today’s Church, I am reminded of Ravenhill’s words:

The true man of God is heartsick, Grieved at the worldliness of the Church,

Grieved at the blindness of the Church, Grieved at the corruption in the Church,

Grieved at the toleration of sin in the Church, Grieved at the prayerlessness in the Church.

He is disturbed that the corporate prayer of the Church no longer pulls down the strongholds of the devil.

He is embarrassed that the Church folks no longer cry in their despair before a devil-ridden, sin mad society, “Why could we not cast him out?” (Mt 17:19)

Before we pray for the change in others, let us each pray for the transformation of ourselves. Let the tears come searing hot down our cheeks at the mockery our own lives make of the holiness that grace offers to us. Let it begin with me.

Lent Begins

Traditionally, we surrender a creature comfort or habit as a way of associating our lives with the impending sacrifice and suffering of our Savior. We willingly give up a behavior, a food, or something similar in sacrifice, longing for Easter’s arrival not only to celebrate the resurrection but the freedom to return the sacrifice to our lives. I want to invite us to take a different approach to the coming 46 days this year and seek to grow in holiness, not through a temporary sacrifice, but through the rending of our hearts. Our reflections will move us from loss to promise, much as Isaiah’s prophecy brings his readers from exile to restoration. This passage sets the tone for our prayers to come:

Strengthen the feeble hands,

steady the knees that give way;

4 say to those with fearful hearts,

“Be strong, do not fear;

your God will come,

he will come with vengeance;

with divine retribution

he will come to save you.”

5 Then will the eyes of the blind be opened

and the ears of the deaf unstopped.

6 Then will the lame leap like a deer,

and the mute tongue shout for joy.

Water will gush forth in the wilderness

and streams in the desert.

7 The burning sand will become a pool,

the thirsty ground bubbling springs.

In the haunts where jackals once lay,

grass and reeds and papyrus will grow.

8 And a highway will be there;

it will be called the Way of Holiness.

The unclean will not journey on it;

it will be for those who walk in that Way;

wicked fools will not go about on it.

9 No lion will be there,

nor will any ferocious beast get up on it;

they will not be found there.

But only the redeemed will walk there,

10 and the ransomed of the Lord will return.

They will enter Zion with singing;

everlasting joy will crown their heads.

Gladness and joy will overtake them,

and sorrow and sighing will flee away.

Isaiah 35:3-10

Being Set Apart: Sanctification

Our recent exploration of the variety of views that Christians hold regarding eternal security found that the topic of sanctification arose in many of those discussions. The Christian is led to wonder, when evaluating the different views, whether sanctification is a one time event, a lifelong process, or simultaneously both. I’m going to move on with this post into a series on the variety of Christian views on this topic. We’ll start today by defining the idea before branching out to see how it is viewed in different theological systems.

In its broadest meaning, sanctification is the process by which a person (or another object of the process) is brought into relationship with or attains the likeness of the holy. In the case of a Christian, our goal is to become more Christ-like while in the case of an object– an altar, a sacrifice –the process makes the object appropriate for the presence of God. Sanctification has three aspects that help us to divide our study and comparison.

  1. Sanctification is Positional: The first aspect of sanctification indicates that, as believers who have placed their full faith in Christ and His redeeming work, we are set apart by God and named as saints. It will be important to note theologically the differences between justification and sanctification.
    2. Justification Sanctification
    Legal standing Internal condition
    Once for all time Continuous through life
    Entirely God’s work We cooperate
    Perfect in this life Not perfect in this life
    The same in all Christians Greater in some than in others

    *Grudem, Systematic Theology

  2. Sanctification is Experiential: The second aspect begins with the first; being set apart as holy, our lives are increasingly transformed as we shed our old ways and take on the new of image of our savior. Sanctification viewed as a process finds the Christian gradually ( and not without possible setbacks ) becoming further and further set apart from others in the world who have not trusted Christ.
  3. Sanctification is the Ultimate Condition: This future aspect of sanctification points to the day in which the Christian will be the beneficiary of the final transformation into the full likeness of Christ.

One of the most important components of our exploration of the variety of ideas about sanctification is the extent of human cooperation with the work of God in the process. It is important to ask first if any cooperative action of human and divine threatens the ultimate security of the believer, that is, is failure to attain a specific level of holiness a possible condition by which salvation may be lost. To lean to one side is to add an impediment to the Christian’s assurance as we worry and fret over what infractions might cause the ultimate loss. On the other hand, to lean the other way and to place the entire process on God’s shoulders is to invite a passivity on the part of the Christian with regard to the steady improvement in their state of holiness.

We conclude our introduction with the words of St. Paul:

In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.  (Romans 6:11-14)

Ravenhill Meditation: Complete Joy

“As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. (John 15:9-11)

The dream of the follower of Christ is to know the unspeakable joy that he promises to be complete. In response to our tendency to seek joy in the world, Leonard Ravenhill provides the road map to help us arrive at our desired objective:

The way to enjoy indestructible peace and joy is to determine:

  1. To do whatever God commands, however difficult.
  2. To endure whatever God appoints, however severe.
  3. To obtain whatever God promises, however seemingly unattainable.
  4. To die daily, however costly the crucifixion.
  5. To love my enemies however misunderstood in this.
  6. To pray without ceasing, and in everything give thanks.

Eternal Security: McKnight on the Hebrews Warning Passages

To perform a detailed study of perseverance is to read and analyze numerous academic and theological works. Nearly every article or book written on the topic since 1992 contains a footnote referring to a  lengthy article by Scot McKnight that appeared in the Trinity Journal. McKnight is well known among blog readers as the author of numerous books and articles and for his blog JesusCreed.org. [Sadly moved to beliefnet and diminished by the transfer.] I am a great admirer of Mr. McKnight because he displays that rare combination of scholarly excellence and pastoral sensitivity. This article proposes a way of reading the Hebrews passages so as to address the fear or insecurity that many Christians experience when they are presented with 6:4-6 alone, as though it exists in a scriptural vacuum. His proposed methodology is familiar to any student of scripture; that is, all verses and passages must be examined in context. This context can extend from the surrounding sentences and paragraphs to the book as a whole and on toward the whole of the biblical story. McKnight proposes that the warning passages [2:1-4; 3:7-4:13; 5:11-6:12; 10:19-39; 12:1-29] must be read as an “organic whole” and not as unrelated texts in order to understand the message of the author of Hebrews.

In preparation for making his case, McKnight rehearses the four historical views that theologians have taken with regard to the Hebrews passages. They are:

  1. Hypothetical View: The passages are simply a warning against a sin that has not been committed, no can it be committed. This position rests upon the assumption that true believers cannot fall away.
  2. Phenomenological-False Believer View: The passages in view are real and the sin can be committed but, those who do commit the sin are not true believers.
  3. Phenomenological-True Believer: The passages warn against a sin that can be committed by true believers. Thus, the true believer can forfeit their eternal salvation.
  4. The Covenant Community View: This minority position states that those in view to whom the passages are directed are not Christians and refer to a community living outside of God’s will.

McKnight’s conclusion rests in the third category, the phenomenological-true believer who is able to commit the sin referred to and thus lose their salvation.

If it possible to lose one’s salvation, we must ask ourselves what sin or sins could place us in such peril. As we saw in earlier posts on the Arminian views (here and here), it is not a variety of sins or even backsliding that imperils a believer but it is the singular sin of apostasy that commits a believer to perdition. McKnight defines this as “a willful rejection of God and His Son, Jesus the Messiah, and open denunciation of God and ethical standards.” [His footnote is especially helpful: “When we think of this sin pragmatically (how it took, and takes, place), I do not mean to suggest that apostasy is always a single act of sin…it could also be the result of a progressive downward spiral into bad habits, attitudes, and dispositions toward God.”] This sin is not to be read as an accidental fall or momentary backslide; the reader is not to interpret momentary lapses in anger, lust, pride, etc. as threatening their ultimate condition. As referenced in 10:26 [ If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge…], the apostasy is deliberate and considered.

Scot arrives at his conclusions by reading synthetically, that is, reading all of the warning passages together in order to discover a common thread that might appear in each or to see whether each stands on its own with a separate message for unique audiences in each passage. A synthesis of the passages, he contends, provides the reader with a clear answer regarding the two prominent theological issues mentioned above: identifying the subjects of the warning and the sin that imperils. In form, each of the passages shares common elements that he lists as:

  1. The subjects or audiences
  2. The sin
  3. An exhortation to avoid the sin
  4. The consequences of not avoiding the temptation

By aligning these components in each of the passages we are able to better understand the intent of the author of Hebrews in extending the warnings. McKnight contends that in taking this approach we are better able to perform the necessary exegesis for theological conclusions and pastoral care.

Conclusion

McKnight’s article is an extensive commentary on the Hebrews warning passages that displays his dedication to the subject. His work is of value to the theologian and the pastor alike and should be required study for anyone engaged in a discussion of perseverance. His conclusion, already mentioned in detail above, is that the warnings are intended for true Christian believers and that they caution against the penultimate sin of apostasy. This position does not fit neatly into either the Calvinist or Arminian frameworks but he provides a quote that should be considered by those engaged in debating theological correctness:

I suspect that the expressions “losing one’s salvation” and “conditional salvation” are the most distasteful expressions used in the debated between Calvinists and Arminians. I also suspect that “losing one’s faith” is much more acceptable to the same palate since it seems  more congenial to religious affections and is consonant with what many of us have seen when someone deserts the faith.”

His conclusion from the same synthetic view of the entire Bible, and Hebrews specifically, is that the teaching of conditional salvation is the correct interpretation. Given this position, the perseverance of the believer hinges upon their continued faith in Christ. To apostatize is to of one’s own volition turn away from this faith publicly and definitely.

Though Scot’s contribution is a theological gold mine of great benefit to the community of faith, his sensitive encouragement to the assurance of a believer is especially welcome. Many Christians have anxiety over the possibility of losing their salvation to errant sin but understanding Hebrews in this way reminds the believer that their very concern is evidence that they have not turned away from the Savior. His long term view of salvation (the futurity of salvation) further says that salvation is a future event and thus, one cannot lose what one does not possess.

Source: Trinity Journal, Spring 1992, No. 13NS, pp. 21-59