Building an Understanding of Baptist Calvinism

I’ve been listening to some of the podcasts of the Building Bridges Conference at Ridgecrest last week. Today, I’ve been working through Malcolm Yarnell’s talk on “Calvinism: A Cause for Rejoicing, A Cause for Concern”. He is a non-Calvinist. I appreciate his comments. I think he has dealt fairly with Calvinism for the most part. There are a couple of issues that he brings up that gives me cause to address – perhaps not his own misunderstanding, but certainly the misunderstanding of many non-Calvinists.

He defined the five points of “Classical Calvinism”. To be sure, I don’t see much of a distinction between his definition of Classic Calvinism and Hyper Calvinism. Nevertheless, the five points he gives are these:

Unconditional predestination
Limited or particular atonement
Total human corruption
Irresistible grace
Preservation.

He stated:

“Fisher Humphreys is correct when he notes, ‘anyone who accepts unconditional predestination should have no trouble accepting the other four ideas as they follow naturally from unconditional predestination.’ …By unconditional predestination, classical Calvinism understands not only positive election which scripture definitely affirms, but also negative reprobation which is their mere logical supposition. After the line is crossed into philosophical theology with speculation regarding the divine decrees, there is little holding the Christian theologian back from embracing the soteriological doctrine of Classical Calvinism in its entirety."

Note the sentence I highlighted. One of the complaints I hear from non-Calvinists is that if God elected some to heaven, then you would have to conclude that He elected some to hell. A typical response from a thoughtful Calvinist is that we are already doomed to hell, but the elect are saved by grace. This is not a bad answer.

However, the non-Calvinist qualm employs the deductive “denying the antecedent” fallacy. The syllogism is thus: If I am elect by God to eternal life, then I am not elect by God to go to hell. I am elect by God to eternal life. Therefore, I am not elect by God to go to hell. It is incorrect to conclude that I am elect by God to go to hell if it is given that I am not elect by God to eternal life. The question begged is either that the syllogism is equivalent – namely, “I am elect by God to eternal life if and only if I am not elect by God to go to hell”. However, scripture nowhere affirms that people are condemned to hell because God elected them to it or chose them for hell from the foundations of the earth. Scripture indeed affirms election and predestination for salvation. Therefore, my original syllogism is the scripturally accurate one.

In this case, I think Malcolm Yarnell and I would agree. What troubles me is that too often non-Calvinists assume that Calvinists in general believe in election to hell because the non-Calvinists apply this faulty logic to the doctrine of election.

He makes this next comment by way of illustrating non-Calvinistic missional roots among Southern Baptists:

“..the Hyper Calvinist argument that faith is only available to those possessing a warrant to believe. To argue like the Hyper Calvinists that sinners should not be freely offered the gospel nor invited to respond with faith and repentance is anathema to a missionary Baptist. For instance, Texas union Baptists adopted articles of faith that have been interpreted as Arminian. "We believe that Christ died for sinners and that the sacrifice which He has made has so honored the divine law that the way of salvation is consistently opened up to every sinner to whom the gospel is sent and that nothing but their voluntary rejection of the gospel prevents their salvation." While the claim that such a statement is necessarily Arminian is doubtful, it is definitely not a Calvinist sentiment.”

 
He also offered a similar statement from Massachusetts. But what I find striking I that aside from the question of a couple of terms, this is not overly non-Calvinist. If it is non-Calvinist, then the only reason I could see why it would be worded so is that there were plenty of Calvinists at the time and the need was felt by non-Calvinists to overreact to some Calvinists who perhaps did have a heretical brand of Calvinism.

The two terms that are dubious here are “opened up” and “voluntary”. Do the writers of this statement mean to indicate that the gospel should be presented to all people or that Christ’s atonement was made for all people. Given the context, I would say the former. If the latter is the intended meaning, then a particular soteriology rather than missiology is being recommended. There is a difference.

The second term “voluntary” is not adverse to Calvinism. Our volition is certain, but dependent on second causes rather than possessing the capacity to be an agent of first causation. All first causation is necessarily unified as eternal. We are saved by faith. Our possession of faith is of second causes. The faithful respond to possession by the Holy Spirit – an eternal agent of first cause. The lack of faith is not an act of volition but rather is exhibited behaviorally. Faith is active while the lack of faith is passive. Behaviors that result in a lack of faith are active. We are responsible for our behaviors. Where there is no faith, we are condemned by our behaviors. Where there is faith, the penalty warranted by our behaviors is atoned for by Christ – an eternal agent of first cause. Therefore, the volition of our faith, while not an autonomous agent of first cause, is freed from responding only to our depravity. We may now respond directly to agents of first cause.

So where does missiology come into play? Why do we have the Great Commission? God can come to people in visions. He still does so today. However, He has made it clear to us that He desires to use us as His second-cause agents of His first-cause activity in the temporal manifestation of the calling of His elect. It is this purpose and command to which we must be obedient. We must proclaim the true gospel and leave it to God to quicken the hearts of men as a matter of first cause. He has given us over to reason that our faith may be shown to be reasonable. He is glorified not only in the response of our second-cause volition to His first-cause quickening, but that our faith may be reinforced with the certainty of the truth and the unfaithful provided with no excuse. Wheat and tares are planted in the same soil.

Malcolm Yarnell further stated:

“With such a history behind Southern Baptists it should be clear that the SBC may be willing to tolerate Baptist Calvinism, and I would argue should be willing to have Baptist Calvinists as brethren in our churches. Classical Calvinism and Hyper Calvinism are singularly unwelcome.”

This is a welcome statement. His gave particular definitions of Classical Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism. There’s apparently a very fine historical distinction. However, I must have missed an elucidation on what he considers acceptable Calvinism. I can think of it, but I’m more concerned for the non-Calvinists who can’t.

He gave three reasons why “the non-Calvinist outlook will continue...”:

1) Southern Baptists are committed to foreign missions.

2) In their own nations, cities and home towns Southern Baptists have greatly emphasized evangelism and church growth.

3) A dispensational view of eschatology which enjoys popularity across the SBC is generally not compatible with Calvinistic theology.

What I have to note is that if missions, evangelism and eschatology are reasons why a non-Calvinistic soteriology will persist, then it is because there is a lack of understanding among many Southern Baptists who incorrectly link a lack of missions, a lack of evangelism and amillennialism with a Calvinist soteriology. In other words, these are not glowing reasons. They speak of a glaring need for improved theological equipping among Southern Baptists in general.

For the record, the reason I, a Southern Baptist who holds to a Calvinistic soteriology, didn't go the 80 miles down the road to the Conference is because it happenned inthe middle of the week. To be sure, I could take vacation days to go. However, I'm saving as many vacation days as possible to do more mission work next summer.

Finally, Malcolm Yarnell gave five benefits and concerns about Calvinism:

1) Calvinism takes Christological Orthodoxy seriously. However, Baptists focus on demonstrable faith.

And Calvinists do not focus on demonstrable faith?

2) Calvinists hold a high view of the Bible. However, the non-Calvinists suspect that Calvinism is a system that is not particularly Biblical, but more philosophical. Must "rightly divide the truth", but not continue to divide it ad infinitum. Some forms of Calvinism, not all, are simply not Biblical enough.

Some forms of non-Calvinism are not Biblical enough. As for being philosophical inasmuch as we are all theologians we are also all philosophers. It is more fruitful to talk about presuppositions. There are theological conclusions that are true and theological conclusions that are false. Likewise, there are philosophical presuppositions that are true and philosophical presuppositions that are false. Calvinists are no more philosophical than non-Calvinists. The question is what presuppositions are true.

3) Calvinists are serious about the gospel. Spurgeon's Calvinism pursues the gospel, but not all forms of Calvinism do. The Classical Calvinist doctrine of salvation is confusing and troubling because they seem to deny the need to repent. Calvinists make a distinction between common grace and special grace, but folk theologians do not because they cannot find it in the Bible. "Non-Calvinist Baptists would call our Calvinist Baptist brethren to reject clearly and permanently the speculative doctrines insofar as they detract from the clear presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ."

What is “troubling” is the speculative use of “confusing” and “seem to” as well as a reference to “folk theologians”. What is he talking about? The reason anyone would not find something in the Bible is that their presuppositions preclude a clear understanding. The doctrine of the trinity is not in the Bible any more than, say, limited atonement. God is not mentioned in the book of Esther. However, God is evident in the book of Esther, the doctrine of the trinity is evident from Genesis to Revelation and limited atonement is likewise as clear.

Another thing that is “troubling” is his reference to the “clear presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” What is sufficiently “clear”? Is it clear enough if the gospel is rejected? What if we are explaining the gospel to someone with impeded mental faculties who cannot understand penal substitution? Should we compromise penal substitution in order to present a gospel that is more understandable? We must communicate the gospel to the best of our ability with as much an understanding of our audience as possible. However, the theology of the gospel must not be compromised for some misperceived level of clarity.

4) Calvinists have been at the forefront of ecclesiological reform. However, the Calvinist teaching of the "invisible church" goes against Baptist congregationalism. Calvinists are to thank for Baptist "historiology". However, they emphasize the history of Baptist Calvinism at the expense of Baptist non-Calvinists.

I have to be honest. I don’t understand precisely what he means by “invisible church”. I know what I would mean if I used that term and what I would mean if I used that term doesn’t contradict congregational ecclesiology. In fact, it would support it. “Invisible” speaks of the fact that our association with true Christians outside of our local congregation transcends any imposed man-made hierarchical ecclesiological government. Looking at how God has revealed Himself throughout history and in the images in prophesy, the parables of Christ and the examples of Paul, God likes to spell things out in simple terms. The microcosm of the local congregation should be a picture of the church at large. That doesn’t defeat congregationalism in the least.

5) Calvinists are good at encouraging genuine Christian living particularly in criticizing the invitation or the altar call. However, there is a need for a public display of one's faith.

Look at the benefit here of encouraging genuine Christian living versus the concern from the first issue. I’m probably just missing something, but these don’t seem to jive. Indeed, he specifies the “invitation” or “altar call” here. As far as that goes, I’ve seen the opposite. I’ve defended the use of the invitation in the face of criticism from non-Calvinists. As such, he may be alluding back to some historic hyper-Calvinists, but I don’t see this at all today among Baptists.

In all, I appreciate his comments. He was exceedingly fair and gracious in his treatment and my commentary here is merely my thoughts as I listened to him. It seems that there remains much that non-Calvinists do not understand of Calvinism. Being a professor of theology, he had a better understanding of Calvinism than most non-Calvinists I know. As long as we seek a greater understanding and to agree on the important issues of the authority and accuracy of the revelation given in the text of the Holy Scriptures, the full gospel of Jesus Christ and the call to righteousness even to the fulfillment of the Great Commission, we will be unified in Christ.

Who Should Have Grace?

A good quote by Jeff Noblit at the Building Bridges conference in Ridgecrest, NC:

"Those of us who hold to the doctrines of grace* should have some."

A hearty "Amen" from this 5-pointer.

* "doctrines of grace" refers to Reformed theology or Calvinism in particular.

Discipleship 2007 - Session 1

I had the opportunity to lead three sessions of discipleship in Venezuela this year. In the first session, I covered the Ordinances. For those of you who are not Baptists, these are often referred to elsewhere as sacraments. Roman Catholics believe in several sacraments, but Protestants typically only recognize two: Baptism and Communion. The reason that Baptists call these "ordinances" rather than "sacraments" is to make a distinction in the theology. The use of the word "sacrament" is rooted in the belief that participants in the activity somehow receive some sort of special grace from the activity. For example, there are those who believe that baptism actually saves the one being baptized. Others believe that the grace received through baptism is the reception of the new covenant. Baptists do not believe that God imparts anything special to us other than to provide an outward sign of an inward truth. Our desire as Christians should be to be obedient to that which Christ has ordained.

As such, I sought to teach only that which is explicit in the Bible and allow their questions to teach me what issues they need addressed. In this way I might go without sullying their learning by introducing muddled debates over questionable theology that they have no knowledge of. In accordance with this and as a Baptist teaching Baptists, I maintained only a basic hermeneutic recognized by Baptists and refined it only when they had questions or specific concerns. The reason for this was to build a solid hermeneutical foundation that can be refined.

The following constitutes the notes I passed out and from which I taught:

The Ordinances

Baptism

Greek word means “dip” or “immerse”. Often it was used in reference to cleaning something. There are those who dispute this meaning saying that the ancient usage of the word had a much broader meaning. This is true. There are cases where it is used figuratively for the baptism of the Holy Spirit or for ceremonial cleaning (Hebrew 9:10). However, this passage draws a distinction between ceremonial washing and Christian baptism. Furthermore, when the act of water baptism is described in the Bible, it is described in terms of full immersion (Matthew 3:16) and the meaning of Christian baptism with respect to the death burial and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6:3; Colossians 2:12) makes no sense outside of full immersion.

Institution: Matthew 28:19-20
Was administered by John the Baptist: Matthew 3:5-12; John 3:23
Was sanctioned by Christ through His baptism: Matthew 3:13-15; Luke 3:21
Christ baptized: John 3:22; 4:1-2

Historical Foundation for Baptism

Ceremonial washing Exodus 30:17-21

In the Old Testament, the Jews practiced a number of ceremonial washings and cleansings. A Gentile convert to Judaism had to undergo a baptism to complete his conversion. If a Gentile wanted to be identified with the Jews (become a proselyte), he had to undergo a three-part process: (These procedures are still mostly in effect today)

1. Circumcision (Today, if already circumcised, a male must offer a drop of blood as symbolic circumcision)
2. immersion, baptism (Still mandatory today, called a mikveh, must be witnessed by three)
3. Corban – offer the blood sacrifice of animals to remind the Gentile that their forgiveness required the death of a substitute (Today, a convert can give money or gifts to the poor as an offering. An additional step is the choosing of a Hebrew name.)

By three things did Israel enter into the Covenant: by circumcision, and baptism and sacrifice. Circumcision was in Egypt, as it is written: ‘No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof’ (Exodus 12:48). Baptism was in the wilderness, just before giving of the Law, as it is written: ‘Sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes’ (Exodus 19:10). And sacrifice, as it is said: ‘And he sent young men of the children of Israel which offered burnt offerings’ (Exodus 24:5)...When a gentile is willing to enter the covenant...He must be circumcised and be baptized and bring a sacrifice...And at this time when there is no sacrifice, they must be circumcised and be baptized; and when the Temple shall be built, they are to bring a sacrifice...The gentile that is made a proselyte and the slave that is made free, behold he is like a child new born.

To this day, Gentiles who would embrace Judaism must undergo baptism in a mikveh ritual. The purpose of this ceremonial immersion is to portray spiritual cleansing, as Maimonides concluded in his codification of the laws of mikveh: “...uncleanness is not mud or filth which water can remove, but it is a matter of scriptural decree and dependent on the intention of the heart.

What the Bible teaches us about Baptism

In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit: Matthew 28:19
Inward truth:

Regeneration: Romans 6:3-11
Confession of sins necessary: Matthew 3:6
Marked by repentance of sins: Acts 2:38
Faith is necessary: Acts 8:37-38; 18:8
Remission of sins: Acts 2:38; 22:16

Water is the outward and visible sign: Acts 8:36; 10:47
It is the outward sign of an inward truth

Represents the influence of the Holy Spirit: Matthew 3:11
True baptism results in the gift of the Holy Spirit: Acts 2:38
Fruit of the Spirit: Galatians 5:22-26
Unity of the spirit: Ephesians 4:2-6

It is to be done once in the life of the believer. (Hebrew 6:2,6)

The Lord’s Supper

Institution: Matt 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20; I Corinthians 11:23-25

The historical foundation for the Lord’s Supper

Feast of Unleavened Bread: Matthew 26:17-29; Mark 14:12-25; Luke 22:7-20
From the Law of Moses: Exodus 23:15
Passover before the exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt: Exodus 12

What the Bible teaches about the Lord’s Supper

It is called “The Lord’s Supper” (I Corinthians 11:20)
It is called “Communion” (I Corinthians 10:16)
It commemorates the death of Christ (I Corinthians 11:26)
It must not be observed unworthily (I Corinthians 11:27-32)
It may be done throughout the life of the believer until Christ returns. I Corinthians11:26

From 12 Witnesses: Interview with Sam Storms

12 Witnesses is one of the plethora of Southern Baptist blogs. They interviewed Dr. Sam Storms recently in anticipation of his speaking contribution to the Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit to be held in Arlington, Texas, in three weeks. He gave some rather balanced answers to the line of questioning. Below are some of the more interesting questions that were asked. You can read his answers here.

• Where do you see the tension over Reformed theology going in the SBC?
• The claim has been made, specifically by Dr. Malcolm Yarnell of SWBTS, that there is NO Biblical evidence for the existence of a “Private Prayer Language.” How do you respond? What Scriptures do you think are relevant to the discussion of such a claim?
• What do you say to the claim that the acceptance of a “Private Prayer Language” among our missionaries is allowing an influx of Pentecostal theology?
• How do you see the debate over moderation concerning the consumption of alcohol? Do you see a disparity in the approach to the alcohol issue and other issues under debate?
• What are your thoughts on the Traditional church, the Missional church and the Emergent church?

Logical discord, Spiritual Harmony

This rather long post ties together a few topics under one conceptual umbrella. I had considered breaking it up, but the application would be lost because topics subsequent to the underlying concept would hardly stand alone. Therefore, I came up with a composite title that simply doesn’t fit in the title fields most blog hosts provide. Let me apologize at this point for such a long post. It is hardly exhaustive and provides only a few areas where the central concept is applied. I have made reference to the scriptures and haven’t as of this writing provided book, chapter and verse references. I may add some in the near future. On to the body of the post…

Logical Discord, Spiritual Harmony, Reformation Theology, Confession and Baptistic Baptism

There is a concept on which I’ve posted before in my original blog at blogspot. I have referenced it in a few posts since, but I want to refine and expound on it here. When I talk about the bivalence of temporal reason and the univalence of the eternal God, these are very specific terms that I’m about to explain to you. I’ve never precisely named this concept. I’ll call it “Logical Discord”.

Consider who God is. We observe a natural order of cause and effect. If something happens, something else happening caused it. Since this something else is a happening, something else happening caused it. It is inconceivable that this chain of causes and effects goes back infinitely. The scientist may seek to trace the cause of everything known back to the big bang and then plead ignorance as to what caused the big bang. Without knowing for sure the precise chain of causes and effects, the concept that an uncaused cause must exist. Since this cause is uncaused, it is indicative of something substantial that is foundational to the world we know, but doesn’t carry the same rules. This something we’ll call “Eternity”. We’ll call the uncaused cause the “First Cause”. Because the First Cause is substantial and foundational, the First Cause isn’t confined by Eternity, but rather defines it. We’ll give another name to the First Cause: “God”. (There is a way to derive qualities or attributes of God, but this isn’t pertinent to this discussion.) This is called the cosmological “proof” of God. It is not a proof of the existence of God, it is a proof in the sense that is a temporal definition of God.

Since God is substantial, He is the source of existence and it is invalid to ask whether or not He exists. Given the flow of thought through history, the terminology I’m using is with respect to, and contrary to, the broad philosophy of existentialism. In general, existentialism holds that existence is foundational to substance. Here, I’ve derived a quick apologetic for the notion that substance is foundational to existence. If I didn’t think that this post wasn’t going to be long enough already, I’d go into some theoretical physics and demonstrate the continuity of this foundation inherent in the very physical structure of the temporal cosmos. But this would be an unnecessary digression.

I’ve mentioned Eternity. Here’s a shocker for most people: Eternal does not mean “infinite time”. Time is “Temporal”. Eternity is timeless. If the Eternal God is foundational to Temporal Creation, then infinite time is a temporal manifestation of eternity. Ahh, but I’m jumping ahead.

Temporality is, by nature, “Bivalent”. Bivalence is the quality of having two values. In logic, these two values are “true” and “false”. Existence, the temporal quality of being, is not absolute. It has boundaries. If I look at myself, I can see a fairly distinct edge to my body that demarcates where my existence ceases. If I were truly absolute, my existence would continue infinitely in all directions, including through time. This is impossible since existence is temporal. And eternity is the cosmological center of absolute. There is a questionable disunity to my existence in that I am not the same person I was years ago. I have eaten and breathed. I have cast waste off from myself. The molecules that comprise my existence have changed themselves constantly since my birth. Nevertheless, there is continuity to my existence that I owe to God. Therefore, while my body is physically different, there is a pattern that has followed. I look about the same. I have scars where I had injuries although the molecules are different. I have memories and cognitive abilities that demonstrate this continuity. I have a beginning that was caused by my parents. The beginning of my existence was construed from the existence of genetic material and cellular matter from each of my parents. Did that separate genetic material and cellular matter cease to exist? No. It became me. What was it before it became me? It was my mom and dad. Therefore, my continuity is of my parents and their continuity is of their parents. This is traced back to a single set of parents. If we accept the veracity of the Bible, which I do, those parents are Adam and Eve. This continuity is a manifestation of the Absolute.

But the fact that we have bounded existence is bivalent. Inside the boundaries, existence is true. Outside the boundaries, existence is false. Since God is eternal and absolute, there is no boundary to His substance for there to be a “true” or “false”. Therefore, God is single-valued or “Univalent”. (Univalence is most often used as a descriptor in chemistry. However, its usage is valid outside of chemistry.) The problem with univalence is that it is impossible for us to grasp. It would seem simple since it only has one value. Consider this: if everything in the world were precisely the same hue of green, we would have no concept of color in general or green in particular. As temporal creatures we require the contrast of false to comprehend the true. There would be nothing that was not green against which to compare the green.

Given the discourse to this point: while creation is temporal, God’s creating is eternal. Since God is substantially outside of time there is no “time” for God when creation didn’t exist. Consequently, there is no “time” for God where our future doesn’t already exist. The six days of creation were created as a demonstration for us.

This takes an interesting turn when we consider that God, being eternal, created something that was not. Effectively, God creates that which is not He. This is the incomprehensible (to us) bifurcation that establishes the bivalent pattern of existence in the temporal cosmos. Consider that the incarnation of God in the person of the Son as the man, Jesus the Christ, took the form of a temporal creature. His death is after the form of God creating that which is not God and His resurrection is after the form of the eternal relationship between God and His creation. After all, does God give us temporal life? Well, yes. However, God also gives us eternal life. In a fallen world, is it better to pursue a good temporal life at the expense of eternal life or to acknowledge Christ’s gift of eternal life at the expense of our temporal life.

Lest you balk, consider this statement made by me to you: If I’m going too quickly for you, just stop me. Well, you can’t stop me, because I’m already finished. The end of the article is written. You just haven’t gotten to it yet. And at what would you balk? You may be thinking, “Jim, you’re a hyper-Calvinist! That’s heretical!” Let not your heart be troubled. A discussion of Calvinism from this quasi-philosophical framework is the next section of discourse.

But first I need to mention a few more things by way of approach. First, while we have Logical Discord between temporality and eternity, there is Spiritual Harmony in the manifestations of the Eternal in the Temporal. With regard to the human psyche, the seat of the will, the manifestation of the Eternal is evidenced in our motivations, our inclinations. I’ve written before that the human psyche is comprised of competing inclinations. These inclinations are fed from various sources such as sociological context and stimulation; diet, past experience, etc. The strongest inclinations are the ones that inform our behavior. Inasmuch as we identify with one inclination or another seems to be an inclination in and of itself. However, this sort of inclination normalizes the inclinations with which it identifies thus strengthening them. Paul seems to convey this concept in his letter to the Romans when he denigrates himself for not doing what he wants to do and doing what he doesn’t want to do.

For humans, one other factor remains. This is our receptiveness to the spiritual. This is to say that we can gain information from… what? What is the spiritual? If God is absolute and eternal, then does the absolute and eternal constitute the whole of the spiritual? Are angels and demons part of the eternal or part of the temporal? Is the physical world we are familiar with the only temporal cosmos? Is the spiritual world some relatively imperceptible integrated aspect of the natural order? Is this part of what “the heavens” are? The fact is that we don’t know exactly, and this exercise is mere speculation. We argue from ignorance. All that is reasonable to conclude is that God is spirit and the spiritual is also the medium by which the Absolute is manifest in the patterns of the Temporal. This information is available to us through God’s revelation in the scriptures. What is also available to us is that the fruit of the spirit speaks to our motivations and only our behaviors indirectly. Where we temporally view and judge behavior, God judges our motivations. We can do the right things for the wrong reasons. We can do the wrong things for the right reasons. What is true from the previous paragraph is that we have a combination of right reasons and wrong reasons and an overarching inclination (our identification) toward one set of reasons or another according to what we know and assent as true.

This is the harmonization of the spiritual where the logic is discordant.

Consider the debate between Reformed theology and autonomous free will. There are three positions in this debate, although too often only two are characterized. There is the position, as I have mentioned, of autonomous free will. This position doesn’t necessarily deny the sovereignty of God. However, there is no general consensus on how precisely God’s autonomy squares with our autonomy. The second position is authentic Reformed theology characterized typically by John Calvin’s five points. This position accepts that God is absolutely sovereign while maintaining that free will is compatible with God’s sovereignty. This is why a good descriptive reference to this position is to call it “compatibilism.” True Reformed theologians, while assenting to free will, do not, however, believe this free will to be “autonomous.” That is, there is nothing that informs our decisions that God has not created realizing the impact that such would have on our decisions. Because the logic becomes discordant at this point, the Reformed position is often mischaracterized as a third position. This third position is often called “Hyper Calvinism” or “Fatalism”. This position denies that humans have any free will at all.

The spiritual harmonization of compatibilism lies in the motivations of human beings. If our motivation is to exert our free will over and against the will of God, then God acquiesces inasmuch as He leaves us to our own devices. Since we are temporal, we essentially live the balance of our temporal lives yet on the foundation of the Eternal. While the existence of such a one may perish, his spiritual substance remains paradoxically separate from the Eternal. Since eternal life comes from God, this substance is eternally (timelessly) dead.

However, if our motivation is to relinquish our right to will freely, then we rightly attribute this motivation to God. We acknowledge from this that our will is free from sin, although we yet struggle with sin from within throughout the temporal process of sanctification, and this through internal confession (not to deny the necessity of external confession). Our motivation is to assent to God’s worthiness of His sovereign control over our lives (worship). We therefore become free agents to bear His will. Once again, the logic is discordant because we cannot approach a univalent God with a bivalent understanding, but the spirit is in harmony because we have negated the paradoxical effects of a fallen world by submitting our will to God.

I offer myself humbly as an example through confession. If you have skipped to this point without reading the above, what I am about to say will not be fruitful. For it is in confession that spiritual harmonization is realized through submission. This is not a confession of a behavioral sin. This is a confession of a spiritual struggle – a temptation. Some of you who have read my writings for some time may recognize a certain lack of focus or a meandering thought. My confession is that I have been distracted. I won’t get specific as to what has been distracting me, but suffice it to say that it is a spiritual battle. Inasmuch as I must rely on God for strength in the battle, I have been successful in remaining faithful. The stakes are very high and God is faithful in His providence. There are very few with whom I have trusted even this scant information. There is only one to whom I have disclosed the particulars of the battle. There is none aside from myself who understand the full import of the battle.

One solution to the culmination of the battle is that I find a way to meet certain sociological needs. I have many acquaintances, some of which are among my fellow bloggers. It has come to my realization, however, that I have no close friends. I work in virtual solitude, eat alone, read alone, write alone and often rehearse alone. When I am privileged to converse with another, I typically submit to conversation that revolves around their interests. (Kim at Xanga has been a recent exception to this. I am acquainted with a good friend of hers who lives in my area and Kim, during her solitary work life, has been good company via the Internet lately. Thanks for hanging out with me, Kim. I very much enjoy your company.) To date, God has not provided a close friend. This is one I’ll connotatively define as someone who knows where you hide the key to your back door, and knows he (or she) is welcome to use it – and this both figuratively as well as literally. However, God is with me Himself. His presence and my consequent submission to Him have strengthened my faith if by fire. Therein is His provision and spiritual harmony in the midst of logical discord.

To restate, internal confession negates the paradoxical effects of a fallen world through submission. This happens certainly to the believer who ascribes such a state of affairs to the work of God through His Holy Spirit. The justification of such a one is temporally eventful and eternally absolute (timeless). However, the fact that God’s Spirit works in the heart of the believer to achieve a submission of will is indicative of something else we learn from God’s revelation in holy scripture. This is that the believer is “indwelt” by the Holy Spirit.

It can be argued, yet seldom is, that paedobaptism (infant baptism) is practiced because of the eternal state of the believer over and against the mere act of manifesting this faith. However, since the faith is not manifest in this infant, it is disingenuous to assume that it will be. One must develop some theology that assumes either universalism or the insecurity of the believer, neither of which is Biblical.

Instead, it is prudent to pray for and profess the faith to those who have not confessed and manifested submission, withholding baptism until such a time as they do so and consent in obedience to the rite of baptism ordained by Christ as the method for demonstrating the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Where “baptism” is a transliteration of the Greek word meaning “immersion”, the reality of the spiritual harmony is that the individual is immersed in the work of the Holy Spirit and His teaching through the discipleship offered through the Body of Christ. This is evident in the great commission. Baptism itself, being representative also of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, is therefore doubly a representation of the logical discord of God’s bivalent creation and the spiritual harmony of His univalent provision of eternal life.