Humbly Differing With Authorities over “World” and “Water”

My Bible study sometimes takes the form of intense study of a particular passage as I seek to better understand it. To this end I have been studying John 3 for several months now as I read it over and over, study, and map out the flow of thought of the account as well as any theological arguments being made while taking into account every context: The cultural context of the human author and the immediate audience, the intent of God in his revelation of himself in the given passage to the audience of all men knowing that they come from cultures different than the one of the intended audience, the internal context of the passage such as the context of the immediate flow of thought as well as the larger flow of thought.  All this is with the mind that God may allow and plan for a misunderstanding among cultures for a period of time. For example, we see the preservation of the scriptures even through the period of syncretism of the Roman Catholic Church that lasted centuries before the Reformation. 

The reason I bring the RCC up is that the Reformation was a return to soteriological orthodoxy. The RCC soteriology is a direct affront to clear Pauline theology. However, they provided the source of theological authority for a long time. The authority was simply wrong.

On the other hand, there is no small amount of mistaken theology even among Protestants. There are plenty of resources available to help discern the true meaning of the scriptures. The reason people don’t get it right is the presence of sin in general, but which is often cloaked in good intentions. In other words, people have cultural and philosophical sensibilities that the literal culture of the Bible offends. It is important to study it diligently and to refer often to those who have studied much with a heart for the glory of God lest we fall into theological error, the center of our theological considerations drifting according to our desires rather than remaining fixed on a love of the Truth of God even as we submit to him.

So then, by what manner did the Reformers of old deny the theological authority of the Roman Catholic Church? And by what manner do we challenge any point of theology of orthodox Protestants today? We know that there are central matters than must not be compromised, for this provides that which defines Christian orthodoxy. But we also know that there are matters most debatable that are not central to the Christian faith or necessary for establishing our relationship in the atonement with Jesus Christ. It is in this matter that I make my observation on John 3:5, and indeed why I began studying this chapter this past summer.

On the streets of London as people passed by to whom we ministered, my wife in prayer for them became aware of a possible meaning for “world” in John 3:16. “For God so loved the world…” The classical debate between Calvinism and Arminianism involves the word “world” here translated from the Greek “cosmos”. Cosmos is a general term and can take on different meanings depending on its context. It’s rather a mistake to base any theology on such a word. Arminians claim that it means absolutely every individual person. Calvinists claim it doesn’t mean every individual, but merely every people group. Arminians claim John 3:16 as the irrefutable source of their soteriology. Therefore, they mean that there is no other way to define “cosmos”. Calvinists, in response, say that we must look elsewhere in scripture to understand what “cosmos” means and find a meaning for the scope of the word in response to Arminians. Since the Reformation, theologians have interpreted this word depending on their orientation with either Calvinism or Arminianism not thinking that there may be some other import.

Well, when my wife saw the people to whom we were ministering, she saw a challenge in the verse. “For God so loved the ‘world’ that he gave…” She saw the people to whom we were ministering as the ‘world’ and was challenged to love them as God does: even as he gave his son and he was sent, so we were sent to minister in some sacrificial way. And so the meaning actually fits pretty  well with Christ’s line of reasoning to Nicodemus. Of all the orthodox Biblical commentators I find, not one of them save an obscure reference or two in one even comes close to understanding the use of the word ‘cosmos’ in this context. The logic is simple: Christ came from God, as Nicodemus rightly observed, into this world. He thought he came only to teach. But he couldn’t accept his teaching, for his teaching was that of the Messiah and that his purpose to save the world from sin demanded their faith. In this context, the ‘world’ is the place of sinful men that God loves and where he sent his Son. There is no other meaning indicated by the context and I contend that it is a disservice to the scriptural text to import other meaning in an attempt to validate one theology or another.

Now, back up several verses; Verse 5. What does it mean to be “born of water”? Let me go through my process with you.

I read this verse. Then I read the surrounding verses. I read all of chapter three, even down to where it was talking about Jesus and John both baptizing. However, the context Jesus set up is that there are two births: “Unless one is born again [first one birth then another] one cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus doesn’t understand this so Jesus restates another way “…unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God,” and elaborates, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” My first thought is that “water” is one birth and “Spirit” is another birth. If “Spirit” in verse 5 is “Spirit” in verse 6 then “water” in verse 5 is “flesh” in verse 6. How can this be? The best explanation is that he was referring to the water of physical human birth. 

However, most of the commentators I read say that “water” means baptism. Apparently this goes back to the debate over whether baptism saves people or not. Those who believe it does say that “water” cannot be interpreted any other way and that it means that you have to be baptized in order to be saved. In response, those who say that baptism is merely a symbol argue that it is representative of our salvific relationship with God. 

So I consider this. There are three options: either the phrase “water and Spirit” are dichotomous, synonymous, or additive. If dichotomous, then they are different things that either represent opposites or two halves of a whole. If synonymous, then they are the same thing – period. If additive, then they are basically the same thing except on different levels.

Those who interpret this as water baptism required for salvation either interpret this dichotomously or synonymously. If dichotomously, they say that one must be baptized and also the Spirit must fill them. If synonymously, they say that water baptism causes the Spirit to fill the person.

Those who interpret this as water baptism symbolic of salvation interpret this as almost exclusively additive. However, the additive is backwards. We submit to water baptism because the Holy Spirit has indwelt us. The problem is that you would have to understand that we must be baptized in order to be saved. Most Protestant commentators I’ve read don’t address this. I have seen an interpretation that went into rather subjective symbolism in order to get around this problem. The symbolism he portrayed was okay, but he didn’t get it from this text. 

And that’s the biggest problem with importing water baptism into this verse. Sure, later in the chapter we read about Jesus and John baptizing. But it doesn’t fit the flow of Jesus’ response to Nicodemus. Well, I consider that perhaps Jesus isn’t restating the dichotomy and expounding on it in verse 6. Perhaps he is only talking about water being some symbol for the Spirit. Perhaps Jesus was referring to the ministry he was involved with in baptizing people (even though he really didn’t do the baptizing – his disciples did). But I don’t see how it comports with everything else he says to Nicodemus. To be sure, the baptism of John the Baptist was a call for Jews to repent and return to the core of their faith: the coming of the promised Messiah. Baptism was what the only thing non-Jews had to do that Jews didn’t already do in order to be Jews. Jews were born Jews. Non-Jews were not. In order to become Jews by faith, non-Jews had to (and still have to today) become circumcised (if men), offer a sacrifice (a finger-prick today because they don’t have the temple), and be baptized. The baptism is as though they are being born a Jew since Jews are Jews by birth. If Jesus is referring to baptism, then he is therefore referring to the water of birth. In this case, it would be both dichotomous and figuratively synonymous.

To be sure, verse 5 and verse 6 each have different information that gives us clues and I haven’t gone into every detail. For example, I have to ask if it is coherent to say that one must have a physical birth as well as a spiritual birth. And how does this comport with Jesus saying “we speak of what we know”?

So I humbly submit that all the great orthodox Protestant theologians of our time that I can find who made commentary on this passage may not be entirely correct, or may need significant refinement, in their apparent agreement on this passage. As it is, perhaps my hermeneutical approach is in error. It’s a good thing this isn’t a terrifically important theological matter among us Protestants.

As such, I submit my contemplations to all of my fellow Protestants for your consideration. If you have a good argument that refutes my thinking, please make it.

John 3:16 - What Does It Mean? - Really

In the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism, John 3:16 is often tossed out by Arminians as sure evidence for two things: that the atonement isn’t limited and that free will is libertarian. Both issues revolve around a misunderstanding over the intended meaning of the passage. So here’s the passage in as close to a semi-transliterated Greek as I can find:

houtos gar agapaoen ho theos ton cosmon hoste ton huion autou* ton monogene didomen hina pas ho pisteuon eis auton me apollutai alla eco zoen aionion

Here’s a word-for-word translation without correcting for syntax and usage:

In this way / even / loved / this / God / his / world / that / his / son / himself* / his / only / gave over / in order that / any / that / trust / on / him / not / will die / but / have / life / eternal.

*In Byzantine but not Alexandrian texts. Could have been a copy error or an attempted usage update.

Here is the passage translated literally correcting for syntax and usage.

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

Regarding free will in this passage, Arminians claim that “whoever believes” (pas ho pisteuon) indicates that anyone can believe. This is based on the flawed notion that Calvinists believe that the elect are saved whether they believe in Christ or not and the equally flawed interpretation that “whoever” means that “everyone has the ability to” believe. Calvinists point out that a better translation of “pas ho pisteuon” is “the one believing”.

While a good point, it really doesn’t address the misconceptions of Arminians. The real debate here is cosmological, or whether God is absolutely the first cause or not. In other words, do the ones believing believe because they have been made alive to believe or not? This passage doesn’t address that issue. So it is sophomoric to read an answer to the cosmological debate in this passage.

Regarding the extent of the atonement, Arminians point to the word “world” (cosmon or cosmos) and say that this refers to absolutely everyone in the world. The fact that Arminians bring it up, even to the extent of naming an Arminian conference after John 3:16, means that they believe that this all-inclusinve meaning is explicit in the passage. Calvinists typically address this by observing that “world” refers to each ethnos, or “people group”, but not every person. Sometimes, Calvinists will correctly point out that the understanding of this meaning in the context of the debate must be understood through the study of other passages.

The problem is that the debate has been allowed to color our thinking on this verse. Another factor is the evangelistic flavor of the verse and its use in recent church history as such, especially in English-speaking Sunday School classrooms. The verse has not been well-treated as such. The meaning as passed on by many can be summed up as such:

“God loved everyone in the whole world so much [hold your hands up about chest-level, open up your hands, turn your palms out, and move your hands in circles to indicate the largeness of this statement] that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever will believe in him will not perish but have everlasting life.”

The meaning of the verse is distorted by a lack of understanding of the translation as well as a failure to take into account the context of the passage.

I’ve already addressed the “whosoever will” misconception. The word “will” doesn’t exist, even as part of an English future tense of the verb “to believe”.

I haven’t mentioned the word “so”. I cringe when I hear well-intentioned Sunday School teachers explain how this means that God loves us all a whole lot. The word “houtos” doesn’t indicate quantity. It indicates quality. The meaning is lost in modern English. Today, when showing someone how to do something we say, “Do it like this.” Once upon a time a demonstrative explanation would be accompanied by the phrase, “Do it like so.” The English word “so” originally meant “in this way”. It was an expression of manner or quality. Today when we use the word we often say things like, “That is so cool!” Here it’s an expression of magnitude or quantity. Usage has changed the typical meaning in modern American English and the difference has significant impact on our ability to understand this verse.

But I want to primarily discuss the term “cosmon” or “world”, because I have a possible “aha” insight. Actually it’s my wife’s insight. She’s not well versed in the Calvinist-Arminian debate, but I think God may have revealed something to her recently.

We were distributing Bibles on the streets of a large European city recently to a challenging people group. Part of the work is that team members will take turns praying while the rest are distributing. It was Lois’ turn to pray and as she prayed for the people passing by, she was impressed with John 3:16 and the meaning of word “world” applied to those sinners as such as God loves. The people passing by were these people. The “world” meant the “pattern of fallen creation” (my words).

When she shared this with me, two passages came to mind. One was Paul’s comment in Romans 5:8 “but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (ESV)

But the other was in John’s gospel itself. In chapter 15 John writes of Jesus discourse from the “I am the true vine” statement regarding the relationship of love between the Father and those who abide in him. All along he uses the Greek word “agape or “agapao” to indicate this love and defines it somewhat in verse 13 of chapter 15: “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.” (ESV)

But Jesus, as a matter of contrast, brings up the love of the “world”. John uses a different word, “phileo” to indicate the love of the world. A side point is that the disciples are not of the world, but that the world is a general terms for the pattern of God’s fallen creation.

So I thought about this and wondered if “world” in John 3:16 might truly mean this. One problem I thought of is that if the disciples were not of the world and the same meaning is to be applied to John 3:16, then we are left wondering if God loves the world or the disciples. However, it actually makes sense. John 3 doesn’t negate the fact that God loves the disciples in john 15 since they came out of the world. The kind of love that the world is capable of is limited to a selfish affection, but God only loves with a perfect love. John 15 doesn’t negate John 3 if the meaning of “world” is the same.

But I have to consider that “world” as “the pattern of fallen creation” is a general term and has nothing at all to do with the scope of particular applications of love. I needed to investigate the context of John 3:16 to see if I was on the right track, or if my thinking was in vain on this point.

In John 3:1-21, Jesus is talking to Nicodemus who came to Jesus to discuss his teaching. Here’s the passage from the ESV:

1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

The logic of the passage goes like this: Nicodemus visited Jesus at night so he could talk privately. He either didn’t want to be seen, or he didn’t want any distractions, or both. Nicodemus started with a statement that the Pharisees recognized that Jesus came from God because of the signs that he worked and that his teachings were likewise from God. This statement of Nicodemus’ characterizes the whole of Jesus’ response.

Jesus draws a dichotomy between the Kingdom of God (spirit) and the earth or world (flesh). He did this because Nicodemus recognized that Jesus came from God to the earth. Jesus was reinforcing his authority. The issue with the Pharisees was not that they didn’t believe Jesus was from God. They were full of sin and couldn’t understand the message. Jesus explained that he used earthly messages to elucidate spiritual truth, but Nicodemus and the Pharisees couldn’t even get past the earthly message to understand the spiritual truth. Only those who have been born of the spirit can understand and the Pharisees had not been born of the spirit.

Jesus then explains, in this vein, that they can at least recognize him because inasmuch as he bears the light of truth, the light reveals those who live in darkness. They can recognize that Jesus is of God because he reveals their sin, and it is to their condemnation. (So it was that Nicodemus came to visit Christ.)

In verse 16, the word “for” (gar) links this verse to the logic of the passage as an intermediate thought. It is at least partially based on previous statements and supports subsequent passages. “For God so loved the world” is a statement intended to continue the discourse on the dichotomy. “…sent his only Son” brings Jesus into it and is his explicit claim as the Messiah since the discourse is about Jesus coming to from God in Nicodemus’ statement. “…whoever believes in him” is contingent on being spiritually born again and while from and in the world, now belonging in the Kingdom of God.

Christ includes these believers as his disciples in the works that they do in the name of God that they will light to the darkness. He said in verse 11 “we speak” and later in verse 21, “whoever does what is true comes to the light so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

So this is the logic of which John 3:16 is a part. It is meant to explain to Nicodemus why he could understand that Jesus came from God, but couldn’t accept or understand his message - and also why others could understand enough to bear the message themselves. The word “world” is pretty clearly indicative of the dichotomy that Jesus uses and not particularly indicative of the scope of the atomement.

• Is there something of a spiritual nature that you desire to understand and cannot?
• Do you consider yourself "born again" "of the spirit" "of the light" but are not shining in the darkness?
• Perhaps you think you have the light but are just annoying rather than recognized as having the light of God.
• Are you submitting to and trusting God in all matters and coming to the light yourself?

How Can God Be Glorified Through Limited Human Will?

Unless someone has printed this out, you are reading this online. There's a title in bold at the top of the page. Above that, there are various other links, titles and information. Look to the side and you might see a photo of me with a link to learn more about who I am. There may be a whole list of links to other places on the internet over there too. Look at the bottom and you might see some other stuff. Other articles, comments, perhaps a hit counter. You may see some commercials my hosts have decided to attach to my page to offset the cost of giving me license to post articles such as this one at no cost to me. You may see a nice background and some colorful adornment to the page.

All this is nice and there's a certain reality to it, but it's a bit of an illusion. Obviously, the light that forms the image of this "page" is generated by the monitor, and the information used to tell the monitor how to do this is a bit of electronic code. But what the computer has downloaded is not what is displayed necessarily. Most people are using a browser to view this page that is capable of showing you the source text that describes how this page is to be displayed on your monitor. This source text as well as all the referenced images is what was actually downloaded. In the browser I currently use, FireFox, I can click on the "View" menu and click on "Page Source" down at the bottom. If you look at this source, this looks nothing like what is actually showing on your browser. Yet this is required for your browser to display what you do see. It is descriptive of what is shown.

If you change something in the source text, it may affect what you see in your browser. You can't change what is displayed in your browser unless the source text describes that capacity to change what is displayed. Nothing in the source text is affected by what is displayed in the browser, but everything displayed in the browser is affected by the source text.

This is metaphorical. God is the writer of the source text which he has written with the finished display in mind. The source text is the spiritual world. What is displayed in the browser is the physical world. This physical world as we experience it has a sense of reality, but is largely an illusion. It is representative of the spiritual world, which is a greater reality. Truth comes from God through the spiritual world to the physical world.

God has created us as characters in his creation. He has given us free will described in the spiritual world and manifested in the physical world. His own will is not so described in the spiritual world, for he is greater than the spiritual world having created the spiritual world though he himself is spirit. We have been told that he has created the heavens and the earth. He is eternal and there are even temporal aspects to the spiritual world. I said all this to set up this passage:

1 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea,

“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, 28 for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.” 29 And as Isaiah predicted,

“If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring,
we would have been like Sodom
and become like Gomorrah.” (Romans 9:1-29, ESV)

I have heard arguments from non-Calvinists that seem to me would be easily answered by this passage.

"But God wants us to love him and we can't do that if we're just automatons, right? It's more meaningful if we choose him."
"We can't be held guilty of breaking the law when we don't have free will, so God would be unjust sending anyone to hell."

Such arguments presuppose false ideas of such concepts as will, love and justice.

Human will is prescribed by God. He created the behavior of the will according to physical forces such as hormones and other biological proclivities; temporal knowledge including education, social pressures and familial normalities; and spiritual revelation including creativity and our deepest intentions (the balance between whether one really wants to know the truth of a matter or distort the truth in the interest of self-justification). God made the rules governing human will and all the information fed into the human will. There is nothing new under the sun. We have no original thoughts. Within the constraints of God's created order human will is free to act, and God's created order is huge. But our will does not trump God's created order.

Love is ultimately God's eternal cohesion. God is amazingly detailed to the extent where in that we discern him by analysis, the particulars of his character are always in complete agreement. We can point to theological tension, but any consideration that theological tension is contradictory is an illusion brought on by the sin of this world. Rather, theological tension serves to validate the revelation of God and give those so inclined points of focus for greater understanding of God's character. God's love manifests itself throughout his created order in such elements as mutual submission, sacrifice, reconciliation and justice.

Justice is the proper response to God's law. God's law is his boundaries. It serves as a general revelation of God to the world. If you are within God's boundaries, you have life. If you are outside of God's boundaries, you are dead. That's justice. Life and death have physical and spiritual manifestations. Following or breaking the law physically is a behavioral matter. But the law is spiritual where our deepest intentions have their place. In that regard, we cannot have good intentions without the Spirit of God moving in the heart of our will. Although our lesser intentions may be inclined toward some natural moral law, we may not yet ultimately be inclined toward God. And, as he did with Pharaoh by hardening his heart, these lesser inclinations can be affected by God. Yet we shall not say that God causes us to sin though he gives any of us over to our sin. Rather, we are dead in sin outside of God or dead to our sin in God. This is evident in our behavior whether as believers we show true contrition with regard to our sin and attribute any righteousness to God or as unfaithful to deny both our sin and the righteousness of God.

So then, the unfaithful glorify God by incurring his wrath in judgment and the faithful glorify God by receiving his grace as Christ bore the wrath of God for us. In all ways God is glorified, but for the faithful the glory of god is preeminent even beyond salvation. And by glorifying God we grow in faith as Abraham did: "No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God." (Romans 4:20, ESV)

Therefore we participate in love with God through the submission of our will to him being so inclined by the Holy Spirit and thereby know his grace afforded by the blood of Christ.

And God is glorified.

The Freedom of the Law and Bondage of the Will

The Freedom of the Law and Bondage of the Will

Free will is an oxymoron in more than one way. Will is not free: it’s expensive. And in this sinful world that expense comes at the restriction of freedom. Let me explain. Last night my family read the following:

Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered a unauthorized fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded them. 2 And fire came out from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. 3 Then Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the Lord has said, ‘Among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.’” And Aaron held his peace. Leviticus 10:1-3

Waw

41 Let your steadfast love come to me, O Lord,
your salvation according to your promise;
42 then shall I have an answer for him who taunts me,
for I trust in your word.
43 And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth,
for my hope is in your rules.
44 I will keep your law continually,
forever and ever,
45 and I shall walk in a wide place,
for I have sought your precepts.
46 I will also speak of your testimonies before kings
and shall not be put to shame,
47 for I find my delight in your commandments,
which I love.
48 I will lift up my hands toward your commandments, which I love,
and I will meditate on your statutes.

Psalm 119:41-48

As a sinner, whenever I have flexed my free will I have rebelled against God. The term in Psalm 119:45: “wide place” is the Hebrew “rachab” which literally means “roomy”. The sense here is that one who seeks God’s law walks in freedom or liberty.

However, the law appears to us to be restrictive. I asked my kids about this and they agreed. The law says “don’t do this” or “only do that” and we are restricted. I asked them if they could think of some rule or law that restricts their freedom. They offered up the rule, “Don’t jump on the bed.” Well, this is not part of the law of God that we’ve been reading in the Bible, but it was a perfect example. They said that without the rule they were allowed to jump on the bed. With the law, they were restricted from jumping on the bed.

What makes this a perfect example is that a few years ago my brother’s family went to beach. Not long after they were there their young son took to jumping on the bed. He fell off the bed and broke his leg in the thigh. That pretty much did it for the beach vacation. Not only was he restricted, the whole family had to give up the rest of the vacation and come home early. While a rule like “don’t jump on the bed” may seem restrictive, following such a rule would allow for the freedom of a nice vacation in the surf and the waves for the whole family.

While such an example is an outward and tangible example, God’s law operates on the same principle regarding our spiritual freedom. If, as it is argued, God created us with free will, then apart from God our will is not free. God’s law is a revelation of his will. Therefore, can we say that the law is restrictive? We must also say that God is restrictive.

The debate between those who argue that the will of man is sufficient for faith and those who argue that the will of man is subordinate to God’s sovereignty is merely academic if it is not realized that the theological tension is resolved in our reconciliation with God.

One thing that happens when God’s law is transgressed is that the transgressor is filled with internal confusion. God’s law perfectly followed never results in theological tension. After all, God is rational and he creates good reason. Once sin enters the relationship, our perception of God’s perfect will is distorted. We can see this in every story of romance. I love a romantic story as much as some women. What kind of romance stories would we have if there were no tension to be resolved because someone did something wrong or even just wanted something they shouldn’t? So people end up with all sorts of conflicted emotions and have a time trying to sort them out so the relationship can be healed.

So the first shall be last and the last shall be first. The result of the theological tension here should be mere theological weightlifting, but that I should deny my will and submit to God’s. If my will agrees with God’s will, then I don’t exult my will as though I came up with the right path on my own. How does that glorify God? If I say that God’s way was the right way all along and I was acting outside of His will, I don’t blame Him for making me do it. I accept the blame as an act of my will against God’s will and recognize that I am dead apart from my creator and am bound to sin by definition. Only by denying my will and submitting to His will in the power of the Holy Spirit, and by his grace in the provision of the atoning work of Jesus Christ, am I finally freed from my sin.

Beneficial Faith and the Gospel of Christ

I've seen a lot of blogs posting links to this remarkable article written by Matthew Parris, an atheist, entitled As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God. Read the whole article. I want to cite some of what he wrote:

The Christians were always different. Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world - a directness in their dealings with others - that seemed to be missing in traditional African life. They stood tall.

Anxiety - fear of evil spirits, of ancestors, of nature and the wild, of a tribal hierarchy, of quite everyday things - strikes deep into the whole structure of rural African thought. Every man has his place and, call it fear or respect, a great weight grinds down the individual spirit, stunting curiosity. People won't take the initiative, won't take things into their own hands or on their own shoulders.

Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosphical/spiritual framework I've just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.

He observes that Christian faith liberates the mind. However, he is unwilling to himself have that freedom for his own mind. It's one thing to acknowledge the truth. It's another thing to think the truth applies to you. The man has a faith of sorts and acknowledges it as such:

It inspired me, renewing my flagging faith in development charities. But travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I've been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I've been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.

What's more astonishing is that he recognizes that the Christian faith is spiritual, real, and good:

Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

Umm. If it's spiritual, real and good then why not have it? This leads me to an observation. If knowing and believing isn't enough to have faith, then we must conclude that faith comes from some other source. Is it that he has simply choosen not to have faith? I imagine that he simply doesn't believe that God exists. At this point a toughtful atheist can't argue that faith is a product of evolution; otherwise we'd all have faith. While he accurately observes that faith in Africa is spread through the missionaries who bring the gospel of Christ, he himself doesn't have this faith. Presenting the information isn't sufficient for producing faith. It's like pointing out all the people who have died of emphysema to a smoker who already has a bad cough and watching the smoker himself become diagnosed with emphysema and continue to smoke until his lungs are too weak to take a drag. The truth is evident and the evidence abundant, even in the life of the atheist. So, why not have faith while one can?

For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. Romans 12:3

Faith is a gift of God.

Solomon's Justice: Kill the Baby

1 Kings 3:16-28

We all know the story:

Solomon prays for wisdom. Then he has this case where two women are fighting over a baby. His solution is to cut the baby in half. One woman says to go ahead and do it. The other begs Solomon not to kill the baby, but she would give up the baby so he could live. So Solomon gives the baby to the woman who would give him up for his life.

What kind of man would propose killing a baby out of a spirit of fairness?

This actually isn't a post about Barak Obama's stated policies, although I could go there.

No. Rather, turn to Exodus 32.

[Edit: I added this summary of Exodus 32.]

The Israelites make a golden calf and worship it while Moses is on the mountain talking to God. God tells Moses to leave Him so He can wipe out the Israelites and start over with Moses. Moses argues that everything God did to glorify himself in Egypt would be for naught if that happened. So God refrains from killing the Israelites. Moses goes down the mountain, grinds up the calf into water and makes everyone drink it. Then he has the Levites go out and kill 3000 people. Moses then goes back up the mountain and begs God to forgive the Israelites and if He won't, then to judge Moses along with them. God condemns only those who have sinned and sends a plague on the Israelites.

The Creator of the universe can do with His creation what He wants. Some may have a problem with God wanting to destroy all His people and start over with Moses, but if you actually believe in a divine Creator, then how could you have a problem with it? Where most people stumble in this account is on verses 11-14 where Moses apparently causes God to change His mind. Open theists answer this by claiming that God really doesn't know everything. Other libertarian free-willers answer this different ways. For example, they may say that God does know everything, but that He "limits Himself." It brings into question God's immutability.

Did Solomon actually intend to kill the innocent baby in order to judge fairly between the women? No. That's silly. I supposed they believed he would actually do it, but you don't kill an innocent person in the spirit of fairness. For Solomon, he never intended to kill the baby. He intended to discover who the real mother was, or at least who would be a good mother to the baby.

Why do we read that God "repented"? To say that God "repented" is an anthropomorphism. Where there is ever an apparent choice to make, there can only be one choice made. God's anthropomorphic repentance is what Moses needed to embolden him to accomplish God's purpose. It was part of God's whole presentation to him. God is not so ignorant a Creator to fail to plan, or even merely know, the outcome. Why else would God threaten to kill the Israelites if He knew that He would "repent" of it?

God never intended to kill all the Israelites.

Did God lie when He threatened to kill the Israelites? Did Solomon lie when He threatened to kill the baby? Technically no. They both gave good laweresque statements.

Solomon: 24 And the king said, "Bring me a sword." So a sword was brought before the king. 25 And the king said, "Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one and half to the other."

God: 9 And the LORD said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people. 10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them, in order that I may make a great nation of you."

Solomon's statement was an order that could be rescinded. It was not a statement of intent.

God's statement was conditional on Moses leaving Him alone.

Solomon's intent was to determine who the mother was.

God's intent was to teach Moses not to leave Him.

Solomon's tactic required that the true mother be willing to give of herself for another.

God's tactic eventually required Moses to offer himself up for judgment along with Israel. (v 32)

In both cases, the requirement was an act of constrained will against a previous desire. The mother desired to have the baby, but the baby's well-being was more important. Moses desired God's forgiveness, but not at the expense of God's righteous judgment and His glory.

Both Solomon and God achieved their goals.

God will achieve His goals in us. Praise Him to His glory.

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.

The Arminian Flower

Here's some humor from David Dockery, President of Union University, at the Building Bridges conference this week:

"If TULIP is the flower of the Calvinists, the Arminian flower is the daisy: 'He loves me, He loves me not, He loves me, He loves me not."

The Origin of Sin and the Determination of the Elect

Reformed theologians are hardly settled on the precise origin of sin. There are two or three general camps that help to frame the debate. Primarily, there is supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism. (There is also “sublapsarianism”, but its precise definitive position has been confused with other positions.)

Supralapsarianism is the position that God determined the elect logically prior to creation. In this position, He created with the plan of allowing the Fall to occur.

Infralapsarianism, by contrast, holds that God did not determine the elect until logically after allowing the Fall, which He could determine logically after creation.

Both positions provide for God to allow the Fall, but the difference is in the order of His decrees. Many Reformed theologians do not hold strictly to one or the other, but rather develop an understanding using these as reference points. (As it is, all hyper-Calvinists are supralapsarians, but not all supralapsarians are hyper-Calvinists.)

I had planned on going into the whole eternity-temporality thing. However, I’m convinced I’m the only one who understands it. Therefore, I offer this quote from Gene Bridges on Triablogue. He stated the essence of my reasoning in rather simpler terms and may be better fit for public consumption. I offer it here for your consideration:

"What God decrees for His glory, men do with their own motives. For example, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart in order to judge Egypt’s gods. Pharaoh’s will was not violated, in that God allowed Pharaoh’s love of evil, which was his natural state, to increase, keeping Israel from leaving. Pharaoh did not keep them from leaving in order to glorify God and worship Him. He did it because he hated God, Moses, Aaron, and the slaves. What God did for a righteous motive, Pharaoh did out of hatred for God. The motive behind an act, therefore, determines whether or not it is truly sinful. In theory, if Pharaoh had done what he did to glorify and worship God, he would not have been condemned, however, a man that does such a thing is, in reality acting in faith and love for God and would have to be regenerate. Such a man would not hold Israel back; he would have released Israel and taken down Egypt’s gods. That was not God’s purpose for Pharaoh. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

God is the author of evil, in the sense that He is first cause of all things. This simply goes with pay grade. His decrees, through either action or inaction render events necessary, but, evil is the result of permission, not His direct causation, or a result of His judicial hardening of sinners, an act of justice Scripture supports repeatedly, as in the above text and in Romans 1. Nothing happens that compels a man or demon to act in a way it does not wish to act or against its nature. He may withhold constraining grace, as in the fall, in order to render a thing certain, but the agent of the evil, in this case Adam simply acts in accordance with his nature as a second cause, for reasons and motives sufficient for himself and arising from his own nature. Men thus do what God decrees, but for motives all their own. In so doing, they may incur judgment. In this way men act as infallibly as if they had no liberty, yet as freely as if there was no decree rendering their acts certain. See, for example, the predestination of Judas betrayal and Jesus crucifixion. These men did, with evil desires, what God desired and planned to happen since before creation, for Jesus is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world itself.

Another Scholastic distinction I alluded to above even though we admit is has been discussed to death and fraught with difficulties since the Middle Ages, is the distinction between God's absolute power (Potentia Absoluta) and ordinary power (Potentia Ordinata). Whatever the difficulties of those distinctions in the older theologies (See Richard Muller's discussions in Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics - it's too long to enter for my purposes here), I think they are useful, at their root, insofar as they help accurately describe the way God uses means. With respect to things like creation ex nihilio, miracles, the Incarnation, regeneration, etc. God's absolute and direct control is very involved. In all other things, the decrees fall out according to the nature of second causes "either necessarily, freely, or contingently."

Notice that even in the creation narrative, we have an implication of second causes. There are commands that say, "Let there be..." and others that say ,"Let the earth bring forth..." In the Incarnation, we have a direct miracle @ conception, but it isn't as if Jesus just appears full formed as a 30 year old man like some sort of animus springing from Mary's womb. Rather, there is a normal pregnancy; He grows through childhood into adulthood, etc. We speak of regeneration in two senses: the wider and the narrower. In the narrower, we mean the direct act of God raising the soul dead in sin to life, but we are comfortable pointing out that "means" are the ordinary mode of that occurrence. As Dr. Sproul has said, the Spirit and the Word of God (preaching, studying, reading, etc) are working together."

I would consider that the logical order of the decrees is immaterial. They each derive directly from God's eternal nature. Here, it is more fruitful to understand that God, as the first cause, allows second order causes according to His created order.

Predestination in London

Warning to Armenians, take your Calvinix now!

This series of videos feature a panel of theologians discussing predestination. One of the theologians is apologist Dr. James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries. It is one of the clearest presentations of the doctrine that I have ever heard.







Hang in there for this last one. Some odd fluke of British broadcasting caused the program to switch from one channel to another right when Dr. White gets to a great point.

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.