The Problem of Sin

Our question for today is very straight forward: are most people, deep down inside, basically good?  Your answer to this question will set the stage for the rest of our conversations.  We will look at each answer and the consequences to each answer.  Finally, we will see where scripture leads us citing both Old and New Testament passages. 

Let us begin with the affirmative answer to our question.  In this paradigm, we have some significant theological consequences.  The first and most obvious is that this answer means that somehow all of humanity is free of Adam’s sin.  There are only two possible ways that this can be true.  First, we can assume that Adam’s sin is not imputed to all of mankind, that Adam was not a federal representative of all of us and did not sin for all of us (denial of original sin.)  Second, we can assume that Adam did impute sin to all of us, but that sin has been cleansed in some manner.

The first assumption was put forward by the British monk Pelagius in the fifth century.  The primary source of the church’s opinion regarding this position in that time was written by Augustine.  This position that denies original sin and the imputed sin of Adam to all of humanity is known as Pelagianism.  It has been condemned by every church counsel since the fifth century.  This point of view is held by many Americans and is clearly heretical.

There are other consequences of this assumption.  In order to attain salvation, man must seek God, an activity that he must be able to undertake in this system.  Because man has free will, he is able to choose to follow Jesus’ good example instead of Adam’s bad example.  The purpose of Jesus’ life was to provide a good example for man to follow in order to attain righteousness before God.  The question that is left unanswered in this system, though, is why then did Jesus have to die?

The second assumption has a couple of permutations.  It starts from the point that original sin is affirmed.  However, the purpose of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection is to provide victory over sin and death and give mankind a clean slate.  This allows man’s free will to again be able to choose to follow God.  There are subtle nuances here about whether we take the first step or whether God takes the first step.  When we take the first step, this is called semipelagianism.  This is the default position of most Americans.  It has also been condemned by church counsels.  If we take a step towards God, He’ll do all the rest.  Does that sound familiar?  If you pray this prayer and walk this walk, God will come down and do the rest.  If you just turn around and just face God, He is standing right there.  These are semipelagian positions that have become the mainstay of American religion due the revivalism movement of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  This theology also assumes that if you can turn towards God, you can also later turn away from God and lose your salvation.  So, now that you have prayed this prayer, walking this walk is vital to maintaining your salvation.  Let me tell you the five rules for walking the walk in this area, and the seven rules for walking the walk in this area, and the fifteen principles of “Christian” living.  Deeds, not creeds.  All of this mess is under this theological umbrella, and it is all considered heretical.  Altar calls belong to this general heading, although they can also be seen with Pelagian and even Arminian theology.

Here is a historical aside.  On everything that is above this point, there is complete Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and historical Reformation Protestant agreement.  This is the horrible irony of the state of the church.  Over 1500 years of church history gets undone by our insistence on the efficacy of our free will and our American egalitarianism.  This combination may look great in our Constitution, but the historic church has condemned this position.  Therefore, the majority of what we Americans call Christianity and Church is actually neither.

The next position to consider is the reverse of this position.  What if God takes the first step, but we need to cooperate with God and make a decision to turn toward Him.  God enables us through an infusion of grace, prevenient grace, to be able to make a proper decision for God.  After God makes this first move, we have to cooperate with God and choose to follow God.  We have to choose to believe.  This is the position of a sixteenth century Dutch theologian named Arminius.  Original sin is intact in this system.  God offers the potential for salvation to all humanity and makes the first move.  It is up to us to respond.  This system is still synergistic; it requires action by both God and man, but God has to take the first step.  We are not capable of choosing God without this infusion of grace.  We can also choose not to follow God, and many people make this other choice.  Salvation, therefore, can be lost.  Arminianism is not considered heresy, but rather a doctrinal error by more orthodox branches of the Protestant traditions.  The Canons of Dordt are the Dutch Reformed response to Arminius and contain the enunciation of the five points of Calvinism, which refute the five points of Arminius’ Remonstration. 

The Roman Catholic position is more complicated and falls somewhere in here for our discussion.  The Roman Catholics have some notion of the perseverance of the saints, in other words, you cannot lose your salvation except by the unrepented commission of a mortal sin.  Their theology still insists on perfection for admittance into heaven.  There is a complicated system of sin, repentance and penance that is required to return to a right standing before God.  After we die, whatever deficit that we have from perfection has to be worked out in purgatory prior to acceptance into heaven.  At Baptism, we receive a similar prevenient grace that enables us to perform good works through the power of the Holy Spirit, and through the other sacraments (seven total in Roman Catholicism,) we receive infusions of grace throughout our lives that quantitatively accumulate to balance against our sin.  I want to make no effort to defend this position at this time.  Most Americans identify Roman Catholicism as heretical by definition, without ever bothering to understand what they believe.  The Roman Catholic system of justification is actually closer to the Reformed position than most Americans, who are either full blown Pelagians or semipelagians. 

Now, let us answer our original question in the negative.  Are most people, deep down inside, basically good?  No.  Let’s go to scripture to see why everyone except for the Pelagians who deny original sin would affirm this position.  We have done this exercise on this blog in the past, so for many, this will be familiar.  Here are some examples, by all means, not an inclusive list.  1 Kings 19:9-18, Isaiah 59:1-13, Jeremiah 21, Psalm 5, 14, 53, 140, Romans 3:1-20. 

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

 (Romans 5: 6-8, 12 ESV)

These are heavy words and they condemn all of us.  If you hold to this position, then not only do you need God to clean the slate, you are horribly incapable of even cooperating with God.  This is known as monergism, where God does all of the work.  God recognizes the problem and arranges the solution.  Jesus enters the world, lives the perfect life and overcomes death, thereby ushering in the interadvental time of this present evil age (between His life, death, resurrection and ascension and the Age to come, which begins at the second coming, Judgment Day. the Last Day.)  He then imputes righteousness to His elect and reconciles His elect to Himself.  As each elect saint enters the world, the Holy Spirit arranges for their conversion and belief.  The Good Shepherd does not lose even one.  God does not fail in His purpose even the slightest.  He accomplishes exactly that which He intends.

Americans will yell, “That’s not fair!” Our egalitarian sensibilities insist that this is arbitrary and capricious.  But from God’s perspective, when He looks out upon the world from all eternity, all he sees is sin and death, a vast graveyard of humanity.  In His infinite Mercy, He decides to save a vast number of humanity, more than can be counted.  Do not ask for fair, because fairly we are all condemned.  Rest assured, instead, in the certain hope of His mercy for you, His elect.

That is our biggest problem.  We are all condemned to die and enter into hell forever.  Only the absolute perfection of God can satisfy the righteousness of God on the Last Day.  Without the imputed righteousness of the One who did what we cannot do, and the reconciliation He offers by the imputation of our sin to Him, where He has already paid the price for that sin, we will get what we deserve.  Death, hell and eternal damnation.

– Troll –

Does God Love the Sinner, but hate the Sin?

Usually, Troll doesn’t just plow into a topic that falls into the area of Ogre, but today will be different.  Two of my dear friends, in the same week, used the old saw “God loves the sinner, but hates the sin.” In both instances, I stated that I did not agree, but in neither case was the circumstance appropriate to elaborate.  Since this perspective is so pervasive in the US, I thought it needed a good discussion.

The statement above implies a couple of things.  First, it implies that deep down inside, man is basically good.  Secondly, it implies that even if the sin of Adam was federally imputed to all of mankind, the role of the Atonement becomes a clearing of the slate.  This further implies that the standard of God can be less than perfection, because Jesus gives the gift that keeps on giving, unless you are Roman Catholic, in which case you’ve got some work to do in Purgatory.  Both of these examples are works theologies, and typical of the liberal perspective.  Let us look at this statement from a theology of Grace instead of a theology of Works.

Is man basically good?  I’ve addressed this issue many times in the past, but here are just a few passages that speak to the issue.  Jeremiah 17:9, Psalms 5:9, 14:1-3, Isaiah 6:5, 59:7-8, Ecclesiastes7:20, and of course Romans 3:9-12.  We have a problem of sin.  Notice how Paul describes the condition of sin in Romans 5:12-21.  He is contrasting the imputation of sin by Adam on the whole human race to the imputation of perfect righteousness by Christ to the elect through the gift of faith from the Holy Spirit.  The problem here is that we are born sinners and we will die sinners.  We require an alien righteousness, a righteousness that is outside of ourselves, a righteousness that we can obtain from someone else, to satisfy the Justice and Glory of God.  And here is the rub: without this alien righteousness, our own deeds, our own works, condemn us to hell. 

Therefore, can we truly say that God loves the sinner?  Perhaps, if we argue that while we were still enemies of God, He provides us with this perfect righteousness, then we can say that God loves us anyway.  But here is the problem with that line of reasoning.  God doesn’t save everyone.  There is an elect remnant, Romans 9, that God has held back for Himself from before time.  For these, He loves us and gives us the free gift through Grace of faith in the meritorious work of Christ on the Cross.  So, does God love us due to any particular virtue of our own?  Of course not.  He loves us because of the imputed righteousness of Christ that is added to our account.  Without this imputed righteousness, He truly does not love us, but instead, we suffer His Just Wrath.

What if we come to the problem from an Arminian, Semi-Pelagian or Roman Catholic perspective of the Atonement?  What does this mean?  The work of Christ on the Cross was sufficient for all people to wipe our slates clean, in these systems.  Our free will, being thus cleansed of sin, is now capable of following the commandments.  Our salvation is based upon our efforts and works during this life.  If we make an effort, God will forgive the rest in the first two cases, or give us a time in Purgatory in the third case.  Now, I’d like for a moment to discuss how this violates the Holiness of God.  We are saying here that God will accept sinful people into heaven.  Check out Matthew 5:48.  The standard is perfection.  No joke.  Perfection.  Dwell on that bad news for a minute.  Do we really expect that God’s love implies that He will simply overlook our sin?

God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all who believe in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.  John 3:16.  We all know this verse, but we seem to turn off our brains when reading it and add some stuff that just isn’t there to the equation.  God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all who believed in Him and followed the commandments and took one step towards Him and prayed the prayer at the altar call and voted Republican would not perish, but have everlasting life.  Hmmm.  All that stuff is not actually in there, (except the bit about voting Republican.  It’s in the Grand Old Pachyderm Revised Standard Version (GOPRSV).)  As C.S.Lewis put it in the Screwtape Letters, just get them to add something to the Gospel, add anything to the Gospel, and then it’s no longer the gospel.  What this verse does say is that the work of Jesus on the Cross is 100% efficacious for all believers.  This means that salvation is based upon faith alone.  Certainly, I could have selected many other passages, particularly in the Pauline epistles, that are more explicit on this subject, but this is from John, and it is very well known.

Finally, God hates sin.  God abhors sin.  Any who sin, or are born in the condition of sin in Adam, in other words everyone, is condemned to hell.  God went about a rescue mission for an elect remnant of native vines and wild vines (Jews and Gentiles) in which He not only provides a perfect sacrifice that turns away God’s wrath, but also reconciles us to God through Christ Jesus’ blood.  Our sin, the sin of all believers, before we were born, was imputed to Christ.  His righteousness was imputed to all believers, and this righteousness is credited to our account on the Last Day.  Therefore, He lived the Life we could not live.  He died the death we could not die as a perfect sacrifice.  He arose from death and ascended into Heaven, becoming the firstborn from the dead.  On the Last Day, He will raise all of us and clothe His elect in His own righteousness, so that we may walk boldly in Judgment, confident in a perfect righteousness that isn’t our own.  God gets to see us through this perfect righteousness and His Holiness and Justice remains intact.  God, in this way, is not diminished by our sin.  We are accepted immediately and completely, full inheritors of His Kingdom.

Why did God go through all of this for us?  I’m sure He’ll tell us all someday.  Until that Day, the Last Day, we must trust in the scripture and believe.  Our reaction to this gift of faith and mercy is obedience and humility.  We will sin again and again as long as our bodies are IN Adam (until we die), and though it drives us nuts and upsets us that we cannot be the perfect man that Christ was, we persevere in the certain hope that our Salvation is secured in Christ.

That, my friends is why I do not agree with the opening proposition.  The theology of works is not my claim to salvation.  I’ll take grace, thank you.  Don’t give me what I deserve.  I’ll simply accept that free gift that the Holy Spirit has given me.  As bad is the bad news really is, the Good News is much better than you can possibly imagine.

--Troll--

Arminianism vs. Calvinism: The debate part three

Imagine that every soul in the history of the world is a silver coin.  In the beginning, God made silver coins and placed them all on his table on heads.  Adam really messed it up for us.  First, because of his introduction of sin, all the coins are now copper; second, they are now all on tails.  So, humanity has gone from a sea of silver coins on heads, to a sea of copper coins on tails.  The copper represents the condition of sin.  Heads stands for righteousness before God, and Tails stands for eternal damnation.  Man is able to polish his coin, but he cannot flip the coin and he cannot change the coin from copper to silver.  What is required for Salvation is a silver coin on heads.

This is the point of departure between Arminianism and Calvinism.  When we introduce Jesus into the model, the action of Jesus is different.  Jesus comes into the world.  He dies, He is buried, He arises.  What did this do for the coins?  Let's go through the situation from the Arminian perspective first.

From the Arminian perspective, Jesus does two things.  First, His resurrection, by prevenient grace, cleanses sin from all of mankind.  Essentially, he turns all of the copper coins back into silver coins.  Next, He sets all the coins on their edge.  They are a blank slate.  It is up to the individual to push his coins over in one direction or the other based upon that person's works during their life.  If they commit a mortal sin, they can convert their coin back into copper.  Then, by some additional penance, they might be able to reconvert their coin from copper back into silver again.  On the last Day, whether the coin is silver or copper and whether it is on heads or tails, is all up to that person.

From the Calvinist perspective, Jesus also does two things.  First, His resurrection, by a gift of Grace through the action of the Holy Spirit on His elect, an action that is irresistible and irreversible, turns some of the coins over to heads and leaves the rest.  We go through life member of two kingdoms.  We remain citizens of this world, still under the curse of Adam, still capable of sin, until we die or the Second Coming, whichever comes first.  We remain copper coins, but we are on heads.  Then, upon our deaths, all of the copper coins that are on heads are converted into silver coins on heads.  This is the promise in which the Christian believes and is certain he will receive based upon his knowledge and faith in the truth of the Gospel, a knowledge and faith that was given to him by God acting through the Holy Spirit.

Which of these models represents a more powerful or omnipotent God?  The Arminian elevates the ability of man to undo the deeds of God.  The Calvinist believes that no action of God can be resisted, prevented or undone. 

Which of these models represents a more Gracious God?  The Arminian believes that man has to work to turn his coin to the side of righteousness.  The Calvinist believes that he receives righteousness as a gift.

Which of these models represents a more hopeful condition of man?  Tough question.  An Arminian has great hope in his works.  A Calvinist has certainty in His gift.

Which of these models looks outward to God and which looks inward to self?  The Arminian has rested his salvation on his works, on his own inward look at himself.  The Calvinist looks to everything from God.  It is truly all about Him.

What is the role of works in each case?  The role of works for the Arminian is to push the coin over.  The role of works for the Calvinist is to polish the coin.  The Calvinist knows that he cannot turn the coin silver, but he is grateful for being turned to heads; and he is certain that the coin will be turned silver.  Therefore, the Calvinist spends his life polishing his copper coin to make it as shiny as possible.  This is what the Calvinist refers to as bearing good fruit.  The Calvinist is free to polish without concern for the position or the composition of his coin.  This is Christian liberty.  While the Arminian is busy trying to make sure that his coin lands on heads when he dies, the Calvinist is free to polish his coin, i.e., do good works without concerning himself over motives.

Which of these models represents a more Merciful God?  The Arminian believes that God saves everyone, but that man can mess it up.  How much mercy is there if you give salvation and then allow it to be taken away again?  The Calvinist believes that there is an elect, a remnant, that God will save, more numerous than anyone can count.  God is 100% successful in saving those people.  He does all of the work.  And remember, we deserve to remain on tails forever in the mind of a Calvinist.  Therefore, it is ONLY by the Mercy and Grace of God that we are first turned over, and later transformed.

Which is a system that presents a God that you would worship, really worship?

--Troll--

Arminianism vs. Calvinism: The debate part two

Jacobus Arminius was a Dutch theologian from the end of the sixteenth century.  His remarks in a paper published after his death were highly critical of certain aspects of what was becoming the Calvinist doctrines in the Dutch Reformation.  The Synod of Dordt was convened to deal with the Arminian problem, and the resultant Canons of Dordt contain the Five points of Calvinism.  Interestingly enough, Arminius’ document is called the Five Articles of the Remonstrants.  Since I plan to discuss the full Canons of Dordt in the future, this particular discussion will center on Arminius’ work, and the direct Calvinist rebuttal, without diving into the full set of doctrines for either side.

While it would be perhaps easy to label Arminius a heretic, Luther thought it important that there be a distinction between being in error over a particular doctrine and being a heretic.  Even if, as in the case of Arminius, you follow his error to its logical conclusion, and that conclusion is a heresy, this is not the same as being a heretic.  This distinction is thought to be very important.  At the end of the discussion, I will come back to this point so as to come as close to an ecumenical position as can be made.

Having said that, the Synod of Dordt declared the Five Articles of Remonstrance heretical.  Remember first, that the Remonstrants were reacting to the Calvinist doctrines of the Belgic Confession.  Therefore, they already had the Calvinists in a foul mood by complaining.  Secondly, this is all happening in the shadow of Trent, which occurred fifty years prior to 1610, when these Articles were published.  Therefore, many of the Reformers were clearly not in the mood to give ground back to Rome on any issue.  And so, without further elaboration, let’s discuss the specifics.

Article 1

That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believes on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.

Nice.  At first glance, this doesn’t look that bad.  But if you will remember the recent post that I made about “only” being an important word, look where that word is importantly missing from this article.  First, there are conditions applied here.  Whereas Calvin would say shall believe only, Arminius says believe and persevere in faith.  This is a dangerous precipice on which he has moved.  To persevere implies activity or work on the part of the individual.  While Calvin talks about perseverance of the saints in that Jesus will persevere in the shepherding of His flock, Arminius has turned this into individual humans persevering in their faith.  In other words, although he states that through grace we receive faith, it is by our own works that we maintain it. 

Article 2

That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”  And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

More of the same.  We need to address the Article first and then 1 John 2:2.  Arminius specifically states that Christ died for every man.  This means that the resurrection is not sufficient for salvation for some men.  He requires a work from man.  He has turned belief and faith into a work, rather than a gift of grace received from the Holy Spirit.  Arminius actually contradicts himself from the first article.  The theological difference between Jesus having died for all men, but it wasn’t effective for some, and Jesus having died for His elect, and it was completely effective for them all, is huge.  Can you really worship a god who is ineffective in achieving his ends?  Or rather, do you believe that God accomplished exactly what He set out to accomplish?

1 John 2:2 is a huge passage.  When reading a verse that seems to say something out of step with the rest of the gospel, a good rule is to go back and put the verse back into context.  Look instead at the first paragraph of 1 John 2.  This looks a little different when you read the next four verses.  In the context of the whole letter, it is clear that there are schisms within the early church that John is addressing.  If Salvation was for everyone, much of the rest of this letter would not make any sense.  It makes far better sense that the phrase the sins of the whole world means that these Christians to whom John is writing are not the only Christians for whom the resurrection was effective.  The Christians in the whole world, both of that time and of all times, are the beneficiaries of the propitiation earned by the resurrection.  This is every much as vast and sweeping a statement in terms of numbers and future without compromising the rest of the letter or the Gospel.  Remember, any sentence removed from context is vulnerable to manipulation of its meaning.  This sentence makes perfect sense within its context in 1 John without attempting to apply meaning other than that which John intended.

Article 3

That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of an by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.”

This one is interesting.  This is the idea of prevenient grace that you may hear about.  More on this is coming in the next article.  The Romans talk about the same thing in a slightly different way.  What is meant here is that fallen man needs a push.  The grace that saves sort of cleans the slate for you, but then you are on your own for the rest of your life.  So, we need Christ to teach us what is good, but after we are born again, we know what is right.  What this does is say that the curse of Adam is lifted in terms of the condition of sin, and yet we still suffer the wage of sin at death.  It is a truly remarkable contradiction for which no explanation is offered.  The only workable solution is that perfection is required to avoid death, but not for salvation.  I’m not finding any passages that make that work.

Article 4

That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can nei­ther think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. but respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inas­much as it is written con­cerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost.  Acts 7 and else­where in many places.

This article that discusses prevenient grace again explicitly denies the doctrine of irresistible grace.  But that is logical to Arminius, isn’t it?  If you do not believe that Romans 3:1-20 means that man’s condition is completely hopeless without Jesus, and do believe that everyone is the beneficiary of the resurrection, then it makes sense that people have to be able to say NO to God.  This is exactly backwards from Calvin.  Calvin thinks that God sees the world as a vast graveyard, and then God stoops down and saves a lot of us.  Arminius thinks that God saves everyone, but we have the ability to turn our backs on God.  Which God sounds worthy of worship to you:  God who does exactly what He sets out to do and is completely effective doing it, or god who tries to save everyone, but many humans are able to resist and defy him?  This is a Holiness of God problem.  Surely, Arminius had a higher view of God that this.

Article 5

That those who are in­corporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well un­derstood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was deliv­ered them, of losing a good conscience, of be­coming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, be­fore we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our mind.

Clearly John 10:28 is a difficult passage for Arminius.  He tries to explain it away.  Essentially, he has to do great violence to the verse in order to make his theology fit.  A rule of thumb: theology flows out from the text; theology is not imposed upon the text.  Arminius is determined to elevate man to the level of God, with just a little hand up from God. 

This is what we are being sold in the church today.  Whenever we are asked to make a decision for God, we are being asked an Arminian question.  Calvin and Luther wouldn’t ask for altar calls because altar calls flow from either Arminian or, worse, Pelagian theology.  The style of worship is a necessary outflow from theology and doctrine.  When we change the way we worship, we are signaling a change in doctrine.  That should always get our attention.

Is Arminius a heretic?  He clearly errs.  The similarities to Pelagius are striking.  But Arminius maintains a small semblance of grace in his theology.  He at least requires Christ to wipe the slate of sin clean for us.  We are at liberty to muck it up again.  Finally, Arminius runs head long into John 10:28, by his own admission, and just tosses out the verse.  It is a difficult call, but many Calvinists would call many Arminians brothers in Christ.  That will break the tie for now.  In the end, it will not be us who decides.  We are not, after all, given the ministry of fruit inspection.

--Troll--

Arminianism vs. Calvinism: The debate part one

One of the more difficult parts about writing this sort of blog is that my readership is from a variety of backgrounds.  While some can quote chapter and verse from the Bible, others can discuss the nuances of theology.  All have some combination of the two that ranges from weak in both to strong in both.  Therefore, while some posts are necessarily redundant for some, the same post can fly over heads of others.  This is a difficult balancing act, and I beg for your indulgence as I launch into this topic.

Jacobus Arminius lived at the end of the theological century, the sixteenth century.  He was a Dutch theologian who challenged some of the positions of the Reformation, particular those enumerated in the Belgic Confession, a document that I will likely review over the summer unless I do Luther or Heidelberg first.  In any case, the Canons of Dordt contained the five points of Calvinism which were drafted to deal with Arminius’ theology and controversy.  Arminius had written the Five Articles of the Remonstrants, published after his death, to which the Dordt Synod was responding.    

Therefore, it is historically accurate to state that these are theologically opposed perspectives. In other posts, I have highlighted and explained the five points of Calvinism.  They are found under the Building Blocks tab on the right, or by clicking on March, for they were all done in the last ten days of March.  But for this particular post, I have some of the typical questions that are asked about Calvinism.  They are a useful framework for this debate.  Therefore, I’ll give the stock answers from the point of view of Calvinism. 

Since God made man in His image, called his creation "Good", and gave us dignity, is Calvin's Total Depravity literal ?   Perhaps “Total Inability” is a more apt expression. 

This seems like the best place to begin.  In the Building blocks section, I have written a more lengthy discussion on Total Depravity, but let us try just this.  Paul believes that the Law is meant to convict us, to show us what is expected of us, and then to demonstrate that we fell completely short of the mark on every count.  Total depravity does not mean that everyone is equally evil.  This does not mean that the reprobate are incapable of civic righteousness.  Oprah Winfrey does wonderful things for many people, but few, only the most liberal, would confuse her with being a Christian.  Total Inability, although certainly true in the sense of what is intended in terms of works righteousness, also fails to make this distinction.  This is a Two Kingdom issue.  While we may do good deeds and help many people, our motives are tainted by the condition of sin.  Therefore, these deeds fail utterly in satisfying the just wrath of God.  This is about the extreme Holiness of God.  We must be perfect to satisfy the Law.  Anything short of perfection is failure in the eyes of God.  This is why we need a Savior. 

Is there a connection between Calvinism and Determinism  -- the idea that what you do is determined by external things like environment & genes, but not by your free will so that you are not really responsible or accountable?

Responsibility and accountability is exactly the problem.  The idea that God is offended by sin, such that God condemns all sin with the death penalty, is often lost in this debate.  Original sin is the idea that all aspects of humanity are tainted by that original sin.  Unless you understand this concept, the rest will not make any sense.  It is pointless to argue about free will without an understanding of Original sin.  Free will is tainted by sin.  We are able to choose on the horizontal plain of man in this world to do what we like, but all of those decisions, in fact all of the observations and conclusions that we make that form the basis of those decisions, are tainted by sin.  Therefore, we are unable to make a decision in the vertical direction of God, a direction that requires perfection.  That is why it is necessary for God to condescend to us.  He must come down to us to save us.  He gave us the Law to try to make us understand this.  He became incarnate to accomplish this. 

What about people around us who are predestined to be excluded from the "elect" and whose souls are condemned to eternal apartheid ?    Why would God bring a soul into this world inherently condemned to eternal damnation with no ability or possibility to believe in Christ? 

Predestination is very often the stumbling block for this debate.  The concept of election is foreign to many, particularly Americans.  Americans have a particular “can do” arrogance about us.  Many think that Franklin’s quip that God helps those who help themselves is actually Biblical.  Obviously, this is not the case.  We must imagine this problem, not from our own perspective, but from the perspective of God.  God looks upon humanity and sees an ocean of lost souls, completely corrupted by sin.  In His goodness and mercy, God sets about the greatest rescue mission in history.  He will save more souls than can be counted.  He will select those whom He will save and leave the rest.  Therefore, from His perspective, we earn eternal damnation by our own doing, but we receive Salvation by His Grace.  As to why not save everyone?  Who can speak for God?  Some things remain hidden from us.

Calvin seems stern & grim.  He emphasized that Christ took on the penalty of sin.  But redemption also makes us Sons of God, like jewels in which God delights, like a spouse.  We're more than ex-cons pardoned from prison;  The Bible tells us God paid double: Christ took on our sins and He imputed His spotless record on to us.

We are Christ’s elect to be sure.  He will not lose one of us whom He has claimed as His own.  That is what is called the perseverance of the saints.  But we are nothing without Him.  We are doomed without the Righteousness given us by Jesus in His vicarious atonement, with the imputations to which you refer.  There were three great imputations.  Adam's sin is imputed to man.  The sin of Man, elect, is imputed to Jesus.  Jesus' righteousness is imputed to the elect, so that we may stand in judgment on the Last Day, confident in the not guilty verdict.  I do not understand how this message is stern and grim.  This is the Gospel message, and it is the greatest news we can ever hear.  Calvin explains to us that regardless of our imperfection, God has reconciled us to Him.  Propitiation and imputation are not excluded by Calvin; they are embraced by Calvin as the essential components of justification.  That is the Gospel, according to Paul.

We will explore this more as needed.  I'll post specifically on Arminius this week.

--Troll--

Connect the Dots

I’ve been listening.  I’ve been listening carefully.  Did you know that there has been an Ogre among you?  Here is what I’ve been hearing.  Children, you must make a decision for Jesus and against sinning.  There is a prayer to pray if you accept Jesus.  Your sins will kill you eventually.   God gives you abundant life, if you will only ask him for it.  The so called “worship leader,” after singing songs about relationships with God, then prays that we should not consider what God has done for us, but rather what God can and will do for our lives now.

And so, after listening to this for a while, I finally have to ask these questions to the youth pastor.  On what grounds do we have music ministry people leading prayers, particularly when their theology is, well, questionable?  If we are not to ask what God did for us, what was the point of the resurrection?  What is your view of original sin?  What does Jesus offer me?  I know you quoted Romans 10:9, but have you read the rest of that book?  Have you ever once talked to the kids about what was in the rest of that book?

First of all, I’m absolutely astonished that singing or banging on drums or strumming a guitar qualifies a person to lead prayer in church.  This is the main corporate worship for many of the kids who show up on Wednesday night.  And we have a music guy leading a prayer.  I’m not suggesting that it isn’t OK for everyone to pray.  What I am suggesting is that perhaps a professional should be leading prayer at a corporate worship.

Next, “don’t be thinking about what God did for us….” What?  Isn’t that the whole point of being Christian?  There was this guy, Jesus, who lived, died and was resurrected from the dead 2000 years ago.  That is in the past.  That was the point.  That is what this whole Christianity thing is all about.  Can I get an “Amen?” And we have a singer praying that our kids should not be thinking about what God did for us in the past?  Let’s run through that again.  Jesus, God incarnate, wholly God and wholly man, condescended to come down from heaven, where He was present in eternity to be incarnate, under the Law, under the curse of Adam, so that He could live the perfect life, to fulfill the Law, to be the perfect sacrifice, to usher in the New Age, the be the first born of the New Covenant in Jesus Himself, to die as a penal substitution for the sins of the believers, of the elect, to die to reconcile us to Himself, to God, to be resurrected, to destroy death, to return to His Heavenly throne, where He sits until that day when He will return in Judgment, on the Last Day, to be the our only mediator and advocate on that Last Day, for our Judgment, a day that would otherwise seal our doom.  What?  That’s not what your worship leader said?  Then he shouldn’t be preaching through prayer.  He’s not qualified.

I promised a friend that I would leave the Arminian thinking alone, so I’ll just skip quickly over the whole idea that we have any hope of seeking God (Romans 3:1-20) and move onto my next topic.  I didn’t really talk about the idea that God is the one who makes the vertical moves possible.  Our vertical moves upward are futile (tower of Babel.)  I won’t mention that justification is a forensic declaration based on the propitiation, atonement and reconciliation, bought for us by Jesus 2000 years ago.  I’ll leave the whole idea that humans are afflicted by the condition of sin, which is far larger problem than any particular sin that I might or might not commit, totally out of this discussion.  I won’t discuss that it isn’t me who chooses God, but God who had chosen me, moving me to faith by the action of the Holy Spirit.  But we aren’t going there this time.

What about sin kills us?  What is abundant life?  Is not death the wage of sin?   Since we are in the condition of sin, we are all doomed to die.  Evidence is available in the local cemetery.  Is abundant life a life of material reward?  Perhaps abundant life is instead the life lived in confidence, in belief in the promise of the resurrection, in faith in the knowledge of the work of Jesus on the Cross for us, completed 2000 years ago, as we live in both the Present Age and the Age to come, citizens of both Ages, both under the curse of Adam, but in knowledge of our salvation in Jesus.

Youth Pastor?  When will you ever connect the dots?  What do we do when the same kids come to altar call four weeks in a row?  Why is that happening?  Do they understand why Jesus had to die on the cross?  Did you tell them that yet?  Did Jesus really have to die for your message?  Really??  This theology we hear every Sunday and ever Wednesday is not the full Gospel.  We are teaching a very small part of the Gospel.  We are stripping the Gospel of its richness and of its vital importance.  We are not connecting the dots.

--Ogre--