Logical Ordering of Genesis 1-2

   Last night, I listened to one of the more interesting conversations I have been involved in lately. The discussion concerned the eternal decree. I have no intention of retreading the strength and weaknesses of my infralapsarian position, so relax. The issue had not been presented to me in proper context before as it should have been, perhaps because I did not understand the conditions of the discussion. The key factor is the issue of timelessness. Last spring, the issue of timelessness and the application of this concept to eschatology by Pannenberg was an enlightening moment, and quite persuasive, I might add. So, it seemed quite logical to apply the same concept of timelessness to the eternal decree, in fact, in retrospect, how else would you do it?! 

   Let’s examine first the paradigm that is overriding this discussion. We have two realms, two realities, two Kingdoms. The First realm is the realm of God. In this realm of God, He is timeless, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. The second realm is creation. It is helpful to consider that if space is created, so is the linear (calm down physicists) aspect of time. Even if you want to discuss curved space time, quantum physics and time travel, there is an aspect of time that is in constant motion, that is inseparable from the concept of space. Time is the fourth dimension. Time is as much a part of space and creation as matter and energy. This is a key point to bring forward into the discussion of the eternal decree.

   For the purpose of review and to introduce the parts of the eternal decree, let us consider as example the infralapsarian position. The eternal decree is ordered as follows:

• ·         Decree to create
• ·         Decree to allow the fall of man (all men)
• ·         Decree to discriminate or for the election of some men
• ·         Decree to save the elect by Christ
• ·         Decree to apply salvation in Christ to the elect

Several book keeping points need stating. First, infralapsarianism is a Calvinist position, an in house discussion, if you will. The purpose of this discussion is not to argue the issue of the elect. I could have taken the example of the eternal decree from the Amyraldian  position instead as the example, but I don’t find that helpful in the long term in my persuasion to a reformed position to use other arguments as my example. But what follows works with ANY of the versions of the eternal decree. Second, and most importantly, this ordering is a logical order, not a chronological order.

   That this is a logical ordering is the point from which we will carry forward. The issue concerning the eternal decree is to look at the mind of God prior to creation and try and understand what He was thinking when he got around to creation. The point that we need to insert here is that time is a part of creation, but not a part of the realm of God. God is outside of time. There is a great creaturely temptation to deal with discussions of the eternal decree in chronological fashion, but this is an error. The discussion is in terms of logical ordering and needs to be emptied of any notion of chronological ordering. The reason for this distinction is important in other areas of theological discussion, but it should be kept in mind here as a fundamental principle of the eternal decree. 

   This is difficult, of course, for the creaturely mind to comprehend. The creature is created within the space-time continuum where time is part of the fabric of our existence. This is why Calvin warns us against actually contemplating this issue. This decree is outside of the realm of creatures and outside of progressive revelation as given us in Scripture. But in our creaturely desire to understand the divine, we make this attempt.

   Finally, we come to the meat of this discussion: creation. The Genesis 1-2 text has been discussed abundantly, and with particular zeal over the past couple of years within the context of the BioLogos debate. If you recall, the cornerstone of the BioLogos position is that science is not at odds with Scripture in the creation debate. Their rationalizations are interesting, but miss this key theological point. God exists and creation occurs. God is outside of time and time is an inextricable part of creation. This is important for the Genesis discussion precisely because of the issue of time.

   Back in 1954, Meredith Kline proposed the two register approach to this text. The key feature of this construct was to view the Genesis text as a separate literary genre, creation genre, rather than a historical narrative as most of the conversation about this text tends to do. I have given this link many times in the past, and hopefully it will work for you, but here is the updated Kline article from four decades later. The reason that this  view of Genesis appeals to me so much is the following logical construct.

   If we assume that the eternal decree is outside of time, because God is outside of time, then the decree to create is outside of time. The logical ordering of creation will likewise be outside of time. Scripture is by its very existence within creation is God’s revelation to man and subject to the confines of space time. But this does not mean that God would reveal to man a logical construct that takes place outside of time with the intention of the application of chronological principles to that revelation. It makes far better sense to consider the Genesis 1-2 text within the timelessness of God’s realm. God introduces time as a part of creation. Logical order of creation takes place prior to creation. Logically, one must first conceive of a thing before one makes a thing. This is not true of God in a timeless realm, but it is impossible to convey logical order without the danger of perception within a chronological order within the realm of creation. 

   Perhaps the very issues of apparent contradiction seen between the two chapters are meant to point exactly to the issue of logical order and not to chronological order. Only by their difference does Scripture draw attention to the notion that it is the revelation of creation ORDER and not a creation TIMELINE that is revealed in Genesis 1-2. The important issue of the Genesis 1-2 text is the position or role of man in the creation order. The eternal decree that includes creation is outside of time, and time is only introduced into creation at the point of creation. A revelation of the eternal order of our role within creation should be viewed from the context of the eternal decree and not from the view within creation itself. That is the fallacy of using chronological arguments in this portion of divine revelation. 

   It can be argued to extend this point to Genesis 3, but that is a massively huge jump, and one that cannot be made with any sort of certainty. The notion of Adam and Eve as archetypes of humanity rather than their human primacy does seem to fit with the logical argument of the prior chapters. The expulsion from Eden would mark the beginning of historical narrative, their entering into that portion of creation that is no longer both in this realm and the realm of God and thereby subject to the rule of time. The Kline literary framework model does not include the Eden section, but I would argue that it may well belong with the prior chapters rather than with the subsequent.

   So, in summary, the arguments for Calvinism and the extra-Biblical eternal decree lead one logically to a view of the creation revelation Scripture to be viewed in a similar logical ordering model rather than a chronological ordering model. This is consistent both with inerrancy and infallibility as we are viewing the text (correctly) in a proper context using the framework paradigm. This view of Genesis 1-2 as logical ordering allows the position that science and Genesis 1-2 are not contradictory. 

 --Troll--

BioLogos on Calvinism, Part 15

Evolution and our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 15 | The BioLogos Forum

The first line says "Summary." I'm taking this as a good sign. Evaluation and summary to follow in a week or so.

--Ogre--

BioLogos on Calvinism, Part 14

Evolution and our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 14 The BioLogos Forum


Surprisingly enough, this one has the feel of actually being the last one. Rather than jump all over his conclusions, I'm going to work through from beginning to end on my own, then decide how to present this to you. This is a huge topic by now, and his historical account, while flawed in some areas due to the bias of his conclusions, is still compelling. I hope to have a preliminary work on this in a couple of weeks.


--Ogre--

BioLogos on Calvinism, Part 13

Evolution and our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 13 The BioLogos Forum


I know this has been a long time coming, but he is promising a summary in the 14th post. Since this has become so long, I'll probably not review the whole thing until June, with some sort of reference system used to deal with the lengthy series. There is, at least the possibility, the promise of an endpoint.


--Ogre--

BioLogos on Calvinism, Part 12

Evolution and our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 12 | The BioLogos Forum

Well, he's going after the giants now. Machen this week and Vos next week. I hope there is a point.

--Ogre--

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--

BioLogos on Calvinism, Part 11

Evolution and our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 11 | The BioLogos Forum

I hope this is winding down. This is going to be very difficult to summarize. I'm going to start working the problem and be prepared for the end.

--Ogre--

BioLogos on Calvinism, Part 10

Evolution and our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 10 | The BioLogos Forum

The promise exists now for at least two more posts. I'm going to work on a summary of where they have gone so far with commentary. I plan to share this on their site, so this should be interesting.

--Ogre--

BioLogos on Calvinism: Part 9

Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 9 | The BioLogos Forum

It is actually quite interesting where these arguments are going. It is too bad that framework isn't in his view as a possibility. As usual, there will be more.

--Ogre--

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--

BioLogos on Calvinism, Part 8

Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 8 | The BioLogos Forum

In the never ending post, we have the promise of another part. I'm going to ask him how long this will be.

--Ogre--

BioLogos on Calvinism, Part 7

Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism , Part 7 | The BioLogos Forum

And the band played on.... I'm thinking he's going to finish on Easter. Maybe he's going to keep going beyond that. I'm going to consolidate all of the links into one post for the summary and delete the rest, so please continue to bear with me.

--Ogre--

BioLogos on Calvinism, Part 6

Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 6 The BioLogos Forum

At this point, I am resigned to the idea that this guy is going for 10 parts. I'll keep posting the links, and know that there will be a rebuttal at the end.

--Ogre--

BioLogos on Calvinism, Part 5

Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 5 The BioLogos Forum

Oh, good grief. Now, he is promising part 6. I'm almost sorry I started following this feature. Hopefully, we will have some conclusions to discuss soon. My apologies in advance to anyone who is trying to follow this guy.

--Ogre--

BioLogos on Calvinism, Part 4

Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 4 | The BioLogos Forum

The meat of the topic is finally upon us. But in true hyperblogging style, this is still not the last post of the series. I'll try to keep it quiet for one more round.

--Ogre--

BioLogos on Calvinism, Part 3

Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 3 | The BioLogos Forum

It is clear that this guy intends to go on for at least one more post after this one. I'm biting my tongue, and a hole is developing. I'll try to wait for the last post.

--Ogre--

Building Blocks: Calvinism: Perseverance of the Saints

Our fifth point of Calvinism for discussion is the Perseverance of the saints.  This is a doctrine that means that once a person is truly saved, they are God’s forever.  This doctrine begs a few questions.  First, what is the function of Baptism?  Next, when does justification occur?  How do you know that you are one of the elect?  What happens when a person turns away from God?  Was that person truly saved?  What if he was already Baptized?  These are all tough questions, but they need answers.

Baptism is the sacrament through which a person enters into covenant relationship with God.  This is the same as signing a contract.  You have no access to the benefits of the contract if you didn’t sign it.  The issues next become who has access to a contract for signing and what happens when a person breaks the contract?  Justification occurs when the elect person is Baptized, infant or adult, but Baptism does not confer justification.  You know that you are one of the elect, really, if you care about the answer to that question.  The reprobate probably doesn’t care about that question.  But that’s just a flippant answer.  The answer is that the elect believe in Christ’s redeeming work on the Cross as testified in Scripture.  The elect attempts to live in obedience to His will and struggles with sin, repents of this sin and receives Grace regularly by hearing the preached Word and receiving the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

What about the person who is Baptized, but who is actually reprobate and turns from God?  Clearly this will happen.  Why is Baptism not 100% effective while the atonement was 100% effective?  The answer is simple.  Man will baptize whoever will receive the sacrament; but man does not know the movings of the Holy Spirit.  It is clearly possible that many will be baptized and not receive the Holy Spirit.  This leads to a dangerous place that Pentecostalism has clearly exploited, and that is the issue of the fruits of the spirit.

In this Calvinist model, it is important to understand the distinctions of category.  We have defined two types of reprobate and one type of Christian.  There is the reprobate who is never Baptized and also the one who is baptized, but never really believes.  The Pentecostal describes two types of reprobate and two types of Christian, because Pentecostals are Arminian on their best day and Pelagian on their worst.  The Holy Spirit does something different for the Pentecostal than reveal the truth of the Gospel concerning Christ Jesus.  The decision to be Christian for the Pentecostal is a self contribution, one that can be retracted at a later date.  The Holy Spirit is involved in other things besides the gathering of Christ’s elect to Him and the revelation of the truth of the Gospel to those elect.  This something extra that they argue is contributed by the Holy Spirit stratifies the Christian community into carnal and higher Christians, a demarcation that has no Biblical support.

Therefore, back to the Calvinism model, when a person is baptized but falls away from Christ after however many years, it is clear that the Holy Spirit did not give that person belief.  It is therefore possible to have a person attend church every week for their whole life and not ever receive the gift of belief from the Holy Spirit.  It is likewise possible for a person to be Baptized and believe in the truth of the scripture without attending a church since their Baptism.  This violates the scriptural mandate for the life of the believer to remain in community with other believers, but it is still possible.  The main issue here is that once the Holy Spirit has revealed the truth of the scripture to a person, God will not lose that person.  The truth will persevere in that person regardless.  That person remains a believer even if they appear to wander away from church for a time.  The Holy Spirit will gather them back to Christ before their death or the Last Day, whichever comes first.  That is the meaning of the perseverance of the saints.

The fruit of the spirit, then, is that a person cares about his sin and understands his imperfections while trying to obey the simplified mandate of the Law as given by Jesus: Love God and Love your neighber, as if that were easy.  The reprobate has no regard for his sin.  This does not mean that a believer is without sin, quite the contrary.  This means that a believer has great concern over his failure to be obedient to Christ.  This is not to say, in the mind of a Calvinist, that there is a fear over the loss of salvation over sin.  On the contrary, salvation is assured by his justification through the blood of Jesus.  But in his sanctification, as he struggles throughout life with the fact that his body, mind and soul are still currently under the curse of Adam, he recognizes that he falls short of the standard and repents of these sins and the condition of sin regularly and receives absolution for this sin.  This turning away from sin requires constant support and encouragement.  We receive Grace from the hearing of the Word and the Sacrament, but this is after repentance.  This is a minidrama of salvation that occurs regularly, to renew us in the Grace and Love of God.

One final question that is often asked is what happens if a believer dies with unconfessed sin in his life.  If a Calvinist is asked this question, there is a slam dunk easy answer.  Of course he will die with unconfessed sin.  We will die in the condition of sin.  It is unavoidable.  If our salvation was dependent upon our own perfection, we would be totally without hope.  Fortunately, this is not a problem.  Due to the propitiating, vicarious, penal sacrifice of Jesus, known as the Atonement, our Advocate Christ Jesus imputes His perfection to us and our sinfulness is imputed to Him.  Therefore, the Holy Spirit who gives us this belief, seals the deal on our salvation.  In this way, through the righteousness given to us through the blood of Jesus, we may approach judgment with confidence and certainty.  This is not the sin of arrogance.  The sin of arrogance is the sin of self righteousness.  Our righteousness is in the blood of Christ.  That is how we saints may persevere.

--Troll--

Building Blocks: Calvinism: Irresistible Grace

Our fourth point of Calvinism for discussion is Irresistible Grace.  The essence of this point is that Grace is more powerful than free will.  To truly flesh out this topic, we will need to look at the condition of man, the state of the heart, the condition of free will, the definition of Grace and the power of the Holy Spirit to give this Grace to His elect.

As we continue developing the five points, let’s look at the picture of the first three points once again.  We have God looking out from eternity over mankind and seeing a vast graveyard of death.  Jesus comes and becomes a shining light.  The Holy Spirit comes and transforms a host of elect into belief.  This elect is justified by the atonement of Jesus, but only the elect.  Now, we come to the issue of how we respond to the Holy Spirit.

A helpful paradigm to remember as we work through this is that if we are reprobate, we have no one to blame but ourselves; but if we are elect, we have no one to whom to give credit but the Holy Spirit.  Free will is a concept that we embrace and are reluctant to relinquish.  It is important to understand from the outset that Calvinism does NOT deny free will.  Calvinism deals with free will acting vertically, not horizontally.  What this means is that this present world is fallen in Adam.  Therefore, all things in it are fallen in Adam.  Within this system, we may make choices based upon our fallen perceptions of this fallen world.  No one is denying that humans make decisions.  The problem is that our hearts are fallen.  Deep down we are evil.  We cannot choose God, we don’t even see it as an option.

The Gospel is foreign to man, it is external to man, it is contrary to what man would contrive on his own, it is offensive to man.  In short, the Gospel is not of this world; therefore, man would never consider it an option, let alone choose it.  This is what free will can accomplish: nothing in terms of the Gospel.  The Holy Spirit is sent to the elect to allow them to receive the Gospel and believe the truth of it.  This act of Grace, moderated by the Holy Spirit, is a gift.  There is no action in receiving it.  We are not seeking it, we are not even reaching out for it.  This Grace comes upon us and we are powerless to stop it.  We are powerless to stop it because it is external to our experience and foreign to anything we can encounter in this world in this present age.  This is what irresistible grace means, that we cannot prevent Grace from having its effect on us.  If we are among the elect, the Holy Spirit will find us.  Events will move in such a way that we come in contact with the Gospel.  We will hear the Gospel and eventually we will believe the Gospel.  That is Grace, and it is irresistible.

In this topic and the last, I have not spent much time quoting passages.  That is because as controversial as these topics may be, the last topic, Perseverance of the Saints, will contain by necessity all of the passages that weigh upon this discussion.  Your indulgence is appreciated.

--Troll--

BioLogos on Calvinism, Part 2

Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 2 | The BioLogos Forum

Following my own advice, I will try to reframe from commenting on this until he is finished, but at this point it might be appropriate to interject some comments.

First, while he is clearly reading about Calvin on the one hand, his interjection of his own opinion into his narrative at times comes across as a representation of Calvin when it is his own opinion. This is rather confusing and perhaps it was intentionally misleading. We will have to see as he develops his arguments next week.

Second, it is also clear that the author lacks reformed categories. This is problematic when discussing other systems. For instance, when a Roman Catholic talks to a Reformed theologian about justification, there has to be a clarification of the semantics and typology in regards to Grace. The Roman Catholic describes justification in terms of events that are broader and with different nomenclature than the Reformed theologian. Both sides have to understand how the other uses the word justification in order to make sense of the interaction. Similarly, the author here appears to lack this understanding of Calvin's categories.

Third, this whole series has to be viewed in light of the agenda of the website. It must be remembered that framework is not even presented by BioLogos as a creation interpretation. His treatment of genre in the second piece fails to make the key claim that there are more genres present in the Old Testament than just historical and allegorical types.

Therefore, it is becoming clear how this line of logic will fall short. Nonetheless, I will allow the argument to conclude before my final word on this topic.

--Ogre--