Join My Community!
Category Archive: Reformed Theology
Subcategories: Arminianism Calvinism Ordo Salutis Sola Fide Sola Scriptura
Who Knows the Secret Will of God? Deuteronomy 29:29
Recently Justin Taylor was asked a question about evangelising to those who are “not chosen by God”. Taylor essentially answers that ultimately we cannot know who the “elect” are until Judgment Day. I’d agree. (Of course we understand how this plays out quite differently, but put that aside for the moment.) So Justin says that “we must obey God’s revealed will, which is to preach the gospel indiscriminately”. Then he adds in brackets, “For the distinction between Gods secret and revealed will, see Deut. 29:29″.
Deuteronomy 29:29 reads:
“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.”
The problem for me at this point is that Calvinists seem to “know” (gnosis) what those secret things are. If God’s revealed will – as Justin says – is to preach the gospel indiscriminately, why not let your orthodoxy match your orthopraxy?
In other words, why not preach what you practice? And, as Deuteronomy says, leave the secret things to God.
Eclipsing Calvin? Peter Martyr and History’s Beck and Call
“The most important theologians of our day are John Calvin and Peter Martyr.” ~ Justus Jonas Scaliger, a contemporary of Calvin and Peter
I have read a few books on the reformation in my time, and not many of them ever made more than a passing reference to a character named Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562), such that when Peter was mentioned in Kenneth Stewart’s book, Ten Myths About Calvinism, I hadn’t even recognized it.
So I was astounded when I read Stewart mention that Peter’s work, “Common Places”, rivaled that of John Calvin’s “Institutes”; that the “Peter Martyr Library” currently being translated into English – a project that began in 1994 – is up to nine volumes and counting (p.38); that John Calvin regarded Peter as one of the greatest expounders of the doctrine of the Eucharist in Protestantism (HT); and that a contemporary of Calvin, Justus Scaliger, wrote that Peter was equal with Calvin in sharing the honour of being the most important theologian of the Reformation era.
An article on the Reformation Theological Seminary website writes:
Students of the Reformation often assume that there is nothing left to discover. Since we know a great deal about Luther and Calvin and their supporting casts, it is thought there is no more sixteenth-century treasure to be found. Fortunately, that is not true, not even with regard to Luther and Calvin. In recent years, scholars have discovered a hitherto untapped treasure of the Reformation-Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562). It is not that scholars have suddenly discovered his existence; but rather, they have begun to appreciate his vital significance for understanding the Reformed branch of Protestantism. Although not well known today, there is a growing recognition that PMV was one of the most important theologians to give shape to Reformed theology and, in some instances, he was more influential than Calvin.
This is quite the exciting revelation that calls for a re-evaluation of the very use of the term “Calvinism” and what it has come to embody. Raising questions about the origin and earliest influence of Calvinism may very well have some lasting effects on how neo-Calvinists have been identifying themselves, and in fact it may also call us to re-consider the shape of the Arminian/Calvinism debates which perhaps are long overdue for re-framing.
However, to know any of these we need to know in what ways was Peter Martyrs theology “in some instances… more influential than Calvin”? This also raises questions as to why Calvin is heralded as he is while Peter remains relatively unheard of. Why Calvin and Geneva are given a place of such preeminence by modern Reformers while Peter and Zurich remain buried in the past.
I suspect that Peter will not remain buried for much longer. Critical Reformed scholars will be exploring his writings and his influence and it will be interesting to see how this co-influencer of Reformed theology of the past will influence the Calvinism of the not to distant future.
Tagged Mater Martyr Vermigli
Election: My Dad’s Not Saved, Are You Smarter Than He?
Sometimes I wonder what motivates people to believe certain things. I think if we are honest with ourselves we all must admit that we tend to accept or reject certain things based on other factors besides the weight of the evidence alone. And often when examining evidence that seems could go one way or another, it is logical to assume that other factors must be involved in the tipping of the scales.
There is a particular guy I used to be connected to on facebook. He is a Calvinist, but not just any Calvinist. He is a particular brand of Calvinist of an exceptionally calloused caliber. He is mean in a way that makes other mean Calvinists (and mean Arminians) seem like lovable Mother Theresa’s. He justifies his mean-spiritedness by saying that he is zealous for the truth and in defense of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But for him, that means Calvinism.
He more or less called me the spawn of Satan because I reject the distinctive of his particular understanding of theology. And he is convinced that if you are not a Calvinist, you are not a Christian at all.
Needless to say, there was no value in keeping someone like on my facebook account.
My friend, however, did stay connected to him and they got into another debate. I watched from the sidelines as they went back and forth, and something “Curious” – I’m going to refer to this particular Calvinist by the pseudonym of “Curious” – something Curious said caught my attention.
“My dad is not a Christian! So are you smarter than he is?”
My friend believes that salvation is the free offer of God’s amazing grace to whomever will receive it by faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). This same terminology is used by Calvinists too, but to mean something different: faith itself is a functional gift given to those who are already saved.
While we cannot judge the motives of why someone so strenuously holds to a particular belief system, sometimes if you listen closely enough they will give you a clue that they themselves may not be aware of. Whether Curious has reflected on this or not, it seems that is exactly what he has done here, given us a window to peek into his motives.
His father is not a Christian.
For someone who passionately believes in Hell as a place of eternal torment and separation from God, and who believes that God is sovereign in a particular sort of way, how is he to understand that his father is on his way to eternal torment? How does he justify that in light of his understanding of God?
What’s really sad is that in understanding the nature of God the way he does, he has absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the Arminian doctrine of salvation that he so vehemently rejects. He has so convinced himself that Arminianism is Pelagianism and he believes that salvation according to an Arminian understanding is a matter of being “smart enough”.
So then, rather than accept the Arminian testimony that salvation is God’s free gift offered to all, yet must be received by faith, he would prefer to consign his dad to eternal torment based on God’s arbitrary selection. This, evidently, gives him a sense of satisfaction to know that at least his dad is just not that dumb.
But I would posit that his dad is not stupid at all. I don’t know him, but I would go so far to say that his dad is probably quite smart. But since salvation is not based on how smart a person is, I can’t help but feel an immense amount of pity for how Curious views this whole issue of his dad’s salvation.
Note: this discussion is based solely on this particular case and is not meant to reflect upon the wider and more nuanced discussion of Calvinism and Arminianism throughout the ages. I in no way intend Curious’ particular understanding, character or arguments to reflect Calvinism as a system, or those who hold to it.
Against Calvinism / For Calvinism
In a recent blog post Arminian theologian Roger Olson briefly shares how he came about writing the many books he wrote. Of particular interest to me is his forth coming book, Against Calvinism and its compliment (written by Calvinist, Michael Horton) titled For Calvinism.
“Against Calvinism: This book is finished but not yet published. It will be published by Zondervan in October (if not before). The impetus for this book goes back a long way. It began when a “Piper cub” (Bethel students who were passionate fans of John Piper) came to my office and said “Professor Olson, I’m sorry to tell you, but you’re not a Christian.” I said “Oh,why is that?” “Because you’re not a Calvinist,” he replied. I still remember that student’s name many years later. I asked him “Where did you get the idea that only Calvinists are Christians?” He said “from my pastor, John Piper.” Years later I recounted that story to Piper who laughed and claimed he never said that. But I encountered other people who gained that impression from listening to him speak. I didn’t feel the time was right to write the book until about two years ago and I approached my editor at Zondervan about it. She was enthusiastic about the idea, but the publisher wanted to publish a book entitled Against Arminianism simultaneously with mine. They asked me for recommendations for an author. I couldn’t think of anyone more qualified than my friend Michael Horton who agreed to write it with the revised title For Calvinism. It was my idea to have him write the Foreword to my book and for me to write the Foreword to his–to make clear that Calvinists and Arminians can profoundly disagree with each other without hating each other. What brought me to the realization that the time was right to write Against Calvinism was the tidal wave of passionate but often unreflective Calvinism among especially young evangelical men. I met and talked with so many of them and often discovered they had never thought about some of the problems with Calvinism. Often, when I pointed those out to them, they gradually gave up their Calvinism. I became convinced that “high federal Calvinism” (5 point Calvinism) including especially “double predestination” was so full of flaws that anyone who saw them and took them seriously would have to amend his or her Calvinism. (I make clear in the book’s Introduction that I am not against every and all Calvinism but only against that particular kind of Calvinism.) I had one very providential moment while doing my research. I needed to find an American Reformed evangelical theologian who had come to reject high federal Calvinism while remaining Reformed. I had read Berkouwer, but he was Dutch and didn’t quite fit the bill. I was browsing in a used theology bookstore and saw The Freedom of God: A Study of Election and Pulpit by the late Fuller theology professor James Daane. I knew of him from some essays and knew that he, like Nicholas Wolterstorf and Alvin Plantinga, has revised Reformed theology. I bought the book for about $5 and it became an invaluable asset for writing my book. I quote Daane extensively in Against Calvinism. Daane blasted what he called “decretal theology” (represented by, for example, Lorraine Boettner–the R. C. Sproul of an earlier generation) for de-historicizing and therefore de-personalizing God and God’s relationship with the world. Many of his criticisms parallel and echo Berkouwer’s (who was his teacher) and T. F. Torrance’s and, of course, Barth’s. If I had not found that book in that obscure used bookstore, my book would have been much poorer. I really do believe God led me to it. I can’t recommend it highly enough, but it is out of print. Read Against Calvinism to get its essence.”
If you’re interested in this subject I would also recommend the book I’ve recently had the pleasure of perusing: Ten Myths About Calvinism, written by a Calvinist (Kenneth Stewart). Four myths are spouted by Calvinists themselves and the other six by non-Calvinists. Of particular interest in this book is the stance it takes (so I hear) against the “neo-Reformed” movement’s aggressive promotion of Calvinism.
Young, Restless, Reformed (In Review)
Young, Restless, Reformed
Collin Hansen
3.5 Stars (out of 5)
Collin Hansen is himself a young and restless reformed who traces the “new Reformed” or “new Calvinism” movement in a journalistic fashion. This book is heavily biographical in that he tells the stories – through interviews – of Al Mohler, C.J. Mahaney, Joshua Harris, Mark Dever, Mark Driscoll, John Piper and others; of their conversions to Calvinism (where applicable), their influence in the neo-reformed movement, their struggles and their experiences. Collin also travels from the Passion Conferences of Louie Giglio and Chris Tomlin (which seems to be a breeding ground for the movement) to “ground zero”, the Southern Baptist theological seminary, from John Piper’s den to the New Attitude Conference (think, Calvinism rap).
Along the way Collins interviews numerous college age converts to Calvinism with emphasis on how they came to peace with the hard doctrine of Predestination.
Some unlikely appearances make it into the book too. In a chapter where Collin interviews John Piper he also interviews the arch enemy, Roger Olson. And in one spot even N.T. Wright gets a mention, but only a mention, and of no particular relevance. For a book about the reformed movement, that’s a good thing.
What I Liked
For starters, Collin does a fantastic job at making Calvinism look attractive to bible believing Christians across the board. One is felt with a sense that the only tree with roots deep enough to stand against the tsunami of liberal theology and the secularization of Christianity is Calvinism. A Conservative force to be reckoned with, Christian’s who want to resist the secularization of Christianity find a safe haven in Calvinism.
Secondly, I was touched by how Calvinism raises up the Glory and transcendence of God. No matter what bloggers might say about the dangers of emphasizing God’s transcendence at the expense of his nearness (and I agree wholly!), it is a breath of fresh air to be reminded of God’s Great and Awesome Glory and transcendence for a change. Many Christians might agree with Joan Osbourne’s lyrics, “What if God were one of us / Just a slob like one of us”, but I do not. I am not conformable at emphasizing his nearness at the expense of his Greatness. Both are true, and a complete picture of God needs to recognize that.
What I Did Not Like
First, one is left with the impression that the only alternative to the secularization of Christianity is Calvinism. If one wants’ to be a bible believing Christian, Calvinism is the only option. This conviction held by the new Calvinist leads them on the mission of converting the Church.
This leads to my second problem. “Conversion” and “Born Again” are surprisingly(!) terms used not in reference to evangelizing the lost, but converting other Christians to Calvinism. It is a distortion of the Great Commission, and that worries me.
Next I am concerned by the terms employed by Calvinists, as made clear in this book, such as “the doctrine of grace” which is used synonymously with the T.U.L.I.P. acronym. The word “grace” should not be allowed to be hijacked by any one particular theological system. Arminians and Free-Will Baptists believe in the doctrine of grace as the scriptures teach, they just don’t accept Calvinism’ T.U.L.I.P as a faithful representation of what the scriptures teach about grace.
Final Assessment
The Young, Restless and Reformed movement is unequivocally led by John Piper, bred at the Passion Conferences, educated by Al Mohler at Southern, given on voice through blogs online and are on a mission to convert the Church.
The movement centers around the T.U.L.I.P. acronym, the crazy-glue that binds together cessationists like John MacArthur with charismatic’s like C.J. Mahaney; paedo-Baptists like Horton with believer-Baptists like Piper, talented musicians like Chris Tomlin with R.C. Sproul who believes no instruments should be used for worship services. They all have one thing in common: T.U.L.I.P. And for the neo-Calvinists, that is the gospel.
I love the positives of the movement: it’s emphasis on the scriptures, its exultation of God, it’s passion to stand on absolute truths. But is it really necessary to believe in Calvinism’s particular understanding of predestination and election in order to exult God, stand on absolute truth and emphasize scripture? You would certainly think so by reading Hansen’s book.
I don’t like how they have hijacked biblical terms and are on a mission to narrow Evangelicalism down to their five-letter distinctive as the watershed of who is in and who is out. I don’t like how they are spending more energy arguing with Arminians (and everyone else who disagrees with them) and vigorously promoting Calvinism rather than preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and evangelizing their unsaved neighbor.
An Accidental Arminian & A True Post-Conservative
Many learned people have studied systems of doctrine and have been convinced by the arguments put forth in them. Most other people however probably join churches not out of doctrinal conviction, but for more organic or natural reasons.
- They were led to the Lord by someone who attends that church
- They like the music
- They like the pastor
- They like the messages
- They have many friends there
- Most of their family attend it
- They were raised there
- It has been an intricate part of their tradition
And so on.
For better or for worst, this is probably the case most of the time. This doesn’t mean that theology or doctrine does not play a part. It usually does, but usually it’s role is secondary and only after the natural outworking of indoctrination takes place does it become primary.
But many after avid study become convinced for one reason or another to change theological allegiances (which often goes hand in hand with changing denominational allegiance). Consider
- Clark Pinnock who famously journeyed from 5-Point Calvinism through Classical Aminianism and into Open Theism
- R.C. Sproul who purportedly moved from Arminianism to 5-Point Calvinism
- Francis Beckwith who resigned as president of the ETS to join the Roman Catholic Church
- Edith Humphrey who journeyed from the Salvation Army through Anglicanism and into Eastern Orthodoxy
These are just some of the more well know shifts which occurred as a result of having been convinced by one system of theology or another. Such shifts occur probably every moment of every day somewhere in the world.
The point is that we find the system which we believe is most aligned with Jesus and make an allegiance to that system of theology, and in so doing we have brought ourselves in closer alignment to Jesus himself. We are a people who access Jesus through our theology. If we somehow feel detached from Jesus we reexamine our current theological allegiance which, if found wanting, we discard in favor of another theological system which shows greater hope of best expressing the real Jesus (or Paul, for some).
When I was young I knew nothing about this tradition or that tradition. I knew there were Protestants which I took to be synonymous with “Pentecostal” and “Christian”, and then there were Roman Catholics which in my mind were people who needed to get saved. I knew nothing of the Eastern Orthodox.
Years ago when I began to explore theology, two systems kept vying for my allegiance: Calvinism (which I associated with “once saved, always saved” theology) and Arminianism (which was the alternative). The moment someone says that they are a Calvinist or they are an Arminian two things happen: 1) they have drawn a line in the sand and 2) they have made an allegiance.
Given the reasons above for people to choose their system of theology (that they are what they are for natural unreflective reasons or they are what they are because a system of theology makes the most sense), I find myself in no-man’s land. I am what a friend of mine recently termed a “theological maverick”.
I did not study Arminianism, find that it makes the most sense, and then start calling myself an Arminian. Rather, I studied Arminianism, found that it agreed with me, and then started calling myself an Arminian. It is not so much that I am an Arminian, as it is that an Arminian is me. I am not defined by my Arminianism, my Arminianism is defined my something about me. Namely, that I am post-conservative.
The significance of this point can’t be missed. My allegiance to Jesus is not defined by a system of theology. I don’t get closer to Jesus or further from Jesus based on committing myself to Calvinism, Arminianism, Pentecostalism, Evangelicalism or any other -ism. My theology is not based on any of these systems. My theology – my articulation of God and Creation and everything involved in that – is derived from the Scriptures.
This means that I am not threatened by biblical engagements on “hell” or biblical engagements on “sin nature” or biblical engagements on “justification by faith” and so on. Do I believe in some sense of Total Depravity? Yes. Do I believe in justification by faith? Yes. Do I believe in “hell”? Yes. Now let’s discuss what we mean by those terms.
Let’s be open and engaging. Not flippant or wishy-washy. But not so dogmatic and close minded as to say that our definition of these terms is the definition of these things. I’m not emergent, postmodern or liberal. But neither am I modern, conservative or a fundamentalist (though at times I can be a little bit of all of this).
My philosophical approach to the Christian faith is a post-conservative one, a term I proudly borrow from classical Arminian, Roger Olson.
Post-conservativism is marked by the habit of keeping all of our traditions (even my Arminian one) and beliefs open to revision in light of further biblical insight and study. It does not bow to novelty or contemporary assumptions (like liberalism) but neither does it pay blind homage to fallible traditional beliefs in light of God’s unchanging Word.
I will not be strong-armed – neither by Calvinist’ nor by Arminians – into adhering to certain beliefs unique to the Reformed tradition by raising those distinctives up to the level of orthodoxy or heresy. Orthodoxy and heresy are determined by the Church Universal, as McGrath says in his book Heresy: “A heresy is a teaching that the whole Christian church, not a party within that church, regards as unacceptable.”
This is why – in the recent debate – I will not stand along side my neo-Reformed brethren or for that matter my Arminian friends in their sustained attack against Rob Bell. I stand opposed to their onslaught and I do this without affirming Bell’s teaching. This is crucial to note because everyone wants to force everyone else into one side of the camp or another. “You’re either for us, or your for them way over there.” I say, let’s engage Bell’s book the same way I engage dozens of other books here on Covenant of Love every week: critically. The best example of this is Dr. Paul Owen’s review of Love Wins.
Dr. Owen’s overall assessment of the book?
“Let me just start out by saying that there is nothing particularly amazing about the theological contents of this book. His theology is evangelical, Arminian, and Baptist. His view of Scripture is well within the mainstream of the evangelical world. His openness about the question of the salvation of people outside the Church is hardly remarkable. He plainly upholds justification by faith, the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the bodily resurrection of Christ and all the faithful at the end of the age, etc.”
In other words – yawn – boooorrrrinng. There is nothing novel about Love Wins. That is, broadly speaking, Bell’s book – and thus his views expressed in it – fall within Christian orthodoxy. But let’s not stop there. Just because broadly speaking Bell is orthodox does not mean that in the particulars we have nothing to criticise and tear apart. That is the nature of book reviews often, and that is usually the nature of theological engagement. And Dr. Owen does a fantastic job of tearing asunder some of Bell’s arguments (particularly his engagement with Chapter 3).
Now my point here is not to rekindle the so-called Rob Bell controversy, but to point out that I am first and foremost post-conservative. This means that if I am presented with a view of hell – squarely based on scripture say, from an Orthodox perspective – or, to add a curve ball, a view of God’s omniscience also squarely based on scripture but which holds that the future is partly open, I would rather engage and listen to what my interlocker has to say rather then wave off his views and engage in a knee-jerk reactionary defense of my system of theology.
I am an Arminian because I am post-conservative. But one day I may be post-conservative and no longer welcome in the Arminian camp. Such is the nature of putting scripture first.
Does God Drag?
It is sometimes said that God “drags” people to Christ.
In John 6:44 Jesus says, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
“Draw” is interpreted as “drag”. God drags people “kicking and screaming” into the Kingdom…
But wait! Let’s be consistent in our interpretation of “draw”.
In John 12:32 Jesus states, “But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.”
The Greek word in both passages is precisely the same.
So in an attempt to explain particular redemption – God only saves those he drags to Jesus, consistency demands that we became universalists instead, since by the cross Jesus drags all people to himself.
Tagged John 12:32, John 6:44
Do You Still Read a “Paper” Bible?
I own many bibles. So many, in fact, that I have lost count. I just bought another one a few weeks back (because I love the way it felt when I held it), and I had purchased another not too long before that. Despite the fact that my church projects the scripture readings via power point at the front of the sanctuary, I still bring my paper bible with me – even though I often don’t even crack it open. I carry one in my bag at all times and pull it out regularly. I attend an old fashion bible study when I am able to make it on Friday nights where those bible drills I remember doing in Sunday School comes in handy. Paper Bibles are everywhere at that study – though once or twice I was the odd ball out by using my computer.
I have read the bible front to back at least ten times. The last few times I used my handheld “Franklyn” computer because it was convenient to pull it out at work. That was back in the 90’s. I have not since read my bible through.
I generally know what’s in there, but I hardly pull it out during personal study any more. Instead I rely on electronic sources to help me out. My favourite is the Online Parallel Bible. The advantage to using this online bible as opposed to some other bible programs or a bible concordance is the usefulness of its “search” and the readiness to the Greek and Hebrew. Unlike other electronic bible programs I have used in the past which require you to know how a verses is worded in a particular translation in order for the search to find a match, the Online Parallel Bible will search all of the available bible translations simultaneously to find a match to the verse you are looking for.
In the old days people would memorize their bibles in specific translations. This would help people find that verse they are looking for quickly. They always used one bible translation – say, the KJV or NIV – to guarantee they could find the passage via the concordance at the back. This was my approach back in the 90’s, and the NKJV was my translation of choice. I have come to learn, however, that there are no perfect bible translations when studying and I tend to use a wide variety of them. I like the NRSV, the NASB, and the ESV. I tend to consult the (N)KJV from time to time, and I still go to the NIV frequently. As a result, while I may recall what the Bible says, I may not know precisely which translation words it the way I recall it. Thus I run my typing fingers over to the Online Parallel Bible to help me out.
Last year on Covenant of Love I encouraged my readers to read through their bible in 90 Days. It was the “90 Day’s Challenge”. Many people got behind this but only two got back to me having completely the challenge. One fellow blogger who reported that the challenge was fruitless, and my pastor who documented his journey (though it took him 110 days to complete the challenge, the fact that he followed through is impressive). I did not complete it.
My mind, in many ways, has grown slack. While learning the scriptures and struggling to understand the message in them is an indelible part of my life, and not a day goes by when I do not consult them in some way, still – and perhaps because of societal pressure of a busy life – I rarely take time out of my day to sit down it read a few pages of scripture.
Do you still read your bible routinely? Do you plan to read your bible through this 2011 year? How do you do your bible devotions: do you take a time out in the morning to do it? In the evening? Do you carry it with you and do it whenever you can? Do you never take time out to read your bible anymore?
What God Do You Worship?
Psalm 135:5
REFLECTIONS AND A PRAYER
As with so many of the Psalms, these words are a call to worship.
“For I know that the Lord is great; our Lord is above all gods.”
In this verse both the personal name of God (Yahweh) and the term “Lord” (adon) appear. In the original language the words lie side by side: as if to emphasize that it is Yahweh and none other who is Lord above all other powers.
As I understand it. the word “worship” comes from the old English term worth-ship. Worship recognizes the worthiness and power of the God we know through Jesus Christ.
Worship acknowledges that I am not at the center of the universe, God is. Worship works against narcissistic self-absorption. It says I have a Creator. It says there is One who is greater than I am. It calls me into relationship with the One who is greater than I am. It calls me into the Presence of the One who is greater than all people — and all the powers of this world.
Worship is a kind of therapy. It calls me away from my excessive pre-occupation with myself. It calls me to a life of love: devotion to God and devotion to the best interests of other people. It is natural for us to be pre-occupied with ourselves. We look out into the world from our own set of eyes. It must seem at first as if all the world is a show being put on just for us. But, worship reminds me that this is not so. There is a God from whom I have come — unto whom I return. And there are other people — created in the image of God — all around me. There are as much worthy of respect and consideration as I am. Worship calls me to love God and love others.
Whatever our idea of God may be — God is always greater. Whatever our experience of God’s grace and presence may be — God is always greater. Everything has come from God. And, God is greater than the limited human mind can comprehend.
The Psalms were written at a time when it was presumed that everyone believed in God — or, rather a god of some sort. People served different gods. Sure. But, it was not common to suppose that there was no Higher Power of any sort. Yes, it says in Psalms 14:1 and Psalms 53:1 that fools say in their heart “there is no god.” But, I think this is intended in a moral sense: The foolish person says that there is no God to whom we must answer of our actions. Maybe it seems like a fine point: but the issue in these verses is moral, not strictly philosophical. Modern philosophical atheists are not necessarily “fools” in this sense. Many of them are quite moral. They don’t believe in God on philosophical grounds.
In the days of the Psalms you could assume that a person believed in a god of some sort. The question was: what god do you serve? Is it a cruel god? Is it a nationalistic god? Is it a god who is unconcerned with human well being and flourishing? Is it a god of vengeance? Is it a capricious god who chooses to send some to an eternal Hell and some to an eternal Heaven out of his own secret and eternal whim? Or is it a God who embodies love, mercy, faithfulness, compassion and justice?
Followers of a monstrous god are likely to become monsters themselves. The god you serve will be reflected in your life. Thomas Paine once said: “Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.”
The Israelites knew a God who was a “compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness…” (Exodus 34:6). The hard thing for them — and for us! — is to comprehend a God of grace. Slowly, through time, they came to understand better and better.
And, they knew that their God — the God who had called Abraham, Isaac and Jacob — was above all other gods. The God of love and faithfulness and redemption and justice is the only One worthy of praise and service. Notice the wording. It is like this: “I know that great is Yahweh, the Lord (adon) over all gods (elohim).”
It would seem, in an age of skepticism, that all believers in God are somehow bound together. Not so. Not really. The question is the same now as ever: what god do you serve?
Yes. There are atheists. Yes, they are quite vocal in our time. But, many of them are atheists today because they were raised in an oppressive religious environments. They have shaken off the oppressive god they were taught — in order to embrace freedom and learning and compassion. For many, it feels better to have no God than to have the god under whom they were raised.
But, I can’t help but feel: serving a negation is not ultimately satisfying, either. We are born to ask questions, to try to put together something of the Big Picture of life and meaning and morality. We are here for a purpose. Even science itself seems to tell us that. So, what does it all mean? And, the Bible answers to this longing for meaning with a story: the story of a loving God who send His Son to redeem us and bring to our brief and transitory lives an eternal hope!
Last week I posted a link on Twitter to an article by Roger Olsen entitled: “Calvinism leads to universalism…”. A Calvinist Twitter gadfly was offended. He replied essentially that: No! Calvinism doesn’t lead to universalism! Calvinists teach reprobation! I’m sure he didn’t understand when I replied to him that the Calvinistic doctrine of reprobation is (from my point of view) far worse! It undermines the notion that God’s love is for everyone. (See: Calvin on John 3:16). This was one of John Wesley’s primary objections to Calvinism. It makes God seem monstrous, rather than loving and merciful.
For many God is harsh and demanding — a taskmaster that is never satisfied. And, as a result, they carry around a unresolved burden of guilt. They can never be good enough. They can never do enough.
I don’t want to think like that. I don’t want to be like that.
Am I serving the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ today? Am I serving a God of justice, mercy and love? Am I seeking to balance those virtues in my life? For if the God of Jesus Christ is truly “Lord is above all gods” then the power of the Holy Spirit is the greatest power in this world — the power of God’s love is greater than any earthly power.
A PRAYER:
Lord God,
God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ
a God merciful and gracious,
slow to anger,
and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness:
I worship You today.
May there be no false God in my affections.
May there be no false God in my life.
Teach me the way of mercy.
Teach me the way of loyalty and faithfulness.
Teach me to forgive.
Restrain my anger — even when it is just.
Teach me patience.
Grant that my life — today — will reflect the good and merciful God I choose to serve,
Through Jesus Christ, the Lord. Amen.
[Cross posted here: Commonplace Holiness.]
Calvin on John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.” — John 3:16 (NRSV).
JOHN CALVIN COMMENTS:
“’That whosoever believeth on him may not perish.’ It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term world, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.”
Um Okay. I think I’m with you there, brother John.
JOHN CALVIN COMMENTS:
“Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father — that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.”
MY RESPONSE:
Whoa! What do you mean “on the other hand”? Umm… Now you seem to be dodging out of it all by appealing to a theology that is rooted in something else, brother John.
Here you are clearly leaving exegesis behind and trying to reconcile the verse with a preconceived theology. How can ‘life’ be promised to those incapable of receiving it? It can’t. How can God ‘invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers’ (as you say) if God is choosing to withhold the ability to believe from some?
You can’t have it both ways. I mean, I know you’re a logical guy, John. Isn’t it possible that Augustine was wrong in the Enchiridion — where this same logical inconsistency can be found?
JOHN CALVIN COMMENTS:
“Still it is not yet very evident why and how faith bestows life upon us. Is it because Christ renews us by his Spirit, that the righteousness of God may live and be vigorous in us; or is it because, having been cleansed by his blood, we are accounted righteous before God by a free pardon? It is indeed certain, that these two things are always joined together; but as the certainty of salvation is the subject now in hand, we ought chiefly to hold by this reason, that we live, because God loves us freely by not imputing to us our sins. For this reason sacrifice is expressly mentioned, by which, together with sins, the curse and death are destroyed. I have already explained the object of these two clauses, which is, to inform us that in Christ we regain the possession of life, of which we are destitute in ourselves; for in this wretched condition of mankind, redemption, in the order of time, goes before salvation.”
What! Now you seem to be having problems with your earlier statement that [faith] ‘frees us from everlasting destruction.’ Do you mean that ‘faith bestows life upon us’ (as you said earlier) or ‘life’ (through grace) bestows faith upon us?
Now you are saying that redemption precedes salvation, because the ability to believe is itself the result of that salvation. If the ability to believe is wholly the decision of God, then it is God who has determined the issues of life and death. It is your theology that has dictated that “redemption, in the order of time, goes before salvation” not the text itself.
I agree that part of the message of this verse is ‘that in Christ we regain the possession of life, of which we are destitute in ourselves’ but it is also a universal offer of eternal life (thus, it says: “whoever”) — a possibility your theology does not seem to allow for! In my opinion, making sense of this verse requires a concept of Prevenient Grace, which allows fallen humans to respond with faith to the offer of life.
Otherwise, from your point of view, the verse should read either:
“For God so loved the elect that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who belongs to the elect and, thus, has faith, may therefore believe in him unto eternal life.”
or, more simply:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who has eternal life may believe in him.”
But, surely you see, don’t you, it doesn’t say either of those things. You’ve turned it around backwards. This is no longer the Scripture with which you began.
JOHN CALVIN COMMENTS:
(Start gathering the wood again, boys, I think there’s another heretic in town.)
[Cross posted from here: Commonplace Holiness.]
