It was on New Years Eve 2011 that I bought my copy of The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails with the explicit intention of hearing out these former Christian-turned-atheists. But the book got shelved, other projects came up and took precedence, and my struggle to some extent subsided. But about six months ago my struggle returned and intensified. Then just the other day when I began to pack up my library as my wife and I are preparing to move into our first home, there was the book staring at me and pleading to be read with honesty.

So over the next little while I’m going to read and blog each chapter (article) in the book.

In the Forward Dan Barker writes, “the most important question we can ask any religion is this one: ‘Is it true?’” He goes on to say that the “case for faith is a case for ignorance.” Such us the tone of this book. In your face overconfidence. An absolute surety that the Christian faith is a proof-less and senseless absurdity from people who know, because they’ve been there.

We shouldn’t blame the authors for going into this project with such overconfidence. After all, read some Christian apologetic books from an atheists perspective. No doubt from their perspective we ooze out that same overconfidence.

So are we prepared to seriously pay heed to the question, “Is it true?” Ever since my late teens I have tried hard to allow a quote from Clement of Alexandria to be my motto: “If our faith is such that it is destroyed by force of argument, than let it be destroyed for it would have been proven that we do not possess the truth.”

It is with such a motive that I take up this book.

I’m actually quite passive about this discussion. It has not really come up since youth group days some 15 years ago. But back then bikinis were the more ghastly of the subjects. Even if the girls wore one piece swimsuits that harkened back to the 1940′s, they were still expected to wear t-shirts over top, as were the men.

My wife doesn’t wear bikinis, per se, but she does wear cute two-piece bathing suites that are unmistakably girlie. Her reasons for not wearing a bikini have everything to do with her own comfort level and convictions (this doesn’t make her any less of a “women being a women” I hope). I’ve actually encouraged her to wear bikinis in the past.

I wanted to open this way by sharing this with you to let you know where I’m coming from. I’m not opposed to bikinis or women in them (especially if that woman is my wife). There’s a certain discomfort I feel when guys gawk at my wife of course, and she has expressed that discomfort more strongly than I. But the truth is, sometimes it takes a swimming outfit, other times all it takes is a nice evening gown with her hair done up. Theres no hiding my wife from from the wandering eyeballs of the male human species. She’s a pretty girl and that’s that. (Fortunately my wife doesn’t have to worry about girls gawking over her husband!)

Now on Facebook I shared an article that a friend, Tara, had shared first. The problem with sharing articles that you don’t write is that your views are not usually wholly expressed. That article was opposed to Christians wearing bikinis. In response someone else posted another article advocating – or at the very least, allowing for – Christians to wear bikinis (thanks Amy!). Thus awakens the debates with the lines sharply drawn in the sand. I felt both articles had very good things to say, and I’m going to highlight their strengths below. But I’d like to first point out one negative feature they both have in common:

Both articles assume an either/or posture toward each others position. Either Christians should never wear bikinis because men have a problem, or girls can wear whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want and men need to solve their own dysfunctional physiological issues.

Now before I come back to the problem of taking an either/or position here, I’m going to highlight the strengths of both articles.

Beauty vs. Sexuality: Relevant Magazine

In the Relevant article several features are brought to light which are often overlooked in this discussion. Here are some of the great points the article makes:

“Our contemporary cultural dialogue about men emphasizes the decisive role that biology plays in driving behavior. Evolutionary psychologists, brain researchers and TV doctors regularly produce studies “proving” men are hardwired to be visually stimulated or to cheat on their wives. The emphasis is on men’s helplessness in the face of their own physiology, an emphasis many women find disillusioning and many men find disheartening.”

The article goes on to remind us that the New Testament treats lust as one sin among many whereas the Church tends to emphasize male lust to the status of “first among definitely-not-equals.”

We have created an environment that allows men (Christian men) to succumb to their lustful desires by lobbying the blame to biological impulses which are out of their control (and then blaming women too for wearing bikinis). What we’ve done, in effect (claims the article), is shame men by refusing to take seriously mens ability (in Christ, I’d add) not to lust and in turn we’ve shamed women by blaming the way they dress for men’s lustful activity.

The article then reminds us that women are sexual creatures too, also very capable of lust. But I’d add here that while this point should be granted, we should not minimize the vast difference in level of intensity this battle is for men as opposed to women. Women often minimize that difference on the grounds that since they too have to deal with lust, that men should be able to deal with it just the same as they as though the entrenchment were no different. It’s a claim they can’t make from experience (they aren’t men) and the data contradicts it.

In the end the article superbly reminds us that

“If grace is real, it is strong enough to give us the capacity to distinguish the delight in gazing at beauty from obsessive lust. If grace is real, it is also strong enough to give us the capacity to distinguish between the longing to be validated as beautiful and the longing to cause another person to be overwhelmed by a desire so strong he or she forgets their commitments.

Too often, the Church talks about beauty and desire in ways that suggest the Church doesn’t believe grace is quite that real.”

Christian men are called to overcome, by the grace of God, their lustful desires. The moment we suggest they can’t because of their biological makeup is the moment we cede that grace is not enough. The scriptures call us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. If every Christian women in the world stopped wearing bikinis it wouldn’t make a hill of beans for Christian men because 1) non-Christians wear bikinis too and 2) men have great imaginations, capable to leap buildings in a single thought while simultaneously undressing the fully clothed businesswomen walking across the street.

Should Christians Wear Bikinis: Carla Anne

Carla Anne (and this is my first time reading anything by her) has also made some great points that we should highlight.

“I’ve never understood how a girl can shriek in panic if her dad or brother or grandpa comes near her bedroom door when she’s changing, wearing a bra and panties, but then run around in less than that on the beach and think it’s okay.”

I for one find that to be an amazing point, not just for Christians, but for people in general. Question, as a woman, how would you feel if a strange man saw you in your underwear? What if he barged into the changing room while you’re standing in your bra and panties? If you would shrug your shoulders and continue to go about your business like it’s no big deal I’ll give you a pass. But if you would shriek, kick him out, complain to others that a strange man saw you in your underwear, then I have to ask: what’s the difference between someone seeing you in your bra and undies (which usually has more, thicker material than bikinis these days anyways), and when you’re out in a bikini at the beach?

The author goes on to make the point that women should be valued not just for their sexuality, but more so for who they are in toto. She points to studies that have shown that men in general (Christian men aside for a moment) devalue a women who emphasizes her sexual assets. When a man sees a woman in a bikini he sees a tool he can use to get a particular job done. (Unfortunately, as we pointed out above, men are fully capable of see women that way even fully gowned.)

I don’t bring this point up to give men a scapegoat. We just learned the lack of wisdom in that approach. I merely bring this point up only because it’s a general fact. Sure we may shame Christian men by suggesting that they can’t overcome what God has given them grace to do so. But the fact remains, at the very least, that non-Christian men have no desire to overcome their biological makeup (assuming that were possible without the grace of God), and this is one of the most difficult struggles men (yes, Christian men!) face in their lives (yes, they struggle with anger issues yada, yada, too).

The point: At the very least, Christian’s should be mindful of this fact.

Would Paul Allow Bikinis?

The phrase “one another” occurs a little less than 140 times in the New Testament alone by my count (ESV). One of Paul’s primary theological interest was bringing and keeping unity in the Church. This is one of the reasons Romans was written, Galatians was written, 1 Corinthians was written, Philemon was written. That we would sacrifice for the sake of others. That we would esteem others before ourselves. That we would willingly surrender a particular freedom we have in Christ, if it means we would not be a stumbling block for our weaker brother or sister in the Lord. (“Weaker” read: Christian who still struggles with his lustful nature.)

Rather than despise them for their weakness and hail our freedom and independence in Christ, we too should take up our cross for the sake of the body of Christ. We undermine not just a Christ-likeness that we’ve been called to imitate, but a great deal of the heartbeat of the New Testament too, when we fail to “discern the Lord’s body.”

Yet while all of that is true, it is not the whole story. In real life things are more complicated than that. Should we blame women for men’s lustful desires? No! Otherwise, where do we stop? Should they be covered head to toe, perhaps even their eyes (some women have very beautiful and naturally seductive eyes!)? No! I think Paul points the way by offering up a real-life “grey” area issue that I believe parallels this one.

Though the Bible writers usually err on the side of caution, Paul makes a statement in 1 Corinthians 10:25-26 that I think applies to this discussion:

“Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any questions on the ground of conscience. For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.”

If you know that the meat was sacrificed to idols, as everyone knew, eat up but don’t ask questions because ultimately the meat (which comes from the earth) is the Lord’s. There’s an interesting parallel here. As everyone knew all meat sold in the market in that day was sacrificed to idols, so today everyone knows that a women’s body in a sleek little bikini causes men in general to lust. The conclusion of Paul’s argument seems to apply: The earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof. Helloooo! The “fullness thereof” means the human body in all of it’s beauty and glory is a part of the Lord’s craftsmanship. Wear the bikini and don’t ask questions.

But the parallel goes further. If you know that there is a weaker brother in the Lord among you (and Paul’s saying, for conscious sake, don’t run around asking!), then you should not do (or wear) anything that will cause him to stumble.

The bottom line is that Christians in particular should be mindful of their context. Be mindful of their actions. And be mindful of the body of Christ.

Earlier I said my wife doesn’t wear bikinis. That’s not entirely true. She wore a bikini once when we were lounging on a beach in Cuba. Of course in that context she was the modest one as about half of the other ladies on the beach didn’t bother wearing their bikini top at all.

This subject is complex. More complex then any subject I have attempted to look at. The problem is worsened by the Bible’s apparent over-simplicity of it and worsened still by Christians on all fronts who compound the apparent over-simplicity of it.

We live in a new world today and it will be a long time, I think, for us to find balance and to actually make positive strides in the right direction. Since the feminist movements society has been reeling in a dizzy stupor as men and women attempt to find an identity as men and women. In the book My Brother’s Keeper, Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen sums up the effect of the feminist movement on men and women up to the end of the 1990’s. First women:

“In the late 1990’s, women’s median salaries in the United States were 74 percent of men’s, with a wage gap of varying size persisting in all ethnic groups. Worldwide, almost twice as many women as men are illiterate, and around most of the globe women put in longer hours than men in both domestic and waged work. International health experts estimate that around 100 million women and girls have experienced genital mutilation, and rape as a tool of war has been tragically common in places such as the former Yugoslavia. In both Canada and the United States, approximately 25 percent  of married or formerly married women have suffered severe physical abuse at the hands of a male partner, in Asia, Africa and Latin America, the figure is more than 50 percent.” (p.17)

She goes on to make a connect between religious groups and women:

“In a 1994 survey of fifteen Protestant denominations, research found that female M.Div. degree holders took twice as long as their male peers to get their first post in a church. Moreover, women working in full-time clergy jobs earned significantly less than men, even when others factors such as education, work experience, congregational size and type of position were controlled. It is not clear how much this difference reflects continued discrimination against women clergy and how much reflects choices to slow their careers to devote time to their families. Other studies showing a higher dropout rate of women clergy because of self-reported demoralization and discouragement suggest that continued discrimination plays at least a partial role.” (18)

There seems to be a tendency at this point to flair up in anger at our white male dominated neighbors (gulp, that’s me!). But Van Leeuwen continues in the next section titled, “Men Overboard!”

“so there’s plenty of data to support the argument that, on the whole, it is women rather than men who still have the greater hurdles to surmount. But while acknowledging the importance of such data, many observers, including myself, see the man on the inner tube (with the caption “SAVE THE MALES”) as a symbol that men too are struggling.”

The author of a the book, Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man, Susan Faludi writes: “Blaming a cabal of men has taken feminism about as far as it can go… If my travels taught me anything about the two sexes, it is that each of our struggles depends on the success of the other’s.” She goes on to say that since the 1960’s and 1970’s skilled fighter-jet pilots have been turned into passive glamour boys orbiting the earth.

“What’s left for many men, Faldui concluded, is only ‘ornamental masculinity.’ As men’s opportunity to be useful providers and protectors has eroded, some have begun to pursue the precarious routes to self-esteem and financial security long required of women: dressing glamorously, cultivating sexual attractiveness, and looking for ways to get media attention, whether as goofily dressed football fans, inner-city gang leaders or iron-pumping gym rats, all of whom were among Faludi’s subjects. Along with this have come some intriguing gender reversals. For example, between 1989 and 1996, men’s clothing sales in American rose 21 percent to record highs; meanwhile women, perhaps taught by thirty years of feminism to look for less superficial routes to a secure identity, spent 10 percent less on clothing in the same period.” (19-20)

Van Leeuwen goes on to say that there is evidence that such case studies reflect negative trends in the lives of men since the feminist movements:

“Since the 1950’s, suicide rates for young white males in America have nearly tripled, and just between 1986 and 1998, the rate for African American boys almost doubled. In 1997, 15 percent of American boys seriously considered suicide, and 5 perfect actually attempted it. (Although females actually make more suicide attempts, two to four times as many males – depending on age category – succeed, since they are apt to use guns rather than pills as their method.) In the United States more women than men now complete high school and obtain bachelor’s and master’s degrees. Between 1970 and 1993 in the United States, the homicide rate among fifteen to nineteen year old males more than doubled before beginning to level off. In 1995 a third of all American males in that same age bracket reported carrying a weapon (gun, knife or razor) in the previous month, compared to only 8 perfect of their female peers.

When we look beyond boys and young men to the lives of adult males in general, other warning signs appear. In all age groups in the United States, men’s death rates from both internal and external causes exceed women’s peaking at almost three times women’s rate among fifteen to twenty four year olds. In addition, men commit suicide at about three times the rate women do between the ages of twenty-five and sixty-five, and at rates four to six times higher thereafter. Men are three times more likely than women to abuse alcohol and three times more likely to be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder, which is characterized by an absence of moral sensitivity and guilt about harming others.

In America men seem to be less vocationally flexible than women. In 1995 an average of 58 percent more women were in traditional men’s jobs (e.g., doctor, police officer, clergy, accountant, mail carrier) than in 1983. Only 20 percent more men were in traditional women’s jobs (e.g., nurse, elementary teacher, physiotherapist, social worker), even though men are courted for such jobs – at generally better pay than women used to earn in them – and even though traditional male factory jobs are now scarce. Finally, men, along with women, seem less concerned to establish stable families than before. In the mid-1990’s America’s divorce and nonmarital pregnancy rates were the highest in the industrialized world.” (20-21)

So has feminism been kind to our society? Beneficial? Can we conclude with the feminist who once remarked that women need men like fish need bicycles? Or are these facts cause for alarm? Should we be concerned with the trajectory which feminism has brought us and where we are going? Should we be concerned that it has done little for women, and much to harm for men?

Is a radical pendulum always the answer to a history of abuse?

I submit that as Christians we should throw out the pendulum altogether and find a better way. Any approach to feminism that harms men is no more an answer than any approach to biblicism that harms women.

Let me explain.

When I hear John Piper or Mark Driscoll on this subject I do not recognized my own complementarian views being articulated. The same is frustratingly true when I read rebuttals to their view by Rachel Held Evans that is, without qualification, labelled complementarianism (and some times she applies broader terms to it.) When I read her articles I don’t recognized my complementarian views being expressed there either.

The impression by both Driscoll and Evans is that there is only one form of complementarianism.

Put that thought on the shelf for a moment, we’ll return to it.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I get the strong sense that one of the primary issues egalitarians have with complementarians is with the notion of assigned roles based on gender.

Here’s a series of quotes from Evans latest post on the subject:

“I hear from men and women who say that they went into their marriages expecting to impose upon them the hierarchal structure advocated by the complementarian movement… Hierarchy felt awkward and imposed… roles based on giftedness rather than gender… hierarchal-based gender roles… We don’t impose gender-based absolutes on one another…” et. cetera.

So the one form of complementarianism that exists is a system that imposes roles based upon gender rather than on giftedness.

Put that on the shelf too, just for a moment.

Now what if there was a way to nuance a complementarian view that does not impose roles based on gender? I doubt it would be enough for egalitarians and it is even more doubtful that it would prevent Evans from holding up Piper and Driscoll (her favorites, among others…) as examples of us all. But it would at least give those of us who do believe in biblically based complementarianism a more moderate position to latch on to that does not, how did Evans put it, “impose gender-based absolutes on one another”.

In Evans article she agrees with traditional complementarian Russell Moore that because of the growing trend of complementarians who are actually “functional egalitarians”, that this is a sign that complementarianism is on its way out. However, the reality may be quite different. We may be witnessing the emergence of a new breed of complementarians. Smart godly people who are more influenced my Michael Patton’s moderation than Mark Driscoll’s rhetoric. People who believe there is no functional difference between complementarianism and egalitarianism.

How is that possible you ask? Read on.

I believe that generalizations can not only be helpful, but are actually necessary as long as we remember that they are only general and that they don’t account for everyone. If you accept that premise with me than it’s but a baby step more to talk about general attributes common in women and a different set of general attributes common in men. Books have been written that attempt to capitalize on these generalizations evident in their titles, Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus or Men are like Waffles and Women are like Spaghetti. Men are wired one way, and women another.

Now these are just generalizations and don’t account for every man or every woman in every way. For example, not every attribute that these books apply to men fit me in. I’m not drawn to sports and I can’t swing a hammer properly if my life depended on it and I’m pretty emotional. My pastor is just like me in the “fix it” category, but his wife is excellent with a hammer and screwdriver. Yet it is important to remember that exceptions do not debunk the (general) rule, they enforce it.

Now then, if you agree with me on that premise then it is but a tiny step forward into interpreting the scriptures faithfully, allowing a complementarian view to be embraced that is functionally egalitarian. The way this is accomplished is by acknowledging the general attributes in each gender and understand the biblical principles associated with them.

The two words that are important to emphasize here are “general” and “principle” because they keep us grounded in a moderate approach that avoids the gravitational pull of the polarity common in this debate. (Evans is currently conducting an experiment that is to be published which intends to champion a hermeneutic that favors an egalitarian reading while simultaneously mocking the other side.) Bringing these two concepts into the discussion for complementarians allows us to avoid the charge of “absolute” by egalitarians because we’re not making an absolute claim, but a general one. It also avoids the “imposed gender roles” of traditional complementarians because we’re not talking about laying down laws but about picking up biblical principles or precepts.

This places complementary-functional-egalitarians directly in the middle of the complementarian-egalitarian debate, perhaps as it’s referee.

By taking this approach roles are not assigned by gender but are rather based on giftedness and personal attributes and strengths. But it also recognizes the general attributes that are unique to each gender. In this way it recognizes the biblical precepts of male headship and leadership not based on their gender but on attributes generally prescribed to their gender. Thus because this is based on general attributes found in each gender, it does not place limits on women as teachers, leaders, nay, even apostles because there are many, many exceptions to the rule.

So there are different expressions of the complementarian view, and Piper and Driscoll (along with the crew over at the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) are but one radical expression that seeks to regulate roles based on gender, both in the home at in the community of God.

I do share the complementarian conviction that the scriptures place the heavy spiritual responsibility of the home and church on the shoulders of men. But I do not share the traditional complementarian view that it is simply on the basis of their gender. I believe that God places the responsibility of the spiritual state of the household upon the person in the home who best meets the requirements to take on that responsibility. Because that particular responsibility is not based on gender but on the giftedness and personal attributes and strengths of the individual, it could fall on the shoulders of either a man or a woman. However, because the scriptures place the principle of that responsibility on the shoulders of the father/husband of the home it leads me to conclude that it is generally the male who was created with the attributes for that responsibility, but not in every case. Similarly women generally have giftings and attributes that equip them for tasks men generally lack and are not equipped to do, but not in every case.

I think the scriptures do generalizations very well, but they do not deal with the natural exceptions that occur in real life nearly as well. This is because the scriptures were written in a culture where the “group” was always considered primary and the “individual” – if considered at all – secondary. We live in a culture where that is precisely reversed. So I believe we should take the biblical generalizations in these matters as principles, not New Testament equiviliants of Levitical laws. Mercy, not sacrifice.

This is why I believe complementarians can and should live as “functional egalitarians”. Because each person can, should and in most cases will fulfill a role in life which fits accordingly to their God given strengths and desires. And if we allow for the general principle to play out, the sexes will be truly complementary for one another, even according to the general principles laid out in the scriptures, which should make complementarians very happy as long as they remember to have mercy, not sacrifice when exceptions to the general principles occur.

Rachel Evans writes, “a truly complementary relationship is one in which differences are celebrated, but not forced.” This complementarian-functional-egalitarian agrees.

While the Church Father’s did not agree on everything, when they speak with one voice on any particular subject I think wisdom dictates that we should listen and give their voice a great deal of weight.

Such is the subject of this post. It seems that in regards to the idea that once someone “believes unto salvation” that there is no chance they will not continue in that state to the end, our Father’s protest.

“We ought therefore, brethren, carefully to inquire concerning our salvation. Otherwise, the wicked one, having made his entrance by deceit, may hurl us forth from our life.” ~ Barnabas (c. 70-130)

“For the Lord has sworn by His glory, in regard to His elect, that if any one of them sin after a certain day which has been fixed, he will no be saved. For the repentance of the righteous has limits. Filled up are the days of repentance to all the saints. But to the unbeliever, repentance will be possible even to the last day… For the Lord has sworn by His Son, that those who denied their Lord have abandoned their life to despair.” ~ Hermas (c. 150)

“I hold further, that those of you who have confessed and known this man to be Christ, yet who have gone back for some reason to the legal dispensation [i.e. the Mosaic Law], and have denied that this man is Christ, and have not repented before death – you will by no means be saved.” ~ Justin Martyr (c. 160)

“Those who do not obey Him, being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His sons.” ~ Irenaeus (c. 180)

“God had foreseen… that faith – even after baptism – would be endangered. He saw that most persons – after obtaining salvation – would be lost again, by soiling the wedding dress, by failing to provide oil for their torches.” ~ Tertullian (c. 213)

“Certain ones of those [heretics] who hold different opinions misuse these passages. They essentially destroy free will be introducing ruined natures incapable of salvation and by introducing others as being saved in such a way that they cannot be lost.” ~ Origen (c. 225)

“Being a believing man, if you seek to live as the Gentiles do, the joys of the world remove you from the grace of Christ.” ~ Commodianus (c. 240)

“Let us press onward and labor, watching with our whole heart. Let us be steadfast with all endurance; let us keep the Lord’s commandments. Thereby, when that day of anger and vengeance comes, we may not be punished with the ungodly and the sinners. Rather, we may be honored with the righteous and with those who fear God.” ~ Cyprian (c. 250)

“As to one who again denies Christ, no special previous standing can be effective to him for salvation. For anyone of us will hold it necessary that whatever is the last thing to be found in a man in this respect, that is where he will be judged. All of those things that he has previously done are wiped away and obliterated.” ~ Treatise on Re-Baptism (c. 257)

“He put a seal upon him, for it is concealed as to who belong to the side of the devil and who to the side of Christ. For we do not know out of those who seem to stand whether they will fall or not. And of those who are down, it is uncertain whether they might rise.” ~ Victorinus (c. 280)

Et cetera, et cetera…

While they may disagree with one another on this point or that point, the one consistent theme which they seem to agree on is that even “after obtaining salvation” – as Tertullian puts it – one may be “disinherited by Him” (to quote Irenaeus) if they cease to be faithful (which is inextricably tied up to obedience according to Hebrews 4).

And by the way, I find Origen’s thoughts to be of particular interest. Apparently during the first few centuries of the Church – that is, prior to Augustine – it was the heretics who promised salvation “in such a way that they cannot be lost.”

It was the Gnostics – and then Augustine, Luther, Calvin and so on – who taught “once saved always saved.”

If the Bible teaches that we can know, but such assurance is incongruent with Calvinism, wait for it, wait… for… it…, nope, no lightbulbs for many Calvinists.

Too bad.

I’m poking fun a bit. But In all seriousness though, Calvinists believe they have assurance of Salvation. And they should. And I’m not surprised. They are, after all, Bible Christians. The trick is to get them to see that what the Bible says about Christian assurance is incompatible with their Calvinistic theology (and by “get them to see” I don’t mean to imply that it’ll do just to show them, the last post makes that crystal clear!).

Though Saint Augustine came before Calvin, his views of predestination no doubt had an indelible mark on Calvin’s and Luther’s theology. But Augustine was willing to be consistent where, it seems, Calvin was not. Augustine believed that all unbapized infants went to hell. Calvin could not stomach such an idea. But really, with a soteriology such as Calvin’s, why not? Nevertheless, Calvin’ distain of Augustine’ view of the destiny of unbaptized babies is not unlike the Arminian distain for Calvin’s view of particular predestination.

But that’s not the only place where Augustine and Calvinism part ways. As perhaps the leading Augustinian scholar Gerald Bonner observes:

“There is, however, one important distinction between Augustine and later Calvinism: Augustine did not believe it possible to distinguish between the saved and the reprobate in this life. As long as we are in the body, no one can have “assurance of salvation.”’ (Freedom and Necessity, p.46)

Augustine knew that to hold to a view of particular predestination which dictated a theology of the preservation of the saints, especially in light of the fact that many sincere Christians have openly abandoned the faith since early times, this could only mean that there is no way to know who truly are the elect and who are not.

If your theology leads to that conclusion – as undeniably any theology of particular predestination (unless mingled with universalism) does – perhaps it’s time to go back to the drawing board.

Often when people convert from one intra-Christian tradition to another, it’s usually for reasons other than doctrinal validity as the book Journey’s of Faith reveals clearly enough. People convert for many reasons, not least because they have a sense of incompleteness. They feel that another tradition offers something that their current tradition lacks. Whether it be a worship style and attitude, freedom or liturgical structure, perhaps sacraments, people are always moving back and forth between traditions in search for a sense of something.

In the case of Calvinism, I believe the number one feature which draws people to it is the doctrine of the preservation of the saints. They want to feel eternally secure. Exhibit A: I have grown up with people personally who have become Calvinists because of the attractiveness of this very doctrine. I knew one man whose brother, a Pentecostal minister, was decidedly Pelagian when he taught. As a result my friend, who had difficulty managing those things he desired most – women, alcohol and popularity – wanted to find eternal security. Obviously his brothers Pelagian tendencies, and the insecurity that comes with it, lended itself to my friends decision to become a Calvinist. Of course there were other complex factors involved, but escaping a perceived Pentecostal Pelagian insecurity seemed to be a vital one.

Exhibit B: I am a member of an online Arminian group where a few months back William Birch, upon announcing his resignation from the group (and before his recent heart wrenching shenanigans) had stated that his views on the preservation of the saints had changed. He had hoped that holding to a doctrine of once saved always saved will help make his Arminian soteriology more palatable to his Baptist Calvinist brethren. The general response among the Arminian group was to cheer and applaud this move, acknowledging that less people would convert to Calvinsim if more Arminians embraced once saved always saved. Or, to put that backwards as the very idea suggests, many Baptists Calvinists are Calvinists primarily because of the doctrine of the preservation of the saints. People want to feel secure and Arminianism doesn’t offer that (supposedly).

Exhibit C: On the progressive scholarly front, Michael Bird embraces this view as a part of the package of his Calvinist soteriology. Scot McKnight rejects the Calvinist soteriology at preciously this point. Since Hebrews teaches that someone can abandon their faith, the Calvinist soteriology must be wrong. N.T. Wright chimes in, coming up the middle between these views since it seems he doesn’t embrace a Calvinist soteriology wholesale, but he also pushes back a bit on McKnight by saying of Hebrews, “that’s not the right question.” (But I think if it’s not the question Hebrews is asking, it is at the very least precisely the issue Hebrews takes up.)

But no matter where you land on this issue, whether you believe in the perseverance of the saints or you believe that it is possible for an individual to abandon the faith to which they once clung, one thing is certain: the idea that God elects some to salvation and “passes over” most others is not the most difficult idea that Calvinism has to offer. No. The most difficult idea Calvinism has to offer is that there is no way in this life that you can know if you have been passed over or not. No way to know if you are one of the elect!

I feel like repeating that last three sentences. Read it again.

The most terrifying part of Calvinism’ soteriology (and it’s best kept secret) is that there is no way to know if you are one of the elect. None. Read on.

While documenting the rise of the so-called new Calvinism, Collin Hanson interviews many young Piper cubs who admit that the most difficult part to accept while journeying towards Calvinism was the idea that God elects to salvation some and passes over others. This is Exhibit D that many people who convert to Calvinism have not thought through it’s doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Because surely I would think the most difficult part to accept while journeying to Calvinism wouldn’t be that God passes over others, but that God may have passed over you! And there’s no way to know.

Let me say this another way – and yes, I am hammering home this point until you get it! – Calvinism offers about as much security to the believer as full blown Pelagianism!

Let me explain how by making three points about Calvinism:

1. Calvinism fits squarely within the holiness tradition (as does Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism). That some people run around claiming to teach that someone can make a sincere confession of faith and then live their life nilly-willy any way they wish and still get to heaven is patently not Calvinism. Whatever it is – and yes, I have people like Charles Stanley in mind – it is not Calvinism.

In the book Why I Am Not An Arminian the co-authors – both Calvinists – Robert Peterson and Michael Williams write:

“Easy believism, the view that persons are to be regarded as Christians who have made professions of faith but whose lives are unchanged, is incompatible with biblical teaching. On this point Arminians and Calvinists agree.” (p.81, emphasis mine)

2. Calvinism teaches that if God has elected someone for salvation, that person will be saved by the grace of God. There is no chance that they will not be saved. No one can snatch them from the Fathers’ hand (John 10:28).

3. If someone who was among God’s people walks away, this is clear evidence that this person was never really saved in the first place (1 John 2:19). Peterson and Williams write again:

“If they don’t believe to the end, they have not come to share in Christ. This indicates not a loss of salvation but a demonstration that the professed Christians had not really been united to Christ in the first place.” (p.80, emphasis mine)

So far this is pretty standard stuff. Calvinism does not shy away from teaching that if someone “falls away” it is clear proof that they were never saved in the first place. But there’s a catch. An emphasis that is never brought up either by Calvinists, Arminians or otherwise.

Its easy to judge a person who walks away as being someone who was never saved after the fact. But what about before they walk away?

The person comes to church week after week, singing with all sincerity of heart. Perhaps preaching or teaching your children in Sunday School. Perhaps they lead your Churches mission and evangelistic programs. Or maybe they were your worship leader. And how did they get to those positions unless others around them also saw “fruit” of their salvation. Are we to say that through all of those years they were just pretending? Perhaps for some small portion of them that is true, but it is beyond reason to suggest that every person who has shown clear fruit of a life devoted to Christ was just faking all along. No. Rather these people – at the time – where as sincere a follower of Jesus are you are today. But for whatever reason – perhaps church abuse, tragedy in their lives or any number of other reasons – they then abandoned the faith. What do we make of those situations?

Calvinism’ teaching is clear enough. If they do not hold firm to the end, it is proof that they were never saved in the first place.

But then what were they, if not genuine Christians?

Or perhaps, the more pressing question is, if they were as sure in their salvation then as you are now, how can you be certain that you are really saved?

How does Calvinism answer these question? Have you read any books by Calvinists where the doctrine of the preservation of the saints is dug into deep enough to acknowledge this dilemma and offer some type of answer?

Because the unspeakable answer seems clear enough. It’s terrifying really. The Calvinist John Frame, in his book against Open Theism titled No Other God, does reveal Calvinism’s answer to this question, albeit in a footnote:

“There are also cases where God chooses someone for a task and for a limited kind of fellowship with him, without the intention of giving him the full benefits of salvation.” (p.117, n.9, emphasis mine)

Read that answer again.

How do you know that does not describe you? How do you know that you have been given the “full benefits of salvation” and not just a “limited kind of fellowship with him”?

How?

For those who convert to Calvinism because in it they think will have obtained a teaching of eternal security that offers them assurance in their faith, answer that question:

How can you know?

You can’t.

In Calvinism you may have been chosen for a limited fellowship with God, a specific task of – say – a missionary or pastor or evangelist, and not for the “full benefits of salvation”.

And for Arminians who think that we need to adopt a doctrine of eternal security to make Arminianism more palatable, I suggest you think again.

“Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, ‘Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last.” – Luke 23:46

As I child in Catholic school I remember learning a particular childhood prayer: When I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep. And if I die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take. You may have learned a similar prayer. Working in a Christian bookstore I can say that it is no irregular occurrence for mothers of young children to come into the store to look up that pray on a stuffed lamb or a plaque or in a child’s book to teach it to their children.

The pastor pointed out that mother’s of first century Judaism had a similar practice. Every night when they laid their children down to sleep they would pray with them, and the closing refrain to whatever the prayer they prayed was always the same. They took it from the Psalms:

“Into your hand I commit my spirit.” – Psalm 31:5

It’s instructive that while hanging on the cross the final words of Jesus are those his mother would have taught him each night before he went to sleep as a child.

[This article was edited to remove offensive and obstructive language.]

At the heart of the Christian doctrine of Justification is a trustworthy God (worthy is where we get the word worship from). The two places where the Apostle Paul anchors this doctrine are clear enough. In Galatians we are told that God justifies those who have faith in Jesus by means of the faithfulness of Jesus. In other words, those who have faith in Jesus are declared members of God’s one family because of what Jesus did for them in his obedience to the Father on the cross. In Romans this point is developed and made patently clear straight from the get-go.

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes… For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’”

The gospel is the ‘power of God’, it is the means that allows or enables God to save people, in particular those who believe. The gospel, the good news, Paul writes elsewhere, is that Christ died for our sins, was buried, was raised from the dead and ascended to the lofty throne of God.

And Paul said – back to Romans where we just were – that this narrative, the story of Jesus – from his mission climaxing in the bloody crucifixion all the way to his final exaltation – is the ‘righteousness of God’. The gospel is how God has proved himself to be righteous, just, faithful.

Remember back in Genesis God made a promise to the age-old Abram:

“Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessings. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and by you all of the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

“Leave your family and everything you know,” God tells Abram, “and I will bless your family and everything there is.” Leave your world that I may bless the world. Blessing is a covenant term. It means to make things right by putting creation back together in the way it was meant to be. God and creation reconciled.

And God is a person of his Word, pun intended.

The only question that remained unclear was precisely how he was to accomplish this imposing goal. It seemed clear enough that God would begin by creating a new family – Abram’s family (keeping in mind that Sarai was barren, Abram’s family with Sarai was literally a creative miraculous work of God). And that God’s family would martyr themselves to the world in hopes that the rest would join in.

But the precise opposite happened. Rather than martyr themselves to the world, they laid down before it. They rode the beast without a concern in the world for the world. And no matter how often or how loud YHWH called them back to himself, no matter what the consequences were, they continued to prostitute themselves to every local cult and pagan deity that came down the pike.

It appeared that YWHW’s plan had crashed and burned. The plan all along was to restore the universal order of things. And the chief players are the Lord who made all things, and humans who were made responsible to all things under God. So the plan was to restore that relationship – God and humans – by making all of humanity into one universal family with God. But the place where that family was to begin and grow out of – Abram’s family – was not going so well.

To make matters worse, it wasn’t as though God could just brush things off as another failed project – as he did in the flood, for example – and start again. This time, this covenant was different. This time God made the fateful move of staking his own life on the line.

In Genesis 15 God instructs Abram to create a covenantal ditch filled with the blood of animals that have been diced in two and placed on either side of the hill for their blood to drain down; a custom not uncommon in the Ancient Near East. Normally two chieftain’s would walk the ditch ankle high in blood to ratify an agreement. The act symbolized a pledge to the death. Both parties were essentially saying to each other, “if what I promise does not come to pass, then may what happened to these animals happen to me.”

But God does something radically, dreadfully, and infinitely gracefully unexpected. He makes his promise to Abram and then He – God alone! - passes between the dead animals. God himself places his own life on the line. So you see, he can’t just shrug off Israel’s unfaithfulness and start again.

So then, the ultimate dilemma emerges. By definition God cannot keep his promise unilaterally. He cannot. That is because God’s promise involved a partner. “Through you” God promises Abram, “all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

So when God passes through the bloody ditch, in effecting saying, “if what I promise does not come to pass, may what happen to these animals happen to me,” we find later in the scriptures that that is exactly what happened, “like a lamb that is led to the slaughter” records the prophet.

All of the threads that we’ve talked about so far, and many more still, converge upon the cross as the climax of God’s covenant. That God himself would be born into the human race and more specifically, into the family of good ol’ Abraham. That he, Jesus – which means savior, would succeed where everyone else failed. That he, the second Adam, would be faithful to God where the first Adam and all of his descendants remained unfaithful. And then he, ‘my God and my King’ as one faithful disciple testified, would die the bloody death of those sliced and diced carcasses back in Genesis 15.

And there was Silence.

Three long and breathless Jewish days of silence.

Did the plan fail?

Silence. (Day 1)

Did God fail?

Silence. (Day 2)

Was God, as fear grips us and tears stream down our face, was God unfaithful?

Day 3…………….

“But Christ HAS in fact been raised from the dead,” declares the Apostle, “the firstfruits of a new creation.” A new creation. WOW! The plan accomplished. The evidence, the cross. The meaning: God is righteous!

It is also no mistake – if I may oscillate back to Corinth for a moment – that when Paul defines the gospel for us, he does so in the context of laying the groundwork for an exposition of the resurrection.

“If the resurrection of Jesus – the physical body, not some ghostly ‘spirituality’ nor some type of metaphorical mysticism, but the actual physical body – did not occur, then Christianity is an absurdity. We are of all people, Paul writes, most to be pitied.

“But in fact” Paul goes on to assure us with the confidence of his own witness, “Christ has been raised from the dead.” And with that it means that we can expect to be raised too, he goes on to explain.

Bursting forth on day three the power of God was made known. The faithful Human, the faithful Son of David – an Israelite! – was vindicated. And he was raised, not just from the dead but all the way up to the right hand of the Father in a marvelous act of Kingship, and from that throne he sits, and governs, and makes war until the all of the enemies have been defeated, the last of which being death itself…

… which, by the way, has already lost it’s sting.