Defenders of Divine Grace

“These few explanations will make it very easy for the reader to disentangle himself from the immense heap of passages (containing both precepts and reprimands) which the ENEMIES OF DIVINE GRACE are in the habit of piling up, that they may thereon ERECT THEIR STATUE OF FREE WILL…we must, therefore, attend to the admonition of Paul, when he thus addresses believers, ‘Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure’ (Phil. 2:12, 13). He ascribes to them a part in acting THAT THEY MAY NOT INDULGE IN CARNAL SLOTH, but by enjoining fear and trembling, he HUMBLES them so as to keep them in remembrance, that they very thing which they are ordered to do is the proper work of God—distinctly intimating, that believers act (IF I MAY SO SPEAK) PASSIVELY inasmuch as the power is given them from heaven, and cannot in any way be arrogated to themselves” (John Calvin, “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” page 205).

I’ve been reading some more of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion today. I had planned to go about my posting as planned, with stuff already behind chapter 5 that I wanted to post on. But I felt so strong about certain comments I read today, that I just couldn’t run past them—or save them until another time.

With the quote above, I found it fascinating that John Calvin would give us such an interpretation of Philippians 2:12-13:

“He ascribes to them a part in acting THAT THEY MAY NOT INDULGE IN CARNAL SLOTH, but by enjoining fear and trembling, he HUMBLES them so as TO KEEP THEM IN REMEMBRANCE, that they very thing which they are ordered to do is the proper work of God—distinctly intimating, that believers act (if I may so speak) PASSIVELY inasmuch as the power is given them from heaven, and cannot in any way be arrogated to themselves.”

But look at what Calvin said earlier in his Institutes about this passage:

“Accordingly, in the passage already quoted from the Apostle Paul, he attributes the whole operation to God, ‘It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure’ (Phil. 2:13). The first part of a good work is the will, the second is vigorous effort in the doing of it. GOD IS THE AUTHOR OF BOTH. It is,therefore, ROBBERY FROM GOD to arrogate anything to ourselves, either in the will or the act” (185).

How does one “ACT PASSIVELY”? In the words of John Calvin, it is to allow the “power…given from heaven” to be at work in them. And Calvin isn’t alone: Arminians believe the same.

But let’s look at the structure of Philippians 2:12-13. First, there is the imperative: “work out your soul salvation with fear and trembling.” Then there is the reason: “For it is GOD who is working in you.” So, the thought behind this passage is that the believers are supposed to have a reverence for God that allows them to do what is pleasing to God. Why are they doing this? Because GOD is at work in them. This acknowledges God without taking away from human responsibility.

If one examines the context of Philippians 2, it will be seen that Paul has just finished showing the believers at Philippi the example of Christ, His submission to the Father, and His selfless act as Savior—to be obedient to the Father, even to the death on the Cross. Paul uses the example of Christ because he is emphasizing that the believers need humility by which to conduct themselves:

“Do nothing out of rivalry or conceit, but in HUMILITY consider others as more important than yourselves. Everyone SHOULD look out not [only] for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. Make your attitude THAT OF CHRIST JESUS…” (Phil. 2:3-5, HCSB).

As we can see, the issue with the believers was learning how to CONDUCT themselves as believers. So in verse 13, when Paul states that God is working in them for His good will and good pleasure, He is saying that, BECAUSE this is true (God is at work), the believers should conduct themselves in a way that demonstrates that God is at work in them.

But, did you notice Calvin’s comment about how believers act? “Believers act PASSIVELY (inasmuch as the power is given them from heaven), and cannot in any way be arrogated to themselves.”

There’s a problem with this statement though: while believers do “act passively” and do not resist the Spirit of Grace, by so doing, they COOPERATE (work with) the Spirit. For Calvin to say this is a huge breakdown of his entire argument. He has spent time in the last two chapters arguing that it is the Spirit that does everything—believers do nothing. Now, he’s saying that believers “ACT”!

In case you think my context is a bit off, let’s continue to examine the context of Philippians 2. After Paul’s remarks about having the mind of Christ, Paul writes these words:

“So then, my dear friends, just as you HAVE ALWAYS OBEYED, not only in my presence, but now even more in my absence, WORK OUT your own salvation with fear and trembling…DO EVERYTHING WITHOUT GRUMBLING AND ARGUING, so that you may be blameless and pure, children of God who are faultless in a crooked and perverted generation, AMONG WHOM YOU SHINE LIKE STARS IN THE WORLD. HOLD FIRMLY THE MESSAGE OF LIFE. THEN I CAN BOAST IN THE DAY OF CHRIST THAT I DIDN’T RUN IN VAIN OR LABOR FOR NOTHING” (Phil. 2:12-16, HCSB).

The theme of these last five verses is OBEDIENCE—“Just as you have ALWAYS OBEYED…” I found the definition for “obey” in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary online:
1) “to follow the commands or guidance of.”
2) To conform or comply with

What does it mean to “follow”?

“to act in accordance with, to accept as an authority, to copy, to imitate,” etc.

All these definitions show us what humans do when they “obey.” But, to distinguish, let’s see what happens with objects when they “obey”:

“Falling objects OBEY the laws of physics” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obey)

What does an object do when it OBEYS? It does nothing. Because the laws of physics contain a gravitational force which pulls on the object, the object (such as a rock) follows the law and FALLS to the ground. It does not get a choice to resist; it has no way of resistance, no ability of resistance within itself. Why? Because it’s an object; and objects HAVE NO MIND, or INTELLECT, or ABILITY to do other than what the scientific laws call for.

But with humans, we are different; we are not like objects in that we simply “fall” into whatever the laws say. Now, while we are forced to obey laws like the law of gravity, there are certain things we can do against nature—like, for instance, build homes, cars, trucks, vans. Humans everyday find ways to make nature “bend” to whatever their desires are. Currently in our world, we are striving to learn how to use healthier car fuel other than the gas emissions we have—so that we can better protect our environment. While our abuse of natural resources has led to pollution and ozone layer thinning, our good use of these resources has led to the preservation of near-extinct species, as well as medicines to fight sicknesses and diseases. We are helping people live longer today—and creating new “anti-wrinkle creams” so that women can fight the signs of aging. In short, we are making an impression upon our society.

But objects cannot do this. Objects are simply “pulled along.” And that is the major problem I have with Calvinism. It seems as if Calvinists make the Holy Spirit out to be some mystical “force” that jumps into my body and DRIVES me to do certain things. It kinda reminds me of the movie “Ghost” that I saw about two or three months ago, where the spirit of a deceased man (played by Patrick Swayze)jumped into the “spiritual advisor’s” body (played by Whoopie Goldberg), and made Whoopie Goldberg say EXACTLY what the deceased man wanted to tell his wife (played by Demi Moore). But the problem is, that this IS NOT how the Spirit works. He does not FORCE us to do things. We are not OBJECTS, but PEOPLE; and as creation made IN THE IMAGE AND AFTER THE LIKENESS of our Creator, the Spirit responds to us AS SUCH—humans who are capable of making decisions. If God wanted to make us as objects or automaton who simply do His bidding, He could have done that. However, He made us IN HIS IMAGE, AFTER HIS LIKENESS…and if He did that, don’t you think that our will, the component of our constitution that allows us to make decisions, is part of the LIKENESS of God that we bear in ourselves?

I will continue my discussion of Calvin’s Book II, Chapter 5, in my next post.

Common Grace

“In every age there have been some who, under the guidance of nature, were all their lives devoted to virtue. It is of no consequence, that many blots may be detected in their conduct; by the mere study of virtue, they evinced that there was somewhat of purity in their nature…such examples, then, seem to warn us against supposing that the nature of man is utterly vicious, since, under its guidance, some have not only excelled in illustrious deeds, but conducted themselves most honorably through the whole course of their lives. But we ought to consider that, notwithstanding the corruption of our nature, THERE IS SOME ROOM FOR DIVINE GRACE, such as, WITHOUT PURIFYING IT, MAY LAY IT UNDER INTERNAL RESTRAINT. For, did the Lord let every mind loose to wanton in its lust, doubtless there is not a man who would not show that his nature is capable of all the crimes with which Paul charges it (Rom. 3 compared with Ps. 14:3, etc.)…If every soul is capable of such abominations (and the apostle declares this boldly), it is surely easy to see what the result would be, if the Lord were to permit human passion to follow its bent…thus God, BY HIS PROVIDENCE, CURBS THE PERVERSENESS OF NATURE, preventing it from breaking forth into action, yet without rendering it inwardly pure” (John Calvin, “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” page 180).

I just started in-depth reading of John Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian Religion” tonight. What fascinated me most was his argument against free will, but to get into it, I had to read material prior to that. So, I picked up chapter three of his second book, the chapter being titled “Everything Proceeding from the Corrupt Nature of Man Damnable.”

The quote above is taken from Calvin’s section three of the chapter on the Corrupt Nature of Man. Now, before I get started, let me say that I agree, the nature of man is completely corrupt! No matter how many good things we do, we are still corrupt, and our selfish motives drive us most, if not all, of the time. I can grant Calvin this point regarding human nature.

But the part that gets me is, If there is no grace on those EXCEPT the chosen of God (God of course, choosing people for salvation, according to Calvin), then, why is it that the reprobate demonstrate ANY signs of virtue? Calvin’s response? God’s providence continues to restrain their wickedness.

I have two responses. First, if God gives them common grace and “restrains” their wickedness, then doesn’t it make sense to give them salvation grace, save them, and then persevere them to the end so that they won’t live in lawlessness anymore and be damned to hell? Calvin’s idea of the elect has lots of problems, especially when he gets here to his discussion on common grace. Notice what he writes regarding common grace:

“Thus God, by his providence, curbs the perverseness of nature, preventing it from breaking forth into action, yet WITHOUT RENDERING IT INWARDLY PURE” (180).

There is a problem with this statement above. What Calvin is saying here is that God is able to restrain evil in them, but He’s not “able” or doesn’t desire to give them salvation grace, which would save them; and have His grace keep them from such an immoral lifestyle? How does this fit with the character and nature of God? If God only restrains their deeds, but damns their souls, then, isn’t God DANGLING A CARROT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS IN FRONT OF THEM when He can deliver them from SOME of their evil, but not all (because He won’t extend salvation grace to them)? My reason for this question is that, if God isn’t going to save them, or has no good desires towards them (the “them” here referring to the reprobate, the damned),then why does God worry about what they do, since they are gonna go to Hell no matter what? It doesn’t make sense to say that God gives them some moral grace and restraint, bends their wills to do some good in the world, but then, He can’t bend their wills to accept Him by faith and persevere in their Christian walk. Calvin stresses that God elects some and damns others; but it seems that, in the grand scheme of things, God showers down His grace upon all. God can’t elect in salvation but not elect in moral grace. To say that God does this is to place the blame on God for humankind’s actions.

Secondly, what does one do with Genesis 6? The passage of God’s decision to send the Flood but to save Noah and his family shows us that God does not just restrain the evil of man. Genesis 6 says:

“When the Lord saw that man’s wickedness was widespread on the earth and that every scheme his mind thought of was nothing but evil all the time, the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. Then the Lord said, ‘I will WIPE OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH: man, whom I created, together with the animals, creatures that crawl, and birds of the sky—for I REGRET THAT I MADE THEM” (Gen. 6:5-7, HCSB).

God decides to destroy all of creation. And why? Because “man’s wickedness was widespread on the earth and that EVERY SCHEME HIS MIND THOUGHT OF WAS NOTHING BUT EVIL ALL THE TIME…”

I don’t know what you’re thinking, but me—I’m thinking that it can’t get much worse than this description! I mean, Adam and Eve sinned ONCE in the Garden—but now, man sinned ALL THE TIME! All he did was evil, rarely any good whatsoever.

However, notice what God says to Noah regarding Noah’s walk?

“Then the Lord said to Noah, ‘Enter the ark, you and all your household, FOR I HAVE SEEN THAT YOU [alone] ARE RIGHTEOUS BEFORE ME in this generation” (Gen.7:1, HCSB).

Genesis 6 also tells us about Noah:

“Noah was a RIGHTEOUS man, BLAMELESS among his contemporaries; NOAH WALKED WITH GOD” (Gen. 6:9, HCSB).

Despite the majority of the world, Noah CHOSE to walk right before God. And God told Noah that he was to enter the ark because God would preserve some of the inhabitants of the earth…and because Noah loved God, Noah would be one of those people (along with his family) who would get to inhabit the new earth.

In Genesis 6, the Lord decides to destroy all of creation because of wickedness and evil. However, He chooses to save Noah and his family, since Noah was righteous, one of the only righteous people on the earth in those days. Now, if God were to destroy the inhabitants of the earth, including those who despised God (the reprobate, as Calvin says) because of their evil (although HE created them reprobate, as Calvin says), then How can God destroy them and be called “JUST”?

Back to what I said regarding God “dangling a carrot of righteousness (via faith) in front of the reprobate: for Calvin to place this on God restraining their moral evil but not restraining their spiritual waywardness is preposterous. I think Calvin aims here to uphold God’s sovereignty and providence: But what Calvin actually does is UNDERMINE the responsibility of those who choose to do evil. The only way to get around blaming God, and the only way to MAINTAIN God’s innocence, is to include the factor of FREE WILL—something that Calvin seems reluctant to do, at all costs.

True Investigation

“A common myth about Arminianism is that it promotes an OPTIMISTIC ANTHROPOLOGY. And yet even some Reformed critics of Arminianism admit that they share significant common ground with it. ‘Arminians and Calvinists alike believe in total depravity: because of the fall, EVERY ASPECT of human nature is tainted by sin.’
In his ‘Public Disputations’ the founder of Arminianism declared unequivocally that because of Adam’s fall all humanity has come under the dominion of sin and that
‘IN this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent and weakened [attenuatun]; but it is also IMPRISONED [captivatum], DESTROYED, and LOST: and its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has NO POWERS whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.’
This Arminian statement alone should put to rest the all-too-common misconception that Arminius and Arminians believe human free will SURVIVED THE FALL INTACT” (Roger Olson, “Arminian Theology,” pp. 55-56).

Olson’s work on Arminian Theology is all about providing myth-busters: doing away with wrong preconceived notions about Arminius and his doctrine. And one of the claims that has been made about Arminianism is that it is man-centered.
I have been tutoring a friend for a few days now, and she is the product of a Calvinist upbringing. What stumps her the most in Arminianism is, “How can God have sovereignty and yet, humans have power in free will?” She also doesn’t like to use the words “free will” and struggles to see how both God’s sovereignty and man’s choice exist at the same time.

I choose, however, to see the concept this way. It’s very similar to the parable told by Jesus of the servants and the talents.

14 "For it is just like a man going on a journey. (D) He called his own slaves and turned over his possessions to them. 15 To one he gave five talents; [c] to another, two; and to another, one—to each according to his own ability. Then he went on a journey. (E (Matt. 25:14-15, HCSB)

In this parable, a man is going away for a while, so he turns over his possessions to his servants. Evidently, the man is going to be gone for a long while, so he entrusts his servants with his things until he gets back.

The fact that the servants receive their Master’s possessions does not overrule the ownership of those possessions. The Master STILL OWNS THEM, even if he gives them to the servants. His ownership over the possessions is the reason why he is able to reward the faithful servants and condemn the lazy one when he returns (vv.19-30).
It’s the same way with an owner of a store, who entrusts the care of the store to the manager. The manager may have a lot of power, but he doesn’t have as much as the owner. The manager, then, is an assistant to the owner. He is a helper, one who is in charge of overseeing all that happens in the store. If the manager allows things to get out of control, then he will have to answer to the owner. Despite the manager’s control, the owner still has sovereignty, or rule, over the store. Why? Because it’s simple: if he doesn’t like the manager, he can fire him today and get somebody new tomorrow.

So, even though God is in control over ALL the universe, He has given man control over THE EARTH! (Gen. 1:26-28) As a result, man now has control over the earth—but God still controls all of creation, including the galaxies, planets, and time and space. When we sit back and think about it, we only get to “manage” one small piece of God’s creation. Beyond our universe, there is SO MUCH MORE to see that remains in the hands of God.

Looking to Arminius, we find that he, like Calvin, believed in the total depravity of man. Man’s every ability was affected by the Fall, such that man cannot in any way choose God of his own will—unless that will be assisted, or helped, by God’s grace. So grace is needed to “free” man’s will so that he is able to choose God. In the words of Arminius:

‘IN this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent and weakened [attenuatun]; but it is also IMPRISONED [captivatum], DESTROYED, and LOST: and its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has NO POWERS whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.’

After Adam and Eve sin in Genesis 3, man’s will becomes bent towards all kinds of evil. We see this with Cain:

“Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you FURIOUS? And why are you downcast? If you do right, won’t you be accepted? But if you do not do right, SIN IS CROUCHING AT THE DOOR. ITS DESIRE IS FOR YOU, BUT YOU MUST MASTER IT” (Gen. 4:6-7, HCSB).

Notice that now, sin has become a powerful force in the human heart, such that God has to warn Cain about the consequences of his jealous thoughts. We know Cain is upset because the Lord asks him why he is furious. Next, he tells us of the power of sin: “Sin is crouching at the door.”

When I think of someone “crouching” at the door, I think of a frog preparing to jump on someone, or a little kid “hunched down” to surprise his father and sneak up on his back before the father knows what happened. The same image is there for sin. Sin literally was waiting to overtake Cain. However, God told Cain, “Its desire is for you, but YOU MUST MASTER IT.” Although Cain had wrong feelings in his heart, God let him know that he could control his response to those feelings—by not preparing to do what was already in his heart.

What does Cain do, instead? He kills Abel and is banished from his family. He ends up living as a fugitive until he dies, although he is allowed to have a family (Gen. 4:8-17).

By Genesis 6, we see that sin has spread through all of mankind. Violence and iniquity are so great on the earth that God decrees the Flood:

“Then the Lord said, ‘I will wipe off the face of the earth: man, whom I created, together with the animals, creatures that crawl, and birds of the sky—for I regret that I made them” (Gen. 6:7, HCSB).

Why does God decide to wipe man off the face of the earth?

“When the Lord saw that man’s wickedness WAS WIDESPREAD ON THE EARTH and that EVERY SCHEME HIS MIND THOUGHT OF WAS NOTHING BUT EVIL ALL THE TIME,” (Gen.6:5, HCSB).

As the text shows us, evil had increased to such an alarming rate that every thought of man was evil. This is in stark contrast to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1 and 2, who are able to walk in the Garden with the Creator and enjoy a state of perfection.
Sounds like Arminius had a biblical view of the effects of the Fall on the human will.

But, what about the need for grace, you ask? Arminius’s answer is biblical, as well:
“We also speak these things, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people. But the natural man does not welcome what comes from God’s Spirit, because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to know it since it is evaluated spiritually” (1 Corinthians 2:13-14, HCSB).

So the natural man cannot understand the things of God, the spiritual things. In order to understand them, he must have grace given in order to hear the gospel and believe on Christ’s name.

“And you were DEAD in your trespasses and sins in which you previously walked according to this worldly age, according to the ruler of the atmospheric domain, the spirit now working in the disobedient. WE TOO all previously lived among them in our FLESHLY desires, CARRYING OUT THE INCLINATIONS OF OUR FLESH AND THOUGHTS, and by nature we were children under wrath…But God, who is abundant in mercy, because of His great love that He had for us, MADE US ALIVE with the Messiah EVEN THOUGH WE WERE DEAD IN TRESPASSES” (Eph. 2:1-5, HCSB).

Look at the Ephesians passage above. When we were “dead” in our sins, we lived out “the inclinations of our flesh,” meaning that we did what the flesh was INCLINED, or BENT, to do. Remember Cain from Genesis 4? Well, after Adam and Eve sinned, ALL OF US became inclined to sin, not just Cain. Sin not only crouched at the door of his heart, but ALL OF US.

So then, if man was dead in his sins and was made alive through Christ, how did his “resurrection” come about? “For by grace you are saved THROUGH FAITH, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift—not from works, so that no one can boast” (Eph. 2:8).

So, in order for man to even be able to reach out to God, God had to give him grace and faith. So the process by which man is saved is such that God gives man EVERYTHING he needs to be saved. All God asks man to do is RESPOND with what He has given him. In the same way the Master gave each servant some money to work with when he went away, the Lord expects us to make the most of the grace and faith He has given us. There won’t be any excuse when He returns.

From Arminius’s statement about the human will, it seems that he himself was quite orthodox and Reformed… But sometime, it’s not what the originals say that gets listened to—it’s what the followers say that gets heeded! This happened in Arminius’s case: after he died, a follower of his by the name of Phillip Limborch deviated from the teaching of Arminius:

“For Arminius man is deprived of the ACTUAL ABILITY TO WILL THE GOOD, but for Limborch man is only deprived of the KNOWLEDGE WHICH INFORMS THE INTELLECT, but the will is FULLY CAPABLE within itself…” (John Mark Hicks, quoted by Roger Olson, “Arminian Theology, 57).

Arminius believed the ability was gone, while Limborch only believed the KNOWLEDGE was gone. For Limborch, which the knowledge would come a renewed ability for the human being before God.

But this is Semi-Pelagianism at its best! And yet, Limborch affirmed the OPPOSITE of what his predecessor, Arminius, affirmed.
And it is Limborch’s view that is followed today:

“Unfortunately, so it seems, many Calvinist critics of Arminianism know only of Limborch’s and Finney’s ideas and are totally unaware of Arminius’s own affirmation of total depravity” (57).

And what Roger Olson seems to be getting at throughout his entire book is the failure of Calvinists to ADEQUATELY UNDERSTAND Arminian theology. Calvinists simply don’t take time to investigate Arminian beliefs; for whatever reason, they simply pick extremist Arminians like Limborch and run with them. And this is why Arminianism is called “Man-centered” theology: because, those outside the Arminian camp equate Arminianism with Semi-Pelagianism.

All Roger Olson asks for is a true investigation of the facts; and that’s all I’m asking for from the Calvinists—a true investigation of the facts.

Miracles

Are Miracle possible?

Spinozian View

To begin looking at this question I want to go back to the root of this argument. The root really starts with a man named Benedict de Spinoza. He is responsible for developing an argument against miracles in his 1670 work entitled Tractatus Theolodico-politicus that goes as follows:

1. Miracles are violation of natural Laws.

2. Natural laws are immutable.

3. It is impossible for immutable laws to be violated

4. therefore, miracles are not possible.

As one reads this argument that Spinoza postulates, one can not help but ask the fundamental question, “are natural laws immutable? Furthermore, does he have a good working definition of miracles? The Next observation that we can make is that he has not given us a fair fight. Spinoza in his argument as already eliminated the possibility of miracles by stating in the second premise that natural laws are immutable.In short this is the fallacy of stacking the deck. With in the scientific community it is well agreed on that natural law don’t tell us what must happen, but only describes what usually dose happen.

Lets look at Spinoza’s argument a little deeper. The first thing that Spinoza want to argue is that nothing happens contrary to the eternal and unchangeable order of nature. Spinoza in his work is putting forth that all that happens in nature is according to Gods will, so the way Spinoza sees it if a natural law was to be violated the this would be God going against his very nature. Spinoza writes this,

Now, as nothing is necessarily true save only by Divine decree, it is plain that the universal laws of nature are decrees of God following from the necessity and perfec-tion of the Divine nature. (6:17) Hence, any event happening in nature

which contravened nature's universal laws, would necessarily also contravene the Divine decree, nature, and understanding; or if any-one asserted that God acts in contravention to the laws of nature,he, ipso facto, would be compelled to assert that God acted against His own nature—an evident absurdity Bk.XX:27588.

Spinoza goes on to say,

We may, in fact, say that a miracle is an event of which the

causes cannot be explained by the natural reason through a refer-

ence to ascertained workings of nature; but since miracles were

wrought according to the understanding of the masses, who are

wholly ignorant of the workings of nature, it is certain that the

ancients took for a miracle whatever they could not explain by the

method adopted by the unlearned in such cases, namely, an

appeal to the memory, a recalling of something similar, which is

ordinarily regarded without wonder; for most people think they

sufficiently understand a thing when they have ceased to wonder

at it.

Spinoza is the originator of what Richard Dawkins calls the God of the gaps. So the question now come “Where is Spinoza taking us?” This is where his second argument comes in. Spinoza says that a proof for the existence of God must be absolutely certain. Spinoza puts it this way:

wherefore if we would conceive that anything could be done in nature by any power whatsoever which would be contrary to the laws of nature, it would also be contrary to our primary ideas, and we should have either to reject it as absurd, or else to cast doubt (as just shown) on our primary ideas, and conse-quently on the existence of God, and on everything howsoever

perceived. (6:30) Therefore miracles, in the sense of events contrary

to the laws of nature, so far from demonstrating to us the existence of God.

Bk.XIA:3343.

Did you catch what Spinoza did? He has now put his reader in such a position that for them to admit miracles, we break the laws of nature and thereby, cast doubt on the existence of God. Thus Spinoza argument leads one directly into Atheism.

Synergism and Monergism: How Does God Work?

“Jacob Arminius is remembered in the annals of church history as a controversial Dutch pastor and theologian who wrote numerous works, filling three large volumes, defending an evangelical form of synergism (belief in divine-human cooperation in salvation) against monergism (belief that God is the all-determining reality in salvation, which excludes free human participation)...(like most theological terms, SYNERGISM has multiple shades of meaning, not all of which are positive; here it merely means any belief in HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY AND THE ABILITY TO FREELY ACCEPT OR REJECT THE GRACE OF SALVATION” (Roger Olson, “Arminian Theology,” pp. 13-14).

As I’ve explained on the site before, the word “synergism” comes from the Greek word “sunergeo,” meaning “to work with.” The word “monergism” comes from the Greek word “monergeo,” meaning “to work alone.”

So which is it? How does God work? Does He work alone in salvation, where He not only gave His Son but FORCES you to believe in Him? Or does He give His Son so you can demonstrate faith IN HIS SACRIFICE in order to be saved?

The answer is: God works with human cooperation, what is known as “synergism.” To see if this is true, let’s turn to Scripture.

To investigate this subject, my first post will only discuss four passages of Scripture. Future posts on synergism and monergism will detail these two views further.

The first passage to investigate would be Mark 16:

“Then He[Jesus] said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And THESE SIGNS will accompany those who believe: In My name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages; they will pick up snakes; if they should drink anything deadly, it will never harm them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will get well.’
Then after speaking to them, the Lord Jesus was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out an preached everywhere, the Lord WORKING WITH THEM and confirming the word by the accompanying signs” (Mark 16:15-20, HCSB).

The word for “working with” in the Greek is “sunergountos.” So here, we find that the Lord is assisting the work of the Eleven, whom He just told to “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15, HCSB).
In verse 17, the Lord tells the disciples that “signs will ACCOMPANY (or follow) THOSE WHO BELIEVE…” This means that as a result of their belief, demonstrations will occur to prove that their belief is right. In verse 20, the Lord does as promised, for everywhere the disciples go preaching (as He told them to do in Mark 16:15), the Lord works to bring about signs and wonders.

This passage shows that, while the Lord sacrificed His life, He does expect us to believe on Him: “WHOEVER BELIEVES and is baptized will be saved…” The one who responds to the Lord’s work as Savior and Lord will do miracles—all because of the NAME of Christ. Christ didn’t stop the disciples from going into the world to preach the gospel (to do it Himself).

The next instance we see synergism is in 2 Cor.6:

“WORKING TOGETHER with Him, we also appeal to you: Don’t receive God’s grace in vain” (2 Cor. 6:1, HCSB).

The Greek word for “working together with” is “sunergountes.” Notice that, prior to the start of chapter 6, Paul has spent time talking about being made anew in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). Next, Christ has given believers a ministry of reconciliation, that which they received in Christ (2 Cor. 5:18-19). In verse 20, Paul says that “we are ambassadors for Christ.”

But then Paul says something that I can’t get past: “CERTAIN that God is appealing THROUGH US…” Not only did Paul say that he and others are working WITH God and then, that God is working THROUGH them? The answer? Because God was doing both. The Spirit lives INSIDE the believer, so Paul and others couldn’t do what they did without the Spirit; however, they were also WORKING WITH God because of the message of reconciliation: “Therefore, we are AMBASSADORS for Christ; certain that God is appealing through us, WE PLEAD ON CHRIST’S BEHALF. ‘Be reconciled to God’” (2 Cor. 5:20, HCSB).

1 Corinthians also presents us with the issue of synergism:

“For WE ARE GOD’S COWORKERS. YOU ARE GOD’S FIELD, GOD’S BUILDING. According to the grace given to me, as a skilled master builder I have laid a foundation and another builds on it. But each one must be careful how he builds on it” (1 Cor. 3:9-10, HCSB).

The Greek word for “co-workers” is “sunergoi.” Here, Paul makes it clear that he and Apollos are workers with Christ—Christ is a worker (He built the church) and Apollos and Paul are just men in it who have been graced to build the church further.
When Paul writes that he and Apollo are God’s coworkers, they are saying that they are working with God. To do what, you might ask?

“They are servants through whom you believed, and each has the role the Lord has given. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase” (1 Corinthians 3:6, HCSB).

Notice that there are three stages to growth: first, there has to be a seed planted; then, the seed has to be given water; last but not least, the growth comes. Paul is saying that in the process, each one (whether himself or Apollos) has played a part. However, the most important part is that God gives the increase, God multiplies the fold.

The next time we see synergism is in James where it talks about faith and works:

“What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith, but does not have works? CAN HIS FAITH SAVE HIM?
If a brother or sister is without clothes and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,’ but you don’t give them what the body needs, what good is it? In the same way faith, IF IT DOESN’T HAVE WORKS, is dead by itself.
But someone will say, ‘You have faith, and I have works.’ Show me your faith without works, and I will show you faith from my works. YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD IS ONE; you do well. The demons also believe—and they shudder.
Foolish man! Are you willing to learn that FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS USELESS? Wasn’t Abraham our father JUSTIFIED BY WORKS when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith WAS ACTIVE TOGETHER WITH his works, and by works, FAITH WAS PERFECTED” (James 2:14-22, HCSB).

Verse 22 tells us that faith “was active together with his works,” for which we see the Greek word “sunergei.” The next phrase tells us that by works, faith was “perfected,” or “completed.” We can believe in God (James 2:19) all we want; but that doesn’t distinguish us from the demons. The truth is, there must be something more than belief in God.

And I think James has implications for the Arminian/Calvin debate. If we say we believe in God, then our actions should demonstrate that. We should be willing to put our faith into action, the same way Abraham did. If the Calvinist really believes in a God that keeps and preserves, he should live as though he wants to be kept and preserved—and as though he wants to persevere.

From the examples of above, we can see that God works with people and people work WITH God. It is a process called synergism, an interaction between God and man whereby both agree to do their part. In my next post, I will go into what Roger Olson calls “two-covenants theology” and show synergism in God’s dealings with man.

Is Arminianism WITHIN the Reformed Tradition?

I know the title of the post (“Is Arminianism Within the Reformed Tradition?”) is a little scary to people. It assumes something that most people today would scoff at—that Arminianism could actually be Reformed!
Roger Olson tackles this question in his book, “Arminian Theology,” under Myth 1: Arminian Theology is the Opposite of Calvinist/Reformed Theology.

To find out whether or not Arminianism is Reformed, Olson turned to the Methodist Carl Bangs, who wrote a biography of Arminius titled “Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation (1985). In the biography, Bangs says that Arminius was not opposed to everything within the Calvinist belief, but rather tried to show the common beliefs between the two theologies. Olson tells of a myth regarding Arminius:

“One popular story about Arminius is that he was a COMMITTED HIGH CALVINIST until he was asked to examine and refute the teachings of a radical Reformer who rejected Calvinist teachings about predestination. According to this account Arminius became persuaded of the truth of Dirk Coornhert’s synergistic theology and shook the Calvinist dust off his feet” (Olson, “Arminian Theology,” page 47).

Carl Bangs doesn’t believe this story has any proof for it, but he does believe that Arminius believed that he was Reformed:

“According to Bangs, Arminius ALWAYS CONSIDERED himself Reformed and in the line of the great Swiss and French Reformers Zwingli, Calvin and Bucer. He studied under Calvin’s successor Beza in Geneva and was given a letter of recommendation by him to the Reformed church of Amsterdam. It seems HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the chief pastor of Geneva and principle of its Reformed academy would not know the theological inclinations of one of his star pupils” (Olson, 48).

While Arminius believed he was Reformed, he differed from his Calvinist counterparts; his theology, therefore, while Reformed, was also a correction of Calvinist theology:

“Arminianism is a CORRECTION of Reformed theology rather than a DEPARTURE from it. ‘Arminius stands firmly in the tradition of Reformed theology in insisting that salvation is by grace alone and that human ability or merit must be excluded as a cause of salvation. It is faith in Christ alone that places a sinner in the company of the elect.’ The correction lies in Arminius’s rejection of STRICT MONERGISM, which many have come to EQUATE WITH REFORMED THEOLOGY ITSELF” (49).

There are many scholars who agree with such a conclusion: Dutch theologian Gerrit Jan Hoenderdal; James Luther Adams; Donald Lake; and Howard Slaatte.

To conclude, I’ll leave you with an analysis of Arminius from Howard Slaatte:

“Hence, the responsive factor [in the human person according to Arminius] may be described as a GRACE-QUALIFIED, GRACE-INSPIRED, and GRACE-GUIDED FREEDOM…he can respond to grace freely ONLY as grace touches him through the Spirit-illuminated Word” (quoted by Roger Olson, 51).

The Slaatte quote above throws away any attempts to label Arminianism as “man-based” and “work-based.” Faith is something we must demonstrate in order to receive salvation, but we can only do it with the grace that God has given to every man. Ephesians 2:8 says,

“For by grace you are saved THROUGH FAITH, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift—not from works, SO THAT NO ONE CAN BOAST” (Eph. 2:8-9, HCSB).

“Grace” means “free gift,” or, as is commonly believed, “unmerited favor.” The favor of the Lord towards us in salvation is not something we could ever earn. However, we must also demonstrate faith in the work of Christ on the cross—but this faith is also a gift, according to Romans 12, given to EVERY MAN. From Scripture, then, it has been shown that both grace and faith are GIFTS from God, not WORKS from man.

Well then, someone may say, doesn’t that make the work of salvation and subsequent acceptance from God? Well, yes—if you address faith and grace as gifts. But when it comes to APPROPRIATING the atoning work of Christ to our lives, WE are held responsible for utilizing the faith that the Lord has given us (but we can only do this by His grace). His grace is there to demonstrate that we can’t even come to Him unless He first allows us to (that allowance being His Holy Spirit).

So Arminius was reformed…right? Yes he was. So if Arminius was Reformed, then on what basis was he characterized as such?

“According to Bands and some other historians, the Reformed churches of the United Provinces in Arminius’s time were generically Protestant rather than rigidly Calvinistic. While they accepted the Heidelberg Catechism as their primary statement of faith, THEY DID NOT REQUIRE MINISTERS OR THEOLOGIANS TO ADHERE TO THE TENETS OF THE HIGH CALVINISM BEING DEVELOPED IN GENEVA UNDER BEZA” (48).

It seems then, that the commitment to Calvinism as Reformed today did not exist back in Arminius’s time. With the passing of time, however, Arminianism was shunned as Reformed or anything close to it. Although not seen as Reformed, Arminianism is within the Reformed tradition. Olson levels the playing field with this myth-buster and makes the point that IF someone is gonna attack Arminianism, they can’t claim it to be outside of the Reformed tradition.

The Power of Choice

I was having a conversation with a friend the other day about Arminian theology. I’ve been studying it intensely the last few days and discussing it with all those closest to me that I come in contact with. I always like to investigate my beliefs, subject them to scrutiny, see if my thought processes are warped or not.
When I talked to one of my friends about Arminianism, she stated that she was more libertarian. When I asked her about her view of libertarian freedom, what she didn’t know was that classical Arminians AFFIRM liberatarian freedom!! What scared her the most about Arminianism, though, was that she didn’t believe humans could have THAT MUCH FREEDOM to be able to walk away from the Lord and His Spirit!!!

So that got me to thinking—I decided then and there to do a post on “The Power of Choice.” I figured that, my friend, being very sound in her theology, echoed a sentiment of most people. VERY FEW libertarians know that Arminians affirm their principle tenet, although Arminianism is NOTHING LIKE Pelagianism (despite the attacks on the view itself)!!

We first see the power of choice when God decided to create man. The Lord God did it of His own will—He was not forced to create man and give Him dominion over creation. Neither was He forced to create anything else in creation, for that matter! However, He decides to create the world…and so He does. So choice becomes the motive by which man was created. Our very existence is due to the will of God—God’s CHOOSING to make humankind.

The next instance of choice that we see is that God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden to watch over it (Gen. 2:15).From the very beginning, God desired that man would work and created work as something good. In the same way that God worked by creating the world, so man, bearing HIS IMAGE and being IN HIS LIKENESS, would work as well. Notice that God had a PURPOSE for Adam—he was to “work and watch over” the Garden. God gave the Garden to Adam as something Adam was supposed to do. Whatever happened in the Garden, Adam would have to own up to and take responsibility for (whether it was good or bad).Calvinists who spend time assuming that God is supposed to do everything have NEVER read Genesis, where He gave control of the Garden to Adam. Adam was God’s “right-hand man.” Adam was supposed to keep the Garden in order.
Adam worked the Garden, watered the plants, made sure everything operated as it should; but he was also given the responsibility of naming the animals:

“So the LORD God formed out of the ground each wild animal and each bird of the sky, and BROUGHT EACH TO THE MAN TO SEE WHAT HE WOULD CALL IT. AND WHATEVER THE MAN CALLED A LIVING CREATURE, THAT WAS ITS NAME” (Gen.2:19, HCSB).

Adam was given the responsibility to name the animals, but it was not only a responsibility—it was a privilege. God so honored Adam as His creation that the text says, “WHATEVER the man called a living creature, THAT WAS ITS NAME.” If Adam said, “cat,” then the animal was a cat; if he called another “grasshopper,” then the insect was a “grasshopper,” etc. God does not override Adam’s power of choice. Although God created the animals, HE CHOSE for Adam to name them—and by Adam naming them, Adam was operating under the authority and power of choice that he had received from God.

However, as I said earlier, Arminians affirm libertarian free will—this means that God sets boundaries for man’s free will, but man is able to operate freely WITHIN THOSE BOUNDARIES. Although God gave man the power of choice in the Garden, the Lord still retained control over all things—for He created a woman FOR Adam (and Adam got no say in the matter):

“Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is like him.’ So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to come over the man, and he slept. God took one of his ribs and closed the flesh at that place. Then the LORD God made the rib He had taken from the man into a woman and brought her to the man” (Gen. 2:19, 21-22, HCSB).

Adam did not get a choice over whether or not he wanted to have a helper in the Garden—it was God’s garden, and mankind was God’s creation, so God would decide whether or not to appoint a helper for Adam.

Another good text to look at regarding the power of human choice is in Genesis 1. Let’s read it together:

“And the LORD God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree of the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die’” (Gen. 1:16, HCSB).

God gave man a choice here as to how man would choose to walk before God; but if man broke it, he wouldn’t just have to leave paradise—he would die a physical (and spiritual) death.

Well, as Genesis 3 shows us, the serpent (whom Revelation calls “Satan”) deceives Eve, and she and Adam both partake of the fruit. Let’s listen in, though, regarding the fall in Genesis 3:

“And He said to Adam, ‘Because you listened to your wife’s voice and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘Do not eat from it’: THE GROUND IS CURSED BECAUSE OF YOU. You will eat from it by means of painful labor ALL THE DAYS OF YOUR LIFE. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. You will eat bread by the sweat of your brow until you return from the ground, since you were taken from it. FOR YOU ARE DUST, AND YOU WILL RETURN TO DUST’” (Gen. 1:17-19, HCSB).

When Adam sins, ALL OF HUMANITY AND CREATION is cursed because of his sin. After Adam and Eve sin, God does not shake His head in horror; He does not ask Himself, “Oh no! My creation has sinned—what shall I do?” Instead, God distributes punishments to all three guilty parties—the serpent, Eve, and Adam (although Adam was the one God gave the instructions to). Not only would Adam have to work extra hard to till the soil (since his sin brought thorns and thistles to the ground), but he would actually “return to the ground” (he would die a physical death).God gave Adam the promise that he would die—and he did, according to Genesis 5:5. However, Adam and Eve also died a spiritual death as a result of their sin. The Apologetics Study Bible gives us these words as commentary:

“The couple did not immediately die physically (cp. 2:17). By God’s grace, their death was postponed till a later time. But their expulsion from the Garden (vv. 23-24) shows that the word of God was indeed fulfilled as the immediate consequence of their disobedience. They were cut off from access to the tree of life, WHICH SYMBOLIZED THE SOURCE OF LIFE (Gen. 2:9; Rv. 2:7;22:2,14,19)…The human couple’s expulsion signaled their spiritual death (see Eph. 2:1). That their physical death occurred is confirmed by the refrain “then he died” in Adam’s genealogy (Gn. 5:5). Physical death for humans was the result of disobedience in the garden (Rm. 5:12-21; 6:23)” (“The Apologetics Study Bible,” HCSB, page 9).

And this brings me up to a point I want to emphasize about libertarian freedom. When Adam and Eve sin, God gives them their punishments and never takes them back. And at the end of Genesis chapter 3, God shows Adam and Eve their boundaries—if you think that His punishment to them was boundary enough (that they couldn’t commit sin and escape punishment), read these words:

“The LORD God said, ‘Since man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil, he must not reach out, and also take from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.’ So the LORD God sent him away from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken” (Gen. 3:22-23, HCSB).

Here we see that God makes good on His promise. He told Adam that if he ate from the tree, he would die (Gen.2:16-17). Here, the Lord executes His words to Adam. Eating from the tree of life would have caused the couple to live forever—but this would go against God’s order regarding sin and death. So, because God is consistent and does what He promises, He takes Adam and Eve out of the Garden. This is why He removes them from the Garden and sends them out to the world to live and then die.

We see here that God has a boundary. He is consistent in His character, and He does not change man’s boundaries. God’s boundaries are God’s boundaries, and man isn’t allowed to move beyond them. Man wasn’t allowed to “get around” his punishment for sin and live forever—why? Because GOD PROMISED that man would die for eating the fruit. God demonstrated that He had set boundaries for man—when man attempted to go beyond those boundaries, God punished Him for it, thereby showing His justice. This is what libertarians affirm—that, within specific God-given boundaries, man is allowed to demonstrate freedom. And this is also what Arminians affirm—that God gives man libertarian free will—the right to choose IN THE BOUNDARIES God has established.

So, back to that friend of mine. As I mentioned at the beginning, her response is a typical response from libertarians and Calvinists who want to understand Scripture: they just don’t understand how man could have so much freedom as to walk away from God…

But man did—he “walked away” from His Creator the moment he ate the fruit. In that moment, he decided that he, man, would be the judge of right and wrong. Was the sin worth it? Nope. But thanks be unto God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!

"In Our Image, After Our Likeness": The God of the Calvinists

“There are distressingly many things that happen on earth that are not the will of God (Luke 7:30 and every other sin mentioned in the Bible), that are against his will, and that stem from the incomprehensible and senseless sin in which we are born, in which the greater part of mankind lives, and in which Israel persisted, and against which even the ‘holiest men’ (Heid. Cat. Q.114) struggled all their days (David, Peter). God has ONLY ONE COURSE OF ACTION for this and that is to provide for its atonement by having it all crucified and buried with Christ. To try to interpret all these things by means of the concept of a plan of God, creates intolerable difficulties and gives rise to more exceptions than regularities. But THE MOST IMPORTANT objection is that the idea of a plan is AGAINST THE MESSAGE OF THE BIBLE since God Himself becomes incredible IF THAT AGAINST WHICH HE HAS FOUGHT WITH POWER, AND FOR WHICH HE SACRIFICED HIS ONLY SON, WAS NEVERTHELESS SOMEHOW PART AND PARCEL OF HIS ETERNAL COUNSEL. So it is better to proceed from the idea that God had a certain goal in mind (the covenant, or the kingdom of God, or the new earth—which are all the same thing viewed from different angles) that he will achieve with us, without us, or even against us” (Adrio Konig, quoted by Roger Olson, “Arminian Theology,” page 39).

In Genesis 1:26, God said, “Let Us make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness…” But today, I’m afraid that we have forgotten what it means to be the “creation”—and instead, we’ve become the “Creator.” Instead of God making us like Himself, we’ve now made God LIKE OURSELVES…

Adrio Konig, as quoted by Roger Olson, gives us the heart and soul of the differences between Arminians and Calvinists. Both sides are known for amassing passages of Scripture which they believe justify their view; but if you wanna get to the bedrock of the issue, just look at Christ’s death and resurrection.

Romans 3:25 tells us that “God presented Him [Christ] as a PROPITIATION through faith in His blood, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over the sins previously committed” (Rom. 3:25, HCSB).

Let’s examine this verse. We are told that God put forth His Son; why? “to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over the sins previously committed.” So God sending His Son as a propitiation [a pleasing sacrifice] was to show His righteousness, to reveal His Holy Law against an unholy act (that being the sins of the world). How then, could God “demonstrate His righteousness,” if He were the one responsible for sin IN THE FIRST PLACE? Sounds like the Calvinists are inconsistent and twist Scripture to say something it doesn’t say.

The re-written “God of the Calvinists” also contradicts what John wrote of Christ in Scripture:

“My little children, I am writing you these things so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have AN ADVOCATE with the Father—Jesus Christ the righteous One. He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also FOR THOSE OF THE WHOLE WORLD” (1 John 2:1-2, Holman Christian Standard Bible).

John, an Elder, is writing to fellow believers, for he says in 1 John 2:12, “your sins have been forgiven on account of His name” (HCSB). However, with the verses above from the earlier part of chapter 2, John is not just including BELIEVERS; he is also including UNBELIEVERS, those whose sins are not forgiven because they have not professed faith in Christ. A person either has to be a Christian or not—a believer or a sinner, a part of the family of God or a part of the family of the world. There is no middle ground when it comes to faith.

So if John states that Christ is the pleasing sacrifice for not just the sins of the believer but of the whole world, then he’s saying that Jesus gave His life for ALL, not just some, and not just “the elect.” Christ gave His life for everyone, INCLUDING those who will reject Him.

I think the god invention of the Calvinists is one that has been made in the image of MAN: this god doesn’t like rejection; he wants to dictate man’s every move and play games with his relationships with his creatures. The Calvinists tell us that this god is the God of Scripture; but I believe we should look for another…

For the Character of God

“…The main reason Arminians reject the Calvinist notion of monergistic salvation, in which God unconditionally elects some to salvation and bends their wills irresistibly, is that IT VIOLATES THE CHARACTER OF GOD AND THE NATURE OF A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP. If God saves unconditionally and irresistibly, why doesn’t he save all? Appeal to mystery at this point does not satisfy the Arminian mind because the character of God as love showing itself in mercy is at stake. If the humans chosen by God cannot resist having a right relationship with God, what kind of relationship is it? CAN A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP BE IRRESISTIBLE? ARE SUCH PREDESTINED PERSONS REALLY PERSONS IN SUCH A RELATIONSHIP?...the issue is most emphatically not a humanistic vision of autonomous free will, as if Arminians were in love with free agency for its own sake. Any fair-minded reading of Arminius, Wesley or any other classical Arminian will reveal that this is not so. Rather, the issue is THE CHARACTER OF GOD AND THE NATURE OF PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP” (“Arminian Theology,” page 38).

I was gonna sit down and write a post called “For the Love of God,” but I thought better of it—why not write a post called “For the Character of God”? So that’s what I set my heart and mind to do—write on the character of God.

What does God’s character consist of? God’s character consists of love, grace, mercy, justice, and holiness. His essence is goodness and perfection. While God is love, He is not a God of love who lacks JUSTICE. God’s justice is a demonstration of His love. And His justice is also a demonstration of God’s holiness.

A relationship is defined as an association, connection, bond, link, affiliation, etc. So to be in a relationship means to be connected to another person. However, the relationship only REMAINS if two people are willing to tough it out and be together. No one can have a relationship by themselves. Even the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are essential to the union of God.

Although two people must remain committed to each other to keep the relationship, there are those cases where a person chooses to walk away. Look at what Matthew tells us about divorce:

“When Jesus had finished this instruction, He departed from Galilee and went to the region of Judea across the Jordan. Large crowds followed Him, and He healed them there. Some Pharisees approached Him to test Him. They asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on ANY grounds?’ ‘Haven’t you read, ‘ He replied, ‘that He who created them in the beginning made them MALE AND FEMALE’…so they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore WHAT GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER, MAN MUST NOT SEPARATE” (Matt. 19:1-6, Holman Christian Standard Bible).

The Lord Jesus states here that divorce is not a good thing—that God made man and woman to remain one flesh from the very beginning.

In response, the Pharisees turn back and respond to Christ:

“ ‘Why then,” they asked Him, “did Moses command us to give divorce papers and to send her away?”
He told them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of THE HARDNESS OF YOUR HEARTS.BUT IT WAS NOT LIKE THAT FROM THE BEGINNING” (Matthew 19:7-8, HCSB).

In Jesus’ words here regarding divorce, He makes it clear that man has “deviated” from the original plan, something that is responsible for all the divorce in the world. When the Lord says, “but it was not like that from the beginning,” He is making it clear that man has strayed in his own life; however, I am saying that still, the Lord allows divorce. Surely, the Lord has permitted couples the right to break up because of a set reason. What is the reason?

“And I tell you, WHOEVER DIVORCES HIS WIFE, EXCEPT FOR SEXUAL IMMORALITY, and marries another, commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9, HCSB).

Jesus even allows here grounds for divorce, thereby establishing divorce. Look at what the apostle Paul writes regarding marriage and divorce in 1 Corinthians:

“I command the married—not I, BUT THE LORD—a wife is not to leave her husband. But if she does leave, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband—and a husband is not to leave his wife. But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: if any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she is willing to live with him, HE MUST NOT LEAVE HER. Also, if any woman has an unbelieving husband, and he is willing to live with her, SHE MUST NOT LEAVE HER HUSBAND…but if the unbeliever leaves, LET HIM LEAVE. A brother or a sister is not bound in such cases. GOD HAS CALLED YOU TO PEACE. For you, wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Or you, husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?” (1 Corinthians 7:10-16, ESV)

Paul says that if the marriage consists of believer and unbeliever, that the believer should not divorce first (but the unbeliever ).If the unbeliever walks away, the person should let him or her go.

What does all this have to do with the character of God? God’s character is such that He will not force mankind into a relationship with Him that mankind does not want. Read John’s Gospel to see mankind’s massive rejection:

“He was in the world, and the world was created through Him, YET THE WORLD DID NOT RECOGNIZE HIM. He CAME TO HIS OWN, AND HIS OWN PEOPLE DID NOT RECEIVE HIM. But to all who did receive Him, He gave them THE RIGHT TO BE CHILDREN OF GOD, to those who believe in His name…” (John 1:10-12, HCSB)

Jesus went to the Jews, His own people—and yet, they did not receive Him. Read the Gospels and you’ll find out that when He went to His hometown, He could not do miracles there because of the pervasive unbelief (Mark 6:1-6).

In addition, look at the rich young ruler: he is allowed to walk away from Christ because Christ gave him instructions about selling his possessions (Mark 10:17-22).
There are several other passages, but this shows us that God desires that all come to Him of their own desire, not because they feel forced to. And I think this tells us about the nature of relationship—that a relationship is a VOLUNTARY association of two or more people. Each person in a relationship gets to CHOOSE whether or not to stay in it.

Roger Olson asks a good question: if people are forced into a relationship with God, then ARE THEY REALLY PERSONS? No—they’re automaton, robotic creatures that simply do what the “remote control” allows. And that is not how God made man. Man was made to have choice.

Arminius believed in the aid of the Holy Spirit as well as the choice of man. And this choice we have been given comes from the fact that we have been made in the image of God and share His LIKENESS; in the same way that God CHOSE to create us out of His own good pleasure, He gives us the power to CHOOSE Him out of our own desire. But if the Calvinists have their way, man has ABSOLUTELY NO CHOICE in anything—God does everything. It seems to me then, that the Calvinist God is no longer the loving, good God of Scripture, but the masochistic, hateful, malevolent God of their own theology…

"On Predestination"

I promised to start going through the works of Arminius; so I shall start here with his “On Predestination.”

Arminius’s words on predestination come after he shares the ideas of supralapsarians (Calvinists who argue that God is the author of sin and evil):
The opinion of those who take the highest ground on this point, as it is generally contained in their writings, is to this effect:

"(1). God by an eternal and immutable decree has predestinated, from among men, (whom he did not consider as being then created, much less as being fallen,) certain individuals to everlasting life, and others to eternal destruction, without any regard whatever to righteousness or sin, to obedience or disobedience, but purely of his own good pleasure, to demonstrate the glory of his justice and mercy; or, (as others assert,) to demonstrate his saving grace, wisdom and free uncontrollable power."

Arminius here quotes the words of supralapsarians. Notice that God chose a select few “without any regard whatever to righteousness, or sin, to obedience or disobedience, but purely of his own good pleasure, to demonstrate the glory of his justice and mercy…” Calvinists affirm this same thing currently—that, regardless of the person’s own decision or feelings about God, God chooses them to be saved. But here’s the problem: The problem is that ALL THE WORLD was in sin, not just a few. To affirm that Christ selects ONLY A FEW, a person has to also affirm that Christ died for ONLY A FEW—and this contradicts Romans 3:

“But now, apart from the law, God’s righteousness has been revealed—attested by the Law and the Prophets—that is, God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ, TO ALL WHO BELIEVE, since there is NO DISTINCTION. For ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD. They are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. God presented Him as a propitiation through faith in His blood, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over the sins previously committed” (Rom. 3:21-25, HCSB).

Notice that Paul writes, “For all have sinned.” Everyone is guilty under the law—whether Jew or Gentile, male or female, etc. All, by virtue of being human, stand together as guilty. However, in Romans 3:24, who is the “they” Paul refers to as being justified? “All,” the subject of verse 23. So everyone has an opportunity to be justified by Christ’s work on the cross.

But who will be justified? Will everyone? NO—“He would…declare righteous THE ONE WHO HAS FAITH IN JESUS” (3:26, HCSB).Only those who profess faith in Him will be justified. All have equal access, but only those who accept will receive Christ’s justification and have His righteousness imparted to them.

This goes against the Calvinist’s belief that only a few can receive the gift of salvation.
Let’s look at another passage, Romans 5:

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because ALL SINNED…death reigned from Adam to Moses, EVEN OVER THOSE WHO DID NOT SIN IN THE LIKENESS OF ADAM’S TRANSGRESSION” (Rom. 5:12, 14, HCSB).

The text tells us that “death spread to all men, because all sinned.” Adam was the representative, the head of the entire race—and when he sinned, we all sinned by virtue of our PHYSICAL UNION with him. Sin was not selective—it came upon ALL. In addition, notice how UNSELECTIVE it was: it came “even over those who did not sin in the LIKENESS of Adam’s transgression.” Even those who didn’t commit the same sin that Adam did received the penalty for sin, which is death. Death spread to all—it was NON-DISCRIMINATORY! And, since death was God’s judgment, God’s judgment was NON-DISCRIMINATORY!

But to stop here is to overlook a key portion of Romans 5. Reading the next sentence, we find these words:

“He[Adam] is a PROTOTYPE of the Coming One” (Rom. 5:14b).

The word here for “prototype” is the Greek word “tupos,” meaning “type” or “example.” Who is “the Coming One”? Christ. So, when Paul writes here that Adam is the first example of the Coming One (being Christ), Paul is saying that Adam and Christ stand in close relation to each other. Paul gives us the answer to this close relation between Adam and Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:

45Thus it is written,(BB) "The first man Adam became a living being";[e](BC) the last Adam became a(BD) life-giving spirit. (1 Cor. 15:45, ESV)

So if Adam is the first type of the One to come, then the Coming One is the second type—in other words, Christ, the Coming One, is the SECOND ADAM. And if the first Adam sinned and the penalty spread to all, as Romans 5 tells us, then surely, Christ’s coming, as well as our SPIRITUAL UNION with Him (through faith), would bring salvation to ALL. But this covering of salvation is only distributed to us when we believe.

Look back to Romans 5:

“Since by the one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, how much more will THOSE WHO RECEIVE the overflow of grace and the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:17, HCSB).

Those who will “reign in life” are “Those who receive” God’s grace and righteousness through Christ. The Greek word for “receive” is “lambano,” which also means “to take.” When someone “takes” something, they pick it up, they grab it with their hands. It is not handed TO them—they get it themselves. The word for “receive” here is an active verb, which means that the subject (being humans)are the ones doing the action. The grace of God and His righteousness are available, but we have to accept it—God is not going to force it on us.

In verse 18, Paul sets the reader up with a parallel situation. Let’s look at it so we don’t miss Paul’s exclamation point on this passage:

“So then, as through one trespass there is condemnation for EVERYONE, so also
through one righteous act there is life-giving justification for EVERYONE.”

As I said earlier, death spread to everyone THROUGH ADAM—for Adam was the representative of the human race. Christ, being the second Adam, was the second representative, appointed as such to UNDO the transgression of Adam.

But let’s notice something here—the effects of sin and the effects of salvation. Sin spread to everyone—it was non-discriminatory, not making a difference between one person and another. But in order for Paul’s parallelism to make sense here, the other side has to balance in the same way that the first did. If Adam’s transgression made everyone guilty of sin, then Christ’s work on the cross gives EVERYONE equal access to salvation through faith in Christ. The Calvinist, however, as Arminius stated above in his “On Predestination,” wants to make everyone believe that this isn’t so. But how does the Calvinist’s rendering of Romans 5:18 look?

Death spread to ALL through Adam
BUT
Salvation is extended to SOME through Christ

How logical is this? How can Christ be representative of the new humanity, the “new creation,” if He only grants this newness for SOME of His creation and not all? To do so, Christ would be reconciling only SOME THINGS to Himself and not all (Colossians 1:19-20).

As Romans 3 and 5 have shown us, God did not select a few individuals from humanity to save. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world—“not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Pet.3:9, ESV).

Is Faith a "WORK"?

“The emphasis on the prevenience and preeminence of grace forms common ground between Arminianism and Calvinism. It is what makes Arminian synergism ‘evangelical.’ Arminians take with utmost seriousness the New Testament’s emphasis on salvation as a gift of grace that cannot be earned (Eph. 2:8). However, Arminian and Calvinist theologies—like all synergisms and monergisms—diverge over the role humans play in salvation. As Wiley notes, prevenient grace does not interfere with the freedom of the will. It does not bend the will or render the will’s response certain. It only enables the will to make the free choice to either cooperate with or resist grace. COOPERATION DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO SALVATION, as if God does part and humans do part; rather cooperation with grace in Arminian theology is simply nonresistance to grace. It is merely deciding to allow grace to do its work by laying down all attempts at self-justification and self-purification, and admitting that only Christ can save. Nevertheless, GOD DOES NOT MAKE THIS DECISION FOR THE INDIVIDUAL; it is a decision individuals, under the pressure of prevenient grace, must make for themselves” (“Arminian Theology,” page 36).

As Olson tells us above, Arminians and Calvinists differ with regard to what the human does in salvation. Calvinists say that the process of salvation is ALL GOD—God does all of the work (monergism, from the Greek words “monos” and “ergo”; means “to work alone”). God overrides the human will such that the person HAS NO OTHER CHOICE BUT to accept Christ as Lord and Savior. Arminians believe that God does not override the human will—rather, God works WITH the human will (this is known as “synergism”; the word comes from the Greek words “sun” and “ergo,” meaning “to work with”).

Now the Arminian believes that God works with the human will, not against it or over it; but, does this mean, then, that faith is a WORK? According to Olson, it doesn’t. In his words,

“…cooperation with grace in Arminian theology is simply NONRESISTANCE TO GRACE. It is merely deciding to allow grace to do its work by…ADMITTING THAT ONLY CHRIST CAN SAVE” (36).

When a person professes faith in Christ, they are not DOING the work—instead, they are confessing that CHRIST DID THE WORK for them when He died for their sins on a cross at Calvary. They are confirming the work that was already done by Christ.
Romans chapter 10 discusses the concept of faith as confession, which is not a work. Read the following:

“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES. For Moses writes about the righteousness that is from the law: ‘The one who does these things will live by them.’ But the righteousness that COMES FROM FAITH SPEAKS like this: ‘Do not say in your heart, “Who will go up to heaven?” that is, to bring Christ down or, “Who will go down into the abyss?” that is, to bring Christ up from the dead. On the contrary, what does it say? THE MESSAGE IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART. This is the message of faith that we proclaim: if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED. With the heart one believes, RESULTING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, and with the mouth one confesses, RESULTING IN SALVATION. Now the Scripture says, ‘No one who believes on Him will be put to shame…” (Romans 10:4-11, Holman Christian Standard Bible).

The “righteousness that comes from faith” is different than “the righteousness that is from the law.” Why? because the righteousness of faith doesn’t DO anything, doesn’t perform works to receive it…instead, it simply admits that it is unable to do anything to merit the righteousness.

So, the Arminian and Calvinist differ over the role of humans in salvation. But there's one thing that both know for sure: that is that Christ came to save us over two thousand years ago; and all we have to do is acknowledge our filthiness and lostness before God in order to be saved. The debt is paid—and all we have to do is accept the payment.

Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius-- Introduction

Reading through Roger Olson's book "Arminian Theology" has helped me to understand that so many Calvinists and other theologians attack a view that they are very little knowledgeable about. Therefore, for the attainment of knowledge to the glory of God, I intend to spend the immediate future, along with reading Olson, covering material from the "Works of Arminius." For starters, I will start with the "Declaration of the Sentiments" of Arminius. Later today, I will submit my first post on predestination.

For those who wanna read Arminius's work, please click on the "Works of Arminius" label at the top right of the page under "resources."

No Comment...

Reading Roger Olson’s “Arminian Theology” has pitted me in quite heavy discussions with friends (early this morning and throughout this afternoon). And the one tenet of Arminian theology that seems to crop up again and again is the idea of “losing one’s salvation.” Can people really lose their salvation? Can people really come to Christ and then turn around and walk away? Or, if they leave Christ, were they ever saved from the start?

Surprisingly, my reading in Olson’s book has shown me that the currently developed Arminian theology talks more on this issue than even Arminius himself did. Contemporary Arminians will tell you that someone CAN lose their salvation—they can come to God, enjoy the blessings of salvation, and then walk away. But Roger Olson’s comment regarding this issue will surprise you:

“…the Remonstrants, LIKE ARMINIUS BEFORE, DID NOT take any stand on the question of the eternal security of believers. That is, they left open the question of whether a truly saved person could fall from grace or not” (32).

In order to see what Olson is talking about, I’ll reprint here the fifth principle of the Remonstrance, the foundational document of Arminianism:

“That true believers had sufficient strength through the Divine grace to fight against Satan, sin, the world, their own flesh, and get the victory over them; but whether by negligence they might not apostatize from the true Faith, lose the happiness of a good conscience and forfeit that grace NEEDED TO BE MORE FULLY INQUIRED INTO ACCORDING TO HOLY WRIT” (32).

Even Arminius and his early followers didn’t answer the question regarding whether or not a personal was eternally secure or in danger of losing salvation!

This begs the question, then: “If Arminius and his early followers didn’t talk either way, should we try to answer this problem? Well, Arminius and his followers, according to the Remonstrance document, believed that “Holy Writ” could speak more about the issue than anything—so, it is at least worth a try to find out whether or not a person can lose their salvation. However, as always, the answer to this question requires humility on the part of all—for, if Arminius himself didn’t have such boldness to answer it, then who am I that my studies should reap the missing reward?

Ground Rules

This summer, I am starting a new project here at The Center for Theological Studies. Owning another blog has taken away from my time needed for further theological study, but I’m putting it off no longer.

The next three months will serve as an exciting time for CTS, since we’ll be tackling the issue of the Arminian/Calvin debate. I know that a great deal of my viewers may be a lot more informed on these issues than am I; but over the next few months, the readership here will watch my knowledge grow, as we’ll work our way through both Arminian and Calvinist texts. While I am starting with Olson, an Arminian (include the fact that I have been raised an Arminian), I plan to dive into Calvinism as well. I also intend to engage both the works of Arminius and Calvin’s “Institutes.”

In order to start this research off in a godly manner, some ground rules must be laid. Having read Olson’s Introduction, I noticed that Olson gives us a groundwork principle to keep in mind:

“One principle that ought to be observed by all parties to this debate is BEFORE YOU DISAGREE MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND. In other words, we must make sure that we can describe another’s theological position as he or she would describe it before we criticize or condemn” (“Arminian Theology” by Roger Olson, page 41).

Olson writes this in his introduction section called “Myths and Misconceptions About Arminianism,” where he shows the reader how, whether Calvinist or Arminian, theologians have trampled the Arminian view—all based on lack of knowledge. Olson’s example is startling:

“Several authors in the Arminianism issue of Modern Reformation contrast Arminianism with evangelicalism and deny the possibility of evangelical Arminianism. At least one blatantly calls Arminianism a ‘NATURAL, GOD-REJECTING, SELF-EXALTING RELIGION AND HERESY.’ Throughout the issue these mostly Calvinist authors (one is a Lutheran) treat Arminianism as the heresy of semi-Pelagianism but NEVER DEAL WITH THE KEY DOCTRINE OF PREVENIENT GRACE OR QUOTE ARMINIAN THEOLOGIANS’ MANY STRONG AFFIRMATIONS OF THE PREEMINENCE OF GRACE. The common tendency is to impute to Arminianism EVERY FALSE BELIEF that the authors see lying at the bottom of an imaginary slippery slope” (“Arminian Theology,” page 41).

Olson shows us in the above quote is that Arminianism is being labeled something that it is not—semi-Pelagian. But in order to distinguish Arminianism from semi-Pelagianism, we have to know what semi-Pelagianism is. Olson provides such a definition:

Nazarene theologian Wiley correctly defines semi-Pelagianism by saying, ‘It held that there was sufficient power remaining in the depraved will to initiate or set in motion the beginnings of salvation but not enough to bring it to completion. This must be done by divine grace’” (30).

So semi-Pelagianism states that man initiates salvation, but God completes it. Imagine the implications of such a thought! Semi-pelagianism sounds to me to be a theology of “Helping God,” that God needed help in the plan of salvation—so He turned to humans and asked them, “Can you help me get this thing started?” What’s most disgusting about the heresy of Pelagianism is that it makes God out to be a weakling, an impotent Creator—and the act of salvation itself to be one that can be HALF-complete because a person can start the work but must wait until God gives His grace. So until God gives the divine grace, the person is in a “half-saved” mode. There is no such thing as being “in the middle” of salvation: we’re either saved or not. Christ hung on the cross in the middle so we wouldn’t have to “hang in the middle” of salvation and wait for His divine grace. It’s already there. We just have to receive it and have faith in
the work of Christ at Calvary.

This, then, doesn’t sound like Arminianism at all! To see the difference, let’s look at the definition of Arminianism:

“Arminianism teaches that all humans are born morally and spiritual[ly] depraved, and helpless to do ANYTHING good or worthy in God’s sight without a special infusion of God’s grace to overcome the affects of original sin…Classical Arminianism agrees with Protestant orthodoxy in general that the unity of the human race in sin results in all being born ‘children of wrath.’ However, Arminians believe that Christ’s death on the cross provides a universal remedy for the guilt of inherited sin so that it is not imputed to infants for Christ’s sake” (33).

From the base of Arminianism, we can see that, unlike semi-Pelagianism, humans CANNOT START the work of salvation: they are unable to because they are helpless, totally incapable of coming to faith without God. In order for a person to come to faith, Arminians believe that God must give them His grace.
Simply put, Olson wants the critics of Arminianism to take time to understand the view first—without criticizing that which they rarely know. Despite what seems to be his disgust with the Calvinists, Olson just wants Arminianism—like Calvinism—to get a proper seat at the theological table.

Unpacking New Creation Theology

Today I am gonna answer the question, “What is New Creation Theology?” I’ve been talking about it here at the blog for the last two days, but I’m not sure the reader knows what I mean by it.

Just to recap: according to Galatians 6:15-16, circumcision nor uncircumcision (being Jew or Gentile) is insignificant; the rule or standard by which to measure a person is “new creation.” In Galatians 6:16, Paul calls this a rule (the Greek word “kanon,” from which we derive our English word, “canon”), and says that peace and mercy will be upon the one who lives by this rule.

Earlier this morning I engaged the text of Galatians 3:28 which has been used by egalitarians to argue for women in ministry. On the basis of Galatians 3:28 alone, women have a place in ministry. I showed that, in line with Gordon Fee’s interpretation, Galatians as a book is all about ecclesiology—how the Christian community should live together despite its various distinctions (be they ethnic, economic, social, gendered, etc.). I walked the reader through Paul’s confrontation with Peter in Galatians 2 and showed that Paul was concerned with more than just Peter acknowledging the salvation of the Gentiles—Paul wanted Peter to act on the soteriological position of the Gentiles by eating with them WITHOUT SHAME because they were “new creation” in Christ! Consequently, the same Paul who wanted the rule of New Creation to drive Peter’s ecclesiology wants all believers in Christ (yes, even complementarians!) to have the rule of New Creation to drive their ecclesiology as well.

Having said all this, I now want to tackle the issue at hand: what is New Creation Theology? To answer this question, we will need to look at the following passage: 2 Corinthians 5.

14For the love of Christ(T) controls us, because we have concluded this: that(U) one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15and he died for all,(V) that those who live might no longer live for themselves but(W) for him who for their sake died and was raised.
16From now on, therefore,(X) we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. 17Therefore, if anyone is(Y) in Christ, he is(Z) a new creation.[b](AA) The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18All this is from God,(AB) who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us(AC) the ministry of reconciliation; 19that is, in Christ God was reconciling[c] the world to himself,(AD) not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us(AE) the message of reconciliation. (2 Corinthians 5:14-19, ESV)

This passage is the main passage in favor of New Creation Theology. It not only tells us that every man in Christ is “new creation,” but it also goes on to state what it means to be new creation: “the old has passed away; behold, the new has come” (v.17).

What does it mean to be “new creation”? to be new creation means to be in Christ. And, because a person is in Christ, the hierarchical distinctions (such as gender, ethnicity, and class status) are made null and void. Because of this, Paul writes in verse 16,

“From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh.”

Regarding this verse, Gordon Fee writes,

“He[Paul] asserts that the new creation brought about by Christ’s death and resurrection nullifies viewing anyone/anything from the ‘OLD AGE’ perspective (Greek KATA SARKA, ‘according to the flesh’). Why? Because Christ’s death has brought the whole human race under the sentence of death (2 Cor. 5:14), so that those who live in God’s new order do so for the One who died for them and was raised again (2 Cor. 5:15). Thus being ‘in Christ’ means belonging to the new creation: the old has gone, the new has come (2 Cor. 5:17). This radical, new-order point of view—resurrection life marked by the cross—lies at the heart of everything Paul thinks and does (cf. Phil. 3:4-14)” (“Discovering Biblical Equality,” pg. 178).

Now some may say that I am stretching this concept a bit too far. And the complementarian is probably condemning me into outer darkness at this point (where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth); however, I have proof for the claim that Gordon Fee makes (and that I believe): to demonstrate, we will now look at Galatians 3:28, along with Colossians 3:11 and 1 Corinthians 12:13. I’ll set them up here so you won’t have to worry about finding them.

28(E) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[a] nor free,(F) there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:28. ESV)

11(A) Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave,[a] free; but Christ is(B) all, and in all. (Col. 3:11, ESV)

13For(AA) in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—(AB) Jews or Greeks, slaves[d] or free—and(AC) all were made to drink of one Spirit. (1 Cor. 12:13, ESV)

In all three verses, we find that “Jews and Greeks” are mentioned; “slave and free” are mentioned. But what we find different in these three passages concerns the designations of “male and female” and “barbarian and Scythian.” First, regarding male and female, we know that these two genders are opposites: one cannot be both male and female at the same time (seeing that “female” is the feminine “male”). However, the distinctions “barbarian” and “Scythian” are not polar opposites—rather, they are two shades of the same color:

“These two expressions are not here set in contrast to one another. The Scythians were BARBARIANS, but were generally considered to be THE MOST EXTREME FORM; THEY WERE THE WILDEST AND MOST SAVAGE OF THE BARBARIANS” (“The Believers’ Bible Commentary,” William McDonald and Art Farstad, pg. 2010).

To place “barbarian” and “Scythian” in relation to each other, we first have to know what a “barbarian” is. Merriam-Webster Dictionary online gives us two definitions:

(1) of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people.

(2) lacking refinement, learning, or artistic or literary culture.

Barbarians were believed to be inferior; and they were given this label because they
were usually uneducated. Barbarians were savages, those who seemed to be out of touch with human civilization (and even reality). Scythians, however, were “the wildest and most savage of the barbarians,” which means they were the ABSOLUTE WORST!
And yet, as Paul wrote in Colossians 3:11, “Christ is all, and IN ALL.” The wonderful thing for Paul was that this rule of “New Creation” included EVERYONE. No matter what societal standing one had, EVERYONE had equal standing in the eyes of God, and before God.

But, that’s not all. Not only did the New Creation Rule affect one’s standing before God, but also ONE’S STANDING BEFORE GOD’S PEOPLE! As I stated in my last post on Galatians 3:28, our soteriology—our belief that God saves all who come to Him—must influence our ecclesiology—how we carry out this New Creation Rule amongst the community of believers. In future posts, I will focus on how soteriology affects ecclesiology. Paul certainly believed it did—and what’s good for the apostle Paul is good for us, too.

Understanding the Nature of Galatians 3:28

“But a key exegetical question, seldom noted, does beg to be answered: why does Paul add the second and third pair at all in an argument that otherwise has to do only with Jew and Gentile? And especially, why the addition of the third pair—with its formulation ‘male and female,’ not ‘man and woman’ (which could mean ‘husband and wife’)—since in similar moments elsewhere (1 Cor. 12:13, Col. 3:10) this pairing is not included? The pursuit of this basic exegetical question should give us some insight into the nature and scope of the ‘newness’ Paul sees as available in the new creation” (173).

A day or so ago I discussed the first pair of distinctions present in Galatians 3:28—“neither Jew nor Greek.” I also discussed the idea of “new creation” as a canon, a rule by which to live the Christian life. If Galatians 6:16 is correct, then complementarians have a lot of work to do.

In today’s post, I’m gonna take a look at why Paul mentions the other two groups of distinctions—“slave and free,” and “male and female.”

Fee gives us his answer convincingly:

“Appealing to the believers’ common baptism (reflecting the new creation theology of Romans 6:1-11), in which they have “clothed themselves with Christ,” Abraham’s true “seed” (Gal. 3:15-18), Paul points out the logical result: since all are now ‘children of God through faith’ and all who have been baptized are thus clothed with Christ, there is therefore ‘neither Jew nor Greek...’(Gal. 3:28)…” (Discovering Biblical Equality, 176).

It is Galatians 3:28, however, that is used to simply affirm that women are just as saved as men are. But Fee states that there’s more to it than meets the eye:

“But in fact Paul says more than this, and it is the ‘more than’ that should catch our attention…for what is at stake is NOT SIMPLY THE SOTERIOLOGICAL QUESTION OF HOW PEOPLE ARE SAVED…those involved in the struggle in Galatia are already ‘SAVED’…WHAT IS AT STAKE IS ECCLESIOLOGY: WHO CONSTITUTE THE PEOPLE OF GOD…and on what grounds are they constituted?” (176)

Once the believers at Galatia became children of God, their questions no longer consisted of “what is salvation,” or “how to be saved,” or even “Can I be saved?”. The questions now consisted of, “How do we live together as children of God despite our differences?”

Go back to Paul’s words regarding his confrontation with Peter in Galatians 2. What was Peter’s issue? Did it have anything to do with teaching that the Gentiles weren’t saved? Or that they needed to be circumcised? No—instead, Peter’s problem was that “he was eating with the Gentiles” (Gal. 2:12) before certain men returned to Antioch; then, his fear drove him to retreat from them, “fearing the circumcision party.” The issue here had nothing to do with salvation—but instead, the outworkings of salvation. Peter realized that God brought salvation to the Gentiles—for he proclaimed this idea in Acts 15 before the Jerusalem Council:

7And after there had been much(T) debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you,(U) that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear(V) the word of(W) the gospel and believe. 8And God,(X) who knows the heart,(Y) bore witness to them,(Z) by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9and(AA) he made no distinction between us and them,(AB) having cleansed their hearts(AC) by faith. 10Now, therefore, why(AD) are you putting God to the test(AE) by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples(AF) that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11But we(AG) believe that we will be(AH) saved through(AI) the grace of the Lord Jesus,(AJ) just as they will." (Acts 15:7-11, ESV)

So the problem with the Gentiles was not that they were unsaved and Peter felt sinful for eating with heathens; the problem was that the Gentiles, although saved, were considered to be SOCIALLY SEPARATE from the Jews, the circumcision party, and Peter wanted to avoid any social stigmas that came from eating with the Gentiles. Peter wanted to “disown” his Gentile brothers in practice, while “embracing” them in theory!

So, if the issue had nothing to do with soteriology, then what was Paul confronting Peter about? I’ll tell you—he was confronting Peter about ecclesiology—how to embrace fellow believers who were Gentiles. And eating with Gentiles was a sign of acceptance into the body of Christ. So Paul’s confrontation of Peter demonstrates that he was concerned with not just soteriology, but also ECCLESIOLOGY—showing God’s people how “one body in Christ” was to be displayed in the church’s everyday life.

“This is precisely why here alone in Galatians Paul adds the otherwise extraneous ‘neither slave nor free, neither male nor female.’ These pairs are NOT inherent in an argument about ‘justification by faith,’ but they are crucial to PAUL’S UNDERSTANDING OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD AS BEING NEWLY CONSTITUTED BY CHRIST AND THE SPIRIT. For these three pairs represent the primary ways people were DIVIDED/SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER IN THE STRUCTURES OF THE PRESENT AGE THAT WAS NOW PASSING AWAY(1 Cor. 7:31; cf. 1 Cor. 2:6): ON THE BASIS OF RACE, SOCIAL STANDING, AND GENDER. But ‘in Christ Jesus’…these categories have lost their STRUCTURAL SIGNIFICANCE AND RELEVANCE…these very things…HAVE BEEN RELATIVIZED IN THE BODY OF CHRIST…” (176, 177).

How were fellow believers, Jews and Gentiles, to look as one body in Christ? The answer is simple—they were to come together and unify in activities such as eating at the table. How were slaves and freedmen to look in the body of Christ? As though they were brothers. How were men and women to look in the body of Christ? As though they were brothers and sisters. The world order was not to creep into the order of the church (which, hinting at the coming “new creation,” would become the New World Order—the prevailing rule of the “new earth” of Revelation 21).

In my next post, I will unpack New Creation Theology and examine the other two “egalitarian” passages Paul wrote (1 Cor. 12 and Colossians 3) to show Paul’s deep understanding of the implications of this New Creation Rule.