The Lens of Grace and John 3:16

On Free Will, by the same speaker, thinking my thoughts, but with more lucidity:

(a bit long for a YouTube, but worth the time spent in viewing it)

What should happen when one embraces the truth of Sovereign Grace is eventually an attitude of overarching humility and a destruction of prideful moralism. Without regard to the correctness of our Christian soteriology, we all still struggle with the bent of our old nature, though. I have collected all the swag, those metaphorical tee-shirts and bumper stickers, to know that such is true. I still have those struggles.

As an aside and in context to discussions that revolve around issues of free will, I really, intensely, dislike that “God does not want robots to love Him” thing. I have heard it too many times and from good people, but I know that conceit is sometimes driven by a prideful emotionalism that leads to errant, unbiblical conclusions. It ultimately leads to place where we find a needy God Who tries to make Himself attractive to us so as to woo us. We often find, too, a faux therapeutic gospel.

There is nothing attractive about the cross, that Roman torture and death machine. The foot of the cross is for rebels who hate the true God and have no place for Him, ultimately for you and me. It is only His sovereign grace  and His ability to replace a heart of stone with a heart of flesh that draws us to the beauty of the Messiah. Too, that door you hear about in altar calls upon which sad, patient Jesus is always plaintively knocking, hoping that somebody might open it for Him….it is not the door to the heart of the unregenerate, an evangelical call, but was the door to the church in first century Laodicea, a damaged, complacent, body of believers.

I think about the following, and quite popular, video, one I have watched and commented on before. I know that it has ministered to many people on some level, and I do not question the authenticity of their faith.

However, and without regard to how strongly this video tugs on ones emotional strings, I think it unbibically portrays fallen humanity more as victim than rebel, than sinner. I also find egregious error in its depiction of a god who waits helplessly on the sidelines for the victim to decide, or find within themselves the ability to reach out for help to Himself.

Also, that worried, hand-wringing portrayal of god is not the sovereign, settled, in-control of everything in the created order Triune God revealed in the  Biblical texts. He does not struggle to draw His people too Himself. This portrayal of God in the following skit, comforting and approachable as he may seem, stands in sharp contrast to the completely sovereign God, the one who captured my own darkened heart and sin-bound will.

I do not need a God who simply throws me a rope and then struggles to clear a path for me so as to, when I finally make my way to him, simply dust me off and dance with me. None of that is the Gospel.  I need a God who breaths life into me. Again, I am not merely a victim, but a perpetrator, and I need a sovereign Savior. I love Him, albeit so weakly, so falteringly in my humanity in contrast to which He is worthy, because He sovereignty drew me to himself when I was in death-bound rebellion against Him. If you think that makes me a robot, than so be it.

One more thought: How bold must someone be to portray God in a skit? I think of Peter who deemed himself unworthy to even be crucified in the same manner as our Messiah, asking instead to be crucified upside down.

In conclusion, here is some text from the same Gospel that gave us John 3:16:

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

John 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

I have seen the hooligans, and they could have been you or me….

I am thinking about the recent riots in Britain a bit today. It has been the subject of conversation over the last couple of days with most of the opinion being that those restless yobs, those vandals and hooligans, should just get a job and shoulder some responsibility for once in their wasted lives. Vent your wretched boredom, rage, sense of injustice, or whatever it is that drives your wanton acts of destruction into a more productive and socially beneficial conduit. Others, however, may blame, and with perhaps some small validity, the influence of malignant economic, political, and social forces outside the domain of individual responsibility as being the prime mover behind the unrest and place the perpetrators into the category of victim or righteous rebel.

Without regard to what political pole you swing from, I see things somewhat differently. I believe, perhaps with what some would see as no small bit of cognitive dissonance, the hoodlums, without regard to environmental influences, are morally responsible for their acts. But if you or I, in castigating their behavior, were born into their circumstances, having been raised on and subsisting by the largess of the welfare state with no real incentive to work, would we behave any differently than they do?

Where I go in my thoughts is perhaps to a place of a sophomoric and unoriginal debate on free-will and determinism (and with a bit of compatiblism thrown in). Quite frankly, the more I ponder the human condition….the more I look beyond the predictable punditry and common wisdom, and without regard to some religious people who proudly tout their free will to choose a Savior, the more I believe people are trapped. We are held in bondage, defined by our upbringing, by our genetics, by our brain chemistry. By the light of reformation theology, I see, too and more profoundly, that we are held in bondage by our innate fallen nature. You do not need to teach a child to misbehave and act selfishly.

I did not choose, nor am I responsible for, where I am born, to what time or generation I am born, nor to whom I am born. I did not choose my gender, I did not choose my eye color, nor did I choose my skin color. I did not choose the economic milieu into which I was born, nor did I choose my intellectual capability, IQ, or lack thereof. I also do not choose any genetic markers that may predispose me in certain directions physically or behaviorally. Given all the aforementioned, are we merely a passive passenger on the train of causality? Are we merely sophisticated meat machines?

In regards to behavior, I recall my years working in health care, as a non-professional, often assisting geriatrics, many suffering from dementia, from Alzheimer’s. To see the pages of the books of their lives been slowly torn out, one by one, and discarded by their malfunctioning brain is truly heart-rending. They would have moments of lucidity and moments when they would exhibit behaviors that would have got them slapped, or worse, in other times and places. They were not responsible for their behavior in their biological duress, though.

Too, I think of those with dyslexic sexuality who claim no choice in their same-sex attraction. Quite frankly, I have no choice in my very attraction to the opposite gender.

The over-arching question is this: at what places am I truly free? An idealistic eighteen year old neophyte intellectual taking a entry level Philosophy class will think on such things differently than a thoughtful, though academically bereft factory worker. I will tell you what I think as I look through my favorite and best lens, my theological ones, and ultimately, everything in the final analysis, whether one admits it or not, is theological.

Think on this: you set before your pet dog a bowl of English peas to its left and a bowl of juicy, meaty dog food to its right. The dog can physically and freely eat from either bowl, but he will choose according to his nature. The dog will chose the meaty dog food. The machinery of the dog is wired in such a way so as to predispose the dog to choose the bowl on the right.

We are not so unlike that dog. We have certain, limited freedom of choice, but our choices are limited by our nature. We must admit, too, that even though we are breathtakingly more sophisticated in thought and behavior than that dog, we are still made of humble meat, not so unlike the dog . In the Garden, the Triune God breathed life into dirt. We are not meant to be Gnostic in our view of matter.

However, in the Fall, the Great Rebellion, and event in real time and real place, all our aspects, physical, intellectual, and spiritual, the meat and the software, were damaged beyond complete repair by the free act of our federal representative in the Garden. Our choices became limited to our now fallen nature. We often put pretty coats of paint on our derelict house of self, and that house may often look pretty from the outside for a time, but all we do is cover up rot. That is the current nature of unregenerate humanity. Our choices are not always the worst, most evil, possible choices, but they are always colored by our fallen nature. Ultimately, this leads me to a place where I cannot stand on a home-made moral loft and say that I am innately better, more moral than a soccer hooligan or Compton gangster below me, for we differ by at best small degree, not kind. We are all now, and left to our own devices, to some tangible degree, sub-righteous.

So then, I will ask rhetorically, where can one find true freedom? Most of those drawn to this blog already know the answer. It is at that place where the Gospel snatches you out of your imprisonment.

As a personal aside, it seem sometimes, though, that the journey out of prison may not be seem to be as experientially instantaneous as one would like. Freedom isn’t always easy.

“Is Free Will Biblical?

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

HT: Doctrine Unites

Also, check out The White Horse Inn for smart, engaging dialog on culture and Christianity.

Debating Calvinism

I finished reading Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views a couple of months ago. Found it to be a valuable addition to my modest library. That being said, I think that the Arminian position, or rather opposition, could have been better represented, more clearly articulated, though. Dave Hunt seemed to be a bit unfocused at times and often ventured into the realm of ad hominem arguments. I think, too, Hunt perhaps misunderstands that which he opposes and finds himself fighting against an errant mixture of hyper-Calvinism and some weak caricature of Calvinism, a strawman of sorts. Also, my limited experience in these exchanges leads me to the conclusion that most, but not all, of the opposition to the doctrines of grace is founded more on an emotional response to the doctrine of election than a wholly biblical argument, an opposition often evidenced by the common ‘God does not want robots to worship/love Him’ refrain.

For further thought, here is video I found at New Demonstration in a post titled He is Not a Weak Beggar, He is a Powerful Saviour. The speaker is James White from Alpha and Omega Ministries who represented the counter-point to Dave Hunt in the aforementioned book.

Who does the choosing?

Often I feel the need to preface a declaration with a disclaimer, and this post is no exception.  I know there are many Christians, better, wiser, than me by far, who love the Messiah who will disagree with me, some perhaps vehemently, regarding the soon-to-follow thoughts. I know, too, that this is ground that has been tread by countless others, and my voice is but one of a myriad, but I want to speak to this subject.  Thus it goes…

Here is a typical statement, one I have heard dozens of times, that I believe frames the perception of the nature of salvation of the vast majority of American Christendom:

“If you and I did not have free will, we would not be able to choose to love God.   What kind of world would we have if everyone was programmed to love or hate without a choice? God gave us free will so we could choose to love him!”

Another common refrain is that God does not want mere robots to worship Him.  If it is His choice, then our ‘choice’ is coerced and thus meaningless.  I completely understand that perception, where it comes from, and I used to hold to it.

The problem with this well-intentioned human wisdom is that it does not hold up to robust Biblical scrutiny, that it perhaps does not take the fallen nature of humanity seriously enough, that it glosses over the utterly rebellious nature of the human heart and our innate inability to choose the God of scripture.  Read, for one example, Romans 3:11.  Let me orbit around this idea of where love for God comes from.  Again and absolutely without any ambiguity whatsoever, I do not deny that there are many who disagree with or misunderstand my assertions of God’s sovereign role in salvation who love God.  I do affirm, gently, that they misunderstand the perspective of someone who affirms this authentic love for God can, and in the final analysis, must be birthed by the sovereign triune God’s free will in salvation.

First, here are some thoughts on free will:

• Does the fatherless and motherless child choose who will adopt them?  Is adoption not the Biblical affirmation of a Christian’s relationship to the Father? (Romans 8:15)

• Did Lazarus choose to be called from the grave by Christ? Do the dead reanimate themselves? Are we not, in our unregenerate state, referred to in Biblical text as being spiritually dead, everyone of us? (Ephesians 2:1) (Colossians 2:13)

• Consider the Christian description and metaphor of salvation as being born again.  (John 3:3) Consider this: Did I choose to be physically born?  Did I have anything to do with that decision? (John 3:8) (Romans 9:16)

I think that the American church sometimes inadvertently reduces the work of regeneration to a transaction with God that depends to some degree on something we do, even if that work is described as merely making a choice.  It is almost as if, in the free-will scheme, I sit in negotiation with God and God slides this offer across the table to me.  I pick up the offer and look at it.  It is an almost unbelievably good offer, but in the end, Christ’s ability to save is ultimately limited by my inferred ability to ‘choose’ God, to accept that offer.  The offer, Christ’s ability to save, is impotent without my input.  What sometimes happens is that our certainty of salvation is attached to something we do or perform, even if that work only constitutes 0.00001 percent of the work performed.  The results are that we may end up wrestling with doubts about the veracity and ability of our ‘work’.  Was I sincere enough?  Did I believe hard enough?  Is my faith great enough to save? Why am I still struggling with sin  if I raised my hand or walked the aisle? Inversely, we may also place our faith in our ‘work’ in such a way that we bank so much on a fleeting, momentary response to an emotionally manipulative call to salvation that we may actually be ‘inoculated’ and hardened to the Gospel.  We may also end up taking pride in our ability choose Christ when others do not choose (Ephesians 2:8-9).  Think, too, about Acts 13:48.

In searching for some media to give examples of what I refer to, I find this typical example of decisional regeneration in action. I recall being in the audience:

HT:Old Truth

In the end, the evangelical methods used are born out of our view of our role in salvation.  If we are trying to coerce a response to an offer that depends on our inferred ability to choose, we may end up  marketing the Gospel in the way the world markets products to consumers.   I could say more to this, but I have spoken to it ad nausea, among other places, here, here, here, here, and here.  The biblical call of repent and believe in Christ is often replaced with non-biblical rhetoric, of offers to try Christ, to accept Christ, to invite Christ.  To my ears, these calls, if the language used is actually taken seriously, brings us to the conclusion that Jesus appears to be Someone who needs to be evaluated, and if He meets our needs and qualifications, we ‘accept’ Him.  This may not necessarily be the language of someone driven to their knees in despair over their sin and in desperate need of a Saviour.

Here is the crux of the matter.  Perhaps we may affirm that love for God is born by a growing understanding of the cost of the Cross and our inability to do anything to add to our salvation..  It is born by the realization that we are utterly and completely helpless to save ourselves, that even our ability to believe is an unmerited gift of the triune God.  It is born out of the realization that God owes His creation nothing, that if He never gave us a Saviour, He would still be a holy, righteous, and just God. Indeed, one-third of the angels rebelled and God never offered them clemency, redemption.  I love my Saviour, though so imperfectly, because He gave me life – when I was spiritually a walking dead man with no ability to choose God- at the price of His life, that He defeated death as evidenced by the empty tomb.  There is nothing good in me that He should condescend to breath life into me.

I could speak so much more to all this, but time to bring pause to the days blogging.  Perhaps more on this later….

…thrives on paradox.

Ran across an article a couple of days ago (HT: Between Two Worlds) in the NYT Magazine titled Who Would Jesus Smack Down, an essay on Mark Driscoll and his church, Mars Hill, in Seattle in specific, and the growing interest in Calvinism in general.

I’m just getting around to putting the final touches on some quick, rambling, and perhaps peripheral thoughts regarding the article:

First, though not the best example of unbiased journalism to be found, I thought it an interesting read even in it’s  rather insufficient understanding of Calvinism.  But there again, I have engaged some of the same misunderstandings until rather recently.

I think sometimes the church wants to react as a pendulum on some issues.  Not growing up with much of a church background, I have not been exposed, other than in examples found in old paintings portraying a soft, medieval Euro-Jesus, to this  feminine church culture alluded to in the article, but I do not question that such exists. That being said, on the other side of the pendulum lies an equally distorted  hyper-masculine polar opposite, a phenomena that I have been witness to on a couple of occasions.  I don’t think this is where Driscoll resides.  More, I perceive he gravitates to a Biblical center.  I strongly suspect a few pastors try to emulate Driscoll  but lack his theological underpinning; there you find at times a reactionary caricature of masculinity. Also, the reference to his reputation as the ‘cussing pastor’ is a bit passé.

It must also be understood that Driscoll is called, and uniquely fitted,  to be a pastor in Seattle with all it’s post-modern, post-Christian cultural distinctions.  Seattle is not in the Bible belt.  Too, I think Ed Stetzer, quoted in the article as follows, is dead on the mark when he says “Mars Hill is “a reaction to the atheological, consumer-driven nature of the modern evangelical machine.” Though they may share some elements, some practices, not all mega-churches are cut from the same cloth.  I think that Mars Hill, unlike many mega-churches, is as deep as it is wide.

All that being said, I really like and have been edified by what I have heard and read by Driscoll.  I also, take a bit of umbrage at this quote found at the end of the article:

At one suburban campus that I visited, a huge yellow cross dominated center stage – until the projection screen unfurled and Driscoll’s face blocked the cross from view. Driscoll’s New Calvinism underscores a curious fact: the doctrine of total human depravity has always had a funny way of emboldening, rather than humbling, its adherents.

One, that is perhaps unnecessarily inflammatory rhetoric and reads more into the described moment than that moment intends, but I understand where the perception comes from. Two, I would say it is the nature of the beast, without regard to embraced theology, to be spring-loaded to a position of arrogance and pride.  It is not unique to any ideology or theology. That being said, when properly understood,  the doctrines of grace presents the most radically humbling and absolutely Christ centered of all theologies, an antidote to arrogance.  Also, speaking and acting with strength of conviction is not necessarily synonymous with arrogance.

Some thoughts on Calvinism and evangelism

This post was the ‘intro’ of the preceding post on evangelism. For the sake of clarity, I felt that what I had to say was better served by letting the aforementioned intro and my thoughts on contemporary American evangelism stand on their on.

I have been progressively led into what may be considered a Calvinist view of soteriology, a theological term used in biblically defining how God reconciles humanity to Himself. For those unfamiliar with Calvinism, it is, in a nutshell, the biblical assertion that God is solely responsible for salvation. It is not a cooperative venture between man and God. Rather, it is God who sovereignly draws to Him those whom He sovereignly chooses. That being said, biblical Calvinism does not relieve man of the responsibility of repentance and faith and trust, itself a grace from God, in the in the redeeming work of our risen Messiah.

A common objection to Calvinism, to predestination, refers to our responsibility, or inferred lack thereof, in regards to the Great Commission, the going out into the world and making disciples. The argument goes that if God has already chosen those who will spend eternity with Him, where is the need for evangelism? What we do with and how we feel about the doctrine of election predestination is, in the final analysis, irrelevant in regards to what I perceive to be the biblical veracity of predestination. The fact remains that Christ chose His church to be the primary means, the vector, for bringing the Gospel to the chosen brothers and sisters who are in the world, spread across the centuries and across the continents. He tells his church to go to the nations and make disciples, and we, out of love, obey. It is ultimately the work of the Father to bring fruit from our evangelical efforts that the praise should be directed to Him and the power of His Word, not our methods.

I have tried to think of an analogy that would be helpfully illustrative. Perhaps this is it: the church can be thought of as the tool that holds the magnet that attracts and separates the ferrous from the non-ferrous. God uses the church to sweep over the world the message of redemption through the resurrected Christ. Those that respond are the misshapen and broken bits of iron and steel that will be, over time in the cauldron of discipleship, molded to the image of Christ. Iron has no choice in how it reacts to the magnet. The world has no hold on it.

All that being said, the disagreements and debates between Calvinism and its theological counter-point, contemporary Arminianism are intramural in nature and should be approached from both perspectives with Christ-like grace, love, meekness, patience, and understanding. Both camps are inhabited by many men and women who love and serve the Messiah.

I understand the doctrine of predestination is a controversial stance in the milieu of contemporary American evangelism. What is there, though, about the Gospel message that is not controversial? Such is a subject for another essay, perhaps.