The Trinity

The Trinity is an essential doctrine of Christianity. In other words, it is so important that one cannot be a Christian and yet deny the Trinity.

The Nicene Creed summarizes many Christian essentials. Such is the purpose of creeds. It reads:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
…
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.

From this we can state exactly what it is we believe when we say we believe the Trinity. We believe a mystery about the Godhead that we cannot fully comprehend:

1. There are three persons of the Godhead, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
   
2. Each of these persons has full deity.
   
3. Although separate persons, the three are of one power, substance and eternity. The three are of one essence.
   

Some heresies associated with the Trinity are:

1. That is does not exist for any of a number of reasons such as a denial of the deity of Christ.
   
2. That there are not three distinct persons but merely three distinct roles or personalities (modalism).
   
3. That there are three completely separate Gods that make up the Godhead (tritheism).
   

Scriptural Basis of the Trinity

Much of this has been covered recently by Mark Byron and Marc Velazquez (sp?) aka Spudlets. I am not really adding anything to their discussion; mostly this blog is for my own edification. The verses I have chosen are not nearly exhaustive—they are in some sense a “minimal” set.

To provide the scriptural proof of the Trinity, we need to find clear support for each of the enumerated items in the first list above.

Three persons of the Godhead

Are there verses that state explicitly the three persons of the Godhead? There are indeed. Included among them are:

¹⁶ After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, ¹⁷ and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, " This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased." (Matthew 3:16-17, NASB)

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, (Matthew 28:19, NASB)

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. (2 Cor. 13:14, NASB)

Full Deity for each Person of the Godhead

In interests of space I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to verify the deity of the Father and the Son. It won’t be hard. For the deity of the Holy Spirit we find:

³ But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? ⁴ "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God." (Acts 5:3-4, NASB)

The person being lied to is called the Holy Spirit and, just a bit later, God.

Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. (Matthew 12:31, NASB)

One blasphemes against a deity, therefore Matthew 12:31 tells us that the Spirit is God. The Spirit has the Attributes of a deity:

The Spirit is eternal:

how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Heb. 9:14, NASB) )

The Spirit is omnipresent:

Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? (Psalms 139:7, NASB)

The Spirit is omniscient:

¹⁰ For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. ¹¹ For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. (1 Cor. 2:10-11, NASB )

One Essence

The last remaining piece is that the three persons are of one essence.

Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! (Deuteronomy 6:4, NASB)

"I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)

When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father (John 15:26, NASB)

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit. (2 Cor. 3:17-18, NASB)

A Slam Dunk but alas Not Without Controversy Verse

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7, KJV)

This verse, almost single-handedly establishes the Trinity. However, it is, alas, not this strong in all translations. For example, in the NASB it reads: For there are three that testify: And then verse 8 goes on to say they “agree”, but does not use the “these three are one” found in the KJV and NKJV. Consult your favorite Bible translation scholar for an explanation. Because of this controversy, it is not advised to use this verse in a discussion with Jehovah’s Witnesses. They will be ready for it.

Inferences Where Art Thou?

In a comment on my post on Sola Scriptura Craig suggests I deny the validity of inferences. I do not—it is just that I think the definition of an essential doctrine such as the Trinity is one that the scripture teaches explicitly and does not require inferences. For example, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1). We don’t need to make any inferences: God as the Creator is explicit. On the other hand my Calvinism, which I so dearly love, requires inferences. Dots have to be connected, and at times I have to say “what this seems to mean is…”. There is nothing wrong with that. As Craig pointed out, Luther said: “"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason..."” Luther certainly did not rule out the validity of inferences and reason. We just have to admit the possibility that in any doctrine in which inferences are required, we might be wrong. The Trinity is not such a doctrine.

---

Scripture Alone

The other day, Mark Byron had a great post on the trinity. However, when I read his post a couple of phrases made me nervous:

Yes, I will make some inferences, but I'm going to base the inferences on the text.

you can make a solid case for the Trinity with just the Bible and few implications

(italics added).

Let me discuss why the italicized phrases made me cringe slightly.

Scripture Alone

For the motivation of Mark Byron’s post you must go back to a post by Mark Shea.

The important concept behind the discussion, is Sola Scriptura, or Scripture Alone. Conservative Protestants of many stripes adhere to this doctrine ¹. It means that the only source of special revelation ² is the Bible. Every message should be tested against the Word.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1, NASB)

When Luther was called to recant at Worms, he famously dug in his heels and said he would not unless he “was convinced by sacred scripture.”

Catholics, like (conservative) Protestants, believe the Bible is the authoritive, inerrant word of God. However, Catholics, unlike Protestants, acknowledge an additional source of revelation: the binding authority of sacred tradition or a magisterium.

Too Much Freedom

Catholics are sensitive to the Protestant denial of sacred tradition. A common charge leveled against Protestants is that strict adherence to Sola Scriptura results in a cacophony of opinions because some aspects of the scripture are simply not clear.

Indeed, at first glance this criticism has merit. We have Calvinists and Arminians. Infant Baptism and Adult (Believer’s) Baptism. Baptism by sprinkling, baptism by immersion. Some churches come to the Lord's Supper weekly, some monthly, some at other intervals. Not to mention at least four millennial views with sizable numbers of adherents.

This diversity, some would say, is the logical result of Sola Scriptura. On those issues in which scripture is not clear, people will interpret scripture differently.

Those (i.e., the RCC) who hold this view are, of course, absolutely correct. When scripture is not completely clear, then a concept, no matter how important it may be to its proponents, is downgraded from an essential to a liberty issue, or at least there is a implicit recognition that: I believe this but I might be wrong; I can have Christian fellowship with those of an opposing view.

The problem with this criticism is that it doesn’t criticize an actual fault. It is one group saying to another that “your house is not as organized as my house, so you must be doing something wrong.” The geopolitical analogy is Japanese criticism of American society for not being homogeneous.

We agree on the essentials, the essentials that can be discerned unambiguously from scripture. The essentials include things like the divinity of Christ, the Atonement, the Resurrection, and the Trinity. Disagree with an essential, and you have slid into apostasy.

The rest, we say, will be sorted out later.

At the Council of Trent (where the Reformed doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, Sola Fide, was condemned) the Roman Catholic Church also confirmed the authority of the Church to interpret scripture. Protestants, of course, deny that either sacred tradition or church councils (or any church official) has any authority to bind the conscience. We would say that the uniformity “enjoyed” by the Roman Catholic Church is unlawfully imposed and while it achieves uniformity there is no guarantee that it is not uniformly wrong.

To be sure, even non-essential doctrine should be based on the concept of Sola Scriptura. If you are a Calvinist, you should be so only because you believe reformed doctrine is supported by scripture. If you are Arminian, you should be so because you believe that Arminianism represents the Biblical view. I am a Calvinist in a church that does not proclaim itself to be reformed. No problem. We agree to disagree, except on the essentials: on those we must agree.

Protestant Schism

At one time, all Protestant churches were united by their affirmation of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide and in a view of Christian essentials as codified (not revealed) in various creeds. Sadly, this is no longer the case. But the real disunity in Protestants churches (the conservative/liberal disunity) comes not as an inevitable “flaw” in stubbornly adhering to Sola Scriptura but from abandoning it, often in the worst possible way: by denying the inerrancy of the Bible. If the Bible is in error then the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is, of course, utterly fatuous.

Silly Protestants

The other criticism of Sola Scriptura is that Protestants don’t “really” adhere to Sola Scriptura (any more than we “really” believe Sola Fide.) This argument is that we “talk-the-talk” but don’t “walk-the-walk.”

So one criticism is that we can’t (actually, it is that we shouldn’t) adhere to “Scripture Alone”, the other argument is that we don’t follow it anyway. We can’t, and even if we can, we don’t.

When I saw Mark Byron’s post, and those caveats he used, which I quoted above, I wondered if someone would walk through the door he left open. Someone did.

In this post, where once again Mark Shea tells us that we don’t believe what we say we believe, a Mr. Tom Ryan comments:

I checked out Mark's [Mark Byron’s] comments and they just don't hold any weight. He says he only needs 'a little inference'. Well, ANY inference goes outside "Scripture Alone". Any good New Ager could poke a million holes into his arguments. For example, Jesus and the Father being 'One'. All things are One. There is only One. What Jesus was saying was that we're all one together and he was just pointing out the way. Remember he also said "Our Father" so obviously using inference, we see that Jesus was saying that we're all the same essence as the Father.

Ugh. Been there, done that. I'd remind Mark that Arius used Scripture to prove that Jesus WASN'T equal to the Father.

Now Mr. Ryan’s argument is a bit too Reductio ad Absurdium; also I am not sure whether he understands that professing Sola Scriptura does not mean that every verse must be taken literally. But no matter-- I accept his claim.

The problem with Mark Byron’s post is that his argument was stronger than he himself claimed. The Trinity is clearly taught in scripture, and no “inferences” are required. The only thing man did was give it a name.

If the Trinity is not clear (in scripture) then we must either allow that Mark Shea is right (we let sacred tradition in the backdoor even if we don’t admit it) or the Trinity should not be one of our Christian essentials.

Tradition is fine, it’s just not sacred

Mark Shea is not correct when he writes “most Protestants believe in Sacred Tradition, but don't know they do” and he is not correct in his implication that tradition is required to fully support the Trinity. But he is correct in some isolated cases. Some churches mistakenly elevate a non-essential doctrine into an essential one by teaching that its view is the one “true” understanding and any opposing view represents apostasy. There are churches, for example, that teach that you cannot be saved unless you affirm a particular end-times view.

Tradition, meaning which of those “non-essential” doctrines a church will teach or profess (but not affirm as “essential”) is perfectly legitimate. In my own church, we practice believer’s baptism by immersion. The church’s position is that there is a strong case for believer’s baptism in scripture and also for baptism by immersion. While I tend to agree with that position, my support for it is much weaker than the church’s. Nevertheless, I think it is perfectly legitimate for this church to require (barring special circumstances) new members to be baptized by immersion.

If my church taught that those rascally Presbyterians who practice infant baptism are all hell-bound, I would not have joined. Tradition is fine, but it is not sacred, and it is not binding.

The Trinity

Tomorrow I will discuss the Trinity. I will borrow much from Mark Byron’s post, and add some more scriptural support. The purpose will be to demonstrate that the concept of the Trinity is clearly biblical, and requires no inference of any kind. One does not have to appeal to sacred tradition for support of the Trinity. Like all Christian essentials, it is manifest within the province of Sola Scriptura.

---

¹ In a sense you could say that Sola Scriptura is not doctrine but an axiom which then is the basis for doctrine, such as the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone (Sola Fide). Here we do not make that distinction.
²There is also general revelation, in which aspects of God are revealed through nature. See Rom. 1:18-21.

---

Mail Call: Fear of God

A reader writes:

A brief meditation of what it means to fear God from my prayer this morning, which I will share with you since you recently posted on God's sovereignty: To fear God is to do more than just respect Him, but it is also not to literally be afraid of Him (as Adam was as he tried to hide from Him). To fear God is to know that the God who loves me and redeemed me is the very same God who parted the Red Sea to redeem the Israelites, the very same God who sent Jonah to Nineveh in order to accomplish their salvation; that nothing, not our enemies, nor even our disobedience, can stand against Him and the saving strength of His right hand. Fearing God is to respect, love, trust, and obey Him.

In Christ,
Joel

---

Something from Nothing

Many writers, when commenting on God’s creation of the universe, point out that He created it ex nihilo, or “out of nothing”. There was no universe, nothing, nil, (or null or NULL-- depending on your programming language of choice) and then God spoke and the universe was.

No arguments from me. I believe that’s how it happened.

However, they sometimes go on to say things along the lines of “even those Godless, pagan, heathen, apostate, pointy headed physicists wouldn’t claim that the universe was created ex nihilo.

Well, not exactly.

Science does offer an explanation of ex nihilo creation, although it depends a bit on what your definition of nothing is.

If the universe was created out of nothing then there are two implications: First, the universe must still be a form of nothing. Second, there must be a mechanism for creating something out of nothing.

Is the Universe actually Nothing?

The reason the universe would still have to be nothing are the conservation laws of physics. The granddaddy of conservation laws is conservation of energy. In short, if there was a time when there was no universe, then the total energy was zero, and so the total energy (since it’s conserved) would have to be zero for all times.

God doesn’t have this limitation: He can create energy. The laws of physics always conserve energy.

Well, you say, I look around and note massive thermonuclear explosions occurring in the cores of stars -- clearly the universe does not have zero energy, right? Wrong. It might. Energy comes in plus and minus varieties. Things moving about have positive energy. Things that are bound have a net negative energy. For example, a satellite zipping around the earth at 12 km/s would seem to have positive energy, but an accurate accounting of its gravitational energy would show that its total energy is negative.

So the universe is made up of lots of positive energy and lots of negative energy (sounds more New Age than I would like) and it is possible that it all adds up to give a big fat zero.

And physicists would say that if the universe was created ex nihilo then it will add up to zero.

A proper accounting is of course impossible to do. But a rough calculation does not rule out a result of zero.

How do you create Something from Nothing

From your friend, the Quantum Fluctuation. The physicist’s view of the vacuum (sort of nothing) is much different than the everyday view of the vacuum, which is that it is really nothing. The laws of physics as we know them reveals a vacuum in which things are happening. “Fluctuations” create particles and antiparticles, which are quickly annihilated. However, their ephemeral existence is vital in understanding why certain physical quantities have the values they have.

Physicists will say that there is a tiny chance that such a fluctuation created the universe.

There are, of course, serious problems with that theory (besides the obvious fact that it’s wrong). It means that before there was a universe, no space, no time, nothing--the laws of physics existed (and so "nothing" must at least include those laws) and were able to fluctuate nothing into something. It makes the laws of physics into god.

But you cannot say that even physicists don't dare to claim the universe was created from nothing. They dare.

---

Double Predestination

In an earlier post, I talked about the Calvinistic view of predestination. To reiterate:

Before the foundation of time, God chose certain (future) men (and women) to be saved. Not for anything that he foresaw that these particular individuals (the “elect”) would do that was meritorious, but solely for His own pleasure in fulfillment of His perfect will. He decided to show mercy on some. The rest receive justice, i.e., the eternal damnation that all sinners deserve.

The question on the table is: Does this not imply a double predestination, whereby God predestines some to salvation and some to damnation?

The answer is an unequivocal: no.

Double predestination would mean that God looks at all men (before they were ever born) and says to some: “To you I will impute a saving righteousness” and to others “to you I will impute a damning evil”.

This would make God the originator of the sin in the reprobate, which is unthinkable. Even worse, when God punished men for sin that he placed in their hearts—well that would be an unjust, unloving, mean and capricious god. Not our God. Maybe Allah, but not our God.

Sometimes it is said that Calvinists teach this form of double predestination. While it might be that some mistakenly believe it, it is not a component of orthodox reformed doctrine.

Mark Shea refers to an article, written by his friend James Akin, in which he (as a Roman Catholic) writes:

Although a Catholic may agree with unconditional election [predestination], he may not affirm "double-predestination," a doctrine Calvinists often infer from it. This teaching claims that in addition to electing some people to salvation God also sends others to damnation.

The alternative to double-predestination is to say that while God predestines some people, he simply passes over the remainder. They will not come to God, but it is because of their inherent sin, not because God damns them. This is the doctrine of passive reprobation, which Aquinas taught.

My only disagreement with this passage is the characterization that Calvinists “often” infer double predestination. It is certainly not “often”-- and it is a mistake, not an acceptable variant of Calvinism.

More important is the next paragraph in the Akin’s quote where he points out what the great Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas taught: the doctrine of passive reprobation wherein God simply does nothing in the hearts of the non-elect who then, because they are miserable fallen creatures, damn themselves.

This is in fact the Calvinistic position too. I have been in discussions over the last few days about the extent of the differences between the Reformed and Catholic views on Justification (see the comments sections in this post and this post if you are interested, assuming the comments feature is “temporarily in order”). Here, on the topic of double predestination, I am happy to report complete agreement between Reformed Protestants and, at the very least, Aquinas (whose theology, while held in high esteem, does not carry the force of infallibility. Catholics are allowed to agree with Aquinas but are not required to).

(Actually I do have another comment about Aikin's article, namely concerning the title: A Tiptoe through the TULIP. Gee -- never heard that one before.)

Why would anybody believe in double predestination?

The question should really be why would a well-intended scholar of the Bible make this mistake. Probably because some of the language reads as if God is doing something active in the reprobate:

² "You shall speak all that I command you, and your brother Aaron shall speak to Pharaoh that he let the sons of Israel go out of his land. ³ "But I will harden Pharaoh's heart that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. (Ex. 7:2-3, NASB)

So it appears that God does something to Pharaoh’s heart (hardening) that will make Pharaoh more sinful--which would mean that God was in some sense the author of Pharaoh’s sin. This is not the case. God did not actively make Pharaoh more sinful, what He did was withhold a gift—the gift of Common Grace. Let me borrow from an earlier blog on this subject:

God gives to all men a measure of restraint. I don’t know all the reasons, but presumably one of them is to prevent us from self-destructing as a species. Here is where we disagree with the humanists: man is not intrinsically good, forced into evil by genetics or the environment. Man is intrinsically bad with wholesale degradation avoided only by God's [common] grace

God’s removal of this restraint, either gradually or dramatically, is the frightening process of having one’s heart hardened, the most famous biblical example being that of Pharaoh. However, anyone holding onto a particular sin, refusing to repent and seek divine assistance in combating it, also runs the terrible risk of having his heart hardened:

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. (Rom 1:14, NASB)

Conclusion

So, in summary, all men, because of our sinful nature, are destined to hell. God actively predestines some (the elect) for salvation, and actively works a transformation in their hearts. The unfortunate others are passed over and left to their own devices. There is no double predestination.

---

Independence Day

The emphasis today is on family time and other vital secondary causes such as BBQ, fireworks, and swimming. That means I am taking a day off from the blogging.

BTW, I have noticed as sight shift in the zeitgeist of the Christian blogosphere. Or is it just my imagination?

I will just leave you to ponder, on this day of national (American) introspection:

and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land. (2 Chron. 7:14, NASB)

(Got that NRO?) and

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, ² for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. ³ This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, ⁴ who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim. 2:1-4, NASB)

[Aside: If I were still a professor and you were my students I would quiz you if the desires in 1 Tim 2:4 refers to God’s decretive, preceptive, or permissive will. Of course, more often than not you are the professors and I am the student. Besides, it would have been an odd quiz question for a Quantum Mechanics class.]

Have a safe 4th of July.

---

Be Worried, Be Very Worried

Mark Shea writes that he “never met a living soul who really believes in salvation by faith alone.” He needs to get out more. He also describes doctrinal differences (between Catholics and Protestants) as "gigantically inconsequential".

This is quite wrong. Even a cursory investigation, by Protestant or Catholic, into the two views on salvation, with particular attention paid to the role of the sacraments to the Catholic, will reveal the differences to be far from “inconsequential”. The Catholic Church understands this enough to have condemned to eternal damnation those that profess Sola Fide. And Protestants (and not just of the Reformed ”species” as Mr. Shea suggests) understand now, just as in the 16th century, that the differences are so substantive that a schism was inevitable. So, Mr. Shea, if you meant what you wrote: “[You] don't worry about the ‘faith alone’ sloganeering so long as they don't take it seriously”, well, it’s high time you started worrying. We take it very seriously.

This is not to say that Protestants and Catholics cannot "get along" or have cordial discussions. But it makes little sense to characterize significant doctrinal differences as "inconsequential".

[UPDATE: Also responding to Mark Shea's post, Mark Byron has a good post on the Trinity.]

---

How Limited Atonement is Actually Infinite

I really was not going to write about Calvinism today. Honest. Then, somewhat by accident, I came across this testimononial written by George Müller (1805-1898). Müller built and supervised four orphanages England, and supported missionaries around the world—all by prayer alone. He never asked for donations. This is what he wrote about his “conversion” to Calvinism:

Before this time [1829], I had been much opposed to the doctrines of election, particularly redemption and final persevering grace. So much so, that a few days after my arrival at Teignmouth, [England], I called election a devilish doctrine.

I did not believe that I had brought myself to the Lord, for that was too manifestly false, but yet I held that I might have resisted finally. And, further, I knew nothing about the choice of God's people, and did not believe that the child of God, when once made so, was safe forever. In my fleshly mind I had repeatedly said, "If once I could prove that I’m a child of God forever, I might go back into the world for a year or two, and then return to the Lord, and at last be saved.”

But now I was brought to examine these precious truths by the Word of God. Being made willing to have no glory of my own in the conversion of sinners, but to consider myself merely as an instrument; and being made willing to receive what the Scriptures said, I went to the Word, reading the New Testament from the beginning, with a particular reference to these truths.

To my great astonishment, I found that the passages that speak decidedly for election and persevering grace, were about four times as many as those that speak apparently against these truths. And even those few, shortly after, when I had examined and understood them, served to confirm me in the above doctrines [of election].

As to the effect that my belief in these doctrines had on me, I'm constrained to state, for God's glory, that though I'm still exceedingly weak, and by no means so dead to the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, as I might and as I ought to be, yet, by the grace of God, I have walked more closely with Him since that time.

My life has not been so variable, and I may say that I live much more for God than before. And for this I have been strengthened by the Lord, in a great measure, through the instrumentality of these truths. For in the time of temptation, I have been repeatedly led to say, "Should I thus sin? I should only bring misery into my soul for a time, and dishonor God. For, being a child of God forever, I should have to be brought back again, though it might be in the way of severe chastisement.”

Thus, I say, the electing love of God in Christ (when I have been able to realize it) has often been the means of producing holiness, instead of leading me into sin. It is only the notional apprehension of such truths, the want of having them in the heart, while they are [still only] in the head, that is dangerous.

Finding this not only encouraged me to go forward, but to take on the letter ‘L’ for Limited Atonement. If there is any weakness in Calvinism, it is to be found here.

Hoisted by Our Own Petard

Most Calvinists don’t mind the acrostic TULIP, even though it is sometimes used as a basis of ridicule. However, it is true that (just like with many marketing department acronyms) it has a component to it that is a bit contrived. In the case of TULIP it is the ‘L’ for Limited Atonement. Better names for this part of the Reformed doctrine include Particular Redemption and Definite Atonement

Particular Redemption

Everyone agrees that only believers are made acceptable before God by imputation of Christ’s righteousness, which was completed once and for all by His death on the cross. This is an important point: Both Calvinists and Arminians agree that Christ’s atonement is efficacious only for believers—hence both camps actually profess a form of “Limited Atonement”.

I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. (John 10:11, NASB)

The Arminian view is that Christ’s atonement had to be big enough for the entire world because, in principle, the entire world could accept the Gospel call. Again, however, Arminians agree that the atonement is effective only for believers. So the Arminian view of the atonement is:

• Unlimited in extent (big enough for the world).
  
  
• Indefinite in effect (in the sense that there is no countable set of predestined “elect”) .
  

The incorrect representation of the Calvinistic view is that the atonement is limited in extent and definite in effect. The first point is not part of the Calvinistic view although it is frequently offered as the Calvinist position. Calvinists do not think that while Christ was on the cross there was a meter running counting the number of sinners that His suffering was sufficient to cover and, when the number reached the number of the elect, His suffering ended.

The Silver Bullet

If you have to pick a single verse that is viewed as the most difficult to defend against (from a Calvinist’s perspective), it is found in chapter two of 1 John:

¹ My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
² and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.(1 John 2:1-2, NASB)

This seems to fly in the face of “the elect”, as evidenced by the phrase but also for those of the whole world. Obviously Calvinists cannot take this verse literally.

Don’t be too smug O you recalcitrant Arminians! You can’t take it literally either. The only people who can rejoice in taking this literally are Universalists. For, if Christ is literally the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, then the whole world has had its ransom paid and the whole world will be saved. This is contrary to a plain reading of essentially the entire Bible and thus is rightly rejected by all Christians. Still, I would agree that it would seem to be more problematic for Calvinists that Arminians. So what do Calvinists say about this verse?

One possibility is that John was talking to fellow (Christian) Jews and was pointing out that Christ’s death was atonement not only for “our” (believing Jews) sins but also for the sins of the world (believing Gentiles). This us/world = Jews/Gentiles identification is of course used in other places in Scripture.

Another possibility is related to the extent as opposed to the effect of the atonement. Somewhat in parallel with many are called but few are chosen-- it might be that Christ’s death was sufficient to save everyone in the whole world – but nevertheless will be efficacious only for the elect. If God wanted everyone to be saved he could do it, and Christ would not have had to suffer more—he already suffered enough for everyone. Yet God has chosen to save only some—for reasons that we will not fathom this side of glory (and perhaps not even on the other side).

While both points may be true, it is, in fact, this latter “possibility” the represents the actual Calvinistic view of Particular Atonement:

• Unlimited in extent (big enough for the world, Calvinism and Arminianism agree).
  
  
• Limited (or Particular or Definite) in effect (for the elect only, here Calvinism and Arminianism differ).
  

The two views do not disagree on extent of the atonement—both agree that it was big enough for the whole world. In this sense it was unlimited—which is why the term Limited Atonement, because of the confusion it causes, was not a good choice. But TULIP works, whereas TUDIP or TUPIP has much less pizzazz.

Calvinists believe that the atonement, in its effect (not extent) was definite (limited) and actual. The atonement guaranteed that some sinners would be saved, and that those sinners would infallibly come to a believing faith.

Arminians hold that the atonement, in its effect, was indefinite and potential, depending on the number (if any) of sinners who accept the Gospel call. The atonement guaranteed that all sinners enjoy the possibility to be saved, but that the salvation of none is guaranteed.

I actually believe that, since Christ was perfect and sinless, the atonement was infinite in extent. There was no meter counting the “quantity” of Christ’s suffering that released Him when it reached the number of elect or when it reached the number of people will have ever lived by the end of time. One perfect Savior is worth an infinite number of sinners, so the question of the extent of the atonement is somewhat moot.

---

About Nothing

Today I give Calvinism a rest. I will return in the near future since I still have three letters left from TULIP: Total Depravity, Limited Atonement, and Irresistible Grace. Instead, today I will blog à la Seinfield, i.e., about “nothing” (sort of).

Are you Cold, Hot, or Lukewarm

In the Book of Revelation, in the letter to the church at Laoedecia, it is written:

"And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write, "These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God: "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. (Rev. 3: 14-16, NKJV)

Here I use the NKJV instead of my beloved NASB because I like the use of the word “vomit” instead of “spit”. No sense being lukewarm about it.

Now, what I am about to write about may be well known to everyone – but I just heard this explanation recently-- so you will have to indulge me. What I am about to write about is just speculation, but it seems plausible.

I always thought what was being written about the Laodiceans was that they were marginal Christians—and Christ would rather they were hot (fervent believers) or cold (unrepentant non believers) but this middle-of the-road stuff was really annoying. And I always thought that odd—surely someone making a feeble attempt is still better (in some sense) than a heathen.

Recently I heard an alternate explanation related to the supply of water. Laodicea was near Heirapolis and Colosse (of the letter to the Colossians fame). The three cities were “sister” cities, of sorts. (Again I am obliged to apologize if I am the last person to hear this, but hey—I paid for this blog.) Without getting into geological detail, Heirapolis was known for the medicinal benefits of its hot water, which emanated from hot springs. Colosse was famous for its refreshing cold water from mountain runoff. Laodicea was noted for its good-for-nothing lukewarm water, which had no redeeming qualities. So the alternative explanation is that the Laodiceans should be hot (healing) or cold (refreshing) in terms of their ministry and works, but not lukewarm which provides neither benefit. To make it really kind of interesting, the first letters of the cities Laodicea, Heirapolis , and Colosse match the first letters of their temperatures. It’s nearly as miraculous as the fact that hymns translated from their original language into English still rhyme.

[Aside: the Laodiceans must have taken notice to the warnings in John’s vision. Laodicea thrived as a Christian center. Long after the church at Colosse faded, Laodicea was important enough (in spite of its tepid water) to host a major church council, The synod of Laodicea, in 364 A.D.]

The Enigma Named Nicodemus

Nicodemus appears only in John’s gospel. We first meet him at the beginning of John chapter 3 where he is the “straight man” for the most famous of Christ’s sayings:

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him." In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus,asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." "How can this be?" Nicodemus asked. "You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life."For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:1-16, NASB)

Nicodemus next appears in John chapter 7:

Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, "This certainly is the Prophet." Others were saying, "This is the Christ." Still others were saying, "Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He? "Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the descendants of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?" So a division occurred in the crowd because of Him. Some of them wanted to seize Him, but no one laid hands on Him. The officers then came to the chief priests and Pharisees, and they said to them, "Why did you not bring Him?" The officers answered, "Never has a man spoken the way this man speaks." The Pharisees then answered them, "You have not also been led astray, have you? "No one of the rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he? "But this crowd which does not know the Law is accursed." Nicodemus (he who came to Him before, being one of them) said to them, " Our Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?" They answered him, "You are not also from Galilee, are you? Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee." Everyone went to his home. (John 7:40-53, NASB)

[Aside: At the end of this passage a Pharisee said “Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee.” Actually several prophets did come from the vicinity of Galilee, which the Pharisee presumably knew. What he was actually referring to (and what was alluded to earlier in the passage) was the Messianic prophesy of Micah 5:2 that says the Savior would be born in Bethlehem. This guy (along with many others) was apparently under the mistaken impression that Jesus was born in Galilee and so could not be the Messiah.]

And his swan song is in John 19, where he helps Joseph of Arimathea bury Jesus.

After these things Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but a secret one for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate granted permission. So he came and took away His body. Nicodemus, who had first come to Him by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen wrappings with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. (John 19:38-40, NASB)

Here is my question (for which I cannot possibly know the answer): do you think Nicodemus was saved? If it weren’t for his helping Joseph of Arimathea I would be highly doubtful. Even so, he could have helped because he liked Jesus as a man while not believing he was the Son of God.

Nicodemus came to Jesus at night—and the Bible makes a point of telling us that (twice). It is as if Nicodemus did not want to be seen with Jesus. In John 3, you wonder if Nicodemus had an inquisitive, skeptical, sarcastic (especially the question about re-entering the womb) or antagonistic tone. Jesus does not seem to treat him “gently”, but says, in effect, you are a teacher and you don’t know this? What are you people (the Pharisees) thinking? In John 7, Nicodemus starts to defend Jesus-- whether it was because he believed him or just had sympathy for him is unclear. He appears to back off after the rebuke about Galilee.

Curious man that Nicodemus. I hope to see him in glory. I’ll be a little surprised if I do. Of course lots of people will be very surprised to see me there.

Tomorrow I'll write about... something.

---

Free Will

There is no way to do anything but scratch the surface of this topic. My only goal is to leave the reader with a glimpse of the solution to the puzzle of how free will is reconciled with God’s sovereignty.

I will borrow heavily from Sproul’s book Chosen By God. R. C. Sproul has written a lot of good books, but personally I would regard the highly accessible Chosen By God as his seminal work to date.

What do we mean by free will?

Normally we define free will as something like this:

Free will: The ability to choose whatever we want, at any particular time, for any particular reason, or for no reason at all.

Critics claim that the Calvinist’s blend of predestination and sovereignty makes robots of us all. If you make it past the first two responses to predestination, viz.,

(1) I might as well do whatever I want.

(2) It’s not fair.

you then run headfirst into

(3) It makes us into unwitting actors that are following a predetermined script.

Interestingly, this third complaint is exactly the opposite from the first.

Calvinism, it is often said, negates the human free will. As I hope to show, it only negates the version of free will wherein a person can make a choice for no reason at all.

Neutral Choices

Sproul calls this type of choice, made for no reason at all, a neutral choice because it implies “no prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition.” Furthermore, Sproul goes on to make a case that such neutral choices are a logical impossibility.

Sproul gives this example from Alice in Wonderland:

It [a neutral choice] is something like Alice in Wonderland when she came to a fork in the road. She did not know which way to turn. She saw the grinning Cheshire Cat in the tree. She asked the cat “Which way should I turn?” The cat replied, “Where are you going?” Alice answered, “I don’t know.” “Then,” replied the Cheshire cat, “it doesn’t matter.”

Sproul tells us to consider Alice’s dilemma. If Alice truly has no prior inclination to turn right or left, or to turn back—if she truly has no reason, however subtle, to use as a basis for her decision, she would be frozen in place by her indecision.

A neutral decision, if it existed, would have to be truly spontaneous. Like Alice, there would be nothing making us lean this way or that. The choice just pops out of thin air. There is no way that a just God could hold man responsible for such choices, if they did exist. They would be no different from accidents. If a quantum fluctuation deep inside my brain made me sin, then God Himself would sin by punishing me for it. No, the Bible is clear that we are punished for what is in our heart, which speaks of our motivations, inclinations, and desires. We are held accountable because we desire to sin, not because some uncontrollable process made us sin. We are not punished for spontaneous reasonless choices but for willful decisions based on our desires.

We must modify our definition of free will. One cannot actually make a choice for “no reason at all”. And if you could, such choices would be morally inconsequential background noise.

Free but Determined

So we have a slightly reduced definition of free will. Excising the logically impossible “no reason at all” leaves us with

Free will: The ability to choose whatever we want at any particular time, for any particular reason.

This also turns out to be too flexible. Applying this to Alice, she could turn left because there are trees on the left and she likes trees for the shade they provide. Or she could turn right because beautiful flowers line that path. How will she choose? If she liked shade trees exactly as much as she liked flowers she would still be frozen in her indecision. She would have a reason to go left and a reason to go right but in this case, since the choices are judged to be of exactly the same value, she could not make a choice “for any particular reason”.

If Alice does make a choice, she will in fact choose the path for which she is more inclined at that moment, however subtle the difference. All other things being equal, if she chooses the left it is because she prefers shade trees. If she chooses the right, it is because she prefers flowers.

Her choice was determined not by God steering her left or right, but by her own desires and inclinations.

Jonathan Edwards postulated that the only way to make a choice, to avoid the fate of frozen indecision, it to choose according to one’s strongest inclination at the moment. It may be in the form of self-denial, but even in such a case one chooses self-denial because the inclination to obey God’s law is stronger than the inclination to sin at that particular instant. When Joseph ran from the seduction of the wife of his master, his inclination to avoid sin, or maybe to avoid death at the hands of his master, was stronger than his inclination to commit adultery.

So what is left of the vaunted free will? It is free but determined. It is free because it depends on you and you alone; God is not forcing you to do anything. God is not pulling your strings or whispering in your ear. However, it is determined none-the-less, not by God the puppet master but by your own desires and inclinations. It is actually self-determined.

Your choices are free because no one makes them for you; nobody steers you left when you really want to go right. You are free to choose according to your heart's desire. There is no external coercion. Yet they are self-determined because you will choose on the basis of your desires. You are not only free to choose according to your hearts desire, you must choose according to your heart's desire. You are a slave to your own heart.

It goes without saying that just because we choose according to our desires doesn’t mean we like our choices. We may know instinctively that “we will pay for this choice”, and “we don’t really want to do this”, yet we make the choice just the same, even though we don’t “want to”, because the inclination to do it (whatever it is) wins out over the inclination to avoid the consequences. This is what Paul was talking about in Romans when he wrote:

For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. (Rom. 7:19, NASB)

Paul is saying that his sinful desires overcome the part of him that holds righteous desire, the very part he, as a Christian, is trying to nurture and grow.

The Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse

If you have ever taken a physics class you have probably seen a video of the Tacoma Narrows (suspension) Bridge collapse of 1940. (If you are interested and have good bandwidth or patience look here.)

The bridge, innovative in its design, was a short-lived source of civic pride. After the collapse, the Governor of Washington told the citizens in a radio address not to despair— he said: the state would build the exact same bridge in the exact same way in the exact same place. An engineering professor from the Carnegie Institute of Technology (now Carnegie Mellon, my alma mater) sent him a telegram that read If you build the exact same bridge in the exact same way in the exact same place it will fall down exactly like the other one.

Likewise the aphorism “If I had a chance to do it all over again, I would choose differently.” We all think that about some awful choice we made in the past and how we would be wiser if only we had another chance. If you really mean, given the person you are now, if placed in the same situation you would choose differently, then that is plausible. But if you simply roll tape back to the point of decision with everything unchanged, you’ll make the same choice each and every time. Your choices are self-determined by the state of your desires and inclinations at that particular moment, i.e. what is on your heart.

Your heart’s desire

Before you are saved, you have no desire to choose righteousness. Rom. 3:10-12 makes that painfully clear. After you are saved the Holy Spirit goes to work on you. He doesn’t make you choose one thing over another, but over time through the process of sanctification your desires and inclinations change; your heart changes. More and more you make the right choice—you make the right choice. God is helping you by working on your heart—this then manifests itself in your choices—the choices of your free will.

Our desires “determine” whether we are able to sin or able to choose not to sin. Sproul lays this out in table form according to a person’s current standing with God.

1. Pre-fall man (Adam and Eve before the fall)
   
   
   
   • Able to sin
     
   • Able to not sin
     
   
   
2. Post Fall Man (Any person before being saved)
   
   
   
   • Able to sin
     
   • Unable not to sin
     
   
   
3. Reborn Man (Any person who is saved)
   
   
   
   • Able to sin
     
   • Able to not sin
     
   
   
4. Glorified Man (Any person in heaven)
   
   
   
   • Able to not sin
     
   • Unable to sin
     
   
   

Before being saved, we are unable to not sin. This is just another way of stating Romans 3:10-12. We cannot choose righteousness—that desire has not yet been written on our hearts. After we are saved, we are in a moral state similar to Adam and Eve before the fall. God has changed our desires—not completely—but He has started an inexorable process. Our free will gets an overhaul. It begins to make better choices. This process will be complete in glory where, finally and wonderfully, we will be unable to sin.

---