First though I do want to say a few things to get some comments out of the way.

• Pelagianism teaches that man was not tainted by evil and that he is free to choose both good and evil having none of Adam’s sin imputed on himself. The individual can save himself but is stuck with Adam’s bad example and needed Christ to set a good example. Christ is helpful then to salvation but not (ultimately) necessary.
• Augustinianism teaches that human beings are utterly depraved in nature, lack the freedom to do good, and cannot respond to the will of God without divine grace. It was in direct opposition to Pelagianism by taking the opposite extreme.
• Semi-Pelagianism/Semi-Augustinianism teaches that God and Man both work together but in the matters of salvation Man must make the first move to show that he is leaning towards God and therefore God can do the rest.
• I know Man can’t save Himself, I know God made the first move but I deny that people are incapable to respond to the will of God.

Total Depravity to the Calvinist means that individuals are so under the bondage of sin that not only are they in active rebellion against God they are incapable of hearing the Gospel and believing God (conjunction, not two statements). Faith, they say is a gift of God and no Sinners can have Faith in God without the Holy Spirit’s regenerative work and thus being given Spiritual Understanding. The Arminian says basically the same thing except that the work of God isn’t regeneration; it’s His prevenient grace working in the individual. I say that the reason people are in rebellion against God is because they are not under the purview of God (via Adam’s choice): they are their Own Selves As God. As such, this is active rebellion against God and every slight of moral imperfection counts against man as well as man’s inability to be eternal (not infinite). The fact man thinks wrong pits Him against God’s perfection and thus damns him. Man falls short of God’s perfection and actively works against God because each and every revelation of God for people to live morally or Like God (if you allow the term) is just another marker that points out to people that they are Not God. God’s grace is always at work exposing people to Himself so people can become illuminated, enlightened, understand and subsequently still reject God. So we are Depraved but we’re not deaf; we’re dead by judicial decision but not rotting corpses that are incapable of hearing God’s words. Although the actions of people before God are worthless in a salvific sense (because Man is not God and incapable of saving Himself by any temporal good-work) God does acknowledge that some actions are good (like Cornelius’ almsgiving and good works). Man’s belief or faith is not a Good Work. It’s something stupid that we often rebel against but if we take the lessons that God has taught and trust Him God decides to credit it as Good by divine fiat. This is how He has decided to work. Why believe this? Because man must be knowingly morally responsible for his active rebellion otherwise. I’ll call this Devotedly Depraved. Threads here and here and here.

Unconditional Election to the Calvinist is that God chooses the elect individuals by his own choice before time for salvation and (finally) glorification. The Arminian says that God chooses the elect based on seeing who would believe and then specifying what He will do with these people. I say that the only individual who was unconditionally Elect was Christ (the God Man). Therefore, the individuals who later unite themselves to Christ by believing in Him and identifying in his burial and resurrection are In Christ and called The Elect. The Elect is Christ—and by extension the group In Christ. Christ was unconditionally Elect, the group (even if that group contained only 1 individual) was unconditionally Elect but individuals are not unconditionally elect. I’ll call this Altogether Christ. Threads here here and here.

Limited Atonement to the Calvinist is that God decided beforehand to shed Christ’s blood and apply it specifically to the elect individuals. Arminians say the Atonement is limited in application but not in scope. I say that the Atonement was for the sin of the sinful world allowing Man to be reconciled to God and that occurred with Christ being raised from the dead and seated in the heavenlies. Christ got up but God also raised Him. This does not mean that every individual is saved but it does mean that the Second Adam has already become the victor and has been reconciled to God. So then those who believe become a group no longer identified under the system of Adam 1.0 but under Adam 2.0. If they remained under Adam 1.0 they remain under the same mandate of being judged on an eternal scale next to God. I’ll call this For The Father’s Faithful One or in Favor of the Father’s Faithful One. Thread here.

Irresistible Grace to a Calvinist is that since no one willingly turns to God on their own accord, they must be changed by the Holy Spirit to become a new creature and then believe the message of God willingly, joyfully, and “freely”. To an Arminian they would say that God’s grace is resistible and explains why some people don’t believe. I say that God’s grace for all was made evident by His sending of His Son but that there is no special magical grace that attacks specific individuals to recreate them to allow them to do the good work of Faith. Faith is not a work . God has exposed Humanity to Himself from the getgo and has of these last days spoken by His Son. People can either believe what He says and trust that He will save them—no matter how stupid or weak their faith is—or they can stand on their own, identifying under no other name but themselves and face the full repercussions of their decision. I’ll call this Forever Gracious. Thread here.

Perseverance of the Saints taught by the Calvinist is that those who persist until the end prove to be the elect of God—even if that position is known by no one but God and perhaps the individual. Some Arminians are unsure about this. I think that those who have believed in Christ are legally removed from the purview of Adam 1.0 and somehow (I don’t know how) joined In Christ and therefore will be preserved by God until the end. They are secured because God said they are secured. I’ll call this Only Kept By God. (no threads on this yet…sorry)

Predestination of Saints to Salvation to a Calvinist means that the individuals have been predestined by God to salvation. This is normally included in Unconditional Election but I wanted to make a distinction. I don’t believe that anyone is predestined to Salvation. They’re predestined for specific roles in redemptive history, and they may even be predestined to complete specific tasks but their individual salvation is not underneath that header. I think predestination is towards the end-goal of the Elect. So Christ as Elect was to be glorified, seated in the heavenlies and given a right over humanity. The group within Christ is seated with Him as co-heirs and glorified and given a right over humanity: they are conformed in the image of the Son. So predestination to me is the End Goal, Election is the choosing by God. I’ll call this Destination Endpoint Secured.Thread here.

Sovereignty of God to some Calvinists means that God is in charge of every single decision and action by divine fiat. Other Calvinists believe that God’s choices and our responsibility are compatible. Some Arminians believe likewise and others believe that God takes advantage of Evil. I think that God’s sovereignty means that He takes advantage of evil as well as being compatible with our decisions via working in all possible worlds. He’s active with our timeline so some things occur because He actively causes an occurrence but He knows how they would’ve occurred if he acted otherwise. Why He chose this time-world is because this one ultimately results in the greater Glory by saving within Christ an even greater number than all other possible worlds. It’s the one possible world of all the possible worlds while still maintaining his character (any world He chooses that’s not perfect can still be better…so its not the best possible world…it’s the one He chose to work with that ultimately results in the results that God desires). I don’t know how it works.I’ll call this Inconceivable unLimited Worlds so I can work the I and the L in there. Threads here.

Technorati Tags: arminianism, calvinism, soteriology, TULIP

But I did want to post a counter illustration because the one Boice used (in Michael’s post) wound up being one of those stories that preachers (and professors) love to use that doesn’t prove anything. It’s an appeal to emotion by using unbalanced data and an unserviceable hypothetical.

Here’s my version based heavily on Boice’s:

Imagine this. Imagine yourself being in heaven and walking with the angels.  One of them asks you, “I see your best friend isn’t here.”
You would say “Well, I got here by the grace of God alone.”

The angel responds and asks, “Well, I don’t understand. Why are you here and your best friend is not?”

You say, “Because God had mercy on me a sinner.”

“Yes, but,” the angel replies, “What makes your friend so different? He’s a sinner too: why is he in hell and you not?”

If you are a Calvinist you would ultimately say “I don’t know why God had mercy on me. I do know that I was elect and my best friend wasn’t: he’s in hell because God thought that was for the best.”

“When did God decide that?”

“Before the foundation of the world.”

“Wait,” says the Angel “Are you saying that your friend isn’t here because the Eternal and Holy God damned your friend before he even existed and you are here, strutting about because God chose you over everyone else?”

“Well I wouldn’t put it that way. You’re drawing a logical conclusion from a system that has theological boundaries. I can’t technically say–”

“Wait, wait: you’re actually saying that the Eternal and Holy God who sent His only begotten Son to rescue humanity and all of creation decided, before humanity existed, that humanity consisted of only an elect few and the rest He damned to an eternity of torture. Why on heaven would He do that?”

“For His good pleasure of course. But you see, He saved sinners–”

The Angel here takes a step back, one of his six wings covering his face “Well now I know that Eternal and Holy God indeed had mercy on sinners. How you can impugn His character and still receive His mercy instead of His wrath is beyond me. “

The point is this: the illustration offers no good reason to accept monergism or deny it. How can we possibly know that an Arminian in heaven would say “I’m in heaven, ultimately because I believed and got here”? An Arminian might say a plethora of things (just as my Calvinist did above). “Ultimately” the Arminian’s mouth might be rendered shut and he’d resort to Scripture to cling to. He could say: “God saved me a sinner, by grace through faith.” The Arminian might even say “God had mercy on me a sinner even on the weakness of my faith which was nothing but the blind grasping of a drowning man.” The Calvinist might say “Because Christ’s blood only paid for me” or might robotically intone “I. Speak.  Only. The words. That. The Holy Spirit. Has elected. For Me. To speak. Now that I. Am. Perfected.” Leaving the angel staring in horror at the automaton wondering if he’s on the wrong side. 

Or not. You see it’s an illustration: a good writer (which I am not) can do (and teach) anything with it.

Technorati Tags: boice, illustrations, logic, patton

They are zealous for God but not in tune with proper knowledge. Now we can’t deny what was previously said and chalk it up to Israel not knowing the righteousness inherit in the Law—oh they were zealous defenders of it.

Where they stumbled, once again, is the fact that the Law was pointing at a person and at this pivotal point they refused to subject themselves. In so doing a person states that they are incapable of God’s righteousness and such a position is one of complete and total surrender to the only one who can thus save: God.

So Christ is the end of the Law, not in the sense that the Law is being wiped out nor in the sense that parts of the Law are wiped out (like the so-called Ceremonial or Civil part) but rather that Christ is the final stop, the destination, of the Law to everyone who believes. I hate leaving a book to highlight a point that is made elsewhere but in Galatians Paul would point out that the Law is a school tutor that directs the child towards the better end where Christ stands waiting to make the person a functional son.

So this Law that points to Christ points out a fact that a person practicing a righteousness based on that Law must live by that righteousness but the righteousness attained solely by faith is one which realizes that it cannot do It.

This reliance, trusting on God’s righteousness, is one that doesn’t try to create all the solutions to our ultimate need but relies on God’s solutions. It does not try to bring Christ down from heaven or dip into the grave to resurrect Christ. Rather this reliance is something that is nearby, so close that you can taste and feel it which is the word of faith which Paul preaches: confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, not master Lord as some ridiculous debates but rather Deity Lord and actually trust in your being that God actually raised Him from the dead and you will be saved.

The fact is this: that whoever (be it vessels of glory or vessels of wrath, Jew or Gentile) believes in Him will not be disappointed. He is the same Lord God over all and able to do more and beyond for those who call on the name of the Lord.

It is a great thing for believers to discuss their different perspectives and convictions from Scripture—yet it’s not always a great thing when those discussions degenerate into vicious attacks or a public portrayal of ungodliness before the world. Such actions on our parts, no matter how convinced we are with our position; wind up besmirching our testimony and perhaps even the reception of the gospel more than anything else.

I have personally been hesitant to start back on the Romans series. Firstly because of the new baby taking up much of my time and secondly because I have been devoting more of my studies to preparing for next an upcoming series in Genesis. Lurking somewhere between those two reasons is a slight fear of possible retaliation for sharing my opinions on this portion of Romans. A foolish fear, I know, yet there nevertheless.

I mustn’t forget then that this movement culminates with one of the most profound statements of worship and praise found in the entire Scriptures. I must examine my motives and presentation with the understanding that no matter how difficult this section may be, for Paul it proved to be the very answer to his opening lament. He turns from his discussion and reflects (with a sense of awe being inferred) when we read “Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!” ({{Rom 11:33}})

As I begin I should be immediately aware then that Paul is addressing not only a theoretical problem but a very much, practical problem as well. I might swerve into the theoretical side of Paul’s written defense but when seeing the emotion in those opening words I should note that the problem of the Jews affected Paul personally: “I’m telling the truth, I’m not lying, my conscience in the Holy Spirit as my witness—my heart is in immense sorrow and unending grief! I wish I was damned, separated from Christ, for the sake of my brothers, my kin, the Israelites!”({{Rom 9:1-3}})

Oh how it affected him. This man, preaching to the Gentiles, always taking time to first preach to the Jews around him, was hoping that they would come to Christ. Persecuted by his countrymen, chased out of towns and even stoned—they proved themselves to be against the message. What dissonance to know that the Jews have rejected whom they were looking for—their Messiah!

Can you see how it would impact the presentation of the gospel to a Gentile? There’s Paul at dinner with the eminent Felix and his wife, discussing matters of poetry or what not then finally touching on the questions of the Gospel. Felix versed in the Jewish message, listening intently to Paul’s presentation and growing very uncomfortable with such talk of sin and who exactly is this Jesus and what did He accomplish

“So Paul, you say this Jesus proved to be the Messiah with many proofs, yes?”

“Oh surely, Master Felix.”

“And you evidently back this up with the writings of your Jewish book, yes?”

“Of course, Master Felix. You yourself are acquainted with the Way!”

“Thank you, sir. Indeed I am. Mind if I ask, are there any other Jewish Rabbi’s who believe as you do? Who have also seen the evidence and can point it out in your Jewish writings? I mean, this is great stuff and such obvious proof—surely the great teachers in Jewish circles have recognized this!”

“Well…let’s see…well, I was almost a Pharisee…got pretty far down that road…studied under Gamaliel you know. Smart guy but well I guess he doesn’t really count”

“Yes…”

“And I mean, well Peter…but he’s a fisherman. And…Matthew is pretty smart too… Barnabas was a priest, you know…”

“Ah…well. Would you like another grape Paul? I hear tell it’s going to be a rough winter this year!” ({{Acts 24}})

The question of “Why do the Jews not believe?” must be addressed especially in light of the Gospel. How could the Christian message be “The God of the Jews has been made manifest!” and yet the Jews don’t believe? Sure, there’s a few Jews here and there who might believe but the authorities are rejecting the message as false, others are trying to stamp out proponents of the message and yet others are trying to make the message adhere more to Jewish traditions—but all in all, these people are not believers of Jesus the Christ.

So there’s the huge problem in this whole righteousness of God bit. If God’s righteousness is available to all and has precedence in the Torah…why has it seemingly failed when it comes to the Israelites…the elect Children of God? Has God’s word come crashing down and His righteousness proven to be a superficial thing that changes based on some unfathomable arbitrariness? What is the answer to the problem of the Jews—why do they not believe and how does this affect the righteousness of God?

Series Link.

Today, what does death mean? If a body continues to function yet brain activity is minimal is a person dead? If a person is prevented from final expiration via mechanical means is the person truly alive? If a person is prevented from being born are they dead? If a person’s mind is transferred into a computer shell so that their persona persists yet their body decays, are they alive? Some folk think of death as The End or finality. Other people look at death as “rot” or “decomposition”—a stage in the life-cycles.

Adam didn’t immediately die as is evidenced by his lifespan of 930 years (Gen 5:5). That would make Adam’s death a final nail in the coffin (sorry) of a long life of work and sweat (Gen 3:17-19). That being the case, some have taken death in this passage to not mean the cessation of physical life.

Taking Romans 5:12, 21, some have taken Adam’s death to be spiritual. Adam literally spiritually died. Perhaps Man, being three parts (as a proof-text 1 Thes 5:23 but without personally supporting this view): Physical (which lives but eventually dies), Soul (which is who we are, our Being) and Spirit (which is the part that relates to God but is dead)—can continue to physically live although that component is dead. Therefore, Adam immediately became 1/3rd dead another 1/3rd ready to die and the thing that persists is his Soul or Being. Perhaps Adam (and man in general) consists of two parts (1 Cor 5:5 or 2 Cor 4:16): Outer and Inner or Flesh and Spiritual—one decaying the other dead.

A hard and fast definition of death could be the cessation of physical life, which includes the cessation of all physical activity pertaining to life. So then taking a corpse and moving it around ala Weekend At Bernie’s isn’t really life—it’s a farce of life. With this definition a man who is physically dead can’t respond, react, reproduce—he can only rot. Likewise a man who is spiritually dead can’t respond to anything spiritual, react to anything spiritual, and reproduce anything spiritual. Perhaps Adam could spiritually rot—I don’t know. I’m just talking here.

Adam’s spiritual death happened that very day and would render him deaf to God or anything dealing with god-ness—be it facsimiles or otherwise. This wouldn’t demand that all of his kids be in the same position but Romans 5 does seem to make something in Adam’s act inheritable. A spiritually dead person shouldn’t be able to respond to God or any god—they have no spiritual component. They shouldn’t even have a desire to have a spiritual life. Not even a blip of a spiritual urge.

That doesn’t line up with what we experientially know. People have religious leanings and even zealously so. They have a spiritual need (as evidenced by the amazing amounts of world religions).

That doesn’t line up with what we survey in Scripture because what may be known of God is manifest in men, for God has shown it to them (Rom 1:19) and they suppress the knowledge themselves (Rom 1:18). They reject the love of the truth, refuse to obey it, and turn after their own path. The Bible refers to the physical dead responding (1 Thes 4:16) and reacting (John 11).

Perhaps death in Adam’s case is more like the general usage of death throughout Scripture: a form of separation. A dead womb: the separation of the purpose of the womb (giving birth) from the womb. The womb can be opened but it’s not like the womb is made anew. The death of a living being: the separation of the being from life. The dead can live again either in the same body or a re-created body. The death of your members: the separation of a body part from the rest of the body. The body part can live again by being rejoined to the body miraculously (and currently scientifically). Burying your dead: the separation of those family members from your home. The relationship is ended although it may be renewed at a later date. Cut-off: the separation of a member of the community. They were either stoned or sent outside of the camp; where they could be seen and spoken to but with a heavy condemnation upon those who did it.

Adam’s death would be the separation of A Being from God’s Responsibility—not relying on God’s choices (and thence leaving matters in his creator’s hands) but taking the responsibility (and onus) upon himself. Adam knew what was right and wrong before hand, but by stepping outside of God’s oversight he put himself in a position where he knows better than God: he has become like God. That being the case each decision he makes, from thought to action, is held under divine scrutiny. Does it measure up to the Divine meter? Adam, as a finite being now held culpable on a divinely perfect scale finds an infinite impossibility in attaining the divine perfection.

God would of course know every detail about man; from the hairs on their head to their intentions. God could act within the lives of men, placing situations where men are held responsible for their response (ie: Romans 1, Nature evidencing God’s sovereignty and power and that being the meter by which some men are proven guilty). God would not want any to perish and could offer a savior for all of mankind but especially for those who believe that He would do such a thing and who that Savior is.

This is way shorter than it should be and doesn’t do justice to the scope of the subject matter, but I’ll let it lie there.