A. C.U.R.E.

The famous (or infamous, depending on your view) theological acronym TULIP has for centuries served the Church well in summarizing the basic tenets of Calvinistic soteriology. It arose from the disputations the Arminian school of thought offered back in the 1600's. The Calvinists carried the day at the Synod of Dort (the house was stacked) and walked away from that debate with what became known as TULIP: the Arminians walked away ridiculed with nothing but the truth.

There have been some good offerings for a similar acronym for Arminian soteriology (like FACTS), but I have never found them satisfactory because I didn't feel they were clearly descriptive. So, for the ailment of inexactitude, I'd like to offer a cure.

A.= Absolute Inability: mankind is so incapacitated by spiritual death, that none are able to turn themselves to God apart from the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit.
C.= Conditional Election: God has chosen to save all who trust Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.
U.= Unlimited Atonement: the blood of Christ was shed for the sins of the entire world, and anyone who will can avail themselves of its effects through faith.
R.= Resistable Grace: The Holy Spirit's efforts at graciously influencing the sinner can be resisted by the sinner.
E.= Extinguishable Faith: the faith that the Holy Spirit's gracious ministrations made possible can be lost or shipwrecked by the person who had believed at one time.

I think this is a little more clearly descriptive than the FACTS acronym, especially for those who believe in the possibility of apostasy (and it doesn't have to be shared with a toy convention). It sure would be nice to have something as communicative as TULIP among those of us who actually got our soteriology right!

The Faith Moment: Salvation

How does faith congeal in the soul to become substance? 

I do not believe that God secretly presses a button he's concealed within us, which when pressed, makes us people of persevering faith. As I understand it, that is precisely what Calvinism proposes. The problem with that is that if God did do that kind of thing for any person, he'd do it for all people. Scriptures are clear that is not the way things turn out, so Calvinism's view of efficacious grace cannot be consistent with the self-revelation of God in them. 

God has made mankind with the capacity for faith, of that there can be little doubt, for people everywhere trust in things they cannot see. I think this general capacity is what separates mankind from angels, particularly in regard to redeemability. Mankind was made in innocence, really ignorance, and therefore was made for faith. Faith exists in that gap produced by unseens and unknowns, but Angels were made for knowledge and sight. 

When angels rebelled they did so in knowledge and sight and are irredeemable as a result (see Hebrews 6:4a for the concept as it applies to mankind). If Romans 12:3 applies broadly to all humanity (as I've always taken it to mean) rather than just the church (as Calvinists in particular take it), then God has in fact dealt each person at least some measure of faith. Of course, true faith, faith that actually has an effect, requires that it be placed in the right object, namely, God and God alone. That means that God has to "show up" for that faith to spark into existence.

God "showing up" is that enablement without which no one could truly believe. But God, regardless of what help he gives us, isn't going to believe for us (which is what irresistible grace is tantamount to in my mind). All of his commands to us to believe would be nonsensical in that case. No, it is we who must trust in God, that is our God-enabled responsibility.  

We are called to faith, it is the very currency of heaven. On their own, humans can only answer that call with something less than true faith in the actual God. However, when the Holy Spirit brings our focus on the person and authority of Christ into clarity, the moment is ripe for salvivic faith to be born. It is not guaranteed, as is attested to by Israel's example and the fact that not everyone comes to faith since Jesus was lifted up on the cross, but is only possible then and impossible otherwise.

Nonetheless, thank God that the Holy Spirit is sent to bring us to that moment--the faith moment, when everything comes together and Jesus is seen as Savior and Lord.

The Good Shepherd Discourse: Does Election Cause Faith?

The Good Shepherd discourse in John 10 (actually two addresses on the same subject) is undoubtedly allegorical, and as such involves some art in its interpretation. It seems to me, the chapter is more about the qualities of the Good Shepherd than it is about the qualities of sheep. However, what it does say about sheep can been seen in a rather exclusionary light (see e.g. vs. 8, 14, 16, and 26-7). I wonder, in regard to those sheep and their response to the Shepherd, are Jesus' statements meant to be a description of attributes or an attribution of causes?

Among other things, the text tells us that sheep (people) who hear (believe and respond to) the shepherd (Christ) do so because they are his, whereas people who do not believe in Christ do not because they are not his. What must be determined in order to understand the figure properly is if is it saying that the mere fact of ownership (which could be seen as akin to election) causes response in sheep. In other words, does ownership (election) of the sheep cause them to hear the shepherd or does "hearing" merely establish that they are, in fact, owned by the shepherd (something akin to a brand).

One viewpoint sees a cause, where the other sees a description.

Sheep in the real world imprint to their shepherds during the process of being raised and tended by those shepherds. Apart from the ability to imprint at all, there's nothing intrinsic (or genetic) in a sheep that connects it to its particular shepherd. Only the relationship that has been established over time between them connects one to the other. The preference resulting from discerning hearing in sheep is developmental, so the hearing of the sheep presupposes a trusting relationship with the shepherd.

Now, the Pharisees and others in the audience were oblivious to whatever points Christ was making by using this figure. They missed the gist of the allegory all together: namely, that Jesus (and not any other including them) is the means for those that follow him to have life and all it brings. They had shown no inclination to accept him as a shepherd (they called him a raving lunatic), nor any willingness to develop a relationship with with him that would have tuned them to his voice. Even his miracles did nothing to elicit any kind of trust from them.

All those God, the Father, has given to Christ as his sheep (followers) will trust in him, whereas those who have no faith in Christ cannot possibly be a follower of Christ. If one has faith in Christ it means that one is one of the ones the Father gave the Son, if not, that one isn't--mere description. I don't think Christ would have appropriated this figure to demonstrate something the figure would not have demonstrated to any shepherd in his day, nor something that would fly in the face of later scripture. It is not saying that mere ownership (or election) causes trust, but merely that trust in Christ demonstrates that one is part of the fold his Father gave him.

This is accentuated from the viewpoint of the shepherd in vs. 11-13. Though sheep will not listen thieves and robbers, they will listen to and follow a hireling who, as their shepherd, has formed a relationship with them. However, only an owner, who is actually a shepherd too, will rise to the level of a Good Shepherd by hazarding all dangers in order to save them. So relationship, not ownership, grows faith, although ownership is what makes faith truly beneficial.

What John Really Says About Drawing and Election

The Gospel of John is easy to misinterpret, not only because it shares so little with the other gospels, but because it is filled with commentary by Jesus about his reception among the Jews. Jesus certainly had a lot to say about why folks and about which folks were able to recognize him as he walked on the face of earth. If one is not cognizant of contextual cues, things which were only definitely being said about that reception can be applied to the broader context of humans in general throughout time and result in erroneous conclusions.

When one takes what Jesus was saying about his reception among the Jews and mistakenly applies it to humans in general outside that time and place, contradictions arise with other scriptures regarding God's intentions toward humanity in general. For instance, 1 Timothy 2:1-6 and 2 Peter 3:9 seem to be at odds with statements in John if that hermeneutical error is followed. Readily evident readings have to be discarded (really, twisted) in order to align with misreadings of John. Because God was highly selective before the resurrection in who would recognize Christ, associate with him, and form the core of the church after his resurrection does not automatically mean he exercises the same prerogatives after the resurrection and through the age of the church.

I want to reference 3 key places where this problem can be seen and demonstrate a hermeneutical framework that evaporates any issues.

First, John 12:27-33...

This passage is key because it says something explicitly about God's exertion of drawing power upon the post-crucifixion population of planet Earth (see also John 8:28). It is, in fact, different than what was said to exist for the population around Christ before the crucifixion. The member of the Trinity acting changes, as does the scope of the action. This passage must been seen, it seems to me, as the basis for understanding any other statement in John concerning drawing and election to Christ which is being applied to post-resurrection populations.

Second, the last half of John 6...

As he made these statements, was Jesus referring to witnesses of his physical visitation at that time, or was he making a broader statement applicable to all people throughout time? He seemed to speak broadly (vs. 28-58) and specifically (vs. 59-71) with regard to people responding to him within the same pericope, so the question is complicated. The section which clearly refers to specific people at that specific time (i.e. his contemporaneous disciples) is reiterated conceptually in the High-Priestly Prayer in John 17, which serves to focus, I think, Jesus' comments about effectual calling in John 6 upon those who witnessed his earthly ministry. Verse 65, in explaining v. 44, constricts the context to the more specific milieu, and therefore, vs. 44 and 65 can be readily applied to those folks at that time but cannot be applied without the mitigation of John 12 to the post-crucifixion population.

Third, John 8:42-47...

Jesus comments in this section of John were addressed to those that had some sort of belief in him (see v. 31-32), and yet contended with him and were rejected by Christ as children of the devil. They were unable to understand his words, to truly believe in him, and so be saved. I would say that their condition is not out of the ordinary for people pre-crucifixion, but does their example say anything at all about people post-crucifixion? It is an extremely important consideration given Romans 10:8-9. But there is nothing contextually that relates their condition to the human race in general, or to the post-crucifixion population in particular.

When statements in John about being drawn to Christ (which, incidentally, entails enablement to believe acc. 6:44-47) and God electing followers in the pre-crucifixion population shape our understanding about the those subjects in regard to the post-crucifixion population, confusion and contradiction occur. The sad state which is Calvinism is an example of such an occurrence. When our understanding about drawing and election among the post-crucifixion population is informed primarily by the one text that deals with that subject specifically, we find that clarity and harmony between scriptures result.

Since the crucifixion, this should be clear from an accurate reading of the Bible: God is drawing all people to Christ because he genuinely wants everyone to be saved by hearing the word of Christ and responding with faith.

The Measure of Grace

"I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away."    Luke 19:26  NASB

I think grace may be something that is shown to us by God in increments. Not that I'm suggesting the spiritual equivalent of quantum mechanics, but I do think divine light dawns upon the human spirit in measures. If that light has the intended effect, then more light is shone. If it doesn't, then what light had been shining is withdrawn.

When "grace" (or "light") is used in this manner, what it really is referring to is the action of the Spirit of God. Grace, I think, is a term which is used, generally, very inaccurately in the Church. When it is used, more often than not, it conjures up a picture of some mystical force or power flowing from God unto that which he has made. Grace is not such a force or power, it is merely a sentiment in the heart of God toward that which he has made--joyful kindness, unmerited favor.

It is the Holy Spirit (or, at times, those ministering spirits called angels) that actually reaches out and touches someone or something with the application of light and power. God's grace actually does nothing, but God by grace surely does! Nonetheless, in keeping with the way in which grace is used broadly (even if erroneously), I use it here to refer to the unseen activity of the Spirit by which spiritual qualities are imbued to the spirit/soul of one who is a believer or one who may become a believer. In other words, grace is shorthand for the work of the Holy Spirit.

I do not believe that the seed of Adam is capable of receiving such grace unmitigatedly. The darkened souls of Adam's sinful race would be overwhelmed if that were to occur, and the effect would be to blight the image of God they still possess. The image of God entails freewill by necessity and God's design, and it is not God's will to emasculate or eradicate the independence that comes thereby. Therefore, God's drawing, convicting grace does not and cannot come upon man as a storm surge, irresistibly, or it would incapacitate the image of God within.

Grace, it seems to me, is measured out by incremental nudges.

Light shines in some measure upon the souls of men. The soul so illumined which responds to that light gets more light, and softens. The soul repulsed by that light remains in darkness and hardens. The journey of the faithful from rank unbelief to oneness with God is one of responding to increasing grace and brightening light.

Does God Love Our Children Less Than We Do?

Does the God who breathed life into them love our children less than we do? We would never write them off, or send them into flames no matter what they had done. Yet, it appears that God is willing to. Do we love and care for them more than he does? No, but we certainly tolerate sin and the company of sinners more than he does.

Whatever is not of faith is sin, so faith is the key for our children. If our children do not come to trust God there will be nothing that can be done for them. There is no obligation that could be enforced upon God in the name of love which could cause him to give eternal life (freedom) to those who do not trust him. Could God allow the evil of sin and rebellion to continue just because some of those who have faith happened to have children who did not? Not without resigning his throne as God!

Since the Fall, however, no one is able to believe (at least effectively) without divine enablement. The Spirit of God attending the word of Christ is the instigator of such enablement, so if our children do not hear that word and come to faith thereby they have no possibility of life. Oh, they may be graced under a parental umbrella for a spell, but there are no reliable coattails to heaven. Those who do not trust God can have no eternal hope.

The love of God is broad and deep, but its object is humans made in his image with creaturely freedom. It is important to God that our children be in his image and have creaturely freedom. Everyone made like that must come to the place where, freely, they trust God and choose to follow him. Our children must come to that place or be separated from God forever.

Perhaps we could never bear to write-off our children and would always find a way to preserve them and commune with them. We are not God. We do not see what he sees and do not have the pure moral clarity he does. God does love our children, but not with sin-stained, sentimental affection like we are apt to. He loved them enough to make them in his image and to redeem that image eternally through the sacrifice of Christ.

God wants our children with him forever, but that is not possible if they do not trust him.

Israel Proves Who God Is

I find Israel absolutely amazing: not the geographical location (I've never been there and have never wanted to go), but the people. It's not that their customs or their cooking are interesting to me in the least, but I find the bare fact of their existence just astonishing! Just by surviving, thriving, and eventually arriving back in their homeland, Israel has proved itself the most unusual of nations. That they are not relegated to the realm of myth and fable is mindboggling.

Let's review what they've been through: there has been seven attempts by world powers to annihilate, dispossess or exterminate this people throughout human history. These were not attempts by nasty tribal neighbors (as in the book of Judges or as in pogroms in the Diaspora), but by cream-of-the-crop, world-class empires, amongst the mightiest of their day. Yet, despite slavery, murder, pillage, rape, deportation, dispersion, and attempts at assimilation by the strongest in the heavy weight division, Israel survived as a people. A notable feat on its own, certainly, but Israel transcended mere survival and returned to their homeland as a nation after thousands of years away.

Imagine the U.S. or any nation surviving such a history. Despite Paul Revere and the Raiders' sentiment in song, there's no way I could see the Cherokee Nation returning even after one such brush with genocide and ethnic cleansing. Why did Israel come back from the dead seven times? Well apart from numerological concerns, the answer, the only answer is divine intervention.

Nature points, it seems to me, to the existence of a Creator. Given its remarkable history, Israel has to be a sign of who that Creator is. If we're at all perceptive, we'd have to see that the Creator is not the god(s) of the Hindus, the Buddhists, the animists, the pagans, and certainly not the Muslims, but the God of Israel. For Israel itself is a sign from God that proves that Yahweh, the God of Israel, is God, and that he is God alone.

The Nature of Election

In an interchange with one of my favorites bloggers, a difference in how we understood election led to his suggestion that I look at what Paul's letter to the Galatians says on the subject. This post is my response to that suggestion. I will interact with portions of Galatians and relate them back to issues arising from Romans 9 and 11, which were the origin of the discussion (even though they were not what the originating blog post was about). Read that post and comments here (and anything else you can from that site--Ben and J.C. are two of the finest bloggers on the internet!).

Consider Abraham: “He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.   Galatians 3:6-9 NIV 1984

Election, as biblically referenced, hearkens back to Abraham and what was promised to him. Abraham was hand-picked by God to be the father of a people through Sarah, who were to be given a land in perpetuity in Canaan, and who would have God as their god and who would be God's people. Through him/them would all the world be blessed. Abraham's heirs through this promise, therefore, were a people chosen by God to be savingly related to him--the elect.

Within God's covenants with Abraham, however, a potential division of his progeny was intrinsic, for "God would be their god" is an inherently conditional statement. God can only be one's god if he is believed in, trusted, and followed in obedience and fellowship uniquely by those for whom he is their god. If those characteristics are not in place, then neither can it be said that God is their god. A cultural myth, part of background perhaps, but not a personal god.

This division is what Paul exploits in Romans 9. There seems to be an assumption packed by Paul into v 6 which would represent, it seems to me, a "Jewish" way to see election. Jews, the sons of promise, the possessors of Israel, the nation affiliated with the worship of God would be expected to be those who would embrace their promised Messiah, the blessing to all nations. That was not happening and therefore it called into question the word of God regarding their election and the promise to the elect.

If the foundation of election in Abraham would have been understood by those making such an assumption, then the assumed misunderstanding could have been avoided. Paul spent chapter 9 of Romans trying to get this point across. Salvivic election, NT election--the election of Abraham (if I can put it that way) is predicated on faith. God chooses all those who trust his promise, Jew and Gentile alike, to be saved.

Instead, the "Jewish" approach to election seems to be dominated by Mosaic concerns. God picked Israel, corporately, to be delivered from bondage, ensconced in the Promised Land, governed by the law and blessed. Circumcision and nominal adherence to the Law was all that was necessary to secure what was promised, and if Messiah came it would have been obvious to them. The Jews would have followed him as a people into the golden age of Israel.

What is missing in such an understanding is the transitory nature of the Mosaic Covenant. It was nothing more than a schoolmaster, a temporary regimen meant to ensure that an anticipated goal could actually be reached. A "Mosaic" understanding of election can embrace a purpose in time for national Israel, but let us be clear--Moses has nothing to say about Abraham...

Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.  Galatians 3:19-25 NIV 1984

So if we see Abraham's promises from God in the broadest sense, Abraham's election was sealed by faith as is that of all those (Jews and Gentiles) who follow in his steps as chosen by God and made righteous by faith. No one is elect unto anything salvivic apart from faith. As for Israel under Moses, they had a role to play (i.e. they were chosen to serve), which is over now, but despite their current rejection of Messiah, God retains plans for them to embrace him en masse finally, one day.

Replacement Theology Undermined by Jesus

"...they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority..."   Acts 1"6-7 NASB

Was the church intended by God as a replacement to Israel? There is no doubt that the new covenant in Christ displaced the old covenant of Moses. That was a covenant of works entered into primarily by the children of Jacob, whereas the new is a covenant of faith entered into by whoever will. If the point of the old was to make way for the new, than a justifiable question arises as to the continuing need or viability of a covenantal people whose identifying covenant is obsolete. What would be the point of a covenant-people if their covenant is defunct?

The church, most definitely, is the new kingdom of God. It is the one and only locus of right relationship with God in this and in the ages to come. In regard to covenantal relationship with God it displaces Israel, encompassing Jew and Gentile in one body as the people of God. Those selected for inclusion in this kingdom are chosen, not on the basis of geneology and faith, but on the basis of faith alone. It is the only game in town.

But even if the old is defunct and discarded as to it's ability to establish and regulate covenantal relationship with God, God's promise to Abraham concerning the land given to his offspring and God being their God still remains in force. The defunct Mosaic covenant cannot regulate their fellowship with God (only the Messiah's can do that), nonetheless, the Abrahamic covenant is still in force and controls their geopolitical destiny here on earth.

Acts 1:7 is proof. Jesus was asked specifically about Israel's earthly destiny--his answer was not that they did not have one any more. He answered that the timing of the restoration of Israel's earthly kingdom was information God was keeping to himself. In other words, there was coming a restoration of earthly kingdom to Israel in the future, but the time and date was unknown to all but God. Ultimately, that kingdom will be governed in its covenantal relationship with God by the covenant of Messiah not of Moses, but there is most certainly still purpose in God for the continued existence of national Israel, despite their present unbelief.

After his resurrection and just prior to his ascension, in Jesus' mind there was still a kingdom to restore to Abraham's descendants in the promised land. In his mind there was still a place and purpose for national Israel. That they would have to relate to God in the same way as Gentiles in order to be right with God (i.e. faith in Christ) does nothing to mitigate the fact of God's continuing purpose for their existence. In his plans at that time there was still a place for the kingdom of the Jews.

That tells me that there still is.

Another Perspective on Romans 9: Part II

Election
Paul’s use of the concept of election in Romans 9 is not accurately related to individual salvation (i.e. that God picks individuals to be saved or damned). In verse 11, election is cast in a redemption history light (and as evident by vs 4-5). Paul was neither trying to establish a principal of individual salvation by election, nor establishing, contra-Calvin, that election unto salvation was corporate. He was merely trying to establish the fact that in order to fulfill his purposes (which were salvivic), God made choices among men.

God chose Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in that regard, and rejected Ishmael, Esau, and others. This choice had nothing whatsoever to do with establishing any pattern concerning personal salvation, nor was it made for personal merit.  These individuals (and their progeny after them) were chosen merely in regard to their role in bringing forth the ultimate promise--Christ. That progeny's counterintuitive rejection of Christ is the point Paul is exploring in Chapter 9.

In verse 16 we do discover something more akin to precedential regarding salvation—that God’s mercy was the determining issue, rather than any merit or lack of merit in his selectees. In the immediate context, this refers to his choices within redemption history, but in the broader context (see chapters 3, 4, 10 and 11), it does service the concept of salvation by grace. It seems that everything in redemption history and in redemption itself, rests in God’s mercy rather than the merits of man. As always, to God be all the glory.

In making these choices in time, which would ultimately result in the fulfilling of his purpose, v. 18 says that God shows favor to some folks and disfavor to others. Disfavor results in obstinacy (hardness) toward the purposes of God, although it is not clear that it causes such (especially in light of v. 30). Pharaoh is used as an example, and at least in his case, hardening was attributed to both God’s action and his. Regardless, the choosing of which is which is God’s alone, and he answers to no one for it, although I think it worth remembering at this point that these are not choices to personally save or damn, but to accomplish his purpose in making these choices.

That purpose is finally specified in vs. 23-24. God saw the end of making these choices prior to that end occurring, that end was his purpose: that Gentiles and Jews would be called together into his salvation in Christ. He endured with great patience those vessels hardened throughout history, because he saw the glory in the end for those vessels of mercy, even us, those Jews and Gentiles being saved in Christ. So God made choices in history, not to demonstrate his methodology in establishing who would go to heaven and who would go to hell, but in order to advance his purpose through history and to accomplish it in time.

Conclusion
Romans 9 is not speaking about election unto salvation at all, as if there could be an explanation of why God, solely by decree, would determine some to be saved and others to burn in hell forever. If anything, Romans 9 is trying to explain why the elect are not being saved--why Jews, despite their status as the chosen, are not embracing Christ. Neither corporate nor individual election unto salvation is in view at all! The conclusion of the explanation, in a nutshell, is that Jews do not accept God’s mercy by faith but try to establish their own meritorious record and end up missing the promised Messiah of the Jewish people.

Parts I, III

Another Perspective on Romans 9: Part I

Introduction
Romans 9 has to be the most controversial chapter in the entire Bible among believing Christians. Generally, the issue that causes all the sparks and gets all the attention is election; however, when I read the chapter, I don’t see election, as generally understood, as the intent or the focus of the chapter. All the hullaballoo about election is misplaced, in my mind, the result of misinterpretation. Romans 9 is merely the opening salvo in explaining why Jews were not being saved in the Apostle Paul’s day (chapters 10 and 11 continue the explanation), and the determining issue in that problem is stated to be faith, not election.

Overview

The initial subject of chapter 9 (vs. 1-5) is the disheartening rejection of Christ amongst the Jews, who were supposedly God’s chosen people (the elect). The chapter goes on to explain how the benefaction of God’s promises cannot be understood according to arbitrary qualifications (who your daddy is) or by human efforts (what one does to make himself meritorious). The conclusion (vs. 30-33) is that the promises can only be pursued through the auspices of faith, and not by dependence upon one’s status in a group over which they had no control, nor by personal merit (works).

Paul's Argument

Though it is true that the Jews were the recipients of the promises concerning salvation, they were, in Paul’s day, not beneficiates of those promises. The fault, Paul explains, does not lie in the promises (God’s word), but in Israel’s unbelief; and the puzzle of it lies in their misapprehension of God’s choice (election). An arbitrary membership in a class of people was not a sufficient way to understand or define those chosen to be God’s beneficiates. Abraham and Isaac were used to illustrate the point: though Ishmael (and others) were the offspring of Abraham, they were not the result of promise nor the beneficiates of promise; though Esau was Isaac’s son, he was not the recipient of promise either.

Furthermore, that choice was not predicated upon the determination or effort of man--it was purely and simply a matter of God’s mercy and not human merit. God’s mercy cannot be tethered to deserts in the recipients but is solely according to the pleasure of God, otherwise it would be reward rather than mercy. God has mercy on who he wills, as Paul ably illustrates by the examples of Esau and Pharaoh. The bracing repercussion is that we have nothing to say to God to defend our worthiness, nor detract from his judgment which excludes us from his beneficence.

Mercy is not merely arbitrary, however. Although mercy is not extended on the basis of worthiness (which would seem to make it arbitrary), it is received on the basis of faith (which seems to make it anything but arbitrary). If this was not the intended point of Paul's dissertation from verses 1 through 29, he would never have brought up the pursuit of righteousness starting with verse 30. The long and short of it is that God extends mercy to whomever he wishes regardless of works or geneology, but that ultimate, saving mercy can only be received through the auspices of faith.

The force of the argument in Romans 9 is that Jews who thought they had the privileged position of being chosen by God because of their heritage and their works, were in fact missing the ultimate promise of that election. It is not that they were not chosen or even chosen no longer, as chapters 10 and 11 make abundantly clear. Their loss (hardening) revolves completely around their unwillingness to respond to God's mercy with faith. Instead, they endeavored to establish their own record of worthiness by the law and thereby missed out on God's mercy in Christ.

Parts II, III

Must God Cast His Pearl Before Swine?

“Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."    Matthew 7:6 (NASB)

Does God know people? I mean know them, as in what truly motivates them, what their secret desires are, what is the likelihood they would do anything in a particular situation. I think he does, and does so with astonishing acumen (he is God after all). It is obvious he knows their histories, including every overt thing they have either said or did and every secret rumination of their hearts, but he also sees their entire life at once. I think it is beyond doubt that he would know how they would respond to efforts he would make to coax them, inspire them, persuade them, command them, or otherwise engage them.

If God is so thoroughly familiar with people as I've suggested, is he under any obligation to attempt to rescue those he knows would only rebuff his efforts? If Jesus has any thing to say on the subject, I think his answer would be a resounding "NO." Folks who would pay no never mind, are not guaranteed to get the opportunity. His instructions to his disciples above seem to bear out this principle.

If extra-biblical history yields any insight into the question, it too, I think, offers a resounding amen to the proposition. Vast swaths of human population have come and gone without ever hearing the Gospel. Of those that have, vast swaths ignore it outrightly or pay it nominal fealty at best. Hopefully, we all realize it is not the hearers of the Gospel that are saved, but those who believe it and follow Christ as a result. Given what we have seen with those who do hear the Gospel, there is nothing to suggest that even some of those folks that have not heard would have responded to Christ with faith had they heard.

Pointing out these kinds of things can cause folk who believe in the inclusivity of God's love and the universality of Christ's atonement (as I do) to be aghast. In my mind, some of these posit a sentimental notion of God's love that doesn't reflect the evidence of life in general nor the scriptures in particular. Just because God would rather see someone saved than lost, it cannot be inferred that he has an obligation to try to save that which cannot be saved. As for me, I think God knows what he's doing without my counsel or condemnation, and that everyone who would have been saved will have been saved when all is said and done.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that God has bound himself to giving each person, by some means, a personal opportunity to receive or reject Christ. If the result of people known to have actually had that opportunity produces, proportionally, so little fruit, how would the outcome of some extraordinary effort by God to reach them ex-gospel be significantly different? Without the Gospel they do as they want, oblivious and uncaring about God's desire. With the Gospel they do as they want, dismissive and uncaring about God's desire. Why think that there was some untapped potential among the unhearing masses that would have responded if it would have had the chance?

Who could fault God if he decided to bypass the rigamarole and cut to the chase? Could we trust him with that judgment? Rather than posit extra-biblical, feel-good notions about partial grace/partial revelation, or post-mortem grace, or universal enablement, or whatever (none of which have anything close to definitive statements in the scriptures to support them), why not say what we can say clearly and leave judgment in the hands of God? Rather than pretend to know how God graces or judges, leave it to God and say no more than he has said. Regardless, nothing justifies suggesting there is something other than the Gospel that saves.

As for me, I see no way in which God is obligated to cast his pearl before swine.

Who Did Jesus Die For?

As in almost anything that observers look upon, one observer can see a thing from a different angle or direction than can another. The two may describe a thing in terms virtually opposite of each other, and yet both be correct, and I would add, objective. Only a view that captures more angles, including those observers', would be more accurate. This is certainly true about our title question.

Calvinists assert that Jesus died only for those that were unconditionally selected to be saved. To say that there is even a hint of truth in such a perspective seems to fly in the face of the scriptures which universally assert that Christ died for everyone. Not everyone gets saved, however, which leads one to question in what way did he actually die for all when only some are benefited. Certainly, there is no doubt that he died for those who are benefited.

From one perspective, looking at efficacy, there is no argument--Jesus death was for some and not for others. From eternity looking back on time, such an assessment would seem to meet the facts as they will be: the repercussions of his death and resurrection will affect some, but not others. To look at that reality from that perspective and say Jesus died for the benefited is a spin that one could technically make and be accurate as far as it goes.

The problem with this view arises when the horizon on the subject is stretched to include intent. Since intent in this regard involves the counsels of God, humans can only know what God tells us about his intent. We cannot figure out the mind of God in this regard, nor infer what our reason tells us he must have been thinking. That is error prone when done between humans, it is idolatry when done concerning God.

God has spoken concerning his intent in offering Christ as the atoning sacrifice for humanity's sin, and has done so conclusively. Christ died as a bonafide sacrifice for all. Whosoever will may lay their sin stained hand upon the head of the scapegoat and tap into its benefits. That anyone who does so requires the intervention of God to do so does not mitigate or limit the expansive intent of the offer, anymore than does the outcome. Jesus is the savior of all men, but especially for those who believe and are benefited.

What Happens After We Die: Inclusivism II

We continue our talk on what happens after we die by delving further into the subject of inclusivism, which posits that people who do not know Christ directly or perfectly will be included in the salvation he has wrought.

Even the case of the immature and the infirm being included in salvation is anything but airtight. At best a hopeful biblical principle, rather than an explicit statement, can be derived for their salvation. As I see it, three possible grounds exist for inclusivism concerning the immature and infirm: (1) infants have nothing to repent of and so would be included in Christ's resurrection; (2) the immature and infirm are not able to apprehend creation's witness of God, are not truly able to meet the condition of salvation (faith in Christ), and so would be included in the provision of atonement which was made for everyone; and (3) the children of a believer are included in the the body of Christ unless they decide not to believe.

I do not see how infants could have anything of which to repent. Even though they are born into sin and death, separated from God, they have not sinned personally. They have not even had the opportunity to ignore God's witness in creation, so including them in judgment would seem a travesty of justice. It is a God-given principle that children are not made to pay for the sins of their fathers, so it would appear they must be safe.

We do have some disturbing precedents in scripture, however. I wonder, how many infants died in the Flood, or why infants and children were killed by the invading Israelites under the command of God? It seems evident to me that there are mysteries in understanding how God views the situation of children. I search in vain for that one clear, unequivocal passage of scripture that answers these questions.

To me, inclusivist doctrines purporting to understand what God will do in these instances reflect more what the author would like God to do than they report what God said he would actually do. Given Christ's universal atonement, I see the logic in formulating an exclusion to the condition of faith in Christ for those incapable to express such faith through disability. What I do not see is that clearly demonstrated by scripture.  

My Dispensationalesque Eschatology Defines Anti-semitism

In light of a discussion I had with a friend and a comment on an earlier post, it dawns on me that an exploration of what I consider devilish and anti-semitic due to my eschatological view could be helpful. In my "dispensationalesque" approach to eschatology, I have said that the primary characteristic of the Devil's Antichrist Scheme throughout history has been anti-semitism. Not that the Devil merely dislikes Jews, but that he cold-bloodedly works to dispossess them of Canaan or to destroy them as a people, or both at the same time.

It is my contention that either aspect betrays an influence from the Devil on the people who share such goals with him. For instance, Palestinians (whether Christian or Muslim) who seek to kick the Jews out of Canaan evidence a devilish influence whether they are aware of it or not. Similarly, anyone who tries to obliterate the Jews existence as a particular people, whether by assimilation into other cultures or by actual death, betrays a devilish influence as well. The law may have ceased being a measure of rightness with God for Jew or Gentile, but that doesn't mean that a Jew is not a Jew (or should cease considering himself one) because he accepts the righteousness of Christ by faith.

I think the reasons for the Devil's approach are obvious: to dispossess the Jews of the Promised Land or to destroy them as a particular people undercuts the Abrahamic Covenant and affords the Devil the opportunity to put forward his shill in the place of the Promised One. Ultimately, the Devil's aim is to raise up an Antichrist. To do this, the source for the real one has to be obfuscated or even obliterated. Even now, after the fact of Christ Jesus' incarnation, to pull the old switcheroo the Devil will still have to undercut foundation of Jesus, the Jewish Messiah.

Replacement Theology is not an option for dealing with the question of the Jews' status with God, in my mind, because such a belief does irreconcilable damage to Romans 11 and Daniel 9, not to mention the Abrahamic Covenant. Even though the church represents a fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham regarding the blessing to come to all peoples, the existence of the church has not displaced the specific promises of God to Abraham regarding his physical descendants through Isaac nor the land apportioned unto them in perpetuity. If anything, the church is added on to the reality of such blessing rather than replacing the beneficiaries of it.

So to be clear, it is not anti-semitic for one to question Israeli policy regarding the human rights of Palestinians (Gentiles), or even Messianic Jews, living under the governance of Israel. It is not anti-semitic to seek accommodation between Jew and Gentile living within the hegemony of the State of Israel. It is not anti-semitic to say Jews are not right with God by following the Tanach or by merely being Jewish. It is anti-semitic with a devilish flair to assert the Jews have no claim to Canaan, or that "Jewishness" has no point or purpose with God.

Latency, Interference, and Regeneration

God has designed mankind with certain capacities and abilities which have been retained despite the Fall, even though everything about us has been tainted from being born apart from God and controlled by self-will. We have a capacity to believe, even as sinners, though left to our own devices that capacity ignores God as he is and opts for gods of our own construction. I would call this circumstance, Latency. There is a capacity for faith built into the human being by God and it exists, even if imperfect and impotent, within every human being.

Left to our own devices, we would never bother with the true God. The ones we make up are much more manageable and a lot less scary. Some opt for the most dismal and foolish alternative in not bothering with gods at all. We would wander off to hell obliviously if something or someone didn't disrupt our journey. Without a catalyst acting upon our latent capacity for true faith in the true God, we would never cross the threshold of believing unto righteousness. What was not possible in ourselves becomes possible with the intervention of God. Let's call this disruption, Interference. This gracious interposition comes our way by the word of Christ and the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

If something did not conserve the impact of God's interference, which gave faith an opportunity to sprout, we would quickly devolve back to our former state, or worse, soon after experiencing it. We need a restructuring of our mind/body/spirit combo if we are to experience any lasting effect from God's interference. When faith is expressed in Christ due to the influence of God's interference, God reinspires the dead human spirit causing one to be born again. Let me call that infusion, Regeneration. Without that renewal, no human being is either fit or able to enter into God's kingdom.

From start to finish, the remaking of a lost sinner into a child of God is God's doing. Latency and interference giving rise to regeneration was his idea, and proceeds according to his design. That it is conditioned on faith in the sinner changes nothing, it is as God wants it to be.

It Is What It Is

If determinism is true, is there even such a thing as evil? By determinism I mean that as a consequence of God's sovereignty every jot and tittle of existence, animate and inanimate, seen and unseen has been willed by God to be as it is, as it unfolds. Freedom of action, choice or will would really be nothing more than an illusion under such an regimen, because all things would be determined by God to be and do as they are and do.

If everything is an expression of his will, then all is in his will and could be none other that what it is. The fatalistic expression, "it is what it is" would then actually be the profound explication of the most fundamental truth of existence rather than the lazy abandonment of someone who settles. If this is so, than any judgment loses it moral distinction, just in the way a pride of lions running off a mother wildebeest to separate her suckling so they can pounce and eat is not morally repugnant in the least. It is what it is, neither good nor evil. Evil only exists where choice exists.

Romans 9 is often seen as teaching determinism within the framework of Christianity. However, those verses merely demonstrate how God does in history what he needs to do with people in order to fulfill his purpose in in making those choices. Though that certainly is a deterministic thought, it is not speaking about determining an individual's eternal status with God by fiat or decree, nor of governing every thought and action of every human being alive.

It is speaking about the advent and effect of Jesus: the purpose in election was first, that Christ would come when he came, by whom he came and where he came; and second, that those who believe in Christ would be righteous. In fact, until the end of his discussion on the topic in Romans 11, Paul allows faith as the only operative issue in what determines righteousness or eternal status with God. Faith, as opposed to works, was the deciding factor.

God did do some picking in order to bring Christ into the world--so that Jesus could do what he did and that those who believed in him could be made righteous thereby. That is a far cry from jumping to the conclusion that God micromanages the expression of human choice and action and has determined by his choice alone who will have faith in Christ and who will not. Christianity cannot be made to service a philosophy which so blurs the distinction between what is good and evil, that it becomes meaningless: it is what it is.

The Christian Fundamental Yet Again

If you have followed my argumentation thus far, you may already see the necessary consequence of it for Christian practice. If salvation is founded upon an act already finished in history (as I've said the Word declares), what act after the fact can alter it? It's not like anyone can change what happened at Waterloo or Nagasaki (how would one even try?), so by extension the answer to my rhetorical question is none. What has to be done to achieve salvation has already been done, and nothing can add to or detract from it. All we can do is respond to it because of it.

Jesus rose from the dead: real body, real death, real resurrection. Take it as historical fact, believe it unconditionally without doubting. In Christ's act, our salvation (from sin, death and hell) was secured. How then do we respond to such a life changer? We can't ignore it without peril to our eternal soul. We can't redact it away and still be honest with ourselves. We can only acknowledge it, surrender ourselves to its inevitable conclusion, and admit to ourselves, to God, and to the world around us that it makes Jesus Lord. Lord of all, yes, but more particular, and perhaps more important, it makes Jesus Lord of me. If I believe in my heart, and confess with my mouth what my heart and mind knows, I will be saved.

I wish I could get my brothers and sisters off the spiritual roller coaster so many are on, where they feel saved when their devotion to God is cranking on all eight cylinders, but feel lost or in jeopardy if they've had a bad day or have fallen to some temptation. That is NOT faith in Christ and his resurrection, but faith in self. Though Communion has no "grace" in itself, it is meant to help us remember that by which we stand--not our own works, but a work by Christ finished in time. We must make up our minds once and for all about what it is we depend on and what secures us in the ark of safety. Everyone who will ever be saved will be saved for the exact same reason: Jesus died and rose from the dead so they acknowledged him as Master!

Enough said, at least for a while!  ;-)

The Christian Fundamental Again

At this point, a few words should be written about the meaning of words. Some approaches to scripture often end up divorcing words from their natural meanings in context, thus "spiritualizing" or even negating what was intended to be communicated. It is extremely important that we don't allow such to cloud our perceptions of the biblical accounts of the resurrection (Matt 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-14; Luke 24:1-43; John 20:1-20).

The Bible reported that event like a newspaper reports a mugging: the authors attempted to state facts concerning an observed event in an accurately descriptive way. We need to hear their account as they intended to convey it, for only then can a choice be made to believe or disbelieve it. With that in mind, let's look at some of what was reported.

Jesus Died
One had to have been in live flesh in order to experience death. That which is ethereal doesn't die-- it may vanish in a wisp, but it doesn't die. Death leaves a corpse, which is made of the same molecules which before had been animated. Jesus, by dying, was proved to have been in real, living flesh. To deny that Jesus came in real flesh, and experienced real death, is to embrace the lies of the Devil and his antichrist.

Death Is Death
The biblical accounts do not report that Jesus swooned or only appeared to die, they say he died, expired, dead as a door nail. Some may try to discredit the poor ignorant bumpkins of that day and say they only thought he was dead, but that has it's own problems. First, the Romans were anything but bumpkins; second, the Jews made sure the event was explained as body snatching, not slinking away; and third, how could a crucified, beaten, blood-deprived man gain the strength necessary, unaided in the dark, to pick himself up, roll away the stone, and walk outside to face a brave new day? That would be a miracle more incredulous than the resurrection itself.

Jesus Rose From the Dead
I have to wonder sometimes if supposed Christians see Christ in heaven the way they see poor old Aunt Gladys in heaven: spirit with God, body in the dust. That is not resurrection, that is death! Jesus is not dead (spirit in heaven, body in, well, who knows?), but alive bodily in heaven, something like Enoch or Elijah. The real body that was dead as a door nail is alive forevermore, victorious over sin and death. As he is, so all those who believe will be.

The obvious tenor of the scripture is that the Apostles were absolutely certain they did not see a ghost, but Jesus alive and well after dying. We need to be just as certain through faith. Once so, our response should be a foregone conclusion, and then in the day of salvation we'll be just like him.


And I have just a little more to say...

The Christian Fundamental Too

The author of Hebrews points to a quality of faith that in my opinion actually makes it functional: certainty. Faith is not reducible to a probabalistic scale nor does it arise in those who have nothing to lose. Faith is a conviction tangible enough to base proceeding on though proceeding could cost one his or her life. Paul calls such faith "belief in the heart" in the passage we've been looking at. Salvation requires it in those being saved.

I've said Christianity is based not on doctrine, but on an historical event. You weren't there, neither was I; nonetheless, in order to be saved we must be as certain that the event occured as if we had been there. As much as it would have been cool to be there, we miss no blessing coming along much later and believing despite not seeing. Let it be noted however, believing is not hoping. It's being drop dead certain. If one is not certain that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, he or she cannot be saved, is not a Christian, and is still under the burden of sin.

Jesus doesn't stand at the threshold of his clubhouse and quiz potential members before they're allowed in the door, "Do you ascribe to the Sermon on the Mount?" "Do you accept the trinity?" "Do you acknowledge apocryphal and/or pseudepigraphal writings as canon?" He doesn't even ask if you've been good this year! That is not really the proper conception of what being the gate of the sheepfold is.

Yet, through the ages, that does seem to be the approach the church has taken. Is it any wonder the centrality of the resurrection has gotten lost in the shuffle? No one was ever saved by catechism, by theology, nor even baptism for that matter. Those that are saved, are saved because Jesus rose from the dead and they respond to that fact in an appropriate manner.


There is more to be said...