Launching the SOTERIOLOGY 101 podcast

PODCAST

This week I finally got around to launching the new podcast concerning the Doctrine of Salvation. As an adjunct Professor of Theology at DBU I needed to create a platform to connect with students since I am not able to be on campus. Online courses are very convenient but professors have to go the extra mile to provide for dialogue, interaction, and connection on these types of complex subjects. A podcast is a great way to do that!

We address question such as... Is Calvinism Correct?  How about Arminianism? Or is the answer

found somewhere in between?  You are all welcome to sit in on our online theology classroom, Soteriology 101, as we unpack the doctrines of God's Amazing Grace.  

In the first episode, I introduce the subject of Soteriology and its significance and then I tell a little of my own story about becoming a staunch five point Calvinist while in College and Seminary only later to leave Calvinism after being influenced by authors such as AW Tozer and CS Lewis.  I unpack the biblical, logical, and theological reasons for leaving behind a soteriological system I very much loved.  While I still have a HUGE respect for Calvinistic scholars such as John Piper, John MacArthur, RC Sproul and others who helped to shape me in my formative years, I've come to seriously question their interpretive methods of the scripture on this particular subject.  I agree with 90% of what they teach and appreciate the needed emphasis on the Glory of God and the call back to in depth theological study. 

In the second episode, I discuss the distinction between depravity and the Calvinistic concept of "Total Inability."  It is one thing to teach lost mankind cannot save himself, its another to suggest he can't even respond to God's appeal to be saved.

Does responding to God's appeal to be reconciled EARN or MERIT your salvation?  Did the Prodigal son merit the reception of his father on the basis that he chose to return home for help?  Does asking someone for forgiveness merit being forgiven?

Calvinists have equated the choice to respond to God's gospel appeal with a meritorious work that somehow earns salvation.  This idea is not supported biblically.  A meritorious work of the law is man’s effort to earn his own righteousness, while repentance is admitting you cannot earn it and need help.  God, because He is gracious (and for that reason alone), chooses to impute Christ’s righteousness to whosoever repents in faith.  Repentance merits nothing. 

In short, I believe Calvinists have mistakenly presumed that man’s inability to attain righteousness by law through works supports their premise that man is equally unable to attain righteousness by grace through faith in the imputed righteousness of Christ.

In the third episode, I answer some accusations about Pelagianism, the belief that man is not born tainted by original sin and is able to earn salvation by good works.  I also explain why I don't like the term "Prevenient Grace," since it seems redundant to make up a new theological word when the biblical word “gospel” is more than sufficient. We then dive into to some texts which speak of God's desire to see all come to repentance (2 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9, Ez. 18:30-32).  We briefly address a few more anticipated Calvinistic rebuttals.

I answer the accusation that we hold too high a view of man.  Which is worse?  The man who rebels who was born hated by God and unable to do otherwise, or the man who rebels who is born loved by God and provided all that he needed?  Clearly, the latter is far worse than the former, thus Calvinists actually hold to a “higher” view of man than we do.

In the fourth episode, we discuss the most referenced Calvinistic proof texts used to support the concept of Total Inability. 

Romans 8:6-8: Calvinists use passages talking about the law of righteousness (i.e. no one can be righteous by the law) and apply it to Righteousness by faith (i.e. no one can have faith because that would make them righteous according to the law). It doesn't follow. Proving that men are born unable to become righteous by law is NOT proof that men are born unable to become righteous by faith.

1 Corinthians 2:14: Paul is addressing carnal believers in 1 Cor. 2 and 3.  These believers were so fleshly they were unable to accept the "deep things of God" (vs 10). He is not addressing the inability of the unsaved to believe the gospel truth when it's discerned for us by someone being inspired by the Spirit, as Paul himself is doing while writing this letter to this carnal church.

Ability is implied in the appeal to repent. Ability is implied in the expectation to believe.  Ability is implied in the fact that we're punished for not believing or repenting. Thus, it's incumbent upon Calvinists to show this implied ability is not present.  And before someone points to man's inability to obey the law, keep in mind that we aren't held to account for our inability to obey the law, were held to account for our unbelief.  Lawbreakers are in both heaven and hell, the difference is UNBELIEF. Plus, the law wasn't given for the purpose for us to be able to fully obey it. It was given for the purpose of revealing the very truth that Calvinists believe we can't see, hear or really understand.  The law is the tutor sent to help us see our need for a savior (something Calvinists teach cannot happen unless one is first born again, thus man has to be reborn before he can even learn the lesson the law was sent to teach regarding our need for savior. We have to essentially be saved in order to even recognize our need for the savior? Really?)   Suggesting that our inability to fully obey the law somehow proves we are equally unable to admit we can't obey the law is unfounded.

Beyond the implications of the scriptures, I provide several passages that explicitly indicate our natural abilities to see, hear, understand and repent:

Acts 28:24-28: Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. 25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet: 26 " 'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' 28 "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!" 

This passage, which is quoted from the OT several times in the NT, explains that the Jews hearts had GROWN calloused. THEY WEREN'T BORN CALLOUSED. It also clearly explains their abilities had they not become hardened. "OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT SEE." He even goes on to contrast the Gentiles who "WILL LISTEN."

So, not only do Calvinists need to deal with the implications of the passages such as John 3:16 that calls whosoever to come/believe, but they must deal with the explicit passages such as this that clearly reveal man's ability from birth to see, hear, understand and turn to God for healing.

New episodes are come out regularly...  CLICK HERE to subscribe to the Podcast 

Post Public Messages on FACEBOOK or TWITTER
Or you can send me a personal message by CLICKING HERE

"For God so loved God that he sent his son..."

Several years ago I was riding in the car with a friend when the Michael W. Smith song, "Above All," came on the radio.  Smitty sang with his typical rasp the well known lyrics, "Like a rose, trampled on the ground, You thought of me, Above All."

My friend let out an annoyed grunt prompting me to ask, "What's wrong?"

"That song is just so theologically inept," my John Piper loving friend exclaimed in disgust.

"How so?" I naively inquired.

"He thought of me, above all?  Really, Leighton? You think Jesus thought of us above all?  He thought of Himself!  He thought of HIS OWN GLORY," he passionately proclaimed like only a fellow preacher could.  "God does what he does for his own glory, not for us. It is all about Him and His glory. That song was probably written by Joel Osteen or something!"

"What do you really think about it," I quipped?  About that time we arrived at our destination (a very good mexican restaurant) and the topic quickly changed to chips and salsa...also created for God's glory, no doubt!

Since then I have thought about that conversation every time I hear those emotionally charged lyrics of the Smitster on KLTY.  And I get the point my friend was making.  I've read the book Desiring God by John Piper and I know the reasoning behind such comments, but do I agree?  Did God really think of Himself above all?  Was it really about God getting all the glory and man getting none of it?

Sometimes I wonder if in our desire to express a truth about God we tend toward overstating a point to the neglect of another valid point.  In other words, does this have to be an 'either/or' premise?  Could it be that God's glory is best made known through his sharing of glory with those He chose to create in His own image?  Is His Glory diminished in any way by giving us some of it?  After all, Jesus himself said, "I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one." (John 17:22)

This appears to be a 'both/and' principle.  God is BOTH loving us above all AND being glorified above all.  In fact, one might say he humbled himself so as to be exalted.  We are being crowned with glory (Ps. 8:5), but we in turn lay our crowns at His feet.  There is not a contradiction here.  Not when we accept the upside down reality of God's Kingdom, where the last really are the first and those putting others above themselves are the ones ultimately exalted above the rest.

I get as disgusted with the doctrinal illiteracy of our modern society as the next self-righteous blogger, but we must be careful not the ride the pendulum to the other extreme by downplaying the biblical teachings of God's incarnational humility and genuine love lavished on the world.  Those expressions do not in any way diminish His glory, in fact they demonstrate it.  Moreover, these expressions of divine humility and love teach us the narrow path that leads to our own exaltation (1 Peter 5:6; James 4:10; Matt. 23:12).

Words of Wisdom from A.W. Tozer

I love AW Tozer's writings.  I believe his views (like mine) changed over his ministry, but one thing I really respect about him his is clear love for God.  It is infectious.  He is one of the few 'non-Calvinistic' writers who put as much emphasis on God's attributes as Calvinists do (as did many of the non-calvinistic scholars of old).

He may have issues with the soteriological conclusions of Calvinism, but he doesn't fall into the soft peddling, people pleasing, feel good, ear tickling non-sense either.    Tozer is a good example of a balanced, scholarly, pastor who clearly loved God and had a gift to communicate it.

Here is a quote from a biography of Tozer that still brings conviction and challenge:

I was preparing to go to Nyack College. Before I left there was one burning question I had in mind, and I went to Dr. Tozer and said, "Could you give me some advice concerning the problem of Calvinism versus Arminianism?" 

And I'll never forget the advice he gave me. At the time I thought it was rather inconclusive and not too helpful. But I listened carefully. He said, "My son, when you get to college you're going to find that all of the boys will be gathered in a room discussing and arguing over Arminianism and Calvinism night after night after night. I'll tell you what to do, Cliff. Go to your room and meet God. At the end of four years you'll be way down the line and they'll still be where they started, because greater minds than yours have wrestled with this problem and have not come up with satisfactory conclusions. Instead, learn to know God."   - Cliff Westergren

Now, I'm going to pray...

Defining Sovereignty

"God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, 'What doest thou?' Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so." - A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God
Some seem to believe that for God to be considered "Sovereign" then men cannot have a free or autonomous will.  But this view presumes that God, the infinite and omnipotent one, is somehow incapable of maintaining control over free creatures; thus this view, while attempting to defend those very attributes of God, seem to actually undermine them.

Should sovereignty be interpreted and understood as the necessity of God to 'play both sides of the chess board' in order to ensure His victory?  Or should it be understood as God's infinite and mysterious ways of accomplishing His purposes and ensuring His victory in, through and despite the free and evil choices of creation?  Must God be in equal control over the choices of those who oppose Him in order to accomplish victory?  Or is God so powerful, wise, intelligent, all-knowing and infinite that He is able to overcome, work through, and in despite of free evil choices to accomplish the ultimate good?

I'm not pretending that we can really understand His infinite ways or the means by which He accomplishes all things in conjunction with man's will.  We cannot really even understand our own ways.  But, I'm saying that the revelation of God's holiness, His unwillingness to even tempt men to sin, His absolute perfect nature and separateness from sin, certainly appears to suggest that our finite, linear, logical constructs should not be used to contain or define him.

For example, some argue such things as, "If God knew what would happen in this world prior creating the world, but chose to create it anyway, then God must have determined everything to be as it is."  While the logic of this sounds plausible, we must recognize the limitations inherent within such finite observations.  The argument imposes a linear way of thinking, and a cause/effect construct upon an infinite Being, who is not bound by time, space, cause and effects.  His ways are higher than our ways and so we cannot presume that his knowledge of future events is somehow equal to what our knowledge of future events might be if we had a crystal ball and could somehow look through the linear corridors of time.  But He is not stuck on a linear timeline, looking into the past or the future.   He is the infinite great "I AM," which suggest that His knowledge is less like our set knowledge of past events (or future ones if we had a crystal ball) and more like our knowledge of present reality.  We know what is happening right NOW because we exist in the NOW.  God eternally exists in the eternal NOW, which is beyond our comprehension for sure, but should we (indeed CAN WE) draw hard and fast conclusions about such infinite realities?   Should we conclude that God determines the evils of this world with the same "sovereignty" that determined the redemption by which those evils are reconciled?  Is God determining to merely correct his own determinations?

Much more could be said, but in short we must refrain from bringing unbiblical conclusions based upon our finite perceptions to our understanding of God's nature.  We must accept the revelation of scripture. He is Holy.  He does not take pleasure in sin.  He genuinely desires all men, every individual, to come to Him and be saved.  No man will stand before the father and be able to give the excuse, "I was born unloved by my creator.  I was born unchosen and without the hope of salvation.  I was born unable to see, hear or understand God's revelation of Himself."  No, they will stand without excuse, because God loved them, called them to salvation, revealed himself to them and provided the means by which their sins would be atoned.  No man has any excuse.

Total Depravity and the Doctrine of Judicial Hardening

How does the Biblical doctrine of Hardening relate to the Calvinistic teachings of Total Depravity?

According to scripture only those in a hardened state are unable to see, hear, understand and believe (Acts 28:26-28: John 12:39-40). And this is not a condition from birth, but a condition one grows into after much rebellion.  However, it appears that Calvinism’s doctrine of Total Depravity teaches that everyone is essentially born in this condition due to the Fall of Man.  John Piper, a highly regarded Calvinistic pastor, explains it this way:

"...we were incapable of any life with God. Our hearts were like a stone toward God. Our hearts were blind and incapable of seeing the glory of God in Christ. We were totally unable to reform ourselves."  -John Piper

So, this begs the question: Is all mankind born unable to see (blind/hardened) or do we 'become hardened,' as the Jews did after a time of rebelling against God's revelation?

Now, I believe the doctrine of Original Sin can clearly be seen in the scripture, but the Calvinistic teaching of Total Depravity appears to take this foundational truth one step further by suggesting that God decreed that all mankind (as a result of the Fall) would be born unable to see, hear, understand and thus willingly respond to the gospel appeal.  In essence, Calvinism's view of Total Depravity suggests that all mankind is born Judicially Hardened...unable to willingly respond.  Yet God, according to Calvinism, still holds men responsible for that response.  How can it be?  The Calvinist isn't saying that mankind is merely held responsible for sin (or the Fall), but responsible for his RESPONSE to the gospel appeal.  How does this view measure up to the biblical view of justice as it relates to judicial hardening?

The Biblical doctrines of Judicial Hardening, which is not to be confused with "self-hardening," are both explained in detail below:

1. Self-Hardening of the heart goes beyond the tragic obtuseness of our inherited condition in the Fall of man. Working on the fertile soul of our innately immoral hearts, the act of sinning hardens the heart into a stubborn rebellion against all that is good. So, people may harden their own hearts, in sinful rebellion, in bitterness, or in sheer self-will. (Ex. 9:34-35; 2 Chron. 36:13; Zech. 7:12; Dan. 5:20; Eph. 4:18; Heb. 3:12-15)

This type of self-hardening is most clearly seen in Zech. 7:11-13: 

"Your ancestors would not listen to this message. They turned stubbornly away and put their fingers in their ears to keep from hearing. They made their hearts as hard as stone, so they could not hear the law or the messages that the LORD Almighty had sent them by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. That is why the LORD Almighty was so angry with them. ‘Since they refused to listen when I called to them, I would not listen when they called to me,’ says the LORD Almighty.”

2. Judicial Hardening -- In a few instances such as Pharaoh and the Egyptians (Ex. 7:3; 9:12), Sihon, king of Heshbon (Deut. 2:30), and the Hivites living in Gibeon (John 11:19-20), it is said that God hardened their hearts. Apparently these people were so irremediable in their rebellion against God that God entered into the hardening process so that he could accomplish his purposes in spite of, and yet in and through, that hardenness. It is God's prerogative, as God, to do this (Rom. 9:18-21). That they are morally responsible for their condition is a theological given, and we are warned not to harden our hearts as they did, a command that would make no sense if hardening were simply God's act (1 Sam. 6:6).

Israel's hardening as a nation was an act of self-hardening followed by God’s act of judicial hardening as clearly portrayed in the scripture (Matt. 23:37; Rom. 10-11). 

God tells Isaiah that Israel, with its calloused heart, will reject him as God's messenger when he goes to them (Isa. 6:9-10). The event was taken as prophetic by Jesus (Matt. 13:14-15) and Paul (Acts 28:25-27) as referring to Israel's rejection of Jesus as God's Messiah. For Paul, Israel's hardening paved the way to a ministry of ingrafting the Gentiles (Rom. 10-11; Acts 28:28) and was not intended by God to be final, but only until the fullness of the Gentile’s ingrafting was accomplished.

Only the Word of God has the power to pierce a hardened heart (Heb. 4:12) and he has given that word through his Son, the Apostles, the scriptures and by his Spirit; all of which can be resisted and ignored (as seen throughout the Bible) and the hardenness and callousness of the heart only grows thicker with each act of rebellion.

More later....

What is Divine Sovereignty?

Some seem to think they are defending the Lord's sovereignty by insisting that men don't have a "free will." But really, when you think about it, which is more impressive with regard to how we understand divine sovereignty:

God decreeing/ordaining all things, including the sinful choices of man, before they occur so as to accomplish His purpose.

OR

God accomplishing his ultimate purposes in, through and despite all men's sinful choices.

I think the latter is much more impressive and a much greater display of His Sovereign abilities. Plus, you don't have to deal with the whole culpability of God issues and the tedious explanations of 2nd causes...  

What is a "Sovereign God" waiting on?

Why does the Bible talk about God's patience and long-suffering in regard to salvation?  If indeed, God is the one who "effectually calls" his elect to be saved, isn't He just waiting on Himself to do the work?

How do you reconcile that with His being patient and longsuffering with mankind? If salvation is truly "all of God" what exactly is he waiting on?

Patience, in our language as well as in the original, denotes a willingness on God's part to withhold his wrath in order to wait on something. What is that something?

Let's look at some scripture related to this question:

2Pe 3:9 -The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 

Rom. 10:21 -But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people." 

Mt 23:37 - "O Jerusalem! Jerusalem that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing! 

Each of these verse express God patience and desire for men to do something. What is that?  To repent, right?

Now, if God is the sole cause of repentance in men through the effectual work of regeneration, then He is not waiting on anything outside of Himself, is He?  If not, why does he express Himself as being patient with man?  Any thoughts?

NOTE: I put the term "Sovereign God" in quotes because scholars from the various views might define the term "sovereign"differently, but here I'm asking about how the more Calvinistic approach to Sovereignty aligns with God's expressions of patience and long-suffering.

Philosophical Ponderings about Calvinism, Compatibilism and Free Will

There is no shortage of speculation as to the nature of man in relation to the sovereignty of God, so I figure it won't hurt to throw out my two cents worth.  

For the sake of brevity, I want to focus this post specifically on my ever growing doubts about the philosophical speculation call "Compatibilism" (a view most often held to by Calvinistic believers).  This view claims that one can affirm free will (as they define it) and divine determinism.  

Compatibilists (Calvinists) attempt to maintain that men are free in the since that they are "doing what they desire."  However, this appears to be an insufficient explaination to maintain any sense of true freedom considering that compatibilists also affirm that even the desires and thoughts of men are decreed by God.

This is an important circularity in the claim by Calvinists that humans can be considered genuinely free so long as their actions are in accordance with their desires. Given the long held Calvinistic belief that all events and actions are decreed by God, then human desire (the very thing that compatibilists claim allows human choices to be considered free) must itself also be decreed. But if so, then there is nothing outside of or beyond God's decree on which human freedom might be based. 

Put differently, there is no such thing as what the human really wants to do in a given situation, considered somehow apart from God's desire in the matter (i.e., God's desire as to what the human agent will desire). In the compatibilist scheme, human desire is wholly derived from and wholly bound to the divine desire. God's decree encompasses everything, even the desires that underlie human choices.

This is a critical point, because it undercuts the plausibility of the compatibilist's argument that desire can be considered the basis for human freedom. When you define freedom in terms of 'doing what one wants to do', it initially appears plausible only because it subtly evokes a sense of independence or ownership on the part of the human agent for his choices.  
But once we recognize (as we must within the larger deterministic framework encompassing compatibilism) that those very desires of the agent are equally part of the environment that God causally determines, then the line between environment and agent becomes blurred if not completely lost. The human agent no longer can be seen as owning his own choices, for the desires determining those choices are in no significant sense independent of God's decree. 

For this reason, I feel human desire within the compatibilist framework forms an insufficient basis on which to establish the autonomy of human freedom (and from this the legitimacy of human culpability for sin).