The Narrowness of the Kingdom Way (Part 1): The Marks of a Non-Disciple
Matthew 7:13-20
- As he is winding down the sermon, why do you think Jesus shares what he does in this text at this point in the discourse?
- When you think about the “kingdom way” being narrow, what things come to mind? What makes it narrow?
- What is the difference between a false teacher and someone who has wrong doctrine? Another way to ask this question is: Assuming that you have some false doctrinal beliefs, why are you not a false teacher?
- Read 2 Peter 2:1-22. How are false teachers described by Peter? What types of things do they do? Do you notice any parallels to any contemporary individuals or groups that we should be aware of and steer clear of?
- Read Jeremiah 23:15-18. What are these false prophets guilty of? Are there any modern day parallels that you can think of?
- Four ways of recognizing false teaching were mentioned. Is there anything that you would add to these? Why is it important to interpret the Bible in the context of community? Have you ever had your interpretation or understanding corrected because you checked it with the community? Tell about it.
- Why is it important to have a hierarchy of theology? What doctrines do you think would be on the top level? What are some lower level theological issues that we lift up higher than we ought?
- Pray for protection for our church, your family and your own spiritual life from false teachers. Pray for specific people to choose the “narrow” way.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Let Your Theology Lead You
I sense the need to briefly remind those of us who believe in the sovereign care of a good, kind and righteous God to not lose sight of our theology as we labor both in and out of the public square. I have engaged lately in ideological issues that matter in the public square. We should not shrink from this, but we must carry our theology with us into the fray. A lot of what I am hearing these days stems more from fear and anxiety than from concern measured by a healthy confidence that the earth remains the footstool of the Great King. At least 297 times in the Bible God is referred to as “Sovereign Lord”. I think we should take notice especially when this idea is emphasized to such a degree in the text of Scripture. Our Father is the Lord of the markets, Lord of the Senate, Lord of the House, Lord of the White House and the Lord of our nation and any other for that matter. The acknowledgment or lack thereof on the part of others does not diminish His sovereign reign, it only diminishes the blessing and relationship those nations may benefit from.
Chicken Little was not a Christian and Christians need not be Chicken Littles. If the sky falls it will not fall apart from God’s will (Mt. 10:29). And if it falls we should not be among those who let the sky, the market or any other falling objects dictate their joy. A true believer acts as if God’s sovereignty is true. Right now many believers are acting as if the world, government and money are arbitrary, they are not. We are not left to the whims of anyone but to the conscientious care of Christ, “the author of our life”, “the bishop of our souls”. Instead of wringing your hands today, raise them in praise of his might and mercy, stimulate the economy by drinking a good latte, lift your leaders in prayer and rest in Jesus care for you.
Remembering Dr. Harold Hoehner
While working on my Master of Theology degree from Dallas Seminary I had the prvilege of sitting at the knee of Dr. Harold Hoehner. Dr. Hoehner and I had come from the same area of the country and had some contacts from the past in common. He went to be with the Lord yesterday after going out for a run. He was 74. At different points he held the chair of the New Testament department at Dallas and headed the PhD program. I took Exegesis of Romans from him. It was a rigorous Greek class on the book of Romans and was made all the more so because he was teaching it. He was a first rate scholar and an effective teacher. He will long be remembered for his extensive commentary on Ephesians which is truly one of the best and most extensive scholarly works on this little book in the history of the church. It took him something like 13 years to complete. In addition to his commentary much of his academic legacy is bound up in the amazing New Testament faculty he helped amass at Dallas. Under his watch that department became one of, if not the, premier New Testament department in the country.
Beyond his academic accomplishments, Dr. Hoehner was a joyous and kind man whose irenic spirit was a welcome compliment to his educational prowess. While I was in seminary a chapel was held in his honor and much of it was devoted to roasting him. His son-in-law and I were friends and classmates and I was asked to play Dr. Hoehner in a multi-scene skit poking fun at him. We had a blast and he thoroughly enjoyed it. I was able to reconnect with him briefly at the Evangelical Theological Society meeting in Providence back in Novermber, and it was delightful. Undoubtedly the Lord is honored by a life so lived with the kingdom in view. Dr. Hoehner leaves a legacy of faithful scholarship and dedicated equipping, as well children who are serving Christ in Russia and Afghanistan. I praise God that I could learn from his scholarship and be blessed by his heart. Bask in eternal rest Dr. Hoehner.
Limited Atonement
In an effort to continue on in a much interrupted attempt to describe the five points of Calvinism and share my views I offer the following on point number three.
Limited Atonement teaches that Christ’s death was only for the elect since only their salvation is secured by it. Therefore since its efficacy is limited its scope must necessarily be. It is argued that often “all” does not mean “all” in texts dealing with the provision of Christ’s death in the sense that He died for everyone. Rather it is said that He died for “all” of the elect. Some who hold to limited atonement prefer the nomenclature of “particular redemption” instead because of the stigma of the phrase “limited atonement.” So I will be referring to those holding to limited atonement as “particular redemptionists” through the rest of this entry. I personally do not hold to this point of Calvinism. I know several wonderful believers who do and have great respect for many of them. Yet I am convinced that this doctrine is flawed at its very core and that it finds insufferable exegetical problems. It is often held to largely on the merits of its logical force and coherence with the other four points rather than its actual exegetical, explanatory power. There is no question that there are texts that speak of Christ’s death for the elect or for the church or for the “many” (Rom. 5:15). Yet the presence of these texts do not in anyway mitigate against the presence of texts that broaden the scope of Christ’s death. The Bible has both types of passages in it and both need to be dealt with honestly, contextually and exegetically. There is a sort of noble theological eisegesis that often happens in biblical interpretation in the name of good theology. Such an approach makes the text a pawn in the polemic of the adherent to particular presuppositions. I readily understand that we cannot come to the text without presuppositions. However, it is a different thing to have the answer already in hand before we have heard the text speak from its context and so be driven to verify our presuppositions and precommitments rather than let them be informed or reformed by the text. I am not implying that only particular redemptionists are guilty of this. I have found and probably will find areas in my own theology where this has been or will be the case. Yet I do not see the issue of the atonement as one of those areas. In fact there is a certain logical tension many four point Calvinists feel because the weight of the biblical text seems to leave them without the tight coherence that most five point Calvinists cherish. However I personally find no weakness in the logical force of four point Calvinism.
Let’s look at this issue of the extent of the atonement under the guise of three considerations: history, theology and exegesis.
History
Was John Calvin a five point Calvinist? The answer is definitive: No. I am not convinced he was a four point Calvinist either, but it is indisputable to the reader of Calvin that he did not unilaterally subscribe to the particular redemptionist position. It would seem that he made statements in his writings that support both the limited and unlimited perspectives. As a result a follower of his from the early 17th century, Moise Amyraut struggled with the concept of “limited atonement.” He challenged the thought by postulating the presence in the biblical text of both a universal and a particular redemption. The universal aspect dealt with the scope of the atonement and the particular aspect dealt with the application or efficacy of the atonement.
The Birth of Particular Redemptionism. The particular redemptionist position found its historical codification at the Synod of Dort. In point 2 Article III of the Canons of Dort we read “This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.” So the concept of “sufficient for all” is rooted in the document. In Article VIII the Canons of Dort reference the effectiveness of the saving work of Jesus on the cross and the sovereign role of God in rendering effective the work of Christ in those He has chosen for salvation. This is of course true. Immediately following each of the articles under each major point is a section dealing with the Dort’s “rejection of errors”. Under the same major point dealing with Christ’s atoning work is the rejection of error VI. Here the document rejects those “who make use of the distinction between obtaining and applying in order to instill in the unwary and inexperienced the opinion that God, as far as he is concerned, wished to bestow equally upon all people the benefits which are gained by Christ’s death.” Here Dort seems to miss the direction of contemporary four point Calvinism. The distinction between the obtaining and applying of atonement is not used by four point Calvinists as a way of smuggling the benefits of Christ to all. Rather it is a way of genuinely articulating two facets of atonement that help explain the language of the text. So what Dort does not do adequately enough is deal with the viable distinction between obtaining and applying for those who do not wish “to bestow equally upon all people the benefits which are gained by Christ’s death.” No four point Calvinist I know is trying to be a universalist in particularist garb as Dort seems to imply. It may well have spoken to a theological error in its own day unique to its historical setting but that error cannot be said to be analogous to four point Calvinism as it is articulated today. So the slogan “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect” is inadequate to accurately explain the distinction between those who hold to an unlimited atonement and those who hold to a limited view since both could subscribe to the slogan but remain less than satisfied at how the other deals with the text.
Theology
In five point Calvinism it is thought that the logical force of election coupled with a grace that is not ultimately resisted leads to the conclusion that Christ’s atonement must be limited because the aforementioned points necessarily constrain the scope the atonement. The thought is objection is often thrown out to four point Calvinists from their five point friends that if Jesus in some real sense died for everyone then some of his atoning work would be wasted. After all it would not be applied to non-elect people and thus be for naught. This however gives no credence to one of the historic motifs of the atonement. While we must understand Jesus as our substitute it is also true that Jesus secured victory over sin, death and the Devil. It is also true that he died as the ultimate example of love. While this “exemplar” view, which finds its roots in the medieval Abelard, is insufficient as the operating motif of the atonement it nonetheless is a true aspect of the atonement. Therefore from the unlimited atonement perspective Jesus death shows the breadth of the love of God. His love extends to all. He loves his enemies, just as Jesus called us to do in the Sermon on the Mount. He loves them even though they will reject Him and go into eternity blaspheming and cursing His name.
So there is no logical dissonance in four point Calvinism. It actually coheres with the nature of God in a more cogent way, in my opinion, than the five point position. Here we see God as one who loves all and elects some, obtains atonement for all but applies it only to those whom He effectually calls. The logical force argument ends up ironically being a logical farce.
Exegesis
What we have seen is that history and theology do not adequately solve anything regarding this issue. The real problem for the particular redemptionist is the text of Scripture itself. Almost all appeals to a five point Calvinistic system rest on the “logical force” argument mentioned above. However its textual basis is specious. At the outset I mentioned that the text speaks of Jesus dying for an elect group or for the many or for the church. Yet it also speaks of him dying for those outside of the many or the church. This is a problem for the particular redemptionist. If it can be shown that Jesus has in some way died for those outside of the elect then particular redemptionism collapses. Consider the texts below:
1 Jn. 2:2 – He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
The language seems as though it could not be clearer. Jesus died not only for those to whom John is writing but also for the whole world. I am not sure how he could state unlimited atonement in a more clear fashion. The typical rebuttal by the particular redemptionist is that John’s addressees were Jews and the “whole world” should be read as a way of saying “Jesus died not only for Jewish believers but also for believers from all different ethnicities (the whole world). This is strained eisegesis and does not at all make sense of the background setting for 1 John. My former professor and New Testament scholar Daniel Wallace writes well concerning the addressees of 1 John: “The audience was almost certainly made up mainly of Gentiles. Not only is this seen in the kind of heresy which is fought (antinomian, docetic-neither of which was found among Jewish Christian sects), but the epistle ends with the warning, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols” (5.21), an admonition which has great relevance for Gentile Christians, almost none for Jewish Christians.” In short this text simply teaches that Jesus death was for all. This does not mean that there is no place for the limited efficacy taught by other passages but those passages do not nullify or erase the force of this text wither. The two must be coalesced theologically but we cannot slight what the text clearly says.
1 Tim. 4:10 (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.
I have yet to read a sensible and adequate treatment of this from the particular redemptionist perspective that does not attempt such hermeneutical gymnastics that one could well strain or snap an exegetical tendon. This verse posits Jesus as the “Savior of all men” and then segments a group out of “all men” by the adverb “especially” (malista) and refers to that group as “those who believe.” So if He is the Savior of all and in a unique way regarding “those who believe” then there must be those left who do not believe of whom He is still said to be the Savior. “Those who believe” come out of “all” leaving “some” of whom Jesus is said to be Savior.
It makes the most sense to read the text in the plainest manner. The reason for the “hope” that the previous verse (vs. 9) speaks of is the uniqueness of Christ’s efficacious atonement for “those who believe.” Certainly the text is reassuring to the believer of Christ’s unique love and atoning work for the elect. However to ignore what the text says about the non-elect is simply to not deal adequately with the content of vs. 10. Attempts to explain “Savior” as somehow a reference to common grace or are I think cases of special pleading. In the same way attempts make the reference to Christ as the Savior of all men non soteriological and then to apply a soteriological sense to “those who believe” is so eisegetical that it does not even merit comment. In yet another vein, attempts to render malista as “that is” rather than “especially” goes against the major translations taking a very odd view. One can quickly see that attempts are made on behalf of a precommitment to a five point system to do away with the clear sense of the verse. But as we have already seen the logical force of four point Calvinism stands shoulder to shoulder with that of five point Calvinism so we are in a position to let exegesis win the day rather than enslavement to a system.
Other texts could be mentioned such as Jn. 1:29; 3:16; 4:42; Rom. 5:6-8; 1 Tim. 2:3-6. Of particular interest along with the above texts is 2 Peter 2:1. I will not go into each of these as I have gone on long enough suffice it to say that while some are disputed the two mentioned at length and the 2 Pt. 2: 1 reference make a strong case for rejecting the particular redemptionist view.
So given the weight of textual evidence, the fact that a coherent and consistent theology of four point Calvinism can be argued and that Reformation and Post-reformation historical theology gives us no convincing consensus view we are obligated to go the way of the text and embrace unlimited atonement.
The Glories of the Gospel in Gran Torino
We live in a culture that often seems to have little appreciation for deep thought. Cultural media forms such as music, television, books and movies often are filled with trivial dribble that excises little mental effort in keeping pace with its shallow themes and frivolous content. Our world feels more like a carnival littered with distractions than a serious and contemplative enterprise at understanding reality. However, every once in a while something glistens among the rabble.
Last night I went to see Gran Torino directed by Clint Eastwood. It has been a while since I have been so moved by a film and so staggered by its message. In many ways I hope it is Eastwood’s swan song. The man whose forceful presence filled many a western with his maverick sense of above-the-law justice should ride off into the sunset leaving us with this gripping picture of the Redeemer who rights all injustices and turns our perversion into His praise. Certainly sin and sacrifice are not popular themes that people flock to see on the big screen. No where was this more evident than the theater I watched this film in. The overwhelming sentiment by those who sat through the film was one of disappointment and frustration. They wanted to see Eastwood do what Eastwood does, namely, take vengeance into his own hands. But what Gran Torino gives us isn’t what we expect. It is pure, unadulterated Gospel. It may be one of the clearest portraits of the work of Christ that I have ever seen in film.
Those who watched it in my theater were indicative of a culture that missed the deep truths that were staring them right in the face from the front of the room. We read in 2 Corinthians 4:4, “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” Glimpses of that glory were on the silver screen last night, but very few had the lenses to see.
It should be noted that the film does have quite a bit of language, many, many racial epithets and one brief glimpse over a man’s shoulder as he looks at an inappropriate magazine. So you should go in with your eyes open (or maybe closed). But I will tell you now you will leave with your heart stirred and your mind fixated on the Gospel. So I recommend it with the mentioned caveats, but the truth is it may be one of the most meaningful pictures you will have seen in years. After you watch it, go home and read 2 Corinthians 5:21, bow your head and thank your Father for the glories of the Gospel.
And Now That You Have Voted…
And now that you have voted the real work of being the kind of person that God wants you to be in response to what He causes or allows begins. So whether your candidate won or not is irrelevant to being a Christian in this “one nation under God”. Instead what is relevant is your worldview. See, you carried your worldview into the voting booth and you carried it out. You will now carry it into your conversations and your e-mail “forwardings” and your personal celebrations or lamentations. This does not mean you do not reserve the right to disagree with the ideas of our new President-elect. No, you have the right and responsibility in our society to disagree if and when the biblical worldview is infringed upon. However you must do so in a way that doesn’t violate other vital components of that same worldview. It is important that we understand that the same worldview that abhors abortion and euthanasia and the mistreatment of the poor also abhors the dishonoring of government authorities. If we really hate the things that God hates and love the things that God loves then we will give place in our worldview to all that the Bible teaches.
It is no secret that this has been a great challenge to the church. Under Bill Clinton’s presidency it was not uncommon to find Christians sending around e-mails and sharing jokes that were crass and dishonoring. I am not sure how that fit with 1 Peter 2:13-17 which says,
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.
I take that back, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t fit. The tendency for all of us is to use our tongues or our typing fingers as tools to disparage and dishonor those we disagree with. As I already said we can voice disagreement and we should, but as we do we should keep our disparaging comments focused largely on ideas and not on people. Ideas are not people and people are not ideas, one we deal with vigorously and are not called to respect, the other we have a biblical mandate to honor and respect. If these are not held in proper perspective we can be passionately following God all the way into dishonoring Him.
We have the responsibility to submit and honor. Such is not our nature and God knows it better than we do. Yet Paul in the shadow of a much more oppressive Roman authority writes:
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
So now that you have voted be a Christian and keep your biblical worldview. Don’t hold a biblical worldview only when it is expedient. There is a place in the biblical worldview for ideological disagreement and even civil disobedience but never for personal dishonor.
A View of Your Voting Worldview
The need for a hierarchy of issues when going to the voting booth is obvious since there is no candidate whose worldview matches completely the biblical worldview that the Scripture calls each Christian to possess. But we measure worldviews in degrees not merely in “right” and “wrong”. Some are more right than others and some are more wrong than others. Elections serve, much like relationships, our jobs, paying our taxes, caring for our bodies and a host of other issues in life, as both outlets for and glimpses into our worldview. We see our worldview in how we vote not because one candidate is evil and the other good or because one has all the right principles and the other none of the right principles but because we are making a judgment call. Worldviews are best seen through judgment calls because there we see the public ordering of our private values and passions.
I think all believers should be able to agree that not every issue is of equal worth. With this as a given how might we define what issues take precedence over other issues? What factors should guide one in such a subjective process as an election. First let’s say clearly what serves as poor criteria for establishing a hierarchy of issues upon which to evaluate the platforms and policies of particular candidates.
1. Cultural Pragmatics – What the culture identifies as the primary needs of society cannot serve as a healthy barometer for what that society actually needs. The needs of our culture must be identified through a different lens than our contemporary cultural worldview. How flawed it would be to attempt to take an ill culture’s assessment of the solution to their plight without bringing an external standard or perspective to bear upon it to demonstrate its viability or inability to solve the present problems. We would not take a mental ill person’s prognosis and recommendations for their own wellness without seeking some external vantage points.
2. Personal Well-being – We all have such varied lifestyles for a variety of reasons. Some are small business owners. Some are single parents. Some are wealthy. Some are poor. Some have many children. Some have few. Some have chosen moral lives. Some have chosen immorality. I think you get the point. We have chosen different lives or been handed different lives from God and as a result we might vote a particular way if we were the only person in the world. However, we are not the only person and are instructed very clearly in the Bible to live with a vital sense of otherness. (Php. 2:3-4) So a vote with primarily personal interests in view is flawed.
3. The Mistakes of the Past – Most agree that there have been mistakes in the past in the administration of various facets of government rule. Whether these were errors in judgment, willful deception, honest mistakes or flawed views of government and society is not relevant. Many regret some things and some regret many things, but we are where we are in today’s America. The question in an election is not how do we steer furthest from the past, but how do we most honor Jesus’ worldview given the present situation. Reactionary voting, whether it be to past presidents or to past congresses, is not a wise, sound approach. Christians are famous…I mean infamous for reactionary tactics that swing us all the way to the other side of the spectrum, leaving us equidistant from the biblical view as we were at the beginning. A reaction to the mistakes of the past is a poor means of moving forward.
A Look at the Issues
Second, let’s consider some important issues that play into this present election from a biblical perspective.
The Bible seems to place particular value on those who are incapable of defending themselves. Those who are left in society to either suffer or be cared for on the principles of others. This shows up in Jesus language about children in Matthew 18:1-11, in James description of what constitutes pure religion and in the Jerusalem church’s paramount request of Paul in Gal. 2:10, to care for the poor. Within this category we should be mindful that everyone who falls in these categories is not in equal need or equally defenseless. For example there are ample injunctions to care for the poor (Pr. 14:31; 17:5; 19:17; 21:13; 28:27) and we must take those seriously and give them an important place in our worldview. At the same time we must also account for the fact that some, but certainly not all or maybe even most, of the situations of the poor are a result of personal moral failings and rebellion against God (Pr. 10:7; Eccl. 10:18). This has to be taken into account because it changes how we might minister to those individuals while never absolving us of the responsibility to minister to them. So while they hold a high place in the hierarchy of societal needs as a group they cannot be held higher than those who are uniformly vulnerable and incapable of defending themselves or providing for themselves such as orphans or the unborn. These are those who are truly defenseless and without a voice of there own. Consider Pr. 31:8, “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.” So the posture of people in these categories and their contribution or non-contribution to their respective plights play key roles in both how we relate to them and the place issues involving their protection should take in our hierarchy of issues.
A second issue is the unwarranted killing of those who can defend themselves. Such is the case when we discuss war, both just and unjust war. Surely an unjust war is an atrocity and even a just war produces heavy sacrifice and personal anguish. In a biblical worldview we recognize that there are some things worth giving one’s life for. In Jesus’ worldview it was the well-being of his friends (Jn. 15:13). The just killing of another is a worldview question all its own but thankfully we are not without Scriptural texts in this regard. Just consider Gen. 9:6 and Rom. 13:3,4. Now unjust war is, as I mentioned an atrocity. As we weigh the idea of just and unjust war in our worldviews we must be sure however, that we do not declare a war unjust because tragically some unjust things were perpetrated in its name. We do not declare a marriage bad even though some bad things may happen in that particular marriage.
A third issue is our stewardship of God given resources. We are called to be stewards of creation (Gen. 1:26-28). We are called to be stewards of our money. It is interesting that the biblical encouragements regarding the use of money are largely either philanthropic in nature (Ps. 15:1,5; Mt. 6:2-3) or given in an effort to lessen our allegiance to it (1 Tim. 6:10; 2 Tim. 3:2) and trust in it (Pr. 18:10-11; Eccl. 7:12).
A fourth issue is the need for morality in general. Immorality is repeatedly condemned in the Bible and found to be repulsive to a holy God (1 Cor. 6:9; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:3; Jude 1:4). The disintegration of societal morality is a pertinent issue and must be fought for in the market place of ideas as the church is called to “hate what is evil” and “cling to what is good.” (Rom. 12:9). We can learn from God’s instructions to Israel through the prophet Amos, “Hate evil, love good, maintain justice in the courts.” (Am. 5:15).
Fifth are issues dealing with civil society. These issues are more pragmatic and certainly have very personal ramifications. For example issues of immigration have very important consequences to our national security and our way of life. They invoke challenges regarding the implementation of wisdom, freedom, personal responsibility and honoring the image of God. Most often these issues do not deal with identifying a problem (such as issues of abortion, war, homosexual marriage, etc…) but how to handle present challenges that are almost universally recognized.
Some issues certainly overlap in these various categories. What to do with energy situation, aspects of diplomacy, healthcare, education and others all have impact on our finances, our civil situation and national security, and our ability to go to war or not go to war. Some also have moral implications as well (health care for the disenfranchised, tax payments going to support abortion, etc…)
A Proposed Hierarchy
At this point, having mentioned some flawed approaches to electing political leaders and surveying some general categories of issues, I will propose a hierarchy that I think reflects the biblical worldview and should serve as a template through which thoughtful Christians approach such civil responsibilities as voting. I have put this together predicated upon a logical and I think theological presupposition, namely: There is a greater moral and spiritual burden to defend the well-being of the defenseless than those who are capable or at least have some opportunity to defend their own well-being. Even below the well being of others who can defend themselves and care for themselves at some level is the importance of my own well being. Therefore as you will see primacy of place goes to those who are incapable of caring for or defending themselves, next comes the care for others in general who at least have the human power for some self-care or self-defense, and finally is our concern for our own well-being whether it be fiscal or civil. The biblical text seems to exemplify this. Consider some references on God’s passion for defending the defenseless or caring for those who cannot care for themselves adequately: Dt. 10:18; Ps. 72:4; Isa. 1:17, 23. In addition consider his exhortations to look to the needs of others, even those who may not be defenseless or unable to care for themselves as expressed in the thirty-five “one another’s” that form the basis of godly relationships. The Bible assumes that we love and care for ourselves but uses that as an analogy or a sort of a fortiori argument for the value of caring for another (cf. Eph. 5:28-29). So I think the hierarchy of the needy and defenseless gives direction to our moral obligation as we live, serve, pray and vote.
Having established the guiding principle of this hierarchy, here it is. (The delineation below is given in the following order: Level one issues should be given greater weight, level two less weight than level one yet more than level three and so on.)
Level one issues are abortion, euthanasia and the treatment of the mentally handicapped. They represent those who are defenseless and deal with life and death matters. This is the voters opportunity to speak for those without a voice.
Level two issues that deal with moral failings that are reprehensible in God’s eyes and cause society to fragment into a culture that brings greater displeasure from God upon it. On this same level I would place how people deal with the poor and marginalized who have a small voice in society and who all too often reap the consequences of a fallen world’s propensity for greed and personal prosperity at the expense of others. It seems to me that the biblical evidence shows this to be a moral issue as well.
Level three issues regard national posturing in going to war and diplomatic issues that produce a benefit for some and a suffering for others. While just and unjust war is an important issue, the moral questions are complex. No one should advocate unwarranted hostility toward those who can defend themselves. But neither should we see this on the same plane as those who are utterly incapable of defending themselves and who are part of nations reciprocating aggression. No aggression comes from the nursing home patient facing premature death from euthanasia.
Level four issues are those impacting civil society and issues dealing with our pocketbooks. I realize that such issues play significant roles in national security, future prosperity and even the prolonged viability of our country. These issues, while important, are not as important issues of morality in regard to the defenseless, the marginalized, the immoral degrading of culture and the moral implications of war.
Certainly there are individual issues that have not been mentioned. But the point here is not to speak to every situation but to demonstrate how these issues play out in the framework of our worldview and particularly this election. So who should you vote for? As a believer it is your responsibility to carefully think through the issues laid out above and assess how your approach to voting reflects the biblical worldview. You may struggle with whether or not the hierarchy I have presented is biblical. I would encourage you to think carefully in biblical, theological and philosophical terms. We do not want to be a people who vote according to one of the three poor approaches mentioned earlier.
Moving forward, remember to vote according to a biblical worldview, pray and trust a sovereign God and submit to your governing authorities in honor of the One who ultimately places them there.
Unconditional Election
This subject certainly tends to be vitriolic. But I think sometimes this is needlessly so. We tend to struggle with anything that we feel comes up against human freedom. At first glance this seems to be opposed to it, but I think there are some healthy possible models of understanding how human freedom and unconditional election work together. First I need to define “election” and then what is meant by unconditional election.
Election of course means “choice”. It is the doctrine that God chooses a people for himself. The question and point of debate within Christianity concerns how he does this not that he does this. The texts teaching that he does this are prevalent throughout Scripture, and the vocabulary and language of God’s sovereign choice are explicit. Consider a few of the references to this in the Bible:
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit– fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. John 15:16
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things– and the things that are not– to nullify the things that are, 1 Corinthians 1:27-28
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will–Ephesians 1:4-5
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, Ephesians 1:11
Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Colossians 3:12
For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, 1 Thessalonians 1:4
But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. 2 Thessalonians 2:13
Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? James 2:5
who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance. 1 Peter 1:2
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 1 Peter 2:9
The elder, To the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in the truth– and not I only, but also all who know the truth– 2 John 1:1
They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings– and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.” Revelation 17:14
So if God chooses a people for himself, how does He do it? The Calvinist position teaches that he chooses as a sovereign initiator to work in the lives of certain people and draw them to Himself. Since He is in control of all things He moves circumstances, events, the actions of others, our own desires etc… to draw us to himself. In fact we ultimately believe because He is the one who gives us the gift of faith according to Ephesians 2:8. We genuinely believe but it is because He has drawn us and given us the gift of faith to trust Him for our new life. So salvation is said to be wholly a work of God.
Of course this a description of the spiritual reality that is taking place. I do not necessarily consciously realize that the Lord is drawing me to Himself and producing faith in me but as a loving Sovereign He is doing just that, whether I realize it or not.
What Unconditional Election is Not
- He has not chosen in response to what He knew I would do. That reduces the biblical language of “choice” down to mere confirmation. He would then merely be confirming me in the faith that I conjured up. If this were the case it would seem useless to make such pervasive mention of God’s choosing a people for Himself. He would actually just be giving His approval to my faith. This view is called “conditional election”.
- He has not simply chosen to create a category or group called the “church”. Those who hold this view see these texts about His “choice” referring to His desire to have a people set apart for Himself, which is true enough, but it doesn’t do justice to the personal nature of some of the language and the fact that I am given the ability to trust Him by Him. This view is called “corporate election”.
An important text in the whole discussion of the doctrine of election is Romans 9. Paul talks about God’s sovereign unconditional choice of people to salvation. He writes in a mock dialogue anticipating their objections to what he is saying. It certainly would be odd to read Paul’s mock dialogue in a manner that wasn’t speaking to the possible objections that individuals themselves may have. In other words He is talking about individual salvation not just looking at a group who are the church but how God works with individuals in making them part of the church.
Let me give you a picture of how unconditional election and total depravity work together. Since all of humanity is by nature an object of wrath (Eph. 2:3). They are destined for destruction. They are sinners by birth and by choice. In other words, all of humanity, to quote those great theologians of Rock-n-Roll AC/DC, is headed on a “highway to hell”. But God in His mercy pulls some off of this highway through election. So election is a grace not some arbitrary pick-em. It is not like choosing sides for kickball on the school playground, as we sometimes view it. If total depravity is right, and it is, then election is the only merciful choice that God could have without completely annihilating everyone’s freedom by establishing universalism (the idea that everyone goes to heaven).
Finally let me note that this is a hard pill to swallow because we tend to view it as arbitrary rather than a grace. But if we understand it in light of total depravity it can be nothing but loving grace and mercy. We do not know who the “elect” are. Only God knows. He chooses to use us to take the Gospel to people who might be stirred by Him to receive eternal life or they may maintain their own rejection of Him, who knows. Our job is to be used by Him as a means of taking the message of grace to another. When we talk about the doctrine of election we are talking about a spiritual reality that happens, but we are not privy to its happening until we see the fruits of it in a soul transformed by the work of God. Its teaching in Scripture is intended to assure us that God is working in and through us. We gratefully are not left to our own devices. It is intended to free us from the burden of results and remind us that we are called to be faithful witnesses but the results are His.
One final objection/question I want to anticipate and answer ahead of time is this: some might say, “Well if God chooses why do I need to share my faith at all, after all won’t they be come to Him anyway.” The answer is: “No they won’t, not in the world God has chosen to create.” What I mean is this. He chose to enact a world where person “A” is chosen to receive eternal life and comes to trust in Him. But as a sovereign God He chose that it would happen in this same world by means of person “B” sharing their faith with person “A”. So the end is not merely chosen by God but the means are as well. He moves circumstances and woos us as free creatures with His omnipotent influence to get us where He wants us to go in sharing our faith with people and the ends always meet just where He designed them in His infinite wisdom.
Comments on Calvinism and Total Depravity
I am finally getting around to responding to Sarah’s question about Calvinism. This will not be typical but with having a baby and all I apologize for my lack of promptness. So I will summarize each of the five points, certainly with my own position being evident. A couple of preliminary observations:
1. The five points of Calvinism are easily remembered through the mnemonic TULIP. Although people have attempted to re-title some of these in an effort at clarity there is no reason not to use the historic labels since they accurately convey the central ideas of each point. This is not to say, however, that no explanation is needed.
2. The five points of Calvinism reflect the Synod of Dort’s (Nov. 1618-May 1619) conclusions in response to five articles put out by the Remonstrants. The Remonstrants were followers of Jacobus Arminius who got their name from a document or “Remonstrance” that they, as followers of Arminius, issued in 1610. This was after Arminius’ death in 1609. So what has become known as the five points of Calvinism were a formalized, Dortian response to Arminius’ followers. Incidentally Arminius was actually a trained Calvinist under Theodore Beza who was asked to refute a Dutch theologian named Dirck Koornert and his objections to Calvinism. In preparation for the refutation Arminius came to agree with Koornert.
3. Since the five points are articulations from Dort it creates a misperception to uniformly link them with John Calvin. It is true that Calvin clearly articulated four of the five points. It is not accurate to say that he clearly subscribed to what later became known as “limited atonement”. Throughout his voluminous Institutes one can find limited and unlimited statements regarding the atonement. Theologians look in vain to Calvin for clear justification for “limited atonement.”
So I will take them in their common order. First a summary of Total Depravity
Total depravity can also be titled, as one helpful article does, “Human Helplessness”. Total depravity is the teaching that as humans we are innately sinful and cannot respond in and of ourselves to the light of Christ. We must be enlightened and empowered because our sin renders us impotent to choose eternal good independent of Divine aid. You will notice I use the term “eternal good” rather than “moral good.” Total depravity does not teach that humans are as bad as they could be or are incapable of acting in socially or morally appropriate ways. Instead, it is a predication about their nature that has deep spiritual implications.
The Bible teaches the truth of total depravity in several texts and also conveys it in the underlying tone of other passages as well. Rom. 5:12 teaches that death came to all men because through the sin of one man (Adam) all sinned. The Greek indicates that all sinned in some point in past time. In other words, in some sense I sinned in Adam. Some take a seminal view that teaches that I was in Adam as my ancestor (the same way Levi was in the body of his ancestor Abraham (Heb. 7:9-10). Another view takes a representative approach that we sinned in the sense that Adam functioned as our representative head of the human race. In any event the text clearly teaches that I sinned when Adam sinned.
Following Adam’s sin we see the progression of a sinful humanity spiraling toward the flood generation where Moses could record of man that “every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.” (Gen. 6:5)
While repenting of his sin with Bathsheba, David says in Ps. 51:5, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” In addition, the prophet Jeremiah declared, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” (Jer.17:9) They are clearly saying something about the nature of the human situation from the get go, from birth.A final passage I will mention is Eph. 2:3. Here Paul is contrasting what we were without Christ to what we are with Him. This of course sets up that great passage that gives us the nature of salvation, Eph. 2:8-9. It is important to note that the gift of God is set against the backdrop of the depravity of man. If man is not totally depraved can it really be a gift? Wouldn’t it then be at best a joint effort, where I do my part and God does his? But this is not what Paul says and not at all the sense of what he is trying to convey. In 2:3 we read, “All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.” Notice we are by our very nature objects of wrath. This is informing us of our condition independent of our actions. Another way of saying this is to say that we are totally depraved. We are utterly helpless to change our spiritual condition.A final and important note. While humanity is totally depraved, moral and societal goodness can come from depraved creatures since we are all made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-28; 9:6; cf. Ps. 8:4-5). As Tim Keller has noted, “The Biblical doctrine of the universal image of God, therefore, leads Christians to expect nonbelievers will be better than any of their mistaken beliefs could make them. The Biblical doctrine of universal sinfulness also leads Christians to expect believers will be worse in practice than their orthodox beliefs should make them.” Universal sinfulness or total depravity keeps humans from knowing God without the veil being lifted by Divine grace. The universal image of God allows humans to act in moral and socially beneficial ways without having yet partaken of saving grace.
Questions to get us rolling
I thought a great way to get things started on this blog would be to deal with any questions you might have or issues you might want addressed. As people at Lifeline Community what are biblical, theological, philosophical or spiritual life questions that you have. I am confident that we all can benefit from interacting about some of these and maybe we can gain insight and clarity on issues that have seemed cloudy to us for a while. Give it some thought and submit a question or an issue that you want addressed. You can just post in response to this entry.
Photo Stream
