Q: Pastor, what would you say to believers that during this pandemic feel that their civil liberties are more important than other’s safety?—Anon

Hi, Anon! I really appreciate the question, but it’s not an easy one for me to answer and I’m not alone. As I began to pray about your question and meditate on a few passages of Scripture, I also sent your inquiry to a few pastoral friends. Many of their texts came back with the words: “Hmmm.”

Why does this question make me go “Hmmmm”? First, I don’t think this is an either/or situation: either you care about people’s safety or you care about civil liberties. I am greatly concerned at the deleterious polarization in our nation. May we as Christians beware of the many  false dichotomies placarded on Tweets and cable news channels:

• Either you care about people or you care about the economy (but at some point the economy is people—at some point lives are livelihood);
• Either you care about the right to free assembly or you care about people over 60 (but in the long run, don’t civil liberties guarantee the safety of all us, regardless of age?);
• Either you care about saving as many lives as possible or you’re inconsistent in your pro-life ethic (but can a person with a cradle to grave commitment to life disagree over the means of saving lives?).

See what I mean?

But there’s another reason why this is a thing that makes you go “Hmmm.” The question is not a “straight line” issue. I’m gleaning this language from Jonathan Leeman’s book How the Nations Rage. With a “straight line issue” it is easy for us to go from “core biblical principles to political policy applications.” Is it okay to murder someone over 2 ply toilet paper in the Walmart aisle? No! What about 3 ply? No Christian need wrestle with this question because murder is always wrong. But to me, the question isn’t a straight line issue—it’s more of a jagged-line, because it is not easy to define what is the most loving in the long term:

• When will the increased powers of the Fed and State end? (Government doesn’t like to give back power that it has acquired, just think Patriot Act);
• Do the actual numbers of deaths justify the increased powers and restrictions? Can we trust the numbers?
• Should we base our decisions solely on medical criteria? What other criteria must we take in?

A “jagged-line” issue is one in which it isn’t easy to draw a straight line from Biblical principle to application. For example, God tells us that government is His servant to bring about human flourishing and we should listen to it (Rom. 13), but what will we do if our Federal and State governments are in conflict about going back to work and back to free assembly? Which one will we submit to?

I see the issue of civil liberties and safety from Covid-19 as a “jagged-line issue” that is going to require us to love like crazy and think long and hard. Am I over-complicating this? I don’t think so.

In the short-term, social distancing is loving. This is why most Evangelical churches have moved to on-line services. We need to do everything we can to mitigate the spread of this pandemic, especially in the African-American community where higher rates of poverty combined with underlying medical conditions make this pandemic especially fatal. But in the long term, the shuttering of our economy and social distancing will result in alarmingly high rates of domestic violence and suicide. The longer this goes, the less it feels like love. In the long run, the civil liberties granted to us by God and guaranteed by our government, like freedom of assembly and free speech, keep our society safe and make it easier for us to worship God and tell people about Jesus. Imagine what it will mean for churches that gather in countries without these rights when church gatherings are labeled “transmitters” of this or future viruses. The church has and can thrive without these freedoms, but if they are ours to steward, should we so easily part with them?

Here’s what I think I know:

• As Christ Followers, we are citizens of God’s Kingdom before we are citizens of the U.S. and of all the people’s on the earth the most free.;
• God calls us to use our freedom to love like crazy:

“For you were called to be free, brothers; only don’t use this freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but serve one another through love. For the entire law is fulfilled in the one statement: Love your neighbor as you love yourself. But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another” (Gal. 5:13-15);

• If in the short-term, loving my neighbor means using my freedom to temporarily set aside my right to free assembly in order to mitigate the spread of Covid-19, then I will social distance and limit my contact with certain people. BUT if, in the coming days, it can be shown that our government does not intend to restore these liberties (liberties granted by God, not government), then love will compel us to peacefully resist.

Things that make you go Hmmm are not easy to answer and require great wisdom and love. I will wrap this question up with a quote from my mentor, “If you want to go deeper, I gave up all my rights to follow Christ and I have never been more free!”

If you’re reading this for the first time, you have entered into a long and heartfelt conversation between two Christians about Calvinism. My brother Ken strongly believes that the theology of Calvinism is a deceptive ploy by the Evil One, taking away every desire to trust God. Satan is whispering or whistling the TULIP tune and at one point in the discussion Ken refers to the doctrines of grace as DOG theology. Ouch! The gloves come off as we enter in part three of Is Calvinism Biblical?

_________________________________________________________________________
Adam,

Please allow me repeat back what I have learned so far and correct me if I miss anything based on the following scenario of Travis, my son.

It is very possible that Travis is not one of God’s saved, elect, chosen. In this case:

• Travis has not been chosen by God before the foundation of the world to be saved from God’s wrath.
• This is because Travis loves darkness, which causes him to sin, which leads to physical death.
• Travis deserves God’s just and eternal punishment for his sin.
• Travis has heard the Scripture based Gospel message and even tasted the goodness of God, but because God has not determined to save him, Travis will not respond to this good news.
• This is because Travis is already spiritually dead, so he has no desire for the eternal spiritual life which is freely offered by God through the salvific sacrifice of Jesus the Messiah.
• Travis’s spiritual death leaves him completely depraved and Travis can only act as a slave to sin, which is in a way that satisfies his own selfish desires and is in opposition to God.
• Saving Travis is completely up to God.
• God does not choose to save Travis from this spiritual condition, even though He wants to do so, because it is God’s sovereign right to decide for God’s own reasons.
• While God’s reasons for not choosing Travis are currently unknown, His reasons are valid and can be explained either with enough study here on Earth, or it is antinomy, which could only be clearly understood from God’s perspective.
• Either way, God will display His Justice, Power, and Authority by judging Travis for sin that Travis freely chooses.
• Through His death, Jesus is the Savior of the world and Travis, but in a different way than he died for His chosen children.
• Christ’s death on the cross was for the whole world including Travis, but is just not effective for Travis.
• This is because Travis is NOT one of God’s lost sheep that can hear His voice.
• God has shown Travis mercy, but in a different way than He shows His own children.
  Travis is truly loved by God, but not in the same way as He loves His chosen people.How did I do?
  ____________________________________________________________________________________

Dear Brother,

I have spent a day reflecting on this and re-reading your articulation of my view. I think that you have understood me well and like you, this is not a mere academic exercise. Real lives hang in the balance. I suppose that two things have me uneasy about simply responding with “Yes, you have understood me.” First, although real lives hang in the balance, there is no way that any of us can tell if a person is unelect and so abandon hope. You wrote, “It is very possible that Travis is not one of God’s saved, elect, chosen…” I have not found any place in Scripture that encourages us to take such a view. Today is the day of salvation. We probably both know men and women who have shunned God for a good deal of their lives only to receive Christ in their last years. Secondly, it leaves God as something of a by-stander when He could have intervened to save. Here is where I must confess great mystery and simply embrace the tension, not because I understand it, but because Scripture teaches that God has met every condition and that people are responsible for rejecting Him. Interestingly, in the same section of Scripture where I believe that Paul argues for individual election (Romans 9), he also teaches that anyone who calls on the Lord will be saved and defends God against accusations that He has failed Israel. Yes, in the mystery of God’s move to save the Gentiles, Israel has failed to respond to the gospel, but God has met every condition, so they are without excuse. He has sent Gospel preachers so that they could hear the Good News (Romans10:14-17). See what I mean?

Since we have stepped out of Systematic Theology and into Heart Theology, allow me to open my heart a little wider. Like you, I am a father who has “great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ” for the sake of my daughter. I taught Ariana the gospel since she was a child and upon her profession of faith, baptized her with my own hands. The greatest blow of my life came when she told me that she was not a Christian. For nine long and grief-stricken years Renal and I have prayed the longest, unanswered prayer of our lives. As of today, she is still a prodigal and we are still waiting for her to come to her senses (or, in keeping with our discussion, waiting for God to grant her repentance). The Scriptures speak of it in both ways.

Renal and I have swung from deep despair and back to hope again. I have wrestled mightily with God. I did my best to raise her in the way that she should go and when I spent long hours away from my family to care for God’s flock, I entrusted their care to the Almighty. When Ana told me that she was not a Christian, I felt like God had betrayed my trust. Did I not leave them in His care while I tended His flock? Moreover, does Jesus not say that He will do whatever we ask in His name? Great sorrows have made a home in my heart.

From one father to another, were it left to feelings alone, I should be a universalist, clinging to that wider-hope that Jesus’ death is not only sufficient for all, but would be graciously applied to all, even to those who reject Him, so that love would win in the end. My heart says, “Let the only display of justice be the cross!”, but the Scriptures say something different. The feelings of a father must bend the knee to the teaching of Scripture and the heart of a father must cling to a small, child-like faith that God is all-good and all-wise in all that He does. I believe in a hell, not because I want to, but because the Bible teaches it. I also believe that people who go to hell choose it. C.S. Lewis was quite right when he said that “hell is the greatest monument to human-freedom.” Should my daughter persist in her rebellion, God will ratify her decision upon her last breath and it will be her eternal destiny. But who, Arminian or Calvinist, can live with such a thought? In truth, God has not revealed to us who the elect are. I take the timeless counsel of Moses who said that the “hidden things belong to God and the things revealed belong to us…that we may follow all the words of His law.” It keeps Renal and I on our knees, asking God to do what He has said that He longs to do.

As I said, we have swung from despair to hope. Here’s is what I believe and would commend to you:

• If God has graciously chosen to have mercy upon my Ana, she will not be able to out-run the hounds of heaven;
• God will say, “This far and no further!” to her rebellion;
• God will open her heart to respond to the gospel and she will be justified, sanctified and glorified;
  Jesus will keep her until her last breath and not a head of her hair will perish; and
• Because I do not know if God has chosen her to display His mercy or decided to leave her to her own sin to display His justice, we keep praying and keep talking to her about Jesus (and will do so until we breathe our last).

I believe in what I have written in these emails, because it is what Scripture teaches, and I cling to it trusting that God is all-good and all-wise in all that He does, even if I can’t get my head around it. May God have mercy on our prodigals and keep us from despair!

Your Brother in Christ,

Adam
____________________________________________________________________________________

Adam,

I am so sorry for the delay.  Life has been busy.  I am working on my next email, but just have not had time to finish.  I did not want you to think I dropped the conversation.

Also, if what you taught is true, then the possibility of Travis not being chosen by God would simply be a fact.  I am not saying we should give up hope or anything like that or that you implied such things!

Ken
_________________________________________________________________________

Brother Ken,

Thanks for the reply. I have really enjoyed our conversations and I think that we share the same passion to see our loved one’s find eternal life in Christ. Regarding Travis and Ariana, yes, it is possible that God has not chosen them, but you got my point about not knowing and not giving up hope.
_________________________________________________________________________

Adam,

The Bible is like a mirror that is supposed to reflect the character of God. It is a valuable asset to understand our creator with better clarity.  However, the Bible itself is not to be worshiped and is not the only way to know God.
1. All of creation can be observed as it reflects the nature of the One who created it.
2. Humans were built with the purpose of serving God and deep in our hearts our greatest desire is to serve Him.
3. The relationships people have with each other offer lessons on how we should relate with God (marriage, children, neighbors, government, etc.) and should call attention to our need for Him.
4. God’s Spirit prompts, teaches, and strengthens us.

The Bible is used by false religions, cults, those who justify slavery, etc. to validate their beliefs by pointing to particular passages. Even Satan quotes Scripture for his own purposes. While the Bible may be all true, only God holds all truth. In the end, we must discern whether an interpretation and use of the Biblical passage properly reflects God.

Calvinism’s interpretation of Scripture, in any form, is like walking into a fun house of mirrors and the mirror experts are saying that each distorted mirror is a true reflection of God. Even those who have never seen a mirror before, question the validity of the reflections. And those who have seen a truer mirror have 100% certainty that these reflections are false. There is nothing these experts could say to convince the experienced observers that these false reflections are the truth.

Nearly every part of the Bible screams out that the DOG view (Doctrine of Grace) is the opposite of GOD (emotionally, logically, AND Spiritually). It is confusing why Calvinists interpret certain passages with such clarity and dogmatically hold onto them and yet interpret other passages as mysterious that clearly contradict those.  This view is like pounding a square peg into a round hole.  One can see how you get it in there, but it is obvious it does not fit.

Have you considered this view is a deception by the adversary?  Don’t you see how every assertion of Calvinism takes away our desire to trust God, which is the only thing God wants from us?  Can’t you hear Satan whispering these views?

I challenge you to not be comfortable living in Mystery, Antinomy, Darkness.   There are answers that are available, but you need to look at these passages from a different perspective. You need a complete paradigm shift.  Take some time and consider the opposite view and truly consider the consequences of each Doctrine of Grace.  Let the Spirit of God take over and argue like you did at ECC!

Remember, in God there is no deviation, there is no shadow, there is no mystery!  You should hope, love, and trust Him because He is loving, compassionate, and faithful to ALL!  He will do everything to reach out and save all of the lost, all of the sinners, all of the world!  All means all and that’s all all means!
_________________________________________________________________________

Hi, Ken,

Please give me a few days to respond. I’ve got a few items that are pressing. Thanks!
_________________________________________________________________________

Hi, Ken!

I have appreciated our discussion, but this is probably where we part ways. I believe that you are sincere, but I think you are sincerely wrong and out of step with God’s Word in this area. I am not saying that you are not a Christian and therefore not a brother. I embrace you as a brother in Christ and say this with good will in my heart.

As I see it, you are making the mistake that most well-meaning Arminians make–smuggling philosophical assumptions into God’s Word. You seem to assume (if I am understanding you correctly) that God’s absolute sovereignty is incompatible with human responsibility. Despite the myriad Scriptures to the contrary. You add to that the assumption that ability limits obligation (i.e. since God obligates man to believe in the gospel, he must have the ability to do so on his own and it must be universal to all men). None of these assumptions are grounded in Scripture; they have to be smuggled in.

“Yes and amen!” to Scripture reflecting the character of God (and I quite agree that bibliolatry must be avoided). Yet, it is God’s Word, and not natural revelation that reveals His completed will for the salvation of people and is the final authority for all Christian faith, life and doctrine. The Bible is not the only way to know about what God is like, but it is the best way! Rather than observing people in their relationships, we must let God, through His always true/never wrong Word, tell us about the condition that we’re in. True, we were created to worship and enjoy God, but that desire has been subverted by sin. Apart from Christ, God see us as: defiled by sin (Mk. 7:20-23); lovers of darkness (Jn. 3:19); enemies (Rom. 5:10), dead in transgressions and sins (Eph. 2:1), and by nature objects of His wrath (Eph. 2:3). The Bible does not paint a pretty picture about the state and abilities of people outside of Christ. The image of God in us, by which we have the impulse to worship, has been marred and must be restored (1 Cor. 15:49; 2 Cor. 3:18).

Yes, the false religions and cults do distort God’s Word, but they do so, over and over again, by abandoning the guard-rails of the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. You wrote, “In the end, we must discern whether an interpretation and use of the Biblical passage properly reflects God.” But how does one know what God is like apart from Scripture? You seem to start with a view of God and then send the Scriptures to fetch it. Is this not the exaltation of what a man finds reasonable over and above what Scripture teaches? Be careful here lest you fall into the same error as the cultists! For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses (following the heresy of Arian) start with the assumption that God cannot be One-Being-in-Three-Persons, and they reject and distort the Scriptures that prove them wrong (going so far as to produce a corrupted version called the New World Translation). Instead of starting with a theology of God, they should start with the Word and let it guide them into the right view of God.

You wrote, “Nearly every part of the Bible screams out that the DOG view (Doctrine of Grace) is the opposite of GOD (emotionally, logically, AND Spiritually). It is confusing why Calvinists interpret certain passages with such clarity and dogmatically hold onto them and yet interpret other passages as mysterious that clearly contradict those.  This view is like pounding a square peg into a round hole.  One can see how you get it in there, but it is obvious it does not fit.” Yet, you have not interacted with the exegesis (albeit brief) that I have provided. I stand by my exegesis and the Doctrines of Grace that emerge from it. Like Luther, and also based upon hours of prayer, study and reflection, I say:

If, then, I am not convinced by proof from Holy Scripture, or by cogent reasons, if I am not satisfied by the very text I have cited, and if my judgment is not in this way brought into subjection to God’s word, I neither can nor will retract anything; for it cannot be either safe or honest for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise; God help me! Amen.

Of course I have considered the Arminian view! I grew up with and it and, for a time, embraced it. But, instead of subjecting God’s Word to my views, I humbled myself to sit under what Scripture teaches. Ultimately, I left the Arminian view because it could not stand against the weight of Scripture. It is an unbiblical soteriology. Every Calvinist/ Compatibilist I know has humbled himself/herself to what God’s Word says, even if he/she could not understand it fully. What may not be known fully or exhaustively can be apprehended and known truly. But I meet many Arminians, who say, “This can’t be true, therefore I will not believe it.” Again I ask, is this not the exaltation of what a man finds reasonable over and above what Scripture teaches?

In the end, I believe your view results in a very man-centered interpretation of Scripture. I’m not mud-slinging here and I say this without teeth. Despite sound exegesis to the contrary:

• In this view, man is not so depraved and desperate that he cannot believe in his own;
• In this view, God’s foreknowledge is a response to man’s free choices (one again, man must take the initiative);
• In this view, Jesus’ death did not secure the salvation of anyone, but merely made it possible; and
  In this view, believers must keep themselves in grace (man’s salvation ultimately depends on himself).

As you said, there are consequences to each Doctrine of Grace.

Grace to you, brother Ken! I had hoped to move you to charity, the kind we value in the E-Free church that demands unity in the essentials, but dialogue without division in the secondary, but substantial doctrines. To that end, I think I have failed you and I’m sorry for that.

_________________________________________________________________________

What is Calvinism? What does the Bible say about what it teaches? Can we reconcile God’s Sovereignty with human responsibility?

These are big questions and even though this is an “in-house” debate, good Christians can and often do disagree sharply. Some will even divide over it. What follows is an on-going debate between two Christians, my friend Ken, who believes strongly that the God of Calvinism bears little resemblance to the God of the Bible and me–a happy Calvinist who believes that God’s sovereignty and human responsiblity are two, compatible Biblical truths.

But first, back to the basic question at hand. What is Calvinism and what does a Calvinist believe? On the principle that it is always best to let people define themselves, here’s a definition from Jim Scott Orrick in his book Mere Calvinism:

In two sentences, what is a Calvinist?….First, a Calvinist believes that God always does whatever he pleases. Second, a Calvinist believes that God initiates, sustains, and completes the salvation of everyone who gets saved (p. 14).

I like the above definition. It’s simple and Biblical. I like simple and Biblical. My hope is that this dialogue will lead us all to wrestle with God and how He has made Himself known with a persistence that says, “I will not let you go unless you bless me!”

*Misspellings have been kept to preserve the original dialogue

PART ONE: How I became a Happy Calvinist

Hi Adam!

How are you and the family doing?

As you probably are aware, this Calvinism issue is very important to me.  Would you be interested in having a conversation or allowing me to ask you questions about it?
____________________________________________________________________________

Sure, brother! We just moved this weekend, but let’s set a time up.

Sent from my iPhone
____________________________________________________________________________

I usually have just Sundays off, so maybe we can schedule a Sunday night?  Otherwise, may I email you questions and you can answer at your leisure?
____________________________________________________________________________

Let’s do both! Send me an email, I’ll respond and then we’ll catch up on a Sunday night. I just got in from Atlanta, so I’ll look at the calendar for a phone conversation. Thanks!

Sent from my iPhone
____________________________________________________________________________

Adam,

My first set of questions is regarding your Calvinism journey.
1. How and when were you introduced to these concepts formally? 
2. How did you initially react?
3. Have you changed your views over time, such as having developed into a stronger and stronger Calvinist or perhaps starting strong and then moving back to the middle or were you always a Compatibalist?
4. If there were changes, what new knowledge caused the change in your perspective?

Ken
_____________________________________________________________________________

Thoughtful questions! I’ll get back to you soon!

Making much of Jesus with you!
_____________________________________________________________________________

Brother Ken!

What a great week it’s been. I’ve been meeting with a guy named Skip for about 4 months to talk about Jesus and his open skepticism about Christianity. By God’s grace, Skip just trusted in Jesus! Please pray that God would also open the heart of his wife Dawn. She’s not just skeptical, she’s hostile. The topic that you and I are talking about gives me great confidence to tell people like Skip about Jesus and believe that God can overcome Dawn’s hardness of heart with his overwhelming mercy. Perhaps in another discussion we can talk about how the doctrines of grace fuel my mission to tell people about Jesus. Here’s a little bit about my journey into the doctrines of grace (I prefer to use that term instead of Calvinism)…

1. How and when were you introduced to these concepts formally?
God opened my heart to respond to the gospel when I was about 7-8 years of age, but I wasn’t formally discipled until I was in my 20’s. My first brush with unconditional election came at ECC in a student led Bible study. I was visiting and the group was working through Ephesians 1-2. There was a girl in the group who talked about election as God’s free choice (not based upon anything good or bad that we had done). I was offended. To me, this was patently unfair and seemed to make God unjust. I argued with her, and because the tide in the room was more with me than her, I shut her down. But that Bible study session put a rock in my shoe. I started exploring words like foreknowledge, predestination and election. Renal and I were church-shopping at the time and I can remember asking a pastor at the church we were visiting about these issues, but he waived me off by saying, “Awe, don’t get mixed up in all that stuff, just trust in Jesus.” I found this very unsatisfying, so we kept looking. I ran into a guy that God had used to dislodge me from the New Age movement a few years back and he invited me to his Bible study. A closer look at passages that taught things like total depravity and unconditional election (and the sheer weight of these verses), pulled me into the doctrines of grace. I guess there was a push and a pull. The pull was the Bible and the push was the pastor waiving me off.

2. How did you initially react?
I was offended. I felt like I had to fight for God’s fairness.

3. Have you changed your views over time, such as having developed into a stronger and stronger Calvinist or perhaps starting strong and then moving back to the middle or were you always a Compatibalist?
As you probably know, there is a spectrum in Calvinism. There are so-called “hyper-calvinists” who believe in such hard determinism that it seems (to me) hard to square their views with what the Bible teaches about human responsibility and God’s salvific stance towards the world. To be honest, I have found brothers and sisters on both ends of the theological spectrum (i.e Calvinism and Arminianism) who do a fair bit of exegetical gymnastics to avoid the plain teaching of Scripture because a verse does not fit easilly within their systematic framework. What I find most appealing about Compatibilism is that it doesn’t treat the text like it’s plastic and recognizes the limitiations of theological systems. There was a time when I was probably a hyper-calvinist, but as I get older (and hopefully more mature in my faith) I am more comfortable with mystery. I embrace the tension of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility, finding both clearly taught in the Bible.

4. If there were changes, what new knowledge caused the change in your perspective?
Hmmm. Initially, I felt like some Christians had withheld important information about God’s sovereignty from me. I swung hard into hyper -calvinism and a critical and unloving spirit followed. I can remember cherishing a tract I found, a kind of anti-Four Spiritual Laws pamphlet, that said, “God hates you and has a terrible plan for your life.” To my shame, I had become proud. I even relished debating some of the professors at Moody. I asked one professor what he though about God hating sinners and he recoiled, “No, God loves the sinner but hates the sin.” To that I smugly replied, “Then why does Psalm 5:5 say that God hates ‘all who do wrong'”? Once again, by God’s grace, the sheer weight of Scripture about God’s love for sinners and His salvific stance towards the world pulled me back from hyper-calvinism. Pastor Tom was helpful here and turned me on to the writings of John Piper. His work on 1 Tim. 2:3 was especially helpful.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you so much for the thoughtful responses! As you can tell from the pace of my emails (and time stamps) it might take a bit for me to get a new email to you! Looking forward to more!
__________________________________________________________________________________

Adam,

May God continue to strengthen, instruct, and lead you!  I pray He provides you with peace in ALL areas of your life, and bless you with the fruit of your labors here on earth!

I am re-reading your answers and am once again refreshed by the thoroughness and honesty of the answers.  I am excited to ask more questions.  Here are a few more:

1. Do the doctrines of Grace differ at all from TULIP?
2. What are they and where do you stand on each?
3. Specifically, how does each doctrine of grace fuel you?
4. What are the strongest passages that you know to prove each doctrine of grace (i.e. total depravity and unconditional election)?
5. In summary, what was John Piper’s perspective on I Tim 2:3 and how did it help you?

FYI – I have been praying for Skip to be strengthened and encouraged in his new walk and that the seed has fallen on fertile ground as opposed to hard, rocky, weed ridden ground.  I am also praying that Dawn not be a “weed” in his life, but rather be softened by the Holy Spirit and Skip’s living testimony. May she come to a knowledge of the truth and bear fruit as well!
__________________________________________________________________________________

Brother Ken,

Thanks so much for keeping Skip and Dawn in your prayers! I’m enjoying our E-discussion:

1. Do the doctrines of Grace differ at all from TULIP?
No, it’s just my preference. TULIP too often suffers from misrepresentation. It’s a clever memory device, but is too often subject to caricature. To the degree that it is helpful, it can be a helpful summary of Calvinistic soteriology. But the word Calvinism means different things to different people. For example, a couple that helped us out launching the Pingree Grove campus moved to Cary and started looking for another church. A month or so into their search for a new church, the man called me and asked if I knew any churches that were not Calvinistic, because he couldn’t agree with it. I laughed and replied, “You know that I’m a Calvinist, right? So is Pastor Tom.” He was stunned and replied, “I couldn’t sniff it out.” I laughed again and said, “Could it be that you have a false caricature of what Calvinists believe?” I think in his mind, Calvinists did not do the work of evangelists, and because we’re so missional, he assumed that we were not Calvinists. I also prefer Doctrines of Grace because its hard to squeeze theological concepts into labels like “Calvinism” and “Arminianism.” These men were faithful and fruitful, but also flawed. I also very much doubt that they would want to be labeled in this way (both men would point away from themselves and to God).

2. What are they and where do you stand on each?
Here’s how I understand the Doctrines of Grace (i.e. TULIP):

Total depravity: 
Since the Fall, man is bent in on himself and inclined towards evil and against good. There is not one aspect of his being that has not been polluted by sin. We are “dead” towards God in the sense that we are insensative to the things of God and incapable of bringing ourselves back to spiritual life. No one forces a person to sin, we sin because we love darkness. In this condition, we do not have the power within our own will to see the gospel for what it is and trust in Jesus. Once again, the term can suffer from mispresentaion. The issue is not how bad a person is or whether or not he/she is morally responsible for his/her actions and choices. Some prefer the term “pervasive depravity.”

Unconditional Election:
God chooses some hell-deserving sinners to be saved, not on the basis of anything good or bad that they have done, but only because of His sovereign good pleasure to show mercy. He did this before the foundation of the world. “Conditional” election would teach that God chooses some in response to their selection of him (i.e faith + repentance are the cause of election). My view is that faith + repentance are the effect of salvation. One last thing, unconditional election is the view that God elects individuals to eternal life, as opposed to “class” or “corporate” election.

Limited Atonement
Here again, many of us prefer the term “definite atonement” or something like that. What we’re trying to say is that God did not just make salvation possible, but that He actually accomplished it and applies it to His elect. Here’s the problem, when theologians start talking about the extent of the atonement, they begin by asking, “For whom did Christ die?” I think this is the wrong question. It unnecessarily puts passages of Scripture that teach that Christ died for the church/His sheep (Jn. 10:11; Acts 20:28) in a wrestling match with verses that have a more universal scope (Jn. 3:16; 1 Jn. 2:2). See what I mean? A better and more Biblical question would be: “Did Christ die for all men in the same way?” If I ask it this way, it allows me to handle and make sense of both sets of passages. God’s stance towards the world (in its badness) is salvific and Jesus’ sacrifice is sufficient for all without distinction, but the atonement is only efficient for the elect.

Irresistible Grace:
Once again, an unfortunate term in at least two respects: 1) God does not force a person to believe against their will; and 2) Yes, people can and regularly do resist God’s revealed will and the common grace that should have them giving praise to God. There are better terms: “overwhelming mercy” ; “effectual transformation”; and “effectual grace.” God’s efficatious call will not be rejected; His sheep will hear His voice. This is due to the Spirit’s work of regeneration and transformation, grace overwhelms and replaces our hardness of heart. Though they seem to happen simultaneously, regeneration precedes faith and repentance.

Perseverance of the Saints
All those who are truly born again (i.e. the elect) are kept by Jesus and will persevere until the end. As Christians we can have assurance of salvation as we continue in the faith. Perseverance is proof of life. All true Christians persevere. My Baptist brethren like the term “eternal security.” I like this as well and see it as the opposite side of the same coin. We’re getting at the same idea of being kept by Jesus, but I prefer the term perseverance because faith is a battle and we are called to endure.

Much more could be said under each heading.

3. Specifically, how does each doctrine of grace fuel you?
Pervasive depravity keeps me looking outside of myself for salvation. The other day I read a bumper sticker with a Buddhist symbol on it that said, “Inquire within.” I have looked inside and agree with Paul instead of Siddartha, “There is nothing good in me, that is in my flesh” (Rom. 7:18).
Unconditional election humbles me. It cause me to sing songs like, “O to grace how great a debtor daily I’m constrained to be.” It also goes a long way to explaining how it is that I believe while people that are smarter, kinder and more loving than me don’t. Unconditional election also fuels my evangelism. I know that God has His elect out there and that they will hear His voice and believe through the proclamation of the gospel. It’s not my job to convert anyone, only to tell the story of Jesus. God does all the heavy-lifting in evangelism.
Limited atonement gives me confidence in God. He didn’t merely make salvation possible–He accomplished it and applied it to me. Jesus paid it all and God’s wrath has been averted.
Irresistible grace teaches me that God’s elect can only stray so far before God says, “This far and no further” and they come to their senses. This is my hope for my prodigal daughter. I think you know how grieved Renal and I are over this, but we are not without hope.
Perseverance lets me sleep at night. I know that I am kept by Jesus–nothing and no one can separate me from the love of God in Christ.
4. What are the strongest passages that you know to prove each doctrine of grace (i.e. total depravity and unconditional election)?
I’m glad that you asked for more than one passage, because the Doctrines of Grace do not stand or fall with a single verse. I also want to acknowledge that each of these verses has a context that should be explored. Lastly, please remember that I am a Compatibilist. Too often, some Calvinists and Arminians get into a “My-verse-can-beat-up-your-verse” approach. As a Compatibilistic Calvinist, I embrace the tension of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. I recently did a podcast on this and you can find it at www.pastoradam.org.

For the sake of simplicity (and the search for context that we might get into down the road) I will attempt to anchor everything in the Gospel of John. This could be interesting, because John is the Gospel of belief (20:31) and God’s salvific stance towards the world is clear, but it is also the Gospel that most clearly articulates God’s sovereignty in salvation. John is the Gospel of “Compatibilism.” People are responsible to believe (Jn 5:40) and God’s salvific stance towards the world is clear (Jn. 3:16; 12:32), yet in John, only those given to Jesus by the Father can come to Him and believe and be saved.

Total Depravity/Pervasive Depravity: Men love darkness (Jn. 3:19). I do not believe that the Bible teaches that we have free-will (i.e. ultimate self-determination), but we do have free moral agency. This means that people are free to choose what their hearts desire. In this case, people desire the wrong things; they do not come into the light because they do not love it, instead they love darkness. Light and dark are of course metaphors for truth, the things of God, etc.

Other passages about human inability include: Job 15:14; Ps. 51:5; Eccl. 7:29; Mk. 7:21-23; Jn. 8:34; Rom. 3:9-12; 8:7-8; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1-3.

Unconditional Election: In John’s Gospel, unconditional election is conveyed with the teaching that the Father gives certain people to the Son (Jn. 6:37-40, 44, 65). This giving precedes eternal life and is the cause of it. Those people that have been “gifted” to the Son include the disciples, but also future believers who have yet to hear the good news and believe (Jn. 17:2, 20). The idea is also conveyed through Jesus’ good shepherd word-picture. Why does person believe in Jesus? The answer is because they are His sheep (Jn. 10:26). The context is quite clear. When a person does not believe it is because they are not His (Jn. 10:26). But let’s look briefly at John 6…
It is morally impossible for a person to come to Jesus unless the Father draws him/her (6:44, 65). The words moral impossibility are important. People do not lack opportunity, a mind to think about the gospel and or the responsibility to believe. They are free to choose what their hearts desire, but they love darkness. Here’s an illustration. If you put a plate of liver and onions in front of me, I would say, “I can’t eat this!” The reason I cannot eat liver is not because I lack teeth, the ability to swallow, a digestive system, etc, but because I loathe the taste of it. God would have to change something in me to get me to eat it. In a similar way, before the new birth, I do not love the light. I need radical heart-change (regeneration) to enable me to see Jesus for who He is, love Him and believe in Him. Regeneration precedes faith and repentance (which are also gifts from God). Interestingly, the apostle John makes the order of salvation clear in 1 Jn. 5:1 with the use of the perfect tense (lit. “Everyone who is believing (present tense) has been born again (perfect tense”).
It is impossible for those that the Father draws NOT to come to Jesus (Jn. 6:37). This is not the language of possibility, but certainty.
It is impossible for those who the Father draws to be cast out (Jn. 6:37).
This is just John’s Gospel. Other great passages include Matt. 11:25-27; Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:28-30; Eph. 1:3-6; Rev. 13:8; 17:8 and, of course, you’ve hit the motherlode of controversy with Romans 9. LOL!

Limited Atonement/Definite Atonement: The issue set up here is whether or not Jesus accomplished atonement or simply made it possible (contingent on people choosing it). All for whom Christ died efficiently are or will be saved. The notes of certainty are clear in passages like Matt. 1:21’s “He will save His people from their sins”; the teaching that He laid down His life for His sheep (Jn. 10:11). He is the “lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn. 1:29). He purchased the church (i.e. His people) with His own blood (Acts 20:28). See also Rev. 5:9. Sorry, but I slipped out of the Gospel of John on this one. It bears repeating though, that I hold to a sufficient/efficient view of the atonement and instead of asking, “For whom did Christ die?” prefer the question, “Did Christ die for all men in the same way?”

Irresistible grace: “All that the Father gives me will come to Me” (Jn. 6:37 emphasis mine). This is a great example of effectual grace. Another example would be Jesus’ statement that His sheep “will hear” His voice (Jn. 10:3).

Perseverance: Jn. 6:38-40; 10:27-29 give us hope that we are kept by Jesus. There are many more verses of course. The distinction that John makes in his first epistle between those who remain/abide and those who leave the church strengthens this view, “They went out from us because they were never of us” (1 Jn. 2:19 emphasis mine). This is an interesting statement because one of the big motifs in 1st John is “proof of life” (how do you know that you’re a real-deal Christian?). The use of the genitive case “of us” contrasts with the going out “from us.” John is telling us that perseverance is a proof of life.

5. In summary, what was John Piper’s perspective on I Tim 2:3 and how did it help you?
It would be best for you to read it yourself, but I will give a summary. Basically, 1 Tim. 2:3 is a problem for both Calvinists and Armininians. If God can do whatever He pleases (Ps. 115:3 for example), and He desires/wants the salvation of all men, then why do some perish? Since none of us are universalists (believing that no one will perish or go to hell), how do we explain this? Both Calvinists and Arminians have to concede that God has two ways of willing and that there is something that He wills more than the salvation of all men, or else all would be saved. So, here’s the question: what does God desire more (or more strongly) that the salvation of all men?

You can read more, should you have the time and interest at https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/are-there-two-wills-in-god

I hope that this discussion is helpful. Grace to you!
_________________________________________________________________________________

Click above to listen or read on below…

Christmas is coming! I’ve strung up the lights to shove out the darkness and my wife is baking cookies to bring warm, gooey-goodness into the world. Bells will be ringing. Ding! Dong! Ding! Dong! Choirs will be singing and women everywhere will curl into their favorite couches to binge on Hallmark Christmas specials. The stories will be familiar, but strangely satisfying. The pretty, but confused heroine is about to make the biggest mistake of her life by marrying Mr. Wrong (or taking the big job in the city). Mr. Wrong will be expertly played by the guy who is loaded and good looking…ish (as a rule Mr. Right is always better looking). At some point, Mr. Right will see Mr. Wrong present an engagement ring to our leading lady, but slink off before seeing her turn him down. After one or two romantic, near-misses, an angel will intervene to help our gal meet Mr. Right under the mistletoe. Occasionally, Santa himself will show up. They kiss! Finally! It’s a Christmas miracle!

Christmas is the best of times, but also the worst of times. We could all use some of those Hallmark miracles! Some of us have lost our jobs. Rising costs and a listing economy results in lay offs, “It’s not personal, it’s fiscal”—but it sure feels personal. Some of us will face our first Christmas without a loved one. Still others will sit alone on Christmas Eve, no wassailing and no wassail, just one long, silent night with the promise of a January that is “always winter and never Christmas” (C.S. Lewis).  It’s no wonder that many of us are Christmas skeptics. But even if you don’t believe the Christmas story about a virgin birth and peace on earth, you should want it to be true. The Christmas story tells us that…

God Loves the Lowly

The Christmas story starts, not in Bethlehem, but in the throne room of God. Amidst flashes of lightening and peals of thunder, God sends a message of hope to a twelve year old virgin. The archangel Gabriel descends from the highest place to Nazareth, down, down to the lowest, most redneck town in Israel, with a message of hope for the humble and hungry. Little Mary will bear a Son and this child will save us all from our brokenness.

Christmas reminds us that God likes us, so much in fact that he would become a man and take on our weaknesses—fevers, runny noses, and even temptations. God loves the lowly. He loves the children that go to bed with rumbling bellies and the single mothers that work three jobs to put a meal on the table. He loves the men who push a broom and use Gojo to clean the gunk from under their fingers nails. He so loved the dirty, unwashed masses that he became one of us, to save us and re-launch project humanity.

God Cares About our Suffering

The story of Christmas invites us to entrust our deepest hurts to God. If you’ve lived long enough, you’ve wrestled to exhaustion with the dilemma of why an all-good and all-powerful God, for reasons unbeknownst to us, ordains terrible hardships. The “why” question of suffering is an unanswered question mark turned “like a fishhook into the human-heart” (Peter De Vries). Christians are not exempt from suffering. We suffer unemployment and emergency brain surgeries and die with Alzheimer’s too. We are not immune from tear-stained pleas, hurled at an opaque heaven in desperation, but we cling to hope because the story of Christmas tells us that God entered into our suffering, bearing our moral-failures in his own body on a piece of bile-stained wood. Pastor and author Tim Keller writes:

If we ask the question, “Why does God allow evil and suffering to continue?” and we look at the cross of Jesus, we still do not not know what the answer is. However, we know what the answer isn’t. It can’t be that he doesn’t love us. It can’t be that he’s indifferent or detached from our condition.

When Mary swaddled baby Jesus in shabby strips of linen, God rolled up his sleeves to put an end to our suffering. He cares about our deep hurts and injustices, and in Christ Jesus—he has done something about it. Christmas is God with us, in suffering and beyond suffering.

God Restores Wonder to a Broken-world

A simple shoebox stuffed with dollar store toys and toothpaste produces smiles in remote villages. Little girls everywhere hug dollies close to their hearts and little boys peal out in their Big Wheels. Even cardboard boxes, if the imagination is big enough, can serve as forts and fortresses. Christmas brings a sense of wonder to children around the world, but as we get older and more jaded, our thick hearts lose the ability to feel awe. Ravi Zacharias reminds us “…the older you get, the more it takes to fill your heart with wonder, and only God is big enough to do that.”

In the Christmas story, God restores wonder to a broken world. Mary was astonished at the angel’s words about giving birth to a son. She was only twelve or thirteen, but she knew how babies were made, “How can this be, since I have not been intimate with a man?” The angel’s explanation strolled past biology in favor of theology: With God, nothing is impossible. Oh the wonder of this teenage girl’s humble commitment, “I am the Lord’s slave, may it be done to me according to your word.”

The announcement of the virgin conception took Mary by surprise, but if you know anything about the God of the Bible, it’s not unlike God to do the unlikely. This child, swaddled in strips of shabby linen, “born that man no more may die,” would one day swallow up death, forever destroying the “burial shroud covering all the nations.” Even if you don’t believe in the Christmas story, you should want it to be true, because your heart was made to wonder at the work of God and we were meant to live.

I cling to the Christmas story, not because I’m naive or simple-minded, but because I believe it possesses greater explanatory power than the other virgin birth story, you know, the one where Stephen Hawking tells us that the universe “…can and will create itself from nothing.” One story tells us that help is coming for people with hearts that are “two sizes too small,” the other story offers me dirt. As for me, I’m going with the story that brings the most hope to a hurting world, but wherever you stand on the big questions of life, I wish you a happy Christmas!

My parting gift to you is a reflection on the two stories from comedian Norm Macdonald:

Norm: What’s the evidence that God exists?

Someone: None.

Norm: Well that’s not good.

So then you go, “Hey, what’s the evidence that God does not exist?”

Someone else: None.

Norm: So it’s people, but one of them is for sure right.

So what I do is try to look at the two choices, I’ll say to a guy, “What do you got [to offer]?”

Some believer: When you die, you go up and play a harp on a cloud.

Norm: I say, “…I’ve always wanted to play the harp.” [To the other guy] What do you got? What happens when I die under your plan?

Some non-believer: Well, we put dirt on you.

Norm: [Back to the believer] So, let me ask you one other question, what else happens up there? Somebody told me I could see me someone or something?

Some believer: You meet your loved ones…all of them.

Norm: Well, what about Barky, my dog?

Some believer: He’s going to be there.

Norm: [Getting excited] My dog Barky, when I was a little boy? Barky?

[To the non-believer] Hey, is Barky gonna’ be there?

Some non-believer: No, just dirt.

Norm: Stop saying ‘dirt’! I’m going with this guy.