Here is a discussion I had with a Roman Catholic about the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. In this discussion the Catholic, or Nick, was the Arminian and I was the Calvinist. Now when I say he was Arminian I mean in the broad sense of Arminianism as it is equated with “synergism” or “semi-Pelagianism”. In other words, the notion that God’s grace is “prevenient”, or God is standing by waiting for an indifferent sinner to respond to God appropriately for salvation.

In fact, Roman Catholics are Arminian in this sense but are on the far left of the Arminian spectrum (close to Pelagianism) because a lot of cooperation with God is required for  salvation. Life long works and sacraments are required for the Catholic’s salvation. On the other hand, non-Calvinistic Protestants would be on the far right of the Arminian spectrum whereby almost nothing is required for salvation. In this case, one only needs to cooperate a little with God and conjure some mental or emotional faith in order to be saved.

But once you cross over into Calvinism (it’s just terminology, don’t freak out) nothing is required of man for his salvation (however much is required after salvation).

Here is a chart I made. Hopefully it helps shed light on an ever so dark subject matter.

Here is the respectful discussion:

Nick

Hi again Solafide,

I’d like to try to discuss the last part of this with you a little, if you’re interested.

I take it from what you’ve just written that you are Calvinist and believe fully in total depravity. I wondered how you squared this with your own experience. Is it your experience that non-Christians (and perhaps you were one once) are totally depraved- i.e. they have not one shred of goodness, truth or compassion in them? Do you believe this means God looks upon them with utter revulsion and anger? Do you, believing in total depravity, look upon them in the same way?

I also wondered what you made of Luke 8:15- “As for the seed that fell in rich soil, this is people with a noble and generous heart who have heard the word and take it to themselves and yield a harvest through their perseverance.” Does this not suggest to you that those who respond with lasting faith and so produce good works are those whose hearts were noble and generous in the first place- i.e. not totally depraved?

Nick.

Cameron

I’m actually always interested in this topic. Thanks for bringing it up.

There’s always an important clarification that needs to be made with total depravity. It simply states that all of a man’s mind, intentions, and actions are tainted with sin (thus can never gain favor with God, Isa 64:6, Jer 13:23, 17:9, Ecc 9:3, Rom 8:6-8), not that man is as bad as he potentially could be. Most Calvinists agree that God is actually restraining mankind from being as bad as he otherwise would be, namely, if his hostile heart towards God were allowed to run its full fledge course.

Here’s another important thing about total depravity. It states that man’s depravity (being spiritually blind, deaf, and dead, along with no righteousness by which God would smile upon) mostly effects him vertically, NOT horizontally. A unregenerate child of the devil may help a sweet grandma cross the street, join the Peace Corps, show up for work on time, etc. All this shows that he does good horizontally, yet none of it benefits him vertically. God does not see “goodness” from man’s point of view, but through the lens of His own eternal holiness.

Well after all, since I am a Calvinist, I believe when Scripture uses the word predestination in Rom 8 and Eph 1 that it is referring to God predestining his bride (Eph 5:22-27). Thus, I do not believe God sees His bride whom He has eternally foreknown intimately with utter revulsion. As for those whom are not part of His bride, as Esau was hated (Rom 9), these are given general grace (Mat 5:45). That is why Jesus can tell us to love our enemies, because even God does this. But in the end, only God’s bride gets special grace, just as a wife gets special love from her husband that no one else gets. So this is one reason why I try to love even my enemies.

My interpretation is the same as many Calvinists (about Luke 8:15). Many people can be excited for spiritual truths, can partake of many of the blessings that the church can offer (ie. relationships, witnessing God’s power, being part of a larger purpose) yet they can experience all this and still have never been right with the Lord. Judas is a good example of this. He experienced miracles and was with Jesus for a long time, yet betrayed Him. Matt 7:15-23 is also a good example of this. In verse 23 the Lord says “I never knew you”, not “I once knew you, but now I don’t.” I would also argue that in Luke 8 the root could be referring to Christ (as He is the true Vine). None of the examples are fully attached to Him but the last one, hence why it produces a crop. It never gives the example that a crop is produced and then withers.

Let me know if this clarifies, or if I can try to clarify more. Thanks

Nick

Thanks for all your answers, Cameron. It’s good to understand better where you’re coming from and find out in more detail what Calvinists actually believe.

For me, the God I experience in prayer, in reading the Bible, and through the Church is not just the all-powerful, all-knowing, predestinator, judge and source and end of all good and salvation, that seems to be (and please correct me if I’m wrong) what Calvinists concentrate solely upon. He is ALSO (and, perhaps, MORE) our loving Father and Saviour who has always looked upon us with infinite tenderness and compassion however far we have (and still) wander from him (His lost sheep or prodigal sons- Luke 15); who called (and still calls us) to come to him (Matthew 11:28) and try to follow him (Matthew 10:38) by remaining in him (John 15:7); and who teaches us how to truly love- which means learning to give ourselves freely to him and others, as he gave (and still gives) himself freely to us (John 15:12-13).

Of course there are many Scriptures we could discuss in this context. The parable of the Sower, which we were already looking at, highlights one of these differences in how we see and relate to God. I think you’re right to say that the root is Christ dwelling in us by the Holy Spirit and the fruit we produce depends entirely on him, as you say- ‘the true vine’. But I think it’s interesting to note that Jesus also refers to the quality of the soil (it’s depth, richness and purity), which he equates with the disposition of our hearts.

He seems very much to be saying that it is not only his word and presence within us that produce true faith and good works but that our hearts must be right as well- we must be (like the soil) those of a deep, rich, pure heart (“Blesed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God”- Matthew 5:8) or, as he says more directly, our hearts need to be those that “take [him] in” and that are “generous and noble” (Luke 8:15). It seems he is also saying that this disposition of our hearts to receive him fully was there before the Word ever came and took root. Again, does this not suggest to you that to believe in him in the first place and then to continue in our faith and produce good works we need not only his grace but a willingness of heart to recieve and co-operate with it?

Yours in Christ,

Nick.

Cameron

Thanks for the discussion. On a quick side note, I don’t really like the name “Calvinist”, not for my sake, but for other’s sake. People often have not studied Calvinism, yet think they know exactly what it is and what is wrong with it because they hear it attacked and mis-represented by others. So I usually don’t like to call myself a Calvinist (even though I am one) because others attach so many false ideas to me (and it).

We could actually simply call it “non-Semi-Pelagianism”! I think this depicts it rather perfectly.

I agree that God is not just just and not just loving, but perfectly both. The reason Cavinists emphasize God’s law, sin, depravity, and judgment, however, is not that those things would be an ends in and of themselves, but rather a means to making God’s grace make the most sense! Someone does not think they need a shot (nor do they love the shot), until they are proven ill. The more ill we are the more we will love the cure. So stressing the illness is most needed. Kind of like how Romans begins with the bad news before the good.

And just to be pedantic, I would argue that the parable of the prodigal son is more about the Father in the story, not the son. The Father breaks all the customary rules to embrace a son who acted toward the Father in a way deserving of death. This would have drove the Pharisees and the religious people nuts, when Jesus was explaining this story.

God commands us to do that which we can’t do (perhaps as with Mat 10 and 11). This is because 1. His commands are good and true and (hence why everyone is commanded to never sin, yet inevitably will (James 2:10, Gal 3:10, Rom 3) 2. God enables us to come to Him, thus commands us to do what He enables us to do. This is why Augustine said “Lord command what you will, and give what you command”. Nevertheless, I’m just explaining how Calvinism still considers all these things.

In John 15:7 we are to remain in Christ ‘just as’ Christ remains in the Father. Christ can never be taken out of the Father. This perfectly harmonizes with Calvinist theology.

Even as a Calvinist I say “amen” to Mat 5 and Luke 8. However, I don’t come to conclusions on the sinful state of the human soul because of those passages. Those were not intended to didactically explain that. However, in Romans, we do see didactic passages on this matter (Rom 8:5-8).

And specifically looking at verse 7 “because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be”. This last phrase “oud gar dainomai”, is “nor indeed capable”.

So the Calvinist would simply say that we are to co-operate with God, but then clarify that we can only do so because He first reconciles us to Himself, changes our hearts, and gives us His Spirit to live in us and change us. Not so that He’ll fully accept us eventually, but only because He already does in Christ.

Nick

Thanks for your reply, Cameron.
The problem I have with your position (notice I didn’t say Calvinism) is that it makes God out to be someone playing a game with himself, in which we are merely the pieces he moves; or makes him out to be somone who is putting on a show for himself, in which we are only the puppets whose strings he pulls. And so I think you are only paying lip service to God being our loving Father and not really believing it. I cannot prove intellectually that he is not this way, but, as I said before, this is not the God I experience in prayer, in the Scriptures and in the Church.

For me, God is, in essence, love and he expresses that love in a relationship- the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is a love and a relationship which he invites us to share in, both with him and between ourselves: “Father, may they be one in us, as you are in me and I am in you.” (John 17:21); “God is love and anyone who lives in love lives in God, and God lives in him. Love will come to perfection in us…when we have become as he is.”- i.e. able to love as he does, truly and freely.

Of course, this relationship is not an equal one and God is always, and continously, the first and prime mover in it- “We love because he first loved us.” (1 John 4:19) But for it to be a true relationship it must be, in some real sense, reciprocal- we must be freely responding to his love by choosing to love him in return. Isn’t this exactly how the love between parent and child is (which Jesus was always using as an image of our relationship with God)?- I love my son more selflessly than he does me and, also, it is my love for him that inspires his love for me- but he does truly love me and he does so independently and freely. To say his love was all down to me and he was merely a vessel for it would be to deny the very existence or meaning of love. As it would to say it about our love for God. But is that not what you are doing by your theology?

Again, I don’t feel I can prove this intellectually- one has to be in the loving, reciprocal relationship in the first place to believe in it. To one who has not experienced it personally it makes no sense. This is not to cast aspersions on your own relationship with God, Cameron, which of course I know nothing about. I do know however, from my own journey, that it is perfectly possible for one to be in that kind of relationship with God and yet believe in theology which is contrary to it. Just as it is possible to believe in the theology of that relationship without having it’s substance. Our theology, crucial though it is, is secondary to our love: “If I know everything, but am without love, I am nothing at all.” (1 Corinthians 13:2)

With love,

Nick.

Cameron

I actually don’t mind you using the term Calvinist, but just so long as you know what I mean by that, which is the important thing. Many people assume that it means I’m a bully Christian, that is, until there is clarification. However, even the clarifications are a hard pill to swallow. They were for me. I didn’t wake up and become a Calvinist. In fact, virtually every testimony I’ve heard of those who are Calvinists (R.C. Sproul, James R White, John MacArthur, my closest friends, etc) all struggled with it at first, but now they sleep like babies.

Calvinists believe our love for God IS reciprocal, but clarify that it is only because while we were once hostile to Him (Rom 8:7), condemned Him (Rom 4:5), and were spiritual dead towards Him (Eph 2), He yet ‘enabled’ us to love Him back. And just to answer De Maria’s question real quick, Calvinists do not believe God forces hostile God hating sinners to love Him, but restores them to that which they were intended for, namely, to worship Him, know Him, experience Him. So really, as a Calvinist I believe all that you are saying Nick, I just believe more (if you know what I mean).

And only the Calvinist’s theology jives the most with God being a loving Father because He is the one adopting His children, not standing by wondering who is going to make His gospel and His work successful. He chooses His bride out of His eternal love. He does not have her invent herself, as though she could (if total depravity is true).

The Calvinist should understand God’s love the most. If I know I am deserving of God’s good and righteous eternal punishment for my infinite offenses against His holiness, once was deaf, blind, and dead to Him, and possessed no righteous of my own by which He would smile upon, yet He had intimately foreknown me from all eternity, predestined me, called me, justified me, and will forever glorify me (Rom 8:29), then I would be the most humbled by His love and well on my way to experience the greatest special love there is.

You seemed to imply that this would make God putting a show on for Himself. Well I would say “what is wrong with that?” The universe was created for His glory and we are the one’s (the objects of His special grace) who will reflect that glory the most out of this 7 days of God’s creation. We are the objects of Triune love – a gift from the Father to the Son. God’s joy is that we glorify Him for experiencing and knowing His great love. Our joy is that we get to glorify Him by experiencing and knowing His great love. Really, this is the heart of Calvinism. It’s just that there is too much side discussion on “predestination”. All those fancy Calvinist doctrines, however, ultimately terminate in that statement.

You brought up John 17. This prayer actually entails this very goal! John 17:24-26. And notice, Jesus is praying specifically for those whom the Father has given Him. All terminates in God’s glory. But it’s not enough to know that all terminates in God’s glory. How in this universe does all terminate in God’s glory? The Calvinist would say because God specially choses His children and restores them to the greatest thing, eternal life: to know Christ (just back in John 17:5). Namely, we will also know and experience His love against the backdrop of His deserving wrath, so that we will know His love all the more (Rom 9). If this is God’s prerogative, then who are we to argue? This is what Calvinism teaches anyways.

“Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. “Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.”

Nick

It’s good to understand more clearly what you believe and not just assume I know. Funnily enough, I would say the same thing as you have, namely- I believe all you’re saying, I just believe more (after all, we’re both reading the same Scriptures) but I would go further and say that I believe all you do, I just also believe the essential part as well. Of course, as a Catholic I believe in predestination, sin, God’s righteous judgement, our inability to save ourselves, God’s free gift of salvation, our complete dependence on his grace, the humble and grateful attitude this produces in us, and our giving him glory throughout eternity. But I think only a true understanding of God’s love and our response to it makes all of this meaningful, glorious and true.

I wholeheartedly agree that because “he so loved the world” (John 3) he predestined us, he saved us from our sins, he adopted us as his children, and we will humbly, lovingly and thankfully glorify him throughout eternity. But is it love to choose for no other reason than your own will and glory (or even pleasure, as the image of the show suggests) some to be your children and others for eternal punishment? If it is not love as we know it, infact the opposite of love, then rather than say, as you do- “It’s his perogative and who I am to argue with him” it would surely be better to think (or at least question)- “As I know God is love, is it me who has got things wrong? Is it me who is mis-understanding the Scriptures? Infact, am I (perhaps inadvertantly) saying things about God that malign him in the worst possible way- that call evil his ‘goodness’ and coldness his ‘love’? Do I really know him as I should?”

I’ll try to illustrate what I think you are suggesting God is like and what I think he is really like: If I went to an orphanage and had the means to adopt all those there but chose not to do so, knowing that they would suffer terribly if I did not- would that be love? If I chose some simply because I wanted to for my own pleasure and so they would worship me- would that not be the act of someone evil? If, on the other hand, I went to that orphanage and tried to rescue them all so that they could share in the love of my family but left some behind because they didn’t want to be adopted and I knew, if I forced them, they would hate me and my other children and try to kill us- then would not I have done the most loving thing I could have? It would have been me who reached out to them, saved them and adopted them (out of pure selfless love) but them who would have chosen whether or not to accept and reciprocate my free gift of love and salvation. Just so, I think it is with God and us, though, of course, being outside of time, he knows who will hate and reject him and who will love and accept him right from the beginning- hence predestination.

You mentioned Romans 8:29. The verses which proceed it say “We know that by turning everything to their good God co-operates with all those who love him, with all those he has called according to his purpose. They are the ones he chose specially long ago and intended to become true images of his Son, so that the Son might be the eldest of many brothers.” They speak of God and us CO-operating in love, which we can only do if we are in some way an independent operator- otherwise it would say God ‘operates’ with those who love him. Then it says that we are to become images and, even, brothers of God (the Son) which, as I said before, must mean we are able to freely choose to love as he freely chooses to love us, as I mentioned before: “Love will come to its perfection in us when we can face the day of judgement without fear; because even in this world we have become as he is” (1 John 4:17). I think God’s love and our joining him in that love is infinitely beyond what you have described: “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has understood, all that God has prepared for those who love him.” (1 Cor 2:9)

Again, I guess it all comes down to our definition or, more importantly, our understanding and experience of love. The love you describe, both God’s and our own towards him, does not sound like love at all but something else claiming to be love (like I said- a game, or a show, or a decision involving us as inanimate objects). Nor does it correspond with anyone’s experience of human love (such as that between a father and child) by which God gives us images of his own love and even a name to call him by- “the Father from whom every family, whether spiritual or natural, takes it’s name.” (Eph 3:14). Does not God invite us into his family in which, as in a human family, all our equal and free in love?

Yours in Christ,

Nick.

Cameron

Nick,

I think we are each arguing for the highest view of God’s love from different emphasis. Yours is a Semi-Palagian view of God to where God is prevenient, meaning, He offers His grace, yet stands back and anticipates those who will improve upon it. If the powerful sinner wants to frustrate God’s willingness to love them and chose Hell, they may do so. This is simply because God’s love in this view is evenly spread across the board to all. It is love distributed mostly in scope.

(You mentioned God predestines and knows all things. There are Scriptural and philosophical problems, if Calvinism is rejected. One, Rom 8:29 gives the golden chain of redemption. Those who are eternally foreknown are foreknown personally by God. It is not saying God foreknows one’s actions, thus predestines based on that. But predestines them out of foreknowing them intimately. In the Greek, verse 28-29 could be read this way, “God works all things together for good to those whom love Him, namely, whom He foreknows…” A pronoun (ous) is being foreknown, not a verb (or action). And all He foreknows in this way, He glorifies, as there is no break in the chain. Also, the word ‘foreknow’ is ‘proegno’ and is only used elsewhere in Rom 11 which says “God has not rejected Israel, whom He foreknew (proego).” Did the nation choose God, or did God choose the nation?

Second, God cannot truly be omniscient if He must learn who will believe (or be baptized, use the sacraments, etc) in Him and who will be saved. He can’t learn who will be saved until He first learns who will believe (or be baptized, use the sacraments, etc). This is partly why Rom 8:29 is interpreted as God being the one foreknowing whom He wills, not Him merely looking down the corridors of time at people’s actions.)

Getting back to the main topic. From the Calvinistic angle, we would emphasize God’s efficacious grace, namely, Him fully and completely bringing to pass what He intends and sets out to do in salvation, not merely tries to do. This is a special love that is particularly distributed. You say if God doesn’t save everyone when He could, then that makes Him “mean” perhaps. (Even though God is being perfectly loving towards Himself in doing so, which is most important). But I look at it a different way. I see God being incompetent to save if He only makes salvation possible because the success of the gospel depends upon us. It may have turned out that no one was saved, but God tried. So this view would mean that Jesus’ desire to save all will be frustrated by the powerful wills of sinners, who would want that anyways.

So, I would emphasize God’s full ability and power to save as that which reveals His love the most (which assumes man’s total inability), not His scope in wanting to save all (which assumes man’s somewhat ability). You would emphasize it the other way. These are the different lenses by which we are each viewing God’s glory revealed in the extent of His love and grace. But let me ask you, which scenario is more loving and glorious? 1. Someone is floating down stream in a river and a rescue worker throws a life line. That’s all the rescuer does and can do. The person in the river has to make sure they cooperate and pull themselves out now. 2. A person is dead and bloated at the bottom of a river. The rescuer walks up to the shore and says something like “Lazarus, come forth”, or maybe just “come forth”, and the dead body is now on the shore with the rescuer having done nothing to cooperate. And the only difference between the person on the shore and the other bodies that are sill dead and bloated on the bottom of the river is a five letter world called “grace”.

Would the person in scenario 1 or 2 be more thankful, humbled, and in awe of God? Calvinists believe the person in scenario 2.

Nick

Cameron, I’ll try to answer your question about the river.

I would say, firstly that the resurrecter of the drowned man would not have acted out of love as he didn’t resurrect the others, though it was in his power to do so. Secondly, the resurrected man would not love his resurrecter, because a) the decision was arbitary b) he has not learned how to love in the process and c) he will still have the free choice to reject his resurrecter.

As for the alternative image of the man throwing a lifeline, it is nearer to how God’s love is, though it would be more accurate to say God is pulling us in and we are merely keeping hold of the lifeline. But it is still unsatisfactory, because it is an image only of salvation not of love. The image of a Father and his adopted children is the one we have to look at most because it is the one most commonly used in the NT, the name we call God by, and the one that chimes most with our inward experience of God.

I was thinking of Luke 11:11-13 in this context today:

“What father among you would hand his son a stone when he asked for bread? Or hand him a snake instead of a fish? Or hand him a scorpion if he asked for an egg? If you then, who are evil, know how to give your children what is good, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

At first sight, the fact that Jesus says we are evil seems to confirm your understanding of Romans and total depravity. I too believe, as a Catholic and from my own experience, that we are all evil, fallen creatures but Jesus here tempers it with the fact that, despite that, we still have the capacity to love, as demonstrated in our natural relationships. Also, he goes further and says look at your love and you will see what God’s love is like only infinitely greater and without favourites (which, by the way, I think is another reason why his love precludes the kind of predestination you believe in). If we are totally depraved then we would have no capacity whatsoever to love AS HE DOES and to compare God to a human father would be at best a waste of time and at worst a terrible blasphemy- so why then does Jesus always do so?

The other thing about this passage which I think is relevant, is that Jesus says that God gives the Holy Spirit not to whoever he wills but to whoever asks him (which is not what a drowned man can do)- i.e. though it his love that inspires and enables us to ask, he still wants us to to freely come to him and do something ourselves- ask, seek, and knock. This is our experience of God not just in the first seeking of him and his revelation of himself to us but in the daily and continous looking to him for everything. By this we learn to completely depend on and love him above all else – which is his end and purpose in everything.

God bless you,

Nick.

Cameron

Nick,

Because the rescuer didn’t resurrect the others shows that he is being most loving to himself. If Christ doesn’t pull out all corpses, then this only means He is remaining fully loving to Himself. Again, this is what is most important, otherwise Christ would not be holy, and would be more like… uh, Satan.

God is under no obligation to love any sinner. Withholding grace from a sinner who deserves eternal justice is an act of love for God. It is an act of love for Himself. This does not make God less loving in anyway.

Or I could argue from your Semi-Palagian worldview the same thing you are arguing against mine. “If God is omniscient then He would know what He would need to do to convince all sinners that He exists so that they’ll believe in Him.” “If He were really loving then He would do this so that no one would go to Hell and would believe in Him.”

From the Semi-Palagian view, God is hiding when He shouldn’t be. From the Calvinist worldview, God is completely sovereign and in control.

In the Calvinist view, it makes sense for God to “hide” because it’s not His intention to save all. For the elect, God remains both loving to Himself and us (because justice is carried out in Christ who doesn’t deserve it so that some who do deserve will get grace instead), and for some He just remains loving toward Himself (because justice is carried out in them that deserve it).

When all is said and done, each of our views is predicated on the doctrine of total depravity. I believe it is Biblical, you don’t. That’s fine. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

Nick

Hi Cameron,

I think you’re right, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

This has been an interesting discussion for me and I do understand better why you believe what you do. But my experience (and I believe the Church’s experience) of God’s love is that it is universal, selfless and freely given and freely recieved: “He, the lord, is merciful, tenderhearted, slow to anger, very loving, and universally kind; the Lord’s tenderness embraces all his creatures…Upright in all that he does, the Lord acts only out of love. He is close to all who call upon him, all who call upon him from the heart.” (Psalm 145:8-9,17-18). I hope and pray that your experience of his love is, or will be, like this too.

Yours in Christ,

Nick.

Cameron

Nick,

Again, when the Semi-Palagian view makes a charge against Calvinism for being less loving, hence not being universal, they are only running themselves through with their own arguments (without knowing it). Calvinists believe in universal general love, not universal special love. The Semi-Palagian lumps these two together and says God tries to love everyone equally, but it’s dependent upon us whether we will receive it. So again, the latter view here assumes that a sinner is indifferent to God, not hostile to Him. If the sinner is only indifferent to God then he has the capacity within himself to respond to God how he ought. If God were really universally loving as you are claiming He is, then He would do what He knows would convince indifferent sinners to believe in Him in these short lives, so they wouldn’t have to spend eternity under His own wrath. But for some reason the supposed omniscient and universally loving God in your view doesn’t do this.

You hope that I will love a God who is as loving as Psalm 145. The view of God I am proposing is that loving. If God saved one sinner, He would still be that loving. If He saved no sinner, He would still be that loving. God is immutable. The degree of His loving nature is not predicated on how equally He treats us but only His eternal holiness.

Nick

Cameron, I think this issue of God’s love is the essential one, so I’ll try to let you know a little more of what I believe and try to address your points, as best I can, in doing so.

Ultimately, I believe that God wants us to love him and one another as he loves us (John 15, 1 Corinthians 13, 1 John, Matthew 5-7, etc), which we will do perfectly in heaven. If his love for us is freely given on his part then, if we are to love as he does, we must recieve it from him, return it to him and share it with others freely too. This is true love, anything else is a mere simulation of love. Take away our free-will to recieve, return and share love and we are merely robots programmed to ‘love’ ; or pets who ‘love’ because of what they get out of it; or slaves who fearfully ‘love’ their masters.

For me, this answers your question about why God does not do something to convince sinners to believe in him. Essentially, he’s not trying to get people to believe in him, in the sense of merely acknowledging his existence (as James 2:19 says- “even the demons do that”). Rather, his plan, desire and will is for people to believe in his love and accept it into them and so learn to live in it. He knew the only thing that would convince us to do this was to show us the depths of his free, selfless love by sending his Son to us (“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him…may have eternal life.”- John 3:16) and to show it supremely in his sacrifice on the Cross- “When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to myself” (John 12:32).

The “all” here I think refers to the fact that we are all given the opportunity, before his Cross, to believe in, accept and live in the love of God made visible there, or to reject it. “God our saviour wants all men to be saved and reach full knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4).

I understand this leaves us with a dillema- why did God create some people who he knew would reject him and therefore be destined to hell? Well, that’s something I’ve struggled with all my Christian life. I suppose, in a sense, the Calvinist position is an attempt to give an answer to that. Though, for all the reasons I’ve given on this thread, it’s not one I can subscribe too.

Personally, I have found two things that help me with this dillema. The first is a growing understanding that we are called to love and to trust and to hope but not to know everything: “The knowledge that I have now is imperfect….Only three things remain: faith, hope and love; and the greatest of these is love.” (1 Corinthians 13:12-13) As I’ve said before, I have experienced God’s love in prayer, in the Scriptures, in the Church, and in trying to love others and I know it to be as I’ve described it above, so I simply have to trust that God has a loving reason why he created some who would freely choose to reject him forever- if that is the case.

The reason I say ‘if that is the case’ is because the Catholic Church has never declared specifically that anyone has finally rejected God and so gone to hell and that allows for the possibility that everyone, in those secret moments of death, chooses not to do so. Now, I don’t know that this is the case, and I never will for sure, but it gives me one possible way of understanding how things might work. Though, as I said, ultimately, I believe that what is important is to know God’s love, to trust in it, and to try to live in it by his grace.

Yours in Christ,

Nick.

Cameron

The Calvinist position does in fact hold that we receive God’s love and freely love Him back. The major clarification however is that we are not free to do this on our own, or if left to ourselves. So by the grace of God, we are enabled to freely love Him and be slaves to righteousness instead of hate Him and be slaves to sin (Rom 6). This is not a simulation of love, but an enabling of God hating sinners to be able to freely love Him back. In this sense, God does not violate our free-will but restores our wills to that which it was intended, namely, to know Him with.

The Semi-Palagian view would be a violation of freewill however. God forces people to go against their God-hating natures and to love Him otherwise there will be eternal wrath. God’s hands are tide with these people. This goes back to the point you struggle with. Why did God create these people whom He already knew would not will to love Him?

I would argue from Scripture that Romans 9 deals with this hard to swallow issue which portrays God… shall we say a bit more wild (Rom 9:18-24). Of course, this is a highly debated chapter, but I would suggest James R. White’s exegesis. I personally find it to be very consistent with the text. He seems a bit on edge in the teaching, but if you know Dr. White, you know that’s just how he is, very “matter of fact” about things.

http://mp3.aomin.org/JRW/Romans9.mp3

And lastly, I would like to say that I fully share in your confidence that many will be saved! In fact, as a Calvinist I have great hope in this because God is in the business of saving and I know He actually created this universe for that sole purpose by which He will receive the most glory. Thus He will and can do it to the utter most because He wants to. I would argue that if Calvinism is true, then more will be saved in this scenario had Calvinism not been true and fallen God hating sinners were ultimately expected to make the gospel a success.

This is why I pray and evangelize like an Arminian, but sleep like a Calvinist. *laughter*

~Cameron

(With reference to 1 Tim 2:4 I would interpret ‘pas’ (all) as all kinds, hence why Paul says to pray for Kings and those in authority (he names different kinds of people). ‘Pas’ has to be used in context. Further, the book of John is one of the most predestinarian books in Scripture. I would say that John 12:32 doesn’t give enough in the context to know 1. what degree people are being drawn, and 2. how inclusive ‘pas’ is. Even if it is a general drawing to all existing men, then this fits in with Calvinist theology as well for God commands all to believe, even those He knows wont. Nevertheless, verse 33 clarifies the main reason for this statement was to show what kind of death He was going to die (crucifixion), not necessarily the scope of the atonement)

Nick

Thanks for your reply, Cameron. What you say is interesting and I think you’re right that our differences are not so great, on some of these particular issues, as at first seems. That’s something I keep on finding out in the few discussions I’ve had with Protestants recently.

Infact, I found this fascinating article: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309fea1.asp which shows that Catholics have two different schools of thought on this matter too. One lot, the Thomists (after St Thomas Aquinas), believe in very similar things to what you’ve been stating as a Calvinist, though there are still differences. The other lot (Molinists) stress free-will more, as I’ve been doing. Anyway, it gave me some food for thought.

Certainly I don’t believe, as you seem to be suggesting I might, that God forces people to go against their natural God-hating natures and love him. As I’ve said before, God doesn’t force anyone to do anything, let alone love him. Neither do I believe that our natures are all or completely God-hating. Infact, as I said when discussing the parable of the sower, I think many of our hearts, despite our sins, are predisposed to love him and welcome him. Once again, I think the best analogy of this is that of a father and son. I love my son and I show him that love (not least in my self-sacrifice for him) but I never try to force or manipulate him to love me in return. Rather, my love for him has inspired and encouraged him to choose to love me back. But this would not have been the case if his heart had not been ready to do so, despite his sometimes natural disobedience. Further, my love for him and what he sees of my love for others is helping him to learn to love others too ,though once again, this would not be happening if his heart was not predisposed to do so. This is how, essentially, I believe things are between God and us.

You mentioned Romans 9 and ,funnily enough, I was reading it yesterday and wondering and praying about how it fitted in with the things I believe. Well, I’ve not come to any firm conclusions about it, though, I would suggest that maybe it’s not talking about the final judgement but only about the way God judges individuals and nations in this life; permits their freely-willed evil actions; and uses them to bring about his will (which may even include their eventual salvation). However, Catholics who are Thomist in thought would read it more like you do! So I think these are all things I need to continue praying about.

Once again, I would say that, opening to and living in God’s love is infinitely more important than thinking one has the correct theology of it (whether one really has or not). I mentioned St Thomas Aquinas, and I love what he famously said at the end of his life after a rapturous experience of God: “All I have written is straw.” I don’t think he was saying that all he had written was nonsense only that compared to the experience of God it was worthless. Well, I’d be more than happy to say the same about all the things (right and wrong) I’ve ever said or written about God.

Yours in Christ,

Nick.

Cameron

“Certainly I don’t believe, as you seem to be suggesting I might, that God forces people to go against their natural God-hating natures and love him.”

I would probably clarify that in the Semi-Palagian view that God doesn’t force people necessarily but demands even those whom He knows wont accept Him to change their disposition towards Him. In that sense, the sinner would have to go against their own will, namely, a will that God already knows wont be changed.

“As I’ve said before, God doesn’t force anyone to do anything, let alone love him.”

And as a Calvinist I would say amen to this of course. Whereas I believe that God restores hearts of stone to hearts of flesh, thus frees them to love Him.

James R. White talks about the idea of Rom 9 referring to nations. He says that is not likely because it’s the decsendents of Israel (spiritual Israel) that are being addressed in the context. Further, even if it were nations, nations are still made up of individuals. And Acts 17 says that God determines the time and places we are born.

“Further, my love for him and what he sees of my love for others is helping him to learn to love others too ,though once again, this would not be happening if his heart was not predisposed to do so. This is how, essentially, I believe things are between God and us.”

And as a Calvinist I would agree with you that this can be done horizontally, but differ on it being done vertically (apart from grace that is).

“Once again, I would say that, opening to and living in God’s love is infinitely more important than thinking one has the correct theology of it (whether one really has or not).”

I fully agree and am humbled by this. I believe all of even our most correct theology will still be next to heresy once we no longer see Christ through the dim window but fully see Him and experience Him as He really is.

Talking to you has been very refreshing Nick. Thanks for having such a spirit of kindness in it all.

Nick

You’ve really blessed me by saying these things, Cameron- thank you and Amen to what you said about experiencing Christ as he really is. I hope and pray that we both will one day, and I look forward in hope to seeing you there.

I’ve enjoyed our discussion too and you have made me think and pray about these things more deeply and I will continue to do so. I don’t really have anything more to add presently so perhaps, on your gracious note, we can leave it there. Maybe we’ll return to it sometime or speak about something else on another thread.

God bless you.

Yours in Christ,

Nick.

Here are a series of stupid atheist assumptions I’ve heard as to how morality can be accounted for, along with my rebuttals: (There are more to come)

1. “Majorities determine what is right and wrong.”

Rebuttal:

a. This assumes that majority opinion, or popular consensus, determines morality, yet just begs the question because we then need to know by what standard majorities get to determine anything. In other words, what determines that majorities get to determine morality?

b. If it were the case that majorities determine morality, however, then what is considered morally right is subject to change, thus nothing can really be considered moral or immoral at all times. Either the majority could change it’s mind, or the minority could one day kill all the majority and become the majority. “A” could be immoral on Monday and then be voted to be moral by Tuesday.

(You may be like Brian Sapient and say “but they would never do that” or “they can’t do that”. But this would 1. appeal to the supernatural because you’re saying nature “ought” to not do something, and 2. goes back to (a) because it’s being assumed that majorities must only vote “A” and never against it, thus YOU’RE now determining what majorities ought to vote and you’re inadvertently making yourself the standard of morality.)

c. The majority could someday decide that majorities do not determine morality. But again, this would take us back to (a). This assumes there is a standard, apart from the majority, which determines that majorities get to determine anything.

d. When we examine this claim under the microscope, we see that majorities are only good at telling us the majority opinion, nothing else. Popular consensus only accounts for popular consensus, period. It can’t determine what ought to be correct behavior, thinking, and intention any more then drawing moral opinions out of a hat can.

e. What if the majority is 50/50? There’s no way we’d know which side we should listen to. If there was a tie breaker, such as paper-rock-scissors, then what is moral or immoral would be determined by chance.

f. What if the majority hasn’t made up it’s mind on a given issue? Then we’d be free to commit that act until it was deemed immoral.

g. What if the majority determined that eating vanilla ice-cream on Tuesdays was immoral. Then we’d have to conclude that it was absolutely immoral in all cases.

h. What if the majority determined that it’s an immoral thing to determine what is moral and immoral? That would mean we should no longer listen to majorities.

2. “Each individual person gets to decide what is morally right and wrong for themselves.”

Rebuttal:

a. Then if a person feels it’s OK in their own eyes to molest children and murder then it is OK. If this were the only standard of morality then we’d be inconsistent to arrest these people. Instead we’d have to first ask them “is what you did morally OK to you?”, and we could only arrest them if they said “No”.

b. One person could say “when I murdered that guy it was OK”. Another person could tell them “when you murdered that guy it was wrong.” Which person is more right? No one would be more correct because each person is right in their own eyes and we have to accept that.

c. If a person said that it was morally wrong for them to eat ice cream on Tuesdays, and that this action was punishable by death, then they would be upholding justice by hanging themselves if they forgot and ate ice cream on Tuesday.

3. “Morality is determined by that which helps us survive as a species.”

Rebuttal:

a. Again, this is begging the question because what is the bases by which we determine that surviving is moral?

b. All species die, therefore, according to this logic, it is also morally right to die. In fact, even moreso because we are dead way longer then we are alive. In this sense, it is more natural for species to die, then stay alive.

c. According to this logic, we are allowed to murder others so long as our rate of murder does not exceed the optimal rate for survival (whatever that is).

d. According to this logic, we can do all kinds of things which Scripture says is immoral, i.e. adultery, homosexuality, lying, pride, idolatry, stealing, pedophilia, and even beating others up so long as our species is still surviving.

4. “All is permissible (there are no absolute morals), yet there are still consequences to your actions which society as a whole has determined.”

Rebuttal:

a. According to this logic, one may murder, but just needs to do so in secret in order to get away with it and avoid the consequences.

b. Some one may not care about the consequences and be provoked to murder because they need a place to live and figure that prison could be their real estate of choice.

c. This logic does not say something is immoral, but simply just states there are consequences to our actions, nothing more. Just like there are consequences to walking on ice, but that doesn’t mean walking on ice is immoral.

5. “We know what is immoral by that which causes unnecessary harm.”

Rebuttal:

a. This begs the question because it assumes that there is a correct standard which determines what kinds of actions are unnecessary. How do we know what types of harm are absolutely unnecessary in all cases? People disagree on what types of harm are necessary and unnecessary, thus there needs to be a bases to say that someone is more right.

Conclusion: “Atheism is a morally bankrupt worldview where all is permissable in the end, therefore, all atheists are acting like hypocrites when acting like injustice (a violation of morality) and justice (penalizing the violation) are realities.”

Here’s a question for you to ponder on your way to the grocery store today: “Is the Trinity more correctly 3 who’s and 1 what, or 3 who’s and 1 who?” By “who’s” I don’t mean those things on ‘The Grinch Who Stole Christmas’. In other words, the orthodox position of the Trinity is that God exists as 3 persons together making up one being.

The question I am raising is, what do we mean by “being” when we refer to the oneness of God? Is this being personal or impersonal? Is it a “what” or a “who”? If we can’t know for certain, then which should we at least lean towards?

What is Modalism? Modalism says that God is one person while that one person acts in different “modes” or functions. Namely, God functions as a father, a son, and a spirit. It’s like God is a dad, a son, and a grandson all at the same time. It makes God more like us. We are one person but have different roles we take on as one person.

However, the orthodox position is that God is not merely 1 person acting 3 different ways, but is 1 being who eternally consists of 3 persons, while all three persons are equally God and together make up God. This is a paradox, nevertheless is the Biblical conclusion of God’s being which He has revealed to us through His special revelation of inspired Scripture.

Then, there is what I call the “reverse of Modalism”. This is simply what we get when we take Modalism, but instead say there are 3 persons who make up 1 “mode”. In other words, the oneness of God is impersonal. It is more like a function, an idea, or a thing. Kind of like a “team” or a “unified purpose”.

I personally believe it is better to define the Trinity as saying that God is 3 persons while simultaneously 1 person. Why do I believe God in His oneness is personal, or a person? For me there’s one major reason. It’s because there’s no Scriptural evidence that Yahweh, the one true God revealed in His oneness, is impersonal. Yahweh is not a “what”, a “thing”, or an “idea”.

I did not make this up on my own. Other Christians have explained this possibility to me and after hearing it I seemed to be more satisfied with these conclusions. I have asked many fellow believers what their take on these ideas are. Some who have heard of this before already agreed with me. Some who have never heard of it before got excited and agreed with me. Some who have never heard of it pondered it. Some who have never heard of it rejected it. And some who have heard of it before disagreed with me, called me names and said I was espousing heresy, was on a mission to make others fall into heresy, and was being unorthodox!

I did email a question about this topic to Gene Cook Jr. who hosts The Narrow Mind. You can go to the website and listen to him read and answer my question on show #958, at 7:30 min into the show. Cook actually agreed with me on this position! I am not one who is going out on the deep end of my theology or trying to be confrontational, but am earnestly seeking out these matter by asking others who might have some good insight. It is sad that I have experienced some believers accuse me of having ill motives over this matter against the backdrop of other believers who welcomed me with courtesy and Biblical reasoning.

I have no agenda to try and make anyone believe what I believe when it comes to this particular matter! It is a secondary matter and does not determine one’s salvation! A matter such as this should NEVER cause fellow believers in Christ to snap at each other.

But I also have no problem defending my belief! If you’re one who takes a liking to apologetics, let me ask you, are you familiar with that feeling you get when you hear non-Christian’s arguments against Christianity and they turn out to be so bad that it only reinforces your beliefs all the more?! Well that happens to be the way I feel when it comes to this issue of the Trinity! All of the arguments I’ve heard which say that God in His oneness is not personal have been so poor that I’m feel I am only left to believe that He is personal all the more.

Now for the rest of this thread I would like to take an opportunity to layout all of the objections I’ve heard so far. I hope you will consider these arguments as well and decide for yourself what you believe to be a Biblical conclusion on this matter.

Argument 1: “Saying that God is 3 persons and 1 person is contradictory.”

Rebuttal: No, saying God is only 3 persons and only 1 person is contradictory. But if we say that God is 3 persons while simultaneously 1 person then that is a paradox, which the doctrine of the Trinity is anyways! But saying God is 3 persons while also 1 person is not contradictory but demonstrates that God is in a category of being beyond our understanding, which the doctrine of the Trinity still is anyways.

“Yet, we reply, how could God be both one person and three persons? Isn’t that a blatant violation of the law of non-contradiction? In seeking an answer, we must acknowledge that Van Til considered this an apparent contradiction and not a real one (see Common Grace and the Gospel, p. 9). A contradiction is said to occur when something is asserted to be both A and not-A at the same time and in the same sense.”

Steve Anderson

http://www.vantil.info/articles/vtfem.html#AIV2 (under section 2. Van Til rejected the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity)

Argument 2: “If you say there are 3 persons in the Godhead, and that God is also a person, then you’re saying there are a total of 4 persons! That is completely against the Orthodox position.”

Rebuttal: The answer to this is yes there are 4 persons and not there aren’t. Yes in the sense that we can count a total of 4 persons, namely, the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and the God whom they make up together. No in the sense that there are not 4 persons together making up God, or making up the one God. Further, since all 3 persons exhaust one another, and each are fully the one true God, we don’t distinguish each individual person, the Father, the Son, or the Spirit, from God’s oneness. We distinguish the 3 persons who are making up the 1 God, but we don’t distinguish the 3 persons from the 1 God because each person IS also the 1 God, especially according to the creeds as we will look into next! In other words, if we’re going to count a 4th person, then we’re only re-counting the 3 persons we’ve already counted who together make up God, no more no less. So it really makes not sense to say there’s 4 persons once you think about it because the “4th” person is all 3 together. The “4th” person is the “1″ God, and vice versa.

Let’s go over this again in greater detail. If there is a “4th” person do you know who it is? Are you catching this? It is in this case shorthand for the “one true God”! Each person is the true God and all of them together make up the one true God. But do we say “that means there’s 4 true Gods?” No!

When we are referring to God in His oneness are we referring to 1 person being the one true God or to all 3 persons together being the one true God? The answer is yes. The answer is both are equally correct because when we’re referring to just 1 person (say the Holy Spirit) as being the one true God, we are at the same time referring to all 3 persons since they all exhaust (overlap if you will) one another. Therefore, we don’t just say that the Father is the one true God, the Son is the one true God, and that the Spirit is the one true God, but also that all 3 together are the one true God.

Referring to 1 is just as good as referring to all 3. None are lacking what the others have. Each individual person is fully God, and all 3 together are fully God. And each individual person is fully God, because all 3 together are fully God. Saying 1 person is fully God and that all 3 are fully God are really interchangeable terms when it comes to God’s triune nature, because both are equally true. We don’t conclude that this is contradictory, however. We say it is a paradox, or is only seemingly contradictory. Notice then how no Orthodox Christians are protesting “so you’re saying there are 4 true Gods?” No one is protesting this. But why? They’de have every reason to say there are 4 true Gods if we’re going to argue that there might be 4 persons. I believe each individual person is a person, and that all three together are a person. Just like how each person is the one true God and all 3 together are the one true God.

Argument 3: “This is an un-Orthodox position. The creeds and confessions only state that God in His oneness is a “being” not a “person”.”

Rebuttal: I generally fully agree with the creeds and confessions. But sometimes I believe more then what they tell me, hence that the “being” of God is a person. You’ll find, however, that the creeds and confessions don’t define (let alone define exhaustively) what a “being” even is. Is a “being” a person, a non-person, or a semi-person? This is why I derive my conclusions of the Trinity ultimately from Scripture, not creeds and confessions as they are not inspired texts, while Scripture is. The creeds and confessions try their best to derive their conclusions from Scripture, but that doesn’t mean they tell all there is to know. People understood the doctrine of the Trinity before the Council of Nicea, thus creeds are not our prerequisite to revelation, Scripture and the Holy Spirit is.

Let’s look at 2 important and commonly referred to creeds and confessions and see what they tell us about the Trinity.

The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689):

“The Lord our God is the one and only living and true God; Whose subsistence is in and of Himself”

Now, is there such thing as an impersonal Lord? I have never heard of one. It’s funny to me how those who reject this view of the Trinity never allow themselves to say that “God is impersonal” or that “yes there is such thing as an impersonal Lord”, because it is so ridiculous to fathom. Yet, they still reject saying that God in His oneness is personal. So either God in His oneness is 1. personal, 2. impersonal, or 3. semi-personal (whatever that means!). So which is it?!

The Athanasian Creed:

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

The Athanasian creed also says there is “but one Lord”. So I ask again, “have you ever heard of an impersonal Lord, or are you going to now start believing in one?” Lines 16 and 18 reaffirm what I stated in ‘rebuttal 2′. The 3 persons together make up 1 God. “They” plural, are numerically 1 God and Lord. Have you heard of an impersonal God or Lord? And again, if each person is fully the one true God, and all 3 together are the one true God, then there aren’t 4 true Gods.

Moreover, apologists who defend the personality of the Holy Spirit (usually against Unitarians and JW’s) point to texts in Scripture which demonstrate that the Spirit speaks, wills, is referred to with personal pronouns (rather than neuter pronouns at times), is grieved, knows things, etc. Yet, doesn’t God as revealed in His oneness do all these things too? I would say He does. Therefore, for the very same reasons that the Spirit is said to be a person, I would argue that God in His oneness is also a person.

Sometimes God speaks as a single individual (while first person singular pronouns are used, i.e “I”) and sometimes He speaks in unity (first person plural pronouns are used, i.e. “we”, “us”). When Yahweh speaks as one person (“I [Yahweh] will…”), and the context does not reveal to us which person of the Trinity is speaking, does that mean one of the 3 persons is actually speaking or that all 3 together making 1 person is speaking? Likewise, when Yahweh seems to speak as all 3 persons (“We will…”, or “let us…”), does that mean all 3 persons are speaking together or that all 3 together making 1 person is speaking? Or does it not matter how we answer this and could we conclude that all are correct answers, given God’s triune nature? I believe we could.

Argument 4: “God in His oneness is personal but only in the sense that God is tri-personal, not uni-personal. In other words, the oneness of God is personal only because of the 3 persons, not itself.”

Rebuttal: This is basically saying that God in His oneness is “indirectly personal”, simply because the oneness consists of 3 persons, while all along God in His oneness is still not considered to be “a person”. In other words, God in His oneness is wrought with personal attributes or is connected to personal attributes, thus can in a way be considered “personal”. Likewise, maybe we could say a baseball team is personal only because it is made up of persons, yet a team itself is an “idea” not a person.

Perhaps for the sake of clarity we could say that for God to be “uni-personal” is to emphasize that His oneness makes Him personal. On the other hand, we might say that to be “tri-personal” is to emphasize that His three-ness makes Him personal. So which is it? Which mostly accounts for God’s person-hood? Is it His unity or His diversity? I would say both equally account for it. We’ll get more into this when we discuss Van Til’s view later.

I once argued with a person that God in His oneness is personal. They said “yes tri-personal, not uni-personal”. I said, “but God in His oneness is not impersonal, but is personal.” They said, “yes, God is “tri-personal”. I repeated my point again, then they said, “we’re beginning to repeat ourselves now aren’t we?” In actuality, we were both repeating ourselves. Now that I look back on it, I see why we were talking past each other. I was trying to say that God is both “tri-personal and uni-personal” and they were trying to say that God is only “tri-personal”. They were saying that God’s oneness can only be said to be personal because of the 3 persons. I was saying that unless God in His oneness is a person, the oneness is impersonal, and there is no middle ground.

Here is what someone else has written in regard to this: “The suggestion that the tri-personality of the Trinity is sufficient to furnish this personal unity misses the obvious point: tri-personality involves a plurality of personhood, not a singularity of personhood. A triad qua triad is not a unity.”

(http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/08/van-tils-serious-trinitarian-theology.html)

It becomes a semantics game when we use the word “personal” because we can imply different meanings with it. I equate the term “personal” to an actual person. I choose not to equate the term “personal” (when referring to the nature of the Trinity), as being semi-personal, or merely being connected to personal attributes somehow, such as saying my finger nail is personal because it makes up my person. Thus, when I say “personal” I actually mean “a person”. If we want to say that God in His oneness is only “personal” in the sense of being inadvertently tied to a person then why can’t the Unitarian or Jehovah’s Witness use these same word games and agree with Christians that the Holy Spirit is a person? They could just say, “I believe the Holy Spirit is personal because it is power which comes from and is connected to a person”. But how personal is the Holy Spirit in that case when we examine this view under the microscope of scrutiny? Not very. It’s still a mindless force.

I do agree that God in His oneness consists of 3 persons, thus is wrought with personal attributes, but I do not say that this is ONLY as far as we can go in saying that God is personal. I also believe more then this. I believe we can say that God in His oneness is a person.

We could just cut to the chase and define a person as something which has a mind. So does God have 1 mind or 3 minds? I would argue both! If we say only 3 minds, then we get the reverse of Modalism and the idea of having a single mind is only in the sense that God is acting like a business committee working together for a common goal. Vice-versa, If we say only one mind then we get Modalism because the 3 persons of God get reduced to being different masks or functions of God, not 3 persons with distinct wills.

Argument 5: “Van Til did not believe that God in His oneness is a person, and if He did he only thought so in the sense that the 3 persons provide this attribute to the 1 being, not the other way around (as in argument 3).”

Rebuttal

1. It’s one thing to interpret Van Til on this matter, and it’s another to formulate one’s conclusion based on Scripture. Maybe Van Til believed “A”. Maybe he believed “B”. Maybe “A” is correct, or maybe “B” is correct. Maybe both are incorrect. Either way, we need to look at Scripture.

2. It is very easy to believe that Van Til did in fact believe that God in His oneness is a person.

“We do assert that God, that is, the whole Godhead, is one person. [...] Even within the ontological Trinity we must maintain that God is numerically one. He is one person. When we say that we believe in a personal God, we do not merely mean that we believe in a God to whom the adjective ‘personality’ may be attached. God is not an essence that has personality; He is absolute personality.”

Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, p. 229

Gordon Clark and John Frame condemned the idea of God in His oneness being a person, and took issue with Van Til’s frank statements on this. But Clark’s view itself leans more towards Modalism, and Clark believed weird things like the laws of logic are separate from God’s eternal mind. Of course this is an ad-hominum, but it’s a good one for theological purposes. I’m not going to take my ques from Clark on this matter because he doesn’t know what he’s talking about from the outset! And no matter how you look at it, neither of these men are the standard of the doctrine of the Trinity. Again, Scripture is. Scripture is. Yes, that ’s right. I like saying it. Scrpture is.

Not only can we easily deduce that Van Til held this belief form researching his position, but also from looking at his fundamental philosophy, which we’ll get to in point 4.

3. It is argued that Van Til, even if believing that God in His oneness is a person, is not being un-orthodox.

“There is no doubt that this is a provocative, confusing, and potentially misleading teaching, and a full discussion of the issue is far beyond the scope and purpose of this article. My aim here will simply be to indicate the motivation behind Van Til’s statements and to argue that he is guilty of neither irrationalism nor unorthodoxy.

Van Til did not reject the orthodox formulation at all. In fact, the passage quoted above immediately follows a discussion of the traditional doctrine of the Trinity in which he endorses the statements of Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon, and the Westminster Confession. He also outlines and criticizes the historic anti-trinitarian heresies, including Sabellianism (Modalism). His complaint with the traditional statements was not that they were in error, but that issues which have arisen in the intervening centuries and which demand a further defence of orthodox doctrine could not be adequately addressed without intensifying those statements. Van Til’s concern was that we should avoid any implication that the unity of the Godhead is an impersonal unity, that the Being who is the ground of all being is ultimately impersonal in nature. One of the implications of denying this, Van Til argued, would be that since interpretation is a personal act (existing in the mind of a person) there could be no ultimately unified interpretation of reality. The universe would be fundamentally unintelligible.

This, then, was Van Til’s basic motivation for stating that God must be one person as well as three persons (as per the Nicene definition). In addition to the conceptual argument, he claimed biblical support through verses which express God’s personal unity (e.g., Deut. 6:4-5, a supremely personal text).”

Steve Anderson, http://www.vantil.info/articles/vtfem.html#AIV2 (under section 2. Van Til rejected the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity)

4. One of Van Til’s most clentched beliefs was that both God’s unity and diversity are equally fundamental. This was his bases for accounting for the one and the many, thus the laws of logic. This article, written by Colin D. Smith, was offered to me to read in order to clarify that Van Til can be interpreted as being “Orthodox” only in the sense that ‘argument 4′ states. (At least I think that’s why it was offered to me.) It is a great article which philosophically explains how God is “absolute personality” by virtue of being the ultimate and eternal bases of relationship, thus the “personal”. Without God’s eternal relationship within Himself, there would be no personal dimension nor could the existence of logic, thinking, feelings, relationship, communication, emotions, morals, intelligence, intentionality, design, etc, be realities.

Continuing, like I said above, I believe that God does account for the personal, because like Smith points out He is ultimately personal, but I also believe more then this. Let’s consider that which is perhaps Van Til’s most quintessential philosophical conclusion, namely, that God is both ultimate unity and diversity. Even Smith takes this into account when it comes to interpreting Van Til. You can’t really get around this idea when it comes to reading Van Til!

On page 23 of the article, Van Til is quoted as saying “In God, “unity… is no more fundamental than diversity, and diversity… is no more fundamental than unity.”

Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, p. 25.

A human analogy of this would be like comparing God to an actor. The actor is a single person (unity) taking on multiple roles (diversity). This illustration is like Modalism. The individual is one person, but the roles the actor plays are merely just different functions. The roles are different ways of acting or doing things, but not persons.

Then consider the flip side. For example, in a baseball team you have many persons (diversity) making up a non-personal team (unity). This illustration is like the reverse of Modalism. The individual players who make up the team are personal, but the team itself is not a person. A team is a “thing” or an “idea”.

Now let me ask you in light of Van Til’s claim that God’s “unity” and “diversity” are equally fundamental, “which is more fundamental in accounting for acting roles?” Is it the personal actor or the roles themselves? The actor is more fundamental to having roles, because the actor is personal. Roles just don’t come about by themselves. You need a person to first portray the different roles in order for them to come about.

Again, look at the flip side. Now let me ask you, “what is more fundamental to making up a team?” Is it the personal players, or the idea of “team” itself? It’s the personal players because if you take them away, then you don’t have a team. But once they’re there, then you have a team. The players are more fundamental because you need them first in order to have a team.

Likewise, if God’s unity were more fundamental then His diversity, you’d end up with abstract diversity, or Modalism. If God’s diversity were more fundamental then His unity, you’d end up with abstract unity, or the reverse of Modalism. Thus, God must be 3 persons while simultaneously 1 person (philosophically speaking that is). Neither His oneness or three-ness can be more fundamental then the other, otherwise you’d end up with either Modalism or the reverse of Modalism.

An attempt for a natural illustration of the Trinity

Lastly, I would like to throw out what I believe to be the most helpful natural illustration (while it still has its limitations) of what we can most closely compare the Trinity to. This wold be the picture I have at the top of this thread which shows the primary colors. The primary colors are blue, red, and green, and together make up the single color white (if we can allow white to be a color). Notice the color white consists of all three colors, and all three colors exhaust one another entirely to make up white. No one color is more of a color then the others. All the colors are distinguishable, yet inseparable in terms of comprising the color white.

Most Mormons who come to my door, whom I see on tv, or whom I hear on the radio seem to always assure everyone that they’re “good people”. They’re quick to say this without hesitation as though they’re the finest top-notch specimens of human beings. They put the wonder back into wonderful. The context in which they say they’re “good” is that they keep their sin level to a minimum. It’s NOT because Christ made them good and is making them good.

It’s not because He lived the life they couldn’t, died the death they deserved (for not living the life they should have), and rose from the dead to prove it all satisfactory. Instead, it’s that they are good on their own and are making themselves good on their own.

They’re good people because they have a big list of things they do, and a big list of things they don’t do. Scripture would show us that these are the WORST kinds of people. Scripture would have us own up to being evil, confess it with confidence in Christ, not ourselves, and acknowledgment that no matter how great our sins have been Christ is still a far greater Savior. This hope in Christ can’t be stated enough times because it’s so anti-thetical to what we want to believe. We want to believe God accepts us because of us, not because of Christ.

And so the gospel is only for those who first realize the complete hopelessness of their sin, becasue then they’ll be able to realize their complete hope in Christ.

First I would just like to point out that the Apostle Paul said this: “Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.” 1 Tim 1:15

Thus, most Mormons are more holy then the Apostle Paul.

Rom 3:20 says, “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.” (and the entire law is summed up in loving God and others, Deut 6, Mat 22. Thus, any sin in thought, word, deed, intention, etc strips us of our righteousness.)

1 John 1:8, “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.”

Luke 18:9-14 “To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’ (Note: the Pharisee, or super religious person, fasts twice a week which isn’t even commanded in Scripture! Kind of like how Mormons don’t drink coffee.)

“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Sure, Mr. and Mrs. Mormon, you’re not a murderer or an adulterer. Well, actually you are in your heart according to Jesus in Mat 5. OK, but you’re not as bad as others, right? Well, in one sense you are because a single sin is enough to separate anyone from God for eternity, just like it did with Satan and Adam when they sinned for the very first time.

Here is why. God is holy, holy, holy, thus if we break God’s law by thought, word, deed, and/or intention then we’re found to be sinful, sinful, sinful! This is true. If you’re a Mormon reading this, then let the KJV, which is part of the Quad, ring in your ears like a Beijing gong.

James 2:10 “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”

Galatians 3:10 “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.”

On top of all this, if this wasn’t enough, Scripture will again put a bullet in your righteousness. If you claim to be a good person and say that God ultimately accepts you because of your awesome self, then you’re actually making God the most mad. Congratulations!

Proverbs 6:16-17 says, “There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue…”

If one does not admit to themselves that they are sinful, then they are guilty of the sin of pride. It’s a big one. It got Satan kicked out of Heaven. Further, one would be lying to themselves if they said they were good on their own. It takes humility to realize one’s sinfulness. This is a pathetic weakness in the world’s eyes, but is enormous strength in God’s eyes. His grace gives us the strength to have humility and admit that we are evil, thus greatly in need of Jesus Christ.

So Mormon, my question to you over this impersonal blog is: “Why do you call yourself good by minimizing your sin? Why do you act like you’re more holy then you are and pretend that God is less holy then He is when it comes to the atrocity of your eternal God-separating sin? And saddest of all, why is your confidence ultimately in yourself to be good, not Christ?”

If you’re a Mormon, an un-believer, or a professed Christian who fails to see yourself as a sinner who is exposed by the gospel, then you need Christ to help you realize the truth about yourself so that you can truly embrace hope in Jesus Christ alone.

Lastly Mormon, before you consider this gospel, which you are not used to hearing, go poor cold water on yourself and shock yourself out of your Mormon bias before you approach the real gospel. It can only be approached on its terms, not yours.

Reply to me on here. I would love to talk with you!

Welcome to my worst-news/best-news blog!

		R.C. Sproul gospel excerpt (3:48 ) Mark Driscoll on “religion” (17:23) Testimony of Johnny Cash (6:49) Andy Hunter Outro (3:25)

What does Galatians 3:6-14 tell us about the real gospel? Answer: What it really is! (click here for more)

Read about the missing gospel here.

Listen to the missing gospel here.

Good luck finding a church today that loves truth and loves the real gospel. The church is plagued with anti-nomianism and legalism…

First, anti-nomianism is a fancy word meaning we either abuse grace by carelessly sinning, or over-emphasize grace by likening God to Barney. Many Christians today act like heretics because they gloss over the doctrine of repentance, which should prevent us from glossing over sins such as divorce, homosexuality, pride, etc. Rather we should be marveled at God’s great beauty in covenant marriage, opposite sex lovers, meekness, etc. Further, there are many churches which over-emphasize grace, such as Joel Olsteen’s and Rick Warren’s. They offer ego-stroking, therapeutic, negative 5% offensive sermons. Mantras like “smile… Jesus loves you” and “God loves the sinner but hates the sin” stem from these types of Disney Channel style Christians who seek to please people more then God. Gandhi said “God loves the sinner but hates the sin”, not Jesus.

On the flip side, the church is plagued with legalism. Legalism is another fancy word referring to those who equate their man-approved traditions with Scripture, or think they are better than you because they minimize their dirty laundry and maximize yours…

Legalism, in the form of man-centered tradition says “don’t get a tattoo”, “don’t drink alcohol (ever)”, or “don’t have a worship style different than ours”, etc. These people are guilty for making Christ seem bitter and as boring as watching paint dry for the sake of making Christ look like them. Others are legalistic because they are self-righteous. They think God daydreams about them and wishes everyone was like them. This is a very un-biblical notion which stems from rotten pride. It comes from people thinking God is less holy then He is and that they are more holy than they are. They think God grades sin on a curve and that they’re somewhere at the top of the list. They forget that God grades only one way – perfection. One sin is enough to separate us from God forever. It took that one person only one sin. I think his name was Adam.

In summary, the Church today remains either un-repentant, embracing therapeutic gospels, clenching pointless traditions, or reeking of self-righteous pride. In reality, every Christian has a bit of all these things in them. Yet, we must go through detoxification, and re-approach Christ for who He really is. Both Christians and non-Christians are not impressed with Jesus Christ because no one dares to see how wild He really is. He is not safe, manageable, or tamable. With all of our anti-nomian and legalistic rigmarole, we cover up Christ and are left with our boring selves.

If you claim to be a Christian does any of this concern you?

What do we do? We must stand up and shout “let Him in!” We must let Christ back into the Church (Revelation 3:20). Then we will begin to see Christ as He really is and see ourselves for who we really are. He is outside knocking. Please let Him in.

There’s much gospel restoring to do. The gospel message needs no restoration itself – it is forever perfect. We must see that it becomes restored as center focus in ourselves and the Church. Please join with me and others to fulfill this seemingly impossible task!

The answer is yes. The answer is both. It’s not that we talk about either/or, but both/and! In fact, the gospel could be stated this way: “Christ has loved us to death!” The gospel reveals God’s love for us because He died the death we deserved.

What I’m going to ask next is what most “churches” and “Christians” are too pansy to talk about these days. What was Christ not saved from? If you call yourself a Christian, you should know! The answer is God’s wrath. He was NOT saved from God’s wrath. The answer to that question is the same answer to another question. What is the believer saved from? We are ultimately saved from the wrath and anger of God for having sinned as we have not loved God with all our heart, soul, and strength, nor others as ourselves. Christ loved us to death by dying the death we deserved. So He loved us to death… quite literally. And that’s the ultimate death that believers get to escape by grace.

Therefore, all sinners deserve God’s wrath. Jesus took God’s wrath for us on the cross. Thus, our greatest need is righteousness, death (through a substitute), and new life. Christ lived the perfect life we couldn’t. He perfectly loved God with all His heart, strength, and soul and He loved others as Himself. He was never selfish for a millisecond. Then God crushed Him and killed Him instead of us who deserve it. Kind of makes you think about how evil you are considering that that’s what you deserve because of your sin. Wipe that hesitant look off your face because that’s a GREAT thing to realize! Then, Christ rose from the dead proving that all of His work on our behalf was satisfactory. Of course it was. He was God! It was satisfactory for those who believe in Him and repent.

But now you should be able to understand Christ’s great love for you in doing all this which you utterly don’t deserve. Nor do I of course. Nor does anyone. This is true.

So what should we do as believers who won’t compromise on this great message of Christ? We ought to begin to do what many AREN’T doing today who call themselves Christians.

WE NEED TO PUT THE “DEATH” BACK IN “JESUS LOVES YOU”, WHICH WOULD THEN BECOME “JESUS LOVES YOU TO DEATH”!

That way Jesus’ “love” will really be love. It’s not enough to just tell people that “Jesus loves you”. The gospel is NOT that Jesus loves you in spite of your sin but that if you believe His message and receive Him as Lord (Boss), you will know that He did in fact loves you to death – and did on the cross.

What good news!

In my short lifetime, I have seen so many “gospel” proclamations by churches and evangelists which are a joke. Christians give alter calls via plays, puppet shows, and preaching, yet, all they end up telling you is that “God has a purpose for your life”, “your Creator wants to restore you and this world”, or that “if you have emotional problems in your life then God wants to help you”.

Then people walk down the aisle, throw the popsicle stick cross in the fire, or do whatever “spiritual” action is suggested and ______. Fill in the blank. I have no idea what happens next. I know they didn’t hear the actual gospel which is the power of God unto salvation. They weren’t clearly told how Christ is our Creator, how He is holy, perfect, and good, and we sinners are NOT! The real gospel wasn’t proclaimed to them. Our only hope in Christ wasn’t proclaimed to them. So what’s the use?

Proclaim the bad news, present the good news, then allow people to have a sobering response to the Biblical gospel. Not a psychological response which your stupid half truth gospel can’t save a soul with. If you have people’s attention and you’re trying to share the goodnews, then go ahead and do it.

What do YOU think?

What is the gospel? How should we refer to it? Is it the entire Biblical story or a specific part of it? What does it begin with? Where does it end? Should we explain the gospel message primarily to be God making all which is broken fixed, that God’s purpose for you is to better the world, or a proclamation that the Messiah is the risen Lord, like many today are advocating to be the “good” of the “good news”?

The Chinese translation of “gospel”, which is “fuyin”, doesn’t mean “good news” but rather “all the good news about God”. While I at times refer to the gospel as everything accomplished or purposed by God in Christ, I am increasingly becoming hesitant with this language. The more I look at how the Apostles use the term “gospel” the more I see it as a specific message, NOT an all encompassing story. I see this message being a narrative (specific truths) to a meta-narrative (all of God’s truths). In other words, it is a message by which all other parts of the story get to be carried out and equally cherished.

If this is so, we ought to make sure that when we say “gospel” we mean what Scripture means and we proclaim what Scripture proclaims. This would be for the purposes that the message was intended, hence the power of God unto salvation and people entering God’s kingdom by actually being born again, not because they acknowledge a secondary truth (which wont save their soul).

Why do I personally come to this conclusion and believe that Christians should too? Because Scripture primarily shows the gospel to be a gospel of salvation whereby Christ is received as Lord (Boss) and no matter how much we talk about God making all which is broken fixed, that God’s purpose for you is to help better the world, or proclaim that the Messiah is the risen Lord, we may be forfeiting the gospel of God unto salvation by confusing it with greater implications of the actual message. This type of thinking I am presenting is somewhat of a backlash to certain Post Millennialist thinking, all-ecompassing gospel thinking (such as this article by ‘Christianity Today’), and New Perspective on Paul (NPP) thinking. Many of the things advocated by these are great truths and greatly needed today, yet shouldn’t replace the gospel, or namely, the message which Scripture calls the gospel which is used to save the soul and make all other implications of the gospel possible (even possible to proclaim)!

Therefore, this is my reaction to conversations I have had and remarks I have heard in which the gospel message was replaced with implications of the gospel. This might be for possible reasons of wanting to make the gospel more politically correct, wanting to soften to gospel’s offense, or could be an over reaction by some who feel that certain points in Scripture need to be emphasized more, hence Christ being Lord.

Yet, I personally believe that the doctrine of the Trinity needs to be more emphasized by Christians today, yet that doesn’t mean I equate this doctrine to be the gospel message! In Acts 2, Peter didn’t proclaim God’s triune nature. No, he proclaimed the gospel of salvation! I think you get my point.

I say “amen” to all truths of Scripture. I say “amen” to all truths being properly emphasized. Yet, I do NOT say “amen” to the gospel being said to be something it specifically isn’t – if in fact it is understood by the Apostles to be a narrative to a meta-narrative if you will.

What is my Scriptural backing? It’s very simple. Go to www.biblegateway.com and search the word “gospel” and see how the Apostles use it.

All throughout Acts and the NT, the gospel is referred to as a “message”, NEVER a story (or an over-arching story at that), nor is it a message that God is restoring all which is broken to be fixed, that God has a purpose for your life, or that Christ is merely to be acknowledged as the risen Lord (as even all unbelievers will do this, thus the first issue is becoming right with the Lord, by the Lord – who is also the Savior). So the question is, what is the specific message about?! Here is what the Apostles show us:

Mark 1:1, 1 Cor 9:13, 2 Thes 1:8, the gospel is about Jesus Christ.

Acts 20:24, Rom 1:9, the gospel is about God’s grace.

Rom 1:16, the gospel is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes.

Rom 1:17, the gospel reveals a righteousness from God and is recieved by faith.

Rom 2:16, the gospel is God judging sin through Christ.

1 Cor 1:17, the gospel is connected to the cross of Christ and its power to save is in the form of being a humbling truth.

1 Cor 15:2, by the gospel one is saved.

2 Cor 4:4, the gospel is about the glory of Christ (probably referring to the glory of redemption, John 17, 2 Thes 2:14).

Gal 3:6-14 (gives a gospel message summary which entails God requiring perfection and sinlessness, judgment upon those who fall short of that standard, and being justified through the faith of Abraham by Christ being our substitute for God’s justice).

Eph 1:13, it is a gospel of salvation

Eph 3:6, through the gospel a great mystery is revealed that Jews and Gentiles share together in the promise in Jesus Christ (a promise of redemption, Eph 1:14)

Eph 3:8, it entails unsearchable riches in Christ.

2 Thes 1:8, there is punishment from Christ of those who do not obey the gospel.

2 Timothy 1:10, Christ has destroyed death and brought life and immortality.

2 Tim 2:8, the gospel is that Christ has been raised from the dead and was descended from David.

Heb 4:2, the gospel message is of value if it is combined with faith.

1 Pet 4:17, the gospel is to be obeyed (reference with 1 Pet 1:9, the goal of our faith is salvation).

Therefore, the Apostles emphasize the gospel to be a message about our sin, God’s judgment, what Christ did, and what we do to know we are right with Him so that we get to enjoy everything else which Christ offers. Never do we see the gospel message being described or proclaimed as God making all which is broken fixed, that God’s purpose for you is to better the world, or a proclamation that the Messiah is the risen Lord. These are definitely implications of the gospel and branches which grow out from the gospel root, but why should we confuse the plant with the root? I see there being a narrative (the gospel message as revealed by the Apostles) that ought not be confused for the meta-narrative (God’s overarching story and accomplishments).

In Acts 2 and 17, the Apostles (the big dawgs) share the gospel by addressing the people’s specific sins, the reality of God’s judgment, and a call to belief in Christ and repentance. People believed as a result to this (hence the gospel being the power of God unto salvation), and as a result we can say all those who believed will get to be a part of God’s meta-narrative and all the wonderful and endless implications of the gospel message. In these passages, we never see the Apostles talking about how God is restoring a fallen world unto Himself or that He is establishing a holy society. I’m sure these things were touched on after the fact, however.

What are your thoughts?

This is just your splash of water wake up call, and friendly reminder, that you’re going to die. It could be soon or it could be after a while. Either way, it will happen. Make sure you’re right with Christ. And may Michael Jackson’s death remind us all, not only how good his music was, but that everyone, everyone, yes EVERYONE, whether a king or a street sweeper, must dance with the Grimm reaper.

If you think you’re alone in death, don’t. Death is the common denominator for everyone. It’s something you’ll participate in with everyone else. If you’ve ever been to a funeral or heard of someone dying, you’ll soon experience what they experienced after death!

And in case you’re power hungry, want to control people, and dread being victimized or vulnerable in any way, shape, or form, then you’re still a victim who is vulnerable to death’s grip and the chance that your life could end any moment. Congratulations. Death will mock your sense of dignity.

But don’t let fear of death remain a sub-conscious thing but a continual conscious reminder to strive to do that which is most important. We would do well to heed the words of Mark Twain, a man of many great quotes who said, “let us so live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry.”

Let it also remind you that it is the first time you will meet Christ face to face. Make sure your OK with Him by Him. Make sure you have the faith of Abraham and that you know that Jesus lived the life God demands, took the wrath you deserved, and rose to prove it all satisfactory and enable you to mock the grave forever.

That way death will be the first day of your new life, namely, the first day of eternity you will get to be closer to Christ, will get to see Him more fully, and will get to know Him more deeply. John 17:3 “this is eternal life: that they would know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent”.

The great thing about Heaven is, you’ll never have to say “goodbye”.

As a Christian, are you scared of popular opinion? Especially when you believe something the Bible says that isn’t popular according to popular opnion? Why? Do you have it on your to-do list to “make sure the world approves of me”? Are you afraid that people will be intolerant of your intolerance of silly and evil beliefs? If so, why? Either way, someone is being intolerant, and the truth is always more liberating and freeing. Have you spent any time learning about why only the Christian worldview makes sense so you can be more confident about what you believe and sleep like a baby? If not, why? Let Jesus be the hero of every sermon, the point of every text of Scripture, the answer to all the questions, and the focus of all the lives.

Consider Mat 7:13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

I have often thought this verse taught that many wont be saved, which seemed in direct contradiction to Heb 11:12 which says that in the end there will be countless believers when all is said and done. “And so from this one man (Abraham – the Father of the faith which justifies the ungodly (Rom 4:5)), and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.”

However, here is what I believe to be an excellent commentary on Mat 7:13-14 which takes into account the entire context of the passage, as there were no chapter and verse divisions in Scripture until the 11th century (which can make this passage misleading).

“These verses lead into His teaching on false prophets. From its context, it appears that Jesus says that false ministers will neither acknowledge or teach the narrow way that leads to life, the narrow way that leads to persecution. Instead, they will do just what God shows the Old Testament false prophets did: They will teach “peace, peace”—the smooth, easy, and broad way.

In other words, they will teach that Christians need make no sacrifices in their obedience to God. It is so interesting that, in the last few years in the church, so many things have been liberalized. Are we getting away from the straight and the narrow, the difficult and the sacrificial way?”

~ John W. Ritenbaugh

What is the answer to our world’s problems? Is it Christ doing away with sin and Him reigning, or is it keeping our sin and trying to find a way apart from Christ? People say that Christianity is the way of an old system which hasn’t worked. We are supposedly so advanced now because people have college degrees, can be little Socrotes’ running around, and have ipods. But doing away with Christ IS an old system too which hasn’t worked. The real matter at hand is, “what is truth?” Christ says “the truth will set you free”. He also said “I am the way, the truth, and the life”.

So many Christians today are increasingly backing down from the truth. We are more prone to impress the World then impress God. We fear the World and go out of our way to not offend it and be approved by it, rather then God. The thing is though, God’s ways are good, right, and true, and God is the final Judge in the end. He gets the last word and the last laugh. Why would you want to be on the team that will get put to shame in the end? Even if it is popular right now. It’s not popular in Heaven where the God of the Universe rules. Who is God to you, a God-hostile college professor, a non-God fearing politician, or is Jesus Christ who is returning to judge?

On the other hand, are you too distracted by the World to be of any Christian good before you stop sucking oxygen here and die soon?

Check out this other commentary following Mat 7:13-14 by Martin G. Collins:

“The thorny ground symbolizes those who become consumed by the anxieties of this physical life and the deceitful enticement of wealth. The constant pressures of everyday life, providing sustenance, maintaining employment, seeking education, performing social duties, etc. can be distracting, causing Christians to ignore God and spiritual growth.

The desire for wealth magnifies this distraction. It is enticing but yields the expected rewards: It promises to make us happy, but when gained, leaves us spiritually empty (I Timothy 6:7-10). The temptation and pursuit of wealth produces bad fruit: dishonesty, stealing, oppression of the poor, and taking advantage of others.

The good ground corresponds to those whose hearts and minds are softened by God’s calling and receive it genuinely. They are a rich and fine soil, a mind that submits itself to the full influence of God’s truth (Acts 22:14; Ephesians 4:1-6). The called of God not only accept His Word, the message of Jesus Christ, as rich soil accepts a seed for growth, they also bear much fruit (John 15:5, 8).”

~ Martin G. Collins

What is distracting you as a comfortable American to not be about doing God’s will and serving His kingdom? Are you witnessing to anyone? Do you even know how to? Are you helping those in need? Do you even want to? Are you contending for the truth and standing strong on God’s Word? Even if that means you wont be approved by a deranged popular opinion? I find myself along with others far too distracted by the American lifestyle. Even in this time of economic uncertainty we are distracted if not more distracted with our own problems.

Our attention is focused too much on our jobs, our pleasures, our hobbies, our needs, our wants, our pointless plans, etc. We must deliberately make time for that which is most important, God’s kingdom. It’s all about me, me, me, and the person in the mirror. No, it’s about God’s will and His kingdom. What we do now counts for eternity. Your luxuries and your avoidance of being inconvenienced and irritated at all costs is not most important. What about God and His kingdom and His righteousness and His truth?

And in case you’re looking for more meaning, fulfillment, and adventure in your life like everyone else is, then start being about these things.

So what can we do? Be about God’s kingdom at your job, at your home, and wherever you go. Who can you share the good news with? How can you help someone in need? How can you contend for the truth and stand for what’s right? How can you make much of Christ in yourself and to others? How can you love fellow believers and enemies today? How can you do so while being clever, innocent, and loving, even if you’re hated like Jesus for it? You can’t avoid persecution like Christ, and you can’t outgive Christ.

Over the last year this best selling book by William P. Young has created quite a stir among believers. Many praise it and many reject it. Here are my quick thoughts on the book ‘The Shack’:

Pros:

The main character Mack dialogues a lot with God. You can tell that Young would have had to crack his doctrine 101 books about the nature of God, the nature of man, and other important doctrines in order to present this type of dialogue as being Biblically sound (Orthodox). In many parts, Young does a good job of remaining Orthodox and some of the explanations that God gives Mack are very practical and insightful.

I think he does a good job of upholding a Biblical view of free will (page 95), God’s self-sufficiency (pages 98-99), the Trinity (page 101), and even does a beautiful job of explaining why the Trinity is a precondition to something such as “love”, hence page 102 which says “Or maybe worse, you would have a god who, when he chose, could only love as a limitation of his nature”.

The book is also insightful in dealing with emotional or personal esteem issues. Young writes God as a type of man-infatuated cosmic counselor. Nevertheless, a lot of the encouragement given in the book by Papa (God the Father) would probably be very helpful for many who could use more encouragement and hope.

Lastly, I personally think that for his first published book, Young is a very decent writer. I was in complete suspense at the beginning of the book.

Cons:

Some portions of the theology presented in the book are not only boarder line off but are dangerously off. This is probably because 1. much of the theology leans towards a liberal Arminian Christian worldview, and 2. the book is essentially Christianity thrown together with modern pop-psychology. In other words, it is tantamount of the modern evangelical’s gospel which is drenched in sensationalism, self-esteem, flattery, ego-boosting, and a “God” who is a cosmic flirt. It seeks to obtain the ultimate goal of every comfortable modern Christian: “SELF CONFIDENCE!” And it doesn’t help that Christ is portrayed like a soft girl instead of a manly Lord.

On page 96 it is said that the Father didn’t forsake Jesus on the cross, but that Jesus only felt forsaken because He was in such great pain. [emphasis mine] This is supposed to cushion Mack’s dread of being forsaken by God since he was forsaken by his own biological father. Papa ties this into a lesson for Mack to not focus on his pain but focus on God so he will see that he’s not forsaken after all. The jacked up thing about this left field interpretation of Scripture is that it assumes that Christ wasn’t focused on God because He felt forsaken! But isn’t that what Christ’s mission all along was?! To fulfill the Father’s will perfectly?! Jesus said, “I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of Him who sent Me.” (John 6:38) What Mack needs to know is that Christ was forsaken by the Father so that he didn’t have to be. That is the therapy he’s looking for.

On page 99 it’s said that Jesus never drew upon His God nature to do anything. Well, happy to inform you Mr. Young, Jesus did say He would raise Himself up on the last day. Page 100 further says that Jesus had no power within Himself to heal anyone. Again, Jesus could heal anyone with His own power because He has authority to raise Himself from the dead with His own power. (John 2:19 Jesus says “I will raise it” (speaking of His own body), where “I will” is “egero”, a first person active verb. Because the verb is 1st person active, this means Jesus is the doer of the action)

On page 120 Papa says that she doesn’t “need to punish people for sin”, but that “sin is its own punishment”. It’s not her “purpose to punish it”, it’s her “joy to cure it”. But Jesus Christ is Lord and is in fact the one returning to punish sin (Phil 2, 2 Thes 1:8-10, Rev 19), NOT God the Father! Mack has a problem with the Father seeming vengeful and Jesus only being the “nice one” within the Trinity. Give me a break! If Mack just had proper theology, or received proper theology from Papa (that’s an irony of ironies), this would all be cleared up and Christ would be known comprehensively. And as far as the four letter word “justice” goes, it is because God loves Himself that justice is a reality. God loves Himself and does not over look any sin, thus does in fact punish sinners. Sin is its own punishment, but so is God’s eternal wrath. However, the good news of the gospel is that God remained loving to Himself and us by crushing sin in the God-Man substitute, Jesus Christ!

On page 165 Papa says that the tragedy which Mack faced was “no plan of Papa’s. Papa has never needed evil to accomplish his good purposes. It is you humans who have embraced evil and Papa has responded with goodness”. Like I said earlier, this book is drenched with an Arminian worldview whereby God is the great cosmic responder. This has problems because it assumes that God does not intend all evil for good. Yet in the OT, Joseph specifically says that “what you meant for evil, God meant for good”. This shows that God actually means for evil to happen, yet the major difference is WHY He means it. Sinners mean evil for evil, while God means evil for good, while all along meaning it! In addition, as God only being a responder to evil, this would mean that God must learn what humans will do and then must pick up the pieces of their mess. This takes away from God’s omniscience because He must first learn what people will do, before He learns what He will do in response. The other logical conclusion then would be that human “free will” is sovereign over God to a degree because God’s actions are predicated upon His response to human actions. Humans do have wills, but not totally free wills which are free of the influence of their own natures. This is the same for God as God always acts according to His own nature and is without sin! Likewise, the saints will be forever preserved in Heaven and perfectly unable to sin. Why? Because they choose not too? No. Because their new natures in Christ will secure this forever!

Similarly, on page 185 Papa says “Mack, just because I work incredible good out of unspeakable tragedies doesn’t mean I orchestrate the tragedies. Don’t ever assume that my using something means I caused it or that I need it to accomplish my purposes. That will only lead you to false notions about me.” But Isaiah 45:7 says “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.” Disaster = “ra”, basically the opposite of “prosperity” given the context. God “bara” or creates this. Just like in Gen 1:1 “God created (bara) the heavens and the earth”. This is just one example from many in Scripture. Also, it would more properly be said that God uses evil to all the more REVEAL His goodness, not to make His goodness actually good.

On page 186 Papa says “It’s not easy being the judge of the entire world”. Ummm. Need I really respond to this one and defend an omniscient and all-powerful being?

On page 186 Mack says “But I always liked Jesus better than you. He seemed so gracious and you seemed so…” Then Papa fills in the blank with “Mean?” In other words, God the Father is cranky and God the Son is like Richard Simmons. Sarcasm aside, the thing is that it isn’t even God the Father who is returning in judgment! Scripture teaches it is Jesus Christ! The greatest display of wrath in the Bible is not in the OT, it is in the NT when Christ returns and there is final and eternal judgment. And it’s not going to go well for those who reject Him! 2 Thes 1:8-9 “He (Jesus Christ) will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power”

On page 203 Mack asks Papa “are you saying I don’t have to follow the rules?” Papa responds “Yes. In Jesus you are not under any law. All things are lawful.” This seems to be how Young personally likes to view God because it does away with the notion of a God who would be overbearing and demanding. But God is only demanding and overbearing in Young’s mind because he views God the Father through the lens of his biological dad. All this is then transfered to Mack’s character. But Jesus says that he who loves me is the one who obeys my commands. (John 14:21) And the phrase “you are not under law” is a reference to Rom 6:14. The context says that “sin shall not be your master because you are not under law but under grace.” Paul is actually explaining the difference between being under the law as a strict tutor to control sin as opposed to the new covenant of being under the Spirit of grace to control sin. In either case, however, sin is needing to be controlled! Sin is just ultimately being controlled by different means.

Conclusion:

In conclusion there are 2 major things I’d like to say. 1. I fully agree with Douglas Wilson’s critique of ‘The Shack’ in that God the Father needs to be properly revealed, not pushed aside and replaced with a female identity in order to help cushion certain emotional triggers in a man who hates his biological father!

2. Let us consider the story of Job and compare this story which really happened to Young’s fictional story of Mack. Job experienced more physical and emotional pain then Mack. Job’s entire family was murdered, his wife resented him, he had horrible soars all over him, he had to put up with 3 accusing friends, and God remained silent to Job way longer then Mack!!! Yet, how did God reveal Himself to Job? Did He appear as a black woman who bakes a lot of food, sings, and looks at Job with emphathetic puppy dog eyes? Ummm, I’m gonna answer that with a “NO” times infinitey. All it took was for God to ask Job 4 chapters worth of questions in regard to His own nature and abilities which Job wasn’t able to respond to. This was so Job would get the proper perspective of God to himself, thereby freeing him to trust God like never before.