NCP Downtime

To all my faithful readers ans subscribers. You may have probably noticed that I haven’t posted anything in about a week. The reason for this is I am leaving for a week of vacation with the family this coming Saturday and I’ve been busy at work clearing things off my desk in preparation for the week off.

I am in the process of finishing up part 3 of my “Is Calvinism Biblical” series (my response to Scott Meinecke’s blog post of the same title) and may post that by the end of the week. Aside from that, activity on NCP may be very light due to being on vacation.

So, thanks for reading and look for future blog posts in about a week or so.

More Questions on Limited Atonement

Question: Regarding Limited Atonement, I have the following questions:

1. Does God love those who are not of the elect (is God Love?)?
2. If God does love those who are not of the elect, then why would Christ not die for them as well?
3. If Christ did not die for all, then on what basis will God judge man for sin (since Christ is the only way back to God)?
4. If God’s will is that not any should perish but that all should come to repentance, how do you reconcile that with limited atonement (I anticipate that you will take the position that all means only all of the elect, but let me ask intuitively — what farmer plants a crop without the initial desire to harvest all (meaning each kernel of corn and each grain of wheat — despite the nurturing and cultivation of the farmer, some will be lost))?
5. Is God only righteous to the elect (does He not let the rain fall on the just and the unjust alike)?
6. Is capricious election of man consistent with the entire character of God (not just His Sovereignty, but also His Justice, Love, Mercy, Grace, and Righteousness)?

Answer: Allow me to make some opening remarks regarding the doctrine of Limited Atonement (hereafter, LA) before addressing your questions.

First and foremost, LA is part of larger system of theology referred to as Reformed Theology, or the Doctrines of Grace, or Calvinism. This is a system of theological thought that came out of the 16th century Reformation and was finally systematized in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. One of the earliest Reformed confessions of faith was the Belgic Confession of 1561. Written by Guido de Bres, the Belgic Confession became the official doctrinal statement of Reformed churches in the Netherlands.

Some within the Dutch church took exception with some of the doctrinal statements in the Belgic Confession and made their case known before the entire Dutch Reformed Church. These objections, called the Five Articles of the Remonstrance (1610), were considered by the national Synod of Dordt in 1618. Each of the five articles were rejected and the Reformed doctrines upheld. The findings of the Synod were written down in what is now known as the Canons of Dordt. It is from this document that we get the so-called, five points of Calvinism (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints).

What is Libertarian Free Will and is it Biblical?

Question: What is Libertarian Free Will?

Answer: Libertarian Free Will (hereafter, LFW) is basically the concept that metaphysically and morally, man is an autonomous being (the key word being autonomous). According to the Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (InterVarsity Press, 2002), LFW is defined as: “In ethics and metaphysics, the view that human beings sometimes can will more than one possibility. According to this view, a person who freely made a particular choice could have chosen differently, even if nothing about the past prior to the moment of choice had been different.” In a LFW paradigm, the power of contrary choice reigns supreme. Without the ability to choose otherwise, LFW proponents will claim that man cannot be held morally responsible for his actions.

Now I mentioned the word “autonomous” earlier and said that it was key in understanding LFW. The word basically means “self-government.” It is derived from two Greek words, autos and nomos, which mean “a law unto oneself.” This is LFW in a nutshell. I, as a free moral agent, can make my own decisions and am not subject to the will or determination of another. In any given situation, let’s call it X, I can freely choose to do action A. Furthermore, if situation X presents itself again, I can freely choose not to do A (~A).

Is God’s Love Conditional or Unconditional?

Question: Is God’s love conditional or unconditional?

Answer: God’s love, as described in the bible, is most clearly unconditional in that his love is expressed toward the objects of his love (i.e., his people) despite their disposition toward him. In other words, God loves because it his nature to love (cf. 1 John 4:8), and that love moves him toward benevolent action.

The unconditional nature of God’s love is most clearly seen in the gospel. The gospel message is  basically a story of divine rescue. As God considers the plight of his rebellious people, he determines to save them from their sin; and this determination is based on his love. Listen to the Apostle Paul’s words from his letter to the Romans:

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)

Reading through the book of Romans we learn that humanity is alienated from God due to his sin. We are at enmity with God and his wrath is being revealed against the ungodly for their unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-20). We reject God and God gives us over to our sin. We also learn that we have all sinned and fallen short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23) and that none of us seek God, none of us does what is right before his eyes (Romans 3:10-18).

Is True Repentance Possible?

Question: I once heard that the original Greek word rendered ‘repentance’ in our modern Bible translations means a complete turning back, a 180 degree turn, from sin; i.e., a total and absolute giving it up and an accompanying decision to follow Jesus 100%.

This seems consistent with the imagery Jesus used in his parables about conversion, such as his statement that “no one putting his hand on the plow, but looking back, is worthy of the Kingdom of God,” implying that anything less than a total and absolute conversion is not a conversion at all, at least not one with which he is pleased.  But then, how could anyone be truly converted, when, according to another passage of Scripture, “if we say we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us” – including believers!  If it is impossible for human beings to ever completely give up sin from their lives, then total conversion must be something else, but WHAT?

Answer: You are basically correct regarding the concept of repentance in the original Greek. The word μετανοέω means to “to change one’s mind.” Therefore, when a person repents, they are “changing their minds,” as it were. How and in what way? The sinner realizes that once he was hostile toward God and now is open to God. The sinner realizes once he was an enemy of God and now seeks to love God with all his mind, heart, soul and strength. More importantly, the sinner realizes once he was disobeying God with his thoughts, words and actions and now seeks to honor God with his thoughts, words and actions.

Biblically speaking, repentance and faith go together. Jesus and the apostles would preach the good news and then command people to repent and believe the gospel so they would be saved (e.g., Mark 1:15; Acts 2:38; 3:19; etc.). Consider them two sides of the same coin: Repentance is turning away from my sin and faith is turning toward Christ for salvation. In the Parable of the Prodigal Son (cf. Luke 15), the younger son gives us a biblical picture of what repentance looks like.

Is Calvinism Biblical? (Part 2, Unconditional Election)

This article is part two in a series I am doing on the topic “Is Calvinism Biblical?” This series is more polemic in nature in that I am responding to an article titled “Is Calvinism Biblical” by a friend of mine, Scott Meinecke, who answers that question in the negative. In the first article, we laid down some foundational comments on Calvinism in general. Please read that article to get those opening remarks and to get a ‘running start’ for this series.

In this article, we will tackle the doctrine of Unconditional Election, or the “U” in TULIP. Following the pattern set forth in the first article, I will provide you with the traditional Reformed definition of the doctrine from the historic confessions of the Protestant Reformation. Next I will give you Mr. Meinecke’s definition of the doctrine from his article along with his argumentation against that doctrine. Finally, I will respond to Mr. Meinecke’s arguments and provide biblical support for the Calvinist position.

A Question on Christian Ethics

Question: I have a question about Christian ethics in war time.  Let’s suppose you were to become a prisoner of war, and were sent to a labor camp where you have to make weapons for an evil nation (like Nazi Germany).  Are you sinning by working there as Christian because you are helping an evil nation and working against your own country? What if you were a scientist and an enemy nation asks you to develop a new weapon for them?  Sometimes I think I am too conscious about these ethical questions. What should I do to not fall into these thoughts too much?  Thank you for your help in advance!

Answer: As a general rule, Christians are to obey the governing authorities (cf. 1 Peter 3:13-17) in all things with the sole exception being if those in authority over us require us to do something that clearly violates God’s commands.

The biblical case for this can be found in the book of Acts. Twice Peter and John were brought before the Sanhedrin on the charge of preaching the resurrection of Jesus Christ. On both occasions, Peter and John say that they are to obey God rather than man (Acts 4:19; 5:29). A similar example can be found in the book of Daniel when Daniel’s three friends (Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego) were arrested for not bowing down to the statue of King Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 3). The three Israelites would rather face the fiery furnace than commit the sin of idolatry.

Are Human Beings More than the Sum of Their Parts?

Question: What does the bible say of bundle theory? University professors wanted to prove bundle theory by analogizing the concept of a car. A car is a conglomerate of body, machine and coverings. Bundle theory is a theory proposed by David Hume, and his illustration goes like this: A human being is composed of constituents organs with the mind composed of mental states. Essentially humans are: organs, brain, and mental states. How does the bible look upon the nature of humanity? Are we mere organs and mental states?

Answer: Bundle Theory and Substance Theory (its polar opposite) are ontological theories of objecthood. By “ontological” I mean a theory that describes the essence, or being, of things. In other words, what make an object an object? Bundle Theory and Substance Theory both describe what makes an object an object, and they do so in diametrically opposed manners. Bundle Theory essentially teaches that an object is basically a collection of properties. In fact, there really is no substance in which these properties inhere. According to Bundle Theory, one cannot even conceive of an object without thinking of its properties.

Substance Theory teaches that a substance is distinct from its properties and is that thing in which properties, or attributes, inhere. There are no free-floating properties that aren’t in some way ‘attached’ to substances. You can speak of an apple being red (i.e., having the property of ‘redness’), but ‘redness’ doesn’t exist unless it is a property of a substance.

What Does John 15:16 Teach?

Question: Can you give me your reflections and comments on John 15:16? Thank you.

Answer: Jesus says in John 15:16, the following: “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.” That’s what the verse says, now what does it mean? The context of the passage is John 15, which is part of the upper room discourse (John 13-17). This is the most extensive teaching from Jesus to his disciples recorded in the gospels. Jesus is preparing them for life without him. They had just finished the Passover meal (the Last Supper) and later that evening Jesus will be arrested, put on trial and eventually crucified. Furthermore, we see that Jesus twice mentions the word “fruit,” which immediately links it to his statement that he (Jesus) is the true vine and they (the disciples) are the branches.

It is this context that helps us to understand what Jesus means in this verse. Jesus begins by identifying himself as the true vine, the Father as the vinedresser and everyone else as the branches (v. 1). We also see that there are basically two types of branches — those that bear fruit and those that don’t (v. 2). The branches that bear fruit are pruned by the vinedresser (God) in order that they can bear even more fruit. The branches that don’t bear fruit are removed and thrown into the fire or left to wither and die (vv. 6, 7). Jesus, being the true vine, is the source of true life. The branches that bear fruit are those that abide in the true vine, and those that don’t are those who only appear to have a connection to the vine.

I think what we clearly see being taught in this passage is God’s sovereignty in not only matters of salvation, but of fruitfulness in Christian living. That God is sovereign in these matters (by sovereign, I mean that he exercises complete control) is evident by the fact that he is the one pruning branches or removing them from the vine. The branch doesn’t have a lot of freedom in the matter of fruitfulness.

What Jesus says in general earlier in the passage, he makes personal in v. 16. Jesus tells the disciples that, in reality, they didn’t choose him, rather Jesus chose them. Moreover, Jesus chose them and appointed them to bear much fruit. We don’t mean to say by way of this that the disciples didn’t choose Jesus, but that their choice was the result of Jesus’ prior choosing of them.

What applies to the disciples can also be applied to believers today. God not only choose you for salvation, but for vocation as well. Christians are those who abide in the true vine, Jesus. Christians are those who have the indwelling Holy Spirit within them working sanctification in the elect and Christ-likeness. Christians are those who God gifts through the Holy Spirit with a divine enablement for ministry.

Is Calvinism Biblical? (Part 1, Total Depravity)

John Calvin

I am beginning a five part series on the subject of whether or not Calvinism is biblical. This series has been prompted by many Facebook conversations that I’ve had with individuals. In particular, my friend, Scott Meinecke, has taken it upon himself to write a blog article asking the question, “Is Calvinism biblical?” and answering in the negative. After reading his article, not only am I not convinced by his grasp of Calvinist doctrine, but neither am I convinced by his argumentation. In what follows, I will take each of the points of Calvinism (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints) and give the classic definition from the historic Reformed confessions of faith. Next I will provide you Mr. Meinecke’s definition and his argument against these points. Finally, I will show you the scriptural support for Calvinism. I will do this in five separate articles (one for each point).

Before digging in, some preliminary remarks are in order. The Five Points of Calvinism, or the Doctrines of Grace, need to be put in the proper perspective. First and foremost, we need to understand that the acronym, TULIP, used to describe the Five Points of Calvinism is of unknown origin. The earliest known use of the acronym was in a 1905 lecture given by Rev. Cleland Boyd McAfee. The acronym was unknown to the Protestant Reformers or to those who crafted the Reformed confessions of faith that came out a generation later. John Calvin never distilled his entire theology to five points. In fact, the five points weren’t even explicitly spelled out by Calvinists. The five points were a response by the Dutch Reformed church to the Five Articles of the Remonstrance submitted by the followers of Jacob Arminius who took issue with five specific aspects of Reformed Theology. The response of the Dutch Church was contained in the Canons of Dort (1618-1619).

Why do I mention this? I mention this because TULIP, while a useful mnemonic device for remembering the Doctrines of Grace, are inadequate in explaining the Doctrines of Grace without some further elucidation. Yet, opponents of Calvinism will pounce on TULIP and draw all kinds of false conclusions simply from the acronym. For example, I have seen several websites that purport to ‘refute Calvinism’ completely misunderstand the “P” in TULIP (Perseverance of the Saints). They see the word “perseverance” and assume that means the saints persevere in their faith by their own effort, and then they’ll inevitably cite Philippians 1:6 and demonstrate that God preserves his saints until the end. Unfortunately, that is what the Calvinist position is; they ‘refute’ Calvinism by asserting the Calvinist position. This leads me to believe that these people who go around ‘refuting’ Calvinism don’t even read what Calvinists say about their own doctrine.