In Memory of…

Today, this blog keeps a respectful silence in the presence of the suffering of the Chapman family who lost their 5-year old daughter Maria about a week ago.

 

I join the Chapman family in the hope that Jesus will raise Maria to New Life.

Ability Before and After the Fall

As I understand Calvinist/Reformed doctrine;

1) As are result of Adam and Eve’s sin in the garden (Gen. 3) aka “The Fall”, every aspect of creation is corrupted by sin, particularly the human will.

2) The will is enslaved by sin and as a result it is unable to do anything good, especially have faith in Jesus through the Gospel.

3) Consequently, faith is only possible after the Holy Spirit regenerates the sinner.

4) Once regenerated (i.e. born again) the will is no longer enslaved,

5) which is why the regenerate are able to have faith / believe in Jesus.

RC Sproul puts it this way, “before a person can choose Christ his heart must be changed. He must be born again…one does not first believe, then become reborn”.

Among the Reformed, there is this idea that not only are the “reborn” enabled to have (saving) faith in Jesus, but they also inevitably will have (saving) faith in Jesus. Again, as I understand it, the faith of the regenerate is inevitable because God is Sovereign and His call is consequently efficacious.

Consider this:

Since the enslavement of the will to sin is one result of The Fall, it is reasonable to think that Adam was created with an un-enslaved will (aka a “free” will), one capable of believing God. However Adam, with his unbound will, chose to disbelieve God, instead believing his wife (also in possession of a yet-to-be-bound will) who had believed Satan’s lie about God. As a result, we see not just one (Adam’s) but two (Adam’s and Eve’s) wills unfettered by sin choosing to disbelieve and disobey. Furthermore, God’s command was not efficacious as evidenced by the fact that both Adam and Eve did not obey. Consequently, it appears that faith is not inevitable even though the will is not enslaved to sin. If this was the case for our first parents, why should we assume that this is not the case for their descendants?

If the Reformed position is correct, and the regenerated will inevitably chooses faith in Jesus, then it would appear that the post-lapsarian, freed will is less free than Adam’s pre-lapsarian, uncorrupted will. After all, Adam was able to exercise his will so as to reject faith in God whereas Adam’s regenerated descendants are apparently unable to reject faith in Jesus. Said another way, there seems to be less freedom (of choice) for those in Christ than there was for Adam prior to The Fall.

Comments are open. Bring your own tar and feathers.

Armchair Apology

Last week, I wrote that I had an “apology” in the works. This is it. It’s an apology in both senses of the word: I express regret for my intellectual sin and I provide an explanation for why I sinned in a particular manner. Here goes.

A while back, I took issue with Calvin’s doctrine of predestination. I stated my opinion that his arrival at this doctrine was the product of a flawed hermeneutic. I contended that the specific nature of the flaw was that Calvin’s hermeneutic failed to see the Scriptures, particularly the writings of Paul, from an Eastern/Jewish worldview. Deservedly, this wording drew criticism from someone in the Reformed Theology camp. Since that post, I’ve come to the point where I would like to make some corrections to the statements which represented my understanding at the time followed by a defense of my conflation of some important concepts.

First, I would like to address my comment regarding Calvin’s hermeneutic. In my original post, I was wrong to write out of my ignorance. I’m sorry. However, thanks to this summary of Calvin’s hermeneutical principles by Pastor Biggs, I am no longer ignorant. While it is apparent to me now that Calvin attempted to take into account both the intent of the author and the historical context of the Scripture, I still believe that Calvin’s understanding of the author’s intent and of the historical context was shaped by his Western/Gentile worldview. Originally, I reasoned this way:

Calvin was a product of Western/Gentile culture. He was influenced by Augustine, another product of Western/Gentile culture (by way of Greco-Roman culture). Therefore, Calvin did not try to understand the Scripture from the perspective of a first century Palestinian Jew, which Paul certainly was. Had Calvin tried to understand Scripture with an Eastern/ Jewish perspective in mind, then he probably would not have articulated the doctrine of predestination as he did, if at all.

Now, I understand that Calvin was influenced not only by Augustine, but several other church fathers. As is pointed out by R.Ward Holder in this paper concerning Calvin’s exegesis of Romans 7, “Augustine was not the only Father who influenced Calvin. Especially in his exegetical writings, Calvin frequently considered the opinions of Ambrose, Origen, and Jerome, among others. But the citations to Chrysostom far outstripped these.” Each one of these men were Gentiles by birth and (with one possible exception) Western in so much that being products of Greco-Roman culture made one Western. Consequently, I continue to believe that my earlier position is not entirely unreasonable and without merit. (See this and this if you’ve got the time.) For clarity’s sake, I’ll restate my position: I believe that Calvin’s doctrine of predestination is NOT the product of interpreting the Scripture (particularly Paul) with the Eastern/Jewish worldview of the authors in mind. Instead, I think that he comes to the doctrine of predestination partly as a result of the Western/Gentile worldview which both he and his main influences possessed. I suggest that attempting to interpret Scripture with the Eastern/Jewish worldview of the authors (and some, but not all, intended audiences) in mind, Calvin’s doctrine of predestination is not an unavoidable theological conclusion. (Which I suppose is obvious because not everyone has come to hold Calvin’s views on predestination.)

The second issue that I want to address is my erroneous conflation of the following three doctrines: predestination, determinism and fatalism. Since my original post, I’ve been learning about these three doctrines and I believe I understand why the conflation of these three concepts was a mistake. At the very least, I certainly understand now why Calvinists/Reformed theologians would find fault with saying that they are the same things, which I did. However, I would like to demonstrate that the mistake is an easy and understandable one to make.

Even though I think that the Wikipedia has to be taken with a grain of salt, I’m going to gladly accept its support on this point and quote the following:

Concerning predestination:

“Predestination may sometimes be used to refer to other, materialistic, spiritualist, non-theistic or polytheistic ideas of determinism, destiny, fate, doom, or karma. Such beliefs or philosophical systems may hold that any outcome is finally determined by the complex interaction of multiple, possibly immanent, possibly impersonal, possibly equal forces, rather than the issue of a Creator’s conscious choice.”

At other times, it may be used to refer to the issue of a Creator’s conscious choice.

Concerning determinism:

“It is a popular misconception that determinism necessarily entails that humanity or individual humans have no influence on the future and its events (a position known as Fatalism);”

So, I’m not alone in my error. In fact, lots of people make it.

Concerning fatalism:

“While the terms are often used interchangeably, fatalism, determinism, and predestination are discrete in emphasizing different aspects of the futility of human will or the foreordination of destiny. However, all these doctrines share common ground.”

Of course, all bolding is mine.

Again, the Wikipedia may lack credibility, so I have to say that I didn’t really feel my confusion on these doctrines was validated until I read excerpts from the Belgic and Westminster confessions.

The Belgic Confession of Faith of 1561 states:

“We believe that all the posterity of Adam, being thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of our first parents, God then did manifest himself such as he is; that is to say, merciful and just: Merciful, since he delivers and preserves from this perdition all whom he, in his eternal and unchangeable council, of mere goodness hath elected in Christ Jesus our Lord, without respect to their works: Just, in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves. (Art. XVI)”

Take note of the word “unchangeable”. The definition of fate is that the outcome is unchangeable. In this confession, God’s council is unchangeable, that is to say that God’s decision on the matter can not be changed. He has decided. Humans can not avoid their destiny, be it heaven or hell.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1643) says this about predestination:

“God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.

As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected . . . are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power. through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His Sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.” (Chap. III — Articles I, III, VI and VII)

This confession goes a bit further than just individual salvation and says that “whatsoever comes to pass” has been decided by God beforehand and “whatsoever” is “unchangeable”. So, even these documents, important to Reformation history, use language that can be easily understood by the uninitiated (me) as fatalistic (in the sense that the future outcome is unavoidable) and deterministic (in the sense that there is an external agent moving humans to a particular end).

Even this summary of Calvin’s Institutes uses language reminiscent of fatalism and determinism: “God once established by His eternal and unchangeable plan those whom he long before determined once for all to receive unto salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, he would have to devote to destruction.” Though it was certainly an error to conflate the doctrines of predestination, determinism and fatalism, I believe that I’ve demonstrated that it was an understandable one to make.

To sum up: my original assumption concerning Calvin’s hermeneutic was based on ignorance and I was wrong to conflate the doctrines of predestination, determinism and fatalism in the manner that I did in that post. I apologize. I’ve learned better and I am learning still and it seemed right to me to say something publicly about that since I made my errors publicly in that original post.

AMTOG2K

Today I’m celebrating more than 2000 hits.

Thanks to the following for their comments:
Really Robin, Kyle, Anonymous, Joe Arant, Wonders for Oyarsa, Dave Carlson, Rereblabe, Lancey, Mike F., lionelwoods7, abdulmomin, Sukran, Bobby Goat GRUFF! and Bad (aren’t you two the same guy?), John Shore, eblack, Chermone, Manas, Teresa, -30-, Natasha, Mark, Gabriel Somoza, lovesleftovers, brahnamin, and Steve.

Thanks also to my wife, who reads but never comments…online.  Thanks to the visitors who have wandered by, yet have not commented. And finally, thanks to all the spammers and spambots who, despite filters, have helped to make 2000 plus hits possible.

What does the future hold for AMTOG? Retirement.

I don’t know when exactly. I just know that the coming year is going to be stressful and busy as I get ready to return to the states with my family. Without a loyal readership, there isn’t any pressure to post regularly and I understand that irregular posting is a really good way to kill a blog, so I’d rather euthanize the blog myself as opposed to leaving to die of neglect. But, that’s some time in the future. I’ve still got a least one “apology” post to publish and some other ideas to express before I turn in my keyboard.

Until next week…

Gloria in Excelsis Deo

Is it appropriate to be proud of someone when they do what they ought to do?

I’m proud of my wife today because she was faithful. She’s been grappling with her weight problem for years, but recently the struggle has intensified. Like a lot of folks, she has used food to comfort her and has turned to it instead of turning to God. For the past six months she has been changing this relationship with food and has lost forty (plus) pounds without dieting, without demonizing fat, carbs or starch. She eats what she wants when she is hungry. She doesn’t eat when she isn’t hungry. She stops when she’s no longer hungry. She prays when tempted to eat for reasons other than hunger. Sadly, for the past week or two she hasn’t lost any weight. She’s plateaued. She’s felt a bit frustrated that folks other than me haven’t noticed the weight loss and she hasn’t seen much progress. You might think that now is not really a good time for her to “testify” to the goodness of God in this process.

While visiting the doctor with our baby girl today for vaccinations, the doctor noticed my wife’s weight-loss and asked how she did it. My wife told this Muslim woman about her problem with emotional eating and explained that she has been turning to God for comfort and not to food. She told her that as a Christian, we believe that God loves us and wants to be the one who comforts us. She also mentioned how she prays and reads Scripture for encouragement in this struggle. Another Muslim woman doctor noticed that my wife has lost weight and so she got to talk to her in the same way.

So here’s my wife, feeling frustrated by a lack of recent progress in changing her relationship with food, feeling discouraged because so few people have seen a difference in her shape and she’s basically being called upon to testify to God’s faithfulness. It would have been really easy for her to answer these two women glibly, “I’m eating less.” But instead, she opened up to them, confessed her weakness and told how God is changing her. This is what Christians are supposed to do.

I love my wife.

What Kind of Car Would Jesus Have Driven?

Jesus would have driven a minivan.

Sound like heresy? I don’t think so. I know he never married and never had children, but he had 12 disciples with him practically everywhere he went. Granted, there isn’t a minivan on the market today that can hold twelve people but remember, people were probably smaller back in Jesus’ day as a result of (mal)nutrition. (I see examples of this almost everyday. Here in the host country, Indians from poorer areas of India are significantly shorter and thinner than those from more modern areas.) He could have taken out the second and third rows of seats and easily fit 12 disciples in the back. But he wouldn’t have done that. Not everyone would have been able to wear a seat belt. So maybe he wouldn’t have driven a minivan. Well, whatever Jesus would have driven, I’m confident that he would have chosen the safest vehicle on the market and I’m sure that he would have paid cash for it.

What I need to know is; if Jesus had 8,000 USD to spend on a used minivan and he had to choose between an older Japanese car (like a 2000 Honda Odyssey) and a newer American car (like a 2004 Chevrolet Venture), which one would he choose? Would he go with the older vehicle with the better reputation or would he go with the newer vehicle with the worse reputation?

Yeah, this really is all about me. We’re planning on buying a minivan when we visit the states this summer and we’re having a tough time figuring out what the wise path is. I’m certain that the wise path is not to go into debt for anything, especially a car, that is certain to go down in value. Beyond that I just don’t know. As I’ve been praying about it, I’ve come to see that a wise thing to do is to buy the best that I can afford…but I don’t know how to evaluate “best”. Over at MSN Autos, the “experts” rate the Odyssey high (9/10) and the Venture low (7/10), however owners who have commented score the Venture high (8.7) and the Odyssey slightly lower (8.3). Odysseys are much more expensive to repair than Ventures according to Consumer Guide Autos. If we start considering the 2000 Toyota Sienna at this point, the issue gets a little more clouded. The Sienna is ranked below the Odyssey and above the Venture by experts and only slightly below (8.6/10) the Venture by users. Repairs are still more expensive than the Venture but less than the Odyssey. The Odyssey and the Sienna have much better safety ratings than the Venture. So, if I go back to what I said earlier about Jesus buying the safest vehicle he could afford and paying cash for it, I guess I have to choose between the Honda and the Toyota.

I wonder which one he would choose.