In light of my ongoing series examining the doctrines of grace and evangelism, I thought it would be pertinent to write a brief entry considering the general question this whole series has been probing: how important is Calvinism to the gospel? I am still constantly bewildered by the response of those (especially those who bear the moniker "Reformed") who would challenge the necessity of contending for these precious truths. Most would rather sit back and talk about harmony and unity within the body than defend orthodoxy. After all, in the wake of this postmodern culture, who is to determine what orthodoxy is? What this amounts to is the syncreticism of two divurgent belief systems in an oxymoronic fashion. Movements like Fed Vision or "Reformed Catholicism" as one blogger calls it are prime examples of this. But can we who know or love the truth settle for such integrationalism? Consider the famous quote by C.H. Spurgeon:
I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor. - C.H. Spurgeon in "A Defense of Calvinism"
Opponents of this would say, "Well there is more to the gospel than Calvinism." Sure, Calvinism is not exhaustive of the gospel or co-extensive with the gospel. There are other equally precious and valuable doctrines that make up the gospel such as the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, substitutionary atonement, the resurrection, etc. But as Spurgeon said, the pure, unadulterated gospel cannot be preached without the doctrines of grace. Why is that? The main reason is because the absence of the preaching of the truths of man's entirely corrupt nature, God's absolutely free and sovereign choice in election, Christ's subsequent efficacious purchase of those elected by God the Father, the Holy Spirit's effectual calling of those whom Christ purchased, and the entire Godhead's preserving ability to keep the elect from falling from grace diminishes the fullness of the glory of God's grace. It puts man in the driver's seat of his own destiny. It mingles works and grace, even if the work is only a volitional act of the individual. Synergism gives man some of the role in coming to Christ, thereby giving him some sense of achievement in salvation ("I decided for Christ"). This kind of teaching will always and inevitably lead to a form of boasting, even if it only exists in the subtle form of applause after evangelical rallies or "spiritual maturity" whispered about amongst youth circles (as if maturity in the Christian walk had to do with when you "walked an aisle" rather than how much you study your Bible). Rather the Augustinian/Calvinistic view of salvation does not place the difference in the individual for the reason that some come to believe and others do not. Instead, we as Reformers believe it is the freedom of God to have mercy on whom he will have mercy (Romans 9:15). In such a soteriological system, God is given all the glory for He is the one who elects (Ephesians 1:4-5), draws (John 6:44), purchases (Acts 20:28), sanctifies (Philippians 2:13) and glorifies (Romans 8:30). Therefore, man cannot exalt himself, but must put his hand on his mouth and fall before the Lord and marvel at his redeeming grace. That is why I am a Calvinist and that is why it is imperative to the preaching of the gospel!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
James 2:15-18: "Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do."
C.H. Spurgeon: "I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works."
Again, is the Bible wrong, or is Spurgeon? Because the only way Spurgeon can be right is if this passage from James is either rationalized away or just plain ignored. And if you can ignore or rationalize one passage of the bible, why not another? And another? And another? Why not all of them?
I said it before and I'll say it again, the Bible makes for a poor declaration of a philosophical position. A compendium of ancient history, literature and culture? Top notch! But not a coherent argumentative piece.
A question I came across in researching that wonderful word, "soteriology," on Wikipedia:
"For Calvin, Adam and Jesus functioned as federal heads, or legal representatives, meaning that each one represented his people through his actions (II.i.8). When Adam sinned, all of Adam's people were accounted to have sinned at that moment. When Jesus achieved righteousness, all of his people were accounted to be righteous at that moment. In this way Calvin attempted to simultaneously solve the problems of original sin, justification, and atonement."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justification_(theology)
Now... this might just be the stupidity of the Wiki-peds who write at 2:30 on a Monday morning (myself not included, of course :)), but this passage seems to say that Jesus' martyrdom was, in effect, a payment for Original Sin. In other words, after Jesus, it would be double jeopardy to charge humankind with the Original Sin of Adam, that is, after Jesus had already paid for mankind's Original Sin with his own sacrifice. So ONCE AGAIN, I, of all people, am tasked to bring you back to the Bible and ask you AGAIN to choose: either the Blood of the Lamb washed away Original Sin or it did not. Either Jesus' sacrifice was a successful one (i.e., that washed away the taint of Original Sin), or Jesus' sacrifice was an unsuccessful one.
Which will you choose? Or will you simply refuse to answer, as you have done for nearly everything I've written? Surely, someone so ignorant as me can't keep continue stymying such an intellect as produces the copious blog postings as i've witnessed on your site. Respond, or I'll consider your defeat as writ! :D
M.D.O.
I wonder if you have considered the simple distinction between justification by faith without works and the nature of justifying faith. James is talking about the nature of justifying faith. In other words, if a person says that he has faith but does not have works, then he does not have faith. This means that true faith and good works are inseparable. However, when Spurgeon says that he preaches justification by faith without works, he does not mean to deny what James says about faith. Instead, Spurgeon is saying something about justification. God counts the perfect record of Jesus to the believer (i.e. He "justifies") by faith alone. This faith does necessarily produce good works, but the good works do not justify the person. The good works justify the faith. It is as simple as that. So then, to answer your question, the Bible is not wrong, and Spurgeon is not wrong. There is no contradiction, but you already knew that. The distinction is obvious if you are really trying to understand what each writer is communicating. And one need not be a Christian to be a good reader. And if you have to go to wikipedia in order to make a coherent comment about the Christian understanding of salvation, it is probably time to start listening, reading, and studying, rather than attacking the Christian faith. In many ways, soteriology is Christianity. I could not imagine making bold assertions about atheism on Richard Dawkins' website without having read The God Delusion, etc. It is simply irresponsible. Also, your argument would be better if you demonstrated contradictions between the Bible and the Bible, not the Bible and great Christian theologians. Trevor and I do not consider Mr. Spurgeon to be infallible. Well, I am sure Trevor wants in on this, and I have tried to remain silent. However, I really think you are stretching your argument in this comment.
Mr. Logan,
Thank you for your welcome chastisement. I will endeavor not to write more than I read, as that is a sign of poor intellect. I am simply trying to keep up with the massive profusion of data and material that I admit I have not encountered before a week ago. If you were in my position and had to examine the roots of the Cathar heresy in medieval France without any advance understanding of the subject, I would grant you a similar leniency on coming to the material.
Unfortunately, you've also not answered the question. Original Sin--removed by Jesus' sacrifice, or not? I refuse to look in the Bible for justifications or contradictions with the Bible, mainly because the "bible" is a series of DIFFERENT books written by numerous authors over a period of 1700 years. Considering that we already believe George Washington could not tell a lie (he told plenty during his tenure as first president) and we've only been with his story for 200 years, I would imagine that a few details might become mixed up in an era where literary materials were produced by hand and not disseminated except to a xenophobic clerical elite.
But furthermore, I am not "attacking Christianity," and I resent any offensive insinuation that I would be doing so. By openly calling non-Reform Christians "blasphemers," you attack the foundations of the faiths of others with your sectarian and parochial viewpoints. Remember--you are men, not angels, not saints, not GODS, and yet still you proceed to judge others. I am simply defending MY faith against your outright hostility, and all failures are my own, not my faith's.
Now that we have cleared up who attacked whom, let us turn to the crux of your argument: "the good works justify the faith." I assume you hold to the concept that from good soil come good trees, and only good trees can bear good fruit. The only question i have is with your interpretation of this analogy: people know the goodness of a person not by their soil, but by their fruit. Moving backwards from the metaphorical arena into the factual arena, Jeshua bin Nazaret gave this teaching to a bunch of NON-Christians, to Jews who worshipped at an altar that he felt was corrupted. Jeshua had to provide an alternative morality besides the Pharisaical temple's propaganda, a way to distinguish those who actually did good vs. those who only seemed to do good, but who ultimately only did the will of the Pharisees and Sadducees who had supplanted worship of God with worship of human laws. Literally, in Jeshua's time, there wasn't a Christian faith, but only the evidence of good works by Jews, Jews who might very well have been breaking family, social, and religious law just to do the good that Jeshua preached. Jeshua himself wasn't even Anointed until late in his ministry, when he believed himself soon to be assassinated (being baptized does not count, as anointing is an ancient mid-east ritual done with costly oil and ritual, not water). Thus it makes no sense to say that you must have faith before you have works because the entirety of the "faithful" of Jeshua's time had no basis for a faith other than worship of a political dissident, not an unknown variable at that time. In fact, Simon bar Kochba was far more popular as a messianic figure than Jesus Christ, who was largely unmourned and unnoticed after his public execution in Judea--even by his sainted apostles, who mainly went back to their old jobs and lives only a few days after Jesus died.
Though there is a correlation between faith and works, the causal relationship is not so easy to identify. Because one can have faith, and works, and still end up evil (Judas Iscariot), one can have neither works nor faith, and end up good (Adam and Eve), and one can have works, and either incomplete faith or the wrong faith entirely and be good (the ancient prophets and non-Christian thinkers believed to be pardoned by Christ from eternity in hell). Faith and works are both necessary, but neither is sufficient, and certainly neither is created by the other. To assume otherwise is contrary to logic and, at certain points, contrary to the Bible.
Perhaps in the future, Mr. Logan, if you wish to argue on such matters further, you will use some of that wonderful accumulation of textual knowledge outside of the Bible that you hesitate to wield against me as of yet; I do not like arguing philosophical, legal, and moral concepts using works of literature as my only basis. As you have seen, I have repeatedly attempted to steer the conversation towards historical record, philosophical texts, and logical free inquiry, but to no avail, as somehow this is interpreted as "attacking Christianity." Honestly, i didn't realize that the Bible had supplanted God as the true object of worship in the Reform Church, and I apologize for any offense I have made to its holiness. I rather thought that no bunch of dead leaves could outmatch God, but hey--if that's what you put your faith in, i certainly will respect you and avoid it appropriately!
M.D.O.
I think you missed my point. My point is this. If you want to understand what I believe as a Christian (about faith and works, the death of Christ in relation to original sin, etc.), then you need to understand what I believe as a Christian in light of my Christian presuppositions. Again, this does not mean that you have to agree with my Christian presuppositions, but it does mean that my Christian beliefs (faith, works, atonement, etc.) are based on Christian foundations (the Bible, church history, confessions, creeds, etc.). If you refuse to do this, then it simply means that you do not have an honest desire to discuss my beliefs. In the same way, I would hope that I would do the same with you and your beliefs. I entered the conversation simply to suggest that you might want to ask a question that challenges the Christian faith on its own terms rather than employing categories that Christians do not accept in the first place. In other words, your comments about faith and works, the atonement of Christ in relationship to original sin, and your historical speculations about why Jesus said what he said, are not interesting to me simply because your comments, questions, and observations betray your lack of knowledge about the subject. I am not trying to insult you, but it is simply obvious to the educated Christian who might read what you have written here. Moreover, as you mentioned, I would not write about the Cathar heresy in medieval France, if I had not read and studied it first. So Trevor may want to answer your antagonistic questions about faith and works, the relation of Christ's atonement to original sin, etc., but as for me, I think I will simply refer you to the dozens of Christian theologians that have been thinking and writing about those issues for centuries. But, assuming that you might actually want to know, original sin includes the inherited guilt and corruption of Adam's sin. When Jesus died on the cross, he paid the penalty for Adam's sin, thus removing our guilt. In addition to this, he also broke the power of sin, which is progressively realized in the life of the believer. In this way, the corruption of original sin is increasingly removed as the believer dies to sin and lives to righteousness. Again, in terms of faith and works, the Bible (yes, that assumes I believe in inspiration of Scripture and the unity of the whole Bible) consistently teaches that faith alone is the sufficient condition for salvation, but that saving faith is never alone in the person saved, as it always produces the fruit of good works. However, even before good works, saving faith is saving faith, and only God knows true faith from counterfeit faith. Yeah, so you disagree. Of course you do. But I am not confident that you disagree intelligently because you have yet to address my beliefs in a way that actually challenges them in a coherent fashion. Moreover, my beliefs about faith and works and the atonement in relation to original sin can hardly be called parochial. To do so is simply laughable. Well, I think I have written too much already, and I think that these seeds are falling on rocky soil.
Ahh... now i think we are finally arriving at the same topic:
"If you want to understand what I believe as a Christian..., then you need to understand what I believe as a Christian in light of my Christian presuppositions."
Excellent! No, certainly I do not wish to challenge your belief! In fact, if you re-read my comments, i have been explicit in my unrelenting faith in the freedom to believe of all individuals. The main problem, one that has plagued this conversation from the beginning and threatens to end it sooner than I would like, is that I am not sure Trevor believes Christianity IS a presupposition.
I do not operate on this forum without facts. Facts are all I have to go on, since i have no real wisdom. My understanding of this issue is as limited as my prolixity is long. That being said, whenever I ask questions about factual bases, they are being misinterpreted as questions about beliefs. Facts and beliefs are two entirely different things, and they should not be commingled, as they lead to a false assumption of hypocrisy.
Take, for example, the idea of the sacredness of human life and the death penalty. The reason why there is such an uproar with these two right now (beyond the political blindness it incurs, much to the delight of wicked politicians!) is because one rests in beliefs and the other in facts.
Take for example: I believe in the sacredness of all human life--generally. But specifically, this man here raped and murdered my daughter, along with 20 other girls. By the pure facts of the matter, he cannot be trusted to live free among others. Some might advocate life imprisonment, others state execution. But the moral basis is very hard to figure out--is he less worthy of life than another? who is to say this man deserves life, and not that one? The ultimate arbiter of such ideas, many believe, is God, but God does not pull the switches in death chambers... humans do!
Therefore, one must make a grand separation between the two: I believe in the sacredness of all human life--but this man must die. It seems like hypocrisy, unless YOU ARE THAT MAN. Since i am not that man, i can say I have never had to deal with that problem. Until i do, i have no basis on which to judge adequately. To prejudge the situation because of what one PRESUMES would be the actions of "that man," who becomes a nonexistent theoretical quotient devoid of any rational choice in the matter, would indeed be to hypocritically mix facts and belief: I believe that all men who rape and murder 21 girls must die.
What about those who murder 20? Or those who do not rape? Or those who murder way more than 20, but only because they are driving erratically and simply smash into a bus of girls on their way to a track meet? Facts of the matter muddy overarching belief systems, and thus beliefs only exacerbate the differences between individuals by instituting one man's inner thoughts as the ex parte law of the land. One can use their own personal experience to enhance their beliefs, but ultimately individuals must use a common medium of intellectual exchange, free of encumbrance from the rationalizations of lesser men (that is, men/women/entities not party to the activity).
To bring a long idea to short close, I was never discussing your faith, merely the facts of Jeshua bin Nazaret's teachings. If historical facts are uncomfortable for you, you alone must bear that discomfort; they are not the arbiters of your beliefs... only you are! If i in any way dragged your personal beliefs into the subject, I assure you it was unintentional; my ONLY desire is to clear up some of the FACTS about Christianity, as a cultural movement, a historical reality, and a theoretical concept.
Indeed, we cannot come to a rational consensus about Christianity if we must constantly change the definition to refer to a particular individual's Christianity. There must be some common tangible ground, and I have chosen the rather sterile and easy-to-access historical record. Incomplete and corrupt as it is, history is nonetheless a medium in which all can operate without fear of engaging in an unintentional ad hominem argument.
And may I thank you for answering my question...
Now, having established that we modern folk have NOT inherited any guilt from Adam's disobedience, and thus Original Sin has no focus in our daily lives (unlike individual sins, which i assume are the basis upon which we depart from God's path), I am thus at a quandary as to why Christians are completely depraved without God's grace. Pre-Christian sinners would have been saddled with the crime of disobeying, but surely lack of having witnessed to Christ is not comparable to disobeying God!
So I must ask you, how is it that humans are completely depraved--that is, UNABLE to be righteous without testifying to God's grace--if they are not "dead" in sin, as those under Original Sin's wide net were? I am, of course, assuming that God did not err in his creation of humans; that there is not a fault in His creation of man, such that man cannot have the free will to be good and therefore to choose good without God doing it for him. If it is the case that God built man with a fault, is man thus imperfect? In which case, we are not to blame for our fault, since it was God-made... you see my dilemma?
Are we able freely to choose God without God's help or are we not free to choose God without God's help? Why are we knowledgeable of good and yet unable to follow it, if we are not saddled by inherited sins? Your responses would be very helpful in my understanding of this matter...
In response to my earlier teaser trailer, Mr. Almy has pointed out in various posts that as yet go unexplained that Christianity is the only path to righteousness, on the basis of the Bible and its inerrancy.
Let me point out that this is not a belief. This is an argument, namely an argument that faction A has exclusive and unrestricted access to morality, on the basis of book A. Now, i attempted to show the problem with this argument, namely that faction B also claims an exclusive and unrestricted access to morality, on the basis of book B. This B just happens to be the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
If Mr. Almy had said that HE believes that the bible is for HIM the only path to God's grace, I would have said bravo! You've found your testament, now follow your path! But he did not. Instead of keeping the conversation on himself and his own beliefs, he used what he thought were facts (beliefs about the inerrancy of the bible) to bestow upon him special privilege to deny God's grace to millions of those who do not follow what Mr. Almy believes. This is not faith--it is factionalism, as I have said, the preference of one's own group over all others, and the use of that preference to bestow upon oneself exclusive rights to certain privileges.
Now, on the basis of the inerrancy of the Tao Te Ching, the Tao Te Ching declares the Tao to be "older than God." By Mr. Almy's logic, the Tao Te Ching would of course be right, because the Tao Te Ching said that it was right (the name of the book literally means The Way of Greatest Virtue, so that part's easy!). But you surely must recognize that this is circular logic; the Tao Te Ching can say whatever it likes, just like the FSM Church can write up whatever doctrine it likes, but that does not automatically impose a restriction on ME to believe what IT says. I may impose such a restriction freely on myself, but just because something says I must believe it (you're guaranteed to lose 20 pounds with just three simple exercises!!) does not mean it is true.
This is the problem I have been having, and so far i've been told that i'm ignorant, obnoxious, unable to think straight, flat-out wrong, misguided, etc. All this may be true... about ME. But what about the argument? Rather than ad hominem attacks, what about what i've actually said, the argument i've proposed? I've not seen very much actually touching upon my arguments, even though i have gone to EXTREME lengths to delineate them, over and over and over. If somebody doesn't respond to 'em soon, i guess the only reason i can come up with is because nobody wants to answer. I'm certain there are valid responses to some of these questions (i could start dialoguing with myself, if you want me to show you all up :P), but nobody's even bothering with them! They'd rather attack me, which i have to tell you doesn't make them look any better!
M.D.O.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make about original sin in your recent comments. Also, yes, you did mention some facts about Jesus of Nazareth, but you also added some interpretations of facts (i.e. your comments about why Jesus said what Jesus said - that is an interpretation).
Honestly, I am no longer sure what we are talking about. You have mentioned faith and works, original sin and atonement, and presuppositions. But I remain confused. I would prefer to remain on one, specific topic. I think it makes for a more useful conversation. I am sure that you agree.
Post a Comment