The "Protoevangelium"

Genesis 3:14-15, particularly v15, are referred to in Evangelical and protestant theology as the "protoevangelium", or "first gospel".

The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

The "offspring" referred to in v15 is surely Jesus, who, though struck down by the power of Satan, will ultimately rise and destroy him forever! This meaning is celebrated every time the passage comes up in my church (which is very often; we do an overview of creation, the fall, redemption, and restoration every few months on average that always touches on Genesis 1-3); it is commonplace in commentaries dating back to Martin Luther. One commentary I read even talks about how "seed", as some translations render "offspring", is a hint to the virgin birth of Jesus. It's a beautiful idea; even as He is condemning the mother and father of humanity for the first sin, God gives them a preview of His plan for redeeming their descendants through His son.

While everything this interpretation asserts the passage says is certainly true, every time it is brought up my inner cynic can't help but detect eisegesis, reading a desired meaning into a text rather than reading the meaning out of it. Was anyone's first impression on reading Genesis 3:15 really "it's talking about Jesus!"?

I see three possible interpretations for v14-15:

1. The literal interpretation: God is talking to the snake as a snake, not as Satan, and promising enmity between snakes and people, as fulfilled in Indiana Jones, Snakes on a Plane, and many other examples.
2. A partially metaphorical intepretation: Satan's "offspring" are the "children of the devil" mentioned in 1 John 1:30 and John 8:44, Eve's "offspring" are simply humankind; the "enmity" is referring to Satan's antagonizing and destroying of humanity.
3. The prevalent, entirely metaphorical, "protoevangelium" interpretation: Eve's "offspring" is Jesus, and the last part is a promise of His redemption of humanity and final destruction of Satan.

A few observations to help us decide which of these is most likely:

The same word (zera) is used to refer to Satan's and Eve's "offspring", or "seed". Therefore, it seems more natural to also interpret the second "offspring" in the same way as the first, since it is used in the same context with the same word as the first. This means that both must be plural, or both must be singular. Though the "he" used in the last part of v15 might suggest that they are to be taken as singular, suggesting some singular, representative "offspring" of Satan in opposition to Jesus raises far more questions than it answers and originates many rabbit-trails off into parts of Revelation talking about various figures. I'd rather not get into that. If we take "offspring" as being plural, the "he" might simply refer to an unnamed, representative descendant of Eve, as in Genesis 24:60.

Also, the same word (shuwph) is used to describe what Satan and the seed of the woman will do to each other. I can't see any justification, then, for translating one use of it as "bruise" or "strike" and the other as "crush" as the NIV does. It is translated as "crush" in Job 9:17, but the point is that both uses of the word here, in the same context, should be interpreted the same. This implication of a two-sided, give-and-take battle is problematic for the second and third interpretations. Certainly there is nothing people can do to harm Satan, and at the same time no one argues that the struggle between Jesus and Satan will be evenly matched.

The only hope for the protoevangelium interpretation lies in the fact that whatever Satan and Jesus do to each other, Satan does to Jesus' heel while Jesus does it to Satan's head, which is obviously more important. At the very least, this seems to rule out the second interpretation. But left unanswered is the question: who are Satan's offspring, or seed, with whom Jesus will have enmity? Two possibilities:

1. The fallen angels who sinned and allied themselves with Satan. But these angels are/were of equal status to Satan, and as far as familial analogies are concerned, Satan is much more like their eldest brother than their father.
2. People who reject God and follow Satan, willingly or unknowingly. Jesus says that the Pharisees are of "[their] father the devil" (John 8:44); Paul calls Elymas the magician a "son of the devil" (Acts 13:10), and indeed John says that whoever does not practice righteousness or love his brother (i.e. an unrepentant sinner) is not a child of God but of the devil. (1 John 3:10) So this interpretation seems more likely, except for saying that God is predicting enmity between Jesus and these offspring. But Jesus did not come into the world to condemn, judge, or destroy sinners (John 3:17), which God was perfectly capable of doing without sending Him, but to save them. Talking about God putting enmity between Jesus and the very people He came to save is extremely counterproductive to the gospel.

So, even if you allow Eve's "seed" to be singular and Satan's to be plural, this line of interpretation makes no sense and raises contradictions. And so the most likely interpretation of Genesis 3:15 is the first one: God is cursing the snake as a snake, not as Satan in disguise. Taken literally, all the above interpretive problems instantly vanish and the language of enmity and striking makes perfect sense. We are simply left with the question: Why is God punishing the snake (and its descendants) if Satan was simply acting through it?

I won't try to get into the unknowable details of how God's justice applies to non-human creatures. I am reminded of Jesus teaching in Luke 17:1: "Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come!" Perhaps to demonstrate how seriously He takes sin, God curses the snake for its mere involvement in bringing sin into His creation, even as a mere agent of Satan. At any rate, this interpretation certainly has the least wrong with it and I feel the best about it. So, next time you find yourself trying to escape or kill a snake (or watching Indy do so), you can say to yourself: "That's a sin thing."

Addendum: I have realized there are two other possible ways to make the protoevangelium interpretation work: Satan's "seed" could simply be sin itself, though this seems a strange way to use "seed" when it (and its other usage in the same verse) normally refers to people; alternately, the enmity between Jesus and sinners could be purely one-sided. But based on the immediate context the literal interpretation still seems to be favored, with Jesus' happening to mostly fulfill this prediction best considered to be a cool "easter egg" orchestrated by God. At the very least, it is infeasible that this verse is primarily "about" Jesus. You have to ask yourself, what would it have meant to the people receiving it?

Why the Law?

Update: the providence series is on hold for now. The reason? I am taking an Old Testament study class at my church that has been challenging me to think about it in much more depth than my previous readthroughs, and this is simultaneously consuming most of my thinking time and changing the view on providence I had previously developed. As I work through the questions I get from my OT reading, I'll post summaries of my train of thought here. First: the law!

A 10,000-meter Look at the Law

If you have had teaching on the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible), Romans, or Hebrews, among others, you've probably gotten a basic picture of what the Law (capital L) is and its relation to, and contrast with, the Gospel. The Law is a set of over 600 rules for living given by God to Moses and the Israelites before they entered the land He had promised them. These laws covered just about every aspect of life at the time, from justice to worship to the economy. Unfortunately, the Israelites forsook God and His laws and, as He had warned, He allowed them to be conquered and taken away by other nations.

The New Testament offers the other side of this story: the Law was never intended to save, and because of our innate slavery to sin it cannot save anyone. The prescriptions and regulations of the Law were shadows of the reality to come (Hebrews 10:1) with Jesus. The whole system of animal sacrifice for sins foreshadowed Christ's once-for-all sacrifice for the sins of the world, the role of the priests was a preview of His role as our perfect intercessor and high priest, and the whole structure of the Law is a shadow of how God will, by the Spirit, write His law on our hearts. Jesus came to fulfill the law (Matthew 5:17) and now we are set free from it. God always intended salvation to be by faith, as we see with Abraham being justified by faith before the giving of the Law. (Genesis 15:6)

Why the Law?

This is a grossly simplified explanation of the role of the Law for Christians, with which I have never really been satisfied. It raises many questions that have been plaguing me in my reading through the Old Testament, the biggest of which is obvious: if the Law was powerless to save anyone, if its rituals and rules were simply shadows of the reality to come, then why on earth did God give it to His "chosen" people in the first place? It almost seems like some kind of celestial con act; even as God was promising them that they would live if they obeyed the Lew (Leviticus 18:5, Deuteronomy 6:25, 32:37), one pictures Him chuckling behind His back at how naive they were to think they could actually do it.

In answering this question it's easy to do so wrongly and so reach a misconception that I wrestled with. (Or just assume and work from that misconception) I'm first going to follow this wrong train of thought before getting to what I've actually learned.

A Wrong Conclusion

Fortunately, Paul answers the question "Why the Law?" for us.

Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more. (Romans 5:20)
Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. (Galatians 3:19)
For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:20)

So it seems that the purpose of the Law was to heighten the guilt of our sin, increase our awareness of it by showing us God's perfect standard for holiness that we fail to live up to, so that we will more clearly grasp our need for a savior and seek Jesus, who alone is able to save us from our condemnation arising from not obeying everything written in the Law. (Galatians 3:10)

But wait a minute. This means Christians have been thinking about their sins with tunnel vision. If we are condemned for lying, stealing, thinking angry thoughts, or having idols, aren't we also condemned for not circumcising our children (Genesis 17:12), not offering sacrifices for our unintentional sins (Leviticus 4), getting tattoos (Leviticus 19:28), wearing composite fabrics (Leviticus 19:19), or not using the metric system (Leviticus 19:35, my favorite law)? Shouldn't we equally be repenting of these sins and asking God to sanctify us in order to follow these laws as well?

This is a cavil (thank you, John Calvin) often raised against Christians by people trying to ridicule Christianity. They ask why Christians are breaking some of these more obscure laws, or ask why they can't own their own slaves since the Law clearly seems to permit slavery. (Also plural marriage--Deuteronomy 21:15-17) Is there anything to this? The reasoning is pretty simple: if we are condemned for not obeying the law, then shouldn't we as forgiven people try to please God by obeying it?

The Purpose of the Law

I don't think so. Several times in His teaching, Jesus lays down ways to live that openly contradict the Law; some of its restrictions are set aside, others are made more rigorous. (See Matthew 5:17, where His teaching is based on but different than the Law or clarify it) He says that simply not murdering or committing adultery aren't enough; wanting to do these things is equivalent to doing them. Whereas God commanded the Israelites to take oaths by His name (Deuteronomy 6:13), Jesus says not to swear by anything on heaven or earth (Matthew 5:34-37). In Acts 10 and 11 we see that Christians are no longer held to the Jewish dietary restrictions. Paul says that Christians do not need to be circumcised (1 Corinthians 7:18) and elsewhere commands them not to seek it (Galatians 5:2-3). He equates circumcision with trying to be justified by the Law and contrasts it with justification by grace.

So clearly Christians are not meant to live by the Law of the OT, either to gain salvation or because of it. As further proof that we are not condemned because of our failure to act specifically according to the law, notice all the times people are condemned in Genesis before the giving of the law--most notably Sodom and Gomorrah. God hadn't laid down the rules for sexual immorality in Leviticus 18 yet, so how could He be angry at these cities?

Look at the flip side of this: the justification of Abraham (Genesis 15:6), again before the Law. (see Romans 4) He is declared righteous purely because of his faith/belief, his willingness to set everything else aside to follow God. So, conversely, people are condemned because they lack this faith--not faith in the sense of agreeing with a set of truths about God, but faith as total devotion and surrender to Him. This is why Jesus gives Deuteronomy 6:4-5 as the greatest commandment; everything else is subordinate to this supremely important command, that we love the Lord.

In light of this, the Law shows us our sin not simply by our failure to do everything in it, but the reason we keep failing: because we don't love God as we should and can't make ourselves do so. This is why it's not enough to look at the rules we've broken and say, "I messed up; I'll try harder to obey that next time." If we don't go deeper and ask why we keep failing, we're missing the point. So the purpose of the Law is to bring down the proud and demonstrate that no one can be righteous enough for God to accept them; the need for a savior is universal. Even if we are vaguely aware of our own inability, the Law makes it clear; the attitude of rebellion that may have long lain hidden in our hearts rises to the surface when presented with such a clear command and becomes undeniably clear. (See Romans 7:7-13)

So in other words, the Law is not the way for us to be righteous like God and was never intended as such, but it is a holy standard set up by God to show us our own sin. It reveals the failings of our hearts, not our actions.

Other Disputations

You may object, as I did, "But if the Law was so incomplete, why did God withhold the Gospel for so long after it and make the Jews think they had all they needed from Him?" Well, consider what would have happened if the Law hadn't been given. (Which is not hypothetical at all; just look at any nation before the Law or any non-Israel nation after it) Without the Law, these nations heard little from God except whatever prophets He sent to them. Over and over again, the pattern is that they keep sinning and sinning until it gets so bad that God destroys them. The end. (As seen in Romans 1) It's bleaker than Norse mythology, but God is entirely within His justice to treat people this way. Compare this with all the promises God makes to Israel, the grace He repeatedly shows them, and the laws He gives to help them prosper. So it's hard to argue that the Old Covenant was a bad thing in any sense.

As for the objection that being given the Law blinded the Israelites to their need for the Gospel, I would say that they did know "enough" about what was casting the shadows God was showing them. From the example of Abraham they knew that remaining faithful to God would be counted as righteousness and prosper them. They themselves had provided plenty of examples proving that faithlessness and an attitude of disobedience would be punished as it was in the other nations. Abraham's justification and others' condemnation before the law would have shown them that God cares more about the heart than the exterior.

Another problem I struggled to understand: how does the Law point to a need for Jesus as the savior if the procedure for what to do if it was broken (sacrifice; the Day if Atonement) was already built into it? And how can people be cleansed of their sins on the Day of Atonement among others (Leviticus 16:30) if animal sacrifices can't take away sins? (Hebrews 10:4) The Leviticus verse is very clear: the peoples' sins were atoned for "on this day", not on some future day that the Day of Atonement foreshadowed. It is worth mentioning here that the OT term "atonement" and the wording in Hebrews, "take away", don't seem to be referring to the same thing. The Hebrew word for atonement, kaphar, can also mean to cover over (i.e. God commanding Noah to cover the ark with pitch) or push aside, whereas the NT word, aphaireo, means to "take away" or "cut off".

So again, we get this accumulative picture of sin; it keeps building up, but the ceremonies in the Law, by design, didn't deal with it as fully or completely as Jesus did. The point, then, is that we wouldn't put our faith in rituals to save us from sin, but in God Himself. The prescribed sacrifices were intended to help produce the humility and repentance God desires, not to fix our sin themselves. One other interesting thing brought up in class was that while the Law has rules for unintentional sins, it makes no provisions for intentional or "presumptuous" sins. If you sinned defiantly, you had no recourse except to trust in God's mercy.

Application

I see three takeaways from this:

1. Stop expecting people to try to obey any of the commands from the Law unless you yourself try to obey all of them. (Hint: you don't)
2. On a related note, to convince people that they sin, don't just list off the Ten Commandments and show that everyone has broken at least one. (I listened to a sermon from the Village Church that kind of did this) Like Jesus did, go deeper; ask why no one follows them all.
3. At least for me, the tendency to interpret parts of the Old Testament solely as "shadows" of the reality of the Gospel is unhelpful. It seems like mistaking a secondary purpose of these things for their primary purpose. What did the Laws mean to the Israelites when they were given, in context, when they had barely any idea of the Gospel?

Providence, Part VI: The Biblical Data

This is part 6 of my series on providence. Table of contents:

1. Introduction and apology
2. A brief history of the soteriological debate
3. Overview of Calvinism
4. Overview of Arminianism
5. Comparing, contrasting, and evaluation of Calvinism and Arminianism
6. The Biblical data

     6.5. Interlude: The God Who Seeks Us

7. My position on providence
8. Applications of this position to the soteriological debate
9. Practical applications and conclusion

This post is kind of a jumping-off point for the eagerly-awaited (at least by me) one where I unpack my own position on providence. In contrast, this one is going to be as objective as possible, in which I present the Biblical foundation that I will build on next time. My thought process wasn't quite as simple as inferring doctrines from verses that directly support them. I'm going to take a lot of very simple facts that are (hopefully) beyond dispute, throw them in a blender, and come to my position in a more holistic way. Think of these facts as the ingredients. They can be divided into three categories for the three big concepts I am trying to balance: God's sovereignty, God's goodness, and human responsibility (or "free will" if you must have it in this discussion).

God's Sovereignty

God is omnipotent; He is able to do all that He wills and nothing is too hard for Him. This fact is attested to abundantly in scripture. Jeremiah attests that nothing is too hard for the Lord (32:17), Jesus says that with God all things are possible (Matthew 19:26). One of the anchors for our hope in God's providence is that He is always able to do what He wills. The simplified statement "God can do anything" is a bit misleading because though God can do all He wills, He can only will things that are consistent to his nature. For example, God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13), or tempt anyone to sin (James 1:13) because these things are antithetical to His nature. He also can't do logical contradictions or things that are by their nature impossible, so the question "Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it?" is best answered with punitive violence of some kind.

God is sovereign and in control over all of creation. This control is both extensive and intensive. God is said to be continually sustaining all things on some basic level; Colossians 1:17 says that "in [Christ] all things hold together", and Paul said "in [God] we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:26). It seems that what we consider to be the laws of physics and nature aren't fundamental to the universe, but are simply God graciously upholding creation in consistent ways that we can understand and utilize. If you're into that sort of thing, you could thank God each morning for keeping the earth in its orbit or electricity working the same way. We also see Him sometimes breaking these "laws" and commanding creation to do something incredible, like calming a storm (Matthew 8:26), parting the sea (Exodus 14), or, of course, raising from the dead after three days. From all this we clearly see that God is absolutely Lord over His creation, and nothing in the universe is outside His dominion.

God knows absolutely everything that has been, is, and will ever be. God is "perfect in knowledge" (Job 36:16) and "knows everything" (1 John 3:20). We also know that God does not change (Malachi 3:6) so He has always had this perfect knowledge and will always have it. Among other conclusions, this means that God always has equally perfect knowledge of every instant in all of time, unlike finite humans who only experience history one moment at a time. This becomes important later.

God has a plan (or "will") that includes everything that happens. Ephesians 1:11 says that God "works all things according to the counsel of His will". Revelation 4:11 states that all things were created and exist by God's will. Ephesians 1:10 says God's plan is "for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and on earth." In other words, everything that happens is part of God's plan/will; nothing takes Him off-guard and He has a purpose for everything that may happen whether we see it or not. (This is a fact that all Christians struggle to believe) This ultimate purpose is simply the pursuit of His own glory as reflected in His own actions and in the redemption or judgment of creation.

It's important to distinguish this will of whatever happens from God's will for our moral actions as revealed in the Bible, as of course the two are often at odds with each other. Others often use terms like God's "revealed will" and "hidden" or "secret" will to distinguish between the two, but this unfortunately implies that God has two contrary, clashing wills within Himself and that He deliberately hid things from us that He could have revealed in the Bible's moral teachings. What is often termed God's "revealed will" for us to perform, I will call His "desire". This goes right into another point about God...

God does not have two wills, but one undivided will that is never thwarted or frustrated. In Mark 3:23-24, Jesus refutes the idea that He could be driving out demons by the power of Satan by highlighting the absurdity of Satan working at cross purposes with his own mission: "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand." If the kingdom of this world is not divided against itself, how much less could the kingdom of God be divided? This is the unfortunate implication of talking about God as having two different wills.

God predestines (or elects) some individuals for salvation, and in the process chooses others for damnation; this choice was made before any of us were born. This not-so-simple fact lies on the undisputed common ground of Calvinism and Arminianism, which I have well supported in posts 3 and 4. The two positions may disagree on the precise nature of and reason for this election, but they both affirm that it happens. See those posts for more evidence; for now I will simply cite Ephesians 1:4: "...even as [God] chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will." Note the last part, which makes clear that predestination is simply the part of God's overall will that pertains to salvation. Also, in John 15:16 Jesus says that "You did not choose me, but I chose you", making clear that God's choice of us takes preeminence over our choice of Him.

God's Goodness

God is love. 1 John 4:8 Not "love is God", but God is the very definition and perfect embodiment of what love is.

Out of love, Jesus died for our sins so that by faith we can share in His death and resurrection, enjoy relationship with God, and have eternal life. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him will not die but will have eternal life." (John 3:16) This is the distilled essence of the gospel. My church did a sermon series that asked how you would "tweet" the gospel. There is my answer. (Actually, it's 150 characters, so I would tweet a link to this post. Twitter is ridiculous.)

God is the source of all good, even our faith and repentance. Paul's verse-quoting mashup in Romans 3:10-18 makes clear the extent of our depravity. The only reason the world isn't hell on earth (or a smoking cinder) is because, as mentioned above, God does not abandon His creation but continues to sustain it and prevent us from being as sinful as we could be. James writes that "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above" (1:17) Every stage of our salvation and sanctification is done by God; even our faith itself is a gift from God (Acts 5:31, 11:18; 2 Timothy 2:25).

God wants all people to be saved. 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 18:32. I will not further argue this point here, except by saying that if God does not sincerely desire the salvation of all people, then He is not perfectly loving, because it would possible to imagine a God more loving than the true God.

God can work good through our acts of evil. This is strongly implied by the fact that all things, even acts of evil, are part of God's plan and therefore accomplish some good purpose. For an example, see Genesis 50:20, where Joseph said of his brothers selling him, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today."

God is perfectly truthful; He cannot lie or deceive anyone. "God is not a man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and he will not do it? Or has he spoken, and he will not fulfill it?" (Numbers 23:19) "And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret." (1 Samuel 15:29) Titus 1:2 outright says that "God never lies". Proverbs 30:5 says that "Every word of God proves true." I am strongly affirming this now because later I'll be dealing with some difficult verses that seem to contradict God's truthfulness.

God is not the author of sin. This is probably the most crucial of all my points to the development of my position on providence. It can be broken down into three subpoints. First, God does not cause anyone to sin, because if He were the source of the sin He condemns man for, He would cease to be both good and just, which He certainly is. (Luke 18:19, Deuteronomy 32:4) No evasions or talk of God's ways being "higher than our ways" here; there is no way to affirm that a good, just God would cause anyone to sin.

Second, God does not tell or command anyone to sin, because they would be faced with the impossible choice of either obeying God by sinning, or disobeying Him and therefore sinning. So God telling someone to sin is the same as His causing them to sin. If you say that God can suspend His law in special cases, this contradicts Matthew 5:18 where Jesus states that "not an iota, not a dot will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." This would also mean that God is divided against Himself, which as we saw above is not the case.

And thirdly, God does not tempt anyone to sin. James 1:13.

Human Responsibility

We are responsible for our actions as moral agents. This is the core of what I mean by "human responsibility". The fact that God judges us according to what we have done (Revelation 20:12) necessarily means that we are held responsible for what we do. This has a wide variety of implications about human nature that are too subjective to post here, so I will save them for the beginning of the next post.

We are slaves to sin and cannot free ourselves or make ourselves holy on our own. Though we are responsible for our own actions, we are also unable to consistently act according to God's standards. We are said to be slaves to sin (Romans 6:17) in our natural state; without Jesus we can't please God or bear any good fruit (John 15:5) Since we are responsible for our actions, this slavery is not on our will; no one is forcing us to sin, but our very natures are fallen into sin so we keep freely choosing other things over God.

Because of unbelief, not every person is saved; salvation is conditioned on our faith. Again see John 3:16, or Luke 7:50 which affirms the connection between faith and salvation even more strongly. Also Romans 9:32, where Paul affirms that the reason some in Israel didn't attain the righteousness they sought was that they did not pursue it by faith, but by works.

We are made holy and conformed to God's image by the power of the Spirit (but not apart from our own will and responsibility). Philippians 2:12-13 is a good statement of this mysterious partnership between the Holy Spirit and us in which each member is essential to sanctification of an individual. Romans 8 is a beautiful exposition of God's crucial role in our transformation from rebellious sinners to obedient and loving children.


Finally, a bit of preparation for my next post. I think the central questions that Calvinism and Arminian answer differently go something like: what is the nature of God's providence, His reign over and work through every event in history? How do His will and ours work together in deciding events, and how do we explain the difference between what He commands in the Bible and the world? Why is everyone not saved? They are two different systems of interpreting the Bible to answer these questions, but as I said about baptism, though the truth of the Bible is not up for debate here, the veracity of any system for reading it is. Calvinism and Arminianism are both internally consistent, but can they be inferred from the rest of scripture? In my opinion, the presence of unresolved contradictions in Calvinism--brushed under the rug with Romans 9:20--is strong evidence that it cannot.

So, we have all this biblical data. But a list of scripturally supported facts does not constitute a complex doctrine like providence in any coherent sense; though organized into three categories, the points are largely unrelated and indeed it's hard to see how some of them (not everyone is saved, but God wants everyone to be saved?) Can be true at the same time. Next time I will finally get into how I have learned to assemble and reconcile these facts into a single picture of God's providence.

Baptism 2

I recently sent an E-mail to a friend who was in a conversation with someone who believed in baptismal regeneration. (It prompted my recent post on baptism) This friend had made a pretty long argument for his view, listing a good deal of verses and providing his prespective of them and how they fit into his theology of baptism. In the course of responding to it, I learned a great deal and found my own theology of baptism as a symbol clarified and reinforced. With my friend's permission, here is an edited version of my response.

Here is my own (hopefully charitable) summary of a theology of baptismal regeneration:

Of course I am not saying that baptism is a work by which we are able to cause or earn our own salvation. I am saying that just as God is able to graciously and freely offer salvation to us in response to our faith, He regenerates us in response to (and even indivisibly from) our baptism by submersion into water. Baptism is the visible, external side of the process of being "born again" (that is, regeneration) that Jesus speaks of in John 3:3. It happens concurrently with the inward element of baptism by the Spirit (John 3:5) and our spiritual identification with the death and resurrection of Christ. Regeneration means dying to our sin and being born again to God, and baptism (in both its senses) is the process by which God performs this great work in those who believe. It follows faith and repentance (in which the penalty for our sins is taken way by the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross) and is the beginning of our sanctification and eternal life.

This is the framework of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, which is one system for interpreting the scriptures that deal with baptism; it is certainly possible to interpret the Bible this way. Of course we must keep in sight the truth of the Bible and an earnest desire to correctly interpret it to apply its truth in life and doctrine, but this also means we should not be more attached to any particular system of interpretation more than the facts support. So, the question is, is this interpretation of baptismal verses consistent with the rest of scripture?

I think the thesis of this view is that external, physical baptism and inward baptism by the Holy Spirit are inseparable; both are necessary components of regeneration and in fact they happen concurrently, two halves of the same coin. I will argue for the contrary view that physical baptism in water is a symbol and visible proclamation of the invisible inward baptism and regeneration that has already occurred, not a necessary component of regeneration, just as Protestants believe that communion symbolizes Christ's body and blood broken for us in the Atonement. I'll go through verses that pertain to baptism and present an alternate way of looking at them to the baptismal regeneration view.

Matthew 3:13-17
The words of Jesus, "for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness", are certainly open-ended. Clearly Jesus was aware that baptism was part of the path God had laid for Him and His ministry, just as he was predestined for the cross (Matthew 26:42). Still, it is puzzling from both a baptismal regeneration and a symbolistic view. If baptism is one facet of the Spirit's work of regeneration, then of course Jesus, already possessing eternal life along with Godhood, did not need to be baptized, as John realized in v14. And if baptism is a symbol of our identification with Jesus' death and resurrection, then why did Jesus, who actually died and was actually resurrected, also partake in the symbol when he did the real thing? Maybe the point was simply what happened next; the heavens being opened, the Holy Spirit descending on Him, and the Father affirming Jesus as the Son of God. Jesus' baptism could also simply be another part of His total identification with us and our sins; just as He didn't need to come or take our sins on Himself, He didn't need to be baptized, but He was for our sakes.

Two other things: first, I definitely think John had a strictly inward definition of baptism in his question on v14, the baptism "with the Holy Spirit and with fire" he mentions in v11. Surely he did not mean he wanted Jesus to set him on fire! He didn't care whether Jesus dunked him in the river; he wanted the true, inward baptism by the Holy Spirit. Also, I would caution against expecting the exceptional events of Jesus' baptism to all play out in our own baptism; I think they were also markers of the start of His formal ministry, along with His subsequent temptation in the desrt.

John 3:1-8
Taking the mention of "water" here to mean literal baptism in water is somewhat inconsistent. The second birth Jesus is talking about is obviously metaphorical, about which He corrects Nicodemus, so there is no reason that "water" here can't refer to the living water (John 4:14) by which Jesus is said to cleanse us (John 13:8,10; Ephesians 5:26, Titus 3:5, Ezekiel 36:25-27)

Acts 2:38
Peter isn't necessarily equating water baptism with regeneration here. David Guzik in his commentary on the verse has an excellent insight:

"Baptism made a clear statement. In that day, Jews were not commonly baptized, only Gentiles who wanted to become Jews. For these Jewish men and women to be baptized showed just how strongly they felt they needed Jesus."

So I don't think Peter was calling these Jews to be baptized as part of their salvation, but again as a strong external symbol or declaration of it, to guard against a shallow repentance to simply minimize the guilt they were feeling. Being baptized showed that they really did trust in Jesus, and not the law and old covenant, for salvation, which they previously had not possessed.

Romans 6:1-7
Again, we didn't literally die on a cross, get buried, and rise from the dead with Jesus; this language reflects the spiritual, not physical reality of our salvation. Similarly, the baptism here is referring to our inward regeneration and baptism by the Holy Spirit; it is another part of the spiritual reality that is ours by God's grace and Christ's actual death and resurrection. Switching mid-sentence between literal and spritual/metaphorical interpretations of a passage makes me uncomfortable.

1 Corinthians 12:12-13
The preposition "in one Spirit" makes it clear here that Paul is saying that by regeneration we are baptized (inwardly, by the Spirit) into the body of believers.

Galatians 3:26-27
Again, I think this passage is speaking of regeneration by the Spirit, by which we are made alive and "put on" Christ. This inward baptism is how we pass from the dominion of darkness into the kingdom of God. (Colossiamns 1:13)

Ephesians 4:1-6
Again, a purely inward definition of baptism works just as well here. Again, as all these other things in the list are spiritual realities (body [of Christ], the Holy Spirit, Lord, faith, God and father), it seems natural to interpret "baptism" likewise.

Colossians 2:9-12
Baptism is paralleled with circumcision here. It's interesting that in v10 it refers to (presumably) baptism as "a circumcision made without hands". The clear meaning is that it's hard to take this to mean physical baptism, which is generally done with hands; the implication is that it is not referring to any physical event at all but the circumcision of the heart God promises in Deuteronomy 30:6. Also, we are certainly not put in a tomb with Christ in physical baptism (v12), so again I think a spiritual, non-physical interpretation of "baptism" is in order here.

Titus 3:5
I think this verse is referring to when we repent, believe, and receive the Holy Spirit; at this time, God is said to wash our hearts clean in the process of regeneration. Again, it seems more awkward to me to read this verse as referring to a spiritual truth concurrent with a physical process.

1 Peter 3:18-22
Verse 21, when only the first part is read, is one of the main verses used to support baptismal regeneration, but in its entirety and context I think it is one of the strongest supports for the symbolistic view of baptism. Peter clearly says in v21 that the baptism that saves us is not the removal of dirt (i.e. the physical submersion in water) but the inward process of being born again and receiving Christ's righteousness. This baptism is not synonymous with physical baptism, which has no power to save but is only a declaration of regeneration that has already happened.

1 John 5:6-8
This verse is really difficult. I'm not sure it's talking about baptism at all. One of the main themes of 1 John is addressing the heresy of Gnosticism that threatened the church. Gnosticism was a dualistic worldview that believed that the physical world was evil and the spiritual world was good; we are trying to escape our evil bodies and Jesus, being God, could not have had a physical body at all but had some kind of incorporeal, spiritual body. One interpretation of John repeated use of "water and blood" here is that he is refuting Gnostics who would have denied that He was born like a human being.

Or "water" could be referring to (the physical evidence of) Jesus' baptism, and "blood" to His crucifixion. So the evidence given to us by the Holy Spirit, God the Father's testimony at Jesus' baptism, and all the miracles and wonders of His crucifixion are all in agreement that Jesus is the Messiah.

Acts 2:41
Again, not necessarily equating the physical baptism with salvation, but treating it as visible evidence of it; those who were baptized were counted among the three thousand converts.

Acts 8:36-38
If you really "get" the gospel and are saved, I think it's to be expected that you'll feel an urgency to get baptized as a way of proclaiming this faith.

Acts 9:3-19
God seems to be using Ananias here to complete Paul's journey to faith in Jesus. Presumably, he believed around when he regained his sight (v17) and was then baptized.

Acts 22:7-16
I think Ananias is speaking of baptism here in a symbolic way, but is being somewhat loose with his words; of course we don't wash our own sins away by baptism in water, though this is what he is literally implying.

Acts 16:29-34
I think the sense of urgency here is the same as in Acts 8: he didn't need to get baptized to "seal the deal" of salvation or complete it somehow, but to affirm the conversion and regeneration of himself and his family.

Acts 18:24-19:7
Just as Christian baptism ("in the name of the Lord Jesus") is a symbol and visible proclamation of our spiritual identification with Christ's death and resurrection, John's baptism (as in Matthew 3) was simply a proclamation of repentence for sins, an admission that you weren't "all right" trying to get by under the law, which was intended to prepare your heart for the gospel and the true baptism Jesus offers. John's baptism was never intended to symbolize the whole package of salvation, but it was all Apollos knew and it  was likely why Priscilla and Aquila took him aside to explain things to him.

So, I have shown an alternate interpretation for these passages that supports the symbolistic view of baptism--that it is not necessary for salvation, but that it is a proclamation, affirmation, and symbol of what Jesus has done in us. For many of the passages I have argued from the text that the symbolic interpretation makes more sense. I also think there are some more general reasons to read the Bible this way.

The main reason is that making physical baptism in water necessary for regeneration and salvation creates a whole host of other theological problems. Making physical baptism a necessary condition for knwing you are saved like the fruits of the Spirit, I think, draws a misguided parallel between two different things. The condition for salvation we see over and over again is faith (John 3:16, Romans 9:30-31, Ephesians 2:8-9, &c.) Works are not necessary for salvation, but they are expected as evidence that someone really does have saving faith; they are said to "complete" our faith (James 2:22), and baptism can certainly be one of these "completing" works. Someone who is baptized but continues to live in deliberate sin clearly does not have authentic faith and is not saved, but someone who repents and displays numerous other evidences of saving faith, without being baptized, very likely is saved.

And, on a more basic level, the idea that God would deny salvation to someone because they did not get submerged in water in a certain way seems very ritualistic and difficult to fit into the rest of the Christian theology of salvation. If someone is in a situation (like a prison or a desert) where baptism by immersion is not possible, you get into the quagmire of arguing for different methods for baptism; can baptism by sprinkling save you? Partial immersion? Just how much water do you need? This is what I mean by the view of baptismal regeneration raising a whole host of other theological problems.

And, on a more personal note (meaning you can take it or leave it), I have been baptized twice: once as an infant and again when I was 22. If you hold that baptism always saves even infants without fail, then this would mean I have been saved ever since despite displaying absolutely no evidence of it for most of my life. If you hold that baptism is a necessary component of regeneration and salvation, then this would mean that my faith and all that came from it before August 2011 were false and I was still spiritually dead, which is both personally repugnant and theologically absurd to me.

t3h LOLzorz

Last night, for a friend's birthday, I attended the first ever Internet Cat Video Film Festival at the Walker Art Center. Yes, internet cat videos are apparently an established enough art form to draw thousands of people to watch them outdoors for almost the length of a feature film. As I am a firmly established cat hater, a part of my soul died last night. A few of them were pretty funny.

When I got there around 7, it was already pretty surreal. At least a thousand people were already sitting on blankets all over the hill next to the Walker. Some people were wearing cat ears; some had brought their cats. There were stands selling food, T-shirts, and souvenirs by the building; also one calling itself the "Death Metal Drawing Club". (I saw nothing at the stand that made that name make any sense) A local band (also in cat headgear) was playing music on the stage. It was a pretty nice amphitheater, all for watching crazy cat videos.

People kept coming to the hill and I sat and talked with friends as they arrived until about 8:30, by which time they had put up a screen where the band was and an announcer gave a brief introduction. After a few quick ads from the main sponsor, Animal Planet, we were off.

The videos were organized into categories: the obvious "Comedy", but also ones like "Drama", "Musical", "Foreign", and "Documentary". It was basically like a YouTube cat video binge only you got to enjoy it with thousands of other people, which more than made up for the smallness of the screen from our distance. I probably laughed and "Aww"ed less than anyone there, but some of them were legitimately pretty good, particularly the peoples' choice winner, the melancholy faux-French "Henri 2 Paw de Deux", and a nightmarish/brilliant animated video, "Kitty City".

So, there you have it. Life imitates internet memes.

Providence, Part V: Evaluation

This is part 5 of my series on providence. Table of contents:

1. Introduction and apology
2. A brief history of the soteriological debate
3. Overview of Calvinism
4. Overview of Arminianism
5. Comparing, contrasting, and evaluation of Calvinism and Arminianism
6. The Biblical data

     6.5. Interlude: The God Who Seeks Us

7. My position on providence
8. Applications of this position to the soteriological debate
9. Practical applications and conclusion

Disclaimer: All of the views expressed in this post are absolutely my own and not those of my church, my small group, or any other religious entity I am or have been involved with.

The last three posts in this series have been difficult. I've learned that I have trouble simply doing non-evaluative studies of subjects with a minimal amount of my own opinion; as a J on the MBTI scale it's hard for me to spend so much time figuring out what others think or what has happened while shutting out most of what I think. Well, that is about to change. Here is what I think about Calvinism and Arminianism. I'm not going to get into what I personally think about providence until post 7, but as will become quite clear soon, my position falls much closer to Arminianism than Calvinism.

First, I'd like to point out and decry the tendency debates among Calvinists and Arminians have to focus entirely on comparing and contrasting the respective five points of each. The parallels that exist between these points seem to invite these comparisons and so they are often weighed against each other to decide the matter. This is unhelpful and, I think, ineffective at actually resolving these debates. These points all descend from a particular, internally consistent system of interpreting the Bible.

As I showed in the previous two posts, Calvinists and Arminians don't simply stake their claim on the parts of the Bible that support their position and try to nullify the parts that damage it; they can each look at the same passage and interpret it completely differently, each in a way that supports their system. Calvinists can argue from Romans 9 to prove unconditional election all they like, but an Arminian need not be convinced as he is already set in his own way of reading this chapter.

In this way debates over the individual points usually don't get far because each side is arguing from the perspective of its own system for interpreting the Bible, and these arguments don't carry the same weight in the other side's system because they interpret the evidence differently. It's the same reason internet debates between Christians and atheists are exercises in futility; both argue for their worldview using evidence that has been interpreted through the lens of that worldview, while the other side sees it differently. A evaluative decision between Calvinism and Arminianism has to look deeper, at the views of God, human nature, and the Bible that give rise to these two different ways of reading it--the guiding views of God I talked about at the end of each post. And so, before I get into any discussion of the individual points, it is these underlying perspectives and motivations that I will be evaluating.

Strengths of the Calvinistic Perspective

I would say the great strength of the Calvinistic view (above and behind the five points) is its majestic view of God as discussed in post 3. It puts the utmost emphasis on God's sovereignty as Lord and Creator over all things, even the depths of the hearts of people. God does not simply leave His creation to fend for itself but has a perfect plan for it according to His good pleasure to work all things, even the evil actions of people who rebel against Him, for His glory. The salvation of men is not left to any contingency but is firmly in His capable hands. This view of a righteous God who can never in any wise be defeated or thwarted in what He sets out to do and does not let evil happen but actively works good by it is rightly a source of great peace and comfort to Calvinists.

In keeping with its complete trust in God to elect and save, Calvinism also has a very high view of the efficacy of the Atonement. Its insistence that Jesus' death did not merely make salvation possible but actually secured it for individuals along with everything that comes with it comes from a sincere love for Jesus and for the gospel. The Atonement is seen as the crowning glory of God's perfect, immutable plan for all of eternity, the way for God to perfectly accomplish His purpose of election.

Shortcomings of the Calvinistic Perspective

My criticisms of the Calvinistic view can be broken down into five main points. (Which I will not attempt to organize into an acronym)

1. It loses sight of God's essential goodness and justice

This is the classic "Calvinism makes God the author of evil" objection; as I will explain, I do not find any of the defenses against this accusation very convincing. In its quest to make God as sovereign and autonomous as possible, exercising "meticulous control" over a fallen creation, it raises some serious questions about His moral nature. I do not think Calvinism provides satisfactory answers to the questions it raises.

One of my strongest convictions, which I think I share with Arminians, is that God does not cause anyone to sin. If He does, then His goodness and justice both become meaningless and He is no longer worthy of our love or praise. For what does God's holiness mean if He is the creator of the sin and evil He detests, and what does His justice mean if He punishes us for doing what He caused us to do? What difference is there between good and evil if God causes both and works both for His glory? How is evil not another equally just way for God to work all things to His glory? This conviction puts limits on just how much sovereignty we can ascribe to God, at least in the realm of human activities.

It also clashes dramatically with Calvinism's understanding of God as the "primary cause" of all things. (Calvin, Institutes, 16.8) As I mentioned in post 3, Calvinism operates on a "cause and effect" rather than an "influence and response" model of human behavior; the doctrine of Irresistible Grace is built on this understanding. I often seen Calvinists, when confronted with this question, revert to speaking about God's working through evil in permissive, rather than active, terms--perhaps God causes the good acts of men, but does not cause and only permits the evil they do. But this concept of the "permissive will" of God is more of an Arminian concept than a Calvinistic one, and indeed is denied by Calvinism. Calvin, in chapter 18.1 of his Institutes, writes:

It seems absurd that man should be blinded by the will and command of God, and yet be forthwith punished for his blindness. Hence, recourse is had to the evasion that this is done only by the permission, and not also by the will of God. He himself, however, openly declaring that he does this, repudiates the evasion. That men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and deliberate on any thing but what he has previously decreed with himself and brings to pass by his secret direction, is proved by numberless clear passages of scripture.

So Calvin, in the chapter in which he defends his theology from accusations that God is the author of sin, only intensifies them. To this doctrine, Arminius responds:

Because, according to this doctrine, he moves to sin by an act that is unavoidable, and according to his own purpose and primary intention, without having received any previous inducement to such an act from any preceding sin or demerit in man.

And elsewhere:

This Predestination is inconsistent with the nature and properties of Sin, because Sin is called "disobedience" and "rebellion ", neither of which terms can possibly apply to any person who by a preceding divine decree is placed under an unavoidable necessity of sinning.

Arminius cleverly catches the implication of God's "meticulous control" over all things, even human wills, which no one can avoid or resist, that this necessarily makes Him the cause of not only our righteousness but also our sin.

Also, as I mentioned before, Calvinism's answer to the question "Why is everyone not saved?" is, ultimately, "Because God does not wish or try to save everyone." When did it become acceptable to believe this about God, even take pleasure in it? Indeed Calvinism, by making God the sole planner and effecter of salvation, begs the question of why God doesn't simply save everyone, which would not do any damage to His justice as it was perfectly satisfied by the Atonement. Calvinists have to explain away verses about the universality of God's compassion and mercy on sinners like 1 Timothy 2:4 and many other verses brought up by Arminians in support of universal atonement, dampening their meaning by calling the meaning of words like "all" and "world" into question, which is an awkward solution at best.

In all its fervor about emphasizing God's sovereignty, Calvinism comes perilously close to losing sight of God's essential goodness and mercy or to viewing them as simply the flip side of His wrath as part of His grand, mysterious plan. The goodness and love of God are not hidden attributes, nor should you have to exercise faith to believe that they are really true of God. The gospel is the ultimate revelation of God's love and mercy, and I think that if it ever seems to call them into question, you are thinking about it wrongly.

2. It justifies its view of God by abusing the concept of His "good pleasure"

The most common response I hear from Calvinists to this objection that God is not loving for not saving everyone is something along the lines of, "God does not owe anything to sinful man; we owe everything to Him. He has mercy on whom He will have mercy (Romans 9:16), predestining people for good or evil as part of His perfect plan, according to His good pleasure (Ephesians 1:9). Who are you, O man (Romans 9:20) to judge God's designs by human standards of justice and fairness? For His ways and thoughts are above ours as the heavens are above the earth (Isaiah 55:9), and He is not obligated to save anyone because we justly deserve destruction for our sinfulness."

A few things I will pick out of this response:

• God's will or "good pleasure" is assumed to be atomic, impenetrable, incomprehensible to humans by being far beyond and above us. Calvinism answers the difficult questions it raises about God's nature by retreating to this "good pleasure" as the justification for it all. Any attempts to question it are necessarily assumed to be based on human (that is, fallen; unreliable) standards and reason, even if those arguments are based on other parts of God's revelation of Himself in the Bible.
• In its desire to free God from all constraints on His will, it asserts that He is not obligated in any way to sinful man, ignoring the fact that God graciously obligates Himself to us by His promises (such as John 3:16) and His perfect faithfulness to keep these promises. He was not obligated to make these promises, but now we can trust and rely on His holding to them.
• And, perhaps most seriously, it makes some seriously misguided assumptions about God's "good pleasure". In making that the unifying justification for everything Calvinism ascribes to Him, Calvinism creates a picture of a God who, while unconditionally denying individuals the chance to be saved and experience all of His perfect goodness, smiles serenely and says "All is going according to plan, according to My good pleasure." This is a picture not of a good and glorious God, but of a psychopath.

The fact is that God's "good pleasure" is not atomic or incomprehensible, and we can gain some facts about how it works. When God says things like "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy", F. Leroy Forlines writes, we should not simply leave it there and conclude unconditional election but should respond by asking, "On whom does God will to have mercy?" Or, in this case, "What does God actually take pleasure in? What does God actually desire?" Now is not the time for a thorough study of this matter, but here are a few illustrative examples:

• His son, Jesus Christ (Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22)
• Sanctifying us through "grace-driven effort" (Philippians 2:13)
• Giving good gifts to His children (Luke 12:32)
• Those who love and fear Him (Psalm 147:11)
• Uprightness (1 Chronicles 29:17)
• The wicked coming to repentance (Ezekiel 33:11)
• The salvation of everyone (1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9)
• Predestinating the elect (Ephesians 1:5)

And what does God take no pleasure in?

• The death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11) or of anyone (18:32)
• False/empty religion (Malachi 1:10, Hebrews 10:6,8)
• Faithlessness (Hebrews 10:38)

God's "good pleasure" is in fact much more comprehensible and transparent than Calvinism makes it out to be. These verses clearly show that taking pleasure in ordaining acts of evil or predestining people for destruction is antithetical to God's nature. Rather than deciding God's nature based on His actions in the Calvinistic system (a school of thought known as voluntarism), it makes much more sense to learn about God's nature and reason that He wills and acts according to this nature (known as essentialism).

Of course, it's easy to see how Ephesians 1:5 can be taken in support of Calvinism, so I will briefly offer an alternate interpretation: God takes pleasure in predestining individuals for salvation, but not in predestining those He knows will not be saved. The idea of God taking no pleasure in something He does (not getting His way!?) will no doubt horrify Calvinists, but if He is as sovereign as they say, the alternative is the psychopathic picture of God we saw above. I will get much more into this in post 7, but for now let me suggest that God's ultimate purpose in all that He does is the glory of His name, not His "pleasure" as we may think of it, and that the two are not equivalent. By justifying its difficult points with God's "good pleasure", Calvinism misses the sincerely-caring, condescending (in the sense of Jesus becoming man and humbling Himself to identify with us) view of God in favor of that of an imperious, all-powerful judge and sovereign.

3. It misunderstands human nature and how God works with it

As I mentioned in post 3, Calvinism has a compatiblist view of free will (or incompatiblist view in the case of hyper-Calvinism, which denies free will altogether). But, as it turns out, you can believe free will is compatible with different things. I agree with Calvinism in that free will is compatible with divine determinism (more on that later), but Calvinism goes on to say free will is compatible with divine causation. The doctrine of irresistible grace is the best example of this. It portrays regeneration as the Holy Spirit doing a powerful work in our heart that causes us to freely believe in God. (Perhaps by realigning our hearts to desire Him, so that in doing what we desire most we believe) I think this is a contradiction in terms.

Again, see the above quote in which Calvin names God as the "primary cause" of all things and goes on to expound on the completeness of His control over our affairs. Lorraine Boettner in his landmark book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination echoes this though, naming God as the "primary cause" of human affairs and humans as the "secondary cause" (p. 222)

A common objection against Calvinism is that it removes any responsibility from us to make any effort to believe or be sanctified. I don't think this is the case, but only because the application side of Calvinism is not consistent with its thinking on free will. If God truly causes us to believe, all the times salvation is conditioned on "our" faith become meaningless. God powerfully influencing us to believe in a way that we never could without Him does not have this difficulty. If God truly caused the Fall in the sense of withdrawing some measure of grace from Adam and Eve so that they inevitably sinned, then good and evil become meaningless. A truly cause-and-effect view of human nature is incompatible with "free will" and moral responsibility.

Another point relates to how salvation works. A lot of Calvinistic writings I've read are so focused on God's plan of election and predestination that it becomes the "true" reason we are saved, not the real condition we are given, namely faith (John 3:16). Again, the reason given in Romans 9, the chapter used most often to prove unconditional election, that not all Jews are saved, is nothing like "God unconditionally chose some and not others", but "not all believed." (Romans 9:32) Predestination has nothing to do with Jesus' proclamation, "Your faith has saved you" in Luke 7:50. This is not necessarily a factual error, but a case of misplaced emphasis.

One other thing to point out here is Calvinism's interesting placement of regeneration before faith or justification in the "golden chain" of salvation. This divorces regeneration from the rest of sanctification for the sake of supporting the points of total depravity and irresistible grace. In other words, you are "born again" before you are saved. Regeneration, rather than being the birth of our eternal life in Christ, happens before it with no context, then we are saved. I don't see it necessary to point out the sheer bizarreness of this from a doctrinal standpoint any further. Just because you can read the Biblical testimony on regeneration this way does not mean you should.

4. It defends itself with an "argument from mystery"

While it probably isn't in reality, from reading Calvin's writings on providence and predestination I get the feeling that his favorite verse of scripture is Romans 9:20: "But you are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?'" I refer to the use of this verse, especially the first part, to defend the Calvinistic perspective on predestination as the "argument from mystery"--it is foolish or prideful to ask why God unconditionally predetermines things the way He does, and if you do so you are judging God. In this way Calvinism lays out many apparently contradictions and defeats any attempts to resolve them except its own.

The arrogance of assuming the complete truth of Calvinism and interpreting any challenges to it as talking back to God is astounding, but unsurprising if you see it as the only way to read the Bible. Not all challenges to unconditional election are made by human standards of justice and fairness; it is possible to judge interpretations of the character and actions of God based on what He has told us about Himself, as I have been attempting to do. The nature of God, not His bare "good pleasure" or will, gets the final say.

Lastly, this is not an argument against Calvinism, but to date in my research I have not read even one Calvinist who appears to actually understand Arminianism or view it as anything other than a logically flimsy strawman system to either dismiss or constantly rip on (Boettner is almost unreadable because of his constant jabs at his conception of Arminianism). Grudem is the closest I have read to this understanding (or Geisler, if you consider him a Calvinist), as well as my friend Mitch, who I can't claim to have "read". Calvinists: just like in anything else, before entering into a debate, make a point of actually understanding the opposing side from its own perspective.

5. It incorporates numerous other confusions of concepts and false dichotomies

I will go through these quickly:

Confusion of faith and "merit"/works. Calvinists seem to think that if salvation is really conditioned on our own faith, then this is tantamount to man saving himself by some work that he does. Never mind that the Bible treats faith and works as completely separate things; Romans 9:32 directly contrasts the two; see also Ephesians 2:8-9 (note: according to the Greek grammar, salvation, not faith, is said to be the gift of God here) and Galatians 2:16.

God being in "meticulous control" over all things and utter chaos/humans and demons having the power to thwart His plan. If God isn't in total control of all things, the reasoning goes, if humans have any power to determine their own actions, then this means they can oppose God's plan for all things, and we can't have that! Calvin cites Augustine as saying, "If anything is left to fortune [not God], the world moves at random." It is either the Calvinistic view of God's providence or a blind, uncaring universe ruled by chance and contingency. Really?

Man having no spiritual agency and salvation by works. Calvinists like the image of man pre-salvation as "spiritually dead", like Lazarus in his tomb. From this they conclude that, prior to regeneration, man has absolutely no power to seek God, respond to God, love God, or comprehend anything of the spirit; he is dead, and dead people can't do anything! The only alternative they see is, at best, semi-Pelagian; man saving himself either by simply doing good works or by believing in God all by himself! (Nevermind that taking advantage of God's promise to offer salvation to anyone to believes is in no way saving oneself) Once again, this narrow perception of only two extremes leads Calvinism to choose the more Biblical, but still misguided one.

Man possessing absolutely free will and the constrained Calvinistic view of free will. I will only touch on this one briefly because the main source I've heard it from is my pastor. "Free will" does not necessarily mean "being able to do absolutely whatever you want", so that our inability to sprout wings and fly becomes a rebuke to free will. Only God has this kind of freedom, but I don't think this is what anyone means when discussing free will.

The pleasure and glory of God. See point 2 above.

And one last thing that occurred to me: I really don't see how to reconcile the Calvinistic view of God's total sovereignty over evil with the kind of pitched, militaristic language Evangelicals use to talk about free will. If Satan and his fallen angels are really only serving God (if unwillingly), why get so worked up about them? Why not just trust God to shepherd them wisely and with our best interest in mind?

6. The Individual Five Points

With my position on the assumptions and conceptions on the perspective of Calvinism in place, I can move on to briefly discuss the five individual points. It will suffice for me to show which of the above misconceptions each is based on and to offer my own interpretation of the Biblical data (in post 7).

Total Depravity

As I mentioned in post 3, Calvinism's perspective on total depravity departs from the Arminian view mainly in its understanding of free will and human nature (cause-and-effect vs. influence-and-response).   To a Calvinist we are so far gone that God has to cause us to believe by regeneration; to the Arminian we are still unable to desire or seek God on our own, but the influence of His spirit calling us allows us to respond to Him with faith. People having, by prevenient grace, the ability to freely respond to God's acting on our hearts is no threat at all to the doctrine of total depravity.

Unconditional Election

I believe unconditional election is a case of eisegesis: the reading of the Calvinistic perspective into passages like Romans 9 to support something the Bible never clearly says. Given no clear Biblical proof of why God elects some and not others, and plenty of verses on why we are not elected or saved, Calvinism concludes that God is absolutely free to have mercy on whom He wills, not intrinsically constrained by anything outside the pleasure of His will.

Here is the shocker: I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. What I disagree with is how Calvinism extends it to say that God does not take anything outside Himself into account at all in predestination, which is where the conception of God arbitrarily going "duck, duck, damn" comes from. (Point 2 above) Just because we cannot force God to elect us by anything we do or are does not mean He does not still consider our natures or lives in His decision. Ironically, Calvinism, ruling out any consideration of individual people from God's decision in the desire to make His sovereign will truly free, ends up constraining it in a different way. As Forlines points out, since salvation is conditional, there is no reason why election can't be (in some different, confusing, eternal sense).

Limited (Definite) Atonement

This doctrine is how Calvinism most directly answers the question of why everyone is not saved: God does not wish or try to save everyone. Again, I have dealt with the dangers of this belief in points 1 and 2; God does wish (or desire, or please) that everyone be saved. This doctrine stands on its own perhaps less than any of the others; it relies on systematically denying the common-sense reading of a great deal of passages on the universality of God's compassion and the atonement, which in my opinion should cast a lot of doubts on your argument.

Irresistible (Effective) Grace

I have dealt with this doctrine, its placing of regeneration before salvation, and its interpretation of the Bible's reliance on Calvinism's cause-and-effect view of free will above. (Point 3)

Perseverance of the Saints

Again, this doctrine is basically saying that, once He has regenerated them, God causes the elect to persevere in faith until the end (point 3). In response to the criticism of Boettner and others that Arminianism provides no real assurance of salvation by conditioning it on continued faith, I would respond that Calvinism really isn't much more helpful; the question is not Will I continue to believe? but Is my faith real? Am I elect? Neither question is answered with certainty until we meet God.

Strengths of the Arminian Perspective

Okay. I am pretty much done talking about Calvinism now. I feel able to say less about Arminianism because a) my disagreements with it are not nearly as sharp and b) much of my thinking in subsequent posts will incorporate it. On to what makes Arminianism great!

First, Arminianism obviously takes a very high view of God's perfect love, benevolence, goodness, moral perfection, and grace. Where Calvinism seems more concerned with God making and perfectly seeing to completion a plan that involves people, Arminianism is much more after God's direct affection for His children. It avoids all of the difficult questions raised by God being meticulously involved with sin or unconditionally predestining people. The picture of God as a father who identifies with His children, shares in their joys and sufferings, and truly wishes all of them to find their greatest good in Him that I mentioned Calvinism misses out on, Arminianism has in spades.

And Arminianism's response to the burning question "Why is everyone not saved" is, I think, much more reasonable and consistent with who we know God to be. Not everyone is saved because not everyone believes, because God has graciously offered everyone salvation on the condition that they let Him help them to believe in Him and love Him. In this way it puts the gospel and God's love and benevolence front and center, with His harshness and wrath a necessary consequence of the damnable sin of rejecting Him.

Shortcomings of the Arminian Perspective

A (perhaps necessary) consequence of this focus is that Arminianism does see God's sovereignty much less actively and powerfully than Calvinism does, though while still affirming it. Whereas Calvinism has to twist the meaning of verses that deal with the universality of the atonement and God's love, Arminianism, with its embrace of God's "permissive will", has to at least get a bit awkward in how it interprets verses that Calvinists gleefully cite on the directness of God's governance of the world.

Arminianism, because of its incompatibilistic perspective, also tends to see no middle ground between its conception of libertarian free will, and no free will at all. This is just the dichotomy on free will seen by Calvinists, viewed from the other side. Yet it does hold that free will is compatible with divine foreknowledge, just not divine determination. I tend to agree with Calvinists when they point out that there is less difference between these things than you may think. Anyway, the difficulty in reconciling God's sovereignty or foreknowledge with libertarian, undetermined free will has long been a major difficulty for Arminians and has led to dangerous schools of thought that have given Calvinists plenty of ammunition against it, like Molinism and open theism.

While it's true that Arminianism is not intrinsically opposed to predestination, it is also softer on this point than Calvinism, which has become nearly synonymous with the term. I think the interpretation of predestination being "God predestining Jesus as savior" really misses the point of passages like Romans 9 that directly speak of us, not Jesus, being the ones who are predestined--as does theology supporting corporate election.

Arminians also tend towards a very "hands-off" view towards God's dealing with sin, seeing it as the only alternative to God being the author of sin. Whereas Calvinism begs the question of why sin exists in the first place, Arminianism begs the question of how sin doesn't deal a serious blow to God's sovereignty, and it has trouble with passages where God does seem to be more directly involved with acts of sin. (More on that in post 10)

And finally, while I don't think true Arminianism is overly concerned with human free will over the nature of God, it is very, very easy to think otherwise.

Common Shortcomings

Obviously Calvinism and Arminianism have most of Protestantism and reformed doctrine in common as their strengths, so in favor of not writing my own systematic theology yet, I'll skip that. Instead I'll move on to some ways in which I think both perspectives fall short.

First, I think they both miss out on a really eternal perspective of God. There is a tendency to anthropomorphize God's workings and decrees, or view Him as an omnipotent, omniscient being who otherwise exists in time and moves through it like we do while enacting His perfect plan. One way I see this is theologians hinting at God making different parts of His plan at different times. If God has perfect knowledge of all things and is unchanging to boot, then we can't think of Him in any way as making and executing His plans (or "decrees") concurrently like we do. Also in Calvinism's conclusion that since God's election was decided "before the foundation of the world", it can't be based on anything about us because we weren't born yet. More on the applications of this in post 7.

Another big way I see this misconception play out in more serious debates is in the whole infra/supra/sublapsarianism debate. I didn't understand what it was about for the longest time, and I still can barely believe I do. Debating which parts of God's eternal, perfect, unchanging plan were made first? Why not debate which member of the Trinity came first? Somewhat related are the attempts made by both unconditional and conditional elections to offer simple rules explaining why God elects and predestines the way He does. Do we try to explain any other part of God's plan (like why He permits wars, or uses disease in peoples' lives) in this way?

Both sides also tend to conflate election (which is eternal and part of God's plan) and faith and salvation (which happens in time), saying that one directly leads to the other. In Calvinism this looks like trying to apply the unconditionality of election to salvation, minimizing the crucial role faith plays in the process and making it more of an effect of election than a condition of salvation; Arminianism goes the other way in tying election completely in with faith; God simply elects those who will have faith. I think that simply trying to make one of the two an aftereffect of the other is an oversimplification that diminishes their crucial role in the "scheme of things".

I see both sides, in their (I would say excessive) discussions of free will, assuming a simplified picture of human nature as very little besides the will; man is simply a will in an otherwise inert body that is acted on and chooses things (especially faith in God) and the question is how he chooses those things in relation to his external influences. Except for token sections that take on a more holistic perspective, writings of both sides tend to neglect the roles of personality, desires, affections, intellect, etc. in how we come to believe and take faith. They also tend to talk about faith as if it is a single, crucial decision you make, so all the weight falls on how that one decision is made, rather than viewing faith as a lifelong commitment to God.

And, finally, as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, there is an almost irresistible tendency in any conversation about Calvinism and Arminianism to make it about the individual, corresponding five points and playing them against either other without looking beneath the surface at why the sides' interpretations of scripture are so different.

Hitting the Bulls-eye

At work today,an image of concentric circles popped into my mind, like a bulls-eye or that one target-shaped logo. Each layer corresponds to a different way I have related to God (or not), getting worse the farther out you go. In fact, an extremely abridged form of my testimony would be the story of my slow, tortuous journey from the outside of these circles to the innermost one. (With lots of backtracking involved) Maybe this just applies to me and other people would label the circles differently, but just in case it helps, I'm reposting what I drew, with my usual complete disregard for aesthetics.

It kind of gives new meaning to the teaching you hear about sin being "missing the mark". Only the innermost circle will do.