Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

The Doctrines of Grace: God's Grace, Love, and Power


As Excelsior mentioned in his post earlier this week, we want to be honest in writing to you.  Part of this is admitting the biases from which we write.  Everyone has biases, but if we’re open about where we write from, it’s easier to understand the goal we have in mind.  Theological disagreements between close friends are not uncommon.  John Wesley and George Whitefield, arguably the most influential theologians/preachers of the 18th century (alongside Jonathan Edwards) were great friends and disagreed strongly.  See Whitfield's letter, here.  However, we must remember that the center of the Gospel is love!  Even within theological discussion which can become heated (and not wrongly so) we must remember Paul’s admonition to “be angry and sin not.”  Though we may not agree on these issues, Excelsior and I are the best of friends.  In parting with our normal practice, instead of waiting to post this, we decided it should go up sooner rather than later.  This debate can be both heavy and deep; my apologies if the level of intelligibility drops from our previous posts.  I pray that God's words and not mine would come through in your reading. :)

 The Doctrine(s) of Grace, Augustinianism, Calvinism, Heresy, The Gospel, Reformed Theology, Puritanism, The Great Awakening, TULIP, Christian Hedonism, The Young.Restless.Reformed Movement.  It has had many names, some with better connotations than others.  The one point these different titles have in common is a focus on God and his sovereign grace.  This is the idea that we are saved by Grace alone, as seen in Ephesians 2:1-10 (I will just be giving references throughout, because of the number and length of the passages of Scripture.)  


“Grace is not only God’s disposition to do good for us when we don’t deserve it — undeserved favor. It is also a power from God that acts in our lives and makes good things happen in us and for us.” ~John Piper


Reformed Theology (my own preferred term) holds to a few basic tenets:
We Calvinists believe that God is sovereign in salvation, just as He is in all other areas.
 1) Our Sinful Nature: Man is radically sinful in our nature. --Due to the Fall. We believe that all men are born dead spiritually in trespasses and sin, with no hope of salvation on their own. But, that Jesus died to pay for the sin of His people.  (Eph. 2:1-3, Luke 5:8, Isaiah 63:17, Jeremiah 17:9, Rom 3:23, Rom 1:32)  This means that we are completely fallen.  Jesus calls us to love him with all of our Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength because these are the parts of us that are fallen--everything!
2) God’s Unconditional Love: We are not saved on the basis of anything we do. --Simply on the basis of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. We believe that God chooses to save us not based on anything we have done, haven’t done, or will do, but rather by God’s sovereign love He predestined us to be saved. We are not saved because God saw we were smart enough to choose him.  We are completely dead and in our sin want nothing to do with God.  We are saved in spite of ourselves.  LeCrae has put it this way in one of his songs: 
But then some say "How can God exist when All this evil stuff in the world keep persistin'? Wrong question. Ask again. "How come God ain't' let you feel the wrath from sin?" What you thought last night deserved a first class flight To Hell where God doesn't dwell. You got that right. But He bought back life, on a cross that night. Christ died, you ain't know that he crossed that price. All of God's anger put on His son Then together, through all of eternity. Now He was shunned. Praise God for the life that was won for us Ain't got a beef with God because the son was crushed 
 In other words, the question we ask should not be why doesn’t God save everyone, but why does God bother to save anyone?  In short the answer is He loves us.  Romans 9 says that for sake of those He loves He has tolerated “vessals of wrath.” (2Thes 2:11, 2Cor 9:8, Romans 5, 8, 9, Eph 1:3-14, James 1:17)
3) The Exclusivity of the Gospel: Not everyone will be saved. --Rejecting the heresy of universalism.  On this point, Excelsior and I agree, although we believe it for different reasons.  When one rejects universalism, which the Scriptures require a believer to do, We have one of two problems.  Jesus' death and resurrection either completely atones for the sin of some or incompletely atones for all.  In other words, those chosen by God are entirely saved by Christ or we must work up the gumption to get to God and hope we don’t fall away from him.  I believe the former is the only Biblically based view, but I will expand upon this in my discussion of point 5.
4) God’s Saving Grace: God’s calling is effectual to save anyone. --Christ’s sheep know his voice. We believe that our nature is so broken by the Fall that even though salvation is freely offered to us that we would never repent and trust in Christ of ourselves, but since we are dead in our sin it takes the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit to regenerate the heart of man, to give the gifts of repentance and faith, that the man may be born again.  If you are saved, you likely remember a moment in time when you chose to ask God to come into your heart.  This is true!  However, what you don’t remember is God working in and around you to save you so that you would be able to ask him to come into your life.  In the book of Ezekiel, God takes the prophet to a valley full of bodies that have completely decayed.  The dry bones lie scattered without a scrap of flesh, muscle, or skin upon them.  God then asks the prophet “Can these dry bones live?”  Ezekiel has seen God do enough crazy things to know the right answer, “Only you can tell, oh God.”  God then brings the bones to life and covers them with flesh and muscle and sinews and capillaries.  God says “I will take their heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh.”  This is God acting upon us to save us, after which we are able to respond to his love. (Ezek 37:1-14, Ezek 11:19, John 3:27, John 6:63-65, Phi 1:29, 1 John 5:1, James 1:18, 1 Pet 1:3)


5) The Perseverance of Faith: Once you have been saved, there is nothing that can separate you from God and his love. We believe that those whom Jesus died for, chose before the world began, and regenerated will not fall away, because Jesus doesn’t lose His sheep. If we weren’t saved by something we have done, then we also cannot slip through His fingers. Jesus is the Good Shepherd, He doesn’t lose His sheep. If we have been saved by God, then he has the power to preserve us throughout this life.  Pauls writes in Romans that there is nothing which can separate us from God in Christ. The writer of Hebrews then explains that those who seem to fall away from the faith were not saved to begin with.  (Heb 3:14, Heb 7:25, Heb 10:14, Rom 11:29, John 15:16, Rom. 8:28-31, 1Cor 1:28-31)

We believe that the Gospel of our salvation glorifies God and humbles man.
These are predicated by the 5 Solae which were previously alluded to in our Sola Scriptura post.  They are the idea that we are saved By Faith Alone, through Grace Alone, in Christ Alone, To God’s Glory, and that we come to a knowledge of this through Scripture Alone.  


Before closing, I believe it is necessary to explain a historical question.  For quite some time, the Doctrines of Grace have been known popularly known as “Calvinism” after the 16th century French attorney, theologian, and pastor Jean Cauvin. (anglicized as John Calvin)  It would cause Calvin much consternation to know we are using his name for what he would have simply called the Gospel.  In fact, Calvin wrote less on the specific doctrine of predestination than any of the other Reformers.  His name has become inextricably connected to these truths though and so I do not shy away from using the term if it makes my explanation more clear.  There have been false accusations that Calvin was responsible for the burning of Miguel Serveto Conesa, but this is simply historically untrue.  If anyone has questions on anything I have covered in this post, please email or comment.  I have only begun to scratch the surface!


<== I disagree with this, in case you were wondering.




I would like to close with this from Charles Spurgeon, one of my heroes in the faith, who explained his own journey this way.

When I was coming to Christ, I thought I was doing it all myself, and though I sought the Lord earnestly, I had no idea the Lord was seeking me. I do not think the young convert is at first aware of this. I can recall the very day and hour when first I received those truths in my own soul – when they were as John Bunyan says, burnt into my heart as with a hot iron; and I can recollect how I felt that I had grown all of a sudden from a babe into a man – that I had made progress in scriptural knowledge, through having found, once for all, the clue to the truth of God … I saw that God was at the bottom of it all, and that He was the Author of my faith, and so the whole doctrine of grace opened up to me, and from that doctrine I have not departed to this day, and I desire to make this my constant confession, I ascribe my change wholly to God.  I have my own 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.
                             

I hope and pray this post will draw you closer to God and give you a better understanding of his fierce love, unquenchable grace, and magnificent power.  


http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/gracelist.html --this site lists most of the scriptures I used along with others so you can read through all of them more easily.



Grace and Peace to You,
Athanasius
P.S. I couldn’t resist using some of these pictures...including the ones which make fun of Calvinism. My apologies if there is an overabundance of them. :)

Sunday, August 4, 2013

Sola Scriptura


Sola Scriptura originated in the Protestant Reformation of the 1500s as one of the five Solae, a set of statements that defined the Reformation.  They have become known as the pillars of the Reformation.
 The statements are Sola Fide (faith alone), Sola Gratia (grace alone), Sola Christo (Christ alone), Sola Scriptura (scripture alone), and Soli Deo Gloria (To God alone be Glory).  These formed the basis of what we know as the Protestant Reformation.  In the future, we may have posts on the other points, but we think it is especially important to understand Sola Scriptura.

The Westminster Confession of Faith puts the doctrine this way:
 “Chapter 1, Section VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”


Consistency
One of the great theological debates between Protestants and Roman Catholics is what the basis of interpretation and authority of our Theology should be.  Protestants believe in "Sola Scriptura," that the Bible, in and of itself, is authoritative.  (Most) Catholics have historically quickly and quite intelligently objected that this reasoning is circular, for it would seem to be the case that scripture is giving authority to itself.  


The history of this debate begins in the 16th century with the Council of Trent.  Here, Catholic theologians declared that the revelation of God was not entirely contained within scripture, for He has also been revealed through oral tradition (or the tradition of the Church), so it would follow that “Scripture alone” is not a sufficient basis.  Despite the fact that Catholic circles are still very much in debate of the impact of tradition, the question remains, is scripture sufficient?

It’s extremely important to note that the early church very much believed in the authority of scripture alone, as attested by the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, Barnabas, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus..  Namely because scripture is comprised of authors personally given authority by God, so the sinfulness of man doesn’t deter its perfection.  From this it seems that the contention of tradition’s authority really comes from a perceived need rather than (ironically) tradition itself.  


The perceived need is precisely the problem raised earlier: the notion that Scripture’s authority is
circular. This is an important issue, for the conclusion of the debate guides each Christian in the proper way of interpretation of scripture.  If scripture is not authoritative in and of itself, then one must always consult tradition or the official teachings of the (Catholic) Church to be given the correct interpretation.  However, we think that this view, when examined, is nothing more than a denial of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. (side note: for questions on responding to these questions from atheists, see picture on the right. There will be a post on this in the future)


A really simple formulation of the problem:
1. Scripture is authoritative in and of itself (assumption of Protestants).
2. Scripture says that Holy Spirit guides interpretation of those reconciled in Christ (the Bible).
3. Necessarily, the Holy Spirit guides the interpretation of those reconciled in Christ (1,2).
4. Each person reconciled in Christ can read scripture (technical assumption).
5. Therefore, each person can interpret scripture through the guidance of the Holy Spirit (3,4).
Proponents of tradition will point out that without (1), not everyone can interpret Scripture.  That with (1), the circularity arises.  However, I think the above formulation can be re-written to circumvent this objection.
1. If the Holy Spirit exists, it would have the power to guide the interpretation of Scripture (assumption of Protestants).
2. Personal revelation in the hearts of followers of Christ confirm the existence of the Holy Spirit (this is an uncontested experiential truth and properly basic belief).  
3. Therefore, the Holy Spirit can guide the interpretation of Scripture.



This deduction seems really simple.  However, the fact that Scripture acknowledges the existence and effect of the Holy Spirit does not nullify any of these basis .  (2) is uncontested in Christian theology on almost all accounts, and (3) is a correct logical deduction, so the issue is (1).  The most common contention is closely phrased as “you cannot know if the Holy Spirit can guide the interpretation of Scripture without reading that in Scripture.”  However, I think that is insufficient to make (1) fall.  For example, my personal experience with the Spirit, apart from Scripture affirming the truth of this transformation, is that the Spirit truly transformed my heart and mind.  There is a conscious reality of the effects of the Spirit, and the truth value of those effects can be placed logically prior to the knowledge of Scripture’s prediction of such effects.  This experience has, in me, justified my “knowing” the power of the Spirit, and accordingly apart from Scripture’s affirmation of this fact.  Thus there is good reason to believe that this is logically valid.
 Again, these are only our views, and if you have any questions or concerns, please email us or comment!  Sorry we didn't post this past week, both of us have been extremely busy.

Grace and Peace,
Excelsior
Athanasius

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Introductions

Hello!


We are students at one of America's top academic institutions with a passion for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Apologetics and Theology.  After a long discussion, we decided to write this blog anonymously.  While we agree on the core of the gospel, the Nicene and Apostles creeds, we have disagreements on other issues such as the age of the earth, freedom of the will, and other common matters of dispute.  In this post, we are just going to introduce ourselves and give a little bit of background on our beliefs and positions.  After that, we'll begin posting on issues we believe are important and worth discussing.  If readers have questions they want our take on or want us to discuss, we'd love to do that too!

Guy 1 aka Athanasius: Is originally from the south, and grew up going to Southern Baptist and PCA churches.  I would now consider myself reformed baptist in the tradition of Spurgeon.  God has blessed with a gift for understanding others and how they reach their conclusions.  I would like to think I am the human element to Excelsior's logic and precision.  I am a young earth creationist, reformed, and not really sure what I believe about eschatology.  Besides theology/apologetics, I am a history buff, economic theoretician, literary aficionado with newly discovered interests in psychology, anthropology, and business.  I have a great interest in politics and Christianity in the public arena.  I would consider myself a southern gentleman and a scholar of God and humanity.  My life and growth have been heavily influenced by: C.H. Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, Blaise Pascal, William Wilberforce, Fyodor Dostoevesky, Joseph Conrad, John Calvin, Augustine, Athanasius, Cormac McCarthy, John Piper, John Owen, John Bunyan, and a few others. P.S. Excelsior was predestined to think he's funnier than me...for now

Guy 2 aka Excelsior: Is originally from the north (we won), and grew up going to Baptist and Presbyterian Churches.  I would now consider myself seeking in my Theological positions.  Unlike Athanasius, I am not as well-read as this journey is one I've not been seriously pursuing for long.  At the moment, I believe in traditional Big Bang Cosmology and am a strong proponent of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  Further, I identify most with Molinism, although I am enjoying the literature on all sides of this debate as I proceed further on my spiritual walk.  At our "elite institution" I am studying Systems Engineering and Mathematics and would like to think God has blessed me with a strong inclination for logic.  Rigor is my specialty, consistency my niche.  Ever since Christ came into my heart I have felt drawn to apologetics and continue to be influenced by apologists and believers.  My background is very strong in metaphysics, with great understanding of theoretical physics and most recent cosmological models with a close second in philosophical areas of interest being morality.  Lastly, I'm terrible with word economy, way funnier than guy 1, and much better looking.

We'll post again this weekend.  Hope to see y'all around!



Love in Christ,

Athanasius and Excelsior