An Irenic Discussion of Arminianism and (Moderate) Calvinism

For the last week, I have been enjoying a healthy and deeply interesting dialogue about Calvinism and Arminianism with Dr. Roger Olson on his blog site. This has been an occasional but ongoing conversation since he first started blogging back in July of 2010. Although we are poles apart on a number of theological issues, Dr. Olson has been gracious in his dealings with me as an "opponent." I am including our back and forth comments below for the benefit of curious folks who want to know whether this can even be done . . . and for contentious folks who don't think it can be done. I am also posting this because it contains defenses of key Moderate Calvinist stances regarding theological paradox, compatibilism, the extent of the atonement, God's decrees, and other matters.

As followers (and representatives) of Christ, we must be unified in our love for one another, even if we are not unified on every point of doctrine. It's more important for Calvinists and Arminians to love one another than to "defeat" one another.

See it all here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/12/calvinism-and-the-god-as-author-analogy/#comments

1. 
   
2. Derek Ashton says:
   December 29, 2012 at 7:30 pm
   Dr. Olson,

   Interesting topic here! Speaking for myself as a more-or-less Piper-esque Calvinist (and not implying that he would claim my views), I want to address the line of reasoning some previous commenters have chosen. Specifically, I would like to address the idea of taking certain tenets of Calvinism to their “logical conclusion.”

   It is worth noting that the Desiring God article linked in your post is a good bit more in-depth and honest about the tensions than many of your readers may realize. I would also suppose that Calvinists in general have much more sophisticated views than the “determinism taken to its logical conclusion” approach which seems to be a “straw man of choice” in this thread. In itself, the term compatibilism implies that “determinism taken to its logical conclusion” is insufficient to describe the viewpoint to which compatibilistic Calvinists adhere. In fact, the term contains an implicit denial of “determinism taken to its logical conclusion.”

   Compatibilism certainly involves some mystery and tension. But let’s be honest–all Christians embrace logical tensions to some degree. Take the statement, “Jesus is God” to its “logical conclusion” and we have grounds to deny essentials like the virgin birth, the humanity of Christ, the death of Christ (and therefore the resurrection), etc. because God can’t “logically” be born, be a creature, die, etc. Take “Jesus is a human being” to its “logical conclusion” and we have grounds to deny His deity, eternality, etc. Such reasoning is obviously not valid (at least not for Christians), yet I see no difference between this and the kind of reasoning contained in some of the comments above (note that I am not saying anyone here is not a Christian; only that the reasoning employed is invalid for Christians). Many core doctrines of the Christian faith contain this kind of tension, and it would not be proper to take one facet of the doctrine to its “logical conclusion” without overlaying and nuancing through appeals to other aspects of the doctrine. Let’s not sugar coat this, or pretend that every aspect of every Christian doctrine can properly be “taken to its logical conclusion.”

   One could ostensibly take selected portions of the ancient creeds and use them to argue against the truths contained in other portions of the same creeds. Even Arius would have agreed with parts of the Nicene creed; then, by taking them to their “logical conclusion,” he would have argued against the other parts. Arius took portions of the Biblical teaching to their “logical conclusion” without embracing other portions because, in his mind, it would not logically make sense to do so. Is there not a danger in this kind of reasoning, which seems to make human understanding, rather than God’s Word, the ultimate measure of the Truth. Arius was, after all, a genuine heretic on both Calvinist and Arminian terms.

   What I appreciate in the writings of compatibilistic Calvinists like Piper is a willingness to honestly accept all of the Biblical data, even when it goes beyond the ability of the human mind to reconcile all of the ensuing tension. While I admire the rigorous commitment to logic on the part of many Arminians, I have yet to find one that (to my satisfaction, at least) admits all of the Biblical testimony into the system. For me, losing precious Biblical propositions is worse than having inexplicable holes in the system. And with that said, I am a Calvinist today because I do not find a more logically consistent system that takes in all of the Biblical data. I easily find more logically consistent systems that don’t take it in. For me, it’s Sola Scriptura first, and then the fun part of working out the logic as far as possible.

   Note: I am not saying Arminians don’t believe the Bible; I am saying their system, especially as represented in this thread, seems to inconsistently elevate human logic in opposition to the Calvinistic doctrine of Providence while readily accepting the logical tensions of the Incarnation and other orthodox doctrines. No Arminian says of the humanity of Christ: “Whatever the Bible means in those passages, it can’t mean that!”

   Finally, to answer your questions in the post, I would take the position that evil does not become good simply because God ordains it. It would never become a ground for rejoicing simply because God ordained it. Our sadness at the atrocities in this world may in fact reflect God’s own heart and mind in the matter. However, along with Him, we rejoice exuberantly in all of the good that He ultimately brings about through the evil that is done. Per Romasn 8:28.

   To illustrate this in a more personal way: by God’s grace, I hate and abhor my own sins. I am deeply saddened and shamed by them. Yet I also rejoice in the forgiveness and grace that I could never have experienced if I was sinless. I don’t love being a sinner; but I love being redeemed from sin! Yet I couldn’t have been redeemed if I had never been a sinner. Thus, as a forgiven perpetrator of heinous crimes against a holy God and His creatures, my Calvinistic theology lines up perfectly with my experience and what I find in the Scriptures. If anything, a true Calvinist will ask God for MORE feelings of moral repugnance against evil. And at the same time he will ask for more JOY in God’s good grace as well. All of this lies right at the heart of Jesus’ teaching: “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.” Apparently He believes in paradoxes, too.

   A happy New Year to all, and much joy in Christ!

   Derek Ashton
   Reply
   • rogereolson says:
     December 30, 2012 at 1:36 pm
     Derek, I always appreciate your civility even when we sharply disagree. You will not be surprised to read me say that, in my opinion, it is Calvinism that seeks logical consistency over biblical fidelity. I will point this time to only one example: limited atonement (which I realize some Calvinists reject but which seem to be part and parcel of what you call eloquently “Piper-esque” Calvinism). As I have explained in Against Calvinism, the high Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement must ignore much Scripture. Of course, I think you would agree, neither side in this debate really “ignores” any Scripture. What we are calling ignoring is really interpreting in a non-natural sense. I hope you will agree that no intelligent Arminian literally “ignores” any of Scripture. What we do is interpret Scripture differently (than Calvinists). So, to be fair, I don’t believe any informed, intelligent Calvinist literally ignores any of Scripture. What happens, in my opinion, is that much of Scripture is interpreted in non-natural ways in order to make it fit with the system. I’m sure you would admit that’s what you really mean when you say non-Calvinist systems of theology overlook or ignore crucial passages of Scripture. In my opinion, limited atonement does exactly what Piper argues we must NOT do in his long footnote about Clark Pinnock in (I think) Desiring God. He argues that Pinnock believes some things because Scripture allows it and logic requires it. I can’t believe any Christian does otherwise. We all believe some things because logic (or evidence) requires it and Scripture allows it. That’s how I view limited atonement. I don’t say Calvinists who believe in it ignore or overlook Scripture; I say they take something they believe (e.g., unconditional election of some sinners and irresistible grace granted to them only) and force it to its logical conclusion (limited atonement) and then interpret Scriptures no non-Calvinist would interpret this way as supporting limited atonement. As for your explanation of your feelings about evils God ordains I will just say I can’t even imagine living with that level of cognitive dissonance. If I came to believe that God ordained and rendered certain an event such that he manipulated the thoughts and motives that sinfully caused it I would have to celebrate all of that and not isolate the good results and celebrate only them. That seems absurd to me. I realize it doesn’t to you. However, I thank you for joining the discussion. Your Calvinist voice is always most welcome here because you are not insulting or uncivil. I wonder if you would answer this question I have put to many Calvinists without satisfactory answers? From where did the first evil inclination come?
     Reply
     • Derek Ashton says:
       December 31, 2012 at 4:36 am
       Dr. Olson,

       Thank you for your very kind words.

       I actually agree with what you mentioned concerning non-natural exegesis used in support of limited atonement. My views on that topic are more in line with Richard Baxter (and many other puritans, including numerous Westminster divines), R.L. Dabney, William G.T. Shedd, Bruce Ware, and (I suppose) John Calvin. I am drawn to the moderate historical stream within Calvinism whose adherents are apt to take texts such as I John 2:2 at face value. I disagree at least partly with Piper’s approach on this.

       There are admittedly those on both sides of the Calvinist/Arminian spectrum who engage in system-driven exegesis (and some on both sides who tend not to, thankfully). One of the arguments I have made to fellow Calvinists is that they should take a more moderate view on limited atonement simply because it fits more consistently with God’s universal love/saving desire for all people (which is strongly affirmed by Piper) and the free offer of the Gospel (also strongly affirmed by Piper). These mainstream Calvinist essentials, which unfortunately aren’t conveyed well by the TULIP acronym, logically argue for a less limited atonement than most of today’s vocal Calvinists are promoting.

       Concerning the doctrine of Providence, I don’t think a Reformed view requires that God “manipulates the thoughts and motives” behind sinful actions. All mainstream Calvinists retain, at the very least, the concept of “unconstrained” and “voluntary” creaturely actions (thus no one is “manipulated” under normal conditions). This is one of the critical distinctions entailed in compatibilism. Of course, I understand that this quibble probably doesn’t make the Reformed approach any more attractive for committed Arminians.

       Your question about the first evil inclination certainly provokes thought. My Biblicist side wants to say Scripture leaves this entirely in the realm of mystery. And that is probably the best place for me to leave it, as much as I would like to speculate. Do you see Open Theism, Arminianism, Molinism or any other non-Calvinist system answering this in a more satisfying way?

       You probably know that Augustine danced around with this question in the Enchiridion, chapters 10-23. His answers are paradoxical: God only created good; evil is a corruption/privation of that good; thus evil cannot exist apart from good, while good can exist apart from evil; anything totally evil would cease to exist because in it there would be no good thing left to corrupt with evil; thus a being cannot be evil without also being good in some sense.

       Augustine’s answer is sensible enough, but still leaves your question unanswered. What prompted the initial privation of good? I suppose only God truly knows.

       Blessings,
       Derek
       Reply
       • rogereolson says:
         December 31, 2012 at 10:11 pm
         Derek, I always appreciate your irenicism (which doesn’t in any way dilute your strongly held theology). The problem I have with any Calvinist appealing to mystery when faced with the question of the source of the first evil inclination is the typical Calvinist doctrine of providence which, according to my understanding of it, anyway, excludes anything real (and even evil, though a privation of the good only, is real in that it exists) from escaping God’s ordination. Surely, if God is as all-determining and controlling as most Calvinist theologians assert (e.g., Helm and Sproul), then nothing, not even the first evil inclination, can fall outside God’s plan and determination. The way most Calvinists have handled this (including Edwards) is to say that God brought it about by withholding the grace needed for the creature not to develop an evil inclination. Edwards admits that this amounts to making God the author of sin and evil in a restricted sense. God, he argues, is not the cause of them, but, like everything else, they only exist because God desires them to and renders them certain. (I have expounded this and documented it in Against Calvinism.) It seems to me a key difference between Calvinism and Arminianism (and this difference existed also between, say, Luther and the Anabaptists) is that one side sees evil as having purpose above, higher than the purpose of the creature (e.g., selfishness). It has divine purpose, ultimate purpose. The other side regards evil as a surd, lacking any purpose at all. God can bring good out of it, but it has no divine purpose behind it. God never intended for it to come into existence. The problem with the first view, it seems to me, is that, from an ultimate perspective, evil is not really evil. Anyway, that is how I would have to regard it did I hold that view.
         Reply
         • Derek Ashton says:
           January 2, 2013 at 10:17 am
           Dr. Olson,

           I see your point, and this is truly an important difference, as you noted. On Calvinistic terms, no event (including the first evil) can ever be viewed as non-ordained or unforeseen by God. He could not have been “surprised” when the first evil occurred.

           However, does the classical Arminian approach really view evil as entirely purposeless? It would seem that God’s omniscience entails an awareness on His part of every evil that ever will or can occur, and His omnipotence would include the ability to prevent or allow it. If this is so, then He must maintain ultimate control over evil (and therefore have some kind of purpose in allowing it). If not, He could choose not to allow it.

           Blessings,
           Derek
         • rogereolson says:
           January 2, 2013 at 2:05 pm
           Purposeless in terms of intentionality. Of course God had a purpose in allowing it. The difference lies in intentionality. In Calvinism, as I understand it (having read scores of books by Calvinists including Calvin himself), every event is foreordained and rendered certain by God for a specific purpose. God intends it to happen, not just to permit it to happen (Calvin rejected the language of permission in discussing divine providence). In Arminian theology we distinquish between two wills of God: antecedent (in which evil does not exist at all) and consequent (in which God permits evil in order not to control creatures so that they can only do what he intends for them to do). Thus, in Arminian theology, evil has no purpose in God’s overall plan. It happens. God deals with it, overcoming it and, when possible, bringing good out of it.
         • Derek Ashton says:
           January 3, 2013 at 2:17 am
           Dr. Olson,

           Thank you for explaining this in further detail; those are useful distinctions. Does this approach make the cross “plan B” rather than God’s original design?

           Much has been made of Calvin’s critique of divine “permission,” but he makes it clear that what he opposes is a “bare permission” by which God would relinquish His Lordship and Providence, and merely respond to human wills rather than rule over them.

           I really appreciate your taking time to discuss these matters with me. At the end of the day, we are fellow Christians. That is what counts!

           Blessings,
           Derek
         • rogereolson says:
           January 3, 2013 at 3:10 pm
           Thanks, Derek. I always enjoy having dialogue with you. But, as I’m sure you have noticed, we tend to go around in circles–always returning to the same questions and answers and differences. I wonder to what extent our basic differences (also between most evangelical Calvinists and evangelical Arminians) are a matter of perspective? I’m not relativizing the matter because I do believe one of us is right and the other wrong (or we’re both wrong). But I’m continually puzzled by how equally sincere, God-fearing, Bible-believing, Jesus-loving, reasonable people can see God’s sovereignty in Scripture so differently? To answer your question. I don’t think of the cross as “Plan B” in the ordinary sense because, as a classical Arminian (not an open theist) I think God knew all along what was going to happen. I do think the cross is part of God’s consequent will, not God’s antecedent will. But just in case you have difficulty with that, think about the fact that ONLY (not shouting, just emphasizing) a supralapsarian can really say that the cross is God’s “Plan A,” part of God’s antecedent will. An infralapsarian (most Calvinists) will also have the same challenge (from a supralapsarian) as you give me. I once asked John Piper about this, hoping to trap him (we were having a very irenic, civil discussion but he was trying to trap me, too–into affirming open theism) and he said he “might be” a supralapsarian. He indicated he was leaning in that direction. I think that would be the way anyone would have to go if they affirm that the cross is “Plan A” in the sense of logically preceding God’s decree to permit the fall. What do you think? Can an infralapsarian say that the cross is God’s “Plan A” in the sense you mean–”God’s original design?”
       • Derek Ashton says:
         January 5, 2013 at 10:02 pm
         Dr. Olson,

         Yes, I have noticed that our discussions (and most between Calvinists and Arminians) seem to always take the same turns. It is easy to get frustrated with this and start pressing harder (or louder) in an effort to get things resolved. But I doubt it is necessary to get past the differences; perhaps just understand them better. That is what I most appreciate about our dialogues. You have been involved in this discussion with many different Calvinists and for a good while, so your restraint in this regard is very much appreciated. It says much about your character.

         Regarding your question, I believe the cross was/is “Plan A,” but not because of supralapsarian leanings. Some infralapsarians would take all of the decrees together and call that, collectively, “Plan A.” From this standpoint, every Calvinist can (and should) view the cross as “Plan A” or God’s original design. This is perhaps similar to your approach in the comment above, which seems to take God’s antecedent and consequent will(s) together as “Plan A.” The move seems warranted in both cases, and perhaps points to an important similarity between the two schools of thought when backed into the same corner!

         As a side note, I like the approach taken by R.L. Dabney, who said the following (so much better than I can say it):

         “… he who apprehends the action of the infinite mind reasonably and scripturally at once, sees that, while the sublapsarian is right in his spirit and aim, both parties are wrong in their method, and the issue is one which should never have been raised. As God’s thought and will do not exist in his consciousness in parts, so they involve no sequence, neither the one nor the other. The decree which determines so vast a multitude of parts is itself a unit. The whole all-comprehending thought is one coëtaneous intuition; the whole decree one act of will. But in virtue of the very consistency and accuracy of the divine plan, and infinity of the divine knowledge, facts destined to emerge out of one part of the plan, being present in thought to God, enter into logical relation to other parts of the same plan. As the plan is God’s thought, no part precedes any other. But none the less those parts which are destined to be, in execution, prior and posterior, stand in their just causal relations in his thinking. One result decreed is to depend on another result decreed. But as the decree is God’s consciousness, all is equally primary. Thus there will be neither supra- nor infra-lapsarian, and no room for their debate.” (This is from Dabney’s essay entitled, God’s Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy, as Related to His Power, Wisdom and Sincerity)

         While slightly more sympathetic to the infralapsarian position, Dabney stands with a number of other Calvinists in the moderate stream who disparaged the lapsarian debates in general. In their view, the whole project goes well beyond the bounds of Scripture and involves us in questions that are ultimately unanswerable (or at least defy systematization). Herman Bavinck was another notable representative of this viewpoint.

         So it would appear that we can both agree that the cross is viewed as God’s original design from each of our perspectives. Now, please don’t take the following as an attempt to “trap” you (and I doubt I could successfully trap you, anyhow) . . . but does this put you in the position affirming that evil, in general, was also part of “Plan A,” or God’s original design? And would this not make evil “intentional” and “purposeful” from the divine perspective, even if taken as God’s consequent will? Finally, does this potentially put us in the same boat as far as theodicy is concerned? Maybe the differences can be illustrated more succinctly in this attempted summation:

         ***The Calvinist says God (in His secret, sovereign will) deliberately decrees to permit evil (for a purpose), and every evil is used for the greater good.
         ***The Arminian says God (in His consequent will) knowledgeably chooses to permit evil (for a purpose?), and some evils are used for the greater good.

         Both are taking measures to maintain that God is not directly “responsible” or “culpable” for the evil that occurs. Yet both view evil as God’s “will” in some sense. However, if my summations above are correct, Calvinism more satisfactorily vindicates God’s permission of evil by putting every evil to good use. For Calvinists, this is part of what is meant by “works all things together for good” in Romans 8:28.

         Blessings,
         Derek
         Reply

Taking the Mystery Out of the Incarnation? Not Recommended.

This is interesting . . .



With all due respect to Dr. Moreland, there are some problems here.

First, on the positive side, and in agreement with Dr. Moreland, we must affirm that Scripture's propositions are ultimately logically coherent. No problem there. However, Moreland's exaltation of human reason is unhelpful. To affirm that God is logical is not equal to affirming that we can discover the logic by which God knows the Truth to be coherent. This claim would be the height of arrogance.

Next, the Church Fathers were NOT so committed to logic that they worked for 400 years to give us a non-contradictory result. They were so committed to Scripture that they worked for 400 years to give us a paradoxical result! That is, a result which might appear contradictory to us, and surely defies the limitations of human logic, but is nonetheless true.

During the 400 years prior to Chalcedon, there were plenty of "logical" approaches offered:

Docetism - taught that Christ only appeared to be man
Ebionism - taught that Christ was a holy man who kept the law
Sabellianism - taught that Christ was the Father incarnate, but only temporarily
Paul of Samosata - taught that Christ was a mere man influenced by God
Arianism - taught that Christ was more than man but less than God
Apollinarianism - taught that Christ was a compromise mixture of divinity and humanity
Nestorianism - taught that Christ was two persons, one divine and the other human
Eutychianism - taught that Christ's humanity was simply absorbed into His deity

(See Martin Bleby, The Incarnation of the Son of God, p. 19) 

None of these "logical" approaches were willing to go the whole way and affirm what is undeniably taught in Scripture. Each of them was correctly labeled heresy as a result!

Then there was the Council of Chalcedon, which concluded that Christ was ONE PERSON with TWO NATURES, the one nature divine and the other human, and that these two natures now coexist perfectly (and we might add "unfathomably") in the ONE PERSON. There is a certain logic to this, to be sure, but endless truckloads of mystery as well!

Moreland ignores the fact that there are ways in which the logical faith we profess might appear, to us, to be illogical. He pays no attention to the next obvious question: How can this One Person with two natures be both Creator and creature, omniscient and ignorant, omnipresent and localized, omnipotent and powerless, at the very same time? Any attempt to gut the paradoxicality from the doctrine of the Incarnation is shortsighted and doomed to be unsuccessful. Read over the Definition of Chalcedon once or twice, and see if Moreland's rationalistic assumptions are supported there:

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us. (Definition of Chalcedon, 451 A.D.)

The Church Fathers who arrived at these conclusions were obviously not rationalists trying to explain their statements in a way that could never be perceived as paradoxical. They boldly exalted the Word of God above human logic. Today's apologists ought to do the same, without hesitation.

Moreland seems to be trying to paint Christian faith in a way that will appeal to rationalists. He attempts to convince them of the truth of Christianity while leaving their unchristian presuppositions intact. Instead, he ought to call them to humble themselves in admitting that there are truths which their best logic will never fully grasp. He should counsel them to repent of their rationalism and hold fast to the words of their Creator. This is their only hope, after all.

Bearing in mind that Moreland is a philosopher by trade, I applaud his willingness to go out and act as an apologist for the faith, address difficult questions, engage with those who are hostile to Christianity, and generally promote an orthodox viewpoint. At the same time, he should not allow the pressures of debate to skew his presentation.

In our estimation, the approach taken by Geoffrey Bingham is much wiser, though far less satisfying to the idolization of logic which is ever present in human hearts:

What has always been difficult to understand is how the deity
and the humanity of the Son subsist in the one person Of Jesus
Christ. Understanding is difficult because we have no precedent
in human history, and no parallel in creation. When it comes to
the work of Christ, we must affirm two things clearly:  

(a) all that the Son did upon earth, he did as man. That is– as is
indicated in Acts 10:38, Matthew 12:28 and similar passages–he
was anointed with the Holy Spirit and power, and so did the
works given to him to do;
(b) whilst not effecting these works from the resources of his
own deity, he was nevertheless Emmanuel, i.e. ‘God–with–us’, or
‘God–become–man’. We might wish to refer to the  kenosis  of
Philippians 2:5–8 (i.e. his self–emptying), as a setting aside of the
prerogatives and powers of his deity, but these must certainly
have continued as he still had to uphold the creation (Col. 1:17;
Heb. 1:3).  

Since we do not understand how deity and humanity exist
together, we must remain agnostic on that score. We must
emphasise, however, that he was  truly man, and not merely the
appearance (or charade) of a man.

(Things We Firmly Believe, pp. 57-58)

Let us therefore hold fast to the ever-paradoxical Truth of the Incarnation of the Son of God. Let us not attempt to re-frame it in more palatable terms for the sake of impressing logic-worshipers. Let us adore and worship the eternal LOGOS of God, who is beyond us, above us, and--thanks to the incredible Incarnation--WITH US!

Dear friends, have a very Merry Christmas.

An Outline of Biblical Christology

The Lord has graciously allowed me the opportunity to teach a class on the Incarnation. What a grand topic!  The outline below was developed to help view the Incarnation in its wider theological context. You may find it useful for your own edification and Gospel meditation, and perhaps also for study and teaching. 

This type of systematic Biblical study highlights the fact that the doctrine of the Incarnation is dependent upon the doctrine of the Trinity; the doctrine of the Cross is dependent upon both the Trinity and the Incarnation; the doctrine of Christ's Final Victory is dependent upon the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Cross. And the doctrines of Salvation, Sanctification, and Glorification are inextricably tied to all of the foregoing. In other words, if Christ was not God and Man, and Suffering and Victorious, we would have no hope. Thank God He IS, and therefore we DO!

AN OUTLINE OF BIBLICAL CHRISTOLOGY

      I.        I. Pre-Incarnate Glory

And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (Jn 17:5)

a.     Divinity

… the Word was with God, and the Word was God (Jn. 1:1); He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His nature (Heb. 1:3)

b.    Sonship

… He gave His only Son … (Jn. 3:16)

c.     Work as Creator

For by Him all things were created … all things were created through Him and for Him (Col.1:16)

d.    Revelation as Messiah

Immanuel (Isa. 7:14); A Prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:15-19); The seed of the woman who will crush the serpent’s head (Gen. 3:15)

See also Isa. 9:6; Mic. 5:2; Ps. 45:6-7

    II.        II. Earthly Life (Humiliation)

            He was manifested in the flesh … (I Tim. 3:16); But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of woman … (Gal. 4:4)

a.     Virgin Birth

Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son … (Isa. 7:14, Mt. 1:23); … for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit (Mt. 1:20); … the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God (Lk 1:35)

b.    Humanity

Since … the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise partook of the same things (Heb. 2:14); And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us … (Jn. 1:14); … the man Christ Jesus (I Tim. 2:5)

                                                    i.    Suffering

Despised and rejected … a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief (Isa. 53:3); … He learned obedience through what He suffered (Heb. 5:8)

                                                  ii.    Temptation

… One who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15)

c.     Holiness & Sinlessness

 We… have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. (Heb. 7:26)

                                                    i.    Innocence from Evil

… who knew no sin (II Cor. 5:21); He had done no violence … there was no deceit in His mouth (Isa. 53:9); … in Him there is no sin (I Jn. 3:5)

                                                  ii.    Practice of Good Works

… how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. (Acts 10:38)

                                                 iii.    Faith & Devotion to the Will of God

In the days of His flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to Him who was able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His reverence. (Heb.5:7); … continued entrusting Himself to Him who judges justly (I Pet. 2:23)

d.    Sacrificial Death

He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself (Heb. 9:26); Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God (Eph. 5:2)

                                                    i.    Shedding of Blood

… the church of God, which He obtained with His own blood (Acts 20:28)

                                                  ii.    Bearing of Sin, Guilt & Wrath

He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree (I Pet. 2:24); … the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isa.53:6)

                                                 iii.    Vicarious, Substitutionary Atonement Accomplished by His death

… who gave Himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness (Titus 2:14); It is finished (Jn. 19:30)

   III.        III. Ultimate Glorification (Exaltation)

Therefore God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name (Php. 2:9); … that in everything He might be preeminent (Col. 1:18)

a.     Resurrection from the Dead

God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it (Acts 2:24)

b.    Ascension into Heaven

He … was carried up into heaven (Lk. 24:51); … He was lifted up, and a cloud took Him out of their sight (Acts 1:9)

c.     Enthronement at the Right Hand of the Father

We have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven (Heb. 8:1)

When Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God (Heb. 10:12)

d.    Intercession & Mediation for Believers

… He is the mediator of a new covenant (Heb. 9:15); … there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (I Tim. 2:5); He is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them (Heb. 7:25)

e.     Second Coming & Final Victory

But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like His glorious body, by the power that enables Him even to subject all things to Himself.  (Php. 3:20-21)

A.A. Hodge on the Mystery of Incarnation

My mother-in-law was going to give me a $25 gift certificate to Redeemed Books, a used Christian bookstore in Springfield, MO with quite a large inventory. As I happened to be going there yesterday to shop for some gifts, she said, "Just pick up $25 worth of books for yourself and put it on our account." Nice! Pre-buying theology books for my own Christmas gift. What could be better? Here's what I got:

 

1. The Cross of Christ by John Stott

2. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner

3. Evangelical Theology: Lectures on Doctrine by A.A. Hodge

 

A.A. Hodge of Princeton

Each of them is a treasure, but I have found Hodge's book especially insightful. His writing style is direct and pointed, and every paragraph is laden with useful insights. Following are a few excerpts from his chapter on the Person of Christ:

"It is the grand distinction of Christianity that all its doctrines and all its forces centre in the Person of its Founder and Teacher. . . . the entire system, from foundation to superstructure, rests upon and derives its life from the Person of its Founder. The question of questions is what he was, rather than what he taught." (p. 184)

 

"The Person of the incarnate God is unique. His birth has had no precedents and his existence no analogy. He cannot be explained by being referred to a class, nor can he be illustrated by an example. The Scriptures, while clearly and fully revealing all the elements of his Person, yet never present in one formula an exhaustive definition of that Person, nor a connected statement of the elements which constitute it and their mutual relations. The impression is all the more vivid because it is made, as in a picture, by an exhibition of his Person in action - an exhibition in which the divinity and humanity are alike immediately demonstrated by the self-revelation of their attributes in action; and this unique personality, as it surpasses all analogy, also transcends all understanding. The proud intellect of man is constantly aspiring to remove all mysteries and to subject the whole sphere of existence to the daylight of rational explanation. Such attempts are constantly ending in the most grotesque failure. Even in the material world it is true that omnia exeunt in mysterium ["everything comes out to mystery"]. If we cannot explain the relation which the immaterial soul sustains to the organized body in the person of man, why should we be surprised to find that all attempts to explain the intimate relations which the eternal Word and the human soul and body sustain to each other in the Person of Christ have miserably failed?" (pp. 185-186)

"And undoubtedly we freely admit just here that in the constitution of the Person of the God-man lies the, to us, absolutely insoluble mystery of godliness. How is it possible that the same Person can be at the same time infinite and finite, ignorant and omniscient, omnipotent and helpless? How can two complete spirits coalesce in one Person? how can two consciousnesses, two understandings, two memories, two imaginations, two wills, constitute one Person? All this is involved in the scriptural and Church doctrine of the Person of Christ. Yet no one can explain it. The numerous attempts made to explain or to expel this mystery have only filled the Church with heresies and obscured the faith of Christians."  (p. 187)

 

"There is one obvious respect in which the doctrines of the Trinity and of the Person of Christ agree, and one in which they no less obviously differ. They agree in that both alike utterly transcend all experience, all analogy, and all adequate grasp of human reason. But they differ in that, while the mystery of the Trinity is that one Spirit should exist eternally as three distinct Persons, the mystery of the person of Christ is that two distinct spirits should for evermore constitute but one Person. If you give due attention to the difficulties involved in each of these divinely revealed doctrines, you would be able a priori to anticipate all possible heresies which have been evolved in the course of history. All truth is catholic [i.e. universal or comprehensive]; it embraces many elements, wide horizons, and therefore involves endless difficulties and apparent inconsistencies. The mind of man seeks for unity, and tends prematurely to force a unity in the sphere of his imperfect knowledge by sacrificing one element of the truth or other to the rest. This is eminently true of all rationalists. They are clear and logical at the expense of being superficial and half-orbed. Heresy . . . means an act of choice, and hence division, the picking and choosing a part, instead of comprehensively embracing the whole of the truth. Almost all heresies are partial truths - true in what they affirm, but false in what they deny." (pp. 190-191)

"I adore a Christ who is absolutely one - who is at the same time pure, unmixed, unchanged God, and pure, unmixed, unchanged man - and whose Person, it its wholeness and its fulness, is available throughout all space and throughout all time to those who trust him and love his appearing." (p. 200)

 

A.A. Hodge, Evangelical Theology: Lectures on Doctrine, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976 (first published 1890), bolding and bracketed portions mine.

Note that he practically states the THEOparadox thesis in the fourth excerpt. We in the Reformed/Calvinistic tradition in this day need to heed Hodge's wise words forewarning us against the creeping rationalism that would deny one truth in order to affirm another. This Christmas, enjoy the blessed paradox of our wonderful Savior in His mysterious incarnation - fully God and fully man.

 

Now, where did I put those t-shirts?

Isaiah 53:2b - An Unmajestic Appearance of Deity

He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him,

Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.

Jesus Christ stands as history's most prominent figure. During his days on earth, He was briefly hailed as a celebrity in the tiny realm of ancient Palestine. After his death and resurrection, His apparent popularity expanded rapidly and has now filled the entire world! Today, He has garnered the professed allegiance of a vast swath of humanity, and the professed respect of most who have lived - along with the outward animosity of a few, and the hidden hatred of most. Fallen man is in a state of rebellion, though he sometimes dresses it up in religious robes.


God Himself repeatedly testifies to man's pretended allegiance, stealthy defiance and quiet rejection of the Divine Authority:

Isaiah 29:13 And the Lord said: "Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men . . .
Isaiah 48:1 Hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and who came from the waters of Judah, who swear by the name of the Lord and confess the God of Israel, but not in truth or right.
Jeremiah 5:2 Though they say, "As the Lord lives," yet they swear falsely.
Titus 1:16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.
II Timothy 3:5 . . . having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power.

Many pretend to love God, and Jesus "enjoys the favor of the people." Devotion can be real or feigned, but the One who looks upon the heart knows the difference between the two. We are emphatically NOT the judges, although we are commanded to examine the doctrine and test the spiritual fruit in light of Scripture.


Let's step back 2,000 years . . .

In the days of His incarnation, it was neither His form nor His appearance that drew people. He had the form of a servant and the appearance of an ordinary man. Today there is hardly a celebrity who is not "beautiful," for mankind is prone to judge by the eyes and exalt the attractive. But Jesus Christ was a common, everyday person on the outside - barely noticeable.

What actually drew people to the carpenter from Nazareth? For many, it was His works. For others, it was His words. For some, it was that utterly irresistible character, attitude, and liveliness. He was more literally "alive" than any person who ever walked the earth, then or since. Those who saw this considered themselves blessed.

The divine form - could it be seen - would have been glorious, captivating and inspiring. But Christ's outward form was merely human, and even His human appearance was lowly. It was not the appearance of a king or some person of worldly importance. It was that of a simple man. Entirely unimpressive.

What really attracted people to Christ?

There were various human reasons to follow Him . . .

Physical Reasons - food, healing, deliverance from evil powers
Social Reasons - the crowds were there
Intellectual Reasons - challenging philosophy, enigmas, paradoxes and parables
Reasons of Curiosity - to see what He would do and say, and enjoy the verbal boxing matches with Pharisees, Sadducees, Priests, Scribes and Teachers of the Law
Political Reasons - the kingdom was promised, Roman rule might be challenged, enemies might be conquered
Religious Reasons - He represented a new movement, so why not join the bandwagon?
The Divine Reason - God was calling sinners to Himself!

"Be Attracted" = חמד Heb. CHAMAD - to desire, covet, take pleasure in, delight in

Like us, Christ's contemporaries desired many different things for many different reasons. Few desired HIM.

2,000 years later, there are still just as many wrong reasons to follow Jesus, just as many lesser desires to distract us from seeking Him, as He is, for Himself. And there remains ONE right reason to follow Him. This reason requires us to stop judging Him and instead agree with His estimation of our sinfulness. When this happens, nothing will be able to turn us from Him, for He will appear to us as the most beautiful, blessed, glorious, capable and perfect of all beings. An honest response to the Gospel is all that is needed, and suddenly the veil falls from the eyes.

Have you responded honestly - repentantly, trustfully - to the message of Christ's birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension, and promised second appearance? If you have, it is because the Father drew you to Him. If you have not, do so now!

He will receive you. He will not turn you away. No matter who you are, or what you have done - no matter what you have left undone - He will receive, embrace, forgive, save and cleanse you when you come to Him in faith. He may not look like much to the natural eyes, but to those who know Him He is a humble, gracious, wonderful, majestic, incomparable, saving King.