A Quick Scrawl on Assurance

Just a few thoughts attempting to encapsulate the Bible's overall teaching about assurance.

1. There are both true and false believers in the visible church
2. Some false believers have a false assurance
3. Some true believers lack assurance
4. True believers CAN have full assurance in Christ from “day 1″ of their conversion.
5. We can’t tell FOR CERTAIN whether a fellow professing Christian is a true or false believer
6. We must test ourselves to be sure we aren’t self-deceived.
7. We must encourage and provoke our brothers so that if they are self-deceived it will come to light and they can repent unto true belief and thus gain assurance.

I believe there is Scriptural support for each statement. But is anything missing or misguided in my list?

Thoughts?

Pride, Humility, Truth, Mercy

In some ways, nothing is more humbling than reality itself. A proud man must in some measure be deluded about his own nature, the nature of God, the nature of sin, or the nature of truth itself. Nevertheless, merely knowing the facts about everything would most likely serve to ENHANCE a person's pride! This reveals the practical invincibility of this foundational vice: it is immune to the light that should rightly vanquish it. Knowledge puffs up the very soul that ought to be humbled by it.

So, what can possibly slay the self-regenerating root of pride? Only this: experiencing the mercy of God. The soul that experiences utter dependence on God's sheer kindness - and finds itself undeservedly shielded from His wrath - has a genuine hope of being freed from the straitjacket of pride. The person who daily and gratefully receives the gift of grace is being taught real humility. This person is the one who can benefit from a wider knowledge of the truth and the reality of things.

The very skies and fields and trees look different when once you have found yourself flat on your back, defeated and desperate, and then have felt the extended hand of healing mercy laying gentle on your shoulder. God gives grace to the humble, indeed, but it is all by grace He makes us humble.

"Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, for all his works are right and his ways are just; and those who walk in pride he is able to humble."
- Daniel 4:37

Anselm on Man's Inexcusable Inability

Anselm (1033-1109) has been dubbed "the second Augustine." The excerpt below is from his famous work, Cur Deus Homo (Latin for Why the God-Man?), which discusses the incarnation and atonement of Christ. You may read the entire work here. Throughout the book, Anselm converses with "Boso." I am not sure if "Boso" was a real person or just a literary device intended to give the book a more conversational tone.

CHAPTER XXIV.How, as long as man does not restore what he owes God, he cannot be happy, nor is he excused by want of power.
Anselm.. If a man is called unjust who does not pay his fellow-man a debt, much more is he unjust who does not restore what he owes God.
Boso. If he can pay and yet does not, he is certainly unjust. But if he be not able, wherein is he unjust?
Anselm.. Indeed, if the origin of his inability were not in himself, there might be some excuse for him. But if in this very impotence lies the fault, as it does not lessen the sin, neither does it excuse him from paying what is due. Suppose one should assign his slave a certain piece of work, and should command him not to throw himself into a ditch, which he points out to him and from which he could not extricate himself; and suppose that the slave, despising his master's command and warning, throws himself into the ditch before pointed out, so as to be utterly unable to accomplish the work assigned; think you that his inability will at all excuse him for not doing his appointed work?
Boso. By no means, but will rather increase his crime, since he brought his inability upon himself. For doubly has he sinned, in not doing what he was commanded to do and in doing what he was forewarned not to do.
Anselm.. Just so inexcusable is man, who has voluntarily brought upon himself a debt which he cannot pay, and by his own fault disabled himself, so that he can neither escape his previous obligation not to sin, nor pay the debt which be has incurred by sin. For his very inability is guilt, because he ought not to have it; nay, he ought to be free from it; for as it is a crime not to have what he ought, it is also a crime to have what he ought not. Therefore, as it is a crime in man not to have that power which he received to avoid sin, it is also a crime to have that inability by which he can neither do right and avoid sin, nor restore the debt which he owes on account of his sin. For it is by his own free action that he loses that power, and falls into this inability. For not to have the power which one ought to have, is the same thing as to have the inability which one ought not to have. Therefore man's inability to restore what he owes to God, an inability brought upon himself for that very purpose, does not excuse man from paying; for the result of sin cannot excuse the sin itself.

(Underlining has been added for emphasis) 

Our Skewed Moral Self-Perception

We tend to minimize the significance of our evil deeds, as if they are somehow unreflective of our true character; and at the same time we maximize the significance of our slightest good intention, as if it was sufficient by itself to validate our character as genuinely virtuous.

In reality our hearts are corrupt. This corruption displays itself in our darkest intentions even as it taints our most virtuous deeds. So the real situation is exactly opposite to our perception if we are operating under the default assumption of our own basic goodness.

Christ remedies this situation by showing us an accurate picture of our evil character, leading us to repentance, filling us with His own goodness and displaying His great virtue through corrupted vessels like us.

Therefore let us give Him every ounce of glory rather than trying to take credit for the miracle of our sanctification.

Is this my living room . . . or is it M.C. Escher's?

The Island of Biblical Orthodoxy

I have been listening to an RTS course on early Church History. As the emergence of orthodox belief was being discussed, I began to imagine that Biblical Orthodoxy is something like an island rising from the midst of a murky ocean. This ocean represents all merely human thought. Within the dark waters lie the swirling deceptions of fallen humanity's vain philosophies. On every side, Biblical Orthodoxy is surrounded by a sea of errors, heresies, and falsehoods. False faith and false religion cast up their foam on its stony shores. The water is of varying depths, and in some places it is even quite shallow, as mankind has found some aspects of truth through the agency of creation and conscience, along with empirical study and the residual light of reason. Still, the loftiest plateaus of fallen humanity's thought are all below the water line. Only on the island of Biblical Orthodoxy is there saving, soul-altering truth. This island of safety is in plain sight, though none ever come to it unless they have been led. At the center of the island is the fiery volcanic Source of all reality. Truth arises red hot, glowing and untouchable; all-consuming! Like flowing lava, Truth is the outflow of God's self-revelation. As the Truth has interacted with man's watery philosophies, it has shown itself to be solid, unyielding, immovable and unconquerable. The closer we come to its source, the more lucid and dangerous and untouchable and captivating we find it to be. Though we may dive to the utter depths of human philosophy, we find the molten fountain of divine mystery completely impenetrable. We cannot reach down to its deep Source. We cannot explore its hidden recesses.

Thus we find God's Truth in God's Word, like solid lava: firm, reliable, unmoving and open to investigation. And at the very same time we find the God of Truth unsearchably deep and incomprehensible, self-revealing yet uncontainable, bright with mercy yet untouchable. He overflows with flaming streams of glory even as He lays down the enduring bedrock of Truth.

The paradoxes of molten magma show mere seawater to be a common and unimposing thing. Remember this the next time you are bowled over by a thunderous wave at the seashore. And be glad it was not a fierce blast of liquified stone that swept over.

A Defense of Moderate Calvinism

Following are excerpts of some excellent thoughts that were recently shared by David Ponter in a thread on Terry Tiessen's blog. David does a nice job of laying out the Moderate Calvinist reasoning here. We recognize that there are various types of Calvinists in the world. My convictions are decidedly moderate, but I have found immense value in learning from higher and lower Calvinists, too. I've even found the occasional hyper-Calvinist or Arminian whose Biblical admonitions stir my heart and lead me to Christ. I try not to pick (too many) fights. However, if you want to know what makes us Moderate Calvinists tick, the following is a great summary. David writes:

If I may, you say: 

"I also agree that “four point” Calvinism is incoherent. In the three middle points of TULIP, we find the economy of the Trinity in salvation summed up – the Father elects, the Son redeems, and the Holy Spirit efficaciously applies the Son’s work. To assert that the Father has chosen particular people from before he created the world and that the Holy Spirit effects salvation in the hearts and lives of these people, but then to suggest that the Son died with the intention of saving everyone (not just those whom the Father gave to him [Jn 17:9]) seriously disrupts the unity of purpose within the Trinity." 

David: That seems to be a common objection to moderate-classic Calvinism, but it flows from a misunderstanding. If you lock your thinking into 5 points or 4 points then such misreading may result. The error lies in thinking that TULIP mirrors the 5 points of Dort. The L in Tulip focuses on a negation: “Christ did not die for such and such,” or “he only died for such and such.” In Dort, however, the focus is only on efficacy: Christ especually died for such and such. Dort makes no pronouncement against any other sense in which it may be said that Christ died for all. Indeed, quite a few of the delegates held to a classic Augustinian and medieval position that Christ died for all men as to the satisfaction, sustaining a universal sufficiency, but for the elect as to efficacy and intent to actually save. When folk are locked into 5 or 4 point thinking, this classic-moderate view of Calvinism looks contradictory, as it appears that 4 point Calvinism denies that Christ died for any one especially and effectually. Classic-moderate Calvinism held that the extent of the satisfaction is universal, but the intent to apply is limited to the elect. 

The other problem comes from the fact that 5 point thinking argues that the classic position posits conflict within the Trinity. This would be a strange thing for any Banner of Truth or John Murray Type calvinist to claim, as its “in kind” the very objection the Hoeksemians urged against the free offer and God’s revealed desire that all men be saved. The standard hyper objection is how could the Father desire the salvation of all, when the Son only died to make salvation possible for the elect alone, etc. The evangelical Calvinist response is to rightly posit the twofold aspect of God’s will. By secret will and intention, The whole Trinity determines to save the elect alone. By revealed will intention, the whole Trinity, however, also desires the salvation of all men, and that a way of salvation be made possible for all. Of course, under the terms of 5 point TULIP thinking that last idea is problematic. And so in the same way, the classic-moderate Calvinist says that God by secret intention designed the effectual and unconditional salvation of the elect, and also the whole Trinity by revealed will intention, also designed that the satisfaction of Christ truly be of such a nature that it is a universally sufficient satisfaction for all, thereby properly grounding the offer. 

Or stated another way, Curt Daniel sums up the answer to your objection: 

“Then there is the argument from the Trinity. It is argued that if Christ died for all men equally, then there would be conflict within the Trinity. The Father chose only some and the Spirit regenerates only some, so how could the Son die for all men in general? Actually, this argument needs refinement. There are general and particular aspects about the work of each member of the Trinity. The Father loves all men as creatures, but gives special love only to the elect. The Spirit calls all men, but efficaciously calls only the elect. Similarly, the Son died for all men, but died in a special manner for the elect. We must keep the balance with each of these. If, on the one hand, we believe only in a strictly Limited Atonement, then we can easily back into a strictly particular work of the Father and the Spirit. The result is Hyper-Calvinism, rejecting both Common Grace and the universal Free Offer of the Gospel. On the other hand, if the atonement is strictly universal, then there would be disparity. The tendency would be towards Arminianism – the result would be to reject election and the special calling of the Spirit.” Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Good Books, 2003), 371.

____________________________________________________________________

Let us try this question: “for whose sins was Christ punished?” 

The standard TULIP answer is: “for the sins of the elect alone.” 

The classic-moderate Calvinist answer is: “for the sins of all men, all mankind.” 

Once we have that question on the table, we can being to identify the proper entailments. In terms of the TULIP position, the very nature of the satisfaction is limited, as well as its intent. So extent and intent are coterminous. 

In classic-moderate Calvinism, the extent is unlimited and universal, but the intent (to effectually apply) is limited. 

Dort only affirms this proposition against the Arminians: there is an effectual intent to apply the satisfaction which is limited to the elect. This proposition is affirmed by all classic-moderate Calvinists of all wings,whether Davenantian, or Amyraldian, Baxterian, or the Calamy variety; all forms of what literature calls hypothetical universalism. The same statement, tho understood as having different consequences and connections, is also understood by TULIP proponents. 

Further, a limited satisfaction for the sins of the elect only, cannot ground a universal sufficiency. It can only ground a hypothetical sufficiency. As Owen, Witsius, Turretin and co, note, on the terms of limited satisfaction, it can only be said that the satisfaction is of such an infinite internal or intrinsic value, that had God elected more, it *would* *have* *been* sufficient for them too. When the classic proponents of limited satisfaction (Owen, et al) define the sufficiency of the death of Christ, they can only do so by using ‘conditional contrary-to-fact subjunctives.’ “If Paul had been paying attention, he would have seen the speeding car…” The meaning is, he didnt see the speeding car. With me so far? 

The classic-moderate Calvinist says that the satisfaction is actually sufficient for all exactly because Christ was punished for all human sin, the sins of all. He sustained a perfect satisfaction for the sins of all mankind. Thus extent is universal. However, contrary to Arminianism, intent is limited. Dort itself does not speak to the extent question, it is neutral. It only speaks to the intent question. The modern TULIP, however, speaks to extent as well as intent: as did Owen and others of that school within the broader Reformed movements.

The standard TULIP answer to the question above is to reply: If it were the case that Christ was punished for the sins of all men, then all men must be saved, because God cannot demand a second punishment for sin from the person for whom Christ has already suffered. This argument dates back to Perkins (at least), but was made popular by Owen; the double payment argument which under-girds his famous trilemma: ‘Christ either suffered for all the sins of some men, all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men…’ etc. The double payment argument, however, has been refuted by men like Polhil down to C Hodge and Dabney and Shedd. 

Historically, in terms of those first and second generation Reformers which we can access in extant translations, in all of them, with one or two possible exception, affirmed an unlimited satisfaction for all human sin. Names such as Musculus, Luther, Bullinger, Zwingli, Gualther, Cranmer, Ridley, even Calvin. I know this will touch some buttons for you, but it is actually not that hard to document: http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?page_id=7147

Did you notice the implicit, yet Biblically grounded, paradoxes in David's argument? Notice, also, that affirming these Moderate Calvinist paradoxes has a long and prestigious precedent in the history of Reformed theology. High Calvinists are true Calvinists . . . but so are moderates. Studying the differences can be very beneficial, providing one is not pugnacious or arrogant about his own conclusions.

Rationalism is Idolatry

The Christian rationalist is at heart an idolater who, like the idolatrous Israelites of old, tries to reduce the glorious and incomprehensible God to a format he can handle and control. Abandoning ourselves to the true and living God - a God whose ways we often do not understand and whose very nature and Being transcend our finite capacities - is an act of faith on the intellectual level as well as the spiritual, moral, social and volitional levels.

Just after sunrise on Fishweir Creek near the St. Johns River in Jacksonville

Do You LIVE the Free Offer of the Gospel?

Tonight I enjoyed seeing the Wissmann Family in concert at my church. Look them up and see them if you have the opportunity! They preached the Gospel. For real.

As I listened to the Wissmann's speak and sing about the Great Commission , I was challenged with a question that suddenly sprang into my mind: you believe in the free offer of the Gospel; but do you LIVE the free offer of the Gospel? Does your life prove it?

The Wissmann's in Concert at Lakeside Community Church in Middleburg, Florida

A Vintage Defense of THEOparadox

I recently re-read some comments on an old thread from another blog where my belief about Biblical paradox was directly (and somewhat harshly) challenged (and I was "named"). I had responded with a brief defense of my convictions. It's been a few years now, and re-reading my response to the criticism encouraged me. I hope it encourages you, too. Here it is:

I am a simple, Calvinistic Christian with a relentless commitment to the absolute authority, complete inerrancy and full sufficiency of the Bible. Coupled with this (and flowing from it), I affirm the total, pervasive depravity of fallen human beings – including some significant intellectual limitations. Biblically, I find no evidence to suggest that man’s mental faculties are on a par with God’s. Logically, pervasive depravity would imply that our mental faculties are seriously messed up.

That’s pretty much it. I do not love paradoxes, though I do appreciate what we can learn by studying them. And it’s not a worship of paradox that drives me. It’s a tremendous awe of the glorious wonders of the God Who saves sinners. That, to me, is a supreme paradox. I can explain it with words, but I still don’t understand it (in other words, deeply, at the heart level, I’m still saying “God, WHY? WHY would you choose me?).

I embrace paradoxes in order to solve them, if possible. When they can’t be solved without breaking Scripture, I leave them unsolved and confess the weakness of all human thought. I affirm the existence of Biblical paradoxes in a spirit of intellectual honesty – because any thinking Christian will encounter, and have to work through, apparent contradictions in the Scriptures. On philosophical matters, where there is no revelation from God, I choose to leave all arguments at the level of theory, and refuse to go beyond what is written, and I stake my soul on the Word of God alone. Wherever there are unknowns, there can be the appearance of contradiction without the reality of contradiction. That much should be logically obvious, without need of defense. So, unless we think God has exhaustively revealed Himself, apparent (not real) contradiction is a possibility that should be considered. One ought to say “I don’t know” more often than one does – especially if one maintains Scripture is the most reliable epistemic source in the universe. So I will not acceept any person’s explanation-of-Scripture as being of equal weight with Scripture. Rather, I assign varying degrees of Scriptural warrant to any explanation offered. The more Scripturally grounded an explanation is, the more likely it is true. But I will not make man’s thoughts equivalent to God’s Word. I also refuse to take anything away from the Word of God. There are plenty of ways to twist Scripture in order to create an apparent coherence that will suit man’s mind, but I reject all degradations of God’s Word. Man is deceived and stupid – and even Christians are coming out of the fog created by their sin – so it’s ludicrous to say that we can reconcile everything in our tiny, cluttered brains. Man’s mind trying to grapple with God’s thoughts is like a guy on a child’s tricycle competing at the Daytona Speedway. He’s there, and he’s participating, but he’s missing a few gears. He can take a try at the high sides, but he’s liable to tip.

So, what’s left? Only this: a tireless effort to rationally explain the coherence of Scripture, but NEVER at the expense of Scripture. I believe and trust the whole Bible, but I distrust man’s mind. I trust in Christ, not my understanding of Christ. I cling to the Word, not my theological system. I make my boast in the cross, not man’s ability to make sense of the cross. God’s Word is true, all men are liars. Period.

The Victorious Christian LIfe: What Happens When Jesus Conquers Us

I was recently privileged to deliver the Sunday morning message at my church. 

Text: Acts 20:17-38 (Paul's Farewell to the Ephesian Elders)
Title: The Victorious Christian LIfe: What Happens When Jesus Conquers Us
Theme: Christ's victory in us will be seen in our deeds, words, values and motivations.

It's not the best sermon I've ever heard, but God blessed it and you may find it encouraging.

Listen to the message here.

______________________________________________________________________

Bonus "Two for One" Deal:
Dr. James Anderson preaches from the same passage here.

Donald Grey Barnhouse Preaching the Gospel

It's always good to hear the Gospel. Rest in God's amazing grace today.

A Response to Those Who Deny the Historicity of Adam

It’s clear that the Biblical writers not only held, but also purposefully wrote into the Scriptures, a non-negotiable belief in a literal individual named Adam who was the head of the human race (federally and physically). Any attempt to deny this is a direct assault on the Gospel, which includes the belief that all mankind is under a curse resulting from the disobedience of that literal individual named Adam. It is also an insult to the Holy Spirit, Who inspired the words of the apostles and prophets. Did He lead them to write things untrue? Non-factual? Errant? God forbid we should even entertain such a thought.

I’m sure I don’t believe EVERYTHING that Luke and Paul believed (in fact it’s not even possible that they believed exactly the same things). But when it comes to the matters about which the Holy Spirit of God (an inerrant witness!) led them to write, I can only bow my intellect before HIS perfect and pure wisdom. There they certainly agreed, and there I must agree. The sophistry of Peter Enns and his many disciples is a path leading directly away from the cross. I would urge any of those walking on it to repent and turn back to the God who breathed out His infallible Words through fallible men. Just as Jesus was fully God and fully man yet sinless, Scripture itself is fully divine and fully human yet inerrant. To deny this is blasphemy.

Any gospel divorced from historical accuracy is not the Biblical Gospel. The idea that one can “believe” in Scripture without believing in the historical reliability of Scripture is a postmodern fantasy that will drift away like paper and fire when the next big philosophical shift hits Western society (will it be post-postmodernism or neo-postmodernism? Or a move back to some form of modernism?). Either way, whoever has bought a ticket on the train of humanity’s best philosophy is going to get a bumpy ride when REALITY comes to light. Because REALITY comports with the Word of God. All men are like grass . . . but the Word of the Lord endures forever.

Therefore, let us reject modernism and postmodernism and whatever comes next, along with all human philosophy. Why? Because God has graciously told us that the very first and very best mere-human-being He made fell into sin – mind, body and soul. We are the sad progeny of that individual, following pitiably in his accursed footsteps (and thought patterns). This is why we are called to trust the testimony of God in all respects and to test everything by it. Ironically, the denial of Adam’s existence is just a furtherance of the disaster he started.

HT: to Jeff at ScriptureZealot.com for inspiring this polemic.

Changing Times . . . and Shorter Posts

If you have been following this blog, you may have noticed that the posting rate has been slowing down. Here's why: I have a new job with a longer commute and different scheduling requirements. I like the job quite a lot, but it allows me less personal time for activities like blogging. I guess if I have to choose between blogging and feeding my family, I'll always choose the latter.

I want to continue to write God-honoring content on THEOparadox, so I'm going to try to shift away from the dense, deeply researched articles I've been writing and go for brevity, profundity and perhaps a little wit. We'll see how well that works. There are still some longer articles in the queue that might show up from time to time as well.

Most of the new posts will be written on my phone, and I'll try to add original photographs as a bonus for those of you who continue to read. I may also be a little slower in responding to comments, but will do my best to respond within a day or two when appropriate. Interaction with readers has been one of my favorite aspects of blogging. Don't hesitate to leave a response, even if it's a challenge to what has been written in a post. Iron sharpens iron!

A hearty thanks goes out to all who have read, followed and commented on this blog. I hope you will enjoy the changes.

The picture is a sunrise on the St. Johns River, taken one block from where I now work. Our God has created such magnificent things! But none of them are as glorious as Himself.

Please Pray for Tony Hayling

My dear friend and blogging mentor has recently been diagnosed with colon cancer. He is preparing to undergo surgery in the near future. Beyond that, not much is known. Please join me in praying for God's grace and peace to abound toward Tony during this time.

I have recently corresponded with Tony, and he is as sharp-witted, insightful and God-centered as I have always known him to be. Let's ask the Lord to shine the light of Christ through him to the doctors, nurses, fellow patients and others he will likely meet as he proceeds with medical treatment. And let's also ask the Lord to miraculously heal our brother and bring him back to health.

For those who have never seen this treasure, you'll want to check out Tony's now inactive yet always worth re-reading "Agonizomai" blog. There is also a link to his vast library of audio files in the sidebar of THEOparadox. Sometimes I wonder if God invented the internet (or allowed it to be invented) just to give me the gift of Tony's writings.


UPDATE 2/20/12: Tony's surgery went well and he is recovering. The doctors did not find evidence of the cancer spreading. Thanks be to God for this great news.

Five "Conundrums" of Calvinism - A Second Response

Following are Scot McKnight's sketches of Roger Olson's objections to Calvinism and a few brief responses.
  

CONUNDRUM #1 - How can God have absolute divine sovereignty and humans be genuinely responsible?

  

Is this really a conundrum? If God is absolutely sovereign, surely He is able to create beings that are genuinely responsible! His sovereignty can't be construed as hindering Him from being able to do this. The question fails to take its own premise into consideration. A less-than-sovereign God would be limited this way, but not the supremely sovereign God of the Bible.

 

Furthermore, how can God be GOD and not have absolute divine sovereignty? Could He truly be God and possess only limited or partial sovereignty? The question seems absurd and unworthy of God.

 

CONUNDRUM #2 - How can God determine everything and anything be evil? That is, if everything is God’s will, and God is good, everything is good or at least nothing is evil. This includes rape, child abuse and hell.

 

This question presents a false dichotomy. Why can't God will both good and evil in different ways and to different ends? If God wills that an evil thing should occur (not from Himself directly, but through a creature acting freely), and then acts with just judgment to remedy the situation, isn't this good? It does not mean the evil was good, but the evil was a means to a greater good that could not have existed if the evil had never happened. Once this is understood, the rest is a matter of trust.

 

As a side note, hell is not necessarily evil. Inasmuch as it is a just judgment against actual crimes (such as rape and child abuse), hell is an expression of God's goodness. Hell is the place for evil to be judged, but that does not make it evil. Hell is a just (and therefore good) response to evil. There can be no doubt that hell is a sad reality, but it is neither unjust nor evil in and of itself. The very fact that someone would label God's just judgment of sin as something "evil" reveals a deep misunderstanding of the Biblical teaching.

 

CONUNDRUM #3 - How can anything injure God’s glory if God wills everything? Even unbelief, even heresy, even sin.

 

In one sense, nothing can possibly "injure" God's eternal glory. This is the meaning of the doctrine of impassibility. In another sense, there is a kind of theology that fails to reflect the true glory of God because it credits man for God's work. The effect of this theology is to hinder the soul of man from reaching its highest attainment: loving and glorifying God. Such theology can harm man, but it does not injure God. God's ordination of any theology that is less than Biblical can be regarded as an act of judgment against those who do not love the truth. It doesn't hurt or diminish God's glory; rather, it hurts those who embrace it. The same is true of heresy and sin and unbelief. We help our own souls by abandoning such things - yet we are not somehow "helping" God in the process. We are simply acknowledging the Truth about Him - and this is to our own benefit as well.

Bad theology only injures God's glory in the minds and hearts of those who hold it. It doesn't bring actual harm to God. So, be an Arminian if you want to hurt yourself. But don't ever believe that any Calvinist thinks you are hurting God by doing so.

CONUNDRUM #4 - How can God’s saving some and passing over others and [sic] be good and loving and gracious? [Olson thinks God chooses on the basis of foreknowledge.]

 

Can we sum up "good and loving and gracious" as equivalent to "merciful"? If we can, then God answers the question this way: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy." God doesn't owe any sinner anything, so His just judgment in releasing sinners to judgment is good. He gives generously to all - even those who reject Him - so His love cannot be called into question. He forgives all of His enemies who turn to Him in faith, so His grace is beyond doubt. I don't see how the Calvinistic approach leaves any room for a believer to question God's love. Perhaps it leaves room for an unbeliever to question God's love, but that is the very reason the person remains an unbeliever: he doesn't trust in the love God has for him, therefore he doesn't turn his heart toward God and benefit from the provision God has made for his salvation.

 

CONUNDRUM #5 - How can God be good and ordain evil actions in this world?

 

How can God be GOD and not ordain all that exists and all that occurs? How can God be just and save a hell-deserving fool like me? Only by the cross. Before the cross God forgave sin, and how could those Old Testament saints ever explain the apparent contradiction in this? They didn't need to explain it. They needed to trust God. And those who trusted Him were justified on the basis of a sacrifice that hadn't yet occurred. Yet God ordained the evil actions that would lead to the sacrifice of His own Son in order to save all who trust in Him. Arminians should trust God more and stop asking silly questions. There are many things not yet revealed.

 
Don't get me wrong. I love Arminians, used to be one myself, and think there are many godly brothers in that camp. I have great admiration for certain Arminians. I also think a lot of Calvinists are wasting their great theology on loose living and apathy. May God resurrect the Calvinistic power and passion of men like Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, John Newton, Richard Baxter and John Bunyan in our day! But perish the thought that anyone should abandon the clear teaching of Scripture over these supposed "conundrums" presented by Drs. McKnight and Olson.

As I see it, the bigger conundrums belong to Arminians:

How can a mere man tell God that He can't have absolute sovereignty without robbing man of responsibility?

How can a mere man tell God that He can't ordain evil for His own good purposes?

How can a mere man tell God He isn't allowed to choose whom He will mercifully save and whom He will justly condemn? (Isn't it ironic that Arminianism takes away God's freedom of choice?)

How can a mere man tell God that His goodness renders His ordination of all things impossible? As if God is not permitted to ordain certain things, and as if some things have to occur quite apart from God's sovereign ordaining.