Category: Soteriology

Doing The Hard Work Of Nothing

In “Jesus + Nothing = Everything” Tchividjian writes, “Jesus won for me, I was free to lose” and “Jesus succeeded for me, I was free to fail” (p.24). Throughout the book Tchividjian encourages us to remove our attention from what we do in sanctification. He writes, “I think too much about how I’m doing, if I’m growing, whether I’m doing it right or not” (p.174). He tells us such thinking is wrong and will only make us “neurotic and self-absorbed” (p.174). After all, in Christ, he tells us, “it’s all said and done” (p.174).

____________

Contradiction alert

Here Tchividijan is writing a book telling people the right way to do it (growing in Christ) is by not worrying about whether one is doing it right. How is the prescription to do it right by not worrying about whether one is doing it right any different of a prescription then the one that teaches that doing it right is by worrying about doing it right? Tullian’s advice requires just as much work and is potentially just as promissory of failure. How does one know if one’s lack of worry is not enough lack of worry? Could we not begin to worry that we are not “not worrying” enough? Does Jesus’ not worrying about how His performance did or did not please the Father satisfy when we fail to preform well enough our not worrying work?

I know I regularly worry that I don’t not worry enough.

I fear Tchividijian is teaching me to be neurotic and self absorbed in all of his writing about the importance of my work of not worrying in sanctification.

The point is that Tullian is requiring me to do nothing and I am exhausting myself making sure that I do the good work of nothing in my sanctification.

If it really is all said and done then Tullian shouldn’t be writing books saying that we must not concentrate on the God pleasing work of “not doing.”

Further, if I’m free to fail and free to lose does that mean that if I win and succeed that somehow I have failed and lost because I didn’t fail and lose but if I was free to fail and lose and winning and succeeding is failing and losing then that means winning and succeeding is really something that I am free do to…. right? Or does this mean that God is only pleased with me when I fail and lose? And if God is only pleased with me when I fail and lose shouldn’t I try to please God by failing and losing all the time? But then I might worry that I am not losing and failing enough and God might be displeased with me… right?

The Extent Of The Atonement & The Ongoing Prayer Life Of Our Lord Christ

If one believes that the Lord Christ only intercedes for His people per Romans 8:34 and Hebrews 7:25 then they must, if they desire to be consistent, believe that Christ only died for those same people for whom He intercedes. Both the death of Christ and the Intercession of Christ are subsets of His great work as our Great High Priest. To suggest that Christ died for everybody as the Great High Priest but only intercedes for the elect is to introduce contradiction into the very being of Christ as Mediator.

If Christ only prays for His people then He, by necessity, only died for His people.

Not to worry though … if you don’t agree you can always invent a Mystery Box in which to throw your contradiction.

Egalitarianism & The Atonement

Evangelicals, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics alike all hold to a universal atonement wherein God does not discriminate in His intent concerning the Atonement. The thinking of such denominations is that the death of Christ is the same, potentially, for everybody. We might call this doctrine soteriological egalitarianism.

Of course, in our own culture egalitarianism is the idea both that there should be equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. As such, our cultural egalitarianism is really not about equality but about sameness. In the end everyone must be the same. Discrimination is seen as inherently evil and everybody must be treated the same.

In Evangelical, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic doctrines of hypothetical universalism we find a similar type of egalitarianism. We are told by these folks that Christ died for everybody and therefore everybody has the same equality of opportunity. For these folks it is sin to say that God discriminates in terms of opportunity though it is perfectly acceptable to say that it is man who discriminates in terms of God’s offer. Some men discriminate to accept the equal opportunity and some men don’t. Man can discriminate against God but God is not allowed to discriminate in terms of man. God must provide an atonement that is egalitarian in opportunity or He is not fair.

One wonders if the egalitarianism we see in our culture didn’t first begin with this kind of nonsensical egalitarianism in the Church as the Church turned away from the doctrine of Limited Damnation. If Theology remains the queen of the Sciences one must wonder if soteriological egalitarianism became the gateway through which egalitarianism in economics, politics, gender relations, and sociology came to the fore.

Obviously, in the Atonement God does discriminate. For reasons, known only to Him, God discriminated between the elect and the reprobate. Jacob God loved, but Esau God hated. God did not and does not treat all people the same.

And neither should we. Not all people are equally qualified for different tasks and there is nothing evil in discriminating against people who do not have giftedness or talents in certain areas.

There is nothing unbiblical in insisting that egalitarianism is wrong while discrimination for biblical reasons is right. God discriminated in the intent of the atonement and that discrimination was righteous. When we discriminate based on righteous reasons we are being God like in our actions.

So, insisting that Christ’s death applies equally to everyone may very well be the root of all other egalitarianisms that we are now plagued with. The atonement of Christ is not egalitarian. Everyone is not equal in Christ death. God discriminated for reasons known only to Himself, to have Christ die only for the Elect.

Can it be that Hypothetical Universalism is the mother load from where all other egalitarianism stems? Can it be that it is not a form of theological Marxism to make everyone equal and the same in the intent of the Atonement?

Ideas have consequences and I’m wondering if the teaching of evangelicals in terms of their soteriological egalitarianism wherein God is not allowed to discriminate is the mother spring from which our current egalitarianism water flows. Theology gets into everything. If we are going to be egalitarian in our doctrine of the atonement you can look for that egalitarianism to show in our social order.

Ideas have consequences.

Curious Words From The New Pope

The blurb opens up with,

In comments likely to enhance his progressive reputation, Pope Francis has written a long, open letter to the founder of La Repubblica newspaper, Eugenio Scalfari, stating that non-believers would be forgiven by God if they followed their consciences.

Bret responds,

I’m sure the atheist Richard Dawkins is glad to hear this latest statement by Pope Francis, because now he can be forgiven as he follows his conscience in supporting pedophilia. Dawkins recently said,

Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, the renown atheist recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters

    “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.”

Dawkins said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded:

    “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”

    “I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,”

Dawkins said.

Dawkins went on to say the most notorious cases of pedophilia involve rape and even murder and should not be bracketed with what he called

    “just mild touching up.”

So now, given Pope Francis’ insight, Richard Dawkins can be forgiven when he, and other unbeliever’s like him follow their conscience in “just mildly touching up” little children. Pedophilia never held so much promise.

Pope Francis weighs in

Responding to a list of questions published in the paper by Mr Scalfari, who is not a Roman Catholic, Francis wrote: “You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.”

“Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience.”

Bret responds while scratching his head,

Why would the one who does not believe in God go to a God they don’t believe in, with a sincere and contrite heart? The one we are talking about DOESN’T BELIEVE IN GOD.

The article continues,

Robert Mickens, the Vatican correspondent for the Catholic journal The Tablet, said the pontiff’s comments were further evidence of his attempts to shake off the Catholic Church’s fusty image, reinforced by his extremely conservative predecessor Benedict XVI. “Francis is a still a conservative,” said Mr Mickens. “But what this is all about is him seeking to have a more meaningful dialogue with the world.”

Bret responds,

Translated — “In an attempt to convert the world, the world has converted the Papacy and the ‘Church’.”

The article finishes,

In a welcoming response to the letter, Mr Scalfari said the Pope’s comments were “further evidence of his ability and desire to overcome barriers in dialogue with all”.

In July, Francis signaled a more progressive attitude on sexuality, asking: “If someone is gay and is looking for the Lord, who am I to judge him?”

In fairness to Francis, it was said that when Francis said this he was referring to celibate sodomites. Though, after this piece, I’m having my doubts about that Vatican post comment spin.

Required Course in Seminary Education — Justification

Reformed Weltanschauung; The Biblical Doctrine Of Justification

The purpose of this course is to teach the student the Reformed doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone. In the course of the study the student will be able to distinguish the difference between the Roman Catholic analytic view of Justification and the Reformed view of Justification. The student will also be able to identify how all non Reformed Protestant versions of Justification either partake of Roman Catholic understandings of Justification or, failing that, become littered with contradictions reflecting the confusion that arises when one tries to combine Roman Catholic understandings with Reformed understandings. The student will be able to explain why Luther said that Justification was the “Article by which the Church stands or falls.”

This course will not negate the necessity for the larger category of Systematic Theology. Such a course will be developed later.

Main Text: The Doctrine of Justification by James Buchanan

Required Reading:

1.) Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification by R. C. Sproul
2.) The Doctrine of Justification by Faith by John Owen
3.) Justification by Francis Turretin
4.) Justification by Faith Alone Jonathan Edwards
5.) Not What My Hands Have Done Paperback by Horatius Bonar / Charles Hodge
6.) By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification by Gary L. W. Johnson
7.) The Work of the Holy Spirit (Chapter 6) — Abraham Kuyper
8.)A Reformation Debate Paperback by John Calvin, Jacopo Sadoleto

Video

1.) What Still Divides Us? A Protestant & Roman Catholic Debate: Are the Scriptures Sufficient? Are We Justified By Faith Alone? (Video Series) — Appropriate sections pursuant to Justification

Online

1.) http://carm.org/council-trent-canons-justification

Assignments

1.) Read the main Text book and write chapter summaries.

2.) Read book # 1 — This is a intro / primer book on the subject. Write a 5 page paper on the essence of Justification by faith alone.

3.) Read the canons of the Council of Trent on Justification, book #8 and view the video debate. Write a 5 page paper on the essence of Justification according to Roman Catholic thinking. Write a 8-10 page paper on where Roman Catholicism and Reformed theology part ways.

4.) Read books 2-5. Write a 10 page paper comparing and contrasting the views of Bonar, Hodge, Owen, and Turretin. Concentrate especially on any areas you might find where you notice that they disagree.

5.) Read Kuyper on Eternal Justification. Write a 5 page paper giving your thoughts on Kuyper’s view on Eternal Justification

6.) Read book #6. After reading the book tool around on the internet and see if you can locate any Federal Visionists who toy with the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone. Locate their confusion.

7.) Interact 1 hour weekly with the Instructor regarding points of interest in the book that you are currently reading.

8.) Be prepared for pop quizzes or short essay requirements.

_________________

Were I to recommend books for the High Schooler from this list I would recommend the Sproul book followed by the Bonar / Hodge book as well as the video debate.