This is a difficult question for me because it has implications for my brother, who, when younger, was a very passionate Christian, but who died after he fell away from the faith. Being raised in a "once saved, always saved" church, my family members took comfort in their doctrine of eternal security. It seems that their doctrine is naive because it overlooks Scripture that indicates that perseverance is a condition of final salvation. For example, Colossians 1:21-23 says, "And you ... he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard...." This makes stably and steadfastly continuing in the faith a condition of being presented holy and blameless at the last day. Also, Hebrews 3:14 says, "We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end." Again, the evidence of having an interest in Christ's blood is holding confidence in him firmly to the end. At the end of the day, whether a person once had salvation and lost it, or never had it in the first place, is a less important question. The important question is whether the person who has fallen away from the faith currently is in a state of grace.
There is no definitive way to know the answer to this question because we cannot see a person's heart. However, as humans, it is impossible to have conversation or interaction with someone without having preconceptions or making assumptions. So as pastors we have to strive through prayer to have our assumptions informed by objective evidence while at the same time maintaining a willingness to change our assumptions if we uncover new evidence. So, for example, if I am talking to someone who formerly was a passionate Christian but now shows little gracious fruit, I would start from an assumption that he has not yet been experienced the grace of regeneration. If he pointed to his past laurels of praying a sinners prayer or other good works, I would acknowledge them as good thing but focus him back to the present, emphasizing the verses above as well as the things that Murray discussed concerning 1 John on page 101. At least in my religious tradition, there is a habit of looking to one's past evidence of grace rather than one's current evidence of grace. In consideration of texts like this one from Ezekiel 18:24, this is really incorrect: "But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die." We need to stress the persevering aspects of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints in order to fight widespread self-deception.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
The Interrelatedness of the Design, Nature, and Extent of the Atonement
The doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement teaches that Jesus offered up himself as a sacrifice to vicariously satisfy divine on behalf of sinners. When considered together, the nature and design of this atonement necessarily decide its extent, i.e., that it was for the elect and only the elect that Christ died. Let's first consider three aspects of the nature of the atonement: its objectivity, it vicariousness, and its actual effectiveness. The atonement effected an objective change in the relation of God to those for whom Jesus died; it did not merely effect a change in the attitudes of those people. Romans 5:10 says, “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.” From God's perspective, Jesus' death caused a group of people to objectively transition from a state of enmity to a state of friendship. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 says, “You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.” Again, Jesus' death caused a group of people to objectively transition from a state of dominion by Satan to a state of ownership by God. In addition to being objective, the atonement was also vicarious. Galatians 3:13 says, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.” The means by which Christ objectively effected a change in God's relationship with certain people was by becoming a substitute curse-bearer for those people. The third aspect of the atonement, its actual effectiveness, is illustrated both by the above verses as well as by Galatians 1:4, “[W]ho gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of God.” The effect of the atonement was not just a possible or conditional deliverance but an actual one. The decretive will of God was the driving force behind the deliverance, so it was impossible that the deliverance had some contingency. In short, by means of his vicarious sacrifice for a group of people, Christ actually and objectively effected a change in God's relation to that group of people.
This naturally lead to the question, “What is the identify of this group of people for whose sin Christ vicariously paid?” Christ's once-for-all sacrifice and his continual intercession really are two sides of one atonement coin, and Jesus drew clear boundaries around those for whom He interceded in John 17:9, “I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.” It would be irrational for Christ to intercede for those for whom He did not die, so we can conclude that He died for those whom the Father gave Him. And Christ said to those whom the Father had given Him, “You did not choose me, but I chose you” (John 15:16). Thus, we see that the identify of those for whom Christ vicariously suffered is the elect of God, and Christ objectively and actually effected a change in God's relation to these people alone.
This naturally lead to the question, “What is the identify of this group of people for whose sin Christ vicariously paid?” Christ's once-for-all sacrifice and his continual intercession really are two sides of one atonement coin, and Jesus drew clear boundaries around those for whom He interceded in John 17:9, “I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.” It would be irrational for Christ to intercede for those for whom He did not die, so we can conclude that He died for those whom the Father gave Him. And Christ said to those whom the Father had given Him, “You did not choose me, but I chose you” (John 15:16). Thus, we see that the identify of those for whom Christ vicariously suffered is the elect of God, and Christ objectively and actually effected a change in God's relation to these people alone.
Strongest Objection to the Doctrine of Unconditional Election
The strongest objection to the doctrine of unconditional election, which, to be honest, is also the one with which I am currently struggling, is the charge that it is unfair. Note that I am making a clear distinction between fair and just. The argument that infralapsarian election is unjust has no leg to stand on because the decree logically took into account the results of the decree to allow the fall. So this objection is only that it is unfair. The OED defines fair as "treating people equally without favoritism or discrimination". Based on this definition, I would say that election genuinely is unfair: 1) By definition it treats people unequally. And 2) even granting that election is "without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto", at the end of the day, it is just inescapably sovereign favoritism. So in my mind, given the fact that it is unfair, the question boils down to this: "How can I still worship a God that I consider unfair?" I have found four answers that help me.
The first reason is that my intuitive sense of fairness, although originally deriving from my being created in God's image, has been corrupted because of original sin. Thus, it is no longer a reliable standard for measuring fairness, and I, in fact, am unable to rightly judge fairness. It is for this reason (as well as for the reason that by nature there exists an infinite gap between Creator and creature) that God says in Isaiah 55:9, "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." And again in Romans 11:33, "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!" The second reason is that God through the free external gospel call in fact equitably gave the non-elect a chance to believe. It is for this reason that Jesus can speak of people's decision not to follow him in John 8:43-44, "Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires." And again in John 5:40, "[Y]ou refuse to come to me that you may have life." The third reason is that Adam in the covenant of works knew that the wages of sin was death and still sinned. God cannot be faulted when he gives us our consensual wages, nor can he be faulted when he generously spares some their wages. The logical inverse of Matthew 20:13-15, "Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? ... Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?" The fourth, and frankly the most silencing, reason is that as the creature I have no right to impose on the Creator my intuitive sense of fairness. This is the force of Paul's argument in Romans 9:20-21, "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" In summary, these four reasons enable me to still worship God even though election offends my human sense of fairness.
The first reason is that my intuitive sense of fairness, although originally deriving from my being created in God's image, has been corrupted because of original sin. Thus, it is no longer a reliable standard for measuring fairness, and I, in fact, am unable to rightly judge fairness. It is for this reason (as well as for the reason that by nature there exists an infinite gap between Creator and creature) that God says in Isaiah 55:9, "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." And again in Romans 11:33, "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!" The second reason is that God through the free external gospel call in fact equitably gave the non-elect a chance to believe. It is for this reason that Jesus can speak of people's decision not to follow him in John 8:43-44, "Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires." And again in John 5:40, "[Y]ou refuse to come to me that you may have life." The third reason is that Adam in the covenant of works knew that the wages of sin was death and still sinned. God cannot be faulted when he gives us our consensual wages, nor can he be faulted when he generously spares some their wages. The logical inverse of Matthew 20:13-15, "Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? ... Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?" The fourth, and frankly the most silencing, reason is that as the creature I have no right to impose on the Creator my intuitive sense of fairness. This is the force of Paul's argument in Romans 9:20-21, "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" In summary, these four reasons enable me to still worship God even though election offends my human sense of fairness.
The Seriousness of the Pelagian Error
The reason that Pelagianism is such a serious theological error is that the glory of the gospel (and thus of God Himself) is necessarily dimmed. This happens in two way: 1) by representing the bad news of Adam's fall as less bad and 2) by representing the good news of God's grace as less good.
First, it represents the bad news of Adam's fall as less bad. The brightness of an object is made more apparent by its background. The glory of the gospel is most clearly seen against its real backdrop of human desperation and neediness. However, Pelagianism removes this backdrop in two ways: 1) it denies that humans have original sin. It teaches that only individual acts of the will can be described as sinful—not natures, dispositions, tendencies, or characters. As such, Adam did not acquire a sinful nature in any sense of the word as the result of his sin, and, thus, it was impossible for Adam to propagate a sinful nature to his descendants, much less any guilt for that sin. 2) It denies that humans suffer from radical corruption. It teaches that all humans are morally neutral, having no tendency to commit sin. In fact humans have an absolutely free and independent will, completely able to decide between good and evil and and execute those decisions with no limitation. As is pretty clearly seen from these two points, Pelagianism casts the human estate in a pretty positive light, completely contrary to the orthodox position that “The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God's sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him” (Canons of the 2nd Council of Orange). And as such, Pelagianism diminishes man's neediness and thus diminishes the glory of the gospel.
Secondly, it represents the grace of God as less good. Grace is reduced to external operations. For example, it was God's grace to give His law and to give Christ as examples of righteousness in order to make it easier to abstain from sin. But this is a very minimalist notion of grace. It makes grace helpful but not strictly necessary. The fact is that salvation is by grace from beginning to end. Election unto salvation, effectual calling, and perseverance in faith are all the result of God's free and unconstrained grace. God's grace is both the necessary and sufficient cause of salvation; it is not merely helpful. So it is clear that Pelagianism detracts from the glory of the gospel by also devaluing the grace of God.
In summary, Pelagianism dims the glory of the gospel both by pretending that man's estate is better than it really is and by pretending that God's gracious involvement in our salvation is helpful but not necessary. Therefore, for this reason, it is a serious theological error.
First, it represents the bad news of Adam's fall as less bad. The brightness of an object is made more apparent by its background. The glory of the gospel is most clearly seen against its real backdrop of human desperation and neediness. However, Pelagianism removes this backdrop in two ways: 1) it denies that humans have original sin. It teaches that only individual acts of the will can be described as sinful—not natures, dispositions, tendencies, or characters. As such, Adam did not acquire a sinful nature in any sense of the word as the result of his sin, and, thus, it was impossible for Adam to propagate a sinful nature to his descendants, much less any guilt for that sin. 2) It denies that humans suffer from radical corruption. It teaches that all humans are morally neutral, having no tendency to commit sin. In fact humans have an absolutely free and independent will, completely able to decide between good and evil and and execute those decisions with no limitation. As is pretty clearly seen from these two points, Pelagianism casts the human estate in a pretty positive light, completely contrary to the orthodox position that “The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God's sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him” (Canons of the 2nd Council of Orange). And as such, Pelagianism diminishes man's neediness and thus diminishes the glory of the gospel.
Secondly, it represents the grace of God as less good. Grace is reduced to external operations. For example, it was God's grace to give His law and to give Christ as examples of righteousness in order to make it easier to abstain from sin. But this is a very minimalist notion of grace. It makes grace helpful but not strictly necessary. The fact is that salvation is by grace from beginning to end. Election unto salvation, effectual calling, and perseverance in faith are all the result of God's free and unconstrained grace. God's grace is both the necessary and sufficient cause of salvation; it is not merely helpful. So it is clear that Pelagianism detracts from the glory of the gospel by also devaluing the grace of God.
In summary, Pelagianism dims the glory of the gospel both by pretending that man's estate is better than it really is and by pretending that God's gracious involvement in our salvation is helpful but not necessary. Therefore, for this reason, it is a serious theological error.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)