Gospel Recovery?
If you read the article cited by this blogger, it calls the New Calvinist Movement a “gospel recovery” movement. That is a stunning admission. So, the church didn’t know what the gospel really is for hundreds of years, but we should trust that this time they have really found it? If you believe that, I have some oceanfront property in Xenia, Ohio I would like to sell you.
Gospel recovery? It had to be recovered? The church lost the true gospel for how many years? Regarding authentic Protestant orthodoxy, in fact, it did. What does that tell you about "historic precedent" in general and church specifically? + they openly admit it and no one blinks!
— Paul M. Dohse (@PaulMDohse) January 30, 2018
The gods of Orthodoxy, and Murderous Leaders Who Don’t Cuss
I used to feel extreme pity while viewing history pictures of women, children, and old people waiting in some kind of precipice to be summarily executed. But I now realize that not paying attention, and in general, lazy thinking got them there. Of course, the children are not responsible, but as a generation raised by two other generations of lazy thinkers, inevitably, a generation in the chain is eventually going to pay the piper.
History only has two gods; the god of slavery and the God of freedom. The god of slavery has many sub-gods, or “subordinate” gods representing a core orthodoxy. Sure, orthodoxy has many different flavors, but it is all ice cream, and the ice cream is caste authority over the great unwashed.
What is this present world and its history? A bunch of different kingdoms vying to rule the world to save humanity from itself. This is why wars happen. All wars are driven by the basic presupposition of man’s total depravity. As true Christians, we recognize that our kingdom is not presently on earth; we are “sojourners,” “aliens,” and “ambassadors” from another country. If our kingdom was presently on earth, and our king ruling, it would be well obvious.
This can be demonstrated by some articles sent my way this week. Though I am in a season where I have little time to write, this one by Roger E. Olsen inspired me to rearrange my priorities for the day, and while I am at it, I will toss in one by Matt Walsh and some honorable mentions from Susan’s Face Book page to boot.
But first, a word on the functionality of our kingdom. We are of a royal family that functions on grace, or “under grace” reality. Yes, there is most definitely an objective truth which we love, but it is also assumed that all family members are honestly pursuing an understanding of what that truth is. And, we are seeking to align personal conscience with that truth. In other words, we are compelled by love, and not authority. It’s obedient love to the mind of Christ as we progressively understand it, not an obedience under compulsion that may or may not violate our conscience. All loving obedience to our King and Father are freewill offerings, or it isn’t love. This is all hinged on an assumption that we can know the “mind of Christ” which is the treasure of all knowledge and reality. This is also how we function in all of our other relationships as well. Our love is not under compulsion, but rather freewill offerings.
Is there a better example than the so-called “tithe”? Under the old covenant, the tabernacle and priests had to be supported, but there were also freewill offerings. Now that our own bodies are the temple of God, and we are no longer “under law,” we only need to use our members to offer “living” sacrifices to God that are of love and not under compulsion. God loves a cheerful giver. Tithing is under law, not grace. And whatever we do and wherever we are, we are worshiping because our bodies are the temple and we are the priests of that temple, NOT some institutional building built for the purpose of “worship.”
We begin with Roger Olsen who proffers the following in said article: orthodoxy should never be rejected as a result of the personal testimonies of its proponents. He concedes that the founders of Protestantism had horrible personal testimonies, but what are we to do? Should we reject orthodoxy altogether because of the shortcomings of our spiritual heroes? This is asked in rhetorical fashion; after all, what would we do without orthodoxy, right? Orthodoxy, otherwise referred to as “subordinate truth” (wink, wink), must be protected at all cost while the fallout is often unfortunate collateral damage. After all, the Reformers where “men of their time.” Of course, the things going on at the time had nothing to do with the prevailing ideologies…perish the thought! You can liken this to the same mentality of “subordinate shepherds” who have been preordained by the Chief Shepherd to, as Al Mohler stated it, “save God’s people from ignorance.” Yes, they concede, they don’t have the same authority as Christ, but it just so happens that Christ never stops by to check in, so, you do the math.
Is Olsen a sly Platonist manipulator or just a shallow thinker? Perhaps both, but what is the fundamental slight of hand that he uses to enamor the blogosphere with this article? Answer: moral equivalency. Do you see it? Sin is sin. He even concedes that Reformed orthodoxy was used by the Nazis to condone the slaughter of innocent millions, because, you know, no one is innocent to begin with after all. Watch what he does: beer drinking, cussing, womanizing, and mass murder are all the same thing…sin.
Hardly.
Secondly, and this is key, which sins are the direct result of an ideology? We may also boil all of this down to presuppositions about humanity; able, or unable? Free, or necessarily enslaved for its own good and ultimate survival? Wars and mass murder are always the direct result of the latter.
Please note the history of the church, Catholic and Protestant: it is a story of endless wars and bloodshed stopped only by the American Revolution which was predicated on the freedom of mankind and its emphasis on individual rights. The founding fathers of Americanism had some sin issues, but their ideas were contrary to humanity’s inability and consequent enslavement.
This is where we can enter Matt Walsh’s article into the point being made here. Don’t you know, the primary purpose of church is for receiving judgement for your assumed many sins, and receiving ongoing forgiveness? Yes, the nearly sole purpose of church is to bring yourself under judgment for purposes of ongoing “repentance.” Curiously, he calls out Protestant and Catholic churches alike for this shortcoming and subsequent ruining of society accordingly.
And I couldn’t agree more; yep, our ministry has been saying this for years—that’s church in a nutshell. The church is God’s supposed authority on earth where wicked mankind comes for ongoing salvation via “repentance.” “Christians,” yet condemned and still under law, must be compelled to love God and others. Note the clear logical conclusion in his article that salvation is only found in church to begin with, and churches that condemn for a hearty return to the same gospel that saved us. Due to this presupposition concerning humanity, reality is seen through the prism of sin and condemnation, and not love.
If you really understand this issue, you understand that Enlightenment ideas are closer to being under grace than church ideology which is under law. But whether secular issues of individualism versus collectivism (socialism/communism) or religious issues concerning law and grace, most are woefully ignorant.
Now we can enter Susan’s rant to me earlier this week about Face Book postings whining about the moral shortcomings of Donald Trump. Of course, mostly from church folk who want to be led by a good-old-fashioned-church-going Protestant…or Catholic. Yes sir, these are the ones that can keep us out of wars and stuff because, you know, historically, Protestants and Catholics are really good about keeping the peace until someone disagrees with them. They, like Islam, are all religions of peace because there is unity after all detractors are slaughtered, and the rest willingly surrender their conscience and God-given ability to reason. Are these really ideologies effected by the times? No, that is why Catholics and Protestants were slaughtering each other over in Ireland as late as the 1970s. Terrorism is always defined by some orthodoxy. Like Baskin-Robbins, there are 31 flavors, but it is all ice cream.
Forced to get along with each other because of American jurisprudence, the likes of Matt Walsh have discovered the gospel of authority; salvation is for those who humble themselves and stay under the condemnation of the law because we are all sinners in need of ongoing salvation. Catholics and Protestants alike, as well noted by Walsh, are still under condemnation and have this in common. Besides, the Reformation was simply a disagreement about who could better condemn. And, anyone who dared think for themselves were pursued by both which had no upside because both were proficient at torturing detractors.
One comment, as far as I could tell, concerned a complaint that Trump is a cussing President. I think this is the one that grated on Susan the most. Oh, for the days when John Calvin ruled Geneva and was never heard cussing, but was beheading rebellious children and executing accused witches. Oh, for the days when Jimmy Carter the Southern Baptist was President and knew that you couldn’t trust mankind to possess money.
As ambassadors on assignment from another kingdom, we prefer to work here with as little bloodshed, poverty, and run of the mill tyranny as possible. We are “called to peace” and “happiness,” not a perpetual crucifixion as suggested by Walsh. That means understanding that actions are driven by ideology and presuppositions concerning mankind.
Therefore, we prefer leaders who understand freedom whether they cuss or not. Sure, it may be an extra dip of ice cream if they don’t, but those who stone women buried from the neck down are not endeared to us because they don’t cuss.
paul
How To Make A Protestant’s Head Explode…
“Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he CANNOT sin, because he is born of God.”
~ 1 John 3:9
God’s Choosing in Election
Originally Published January 26, 2017
Much is made over any number of verses in the Bible that people will point to as a proof text for election, or Calvin’s notion of “unconditional election”, the idea that God chooses who will be saved and who will be damned. One such verse is Matthew 22:14.
“For many are called, but few are chosen.” ~ Matthew 22:14
To the casual reader (which unfortunately describes many “Christians” these days who are not good students of scripture but rather leave the heavy lifting of study and critical thought to some “authority”) it would appear that Jesus is indeed stating that people are chosen. For those of you who are like me and are not casual readers but actually do think critically, a simple observation of the context and grammar of the passage shows otherwise.
This verse comes at the end of the passage where Jesus gives the parable of the marriage feast. Jesus compares the Kingdom of Heaven to a king who prepares a grand feast for his son’s wedding. In the passage, the king sends out invitations, but only a few accept the invitation. The king then offers the invitation to more and more so that the wedding feast will be full of guests. The ones who reject the invitation are cast into outer darkness.
Among other things this parable teaches, one is that the “church” is not the Bride of Christ, but rather the “church” are the guests at the wedding. But this passage also gives us a clear understanding about the real doctrine of “election.” There is a distinction made between those who are given the invitation to come to the wedding and those who accept the invitation. It should be noted that those who reject the invitation do so by their own choice, not because God pre-ordained them to damnation.
I think the reason the concluding verse of this passage is so confusing, aside from man’s attempt to use orthodoxy as a means to control, is because of the lack of clarity in the grammar in all English translations. The key to understanding Matthew 22:14 is that we must recognize something that is clear in the Greek but not so clear in English. The words “called” and “chosen” are adjectives and not verbs. This means that the words identify or describe a particular group and do not indicate an action.
If we assume, as the common assumption is, that “called” and “chosen” are verbs, that is not necessarily a problem with the first clause. It speaks to the sending out of an invitation. To say that many “are called” is to acknowledge that an invitation is indeed given out to men- men are called to the wedding feast; men are called to accept salvation. But if we project that same grammatical usage onto the second clause, then we would necessarily be forced to accept the idea that the ones who respond to the invitation do so not by personal choice but by God’s determination alone. But this conclusion presents us with two rationally inconsistent ideas. Why would God bother to invite all mankind if He was only going to choose a few?
Let’s take a look at the grammar of verse 14. Here I have taken an excerpt from my electronic interlinear Bible that shows the verse parallel with the Greek text. The notations below the Greek indicate the part of speech and usage.
The first thing I want you to notice in this verse is that there is only one verb. The word “are” in the second clause “few are chosen” does not appear in the Greek text. Your Bible probably indicates this by having “are” italicized. As you can see by the notes above, the verb used is equivalent to the English word “is” or “are”, and it is used here in this verse as a linking verb. When a verb is a linking verb, that means the subject and predicate can be switched, and the meaning of the clause remains the same.
This is especially important when you realize that with the exception of the two conjunctions “for” and “but”, all the other words are adjectives. Not only are they adjectives, but the notation “_Nom” that you see beneath them indicates that they are used in the nominative case. That means they can be used in either in the subject or as a predicate nominative. And since they are all nominative case, that means that the phrases:
“many are called, few are chosen”
means the same thing as
“called are many, chosen are few.”
So you can see by grammatical analysis, that the idea of “chosen” doesn’t specify an action upon a group but instead it identifies or labels a group. What you have in this verse is the identification of two sets, one named “The Called”, and another named “The Chosen”. In addition, we are given some indication as to the relative size of each group, many and few. Please keep this in mind as we move on, this is important: these are not actions, they are people groups!
Moreover, the second group is a subset of the first group. Let me give a more mundane example to help illustrate my point.
Farmer Jones has 50 white goats. 30 of them are all white, but there are 20 of them that have spots and speckles. So while the larger set of all 50 goats are indeed white, a subset of them (20) have spots and speckles. So it would be accurate to say that:
“Of farmer Jones’ goats, many are white but few are spotted and speckled”
Notice that “white” and “spotted” are not verbs or actions that describe something happening to the goats, but rather they are labels given to identify the larger set (white) and the subset within that larger set (spotted/speckled). To say that a number of goats are white isn’t saying something “whited” them. Likewise to say that a number of goats are spotted isn’t saying something “spotted” them. They are not goats on which somebody performed the act of speckling and spotting. It is a label only.
In this same sense, in Matthew “called” and “chosen” are not verbs or actions that describe something happening to the subject, but rather they are labels given to identify the larger set (“The Called”) and the subset within that larger set (“The Chosen”). Said another way, they are not the subject on which someone performed the act of “choosing”. It is a label only.
Let me use another mundane example. This one is a little more personal to me, but if you have kids you can probably relate. My five children (even the almost 16-year-old!) love to build with Legos. In fact, you could probably say that we do our fair share in keeping the Lego company solvent. We have TONS of Legos.
Now, consider this pile of Legos you see pictured at right. Notice that there is a pile of green Legos surrounded by another pile of assorted colors. The assorted pile are Legos, but they are not green, and the pile of green ones are still Legos. By looking at this picture, one could say, “There are many Legos, but few are green.”
Let me use one more example. My son’s birthday is coming up soon. Let’s say I have decided that I am going to host a birthday party, so I am going to send out invitations to all his friends and our family. Let us also say that I decided two months ago that I was going to host this party. And when I decided to host this party, I also decided that everyone who comes to the party will receive a door prize; a small bag of candy and other treats.
Now let us assume that I send out 100 invitations, but only 20 guests show up. Those 20 guests will receive the door prize. Remember, I decided that two months ago. So it could be said, that many were invited to the party, but only a few showed up to receive the prize.
Now consider this. Did I choose who would show up? No, of course not. I chose what they would receive when they got here. While I did not actually choose who would show up, the ones who did received the prize. Whoever showed up was a result of those individuals who decided whether to come or not. Those to whom I sent the invitations could be referred to as “The Invited.” Those who showed up to receive the prize could be referred to as “The Prized”. So, many are Invited, but few are Prized.
Now consider this passage at the beginning of Ephesians.
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;” ~ Ephesians 1:3-7
This is another favorite passage that many use as a proof text for the doctrine of election and determinism. But look carefully at what the apostle Paul is saying. The scenario is the same as that of the birthday party example.
Careful examination of the grammatical structure of this passage makes it clear that God did not choose who would be saved. God chose what those “in Christ” would receive.
“The Called” are those to whom God sent out the invitation to receive eternal life. “The Chosen” are the ones who accepted the invitation and received the gift that God chose to give to all those who accepted the invitation.
What is remarkable about these conclusions is they are rationally consistent with the rest of what scripture teaches about soteriology. There is no need to perform theological gymnastics in order to force together contradicting conclusions or simply dismiss one or the other altogether.
~ Andy
9 comments