Think Wink.

Here are two Radio Free Geneva programs where James White reviews Dr. William Lane Craig’s merger of Molinism, Roman Catholic Synergism and Protestantism. I just don’t get how one can agree with Rome on the nature of grace and the relationship between God’s grace and man’s response to that grace, hold to the Jesuite theology of Molinism (which Rome now rejects) in relationship to God’s sovereignty (as if it is somehow less deterministic that Calvinism), but yet still believe in the Reformed understanding of justification. I just don’t get it. Here are the programs. I have to say that the Star Trek references were awesome, especially to the episode “Mirror, Mirror” from the original series.

May 21, 2009
May 26, 2009

James White and Molinism

James White on Steve Gregg

James White on John 3:16-17

The Sophists, who delight in sporting with Scripture and in empty cavils, think they have a subtle evasion when they expound works to mean, such as unregenerated men do literally, and by the effect of free will, without the grace of Christ, and deny that these have any reference to spiritual works. Thus according to them, man is justified by faith as well as by works, provided these are not his own works, but gifts of Christ and fruits of regeneration; Paul’s only object in so expressing himself being to convince the Jews, that in trusting to their ohm strength they foolishly arrogated righteousness to themselves, whereas it is bestowed upon us by the Spirit of Christ alone, and not by studied efforts of our own nature. But they observe not that in the antithesis between Legal and Gospel righteousness, which Paul elsewhere introduces, all kinds of works, with whatever name adorned, are excluded (Gal. 3:11, 12). For he says that the righteousness of the Law consists in obtaining salvation by doing what the Law requires, but that the righteousness of faith consists in believing that Christ died and rose again (Rom. 10:5-9). Moreover, we shall afterwards see, at the proper place, that the blessings of sanctification and justification, which we derive from Christ, are different. Hence it follows, that not even spiritual works are taken into account when the power of justifying is ascribed to faith. And, indeed, the passage above quoted, in which Paul declares that Abraham had no ground of glorying before God, because he was not justified by works, ought not to be confined to a literal and external form of virtue, or to the effort of free will. The meaning is, that though the life of the Patriarch had been spiritual and almost angelic, yet he could not by the merit of works have procured justification before God.

Could this section from Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion (3.11.14) be what he would say to those who advocate the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), such as N. T. Wright? I came across this passage this morning before I went to work and the NPP was the first thing that came to mind.

Reviews of N. T. Wright’s New Book

Islam, the Pope, and the Christian Response

Conversing with Muslims

Here is a fun quiz that determines if you are a Calvinist or not. I’m not as Calvnistic as I thought apparantly, only 56% Calvinist. But if you take the time to take the quiz, one might be surprised how Calvinstic he or she could just quite possibly be.

The Nerve of Him

Some Interesting Bits

An Arminian Quiz

I have to speak about a good conversation I had yesterday at the Kauffman stadium here in KC with a gentleman whom I shall call Ted (though not his real name). I first want to thank Ted for the awesome BBQ he prepared during the tailgating outside the ballpark. I had never had elk until yesterday and I love it. Between the four to six pounds of elk and the chicken legs and baked beans all prepared with his unique blends of spices and sauces…wow! I can’t the homade salsa that was just the way I like it: hot. All of that plus drinks for only $6, nice. Read more

Theology and Logic Pt. 2

Full vs. Partial: Test Case in the Resurrection

I wish I was going!!!

The New Captain America

So Beautiful

July 4th and Optimus Prime

Last month I was asked to defend Penal Substitutionary atonement (PSA). Both he and I weren’t interested in trying to launch a discussion on a topic that he and I have discussed before. I gave an answer that I’d still use today and, of course, he disagreed. Recently I was reading on justification and I was slapped in the face with some more arguments for PSA in the Scripture. I write this not to try to hash a debate but because I want to put them down and express my wish to have put them there in the first place. Read more

The Atonement = a Blank Check?

Aslan’s Ransom

A Balanced Cross

Here is another question that just donned on me this morning at work.

4.) Romans 1:16 is Paul’s declaration of him being unashamed of the gospel. In Romans 1:16-18, Paul uses γὰρ three times to introduce a new phrase or idea. In Romans 1:16 it says that the gospel is the power of God for salvation. In Romans 1:17 it appears that Paul is using γὰρ to say that the gospel reveals (ἀποκαλύπτεται) God’s righteousness from faith to faith and then cites Habakkuk 2:4 in support of his claim. Then in Romans 1:18 is Paul using γὰρ in the same way as in Romans 1:16-17? The parallel between Romans 1:17 and 1:18 in the use of ἀποκαλύπτεται is striking. Does God reveal his wrath against unrighteousness in the same gospel that reveals God’s righteousness and that is God’s power to save? How does this change one’s understanding of the gospel and justification and salvation if the answer to this question is an affirmative answer? Is there any change to Protestant position if the answer is in the negative?

An Interesting Question

I cannot tell a lie?

That’s a Good Question

Having just immersed myself in some study of NPP and justification issues by two individuals (Mark Seifrid and Michael Bird) seeking to provide a critique of NPP and the Reformed positions to show where each are right and each go wrong, some new questions arise in my mind.

1.) What impact does 1 Kings 8:32 and Psalm 82:1-3 and each usage of צדק (LXX: δικαιόω) on how we are to understand justification (cf. Luke 18:1-8 and the woman crying out for vengeance)? In each case צדק isn’t merely a declaration of a person being righteous but that I AM in 1 Kings 8 is being asked to act in accordance with his declaration, as I AM in Psalm 82 commands the “gods” to vindicate, both to declare the poor and afflicted to be in the right and to act on their behalf. How does this relate to Paul, specifically, and the NT as a whole, the the discussion of justification?

2.) What role does the resurrection of Christ play in justification? In Acts 13:32-39, Paul links justification and forgiveness of sins to the resurrection of Christ. In Romans 4:25 Paul links our justification explicitly to Jesus’ resurrection, not to mention defining the gospel in terms of Jesus resurrection (Romans 1:2-5; Romans 10:9-10). To further complicate matters, 1 Corinthians 6:11 and 1 Timothy 3:16 speaks of justification not only in terms of resurrection but also in terms of the Spirit.

3.) Nowhere in the NT is it stated that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the one who believes. We are righteous “in Christ” (e.g. Philippians 3:9; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Yet one cannot deny that the NT utilizes “imputation” language (e.g. Romans 4:4-8) in reference to justification. How does imputation and union with Christ work together?

The purpose behind reading these books was to get to the answers to these questions, and I’ll need to reread them to make sure I understand what was argued.

An Arminian Quiz

Piper and the Minneapolis Bridge

Dr. Mohler and the Future of the SBC

Yesterday I linked to a quiz by an Arminian/Wesleyan for Calvinists to take. I’m not certain how serious of a quiz it is but I just wanted to address each question. First up is a question based upon Genesis 25:23 (NIV) which reads,

The LORD said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.”

THe question is, “What was in Rebekah’s womb?” The answers available are a.) two nations/people; b.) an elect person and a reprobate person; c.) “Don’t even try to refer to the Old Testament for your exegesis of Romans 9. Heretic” (I find this last answer to be somewhat funny).

The question seems straightforward enough fromt he text. Why would this Arminian quiz a Clavinist on this verse is puzzling until one looks at answer c. Then one who is familiar in the Calvinism/Arminianism debates realizes that the question is asked to show that Paul in Romans 9 is talking about Israel on a national level. Clearly Genesis 25:23 speaks of two nations bing seen in Jacob and Esau–the twin boys in Rebekah’s womb when I AM gives this prophecy to her. Therfore when Paul cites this text in Romans 9:12, he is talking about Israel and Edom, not Jews who are going to heaven and hell. Salvation isn’t the issue in that portion of Romans. Optoin c in the quiz is a shot at Calvinists (again is seems like a playful one to me) who say you cannot go to the Old Testament text cited to determine Paul’s meaning. One Calvinist who is adamant on this is James Whtie (go to his website and click on the Romans 9 exegesis link in the center of the page).

What we have here is two approaches to Romans 9 and the texts Paul cites to support his argument. The ARminian is wanting to see what texts Paul cites and go back and read them, exegete them, to find out what Paul is arguing. The Calvinist wants to identify what Paul is arguing first, and then see how the cited OT texts supports his position.

I personally think there is nothing wrong with looking up the cited OT texts in their own OT contexts to see what was intended by Paul/NT author. The problem that White and myself have with doing this before determining Paul’s point in citing the text is that one runs the danger of forcing Paul to say something he actually isn’t if taken on his own terms.

Take this idea that Paul is speaking of nations in Romans 9:6-18. Romans 9:6 becomes somewhat confusing when Paul speaks of two Israels, “οὐ γὰρ πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραήλ, οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ·”, “for not all those out of Israel are Israel” becomes “for not all out of the nation Israel is the nation Israel.” This can be consistently maintained through Romans 9:18, although 9:16, 18 can present problems. But once one gets to Romans 9:19, nations gets a bit tricky, although still can be maintained.

What kills this is the preceeding context of Romans 1:18-9:5. Romans 1:18-8:39 is Paul’s discussion of salvation for sinners on an individual level. He is presenting the problem of humanity, asking and answering the question “How can a person be saved from this plight.” Romans 9:1-5 is Paul expressing his anguish over his kinsmen, his fellow Israelites, being ἀνάθεμα (anathema) from I AM inspite of everything listed in Romans 9:4-5. Indeed Paul would desire to become ἀνάθεμα in their place if he could. If Jews aren’t being saved as Paul described in Romans 1:18-8:39, why does he lanch a discussion about Israel as a nation that does nothing to furhter what was said in Romans 9:1-5. What does “the word of God” (ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ) refer to in 9:6 if not in some part to what was listed in 9:4-5? The nations approach becomes uncharacteristic for Paul because it has absolutely nothing to do with the anguish he has over the plight of his kinsmen and why he prays for them!

This is furthered by what was said by Paul in Romans 9:30-11:36. Paul goes back into speaking of salvation on an individual level again whil still talking about Israel. Paul seems to lose his mind in Romans 9:6-29 (being nice in allowing the Arminian to have more text to work with) and discusses a topic that is irrelevent to anything Paul is speaking about in this letter. Not even Paul’s rabbit trail in Romans 3:1-8 is irrelevent to his over all theme in Romans 1:18-3:20. It was a necessary rabbit trail that also sets up Romans 9:1-5. But why this “nations” trail in Romans 9:6-29? Whast does it contribute to the overall flow of thought in Romans about salvation and the gospel? As far as I can tell, nothing.

What I find Arminians missing is this. Yes Paul cites two texts in Romans 9:12-13 that deal with nations, Genesis 25:23 and Malachi 1:2-3. But one must undestand these texts to prove that the word of God has not fallen because not everyone from Israel is Israel. God’s electing purpose stands because it is based upon his call and choice, not by works or birthright. That’s what the texts are proving, the principle of sovereign election. It is being proven from I AM’s interactions with nations in the OT and applied to why the Jews are rejecting Jesus as their Savior and Messiah. They are ἀνάθεμα in spite of all the promises given them because not everyone who is an Israelite is an Israelite. Why is that? Because God’s electing purpose is based upon his call and not human works or birthorder. The nation of Israel was loved and Edom/Esau wasn’t was because of I AM’s unconditional choice of Israel. Jews are rejecting Jesus because of I AM’s sovereign and unconditional choice, I AM’s not calling them to Jesus.

An Interesting Question

I cannot tell a lie?

One More Question

I found this quiz to be very funny. I really appreciated the tone of the quiz to have some humor in it even though I think the questions missed the ponit of the texts cited. I plan on going through these questions in my next series. I feel like I”m done with the Peace series for now, my brain is ready to move on. Tormorrow I’ll just blog through as many questions as I can, each question getting its own posting. For all my Arminian detractors out there, I’m just having some fun before I do some heavy reading in the NPP and justification areas. That will be fun as it will give me a chance to get to know how one of my upcoming teachers thinks and writes. HEre’s the quiz.

A Quiz for Your Calvinist Friends

Are You A Calvinist?

My Hermeneutical Score

Question 1