Grace, Part I: Is the Doctrine of Total Depravity Totally Depraved?

I chose this picture because nothing says
'grace' like Grace Kelly

The relationship between God’s providence and the human will has been the subject of much theological debate throughout Christian history, particularly as it regards to salvation. If God’s work “depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy” (Rom. 9:6) and if it is true that grace does not depend on works (11:6), then how can we say that humans choose God out of their own volition?(1) How can we say that the choice is ours when we are told that “it is God who is at work in [us], enabling [us] both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13)? Calvinist doctrine states that we cannot, that salvation is not at all based on the human’s response to God but solely on God’s choice of whom to save—his elect. Furthermore, it states that humanity is totally depraved and unable to choose God, and that it is God’s grace alone which brings the elect to him.

I, on the other hand, contend that the most balanced and accurate response to the question states that the human’s free choice to enter into a relationship with God is a manifestation of the reality of grace, because God equipped the human with everything necessary in order to walk freely to him—and that this divine equipment was a bestowal of grace, and thus, everything accomplished by its work finds grace as its origin.

Humanity in the Pre-Cross and Post-Cross Periods

We must begin with a discussion of what occurred at the Fall, so that we can understand what occurred on the Cross. With these, we can more accurately discuss the nature of grace and human will, and their roles in salvation.

Jonathan Edwards describes well the view of the Fall I wish to oppose here:

When man sinned, and broke God’s covenant, and fell under his curse, [the divine principles of the Spirit] left his heart: for indeed God left him; that communion with God, on which these principles depended, entirely ceased; the Holy Spirit, that divine inhabitant, forsook the house.(2)

Thus, Edwards believed the Fall made us totally depraved. Greg Forster defines the doctrine of total depravity in the following way:

Calvinism says that everything in our fallen nature is hostile to the perfect goodness of God--to 'goodness' in the absolute sense. This is not because our nature contains nothing that is good in any respect, but because everything in us is spoiled by our sin. In other words, Calvinism is saying that we are born as slaves to Satan. . . . We are born with every part of ourselves participating in, and hence defiled by, a state of freely chosen rebellion against God.(3)

Thus, to Calvinist doctrine, the Fall left us completely unable to move toward God without him doing all the work. Such is the Calvinist understanding of the Fall, and the doctrine of total depravity. This interpretation, however, runs counter to the Hebrew understanding of God’s ruah. God breathed his breath into Adam’s nostrils (Gen. 2:7), which was very significant to ancient Hebrew anthropology. Harold Knight provides that this “essential quality of the divine” was “the acceptable explanation of all that was striking or unusual in human conduct,”(4) such as, wisdom.(5) It meant that “God’s Spirit [is] in the human person”(6) and was understood to be a “permanent indwelling in man”(7) and “a core human characteristic.”(8)

Therefore, to the ancient Hebrew mind, the Spirit of God did not forsake the house, as Edwards put it. Rather than making humans totally unable to move to God, the Fall made humans conflicted; it assured that they would thenceforth be engaged in a constant inner battle between good and evil. The Fall established that life would be a long stream of existential choices between stepping towards God or stepping towards total depravity. Humanity’s constant movement towards depravity is what made the Cross more and more necessary.

What strikes me as odd about the doctrine of total depravity is that it is maintained even after the Cross. Christ brought us salvation, but Calvinist doctrine says that it can only be obtained by those upon whom God has bestowed it. Since humanity's corruption makes us unable to move to God, we cannot choose salvation; it can only be given by God’s irresistible grace.(9) 

The predicament in the pre-Cross period was not that humanity was rendered incapable of moving to God, but that the seed which God had planted in humans became perishable in the Fall (1 Pet. 1:23). In the event that humanity strayed far enough from God, that seed would cease to exist. If humanity chose to follow depravity long enough, we would eventually lose our ability to choose God at all, for we would have trapped ourselves in a depraved mind. Thus, if salvation was going to spread throughout the world, it was going to require further action on God’s part.

Enter Jesus Christ, who came to undo what Adam and Eve did (Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15:20–49). The Cross re-established the image of God that humanity was created to be, and planted an incorruptible, imperishable seed in humans (1 Pet. 1:23). He placed inside us the Holy Spirit, God’s indwelling presence (Rom. 8:23; Jn. 14:17). Therefore, humanity is not in a state of total depravity. On the contrary, Christ perfected humanity’s state of being (Heb. 10:14), and created all people anew (2 Cor. 5:17). In this state, humanity is not doomed to slip into total depravity, but, as Karl Barth says, “[all of humanity’s] mistakes and confusions and sins are only like waves beating against the immovable rock of his own proper being.”(10) Sin no longer has the power to destroy the image of God and the seed of the Holy Spirit held within us.

Origen beautifully states that, “God has given human beings all the desires and all the impulses with which they can work towards virtue and make progress, and also planted in them the power of reason with which they can recognize what they ought to do and what to avoid.”(11) Christ established in the hearts of humans everything we needed in order to choose God and be saved. As Vernon Grounds puts it, “God working through Jesus Christ and by his Holy Spirit enables a man to be and do what otherwise tantalizes him as merely an impossible possibility.”(12)

Grace and the Supernatural Existential

What, then, of the choice? Is it our own? Norman Geisler provides that the general Calvinist response to this question is that “if God’s choice to save was based on those who chose him, then it would not be based on divine grace but would be based on human effort.” He sensibly states of this claim that it “flies in the face of the whole biblical teaching on grace.”(13)

The simplest definition of God’s grace I can think of is divine help. And for all of human history, we have been in need of it. H. Wheeler Robinson states, “It is emphatically recognized that man is totally incapable of good without grace, and that no element in him can be, so to speak, isolated from the corruption of his fallen nature.”(14) Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel echoes this understanding, stating that, “for all our aspirations we remain spiritually blind unless we are assisted. Without [God’s] love, without His aid, man is unable to come close to Him.”(15)

Karl Rahner

There is truth to the doctrine of total depravity, but human depravity is not “total.” We are, as I said above, in a constant state of existential conflict between the Spirit of God and our sin nature. Because we are faced with a constant barrage of evil influence, and because we have been made frail by our choice of sin, we have always needed the assistance that Heschel spoke of, that divine aid, that grace. And this grace is not only expressed transcendently in what God does for his creatures, but it is expressed immanently in what God does within his creatures. There is in human nature a divine immanence at work, which Karl Rahner referred to as the “supernatural existential,” imparted to humanity by God’s grace, as God’s grace.

This grace, Rahner explains, “makes it possible for [the spiritual movement of mankind] to reach God in himself. Naturally, therefore, grace divines man and bestows upon him a share in the holiness of God.”(16) He further describes grace as the self-communication of God, and that this self-communication “stamps and determines man’s nature.”(17) Such is the supernatural existential. Henri De Lubac describes it as the “divine element which man’s effort cannot reach . . . but which unites itself to man, elevating him . . ., penetrating him in order to divinize him, and thus becoming as it were an attribute of the ‘new man’ described by St. Paul.”(18) It is “God’s gift [that] has been implanted in the depths of man’s nature.”(19) This supernatural existential, this divine immanence, paved the way for humanity to freely enter into relationship with God. The Cross altered human nature, restoring the image of God. Christ breathed God’s breath back into humanity, and solidified his Spirit inside all, making it forever possible for us to reach God.

Rahner goes on to say that the Cross made humans “subject to the universal salvific will of God, . . . redeemed and absolutely obliged to tend to this supernatural end. This . . . is an objective, ontological modification of man, added indeed to his nature by God’s grace and therefore supernatural.”(20) The Cross established an objective reality: the reconciliation and perfection of all of humanity. Christ has made us his own (Phil. 3:12); though we sin, we have been deemed saints (Rom. 1:7).

Thus, Christianity is about subjectively experiencing this objective reality: “We, then, who are perfect, let us think on that!” (Phil. 3:15);(21) “Let us live up to what we have already obtained” (v.16, NIV). This subjective experience can be described as the affirmative response to God’s initiative, to his Spirit dwelling inside us: “welcome with meekness the implanted word that has the power to save your souls” (Jas. 1:21). In our subjective experience of salvation, we make ourselves vulnerable and malleable to the Spirit. The kingdom of God is within us (Lk. 17:21), and we must say ‘Yes’ to the Spirit’s work so that the kingdom can be manifested in our lives.(22) 

Jesus said, “No one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn. 14:6). He also said that “No one can come to me except drawn by the Father who sent me” (6:44). And he also said that when he is lifted up from the earth, he will draw all people to himself (12:32). No one can come to the Father except through the Son; no one can come to the Son except by being drawn by the Father; and the Son is in the business of drawing all people to himself, through the work of the Spirit, who resides in us (Jn. 14:17; 1 Cor. 2:10–13).

Notes:
(1) Scripture quotations are from the NRSV unless otherwise noted.
(2) Jonathan Edwards, “God is Not the Author of Sin,” in Readings in Christian Thought, 2nd ed., ed. Hugh T. Kerr (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990), 203-204.
(3) See Greg Forster, The Joy of Calvinism: Knowing God's Personal, Unconditional, Irresistible, Unbreakable Love (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 35-39.
(4) Harold Knight, The Hebrew Prophetic Consciousness (London: Lutterworth Press, 1947), 9.
(5) Tremper Longman III states that “wisdom [was not understood as] the result of human effort, but rather [as] a gift . . . the gift of the spirit of God.” See “Spirit and Wisdom,” in Presence, Power and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament., eds. David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 109. John Levison echoes this understanding, stating that, to the ancient Hebrew mind, “wisdom belongs to the providence of the spirit within, of the influx of life that all humans receive.” See Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing, 2009), 66. He adds that “the language of filling [with the spirit] is not about a particular experience at a particular moment with an eye toward a particular task. . . . [Rather], filling is actually about fullness, about the expansiveness of the spirit within.” See 65–66.
(6) Richard E. Averbeck, “Breath, wind, spirit and Holy Spirit in the Old Testament,” in Presence, Power and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament., eds. David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 36.
For more on an Old Testament understanding of the Spirit of God, see Presence, Power and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, eds. David G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2011), Wilf Hildebrandt, An Old Testament Theology of the Spirit of God (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995), John R. Levison, Filled with the Spirit, Leon J. Wood, The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), and Christopher J. H. Wright, Knowing the Holy Spirit through the Old Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006).
(7) Knight, 31.
(8) Levison, 67. Also see p. 81.
(9) For a more thorough overview, see R. C. Sproul, “Humanity’s Radical Corruption,” in What is Reformed Theology? Understanding the Basics, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), 117–138. Also, Edwin H. Palmer, “Total Depravity,” in The Five Points of Calvinism, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1972), 11–28, and, David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn, “Total Depravity or Total Inability,” in The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented, 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2004), 18–26.
(10) Karl Barth, The Doctrine of Reconciliation, Vol. 4.1:57-59 of Church Dogmatics, eds. G.W. Bromily and T.F. Torrance, trans. G.W. Bromily (New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 89.
(11) Hans Urs von Balthasar, Origen, Spirit and Fire: A Thematic Anthology of His Writings, trans. Robert J. Daly (Washington D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1984), 195.
(12) Vernon Grounds, “God’s Universal Salvific Grace,” in Grace Unlimited, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1975), 24.
(13) Norman Geisler, “God Knows All Things,” in Predestination & Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom, eds. David Basinger and Randall Basinger (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 66.
(14) H. Wheeler Robinson, The Christian Doctrine of Man, 3rd ed. (Edingburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1926), 194.
(15) Abraham Joshua Heschel, God in Search of Man (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1983), 129.
(16) Karl Rahner, Experience of the Spirit: Source of Theology, Vol. 16 of Theological Investigations, trans. David Morland (New York: Crossroad, 1983), 40.
(17) Karl Rahner, “Anonymous Christians,” in Vol. 6 of Theological Investigations, trans. Graham Harrison (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1972), 394.
(18) Henri De Lubac, A Brief Catechesis on Nature & Grace, trans. Richard Arnandez (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1984), 41.
(19) Ibid., 85.
(20) Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler, Theological Dictionary, ed. Cornelius Ernst, trans. Richard Strachan (New York: Herder and Herder, 1965), 161.
(21) This is Karl Barth’s translation of the verse. See his Epistle to the Philippians, 40th anniversary ed., trans. James W. Leitch (Lousiville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 111. I believe it to be the most accurate translation given the message of the context and the statement in the following verse.
(22) See Rahner and Vorgimler, “Grace,” in Theological Dictionary, 196.

The Eucharist as a Model for Money Management

Yesterday, I posed a question on facebook: "What would it look like to use the Last Supper as a model for money management?" This question was inspired by Walter Brueggemann, who says that Christ's "narrative of abundance" is captured by Eucharist, in which all are undeserving, equal partakers of God's gift. What would it look like if we applied the logic of this sacrament to our budgeting?

Eucharist budgeting begins with thankfulness

If one models one's budget off of the last supper, one will begin by establishing that all wealth is a gift from God, for which we should be thankful. In all accounts, Jesus began the last supper by giving thanks (Mk. 14:22; Matt. 26:26; Lk. 22:17), so we should begin our budget by recognizing the nature of our wealth as the abundance of God and then we should practice gratitude, thanking God for every dollar (for more on thankfulness, see my blog on the subject, here).

Jesus modeled Eucharist resource management in the miracles in which he fed thousands. In the last supper, Jesus blessed, broke and gave the bread. In the miracle stories, he blessed, broke and gave the food (Matt. 14:19; Mk. 6:41; Lk. 9:16; Mk. 8:6; Matt. 15:36). I think in those miracle stories, Jesus was conducting the Eucharist on a grand scale; thus, it benefits us to talk about these miracles.

Acknowledgement of the abundance of God counters the natural way one approaches budgeting. One would usually approach a budget the way Phillip approached feeding the 5,000: "It would take more than half a year’s wages to buy enough bread for each one to have a bite!" (Jn. 6:7; Mk. 6:37). Or how the disciples responded to Jesus: "We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish" (Matt. 14:17; Lk. 9:13).

Jesus, on the other hand, saw the abundance, amid what seemed like scarcity. With only a few loaves and a few fish prepared for thousands of people, several baskets were left over.

After Jesus fed thousands for the second time, he got in a boat with his disciples. They realized that they had forgotten to bring bread. How disappointing. Jesus then asked them, "Do you still not understand?" (Mk. 8:21). Are you really still living in scarcity? Do you still not see the abundance?

Eucharist budgeting receives wealth as the abundance of God

The last supper was made up of disciples receiving the sacrifice that Jesus made for them. We received God's gift to us. Likewise, we should receive God's gift to us as we design our budgets.

"Take and eat," said Jesus to his disciples in the last supper (Matt. 26:26). Similarly, in the miracle stories, "they all ate and were satisfied" (Mk. 6:42; Matt. 14:20; Lk. 9:17; Mk. 8:8; Matt. 15:37). We all have needs, desires and interests. God wants to satisfy them. He wants to bless us. He wants us to experience abundance; he wants us to realize the abundance that we are already subjected to. So we must receive it. We must take and eat.

In the process of distributing your wealth to the various needs and desires reflected in your budget, think of it as taking and eating what God has abundantly given. Receive it with thankfulness.

Eucharist budgeting gives selflessly

In the Eucharist, Jesus is not simply giving the disciples food to eat, he is pointing to the Cross, in which he would give himself up for them completely. Likewise, our actions should point to the Cross. As Jesus' blood was "poured out for many" (Mk. 14:24; Matt. 26:28; Lk. 22:20), so our lives should be poured out for many; and this most definitely includes our money management. 

In the miracle story, Jesus told his disciples, "You give them something to eat" (Matt. 14:16; Mk. 6:37; Lk. 9:13). I think Christ has this message to all people: You give them something to eat.

Jesus told his disciples in the last supper, "do this in remembrance of me" (Lk. 22:19). Jesus gave himself to the disciples, and they received. Now, they are to give themselves to others for them to receive. 

In Luke's record of the last supper, Jesus says something quite profound:

The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. You are those who have stood by me in my trials. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom. (22:25-30a)

It is amazing that this passage, one that completely runs counter to the capitalist society we live in, is said immediately following the Eucharist sacrament. The Eucharist calls us to an alternative Kingdom, in which the goal is to be emptied and lowly (cf. Phil. 2:5-11). With the last supper, Jesus placed on his disciples the responsibility of embodying the Kingdom of God, which belongs to the poor (Lk. 6:20). Our budgets should reflect that Kingdom, and not the capitalist society that surrounds us.

Next time you work on your budget, consider following the last supper: give thanks, bless your wealth, receive it as the abundance of God, let is satisfy you, and then give.

The Counter-World of Thankfulness

Walter Brueggemann describes the narrative of abundance, in which Jesus has invited us to participate, as made of up thankfulness, contentment, generosity, and peacefulness.  This counters what Brueggemann calls the narrative of accumulation, which starts with an ideology of scarcity that leads to anxiety, selfish accumulation, monopoly and, ultimately, violence. I believe thankfulness is the key to the practice of the narrative of abundance, and the eradication of the narrative of accumulation.

Thankfulness leads to contentment.

This becomes obvious to all who practice it. When we take the time to "count our blessings," our eyes are opened to the abundance with which God has blessed us. Anyone can take part in this. Anyone can see it. From the saddest part of the ghetto to Park Ave in New York City, all who practice thankfulness will realize abundance, and will find themselves in the hammock of contentment. Scarcity says "there is not enough"; thankfulness says, "look how much there is!" Scarcity says "I need!"; thankfulness says "I have." An ideology of scarcity results in dissatisfaction; thankfulness results in fulfillment.

Thankfulness leads to generosity.

Because thankfulness opens one up to abundance; because it emphasizes how much one has rather than what one is lacking, thankfulness naturally leads to generosity. Scarcity leads one to anxiety, in which one does not have enough and must acquire more. This anxiety leads to accumulation; all eyes are on the needs, desires, and interests of one's self. Thankfulness is the opposite; in causing one to realize the abundance one is subject to, the contentment one experiences as a result will inspire a sharing of the abundance. When one realizes abundance, one realizes that there is all that is needed and more; thus, there is enough for others. Contentment and gratitude naturally inspire generosity. Try it.

Thankfulness leads to peacefulness.

Recently, my small group engaged in a night of thankfulness. We went around the room and all said 1 thing for which we are thankful. Then, we went around again and said 2 things. We worked all the way up to 8! Inspired by all the thanksgiving, we decided to go around the room and say what we're thankful for about all the others in the room. All of us together shared in the abundance, and this resulted in a peace that simply could not be surpassed. The recognition of abundance and the practice of generosity will always lead to peace.

If you find yourself engaging in an ideology of scarcity, in which you think you do not have enough, in which you focus on your needs and how you are going to acquire them, practice thankfulness. This will open your eyes to God's abundance and will lead you to contentment, generosity, and peace.

I cannot imagine a more powerful, more easy-to-use weapon against all the negativity of evil.

"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes?

Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?

Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life? And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith?

So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." (Matt. 6:24-33)

"Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others." (Phil. 2:3-4)

"Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God." (Phil. 4:6)

"Thou hast turned my mourning into dancing; Thou hast loosed my sackcloth and girded me with gladness; That [my] soul may sing praise to Thee, and not be silent. O LORD my God, I will give thanks to Thee forever." (Ps. 30:11-12)

"Everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer." (I Tim. 4:4-5)

"In everything give thanks; for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus." (I Thess. 5:18)

"Always give thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Eph. 5:20)

"Whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." (Col. 3:17)  

What are you thankful for? (Please share in the comment box)

Like what you're reading? Listen to Walter Brueggemann's 5-part lecture on the narrative of accumulation vs. the narrative of abundance here (episodes 255, 254, 253, 252, & 250). For an overview, go here.

Truth Amid 7 Billion Protagonists: The Reality of Pluralism and the Impossibility of Certainty

I don't remember how old I was, but I know I was really young when I had the realization that I am not the only protagonist in this world. It was mind-boggling for me to realize that people experience life in the same subjective way that I do, except with different thoughts and feelings. I am the protagonist of my story, and other people are supporting characters and extras in that story. Likewise, you, reader, are the protagonist of your story, and I am a character in that story. It's like in 30 Rock when Tracy Jordan says, "When I go to sleep, nothing happens in the world." I realized the utter falsity of this statement. This realization was quite daunting for me. I found out, quite literally, that the world does not revolve around me (the picture to the left captures my reaction to this realization)

This would, much later, lead me to discovering the realty of pluralism. At a young age, perhaps younger than I was when I realized I am not the only protagonist in the world, I had a thought that made me feel quite cool: "I am smarter than Albert Einstein, because I know that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior." It was a hard day for my faith when I realized that this isn't true either. Mormons think they have the universal truth, and that I need to be converted to their way of thinking. Atheists think they know the truth, and I need to come to their conclusions. There are 7 billion protagonists in this world, and they all, in one way or another, have a claim to truth, and all our claims differ in a multitude of ways. I could be wrong, and someone else could be right.

I'm not smarter than Einstein simply because I believe Jesus is my savior. Einstein was a pretty smart dude. Richard Dawkins is a smart guy. He's not dumb. He believes he's right, and I believe I'm right; and, as is said in Fiddler on the Roof, "He's right, and he's right? They can't both be right."

I don't know how many people have had both of these realizations. I have just assumed that everyone has, but I have found that to be mistaken. One guy I know didn't have the first realization until he was in college! For me, it was a part of growing up; I just woke up to it one day. I don't know if it's the same way with everyone, but I'm beginning to think it just isn't.

My point in saying all this is to introduce a discussion on faith and certainty. Sometimes, a conversation arises in which I share with people the fact that I fear death. Most of the Christians I say this to get confused: "But you're going to Heaven. Why are you afraid to die?" To which I say, "Well, yah, I believe I am going to Heaven. But I don't know 100% that I am going to Heaven. We Christians could be wrong." This almost always confuses them even more. They often take it as a weakness in my faith, because faith is so often held as synonymous with certainty. The International Standard Version of the Bible translates Hebrews 11:1 as saying, "faith is the assurance that what we hope for will come about and the certainty that what we cannot see exists." This is a poor translation, and most translations rightfully do not translate elenchos as 'certainty'.

Certainty is a feeling and cannot actually exist. When it comes to what is objectively true, we can't be 100% certain, which is why faith is necessary. This is very postmodern of me, but it's true. I believe Christianity is true, but I could be wrong. Atheists could be right. Because there are those possibilities, neither of us can claim to be certain about what the truth is. We can feel certain, and often do, but that doesn't make what we believe objectively true.

In science, theories, laws, and facts are all considered subject to the possibility of falsification. We simply cannot be certain of even the most basic facts. We can't even prove that reality exists beyond our minds. The simple fact that there are other creatures that see more colors than we do should tell us that we can't be 100% certain about what we perceive to be true. Thus, faith is absolutely essential, it is the starting point of every ideology. To quote Einstein (who was much smarter than I), "There is no logical path leading to [universal] laws [from which a picture of the world can be obtained]. They are only to be reached by intuition, based upon something like an intellectual love."(1) Lesslie Newbigin equates this 'intellectual love' with faith.(2)

I should clarify that I am not advocating strict pluralism or relativism, which maintains that truth is completely relative and whatever we believe is true determines what actually is true ("He's right and he's right? They can't both be right"). There is no true-for-you vs. true-for-me; objective truth exists, but, as 1 Cor. 13:12 says, we see things as in a mirror dimly, only knowing in part, but some day we shall know fully, seeing face to face. This verse should cause us to abandon all claims to certainty, but rather, humbly claim the truth of Christianity through faith.

I think it is about time the church recognizes the reality of pluralism, and instead of demanding that Christians adhere to certainty, and frowning upon all forms of doubt, we should humbly acknowledge our inability to know anything, and instead display with reason that the Gospel is preferable within the limited framework that we have for understanding our world.(3) All good thinkers will acknowledge that we can’t be certain of anything but simply have to do the best with what we have; Christians should do the same. As Paul Tillich said, we should "act as if it [is] possibly the case that [our] beliefs [are] false."(4)

The Christian approach to the pluralistic world before us should acknowledge the subjective nature of truth claims; not just the claims of our own, but also those of others. So if we say subjective truth claim vs. subjective truth claim, that ought to put us and the rest of the world on a level playing field. We can then ask, "Which narrative is more worthy of your faith?" and can make a case for embracing the Christian narrative.

Notes:
(1) Albert Einstein, quoted in Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1989), 31.
(2) Ibid.
(3) On the subject of faith vs. certainty and doubt as a tool for Christian thinking, see Gregory A. Boyd, The Benefit of the Doubt: Breaking the Idol of Certainty (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013).
(4) Paul Tillich, quoted in Newbigin, 42.

Limited Atonement for the Whole World: Calvinist Interpretations of 1 John 2:2

"[Jesus] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2

The Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement states that Jesus did not die for the salvation of the whole world, but only for a chosen few, the elect. Thus, this verse presents a significant problem for them. I have asked several Calvinist friends of mine to send me their interpretations of this verse and how they reconcile it with their belief in limited atonement. These are their contributions:

Argument 1. The English-speaking reader may be tempted to use 1 John 2:2 as a proof-text against Reformed theology. The original Greek confutes this interpretation. In Greek, the word for "world" is κοσμος (kosmos); and its meaning is narrower in Greek than in English. My Greek dictionary notes that the word κοσμος is often used "[h]yperbolically," to mean "the multitude," or "metaphorically, that is openly." Let's consider another context in which the Apostle John uses this word. In John 7:4, Jesus' brothers tell him to go to the Feast of Booths in Jerusalem and "show thyself to the world [κοσμος]." Or consider John 12:19: "So the Pharisees said to one another, '. . . Look, the world [κοσμος] has gone after him [Jesus]" (John 12:19). So if we know a little bit of Greek, it will show that 1 John 2:2 can't be used as a proof text for either side of the predestination debate. When John says that Christ's blood is the propitiation for the sins of the κοσμος, he could mean "all mankind"; or he could mean "many others," or "even the Gentiles," or "even Christians outside our church," or "the multitudes for many generations to come."

There are two giant problems with his assessment of this verse. First, he is correct in saying that κοσμος does not necessarily have to refer to the universe or world as it does for the English word 'cosmos'. However, the word often does refer to the universe (Matt. 13:35).(1) Just because it doesn't have to refer to the universe does not mean that we shouldn't interpret it that way. The word must be defined by its context. In this case, there is another word that Eric completely ignores that helps define for us what κοσμος is supposed to mean here, which leads me to my second point:

He pays no attention to the Greek word ὅλου (holos), which means 'whole', 'all', or 'entire'. This serves to strengthen κοσμο, making it holos kosmos, the entire world, all of creation, the whole cosmos. Thus, we can't just say that this could be referring to "many others" or "even the Gentiles" (which John most certainly would have said if that is what he meant) or "even Christians outside the church" or "the multitudes for many generations to come." We have to take it to mean what it is clearly telling us: Jesus was the atoning sacrifice for the whole world.

Argument 2. I see any attempt to interpret "the whole world" as "every human being that ever lived" as endorsing universalism; how could those whose sins are paid for (including the sin of unbelief) and have Christ praying for them still perish? And what of those biblical groups of people that certainly seem damned (the many "ites" God had Israel slaughter in the OT, the Pharaohs, etc.); has Christ propitiated God’s wrath towards them and does He now pray for them?

That aside, I will say the text does not explicitly refer to the elect, as many Calvinists say. However, it also does not explicitly refer to a conditional group of people who accept God’s free gift of salvation through faith either, which many Arminians would offer. The term must be more generic then, "referring not to every single individual, but to mankind in general."(2)

I respect that he is honest about what this verse appears to be saying. However, his reason for interpreting it to be referring to "mankind in general" is quite weak. If it is referring to the whole world, he says, this implies universalism; thus, John is probably speaking generically. This is the problem with approaching the text with a preconceived theology: the text can no longer speak for itself, but has to fit in with the doctrinal framework through which it is being read.

That being said, he is mistaken in saying that the verse implies universalism. We just need to recognize the objective vs. subjective nature that characterizes salvation in the New Testament. That is, salvation is described as something that has already been accomplished objectively, but must be received subjectively in order for it to be manifested in one's life. Unfortunately, I do not have the space to make a comprehensive case for this. I have made a case for this in an article I am currently trying to get published, and in a research paper that I plan to post here. For a brief treatment of it, see my blog "Concerning the Nature of Faith and Works" (here). Suffice it to say, this verse does not have to imply universalism. Rather than dismiss this verse because it seems to, one has to re-work their doctrinal framework to include the claim of this verse. Limited atonement simply does not fit. There is nothing limited about an atonement that is for the holos kosmos.

Argument 3. 1 John 2:2 is a beautiful and comforting passage dedicated to the assurance we have in Christ Jesus. While some have attempted to twist this passage in favor of an Arminian soteriology, it is crucial to note that John is not explaining the process of the atonement, but rather he is reaffirming basic Christian truths for the comfort of the doubting believer. Anticipating the slant of this blog post, however, it would seem less appropriate to expound upon the unwavering promises of God, and more fitting to address the heretical view that leads some to believe in unlimited atonement. The cold, hard truth is that the verse never says that every individual can or will be saved by their own will. Instead, we are told that Christ's death transcends the Israelites, God's former people. It also deserves to be said that a generally sound rule of hermaneutics is not to build a doctrine upon one verse. Sole use of 1 John 2:2 to establish unlimited atonement flies in the face of myriad other passages such as John 10:11, Mathew 25:31-46, Ephesians 5:25, and Acts 20:28 - all of which plainly depict Christ as dying for the elect or His church. My hope is that we will be able to reclaim this beautiful promise of our Lord for the assurance that it will have in our lives - that God's people are not restricted to one nationality, but are literally of the whole world.

There are a number of things to be said about this approach. 1) Whether John is "explaining the process of the atonement" or "reaffirming basic Christian truths," the message of the verse remains the same: salvation is not just for us, but the entire world. 2) I find it baffling that he calls it a "cold, hard truth" that the verse does not point to unlimited atonement, yet he can't justify this exegetically at all. This leads me to 3) his conclusion is a very weak interpretation of the verse. He reduces the all-inclusiveness of this verse to saying that "Christ's death transcends the Israelites." Israelite-Gentile inclusion in the gospel is not the issue here. Nor is John talking solely to jews. He is addressing a church. Furthermore, John is not thinking in limited terms at all. If there is a cold hard truth here, it is that Jesus died for the whole world. This overrules any notion of limited atonement.

[Side note: I am not, as he accuses, forming a doctrine off of this one verse. I have made a case for inclusivism here and universal reconciliation here and here. The point of focusing on this verse now is because I think it makes belief in limited atonement impossible. There are others, but this is the strongest one, the one I still think cannot be reconciled with the L in TULIP.]

Finally, 4) The verses he cites as supporting the doctrine of limited atonement/election don't even come close to doing so:

John 10:11: Talk about not explaining the process of the atonement, this verse doesn't deal with it at all! Jesus says that he lays down his life for his sheep. Does that mean he was the atoning sacrifice for only his sheep? No, it means he sacrifices himself for his sheep, whether that is on the cross, or in their daily lives (like he did for his disciples). Are his sheep a select group of people chosen before the foundations of the world to be saved? Nowhere is that implied, and it cannot be deduced from this verse.

Matt. 25:31-46: Separating the sheep from the goats does not even begin to imply that Christ only died for a few people that he chose from eternity. This simply implies that there will come a day when he will separate those that chose to follow him, and those who rejected him.

Ephesians 5:25: So Christ gave himself up for the church...and? The verse doesn't imply that it was solely for the church, nor does it imply that the church is made up of people that were elected for salvation before time began. And again, for someone who criticizes use of a verse that doesn't explain the atonement to form atonement doctrine, he doesn't seem too concerned about not doing so himself. This verse has very little to do with the atonement.

Acts 20:28: Again, why does Christ dying for the church imply that he only died for a select group of people and not for the whole world? This verse does not rule out unlimited atonement at all. If I save 10 people from a burning house, and 2 of them go back to their families and say "John Daniel saved us from the burning fire," it would be ridiculous to conclude from that that they were the only ones I saved. What makes this more ridiculous is that 1 John 2:2 explicitly says that it wasn't just for the church, but for the whole world!

Think you can do better than these guys? Send me your approach to this verse at johndanielwashere@gmail.com

Notes:
(1) See Hermann Sasse's contribution on kosmos to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 3, 867-898.
(2) John MacArthur, The Macarthur Bible Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005), 1952. 

Petitionary Prayer: What is it Good for?

Prayer is often thought to be something that doesn't affect what will actually turn out. Because God already knows what he is going to do, so it is said, prayer is for our benefit, our own change, rather than changing what will occur.

Prayer is also often treated like a vending machine; insert a prayer, out comes a blessing. God is a genie in a bottle, to whom we can go to with any request for him to fill.

With these construals of prayer, it is widely taken for granted or trivialized. I often get the feeling in prayer groups that we're all praying for stuff to happen but we don't actually think anything is going to come from it.

Prayer has become a ritual to which we ascribe power on a surface level, but we don't use it in such a way that we take seriously the power it has.

A problem I think we have is that we pray without acknowledging any limits to our prayers, resulting in unrealistic prayers. Treating God like a genie in a bottle who can do anything for us trivializes prayer, because it doesn't ring true. We don't experience prayer that way. I do not experience the effectiveness of my prayers the same way I experience the effectiveness of a dollar when I use it to buy a Coke from a vending machine. Because of the dissonance between idea and experience--between what is thought about prayer and what the reality is--the power of prayer is demeaned, and prayer becomes just something that we do. Ask for it in prayer because that's what Christians do, but don't expect anything.

I think this trivialization could be changed if we thought about prayer more realistically. In an attempt to do so, I would like to highlight a couple of major limitations on prayer that we seldom acknowledge.

Disclaimer: Talk of what God can or cannot do must not be taken to mean I am questioning God's actual ability. I assume God's omnipotence. However, there are certain things God cannot do within the framework which he himself has set--that is, within the boundaries he set on himself and the natural order. There's a difference between the power God possesses and the power he exercises.

1. God cannot violate the free will of human beings

By saying 'Yes' to free will for humans, God inevitably said 'No' to absolute control; he chose to give humans quite a bit of control over what occurs. Thus, when we pray, we must take into account that God cannot just do anything we ask of him. Consider David Basinger's words:

God so values the inherent integrity of significant human freedom . . . that he will not as a general rule force his created moral agents to perform actions that they do not freely desire to perform. . . . [I] doubt that he would override the freedom of one individual primarily because he was freely asked to do so by another.(1)

For example, if a friend of mine is going into a job interview, I cannot realistically pray that God will simply have the employer hire him/her, as if God is going to overrule the employer's free will and give my friend a job. Put yourself in the employer's position; would God override your freedom and control your actions to accomplish a certain end?

We do not see God doing this in Scripture. Consider these examples:

All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations. Isaiah 65:2

I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?' Ezekiel 33:11

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. Matthew 23:37

The Pharisees and the experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves. Luke 7:30

You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Acts 7:51

These verses point to the reality of human freedom, and how often that freedom can oppose the will of God; and if God wants people to have freedom, there's only so much he can do in a particular situation.

2. God cannot violate the free will of spiritual beings

This one is often overlooked by Christians, but it's a big one. Walter Wink says,

Prayer involves not just God and people, but God and people and the Powers. What God is able to do in the world is hindered, to a considerable extent, by the rebelliousness, resistance, and self-interest of the Powers exercising their freedom under God.(2)

A striking example of this is found in Daniel 10, in which an angel comes to Daniel in a vision and says:

Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. vv.12-13

This passage tells us that, when Daniel prayed, an angel was dispatched to meet his need, but was held up by an evil being! And it was so bad that had to call in for back-up. This, he says, is why it took so long for Daniel's prayer to be addressed.

Have you ever heard that passage talked about in a sermon on prayer? It gives us an incredibly different picture of the power of prayer than the one we so often engage. Prayer is not simply asking God for things. Prayer is spiritual warfare! Our prayers are spiritual contributions to the victory of the kingdom of God over evil. With prayer, we add oil to the Kingdom fire.

An Alternative View of Prayer

God is always doing everything he can to bring good out of every situation (Rom. 8:28). Terence Fretheim notes that to say God intervenes is a mistake, because it implies, "that God is not normally present but intervenes now and then with a goody or a baddy."(3) Subjectively, it may seem like God intervenes, but in such cases, our eyes are being opened to what God is always doing, or trying to do. As Greg Boyd says, "God sovereignly influences the whole process, working to bring about as much good and to prevent as much evil as possible."(4) William Hasker describes several ways God does this:

There are circumstances which God is able to arrange. There are the influences coming from other persons who are in tune with God's purposes in a situation. And above all, there is the 'internal operation of the Holy Spirit,' working within a person's mind and will in ways we only dimly understand. God respects us, but he does not 'leave us alone' to make our decision in isolation from his loving concern for us.(5)

Given this framework, our prayers create opportunity through which God can work; they create possibilities that were not possible before we prayed. As Boyd says,

By God's own design, [prayer] functions as a crucial constituent in the 'givens' of any particular situation that makes it possible for God more intensely to steer a situation to his desired end.(6)

Or, in Fretheim's words, "prayers make available to God some new ingredients . . . with which to work the divine will into a situation."(7) Put another way, Clark Pinnock says that prayer "expands God's effective presence in the world."(8) This is what we provide as vessels of the Holy Spirit.

Challenge

When you pray, think about how you are praying. Consider the fact that your prayer actually has power to affect what happens, and let that acknowledgement inspire you to pray realistically, taking the free wills of others into account.

This may sound like it limits prayer, but I think if we begin to pray realistically, we will start to pray more fervently and effectively, because it will teach us to pray for things in such a way that we acknowledge our prayer can affect what happens, instead of merely praying ritualistically.

Acknowledging parameters on how we pray will keep us from taking prayer for granted or trivializing it, and will expand our understanding of the power of prayer.

For further reading:
Gregory A. Boyd, "Praying in the Whirlwind," in Satan and the Problem of Evil (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 209-241.
Terence Fretheim, "Divine Dependence on the Human: An Old Testament Perspective." Ex Auditu 13 (1997): 1-13.
Vincent Brümmer, "Praying for Things to Happen," in What Are We Doing When We Pray? rev. ed. (Burlington, Ashgate, 2008), 33-81.

Notes:
(1) David Basinger, "Practical Implications," in The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 160-161.
(2) Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 311.
(3) This was said in a presentation Terence Fretheim gave called "Divine-Human Relationship," which can be found on Itunes U. 
(4) Gregory A. Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 237.
(5) William Hasker, Providence, Evil and the Openness of God (New York: Routledge, 2004), 224.
(6) Boyd, 231.
(7) Terence Fretheim, "Divine Dependence on the Human: An Old Testament Perspective." Ex Auditu 13 (1997), 2.
(8) Clark Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 173.