So this is the first in a series of what I’m expecting will be 5 posts, maybe more. There’s two reasons for me taking time to investigate / discuss / ramble on these five topics; firstly the issues covered in this acronym are fundamental for my understanding of some of my previous posts and is something that I’ve come to accept largely through my upbringing and a few ‘key’ verses, rather than an in-depth study of the issues. Secondly, I’ve been ‘challenged’ to blog about a specific question: “How can we reconcile an acceptance of the Total Depravity of man, with the fact that non-Christians do objectively good things?” – thanks Mr. Spear. However, rather than simply addressing one specific question I’d like to take some time to cover the whole ‘flower’ and try and understand Mr. Calvin a bit better.

Thought I should do a bit of research first*…
So Calvin never actually wrote “the 5 points of Calvinism”, this is how they came about… There was a Dutch theologian guy called Jacobus Arminius, after his death in 1610 a group of his Dutch protestant supporters called the Remonstrants put forward 5 articles explaining how they were distancing themselves from Calvinism. So then in 1618 at the Synod of Dort, members of the Dutch Reformed church met and responded to the Remonstrants with TULIP. Rather than being an overview of Calvin’s theology it was simply a point-by-point response to the Arminians, but obviously the response comes explicitly or at least implicitly from Calvin’s writings, and with support from Scripture – apparently Calvin wrote a commentary on every book of the Bible, except Revelation, saying it was too difficult – you’ have thought he might have had a go at writing something…

Arminianism

that the divine decree of predestination is conditional, not absolute;

that the Atonement is in intention universal;

that man cannot of himself exercise a saving faith;

that though the grace of God is a necessary condition of human effort it does not act irresistibly in man

that believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace.

Calvinism

Total Depravity

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement

Irresistible Grace

Perseverance of the Saints

If I decide that I still agree with TULIP, I may then have to consider the implications, right or wrong of choosing an Arminian understanding instead. People generally say (except for uber-reformed people) that it’s a good thing that Calvinists and Arminianists can still unite around the core truths of the gospel – I may also want to examine this. Anyway… this seems like quite a long introductory post – I suspect the next 5/6 will be longer!

* this research is based on the premise that Wikipedia really is infallible

Annoyed because I stupidly deleted the database which holds all the posts on this blog. Don’t know how many I wrote but they’ve been deleted from back when I started in October 2005. Further annoyed because my webhost seems to write over their backups every 24 hours…

The good news is that I’ve been able to recover some of my more interesting posts (my opinion) from Facebook and from Google cache… which is amazing, the mind boggles at how much server space Google must have. So anyway, I got my Bulgaria diary back and a few “Theological Ramblings” as I’ve now entitled that category. In some ways my stuidity has been a blessing as it has enabled me to purge most of the rubbish stuff about how uneventful my life is… hoorah!

5 Days… and then Word Alive!

Ricky Gervais meets Richard Curtis

Ricky in Africa

Was good to see Extras series 2 last night. I missed this first episode with David Bowie last time round and was possibly the most painful one to watch… it is comedy genius, the scary thing is how much Ricky Gervais is like Brent and Millman.

On the theme of debunking clichés here is my next post… Hell is often described as being a place where people go to be in permanent separation from God, cut off from his goodness. Seems reasonable, surely Hell is the opposite of Heaven, the opposite of all that God stands for? Well yes I agree, but what does the Bible say about Hell? It’s very easy to get drawn into accepting these clichés, partly because we’ve grown up with them, but shouldn’t we take the time to consider if they’re actually true? Sure, they sound well and good, but do the match up with the reality of God’s revelation in the Bible?

Over the summer of 2006 I went to help out on a CYFA camp called Sparkford 2. One topic which we covered there was ‘Heaven and Hell’, and one passage in Revelation turned my understanding of Hell on it’s head!

“And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.” – Revelation 14:9-10

A few things to note… first, it is God’s wrath coming to those in rebellion against Him, an active judgement from God. Second, we’re given the picture of hell – “tormented with fire and sulfur” – this is God’s judgement. Third, see who else is there, in hell – God’s judgement is in the presence of the holy angels and the Lamb (Jesus).
Wow! But surely Jesus isn’t in hell, surely God doesn’t actively torment people in hell? Well, I suppose if we are to accept what the Bible (and especially this verse) says then the answer to these two questions must be yes. So does this make God into some sadistic monster? Well no, for a start God is God, who am I as the creation to question the Creator? God isn’t a monster, simply because of the Gospel, Jesus came to seek and save what was lost.

So where does this leave us? I hope it shouldn’t change our view of God’s character, as long as we understand the wrath and judgement are very much a part of it. Rather I think it should change our understanding of hell. Hell is not simply a place devoid of God or goodness, it’s not a spiritual limbo, it’s not simply death… BUT, hell is where God demonstrates his eternal judgement. God’s judgement is to be praised and worshipped because it brings glory to his character – so should we in fact be delighting in hell, as the glorious display of God’s justice??

Somewhat relatedly… I had a brief chat with a friend the other week on the subject of Anhilationism – it’s a nice thought, it makes God seem nicer somehow, it makes the difficult questions go away, but I can’t see what grounding it has in the Bible? I may have to investigate and do a post on that. Having now all but finished this term I’m going to make an effort to do some reading (possibly followed by blogging) to try and understand things a bit better. Just reading some extracts from Jonathan Edwards… he seems to address issues covered here and in the previous post… hmmm..

Don’t you love it when you get thinking about a topic which just goes and blows your mind? This frequently happens when I think about God’s character, particularly in matters of God’s sovereignty and judgement, although I suspect there may be another post brewing on the subject of Guidance after brief discussions with the Vicar and a service coming up at church on Sunday. But anyhow…

It’s often said when explaining God’s judgement (in simple terms) that God “hates the sin, but loves the sinner” – on two occasions recently when this has come up in discussions with Christians, I have suggested that this statement is really just a cliche, which ultimately is theologically wrong, based on how we want to perceive God, rather than how He reveals himself in scripture. The first such occasion led to a rather lively debate and someone walking out of church, the second led to me being accused of being heretical… better than apathy I suppose.The source of this debate in my mind stems from three sources; firstly the nature of God’s judgement in the cross as discussed in the Chalke atonement debate, second a truer understanding of God’s judgement in looking at Heaven and Hell at Sparky 2 in the summer – this might need a post as well, as it has an equally controversial answer to another popular cliche…, third comes specifically from a sermon preached by Mark Driscoll on Propitiation on his series “Christ on the Cross” which I should probably listen to some more of them (there’s 8 of them) – apparently people heckled and walked out of some of his sermons.So essentially what I’m saying (as is Mark Driscoll) is that God hates sinners! To which the immediate response is, after the shock at my apparent hereticalness, is to quote John 3:16 or similar. Sure, there’s lots of verses that apparently contradict what I’ve just said, which for now I’ll ignore and address after… So what does the Bible say to make me say what I say… in talking about ’sinners’:

• “Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal, I hated them there” – Hosea 9:15
• “…you hate all who do wrong” – Psalm 5:5
• “but Esau I have hated…” – Malachi 1:3
• “You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate” – Rev 2:6

So clearly the expression of ‘hatred’ is part of God’s character. God hates all that is outside of his holiness. But more than that (certainly in the first 3 verses) God specifically hates the individual who goes against his holiness. You simply can’t separate unholiness and an unholy person, you can’t separate the sin and the sinner – because actually what it boils down to is a problem of the human heart, a heart in rebellion against God, not simply acts that God hates, but the heart, the individual who chooses to reject him (Matt 15:18 – Jesus talks about our heart problem).The first concern, might be to say that all the scriptures (1-3, specific to the individual) are from the Old Testament – are we talking about a different God?? Simply I would say; these are the scriptures that Jesus used and referred to (also Paul quotes Malachi 1 in Romans), “all scripture is God breathed and useful for…”, and lastly we often sing “Yesterday, today and forever, you are the same you never change…” – if we’re going to sing it we need to believe it, and believe it consistently, even if it challenges what we think we believe.So how do we reconcile a God who “hates sinners” with John 3:16, with Romans 5:8?? For me the issue is complicated somewhat by my understanding of election. It’s taken on to a new level to say that before time began God chose people that he would send to hell, for his glory (Rom 9:22) – God clearly hates them, his passion for holiness demands it, but did God ever love these people, was love ever offered, can hate and love co-exist? Scripture is clear of the co-existence of both God’s sovereign choice (election) and of human decision and therefore responsibility. So I guess that love most definitely was offered by God, but rejected by man.I suppose if I were to change the phrase I would say – “hate the sin, hate the sinner, love the sinner”. Maybe our feeble minds can’t understand it, maybe the English language isn’t sufficient, or maybe it’s a divine paradox, but I’m feeling that somehow God is able to simultaneously express hatred and love towards the sinner – I believe this all happens in the Cross.

Again another diversion pops into my head, if God’s love is ultimately expressed in the Cross, and I accept Calvin’s understanding of limited atonement (Jesus only died for the sins of those God had chosen – the elect) then does God hate/not love those who aren’t chosen, who Jesus didn’t die for… to which the answer is I don’t know, and it’s possibly not my place to know or even understand how an omni-xyz God works at this level…?
But anyhow, I got sidetracked… the Cross is a demonstration of God’s love and his hatred: his hatred burns against unholiness, this hatred comes in the form of a just and righteous punishment for sin, borne by Christ on the cross. Yes God did punish Jesus on the cross – in our place – it was our unholiness that was being punished as Christ chose to take God’s just anger on himself – click on the atonement post at the top if you disagree. If we understand God’s hatred of our rebellion against him, then surely rather than leading to questioning God’s character, it should lead us to rejoicing in his mercy shown on the cross all the more. Of course the love is obvious…

“Romans 5:8 – But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

In the context of this debate, this is what I think this verse means: “Though God rightly hates everything about us, everything stemming from a corrupted heart, a heart in rebellion against God and his goodness – God shows us in Christ’s death on the cross, that in spite of our rebellion his love for his creation compels him to step in and save us from our rebellion. NOT, because deep down we’re actually good people, not because we can separate sin from the sinner, BUT (Rom 9:23) that the riches of God’s glory may be made known to those he saves (objects of mercy).”

Whatever you think about what I’ve said about this ‘cliché’, whatever you think about atonement, whatever you think about election (and the rest of TULIP) the applications here are clear for us all:

• Understanding that we rightly deserve God’s righteous punishment for our rebellion
• Understanding that we have a ‘heart condition’ that can’t be fixed by doing good things (or not doing bad things)
• Being amazed at the awesomeness of the BIG God we serve
• Loving the Cross, where God demonstrates his mercy to us