Thursday, May 11, 2017

Reading Review: Calvinism in Baptist Churches

This is a short reading review that I did in Theology 2 Class for my undergrad at Central Baptist College. The article we had to review dealt with the history of Calvinism and Predestination as taught in the American Baptist churches.


I found Steve Lemke’s article “History or Revisionist History?” interesting and yet dizzying at the same time. With all of the various flavors of Baptists mentioned in the article—Southern Baptists, Calvinistic English Particular Baptist, General Baptist, etc.—I couldn’t help but think of the scene from Forrest Gump where Bubba describes the various recipes of shrimp!
            It’s a bit of an irony to me that a Baptist would write concerning other variations of the Baptist denomination in regards to who is more Calvinistic. What Lemke might want to research in regards to “History or Revisionist History” is the fact that John Calvin and his early followers persecuted the Anabaptist and Lollards. The act of “Anabaptism” or “re-baptism” of adults by immersion was a capital crime. Typically, Catholics condemned these sects to be burned at the stake, whereas Lutherans and Calvinists condemned them to drowning—apparently much more humane. John Calvin, himself, was instrumental in the condemnation of Michael Servetus, a modalistic Anabaptist who was burned at the stake for practicing “re-baptism” and authoring the book On the Errors of the Trinity. So, a Baptist’s appeal to Calvinism is just beyond me. It seems to me, if Baptists want to appeal to the roots of their denomination, they would reject the teachings of their forefathers’ persecutors, and line up to the theology of their martyrs.
            The whole Calvinism—Arminianism, East coast—West coast, mentality is just superfluous to me. Personally, I’m not concerned with how many points Calvin’s TULIPS have, or what the Philadelphia Confession or Second London Confession adopted. My theological views are based upon the Scriptures alone, not a creed or confession. If I understand correctly the history given in the article, the American Baptist churches have been at odds with one another concerning the doctrines of Calvinism and Arminianism since their beginnings. Some Baptists only teach three or four points of Calvin’s TULIP doctrine, whereas other Baptists (I’m assuming the BMA is one of them given what I’ve heard from professors at CBC) teach all five points as “the minimal threshold for Calvinism.” Lemke expressed, “Furthermore, many significant five-point Calvinist thinkers express nothing but disdain for four-point Calvinism” (p.230). This is kind of an oxymoron when you compare it to all five points of Calvinism. If the five-point TULIP doctrine is indeed the TRUTH, then the “irresistible grace” will draw all those who are predestinated to be saved into this “truth.” Which on the flip side would mean that those who never embraced the full five-point TULIP doctrine are/were apparently predestinated to be lost. This revolving proposition also opens the door to the question, “Does ‘irresistible grace’ allow for denominationalism?” In other words, does the “irresistible grace” call some believers to be Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, or even Oneness Pentecostals? Or do those that have been predestinated to be saved eventually become one of the five-point TULIP flavored Baptists? It seems like a circular proposition to me.
            I, of course, reject Calvinism i.e. the TULIP doctrine. I don’t claim to affirm Arminianism either, whether what I believe concerning the Scriptures is in harmony with this doctrine or not. Again, the theology I believe is not based upon creeds or confessions, but upon sola Scriptura—the Scriptures alone.
            The TULIP doctrine is an acronym or acrostic for: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints. I will briefly examine each of these points from a Scriptural perspective.
 
 
TOTAL DEPRAVITY: In Calvinism, Total Depravity doesn’t just mean that mankind is depraved in the sense of being sinners or that all are sinners. Rather, Calvinism teaches a form of “Total Inability” in that man cannot come to God of his own free will for salvation. This totally denies the Scriptural aspect of Obedience to the Gospel. 2 Thess 1:8 clearly teaches that when Christ returns He will take vengeance upon those who have not obeyed the Gospel. Acts 6:7 describes those who were “obedient to the faith.” Whereas Romans 10:16 describes those that are not obedient to the Gospel. This is the same word (hupakouō) used in regards to servants obeying masters and children obeying parents (Col. 3:20-22). Salvation is a free choice (Rev. 22:17).
 
 
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION: Calvinism teaches that God has already chosen those who are to be saved, and those who are predestinated to be lost. To borrow a political statement, according to Calvinism: “Some lives matter!” 2 Peter 3:9 states that God is not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should COME to repentance. The active voice in chōrēnsai (come) puts the action upon the person to repent, not an “unconditional” reaction. According to Calvinism, God is not only willing that some should perish, but has actually predestinated that some will perish! Acts 17:30 says that God has commanded ALL men to repent – not just those that He has predestinated.
 
 
LIMITED ATONEMENT: Calvinism teaches that Christ died only for “the elect.” This totally contradicts 2 Cor. 5:14-15 that Christ died for ALL. 1 John 2:2, Jesus is the propitiation for our sins, and NOT for ours ONLY, but also for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD. This is not a limited atonement only for an “elect,” but is an atonement available for all.
 
 
IRRESISTIBLE GRACE: Calvinism basically teaches that Grace is a force that cannot be rejected no matter if you want to be saved or not. This goes hand-in-hand with total depravity in that supposedly man does not have a choice in salvation. Again, this contradicts the Scriptures that we are to OBEY the Gospel, and those who do not obey the Gospel will be judged (2 Thess 1:8; Acts 6:7; Rom. 10:16). Acts 7:51 specifically mentions those that “resist the Holy Ghost,” thus Grace is something that can be resisted.
 
 
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS: This is commonly known as the “once saved, always saved” doctrine. 2 Peter 2:20-21 clearly describes conditions of people who AFTER they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, they are AGAIN entangled therein. It would have been better for them no to have known “the way of righteousness” than to have known it and to “TURN AWAY” from the holy commandment delivered to them. This is explicit proof that once a person comes to “full and accurate knowledge” (Jameson, Faussett, Brown) of Jesus Christ that they can then “turn away” from Christ and “again” be entangled in the sin or pollutions of the world. The word epignōsis (full knowledge) is used all throughout the NT in the reference to “knowing” Jesus Christ through salvation.
 
 
            Thus, I would personally reject Calvinism as being unbiblical, and given that Calvin persecuted modalistic Anabaptist (Servetus) I wouldn’t appeal to any of his teachings.

The Absolute Deity of Jesus Christ

Here is a link to a video of a Power Point presentation I made for Theology 1 class in my undergrad at Central Baptist College.

Anthropology: Dichotomy or Trichotomy

This is a paper I wrote in Theology 2 class in my undergrad at Central Baptist College.


Biblical anthropology is the study of human beings as they relate to God. The main aspect of biblical anthropology is the nature or constitution of man—both the outer and inner man. Genesis 2:7 states, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” The phrase “became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7) does not refer to the inner, immaterial aspect of man. Rather, “soul” (nephesh) is used in this passage to describe the entire person or that man became an animated being, cf. Numbers 19:13 where “whosever” touches a dead body (nephesh), “that soul (nephesh)” was cut off from the congregation of Israel. Nevertheless, this passage also illustrates a difference between the idea of the physical, material aspect of man—that which was “formed,” and the inner, immaterial aspect of man—the breath of life. The physical and spiritual natures of man are also indicated in Job 33:4, “The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life,” and Job 32:8, “But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.” Jesus also noted the distinction between the material and immaterial person in Luke 24:39 where He encouraged the disciples to handle his hands and feet because a “spirit hath not flesh and bones.”
            The physical, material aspect of man is that which is discernable by sight and touch (Luke 24:39). This nature of man is referred to as “flesh” (John 3:6), “flesh and blood” (1 Corinthians 15:50), body (Matthew 14:12), and “outward man” (2 Corinthians 4:16). The material aspect of man is also used to refer to the complete being of a person. For example, in Acts 2:17, when God says that He will pour out His Spirit “upon all flesh,” the term “flesh” is used regards to the entire person not just the skin that covers the body. This is easily understood given that Spirit is said to “dwell in” believers (Romans 8:9). The term “flesh” can also refer to the inner desires of a person specifically in regards to sin. The idiom “lust of the flesh” is not limited simply to those desires that appeal to the natural flesh, but also include inward desires such as lust, hate, envy, etc. (Galatians 5:19-21).
            The physical, “outward man” is distinguished from the immaterial “inward man.” The distinction between the material and immaterial aspect of man is described as “soul and body” (Isaiah 10:18; Matthew 10:28) or “body and spirit” (Daniel 7:15; 1 Corinthians 7:34). The question, then, in regards to the study of biblical anthropology is this: are there two parts of the immaterial, inner man—soul and spirit, or do the terms “soul” and “spirit” refer to the same immaterial nature? These two views are referred to as Trichotomy—man is made up of three parts: body, soul, and spirit; or Dichotomy—man is comprised of two parts: material (body) and immaterial (soul/spirit).
            Among early church theologians, the “trichotomic conception of man found considerable favor with the Greek or Alexandrian Church Fathers,” however leading theologians in the Latin Church “distinctly favored the twofold division of human nature” (Clark). The Dichotomy view also gained much support among both Roman Catholic and Protestant Reformers. In the nineteenth century, Trichotomy became favored among German and English scholars such as Olshausen, Beck, Delitsch, White and Heard. Modern scholars and theologians are equally divided concerning this issue of biblical anthropology.

Trichotomy

            Trichotomy understands humans as being composed of three parts or natures: body, soul, and spirit. The foundation of the trichotomy view is the idea that “Man is made in the Image of the Triune God” (Stewart). Stewart argues that Trinitarian theology is the “single greatest reason to believe in our tri-part nature: God is Three in One. Man in God’s Image is three in one.” This idea can be traced back as far as Augustine who reasoned that if God is triune, then the best reflection of His triune nature would be found in humans who were created in the image of God (Erickson). However, this is not an adequate parallel because even if we understand a tri-part nature in man, the body, soul, and spirit are not three separate and distinct persons as Trinitarians distinguish between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. At best, the body, soul, and spirit can be described as “modes of being” of one person. Thus, a Trichotomist comparison of body, soul, and spirit to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would lead to one of two possibilities (1) each person in the Godhead is only 1/3 God, given that body, soul, and spirit each comprise a “part” of the complete man, or (2) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three separate and distinct persons, but are three “modes of being” (Erickson, Christian Doctrine).
            Trichotomist appeal to 1 Thessalonians 5:23 as their greatest Scriptural proof for a three-fold nature of man. In his final address to the Thessalonians, Paul stated, “Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” On the surface this passage appears to teach a three-part division of the whole man: body, soul, and spirit. However, given that this passages is simply a final prayer of Paul towards the Thessalonians, these words should not be regarded as a detailed treaty on the material and immaterial man. Philip Schaff commented, “Language thus used should not be too closely analyzed” (Schaff, Popular Commentary on the New Testament). Marvin Vincent agreed, “It is useless to attempt to draw from these words a technical, psychological statement of a threefold division of the human personality” (Vincent). Most commentators simply recognize this statement as being a literary repetition i.e. using synonyms for effect. We might compare this to the way Paul distinguished adultery from fornication in Galatians 5:19, yet the same term fornication includes adultery in passages such as Matthew 19:9; Acts 15:20; and 1 Corinthians 6:18. Taken to extreme, the Trichotomist interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 5:23 would lead to the conclusion that Mark 12:30 in fact teaches a four-fold division of man: “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.”
            The only other passage in the Bible that seems to teach a distinction between the soul and spirit is Hebrews 4:12, “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” However, the term “soul” (psyche) can easily be understood to refer to the entire person, including the material man. In Acts 2:27, speaking of the resurrection of Christ, it was prophesied, “For you will not abandon my soul to Hades.” The word “soul” in regards to Christ’s resurrection can only refer to the complete person—both material and immaterial. Thus, in Hebrews 4:12 the dividing of “soul and spirit” seems to indicate the division of the immaterial (spirit) from the complete person (material—soul).

Dichotomy

            The Dichotomy view understands man as being comprised of two parts—material (body, flesh), and immaterial (soul/spirit). According to the Dichotomy view, the terms “soul” and “spirit” are used synonymously to refer to the same immaterial nature of man. A careful study of the Scriptures shows that the terms “soul” and “spirit” are used interchangeably. For example, Job 7:11, “Therefore I will not refrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit; I will complain in the bitterness of my soul.” The final clause “complain in the bitterness of my soul” is simply an emphatic repetition of the proceeding statement, “speak in the anguish of my spirit.” The same is true with Isaiah 26:9, “With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.” Isaiah was not saying that he sought the Lord at night with one aspect of his inner being, and in the morning with a different aspect. In Luke 1:46-47, Mary used this same parallelism in her song of praise, “My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.”
            What is said of the soul is also said of the spirit. The Scriptural formula for humans in some passages is “body and soul” (Isaiah 10:18; Matthew 6:25), while in others “body and spirit” (Daniel 7:15; 1 Corinthians 6:20). Death is described as the soul departing (Genesis 35:18) or “gave up the ghost” (ekpsychō—out of breath from psyche i.e. soul). Yet in other passages death is referred to as giving up the spirit (Psalm 31:5; Acts 7:59). In addition, the dead in heaven are referred to as both “spirits” (Hebrews 12:23) and “souls” (Revelation 6:9). Any distinctions seen between the terms “soul” and “spirit” may be explained as “the word ‘spirit’ designates the spiritual element in man as the principle of life and action which controls the body; while the word ‘soul’ denominates the same element as the subject of action in man” (Clark).

 

Conclusion

            The Scriptures seem to indicate a two-fold division or dichotomy of man: material (physical body/flesh) and immaterial (soul/spirit). The ramifications of this conclusion play an important part on our view of the humanity of Christ. The Trichotomist are faced with the question of whether or not Jesus had a human “soul” separate and distinct from His divine Spirit, given that they distinguish the soul from the spirit. However, to the Dichotomist this is no issue at all, and is confirmed by the fact that Jesus could say “Now is my soul troubled” (John 12:27), yet later read that Jesus was “troubled in spirit.” Thus, the Dichotomy view better explains the dual nature of Jesus Christ: the immaterial Deity (spirit) manifest in material flesh (humanity) cf. John 1:1, 14; 1 Timothy 3:16.


 

Work Cited

Clark, R. Scott. Reformed Basics on Dichotomy and Trichotomy. 14 March 2014. Web. 22 November 2016.

Erickson, Millard. Christian Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001. Print.

—. Making Sense of the Trinity. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000. Print.

Schaff, Philip. "Popular Commentary of the New Testament." Excursus A. On the Pentecostal Miracle. New York: T&T Clark, 1890. E-Sword Module.

—. Popular Commentary on the New Testament. n.d. E-Sword Module.

Stewart, Spencer. Dichotomy versus Trichotomy. El Dorado: Project one28 Publishing, 2010. Print.

Vincent, Marvin. Word Studies. n.d. E-Sword Module.