A Depraved Idea (Quote of the Day)

Here is the quote of the day for April 22, 2010.  This one made me smile; A nice surprise in the middle of a long day.

"I don't believe in Total Depravity, and think the idea is totally depraved." -My friend Mark (here)

Total Depravity and Calvinism's Ugly God

This sunday my Pastor preached a sermon on the topic of Total Depravity, or as he put it: "Your Instincts Stink." You can hear it online (at least for a few weeks) here. This is the kind of sermon that makes me want to look for an Arminian church, not because I dislike my church, (on the contrary, I love it and the people there) but because sermons like this can damage my faith.

My pastor did an excellent job communicating the Calvinist belief that man cannot accomplish anything good on his own. This ideas was expressed via the teachings of Johnathan Edwards and Augustine that

"Man will always act according to his strongest inclination at that moment."

Now, the idea here is that our inclinations (and therefore our actions) are (because of the fall) always evil, and only by the grace of God can we do anything good, including believe and have faith. Salvation is accomplished solely by God, through the sacrifice of Jesus and the election of God's chosen people who are able to believe through power given them by God. Going back to the Edwards/Augustine quote above, God changes our inclinations, allowing us to act differently, to believe, and to be saved. Man has absolutely no part in it anything.

I can see how this is comforting. The ball is in God's court. I don't have to worry about it. But to me it is extremely troubling. If you always act according to your strongest inclinations, you have absolutely no ability to change the course of your life whatsoever. You may think you can simply examine your inclinations/motivations, (this was suggested in the sermon) and try to change them, but if this idea is correct, the action you took to examine your motivations was in iteself a response to your strongest inclination at that moment. You are a deterministic being. Your life has already been determined, and your future actions, thoughts, feelings, and emotions are already determined, unless God intervines.

Of course the whole Calvinist system is based on the belief that (for the elect) God WILL intervine, and help us change our inclinations, giving us the ability to believe in Jesus and be saved.

But that's not the only problem with Calvinism. As I've discussed before, the problem of evil is a very difficult one for anyone who believes in a personal god. The ugly God of Calvinism is a god who created this world, orchastrated evil, saves some people of His own choosing, and damns the rest to hell for not believing something that isn't true. Calvinism heightnens the problem of evil so greatly that a better alternative is that God does not exist at all.

I think the Arminian system gives a much more believable (and palletable) scenario, while still taking seriously what the Bible says about election: That God, by his grace, created man with a choice, and "elects" some by pursuing them, (perhaps as a result of their choices) and further enabling them to choose better still.

A Calvinist might say "But you are undermining Gods soverignty! God is in control, not man!" Blogger Ken Schenck at the blog Quadrilateral Thoughts answers this well:

"If God can create the world out of nothing, then He is certainly able to empower a person, by his prevenient grace, to reach the smallest point of volition ex nihilo, a point of the barest will either to remain depraved as they are or to signify ever so slightly a desire for more grace... leading to God's empowerment to signify a desire for more grace still. Would you suggest that God is not clever enough to figure out how to do this, to empower totally depraved humanity to begin to make a choice?"

Now back to what I mentioned above, about sermons like this, and how they can damage my faith:  There is nothing wrong with going to a church that teaches ideas that are contrary to your own beliefs.  If one is actively engaged with their faith, and continually examining their beliefs, this is inevitable.  But when ideas like this are presented in a way that suggests something is wrong if you don't totally agree, or that there isn't room for discussion, I begin to wonder if I am worshiping in the right place.  I'm not suggesting that any belief be accepted as equal, but some discussion of alternate (but equally biblical) views should be accepted.

Of course, a Calvinist would claim that Arminianism is unbiblical based on their selected proof texts...

Justice, The Image of God, and Calvinism

A couple weeks ago, our Sunday School class discussed "The Image of God", and what that might be.  We divided up into groups and listed several possibilities.  At the top of virtually every groups list were entries like "morality", "sense of right and wrong" and "desire for justice".  Our deeply-rooted sense of injustice when we're wronged [Hey, that's not fair!] seems to be the human trait that we believe comes directly from God himself.

[As a side note, it was interesting to see how absent any form of "physical appearance" was from our lists.  It seems that modern science has finally eradicated (at least among the people present) the delusion that our bodies somehow uniquely reflect a portion of God's being.]

There are, of course, good reasons why we believe that our morality and desire for justice is also a fundamental characteristic of Gods.  Throughout the Bible we see God fighting for justice, or commanding his followers to seek justice.  Countless passages tell of  how God "loves justice" (Isaiah 61:8, Psalm 33:5) and hates those who make unjust laws or withhold justice (Isaiah 10:1-4, Deuteronomy 27:19).  So it seems that we share with God a fundamental desire for fairness, justice, and righteousness, and this may be what is meant by "the image of God".

As I thought about this conversation in the days after the class, I began to wonder why Calvinists don't see a terrible problem with their cherished theological system...

A Calvinist believes that God is the only entity involved in our salvation in any way; He conceives, initiates, and completes the salvation of "the elect" without any contribution from them at all.  They believe that some people are created for the sole purpose of eternal destruction, while others are created to be the objects of God's love, and are destined for eternal life.  According to Calvinists, there is absolutely no difference between the two types of people other than Gods choice.

If your "injustice meter" isn't red-lined, get it checked.

So I ask the question:  How could a God who is so concerned with justice invent a system that is so unjust?  I think the answer is simple:  He couldn't.

I'm reminded of a poem I read a few years ago by Charles Wesley, which discusses what he calls "The Calvinistic Conundrum".  Here's a small portion:

Oh Horrible Decree

Worthy of whence it came!

Forgive their hellish blasphemy

Who Charge it on the Lamb. 

The righteous God consigned

Them over to their doom,

And sent the Savior of mankind

To damn them from the womb;

To damn for falling short

Of what they could not do

For not believing the report

Of that which was not true.

What are my "religious views"??

What should I call myself?

Lately I've been wondering what I should call myself.  Specifically, what would I say are my "Religious views"?  Currently in my Facebook profile I don't have anything listed.  The reasons for this are complicated. In short, I'd rather not identify myself with any particular group, because in every group there are whackos that believe things or act in ways that I'd rather not be associated with.  I have no problem sharing my faith with someone who is asking, but I'm not going to call myself "Christian" when the term can mean so many different things to different people.

What other people call themselves

Out of curiousity, I took a little "survey" of my facebook friends that also go to my church.  Of the 50 or so that fit that category, here is what they had listed as their "religious views":

Christ Follower    17
Nothing at all     14
Christian          13
Baptist             4

There were also several unique entries that I'll discuss below.

I was surprised at how few people actually put "Baptist", although I do go to a pretty un-Baptist Baptist church.  (We just changed our name to take the word "Baptist" out of our name...)

Also interesting is the dominance of "Christ follower".  I suspect the reason for this is a sermon our pastor gave a while ago where he made a pitch for that term.  While I don't mind it, it's prett un-original, and that disqualifies it for me.

In any case, I've had the desire to actually fill that space with something, since several other entries in my profile indicate that I do have beliefs of some kind.  Here are the other unique "religious views" of some of my other facebook friends:

The supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples in and through Jesus Christ!
Jesus is LORD
Set Free
Redeeming love has been my plea...
I don't believe in atheists
I'm saved by grace, thru faith, not because of anything I've done - it's a gift of God!
Godfearer
Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords
God is my ALL

Some of those are interesting, but none are exactly what I'm looking for.  I'm looking for something that shows exactly where I am:  Pretty much in line with a lot of traditional Protestant beliefs (but not all) but with a desire to stretch those beliefs as far as I can.  I question not for the sake of questioning, but to test these beliefs to see what is strong and what is weak, what is worth keeping, and what is open for change.

Options

So far I've kicked around a lot of labels, but most have been disqualified because they seem too arrogant. (Some also don't really fit me anyway)  This category includes:

Thinking Christian
Discerning Christian
Intelligent Christian
Maverick Christian
Open-minded Christian
Reasonable Christian
Reasoning Christian
Intellectual Christian
Rational Christian
Freethinking Christian

Other labels that come close but are too negative (emphasizing the questioning or skeptical side of my faith) include:

Skeptical Christian
Doubting Christian
Questioning Christian

Current Possibilities

So far, there are two options that I am still considering.  Here's the first:

Heterodox Christian

Wikipedia gives this description of the term:

The term heterodox is occasionally used by some Christians to refer to themselves when they are in disagreement with orthodox understandings, but voice this disagreement while still maintaining the overall value of the tradition. The heterodox Christian therefore remains in the tradition and attempts to stimulate constructive dialog around issues with which they disagree. [source]

I like that!  I have a friend that this term fits perfectly (way better than it fits me) but I still like it a lot.  However, the word "heterodox" has some pretty negative connotations, and I'm sure it would make friends and family worry more than I'd like.

The final option I'm considering is simply to put one or more scripture references.

Right now I would probably use the following:

Mark 12:30, Acts 17:11

or simply

I Thessalonians 5:21

I'm also considering:

Luke 12:57
Isaiah 1:18
Proverbs 10:14
Prov 19:2
Mark 9:24
Phil 1:9-10
1 Cor 10:15

Any Suggestions?

So what about you?  What do you have on your facebook profile?  Do you have any suggestions for me?

Taking God's Sovereignty Too Far?

Today in our Sunday school class, the teacher spoke on the subject "What every Christian should know about SIN".  Naturally, the subject of evil, it's origin, and effect on creation was high on his list of discussion topics.

The teacher, coming from a strongly Calvinistic viewpoint, emphasized the soverignty of God while maintaining that God allowed sin, but did not originate sin.  From this perspective, there really is no reason sin must exist, except to create a problem for which there is only one solution: Jesus Christ.

This is obviously (at least to me) a pretty weak argument, and I suspect most who hold to it would recognize this.  That's why the age-old fall back of "mystery" is so often peddled as the stop-gap between our common sense and the weaknesses of a particular theological position.

During the Q&A portion of the class, someone brought up the solution to this problem I think is most viable: That evil is the result of God's choice to give us the ability to sin; Evil exists in the world because a world without freedom is a world without love. We were created by God to love him, and true love cannot be forced.

The response from the teacher was something about being cautious that we don't undermine God's sovereignty, and the mystery of the balance between God's control over everything (including our choices) and the fact that God holds us responsible for our choices.

Why is it so horrible to suggest that God might choose to limit himself, specifically that he might limit his power over our own choices?

It's not like there isn't any biblical precident:  The doctrince of divine kenosis (self-limiting) in the person of Jesus is well known and accepted.  Why is it so scandalous to suggest that God would choose to limit himself in other ways?  Isn't that the story of Adam and Eve; That God gives them the REAL choice to obey or not?  Haven't we distorted this story into something else in order to defend the soverignty of God?

And I won't even mention open theology. (oh, wait... I just did)

Am I missing something, or is it plainly obvious that God's choice to limit himself does not diminish his sovereignty in any way?

What's the big deal?

C.S. Lewis: Jesus is a false prophet?

Over the last couple days, I've been having a conversation with a reader (James) regarding whether or not Paul is a false prophet. (See the comment section of this post) The conversation has centered around Deuteronomy 18:21-22, where the writer answers the hypothetical question:

How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD? -Deuteronomy 18:21b

The writer then goes on to answer the question:

If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. -Deuteronomy 18:22a

I agreed with James that this statement could be considered universally applicable, not just to be applied to the situation being discussed in Deuteronomy 18.

Given that, the test for a false teaching can be reduced to the following:
A teaching is false IF:

1) The teacher was a prophet. AND
2) The prophet must have made predictions that did not come true.

In recent posts, I've blogged about Jesus' (Seemingly failed) prediction of his own imminent return, as well as the possibility that Jesus may not have known when he would return. In one post, I discuss a quote by C.S. Lewis where Lewis suggests that Jesus was wrong about his own return.

The test above raises the stakes in this conversation, because if Jesus was wrong (as Lewis suggests), and if he can be considered a prophet (which is undoubtable) then the test above would suggest that Jesus is a false prophet. It seems that C.S Lewis has come dangerously close to declaring Jesus a false prophet.

Lewis called the verse containing what he called Jesus' "exhibition of error" the "most embarrassing verse in the Bible". As I've said before, it seems more appropriate to be embarrassed about what C.S. Lewis said, than about what Jesus said.

When the Bible and Science Agree (And When They Don't)

 Lately there has been some teaching and discussion in my church regarding the "agreement between the Bible and science", focused on a few of the places where the Bible seems to be teaching a scientific truth long before this truth was discovered by science. This is certianly interesting, and perhaps helpful to some who struggle with the reliability of the Bible. But what about when science and the Bible don't agree? I would suggest there are at least two reasons why biblical and scientific data might disagree:

1. Our understanding of the scientific data is incorrect.
2. Our understanding of the Biblical data is incorrect.
3. Both 1 and 2.

What bothers me is that option 1 is generally the only acceptable option, at least in the conversations I've had with the pastors and teachers at my church. There seems to be a basic denial of the the fact that the words of the Bible (biblical data) must be interpreted to be understood.

 When I asked my pastor who gave a sermon on this topic what we should do about the cases where science clearly teaches something contrary to "what the Bible teaches", he answered this way:

 "I believe that where they disagree the Bible has it right. It may take science a while to catch up and has from time to time but I go with the Bible." 

 With all due respect, this seems completely crazy to me. The implication that we can't possibly be wrong about our interpretation of the Bible seems arrogant to me. Now, call me a heretic if you wish, but given the obscure nature of the biblical texts, and given equal time and effort studying the data, might we be MORE likely to be correct in our conclusions about scientific data, than about biblical data?

 Is there some mystical force guiding our interpretation of the Bible, and not of science? Some may reply: "Yes! The Holy Spirit!" But if the Holy Spirit is a significant force in guiding Christians in their interpretation of the Bible, then God is intentionally sowing confusion in His church. The reality is that Christianity has an incredibly diverse array of beliefs (all based on biblical interpretation), and they can't all be right.

 “In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.” -Augustine, in De Genesi ad litteram, 415AD. [source]

"If a position is true, every avenue of reflection ought to point in its direction." -Greg Boyd [source]