Theology for the Masses

Brad Andrews January 4th, 2008

I started to write a response to jr. and realized I wrote a paper for seminary on the issue last semester. I thought I’d reprint it in a series called “The Doctrines of Grace.” There seems to be some specific discussion about the “L” of the TULIP acronym - limited atonement - right now.

I am going to start with a preliminary framework and then I will move towards examining the TULIP acronym side-by-side with the doctrines of grace and Arminianism, in light of Scripture. I promise I’ll get to the “L” eventually. Additionally, this is not an exhaustive, 300-page book but rather a “tight” paper on the highlights of the doctrines of grace. In other words, I haven’t turned over every rock, but have tried to turn over the biggest ones…

Here is the first post of the series:

God Has a Plan

It is unfathomable that a God of infinite wisdom and power would fashion a world without a distinct plan for that world. [1] It is one of His perfections that He has the best possible plan, and that He conducts the course of history to its appointed end. And to acknowledge that He has a plan which He carries out is to admit to the idea of predestination. Loraine Boettner, an American theologian and author, in his book, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, says this:

When He did choose to create, there was before Him an infinite number of possible plans…and what can give the Christian more satisfaction and joy than to know that the whole course of the world is ordered with reference to the establishment of the Kingdom of heaven and the manifestation of the Divine glory. [2]

God’s Sovereignty Defined

By virtue of the fact that God has created everything which exists, he is “the absolute Owner and final Disposer” of all that He has made. [3] He exerts not merely a general influence, but actually rules the world in which He has created. [4] And since he permits willingly, all that comes to pass – including actions of men – must be, in some sense, in accordance with what He has desired and purposed. Boettner continues, “God has lost none of His power, and it is highly dishonoring to Him to suppose that He is struggling along with the human race doing the best He can but unable to accomplish His purposes.” [5] To suppose that His plans fail and that He strives to no effect is to reduce Him to the level of His creatures.

[1] Isa. 46:9-10 NIV
[2] Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1932), 24-25.
[3] Ibid., 30.
[4] Ps. 29:10 NIV
[5] Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, 32.

• Grace
• Comments(37)

tom October 30th, 2007

During the conception years of Christianity religion and the state intertwined quite nicely. In fact, no sharp dichotomy necessarily existed, especially when one considers the influence of the Imperial Cults which demanded Roman citizens worship the Emperor. There was no ’secular’ vs. ’sacred.’

In the fullness of time Christianity grew up in this theo-political culture. And the message of Christianity was inherently political…though not as one might expect.

Rome employed terminology such as ‘salvation’ and ‘peace’ to point to the ideological and governmental sovereignty of their Empire. Only Rome, they espoused, could provide true salvation and peace. Furthermore, they backed up these claims with crucifying those who dared to question the sovereignty of the Empire. The cross was a Roman tool designed to humiliate a terrorist so that others would not wish to follow in his steps. In an honor and shame culture, this technique was quite effective.

When Christianity appears on the scene not only does it steal the Roman terms ‘salvation’ and ‘peace’ and invest them with new meaning, but it also takes Rome’s greatest threat, crucifixion, and infuses it with honor and glory, not shame and embarrassment.

Thus, Christianity, in subverting Rome’s political terminology, was political. Though it was not politically involved. Christians did not seek to change Roman culture through the political machine…indeed, they couldn’t. But they did believe their message was political and that it had larger cultural influence.

Since Constantine we live in a world where Christians have much more political sway. We’ve obtained ‘official’ religion status¹ , and gained the comfortable assumption that political involvement is the surest way to influence culture. This assumption has blinded us to other creative alternatives which do not seek the power of the state to prop up the gospel and influence culture. Again, preaching the gospel is political – as a prophetic voice to the political realm. But Christ himself shied from seeking state power.

Matthew’s gospel is especially clear about this: From the beginning it is the State (Herod) who tries to kill him. In the end the State (Pontius Pilate) does kill him. The State, in the Matthean narrative, is a false power. It claims sovereignty, but ultimately will crumble as any other human institution. Jesus spends almost the entire gospel outside of Jerusalem (the theo-political center of his world), probably in protest of the political power. In fact, it is not until he gets crucified that Jesus spends any time in Jerusalem.

Furthermore, in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, being ‘Salt’ is not about preserving the culture of the Empire or the Empire’s way of life. Christ never recommends cultural preservation – it’s not what Christianity is about. The context is about a radical community which, through the enactment of the beatitudes, lives a distinctive life which, like Salt, has certain qualities (meekness, peaceable, mourning). Without these qualities Salt is worthless – and so is Christianity. A community that does not live these qualities will be thrown out as useless

From the Matthean perspective Rome/politics cannot provide salvation for the world, for politics simply play into the hands of the powerful. For Matthew it is a distinctive Christian community that will have the most significant influence on Roman culture; a community associated with the poor and marginalized not the powerful of the State. The State cannot offer salvation and peace, these things belong to the church who exemplifies these quatlities as they seek to live out Christ’s example and God’s will.

The radical Christian community I speak of does not rely on the promises of the State to find empowerment. It relies on the crucified messiah who dared to stand against the values of the State and was killed for it. But without that death at the hands of the Empire, the temporal nature of the Empire’s salvation could not have been seen and the eternal nature of God’s salvation could not have been won. We’re not trying to create a Christian state; we’re not trying to preserve or win back a Christian state. We’re trying to demonstrate the ultimate falleness of all human attempts at salvation and peace outside of a crucified deity. No nation-state (Christian or otherwise) will ever be able to see this clearly.

1. Even in America where no ‘official’ religion is recognized, Christianity has been, and still is, the unofficial, official religion. [↩]

• Culture , Politics
• Comments(2)

jr. September 18th, 2007

Check out The Fuerst Shall Be Last.  This guy has some fantastic insights on Trinitarian theology.

It’s an excellent starting point for some discussion.  And, I think, a cogent argument for the supremacy of Love over sovereignty as God’s defining attribute.

• God , Love , Nature of God , Trinity
• Comments(9)