Notes on Names and Nomenclature

So, one of the questions that was asked of me is why the King James Version bible, in discussing the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew, says that Jacob "begat Judas" and his brothers instead of what we read in most modern bibles (including the NKJV) where Jacob was the father of Judah and his brothers.  Understand first of all that I am not in this post making an argument for any particular translation of the bible.  Personally I use multiple translations, but I also try and understand the philosophy of translation behind the English versions of the bible I read.  In this case the answer is simple, so I thought I'd write a simple post explaining it today.

The KJV translates the name as Judas because, simply put, that's what the text says.  Most modern English translations use the name Judah because that is what the text says.  While you're scratching your head trying to reconcile those two sentences let me make it easier for you: Judas and Judah are the same name.

In the Greek alphabet there is no "H".  There is a mark that indicates a breath sound at the beginning of certain words that is translated into the English as an "H", but in the classical Greek alphabet in which the New Testament was written, there is simply no letter "H".  So, when translating Hebrew names from the Greek, names that ended in "H" were often transliterated (not translated, just copied over from one language to another) with an "S" at the end.  This is not as foreign or odd as it seems, and it occurs in multiple places in the New Testament.  (I note this as something that was done with Hebrew names because I'm familiar with Scripture, I'm not familiar enough with other textual traditions to say whether or not this "H" to "S" transliteration was something that was common among them as well.)

For instance, while the name "Jesus" is well known to most in the Western world as the name of the Christ, the fact is he was never called that in his time, nor did anyone else use that name for him until much later.  The Spanish tradition of pronouncing the "J" as an "H" is closer than the English version of pronouncing the "J".  A true transliteration of the name of Jesus from the Greek would look like this: Iesou (in this case the "I" should be pronounced as a "Y" and the "E" as a long "A" and the "OU" as an "OO" like in "zoo").  Likewise a true transliteration of Judah or Judas would read: Ioudan.

The reason for the pulling of the "S" over from the Greek has to do with how the names are developed in Greek.  For instance even though the name of Jesus is spelled "Iesou" in Matthew 1:1 we see it spelled "Iesous" in 1:16.  Thus the name we most commonly translate as Jesus could also be translated from Greek as "Jesu".

The use of the names Jesus, Judah, Judas, Joshua, and basically any other name with an origin in the Hebrew that we spell with a "J" also indicates that these names traveled through Latin into our language.  Neither the Greek nor the Hebrew has a "J" sound.  So when we use a "J" to start a name from either Greek or Hebrew, we have to first bring it through a language that uses a "J".  Latin was the lingua franca through which we got the names we use today, and in Latin they used the "J" at the beginning of a name instead of a "y".

In fact, even today the German does not use a "y" sound the same way we do in English.  The "y" in German is "Upsilon" and is pronounced as "u".  ("Gymnasium" is pronounced "Gumnasium" where the first "U" is a long vowel sound.  And just so you are aware, the word means "school" or "prep-school" in German.)  So, where we might use "I" or "Y" the Latin commonly used "J" to transliterate the Greek "I" at the beginning of names.

Following all of this we get the following: Iudah (Hebrew) becomes Iudas (Greek) becomes Judas (Latin) becomes Judah or Judas in the English, depending on which personage we are referring to and which tradition of translation we follow.  Likewise Yehoshua (or Y'hoshua) in the Hebrew becomes Yeshua as a shortened form, which becomes Iesou or Iesous in the Greek which becomes Jesus in the Latin and is most often translated as Jesus in English.  Yet, when we read the Old Testament we usually transliterate more directly and take Yeshua in the Hebrew to Joshua following the pattern of the "Y" to "J" transliteration of the Latin tradition.

So, Judah equals Judas, and Joshua equals Jesus when we follow the steps through how the names came to be in our language.

Getting to John

So what about John 3:16?  In my last post I discussed, briefly, what it means that Christ is the Son of God, but I noted that the question was asked in reference to John 3:16.  So, this time I want to look at what it means when we say, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in should not perish, but have everlasting life."  (John 3:16 KJV)  While this is one of the most well known verses of Scripture, I wonder sometimes if the common use of the passage has dulled us to its meaning.  So I would like to try and look at this passage in light of what I wrote in the last post, to hopefully help us come to a greater appreciation of what God has done for us.

First off, I want to look at the language of this post.  As has been commented on numerous times in the past (by other commentators), the English language has changed since the King James Version of the Bible was written.  This passage, as simple as it seems, is one of the passages where the change in language actually effects our understanding of the meaning of what is written.  You see, we no longer use the word "so" as commonly in the way the authors of this passage use the word.  A better understanding of the passage would be for us to read it thus:  "For God loved the world in this way, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life."  The idea is God is showing us the manner in which he loved the world, not the magnitude with which he loved the world.

Okay, so we're looking at a passage that demonstrates the manner of God's love.  But we're also looking at a passage in context of a conversation.  Jesus had just discussed the bronze serpent that Moses made as is recorded in Numbers 21.  Just as the serpent was the means by which God showed his mercy to the people of Israel, Jesus is here telling us the method by which God will demonstrate his love to the world.  On the one hand those who were bitten by serpents had but to look upon the one who was lifted up, the thing which was the embodiment of a serpent, and they would live.  In the other instance we have much the same thing, we, who have been contaminated with sin, bitten by the ancient serpent and are thus hopelessly headed toward death and damnation, have but to look upon him who is lifted up, who became the embodiment of the curse that plagues humanity, and we will also live, just as he does.

So the point of the text is that God demonstrates his love in that he gives his Son so that we who are condemned to death can look upon him and live.  Yet, the weight of the text comes here in the middle of the text.  That God gave his only begotten Son.  The ESV and HCSB both translate this as "one and only Son."  While a strict reading of the Greek renders the words "only begotten" I think these interpretations grasp something that can otherwise be lost in the English:  This is the Son, the only Son, and he alone comes from God.

I think the weight of the text is found here because of what it means when we consider the words of the text.  Here we have a passage that lays out the simple truth that God gave his Son as a payment for sin.  Anyone who looks upon the Son and believes in him will not perish, but we will have eternal life.  This is God's way of showing his love for us.  And this is powerful, weighty, wondrous truth.

Think about this with me:  Christ is the Word incarnate, the second person of the trinity, God in the flesh.  Christ is also the eternal begotten Son of God, he has been and will be eternally in fellowship with God.  Yet, as a demonstration of his love for us, God the Father placed his Son upon the cross so that the Son would be a curse on our behalf.  God, who cannot tolerate sin in his presence took the sin of the world upon himself so that he, willingly and without compulsion, broke his own perfect fellowship and sentenced his Son to death, so that he might reconcile the world to himself.

True God from true God bore the sins of the world, showing the world his love by doing so.  The reality of this is incomprehensible to us.  How can it be that God would allow his image to become the very image of sin in order to redeem humanity who had so wallowed in sin that there was none left righteous?  How can the one who can not tolerate sin allow his son to be so corrupted by the presence of sin so as to be a curse on our behalf?  How can the God who loved his Son perfectly be willing to allow him to bear our sin, so that instead of experiencing the endless love of God he bore the full wrath of God and endured the suffering of this wrath on our behalf?

The human mind cannot fully comprehend all it means that God demonstrated his love by giving his only Son.  Instead, all we can do is be thankful that God has done this on our behalf.  We can be thankful, giving praise to God for this amazing love, and recognizing that we have done nothing to earn such kindness.  We can respond in faith, looking upon him who was crucified and calling out to him for forgiveness, knowing that he has borne sorrow that we might know his joy.

What is the significance of John 3:16 in light of the fact that Christ is the only begotten Son of God?  Its significance is great and humbling.  There is nothing in us that forced God to choose to save us, there is nothing that made us worthy or deserving of love.  Yet, God is a God of love, showing mercy to those he chooses.  And to demonstrate that love to us he willingly sent his Son, who willingly came, and glorified himself by letting the Son of God become an object of ridicule, not only despised by the world, but also an object of the wrath of the Father.  This is the God we serve, one who could crush us, one who rightly sentences all men to death because of their sin, and one who, in great mercy, has called to the world and said, "Here is your only means of salvation, any who will may come."

Praise his great name forever.

The Son of God and John 3:16

What does “the Son of God” mean, and how is this important in John 3:16, where we read that God gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him would have eternal life? As a first note we may begin with the fact that the phrase “Son of God” is only used in the New Testament, and it is only used as a title for Christ. Certainly there is Old Testament precedence for the term, and prophetic indications of the idea, but the term itself is a uniquely New Testament one. In addition we need to recognize that there are instances where we read of “sons of God” in the Old Testament, and the New, and that these are used of both angelic beings and humans. But, this still leaves the fact that Christ is unique in that he is called the only begotten Son of God, and he alone is used as the object of the phrase when it is put in the singular.

So, what is the significance of the phrase, or title, “Son of God”? First we need to look at the passages where it is used. The phrase Son of God is used approximately 40 times in the New Testament, with nearly half of those being recorded by or written by John (including one in Revelation). In the gospels the term appears 23 times, 6 in Matthew, 2 in Mark, 6 in Luke, and 9 in John. Among the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) the title is used in many of the same instances. Each of the writers also uses the Son of God in a way that indicates they all had the same theological idea in mind, and in every instance the person who is referred to by the title is Jesus.

The idea that seems to be expressed by the title “Son of God” is that of the Messiah. For instance, in Luke 4:41 we see that demons were trying to make public Christ's identity, while he was intending to reveal himself on his own schedule. Thus we read, “Also, demons were coming out of many, shouting and saying, “You are the Son of God!” But He rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew He was the Messiah.” (HCSB) And in John 11:27 we read, “Yes, Lord,” she told Him, “I believe You are the Messiah, the Son of God, who comes into the world.” (HCSB) So the first connotation is that the title indicates the messianic identity of Christ.

This is in line with the prophetic declarations of the Messiah, as the New Testament will point out. For instance we read in Psalm 2 that the nations plan to shake off the rule of God and his “anointed one” (the Hebrew word is the same translated as Messiah). And then we read that God has established this messiah as a king, and God says that the messiah is his son. Also we read in Isaiah that a son will be given to us and he will be called, “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” These verses are part of the link to the “Son of God” showing that this term is a messianic one that has Old Testament roots.

But John seems to take the term a little further—or flesh it out more—than the other gospel writers. Luke hints at what John seems to make more explicit. In Luke 3:38 we read, “son of Enos, son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God.” Thus Luke ties the identity of Christ back to the first Adam, showing that he is the Son of God and the beginning of a new creation. John, on the other hand, gets even more explicit showing the theological power of the title. In John 10:36 we read the the Jews were accusing Christ of blasphemy because he said he is the Son of God, and in John 19:7 we read that the Jews appealed to the Law to stone Christ, saying that he deserved death because he made claims that he was the Son of God.

The way John uses the term, “Son of God” shows that he intended it to have more weight that just a messianic title, though such a use would by no means be light. The people would not be accusing Christ of blasphemy just for claiming to be the messiah. That is, if Christ was claiming that God had sent him and that he was a prophet, or that he was the one who was sent to save Israel like the judges did in the Old Testament, they may have accused him of insurrection, of being a false prophet, or something of that nature, but blasphemy is specifically a sin against God, by claiming something about God that is not true. In this instance the title “Son of God” would have to be understood more literally. That is, John was literally saying that Christ was the Son of God, begotten by God. As the Nicean Creed puts it: true God from true God.

In this context the reason for the specific use of the singular as a title that always applies to Christ makes sense. Only Christ can specifically claim to be the Son of God in the truest sense of the word. As John says, he is the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He became flesh and dwelt among men, and he has made the Father known. This does not mean that there are two gods, for again we see that John says that the Word was God, and the Word became flesh. There is only one God, and he is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all three persons and only one God. No other being or person can ever claim to be God, or to have the relationship that Jesus has with God, this is a unique relationship that is different from all else.

According to John 1:3 and Hebrews 1:3 and 10, Jesus is the one who made the earth, the heavens, and everything else. John says that all things were created through him, and nothing that was made was made without him. Hebrews says that he upholds all things by the power of his word and that he is the one who established the earth. This echoes back to Genesis 1:1 where we read “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” God is the called the creator in the Old Testament, and here we see that these same descriptions are applied to Christ. This is a unique status, no other being—that is none this not God—can make the claim to have created all things.

So, why is Jesus called the Son of God? For the same reason that God is called the Father. You see, God does not change. He has always been Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Son has always, eternally, been the only begotten Son of God. His relationship to the Father has always been that he is the Son, because that relationship, in human terms, is the one that describes the relationship that exists in the Godhead.

Creation was made the show the glory of God. Yet, at the same time, God is not a creature to be put in a bottle. As the creator of all things there are some truths about God that creation simply cannot adequately and completely express, such as his trinitarian relationship and reality. Yet, the family relationship of son and father does, in a perfect world, come close to expressing the relationship that God the Father and Christ the Son have. So let's look at that relationship to try and understand what the term “Son of God” would be expressing in the relationship between the Father and the Son.

First we see that the Son comes from the Father, not the Father from the Son. Christ is eternally begotten by the Father, yet the Father is not from the Son. Yet, this is an eternal relationship. It is not appropriate to say that the Son came from the Father, but rather that the Son is eternally from the Father; hence why I used the verb “come” in a present active form in the first sentence of this paragraph.

Next we see that the Son does the will of the Father. Notice how in Genesis 1 we read the God created the heavens and the earth, yet in John and Hebrews we see that Christ is said to have made all things. This is explained by the fact that God did make all things, and that one he made all things through is the Son. That is the Son does what the Father wants, always and in every situation. Even Christ himself said, “I always do what pleases Him.” (John 9:29) Again, this is just as the perfect relationship between a father and son should be.

Finally (for this short statement) we see that the Father and the Son love one another. We read in John 3:35 that the Father loves the Son. Again we see this in John 5:20; 10:17; 15:9, 10; and 17:24. In addition we read that the Son loves the Father in John 14:31. The relationship between the Father and the Son is one of love. The Father loves the Son and delights to give him glory as his beloved, the Son loves the Father and delights to do his will. This is the perfect relationship of a father and son, if creation could ever see such a thing.

So, how does all of this impact our reading of John 3:16? Let's get into that tomorrow. This letter is already long and I still need to get some sleep tonight.

God bless you and yours!

An observation on cartoons

An observation:  The parents of "Dora the Explorer" are some of the most irresponsible adults in all of cartoon history.

Here their daughter is, talking to animals, including a monkey, a bull, and a squirrel, and they don't even blink an eye.  Daily, it seems, she is getting into dangerous situations, such as jumping over sharks in a boat, climbing a mountain, running from a dragon, and riding on a train with missing parts in the tracks.  In all of these situations she has nothing more than a backpack and a map along with some various friends to help her get through them.  Her parents are apparently too busy having tea and biscuits to be aware of the danger their daughter is engaged in.

At the same time, the cause of much of these problems happens to be a fox who steals her belongings and then endangers her life by placing the things he steals in hard to reach places.  The police are apparently unheard of in this world and theft is so common that children are left to their own devices in getting their belongings back.  Child endangerment and reckless behavior are the flavor of the day.

In such a world, any sane parent would never let their child go unmonitored outside for a minute.  Ever.  Yet Dora's parents not only allow it, but in one episode seem to encourage it by asking her tell the "funny" story of the time they had to chase after babies who were helplessly caught in run-away strollers and ended up right next to a volcano.  Of course the volcano erupted with a harmless result, but that is hardly reassuring when you consider that the whole family was unable to catch up to their run away strollers, and on more than one occasion the babies went through situations that would normally be considered life threatening.  Once again this illustrates the gross irresponsibility of Dora's parents, along with their callousness in that they thought it was a "funny" story.

Of course no child looks at cartoons in this way, but upon consideration I have to say that Dora's parents are horribly scary people.

Arminianism and Calvinism: Part 3

It's been three weeks since I've been able to get back to this.  I was hoping to do a post a week, but it's been a crazy three weeks.  So I', going to try and wrap things up this week with one last post.  It may be longer than normal, but I'd like to really finish addressing these two systems, at least in their classical positions, and sum up where I stand on the issue.

I already noted that there are only a few areas where these two positions differ.  First of all they disagree as to whether or not one can resist the Holy Spirit.  The second area they disagree is what the term "election" means.  The Calvinist says that the elect are those whom God has chosen in his will from eternity past.  That means that "before" creation (I put "before" in quotations because there was no time before "in the beginning") God had already determined whom he would save based on his sovereign determination to call them to himself.  The Arminian argues that the elect are those who have responded in faith to the call of God.  Thus for the Arminian the elect are only "elect" once they have believed and responded, for the Calvinist the elect are always the "elect" and always have been, so that if a man is going to accept Christ at 40 he is one of the elect at 20.

What we can say with confidence is that the term "elect" in Scripture clearly refers to those who have been saved and are found clean in God's sight through the blood of Christ.  An example we could look to would be Mark 13:20 wherein we read, "But for the sake of his elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days." (ESV)  Also in Matthew 24:31 where we read that Christ will send his angels and gather "his elect" from all the earth.  So the term "elect" is biblical and is in reference to those who are saved by the gracious work of Christ.

But, what is the basis for election?  According to Romans 9:10-12 we see the following, "And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not born yet and had done nothing either good or bad-- in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls-- she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.'" (ESV)  Here we see the argument laid out that God's election is not based on works but based only upon him who calls.  Likewise in 2 Peter 1:3-4 we see Peter declare, "His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire." (ESV)

The Arminian position is that God is only acknowledging those as elect whom he knew would respond by looking through time and seeing who would respond to the call of Christ.  Thus, because men may resist the call of the Spirit, God could not elect men based on some irresistable call, but rather had to see which men would respond to the call and then acknowledge those men as the elect of his promises.  The problem with this position seems to be the fact that Paul refutes it entirely in Romans 9.  Paul says that the election of Jacob and rejection of Esau was not based on works, which would mean it was not based on what they would do, but rather it was based on him who calls.  Thus Paul is arguing that election is based on the prerogative of God to determine whom he will save, not based on the works and will of man.

This comports equally with what we find the rest of Scripture. For instance God said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," and John says that we became the sons of God not based on human birth or the will of man, but of God.  However, bringing in John allows us to examine the counter argument that election is based on the response of men.

John says that "as many as did believe" were given the right to become sons of God.  Thus the right was given in response to the belief.  On this I would give a hearty agreement, faith precedes regeneration.  However, at the same time it says that they were given the right to become children of God based on the will of God.  Thus it is still the will of God that is primary in men coming to God.  Also, we have already looked at Jesus discussing the question of those whom God called in the post on this subject.

So, how do we get out of the situation of trying to say that men really must choose, but that God has already chosen who will choose?  How do we reconcile what appear to be contradictory statements as to how men come to be elect?

Here the Calvinist has a long philosophical tradition that actually addresses many of the complaints that Arminians bring against Calvinism.  The tradition and position is known as Monergism.  Monergism, in brief, argues that the will of man and the sovereignty of God work hand-in-hand.  That is man is totally responsible for what he chooses, and God is totally sovereign over all of creation.  Thus men must choose God, but God is sovereign in his call to those whom he chooses.  Here we may say that the Calvinist position is that we choose him because he has chosen us, just as we love him because he has first loved us.  This is not to say that we did not actually choose, but rather that his election of us was not based on our choosing, but our choosing was part of his sovereign creation.

For the Arminian this would be an absurd argument, saying men are actually acting of freewill but God is actually sovereign over all the decisions of man.  But the Calvinist says this is the most accurate reading of Scripture, and so while we may not be able to explain everything and answer all the difficulties, still we must accept this teaching as accurate to what Scripture says.

The second problem the Calvinist would point out with the Arminian position is that their argument that God looks through time to determine whom he will elect is no where found in Scripture.  Thus the Calvinist would argue that they are attempting to hold more closely to what Scripture teaches without bringing in additional human constructions.

The question of election brings us rather easily to the question of perseverance.  The reason is simple: what does it mean to say a man is elect, and there by saved?  The historical Arminian position is that one can lose their salvation.  Thus the only one who can know he is saved, eternally, is the one who has died and reached heaven.  Everyone else must be sure to stay in the faith and must always be cautious lest one walk away from the faith and lose their salvation.

The problem with this position is that it ignores the previous philosophical arguments made by Arminians, and that it radically changes the concept of salvation.  For the first part, if God has looked through time to see who would be saved and thus elected them, why would he not equally be sure to look through time and only call the elect those who would really persevere until the end?  That is, why would anyone be called "saved" who is actually not going to persevere to the end, even if God does not have control over who will persevere and can only know based on his knowledge of the future?

The far more damaging issue this brings up though is the issue of works.  According to Scripture, salvation is a gift of God, not based on works so that no one may boast.  So, if salvation is not based on works, then how can one who did not earn lose what was given as a gift?  This would require God to remove salvation.  But if God was to take salvation away from someone that would assume that the person did something meriting the loss of salvation.  But, if one can do works to lose salvation, then one must do works to maintain salvation (the not doing of the works that would cause them to lose salvation would be doing something).  Thus salvation would become a matter of works.

Thus here the only biblical argument and philosophical argument that stands the test of logic seems to be that salvation cannot be lost, or else it would mean that one was not "saved" in the first place.  The idea that one is "potentially saved" is foolishness, because God knows whether a man will or will not be in heaven for eternity.  Or else God is ignorant of the future and thus cannot make any assurance of salvation at all.

This is to say that one can accept Christ and then reject discipleship and simply embrace whatever life he wants.  According to James works are a necessary part of salvation, but they are the results of salvation, not what saves one or keeps one saved.  That is to say that the saved man will work, but not that every man who does work will be saved, nor that the works keep a man in salvation.

I myself come down in the Calvinist camp, holding that God's gracious sovereignty is totally responsible for my salvation and my only reliance for the salvation of others.  However, I also recognize that there are great men of God who hold contradictory views to my own.  This is an in house discussion, but one which does have serious ramifications for what and how we teach.  We should take such discussions seriously, but we should also not make this a litmus for true Christianity.

I'm sorry for the brevity of this post, and I hope I have some time to flesh these arguments out more in the future, but I wanted to complete this series of posts for my friends who had asked my opinion on this matter.

Arminianism and Calvinism: Part 2

The last post I attempted to put forth the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism, this post I would like to start examining the two positions from a biblical and philosophical position.  My goal is not to put forth a definitive resolution to the questions raised between the two systems, but rather to simply lay out some of the basic arguments so those who are unfamiliar with the positions can begin to think through these issues for themselves.  At the same time I want to illustrate why it matters that we take either position on this subject.  The teaching of our churches and our personal views of the work and person of God are affected by the position we take on Calvinism and Arminianism.  How we view God, how we view our work as Christians, and how we view ideas such as justice and fairness are all tied together in our theology of salvation (soteriology).

So where shall we turn first in considering the first point I brought up that divides the Arminian and Calvinist camps?  The issue we want to examine is the question of whether or not men can resist the Holy Spirit.  For a quick answer we might turn to passages such as Acts 7:51 where we have a rather blatant statement on the subject, "You always resist the Holy Spirit."  But at the same time we have the words of Christ in John 6:37, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out."  So how do we resolve such contradictions?  And what does the answer to this question imply about other issues relating to the issue of the freedom of the human will?

First off we have to examine the context of each passage.  In the case of the passage quoted in Acts 7:51 we are looking at the testimony of Stephen before the council when he was asked about the veracity of the charges made against him.  Stephen was not speaking about resisting the Holy Spirit in terms of men resisting the will of God, but rather in terms of persecuting those who spoke the truth of God's word.  Resisting the Holy Spirit in the context of what Stephen said has to be understood in the context of doing violence to the prophets of old.  Thus Stephen was not saying that these men were resisting the call of the Holy Spirit to be Christians, but rather that they were persecuting those who spoke the word of God.

Contextually, however, Christ was speaking about salvation when he spoke to the Jews in John 6.  John 6:22 to the end of the chapter is one long discourse on salvation, and all the conversations between Jesus, the Jews, and the disciples have to be understood in terms of talking about salvation.  This does not make the issue as clear cut as some might would like but it does raise the issue of how each side interprets passages such as this.

First off let's assume the Arminian perspective.

Note that Christ says, "All that the father gives me will come to me."  This demonstrates that men come to God of their freewill.  Christ does not say, "All that the father gives me will be brought to me by the Holy Spirit."  Thus those who come to Christ must come of their own freewill, aligning themselves with the Holy Spirit who calls them.  Also note that Christ says that he will never cast them aside, he does not say that they cannot leave of their freewill, just as they came.

In addition, the Arminian points out that this is a passage written to the Jews.  That the "all that the Father gives me will come to me" is in context of those Jews who have a covenant relationship with God.  This is not a passage talking about salvation in general, but salvation specifically among the Jews.  So here when Christ says that no one can come to him unless the Father draws him is speaking about those who are already in covenant with God needing to be drawn through that covenant to the messiah they are awaiting.

Finally, the discussion of salvation here should be understood in terms of the group to whom Christ was speaking.  Christ was not here trying to lay out that God has called and chosen certain individuals, but rather that as God has given all those who have faith in Christ to him, thus Christ is here teaching that the believing community receives life from him, and that they are all his.  So the issue is not whether or not God has called any certain individual, but rather have you believed, and are you thus part of the community of Christ?

Thus the impetus is on man who responds to the teaching God and comes to Christ because of this teaching, not because the Spirit cannot be resisted.  And so men are called "drawn" by the Father based on their response to the teaching and the calling of the Spirit.  The Father is still the one who initiates the call, but this does not mean that all men who are called will respond, but that those who do respond will be received and accepted by Christ.

However, the Calvinist responds to this that Christ says that no one can come to him unless the Father draws him, and all those whom father gives him will come to him.  Thus the Calvinist points out that it is the determination of God who will be saved, for all those whom God has given to Christ will come to him, and each man comes to Christ because the Father draws him.  Verse 44 becomes important in understanding verses 37-40, because verse 44 lays out that men only come to God because he draws them, and it links those who are drawn with those who are given by noting that those who are drawn will be raised up on the last day.  Here the Calvinist points out that it is the work of the Holy Spirit to draw men to God on behalf of the Father, so the Spirit cannot be resisted or else that would mean that God had given some to Christ who will not come to Christ.

The Calvinist agrees with the Arminian that this passage is not, per se, a discussion on the individual call of believers, but that the individual call is necessitated by the fact that Christ discusses both "all those" and "him" thus showing that Christ has both the universal body and the individual believer in mind in this passage.  So the Calvinist reasons as follows:  All those the Father gives to Christ will come to him, and Christ will raise them up on the last day, because it is the will of the Father that Christ should not lose even one of those given to him, but should raise up each one on the last day; and each one who comes to Christ must be drawn by God, so that he will be raised up on the last day.  The effectual call of God cannot be separated from this passage as the Arminian would like because the text itself requires the effectual call in order to make sense.

Further the Calvinist notes that Christ says that it is the will of God that none that the Father gives him shall be lost, again proving that whoever is drawn to God by the Spirit will necessarily come to God, and he cannot be resisted.  Christ himself says that the spirit gives life, the flesh is no help at all.  Since all men are in the flesh, apart from the work of the Spirit, that means that the will of man in the flesh is of no help in coming to Christ, who is the giver of life.  So men are totally dependent upon the calling and work of the Spirit to draw them to life, their will is necessarily set against the Spirit for their flesh is set against the Spirit, yet God overcomes this opposition in his call to them, rescuing them from the helpless state they are otherwise found in.

Again, the Calvinist and Arminian agree on this point, that no man comes to the Father unless the Father draws him, but the question is whether or not men can resist this call.  The Arminian says that this passage assumes the full knowledge of God and the idea of those who God has given to Christ is based on his final knowledge of who will and won't be saved.  The Calvinist argues that the giving is based on God's decree and that the drawing of the Spirit cannot be resisted, or else that would mean that some of those whom the Father has given the Son would not come to the Son.  The Arminian position must assume an additional theological position of this passage relying on God's foreknowledge, and that his giving in predicated on man's response, thus making man the active agent in salvation.  The Calvinist also assumes God's foreknowledge, arguing that God has determined whom he will call from eternity past, and that the response of man is just that, a response to the will and work of God, who is the active agent in terms of salvation.

Here we see how the teaching of the church would differ based on which position the church takes on these issues.  The Arminian would teach that this passage shows that God's knowledge is so great that he knows who will respond to the call of the Gospel, and at the same time his mercy is such that he will never reject those who come to Christ.  Further they would note the fact that the majority of individuals walked away, despite the fact that Christ was calling them to believe in him, thus illustrating that God works with the freewill of humans to bring about salvation.

The Calvinist, on the other hand, would preach this passage as one showing the sovereignty of God in drawing whom he wills and in assuring those whom he brings to Christ will be saved.  Thus his great mercy is shown in assuring salvation among those whom he effectually calls.  The fact that the majority of those who heard the call turned away does not prove that God is dependent upon the will of man to effect salvation, but rather shows that those who turned away from Christ were not called by the Spirit to salvation.  If they were called to salvation and left Christ that would mean that the will of God was thwarted, because some of whom the Father gave to the Son would not be raised up on the last day.

Other verses could be examined and interpreted, but here we see an example of how the two positions interact with just one passage.

Arminianism and Calvinism: Part 1

I haven't written on this subject because I feel there are already plenty of posts on this subject written by those smarter and with far more training in this area than myself.  However, recently I received a request from a friend of mine to write back to him on this issue and help him understand the two points as he wanted to understand where he stood in this discussion.  Also, as a Southern Baptist, this is a subject that is very important within our churches and our convention.  Unfortunately this debate has become far more divisive than it needs to be, and so I thought I would write a few posts to help clarify the issues for those who are just beginning to learn about these two positions.

A first point must be made that cannot be stressed enough: neither of these positions will save anyone.  This is a debate within the Christian community that revolves around soteriological (soteriology is the study of doctrine of salvation) issues, but being a Calvinist or being an Arminian does not mean you are going to heaven.  Faith in Christ saves a man, and it is possible to understand the soteriological implications of both of these positions (that means you understand how these positions impact one's view of how salvation happens) and take a strong stance on either of them and still not have faith in Christ.  Salvation is not granted by theological acumen, sound argument, or the adherence to traditions that have come from the early church.  Salvation is a gift of God, coming by faith, which faith understands the truth of the Gospel and looks to Christ as the author and perfecter of faith, the only path of redemption for a fallen humanity.

With that being said, these positions are also both within the realm of Christian orthodoxy.  One may be an Arminian or a Calvinist and still be a brother or sister in Christ.  Yes, some of the theological ramifications that develop from these systems will lead to differences in teaching that would lead to some divisions within the church.  But neither of these positions should so divide those within the faith that they would cast one another out or begin screaming "Anathema!" at those who hold to the other view.  In the end this is a discussion within the family of Christ.

Understanding this is an "in-house" discussion, I would like to devote this first post to understanding the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism.  Unfortunately both sides tend to paint the other with an unfair brush, often leading to straw man arguments, or at least less than accurate portrayals of the two theological systems.  Arminians often describe Calvinism in a way that makes it seem that Calvinism necessarily leads to a view of God as a capricious, even petty deity.  Calvinists, on the other hand, tend to discuss Arminianism in a way that makes it seem as though every Arminian is, at best, a semi-Pelagian, and at worst a full blown Pelagian.  (Don't worry if you don't understand some of the terms here, just know that Pelagianism has been condemned by the church as heresy, and Arminianism is not Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism.)  In order to have a conversation about these two systems we must first look to them honestly so as to understand where they differ.

Here is where the Calvinist and the Arminian agree:  No one comes to faith apart from the working of the Spirit of God.  The Calvinist and the Arminian both recognize what I opened with in regards to Salvation:  Salvation is a gift from God.  This means no one comes to God apart from God calling that person to Himself.  This is where Arminianism differs from semi-Pelagianism.  The Arminian does not say that men do all they can and then God must call them the rest of the way, rather the Arminian, along with the Calvinist, says that God is the one who initiates the call of men to himself.  This is important because it is an area where many Calvinists tend to misrepresent what Arminians actually hold to.

Now, at the same time the Arminian and the Calvinist agree that God must call men to himself, they disagree as to the effectiveness of this call.  The Arminian holds that God calls men to himself, but that the man may then resist or respond to the call, thus resisting the desire of God to save him, or aligning his will with that of God and being drawn to relationship with his creator.  For the Calvinist though the idea that man can ultimately resist the will of God is foolishness, for the nature of God being sovereign means that he will accomplish saving those he desires to save.

This necessarily points to another area where the Calvinist and the Armenian disagree, that is what it means to be one of the "elect."  The Arminian argues the elect is the one who has faith.  Thus if you have faith in Christ you are one of the elect.  The idea of election is based upon God's looking forward to see who will  respond in faith to the Spirit's call, and thus those who have faith are the elect.  Again the Calvinist sees this quite in the opposite, arguing that those who are elect are the ones who will have faith.  The Calvinist says that God has determined whom he will effectively call to himself, he has elected to save those individuals as an act of great mercy and thus the elect are those who will have faith in Christ, and their election is in no way based upon any work of their own but only upon the sovereign work of God.

Discussing the idea of election then brings in the question of the extent of the atonement.  Here the classical Calvinist and Arminian positions differ as well.  The Arminian, seeing that those who have faith are the elect and that anyone may align his will with that of the Spirit and so be saved, argues that the atonement is for all humanity, and that the call is wide and general that all men may respond to it.  The Calvinist argues that as God has determined whom he will save and has elected those individuals, the atonement is necessarily limited only to the elect, and that while there is the general call of the Gospel to all men,  Christ did not die to procure salvation for all men, but rather his death was only for those whom God would effectually call, that is, the elect.  (It is this area more than any other I often hear argued about among Christians.)

The final area that I want to discuss as far as Calvinist and Arminian disagreements goes is in the area of final salvation.  What I mean by this is the question of whether or not men can lose their salvation.  In this area modern Arminians have taken a more traditionally Calvinist position, but at the same time many are not aware that their position is historically Calvinist.  In the Baptist tradition there is the saying, "Once saved always saved" which indicates the impossibility of men losing their salvation.  However, the original Arminian position was to reject this position, which the Calvinists held to.  The Arminians argued that the Calvinists were wrong, and that as the will of man was free to determine his own response to God it was therefore possible that a man who had responded in faith to God and had entered into the New Covenant with Christ- a man who was saved- could, in fact, lose that salvation by walking away from Christ.  The Calvinists, again appealing to the sovereignty of God, had argued that whomever God saves is saved, and that as no act of man's will brought him into salvation, but men only responded as the Spirit drew them, so likewise no one who had been so drawn would ever turn away from Christ.

So, on this last point, as to whether or not men can lose their salvation, the Arminian position was that yes, men could lose their salvation.  However, the Calvinist position was that men could not lose their salvation. 

In this area we see the final outworking of the real crux that divides the two camps, that being the question of the freedom of the will of man.  The Arminian argues that the will of man is necessarily free, that God desires a relationship with man built upon this foundation of free choice.  In this view man must decide wholly upon his own whether he will respond to the call of the Spirit or not, and though God calls a man he does not bind the will of man to respond to that call.  The Arminian view may be somewhat summarized as the idea of a lover pursuing his beloved.  The Calvinist argues that the will of man is corrupt, and that God saves men based upon his will, not upon their desire to respond to him.  Consequently, in the Calvinist view, the will of man is either in bondage to sin or grace; there is no such thing as a true "freewill" that is totally unbounded and is not bent either toward God or away from God.  For the Calvinist the relationship between God and man is both a lover chasing after his beloved and also a military captain conquering a rebellious city.

In the next post I will attempt to being looking at the areas where the Calvinist and the Arminian differ.  My goal is to look at Scripture and see which of the positions makes sense of the biblical witness and what the weaknesses are within the positions.  I hope to look at each of the positions from both a philosophical and theological perspective, seeking weaknesses in logic and deficiencies in textual soundness.