Living Out Our Doctrine

On Scot McKnight's Jesus Creed blog he has a post about a letter he received from a church planter. The planter is apparently dealing with some vocal Calvinists. There's a lot that might be said about the post and letter, the Calvinists, and those who have commented on the blog. For those of us who adhere to a Calvinistic/Reformed/Sovereign Grace theology, perhaps the best response has already been made by Abraham Piper.

In regard to the post and many of the responses, it is interesting to note that for all the talk about how divisive Calvinists are, no one noted that Dr. McKnight chose to title his post "Letter about Those Pesky Calvinists" [emphasis mine]. To put this in perspective, how would many of the commentors to this post react to a post titled "Those Pesky Arminians" or "Those Pesky Emergents?" I may deal with this tangentially in a later post, but I'll leave it for now.

For the moment I want to focus on one point made in one comment,

"There are obnoxious Christians of every variety. But there is something inherent in Calvinism that causes people always to be drawing lines. I know some gracious Calvinists. But, honestly, they live above their theology."

No. Of all Christians, Calvinists who understand the implications of their theology will be the most gracious of people. I know this may seem contradictory to some who have only interacted with TR's (the truly reformed), but Calvinism should make us humble and gracious. One problem is that no one ever fully understands the implications of their theology.

For the Calvinist, we sometimes understand less because we tend to focus on a few select implications of our theology. In an attempt to be God-centered, sometimes we don't think about the human implications of holding to Reformed doctrine. So let me illustrate with a few brief points.

The Calvinist is first and foremost a Christian. As such we are called to live as Jesus lived, which means that like Him it should be said of each of us that "a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench" (Matthew 12:20).

Our theology says that all men are totally depraved. This means that every aspect of our being, including our reason, has been affected by the fall. What we know we know because the Holy Spirit has been our teacher. If He has chosen to teach us some things, and others different things, we have no reason to boast. Once I was an Arminian. My theology does not allow me to take credit for becoming a Calvinist. I'm not a Calvinist because I'm better or smarter than my friends who remain Arminians.

As an aside, this is not to say that reason and civil discourse have no place in the Christian life. God uses means to accomplish his ends. But if in a discussion I plant the seed that the Spirit brings to life, the seed was given to me by the Spirit and brought to life by the Spirit. Likewise, if in a discussion with a fellow believer I say something that leads them to a reformed theology, neither I nor that person can take credit for it occurring.

Third, the Calvinist should understand that all that he has is because of grace. There is nothing that makes me superior to my brother. As John Newton wrote grace is amazing because it saves a "wretch like me." God loves me not because of anything in me. I have not earned nor do I deserve His love.

Calvinism rightly understood puts an axe to the tree of pride. The problem exists that pride is a stubborn tree, and we turn from understanding all that our reformed doctrine would teach us. May we (I as much as anyone) repent of this error and labor with the axe to put an end my pride.

Calvinism and Arminianism

As I mentioned in the previous post, we do not wade in the shallows when we think about election (or the Trinity or how Jesus can be fully man and fully divine). So if we go out into deep waters, how should that affect our relationships with those that disagree with us. For example, how should a "Calvinist" relate to an "Arminian"?

First, let's acknowledge that there is a danger in being in deep water. One risk is that we become overly rigid and exclusionary. This, it seems to me, is especially true about those who have just discovered these truths. The danger of becoming too exclusionary is present in part because some of these truths are exclusionary. Christians are the only theists who believe in the Trinity. It has been a dividing line between us and Jews and Muslims for centuries. Therefore it is not always easy to know what truths are worth dividing over. The other risk, which seems common in our day, is that the depth of the water makes us despair of being able to know anything.

But I believe that deeper studies, especially if done prayerfully and always with a dependence on the Scriptures, are corrective to each of these risks. Why? Because we will come, with Paul, to understand that we cannot fully grasp who God is or what He has done. We are left with only doxology about how great God is. I am finite and fallen, so I can never comprehend the infinite, holy God fully. But through these studies we will also see that God has revealed Himself, so there are truths about God that we can know and understand.

Second, let us realize we are not called to a war to eradicate Arminianism. Do I think election is important? Definitely. Do I think the Reformed understanding of election as outlined by Luther, Calvin, and the men who follow in their footsteps is the correct understanding? Definitely. Do I think Arminians are lesser Christians? Definitely not. Charles Spurgeon, a far more capable proponent of election than I, noted that two men he held in highest esteem were George Whitefield, a Calvinist, and John Wesley, an Arminian.

Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. C. H. Spurgeon "A Defense of Calvinism" (middle of 3rd paragraph from the bottom)

For a similar perspective on this topic, I would commend to you a post by Mark Dever on the Together for the Gospel blog. In part he writes (emphasis his):

The real front line is not between Calvinist evangelicals and Arminian evangelicals. It is between those who are lost in their sins and those who have been saved by God's sheer grace in Christ.

Third, this doesn't mean we don't discuss, debate, and contend for our beliefs. But it is the kind of contention that allowed George Whitefield to rebuke John Wesley for Wesley's Arminianism, but then say that he did not expect to see Wesley in heaven because Wesley would be so much closer to the throne of God than Whitefield that Whitefield would not be able to see him.

Election is neither an essential doctrine, like justification by faith alone, nor is it a personal conviction issue, like whether Christians are allowed to partake of alcohol in moderation. Election and other doctrines which fall into this middle ground are doctrines which should be discussed. Therefore, the (admittedly difficult) task is to contend for our understanding of truth with a humble, irenic spirit.

So Far As Possible

In dealing with Romans 12:18, the final question I want to address is what do we do when it is not possible to live peaceably with someone? I think there are different answers depending on what kind of disagreement is in view. Perhaps the most frightening, but easiest to deal with in the theoretical, is the person who is violent. In this case, the state, if it is fulfilling the purpose for which God created it, should step into the situation (see Romans 13). Unfortunately for Paul, it was often agents of the state who were being inappropriately violent. In this case, we submit to the persecution and praise God anyway.

Those who are merely being antagonistic should just be avoided. I see this as the equivalent of Jesus telling the disciples that if they were not received in a town, to shake the dust off their feet. I do not think this should be done hastily, but if after repeated attempts to be civil have failed, the best option is to avoid the situation as much as possible. This assumes, of course, the other party is an unbeliever. As believers, we are called to reconcile our differences, if necessary seeking other believers as mediators.

The New Testament is also clear that those who seek to undermine the authority of the Scriptures, or to distort the gospel, cannot be left to promulgate their teaching in the church. Paul, in Galatians and the Pastorals especially, makes it clear that false teaching of this type requires swift and decisive action.

But what about those who hold the Scriptures in high regard, and are sound on the gospel, but hold to some doctrine that we feel is contrary to Scripture. Should those who hold to infant baptism have discourse with one who believes in believer's baptism? Should one who holds to a day-age view of creation be shunned by those who believe in literal 24 hour days? Individual lines are always difficult to draw. What may be a major doctrinal point for you may not be for me.

In my opinion, those who hold to certain essentials should be treated as brothers. In non-essentials, we should be able to openly disagree without dividing. Being at peace with someone should not exclude us from having spirited (Spirited?) discussions about doctrine. In fact, it should encourage it. Our unity in essentials should free us to discuss our differences in substantial matters that are not essentials. I have benefited from interacting with and reading those with whom I have some fairly significant differences.

I am a fallen creature, and as such I know that my doctrine is not now perfect. Therefore I have to be open to the possibility of change. At the same time, I have centuries of discussion on critical doctrines where other redeemed men have been united on key doctrines that they have found in the Bible. I cannot in good conscience set those aside because of a contemporary mood that finds them distasteful.

Therefore, so far as I am able, I will live peaceably with all. But I will also heed the call to contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

Addendum (Monday, May 7 at ~ 8:30 EST): Reading through this again, I want to emphasize that the ending is not intended too mitigate the beginning of the series. There are only a few doctrines for which I see us being called to contend earnestly. While I don't see these doctrines as being limited to either the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed, they are definitely good starting points. I would quickly add the inspiration and authority of Scripture. I would not include, for example, the mode and timing of Baptism, which I see as important and worth discussion, but discussion that first and foremost acknowledges the bond of Christ. This does not mean that I would expect an expressly paedobaptistic congregation to accept me into leadership (I would, in fact, expect the opposite). But I would expect that we could fellowship and grow together in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I also believe in that situation I have an obligation to not make baptism a subject of discussion. (As a sidenote, it is generally much easier for a Baptist to be accepted into a congregation of paedobaptists than vice versa.)

This is all to say that I think too many of us are too willing to divide over doctrines over which we should not be dividing. While some of them may lead us to be parts of different congregations, they should not prevent us from having close friendships with one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. If it sounds like I've been listening to the Together for the Gospel guys again, I have.

Not Peace, But a Sword

I've been blogging about Romans 12:18, where the Apostle Paul writes:

If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. (ESV)

But doesn't Jesus tell us that He came not to bring peace but a sword? Is this a contradiction to Paul telling us to live peaceably with all? Does not Paul himself describe the Christian life in terms of warfare? Obviously, I do not believe Scripture contradicts Scripture, so how we to reconcile these statements?

First we have to understand that the latter statements are indicatives of what will occur, not imperatives that we are to instigate the conflict. This is why Paul says at the start of Romans 12:18 "so far as it depends on you." We will always have conflict, but we should not be the ones who cause the conflict. I think the command in Romans 12:18 is harder than we like to think.

The comparable command from Jesus is found in Luke 6:27-36:

27 “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. 30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. 31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

32 “If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. 35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. 36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. (ESV)

Notice that final line. Our acts of mercy are to reflect God's act of mercy. Mercy that bore the cost of sin, our offense against Him, without demanding anything in return from those that turn to Him. The simple act of trusting in His goodness is sufficient to finding forgiveness and peace. We should be a people where others know that forgiveness is always available.

Second, then, we must see that Romans 12:18 is an imperative - a command. A command based upon the Gospel, that we who were enemies of God have been reconciled to Him. Therefore we must display that Gospel forgiveness, meaning that to all who will live peaceably with us, we will live peaceably with them. And to those who will not live peaceably with us, we must still try to live peaceably with them.

Peter tells us the same thing as Paul, saying (1 Peter 3:13-18):

13 Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? 14 But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; 16 yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil.

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit . . . (ESV)

Most of us who have been Christians a while can paraphrase v. 15, that we are to be ready to give a defense, but note the character of that defense in v. 16 - gentleness, respect, and a good conscience. If I'm honest with you, and me, gentleness is not that a trait many people would use to describe my giving a defense. In football, a good defense means you "stick it" when you are tackling someone. There should be no doubt that they know you were there. Football is popular, of course, because it reflects many of the ways of this world.

God calls us to a defense that is gentle and full of respect, even for those who have no respect in this world. We are to remember two critical points - first, that every human being bears the image of God, and therefore should be treated like an image bearer; and, second, that every one of us, including ourselves, have marred that image through sin. I am not better than the dealer, the gang member, the addict. I have dealt sin to others, forced my will on others, and not been able to escape the grip of my habits. Despite my salvation, I still struggle with these things.

So Paul commands us to live peaceably. It will not just happen, it will take effort. My natural tendency is to react with resentment, bitterness, and anger at those who do not pay me the respect I feel I deserve. But what if God reacted that way when I did not pay Him the respect He really does deserve? But Peter reminds us that Jesus suffered in our place, bearing God's just judgment against my lack of respect, my animosity, my raised fist with finger extended, my angry rebellions.

In light of that forgiveness, how do I justify my anger at those around me? How do hold a grudge against those that have committed slight or grievous offenses against me? Because I forget. I forget the greatness of my sin, and the even more abundance of His grace. My goal is to look to the cross when I feel I've been mistreated. To remember that Jesus deserved nothing of what He received. Yet He prayed, "Father forgive them . . ."

This raises at least one more question - how do we deal with those who absolutely refuse to live peaceably with us? I hope to have that up by the end of the week, but I fly to Charleston tomorrow and will be there at least until Thursday evening. I'll hopefully have some time in the evenings, but there will be a large group of us there, and I'm expecting long days and late dinners that will not be quick.

Live Peaceably with All

In my last post, I quoted Paul from Romans 12:

Romans 12:18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.
(ESV)

I want to spend a little time "unpacking" this verse. Three things I want to note briefly here. First is the context, second is the extent, and third is the command. Paul also acknowledges that there is a problem that will be discussed somewhere in here.

First, keep in mind that Romans is the great epistle on the gospel. Chapter 12 is the first time Paul has moved from predominantly theological/doctrinal reflection and argument into predominantly "how should we then live" discussion. In context, I think Paul is saying you were once enemies with God, and He has made the great sacrifice to live peaceably with you. What then is too large a sacrifice for you to live peaceably with others?

In the first part of this verse, Paul admits that it is not always within our grasp to live peaceably with others. As the old cliche goes, some people only want to bury the hatchet in you. Regardless of what you do, they will not be reconciled to you. They will always think you mean them harm. They will always read/hear your words differently than you intended. They will never give you the benefit of the doubt.

But even here the we are to love that person and not be antagonistic. I'm a good calvinist, in the school of Spurgeon, Edwards, etc. Some of the TR's out there and theonomists might disagree with me on that assessment, but I think it's correct. Therefore I know that we read words like "every" and "all" we have to be careful. To read "all" as every single individual in some contexts would make one a universalist. So, point two, extent, what does Paul mean by "all" in Romans 12:18? I think this is a particular universal. It is particular to me and universal in its application to me. "All" for me is everyone I know and with whom I have contact. "All" for you is everyone you know and with whom you have contact.

Yes, as noted above, there will be some with whom this is not possible. BUT . . . that is not an excuse for you (or me) to return the antagonism. An outsider looking in on the situation should be able to see clearly who is supplying the fuel to keep the conflict raging.

"All" here clearly is a reference to fellow believers. But it also goes beyond that to those of the world who reject Jesus. The context of Romans 12:14-21 is that of responding to persecution. Think about why Paul endured the persecution he did without bitterness or malice - because once he was the persecutor and had been shown mercy while the persecutor. This passage has its corrollary in the parable of the good Samaritan. Who is your neighbor? With whom should you live peaceably? Too often we (or at least I) look for why I should be allowed to exclude someone from my favor (not, mind you that my favor is such a valuable thing that its missed terribly when not given). But the Gospel is that we who are the least deserving of God's favor have been given it anyway through the sacrifice of the Son. God makes the rain to fall and the sun to shine on both the just and the unjust (both rain and sun are necessary and blessings). We are called to honor that modeling that.

Finally, the command then is to live peaceably. Some people (too often I) like to stir the pot. I can give absolutely horrible examples of when I have done this in my own life. But we are not to be antognists. We are to love and reach out. We are to seek reconciliation, because we have been given the ministry of reconciliation. Try selling someone, "God loves you and wants a relationship with you, but we really don't want your kind in our church." Or "God loves you but I find you offensive." God finds us all offensive in our sin; He loves us anyway. He became one of us and lived among our filth.

To live peaceably with others we must humble ourselves. If we see ourselves as better than others, we will destroy any peace that exists between us. To live peaceably we must be broken because of our own sin. When we have wept over our sins we are able appropriately weep over the sins of others and call them to repentance. To live peaceably we must be sure of our standing with God in Christ Jesus. We can endure persecution and slander only when have properly grasped that it is only for a time and that our standing with God will never change.

I have not lived this recently. I speak these things not from the mountain, but the valley. God grant me the grace to climb.

When I Grow Up

I want to be a librarian. Think about it. All those books and a nice quiet atmosphere. A long time ago I read a list of the best jobs. At the top was actuary (quiet and better pay, I suppose) but second was librarian. I'm sure there are the periodic confrontations, but mostly it would seem like a quiet job.

But that's not the career path I chose. So I'm an engineer. Not a bad job, but more stressful, I think, than being a librarian would be. Which is to say I generally want the rest of my life to be quiet and uneventful. I'm starting to see that's not likely to be the case. It is said there is an ancient Chinese curse - "May you live in interesting times." Our times are interesting, I will say that.

I bring this up to say that one reason I haven't been blogging, or reading blogs, much these days is because they are (gross generalization coming) contentious. There are exceptions. Voice of Vision, The Dow, Dluxe's World, Craver VII, Between Two Worlds and others I readily acknowledge as exceptions. But many of the places I (used to) frequent seem to thrive on debate.

I'm not against debate. There are those who are called to the front line and all of us are there on occasion. I just don't want to be there all the time. So I'm going to try to remove that "tone" from my posts. This is not a call for others to do the same. If you read this and are happy with your blog, by all means carry on. Sometimes the debate blogs get the lion's share of the attention, so not everyone feels like I do. It's probably more of a temperament thing anyway.

I thought about deleting some of my more contentious old posts, but that's more work than I want to spend on this. Besides, they provide a measuring stick for whether I've really changed or not. Part of this attitude change may relate to being out (again) of the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention), but probably not. I'm not sure if it's a life verse (if you have a life verse, feel free to let me know) but it's a verse that I have come back to quite often since I found it years (okay, I can probably measure this in decades now) ago:

Romans 12:18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. (ESV)

When I grow up, I want to be a peacemaker.