salvation

The True Nature of Love

Little children, we must not love with word or speech, but with truth and action. 1 John 3:18

Introduction

What is love? Some seem to think of it as just a sentiment, an emotion, or an acceptance of everyone and anything. Others can intellectualize it to the point of cold hearted abstraction. Neither of these views provide a complete picture of love as the former lacks substance but the latter lacks compassion. What these two have in common is their lack of focus on the act of love – it is not simply a belief or an emotion, it’s something that you do. To get a better understanding of what this looks like, we need to distinguish between three kinds of love: agape, phileo, and eros. Agape is an unconditional sacrificial love that wills to do good for others with truth and action. Phileo is a conditional yet loyal affection for friends, family, and society. Eros refers to a sensual or passionate love that is often (but not always) expressed in a sexual manner. Like the Bible, I’d argue that agape is the greatest of these loves for it functions through our intellectual and volitional faculties on the basis of what is truly good for a person and from there it wills to do that good in action. Unfortunately, it is also the most difficult love of them all because it cannot depend on what you feel about a person or whether they feel the same way about you.

Continue reading →

Three things are necessary for the salvation of man: to know what he ought to believe; to know what he ought to desire; and to know what he ought to do.

— Thomas Aquinas

A Sinner’s Last Day

This is how we have come to know love: He laid down His life for us. We should also lay down our lives for our brothers.” 1 John 3:16

This good Friday, we bring into remembrance the sacrifice of Christ who suffered in our place for the sins that we commit. I really liked the animation, particularly because I have a high appreciation for japanese anime but mostly because of how well it expresses the character of Christ and how in many ways, we are just like the criminal. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) and for that reason, we are rightly given justice. Imagine dying on that cross right by Jesus’s side like these criminals did. Who’s side would you be on? The one who mocked Christ or the one who recognized his own sin and despaired? The former wanted to be saved from death, but the other accepted his just punishment, recognized Christ as God, defended His innocence, and pleaded that Christ remember him. He didn’t ask to enter into the Kingdom but nevertheless our loving God said, “I assure you: Today, you will be with me in paradise”.

Those words must’ve brought so much joy to that man. Here he was at the brink of death, reaching out to Christ for love as he asked to be remembered but instead, he was given eternal life. In your moment of death, no matter how painful it is, would you be willing to leave this world behind and embrace Christ as this man did? That’s the greatest test of true love that I can think of. It’s easy for a man to love someone who gives them the things that he wants but take that away and you will see that man’s love for what it truly is. For this reason, I think the cross is the moment at which we see Christ’s love in action as it truly is. He put aside His divine power only to die for His enemies like an innocent lamb led to the slaughter. Through this, our God and King provided us the greatest proof of His love for us. No matter how great our sin, how can we doubt the love that he so absolutely demonstrated that day?

Repent, believe, and rejoice in Jesus Christ – our Savior and our Lord! Amen.

Calvinism and Molinism so far

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’ve recently started a study on molinism with hopes to try and secure a stance on soteriology and the issue of divine foreknowledge and our free will. I haven’t made a decision yet, but I think I am leaning towards molinism. There are a few things that I can’t really understand with regards to Calvinism and its soteriology.

The issue revolves around the idea that God genuinely desires to save all and the calvinistic notion of electing some while leaving others to their doom. If a calvinist affirms that God genuinely desires to save all, then I don’t think he can truly affirm the idea that God can save some but leaves the rest. Now, I’d like to be clear that I don’t intend to speak on behalf of all calvinists. I’m well aware that calvinists differ on their stance (e.g., Bruce Ware and Greg Koukl differ on their calvinistic views). So, I’m mainly targeting Calvinists who approach this issue under the assumption that God genuinely desires to save all, hence the conditional statement I offered.

Let’s think for a moment that it is my genuine desire to have everyone in my neighborhood come and live with me in my luxurious home. My home, for the sake of this little thought experiment, has an infinite amount of rooms and space so it cannot be the case that I do not have enough room to fit everyone. So, one day one of my neighbors is walking by in front of my home and I walk out and say to him, “You there! I would like for you to come into my house, and this is not an offer you cannot refuse. After all, my home is like heaven!” My neighbor happily agrees and he comes in. As I turn back around to walk into my house, many other neighbors storm out of their homes and sadly march up to my front porch. “And why can’t we come too?” They all ask. “Well,” I begin, “You see, I really want you all to come. I really do. But I just can’t do that.” With a perplexed look they retort, “Well why not?!” “Well, I just can’t. Besides, I’m not obligated to bring you into my home.” I give them a sad look and walk right back in my home as I left them out on my front porch.

The first thing that may strike you as odd is if I really and genuinely wanted them all to come into my home, then why didn’t I just invite them in? It seems a bit disingenuous to say that I want them all to come, yet I don’t extend them all the invitation. Unless it’s the case that I really don’t want them all to come. Now if I don’t want them to come, then fine. I’m not obligated to invite people into my home. But I think when it comes to God (The Christian God), this cannot be the answer.

God is not obligated to save anyone at all, and I would agree that that is true. Greg Koukl gave me a similar answer when I called him a few months back asking him about salvation and original sin. God doesn’t have to save anyone because we’re all guilty, and if He were to not offer salvation and see to it that we’re all marched off to pay for our sins in hell, then He would be justified and we’d be getting what we deserved.

I’ll concede this, because God, I suppose if He wanted to, can do that. God isn’t obligated to do so, but He chose to offer himself as a sacrifice to the world, and I think scripture tells quite a different story. 2 Peter 3:7-11 writes, “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. “

The much quoted John 3:16-17 also affirms how much God cares for His creation that He was willing to give “his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”

This issue is nothing new, and it’s been one that Calvinists have regrouped to answer multiple times. Some offer a sort of hidden will that God has. I am well aware that the 2 peter verse is referring to the Lord’s second coming and not to salvation per se. However, Scripture, I think, reveals to us that the character of the Christian God is one in which He cares deeply about us and wishes that we all see salvation.

What can we learn about God’s character from this verse? If we take this scripture to apply universally, i.e., God wishes none to perish in any way, then we could make a good case that God doesn’t want anyone to perish with regards to going to hell. It would be weird to say that God doesn’t wish any to perish when He returns but He’s ok with individuals perishing in hell. Prima facie, I think we are justified in applying this universally, and thus revealing something very telling, and beautiful, about God’s character.

Another scripture that seems to confirm this about God’s character is Ezekiel 33:10-11. Scripture records, “And you, son of man, say to the house of Israel, Thus have you said: ‘Surely our transgressions and our sins are upon us, and we rot away because of them. How then can we live?’ Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?”

So I’d like to comment on the conditional statement I raised at the beginning of this post–If a calvinist affirms that God genuinely desires to save all, then I don’t think he can truly affirm the idea that God can save some but leaves the rest. Arguing with modus ponens:

  1. If God genuinely desires to save all, then a calvinist cannot truly affirm the idea that God can save some but leaves the rest
  2.  God genuinely desires to save all
  3. Therefore, a calvinist cannot truly affirm the idea that God can save some but leave the rest

The calvinist might deny the second premise and say that God doesn’t genuinely desire to save all, but we know this to be a problem since it seems to stand in stark contrast to scripture and God’s character. The calvinist might also say that the first premise is false because the consequent doesn’t follow from its antecedent. The calvinist may appeal to God’s hidden will in solving the issue as to why God won’t save some and not others and leave it at that. But this, too, I think is problematic and Kenneth Keathley explains why. Keathley, in his book Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach, suggests that God’s character is marred in a way that suggests that God is a hypocrite (57). In greater detail he explains,

The hidden/revealed wills approach appears to make God out to be hypocritical, which is a fifth problem. God universally offers salvation that He has no intention for all to receive. Reformed soteriology teaches that the gospel is offered to all, but efficacious grace is given to the elect. The limits of salvation are set by the sovereign and secret choice of God. Numerous times–through the prophets, the Savior, and the apostles–God publicly reveals a desire for Israel’s salvation while secretly seeing to it they will not repent. (57)

It’s purely blasphemous to say a holy God is a hypocrite, and I don’t think God is one. I think the calvinist is in a tight pickle here. Either he affirms God doesn’t genuinely wish the salvation of all, or the calvinistic soteriology is leaving something out.

Those are my thoughts so far. It focused mostly on calvinism because that’s the view that I encounter the most. Molinism looks promising, but I’m not giving it my full allegiance yet.

 Scroll to top