Manifesto – 2 – Soteriology

I am going to make a commitment right from the beginning here.  I will attempt to mostly write about what I affirm; not about what I don’t affirm or what I reject or what confuses me, etc.  I will only make note of the opposite position to clarify what I am affirming.

Concerning soteriology.  I lean towards an Arminian perspective, but am a student of Craig Blomberg and as he said often in my Greek Exegesis class (on Romans) at Denver Seminary, both the Arminian and the Calvinistic perspective are present in the text.  A commitment to either is, in my opinion, not completely honest with the whole of scripture.

There are plenty of paradoxes in the NT and the quicker we embrace the mystery and the paradox of it all, the more we can live in our salvation and not question it or question God’s ability to save us.

The Arminian Ordo Salutis (Order of Salvation) is:

Prevenient grace, Faith, [Union with Christ], Justification, Regeneration, Sanctification, Glorification.

I believe that the move from grace to sanctification is as quick as the time b/w flipping the light switch and the light coming on  (almost unnoticeable).  (I recommend the article on www.monergism.com to clarify the reformed or Calvinistic Ordo Salutis.  I especially see the Faith/Union/Justification thing as almost silmultaneous.

One of the primary reasons I lean in the Arminian direction is because I believe in a Prevenient Grace. That is a “preventing” grace that is present all the time due to the sacrificial and victorious death death and subsequent resurrection of the Christ.  The Calvinistic idea of limited atonement, election, and predestination are difficult for me to affirm because of my life experience – see below.

I affirm Total Depravity and affirm that it is grace that woos the person to Faith.

I affirm that we are saved by faith through grace.  I believe it is God’s grace that assumes the power to convert. After that power takes effect and the person has surrendered to Jesus, he or she is justified. That is, I don’t understand man as not marred enough to express faith in his own power.  I just think it is grace that converts vs. regeneration.  In other words, I think of converting faith as a free will act of surrendor to grace vs. the Calvinistic idea of the necessity of regeneration before faith.

Grace is many things.  I think it is primarily the gift of God’s love to the undeserved.  The subsititutionary act of Jesus dying on the cross took place while we were yet sinners because God so loved the world (John 3:16).  I believe that Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection were the climax of human history.  God’s covenant relationship with his people was extended to the gentile through Jesus’ death and resurrection (the Gospel) and the avenue to salvation for the Jew nows travels through Jesus and not through acceptance of prior covenants, race, nationality, and obedience to the law.

I believe the church (the community of the saved) is Israel.  I do not believe Israel the nation or people of the Jewish race has any special or privileged position with God since the Christ-Covenant.  I believe the only way to God is through Jesus Christ – for the Jew and the Gentile.

I believe the elect are those that have placed their faith in Jesus, been regenerated and are persevering in the faith by being sanctified.

I believe God is sovereign and providential, but that foreknowledge and predestination are quite mysterious.  But, experientially, I am aware of some magnetized attraction to Jesus that I cannot shake.  I say, “I am prone to follow” not “prone to wander.”  So, that might be a total contradiction to my position – I’m okay with that.

I am not sold on the blueprint model (Greg Boyd’s terminology) and it is not necessary for God to be Sovereign in that way to be trusted or believed in.  I believe God is active and alive in time and space and interacts with his people in the here and now while working towards a telos that ends the current age and transitions into the age to come.

I believe people can walk away from the faith. I think the warnings in Hebrews and Paul’s paradoxical relationship with Judaizers, disciples that get turned over to Satan, and statements like Phil. 2:12 “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” are reminders that human beings with free will do have responsibility to persevere in the covenant relationship.  I also think John and James had a theology that communicates perserverence.  John 15 is my favorite passage of scripture. The necessity for Jesus to communicate abiding in the vine, in my opinion, points to perserverence.

I believe this view mostly makes sense to me because it is intuitive to my experience. I run in a movement that is Charismatic.  The Charismatic movement in general, sees people come to faith later in life.  This is one of the biggest hurdles for me concerning the Reformed perspective.  If we are foreknown and predestined in the reformed way, why do people come to faith later in life?   I have heard the Calvinistic arguments, I am just not persuaded by them.  It makes more sense to me that God’s prevenient grace is always wooing people.  Some surrender while young and some further down the timeline. (Also, I believe the “problem” of those with lesser intellectual capabilities is under prevenient grace.  An intellectual assent is not necessarily needed.  I think the trinitarian God most desires our affection, not our mental assent to propositions.)

Regeneration as I have experienced it and watched people experience it is a process.  We have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved.   Regeneration and Sanctification are the “being saved” part. I believe that those who are called unto Him undergo, in partnership with God through Jesus in the Power of the Spirit, a process that requires perserverence to come to  Paul says, “work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” (Phil. 2:2) The Calvinistic approach that Grace is Irresistible and that Regeneration happens before Faith and Justification is counter-intuitive to me.

I believe those placing their faith in Jesus and perservering in the faith will be glorified.  I look forward to that day.

I also think this really matters for the practicality of Salvation.  I am not on mission to convert people to a system or to a doctrinal statement.  I am living as one “given” by Christ to the world to proclaim the Gospel.  One of my hangups with the reformed perspective is that it can quickly become about the tradition and not about the mission.

I am called to relationship with Jesus and sent by him to proclaim the Gospel and continue the in-breaking reality of the Kingdom of God.

Well, that’s where I’m at.  I might change my mind.

Tony Jones

I was discouraged on Saturday evening when I read Justin Taylor’s post about Tony Jones.

It is ironic that Mr. Taylor posted this a few weeks ago.  He was very disturbed that Scot McKnight would caricature the New Reformed Crowd saying,

I want to be open to critique, and I know these other men do to (sic). But honestly, McKnight–who has frequently complained about statements about Emergent/ing that don’t make distinctions and paint with broad brush strokes–is doing the same in spades. In addition, he’s publicly caricaturing his brothers and sisters in Christ and doing so in a rather crude way. I hope he reconsiders.

I think JT does this often; he responds to being name called by name calling.  The issue I have with this, from either side, is that when one presents this kind of position, it doesn’t feel like name calling from their perspective, because they are just telling the truth!   I actually like JT’s blog.  It is very helpful and points to a ton of information on a daily basis.  JT also gives me access to the reformed world, which I don’t endorse, but want to understand.  Every once in a while, JT decides to enter the fray and help us all understand the heresy in Jones and the Emergent crowd. 

Furthermore, what I find so disheartening is that it seems silly to champion the Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement (PSA) as “the only viable theory” and as the only “orthodox” and “true” theory.  Tony has followed up his provocative posts over the weekend with further explanation.  As he says, he only denies giving PSA primacy, he does not deny the validity of the actual theory.  This is never enough for the reformed crowd though.  Tony actually flatly denies that he denies the PSA.  But, the PSA has been raised up to the point of Orthodox Doctrine (i.e. an essential), when church history can not endorse that. 

This is the offending quote:

Some people today may find it compelling that some Great Cosmic Transaction took place on that day 1,980 years ago, that God’s wrath burned against his son instead of against me. I find that version of atonement theory neither intellectually compelling, spiritually compelling, nor in keeping with the biblical narrative.

Tony clearly does not deny anything.  Saying it is not compelling, is not the same as saying it is false.  Saying it is not compelling is saying that it is one of many theories, others of which he finds “more” compelling.  Many theologians around the world would say the same exact thing; probably even some reformed ones.

PSA is important, absolutely, and I think preachers need to figure out how to communicate it effectively in the 21st century.  We are so far removed from temple practice that it is down right difficult to communicate the PSA effectively.  One must teach a ton of history to present a contemporary expression of substitution.

I recommend a few resources to see that Tony is not a heretic and faslse teacher for not championing the PSA as the only way:

http://www.amazon.com/Nature-Atonement-Four-Views/dp/0830825703

http://www.amazon.com/Across-Spectrum-Understanding-Evangelical-Theology/dp/0801022762/ref=pd_sim_b_5

Across the Spectrum is actually a great resource to understand the diversity in orthodox theological thought. 

And, finally, Greg Boyd, author of Across the Spectrum (also a flaming heretic to the new reformed; he actually got chased out of the GBC by John Piper over his open theology perspective) champions the Christus Victor theory of atonement. 

I also would say the NT primarily presents the Christus Victor theory.

I am a Kingdom Theology proponet (that is why I am at home in the Vineyard) and Christus Victor is very important from that perspective.  If Jesus came to initiate his Kingdom Reign, he must also have defeated Satan and won the war over death.

Andy Rowell | Church Leadership Conversations

Andy Rowell | Church Leadership Conversations.

Andy Rowell has probably the most practical blog concerning Christian Education and Church Leadership I have read.  If you are considering theological education beyond the undergraduate level, Andy will get you thinking about some of the stuff needed to prepare yourself.

Speedreading | Student Services at Regent University

Speedreading | Student Services at Regent University.

I was recently reading someone’s blog who was asking for advice on speed reading.  This link is to a free online course at Regent University.

I am convinced that the Evelyn Wood book I purchased for 5 bucks at Barnes and Noble in 1999 got me through seminary!  The amount of reading was impossible to keep up with if you didn’t read above average speed.