Yesterday I started a several day long mini-series on the Calvinist version of predestination. Today I want to tackle the question – “According to John Calvin what is predestination?”
What is Predestination?
Calvin acknowledges that this doctrine has some difficulties, he says that the notion that God out of his own pleasure offers salvation to some and not to others causes “many great and difficult questions” many which seem “inexplicable” (215). However he believes that despite some of the apparent difficulties that this doctrine might have, it is a necessary doctrine and it is a biblical doctrine. Calling this doctrine a “secret thing of God” (216), it must be taught because it is found in God’s word. Since it is revealed in God’s word, God must have revealed it for a reason, namely because it “would be conducive to our interest and welfare” (216). This notion that it is a revealed “secret of God” and it must be taught is meant to answer two types of people. The first type of person is the person who attempts to figure God and his ways out. They “rush forward securely and confidently” into inquiring into the secrets of God, these people go beyond what is revealed in scripture thus they are foolish. The other type of person is the person who wants the doctrine to be rarely if ever taught. These people ignore that whatever is delivered in scripture must not be kept from the faithful (218). Both of these points lead us to see that Calvin believes that the doctrine of predestination is clearly taught in scripture.
Calvin believes that this doctrine is seen in God’s election of Abraham. He also believes that it is displayed in the election of Abraham’s family, since God rejected some and kept others even from those among Abraham’s family (220). Finally, Calvin also believes that God elects individuals to which He will offer salvation (222). For instance he cites Paul as declaring that “we were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world” (225). He also cites Paul’s letter to Timothy saying that God has called us according to his own purpose. He also makes use of John’s Gospel, to show his doctrine of election (227). Thus he believes that “Scripture clearly proves that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once and for all those who it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation and…to doom to destruction” (223).
“By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every human”
So it is clear that Calvin believes that the doctrine of predestination is revealed by God in Scripture; but what is the doctrine? Calvin says that “By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every human” (220). The elect are preordained to be adopted as “sons by the heavenly Father” attaining “salvation and immortality” (3.24.5), while the reprobate are preordained to eternal damnation. Calvin makes it clear that he believes in double predestination, thus it is not only the elect that are predestined but also the reprobate. He believes that it is illogical to say that there is only election and not reprobation (230); for “whom God passes by for election he reprobates” (230).
Briefly we should note that for Calvin election is not simply foreknowledge. He believes that God foreknows the elect because he has chosen the elect, it is not the other way around (238). Calvin accuses those who subordinate foreknowledge to election of teaching election by works. The foreknowledge view states that God distinguishes between individuals based upon his foreknowledge of how much merit a person will acquire, then God elects or dooms people based upon their merits that he foresees (224). Calvin argues that this is unscriptural. To do this is to “invert Paul’s order” (225) for Paul says that we are elected to be holy, not because we are holy (225). Having seen what Calvin believes about predestination, we are in a position to see why he believes that it is not unjust, we will do this tomorrow.
(Note: All quotes come from the anthology, The Protestant Reformation edited by Hans Hildebrand.)
Without a doubt, predestination is one of the most argued about doctrine. This is partially due to the fact that predestination seems to challenge a key concept that most people deem necessary for moral responsibility, namely the principle of alternate possibilities (PAP). The PAP, which states that one must have alternate possibilities in order for one to be morally responsible, seems incompatible with the doctrine of predestination. Since the PAP, which seems intuitive to most, seems to be incompatible with moral responsibility, some argue that this doctrine is unjust. Some believe that it is unjust for God to make demands on people without those people having alternate possibilities as to whether to accept or reject those demands. Over the next few days I’m going to try to show why Calvin thinks that predestination is not unjust. Tomorrow I will begin by explaining what predestination is according to Calvin. I will conclude by explaining why Calvin thinks that this doctrine is actually beneficial. I will end this short series by outlining some of the benefits of the doctrine.
Levis vs. Dockers. This is a tale of two pairs of pants. Or better yet two kinds of Christians who tend to wear two kinds of pants. In one corner you have the skinny jean wearing, tattoo flaunting, hipster eye-glassed, latte sipping Christians who think that “the Kingdom deeds good deeds done by good people in the public sector for the common good” (4). In other words the Kingdom mission means working for social justice and peace. In the other corner you have the pleated pants crew – the Docker wearing Christians who have focused all of their kingdom theorizing on two questions – “When does the Kingdom arrive?” and “Where is the Kingdom?”
A typical Christian hipster… This guy is probably a pastor too.
Their answer to these questions is generally “The kingdom is both present and future, and the kingdom is both a rule and a realm over which God governs” (9). We might summarize their position as “kingdom = God’s redemptive rule and power at work in the world.”
In Kingdom Conspiracy: Returning to the Radical Mission of the Local Church Scot McKnight offers an Anabaptist interpretation of what scripture means by Kingdom of God & how that will affect the mission of the church. He concludes that kingdom means “a people governed by a king.” (66) Kingdom does not refer to rule, or a redemptive dynamic, it specifically refers to a people governed by a king. This leads to the surprising conclusion that “kingdom is a people and the church is a people, then it follows that the church people are the kingdom people… there is no kingdom outside of the church.”
This claim goes up against the evangelical consensus which has in general followed George Ladd who claims that:
The Kingdom is primarily the dynamic reign or kingly rule of God, and derivatively the sphere in which the rule is experienced. In biblical idiom, the Kingdom is not identified with its subjects. They are the people of God’s rule who enter it, live in it, and are governed by it. The church is the community of the Kingdom but never the Kingdom itself… the Kingdom is the rule of God; the church is a society of men and women.
The upshot of McKnight’s position is that kingdom mission is church mission, church mission is kingdom mission, and there is no kingdom mission that is not church mission. Or we might say that the criteria for deciding whether something is “mission” or not is whether it forms or enhances local churches. Something is only mission if it is about Jesus. This will certainly ruffle the feathers of the Skinny Jeans crowd.
Kingdom mission is church mission is gospeling about Jesus in the context of a church witness and loving life. Anyone who calls what they are doing “kingdom work” but does not present Jesus to others or summon others to surrender themselves to King Jesus as Lord and Savior is simply not doing kingdom mission or Kingdom work. They are probably doing good work and doing social justice, but until Jesus is made known, it is not kingdom mission. (142)
I believe that this last paragraph is the heart of this book – if its not pointing people to Jesus & if its not carried out by Jesus’ people then its not really kingdom work.
Just because you are a part of the dockers (i.e. pleated pants) crowd that doesn’t mean you can’t rock them with style!
Review
There are so many great things about this book. I love the fact that he makes a case for why all social justice isn’t necessarily kingdom work. I love the fact that he centers mission around the proclamation of King Jesus. I love the fact that he grounds his arguments in thorough readings of scripture. However despite the fact that I agree with his vision for who King Jesus is and what mission is, I can’t buy into what he sees as the implications of the gospel and mission. Before I push back on a bunch of things, let me just say that I ate up this book, I loved McKnight’s heart for the church and for proclaiming Jesus as the one and only king. In fact, I agree with Publisher’s Weekly who said that “This is must reading for church leaders today.” I really believe that this is a book that many people in my own generation, those who are drawn to a Skinny Jeans gospel, need to read. Having said that, here is where I want to push back:
The Kingdom Story is All Mixed-Up: Most evangelicals hold to a Creation-Fall-Redemption-Consummation story of the bible. Some have ignored some key parts of this story (Abraham, Israel, Exile, etc) but in the last few years we have been improving our understanding of this big picture story. McKnight however suggests a different story. He suggests an A-B-A’ story. The Story goes: Plan A: God rules the world through is elected people but God is the one and only King. Plan B: God accommodates to Israel’s selfish desires and lets David or an Israelite king rule. Plan A’: Plan B failed, Plan A takes on a new form, with God ruling in the God-man Jesus. What is wrong with this Kingdom Story? It makes it seem as though God’s plan failed and he had to come up with a brand new plan. It makes it seem as though Jesus was not the point the whole time, as though Jesus was God’s backup. I just can’t go there.
McKnight’s Theology of Mission Needs to be Nuanced: McKnight is absolutely right, anyone who calls what they are doing “kingdom work” but does not present Jesus to others or summon others to surrender themselves to King Jesus as Lord and Savior is simply not doing kingdom mission or Kingdom work. However this position needs to be nuanced. He doesn’t do this, so I will try to offer a nuanced position for him ( I think he will agree). Here is my revision of his position: Kingdom work is work that proclaims King Jesus as Lord and Savior. Any work which proclaims the reality of Jesus’ universal reign as King – and is done by kingdom people is kingdom work. We need to remember though that proclamation need not be verbal at all times. Ultimately it will lead to verbal proclamation, but one can testify to the reality that Jesus is king without a verbal proclamation. Practically this means, that a Christian who works for an organization like Living Water International can do kingdom work because her work is done in the name of Jesus and proclaims the fact that under Jesus’ rule it is unthinkable that people would suffer from a lack of clean water. This means that a church who serves their community by opening their doors for recovery programs is doing Kingdom work because it is done in the name of Jesus by Christians. This means that the lone Christian who works in a secular non-profit that does public health education is doing Kingdom work because he is bringing God’s reign to bear (people’s health flourishing) and is doing so in an effort to proclaim “this is what life is like when Jesus reigns,” even though they might not be doing so explicitly with their words on a daily basis.
The Kingdom is Not the Church: In an effort to make his case that Kingdom = Church he quotes D.A. Carson who says that “In no instance is Kingdom to be identified with church, as if the two words can occasion become tight synonyms. Even when there is a referential overlap, the domain of ‘kingdom’ is reign, and the domain of ‘church’ is people.” I agree with Carson. McKnight believes that one day Christ will reign over all of creation, but right now Christ’s reign is only over the church. Again I have to disagree – for there is no square inch of creation over which Christ does not say “mine.” How is that reign expressed? And to what extent do we experience that reign? That is a question for another place and another day. Nevertheless we can say with Richard Mouw that:
The Kingdom is the broad range of reality over which Christ rules… Kingdom covers all those areas of reality where Christ’s rule is acknowledged by those who work to make that rule visible…The institutional church is certainly an important part of Christ’s kingdom, but the church is only one part of the Kingdom…You don’t have to go into a church to do something related to the kingdom…Wherever followers of Christ are attempting to glorify God in one or another sphere of cultural interaction, they are engaged in kingdom activity.” (Abraham Kuyper: A Short and Person Introduction)
McKnight’s Anabaptist theology will not allow him to buy into this Kuperian-Reformed view of Kingdom and culture. I believe that contrasting Mouw’s/Kuyper’s vision with McKnight’s vision of the Kingdom reveals the core of McKnight’s kingdom theology – ultimately McKnight’s kingdom theology is Anabaptist – it is one in which the Church is radically separate from the world. This means that the church does its own thing and can only stand against culture. The church and its mission cannot begin from within the system. This is exactly what McKnight sees happening with the Skinny Jeans Christians and the Pleated Pants Christians. And according to McKnight this is a big problem. Even though I do have a few problems with this book – I certainly don’t want it to come off as though I don’t recommend this book. I highly recommend this book, I honestly believe that every person in ministry should read it, primarily because it will challenge your assumptions about what “Kingdom” means, and hopefully that will lead you to come to your own conclusions.
Kramer obviously prefers to roll with the skinny jeans Christians – he needs to read Kingdom Conspiracy. George Castanza clearly rolls with the pleated pants crew, he needs a new wardrobe.
Sort of not really…. I love what Professor William J. Abraham says:
Philosophy is like a sort of disease that you pick up but there is no cure.
That is so true. Anyway here Professor Abraham talk about how the relationship between philosophy and theology, Jonathan Edwards, and teaching classes on evangelism.
In Kingdom Conspiracy Scot Mcknight makes an argument that the church in American has bought into the temptation of Constantinianism. This is especially evident in the form of civil religion that has emerged as Roman Catholics, Jews, Mormons, and Evangelicals have become more and more involved in furthering a particular political agenda.
Here is what he says about this civil religion which is based upon a “Judeo-Christian” Ethic.
There is no such thing as an ethic that is both “Judeo” and “Christian,” for one simple reason: the “Christian” part of the ethical question adds Jesus as Messiah, the cross as the paradigm, the resurrection as the power, the Holy Spirit as the transforming agent, the necessity of new birth, and the church as the place where God is at work. Hence, a “Judeo-Christian ethic” either strips the Christian elements or turns the “Judeo” part into a Christian ethic.
That is a pretty powerful claim. What do you make of it?
This week I have been studying Paul’s letter to the Philippians. One thing that really jumps out at me is how often he uses the word rejoice. Commentator after commentator point out that joy or rejoicing is a major theme in this short letter. In fact one commentator was said:
Summa Epistolae; Gaudeo, Gaudete.
Which simply means “the content of the letter; I rejoice, now you rejoice!” That is an awesome summary of this letter and its supper fitting too – the word family for joy is more common in this letter than any other Pauline letter.
Ralph Martin in his little but powerful commentary on Philippians in the Tyndale New Testament Commentary Series says this about Paul’s letter:
The value of this fact [Paul’s injunction to rejoice] lies surely in its clear indication that Paul was enabled to rejoice in the most trying circumstances of his captivity. The example of a man whose life is filled with joy, and his exhortations to ‘rejoice in the Lord’ does not proceed from some ivory tower of peace and security. On the contrary, the writer is Paul the prisoner, who is awaiting news which may spell his death…”
Paul knows what it means to suffer, Paul knows what its like to live in despair, yet he can honestly tell this church to rejoice always. Why can he say this? Its simply because he knows his union with Christ is secure.
Today I came across an interesting article by Gordon Graham on Neo-Calvinism and Contemporary Political philosophy. In this article he contrasts the two extremely different visions of Abraham Kuyper and John Rawls. For instance, consider this claim by Kuyper:
“No political scheme has ever become dominant which was not founded in a specific religious or anti-religious conception.”
Today this claim seems ludicrous, at least to the mainstream liberal-democratic tradition embodied by John Rawls. (By liberal I don’t mean left leaning – I’m describing the dominant western political system). John Rawls, like most contemporary political philosophers attempt to divorce politics, specifically political justice, from any comprehensive view of life, both religious and anti-religious. Note what Rawls himself says:
“A conception of justice is political when it is presented independently of any wider comprehensive religious or philosophical doctrine… This means that in discussing constitutional essentials and matters of basic justice we are not to appeal to comprehensive religious and philosophical doctrines – to what we as individual or members of associations see as the whole truth.”
To simplify things a bit – Rawls thinks justice, especially political justice, is blind. Thus any political system should build itself up or maintain itself independently of any sort of religious/anti-religious philosophical system. This is the exact opposite of what Kuyper claims to be true, that all political schemes are specifically built upon religious or anti-religious foundations.
John Rawls
So given the fact that Kuyper’s opinions would seem ludicrous in any learned discussion of political philosophy (within our Western tradition) what should we do with Kuyper’s political philosophy? That is precisely the question that Gordon Graham tries to address in this paper.
One option is that we could completely discount Kuyper as a conversation partner with contemporary political philosophy because his time has passed and his views are antiquated – as Graham says, we could ignore him because “His world, in short, is not ours.” This seems like a reasonable position, after all the political world of 2014 is quite different that it was in 1914. We live in a world, quite unlike Kuyper’s, after all we live in a pluralistic world. This claim however is unfounded, after all Kuyper’s neo-Calvinist project was undertaken precisely because he lived in an increasingly pluralistic world. So discounting Kuyper just because he wrote a long time ago is not an option.
If anything, we have seen in recent years with the rise of the “religious right” and Islam as a political force that politics certainly cannot be separated from religious commitments. I’m not saying that politics is at its core religious, it certainly might by anti-religious. What I am saying, and I’m just using Kuyper’s words here – “No political scheme has ever become dominant which was not founded in a specific religious or anti-religious conception.”
You can’t remove your religious or political commitments when approaching questions of politics. Unlike what Rawls tries to claim, there is not such thing as a neutral approach to politics. The fact that this is true certainly poses a huge problem for how to do politics in a pluralistic world where everybody brings their commitments to the table – but that is an issue I sure don’t want to address or try to address in a short blog post.
We’ve all been in situations where somebody was obviously lying to you, and they couldn’t keep their story straight. Their sequence of events are all off, they can’t remember who was there, they can’t remember any details, etc. At that point you just want to look the person square in the eyes – and say to them “C’mon dude – get you story straight!”
Scot McKnight, author of Kingdom Conspiracy
Well when it comes to telling the story of the gospel – getting your story straight is just as important. Nothing less will do. Scot McKnight says that getting our story straight – our Gospel story – is incredibly important for how we do mission. Here is what he says in his own words:
Until we get the fullness of this story on the table, the kingdom mission will be sold short. When we do, we learn that mission is not the first word, but Christ is; we gain a new understanding of evangelism; we discover that genuine kingdom mission is cruciform, shaped by and towards the cross; and we also are reformed into the hope of the kingdom. All these flow directly from seeing the first word as Jesus. (Kingdom Conspiracy, 135)
When Jesus is the beginning, center, and end of our story mission falls into place. Or as McKnight says:
Kingdom Mission begins, and ends with Jesus, the cruciform King.
Citizen: Your Role in the Alternative Kingdom begins with author Rob Peabody standing on a Balcony overlooking the Old City of Jerusalem. In that moment, life seemed to become so much clearer – he came to a breakthrough…. He realized that the Christian life he had been experiencing had been quite anemic, he realized that he wanted more. Thus kicked off a process that led him all the way from Texas to the UK.
Throughout Citizen Rob Peabody challenges the reader to re-imagine their life, reposition what she values, re-identify who she is, and re-center life around the true King of the world…
Here is what he says about that sort of life:
“It will be hard at times, then sweetly exhilarating and right at others. In the end, you will find the life you were created to live: a life so extraordinary and full of joy that you cannot even fully comprehend it right now; a life not wasted, a life that goes beyond just you, a life that gives worship and glory to the One who is worthy. The Father is standing with open arms, inviting you in to experience all that he has created and called you to be. You have been saved for this…” (pp. 33-34)
As Peabody begins to stoke the reader’s imagination for what this sort of life looks like by using a “Citizen” metaphor throughout the book. Citizens have a particular identity, they have a particular community, they have certain allegiances, they represent certain sovereign bodies, etc. Each one of these aspects of citizenship get fleshed out in each chapter of the book. All in all, Peabody shows that as citizens of the Kingdom of God Christians will play a certain role in this world, and their roles will stretch across various spheres including home, church, work, and mission.
I absolutely loved this book, as I read it I was very encouraged and motivated to live out my identity as a citizen of the kingdom. As a minister I was especially encouraged to re-infuse the concept of citizenship into my sermons. Over the summer I had begun to stray a little bit from the Kingdom emphasis that I was regularly placing in my sermons, but this book reminded me that citizenship in the kingdom is a central aspect of our identity as Christians, so I can’t overlook that as I am preaching.
To sum things up, I really recommend this book, it challenged me and reminded me of some central truths that I had begun to overlook in my own ministry. (Pair this alongside of Scot McKnight’s Kingdom Conspiracy and you will be set on Kingdom & Ministry books for a while!)
As a special offer to you, the reader, you can now get Citizen: Your Role in the Alternative Kingdom on sale (this week only) by clicking the image below – at only $0.99 for the next few days an $1.99 for the rest of the week its a real steal.
(Note: I received this book courtesy of Kregel in exchange for an impartial review.)
No. He was not a liberation theologian, far from it, however some of the things he says certainly latches on to the same type of issues that liberation theologians have attempted to address.
Must not the spirit of the Compassionate One be poured out over our whole government administration? We are not a pagan but a Christian nation, a nation that has to take account of the human heart, also it its dread and nameless suffering… The Antirevolutionary party accordingly asks that a new spirit may control our public administration; that our legislation may show a heart and officialdom some sympathy for suffering citizens; that powerless labor may be protected from coolly calculating capital; and that even the poorest citizen may count of the prospect of swift and sound justice. – “Maranatha,” May 12, 1891
He was definitely not a liberationist but he sure was concerned about the “little people” and making sure that God’s justice was present in society, especially in the area of economics.
had been experiencing had been quite anemic, he realized that he wanted more. Thus kicked off a process that led him all the way from Texas to the UK.
CWoznicki Think Out Loud 