Mark 14:66-73: Trial #2 (Peter’s Trial)

July 18, 2012

Peter followed Jesus, albeit distantly and cautiously.  Nevertheless, unlike other disciples (including the “young man”) in Mark’s narrative, Peter did follow. The weight of his earlier adamant insistence that he would die with Jesus as well as his natural impetuousness emboldens him to warm himself at the same fire where the guards, who arrested Jesus and would shortly torture him, sat .

The Sanhedrin, due to the early morning predawn hours as well as its secrecy, had convened at the high priest’s home.

The setting is important because it shapes the narrative in a dramatic way. Just as Peter followed Jesus into courtyard of the hight priest’s house where it would be obvious what was happening, he slowly extricates himself from the situation by movement out of the house.  His three denials are portrayed as three steps away from Jesus. Mark emphasizes that last step by Peter’s own insistent denial.

Number Place Accuser Testimony Response
1st Denial Courtyard Servant Girl “You were with Jesus” Denied it!
2nd Denial Gateway Girl to Bystanders “He is one of them” Denied it!
3rd Denial Gateway Bystanders “You are a Galilean” Self-Imprecation

The accusers identify Peter as a disciple of Jesus. He was “with Jesus” of Nazareth. He was “one of (ek) them” (repeated twice!)—he belonged to the community of disciples that followed Jesus. He was a Galilean rather than a Jerusalemite—he came from the region where the trouble started.

Peter, the most adamant follower of Jesus—perhaps even the one you would most likely say he would never betray him, denied Jesus three times. At first his denial is seemingly a lighthearted dismissal of the accusation: “I do not know or understand what you are talking about.” It is a deflection, but he feels the heat. He backs away from the fire (literally and figuratively) to the gate. Perhaps he thinks he might need to make a quick exit.

At the gate the servant girl renews the accusation with a more specific identifier, but this time she tells others about Peter rather than talking to Peter directly. Peter was not only “with” Jesus (some kind of general association perhaps), but he was “one of them.” He belonged to that group. He is a disciple, a follower! Peter denied it and presumably Mark wants us to think that he denied it in a similar way. Peter is still deflecting. He is struggling to confess his faith but as yet he is not yet in full denial.

The third occasion, however, evokes a tirade from Peter. The bystanders repeat the second accusation of the servant girl and they do so with emphasis.  “Certainly” (truly!), they broadcast, “you are of (ek) them”—you belong to Jesus’ group, his circle of disciples. Peter then curses, swears and emphatically denies. This is different from the first two. There is no deflection here; there is no lawyer-speak. It is an explicit disclaimer with a self-imprecation (he anathematizes himself). His “curse” is not the four-letter variety but a self-condemnation. “If I am lying,” he essentially says, “may God send me to Hell.” He swears that it is true with an anathema. “If I am lying, may I be cursed!”

Then the cock crowed twice.

Then it dawned on Peter what had just happened.

And, falling apart, he wept.

Ever been there with Peter? Ever had a moment, an addiction, an obsession in which you were so caught up as in a vortex that you were not fully conscious of what you were doing and how it undermined everything you held dear? Sin—including compulsive addictions—can be so overwhelming that we act before we think. We act in the moment rather than from the depths of our commitments.  We react rather than respond. We deny when we should have confessed. We sin when we know better.

When it dawns on us that this is what we have done. We weep and feel the depths of a brokenness previously unrecognized. We see ourselves in a new way.

Perhaps we think that God could never use us again. Perhaps we think we are irreparable. Perhaps we imagine that our discipleship was only an illusion.

We are Peter and Peter is us. We often deny what we should confess but God retells the story of redemption through us nonetheless. Mark’s narrative is Peter’s story. Peter told it to him. It is a confession, yes, but it is also redemption.

4 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Haggai 1:12-15 — “I am with You!”

June 7, 2012

Haggai’s first oracle, on August 29, 520 B.C.E., was directed to the governor Zerubbabel and the high priest Joshua as the royal (house of David) and priestly (house of Aaron) representatives of the people. Zerubbabel and Joshua, along with the “whole remnant of the people,” responded to Haggai by beginning work on the temple on September 21, 520 B.C.E. The first oracle began with the date of Haggai’s message and chapter one ends with the date the people resumed work—the two dates function as an inclusio so that reader maintains the intimate connection between the message and the response.

Haggai succinctly summarizes the initial response. The “whole remnant of the people…obeyed the voice of the Lord…and the people feared the Lord.” The remnant obeyed and feared; they “hear” and they “fear.”

Whereas in Haggai’s oracle Yahweh refers to the inhabitants of Judah as “these people,” now Haggai’s narrative describes them as a “remnant” and they embrace Yahweh as “their God.” This is more significant than simply “those who are remaining,” but rather echoes language from earlier prophets who spoke of a “remnant” that would come out of Babylonian exile (Jeremiah 23:3). This is theologically pregnant language for God’s faithfulness to promises of redemption. God always preserves a remnant among the people. Moreover, God promises his presence among the remnant, which is assured in this text.

This remnant is obedient and they feared Yahweh. This language combination is significant in the Hebrew Bible. They “heard” (obeyed; cf. Deuteronomy 12:28) God’s voice through Haggai and “feared” (Deuteronomy 10:12) Yahweh. The term “hear” is used 82x and “fear” 35x in Deuteronomy. The combination has a profound significance in terms of the orientation of the people (used together, for example, in Deuteronomy 13:4, 11; 17:13). While some think that “fear” here may signify that the people were motivated by Haggai’s threats, most think it reflects the larger tradition in the Hebrew Bible of reverence or awe for God. They “feared” Yahweh in the sense that they were now submissive and ordered their lives to God’s wisdom and Torah. As Deuteronomy 4:10 states, “I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live.” The remnant is an obedient, God-fearing community in response to Haggai’s message.

God responds to their submissive posture. The central response is another message from Haggai, but it is very brief. It is only two words in Hebrew: “I am with you” (also in Haggai 2:4). Divine presence assures the community that God will commune with his people; it is the redemptive presence of God among them. It reminds the community that just as God was with David and Solomon in the building of the first temple, so God will be with them in its rebuilding. It also reminds the community of their long history with Yahweh:  God was “with” Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and God was “with” Moses and Israel in the Exodus and wilderness. God remains with Israel; Yahweh has not abandoned his people.

This presence, however, is more than communion; it is also empowerment. God “stirred” the spirit of the whole nation—the leaders and the people. This is a divine act which enables Judah to resume the rebuilding of the temple. This is fairly common language in the Hebrew Bible to describe how God ignites and carries through his purposes within the world. For example, God stirred upon Assyrian Emperors (1 Chronicles 5:26), the Philistines (2 Chronicles 21:16), and the Persian king Cyrus (2 Chronicles 36:22; Isaiah 13:17). God moved in the hearts of his people to give them the strength and vision to begin the task.

Submissive people experience God’s presence among them. They commune with God and God empowers them to fulfill their vocation—the mission God has given them. Judah does not rebuild the temple by their own strength or at their own initiative. God begins the good work in their hearts.

In the same way, God begins in our hearts the good work to which God had called us, and God empowers us to complete the mission to which he has called us (cf. Philippians 1:6).

May the people of God today “hear” and “fear.”  Blessed be the name of Yahweh.

Leave a Comment » | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Soteriology: Union with Christ (SBD 13)

June 16, 2009

[Note: I am attempting to keep these SBD installments under 2000 words each, but that is--of course--quite inadequate for the topics covered. Consequently, these contributions are more programmatic than they are explanatory or defenses of the positions stated. You may access the whole series at my Serial page.]

The Father elects, redeems and saves in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. Union with Christ is the umbrella expression for the totality of our salvation. This union involves all aspects of our salvation. The wisdom of God—Jesus Christ in whom God is reconciling the world—is our righteousness, holiness and redemption (1 Corinthians 1:30).

This union with Christ is both redemptive-historical and spiritual-mystical. Christ’s work is for us and with us as he identified with us through incarnation, ministry, death and resurrection. Through the election of the Father, we are united to Christ in his death and resurrection so that his death and resurrection become ours. At the same time our union with Christ is effected through the Spirit of God so that we constitute the living body of Christ. We are the embodiment of Jesus in the world as the divine presence resides in us through the indwelling Spirit. We participate in the reality of God’s kingdom through the Spirit of Christ who empowers us to be like Christ. United with Christ redemptively and pneumatically, we embody the presence of Jesus in the world for the sake of the world. Redeemed in Christ, we become the presence of Christ in the world.

The Scope of Salvation

Soteriology is individual, communal and cosmic.

Western and Evangelical Christianity have generally focused on the individual aspects of salvation, that is, “God saved me and Christ would have died for me even if I had been the only one who needed it.” Evangelical theology, consequently, has often stressed individual assurance, justification by faith and personal holiness. This emphasis has generally been linked to “going to heaven when I die” such that salvation has sometimes been reduced to the forgiveness of sin and going to heaven.

Surely God saves individuals—God saves indivdiual people. God saves me. God’s Spirit dwells in each of our bodies, calls each one of us to personal holiness and the personal presence of the Spirit empowers each of us. God works in and through individuals and relates to us as individuals. There is such a thing as a “personal” relationship with God—there is communion between God and individuals. Soteriology does not undermine our individuality though it does not sanction our individualism.

At the same time God saves a people and gathers a people together. God—the relational, communal reality of Father, Son and Spirit—created a community (male and female), redeems a community and will glorify a people. The Father called a people into existence named Israel and even now renews that same people by uniting Jew and Gentile into one people of God. Soteriology includes ecclesiology. The church, ultimately glorified in the kingdom, is the object of God’s saving work.

Even further, however, God not only saves individuals in community with others (ecclesiology) but also intends to redeem the whole creation. The telos of God is to reorder the cosmos under the headship of Jesus the Messiah (Ephesians 1:10) and reconcile everything in heaven and on earth to God through Christ (Colossians 1:20). God will redeem the creation itself as well as a people (Romans 8:18-26).

Ultimately, salvation is not about me, or us, or the creation. It is to the praise and glory of God the Father who elects a people in Christ to become the living presence of God in the creation by the power of the Spirit. This is the glory of God, that is, to rest with a redeemed people in a redeemed creation.

The Temporal Dimensions of Salvation

Applied soteriology is past, present and future in the lives of believers. Believers have already been saved, are in the process of being saved, and will yet be saved. This is exactly how Paul uses the terms “save” or “salvation” in his letters. Salvation is something already accomplished (Romans 8:24; Ephesians 2:5, 8; Titus 3:5)—it is something that happened in their own existential past. Salvation is also something yet to be experienced in the future (Romans 5:9-10; 13:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:8-9; 2 Timothy 2:10)—we will be saved in the future. Salvation is also a process which we currently experience; it is a refining fire and pleasing smell (2 Corinthians 2:15)—we are in the process of being saved.

This redemptive-historical soteriological structure is illustrated in Romans 6:22:

But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.

In the past God freed us from sin and enslaved us to righteousness—we have been freed (justified) from sin (Romans 6:7). Yet this saving reality continues in the present as we move toward holiness (sanctification) which is the fruit of having been set free from the guilt and power of sin. Further, our goal (end, telos) is eternal life (glorification). This single verse—and we can find this emphasis in many other places in Paul—summarizes the past-present-future soteriological structure of Pauline theology. Those who have been justified (set free) presently seek holiness (sanctification) in view of the goal of eternal life (glorification).

Systematic theologians, especially Protestant ones, have generally summarized the past, present and future dimensions of salvation with the technical terms “justification” (past), “sanctification” (present), and “glorification” (future). This language is helpful as long as the temporal qualifier remains the significant point. The language is problematic when a term is strictly identified with a particular aspect of salvation (e.g., when justification becomes the essence of soteriology) or when biblical texts are made to conform to the theological language (e.g., when “righteousness” is forced into the mold of technical meaning of justification in texts like Acts 10:35).

In fact, Paul uses the language of “justified” or “righteousness” (justification) to refer to past, present and future soteriological realities. He does not limit “justification” (righteousness) to a past forensic declaration though he often refers to justification as a past event in the life of the believer (Romans 3:24; 5:1, 9). Rather, he calls believers to “pursue righteousness” (Romans 5:13, 16, 18, 19) in the present as obedient slaves of God. And, further, we will yet be justified in the future (Romans 2:6-10, 13) as we live even now in the “hope of righteousness” (Galatians 5:5).

Paul’s soteriological language is rich with diversity as his language is not rigidly tied to temporal location. Sanctification (holiness) is also past (1 Corinthians 6:11—sometimes called definitive or positional sanctification), present (1 Thessalonians 4:3—sometimes called progressive sanctification) and future (1 Thessalonians 5:23—sometimes called entire sanctification). Glorification is both present (2 Corinthians 3:18) and future (Romans 8:17). And we could do the same with other language such as liberation, redemption or spiritual. The point is that soteriology is comprehensive—it encompasses past, present and future. To limit salvation to one temporal aspect is reductionistic.

Soteriology as Definitive and Participatory

Union with Christ is not only about the event of forgiveness but the process of participating in the life of Christ. Soteriology, then, is both declarative and participatory.

God saved through a declarative act but also saves through our participation in the life to which God calls us. We are declared “in the right” (acquitted) by a divine act of righteous imputation in what theologians have historically called “justification” (or definitive sanctification) but we also pursue and become righteous through participation in the holiness of God in what theologians have historically called “sanctification” (or progressive sanctification or impartation of righteousness).

The definitive is a divine act which we receive by faith, but we participate in the reality of the definitive act through becoming what we have been declared to be in the righteous act of God. The definitive is what some call the indicative—it declares what God has done and stresses the saving act of God. God justifies, sanctifies and glorifies. The participatory is what some call the imperative—it calls us to live out the indicative in our personal lives, community and creation. Significantly, the indicative grounds and empowers the imperative.

This relationship between the indicative and imperative is common in Paul. Since we live in the Spirit, let us keep step with the Spirit (Galatians 5:25). Since God has demonstrated mercy toward us, let us be transformed by God rather then conformed to the world (Romans 12:1-2). Let us work out our salvation with fear and trembling because it is God who is at work in us (Philippians 2:12-13).

Believers do not simply receive the declaration of God’s justifying righteousness; they also pursue righteousness in order to become the righteousness of God (that is, the embodiment of God’s faithfulness in the world).

Believers are both passive and active in their salvation. They passively receive God’s justifying declaration through a living faith as beggars with an open hand, but they also actively pursue righteousness (holiness, sanctifiction) by a faith that works through love (Galatians 5:5-6) while at the same time passively receiving the empowerment (indicative) of the Spirit that enables faithful works of love.

While I think Paul maintains this balance in clear ways, many have stressed the Pauline definitive to the virtual loss of the participatory. If Western theology (especially Evangelicalism) had focused on the Gospels rather than Paul, perhaps the stress would lie on participation rather than definitiveness (as much of the Eastern church does in their concept of theosis). The call to discipleship in the kingdom of God in the Gospels emphasizes the participatory—we actively follow Jesus.

But it is not an either/or. Rather, it is a both/and. Salvation is both definitive and participatory. We accept God’s declaration by faith and we participate in God’s transforming work by pursuing righteousness, practicing kingdom life, and following Jesus. In this way we are both “justified by faith”—declared “in the right” by God’s righteous act in Jesus, and “justified by works” (doers of the law, Romans 2:13)—experience transformation through empowered right-living. The works (our “sanctification” and conformation to the image of Christ empowered by the Spirit of God) evidence our declaration (“justification”), embody our Christ-likeness, and bear witness to the reality of God’s kingdom in the world. By faith we are “in the right” (justified) and through good works (sanctification) we become what God has declared us to be.

We are declared “in the right” because we are united with Christ. United with Christ, we participate in the life of Christ as we become partakers of the divine nature (theosis). The theological goal of sanctification—our “entire sanctification” or glorification—is conformation to the image of God in Christ. We will become fully—in body and soul—like Christ in our future sanctification (resurrection).

The Triune Ground of Salvation

Faith is the means of justification, sanctification and glorification—to use Systematic Theology’s technical terms. In justification, faith receives God’s extrinsic declaration. In sanctification, faith participates in the life of Christ through works—faith works through love (Galatians 5:6). In glorification, faith hopes in the future to come and believers—those who have persevered in faith—will experience the fullness of God’s redemption.

But lying behind the imperative to believe (trust) is the ground of the divine indicative. The Father has justified us, continues to sanctify us and will glorify us. The faithfulness of the Son grounds our justification, models our sanctification and establishes glorified humanity. The Spirit generates faith in us, transforms us and will animate our bodies in the new heaven and new earth.

We are saved (justification) by grace (ground) through faith (means) unto good works (sanctification). This is God’s telos. God intends to redeem a people who will live as divine images (representatives) within the creation for the sake of the world and rest in God’s gracious, communing shalom.

So What?

Salvation, then, is about the present and the future. It is not only about living in the new heaven and new earth, but about rescue from the powers of darkness in the present evil age. Salvation is apocalyptic, that is, it redeems a people as part of the new age while still living in the old age. It is a new order within the old order—it is the kingdom of God present in the world.

Salvation, therefore, is not only about a personal decision for Jesus (e.g., a decision to follow Jesus into the water) and forgiveness, but it is also about discipleship and apprenticeship into the ministry of Jesus as a participant in the kingdom of God.

The saving work of God not only forgives but transforms. We are not only saved from sin but saved for good works (sanctification). The saving work of God not only prepares us for the new heaven and new earth but works through kingdom people in the present for the reclamation of the whole creation (both human and cosmic) for the kingdom of God. This work by God through the people of God not only involves proclaiming the good news of the kingdom but practicing the good news of the kingdom through reversing the curse.

The saving work of God manifests itself not only in believers assured of their forgiveness but in believers who proclaim the gospel and embody the good news of Jesus through “good works” (e.g., social justice, healing, benevolence, ecology, etc.). The church is the community of God that both proclaims the good news of the kingdom and practices it.

8 Comments | Theology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Election: Before We Called God Answered (SBD 6)

May 14, 2009

[Note: I am attempting to keep these SBD installments under 2000 words each, but that is--of course--quite inadequate for the topics covered. Consequently, these contributions are more programmatic than they are explanatory or defenses of the positions stated. You may access the whole series at my Serial page.]

God elects us in Christ through faith and we know our election in Christ through faith.

As of Genesis 11 the human condition was filled with violence, power (Empire), and immorality. The seeming hopelessness of Genesis 11—though grace is present in scattering humanity rather than destroying it at the Tower of Babel—leaves us wondering whether humanity can ever escape the degenerative spiral of their own sinfulness.

But God’s intent is redemptive. The divine purpose in creation will not be frustrated. God pursues humanity in grace in order to dwell among a people who love and trust God. Grace initiates this pursuit, empowers faith and will complete the divine purpose. Before we called God answered (Isaiah 65:24). That is the doctrine of election.

The Call of Abraham

God called Abraham into a covenantal relationship. God blessed Abraham that all the nations might be blessed. Abraham did not initiate this relationship, but God chose Abraham as the means by which God would bless humanity. God decided to redeem humanity through the seed of Abraham.

There was nothing in Abraham that demanded that God choose him. God chooses whom God desires to accomplish the divine purpose. Divine election is by God’s own pleasure and will. God chooses whom God desires. No one makes a claim on God. “Who has ever given to God that God should repay him?” (Romans 11:35 quoting Job 41:11).

Abraham believed the promise of God (Genesis 15:6) and through faith received the promise (Galatians 3:6-9; Hebrews 11:8-19). God enacted the covenant of circumcision as the seal for Abraham’s faith guaranteeing the promise which he received through faith (Romans 4:9-12).

God kept his promise to Abraham when God chose Israel as a treasured possession. God redeemed them from Egyptian bondage. God did not love them because they were a numerous people, a great people or a righteous nation since they were few, stubborn and wicked. Rather, God chose them because God loved them (Deuteronomy 7:6-10; 9:4-6).

The covenant relationship, initiated by God’s love, is experienced in Israel through faith. The just shall live by faith (Habakkuk 2:4). Branches are broken off Israel because of unbelief but others stand by faith (Romans 11:20). Israel will be saved by faith as they pursue righteousness by faith (Romans 9:30-32; 10:4, 10-12).

God has determined to choose the elect through faith and it is through faith that the chosen know their election. God may have mercy on whom God desires and God has decided to have mercy on humanity through faith.

Jesus, the Elect One

In fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham, God has redeemed a people through Abraham’s seed. Jesus the Christ is the Elect One. The Father elects or chooses us in and through Christ. Consequently, Christ is the foundation of all election.

The doxology of Ephesians 1 teaches that the Father elects us in Christ through the power of the Spirit. The Father was moved by love (1:4), grace (1:6, 7), and God’s own good pleasure and will (1:5, 9). Divine action is highlighted: God blessed (1:3), chose (1:4, 11), predestined (1:5, 11), lavished grace (1:8), revealed (1:9), purposed (1:9), included (1:13) and marked (1:13) us. Divine purpose is stressed: to sanctify (1:4), to adopt (1:5), to redeem (1:7), to reorder (1:10), and to purpose toward the goal (1:11).

The Father’s movement, however, was Christocentric. The Father elects in and through Christ (1:3-5, 7, 9, 11-13) and toward the goal of reordering everything under the headship of Christ (1:10).

We are the object of this election. The Father elects those who are in Christ. Just as Christ is the first object of election, so those in Christ are the second object of election. We are elect through Christ’s own election and we are included when we hear and believe the gospel (1:13-14). The divinely appointed means of election is faith since by grace we are saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8).

God has determined to elect us in Christ Jesus and we know our election in Christ through faith.

Election: Arminianism vs. Calvinism?

Despite whatever differences exist between Arminianism and Calvinism—two historic ways of thinking about divine election (see the Serial Index for posts on these theological systems), they share some significant common ground on the doctrine of election.

Divine Initiative. Whatever the doctrine of election means, it at least insists that God took the initiative in the redemption. God made the first move. We love because God first loved. We believe because God first acted. This initiative involves not merely the first act (as if God acted first and then passively sits back to see how we respond) but that God continuously acts in unrelentingly pursuit of a people. God’s love pursues us, engages us and moves us. This excludes all boasting since election means that God has removed all grounds for human merit and has located the ground of salvation in his gracious and loving acts.

Christocentrism. Christ is the Elect One (Ephesians 1). Both Calvin and Arminius emphasized this point, and it has been powerfully renewed in the 20th century by Karl Barth. Election is Christocentric since Christ is God’s Elect One. We are elect because we are in Christ. Whatever else we may say about election, we should not lose sight of this foundational soteriological insight: God has chosen us in Christ because Christ has been chosen. We are only elect through Christ. His election is logically, ontologically and epistemologically prior to our own.

Economic Revelation. We only know that God has acted decisively in Jesus as the Elect One because God is revealed in history and God’s actions are interpreted in Scripture. We only know our election in Christ because God has revealed the Elect One (2 Timothy 1:8-11). Debates about the “secret” will of God are unprofitable exactly because that will is “secret.” We know our election through the revelation of God in Christ. God has revealed the divine election through Christ and we have no other access to it. Consequently, we ought to think about election within the salvation history (economy) of God’s story, that is, within the revealed history of God in Israel and Christ. Thinking about the election of God in terms of the “eternal” mind of God is speculative, but thinking about divine election in the light of Jesus Christ is rooted in God’s historical revelation. We perceive our own election only through the revelation of that election in Christ. When we step outside of or seek to go beyond this historic revelation, we enter worlds, which our minds have created rather than what God has revealed. Election and assurance are economically tied to Christ.

Means of Faith. Faith is the means of both justification and sanctification. When we make justification dependent upon sanctification, then we begin a never-ending journey since we will never be sure whether our sanctification is sufficient (in terms of its depth, amount, comprehensiveness and quality). When we sever the relationship between justification and sanctification, we become antinomian and discredit the role of sanctification as evidence of justification. The way to avoid legalism on the one hand and antinomianism on the other is to see faith as the principle that unites justification and sanctification. We are justified by faith and we are sanctified by faith. Faith is the means by which we are accounted righteous before God and faith is the means by which the Spirit transforms us. Faith is both the means of salvation and the means of assurance. We are elect, then, through faith in Christ. Faith functions as an instrument, not as a meritorious act. It is the means by which we come to know our own election.

So What?

Priority of God’s Act. God acted before we acted. Salvation, then, originates wholly out of grace and God’s movement toward us. The fundamental presupposition of election is God’s initiative. Confidence is rooted in this claim. It is not that we must win God’s favor or prove ourselves to him. Rather, God lovingly embraces us and seeks us. The picture of God is not the ogre or the tyrant, but the loving father.

Undeserved Salvation. Election emphasizes that nothing in us moved God to act for our sakes in Christ. Rather, God acted when we were unworthy. God loved us even when we were yet sinners. No human act merits or deserves God’s electing grace. Boasting is excluded on all counts. It was God who decided to save and not we who put God in our debt through our virtue or holiness.

Focus on Christology. Karl Barth is correct to focus the doctrine of election in Jesus Christ. He is the Elect One, and it is through him that we find hope and assurance. The doctrine of election, then, should not be about some eternal order of decrees or speculation concerning the hidden will of God. Rather it is the exposition of God’s choice of Jesus to save the world and God’s movement toward us in him. Election is a Christological teaching.

Election and Assurance. While some Augustinians (Calvinists) in the history of theology have focused the question in terms of “Am I elect?,” most have recognized that this is not the proper question. No one can see into the hidden will of God to discover in the abstract whether they are elect of not. Calvin believed that whoever tries this “Am I elect?” question “plunges headlong into an immense abyss, involves himself in numberless inextricable snares, and buries himself in the thickest darkness…Therefore, as we dread shipwreck, we must avoid this rock, which is fatal to everyone who strikes upon it” (Institutes 3.24.4). Assurance of election is rooted Christologically—I am elect when I trust in Christ as the Elect One. Election “from below” is mediated through faith in Christ. Here Augustinians and Arminians can agree. “If Pighius asks how I know I am elect, I answer that Christ is more than a thousand testimonies to me” (Institutes 3.24.4). It is only in Christ that we are elect and pleasing to God. He is the author of election and mediates election—the critical question is “do we trust Christ?” According to Calvin, Christ is the mirror of our election such that when we look in faith toward Jesus we see the reflection of our election in him.

19 Comments | Theology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Calvinists, Arminians and Assurance

April 24, 2009

In my previous post I summarized the conclusions of Keith Stanglin in his recent book Arminius on the Assurance of Salvation: The Context, Roots, and Shape of the Leiden Debate, 1603-1609. In this post, I want to offer an extended theological comment on the nature of assurance for Calvinists and Arminians. I will indulge this for one post before I move on to more personal concerns next week with the anniversary of my first wife’s death on the horizon (April 30). Your comments–even disagreements (surely there will be none, however :-) )–are welcome.

My basic opinion is that in practice Calvinists and Arminians experience assurance by the same means. At one level they both claim the same objective grounds–the promise, love, mercy and grace of God (that is, that Christ died for us) and they claim the same basic subjective evidences–faith, fruit of sanctification, religious experience, etc (that is, the work of the Spirit in the believer).  The epistemology of present assurance (how do I know I am saved?) is answered with the same kinds of words, expressions and evidences. At root, both Calvinists and Arminians are assured by grace through faith.

It seems to me that this is an arena in which Calvinists and Arminians can acknowledge common ground. It is in the theory that they differ–and theories that often operate at inferential levels rather than with the plain statements of Scripture. I would rather we speak of assurance through faith than drawing out inferences to “make sense” of that assurance in the light of our theories. But, alas, our historical situation does not permit–so it seems–a unity at the pragmatic level of faith but we feel the incessant need to debate the theories as well. Nevertheless, this is where I tend to concentrate my thought and practice.

But–to speak of theories :-) –my further opinion is that Arminians have a better theological ground for assurance than Calvinists. Or, perhaps to put it another way, Calvinists–in my opinion–obscure their assurance with a speculative doctrine of election that entails a postulate of “temporary faith” (Jean Calvin, Institutes 3.2.11; comment on Matthew 13:20 in his Harmony of the Evangelists). This notion salvages the Reformed doctrine of election from shipwreck on the rocks of those who lose their faith (a reality that we know from both Scripture and experience). It seems necessary to Calvinists–given the doctrine of election–to postulate that those who lose their faith never had authentic faith in the first place.  And, in fact, there are some people who apparently never really did have faith (cf. 1 John 2), but that does not mean that everyone who loses faith never had authentic faith unless we are protecting, as in Reformed theology, a particular understanding of the doctrine of election or seeking to harmonize that reality with a particular interpretation of a text.

That is fine as far as a logical move to seek harmony among various texts of Scripture. But the problem becomes how is one sure whether they have “temporary faith” or have “authentic faith”? Those who have temporary faith believe they have authentic faith–they can’t see a difference. For example, I remember a conversation with a friend at Westminster about a mutual friend who had lost their faith. My friend thought it was an example of “temporary faith” (or temporary loss that would later appear again in perseverance) but it puzzled me that our mutual friend when he believed really thought he did believe. By all appearances and, according to his own confession (unless he was dishonest), he fully embraced the gospel in heart and soul.

How can those who have authentic faith know their faith is authentic when those who have temporary faith think they have authentic faith? It is in this context that the doctrine of election is controlling how we think about assurance and faith. It introduces a reason for doubt in the minds of believers. And this is not a doubt about the subjective evidences of their faith, but a theological doubt  rooted in a theological theory that undercuts the objective ground of assurance itself. Because, if they have “temporary faith,” then God does not really love them, that is, he has not chosen (elected) them.

It seems to me better ground to say that God loves all, seeks the salvation of all, and that no one should doubt that Christ died for them and that God desires their salvation. Faith is trusting the love of God in Christ and knowing, by God’s own declaration, that Christ died for all and that God has salvific intent for me. I don’t have to know whether I am one of the elect to trust the word of God that Christ died for me, but rather through faith in God’s work for me in Christ I know that I am one of the elect. And I don’t have to wonder whether I am one of those who will eventually “go out” because I never really was one of the faithful. Instead, through faith I know I am one for whom Christ died and there is no necessity to entertain a theological doubt about “temporary faith.”

Now I believe Calvinists can mitigate this idea of “temporary faith” with Calvin’s own notion that the assurance of salvation is the assurance of election. But this places the mode of assurance in the same frame as Arminians themselves. We know our election through our present faith in Christ and not the reverse. Consequently, it seems to me that however one views election it does not have a telling effect on one’s assurance unless one places the doubt of “temporary faith” in the mind of the believer in order to protect a doctrine of election.

Assurance is faith in Christ; united with Christ we are assured our of salvation and we are united to him through faith. Here Calvinist and Arminian can stand on common ground with common faith: we are both saved by grace through faith. Even though I think Arminianism holds a better theory of assurance than Calvinism, I readily acknowledge that both access assurance by the same means: trust in the work of God for us and bearing the fruit of the Spirit’s work in our lives.

But I am an Arminian–as much as I can use categories of myself (in my opinion one who says they are neither or they transcend the discussion doesn’t really understand Arminianism or Calvinism–but that is just my opinion :-) ). Consequently, according to my “theory,” I believe my present faith assures me because I know Christ died for me whereas the present faith of Calvinists logically wonders whether their experience of faith is actually temporary faith which contains no assurance that Christ died for them.  So, in that sense, I know that Christ died for me and through present faith I experience his love, but Calvinists are potentially uncertain whether Christ died for them because ultimately they do not know whether their faith is temporary or not until it perseveres to the end. Only in the perseverance of faith are Calvinists assured. And only through present faith and its perseverance are Arminians assured.  The two stand, pragmatically, on the same ground–we are saved by grace through faith.

49 Comments | Theology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 937 other followers

%d bloggers like this: