Tag Archives: calvinism

Jesus Paid it all?!

Posted by expedition44 on

I bet you have become accustomed to Christians describing Jesus on the cross with phrases like “purchased” or “paid” describing salvation. That through Christ on the cross, salvation was “bought” or “paid in full.” First, to be clear I don’t think the terminology is horrible, this conversation doesn’t mean much to me and I am certainly not “going to war” over anything in this conversation! I believe that as a light metaphor that this kind of phrase can have some truth to it, we make references all the time in day-to-day life with this sort of linguistic analogy. For instance, my son Will was playing soccer the other night in a recreational game on astroturf and made a heralding dive to strike the ball into the goal. After the game I noticed the giant carpet burn on his knee and saif to him, well you certainly paid for that one, but what a shot! No one really thinks that He actually paid money, that would be absurd; we simply mean that there is a cost associated. That is what the Bible means when it talks about what Jesus did at the cross. Yet too many people have turned a simple biblical metaphor into a theological doctrine, and I find it problematic.

There are better ways to communicate what Christ did for us on the cross than using descriptions like paid for or purchased. This gets into atonement theories (x44 has made several videos on this subject) and if you are reformed you might think this language is “correct”; but if you’re not reformed or a Calvinist, you might want to consider a better formation for your cross theology. Let me walk you through some things towards a better consideration.

WHERE DO WE SEE THESE PHRASES IN THE BIBLE?

Twice the apostle Paul informed believers at Corinth, “You were bought with a price.” In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul was making a passionate appeal against sexual immorality. He concluded his argument, stating, “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body” (1 Corinthians 6:19–20, ESV). I quoted the ESV (which is a reformed translation if you didn’t know).  1 Peter 1:18–19 says,“For you know that God paid a ransom to save you from the empty life you inherited from your ancestors. And it was not paid with mere gold or silver, which lose their value. It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God” (NLT). We also have Jesus Himself saying that He came to give His life as a ransom for us (Matthew 20:28). We now belong to Him according to 1 Corinthians 7:22. Paul repeated this teaching in 1 Corinthians 7:23, notice however, the emphasis on spiritual freedom: “You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings.” Believers are set free from the dominion of the world or sin through the death of Christ (Galatians 1:4). In this way you might say that spiritual freedom comes at the “price” of Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross (1 Peter 2:24). Consequently, since we now belong to Christ, we must not let ourselves come under the control of other humans, Satan, principalities, or the world… we are or should completely be given to Jesus. 1 That is what we all can agree on right? I mean it is right out of the bible! So, there you have it. The Bible specifically uses words like ransom, paid, bought, price etc… So, I bet you are wondering why do I have issues with phrasing it that way?

RANSOM SHOULD BE VIEWED AS AN EXODUS MOTIF

In biblical theology, the concept of “ransom” is deeply intertwined with the themes of deliverance and salvation. The term “ransom” according to antiquity refers to the “price paid” to secure the release of someone from bondage or captivity. In general describing what Jesus accomplished through the cross this way is known as the ransom which theory teaches that the death of Christ was a ransom sacrifice, usually said to have been paid to Satan, in satisfaction for the bondage and debt on the souls of humanity as a result of inherited sin.2 Well as you might have perceived,

In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word “kopher” is often used to denote a ransom, particularly in the context of redeeming a person or property.3 For example, Exodus 21:30 discusses the payment of a ransom for the life of a person who has been sentenced to death: “If payment is demanded of him, he may redeem his life by paying the full amount demanded of him.” So there is a Hebraic understanding of transactional payment biblically that is associated with the term ransom, but the problem with thinking that way is that what Jesus does for us on the cross intentionally came with no strings attached, it is a free gift of Grace. What Christ did on the cross was a backwards kingdom dynamic, it was opposite of the world’s expectations. In other words, there wasn’t a physical price paid. This is very important. In the Exodus did Moses pay Pharaoh? Did God pay the spiritual powers he was warring against? NO. There was no payment made. The exodus foreshadows the cross and in the same way there wasn’t a payment made. Jesus didn’t have to pay off God and God didn’t pay Satan. Are you following me? So, phrase it this way is actually poor theology and nearly the opposite idea of what the text portrayed in the exodus and through the cross. Talking about inherited sin or original sin is one of the pillars of Calvinism and thus those that hold to a “ransom” theory are typically reformed. If you aren’t familiar with this conversation this video series will help. Although I do believe in a ransom motif in the exodus and through Jesus at the cross, I do not think framing it as transactional is good theology.

ETYMOLOGY

The definition of the word “ransom” has changed over time. At the time the New Testament was written before the end of the first century, it referred to the practice of capturing individuals and demanding their release, particularly in ancient times. In the ancient world it was almost never ties to money, it was based on threats of power and ruling.4 In this sense, Exodus portrays the ransom of the Hebrews quite well. But I certainly won’t deny that at times money was involved; but the emphasis should always be on freedom motive not the payment motive. When you really dive into this what you find is that in the ancient world ransom was relational. You demanded ransom because it was the right thing. It was to put your foot down and demand that an injustice be reconciled. In the Middle Ages and Reformation, the term evolved to usually describe payments made for the release of hostages, and it has also been used figuratively to describe any exorbitant payment or price demanded for something. The definition has certainly changed over time to be described less relational and has become more transactional. The biblical authors definition was relational not transactional, yet we have come to interpret it through our own modern lens as transactional.

Ransom in scripture should always be interpreted as a release of slaves giving freedom. This fits every context of verses that we see the word used in from Micah 6:4 to Isaiah 43:3. Isaiah 52:3 is very clear on this. God says he sold Israel for nothing, and they shall be ransomed/redeemed without payment. Isaiah 45:13 echoes the same thoughts. The point is that the word ransom biblically shouldn’t be used in a substitutionary sense. NT Wright and even the reformed scholar Leon Morris have made this clear. 5

The Greek helps us out here. ὑπέρ Huper (for) means for a benefit. That is what is used in nearly every context of Jesus giving up his life. Not anti (for) which would be in the place of or an exchange. 

TRANSACTIONAL PROBLEMS

When you try to frame the work of the cross as needing to buy someone out, it creates a transactional dynamic that isn’t part of grace and isn’t biblical. Now again, there are some elements that are transactional and that is why this is complicated and often misunderstood. Grace itself is a free gift, yet there is a benefactor understanding of reciprocity. When you give a gift there is no expectation for a payment, you freely give it. Yet in relationships of any kind there are some expectations. In the circle of Grace when Christ gave his life for you, the reciprocity is that you in turn give your life to him.6 But that didn’t actually cost money, there was no buyout, but there was a cost. When we think about Jesus transactionally it muddies the water. I am sure you have been told your whole life that everything costs something, or that if you want something that is worth anything it is going to cost you. In this regard, giving your life to Christ from a worldly sense will cost you everything, your life itself. But Jesus isn’t selling anything. When we frame grace as transactional it leaves us thinking what are we going to get out of Jesus or Christianity. What do we get from the deal? It points you in the wrong direction. With Jesus we don’t get, we give… Job was righteous because he had no expectations.7

WHAT IS THE COST?

To use transactional language cheapens the work of Jesus through the cross. God wasn’t negotiating with terrorists in the Exodus. He obliterated the spiritual powers at war. The exchange was allegiance, freedom, and liberation… no money was exchanged. But was there a cost? The Egyptian “world” certainly suffered. At the cross Jesus gave his life and it was brutal. But that shouldn’t be the emphasis of what Jesus did. In fact, it really shouldn’t be emphasized at all. Sometimes I don’t even like to use the word cross when describing Jesus. For instance, I prefer to say the work of Jesus not the work of the cross. The cross didn’t accomplish anything, Jesus did everything. The cross itself is a picture of barbaric humanity not the generous grace of Jesus, that should better be framed precisely through Christ himself. Yet I still think there is a place for the image of the cross. People should view it as the method to which Jesus did accomplish many things enabling complete life and freedom in Him.

What happened at the cross to Jesus was a result of religious hierarchy. The Jewish religious leaders tied into to the government corruption of the day essentially crucified Jesus. Did Jesus willfully “give his life?” Well, let’s not forget that he prayed for the cup to be passed. If there could have been another way through the father Jesus would have opted for it. Again, this is important in the text. What happened at the cross was brutal and unjust. Jesus turned the other cheek all the way to the grave. It is a picture of complete sacrifice and humility. But it shouldn’t be viewed theologically as transactional. We don’t know exactly why God allowed or used the cross to accomplish the victories that he did, but the fact is that is the way it unfolds. The ransom analogy should be viewed as redemption and freedom not monetary exchange. To view the cross as some kind of economic exchange isn’t accurate. God wasn’t paying or even appeasing Satan and Jesus wasn’t paying or appeasing God the father. Are you following? The trinity wasn’t broken at the cross.

When we try to make the cross transactional it is actually counter to what Jesus offered, the free gift of salivation. We in a sense turn love into a product to be sold or traded. Jesus didn’t give his life to make a deal. It wasn’t a purchase plan, or a payment plan, it was sacrificial grace with no strings attached.

It really becomes “cheap” when you frame it as a payment. For instance, what you are saying is that Jesus then gave his life to “buy” all of the lives who would “accept” him for all of time. That sounds good but think about it for a second. How much is Christ’s life really worth if you are exchanging it for all who believe for all of time, millions, maybe billions? It is actually devaluing him. Who wouldn’t make “that deal” if that is all it was. If I had the power and said to you – if you allow me to crucify you it would buy 10 people you deeply care about eternal salvation, I bet, you would do it. I would. Then if you say not just 10 but EVERYONE who believes it really makes it cheap doesn’t it? What Christ did on the cross shouldn’t be cheapened transactionally. It wasn’t a buy it program. The funny thing about atonement “theories” is that we aren’t actually told in the Bible exactly what Jesus accomplishes through the cross. That is why they are called theories. But let’s not devalue the life of Christ as we theorize. Jesus accomplishes so much through the death, resurrection, and ascension, we don’t need to cheapen it or make it into something it didn’t biblically portray.

PSA

Why did Jesus have to die on a cross? That is the grand question. The Bible actually doesn’t precisely answer this question. Perhaps that is some of the mystery of the gospel. A common view in Western Evangelicalism of what happened on the cross is this: humans have sinned and God must punish sinners by venting his wrath, but thankfully, because he loves us, Jesus went to the cross and was murdered in our place to pay our debt, so that God can forgive our sins and we can go to heaven when we die. This idea of how the cross works is called the “Penal Substitution Theory” of the atonement.8 The Penal Substitution Theory has not been the most common view throughout all of church history, nor is it the most common view of the worldwide church today. So while Penal Substitution Theory may be the majority view in modern, Western theology, the Church must wake up and realize that such a view is partially modeled after paganism, often mischaracterizes God, ultimately does not take sin seriously, and leaves out what actually happened on the cross.

THE COSMIC DEBT COLLECTOR?

The Penal Substitution Theory and purchase, debt language basically depicts God as a debt collector who must collect before he can forgive. Despite the fact that Scripture tells us that love keeps no record of wrongs (1 Corinthians 13:5), this theory states that Jesus must pay our debt to the Father (or in some cases Satan). The idea that God is merciful and forgiving, while also defining justice as demanding payment of debt don’t work together, they are at odds philosophically and ontologically. If there is a debt that is paid, then the debt is never forgiven at all. Sin is not forgiven on the cross in the Penal Substitution Theory; it is just paid off. We would never then be able to be washed truly clean. But what becomes even more problematic in thinking this way is that the only way in which God could be seen as merciful in paying the debt for mankind’s sin by killing Jesus. Let’s be clear God didn’t kill Jesus; he allowed Jesus to be killed and in a “Narnian like story” was a “way maker” to regain the keys of death. This is best framed through a Christus Victor form of atonement, but I also wouldn’t limit the work of the cross to a single view. Scot McKnight has a great book, A Community Called Atonement that is worth reading.9

Christ’s justice is restorative, not retributive. God doesn’t need anyone to pay off debt in order to forgive. God can just simply forgive. That’s what forgiveness is! Forgiveness is not receiving payment for a debt; forgiveness is the gracious cancellation of debt. There is no payment in forgiveness. That is what makes forgiveness mean anything. I have said it many times, but if you are a Calvinist, you can’t truly believe in biblical forgiveness; in the same way a Calvinist struggles to believe in any kind supplication kind of prayer as they don’t believe God works that way. I get that the reformed camp has their own way of explaining how this works, but it seems like a good deal of theological gymnastics.

JESUS AS OUR SUBSTITUTE?

Along with these misnomers you also may hear people say that Jesus died as our substitute or in our place. That isn’t the intention of this article but let me touch on it briefly since it is closely ties into our conversation. Often PSA advocates might say something like, Jesus was being punished by God for our sins and that what Jesus suffered in torture and crucifixion which is then essentially what every person deserves. That doesn’t really make any sense. Do you deserve to be tortured forever? This makes grace transactional again… accept it or be tortured forever? (Another strong claim for annihilation vs ECT but again, another discussion.) How is it true that every person deserves to be tortured to death? This sounds monstrous to me, not fitting the Exodus 34 self-description of God. Furthermore, if Jesus truly would have died in our place and gotten what we deserved according to PSA shouldn’t he then go to hell eternally according to their own reformed theology? The theory doesn’t hold up. Jesus died on a cross outside Jerusalem at the hand of the Romans (Matthew 27; Mark 15; Luke 23; John 19). None of us faced that death. He did not take our place on a cross, we didn’t deserve that and some would argue that he didn’t either, although Jesus was certainly “guilty” of not being allegiant to Roman authority.

LEVITICUS 16 AND THE SCAPEGOAT

If you have made it this far you likely know or have some knowledge of the foreshadowing of the sacrificial system to also be a picture of some of the thigs Jesus would become and accomplish. If you need to brush up, read the second part of this article first. 10 Two goats are selected for Israel: The sin offering goat and the goat that will “bear the sin”. Lots are cast to see which goat fulfills which role. Jesus actually embodies both at times. The second goat the scapegoat, or the azazel would carry away the sin of the camp into the wilderness. To be clear it is a picture, or a mosaic. Jesus will accomplish what the goat never could. The goat is a picture of simply transferring sin out of the camp, Jesus actually removes it completely. In theology this is called Expiation which means that the barrier lies outside of God, within humankind and/or a stain they leave on the world (sacred space), it is often interpreted as an action aimed at removing sin. To cover, wipe, or to purge sin. Where I believe some theology gets off is when you interpret this story as a propitiation view (punishment). The goat bears the sin and wrath. I don’t think this a great interpretation, but I have gotten significantly into that in videos and other articles. I don’t want to get too far into this here, but propitiation doesn’t really fit (work) for a number of reasons. Fopr instance if the goat was bearing the sin (carrying) it could not be a sacrifice because God only gets spotless pure animals (what does that do for your New Testament theology of the cross if Jesus was imputed our sin?) In Leviticus 16, the Hebraic sacrificial system, we have the first goat as the purification offering which is given to cleanse the temple objects. Blood is not applied to anyone. The scapegoat is sent to Azazel. So, sin, the forces of death, are removed from the camp. This connects God is rescuing his people from the forces of death. (Again it is an Exodus motif of freedom.) Neither of these goats are punished. It’s about expelling or purging God’s space (so Expiation!) The first goat (the one that dies) is more about cleaning the throne room of the stain of sin. The scapegoat doesn’t get killed. This is all about resetting sacred space (getting back to Eden).

To be frank, all of this comes off as weird to us. But God often meets people where they are at within their unique cultural dynamic. All Ancient Near Eastern cultures (including ones that existed before the Hebrews) killed animals, and sometimes humans, to appease the gods. Animal sacrifice is undebatably pagan. Yes, the God of the Bible used this pagan ritual to teach his people something new but it was always just a step in the process to get them away from it. It is really important to note that God never needed sacrifices in order to forgive. Why is this important? The Penal Substitution Theory ignores all this and says that God the Father still demands blood in order to take away sins.11

Leviticus 16 and the story of the scapegoat has some substitutionary aspects. I certainly do not deny that there are pictures of Jesus as our substitute. There is a difference between PSA and simple metaphor of substitution. Whenever you are understanding of substitution wanders into the camp of God’s wrath needing to be satisfied buy killing something I have a problem with that. The sacrificial system needs to be interpreted in light of restorative relationship being reconciled and the theme of redemption. I think when you start trying to understand this as imputation and especially double imputation, you’re getting off track and outside the picture that God has given us for what Jesus accomplishes through the cross, resurrection, and ascension. Again, if we take on this sort of reformed kind of thinking we are having to do some theological gymnastics to make it all work that seem unnatural to the message and mission of Jesus.

CONCLUSION

Payment language should paint a picture about the costliness of Jesus’ life and not about who receives the payment. So Jesus could “pay it all” by living in total surrender even unto death. We regularly use this analogy of “paid” as total dedication with soldiers who “paid the price for our freedom” in giving up their life in battle. In the same way, they literally did not “pay off” anyone or take anyone’s place. Instead, they died for a benefit to others and gave all they had. That is the way scripture also poses it the few times we see this sort of language used as I displayed in the opening paragraphs, but for some reason when it comes to the cross, PSA and reformed theology (which sometimes then becomes non reformed people using the same language) resorts to Jesus paying off God.

Since a lot of us like digging deeper, it could also help to point out how this “paid” language can sound like old pagan religion, where people had to pay off the gods with sacrifices. The gospel is the opposite of that. God comes to us first and makes things right. It makes sense to name PSA as the view most tied to “paid it all” language and explain why it does not match the whole story of Scripture. If we use the wider range of Bible images instead of locking into just one, we can talk about the cross in a way that shows God’s love and His plan to restore all things. Ending with a simple example of how this shift in language could change the way we pray, teach, or share the gospel would make it hit home even more for me.

I know you have heard these terms your whole life and might believe them to be the gospel, but that isn’t Biblical. Did Jesus pay for what we have in Him? You don’t need to say that any of this was “bought” or “paid for.” Perhaps you can say that as Paul does sometimes (arguably) as I started out this conversation. The intention of scripture using bought/paid/substitution language should be seen as a light metaphor not doctrine. All of scripture points towards the work of the cross as redemptive not transactional. Grace is free. Do you believe that? The exodus motif is Biblical, but the price attached to it isn’t. Yes, there was a process and sometimes we call this a “cost” as I Cor, 6 may frame it (although if you read it in Greek, you will read it differently that the ESV translates.) The cross Jesus Christ conquered all the powers of evil and ushered in the reign of God and the rule of the kingdom of heaven.12 What Christ offers is a return to Eden and then some. Freedom in him is restored. He sends his Spirit at Pentecost and now we are restored to our vocation as image bearers and are now his living temples showering the physical manifestation of Jesus’ sacrificial love. It is transactional, it isn’t retributive… it is free and restorative to all who want to return to their identity and partnership in Jesus. You were made for this!

This article was written by Dr. Will Ryan with special thanks to those that participated in the think tank: Dr. Matt Mouzakis, Dr. Steve Cassell, Paul Lazzaroni, and Justin Miller. Also special thanks to our friends at Rival Nation who you may have noticed I quoted several times. Please note that not all of the think tank contributors may take on the exact same thoughts of the article.

ENDNOTES

  1. https://www.gotquestions.org/bought-with-a-price.html ↩︎
  2. Collins, Robin (1995), Understanding Atonement: A New and Orthodox Theory, Grantham: Messiah College ↩︎
  3. https://biblehub.com/topical/r/ransom_and_redemption.htm ↩︎
  4. https://etymologyworld.com/item/ransom ↩︎
  5. Scot McKnight: What is unobserved by the substitutionary theory advocates is that the ransom cannot be a substitute, as we might find in theologically sophisticated language: where death is for death, and penal judgment is for penal judgment. Here we have a mixing of descriptions: a ransom for slaves. Jesus, in Mark’s language, does not become a slave for other slaves. He is a ransom for those who are enslaved. The difference ought to be given careful attention. To be a substitute the ransom price would have to take the place of another ransom price or a slave for another slave, but that is not what is involved here…The ransom does not become a substitute so much as the liberating price.… The ransom, in this case, is not that Jesus “substitutes for his followers as a ransom” but that he ransoms by being the price paid in order to rescue his followers from that hostile power. The notion is one of being Savior, not substitution. The best translation would be that Jesus is a “ransom for the benefit of many.”
     
    Leon Morris: In the New Testament there is never any hint of a recipient of the ransom. In other words, we must understand redemption as a useful metaphor which enables us to see some aspects of Christ’s great saving work with clarity but which is not an exact description of the whole process of salvation. We must not press it beyond what the New Testament tells us about it. To look for a recipient of the ransom is illegitimate.” Morris, The Atonement, 129 ↩︎
  6. https://www.amazon.com/This-Way-Redefining-Biblical-Covenant/dp/1633572390 ↩︎
  7. https://biblicalelearning.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Walton_Job_Session18.pdf ↩︎
  8. https://www.rivalnations.org/god-didnt-kill-jesus/. ↩︎
  9. https://www.bookey.app/book/a-community-called-atonement ↩︎
  10. https://expedition44.com/2024/12/30/the-new-year-jewish-roots/ ↩︎
  11. The theory pits the Father against the Son even though in nature they should be, and are, eternally the same (Matthew 11:27; John 1:18; 4:34; 5:19-20; 6:38, 46; 8:28; 10:29; 12:49; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 13:8). The Penal Substitution Theory fractures the Trinity and makes God schizophrenic. We are commanded to forgive like God forgives (Ephesians 4:32). But if we choose to forgive like Jesus then forgiveness will precede repentance (Matthew 9:2; 18:22; Luke 23:34; John 8:11; 20:19-23). However, if we choose to forgive like the father (according to PST), we will only forgive those that show repentance, or after they make a payment of some kind. This clearly creates an unnecessary problem. How and why would God need a blood sacrifice before he could love what he had created? Is God that needy, unfree, unloving, rule-bound, and unable to forgive? Once you say it, you see it creates a nonsensical theological notion that is very hard to defend. Thankfully we see this isn’t God’s character. Jesus shows us what God is like, and Jesus says that our perfect heavenly Father displays perfection as pure mercy (Matthew 5:48, Luke 6:36). ↩︎
  12. https://www.amazon.com/Wood-Between-Worlds-Poetic-Theology/dp/151400562X ↩︎

DOES SIN SEPERATE US | FROM GOD?

Posted by expedition44 on

When I was in High school attending a rather large evangelical free church, we had some missionaries come in to train us on street evangelism. The idea was to memorize a step plan for salvation that we could easily regurgitate on the streets. The core of it was based on convincing someone that according to Adams sin we had been separated from God and that only by professing with our mouth and praying the sinner’s prayer could we escape eternal torment and damnation. As there is arguably some truth to that statement, the presentation not only created some terrible theological implications of the gospel message (both to those presenting and those being presented to) but also wasn’t necessarily the best Biblical framework. Of course, as “good” kids we all just went along with it, at least initially. As you can imagine this led to some really awkward conversations in the street and left several students wondering if this is what Christianity is all about whether they really wanted to be part of it. The following year a different but similar group came essentially “training” us to try to do the same thing evangelizing our hometown. But then something happened, this time (likely based on their previous poor experience) several of the students started to transparently challenge the process. I remember it almost as if it was the enslaved rebels of Star Wars questioning the empirical ideals. Questions like, “where does it actually say this in the Bible?” and “Do you really think this is the action that the text had in mind when it was written?” Another student said, “I don’t think I want anything to do with a plan like this, I didn’t come to Jesus to force my friends into submission.” I could go on and on. The training group couldn’t really answer them with any kind of logical explanations, and I was quite disheartened by the whole thing. The night resulted in half the youth group leaving early bailing on street evangelism to go out for ice cream; while the other half (some likely afraid of their parent’s repercussions if they left) continued with the group to evangelize. I am sure there was a small percentage of the “good” kids that convinced themselves this was what good Christian kids should do. I was also skeptical of Billy Graham “crusades” as a kid. And before I continue, I want to say that even though I still don’t entirely agree with these crusades and this kind of step plan evangelistic plans I do believe God uses it in powerful ways. I know many that came to faith this way and then over the course of time found a better theology. But my heart desires to say, let’s start with a better theology!

This youth group interaction was a monumental occurrence in my life that made me start questioning why Christians do what they do and whether the Bible actually said things like the church traditionally claimed. Instead of driving me away from Christianity, as some thought questioning the faith would do, it drove me towards a lifelong beautiful “expedition” towards understanding the incredible word of God and His nature. I don’t know of anyone who has had such joy in the journey. This is my love language, and I pray that it becomes yours.

UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEMS WITH FRAMING SEPERATION FROM GOD THEOLOGY

The central question for your consideration is does the Bible actually say and teach what we have so often regurgitated that “sin has separated us from God?” I will start by saying any time you here a doctrine and you can’t find one verse that clearly states what the doctrine is attempting to “make the gospel say,” the best advice might be to run. If the intent of God was to give us some crafty 4 step plan of salvation wouldn’t that be clearly laid out somewhere in the text? Yet in the “ROMANS ROAD” plan of salvation we have to jump all over Romans back and forth to try to understand the so called laid out plan. Similarly, if a doctrine states something simply in one sentence such as “sin separates us from God” shouldn’t the Bible also state it similarly if it is true? That would make sense. Yet something as engrained in our head such as the statement, “sin separates us from God” doesn’t ever seem to be stated that way anywhere in the text. We deduce it. That doesn’t make it wrong or untrue, it just raises some hermeneutic red flags that should cause you the need or desire to examine it.

What verses then tell us that we are separated from God by Sin?1 Here are the best ones coming straight from those that hold this type of framework:

Are there others? Well, if you think these are a stretch, the others that people claim support separation you’re going to have an even harder time with. These are the closest verses that the Bible has that state we are separated from God by our sin. If you google the question the first link will be “100 verses by open Bible Info”. I will say that almost none of them actually state we are separated from God2, but such a simple search certainly shows that someone thinks or has been traditionally conditioned to tell us that.3

The only verse above that actually comes close to simply stating that sin has separated us from God is Isaiah 59:2. At first reading I can see this, however when you start applying textures of interpretation you see the verse differently. Basic laws of any hermeneutic design say, don’t ever make a doctrine off of one verse. In other words, if there is only one verse that seems to say something that can’t be found elsewhere in the pages of the Bible it likely doesn’t say what you mean what you think. If it did there would be supporting verses. SO then theologically you should be asking the question, if this verse seems to say this, but there isn’t another verse that says it, could there be a different meaning for this text? This kind of thinking leads to a better or more faithful interpretation and overall agreement in your theological lens. John Walton interprets Isaiah 59 as highlighting the necessity of a savior due to humanity’s iniquities and moral failures, yep, we need that!4 The Hebrew word used here that is interpreted as the English word “separated” is  בָּדל (badal.) It is the same word used in Genesis one in the creation narrative used to describe the separation of the light, and water, day and night. Notice in these cases it isn’t a chasm that separates those things, and it is part of God’s order. In fact, the truth is that it is opposite to that way of thinking, day touches night beautifully. It is the most beautiful part of the day that we call sunrise and sunset. Where the land meets water is a beach! We all LOVE the beach. We want to dwell in beaches. We vacation on beaches. Do you see my point? To frame this word as division or a chasm that can’t be overcome isn’t Biblical. Sometimes beauty comes when the peace meets the chaos and that is often where God dwells in scripture. The Biblical picture is actually a “slice of heaven”, the most beautiful thing the world has seen. CS Lewis spent a great deal of time dwelling on this concept.5 Do you see what I am saying? Badal also is a form of setting something apart. You know the other Hebrew word that is used to say that? Kadosh – Holy. The context of Isaiah 59 is actually a word play in the form of a contranym. So yes, in one sense God is holy and sin is the opposite of Holiness, but God isn’t separated from us by that, He actually dwells close to it. The other problem with framing God so far away is that it is giving sin way too much power over you. I am not willing to give sin that kind of leverage or title in my life. God finds people in some of the darkest places. When you run away you think you are far from Him, but the Biblical truth is that God is right there for you. If you truly believe in the omnipresent of God than you have to take this theological perspective. To say there is a chasm between a person sinning and God doesn’t agree with the doctrine of omnipresence.

Furthermore, Isaiah 56 is a prophetic indictment to a people immersed in injustice, oppression, and violence. The “separation” here isn’t God walking away. It’s people who have closed their ears to God’s voice. It’s spiritual disconnection, not divine abandonment. There’s a difference between feeling distant from God and God actually being distant. God never leaves.6

Secondly, once we give our life to Jesus, sin doesn’t simply disappear. According to most plans of salvation logically that is what would make sense. If we are separated by God and we say the magic words than sin is no longer in our lives (the chasm would logically be bridged never to be empty again) but if sin truly separates, then it creates a theology that logically would mean that we would continually be in need of repetitive salvation prayers to bridge this gap over and over. We know that isn’t the case. It creates a poor theological framework. What is true is that we can make a heart and mind choice to live for Him and even though we are still in part of the earthly physical world we are free from the endearing result of sin which is death both in the physical life and eternally. That is grace. To actually believe in this great chasm, minimizes or does away with a Biblical concept of covenant grace. So, to frame sin as a separation from God logically and ontologically doesn’t make sense or follow the premise of the biblical story of God’s redemption of us. It misses the mark.

Furthermore, saying that sin has separated us from God frames the character of God in a way that doesn’t agree with the Bible. It leads us to thinks that from birth we naturally were being judged by the sin of those before us. Yet the Bible is clear that we are only responsible before the Lord for our own actions and not the actions of others. Yes, we are affected by others (perhaps even for generations) but that is slightly different. Affected and responsibility or having to earn something as a result of someone else’s past are different issues. This gets more into the original sin conversation than it does sin separation; but the two are certainly connected. If you haven’t watched or listened to the x44 series on original sin you should do that. Saying that we are always separated from God by sin assumes that when we “sin” God must turn his face or step away from us. That is not true. The overarching message of the Bible is that God does not leave us or forsake us. I wrote an article on this. Do you believe the nature of God gets angry and wrathful when you sin. Do you think God wants to smite you because you sin? That sounds monstrous doesn’t it, yet many peoples theology believes that. Yet God’s love for us couldn’t be more opposite of thinking that way. When we sin, God more than anything, grieves for us and wants to draw us closer to Him into His hand of providence. When we continue to sin God will eventually open his hand of protection and allow us to reap what we have sown. This is actually a more Biblical definition of wrath. We get what we had coming, God no longer protects. (Israel in exile is the archetypical picture of this, but God has always desired and welcomed them back with open arms, thus the prodigal son story and many more. There is no separation or barrier from God’s perspective.) When we think that God is separated from us by sin, we begin to believe that God loves us when we do good and leaves us when we don’t. Or perhaps we think that when we are in devotion to Him, He blesses us and when we are separated by sin He is done with us and can no longer use us for the kingdom. Those in the book of Job asked this question as a retribution principle and God was clear to answer at the end of the story that that is not His character. We have a series on that too. I am glad that isn’t the case. No one would have ever been used by God. Does God just leave us the second we screw up?

DOES SEPARATION OF GOD CHANGE AT THE CROSS?

This is a great question. If you are following along and thinking through the texts, you might realize that in the Old Covenant there seem to be examples of separation from God even though the text never really says it so simply. (As I previously made the point, it could be deduced from the text.) Romans 8 seems to support a notion that in the Old Covenant before the cross we were separated from God. That could be why the cloud came and went from Israel’s trail. It could also show the veil between the holy of holies and the need for a priest. But then when Christ comes as our once and for all great high priest and the veil is torn at the cross, we become the temple of the holy spirit to which the separation is broken. In this sense there MIGHT have been a separation between God and the people in the Old Testament but Jesus (not necessarily the cross itself) removed any sense of being separated. The only problem with holding a view that there was separation in the Old Testament is that the text never actually says it. If the text really intended us to take away that notion wouldn’t one of the 39 books clearly state that? Yet they don’t, it has to be deduced which then makes it a theology of humankind. That should always be problematic to your theology and possibly a dangerous place to dwell. Another great question that then follows suite would be, “Is there a separation for the unbeliever?” I don’t think so. If you take the view that in the OT there was a separation between God and humanity it would be with everyone, not just unbelievers. The cloud and the veil support that theology. If that foreshadows the NT then it would take on the same ideology. Neither believer nor unbeliever are separated then. They are all close to God, God is never far off. This may sound different than what you have always been told but there isn’t anything that would disagree with it; in fact, it takes on a far better lens of agreement within all the texts. I can’t think of one verse that would actually make this a difficult view to hold.

PERHAPS IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A SEPARATION BY SIN

Even though the Bible doesn’t seem to have the framework or state specifically that we are separated from God by sin wouldn’t that make sense. We have certainly always been told that -right? But since the Bible doesn’t say it, we would be left to deduce it. Is that faithful hermeneutics? Well, it can be, if you believe in systematic theology, you are already doing that sort of thing regularly. But Biblical theology questions those practices. In one sense it seems to follow logic that in a relationship if one side falls out of love or becomes distanced you might say they feel are even separated. We say that in broken marriages that grow apart all the time without micro analyzing it. But that doesn’t work biblically with God as one side of the relationship. We are told and shown this multiple times in the Bible. Jesus is the bride of Christ and even though the groom (sometimes viewed as Israel in the OT) was unfaithful, the bride remains completely faithful and therefore is not separated. The separation came from Israel creating a reason to be distanced but God Himself still never leaves or forsakes them in covenant love. Some would say God divorces Israel but that leaves some deep theological problems that need to be sorted if you go that way. The more accurate Biblical mosaic and unending motif of redemption is that despite the unfaithfulness of Israel God is near with open arms. To this design, even though someone distances themselves from God, (and in our human broken relationships) the same is not true of the character of God. God never distances himself from the lost, the divergent saved, the broken, the lost, or the unfaithful… God is always near (which is what the doctrine of omnipresence means, which is also a theology of humanity as long as we are making the statement.) It is important to have consistent theology. I have said many times that the reformed perspective of believing God is omnipresent and also believing that we can be separated from God doesn’t follow a logical pattern. The two views are at odds; they can’t both hold true. If you feel or sense that God is far away or you have severed your relationship, that is what you feel, but the reality and major thematic covenantal truth is that God hasn’t left you. This is true as a believer or unbeliever. God is always near; there is not a chasm between you and God.

UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLICAL TRUTH AND THE BETTER THEOLOGY

The Bible never once states that we are separated from God by sin, but it states over and over that nothing can separate us from God. And Jesus solidifies this regularly if there were any doubt.

Romans 8:38-39: “For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Something tells me you have sang loud “NOTHING CAN SEPRATE US” in the Your Love Never Fails song by Chris Quilala of Jesus Culture. Remember that? We sing it so confidently but then believe sin has formed a chasm? How does that work? You can’t sing a song like this and still theologically think that way.

Some say God can’t be in the presence of Evil. That isn’t true either. God clearly sees evil. He is involved, engaged, and working redemption in real time and space. The idea that God literally can’t be near sin is a misreading of the text, and a dangerous concept or doctrine.7

Jesus makes all things clear

Jesus shows us that God wasn’t separated from the sinful, that His heart was moved towards a deeper connection with those in sin than perhaps anyone else. Think about the relationship that Christ had with those in sin. How can you be separated and be in deep relationship at the same time? You can’t. Those two things are opposites. Yet Jesus had deep relationships and was NOT separated by sin to those dwelling in it. He drew a line on the ground for the woman in adultery turning back those who took offense, He touched and healed the unclean before they claimed any relationship with the father. He loved them before they had any semblance of knowing Him. He routinely shared a table with sinners and invited them to be in His sacred space. In other words, he didn’t build chasms between Himself and the sinful, rather He walked hand and hand with them shepherding them to Him. He entreated those that were immersed even drowning in their sin. That doesn’t sound like a cliff of separation to me. It sounds the opposite. It sounds and looks like relational love.

“Come to me, all who are weary and burdened…” (Matt. 11:28)

And when Jesus went to the cross, He entered fully into the consequence and depth of human sin, not to separate us from God, but to reveal how far God was willing to go to stay with us.8

CONSIDERING SIN

This article isn’t meant to diminish sin. Sin is the opposite of God, but as I have made the case isn’t impenetrable. Sin is infectious, it hurts, it cuts, it wounds, it severs, it destroys and requires spiritual healing. Make no doubt there. Continually giving into sin is the road to death both physically in this life now and also to come in an eschatological sense (already not yet). Sin masks our identity in Christ and creates worldly thoughts of shame, pride, fear, insecurity, hurt, doubt, trauma, and so much more. Sin hurts not only you but those in relationship and covenant with you. Sin can severe your ability to walk in the spiritual prosperity that God has for you. Sin inhibits the freedom that God gives. Sin is the opposite of the peace that God manifests in us. Jesus came to take away the sin of the world. I am in no way diminishing the effects of sin on this world.

Dr. Matt and I are writing a book on this, so I am going to keep the more theological section here brief, but I also feel like it needs to be shown in this article. The effect of Jesus’s death concerning humanity’s sins in 1 John (specifically but also every other reference) is to cleanse (kathatizo), or to remove (airo) sin, not to appease or satisfy. Thus, Jesus’ death as an “atoning sacrifice” functions as an expiation of sin and not the propitiation of God. This is exactly what is happening in the Day of Atonement, and it is the image John is using in the entirety of 1 John. There is not one image of God needing to be appeased in 1 John to forgive sin or cleanse.

What does “for our sins” mean? “For” can have many meanings. But Greek is specific whereas English is not. There are 4 words with 4 distinct meanings (with some minor overlap) in Greek for “for”:

  • Anti: this for that (substitution or exchange)
    • Eye for (anti) an eye, tooth for (anti) a tooth (Matt 5:38)
    • “Do not repay anyone evil [in exchange] for (anti) evil” (Rom 12:17)
  • Dia: Because of or on account of; from
    • one agent acting against another agent or on behalf of another 
  • Peri: Concerning, about (sometimes overlaps with Dia)
    • Conveying general information about something
  • Huper:  in some entity’s interest: for, on behalf of, for the sake of,
    • the moving cause or reason: because of, for the sake of, for.

In 1 John 4:10 and 2:2 we see peri being used for “for”, besides Mark 10:45 (anti “this for that”- substitution or exchange)9 all of the other New Testament uses of “died for us”, “died for me”, and “died for our sins” and its cognates are huper -about a benefit, or as the Creed above said, “on our behalf”.10 I’m not saying that Jesus did not do something in our place (although I would be careful with using the term substitution doctrinally) but he did this on our behalf- for a benefit or to rescue us (but not from the Father). 

Those 3 verses (Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10) are all of the references to “propitiation” in the NT. Hebrews 2:17 also uses a variation of this word and in context is about what the high priest does with the purification offering on the Day of Atonement. We’ve seen that all these mean expiations or show Jesus as the “mercy seat” when interpreted in the proper context of the Day of Atonement. 

We do not see that the scapegoat or the purification offering had to be killed to propitiate God’s wrath. To interpret these in this way is going beyond the text and meaning of the Day of Atonement shadow. In other word’s framing the text that was is reading into it, it isn’t a faithful hermeneutic. The primary question about the Day of Atonement goats is whether God is being acted upon (changed?) or is sin being acted upon. As we saw with expiation, sin is the force being acted upon. But with propitiation, God is being acted upon. Yet, the noun’s use in the New Testament is about Jesus being the place where we connect with God because of his High Priestly and expiating function. This makes sense of Paul’s most popular phrase for salvation: “In Him”- Jesus is where (the place- Mercy Seat) we meet with God. 

There are plenty of other corresponding verses that all agree with this methodology such as Leviticus 16; Romans 3:21-26, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10; Heb 13:11-12; Matt 27:28-31; Heb 9:14-28; Heb 10:8-17; 1 John 3:5-8; John 1:29; Col 2:14; 2 Cor 5:21.

HOW DOES THIS AFFECT YOU?

If you believe sin separates you from God, then every time you fall short or miss the mark, you’ll think or believe that God’s love has left or betrayed you or has turned His face from you. That is such a poor image of God’s character and against everything the Bible says about His great redemption story. It is counter to almost every thematic motif in the Bible. Have you been harboring the lie that keeps you from experiencing what God wants most for you? Are you wallowing in your mess because you haven’t claimed redemption? God is always with you.

God’s grace for your sin is stronger than your worst nightmare or anything the world can dish out.

CONCLUSION11

Jesus didn’t come to make God love us.
He came to show us that God already did.

Sin is real. It has consequences. It can numb us, isolate us, distort our vision.
But it can’t separate us from God.

The cross is not a bridge to a distant God.
It’s the place where God meets us in the depths of our brokenness
And says, “I’m not going anywhere.”

Jesus is not your lifeline back to God.
Jesus is God – reaching, rescuing, embracing.
Always has been.
Always will be.

  1. https://www.gotquestions.org/plan-of-salvation.html ↩︎
  2. https://bible.org/article/gods-plan-salvation ↩︎
  3. https://www.openbible.info/topics/sin_separates_us_from_god ↩︎
  4. https://bible.ca/ef/expository-isaiah-59.htm ↩︎
  5. Carpenter, Humphrey (2006) [1978]. The Inklings of Oxford: C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Their Friends. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-00-774869-3. ↩︎
  6. https://pauldazet.substack.com/p/sin-doesnt-separate-us-from-god ↩︎
  7. IBID ↩︎
  8. IBID ↩︎
  9. In the image of the Exodus there was actually no substitution or exchange but that Jesus’ life was costly and his death and blood saves us from Death. Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRSqtE13v5k for a full word study on “For us” and all its uses in the NT. ↩︎
  10. Some of the most prominent sacrificial “For Us” verses in the NT that use huper (not anti): Rom 5:6-8; 1 Cor 15:3-5; 2 Cor 15:14-15; Gal 1:3-4; Gal 2:20; Eph 5:1-2; 1 Thes 5: 9-10; Titus 2:11-14; Heb 2:9-11. ↩︎
  11. IBID ↩︎

What did Adam and Eve’s Sin actually do to you? Reformed roots-

Posted by expedition44 on

If you grew up in modern evangelical circles, I am sure you were raised in church hearing something like,

Because of the sin of Adam and Eve, you and I now live personally separated from the tree of life and from the presence of God. The whole human race at that moment was flung into the downward spiral of the curse of man and God’s wrath, the weight of their sin and God’s judgement fell on them and therefore continues to fall on us as if we also made the cognitive choice that Adam and Eve made.

Many x44 people have gone through a bit of an exegetical deconstruction of what they have always been told that the Bible says finding out that what they have traditionally been fed and believed likely isn’t the nature of God or what the Bible actually says. Renovation is needed and usually bears fruit and opens the thresholds towards devotion to the Lord. As I agree with a good part of the statements above, I believe such similar statements to be misleading and stunt a person’s road to sanctification. First much of this way of thinking is tied to the pillars of Calvinism. I will mostly quote from R.C. Sproul who is commonly known as the best Theologian to hold to and explain Reformed theology and Calvinism. To be clear I have read every article and book I source completely. My library has as many books defending Calvinism (and likely more), than I own from the free will camps. Before Sproul passed, I knew him personally and greatly respected him and agreed theologically with him in some capacities (such as partial preterism) but unfortunately feel that he was way off on becoming the popular spokesperson for Calvinism. This article is intended to be a “quicker” read, if you are interested in diving into this conversation, I would suggest the X44 Original Sin series here.

To be clear, thinking that every person is somehow under spell handed down to them generation after generation by reformed circles camps own definition is called Total depravity (also called radical corruption and is foundationally tied to the concept of original sin)[1] and asserts that as a consequence of the fall of man into sin, every person is enslaved to sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God, but rather to serve their own interests and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to trust God for their salvation and be saved (the term “total” in this context refers to sin affecting every part of a person, not that every person is as evil as they could be).[2] This doctrine is derived from Calvin’s interpretation of Augustine’s explanation about Original Sin.[3] The singular scripture that is used for this is:

 “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12).

We also have an entire x44 series on Atonement and get into regularly why the way the reformed camps use this verse singularly (along with a few others) is neither exegetical nor follows the laws of hermeneutics. Notice that it was death that passed (separated now from the sustaining Tree of Life) or came upon all, not Adam’s personal disobedience. But to remind you of a few basics, Romans 5 needs to be read in context, not simply plucking one verse out to make a doctrine out of it. Scripture seems to teach that sin itself is not inherited (although the consequences for Israel often stretched to 4 generations): “[T]he son shall not bear the iniquity of the father” (Eze. 18:20). Everyone is responsible for their own conduct (Rom. 14:12). Sinfulness often begins in one’s youth (Gen. 8:21; Jer. 3:25). Children must reach a level of maturity before they are able to choose good and evil (Isa. 7:15, 16). Little children are held up as models for those who seek the kingdom (Matt. 18:3; 19:14). The human spirit is not inherited from one’s parents; it is given by God (Ecc. 12:7; Heb. 12:9).

In our YouTube video ORIGINAL SIN series we addressed how Original Sin (the pre-cursor to Calvinistic doctrines) is not Biblical or Ancient.

  • The first 400 years of the Church did not believe this.
  • There is zero evidence that Judaism ever believed this. Modern Messianic Jews do not believe this.
  • Augustine was the inventor of this doctrine in the 5th century and much of it was due to his importation of his pagan background into Christianity and lack of the knowledge of the Greek language.

NONE OF THESE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS AFFIRMED THIS: Clement, the Didache, Athanasius, Irenaeus, Ignatius, or Justin Martyr

The doctrine came into the church through Augustine of Hippo (396-440 CE) and the doctrine was originally called Concupiscence. Augustine could only read Latin, not Greek, or Hebrew. Augustine came to original sin by reading Romans 5:12 in a bad Latin translation. The original Greek would read: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned” Yet his Latin translation said, “all have sinned in Him (Adam)”. Where the Greek says that death has spread to all because all (each) have sinned.  

Concupiscence

  • Concupiscence, according to Augustine, relates to Adam’s sin being transferred through sexual reproduction.
  • Its root definition is a base sexual desire. We get our word concubine from this.
  • He believed that through this all men are born with their will, body, and mind corrupt, and this is transmitted sexually. They inherited the sin through the sexual act leading to birth.
  • He taught that Jesus had to be born of a virgin because he connected this to the sexual act. Therefore, the virgin birth spared Jesus from a sinful nature.
    • I affirm the virgin birth but Isaiah said this is a “SIGN” and has nothing to do with original sin.
    • God’s first command to humans to be fruitful and multiply. If sex is in itself a sinful act as reformed theology says than God would be commanding humans to sin.
  • We also get the doctrine of infant depravity from this, and Pastors today even keep this bad doctrine going:
    • John MacArthur said, “At no point is a man’s depravity more manifest than in the procreative act…by what he creates. Whatever comes from the loins of man is wicked.”
    • Augustine of Hippo said, “The only innocent feature in babies is the weakness of their frames; the minds of infants are far from innocent.”

One issue with teaching that sin is inherited is that it means God is then judging you for someone else’s action. That obviously isn’t scriptural. Thinking this way holds you back. In Christ we have life -not death. Once we accept this life here and now and eschatologically to come, we are called and charged to live in holiness separated from any ties of sin. That is what it means to live a life in Sanctification.

FROM HERE I WANT TO SHOW THE PROGRESSION INTO 5PT CALVINISM, but if you already know that, skip down to the next similar starred divider to continue reading:

The next problem with thinking we are bound to the sin ascribed to us that it would mean that we are also then unconditionally elected (also called sovereign election)[4] which asserts that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, his choice is unconditionally grounded in his mercy alone. Some may argue the connection, but if you believe you came into this world already doomed by someone that came before you then you believe at least some part of the decision has been made for you. I do believe in the corruption of the fallen world, but we are called to be delivered and live in freedom. The effects of the death that came in through Adam are not or do not have to be continual towards you. You are only responsible for your choices in terms of life with Jesus. With this you also venture into a very similar doctrine called limited atonement (also called definite atonement)[5] asserts that Jesus’s substitutionary atonement was definite and certain in its purpose and in what it accomplished. This implies that only the sins of the elect were atoned for by Jesus’s death. This is cosmic lottery language. I can’t find anything in the Bible that goes this way and neither could the early church. These are all modern “inventions” that came from the Reformation.

Thinking this way is also tied to the idea of irresistible grace (also called effectual grace)[6] which asserts that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (that is, the elect) and overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith. Essentially this believes that God created robots and determined their ways before time. It completely discounts the many passages that clearly teach free will. It leaves reformed theologians having to do all kinds of theological gymnastics with verses about free will.

Finally thinking that you are responsible for the sins of the ones that came before you is also ties to a Calvinist doctrine called the perseverance of the saints (also called preservation of the saints;[7] the “saints” being those whom God has predestined to salvation) asserts that since God is sovereign and his will cannot be frustrated by humans or anything else, those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with (1 John 2:19), or, if they are saved but not presently walking in the Spirit, they will be divinely chastened (Hebrews 12:5–11) and will repent (1 John 3:6–9).[8] Most people refer to this as once saved always saved. But in this case, if you believe that sins were tied to you at birth, your theology if it is consistent would also then get to the place of believing that everything was set before you and if that is the case, to be consistent if you were intended by a sovereign God to be saved then how could you lose that? The problem again goes back to the fact that the Bible continually teaches that we are responsible for the decisions we make and even though when we make and allegiant confession our past is made clean, we continue to be held responsible by a just God for decisions thereafter. You can’t make a onetime proclamation and go on living in sin and expect to be saved. The proclamation of life in Christ is ongoing. Ot is a journey, an expedition. This is why I have said many times, if you are going to take on any form of reformed theology it should be one or all of them. Perhaps the worst theology is those that try to adhere to a few points of Calvinism but not all of them.

Here is a better way of thinking about original sin rather than falling into Calvinist doctrines such as the above… (these are borrowed and slightly reworded from my good friend Greg Boyd at reknew.org.

1) I do think it is theoretically possible for an individual to live a sinless life, you do too if you truly believe in the complete humanity of Jesus! Yet, this isn’t inconsistent with admitting that everyone will inevitably sin. Think of it like this. Every car crash (let us assume) is preventable, if only drivers were more careful.  Hence, it is theoretically possible that there will be no car crashes anywhere on the earth today — or this month — or this year — or ever.  But it is certain there will be car crashes, for which drivers are responsible.   The thing is, statistical certainty doesn’t negate individual responsibility.  We are responsible for every sin we commit, -we didn’t need to do it. We could have done otherwise. It’s theoretically possible to go the rest of our lives without sinning. Yet, it’s certain that, over our lifetime of decisions, we will sin. I believe most evangelical American Christians are far from this, but we don’t have to be. The worldly entanglement has led way to daily sins. But I do believe we were called and created and expected to do better before the Lord.

2) I see “original sin” as mostly being born into a screwed-up world that is oppressed with fallen powers. This doesn’t make us sin nor are we responsible for the sins before us that contributed to it. Yet, it does render it certain that we will eventually sin (see above).  This is, in part, why we need a savior. To be clear one we are dead to our old selves we should not continue to live in sin or the slavery of the world. Paul makes this exceedingly clear.

3) Finally, it is important that we not think about this only in individualistic terms.  From a biblical perspective (and now, with much confirmation from science), the human community is, in a sense, one person, extending back to Adam. We were made to live, disciple, and be discipled in the community of those that walk with Jesus. We influence each other, and are responsible, in varying degrees, for one another.  So we have collectively gotten ourselves into a situation where we can’t avoid sin, and the responsibility is shared by all of us.  This is what Paul means when he says we were in Adam.  Yet, we are now placed in Christ — all of us (I Cor. 15:22; Rom 5:14-20). It’s just that we all (including believers) tend to see ourselves and our world as though we were yet in Adam.  Transitioning from Adam-thought to Christ-thought is what discipleship is all about. One of my biggest grumbles with evangelical modern church is we don’t disciple to live devotionally to the LORD in communion with the perseverance of the saints.

Getting back to where we started, Adam and Eve’s sin separated them from the life that the tree gave but it didn’t necessarily separate them from God. I have an article on this here.

That is the continual message of God to His people. He still desires to walk with them. God does not remain separated from us, He is always with us, we are promised that time and time again. We may receive a fresh anointing (and that may be up to your theology here); but make no mistake, He never leaves us.

We don’t have to live in depravity or a downward spiral. That is another huge theme of the Bible! God has more for you! Claim him, get into the word, be surrounded with the community of saints, and live and walk with Him every hour of every day! Refuse the world and all that it offers. You were purposed for more! Don’t let Satan sell yourself short! Claim victory and live in perseverance walking with the LORD and those that walk with Him. Seek discipleship and disciple! Live out your kingdom destiny!

God’s wrath in scripture is the handing over of his unrepentant sinful people to what they have coming or what they have earned. It is removing the providential hand from their lives. The weight of your sin and consequences of your decisions are real but you don’t need to and shouldn’t dwell there! Don’t dwell in your sin. Get redeemed! God offers you healing and freedom here and now! Step into it, believe it and live it. You are no longer to be bound to your flesh or former ways of the world. Step into it and live it!

let me articulate a better view:

The sin of Adam and Eve separated humanity from the tree of life but God is still offering the relationship that He had with them in Eden and actually desires a better way, not to just occasionally walk with you as He did with Adam and Eve in Eden, but through Jesus now offers even more, He wants to never leave you, to continually reside in your heart as you become His temple being the very physical manifestation of the presence of God to those you interact with. Yes, the world has been taken over by evil, but you represent light and have the power to make the presence that you fill sacred to make what is broken healed. You are the source of God to renew the Earth. You no longer live under a curse, but the power of the LORD is in you. Choose this day to no longer live in sin and dwell richly in the presence of the LORD. 1 Jn 3:6-9, 1 Jn 5:18, Rom 8:11, Gal 2:20, Col 1:27, I Peter 2:8-9, Eph 3:17, 2 Thess 1:10, 2 Cor 5:17, and so many more passages make all of these things abundantly clear.

  1.  Sproul, R. C. (March 25, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Total Depravity”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. I like to replace the term total depravity with my favorite designation, which is radical corruption. Ironically, the word radical has its roots in the Latin word for “root,” which is radix, and it can be translated root or core.
  2. ^ Steele, David; Thomas, Curtis (1963). The Five Points of Calvinism Defined, Defended, Documented. P&R. p. 25. ISBN 978-0-87552-444-3. The adjective ‘total’ does not mean that each sinner is as totally or completely corrupt in his actions and thoughts as it is possible for him to be. Instead, the word ‘total’ is used to indicate that the “whole” of man’s being has been affected by sin.
  3. ^ Livingstone, Elizabeth A. (2005). “Original sin”. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3.
  4.  Sproul, R. C. (April 1, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Unconditional Election”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. Unconditional election is another term that I think can be a bit misleading, so I prefer to use the term sovereign election.
  5. Sproul, R. C. (April 8, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Limited Atonement”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. I prefer not to use the term limited atonement because it is misleading. I rather speak of definite redemption or definite atonement, which communicates that God the Father designed the work of redemption specifically with a view to providing salvation for the elect, and that Christ died for His sheep and laid down His life for those the Father had given to Him.
  6. Sproul, R. C. (April 15, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Irresistible Grace”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. I have a little bit of a problem using the term irresistible grace, not because I don’t believe this classical doctrine, but because it is misleading to many people. Therefore, I prefer the term effectual grace, because the irresistible grace of God effects what God intends it to effect.
  7.  Sproul, R. C. (April 22, 2017). “TULIP and Reformed Theology: Perseverance of the Saints”. Ligonier Ministries. Archived from the original on August 5, 2021. Retrieved August 5, 2021. I think this little catchphrase, perseverance of the saints, is dangerously misleading. It suggests that the perseverance is something that we do, perhaps in and of ourselves. … So I prefer the term the preservation of the saints, because the process by which we are kept in a state of grace is something that is accomplished by God.
  8. ^ Boettner, Loraine. “The Perseverance of the Saints”. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.

REFORMED THEOLOGY AND CALVINISM

Posted by expedition44 on

Calvinism and/or reformed theology (which some consider having traits of Calvinism but not all of it) has never been appealing to me. So this article may be better deemed, something like, “my issues with reformed theology” or “Why I am not reformed in my theology.” My father was in opposition to this kind of theology, the closest I ever got to it was when he begrudgingly allowed me to attend Moody Bible Insititute. Despite their ever-growing reformed bend, he supported my decision to attend. My dad was confident that he had equipped me with the foundational tools to explore the Bible for myself, and I will admit – he had given me a natural advantage of recognizing the slant of reformed theology from an early age. Many of my close friends are reformed and I first want to preface this article by saying my reformed and Calvinist friends are my brothers and sisters in Christ and are part of a God–honoring movement which has preached Christ, detested sin, acknowledged that God rules on His sovereign throne and proclaimed the glorious doctrine of justification by grace through faith according to the Scriptures. I am even sometimes jealous of how they have convinced the world that much of what their view teaches (PSA, Ransom and Debt theories of atonement, ETC [eternal conscious torment], and predestination to name a few) as simply what the Bible teaches. For instance, if you are using the Romans Road or some step plan of salvation to tell someone what they need to do to be saved, then you likely have taken on some Calvinistic ideology without even knowing it. The average Christian American naturally believes some reformed theology as part of their faith likely because they haven’t really ever dug into the “why and how” or had someone that shepherded them to openly seeing an alternate Biblical theology. Many casual church attenders and seminary students alike have not fully explored the ins and outs of reformed thinking or the alternatives to it. However, some have and have determined that this is their best interpretation. I have a good friend from Moody that is reformed that is extremely well educated and knows the ins and outs of theology and has a very good view of reformed theology. Personally, I gravitate towards either taking the “whole none yards” of Calvinism or none of it in terms of views that hold more water. The picking and choosing of some points but not others within Calvinism make the least sense to me, which frankly is where most American evangelical churches land.

Some have even left the faith because these reformed ways of thinking didn’t add up, and they thought this was their only option. Those that have left, lacked a better understanding of the Scriptures and theology (and therefore God Himself) & chose to walk away completely thinking it was their only option. There are many repercussions to thinking like a Calvinist and most of them don’t look a lot like Jesus. Calvinists have a reputation for wanting to fight in their theology. Sometimes this is phrased as “standing strong”, or “fighting for what they believe,” but many view Reformed theology as the traditional understanding of Christianity. I always like to remind people that my Free Will early church view is far older than theirs and would therefore be the more traditional or “conservative” view. At any rate, I invite you to peacefully consider perhaps a better theological view either way. I always want to encourage you to take your time. Major decisions in life and faith don’t and shouldn’t happen easily or quickly. Let the spirit move you to an unbiased truth towards whatever direction you land based on the spirit’s conviction and the word of the Lord.

I say this peacefully, but quite transparently, quite frankly if my choice was to believe in the God and doctrine of Calvinism or walk away, I am afraid I also may have chosen to walk away. Calvinism just doesn’t add up in my opinion and I will tell you why. Please do not take this as a personal rant against reformed theology. I just want to share from a perspective of spending the better part of my life into the exploration of the Bible and why I land on the free will side rather than the reformed side.

As Leighton Flowers (someone who was a Calvinist and claims he was delivered of it), says in his post, “I believe there are many who are hoping to convince someone they care about to leave behind their Calvinistic beliefs.  I hate to tell them, but it is doubtful a blog post or a podcast will accomplish that feat. It is very difficult to convince YOURSELF to leave a long held theological perspective and next to impossible to convince another.  For me it was a painstaking three year journey after I engaged in an in-depth study of the subject.  I had no desire to leave Calvinism and I fought tooth and nail to defend my beloved “Doctrines of Grace” against the truths my studies led me to see.  There was no single book, article, or discussion that led me to recant my adherence to the TULIP systematic.”

If this teaching is new to you, please dig in and give yourself a prayerful unbiased approach to seeking the truth before the Lord. Big decisions often need time and a receptive spirit. If you are hoping to change someone’s mind by sharing this article, be gentle, be open to their exploration, and shepherd their concerns and discussion. Also be open to their biblical point of view! It may take some time and the character of Jesus displayed in you.

LOGICAL – PHILOSOPHICAL – ONTOLOGICAL – THEOLOGICAL

I have many issues with Reformed and Calvinistic thinking. The problems run deep, seeping into nearly every biblical consideration, but my major issue looms in the idea that we are utterly depraved, and completely incapable beings, stuck in the miry muck to continually fail over and over again likes pigs in defilement (which I believe was literally and figurately Jesus’ message to us.) Thinking this way leads to doom and gloom ideology sending the trajectory of the spiritually reclaimed catapulting over and over again back into the wrong direction. Rather than claiming renewed life in Jesus and living in freedom and walking a road that leads to joy; reformed thinking requires you to keep desiring a deliverance over and over and never being capable of walking the Edenic life Jesus has planned for us on the earth and into the next spiritually. Reformed Theology essentially leaves you believing you are unable to claim what Jesus offers to you. Reformed thinking needs to keep adjusting what seems to be the clear and simple path of freedom and redemption to have to be continually re-examined in a faulty lens resulting in theological gymnastics. In short, my biggest issue with reformed thinking is that it doesn’t follow the path to freedom that is such a large biblical motif in the lens of the Bible from start to finish. It doesn’t fit with the nature of God to perpetually transform you into His image. God didn’t design us to remain in sin and defilement but gave us a plan to return to the beautiful Edenic life today and on a path to sanctification that leads to a completely renewed spiritual being and recreated heaven and earth. Jesus asks us to walk away from the depravity and claim new life in Him. The Tov life.

In the Bible the Exodus story becomes a recursive biblical theme. In this motif the foreshadow of deliverance was the marking of the doors and passing of death that led way to a cognitive free will choice to leave the former life and walk towards God. It was an individual making a choice by their free will to step out of bondage and ask for life. That offering of the gift of grace shows true in both the original exodus story, many exodus motifs throughout the pages of the Bible, and in the New Testament through Jesus in the “new exodus.” This is the reciprocal circle of grace. God offers the option to choose life, the people then responded by showing their actions to accept that plan for them (which was blood on the doorpost in the original story.) God, then accepting this, delivers them. From there they are asked by God to follow the Torah in devotion and be “all in” following the Lord and no longer living in the ways of their past. The completed circle is for God’s people to follow in complete devotion, which is viewed as a theocracy. But as we know, in the OT the Israelites chose man over God time and time again. They made repeated cognitive decisions that gave in to the yetzer ha ra rather than yetzer tov (Hebrew words describing the inclination towards desires, one evil, the other good.) Israels story shows that they needed deliverance over and over again, but God’s message to them was that he had already delivered them and now they needed to simply complete the reciprocal act of grace and live by His precepts and claim the image bearing role of the royal priesthood they were created for. Today this seems to be a microcosm of Free will thinking verses reformed theology. Free will believers claim Jesus and live redeemed lives believing they are capable and can walk in Jesus here and now in a beautiful picture of sanctification. Reformed theology seems to wallow in the muck of Israel not understanding the gift given, not believing that they were intended to fully bear the image of God both in this world and the next… they get hung up thinking the voices in their head and even the Bible itself tells them they can’t, they aren’t able. They seem very much to represent the religious hierarchy of Judaism that Jesus constantly was at odds with saying repeatedly that we can’t live in this kind of sanctification. Yet, Jesus over and over taught to not live in our mess; we are asked to live each day walking one step closer to the master. I believe we are all called to take the next step towards the master in discipleship answering the amazing gift, the circular dance of reciprocal grace given to us by Him and expected that we lead others as the hands and feet of Jesus in this same beautiful calling. In Jesus time and today the goal of claiming deliverance and coming to Him through devotion was described as leaving everything on the beach and completely walking in the dust of the rabbi… Life was not simply a repeated deliverance experience that you were stuck in or needed to happen over and over again to be redeemed. Christ’s death, resurrection, ascension, and sending of His spirit was enough once and for all, embrace it and never look back, run with Jesus! Claim your freedom and be all in, completely devoted to this life, here and now set apart to live an incredible sanctified life that truly bears the image of Jesus.

The message to you hasn’t changed…

See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it.  “But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall surely perish.

DEUTERONOMY 30

NOTE: Unfortunately, most of this information has been collected by me in the form of everything from photocopies, notes for and from videos, sloppy quotes from videos and lectures, and who knows what else over the course of the last 20 years. Most of this message is in my head in near photographic form. This is likely the least scholarly post you will ever read from me in terms of giving credit where credit is due and possibly even nearing the line of plagiarism, although I certainly would not do that intentionally and have done my best to at least mention people’s names that I believe the content originated from. But please accept any apologies, and if you recognize anything as quoted, please let me know and I would gladly give credit. As I will do my best to keep this concise, I could likely write book upon book on several of the subjects at hand; this article will simply seek to establish a launching ground and give a basic premise for thought and theology.

Drryan@gocovenant.com

Here are some current “reformed” views you may be familiar with: (You also might be a Calvinist if you agree with most of what the following views represent.)

COVENANT: The Reformed tradition is largely represented (but not limited to) the Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Reformed Baptist denominations. Covenant theology (also known as covenantalism, federal theology, or federalism) is reformed. Just to be clear when I or any of my colleagues talk about keeping God’s covenants, we are NOT associating with reformed covenant theology. In the same regard, CTS (Covenant Theological Seminary) in general, also is on the other spectrum, or opposite of reformed theology, being of “Free Will” choice rather than that of a reformed covenant view. To this regard, institutions like CTS are holding to the word “covenant” for what it purely means in the bible and not what “man’s theologies” have turned it into. It is sort of like claiming the rainbow for the Biblical meaning, not what modern America has tried to make it represent. Unfortunately, there isn’t one word to describe the views that those hold that are on the other side or opposite of reformed views. Some would allude that anyone opposite of election theology would be on the “Free Will” side of theology, but again there just isn’t a singular good name for those that are “not in agreement with” reformed theology. I often say, “I have not been reformed” in my theology, meaning I side with the way Christians thought before and after Christ for thousands of years before the reformation changed their minds.

The majority of “spirit led” (charismatic) congregations are not reformed. You have probably picked up on this, but as you will find below, most of the tenets of reformed theology are viewed as “quenching the spirit” by the Pentecostal or charismatic bodies. However, this isn’t always the case, although I might argue that it should be in a better lens of theology. If you believe in the complete moving of the spirit, you are naturally going to lean towards a theology that is more in tune with a dynamic view of God’s workings. Some would say that Reformed theology limits the understanding of the spirit of God. This gets into a conversation on dispensationalism which also tends to most often tie into reformed ways of thinking.

The five solae of reformed theology are: (ANY “CHRIST ALONE” PHRASE IS A CALVINISTIC THING)

  • Sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”): The Bible alone is our highest authority.
  • Sola Fide (“faith alone”): We are saved through faith alone in Jesus Christ.
  • Sola Gratia (“grace alone”): We are saved by the grace of God alone.
  • Solus Christus (“Christ alone”): Jesus Christ alone is our Lord, Savior, and King.
  • Soli Deo Gloria (“to the glory of God alone”): We live for the glory of God alone.
  • Systematic Theology (as adverse to Biblical Theology)
    • Systematic theology and biblical theology are two ways of studying the teachings of the Bible. Systematic theology tends to be reformed and organizes everything the Bible says on topics such as sin, Christ, and government. It seeks to present the entire scriptural teaching on certain specific truths, or doctrines, one at a time. Biblical theology is a way of reading the Bible as one story in narrative form and tends to be free will and spirit led. It seeks to understand the progressive unfolding of God’s special revelation throughout history, and how Scripture’s many human authors tell one story—about Christ—by one divine author.

POPULAR REFORMED INDIVIDUALS

  • Alistair Begg
  • John Calvin
  • D.A. Carson
  • Francis Chan
  • Matt Chandler
  • Ray Comfort
  • Jonathan Edwards
  • Louie Giglio
  • Wayne Grudem
  • Tim Keller
  • Erwin Lutzer
  • John MacArthur
  • J.I. Packer
  • John Piper
  • David Platt
  • R.C. Sproul
  • Charles Spurgeon
  • B.B. Warfield
  • Rick Warren
  • Paul Washer
  • James White
  • Augustine
  • Martin Luther
  • Joni Eareckson Tada
  • George Whitefield
  • Warren Wiersbe

To the same regard, here are some organizations and websites that you might be familiar with that also are regarded to have a Calvinistic bend to them:

  • The Gospel Coalition
  • 9 Marks
  • Lifeway
  • Desiring God
  • Ligonier
  • Got Questions
  • Christianity.com (Found plenty of Calvinist articles and authors here)
  • Theopedia (as clearly seen in their post on free-will)
  • gty.org (John MacArthur’s Grace To You, a.k.a. “Grace To Few”)
  • Focus on the Family
  • Challies.com (Tim Challies)
  • Josh Harris (joshharris.com)
  • Bible.org
  • Crossway.org
  • carm.org (Matt Slick)
  • compellingtruth.org
  • moodymedia.org (Erwin Lutzer)

TULIP:

During the reformation people started believing that the human soul* was corrupt at or before birth and therefore tried to systematically make sense out of it (thus systematic theology emerged). As a result, these men had to develop a whole system of theology in order to attempt to be consistent. In order to make this system of beliefs easier to remember, they called it “TULIP”. Each letter of this word stands for one of their doctrines. The following are the basic teachings of “TULIP.” To be clear, all (or each and every one) of the points are Calvinism. As I have mentioned, some people that consider themselves to be reformed may only hold to some of these points. Personally, I would affirm that all of it is Calvinism, and I would not agree with any of the points as I will get to. Unfortunately, this article will not be exhaustive but seek as more of an introduction to thinking better. I will give you a starting place for Biblical consideration.

Most evangelical Christians would not consider themselves to be “Calvinists.” In many circles of Christianity this is a bad word. Yet TULIP shows the heart of Calvinistic thinking, and most evangelicals actually believe a good deal of it to be true. I agree that you can hold to part of these views (as I do) or maybe even believe a couple of them to be mostly true, but when you start agreeing with half of them or most of the facets of them you have to ask the questions, are you actually a Calvinist? Tongue and cheek I often say, “you might be a Calvinist if…” you agree with more than one of these tenets. There are 2-point Calvinists and 5-point Calvinists and they are both, or are all “Calvinists.” I would also argue that if your 1 point is the T which is the foundation to Calvinism, then yes, you are still a Calvinist! Therefore, reformed theology is the difference of essentially saying we only adhere to the parts of Calvinism that we want to.

* *the Hebrew word Nephesh is the best term, as the word soul has taken on a lot of platonic meanings that weren’t in sight biblically

Before I jump into my issues with Tulip, the acrostic that summarizes a particularly reformed understanding of salvation, I realize that I would likely not summarize their beliefs to their satisfaction, so please take a moment to read their own explanation of it so that you can truly approach this from an unbiased perspective. Here is a post from Ligonier which is a reformed Herald. Also, to their defense TULIP is intended to be directed towards the work of salvation, some of my issues with it below will no doubt venture past soteriology.

Total Depravity

“T” stands for Total Hereditary Depravity. This is the core belief of the TULIP doctrine. This is the belief that the human soul is born corrupt. As soon as a baby is conceived and/or born, according to this doctrine, it is in sin and in need of a redeemer. There are many arguments that show positively that the human soul is not sinful at birth but only when it commits sin. First of all, notice that God gives man his soul or Nephesh (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Zechariah 12:1). Can or would God give a man an evil soul? This would contradict James 1:17 which says that every good and perfect gift comes from God. God does not bring forth evil (Matthew 7:18). Furthermore, why would Jesus have said that the one had to become like a little child to enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:1-3). Was he saying that one has to become sinful and depraved in order to go to heaven? Of course not!

Unconditional Election

This doctrine says that since man is born in such a sinful state, there is nothing that an individual can do in order to be saved. They say that salvation is solely the work of God, not man. After all, we are saved by grace and not works (Romans 3:24). Furthermore, they say that God chooses those who will be saved and those who will be lost. God’s Word is never going to contradict itself. Having said that; there are too many places that show that man must play a part in his salvation. Peter preached on Pentecost that those present must “save themselves” (Acts 2:40). Further, the Lord said that only those who “do” the will of the Father will see the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 7:21). The Bible teaches that we are going to be judged by our “works” on the last day (2 Corinthians 5:10; John 12:48; Ecclesiastes 12:13-14). If this Unconditional Election were true, there would not need to be a judgment, for God has already decided. We would essentially all be created as robots; how would that give glory to God? Finally, this doctrine makes God unjust because he would be condemning some having never given them a chance to serve him, even if they desired to do so.

Limited Atonement

Unconditional Election eventually led to the doctrine of Limited Atonement (one problem requiring a solution for another – thus what I mean by theological gymnastics). This is our “L” in the TULIP doctrine. This is simply the belief that Christ only died for those select few whom God had chosen. Thus, the atonement for sins given by his death was “limited”. First, the Bible says that Christ died for the ungodly (Romans 5:6). Limited Atonement says that He only died for the Godly or perhaps that Christ died also for elect sinners that God would then make Godly. John 3:16 tells us that God so loved the “world”. God did not only love a select few but all men (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9). The words “FOR ALL” occur many times describing the gospel and all means all.

Irresistible Grace

“I” stands for the next doctrine to spring up called Irresistible Grace. This is the belief that the elect (those chosen by God) are going to be saved whether they desire to be or not. Joshua told us that we have the ability to choose whom we will serve (Joshua 24:15). Peter told those on Pentecost to save themselves (Acts 2:40). Irresistible grace is tractor beam Christianity.

Perseverance of the Saints

Finally, we come to the “P” which is Perseverance of the Saints. We often hear this doctrine called, “Once saved, always saved”. The Scriptures teach that man has the ability to choose whom he will serve and that his eternal soul will be judged on that choice. No one who believes in “Once saved, always saved” would deny that Paul was one of the “elect”. Yet when we read 1 Corinthians 9:27 we find that he constantly “worked” to stay in that saved condition. We can also look to Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8) as one who was saved and then lost. Judas was another. He was given the ability to do miracles like the rest of the disciples (Matthew 10:1).

BREAKING DOWN THE ISSUES

ORIGINAL SIN

I am well aware that my issues with Calvinism go much deeper than simply the tulip. For instance, I don’t “only” have a problem with Total Depravity but also would not even embrace a reformed view of what is called simply “original sin.” We have a several part youtube series on this here. “Original Sin” is the doctrine which teaches that because of Adam and Eve’s sin we are all born guilty before God and that we inherit their guilt from birth. Sometimes we may refer to this as Original Guilt. This is also called Augustinian Anthropology or Augustinian Original Sin. In other word’s everything gets pinned on Adam. I believe the bible clearly teaches we are all responsible to God for our own actions and in some part, the communal action of the Christ’s bride the church.

With Original Sin and Total Depravity come some other “ditches” that you’re going to have to figure out if you go that way…

  • The immaculate conception of Mary was created as a work around to hold up original sin (how could Jesus be sinless if Mary had Original Sin/Guilt?)

In our YouTube video ORIGINAL SIN series we addressed how Original Sin is not Biblical or Ancient.

  • The first 400 years of the Church did not believe this.
  • There is zero evidence that Judaism ever believed this. Modern Messianic Jews do not believe this.
  • The Eastern Orthodox church along with some Protestant denominations never adopted this view (Anabaptist and some Arminian Methodists and some Wesleyans).
  • Augustine was the inventor of this doctrine in the 5th century and much of it was due to his importation of his pagan background into Christianity and lack of the knowledge of the Greek language.

NONE OF THESE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS AFFIRMED THIS: Clement, the Didache, Athanasius, Irenaeus, Ignatius, or Justin Martyr

Augustine and Original Sin -The doctrine came into the church through Augustine of Hippo (396-440 CE) and the doctrine was originally called Concupiscence. 

  • Augustine could only read Latin, not Greek, or Hebrew.
  • Augustine came to original sin by reading Romans 5:12 in a bad Latin translation.
  • The original Greek would read: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned”
  • Yet his Latin translation said, “all have sinned in Him (Adam)”. Where the Greek says that death has spread to all because all (each) have sinned.  

Concupiscence

  • Concupiscence, according to Augustine, relates to Adam’s sin being transferred through sexual reproduction.
  • Its root definition is a base sexual desire. We get our word concubine from this.
  • He believed that through this all men are born with their will, body, and mind corrupt, and this is transmitted sexually. They inherited the sin through the sexual act leading to birth.
  • He taught that Jesus had to be born of a virgin because he connected this to the sexual act. Therefore, the virgin birth spared Jesus from a sinful nature.
    • I affirm the virgin birth but Isaiah said this is a “SIGN” and has nothing to do with original sin.
    • God’s first command to humans to be fruitful and multiply. If sex is in itself a sinful act as reformed theology says than God would be commanding humans to sin.
  • We also get the doctrine of infant depravity from this, and Pastors today even keep this bad doctrine going:
    • John MacArthur said, “At no point is a man’s depravity more manifest than in the procreative act…by what he creates. Whatever comes from the loins of man is wicked.”
    • Augustine of Hippo said, “The only innocent feature in babies is the weakness of their frames; the minds of infants are far from innocent.”
  • INFANT BAPTISM – babies began being baptized to wash away the guilt of original sin

Critical Race Theory

If Original sin is true and sin is transferrable and imputable no Christian should have an issue with Critical Race Theory which states that you are guilty of the original sins of America (Racism and slavery) even though you were not born yet and had no choice in your race. Yet CRT says that those born in certain demographics must atone for the sins of previous generations and they are just as guilty as the original offenders.

  • This is the same logic as the Doctrine of Original Sin in the Bible so if one affirms Original Sin you should also affirm CRT as it follows the same logic (yet I don’t know of any Reformed church that would align with CRT.)

Pro Life (Abortion issue)

In Original Sin even children are born guilty and under the wrath of God. Most Christians (reformed or not) are against abortion and are Pro-Life. But according to Original Sin God’s hatred is against these babies at birth (possibly unless or until baptized). His Grace can’t cover or won’t them or anyone else. We often talk about babies being innocent but according to original sin they are actually guilty and worthy of death according to this theology. The reformed disconnect then, is that if you believe babies are born as evil or against God, then ending their fetal life doesn’t pose as many problems for you (which is a problem.)

My first and last paragraph hit largely on this, but put simply, reformed theology says man is incapable of living as consumed by freedom, redemption, reconciliation, and joy in living for Jesus in their sanctification journey on this earth. It is a very limited view of Jesus’ work imo, they are looking largely for sanctification to in the life to come, which is often referred to as escapism.  Calvin’s theology begins with the doctrine of “Total Depravity,” this idea of “original sin” is a theology of man and natively foreign to Scripture. Instead, Scripture teaches that sin is the result of willful disobedience to God (Hebrews 10:26; 1 John 3:4). Calvinism allows man to say, “Sin is not my fault. It is my ‘sinful nature.’” However, Scripture teaches that sin is our fault. Scripture teaches that man has freewill and is able to choose whom he will serve (Joshua 24:15) and that this devotion is what leads to intimacy with the father. Receive life and never turn back! Every opportunity can be a decision to honor the Lord with your heart mind and Nephesh.

CALVINISM & ARMINIASM

Now let’s be clear about something. All Christians believe in God’s sovereignty, providence, and the biblical term predestination. These are not concepts unique to Calvinism. Calvinism is a particular interpretation of them. There are obviously other interpretations, such as myself and the free will church. Armenians, for example, also believe in God’s sovereignty, providence and predestination. But they have a different interpretation of these biblical concepts than Calvinism’s. Arminian Theology and Calvinism share many similarities that I would oppose. The spiritual danger of TULIP Calvinism is in believing that God is not loving enough, not good enough, to save all. Do you really think that God’s character would allow himself having the ability to choose who will and won’t be saved, that it has nothing to do with Free will? Could I love a God who could rescue everyone but chose not to? Typical Armenians don’t believe that God is powerful enough, or sovereign enough, to save all. TULIP Calvinists don’t believe that God is good enough, or loving enough, to save all. Both are problems that I cannot “assume”take on or assume” in my understanding of God.

I Am a Christian

John Calvin was a man. Christians follow Jesus, isn’t a doctrine named after a man rival to the basic idea of following Jesus? Paul admonished the church in Corinth for following men, when they were saying, “I follow Paul” or, “I follow Apollos” (1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:4). Even if I agreed with Calvin on every theological point, which I do not, I still could not describe myself as a “Calvinist” because I want to follow Christ, and Him alone (to use their own words!) Similar to what Paul asked the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 1:13), I would ask those who are Calvinists, “Was [Calvin] crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of [Calvin]? I have a similar hangup to following “Calvin” as I would to a church that elevates the pastor to nearly “god” status. There isn’t a place for it in a Jesus only Theology.

The Church Was Predestined & WHY PRAY

“Predestined” is the Biblical word proorizó and takes on an idea of predetermination or something that is marked out beforehand. It is used in the New Testament six times in Acts 4:28, Romans 8:29&30, I Corinthians 2:7, and Ephesians 1:5&11 and every time the text doesn’t give us many clues as to exactly what it really means. Hermeneutically when this happens we need to seek what the rest of the bible and other similar words may have to say on the subject and perhaps even take a look at what the intended audience understood the text to have meant (such as extra biblical sources which were commentaries of the day). In this case, luckily the Old Testament is our “torah” for the New and has several allusions to what happened with God’s intentions at the beginning. Psalm 139:16 gives us more but is also one of the Calvinist proof texts, so let’s see what it says. I often find that most of reformed theology is based on English and Latin translations, not the language of the original manuscripts. Unfortunately, a “simple reading of the English” often doesn’t convey the best image of the original language. Perhaps our modern day or classic (unfortunately reformed) understanding of predestination needs to be adjusted. Does God know everything you will do before you are born, before you make a single choice?  Does He know all men’s choices from eternity past? Does he actually cause every little thing that happens?  And if He does (which is what Calvinism believes), and He never needs self-adjustment, then in what sense can we claim that we have free will—or, for that matter, how could anyone, including God, ever hold us accountable for any of our actions if they are all predestined? I could write 10 pages on this one.

In this case (as with most), the original language in my opinion settles the dispute in all the passages that I know of, nut lets take a hard look at the one the Calvinist community tends to emphasize. The literal Hebrew is, “in Your book all of them written the days formed [when] none of them.”  The NASB reads, “the days that were ordained for me,” the words “for me” do not appear in Hebrew they are inserted into the English translation. Was this just simply trying to make it read better or is this inserted theology? I would say the later.

The first verb is a Ni’fal imperfect, usually designating an incomplete or reflexive passive voice.  In other words, the writing isn’t finished. It’s still going on. That’s quite a bit different than the idea that it is all written in the book before you were born. This is just basic Hebrew, nothing complex. Thats one reason why any traditional Jew thinks the reformed idea of predestination is preposterous.

The second verb (“ordained”) also betrays theological bent (it isn’t an acceptable interpretation by any law of hermeneutic that I know of.)  The verb is a Pu’al perfect, that is, an intensive completed action.  We know the root, yāṣar, but it takes a theological assumption (you have to want to go this way to align with other preconceived doctrine – again theological gymnastics) to translate it as “ordained.” The basic meaning of this root is “to form,” “to fashion” in synonymous parallelism with bārāʾ “create.” It describes the function of the divine Potter forming man and beasts from the dust of the earth (Gen 2:7–8, 19). It occurs in association with bārāʾ “create” and ʿāśâ “make” in passages that refer to the creation of the universe (Isa 45:18), the earth itself (Jer 33:2), and the natural phenomena (Amos 4:13; Ps 95:5). See also Ps 33:15; 74:17; 94:9; Jer 10:16; 51:19; Zech 12:1). Most of this can be found in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, one of my all-time favorite references and a great example that not everything that comes from seemingly reformed organizations is reformed, (i.e. Moody Press). (R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (396). Chicago: Moody Press.)

The word also occurs in the sense of God’s framing or devising something in his mind. It is used of his preordained purposes (II Kgs 19:25; Isa 37:26; 46:11; Ps 139:16) as well as his current plans (Jer 18:11).

If the prepositional phrase, “for me,” isn’t in the original text, then how could this verse be enlisted as a proof of God’s foreordination of all human choices?  Why couldn’t it simply be read that God knows what He plans to do before any human days are numbered? The translator’s addition of “for me” alters that entire direction of the text. I’ll get to the New Testament but let me first address something that connects here.

PRAYER: We see many times in the Bible that God in his omniscience can change his directions and does. (Moses pleading with God not to destroy Israel, Abraham saving Lot, Jonah and Ninevah etc…) His nature doesn’t change but His actions may which is ironically what make Him truly omnipotent. He is influenced by the very heart of man. His ability to adapt to the pleads of humanity is essentially His response to our devotion to Him in prayer. Predestination by Biblical definition seems to best mean there is an overall plan and God is dynamic enough to accomplish that plan despite the course of action and free will through his church (and perhaps individuals).

In other words, if you prescribe to Calvinism, why pray? If you believe God is immovable in every way, then why would you pray in terms of supplication? Yet we know the Bible speaks over and over of the ability to “ask God.” IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN PRAYER (at least the facets of supplicational prayer), IT IS GOING TO BE HARD TO BE A CALVINIST!

But lets get back to the Calvinistic idea of predestination. In this way of thinking, every individual has been predestined for salvation or condemnation. Man has nothing to do with receiving salvation; it is completely up to God whether an individual spends eternity in heaven or whatever your view of hell might be. It is basically a cosmic lottery! In the first chapter of Ephesians and the eighth chapter of Romans, Paul speaks of the idea of being “predestined.” Thus, the idea of predestination is a biblical concept. However, as I argue above, Calvin has confused the biblical definition. Paul wrote that God chose “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4) to save a group of people (the church). Nowhere in Scripture do we read the Calvinistic idea that individuals were predestined for salvation or condemnation. Paul wrote, “he predestined us” (1:5) and, “we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined” (1:11). Concerning predestination, Paul always speaks in the plural (a group), not singular (an individual). Second, if grace were “irresistible” it would make evangelism unnecessary. Why would missionaries need to go into all the world and preach the gospel (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16), if it was God who irresistibly and miraculously converted men? Why would Paul say, “I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22). If Paul’s preaching and example had nothing to do with the conversion of souls, someone ought to have told Paul that!

Christians Can Fall From Grace  

The Calvinists teach the doctrine of “Once Saved Always Saved.” To me, it seems that by simply logically considering the mass amounts of individuals that have seemingly met the biblical description of “one that is saved” yet later meet the description of one who isn’t, is overwhelming. The idea that if someone truly becomes a Christian, it is impossible for him to fall from grace seems nearly erroneous in real life, how could that possibly be? Yet, if you were to ask any Calvinist, “Can a person fall from grace?” Surely, the Calvinist would answer with a resounding, “No! There is no way a person can fall from grace.” Which baffles me, in light simple scriptures such as Galatians 5:4, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” Jesus Himself taught that one could fall from grace, “If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned” (John 15:6). Seems really cut and dry, if you are wrestling with this subject your real wrestling match is with the doctrine of Calvinism not the Bible!

If you take a once saved always saved view in light of the seemingly loads of people that leave the faith you have two options. Either God’s tractor beam miraculously draws them back to faith at some point before judgment. This could be entertained by an “apostle’s creed” understanding that Jesus while in the grave preached to degenerates giving them a final opportunity to accept Him. Perhaps this is a foreshadow to the New Covenant as well; but the difference is they didn’t have Jesus in the OT and in the NT we do. The other way this could work in a Calvinistic view is taking a higher level of the definition of salvation. I routinely say Judging salvation isn’t a line we should be drawing, that is for God and God alone. But that also would possibly address this matter. For instance, Jesus calls his followers all to become disciples and we get the idea that only about 70 of them existed at His death. This is defining a disciple by those that left everything at the beach (family included) and fully followed him. By this thinking, few will be saved, but it might settle the dispute of how some claim to be saved and fall away. In some reformed circles this influences theology that continually questions your salvation leading to multiple altar calls and baptisms, revivals and more. The are you “sure you are sure” way of thinking.

DRAWING

Calvinists love to talk about God drawing people to Him in defense of predestination. I affirm that Christ draws people to Him through His spirit, but some clearly refuse it. The Father’s “drawing” out of the world’s bondage by deliverance (which leads to salvation) and the devil’s stealing (which leads to damnation) are cosmic factors that work in conjunction with, but not in control of, the human volition. In other words, if a human heart is willing to submit, the Father will lead them to a saving faith relationship with Christ. The Father “draws” people (or not) in response to their hearts. Sometimes it seems like this is a continual process and sometimes the scripture seems to imply a limited window. It comes back to the problem of reformed theology and free will; reform theology essentially believes that no one truly makes their own decisions, that every decision was made for you by a supreme being. No one can refuse something that wasn’t ever offered to them.

IT (CALVINISM) IMPEDES DEEPER DISCIPLESHIP

If I am predetermined from the beginning, i.e.. part of the cosmic lottery, essentially a robot made to follow God or not, and nothing I think or will matters, (in fact, logically to this regard I am not really capable of even choosing…) Then why would I try to be a disciple? Yet Jesus frames discipleship as the pre-imminent call or reason to follow him. He continually asks us to make this choice to “FOLLOW HIM.” Calvinism minimizes the need to shepherd and disciple. This seems against Jesus’ teachings not in alignment with Jesus and His calling of us.

IN CONCLUSION

Greg Boyd really jumps into this in a reaction to a “hard to read it’s so bad” John Piper article.

  • Calvinism therefore teaches that God SPECIFICALLY WILLS every evil event in history as well as each person who will suffer eternally in hell (ETC.)
  • Calvinism teaches that God ordains every single evil thing that people do IN SUCH A WAY that God is all-holy for ordaining these evil acts while the people who do the evil acts God ordained them to do are sinful for doing them. This is the classic problem with evil.
  • Calvinism teaches that God has a “sovereign will” that ordains and delights in evil and a “moral will” that is revolted by the evil his “sovereign will” ordains. This is why I and others have claimed that God’s “moral will” must hate God’s “sovereign will” if Calvinism is in fact true.

Calvinism seems contrary to the nature of God and his plan for us. It seems rival, not in unison with God’s plan of sanctification offered to all who choose to enter into this allegiant relationship. Where does this leave you? Joshua asked the “over and over again” depraved Israelites to make a choice. Are you going to live in freedom or be stuck in your old ways? “Choose today” he said. God continues to obliterate the lines of disunity created by the severing what sin has caused. Calvinists want to redraw these lines.

Choosing to be stuck in your depravity is a choice that shows disunity resulting from the selfish, sinful choices freely chosen by man and not given to you by God. This “crutch” has been claimed as an excuse and perhaps the main issue for cultural and religious divisions since Eden. The challenge of Jesus’ teachings came to those who believed in the righteousness of their own spiritual heritage, that they can bear the Image of God and live in hope, reconciliation and freedom from their past, they are recreated holy ones and live in the power and Spirit of Jesus Himself.

I get that living this way was likely easier in the first century as a believer that was immersed in the “leave it at the beach” definition and living in a “circle the wagons” Jesus community. But the fact is the Amercian way of working 40 hours a week and acceptance of worldly bondage hasn’t changed the words of Jesus or the Bible. Have the ways of the world caused you to be in a continual spiritual dismal seemingly needing to be “rescued” over and over again? We often are what we allow, make more Godly decisions and choose to be more aligned with Jesus than the ways of this world.

The intrinsic beauty of any relationship is found in the heartfelt decision of a person in their nephesh to choose to be invested in that “Jesus” relationship. Of all the beauty found in the Garden of Eden, the choice Adam had to choose God and God to choose Adam is the pinnacle of the symphonic relationship offered to humanity. God made a choice to create mankind, God made a choice to create a space for mankind to exist and thrive, and God created us to have the meaning of our existence found in relationship to Him, but God in confidence of His own character allows the beauty of choice to be offered to His most prized creation. Even though Adam made the choice to allow sin to creep in, God also had an immediate plan for Adam and all of us to rejoin Him in the Edenic way of life. God offers this way of life 6000 years ago, He offered it to Israel, He offered in through Jesus and still offers it in modern worldly culture.

Perhaps I am conflating the process of sanctification and a Calvinist’s emphasis on Total depravity. Some Calvinists have found better definitions and better views. Within any paradigm there are good views and poor views and much of this article is taking face with the “more difficult” views of Calvinism. You can’t put everyone’s theology in the same box. I also would give some time to understanding that Calvinism could be correct in the eyes of the Lord. No one knows. I am waiting for the heavenly Mars Hill moment when all truth is given. Until then, as always; I and the crew at Expedition 44 have sought to best help you understand an exegetical approach to interpreting what God has for us.

That said, I will hold to my convictions that any of the points of Calvinism stain the gift and beauty of what Jesus offers freely to us in complete abundance. It also deeply affects our purpose for existing, working, and even our relationships with others. The spiritual implications of the death of Christ and his resurrection from the tomb sent an earthquake experienced not only on Earth, but in the spiritual realm through which humanity now has an opportunity to receive empowerment and restoration found deep in the fibers of their being. The covenant faithfulness God has been after has now been exemplified and found in Jesus Christ as a living example to humanity of the life and relationships were created for. We are living sacrifices whose very nature is not the embodiment of death, but life. We are the image of life in Jesus to its fullest!

If we believe God’s heart for humanity is that everyone come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9) it will never come from guilt, shame, or condemnation, (John 3:17), but from a people saturated with the same irresistible character traits of God himself. The ones who create life where there was death, the ones who foster peace where there is chaos, the ones who grow and build and create beauty.

God didn’t need mankind to continue what He created in the garden, but offered man an opportunity to partner with Him, devoted to His purposes. This was an incredible gift offered to Adam and that same gift is offered to us today through the blood of Jesus Christ. That’s a life worth living and a far cry from the ugliness and depravity of mankind depicted in Calvinism. Make a choice today to receive the full extent of liberation offered to you as a redeemed child of the Kingdom of God. Claim and live to the fullest image of Jesus here and now and to the glory of what is to come!

SPECIAL THANKS TO THOSE WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THIS ARTICLE: Dr. Matt Mouzakis, Dr. Steve Cassell, Dr. David Lunow, & Paul Lazzaroni

SOME BETTER RESOURCES:

https://soteriology101.com/ I like Flowers as he does a great job of refuting Calvinism but he is a provisionist which means he still affirms PSA and eternal security which I do not agree with, but still love so much about what my brother teaches.

CHOSEN BUT FREE: A Balanced View of God’s Sovereignty and Free Will 
(Third Edition, Book) by Norman Geisler

“What Love is This? Calvinism’s Misrepresentation of God” by Dave Hunt

https://www.youtube.com/@IdolKiller