The Conservative Seminarian

Theology ~ Religion ~ Culture | Tidbits from me | Links to others |

Tag: hamartiology

Soteriology: The Doctrine of Salvation – Part 1

The doctrine of salvation is closely tied to the doctrine of sin for obvious reasons. Recently, we completed a four-part series on that topic (called “Hamartiology”), which you can find here. I recommend reading that series prior to starting this one.

By way of reminder, these thoughts are taken nearly word-for-word from my seminary class back in November. I cannot take credit for any of this material. Dr. Kevin Bauder is the systematic theology professor at Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Plymouth, MN, which I attend as a modular student. He also has an incredible mustache, even better now than when pictured.

Any mistakes or misrepresentations are entirely the result of my poor typing, slow processing, and/or paralyzing light bulb moments that prevented further motor functions. The text below represents material from the class, except for an occasional thought I might add for clarification. I italicize these so you know when I am interjecting. Let’s get started…


 

Recap of the definition of total depravity: We are not saying people are as bad as they possibly could be. We are saying that every aspect of human beings is depraved (mind, heart, will), and humans are totally incapable of offering anything acceptable to God.

Adam was not created merely innocent, he was created holy. It was creaturely holiness (not complete, like God’s), and it was not confirmed (he could lose it). He could choose to sin, just like we can. By the way, one day in Heaven our creaturely holiness will be restored and confirmed. God’s purpose is not merely to write us a ticket out of hell. God’s purpose is to restore us to righteousness and true holiness, to restore us to His moral image.

Salvation by Grace Alone

We really mean two things here, because salvation has two sides. On one side of the coin is provision of salvation, what God has to do in order to make salvation possible. The other side of the coin is the application of salvation (God securing the actual salvation of specific people). This distinction is very important. There seems to be an assumption on the part of some people that for salvation to be provided means that it must be applied already (eternal justification view). In other words, faith isn’t what saves us, it’s what reveals that we’ve always been saved because salvation has always been provided for us; a believer was never unsaved and under God’s condemnation. This is false. This might seem obvious, but it becomes very important later in our discussion on limited atonement.

Provision: Titus 2:11 (Gracious): salvation is provided for all men; there is no logical step that requires us to move from provision to application, you would have to make a biblical case for it, and I don’t think you can (this is why we can say salvation is provided for all men, and yet we are not universalists; provision is not the same thing as application)

Application: Eph. 2:1-3 (Gracious): salvation is provided for all but is only applied to some; there was a time when these now-saved people walked according to world, flesh, and Devil; application had to occur at some point (we would say at the moment of justification)

What is freedom, and how does it relate to God’s sovereignty?

DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY: Can God do what God wants to do (phrasing it this way prevents us from asking dumb questions that are immoral or absurd)? Of course God can: Rom. 9:15-21.

If this is true, how can God find fault with humans who don’t accept Him? Verse 19 is the natural human response. Notice it is not phrased as a true question, but a protest. God’s not fair. This is the classic human response. This is why people are Arminians.

Paul’s response is clear: Who are you, human, who talks back to God? God is absolutely free and sovereign. He is the Creator, you are the creature. Paul often uses a similar type of argument to set up an imaginary conversant who asks a question and then Paul shows how their logic breaks down. He doesn’t do that here. He doesn’t even bother addressing their logic. He overrules it and points to God’s right. A similar thing happens to Job when he goes on and on questioning God and finally he gets his wish: God shows up. But before Job can ask His questions, God says, “Let me ask you a few questions, Job.” Effectively God says, “Job, you’re raising a protest of how I manage My world. How many worlds have you made? How good a job would you do if I handed this one over to you?” And we all know Job’s response: “I abhor myself. I repent in dust and ashes. I lay my hand upon my mouth” (a.k.a. “I’m shutting up now!”).

The bottom line is: do you trust God? You don’t have a right to make the judgment to adopt the position that makes God seem most fair to you. You start with God and let Him define your notions of justice and love. God doesn’t play by our rules, God makes the rules. But if God makes a rule He always plays by it. He always plays by His own rules. Because God is free, God can choose to make promises. And then He is bound by His own moral nature to keep them. The question in relation to salvation is: What has God promised to do? In no case are we permitted to indict God over issues of fairness, justice, and love. This is basically how Arminians argue: “We couldn’t worship a God who acted like that!”

HUMAN FREEDOM: There is no such thing as a free will because wills don’t make decisions. How many decisions has your will made for you today? How many decisions have you made today? Wills don’t make decisions, people make decisions. It is the person (the agent) who is free. The will is the capacity of the agent to make a choice. Freedom, or lack thereof, is a property not of wills, but of agents. The question is not if wills are free, but if you are free. What I’m suggesting is that you may be perfectly free even if the choice you make is already 100% certain.

(This is a position known as compatibilism. An example of compatibilism might be, though God already knows whether or not a person is elect and will be saved, that person is still in some sense free. These two things are compatible. Think about Heaven. Will we be free in Heaven? Of course. How could we possibly be any more free than we will be in Heaven? But will we be able to sin in Heaven? Of course not. So there is some sense in which real freedom is compatible with already determined certainties.)

What determines the will? By definition, the will is not random. It does not go off on tangents of its own separately from you, it is integrated in your entire personal makeup. So what does determine the will? The decisions of the will always arrive from some combination of two things: what you know (or think you know) and what you love or hate.

Problem #1: Imperfect knowledge

What you know, or think you know, may not actually be true. What you think is knowledge may not be actual knowledge at all. We don’t make our decisions based on reality, but what we perceive as reality. Mistakes in knowledge may result in mistaken decisions.

Problem #2: Divisions between the intellect and the sensibilities (feelings)

What we know may not correspond with what we love. Example: the drunkard who knows it’s killing him but still drinks.

So do you make your decisions based on what you know or what you feel? In a conflict of the will and the feelings, you will always go with what you feel, regardless of what you know. Nevertheless, what you feel is shaped by what you know. Out of your knowledge and your love, you choose, or will.

What this means is that if someone can control your knowledge and your feelings, they can control your choices. Who can control these things? Steven Spielberg can. Hollywood can. Madison Avenue can. They know that if they can get your knowledge and your love, they can get your choices. Thankfully they aren’t perfectly efficient at doing this.

The point is this: the unsaved person cannot choose what both his mind and his heart reject (which ultimately is God; Romans 1).

Freedom: a person is free when he is able to do what he chooses to do, that is he is neither restrained (prevented from doing) or constrained (forced to do)

The unsaved person is not restrained from coming to God, nor is he constrained to sin (natural ability). On the other hand, he is not free to act independently of what he knows (or thinks he knows) and what he loves. This means that in an important sense he is not free (moral ability). These are compatibilistic definitions. They differ from libertarian definitions, and represent part of what the debate is over. In libertarianism, there is an element of pure contingency. The will generates its own choices. It goes off on its own tangents. It is not governed by knowledge or love (thinking or feeling). The will is perfectly balanced between knowing and feeling, and “you” are left to push the will one way or the other. The problem is when you factor out all the thinking and feeling, there’s not much “you” left! It’s pure contingency. They can’t explain it. They run into problems with sanity. How can they hold anyone accountable for anything? “Your honor, it wasn’t me that shot my wife, it was my will!” This is Arminian thinking on freedom (Charles Finney; Roger Olson).

When it comes to soteriology, the individual is commanded on the one hand to choose Christ. If he is in some sense not free, does that make him culpable when he says no? They hate what God says. They can’t understand what God says. Does God get the blame?

No.

The Bible nowhere teaches that man is prevented from coming to God, other than in the sense that man is unable to choose that which he hates within himself. We’re going to circle back and discuss this issue of freedom from a text of Scripture later, so far we’ve been having a metaphysical discussion.


Hang in there. These are tough concepts to grasp at first exposure, but they are worth mulling over and wrestling with. If you do so, things will make more sense as we go along.

Part 2 –>

Advertisements

Hamartiology: The Doctrine of Sin – Part 4

<– Part 3

I won’t spend much time, if any, revisiting the previous articles as I post new ones in this series. Let’s dive right in to new material:

THE PROBLEM OF THE SIN NATURE

Does a believer still have a sin nature?

For those of you in counseling contexts, Jay Adams and some of his followers do not believe in a sin nature for believers, only a regenerated nature. Essentially, ongoing sin in the life of a believer is the collection of habits left over from pre-conversion. So ongoing sin is a matter of habit. These habits reside mainly in the body. This would be the nouthetic counseling folks, not the CCEF folks. I side with the CCEF approach on this one. I get concerned with how much Adams links sin to the body. Is sin an enduring habit, or is it something that remains in us? This is partly a quibble over terms and definitions. It seems to me that believers still have something inside of us that wants to sin.

The NT does not use the word “nature” in combination with sin, nevertheless it does clearly intimate that there is some aspect of our being that is still sinful even though regenerate (1 John 1:8-10). Verses 8 and 10 are not redundant. Normally, verse 8 is taken regarding disposition to sin (indwelling sin) and verse 10 is talking about ongoing acts of sin. See also Romans 6, in which the idea of “dead to sin” doesn’t mean that sin has died. The “old man” is not the same thing as the sin nature, it is the connectedness to Adam. That connectedness is crucified. This is a text Jay Adams would use to show the connection between sin and body, but I don’t think that is what Paul is saying. It’s not that the body is sinful, but that we express sinful acts through our body. Notice how Paul personifies sin here: not died to sinning, but died to sin.

Look at it this way: before you are saved, you don’t have a choice of if you are going to sin. You simply choose between sins. Which will I commit? Sin is your master. After salvation, you have a legitimate choice of whether or not to sin. Sin is no longer your master. There is still some kind of sin principle going on. It has not died. You have died to it, its power over you has been broken. See Romans 7 also. There is some kind of abiding sin, some kind of principle, that leads Paul to want to sin even when his “better nature” doesn’t want him to sin. That sin principle is what sometimes gets designated as “the flesh.” Classic text on the flesh: Galatians 5 (esp. vv. 16-18; capitalize “Spirit”).

So is it all reducible to a black dog fighting a white dog and asking which one will win this time? Maybe. But if so, it’s a white wolfhound against a black Chihuahua. I’m not going to go to the mat for the term “sin nature.” But yes, something is still there and we still fight it (Jay Adams isn’t going to say there’s nothing there, he’s just not going to want to call it a nature. He doesn’t want to say there’s some substance there that inhabits part of us. Well I don’t think it’s a substance either. I think it’s a disposition. But I think we still have it.).

Is a believer still totally depraved?

Clearly an unbeliever is totally depraved, but the answer to this question depends on definitions. If totally depraved means that every aspect (mind, heart, will) is affected by sin, then yes, we are totally depraved. If it means every aspect of us is totally depraved, that argument becomes harder to sustain. I like Tozer on this: “God is impossible to satisfy, but He’s easy to please.”

How does sin progress in our lives?

Desire (or attraction, by which I mean whatever Jesus felt when He thought about bread in the wilderness)

Entertain

Consent

Act

Habit

Identity

“And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, a delight to the eyes, and to be desired to make one wise.”

“If you are the son of God, tell this stone to turn to bread.”

Temptation begins with desire. Desire, used simply, the way we are using it here, is not sin. If desire is itself sin, than apparently Jesus sinned. The temptation is not just the desire, the temptation is the inducement to fulfill the desire in some way that God forbids. The Devil can’t create new desires. Our desires are created by God. What the Devil can do is tempt us to misplace those desires, to feel them at the wrong time or in the wrong way or on the wrong object.

How do you get rid of a desire? Tell it to go away? That doesn’t work. You have to replace it with something else to turn aside from it. If you don’t, you begin to entertain the desire. If you want to stop thinking about all the things you can eat, you start to think about something else. The more you ponder those illegitimate ways of gaining food (for example) the more likely it is you will gratify that desire. This leads to consenting to the desire. Somewhere between entertaining and consenting is where the sin occurs. No overt outward act has been committed yet, but you invariably commit the sin in your heart before you ever openly act. Acting is that next step. And it is a very small step between entertaining/consent and acting. Now, I don’t mean no sin ever occurs between desire and entertaining. You certainly can sin there. You can have sin at each of the lines between these steps even before any act has occurred.

Sin has multiple effects:

  1. Guilt (which requires) Justice ( which requires) Retribution
  2. Harm / damage (which requires) Reparation
  3. Weakness (which requires) Reformation
  4. Pollution / “dirt” (which requires) Restoration

The Solution?

1. The Gospel is the answer to all of these, which is one reason we need to be reminding ourselves of the Gospel daily. Live in the Gospel.

2. Confession is a discipline that not only strengthens us in the fight against sin, it also cleans us from the pollution that comes with our sin.

If unaddressed, at some point, sins become habits and to live without them seems like committing suicide.

At this point we have covered the in-class discussion of Hamartiology. In our next post we will begin the portion of this series on Soteriology (the doctrine of salvation), which is related to Hamartiology for obvious reasons.

Hamartiology: The Doctrine of Sin – Part 3

<– Part 2

I won’t spend much time, if any, revisiting the previous articles as I post new ones in this series. Let’s dive right in to new material:

Moving from guilt to depravity….let’s talk about the inner effects of sin:

The human moral makeup was altered at the Fall. Every aspect of our being has been changed. We can do nothing in ourselves that is pleasing to God. We are in some sense not free. We are naturally free but not morally free. We find ourselves completely hopeless in terms of escaping the penalty of what our sins have brought us. This is Total Depravity. Guilt is imputed, depravity is imparted. Depravity is a matter of what you inherit. We inherit a moral nature that has been corrupted and is in rebellion against God.

We get our best description of depravity in the early chapters of Romans. In Romans 1, Paul has been discussing the Gospel up until verse 17. Before he can go any further into the good news, he has to give us the bad news. This begins in 1:18.

Regarding the idolatry described in Romans 1, G.K. Chesterton’s words ring true: “those who won’t worship God will worship just about anything else.” Regarding God’s judgment in this passage, it is outlined by the Apostle Paul as occurring in stages: Stage one, God gives them over to sexual sin. Stage two, God gives them over to homosexuality. Stage three, God gives them over to a depraved mind. This is the lowest stage now. God corrupted the very thinking process. And next comes the list to which they will stoop (vv. 29-31). These are the things of which all human beings are now capable. The capacity is now part of every human heart. These stages were done by God in the past, very early in human history. These are not things being enacted now, it’s already been done.

You get the final description over in 3:9-20. Verse 20 says, “because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.” In other words, humans have a total inability to please God. But we are also unrighteous in character verses 9b-18. All of us. Every one. If you could find a single righteous human being, it would overthrow Paul’s entire theological system. He is based here. How many people in their natural state can be found seeking God? Zero. Zip. None. Nada.

Not only is no one able to save himself, no one has any merit to commend him to God. No one is going to want to accept salvation on God’s terms. So…Ephesians 2:1-3.

Humans are not sick in trespasses and sins. Humans are dead in trespasses and sins, in which we walked in times past, according to the course of this world, the flesh, and the devil. Because of this we are under wrath. This is all part of what we mean by total depravity. See also: Jeremiah 17:9 (the heart, in Scripture, is not the seat of affections but the inner man, the control center); 2 Cor. 4:3-4

People are not restrained from being saved, except by their own moral will.  And they are restrained by it. So how can anyone be saved? There are basically three very different ways that people have attempted to answer that question.

 

Three Approaches

1. Human beings are capable in and of themselves, of doing all that God requires (a heresy known as Pelagianism)

Pelagius, a British monk, argues that the only effect of Adam’s sin was to set a bad example. (Well-known examples of this belief: perhaps the famous American heretic Charles Finney; theological liberalism)

2. God meets us halfway, or God helps those who help themselves. (a false teaching known as Synergism)

God meeting us halfway is grace. Grace is the divinely given ability to do what God wants, to measure up. (Roman Catholic theology + some nuances they would want to add)

3. God does it all. (Monergism)

Everything comes from God’s side. Humans can’t do anything or contribute anything, God does it all. (Karl Barth / Barthianism)

(Notice that whichever position you take you will probably be taking common ground with some who will be your enemies on other points of theology. That’s the point. No one out there agrees with you on everything, and sometimes it will be very uncomfortable when you have to agree with them on something. Get used to it. It happens all the time. This also lets you know that one of the least ethical ways of arguing theology is to blacklist a view because it’s held by this person or that group. Don’t get rattled if you find yourself agreeing with someone who you wouldn’t expect. Argue against views, not against associations.)

Monergism has to be the correct answer if total depravity is correct, which I believe it is. This brings us near the end of our discussion of hamartiology and puts us on the doorstep of soteriology, except for a final handful of ideas.

In Part 4, our final article on the doctrine of sin for this series, we will discuss these ideas starting with the problem of the sin nature.

%d bloggers like this: