Compromise can be a good thing. Compromise is especially necessary when partners have conflicting desires in marriage. However, compromise can also be synonymous with selling out the gospel. A quote that Steve Camp referenced made me think of this. Campi quoted Jay McInerney as saying, "The good life is the middle way..." What a wonderful summary of postmodern thought. In one sense I actually agree with the quote. In another sense I disagree with it from the core of my being.

I agree that compromise (or the middle way) can be a good thing. When no clear answer is spelled out in Scripture then compromise is a wise way to go. If my wife wants Burger King (and enjoys their slow service and gross food) and I want Taco Bell (with its luscious Chicken Bacon Ranch chalupas) then a compromise (you decide what that would be) is a good option. Theologically speaking, if there are issues in Scripture that are somewhat unclear and not very close to the gospel then perhaps compromise is a good idea. There are quite a few hills that are not worth dying on.

On the other hand when truth is known compromise is stupid and morally repulsive. Christians believe Jesus is the only way to God. Nobody else does. Compromise in this regard would not be a virtue but tantamount to abandoning the faith. Now, the pomo will tell us that truth cannot be known, therefore, the "good life is the middle way..." As believers in the God that calls believers to worship Him in spirit and truth, we cannot sell out to such garbage. God has clearly revealed Himself in Scripture. There are things that can be known, and known absolutely. On these matters refuse to compromise.

Compromise can be appealing. After all is it not easy to be "unified" when we all seek the middle ground? But, unity for the sake of unity is no virtue. If unity is not unified around the truth of Christ then it stands just as opposed to God as the people in Genesis 11. Brothers and sisters, there are things that we must NOT compromise on. The good life is not the middle way, it is the narrow way.

One last thing. There is a difference between compromise and cooperation. Take the debate in the SBC over those darn Calvinists. I would consider myself on the Calvinistic side of the debate. To me compromise is not an option. My Arminian friends would probably say the same thing. The truth is compromise for either side would be (in the opinion of each) a sell out. Therefore, in these situations the call is not to compromise it is to cooperation. It is having a "self-sacrificing conformity to a shared vision" and cooperating despite our differences. Compromise is stupid, cooperation is not.

I really disprove of the title of this post. It offends its author. In my mind saying I am not a Calvinist is almost like saying I do not believe in the biblical gospel. Lest I be misunderstood, I am not saying that Calvinism=the gospel. It does not. But soteriologically speaking I am a Calvinist through and through, therefore to me the issue is very near to the gospel. It pains me to think that many people read the title of this and I get lumped in with those I disagree with theologically. But I deserve the association. I am exploring in this series the truth that even though in my soteriology I may be Reformed, in my practice I am not certain I deserve such a title. Today we will discuss the second petal of the TULIP: Unconditional Election.

In the Westminster Confession (Chapter 3, Sections 3-7) it states:

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.

These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished.

Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.

As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

In other words before the foundation of the world God has chosen, for His good pleasure, those whom He would redeem and those He would not. It is an unchangeable decree. It is not based on His foreknowledge. It is not conditional. It's basis is in the free sovereign pleasure of the Almighty.

This is a very difficult doctrine to swallow. No doubt some of my readers will balk at such arbitrary choosing on the part of God. Yet, I must repeat that I will not discuss the merit or demerit of such a position. I do affirm what is stated here. My concern in this post is not to discuss whether this is true or not. My concern is to determine whether or not the fruits of believing this doctrine are evident in my life. Honestly some are. I am probably exaggerating my faults in some areas and diminishing my faults in others. The truth is, I am the biggest sinner I know. Growth in these areas will only come by the grace of God.

Those that believe in unconditional election ought to be marked by certain fruits. As J.I. Packer helps us see in his Concise Theology that this doctrine is primarily pastoral. As he says, "in Scripture it is a pastoral doctrine, brought in to help Christians see how great is the grace that saves them, and to move them to humility, confidence, joy, praise, faithfulness, and holiness in response". (149-150) If the biblical doctrine of unconditional election has really penetrated my soul, and if Packer is correct, then I ought to be marked by humility, confidence, joy, praise, faithfulness, and holiness. I ought to be consistently astonished by the grace of God in my life. Am I? Do I REALLY believe this doctrine?

• This doctrine should also have a bearing on the way that I deal with believers that disagree with this doctrine. If I really believe that God dispenses salvation freely. Is it really right for me to believe that I am a Calvinist because I'm "smart and believe the Bible"? Is it possible that my interaction with Arminians (and those that are somewhere in-between) ought to be marked by humility instead of spiritual elitism? Far too often, I'm right and they are wrong. I can be way too militant in my Calvinism. Therefore, I probably ought to shut my mouth and quit debasing such a doctrine with actions unfitting to its assertions.
• Do I believe this doctrine when I preach? Do I have a joy in my heart and a confidence that God WILL draw out His elect? Do I believe that one of those "means thereunto" that God has chosen to draw people is the preaching of His glorious Word? If this doctrine is true and it is the "due season" which the Spirit will draw then they WILL come. Ought I not to have confidence in prayer and preaching? Yet sometimes my heart is in such a melancholy state that I must not truly believe this doctrine.
• A person that believes this doctrine ought to live a life that reflects continual astonishment at the grace of God. I ought to be overwhelmed that He chose me, for no reason other than His good pleasure. I ought to remember that He could have just as easily passed me over, and been fully justice. Yet, I secretly live my life as if I deserve mercy and as if God made a really good choice. Oh, what disgusting pride. A believer in this doctrine ought to never have pride but only a trembling joy. I have pride.
• If I really understood this doctrine then sin would not look good. I would be so enamored by the grace of God that picked me out of hell that I would not desire to "present my members again to unrighteousness". Yet, how often do I forget the amazing grace of God?
• One that is a recipient of such grace, and one that truly believes and understands such grace, ought to be gracious himself. I am not so certain that I am. If I really understand that grace is undeserved then I would stop giving "grace" only to those that "deserve" it. I would be seeking out sinners instead of avoiding them. I do not truly understand grace.

Here is my simple assertion. Calvinists ought to be the most humble, gracious, irenic, confident, joyous, and holy people. Calvinists ought to have speech that is seasoned with the salt of grace and praise should consistently be pouring forth from our lips. Yet what are Calvinists most known by? Our pride, our passion for truth at the expense of people, and our lack of all those graces just mentioned. I am no exception. So, until I begin to more consistently model those graces, maybe I ought not to call myself a Calvinist.

Dear God make me in attitude what I claim to be in doctrine!

Again, this is not a confession that I do not adhere to the doctrines of grace. As far as my theological beliefs I am indeed a Calvinist. This series, however, is exploring the truth that even though in my soteriology I may be Reformed, in my practice I am not certain I deserve such a title. Today we will explore the doctrine of Total Depravity and its implications.

In the Westminister Confession (Chapter 9, Section 3) it states, "Man, by his fall Into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.”

In other words because of the Fall, every man born into the world is born into a state of sin. Because of this we have lost all ability of our will to do any spiritual good. This means that because our hearts are so corrupt, we will NEVER desire, for the correct reasons, to do that which is spiritually good. Nor will we ever desire to take hold of Christ or venture out in faith. It is because of this inability and corruption that "no man will come to the Father unless drawn" (John 6:44). Without Jesus we are altogether opposed to the good. We are dead in our sin. We cannot convert ourselves, nor even put ourselves in the place for such a thing to happen.

John Piper builds upon this by showing four ways in which man's depravity is total:

1. Our rebellion against God is total. Apart from the grace of God there is no delight in the holiness of God, and there is no glad submission to the sovereign authority of God.
2. In his total rebellion everything man does is sin.
3. Man's inability to submit to God and do good is total.
4. Our rebellion is totally deserving of eternal punishment.

Everyone of these I agree with, doctrinally speaking. However, I am left to ask myself whether or not I REALLY believe what this says. What are the implications of such statements?

• Whenever I preach the gospel (whether in personal evangelism or corporately) the only hope that my hearer(s) have of responding to the gospel is the sovereign work of God in regeneration. Therefore, I ought to spend much time in prayer. I do not.
• No matter how catchy, exegetical, expository, or true my sermons are they will never convert a person unless the Father draws them. Therefore, I ought to faithfully proclaim the word of God and leave the results to God. I should never be discouraged but only driven to more prayer. I get discouraged.
• There will be no "glad submission" nor a treasuring Christ without the Spirit's work. I should never be suprised when our students do not treasure Christ as they ought. Yet, I am astonished.
• The only hope that we have of not being cast in hell is the work of Christ and the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, no outreach program, no purpose statement, no mission project, no books given to the community, nothing but God will bring about conversion. I might get this one. But, again, my soft knees reveal that I do not.
• Unregenerate men will not do good. Therefore, it should not come as a suprise that our politicians are passing laws to allow abortion. The school shootings should not suprise us, nor should we think they will change through policies. It does not matter if Mike Huckabee, Barak Obama, or even the Apostle Paul is the President of the United States. Unless the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of people there will still be abortions (though maybe illegal), there will still be school shootings, there will still be immorality in our land. No political strategy or political leader can save us from the tyranny of our own hearts. I think I actually get this one. So maybe I am actually 1/40th a Calvinist in practice.
• It is natural for people to be jerks. Therefore, I should not be offended (at least as deeply) when people are doing what they do by nature. Yet, I find myself not liking people. I ought to instead pity them and pray for them.
• This depravity is so deep and each act of rebellion is deserving of hell. That means that every moment that a sinner stands outside the blood of Christ he is heaping sin upon sin to his account. He is adding to the wrath of God that will be meted out upon himself. Therefore, this ought to move me to love people and passionately share the gospel. Knowing that it is only through the Word and the Spirit working through this Word that men will be converted. Yet, I watch television and play Madden on PS2. Do I really believe in hell? Do I really believe that the totally depraved will be cast there unless God rich in mercy saves them?
• Every act of rebellion is an offense to God. We know that those of the Reformed persuasion are constantly talking about the glory of God. Every act of rebellion is a trampling of that glory. Ought a Calvinist be passionate about stamping out every act of rebellion? Ought we not preach as a dying man to dying men?

So, until I pray, plead, and proclaim like a Calvinist I should not dare call myself one. Dear God, make me in action what I profess to be in doctrine!

Read Part 3...

My regular readers may be shocked at the title, as they should be. The title is a little misleading. Doctrinally speaking I would say that I adhere to the doctrines of grace; or in other words, I am a Calvinist. However, something I read by John Newton caused me to think. In counseling a young man "on controversy", Newton says this:

"Of all people who engage in controversy, we, who are called Calvinists, are most expressly bound by our own principles to the exercise of gentleness and moderation. If, indeed, those who differ from us have a power of changing themselves, if they can open their own eyes, and soften their own hearts, then we might with less inconsistency be offended at their obstinacy; but if we believe the very contrary to this, our part is, not to strive, but in meekness to instruct those who oppose, "if perhaps God will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth."
(HT: Grace Gems)

Newton has an excellent point. If we really believe in the doctrines of grace then it will change things. It will change the way that we interact with our brothers and sisters in Christ. If we really believe in Total Depravity it will change things. Our understanding of unconditional election will dictate our attitudes. If we really believe irresistible grace then we should have a much different confidence. A belief in Limited Atonement ought to change the way we interact with other brothers that have been bought with the Lamb's blood. If we really believe Perseverance of the Saints then ought we not to have more confidence in God's ability to bring differing saints to glory?

So, the point of this series of posts will be to really ask whether or not I believe what I say I believe. Am I really a Calvinist in practice? I hope to put together 5-6 articles on this topic. I plan to go through each of the points of the T-U-L-I-P and discuss the implications of each. It will not be my intent to debate the truthfulness of each point. I will assume them, and then ask the question, "If I really believe this, what will it look like in practice"

...Read Part 2

This might be an especially well timed article amidst the present controversy in the MBC. In a letter, to what appears to be a young man, John Newton advices him on engaging in debate with another over the issue of election. It is the typical Calvinist/Arminian debate. You get the idea that maybe this "young man" that Newton is addressing is a "caged-Calvinist". As I read this it rebukes me of some of pride and arrogance. It also convicts me of a spirit of superiority in doctrine which leads sometimes to bitterness towards my other brothers that "don't get it". This also serves to temper me in the recent Acts29/MBC controversy. I have included points 1 and 3. The entire letter can be found at Grace Gems:

Dear Sir,As you are likely to be engaged in controversy, and your love of
truth is joined with a natural warmth of temper, nay friendship makes me solicitous on your behalf. You are of the strongest side; for truth is great, and must prevail; so that a person of abilities inferior to yours might take the field with a confidence of victory. I am not therefore anxious for the event of the battle. But I would have you more than a conqueror, and to triumph, not only over your adversary, but over yourself. If you cannot be vanquished, you may be wounded. To preserve you from such wounds as might give you cause of weeping over your conquests, I would present you with some considerations, which, if duly attended to, will do you the service of a coat of armor; for you will easily perceive it is taken from that great armory provided for the Christian soldier, the word of God. I take it for granted, that you will not expect any apology for my freedom, and therefore I shall not offer one. For method sake, I may reduce my advice to three heads, respecting your opponent, the public, and yourself.

1. As to your opponent, I wish, that, before you set pen to paper against him, and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord's teaching and blessing. This practice will have a direct tendency to conciliate your heart to love and pity him; and such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write. If you account him a believer, though greatly mistaken in the subject of debate between you, the words of David to Joab, concerning Absalom, are very applicable: "Deal gently with him for my sake." The Lord loves him and bears with him; therefore you must not despise him, or treat him harshly. The Lord bears with you likewise, and expects that you should show tenderness to others, from a sense of the much forgiveness you need yourself.

In a little while you will meet in heaven; he will then be dearer to you than the nearest friend you have upon earth is to you now. Anticipate that period in your thoughts; and though you may find it necessary to oppose his errors, view him personally as a kindred soul,with whom you are to be happy in Christ forever. But if you look upon him as an unconverted person, in a state of enmity against God and his grace, (a supposition which, without good evidence, you should be very unwilling to admit,) he is a more proper object of your pity and compassion than of your anger. Alas! "he knows not what he does." But you know who has made you to differ. If God, in his sovereign pleasure, had so appointed, you might have been as he is now; and he, instead of you, might have been set for the defense of the Gospel. You were both equally blind by nature. If you attend to this, you will not reproach or hate him, because the Lord has been pleased to open your eyes,and not his.

Of all people who engage in controversy, we, who are called Calvinists, are most expressly bound by our own principles to the exercise of gentleness and moderation. If, indeed, those who differ from us have a power of changing themselves, if they can open their own eyes, and soften their own hearts, then we might with less inconsistency be offended at their obstinacy; but if we believe the very contrary to this, our part is, not to strive, but in meekness to instruct those who oppose, "if perhaps God will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth."
If you write with a desire of being an instrument of correcting mistakes, you will of course be cautious of laying stumbling-blocks in the way of the blind, or of using any expressions that may exasperate their passions, confirm them in their prejudices, and thereby make their conviction, humanly speaking, more impracticable.

3. This leads me, in the last place, to consider your own concern in your present undertaking. It seems a laudable service to defend the faith once delivered to the saints; we are commanded to contend earnestly for it, and to convince gainsayers. If ever such defenses were seasonable and expedient, they appear to be so in our day, when errors abound on all sides, and every truth of the Gospel is either directly denied, or grossly misrepresented. And yet we find but very few writers of controversy, who have not been manifestly hurt by it.

Either they grow in a sense of their own importance, or imbibe an angry contentious spirit, or they insensibly withdraw their attention from those things which are the food and immediate support of the life of faith, and spend their time and strength upon matters which at most are but of a secondary value. This shows, that, if the service is honorable, it is dangerous. What will it profit a man if he gains his cause, and silences his adversary, if at the same time he loses that humble, tender frame of spirit in which the Lord delights, and to which the promise of his presence is made! Your aim, I doubt not, is good; but you have need to watch and pray, for you will find Satan at your right hand to resist you: he will try to debase your views; and though you set out in defense of the cause of God, if you are not continually looking to the Lord to keep you, it may become your own cause, and awaken in you those tempers which are inconsistent with true peace of mind, and will surely obstruct communion with God.

Be upon your guard against admitting anything personal into the debate. If you think you have been ill treated, you will have an opportunity of showing that you are a disciple of Jesus, who, "when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not." This is our pattern, thus we are to speak and write for God, "not rendering railing for railing, but, contrariwise,blessing; knowing that hereunto we are called." The wisdom which is from above is not only pure, but peaceable and gentle; and the lack of these qualifications, like the dead fly in the pot of ointment, will spoil the savor and efficacy of our labors.

If we act in a wrong spirit, we shall bring little glory to God, do little good to our fellow-creatures, and procure neither honor nor comfort to ourselves. If you can be content with showing your wit, and gaining the laugh on your side, you have an easy task; but I hope you have a far nobler aim, and that, sensible of the solemn importance of Gospel truths, and the compassion due to the souls of men, you would rather be a means of removing prejudices in a single instance, than obtain the empty applause of thousands. Go forth,therefore, in the name and strength of the Lord Almighty, speaking the truth in love; and may he give you a witness in many hearts, that you are taught of God, and favored with the unction of his Holy Spirit.

Brothers, may we heed the wise counsel of this dear man that is now with Jesus. May we especially take heed to his last two paragraphs. It is my prayer as well as we engage our brothers that we might, as the word of God says, speak the truth in love.

Blogworld seems to be asleep today. One of mention is a post by Tim Challies, concerning Christians and "dialogue" with other faiths. From what I have gathered his central thesis is that as Christian we are not called to dialogue. This is a great article for the age of the postmodern idea (be a pansy and do not stand firm on anything except not standing firm on anything). As Challies comments:

Nowhere in the Bible do I find Jesus telling us to find common ground with other faiths—with people who chase false gods and who are wholly committed to the downfall of the Christian faith. Nowhere do I see the Apostles, as Christ’s representatives, engaging in dialogue or seeking common ground in which to pursue God together. Rather, I see the promise of division and hatred. “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth, “says Jesus.” “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” “Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.”

My friend Garrett also posted a very helpful article for us passionate Calvinists. It is an article by a man named Darryl Erkel entitled Practical Wisdom for Calvinists. Here are some highlights from the article, but you are encouraged to read the entire thing:

• A quote by Spurgeon wherein he said, "The doctrine of election, like the great act of election itself, is intended to divide, not between Israel and Israel, but between Israel and the Egyptians – not between saint and saint, but between saints and the children of the world."
• Point #2--Don't make the mistake of accepting everything Reformed or Calvinistic
• When encouraging us not to idolize the past the author says that when we do so, "We fail to see the progression of church history and end up chained to the past – not recognizing that each period of history has its own unique contribution and blessing (including ours in the twenty-first century)."
• Calvinists should be given the model of humility and love (Ouch!)
• Do not major in the minors. Because if we do, "...end up majoring on things not truly essential, you will either ignore those that are important and worthy of your efforts – or – people will tend to not take you seriously on vital matters because of your propensity to make a big deal over insignificant issues."
• Seek to be a man/woman of the Text of Scripture
• Don't settle for low levels of grace in your life
• Develop a theology of listening
• Recognize that your greatest power is in prayer