Soteriology

How Does A Triune God Have Mercy Since No One Within The Triune Godhead Needs Mercy?

I received this question in the mail last week.
QUESTION
Some Christian apologists question how Allah could be a God of love if he is absolute oneness or monadic. Who could he love before creation? In contrast, the Christian God is triune. Thus, the persons in the Trinity can love one another. This led me to reflect on another attribute of God, that is, his mercy. How does our triune God have mercy since no one within the triune Godhead needs mercy?

MY ANSWER
To your question whether the triune God had MERCY before creation – the answer is YES. God’s mercy is manifested in the Triune Covenant of Redemption.

First let me affirm your initial proposition that love is found in the triune God. Augustine, the great Christian philosopher in 5C AD shares an amazing insight which helps us grasp fully what the bible means in declaring that God is love (1 John 4:16). He explains how love is a trinity. Continue reading “How Does A Triune God Have Mercy Since No One Within The Triune Godhead Needs Mercy?”

Does God Act Arbitrarily? Leighton Flowers Stigmatizes Calvinism to Win Debate

Leighton Flowers begins in his chapter, “A Critique of Unconditional Election,” published in the latest critique on Calvinism by David Allen and Steve Lemke, Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique by emphasising the contrast between “the biblical choices of God which are not conditioned upon the merits of those chosen” with the Calvinist “unbiblical principle of God secret making arbitrary choices which unilaterally fixes the eternal destiny of every individual.”

A clear distinction must be drawn between the biblical choices of God, which are not conditioned upon the merits of those chosen, versus the Calvinist system, which logically entails the unbiblical principle that God secretly made arbitrary [emphasis original] choices before the foundation of the world, unilaterally fixing the eternal destiny of every individual. (CBTC 51)

Flowers concludes, I believe this doctrine, when logically and consistently applied, can be dangerous for the believer and the overall mission of the church and thus must be firmly refuted and soundly rejected as unbiblical teaching.” (CBTC 68) Continue reading “Does God Act Arbitrarily? Leighton Flowers Stigmatizes Calvinism to Win Debate”

N.T. Wright-Scot McKnight-Matthew Bates New Perspective on Faith and Salvation

Debates about justification and New Perspective on Paul (NPP) seemed to have quietened down for a while, but recently the debates have received new impetus with the publication of three books by Matthew Bates – Salvation by Allegiance Alone, [SAA] Gospel Allegiance [GA] and Beyond the Salvation Wars [BSW]. It is undeniable that the teachings of the NPP (represented by N.T. Wright-Scot McKnight-Matthew Bates) are in conflict with the doctrine of justification and salvation taught in the historic Confessions of the Reformation. However, Bates writes, “Yet the creeds are not good stand-alone teaching tools about the gospel without an intervening reframing. The biblical and apostolic gospel relentlessly emphasizes Jesus’s messianic kingship—and this is muted in the creeds. Furthermore, creeds are doctrinal statements that invite intellectual affirmation – belief – more than allegiance.” [BSW54] Apparently, Bates seeks to intervene, reframe (and revise) the historic Reformation teaching of salvation based on his new perspective on faith and salvation, that is, salvation is by allegiance to Christ the king. Continue reading “N.T. Wright-Scot McKnight-Matthew Bates New Perspective on Faith and Salvation”

Penal-Substitution as Heart of Christ’s Atonement and its Accomplishments

Why do Christians call the day of the crucifixion of Jesus “Good Friday”? How can an execution that results from a miscarriage of justice be good? The Christian proclamation throughout history is that it is Good Friday because on the cross of calvary, Christ took the sinner’s place (Greek: ἀντί anti, ὑπέρ huper) /1/ in bearing the guilt of man’s sin and suffering the divine punishment as our substitute in order to satisfy divine justice and bring reconciliation between God and man. “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned – every one – to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all…Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand” (Isa. 53: 6, 10). Penal-substitution is the heart of the atonement, Christ’s work of salvation.

In recent times, some theologians have highlighted alternative theories to the penal substitutionary death of Christ. I shall only focus on two of the more influential alternative theories today – the moral influence theory and the Christus Victor theory. The problem with these theories of atonement is not that they are entirely wrong. They rightly explain some aspects of Christ’s death. However, they are in reality attempts to avoid the stumbling block of penal-substitution which causes offence to modern sensibilities. These theories are deficient since they emphasize on secondary features or by-products of the atoning death of Christ in order to evade penal-substitution which is the heart of atonement. Continue reading “Penal-Substitution as Heart of Christ’s Atonement and its Accomplishments”

Series 3: The Prophecies of the Messiah and His Kingdom in the Book of Isaiah. Part 3. Why is Isaiah Called the Fifth Gospel?

Questions:
1.Why is Isaiah called the fifth Gospel? How is it a Gospel like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
2. One of the most prominent themes of Jesus’ preaching is “the kingdom of God”, which emphasizes not so much the territory of God but the rule or reign of God. How would you compare the kingdom of God in Isaiah with the kingdom of God in the gospels?
3. If in the NT, the Messiah brings in the Kingdom of God. What does Isaiah tell us about the coming Messiah and his work of salvation?

Discussants: Dr. Leong Tien Fock and Dr. Ng Kam Weng.

You are welcome to join the discussion at:
Part 3. Why is Isaiah Called the Fifth Gospel?

Please forward this message if you find the video discussion helpful.

Series 3: The Prophecies of the Messiah and His Kingdom in the Book of Isaiah. Part 2. Is Isaiah 53 about Christ and his atoning death?

Question: The prophecies about the Suffering Servant in Isa. 53 are very confusing as the Servant appears different in the various (four) Servant songs. Is Isaiah 53 really about Christ, let alone his atoning death? And furthermore, the standard Hebrew term for “atonement” is not found in the text, how can it be about an atoning death?

Discussants: Dr. Leong Tien Fock and Dr. Ng Kam Weng.

You are welcome to join the discussion at:

Part 2. Is Isaiah 53 about Christ and his atoning death?

Please forward this message if you find the video discussion helpful.

Related Posts
The Atonement in Isaiah 53

Christ’s Death as Expiation-Propitiation (Hilasterion): Appeasing the Wrath of God

Calvin on Predestination (Election and Reprobation)

Calvin’s doctrine of predestination (election and reprobation) is not a product of philosophical deduction. It is a result of Calvin’s exegesis of Scripture. Calvin gives two concise definitions of predestination:

Predestination Defined

We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he determined with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or death.” [Inst. 3.21.5]

As Scripture, then, clearly shows, we say that God once established by his eternal and unchangeable plan those whom he long before determined once for all to receive into salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, he would devote to destruction. We assert that, with respect to the elect, this plan was founded upon his freely given mercy, without regard to human worth; but by his just and irreprehensible but incomprehensible judgment he has barred the door of life to those whom he has given over to damnation. Now among the elect we regard the call as a testimony of election. Then we hold justification another sign of its manifestation, until they come into the glory in which the fulfillment of that election lies. But as the Lord seals his elect by call and justification, so, by shutting off the reprobate from knowledge of his name or from the sanctification of his Spirit, he, as it were, reveals by these marks what sort of judgment awaits them.[Inst. 3.21.7]

For Calvin, election is gratuitous, that is, it is not based on foreknowledge of merit. Continue reading “Calvin on Predestination (Election and Reprobation)”

Election and Middle Knowledge: Arminius’ Gambit and Reformed Response

Recently, one scholar [William Craig] has proposed Molina’s concept of a divine foreknowledge of future contingents lying outside of or prior to the divine will as a possible point for dialogue between Arminians and Calvinists – as if the concept had never before been proposed by Arminianism, and as if the concept actually offered a middle ground between the Arminian and Calvinist theologies. For scientia media to become the basis for such rapprochement, however, the Reformed would need to concede virtually all of the issues in debate and adopt an Arminian perspective, because, in terms of the metaphysical foundations of the historical debate between Reformed and Arminian, the idea of a divine scientia media or middle knowledge is the heart and soul of the original Arminian position. Middle knowledge is not a middle ground. It was the Arminian, just as it was the Jesuit view, in the controversies over grace and predestination that took place in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Continue reading “Election and Middle Knowledge: Arminius’ Gambit and Reformed Response”

John Calvin Against the Philosophers: Providence-Predestination vs Chance (Epicureanism) and Determinism (Stoicism)

The frequent attacks on Calvinism by non-Calvinists in the Web gives the impression that Calvinism is a pernicious Christian sect. The attacks often highlight predestination as a major problem with Calvinism. The Calvinist’s doctrine of predestination is regarded as a rigid and legalistic doctrine that violates our sense of justice. It also robs the believer of his assurance of salvation.

Critics assert that the Calvinist teaching of predestination owes more to alien philosophical arguments rather than the bible itself. This is ironic as Calvinists are often accused of relying on proof-texting and contestable exegesis when they are challenged to demonstrate the coherence of the doctrine. The accusation that Calvinists rely more on philosophical arguments than the bible doesn’t quite match the observation that the majority of Christian philosophers are not Calvinists, but Arminians and Open Theists.

Calvinists are puzzled when critics charge them of relying more on philosophy than on biblical revelation. How can Calvinists be guilty of subordinating the bible to philosophy when they defend tenaciously two propositions which many philosophers instinctively regard as logically incompatible with one another – that God’s choice in predestination is unconditional but man is still held responsible for his decisions – because the bible says so. Obviously, Calvin’s conception of predestination is not defined within the limits of human rationality; in fact his doctrine is offensive to reason. Continue reading “John Calvin Against the Philosophers: Providence-Predestination vs Chance (Epicureanism) and Determinism (Stoicism)”

Calvin and Calvinists on the Extent of Christ’s Atonement

Calvin, not being a universalist, could be said to be committed to definite atonement, even though he does not commit himself to definite atonement. And, it could be added, there is a sound reason for this.
——————
R. T. Kendall argues in his provocative book, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (Oxford UP, 1979), that the doctrine of salvation taught by the Puritans is cold, legalistic and introspective, in contrast to John Calvin’s warm and spiritually vibrant doctrine of salvation. In this regard, the Puritans who promoted a distorted form of Calvinism were influenced by Theodore Beza who succeeded Calvin in Geneva.

Kendall highlights two problems with Beza and his Puritan followers: First, Beza and his followers taught a novel doctrine of limited atonement, that is, the idea that Christ did not die for everyone in the world, but only for the elect. Kendall claims that this is a radical departure from Calvin who taught that Christ died for all but that he intercedes only for the elect. Second, Beza and the Puritans reduced the act of faith to an act of the will which contradicts Calvin’s view of faith as a persuasion of the mind. Kendall argues that the doctrine of limited atonement inevitably results in legalism and loss of assurance of salvation. Kendall presses his claim by arguing that assurance of salvation is possible only if it is grounded in Christ’s universal atonement. Continue reading “Calvin and Calvinists on the Extent of Christ’s Atonement”