Archives - Redeeming God

Based on just the title of this post, I can hear lots of people cheering and lots of other people rethinking whether or not they want to go to heaven.

No sports in heaven? For some that is truly heaven, while for others it sounds like hell.

Whichever feeling wells up within you, bear with me…

Someone once told me that since there wasn’t any mention of sports in the Bible, this means that there will be no sports in heaven.

I think that logic is pretty bad, but recently as I was listening to a news update about the passer rating of a certain quarterback, it occurred to me that there was a pretty good theological reason for there not to be any sports in heaven.

Except for baseball…. Kevin Kostner proved that there is baseball in heaven…. 😉

The Theological Reason for No Sports in Heaven

It is often taught in churches that when we get to heaven, we will never get sick, we will never die, we will have all our questions answered, and we will be perfect, as our heavenly Father is perfect.

That sounds nice… until you begin to realize what this means…

I like the idea of no more sickness and no more death, but the more I think about having all my questions answered and being perfect in everything, I am not sure I like that at all.

I am not a sports fanatic, but I like watching some sports, and I even play a bit of sports. … Well, no I don’t. Not any more. But I used to.

But here’s the point:

Sports is based on the universal reality that humans are not perfect in everything we do. That’s why we have batting averages. Free-throw percentages. Quarterback ratings.

Imagine if there was a person who always batted 1000, who never missed a free throw, and whose every pass of the football was for a touchdown.

Such a player would dominate the world of sports. Whatever team he was on would always win. Always.

Now imagine that every single player on both teams played just as perfectly. It sounds thrilling for about one second until you begin to think of what that game would be like.

Imagine a basketball game where every single shot was good. The announcer’s job would be easy. All he would have to say is “He dribbles down the court … he shoots … he scores!” over and over and over. Heck, the players wouldn’t even have to dribble down the court to shoot. All the shots would be full-court shots with 100% accuracy. It sounds thrilling to watch … for about five minutes. Then it becomes incredibly boring.

Of course, it is here where we start to run into problems. Take baseball as another example. It is logically impossible to have a player bat 1000 and have a pitcher throw a perfect game.

So you see? Sports are based on the fact that nobody is perfect in everything.

But if in heaven, everybody is perfect in everything, this means that there could be no sports.

So Heaven Sounds Pretty Dull After All…

Frankly, I find this highly depressing. Not because I am such a sports lover, but because I am such a lover of learning.

I love the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. Just as some people love sports, I love the feeling of my mind and heart racing as I encounter a new idea from a book or insight on a particular passage of Scripture.

I wonder what life would be like without this. I think it would be pretty boring.

All in all, heaven is starting to sound like a pretty dull place.

So the only thing I can conclude is that we won’t be perfect after all in our eternal state. We will not be perfect. We will not know it all. We will grow and develop and think and ask questions and learn by trial and error. We will invent, inquire, and inspire.

As it turns out, imperfection is the only way heaven can be real and not be hell.

So maybe there will be sports in heaven after all…

All you football fans can breathe a sigh of relief.

But if Heaven Requires Imperfection…

Then the ramifications of this got me thinking.

If we are not perfect in what we know and what we do, does this mean that we can get injured and hurt after all? If, in heaven, I decided I want to learn to become a tightrope walker, and I become so good I decide to tightrope across the heavenly version of Niagara Falls, what happens if I make a mistake and I fall?

Or, what happens if I decide to become a Master Chef, and in cutting potatoes one day, I slip with the knife and slice my finger? Will it cut? Will it hurt? Will it bleed? I cannot see how it cannot. If I remember correctly, I think C. S. Wrote about this is The Problem of Pain. I don’t have the book in front of me, but I seem to remember Lewis explaining that pain tells us when something is wrong. (If you find the section, let me know!) If I cut my finger with a knife, I need it to hurt so that I can know I should stop cutting! If it didn’t hurt, I would keep cutting, and do great damage to my finger.

If there is no pain in our eternal bodies, does this mean that we will never cut our fingers? That the knife turns to rubber if we try? If we are out for a hike on Pluto, and we fall off a cliff, does that mean we will bounce when we hit the bottom? I cannot see how. But on the other hand, there will be no more death, so will we be like the Wolverine from X-Men or Claire from the TV show Heroes who can regenerate no matter what? That’d be cool…

But this then leads me to the question of God.

Earlier when I said that we will be perfect as God is perfect, I intentionally misquoted Matthew 5:48. Why? Because how I misquoted it is how I sometimes hear others misquote it.

In Matthew 5:48, Jesus says that we should be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. I have written on this text before by saying it is impossible to live perfect lives, but for our purposes here, note that Jesus does not say that we will ever be perfect just as God is perfect, nor does Jesus even say that God Himself is perfect. Jesus simply says that we should strive to be perfect, in the same way that God is, however that is.

Some people point to 1 Corinthians 13:10 as evidence that when we get to heaven we will be perfect, but this verse is talking about spiritual gifts and is not teaching anything about mental or physical perfection when we get to heaven.

Then there is 1 John 3:2-3. Some say that since Jesus is perfect, when we see Him, we will become just like Him, and hence, we will also be perfect. Well again, I am not denying that we will become like Jesus. And I am not denying that through glorification, we will achieve moral perfection.

Hezekiah 2:7: “And God gave us baseball…”

Come to think of it, I cannot think of a verse anywhere in the Bible which says that in our glorified bodies, we will be perfectly perfect in every way, including all our mental, moral, emotional, spiritual, and physical capacities. Can you think of anywhere that teaches this?

If were to achieve this perfectly perfect perfection, then we would be exactly like God.

Or maybe …. could it be? …. maybe God is not like this either? Maybe we constructed a God of our own liking according to platonic philosophical ideas of what “perfection” entails, and God is not like that at all!

Is it possible that God Himself learns, invents, and inquires as well?

Could it be that our creative desire to see and try new things comes from the very nature of God Himself?

Maybe we seek answers to life’s problems because God does.

Maybe we want to explore, discover, and seek because God has these desires too.

Of course, maybe, just maybe, we have no clue what heaven will be like after all, and this whole post is a bunch of malarkey.

One thing is for sure … who ever knew that sports could get you thinking about heaven?

The Greatest PROOF of Christian Truth I have EVER read!

By Jeremy Myers

44 Comments

I was reading the book reviews of a certain Christian book on Amazon yesterday, and stumbled upon the most astounding argument for the truth of Christianity I have ever read.

One reviewer of this book (which will go unnamed) left a fairly negative and critical review. As you may know, Amazon allows you to comment on other people’s reviews. So a Christian who was a fan of this book (and the author) commented that this was the stupidest review they had ever read… Another Christian weighed in and said that the commenter was stupid as well for just using cut-and-paste attacks upon people who write critical reviews.

Then I read this…

I laughed and laughed and laughed! It reminded me a bit of my post from a few weeks ago about Christian hate speech.

But do you see what this person wrote there at the end? It’s GENIUS!

He says:

Actually, it’s an example of one of my two irrefutable points that show Christianity is truth — the continued existence of the Church despite the continued behavior of the members of this Church.

He’s right, you know. We sure can be glad that Jesus said, “I will build my church,” for if He had left it up to us, we would have destroyed ourselves a long time ago… I imagine, however, that sometimes Jesus is shouting at us, “Stop destroying what I am building here!”

I asked him what his other irrefutable point was. I’ll let you know if he responds…

The Re-Justification of God (Romans 9)

By Jeremy Myers

15 Comments

I have just published a book called The Re-Justification of God.

Here’s the cover:

It is probably the ugliest book cover I have ever designed, but if you compare it with the cover from John Piper’s book on the right, you’ll see why I created the cover as I did.

Why did I write The Re-Justification of God?

Ever since I read John Piper’s The Justification of God about twenty years ago, I have wanted to write a book in response called The Re-Justification of God.

Why?

I believe that Piper’s book does more to malign the name of God and His character than uplift and glorify it. To put it bluntly, I don’t think Piper’s book does anything to accomplish “The justification of God” but actually does the opposite!

So I wanted to write a book which explains Romans 9 in a way that presents God in light of Jesus Christ, in a way that does not make God responsible for hating Esau, hardening Pharaoh’s heart, and condemning a large majority of mankind to everlasting damnation in hell.

Look, I have great respect for John Piper, but much of his theology really gets my blood boiling, and this book of his on Romans 9 was no exception.

But it wasn’t just his book. Most of the explanations of Romans 9 I have read from Calvinists seem to be completely off track and do more to undermine the character of God than glorify it.

So in light of all the bad theology that has been taught from Romans 9, I wanted to write a book that explained the text of Romans 9 in a way that truly presents God in the light that Paul presents Him, as a God of light, love, mercy, grace, and longsuffering toward all.

That would be a great book, right?

Well, guess what?

Despite appearances, the book I just published is not that book. My The Re-Justification of God is not a point-by-point refutation of Piper’s The Justification of God. My book is not even a point-by-point refutation of the typical Calvinistic understanding of Romans 9. That is the book I set out to write, but it is not the book I am announcing here.

…Sorry to disappoint you.

However…

…My book IS the first draft in what will hopefully become that book.

While I believe my new book does provide an overall big-picture analysis of Romans 9:10-24 that is neither Calvinistic nor Arminian, and while I believe my book provides logically and theologically sound explanations for why God “hated” Esau, why God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and how God treats the “vessels of wrath” destined for destruction, I was not able to provide ALL the scholarly and exegetical details that a book like this requires.

So this book is the brief summary of the book I initially set out to write so many years ago. It is not finished, however. It is less than half-way done. Oh, the ideas are all there, but the book contains very little of the exegetical evidence which is needed to defend the ideas.

So why am I publishing this book now if it’s not done?

In the opening pages to this new book, I explain why, but in a nutshell, the reason is that if I didn’t publish it now, it would probably never get done. Also, having the book out there allows people to respond to it and interact with it so that in a future edition I can correct or attempt to better explain the ideas I present in the book.

And following the theme in the cover image above, here is an image of some of the edits I performed on this manuscript:

As with many of my books, there are probably still several typographic mistakes in it. If you find some, please send me an email, or use the “Contact Me” section on my About page to let me know where they are so I can correct these mistakes in future editions of the book.

So how can you get and read this book?

This book is available for purchase on Amazon.

Once you have read it, let me know what you think by leaving a review on Amazon.

And hey, would you let others know about this new book by using the share buttons below? Thanks!

What REALLY controls and guides Christians: Fear and Guilt

By Jeremy Myers

34 Comments

Christians like to claim that we are guided by Scripture and controlled by the Holy Spirit.

But I was recently talking to my insanely wise and beautiful wife, Wendy, and she pointed out that the two things which seem to guide and control Christians are actually fear and guilt.

We are guided by fear and controlled by guilt.

My wife used the example of a typical church-missionary relationship. When raising support, some missionaries use guilt to get others to support them. They shows pictures of starving children, or tell stories about how people without the gospel are headed for hell. But then, when they are on the missionary field, and not much is happening through their ministry, they feel compelled to embellish what they are doing so that it the money which people are spending on them is well-spent. They are afraid that if they “tell it like it is,” the money will stop.

But when they send glowing reports of all that God is doing on the mission field back home, those in the pews feel even more guilty because they don’t see God “working” in their own life in the same miraculous ways. They feel guilty that they are not following Jesus overseas.

The missionaries also get put up on a pedestal so that when they return home on furlough, they have to conform to a certain standard of holy behavior which matches the pedestal that has been built for them. Furthermore, even though the missionary may be exhausted from working overseas, they feel compelled to visit people in their homes and go speak in a myriad of churches just so that they can maintain their financial support.

And on and on it goes, in an endless cycle of fear and guilt.

Fear and Guilt in Church

Of course, this cycle goes beyond just the relationship between churches and the missionaries they support. Guilt and fear are at the heart of preaching, of doing what our pastor says, of attending church regularly, and of putting on the smiley face for Sunday services.

The pastor wants to prove that he is worthy of his pay (even though he is afraid he is not), and so must use manipulative practices to keep people coming to church and giving their money. He fears that if he does not keep this up, he will lose his job. He also fears that his sermons are not as good as the ones the pastor down the street preaches, and fears he will lose his people to that other church. The pastor, robbed of life by fear and guilt, uses fear and guilt to control others.

People fear displeasing their pastor, since his is “the man of God,” and so often do what he says without question, because he speaks for God and knows what God wants better than they do themselves. The people, living under fear and guilt of what will happen if they do not obey, do not have the freedom to follow Jesus for themselves.

People are afraid to miss a Sunday service because of what others will think or say about them. Fear and guilt keep us returning to situations where only more fear and guilt get piled upon us.

People are afraid to let others know about their sins, temptations, struggles, and doubts, and so put on a smiley face for church services and Bible studies. Since everybody is doing this, nobody realizes that everybody is afraid that others will discover who they really are, and feel guilty that they seem to deal with issues and temptations that nobody else faces. Fear and guilt keep us from being honest and from opening up to others about our struggles.

What’s the solution?

I think we all struggle with fear and guilt in numerous ways. We experience fear and guilt in our jobs, our marriages, our families, and our finances.

But I also believe that Jesus wants to free us from both. I do not think we were meant to live life wrapped in the chains of fear and guilt.

How do we break free?

We follow Jesus.

He will lead us into freedom. The journey is long, but it is a journey worth taking. As we walk with Jesus, we will discover that the one person who knows everything about us is also the one person who loves and accepts us completely. When we come to that realization, the fear and guilt begin to wash away, and we are able to begin to live in freedom with other people as well.

If you are struggling with fear and guilt, let me recommend three things.

First, don’t become fearful or guilty about struggling with fear and guilt. Just recognize the fear and the guilt.

Second, let Jesus know that you want to be led by Him instead. Just tell Him. And keep telling Him.

Finally, trust that Jesus will lead you. Over the course of the next couple years, as you learn to live in recognition of your fear and guilt, and as you learn to trust that Jesus is leading you to where He wants, you will look back over your life and see how much more liberated and free you have become. You will be shocked at how much more forgiven, loved, and accepted you feel.

Do you struggle with fear and guilt? Do you even know that you struggle with it? Do you use it to control others? What sort of strategies have you found helpful in seeking to liberate yourself and others from fear and guilt? Please share below!

You will never believe how Jesus spent $3,150,000,000 in 2014!

By Jeremy Myers

51 Comments

Arthur Sido recently brought to my attention that in 2014, United States churches spent $3,150,000,000 on church buildings.

$3,150,000,000

And this amount is down 80% since 2002!

I wrote about this in one of my books (I cannot recall which one), and I have written previously on this blog about how churches spend money. See:

But it recently occurred to me that since Christians are the representatives of Jesus Christ on earth, since we are His ambassadors, since we are the “Body of Christ,” this means that when we spend $3,150,000,000 on church buildings in one year, it is Jesus Christ spending this amount of money in one year.

We are spending HIS money.

And it really made me wonder … If Jesus had $3,150,000,000 to spend, do I really think He would spend it on church buildings?

Somehow, I really, really doubt it…

Great Calvinism Debate Videos

By Jeremy Myers

C. S. Lewis speaks out on Masturbation

By Jeremy Myers

96 Comments

A while back someone submitted a question to me about masturbation and whether it was sinful or not.

There is also a thread in the forum about masturbation, through only one person has attempted an answer on it…

It is a very … touchy … subject to deal with.

So as I was recently reading through the Letters of C. S. Lewis, I was surprised to learned that

(1) C. S. Lewis struggled with the temptation of masturbation, and
(2) he had a pretty good theological answer for it.

Here is What C. S. Lewis said about Masturbation

I agree that that the stuff about ‘wastage of vital fluids’ is rubbish. For me the real evil of masturbation would be that it takes an appetite which, in lawful use, leads the individual out of himself to complete (and correct) his own personality in that of another (and finally in children and even grandchildren) and turns it back: sending the man back into the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides.

And this harem, once admitted, works against his ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman. For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifice or adjustments, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attractions which no real woman can rival.

Among these shadowy brides he is always adored, always the perfect lover: no demand is made on his unselfishness, no mortification is ever imposed on his vanity. In the end, they become merely the medium through which he increasingly adores himself.

Do read Charles Williams’ Descent into Hell, and study the character of Mr. Wentworth. And it is not only the faculty of love which is thus sterilized, forced back on itself, but also the faculty of imagination.

The true exercise of imagination, in my view, is (a) To help us to understand other people (b) To respond to, and, some of us, to produce art. But it has also a bad use: to provide for us, in shadowy form, a substitute for virtues, successes, distinctions, et cetera which ought to be sought outside in the real world — e.g., picturing all I’d do if I were rich instead of earning and saving.

Masturbation involves this abuse of imagination in erotic matters (which I think bad in itself) and thereby encourages a similar abuse of it in all spheres.

After all, almost the main work of life is to come out of our selves, out of the little, dark prison we are all born in. Masturbation is be avoided as all things are to be avoided which retard this process. The danger is that of coming to love the prison (Lewis, Yours, Jack, 292-293).

In a later letter to a different man, C. S. Lewis wrote this about masturbation:

The evidence seems to be that God sometimes works such a complete metamorphosis and sometimes not. We don’t know why: God forbid we should presume it went my merit.

He never in my unmarried days did it for me. He gave me–at least and after many ups and down, the power to resist the temptation so far as the act was concerned. He never stopped the recurrent temptations, nor was I guarded from the sin of mental consent. I don’t mean I wasn’t given sufficient grace. I mean that I sometimes fell into it, grace or no.

One may, I suppose, regard this as partly penal. One is paying for the physical (and still more the imaginative) sins of one’s earlier life. One my also regard it as a tribulation, like any other. The great discovery for me was that the attack does not last forever. It is the devil’s lie that the only escape from the tension is through yielding.

… Disgust, self-contempt, self-hatred–rhetoric against the sin and (still more) vilification of sexuality or the body in themselves–are emphatically not the weapons for this warfare. We must be relieved, not horrified, by the fact that the whole thing is humiliating, undignified, ridiculous; the lofty vices would be far worse.

Nor must we exaggerate our suffering. We talk of ‘torture’: five minutes of really acute toothache would restore our sense of proportion! In a word, no melodrama. The sin, if we fall into it, must be repented, like all our others. God will forgive. The temptation is a darn nuisance, to be born with patience as long as God wills.

On the purely physical side (but people no doubt differ) I’ve always found that tea and bodily weariness are the two great disposing factors, and therefore the great dangers. Sadness is also a danger: lust in my experience follows disgruntlement nearly always. Love of every sort is a guard against lust, by a divine paradox, sexual love is a guard against lust. No woman is more easily and painlessly abstained from from, if need be, than the woman one loves. And I’m pretty sure purely male society is an enemy to chastity. I don’t mean a temptation to homosexuality: I mean that the absence of ordinary female society provokes the normal appetite (Lewis, Yours, Jack, 307-308).

C. S. Lewis on “Wanting a Woman”

We use a most unfortunate idiom when we say, of a lustful man prowling the streets, that he “wants a woman.” Strictly speaking, a woman is just what he does not want.

“He wants a pleasure for which a woman happens to be the necessary piece of apparatus. How much he cares about the woman as such may be gauged by his attitude to her five minutes after fruition (one does not keep the carton after one has smoked the cigarettes).

“Now Eros makes a man really want, not a woman, but one particular woman. In some mysterious but quite indisputable fashion the lover desires the Beloved herself, not the pleasure she can give.”

(#AmazonAdLink) –The Four Loves

So what are your thoughts? Is C. S. Lewis right about what he says regarding masturbation? Is he wrong? Feel free to comment anonymously!

Romans 8:28-30 and the “Golden Chain of Salvation”

By Jeremy Myers

26 Comments

Yesterday we considered the problem with the Calvinistic ordo salutis in Romans 8:28-30.

I suggested that there is a different way of understanding this text in light of Paul’s overall argument. We consider this alternative today.

The “Golden Chain” of Romans 8:28-30

The first thing to consider is the “golden chain” which begins with the foreknowledge of God and ends with glorification.

Through repeated use of the plural pronoun “whom” (Gk., ous), all those whom God foreknew are also those who arrive at glorification. That is, the same group which is identified by the “whom” in Romans 8:29 seem to be the exact same group which reach glorification in Romans 8:30.

Most Calvinists would agree with this, and say that this proves that God has some sort of eternal divine foreknowledge of all things. But note what happens when we apply this sort of foreknowledge to Romans 8:29-30.

All those whom God foreknew (which is everybody and everything), are also those who are predestined, called, justified, and glorified. Understanding God’s foreknowledge in Romans 8:29-30 as encompassing all people leads to the inevitable conclusion that all people will be glorified. But if only a certain group of people out of all humanity will be glorified, then this leads us backward through the “golden chain” to see that God’s foreknowledge is also limited to a certain group of people.

In other words, we must either say that this verse teaches universalism, or that we have misunderstood the terms and logic Paul uses in this text. I vote for the latter.

Greg Boyd is exactly right when he says this about Romans 8:28-30:

If Paul is using the term proginōskō (lit., “to know before”) in a cognitive sense—that is, to say that God possessed certain information ahead of time—then far from implying that God foreknows everything, this text would actually be denying that God foreknows everything.

… It is more likely that Paul is using the term know in the customary Semitic sense of affection rather than in a merely cognitive sense. To “know” someone is to love that one. So to “foreknow” someone means to love that one ahead of time. Three chapters later Paul refers to Israel as “[God’s] people whom he foreknew” (Rom 11:2). If this is in fact its meaning in 8:29, then Paul is simply claiming that God loved the church before he called them just as he loved Israel before he called them.

… What God loved ahead of time (ultimately from the foundation of the world) was the bride of Christ, the body of Christ, the church considered as a corporate whole (Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil, 118. Such a view is not without significant lexical challenges, however. See Olson, Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism, 152-173).

Whatever foreknowledge Paul is talking about, he is not referring to some sort of exhaustive, all-encompassing knowledge of all events and all people from before all time, for this would lead to the conclusion that all those whom God foreknows will end up in glorification.

Paul’s Golden Chain in Romans 8:28-30

So what is Paul saying?

First, we must remember that in Scripture, and especially in Pauline theology, Jesus Christ is the ultimate elect one, and individual people become elect, not through an eternal divine decree from God, but by joining with Christ by faith.

In other words, God does not predestine or elect people to be in Christ; no, God elects Jesus, and by default, all who join with Jesus by faith also become elect as members of the “body of Christ.”

Second, we must also recall that election is not to eternal life, but to service.

God does not choose, out of the mass of humanity, some to spend eternity with Him in heaven, while all others are destined for eternal suffering in hell. This is not the biblical teaching of election.

Instead, election is to service, and God chooses some out of the mass of humanity to serve Him or perform certain tasks to accomplish His will in human history.

While He sometimes chooses unregenerate individuals for this purpose (such as King Cyrus, Judas, and a few others), all who are in Jesus Christ automatically become “elect” in Christ. That is, all who become members of the body of Christ are also elected or chosen by God to serve God’s purposes in this world.

These two points help us understand what Paul is saying in Romans 8:28-30.

Note that when Paul introduces the idea of God’s calling in Romans 8:28, he says that this calling is “according to His purpose.” And what is God’s purpose? In Romans 8:29, Paul states that those whom God foreknew, He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.

This calling of God is a calling upon believers to serve God’s purposes. Since all who are called are also justified, Paul cannot be referring to some sort of general call of the gospel to the world, but rather to a calling of God to believers to serve Him and come into conformity to Jesus Christ, “that He might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Romans 8:29).

We can see this more clearly if we include some elements in Paul’s “golden chain” which he left out.

For example, though Scripture includes proclaiming the gospel, human faith, Spiritual regeneration, and sanctification into the theological chain of events which contribute to the “salvation package,” Paul makes no mention of these.

Why not?

Maybe it was because he understood these other terms to be synonyms with the terms he did mention, or maybe it was because Paul’s list of terms places an emphasis on God’s role in salvation.

If we were to include these other four terms inside Paul’s chain of events, the list would look like this: Foreknowledge, predestination, proclaiming the gospel, faith, regeneration, calling, justification, faithfulness, sanctification, glorification.

Note that in this list, regeneration, calling, and justification are simultaneous events which follow faith but precede sanctification (cf. Jude 1). When a person responds to the gospel in faith, God regenerates them to new life, calls them to a specific purpose, and declares them righteous in His sight.

I do not, of course, want to add words to what Paul is saying. He included the terms he did because he wanted to make a specific point to his readers.

In Romans 8, Paul’s emphasis is on God’s part in the plan of salvation. There is nothing in Romans 8:28-30 about a human’s responsibility to believe in Jesus or to walk by faith for sanctification.

Paul is emphasizing God’s role while ignoring man’s role, but this does not mean that mankind has no role.

In the overall scheme of redemption, God alone is the one who foreknows what He will do, takes steps to make sure it happens, calls believers to a greater purpose in service to Him, justifies those who believe, and glorifies for eternity all whom He justified.

In Romans 8:28-30, Paul is not talking about an eternal decree from eternity past about to whom He would give eternal life, but rather, God’s plan from eternity past to bring those who believe in Jesus into conformity to the image of Jesus Christ, which does not fully occur until glorification (cf. Eph 1:4; 4:1; 5:27; Col 1:22-23).

This fits with everything we have seen about election so far. In Romans 8:28-30, Paul is saying nothing about God’s predestination of some to eternal life.

Instead, Paul is saying that God decided in eternity past to make sure that everyone and anyone who joins His family by faith will finally and ultimately be brought into conformity to Jesus Christ at their glorification.

Foreknowledge is not God’s plan from all eternity about whom to give eternal life. It is simply God’s plan about what to do with those who believed.

Since election is to service, God’s foreknowledge does not include the election of individuals to eternal life. God’s predestination is His commitment to carry out His plan. “And what is God’s plan? To bring all who have responded to God’s initiative with love to salvation, to eternal bliss” (Pilch, Cultural World of the Apostles, 91).

The Context of Romans 8:28-30

This understanding of Romans 8:28-30 fits perfectly within the broader context of Romans 8 as well.

In this section of Romans, Paul is writing to Christians who are facing severe testing and trials as a result of their faith in Jesus (cf. Romans 8:17-18).

But Paul wants to encourage his readers by telling them that the suffering they face will result in glory, and that absolutely nothing can separate them from God’s love or God’s purpose in their lives (Romans 8:31-39).

In light of this, the foreknowledge of God takes on a special intimacy and mercy for all who are part of the people of God. Paul’s point in Romans 8 is that God determined from eternity past to bring us to glorification despite our many weaknesses and failures.

God elected and predetermined a destiny for his people in full knowledge of what they were, what they would be without his intervention, and, most significantly, what they would become as a result of his grace on their behalf (Klein, The New Chosen People, 164).

In this way, there is great encouragement in Paul’s words.

Many of the people to whom he is writing (just like many people today), were struggling with feelings of inadequacy, guilt, failure, fear, and doubt. Paul wanted them to know that God knew all about these things from eternity past, and it didn’t stop Him from initiating His plan to rescue and redeem the world, and since God predestined such a plan, He will take care of everything necessary to bring it to completion, which will result in our glorification (cf. Romans 8:31-39).

Ultimately, the whole discussion about the ordo salutis in Romans 8 leads the student of Scripture in the wrong direction about Paul’s point. Paul is not so concerned with laying down a guideline about what happens in which order. He is not intent on describing each individual step in God’s plan of salvation.

Instead, Paul’s only point in writing Romans 8:28-30 is to encourage Christians that no matter what happens to them, God is with them, will not abandon them, and just as He has had them in mind since before the foundation of the world, He will not abandon them to the trials and testing they are facing.

If God is the only one who could bring a charge against them, but He will not do so, and instead, delivered His own Son up for us all (Romans 8:31-34), then we can be sure that absolutely nothing will separate us from the love of God (Romans 8:35-39). If God is for us, who can condemn us? Jesus could. But rather than condemn us, Jesus intercedes for us!

This is an astounding message from Paul which all believers need to hear.

[Paul] is speaking to Christians, about Christians, and to reassure them of God’s love for them and God’s desire for them to cooperate with his Spirit in working for good and in overcoming all tribulation (Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy in Human History, 245).

In Romans 8, Paul is not laying out some sort of mysterious outworking of God’s divine decree, but is describing in great detail the height, breadth, width, and depth of God’s love for His people.

He loves us, has always loved us, and will always love us. He set the plan of redemption in place, and He will bring it to completion. This is Paul’s point in Romans 8.

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

Problems with the Calvinistic Ordo Salutis in Romans 8:28-30

By Jeremy Myers

48 Comments

For many, Romans 8:28-30 presents the strongest case in the entire Bible for the Calvinistic doctrine of Unconditional Election.

This text contains what many refer to as “the golden chain of salvation,” linking God’s foreknowledge from eternity past to the glorification of Christians in eternity future. It seems that if those whom God foreknew from eternity past are the same ones He brings to glorification in eternity future, then sovereign Unconditional Election is the only way God could bring this about.

Here is what Paul writes:

And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified (Romans 8:28-30).

As can be seen, this text seems to strongly support the doctrine of Unconditional Election.

Calvinists on Romans 8:28-30

John Piper calls it “the most important text of all in relation to the teaching of Unconditional Election” (Piper, 5 Points, 58). Romans 8:29 begins by linking God’s divine foreknowledge with God’s predestination, and Romans 8:30 carries this predestination through calling, justification, and glorification.

It appears that Paul presents a “golden chain of salvation” from eternity past to eternity future, just as Palmer states:

What Paul is saying in Romans 8 is that there is a golden chain of salvation that begins with the eternal, electing love of God and goes on in unbreakable links through foreordination, effectual calling, justification, to final glorification in heaven (Palmer, Five Points of Calvinism, 32).

With just a cursory reading of Romans 9:29-30, it appears that Palmer is correct. It seems that Paul is saying that from eternity past, God had in mind a certain group of people whom He predestined to receive eternal life.

This group of people was called by God, justified by God, and glorified by God. Many note that even the word “glorified” is in the past tense, which seems to indicate that even when glorification is in our future, it is nevertheless settled and complete in the mind of God.

If our glorification and justification was settled in the mind of God through His calling and predestination from eternity past, then this text seems to irrefutably support Unconditional Election.

The Problem with the Ordo Salutis Romans 8:28-30

However, when Romans 8:28-30 is understood in context, not only does it fail to support Unconditional Election, but this text actually refutes it.

In some theological circles, there is an ongoing debate over something called ordo salutis, or “the order of salvation” (Sproul, Grace Unknown, 144).

The debate is basically about the logical order of events and decisions in God’s plan of salvation.

For example, while everybody agrees that justification precedes glorification, there is much debate about whether God’s decree to redeem humanity preceded or followed the human fall into sin. The option you choose leads to numerous ramifications about your understanding of God’s sovereignty, human freedom, and what (or who) initiated God’s plan of redemption.

One of the other issues in the debate over ordo salutis is in regard to God’s foreknowledge and predestination.

The Calvinistic Ordo Salutis looks like this:

Arminians, with their desire to maintain human free will, often say that God, in eternity past, looked down through time to see who would choose Him out of their own free will, and then it is these whom God predestined for eternal life. In this order of events, God’s foreknowledge logically precedes God’s predestination. Calvinists disagree, and say that such an order of events makes God dependent upon human choice. They argue instead that God knows what will happen in the future because He predestined, or foreordained, all that will happen (Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 36-44; Piper, 5 Points, 59-60).

Yet when Paul talks about the “order of salvation” in Romans 8:28-30, he does not follow the normal Calvinistic order. Instead, he follows the Arminian order. He puts foreknowledge before predestination.

In an attempt to explain this, Edwin Palmer explains that foreknowledge carries the idea of having a loving relationship with someone:

The word translated by the older versions as “foreknew” is a Hebrew and Greek idiom meaning “love beforehand.” … Paul is using the Biblical idiom of “know” for “love,” and he means “whom God loved beforehand, he foreordained” (Palmer, Five Points of Calvinism, 31-32; cf. Boettner, Predestination, 100).

The idea that God’s foreknowledge is best understood as God’s eternal love is correct, but this still doesn’t solve Palmer’s dilemma, that Paul places God’s foreknowledge prior to God’s predestination. Even with Palmer’s exegetical sleight-of-hand in substituting in new terminology for Paul’s words, he still cannot get around the fact that Paul has God’s foreknowledge (or eternal love) preceding God’s foreordination (or predestination).

A. W. Pink attempts similar gymnastics when he uses the word “for” at the beginning of Romans 8:29 to say that the phrase “whom He foreknew” points back to part of the last clause of Romans 8:28, “to those who are called” (Pink, Sovereignty of God, 172).

In this way, Pink is able to base God’s foreknowledge on the calling of God, thus maintaining some semblance of the preferred Calvinistic ordo salutis. But this just confuses things further, because then Paul re-reverses the order in Romans 8:30 by putting God’s calling after predestination. Furthermore, since Calvinists often equate God’s “effectual call” with Irresistible Grace and God’s predestination with Unconditional Election, A. W. Pink has just reversed the order of TULIP as well, by placing the “I” before the “U” (Vance, Other Side of Calvinism, 389). It gets very confusing listening to Calvinists try to explain Paul’s words.

R. C. Sproul also notes the difficulty in Romans 8:29-30, and tries to explain it away by stating this:

We notice in this text that God’s foreknowledge precedes his predestination. Those who advocate the prescient view assume that, since foreknowledge precedes predestination, foreknowledge must be the basis of predestination. Paul does not say this. He simply says that God predestined those whom he foreknew. Who else could he possibly predestine? Before God can choose anyone for anything, he must have them in mind as objects of his choice. … [So] in actuality Romans 8:29-30 militates against the prescient view of election (Sproul, Grace Unknown, 143. He later goes on to argue for the same meaning of “foreknew” as “fore loved” as Palmer uses above. See p. 145).

I am not sure if “militates” is the right word, as Sproul’s argument is much weaker than he believes. According to Sproul, Paul is simply saying that God knows whom He will choose before He chooses them.

This would be fine, except that most Calvinists argue the opposite, that God only knows whom He will choose because He first chose them.

According to the Calvinistic ordo salutis, predestination and foreordination come before foreknowledge and election. So just like Palmer, Sproul is right about what Paul seems to say, but is in disagreement with what Calvinists typically argue.

So does this mean the Arminian is right?

No.

Calvinists rightly criticize Arminians for saying that God looks down through the halls of time to see who will believe in Him for eternal life, and then He elects, chooses, or predestines those people to be the objects of His grace and love.

Calvinists say that this makes God subject to the will of human beings, and in fact, puts the whole plan of salvation at risk. I agree with what Boice and Ryken say on this point.

[Some teach] that God bases his election of an individual on foresight, foreseeing whether or not a particular individual will have faith. … [This] actually means that men and women elect themselves, and God is reduced to a bystander who responds to their free choice. Logically and causally, even if not chronologically, God’s choice follows man’s choice (Boice, Doctrines of Grace, 99).

After all, what if God, in looking down through the halls of time to see who would choose Him, discovered that, much to His dismay, nobody had chosen Him? God would have been bound by this foreknowledge to do what He foresaw; otherwise His foreknowledge would have been in error.

If God only looks forward in time to see what it is that He should be doing in regard to human salvation, then God is bound by what He foresees to carry it out, even if He defeats Him and His purpose.

Right about now, you may be feeling like this discussion of Romans 8:28-30 is getting off into the weeds.

On the one hand, we have seen that while some Calvinistic explanations of various words of this text do in fact teach what those words say, we have also seen that the Arminian ordo salutis better fits the logical order in which Paul lists these words.

Yet the Arminian ordo salutis creates vast theological problems for the interplay between divine sovereignty and human freedom.

How then are we to proceed? What is Paul saying? How can we understand this text?

The solution seems to lie in the middle ground between Calvinism and Arminianism, which is discovered by letting Paul’s words speak for themselves, which we will look at tomorrow.

Until then, what are your thoughts on the ordo salutis debate? Are you familiar with it? Is it all new to you? Do you have an opinion? Do you even care?

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

Only a Couple More Days to get my book on Amazon at a steep discount

By Jeremy Myers

Why There Will be No Sports in Heaven

The Theological Reason for No Sports in Heaven

So Heaven Sounds Pretty Dull After All…

But if Heaven Requires Imperfection…

But this then leads me to the question of God.

The Greatest PROOF of Christian Truth I have EVER read!

The Re-Justification of God (Romans 9)

Why did I write The Re-Justification of God?

However…

So why am I publishing this book now if it’s not done?

So how can you get and read this book?

What REALLY controls and guides Christians: Fear and Guilt

Fear and Guilt in Church

What’s the solution?

You will never believe how Jesus spent $3,150,000,000 in 2014!

$3,150,000,000

Great Calvinism Debate Videos

C. S. Lewis speaks out on Masturbation

Here is What C. S. Lewis said about Masturbation

C. S. Lewis on “Wanting a Woman”

Romans 8:28-30 and the “Golden Chain of Salvation”

The “Golden Chain” of Romans 8:28-30

Paul’s Golden Chain in Romans 8:28-30

The Context of Romans 8:28-30

Problems with the Calvinistic Ordo Salutis in Romans 8:28-30

Calvinists on Romans 8:28-30

The Problem with the Ordo Salutis Romans 8:28-30

Only a Couple More Days to get my book on Amazon at a steep discount

Theological Study Archives

Bible Study Archives

Advertise or Donate

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!