Liberating you from bad ideas about God
Be careful not to quote too much Scripture to an atheist… because he or she may start quoting Scripture right back! There are a lot of verses in the Bible that seem downright, well, anti-biblical. Or at least anti-christ.
You know… verses about killing babies, marrying girls you raped, and slaughtering all your enemies (including their cows and sheep).
Would Jesus command such things? I don’t think so…
Yesterday I tried to summarize Calvinism with my own words. This is always a dangerous task. In the book I am currently writing on Calvinism, I will always seek to let Calvinists present their views in their own words.
So, as a way of appeasing any critics of my personal summary of five-point Calvinism yesterday, I thought I would post a Calvinistic summary today.
Here is what David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn have written in their book The Five Points of Calvinism:
Because of the Fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free; it is in bondage to his evil nature. Therefore, he will not—indeed, he cannot—choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit’s assistance to bring a sinner to Christ. It takes regeneration, by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation, but is itself a part of God’s gift of salvation. It is God’s gift to the sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God.
God’s choice of certain individuals for salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely on His own sovereign will. His choice of particular sinners was not based on any forseen response or obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. These acts are the result, not the cause, of God’s choice. Election, therefore, was not determined by, or conditioned upon, any virtuous quality or act forseen in man. Those whom God sovereignly elected He brings through the power of the Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ. Thus, God’s choice of the sinner, not the sinner’s choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation.
Christ’s redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was a substiutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ’s redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation, including faith, which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, thereby guaranteeing their salvation.
In addition to the outward general call to salvation, which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The external call (which is made to all without distinction) can be, and often is, rejected. However, the internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By means of this special call, the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited to His work of applying salvation by man’s will, nor is He dependent upon man’s cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God’s grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended.
All who are chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit, are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of almighty God, and thus persevere to the end (The Five Points of Calvinism, pp 5-8).
Other Calvinists might summarize the Five Points of Calvinism somewhat differently, but this summary from three leading Calvinists is fairly typical.
However, here is one super succinct summary, from leading Calvinistic pastor and author, John MacArthur:
(1) Sinners are utterly helpless to redeem themselves or to contribute anything meritorious toward their own salvation (Rom. 8:7-8). (2) God is sovereign in the exercise of His saving will (Eph 1:4-5). (3) Christ died as a substitute who bore the full weight of God’s wrath on behalf of His people, and His atoning work alone is efficacious for their salvation (Isa 53:5). (4) God’s saving purpose cannot be thwarted (John 6:37), meaning none of Christ’s true sheep will ever be lost (John 10:27-29). That is because (5) God assures the perseverance of His elect (Jude 24; Phil 1:6; 1 Peter 1:5).
As you read over these summaries, you may not see anything that stands out as overly objectionable. You might think that based on the statements above, Calvinism sounds pretty reasonable, and quite biblical.
Yes, that is one of the strengths of Calvinism.
Yet as we look at each of the Five Points in more detail in subsequent posts, we will make room for other Calvinistic voices to be heard as well, and as we look at the biblical passages they use to defend their theology, we will see that Calvinism may not be as reasonable or biblical as it first appears.
If you are a Calvinist, do you think the summaries above are fair? What would you clarify? If you are not a Calvinist, or are just learning about Calvinism, what are your thoughts so far?
Some say that John Calvin was not a Calvinist.
In some regards, this is probably true. There are one or two points of Calvinism which John Calvin is less than clear about in his writings. In some places, he seems to say one thing, and in other places, he says the opposite. This is not too surprising, especially for someone who wrote as voluminously as did John Calvin.
But the real reason we can say that John Calvin was truly not a Calvinist is because he himself did not develop the system of theology which bears his name.
Several years after John Calvin died in 1564 (click here to see a brief history of John Calvin), a man named Jacobus Arminius traveled to Geneva to study under Theodore Beza, who was Calvin’s successor.
After Arminius completed his studies in 1587, he moved to Amsterdam to pastor a church there. As he as preaching through Romans in the years that followed, he developed several points of disagreement with the theology of John Calvin. In fact, it was actually in seeking to defend the teachings of Calvin against some detractors that led Arminius to have doubts of his own. So just as Luther and Calvin had sought to reform the church of their day, Arminius sought to reform Calvinism.
After Jacobus Arminius died in 1609, some of his followers put together a document called “The Five Articles of Remonstrance.” In much the same way that Martin Luther had posted his 95 Theses on the church door in Wittenberg on October 31, 1517, for the purpose of stating his objections to the abuses he saw within the Roman Catholic Church and inviting church leaders to gather and discuss these items, so also, the Five Articles of Remonstrance were an invitation by the followers of Arminius to the followers of Calvin to gather for the purpose of discussing these issues.
Instead, the followers of John Calvin met in Dordrecht, Netherlands from 1618 to 1619 and crafted what has become known as the Canons of Dort. This consisted of a point-by-point refutation and condemnation of the Five Articles of Remonstrance.
As such, there were five main points to this second document. It is these five main points in the Canons of Dort that have become known as “Calvinism.”
The five Canons of Dort are often summarized today by the acrostic TULIP:
Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints
TULIP Calvinism begins with the idea that mankind is completely sinful and cannot do anything to contribute to his salvation (Total Depravity).
As a result, we are totally dependent upon God to initiate salvation for us, which He did in eternity past by choosing to save some, without any condition or merit on the part of those whom He chose (Unconditional Election).
In order to accomplish this salvation of those whom He had previously chosen, God sent Jesus to die specifically and only for the sins of those whom He had chosen so that they might have eternal life (Limited Atonement).
Those whom God has chosen, and for whom Christ died, will be irresistibly drawn by God’s grace into God’s family (Irresistible Grace).
Since God’s will cannot be thwarted, none whom God has chosen, for whom Christ died, and whom were drawn and transformed by God’s grace, can ultimately be lost. They will all be glorified. Due to this gift of grace in their life, all who are delivered by God’s grace in this fashion will give evidence to it by living a life of perseverance in faith and good works (Perseverance of the Saints).
The so-called sixth point of Calvinism, which of course is not mentioned in the five points above, but which undergirds them all, is the Sovereignty of God. One can see that God’s complete control over all things is behind each of the five points.
God must be in control, and God must accomplish everything, from first to last, if humans are to have any hope of salvation, and if God is to be certain of defeating sin, death, and the devil in the ultimate end.
Not all Calvinists will be happy with the brief summary above. I have tried to state the view as succinctly and clearly as I know how, and in fact, I tried to write that summary in a way that almost nobody could disagree with it—not even most non-Calvinists.
If you are trying to figure out what Calvinism is all about, it is likely that as you read through that brief description of the five points of Calvinism, you though, “Yeah? So? That’s what I believe. That’s what the Bible teaches, isn’t it?” Yes, well, that is what this series of posts on Calvinism will seek to determine.
Nevertheless, for those Calvinists who feel I did not properly explain Calvinism, tomorrow I will post some summaries of Calvinism from leading Calvinists. (This will be a common practice in my series on Calvinism … to allow Calvinists to explain their views in their own words. I hope any Calvinists reading this will allow me to do the same with my own views.)
John Calvin was born in France in 1509 and was raised as a Roman Catholic. His father initially intended John to enter the priesthood, but realized later in life that there was more money to be made in law, and so in 1525, sent John to become a lawyer.
It was during this time that the ripple effects of Martin Luther’s 95 Theses (published in 1517) were beginning to be seen throughout all of Europe. In 1533 John Calvin experienced his conversion, and later that year, one of John Calvin’s close friends, Nicolas Cop, publicly sided with the Reformers in calling for changes in the Roman Catholic Church. As a result, Cop was condemned by the Catholic Church as a heretic, and was forced to flee for his life. Calvin was also implicated in the condemnation and was also forced to go into hiding.
In 1536, Calvin published his first edition of the Institutes of the Christian Religion, which was initially intended to be a short explanation and defense of the teachings and ideas of the Reformers. The book went through numerous subsequent expansions over the course of John Calvin’s life.
A short time later, during one of his travels, John Calvin traveled to Geneva, and a man there named William Farel convinced John to stay and help reform the church in Geneva. He agreed, and in 1537 he was selected to be a pastor of the church.
However, by the end of the year, the church council forced Calvin to resign his position and leave Geneva because he wanted to force church members to sign his doctrinal statement and articles of church organization (which few people wanted to do), and because he refused to serve communion with unleavened bread on Easter Sunday.
Calvin traveled to Strasbourg, which was a city of refuge for Reformed people, and over the course of the next three years, preached and taught in three different churches. He also worked on an updated version of the Institutes, and published his Commentary on Romans.
During the time, the church in Geneva dwindled in size, and was facing pressure by the Roman Catholic Church to return to Catholicism. By way of response, the Genevan church called upon Calvin to write a letter in their defense, which he gladly did. They were so pleased with his letter, they asked him to return to Geneva and take up the pastoral position once again.
In 1541, Calvin returned to Geneva under the condition that the church accept and adopt his proposed reforms. They agreed. Calvin ministered in Geneva for the rest of his life, until he died in 1564. The first few years of his ministry were busy and productive. He preached an average of five sermons a week, and wrote numerous books, tracts, as a well as a set of commentaries on almost every book of the Bible.
However, his ministry in Geneva was not without opposition.
Not all agreed with Calvin’s teaching and theology, and many accused Calvin of teaching false doctrine. From 1546 to 1553, Calvin’s power and influence steadily waned. There were frequent attempts by both sides of the debate to undermine, arrest, and even kill members of the other party.
As one example, a man named Jacques Gruet was arrested and, under torture, confessed to writing an anonymous letter in opposition to the church leaders. Gruet was beheaded in July of 1547.
Eventually, the opposition to Calvin became so fierce, that in July of 1553, Calvin offered to resign his position a second time. His request was refused, because those who opposed him knew that an uprising and church split would likely occur if they accepted Calvin’s resignation.
One month later, in August of 1553, all of Calvin’s fortunes changed when a man by the name of Michael Servetus arrived in Geneva. Servetus also was a Protestant Reformer, but had been condemned as a heretic by both Catholic and Protestant church leaders for his writings against the Trinity and infant baptism.
Though Calvin and Servetus had debated these issues by letter for many years, they had never met in person, yet when Servetus stopped in Geneva on his way to Italy, he was recognized and arrested. A trial ensued, in which Servetus was once again condemned as a heretic, and on October 27, 1553, was burned at the stake on top of a pile of his own books.
As a result of his involvement in the arrest, trial, and execution of Servetus, John Calvin was acclaimed across all of Europe as a defender of Christianity.
Over the next two years, his power and fame grew as never before, and in 1555, all who had previously opposed John Calvin either fled Geneva or were rounded up and executed.
From 1555 until his death in 1564, Calvin’s position, power, and reputation went almost completely uncontested. He did experience some controversy with Martin Luther over the issue of consubstantiation, but even this controversy with Martin Luther—the “father” of the Reformation itself—only solidified Calvin’s position of prominence in the minds of many.
During these final years, he continued to write, preach, and teach, and he also founded several schools, including Calvin College (Collège Calvin) in Geneva, Switzerland in 1559.
In 1558, he finished his final edition of the Institutes, and he preached his last sermon on February 6, 1564, before dying on May 27, 1564.
After his death, Theodore Beza took over Calvin’s position in Geneva and helped carry on his work and ideas.
This is obviously a very short and summarized history of John Calvin’s life. For those of you who have studied John Calvin, do you have anything to add? For those who didn’t know much about Calvin, what are your initial impressions from this brief account? Let us know in the comments below.
I am not really sure when I fully embraced Calvinism, but I do know that by the time I was in my early 20s, I was a five-point Calvinist.
Since Calvinism was so inherently logical and apparently biblical, I was fully persuaded in my own mind that “Calvinism is the Gospel, and the Gospel is Calvinism” (as some Calvinists claim). I vividly remember debating Calvinism with many of my non-Calvinist friends, trying to convince them of what was eminently obvious to anyone with a working brain.
However, it was not long after this that one of my Calvinistic friends declared that he was no longer a five-point Calvinist, but was now a four-point Calvinist. He no longer believed in “Limited Atonement.”
I told him that he had begun to slide down a slippery slope, for the five points of Calvinism are like five links on a chain: they stand or fall together and if one link in the chain breaks, it is only a matter of time before the whole system unravels. My friend assured me that nothing of the sort would happen to him, and he was still fully convinced of the other four points of Calvinism.
I was skeptical, but he and I talked about it, studied the Scriptures, and read numerous books.
It was not long before I too had given up on Limited Atonement as well. But I was convinced that I would remain a four-point Calvinist, just like my friend. As it happened, what I told him about the links in the Calvinistic chain turned out to be true—at least for me.
Later that year, I sat through a Bible College class on the General Epistles in which the professor, Dr. John Hart, had us read numerous books which challenged the fifth point of Calvinism: the Perseverance of the Saints.
Among the books he had us read were two that really challenged my thinking and helped me see certain key texts in a new light: They are The Epistle of James by Zane Hodges and The Reign of the Servant Kings by Joseph Dillow (a revised and updated edition of the book is now titled Final Destiny).
There were numerous other books I read and the class lectures of Dr. John Hart were influential as well, so within a year I had abandoned my belief in the Perseverance of the Saints, and was now a three-point Calvinist.
I remained a three-point Calvinists for quite a while, until, after Seminary, I began my first pastorate in Montana. It was there, where the rubber of theology hits the road of life, where the final three points of Calvinism finally fell.
The sources of influence were numerous and varied.
One elder named Bob Weaver challenged me to view God differently than I had before. I read some books which were recommended to me by others. God’s Strategy in Human History was helpful, as were various books by Samuel Fisk, Harry Ironside, C. Gordon Olson, Laurence Vance, and Dave Hunt.
Also, I was preaching at this time through the book of Ephesians, and my research and study on Ephesians 1 helped me to see that this chapter does not teach Unconditional Election as many Calvinists claim. Somewhere during those first five years as a pastor, all three of the remaining points of Calvinism crumbled in my mind.
It was an exciting but scary time.
It was exciting because my theology was changing and I was discovering new vistas on about the grace of God and the role of faith and works in the life of believers.
But it was scary because I kept wondering how deep the rabbit hole went. I didn’t want to be an Arminian, but at the same time, I knew I could no longer be a Calvinist.
In an attempt to stay true to my quickly fading Calvinistic beliefs, I read every Calvinistic book I could get my hands on. Not only did I read John Calvin, I also read John MacArthur, John Piper, R. C. Sproul, James Montgomery Boice, Philip Graham Ryken, A. W. Pink, Edwin Palmer, and dozens of other such authors, all of whom vigorously defended Calvinism.
In the end, though, none of them wrote anything in their books which persuaded me that my new belief system was wrong.
In fact, it often seemed to me that these Calvinistic authors themselves had never heard of the views which I myself held. They kept arguing against non-Calvinistic beliefs which I, as a non-Calvinist, did not believe!
It seemed to me that they had not read any of the books I had read, or even knew anything about the way of reading Scripture which I had adopted. At the time, I did not know exactly if these Calvinistic authors were trying to refute Arminian beliefs (which I had not read much of), or if they had simply erected anti-Calvinistic straw-man beliefs which were then easily knocked down. Looking back now, and having read many books on Arminian theology, I have to say that it was the latter.
Most Calvinists, it seems, rarely read books or listen to teachers that are not Calvinistic.
It is exceedingly rare to find a defense of Calvinism which actually deals with the documented beliefs and ideas of Calvinistic opponents. A typical Calvinistic defense seems to consist of stating the Calvinistic beliefs, quoting numerous Calvinistic authors, and referencing several biblical texts which seem to support the Calvinistic perspectives.
This pretty much brings me up to the present day.
Over the past fifteen years, I have continued to read both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic authors, and study biblical texts from the various perspectives. With every passing year, I am more and more convinced that Calvinism reads Scripture incorrectly, distorts the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and has ultimately abandoned the roots of the Reformation.
All this will be seen in later posts.
So what about you? What is your history with Calvinism? Are you Calvinist now? Have you ever been a Calvinist? Do you know what Calvinism is? Share your stories in the comment section below.
Last week I announced that I needed to take a break from my series on the violence of God, and that I was considering doing a series on Calvinism instead. I ran a survey to see if people were interested in this, and 98% of you said “Yes!” So here is the first post… (Some of these posts on Calvinism ended up in my book, The Re-Justification of God which can be found on Amazon.
The rallying cry of the Reformation centers around five solas (or in proper Latin, the five solae): Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, Sola Scriptura, and Soli Deo Gloria.
Though not actually stated in quite this fashion until the 20th century, these five statements summarize what the Reformation was about. The Reformation was about authority, tradition, and justification, and the leaders of the Reformation believed and taught that everything we have from God, is Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, Sola Scriptura, and Soli Deo Gloria.
In English we might say that what we have from God is “by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to the authority of Scripture alone, for the glory of God alone.”
I affirm all five statements. I consider myself to be a child of the Reformation.
Yet I do not identify with either of the two main groups that came out of the Reformation; I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. (I am not Lutheran either, for those Lutherans who see themselves as a group apart.)
Certainly, there are many things I appreciate about John Calvin, Jacobus Arminius, Martin Luther, and the other Reformers, but I have too many differences with the main theological arguments of each man to be comfortable identifying myself with the theological systems that bear their names.
Ironically, my main area of disagreement with Calvinism and Arminianism is that they do not take the five solas far enough.
That is, the Reformers and their followers stopped short of fully reforming their theology around the five solas. Having begun with the revolutionary truths of the five solas, they failed to follow through on the full theological ramifications of these five statements. As a result, the Reformation sputtered to a halt and—in my opinion—ultimately failed.
How can I say this?
If you were to compare the typical writings of the average Calvinist, Arminian, Lutheran, and Catholic theologians, you would discover that when it comes to the issues of faith, grace, the accomplished work of Jesus Christ, the authority of tradition over Scripture, and the goal of glorifying God in all of life, there is very little distinguishable difference (See the journal article I wrote on this several years ago).
It is not just me saying this. There have been talks in recent decades between prominent leaders of these various groups to all reunite into one group. The primary sticking points, it seems, have nothing to do with the five solas, but center instead on issues like Mariology, the veneration of the Saints, and papal authority.
I believe that if the Reformers and their followers had resolutely held to the five solas, the spiritual landscape of the world today would be much different. The Reformation would have continued to do its work, so that grace, faith, love, and freedom would flow out of the church today in ways that have not been seen since the church began nearly 2000 years ago.
Of course, one cannot blame Luther, Calvin, Arminius, or any of the other Reformers for not fully following through on the ramifications of their own theological insights. Theological development is a multi-generational endeavor.
We can, however, challenge both the contemporary and historical followers of the Reformers to advance upon the teachings of their forebears. No Reformer, I believe, ever thought that his beliefs were perfect and that nobody could ever improve upon his teachings or take his ideas further.
The Reformers would agree, I think, with what some people say about the Reformation: “Always reforming; never reformed.” The reformation of church and theology is never over.
Just as the Reformers sought to reform the church of their day, so also, they would want those who came after them to continue the reforms “till we all come to the unity of the faith” (Ephesians 4:13).
That is the purpose of this series on Calvinism. I hope that the information contained within these posts will build upon the reformations that began during the Reformation and will lead to further reformation in the future. Specifically, I want to provide Calvinists and non-Calvinists with a perspective on certain passages of Scripture which will hopefully allow people to see that there are viable alternatives to Calvinism and it’s theological opposite, Arminianism.
There is a balanced middle ground between Calvinism and Arminianism.
Though there are numerous avenues that one might take in seeking to provide a non-Calvinistic perspective on Scripture, the route I have chosen is to emphasize the biblical teaching on “faith alone” and contrast it with what is often taught in Calvinism. I want to show how Calvinism, though it claims to defend sola fide, actually undermines it with every point of its theological system.
Related to this, the book will also contain a heavy emphasis on radical, outrageous, shocking, scandalous grace. Of course, I cannot write about faith or grace without mentioning Jesus Christ. All of this discussion will revolve around what the Scripture says, rather than on human or religious tradition, and ultimately, the entire discussion is for the glory of God as I seek to help others see the radiating grace of God in the face of Jesus Christ as He died on the cross for the sins of the whole world.
Hopefully, as these posts progress, you can proclaim the five solas aloud with me: Sola Gratia! Sola Fide! Solus Christus! Sola Scriptura! Soli Deo Gloria!
If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.
A while back I wrote about how confrontational evangelism turns way more people away from Jesus than toward Him. Below is a Facebook account of exactly what I was talking about.
Have you ever seen this video? Watch it and follow the instructions carefully…
If you’ve seen the video before, you know what to look for, but if you have never seen the video, you might have been shocked at what the end of the video revealed…
I think that sometimes, the way we read the Bible is similar.
We have been taught by books, pastors, seminaries, and Christian friends for so long to read the Bible a certain way and look for certain truths in Scripture, that when someone comes along and says, “Yeah, but did you notice the gorilla in the text?” we reject such an interpretation and say, “No! That’s not there! I have read and studied the Bible for years and have sat through countless sermons, and since I have never heard that idea before and no pastor I have listened to has ever brought that up, it must be wrong! I went to seminary and never heard that in any class!”
And yet, maybe we missed what is really going on in the text because we have been counting the number of times people in white t-shirts pass the ball around. Just as we only see in a video what we are told to look for, so also, maybe we only see in the Bible what we are told to look for.
Maybe I’m only talking about myself.
For the past 7 or 8 years, I have been struggling with Scripture. Some days it almost literally feels like I am wrestling with the Bible. There is all my theological education on one side, screaming at me “Count the number of times the people in white t-shirts pass the ball!” and then there is a still, small voice over on the side saying, “Yes, but did you notice … ?”
I’m trying to notice. I really am. But it is so hard to retrain the mind to see and hear something else.
I was reading The Magician’s Nephew to my daughters last night, and there is a part in the story after Digory, Polly, and Uncle Andrew witness the creation of Narnia where C. S. Lewis explain why Digory and Polly could understand what the Narnian animals were saying but Uncle Andrew could not. It all began when Aslan was singing Narnia into existence and Uncle Andrew convinced himself that the lion was not actually singing, but was only growling. From there, Uncle Andrew’s logic carried him the rest of the way, so that by the time he is surrounded by curious Narnian animals, all he sees is dangerous, brutish beasts who want to eat him. Lewis says that by that point, it would have been impossible for Uncle Andrew to have ever hear the animals talking.
As I read this, I felt like I was Uncle Andrew. There are things I feel like I have believed for so long about God and the Bible, that I am not sure I could ever un-believe them, simply because I have believed them for so long. Try as I might, and despite all the people speaking into my life (and even the still small voice of God), I find it extremely difficult to believe something other than what I have believed my entire life.
Like what?
I’d rather not say.
Last time I wrote about some of the things I was having questions about, I lost my job…
That’s why for now, on this blog, I am going to have to steer away from my series on the violence of God and write about something I feel a little more confident about.
Namely, Calvinism.
I ran a survey earlier this week, and the response was overwhelmingly positive. Over 98% of you want to know more about Calvinism, and specifically, why I am NOT a Calvinist. So, I am going to start that series on Monday.
Just so you know, however, I will still be trying to see the gorilla in the text. I will try to believe what some have been whispering to me, that “animals talk” and that the Lion is not going to eat me.
Do you know what a Shibboleth is? You might have heard the term and not known where it comes from…
In modern usage, a shibboleth is an idea, practice, belief, or custom which differentiates one group of people from another. So, for example, if you wanted to know whether someone was politically conservative or liberal, you could maybe ask them about global warming. If they thought global warming is a hoax, they are probably conservative. If they think global warming is irrefutable science, they are probably liberal. In this case, the “shibboleth” is the issue of global warming.
The origins of the word “shibboleth” come from Judges 12:5-6 when there was a war between the people of Gilead and Ephraim. The soldiers of Gilead set up a little checkpoint at a river crossing and whenever a man tried to cross, the soldiers would ask them to say “Shibboleth.” Why? Because the people of Gilead said “Shibboleth” and the people of Ephraim said “Sibboleth” (because they could not pronounce the Sh). If the soldier said, “I am from Gilead” but then could not pronounce “Shibboleth” and instead said, “Sibboleth” then the soldiers of Gilead would know the man was lying and would kill him.
Anyway, that is the origin of the word Shibboleth.
I recently stumbled across a theological Shibboleth regarding the violence of God in the Bible. Almost everybody claims to believe that God is love, that Jesus reveals God to us, and that God does nothing but that which is merciful, kind, and gracious. And yet there are vast numbers of Christians who believe that God commands people to slaughter others, that God drowned people in a flood, and that God is the one who killed His own Son on the cross to appease His own wrath and anger against human sin.
Yesterday I was reading the Gospel of Luke and read Luke 12:5. I did a double-take on the verse because while the pronouns are capitalized in the Bible I was reading, it sure seemed to me that Jesus was not talking about God, but about Satan. Here is the verse (without capitalization):
But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after he has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear him!
The shibboleth is this: Is Jesus talking about God or Satan in Luke 12:5?
If you check most modern commentaries, they will tell you that Jesus is talking about God. Some argue that the verse refers to Satan. During the first 300 years of the church, it was almost exactly opposite. Many of the early church fathers believed Jesus was talking about Satan, but a few thought He was referring to God.
But what do you think? In Luke 12:5, is Jesus talking about God or Satan?
In the comments below, please feel free to state you opinion, and then also state why you believe what you do about Luke 12:5. And I promise, that whether you answer “God” or “Satan” (Shibboleth or Sibboleth), nobody is going to kill you!
Whose name tag goes on that verse?
I guess I’ll start…
I used to think Jesus was talking about God, but in the last couple years, my theology has changed enough so that I now think Jesus was talking about Satan.
After all, why would Jesus say that God kills when He later says that it is the thief who comes to steal, kill, and destroy (John 10:10)? Why are we called to fear God when John tells us that there is no fear in love for perfect love casts out fear (1 John 4:18)? And is it really God who casts people into hell, or is He rather working to rescue people from hell?
2017 UPDATE: After further study and discussion with people in the RedeemingGod.com discipleship group, it is interesting to note that the word for “hell” is Gehenna, which is the smoking trash valley outside of Jerusalem, and the word for “destroy” is appolumi, which is used in Matthew 10:6 in reference to the “lost” sheep of Israel, and then also in 10:39 (cf. 16:25) when Jesus says if you “lose” your life for his sake, you will find it. So other forms of the word can refer to “lose” or “lost.” Notice later that the Jewish leaders plot how they might “destroy” Jesus (Matt 12:14; 27:20). This sort of seems to indicate that other human beings might be in view … but if so, Jesus would be saying “Don’t fear human beings who can take your life, but do fear human beings who can cast you into the burning trash pile outside of the city.” How does this make sense?
Maybe the key is the word “soul” (psuche) in the context, which is not the “eternal principle of a person” but is instead the “life.” That is, your “life” here on earth. Who is it that can destroy your body AND your life by sending you out into the burning trash pile? Only one group: The religious leaders. They often sent people to live in Gehenna. It was one of the places where lepers and outcasts were sent. But how is this worse than being killed?
We have two contrasts here:
body (sarx) vs. life (psuche)
kill (apokteino) vs. destroy (appolumi)
2021 update: I address this text here, and provide my current beliefs about Luke 12:5 and Matthew 10:28
A while back I wrote about the 8 most dangerous Christian prayers. Afterwards, I realized that one of the most dangerous prayers of all was the Lord’s prayer, which we have also looked at briefly before.
Let us now take a closer look at the Lord’s Prayer and see why it contains several dangerous prayer requests.
Each line of the Lord’s prayer is designed to invite God into your life to overthrow, upend, and destroy your life. When you pray the Lord’s prayer, God enters your life like a bull in a china shop.
Afterwards, however, God takes all the shards of crystal and glass that He left behind, and makes the most beautiful mosaic you have ever seen.
If you pray the Lord’s prayer, get ready for destruction … but the beauty that rises from the ashes will be incomparable to whatever plans you had for your life previously.
Here is a quick run-through of how each line in the Lord’s Prayer will upend, overturn, and destroy your life as you know it.
In praying this, we announce that we want God’s name to be glorified. Sounds good, right?
Yes, except that usually, when we pray this, what we mean is “Hollowed be they name in and through me.” We want God to be gloried, and we want to ride His coat tails to some glory of our own.
But the prayer doesn’t say this will happen. It is a prayer for God’s name to be glorified; not our name.
This seems fairly safe, right? Haven’t many of us been taught to close out our prayers with “Not my will, but thy will be done?” Don’t we want God’s will to be done on earth?
Sure!
… Just not in our lives.
When it comes to our own lives, we want our own will to be done. God’s will for our lives usually looks much less enjoyable than our plans for our own life.
And besides, God’s will often seems to lead into death, slavery, obscurity, and suffering. Who wants that? Not me.
So this prayer is dangerous when we include ourselves in it.
Daily bread means “enough food for today.” It means barely scraping by. But who wants that? I need a full fridge and a growing retirement account. I need a new car, a shinier cell-phone, a faster internet connection, and maybe an Apple iWatch.
Of course we want God to forgive us, but are you ready to forgive the person who has wronged you?
… Um, maybe not yet.
Enough said.
God doesn’t actually lead anyone into temptation, so this phrase probably means something closer to “Help us resist temptation when it comes.”
But regardless, we don’t really mean it. We like our pet sins. We don’t want God to point them out to us, nor do we want to get rid of them.
Instead, what we usually do, is invent other “sins” that we “struggle” so that we can make ourselves feel better about the small victories we gain over these fake sins while completely ignoring the bigger sins we harbor in our lives every day.
What sorts of sins? Oh, greed, pride, anger, and judgmentalism to name a few.
So be careful about praying the Lord’s Prayer. Every phrase is a minefield just waiting for you to step on it so that your life can get turned upside down.
Here is a video in which I teach a bit more about the Lord’s Prayer:
Do you what to talk to God like you talk to a friend? Do you want to see more answers to prayer?
If you have these (and other) questions about prayer, let me send you some teaching and instruction about prayer to your email inbox. You will receive one or two per week, absolutely free. Fill out the form below to get started.
Thanks for visiting this page ... but this page is for Discipleship Group members.
If you are already part of a Faith, Hope, or Love Discipleship Group,
Login here.
If you are part of the free "Grace" Discipleship group, you will need to
Upgrade your Membership to one of the paid groups.
If you are not part of any group, you may learn about the various groups and their benefits here:
Join Us Today.
