All in Reformed vs. Arminian
Protestants focus, almost exclusively, on Salvation. (Who's against salvation? Not me! Praise God for salvation!) But that pressure-driven focus causes Protestants to look at every Bible passage or story as a matter of soteriology (salvation, pertaining to salvation). So we end up making the Bible say things it wasn't trying to say. And to that point? Election. Protestants think that election is always about salvation in eternity, or not. But that's not what election is in the Bible. I unpack the Bible logic about election, its wiring, its sweeping vision. Because the Lordship of Christ does not stop at the boundary of culture I reflect, in the show's beginning, on Church involvement in culture. Come think and laugh with me!
A classic prooftext for Divine Determinism is Romans 9. Especially verse 13, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated," is a pet verse for those who favor Divine Determinism. Across the last 500 years that verse has particularly been cited as an example of predestination: God chooses some for salvation and some for damnation. But is that what Paul was teaching in this passage? Was he saying God sent Jacob to heaven and Esau to hell? I spend the entire podcast unpacking the context, reasoning, and argument of the apostle Paul. He says several "insider baseball" remarks that make little sense to we twenty-first century westerners. Instead, Paul is going down a path that is rather foreign to us. Come join me as we plow through this significant chapter in Romans!
Significant to a notion of Divine Determinism is the Exodus. In chapters 7-12 we watch an ongoing interaction between Egypt's Pharaoh and Yahweh (via Moses and Aaron). What does that running exchange reveal to us? What does it reveal to us about freedom from slavery? About freedom of religious expression? About human agency? About how God deals with we, His creations? This is important because the pattern of Exodus is repeated elsewhere through the Bible, not least of which in the book of Romans. And then, because the Lordship of Christ does not stop at the boundary of culture, I examine and explain simulacra. We are surrounded, bombarded even, with simulacra. And that's more true in an election year than ever! Are reality tv shows real? Are piped-in video sermons authentic? Come think and laugh with me!
The Reformed's Westminster Shorter Catechism, point #1, "What is the chief end of man? The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." That's a solid claim! I don't disagree, except it doesn't explain a deeper-still question, why did God create? What motivated Him? Was there a need in God to be glorified? Did God have a lack He needed to fill? Or does God express Himself through a kind of prodigal (wasteful, overspilling) love? I work through the traditional Protestant emphasis on the motivation of God and then suggest a better, more biblical, more Jesus-y answer. And then, because the majestic Lordship of Christ does not stop at the boundary of culture, I explain why I have been having numerous and regular dystopian nightmares where I awake in a fit of terror as demons lead me off into captivity. Come laugh and think with me!
God created the universe, and planet earth, with an inherent quality of free-play. Free-play is where energies, gravity, animals, weather and more all have their ability to move and be and impact reality. Given that, is life a matter of chance? Still more, is life a matter of unruly randomness? Both the Reformed and the Arminians have a high emphasis on the sovereignty of God; too often that is taken so that God is a kind of secrete puppet-master. But that doesn't jive with the existence of free-play. So how do we go about making sense of all those apparently competing elements? That's the aim of this show. I roll out a high view of God's sovereignty in light of the existence of free-play, chance, and even randomness. Let's laugh together as we think about complex matters!
The Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity rather necessitates their doctrine of Common Grace, or better, common graces. When I was in seminary I realized that most other Christians talked about life in terms of grace, whereas my tradition spoke about life in terms of God's Spirit. What are the benefits of each? What are important biblical frames for each? Against what was the Reformed doctrine of Grace reacting in the 16th century? Me? Because I reject the premises of Reformed theology I have other theological avenues by which to process life. Life is so magical! So personal! Why? Because of the omnipresence of God's Holy Spirit. But in the episode's opening I variously discuss: praying for the wounded, the care of my teeth (and a couple recent dental visits), rubbing respectable Christians the wrong way, Christianity and politics, and the amazing experience of watching philosphy books take incarnate form and springing to life. Come laugh and think with me!
The P of TULIP is Perseverance of the Saints. And so the question rises, "can you lose your salvation?" Just asking that question will get you kicked out of many in-home bible studies! Nevertheless, the Reformed and the Arminian Protestants answer this in ways that we note and unpack. And then me? The UU? Who takes Trinity (and so personhood, and agency, and mission, and love) as my theological foundation, what do I say? What bible verses inform my thinking? What theological commitments inform my thinking? At the show's opening I make a couple cultural reflections (because the Lordship of Christ does not stop at the boundary of cuulture) on judging evil vs. doing evil. Which of those two is worse? I also a question provocative for contemporary Christianity, was Jesus tame? Come think and laugh with me!
Is the grace of God resistible? Can the Holy Spirit's efforts be frustrated? When does the new birth (regeneration, justification) happen in time? In their historical context, why do Protestants, both Reformed and Arminians, so resist having works be involved in salvation? Those questions are all plowed-through in this eighth episode in this series. Once having set up the R'n'A dispute, and their respective answers (and mutual critiques), I offer other categories for framing salvation and grace and works. Do I believe works are saving? No, of course not. Do I think that rules works out of our missional calling? That is another question entirely. Then, because the Lordship of Christ does not halt at the boundary of culture, I variously discuss the Declaration of Independence and the way it grounds our human rights, the chaotic state of higher education, "normophobia", and how it is that today's religious impulse is manifesting itself. Come laugh and think with me for such a time as this!
Probably like me you hear it all the time, "everything happens for a reason." More than likely? Those who say that do not realize they are espousing Reformed theology, or drawing on Reformed sensibilities. But really, does the Bible teach that everything happens for a reason? And if so, doesn't that make God the author of evil, and so make him a moral monster? My essential problem with Reformed and Arminian theological framing is that they are not God-enough, not Trinitarian enough, not biblical enough. How so? Then, because the Lordship of Jesus does not stop at the boundary of culture I examine why American culture loves war so much. How do our international brothers and sisters perceive us in light of that love of war? What drives our nearly century-old love of war? This is difficult but important to think through.
The New Testament, from the Gospels to Revelation, proclaim Jesus to be the "lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." But how do the Reformed and the Arminians process the effective nature of Jesus' atoning death? I explore the logic of each divergent camp's theology. What does John Piper teach? What did John Calvin teach? What interesting thing do the Arminians teach about Christ's atonement and infants? Also, because the Lordship of Christ does not stop at the boundary of culture, I unpack still more about what is going on between men and women. There are measurable demographic studies that show important trends at work both in the United States and in Europe. Come laugh and think with me!
The Reformed and Arminians agree that God predestined the elect, but they don't agree together who the elect are. They also don't agree on what God decreed about the reprobate (unbelievers). Frankly, they don't agree on several important things: God's power and whether He can (or does) limit himself; the levels of mystery at work in life; or the theological emphases that should guide the Christian perception of life. In this fifth episode I address, compare, and contrast all of those most consequential elements. And because the Lordship of Christ does not stop at the boundary of culture, a two-fold cultural reflection comprises the show's first segment: what is happening at my alma mater, Fuller Theological Seminary? And what is our reigning culture pressing down upon women? Why are young women, particularly, so unhappy? Why is our nation's birth-rate plunging? Why—are you kidding me?!—are young men attending church at greater ratios than young women?
Predestination: it's a big topic of controversy. The Reformed and Arminians each emphasize predestination in varied ways. Why did God predestine? Whom did God predestine? I also explore the very common sentiment, "but, I only want to believe what the Bible says!" That sentiment has historic (and, gulp!, philosophic) roots that those who assert it do not realize. Still more, that "bible and me" sentiment only makes for worse problems. Then, in the cultural-reflection, I remark on the character of the recent Trump conviction. What does history clarify about such trials? What would it feel like if Joe Biden were tried in bright-red Rexburg, Eastern Idaho? But maybe most important of all? I unpack why the Trump conviction matters to the Church. Come think and laugh with me.
The Reformed and Arminians (R'n'A) seldom agree. But they do agree on the doctrine of total depravity. In this episode I work through what that means, respectively, to the R'n'A. What did Sproul say about it? What did Wesley assert? Then I ask questions about what it means to be human: a) do we still, after the fall, exist as the image of God? b) does the doctrine of salvation eliminate or build on the doctrine of creation? c) where do I (do I?) agree with the doctrine of total depravity? In the cultural reflection I work through still more of how SCOTUS has, across 60+ years, enforced their rulings in favor of compulsory feminism. What was it like, for me, to take compulsory sexual-training HR sessions? Who is against equality of the sexes? Not me! But unlike Lord Zeitgeist, I am not in favor of treating both male and female as non-existent and accidental qualities.
"God seeks glory." That is critical and foundational to both a Reformed and an Arminian theological perspective. But the two camps diverge on how it is, principally, that God seeks glory. And it finally comes down to a matter of premises. It's sort of like when you go hiking: you get to the trail head and you have a choice between different trails. And even though each trail will involve walking in your boots, elevation changes, scenic views of creeks and ponds and lakes, the destination varies. The Reformed and Arminian each set up their tents every night in a camp named "Salvation and Glory!" but they get there by different trails. Still more? I ask, do they each start hiking where the Bible does? That's a scary, but foundational, question. This show's cultural reflection delves still further into how our legal system (but not the marketplace of ideas) has ram-rodded a kind of compulsory feminism down our throats. No wonder we are seeing the dissolution of male and female across the land.
Let's compare the Reformed with the Arminians (no, not Armenians!). What are their emphases? Where, at surface level, do they disagree? Who are the famous leaders on each side? I'm betting that my listeners will be surprised to learn that the Arminians started out in the Reformed branch of the Church. One way (not the only way, as this series will make clear) to distinguish them is to posit the differences between monergism and synergism. This episode's first half continues a reflection equality of the sexes, and how that has morphed into compulsory feminism, and how that is eating (from the inside out) male, female, the hetero-family, and babies. University elites have foisted upon us categories and commitments through the court system; and that all happened outside of the marketplace of ideas. So this terminal absurdity we are all enduring is both strategic and intentional.
While he was a young man Jürgen Moltmann was conscripted into the Germany Air Force. After an Allied bombing of his city Moltmann then spent 3 years in a Scottish prison. While there he encountered the Gospel. But his own dramatic experience became foundational seedbed for his own theological career. What did that mean for his theology? What did that mean for his teachings about God's Spirit? In this episode I explore all of that, celebrate what I appreciate about Moltmann's scholarship, and describe what and why I reject some of his theological formulation. Along the way I also re-vist how American Church leaders were manipulated by the Federal Government when Covid 19 was hitting the planet. What did those Church leaders do that is grotesque? Why did they do what they did? What can we learn about the power of narratives? What does this all reveal about the power of power among the powerful?! Come laugh and think with me!
