Why I'm Tapping the Brakes on Molinism--and Potentially Changing Lanes

 Regular readers of my blog (I think there are two of you, so I’ll use the plural) will remember that in the past, I have voiced support for the theological system of Molinism (if you missed that post, you can read it here). I’ve even encouraged you to check it out further, and perhaps you have. Recently, I have been reassessing Molinism in my continuing studies, particularly in light of a philosophical framework known as Thomism, named for the 13^th-century theologian Thomas Aquinas. Allow me to relate a bit of personal history regarding my studies to introduce you to my current concerns about Molinism.

 Why I’ve appreciated Molinism

From my generally Calvinistic upbringing, I’ve always had a non-negotiable commitment to the sovereignty of God. God is in charge, and He is unfailingly causing His plan for this world to come to pass. Yet like all but the most rabid of Calvinists, I’ve struggled to reconcile this belief with man’s responsibility to accept the Gospel to be saved.

 Enter Molinism with its proposal of a solution to this quandary. I became a student of Molinism through my studies in apologetics at Biola University, an institution where evangelical Molinist philosopher William Lane Craig casts a considerably long shadow. My deepest appreciation for Molinism actually came through the application that Kenneth Keathley made of its concepts to the questions debated by Calvinists and Arminians. His book Salvation and Sovereignty remains a favorite of mine among studies of the doctrine of salvation.

Why I’m reassessing Molinism

In my continuing studies, I’ve felt that a stronger grasp of philosophy has been the missing piece in my overall education. To fill this gap and to continue to push myself to learn, I enrolled in the Doctor of Ministry program at Southern Evangelical Seminary in 2020. I was very intrigued by the seminary’s integration of Dispensational theology, Classical philosophy, and Classical apologetics—all inspired by the work of the seminary’s founder, Norman Geisler.

 In his voluminous works, Geisler championed an evangelical version of the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, particularly with respect to Aquinas’ teachings on the three Classical branches of philosophy—metaphysics (the study of being), epistemology (the study of how we know), and ethics (the study of how we ought to live in light of what we know of being). Being an evangelical, Geisler obviously disagreed with Aquinas’ broader theology but nevertheless felt that his views on Theology Proper and questions of being and knowing have much to offer evangelicals, since Aquinas’ views were arguably just a summation of Christian teaching on those matters up until his time.

I am very intrigued by the philosophical tools and ideas of Thomism because of what they claim to provide. Thomists claim that their system can provide at least the following three benefits, all of which are very desirable in my opinion:

             1. A philosophical framework to undergird the traditional view of God’s attributes

            In various ways, attributes such as God’s omniscience, timelessness, immutability, and others have been modified or outright denied by theologians in recent decades. The result is a portrayal of God that is quite different from the historic Christian tradition. Thomism provides an understanding of metaphysics that serves as a solid foundation on which to build a theological and biblical case for the traditional understanding of God’s being—provided that Thomism’s central claims are true, and I increasingly think that they are.

            2. A philosophy to support the claim that we really do have direct access to reality

            Philosophy since the time of Rene Descartes has spawned no end of nonsense. With what has been called “the epistemic turn,” philosophy has been chasing its tail, seeking to answer the question, “How can we know that we know?” The basic answer has been that we really can’t know anything for sure except our own thoughts; thus we really have no guarantee that those thoughts correspond to the way the world really is. But Thomism boldly asserts that we really do have direct access to reality. Its approach—known as moderate realism—begins with the assertion that we possess knowledge because it’s simply undeniable that we do! Thomism keeps philosophical study in the proper order—examine reality first (metaphysics), then assess how we have come to know it in order to discover how we might know other things (epistemology).

             3. It defends the claim that we can have an objective interpretation of the Bible

            Vast swaths of Christianity today are plagued by subjectivity. The subjective question “What do these verses mean to you?” has supplanted the objective question “What do these verses mean?” Though very few would know it, this situation is a direct consequence of the epistemic turn in philosophy. Thomism, through its claim about reality mentioned above, truly does seem to deliver the philosophical goods that are necessary to make people confident once again that objectivity in biblical interpretation really is possible.

Molinism in light of Thomism

But here’s the rub for my theology—Molinism and Thomism really do seem to have a conflict at a few points. Though these points are admittedly among the finest of the finer points of theology, if a person is going to speak on such points, then he must strive for truth in any statement that he speaks and for consistency with all other statements that he may speak. In that light, I want my theology to be accurate and consistent, so I’m reassessing Molinism right now on the following points:

             1. The doctrine of divine simplicity

            The doctrine of divine simplicity is central to Thomism. In fact, in Aquinas’ magnum opus, the Summa Theologiae, divine simplicity is the first attribute that Thomas seeks to prove after proving the existence of God. Contemporary Reformed Baptist theologian James Dolezal has described this doctrine about as succinctly (and clearly!) as anyone can:

The principal claim of divine simplicity is that God is not composed of parts. Whatever is composed of parts depends upon its parts in order to be as it is. A part is anything in a subject that is less than the whole and without which the subject would be really different than it is. In short, composite beings need their parts in order to exist as they do. Moreover, the parts in an integrated whole require a composer distinct from themselves to unify them, an extrinsic source of unity. If God should be composed of parts—of components that were prior to Him in being—He would be doubly dependent: first, on the parts, and second, on the composer of the parts. But God is absolute in being, alone the sufficient reason for Himself and all other things, and so cannot in any respect derive His being from another. Because God cannot depend on what is not God in order to be God, theologians traditionally insist that all that is in God is God (James E. Dolezal, All That Is in God, 40-41).

            To understand this a bit more clearly, think of what we mean when we ascribe goodness to a person. When you say “George is good,” if you really think about it, you can see that you’re really talking about two different things: George, on the one hand, and goodness on the other. You know this because you know that George could possibly be evil rather than good. Since George and goodness can exist separately like this, you know that you’re talking about two different things.

            But we encounter something different when we say “God is good.” In this case, we’re really not talking about two different things, as if God could possibly be evil rather than good. In the case of God, what we’re really saying is that God just is goodness. Goodness isn’t a quality that is in addition to what God is; goodness just is what He is. And when you ponder it further, we would say the same thing about God’s other attributes—they just are what God is, leading us to conclude that these attributes are not separate “parts” within God’s being. That is the meaning of Dolezal’s last statement that “all that is in God is God.”

            The more I understand it, the more I wish to affirm God’s simplicity, yet Molinism seems to run afoul of this doctrine. In positing three logical moments or stages within God’s knowledge—one stage of which does not result until after an act of God’s will—Molinism seems to create too sharp of a division between God’s knowledge and His will. It seems to treat these attributes as though one can be active without the other. In the light of divine simplicity, it seems better to say, as Geisler does in his book Chosen But Free, that God’s knowing and willing are simultaneous, eternal, and coordinate acts of God (see pp. 52-53 of the second edition).

             2. The notion of passive potency in God

            Thomism relies on the metaphysical insights of the Greek philosopher Aristotle. In fact, Thomas was the first theologian of any consequence who was able to “compare notes” with Aristotle after the latter’s works were rediscovered in the Middle Ages. Thomas, like Aristotle before him, argued that all of existence can be summed up in two categories—act and potency, or in other words, that which actually is existing and that which potentially could exist. God, says Thomas, is pure act—every facet of His being has always actually existed; no facet of God was ever made to exist, or in other words, caused to move from being merely potential to be actual. Something that is made actual by another is said to have “passive potency.”

            With its postulate of three logical moments in God’s knowledge, Molinism seems to say that God has passive potency. This observation seems especially true of God’s middle knowledge, which is said to be caused by the future free choices of God’s creatures. Should this be equated with passive potency? Craig apparently wants to avoid such a notion by arguing for a conceptualist model of divine knowledge, which he explains as follows:

On a conceptualist model of divine knowledge, God does not acquire his knowledge of the world by anything like perception. His knowledge of the future is not based on his “looking” ahead and “seeing” what lies in the future (a terribly anthropomorphic notion in any case). Rather, God’s knowledge is self-contained; it is more like a mind’s knowledge of innate ideas. As an omniscient being, God has essentially the property of knowing all truths; there are truths about future events; thus, God knows all truths concerning future events (Craig, “The Middle-Knowledge View,” in Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, eds. Bielby and Eddy, p. 133).

            That explanation seems like it could avoid the charge of ascribing passive potency to God, yet in other works such as his podcasts, Craig is very comfortable saying that for any choice I make, God’s knowledge would have been different if I had in fact made a different choice. That admission sure smells like passive potency, making it problematic from a Thomistic point of view.

             3. The grounding objection

            I should say just a brief word about the grounding objection, since many of Molinism’s opponents consider it to be the fatal flaw in the system. Simply put, the grounding objection deals with the question, “What makes statements about the future true or false?” I had heard about the grounding objection before and had more or less rested in the reassurances of Molinists that it wasn’t really a problem. Having examined it a bit more at this point, I must say that it appears to be more of a problem than I acknowledged before. In particular, Molinism would perhaps put pressure on us to abandon the correspondence theory of truth (meaning that statements are true if they correspond to the way things really are), which would simply be a bridge too far for me.

            It is also worth noting that Thomas argued by means of God’s eternality that He does know the truth about statements concerning what is still future to us because they are not future to Him (see Summa Contra Gentiles, Book One, Chapter 67). So Thomism certainly does have a way of explaining how God can know the truth about the future.

Contemplating a Change

Well, if you’ve made it with me this far, I don’t know whether to congratulate you or encourage you to find a hobby to better fill your time! Really though, if you’ve made it this far, I suspect you’re like me and you find value in thinking deeply about theology. Now that we’ve thought deeply about it, I’ll reiterate that I’m considering an embrace of Thomism. To be candid, some of these ideas from Thomism have only become clear to me in the last 15 weeks, so I still need some time to ponder it all. But having read this, I suspect that you won’t be caught off guard if you see me changing lanes.

Why I Accept Aspects of Free Grace Theology

Well, there—I said it! And it’s true: I accept some aspects of Free Grace theology. Now before you Google “Free Grace theology” and assume that I affirm everything you read about it, please take the time to read this post and allow me to explain my views.

 Now, why am I writing this post as if it’s some big revelation? Well, because in the circles that I minister in, it potentially is a big revelation. Free Grace theology was a point of some debate at my alma mater, Calvary University, and it has been the subject of heated debate at times within my pastoral fellowship, IFCA International. That means that I have dear friends who will disagree with me on this subject—and who may not yet know the positions that I take.

 To give you some sense of the greater landscape here, the aspects of Free Grace theology that I affirm put me at odds on some issues with a wide swath of very popular Bible teachers—people whom I generally respect greatly, such as John MacArthur, John Piper, J. I. Packer, R. C. Sproul, and basically everyone associated with The Gospel Coalition and the Together for the Gospel Conference. If you’re familiar with some theology and the evangelical landscape, you’ll notice the main thing that the aforementioned teachers universally embrace—Calvinism, either a moderate or strong form of it. As I’ll note later, the root of my disagreement with these men grows from one of the underpinnings of strong Calvinism—namely, a determinist view of God’s sovereignty.

 Let me sum up the essence of what I want to say before I touch on some details: I hold to a moderately Calvinistic view of justification (becoming born again), but I hold to a Free Grace view of sanctification (growing as a Christian)—particularly on the question of how to find assurance of salvation. Lest anyone think I’m theologically bipolar, the rest of this post will explain what I deny and what I affirm with respect to Free Grace theology and how I think this marriage between moderate Calvinism and Free Grace theology is logically necessary for anyone who does not wish to embrace a determinist view of God’s sovereignty.

 One more summary statement before I turn to details. This statement will be helpful for anyone who is familiar with the teachers who are on the moderate Calvinist—Free Grace spectrum: I find myself having substantial disagreements with Zane Hodges and Robert Wilkin, but I find myself in substantial agreement with Charles Ryrie (So Great Salvation), Paul Benware (The Believer’s Payday), Norman Geisler (Chosen But Free; Systematic Theology) and Joseph Dillow (The Reign of the Servant Kings). I’m certain those men would have some disagreements with each other, but collectively their works have shaped my thinking considerably.

 And now, on to the details.

 What I Deny with Respect to Free Grace Theology

 I deny that repentance can be separated from saving faith.

The relationship between repentance and saving faith is a hot-button issue in Free Grace circles, with some Free Grace teachers viewing repentance as something of a Trojan horse that has been used to smuggle works into the Gospel. For my part, I believe repentance IS necessary for a person to be born again. I define repentance as a change of mind about one’s sinfulness and the person and work of Christ. It is simply the recognition and acknowledgement of one’s terrible predicament due to sin, which then serves as a preparation leading to faith in Christ. And yes, I’m comfortable saying that this change of mind will affect how one behaves and lives—though a little later I will criticize the idea that measuring spiritual fruit is a biblically commanded, sure-fire means of proving whether or not a person has truly repented.

 To clarify what some Free Grace teachers have said with respect to repentance, consider this statement from the Grace Evangelical Society (taken from their website at https://faithalone.org/beliefs/): “No act of obedience, preceding or following faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, such as commitment to obey, sorrow for sin, turning from one’s sin, baptism or submission to the Lordship of Christ, may be added to, or considered part of, faith as a condition for receiving everlasting life.” This statement includes baptism, which I’ll just exclude for the sake of this discussion because I think it’s a different issue.

 Excluding baptism, I’m not sure why any of the attitudes mentioned in that statement have to be construed as a work that would earn us merit in the sight of God. I think those attitudes simply arise naturally as one realizes his sinfulness and his danger of going to Hell and then realizes the true nature of the One who died for His sins and offers him forgiveness. I’m not even sure why someone would trust in Christ if he acknowledged his sins but felt no sorrow over them! Even submitting to the lordship of Christ should flow naturally from the recognition that I have been rebelling against my Creator but He now shows me incomprehensible grace and mercy for the sake of Christ.

 As I said before, I think a problem does arise when it is assumed—on the basis of a determinist view of God’s sovereignty—that repentance will unfailingly lead to a consistently observable degree of spiritual maturity in the life of a believer. But more on that later…

 I deny that The Gospel of John is the only book that should be used to establish the Gospel message.

Some Free Grace proponents have argued this point based on the explicitly evangelistic purpose of The Gospel of John. Because of this purpose, they have said, The Gospel of John surely contains all the essential elements of the message that one must know in order to be saved. Furthermore, it is argued, since the word “repentance” is not used in The Gospel of John, then repentance must not be necessary for a person to be saved.

 I won’t belabor this point so that I can get on to some other issues, but I will say that surely the concept of repentance is found in John’s Gospel even if he doesn’t use that specific word. And why can’t we look to Peter’s evangelistic message in Acts 2 to help us define the Gospel? Why must we exclude Paul’s evangelistic message at the Areopagus in Acts 17? If such passages are equally inspired, it seems arbitrary to say that they should be excluded from our efforts to define the content of the Gospel.

 I deny the “Cross-less Gospel.”

The so-called “Cross-less Gospel” arose from a thought experiment offered by Zane Hodges in an issue of the Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society. In it, he envisioned a man on an island who knew nothing about Christianity. This man noticed a piece of paper wash ashore on which he could read these words from John 6:43-47—“Jesus answered and said to them…Most assuredly I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.” Hodges argued that this man could become born again despite knowing nothing more about the “Jesus” who was mentioned on the paper—even knowing nothing about Christ’s death on the cross. Hence the name, “the cross-less Gospel.”

 On the basis of 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, I have to disagree with Hodges’ conclusion. In light of Paul’s summary of the Gospel message, the man-on-the-island’s knowledge was simply inadequate. He knew nothing about his sinfulness, nothing about Jesus’ status as the Christ and what that means, nothing about the resurrection of Christ. I think Hodges makes a valid point that it can be hard to avoid arbitrariness in announcing what a person must know in order to be saved, but from 1 Cor 15:1-4, I think a knowledge about sin, Christ’s death, and the resurrection can hardly be called arbitrary.

 What I Affirm with Respect to Free Grace Theology

 I affirm that genuine believers can become fruitless and lead lives that produce little that is of eternal value.

This claim is perhaps the hallmark of Free Grace theology, and I affirm it on the basis of passages such as John 15:1-8, 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, and 2 Peter 1:5-11. Notice that I said “become fruitless” because I believe that all Christians manifest some spiritual fruit upon being born again. If we look at the fruits listed in Galatians 5:22-23, I would say that every believer manifests at least joy and peace upon conversion. Indeed, it seems typical for new converts to manifest spiritual fruit for a time, but as the Lord warned in John 15:1-8, if we do not remain closely connected to Him (abide), then we can become fruitless, for apart from Him we can do nothing of any spiritual value.

 Let me briefly comment on 2 Peter 1:5-11 since it includes a verse that Calvinists often use to encourage people to search for assurance of salvation by examining their lives for spiritual fruit. This text states:

 5 For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. 10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. 11 For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (ESV).

 To cut to the chase for the sake of this post, notice that in v. 9, Peter affirms that a person who “was cleansed from his former sins” can, in fact, lack the qualities that he outlined in vv. 5-7—the very qualities that will keep a person from being ineffective or unfruitful according to v. 8. Peter is clearly talking about a saved person in v. 9, so I can only conclude that a saved person might very well lack the qualities of vv. 5-7 and thus become unfruitful for Christ according to v. 8.

 It is very significant that the context includes v. 10, a verse that strong Calvinists interpret as a command for believers to seek assurance of salvation. Strong Calvinists argue furthermore that such a search is to be made by examining one’s life for consistent patterns of and appropriate levels of spiritual fruit. But is this likely to be how Peter would encourage a person to seek assurance of salvation, given what he just wrote in vv. 5-9? He just affirmed that a person who was cleansed from his former sins might lack the qualities that allow him to produce spiritual fruit! If we take that affirmation seriously, it seems that such an examination of one’s life could yield a “false negative”—that is, that a saved person could conclude he is unsaved because he does not see (or at least thinks he does not see) the requisite amount of spiritual fruit in his life (whatever the “requisite” amount is said to be). This observation leads me to my next point regarding the assurance of salvation.

 I affirm that complete assurance of salvation is possible and is to be found through trust in God’s promises in Scripture.

When it comes to assurance of salvation, what Calvinism gives with one hand, it takes away with the other. This reality has often been the punch line of jokes among theology nerds—that Calvinists are sure they can’t lose their salvation but can’t be sure they ever had it in the first place! But this humor brings an unsettling thought to the surface—why does Calvinism find assurance of salvation to be such a difficult hurdle to clear? Does this struggle point to a flaw within the system? I believe it does, and as I’ll explain in a moment, the fault lies in the deterministic engine that drives the Calvinist understanding of the perseverance of the saints.

 If becoming born again truly is a free gift, and there is nothing more that I must do to receive it than to repent and trust in the Lord Jesus, then I should be able to know with complete assurance that I am saved. True, a deeper understanding of the Gospel will be extremely beneficial whenever doubts arise, but this deeper understanding can be achieved by looking again at precisely what Jesus has accomplished for me and at what God has promised to me on the basis of Christ’s work. Examining my life for spiritual fruit is necessary for other reasons, but not for establishing the assurance of my salvation. I contend that assurance and spiritual fruit could only be so inextricably joined together if determinism is true, so let me now turn to that subject.

 Why I Affirm What I Do

I reject the determinism that underlies strong Calvinism.

Determinism is the view that God establishes all things in such a way that they could not be different than what they are. Applied to human choices, it means that for any given choice you made yesterday, for example, you could not have chosen to do differently than what you actually did. To be sure, determinists affirm that humans make choices for which they are responsible, but they argue that this is simply a point at which our understanding of God’s ways fades into mystery. That’s fair enough, because even if one takes a different view of God’s sovereignty, we all have to acknowledge a point at which our understanding can go no further.

 My concern is that determinism just seems thoroughly unscriptural. For example, 1 Corinthians 10:13 states that God “will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.” According to this verse, anytime a believer gives in to temptation, he could have chosen differently than he actually did. Moreover, determinism would mean that commands in the Bible do not present actual alternative courses of action that a person could take. In a moment of decision, a person’s choice would have already been made for him, and it could not be otherwise. Moreover, I don’t know how determinists hope to offer a plausible explanation of Christ’s lament over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37--"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” What sense can we make out of this if we have to say that God had determined that they would be unwilling and they could not have possibly been otherwise!?

 Now, what does this have to do with Calvinism and assurance of salvation? The Calvinist’s logic, based as it is on determinism, goes as follows: if God will unfailingly bring the elect to be born again, then He will also unfailingly bring them to spiritual maturity. The implication is clear—if you do not grow to spiritual maturity (given enough time, and as evidenced by sufficient spiritual fruit) then you are not saved.

 But if determinism is false, there does not seem to be a certain degree of spiritual maturity that every believer will unfailingly achieve. That point seems abundantly clear from 1 Corinthians 3:15—there will be believers whose life work will be spiritually worthless, and “he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” If your theological system can’t account for the reality of such believers, then I think there’s just something out of whack with your theological system. For this reason, I think Free Grace theology is superior to Calvinism on these questions of sanctification and assurance of salvation.

Are you dissatisfied with both Calvinism and Arminianism? There's another option you should consider...

            For roughly the last 400 years, Protestants seeking a systematic understanding of the doctrine of salvation have basically had their pick of two options—Calvinism and Arminianism. This dilemma has often been unsatisfactory to all but the most dyed-in-the-wool adherents of each system because no matter which system you chose, you would eventually run across passages of Scripture that your system didn’t explain very well. Despite that fact, we’ve felt like we’ve basically just had to pick one or the other and live with its flaws because there didn’t seem to be any other options.

            Could it be that we’ve been caught on the horns of a false dilemma? Is there actually another option to consider—one that can capture the stronger points of Calvinism and Arminianism in a biblically accurate, logically coherent way? I have come to believe that there is, and it is a system known as Molinism.

            Molinism takes its name from the 15th-century Jesuit priest, Luis de Molina. Yes, that’s right—the way through this Protestant impasse may be to rediscover the thinking of a Jesuit priest! The Protestant version of Molinism—to no one’s surprise!—does not embrace every detail of Molina’s theology. It is built upon his unique contribution to the concept of God’s omniscience—namely, the doctrine of middle knowledge. This doctrine asserts that before God ever chose to create this world, He already possessed an accurate and certain knowledge of every decision that every free creature would make in any given circumstance. Molina further asserted that God possessed this knowledge NOT through any process of learning, but simply on the basis of His complete knowledge of His own imagination. Since we are products of God’s imagination, He could know us completely without having to “wait and see” what we would choose, so to speak.

            As you can see, the doctrine of middle knowledge is built upon a prior commitment to the idea that humans possess libertarian human freedom—or in other words, the power of contrary choice. These phrases simply mean that for any choice you make, you could have made a different choice than you actually made. For example, when you made the choice to wear the shirt that you’re wearing today, you could have actually chosen the other shirt that you were also considering. Libertarian human freedom stands at odds with theological determinism (or compatibilism), which asserts that God has ordered all things in such a way that for any choice you make, you could not have made a different choice than you actually made. Theological determinism is the position of logically-consistent Calvinists. I say “logically-consistent” because your average Calvinist in the pulpit or the pew is very inconsistent in his philosophical beliefs. He appreciates Calvinist perspectives on ideas like eternal security and election (as do I), but he would shy away from the full implications of Calvinism’s denial of libertarian human freedom. Yet he does this without realizing he is straining the bonds of logic.

            But let’s get back to Molinism! While Molinism embraces libertarian human freedom, it does not sacrifice a strong view of God’s sovereignty. It affirms that God is in control over all things—even the free choices of humans! This union explains why I’ve come to think Molinism has such promise—it logically and biblically unites libertarian human freedom with a strong view of God’s sovereignty. According to philosopher William Hasker, “If you are committed to a strong view of providence, according to which, down to the smallest detail, things are as they are because God knowingly decided to create such a world, and yet you also wish to maintain a libertarian conception of free will—if this is what you want, then Molinism is the only game in town.” This is precisely what many Christians want after carefully reading the Bible. It seems obvious that God is in control of all things AND that humans make real choices which they could have decided differently. Molinism helps us understand logically the conclusions that so many people have reached biblically.

            Since you might now begin to Google “Molinism,” let me just say that I don’t agree with everything that is promoted under this banner. If you are interested in studying Molinism further, I would recommend Kenneth Keathley’s book Salvation and Sovereignty as a great starting point. If you have mostly understood what I’ve written in this blog post, then you will be able to track with Keathley’s book. Plus, his book is a book, so he goes into more detail to explain ideas than I have in just this one blog post. I may write some additional posts on this topic, but if this post has already piqued your curiosity, you would do well to read Keathley’s book.

The Necessity of Highlighting Doctrinal Error

Recently I posted on my Facebook page about disagreements and concerns that I have with Bill Johnson and the ministries of his congregation—Bethel Church in Redding, CA. To some, highlighting such disagreements and announcing them publicly may seem unnecessary and unhelpful—even unloving and unbecoming of a pastor. Why highlight such differences, especially about doctrine—a subject that doesn’t always seem very relevant to begin with? Why not highlight and emphasize the things you have in common?

I do very much enjoy celebrating what I have in common with other believers. My interest in apologetics (defending Christian faith against attacks, which usually come from non-Christians) leads me to feel a kinship with anyone who affirms the distinctive and essential beliefs of Christianity, such as those expressed in the Nicene Creed. Those who are familiar with my preaching know that while I don’t shy away from pointing out teachings that I disagree with, it is rare for me to highlight people by name. When I do so, it is not a task that I enjoy.

So why do it at all? Honestly, part of my answer comes from my passion to defend Christian faith! According to Scripture, false doctrinal teachings have the potential to harm the faith of believers. In 2 Timothy 2:16-18, the Apostle Paul highlights (by name no less!) two men who were teaching that the resurrection had already occurred. The result of their teaching was that the faith of some believers was being “upset” (other translations read “ruined,” “overthrown,” “undermined,” or “destroyed.”) That is very serious business, indeed!

It is not hard to see how this can happen. False teaching can create unfounded expectations, and when those expectations are not met, devastating doubts can arise. For example, if you are told that it is always God’s will for sick people to be healed but then you do not experience a healing when you are ill, you could be understandably tempted to abandon your faith. After all, it didn’t seem to come through for you when you desperately needed it.

But, you may ask, is doctrine really the sort of thing over which to disagree and divide? So many doctrines can seem rather irrelevant to daily life. Aren’t they just high and lofty concepts for people in academia to discuss? Do they really make a difference for the life of the average Christian?

This objection is an important one, and it really highlights a flaw in the way that much teaching about doctrine is presented—it is often discussed on a level that does leave it seeming rather irrelevant! This supposed irrelevance does not really belong to doctrine, however—it belongs to the way that doctrine is often taught.

At its heart, doctrine simply seeks to present the Bible’s teaching on some straightforward yet highly significant questions, such as:

·         Is there really a God, and if so, what is He like?

·         How can I relate to God? Is there anything standing in the way of a relationship with Him?

·         What does God want me to do and what sort of help does He provide so I can do it?

·         What does God have planned for me and for the world? Can I know anything about what’s next so that I can get prepared for it?

As I have expressed it in these words above, I imagine it is easier to see just how relevant and important doctrine really is! The problem is that, as with any topic that is discussed for a long time by a lot of people, a certain amount of technical language has grown up around doctrine that makes it seem confusing, hard to understand, and thus irrelevant to daily life since we feel like we get along okay without understanding it. The great challenge for those of us who teach doctrine is to understand it thoroughly ourselves so that we can present it in simple, non-technical language.

Looking again at the questions written above, perhaps you can see some examples for yourself of just how important it is to embrace true beliefs about doctrine rather than false ones. What if you concluded that there is nothing at all holding you back from a relationship with God if that is in fact false? You could miss out on a relationship with God because you’ve ignored an obstacle that truly is there! Or what if you get it wrong about the help that God provides to help you obey? You could experience immense frustration in life because you didn’t recognize some resource that was available to you!

It is with such concerns in mind that I do feel a necessity to highlight doctrinal error when it is serious and when it seems to enjoy some popularity. Even if I must do so, may God grant me a heart to do it in love, humility, and grace!

The Trinity--Definite Convictions Series

            There are many things in life that we don’t totally understand and can’t totally explain, but we know they’re very important—things like:

·         What your health insurance covers

·         How your retirement plan works

            For most Christians, the doctrine of the Trinity falls into a category like this. We barely have the foggiest idea of how to explain it, but we know it’s very important, and we know we’re supposed to believe it, so we do. Today, I hope I can take a bit of the mystery out of this doctrine for you as we look at the second section of our statement of faith, which says this:

We believe in the eternal Triune God; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each Person being equal, yet there not being three gods, but One. (Gen 1:26a; John 10:30; John 1:1,2; John 14:16; Deut 6:4; John 15:26; 2 Cor 13:14; Acts 5:3,4)

            Before we look at a couple of the specific words of this statement, let’s make sure we have a basic idea of what we’re actually claiming when we say that God is a Trinity. One of the best ways to clarify this claim is by comparison. For example, consider me—I am one being with one mind. I am not two beings or three beings—there is only one of me (even when I wish I could be in two places at one time!). Also, there is only one thinking part to me, not multiple thinking parts.

            In contrast to this, when we say God is a Trinity, we’re saying that God is one being with three minds. God is only one existing thing, but within that one existing thing there are three minds—or three persons we could say, these three persons who refer to themselves as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

            As Christians, we make this claim because it’s the only way to make sense of everything that the Bible says about God. The Bible is quite clear that there is only one God—not many gods or several gods, but one God. In Deuteronomy 6:4, Moses states, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” God Himself declared this in Isaiah 44:6 and 8: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god… Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.”

            And yet the Bible also assigns the same divine powers and honor to three distinct Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of them is called “God” in different passages, and they are consistently given the same honor, yet we know they’re distinct because we also read about them communicating with each other and performing different actions at the same moment in time.

            So when we put all of this together, we come up with the doctrine of the Trinity—that God is only one being, within which there are three distinct minds. Now some people have said that this claim is just a bunch of nonsense. Muslims, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses have all said that its impossible for God to be one being with three minds because that statement is self-contradictory, they say.

            But in reality, that accusation simply is not true. A truly self-contradictory statement would be something like, “George is a married bachelor.” That’s a contradiction because a bachelor, by definition, is not married.

            But you can probably see that the claim that God is one being with three minds simply is not like that statement about George. It’s true that we can’t understand completely what God must be like, but that’s no reason to say that it’s impossible for God to be one being with three minds.

“eternal”

            Let’s take a closer look now at just a couple of the words in our statement of faith. First, our statement correctly says that the Trinity is eternal. Each of the three divine Persons has always existed. There was never a time when only the Father existed, then the Son came along later on, then the Holy Spirit after that. No—each of them has always existed.

“each Person being equal”

            Next, notice how our statement says, “each Person being equal.” There is a true equality between the three divine Persons even though they have played different roles in their interactions with Creation. For example, it wasn’t the Holy Spirit who was born into the world as Jesus, it was the Son. And it wasn’t the Father who then came to live within us, it was the Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, they all have the same traits and abilities, and they are all equally worthy of our worship.

Monday Matters

            Once again now in this series, we need to talk about how this doctrine relates to the matters that concern us in daily life. It can be very tempting for us to think that the doctrine of the Trinity has very little relevance to our daily troubles. Sure, we understand that faith in God and obedience to Christ are very important, but why does it matter if we know that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all equally divine? Let me briefly point out two ways in which this doctrine is important and relevant for us.

1. The Savior who died for me was nothing less than fully divine.

            The doctrine of the Trinity teaches us that Jesus – God the Son in human flesh – was equally divine with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. He was not on some kind of lower-level – he was fully divine, and so we don’t need to doubt if his sacrifice is truly able to save us.

            This truth is highly relevant to our daily lives. Once we come to acknowledge that we have sinned against God, all of life becomes burdensome and meaningless until we come to know that we have found forgiveness. If Jesus were on some lower level than God, then there might always be some room for us to doubt whether his sacrifice was truly enough to save us. But since he was fully divine, that fact should silence any concerns that we might have about whether his sacrifice was truly enough. The knowledge that Jesus is God is part of the knowledge that can put to rest our troubled consciences and satisfy the intense longing that we have to know we are forgiven.

2. The Holy Spirit who now lives within me is fully divine.

            The New Testament teaches this great truth that the Holy Spirit now lives within every child of God. He does so much to teach us and guide us and comfort us and reassure our hearts, and the doctrine of the Trinity reminds us that all of these things are done for us by someone who is no less than fully divine.

            And so, as we learn more about all that the Holy Spirit does for us, we don’t have to have any doubts about his ability to actually accomplish those things. Can he truly transform me from the inside out? Yes he can! Can he help me so that I no longer fulfill the sinful desires inside my heart? Yes he can! He has nothing less than divine power to transform our lives, so we can have total confidence in his abilities.

            Though the doctrine of the Trinity will always remain a bit mysterious to us, the basic claim of this doctrine is not difficult to understand, and this doctrine also gives us great confidence in the things that God has and will accomplish for us. This doctrine reminds us that God is truly unique – He is unlike any other being that we know. He truly is in a class by himself – God in three persons, the blessed Trinity!

Foundational Thoughts for Thinking About Heaven--Heaven Series

            Imagine this scenario with me: imagine that humans have developed the technology to colonize Mars. We’ve mastered space travel, we know how to create livable conditions on other planets, and now we are going to set out “where no man has gone before” to build a colony on Mars. Now imagine that you are selected to be in the first group of people who are going to live on Mars. What would you do in that situation?

            I suspect you would try to learn everything you could about Mars. After all, you’re going to be living there now. We won’t even move to a new school district without finding out everything we can about it, so if you were going to live on a new planet, I bet you would do your homework. What will it be like? What will we do there? How can I prepare for my new life there before I leave?

            Now imagine that the day arrives when you are scheduled to leave. As you get strapped in to your seat in the space shuttle, you turn to the person next to you and say, “Wow! Isn’t this exciting? I’ve been looking forward to this since the day I heard about it. I can’t wait to see this and that and do these things.” And the other person says, “Wow! You seem to know a lot about this place.” To which you respond, “Don’t you? I mean we’re on our way to live there!” And the other person says, “Not really. I didn’t really think to look into it. When I found out that I was going to live there, I said ‘Wow! That sounds great! Just come get me when its time to go, and I’ll be there.’”

            Does that seem far-fetched to you? Would anyone choose to remain ignorant about a place that they were going to live in someday? No—and yet, we have all probably done just that when it comes to Heaven. I’ll admit it—I’ve never put out much effort to learn about what Heaven will be like until now! Even in seminary, we didn’t spend much time talking about it.

            This situation is almost unfathomable when you think about it. How can it be that we’ve chosen to remain ignorant about Heaven? We have promises in the Bible that we are going to live with God someday in a place with no sin, no sickness, no sorrow, and no death! Yet how do we respond? “Shazam! That sounds great, Lord! I can’t wait! Just come get me when its time to go. I’ll be here finishing season one of ‘Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.’”

            What has happened that we have this kind of disconnect? I think some people have lacked the motivation to study the subject of Heaven because they think we can’t understand anything about it. When talking about Heaven, some people have pointed to 1 Corinthians 2:9, which says, “no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him,” and they’ve said, “Well, I guess that means we can’t know much about heaven. It sounds like it will be great, but we just can’t know much about it.” Yet look at v. 10—“these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit.” What Paul meant is that we could never have figured out God’s plan for us on our own, but God has revealed it to us in the Bible—and that includes information about Heaven, as we shall see.

            Over the next several weeks, we are going to study this inspiring subject. Today we are going to lay down some foundational thoughts that will guide the rest of our study. These thoughts will hopefully clear up some common misconceptions so that we can build our understanding of heaven on a solid foundation.

1. The Heaven where Jesus lives right now is different from the New Heaven and New Earth, where we will live for eternity.

            This point is important to understand because it means that some things may be true of the Heaven where Jesus lives today that will not be true of the New Heaven and New Earth where we will live for eternity—and vice versa. As we go through this study, I’m going to be careful to point out when I’m talking about the Heaven where Jesus lives today rather than the New Heaven and New Earth.

            It seems from Scripture that the New Heaven and New Earth will be a new universe in which we will live after God causes this universe to be destroyed. Let’s look together at a passage in 2 Peter 3 [READ 2 Peter 3:10-13]. We then find a description of the New Heaven and New Earth in Revelation 21-22. We will look at this passage in more depth next week, but notice the introduction that we find in Revelation 21:1 [READ Rev. 21:1].

            We can point out a few differences already from what Scripture tells us. For example, our loved ones who live in Heaven with Jesus today do not have their physical bodies. Only their soul is there; their bodies, as we know, are in the grave. But in the New Heaven and New Earth, everyone will once again have their physical bodies, which will have been resurrected.

            Also, it seems somewhat likely that there is a temple in the Heaven where Jesus lives today, but Revelation 21:22 says clearly that there will be no temple in the New Heaven and New Earth. Earlier in the book of Revelation, John repeatedly mentions seeing an altar in his vision of the Heaven where Jesus lives today, and Hebrews 9 may suggest that the tabernacle which God commanded Moses to build was actually a replica of a temple which exists in the Heaven where Jesus lives today.

The primary purpose of a temple is to create a space where a perfect God can connect with imperfect creatures. Our loved ones in Heaven today are still imperfect in a sense because they do not have their resurrected bodies, so if there is a temple in Heaven today, that could be part of the reason why. But in the New Heaven and New Earth, we will be perfect in body and soul, and so there would be no need for a temple—and again, Revelation 21:22 says clearly that there will not be one.

So remember this principle—there are some differences between the Heaven where Jesus lives today and the New Heaven and New Earth where we will all live for eternity.

2. The New Heaven and New Earth will be a physical place like we live in now.

            Many cartoons about Heaven picture people floating around on clouds in mid-air, but the description of the New Heaven and New Earth does not give us that picture at all. Rather, the description we read in Revelation 21-22 describes a physical place like Planet Earth. After all, it is called the New Earth, so what can that mean except that its like the old Earth, which we live on now?

            These two chapters at the end of Revelation describe a city with walls and gates made of precious metals and jewels—things that are physical substances that you can touch and hold and see and feel. They describe a street in the city with a river running down the middle of it, and along this river there are trees that produce fruit. These are all physical objects which can be felt and seen and heard and even tasted!

            I think some people have concluded that our eternal home with God will not be a physical place because they think that physical things are somehow evil, but its very important that we don’t accept that idea. I believe some Christians have gotten the wrong idea from certain biblical statements. For example, 1 John 2:15 says, “Do not love the world or the things in the world.” But John isn’t talking about the ground beneath our feet or the air in our lungs. He tells us what he means in v. 16—“for all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world.” When John says, “do not love the world,” he’s talking about the desires and values of the people in the world; he’s not telling us to beware of grass and streams and meadows.

            Or sometimes we might sing an old gospel song like, “This world is not my home, I’m just a-passin’ through.” That’s true, but maybe we should clarify that statement a bit—this world the way it is now is not our home, but we must never forget that Planet Earth is the kind of place that we were created to live in.

            In the earliest days of Christianity, some people bought into the idea from Greek philosophy that the physical world is somehow bad and evil. They even went so far as to say that Jesus didn’t have a real body—He was like a ghost, they said, because they believed that God surely wouldn’t have any contact with something evil like the physical world. But my friends, remember—God created the physical world, so it can’t be evil. Jesus demonstrated that the physical world isn’t evil by becoming a man, with a body that needed food and water and sleep. Even after He rose from the grave, He still had a physical body that could be touched and was capable of eating food.

            So there’s nothing evil about our bodies or our planet, and according to Revelation our eternal home with God will be a physical place like our planet. But remember—we will have all of the things that we enjoy about our planet with none of the things that came from the Curse that was a result of our sin! Imagine walking barefoot through a meadow without worrying about stickers and thorns; imagine exploring the woods without worrying about poison ivy; imagine breathing without allergies; imagine drinking from a cool stream without worrying about diseases or pollution. This world as it is today is not our home. That is true, but it still has the same basic blueprints, and if you look closely I think you’ll see a glimpse of your future home with God.

3. The original creation likely gives us an idea of what the New Heaven and New Earth will be like.

            Genesis 1-2 describes what the Earth was like after its initial creation, when humanity lived in perfect unity with God before sin had entered the world, bringing with it things like death, disease, sorrow, and pain. The basic situation in Genesis 1-2 is the same as the basic situation that we find in Revelation 21-22—people living in a physical world in perfect unity with God without death, disease, sorrow, and pain. So its reasonable to think that the original creation gives us an idea of what our eternal home in Heaven will be like.

            This observation could help us answer some important questions about the New Heaven and New Earth, like “What will we do there?” Sometimes people have wondered if our home in Heaven will be like a church service that lasts for eternity. To a lot of people, that sounds more like Hell! I’ll admit it—that idea doesn’t get me very excited. Now we could say, “Well, we’d never get bored with it because we could see Jesus face-to-face,” and you know, that’s probably true.

            But think about this—Adam and Eve had a perfect relationship with God, and that’s not what they did all the time. They were given a job! If we can speculate from the original creation, it could be that we’ll be the caretakers of the New Earth just like human beings were created to be the caretakers of this Earth. I think its possible that the New Earth may initially be uncultivated outside of the city that we read about in Revelation. God may turn us loose to go map out His new world and cause it to be fruitful. Imagine setting out like Lewis and Clark into uncharted territory, but with no possibility of getting killed along the way! Talk about excitement and adventure!

            These thoughts that we’ve discussed today should lay a good foundation for the rest of our study. We’ll begin to build on this foundation next week, and we’ll start with a tour of the New Heaven and New Earth as its described in the final chapters of Revelation.

            But for today, I want to challenge you again with the thought of how crazy it is that we, as God’s children, would fail to think long and hard about the place where we will one day live with God. How can we be content to simply bide our time in this world without learning more about our future home and whether we might become more prepared to live there? C. S. Lewis described us well when he said, “We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a [vacation at the beach]. We are far too easily pleased.”¹

            We are content to spend our mental energy keeping up with the Kardashians or our favorite sports team rather than using it to think about Heaven. We spend most of our working years focusing on retirement as though we cease to exist after our final Bingo Night. We are far too easily pleased, but as our minds begin to focus on the next world, our hearts will follow along, so as we work through this study, get ready to feel a thirst that this life cannot quench!

Notes:

1. C. S. Lewis, “The Weight of Glory,” in The Weight of Glory and other Essays (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1965), 1-2. I updated the language of the final analogy.