Miscellanies on How the Order of a Doctrine of Election Affects the Pyromaniacs and The Gospel Coalition

Posted on by

The Gospel is Kingdom initiating, Kingdom grounding; indeed it could be said that the Gospel is the disruptive orientation of the original creation’s ultimate purpose as that is realized in the re-creation of God in Jesus Christ and his resurrection from the dead. As David Fergusson has written, “the world was made so that Christ might be born;” this adage captures well the inherent value or the inner reality that the creation itself has. It is one born only in and from God’s reality to graciously be for the world and to do so in himself, in the Son, by the Spirit and thus to pretend as if the Triune reality is not the ground and grammar of ALL of reality—inclusive of morality—is to reduce the Gospel to a pietist individualism that only has to do with me and my salvation/me and my eternal destiny. While personal salvation, its appropriation, is very important, it is grounded more objectively and universally in the reality of redemption that God in Christ has proffered for all of creation, with Jesus being its crowning reality and jewel. In other words, the cosmic reality of salvation, grounded in the humanity and divinity (an/enhypostasis) of the eternal Logos become flesh, Jesus Christ, encompasses all aspects of created reality. It is not simply a matter of sufficiency but of efficacy; in other words, in the Kingdom, in the recreation there is not a delimitation of that to particular parts (i.e. classic election/reprobation) of the creation; no, the Kingdom of God in Christ (which is given reality in the Gospel which is embodied and lived in the Christ) is a macrocosmic reality (Rom. 8.18ff) that indeed disruptively impacts individuals who are willing, by the Holy Spirit’s wooing, to participate in this new created reality in and through the priestly-vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ. This is why when people like Phil Johnson want to attempt to reduce the Gospel reality to its more individualistic provenance they end up critiquing work like The Gospel Coalition is engaging in as it sees the whole of reality implicated by the Kingdom Gospel; he fails to recognize that the Gospel is about a broader work and doctrine of creation/recreation than it simply being about ‘fire-insurance’ for an elect group of people elevated over and against the rest of creation (what TF Torrance identifies as ‘The Latin Heresy’ or an inherent dualism that comes to pass when we start denominating parts of creation from the mass of the creation). In this vein note what Johnson recently wrote in critique of The Gospel Coalition and its engagement with popular culture:

The “gospel-centered” movement that many of us were so enthusiastic for just one decade ago has gone with the drift. The Gospel Coalition has for some time now shown a pattern of embracing whatever new moral issue or political cause is currently popular in Western culture by arguing that this, too, is a legitimate “gospel issue.” They are by no means alone in this. Everything from the latest Marvel movie to gun control legislation has been deemed a “gospel issue” by some savvy evangelical writer at one or more of the most heavily trafficked evangelical websites. But if everything is supposedly a gospel issue, the expression “gospel-centered” is rendered meaningless.

As I said in a Tweet earlier today, we must not abandon the focused simplicity of Luke 24:46-47 in favor of a social gospel that encompasses a large complex of racial, economic, and political issues. Every denomination, every educational institution, and every church that has ever made that error has seen a quick demise. I for one don’t intend to watch in silence while the current generation repeats that mistake.[1]

In response to this I have read others on Twitter raise the question of sufficiency; in other words, is Scripture itself sufficient in responding to race or human sexuality questions, or in Scripture’s overt silence on these things are we able and responsible to turn to other resources—latent within God’s good creation (i.e. common grace)—to seek responses to the ills that the fallen world presents us with in an attempt to ultimately point people to the ultimate sufficiency of the living God as that is provided for in Jesus Christ? So the response seems to be: not all things are intensively or directly related to the narrower message of the Gospel, instead they are related but only in an extensive or indirect matter which allows for and even calls for Christian thinkers to respond to questions not explicitly spoken to in Scripture in such a way that honors the general reality of the Gospel; and within that space has freedom to address issues that might not otherwise seem to have to do with the Gospel in any meaningful sense, but in fact are Gospel issues insofar as they are indirectly impacted by the ultimate reality of it (in other words: natural law, or a natural ethic is going to be appealed to—something that in this line of thinking does not undercut the sufficiency of Scripture to speak to what it intends to speak to, but in fact works in a complementary way to Scripture with the a priori recognition that all of creation belongs to God and is within the realm of his Providential care, governance, and sustenance).

There is a certain irony to these views (Johnson’s and Twitter’s). Both of these approaches share a similar doctrine of creation, theologically/soteriologically. They both share a particular view on the sufficiency of the Gospel and Scripture, but apply that differently (because of broader hermeneutical differences). They denominate parts of creation out from the greater mass of creation, believing that one part is the elect of God while the rest is damned. Johnson focuses on the elect part of creation, but dispensationally neglecting the whole of creation, while the other side also focuses on the elect part of creation, but they see that as the seed that ultimately cashes out in the new creation; they place election into a cosmic understanding of salvation and Providence while Johnson places election into an individualistic and pietist understanding of salvation wherein what ultimately matters is not this creation simpliciter, but the legal salvation of an elect people from an eternal hell. The irony is that they share some overlapping soteriological assumptions, in regard to election, but where that doctrine is placed in their respective theologies cashes out differently in the way that they see the Gospel itself implicating the whole of creation. The Twitter-view works from a cosmic doctrine of salvation, while the Johnson view works from a pietistic, individualist understanding of salvation that is discontinuous from creation as a cosmic reality. The difference in the end is that the Twitter view is Covenantal while the Johnson view is Dispensational. The Twitter view reflects a historic confessionally Reformed perspective, while the Johnson view reflects his Calvinist-lite perspective which is the reduction of Reformed theology to the so called five-points.

Just take this post for what it’s worth. I was going to totally go in another direction and refer us to Oliver O’Dononvan and Philip Ziegler (and apocalyptic theology), but the above is what came out instead. It’s just me thinking out loud. But I think there might be something to my theoretical meanderings. And I only think this is a worthwhile exercise because I think it illustrates a substantial theological polarity that is present within the so called Reformed world. I’ll want to return to how I opened this post up, and get into the relationship of the Gospel and the Kingdom within an Apocalyptic Theology and how I think that informs discussions like these.

[1] Phil Johnson, The Root of the Matter, accessed 05-28-2018.

11 thoughts on “Miscellanies on How the Order of a Doctrine of Election Affects the Pyromaniacs and The Gospel Coalition”

  1. Bobby, could you point to some Bible texts you have in mind when you denigrate the individualistic, pietistic version of the Gospel? I’ve listened to a fair amount of MacArthur and generally I hear him lining up with not only Scripture’s teachings but also Scripture’s emphases.

    I’m also surprised at the way you talk about the view of election held by MacArthur, Johnson, etc; again, these men talk about election basically the way the Bible does. Do you have Bible to support talking about it the way you prefer?

    And the disagreement between Johnson and Gospel Coalition seems to me to have practically nothing to do with the dispensational/covenant debate. For example, I can give you far more aggressive opponents of Gospel Coalition who are Presbyterians. The issue at stake seems rather to be that some folks (Johnson, lots of others) want to continue to keep Biblical concerns central in the mission of the church while the Gospel Coalition does not.

    Can’t remember if it was this post or another, but in one you referred to MacArthur’s community as legalistic, performance based, etc. Looks to me like the same critique would have to be made of Jesus’ community of followers in the Gospels and Paul’s community, i.e. the churches he planted and ministered to. What do you think?

    After reading another of your posts on Revoice, I can tell you have the courage to think for yourself and tell the truth, so I am eager to hear your opinion on the above, especially in terms of Bible texts you would point me to for your “Cosmic” (sorry, don’t know what else to call it) vs. Individualistic/Pietistic distinctions. Thanks and Blessings

  2. Dave,

    I don’t think this discussion is going to go very far. If you’re just going to presume that the way Johnny Mac talks about election just is the biblical way without attending to the theology and potentially philosophy that leads to the categories used in order to arrive at such conceptions of election (as those are resident in an Aristotelian theory of causation and Stoic determinism) then we probably won’t get anywhere. And the critique’s appeal to dispy v covenantal isn’t one I make alone but is one that federal theologians themselves would make against macarthur. For me to simply provide you with some sort of silver bullet biblical texts on election won’t be helpful if you aren’t able to critically identify the role that theological categories have prior to reading and interpreting the text. This is the error that Mac and his people like Johnson can’t ever get past; it is terribly naïve and ultimately hurtful who sit under such teaching. Most of the Pressies I know at least have a healthy understanding of the place and reality of tradition has vis a vis interpreting the text; Mac and his ites don’t. I have scores of posts here on my blog that explain how I arrive at my view on election; just go to my category “election.” But even more pointed in my personal chapter for our newest book I really get into election reprobation as that has to do with Calvin’s theology. I’ll come back later w/ a link to google books where you can read my chapter in full.

    As far as the idea that you think bringing up dispensationalism has nothing to do with this; please explain why you think that, without just leaving it at the level of assertion. In other words, I explained why I think it does, somewhat, but you didn’t explain why you don’t. I’ve been engaging with the Pyromaniacs for years and years, it’s a vain exercise. Indeed, Phil just blocked me because he’s tired of me constantly challenging him on what I just noted in re to tradition and theological exegesis. Hopefully you’re more critical of mind than Phil&company.

  3. Oh, I don’t know. I think it could go far if we try 🙂

    So when I listen to MacArthur on election, I generally hear him seeking to handle the text fairly, and I hear him come to conclusions that seem to fit the text. Am I presuming? I have a position and I’m stating it; I don’t think I’m wrong to do that. Of course I am not closed to what you have to say, or else I would not have asked for your comment. I’m looking to learn here; perhaps you are not very open to explaining your view?

    Of course there is theology and philosophy informing his, mine, yours, everyone’s view. The question is which is right. But it’s possible for our theology to be gradually purified by Scripture, and thus for it’s role in informing our interpretation to be very good.

    I love MacArthur, but I am not a MacArthurite. In fact, I have held for years that he is not at all the smartest guy out there, though he is far more faithful than many. With that in view, I would personally be stunned if he has read much Aristotle, Stoic philosophy, etc. But perhaps you mean he has absorbed it second hand, which is possible. On the other hand, do you really maintain that a person requires prior conditioning in philosophical determinism to derive a “Calvinistic” interpretation of Romans 9? I hope you can see why many of us hold a sort of divine determinism (though I don’t like that term) based on such texts.

    I do reject the notion that people are paralyzed by the lens through which they see the text, such that it is impossible for a person to read a Bible text, with study and patience and work, and eventually come to a reasonable conclusion about it’s meaning, and do a good job at that. I have the ability to suspend my lens and ask whether something contradicts it; my proof of this is the fact that I happily admit there are Scripture texts which do not fit well or at all in the 5 points system.

    I wasn’t asking for silver bullets, just Bible texts, cause I’m a Christian and all 🙂 You said you love Jesus on your site, and I believe you, so why don’t you deal like he dealt and give some texts to support your teaching. I don’t think that’s a lot to ask. Surely you have some?

    I agree with some of your criticism of Mac. I have always had annoyances with him. But he’s a faithful man and so I’m willing to put up with a lot.

    Yes, I did give a quick point about the dispyism. I pointed out Gospel Coalition has more aggressive critics who hold to covenant theology. This makes it impossible that the chief issue is the differing views of redemptive history. Johnson and other covenant theology Christians see the Gospel coalition getting cozy with some awfully unChristian ideas. They don’t like it and they are saying it. This is a critique which could be given from covenant theology, dispyism, new covenant, or something else. The point for the critics isn’t on the level of how one views redemptive history, but whether or not Biblical exegesis is guiding the decisions being made by Gospel Coalition. It looks like GC is simply going with the Political Correctness flow.

    Brother, I commented because I found your post interesting and I hoped I could learn from you. Perhaps I said something that seemed hostile? At least your response sounds somewhat closed off to the possibility of talking about this. I have no hostility, just interest and disagreement, and I want to hear your mind further on the subject. I want to know where the Bible teaches what you’re saying, that’s all. Thanks,

    Dave

  6. Check out the exegesis in this commentary to get some of the bases from which I understand a biblical doctrine of election:

  8. And this. Focus particularly on the exegesis done by Barth in Romans (I follow Barth). Click on the image and it will take you to the amazon page (same for the above book on Ephesians):

  9. And the following book to get a sense of the biblical, historical, and even Calvinian antecedents of Barth’s development and reformulation of the doctrine of election (again click on the image to go to the amazon page for the book):

  10. And then read Barth’s Church Dogmatics II/1 ff where he most explicitly offers the biblical bases for his reformulation of a doctrine of election/reprobation around Christ. I think he handles election in the most biblical Christ concentrated form available. So Eph 1 and Rom 9 along with John 1 and Col 1 would be key texts to look to in order to gain an insight into where I think election gains its greatest biblical depth and orientation as that is related to the bible’s reality in its Logos, Jesus Christ.

    My blog itself (I’ve been blogging since 2005 and at this url since 2009) attests to the reality more than any other blog I’m aware of in the theoblogosphere that I’m if anyone not closed but opened. I may well be tired and exhausted by responding to requests like yours (since I’ve done that so many times in the past it is not possible to count). But this is why I refer you to what I have in this thread , and my category on “election” in order for you to get where I’m coming from and what the bases of my critique of Johnny Mac et al are in re to election and its background theologically and in the history of ideas. I’ve spent the necessary time, and continue to, in the literature in order to have to understand, quite well, where and how the doctrine of election that Mac espouses developed and from what ends ideationally. My reluctance to get into all that again with you is because, again, I’m worn out by attempting to get into this or rehash what I’ve already spent hours and hours doing here at the blog already. Again, I’ll point you to what I have, and you’ll find out exactly and more fully where I’m coming from rather than me trying to distill and compress all that again here and now. It’s not going to happen, and this is what I’m going to have time to give you.

Comments are closed.