The Christmas Story according to John

Many believe that there are only two tellings of the Christmas story in Scripture: Luke 3, and Matthew 1-2. But there is a third telling: John chapter one.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him as life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'") And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. -John 1:1-17

I do not want to take away from the greatness of the other Christmas stories in Scripture, but this is my favorite out of the three, and it saddens me that it is often forgotten. It may not give historical details of his birth, but it says most clearly the heart of why we celebrate on Christmas.

The focus of Christmas isn't that Jesus was once born. I have often asked people why Christmas is important and they answer is that it needed to have happened for Jesus to get to Calvary. Well, that is true, but there were a great number of things that needed to happen for that, and we don't celebrate them all.

The reason we celebrate Christmas is the reason that John gives: The Word of God became flesh. That the light of God came to men. That the Holy God thought it good to come down to Earth and get His hands dirty with our mess. That is something worthy to celebrate.

John 1:1-5

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him as life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

It is very important to contemplate what John means by the word. The brilliance of it though, is that John means a great many things by the Word. But I believe that its primary meaning is to tell us the primary aspect of the economy of the 2nd person of the Trinity: He is God's self-disclosure to humanity. He is what God has "said" about Himself, and the source of our understanding of Him.

This says a many things about the Word. The Word existed at the beginning of things. The Word was God's means of creating the world. That the Word is distinct from God, but is yet God Himself (hence Trinity).

It also says that the Word is the source of life and light to humanity. Light is a major theme in John's gospel, introduced here. For now, he speaks merely of its strength, and how it can overcome darkness. Like the term "word", light here refers not the concept of goodness, but to the concept of revelation. The light reveals the things in the dark. John will describe this in more detail later.

John 1:6-8

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

The introduction of John the Baptist is a curious addition to the story. Its introduction here is to deal with a common Jewish theory of the time that the Baptist was the Messiah. Here the Apostle dispels that theory, and claims that it was the Baptist's purpose to point to the Light. The other reason has to do with the Apostle's claim that the Baptist himself was sent by God, and to dispel any erroneous thoughts that might suggest. However, this also serves as an introduction to John himself, whose role in coming of Christ will later be revealed.

John 1:9-13

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Here is where John goes into more detail about the light. Again, by enlighten it means reveals things. This light came into the world that rejected and hated Him, and was even hated by His own people. But He came anyway, knowing this out of love so that we may become children of God. Those who become children are those that receive Him, those that believe in His name. Even here we have the NT emphasis that salvation isn't just to the Jews, but to any who may believe. Salvation does not merely come to those who it is "supposed to come", but it comes to whoever may believe for God is no respecter of persons.

John 1:14

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

And this is what makes this the Christmas story. This is the celebration of Christmas: that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. He ate like us, bathed like us, defecated like us, smelled and spoke and walked like us. And now we can know the who God is, because we have witnessed the Son and have seen His glory.

However, John's point here of having seen the glory of the Son is to testify that Yeshua truly is the Son of God. John knows that He is the Son of God, for John has indeed seen his glory, he is an eyewitness to the Word, and therefore we know this testimony that he is setting forth is true.

John 1:15-17

John bore witness about him, and cried out, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.'") And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

Bearing speaking again of the Baptist gives further proof to John's testimony.

But what is most interesting is the comparison between Moses and Yeshua. The gospel of John is very Jewish, and one of his concerns is to understanding the coming of the Son of God in light of the first century Jewish world view. How he, and the other apostles I might add, do this is by recognizing that in Moses we have been given the Law, the an understanding of righteousness and God's justice. But in Yeshua the Christ we God graciousness and the fullness of God's mind. For though God is far above us and we cannot see Him, He has made Himself known to us through Yeshua the Christ!

For this reason I say Merry Christmas, and to challenge you to take the time and think about what it means for the Word to become flesh, for the true God of glory to come to us, even when we were yet sinners, knowing full well what the end of His time on Earth would bring.

In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
Amen.

Postponement

I must apologize. This was truly the wrong season to commit myself to a series as important and intricate as explaining my reasons for being Arminian. I have found the detail and time required for each post has been much more than I had anticipated. Therefore, I am postponing the conclusion of the series until after the holidays so that I can be free to write a few other thoughts.

So that you know my plans for it, I have 2 or 3 more posts that I am planning on writing. The next post is dealing with the theological differences between Arminianism and Calvinism. After that I will be treating some Scripture texts. This I may or may not divide into to parts. It would depend on the length of the post when I get there.

When I am ready to continue, I will renew the two posts that I have already written, and post the third. I look forward to hearing some of your thoughts on these matters, and I promise you the series will continue.

Why I Am An ArminianPart II: Calvinists

Introduction

Considering that I have always been an Arminian, deciding between Arminianism and Calvinism was a matter of whether or not Calvinism challenged my own beliefs enough for me to lose my trust in them. They could do this through biblical evidence, theological argument, and/or demonstration of good fruit. Needless to say, this never happened.

I'm going to examine each of these in turn, but right now, I am going to focus on fruit. According to Scripture, we know what is Christian by its fruit, the most basic fruit being love. Now love is not understood as some sappy idea where you are nice to everybody. Love is a matter of priority: do you prioritize others above yourself. Most Calvinists I meet certainly lack this.

Now, I want to be fair here. There are a lot of Calvinists that exist out there that bear all of the true fruits of the Spirit. I've even met a couple. However, there currently is a movement, now called the Calvinist Resurgence, which manages to create some of the poorest Christians one could imagine. The main reason I have fully embraced the label of Arminianism is to oppose this group who I believe to be undermining the integrity of the gospel and Christian truth.

Calvinist Resurgence

[What follows is an extrapolation of my thoughts expressed in this article I submitted to SEA: Personal belief as to the reasons of the Calvinist resurgence]

My opinion and thesis is that the Calvinist Resurgence is basically a backlash to the Postmodern Movement. What is the Postmodern Movement? Excellent question.

Well, no one really knows. The postmodern movement is a negatively defined stance, and like all negatively defined stances, it lacks something to stand on.

By negatively defined, I mean it defines itself by what it is not, i.e. it is not modernism. Modernism itself began with the Enlightenment which believed in the omnicompentence of human reason, as well as a strong expectation of progress. Ancients were seen as inferior, and they believed that we are progressing to a greater state of life. However, the various atrocities of the 20th century modernist philosophies have shaken the West's confidence in this world view. The result is what is known as postmodernity.

Postmodernity can be seen as essentially an overall attitude stemming directly from the rejection of modernity's main points. The result of this that I believe is most pertinent to the conversation is the rejection of a cultural epistemological standard.

Epistemology is the study of understanding. It deals with such things as how we determine truth, and what are the standards upon which we sort out fallacy and what do we mean by 'truth'. Our present culture lacks any epistemological cohesion. In modernity they relied on reason; in the ancient world they relied on revelation. Today, we rely on personal opinion, which is hardly a standard at all. Indeed, the less systematized, the less authoritative, the less orthodox an idea is, and the more personally it is expressed, the more legitimate it sounds to the postmodern ears. Ancient heretics are seen as open-minded thinkers, and flash and pomp mean more than substance.

There is a backlash going on in this culture attempting to reestablish past epistemological norms, though they would hardly phrase it like that. They see themselves as the last champions of orthodoxy at Thermopylae, standing the tide of heretics, gluttons, and liberals who are tearing the world apart. However, it is this "world" that they are protecting. They are trying to fix the damage already done, and return things to the old order so to speak. However, this backlash is just as much of a smorgasbord as postmodernity itself, since different groups see the "old order" differently.

I believe one of these groups see the "old order" to be protected as Calvinist theology. They somehow believe the Reformation put the world in order, and ever since then liberals have been driving it apart. I might add that they don't tend to see the difference between a liberal and a postmodern, meaning that they often see themselves as fundamentalist. Indeed, they really are fundamentalist in attitude, doctrine, and politics. Whether or not this is a slow transference of fundamentalism opposing liberalism to opposing postliberalism, or whether or not it is a reaction against postmodernity which is absorbing fundamentalism is beyond my capacity to speculate. I would say though that this particular group's reliance on Calvinism is tied to postmodernity's loss of epistemological standards.

This group neither represents Calvinism historically, nor Calvinism proper, but I do believe it represents most Calvinists we see on the net, including James White, Reformed Mafia, and Pyromaniacs. My thesis is that most of the attitudes that we find distasteful are a result of the combination of Calvinism with their reactionary position towards what is going on in the world.

EXAMINING SOME ATTRIBUTES:
Apologetic Theology

By apologetic theology, I mean that they develop their understanding of God and the world based off of what works the best in debate. Indeed, I would argue that it is the cause of their devotion of Calvinism, rather than a result from it. However, there are a lot of new Calvinism ideas (that are considered to be the traditional Calvinist view by these people) for exactly this reason. Compatiblism comes readily to mind. Another is regeneration before salvation, along with its "dead man" analogy.

Again, we return to a lack of epistemology. Truth is what is the most convincing. Therefore, since they were convinced by these ideas, they are truth. They do not truly understand the ideas, they just know that they find them convincing, and parrot them back against the "enemy"

Elitism

Recently on the Ben Witherington blog, Ben put up a post expressing John Piper's opinions regarding the elitism of certain Calvinists. I only reference so that you may compare them with my own, for I disagree with him considerably, but have respect for the man so I offer him as a second opinion.

By elitism, what I mean is an attitude that considers one to have the high ground. To them, it is our responsibility to convince them, and if they remain unconvinced, then we have been "defeated". As long as their system survives, they are victorious. In other words, they don't really have to prove anything.

Many of my Arminian brothers have speculated that this elitism that we see is a natural result of a caste system consisting of the reprobate and elect inherit to Calvinist theology. I disagree, though I do think this caste system is a reasonable conclusion from Calvinism.

The elitism is drawn from several factors, the greatest of which is the erroneous presupposition that Calvinism is the default Evangelical, if not Christian, position. I don't really know where this particular presupposition comes from, but I do believe that it is connected to the need of an epistemology. Without a unifying epistemology, each person is forced to create for themselves their own standards of truth. Calvinism offers this, providing a framework of understanding which is easily grasped (this is not a negative). The result is the person judges new information based off of this framework making it impossible to turn around and judge the framework itself.

The militant nature of the movement is also tied to this. Remember we are dealing with a kind of fundamentalist here. This is a group of people who are also angry at the changing cultural tides, whether they see them as liberal or recognize them as postmodern. Regardless, they cast those accepting these cultural changes as the enemy, creating an us/them mentality.

This mentality combines with Calvinism much like baking soda and vinegar. The us/them attitude is casted in elect/reprobate rhetoric and theology. Their hatred of the enemy becomes justified through God's hatred of the reprobate. They use this to justify their anger and behavior. Casting God as vindictive justifies their vindictiveness.

Apologetics Over Evangelism

There is nothing wrong with Apologetics. Each of us is gifted differently, and some of us are more gifted in the area of apologetics than in the area of evangelism. I am included in this, since I am more of a theologian than anything else.

However, these people seem to be dramatically drawn to apologetics, mostly because the foundation of their whole worldview is based on an opposition to certain ideas. They want to defeat what they see as liberalism, which eventually develops into any false Christian perspective. Therefore, they care more about converting "false Christians" than converting non-Christians.

Some of this isn't bad when applied to groups like Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. But when it gets extended to actual Christian groups, like Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and, of course, Arminians, they end up wasting their energy sheep stealing.

Pragmatic Hermeneutic

Similar to apologetic theology, pragmatic hermeneutics is tied to usefulness in debate. However, here instead of ideas, I'm referring to methodology. There are a couple of examples of this:

1. The Machine Gun Hermeneutic
2. Lack of contextual understanding (like knowing Romans 9:9-24 but being ignorant of Romans 9:7-8)
3. Focus on verses instead of books
4. Favorite memory verses.

All of those go hand in hand but are slightly different. The fourth isn't really a negative thing, except when joined with the other three issues. The point of all of this, is that Scripture is a tool which they use to prove their point, rather than what they use to shape their opinion. Indeed, there is an assumption that their opinion is already formed from Scripture. After all, their teacher knew a lot of Scriptures...

This is mostly tied to their militant nature. All fundamentalists do this. They claim that their belief in Scriptural inerrancy is giving authority to Scripture (which itself is tied to their rejection of liberalism), but in reality, it is granting their opinions inerrancy since they are "derived" from Scripture. Though I have no problem affirming that there are no mistakes in Scripture, I do not grant my interpretation of it the same respect.

Reason/Consistency

This is the bit that I had the most difficulty is writing. Due to the complex relationship of fundamentalism with liberalism/postmodernity, they have a kind of love/hate relationship with reason.

Liberalism is, in essence, the acceptance of Enlightenment epistemology as the norm of the church. Fundamentalism fighting against this movement not only rejects this claim, but also bases their own arguments on Enlightenment epistemology in an attempt to combat liberals. The result is that Enlightenment epistemology crept into the Fundamentalist perspective anyway, often creating objective irrational arguments.

When Postmodernity came along, and started rejecting Enlightenment epistemology, fundamentalists made a fatal mistake: they equated postmodernity with liberalism. The result is that now they think that liberals are the ones rejecting Enlightenment epistemology, and that it is the fundamentalist's job to defend it. Combine this with the still present inherit hatred of the liberal arguments and positions in the past, as well as commitment to the authority of revelation over human reason, and you have one really messed up epistemology.

Enter Van Til. Cornelius Van Til was an apologist in the mid 20th century who first proposed what is known as "presuppositional apologetics". Without getting into details, part of the theory is that the highest goal of a philosophical/theological position is consistency. Anyone who has entered the fray with these Calvinist fundamentalists have heard of the world "consistent" before. Indeed, Van Til himself was a Calvinist.

This whole position creates an excellent resource when dealing with a culture that lacks epistemology. When accepted a person can sort through all of the conflicting opinions with this rule of consistency as a guide. However, since no one person can possibly grasp all of the various implications of all philosophical systems around them, the result is that the person will be attracted to theologies that are an easily presentable interlocking system. Naturally, 5-point Calvinism becomes very attractive.

This has an unfortunate consequence. In my experience, those that appeal to Calvinism's inner-consistency are often really poor judges of inner-consistency of other systems. I have found that Arminianism often fails the "inner-consistency" rule by failing to be consistent with Calvinist presuppositions. This is because, to some degree, Calvinism is becoming the basis of these people's epistemology. Personally, Arminianism is not the foundation of my epistemology. Instead the Incarnation is. However, for this group, Calvinism is absolutely their epistemology, adding to the elitism already mentioned.

Pathos-based Rhetoric

In formal rhetoric, there are three factors which are considered to enter into convincing a person. They are logos (Greek for word or reason, referring to the soundness of an argument, or it's logical coherence), pathos (Greek for emotion, referring to the passions aroused in the audience), and ethos (Greek for ethic or character, referring to the projected character of the speaker for the sake of creating trust). Therefore, by pathos-based rhetoric, I mean that they tend to use emotional arguments, and are often rather emotional themselves.

Now this isn't entirely bad, except that they absolutely fail in the area of ethos. There's some logos there, I admit, but very little ethos, if any at all. This is, of course, a result of the elitism.

I brought this attribute up last because it ties back into the title of this series: Why I am an Arminian. Because I started as an Arminian, I am in part an Arminian because Calvinists failed to convince me otherwise. They failed to convince me otherwise because of the shear lack of character displayed by the Calvinists I met. I didn't trust them enough to really listen to them.

You may ask how this isn't elitism, since I am demanding the Calvinist convince me instead of allowing both sides to stand on equal ground. The difference is that here we are dealing with my own heart, rather than a public discussion. In a public discussion, I don't insist that all I have to do is disprove the other side's arguments. But when it comes to my own heart, I'm not going to change my mind on something unless I am convinced otherwise.

But, these Calvinists didn't even cause me to doubt my position. If anything, they bolstered by displaying the fruits of the world rather than the Spirit. It is rather unfortunate actually, because if they merely showed me kindness, they may have convinced me back then. Now, I am not so ignorant about Arminianism itself. This is not why I reject Calvinism now, but it was why I didn't even consider it back then.

Why I Am An ArminianPart I: History

Finding Scotia

I grew up in a village called Scotia. When I was a child, all I really knew was my home, my school, and some sites from my car. I knew my home was located in Scotia, but I didn't really know what Scotia was like, or where it was.

Soon, I got my first bicycle. I began to ride through the streets, learning the street names, the sites, and the feel of the village. As I grew, I became more and more familiar with my surroundings, and I developed a greater appreciation for my home.

When I became a teenager, I started to learn the area around Scotia. I understood where it was in relation to the various towns around me. Slowly I developed a better sense of where my home really was.

Finding Arminianism

For me, discovering Arminianism was much like discovering Scotia. I didn't grow up in a Calvinist church, or was converted to Calvinism when I came to Christ. Nor was I raised in a Semi-Pelagian Church thinking that is was Arminian. My church was legitimately Arminian; I just didn't know that is what it was called. Calvinism was just this ancient heresy that I had heard about once or twice, but never really gave it much mind.

Then in college, I remember being told that a band that I listened to was Calvinist. I was shocked. I did not suddenly think they were bad or anything. I was just shocked that it was still around. I then got involved with an on-line debate site called carm.org which is run by a Calvinist. I wasn't really that concerned with the topic though, I was more concerned with talking to atheists and cult members.

As time went on, I became more and more frustrated with the Calvinists at carm. I knew they weren't all bad; I liked the guy who ran the site for instance. But I found I had to keep cleaning up their messes. The Calvinists were pushy, rude, and were giving Christianity a bad name. So, I began to ask them questions.

I found that what I believed in was called "Arminianism". I had never heard the term before. However, when they tried to explain Arminianism to me, it never sounded like what I believed in. When I described what I believed, they assured me that I was Arminian, but "one of the good ones". This somewhat disturbed me since many of their descriptions of "other Arminians" were clearly unbiblical. So I began to investigate.

By this time I was in seminary, and to understand things better I took a course about Arminianism and Calvinism (taught by an Augustianian Catholic. I had a very fun seminary). I was hoping that if I understood the two systems better, and test my own beliefs.

From seminary, I learned that what the Calvinists were describing as Arminianism wasn't Arminianism at all. It was called Semi-Pelagianism. Ancient Arminianism was actually referred to as Semi-Augustianism. Furthermore, I learned that the Synod of Dordt (which they claimed was a significant historical document backing up their claim to orthodoxy) was a local council with little authority. I also learned the teachings of Arminius himself, as well as John Wesley. In these two men, I found not only clear wisdom and piety, but true devotion to Scripture.

Defending Arminianism

From all of this, I was greatly disturbed at the slander and libel that I was encountering on-line. Calvinists were constantly equating Arminianism with Semi-Pelagianism, while occasionally equating it with every other heresy ever conceived. Most of these were deceived, but behind it all were many deceivers.

I accepted the label and began defending Arminianism, not because I wanted to label myself, not because I am so committed to Arminius, and not because I hate Calvinism itself. It is simply because these particular people there are using Calvinism for their own ends are damaging the name of Christ and need to be opposed. I've never seen myself in opposition to Calvinism, but in opposition to a movement which happens to be Calvinist.

My passion is a passion for truth and honesty. I want to the truth taught, but I also want people to think clearly, and be honest with their own motivations and beliefs. This movement is disrupting the integrity of the faithful, dispossessing them of the heart of Scripture, and robbing them of their minds. This is the conviction that I have come to. Some of you may be offended at that, but this is where I am right now, and I have to follow where it leads me. So I will continue to fight the fight, and promote an honest reading of Scripture.