Posted on 02/07/2013 12:06:49 PM PST by Alex Murphy
Even though I embrace reformed theology (aka “Calvinism”) now, I understand the thinking behind articles such as Dan Delzell’s recent “Infant Baptism and 5-Point Calvinism are Limited”. I grew up under an Arminian pastor who I still deeply respect and admire that would nod in agreement with all the points Delzell makes in his post.
When I first went to seminary, I studied systematic theology under a very well know theologian who espouses what he calls “moderate Calvinism”, which is really an inconsistent form of Arminian theology. At the time, that framework seemed logical to me.
But when I started my Ph.D. studies, I chose as the focus of my dissertation the apologetics of the Apostle Paul. This topic forced me to do something I had never done in my Christian life up to that point: seriously study the doctrines of grace. I’m ashamed to admit I had never actually examined any of the Biblical arguments of reformed thinkers, but had only read what those opposed to Calvinism said that reformed theology taught.
The outcome of that Biblical investigation was that I became convinced of reformed theology’s validity.
Because I know both sides of the fence so well, I thought I’d try and sort out what I believe to be the top incorrect stereotypes and misconceptions about Calvinism that I constantly run into and see if some of the confusion that surrounds this sometimes volatile subject can’t be cleared up. I’ll use Calvinism’s TULIP acronym to work through each false impression.
Misconception: People don’t have “free will” and are basically robots without any ability to choose on their own.
Fact: Calvinism acknowledges that all human beings make various choices in life. However, when it comes to making a decision for God, reformed theology affirms that no one seeks God or receives Christ on their own without being spiritually awakened by God and enabled to do so.
It is no understatement to say that once a person fully understands the doctrine of total depravity, all other points in Calvinism are easy to accept. Get this teaching wrong, and you have a theological mess on your hands.
Do people make choices? Of course, each and every day, and on many different levels. But when it comes to salvation in Christ, the Bible is clear that each person is born in sin (Ps. 51:5), spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1), and morally incapable of coming to Christ by themselves (1 Cor. 2:14, Rom. 8:6-7).
Jesus made the explicit statement, “No one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father” (John 6:65), which clearly showcases an inability in everyone to freely choose Christ unless granted by the Father (see also John 6:44). Once an unbeliever is spiritually called by God out of their darkness (2 Tim. 1:8-9) and their eyes are opened (John 9:39), they then willingly receive Jesus as Savior.
James White sums up the correct position well when he says: “Reformed Christians believe that men believe and choose. It is the order of events that is in dispute. Every Christian has chosen Christ, believed in Christ, embraced Christ, and even more, continues to do so. The question is not ‘must a person believe,’ but can a person believe while a slave to sin? Further, whose decision comes first: the decision of God to free the enslaved, dead sinner and give him the ability to believe, or the free-choice decision of the sinner that then makes him or her one of the elect?”
Misconception: The doctrine that says God chooses who will be saved is incredibly unfair.
Fact: Reformed theology upholds that no one deserves salvation and that God displays incredible mercy in saving those He chooses.
Arthur Pink began one message in Australia many years ago by saying, “I am going to speak tonight on one of the most hated doctrines of the Bible, namely, that of God’s sovereign election.”
By far, the most uttered complaint against election is that it’s not fair. And yet, every Christian acknowledges they don’t deserve God’s mercy and His salvation – that it’s “fair” if God chose to judge all sinners as being unworthy of spending eternal life with Him.
That being the case why is it considered repugnant if God chooses to show mercy to some and allows His justice to fall on others who willingly continue in their sin? Would a governor be considered an ogre and unfair simply because he/she decided to grant amnesty to one criminal while others are left to carry out their proper sentence?
Those who reject election believe in choice, but they don’t want God to choose; they want humanity to choose instead. This seems more fair and just to them.
However, Paul anticipated this response from the audience that received his letter to the Romans. In chapter 9, after carefully laying out the doctrine of election, Paul specifically and proactively answers the charge of unfairness with God and clearly spells out that salvation has nothing to do with our choice but is rather His alone:
“What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy” (Rom. 9:14–16).
Such a statement from Paul makes absolutely no sense if the Apostle believed that we are the ultimate decision maker where salvation is concerned vs. God. From a human standpoint, what would be unfair about that?
Misconception: Only Calvinism limits the atonement of Christ on the cross.
Fact: Outside of Universalists, every Christian believes in limited atonement.
Unless you’re a Universalist and believe that everyone will eventually be saved, then you believe that the atonement of Christ is limited and that it automatically doesn’t save all of humanity.
How is the atonement limited? It is limited to those who believe (John 3:16).
But how does a person come to believe? This is where we must boomerang back up to the “T” and “U” of Calvinism’s TULIP and first understand how God saves those He chooses.
But as to who truly limits Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, reformed pastor Charles Spurgeon offers these helpful words in this semi-lengthy, but helpful quote:
“We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ. Because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men or all men would be saved. Now our reply to this is on the other hand our opponents limit it, we do not. The Arminians say Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by that. Did Christ die to secure the salvation of all men? They say no, certainly not. We ask them the next question: Did Christ die to secure the salvation of any one person in particular? They say no. They’re obliged to say that if they’re consistent. They say, no, Christ has died that any man may be saved if ... and then follow certain conditions of salvation…“Now, who is it that limits of the death of Christ? Why, you - you say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon. When you say we limit Christ’s death we say no my dear sir it is you that do that. We say that Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number who through Christ’s death not only may be saved but will be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.”
Misconception: God drags people kicking and screaming against their will into His kingdom.
Fact: Reform theology teaches that God lovingly overcomes the natural rebellion in the sinner’s heart so that they may accept His gift of salvation.
J. I. Packer sums up this doctrine in a very succinct manner when he says, “Grace proves irresistible just because it destroys the disposition to resist.”
A passage in Acts showcases this efficacious call of God in action: “And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled. A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. ” (Acts 16:13–14).
Another point worth making is that this call is not given to everyone. This fact is evident in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians: “But we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:23-24).
Notice the same two groups are preached to (Jews and Gentiles) and yet only those called by God (also Jews and Gentiles) are saved by His grace. These are the ones who receive God’s efficacious call (i.e. His irresistible grace).
Misconception: A person remains saved no matter how they live their life.
Fact: Calvinism teaches that a professing Christian with no change in behavior and no movement toward sanctification proves that they were never saved to begin with.
Reformed scholar and pastor John Piper tells the story of a woman who heard a message he delivered on the perseverance of the saints (which says a born again Christian can never lose their salvation, but will persevere to the end). She came to him and stated that she was in an adulterous affair, but because she was saved, she intended to continue in her affair without any worry about losing her salvation.
Piper’s reply to her was direct and rare in our current sugar-coated, seeker-friendly church environment: “God will damn you to Hell if you continue in your sin.”
In making that statement, Piper was simply affirming the Bible’s teaching that the fruit of the tree identifies the type of tree (Matt. 12:33). In no way does Calvinism teach that a person born again may continue in their rebellion, sin against God, and see eternal life with the Creator.
Instead, reformed theology upholds just the opposite: that a true Christian will manifest holy affections that prove their salvation, although they will always struggle with the sin nature that they have (see Romans 7). For an excellent treatment of this subject, see Jonathan Edward’s magisterial work, “A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections”.
While I have no fanciful dreams that the above will instantly turn those who oppose Calvinism into reformed theologians, I do hope that perhaps some of the faulty critiques aimed at the doctrines of grace will be blunted, and that believers will take their Bible in one hand and some accurate teaching of reformed theology in the other, and at least understand the positions in a more accurate way.
For a thorough treatment of this theology, see Chosen But Free by Dr. Norman Geisler: http://goo.gl/xBrIn.
See http://www.reformed.org/index.html for a brief explanation of the Calvin TULIP acronym.
James White, The Potter’s Freedom (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2000), Pg. 184.
Arthur Pink, The Doctrine of Election (Granbury, TX: PBM Desktop Publications, 2005), Pg. 4.
For an explanation of why I think this is the easiest teaching of Calvinism to believe, see my post here: http://goo.gl/ic66o.
J. I. Packer, introduction to John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2007), Pg. 8.
For some good starter books, see “The Five Points of Calvinism” and “What is Reformed Theology?
Part of our problem is we are trapped on the conveyor belt of time and God isn't. Our minds cannot even conceive of what it means to exist outside of time.
But God IS "empowered" and He gives to ALL the answer!
They ONLY have to make ONE choice between LIFE and DEATH. And guess what? God TELLS them the answer! God is good to ALL for He died for ALL and wants ALL to be saved unto HIM!
"This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you LIFE and DEATH, blessings and curses. NOW CHOOSE LIFE, so that you and your children may live".
Jesus is The Way, The Truth, The LIFE!
Actually, the verse is "no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." And no one can pluck us out of His hand. We can, however, choose to reject God.
Your interpretation goes to one extreme and, again, leaves us with no responsibility at all. However we get to this point, we can know that somewhere we made a wrong turn.
I agree. They can’t imagine what God did for us 2000 can still be in effect for us/them now and those after us. Yet, they call Him The Almighty - are those just words to them?
He created the earth Way before that and we have NO PROBLEM enjoying it - geez, even taking it for granted.
Do we think with every breathe, ‘I hope I have air for the next breathe’ or even think of air that we CAN’T SEE?
I agree. But we do grow into the knowledge that is Jesus Christ. In fact, we must grow - from baby to mature - and that happens only through His Word alone.
"Rather, you must grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. All glory to HIM, both now and forever! Amen." 2 Peter 3:18
I'm just finding out what it is and posting Scripture. So it is Scripture that doesn't agree with it.
At last! We have found something we both agree on.
:)
No sir, it does not, but rather points towards the ill-applied descriptions on either side of the fulcrum as they are incomplete on both sides of the balancing point upon which they are weighed, one against the other.
You have election>salvation and supported the doctrine of salvation by election.
And the problem with this is...? What? It doesn't give man enough credit when he hears God and believes, thus earning (in part) salvation, when we can see from the beginning of the Judeo-Christian construct that righteousness was said to be "credited" to Abram not of or by his own get-go.
Christ is the author and finisher of faith (belief) not we as man filling in the blanks. No, whenever the latter (man scribbling in that context) can be seen to have occurred, there is sin as result.
On the other hand, in objections to Calvinist views, there seems to be need for strenuous emphasis acknowledging man be part of his own condemnation, when all along (at least since the fall of Adam) man was dead already.
Jesus was not sent to the world to condemn the world...for it was condemned already. THIS is significant. What choice can a dead man have(?) I ask you. Is not the answer painfully obvious? Does man answer God from his own grave? Or is it life sourced from the beginning from the Creator Himself which answers? We, being formed but of the dust of the earth, are not "life" any more than the dust is.
No one. Not even oneself.
One's faith is fickle. You can choose right one day, but the next you will not. There's no way this kind of faith is able to save. It's only faith given by God which can save.
Yes, you do have a responsibility to honor God by walking with Him. If you do not, He will discipline you. You can be a bad child; but you are a child nonetheless. Like the earthly family, once you are a part of a family you are included whether you like it or not.
And the problem with this is...?
It ain't the same doctrine as salvation by grace through faith. That is my point. Non-Calvinist have a completely different interpretation and doctrine that Calvinist double predestination.
It doesn't give man enough credit when he hears God and believes..
It removes man entirely from the equation. It's an extreme position that ends in a false view of God and man and their relationship. There can be no relationship with man as derived from Calvinism.
This is contrary to the whole sense of Holy Scripture including Jesus's ministry.
However you get to this end, you made a wrong term somewhere. Non-Calvinist wisely avoid it.
OK. To get to the crux of the matter, I have some questions:
Does God save man, or does man save himself?
If God saves man, how is it done?
If man chooses God, then is not man that saves himself, and not God, but God merely offering an opportunity to be saved? And does God know who will choose him?
Where in scripture is complete free will of man shown?
Is this complete free will subservient to the will of God?
Is this free will in bondage to man’s sinful nature, or can man overcome this sinful nature on his own to seek repentance?
Does the Bible show that God chooses one man over another?
I believe if you meditate on the Scriptures already given to you, you will have the answers to your questions.
I believe this debate has been done before, and each knows the others position, text proofs etc. My main point is that it is quite different and results in quite different views on salvation, God and man.
In general as it relates to our discussion, Calvinism goes to an extreme - no man, all God. Whereas the rest of Christian doctrine has much more of a relationship between God and man.
I have read the Scriptures and come to a different conclusion than yours. I would like you to give a defense for your conclusions.
Luk_18:42 And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee.
He gives us sight and faith. Our faith saves us.
Where in scripture is complete free will of man shown? Is this complete free will subservient to the will of God?
Get ready for a class in philosophy.
Does the Bible show that God chooses one man over another?
Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh_15:16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.
Rom 9:13-15 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Yes, dueling verses is what it usually devolves to. It’s why proof texting is a poor method.
You say that, but from my experience, most non-Calvinist go to the other extreme: Man is in control, as he makes the decision.
This has been a very interesting thread to me. The predestination issue always seemed straight forward.
IMHO, Scripture is clear that we are saved by Grace through Faith and that even the faith we have is a product of Grace, but Grace that is freely available to "whosoever will". When we accept Christ, our faith grows or as Scripture says, in some cases a person believes for a time but when tempted falls away. Christ knows who will and won't accept as well as whether or not they will fall away. Scripture makes it clear, "whosoever will", therefore to me election means something different than Calvin thought it did and built his doctrine around.
Maybe people who enlisted in and served in the military see the question of predestination differently, but it's no problem at all if you've ever been the property of the USMC. Prior to enlisting, you're your own man, making your own decisions, including whether or not to enlist. Once you enlist and finish boot camp (i.e. do not fall away), though, you no longer belong to yourself except in the very limited sense that you can complain about what you will do because you have been ordered to do it. You will not refuse to do it. You will not decide when to do it. You will not decide how to do it. You are predestined to serve the purposes of the USMC and only their purposes with everything else in you life being shaped around the USMC.
It doesn't seem all that complicated to me, whosoever will may come and accept the gift of Salvation through Grace. Election relates to Christ having a plan to use those who do accept to best advantage once we have accepted. From the point of our irrevocable acceptance we are an integral part of Christ's plans from that point forward. Those who fall away may be used for a time, but they are not integrated into his plan the way a Que stick is integrated into a game of pool. Like those who never accept, they're bumpers, not pool balls or a Que the master uses to make a shot. By by definition, being incorporated into His plans as an instrument of His will rather than our own will is election. Until we accept Christ, we do not have the privilege being one of the tools He uses to bring others to the point that they accept His Grace.
I think the privilege of playing a role in His bringing as many as possible to Salvation from the time we irrevocably surrender to Him forward is what election relates to. I don't think it has anything to do with whether or not we accept His Grace. Once we accept and surrender to Him, though, we are predestined to be in the right places at the right times in spite of ourselves because we are no longer our own, but His.
That would be an error in the other extreme. "God is omnipotent; He created man with free will" is I think the starting point. There is a great deal of possibility for paradox and veering one way or the other within this, but IMHO, it's ending up at one extreme or the other that lets you know you have built upon an error somewhere.
Thanks very much for your reply..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.