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?
But where there is not election there is not grace. In Calvinism, election pre-determines salvation.
You may define your terms differently; however, the doctrine remains quite different between Calvinist and non. These differences cannot be eliminated by conflating terms.
Thanks much for your reply.
Knowledge is one thing; empowerment is another.
This is why it is unconditional. He is responsible for it. It's not like the Old Mosaic Covenant where man had to do his part in order to be in accepted by God. In the New Covenant God is 100% responsible.
He elects those who are His and nothing can snatch them from His hand.
Thank you for the link.
I should have phrased my trouble differently. Even though I believe in Calvinism, part of my nature wants to claim that it is somehow unfair for those who haven’t had the opportunity to hear the Word to be damned. So, instead of relying on my own understanding, I look to the Bible for guidance. I trust that all God does is right and just and for His glory.
True.
In Calvinism, election pre-determines salvation
Yes, true. Grace (God's gift) exercised through election is the jump-start to salvation.
Even Adam's free will was subject to God's sovereignty. Otherwise, why would the plan of salvation be known before the beginning of creation?
2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
2 Thessalonians 2:14 It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I think you are agreeing then?
Without faith there is no salvation. And there is no faith but by grace (God at work in His election plan).
A Calvinist will say this is true.
But he/she will ALSO say that election will always operate through faith. And that faith is always given by grace.
Grace through faith and this is all initiated by God's election. I doubt your position and Calvin's are much different.
That is because the question as posed is a false dichotomy, gently refuted in the above article by such as;
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?”
to which I will add referral to Hebrews 12:2, in which we are taught Jesus himself by his own choice (election) is the author and finisher of our faith.
There is no real argument amongst various camp concerning where grace comes from. Both required elements, grace and faith, as are posed to be RCC teaching "saved by grace through faith" can be seen to be given unto us freely by God's own choice ... by His own hand. Again, by election.
As Christ spoke "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” John 6:44
Not by [our] works lest any man should boast, with the Calvinist position seeming to me be, that without the two required elements, response on our part not be possible, making some of those last words of Christ "forgive them Father, for they know not what they do" ever yet more meaningful.
That said, I'll now hunker down and wait for the "faith without works is dead" scripture grenade likely to be hurled by somebody around here (though not necessarily by you) itself presented as often as not much as the question posed which I'm responding to was, as some form of false dichotomy, in that it presents incomplete doctrinal positions as being the complete teachings...the easier & better to dismiss them by, I suppose.
Presenting the Reformer/RCC differences in regards to salvation, with RCC position here being placed as "grace through faith" neglects to mention that grace itself, in form of forgiveness of sins in Calvin's time it can't be disputed, were claimed by the RCC to be accessible to the many only through submission to the Catholic priesthood- -- and the Roman branch had wavering opinions if grace thus forgiveness be able to flow through any other "Catholic" branch, or at least *some* of the others laying similar claims to apostolic succession.
As far as the Roman branch was concerned, if they or those in "communion" with the Roman pontiff didn't absolve a human being of their sins, then those sins were retained by that human being, resulting in those sins not forgiven by God Himself. This sets up the priesthood as sole font and intermediary of grace itself. Which is the other end of the false dichotomy as posed in form of question, for it clips off too much important information on both sides of the usage of "instead of".
Although today there has been an escape clause of sorts attached in these latter years (Vatican II?) claiming all churches anywhere and everywhere are under authority of the Roman pontiff, it comes across as a legal fiction written as much for reason of primarily not being able to back away from historic & overblown claims towards the extent of their authority, in face of evidence to the contrary, and lack of ability to back those claims up...even as they steadily lose influence on their home turf. Europeans increasingly turn their backs upon them, sadly enough turning their backs also towards the very idea of Christ being sent as our one & only true hope, all of which we see on these pages blamed much upon Luther and the Reformers... As if sin itself was invented by the Reformers. Or that there not have been significant sins within RCC congregations from top to bottom over the centuries of it's existence, either... Or corruptions which much led to bringing about the Reformation as reaction to the frequently unholy mix of less than Christlike authority which was presented to be the way the Lord intended things to be, etc.
Having myself found some significant measures of grace far from being in prostrating submission to the church of Rome, along with it's various & extensive far reaching claims to it's own authority, it becomes plain enough to me that the Lord thinks little of simply bypassing those restrictions & qualifications (as they are frequently sought to be applied by some) towards how He Himself dispenses His own grace.
At risk of taking out-of-context some of what Spurgeon was attributed to have written or said, from the above article;
No hard feelings intended. For otherwise much of the differences between methodologies of dealing with sin, when effective, appear to me to boil down to differences of descriptive phraseology (when not dependent upon a priest's direct bestowal or granting of absolution) along with attendant misunderstandings and misrepresentations on both sides of this portion of debate with perhaps "election" good enough of a representative sample.
This could easily go up to 10,000 replies and it probably would convince few people to switch positions. I recently read through the whole NT for verses that applied to this very subject. From my reading it seems there are more verses that emphasize the faith aspect of salvation rather than the election aspect. That being said both are definitely mentioned, so whatever a person decides it has to incorporate both concepts.
My take on it is this, from Rom 8.
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
The order is foreknew, predestined, called, justified, glorified. The process starts with foreknew, which leaves a door open for a meaningful decision by a person not predetermined by god.
Acknowledging we are dead in our sins and trespasses, it seems we need some power to quicken us, like Rom 1 says here For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes. There are a number of other verses that mention the power of Gods word and the gospel. So God offers us the Gospel and gives us the free will to choose, and those he foreknew would believe he predestined to all kinds of good stuff.
I personally do not think love and faith can exist at all in robots who are pre-programmed to make a certain choice, which is something Calvinism seems to require. Reading through the whole Bible, there would be an awful lot of wasted pages discussing love, faith, and choosing, believing etc, like they matter. Why put a tree in the garden of eden, at the beginning, if God’s intention wasn’t to give them a choice.
If God lined up a bunch of criminals, and then pulled the trigger of a gun, shooting 9 of 10 people, some may say he would be just since they are all criminals. However, if he made them, before they were born, some to be saved and some to burn in hell forever - well let’s just say I have a hard time reconciling that with “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
So I’m still meditating on it, and probably will be 20 years from now. I’m sure when we get to heaven and he explains it, we have a duh moment.
Not likely, he died in 1980. If you really want to read about what he believed about TULIP, read his Five Points of Calvinism.
Dr. Palmer was not one to be be loose in choosing his words.
Like several others, you aren’t following my argument. I agree with you 100% that God elects. My argument is that no one knows whom he has elected, that is, He is the only one who knows, and He isn’t sharing that with me or you. So, I can only assume that he has chosen everybody. Those that confess Jesus as Lord demonstrate the evidence of that chosenness. Even with that, I still can’t be certain that the evidence will fade away.
Therefore, I assume that all are chosen and share the same message of faith with all, whether or not they show the evidence.
I don’t think you would presume to guess whom God has chosen, would you?
**The New Covenant is unconditional.**
“He that believeth” (no comma) “and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not” (obviously isn’t going to be baptized) “shall be damned”. Mark 16:16
“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except man born of water, and of the Spirit he can not enter into the kingdom of God......Ye must be born again......thou hearest the sound thereof......so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” John 3:5-8
The Lord prayed : “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word.” John 17:20
On the day that God first poured out the Holy Ghost, enquiring minds were preached to by apostles; led by Peter. Those that heard his words “were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethern, WHAT MUST WE DO? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized EVERY ONE of you in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST for the REMISSION of SINS, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and your children, and to ALL that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Acts 2:27-39
Grace is definitely a gift from God. But faith is our response to who God is. Faith requires action on our part. It goes beyond simply believing. It is the substance of acting upon that belief.
I take it that he never read Revelation 3:1-5.
For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
—Ephesians 2:8
I have always argued that I would be more interested in the Calvinist argument if it came from someone who believed fervently in Election, but was certain he ( and it is usually he’s) was NOT elect.
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
What is your point?
:)
Interesting point.
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.