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?
Further, whose decision comes first: the decision of God to free the enslaved, dead sinner and give him the ability to believe,
If you are saying election is first then election determines the rest, they are conditional upon election.
the free-choice decision of the sinner that then makes him or her one of the elect?”
If grace is irresistible, there is no other choice possible, election then grace/faith/salvation; no election, no grace/faith/salvation.
If the middle two events cannot vary, must always occur, then they are irrelevant, we could substitute any other event in the causal stream.
You have election>salvation and supported the doctrine of salvation by election.
Thanks for your very thoughtful post, thoughtful for me anyway; it made me think.
And I think we must always be aware that we cannot know everything, especially about God. We can know some things: He is merciful, and perfect love and perfect goodness and perfect justice. He is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.
These I think we can and do know. So when we end up with a view or description of God that contradicts these, we can know we made a wrong turn somewhere.
We can know that God created man with free will. As you so clearly state, Holy Scripture makes no sense without this. If we end up with a contrary view of man, we have again made a wrong turn somewhere.
So what do we make of the passage you quoted? First, we acknowledge there are many more passages. Second, it helps me to keep in mind that foreknowledge does not mean “caused.” You state this as well although not as clearly I think. God is outside time and not limited to before/after, He does not have to wait to know the outcome of any event or choice; He knows all of it at once.
Thanks again for your post.
You are NOT being "nitpicky". You must have NO idea how many times I have parrot those very words. But no matter how many times you tell this to people and show it in the scriptures, they still believe it's true.
What many don't want to face up to is that spiritually dead people (Ephesians 2:1: "you were DEAD in your transgressions and sins..."; cf. Luke 9:60)...
Finally....someone who knows their scriptures....
I could cry....
It costs $5 bucks!!! Right now I have (literally) over 70 books in my library waiting to be read. If I buy another book my wife will toss me out the door.
Dr. Palmer was not one to be be loose in choosing his words.
Be that as it may, neither was Augustine. Yet Augustine ended up burning up a good portion of his life's work.
I don't know Dr. Palmer nor am I familiar with his works. So it's impossible for me to comment on what his beliefs were one way or the other, except by this one comment that you have attribute to him. I am of course assuming that it's not taken out of context or given at the heat of the moment. People take one snippet of a person's life and they're branded (if I hear Luther's quote about sinning boldly one more time...).
POTS is chapter 17 in the London Baptist Confession published in 1689 which essentially mirrors the POTS section of the Westminster Confession which came out few years later. I cannot trace when OSAS appear in any confession. This would lead me to believe the true doctrine of the Protestant faith was POTS. So why Dr. Palmer would say POTS (which is documented) was like a non-documented doctrine like OSAS is a mystery. All I can say, at the very least, is that he had this entirely backwards. How can one compare something that is fully documented to something that is suspect at the least? Discovering that there is no firm documental evidence of where this doctrine comes from should give one pause as to why they are using it. Not a criticism but Dr. Palmer should have known better.
Tell me, what would lead you to believe that a life long, die-hard Calvinist like Dr. Palmer could fully grasp what is essentially a synergistic, Baptist view of OSAS? I attended primarily synergistic Southern Baptist churches for over 30 years and, while I understand the concept, I never understood how scripture fit around it.
Better yet, are you familiar and a believer in OSAS? If so, it would be interesting for you to provide us with a little information on the history of this suspect doctrine.
Was God's intention to give them a choice or was it God's intention to show to Adam what he would choose if given a choice?
I think maybe I wasn’t clear on the point I was trying to make. My point was this, for faith or love to exist, a choice must be available. For instance, I deeply appreciate my wife because she makes choices daily to benefit me and not herself. This is love. If she were a robot instead, she might well do lots of things for me, and benefit me greatly, but she could not agape love me, ever, since she would have no option to do anything besides obey me.
So for God to create man in his image, and for us to be able to give and receive love, He needed to give us a choice. He was certainly aware that many people would make bad choices, and that many people would choose him. However he wanted to reveal himself as the God of love, and wanted us to be able to give and receive love, so he made a choice to create us with a free will. At the same time he knew we’d blow it, by and large, so he made a plan for that too.
So basically your question seems to miss the point. I believe God gave us a choice because he wanted things like love and faith to be possible. So definitely he wanted to give them a choice. If you want to challenge the point, tell me how faith and love can exist without the ability to choose. If you agree that faith and love require choice, then I think it is clear why we have a choice, because God wanted a world where he could demonstrate love, and we could experience it too. So rather than debate God’s intention for the tree, let’s debate if love can exist without choice. If you come to the conclusion it can’t, as I have, then I expect you won’t be asking the question you did anymore.
These are different conditions than the Old Covenant.
And here we come to the crux of our disagreement.
Scripturally, that statement is incorrect. Logically, it's meaningless.
I believe that both predestination and free will exist. I believe that a few people may be predestined, but the vast majority of people come through their own free will.
Both concepts exist in Scripture. To ignore one is to ignore vast amounts of Scripture that is useful for teaching. To emphasize no free will among the general population drives people away from God--not toward Him. It also paints an incomplete, and distorted, view of God. One that isn't very nice to contemplate, or consider.
If you are saying the intention wasn't to give him an honest choice, then you are saying that God created an imperfect man. It wouldn't have been good.
That idea is very non-scriptural.
Thank you for your response. I believe your point was very clear; however, this isn't the teaching of traditional Protestantism. This is Catholicism. Please note this from Our Catholic Faith. Of course, perhaps you are Catholic in which case then the issue isn't an issue at all. :O)
If you want to challenge the point, tell me how faith and love can exist without the ability to choose.
Please note my rhetorical question: Was it God's intention to show to Adam what he would choose if given a choice? I am not saying Adam (and Eve) didn't have a choice. What I am saying is that Eve decision was based upon a deception-so she made the wrong choice. Adam's decision, apart from the influence of God, was motivated by Eve. And so it goes; always motivated by something other than God.
So rather than debate God’s intention for the tree, let’s debate if love can exist without choice.
Rather interesting question and quite frankly I'm tired of talking about horticulture. I would say that since God doesn't make "choices" (He shows no partiality) and God is love, then I would say yes love can exist without choice. And as noted in 1 John:
The only reason we love is because of God, which means that God must put love into our hearts to love Him back and to love others. So then that begs the question on how we can make a choice if we have no love for the Father? We must have love in order to make a choice.
Eve was deceived. Was that an honest choice?
If you claim otherwise, you are claiming the Fall happened before that incident, or that God created imperfect beings while claiming it was all good.
It isn't what Adam knew or didn't know. It's what Eve knew or thought she knew.
Christians shouldn't be naive that we can't be deceived. We're warned over and over in scripture to beware to it. And if I asked every Christian here if they had a choice whether or not they want to be deceived, what do you think the results would be?
While Eve was deceived, Adam was not.
...you are claiming the Fall happened before that incident, or that God created imperfect beings while claiming it was all good.
No, the fall did not happened before the "tree" incident. Nor did God create imperfect beings. Perhaps God wanted to show Adam what choice he would make if put into that situation. God knows a lot more about us then we know about ourselves.
'People elect' to RECEIVE The Gift or NOT. And it is by faith they do it as God has dealt to every man THE measure of faith.
“For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man THE measure of faith.” (Romans 12:3)
WAIT for what? It Is Finished
When I make dinner - I'm done. Who ever comes to the table receives it, gets fed/LIFE - those who don't, starve/DEATH.
BTW, I made dinner for ALL.
"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you LIFE and DEATH, blessing and cursing: therefore choose LIFE, that both thou and thy seed may live" Deut 30:19
No. You have FAITH>salvation. It is by His Grace that He gives the GIFT - It is by FAITH you RECEIVE it.
You can only have what you RECEIVE. Another way to say it is, if you 'ELECT' to RECEIVE it.
If I understand your post correctly, you definitely do not agree with Calvinism.
It is what Adam HEARD BY GOD and DISOBEYED - The Word. Eve HEARD it BY 'MAN'; therefore, she was open to deception/his twisting of words.
And He answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which HEAR the Word of God, and OBEY it.
Eve listen to what 'man said' 'God said'. Now if Eve heard God's Word directly, then she could either confirm or dispute what 'man' told her and then either obey or disobey. Adam disobeyed, Eve was deceived.
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.