Posted on 10/04/2004 7:41:27 AM PDT by xzins
The enormously popular sitcom Seinfeld, despite its aim to be a show about nothing, occasionally raised some very important questions. In one episode George Costanza, the character who could never quite get his life in order, finally appears to have everything going his way. But then, true to form, the plane he is on goes into a nosedive. As he sees his life passing before his eyes, he blurts out, “I knew God wouldn’t let me be successful!”
(In the end, the plane straightens out and George’s life is spared. He does, however, wind up in prison by the end of the episode.)
We do not want to exaggerate George’s theological insight, but he did manage to hit on an issue of extraordinary importance in his little outburst. In fact, we cannot imagine a more important issue than the one he suggests. The question, quite simply put, is whether there are persons, as George saw himself, whom God has chosen not to bless. Or can we be assured, regardless of our lot in this life, that God truly loves us, desires our well-being, and wants us to have his ultimate gift of eternal life? This is the primary question we seek to address.
God’s character
The debate between Calvinism and Arminianism is often framed by the concept of freedom, with God’s sovereign right to do what he chooses with his creation on one side (Calvinism) and humanity’s ability to shape its own destiny on the other (Arminianism). When the debate centers on freedom, the issue boils down to one of power. Is the sovereign Creator of the universe in control, or is sinful humanity in charge? Does God not have the right and ability to do what he pleases with his creation? It is easy to see the attraction of Calvinism when the debate is transformed into a court hearing with Calvinism defending the majesty of God and Arminianism representing the rights of humanity.
Although we would agree that a portion of the dispute swirls around the topic of sovereignty and human freedom, we contend that the truly fundamental dispute is not over power, but rather over God’s character. The fundamental issue here is which theological paradigm does a better job of representing the biblical picture of God’s character? Which theological system gives a more adequate account of the biblical God whose nature is holy love?
What is Calvinism?
Calvinism derives its name, of course, from the great Protestant Reformer John Calvin (1509-1564). It is important to understand, however, that we are using the general term Calvinism to refer to a certain tradition in theology of which Calvin is the most famous proponent. It is called Calvinism because of Calvin’s role in articulating the theology clearly and systematically. Before Calvin, however, the same basic views were defended by a number of important theologians, most notably Augustine (354-430) and Martin Luther, Calvin’s great contemporary in the Reformation.
We do not by any means intend to reject everything associated with Calvinism and Reformed theology. We have enormous respect and appreciation for Calvin and the heritage he defined and engendered. Calvinism has for centuries represented a vital tradition of piety that is intellectually and morally serious.
Moreover, many Calvinists have been zealous evangelists and missionaries and have contributed powerfully to the cause of winning the lost for Christ. In their passion for the glory of God, Calvinists have played a leading role in the renewal of worship in this generation.
The aspects of Calvinism we will criticize, however, are central to historic Reformed theology. We have in mind certain Calvinistic claims about salvation and how God bestows it on his fallen children. The distinctively Reformed account of salvation has been spelled out in five concise claims known as the “five points of Calvinism,” namely, the Calvinist “tulip:”
• Total depravity
• Unconditional election
• Limited atonement
• Irresistible grace
• Perseverance of the saints
Of course, no simple summary, no matter how time honored and historic, can do justice to the subtlety and sophistication of Reformed theology. But these five points remain a convenient overview of Calvinism. So let’s consider them.
Total depravity. Total depravity describes the desperate condition of fallen sinners apart from the grace of God. Sin has affected every facet of human personality to such an extent that we are incapable of doing good or loving God as we should. Our thinking is distorted, our emotions are deceptive and out of proportion, and our desires are unruly and misdirected. In this condition, we are bent on rebellion and evil and are completely unwilling to submit to God and his perfect will. Consequently, we deserve only God’s wrath and eternal punishment. Sinners in this condition are so utterly helpless that they are accurately described as “dead in [their] transgressions and sins” (Eph 2:1). So pervasive and deadly is the effect of sin that they can no more respond to God or do his will than a corpse could respond if commanded to get up and walk.
On the matter of total depravity, Calvinists are in essential agreement with believers in many other Christian traditions. The differences arise when one asks how God deals with sinners in this desperate condition. The Arminian and Wesleyan answer is that the death of Christ provided grace for all persons and that, as a result of his atonement, God extends sufficient grace to all persons through the Holy Spirit to counteract the influence of sin and enable a positive response to God (Jn 15:26-27; 16:7-1 1). The initiative here is entirely God’s; the sinner’s part is only to respond in faith and grateful obedience (Lk 15; Rom 5:6-8; Eph 2:4-5; Phil 2:12-13). However, it is possible for sinners to resist God’s initiative and to persist in sin and rebellion. In other words, God’s grace enables and encourages a positive and saving response for everyone, but it does not determine a saving response for anyone (Acts 7:51). Moreover, an initial positive response of faith and obedience does not guarantee ones final salvation. It is possible to begin a genuine relationship with God, then later turn from him and persist in evil so that one is finally lost (Rom 8:12-13; 11:19-22; Gal 5:21; 6:7-10; Heb 6:1-8; Rev 2:2-7).
Unconditional election. On all of these points, Calvinists beg to differ. It is their contention that God in his sovereign grace has chosen to rescue certain specific fallen sinners from their helpless condition while leaving the rest of humanity to perish eternally. It is important to emphasize that God’s choice of whom to save is entirely unconditional; it does not depend in any way on his foreknowledge of a person’s faith or obedience.
Limited atonement. Limited atonement is the claim that Christ died only for the elect persons whom God has chosen unconditionally to save, rather than for all persons alike, as Arminians hold. Christ’s death covers all the sins of the elect and is therefore effective to save all persons for whom he died. Since his atonement is effective in this way, if he had died for all, then all would actually be saved. But all are not saved, so his atonement is limited to the elect.
Irresistible grace. This brings us to the fourth point of Calvinism, namely, irresistible grace, which is closely related to the previous two points. If God unconditionally elects who will be saved as a matter of his sovereign will, and if the atonement of Christ is effective in that it ensures the salvation of all persons for whom Christ died, then it follows naturally that the elect will not be able to resist God’s sovereign choice to save them. Those who are elect cannot fail to respond positively to God’s grace.
It is tempting to conclude that if grace is irresistible in this way, then God forces himself on the elect and their freedom is destroyed in the process. Indeed, this is a common criticism of Calvinism. However, this criticism is usually a misguided one, for Calvinists typically deny that God forces himself on us and insist that human freedom is maintained throughout God’s saving activity. God’s grace does not violate our wills, but rather changes them so that sinners willingly and gladly respond.
Perseverance of the saints. If election is unconditional and the death of Christ is necessarily effective to save all persons for whom he died, and if saving grace cannot be resisted by these persons, then it follows that those who are chosen will persist in faith. God in his sovereignty will sustain them in faith and accomplish the final salvation for which he elected them.
It is worth noting that the notion of the perseverance of the saints sometimes goes under the label “eternal security.” Baptists of various stripes typically defend eternal security, although many of them reject unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace. Those who hold to eternal security while rejecting the middle three points are not truly Calvinists but are rather a Calvinist-Arminian hybrid.
Calvinist comeback?
The dispute between Calvinism and its critics has raged throughout the centuries of church history at least since the time of Augustine. In the past several decades Calvinism seemed largely to have lost the battle, at least in the theater of American evangelicalism. Various forms of Arminian, Wesleyan, and Pentecostal theology came to predominate much of evangelicalism in the twentieth century. While Calvinism always had its articulate advocates and has continued to exert considerable influence through educational institutions, publishing houses, and other organizations, it seemed to be fighting a losing battle in the modern and postmodern church.
Recently, however, Calvinism seems to be staging a remarkable comeback. We have observed an intense and growing interest in this issue among Christians of all ages. Not long ago we took part in a debate on Calvinism hosted by a local church. It was attended by nearly a thousand people—most of whom looked to be high school, college, or seminary students. Most stayed for the entire three-hour debate, and many remained afterward to continue questioning the participants. So much for the widely alleged claim that Generation X has little interest in theology and doctrine!
Those seeking evidence of Calvinism’s comeback need look no further than the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant body in the United States and a major force within the diverse entity known as evangelicalism. The Baptists are a particularly interesting case study because their theology is often a hybrid of Calvinism and Arminianism. Baptist theology has some strong Calvinist roots, though most Baptists today are Arminian, except for their belief in eternal security.
For the past several years, however, several influential Baptist leaders, many of them young, have been calling for a revival of Calvinism. They have observed that segments of their denomination, like much of American evangelicalism, have become theologically thin, spiritually superficial, and morally confused. As these Baptist leaders diagnose the problem, Arminian theology is a major (if not the major) cause of these ills.
Why is Calvinism making a comeback? What is its appeal? Part of Calvinism’s attraction is that it represents a stark alternative to the superficial, seeker-sensitive theology that predominates in many churches in America. In such churches, God is often reduced to a “cosmic bellhop” whose only concern is to meet whatever needs contemporary people feel in their lives. Doctrine is dismissed as irrelevant, Scripture is used as a self-help manual, and worship is replaced by various forms of entertainment.
Many have tired of such novelties and have recognized that if there really is a God, he must be taken much more seriously than American Christianity appears to take him. Well, the God of Calvinism is far from a cosmic bellhop. He is not obliged to do anything for you except send you to hell, and, if he chooses to do so, he is glorified by your damnation. Calvinism is, if anything, serious about doctrine, passionate about the Bible, and zealous for the glory of God. As such, it appears to be the perfect antidote to the trivialities prevalent in the contemporary church.
Drawing distinctions
The issue can’t be reduced to whether or not we as Arminians believe the Bible, whether or not we believe God is truly sovereign, or whether or not we believe in predestination. We accept the full authority of the Bible and believe any theological proposal must be judged first and foremost by its faithfulness to Scripture (Ps 19:7-14; Mt 7:24-27; 2 Tim 3:16-17). We also believe God is fully sovereign and that he has predestined who will be saved and the terms by which this will happen (Rom 8:29-30; 9:11-12; 11:29; Eph 1:3-14).
In a similar manner, most Calvinists insist that they believe God loves all people and offers all a genuine opportunity to be saved. Most also maintain that we are free and that we make meaningful choices, including whether or not to accept God’s offer of salvation.
To the casual observer, it may appear that there is little, if any, real difference between the two positions. But agreement at the level of broad claims about sovereignty, love, and freedom masks profound disagreements of how these matters are understood in detail.
Consider the words of Baptist leader Albert Mohler: “The God of the Bible is the holy ruling, limitless, all-powerful God who makes nations to rise and to fall, who accomplishes his purposes and who redeems his people. Arminianism—the theological system opposed to Calvinism—necessarily holds to a very different understanding of God, his power, and his government over all things.”
Mohler is surely right in underscoring the very different views of God in these opposing theological systems, but we believe he is mistaken in thinking that the primary difference pertains to how we understand the power of God. We believe the heart of the matter is how we understand the character of God. The issue is not how powerful God is, but what it means to say that he is perfectly loving and good. This difference does indeed affect our understanding of God’s “government over all things,” but it is not most fundamentally a matter of how much power we think God has.
We are in full agreement with Calvinists and other orthodox Christians that God is supremely powerful. God’s power has been displayed in unmistakable and breathtaking splendor in creation (Job 38-41; Ps 8:3-4; 19:1-6). The vast size and complexity of our universe, with its countless galaxies, are all the proof we need that God has supreme power and knowledge. Moreover, God has demonstrated his power on the stage of human history by his acts of special revelation, culminating in the bodily resurrection of Jesus (Ex 15:1-18; Josh 23:1-3; Jer 1:9-10; Rom 1:4; 6:4; Eph 1:20).
Furthermore, we agree that God could have created a world in which he precisely controlled and determined all things, including the choices of human beings. But we believe such a world would make true human love impossible. True human love requires libertarian freedom.
If we think of the issue only in terms of power, the question is naturally framed in terms of what God could do; but if we think of it in terms of God’s character, the focus shifts to what he would do. And it is clear to us that if God determined all things, including our choices, he would not determine the sort of evil and atrocities that we have witnessed in history. Nor would many, perhaps even most, of the human race ultimately be separated from the love of God and lost forever. Indeed, if God determined everything, none would be lost (1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9). Again, if it is a matter of sheer power, it is plausible that God could create a world in which many would be lost. But the God of holy love not only would not, but could not.
Calvinists beg to differ. They believe God is perfectly good even though he has chosen to leave some persons in their sin and thereby consign them to eternal misery. Here is truly the major parting of the ways between Calvinists and their opponents.
In a fascinating historical study, British theologian Colin Gunton identifies key points at which he believes some central Christian doctrines got off track. One particularly interesting development is that in Western theology since Augustine, “the theme of love becomes subordinate to that of will.” Gunton sees this manifested in the way the doctrine of double predestination is understood in some traditions. Part of the fundamental problem, Gunton believes, is a deficient understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity above all shows that God necessarily exists in an eternal relationship of perfect love between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God’s will must always be understood as an expression of his essential nature of perfect love (Mk 1:11; Jn 3:34-35; 5:19-20; 17:20-26). Because he has such a nature, he genuinely loves all persons and genuinely invites them to share his love (Jn 3:16; 14:19-21, 23; l Jn 2:2; 4:7-12).
Writing in The Reformed Journal, Calvinist John Piper recognizes the possibility that God may not choose his sons for salvation, but he insists that he would adore God even in that case. We acknowledged that we have a certain admiration for Piper, although we profoundly disagree with his understanding of the character of God. This, we suggest, serves as a good test case for those who still may be trying to make up their mind on Calvinism. Does Piper’s attitude reflect piety at its best, or is it deeply at odds with God’s character revealed in Scripture? Interestingly, the title of the article in which Piper insists on adoring a God who might consign his sons to hell is “How Does a Sovereign God Love?” We believe Piper has the question backward and that his article reflects the unfortunate subordination of love to will that Gunton identifies. Given the full revelation of God in Scripture, the question we should be asking is, how would a God of perfect love express his sovereignty?
When love is subordinated to will, then the fatherhood of God, which is emphasized in the Trinity (Mk 1:11; Jn 1:18; 5:19-20; 17:20-26; 20:17; 1 Cor 15:20-28), takes a back seat to the image of God as King or Ruler. God’s essential relational nature as a being who exists in three persons becomes secondary to the notion that God is a sovereign monarch whose will cannot be thwarted.
Without the benefit of the New Testament, such a perspective is perhaps understandable. This is not to deny that God’s love is revealed in the Old Testament (Lam 3:22; Hos 11:1). However, the full meaning that God is love was revealed in its clearest light only with the incarnation (Rom 5:8; Gal 2:20; 1 Jn 3:16; 4:9). In the brilliant light of the incarnation, we learn that from all eternity there was love between the Father and the Son (Jn. 17:24, 26). Moreover, the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost revealed that God’s eternal dance of love included the third person of the Trinity as well (Rom 5:5; Gal 4:6; 5:16, 22; Eph 3:16-19). That is why love is not merely an activity of God—it is his very essence.
In a nutshell, our case against Calvinism is that it doesn’t do justice to the character of the God revealed in Scripture. It does not accurately portray the holy One who is “compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love” (Ps 103:8), the God for whom love is not merely an option or a sovereign choice, but who is such that his eternal nature is love (1 Jn 4:8).
Does God love all of us and desire our well-being? We believe that Calvinists cannot answer this question in the affirmative without equivocation and inconsistency. The breathtaking vision of God’s trinitarian love is obscured by the Calvinist claim that God passes over persons he could just as easily save and thereby consigns them to eternal misery. The exhilarating message of the gospel that should be good news to all sinners is muted by the Calvinist claim that only the elect are truly able to join the dance. While Scripture teaches that not all will come, the Calvinist account of why this is so ultimately goes back to God’s choice not to save those persons rather than their refusal to accept the invitation. Indeed, Calvinists hold that God’s sovereign choice not to save some sinners enhances his glory.
God is truly and fully glorified when his nature is brought to clearest light and he is properly worshiped and adored. It is noteworthy that in the Old Testament when the temple was dedicated, the Levites praised God by singing of his goodness and everlasting love and mercy. As they did, the temple was filled with the glory of God (2 Chron 5:11-14; 7:1-4). This glory was shown most fully when the Son of God took on a temple of flesh and lived among us (Jn 1:14-18; 14:8-11; Phil 2:5-11; 1 Jn 4:l-12).
By subordinating love to will, Calvinism fails to glorify God as he has revealed himself in history and ultimately in the incarnation of his Son. The love of God as revealed in the incarnation is not a matter of mere words but of the Word made flesh who actively seeks the well-being of his fallen children. A love that truly and passionately promotes the well-being of the beloved, even when it is costly, is the sort of love that has existed from all eternity in the Trinity and was revealed in the life of Jesus. This is the kind of love, moreover, that God commands his children to demonstrate by following his example (I Jn 3:16-18). Because God loves all sinners in this fashion and actively works to promote their eternal well-being, there is rejoicing in heaven when one of them repents (Lk 15:7, 10). A God who commands this sort of love and who positively delights in the repentance of sinners surely has no need or desire to show his sovereign power by passing over some fallen humans, nor would he truly glorify himself by doing so.
This is why we are not Calvinists.
ping to article.
Not posted for flaming. It is a recently posted article by Dr. Jerry Walls of Asbury Seminary in Good News Magazine, the major magazine of conservative, evangelical Methodism.
He has an interesting approach that I thought you all would enjoy having in your hearts and files.
.
Excellent article.
That's what I thought. Walls takes a different tack.
There are some really strong thoughts in there. I like the one about the eternal love with the eternal Trinity....it just makes sense.
We studied James 2 last night -- at least the first half.
What does real faith look like? (1) Learns impartiality, (2) Learns Mercy
That certainly seems more consistent with this article, doesn't it?
Maranatha!
While the phrase 'Calvinist-Arminianian hybrid" may not be very precise, I would place myself in that category. Contrary to what Palmer stated, I do not believe that TUKIP is either all true or all false.
I find it interesting that when I did one of those 'denomination selector' internet questionaires, it listed Southern Baptist as the most compatible. that would be fine, except I'm not sure of their current stance on dancing. ;-)
Elaine was elect -but certaily was not blessed with dance (ctd take note)
Newman was elect.........and acted like he knew it
nice article xzins
Kramer, Elaine, Newman....??????
It is a thoughtful, respectful article.
The gift of dance is preferable to the gift of speaking in tongues. ;-)
i met a married Mormon woman a few days ago. Said she had I friend I might be interested in meeting. I declined her offer for three reasons. 1) Difference in religion too great; 2) She probably has younger children; 3) I she dated me, she wouldn't be a Mormon for long. LOL
hehe
*sigh*
The real fundamental question is this: What does the Bible say?
That's a reason she shouldn't date you?
From the 4th paragraph. The author beat you to it.
It is excellent! Thank you.
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.