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?
What I suggested in my post also helps with problems of the Trinity, for example. The “Father”, the “Son”, and the “Spirit” are the results of different “experiments.”
The question might be, “the electron, is it a wave, a particle, or energy?” and the answer is “yes.” But which? None and all, it is an electron.
Is God the Father, the Son, or the Spirit? The answer is “yes.” But which? None and all, He is simply God. You aren’t going to arrive at the definitive three dimensional model, because it can’t be done. God is not trapped as we are.
So when the Jehovah’s Witness asks, “Where was God while Jesus was dead on the cross?” the answer is, “where He always was.”
It is up to us to accept that choice. We make a choice as well.
ShadowAce,
I have on several occasions in this thread, cited larger passages other than one verse to support my belief.
By quoting Titus 1:1, I’ve shown that YOU have cherry-picked a verse from a letter that starts by addressing the recipients as God’s elect.
But let’s look at the passage you chose again. Titus 2:11 “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.” What is the grace of God that brings salvation? How does this tie to your point that it is not election? What were you trying to say by using this ONE verse?
Grace and Peace,
K51
Do you have a scripture reference for this?
If you meant by "man's point of view" ALL men, my point stands. Many men on this side of the grave have discovered they have nothing in themselves to offer God; they claim that it's only by God's sovereignty they are saved.
If you meant by "man's point of view" only you (singular) I understand from your post that you consider salvation 100% a result of free choice on your part.
Do the Hustle!
Ah, the old game of making up myths to debunk. So fun for apologists of all kinds.
He knows, of course, what our decision will be. That is agreed upon by both sides. What is up for debate is the nature of that choice.
What is the grace of God that brings salvation?
According to calvinists, it is election, I say it is His drawing to Himself. His grace, though, is resistible. That is what defines true Love--our ability to reject it or accept it.
Do you have a scripture reference for this?
Besides Titus, that actually spells it out? The entire story of the Scripture spells it out--from Adam's choice to sin in the first place, to the parables Jesus told to examples given in Scripture (rich young ruler for example).
Scripture is the story of God Himself drawing all of humanity to Himself, and of us mainly rejecting Him. Scripture is His love letter to us, His greatest creation. He doesn't want people he chose and forced into the relationship, He wants people He chose and who chose Him freely and with love.
AMEN - I don't understand everything you state in your post, but I concur with your conclusion!
Yes, and the only one of the two choices that we can see from our side of the veil is the terrestial choice, not the celestial. That’s my point. You seem to think that I am somehow not accepting what scripture says.
You clearly have no idea what I said or meant.
Thank you for your reply. I understand what you are trying to say.
How do you explain the John passages that I posted before, Romans 9, as well as Titus 1:1? What do you think it means when it talks about God’s elect?
I think Chaguito show that the dichotomy is in the viewpoint: From God’s viewpoint, He know His elect. Jesus points this out in the John passages I quoted earlier. But from out viewpoint, we must act. Jesus points this out in His parables.
We confess our belief in Him. But what causes the change? Was it purely ourselves, or was it the Holy Spirit acting on us to make our confession?
As Ephesians says, we are dead in our trespasses and sin. Spiritually dead. The spiritually dead will not seek God; that is their free will. This is demonstrated in the both the OT and NT. Only a change of heart (regeneration) will change us from being spiritually dead to spiritually alive. Can we do it alone? No. Once spiritually alive, can we go back to being spiritually dead? No. We can sin, but we grieve at it, as Paul discusses in Romans 7, and that is the free will of the believer.
But there are those who delude themselves they are saved, but continue to sin without grief. Those who act this way clearly do not demonstrate that they are saved at that time, though they may repent later. Should they persist in their sin, the demonstrate that they were never the elect, as described in the parable of the wheat and the tares.
So man does have free will, but the spiritually dead’s free will shall never seek God. The believer’s free will will choose to follow God, but imperfectly, as he still has his sin nature. The sin nature will die with the body, and then the believer will perfectly follow God.
Finally, the free will of man can never trump the Sovereignty of God.
... the demonstrate that they were never the elect ...
should be
... they demonstrate that they were never the elect ...
“Finally, the free will of man can never trump the Sovereignty of God.”
But then God wouldn’t truly be sovereign, would He? So, that’s a statement that a Calvinist should only see as self-evident and unworthy of re-stating. :)
Thanks for the (partial) thumbs-up.
By the way, how about this: The most basic theme of the Bible is the idea that God makes covenants with man, from beginning to end. The term most often used in Scripture to define the character of God is chesed - one who honors his covenants. The very act of making a covenant means that God by definition limits His sovereignty, because he makes promises (many of them conditional) to man as far as man loves and honors the covenant (chesed). If He purposely limits His sovereignty, is He really less sovereign?
My point is that Calvinists tend to view God through Greek lenses, while the whole of scripture describes Him through Hebrew lenses. Thus, “omnipotent” is a Greek concept which the Bible eschews in favor of “King of kings who bows to meet His people.” (through covenant).
But there are some who sacrifice that Sovereignty for the free will of man. Sometimes you have to re-state the obvious.
My point is that Calvinists tend to view God through Greek lenses, while the whole of scripture describes Him through Hebrew lenses.
Paul described God both through the Hebrew and Greek lenses. And many Calvinist I know tend view the covenants through the Hebrew lens.
For instance, the OT describes the kinsman-redeemer. Jesus is mankind's kinsman-redeemer. He emptied of himself to meet His people and be their sacrifice. Who are his people? If all men, then all would be saved by the kinsman-redeemer. But we know all will not be saved. So who are saved? Those that the Father chose for the Son.
I agree with your observation. We can believe because God has given us the ability to believe and he has drawn us to the truth. Yet there are billions of people who also have "faith", but in the wrong thing. I'm sure Hindus believe and have faith that the tenets they hold to are the truth as do Muslims, etc., else why would they continue to follow it? So, man apparently has the ability to "have faith" or exercise faith APART from the right kind of faith.
I suspect the exact explanation for how predestination and free will work in tandem is beyond the ability of human, finite minds to comprehend. We see through a glass darkly, after all. That's why I try to avoid coming down on one side or the other about the subject. It is a combination of God's omniscience - knowing the end from the beginning - and His perfect will accomplishing EVERYTHING He has determined to do YET within a framework of man's freedom to choose to follow THE truth. God knew before He created anything how it would all turn out and nothing happens that takes Him by surprise. He is able to MAKE all things work together for good for those called according to His purpose (Rom. 8:28).
What Calvin and the other Reformers did was to try to put into words, as best they could, the framework for understanding why some come to a saving knowledge of Christ while others have no desire to come to Christ. Even when Jesus was on earth and performing miracles before their eyes, some rejected that he was the Messiah. They had a spiritual blindness - whether because of sin or design - and they could not "see" the truth standing right in front of them. Like the example Jesus gave of Lazarus and the rich man in the same area separated by a great gulf between suffering in torment and comfort in Abraham's bosom. The rich man begged Abraham to send Lazarus back to warn his brothers lest they come to the same torment he had. And Abraham told him, "If they believe not Moses and the Prophets (Holy Scripture), neither would they believe if someone came back from the dead."
This tells me that there is a need for us to first be diligently seeking the true God before He rewards us with the truth (Heb. 11:6). Many do not seek. Some do not want to know truth and some only seem to want it but fall for false gods. Some follow false gods but STILL seek and come out of false religion into the light of the truth and are saved. Jesus said, "All that the Father gives to me shall come to me and he that comes to me I will never cast away." (John 6:37). So, somehow, predestination AND free will both are true and how they are true, we can only scratch the surface of until the time we have the mind of Christ and know as even we are known - THEN it will all make perfect sense.
I'm sorry but I have no idea of who Edwin Palmer is nor have I read this through this article and posts. However, if Edwin Palmer made such a claim, then he has absolutely no understanding on the differences of "Once Saved, Always Saved" and "Perseverance of the Saints".
In the first case, OSAS is a bastardized view of POTS to try to reconcile the "free will" choice of coming to Christ with the idea that one cannot lose their salvation. The problem Arminians "free willers" have is, if you can come to Christ on your own free will, then can't you at some point in time reject that salvation? True Arminians will say, "Of course you can." and it is in their creed. And, they are right-in their own twisted sense of the gospel. Other Protestants who have back slid away from true Protestantism, are aghast at the thought of losing one's salvation and have concocted the doctrine of OSAS. Their interpretation is that once you make a choice, God will keep you even from your bad choices.
To be perfectly honest, this was always the most goofiest doctrine to me. While I've never doubted my salvation, I could never understand the logic of OSAS. If you could make a choice, why can't you choose at any time to leave the flock?
POTS states that while, yes, you could technically lose your salvation one never will. You were give to the Son by the Father to care for. Our Lord Jesus is the Good Shepherd who watches and cares for us. Although we might drift away for a time according to His good pleasure and hidden will, He won't let anything happen to us. He will see us home. And that is reassuringly good news.
Now if Edwin Palmer cannot understand the difference between those two points of views, one has to wonder why? It's not that complicated unless he simply never could understand the gospel of grace.
I think that when we get to heaven there will be a door that on the outside the sign says, "Whosoever will.", and on the inside it will say, "Chosen from before the foundation of the world."
Yes, I do know what you mean. When you make it a universal case (i.e. "we") I do not concur.
The Old Covenant was conditional.
The New Covenant is unconditional.
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.