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?
Hmmmm...I find that to be an odd statement.
On the Reformed side is a God who reveals Himself to us, cares for us and watches over us; wanting us to feast with Him at His wedding feast. There are those who don't wish to submit to His will and He will execute His judgment on them. But these vessels of wrath would rather "reign in hell than serve in heaven". God will give them what is due them.
On the reverse side, is a God who will grant those who make the right choice and live a life dedicated to Him to come join Him in heaven. Those who reject His calling will be throw into eternal torment for all eternity for making a poor choice within their limited life span.
Now which seems more loving?
To say that Dr. Palmer was a Calvinist's Calvinist might be somewhat of an understatement.
While I would disagree with some of his views, he was a great man and the one man most responsible for the NIV Bible, which I think is easily the best "thought for thought" version.
You might find it interesting to know that Calvin did not teach some things that many Calvinists now believe, and that Arminius did not teach what Calvinists claim he taught. I think it would be fair to say that the reverse is also true.
Sorry, but you've given here only a brief summary of the doctrine of foreknowledge -- upon which there's very little disagreement among denominations -- and the doctrine of election.
You're not claiming (by silence) that God has less elective power than, say, you're average American voter, are you?
I don't see where grace is conditioned upon election; election IS grace.
But no grace or faith for the non-elect. I think you've only attempted to solve the conflict by redefining election. Bottom line is still: no-election, no grace/faith/salvation and it is election that conditions everything else. Hence, salvation by election.
Isn't "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved?" a promise? Is God less sovereign for making such a promise? I'm not sure what you're driving at here.
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.”
This is rather an odd statement. Could you please provide examples for I find it to be exactly the opposite. For example in Ruth we find the blessed Naomi state:
Amo 4:7 And also I have withholden the rain from you, when there were yet three months to the harvest: and I caused it to rain upon one city, and caused it not to rain upon another city: one piece was rained upon, and the piece whereupon it rained not withered.
Dan 4:36 At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and my counsellors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me.
Dan 4:37 Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.
Jas 4:15 For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.
Jas 4:16 But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.
Greek idea is not an omnipotent, all sovereign God. Rather Greek theology was one where gods strive with men, other gods and demons. This is reflected in some denominations in which their eschatology states one big battle in which God and Satan duke it out. It is reflected in God pleading with men to accept Him. It is reflected in people believing a loving God would not inflict punishment or judgment on us. This is not only Greek thought but it is Renaissance thought where man is the center and God is somewhere else.
Now if you have specific examples it would be interesting to review.
You might want to read this sermon from the great Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon. It will give you a great deal of insight.
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/1516.htm
Yet this doesn't comport with Scripture: "No one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor. 12:3)
Who gets the credit for salvation? Jesus dying on the cross for our behalf, and the Holy Spirit enlightening/illuminating us via the gift of faith...or man's marvelous "choosing" ability???
Sorry, the Bible doesn't "major" very much in elaborating upon man's great "choices"...hence, "decision theology" doesn't represent the Bible.
In fact, may I suggest you study up on the spiritual bondage that pre-empts men from making great choices? (Ephesians 2:1-3; John 8:34; most of Romans 6...where Paul was writing to a city that was about 1/3rd slaves...they knew the spiritual slavery parallels Paul was talking about).
Even with the Israelites' wandering in the wilderness, they couldn't be "on the loose" until God set them free via His miracles and His agent, Moses.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Could you be a little more specific? You might find it interesting that I haven’t read very much of Calvin. His name just happens to be stuck with Reformed theology much the way Arminias name is stuck on the Semi-Pelagius side.
Have you read through the Protestant’s Westminster or London Baptist Confession of Faith? I find that Protestants don’t really seem to have a clue about the founding fathers of Protestantism or what Protestant is all about. The TULIP was recent development but is not nearly as comprehensive as the confessions.
Is not the implantation of faith a "condition?" If we are "pregnant" with the "condition" of faith -- and God the Father draws us (John 6:44); Jesus chooses us (John 15:16); Holy Spirit gives it to us (1 Cor. 12:3); we still have to "give birth" ... and thus be born from above... right?
Not everybody has this gift, right?
Probably the toughest thing for us to explain is that 'free will' bit.
I think it undercuts the whole system. If true, then Jesus's ministry doesn't make sense: "Why is he exhorting me, it's His choice not mine." And our everyday experience is an illusion. Building on this leads us to, quoting Chesterton, "thought that kills all thought." If it's true there no purpose in us thinking or discussing this any further. And..
If man is being controlled, then how could we all possibly be "without excuse"
Which calls into question justice. Certainly, speaking for myself, I pray for mercy more than justice; however, both are nonsensical if we have no free will choices in the most important matters.
We believe there are times and places in which people are steered directly by God
Without a doubt there are times when God calls people for His purposes. They are still free to object (as Moses and others did) and free to say no.
Pharoah's heart was hardened
Yes it was, but my heart has been hardened as well; thankfully, it doesn't mean I am incapable of repentance and responding to God's love and grace.
Hmmmm - guess He gave me those words to write... or did He?
Well put!
If I am trying to make my will His will, then what is mine and what is His?
I think Calvinism is an honest attempt that ends up in a very wrong result with a wrong view of God. But I think it is good and pleasing to God that we care enough to try to know Him through this and other ways.
In the end, perhaps we could say: God is omnipotent; He created man with free will; the rest is speculation.
thanks again...
That may very well be but I'm very familiar with the OSAS view. Either Dr. Palmer didn't completely understand the difference between OSAS/POTS or he probably made a poor post on an Internet site somewhere. Trust me, it happens. OSAS and POTS are not the same.
No, but where there IS salvation it is by grace. God's choice to save souls (whomever they are) IS grace.
Excuse me for being "nitpicky" about that word "choice," but it's really NOT a Biblical concept.
(See post #88).
Even a pastor-author coming from a tradition where preachers oft used Revelation 3:20 as part of their "decision theology" (Michael Cocoris) conceded in his book on Evangelism that it was a misused verse...given that Jesus' invite there was to people inside a given church...not outside of it...
Beyond that, the other verse oft cited by decision theology types is Joshua's "choosing" whom he would serve...a message given inside the camp of the "chosen" people of God -- the Israelites.
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)...
...who are in bondage to sin (John 8:34), in bondage to Satan, in bondage to the fear of death...
...aren't exactly in an "empowered" state to be making "the right choices"...
...unless and until, God's initiative in their lives quickens (enlivens) them via illumination of the Gospel.
No there is no condition. God implants where He wills.
we still have to "give birth"
We don't give birth. We are the ones who are born. Remember "the wind blows where it wills" (John 3). Those who are born again are only consequences of that wind blowing; we don't decide where it blows.
He knows who He will save. (Comment: He knew this before creation).
He knows who will reject him. (Comment: Again, He knew this before creation).
Sorry, but the Bible speaks of "representative" language...Christ was our representative in serving out the curse's penalty on the cross (one for all)...Adam was our representative in jumpstarting that curse in the garden...'tis all there in Romans 5.
Adam & Eve had "free will." Since then, perfect "free will" and mortal sovereignty went by the wayside.
19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. (Jesus, Matthew 15:19)
Our heart isn't simply corrupted by the sin we allow into our lives; no, Jesus says that it's our heart that spills over into enacted sin...
Let's go back to Jewish theological thought from a long time ago:
* Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (Psalm 51:5)
* Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward... (Psalm 58:3)
That -- faith -- is in itself a "condition" of distinction...even if God is 100% responsible for it...
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.