The Day I Became a Calvinist

There are a few things that people never forget. The details of certain tragedies and trials stay by your side and the vivid details remind you of their significance. People remember where they were when the planes hit the World Trade Centers. I was leaving for work and glanced at the TV. People remember where they were when the first space-shuttle exploded. I was in eighth grade down by the snack machine getting Bugles. I remember where I was when I was told about my sisters death. I was driving down 635 just passing Preston Rd. I remember where I was when I was told about my mothers aneurysm. I was sitting on the couch on the middle cushion with cereal in my mouth. We remember certain events because of their significance. Unfortunately, most of these are tragic. It is funny to bring this up in this context, but most Christians remember where they were when they first heard about God’s election – predestination.
It was nearly 20 years ago. I was outside my mother’s room and she came to me with her Bible and said, “You think you have got it all figured out? Well, how do you deal with this?” She gave me her Bible opened to Romans 9. It was the first time I had read it. I read it right there in the hallway. When I read the words, “It does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but upon God who has mercy,” I got mad. Well, I started off confused. But I did not let my mother know this because at the time I was a know-it-all (hence, the “You think you have got it all figured out” etc.). My confusion turned into determination. Determination to resolve this “crisis.” I went into my room and laid down on my stomach on the left side of my bed. I studied that passage inside out. No, I did not consult any commentaries. I was too smart for them at the time. All I needed was the Bible and the Holy Spirit. My mother was sure to tell me that she had asked people all her life and no one could give her an answer. This fueled my motivation.
After hours alone with the text, I went back into my mother’s room and sat down on her right side on her bed. I said, “I have figured it out.” I proceeded to tell her that God “elected” people based upon what He already knew. I had reasoned this way: If God knows everything, even the future, then He knows who will choose Him. Therefore, He simply looks ahead in time and chooses those who choose Him! That is it! Next question please.
Yes, I came to that conclusion on my own without even knowing that I was articulating an Arminian position with regards to election. I left her room satisfied that she still believed I could solve any biblical dilemma. Yet, the problem was that I was not satisfied with my answer. I knew that my answer was insufficient. Deep down, I knew it. I knew that I was not being intellectually honest with my mom, myself, or the text. I knew that I was simply trying to solve a problem that when looked at in the face was very frightening. No, it was repulsive. This know-it-all-Arminian-by-nature was thoroughly confused. Why? Because the answer I gave was exactly what the text would not allow. It said, ”For though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls.” And I just told my mother that it DID depend on whether or not someone had done something good or bad, namely whether or not someone had faith.
That day, whether I admitted it or not, I knew my theology was changing. I did not know what Calvinism was and was greatly unaware of the debate surrounding the issue of election, but I was becoming a Calvinist. I did not want to. I fought it for weeks, months, even years. I was a reluctant Calvinist.
However, things did change. I also remember the day that I fully (and joyfully) embraced unconditional election. I was at a seminar led by James Montgomery Boice. I don’t remember much of what he said, but I do remember this story. I will do the best I can with it.
“Imagine this. Imagine yourself being in heaven and walking with the angels. One of them asks you, “How did you get here.” You would say ’Well, I got here by the grace of God alone.’ The angel responds and asks, ’Well, I don’t understand. Why are you here and others are not?’ You say, ‘Because God had mercy on me.’ ’Yes, but,’ the angel replies, ‘What makes you different.’ If you are an Arminian, you would ultimately say, ‘Well, when it comes down to it, the major difference between those people who did not make it and myself is that I choose to place my faith in God.” [At this point Boice places his thumbs under his arms with a haughty look]. The angel then says, ‘Oh, so ultimately, you are the cause of your salvation.’ But to the Calvinist, things are different. There will never be an opportunity or a place for boasting before the angels or anyone else. Not even in the slightest. There is nothing that you can claim. There is no haughtiness, no pride, no self-esteem. Only a deep understanding that God did everything and you did nothing. This is grace. To the angel, all the Calvinist can say is ‘I don’t know why God had mercy on me and not others. All I know is that it has nothing to do with me.’”Â
That day I finally came to a settled conclusion that this is what the Bible teaches and I had better submit to its authority, not the authority of my emotion. That day I realized that salvation is a monergistic work of God. That day I realized that my faith was a response to God’s mercy upon me. That day I realized how radical grace is and how sovereign God is in His administration of it. That day I joyfully gave the Potter charge over the clay and placed my hand over my mouth. That day I knew that I could never be lost since I had nothing to do with being found.
Since then, the struggles with regards to this issue have not ceased. I still understand the problems that people have with Romans 9 and the entire doctrine of election. I understand why people reject it. Yet all the arguments that I have ever heard against it only serve to confirm my conviction of the truthfulness of unconditional election.
PS: This blog post is not necessarily meant to be an argument for Calvinism (though it is implied), but simply some details about my theological journey, if you will.
PSS: NO, I am NOT still a know-it-all. Silence!
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!- “Why Does He Still Find Fault”: Predestination, Election, and the Argument of Romans 9
- TUP – God's View of President Barack Obama Part 1
- Bucer, Evangelism and Unconditional Election
- Tension in Calvinism – tension in the Christian faith
- Why Calvinism is the Least Rational Option
Print This Post

Sean on 12 Sep 2007 at 5:36 am #
Thanks for sharing, Michael, and I mean that sincerely. I think your story is typical of many people who choose (snerk!) Calvinism. It’s not at all unusual for people, when faced with a Scriptural difficulty, to be attracted to a theological grid that can explain it, and Calvinism can certainly do that. I feel, however, that its theological grid is far too rigid, and while it can explain many passages, there are many others that it has severe difficulties with (e.g., John 3:16, 1 John 2:2).
I find Romans to be an extremely difficult book to grasp fully; certainly the most difficult of the “really important” (if I can say that) books of the Bible. Paul’s argument is iterative and cumulative; if one just reads a chapter a morning, one will never get the full picture. Chap. 1-8 at the minimum need to be imbibed in one gulp.
See, so much of the case for Calvinism depends on Rom. 9, but when I turn to Rom. 10, I see a very “Arminian” (if I can say that) chapter. It speaks of “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord” being saved. Preachers must be sent and proclaim the word, or how else will they believe? which is not a very Calvinist thought. (Remember what they told William Carey.) It is very clear that salvation is open to all who will respond. I don’t see that chap. 9 has to be the overriding control passage.
I can’t believe in unconditional election of Rom. 8:29. Predestination is based on God’s foreknowledge. I don’t buy the Calvinist argument that foreknowledge is basically a synonym for election/predestination. The substitution “For those whom he predestined he also predestined” simply doesn’t work.
I must say I am a little dismayed if you found Boice’s rhetorical straw man persuasive. My impression from the way you described it is of a typical Calvinist, haughty, simplistic, distorted caricature of Arminianism. It’s very distasteful. I don’t want this post to turn into a book, neither do I have the time for that, but there are about a dozen holes in it.
PS: This response post is not necessarily meant to be an argument for Arminianism (though it is implied), but simply to share with others that their theological journeys don’t have to take this path in order to make sense of the Bible.
All the best,
Sean
Sean on 12 Sep 2007 at 5:39 am #
Fourth paragraph first line should begin: “I can’t believe in unconditional election because of Rom. 8:29.”
Can you enable a preview function for your com boxes? Please?
Lisa R on 12 Sep 2007 at 6:27 am #
Sean,
I really don’t see the difficulty in John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2 because it speaks of God’s love for the world but is different from His election. If they are one in the same, then these passages could be used to support a universalist argument that God saves everybody.
I think the greater difficulty is understanding how He can love everybody but yet only save some by His choosing . In addition to Romans 9, how do we get around these passages: Col 3:12, I Thess 1:14, Eph 1:4, Eph 1:11, II Thess 2:13,14, Acts 13:48, 2 Timothy 2:10, I Peter 5:13.
Lisa R on 12 Sep 2007 at 6:28 am #
And that I would add, is where we fill in for what we don’t understand.
richards on 12 Sep 2007 at 6:30 am #
There are good responses to your questions, Sean, and many more passages that support unconditional election than Romans 9. I won’t offer those here since they are offered elsewhere, and offered more convincingly than I can articulate. Besides that, this would become just one more out-of-control blog on Reformed vs Arminian theology.
I will say that I can totally sympathize with you Michael, and with your Mom. One of the key questions that could be asked is “How far did we fall?” We are made in the image of God, so do we still have some capacity to choose good, as did Adam before the fall? Or have we fallen so far that we have no capacity for morally good choices? I think if Isaiah had not written and Paul reiterated that we are “not good, no not one”, and later that “Christ died for the ungodly” and that we are “dead in our trespasses”, I could begin to allow for some morally good choices based on being made in the image of God.
Lisa R on 12 Sep 2007 at 6:34 am #
Michael,
Thanks once again for your transparency. More than anything else, it serves as an example.
Sean on 12 Sep 2007 at 6:48 am #
Lisa,
I’m not raising those verses in reference to election. I’m raising them in reference to the reformed doctrine of limited atonement, which contradicts them. Strict Calvinists, however, will say that you can’t be a four-pointer and be a true Calvinist. For me, that point is the unraveling of the TULIP. It’s simply not sustainable.
Arminians do believe in election, but not unconditional election. Election, as it says in Romans 8:29, is based or conditioned on God’s foreknowledge, which includes (but is not limited to) their response to his genuine offer of salvation to all (Rom. 10).
Blessings,
Sean
Ruth Tucker on 12 Sep 2007 at 8:42 am #
Michael,
I find your story very interesting, not only because I’m some sort of Calvinist myself, but also hearing of your Mother’s role in your “conversion.” Mothers, I’m convinced, have historically played the most significant role (apart from God!) in the conversion of their children. Your story reminded me of the very different story Charles Templeton tells in this book “Farewell to God.” He wrote the book after he lost his faith–which a good Calvinist would say he could not do–though as a good Arminian, I guess, he had the right to lose his faith!! Right? I write and quote the following in “Walking Away from Faith” (34):
He was transformed one night after he returned at 3 a.m. from a strip show that he described as “a sleezy affair.†His mother was still awake, and she called to him.
“She began to talk to me about God, and about how she longed to see me with the other children in church. . . . I felt shoddy, unclean. . . . As I went down the hall, I was forming the first fumbling words of a prayer in my mind. I knelt by my bed in the darkness. . . . I found myself—I don’t know how much later—my head in my hands, crouched small on the floor at the center of a vast, dark emptiness. Slowly, a weight began to lift. . . . I hardly dared breathe, fearing that I might alter or end the moment. And I heard myself whispering softly over and over again, “Thank you, Lord. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.â€
Nick N. on 12 Sep 2007 at 9:08 am #
Richards,
You said: “Besides that, this would become just one more out-of-control blog on Reformed vs Arminian theology.”
Arminians are reformed (so are Lutherans) — They’re just not Calvinists.
Michael,
I’m curious to know how extensively you’ve read Arminius himself (and if you read him at all before becoming a Calvinist). It seems that at least a basic reading of his works would have shown J.M Boice’s argument to be misrepresentative at best. I don’t mean to paint with a broad brush and I certainly am not omniscient when it comes to Calvinist authors/speakers but I have never read/heard an accurate representation of Arminianism come from the pen/mouth of a Calvinist. On the other hand, while I have read/heard some caricatures of Calvinism come from Arminians, in general I would say that they represent Calvinism fairly and honestly. I won’t speculate here why this is but I do have my suspicions.
Having said that, I’m not convinced that one has to choose either of the two theological camps — there seems to be more out there — but I am convinced that one cannot merge the two successfully and be a Calminian or Arvinist.
Chad Winters on 12 Sep 2007 at 9:26 am #
Ok, this is something I’ve been mulling over…
Frequently in hermenuetics we see OT narratives as types and shadows of later NT fulfillments.
To me God’s relationship with Israel as a type and shadow of the NT Church is much closer to Calvinism than Arminianism.
God chose Israel to make his covenant with, not out of foreknowledge that they would make a Covenant with him, but because that was His Plan. He did not offer his covenant to the Gentiles at that time. He “elected” Abraham and Isaac and Moses and Joseph and David, etc. Even when they tried to deny him he was “irresistible”.
I don’t know what do you think?
Josh on 12 Sep 2007 at 10:07 am #
I don’t want to cause division or make waves, but I was always curious why people who are against the doctrine of unconditional election site John 3:16, as though it somehow gives weight to their argument.
I ask because if you look at the whole context, more specifically the first part of this chapter Jesus is basically telling Nicodemus that the kingdom of heaven is based on some form of election, “Jesus answered, “truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, “You must be born again†The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.†(John 3:5-8)
Just curious of your thoughts.
Your brother in Christ,
-Josh
Lisa R on 12 Sep 2007 at 10:08 am #
To be honest, I am still working my way through the L in TULIP but am strongly convinced of the TUIP.
But getting back to Romans 10 – whoever calls on the name of the Lord, shall be saved. The question of the whoever is not the who but the how.
I Cor 12:13: Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. If we say election is conditional, then doesn’t that suppose that us being dead in trespasses and sins have the ability to override the grace, gift and sovereignty of God (Eph 1,2)?
So isn’t the whoever in Romans 10, those that would believe anyway?
Matthew on 12 Sep 2007 at 10:09 am #
Sean,
Going through your objections to the Reformed position on these matters I think one who subscribes to TULIP always needs to wrestle with those passages. One of the tendencies I have seen in the past is to try and play exegetical gymnastics with them in order to defend their position. Even Spurgeon himself criticized this (in relation to the “world” verses). I don’t think it’s really necessary for the most part.
However, I don’t think many of the passages you’ve raised are objectionable, nor do they need to be explained away. You mentioned the verse that states “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” and no Calvinist that I know of would say otherwise (except maybe a hypercalvinist). Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord *will* be saved. Dead sinners, however, will never call on the name of the Lord unless the grace of God changes their hearts to do so. One has to keep tota scriptura in mind on these issues. We don’t take Romans 10 and buttress it up against John 6:44 or 1 Corinthians 2:14 to make them contradictory.
Modern Calvinism has a bad reputation for missional work (though that is changing, fortunately). That Calvinism is antithetical to evangelism is untenable historically, however. William Carey’s detractors were distinctly hypercalvinistic and never represented mainstream Reformed beliefs. One need only mention the names of Calvin, Knox, Spurgeon, Whitefield, Edwards, Carey, Mather, Ryle, Packer, Sproul, Piper, Schaeffer, J. P. Boyce, Newton, among a host of others and the argument that it is opposed to evangelism is absurd. Rather, I believe the doctrines of grace are an impetus to evangelism, because we believe God’s sovereign will through our preaching will come to fruition with His blessing.
With Romans 8:29, I am not sure I have ever heard the those He predestined He predestined argument, but rather that the term foreknowledge here is used in the same sense in which “knowing” is used throughout the rest of scripture, and that is in the terms of knowing in an intimate, relational way. Even if you take it to mean that God knows aforehand who will choose Him, it doesn’t negate unconditional election. In that respect, God knows who will choose Him because He is the one enabling them to do so. The point of the issue is that Rom. 8:28-33 is all the action of God. Which leads right into the verses in Romans 9 which speak of it being dependent on God’s mercy and not man’s willing or exerting. I think the Arminian position on the Romans verses requires a lot more eisogetical interpretations than the Calvinist position.
richards on 12 Sep 2007 at 10:37 am #
Since this post will garner lots of comments, I’d like to mention two resources that will be very beneficial.
1) Humble Calvinism: http://spurgeon.wordpress.com/2007/01/09/humble-calvinism-series-index/
2) Covenant Seminary’s course on the Institutes: http://www.covenantseminary.edu/worldwide/en/CH523/CH523.asp
While the focus of this post is Calvinism’s view of election, Calvinism is far more than soteriology.
Sean on 12 Sep 2007 at 10:48 am #
I agree entirely with what you wrote, Nick. Well said.
Michael, have you read Olson’s Arminian Theology?
***
Again, John 3:16 is not cited as a negation of unconditional election but of limited atonement. Most orthodox Calvinist theologians will state that the five points hang or fall together. Limited atonement is a doctrine unique to the Calvinist camp, prevailing in no other major Christian tradition, including Lutheranism, which is otherwise rather close in soteriological matters. Accordingly, the burden of proof is on the Calvinist camp for this one, and John 3:16 etc. make it a very heavy burden.
***
Arminianism is not ultimately about fighting against the sovereignty of God or putting human merit or works alongside his grace. It is ultimately about fighting over the character of God, something that we feel that some Calvinists misrepresent because the image of God, specifically his love, created by that theological grid is distorted. That some people are eternal excluded from the love of God and any opportunity of salvation ultimately because of… what? God’s capricious choice? is unacceptable theology for a religion that is supposed to be based on the teachings of Jesus.
(And before you say, “No, they’re excluded because they sinned,” remember that in Calvinism God decreed the fall and as was discussed recently, holds every single person guilty for Adam’s sins even before they commit any of their own. Ultimately, their damnation is his choice. Calvin himself called reprobation a “horrible doctrine,” though he believed in it. Contemporary Calvinists should be very cautious in defending it.)
Nick N. on 12 Sep 2007 at 11:09 am #
Josh,
John 3:16 is not brought up in reference to the problem it presents for unconditional election, but rather for the problem it presents for limited atonement.
Hope that clears it up for you.
Lisa,
You said: “If we say election is conditional, then doesn’t that suppose that us being dead in trespasses and sins have the ability to override the grace, gift and sovereignty of God (Eph 1,2)?”
Absolutely not! It is the grace of God that gives men the ability to repent (Acts 5:31; Rom. 2:4; 2Tim. 2:25) and believe (Rom. 12:3; Eph. 2:8).
Whatever side of the argument you fall on, grace is the sole means of salvation which is what makes the J.M. Boice argument all the more disappointing.
Nick N. on 12 Sep 2007 at 11:11 am #
Well said Sean… I started writing my comment before yours posted. I agree 100%
Sean on 12 Sep 2007 at 11:18 am #
Matthew, I missed your post while composing my response. I just have time for a quick note. I agree that it is unfair to state that contemporary Calvinism is antithetical to evangelism. That argument does come up sometimes in debates, but I really don’t think it is helpful with the theological issues.
I do believe, however, that the strict predestinarianism common in protestantism before Carey did inhibit missions and is part of the reason why protestants lag behind catholics in numbers. (That, however, is a whole ‘nother can of worms.)
Kris on 12 Sep 2007 at 11:21 am #
For those who object to God’s unconditional choice, not just to offer salvation
but to actually carry out the work as well, I would like to see your exegesis
of Romans 9. We need to separate the doctrine of election with the doctrine
of repentance and saving faith. They both involve salvation. One is what God
does, the other is our response. We won’t do our part until enabled by Him.
In response to Sean and God’s capricious choice. I offer Romans 9:20-21.
We must always remain humble that He’s God and we’re not. I would much
rather trust that an all loving and sovereign God who is infinite will bring his
plan to pass rather than the sinful finite creatures that we are.
Your thoughts
Vance on 12 Sep 2007 at 11:22 am #
I think your internal instincts were right, but then you over-intellectualized it and “logicked” your way out of what you instinctively knew to be true!
Honestly, every time I begin to get engrossed in this issue (and I have from time to time), I catch myself and step back a bit. I see both sides throwing proof-texts back and forth, and attempting systematic constructs to figure all of this out. Ultimately, however, I think the exact nature of what predestination and foreknowledge and election, etc, all mean to God and His process is not something that we, as mere humans, can not clearly articulate. That is why even Paul was all over the board on this, and why we have very, very smart people, with deep insights into Scripture still falling squarely into one camp or the other.
Then I had a general epiphany on the subject. In the end, some are saved, and some are not.
Pretty simple, really.
And, for all of us, there is a time when that happens, and we all feel as if it is both God calling and us responding. Whether God foreknew or predestined does not matter. Whether than feeling of us turning to God is due to an irresistible force or God giving us the power to choose (still being entirely God, of course), does not matter. It all ends up in the same place, with some of us being saved and some of us being lost.
The mechanics, ultimately, are irrelevant to me. Yes, there is the “pride” issue, but really, I have seen just as much pride among Calvinists as Arminians, so that does not seem to be a factor, really. If someone thinks that they had some part in the process of turning to God, that does not mean they don’t realize that it is still all by God’s Grace that the even had the choice in the first place, so no pride is called for.
Yes, there is the issue of “backsliding”, but this ends up as a non-issue as well. The Arminian labels it “losing” salvation, the Calvinist labels it “never really being saved in the first place”, but the end result is the same.
So, in the end, it is mere semantics over the mechanics, and I have not seen any real “outcome difference” between the two positions. I don’t see any more pride in the Arminian, or any less evangelism in the Calvinist, for example.
So, while I still consider myself an Arminian, it is not because I think there is any substantive issue there, but because I see them both as merely fallible human expressions of “God things”, and that fallibe presentation is the one I feel more instinctively in tune with.
Vance on 12 Sep 2007 at 11:24 am #
ooh, sorry for the double negative in the second paragraph. It should read “. . . is not something that we, as mere humans, can clearly articulate.”
Sean on 12 Sep 2007 at 11:26 am #
And as usual Vance has a lot of good points.
I tell my students not to think about this too much as they will go mad. I offer to give them names & address of people who have.
BTW, though I’m an Arminian, when I talk with Arminian-type people I remind them that “free will isn’t all that.”
Josh on 12 Sep 2007 at 11:27 am #
Thanks for the clarification on John 3:16.
Another question, would you consider the doctrine of total inability (depravity) to go hand in hand with the doctrine of limited atonement?
Your brother in Christ,
-Josh
Sean on 12 Sep 2007 at 11:34 am #
Romans 9 has to be understood within the backdrop of Paul’s larger discussion of God’s dealings with Israel and the nations. Its primary intent is with regard to Israel, a group. To some extent, it is a misinterpretation to apply it directly to the question of the salvation or reprobation of individuals.
C Michael Patton on 12 Sep 2007 at 11:41 am #
Let me reiterate that the purpose of this post was just to give you all a glimpse into the day I started dealing with this issue. Obviously I did not expand upon the months, really years, that have followed where there was an intense struggle as I fought to deny that which seemed to be the clear teaching of Scripture. It is a personal journey.
Having said that, I agree with those who have posted that Calvinism is not antithetical, even limited atonement, to God’s love for all people, his desire for all to be saved, and even that the atonement is potentially sufficient for all.
The issue, when all is set aside, letting go of the labels Calvinism and Arminianism, is the nature of election. Is it conditional or unconditional. There is not in between or middle ground. Even Olson attests to this in his book on Arminianism.
My struggle started with the idea of unconditional election offered by Paul in Romans 9. I don’t think Paul could have been more clear. Romans 10 does not contradict Romans 9 in any way. Those who believe in unconditional election also believe in human responsibility. It is not an either/or. There is no logical contradiction in saying that all people are accountable for their rebellion, but the only way that people will be delivered from this rebellion is the sovereign mercy of God.
Another point of this post is to suggest that no one goes kicking and screaming to the Arminian position. Emotionally, this is the way we are bent. While I don’t discount the place of emotions in our theology, it does take a back-seat to Scripture. In this case, my emotions said one thing (God could not have unconditionally elected people) and the Scripture said something else (God did unconditionally elect people). That people must go kicking and screaming to the unconditional election position is another testimony to its persuasiveness. I don’t think anyone ever, at the beginning, wants to be an advocate of unconditional election, but they must, in my opinion, submit to it. Who are we to answer back to God?
While I do think that there is mystery concerning the relationship between human freedom/responsibility and divine sovereignty, we cannot use this mystery as an excuse for allowing Scripture to speak clearly about basic truths that provide the mystery. I strongly believe that unconditional election is clearly taught in Romans 9. Not to use an ad populum argument, but there are not many good exegetes that I know of, liberal or conservative, who would deny that this is what Paul believed (I. Howard Marshall would be an exception – and NO, Olson and Wright are not exegetes). He most certainly was not all over the board on this issue at all!!
I would suggest you all read my article on Romans 9 and my response to Arminianism if you want to deal with this issue head on.
Nick N. on 12 Sep 2007 at 11:51 am #
Again I agree 100% with Sean. We can’t read Romans 9 without having dealt with the first 8 chapters and even then chapter 9 is the first of a 3 chapter treatise (9-11) dealing specifically with the Nation of Israel. I also agree with Vance’s points concerning the functional differences between the two theological camps — there really aren’t any.
Josh,
I would say that all 5 points of TULIP go hand in hand with one another — so much so that if any one of the five were to be shown false then the entire system crumbles (this is not to say that there can’t be some points that are true — it just says that the system doesn’t work unless it is firing on all cylinders). Having said that, I would say that Limited Atonement is probably more directly linked to Unconditional Election than it would be to Total Depravity. The reason I say this is because even classical Arminians believe in total depravity (although they nuance it slightly differently than Calvinists).
For example, Jacobus Arminius said:
[The Works of James Arminius, trans. James and William Nichols, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1986), 1.227-28.]
Nick N. on 12 Sep 2007 at 11:56 am #
Oh, and for anyone who wants to give Arminius a reading, his works are available online Here and Here. You’d be surprised to find out just how reformed he was.
C Michael Patton on 12 Sep 2007 at 11:56 am #
Ruth, mom did play a primary role in my faith. Yet she does not believe in unconditional election. We have gone years where we would not talk about theological issues in our house because she gets so mad about it.
C Michael Patton on 12 Sep 2007 at 12:05 pm #
I don’t think the “functional” argument is fair. I could make the same type argument about other religions. As long as they tell you to help and love other people, does it really matter. Or about the openness view of God. As long as everything else plays out the same, who cares whether God is transcendent or not.
Doctrine does matter. There are reasons why God included these issues in Scripture. Right doctrine is a primary motivator for our action. You can have the right actions with the wrong motives and the God who weighs the heart will see the difference.
Obviously, we must understand that God did think it important enough to devote a significant portion of Paul’s writings and presumption it this issue. It is interesting that Paul even includes the doctrine of election in the fuller Gospel message. Romans is a book about the Gospel.
I think we have some problems when we relegate this to something that is not important. Granted, you don’t have to believe in unconditional election to be saved, but God does want us to know about it.
As well, it is interesting to note that whether Paul was at a church for two months or two years, he writes back to these churches telling them to remember what he taught about this subject. This means that it was one of the initial teachings from Paul lips. It is sad that most Christians have to wait years before even being exposed to this doctrine. Then when they are, their presuppositions are so strong that they cannot even consider it . . . sigh. We front load the Gospel with all the nicities of the Christian faith (God loves you, has a wonderful plan for you, you are special, etc.) but are not up front with the “severity” of God (God is sovereign, God is righteous, no man can stand before Him, etc.). Such is the weakness of the theological educational program of the church today.
Ruth Tucker on 12 Sep 2007 at 12:15 pm #
I just did a FIND search to check whether double predestination had been brought up. No, but Vance did introduce a double negative along the way–not quite the same thing.
Doesn’t predestination logically assume double predestination? If God elects me for salvation and does not elect you, aren’t you by default elected for damnation? If I were to choose 7 (and 7 only) of my 37 students to pass my church history course (by no merit of their own), aren’t I also determining that the 30 remaining will fail?
A lot of good Calvinists are horrified by the concept of double predestination.
Kris on 12 Sep 2007 at 12:16 pm #
Michael,
I can relate to your journey into believing unconditional election. I think that
at the root of the issue is thinking that man has some say so in their
destination. I mean, we make choices everyday so why would this be any
different. When we make the understanding that God is timeless
and that we are not, then it’s easier to see how decisions play out
according to our plan. To be honest what convinced me of Unconditional
election is that in many passages I simply see it as being the exegetical
answer. The question came down to “Do I want to be more (in my view)
loving?” or “Do I want to be more biblical?” I have to put emotion aside
when exegeting texts. If not then I will not truly receive that God is saying.
I’m not saying that it is not emotionally stirring, but simply that I should not
let emotions change my exegete.
Kris on 12 Sep 2007 at 12:18 pm #
Ruth,
If all are sinful and are headed to hell, is God unloving by selecting some by
His Grace to be saved? He doesn’t send them somewhere that they are
already going, but He does let them go.
C Michael Patton on 12 Sep 2007 at 12:19 pm #
Kris, exactly. The palatability of a doctrine does not determine its veracity.
Ruth Tucker on 12 Sep 2007 at 12:30 pm #
So, Kris and Michael, are you both saying straight out that God elects people–the vast majority of the world’s population–to go to hell?
Vance on 12 Sep 2007 at 12:31 pm #
Michael, I agree that doctrine does matter, which is why I think your comparisons to other religions is a bit of a straw man, since those doctrinal differences are, indeed, salvation issues.
And, I would agree that it is not only the salvation issues which are worth discussing and thinking about and studying. We need to seek to understand the things of God.
BUT . . .
I think this area is not quite as clear as you present it. I think there are definitely enough texts that push the dialogue back and forth for me to wonder whether the problem is a matter that we are taking an area that is mystery and trying to squeeze into a systematic construct. I believe that the study and the analysis and the seeking after God’s truths can get us close, but my general approach to all of this is that there is a limit. There is a point at which we have to say, OK, if I try to pin it down any tighter than this with human language and understanding, I will be more likely to do damage to the truth than understand it.
At that point, we step back, accept that we must accept the points that we can grasp, and hold the rest loosely, if we must go there at all. We can only grasp the Trinity so far, we can only grasp the dual nature of Christ and the Kenosis so far. We have to accept the level of mystery involved in these areas and remain humble about our abilities to fine tune this down to fully graspable system. I think the areas in this debate are very much in that category.
We see it a lot in Scripture, and the basic concept of God’s Grace and our Faith are there to be grasped, but if the details of the exact mechanics and the distinctions we want to make in this debate were clear in Scripture, we would not have SO much dispute over these details. I think the reason we have it so often in Scripture is that we have to talk about it in a variety of ways since it IS not something we can grasp fully!
Call me Eastern Orthodox on this one!
Oh, and why is Wright not an exegete?
C Michael Patton on 12 Sep 2007 at 12:33 pm #
Ruth, I think it does in one sense. By not being elected, you are being elected. But I think we have to understand the election to hell much differently. God is not choosing who will spend eternity without Him necessarily, but allowing people to follow a path without mercy. Therefore, this election is passive, not active. It is interesting the way that Paul words his argument about the potter and the clay. Notice the use of pronouns.
Romans 9:22-23 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory.
Notice that the “vessels of mercy” are explicitly said to be prepared by God (“He prepared beforehand for glory”), while the “vessels of wrath” does not have the same pronoun. This may suggest that the vessels of wrath prepared themselves.
Notice also that the “vessels of mercy” are prepared “beforehand.” This is not said about the “vessels of wrath.” This would follow the same line of thinking. Paul believes that the non-elect prepare themselves for their destruction here on earth (not before time), while God prepares the “vessels of mercy” before all time for their end.
Let me be up front so that I don’t look too much like a Calvinist groupie. My biggest problem with Calvinism is the non-elect. If what I say is correct, God could have chosen everyone. I don’t know why He did not. I am disturbed greatly by this. I am often tempted to go to a quasi-univeralist position like Bloesch, or just an “we don’t really know what will happen to the non-elect . . . maybe (hopefully) there is a loophole that we are not aware of or God is hiding from us to test our faith” type argument.
In the end, this is the first question that I will ask God. “Why didn’t you elect everyone?” I may end up with my hand over my mouth, but it is a problem non-the-less.
Sean on 12 Sep 2007 at 12:41 pm #
Ruth, I didn’t use the term, but I did bring up reprobation in #15.
Protection of God’s sovereignty and majesty lies behind much of Calvinist thought; protection of God’s character lies behind much of that of Arminianism. Arminians have doubts about Calvinists’ definition of God’s love. We fear that (some) are calling something that really isn’t love, “love,” because they have to. The God of the decree of reprobation does not seem to match the Father of love Jesus revealed to us.
The shield of “who are we to question God?” is only so big; it can’t totally deflect this problem. Questioning our understanding of God in this area is no more daring than confessing double predestination. No one said this was an easy one.
I’d love to chat more but I have to go to bed (other side of the world and all that.) If I may ask Michael one more direct question: do you still think Boice’s presentation and representation of Arminianism as fair and accurate?
Matthew on 12 Sep 2007 at 12:41 pm #
Sean,
The problem with interpreting Romans 9 as referring to the nation of Israel is twofold; One is the obvious fact that national Israel was still made up of individuals. Those individuals had to be chosen by God to build up the earthly nation (Saul, David, Solomon, et al.). It is true that prior to verses 11ff. Paul mentions national Israel, but he quickly breaks it down to an individual level by bringing Jacob and Esau into it. Though Jacob is a direct forebear to national Israel he as an individual still had to be chosen over Esau.
Secondly, verses 14ff. directly relate to the issue of salvation. As Paul weaves mercy and grace into his prior discussion of the choice of Israel over other nations. Paul’s imaginary dialogue is all an individual level (“who are you, o man, to answer back to God?”). He then speaks of the vessels of mercy and the vessels of wrath. These are clearly individuals he is speaking of and not nations. He then continues with the elect remnant of individuals within Israel itself.
C Michael Patton on 12 Sep 2007 at 12:45 pm #
Vance, if you accept the Trinity, then you are doing what I propose to do with this doctrine. For example:
It is clear that Christ is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. It is also clear that there is one God. It is also clear that Christ is not the Father, the Father is not Christ, and the Spirit is not either. Yet you accept the tension by confessing that all are true, we just don’t understand this.
The issue is the same with the doctrine of election. It is clear that God chooses us unconditionally. It is clear that we have a responsibility to choose Him. It is clear that no one can come to God unless He sovereignly intervenes. There is tension, but no contradiction.
You see, Arminians are very modernist in their approach. Pinnock, Boyd, and others follow under the presumption that it has to make sense if we are to believe it. Arminians try to alleviate themselves of the tension presented by unconditional election and human responsibility. Calvinists do not. They take it much more like the issue of the Trinity. While we don’t understand how it all works, we believe that it is true.
Advocates of unconditional election seem to be willing to admit tension and mystery into their system. Advocates of conditional election attempt to solve the tension, but fail to do justice to the text. This is where your belief in sola Scriptura is going to be tested. Is rightly interpreted Scripture the final norm, or just a contributing norm?
I am not saying that Arminians are such simply because they are trying to be logical or modernistic (for most, like myself before I became convinced of unconditional election are motivated by love for others – a good thing), but this is one of the factors that play into their arguments.
Matthew on 12 Sep 2007 at 12:47 pm #
Michael,
I agree with your trepidations about God not having chosen everyone on earth to be elect.
It still bears repeating, however, that He simply doesn’t have to. He doesn’t reveal in scripture why He doesn’t choose them for salvation. The only time it is addressed is that He chose Pharaoh and other of the wicked in order to display His power in them. I imagine that scripture paints it that God must display His justice as well as His electing love. Which then is all the greater magnified when set against the backdrop of His wrath. If He simply chose to save everyone, perhaps the glory of it would not be as obvious, because we wouldn’t have the context of the result of not believing in Christ.
All in all, we dare not go beyond what is revealed!
Sean on 12 Sep 2007 at 12:48 pm #
Ruth, conditional immortality is what has allowed me to keep my sanity in the mission field. That and the hope that the reason God resurrects everyone at the end is that pardon will available for those who seek it. (Even then, I don’t believe all would seek it.)
C Michael Patton on 12 Sep 2007 at 12:50 pm #
Sean, Boice’s illustration is most certianly a valid one. But it assumes that we cannot boast about our faith. Maybe we can. Maybe when we get to heaven it WILL be the one small thing that we have contributed to our salvation. Maybe it is the deciding factor of whether we stand before God or not. Therefore, it begs the question appealing to an assumption of monergism.
However, in his defense, it did not beg the question at the time. The whole session was a defense of Calvinism.
BTW: I went to an undergraduate Arminian school for my undergrad.
C Michael Patton on 12 Sep 2007 at 12:53 pm #
Exactly Matthew. “The problem with interpreting Romans 9 as referring to the nation of Israel is twofold; One is the obvious fact that national Israel was still made up of individuals.”
If Paul were simply talking about electing nations, then we have two issues. 1) This just pushes unconditional election up one level, but does not solve any difficulty. 2) If it did solve the difficulty, why is the diatribe set up in such a way in vs. 19-20. These verses make no sense outside a presumption that Paul is speaking about unconditional election. Why would the objector object to conditional election?
Mark Hunsaker on 12 Sep 2007 at 12:56 pm #
Michael wrote:
“The issue, when all is set aside, letting go of the labels Calvinism and Arminianism, is the nature of election. Is it conditional or unconditional. There is not in between or middle ground. Even Olson attests to this in his book on Arminianism.”
At first, this makes logical sense, but when you look at the definitions that are implied you get into trouble.
Simply put, one view (Calvinism) sees God as the sole or major determinative factor both in salvation and damnation and the other (Arminianism) sees man as decisive, at least in the sense of making some type of contribution.
Lutheran theology occupies the halfway house holding that God alone is responsible for the salvation of the redeemed and that each man alone is responsible for his own damnation.
Lutherans come to their view because it best satisfies the biblical data and it finds a firm basis in the great Reformation principles which recognizes the total depravity of man and more especially the magnificence of God’s grace in the salvation of man, the sola gratia. The doctrines of the total depravity and the sola gratia stand in such a delicate juxtaposition that the slightest imbalance can introduce fatalism or synergism.
Vance on 12 Sep 2007 at 1:10 pm #
Michael said:
“The issue is the same with the doctrine of election. It is clear that God chooses us unconditionally. It is clear that we have a responsibility to choose Him. It is clear that no one can come to God unless He sovereignly intervenes. There is tension, but no contradiction.”
Yes, absolutely, I think those things are clear, and we must hold them in tension and allow the mystery from that point. But, the Calvinist position (or the Arminian position, for that matter) does not stop there. It goes on to mandate the nature of that unconditional choosing (based on foreknowledge v. strict predestination), HOW God intervenes, the degree of the intervention, and the exact nature of our responsibility.
And, I agree that the current popular Arminian position does have problems as well.
I think we are on the same path there, but I think I stop shorter on where we can go with certainty. My point of “OK, here we have tension, but not conflict” is very much where you have set it. And I think that is about as far as I can go. I can’t follow either side of the debate much further.
The main issue where I think the mystery goes that you may not is the “unconditional” part. There is no linear time for God. It is all the same, all in an instant and all forever. There is not “this, then this, etc”, it all just “is”. This is, of course, entirely IMPOSSIBLE for us to grasp. God can’t choose us without already knowing how we would respond, so it was not unconditional in the pure sense, since for God, all that has ever happened and all that will happen, and everything about us and how we would/have/will act, is all ONE THING to Him. Yet, it is unconditional, for this same reason: God did not just lay it out there, with that election being being “up for grabs” depending on our reactions, with God waiting to see what we do, leaving it up to us to decide. The forces of foreknowledge, election, predestination, and its unconditional nature are all just attempts for humans to understand what we can never really grasp about how God works.
In the end, I still come to a point of wondering whether this particular doctrinal dispute is more about pushing doctrine into areas of mystery.
Kris on 12 Sep 2007 at 1:13 pm #
Michael,
may I ask of the Arminian school that you attended?
Also, I can see how Calvinists still admit to the tension. A humble Calvinist
will see the difference between what has been revealed and what has not,
mainly the elect has not been revealed, but His plan to gather His elect has.
Personally to me an Arminian God is a passive God who simply responds to
our call.
And yes, I have read Olsen’s “Arminian Theology”. It was good, but seemed
more philosophical than anything else.
C Michael Patton on 12 Sep 2007 at 1:19 pm #
Mark, good comments. But I think you are seeing Calvinism as monolithic on its view concerning the ordo salutis, which they are not. Some are supralapsarian (“before the [allowance of] the fall”), some are sublaparians (“after the [allowance of] the fall”). Some are even infralapsarians (more of a unlimited atonement variety). But this does not effect whether people are conditionally elected or unconditionally elected. It has more to do with the implications.
You said:
“Simply put, one view (Calvinism) sees God as the sole or major determinative factor both in salvation and damnation and the other (Arminianism) sees man as decisive, at least in the sense of making some type of contribution.
Lutheran theology occupies the halfway house holding that God alone is responsible for the salvation of the redeemed and that each man alone is responsible for his own damnation.”
Most Calvinists of the Sublapsarian and Infralapsarian would agree with the “halfway house” you presented. Man alone is responsible for his own damnation. This is where I stand.
Thanks for the contribution!
Vance on 12 Sep 2007 at 1:21 pm #
BTW, here is a blog to add to the blogroll!
http://arminianperspectives.blogspot.com/
Thomas Twitchell on 12 Sep 2007 at 1:28 pm #
Congratulations Sean on the birth of your son. You know of course that your child does not naturally love you. He will have to be taught to love you. When and if he does you will love him. But, if he does not, you will love him just the same.
Do you think that pre-fall Adam, created in the image of God, by nature loved God? Do you think that Jesus by nature loved God or did he have to learn to love God because he was born with a nature that did not? Is Jesus the firstborn among many brothers? In the “regeneration” of Adam represented by the Second Adam, there is quite a contrast. He by nature could not sin, therefore loved the Father from conception forward, perfectly. Jesus was the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth. From conception forward he always did the will of the Father. He did not learn his nature, he grew into it. How contrary to lapsarian mankind, for we must learn our fallen nature and be forced to deny it.
Birth is not the beginning of life. The beginning is in the secret place and the person who is generated by will of another only breaks into the light according to the nature and will of the progenitor. No one chooses to be born, that is conceived, but just as Jesus contrasts the birth natural and supernatural he also contrasts the conception, natural and supernatural. “If I tell you about earthly things and you do not understand, how will you understand if I tell you heavenly things. “Anothen” is often translated born again and sometimes from above. It has another connotation, from the beginning. Two things can be said about this. It may refer to the conception of regeneration, it may also have to do with the predeterminate will of the Father. In neither case, either natural or supernatural birth, is the conception of the conceptus by the will of the thing conceived. We infact use this verb to speak of thought. It is in our mind what we will to produce in natural generation, and likewise, it is in the mind of God what he will produce in supernatural regeneration. Each is according to its kind, not of its choice, but because of the predetermination of the conceiver.
As Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, albeit in a unique way and sense, we are conceived by that very same Spirit, set apart from conception for the very purpose of producing fruit after our own kind. Which is why we come to the knowledged of the faith, which is discerned spiritually by the Spirit in us, 1 Corinthians 2, which must be received before we can understand the things of God. In other words, only those conceived after His own kind can hear his voice. Just as with animals, the language of the Spirit is not discernable by the flesh. It requires supernatual ears and a supernatural mind conceived after a heavenly kind. It is the supernatural result, logically, of a monergistic work of God in creating. Something of which we play no part in except as the vessels of mercy for Gods glory.
John 1:12 is always quoted by neglecting the next verse by those who wish to deny Gods sovereign, limited and unconditional election. They make receiving Christ the determinative action, when if fact the controlling verb is in John 1:13, “who were born, not by national identity, not by the will of a earthly father, or any man’s will, but by the will of God.” (my paraphrase). You see, verse thirteen can come before twelve without doing any damage to the meaning. It is because they “were born” that they could receive. Which splices nicely with John 6.44 where it is God who draws and enables individuals, not nations to come to him. And only those he enables come.
Again, notice that being born means to be carried, not to be birthed. Being carried means from conception forward. That the birth happens latter does not negate the choice of the Father to beget a child, and it is not the choice of the child born that the conception has taken place. Yet, we know that as the Spirit does its work and is not seen, His work is evident by the effects, the wind that follows Him. So we rejoice when we hear the first cries of an infant, and more so do the angels in heaven when one sinner repents. For that cry of repentance to Abba Father means that the Holy Spirit has gone forth in the Word and done that thing for which it was sent and the Word does not return to the Father void but brings with it many sons drawn to the Son by the Father.
It is a beautiful story, one which, unfortunately, the Arminian turns into a cloning exercise, producing another after his own kind, sinful, unable to love, naturally. He must be trained to deny his nature and love the Father by law. An action by which no man is justified.
C Michael Patton on 12 Sep 2007 at 1:30 pm #
Retractions:
I said that I. Howard Marshall was the only good exegete that I know who is an Arminian. I think Scott Mcknight is also a decent exegete and he is an Arminian. In fact, Scott is a convert from Calvinism! His arguments can be seen at http://www.jesuscreed.org. Although, I don’t think his change was exegetically motivated.
In sum. The two best exegetes for the Arminian positions, I believe, are:
I. Howard Marshall
Scott McKnight.
The two best (modern day) theologians (both with a historical bent) are:
Roger Olson
Thomas Oden
You should really read these guys. They are good and well able to defend the Arminian position.
But you must consider the mass amount of exegetes (let alone theologians) who are persuaded that the Scriptures teach unconditional election:
Douglas Moo
Henry Morris
Tom Schreiner
Cranefield
Stott
Newell
Daniel Wallace
Darrel Bock
And all of these people would not even part of the Reformed tradition (in the sense of denomination). They are just exegetes.
Honestly, I don’t know of one good commentary on Romans that takes the position that election in Romans 9 is conditional. It is usually theologians and philosophers who would do such with the text, not exegetes. I could be missing something though.
C Michael Patton on 12 Sep 2007 at 1:35 pm #
Vance, what you are failing to see (I think) is the the unconditional part is the only thing that causes the mystery. If election is not unconditional, problem solved! There is no mystery or tension. But then the Scripture does not make sense.
What I am saying is that it is clear that election is unconditional. Again, I appeal to my post on Romans 9. What do you do with the text? How do you explain the objector’s reaction outside of unconditional election?
There are some things that are very clear, like the issue of the Trinity that produce mystery and tension. The issue of God’s unconditional election and man’s responsibility produces mystery and tension.
A Lover of Truth/Souls of mankind on 12 Sep 2007 at 1:36 pm #
When one opens to an arbitrary passage (isolated context) and is introduced to a text upon which Romans, chapters 1-8 (really the entire Bible up to this point) was building, it is not dissimilar to concept overload/confusion (much like immediately teaching calculus to a 5 year old).
Please consider the following:
The whole framework of Romans MUST be understood with its introduction (God’s purpose for BOTH Jew [circumcised] and Gentile [uncircumcised]):
The Gospel was the culmination of God’s promise (Rom. 1:1-4.
The introduction of the Gospel from Pentecost-onward:
Salvation has ALWAYS followed the “obedience of faith” (Acts 2:36-47; 8:5, 12;10:33-48; 11:18 et al).
Acts 14:37 shows that it was the obedience to the Gospel (the “offer” to all for salvation) that will define the “obedience of faith” in Romans (salvation “by faith”, Heb. 11).
Acts 15:1-5 is essential, it shows the Jews’ desire to hang onto the Law of Moses (and compelling Gentiles who were never made to be circumcised in the first place, to keep it).
1. Romans has nothing to do with “faith alone” (thus Paul’s introductory marker of, “…unto obedience of faith among all the nations [Rom. 1:5; 16:26])
2. Paul then sets his thesis statement that IT (the Gospel) “is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16).
THEREFORE: “believeth” must be understood in light of “…unto obedience of faith among all nations”, which includes Jew and Gentile alike (as well as thinking “by faith” yet NEVER thinking “faith alone”) in their obedience to the Gospel (Rom. 1:5; 16:26; cf. Gal. 3:26-28).
Paul then goes to show that God’s wrath is revealed to those “not” obedient (both Jew AND Gentile, Rom. 2:1-11)
He then goes to show that a Savior was needed for ALL men (obviously those “accountable” [with a capacity TO believe], Rom. 3)
He then shows God’s method of salvation, in justifying both Abraham (one NOT circumcised) and David (one who WAS circumcised) because both manifested the obedience of faith, being saved by the grace of God, despite both falling short of “sinless perfection” (Rom. 4:12).
The point of Romans 9-11 is for the JEW to understand why he needs to become a member of the church for which Jesus died (instead of just accepting the same Judaism he’s been obeying all his life). It has a great deal to do with the AD 70 judgment in mind (very soon to come for them, Rom. 16:20).
It has nothing to do with “unconditional election/total depravity/God’s arbitrary decision to save one while arbitrarily condemning others.
Without these perspectives continually in mind, the study of Romans will be an exercise in futility/absurdity/error.
Nick N. on 12 Sep 2007 at 1:37 pm #
Kris,
You said: “Personally to me an Arminian God is a passive God who simply responds to our call.”
That’s only because you’re a Calvinist
I’d ask you to read the quote from Arminius above (comment #26) and I here offer the first article of the Remonstrance:
And the fourth point as well:
The “Arminian God” (and I shudder at the use of such a term — it implies that the Calvinist’s God is different) is very much active in electing, calling, and providing the grace necessary for man to repent and believe.
C Michael Patton on 12 Sep 2007 at 1:37 pm #
Kris,
It was called the University if Biblical Studies and Seminary. It was a mixture between third wave and Weslyian. I got a degree in Biblical Studies there.
A Lover of Truth/Souls of mankind on 12 Sep 2007 at 1:44 pm #
Really, it is false to base one’s philosophy/theology on either men (just accept what the Bible says).
Any body who follows “Alexander Campbell” rather than the Bible is lost (because Campbell taught error on some things, much like it is false to call the “churches of Christ” “Campbellite” churches
Where any man AGREES with the Bible, then he is correct, when he DISAGREES with the Bible, he is incorrect, it is really that simple.
Any “Peter/James follower” (Gal. 2), when they were/are not correct, will be lost
)
If any man became a member of a “church of Christ” by not being added by the Lord upon his obedience of faith (Acts 2:36-47), then he is lost.
If any man believed and followed any man in error, when he (“any man”) was in error, he would be lost (Matt. 15:13-14).
We could go on and on…
Carrie Hunter on 12 Sep 2007 at 1:49 pm #
I remember the day I turned over to the dark side.
I was at my desk reading Scripture. I hated what I saw in Romans 9. It was Romans 9 that did it for me. A year and a half later, I am still a Calvinist. I am not however high in my Calvinism and I am certainly not hyper, but I am a Calvinist nonetheless.
I have learned a lot from talking to some of my friends who know A LOT more about this subject than I could ever possibly hope to know. I have learned for example that today’s Calvinism is more Owenism (rooted in the theology of John Owen) than it is authentic Calvinism.
I have seen a few questions here raised regarding limited atonement (something that when looking at Calvinism through the eyes of Owen would seem is limited only and exclusive to the elect). John Calvin did not limit the scope of the atonement to the elect. He only limited the salvific nature of the atonement to the elect; having said that everyone limits the salvific nature of the atonement.
Some limit it to those who choose Christ, while others limit it to those whom God has elected. At the end of the day, everyone limits the scope of the atonement, unless they are Universalists. So everyone holds to limited atonement in some facet or another.
I would say the atonement is for all but especially for the elect. Did all of mankind in some way benefit from Christ’s death on the cross? Yes I believe we have. Will all of mankind benefit from the saving nature of the atonement? No sadly they will not. Does it make me sad that some will die lost? Yes it does. Why if I believe in election would I worry about who dies lost? Because God has a heart for the lost so why on earth should I not? Does God hate those whom He does not elect unto salvation? No of course not. Why then does He not elect to save them then? I have no idea. That is what I understand to be the hidden will of God and I will not be so bold as to even attempt to answer on His behalf.
In my understanding of John Calvin’s soteriology, I do not see a denial of God’s universal love for all of His creation. I do not see a denial of God’s desire that ALL MEN (without exception or distinction) come to a saving faith through Jesus Christ. I do not see a denial of ALL MANKIND’S responsibility to repent from their sins and trust Christ. I do not see a denial of duty faith on the believer’s part. I do not see a lot of things in Calvin’s theology that a lot of people today seem to impose on his work.
I realize this post is a bit convoluted and I apologize for that. I had a lot I wanted to say and I only skimmed the surface; again my apologies for being a bit erratic with my thoughts. They are my thoughts though and I appreciate being able to share them here.
Kris on 12 Sep 2007 at 1:50 pm #
Nick,
.
I agree that my use of “Arminian God” was harse. They are not different
Gods. The Arminian simply does not fully understand the Grace of the
true God
While this is used half-jokingly, I do believe that if you reserve for yourself
even taking credit in making a decision for God to save you then you lessen
Grace.
It’s basically saying that you by your will control whether or not God will save
you and that there’s nothing that He can do to infringe upon it.
No matter how you look at it, it says that you are the ultimate determining
factor in your salvation. I think that in order to hold to his then you must say
that God simply plans His actions around your decisions which make him a
passive God.
Thank you for the correction on the “Arminian God” reference though. I know
many Arminians who love God passionately and I would never say that they
are worshiping a different God.
JohnT3 on 12 Sep 2007 at 1:50 pm #
The problem with some Calvinists is that they have never read Calvin’s writtings. They have read someone else’s take on it and then they say “Hey I am a Calvanist”
While I know Micael has read Calvin I am per plexed by something though, If the Lord should tarry at least another 100 years would there be Christians who have read this blog and call themsleves Pattonists
Vance on 12 Sep 2007 at 1:50 pm #
But Michael, does your analysis of Romans 9, or the Calvinist position in general, really give enough credence to man’s responsibility to create any tension going the other way? It sounds to me like that view of Man’s side of the equation is merely the phrase itself, without any real meaning behind it. It is as if there is a concept of responsibility or free will, but really anything there.
For there to be real tension, there has to REAL free will and responsibility on the one side, and REAL unconditional election on the other.
I agree that the popular Arminian position removes the tension the one way, but does not your position, when it boils down, not really give enough REAL substance to free will and responsibility for there to be tension?
Maybe I am not grasping the weight you give the free will and responsibility side, how it really means something, and something that would truly seem to be in direct tension with your view of election.
For me, I still am one step “back” on the pathway, willing to say “hey, I am not sure HOW there can be predestination and election on the one hand, and free will and responsibility on the other, but I know that both are clearly there in Scripture”. That is real tension, and I ascribe the solution to this concept of God’s timelessness, which is a complete mystery. We just don’t have language for it, in my opinion.
C Michael Patton on 12 Sep 2007 at 1:51 pm #
Lover, I disagree with you about the context having nothing to do with election. The context has to do with justifying God’s promise in light of Israels apparent rebellion. How can we trust God to save us when Israel has turned away? It is a necessary excursus in the argument of Paul to say that God will hold to his promises (mentioned at the end of chapter 8). The reason we can know that God will hold to His promises is because, like the remnant within Israel who were elect, so we can have the same confidence.
God did not choose all of Israel, only some. The same is true with the Church. God did not choose all people, only some. Therefore, “The gifts and the calling are irrevocable.” The whole section (9-11) is dealing with the security of a believe in the promises of God. The security is argued for based on God’s unconditional election. Therefore, unconditional individual election is an essential component of this section.
Again, I encourage you to read my paper on Why I am Still a Calvinist.
C Michael Patton on 12 Sep 2007 at 1:54 pm #
Isn’t Olson the one who distinguished between the “Arminian God” and the “Calvinist God”?
C Michael Patton on 12 Sep 2007 at 1:55 pm #
OK, I can’t keep up
Need to get back to work soon.
C Michael Patton on 12 Sep 2007 at 1:59 pm #
Carrie. Great post. Follows my original intention with this blog. I thought (hoped) it would turn into “memoirs of the day I heard of unconditional election.” lol…fat chance.
C Michael Patton on 12 Sep 2007 at 2:01 pm #
John, you are great! We can only hope not.
That is why I would prefer to deal with the particular issue (unconditional election/conditional election) rather than its name-sake (Calvinism/Arminianism).
Vance on 12 Sep 2007 at 2:02 pm #
You bring up Calvinism v. Arminianism and expect it to be a “one-off”? Silly Michael . . .
A Lover of Truth/Souls of mankind on 12 Sep 2007 at 2:03 pm #
The “some” were those exercising the “obedience of faith”, that which the majority lacked. The “us”, within Paul’s argument from Romans 8 are for those Jews who obeyed the Gospel/are God’s remnant, along with the Gentiles having become apart of the “nation”, the church.
Paul’s referent from the arguments and the ramifications upon the “elect”.
Rom 9:25 As he saith also in Hosea, I will call that my people, which was not my people; And her beloved, that was not beloved.
Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness, attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith:
Rom 9:31 but Israel, following after a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
Rom 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works. They stumbled at the stone of stumbling;
The reason the Jews were not “elected”/saved was because they rejected Christ, all those rejecting Christ are not saved, nothing “Calvinistic” about it.
Those who are “elect” are those obeying the Gospel “call”
“…whereunto he called you through our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (II Thess. 2:14)
Nothing in the Bible gives credence to “Calvinism” (except a fundamental misunderstanding of redemption by men [e.g. Augustine/Calvin] who had base thoughts of the “nature” of mankind, in general).
Hope that helps
A Lover of Truth/Souls of mankind on 12 Sep 2007 at 2:06 pm #
God “chose” those obedient (much like the “chose” Joshua and Caleb), nothing personal to the rest of the nation, they just rejected His call (Num. 32:12)
BTW, Caleb was a gentile, out of an Edomite descendant, which goes to show there is NOTHING arbitrary about God’s salvation (Those who follow will be saved/elect, those not following will be lost).
I really don’t see any of the “5 pillars” here.
Josh on 12 Sep 2007 at 2:09 pm #
Michael, are you aware of any responses/critiques to Piper’s, “The Justification of Godâ€?
I have heard from both sides that this one of the heaviest hitting exegesis of Romans 9 and curious your thoughts (if you have read it) on it.
C Michael Patton on 12 Sep 2007 at 2:09 pm #
Vance, I am very comfortable with your comments. Tension is only necessary with unconditional election though.
I do have a very high view of man’s responsibility. I don’t hold to libertarian freedom for philosophical reasons, not so much biblical. But I do believe that people make free decisions even if their will is corrupted. This will come back to my view on the relationship of the First Adam to the rest of the human race and my view of imputation (which is what I was getting at on the creation/evolution thing).
When all is said and done, there is a mystery concerning how people are held responsible for their decisions and God’s unconditional election.
Yet, my tension really is not there. My tension is in this: If God’s love and mercy is the basis for election and God loves all people, why didn’t He choose everyone?
This perplexes me beyond what I could express in this blog. This is where I say I just have to put my hand over my mouth, believing that God REALLY does love everyone, yet, for some reason (mystery) He did not choose everyone.
C Michael Patton on 12 Sep 2007 at 2:11 pm #
Lover, all I can say (besides I don’t understand what you are saying) is that the context I provided is the most likely. You must follow the arguement where it leads.
You also have to consider, Lover, why it is that the great majority of biblical exegetes do see this as teaching unconditional election.
Matthew on 12 Sep 2007 at 2:14 pm #
Carrie,
Ha! I, too, remember the day I first read Romans 9. It was just before Easter, 2006.
I was Roman Catholic at that point. I had been conversing with a few friends of mine who were either Presbyterian or Reformed Baptist. I was quite well acquainted with the teachings of Augustine on grace and election, as well as the writings of Aquinas. For some reason, that I can’t seem to place right now, I had *never* read Romans 9. At least, not in any depth. I had been working through the doctrines of grace quite systematically but nothing could’ve prepared me for the first time I studied this chapter.
Long story short, it was quite easy to call myself a Calvinist afterward.
By the way, you bring up an excellent point vis a vis John Calvin. Calvin made some statements that favor a limited atonement, and others that seem to show a general redemption. I find that both 5-pointers and 4-pointers try to claim him for themselves.
As for me, I relate limited atonement more to the electing of the Father and the irresistable call of the Spirit. Owenism, as you call it, is the bar test in most circles for being Reformed.
I believe Christ took on the wrath of God for sin. I do not believe that Christ was a metaphysical marble-jar taking on each individual sin of each individual person or of the elect. But that He died to propitiate the wrath of the Father for all mankind. This is subjectively applied to each individual person through regeneration, faith, and repentance. In that sense, I reject limited atonement. I do, however believe that the elect are perfectly saved by Christ’s person and work, and only they will receive the benefits of His atonement in a salvific sense. Even strict 5 point Calvinists will say that the benefit of the atonement does not apply to the elect until the Spirit works regeneration in them. I believe the non-elect are in the same position, except that the Spirit will never bring them to new life, and they will be hardened.
C Michael Patton on 12 Sep 2007 at 2:19 pm #
Josh, I am sure there are some out there, but I have not read any. You are right. Piper’s Justification of God is about the best exegesis of Romans 9-11 in print. It puts the whole subject in the context of Paul’s purpose to justify God, not so much God’s purpose to justify us.
The assumption is that God’s justification is the primary purpose of the book of Romans (a view that I think is valid, yet a little misleading). I would agree that all of 9-11 is the vindication of God. V. 6 says, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.” This is the key to understanding the entire section. Paul wants to demonstrate how God’s promises have not failed with regards to Israel, hence, they will not fail with regards to you.
It is a very good book. I imagine that it would be hard to find a good response to the book that is not emotionally charged and predisposed against unconditional election. But, agian, I am not sure.
C Michael Patton on 12 Sep 2007 at 2:22 pm #
OK, I am out of here for a while.
Thanks for the great conversation. Most of all, thanks for not calling each other names!!
These are very difficult issues.
eduardo on 12 Sep 2007 at 2:26 pm #
sean,
Romans 8:29 “for those he foreknew”…God foreknew them because He created them (the elect) for that purpose. They were created in Gods mind (to put it that way) from the beginning. Not because he foreknew their actions. He foreknew those who existed in Gods mind in eternity.
C Michael Patton on 12 Sep 2007 at 2:38 pm #
FYI ALL:
I don’t know why, maybe it is because the comments are going so fast, but many are getting placed in the spam filter. It even put three of mine in spam!!!
I will continue to check it, but if your post does not show, this is why.
A Lover of Truth/Souls of mankind on 12 Sep 2007 at 2:54 pm #
Michael, a very simple answer is:
“The same reason the majority of the Jews did not believe Jesus”
They chose to accept a misinterpreted tradition rather than truth (Matt. 15:1-14)
Mar 7:3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands diligently, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders;
Mar 7:4 and when they come from the market-place, except they bathe themselves, they eat not; and many other things there are, which they have received to hold, washings of cups, and pots, and brasen vessels.)
One could very easily restate:
For the “majority of scholars”, and all the “mainstream Protestant denominations”, except they “say the sinners’ prayer”, “are saved” not, holding the tradition of the elders (pick a “church father”);
This is restating the thrust (with contemporary application, per me).
One could easily replace “say the sinners’ prayer”, “are baptized not”…(holding to the “tradition” of “faith only”, and it will say basically the same thing.
The “sinner’s prayer” is a tradition (a vain one at that) of man that deceives men into thinking they are saved when they have not actually obeyed the Gospel and have not been added to the church by the Lord (Acts 2:38, 41, 47; Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27)
as well as, “…and many other things there are, which they have received to hold,…
All self will/”what mommy/daddy taught”/our “reformation heritage”, usually.
People CHOOSE not to do JUST what the Bible says (no addition nor subtraction) because, then, “it would be all so booooorrrriiiiiiinnnnggggg” (Luke 9:23, usual response).
Many think worship is to please themselves instead of God (offering just what God asks “by faith” should be pleasant in itself).
OR
“You’re just be a member of a cult” (I’ve received that one a bit, too).
Which is natural, if you’re a high and mighty denominationalist, who thinks he’s saved regardless of how many verses explicitly/implicitly teaches the contrary (ESPECIALLY if someone [who is not in a 'denomination'] else points them out to him).
But, of course, one must recall the parable of the sower (Matt. 13:3-23, only “few” are the good ground upon which the truth is actually obeyed (Matt. 7:13-14).
People have deceived themselves (II Thess. 2:10-12) if they think the “majority” of the “orthodox” cannot be wrong. Jesus will tell you that (Matt. 7:13-14).
Joh 7:48 Hath any of the rulers believed on him, or of the Pharisees?
Sounds so familiar it’s scary….
C Michael Patton on 12 Sep 2007 at 2:56 pm #
Lover, that is very uncalled for. You don’t know these people. Have you even read Cranfield, Piper, or Moo on Romans 9?
You can’t label with ad homs them simply because you don’t agree with their view on election. You have to deal with the evidence. You are not being fair or intellectually honest.
tnahas on 12 Sep 2007 at 3:03 pm #
Imagine God is at the Farmer’s market and selecting apples and he chooses 6 apples and only 6. And the farmer says “why only 6?” God says “because I only need 6″. “Why those 6″, the farmer says? God says “because I am God and it’s my money and I can buy those that I choose.â€
God goes on to say that “I find nothing wrong with the other apples I only chose those 6 apples that I need.†As an apple selected by God we give Him all the glory. As an apple not selected by God we are condemned to rot because of the elements of nature such as heat and rain and the natural rotting process.(as humans, this would be represented by our inherent sin, our sinful nature and our personal sin).
We continue to struggle but I like that illustration.
A Lover of Truth/Souls of mankind on 12 Sep 2007 at 3:37 pm #
LOL I actually would love to read those commentaries when I get the chance (regardless of whom they are, I can appreciate “scholarly” insight). However, the “rabbi’s”/”scholars” take a backseat when they have accepted an unscriptural philosophy (pluralism, existentialism, Calvinism, etc…)
I would gladly accept a copy of Cranfield’s ICC to review
Have you ever heard Franklin Camp? He was one off the best teachers of Scripture I have ever heard (he is not a “critical scholar” but a simple preacher of the Gospel), but he has more insight to what the text “actually says…” than most scholars (this is somewhat of an anomaly, given that he was not skilled in Greek or Hebrew, just had a very practical and somewhat complete understanding of redemption).
Truthfully, “scholarship” is a political “battlefield” of which I try to stray. However, I do appreciate many interesting “scholarship” insights.
He (Franklin Camp) had a complete class all through the Bible, entitled, “Redemption through the Bible”
You can order his Rom. 1-16 class for $10 (2 mp3 cd’s) I think these would be the best hours of study you probably will ever spend, IMHO)
http://www.brothersincorporated.org/study_material.htm
He also has an impressive book entitled, “The Word of the Holy Spirit in Redemption”. It is one of the finest one can find on the subject.
Also, in the Campbell-Rice debate, Campbell really did a number on Calvinism (Rice’s doctrine).
A Lover of Truth/Souls of mankind on 12 Sep 2007 at 3:51 pm #
Man poses NO nature different from what he possessed in the beginning.
My child is just as “innocent” as Adam (before he sinned).
Your imaginary “inherent sin” is self-deception. You have believed Calvinism so it is true “for you”. I do not, while on the contrary, knowing that it is false. Just as the earth was flat “to them” (of Columbus’ Day) so is Calvinism true “for you” (yet false to all who understand Ezek. 18:20-23)
Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Eze 18:21 But if the wicked turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
Eze 18:22 None of his transgressions that he hath committed shall be remembered against him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked? saith the Lord Jehovah; and not rather that he should return from his way, and live?
Either you “inherit” your father’s sin, or you do not, there is no “middle ground” (law of excluded middle).
TvF: Satan was “born” sinful
TvF: Adam was born sinful
TvF: Eve was born sinful
TvF: Abel was born sinful
TvF: Mary (Christ’s mother) was born sinful
TvF: Christ was born sinful
TvF: At least one man has been born sinful
The foregoing all false propositions have demonstrated:
1. None of these individuals were born sinful
2. No man has been born sinful
A Lover of Truth/Souls of mankind on 12 Sep 2007 at 4:09 pm #
This lecture is a good one on the Jew/Gentile theme of Romans
Please tell me what you think:
mms://digitalbiblestudy.com/GBN2/VP/VP3.wmv
Chad Winters on 12 Sep 2007 at 4:16 pm #
Wow….Full Blown Pelagianism
C Michael Patton on 12 Sep 2007 at 4:18 pm #
Lover, please refer to the blog rules in the about page. You comments are not following them. Please be respectful and stay on topic. You are all over the place.
Josh on 12 Sep 2007 at 4:27 pm #
Was just about to say that Chad lol. Lets just ignore all the texts that say we are born into sin and loving darkness… lol
Vance on 12 Sep 2007 at 4:37 pm #
Makes us Arminians (I still like to call myself that, even if I am agnostic on the issue) seem pretty Reformed!
Truth Unites... and Divides on 12 Sep 2007 at 6:11 pm #
1st-Time Poster.
Absolutely adored the recollection of how you became a Calvinist, CMP! Also, this is a great, Great, GREAT blog!!!
(1) I need help with “P” of TULIP. I like and agree with T-U-L-I. Does anyone know a great link to an article about “P”? Intellectually, there’s no such thing as 3-point Calvinist. You’re either a 5-point Calvinist or a 5-point Arminian. They all tie together that closely and logically imply one another.
Most folks wrestle with “L”. I wrestle with “P”!
(2) Someone asked about double predestination. RC Sproul has a very nice essay explaining that on the internet.
(3) Mixed feelings about Scot McKnight. He was an author of a chapter of a book I own that debunks and refutes the Jesus Seminar scholars. Good!
But I read a 20+ page article that he wrote last year at a conference at Westminster Seminary where he’s an apologist for the Emergent/Emerging Church movement. It’s not the purpose of this thread or my comment to detail all the areas that I disagreed with Dr. McKnight on his article, but suffice it to say that I was greatly disappointed with his analysis and conclusions. Not to be snarky, but it seems like a logical slippery slope to go from Arminianism to the Emerging Church movement.
(4) I absolutely consider Arminians Christians. I just think they’re off in some aspects of their theology. Eg., William Lane Craig is one of my favorite apologists. But he’s an Armininian.
(5) Monergism vs. Synergism. This is key. Calvinism vs. Arminianism/Roman Catholicism.
Thanks C. Michael Patton for your blog and for your thoughtful musings.
Pax in Christ alone.
Matthew on 12 Sep 2007 at 6:18 pm #
Truth Unites,
I would try monergism.com. They have some great articles on the “P” there.
Especially the ones by Sam Storms and John Piper.
Awesome stuff.
In Christ,
Matt
Joanie D on 12 Sep 2007 at 7:05 pm #
http://tominthebox.blogspot.com/2007/07/so-easy-calvinist-can-do-it.html
From a link on the new blog that Michael has named “The Submerging Influence” I ended up at the blog above. Funny! You would think at first look that the author is not a Calvinist himself, since he is poking such fun at them, but he IS a Calvinist. So those of you who are Calvinists, enjoy his humor.
I enjoy those caveman Geico commercials. (I hear there is going to be a half-hour comedy with the cave-men idea.) But I really like the little gecko guy too and hope he is not “pushed out” by the cavemen.
Oops, how’s that for getting off-topic?!
Joanie D.
Nick N. on 12 Sep 2007 at 8:17 pm #
Truth Unites,
Technically, there is such a thing as a 4 point Arminian. The Remonstrants took Arminian theology to a place that their teacher had not yet gone (although I do feel the direction they headed was the logical conclusion to what Arminius did believe and teach). But if we were to judge Arminianism by its founder then one could go either way on the perseverence issue.
I’m of the belief that the ‘P’ absolutely requires the ‘U’ and since Arminians reject the ‘U’ then they should in turn reject the ‘P’, yet some do not… (sigh)
tnahas on 12 Sep 2007 at 8:54 pm #
Well, I for one am so glad that I was chosen before the foundation of the earth (Eph 1:4) since well, as Spurgeon aptly put it: “If God didn’t choose before the foundation of the world then He certainly wouldn’t choose me now.
Let’s all face it, in fact, wouldn’t it be a better answer to this blog that instead of critiquing each other, why don’t we compare our testimony stories and then see God’s work at hand and really then be blessed by fellow Christians.
As we witness to unbelievers reading the blog, maybe someone will get saved.
No Room to Boast, eh? « Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth on 12 Sep 2007 at 9:36 pm #
[...] Room to Boast, eh? C. Michael Patton in a post on Parchment and Pen entitled The Day I Became a Calvinist recounted the day he embraced unconditional election saying: I also remember the day that I fully [...]
Paul M on 12 Sep 2007 at 9:41 pm #
1st time poster
Wow, great posts. And lengthy, so forgive me if I ask something
already addressed. Two questions ring in my mind (besides the L
being very problematic). I will try to phrase them adequately.
1) Regarding the I – How can we really love God if we there is no real
individual responsibility. Meaning if He liberates A to see truth, but not
B how is that not partiality that the Bible talks against and He does not
show? (The only answer I have heard to this is that the Bible says there
is, but that response seems less then responsible.) It seems humanity
has ability to choose other things before and after justification.
2) Given: Anything apart from God is not good as far as the Master is
concerned (and that is all that really matters). Even in man’s depravity
we see love expressed, a expectation of justice, an aching for
something else. If one takes total depravity to the extreme, one would
wonder why these (created in the image of God) qualities still exist. My
question is this: as “depraved” people still have a “hunger” for
something more that they try to fill in various ways, are we really saying
that the gospel is to complex for such a person to hear and accept?
Some may call it pervienient grace, but I see God despensing enough
grace to everyone to make a decision as no more common grace
then the provision of air, food, daily provisions that he provides to the
depraved.
PS – would it be heretical to say that it is 100% God and 100% man?
Lisa R on 12 Sep 2007 at 9:53 pm #
Sean (others),
Back to comment #16 (sorry life happens): yes it is all God’s grace but doesn’t conditional election suppose that we can reject that grace, which in fact overrides God’s choosing?
And yes Nick, I agree with you…the P has everything to with the U, which I thin challenges the functionality argument.
Vance on 12 Sep 2007 at 11:25 pm #
I wonder if the existence of any of the letters actually change the “functionality”. We are either preserved or we are not, regardless of how we think about it as Christians. If we are truly saved, and it is because of an unconditional election, we would still be saved even if we did not believe it was due to an unconditional election.
In other words, even if TULIP was all correct, you would not have to believe a single one of those doctrines in that way to be saved. In fact, you could believe every single one of them was incorrect and still be saved, as far as I can see.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 12 Sep 2007 at 11:27 pm #
Thanks Matthew (#87) and Nick (#89)!
I did look at Piper and Storms essays on monergism.com. But maybe I missed the thing that’s been bothering me in their essays. Plus, it’s more fun and instructive when it’s semi-interactive on a blog. Here’s what I’m wrestling with:
Hypothetically, suppose our blog host (Sorry CMP!) 10 years from now renounces his Christian faith! Before then he was a faithful servant-warrior for Jesus, ministering as an undershepherd, fulfilling the Great Commission, and obeying the Greatest 2 Commandments. Wonderful walk with the Lord, many folks discipled, and many of the lost now became saved because of CMP’s faithfulness.
Then suppose either a Job-like experience or a “liberal theology awakening” occurs. So much doubt creeps in poor CMP that he becomes an atheist or a gross heretic or terrible apostate. (Heaven forbid! But this is just a hypothetical example, remember!)
And this turn of events stay this way until the day CMP passes on. Although we are not to judge another person’s eternal destiny, let’s speculate anyways.
Did CMP, a staunch 5-pointer in the beginning and middle of his walk, really Persevere?
I’ve posed this question to others and they say that he was never a Christian in the 1st Place! And I’m like, “How can you say that?” They say, “Did he persevere?” And I go, “Doesn’t look like it.” They say, “Either he was never a Christian or you gotta lose the ‘P’ in TULIP.”
And I’m like, “Awwww man, this finite brain cannot process. Beyond my CPU cycles. I’m just trusting God cuz this mystery is beyond me.”
Anybody with a better, faster CPU? Please help me out of this conundrum.
Solus Christus.
Nick N. on 12 Sep 2007 at 11:58 pm #
Truth Unites,
I think the ‘P’ is the easiest to debunk — there’s far too many warning passages to just wave them off as hypotheticals (which I have seen many a Calvinist do) — Likewise, they are too clear in their intention to have them countered by arguments that the Arminian (or Arminianesque believer) is assuming that genuine believers are in view in these passages.
And if it was up to me I’d uproot the whole weed… er… um… I mean flower
Enterprise24 on 12 Sep 2007 at 11:59 pm #
Truth,
A very good friend of mine, who is a youth pastor in a church in Los Gatos, CA, told me the story once of a good friend of his who pretty much lived out your hypothetical situation. This man was a staunch believer for many years (decades, if I remember correctly). From all outside eyes (including his best friend, the youth pastor I know) this man was a saved, viberant Christian. In the ’80s, this man left the church (for whatever reason…) and starting living in a homosexual lifestyle. He’s been outside of the church ever since.
This pastor-friend of mine told me this story over lunch some months ago. We both pondered over the fate of such people. He knew the man for years and years, and because of that, wasn’t quite willing to say that his friend wasn’t saved. He is an Arminian of the “Once Saved, Always Saved” persuasion. I’m a classic 5-point Calvinist. We both struggled over this issue.
Here were some of my thoughts on this subject:
Man looks at the outside, but only God can judge the heart. The Scriptures do teach that those who are saved persevere, that God is able to keep them from stumbling; yet at the same time doesn’t God himself discipline those whom He loves? Could God discipline an aberrant son unto death? So I see at least two options here for your mirror universe version of CMP: either the man wasn’t saved or he was saved and God merely disciplined him unto death.
My conviction is that God deals with each one of His children a unique way, teaching and applying the truths of Scripture in each one of His children’s unique lives. Perhaps this mirror universe CMP was saved, and in God’s way, dealt with his apparent disobedience. Remember, in Ecclesiastes, we’re taught that the wicked sometimes receive temporal goodness while the righteous sometimes receive temporal cursing. Not all is as it appears to be. If this person was saved, then perhaps God dealt with him appropriately. If he wasn’t saved, then he was a very good liar and deceiver. If he was saved and lost his salvation…well, then people are able to unchoose themselves out of God’s hand and into hell.
Vance on 13 Sep 2007 at 12:10 am #
Just to add something that I have found useful, and it is what points me in this direction of the “mystery” angle, which is not just a cop-out from the work of developing a doctrine on this. Here is a bit from the Believer’s Bible Commentary that expresses where I am coming from pretty well. After
discussing the sovereignty of God in choosing side of it, it goes on:
“But there is another side to the story. The same Bible that teaches sovereign election also teaches human responsibility. No one can use the doctrine of election as an excuse for not being saved. God makes a bona fide offer of salvation to all people everywhere (Joh_3:16; Joh_3:36; Joh_5:24; Rom_10:9, Rom_10:13). Anyone can be saved by repenting of his sins and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, if a person is lost, it is because he chooses to be lost, not because God desires it.
The fact is that the same Bible teaches election and free salvation to all who will receive it. Both doctrines are found in a single verse: “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out†(Joh_6:37). The first half of the verse speaks of God’s sovereign choice; the last half extends the offer of mercy to all.
This poses a difficulty for the human mind. How can God choose some and yet offer salvation freely to all men? Frankly, this is a mystery. But the mystery is on our side, not on God’s. The best policy for us is to believe both doctrines because the Bible teaches both. The truth is not found somewhere between election and man’s free will, but in both extremes. W. G. Blaikie summarizes:
Divine sovereignty, human responsibility and the free and universal offer of mercy are all found in Scripture, and though we are unable to harmonize them by our logic, they all ought to have a place in our minds.”
I think that, while the current flavors of Arminianism underplay, or outright ignore, the “God’s Choice” side of the equation, the Calvinist side equally underplays the free will side of the equation, as well as the salvation being offered to all. I think they give these lip service, but since our minds REALLY want to go one direction or the other and insists upon a logical resolution, they go to the other side without really giving full weight to maintain the full, seemingly contradictory, tension.
You can’t have a logical, systematic theological resolution AND a mystery at the same time. And you definitely can’t have a dogmatic presentation of any area that is a mystery.
Human language for God Things = Through a glass darkly, at best.
Vance on 13 Sep 2007 at 12:13 am #
Possibly a double post, if so, sorry.
Just to add something that I have found useful, and it is what points me in this direction of the “mystery” angle, which is not just a cop-out from the work of developing a doctrine on this. Here is a bit from the Believer’s Bible Commentary that expresses where I am coming from pretty well. After
discussing the sovereignty of God in choosing side of it, it goes on:
“But there is another side to the story. The same Bible that teaches sovereign election also teaches human responsibility. No one can use the doctrine of election as an excuse for not being saved. God makes a bona fide offer of salvation to all people everywhere (Joh_3:16; Joh_3:36; Joh_5:24; Rom_10:9, Rom_10:13). Anyone can be saved by repenting of his sins and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, if a person is lost, it is because he chooses to be lost, not because God desires it.
The fact is that the same Bible teaches election and free salvation to all who will receive it. Both doctrines are found in a single verse: “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out†(Joh_6:37). The first half of the verse speaks of God’s sovereign choice; the last half extends the offer of mercy to all.
This poses a difficulty for the human mind. How can God choose some and yet offer salvation freely to all men? Frankly, this is a mystery. But the mystery is on our side, not on God’s. The best policy for us is to believe both doctrines because the Bible teaches both. The truth is not found somewhere between election and man’s free will, but in both extremes. W. G. Blaikie summarizes:
Divine sovereignty, human responsibility and the free and universal offer of mercy are all found in Scripture, and though we are unable to harmonize them by our logic, they all ought to have a place in our minds.”
I think that, while the current flavors of Arminianism underplay, or outright ignore, the “God’s Choice” side of the equation, the Calvinist side equally underplays the free will side of the equation, as well as the salvation being offered to all. I think they give these lip service, but since our minds REALLY want to go one direction or the other and insists upon a logical resolution, they go to the other side without really giving full weight to maintain the full, seemingly contradictory, tension.
You can’t have a logical, systematic theological resolution AND a mystery at the same time. And you definitely can’t have a dogmatic presentation of any area that is a mystery.
Human language for God Things = Through a glass darkly, at best.
Lisa R on 13 Sep 2007 at 5:25 am #
Let me expound. By functionality I meant not so much about how we get saved but how we think about that salvation. True you can believe in conditional election and eternal security, but let’s say you don’t and that you can lose salvation. So your Christian experience will have what you do in view Whereas the P people, oh the UP people, will have in view what God does.
Hear me out – I am NOT abdicating personal responsibility. One passage of scripture that to me succinctly balances the God/Man tension is Phil 2:12,13:
12. So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling;
13. for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and work for His good pleasure
I think, as in my opinion guys, the non-UP people (NUP?) will tend to focus on vs. 12 because after all, there was some contribution to salvation. Whereas, the UP people will tend to focus on vs. 13, realizing that God has everything to do with it.
Carrie Hunter on 13 Sep 2007 at 7:10 am #
Thank you Matthew for the comments.
In regards to limited atonement, I was pointing out that all people hold to some view of it. That is the first point people usually attack when it comes to the TULIP. I believe that only those called (inwardly) of the Father will be saved, and on that basis, the salvific effects of the atonement are limited to the elect.
Just wanted to qualify.
Have a great day.
Joanie D on 13 Sep 2007 at 7:12 am #
http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm
Not being a Calvinist, I decided I had better learn more about what TULIP stands for. So I ended up at the above website. Would you folks say that the author there did a good job explaining it?
http://www.xenos.org/classes/principles/cpu1w6.htm
I am definitely more in the Arminian “camp.”
Joanie D.
Carrie Hunter on 13 Sep 2007 at 7:13 am #
Michael,
I found my cell phone. I am telling you here on the blog because you seem to be here quite a bit lately so what better place to reach you?!
Joanie D on 13 Sep 2007 at 7:14 am #
Oh yay! I see we now have the ability to edit our comments for 15 minutes after we post it! Thanks for that change.
Joanie D.
Vance on 13 Sep 2007 at 7:51 am #
Michael, I think some more posts might be in the spam filter.
Josh on 13 Sep 2007 at 8:47 am #
Paul M,
Great to have you here, this is a fun blog to interact with. Some points of clarity to your #92 post.
There IS individual responsibility; no Calvinist would say other wise (except maybe a hyper Calvinist but they have a couple other screws loose too). If you don’t repent and accept Christ as your personal Savior you will be held accountable for your sins. And God is absolutely sovereign and “no one can come to Christ, but those that the Father drawsâ€. So it is a paradox (at least in our minds) at this time but the Bible clearly teaches both. If that doesn’t satisfy our intellect (which it certainly doesn’t for most people, because we like to “know†things) and we reject either or both concepts because of that notion, then we have to apply the same logic to the Trinity (as Michael stated early in a responce to Vance). But no one seems bothered by the doctrine of the trinity even though it’s paradoxal (1 = 3), because Scripture clearly teaches it.
I think you miss-understanding what the term “total depravity†means. A better way to understand this concept is to think of it as total inability, rather than depravity because the word depravity often carries connotations that are not connected to the meaning of the doctrine.
What total inability (depravity) really means is that apart from the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit no man will come to God. Calvinists, Arminians, and even Catholics (although in a bit different sense) hold to his view, they would just articulate the method in which God uses differently. This is backed up by multiple texts which is why it is consider orthodox and why Pelagius was considered a heretic for his view that “all men are created goodâ€.
I think it would be difficult to say that it is 100% God and 100% man, because of the clear doctrine of total inability (depravity) taught in Scripture.
Hope this helps.
Your brother in Christ,
-Josh
A Lover of Truth/Souls of mankind on 13 Sep 2007 at 10:15 am #
The “direct operation” begs the question (it has not proved that no man can be saved without a “direct operation”). Therefore all that is based upon it is ASSUMPTION:
Josh said:
“What total inability (depravity) really means is that apart from the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit no man will come to God. Calvinists, Arminians, and even Catholics (although in a bit different sense) hold to his view, they would just articulate the method in which God uses differently. This is backed up by multiple texts which is why it is consider orthodox and why Pelagius was considered a heretic for his view that “all men are created goodâ€.
The problem with this view is that it presupposes a “direct operation of the Holy Spirit” which is not found in the Bible.
The following are precisely stated propositions (either true or false):
TvF: Abel had a “direct operation”
TvF: Since Moses and the 70 elders were the only ones given the Spirit, they were the only ones saved (Num. 11:16-17, 25-29)
TvF: Balaam had a “direct operation” and was saved (Num. 22-24)
TvF: Esther had a “direct operation”
TvF: Mordecai had a “direct operation”
TvF: The three Hebrew youths had a “direct operation”
TvF: The Samaritans, who were baptized into Christ (thus, “saved”) before the apostles laid hands upon them, “that they might receive the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:12-19), had a direct operation.
TvF: At least one man was so totally depraved he “could not” obey the Gospel without a direct operation (Cornelius will not fit here, he was ready to be saved/hear the Gospel preached BEFORE the Holy Spirit came upon him/his house, Acts 10:33-48; 11:14 [which was to prove to the Jews he "could" be "saved"/baptized into Christ]).
The foregoing ALL FALSE propositions have demonstrated:
1. The “direct operation” and salvation are two completely separate elements (Spirit reveals truth/God’s Word to man, man obeys “by faith”, therefore he is saved, Heb. 11).
2. No “direct operation” will save man.
The solution is quite simple:
Every person receiving the Spirit (specifically in the Numbers context) pertained to prophesying/speaking by Divine Revelation (Num. 11:29).
I have been doing a study of EVERY mention of the Holy Spirit (any mention of the Holy Spirit which is intelligibly evident by the context) and EVERY ONE is MIRACULOUS (This is Old AND New Testament).
Any time the Holy Spirit was upon ANYONE he was presenting (by divine inspiration) some revealed truth (directly speaking by revelation from Heaven) or confirming revealed truth by signs (Mark 16:20).
The Holy Spirit (3rd Person of the Godhead) therefore operated by three means:
1. Inspiration (II Pet. 1:20-21)
2. Revelation (Eph. 3:3-6)
3: Confirmation (Mark 16:20; Heb. 2:1-4)
There is no time in Scripture where one of these three is not present (when people and salvation is involved).
The Spirit’s work in inspiring, revealing and confirming the truth of God’s Word has ceased, much like Christ’s direct “work” in redemption ceased, but those saved are still reaping the benefits (I Cor. 13:8-12; Eph. 4:11-14).
Therefore, nobody is “directly” led by the Spirit in any way whatsoever (no more than you are led by your parents/teachers/what you have gleaned and understood from the Spirit’s Word, Eph. 6:17)
The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16; John 20:21-23), not a “direct operation”.
Josh on 13 Sep 2007 at 11:11 am #
Lover of Truth,
Could you define what you mean by “direct operationâ€, I’m having trouble following your line of reasoning and your argument (if there is one) because I don’t know what you mean when you say, “direct operation of the Holy Spirit is not found in the Bibleâ€.
I am going to attempt to respond to you, because I think you disagree with me (and a huge bulk of Christainity, both past and present) that man needs the Holy Spirit to regenerate him before he can believe in the Gospel and be saved. This is what most would call the doctrine of total depravity, which you quoted me on.
First let me start off by saying that the texts you have given (in light of the fact that I disagree with your interpretation of most of those texts), are actually affirming the doctrine of election by naming specific individuals and instances where there was a “direct operation of the Holy Spirit†(whatever that means). Because by specifying you are signifying some form of election (in its most basic sense of course).
That aside, I am curious as to what you do with the scores of texts that teach us that we are born into sin? Here’s just a few and there are plenty more: Psalm 51:5, Ephesians 2:1-2, Matthew 15:18-19, Romans 7:23, Genesis 6:5, John 3:19 just to name a few. So to say that there is no evidence in the Bible that within man exists inherent sin because of the Fall is simply not true.
In reguard to the Ezekiel verse that you used; you really need to look at the whole context of that verse. The people of Israel were using that “proverb†(v3), to excuse their sinful behavior. In essence saying, “well because our fathers did it we have an excuse to do it (as we so often do today, “well so and so did it, so it’s not so bad†or “everyone is doing so it’s not that badâ€). God is saying no, that excuse does not work with me; you cannot use someone else as your reason to sin. (v14-17). This text is no way produces the meaning in which you are implying that it means so you certainly use one ambiguous text to produce a doctrine.
Here’ some questions for you to ponder. These are not meant to insult you, so please don’t take it that way. I am merely trying to show you one of the best ways this concept of regeneration has been explained to me.
1. Do you love God?
2. Do you love God as much as you should?
I would be curious to hear your response to those questions. Because the next question that follow is:
If you admit that you love God, and realize that you fall short in loving Him and giving Him all the glory He deserves, then you have to ask yourself the question, what has caused me to love Him in the first place?
Which I think Paul answers in 2nd Cor. 4:3-6,
“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,†is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.â€
Hope this helps.
Your brother in Christ,
-Josh
Vance on 13 Sep 2007 at 11:21 am #
Just to add something that I have found useful, and it is what points me in this direction of the “mystery” angle, which is not just a cop-out from the work of developing a doctrine on this. Here is a bit from the Believer’s Bible Commentary that expresses where I am coming from pretty well. After
discussing the sovereignty of God in choosing side of it, it goes on:
“But there is another side to the story. The same Bible that teaches sovereign election also teaches human responsibility. No one can use the doctrine of election as an excuse for not being saved. God makes a bona fide offer of salvation to all people everywhere (Joh_3:16; Joh_3:36; Joh_5:24; Rom_10:9, Rom_10:13). Anyone can be saved by repenting of his sins and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, if a person is lost, it is because he chooses to be lost, not because God desires it.
The fact is that the same Bible teaches election and free salvation to all who will receive it. Both doctrines are found in a single verse: “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out†(Joh_6:37). The first half of the verse speaks of God’s sovereign choice; the last half extends the offer of mercy to all.
This poses a difficulty for the human mind. How can God choose some and yet offer salvation freely to all men? Frankly, this is a mystery. But the mystery is on our side, not on God’s. The best policy for us is to believe both doctrines because the Bible teaches both. The truth is not found somewhere between election and man’s free will, but in both extremes. W. G. Blaikie summarizes:
Divine sovereignty, human responsibility and the free and universal offer of mercy are all found in Scripture, and though we are unable to harmonize them by our logic, they all ought to have a place in our minds.”
I think that, while the current flavors of Arminianism underplay, or outright ignore, the “God’s Choice” side of the equation, the Calvinist side equally underplays the free will side of the equation, as well as the salvation being offered to all. I think they give these lip service, but since our minds REALLY want to go one direction or the other and insists upon a logical resolution, they go to the other side without really giving full weight to maintain the full, seemingly contradictory, tension.
You can’t have a *complete* logical, systematic theological resolution AND a mystery at the same time. And you definitely should not have a dogmatic presentation of any area that is a mystery.
Human language for God Things = Through a glass darkly, at best.
A Lover of Truth/Souls of mankind on 13 Sep 2007 at 12:16 pm #
I appreciate the answer, from which I must respectfully disagree.
Each of those Scriptures used are violently taken out of their context. Observe, point by point:
Psalm 51:5–This is a Psalm, written in poetic language, correct?, if I were to say, “I am the biggest idiot ever born”, does that make it the case? Given a more “literal” understanding, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.” To be born in a “pumpkin patch” does not make one a “pumpkin”. Further, the word “in” is easily translated “among”, giving the sense that it was into a world influenced by sin that the innocent child David was born (and as he progressed was influenced by this sinful world). The innocent Christ was born into the same world influenced by sin (not “total hereditary depravity).
Ephesians 2:1-2–This text is written to Gentiles (having become Christians, subsequent to obeying the Gospel), describing their state before they obeyed the Gospel, Eph. 1:12-13 (nothing to do with “hereditary depravity”, that is fabricated by its [HD's] adherents). Paul is making the point that all who have sinned need redemption (as he includes the Jews’ need in Eph. 2:3-5). Every one who has sinned and not redeemed is described by Christ as a “child of the devil” (John 8:31-44). No concept of “born sinful” whatsoever.
Matthew 15:18-19–Thoughts are only originated from the mind, from what man has been able to reflect from the outside world. Man cannot have coherent “thoughts” without some basis of outward stimulation. In other words, unless adultery “existed”/one was “tempted” (Jam. 1:12-14), he could/would not commit adultery (see Rom. 7:7). Satan introduced the first rebellious “thought” by deceptive suggestion (I Tim. 2:13-14). Each successive “sinner” simply obeyed a rebellious thought (introduced by Satan/those already influenced by him, which is not “total hereditary depravity”). Adam and Eve’s thoughts were pure until Satan influenced them by evil suggestion (placing “doubt” of God/evil thoughts in their mind via deception). This is the case with every one who has sinned (I John 2:15-17; Jam. 1:12-14). My body/thoughts/emotions are not “inherently sinful”. When I ALLOW them to be used/abused outside of the purpose God has placed, they BECOME instruments/members of sin (Rom. 6:11-20).
Romans 7:23–The “other law”, from which the Old Law did not provide complete redemption (Rom. 7:1-) which was working in those under the Old Law is the law of sin and death, specified in Romans 8:2-3. Those “in Christ Jesus” (those baptized into Christ, Rom. 6:3-9) are free from this law (the power of sin, because they have appropriated the blood of Christ, goes back to Romans 6:3-9, the “old man” was the man not justified from sin (no blood of Christ appropriated before he is baptized into Christ). Romans 7 has nothing to do with those “in Christ”/Christians, freed from sin. This is abused completely out of context.
Genesis 6:5–These are men who have ALLOWED their thoughts to be controlled by sin, thus one must understand Gen. 6:5 in light of the following verses (Noah was NOT one of them, Gen. 6:8-9).
John 3:19–The whole context is based upon John’s thesis that Christ came to his own (fleshly Jews, who did not receive Him, John 1:11) and only those who received him were only His faithful disciples (“spiritual Israelites of faith”, John 1:12).
The following verses prove this to be the case (in John 3, there is a disagreement regarding the essential nature of the baptism/new birth looking toward the Kingdom).
The following implies the false nature of “total hereditary depravity”:
“Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 18:3)
So, what Jesus “really meant”, was that they were to become depraved sinners?
The false doctrine of “total hereditary depravity” implies many false doctrines (only one is listed, but many more could be!)
Any false doctrine that implies a false doctrine IS a false doctrine (modus ponens/modus tollens)
Notice the penetrating force of the following text:
Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, that ye said should be a prey, and your children, that this day have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
Psa 119:104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: Therefore I hate every false way.
It is evident that under no circumstances is “total hereditary depravity” a “Christian” doctrine (maybe one in the minds of the so-called “church fathers”, whose credibility is dubious at best).
Sent with love/no ill will toward those teaching it (except that one ceases to do such), just ill will toward the doctrine itself (as well as my obligation of speaking the truth in love)
Chad Winters on 13 Sep 2007 at 12:26 pm #
Hamilton in his book on the Holy Spirit in the OT and the NT had excellent exegesis on the subject of OT saints (see Hebrews) who were regenerated by the Spirit (circumcision of the heart) but not indwelt by the Holy Spirit as saints after Pentecost were. Those who had faith in Christ before his incarnation were empowered by the Spirit to do so just as those who come to faith after Pentecost
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Indwelling-Presence-Testaments-Theology/dp/0805443835/ref=sr_1_1/102-9184045-4779306?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189704440&sr=8-1
Vance on 13 Sep 2007 at 12:27 pm #
This is addressing the general Calvinist/Ariminian debate overall, not the side discussion regarding original sin:
Just to add something that I have found useful, and it is what points me in this direction of the “mystery” angle, which is not just a cop-out from the work of developing a doctrine on this. Here is a bit from the Believer’s Bible Commentary that expresses where I am coming from pretty well. After
discussing the sovereignty of God in choosing side of it, it goes on:
“But there is another side to the story. The same Bible that teaches sovereign election also teaches human responsibility. No one can use the doctrine of election as an excuse for not being saved. God makes a bona fide offer of salvation to all people everywhere (Joh_3:16; Joh_3:36; Joh_5:24; Rom_10:9, Rom_10:13). Anyone can be saved by repenting of his sins and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, if a person is lost, it is because he chooses to be lost, not because God desires it.
The fact is that the same Bible teaches election and free salvation to all who will receive it. Both doctrines are found in a single verse: “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out†(Joh_6:37). The first half of the verse speaks of God’s sovereign choice; the last half extends the offer of mercy to all.
This poses a difficulty for the human mind. How can God choose some and yet offer salvation freely to all men? Frankly, this is a mystery. But the mystery is on our side, not on God’s. The best policy for us is to believe both doctrines because the Bible teaches both. The truth is not found somewhere between election and man’s free will, but in both extremes. W. G. Blaikie summarizes:
Divine sovereignty, human responsibility and the free and universal offer of mercy are all found in Scripture, and though we are unable to harmonize them by our logic, they all ought to have a place in our minds.”
I think that, while the current flavors of Arminianism underplay, or outright ignore, the “God’s Choice” side of the equation, the Calvinist side equally underplays the free will side of the equation, as well as the salvation being offered to all. I think they give these lip service, but since our minds REALLY want to go one direction or the other and insists upon a logical resolution, they go to the other side without really giving full weight to maintain the full, seemingly contradictory, tension.
You can’t have a*complete* logical, systematic theological resolution AND a mystery at the same time. And you definitely can’t have a dogmatic presentation of any area that is a mystery.
Human language for God Things = Through a glass darkly, at best.
A Lover of Truth/Souls of mankind on 13 Sep 2007 at 12:52 pm #
Living life with a spiritual mindset and the “gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38; 10:45; 19:5-7; Heb. 2:1-4, which in EVERY context ALWAYS entails the one receiving to perform miracles) are two completely different things.
Notice:
Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do?
Act 2:38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
These people had a spiritual mindset (thus, being “pricked in their heart”) BEFORE they were told “what shall we do” AND before repenting, being baptized unto the remission of sins and subsequently receiving the “gift of the Holy Spirit”
Act 19:5 And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
So either “the gift of the Holy Spirit” is miraculous (giving whomever has it ability to perform miracles), or it is not, there is no middle ground.
The Bible says IT IS MIRACULOUS and it is in a first century context (given by the hands of the apostles, Acts 8:15-18).
The Bible is right.
Carrie Hunter on 13 Sep 2007 at 1:52 pm #
Lover said: The innocent Christ was born into the same world influenced by sin (not “total hereditary depravity)…..
How much does the fact that Christ was born of a virgin factor in here? The fact that His conception was brought about by the Holy Spirit? There is some significance to that in respects to Christ’s perfect humanity. Christ, to my knowledge, is the only perfect man ever. It was not simply because He was God either. Christ is both 100% God and 100% man. His human nature was perfect not simply because He was divine. To deny this is very problematic and leads to all sorts of Christological heresies.
Ephesians 2:1-2 – So because it was only Gentiles that Paul was writing to/about, it only follows that Gentiles were dead in their sins until they accepted the Gospel? Jews were not dead in there sins apart from the Gospel? Is that what you are saying? And I ask, what exactly does it mean to be dead in one’s sin?
You are saying this passage has nothing to do with total depravity inherited or otherwise. I don’t see how you have made your point at all.
Lover said :
Matthew 15:18-19–Thoughts are only originated from the mind, from what man has been able to reflect from the outside world. Man cannot have coherent “thoughts†without some basis of outward stimulation. In other words, unless adultery “existedâ€/one was “tempted†(Jam. 1:12-14), he could/would not commit adultery (see Rom. 7:7). Satan introduced the first rebellious “thought†by deceptive suggestion (I Tim. 2:13-14). Each successive “sinner†simply obeyed a rebellious thought (introduced by Satan/those already influenced by him, which is not “total hereditary depravityâ€). Adam and Eve’s thoughts were pure until Satan influenced them by evil suggestion (placing “doubt†of God/evil thoughts in their mind via deception). This is the case with every one who has sinned (I John 2:15-17; Jam. 1:12-14). My body/thoughts/emotions are not “inherently sinfulâ€. When I ALLOW them to be used/abused outside of the purpose God has placed, they BECOME instruments/members of sin (Rom. 6:11-20).
The ole’ the devil made me do it cop out doesn’t work. First off it gives satan far too much credit; credit which he simply isn’t worthy of. Secondly it negates man’s responsibility for their actions.
In all honesty, we need very little coaxing to do bad things as a result of our sinful bent (.Romans 8:5 –
5For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
I for one do not hold a very high opinion of my human nature (I can’t see in Scripture why I should). Paul goes on to explain further that apart from Christ, we would simply carry on living in such a way. Gee, I wonder if that is because satan and his crew are out and about making us do things or is it rather we simply do things according to your nature? I think it is the latter first and foremost while the former plays a part at times.
At this point I don’t have enough time to dissect the remainder of your post. I have to say however that I don’t know if will do any good. I have seen others attempt to discuss things with you but you continually display an un-teachable attitude. You won’t relent on anything and you act as though you have it all figured out. To be wholly honest here I am very leery of people with such an attitude.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 13 Sep 2007 at 5:03 pm #
Enterprise24, thanks for your personal post on #97.
I like what you wrote here: “If this person was saved, then perhaps God dealt with him appropriately. If he wasn’t saved, then he was a very good liar and deceiver. If he was saved and lost his salvation…well, then people are able to unchoose themselves out of God’s hand and into hell.”
Hmmm, I wonder if this is kinda like an “Opt-out” clause. Sorta like you’re automatically included in the Kingdom of God …. until you deliberately and through your own free will decide to opt-out.
Kinda like the Parable of the Wedding Banquet. Everybody’s invited and “unconditionally elected” to attend, but if you opt out after holding your invitation for a long time, well then…..
Enterprise24 on 13 Sep 2007 at 6:59 pm #
Truth Unites,
In a sense you’re right about the “Opt-Out” clause. In my understanding of Scripture, all people could enter the Kingdom if they responded to the God’s call to come. The problem arises when nobody, because of sin’s pervasive influence in our life and choices, responds to God’s call. So God develops the plan to overcome sin’s influence to save some and not others.
(As CMP has so well stated, why He does this is mysterious, and I too struggle with that ‘problem’ with Calvinism.)
So yeah, the “Opt-Out” clause is there, I suppose. Another way I’ve looked at it is in God’s longsuffering. The evidence for God’s existance, and the invitation for fellowship, has existed in all time. God made Himself available to all people (and in the O.T. to Israel in a particular way, with the presentation of the Law and all that).
For example, God waited patiently in the days of Noah before killing all humanity but eight; God showed mercy to Adam by not killing him immediately; God waited patiently for Israel during the wilderness trek (though He killed an entire generation of people for disobediance); God waited centuries before exiling Israel and Judah for disobedience. The point is, God is merciful and patient, but there comes a time for judgment and damnation. The invitation is out there, its just a matter of time before its taken away and judgment falls on all those who reject God’s hand.
Joanie D on 13 Sep 2007 at 9:04 pm #
In comment #110, A Lover of Truth said , “The following implies the false nature of “total hereditary depravity”:
‘Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ ” (Matt. 18:3) and then he asks, facetiously, “So, what Jesus “really meantâ€, was that they were to become depraved sinners?”
I agree, Lover of Truth. I don’t think we are born already “sinners.” Babies come directly from God and that is why people don’t have to worry about whether or not babies are baptized and if they are not, whether that means they can’t go to heaven. I think Jesus would be horrified that people teach such things. I think as we get older, we then learn right from wrong and with each choice that we make to do wrong, we become more and more separated from the presence/awareness/Grace of God. But, thank God, Jesus is there for us to welcome us back home like the prodigal son of his parable. We repent of the way we have been living, we acknowledge that without intervention of God himself we are the living lost. Sometimes it takes an encounter with a truly “holy” person to make us realize how lost we are and that is why it is important to be a witness to the power, love and grace of God. Other times, it can be something we read that “convicts” us of our sin. It could even be a dream. God uses whatever is available to bring us back to him. At least, this is MY take on what the Bible tells us. I am open to change but I don’t think I will ever be able to believe that babies are born as sinners. Jesus NEVER said that was the case.
Joanie D.
C Michael Patton on 13 Sep 2007 at 9:10 pm #
I think that the key is that babies are born as humans. Humanity is represented by Adam and is a fallen race. Therefore, babies are born fallen. In this since they are sinners.
Joanie D on 13 Sep 2007 at 9:36 pm #
Oh, and the other thing Jesus said about children from Matthew 19:14 (New International Version):
“Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.’ ”
Joanie D.
Matthew on 13 Sep 2007 at 10:07 pm #
Joanie,
Ditto to what Michael said. Babies, obviously, do not sin in an actual sense, because they do not have the mental capacity to openly resist the will of God. They are, however, by nature children of wrath as is the rest of mankind. That is, they possess a sin nature from original sin, which brings them under condemnation.
I think to use the statements of Christ to mean that all children go to heaven is to miss the context of what Jesus is saying here.
If infants are not sinners by nature, then two questions absolutely have to be answered; why do infants die? (the wages of sin is death)
When do infants suddenly transform into sinners? Does scripture give us an answer to this? Most certainly not. It does, however, state we are by nature children of wrath (Eph 2). It doesn’t differentiate an age distinction here. Psalm 51 was already mentioned.
God bless
Matt
Joanie D on 13 Sep 2007 at 10:19 pm #
I’m probably getting too off the subject, but to answer your questions, Matt:
1. Infants die because all that lives dies. Plants die and they are not sinners either.
2. Children become sinners when they know right from wrong and choose wrong. Even our court systems know that you don’t charge a 3 year old with a crime but you may charge a 12 year old with a crime.
I think we can see the beginning of a life as kind of like the beginning of creation. In the beginning, it was all good. But as people began to think they knew better than God, things went bad. I know that is simplifying things way too much. But as I was driving along today, I was thinking about how someone would explain Christianity to some remote Amazonian tribe that had no contact with the outside world. I tell you what… you would try to make things VERY simple!
Joanie D.
Thomas Twitchell on 13 Sep 2007 at 10:31 pm #
Possession is 9/10ths of the law. Though children do not willfully sin when they are conceived, they are indeed conceived in sin. The mere possession of the sin nature is an act of sin. Jesus says a curious thing, “Woe to anyone who causes one of these little ones to sin.” Now how is it sin if they were caused to do it? It is obviously not an act of the sinners will, if it was caused by an external agent, is it? In Adam, all of his children were caused to fall. We inherit, not his culpability, but his quilt, and we do that by possessing sin. Willful or not, sin, is sin. We are responsible, he was culpable. Our culpability comes to us in that it is we who are sinful. It is not our sin that condemns Adam, it is his. It is our sin that condemns us, for we possess it.
There is a reality of the imputed rightousness of Christ, while it is foreign to us, it works its way out in newness of life. The great exchange was that for our sin nature, he who was sinless by nature, died to sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. We possess Christ, or rather he possesses us, and because of a new nature created in the likeness of the Son, we in real time show forth what is true in spirit. By this was Abraham justified, that the works that he worked were the righteousness of God working through a vessel of mercy.
Sins like works, justify our condemnation. That is, they demonstrate what is the truth in spirit. Thank God, through Christ Jesus, there is therefore no condemnation, now. For we are justified by faith, which is spirit and truth.
C Michael Patton on 13 Sep 2007 at 10:33 pm #
Amen!
Truth Unites... and Divides on 13 Sep 2007 at 10:40 pm #
Dear Enterprise24,
“So yeah, the “Opt-Out†clause is there, I suppose.”
Yeah, but intellectual honesty compels me to say that the “Opt-out” clause is not technically allowed under the “P” of TULIP.
“P” must logically follow, but reality intrudes…
So that’s why I say I’m a very soft, non-polemical 5-Pointer because “P” seems like it’s on shaky ground empirically, although it’s quite strong on a logical basis.
It’s just weird to me. Someone could be at the “party” on earth, know the “love” of Jesus, and yet the Deceiver could entice the person to “opt-out.” Weird.
Vance on 13 Sep 2007 at 10:51 pm #
I see this little side angle a bit differently than has been stated. I think we must keep in mind that all sin arises out of two basic character traits: pride and selfishness. And these are traits that EVERY human creature is, indeed, born with. So, in that sense, I think that yes, we are born in sin.
When we look at the two commandments Jesus gave us, we see that one is based on overcoming pride (love God) and the other is based on overcoming selfishness (love your neighbor), things that are entirely contrary our basic human nature. And, while people can, in a limited sense, be unselfish and can, in a limited sense, love God, that is not where Jesus stopped. He commanded us to love God *with all of our hearts*, and to love our neighbors *as ourselves*. These are things which we can NOT do without God’s Spirit working in us.
So, I would agree that even the newborn babe is born with the sinful nature, but I would wonder if it is possible that there is a distinction between having an imputed sinful nature (pride and selfishness), and possibly even sinning (actually being selfish, etc), and being accountable for our sins from the time of birth?
Matthew on 14 Sep 2007 at 1:09 am #
Joanie,
Yes, all life dies. Sin brought death into the world. A plant is not under condemnation, because it is souless. It was corrupted by sin entering the world. Adam did not represent the plant world or the animal world before God. He represented humanity. When Adam had offspring, his offspring was created “in his own likeness, after his own image” (Gen. 5:3). That image was now marred by a corrupt and sinful nature.
Children do not become sinners when they reach an age of mental maturity. Like the rest of mankind, they commit *sins* of omission and comission when they are old enough to willfully do so. They commit these willful acts because they are sinners in their nature from birth. There is no such thing as a blank slate. If there were, then you would potentially have individuals who have never committed a single actual sin. Without a nature that bends their wills toward self and not God, then they would have a completely free choice to remain sinless. In which case, they wouldn’t need a Savior.
God bless
Matt
Enterprise24 on 14 Sep 2007 at 1:33 am #
Truth Unites,
I wouldn’t say “P” is on “shaky” ground theologically. However, I would say that on a personal level, our perseverance could be on shaking ground. I can think of a number of passages that would seem to indicate that some can come close, but not quite, to entering the Kingdom.
One that comes to me at this moment (nearly midnight now in California |-) ) is Jesus’ parable of the sower. The seed sown in the rocky ground type sprang up just like the one in the thorny and good ground. The difference here is that the soil is shallow. Good soil, for sure, because the plant grew up quickly (using the nutrients in the ground). As soon as the sun came out and scorched the plant, whatever nutrients and water the plant possessed were used up. The rocks couldn’t give the plant anything it needed to survive, so it withered away and died.
Jesus says that this represents a person who takes to the word about the Kingdom with delight, but because there is no real root in him (I would interpret that to mean whatever faith there is in him is a shallow, ineffective faith), whenever persecution comes, this man falls away. He does not endure. Contrasted with the man represented by the good soil, he endures to the end, yielding 100, 60, or 30 times at the harvest what was originally sown.
What about the man who heard the gospel, embraced it with joy, yet fell away when times got tough? As one who is working out his own salvation in fear and trembling, I would hazard a guess to say that such a person (more than likely) wasn’t saved, given the interpretation of this particular parable. Now, I won’t go so far as to say that such a person definitely wasn’t saved, since, as I mentioned previously, God judges the heart, not man. Perhaps the person was saved and God merely disciplined him unto death. The force of this parable is clear, I think: each person had better have “ears to hear”. The word about the Kingdom (the gospel, presumably) only prospers in one who both hears the word and understands the word. The seed of the gospel prospers only in good soil, only in a person who is blessed and can hear and see properly. (I’m getting this primarily from Jesus’ side bar commentary on the use and purpose of parables bisecting the actual parable and his interpretation of the parable.)
So the question is, am I the one in good soil or am I the one in rocky soil? I suppose with that tension, I’m kept on my toes, as it were, and am (trying to, at least) constantly trusting in almighty God to keep me going through the tribulation, knowing that its not my will that keeps me going, but God’s will working through and enabling me. I won’t go into it any deeper here (yet, anyway), but that’s how I look at most passages that people usually consider “might be able to lose your salvation” type passages (i.e., they’re a means by which to weed out the tares from the wheat before the final judgment).
In life, I admit, it is weird and confusing. To see people give up the faith after so many years of apparent sincerity and devotion toward Christ. I’m also reminded of the disciples in John’s gospel who fell away when Jesus discussed, in rather graphic detail, election. They couldn’t deal with it, apparently. Jesus said, “Because of this I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has allowed him to come.” Some will fall away; its confusing; its deceitful; its heart breaking; its reality. Its all I can do from becoming too depressed about it all. My hope is that in glory, these things will, perhaps, become more clear.
Joanie D on 14 Sep 2007 at 6:43 am #
Vance…pride and selfishness, sinful nature. Well, maybe. Or maybe we are all born with a TENDENCY towards pride and selfishness. And maybe, like you say, there is a difference in being born with a sinful nature and actually committing sin. But what would some of you say happens to an infant who dies without baptism (for those of you who believe baptism is necessary to enter the Kingdom of heaven)? I just could not say with a straight face that God condemns them all to a life outside his presence. I know that God is holy and that his laws reflect that holiness and that his ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not his thoughts. But Jesus said that seeing him WAS seeing the Father and the things that Jesus said and the acts that he did lead me to believe that we have gotten some things wrong about God and what he wants and doesn’t want.
Oh, and Thomas above in #122 quotes and then asks, “Woe to anyone who causes one of these little ones to sin.†Now how is it sin if they were caused to do it? It is obviously not an act of the sinners will, if it was caused by an external agent, is it?”
Thomas, I would say that Jesus means that people can cause others to CHOOSE to sin. With children, they are very impressionable, and therefore, Jesus knows that it is very important that we impart the right teachings, values and love to children. Children loved to be around Jesus. He must have been fun. I bet he played games with them.
Joanie D.
CharlesM on 14 Sep 2007 at 7:20 am #
Obviously God in His wisdom knows who will and will not accept His offer – so in a sense everything is predestined. But from the human perspective it sure seems like a choice but before us.
Vance on 14 Sep 2007 at 9:36 am #
I think Joanie is right on the “causing” one to sin issue. That is not the best proof-text for the point, by any means. One person can lead another down the path to sin, and thus “cause” them to actually perform sinful actions.
But, on the pride and selfishness issue (which, ultimately, is just selfishness, since pride is a variation of that, but such an important one that it is worth distinguishing), I think we are born more than with tendency toward this selfishness. EVERY person, without the regeneration that comes with Christ, will be controlled by an underlying self-protection and self-preservation. We will tend to look toward our own needs first. It is even understood by biologists that we are “hard-wired” this way (I love it when evolutionary biology backs up Biblical teaching!).
I tend to take a very holistic (not to sound new age here) view of all of this. We are selfish beings, which is a basic human instinct and, in and of itself, would not be “evil” or “sinful” since animals are the same way. A lion can kill his rival and steal another’s food and it is just how he is, and it is not considered sin. BUT, God did something to us as humans, making us in His image, that allowed us to commune with Him and develop relations with each other and the world around us that were unique. Selfishness will not work in those relationships, it will be destructive and damaging, so He commands against it. Now, those instinctual actions become sin, disobedience, since rising above them is for our own good. And, we can not do this on our own nature, so God helps provide us His nature.
Anyway, you get the idea.
tnahas on 14 Sep 2007 at 10:36 am #
Vance,
Do you see how evolution will predetermine your theology? lolllllll
Michael,
In any event, the issue of salvation and how we got there must start with how we got here. This can be only done when doing theology systematically (macro) otherwise we then only looking at things biblically (micro). Once we truly consider what Scripture reveals man to be in his fallen state then we can consider if he is able to react to the call or accept the call of salvation. As a street preacher, I can make a general call of the gospel but many continue to pass by but those who stop to listen are true seekers only until God opens their heart. (btw, the others do stop to tickle their ears and to compare notes) Then the Holy Spirit will reveal the truth of the Gospel and then they accept an irresistible invitation to become children of God as John 1:12-13.
Its all laid out the TTP-Soteriology book. However a right understanding of humanity and sin will lead you to the same conclusions, I believe. BTW that’s all laid out in TTP-Humanity & Sin!
(This has been a paid advertisement for the TTP Program although the writer does not agree with all the statements made in any particular course book)
Vance on 14 Sep 2007 at 11:32 am #
Actually, I had already been thinking along those lines, which seem pretty basic and really more of an overview concept than one that dictates a theological framework, this idea of sin being selfishness is not really new. Then, in reading through the science, I came across those biological concepts that seemed in complete agreement. That tends to be how it works, very often, when you are on the correct path!
Matthew on 14 Sep 2007 at 11:36 am #
Joanie,
Of course, not being Catholic or strict Lutheran, I dont believe baptism is necessary for salvation (or that it guarentees regeneration). It certainly is a means of grace in the covenant community. Generally speaking, however, since God makes a promise in baptism, we have every reason to expect that they will be saved, having been born into a covenant family and having been given that sign.
Infants who die with or without baptism will be saved if God shows them mercy.
God bless
Matt
C Michael Patton on 14 Sep 2007 at 11:47 am #
Taffy, that is right. Things must be done in order. You can’t build a house and start with the chimney. The foundation must be laid (where do we go for truth?). Once we have established the roles that each source plays, then we use those sources according to their authority and clarity. While how we feel is important, Scripture often speaks differently (“your ways are not my ways”; “the way of a man seem right in his own eyes” etc).
Once Scripture speak about our fallen condition, it does not matter how good we think we are or how much we think we are dependent, Scripture says we are helpless, hopeless, sinners, identified with a fallen race, and corrupt.
With this, one has only a couple of options: 1) Accept some sort of previenient Grace that comes in and aids us to make the right choice (which does not work biblically or practically) or 2) Believe that God is solely responsible for our salvation. The Bible universally attests to our depraved conditions and God’s sovereign necessary choice of those who will be saved. While from a human stand point there is a choice to be made and we are responsible for our choice, from God’s standpoint His mercy and sovereign will is the means by which we make this choice.
Thanks for the plug, btw.
Vance on 14 Sep 2007 at 12:11 pm #
Michael, I am going to quote this again, since I think it might have gotten lost in the pelagian discussion above!
It explains the problem I have with Calvinism and an -ism, rather than with any of the particular doctrines. I don’t think it explains the full scope of the mystery.
“But there is another side to the story. The same Bible that teaches sovereign election also teaches human responsibility. No one can use the doctrine of election as an excuse for not being saved. God makes a bona fide offer of salvation to all people everywhere (Joh_3:16; Joh_3:36; Joh_5:24; Rom_10:9, Rom_10:13). Anyone can be saved by repenting of his sins and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, if a person is lost, it is because he chooses to be lost, not because God desires it.
The fact is that the same Bible teaches election and free salvation to all who will receive it. Both doctrines are found in a single verse: “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out†(Joh_6:37). The first half of the verse speaks of God’s sovereign choice; the last half extends the offer of mercy to all.
This poses a difficulty for the human mind. How can God choose some and yet offer salvation freely to all men? Frankly, this is a mystery. But the mystery is on our side, not on God’s. The best policy for us is to believe both doctrines because the Bible teaches both. The truth is not found somewhere between election and man’s free will, but in both extremes. W. G. Blaikie summarizes:
Divine sovereignty, human responsibility and the free and universal offer of mercy are all found in Scripture, and though we are unable to harmonize them by our logic, they all ought to have a place in our minds.â€
I think that, while the current flavors of Arminianism underplay, or outright ignore, the “God’s Choice†side of the equation, the Calvinist side equally underplays the free will side of the equation, as well as the salvation being offered to all. I think they give these lip service, but since our minds REALLY want to go one direction or the other and insists upon a logical resolution, they go to the other side without really giving full weight to maintain the full, seemingly contradictory, tension.
Your area of tension in the “is that just” side of things is only one small part, and a human “gut feeling” issue. I think the real tension, the seeming conflict, lies squarely within Scripture itself, since BOTH election/predestination AND dozens of Scriptures pointing squarely free will and human action. These are in conflict and I agree with the commentator above that it is not something we can logic our way around without doing damage to one of these Scriptural concepts or the other.
So, I agree with many of the Calvinist propositions, but I can’t end up agreeing with Calvinist theological constructs because they do the very human thing: they reduce it down to a theological system to relieve the tension, which, because this IS a mysterious conflict within Scripture, necessarily gives an imbalanced view.
I am forced to do as the commentator suggests, hold to both general concepts of election/predestination (fully) and free will (fully, even to libertarian), while acknowledging that it does not work logically.
You can’t have a *complete* logical, systematic theological resolution AND a mystery at the same time. And you definitely should not have a dogmatic presentation of any area that is a mystery.
Human language for God Things = Through a glass darkly, at best.
C Michael Patton on 14 Sep 2007 at 12:21 pm #
Vance, my initial thoughts are “What Calvinists have you been around?” and “Where did you learn Calvinism?”
I think most Calvinists make the worst representation of Calvinism that there is. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I would rather hang with a passionate Arminian than a zealous Calvinist. They are some of the most arrogant people I have ever met, when that should be the last thing they are.
In the end, the tension that you describe can only be found in Calvinism. Arminianism tries to alleviate the tension by jumping through some pretty serious hermeneutical hulla-hoops (sp?) to resolve the tension.
I don’t know of any serious Calvinists (Piper, Frame, Nash, etc) who would ever deny the human side or human responsibility. In fact, your statement above could only be written by a Calvinist since an Arminian position solves the apparent tension by the “looking ahead into the future” explanation.
In the end, while I disagree with your assessment of what Calvinism must be, I agree with your statements about the real tension and real mystery.
Sorry I did not get to this earlier. Too many posts!!!
Vance on 14 Sep 2007 at 12:37 pm #
Well, that is interesting to hear, and maybe I have been around the wrong Calvinist crowd!
So, help me out here, then. How would you describe the nature of Man’s free will, giving full credit to all of the Scriptures that indicate Man making the choice to turn to God? All I have seen is a concept where it is really God acting, not Man, which is definitely NOT giving full credence to Man’s free will, but that is all I have ever heard from Calvinists (of course, the Calvinists I usually hear from are the ones that are most vocal, who tend to be the most “hyper”).
And on the election/predestination side, what is the proper Calvinist construction that gives full and complete credence to the idea that salvation is offered and available to all (as described in the commentary), and that God desires all to accept it? I see this as completely antithetical to the presentations of election I have heard, and I am very comfortable with holding such opposing views. But if there is a harmonization that gives FULL weight to each side, I would feel even MORE comfortable. I just don’t see how that is possible since they are contradictory viewpoints and to harmonize is to undermine one or the other.
I really am agnostic on these issues, since I see that both sides have valid arguments and solid Scripture. I call myself an Arminian more in the sense that I don’t agree with the “ism” aspect of Calvinism, since it seems (in the presentations I have come across) to *lean* too far in favor of the election/predestination side of the equation and doesn’t hold it in proper equality with the teaching of choice and free will and free availability to all.
I see an attempt to harmonize, which to me is an attempt to “flatten out” and undermine the mystery. I am willing to be educated, however. Honestly.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 14 Sep 2007 at 12:56 pm #
>>> However, I would say that on a personal level, our perseverance could be on shaking ground. … In life, I admit, it is weird and confusing. To see people give up the faith after so many years of apparent sincerity and devotion toward Christ. … Some will fall away; its confusing; its deceitful; its heart breaking; its reality. Its all I can do from becoming too depressed about it all. My hope is that in glory, these things will, perhaps, become more clear.
Bruce on 14 Sep 2007 at 7:02 pm #
Many quality comments on both sides of this difficult issue. One I don’t think we are ever going to come to agreement on. I have been in several Christian camps in my life. I was raised Lutheran as a child, spent many adult years in Arminian based Pentecostal circles, later reacted to that and went Reformed for a period. I will say that after reading Roger Olson’s book “ARMINIAN THEOLOGY, Myths and Realities,” that I now understand there is a signicficant difference between the modern Arminian theology of many like Clark Pinnock and the theology of Joseph Arminias and Wesley. The charge usually from Calvinist that Arminian theology is semi-pelagian may be valid if were talking some modern Arminians, but I don’t think it is valid of classic Arminian theology, of which many Arminians and Calvinist are not truely aware of. I would urge Calvinist and even Arminians to read Olson’s book. I believe many Calvinist scholars set up the straw man in arguing against the Arminian position and there critiques apply more to modern, but not classic Arminianism. That doesn’t make Calvinism therefore wrong, but I believe we need more honest representation of our opponets theology.
C Michael Patton on 14 Sep 2007 at 8:14 pm #
Bruce, you can actually listen to my interview with Olson about his book here: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/scholar/rolson
Joanie D on 15 Sep 2007 at 6:13 am #
I came across this website today and found this two part blog about original sin interesting. Here is the first part:
http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/08/sin-how-original-is-that-art-ix-pt-1/
Here is the second:
http://www.metacatholic.co.uk/2007/08/an-alapsarian-world-art-ix-pt-2/
A couple quotes from the second part are:
“At the same time, I want to hold on to what is affirmed (if that’s the right word) by the doctrine of original sin: namely that there is something more to the imperfect nature of the world and of human beings than simple concrete acts of human wrongdoing. In the bluntest language, we are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. Estrangement both from God, and from the truest nature of what God calls us to and would make us become, is part of the fundamental theological description of human being.”
“…this is what God is about, creating order from chaos, and making human beings to live in union with God’s own self. The image of God is God’s intention for men and women, only fully realised in the incarnation, that reveals the image to us, and makes us able to share in it.”
It’s kind of cute that the sub-title to the blog is “Reading scripture in a post-thingy world.”
Joanie D.
PaulM on 15 Sep 2007 at 8:25 am #
CMP: You said, “In the end, the tension that you describe can only be found in Calvinism.”
I see no room for tention in Calvinism. How can you hold to that belief?
So I ask the question again. Given that anything apart from God is not good, as far as the Master is concerned (and that is all that really matters). Even in man’s total depravity we see thing that would be considered “good,” though not truly good as nothing apart from God is good (i.e., love, an expectation of justice, an aching for truth ). If one takes total depravity to the extreme, one would wonder why these, created in the image of God, qualities still exist. My
question is this: as depraved people still have a hunger for something mor,e that they try to fill in various ways, are we really saying that the gospel is to complex for such a person to hear and accept? I see God despensing enough
grace to everyone (call) to make a decision (human responsibility) as no more common grace then the provision of air, food, daily provisions, reasoning, etc. All of which he provides to the depraved.
Unlimited attonment and individual responsibility seem pretty clear bibically. And if humanity cannot “resist” the HS, how is it that so many have (e.g., King Saul and Solomon)?
The challenge seems to come into play when the Bible says “those whom he called he justified” and “no one my come unless the Father calls him.” I contend that “calling” is the rub and have no problems with election or predestination. (In my opinion, when those words get added it just confuses the situation.) So, what does the “call” or “calling” mean from God’s perspective?
In the face of what the Bible says about unlimited attonment and human responsibility, the Calivist framwork does not hold for ANY tention. They say there is a tention because the Bible says that people are responsible for not accepting the work of Messiah (even when they cannot in their depraved state) so they are. Again, I say such a answer falls short and is irresponsible. Additionally, how does this fit in that God shows no paritality?
Wouldn’t it be better for us to error on the side of understanding God in his wholistic love for all people and desire for them to be redeemed, than to understand God as one who created humanity, said he wanted all to come to him, and had the ability to save all; but only saved some?
PaulM on 15 Sep 2007 at 9:10 am #
Sorry for all the typo’s, I really should have proof read first.
By the way, (thanks to my wife) I have learned that the answer to all this tension in in quantum mechanics. That is something can be in multiple states until one tries to observe it.
C Michael Patton on 15 Sep 2007 at 9:21 am #
Paul, you are characterizing Calvinism too tightly. There are Calvinists who believe in unlimited atonement. And most every Calvinist that I know of hold to human responsibility. That is why I said it is the only system that allows tension (which does not necessarily make it right at all). Calvinists can hold in tension unconditional election, divine love for all, and human responsibility. Arminians don’t and can’t. They let go of unconditional election in favor of human responsibility and divine love.
That is why I say that Calvinism can be more consistent with the biblical data without having to sacrifice anywhere.
But believe me, I know that there are some very intelligent Arminians who love the Lord and know the Scriptures inside out. My friend Paul Copan is one.
Vance on 15 Sep 2007 at 9:30 am #
I will add what I wrote over at Submerging Influence, since it is applicable here as well:
My real issue is that I still don’t think that the Calvinist position really DOES keep the two in tension. They adopt the one wholly, then just give lip service to the other, saying “well, yeah, that is true as well, but we don’t know how, it is a mystery. But what is IMPORTANT is that God has elected certain people.â€
That is not balanced or maintaining REAL tension and mystery. You do not hear any Calvinist really preaching the point adamantly that salvation is available to all, all may come, all may be saved, and God desires everyone. In truth, I hear more respect and sincere attempts to accommodate the texts regarding election, and truly taking that as something real and serious from Arminians than I see Calvinists placing the other side of the tension up at the same level as their predestination and election. Do Calvinists really view “salvation available for all†in EQUAL place with “God has elected some�
In short, what I see from Calvinists is a fixed and systematic construction of exactly how God must have done it all, and everything He intended. Then, those things which don’t fit their scheme (and there is a lot), they call it a mystery and push it off to one side.
Maybe I have been reading or listening to the wrong Calvinists, but I don’t hear them expounding equally on the other side of the tension equation. They only raise it to explain it away in some way, then back to the main agenda.
What I think is valuable in Calvinism is the focus on salvation being ultimately entirely God, whether it is Him electing unconditionally or using some sort of prevenient Grace, or some other, broader, enabler in our lives. And since that is so much missing in our modern religious culture, Calvinism is on a resurgence in response. However, I think that the fact that there are so many flavors of it, as you mention, might show that it is arising more as the cure for the ill, regardless of whether it goes to far, itself, in the other direction.
The pendulum, when it swings, always goes to the other extreme before heading back to the middle. Hegel all over, I suppose. I have long since chosen to hop off the pendulum in an area I see as safely within solid Scripture, even though that means saying I really have NO idea what God is doing exactly.
C Michael Patton on 15 Sep 2007 at 9:59 am #
Vance, again, while I agree that this can be inbalanced, the point is that Calvinism is the only system that allows tension.
You said:
“They adopt the one wholly, then just give lip service to the other, saying “well, yeah, that is true as well, but we don’t know how, it is a mystery. But what is IMPORTANT is that God has elected certain people.â€
Fair enough. I agree that some Calvinists are imbalanced and only focused on the issues of Calvinism. But I would also say, 1) that this is not an argument against the truths which Calvinism claims, and 2) this is not always the case. Look at the Calvinism of DTS. I think, once again, your perspective has been imbalanced by the more vocal Calvinists who do not represent Calvinism very well.
Vance on 15 Sep 2007 at 10:29 am #
That is very likely, and I suppose it is akin to the Calvinists who, upon hearing someone is a Calvinist starts screaming “you don’t think God is entirely sovereign! Let God be God!”, etc. One commentator I read a while back had a good point saying that we are to a point where the “isms” are becoming less useful in describing where people actually are in their overall approach. It is becoming more of a spectrum of beliefs, rather than an adherence to an “off-the-shelf” theological construct.
While there is some benefit to standing on the shoulders of giants, the simple truth is (as I am wont to quote from NTW), we are all wrong about a pretty good chunk of our theology, but it is impossible to know which chunk it is. So, if we adopt any “system” created my man whole-cloth, we will still be getting it wrong. Better, I say, to study and learn from all of the great thinkers and then reconsider all the points afresh. You will still end up with a big chunk of your approach being incorrect, but at least it will be after studying and personally understanding what you espouse.
In the end, though, I don’t see a need to cling to any systematic theology of issues in which I think there is this much uncertainty and difficult Scripture.
Lisa R on 15 Sep 2007 at 11:07 am #
I will add to the mystery of Calvinism by saying that we don’t know who God has sovereignly elected. Therefore, that should give the impetus to make the offer available to all. So I have to disagree slightly with Vance because Calvinists that I know understand that. And that’s the tension…how can He love all but only elect some.
Paul, re comment #142, I hear what you are saying but how do you reconcile that with Romans 9:14-24, which loops back (I believe) to how this post got started in the first place? Isn’t it clear that this refers to God’s choosing and electing entirely separate and apart from human will or choice?
tnahas on 15 Sep 2007 at 11:19 am #
It could be explained biblically, practically and emotionally as well.
The biblical are far too great on both sides to really get into in depths but previous posts have referred to them. Now looking at the acronym TULIP we can see how this actually plays out:
T = Total Depravity; we all can readily admit that even if you didn’t believe in imputed or inherited sin, we would all admit that we are responsible for personal sin. But here is the rub even after we’re saved we continue to sin somewhat showing how truly depraved we are. Once we come to the knowledge of the great sufferings our Lord took upon for us, we still disobey!! I call this Total Depravity.
U = Unconditional election; as one of the pillars of the doctrine, both camps believe in election, its unconditional that causes the problem. When we all each look back at our own individual testimony as when believed, can anyone truly say that they had a role to play? In light of the “walking dead†picture above, can anyone say they were able to believe without the whole operation of God involved. Here more than any other place, do we see man-centered theology than God-centered. Can a person decide that today is the day that they will accept Jesus. As far as Calvinist preachers are concerned, more than ever do we see ardent preachers for the gospel than Spurgeon, Whitfield and others. As for respect of the other camp, Spurgeon stated that Wesley was go godly than Wesley should be counted among the Apostles. Here we stand in worship and adoration.
L = Limited atonement; even for Calvinist a hard pill to swallow but can we deny that all are not saved. Was Christ work insufficient? Of course not!! But only through His work can we enter and then by entering do the “elect†have the atonement applied to them. As for the unbelievers when an Arminian can not answer the question, why would a person accept the gospel as opposed to reject it, here is where the Calvinist can easily assert that the Arminian concept of the atonement is more limited than the Calvinist one! We all know that not all are saved and that universal salvation, while a wonderful idea is not biblical.
I = Irresistible grace; another stumbling block as to why would God be irresistible? Let man choose you say, well man did choose in Garden with all of his blessings of God he chose to sin instead of enjoy God and His blessing in his pre-fallen state!! God’s sovereignty must overrule or else the Arminian God is too small. In light of His creation and the work at Calvary, is our God truly that small? Who can thwart the will of God and again the concept of decreed will of God and permissive will of God comes into play.
P = Perseverance of the Saints; well, I for one am happy that not only did God save me and He is that keeps me. If I have anything to do with holding on to my salvation well, I’ll lose it and lose it for good. I believe that once saved always saved and that perseverance can be seen as perseverance until death and then we are ushered in to glory. Again can we foil the work of God and being born again physically brings to mind that we can’t, as it were, go back through the birth canal. Once born again, truly then always born again.
In peace and humility this is given to wonder and ponder.
PaulM on 15 Sep 2007 at 12:19 pm #
CMP, please explain the statement, “Vance, …, the point is that Calvinism is the only system that allows tension.”
How does Calvinism allow for tension? I am trying, I just cannot see it.
I do see both sides of the issue and really appreciate why people struggle and fall out on both sides trying very hard to stay true to the text. Yet, I still cannot understand how Calvinism allows for tension.
PaulM on 15 Sep 2007 at 12:34 pm #
Another question. I believe it was said at some point above that the human choice element in salvation would give that saved person something to boast about (i.e., I chose to accept him). How would accepting the gift be anything to brag about? I cannot remember receiving a gift and having any ability to brag about it (like accepting it was a meritorious act for which I could claim responsibility or in which I could boast).
C Michael Patton on 15 Sep 2007 at 12:41 pm #
I don’t think there would be a difference. The point that Boice was making is the the reason why you are in heaven and someone else is not is due to the final causation of your choice to take the gift. “I choose to recieve the gift and others did not” would be the answer to “Why are you here while other’s are not.”
I think the only staw man in this argument is the presumption that we will not be able to claim any role in our salvation in heaven (i.e. boast). While I don’t believe we will, I don’t think it is detrimental to a theological system to say we could. If it is the truth, it is the truth. We don’t make the rules, even if those we presume seem to elevate the role of God.
C Michael Patton on 15 Sep 2007 at 1:28 pm #
Paul,
Calvinism is the only system that CAN allow for tension. I am not saying that all Calvinists do. Some, for example, will deny God’s universal love to resolve the tension concerning God’s love and His unconditional election. But most respectable Calvinists do not.
Arminianism, as a theological system, solves the tension once for all by saying that God loves everyone, therefore, He could not have unconditionally elected only some. He must have elected all “in Christ” or His election must be based upon forknowledge. Either way, conditional election is a necessary part of the Arminian system.
My point is that Calvinism does not have this problem. A necessary component of Calvinism is not to deny God’s universal love (even though some do) or even universal atonement (most do). In the end, you can be a Calvinist who affirms both unconditional election and God’s universal love, atonement, and desire for none to be lost. I know its SOUNDS contradictory, but this is my point. Calvinism allows for this tension. John Piper, Tom Schriener, and Michael Horton, and other contemporary Calvinists, including myself, believe that God loves all people, does not want any to perish, but has only elected some. We must live with this tension.
Arminians, because of their denial of unconditional election, have alleviated their system of such problems. My own thoughts are that their system is, to some degree, as it is defended today, a product of the enlightenment.
It is the same thing with Jehovah’s Witnesses with regards to the doctrine of the Trinity. (Although, not the same with regards to orthodoxy). JWs cannot live with the tension of their being one God and three persons. They deny the persons to resolve this tension.
The problem is that they have to deny clear biblical teaching to do so.
There are three main things that I think serve as illustrations as to how the Christian faith must live with tension (though not contradiction):
1. Creation ex nihilo. How can something come from nothing?
2. Trinity. How can God be one and three?
3. Election. How can God have elected only some but love all?
Each time these issues are resolved, I believe that more than likely you have embraced a false doctrine of some sort and degree. Therefore, don’t try to resolve it. Just live with the tension.
Parchment and Pen » Tension in Calvinism on 15 Sep 2007 at 2:05 pm #
[...] the blog “The Day I Became a Calvinist“ is way too long, I thought that I would take a very good question concerning the tension [...]
Round-up: From G-d to a great put-down » Metacatholic on 15 Sep 2007 at 3:27 pm #
[...] open-hearted evangelicalism, or something I struggle to get my head around. It was the latter with this statement by C Michael Patton: “most Christians remember where they were when they first heard about God’s election – [...]
Peter Kirk on 15 Sep 2007 at 4:00 pm #
Is this post a spoof? It certainly reads like a rather good spoof on how some people become Christians. And the introduction, complete with “The Scream” picture, makes me think that this is intended as an example of “The details of certain tragedies and trials stay by your side and the vivid details remind you of their significance.” I can understand in a way no true Calvinist can how this day might have been a tragedy and a trial for you.
It was only when I started to read the comments, including your own ones, that I realised that, unless you are being very clever, you intend this seriously.
For my own take for today on the issue, see here. Perhaps today is the day I became a Calvinist, because today is the day I realised that I hold more or less the same position as Jeremy who calls himself a five-point Calvinist.
C Michael Patton on 15 Sep 2007 at 4:08 pm #
Peter, I am not sure what you mean. Maybe it was a bad post, but it was meant to be “a day in the life” type post. The scream is illustrative of how many people handle unconditional election.
Hope that makes sense.
Thanks for posting.
Peter Kirk on 15 Sep 2007 at 4:11 pm #
All I can say is, read as a spoof it makes an excellent one.
C Michael Patton on 15 Sep 2007 at 4:13 pm #
Still not sure what you mean, but . . . oh well, I don’t get many things.
Peter Kirk on 15 Sep 2007 at 4:24 pm #
Mr Patton, do you find Tominthebox News Network funny? (Don’t worry, they are good Calvinists.) If you do, you should understand what I am getting at, although they would not have published a spoof with exactly this slant. If you don’t … But then your top twenty theological pick-up lines shows me that you do have a sense of humour.
C Michael Patton on 15 Sep 2007 at 4:35 pm #
Yes, I do read that. It is great. And my top twenty theological pick-up line is quite good, I must say so myself
I guess that I will have to take your word for it on this one!
C Michael Patton on 15 Sep 2007 at 4:37 pm #
By the way Kirk, it is not about “how some people become Christians” like you said, but about the first day I heard about unconditional election (Calvinism). Maybe that will help?
Gentle Wisdom » The spoof that wasn’t on 15 Sep 2007 at 4:48 pm #
[...] linked to a post The Day I Became a Calvinist at Parchment and Pen which he seemed puzzled by. I read it and decided that it was a rather [...]
PaulM on 15 Sep 2007 at 5:13 pm #
CMP, thanks for the reply, I think I understand, but would like to clarify. An Arminian does not need to hold the tension as there is no need because no issue. A Calvinist can hold it because there is an issue that needs resolving. Is that right?
I have no need to justify an Arminian perspective as it has some issues too, per my understanding thanks to TTP.
However, I respectfully believe the statement that Calvinism allows for the tension because a tension created, does not mean it allows for the tension. In fact it is the supposition that creates it! While the premises for Calvinism are very biblical as they are packaged with TULIP it does not really allow for the tension but create the tension because Calvinism does not allow for the human responsibility component.
It seems we would be better focusing on what the Bible says and allow the tension to be there. Now a good Calvinist would say, thank you that is what we are doing. You made my point!
But I see that the package of TULIP says this is how it is and so tension v. there is biblical support for this and this and we are not sure how they fit together (unless of course it is quantum mechanics, as mankind is still discovering how God has structured things). This difference/distinction may be subtle, but it feels like fire and brimstone v. grace.
The important thing is we keep challenging ourselves to love Him and understand Him as best we can. This has really been great and helped me clarify some areas previously a little more fuzzy in my mind.
Thanks brother!
C Michael Patton on 15 Sep 2007 at 5:31 pm #
Paul, maybe you can post this on the new blog. I don’t want this conversation to get lost. I expanded my answer to you and turned it into a new post on this blog.
A Lover of Truth/Souls of Mankind on 15 Sep 2007 at 6:01 pm #
Selfishness/pride/etc…is all learned behavior. It is tantamount to saying that one has a “gay” gene if one suggests humans are “naturally” selfish. This is to say that God in fact is the author of sin (the Bible denies this). Such is not the case. God created beings with the capacity to learn good/evil and to exercise their mind thus (and He made them good, Gen. 1). If a child ONLY knows good then he will not choose evil. It is not until he is persuaded to think evil thoughts (introduced from outward stimulus) that he thinks evil. The serpent was the first outward stimulus to introduce an evil thought into man’s (Adam and Eve) mind. Every subsequent sin is after this similitude.
Most behavior from children, especially infants, is from “stimuli” (touch the stove and get burned…) or from what they see from adults, but this is not a “sin”. “Sin is the transgression of the law” (I John 3:4); children cannot actually do this. Sin is an action, not a hereditary trait (like eye color).
Chad Winters on 16 Sep 2007 at 1:04 pm #
Lover of Truth:
You are ignoring the Fall. “In one man we all sinned” and in one Man we were saved.
Pelagianism has been soundly refuted and declared heretical by all orthodox christians, even if many are practically semi-pelagians
Thomas Twitchell on 16 Sep 2007 at 5:22 pm #
Joanie D. said,
“I think we can see the beginning of a life as kind of like the beginning of creation. In the beginning, it was all good. But as people began to think they knew better than God, things went bad. I know that is simplifying things way too much. But as I was driving along today, I was thinking about how someone would explain Christianity to some remote Amazonian tribe that had no contact with the outside world. I tell you what… you would try to make things VERY simple!”
First of all Joanie, in the beginning God created man and woman perfect in all knowledge God-ward, as well in all practical matters of life. We see the demonstration of that when Adam names the animals. If we step back, when God made a cow he said let there be a cow. Adam gives it the proper name after God has declared it. Second, Adam was placed in the Garden to tend, and though Adam would gain temporal knowledge in experience, all things for tending the Garden were already his in knowledge. He even knew where Eve came from and of what substance (and essence) she was.
The issues of witnessing, curiously came up in my daughter’s Sunday School class (she’s 18). It was proposed that if the natives have no concept of sin, that is, they do not acknowledge it as sin having not been instructed in it, are they not like children without knowledge of sin and therefore, they cannot sin willfully. If that is the case we sin a great sin against them in evangelism, seeing that being innocent of the content of sins being sinful, they are innocent of the blood of Christ. Should we then not evangelize? In the Arminian landscape ignorance of sin excuses it.
Answer me this, in Jeremiah it says that the heart of man is desperately wicked above all things, who can know it? Do you sin sins of ignorance? Under the law of Moses sins of ignorance were punishable as sin whether a person became aware of them or not. According to Jeremiah, you cannot even know all the sins that you commit. And here is the catch, the mere possession of a sinful heart, is a sin. The law teaches us that we are sinners, as Paul said, I would not have known sin except the law said you shall not covet. But, the law was added after transgression. How can that be the case if sin requires knowledge of sin before it can be committed?
Thomas Twitchell on 16 Sep 2007 at 5:37 pm #
Joanie D. said,
“I agree, Lover of Truth. I don’t think we are born already “sinners.” Babies come directly from God and that is why people don’t have to worry about whether or not babies are baptized and if they are not, whether that means they can’t go to heaven.”
The same holds here as it does with natives Joanie. If babies are born blank slates, it would behoove us to abort them all and usher them immediately into the presence of God. Yes, it would be a condemnable act on our part, but it would prevent their corruption and on that basis the greatest act of mercy even displacing Christ’s benefit’s to his elect in justification!
Thomas Twitchell on 16 Sep 2007 at 6:30 pm #
Vance said,
“Divine sovereignty, human responsibility and the free and universal offer of mercy are all found in Scripture, and though we are unable to harmonize them by our logic, they all ought to have a place in our minds.”
Unfortunately, they do have a place in our minds and our minds demand logic. Two oppositional truths cannot remain in tension without producing pathology. As you said:
“I think that, while the current flavors of Arminianism underplay, or outright ignore, the “God’s Choice” side of the equation, the Calvinist side equally underplays the free will side of the equation, as well as the salvation being offered to all. I think they give these lip service, but since our minds REALLY want to go one direction or the other and insists upon a logical resolution, they go to the other side without really giving full weight to maintain the full, seemingly contradictory, tension.”
But the Calvinist side does not underplay “free-will.” It is infact as Luther said the “hinge” upon which all the rest swings. The problem is the definition of “free.” Jesus said, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” What is the meaning of free, or even truth? Calvinists believe the will is always free in a peculiar sense. It is free in its motion, always. That is not the discussion in the “free-will” debate. The question is how is the motion of the will secured? There are two things that effect it, externally the choice, internally the condition of the chooser. Scripture asks us if a man has sin inside, does not the sacrifice become unclean. The sacrifice itself is clean, a right choice, the willful choice is good, it is the actor’s nature that defiles it. We take “free-will” to a level that Arminians ignore.
“You can’t have a logical, systematic theological resolution AND a mystery at the same time. And you definitely can’t have a dogmatic presentation of any area that is a mystery.”
Yes you can. A boat lost at see, simply being lost, does not negate the fact that it is a boat. Because you cannot find it does not make is non-existent. The Scripture discribes two kinds of mystery. There is the mystery revealed. Before the mystery was revealed it was both hidden, and a mystery. When revealed it remains a mystery. Scripture speaks of the mystery of disobedience, and the mystery of righteousness. But, they have both been revealed. How is that the case? Because the mysteriousness remains, or the how remains, but the what is revealed. It is not illogical to tell time with a watch without knowing the inner workings of the watch. What the watch is and what it does remains within a logical realm and is not disturbed by the mystery of the mechanism. Beyond that we elevate responsibility far above the Arminian.
First of all human responsibility is not on the same plane as God sovereignty as the Arminian juxtaposes it. It is a created responsibility unlike but in the likeness of Sovereignty. Second man was created responsible (set in the garden to tend it) and above that God made him responsible even for that which he knew not. Sin was a mystery to him, he had no knowledge of it, nor could we say that he had a full understanding of the consequences, but only a bare knowledge of them. Third, God held him responsible even though he was deceived. Deception is not right knowledge, it is in fact ignorance disguised as knowledge. When “Jesus said, “Woe to anyone who teaches one of these little ones to sin,” he was looking back at Eden. If you will return there you will find that the Elohim put the pair out of the Garden because they had become like them knowing good and evil. They did not know before what it was, but they were still responsible for it.
Far and away, the Calvinist has a greater respect and a much higher view of responsibility than the Arminian. We indeed make the cure beyond man’s ability while elevating it to God’s sovereignty. In other words, what man could not do God did, but the responsibility was man’s, that is, the accountability was his and his condemnation was the cost of his own action. God though takes that burden which he had placed upon man, and puts it on the shoulders of the Son. Arminian believe in a Governmental Atonement which leaves the responsibility on man’s shoulders. It accomplishes nothing for him.
“Human language for God Things = Through a glass darkly, at best.”
Did the writers of the Scripture understand? Did they see God face to face? You misuse this verse. It is talking about the resurrection, not the available knowledge as revealed in Scripture. The writers there spoke as oracles of God, carried along by the Holy Spirit. Now, this is a mystery. Why is it that we do not understand what was clearly written? There are God things, which Scripture clearly states that we can never know, they remain a mystery. But it has been full demystefied that they are mystery. So, this verse does not apply to the knowledge that man can have of Truth. In fact it goes on to say, that they we will know as we are known. But Scripture concludes that the things of God are not given for man to understand, calling them hidden things and forbids even searching them out. See 2 Corinthians, it clearly says that the things of God that are for us to know have, not will be, been given to us for we have the mind of Christ.
Darrin on 17 Sep 2007 at 6:33 pm #
Michael,
I truly appreciate your post, and have experienced similar doctrinal struggles. In my youth, I wondered that, since biblically there is clearly no inherent good in me (nor anyone else), why did I accept Christ while others do not? Unconditional election is surely the only scriptural way to answer this. So much is clarified in scripture once God’s complete sovereignty is acknowledged. It is also wonderful to see the truth opposing our own tendency toward humanism and pride.
Thanks again, and soli Deo gloria.
Kris on 18 Sep 2007 at 7:13 am #
I couldn’t agree more Darrin. When you view scripture through the lens of
God’s sovereignty and complete freedom you come to a different conclusion
than before.
joshk on 18 Sep 2007 at 10:47 pm #
“There are a few things that people never forget. The details of certain tragedies and trials stay by your side and the vivid details remind you of their significance.”
Becoming a Calvinist does classify as a tragedy.
C Michael Patton on 18 Sep 2007 at 11:09 pm #
lol…I don’t think it is a tragedy, but a very real trial of your faith. (Although, there are many who would think it is a tragedy!)
caleb on 20 Sep 2007 at 11:38 am #
As a seminary student and lover of theology, this post seriously looks like satire.
It might just be that i have settled these issues to the point of my own satisfaction, which is such that it enables me to effectively minister. Beyond that, it is foolishness (Deuteronomy 29:29) to try to make God’s infinite wisdom ans sovereignty fit into a system devised by out finite and depraved minds.
C Michael Patton on 20 Sep 2007 at 1:48 pm #
Thanks Caleb. I am not sure if you read the rest of the thread, but someone else said that.
It is not satire at all. It is a testimony about my first exposure to unconditional election (not so much Calvinism).
“The Day I Became and Unconditional Electionist” did not sound to interesting. So I just used Calvinist. It does however show that this day was the day I began to move toward Calvinism.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 20 Sep 2007 at 2:47 pm #
>>> In life, I admit, it is weird and confusing. To see people give up the faith after so many years of apparent sincerity and devotion toward Christ. I’m also reminded of the disciples in John’s gospel who fell away when Jesus discussed, in rather graphic detail, election. They couldn’t deal with it, apparently. Jesus said, “Because of this I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has allowed him to come.†Some will fall away; its confusing; its deceitful; its heart breaking; its reality. Its all I can do from becoming too depressed about it all. My hope is that in glory, these things will, perhaps, become more clear.<<<
Dear Enterprise24 (if you are still tracking this thread),
I have thought a lot about your “disciplining until death” remark as a way to still retain “P” within the TULIP framework. I hope that that is true.
In my quiet time and re-reading Samuel’s account of Saul… the Holy Spirit did come upon Saul in the beginning. Saul was elected by God to serve as king, even though having a king was not what God recommended.
But Saul did not end well. I hope Saul is a case, an exemplar of being disciplined until death, but still a member of the elect.
Thanks for dialoguing with me. Pax.
P.S. It would have been helpful if the blog owner, CMP, had the time to address my hypothetical in comment #95.
Enterprise24 on 20 Sep 2007 at 4:07 pm #
Pax/Truth Unites,
Yup, I’m still tracking this thread.
The Scriptures to say that God changed Saul’s inmost being (or “God turned for him another heart”). I do find it interesting that at the end of Saul’s life, God had stopped listening to him. In fact, the Bible says that the Lord’s Spirit had come out of Saul and an evil spirit was there tormenting him. In 1 Sam 18, it says than an evil spirit rushed upon Saul and he prophesied by trying to kill David with a spear.
I’m finding it difficult to believe one way or another on the status of Saul’s salvation. O.T. salvation was still by God’s grace, as in the N.T. It seems like the O.T. saints weren’t indwelt by the Spirit as N.T. believers are; it also seems like God’s grace and favor was administered through obedience to the Law, not merely going through the actions of the Law, but with a contrite and humble heart, obeying the commands of the Lord.
Stark disobedience to the Law and to God’s commands would bring judgment. With Adam, his disobedience to God’s clear command brought about the judgment of death. With Saul, his disobedience brought about God’s judgment. Look at 1 Sam 12:15. The covenant was there: If the people and the king obey the Lord in what he says, they will do well. If the people and the king disobey the Lord in what he says, rebelling against the Lord, his hand will be against both the people and the king. Then look at Samuel’s discourse in 12:20-25. The Lord’s favor comes upon anyone who serves him with all their heart. Saul did not serve the Lord with all his heart, so judgment came upon him and Israel. (Look also at 1 Chron 10:13-14.)
If this man was saved, then God sure dealt with him harshly. Serves as an example to me of what not to do, and what attitudes I should not have in obeying (or not obeying) commands from the Lord.
Truth Unites... and Divides on 20 Sep 2007 at 5:32 pm #
Alright!! Very glad, very happy that you, Enterprise24, are still tracking this thread!
I’ll be very candid. I want to retain “P”. I’m first and foremost a Christian. So I’m not beholden or wedded to being a 5-Pointer. But I really like the “cleanness” or “elegant truthfulness” of TULIP…. except for the empirical difficulties of “P”.
You know the well-worn phrase by Paul about working out your salvation with fear and trembling. And how it needs to be translated and understood properly.
I fully agree with you when you write: “Serves as an example to me of what not to do, and what attitudes I should not have in obeying (or not obeying) commands from the Lord.”
Yet this statement also seems to me that you are not experiencing the peace of mind that’s supposed to come from “P” and the felt reassurance of “eternal security”.
I thought “P” was supposed to reassure those fretting, nail-biting Christians that they are truly saved, once and for all!!!
Thomas Twitchell on 20 Sep 2007 at 6:53 pm #
Verses do not stand alone in Scripture, read all of
Vhttp://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Philippians+2
but do not stop there go to Proverbs, fear is the beginning of wisdom, yet wisdom is the #1 thing to get.
What if someone who is a believer suffers for wrong doing does it fit Hebrews 12 and mastigoo. You do not whip a law keeper, but a law breaker. And since 1 John 1:8 makes it clear that we all sin, then Philippians is spot on.
Beyond that Hebrews 12 also speaks of persecution.
Then there is Philippians 2:13, which follows on the heals of the fear passage. It is one of the clearest sovereignty passages. It is he who wills in us both the willingness and the power to carry it out for his purpose. Yet this does not stand alone. Galatians 5:17; For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. The word want is thelo, to will. Which dovetails perfectly with Romans 7 culminating in why we have assurance. Perserverence is not passive. Like all of salvation it is a monergistic work in which we are active. I describe it as passive/participation because what he wills we will do. That is the essence of faith and the knowledge of the One who carries out all things according to his own council. In the end there is now therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ, because there is no one who can bring a charge against God’s anointed.
Back to Saul- I do not know what God’s disposition of the soul of Saul was, but David would not bring a charge against him and rebuked those who touched God’s anointed. The anointed in Isaiah, is first Christ, but he is the firstfruit and we are the anointed ones of God, the firstfruits.
The true appreciation of the Deity must begin with fear. At his appearance the flesh falls face down, undone. But, to those like Isaiah who God calls, he sends forth the cherubim, which can mean flaming sword, and cleanses them of all unrighteousness so that even though the body remains dead because of tresspasses the spirit is made alive. It is the cleansing of the Lord that makes us to stand even in our weaknesses. As long as we exist in the flesh we will be subject to the wrath of God against our sins. Not to the judgement of wrath that is to condemnation, but to put to death the sin remaining in us. Beyond that, there is God’s awesomeness. He being the Almighty who gives breath to life and takes it back, it is to him we must turn and bow, knowing that he is able to destroy both the body and the soul in hell. He in us, is both our trembling and our comfort, for he has sworn, and because he cannot lie, we have his Word, that he will never leave us nor forsake us, even if we sin, for we have an advocate with the Father who intercedes on our behalf, for ever a priest. This perserverence then is our sanctification progressively according for each man according to God’s purpose to transform them into the likeness of God’s own Son, in is in the end to our glorification, no matter where we might be lead by his Spirit. And, yes, though I walk through the valley of death…God prepares a table for me….my sins are ever before me…but you have tried me….now destroy my enemies…. One of the things that we hear from Jesus’ lips to Peter is “What is that to you?” This was in response to Pete’s question of the disposition of John. Later we find this same Peter denying the Lord’s grace again, Galatians.
The righteous perish and no man considers it. Being a Christian is to acknowledge that as Saul, God can do with you as he pleases. Remember he was the anointed of God and what befell him was at God’s bidding, for it was God who was working in him both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Pray therefore that God would grant you a life of peace and understanding what the will of the Lord means.
The Bible Archive » Blog Archive » Calvinism Illustrated on 14 Aug 2008 at 11:16 am #
[...] wasn’t using the following so much as an argument but as a retelling of his own theological journey. What’s interesting about the story is that [...]