Debating Calvinism: Reflections
Jul 30th, 2007 by Nathan White
The other night I did something I hadn’t done it quite some time: I had an in-depth discussion on Calvinism with someone who does not share my belief in the famous “5-points”.
I must admit, I’ve become a bit jaded, because it has certainly been a while since I really interacted with someone who didn’t agree with me on this foundational issue. Looking back on my blog history, it’s been a long time since I wrote anything directly related to Calvinism vs. Arminianism, and it’s been even longer since an Arminian was brave enough to speak up here (whether that is a good or a bad thing, I do not know). 
Nevertheless, I proved a bit ‘rusty’ in discussing the subject, and have reflected back on why discussions like this are sometimes a bit frustrating. Each side can quote scripture, of course, and there was plenty of that coming from my side. But here are a few reasons –other that just looking at scripture– why it’s just not as simple as looking at a few verses in trying to reach common ground between the two polar opposites:
- There is a clear ‘language barrier’ that so often hinders these types of discussions. That is, when we use the term ‘Calvinism’, it is often misunderstood to mean something that it is not. Also, when the term ‘free-will’ is used, it likewise, is often defined in a manner different than we Calvinists intend.
- Sadly, too many equate ‘Calvinism’ with cold, dead, orthodoxy and a neglect of personal evangelism. Sometimes it is confusing as to why these types of perceptions arise. One reason, which I have covered before, is because Arminians recognize that Calvinists do not go about evangelism in the same manner as they. Another reason stems from the logical-consistency of their own minds in that if God is sovereign, then there is no point in doing anything about it. Yet another reason why Calvinists are given a bad rap is because the popularity of some teachers who mislabel the doctrine in order to denounce it. I suppose more could be written on this, but my main frustration is how these hurdles must constantly be cleared in order to really get through to an Arminian.
- It is simply assumed that Calvinist do not believe in a ‘will’ of man. A ‘will’, as used in the term ‘free will’, by necessity implies something other than just robots in motion. Calvinists, of course, believe that man has a will, and that it definitely has an element of freedom to it. Men have choices and make choices every day; men must choose to repent and place faith in Christ; but these are not the real issues as relates to this subject. The Arminian often fails to distinguish between absolutely free autonomy, and robotic-like, forced, coercion. (A will enslaved to sin and a will empowered by the Spirit are, of course, two opposites, and the only two options for human ‘freedom’; that is if we are follow scripture in this area instead of our own rational.)
- The pertinent issues as to WHY this subject is important are SO very often overlooked. That is, from the free-will side, it is hard to see why they should really care whether or not God is completely sovereign in salvation (I use the term ‘completely’, because most anybody who is the least bit orthodox will admit that God plays at least the majority-role in conversion. To put it better: most Arminians believe that God will draw, woo, and place men in special circumstances to ‘receive’ Him, but they stop short of saying that God is absolutely and completely sovereign from beginning (election) to end (regeneration/conversion)). Thus, most Arminians, holding a ‘foreknowledge’ or similar view, are actually very close to Calvinists in creed (being but a point or two off), but are in reality miles and in fact worlds apart in relation to how this seemingly small difference affects every aspect of faith and practice. For me, the Calvinist, this is often hard to communicate and demonstrate without a strenuous effort and much discussion.
Those are but a few observations after a fruitful discussion and further reflection on the subject. I’m interested, however, in better understanding how some people have overcome these problems. For I’ve been a Calvinist from (new) birth, and have never struggled with the perceptions listed above. If you have struggled with some of these hurdles in the past, and by God’s grace you were able to get over them, I would appreciate you sharing exactly how you finally dealt with the points listed above (coming from an Arminian to a Calvinist mindset). Also, I’m now looking into some resources on this subject that meet the criteria below; any recommendations are greatly appreciated. I am looking for material that:
-Is short, concise, and readable (no “freedom of the will”, “bondage of the will”, tough-read type of stuff).
-Will properly define the historical and accurate definition of ‘Calvinism’ and ‘hyper-Calvinism’.
-Will properly define the ‘will’ from a biblical perspective, not simply from a humanistic, philosophical, or of course, Arminian perspective.
-Can demonstrate how this subject radically but practically affects things such as: how we read scripture; our prayer; our worship; our evangelizing; how we see the world; what our churches should look like, etc.
-Will be candid in giving details on the pitfalls, shallowness, and slippery-slope consequences of Arminianism as pertains to personal sanctification and church structure.
43 Responses to “Debating Calvinism: Reflections”
For this one:
“Will properly define the historical and accurate definition of ‘Calvinism’ and ‘hyper-Calvinism’.”
This may be of use to you:
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm
It’s been a big help to me over the years as I go back and re-read it at least once a year.
Personally, I think your observations are spot on, especially in regard to a similar conversation I have had, repeatedly, with an Arminian devotee. Being a former devotee of such ilk myself, I viewed free will as my Sovereign because I desired to be in control. Reading Jonathan Edwards’ Bondage of the Will clarified things for me because it pointed out what I readily admitted to be true–I chose what I thought best. Studying Romans in-depth revealed that apart from God, what I thought was completely depraved. In regards to humility to relinquish control, God’s grace in my life worked to teach this through the 2 year long illness and subsequent death of my first child. Holding death in your arms significantly teaches a person how absolutely nothing of yourself in thought, choice, deed, or control can alter God’s decree. Learning what He intends for you through such a decree brings you to your knees, a key learning position. So when I consider the obstacle in my Arminian friend’s life, it honestly comes down to all her “choices” have worked out as she intended, and the common grace of her experiences underlines to her that she is right. She has never experienced thinking through a decision or action and not having it work out as she wanted, or even when minor adjustment is required, she still interprets God’s grace as her wisdom to make the adjustment. Therefore, I pray that God’s grace would see fit to rightly afflict her with that which would teach her the key learning position.
Nathan,
There are two subjects I often feel a bit rusty on: Calvinism and Eschatology, not because I don’t know what I believe, nor because I haven’t studied them but a) because they are pretty complex subjects and b) often the people you come across who want to debate them are either just new and fresh to the subject, and are therefore extremely enthusiatically either pro or con, or people who are obsessivley anti-calvinist (or obsessively for one view of eschatology), and who therefore talk about little else, and read about little else.
As for the rest of us we have got every other part of the Bible to study, every other doctrine to master (as if!) etc. etc…..After all being a Biblical Christian is so much more than having our theological ducks in row….and for many of us that means we need to focus most of our attention is killing the old man and putting on the new, in other words putting the doctrine into practice.
All this is just a way of saying..don’t beat yourself up too much! As for resources…I really like Al Martin’s “The Practical Implications of Calvinism”, don’t know where you could get it. Years ago I read a book the Five Points of Calvinism by E.J. Palmer which was good. I’ll have a think, I do think there is a reasonably new book out recently that might fit the bill. If I remember what it is I’ll let you know.
JP
From arminian to calvinist; here are the authors which gave me great understanding.
These 3 books that had the most impact and are listed in their respective order.
1. The Doctrines of Grace: Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel: by Philip Graham Ryken and James Montgomery Boice
2. Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views by Dave Hunt and James White
3. Chosen by God by R. C. Sproul
i am new to your site and have tried to learn about the two different views and must say that i have to stick with John Wesley on this. it is hard for me to understand how God would randomly choose some to save and the rest to hell. I know that we have all sinned and fall short, but to me that is thr reason for Christ. I am not saying that i save myself, but rather that by the Holy Spirit drawing me and convicting me of my sin. i realize then that i am a sinner and that only through Christ can i be saved by yeilding to him and making him Lord of my life. Just my humble view on this. As you pointed out both sides can use scripture to support their views. it seems to me that if we worry less about that and try to keep focus on the Love God with all heart, soul, mind and strength and then to also love our neighbors as he loved us we would be fine.
Magnus
Hey, Magnus. I’m sure Nathan would be able to respond to what you’ve said without the help of a worm such as myself, but I was here, and since there is no such thing as accidents, and since I’ve been thinking about this subject a bit myself lately, I’ll go ahead and see if I can help you.
You said:
I wouldn’t say that God’s choice is random, if by random you mean that He just decided with no real purpose in mind, but did it just to do it. On the contrary, Ephesians tells us a different story:
Paul gives us two reasons God elected, predestined, and adopted. First, we see that God did it “according to the purpose of his will.” It was God’s will (not man’s) that determined who God predestined for adoption and elected. Second, it was done for “the praise of his glorious grace.” So, God was not “random” in the sense of “just because,” but rather had a distinct purpose in doing so. Of course, this purpose is not because of man or anything in him, but the whole origin of election and predestination of individuals to salvation was in the will of God and not man.
It is also important to understand that God isn’t selecting some innocent people and not choosing other innocent people. Rather, God graciously chose to save evil, rebellious, fallen sons and daughters of Adam who deserve death and Hell. God would have been completely just in not saving anyone, but He did so out of love and grace and mercy. This is part of the reason the TULIP doctrines are often called the “Doctrines of Grace.”
You are absolutely correct in saying that because of our sin and falling short is why we need Christ’s sacrifice. One of the best passages on why it was needed is Romans 3:21-26 where it explains Christ’s propitiatory work. For a passage which clearly explains for whom Christ died and laid down His life, I recommend reading the Good Shepherd Discourse in John 10:11–30, paying special attention for whom Christ died (the sheep) and also noting that Jesus specifically excludes some from that group.
You also said:
Here we would have no disagreement.
You further said:
There is a minor problem with your statement. No where in Scripture are we told to “make Jesus Lord of our lives.” We are told that we must repent (Mark 1:15) and receive Him (John 1:12) and to confess (agree with, say the same as God in the matter) that Jesus is Lord (Romans 10:9). We do not make Jesus Lord; He already is. Rather, the Holy Spirit works in our lives so that our rebellious wills are changed and we wholeheartedly submit to Jesus AS Lord.
You continued:
Actually, Nathan said:
There is an important difference. Both sides and quote Scripture, but both cannot be using that Scripture properly. One side (or both) must be using an incorrect hermeneutic.
Lastly, you said:
Indeed, Jesus indicated these were the most important things. However, two important things are often missed when a statement like you made is uttered:
First, just because they are the most important doesn’t mean that other things are unimportant. Second, even though they are the most important things, how are we to go about obeying these commands? What does it look like to love God and others?
This last point is where theology becomes so very important. Jesus didn’t just say to go evangelize — He said to make disciples. A disciple is, among other things, a learner and follower. Why is this so important, and why did Jesus include it in the Great Commission? The reason is that evangelism, like everything else in Scripture, is to be God-centered. We are not saved just to have fire insurance; we are saved to become more like Jesus, and we become more like Him by learning more about Him and reflecting His character, and giving Him the praise due as the Scripture reveals Him to us.
We cannot know how to worship God without learning more of Him. How do we know to praise God because He is mighty, holy, loving, merciful, wrathful, etc? The reason is that the Bible tell us these things, and we only know them through studying it and arriving at a good Theology Proper. There is a reason Jeremiah records for us that the greates thing in life is knowing God. Surely to know Him more honors Him and shows love for Him (not to mention obeying Him, but then, in order to obey Him we need to know what it is He commands!).
I hope this has been helpful, and may God use it to bless His Name and His people.
SDG,
dbh
PS — as for recommending books, I would have to say to go with James White’s The Potter’s Freedom.
I must take issue with this statement: “Calvinists, of course, believe that man has a will, and that it definitely has an element of freedom to it. Men have choices and make choices every day”
According to Calvinism, however, you may as well give unelect man a “choice” between choosing to morph into a hippo or a pickle. He’s just as likely to be able to do that as he is to heed God’s demands. “Total inability”, right? So, it seems a bit of a misuse of language to even use the word “choice”.
Here’s another problem: “A will enslaved to sin and a will empowered by the Spirit are, of course, two opposites”
Are they? To paraphrase St. Paul: “The good I wish to do, I do not do. The evil I do not wish to do: that, I do”
A converse of “total inability” would be “total ability”, I would think. On this side of the grave there is no such capability, unfortunately. Man only goes from “totally unable” to “somewhat able”, unless you would like to assert that the elect are no longer capable of sin.
James, you’re right in that Calvinists don’t believe man is able to choose to be righteous, but that’s because he doesn’t want to. No one’s holding a gun to his head to make him unable.
If you’re given a choice between what you love and what you hate, does that somehow limit your freedom in the matter? That’s what you imply.
Yes, we think the conclusion of sinful man’s exercise of will is foregone, but not by God’s fiat, nor by force. It’s a foregone conclusion because of what sinful man loves.
Hi Nathan:
I enjoyed your post very much. I don’t know whether my series on Arminianism vs Reformed Theology would meet all the criteria you have listed, but I offer it to you as a possible resource.
In writing about Arminianism vs Calvinism I have used the 5 points as as a way of organizing the posts, and have tried to be very thorough, responding to many objections along the way (both in the comments and in the posts themselves). For this reason, though I posted about 12 articles so far, the series is only a third of the way completed (I’m still responding to objections to unconditional election!).
In any case, I offer it to you and if you care to post a comment, or offer any constructive advice on how it could be improved, I would be pleased.
Best in Christ,
Alex
I know that i am not a great thinker so perhaps someone could tell me what the big hoopla is about. i mean if as a Calvinist you can not know who is elect or not and as a non-Calvinist you can not know who is saved or not what is the big problem. Should not the focus be on bringing people the Good News and let God do what he will anyways. It is not up to us to save anyone i thought, what is so bad about sharing the gospel and letting the chips fall where they will? I mean if the Calvinist is right then by doing that God will grant him this irrisistable grace maybe or at some other time. Same goes for the non-Clavinist, by sharing the gospel God will i draw that sinner to him and they sinner will either be saved or not. why worry about things that can not be known. Even a Calvinist has to say that he does not know the reason why he was elected. maybe we should just leave it to God and try to make disciples for him.
magnus
Hey Magnus,
First of all, I understand where you’re coming from. As you can probably see under ‘what I believe’, we hold to two different positions on this matter, but I hope you continue to stick around and dialogue with us on some of this. I trust that you will learn and grow, as we will from hearing you as well.
Secondly, I would agree much with what David stated above. He made some great points that I hope you’ll take to heart.
Lastly, one of my frustrations with these types of dialogues is the inability to communicate how serious of an issue it really is. I know you may see it as ‘hoopla’, as I used to as well (at one time I thought the whole subject was ‘moot’), but I propose to you that this is a very serious matter. Paul mentions election/predestination on almost every page of the New Testament. Jesus mentioned it again and again, particularly in the book of John. The subject, I believe, deserves our due attention, for it is just mentioned way to much in scripture for us to ignore. Thus, I trust, no matter where you fall down on, that you will study the matter and ‘show yourself approved’, like we all should.
No, we cannot see exactly who the elect are, and so we do evangelize as if God were going to save them all, but that’s not the real issue. The issue, in regards to this I believe, is the methods/manner/message of our evangelism. No offense, but I have yet to see an Arminian or an Arminian gospel presentation/ministry/church that does not produce loads and loads of false converts. Generally speaking, when salvation is defined as a choice, as a decision we are completely free to make without the necessity of grace, and that man can make this decision at any point, men respond in droves, but only in outward form. It is no secret, in fact it is a well-known fact, that 95% or more of those who responded to Billy Graham invitations fell completely away from the faith in a matter of months. Thus, the issue is with the purity of the gospel presentation and the methods we use to do so. Producing a child of God or a son of Hell, I believe, are very important distinctions, and will be directly related to our view of how God brings about saving faith.
Consider those points and I pray we will have further dialogue in the future.
Elle said: God’s grace in my life worked to teach this through the 2 year long illness and subsequent death of my first child. Holding death in your arms significantly teaches a person how absolutely nothing of yourself in thought, choice, deed, or control can alter God’s decree…
Elle, I would have never fully understood your story before I had children. Now that I have a little girl (5 months old), your story brings tears to my eyes. Thank you for sharing such a wonderful testimony to God’s grace in your life. He certainly breaks us, doesn’t He? But His steadfast love endures forever, and He chastens those whom He loves…
James,
You choose to sin every single day, and have since your birth. That is your choice, though obviously you couldn’t stop it if you lived a million years.
The Bible says in John 8: Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.
You are enslaved to sin, and can do nothing but sin, unless Jesus sets you free from your slave. It’s no wonder this ’slave’ language is used throughout the epistles as well.
Regarding ’somewhat able’, the scripture says that ‘the Spirit is willing but the flesh is week’.
You place a bowl of meat on the left, and a bowl of grain on the right, and a dog will choose the meat 10 times out of 10. You do the same with a horse or a cow, and well, they’re not going to eat the meat, but will choose the grain 10 times out of 10.
Our will is free according to our nature and the desires which ultimately direct us in one way or another. A sinner only wants to sin; he doesn’t want to do anything else. He chooses to sin every day, and freely so, but he cannot choose otherwise because he doesn’t want to choose otherwise! But when God changes the heart, the heart, indwelled by the Spirit, wants to please God, and will choose that which is most pleasing to God.
Carla, John, Alex: Thanks for the resources! They will be very helpful to me. It is invaluable to me to get resources that have actually benefited and helped others who have struggled with these issues.
Nathan,
thanks for the encouragement and not bringing down the fire and brimstone on me. haha i love to learn and see where people are comming from so i hope that i can ask some questions.
1. i assume that you are a Calvinist and that you are one of the Elect, my question is go back to before God called the minute before you were not searching for him, you wanted nothing to do with him and then bang, irrisitible grace grabbed holed and you came to believe and one of the elect. now how is that a choice? i guess you are saying there was no choice at all right? So you love God and wish to follow him because he imparted this irrisistable grace on you?
2. what about the Berean Jews who would receive the news with eagerness and would search the scripture daily to see if they were true and many of them therefore believed, i guess they forgot the irrisistable grace part?Acts 17: 11-12
3. one more, what about Matt 11:21 where Jesus tells the cityof Chrazin & Bethsaida that if the miracles perfomed in them would of happened in Tyre & Sidon they would of repented. why say that when he also needed to add the irrisistable grace part?
of course we could go on and on, but i really would like to hear how a true Calvinist views these things.
Magnus
Hi Magnus,
I didn’t necessarily want this post to blow-up into an all out debate on the
subject of Calvinism (I actually assumed most if not all of my readers
agreed with me), because it takes a whole lot of time and space to properly
defend either side of the position. I’d love to give a full presentation of
my position, but I’m kind of strapped for time right now. But I think your
questions are reasonable, and I’ll do my best to answer them as concise as
possible.
1) You are right in that we all ‘make a choice’ to repent and place faith in
Christ. However, scripture is clear in that: A) Faith is a gift given to us
by God (Eph 2:8-9; Phil 1:29, etc.), B) Though we do choose Him, it is a
direct result of Him first choosing us (1 Jn 4:19; Jn 15:16, 19; etc.).
Simply put, John 6:44 affirms the doctrine of ‘irresistible grace’, in that
only those who are drawn will come to Christ, and ALL those who are drawn
will come to Christ (6:37 as well). How this worked out in my life or in
others, I do not know. Jesus said that in regards to the new birth “The wind
blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it
comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the
Spirit.” But yes, the only reason I love God and wish to follow Him is
because He changed my will and desires, indeed, He gave me a new heart of
flesh which replaced my heart of stone.
2) Your question here is irrelevant to the discussion. How God works in
drawing, we do not know, nor can we objectively affirm (on this side of
heaven) who is or was being drawn. All we can clearly affirm is that ‘No
man’ comes to Christ without being drawn by the Father, and that includes
the Jews in Acts 17. Jesus, again, is clear in saying that “Every plant that
my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up.”
3) This is a tough passage for anyone. For Jesus is using a hypothetical
situation to teach the crowds a lesson. What we can confirm, however, is
that His point is not that man has or does not have a free will. That
subject simply isn’t the point of the text. The point is that they needed to
repent. However, we can clearly see a few things from this text: God is
sovereign over who hears the gospel: you, as one believing in free will,
must recognize that God could have saved all those wicked cities, but chose
not to do so. Thus, why would God want to save some more than others; is
that fair? Did God really love them, or love them as much as those who did
see the signs and wonders? Therefore, this passage clearly confirms my
position rather than yours: when God has chosen someone from the foundation
of the world (the clear teaching of Eph chapter 1), then He will use
whatever means necessary to draw them to faith, so that ‘none of them may be
lost’. The wicked cities were not chosen for salvation, and thus were not
granted the means of grace (in this case, signs), so as to repent.
I hope that helps your understanding. Better yet, I pray that you would open
your bible and examine each one of the passages that I quoted above. Can you
explain how these passages teach your position rather than mine? I don’t
think any honest examination of the passage will argue so.
Nathan,
I do not wish to debate either and will look at the passages you provided. i do think though that my second question pertains to this though, since either the Berean who studied and believed were drawn by irrisitible faith or whether they were drawn by resistible faith.
i just want to add one thing, just because i believe that man plays a role in salvation i do not believe that man on his own comes to God. it is clear that he has to draw them. the only place i differ is with the irrisitable grace rather than the resistable faith. it seems to me that just reading James 4:8 shows that man plays a very small part in salvation.
Also, what can a true Calvinist say to one who he is sharing the gospel too? please turn from your sins and repent and believe, i have to tell you though that you can not possibly do this since you are dead and can not possible turn to God nor even want too. just hope that you won the lottery and that you are one of the elect otherwise there is nothing you can do so eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you go to hell. i doubt that message would really resonate with people, but i could be wrong.
magnus
Magnus, this is why I have a certain grudging respect for Fred Phelps and his clan. They embrace Calvinism fully, and they understand its implications. There is no “bait and switch” presentation of the Gospel. Why bother telling people to repent when Scripture seems clear that God despises most of humanity and actually does not wish for them to repent? The Phelps even have a certain degree of humility when they say that they only have a hope (not a certainty) that they are among the elect.
Sure, their methods are crude, but is there really a polite way of telling people that God has created them purely for the purposes of having them suffer in unendurable agony for all eternity?
Magnus said: it is clear that he has to draw them. the only place i differ is with the irrisitable grace rather than the resistable faith.
Again, I would simply respond to this with “I believe what John 6:37-44 clearly says”, which is:
“All that the Father gives me will come to me [Not some or most, but ALL], and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. …No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him [ALL those who are drawn] up on the last day. ”
No one who is drawn or is given fails to come; no one can come without being drawn and given. It is as clear as day from this text.
Magnus said: Also, what can a true Calvinist say to one who he is sharing the gospel too?
Well, you can read what Spurgeon said, what Jonathan Edwards said, what William Carey said, what George Whitefield said, etc. These men, no doubt some of the very greatest evangelists every to walk this earth, were all staunch Calvinists.
James said: this is why I have a certain grudging respect for Fred Phelps and his clan.
James, Phelps is a blasphemous man. He professes to believe in Calvinism, but certainly does no such thing. Certainly, giving a bad example like this proves nothing. I would recommend considering the list of men above, if you want to see the true fruit of such doctrine.
SDG
i doubt that we will sovle the debate since it has been going for hundreds of years now. when i read the Bible in my limited understanding i see many references to falling away from faith and i have to take those serioulsy. while i suppose we could list countless non-Calvinist that showed good fruit i say we just keep trying to share the gospel and let people study and pray. As i said whith my first post though, i will stick with Wesley on this.
magnus
Solving the debate has to be done one Scripture at a time. There is a lot of baggage that goes into this for sure.
Scripture exegesis is on the side of the “Calvinists” though. 
Of course, that is a bold statement, and I will be more than happy to back it up so that the glory and honor of God in salvation will be seen clearly.
SDG,
dbh
David,
why have you not reported this great news to all the world? We can tell one side that its over and that we need not study anymore. For all the exegis you have done i am sure that the non-Calvinist will tell you that they have done it as well. all kidding aside though, i am glad that you are secure in your faith. perhaps the big dilemma is that most Calvinist will put on a deceptive show and talk of repentance and turning to God, while at the same time knowing that the totally depraved sinner is toast if he is not blessed with this irristible grace thing. i wonder why most of them do not present it that way?
magnus
Magnus,
David is right: as long as we look at what scripture says instead of philosophical and humanistic arguments, the debate is over. Just because there are many who reject the doctrine, and thus scripture, after the exegesis has been shown to all, does not give credence to the other side.
Please: I didn’t post this to start an argument. Perhaps I will post on this issue again, in more detail, and there can be further discussion on it then. However, wondering why Calvinists don’t evangelize this way or that way, or say this or that, as if your understanding of the doctrine dictates what is consistent in your eyes, borders on mocking, and we’d appreciate it if you’d wait until another post on the subject before commenting again.
SDG
James said,
“perhaps the big dilemma is that most Calvinist will put on a deceptive show and talk of repentance and turning to God, while at the same time knowing that the totally depraved sinner is toast if he is not blessed with this irristible grace thing. i wonder why most of them do not present it that way?”
This is not a dilemma, as such, and it is certainly not deceptive, God clearly calls on all men everywhere to repent and he clearly calls on all Christians to be involved in telling all men to repent, the Calvinist does so fully in the knowledge that no one will do so except by the grace of God and that those who are so touched by God’s grace will certainly do so, that’s why I’m enthusiastic to evangelise.
Furthermore, there will be no one in Hell who did not want to go there by rejecting God and Christ and there will be none there who sought Christ but merely failed to find Him…all that the Father gives….
So in other words we don’t have to discuss or preach about the decrees of God because we’re not called to, we’re called to preach the Gospel of Christ, not explain the ins an outs of theology, that can come later.
JP
test
Sorry for the test post, but I had typed one out before and lost the whole thing. Nathan, you probably have this resource, but Bob DeWaay has written on this on his website, Critical Issues Commentary. He did use quotes from Jonathan Edwards, and the whole article was very helpful to me. It was a two part series, if I remember correctly. He also commented on leaving philosophical arguments aside and just dealing with scripture and what it says. Of course, the problem with that is we have a tendency to see scripture in light of how we want to see it or think things should be. This was one of my hurdles in coming to believe in election. To me, it wasn’t fair. It wasn’t until I realized I was putting my human, sinful ideas of what is fair onto God that I could step back and look at the scriptures without that bias. Really, am I fit to decide what is fair or not? And then I realized that if God were truly “fair” we would all be condemned. My prayer since that time has been for God to show me who He truly is and not to believe what I want Him to be or think He should be.
It seems that a lot of people have a deep emotional reaction to election and actually hate the doctrine. I always wonder at this. Do we truly think that if our decision to be saved were left up to us, we would make the right one? If God is truly the one in control over who is saved and who is not, why do we have a problem with that? Because we think we can make better decisions than He can? If salvation were left up to us and our decisions and choices, then woe to us all. None would be saved.
I believe both because the Scriptures teach both. Most people would say it is impossible to believe both because they are contradictory. I say, so be it. There are many things about God I don’t understand.
Both sides of this issue quote scripture to state their view, then explain scripture that tends to support the other side. Many liberal Biblical scholars use “exegesis” to change the plain reading of scripture to meet their personal views. Most of us agree this is wrong.
I believe God is sovereign. I also believe God inspired the scriptures. I think we should be very very careful in deciding God just didn’t say exactly what he meant or said it in a way that is unclear. Both sides do just this in the name of exegesis.
Just because I believe God is sovereign doesn’t mean my small mind can determine just what a sovereign God acts like or that I can understand everything about that God.
Here’s something that I have noticed along these lines. Many of us who who hold to reformed theology often get very comfortable in the perfect logic of our doctrine, and we become irritated when we encounter people who are unable to accept that logic. This leads to an inability to properly pastor in gentleness and causes us to become arrogant in our theology, thus in effect closing off the ability for us to properly relate to and communicate with the lost, or the doctrinally unsound.
The funny thing is that this stems from a heresy to our own doctrine, that of the revelation of the Holy Spirit such as that mentioned in 1 Corinthians Ch 2. So we find ourselves becoming angry with people for not making the logical connections within our doctrine when our own doctrine tells us that (the lost anyway) won’t be able to understand it to begin with. So what is the source of our anger? It is that we are not pastoring in gentleness and patience, we are instead trying to force people to come to a logical understanding of God when in fact our own doctrine says that is impossible. We should preach Jesus Christ and him crucified, and then pastor with gentleness and patience, trusting that our Reformed theology does adhere to what the Bible says and that God will do the work the promises to do. We can only call people to salvation, and to teach them good doctrine, we can neither make them respond or understand, not to say however that we should not put forth our very best effort in presenting the Glories of Christ in the way that illustrates Him properly.
If we look at this from the point of view of someone who does not view scripture as absolute truth, reformed logic is completely circular (Why do we believe that Scripture is true? Because it says it’s true!), and at at times full of holes. Paul doesn’t even try to explain the “Why does he still find fault?” argument, he simply says that its not really our place to complain about the way things are. We must operate in the whole reality of the Gospel, in that God is sovereign, and that man cannot understand it, but we must accept it. Even Christian’s cannot understand it and we possibly waste a bunch of time wrestling with something that the Bible says “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?””.
In computer terms we are wasting processor cycles on an incalculable operation and taking resources away from the operations that are set out before us to execute. This may be fine late at night when we are hanging out with our aspiring theologian friends, but when we are amongst the lost or doctrinally unsound we need to know and preach Jesus Christ and him crucified, and have the gentleness and patience to allow the Holy Spirit to do His work.
Dax,
That was really good. i can not tell you how nice that was to read. i bleive that you hit the nail right on the head. i was hoping in that spirit if you could help me with some of this. i am learning about all this and must admit that it is very hard to accept some of these things.
My question though is this, if man plays no role in salvation then how can i rationalize the Berean Jews and the Phillipian jailer? in both examples it seems that they were seeking and earnestly striving to learn about God. How can that be though? no man searches for God or wants anything to do with him. i have read some of John Piper on this and in one book he writes something like what do you tell someone who is not a believer that he should do? you tell him to recognize his sinful state, his complete inability to do anything, to repent and to throw oneself onto the mercy of God. someone like me has no problem with that, but then if i follow strict Calinistic thinking how could i ever do all of that?
anyways, any light you could shine on this would be greatly appreciated.
magnus
Magnus,
I read somewhere at one time that we really begin seeking God after salvation, not before. I though there was a ring of truth to that. Once saved, my searching and seeking began and has never stopped.
Hannah,
thanks for that, but does that mean that the jailer and the Berean were saved already and that is why they were searching and asking? When the jailer asked Paul what he must do to be saved he was saved already? Why would he be told to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved? Will be is what strikes me.
magnus
It was by grace they were saved through faith. As I learned from CH Spurgeon, faith is a thing, it is a noun and not a verb. You “have ” a noun, and you “do” a verb. Faith is the thing by which we receive grace, just like our mouth is a thing by which we receive food. It makes Ephesians 3:8 make alot more sense “8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” So the progression would be like this: You recieve grace through faith and then do works (like repent, worship, serve, preach etc).
In both the case of the Phillipian Jailer and the Berean Jew they received the Gospel by faith. The jailer did by hearing paul and silas singing hymns and praying all night long. “About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them, ” – Acts 16:25. Surely they were singing and praying about their thankfulness to God for the Gospel that saved them, even while imprisoned, and this led the jailer to consider his own salvation (and the earthquake probably helped too…). For the Berean Jew, it says that “they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. ” In order to “receive the word”, the word had to be preached to them. In both instances, they received the Gospel by faith. And by faith they received the Gospel by the preaching of the Gospel, which is how God has ordained that men be saved (Romans 10:14-15).
The point is that salvation belongs to the Lord (Johna 2:9) and God has equipped us with faith by which we receive His grace.
“30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. ” Romans 9:30-32
that’s jonah 2:9 by the way, sorry for the mis-type
am i understanding it right when i say that God is the reason that one is saved but that he gives us each faith then before salvation? Since faith is a noun, it is something that i have. i then could have faith without salvation, since i can not save myslef only He can do that, but i can have faith that he will do that?
sorry if this is stupid, but i would really like to know.
Sure, and you are definitely not stupid these are very good questions. Faith is the thing we use to come to believe something, we all have it. We believe the earth is round, we believe our mother loves us, we believe the sun will come up tomorrow morning, all of this is based on examining ourselves and our surroundings and coming to a conclusion that we choose to believe. So faith in Christ comes from hearing the Gospel examining it and accepting it as true, just like the Berean Jews did. God works within us to turn us to Him.
In the case of salvation 2 Corintians 13:5 says:
“Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test! ”
It is not something to be taken lightly but something to be considered very seriously.
Phillipians 2:12-13 says:
12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
If you want to know if God can save you the answer is a definite yes! He is God! Examine the Bible, go to a Bible believing church and hear the Gospel proclaimed, and allow God to work within you to repentance from sin and faith in Christ, but don’t stop there, live and grow (abide) in Christ for the rest of your life. He also promises us the strength to remain in the faith. “3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5 who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” 1 Peter 1:3-5
The same faith by which God will reveal himself to you will also guard you and give you the strength to endure. The expression of this faith is through repentance, and the submitting of ourselves to the Lordship of Christ in our lives.
Dax,
Many people have faith in many things, but do you think this is the same faith that God gives us to believe? I think James 2 makes a distinction between faith that all people have in different things, (i.e. like the Islamists have in Allah) which would be dead faith, as opposed to saving faith, which is a gift from God, and is evidenced by the fruit of our works. What do you think?
I wouldn’t say that James says it is a different faith, but just the difference between a living and a dead faith.
If we go back to Spurgeon’s illustration of faith being to grace what a mouth is to food, then if by faith we recieve something other than Christ it would be like eating poison or stones or something.
Dax,
thanks for that. i am grateful that you illustrated that to me. While trying to get a handle on all of this i got the impression that most Calvinst were cold and un-approachable. you would ask a qouestion and i was stupid, blind or damned. it is good to know that there are some who can answer question in a gentle and kind manner while trying to teach simpleton’s like me. i will keep studying and trying to learn. of course i will also read my Bible and pray.
magnus
I think you are on the right track!
“11 For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. 12 Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. 13 You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. ”
– Jeremiah 29:11-13
Dax: If someone came to you (assume a non-believer) and asked, “Did Christ die for me? How do I know?”
How would you answer him or her?
I guess I would present to them what the Bible says about man’s separation from God and Christ’s atoning work on the cross and then ask the question back to them. And then if they decided that they believed I would say that that is how they know it. Not that their belief is what makes it true, because it’s true regardless, but their belief by faith is how they know it to be true.
I probably should go on to say that saving faith is evidenced by works and a changed heart as well.
I think of it this way. Man does not have free will to come to God but man does have free will to sin. If God is sovereign, which he is, then free will is a moot point. God does what he wills in spite of mans will. And thank God for that!