Tags
Bible, Book of Romans, Calvinism, Canons of Dort, Christianity, Faith, God, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Grace, Jesus Christ, Law, Reformed Theology, Salvation, Sin, Sovereignty of God, Theology, Total Depravity, Westminster Confession of Faith
John Calvin
I am beginning a five part series on the subject of whether or not Calvinism is biblical. This series has been prompted by many Facebook conversations that I’ve had with individuals. In particular, my friend, Scott Meinecke, has taken it upon himself to write a blog article asking the question, “Is Calvinism biblical?” and answering in the negative. After reading his article, not only am I not convinced by his grasp of Calvinist doctrine, but neither am I convinced by his argumentation. In what follows, I will take each of the points of Calvinism (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints) and give the classic definition from the historic Reformed confessions of faith. Next I will provide you Mr. Meinecke’s definition and his argument against these points. Finally, I will show you the scriptural support for Calvinism. I will do this in five separate articles (one for each point).
Before digging in, some preliminary remarks are in order. The Five Points of Calvinism, or the Doctrines of Grace, need to be put in the proper perspective. First and foremost, we need to understand that the acronym, TULIP, used to describe the Five Points of Calvinism is of unknown origin. The earliest known use of the acronym was in a 1905 lecture given by Rev. Cleland Boyd McAfee. The acronym was unknown to the Protestant Reformers or to those who crafted the Reformed confessions of faith that came out a generation later. John Calvin never distilled his entire theology to five points. In fact, the five points weren’t even explicitly spelled out by Calvinists. The five points were a response by the Dutch Reformed church to the Five Articles of the Remonstrance submitted by the followers of Jacob Arminius who took issue with five specific aspects of Reformed Theology. The response of the Dutch Church was contained in the Canons of Dort (1618-1619).
Why do I mention this? I mention this because TULIP, while a useful mnemonic device for remembering the Doctrines of Grace, are inadequate in explaining the Doctrines of Grace without some further elucidation. Yet, opponents of Calvinism will pounce on TULIP and draw all kinds of false conclusions simply from the acronym. For example, I have seen several websites that purport to ‘refute Calvinism’ completely misunderstand the “P” in TULIP (Perseverance of the Saints). They see the word “perseverance” and assume that means the saints persevere in their faith by their own effort, and then they’ll inevitably cite Philippians 1:6 and demonstrate that God preserves his saints until the end. Unfortunately, that is what the Calvinist position is; they ‘refute’ Calvinism by asserting the Calvinist position. This leads me to believe that these people who go around ‘refuting’ Calvinism don’t even read what Calvinists say about their own doctrine.
Secondly, the Doctrines of Grace (DoG) are soteriological in nature — i.e., they deal with the doctrine of salvation; they are meant to teach how man is lost in sin and how salvation can be obtained. Finally, the DoG are monergistic. By this we mean to convey that the DoG depict salvation as solely a work of God alone. Man does not help God in his own salvation; rather, man is an underserving recipient of God’s grace in salvation.
I believe this point cannot be stressed enough! The reason why many people struggle with the DoG is because it doesn’t fit with their conversion experience. The conversion experience of most (if not, all) Christians goes something like this: I was going my own way minding my own business when all of a sudden a crisis came into my life. In trying to deal with the crisis, I heard the gospel message and I was convicted of my sin. I then placed my faith and trust in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. The crisis can take many shapes and forms; it can be a health issue (cancer), a death in the family, the loss of a job. etc. For me, it was crisis of purpose and meaning that drove me to investigate Christianity. Either way, it’s crisis, gospel, and choice, so from our perspective we chose God; we chose to place our faith and trust in Jesus Christ for our salvation.
Yet, it is my firm belief that all throughout scripture — whether implicitly or explicitly — the truth of the matter is that we didn’t choose Christ, he chose us (cf. John 15:16). Our experience is “whosever may come,” but the divine perspective is “chosen before the foundation of the world.” Our choices and actions converge with God’s sovereign plan and will. God’s will to save someone always results in that person coming to faith in Jesus Christ through the proclamation of the gospel. God ordains the ends (our salvation) and the means (crisis, gospel proclamation, our choice to believe). Whenever I contemplate that truth, I am eternally grateful and at the same time humbled to the core of my being.
The Doctrines of Grace simply spell out from the bible how it is that God brings about our salvation. It is salvation from God’s point of view, not man’s; that is why it may seem difficult for individuals to grasp because they try to fit it into their own personal experience rather than accept it for what it is — God’s plan of salvation from the very beginning.
With that being said, let’s address Mr. Meinecke’s article beginning with the doctrine of Total Depravity.
The Canons of Dort under the third and fourth head of doctrine, article 3 says:
Therefore all men are conceived in sin, and are by nature children of wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage thereto; and without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they are neither able nor willing to return to God, to reform the depravity of their nature, or to dispose themselves to reformation.
The Westminster Confession of Faith in chapter 9 (Of Free Will) article 3 states:
Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
These represent the classic Reformed teaching on the doctrine of Total Depravity. Mr. Meinecke’s definition of this doctrine is as follows:
In this state, man can ‘only’ sin. He is incapable of not sinning. Man is incapable of obeying God & keeping God’s law. The very last part, I agree with.
Here is Mr. Meinecke’s complete argument against the doctrine of Total Depravity:
If man can only sin, then there can’t be any verses in the bible showing man not sinning, let alone actually obeying God, unless it can be shown that said individual is clearly one of God’s elect & that God has already started the process of drawing him (John 6:44). Without this action that God has to start (according to Calvinism), man will only sin & wants nothing to do with God. Man is desperately wicked & every thought & inclination of his heart is only evil, all the time (Genesis 6:5). Let’s see if scripture totally agrees with this belief.
So what does scripture say. 2 Kings 15:3 ‘And he did what was right in the sight of the Lord’. If Calvinism is true, then this verse can’t be in the bible. Calvinism teaches that we can only sin & that we aren’t capable of obeying God, yet this verse clearly proves that we can & therefore Calvinism is already proven wrong, but since I’m guessing you’re still not convinced, I’ll continue. The bible is filled with Kings who ruled over people. Some of them did evil in the sight of the lord & some of them did good. The bible is repleat (sic) with examples of this throughout. How can this be if we all suffer from Total Depravity? It can’t. The bible is clear that we aren’t totally depraved. Just depraved. We all sin. None of us can never sin. Romans 3:23 ‘All have sinned & fall short of the glory of God’. This verse is used by Calvinists, but if it said that all ‘only’ sin, then maybe they’d have a point, but it’s clear that total depravity is not in view here. Rather, our fallen nature & the need for a savior is what’s in view. Calvinism takes this biblical truth & runs it to a logical fallacy. In other words, they take it too far.
The first thing to notice is the subtle shift in definition from the classic Reformed definition and Mr. Meinecke’s definition. Dort says that man is “incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage thereto.” Mr Meinecke says that man “can only sin; he is incapable of not sinning.” Are these statements the same? Is Mr. Meinecke accurately stating the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity, or is he guilty of setting up a straw man and demonstrating his own misstatement to be incorrect? I contend the latter. Notice how the thrust of the Reformed confessions is toward salvation — man is “neither able nor willing to return to God.” Total Depravity first and foremost is seen as cosmic rebellion of the creature from his Creator.
The second thing to notice is the first horn of Mr. Meinecke’s argument: “If man can only sin, then there can’t be any verses in the bible showing man not sinning, let alone actually obeying God.” It is a gross misunderstanding to state the doctrine of Total Depravity as teaching that man sins all the time, or that man is as morally bad as he can be. One can obey God’s revealed moral law (codified in the Ten Commandments) and still be a rebel at heart. One needs look no further than the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. They kept all the rules of the Mosaic law, yet their hearts were far from God. Jesus even says that your righteousness must exceed theirs if one wants to be in the Kingdom of God (cf. Matthew 5:20). Outward obedience to God’s law is no indicator that one is right with God.
Thirdly, Mr. Meinecke introduces an argument earlier in his article called the “scrutiny of scripture” (or SOS). In short, a doctrine that seemingly finds support in one passage of scripture, must be able to be supported throughout the scriptures. Mr. Meinecke employs this argument by quoting 2 Kings 15:3 (“And [Azariah] did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, according to all that his father Amaziah had done.”) to prove his point that someone who is totally depraved can obey God and do “what is right in his eyes.” Prior to citing this passage Mr. Meinecke writes, “unless it can be shown that said individual is clearly one of God’s elect & that God has already started the process of drawing him.” In other words, unless God saves an individual, that person can’t obey God.
So you can see where Mr. Meinecke is going with this approach. By citing 2 Kings 15:3, he is attempting to prove that man can do what is right without God first acting in him. The reason he can say this is because 2 Kings 15:3 doesn’t explicitly say that Azariah was one of “God’s elect.” There are several problems with Mr. Meinecke’s reasoning in this point. First, just because the author of 2 Kings says that Azariah “did what was right in the eyes of the LORD” doesn’t mean that what Azariah did had any saving value before God’s eyes. We are given no exegesis or commentary on this passage explaining what is meant by “did what is right in the eyes of the LORD.” It is quite possible that Azariah simply obeyed the law of the Lord, but as we pointed out earlier, externally obeying the law of God does not equate to being saved, nor does it refute the doctrine of Total Depravity.
A second problem is that Mr. Meinecke makes the assumption that because the passage doesn’t explicitly state that Azariah was one of God’s elect or that God was in the process of drawing him, that this somehow disproves Calvinism. If I said that Mr. Jones was going to the grocery store, do I have to explicitly state that Mr. Jones was alive? Wouldn’t you assume that Mr. Jones was already alive if he was in fact going to the grocery store? How many dead people go to the grocery store? According to Mr. Meinecke’s logic, Mr. Jones is dead because we haven’t explicitly state that he was alive. The bible makes quite explicit that one must be “born again” before one can be able and willing to return to God and truly do “what is right in his eyes.”
Returning to the words of Dort, the third and fourth head of doctrine, article 11, we read:
Moreover, when God carries out this good pleasure in his chosen ones, or works true conversion in them, he not only sees to it that the gospel is proclaimed to them outwardly, and enlightens their minds powerfully by the Holy Spirit so that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God, but, by the effective operation of the same regenerating Spirit, he also penetrates into the inmost being of man, opens the closed heart, softens the hard heart, and circumcises the heart that is uncircumcised. He infuses new qualities into the will, making the dead will alive, the evil one good, the unwilling one willing, and the stubborn one compliant; he activates and strengthens the will so that, like a good tree, it may be enabled to produce the fruits of good deeds.
Until the Spirit of God makes alive the one who is dead in sin, unless the Spirit of God breaks the bonds that holds the slave to sin in chains, until the Spirit of God replaces the heart of stone with a heart of flesh, man will not and cannot work any righteousness that is pleasing to God. Any good we do is, in the words of the prophet Isaiah, “a polluted garment” (cf. Isaiah 64:6). Outward obedience without inward heart transformation is worthless in God’s eyes. Therefore, the converse is also true, if one does something of worth in God’s eyes, then one by necessity must have been born again by the Spirit of God.
Finally, let’s go to the scriptures and see if Total Depravity (as the Reformers taught it) can be found. For that, I turn to the letter of Paul to the Romans. In Romans 1:18-32, we see the digression of mankind from truth to idolatry. We see that God’s wrath is revealed against our ungodliness and unrighteousness. Why? Because we suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness (v. 18). Although we implicitly know God, we refuse to honor him or give him thanks (v. 21). The circle is complete when we replace the worship of God for the worship of creatures (v. 22). As a result, God gives us over to the wickedness of our hearts; in other words, he removes his hand of restraint and gives us over to the full extent of our sin (vv. 24-32).
But wait, some may say, surely this is not descriptive of all people. That is true. There are many people who are not Christians who would rightly judge the debauched actions of those in Romans 1:18-32 as wicked. Paul anticipates this when he writes Romans 2:1-29. The very act of judging exposes our own wicked hearts (v. 1). In fact, the one who judges is guilty of the same thing (v. 3). The one who is outwardly moral is still guilty of sin. The one who judges adultery, does he engage in lustful thinking? The one who judges deceit, does he always tell the truth? The one who condemns theft, is he guiltless of the sin of stealing? Being outwardly moral only opens us up to greater condemnation; knowing the law only makes us accountable to it. And we all know the law, whether we have it explicitly or through the revelation of conscience.
We finally get to the divine indictment against all of humanity in Romans 3:10-18. Citing a selection from the Psalms and the prophets, Paul accuses humanity of being totally depraved: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one” (Romans 3:10-12). This is the plight of man without God. We cannot and do not seek after God. Even our outward obedience is lacking before God’s eyes. Before man can turn and seek the Lord, the Lord must do a work in his heart. If that is the case, then unless the Lord chooses to act, no one will be saved. This leads us to the next petal in TULIP, and we will deal with that in our next article.
Soli Deo Gloria!
Yet as much as the Reformed Faith should honor their historic creeds, they should also allow the continued work of “Bibical theology” itself. i.e. that place of the “biblical” tensions, etc. The true “reforming” faith, is itself.. always Reforming!
This is good stuff: well written, and carefully articulated—and gracious, always a plus when dealing with controversial topics. I’m looking forward to reading the rest of it.
Wow Carl. I’m shocked at what you wrote. I’ll admit that you made some good points, but my head is spinning at your assumption that ALL I DID was to build a strawman & then easily knock it down. Apparently, I can provide you 1000 verses that disprove TOTAL depravity & you’d still reject every one of my arguments. My points are plain & obvious to any non-Calvinist, but I know you’ll just say that’s because non-calvinists just don’t understand. With that said, here’s my response.
Here is one definition of total depravity.
Total Depravity: is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to accept salvation as it is offered.
Actually it was YOUR words & other Calvinists who said that in our fallen nature we can ONLY SIN. Those aren’t MY words. They are the words of Calvinists. I was simply using what you all said & proved that what you all said is not biblical. Or will you STILL disagree?
Consider Genesis 6:9 & try to mesh it with total depravity. Noah also had to be totally depraved, for your doctrine to be true, but look what it says. ‘This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God.’
Now please tell me Carl, how can a totally depraved man also be called a just man, perfect IN HIS GENERATIONS, & that he walked with God? Totally depraved humans CAN’T ‘walk with God’ (I know he wasn’t ‘perfect’)
All you can say to defend your doctrine is that God had already regenerated Noah & ‘made him righteous’, but that’s NOT what the text says.
Romans 3:23 ‘All have sinned & fall short of the glory of God’. This verse also refutes total depravity. The words ‘fall short’ show that we are depraved (we sin & thus are in need of a savior) but not that we are totally depraved. We can repent, otherwise God saying that ‘a broken & contrite heart, I will not despise’ is meaningless. I could easily show you tons of verses similar to these, but for time & space, let me state it this way.
What the bible plainly teaches is that ALL HAVE SINNED. We are all sinners. In this state we are indeed helpless. Helpless to ‘get right’ with God. We cannot save ourselves through our own ‘works of righteousness’. We cannot ‘atone for our sins’. We are dead in trespasses & sins & thus are in need of a savior to redeem us, reconcile us, justify us, cleanse us, etc.
Now TRY to see the flaw in your theology. You want me to believe that God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son into the world, to suffer & die for the sins of the world & to rise from the dead, thus conquering death & sin & thus pay for our sins & provide for us the only way back to God, through faith in Him, BUT THAT, this act of God’s DIDN’T WORK. It didn’t work because we’re so dead in our sins (total depravity) that even this great act of Almighty God wasn’t strong enough to save us from our totally depraved condition.
Man remains totally depraved & thus ‘can not’ & ‘will not’ repent & believe the gospel. So everything that Jesus did accomplished nothing. His disciples could preach 24/7 to everyone constantly, for the rest of our lives & it won’t accomplish a single thing. They’re preaching to ‘dead men’. NO ONE will believe. NO ONE CAN believe. All of their preaching will be in vain & every single one of us will remain unsaved, totally depraved, & will die & go to hell for all eternity.
So what did God do about this horrible predicament? This horrible reality? Well, you want me to believe that God KNEW that the work of Jesus would accomplish nothing, but that He sent Him anyway because this is how God would save His elect.
God applies the gospel to those that He has chosen to apply it to & regenerates them & gives them the ability to believe & MAKES them repent & believe. They don’t do a thing. No one believes. No one repents. God MAKES a few people (His Elect) do this.
So IN EFFECT, the work of Jesus did nothing. God still has to come down & make us repent & believe. You call this ‘Irresistible Grace’.
Oh what the heck, let’s show some more verses.
Nevermind Romans 10:9 & John 3:15-17. They don’t mean what they say.
Nevermind Romans 1:19-20, which claim that we are without excuse. If Calvinism is true, I’ve got a really good excuse. THERE WAS NOTHING I COULD DO!!! Give me a better excuse.
Romans 6:17 clearly shows that we who are slaves to sin CAN obey from the heart, which agrees with the reality that ALL are capable of obeying in principal (2 Kings 15:3)
I also see you ignored my argument regarding the ‘condition’ of Cornelius (Acts 10:1-4)
Read it folks & ask yourself whether or not it’s true the Cornelius also was totally depraved. Clearly he was not. His character is stated as a condition PRIOR TO God regenerating Him. The text is clear. Cornelius was a good man.
Was he a sinner in need of a savior? Well, of course. That’s the point. His ‘goodness’ wasn’t good enough, so in that sense if you want to call it total depravity, in that he’s still helpless & can’t ‘save himself’, then no one would have a problem with the doctrine of total depravity. But that’s NOT ALL that this doctrine teaches.
I could say a ton more, but I’ll leave it at that. For those of you interested in reading more about what I have to say on this matter, you can find me at lightmane.posterous.com
I hope your okay with me putting out my blog, Carl. I’m okay with it. ; )
Scott, you seem to be a bible literalist when it suits your position (what about all that “I search for truth, not just defend my beliefs” stuff?). A couple of questions on Noah, if you will. You seem to take me to task regarding Noah because the bible doesn’t explicitly say that Noah was elect and that God drew him. OK. The passage does say explicitly that Noah was “perfect”, yet you can say with a straight face that Noah was really perfect. Seems you’re pretty inconsistent in your interpretation…
Secondly, the passage only says that Noah was righteous, it makes no mention of how he became righteous. You know why? Because that’s not the intent of the passage. You just like pulling passages out of context to prove whatever you want to prove. Please, please, please be consistent if you want to be taken seriously! So how did Noah become a righteous man? You seem to summarily dismiss the Calvinist notion because it’s not explicitly stated in the passage. So what is stated in the passage? It only says Noah walkd with God. Is Noah a righteous man because he walked with God (this sounds like works righteousness), or did Noah walk with God because he was a righteous man? If the latter, we are left with no answer as to how Noah became a righteous man? How would you answer this question, Scott? I know how I would (using your, “scrutiny of scripture” method). I would look in the bible and see how one becomes a righteous man…
p.s., I have no problem with you linking to your blog. I linked to your article so people could read the primary source.
p.p.s., I am usually very careful when I define Total Depravity, and I’m pretty sure I don’t define it as “man can only sin”. Do a search on my blog for “Total Depravity” and see what turns up…
A bible literalist? Well Carl, now you’re being silly. When we discuss the bible, how can we discuss it without being literal?
The bible is a piece of literature, so while I totally understand that many passages involve metaphor & allegory & that there’s a spiritual underlying principal &/or meaning to every word, it’s impossible to not argue & defend one’s beliefs, without using the bible on a literary basis, as you well know.
The pre-condition of men like Noah & Cornelius are clear. They were not totally depraved. That’s the point. We’re they sinners? Obviously.
Calvinists have tried to explain the word ‘perfect’ regarding Noah, so why are you now trying to state that Noah ‘was’ perfect. I agree with Calvinists that the word ‘perfect’ here does not mean perfect, in the way we would understand it. Obviously Noah can’t be perfect, because only God is perfect. Isn’t that a given?
I claim that it is EASY to refute Calvinism. I claim that any non-calvinist will easily see that Calvinism doesn’t square with scripture. However, I also recognize that Calvinists weren’t always calvinists. They were converted, but that’s because a calvinist explained calvinism to them & it either made sense to them &/or ‘they bought it’. My point is that if you show a non-calvinist (be they christian or other) the flaws & errors of calvinism, they will see it very easily. Trying to get a calvinist to see the error in his theology is like trying to stick my hand down your throat & pull out your liver.
Monty Python’s Meaning of Life:
‘We’d like your liver’
‘Sorry, I’m still using it’ (now that’s funny)
I understand that you can say the same thing about me, but that would also be true with any non-calvinist who’s studied calvinism. We’re not buying it.
Here’s a few reasons why.
1) It’s NOT good news (what’s good about it?)
2) It’s pure fatalism (what’s NOT fatalistic about it?)
3) It’s unjust. God offers no salvation to the non-elect. No opportunity to be saved, to repent, etc. God leaves the non-elect in this totally depraved condition, knowing that they will spend eternity in hell, and there was nothing they could do to prevent it.
4) It completely ignores & contradicts TONS of scriptures, and I’ve pointed out many of them in my articles.
Anyway, I’m looking forward to your other articles on the remaining 5 points, though in my opinion, you needn’t bother with the 5th one. I don’t really disagree with it. Not that much anyway. Besides, while I recognize that it is an important point in calvinism, though oft overlooked probably, to me it’s not that important. I’m sure you’ll use that comment against me. ; )
Well. I already owe you an apology. I see that I accused you of ‘ignoring’ my mention of Cornelius. That’s not true. You simply didn’t mention it. My apologies.
It’s that little cynic in me that likes to come out every now & then. ; )
I believe Cornelius was in your argument against Unconditional Election, not Total Depravity (or maybe it was Irresistible Grace). I will address your mention of him when I get to it. My article was specifically addressing Total Depravity, and I quoted verbatim everything you had to say on that topic and Cornelius wasn’t mentioned.
Carl. Why do comments on here get skinnier & skinnier? Is it just my silly computer?
I’ve got comment threading enabled. That way you can ‘see’ which comment a respondent is replying to.
Wow Carl. Nicely done, although the bitter rage of the Semi-Pelegian is making me want to stop writing in facebook forums.
Thanks Philip for visiting and taking the time to comment. The reason I posted this response on my blog and not on Facebook (other than the length) is I think more rationally and cautiously when writing for my blog. Facebook lends itself to off the cuff comments that often lack clarity and thoughtfulness when talking about topics of this depth.
Thanks for clarifying the issue of how experience affects our perception of salvation. Often, as I explain the doctrines of grace I have been stymied as to how to verbalize how our perception is not the trump card for those who wish to add man’s faith to God’s grace.
Thanks for the article – I look forward to the next 4 points.
“The only thing man brings to his own salvation is the sin he so desperately needs to be saved from.” – N. Ridley
Thank you, Pastor Bill, for your kind words and encouragement. In all my dealings with people who disagree with the Doctrines of Grace, it always seems to be their personal perspective that keeps them from embracing the truth. To them, it’s an either/or, but for the Calvinist, it’s a both/and. That distinction is crucial.
BTW, look for part two either later tonight or sometime tomorrow.
Pingback: Is Calvinism Biblical? (Part 2, Unconditional Election) « New Creation Person
i’ll admit to not having read everything so far and i apologize in advance if i’ve asked something that you have already touched upon but i have one question as it concerns calvinism. i too believe that salvation comes from god alone but i hold to the belief that God enables us to either choose or reject him. let’s set that aside for now and let me ask my question. doesn’t salvation according to calvinism work out to a divine lottery or a divine whim? if there is no reason at all for us having been saved then how does god decide who to save and who not to save? i must reiterate again that there can’t be any rational reason for it seeing as we are all sinners and as such there is no logical reason why god should save us. on that note, do you agree with me when i say that if god had damned the entire world apart from one person (thanks to the blood of christ), this would still be just? i think that we would agree. now what if god had saved the entire world (thanks to the blood of christ) save for one individual would this still be justice? i am lead to the position that it is. now how would a calvinist answer this seeing that since god is the only agent active in our salvation why is it that he chooses to damn the majority of the world and save only a few when it would be just as just to save the entire world except for one person? what is the logical reason for this? and what does this say about the limits of his love? if in both scenarios his righteousness and his love would be displayed why then does he choose to save only a few when he could save everyone except for one? once more, how does this square with the notion of a loving father who wishes that all should be saved (or more aptly put, that the maximum number possible should be saved without going against his justice or his love)?
Methodus:
Thanks for visiting and taking the time to comment.
It only works out to a “divine lottery” if you believe the God of the bible to be capricious. I guess I would challenge the premise that “there is no reason at all for us having been saved.” The bible clearly says that God predestined the elect unto salvation “according to the purpose of his will” (Ephesians 1:5). In other words, God saved us because he wanted to save us and in saving us he brings glory to himself. So the over-arching reason God does anything is to glorify his name. As to why God chose you or why God chose me individually, we’re not given the information in the bible. I have no idea why God chose the individuals that he has chosen to be in Christ. Saying I don’t know the reason is vastly different than saying there is no reason at all. God has a reason; has has not chosen to reveal his reasons to us.
Again, I will say that for God to be gracious and merciful toward sinners serves the purpose of glorifying God. However, if you mean to say that God is not required to save any of us on account that we’re sinners, I’m in full agreement. Again, that is different than saying God has no reason to save any of us.
Furthermore, I would agree that God would be just in saving none of us, one of us or all of us, if that were his plan and purpose. The blood of Christ that was spilled to atone for sin is sufficient to save all; by that I mean Christ’s death on the cross was enough to atone for the sins of all men and satisfy the righteous wrath of God toward our sin. The Calvinist position on the atonement is not regarding its sufficiency, but its efficacy — i.e., for whom was the atonement efficacious? In this sense, the atonement is limited to a particular group of people — namely, the elect.
First off, I’m not sure where you get your beliefs regarding few being saved vs. many being damned. If you’re referring to Matthew 7 and the narrow/wide gates, I don’t think the purpose of that passage is to give us a numerical analysis of the number of people being saved. Revelation 7 tells us that a great multitude beyond number stands before the throne room in heaven. It’s pure speculation to say dogmatically that few are saved vs. many being damned.
Regarding God’s love, we must avoid the (mistaken, IMO) view that God loves everyone equally. I really don’t see that as biblical. Does God in some sense love everyone? Yes, of course he does. That is why we have what is called common grace. The rain falls on the just and the unjust, said Jesus. God is gracious and merciful to everyone in the sense that he doesn’t kill us immediately for the sin we continually commit. This love of benevolence is not the same as the love God has toward the elect. In Romans 9, God says he loves Jacob and hates Esau — clearly not the same relationship between the two sons of Issac. Even if we were to go with the interpretation some have regarding this passage that God is referring to nations, not individuals, we still have a problem because God would be hating whole nations.
The point being God loves his elect to the point that he chose them before the foundation of the world, predestined them unto salvation, atoned for their sin by the sacrifice of Christ, called them out of the world, and preserves them until the end. I don’t think it limits God’s love in anyway shape or form to say that God discriminates — yes, discriminates — who are the recipients of his saving love. I don’t know if you have children, but I do, and I love them fiercely. I do not love my neighbor’s children in the same way I love my children because they’re not my children. I love women, but I love my wife in a vastly different manner than I do women in general. I don’t see why God is required to love everyone equally (I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy).
Regarding God wishing that all would be saved, I assume that is in reference to 2 Peter 3:9. Rather than comment on that, I will direct you to an article I wrote on that verse here: http://wp.me/piwMM-yU
Again, thanks for commenting!
“First off, I’m not sure where you get your beliefs regarding few being saved vs. many being damned. If you’re referring to Matthew 7 and the narrow/wide gates, I don’t think the purpose of that passage is to give us a numerical analysis of the number of people being saved. Revelation 7 tells us that a great multitude beyond number stands before the throne room in heaven. It’s pure speculation to say dogmatically that few are saved vs. many being damned.”
I absolutely do not wish to come off as confrontational but there are things that I think I’ll need a better explanation of. As it concerns Matthew 7:13-14 what then do you make of the “many” and the “few” in these verses? As I understand it, Jesus seems to teach that only a few people (compared to the number of them who will reject his teachings) will find that narrow gate. To say that since Revelation 7 says that a multitude beyond number stands before the throne and thus take this to mean that in the end most people will choose the narrow gate is quite wrong in my opinion. I do believe in the truth of Revelation 7 but the applicable section of that chapter did not make a comparison between those who accepted Christ and those who rejected him in terms of numbers. Therefore it could very well be said that many people will stand before the throne room in heaven but when that number is compared to the total number of people who will invariably reject him as their Lord and Saviour, that number will only be a few. I think that when the appropriate verses are taken in concert, they lead credence to the view that in comparison to the total number of people who have lived or will ever live, only a few will be saved.
I believe that God works to accomplish the maximum good possible so therefore, if he is the only participant in our salvation and if it is the case that to save many vs only a few would serve to satisfy both his love and his justice, why then choose to only save a few? Of course I’m assuming once again that only a few are saved (in comparison to the number of people that aren’t) and if I’m wrong, I really need an explanation of this seeing as I’d much rather believe that the majority of people are saved than only a minority.
“Again, I will say that for God to be gracious and merciful toward sinners serves the purpose of glorifying God. However, if you mean to say that God is not required to save any of us on account that we’re sinners, I’m in full agreement. Again, that is different than saying God has no reason to save any of us.”
Sorry, I meant to say that God is not required to save any of us. On that note, I do not think that there is a rational reason for saving one person rather than another in the system of Calvinism. According to such a belief, the reason for my salvation can in no way lie with me so it would all rest on the judgment of God. If the reason for my salvation lies totally outside of me then there could not be any rational reason for me to be saved. I would contribute nothing to this act and so while it is nice to say that God chooses to save people for his glory the system by which it is accomplished (for the individual) is wholly without logical reason. Once more, the statement that God saves people for his glory satisfies the need for an answer as to why people are saved, but it does not give a rational answer as to why I am saved. If there is no logical reason, then such a decision can only be based on a whim and I do not believe in such a God (not to say that I do not believe in the God whom you believe in). Hence why it is that I agree with everything that Calvinism claims except for the belief that God does not enable man to choose or reject him.
Thank you for having responded to me.
Methodus:
Regarding Matthew 7 and the few/many debate:
My only point in bringing up Revelation 7 in this context is to point out that it’s purely speculative to get into debates over how many people will be in heaven vs. hell. I don’t think we can assume solely based on Matthew 7:13-14 that vastly more people will be in hell than in heaven. Just as I would never imply based solely on Revelation 7:11, that heaven will have vastly more people than hell. God himself knows the number of the elect, and in that I rest satisfied.
Now think through this statement with me for a moment. You define the “maximum good possible” solely based on the number of people saved. This sounds similar to those who argue that God wishes to save the maximum number of people he can (if I’m off base with my thinking, please correct me). Two things leap into mind as to why this is not only wrong, but unbiblical.
First, God works to accomplish his divine will, which is to glorify his name; and primarily, he is glorified in the manifestation of all his divine attributes (love, mercy, grace, holiness, justice, wrath, etc.). According to God, the maximum good possible is the full manifestation of his glory, not a numbers game regarding how many rebellious sinners he can save.
Second, supposing your statement to be true — that God desires to save the maximum number of people in order to accomplish the maximum amount of good — why not save everybody? Why quibble over few vs. many; just save him all. He’s God isn’t he? Can’t he do whatever he desires? The fact that not everyone will be saved, means you have a mistaken premise because it’s leading to a wrong conclusion.
I guess I’m just not following your train of thought on this one. Maybe you can elaborate it a little more for me. It sounds like you’re saying that you’re OK with the fact that God elects unto salvation for the purpose of his glory, but you cannot derive a reason for your inclusion in the elect. Am I getting that one right?
The first question I would ask is why do you need to know the reason why God chose you as an individual? Don’t get me wrong, I struggle with this one too. I look at my life and often wonder why God chose me. The best I can tell you (and you will have to decide if this satisfies you) is God has decided, in his Sovereignty, not to reveal that answer to us. However, just because you can’t come up with a rational reason means there is no rational reason.
I keep thinking of examples with my kids…if my kids (when they were young) were to ask me a question that I didn’t want to answer, I would often reply “because I said so.” That’s like the ultimate parent trump card in any discussion with children. “Daddy, why do I have to do my chores?” “Because I said so.” I’m not implying that God is telling us “because I said so.” I am simply saying that God is not obligated to answer all of our questions; he can if he chooses to do so, but he is not required. However, it just does not follow from your premises that God’s election of individuals to be saved is random or capricious.
One last thought to consider: When Christ died on the cross, did he accomplish atonement, or did he merely make it possible for people to be saved? What was “finished” when Christ said “it is finished?”
The reason I ask is because when you say, “Hence why it is that I agree with everything that Calvinism claims except for the belief that God does not enable man to choose or reject him,” it makes me wonder how you view the atonement. Because if you believe that God simply enables men to accept or reject him, then logically it is possible that none will accept and all will reject and that heaven will be completely empty save for God and the angels. That would mean that Christ died for no reason at all.
Something to chew on…
p.s., I hope you don’t think I’m being confrontational. It is not my intention.
methodus. I very much like what you’re saying here to Carl. I could be totally off base here, but I believe that you’re a universalist, like me.
Am I right, or did I completely read something into your words?
Sorry Scott but I’m not a universalist–that said, my latest blog post talks of my misgivings with the concept of hell and if indeed you believe hell not to be eternal, I would very much like to know why.
“Second, supposing your statement to be true — that God desires to save the maximum number of people in order to accomplish the maximum amount of good — why not save everybody? Why quibble over few vs. many; just save him all. He’s God isn’t he? Can’t he do whatever he desires? The fact that not everyone will be saved, means you have a mistaken premise because it’s leading to a wrong conclusion.”
Sorry I guess I didn’t explain myself properly. My statement of maximum good possible was to be qualified by my statements of “without contradicting his love nor his justice” (or something to that effect) in my earlier reply. As such, I believe that my reasoning stays clear of the charge which you imply. So once again, if God can save virtually every person save one, without compromising his love or his justice then why not go for this instead of only saving a few. At this point you’ll maintain that scripture is ambiguous as to the comparison of the few vs many as it relates to salvation but I’ll ask you to clear this up for me one more time. You say that we cannot know this for sure (or at least that’s what I took your statements to mean) yet in the light of Matthew 7:13-14 and Luke 13:24, and statements which call unbelievers “the world” (a statement which to my understanding would have the connotation of denoting a majority) I would say that Jesus does in fact claim this very thing. In as far as I don’t know how you will respond to this, I am assuming that it will be something along the lines of “Jesus did not really mean that when compared to the number of unbelievers, only a few would be saved” yet then how are we to understand the statement “For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” or “Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able”? I do not mean to say that God’s glory is primarily revealed in the number of people that he saves but that Calvinism paints a picture of God in which he could perfectly save virtually everyone without going against his own eternal law or nature and yet chooses to only save a few.
“I guess I’m just not following your train of thought on this one. Maybe you can elaborate it a little more for me. It sounds like you’re saying that you’re OK with the fact that God elects unto salvation for the purpose of his glory, but you cannot derive a reason for your inclusion in the elect. Am I getting that one right?”
Yes precisely. And furthermore, if the reason for my salvation does not at all have anything to do with the sinner then logically, there is no difference between one sinner and another (which i do believe). Yet this is a problem for Calvinism seeing as that would mean that God could not have chosen you if he had wanted to because there was no reason for you to have been chosen in the first place. By this I do not mean that God was compelled to choose me but rather seeing as he enabled me to either accept or reject him, and I accepted, he then in turn saved me (although my soteriology is a bit more complex in that I believe that Christ both accomplished full atonement and also enabled man to either reject him or accept him. The easy way of thinking about this would be that for the prophets and believers who went to their graves with the hope of his coming, they would then be “bought and paid for” so to speak and everyone else would be able to either accept or reject him at their will. This would also solve the problem of Christ dying for no one since at the very least, the faithful whom the Old Testament speaks of would accept him anyway).
On that note, you didn’t at all come off as confrontational but I do know that I can come off as confrontational at times and I rarely ever am. I feel that I also should mention that I only debate this matter because I do not understand it and would very much like to understand it. If God were to convict me (either through bible study or through discussions such as this) that he really does work in accordance to Calvinism (or rather, I suppose it would be the other way around) then praise God and I would have no problem with that seeing as God knows best.
Methodus. While Carl obviously disagrees with me, IMO, the bible is very clear that God WILL save everyone. Your points are valid, although I do agree with Carl, that if God only chose to save a ‘few’ (the elect), that He’s obviously within His rights to do so. Isn’t that just obvious? I mean, if we have a beef with God, does that really matter?
As a universalist (I just recently accepted it as truth, after considering it the past couple of years) God’s love & justice will easily both be satisfied in this manner.
Consider the following:
Is God obligated to not save everyone? I would hope that you would agree with me that the answer is no.
Is God obligated to save anyone? Also, no. Though He does say that if you will believe in Jesus, you will be saved, so now if some believe & none get saved, doesn’t that make God out to be a liar? It still doesn’t obligate Him, but it certainly says a little about Him, huh?
In the same manner, if God says not everyone will get saved, but then He saves everyone, while He certainly can do this, it would again show God to be a liar & thus say a little about Him.
What I’m getting at is we can’t put God in a box. We can, but we’re being silly when we do. God can do whatever He wants. He’s God. If you don’t like it, tough for you. If God doesn’t save everyone, I won’t like it, but it’s not like I can do anything about it. Do you agree?
All I can do is study the bible & compare belief system with belief system & pray to God for guidance. Since Christianity can’t agree on what the bible says, none of us can claim to know ‘for certain’ what the bible says, yet many of us do just that. IMO, that’s foolishness.
So let me be clear. I could be wrong. Anyone could be right. We’ll all find out when we die, who’s right, etc. But I believe that scripture clearly teaches universalism & I’ll be more then happy to show you where & try my best to overcome any objections you might have.
I believe that in this, Carl & I agree. Namely that we could be wrong & are willing to engage in dialogue & thus, aren’t closed minded. (who the hell are ‘we’ anyways)
Regarding Hell. The bible actually never mentions any such place (again – Carl disagrees). Most christians disagree. I disagreed too. Check it out for yourself. Google it & see what you find. Study what the true meaning of hell is (lazarus & the rich man, the lake of fire, etc.)
Learning this stuff, blew my mind. If I’m wrong, then show me. I only care about truth. I think you do too. If you’re on facebook, friend me, & we can talk there much easier then here. My agnostic friend is seriously busting my chops with some strong arguments against Jesus & the bible. I told him that I’ll need to find a scholar to overcome his arguments, cause I sure can’t.
Hope to hear from you soon. I love the discussion that you and Carl are having. Great points. Too bad you’re both wrong & are idiots, & aren’t ‘enlightened’ like me. ; )
Yes… that was sarcasm. Carl’s used to it, usually – lol, so I thought I’d let you hear it now, so I don’t catch you off guard when I call you a moron or a dufus or some other silly name. That’s just me being silly. Feel free to do the same. With me, ‘dork’ is a good one, right Carl? ; )
I seem to have skipped a few things in my second point because the way it is now, my reasoning is incomplete. Here is what it should have read:
Yes precisely. And furthermore, if the reason for my salvation does not at all have anything to do with the sinner then logically, there is no difference between one sinner and another (which i do believe). Yet this is a problem for Calvinism seeing as that would mean that God could not have chosen you if he had wanted to because there was no reason for you to have been chosen in the first place. By this I do not mean that God was compelled to choose me but rather seeing as he enabled me to either accept or reject him, and I accepted, he then in turn saved me (insert all that stuff in the parenthesis here). So I mean to say that there is no logical reason why I should be saved according to Calvinism and if this is the case, then my salvation ends up becoming a mere whim of God. I know that I probably have a fair bit of problems in trying to get this point across but let me try once more. The logical reason for why God is saving anyone is for his glory, but there is no logical reason for why I, in particular, am saved. I am not better, or more holy, and there is nothing I can do for God that no one else could do (much less something that he actually needs). Therefore there could not be a logical reason for having chosen to save me. If there is no reason in this process then it simply amounts to a divine whim. Where the picture really gets awful is that the final number of persons which God will ultimately save is also simply a whim on his part (seeing that he could logically save everyone except for one without going against his eternal nature and yet chooses not to do so).
Methodus:
At the expense of repeating myself, you have not demonstrated in the slightest that just because YOU cannot discern a logical reason for why God chose you (or any individual) does not necessitate that there is no logical reason why God chose you. You are not the final arbiter and God has not chosen to reveal the specific reasons as to why he chose you or any individual. Your argument, no matter how you want to cut it, places your powers of discernment over that o Gods; which is ridiculous when you think about it.
Your argument fails for much the same reason why arguments from others who say they cannot conceive a reason why God would create the world and then ordain the fall. It makes no sense to them; therefore, it makes no sense at all.
Huh?!?!? I’m sorry, isn’t God infinite and we finite? If that’s the case (and it is), then I’m OK with not knowing the reason for your query or other queries that seemingly defy explanation to our limited and inferior intellects. I am a bit baffled why you continue to pursue this line of reasoning.
My M.O. when something in the bible doesn’t make perfect sense to me is to study the issue as thoroughly as I possibly can. If I still cannot come up with an answer that is satisfactory to me; I chalk that up to my limitations as a finite, sinful person. I would never suggest that my limited, myopic view of things settles the debate on anything unless I’m convinced that it is what scripture teaches; and even then, I still leave room for correction.
I don’t know if that helps, but its the best I can do given your query.
Hmmm… I don’t wish to come as if I deem myself fit to judge God but rather I simply mean to say that Calvinism doesn’t actually provide an answer to my question that doesn’t amount to “just believe”. Therefore I simply find that it makes more sense to believe that God enables people to choose or reject him seeing as such a belief accounts for the few vs many, and does satisfy the question of where the logic in the process of personal salvation is to be found. Once again, your Calvinism leads you to believe that (as far as we know) there is no answer to my question(s) while I, a person who does not subscribe to the Calvinistic understanding as it concerns this topic, believe (and have tried to show) that there is.
Anyway, I guess that this is just one of those things where we’ll have to agree to disagree. (btw, I cringed when you seemed to imply that God ordained the fall. If by ordain you simply mean that he knew that it would happen and simply allowed it to happen, then I do not disagree with you. It’s just that ordained sounds so much like he actively willed it to happen. I honestly don’t want to drag you into another argument but it’s just that caught me by surprise.) And before I forget I want to thank you once again for engaging in this discussion with me–it was a lot of fun.
So Methodus. You know I’m a Christian Universalist & that Carl is a Calvinist. So what are you?
An Arminian or Semi-Palagian or what?
And are you interested in discussing the concept of hell in the bible or not?
Thanks
Sorry Scott I seemed to have missed your previous reply. Just to clear things up, I did not argue that God had to save anyone but rather that Calvinism paints a picture of God in which he could save virtually save everyone (seeing as he is the only agent in the process of salvation) without going against his divine nature and yet chooses to save only a few. If it is all the same whether or not he saves only a few people or many people, why not save the many? Furthermore, Calvinism presents God as a capricious individual who saves specific individuals for no reason (and in fact chooses to save only a few people for no reason). According to this doctrine, the process of salvation is something like this: Imagine having two completely identical apples in front of you. Seeing as they are exactly the same in every way, there is no logical reason for you to choose one over the other and as such, your final decision will simply consist of your arbitrary whim. Now this time imagine that you had 1,000 of these completely identical apples and this time you could choose to take with you every apple except for one (your personal conditions are as such that to carry 999 apples would be the same as to carry only a single apple). Whatever number of apples you decide on, this number will be arbitrary because depending on your whim at that time, you could just as well carried 3, 1, or 2, 685 apples—it would be all the same to you. Yet in the end, you choose to take with you only a few apples.
I find that Calvinism cannot answer the above questions and tells it’s adherents to just believe seeing as finite man cannot understand the infinite God. Now it’s true that finite man cannot understand the infinite God but Calvinism just assumes that these questions falls under the section of “the secret things belong to God” while in an Arminian point of view these questions are perfectly answerable. That said I would call myself an Arminian simply for convenience. I haven’t really thought about this all that much. As it comes to discussing the concept of hell, I don’t have facebook but you can leave a post on my blog and we can do so there (just so that we don’t hijack Carl’s comment section).
Methodus:
It completely boggles my mind that you keep using this line of reasoning when it appears patently obvious to me that your argument is a classic example of a non sequitir. Your conclusion simply does not follow from your premises. Allow me one more time to illustrate using your example:
The first error in your reasoning is assuming that the “apples” are completely identical. That is not a valid assumption. This isn’t the case when considering “real” apples and it certainly isn’t the case when considering the mass of humanity. We are not identical, but “fearfully and wonderfully made.” God knows us better than we know even ourselves (cf. Psalm 139), so this assumption is completely and patently false. To continue arguing in this manner is disingenuous; especially since I’ve gone to great pains to make this apparent to you. This is a straw man.
The second error in your reasoning lies, again, in the fact that you are making a leap in logic of enormous proportions. Let’s leave God out of the equation for a moment and let’s go back to your apple analogy. Suppose I was the one choosing the apples. You observe me choosing a limited selection of what appears to you as identical apples. Further suppose you were to ask me by what criteria am I choosing the apples. I have three options at my disposal: 1) I can choose to answer your query; 2) I can remain silent; or 3) I can reply that I choose not to reveal my criteria.
If I choose option two, you have no valid reason to assert that my choice is arbitrary. You can assume that my choice is arbitrary, but you have no evidence except what your perspective yields; which by my silence is necessarily incomplete. To make a dogmatic assertion on incomplete evidence is the height of human arrogance, is it not?
Now, if I choose option #3 (which I believe is the biblical case), you have even more reason not to make dogmatic assumptions that my choice is arbitrary because I have told you that it isn’t. The only way you can claim my choice is arbitrary is if you don’t trust me when I tell you it isn’t.
Now let’s go back to God. In the bible, it clearly states that God elects and that he does so according to his perfect will. Yet, he has chose not to reveal his criteria in election. The only way you can assert God is capricious and arbitrary is if you don’t trust God when he speaks in his word.
You kind of casually dismiss the answer that the finite cannot fully comprehend the infinite, yet your assertion equates to being able to discern the mind of God when he has chosen not to speak. I just don’t get that.
I would like to ask you a question. You say that “God enables man to either accept or reject.” Can you provide biblical support (either explicit or implicit) for that claim? Before you do, don’t just cite a bible verse without some contextual exposition. In other words, tell me why it means what you think it means given the context of the verse. If you’ve written any articles on this topic, you can simply link to them rather than repeat your argumentation here.
As far as apples not being identical, I must remind you that this was a statement simply for the sake of the argument. This runs along the line that as far as we are all sinners, we are all identical to one another and there is no reason for God to prefer one sinner rather than another. On this note, you cannot use our diversity to try and refute my point because I am not speaking of physical properties etc. I simply mean that in the respect that we are all sinners, we are all identical. If you don’t like my apple example then simply think of whatever other things in the universe that are identical to one another (though my point simply asks you to imagine a pair of apples which were completely identical to one another in every way. I did not claim that such things existed but simply used this to highlight that in the terms of us all being sinners, we were all the same). The point is, what criteria can you have when the apples are completely the same in every way? If you chose in accordance with a criteria, then each and every apple would be chosen seeing as they would all meet that very standard on the account of their complete sameness. At this point, if you still chose some and not others, I’d be lead to believe that you did not to reply to my question of what criteria you used simply because you haven’t got one.
I must first admit that I’m no scholar—to which you will undoubtedly say, “that has been plainly shown”
…but I’m simply trying to understand these things as best as I can and Calvinism seems to respond to my questions with, “just be quiet and believe”. That said, I have written no blog posts on the matter of God enabling man to reject or receive him but off the top of my head I can think of two verses which seem to give credence to this belief:
“So, as the Holy Spirit says: “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert, where your fathers tested and tried me and for forty years saw what I did. That is why I was angry with that generation, and I said, ‘Their hearts are always going astray, and they have not known my ways.’ So I declared on oath in my anger,‘They shall never enter my rest.’” Hebrews 3:7-11
To me, this verse seems to say that one should not reject the gospel but rather one should listen to the Holy Spirit and accept his message. Now this to me would be rather illogical if was not enabled by God to reject or receive his message. Furthermore, the text seems to say that it is because people harden their hearts that they do not enter into God’s rest. All in all, God seems to imply a level of control and personal choice on the part of man (in the process of salvation) that Calvinism specifically denies.
“Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.” Revelation 3:20
Once again the emphasis is on “if you hear my voice, and then decide to open the door, I will come and dine with you”. The condition is on how you respond to his voice. Jesus doesn’t say that “I will barge in anyway and I will ordain that you be overcome by my majesty and then of course you’ll want to dine with me seeing as it’s my sovereign decree and you had no choice in the matter”.
But perhaps where this is most explicitly stated is here:
Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith. Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, “So I declared on oath in my anger, ‘They shall never enter my rest.’” Hebrews 4:1-3
I don’t at all see why the author would stress that man had to be careful of rejecting this promise when, according to Calvinism, he could only reject the gospel and where he has accepted it, it is not him that has truly done so but rather God who did so for him?
Having said all of that, I don’t think that I met your criteria as it concerns (all of) contextual exposition but I certainly did (although rather quickly) try and therefore I can’t wait to see your response. It isn’t that I especially hate Calvinism, I just don’t quite believe that all of it is true and if it is I would certainly hope that God would show this to me and forgive me for claiming that the doctrine presents him as capricious.
Methodus:
I don’t think you can claim that the Calvinist view of God is capricious. It certainly seems that way to some, but certainly no calvinist would say that God is capricious in His choosing, so there’s no reason to draw that conclusion, other then to say that He ‘could’ be, simply from the fact that He’s not telling the calvinist why He chooses who He chooses.
I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.
I agree with God. He doesn’t need to explain it.
However, I agree with you that God enables us to believe or not believe the gospel.
In some cases, God even hardens their hearts so that they won’t believe. Run that one around in your head for a while. That doesn’t jive with Calvinism (imo), since calvinists state that NO ONE CAN believe unless God gives them the ability & here we have God ‘preventing’ them from believing, which isn’t the same at all.
The reason that God will save everyone is because that is His will. He desires that all come to repentance & belief.
If hell is eternal, then this can never happen. God’s will/desire will never be realized.
That, coupled with the fact that Jesus died for the sins of the world & that the gospel is good news of great joy for ALL PEOPLE (Luke 2:10)
If the masses are ‘predestined’ for hell, then how is this good news? It’s not.
Calvinists believe that it’s only good news for the elect & no one else. I couldn’t disagree more.
There are SO MANY problems with an eternal hell, that it amazes me that ANY christian still believes in it. Even when I wasn’t a universalist, I rejected the idea of hell being eternal.
Let’s put it this way. If hell IS eternal, then no wonder Lucifer rebelled. I would too.
I will reply to the rest of your comment later, but I want to address this one point:
In no way shape or form have I even hinted that the response to your query is to “be quiet and believe.” I have labored to make the point that unless we can demonstrate something from scripture beyond reasonable doubt, we should avoid speculating and speaking where Scripture has remained silent. You cannot demonstrate from scripture that God’s choice is arbitrary; therefore, you are attempting to speak where scripture has chosen to remain silent…that’s a potentially dangerous position.
Let’s us consider this one step at a time as not to overwhelm those who really want understanding on what scripture teaches. You Calvinist have a habit of boring many into compliance with your ideas because you like to do history on Tulip? Who cares? What honest people who are really wanting to know is what does scripture say. Not imply, but say in plain language.
Now to begin you have the wrong assumption of why people struggle with DoG.
“The reason why many people struggle with the DoG is because it doesn’t fit with their conversion experience.”
The reason they struggle is because what you teach is absolutely in direct contradiction to what is plainly written, without any manipulation by the reader, in scripture. Humor me on my short post for today concerning a part of what this topic is about.
By the way I do not follow Arminianism either.
If one hasn’t noticed it yet, I will give you insight into the cornerstone of The Gospel According the Gospel’s doctrine. This cornerstone is our father Abraham and the covenant that God made with him and his descendants. Everything, even our very gospel was announced to Abraham according to scripture. Here at The Gospel According to the Gospel I advocate that we Christian believers have nothing on our father Abraham when it comes to position and relationship with God.
We find evidence of this again in the debate over grace verses works. Somehow our father Abraham has found himself in the middle of this very controversial and polarizing topic. And once again he has become our example to follow not only concerning imputed righteousness, faith, promises, covenants, etc., he has become our example in the debate of grace verses works.
There are a whole lot of “Christians” who say they have a salvation based solely on grace and works has nothing to do with it. This is the Calvinist view of their “salvation”. They would contend that anyone else who believes that salvation is contingent upon works is a heretic and an ignorant misguided fool who loves to squalor in error.
But what does scripture say about a person’s faith and its relationship to works? Isn’t this the crux of the matter? Isn’t the heart of this topic based upon what scripture says? Isn’t the heart of the matter the answer to the question, can a man be saved by faith alone? Calvinist say absolutely yes! Others say apparently not. James asks the same question when he ask if faith without deeds can save a man.
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. James :14-17
James says that faith without deeds is about as useful to a person as a pat on the back and a good farewell is helpful to someone who is cold, naked or hungry. A pat on the back to someone in such need is about as useful as a stick in the eye. He concludes that our faith that does not follow up with works is as useful to the believer as a cresset wrench to a cave man.
James so desired to drive the point home that he contrasted the faith of those who have no works to those spiritual beings who believe there is one God too. He states that such a faith is as helpful to save about as much as the confidence of God’s existence ability to save the demonic.
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder. James 2:19
Now to our father Abraham, this is where he once again is at the heart of our gospel. James is brutish to some degree in his emphaticness that faith without deeds is absolutely useless. He calls those who insist that their faith can save them without works as foolish.
You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless ? James 2:20
In other words, Calvinist and anyone else who insist that their salvation is not contingent upon works are fools. Why fools? Because your faith is as useful to your goal of salvation as knowledge of God is useful to save demons. Now laying down evidence of what the Calvinist refuse to believe, James speaks of our father Abraham. You know the same guy who Paul said is our father if we walk in the faith our father Abraham had.
And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. Romans 4:12
Now what kind of faith does Jude say is the pattern of faith we find in Abraham?
Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. James 2:21-23
Calvinist insist that we are complete in our faith and nothing is lacking in our eternal position. That works is simply the result of faith, as if works is just a byproduct. James, whom I would conclude is more canonical than the teaching of Calvinist, says that works is more than a byproduct. He says faith is incomplete without it. As in not whole, as not sufficient without works. That is why he states that even the great man of faith, our father Abraham, was not subject to faith alone to be justified.
Hmm, Hmmm Hmmm mmm……..
I thought I would give you Calvinist some space to rant and rave at the comment that not even Abraham was justified by his faith alone. Especially since this is the heart of your doctrine, that we are justified by faith alone and this without works. But if not even he was justified by faith alone, then where do you thing we stand, when you pronounce justified without works? If you still can’t figure it out, let me let James make it plain to you.
You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. James 2:24
Oh the horror, oh the shame, oh the controversy to the Calvinist that canonical scripture actually says in plain language that, “a person is justified by what he does.” And this not by faith alone.
How is it that a harlot could understand and live by such principles, but theologians can not? She knew and believed in the stories she heard about the God of the Hebrews and what He was doing for them, but did that save her? No it was deeds by which she was considered righteous. Again this is explained in plain canonical language, not implied or hinted at.
In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? James 2:25
So there is actually spiritual truth in the teaching that faith is worthless, incomplete, without effect and impact without deeds to make it whole.
As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead. James 2:26
Now since the Calvinist doctrine of saving faith is as good as dead like the body without the spirit, they have impaled themselves in an act of spiritual hari-kari with their doctrine. What they think brings them spiritual understanding and enlightenment has actually brought them and their followers death. That is unless they think they are greater than the proclaimed friend of God, our father Abraham.
Well, are you?
This is why people struggle with your DoG. You contradict what you claim is infallible and without contradiction.
Carl
Thanks for posting my comments.
glasseyedave
You’re welcome.
Carl,
It is always hard and somewhat frustrating to read lots of ink (s0-called) by people that completely miss Calvin’s points. The main issue will always be the total sinful depravity of fallen man! The biblical gospel message is always High Calvinism preaching free grace! But only the Holy Spirit Himself can apply that grace and save a sinful man! Even the Wesley brothers agreed on this aspect.
Amen, Father Robert.
To my favorite Irishman, irishanglican
Some how I missed your explanation of the verses in question. Always with you, you seem to take a higher road of elegance to discus the merits of Calvin, instead of giving us less educated folks the benefit of your verse by verse understanding of the verses in question.
On my site you never once answered a pointed question with a direct applicable answer. Maybe here you will. Maybe Carl will join you since he is giving the amen. I don’t know. But can I get your verse by verse discourse? Or how about one verse, can that be done?
You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. James 2:24
Did James write something he did not intend?
Your friendly antagonist
Dave,
Here’s a few verses. (And I have given many verses in the past also!
Roman’s 4: 1-6, etc. (the whole chapter really)
To irshianglican,
Saying to me look here, or look there is not an answer. I would like for you to expound on the verses in question in the book of James. This is what I mean when I say I have yet to get a direct answer to a direct question.
I know you are way more educated than most people on these blogs and have far more experience and a profound recollection of history. I can’t believe with all this going for you, you can not give a direct explanation of James 2:24 at a minimal.
This averting the question chisels away at your position. If I asked for a Romans 4:1-6 I am sure you would give me one. At least you are on the right track as far as where I would go if I were you. But we have to different things said about one man.
Are you able to give us your thoughts on James 2:24?
Dave,
I have just not had time, sorry. And I had forgotten. I am 60, the old man on these here blogs! lol I really have to measure my time on the blogs also.
The Texts of St. Paul’s Romans 4, and the fact that Paul wrote Romans later than James. And also that little fact called the “Judaizers” also. One must do their history lessons when engaging in the N.T. study.
The Epistle or Letter of James is simply the living-out of one’s faith. Also James reflects on the Mosaic law, or the Torah. And though it appears as a letter, it is much more simply within the genre of the O.T. idea of Wisdom saying, but within a certain kind of diatribe and witness/argument. It is nothing at all like St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Note also James in Acts 15:13-19. James finds agreement with Peter as to the Gentiles. And the Letter of James, and those of Paul, are not in direct argumentation.
Hey Glass.
Since no one wants to ‘directly’ address your argument, I will.
I’ll grant you that it’s possible that James & Paul simply disagreed about this. That would explain why Paul’s ‘visit’ didn’t go to well.
It’s quite possible that James detested Paul & didn’t like what he was preaching. None of us really know, do we?
What is your position here? Do you agree with James & disagree with Paul? Or do you believe that the bible is inerrant & thus believe that these 2 aren’t at odds with each other?
While I do not believe that the bible is inerrant (I think it’s obvious that it’s not). I’ll answer your objection by attempting to harmonize the writings of Paul with the counter from James.
From Paul & James, I come to this conclusion (although I concede the possibility that they simply disagreed)
We are saved by grace through faith & not through works, lest any man should boast. For if I am saved by works & not by faith, then can I not boast? However, it appears that faith without works is dead. Apparently, such a faith cannot save anyone. So if I say that I have faith (I believe in Jesus) and don’t have works (I don’t show my faith through my actions), then my faith is a dead faith.
Our works are the evidence of faith. Thus Jesus said ‘by their fruits you shall know them’ and ‘not everyone who says to me ‘Lord’ ‘Lord’ shall enter into my Father’s Kingdom, but rather he who does the will of my Father shall enter’. (I wrote that from memory, so I might not have rendered it perfectly)
Thus, faith without works is dead & such a faith can’t save you, but salvation is not by works, but rather it is by God’s grace through faith & not of ourselves. It is the gift of God (His grace through faith) that saves us.
I am saved the moment I put my faith in the works of Jesus & no longer trust in my works. God saves me & credits me with the righteousness of Christ (substitutionary atonement) and saves me through grace (I didn’t ‘earn’ His grace – belief isn’t a ‘work’). Now if I truly believe that Jesus paid for my sins & that I am now forgiven & thus, saved, then I will produce ‘good works’. If I don’t, then my faith isn’t genuine (I’m not really saved). Will I still sin? Of course I will. It’s impossible for me not to sin (if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves & the truth is not in us). I sin everyday, but that’s not an excuse. I’m not justifying my sin. Every time I sin, it’s wrong & God calls me to repent every single time, but that doesn’t mean that I have to be forgiven all over again. Christ died once for all sin.
If you think that you have to earn your salvation through good works, then you are saying that what Jesus did for you isn’t sufficient to save you.
Are you trusting in what Jesus did for you (paid for your sins) or are you trusting in what you do? (good works).
My ‘righteousness’ is not mine. Jesus is my righteousness. Jesus kept the commandments. I don’t. You don’t. No one does. We all sin. There is none righteous. No, not one.
What James is then saying is that God’s grace & forgiveness of our sins doesn’t give us the freedom to sin (license to sin). It gives us liberty (the ability to be able to stand, despite the fact that we all still sin)
Stand in the liberty where Christ has made you free.
By the way. I’m not a Calvinist either. Nor am I an Arminian. I’m a Christian Universalist, who’s also a partial Calvinist & a partial Arminian, & who knows. Maybe I’m also a partial ‘whatever you are’ too. ; )
To Scott Meinecke,
Lets face it, you and I are spiritual mutts. Little bit of this and a little bit of that, mixed with a whole bunch of the other stuff.
It is my position that God’s word is infallible, without contradictions and without error. It is further my position that such blatant contradictions are the result of man not understanding God’s covenant with us to redeem us. For instance the debate over once saved always saved and losing ones salvation. I have written extensively on this on my blog and the answer is very simple. For a snap shot go to my Uncommon Belief page and look at it in a snap shot. Then if you feel like it go to some linked post and study the scripture.
But to the point now between James and Paul. James writes about a Abraham that is not justified by faith alone. And concludes that a man (that would be all of us) is not justified by faith alone.
(James 2:21-24 KJV) Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
This is very hard to reconcile with Paul who uses Abraham also but to prove the very opposite point. This is what irishanglican was hinting at in response to me, without answering for the contradiction found in James.
(Rom 4:1-5 KJV) What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Now for possible conclusions:
There are really two Abrahams in scripture and not just the one we thought there was.
Paul and James totally disagree and both wrote their opinion down meaning one is inspired and the other is not. Therefore the Bible is not infallible.
Or that what looks like a total contradiction in scripture is misunderstood by us because we do understand the grace we stand in.
Me, I think it is that we are not understanding the covenant of which we claim, just as the Jews did not understand their covenant. I think it is possible to let both statements of James and Paul stand alone without manipulation or explanation and see them not contradictory but as God has already shown us and grafted us into the covenant given to Abraham.
What God did for Abraham is at the heart of this subject, not to mention both James and Paul base their arguments on God’s covenant with Abraham. I have written extensively of this covenant as well on my site.
You explanation is not far from the truth, but how can you argue it biblically? You can not infer, jump to conclusions or say this hints at that. Can you give a clear biblical explanation of how both men in their naked statements are right?
Carl, irishanglican, can you meet this challenge. Again the answer is found in the covenant given to Abraham. The answer is found in our New Testament as it talks of this covenant. This would be the same covenant we now share in through Christ.
All of this and more I have written about at my sight if you want to look for hints. Although I have not written about this yet, but I will when I give my answer, but what do you guys think first?
Hope you all input on the challenge.
Thanks Carl for letting this conversation take place on your site.
glasseyedave
Sorry Glass, but you seem (to me) to come off as ‘I know the truth’ & if you don’t agree with me, then you’re confused. The idea that you’ve answered these questions in your blog ‘sounds’ arrogant. (I said ‘sounds’, not ‘is’)
ie: the church can’t agree on ‘once saved always saved’ but the answer is really simple… it’s in my blog
Uh-huh. Okay. Whatever you say dude.
I didn’t see you harmonize Paul & James at all & your idea that there’s only 2 possible answers struck me as… well… odd
I also gave Dave the reference that John Wesley taught and gave the Christian the full reality and assurance of his salvation by grace thru faith. And that Wesley in essence agreed with Calvin on the reality of Justification by Faith alone, for the Christian. I don’t think Dave understands “theology” so well? And the measure of the Scripture with Scripture!
Irishanglican,
I didn’t ask what John Wesley taught, I asked how YOU reconcile James (it is not by faith alone but works that a man is justified) with Paul (it is grace alone that a man is justified). If you are not willing, say you are not willing. If you can’t, say you can’t. But it doesn’t make James go away. Nor does it make him less inspired than Paul. Or maybe you should tell it us it does.
I constantly get told to take the whole council of God, I got Paul down, I know what you think about his teachings, tell me the other half of the council of God is all I am asking. If I admit I do not understand theology, will you explain to me what YOUR theology says about James 2:24?
Your friendly antagonist
“The Institutes is a stone , built to last. It is sometimes condemned for its aridity, for its austere God – too austere, so austere that one askes if he is not human, too human, on the level of human ambition, Calvin speaks of God with the passion of a lawyer or a geometer. He chills us a little. But how to say the unutterable, how to define the ineffable while at the same time rejecting effusion and being restrained by modesty? In his very circumspection Calvin lets an acknowledgment seep through, God’s love for his elect and of the love of the elect for God. The sovereign decree, the terrible decree of election that saves or condemns without appeal, is here the mark of a passion that is exclusive, jealous, at its limit insane. God damns because he loves. Could he love so much if he did not damn?” (Calvin, A Biography… by Bernard Cottret)
Hi Scott,
What is confusion? Is it me saying I am confident in what I know that makes others confused? Or is it doctrines that contradict themselves in the church? Like the controversy of James and Paul, or once saved always saved? Someone is confused, but who is it? In reality most people are a little of Calvin and a little bit Arminianism, you know, spiritual mutts. Why because they see both in scripture. So what is confusion, those who see both contradicting things in scripture, or me saying people are confused?
Yep, I give it to you and will not argue the point. I sound arrogant, but the proof is in the pudding. Not to be arrogant, but to be confident in what I believe scripture teaches that gets rid of these supposed contradictions in scripture.
If you would really read my blog, you would see a different message about the gospel. It is the message of what scripture says about the gospel.
As far as James and Paul and their harmonizing, that is to come. And there were three options not two.
I left the challenge of harmonizing Paul and James to you and Carl. If you can not, just say so. It is a tough one I know. But I am still waiting on Carl to see if he is up to the challenge.
Apparently irishanglican is not willing to even tell me what James 2:24 means. All I can get from him is great historical quotes and nothing from the man himself. So I do not expect any ideas on this from him, except criticism that I have no understanding of theology.
Carl are you willing to take the challenge of reconciling James (is not by faith alone but by works that a man is justified) and Paul (it is grace alone)?
If others are not willing to reconcile them, is it me telling them they are confused or is it their inability to reconcile them that says so?
Bare with me for I am not trying to prove myself as above anybody, I only am purposely driving a point home that these two views in scripture are real and they appear to contradict each other and men have built whole doctrines around them. If others are honest and say I can’t reconcile the views, because I can only accept one side of the argument, then I am ok with that. But instead I get pelted with elitism by belittlement and their one sided view, when scripture clearly in plain language say both.
Carl, irishanglican and Steve,
Thought I forgot about you didn’t you.
Following the string of conversation on this topic I gave irishanglican the challenge to expound on James 2:24 and I got nothing. I also gave the challenge to reconcile James(it is not by faith alone but works that a man is justified) with Paul (it is by grace and not works). Hoping that the doctrine of Calvin doesn’t just simply ignore that part of scripture.
I told you I would reconcile them to which Steve thinks I am cocky. Maybe, but rather I am confident in what I believe, could we say that? If you will not reconcile them for reasons of your own, may I do so Carl? May this antagonistic, cocky, know it all interloping upstart give my take on how James and Paul do not contradict each other?
If so I will do it by some time midweek of next week. Until then I would like to hear your sides on the issue.
Irishanglican has more things added to the end of his name than I have fingers and toes. He is a scholar and no one knows church history like him. I would like to hear him in his own words his thoughts.
Carl I assume you are like irishanglican, I would like to hear what you have to say too.
Steve, I take it you and Carl are friends but opponents to some degree when it comes to faith. I would like to hear your comments since you appear to be on the other side of the isle.
Is anybody up to it? Carl may I next week?
Dave: tell you what. Instead of adding comments to this post, I will post an article reconciling those two passages and you can respond to that article.
Once I’m back from vacation, I will post the article. Fair enough?
Sounds good.
Hi Carl,
As promised I have finished what I consider to a biblical reconciliation of Paul and James. If I have your permission to link to it from this comment please approve this comment.
http://thegospelaccordingtothegospel.com/2010/08/11/the-compete-word-of-god-paul-verses-james/
I look forward to your input on this topic when you make your post on it. When can I expect to read it and will you make a comment here that it is done?
glasseyedave
Dave, go ahead and link to your article. I plan on posting mine by the end of the week.