Last Wednesday after our Bible Study I had an interesting conversation with a student who has been visiting with us over the last several weeks. He is learning about us and asked a question I hadn't heard from someone attending our church. It was in regard to where our church came down on the Calvinism/Arminian divide. This was a good conversation starter and got me to thinking about the larger issues related to this discussion.
I've been wary of Calvinism, at least the five point variety. The biggest attraction that I see in TULIP is that it is a logical system that utilizes a lot of Bible. Calvinists also find security in the fact that everything can be explained in relation to the sovereignty of God, which unfortunately can be taken to the extreme by removing the freedom of choice when it comes to our salvation experience. There is a lot more to this presentation, but my reaction to my friend was that our church was neither Calvinist nor Arminian. There may be a few individuals that have differing viewpoints on this spectrum, but I think I'm on target here. We believe in missions too much to take away the freedom of persons to respond to the gospel. I told my friend that we might be better described as "Calminian" a term I heard in seminary that seems to pull in some elements of both views.
God is sovereign, and is Lord over all creation. Human beings also have free will and can decide to accept or reject the gospel. Yes, we are all sinners in need of a Saviour but are not predestined to salvation in the sense that we have no choice in the matter. The "logical" conclusion is that God predestines some to heaven while others to hell. This "double-edged" predestination is what I find particularly dangerous. I cannot imagine a loving God allowing persons to come into the world only to condemn them to hell. This is a difficult axiom to accept and is inconsistant with a loving God. God's sovereignty must be affirmed along with the freedom of humans to determine their own response to the gospel. This paradox is not logical, but it is biblical.
Nothing is more fundamental than an understanding of what it means to come to faith in Jesus Christ. There is a mystery that cannot be explained away, how God LOVED the WORLD so much that he gave his son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Calvinists do not accept the truth that Christ died for ALL persons, but rather he died only for the elect. Dying for the reprobate would be unfair to Christ and he would take on more penalty than he needed to provide salvation for the elect. Here again is another case of being logical but not biblical. Calvinism is very much based on a legal viewpoint of redemption.
There is lot more to the debate, but suffice it to say that Calvinism should be considered a threat to our local Baptist congregations. It is possible to diminish the importance of evangelism with this approach. I suspect this is a growing concern especially for Southern Baptists who will be looking for something to fight about pretty soon. At least in this regard I can agree that church members need to be educated about the perils of this theological system, and regrettably some congregations have found out too late. Some churches have found out the hard way what happens when a closet Calvinist is brought to the pulpit.
Despite our challenges and shortcomings, we ought not allow Calvinism to be one of them. John 3:16 is enough of a response to keep Baptist churches focused on missions and telling people about Jesus.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Danny -- an old quote, that I will probably butcher goes:
I am Calvinist enough to believe in the reality and depth of sin, and Arminian enough to have hope in God.
Dwight Stinnett
I've never heard of that one, but it rings true. Fortunately, I don't deal a lot with Calvinist thought other that to comment on it. Baptists are pretty diverse when it comes to this issue, but when I hear that the first Baptists were Calvinists then I shudder a little bit. If true, we couldn't have helped it anyway.
One interesting thing about coming to MO is that I've seen Freewill, Bible, and General Baptist churches. One of our newer administrative assistants asked what kind of Baptist I was, and I said "hopefully the good kind."
Thanks for dropping by.
Dear Danny,
Your presentation of this issue is good as it gets for the vast majority of Southern Baptists. I just hate having to be plugged into somebody's cubbyhole of categorization. On any day I am liberal, moderate, or conservative dependent upon either someone else's definition of themselves or a particular issue.
I think the majority of nonReformed Southern Baptist Churches have done a truly lousy job in presenting God the Creator, the law giver, the sin describer, the penalty acceptor-- aspects more associated with Calvinism than not.
At the end of the day everyone of those issues are above, way above my pay grade and are really nothing for which I can change one way or the other.
But there is one thing central to the Bible that is very difficult to claim a patent on in a particular viewpoint--the character of God. That character was introduced over thousands of years and through the breadth of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. Although we can certainly accept any one verse to be true, ie., the ten commandments, the true Character of God is displayed all over history, all over the Bible and all over the creation of which each of us are emersed and a part. All of that cries out for a God who is omnipotent, pure and just at the same time it cries out love and His desire for us to have every aspect of our being nurtured and stimulated through the senses of sight, hearing, tasting, and touching and the spiritual dimension of forgiveness and joy.
I couldn't tell you how a stereo works, don't have a reason to know, don't want to know, all I can do is know that it is real and it works and all I have to do is turn it on for something beautiful. You don't need to be an electronic engineer to enjoy beautiful music.
So here we are somewhere in the middle between Arminians and Calvinists. Reviled by those particularly on the one side for not knowing where we clearly stand. But the best example of describing what we beieved came from a spreme court justice in 1973 dealing with pornography statutes. He said that he couldn't write down what it was, but he sure knew it when he saw it.
Forgive me for that example, but I think it expresses what you said and what I believe about as good as any I've ever heard.
Thanks for your observatons
I agree with you about being categorized; I suppose it is necessary for some folks to do this before they can talk to you.
I am not in the Southern Baptist loop anymore, but my observation is that Calvinism will be a force to be dealt with in the near future.
There is a paradox when dealing with God's sovereignty and Human freedom of choice. I affirm both to be true, yet there is a mystery involved when trying to reconcile them. I am choosing to live with the tension and trust God with the results.
One of the strengths for Calvinists is that they have a logical system which removes any sense of paradox or mystery. I still don't know how you can affirm God's love while saying God predetermined persons to heaven and (by logic) some to hell. Tough to swallow that.
Good to hear from a MS person.
Danny, I know that Google is a click away, but could you give the basic beliefs of Arminians? Ok, well, I will Google it but I'd still like to see your perspective on the Calvinist/Arminian divide.
WHenever I hear about Calvinism the five points come to mind: TULIP. Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, irresistable grace, and perseverence of the saints. The sense is that persons are dead in their sins and don't even have teh ability to make a faith decision without the grace of God. God chooses to "elect" these persons and his grace cannot be rejected.
Also, atonement is "limited" in that Christ died only for the "elect" and not for those doomed to hell (the non-elect). Of course, this contradicts Jn 3:16, I Jn 2:2 plus others that speak of God's love.
Calvinists do have a serious view of sin, which Arminians do not. I'm not as familiar with this latter approach, and haven't heard the term utilized in contemporary language. But proponents of this view tend to take an extreme view of God's love to the point that all persons go to heaven.
You state that "God is sovereign, and is Lord over all creation." Indeed - but aren't humans a part of that creation? If "we" are the final determinants of our salvation, isn't that absconding with God's supposed sovereignty? If God's sovereignty stops where our "free will" starts, aren't we left with a logical impossibility?
Free will is predicated on two things: what is able to be chosen, and what is desired to be chosen. As to the first point, we may only choose what we can choose. That is, I cannot (by mere force of will) choose to be the same dimensions and raw talent of Shaquille O'Neal - it is not choose-able by me because it is not within the realm of possibility for me to choose (any more than I can choose to be a fish or a bird). Secondly, even if something is within the realm of possibility, I must desire the action above all other things at that moment in time in order for my will to be engaged.
Scripture clearly teaches that the unregenerate mind is entirely disinclined to the things of God. No amount of arguing or pleading or using any number of marketing gimmicks can make a lost sinner desire the savior. Only the Holy Spirit can enliven the sinner to desire the glorious Savior, which engages the will to exercise the faith which God Himself has given.
So - when a person becomes a Christian, do they choose Christ? Absolutely! However, when they choose Christ - was it due to the force of their will that made them not only able, but willing to do so? Not on your (eternal) life! Lazarus wasn't given an invitation to come forth - he was given a command!
As to your characterization of the "Limited Atonement" idea - it's a matter of it being "unfair" for Christ to take on some additional burden. The offer of the gospel (which includes the offer of forgiveness) is made to all who hear. The idea of Particular Redemption (much preferred over Limited Atonement) is that those whose debts are paid are truly free. For example, if I paid your debt (house mortgage, credit card, utility bill) the original lien-holder would have no legal grounds to collect on that debt anymore. If all persons are forgiven (made "debt free") by Christ's sacrifice on the cross, then ALL will be in heaven. Universalism is clearly non-Biblical, so we are left with at least some form of particular redemption. It's not that controversial when you understand the domain it covers.
One final note - as to putting a damper on evangelism or missions, etc. Please - do some history! Seriously, look at the majority of missions and evangelism in the Protestant church prior to the 20th century. As for Baptists particularly...William Carey - remember him? How about John "Pilgrim's Progress" Bunyan? Oh, and there's Charles Spurgeon. How about John Broadus? Basil Manly, George Whitefield, Richard Fuller, Andrew Fuller, John "Amazing Grace" Newton, and even that Al Mohler guy. Yup - rabble-rowsers, all! Baptists & Calvinists, every one.
I'd almost forgotten about this post; it is several months old but thanks for dropping by.
I appreciate your thoughts. My response is that God's sovereignty and human freewill are both affirmed in Scripture. It may not be logical, but it is biblical. I choose to accept this paradox and the mystery. I respect your different viewpoint and have heard your arguments on a number of occasions. I doubt if we'll persuade one another differently, but the dialogue is good.
Human beings are created in the image of God. I know of no other creature with this distinction.
I also lean heavily upon John 3:16.
By the way, when Jesus commanded Lazerus to come forth, was this for salvation at that point?
I found your post by way of trying to explain to someone what was meant by "Calminian" as it is often used in a tongue-in-cheek fashion. I do hope that the tone of my post didn't seem caustic. I'm actually quite sympathetic to your position as it is one I held for close to 30 years (yikes - am I that old?).
I, too, believe that God's sovereignty and a moderated human free-will are affirmed in scripture. However, I would repeat what I said in the post - we may only choose what we can choose, and we do only choose that which is most pleasing to us at the moment we make the choice. The problem is that, outside of God's regenerating power, we neither can nor will choose if left to our own devices.
Even Wesley, the great Arminian (I mean this with no sarcasm - what a great guy he was!) recognized the problem that his perspective created as regards scripture. That is why he came up with the doctrine of prevenient grace - a mechanism to "ratchet up" a dead sinner to the point where they might "of their own free will" choose God. So, in this model - God's predestination is merely a type of foreknowledge where he bets on the horses he sees will win (of their own power, naturally). Hmmm...hard to make that case Biblically.
And, yes - I was virtually suckled on John 3:16 (all of my early background, and much of my adult life has been spent in Southern Baptist churches - mostly of the "Calminian" sort). The issue is "whosoever" - who is that? Romans 3:9-12 makes it clear that no one seeks God - it must be God who seeks us. I'm reminded of the C.S. Lewis quote: "I pursued God with the same tenacity that a mouse pursues a cat!"
The gospel is to be preached to everyone regardless of people group, economic status, etc. It is not for us finite humans to figure out the sovereign will of God. I cannot boast in my salvation or that of anyone I have "lead to the Lord" - only rejoice when someone finds the savior to be the sweetest name they know!
Finally - no, it was not for eternal salvation that Jesus commanded Lazarus to come forth. However, since scripture makes it clear that we are truly dead in our sins (Ephesians 2:1-10, Colossians 2:9-15), we must recognize that it is the Spirit of God which gives us life. It is not, to quote from The Princess Bride that we are mostly dead (funny movie if you've not seen it). Dead is dead. Also, re-read Romans 9 again. Paul's defense of God's election makes no sense if He is simply choosing those who will of their own power choose Him.
Finally, I am also sensitive to many Calvinists out there who are, to put it mildly, total jerks about all of this. I have become friends with a local pastor of an Orthodox Presbyterian Church (like the PCA, but more conservative). One of his sayings is "The last thing we need is more angry Calvinists!" Amen to that! As long as we all bow to our sovereign king, and recognize that he is the author of our salvation, and to Him alone be the glory - we can sort the rest out as we go about His business. Amen!? :-)
So, I agree - a rude and harsh person is not demonstrating the character of Christ, regardless of the doctrinal high-ground they may (or may not) have. However, to put Calvinists in a category and pronounce them all divisive simply because they hold to the doctrines of Grace - that doesn't jibe with history.
Post a Comment