I remember exactly how I felt on this day fifteen years ago. I felt sick. It was nerves. There were a ton of things to do. I don't recall all the different things I needed to get done, but I do recall desperately looking for a cassette tape. I don't know how many Bible bookstores I went to, but I couldn't find one that had a tape of the wedding march.
It would be a long story to explain why, but I hadn't heard our organist until the rehearsal. She was horrible. She only knew one phrase of the wedding march, which she kept playing over and over, and she switched from organ to piano, without bothering to ask, because she was having some sort of technical difficulties with the organ. It wasn't the only thing that was going wrong. One of my groomsmen didn't show for the rehearsal, and the woman who had made our cheesecake wedding cake had gotten into a car accident with the cake, and was furiously trying to repair it.
My best man Dave was a prince. He camped out in his car in front of the missing groomsman's home to make sure he'd be there the next day. There were several other things he took care of too, and I knew as soon as he told me he'd take care of something that I didn't need to worry about it anymore. And so all the stuff I had to do was in the end just a distraction from the real business of the day, which was to change my life.
I had known Cecile for two years now. She had given her heart to the Lord soon after I met her, and I saw her life radically change. I've never known anyone to fall in love with Jesus like she did. We each struggled with our attraction to one another; for my part, I was afraid that she'd confuse her feelings for me with her newfound life in Christ, and I didn't want to take advantage of that. It was providential that I went back to seminary for another year while she got discipled. During the next summer back home, we got engaged, and then I went back for one final semester. By the time I was running around on that hot summer day in 1991, I knew I loved her. But in Christ, my conviction was that marriage is forever. There was no turning back.
The ceremony itself was beautiful, but my feelings about actually taking the vows were similar to what Corrie Ten Boom wrote about having lied to the Nazis about having a radio. She was trembling afterward, not because for the first time in her life she had told a conscious lie, but because it had been so "dreadfully easy." Repeating the vows that we had rehearsed was all too easy, but my life was changed forever.
For the last fifteen years, Cecile has been the greatest gift, apart from salvation, that God has ever given to me. She has been faithful, kind, understanding, and supportive through many career changes and moves. She has often been my only reason to keep going through periods of setback and discouragement. Words really cannot do justice to what she means to me. I truly believe that what we have is what God wants every married couple to have. Sometimes we have looked at one another when we've learned of struggles that other couples were going through, and wondered aloud, "What are we doing right?" I don't know what it is, but there must be something. I think it comes down to this: a shared commitment to God being more important than anything else in life, including one another, and a shared commitment to doing what is good for us together (and now, our family) rather than what appears good to either one of us separately.
In an era of rampant divorce, when divorce statistics within the church are just as bad as those outside it, we desperately need a return to God's principles regarding marriage. This does not mean remaining in bad marriages just so as not to be divorced; it means reaching out for God's help to overcome our own selfishness and make our marriages what He wants them to be. The opposite of love is not hate, or even indifference; it is selfishness. If we would truly heed the Biblical command to "love your neighbor as yourself" with just our one closest neighbor, our spouse, we could truly present a Godly alternative to the heartbreak and emotional destruction endemic throughout our world.
Thank you, Cecile, for the one decision that I know I've made right in my life. Thank You, Lord, for the greatest gift of this lifetime that You have given me.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Why I Am Not a Calvinist (with apologies to Bertrand Russell) Part 2
This is the second half of a paper originally entitled "The Case for an Arminian Understanding of Election," published on an earlier web site that I hosted. The first half attempted to make a positive case for Arminianism. This second half deals with objections that Calvinists have traditionally made to Arminianism, and offers answers to those objections from the Arminian point of view.
Objections from Reformed Theology
The above outline [in part 1] of the Arminian position purposely makes its case without reference to the Calvinistic objections that have been made to the various points. A summary of these follows. (It should go without saying that this section does not pretend to give an orderly or complete presentation of the Calvinist position. It merely responds point by point to the Arminian position represented above.) Letters in parentheses refer to the acronym TULIP, and thus to the various points of "five point" Calvinism.
I. The Justice of God
The Calvinistic point of view rests primarily upon an emphasis on God’s justice.
A. Logically prior to mercy
God’s justice is universal, as opposed to His mercy, which is granted specifically and only to the elect. Justice is logically prior to mercy, since mercy deals with amelioration of the effects of justice. Thus God’s expressions of His mercy are addressed specifically and only to His covenant people, but His justice is applicable to all.
B. Desires that God does not act upon
While certain scriptures indicate that God desires the repentance of the wicked, God in fact refuses to offer saving grace to many of them. If God truly wished for all to be saved, all would indeed be saved, since God is sovereign and nothing can frustrate His will. Therefore, God evidently does not ultimately wish the salvation of all, and the desire for the wicked to be saved that these scriptures indicate must simply be a desire He does not act upon.
II. The Scope and Sufficiency of the Atonement (L)
Although Jesus’ death is potentially sufficient to save everyone, God has chosen to limit the efficacy of the atonement to the elect.
A. Atonement limited by election, based on God’s sovereignty (U)
God’s sovereignty implies that He is under no obligation to save anyone. He has chosen to glorify Himself in His mercy by saving some, and to glorify Himself in His justice by allowing some to be condemned in their sin. The atonement is therefore limited to those whom He has chosen, or elected, to save.
B. Total depravity and the rightness of justice (T)
Human beings are thoroughly and completely corrupted by sin (Rom. 3.10-18), and thus are justly under the sentence of divine condemnation. God is therefore under no obligation to save anyone, and those who remain under His judgment are there solely because of their own sin and rebellion against God. God’s justice could not have been impugned even if He had chosen never to save anyone and to allow the entire human race to go to hell.
III. The Role of Faith
A. Faith as a Gift
Those who are described as "believers" are only able to believe because God has regenerated them and given them faith (Eph. 2.8-9). Thus, all the scriptures describing God’s elect with terms relating to pistis merely reaffirm the regeneration that God has effected in them.
B. Faith Contrasted with Works
If the Arminian view were correct, it would be possible to construe exercising faith as a work meriting salvation. Since scripture excludes salvation by works categorically, such a view of faith is excluded as well. If this were not the case, then those who responded in faith would have something to boast in as compared with others who did not, and this is prohibited by God (Rom. 3.27).
C. Grace as Irresistible (I)
Since God is sovereign, His plan of salvation must be accomplished without fail. Therefore, when He regenerates those whom He has elected and calls them to salvation, they will be irresistibly drawn to His grace and will inevitably come to saving faith and justification.
IV. The Order of Salvation
The Reformed point of view requires a different understanding of the order of salvation. The order is: regeneration, effectual calling, conversion (repentance and faith), and justification.
A. Human inability
Because of the total depravity of man, human beings are utterly unable to please God in themselves, or even to reach out to God for help. God therefore does not require faith on the part of the unregenerate person, because that person is completely unable to exercise saving faith.
B. Regeneration necessary to faith and repentance
Since the unregenerate person cannot exercise faith, God must first regenerate the person, who will then necessarily and unfailingly exercise faith and repentance. Hence, regeneration is prior to conversion.
C. Necessary separation of regeneration and justification
Since regeneration is logically prior to conversion, and conversion is necessary to justification there is in the Calvinist system a necessary separation between regeneration and justification. The Calvinist order of salvation is thus: election, regeneration, conversion, justification.
V. The Role of Election
A. Unconditional election required by God’s sovereignty (U)
God is sovereign over all things; therefore, His will is not contingent upon anything else. Therefore, when the Bible describes the election of believers, it must be unconditional--conditioned, that is, solely upon the sovereign, unchangeable will of God.
1. Reformed understanding of foreknowledge
An unconditional election raises the question of why the Bible specifically relates election to foreknowledge, since foreseen merit or foreseen faith are excluded as criteria for salvation. Calvinism sees "foreknow" as meaning "forelove" (to "know" being an intimate form of knowledge; cf. Gen. 4.1); therefore, it was those whom God "foreloved" that he predestined.
B. Unconditional election necessary for assurance
If salvation is in any sense synergistic, then part of one’s salvation is contingent upon maintaining the proper human response. Scriptures relating assurance to election would therefore be meaningless unless election were unconditional. If salvation is all of God, then assurance of security is also all of God.
VI. Perseverance (P)
A. A corollary to unconditional election and irresistible grace
If election is unconditional and grace is given irresistibly, then it follows that the elect person cannot ever fall out of grace. If it is God’s will that someone will be saved, then that person will be saved and will never lose that salvation. This does not negate the possibility that a person who is elect and regenerated can fall into grievous sin temporarily, or that a person who outwardly appears to be a true believer may in fact demonstrate that he is not by falling away and rejecting the faith entirely.
B. The promise of perseverance
In addition to the above logical requirement of perseverance, scripture also promises that believers will in fact persevere to the end: e.g., Romans 8.17, 38-39; Ephesians 1.13-14; Philippians 1.6.
The Arminian Response to Calvinistic Objections
I. The Justice of God
A. Relationship to mercy
Although mercy must be predicated upon justice--one must be adjudged guilty of a sin before one may be forgiven for it--that does not mean that mercy is less important, or less extensively offered. To the Calvinist’s contention that God is not required to save anyone, it may be responded that it is in God’s merciful nature, as revealed by the scriptures, to offer salvation to human beings. The question is not, "What is God obligated to do"; it is rather, "What is it in God’s nature to do?" The Arminian believer holds that it is in God’s nature to reach out in love and save.
B. Desires that God does not act upon
Although it is contended that God’s desire for all to be saved is simply one He does not act upon, one must ask why He does not act upon it. The scriptures that deal with this matter are uniform in their answer: it is because the wicked person refuses to repent (e.g., Ezek. 33.17-19; 2 Pet. 3.9). Not one scripture suggests that God ever refuses to offer grace to anyone, which is why election’s negative corollary--reprobation--cannot find scriptural support and is why even most Calvinists attempt to repudiate or modify it.
II. The Scope and Sufficiency of the Atonement
A. Atonement limited by election, based on God’s sovereignty
The fact that God is sovereign does not in itself negate the possibility of human freedom. God may in fact will that a portion of His creation have some genuine autonomy. Suggesting that God’s sovereignty precludes any human autonomy does not enhance, but actually diminishes His omnipotence; is God not free to create agents of free moral choice? Scripture seems to be clear that God accomplishes His will despite human freedom and sinfulness, not by negating it. Therefore, it is at least theoretically possible --it is consistent with God’s sovereignty--to hold that God sovereignly chooses to make salvation contingent upon some aspect of human freedom; specifically, the free choice to respond to the call of the gospel.
Moreover, the Reformed point of view runs into problems by acknowledging a universal (or general) call to repentance and faith (see III. C.) and yet asserting that atonement is limited to the elect. Calvinists usually respond to this point by arguing that only those to whom God gives irresistible grace and faith are able to believe or have any desire to do so; i.e., God is not offering anything that the unregenerate person wants, so there can be no possibility that anyone could actually desire to be saved without provision having been made for that person’s salvation. Granted that this point of view is consistent within the Calvinistic scheme, it ignores the fact that, by making a general call to salvation, God is (in the Reformed view) construed as offering something for which He has not made provision--in fact, for which He has expressly refused to make provision--namely, salvation for the non-elect. The fact that none will accept the offer is immaterial to the fact that God is here represented as making an offer which is not in good faith.
B. Total depravity and the rightness of justice
Although the Bible makes clear the depravity of man, in that everyone without exception falls short of the glory of God and has no innate desire to live a life worthy of God, the scriptures involving depravity never state that human beings are unable to respond to the Gospel in faith; rather, the reverse is everywhere assumed (e.g., Rom. 10.12-15). The Gospel itself "is the power of God for salvation" (Rom. 1.16).
III. The Role of Faith
A. Faith as a Gift
All evangelicals are committed to the propositions that one must believe in Jesus to be saved; that those who have been saved are described as having been chosen by God; and that faith is a gift. Nevertheless, the call to exercise faith is always put in the imperative. Faith is not something that one inevitably exercises if one has it, else it would be pointless to be called upon to believe, and to put one’s faith in God. It must be reemphasized that faith and the action of believing are the most frequent ways in which Scripture identifies God’s people.
By contrast, such terms as "the chosen [elect]," which might lead the reader to view the saved as passive recipients of mercy, appear comparatively rarely in connection with the NT people of God (eklektoV is used 23 times in the NT; of these, four refer either to Christ or to angels and three occur as a parallel passage with another three, leaving only sixteen distinct references referring to individuals, groups, or the church as a whole being described as "chosen" or "elect"). This is not to say that these references can be ignored simply because they are comparatively few in number, but they should not be built into an interpretive grid through which the rest of the Biblical witness must be viewed.
B. Faith as opposed to works
Scripture is clear that faith is not only not a meritorious work but is opposed to works "For by grace are you saved through faith--and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2.8). The capacity to believe is given by God; but the requirement to exercise that faith with respect to Christ, as above, is a commandment given to us. Scripture simply never considers exercising such faith a work, still less a "work of the Law" (Gal. 3.2; i.e., Torah observance) which is what Scripture seems most at pains to oppose. With regard to the issue of boasting, it is related in scripture specifically to the issue of works as explicitly contrasted with faith. Since faith is merely a response to a free offer from God, it is never in any sense considered a ground for boasting.
C. Grace as Irresistible
Most of the scriptures that Calvinists point use to demonstrate the call of God to saving grace as inevitably effectual actually refer in the past tense to believers having been called by God (e.g., 1 Cor. 1.9; Rom. 1.7; 1 Cor. 1.26; Eph. 1.18; Phil. 3.14; 2 Tim. 1.9; Heb. 3.1). Of course, if the group being described as having been called is comprised of believers, then of course, the call was effectual in their case; these scriptures, however, do not have any bearing on whether there are others who were called and did not respond in faith. Just because believers are described as "called" by God doesn’t mean that God didn’t call others. In fact, other scriptures explicitly describe the Lord calling all to salvation (e.g., Matt. 11.28; Isa. 45.22; Matt. 22.14), and the Reformed view is forced to distinguish between a "general" call and an "effectual" call. There are a number of passages in which people are clearly represented as resisting God’s grace (e.g., Acts 7.51; Matt. 23.37; Jer. 3.19-20)--indeed it makes a great deal of sense to view the entirety of the historical sections of the Bible as one long record of people resisting grace offered by God.
IV. The Order of Salvation
A. Human Inability
It is stipulated that unregenerate persons are unable to do anything to please God, merit salvation, or even come to the Lord without God first drawing them (Jn. 6.44, 65). Yet Jesus announces his intention to "draw all men" to himself (Jn. 12.32). Although unredeemed humanity is pictured in scripture as being spiritually dead and blind, completely unable to come to the Lord, there is no indication in scripture that those who are actually confronted with the Gospel are unable to receive it. The Gospel itself is viewed in the New Testament as bringing with it the power of salvation (e.g., Rom. 1.16, 10.14-15; Eph. 1.13; 2 Tim. 1.10). Although Arminians have historically appealed to "prevenient grace" as enabling all persons everywhere to be able to believe, it must be admitted that this concept finds little support in scripture. A better means of understanding God’s work in enabling people to believe would be to view the Gospel itself as being invested with the power to respond with saving faith.
B. Regeneration necessary to faith and repentance
If the power to respond to the Gospel lies in the Gospel itself, rather than in regeneration, then it is not necessary to suppose that God regenerates a person who is not yet converted or justified. No passage of scripture states that conversion is subsequent to regeneration; however, there are scriptures that place conversion at the entrance to salvation (e.g., Acts 2.38, 10.43, 16.31).
C. Necessary separation of regeneration and justification
As explained above, there is no clear scriptural reason to separate regeneration and justification, other than the necessity in Reformed theology of postulating regeneration before conversion and justification after. Once that necessity is obviated, one may see regeneration and justification as simply two metaphors for expressing the same spiritual change. This is the most natural reading of the scripture.
V. The Role of Election
A. Unconditional election required by God’s sovereignty
Since God is sovereign, the criteria of election must be sovereignly determined by Him, and the sole criterion he has established is faith in Christ. However, to suppose that God’s sovereignty prevents Him from allowing humans to make a free response to the gospel diminishes His sovereignty, rather than supporting it. God is able to make creatures that exercise free will; God is able to enable them to respond to the Gospel even if they are dead in sin; God is able to elect them based on their response to the Gospel. None of this is precluded by God’s sovereignty; in fact, if any of them are precluded, the result is to diminish God’s sovereignty.
Reformed understanding of foreknowledge
The understanding of proginosko as meaning "forelove" rather than "foreknow" must be understood as a desperate expedient to avoid the clear implication of scripture that election is based on foreknowledge. The usual passage referred to in defense of this interpretation is Genesis 4.1, in which Adam "knew" his wife; i.e., had sexual relations with her. However, the fact that "know" is used biblically as a euphemism for sexual intercourse does not mean that "know" in general can have the meaning of "love," much less that "foreknow" can have the meaning of "forelove." At any rate, if God "foreloves" certain people, He must have already chosen--elected--them for such "foreloving." Yet the scripture makes clear that God’s election is based on His foreknowledge, not the reverse.
B. Unconditional election necessary for assurance
The fact that the doctrine of unconditional election provides assurance of salvation (for those who know themselves to be elect) does not make it true. If anything, it suggests an ulterior motive (beyond the testimony of scripture and reason) for those who hold that doctrine. We must hold a doctrine because Scripture clearly supports it, not because it produces a result that we like.
VI. The Necessity of Personal Perseverance
A. A corollary of unconditional election and irresistible grace
It seems logical that if election is unconditional and grace is irresistible, then perseverance is a necessary corollary. However, since the Arminian position views personal election as conditioned upon the response of faith and views grace as resistible, it is not committed to perseverance as a doctrine.
B. The promise of perseverance
Scriptures dealing with assurance, including those relating it to election, are there to give comfort to sincere believers that despite external pressures and persecutions, they will be enabled to remain in a faith relationship by the power of God. These scriptures, however, do not give assurance that the believer will never fall away; indeed, many scriptures warn against precisely that possibility. We can be assured that we will always be enabled to believe and thus never need lose our salvation; we are not assured that once we’ve been saved, we will never fall away.
Further Considerations: Overall perspectives of the rival systems
The areas in which the two systems are most clearly divergent are two. Calvinism views God primarily in His aspect of justice, and views the human will as essentially passive or mechanical--the sum total of all a person’s desires. It is therefore basically deterministic. Arminianism views God primarily in His aspect of mercy, and views the human will as essentially active and determinative. Apart from the pressures of a person’s various desires is something that retains the power of individual choice. This faculty, the will, is enabled by the reception of the Gospel to respond in faith and to receive salvation. The will is also able to reject faith after salvation, despite the fact that God will not allow any circumstances to take our faith from us. Although it would satisfy justice for God to select from the mass of sinful and condemned humanity a small number (Matt. 7.14) to save, and to abandon the rest to their deserved fate without hope, it does not seem in the character of God to so selectively and parsimoniously mete out mercy to the fortunate few. It seems much more in the character of God to offer mercy generously to all, even though we are sinful, rebellious, and rightfully condemned, and to give us the enablement to respond to His offer of grace freely offered.
That's it. Of course, this paper is meant merely as an overview of the issues involved. A great deal of exegetical work on the passages which impact divine election is necessary to reach a serious conclusion.
Of course, I might be wrong about all of this, in which case the reason why I am not a Calvinist is much simpler:
God evidently predestined me to be an Arminian.
Objections from Reformed Theology
The above outline [in part 1] of the Arminian position purposely makes its case without reference to the Calvinistic objections that have been made to the various points. A summary of these follows. (It should go without saying that this section does not pretend to give an orderly or complete presentation of the Calvinist position. It merely responds point by point to the Arminian position represented above.) Letters in parentheses refer to the acronym TULIP, and thus to the various points of "five point" Calvinism.
I. The Justice of God
The Calvinistic point of view rests primarily upon an emphasis on God’s justice.
A. Logically prior to mercy
God’s justice is universal, as opposed to His mercy, which is granted specifically and only to the elect. Justice is logically prior to mercy, since mercy deals with amelioration of the effects of justice. Thus God’s expressions of His mercy are addressed specifically and only to His covenant people, but His justice is applicable to all.
B. Desires that God does not act upon
While certain scriptures indicate that God desires the repentance of the wicked, God in fact refuses to offer saving grace to many of them. If God truly wished for all to be saved, all would indeed be saved, since God is sovereign and nothing can frustrate His will. Therefore, God evidently does not ultimately wish the salvation of all, and the desire for the wicked to be saved that these scriptures indicate must simply be a desire He does not act upon.
II. The Scope and Sufficiency of the Atonement (L)
Although Jesus’ death is potentially sufficient to save everyone, God has chosen to limit the efficacy of the atonement to the elect.
A. Atonement limited by election, based on God’s sovereignty (U)
God’s sovereignty implies that He is under no obligation to save anyone. He has chosen to glorify Himself in His mercy by saving some, and to glorify Himself in His justice by allowing some to be condemned in their sin. The atonement is therefore limited to those whom He has chosen, or elected, to save.
B. Total depravity and the rightness of justice (T)
Human beings are thoroughly and completely corrupted by sin (Rom. 3.10-18), and thus are justly under the sentence of divine condemnation. God is therefore under no obligation to save anyone, and those who remain under His judgment are there solely because of their own sin and rebellion against God. God’s justice could not have been impugned even if He had chosen never to save anyone and to allow the entire human race to go to hell.
III. The Role of Faith
A. Faith as a Gift
Those who are described as "believers" are only able to believe because God has regenerated them and given them faith (Eph. 2.8-9). Thus, all the scriptures describing God’s elect with terms relating to pistis merely reaffirm the regeneration that God has effected in them.
B. Faith Contrasted with Works
If the Arminian view were correct, it would be possible to construe exercising faith as a work meriting salvation. Since scripture excludes salvation by works categorically, such a view of faith is excluded as well. If this were not the case, then those who responded in faith would have something to boast in as compared with others who did not, and this is prohibited by God (Rom. 3.27).
C. Grace as Irresistible (I)
Since God is sovereign, His plan of salvation must be accomplished without fail. Therefore, when He regenerates those whom He has elected and calls them to salvation, they will be irresistibly drawn to His grace and will inevitably come to saving faith and justification.
IV. The Order of Salvation
The Reformed point of view requires a different understanding of the order of salvation. The order is: regeneration, effectual calling, conversion (repentance and faith), and justification.
A. Human inability
Because of the total depravity of man, human beings are utterly unable to please God in themselves, or even to reach out to God for help. God therefore does not require faith on the part of the unregenerate person, because that person is completely unable to exercise saving faith.
B. Regeneration necessary to faith and repentance
Since the unregenerate person cannot exercise faith, God must first regenerate the person, who will then necessarily and unfailingly exercise faith and repentance. Hence, regeneration is prior to conversion.
C. Necessary separation of regeneration and justification
Since regeneration is logically prior to conversion, and conversion is necessary to justification there is in the Calvinist system a necessary separation between regeneration and justification. The Calvinist order of salvation is thus: election, regeneration, conversion, justification.
V. The Role of Election
A. Unconditional election required by God’s sovereignty (U)
God is sovereign over all things; therefore, His will is not contingent upon anything else. Therefore, when the Bible describes the election of believers, it must be unconditional--conditioned, that is, solely upon the sovereign, unchangeable will of God.
1. Reformed understanding of foreknowledge
An unconditional election raises the question of why the Bible specifically relates election to foreknowledge, since foreseen merit or foreseen faith are excluded as criteria for salvation. Calvinism sees "foreknow" as meaning "forelove" (to "know" being an intimate form of knowledge; cf. Gen. 4.1); therefore, it was those whom God "foreloved" that he predestined.
B. Unconditional election necessary for assurance
If salvation is in any sense synergistic, then part of one’s salvation is contingent upon maintaining the proper human response. Scriptures relating assurance to election would therefore be meaningless unless election were unconditional. If salvation is all of God, then assurance of security is also all of God.
VI. Perseverance (P)
A. A corollary to unconditional election and irresistible grace
If election is unconditional and grace is given irresistibly, then it follows that the elect person cannot ever fall out of grace. If it is God’s will that someone will be saved, then that person will be saved and will never lose that salvation. This does not negate the possibility that a person who is elect and regenerated can fall into grievous sin temporarily, or that a person who outwardly appears to be a true believer may in fact demonstrate that he is not by falling away and rejecting the faith entirely.
B. The promise of perseverance
In addition to the above logical requirement of perseverance, scripture also promises that believers will in fact persevere to the end: e.g., Romans 8.17, 38-39; Ephesians 1.13-14; Philippians 1.6.
The Arminian Response to Calvinistic Objections
I. The Justice of God
A. Relationship to mercy
Although mercy must be predicated upon justice--one must be adjudged guilty of a sin before one may be forgiven for it--that does not mean that mercy is less important, or less extensively offered. To the Calvinist’s contention that God is not required to save anyone, it may be responded that it is in God’s merciful nature, as revealed by the scriptures, to offer salvation to human beings. The question is not, "What is God obligated to do"; it is rather, "What is it in God’s nature to do?" The Arminian believer holds that it is in God’s nature to reach out in love and save.
B. Desires that God does not act upon
Although it is contended that God’s desire for all to be saved is simply one He does not act upon, one must ask why He does not act upon it. The scriptures that deal with this matter are uniform in their answer: it is because the wicked person refuses to repent (e.g., Ezek. 33.17-19; 2 Pet. 3.9). Not one scripture suggests that God ever refuses to offer grace to anyone, which is why election’s negative corollary--reprobation--cannot find scriptural support and is why even most Calvinists attempt to repudiate or modify it.
II. The Scope and Sufficiency of the Atonement
A. Atonement limited by election, based on God’s sovereignty
The fact that God is sovereign does not in itself negate the possibility of human freedom. God may in fact will that a portion of His creation have some genuine autonomy. Suggesting that God’s sovereignty precludes any human autonomy does not enhance, but actually diminishes His omnipotence; is God not free to create agents of free moral choice? Scripture seems to be clear that God accomplishes His will despite human freedom and sinfulness, not by negating it. Therefore, it is at least theoretically possible --it is consistent with God’s sovereignty--to hold that God sovereignly chooses to make salvation contingent upon some aspect of human freedom; specifically, the free choice to respond to the call of the gospel.
Moreover, the Reformed point of view runs into problems by acknowledging a universal (or general) call to repentance and faith (see III. C.) and yet asserting that atonement is limited to the elect. Calvinists usually respond to this point by arguing that only those to whom God gives irresistible grace and faith are able to believe or have any desire to do so; i.e., God is not offering anything that the unregenerate person wants, so there can be no possibility that anyone could actually desire to be saved without provision having been made for that person’s salvation. Granted that this point of view is consistent within the Calvinistic scheme, it ignores the fact that, by making a general call to salvation, God is (in the Reformed view) construed as offering something for which He has not made provision--in fact, for which He has expressly refused to make provision--namely, salvation for the non-elect. The fact that none will accept the offer is immaterial to the fact that God is here represented as making an offer which is not in good faith.
B. Total depravity and the rightness of justice
Although the Bible makes clear the depravity of man, in that everyone without exception falls short of the glory of God and has no innate desire to live a life worthy of God, the scriptures involving depravity never state that human beings are unable to respond to the Gospel in faith; rather, the reverse is everywhere assumed (e.g., Rom. 10.12-15). The Gospel itself "is the power of God for salvation" (Rom. 1.16).
III. The Role of Faith
A. Faith as a Gift
All evangelicals are committed to the propositions that one must believe in Jesus to be saved; that those who have been saved are described as having been chosen by God; and that faith is a gift. Nevertheless, the call to exercise faith is always put in the imperative. Faith is not something that one inevitably exercises if one has it, else it would be pointless to be called upon to believe, and to put one’s faith in God. It must be reemphasized that faith and the action of believing are the most frequent ways in which Scripture identifies God’s people.
By contrast, such terms as "the chosen [elect]," which might lead the reader to view the saved as passive recipients of mercy, appear comparatively rarely in connection with the NT people of God (eklektoV is used 23 times in the NT; of these, four refer either to Christ or to angels and three occur as a parallel passage with another three, leaving only sixteen distinct references referring to individuals, groups, or the church as a whole being described as "chosen" or "elect"). This is not to say that these references can be ignored simply because they are comparatively few in number, but they should not be built into an interpretive grid through which the rest of the Biblical witness must be viewed.
B. Faith as opposed to works
Scripture is clear that faith is not only not a meritorious work but is opposed to works "For by grace are you saved through faith--and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2.8). The capacity to believe is given by God; but the requirement to exercise that faith with respect to Christ, as above, is a commandment given to us. Scripture simply never considers exercising such faith a work, still less a "work of the Law" (Gal. 3.2; i.e., Torah observance) which is what Scripture seems most at pains to oppose. With regard to the issue of boasting, it is related in scripture specifically to the issue of works as explicitly contrasted with faith. Since faith is merely a response to a free offer from God, it is never in any sense considered a ground for boasting.
C. Grace as Irresistible
Most of the scriptures that Calvinists point use to demonstrate the call of God to saving grace as inevitably effectual actually refer in the past tense to believers having been called by God (e.g., 1 Cor. 1.9; Rom. 1.7; 1 Cor. 1.26; Eph. 1.18; Phil. 3.14; 2 Tim. 1.9; Heb. 3.1). Of course, if the group being described as having been called is comprised of believers, then of course, the call was effectual in their case; these scriptures, however, do not have any bearing on whether there are others who were called and did not respond in faith. Just because believers are described as "called" by God doesn’t mean that God didn’t call others. In fact, other scriptures explicitly describe the Lord calling all to salvation (e.g., Matt. 11.28; Isa. 45.22; Matt. 22.14), and the Reformed view is forced to distinguish between a "general" call and an "effectual" call. There are a number of passages in which people are clearly represented as resisting God’s grace (e.g., Acts 7.51; Matt. 23.37; Jer. 3.19-20)--indeed it makes a great deal of sense to view the entirety of the historical sections of the Bible as one long record of people resisting grace offered by God.
IV. The Order of Salvation
A. Human Inability
It is stipulated that unregenerate persons are unable to do anything to please God, merit salvation, or even come to the Lord without God first drawing them (Jn. 6.44, 65). Yet Jesus announces his intention to "draw all men" to himself (Jn. 12.32). Although unredeemed humanity is pictured in scripture as being spiritually dead and blind, completely unable to come to the Lord, there is no indication in scripture that those who are actually confronted with the Gospel are unable to receive it. The Gospel itself is viewed in the New Testament as bringing with it the power of salvation (e.g., Rom. 1.16, 10.14-15; Eph. 1.13; 2 Tim. 1.10). Although Arminians have historically appealed to "prevenient grace" as enabling all persons everywhere to be able to believe, it must be admitted that this concept finds little support in scripture. A better means of understanding God’s work in enabling people to believe would be to view the Gospel itself as being invested with the power to respond with saving faith.
B. Regeneration necessary to faith and repentance
If the power to respond to the Gospel lies in the Gospel itself, rather than in regeneration, then it is not necessary to suppose that God regenerates a person who is not yet converted or justified. No passage of scripture states that conversion is subsequent to regeneration; however, there are scriptures that place conversion at the entrance to salvation (e.g., Acts 2.38, 10.43, 16.31).
C. Necessary separation of regeneration and justification
As explained above, there is no clear scriptural reason to separate regeneration and justification, other than the necessity in Reformed theology of postulating regeneration before conversion and justification after. Once that necessity is obviated, one may see regeneration and justification as simply two metaphors for expressing the same spiritual change. This is the most natural reading of the scripture.
V. The Role of Election
A. Unconditional election required by God’s sovereignty
Since God is sovereign, the criteria of election must be sovereignly determined by Him, and the sole criterion he has established is faith in Christ. However, to suppose that God’s sovereignty prevents Him from allowing humans to make a free response to the gospel diminishes His sovereignty, rather than supporting it. God is able to make creatures that exercise free will; God is able to enable them to respond to the Gospel even if they are dead in sin; God is able to elect them based on their response to the Gospel. None of this is precluded by God’s sovereignty; in fact, if any of them are precluded, the result is to diminish God’s sovereignty.
Reformed understanding of foreknowledge
The understanding of proginosko as meaning "forelove" rather than "foreknow" must be understood as a desperate expedient to avoid the clear implication of scripture that election is based on foreknowledge. The usual passage referred to in defense of this interpretation is Genesis 4.1, in which Adam "knew" his wife; i.e., had sexual relations with her. However, the fact that "know" is used biblically as a euphemism for sexual intercourse does not mean that "know" in general can have the meaning of "love," much less that "foreknow" can have the meaning of "forelove." At any rate, if God "foreloves" certain people, He must have already chosen--elected--them for such "foreloving." Yet the scripture makes clear that God’s election is based on His foreknowledge, not the reverse.
B. Unconditional election necessary for assurance
The fact that the doctrine of unconditional election provides assurance of salvation (for those who know themselves to be elect) does not make it true. If anything, it suggests an ulterior motive (beyond the testimony of scripture and reason) for those who hold that doctrine. We must hold a doctrine because Scripture clearly supports it, not because it produces a result that we like.
VI. The Necessity of Personal Perseverance
A. A corollary of unconditional election and irresistible grace
It seems logical that if election is unconditional and grace is irresistible, then perseverance is a necessary corollary. However, since the Arminian position views personal election as conditioned upon the response of faith and views grace as resistible, it is not committed to perseverance as a doctrine.
B. The promise of perseverance
Scriptures dealing with assurance, including those relating it to election, are there to give comfort to sincere believers that despite external pressures and persecutions, they will be enabled to remain in a faith relationship by the power of God. These scriptures, however, do not give assurance that the believer will never fall away; indeed, many scriptures warn against precisely that possibility. We can be assured that we will always be enabled to believe and thus never need lose our salvation; we are not assured that once we’ve been saved, we will never fall away.
Further Considerations: Overall perspectives of the rival systems
The areas in which the two systems are most clearly divergent are two. Calvinism views God primarily in His aspect of justice, and views the human will as essentially passive or mechanical--the sum total of all a person’s desires. It is therefore basically deterministic. Arminianism views God primarily in His aspect of mercy, and views the human will as essentially active and determinative. Apart from the pressures of a person’s various desires is something that retains the power of individual choice. This faculty, the will, is enabled by the reception of the Gospel to respond in faith and to receive salvation. The will is also able to reject faith after salvation, despite the fact that God will not allow any circumstances to take our faith from us. Although it would satisfy justice for God to select from the mass of sinful and condemned humanity a small number (Matt. 7.14) to save, and to abandon the rest to their deserved fate without hope, it does not seem in the character of God to so selectively and parsimoniously mete out mercy to the fortunate few. It seems much more in the character of God to offer mercy generously to all, even though we are sinful, rebellious, and rightfully condemned, and to give us the enablement to respond to His offer of grace freely offered.
That's it. Of course, this paper is meant merely as an overview of the issues involved. A great deal of exegetical work on the passages which impact divine election is necessary to reach a serious conclusion.
Of course, I might be wrong about all of this, in which case the reason why I am not a Calvinist is much simpler:
God evidently predestined me to be an Arminian.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Why I Am Not a Calvinist (with apologies to Bertrand Russell) Part 1
UPDATE: trying to fix the code. No new content.
The following paper is meant to be an overview of what I believe with regard to the doctrine of Divine election. The first half, contained in this post, will explain why Arminianism--the rejection of unconditional divine election of specific individuals to salvation--is so often defended only in reaction to the Calvinist position, and will attempt to make a positive, Biblical case for Arminianism, without specific reference to the Calvinist position. The second half of the paper will discuss the Calvinist critique of Arminianism and attempt to respond to that critique from the Arminian point of view. The paper as a whole is merely intended to be an overview, not an exhaustive examination of the issues that surround divine election; a close exegetical study of the Biblical passages that bear upon divine election is necessary to decide upon one position or another.
I should note that I consider the whole controversy something that should be a friendly debate among fellow believers, not a test of orthodoxy.
Introduction: Against Reaction to Calvinism
I. Since the Reformation, what has come to be known as "Calvinism" or Reformed theology has been the fundamental interpretive grid through which the doctrine of election has been historically understood by Protestants. This is to say that the Reformers established a dominant Protestant tradition upholding some form of unconditional divine election of specific individuals to salvation (largely by contrast to the medieval Roman Catholic position). Those that differed from this position, notably Jacobus Arminius, John Wesley, and the traditions that arose from them, did so largely in reaction to a prior Reformed tradition. (For convenience’ sake, this paper will use the terms "Calvinism" and "Reformed" in reference to all Protestant traditions, including Lutheran, that espouse unconditional, particular election to salvation, and Wesleyan and Arminian interchangeably in reference to all Protestant traditions that reject unconditional, particular election.)
II. The result of this is that even today, advocates of an Arminian position find themselves generally arguing defensively--that is to say, attempting to refute established Calvinistic doctrines rather than developing a positive case for an alternative point of view. This is seen most clearly in defenses of the Arminian position that are cast (as rebuttals) within the framework of the "five points" of Calvinism. A number of reasons for the continuing of this situation exist:
[1] This "naive Arminianism" in itself is neither an argument for or against Arminianism: one could argue that the average Christian hasn’t studied the Bible closely enough to recognize the implication of passages dealing with election, or one could argue that Calvinism is a system of interpretation not naturally arising from Scripture but imposed upon it. What the present writer is concerned with here is the practical implication of "natural Arminianism" that Arminianism tends to be taught only in reaction to Calvinism, as opposed to being taught on its own.
The Positive Case for Arminianism
I. The Mercy of God
Arminianism is based in the first instance on an expansive understanding of God’s mercy.
A. Favorably compared with His justice
Throughout Scripture, the theme of the Lord’s mercy is prominent, if not preeminent. Where it is contextually related to the Lord’s justice, it is always treated as more fundamental to God’s character. The seminal scripture in this regard would be Exodus 34.6-7:
The atonement itself is in many ways a triumph of mercy over justice--compelled by His own nature to remain just, God nonetheless finds a way to extend mercy to those who justly deserve death, even at the cost of His own Son (Rom. 4.25). This is not to say that God is not ultimately just, or that His mercy somehow obviates His justice; it is merely to state that where the scriptures bring these two attributes together, mercy is always magnified over justice. It would thus seem to be unbiblical to regard God’s mercy as somehow restricted as compared with His justice.
B. Desire for none to perish/love expressed universally
Scripture notably records God’s desire to see the wicked--spoken of inclusively; i.e., all the wicked--come to salvation: "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live" (Ezek. 33.11; cf. 3.18-19, 13.22); "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3.9); God "wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2.4). The object of His love is also seen expansively: "For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son . . . For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him should live" (Jn. 3.16-17). The scope of God’s mercy breaks out of the apparent "covenant community" even in the OT; most clearly in Jonah: "Ninevah has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?" (Jon. 4.11). One of clearest and most important doctrines in the NT is the expansion of the covenant people to include those who have been previously excluded; and many references to this expansion read as though it is to encompass potentially everyone (e.g., John 1:7 and scriptures included under heading II).
II. The Scope and Sufficiency of the Atonement
Arminians believe that Jesus’ sacrificial death is sufficient and applicable through faith to all the sins committed by all people in the world.
A. Scriptural indications of atonement for "all people" or "the whole world"
The scope of the atonement is repeatedly cast in inclusive terms: "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world" (1 Jn. 2.2); "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men" (Rom. 5.18); "May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me" (John 17.21).
B. Basis for general atonement in the imago dei
Although all people are alike under just condemnation and deserving of death, and although God is not under obligation to save anyone, it is nonetheless true that there is something worthy of redeeming in fallen man; namely, the image of God (Gen. 1.18, 5.1, 9.2; James 3.9). The Genesis 9 and James passages make it abundantly clear that the image has not been lost or destroyed since the Fall, and that it is the possession of the unbeliever as well as the believer. It is often said that the image has been "distorted" or "damaged" by the Fall, but nothing in the scripture says this. Due to human sinfulness, the image is being constantly misused--in C.S. Lewis’s words, every sin is an act of sacrilege--but it nonetheless provides a ground for God’s love for sinful human beings. Moreover, it provides a ground for all human beings to become objects of God’s mercy.
III. The Requirement of Faith
Although Christ’s death is sufficient to atone for all sins, God requires faith on the part of the sinner in order to apply Christ’s atonement to individual sin and thus to save people from damnation.
A. Defining characteristic of redeemed
By far, Christians in the NT are more often identified as "believers" or "those who believe" than with any other term (e.g. John 1.12; 8.31, 11.25-26, 12.44, 46, 14.12, 17.20; Acts 2.44, 4.32, 5.14, 11.17, 15.5; Rom. 3.22, 26, 4.11, 24; 1 Cor. 1.21, 14.22; Gal. 3.7, 9; Eph. 1.19; 1 Thes. 1.7, 2.10, 13; 2 Thes. 1.10; 1 Pet. 2.6-7; 1 Jn. 5.1, 5). The term that is most often used to describe the action of a person coming to salvation in Christ is that such a person "believed" (John 2.11, 23, 4.39, 41, 53, 7.31, 8.30, 10.42, 12.11; Acts 4.4, 8.12, 13, 9.42, 11.21, 13.12, 14.1, 17.12, 34, 18.8). Pistis is recognized as a criterion for inclusion in the covenant people and even as a requirement for salvation: "Everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness in his name " (Acts 10.43); "Through him everyone who believes is justified" (Acts 13.39); "Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 16.31); the Gospel is "the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes" (Rom. 1.16). The salvation message continually calls upon the unsaved to "believe" (John 11.15, 20.31). Faith is regarded as instrumental to the salvation process (Luke 7.50, 18.42; Acts 14.27, 15.9; Rom. 3.25, 5.1-2, 9.30). The reason for such an expansive (though not nearly exhaustive) tabulation of the use of pistiV and pisteuw in relation to salvation is to document the clear and consistent identification that the scriptures make between the action of trusting in Christ and the state of being saved; it is much more frequently encountered than the identification made between God’s action of electing people and the state of being saved. The clear implication of such passages is to see faith as 1) possible for all who are confronted with the gospel; and 2) the defining characteristic of the covenant community.
IV. The Order of Salvation
Differences in understanding God’s election of believers leads to differences in understanding the logical order of events by which salvation takes place. In discussing this order, it is important to understand that the terms by which salvation is described refer primarily to aspects of salvation, and not, unless scripture warrants, successive links in a process.
A. Conversion as repentance and faith
What is known as conversion is generally understood to refer to the composite subjective action involving separately repentance--i.e., turning from sin--and faith--i.e., turning toward God. These actions are not sequential, either temporally or logically; they are simultaneous and in fact refer to the same subjective change viewed from different points of view.
B. Regeneration and Justification
Both regeneration and justification refer to objective changes in the being and status of the Christian. Regeneration refers to the "new birth," the change in nature from death to new life (e.g., John 3.3, 7, 8; 1 Jn. 2.29, 3.9, 4.7, 5.1, 4, 18; 1 Pet. 1.23). The term appears to be a Johannine coinage, picked up infrequently elsewhere, although the concept appears in different form in Paul (e.g. 2 Cor. 5.17). Justification refers to the legal status of the Christian, the change from guilt to righteousness before God, and appears to be a Pauline concept (e.g., Rom. 3.24, 26, 28, 30, 5.1, 8.30, 33; 1 Cor. 6.11; Gal. 2.16-17, 3.8, 24; 1 Tim. 3.16; Tit. 3.7). No scripture clearly relates these two concepts, much less makes one contingent upon the other. The most reasonable assumption to be made is that they refer to the same fundamental spiritual change, viewed from two conceptual frameworks: ontological (regeneration) and legal/moral (justification).
C. Biblically relating conversion to regeneration and justification
Although the above groups of terms cannot be related temporally or causally to one another within each group, scripture does relate one group causally to the other. Specifically, conversion--viewed either as repentance or faith or both--is viewed as the means of apprehending regeneration/justification: "Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’" (Acts 2.38); "They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household’" (Acts 16.31). This pattern is confirmed by formulae that identify those who believe with those whose sins are forgiven in such a manner as to suggest some kind of causal relationship between the two: "All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name" (Acts 10.43). Thus, although the ultimate cause of salvation is God’s grace through the sacrifice of Jesus, the immediate cause of that salvation being applied to the individual is that individual’s repentance from sin and faith toward God. Therefore, conversion is logically prior to regeneration and justification.
V. The Role of Election
An emphasis on the expansiveness of God’s mercy, on the sufficiency of the atonement to cover the sins of everyone, and on the necessity of faith on the part of the unregenerate would seem to obviate the biblical witness to the doctrine of divine election. This has historically been the basic criticism of Arminianism. However, when viewed in its biblical context, the doctrine of election is properly understood not to conflict with the above premises.
A. Its relationship to assurance for the believer
It is first necessary to place divine election in the context of providing assurance for the believer. Romans 8.30, in which the salvation process is described as a chain of divine acts leading from predestination to glorification, occurs as part of a ground statement supporting the assertion in v. 28 that "in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose," which itself supports the promises in vv. 18-27 of future glory and the Spirit’s assistance in our weaknesses. Similarly Paul, in Ephesians 1.11, asserts election and predestination only to follow the train of thought out to the "guarantee" of "our inheritance" in v. 14. The basic point in these passages would seem to be that even as God has chosen us, so also he will keep us until the end. The issue of assurance, in turn, mainly addresses itself to those facing the possibility of persecution: the promise is that God will enable them to endure to the end whatever sufferings he permits.
B. Relationship of foreknowledge to predestination
The foregoing discussion of election has not addressed the issue of the criteria of election: on what basis does God predestine those whom he does? Romans 8.29 asserts that "those God foreknew he also predestined," while Ephesians 1.12 identifies the "we" who were chosen and predestined in v. 11 as those "who were the first to hope in Christ." In neither case is a causal relationship made from predestination to foreknowledge or to hoping in Christ, but rather, the reverse (especially clear in the Romans passage): predestination is based on foreknowledge, and those who are foreknown are those who hope in Christ. Although Romans 8.29 does not make clear what it is that God foreknows about us that leads to our predestination, Ephesians 1.12 and the preponderance of scriptures indicating the requirement and necessity of faith for salvation indicates that what God foreknows about those whom he predestines is that they will come to faith in Christ. Faith in Christ, thus, appears biblically to be the criterion by which God elects to salvation; in fact, the substance of God’s election would seem to be sovereignly choosing faith in Christ’s atoning sacrifice, as opposed to any other criterion of merit, as the criterion for salvation (1 Cor. 1.20-21).
VI. The Necessity of Personal Perseverance
Although the above scriptures give us assurance in Christ, other scriptures make clear that it is also our own responsibility to avoid sin and to remain in a faith relationship with Christ. The alternative to doing so is often explicitly stated as not being saved.
A. Remaining in a faith relationship
The preeminent standard for the assurance of our salvation is to remain in a faith relationship with Christ. Jesus illustrates this clearly in his analogy of the vine and the branches:
Similar arguments may be made about the planting and initial growth of the seed in rocky and thorny ground, Luke 8; and also about Hebrews 6.4-8, 10.26-31, 35-39, and 12.25; Ezekiel 18.24; Matt. 18.21-35 and many other passages. In each case, on the hypothesis of eternal security, the person spoken of as having fallen away must either be supposed never to have believed truly, or the situation must be thought of as hypothetical, a warning against a situation that never actually obtains. In each case, there is a complete lack of textual warrant for such an understanding. In addition, we must also recognize direct imperatives to perseverance such as Galatians 6.9, Ephesians 6.10-18, Jude 21, and Hebrews 10.36. Whatever enablement we may suppose God has granted us by virtue of our salvation, it is still we who are being called upon to persevere ourselves.
B. Works as evidence, although not ground, of salvation
Scripture makes very clear that the ground of salvation is God’s grace through faith in Jesus, and is not human works in any sense (Rom. 3.21-4.25, Gal. 3.1-14). However, it is equally clear that salvation should result in a changed life, and therefore be evidenced by works of righteousness. Although this is most clearly stated in James 2.14-26, suggesting to some a basic conflict between the theologies of James and Paul, one sees in Paul an equally serious concern for the ethical ramifications of salvation, e.g. Romans chs. 12-15; Galatians 5.16-6.10; Ephesians chs. 4-6; Colossians 3.1-4.6, etc. The clear implication of this is that if there is no moral-ethical-behavioral change on the part of one claiming to have received salvation, there is no reason to believe that such a person is saved.
Next: a discussion of the Calvinist critique of Arminianism and an attempt to respond to that critique from the Arminian point of view.
The following paper is meant to be an overview of what I believe with regard to the doctrine of Divine election. The first half, contained in this post, will explain why Arminianism--the rejection of unconditional divine election of specific individuals to salvation--is so often defended only in reaction to the Calvinist position, and will attempt to make a positive, Biblical case for Arminianism, without specific reference to the Calvinist position. The second half of the paper will discuss the Calvinist critique of Arminianism and attempt to respond to that critique from the Arminian point of view. The paper as a whole is merely intended to be an overview, not an exhaustive examination of the issues that surround divine election; a close exegetical study of the Biblical passages that bear upon divine election is necessary to decide upon one position or another.
I should note that I consider the whole controversy something that should be a friendly debate among fellow believers, not a test of orthodoxy.
Introduction: Against Reaction to Calvinism
I. Since the Reformation, what has come to be known as "Calvinism" or Reformed theology has been the fundamental interpretive grid through which the doctrine of election has been historically understood by Protestants. This is to say that the Reformers established a dominant Protestant tradition upholding some form of unconditional divine election of specific individuals to salvation (largely by contrast to the medieval Roman Catholic position). Those that differed from this position, notably Jacobus Arminius, John Wesley, and the traditions that arose from them, did so largely in reaction to a prior Reformed tradition. (For convenience’ sake, this paper will use the terms "Calvinism" and "Reformed" in reference to all Protestant traditions, including Lutheran, that espouse unconditional, particular election to salvation, and Wesleyan and Arminian interchangeably in reference to all Protestant traditions that reject unconditional, particular election.)
II. The result of this is that even today, advocates of an Arminian position find themselves generally arguing defensively--that is to say, attempting to refute established Calvinistic doctrines rather than developing a positive case for an alternative point of view. This is seen most clearly in defenses of the Arminian position that are cast (as rebuttals) within the framework of the "five points" of Calvinism. A number of reasons for the continuing of this situation exist:
- For most people who haven’t been specifically taught unconditional, particular election, the possibility of anyone coming to faith through the gospel seems to be the natural understanding of scripture.[1] Therefore, most people never bother to defend Arminianism except when confronting a specific Calvinistic challenge; and so they end up doing so reactively, rather than proactively.
- Arminians would hold that their position is an assumption which undergirds scripture (just as the Bible doesn’t defend God’s existence but rather everywhere assumes it) rather than a doctrine to be proven by explicit scriptural statement.
- For the above reasons and because of the historical prominence of this question within Reformation debate, the issue of election rises to a greater importance for the Calvinist than for the Arminian. The "five points" are taught within the Reformed tradition, whereas the possibility of anyone who hears the gospel coming to saving faith is simply a working assumption within the Wesleyan tradition.
- Some of the foundations of such a case will be common to both Calvinistic and Arminian understandings of scripture--so to assert something as essential to the Arminian position is not necessarily to deny that Calvinists may agree; and
- Since the immediate point is to build a positive case for Arminianism without reference to Calvinism, some Arminian assertions to which Calvinists have historically responded will need to be laid down without immediate engagement with Reformed criticism. A later section of the paper will be devoted to the Reformed critique of Arminian assertions and to the Arminian response.
[1] This "naive Arminianism" in itself is neither an argument for or against Arminianism: one could argue that the average Christian hasn’t studied the Bible closely enough to recognize the implication of passages dealing with election, or one could argue that Calvinism is a system of interpretation not naturally arising from Scripture but imposed upon it. What the present writer is concerned with here is the practical implication of "natural Arminianism" that Arminianism tends to be taught only in reaction to Calvinism, as opposed to being taught on its own.
The Positive Case for Arminianism
I. The Mercy of God
Arminianism is based in the first instance on an expansive understanding of God’s mercy.
A. Favorably compared with His justice
Throughout Scripture, the theme of the Lord’s mercy is prominent, if not preeminent. Where it is contextually related to the Lord’s justice, it is always treated as more fundamental to God’s character. The seminal scripture in this regard would be Exodus 34.6-7:
The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands [or, "a thousand generations," cf. Ex. 20.6], and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.It is difficult to imagine that a comparison of attributes is not intentional. First and overwhelmingly, God identifies Himself with those attributes that stress His mercy, and only subsequently identifies Himself in terms of justice. In contrast to the "third and fourth generation" to which He punishes sin, He stipulates "a thousand" whom He forgives.
The atonement itself is in many ways a triumph of mercy over justice--compelled by His own nature to remain just, God nonetheless finds a way to extend mercy to those who justly deserve death, even at the cost of His own Son (Rom. 4.25). This is not to say that God is not ultimately just, or that His mercy somehow obviates His justice; it is merely to state that where the scriptures bring these two attributes together, mercy is always magnified over justice. It would thus seem to be unbiblical to regard God’s mercy as somehow restricted as compared with His justice.
B. Desire for none to perish/love expressed universally
Scripture notably records God’s desire to see the wicked--spoken of inclusively; i.e., all the wicked--come to salvation: "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live" (Ezek. 33.11; cf. 3.18-19, 13.22); "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3.9); God "wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2.4). The object of His love is also seen expansively: "For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son . . . For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him should live" (Jn. 3.16-17). The scope of God’s mercy breaks out of the apparent "covenant community" even in the OT; most clearly in Jonah: "Ninevah has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?" (Jon. 4.11). One of clearest and most important doctrines in the NT is the expansion of the covenant people to include those who have been previously excluded; and many references to this expansion read as though it is to encompass potentially everyone (e.g., John 1:7 and scriptures included under heading II).
II. The Scope and Sufficiency of the Atonement
Arminians believe that Jesus’ sacrificial death is sufficient and applicable through faith to all the sins committed by all people in the world.
A. Scriptural indications of atonement for "all people" or "the whole world"
The scope of the atonement is repeatedly cast in inclusive terms: "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world" (1 Jn. 2.2); "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men" (Rom. 5.18); "May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me" (John 17.21).
B. Basis for general atonement in the imago dei
Although all people are alike under just condemnation and deserving of death, and although God is not under obligation to save anyone, it is nonetheless true that there is something worthy of redeeming in fallen man; namely, the image of God (Gen. 1.18, 5.1, 9.2; James 3.9). The Genesis 9 and James passages make it abundantly clear that the image has not been lost or destroyed since the Fall, and that it is the possession of the unbeliever as well as the believer. It is often said that the image has been "distorted" or "damaged" by the Fall, but nothing in the scripture says this. Due to human sinfulness, the image is being constantly misused--in C.S. Lewis’s words, every sin is an act of sacrilege--but it nonetheless provides a ground for God’s love for sinful human beings. Moreover, it provides a ground for all human beings to become objects of God’s mercy.
III. The Requirement of Faith
Although Christ’s death is sufficient to atone for all sins, God requires faith on the part of the sinner in order to apply Christ’s atonement to individual sin and thus to save people from damnation.
A. Defining characteristic of redeemed
By far, Christians in the NT are more often identified as "believers" or "those who believe" than with any other term (e.g. John 1.12; 8.31, 11.25-26, 12.44, 46, 14.12, 17.20; Acts 2.44, 4.32, 5.14, 11.17, 15.5; Rom. 3.22, 26, 4.11, 24; 1 Cor. 1.21, 14.22; Gal. 3.7, 9; Eph. 1.19; 1 Thes. 1.7, 2.10, 13; 2 Thes. 1.10; 1 Pet. 2.6-7; 1 Jn. 5.1, 5). The term that is most often used to describe the action of a person coming to salvation in Christ is that such a person "believed" (John 2.11, 23, 4.39, 41, 53, 7.31, 8.30, 10.42, 12.11; Acts 4.4, 8.12, 13, 9.42, 11.21, 13.12, 14.1, 17.12, 34, 18.8). Pistis is recognized as a criterion for inclusion in the covenant people and even as a requirement for salvation: "Everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness in his name " (Acts 10.43); "Through him everyone who believes is justified" (Acts 13.39); "Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 16.31); the Gospel is "the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes" (Rom. 1.16). The salvation message continually calls upon the unsaved to "believe" (John 11.15, 20.31). Faith is regarded as instrumental to the salvation process (Luke 7.50, 18.42; Acts 14.27, 15.9; Rom. 3.25, 5.1-2, 9.30). The reason for such an expansive (though not nearly exhaustive) tabulation of the use of pistiV and pisteuw in relation to salvation is to document the clear and consistent identification that the scriptures make between the action of trusting in Christ and the state of being saved; it is much more frequently encountered than the identification made between God’s action of electing people and the state of being saved. The clear implication of such passages is to see faith as 1) possible for all who are confronted with the gospel; and 2) the defining characteristic of the covenant community.
IV. The Order of Salvation
Differences in understanding God’s election of believers leads to differences in understanding the logical order of events by which salvation takes place. In discussing this order, it is important to understand that the terms by which salvation is described refer primarily to aspects of salvation, and not, unless scripture warrants, successive links in a process.
A. Conversion as repentance and faith
What is known as conversion is generally understood to refer to the composite subjective action involving separately repentance--i.e., turning from sin--and faith--i.e., turning toward God. These actions are not sequential, either temporally or logically; they are simultaneous and in fact refer to the same subjective change viewed from different points of view.
B. Regeneration and Justification
Both regeneration and justification refer to objective changes in the being and status of the Christian. Regeneration refers to the "new birth," the change in nature from death to new life (e.g., John 3.3, 7, 8; 1 Jn. 2.29, 3.9, 4.7, 5.1, 4, 18; 1 Pet. 1.23). The term appears to be a Johannine coinage, picked up infrequently elsewhere, although the concept appears in different form in Paul (e.g. 2 Cor. 5.17). Justification refers to the legal status of the Christian, the change from guilt to righteousness before God, and appears to be a Pauline concept (e.g., Rom. 3.24, 26, 28, 30, 5.1, 8.30, 33; 1 Cor. 6.11; Gal. 2.16-17, 3.8, 24; 1 Tim. 3.16; Tit. 3.7). No scripture clearly relates these two concepts, much less makes one contingent upon the other. The most reasonable assumption to be made is that they refer to the same fundamental spiritual change, viewed from two conceptual frameworks: ontological (regeneration) and legal/moral (justification).
C. Biblically relating conversion to regeneration and justification
Although the above groups of terms cannot be related temporally or causally to one another within each group, scripture does relate one group causally to the other. Specifically, conversion--viewed either as repentance or faith or both--is viewed as the means of apprehending regeneration/justification: "Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’" (Acts 2.38); "They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household’" (Acts 16.31). This pattern is confirmed by formulae that identify those who believe with those whose sins are forgiven in such a manner as to suggest some kind of causal relationship between the two: "All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name" (Acts 10.43). Thus, although the ultimate cause of salvation is God’s grace through the sacrifice of Jesus, the immediate cause of that salvation being applied to the individual is that individual’s repentance from sin and faith toward God. Therefore, conversion is logically prior to regeneration and justification.
V. The Role of Election
An emphasis on the expansiveness of God’s mercy, on the sufficiency of the atonement to cover the sins of everyone, and on the necessity of faith on the part of the unregenerate would seem to obviate the biblical witness to the doctrine of divine election. This has historically been the basic criticism of Arminianism. However, when viewed in its biblical context, the doctrine of election is properly understood not to conflict with the above premises.
A. Its relationship to assurance for the believer
It is first necessary to place divine election in the context of providing assurance for the believer. Romans 8.30, in which the salvation process is described as a chain of divine acts leading from predestination to glorification, occurs as part of a ground statement supporting the assertion in v. 28 that "in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose," which itself supports the promises in vv. 18-27 of future glory and the Spirit’s assistance in our weaknesses. Similarly Paul, in Ephesians 1.11, asserts election and predestination only to follow the train of thought out to the "guarantee" of "our inheritance" in v. 14. The basic point in these passages would seem to be that even as God has chosen us, so also he will keep us until the end. The issue of assurance, in turn, mainly addresses itself to those facing the possibility of persecution: the promise is that God will enable them to endure to the end whatever sufferings he permits.
B. Relationship of foreknowledge to predestination
The foregoing discussion of election has not addressed the issue of the criteria of election: on what basis does God predestine those whom he does? Romans 8.29 asserts that "those God foreknew he also predestined," while Ephesians 1.12 identifies the "we" who were chosen and predestined in v. 11 as those "who were the first to hope in Christ." In neither case is a causal relationship made from predestination to foreknowledge or to hoping in Christ, but rather, the reverse (especially clear in the Romans passage): predestination is based on foreknowledge, and those who are foreknown are those who hope in Christ. Although Romans 8.29 does not make clear what it is that God foreknows about us that leads to our predestination, Ephesians 1.12 and the preponderance of scriptures indicating the requirement and necessity of faith for salvation indicates that what God foreknows about those whom he predestines is that they will come to faith in Christ. Faith in Christ, thus, appears biblically to be the criterion by which God elects to salvation; in fact, the substance of God’s election would seem to be sovereignly choosing faith in Christ’s atoning sacrifice, as opposed to any other criterion of merit, as the criterion for salvation (1 Cor. 1.20-21).
VI. The Necessity of Personal Perseverance
Although the above scriptures give us assurance in Christ, other scriptures make clear that it is also our own responsibility to avoid sin and to remain in a faith relationship with Christ. The alternative to doing so is often explicitly stated as not being saved.
A. Remaining in a faith relationship
The preeminent standard for the assurance of our salvation is to remain in a faith relationship with Christ. Jesus illustrates this clearly in his analogy of the vine and the branches:
I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit . . . . If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. (John 15.5-6)Jesus clearly identifies his listeners as "branches," and the clear implication is that in order to bear fruit and not to wither and be thrown into the fire, one must "remain in" Jesus. The analogy inevitably implies that branches can fail to remain in Christ and that the result of such failure is eschatological destruction. If it is asserted that those who fail to persevere in Christ were never truly believers at all, then what is the point of talking about "remaining" in him? One cannot remain where one never was. Indeed, what is the point of talking about branches? The one who has never been redeemed can hardly be called a "branch" of Jesus, the vine. Even the branch that has fallen away is still called a branch, indicating that it once was "in" the vine. Defenders of eternal security at this point must be reduced to suggesting that Jesus is describing a null category: what would be the case if someone were to fall away, which in fact never occurs because of security in Christ.
Similar arguments may be made about the planting and initial growth of the seed in rocky and thorny ground, Luke 8; and also about Hebrews 6.4-8, 10.26-31, 35-39, and 12.25; Ezekiel 18.24; Matt. 18.21-35 and many other passages. In each case, on the hypothesis of eternal security, the person spoken of as having fallen away must either be supposed never to have believed truly, or the situation must be thought of as hypothetical, a warning against a situation that never actually obtains. In each case, there is a complete lack of textual warrant for such an understanding. In addition, we must also recognize direct imperatives to perseverance such as Galatians 6.9, Ephesians 6.10-18, Jude 21, and Hebrews 10.36. Whatever enablement we may suppose God has granted us by virtue of our salvation, it is still we who are being called upon to persevere ourselves.
B. Works as evidence, although not ground, of salvation
Scripture makes very clear that the ground of salvation is God’s grace through faith in Jesus, and is not human works in any sense (Rom. 3.21-4.25, Gal. 3.1-14). However, it is equally clear that salvation should result in a changed life, and therefore be evidenced by works of righteousness. Although this is most clearly stated in James 2.14-26, suggesting to some a basic conflict between the theologies of James and Paul, one sees in Paul an equally serious concern for the ethical ramifications of salvation, e.g. Romans chs. 12-15; Galatians 5.16-6.10; Ephesians chs. 4-6; Colossians 3.1-4.6, etc. The clear implication of this is that if there is no moral-ethical-behavioral change on the part of one claiming to have received salvation, there is no reason to believe that such a person is saved.
Next: a discussion of the Calvinist critique of Arminianism and an attempt to respond to that critique from the Arminian point of view.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
A Defense of Theological Discussion; or, What Exactly Is This Blog All About Again?
I'm a graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. The years that I spent there are among the most cherished of my life. I was one of a few Assemblies of God students in a school that was officially interdenominational Evangelical, but when you got there, was mostly Presbyterian. I got into plenty of debates with guys in my dorm over Reformed theology and a few over miraculous gifts, but it didn't matter. We argued like brothers and we parted as friends. We all had the sense that, even though we were from different denominations, we were still working together for a common goal.
It was a very good thing for me to be in that milieu. My background had been Wesleyan/Methodist in early life, and later on Charismatic/Pentecostal. Combining that background with a Reformed education helped me to get a much more well-rounded view of Evangelical Christianity. It was good for me to see that people from other traditions weren't "God's Frozen Chosen." It was good to see people who didn't agree with me in every doctrinal detail worship God with their whole hearts. Some of the best people I have known were students and teachers there. One of my favorite professors was a short, skinny guy who wore bow ties and had the sharpest wit of anyone I've ever known. He was a very hard-bitten Calvinist and cessationist (neither of which, you'll soon discover, am I) but I loved him and learned a great deal from him.
It was the camaraderie with the other students and the shared sense of discovery that I most enjoyed. We would debate theology with a common commitment to the authority of God's Word, which gave us a foundation for honing our own theological perspectives. I think that ever since, I've been trying to recreate something of that kind of experience. I've tried some newsgroups and mailing lists, but my experience has been that they mostly end up in flame wars between athiests and fundamentalists, or other similarly opposed points of view that have no common ground with which to frame a debate, and no sense of mutual respect for one another's point of view.
I've started up this blog partly as a venue to publish some of my own thoughts and papers on various theological and social topics that interest me, but also partly to provide a forum for discussion. It's fashionable these days to discount the value of theological debate. Why argue about fine points of doctrine when our real business is to win the lost? There is, in fact, a point where theological hair-splitting becomes counterproductive; my favorite example is that of Nestorius, who was excommunicated for a doctrinal error that he denied, maintaining that the orthodox view was his own. But it is also true that most of the foundational doctrines of the Church were hammered out, in the midst of persecution, by debate over various points of view that had to be rejected because they didn't fit the Biblical data. If theological debate was relevant then, when the church was struggling to survive, then I think it's relevant now. To me, the exercise of having to articulate what you believe in a specific area, and perhaps having to defend it to someone with a different point of view, is challenging and exciting. It keeps what I believe fresh and alive.
I'd like to invite other Evangelical Christians to participate in this blog in the "Comments" section. You will notice, if you do, that I've chosen to make this a moderated group. It's not because I'm a control freak, or because I can't handle opinions that differ from my own. It's because, as I wrote above, my experience with Net venues is that they deteriorate into very ugly arguments, and often get dominated by people who don't share the worldview or presuppositions of the main author. My presuppositions include the authority and inspiration of the Bible as the foundation of all theological belief; I'm not particularly interested in getting on the merry-go-round of trying to prove God's existence or the authoritativeness of the Bible. I'm much more interested in discussing the implications of those basic beliefs with those who share them.
So there you have it. Let's begin.....
It was a very good thing for me to be in that milieu. My background had been Wesleyan/Methodist in early life, and later on Charismatic/Pentecostal. Combining that background with a Reformed education helped me to get a much more well-rounded view of Evangelical Christianity. It was good for me to see that people from other traditions weren't "God's Frozen Chosen." It was good to see people who didn't agree with me in every doctrinal detail worship God with their whole hearts. Some of the best people I have known were students and teachers there. One of my favorite professors was a short, skinny guy who wore bow ties and had the sharpest wit of anyone I've ever known. He was a very hard-bitten Calvinist and cessationist (neither of which, you'll soon discover, am I) but I loved him and learned a great deal from him.
It was the camaraderie with the other students and the shared sense of discovery that I most enjoyed. We would debate theology with a common commitment to the authority of God's Word, which gave us a foundation for honing our own theological perspectives. I think that ever since, I've been trying to recreate something of that kind of experience. I've tried some newsgroups and mailing lists, but my experience has been that they mostly end up in flame wars between athiests and fundamentalists, or other similarly opposed points of view that have no common ground with which to frame a debate, and no sense of mutual respect for one another's point of view.
I've started up this blog partly as a venue to publish some of my own thoughts and papers on various theological and social topics that interest me, but also partly to provide a forum for discussion. It's fashionable these days to discount the value of theological debate. Why argue about fine points of doctrine when our real business is to win the lost? There is, in fact, a point where theological hair-splitting becomes counterproductive; my favorite example is that of Nestorius, who was excommunicated for a doctrinal error that he denied, maintaining that the orthodox view was his own. But it is also true that most of the foundational doctrines of the Church were hammered out, in the midst of persecution, by debate over various points of view that had to be rejected because they didn't fit the Biblical data. If theological debate was relevant then, when the church was struggling to survive, then I think it's relevant now. To me, the exercise of having to articulate what you believe in a specific area, and perhaps having to defend it to someone with a different point of view, is challenging and exciting. It keeps what I believe fresh and alive.
I'd like to invite other Evangelical Christians to participate in this blog in the "Comments" section. You will notice, if you do, that I've chosen to make this a moderated group. It's not because I'm a control freak, or because I can't handle opinions that differ from my own. It's because, as I wrote above, my experience with Net venues is that they deteriorate into very ugly arguments, and often get dominated by people who don't share the worldview or presuppositions of the main author. My presuppositions include the authority and inspiration of the Bible as the foundation of all theological belief; I'm not particularly interested in getting on the merry-go-round of trying to prove God's existence or the authoritativeness of the Bible. I'm much more interested in discussing the implications of those basic beliefs with those who share them.
So there you have it. Let's begin.....
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Entry the First: In Which Our Intrepid Author Explains Why He Started This Blog
Posting here, http://www.redoaksag.org/blog/comments.asp?id=167 Bob Mitton wrote:
Would you just hurry up and start your own blog? Your comments are longer than my posts!
Okay.
Would you just hurry up and start your own blog? Your comments are longer than my posts!
Okay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)