Unconditional Election – Martin's Mercurial Musings

Discordant Conclusions Drawn from the Bible

The truth is, I’m troubled by the discordant conclusions from well-meaning people in books, sermons and Bible studies. Everyone reads the same source material – the Bible. I’ve come to realize that my “faith-disconnects” aren’t, per se, with Calvin, Piper, MacArthur, Spurgeon, Sproul et al. Rather, these folks and countless others over thousands of years have wrestled with many questions and dilemmas that I’ve experienced. Many conclude and coalesce around Reformed Theology as being best able to explain and provide a framework to understand the nature and character of God and the world we live in. Others come to different conclusions.

That so many who study the Bible come to significantly different conclusions indicates (to me) that the Bible can be difficult to decipher. Perhaps this explains the various “camps” – denominations or other Christian entities which continually pop up.

The logic of Christian living makes sense, and I would certainly agree that my life has been more pleasant through Christian living. At least in my opinion, I find it somehow interesting that the teachings in Proverbs work just as well for non-Christians as Christians. Yet, what difference within an eternal scheme does it make? Through Calvinism’s Unconditional Election, I might be one of those on the ‘reprobate side and doomed to eternal separation from God because, well, God doesn’t want me. How can I know? Is faith validated through feelings or general agreement?

If there was the ability to accurately interpret the Bible, then does it not stand-to-reason that believers would derive the same (or at least very similar) conclusions regarding beliefs and doctrines. Christian faith, however, is replete with the error of false teaching and prophesy over thousands of years coupled with believers (prophetic or otherwise) claiming personal enlightenment. Is there such a thing as God speaking directly to individuals? I would agree that perhaps those like Moses in the OT.

Sadly, I have found it surprisingly easy to step back from Christian faith, in part, because:

It became apparent that my questions to clergy and lay people alike were viewed as liabilities. Few wished to ‘engage’ with me in discussion. Fewer still seemed willing to follow the logic.
Christianity almost felt like some kind of cult – or a country club and I wasn’t sure which was worse.
It seemed that I was the only one troubled by stories of violence, misogyny and genocide found within the Bible.
I tired of people telling me not to worry about my struggles because, “God’s ways are not our ways” and “God’s ways are higher than our ways.”
The concept of determinism, as viewed through Calvinism, is for me a focal point into theological upheaval within Christianity.
Fair-minded people arrive at significantly different conclusions as to the nature and character of God.
I thought it’d be possible to make sense of varying Christian doctrines i.e. Calvinism, Arminianism and Open Theism in particular through personal study and reflection. What I’ve discovered, though, is that there are multitudes of very smart and good-willed people on both sides putting forth persuasive arguments. And these competing doctrines cannot coexist.
The variance of Calvinist “theologians” including John Piper, John MacArthur, James White, RC Sproul, Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Jerry Bridges is completely at odds with “non-Calvinist” theologians including Dave Hunt, Roger Olson, Jerry Walls, and Greg Boyd. All of these individuals (and many more) have delved deep into the Bible and studied the history, culture and the languages. As I see it, there’s little agreement between the “Calvies” and “Armies.”
Lacking any linguistic, historical and cultural knowledge, I find it necessary to “trust” what others say. Yet, with such wide opinions from learned people, matters of faith devolve into little more than personal opinion. Facts are too often ill-defined and not at all agreed upon. Perhaps it’s best summed up as theology ain’t math or chemistry.

Events, personal experiences, my own study, observations and the reading of contrary opinions from different Christian authors has ultimately led to the crumbling of the foundation of my Christian faith. Where is the truth? John 8:32. And how can one know?

At this point, I have to wonder if I ever was a Christian? If Calvinism is correct, was I ‘elected’ from the foundations of the world? I’ve been told that the Doctrines of Grace are the center-point of the gospel and that my antipathy therein is indicative of a lack of salvation. Yes, I accepted Christ and understood salvation. But have I ever really known God? Throughout my life, I’m hard-pressed to see a personal or relatable God with any interest in me or, frankly, anyone on this earth. I can only conclude, therefore, that the beliefs espoused by well-meaning Christians, and myself as well, are in actuality little more than personal opinion. In conclusion, does significant variances amongst Christians make much difference? I’ve spent a lot of time going back and forth between various books including Why I Am not a Calvinist (Walls & Dongell) and Why I Am not an Arminian (Peterson & Williams) and find it terribly frustrating and confusing to see scriptural references understood in diametrically opposed perspectives. I definitely prefer non-Calvinist conclusions. Yet, just because one prefers a given perspective doesn’t make it right. And so, in the end, I’m left wondering and trying to ascertain the truth. I get that not everyone concerns themselves with such things. Maybe it’s just how I’m ‘wired’.

To Argue an Unwinnable Perspective

I have been a long time ‘lurker’ of the FB group, Soteriology 101 in which there is much discussion of “theological issues having to do with soteriology, the doctrine of salvation…specifically as it relates to Calvinism, Arminianism, Traditionalism or more specifically: Election, Predestination, Reprobation, Depravity, Atonement, Calling, Perseverance and the like.”

I’ve posted on this site and periodically have also responded to other’s posts. For the most part, my interactions support of non-Calvinistic perspectives with respect to the Doctrines of Grace. But it has recently dawned on me – there is no clear winner with respect to various posts, arguments and counter-arguments which has, to a degree, made me ask: “What’s the point?” Given the amount of variance that I perceive within Christian doctrines, I don’t know that it’s possible to, in essence, win an argument solely based on one’s understanding of the Bible. To which, I posted the below:

I can’t be the only one feeling distressed as to matters of Christian faith. Perhaps it’s only natural within such a forum as this that posts and presented arguments appear little more than a pro-wrestling cage-match. Each side has its requisite verses flung out in support of either Calvinistic or non-Calvinistic doctrines and beliefs. The arguments never cease and often get more pointed as time goes on and things escalate. Each side has ample ammunition (Bible verses) to lob into the other’s perspectives in justifying one’s beliefs. And there’s no obvious ‘winner’. Ultimately, I have to ask, where is the truth? Does the truth even matter? That something so essential as eschatology brings forth such angst within ‘believers’ (all of whom are reading from the same source material), how then are there not similar divisions on other tenants of Christian faith? Is it not reasonable, then, that Christian faith ultimately breaks down to one’s opinion if only because the truth(s) can’t be known – or at least aspects of those truths agreed upon? And given that Christians, even those with advanced degrees in theology and knowledgeable in the languages, culture and history of the Bible can’t agree upon significant doctrines, is it not then reasonable to infer that the Bible is insufficient on its in leading one to the truth? In short, after 40+ years of being a Christian, I’m finding find it difficult to believe that which I once held near and dear. And sadly, I’m sensing that forums such as this, along with other things, of course, are making it easier for me to relinquish that faith.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1806702782965265

Calvinist Admits God Chooses to Save Only 4% of All People

I stated to a Calvinist that per the doctrine of election, it was a small percentage of people that God saves. The next thing I heard, “Prove it.”

Logical Inconsistencies and Unconditional Election – the Salvation of Mrs. Robinson’s Children

Mrs. Robinson posted in a FB forum:

[A] common misconception from [everyone in this FB group] is that a Calvinist won’t allow their children to sing “Jesus Loves Me” because, after all – He may not. That a person who holds to the doctrines of grace shares the gospel with their children like this, “Well, you may or may not be elect so, [it may be best to wait and see whether you’re one of God’s chosen unto salvation].” We teach our children the gospel according to Scripture. The gospel is that sinners can be reconciled to God through faith in Jesus Christ. It’s a great relief and comfort that [we Calvinists parents] can’t do anything to mess up [our children’s] salvation. We teach them, pray for them and trust God with their souls. After all, [God] is far more merciful than we could ever be.

I responded: My friend, do you not see the inconsistencies in your statement above how [God] calls all men to repent and yet only those who the Father has given, and the Spirit draws” [will be] saved? This coupled with the logical inferences of compatibilism wherein it’s God who has ensured (through the Calvinistic teaching of divine determinism) that only a very few of his chosen ‘elect’ people respond affirmatively.

John Piper: “No Christian Can Be Sure He’s a True Believer”

John Piper, perhaps the de facto articulator of Calvinist doctrine today stated at the Ligonier National Conference in 2000, “No Christian can be sure he is a true believer. Hence, there’s an ongoing need to be dedicated to the Lord and deny ourselves so that we might make it.” I find it amazing that, so far as I know, no one corrected Piper that per Calvinist doctrines, it is God who does the choosing unto salvation from the foundation of the world and that salvation is unconditional wherein actions and behaviors have nothing to do with it?

What a horrible aspect of Piper’s Calvinism – being unsure of one’s salvation, sensing God dangling the “carrot” of salvation only to pull the rug out from under you just before you depart to eternal destruction because you failed to deny yourself sufficiently that you “might make it”! Please! Is this Piper’s actual belief? Is Piper expressing concern as to the assurance of his own salvation?

Additional Thoughts on Unconditional Election

Calvinists often site Eph 1:4 as “proof” that God chosen certain individuals from “the foundation of the world”. As I looked at the wording of the verse, it occurred to me that if the prepositions are removed, then the verse essentially distills down to God deciding that we were to be holy and blameless before he created the world. Calvinists often site Eph 1:4 as “proof” that God chosen certain individuals from “the foundation of the world”. As I looked at the wording of the verse, it occurred to me that if the prepositions are removed, then the verse essentially distills down to God deciding that we were to be holy and blameless before he created the world.

Well, it didn’t take long before I was chided (albeit, gently) with the following comment: “Ummm, [the word] ‘to’ is also a preposition [and] if you remove all the prepositional phrases, [then there’s] no verse left! The idea that there is an end-result to God’s choice does not define in any way how God made the choice, or why God made the choice. [T]he basic facts we are left with are that 1) God chooses, and 2) those chosen will be made holy. [Eph 1:4] supports “Calvinistic” election more than it does not.”

Salvation: It’s Our Choice – Just Not Our Doing

I am often frustrated with the Calvinistic overview that people bring nothing to the table as to salvation because no one disagrees with this concept. I have long used the analogy that we have to get ourselves to the table, but it is God who has prepared and will serve the feast. People have to be willing to be saved … at least that is my contention. Calvinists, on the other hand, are adamant that people can’t ‘locate’ the table much less realize that everything we need is on that table due to total depravity and unconditional election. That is, Calvinists believe people are so depraved that they are unable to seek out God. And therefore, Calvinists believe that it is God who must decide who will sit at the table and subsequently steer people toward the table.

I saw the below post on a FB forum. It makes so much logical sense and, to me, ties the apparently discordant scriptural references together into a cohesive and persuasive argument.

Sometimes, It’s All That Makes Sense

There are times when I’m more confused and troubled as to what I believe with respect to Christian faith. Variance of thought amongst Christians as to beliefs, statements of faith, doctrines, creeds, tenants and constructs can lead to frustration and alienation. If nothing else, I find the simplicity of faith as indicated through the Apostles’ Creed refreshing.

What Is the Ultimate Aim of Calvinism?

Dave Hunt and James White, in a heated back and forth exchange, cobbled together one of the best books to understand the variance of thought as to Reformed Theology. Hunt is very anti-Calvinism. White is very pro-Calvinism. I readily admit my difficulties with Calvinist doctrine – especially unconditional election and this book has been an eye-opener to understand both sides of the equation.

I’m struck by a statement of Hunt, “Never forget that the ultimate aim of Calvinism is to prove that God does not love everyone, is not merciful to all, and is pleased to damn billions. If that is the God of the Bible, Calvinism is true. If that is not the God of the Bible who is love (1 John 4:8), then Calvinism is false. The central issue is God’s love and character in relation to mankind, as presented in Scripture.” (Debating Calvinism, pg.21)

Repent and Believe – Does the Calvinist Actually Believe This Is Necessary?

The conversation with a Calvinist went something like this:

Calvinist: Repent and believe. This is the same message of the gospel that the Calvinists has as the non-Calvinist.

Me: But irresistible grace states people are unable to refuse God’s offer of grace and salvation. Doesn’t an individual’s total depravity preventing him from seeking God? So, how does repent and believe factor in? Where’s actual requirement that the sinner must repent and believe prior to his salvation. Per Calvinistic determinism, God has already ordained the events that will happen. So, the sinner’s repentance and his believing come after he’s already been saved. It happened because God willed it to happen. Repent and believe infers a requirement that an individual must do something which, per Calvinistic doctrine, 1) he’s unable to do and 2) God has already done all that is needed. Therefore, wouldn’t it make more sense for the Calvinist to simply say that one’s salvation is predicated on God’s desire – just wait and see – and you’ll know one way or the other in due time?