Martin's Mercurial Musings

I finally shared with some friends the faith-struggles that I’ve been experiencing which have led me to leave the church I was attending. Afterwards, one of the guys sent me an email stating that he found my comment that Christianity has devolved into little more than personal opinions interesting. Turns out that I may not be the only one struggling with matters of faith. Although, it often seems that way. Still, this friend had an interesting perspective:

The Protestant church looks like windshields at a car accident scene with so many splinters and shards of glass strewn across the pavement. I have now arrived at the Beetle Hypothesis. God likes it this way. There are about 4000 types of mammals on the planet. There are roughly 350,000 – 400,000 types of beetles on the planet (probably more). Why? God likes it this way. What good are all those Protestant denominations for? What good are all those beetles for? I don’t know. I read this quote from a Roman Catholic priest, Father Tom: “The opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty. Certainty is missing the point entirely. Faith includes noticing the mess, the emptiness and discomfort and letting it be there until some light returns.” Right now, I’m comfortable with NOT being on the opposite side of faith (read: Certainty). I’ll take faith, mess, emptiness and discomfort and hang like this for a while. I don’t know. Like I said I don’t have advice but I do have some sympathy or empathy or something like it for your struggles. Maybe my attitude or outlook should bother me more than it does, but it doesn’t. I’ll let you know if something changes. For now, I’m cool with lots of beetles.

Two things immediately came to mind:

–         First is the statement that the opposite of faith is not doubt. I’ve known many others who’ve experienced difficulties – those proverbial trials and tribulations. I’ve known others who’ve pondered and tried to make sense of various esoteric concepts related to Christianity. For whatever reason, I seem to be more bothered not only by the disconnect of people’s beliefs but also by the dichotomy of Calvinism vs Arminianism.

–        The second thing that came to mind is discordant instruments coming together to create beautiful music. A classical guitar and a mandolin, for instance. Each has its own unique tone and timbre and is lovely to listen to individually. But something happens that is all together wonderful when those two instruments are put together. The mandolin with its high pitch and bright sound carries the melody. The guitar with its fuller, deeper and more resonant sound fills in that which the mandolin on its own can’t do. Together, the music is altogether more balanced, beautiful and perhaps even more satisfying.

I’m not sure I can cohesively glue Calvinism and Arminianism into a more “satisfying theology” – whatever that means. Still, much as we mere mortals can appreciate the beauty and complexity of music by a small ensemble over individual instruments, perhaps God, in his own great, grand and glorious ways is “cool with a lot of beetles.”

Dear Pastor,

It’s no secret that I’ve been a “conflicted Christian” since coming to this church more than twelve years ago. Perhaps “Fragile Christian” better describes my current state. This faith-struggle emanates from (what are to me) the diametrically opposed perspectives on the nature and character of God. On one side is Calvinism. On the other side is Arminianism. To be blunt, I hate the concept of Calvinistic determination and how I view God through the Calvinist’s lens. Perhaps foolishly, through study and writing, I thought it’d be possible to make sense of Christian doctrines despite the differing perspectives. With a bit of surprise, I’ve discovered multitudes of smart and good-willed people on both sides putting forth persuasive arguments. And the conundrum for me is that many of the same scriptures are used to argue both sides of the spectrum. Christianity, then, is no longer about the “known”. Rather, my faith has devolved into little more than opinion. And I readily admit that my opinion on Christian doctrine is largely based on my antipathy toward Calvinistic thought. Still, having “bad feelings” toward Calvinism doesn’t make it wrong.

Prior to a recent service, I was thumbing through a book given out to first-time visitors; “Things That Cannot Be Shaken”. Page 105 states:

Those given to Christ by the Father are those who were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. They are the people of God, picked out from eternity and secured in the work that the Son accomplished in history.

These authors obviously have Calvinist leanings. However, when I couple the concept of Calvinistic election with earlier sermon comments regarding Psalm 139 (being planned, known and wanted), I am suddenly struck with the undeniable reality that God (per Calvinist doctrine) has not only chosen some for grace, he’s intentionally chosen some for destruction. Frankly, if total depravity is indeed true and humans lack the ability to understand their own sin and are incapable of seeking out a savior, then I want no part of a god who intentionally kills off some of his creation that he could otherwise save.

I wanted to speak with you regarding your sermon example of God breaking the leg of a sheep. I’m not doubting what you said. However, in the years that I’ve been aware of this verse, I’ve never once heard anyone explain the rationale from a shepherd’s perspective. Instead, I’ve always understood the verse within the context of God “disciplining those he loves”. To which, if God thinks it necessary, he’ll break your legs. How often have I heard something along the lines of: “How can we mere mortals understand God? He’s omniscient and sovereign. And he’ll [insert catastrophic event here] if he deems it best. And it’ll be for your betterment so just shut-up and suck it up.”

What it comes down to, Pastor, is that I’m nothing more than a pretender. I’m tired of pretending and coming to Woodcrest under what I can only define as a false pretense. I’m tired of pretending to understand that which continues to allude me. I’m tired of arguing with Calvinists – whether at church, at work or on blogs. I’m tired of my inability to discern the truth. For the longest time, I’ve been doing little else but “playing church”.

Sermons ought to be like sweet music to believers – Calvinist and non-Calvinist alike. To me, however, the messages coming through my thick skull only seem to bore deeper into the already open wounds of trying to rectify Calvinist doctrine with the notion of a loving heavenly father. The reality is that I’m not attending Woodcrest for worship, or service, or preaching, or small-group studies, etc. Rather, I come for the fellowship. Period. And it would be fair to say that I’m playing avoidance games by not dealing with the issue and hoping my angst disappears. But I’m not fooling anyone – least of all me. I haven’t taken communion in a long time. I’ve often left church after the service has started. I haven’t followed in obedience to believer’s baptism because I have no confidence that I am one of God’s elect. Nor have I assurance of my own salvation. I’m just a big phony – playing a game as it were by showing my face, serving in the greeting ministry and pretending that all is well.

Unfortunately, I believe it’s best for me to step away – at least for a while as, simply put, I’m not comfortable participating in worship-related activities and service at Woodcrest.

Sincerely (and with regret),

Bob

I recently came across someone on a FaceBook forum supporting Calvinism. He stated, “The Bible nor Calvinist do not hold to fatalism as assumed and inferred by those criticizing or misinformed.” He went on stating that anyone not agreeing with him therefore believes that man is superior to God. A list of various scriptures in support of “a non-guilty God [ordaining] his own purpose[s]” was provided. One verse listed was a portion of Eph 1:11 “…the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.”

For the record, the Eph 1:11 in the NIV says, “In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.”

I responded that he made a rather compelling argument in support of Calvinism being equated to fatalism. I also found it ironic that he would list numerous versus delineating various things God has done or otherwise controlled when his intent is to (I think) show otherwise. Whatever.

The obvious question (for me, anyway) is to understand God’s “purpose” as referenced in Eph 1:11. Looking at the entire passage (vs 1-14) a few things immediately pop out:

vs 4 – God determining that we would be holy and blameless in his sight

vs 5 – God determining that we would be adopted as his sons through Christ

vs 9 – the mystery of his “will”

vs 10 – that “will” is to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment

As I see it, Paul’s is talking about God doing away with “the law” thereby enabling both Jew and Gentile to be made right with God by God’s own sacrifice of his son through faith. To which, I see nothing in Eph 1:11 by way of Calvinistic determination or fatalism wherein God “chooses” or otherwise “elects” a select few via unconditional election. Rather, it’s God’s desire for everyone to come into fellowship with him, through Christ – by faith.

So, how is it that good-willed people can come to such different perspectives as to matters of faith? Am I simply ignorant here and lacking in understanding? Truly that can’t be the situation with regards to such as John Piper and Greg Boyd. Am I, consciously or not, choosing to make God into something that I find more palatable? I’ll plead guilty if only because I believe God’s greatest attribute is his love. Sadly (I believe) so many Calvinists I know seem to relish believing that God’s greatest attribute is his justice. I don’t understand and can’t explain it. But I find it difficult to be in fellowship with such people.

Two obviously flawed candidates – a crook or a creep. Say what you will, but I sense that for many folks, the overriding issues came down to sovereignty of the nation i.e. keep people from entering the country illegally and economics i.e. the pending financial calamity of the nation’s debt which can not continue. On both of those counts, for reasons good, bad, or indifferent, this nation collectively thought that Trump is the better person. I thought Clinton would win handily. Apparently, so did the vast majority of those doing the election polling. That both the Senate and House remain in Republican control, to me, speaks louder than the presidential election. To which, it will be interesting to look back and compare 2008-2009 vs 2016-2017. Democrats controlled everything for two years with Obama’s election in 2008. This lead to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and stimulus spending. It’s my opinion that the verdict is in on those two issues and won’t bode well for Obama’s legacy. This nation has chosen – for now – and so for better or worse we’ll see and be able to compare in two years’ time. If we as a nation don’t approve, then we’ll have the opportunity to alter course.

Every Calvinist I know is adamant they’re part of Team Elect. To which, Calvinists simply can’t understand those who struggle regarding their own eternal condition. Interestingly enough, John Calvin writes in his Institutes of Religion 3.2.11 that God not only reveals himself to his elect but that God also reveals himself to the reprobate. Really? Is Calvin correct in stating that God instills within the reprobate a sense of God’s goodness and mercy to the point where the reprobate even believes God loves him and has mercy for him? According to Calvin, the reprobate is only enlightened with a present (not eternal) sense of grace and therefore, any conviction the reprobate experiences will never lead the reprobate to salvation. This sounds like manipulation of the highest order: God, for lack of a better word, manipulating or otherwise toying with those he sends to hell.

Could it be that some of those who think they’re part of Team Elect are actually on Team Reprobate? Perhaps God has given various “elect-me-nots” a sense of right and wrong, a sense of godliness. Perhaps these “elect-me-nots” sense an inner spirit indwelling within. But unless those on Team Elect disagree with Calvin (and I’ve yet to find any Calvinist who’s in disagreement with any of Calvin’s writings), how can anyone have any sense of eternal security? How does not confusion reign in making the distinction between knowing one is a member of Team Elect or that God has determined that you’re a member of Team Reprobate?

The below passage is pulled from Calvin’s Institutes of Religion 3.2.11:

I am aware it seems unaccountable to some how faith is attributed to the reprobate, seeing that it is declared by Paul to be one of the fruits of election; and yet the difficulty is easily solved: for though none are enlightened into faith, and truly feel the efficacy of the Gospel, with the exception of those who are fore-ordained to salvation, yet experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. Should it be objected, that believers have no stronger testimony to assure them of their adoption, I answer, that though there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith, yet the elect alone have that full assurance which is extolled by Paul, and by which they are enabled to cry, Abba, Father. Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only for ever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprobate. Meanwhile, believers are taught to examine themselves carefully and humbly, lest carnal security creep in and take the place of assurance of faith. We may add, that the reprobate never have any other than a confused sense of grace, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only, applying it by special faith to their use. Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy. In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure forever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.

I recently encountered a guy espousing the belief that Romans 9, as viewed from a perspective of “systematic theology”, proves the veracity of unconditional election. I immediately had my doubts and realized quickly enough that we differed on various word definitions. Suffice it to say, however, that never having undergone formal theological studies, the term “systematic theology” mystifies me. At a minimum, though, it stands to reason that Christians ought to be able to agree that if the Bible is to be believed, there must be doctrinal consistency throughout.

According to this individual, Rom 9 is foundational to Calvinist thought regarding election. Perhaps if Rom 9 ended at verse 29, it might be easier to imply individual election. However, Paul’s own summary is, well, interesting. Starting with verse 30, “What then shall we say? That the Gentiles [a group of people] who did not pursue righteousness have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, [a group of people] who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because [Israel] pursued [righteousness] not by faith but as if [righteousness] were by works.”

I find these words intriguing to say the least: Gentiles have obtained righteousness through faith and the Israelites continued to strive for righteousness through the law. It seems obvious that Paul is talking about masses of people, not individuals (i.e. individual election).

Even from the beginning, there was corporate election wherein the nation of Israel was God’s chosen people aka caretakers of the law. Perhaps this is an argument as to election being to service and not salvation? But I digress. As was evident, however, no one could keep the law and so God, though His sovereign choice, allowed not only Jews, but also Gentiles to enter into His presence and kingdom through faith. In reality, I believe this to be foreknowledge. But again, I digress.

Paul says that Israel was “broken off” because of unbelief. Was this ALL of Israel? I don’t think so. Maybe, just maybe this is something akin to “hardening of heart”? To which, does not God show mercy on individuals in response to their belief or unbelief? Here, and quite frankly elsewhere (i.e. Eph 1:4) I see no indication of God choosing some over others. The choice is predicated on the individual’s decision of faith – to believe or to not believe. Ultimately, it doesn’t appear to me that Rom 9 is a passage Calvinists can (systematically or otherwise) use to support the concept of individual election.