Tag: Calvinism

Calvinist Thought Seasoned with Christian Clarity

A recent blog post (here) started with the comment:

  • Quick: for the preservation of history, count all the Calvinists in Haiti that are looting or how many are in government there.”  Note: A previous post from this site regarding the earthquake in Haiti is (here).

Upon seeing this, my “Calvinometer” radar detector turned “on”.  There’s something about the wording and the overall tone in these posts that strikes me as, well, harsh.  A question came to mind: could the basis for this mindset and interpretation of scripture emanate from the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election wherein:

  • God intentionally deceives some into a lie.
  • God hasn’t chosen someone to be saved.
  • Therefore, that non-elected person is not worthy of an elected person’s time and effort.
  • Therefore, that non-elected person should just go away, die, and be done with so that those whom God will have with him for all eternity can get about the Lord’s heavenly business and blessings.

I commented on these posts from Christian Clarity Review in essence asking:

  • What’s the point of “piling on” the misery that many Haitians are currently experiencing?
  • How is the love of God portrayed within these posts?
  • Have you no heart to ache for people – even if you believe God brings about calamity?
  • Where in the New Testament does Jesus turns away his love and compassion from the hurting and suffering?

The response I received was, well, surprising.  Regrettably, I misidentified Timothy (my sincere apologies to Charles) in my initial comments to his post on the Haitian earthquake.  Nevertheless, here are some Christian Clarity Review responses to my comments and questions:

  • [Christ haters] [don’t want] to hear God caused the earthquake in Haiti.
  • True Christianity is not at all about picking Christianity over other religions [as one] can’t decide to do so.
  • Jesus Christ went 40 days without food or water.  Moses as well.  [One] gets the impression that a few days without food are a cause for worry and a health-crisis.
  • [The earthquake] is the honesty of what happens to those who hate Jesus Christ and have made open, unapologetic pacts with Satan.
  • You post for political and theological pretense.
  • God sent Haiti the earthquake.  Before that He sent them a deception
  • You want to cover over what God has done.
  • The lie of free will is your bread and butter [and always sucking off your soul].
  • You are a fake Christian and have the spirit of Balaam.
  • I read your response Bozo.
  • [Your] phrasing of etiquette [is] surely a shield to hide the fact you’ve lied about Christ.
  • You put up the emotional shield as if that were a standard part of God’s discourse.
  • I’m absolutely certain God has deceived you.
  • You’ve received more truth than most people [and] have subtly laughed it off.
  • You preach a different gospel in the guise of searching for the pure one.

I don’t doubt that Timothy’s abject starkness and callousness is heart-felt.  I’m not sure why – maybe it’s his mother’s fault!  And I don’t doubt that I may have “tweaked” him with my questions and comments.  But where does Jesus respond to hurting and suffering people in need of a savior in such a way as Timothy does?

First of all, my apologies to Bozo.  I did watch him as a child and can fully attest to everyone that I’m not Bozo.

Timothy stated that God has “sent me a deception” and therefore, it’s impossible for me to see the truth because I have no free-will in this matter.  Yet, Timothy’s responses to posts on this blog (here) and (here) would seem to have indicated that (at least at one time) he thought that there was a potential for me to see the truth (at least the truth as he portends it)?  As such, is Timothy really convinced that God intentionally deceived me?  I don’t think he is.

There were a number of scripture verses Timothy used to justify his stated beliefs.  My understanding of those verses in context is, well, different.  Perhaps I’ll provide my understanding to those verses in the comment section of this post.

So, what is one who admittedly struggles with Calvinism in general and the concept of unconditional election in particular to think about what is contained within Christian Clarity Review?  The truth is, not much.  I have personally experienced a lot of love and grace from proponents of Calvinism (CH, NM, MB, PP, WC and many others).  I am ever grateful to those who will walk alongside, explain, and even question my foundations of faith.  I don’t think I’m elect but (sorry, Timothy) I do believe I am saved (Rom 10:10).  Based on my own ’empirical’ evidence, Timothy’s opinions, writings and ad hock attacks represent a very small percentage of Calvinists.  Still, might there be a logical extension for one to ‘discover’ election and ‘create’ the Calvinist-oriented views as expressed within Christian Clarity Review?  I hope not – but how else is Timothy’s perception explained?  Perhaps those with affinity towards Calvinism are in a better position to state (what I believe to be) the error of Timothy’s approach and methodologies he uses in defending his faith.

Seminaries in the Business of Election

Irrespective of my struggle with Calvinistic thought, I couldn’t help but enjoy a bit of levity when I came across a seminary with “elected faculty”. 

http://www.sebts.edu/academics/faculty/default.aspx

Scroll down the list to find the “appointed faculty”. 

Who knows why, but my kids’ Dr. Seuss book on Sneetches comes to mind – something about those with stars on their bellies and those without stars on their bellies and tying all that in to the doctrine of election.  Whatever. 

Feel free to comment on ‘theme’ verses.  Here are a couple that came to my mind:

  • John 15:16  I [president of SEBTS] have elected you to [teach] at SEBTS and produce [lectures] that will last
  • Heb 9:27  For you’ve been appointed once to [teach] and then to die [or maybe receive job offer]

Calvinism or Arminianism: Of Which Flock Are Ewe? (John 10:26-27)

So far as I can tell – all things Calvinist have to go through election and to that end, I’m hoping to bring a little more clarity (at least to my mind) regarding my struggles with Calvinistic thought in general and unconditional election in particular.  In comments to a previous post, my good friend and ardent Calvinist Mike generalized Calvinist thoughts in asking, “Why do some believe and others reject Jesus?”  He then offered the following thoughts as a basis for argument:

  • Nobody wants to receive Jesus’ offer.  There’s a greater love where God not only offers the gift to everyone, he also removes the rebellious heart of some and replaces it with a heart that loves him above all things.
  • The reason why believers love Jesus is only because God, through the Holy Spirit, has graciously given believers a heart that wants him.  If this hadn’t happened, then no one would believe because no one would want Jesus.
  • But why do some not believe?  John 10:26 answers it explicitly.  The reason some do not believe is “because they are not part of the flock” (unconditional election).
  • John 3:16 means that God loves everyone in the world and that he wants everyone to be saved and offers salvation to everyone.  Why doesn’t God save everyone?  Because they don’t believe?
  • Why do some believe while others don’t?  The Calvinist thanks God for giving them the faith to believe, while the Arminian (logically) must give thanks to themself for believing.
  • Who ultimately gets credit for my salvation?  The Calvinist says that God offers the gift to everyone, but that he also does more and grants belief to some.  The Arminian says that God offers the gift to everyone – and that’s it.  Belief is up to us.
  • If God really wants everyone to be saved, then why did he make salvation conditional?  Why did God make belief a criteria?  Why doesn’t John 3:16 read, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, so that everyone will have eternal life regardless of what they believe”?  What’s the Arminian answer to this?  If God wants everyone to be saved, then why doesn’t he just save everyone?  Is it really because of free will?  He would rather give us free will than save us from hell?  To me, this seems to be at least as big of a problem for the Arminian as it is for the Calvinist.

With all due respect to my good friend, I’m sympathetic to the arguments that apart from free will there can be no love.  Perhaps I’ll expound on that later.  But for now I’d like to toss out my $0.02 worth regarding Jesus’ words in John 10:26-27 that we either [are] or [are not] his sheep.  As I understand Calvinist thought, one doesn’t believe because he isn’t [Jesus’] sheep.  However, what is fascinating to me about this passage in John is what follows – the unbelieving Jews (vs 24) wanted to stone Jesus for blasphemy (vs 31, 33).  Jesus continues to “engage” with the unbelieving Jews (vs 34-38) and at one point says to them (vs 38) that the unbelieving Jews should believe the miracles Jesus has previously done (and no doubt the unbelieving Jews had witnessed) so they could know that Jesus is the son of God.  What immediately comes to mind is that Jesus continued to reach out to the unbelieving Jews.  Did Jesus understand that the unbelieving Jew’s eternal destiny was forever sealed at that moment?  Perhaps not.  Again, as I’ve stated before, this would have been a great opportunity for Jesus to explain TULIP and show the dichotomy of an elect person versus one ready to heave a stone at Jesus.  But Jesus didn’t do that.

Most who know me know that I’m not one to spend much time in the Old Testament.  Still, the story of God testing Abraham (Gen 22) comes to mind.  In vs 12, as Abraham was about to sacrifice his son, an angel interferes and says to Abraham, “Now I know that that you fear God.”  Apparently old Abe had listened to (what I presume to be) the Holy Spirit and was rewarded (vs 17-18).  Is it any different in New Testament times?  Did not the Holy Spirit move within people or otherwise prepare hearts?  Looking back at John chapter 10, Jesus vacated the premises (vs 40).  And notice what happens, many people said, “Though John never performed a miraculous sign, all that John said about [Jesus] was true.”  And many then believed (vs 42).  I sense that the Holy Spirit was moving amongst people in essence preparing their hearts for the messiah.  Those who accepted by faith were rewarded with eternal life.  Those that rejected faith or would otherwise continue to live by the law were eternally lost.  That some hearts were receptive to Christ and other not leads me to conclude that we do have free will.

In conclusion and so far as I can tell, Jesus isn’t implying in John 10:26-27 that God had already determined who would be his sheep.  At least there’s no indicating that one’s eternal fate was sealed before any one had been born.  As I read it, when Jesus spoke those words, there were some who already believed and some non-believers within his immediate vicinity.

Okay, how then would this thinking work for a particular verse that I struggle with regarding Calvinistic arguments?  Acts 13:48 [And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.]  The conclusion seems rather succinct – one’s eternal destiny is determined by God.  For whatever reason, God chooses to save some and God allows others to perish.  However, Paul and Barnabas had first approached the Jews.  It was only after the Jews rejected faith did Paul et. al. reach out to the Gentiles.  As Paul said (vs 47), “I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.”  Although I don’t see it written as such, I’m hard-pressed not to believe that the Holy Spirit was moving amongst those that Paul et. al. would preach to and [all who were going to believe] believed.

Perhaps my arguments are not as strong as I would like them to be.  But frankly, and at least for now, I find it easier to accept that God does indeed allow us free will in choosing our eternal destiny.


John 3:16 doesn’t say “whoever believes”?

I was referred to this video for a Calvinist perspective that John 3:16 is more accurately interpreted “all who believe” instead of “whoever believes”.

After watching the video, I’m not so sure that John 3:16 is best translated “all who believe”.  I’m certainly not a linguist – and, for better or worse, have no interest in incorporating Greek or Hebrew into my own Bible study.  However, at some point we have to trust that those who put together the various translations we have at our disposal did so with honesty, integrity and a keen awareness of language and culture.  In doing a quick comparison of some versions, not one of them infer “all who believe”.

NIV – whoever believes

NASB – whoever believes

NLT – everyone who believes

KJ – whosoever believeth

NCV – whoever believes

ASV – whosoever believeth

ESV – whoever believes

Why is this?  How is it that so many biblical translators over the course of centuries have determined that the best wording or phrase for John 3:16 is ‘whoever’ and not ‘all who believe’?

Dr. White referred to John 6:44 as justification for an ‘all who believe’ interpretation for John 3:16.  From a non-Calvinist perspective, I admit to finding the wording in John 6:44 a little troubling.  Moreover, I can certainly understand Calvinist thought that due to being dead to sin, no one can bring himself to God unless God first gives His grace to whose whom he’s elected.  However, in John chapter six – a little before and a little after verse 44 (i.e. vs 40, 45, 47 & 51 in particular) it seems apparent that ANYONE who believes shall be saved.  Jesus makes no distinction as to the elect and the non-elect.  Wouldn’t this have been an opportune time for Jesus to explain TULIP?  But so far as I read here, he doesn’t.  John 6:25-59 is a discussion between Jesus and unbelieving Jews who happen to know of Jesus (vs 42) and who were struggling to understand how this “boy” they knew is now the messiah.  To that end, those unbelieving Jews were perhaps troubled with previous statements Jesus had made with regard to not having the love of God in their hearts (John 5:42).  Jesus continued in John 5:43 that [the Jews] did not accept [Christ].  I presume this to mean that many (but certainly not all) Jews had rejected Christ’s offer of forgiveness through faith and instead were holding on tight to the law for their justification.  Again, Jesus did not explain TULIP and tell the elect to rejoice and explain to the non-elect that their eternal destiny is sealed and too bad.  The overriding principle that I see from verses such as John 3:16 & 2 Pet 3:9 is that God indeed reaches out to everyone and desires that everyone be saved and no one to perish.  Yes, we’re dead in our sins and without Christ’s forgiveness – which must be individually received, we’re toast.  To their eternal peril, the majority of people have chosen to reject Christ.  And that’s the point – they have made a choice.  So, in the middle of all this is John 6:44 – no one comes to [Jesus] unless he’s “drawn” by God?  Again, I admit to finding this phrase a little troubling.  But could it be that there are some translational aspects involved in which a Greek to English translation doesn’t accurately convey the thought that the Holy Spirit is moving within people and works to bring about a desire to seek forgiveness of sins?  Hmmm, perhaps that concept is elsewhere in scripture?  Still, for the aforementioned reasons, I’m not convinced that John 3:16 states ‘all who believe’ and I don’t see that John 6:44 is as solid of a foundation for unconditional election as Calvinists would believe.

Calvinist Tag-Team Continues the Pummeling of a Poor Schlep

To my Calvinist brethren Charles & Timothy,

My delay in responding to the comments each of you has posted (here) and (here) is regrettable.  I apologize for not having made the time to address your thoughtful arguments in a timelier manner.  In addition, I should have done better in helping readers identify who made particular arguments and referenced specific scriptures.  I didn’t – and frankly, that’s laziness on my part.  No offense intended.

Given the length of our posts, it seemed best to respond to specific scriptural references used in your arguments.  If nothing else, I’m sure we’ll all agree that our respective arguments are pointless if we can’t back them up with scripture.  However, I didn’t respond to everything that was tossed my way.  Except for those passages referring to God’s word (which again, Timothy, I regret that I am still struggling to understand), I found our greater disagreements contained herein.  Please feel free to respond on anything here or reiterate some point that I have not addressed in this post.  I welcome your input and appreciate the time and effort you’ve both expended in responding to my musings.

Scripture references from Charles & Timothy Bob’s $0.02 worth
1 Peter 1:23

For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.

 This portion of 1st Peter appears related to redemption:

(vs 18-19) We’re redeemed with the blood of Christ

(vs 20-21) Christ was destined to be our Savior

(vs 22) What happens in the believer’s heart

(vs 23) You’ve been born again (i.e. given new life) through Jesus

Might the reference to not being born again by “perishable seed” relate to Adam while “the word of God” is a reference to Christ?  Still, I don’t see how this verse supports Calvinism.  If God does not show partiality (Rom 2:11, Acts 10:34-35) and has universal love for all (2 Pet 3:9), does it not then appear that God desires all to come to repentance?  The fact that not all come to repentance would, at least to me, seem to indicate that there just might be some self-determinism as to whether or not an individual accepts God’s free gift of salvation.
James 1:18

He chose to give us birth through the word of truth that we might be a kind of first fruits of all he created.

 The first thing I notice is that the word ‘word’ isn’t capitalized as it is in John 1:1 and that the passage seems to be talking about trials, tribulations and temptations:

(vs 2) Consider it joy when you face trials

(vs 3) Testing your faith develops perseverance

(vs 5) If you lack wisdom, ask God for it

(vs 12) Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial

(vs 13) God doesn’t tempt anyone

(vs 16) Don’t be deceived

(vs 17) Every good and perfect gift is from above

Verse 18 then, seems to be the rationale as to why we can persevere when tempted – because [God decided] to give us [new life] through [Christ] that we might [acknowledge all] he created.
1 Corinthians 4:15

Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

 Paul refers to himself as [the new believer’s father] through the gospel.  I’m not sure what Paul is saying here. Still, I don’t see that there’s an inclination for a Calvinist interpretation.

Jesus became our “heavenly father” (that is, we became a child of God).  A person doesn’t become a father (parent) until their child is born.  That implies at one time the person wasn’t a parent.  Is that the same with God – He doesn’t become “our parent” (and conversely we don’t become His child) until we believe by faith?  Then, for God to be our heavenly father, we have to decide.
1 Corinthians 2:14

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 The verse says that spiritual matters are foolishness to the non-believer because those spiritual matters are spiritually discerned.  The verse does not say that one without spiritual discernment is not able to come to a point of understanding i.e. becoming a Christian and thereby acquire spiritual discernment (wisdom).  On that thought, don’t non-believers derive benefit from the book of Proverbs just as believers do?
Revelation 17:8

The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come.

 There’s no indication that names were written in the book at the beginning of time.  I suggest that names are continually being added whenever someone becomes a new believer.  It’s interesting that angels rejoice when a sinner repents (Luke 15:10) and in my mind, this seems to support the continual addition of new believers (whose names were not previously written in the book of life) over time.
Luke 10:20

However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

 There’s no indication as to when these names were added to the book of life.  See above.
Romans 9:18-24

(vs 18) Therefore, God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

(vs 21-21) Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

 Romans 9 is a difficult passage for those disagreeing with unconditional election – unless they incorporate Paul’s summary (9:30-33.  Paraphrased, those last verses in Romans 9 state:

  • Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it – by faith.  However, Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained [righteousness] because they pursued [righteousness] not by faith but by works.

I would certainly agree that Romans 9 teaches God’s sovereignty and even the election of nations – as witnessed by Israel in the Old Testament.  In addition, if I read the references in my NIV Topical Bible (Ex 3:19-20, 4:21-23, 5:1-2 and 9:22-28) it seems to be that God may indeed harden an individual.  However, the hardening appears to occur only after an individual has shown repeated belligerence towards God and a rejection of His redemption.  Perhaps this is what constitutes the “sin against the Holy Spirit” – the unpardonable sin?

Finally, I’m sympathetic to arguments made that the “lump” of clay referenced in verse 21 refers to the nation of Israel wherein God has the right to split Israel into two vessels – unbelieving Israel (a vessel of wrath) and believing Israel (along with the believing Gentiles, is a vessel of mercy).
Proverbs 16:4

The LORD works out everything for his own ends – even the wicked for a day of disaster.

 Do Calvinist really believe that God intentionally creates wicked people just to damn them?  I’ve heard the question put this way; does God punish people for producing the very acts He created them to have?  Does God make people evil or wicked and then hold them responsible?

What about scriptures teaches that God doesn’t willingly afflict or damn anyone (1 Tim 2:4, 2 Pet 3:9)?  If that is true, there has to be some other interpretation for this verse and I submit that Prov 16:4 has to do with God bringing about those consequences the wicked have earned – that is, eventually the wicked reap what they sow and have to answer for their wickedness.
Job 23:13-15

But he stands alone, and who can oppose him? He does whatever he pleases. He carries out his decree against me, and many such plans he still has in store.  That is why I am terrified before him; when I think of all this, I fear him.

 God is sovereign – that’s a given.  Wasn’t God’s gift of salvation intended to atone for all sins?  Please tell me, what sins, or whose sins haven’t been covered by Jesus’ death on the cross?  For me, the question lends validity to the thought that, (of one’s own volition) some believe and some don’t believe.  Because Jesus’ sacrifice covers all sins and because God intended salvation for all (John 3:16, 2 Pet 3:9), it stands to reason that the decision and the corresponding responsibility to accept or reject God’s free gift falls on individuals and not on God predetermining who will and conversely who will not be saved.
John 8:47

He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

 Whether sympathetic to or antithetical towards the unconditional election, the simple truth is that one isn’t saved (or otherwise become a child of God and therefore belong to God) until such time as by faith a person accepts Christ’s atonement for their sin.  In this situation, Jesus was speaking to non-believers.
John 15:16

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit – fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.

 This verse, frankly, makes me scratch my head regarding unconditional election.  Still, how is this verse rectified with John 3:16 and 1 Pet 3:9?  Could it be that Jesus is only talking to His disciples here?  And, as I have stated earlier, I don’t doubt that God has elected certain people during the formation of the early church i.e. Paul having his Damascus Road experience.  This verse follows the vine and the branches parable.  Jesus wants us to bear fruit.  As to this verse, I can only surmise that the author may have indeed been elected and wrote down exactly what Jesus said.  The question for me then becomes, is unconditional election “normative” for everyone or only for those very few listed above?
Matthew 22:14

For many are invited, but few are chosen.

 Jesus is talking about his second coming in Matt 24.  When Jesus uses the word ‘elect’ (verses 22, 24, 31), it appears that Jesus is speaking about people who already believe.  Could it be, then, that a person doesn’t become “elect” until he is a believer?  That is, becoming elect occurs the moment a person believes.  Put another way, an elect person is a (here and now) Christian and not someone who is appointed to become a Christian.  The Bible makes it clear that God doesn’t want anyone to perish (1 Pet 3:9).  Clearly, however, not everyone responds to the gospel.  Doesn’t everyone then have the capacity to become “elect”?  To summarize, no one is “elected” until they believe because it is the believers who are the elect.

So then, does this definition of the elect being believers work on a couple of verses I find troublesome?  For instance:

Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and all who were appointed (emphasis mine) honored the word of the Lord; and for eternal life believed.

2 Thess 2:13 But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved (emphasis mine) through the sanctifying word of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

Hmmm – my $0.02 worth of analytical thought doesn’t appear to hold water very well.  Then again, as I stated before, perhaps there were various individuals at the formation of the early Christian Church i.e. Paul, the disciples and the apostles who were predetermined by God to be Christians?  Nevertheless, the context of Matt 22 doesn’t appear (to me) to support the concept of unconditional election.
John 10: 26

But you do not believe because you are not my sheep.

Jesus says that the reason they do not hear is because they do not belong to God…if they did belong to God (if He were their Father/if they were “born again/born from above”), then they would hear Him.

You don’t become one of Jesus’ sheep because you believe. You believe because you are a sheep.

 Your metaphor of birth works well for those of us in the physical realm but I think the analogy breaks down quickly when we begin talking of a spiritual birth.  Nicodemus was confused between spiritual birth and physical birth.  It’s interesting that Jesus didn’t say to ‘Nick’, “Dude, you’re elect so rejoice that you’re going to believe in me by faith for your salvation.”  Quite the contrary, Jesus had to make the distinction to ‘Nick” regarding physical and spiritual birth and there’s no apparent teaching about unconditional election here.
Your strange definition of grace requires that God is obligated to extend it to everyone – i.e. you are “justifying the wicked.” I don’t think that God is “obligated” to extend grace to everyone.  But so far as I can determine, the clear teaching of the Bible is that God so loved [everyone] that He sent Himself to atone for our sin.

My “strange” definition of grace comes from the NIV Topical Bible, which states, “Grace is God’s life-transforming gift of his favor to those who do not deserve it. The gift of salvation and forgiveness of sins is available for all who through faith accept his grace revealed in Jesus Christ, but so many miss the gift because they rely on themselves and try to earn grace by keeping the law.”

I’m sure we agree that:

  • Everyone is born with a sin nature.
  • No one can earn their way into heaven.
  • It is only because of God’s grace that the wicked can be justified when they repent of their sin.

TULIP Logic vs a Calvinist’s Statement

Have you ever applied TULIP logic to a statement made by a Calvinist?  Thomas Schreiner, who contributes a Calvinist view on atonement in the book, The Nature of the Atonement states on pg 80, “God’s wrath and judgment are personally directed against sinners who have failed to praise, honor and thank him.”  My first thought was, “Well, for crying out loud, the poor schlep isn’t part of the elect and so, of course, because God has so determined, the poor schlep’s sins aren’t forgiven and therefore the poor schlep will experience God’s wrath and judgment.”  Then I wondered how the poor schlep would fair when this same thinking was applied to all five (TULIP) tenants of Calvinism.

  • As to total depravity wherein people are morally unable to choose to follow God because of their own natures – God’s wrath and judgment are personally directed against a poor schlep who failed to praise, honor and thank Him because the poor schlep isn’t part of the elect and therefore the poor schlep can’t choose to follow God.
  • As to unconditional election wherein it’s God’s choice from the beginning of time to save only those God intends to save – God’s wrath and judgment are personally directed against a poor schlep whom God chooses not to elect and therefore the poor schlep is ‘toast’.
  • As to limited atonement wherein Christ’s death atones for only for the sins of the elect – God’s wrath and judgment are personally directed against a poor schlep who failed to praise, honor and thank Him because the poor schlep isn’t one of the elected and therefore Christ’s death doesn’t atone for the poor schlep’s sins.
  • As to irresistible grace wherein the Holy Spirit overcomes all resistance and makes His influence irresistible in order to save someone – God’s wrath and judgment are personally directed against a poor schlep who failed to praise, honor and thank Him because the poor schlep isn’t elected and therefore the Holy Spirit didn’t overcome the poor schlep’s resistance.
  • As to perseverance of the saints wherein the elect will continue in their faith unless they fall away (which means they never had true faith) – God’s wrath and judgment are personally directed against a poor schlep who failed to praise, honor and thank Him because the poor schlep wasn’t elected and therefore didn’t have true faith.

Some may think I have some sort of OCD – oppositional Calvinistic disorder.  Perhaps I do – but only because I seem to come to a different conclusion when I read scriptures in support of Calvinism.  And from this little exercise, it seems evident that the most fundamental tenant of Calvinism is the concept of unconditional election.  So far as I understand, if there’s error within the ‘U’ of TULIP, then there’s simply no way that Calvinist can justify their beliefs.  I was recently made aware of a TULIP defense (if that’s the right term) by John Piper which I plan to delve into.

Why Be a Calvinist?

A good and dear friend who writes on matters of faith and religion for the Louisville Examiner recently posted an article: Why Be a Calvinist?  I’ve known Mike for quite a while now we’ve had many really good and deep discussions related to faith-related issues that I struggle with including Calvinism, the will of God, open theism, etc.  Even though I may have profound disagreements with Mike, I have immense respect for him and I invite readers of this blog to visit his site at:

http://www.examiner.com/x-13763-Louisville-Evangelical-Examiner~y2009m11d4-Why-believe-in-Calvinism?#comments

Two-Point Calvinism – Is That an Acceptable Alternative?

Towards the end of a recent sermon, barriers to Bible study including “I don’t know how” and “I’m not motivated” were mentioned.  In my own journey, a struggle with Bible study is related to opposing perspectives where both sides of an argument reference and use the same scriptures in defending their arguments.  What is one, who admittedly struggles with the general concepts of Calvinism, to believe when PhD theologians (if that’s the correct term) such as John Piper and Greg Boyd can’t agree on the Apostle Paul’s teaching in Romans 9?  Focusing less on a theological “system” such as Calvinism or any theological model that attempts to organize biblical data may be the best approach.  However, it’s my observation that variability in scriptural interpretation comes about, in part, because believers have a “hypothesis” based upon their “belief system”.  That said, the debate regarding Calvinism is troubling because 1) there appear to be good arguments for and against Calvinism and 2) one’s perception of who God is can be significantly altered by an affinity (or lack thereof) to Calvinist thought.  Honestly, do believers get to choose (pun intended) who’s right – and conversely, who’s wrong?  It may seem like a silly thing and perhaps it is.  However, the impact of Calvinistic thought has been real in my relationship to God over the last three years.  Perhaps I’m ignorant of facts.  Perhaps all too often data is usurped by dogma.  Perhaps there is a sense of mystery in a spiritual relationship.  Perhaps mystery leads to a theological tension. 

Is there such a thing as a “two-point” Calvinist?  For instance, are there Calvinists who adhere only to (T) total depravity and (P) perseverance of the saints?  I’ve always thought that Calvinism rises or falls collectively on all five points (TULIP).  What if ditching the whole notion of election, and perhaps a couple of other Calvinist tenants as well, eliminates my sense of theological tension? 

Hey Colleen!  Guess what? 

I’m a Calvinist now!  Praise God! 

Albeit, I’ll just admit to being a two-point Calvinist.  Somehow, that expressed sentiment seems hollow because it lacks the totality of Calvinistic thought.  There are five points within the Calvinist “system” or “theological model”.  In addition, I suspect my dear friend is not rejoicing over any two-point Calvinist conversion I may proclaim. 

So, back to where I started – as an open theist.  For reasons I don’t fully understand, I am more comfortable with the general concepts of open theism than I am with Calvinism.  I just don’t know whether open theism is right.  Then, too, I don’t know if Calvinism is right either.  The theological tension continues.

Responding to Calvinist Arguments of Sam Storms (IV)

This is my fourth post in response to an essay written by Sam storms of Enjoying God Ministries http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/faith-and-repentance/.  As noted before, this article was sent to me by my dear Calvinist friend Colleen who believes that God chooses certain individuals for salvation and also gives them the grace to accept salvation and the faith to believe.

Eph 2:8-9

  • For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; not by works, so that no one should boast.

Mr. Storms puts forth an argument that because of word gender, the gift referred to in this passage can’t be faith or grace but is instead, “salvation in its totalality, a salvation that flows out of God’s grace and becomes ours through faith.”  I emphatically agree – By His grace, God’s free gift to us is salvation which we obtain through faith.  Amen, brother – sing it!

However, Mr. Storms derives the following statements from this passage:

  • Salvation is a gift of God to his elect
  • Faith is as much a gift as any and every other aspect of salvation

Because I lack Greek knowledge and the structure of language, I feel at a disadvantage.  To that end, it is somewhat difficult and awkward to respond.  However, as I look at various translations (KJ, NASB, NIV, ESV, etc), it is apparent that none of them draw out these Calvinistic thoughts.  Why didn’t any of these Bible translators include the Calvinism?  Could it be that these Bible translators didn’t see the Calvinism inherent within the passage?

The NIV punctuation breaks Eph 2:8-9 into six segments.  I don’t know if that’s significant or not, but it’s an easy way to look at these verses.

  • For it is by grace you have been saved.  This is a demonstrative statement without ambiguity.  We are saved by grace.  The author doesn’t say we are saved by grace AND faith.
  • Through faith.  My trusty Webster’s Dictionary tells me that the word “through” is not only a preposition, it is also a “function word” used to indicate any number of things such as movement, time, means, completion, exhaustion, as well as to indicate acceptance or approval.  Could it be that God’s “approved way” of us receiving His grace (the free gift of salvation) is through faith?  There’s no indication here that God gives faith to some and withholds faith from others.  The best definition of the word ‘faith’ that I know of comes from Heb 11:1 which says, “ Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”
  • And this not from yourselves. Notice that the author uses the singular word “this” and not the plural word “these”.  I believe that the author is referring only to grace here.
  • It is the gift of God.  Again, notice that the author uses the singular word “it” and not the plural word “they”.  This would again seem to indicate that only one thought – in this case, grace, is being referenced.
  • Not by works. Self-explanatory – good deeds won’t cut it.
  • So that no one can boast.  Self-explanatory so shut-up about how nifty you think you are.

In conclusion, Eph 2:8-9 does not appear to support Calvinist thought that God chooses (elects) some for salvation.  These verses don’t support the notion that faith is a gift of God given to some and not given to others.  Rather – what seems self-evident from a simple reading of the passage is:

We’re saved by grace.

We’re saved by grace through faith.

Put another way, we’re saved by grace through being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Does 2 Peter 1:1 Support Calvinism Afterall?

This is my third response to a Sam Stones essay, Faith and Repentance (http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/faith-and-repentance/). Mr Storms claims that the phrase “have received” is more accurately interpreted as “to obtain by lot”.  Lacking any Greek knowledge and seeking clarity on this subject, I asked Pete Parker, a pastor and friend at Woodcrest Church in Eagan MN, to apply some of his Greek knowledge and understanding.  With Pete’s permission, here’s an abridged email exchange:

Dear Pete,

I hope that you can help with a Greek question I have on 2 Pet 1:1 which reads: “Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”

My question pertains to whether the phrase “have received” is more accurately translated “to obtain by lot”.  Does the difficulty of translating Greek to English leave the English reader lacking the true meaning of what the author intended?  A Calvinist friend claims this verse actually helps to justify and strengthen Calvinist belief in election wherein salvation is because of Him who calls (Rom 9:11).  However, you being a Calvinist, I’m guessing you already know that!

Thanks,

Bob

Dear Bob,

I did a little study this morning and I would have to agree that most references I’ve checked would render the phrase, “have received a faith” to be best translated, “to receive by lot or divine will.” (Luke 1:9; John 19:24; Acts 1:17).  Lot casting was a way in which God could providentially control earthly circumstances to reveal His will.  To receive by lot or divine will seems to infer:

  • Something not attained by personal effort.
  • Something not attained by personal skill.
  • Something not attained by personal worthiness.
  • Something that came purely from God.

As you can imagine, Calvinists really like this verse!

While the majority of the “language experts” agree that the Greek phrase is best rendered “to receive by lot or divine will”, I also tend to trust the various translators – who interestingly enough don’t use the phrase “receive by lot or divine will” in any translations.  Perhaps that phrase doesn’t convey the main point of the verse – Peter wanting his readers to know that their faith was as precious as his was.

I also wonder if the use of this Greek verb primarily emphasizes that this precious faith is a “free gift” from God that we cannot earn more than secondarily emphasizing that God gives it out by divine will.  Perhaps it’s best to interpret the whole “casting of lots” idea as a visual way to determine God’s will on a subject.  I sense God allowed the practice of casting lots to show the people His will on a subject in that it wasn’t the luck of the draw but God who controlled how the draw turned out.

Pete

Dear Pete,

I appreciate your time and effort.  Yes, no doubt Calvinists really like 2 Pet 1:1 and those I meet on the “battlefield” (actually, we write on each other’s blogs) occasionally bring up Greek or Hebrew words and interpretation.  Of course, I’m at a distinct disadvantage here.  Nevertheless, I maintain that one literally has to “have faith” in whatever translation they’re using (KJ, RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, etc) and believe that those translators had a solid understanding of vocabulary, nuance of the language and customs of the day to adequately translate our modern Bible versions.

Your finding that “have received a faith” is best translated “to receive by lot or divine will” is, well, troubling to one with open theistic tendencies.  Sam Storms uses the same references you noted.  Still, I find it difficult to believe that those references support the notion that 1 Pet 1:1 is best interpreted “to receive by lot or divine will”.  I guess I don’t see the connection between receiving by lot or divine will and:

  • High Priests use Tarot cards (I just made that up) to determine who sits in the “big chair” (Luke 1:9).
  • “Rolling dice” to determine whether Matthais or Barnabus would replace Judas as an apostle (Acts 1:17).
  • Guards “flip a coin” to determine who gets Jesus’ clothes after He was crucified (John 19:24).

I don’t doubt that those things happened – they’re recorded events in the Bible after all.  However, I don’t interpret those things as God actually applying His will in those events – well, except for Jesus’ clothing as that was the fulfillment of prophesy.  Anyway, I’ve always thought God wanted none to perish and all to come to repentance – if only I could actually find a verse to support that concept!  Well, must tarry forth.  Thanks, again, Pete.  I appreciate your time and efforts.

Sincerely,

Bob