Tag: Calvinism

Responding to Calvinist Arguments of Sam Storms (II)

This is my second post in response to an essay entitled Faith and Repentance written by Sam storms of Enjoying God Ministries: http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/faith-and-repentance/.  This article was sent to me by my dear friend and ardent Calvinist Colleen in support of her contention that God chooses certain individuals for salvation and also gives them the grace to accept salvation and the faith to believe.

Mr. Storms references 2 Pet 1:1 as another verse that speaks to the issue of faith as a gift of God.  The verse 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.”

Mr. Storms states that the Greek word translated “have received” is related to a verb that means “to obtain by lot” and states, “Thus, faith is removed from the realm of human free will and placed in its proper perspective as having originated in the sovereign and altogether gracious will of God. For it is not by chance or the luck of the draw that some come to saving faith, but by virtue of the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”

That got me to thinking – how do various versions of the Bible prior to the ESV and NIV translate 2 Peter 1:1?

  • KJ (1611) Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
  • ASV (1901) Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
  • RSV (1952) Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
  • NASB (1971) 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:
  • NIV (1978) Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:
  • ESV (2001) Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

That then begs the question, what is the definition of the word “obtain’?  For that, I look to my trusty Webster Dictionary which says:

  • To hold on to
  • To gain or attain usually by planned action or effort

And, what does my trusty Webster Dictionary say is the meaning of the word “received”?

  • To come into possession of
  • To acquire

One obtaining salvation by accepting Christ as their savior appears to be another way to say that as soon as you accept Christ as your savior, you have received salvation.  It seems reasonable, then, to conclude that the original Greek probably does support both “have received” and “have obtained” as there doesn’t appear to be a significant difference between the applications of these words.

Regrettably for Mr. Storms’ argument, there is no implication with this verse that it is God who is doing the “bidding” (pun intended because I was looking for something involving gambling) and determining who will be saved and who will be damned.  So, what then is the reason to believe that 2 Peter 1:1 means anything other than the Gentiles had received the same faith as the apostles?  What am I missing?  More importantly, what are Greek scholars and Bible translators missing for surely, if Mr. Storms is correct, the NIV he quoted from (or any other version for that matter) would have been written to include this Calvinist concept.

I can’t help but conclude that Mr. Storms is guilty of twisting the clear intent of this verse to better support Calvinism.  Mr Storms, there’s no reason to alter, add to, or otherwise interpose the meaning of this verse.  If you wish, I’d be happy to provide you with verses I find troublesome for Calvinistic interpretation.  2 Peter 1:1, however, does not appear to be a verse supporting Calvinistic arguments.

Who Are the Elect, Anyway?

I’ve always found it fascinating to be using the same words, sharing common thoughts and themes, say, with Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses only to realize, for instance, who they believe Jesus to be is radically different from who I believe Jesus to be.  It often comes down to word definitions.  This got me to thinking – there certainly are significant theological differences between Calvinists and Arminians.  However, could a part of that division come down to word definitions?  In this case, what does the term “elect” mean” and who constitutes the “elect”?

The issue of “definitional differences” (that sure sounds philosophical!) occurred to me when I was looking up verses with which to flog Colleen in a previous post.  I stumbled across the topic of “Nations” in my NIV Topical Bible.  It states:

  • After the flood, humanity divided into various nations; God is King over all of them.  He picked out one of them, the descendants of Abraham, as his chosen nation.  The inhabitants of this nation became known as Israelites and later as Jews.  God commanded them to remain separate from other nations, especially by avoiding mixed marriages.  From the perspective of the Bible, humanity came to be divided between the Jew and the Gentile or between Jew and Greek.
  • God’s intention was never to reserve his promised blessing only for one nation but to make it available for all nations.  Already to Abraham he promised that in him all the nations of the earth would be blessed.  The prophets looked ahead to a time in which all nations would hear and respond to the salvation of God.  This was fulfilled when the gospel was preached to Jew and Gentile alike and the church was formed as the worldwide body of Jesus Christ.

So, the thought process of my feeble little mind goes like this:

  • In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve.  Were they the first people to be considered “the elect”?
  • After the flood, those on the arc dispersed and various nations were formed.  God chose the descendants of Abraham (the Israelites) to be “the elect”.
  • Through Israel (God’s elect), all nations would eventually hear and respond to the salvation of God and thereby become “the elect”.
  • Prophesy was fulfilled when Jesus came and preached to the Jews (the “old” elect) and the Gentiles (the “new” elect) alike.

So, what does this mean or prove?  In and of itself, I suppose, nothing.  Calvinists claim that one not yet saved can be an elected person – it’s just that God hasn’t yet brought that person to a point of salvation.  However, as I re-read verses Calvinists often quote to prove the concept of election, what I’m beginning to see is that it is the believers – those who have, by faith, trusted Christ for their salvation that are the elect.  Well, duh!  I can see my Calvinist friends thinking, “Well, what did you expect?  Who did you think the elect were – non-believers?”  THAT’S JUST IT!  THE ELECT ARE THE BELIEVERS.

Therefore, a person doesn’t become “elect” until he is a believer.  As such, being elect is not future oriented wherein a person will believe because God has elected him.  Rather, becoming elect occurs the moment a person believes.  Put another way, an elect person is a Christian.

As I read, for instance, Matt 24 where Jesus is talking about His second coming, it seems apparent that when Jesus uses the word ‘elect’ (verses 22, 24, 31) he is speaking about those who are already believers.

In conclusion, because God doesn’t want anyone to perish (1 Pet 3:9), everyone is called.  But clearly, not everyone responds.  And because everyone is called, everyone has the capacity to become “elect”.  But no one is “elected” until they believe.  So, who are the elect, anyway?  The elect are those who already believe.

Well then – let’s put this definition to the test.  I maintain that if some theory is true, it works in all situations i.e. if A=B and B=C, then A=C.  So, does this new definition (of who are the elect) work on a couple of verses I find troublesome?  For instance:

  • Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed 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 through the sanctifying word of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.

Hmmm.  Perhaps it’s back to the drawing board.  I don’t quite understand it, but I sense that I’m onto something when it comes to the definition of “the elect”.  To that end, any thoughts or comments from readers would be appreciated.

Responding to a Calvinist’s Perspective on My Sheep

Dear Colleen,

In a previous response, you referenced Jn 10:27, which in the NIV says:

  • My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

As related to this verse, you indicated that faith is simple from the perspective that all we have to do is listen to His voice and follow Him.  Of course, according to Calvin, only the elect can hear His voice.  However, as I read and study Calvinist thought and perspective, it leads (for me, anyway) to all kinds of faith issues and theological problems – not the least of which is how God can love all as per Jn 3:16 and 1Pet 3:9 while predestining the vast majority of people to hell?  I’ve taken some liberty and altered the wording of Jn 10:25-28 from a Calvinist perspective.  It comes across harsher than I might wish.  However, it is what it is and I think I’ve accurately captured the Reformed concepts of election within this passage.

  • Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe because God has not granted you eyes to see and ears to hear.  Therefore, because of God’s sovereign election, you do not believe and are therefore eternally doomed.  The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me.  But let me repeat – you do not believe because God has already pre-determined from the foundation of the heaven and earth that you’re going straight to hell the moment you die.  I’ve already determined who my sheep are.  They listen to my voice.  I know them, and they follow me.  I give those lucky chosen few eternal life and they shall never perish.  No one can snatch them out of my hand.  You non-believers, on the other hand, who are not part of the elect because I don’t want to share eternity with you, are therefore not my sheep, and you folks, even though you didn’t have a choice in the matter, are eternally screwed!  Well, enjoy Hell because you folks get to experience my perfect wrath.  You’ve been created for the express purpose of Me sending you to Hell.”

Regarding sovereign grace and election per Jn 10:27 (or the passage for that matter), I don’t see that God unilaterally decided who would be his sheep.  Jesus doesn’t suggest that who were the believers and who were the non-believers was already decided before any of these people were born.  Could it be that Jesus, when He spoke these words, was actually talking to the Romans and Pharisees and whoever else was within earshot?  The author implies nothing other than some of the people immediately around Him were His sheep (believers) while others (i.e. Romans, Pharisees, non-believers, etc.) were not His sheep and therefore didn’t believe.

I welcome your comments.

Responding to a Calvinist’s Perspective on Faith

Dear Colleen,

Your response to my post on the simplicity of believing as outlined by the Apostle’s Creed went in a direction I didn’t expect and so I’ve created a new post.

First of all – we need a definition for faith and the best definition of faith (that I know of) comes from Heb 11:1, which in the NIV says:

  • Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Christian faith makes intrinsic sense (to me, at least) when boiled down to the simplicity of believing per the Apostle’s Creed.  However, you surprised me stating that God is the giver of faith in the same way that God predetermines who’ll be saved (and conversely – who will not be saved).  Perhaps from a Calvinist perspective that makes sense.  In your response you stated that faith is a gift of God according to Eph 2:8-9 and that (I’m quoting you here) “the scriptures tell us that we must be asking God for that faith because it is His gift to give.”  Really?  The NIV reads:

  • 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 can boast.

That the English punctuation breaks Eph 2:8-9 into six “pieces” may or may not be significant.  Nevertheless, it’s an easy way to dissect these verses and so here’s my $0.02 worth as to why I disagree with your premise that God withholds faith from some while giving it to others:

  • 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.
  • 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.

You’ll probably chastise me for re-ordering Eph 2:8-9.  However,  it makes my point – the author isn’t saying we must ask God for faith and that God may (or may not) give that person faith.

  • Through faith, you have been saved by God’s gift of grace.  You didn’t earn God’s grace.  Grace is God’s gift so don’t even bother boasting about your good deeds and actions.

With all due respect, Colleen, I think you’re making Eph 2:8-9 say something other than what it is saying.  These two verses state – we’re saved by grace.  Period.  From Eph 2:8-9 I don’t see that faith is a gift of God given to some and not given to others.  Rather, we’re saved by grace.   We’re saved by grace through faith.  We’re saved by grace through being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Well, there’s more I could add but this seems to be a good place to stop.

Take care, my friend.  I welcome and await your response.

The Free Will of the Wind

Dear Colleen,

What a delight to hear from you.  It’s been quite a while since we’ve written and I’ve been wondering how things have been with you.

First of all, I regret that the hyperlinks aren’t working and I can’t figure out how to fix them.  However, you can copy and paste the link into the “browser bar”.  I wish I was better at this internet stuff.

My struggle to understand God’s character and the nature of God’s will is about the same.  Many work and extraneous activities have somewhat limited my posting.  However, I recently posted about an insight from a photography trip experience to South Dakota’s Badlands last week.

The John Piper sermon you linked http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2009/3865_The_Free_Will_of_the_Wind/ has provided some thought.  As you know, I do take issue with Reformed theology in general and sovereign election in particular.  I’m not familiar with Dr. Piper’s work.  However, the little I have listened to and studied – particularly as it relates to God’s will gives me pause.  You can read a post I wrote regarding Dr. Piper’s perspective on Rom 12:1-2 pertaining to the will of God here: https://martinsmercurialmusings.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/14/

Here’s my $0.02 worth for what I see taught in this passage:

  • Vs3 Jesus declares to Nick that everyone must be born again to see the kingdom of God.
  • Vs4 Nick asks if Jesus is talking about one’s physical birth from their mother.
  • Vs5 Jesus explains that we have to be born of water and spirit.
  • Vs6 Flesh gives birth to flesh and spirit gives birth to spirit.
  • Vs7 Jesus tells Nick that he shouldn’t be surprised at this.
  • Vs8 The wind blows where it pleases – we can hear (the wind’s effect) but can’t see (the wind’s origin or destination).  Yet we can hear and see evidence of the wind.

Not being real familiar with this passage, I did a Goggle search on “Jn 3:8 commentary” and found the following sites:

Unfortunately, I “lost track” of which points came from which web site.  Nevertheless, the main points made by the above links include:

  • This is a play on words. “Spirit” can also mean “breath” or “wind.” Wind is something we can’t see, but we can see the affect it has.
  • There is no “litmus test” to prove that a Christian has the Holy Spirit, but the evidence is the changed life of the individual.
  • We can know the wind exists because we can see its affect on the things it touches and the sound it makes. We cannot see the wind, but we can see what it does. The Spirit is invisible to human eyes, but His work or regeneration can be clearly seen.
  • We cannot see God, but we can see what He does. Jesus said it is the same with those born of the Spirit of God.
  • We can see the result a spiritual birth has on those who experience the new birth. Nicodemus was rejecting what Jesus’ teaching. Even though the Lord explained it to him, Nicodemus didn’t understand or accept this truth. Jesus is saying to Nicodemus that he could see and know the wind was real and existed. Likewise, though not actually seen the Spirit also exists and spiritually changed the lives of men.
  • A baptismal ceremony can be seen.  However, the forgiveness, clean conscience, and receiving the Spirit cannot be seen.
  • Like the powerful wind, though invisible, its power is nevertheless profound.
  • Jesus tells Nicodemus that he shouldn’t reject a doctrine merely because he couldn’t understand it.  Neither could the wind be seen, but its effects were well known and no one doubted the existence or power of the agent.
  • Jesus’ idea to Nicodemus is, “You don’t understand everything about the wind, but you see its effects. That is just how it is with the birth of the Spirit.”
  • Jesus wanted Nicodemus to know that he didn’t have to understand everything about the new birth before he experienced it.
  • The Greek word pneuma can mean both wind and spirit, much like its Hebrew equivalent ruach. Both meanings are in fact present here. John uses this double meaning to make the point that the activity of the Spirit, much like the wind, can’t be precisely described, defined or contained.  However, its impact and results can certainly be experienced.

Honestly, Colleen, this is the first time I’ve seen Calvinist thought related to this passage in general and verse eight in particular.  To that end, I disagree with Dr. Piper’s comment that Jn 3:8 teaches “that being born again is decisively, ultimately, the work of the Spirit’s will, and secondarily and dependently the acting of our will.”  Dr. Piper, I believe, has a pre-determined outcome regarding sovereign election and will use Scripture in convoluted ways and twist logic and meaning to support that perspective.  It is my contention that the concept of “election” is corporate and not individual.  The book, Across the Spectrum, states on pg 144:

  • Paul’s concept of election in these passages is corporate, not individual.  The church is God’s elect people in the same sense that Israel was God’s elect nation.  According to this interpretation, before the foundation of the world God chose to have a people (the church) who would believe in him and would be predestined “to be holy and blameless before him in love.”  When a person chooses to be incorporated into this group by believing in Jesus, all that is predestined for the group now applies to that person.  Hence, Paul can say to all who have chosen to become part of the church, “He chose us [as a group] in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love.  He destined us for adoption as his children (Eph 1:4-5).  (This) interpretation is more plausible than the Calvinist interpretation, which depicts God as deciding who would (and thus who would not) believe in him before the foundation of the world.

Also, Dr. Piper also confuses those who are “threatened” or “thrilled” by Jn 3:8.  However, in fairness, that is a function of his (or probably any Calvinist’s) perspective based on their reading of those verses listed: Jn 6:44-45, Acts 13:48, Rom 9:15-16, Phil 2:12-13, Eph 2:8-9.  Suffice it to say that I have a different understanding (interpretation?) of those verses.  However, to keep this letter from becoming inordinately long, I’ll differ until later. Perhaps we could banter back and forth on our different perspectives.

In short, I’m not persuaded by Dr. Piper’s sermon that the wind Jesus refers to in Jn 3:8 is related in any way to Calvinistic thought.  Well, this probably isn’t the response you had hoped for.  Nevertheless, as always, I welcome your response and feedback.

Most Sincerely,

Bob

Sovereign Election – More Than Salvation?

Below is a letter that Colleen had posted elsewhere on this blog that I think lends itself to its own post. I will have a response to Colleen’s letter in the next day or two. As always, I welcome people’s thoughts and viewpoints.

Sincerely,

Bob

Setting aside God’s sovereign election of individuals to eternal life, let us agree on three other types of election. First, what we could call a “national” election. Wouldn’t you agree that some nations and communities have been given more exposure to a knowledge of true religion and the gospel than others? God undoubtedly does choose some nations to receive much greater spiritual and temporal blessings than others (i.e., America). The contrast is very striking when we compare these to third-world nations such as Africa, India and China. Did these people choose their fate? I don’t think anyone would say they did. The diversities of religious privileges in the different nations can be ascribed to nothing but the good pleasure of God.

Another form of election taught in scripture is that of individuals to the external means of grace, such as hearing and reading the gospel, association with other people of God, and sharing the benefits of the civilization which has arisen where the gospel has gone. None of us has had a chance to say at a particular time in world history or in what country we would be born–or whether we would be a member of the white race or some other. One child is born into health and wealth in a favored land, while another is born into poverty or neglectful parents. Have these things not been sovereignly decided for them? Furthermore, was it not of God’s own choosing that He created us as human beings, in His own image, when He might just as easily have created us as frogs or mosquitos or cats? These things, too, are due to God’s overruling providence, and not to human choice.

Lastly, I offer yet another kind of election, that of individuals to certain vocations. Some are given to amazing gifts for classical guitar, and others have gifts of painting or singing or speaking. Some people have been given personal beauty, some intelligence, some a kind disposition. Did we choose these gifts? I’m here to tell you, Bob, no matter how many guitar lessons I might take, I will never play in the beautiful way you do.

In each of these “types” of election, God gives to some what He withholds from others. We can easily see from conditions in the world and from our own everyday experiences that these blessings are bestowed sovereignly and unconditionally, irrespective of any previous merit or action on the part of those so chosen.

If we are highly favored, we can only be thankful for His blessings; if not highly favored, we have no grounds for complaint. Why, precisely, this or that person is placed in circumstances which lead to saving faith can only rest in the providence of the God Himself.

In Christ Alone,

Colleen

A Calvinist’s Perspective on Jn 3:16

The below post is a letter that a good friend and an ardent Calvinist (who just happens to be the husband of my daughter) recently gave me in response to my contention that Jn 3:16 (along with 2 Pet 3:9, Rev 3:20. Tit 2:11, 1 Tim 2:3) refutes the concept of election. Mike was kind enough to provide a detailed response to each of these verses. Hopefully on subsequent posts I’ll respond to those other verses. However, with this post, I’m focusing in on Jn 3:16. Mike’s letter is heartfelt and reflects the passion and commitment he has for his Christian faith. Mike is heavily involved in Equip Campus Ministries at South Dakota State University and I would encourage people to check out their web site: www.equipsdsu.org. I appreciate Mike and with his permission, I’m pleased to offer his letter for the reader’s consideration. I’ll post my response to this letter in the comments section.

Jn 3:16

For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son and that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

Arminian Interpretation: God loves the entire world, meaning every single individual in the world. However, He has also designed the world in such a way that only believers will have eternal life.

Calvinist Interpretation: God loves the entire world, meaning every single individual in the world. However, He has also designed the world in such a way that only believers will have eternal life.

So what’s the problem?

I think it’s helpful to notice what question this text doesn’t address. It doesn’t address the question for why some do believe and others don’t. All Jn 3:16 says is that God saves the believers.

Why do some believe and others don’t?

We must admit that Jn 3:16 doesn’t answer this question. Here are a few examples within John that will suggest that belief starts with God and not man.

Jn 3:5-8 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Sprit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the spirit.

Thoughts:  It seems like we were born of the Spirit the same way we were born of the flesh. When I was born of the flesh, I played no part in my birth. My birth was 100% a result of my parent’s choice. So it is with my spiritual birth. It has nothing to do with me, but everything to do with God. From our perspective, John says it’s like the wind, you don’t know where it comes from or where it goes.

Jn 6:28-29 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.

Thoughts: The people want to know how they can be doing the works of God. Jesus replies by saying, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

Observation:

Belief is a work. Which presents a problem because Eph 2:9 says that salvation is not a result of works.

But this works because Jesus says that our belief is a work of God, not a work of man.

This is like Jn 1:12-13 that says, “To all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Jn 10:24-28 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “how long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.”

Observations:

Jesus is answering the question we posed about, namely, “who do some believe and others don’t?”

His answer to why the Jews don’t believe is, “because they are not a part of his flock.”

In other words, those who are a part of Jesus’ flock will believe.

Again, to put it another way, being a part of Jesus’ flock is the prerequisite for belief. If we are in Jesus’ flock, we will believe. If we are not in Jesus’ flock, we will not believe.

Please Pass the Salt & Grace

I read with interest an article sent to me entitled, Two Views of Regeneration, by John Hendrxy that compares:

  • Monergism – the doctrine that the human will possesses no inclination toward holiness (until regenerated) and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration.
  • Synergism – the doctrine that the human will and the divine Spirit cooperate in regeneration.

An attached link pointed me to this site: www.monergism.com.

My NIV Topical Bible states that regeneration, in essence the act of being born again, results in salvation.

Monergism vs. Synergism. Sounds like a lawsuit, doesn’t it? This discussion has been around since before the flood. Well, it is probably more accurate to state that this topic has been around since the days of John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius. In any event, John Hendrxy states, [the] “unscriptural view (of synergism in general and of prevenient grace in particular) is the greatest threat to a true understanding of salvation in the Church today.”

The arguments and evidence presented by Mr. Hendrxy are, to say the least, compelling. However, it doesn’t take much internet searching to find (to me, anyway) strong Biblical evidence to support the doctrine of synergism and the concepts of Arminianism. Is one obviously right and the other obviously wrong? Is there some middle-point wherein there is truth in both Calvinism and Arminianism?

I cannot help but think that this discussion is a microcosm of many different thoughts, ideas, perceptions, and understandings of various Christian thought and I find it disconcerting that so many Christians can have so many different and divergent thoughts as to:

  • The nature and character of God.
  • The life of Christ.
  • The manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer.
  • Does God “control” everything or does He grant freedom?
  • Does God foreknow everything in the future or is there some openness?
  • The Genesis debate re old-earth versus young-earth.
  • Divergent opinions regarding women in ministry.
  • Speaking in tongues.
  • The Tribulation.

With regard to the Calvinists verses the Arminians, I am more comfortable with the Arminian arguments. Perhaps Colleen with her Greek lexicon and thoughtful arguments will persuade me otherwise.

There’s a lot of varied opinion within Christian circles about a whole host of issues and there is a lot of biblical substance to each of the arguments. A most interesting book, Across the Spectrum, argues from both sides of many significant on-going theological issues within the Evangelical Christian community. So, in backing away from the specifics of any particular arguments – at least in this post, I am asking:

  • Can we acknowledge that there are significant arguments for both Calvinism and Arminianism?
  • Conversely, can we acknowledge that there are significant objections to both Calvinism and Arminianism?

I like salt on my food and grace in my arguments as it tends to make both more palatable and more interesting. As always, I welcome thoughts and opinions.

Clarifying The Problem – Biblical Interpretation

Who knew that a four-hour statistical process-control review meeting would help clarify my struggle with aspects of the Christian faith? Perhaps it is inherent working within a chemistry/manufacturing environment to understand all of the known variables. One aspect of understanding the variables is safety related, of course. Another aspect of understanding the variables relates to the cost of doing business and ensuring that a quality product is the end-result. To that end, when process variables are in control, the outcome (in this case how well the final products works) can be accurately predicted and there will be a minimum of variance.

So, what’s the correlation (pun intended) of the day job with my faith? Part of my struggle revolves around divergent views as Calvinist, Arminian, open theist, or any other view for that matter. I presume that God has provided all that we mere mortals would ever need to know about Him through the Bible. So, how are fundamental beliefs so varied from one Christian to another? Why is my interpretation and understanding of Eph 1:4 entirely different from that of CJ Mahaney? Note: please see my previous post regarding CJ Mahaney’s sermon on sovereign grace and divine election. Is it possible, for instance, that I’m looking at the “mean value” while CJ Mahaney is looking at the “median value” within the same “data sets”? Is there more than one interpretation for this verse – or for passages within Lamentations 3 and Romans 9? Can we make sense of apparently conflicting passages of Scripture?

I’m paraphrasing a little: but if I hold to Christ’s teachings, I’ll know the truth which will set me free. Seems simple enough – and according to Bob George in his book, Classic Christianity, if the truth sets me free, then the opposite is true; error binds me up. Feeling conflicted about my faith; I suppose it would seem reasonable that I am in error. But am I?

Defining the terms

While recently searching for information on Calvinism I stumbled across a web site quoting material from The Five Points of Calvinism – Defined, Defended, Documented by David Steele and Curtis Thomas. I thought it would be beneficial to post my understanding of these terms and highlight the specific differences (at least related to divine election) that I have with my Calvinist friends.

According to Arminianism:

  • Salvation is accomplished through the combined efforts of God (who takes the initiative) and man (who must respond) with man’s response being the determining factor. God has provided salvation for everyone, but His provision becomes effective only for those who, of their own free will, “choose” to cooperate with Him and accept His offer of grace. At the crucial point, man’s will plays a decisive role. Thus man, not God, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation.

According to Calvinism:

  • Salvation is accomplished by the almighty power of the Triune God. The Father chose a people, the Son died for them; the Holy Spirit makes Christ’s death effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance, thereby causing them to willingly obey the gospel. The entire process (election, redemption, regeneration) is the work of God and is by grace alone. Thus God, not man, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation.

The reason for my interest is that (I think) the Calvinist-Arminian debate goes to the nature and character of who we believe God to be. Feel free to post your thoughts and comments.