Dr. Ivan Spencer, my Apologetics professor, lectured on the problem of evil this week. He said that atheists often like to throw in “hidden premises,” implicit premises that can easily confuse a person if he or she fails to see what those implicit premises are. When atheists formulate premises and conclusions to attack theism (and the existence of God), they like to throw in hidden assumptions a lot.
But in the last year, I’ve come to see that Calvinists are guilty of the exact same thing. Revisiting “Debating Calvinism” by James White and Dave Hunt got me to see this once more.
James White writes in his section on “Unconditional Election”:
“Unconditional Election is simply the recognition of the biblical teaching that GOD IS FREE IN THE MATTER OF SALVATION. He chooses to exercise mercy and grace toward undeserving creatures solely on the basis of ‘the good pleasure of His will’ (Ephesians 1:5). THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CREATURE THAT MERITS, EARNS, OR ATTRACTS HIS FAVOR. His election is unconditional in that IT IS BASED SOLELY ON HIS PURPOSE AND HIS PLEASURE AND NOT IN ANYTHING WHATSOEVER IN THE CREATURE. This belief, of course, is most unpopular, since IT LEAVES NO ROOM FOR MAN’S ACCOMPLISHMENTS, WORKS, RITUALS, SACRAMENTS, or (AND THIS IS THE MAIN ISSUE), THE EXERCISE OF HIS ALLEGEDLY AUTONOMOUS WILL” (James White, “Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views.” Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2004, pages 91-92).
We can present James White’s argument in the following syllogism:
1. God is free in the matter of salvation.
2. God chooses to show mercy and grace on “the good pleasure of His will.”
3. The creature cannot merit God’s grace and mercy.
4. God does not show mercy and grace due to man’s “autonomous” will. Therefore, God's "good pleasure" is in opposition to man's will ("autonomous" according to White).
The issue for James White, at least, is free will. A little later in his exposition of Ephesians 1, White writes:
“Why one man and not another? Man’s religions and traditions put the answer to that question firmly in the realm of human choice and accomplishment, but the Bible gives a very different answer. Upon what basis does God choose one and not another? ‘According to the kind intention of His will.’ It is God’s will, God’s purpose, God’s intention that determines the issue...if the crux of the matter lies IN MAN’S SUCCESSFUL ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, OR EVEN IN THE EXERCISE OF ‘FREE WILL’ TO EFFECTUATE GOD’S GRACE, how can the very next phrase speak of the praise of the glory of His grace?” (“Debating Calvinism,” pp. 93-94)
What White doesn’t understand, however, is that his attempts to separate free will from God’s sovereignty do not make his case; rather, it breaks it. Notice that in the syllogism above, White calls the human will “autonomous” and then separates the free will from God’s good pleasure in his quote on Ephesians 1. Why does White do this, when he knows that there is no such thing as an “autonomous” will? The word “autonomous” means to be one’s own law; so an autonomous will is one that answers to no one, where each human is their own God. But is that how God made man? No. Man has a will (which is a part of what it means to be “like” his Creator), but the will itself was created by God. Therefore, man can NEVER have an autonomous will; and for White to contribute the will to man himself robs God of His glory. If God made the will, then He made it originally good (not evil) and deemed it worthy of existence.
Secondly, he states that “the exercise of ‘free will’” is not what makes the grace of God effective. When White says this, though, he pairs up man’s “exercising of free will” with “man’s accomplishments,” etc. In White’s mind (as in the minds of Calvinists), faith is a work. The Scriptures, however, distinguish the two (Romans 4:2-3).
Sadly enough, White’s syllogism above links free will and the human decision. This is an implicit premise, but White finally decides to not hide it anymore:
“Every WORKS-ORIENTED system must deny God His kingship over the creature and must give to man’s abilities and powers beyond his sinful state, so that in the final analysis God’s power can be ‘channeled’ through human structures, whether they be rituals, sacraments, or even the very popular concept of ‘DECISIONALISM,’ THE IDEA THAT MAN, BY HIS AUTONOMOUS WILL, CONTROLS THE VERY WORK OF THE TRIUNE GOD IN SALVATION” (“Debating Calvinism,” page 99).
So now we all know White’s hidden premise: since God does not save on the basis of merit or accomplishment, He CANNOT SAVE ON THE BASIS OF FAITH! But as I said earlier, faith is not a work.
What White doesn’t comprehend about Ephesians 1 (a classic Calvinist passage) is that God saves by “the good pleasure of His will” (Eph. 1:5). But if this is true, then a question must be posed: WHAT seems good to God? What does He will in salvation? In an earlier quote in this post, I quoted James White saying that it is “to the praise of the glory of His grace” that He selects individuals to be saved. However, the key to the passage is “the praise...of His GRACE”! And why is His grace to be praised? Paul answers this question in Romans 4:16ff---
“Therefore it is of faith THAT IT MIGHT BE ACCORDING TO GRACE, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to THOSE WHO ARE OF THE LAW, but also to THOSE WHO ARE OF THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM, who is the father of us all (as it is written, ‘I have made you a father of many nations’)” (Rom. 4:16-17, NKJV).
Why is God’s grace to be praised? Is it because He does whatever He wants? Yes! But what is the “whatever He wants”? Is it unconditional election, where He chooses some to be saved and leaves others in their damnation? NO!! Instead, God is to be praised for His grace because His grace “made room” for Gentiles; for, without it, all the Gentiles would still be in their sins. The fact that God did not just grant salvation to the Jews presents a God who is willing to bestow grace and faith on all of His human creation, not just some of it.
Calvinists will continue to write, produce books, and win many converts. But the Bible presents the truth; and I am convinced that the truth will win out in the end.
Showing posts with label Debating Calvinism: Five Points and Two Views. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Debating Calvinism: Five Points and Two Views. Show all posts
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Confirmation of a Non-Calvinist: Assurance of Faith
I enjoy writing on Calvinist confessions. When I did the work on the warning passages in Hebrews (see the Hebrews section to the right), I found it thrilling when Classical Calvinist Buist M. Fanning admitted that certain passages of Hebrews posed problems for his theology. As hard as it was for him to make that confession, I’m so thankful he did. As an old saying goes, “Confession is good for the soul.” It is good for all of us when we can come to the table and confess our faults, our short-sightedness, our need for correction and criticism from others.
I have done that here at the site: I have accepted correction. Prior to this past year, I knew nothing of middle knowledge; and when I learned what middle knowledge was, I initially shunned it and tossed it aside. However, reading Open Theist arguments (from Bruce Ware’s work, “God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism”) convinced me that in a sense, if all God knew was one option of a range of choices, then the Open Theist must be right. If God only knew that I would turn right, but didn’t equally know that I “could” turn left, then God determined that I would go right, without any regard for my choice whatsoever. God only knew what He had predetermined (in that system). I talked with the owner of the blog “Classical Arminianism” at blogspot, Billy Birch, some months ago at lunch about this subject. His response to the Open Theist claim was, “We Classical Arminians have always affirmed God’s exhaustive foreknowledge.” I told him that his statement was true; however, we Classical Arminians have failed to incorporate our belief into our theology. And when we come to passages like 1 Samuel 23:11-13, in which God tells David an outcome that isn’t actualized, we find Classical Arminian theology facing a dilemma...until we incorporate middle knowledge. Once we do, we find that God tells David (at that moment) what will actually happen; however, David takes the words of the Lord and flees from Keilah, thus preventing the prediction from coming true. The Lord’s words, then, were conditional upon David’s decision.
Incorporating middle knowledge into the Classical Arminian system does not hurt the system itself; rather, middle knowledge boosts God’s divine foreknowledge. It is truly “exhaustive” in that God even knows the options that you and I never choose that were “potential” selects in our day-to-day decisions.
Middle knowledge taught me how to incorporate my view of God’s exhaustive foreknowledge with the extent to which God’s foreknowledge is exhaustive (via the Scriptures). To say it best, we have to be able to subject ourselves to learning...and allow ourselves to be challenged by the Word of God. If we refuse to do so, we might end up with a theological system we can live with...but it won’t be the correct one. As for me, I’ve been on a pursuit for the most biblical theological system existing; and I hold out hope that maybe I’m wrong and that there is more learning in-store for me in the future. However, I will say this: If I’m wrong, at least it can be said that I am truly seeking the truth. And if I’m seeking the truth, the Lord will honor my seeking and grant me knowledge of the truth...for He desires that we earnestly seek Him. All good things, including knowledge of the truth, come from Him.In any case, I think it’s admirable when theologians make statements that show the inconsistencies in their theologies (like Buist Fanning).
However, there are times when those who do not hold to a particular type of theology make statements that seem to confirm a particular theology. One such example is Dave Hunt, and he makes this grand confession in his debate with James White, published in a book titled “Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views”:
“Our assurance is not in baptism, good works, or denial of choice. John declares, ‘These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life’ (1 John 5:13). BELIEVING IN CHRIST IS OUR ASSURANCE” (Dave Hunt, “Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views.” Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2004, page 399).
I have argued here at CTS that faith is the “birthright to the inheritance of salvation,” that, just as Esau threw away his birthright (Heb. 12), so can believers throw away their faith. I’ve also discussed Luke 8, the Parable of the Soils, and the rocky soil that “believed for a time” and then fell away due to temptation (Luke 8:13). I’ve walked the readership through Romans 11 to see that the Gentiles differ from the Jews in that they stand by their faith (Rom. 11:20ff). I’ve made it clear that faith is the condition by which one “stands” or “falls away” from the faith. Dave Hunt, in his debate with James White, states this: that faith is the assurance that we have as believers. Our assurance is present due to our faith.
But when most Christians say the above statements (as Dave Hunt does), they rarely think about what this means: if our assurance comes because of our faith, then our assurance is CONDITIONAL: as Paul told the Gentiles in Romans 11, “You stand by your faith” (Rom. 11:20). Dave Hunt argues against unconditional election in his debate with James White; however, if election is not “unconditional,” then what else can election be but “conditional”? And if election is conditional, then what can security be but “conditional”? This is why I’ve taken time here at the blog to go through the Scriptures: because I think so many ordinary believers are Classical Arminian in their theology, but don’t know it. I went to a local coffeeshop some time ago and met a gentleman who stated that he could see “general and particular atonement” in a certain passage of Scripture. I looked at him and said, “You believe, then, in the singular redemption view, which states that Christ died for all, but only grants salvation ON THE BASIS OF FAITH.” What is shocking is not that the gentleman didn’t know that he was holding to a Classical Arminian view---but that he claimed to be Calvinist!
Hebrews confirms Dave Hunt’s view:
“Therefore, do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise” (Hebrews 10:35-36, NKJV).
The Greek word for “confidence” (v.35) is “parresia,” which can also mean “assurance.” So when the writer tells the scattered believers, “do not cast away your confidence,” he tells them not to throw off their assurance. And then he tells them, “you have need of endurance.” So assurance is key to endurance. At the end of chapter 10, the writer quotes Rom. 1:17: “Now the just shall live by faith.” Faith is the possession of the just, or the righteous.
An earlier portion of Hebrews 10 discusses this idea of assurance (confidence) and faith:
“Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near in FULL ASSURANCE OF FAITH, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water; let us hold fast the confession of our hope WITHOUT WAVERING, for He who promised is faithful” (Heb. 10:19-23).
The key words in this passage involve the phrase “full assurance of faith” (v.22) and “without wavering” (v.23). The phrase “full assurance of faith” in the Greek is two words, “plerophoria (full assurance) pisteos (of faith).” William Lane Craig writes regarding “full assurance of faith” in his work, “Reasonable Faith”:
“Paul uses the term ‘plerophoria’ (complete confidence, full assurance) to indicate that the believer has knowledge of the truth as a result of the Spirit’s work (Col. 2:2; 1 Thess. 1:5; cf. Rom. 4:21; 14:5; Col. 4:12). Sometimes this is called ‘ASSURANCE OF SALVATION’ by Christians today, and assurance of salvation entails certain truths of Christianity, such as ‘God forgives my sin,’ ‘Christ has reconciled me to God,’ and so on, so that in having assurance of salvation one has assurance of these truths” (William Lane Craig, “Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics,” Third Edition. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2008, page 44).
Because a person has assurance of their salvation, they know certain salvific truths: that God has saved them, that God reconciled them through Christ, that God is returning for them some day to give them salvation, etc.
This is why the writer of Hebrews 10 tells the scattered believers to draw near to God with a “full assurance of faith”: because the believers know certain salvific truths, such as those in Hebrews 10:19-21---the blood of Jesus has given us access to “the Holiest” (that being the throne of God), the veil, “His flesh,” has provided this access to the throne; Christ is our High Priest over the house of God (that house being the believers, Heb. 3:6). The writer of Hebrews exhorts the believers to let their actions be application of the spiritual truths they already possess. They know the truths of the faith; they just need to act on them now, even in the face of persecution.
Notice, however, that the truths of the faith should move the believer to draw near to God with full assurance of faith (Heb. 10:23), encourage other believers (v.24), and assemble with fellow believers to worship and encourage (v.25). Today’s believers have been given the same instruction, so that we too, might inherit the promises.
Dave Hunt is not alone in his statement that assurance comes through faith. Ken Keathley states this as well when he writes in a footnote about Thomas Schreiner (author of “The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance”):
“After I wrote this chapter (titled “E is for Eternal Life,” my emphasis), Dr. Schreiner was kind enough to send me a draft of his upcoming book ‘Run To Win The Prize’ (InterVarsity). In it he clarifies his position and provides a helpful response to many concerns expressed by me and others. Most helpful is HIS DESCRIPTION OF PERSEVERANCE, which he defines as ‘PERSEVERING IN FAITH’----A DEFINITION WITH WHICH I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY” (Ken Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, page 185).
Both Thomas Schreiner and Ken Keathley hold to “perseverance in faith.” This is an interesting phrase by Schreiner; in fact, perseverance in faith is exactly what Arminius himself held to in his “Works”:
“I subjoin, that there is a vast difference between the enunciation of these two sentences: (1) ‘It is possible for believers to decline from the FAITH;’ and (2) ‘It is possible for believers to decline from SALVATION.’ For the latter, when rigidly and accurately examined, CAN SCARCELY BE ADMITTED;---It being impossible for believers, AS LONG AS THEY REMAIN BELIEVERS, to decline from salvation. Because, were this possible, THAT POWER OF GOD WOULD BE CONQUERED WHICH HE HAS DETERMINED TO EMPLOY IN SAVING BELIEVERS. On the other hand, IF BELIEVERS FALL AWAY FROM THE FAITH AND BECOME UNBELIEVERS, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO DO OTHERWISE THAN DECLINE FROM SALVATION,---that is, PROVIDED THEY STILL CONTINUE UNBELIEVERS” (James Arminius, Works 1:741-742).
Arminius found the biblical answer to reconciling the promises and warnings: and that was faith. In the same way, Keathley’s concession of he and Schreiner’s belief is very telling indeed. If it does nothing else, it at least shows us that Arminius may not have been as “off his rocker” as most people presume he was.
I have done that here at the site: I have accepted correction. Prior to this past year, I knew nothing of middle knowledge; and when I learned what middle knowledge was, I initially shunned it and tossed it aside. However, reading Open Theist arguments (from Bruce Ware’s work, “God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism”) convinced me that in a sense, if all God knew was one option of a range of choices, then the Open Theist must be right. If God only knew that I would turn right, but didn’t equally know that I “could” turn left, then God determined that I would go right, without any regard for my choice whatsoever. God only knew what He had predetermined (in that system). I talked with the owner of the blog “Classical Arminianism” at blogspot, Billy Birch, some months ago at lunch about this subject. His response to the Open Theist claim was, “We Classical Arminians have always affirmed God’s exhaustive foreknowledge.” I told him that his statement was true; however, we Classical Arminians have failed to incorporate our belief into our theology. And when we come to passages like 1 Samuel 23:11-13, in which God tells David an outcome that isn’t actualized, we find Classical Arminian theology facing a dilemma...until we incorporate middle knowledge. Once we do, we find that God tells David (at that moment) what will actually happen; however, David takes the words of the Lord and flees from Keilah, thus preventing the prediction from coming true. The Lord’s words, then, were conditional upon David’s decision.
Incorporating middle knowledge into the Classical Arminian system does not hurt the system itself; rather, middle knowledge boosts God’s divine foreknowledge. It is truly “exhaustive” in that God even knows the options that you and I never choose that were “potential” selects in our day-to-day decisions.
Middle knowledge taught me how to incorporate my view of God’s exhaustive foreknowledge with the extent to which God’s foreknowledge is exhaustive (via the Scriptures). To say it best, we have to be able to subject ourselves to learning...and allow ourselves to be challenged by the Word of God. If we refuse to do so, we might end up with a theological system we can live with...but it won’t be the correct one. As for me, I’ve been on a pursuit for the most biblical theological system existing; and I hold out hope that maybe I’m wrong and that there is more learning in-store for me in the future. However, I will say this: If I’m wrong, at least it can be said that I am truly seeking the truth. And if I’m seeking the truth, the Lord will honor my seeking and grant me knowledge of the truth...for He desires that we earnestly seek Him. All good things, including knowledge of the truth, come from Him.In any case, I think it’s admirable when theologians make statements that show the inconsistencies in their theologies (like Buist Fanning).
However, there are times when those who do not hold to a particular type of theology make statements that seem to confirm a particular theology. One such example is Dave Hunt, and he makes this grand confession in his debate with James White, published in a book titled “Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views”:
“Our assurance is not in baptism, good works, or denial of choice. John declares, ‘These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life’ (1 John 5:13). BELIEVING IN CHRIST IS OUR ASSURANCE” (Dave Hunt, “Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views.” Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2004, page 399).
I have argued here at CTS that faith is the “birthright to the inheritance of salvation,” that, just as Esau threw away his birthright (Heb. 12), so can believers throw away their faith. I’ve also discussed Luke 8, the Parable of the Soils, and the rocky soil that “believed for a time” and then fell away due to temptation (Luke 8:13). I’ve walked the readership through Romans 11 to see that the Gentiles differ from the Jews in that they stand by their faith (Rom. 11:20ff). I’ve made it clear that faith is the condition by which one “stands” or “falls away” from the faith. Dave Hunt, in his debate with James White, states this: that faith is the assurance that we have as believers. Our assurance is present due to our faith.
But when most Christians say the above statements (as Dave Hunt does), they rarely think about what this means: if our assurance comes because of our faith, then our assurance is CONDITIONAL: as Paul told the Gentiles in Romans 11, “You stand by your faith” (Rom. 11:20). Dave Hunt argues against unconditional election in his debate with James White; however, if election is not “unconditional,” then what else can election be but “conditional”? And if election is conditional, then what can security be but “conditional”? This is why I’ve taken time here at the blog to go through the Scriptures: because I think so many ordinary believers are Classical Arminian in their theology, but don’t know it. I went to a local coffeeshop some time ago and met a gentleman who stated that he could see “general and particular atonement” in a certain passage of Scripture. I looked at him and said, “You believe, then, in the singular redemption view, which states that Christ died for all, but only grants salvation ON THE BASIS OF FAITH.” What is shocking is not that the gentleman didn’t know that he was holding to a Classical Arminian view---but that he claimed to be Calvinist!
Hebrews confirms Dave Hunt’s view:
“Therefore, do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise” (Hebrews 10:35-36, NKJV).
The Greek word for “confidence” (v.35) is “parresia,” which can also mean “assurance.” So when the writer tells the scattered believers, “do not cast away your confidence,” he tells them not to throw off their assurance. And then he tells them, “you have need of endurance.” So assurance is key to endurance. At the end of chapter 10, the writer quotes Rom. 1:17: “Now the just shall live by faith.” Faith is the possession of the just, or the righteous.
An earlier portion of Hebrews 10 discusses this idea of assurance (confidence) and faith:
“Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near in FULL ASSURANCE OF FAITH, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water; let us hold fast the confession of our hope WITHOUT WAVERING, for He who promised is faithful” (Heb. 10:19-23).
The key words in this passage involve the phrase “full assurance of faith” (v.22) and “without wavering” (v.23). The phrase “full assurance of faith” in the Greek is two words, “plerophoria (full assurance) pisteos (of faith).” William Lane Craig writes regarding “full assurance of faith” in his work, “Reasonable Faith”:
“Paul uses the term ‘plerophoria’ (complete confidence, full assurance) to indicate that the believer has knowledge of the truth as a result of the Spirit’s work (Col. 2:2; 1 Thess. 1:5; cf. Rom. 4:21; 14:5; Col. 4:12). Sometimes this is called ‘ASSURANCE OF SALVATION’ by Christians today, and assurance of salvation entails certain truths of Christianity, such as ‘God forgives my sin,’ ‘Christ has reconciled me to God,’ and so on, so that in having assurance of salvation one has assurance of these truths” (William Lane Craig, “Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics,” Third Edition. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2008, page 44).
Because a person has assurance of their salvation, they know certain salvific truths: that God has saved them, that God reconciled them through Christ, that God is returning for them some day to give them salvation, etc.
This is why the writer of Hebrews 10 tells the scattered believers to draw near to God with a “full assurance of faith”: because the believers know certain salvific truths, such as those in Hebrews 10:19-21---the blood of Jesus has given us access to “the Holiest” (that being the throne of God), the veil, “His flesh,” has provided this access to the throne; Christ is our High Priest over the house of God (that house being the believers, Heb. 3:6). The writer of Hebrews exhorts the believers to let their actions be application of the spiritual truths they already possess. They know the truths of the faith; they just need to act on them now, even in the face of persecution.
Notice, however, that the truths of the faith should move the believer to draw near to God with full assurance of faith (Heb. 10:23), encourage other believers (v.24), and assemble with fellow believers to worship and encourage (v.25). Today’s believers have been given the same instruction, so that we too, might inherit the promises.
Dave Hunt is not alone in his statement that assurance comes through faith. Ken Keathley states this as well when he writes in a footnote about Thomas Schreiner (author of “The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance”):
“After I wrote this chapter (titled “E is for Eternal Life,” my emphasis), Dr. Schreiner was kind enough to send me a draft of his upcoming book ‘Run To Win The Prize’ (InterVarsity). In it he clarifies his position and provides a helpful response to many concerns expressed by me and others. Most helpful is HIS DESCRIPTION OF PERSEVERANCE, which he defines as ‘PERSEVERING IN FAITH’----A DEFINITION WITH WHICH I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY” (Ken Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, page 185).
Both Thomas Schreiner and Ken Keathley hold to “perseverance in faith.” This is an interesting phrase by Schreiner; in fact, perseverance in faith is exactly what Arminius himself held to in his “Works”:
“I subjoin, that there is a vast difference between the enunciation of these two sentences: (1) ‘It is possible for believers to decline from the FAITH;’ and (2) ‘It is possible for believers to decline from SALVATION.’ For the latter, when rigidly and accurately examined, CAN SCARCELY BE ADMITTED;---It being impossible for believers, AS LONG AS THEY REMAIN BELIEVERS, to decline from salvation. Because, were this possible, THAT POWER OF GOD WOULD BE CONQUERED WHICH HE HAS DETERMINED TO EMPLOY IN SAVING BELIEVERS. On the other hand, IF BELIEVERS FALL AWAY FROM THE FAITH AND BECOME UNBELIEVERS, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO DO OTHERWISE THAN DECLINE FROM SALVATION,---that is, PROVIDED THEY STILL CONTINUE UNBELIEVERS” (James Arminius, Works 1:741-742).
Arminius found the biblical answer to reconciling the promises and warnings: and that was faith. In the same way, Keathley’s concession of he and Schreiner’s belief is very telling indeed. If it does nothing else, it at least shows us that Arminius may not have been as “off his rocker” as most people presume he was.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Four-Point Arminianism and the Doctrine of Eternal Security
I would like to dedicate this post to my fellow Arminians, those who hold to four of the five points of Classical Arminianism. I do realize that five-point Arminians and four-point Arminians have had their share of disagreement over the years, since the one point of contention between both camps has been the perseverance of the saints (conditional/unconditional).
I’ve stated it here at the site that one of the key issues of theology is consistency: that is, how all the five points of the theological system(s) hold together. If one point does not flow from the other four, then the system needs to be abandoned in favor of a more coherent and consistent one. The characteristic of coherency and consistency is important, especially when one considers that theological systems point to the “theos,” God Himself---and there is no inconsistency or incoherency in God. There is nothing about the character of God that is inconsistent or contradictory (2 Tim. 2:13).
With the idea of consistency and coherency at the helm, we will now approach the theological systems I’ve discussed in great detail at the site. Let’s take Calvinism, for example. Those who hold to all five points, “TULIP,” are the ONLY consistent Calvinists. How can this be true? It is so because if one argues the Calvinist conception of “Total Depravity,” then one will also see that God must “unconditionally elect” (because God does not enable the will to choose Christ); once God decides whom He will “pick and choose” for salvation, He then decides to die for only those He selected (Limited Atonement); to get these people to come to Himself (despite their depravity), God draws them by His “Irresistible Grace,” and then “Unconditionally Perseveres” them to the end, and they are saved. In the Calvinist system, those whom God selects are “guaranteed” salvation.
All the other “Calvinist” systems, such as Amyraldianism (four-point Calvinism), or Molinism (three-point Calvinism), are inconsistent. Why? Let’s take Molinism, for example. Molinism holds to the Calvinist tenets of Depravity (Radical), Election (Sovereign Election), and Perseverance (Eternal Life). Molinism differs only in its views of Grace (Overcoming, not Irresistible) and Singular Redemption (instead of Limited Atonement). Within the Molinist system, there is a conflict with Sovereign Election (Unconditional in nature) and Singular Redemption (conditional in nature, since only those who believe receive Jesus’ atonement). The question becomes, then, how can Jesus truly offer His atonement to “all who believe” IF He actually picked those who would receive His atonement? If He picked them from the beginning, then “those who believe” is a problematic statement. Here’s where I agree with Calvinism: If God has picked those who will be saved (and I’m assuming this for argument’s sake), then they don’t need to believe. God will simply regenerate the chosen before they believe. What need is there to have a qualification (belief) for those whom God has already decided of His own will would be saved by His blood? And if God has picked those He will save before time began, then how can the others be responsible for not believing? I’m sure that Molinists have an answer for this one, but the only way responsibility can be ensured on the part of the unbeliever and believer alike is if God’s call is not efficacious, does not force some to believe, does not involve irresistible grace. In other words, God’s call requires a genuine human response. Responses are not genuine if God predetermined them before they occur in time. Rather, we are just “sock puppets” living out God’s predetermined decrees (we are just fulfilling “The Divine Script”).
So, to be consistent, one must hold to either all five points of Calvinism, or...that’s right: ALL FIVE POINTS OF ARMINIANISM! This is why I wanted to write this post: to make a point for five-point Arminianism.
I’ve been doing a lot of work on the Doctrine of Eternal Security here at CTS, and I’ve made it clear that the doctrine itself presupposes divine guarantee of perseverance: those whom Christ chose will infallibly persevere to the end and be saved (see posts on Total Depravity). But divine guarantees are only allowed to exist within a NECESSARY kind of system---in other words, a predetermined one. Between Calvinism and Arminianism, Calvinism is the only deterministic system; it alone has the right to presuppose eternal security. Read the words of Herbert Lockeyer:
“The doctrine of eternal security, sometimes associated with the perseverance of the saints, IS REFERRED TO AS A CALVINISTIC DOCTRINE. John Calvin taught that this doctrine stands proven, not only by ITS ASSOCATION WITH OTHER DOCTRINES like those of ELECTION, ATONEMENT, the intercession and mediatorial dominion of Christ, imputed righteousness and regeneration...” (Herbert Lockeyer, “All the Doctrines of the Bible: A Study and Analysis of Major Biblical Doctrines.” Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1964, page 223).
First, Lockeyer calls doctrine of eternal security a “Calvinistic doctrine.” This means that it is a teaching of Calvinism. Next, this doctrine aligns with others such as “election” and “atonement.” In the case of Calvinism, this would be “unconditional election” and “limited atonement.” So for Arminians who desire to hold to eternal security, they will be forced to abandon the other four points of Arminianism and hold to all five points of Calvinism. OSAS Arminians (Once-Saved-Always-Saved Arminians), for example, are inconsistent in holding to the Calvinist doctrine of eternal security while arguing grace-enabled responsibility in the other four points of Classical Arminianism.
If Herbert Lockeyer isn’t convincing enough, here are the words of staunch five-point Calvinist James White:
“Those who limit God’s freedom through asserting some form of libertarian free will are COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT in claiming that once a person ‘accepts Christ,’ HE SOMEHOW LOSES THE FREE WILL THAT GOT HIM TO THAT POSITION IN THE FIRST PLACE and is now ‘secure’ from falling. If Christ’s work of salvation is dependent upon our cooperation to be effective, THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE IT IS ETERNALLY SECURE AT ANY POINT” (James White (Dave Hunt), “Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views.” Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2004, page 401).
Let’s examine White’s quote. First, he states that free will “limits God’s freedom.” I think White needs to define what he means by this. In Classical Arminianism, God “limits Himself” (if for no other better phrase) on account of His character. For instance, when God told Noah, “I will never flood the earth again with water” (Genesis 9:15), and put a rainbow in the sky as a sign (Gen. 9:16), the Lord was holding Himself to His own word. Because He promised Noah He would never flood the earth again, the world itself cannot be destroyed by water (since that would contradict what God Himself said). In the Classical Arminian sense, God “limits” Himself to be who He is. He is a man of His word: God does not make and break promises at whim (2 Peter 3:9) and is true to Himself (2 Tim. 2:13). The fact that man can make decisions demonstrates his likeness to His Creator, and magnifies the sovereignty of God (as well as His freedom).
Despite my initial disagreement with White, though, I agree with what he says from the moment (after the above phrase) forward. White claims that if God bases salvation on the choice of the individual, then it would be “completely inconsistent” for God to take that back and eternally secure a person. If free will places one in salvation, it can also take one out of salvation. If one can believe on His name, then one can also “stop believing.”
Think about it like this: if grace is resistible in the Classical Arminian system, then how is grace IRRESISTIBLE in perseverance? Four-point Arminians who hold to this view of grace entertain BOTH resistible and irresistible grace at the same time, in the same way (which is a theological and philosophical contradiction). By the way, Molinism holds to a view of “Overcoming Grace,” which argues that man can resist grace but that ultimately, grace will win out. Four-point Arminians then who hold to eternal security are inconsistent, but Molinist (and as I’ve said, Molinism as a system is inconsistent).
Calvinists Herbert Lockeyer and James White are not the only ones to discuss consistency; so does non-Calvinist Dave Hunt:
“Once I had thought that I agreed with at least one Calvinist point, the perseverance of the saints. I learned, however, that THIS FIFTH POINT OF TULIP OFFERS AN UNBIBLICAL BASIS FOR ETERNAL SECURITY; THAT OF BEING ONE OF THE ELECT. Piper and his pastoral staff write, ‘We believe in...the ETERNAL SECURITY OF THE ELECT’ (“TULIP: What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism.” Minneapolis, Minn.: Desiring God Ministries, 1997, page 24). Such security, however, brings comfort only to one who is certain that he is in that select group. Yet how to be certain has troubled many” [Dave Hunt (James White), “Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views.” Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2004, page 392].
Dave Hunt is neither Calvinist nor Arminian; and yet, even he can recognize that eternal security is a Calvinist doctrine! Hunt also quotes Joseph Dillow:
“the Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints...IS NOT ONLY ABSENT FROM SCRIPTURE but could, if not carefully stated, COMPROMISE THE FREENESS OF THE GRACE OF GOD” (Joseph C. Dillow, “The Reign of the Servant Kings: A Study of Eternal Security and the Final Significance of Man.” Schoettle., 1993, page 14).
Dillow notes that eternal security is a Calvinist doctrine, like Dave Hunt and James White. He states that it is unbiblical, while also claiming that it “compromises the freeness of the grace of God.” Calvinism grants grace only to the elect. God is “forced” to give this grace to a few (since Calvinists never consider that grace and faith could be given to everyone).
As a result of this post, some readers may say, “Well, I think it’s biblical to place eternal security alongside of my other Arminian beliefs. And I’m not willing to give up this doctrine for the sake of a consistent theology.” My reaction to this response will appear in my next post.
I’ve stated it here at the site that one of the key issues of theology is consistency: that is, how all the five points of the theological system(s) hold together. If one point does not flow from the other four, then the system needs to be abandoned in favor of a more coherent and consistent one. The characteristic of coherency and consistency is important, especially when one considers that theological systems point to the “theos,” God Himself---and there is no inconsistency or incoherency in God. There is nothing about the character of God that is inconsistent or contradictory (2 Tim. 2:13).
With the idea of consistency and coherency at the helm, we will now approach the theological systems I’ve discussed in great detail at the site. Let’s take Calvinism, for example. Those who hold to all five points, “TULIP,” are the ONLY consistent Calvinists. How can this be true? It is so because if one argues the Calvinist conception of “Total Depravity,” then one will also see that God must “unconditionally elect” (because God does not enable the will to choose Christ); once God decides whom He will “pick and choose” for salvation, He then decides to die for only those He selected (Limited Atonement); to get these people to come to Himself (despite their depravity), God draws them by His “Irresistible Grace,” and then “Unconditionally Perseveres” them to the end, and they are saved. In the Calvinist system, those whom God selects are “guaranteed” salvation.
All the other “Calvinist” systems, such as Amyraldianism (four-point Calvinism), or Molinism (three-point Calvinism), are inconsistent. Why? Let’s take Molinism, for example. Molinism holds to the Calvinist tenets of Depravity (Radical), Election (Sovereign Election), and Perseverance (Eternal Life). Molinism differs only in its views of Grace (Overcoming, not Irresistible) and Singular Redemption (instead of Limited Atonement). Within the Molinist system, there is a conflict with Sovereign Election (Unconditional in nature) and Singular Redemption (conditional in nature, since only those who believe receive Jesus’ atonement). The question becomes, then, how can Jesus truly offer His atonement to “all who believe” IF He actually picked those who would receive His atonement? If He picked them from the beginning, then “those who believe” is a problematic statement. Here’s where I agree with Calvinism: If God has picked those who will be saved (and I’m assuming this for argument’s sake), then they don’t need to believe. God will simply regenerate the chosen before they believe. What need is there to have a qualification (belief) for those whom God has already decided of His own will would be saved by His blood? And if God has picked those He will save before time began, then how can the others be responsible for not believing? I’m sure that Molinists have an answer for this one, but the only way responsibility can be ensured on the part of the unbeliever and believer alike is if God’s call is not efficacious, does not force some to believe, does not involve irresistible grace. In other words, God’s call requires a genuine human response. Responses are not genuine if God predetermined them before they occur in time. Rather, we are just “sock puppets” living out God’s predetermined decrees (we are just fulfilling “The Divine Script”).
So, to be consistent, one must hold to either all five points of Calvinism, or...that’s right: ALL FIVE POINTS OF ARMINIANISM! This is why I wanted to write this post: to make a point for five-point Arminianism.
I’ve been doing a lot of work on the Doctrine of Eternal Security here at CTS, and I’ve made it clear that the doctrine itself presupposes divine guarantee of perseverance: those whom Christ chose will infallibly persevere to the end and be saved (see posts on Total Depravity). But divine guarantees are only allowed to exist within a NECESSARY kind of system---in other words, a predetermined one. Between Calvinism and Arminianism, Calvinism is the only deterministic system; it alone has the right to presuppose eternal security. Read the words of Herbert Lockeyer:
“The doctrine of eternal security, sometimes associated with the perseverance of the saints, IS REFERRED TO AS A CALVINISTIC DOCTRINE. John Calvin taught that this doctrine stands proven, not only by ITS ASSOCATION WITH OTHER DOCTRINES like those of ELECTION, ATONEMENT, the intercession and mediatorial dominion of Christ, imputed righteousness and regeneration...” (Herbert Lockeyer, “All the Doctrines of the Bible: A Study and Analysis of Major Biblical Doctrines.” Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1964, page 223).
First, Lockeyer calls doctrine of eternal security a “Calvinistic doctrine.” This means that it is a teaching of Calvinism. Next, this doctrine aligns with others such as “election” and “atonement.” In the case of Calvinism, this would be “unconditional election” and “limited atonement.” So for Arminians who desire to hold to eternal security, they will be forced to abandon the other four points of Arminianism and hold to all five points of Calvinism. OSAS Arminians (Once-Saved-Always-Saved Arminians), for example, are inconsistent in holding to the Calvinist doctrine of eternal security while arguing grace-enabled responsibility in the other four points of Classical Arminianism.
If Herbert Lockeyer isn’t convincing enough, here are the words of staunch five-point Calvinist James White:
“Those who limit God’s freedom through asserting some form of libertarian free will are COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT in claiming that once a person ‘accepts Christ,’ HE SOMEHOW LOSES THE FREE WILL THAT GOT HIM TO THAT POSITION IN THE FIRST PLACE and is now ‘secure’ from falling. If Christ’s work of salvation is dependent upon our cooperation to be effective, THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE IT IS ETERNALLY SECURE AT ANY POINT” (James White (Dave Hunt), “Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views.” Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2004, page 401).
Let’s examine White’s quote. First, he states that free will “limits God’s freedom.” I think White needs to define what he means by this. In Classical Arminianism, God “limits Himself” (if for no other better phrase) on account of His character. For instance, when God told Noah, “I will never flood the earth again with water” (Genesis 9:15), and put a rainbow in the sky as a sign (Gen. 9:16), the Lord was holding Himself to His own word. Because He promised Noah He would never flood the earth again, the world itself cannot be destroyed by water (since that would contradict what God Himself said). In the Classical Arminian sense, God “limits” Himself to be who He is. He is a man of His word: God does not make and break promises at whim (2 Peter 3:9) and is true to Himself (2 Tim. 2:13). The fact that man can make decisions demonstrates his likeness to His Creator, and magnifies the sovereignty of God (as well as His freedom).
Despite my initial disagreement with White, though, I agree with what he says from the moment (after the above phrase) forward. White claims that if God bases salvation on the choice of the individual, then it would be “completely inconsistent” for God to take that back and eternally secure a person. If free will places one in salvation, it can also take one out of salvation. If one can believe on His name, then one can also “stop believing.”
Think about it like this: if grace is resistible in the Classical Arminian system, then how is grace IRRESISTIBLE in perseverance? Four-point Arminians who hold to this view of grace entertain BOTH resistible and irresistible grace at the same time, in the same way (which is a theological and philosophical contradiction). By the way, Molinism holds to a view of “Overcoming Grace,” which argues that man can resist grace but that ultimately, grace will win out. Four-point Arminians then who hold to eternal security are inconsistent, but Molinist (and as I’ve said, Molinism as a system is inconsistent).
Calvinists Herbert Lockeyer and James White are not the only ones to discuss consistency; so does non-Calvinist Dave Hunt:
“Once I had thought that I agreed with at least one Calvinist point, the perseverance of the saints. I learned, however, that THIS FIFTH POINT OF TULIP OFFERS AN UNBIBLICAL BASIS FOR ETERNAL SECURITY; THAT OF BEING ONE OF THE ELECT. Piper and his pastoral staff write, ‘We believe in...the ETERNAL SECURITY OF THE ELECT’ (“TULIP: What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism.” Minneapolis, Minn.: Desiring God Ministries, 1997, page 24). Such security, however, brings comfort only to one who is certain that he is in that select group. Yet how to be certain has troubled many” [Dave Hunt (James White), “Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views.” Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2004, page 392].
Dave Hunt is neither Calvinist nor Arminian; and yet, even he can recognize that eternal security is a Calvinist doctrine! Hunt also quotes Joseph Dillow:
“the Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints...IS NOT ONLY ABSENT FROM SCRIPTURE but could, if not carefully stated, COMPROMISE THE FREENESS OF THE GRACE OF GOD” (Joseph C. Dillow, “The Reign of the Servant Kings: A Study of Eternal Security and the Final Significance of Man.” Schoettle., 1993, page 14).
Dillow notes that eternal security is a Calvinist doctrine, like Dave Hunt and James White. He states that it is unbiblical, while also claiming that it “compromises the freeness of the grace of God.” Calvinism grants grace only to the elect. God is “forced” to give this grace to a few (since Calvinists never consider that grace and faith could be given to everyone).
As a result of this post, some readers may say, “Well, I think it’s biblical to place eternal security alongside of my other Arminian beliefs. And I’m not willing to give up this doctrine for the sake of a consistent theology.” My reaction to this response will appear in my next post.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
"Limited" Depravity and "The Worse State", Part I
I know that this post title has probably taken a few people by surprise. Before you fear that I’ve turn Pelagian in my theology (or semi-Pelagian), let me just say that the title is not meant to convey my theology, but to examine the Calvinist idea of total depravity. So, there you go---I still believe in total depravity. Don’t worry: I deal with sin too much on an everyday basis (every moment basis) to see any good in myself...
This post will tackle the issue of total depravity and how Calvinists reconcile this with their view of Eternal Security. I’ve been dealing with the Doctrine of Eternal Security at the site, stating that the doctrine itself is contrary to the teaching of Scripture (I’ve quoted passages from 2 Peter, Jude, Hebrews). But the question I wanna pose today is, “How can Calvinism reconcile its view of total depravity with its view of eternal security?” In other words, if man is as depraved as Calvinism states he is, then how is it that man can become so limited in his depravity that he can be eternally secure in his salvation?
Now, on to the topic at hand, the Doctrine of Total Depravity. In his debate with Dave Hunt in the work “Debating Calvinism,” James White quotes the words of the 1689 London Confession:
“1. In the natural order God has endued man’s will with liberty and the power to act upon choice, so that it is neither forced from without, nor by any necessity arising from within itself, compelled to do good or evil. 2. In his state of innocency man had freedom and power to will and to do what was good and acceptable to God. Yet, being unstable, it was possible for him to fall from his uprightness. 3. AS THE CONSEQUENCE OF HIS FALL INTO A STATE OF SIN, MAN HAS LOST ALL ABILITY TO WILL THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY OF THOSE WORKS, SPIRITUALLY GOOD, THAT ACCOMPANY SALVATION. AS A NATURAL (UNSPIRITUAL) MAN HE IS DEAD IN SIN AND ALTOGETHER OPPOSED TO WHAT IS GOOD. HENCE HE IS NOT ABLE, BY ANY STRENGTH OF HIS OWN, TO TURN HIMSELF TO GOD, OR EVEN TO PREPARE HIMSELF TO TURN TO GOD” (Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views” by Dave Hunt & James White. Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2004, page 64).
Of the three statements of the 1689 London Confession printed above, number three stands out from the rest. It discusses life after the Fall of Genesis 3: how man’s will was affected by sin. “Hence he is not able, BY ANY STRENGTH OF HIS OWN, to turn himself to God, or even to prepare himself to turn to God.” In point three, we see that man cannot make one move towards God because sin has so corrupted his will that, as Arminius says in his “Works,” the will is “maimed, infirm, bent...”
The Westminster Confession states the same thing as the London Confession (1689), but more succinctly:
“Man, by his fall into a state of sin, HATH WHOLLY LOST ALL ABILITY OF WILL TO ANY SPIRITUAL GOOD ACCOMPANYING SALVATION; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto” (Loraine Boettner, “The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1932, page 61).
The Westminster Confession, like the 1689 London Confession, both state that man is dead in sin and does not desire to do what is good. Man chooses evil because that is all he wants to do.
So as we can see, all man desires to do before salvation is evil. But what about life AFTER salvation? According to the London Confession,
“When God converts a sinner, and brings him out of sin into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage to sin and, by His grace alone, HE ENABLES HIM FREELY to will and to do what is spiritually good. NEVERTHELESS, CERTAIN CORRUPTIONS REMAIN IN THE SINNER, SO THAT HIS WILL IS NEVER COMPLETELY AND PERFECTLY HELD IN CAPTIVITY TO WHAT IS GOOD, BUT IT ALSO ENTERTAINS EVIL” (“Debating Calvinism,” pp. 64-65).
Notice that the London Confession says that “by HIS GRACE ALONE, HE ENABLES HIM FREELY TO WILL...what is spiritually good.” These words are of magnanimous importance in arguing for Classical Arminianism. The London Confession seems to argue for an “enabling grace,” instead of an efficacious grace. This poses some problems for Calvinism, although Dave Hunt fails to point this out in his debate with James White.
Remember what question I posed at the beginning of the post? If Calvinism argues such a hard view of depravity, that man gladly rebels against God and slips even deeper into sin, then how is that man is not that depraved after salvation? The words above say that “certain corruptions remain in the sinner,” but notice what happens when one ties this to the Calvinist Doctrine of Perseverance (Eternal Security) according to the Westminster Confession:
“They whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved” (“Reformed Doctrine,” page 182).
The language of the Westminster Confession is Calvinistic (of course), containing phrases such as “effectually called.” Let’s go back, though, to the 1689 London Confession:
“CERTAIN CORRUPTIONS REMAIN IN THE SINNER, SO THAT HIS WILL IS NEVER COMPLETELY AND PERFECTLY HELD IN CAPTIVITY TO WHAT IS GOOD, BUT IT ALSO ENTERTAINS EVIL” (“Debating Calvinism,” pp. 64-65).
So what we find here is that, even though one is saved, these “certain corruptions” still remain in the sinner, so that the saint doesn’t just choose good all the time. Sometimes, the saint will choose to do that which is evil.
But the question becomes, why are the saints “guaranteed” to persevere? If a person still fights sin after salvation, and the flesh and Spirit war against each other (Romans 7:19, 22-23), then doesn’t this mean that the person could either persevere OR fall away? Doesn’t this make more sense when we consider that Paul writes to the Roman believers, “For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live” (Rom. 8:13, NKJV)? If a believer can still live according to the flesh, then this means that a believer can still live an ungodly lifestyle. And if a believer can live an ungodly lifestyle, that believer can still possibly suffer the second death. I don’t see how one can get around this argument unless he or she denies that Paul is talking to genuine believers (which is something that is not visible in the text).
For Calvinists who believe that man’s will is ultimately “overcome” with God’s grace and that all genuine believers persevere, they hold to a view of “limited depravity.” Somehow, when a person comes to Christ, as God’s elect, he or she seems to have a somewhat “limited depravity,” not quite as total as before. Why? because God limits the depravity of the believers. They can live out some of their depravity through daily sins and such, but they will never totally fall away. While believers in this system can reject God completely as unbelievers, they will not completely reject God as a believer, but will ultimately yield to God’s desires.
What does the Doctrine of Total Depravity (and the Calvinist Doctrine of Eternal Security) have to do with each other? Well, if total depravity is true, then the doctrine of eternal security cannot be; for if a person struggles with sin before salvation, and struggles with sin after salvation, then the Spirit’s work is RESISTIBLE, and therefore, cannot be IRRESISTIBLE. If the Spirit’s work can be resisted, then passages such as 2 Peter 2:20-21 confirm this view of grace. How does 2 Peter 2:20-21 fit into this? I’ll deal with it in my next post.
This post will tackle the issue of total depravity and how Calvinists reconcile this with their view of Eternal Security. I’ve been dealing with the Doctrine of Eternal Security at the site, stating that the doctrine itself is contrary to the teaching of Scripture (I’ve quoted passages from 2 Peter, Jude, Hebrews). But the question I wanna pose today is, “How can Calvinism reconcile its view of total depravity with its view of eternal security?” In other words, if man is as depraved as Calvinism states he is, then how is it that man can become so limited in his depravity that he can be eternally secure in his salvation?
Now, on to the topic at hand, the Doctrine of Total Depravity. In his debate with Dave Hunt in the work “Debating Calvinism,” James White quotes the words of the 1689 London Confession:
“1. In the natural order God has endued man’s will with liberty and the power to act upon choice, so that it is neither forced from without, nor by any necessity arising from within itself, compelled to do good or evil. 2. In his state of innocency man had freedom and power to will and to do what was good and acceptable to God. Yet, being unstable, it was possible for him to fall from his uprightness. 3. AS THE CONSEQUENCE OF HIS FALL INTO A STATE OF SIN, MAN HAS LOST ALL ABILITY TO WILL THE PERFORMANCE OF ANY OF THOSE WORKS, SPIRITUALLY GOOD, THAT ACCOMPANY SALVATION. AS A NATURAL (UNSPIRITUAL) MAN HE IS DEAD IN SIN AND ALTOGETHER OPPOSED TO WHAT IS GOOD. HENCE HE IS NOT ABLE, BY ANY STRENGTH OF HIS OWN, TO TURN HIMSELF TO GOD, OR EVEN TO PREPARE HIMSELF TO TURN TO GOD” (Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views” by Dave Hunt & James White. Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2004, page 64).
Of the three statements of the 1689 London Confession printed above, number three stands out from the rest. It discusses life after the Fall of Genesis 3: how man’s will was affected by sin. “Hence he is not able, BY ANY STRENGTH OF HIS OWN, to turn himself to God, or even to prepare himself to turn to God.” In point three, we see that man cannot make one move towards God because sin has so corrupted his will that, as Arminius says in his “Works,” the will is “maimed, infirm, bent...”
The Westminster Confession states the same thing as the London Confession (1689), but more succinctly:
“Man, by his fall into a state of sin, HATH WHOLLY LOST ALL ABILITY OF WILL TO ANY SPIRITUAL GOOD ACCOMPANYING SALVATION; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto” (Loraine Boettner, “The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.” Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1932, page 61).
The Westminster Confession, like the 1689 London Confession, both state that man is dead in sin and does not desire to do what is good. Man chooses evil because that is all he wants to do.
So as we can see, all man desires to do before salvation is evil. But what about life AFTER salvation? According to the London Confession,
“When God converts a sinner, and brings him out of sin into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage to sin and, by His grace alone, HE ENABLES HIM FREELY to will and to do what is spiritually good. NEVERTHELESS, CERTAIN CORRUPTIONS REMAIN IN THE SINNER, SO THAT HIS WILL IS NEVER COMPLETELY AND PERFECTLY HELD IN CAPTIVITY TO WHAT IS GOOD, BUT IT ALSO ENTERTAINS EVIL” (“Debating Calvinism,” pp. 64-65).
Notice that the London Confession says that “by HIS GRACE ALONE, HE ENABLES HIM FREELY TO WILL...what is spiritually good.” These words are of magnanimous importance in arguing for Classical Arminianism. The London Confession seems to argue for an “enabling grace,” instead of an efficacious grace. This poses some problems for Calvinism, although Dave Hunt fails to point this out in his debate with James White.
Remember what question I posed at the beginning of the post? If Calvinism argues such a hard view of depravity, that man gladly rebels against God and slips even deeper into sin, then how is that man is not that depraved after salvation? The words above say that “certain corruptions remain in the sinner,” but notice what happens when one ties this to the Calvinist Doctrine of Perseverance (Eternal Security) according to the Westminster Confession:
“They whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved” (“Reformed Doctrine,” page 182).
The language of the Westminster Confession is Calvinistic (of course), containing phrases such as “effectually called.” Let’s go back, though, to the 1689 London Confession:
“CERTAIN CORRUPTIONS REMAIN IN THE SINNER, SO THAT HIS WILL IS NEVER COMPLETELY AND PERFECTLY HELD IN CAPTIVITY TO WHAT IS GOOD, BUT IT ALSO ENTERTAINS EVIL” (“Debating Calvinism,” pp. 64-65).
So what we find here is that, even though one is saved, these “certain corruptions” still remain in the sinner, so that the saint doesn’t just choose good all the time. Sometimes, the saint will choose to do that which is evil.
But the question becomes, why are the saints “guaranteed” to persevere? If a person still fights sin after salvation, and the flesh and Spirit war against each other (Romans 7:19, 22-23), then doesn’t this mean that the person could either persevere OR fall away? Doesn’t this make more sense when we consider that Paul writes to the Roman believers, “For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live” (Rom. 8:13, NKJV)? If a believer can still live according to the flesh, then this means that a believer can still live an ungodly lifestyle. And if a believer can live an ungodly lifestyle, that believer can still possibly suffer the second death. I don’t see how one can get around this argument unless he or she denies that Paul is talking to genuine believers (which is something that is not visible in the text).
For Calvinists who believe that man’s will is ultimately “overcome” with God’s grace and that all genuine believers persevere, they hold to a view of “limited depravity.” Somehow, when a person comes to Christ, as God’s elect, he or she seems to have a somewhat “limited depravity,” not quite as total as before. Why? because God limits the depravity of the believers. They can live out some of their depravity through daily sins and such, but they will never totally fall away. While believers in this system can reject God completely as unbelievers, they will not completely reject God as a believer, but will ultimately yield to God’s desires.
What does the Doctrine of Total Depravity (and the Calvinist Doctrine of Eternal Security) have to do with each other? Well, if total depravity is true, then the doctrine of eternal security cannot be; for if a person struggles with sin before salvation, and struggles with sin after salvation, then the Spirit’s work is RESISTIBLE, and therefore, cannot be IRRESISTIBLE. If the Spirit’s work can be resisted, then passages such as 2 Peter 2:20-21 confirm this view of grace. How does 2 Peter 2:20-21 fit into this? I’ll deal with it in my next post.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
False Dichotomy
“A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Cor.2:14).
There is a fundamental incapacity in the natural man. He DOES NOT ACCEPT the things of the Spirit of God (willful rejection), for they are foolishness to him. Why are they foolishness? Because he is not a spiritual man. He CANNOT (not ‘does not’ or ‘normally chooses not to’) understand them. This is another phrase of inability, just as in Romans 8:7. This is not to say that there are not unregenerate, unsaved men who understand the outlines of Christian theology, for example, or the claims of the Christian faith. What it does mean is that there is no unregenerate man who SPIRITUALLY accepts, understands, and knows the things of God. They exist on a level he cannot access, the spiritual level, and he is spiritually dead. But if true saving faith is focused upon the spiritually understood truths of Christ’s perfect and substitutionary sacrifice and His resurrection from the dead, how can the natural man have this kind of faith?” (James White, “Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views.” Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2004, page 69).
Some time ago, I did a series titled “Somewhere In the Middle,” where I show how Classical Arminianism is the “middle ground theology” between Calvinism and Pelagianism. I showed that both Calvinism and Pelagianism go too far: Calvinism throws all sovereignty and responsibility on God, while Pelagianism throws all sovereignty and responsibility upon man. Classical Arminianism, however, is truly the middle ground in that it shows how God, in His sovereignty, must grant man grace and faith to believe (Ephesians 2), since man’s will is so bound and bent to sin and evil. However, the responsibility to believe is not God’s; God is NOT responsible for whether or not a person comes to Himself. God gives the grace and faith needed to believe, and man must exercise the grace and faith bestowed upon himself by God.
And this is the problem with White’s quote above. Notice that he emphasizes that man is totally depraved in his nature. And to that, I agree. However, White fumbles when he discusses man having faith: “But if true saving faith is focused upon the spiritually understood truths of Christ’s perfect and substitutionary sacrifice and His resurrection from the dead, how can the natural man have this kind of faith?”
Is there a way for natural man to have this kind of faith? In his own power, NO!!! For, as White shows in his quote above, as well as Scripture (1 Cor. 2 included), man cannot come to faith on His own.
But this is where Scripture aids us. James White misses the point of Scripture when asking this question, and he makes us think that either man can believe on his own (mentions the word “autonomy”) or that God must regenerate that person before they believe. However, White quotes a verse on the very next page after 1 Corinthians 2 that can aid us in this discussion:
“Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.’ (John 6:43-44)” (White, 70)
The only way a person can come to the Father is if the Spirit initiates the God-man relationship and goes to him or her first. But what does this mean? Does this mean that God “makes” the person come to Himself? Does the Spirit automatically FORCE a person to come to faith in Christ? The answer to that would be a resounding “No!”.
Let’s see Stephen’s words to the Jews in Acts 7:
“You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! YOU ALWAYS RESIST THE HOLY SPIRIT; as your fathers did, so do you” (Acts 7:51, NKJV).
In order for the Holy Spirit to be “resisted,” He had to have been working on the hearts of the Jews to which Stephen preached his sermon. The Jews could not have resisted a Spirit who was not pleading with them, beckoning them, wooing them to Himself.
So when Jesus talks about the Spirit “draws” people, He isn’t saying that the Spirit woos a person and they will ALWAYS accept Him and come to faith. There are those, like the audience to which Peter preached, that will reject the Spirit’s wooing and compelling, and continue to persist in their sin.
So if a person can resist the Spirit’s drawing, then, what about those who come to faith? How do they come to faith, while others persist in their unbelief? it is because they are drawn by the Spirit, and they repent of their sins and believe on His name (exercise the grace and faith God gives). This is why Jesus says,
“IF ANYONE WILLS TO DO HIS WILL, he shall know concerning this doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority” (John 7:17, NKJV).
For those who have a genuine desire to believe in Christ, God grants them knowledge of the truth along with grace and faith so that they can believe in Him.
Paul labels “faith” in Romans 1 as “the obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5, NKJV). Why does he do this? If we take James White’s stance, God must first “make me willing” before I obey. How can obedience be called “obedience” when God is the one who has “forced” me to do it? How can someone obey if I force them to? How can they submit to me if I force them to bow down, to follow my rules? I cannot. And that is the problem with Calvinist theology: God must force us to submit, and then we “willingly” submit. But if this be the case, then why do I need to hear the Gospel? Why is it that “hearing” and “believing” the Gospel are so central to the conversion of the unbeliever (Rom. 10:14-17)? If we listen to James White, we would easily believe that no unbeliever wanted to hear the Gospel...and yet, we find the exact opposite throughout the pages of Scripture itself (Acts 17:32; John 3:4ff).
James White’s attempts to portray Arminianism as Pelagianism shine through here. White puts up a false dichotomy, paints a picture of ONLY two theologies---either that of Calvinism or human autonomy. The problem with this is that he forgets there is a middle ground, which is completely biblical---and that is the belief that the Spirit of grace bestows grace and faith, and man must exercise them in order to be saved. This, my friends, is what we call “Classical Arminianism.”
There is a fundamental incapacity in the natural man. He DOES NOT ACCEPT the things of the Spirit of God (willful rejection), for they are foolishness to him. Why are they foolishness? Because he is not a spiritual man. He CANNOT (not ‘does not’ or ‘normally chooses not to’) understand them. This is another phrase of inability, just as in Romans 8:7. This is not to say that there are not unregenerate, unsaved men who understand the outlines of Christian theology, for example, or the claims of the Christian faith. What it does mean is that there is no unregenerate man who SPIRITUALLY accepts, understands, and knows the things of God. They exist on a level he cannot access, the spiritual level, and he is spiritually dead. But if true saving faith is focused upon the spiritually understood truths of Christ’s perfect and substitutionary sacrifice and His resurrection from the dead, how can the natural man have this kind of faith?” (James White, “Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views.” Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2004, page 69).
Some time ago, I did a series titled “Somewhere In the Middle,” where I show how Classical Arminianism is the “middle ground theology” between Calvinism and Pelagianism. I showed that both Calvinism and Pelagianism go too far: Calvinism throws all sovereignty and responsibility on God, while Pelagianism throws all sovereignty and responsibility upon man. Classical Arminianism, however, is truly the middle ground in that it shows how God, in His sovereignty, must grant man grace and faith to believe (Ephesians 2), since man’s will is so bound and bent to sin and evil. However, the responsibility to believe is not God’s; God is NOT responsible for whether or not a person comes to Himself. God gives the grace and faith needed to believe, and man must exercise the grace and faith bestowed upon himself by God.
And this is the problem with White’s quote above. Notice that he emphasizes that man is totally depraved in his nature. And to that, I agree. However, White fumbles when he discusses man having faith: “But if true saving faith is focused upon the spiritually understood truths of Christ’s perfect and substitutionary sacrifice and His resurrection from the dead, how can the natural man have this kind of faith?”
Is there a way for natural man to have this kind of faith? In his own power, NO!!! For, as White shows in his quote above, as well as Scripture (1 Cor. 2 included), man cannot come to faith on His own.
But this is where Scripture aids us. James White misses the point of Scripture when asking this question, and he makes us think that either man can believe on his own (mentions the word “autonomy”) or that God must regenerate that person before they believe. However, White quotes a verse on the very next page after 1 Corinthians 2 that can aid us in this discussion:
“Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.’ (John 6:43-44)” (White, 70)
The only way a person can come to the Father is if the Spirit initiates the God-man relationship and goes to him or her first. But what does this mean? Does this mean that God “makes” the person come to Himself? Does the Spirit automatically FORCE a person to come to faith in Christ? The answer to that would be a resounding “No!”.
Let’s see Stephen’s words to the Jews in Acts 7:
“You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! YOU ALWAYS RESIST THE HOLY SPIRIT; as your fathers did, so do you” (Acts 7:51, NKJV).
In order for the Holy Spirit to be “resisted,” He had to have been working on the hearts of the Jews to which Stephen preached his sermon. The Jews could not have resisted a Spirit who was not pleading with them, beckoning them, wooing them to Himself.
So when Jesus talks about the Spirit “draws” people, He isn’t saying that the Spirit woos a person and they will ALWAYS accept Him and come to faith. There are those, like the audience to which Peter preached, that will reject the Spirit’s wooing and compelling, and continue to persist in their sin.
So if a person can resist the Spirit’s drawing, then, what about those who come to faith? How do they come to faith, while others persist in their unbelief? it is because they are drawn by the Spirit, and they repent of their sins and believe on His name (exercise the grace and faith God gives). This is why Jesus says,
“IF ANYONE WILLS TO DO HIS WILL, he shall know concerning this doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority” (John 7:17, NKJV).
For those who have a genuine desire to believe in Christ, God grants them knowledge of the truth along with grace and faith so that they can believe in Him.
Paul labels “faith” in Romans 1 as “the obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5, NKJV). Why does he do this? If we take James White’s stance, God must first “make me willing” before I obey. How can obedience be called “obedience” when God is the one who has “forced” me to do it? How can someone obey if I force them to? How can they submit to me if I force them to bow down, to follow my rules? I cannot. And that is the problem with Calvinist theology: God must force us to submit, and then we “willingly” submit. But if this be the case, then why do I need to hear the Gospel? Why is it that “hearing” and “believing” the Gospel are so central to the conversion of the unbeliever (Rom. 10:14-17)? If we listen to James White, we would easily believe that no unbeliever wanted to hear the Gospel...and yet, we find the exact opposite throughout the pages of Scripture itself (Acts 17:32; John 3:4ff).
James White’s attempts to portray Arminianism as Pelagianism shine through here. White puts up a false dichotomy, paints a picture of ONLY two theologies---either that of Calvinism or human autonomy. The problem with this is that he forgets there is a middle ground, which is completely biblical---and that is the belief that the Spirit of grace bestows grace and faith, and man must exercise them in order to be saved. This, my friends, is what we call “Classical Arminianism.”
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
God's Eternal Decree, Part I: The Complete Freedom of God
“The complete freedom of God, combined with God’s role as the divine King who rules over His creation, provide the irrefutable foundation of God’s sovereign decree” (James White, “God’s Eternal Decree,” from “Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views.” Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2004, page 38).
I read the book “Debating Calvinism” approximately one year ago, and it’s taken me 60-70 books (and some free time) to finally get a chance to start blogging on this book. It was one of the first books I bought on the Calvinism-Arminianism debate (although Dave Hunt, the other co-author of the book, isn’t Arminian). However, it got me to start seeing the problems with Calvinism itself---as well as the dangerous implications of Calvinist theology itself.
I begin blogging on the book with the above quote because I think it is one of the most fundamental issues regarding God that Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike must consider when developing a theology and a philosophy of God. Whether most believers know it or not, they have an underlying philosophy of God that governs their interpretations of Scripture. Jay Wesley Richards writes:
“Such extrapolated interpretations of PP [Principle of Perfection] and SAC [Sovereignty-Aseity Conviction] exercise enough control that theologians, including staunchly biblical ones, sometimes use them, in a sort of hermeneutical feedback loop, to interpret Scripture…we must judge the legitimacy of such use case by case...” (Jay Wesley Richards, “The Untamed God: A Philosophical Exploration of Divine Perfection, Simplicity, and Immutability.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003, page 37).
Richards’ quote shows us that philosophical principles, while good ones, can be used to reinterpret Scripture...instead of Scripture revising philosophical principles. This is why we must be careful in doing sound biblical interpretation, always testing our reading and comprehension by the Word of God. Yes, believers must become “Berean” in their thinking (Acts 17:11).
Now, on to examining White’s quote. Let’s read it again here:
“The complete freedom of God, combined with God’s role as the divine King who rules over His creation, provide the irrefutable foundation of God’s sovereign decree.”
White tells us that we can believe in God’s sovereign decree because first, God has total freedom to do whatever He wants; and second, because He rules over His creation. I would have to say that I think these are two good reasons why we can believe in the sovereign decree of God. However, having said that, I believe that God’s Word tells us what God’s sovereign decree is. We can easily know what God decreed from the beginning of the existence of time because He tells us in His Word.
To match his quote of God as being sovereign, James White immediately, in his section titled “The Counsel of His Will,” goes on to quote Ephesians 1:11---
“We have obtained an inheritance, having been predestinated according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.”
James White comments:
“This [Eph. 1:11] is the positive way of stating what Paul said in Romans 9:11 (‘So that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls’) and 2 Timothy 1:9 (‘He saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity’). God’s purpose, God’s will, is the basis upon which God acts. He works ALL THINGS in accordance with the counsel of His will. MAN’S WILL CANNOT THWART OR DESTROY HIS PURPOSE, and THIS TRUTH IS STATED HERE IN EPHESIANS IN THE CONTEXT OF SALVATION ITSELF” (“God’s Eternal Decree,” from “Debating Calvinism,” page 39).
In the opinion of James White, since “all things” work out “after the counsel of His will,” then everything works out exactly as He wants it to. What does it mean, to say that everything works out like God wants it to? James White states,
“without this truth, one is left with the religions of men: God offers, God tries, but in the final analysis, MEN DISPOSE” (39).
In other words, “without this truth” (that God determines everything to go His way), men frustrate the plan and will of God. Either God determines everything, or man determines everything.
Don’t you think that White sets up two extremes, creates a false dichotomy, when the answer of truth lies “in the middle” between these two extremes? Why must God determine everything OR man determine everything? Why can’t both God and man be determining (or causal) agents in the universe? After all, is everything in life determined? Are there not some things in the universe that are determined, and some that are indeterminate?
Dave Hunt responds:
“Yes, God works ‘all things after the counsel of his own will’ (Eph. 1:11), but White ignores the key word ‘COUNSEL’. Contrary to Calvinism, which makes God its author, the evil and suffering in this world are not God’s will but the result of man’s rebellion: ‘They rebel against me’ (Hosea 7:14). IN THE COUNSEL OF HIS WILL, GOD HAS GIVEN MAN A FREE WILL. That fact provides the only explanation for rampant wickedness (‘Oh, do not this abominable thing that I hate’ [Jeremiah 44:4])” (Dave Hunt response, page 103).
I think the problem with Calvinists is that, when they wanna talk about the God-human relationship, they turn to Ephesians 1...but bypass Genesis 1! Genesis 1 shows us the glory God bestowed on man in the beginning when He gave man dominion over His earthly creation and blessed their rule (Gen. 1:26-28). God gave man free will in the Garden when He allowed Adam to name the animals (Gen. 2:19). God does not determine all the events of life in the Garden; rather, as Terence Fretheim states, God “shares power in relationship.”
Perhaps White’s gross view of God is the direct consequence of his gross view of men: since men are just puppets in the hands of a dictatorial God, then God has no regard for them. This, though, is a direct violation of Scripture (Psalm 8), which tells us that God desired to glorify man (and that man, in turn, would glorify God).
What is “the counsel of His will” of Ephesians 1:11? I’ll get into that in my next post.
I read the book “Debating Calvinism” approximately one year ago, and it’s taken me 60-70 books (and some free time) to finally get a chance to start blogging on this book. It was one of the first books I bought on the Calvinism-Arminianism debate (although Dave Hunt, the other co-author of the book, isn’t Arminian). However, it got me to start seeing the problems with Calvinism itself---as well as the dangerous implications of Calvinist theology itself.
I begin blogging on the book with the above quote because I think it is one of the most fundamental issues regarding God that Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike must consider when developing a theology and a philosophy of God. Whether most believers know it or not, they have an underlying philosophy of God that governs their interpretations of Scripture. Jay Wesley Richards writes:
“Such extrapolated interpretations of PP [Principle of Perfection] and SAC [Sovereignty-Aseity Conviction] exercise enough control that theologians, including staunchly biblical ones, sometimes use them, in a sort of hermeneutical feedback loop, to interpret Scripture…we must judge the legitimacy of such use case by case...” (Jay Wesley Richards, “The Untamed God: A Philosophical Exploration of Divine Perfection, Simplicity, and Immutability.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003, page 37).
Richards’ quote shows us that philosophical principles, while good ones, can be used to reinterpret Scripture...instead of Scripture revising philosophical principles. This is why we must be careful in doing sound biblical interpretation, always testing our reading and comprehension by the Word of God. Yes, believers must become “Berean” in their thinking (Acts 17:11).
Now, on to examining White’s quote. Let’s read it again here:
“The complete freedom of God, combined with God’s role as the divine King who rules over His creation, provide the irrefutable foundation of God’s sovereign decree.”
White tells us that we can believe in God’s sovereign decree because first, God has total freedom to do whatever He wants; and second, because He rules over His creation. I would have to say that I think these are two good reasons why we can believe in the sovereign decree of God. However, having said that, I believe that God’s Word tells us what God’s sovereign decree is. We can easily know what God decreed from the beginning of the existence of time because He tells us in His Word.
To match his quote of God as being sovereign, James White immediately, in his section titled “The Counsel of His Will,” goes on to quote Ephesians 1:11---
“We have obtained an inheritance, having been predestinated according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.”
James White comments:
“This [Eph. 1:11] is the positive way of stating what Paul said in Romans 9:11 (‘So that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls’) and 2 Timothy 1:9 (‘He saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity’). God’s purpose, God’s will, is the basis upon which God acts. He works ALL THINGS in accordance with the counsel of His will. MAN’S WILL CANNOT THWART OR DESTROY HIS PURPOSE, and THIS TRUTH IS STATED HERE IN EPHESIANS IN THE CONTEXT OF SALVATION ITSELF” (“God’s Eternal Decree,” from “Debating Calvinism,” page 39).
In the opinion of James White, since “all things” work out “after the counsel of His will,” then everything works out exactly as He wants it to. What does it mean, to say that everything works out like God wants it to? James White states,
“without this truth, one is left with the religions of men: God offers, God tries, but in the final analysis, MEN DISPOSE” (39).
In other words, “without this truth” (that God determines everything to go His way), men frustrate the plan and will of God. Either God determines everything, or man determines everything.
Don’t you think that White sets up two extremes, creates a false dichotomy, when the answer of truth lies “in the middle” between these two extremes? Why must God determine everything OR man determine everything? Why can’t both God and man be determining (or causal) agents in the universe? After all, is everything in life determined? Are there not some things in the universe that are determined, and some that are indeterminate?
Dave Hunt responds:
“Yes, God works ‘all things after the counsel of his own will’ (Eph. 1:11), but White ignores the key word ‘COUNSEL’. Contrary to Calvinism, which makes God its author, the evil and suffering in this world are not God’s will but the result of man’s rebellion: ‘They rebel against me’ (Hosea 7:14). IN THE COUNSEL OF HIS WILL, GOD HAS GIVEN MAN A FREE WILL. That fact provides the only explanation for rampant wickedness (‘Oh, do not this abominable thing that I hate’ [Jeremiah 44:4])” (Dave Hunt response, page 103).
I think the problem with Calvinists is that, when they wanna talk about the God-human relationship, they turn to Ephesians 1...but bypass Genesis 1! Genesis 1 shows us the glory God bestowed on man in the beginning when He gave man dominion over His earthly creation and blessed their rule (Gen. 1:26-28). God gave man free will in the Garden when He allowed Adam to name the animals (Gen. 2:19). God does not determine all the events of life in the Garden; rather, as Terence Fretheim states, God “shares power in relationship.”
Perhaps White’s gross view of God is the direct consequence of his gross view of men: since men are just puppets in the hands of a dictatorial God, then God has no regard for them. This, though, is a direct violation of Scripture (Psalm 8), which tells us that God desired to glorify man (and that man, in turn, would glorify God).
What is “the counsel of His will” of Ephesians 1:11? I’ll get into that in my next post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)