“Thus the apostle, addressing believers, says, ‘Let no man deceive you with vain words; for because of these things, the wrath of God cometh upon the children of disobedience’ (Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:6). He does not threaten that wrath will descend upon them; but he admonishes them, while they think how the wrath of God is prepared for the wicked, on account of the crimes which he had enumerated, not to RUN THE RISK OF PROVOKING IT” (John Calvin, “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” pages 372-373).
This is another famous statement of John Calvin regarding believers. Over a recent period, I’ve been trying to assess Calvin’s theology and how it plays into his interpretation of certain passages that seem to conflict with it. One such conflict is here in Ephesians 5:6. Calvin explains it away—but, not really…the last phrase of his statement (that I capitalized) enlarges the opposing view: that, if Paul invested time in telling believers about the consequences of immoral living, then there must be a chance for believers to be deceived by sin such that they walk away from their Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Notice that in Ephesians 1, Paul calls the church “saints,” and “faithful in Christ Jesus.” By the fact that he calls the members “saints,” and says that they are “in Christ,” we see that those to which he is writing are BELIEVERS!
Why would Paul send such a strong statement to the believers at Ephesus? To answer this question, let me provide a quote from an article regarding the apostasy passages of Hebrews. The quote is commentary on Hebrews 6:7-8—
“The writer herewith describes believers AND UNBELIEVERS WHO HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO THE THINGS OF GOD; both types of land receive the rain. Only the good land produces fruit, however. The bad land yields only weeds. The fruit and weeds stand for the good works of believers and the SINFUL DEEDS OF UNBELIEVERS (ESPECIALLY APOSTASY) RESPECTIVELY…the writer wants us to identify the apostates of vv.4-6 with the unfruitful land/ They have had much contact with spiritual things/ Nevertheless, they HAVE NOT PERSEVERED IN THEIR FAITH. Their defection is bad fruit (‘thorns and thistles’) that reveals their unsaved condition. Woe unto them, for they will face the judgment of God!” (Robert A. Peterson, “Apostasy,” pages 22-23).
Notice that with regard to Hebrews 6, Peterson says that the analogy of the lands and fruit/thorns involves unbelievers. However, this is laughable when you consider his remarks from earlier about verses within Hebrews 6:
“In 5:11-6:3 the writer spanks his readers for their lack of progress IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE and urges them to spiritual maturity” (Peterson, 20).
Or, this statement:
“In fact, they are SPIRITUAL INFANTS…because they have not consistently put into practice the Christian teaching they know (5:13-14)” (Peterson, 20).
And this statement is more shocking than the first two:
“The expression ‘tasted the heavenly gift’ speaks of experiencing spiritual blessings. The attempt of CALVINIST INTERPRETERS TO UNDERSTAND THE TERMS ‘tasting’…and ‘partaking’ (‘of the Holy Spirit’) of partial and not full participation IS MISGUIDED” (Peterson, 21).
And what about Hebrews 6:4-5?
“These verses seem to describe believers; the burden of proof LIES WITH SOMEONE CLAIMING THEY DO NOT” (Peterson, 21).
So, if Hebrews 6:7-8 lie WITHIN THE CHAPTER OF HEBREWS 6, and there is NO BREAK in the verses, or an indication of a subject change, then how can the writer just up and switch the subject to OTHER PEOPLE (like unbelievers) in verses 7 and 8? The truth is that he can’t. And he doesn’t. However, Peterson is a Calvinist and writes the way he does to support his presupposition: that believers cannot walk away from the Lord.
Calvin, in his remarks on Ephesians 4 (first quote above), does the exact same thing. It’s true that Paul isn’t telling them the wrath of God WILL come down, as if God’s wrath on them is guaranteed. However, Calvin does mention THE RISK of provoking God to punishment. And I think that risk indicates the POSSIBILITY of doing so.
And what does it mean if something is “possible”? If something is possible, it means that it is “potential,” or “likely,” or that there is a “chance” that it can happen. I think, though, that this possibility frightens believers because we like to think that once we make a profession, our final salvation is guaranteed. But I don’t think Scripture shows it to be that way.
Over the next several months, we will spend time talking about the issue of apostasy. For now, I just wanted to introduce you to the importance of scriptural warnings. God is God—and He will make good on His promises, whether to bless or to curse…
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Abraham's Election?
“Abraham, the father of the faithful, came from a family of idolaters! And he would have continued the family tradition had not the Lord intervened. But God called Abram, commanding him to leave his people and his father’s household and promising to bless him, and through him all people (Gen. 12:1-3). Later, GOD PROMISED THAT ABRAM WOULD INHERIT GOD HIMSELF AS HIS ‘VERY GREAT REWARD’ (Gen. 15:1). In response to God’s promise of countless offspring, ‘Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness’ (Gen. 15:6)” (Robert A. Peterson & Michael D. Williams, “Why I Am Not An Arminian,” page 43).
I’ve started new work on the Calvin/Arminius debate. I’ve decided that, since this issue has gripped me so much for the last two weeks, that I would study it more intensely than ever before. As a result, I bought two books at the end of last week: one was “Why I Am Not An Arminian” and the other was titled “Why I Am Not A Calvinist.” I will be writing on both of these books in the weeks to come, sharing my thoughts with my readership about these two books.
In the meantime, just know that these two books will be the big talk of the blog this summer.
Now, back to the task at hand: the above quote is taken from the Calvinist defense, called “Why I Am Not An Arminian.” In the above quote, Peterson and Williams quote Genesis 15:1 as their “proof” that God was Abraham’s inheritance: “God promised that Abram would inherit God Himself as his ‘very great reward’.” However, this is smearing the text. Look back at Genesis 15:1 and you’ll find these words:
“After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision, saying, ‘Do not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you; Your reward shall be very great.” (NASB)
The problem with Peterson and William’s interpretation of God as Abraham’s reward is indicated by Genesis 15:2—
“Abram said, ‘O LORD God, WHAT WILL YOU GIVE ME, since I am childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” (Gen. 15:2, NASB)
If God had told Abraham that He was Abraham’s reward, why would Abraham have been asking “What will you give me?” It seems then, by the context, that the Lord told Abraham that his reward would be great. It is then that Abraham asks about the promised child.
Peterson and Williams say above that, after Abraham hears of God’s blessings for him,
“Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15:6, NASB).
This same concept is used in Romans 4, but is further expounded:
“Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, ‘FAITH was credited to Abraham as RIGHTEOUSNESS.’ How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;
And he received the sign of circumcision, a SEAL of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe WITHOUT BEING CIRCUMCISED, that righteousness might be credited to them,
And the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised” (Romans 4:9-12, NASB).
As Paul tells us, Abraham’s righteousness does not come because God promises him a number of great blessings. No—Abraham’s righteousness comes BECAUSE HE BELIEVES GOD WILL DO WHAT HE PROMISED! The focus with Paul is on Abraham’s response, not God’s initiative.
Calvinists tend to pick passages in Genesis like this one to show that God picks and chooses whom He wills to go to heaven—but this isn’t true. God always initiates salvation; He always calls for people to come to Him. But God isn’t going to make a person believe in Him. No one is ELECTED by Him and THEN believes. Instead, God has given every man a measure of faith (Romans 12) so that every man has the ability to believe in Christ, whether or not they choose to do so.
There is another text of Scripture that tells us about Abraham:
“BY FAITH Abraham, when he was CALLED, OBEYED BY GOING OUT to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith HE LIVED AS AN ALIEN IN THE LAND OF PROMISE, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; FOR HE WAS LOOKING FOR THE CITY WHICH HAS FOUNDATIONS, WHOSE ARCHITECT AND BUILDER IS GOD” (Hebrews 11:8-10, NASB).
God Himself says the following regarding Abraham:
“Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who gave birth to you in pain; when he was but one I called him, then I blessed him and multiplied him” (Isaiah 51:2, NASB).
While this verse could be used for many things, I will say this one thing with it: God CALLED Abraham. He didn’t elect Abraham to be righteous BEFORE He answered the call, but after. And, like Abraham, we too, have a call to answer. The question is, “Will we answer the call by faith?”
I’ve started new work on the Calvin/Arminius debate. I’ve decided that, since this issue has gripped me so much for the last two weeks, that I would study it more intensely than ever before. As a result, I bought two books at the end of last week: one was “Why I Am Not An Arminian” and the other was titled “Why I Am Not A Calvinist.” I will be writing on both of these books in the weeks to come, sharing my thoughts with my readership about these two books.
In the meantime, just know that these two books will be the big talk of the blog this summer.
Now, back to the task at hand: the above quote is taken from the Calvinist defense, called “Why I Am Not An Arminian.” In the above quote, Peterson and Williams quote Genesis 15:1 as their “proof” that God was Abraham’s inheritance: “God promised that Abram would inherit God Himself as his ‘very great reward’.” However, this is smearing the text. Look back at Genesis 15:1 and you’ll find these words:
“After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision, saying, ‘Do not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you; Your reward shall be very great.” (NASB)
The problem with Peterson and William’s interpretation of God as Abraham’s reward is indicated by Genesis 15:2—
“Abram said, ‘O LORD God, WHAT WILL YOU GIVE ME, since I am childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” (Gen. 15:2, NASB)
If God had told Abraham that He was Abraham’s reward, why would Abraham have been asking “What will you give me?” It seems then, by the context, that the Lord told Abraham that his reward would be great. It is then that Abraham asks about the promised child.
Peterson and Williams say above that, after Abraham hears of God’s blessings for him,
“Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15:6, NASB).
This same concept is used in Romans 4, but is further expounded:
“Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, ‘FAITH was credited to Abraham as RIGHTEOUSNESS.’ How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;
And he received the sign of circumcision, a SEAL of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe WITHOUT BEING CIRCUMCISED, that righteousness might be credited to them,
And the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised” (Romans 4:9-12, NASB).
As Paul tells us, Abraham’s righteousness does not come because God promises him a number of great blessings. No—Abraham’s righteousness comes BECAUSE HE BELIEVES GOD WILL DO WHAT HE PROMISED! The focus with Paul is on Abraham’s response, not God’s initiative.
Calvinists tend to pick passages in Genesis like this one to show that God picks and chooses whom He wills to go to heaven—but this isn’t true. God always initiates salvation; He always calls for people to come to Him. But God isn’t going to make a person believe in Him. No one is ELECTED by Him and THEN believes. Instead, God has given every man a measure of faith (Romans 12) so that every man has the ability to believe in Christ, whether or not they choose to do so.
There is another text of Scripture that tells us about Abraham:
“BY FAITH Abraham, when he was CALLED, OBEYED BY GOING OUT to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith HE LIVED AS AN ALIEN IN THE LAND OF PROMISE, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; FOR HE WAS LOOKING FOR THE CITY WHICH HAS FOUNDATIONS, WHOSE ARCHITECT AND BUILDER IS GOD” (Hebrews 11:8-10, NASB).
God Himself says the following regarding Abraham:
“Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who gave birth to you in pain; when he was but one I called him, then I blessed him and multiplied him” (Isaiah 51:2, NASB).
While this verse could be used for many things, I will say this one thing with it: God CALLED Abraham. He didn’t elect Abraham to be righteous BEFORE He answered the call, but after. And, like Abraham, we too, have a call to answer. The question is, “Will we answer the call by faith?”
Monday, June 8, 2009
The Master's Response to Calvinism
“As to perseverance, it would undoubtedly have been regarded as the gratuitous gift of God, had not the very pernicious error prevailed, that it is bestowed in proportion to human merit, according to the reception which each individual gives to the first grace. This having given rise to the idea that it was entirely in our own power to receive or reject the offered grace of God, that idea is no sooner exploded than the error founded on it must fall. The error, indeed, is twofold. For, besides teaching that our gratitude for the first grace and our legitimate use of it is rewarded by subsequent supplies of grace, its abettors add that, after this, GRACE DOES NOT OPERATE ALONE, but only COOPERATES with ourselves. As to the former, we must hold that the Lord, while he daily enriches his servants, and loads them with new gifts of his grace, because he approves of and takes pleasure in the work which he has begun, finds that in them which he may follow up with larger measures of grace. To this effect are the sentences, ‘To him that has shall be given.’ ‘Well done, good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things’ (Matt. 25:21. 23. 29; Luke 19: 17, 26). But here two precautions are necessary. It must not be said that the legitimate use of the first grace is rewarded by subsequent measures of grace,as if man RENDERED THE GRACE OF GOD EFFECTUAL BY HIS OWN INDUSTRY, nor must it be thought that there is any such remuneration as to make it cease to be the gratuitous grace of God. I ADMIT, THEN, THAT BELIEVERS MAY EXPECT AS A BLESSING FROM GOD, THAT THE BETTER THE USE THEY MAKE OF PREVIOUS, THE LARGER THE SUPPLIES THEY WILL RECEIVE OF FUTURE GRACE; but I say that even this use is of the Lord, and that this remuneration is bestowed freely of mere good will” (John Calvin, “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” pages 186-187).
Calvin writes these words regarding the subject of perseverance—the endurance of the believer. In the above quote, Calvin references Matthew 25. Second, Calvin’s words in large print show us that even Calvin believed that God rewards the work of humans. Where Calvin differed from Arminius is that Calvin would attract the work of the person to the Spirit, whereas Arminius would attach the work to the move of the Spirit, in addition to the person EMBRACING the Holy Spirit and His work (with little to no resistance).
Let’s investigate Matthew 25 to see what it can tell us about man and God.
Matthew 25 is about a master who travels to a faraway country. While He’s gone, he gives a certain amount to each of his three servants. They’re supposed to be working to make money for their master. However, at some point, the master returns:
“Now after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them.” (Matt. 25:19, New American Standard Bible).
The time finally came for the servants to “give an account” of what they had done with the talents.
As the text shows us, the one with five talents gained five more (vv.20-21) and the servant with two talents gained two more (vv.22-23); but things didn’t go so well for the servant with only one talent:
“ ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed. ‘And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.” (Matt. 25:24-25, NASB).
How does the Master respond?
“ ‘You WICKED, LAZY slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gathered where I scattered no seed. THEN YOU OUGHT TO HAVE PUT MY MONEY IN THE BANK, AND ON MY ARRIVAL I WOULD HAVE RECEIVED MY MONEY BACK WITH INTEREST” (Matt. 25:26-27, NASB).
The lazy servant gives an excuse that he thinks will get him acquitted before the Master; instead, the excuse brings greater wrath on the servant. The Master tells him that if he believed what he CLAIMED to believe, then his actions would have demonstrated his belief. Faith is more than lip service—for ACTIONS speak louder than words.
The lazy servant here seems to be very much similar to the typical modern-day belief of Calvinism. The view itself says that, since God controls everything, all of life is PREDETERMINED, even believers, and that we have no need to show concern towards anything! This is a dangerous view, for, like the lazy servant, we too will give an account for what we’ve done with the grace of God. Even though the man with one talent was a servant of the Master, the Master disowned him when He returned:
“Throw out the WORTHLESS slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be WEEPING and GNASHING OF TEETH” (Matt. 25:30, NASB).
This servant goes where all the other wicked people go: to Hell, a place that burns FOREVER. I know this because the same description is used for “the wicked” in Matthew 13:
“So it will be at the end of the age’ the angels will come forth and TAKE OUT THE WICKED FROM AMONG THE RIGHTEOUS, and will throw them into the FURNACE OF FIRE; in that place THERE WILL BE WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH” (Matt. 13:47-50, NASB).
In the verses above, however, we notice that the wicked will be separated “from among the righteous.” In Matthew 25, the wicked servant (who was also called “LAZY”) was separated from the other two servants who were called “good and faithful” servants.
1 Peter 4 gives us the same instruction as the Lord Jesus gave the disciples:
“As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another AS GOOD STEWARDS OF THE MANIFOLD GRACE OF GOD” (1 Peter 4:10, NASB).
The Holman Christian Standard Bible translates the Greek word “oikonomi,” translated here as “stewards,” as “managers.”
What is a “steward”? According to Merriam-Webster, the word means the following:
“An employee on a ship, airplane, bus, or train who manages the provisioning of food and attends passengers; one appointed to supervise the provisions and distribution of food and drink in an institution.”
Another definition I found interesting was the following:
“one who actively DIRECT affairs: MANAGER.”
It seems that Merriam-Webster matches the Holman Christian translation—a steward is a “manager.” We have been appointed by God to EMPLOY, or use the grace God has given us, to serve the body of Christ. This doesn’t take away from God’s ownership—rather, we use the grace of God wisely BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE THAT IT COMES FROM GOD.
We’ve already read 1 Peter 4:10. But now, take a look at verse 11. I think this verse gives the end to the Calvinist-Arminian debate:
“Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the UTTERANCES OF GOD; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving BY THE STRENGTH WHICH GOD SUPPLIES…”
Why should we use God’s grace as though God Himself is using His grace?
“SO THAT IN ALL THINGS GOD MAY BE GLORIFIED THROUGH JESUS CHRIST, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.” (1 Peter 4:11, NASB)
The purpose of using God’s grace to us in a godly manner, a way pleasing to Him, is to give glory to God. When we misuse God’s grace, we bring dishonor to the One who gave the grace to us.
Go back to John Calvin’s quote. He said, “it must [not] be thought that there is any such remuneration as to make it CEASE TO BE THE GRATUITOUS GRACE OF GOD.” The problem I have with this is that, while man does receive a blessing for how he uses God’s grace, this does NOTHING to take away from God. As 1 Peter 4 above showed us, using God’s grace wisely brings glory to Him, not take glory or steal glory from Him.
Calvin wants to point everything to God; and I see no problem with his view of God. God is the One who gives all things, and all good blessings come from God (James 1). However, God’s glory does not cancel out my decision of how to use God’s grace. The wicked servant of Matthew 25 misused God’s grace and only brought shame and honor on Himself—when the Lord returned, he took the talent from the man and gave it to the one who had ten talents, while also throwing the wicked servant into Hell.
There is always the goodness of God. But there is also my responsibility as well. 1 Peter 4 said that the one who serves is to do so “as one who is serving BY THE STRENGTH WHICH GOD SUPPLIES.” Why does God supply the strength, if God is going to also USE THE GRACE for me? Evidently, God gave the grace and the strength to me for a reason. And, since He’s given me all I need to persevere, the ball is then placed in my court. I now have to run until the end, determined to press on until I reach eternal life.
Calvin writes these words regarding the subject of perseverance—the endurance of the believer. In the above quote, Calvin references Matthew 25. Second, Calvin’s words in large print show us that even Calvin believed that God rewards the work of humans. Where Calvin differed from Arminius is that Calvin would attract the work of the person to the Spirit, whereas Arminius would attach the work to the move of the Spirit, in addition to the person EMBRACING the Holy Spirit and His work (with little to no resistance).
Let’s investigate Matthew 25 to see what it can tell us about man and God.
Matthew 25 is about a master who travels to a faraway country. While He’s gone, he gives a certain amount to each of his three servants. They’re supposed to be working to make money for their master. However, at some point, the master returns:
“Now after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them.” (Matt. 25:19, New American Standard Bible).
The time finally came for the servants to “give an account” of what they had done with the talents.
As the text shows us, the one with five talents gained five more (vv.20-21) and the servant with two talents gained two more (vv.22-23); but things didn’t go so well for the servant with only one talent:
“ ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed. ‘And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.” (Matt. 25:24-25, NASB).
How does the Master respond?
“ ‘You WICKED, LAZY slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gathered where I scattered no seed. THEN YOU OUGHT TO HAVE PUT MY MONEY IN THE BANK, AND ON MY ARRIVAL I WOULD HAVE RECEIVED MY MONEY BACK WITH INTEREST” (Matt. 25:26-27, NASB).
The lazy servant gives an excuse that he thinks will get him acquitted before the Master; instead, the excuse brings greater wrath on the servant. The Master tells him that if he believed what he CLAIMED to believe, then his actions would have demonstrated his belief. Faith is more than lip service—for ACTIONS speak louder than words.
The lazy servant here seems to be very much similar to the typical modern-day belief of Calvinism. The view itself says that, since God controls everything, all of life is PREDETERMINED, even believers, and that we have no need to show concern towards anything! This is a dangerous view, for, like the lazy servant, we too will give an account for what we’ve done with the grace of God. Even though the man with one talent was a servant of the Master, the Master disowned him when He returned:
“Throw out the WORTHLESS slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be WEEPING and GNASHING OF TEETH” (Matt. 25:30, NASB).
This servant goes where all the other wicked people go: to Hell, a place that burns FOREVER. I know this because the same description is used for “the wicked” in Matthew 13:
“So it will be at the end of the age’ the angels will come forth and TAKE OUT THE WICKED FROM AMONG THE RIGHTEOUS, and will throw them into the FURNACE OF FIRE; in that place THERE WILL BE WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH” (Matt. 13:47-50, NASB).
In the verses above, however, we notice that the wicked will be separated “from among the righteous.” In Matthew 25, the wicked servant (who was also called “LAZY”) was separated from the other two servants who were called “good and faithful” servants.
1 Peter 4 gives us the same instruction as the Lord Jesus gave the disciples:
“As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another AS GOOD STEWARDS OF THE MANIFOLD GRACE OF GOD” (1 Peter 4:10, NASB).
The Holman Christian Standard Bible translates the Greek word “oikonomi,” translated here as “stewards,” as “managers.”
What is a “steward”? According to Merriam-Webster, the word means the following:
“An employee on a ship, airplane, bus, or train who manages the provisioning of food and attends passengers; one appointed to supervise the provisions and distribution of food and drink in an institution.”
Another definition I found interesting was the following:
“one who actively DIRECT affairs: MANAGER.”
It seems that Merriam-Webster matches the Holman Christian translation—a steward is a “manager.” We have been appointed by God to EMPLOY, or use the grace God has given us, to serve the body of Christ. This doesn’t take away from God’s ownership—rather, we use the grace of God wisely BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE THAT IT COMES FROM GOD.
We’ve already read 1 Peter 4:10. But now, take a look at verse 11. I think this verse gives the end to the Calvinist-Arminian debate:
“Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the UTTERANCES OF GOD; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving BY THE STRENGTH WHICH GOD SUPPLIES…”
Why should we use God’s grace as though God Himself is using His grace?
“SO THAT IN ALL THINGS GOD MAY BE GLORIFIED THROUGH JESUS CHRIST, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.” (1 Peter 4:11, NASB)
The purpose of using God’s grace to us in a godly manner, a way pleasing to Him, is to give glory to God. When we misuse God’s grace, we bring dishonor to the One who gave the grace to us.
Go back to John Calvin’s quote. He said, “it must [not] be thought that there is any such remuneration as to make it CEASE TO BE THE GRATUITOUS GRACE OF GOD.” The problem I have with this is that, while man does receive a blessing for how he uses God’s grace, this does NOTHING to take away from God. As 1 Peter 4 above showed us, using God’s grace wisely brings glory to Him, not take glory or steal glory from Him.
Calvin wants to point everything to God; and I see no problem with his view of God. God is the One who gives all things, and all good blessings come from God (James 1). However, God’s glory does not cancel out my decision of how to use God’s grace. The wicked servant of Matthew 25 misused God’s grace and only brought shame and honor on Himself—when the Lord returned, he took the talent from the man and gave it to the one who had ten talents, while also throwing the wicked servant into Hell.
There is always the goodness of God. But there is also my responsibility as well. 1 Peter 4 said that the one who serves is to do so “as one who is serving BY THE STRENGTH WHICH GOD SUPPLIES.” Why does God supply the strength, if God is going to also USE THE GRACE for me? Evidently, God gave the grace and the strength to me for a reason. And, since He’s given me all I need to persevere, the ball is then placed in my court. I now have to run until the end, determined to press on until I reach eternal life.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Defenders of Divine Grace (Part II)
“Accordingly, when Peter exhorts us to ‘add to faith virtue’ (2 Peter 1:5), he does not concede to us the possession of a second place, as if we could do anything separately. HE ONLY AROUSES THE SLUGGISHNESS OF OUR FLESH, BY WHICH FAITH ITSELF IS FREQUENTLY STIFLED” (John Calvin, “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” page 205).
I’m still in the same section as of last, continuing Calvin’s argument about the meaning of the commands and imperatives of Scripture.
In the last post, we discussed the context of Philippians 2 and demonstrated that Paul was exhorting the believers to have the mind of Christ, since God was at work in them. Their practice was to put their knowledge of Christ to good use. Theory and application always go hand in hand.
The above quote from John Calvin continues the argument from last regarding Calvin’s view that EVERYTHING we do is all God—and that we have no participation in it (except for passive action, which I stated Calvin forgets because it is still an action).
Notice that Calvin says “He [Peter] only AROUSES THE SLUGGISHNESS OF OUR FLESH, BY WHICH FAITH ITSELF IS STIFLED.” What does it mean to be sluggish?
A synonym of “sluggish” is “slothful,” or what most of us know as “lazy.” So our flesh can become slothful, or lazy. But this is not all: not only can our flesh become lazy—but “faith itself” can be “stifled.” What does it mean to be “stifled”?
Merriam-Webster defines “stifle” as:
transitive verb1 a: to kill by depriving of oxygen : SUFFOCATE b (1): SMOTHER (2): MUFFLE2 a: to cut off (as the voice or breath) b: to withhold from circulation or expression : REPRESS c: DETER, DISCOURAGE
So when Calvin says that faith can be “stifled,” he is really saying that faith can be KILLED.
Wait a minute! Faith can be destroyed? John Calvin said this? I know it seems as if I’m reading words that aren’t on the page…but HE SAID IT! Our slothfulness, our laziness, can kill our faith. But this is John Calvin, who many times states in his “Institutes” that those of the elect God gives the strength to PERSEVERE to the end. But yet, even in the elect, faith can be KILLED? Why does Calvin fear that believers can LOSE FAITH, if, as he says, they’re part of the elect who persevere because of the Spirit in them?
I think this is where we catch John Calvin having stumbled in his own words. If faith can be killed, EVEN in the elect, then we don’t have an elite group of people that God perseveres; what we have however, are a bunch of Christians who are RESPONSIBLE for continuing to labor in their faith. This, then, becomes a matter of INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY—and God is not to be held responsible for “the elect” group of John Calvin.
Having said this, it is now time to examine the passage he quotes from in the quote above: 2 Peter 1. Let’s see what Peter himself had to say about the believer.
“For His divine power HAS GIVEN US EVERYTHING REQUIRED for life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and goodness” (2 Pet. 1:3, HCSB).
I got to thinking about “His divine power” and a fellow passage came to mind—Romans 1:
“For God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, since what can be known about God is evident among them, BECAUSE GOD HAS SHOWN IT TO THEM. From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, HIS ETERNAL POWER and DIVINE NATURE, HAVE BEEN CLEARLY SEEN, being understood THROUGH WHAT HE HAS MADE. AS A RESULT, PEOPLE ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE” (Romans 1:18-20, HCSB).
Paul tells us in Romans 1 that, because God has revealed Himself to all of humankind in nature (what we call “general revelation”), God is no more responsible for those who do not accept Him—or for those who would like to claim “ignorance” regarding the existence of God. It’s easy to claim ignorance when you don’t know something; it’s hard, however, to claim ignorance when the truth or some knowledge has been revealed. Now, ignorance no longer stands, and the responsibility to perform an action lies with the person to whom the knowledge has been revealed. Paul is saying that the world cannot stand before the Lord at the end of time and say, “I didn’t know you existed,” or “I didn’t know there was a God.” God has already done His part—to reveal Himself—and now, humanity has a part to play. They cannot invent any good reasons that will trump God’s judgment upon them.
And this is what Peter is saying in 2 Peter 1. Because God has given us EVERYTHING WE NEED, we are not justified to turn around, point the finger at God, and say, “But Lord, I didn’t have everything, so it’s not my fault I didn’t live up to my vow.”
Let’s look at the example of a teacher and her students: if the teacher gives a syllabus and says, “students, you will need these five items for my math class,” it is then the students’ responsibility to go out and get the materials. Usually, if the students are pretty young, the parents take the supplies list and go to Walmart to buy whatever the child needs. Why do the parents invest their time and money in getting the needed supplies? So that their children will have NO EXCUSE when it comes to grades. The child then, upon getting bad grades, cannot say, “I didn’t have a calculator for math class,” or “I didn’t have enough notebook paper so I didn’t get to take down the last two days’ of notes in the class,” etc. Once the teacher has given the supplies list, the teacher has done his or her part; once the parent buys the supplies, the parent has done his or her part. The responsibility to excel academically NOW LIES WITH THE STUDENTS! And if the student fails the class, the student cannot blame mom or the teacher—the student can only blame himself or herself.
I want to point out some things from the text. Notice that, when Peter starts listing the qualities to add to faith (v.5), that he mentions “knowledge with SELF-CONTROL, SELF-CONTROL WITH ENDURANCE, ENDURANCE WITH GODLINESS” (1:6). Have you ever wondered why Peter lists these qualities in this order?
I think he does so to tell us something about God and ourselves. He just told us that God has given us all we need for life and godliness (v.3). Not only has God given us what we need, He has even given us promises (v.4). God has gone ABOVE AND BEYOND in His role as Lord, and it is now our turn to put to use what He has given us. This is why Peter writes, “For this very reason, MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO SUPPLEMENT YOUR FAITH…” The Greek word for “make every effort” is “pareisphero,” meaning “to support, to bring to bear, to APPLY.” The word is a compound Greek word: it consists of the words “para” (meaning “alongside of”), “eis” (into, in, to), and “phero” (to bear, to carry). Combining these three Greek words, we get a wooden translation of “to bear ALONGSIDE OF,” or to bear “IN” something.
But, if Peter is saying, “bear these things ALONGSIDE of something,” he is exhorting the believers to produce these qualities ALONGSIDE or along with, their faith. In short, faith MUST BE PROCEEDED by works—or, as James said, “Faith without works is DEAD” (James 2:26, HCSB).
Back to verse 6: once the knowledge is gained, then comes SELF-CONTROL. The knowledge of Christ is what will help us learn to curb our sinful, fleshly desires. But we are still charged with SELF-CONTROL. Now, as Calvin would say it, the Spirit does everything; but if that is true, why would the Holy Spirit produce a fruit in us called SELF-CONTROL? It evidently took no praise away from the Spirit to provide this fruit for believers by which they are to discipline themselves. Simply put, the Spirit still gets praise for His fruit—but we are called to cultivate that fruit and grow more in our walk with Christ. In Galatians 5, Paul contrasts the FRUIT of the Spirit with the works of the flesh. I think he was showing the believers there what it meant to do the work of a Christian.
After Paul lists the works of the flesh in Galatians 5, he writes this: “…about WHICH I TELL YOU IN ADVANCE—as I told you before—that THOSE WHO PRACTICE SUCH THINGS WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD”(Gal. 5:21, HCSB). The question then becomes, “Why does Paul write these harsh warnings to the BELIEVERS at the church at Galatia? Because he’s telling them that to CONTINUALLY do these things will lead to Hell itself.
To make matters worse, check out Paul’s words in verse 25 of the same chapter:
“If we live BY the Spirit, we MUST also FOLLOW the Spirit.”
Notice that the end of the verse is DEPENDENT upon the first part. Based on the condition that we live BY the Spirit (the Spirit is the means), we follow the Spirit (we yield to the Spirit’s work). The fact that Paul is exhorting them clearly testifies to the fact that, even as a believer, a person can choose to walk AGAINST the Spirit, and deny the Spirit the opportunity to work in their lives.
Looking back to 2 Peter 1, we find verse 8:
“For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they will keep you from being useless or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
So, there is a possibility that I can become unfruitful in the knowledge of Christ? Yes; but this PRESUPPOSES that I am supposed to bear fruit. Why, yes of course! How can the works of the flesh be contrasted with the fruit of the Spirit IF I’m not supposed to bear spiritual fruit (Gal.5)?
The word “useless” in the Greek is “argous,” which literally means “lazy, idle, careless.” So if a person doesn’t increase their qualities in their Christian walk, then they can become lazy. Funny, but isn’t this what John Calvin was saying about the imperatives?
“Accordingly, when Peter exhorts us to ‘add to faith virtue’ (2 Peter 1:5), he does not concede to us the possession of a second place, as if we could do anything separately. HE ONLY AROUSES THE SLUGGISHNESS OF OUR FLESH, by which faith itself is frequently STIFLED” (“Institutes,” 205).
So faith can be killed by sluggishness of the flesh? Evidently, Calvin is forced to do something with the imperatives other than just deny them. How does he respond to the imperatives?
“In fine… what properly belongs to God is transferred to us ONLY BY WAY OF CONCESSION…” (206).
So, what is Calvin saying here? That the Lord would actually assign something to us that isn’t true? Is he saying here that, although the work is all of the Spirit, that the Spirit would actually give credit to human nature (since the human does absolutely nothing)? Surely Calvin is not going to deny Scripture and say, “It doesn’t say what it says,” is he?
2 Peter 1:10 tells us to “MAKE EVERY EFFORT to confirm your calling and election, BECAUSE IF YOU DO THESE THINGS YOU WILL NEVER STUMBLE. For in this way, ENTRY INTO THE ETERNAL KINGDOM of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be richly supplied to you” (vv.10, 11).
The word here for “make every effort” is “spoudasate,” meaning “to be zealous, to hasten.” But there is also something else here of noteworthy importance: while the Holman Christian Standard translates the Greek word “bebaian” as “confirm” (along with the use of the verb “poieo,” to do or to make), the word in the Greek means “PERMANENT, SECURE, CERTAIN.”
Wait a minute! Aren’t believers ALREADY CERTAIN about their election? I mean, after all, if believers profess faith in Christ, everything is secure, right? Nope. Not according to 2 Peter 1:10. The verse literally says that a person has to continue to produce fruit IF they are to make their calling and election PERMANENT, everlasting, non-temporary, long-lasting (and not shortlived). The permanence of the election comes through spiritual discipline, not a simple confession made before witnesses.
Verse 11 says that the entry (or access) into the eternal kingdom (Heaven) will be given only to those who continue to produce fruit for the kingdom. Right here in verses 10 and 11, we see CONDITIONAL ELECTION—being a part of God’s church ON THE BASIS OF BEARING FRUIT. Bearing fruit, doing the work of the Lord, trying to live godly and holy before Him, is the only thing that will keep you as part of the elect.
Let’s go back to the original quote of John Calvin. If Peter writes this verse (2 Pet. 1:5) only to arouse my flesh from sluggishness, then that means that I have to be doing something to aid in my sanctification. The possibility of faith “being stifled,” choked off, or died out, is the one thing that works AGAINST the Calvinist: for if the elect are God’s chosen, bound for Heaven and guaranteed in their perseverance, then why is it that the flesh of EVEN THE ELECT can become sluggish, that even the ELECT came become lazy, and unproductive, and unfruitful, and miss Heaven?
I’m still in the same section as of last, continuing Calvin’s argument about the meaning of the commands and imperatives of Scripture.
In the last post, we discussed the context of Philippians 2 and demonstrated that Paul was exhorting the believers to have the mind of Christ, since God was at work in them. Their practice was to put their knowledge of Christ to good use. Theory and application always go hand in hand.
The above quote from John Calvin continues the argument from last regarding Calvin’s view that EVERYTHING we do is all God—and that we have no participation in it (except for passive action, which I stated Calvin forgets because it is still an action).
Notice that Calvin says “He [Peter] only AROUSES THE SLUGGISHNESS OF OUR FLESH, BY WHICH FAITH ITSELF IS STIFLED.” What does it mean to be sluggish?
A synonym of “sluggish” is “slothful,” or what most of us know as “lazy.” So our flesh can become slothful, or lazy. But this is not all: not only can our flesh become lazy—but “faith itself” can be “stifled.” What does it mean to be “stifled”?
Merriam-Webster defines “stifle” as:
transitive verb1 a: to kill by depriving of oxygen : SUFFOCATE b (1): SMOTHER (2): MUFFLE2 a: to cut off (as the voice or breath) b: to withhold from circulation or expression : REPRESS
So when Calvin says that faith can be “stifled,” he is really saying that faith can be KILLED.
Wait a minute! Faith can be destroyed? John Calvin said this? I know it seems as if I’m reading words that aren’t on the page…but HE SAID IT! Our slothfulness, our laziness, can kill our faith. But this is John Calvin, who many times states in his “Institutes” that those of the elect God gives the strength to PERSEVERE to the end. But yet, even in the elect, faith can be KILLED? Why does Calvin fear that believers can LOSE FAITH, if, as he says, they’re part of the elect who persevere because of the Spirit in them?
I think this is where we catch John Calvin having stumbled in his own words. If faith can be killed, EVEN in the elect, then we don’t have an elite group of people that God perseveres; what we have however, are a bunch of Christians who are RESPONSIBLE for continuing to labor in their faith. This, then, becomes a matter of INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY—and God is not to be held responsible for “the elect” group of John Calvin.
Having said this, it is now time to examine the passage he quotes from in the quote above: 2 Peter 1. Let’s see what Peter himself had to say about the believer.
“For His divine power HAS GIVEN US EVERYTHING REQUIRED for life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and goodness” (2 Pet. 1:3, HCSB).
I got to thinking about “His divine power” and a fellow passage came to mind—Romans 1:
“For God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, since what can be known about God is evident among them, BECAUSE GOD HAS SHOWN IT TO THEM. From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, HIS ETERNAL POWER and DIVINE NATURE, HAVE BEEN CLEARLY SEEN, being understood THROUGH WHAT HE HAS MADE. AS A RESULT, PEOPLE ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE” (Romans 1:18-20, HCSB).
Paul tells us in Romans 1 that, because God has revealed Himself to all of humankind in nature (what we call “general revelation”), God is no more responsible for those who do not accept Him—or for those who would like to claim “ignorance” regarding the existence of God. It’s easy to claim ignorance when you don’t know something; it’s hard, however, to claim ignorance when the truth or some knowledge has been revealed. Now, ignorance no longer stands, and the responsibility to perform an action lies with the person to whom the knowledge has been revealed. Paul is saying that the world cannot stand before the Lord at the end of time and say, “I didn’t know you existed,” or “I didn’t know there was a God.” God has already done His part—to reveal Himself—and now, humanity has a part to play. They cannot invent any good reasons that will trump God’s judgment upon them.
And this is what Peter is saying in 2 Peter 1. Because God has given us EVERYTHING WE NEED, we are not justified to turn around, point the finger at God, and say, “But Lord, I didn’t have everything, so it’s not my fault I didn’t live up to my vow.”
Let’s look at the example of a teacher and her students: if the teacher gives a syllabus and says, “students, you will need these five items for my math class,” it is then the students’ responsibility to go out and get the materials. Usually, if the students are pretty young, the parents take the supplies list and go to Walmart to buy whatever the child needs. Why do the parents invest their time and money in getting the needed supplies? So that their children will have NO EXCUSE when it comes to grades. The child then, upon getting bad grades, cannot say, “I didn’t have a calculator for math class,” or “I didn’t have enough notebook paper so I didn’t get to take down the last two days’ of notes in the class,” etc. Once the teacher has given the supplies list, the teacher has done his or her part; once the parent buys the supplies, the parent has done his or her part. The responsibility to excel academically NOW LIES WITH THE STUDENTS! And if the student fails the class, the student cannot blame mom or the teacher—the student can only blame himself or herself.
I want to point out some things from the text. Notice that, when Peter starts listing the qualities to add to faith (v.5), that he mentions “knowledge with SELF-CONTROL, SELF-CONTROL WITH ENDURANCE, ENDURANCE WITH GODLINESS” (1:6). Have you ever wondered why Peter lists these qualities in this order?
I think he does so to tell us something about God and ourselves. He just told us that God has given us all we need for life and godliness (v.3). Not only has God given us what we need, He has even given us promises (v.4). God has gone ABOVE AND BEYOND in His role as Lord, and it is now our turn to put to use what He has given us. This is why Peter writes, “For this very reason, MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO SUPPLEMENT YOUR FAITH…” The Greek word for “make every effort” is “pareisphero,” meaning “to support, to bring to bear, to APPLY.” The word is a compound Greek word: it consists of the words “para” (meaning “alongside of”), “eis” (into, in, to), and “phero” (to bear, to carry). Combining these three Greek words, we get a wooden translation of “to bear ALONGSIDE OF,” or to bear “IN” something.
But, if Peter is saying, “bear these things ALONGSIDE of something,” he is exhorting the believers to produce these qualities ALONGSIDE or along with, their faith. In short, faith MUST BE PROCEEDED by works—or, as James said, “Faith without works is DEAD” (James 2:26, HCSB).
Back to verse 6: once the knowledge is gained, then comes SELF-CONTROL. The knowledge of Christ is what will help us learn to curb our sinful, fleshly desires. But we are still charged with SELF-CONTROL. Now, as Calvin would say it, the Spirit does everything; but if that is true, why would the Holy Spirit produce a fruit in us called SELF-CONTROL? It evidently took no praise away from the Spirit to provide this fruit for believers by which they are to discipline themselves. Simply put, the Spirit still gets praise for His fruit—but we are called to cultivate that fruit and grow more in our walk with Christ. In Galatians 5, Paul contrasts the FRUIT of the Spirit with the works of the flesh. I think he was showing the believers there what it meant to do the work of a Christian.
After Paul lists the works of the flesh in Galatians 5, he writes this: “…about WHICH I TELL YOU IN ADVANCE—as I told you before—that THOSE WHO PRACTICE SUCH THINGS WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD”(Gal. 5:21, HCSB). The question then becomes, “Why does Paul write these harsh warnings to the BELIEVERS at the church at Galatia? Because he’s telling them that to CONTINUALLY do these things will lead to Hell itself.
To make matters worse, check out Paul’s words in verse 25 of the same chapter:
“If we live BY the Spirit, we MUST also FOLLOW the Spirit.”
Notice that the end of the verse is DEPENDENT upon the first part. Based on the condition that we live BY the Spirit (the Spirit is the means), we follow the Spirit (we yield to the Spirit’s work). The fact that Paul is exhorting them clearly testifies to the fact that, even as a believer, a person can choose to walk AGAINST the Spirit, and deny the Spirit the opportunity to work in their lives.
Looking back to 2 Peter 1, we find verse 8:
“For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they will keep you from being useless or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
So, there is a possibility that I can become unfruitful in the knowledge of Christ? Yes; but this PRESUPPOSES that I am supposed to bear fruit. Why, yes of course! How can the works of the flesh be contrasted with the fruit of the Spirit IF I’m not supposed to bear spiritual fruit (Gal.5)?
The word “useless” in the Greek is “argous,” which literally means “lazy, idle, careless.” So if a person doesn’t increase their qualities in their Christian walk, then they can become lazy. Funny, but isn’t this what John Calvin was saying about the imperatives?
“Accordingly, when Peter exhorts us to ‘add to faith virtue’ (2 Peter 1:5), he does not concede to us the possession of a second place, as if we could do anything separately. HE ONLY AROUSES THE SLUGGISHNESS OF OUR FLESH, by which faith itself is frequently STIFLED” (“Institutes,” 205).
So faith can be killed by sluggishness of the flesh? Evidently, Calvin is forced to do something with the imperatives other than just deny them. How does he respond to the imperatives?
“In fine… what properly belongs to God is transferred to us ONLY BY WAY OF CONCESSION…” (206).
So, what is Calvin saying here? That the Lord would actually assign something to us that isn’t true? Is he saying here that, although the work is all of the Spirit, that the Spirit would actually give credit to human nature (since the human does absolutely nothing)? Surely Calvin is not going to deny Scripture and say, “It doesn’t say what it says,” is he?
2 Peter 1:10 tells us to “MAKE EVERY EFFORT to confirm your calling and election, BECAUSE IF YOU DO THESE THINGS YOU WILL NEVER STUMBLE. For in this way, ENTRY INTO THE ETERNAL KINGDOM of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be richly supplied to you” (vv.10, 11).
The word here for “make every effort” is “spoudasate,” meaning “to be zealous, to hasten.” But there is also something else here of noteworthy importance: while the Holman Christian Standard translates the Greek word “bebaian” as “confirm” (along with the use of the verb “poieo,” to do or to make), the word in the Greek means “PERMANENT, SECURE, CERTAIN.”
Wait a minute! Aren’t believers ALREADY CERTAIN about their election? I mean, after all, if believers profess faith in Christ, everything is secure, right? Nope. Not according to 2 Peter 1:10. The verse literally says that a person has to continue to produce fruit IF they are to make their calling and election PERMANENT, everlasting, non-temporary, long-lasting (and not shortlived). The permanence of the election comes through spiritual discipline, not a simple confession made before witnesses.
Verse 11 says that the entry (or access) into the eternal kingdom (Heaven) will be given only to those who continue to produce fruit for the kingdom. Right here in verses 10 and 11, we see CONDITIONAL ELECTION—being a part of God’s church ON THE BASIS OF BEARING FRUIT. Bearing fruit, doing the work of the Lord, trying to live godly and holy before Him, is the only thing that will keep you as part of the elect.
Let’s go back to the original quote of John Calvin. If Peter writes this verse (2 Pet. 1:5) only to arouse my flesh from sluggishness, then that means that I have to be doing something to aid in my sanctification. The possibility of faith “being stifled,” choked off, or died out, is the one thing that works AGAINST the Calvinist: for if the elect are God’s chosen, bound for Heaven and guaranteed in their perseverance, then why is it that the flesh of EVEN THE ELECT can become sluggish, that even the ELECT came become lazy, and unproductive, and unfruitful, and miss Heaven?
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Defenders of Divine Grace
“These few explanations will make it very easy for the reader to disentangle himself from the immense heap of passages (containing both precepts and reprimands) which the ENEMIES OF DIVINE GRACE are in the habit of piling up, that they may thereon ERECT THEIR STATUE OF FREE WILL…we must, therefore, attend to the admonition of Paul, when he thus addresses believers, ‘Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure’ (Phil. 2:12, 13). He ascribes to them a part in acting THAT THEY MAY NOT INDULGE IN CARNAL SLOTH, but by enjoining fear and trembling, he HUMBLES them so as to keep them in remembrance, that they very thing which they are ordered to do is the proper work of God—distinctly intimating, that believers act (IF I MAY SO SPEAK) PASSIVELY inasmuch as the power is given them from heaven, and cannot in any way be arrogated to themselves” (John Calvin, “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” page 205).
I’ve been reading some more of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion today. I had planned to go about my posting as planned, with stuff already behind chapter 5 that I wanted to post on. But I felt so strong about certain comments I read today, that I just couldn’t run past them—or save them until another time.
With the quote above, I found it fascinating that John Calvin would give us such an interpretation of Philippians 2:12-13:
“He ascribes to them a part in acting THAT THEY MAY NOT INDULGE IN CARNAL SLOTH, but by enjoining fear and trembling, he HUMBLES them so as TO KEEP THEM IN REMEMBRANCE, that they very thing which they are ordered to do is the proper work of God—distinctly intimating, that believers act (if I may so speak) PASSIVELY inasmuch as the power is given them from heaven, and cannot in any way be arrogated to themselves.”
But look at what Calvin said earlier in his Institutes about this passage:
“Accordingly, in the passage already quoted from the Apostle Paul, he attributes the whole operation to God, ‘It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure’ (Phil. 2:13). The first part of a good work is the will, the second is vigorous effort in the doing of it. GOD IS THE AUTHOR OF BOTH. It is,therefore, ROBBERY FROM GOD to arrogate anything to ourselves, either in the will or the act” (185).
How does one “ACT PASSIVELY”? In the words of John Calvin, it is to allow the “power…given from heaven” to be at work in them. And Calvin isn’t alone: Arminians believe the same.
But let’s look at the structure of Philippians 2:12-13. First, there is the imperative: “work out your soul salvation with fear and trembling.” Then there is the reason: “For it is GOD who is working in you.” So, the thought behind this passage is that the believers are supposed to have a reverence for God that allows them to do what is pleasing to God. Why are they doing this? Because GOD is at work in them. This acknowledges God without taking away from human responsibility.
If one examines the context of Philippians 2, it will be seen that Paul has just finished showing the believers at Philippi the example of Christ, His submission to the Father, and His selfless act as Savior—to be obedient to the Father, even to the death on the Cross. Paul uses the example of Christ because he is emphasizing that the believers need humility by which to conduct themselves:
“Do nothing out of rivalry or conceit, but in HUMILITY consider others as more important than yourselves. Everyone SHOULD look out not [only] for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. Make your attitude THAT OF CHRIST JESUS…” (Phil. 2:3-5, HCSB).
As we can see, the issue with the believers was learning how to CONDUCT themselves as believers. So in verse 13, when Paul states that God is working in them for His good will and good pleasure, He is saying that, BECAUSE this is true (God is at work), the believers should conduct themselves in a way that demonstrates that God is at work in them.
But, did you notice Calvin’s comment about how believers act? “Believers act PASSIVELY (inasmuch as the power is given them from heaven), and cannot in any way be arrogated to themselves.”
There’s a problem with this statement though: while believers do “act passively” and do not resist the Spirit of Grace, by so doing, they COOPERATE (work with) the Spirit. For Calvin to say this is a huge breakdown of his entire argument. He has spent time in the last two chapters arguing that it is the Spirit that does everything—believers do nothing. Now, he’s saying that believers “ACT”!
In case you think my context is a bit off, let’s continue to examine the context of Philippians 2. After Paul’s remarks about having the mind of Christ, Paul writes these words:
“So then, my dear friends, just as you HAVE ALWAYS OBEYED, not only in my presence, but now even more in my absence, WORK OUT your own salvation with fear and trembling…DO EVERYTHING WITHOUT GRUMBLING AND ARGUING, so that you may be blameless and pure, children of God who are faultless in a crooked and perverted generation, AMONG WHOM YOU SHINE LIKE STARS IN THE WORLD. HOLD FIRMLY THE MESSAGE OF LIFE. THEN I CAN BOAST IN THE DAY OF CHRIST THAT I DIDN’T RUN IN VAIN OR LABOR FOR NOTHING” (Phil. 2:12-16, HCSB).
The theme of these last five verses is OBEDIENCE—“Just as you have ALWAYS OBEYED…” I found the definition for “obey” in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary online:
1) “to follow the commands or guidance of.”
2) To conform or comply with
What does it mean to “follow”?
“to act in accordance with, to accept as an authority, to copy, to imitate,” etc.
All these definitions show us what humans do when they “obey.” But, to distinguish, let’s see what happens with objects when they “obey”:
“Falling objects OBEY the laws of physics” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obey)
What does an object do when it OBEYS? It does nothing. Because the laws of physics contain a gravitational force which pulls on the object, the object (such as a rock) follows the law and FALLS to the ground. It does not get a choice to resist; it has no way of resistance, no ability of resistance within itself. Why? Because it’s an object; and objects HAVE NO MIND, or INTELLECT, or ABILITY to do other than what the scientific laws call for.
But with humans, we are different; we are not like objects in that we simply “fall” into whatever the laws say. Now, while we are forced to obey laws like the law of gravity, there are certain things we can do against nature—like, for instance, build homes, cars, trucks, vans. Humans everyday find ways to make nature “bend” to whatever their desires are. Currently in our world, we are striving to learn how to use healthier car fuel other than the gas emissions we have—so that we can better protect our environment. While our abuse of natural resources has led to pollution and ozone layer thinning, our good use of these resources has led to the preservation of near-extinct species, as well as medicines to fight sicknesses and diseases. We are helping people live longer today—and creating new “anti-wrinkle creams” so that women can fight the signs of aging. In short, we are making an impression upon our society.
But objects cannot do this. Objects are simply “pulled along.” And that is the major problem I have with Calvinism. It seems as if Calvinists make the Holy Spirit out to be some mystical “force” that jumps into my body and DRIVES me to do certain things. It kinda reminds me of the movie “Ghost” that I saw about two or three months ago, where the spirit of a deceased man (played by Patrick Swayze)jumped into the “spiritual advisor’s” body (played by Whoopie Goldberg), and made Whoopie Goldberg say EXACTLY what the deceased man wanted to tell his wife (played by Demi Moore). But the problem is, that this IS NOT how the Spirit works. He does not FORCE us to do things. We are not OBJECTS, but PEOPLE; and as creation made IN THE IMAGE AND AFTER THE LIKENESS of our Creator, the Spirit responds to us AS SUCH—humans who are capable of making decisions. If God wanted to make us as objects or automaton who simply do His bidding, He could have done that. However, He made us IN HIS IMAGE, AFTER HIS LIKENESS…and if He did that, don’t you think that our will, the component of our constitution that allows us to make decisions, is part of the LIKENESS of God that we bear in ourselves?
I will continue my discussion of Calvin’s Book II, Chapter 5, in my next post.
I’ve been reading some more of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion today. I had planned to go about my posting as planned, with stuff already behind chapter 5 that I wanted to post on. But I felt so strong about certain comments I read today, that I just couldn’t run past them—or save them until another time.
With the quote above, I found it fascinating that John Calvin would give us such an interpretation of Philippians 2:12-13:
“He ascribes to them a part in acting THAT THEY MAY NOT INDULGE IN CARNAL SLOTH, but by enjoining fear and trembling, he HUMBLES them so as TO KEEP THEM IN REMEMBRANCE, that they very thing which they are ordered to do is the proper work of God—distinctly intimating, that believers act (if I may so speak) PASSIVELY inasmuch as the power is given them from heaven, and cannot in any way be arrogated to themselves.”
But look at what Calvin said earlier in his Institutes about this passage:
“Accordingly, in the passage already quoted from the Apostle Paul, he attributes the whole operation to God, ‘It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure’ (Phil. 2:13). The first part of a good work is the will, the second is vigorous effort in the doing of it. GOD IS THE AUTHOR OF BOTH. It is,therefore, ROBBERY FROM GOD to arrogate anything to ourselves, either in the will or the act” (185).
How does one “ACT PASSIVELY”? In the words of John Calvin, it is to allow the “power…given from heaven” to be at work in them. And Calvin isn’t alone: Arminians believe the same.
But let’s look at the structure of Philippians 2:12-13. First, there is the imperative: “work out your soul salvation with fear and trembling.” Then there is the reason: “For it is GOD who is working in you.” So, the thought behind this passage is that the believers are supposed to have a reverence for God that allows them to do what is pleasing to God. Why are they doing this? Because GOD is at work in them. This acknowledges God without taking away from human responsibility.
If one examines the context of Philippians 2, it will be seen that Paul has just finished showing the believers at Philippi the example of Christ, His submission to the Father, and His selfless act as Savior—to be obedient to the Father, even to the death on the Cross. Paul uses the example of Christ because he is emphasizing that the believers need humility by which to conduct themselves:
“Do nothing out of rivalry or conceit, but in HUMILITY consider others as more important than yourselves. Everyone SHOULD look out not [only] for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. Make your attitude THAT OF CHRIST JESUS…” (Phil. 2:3-5, HCSB).
As we can see, the issue with the believers was learning how to CONDUCT themselves as believers. So in verse 13, when Paul states that God is working in them for His good will and good pleasure, He is saying that, BECAUSE this is true (God is at work), the believers should conduct themselves in a way that demonstrates that God is at work in them.
But, did you notice Calvin’s comment about how believers act? “Believers act PASSIVELY (inasmuch as the power is given them from heaven), and cannot in any way be arrogated to themselves.”
There’s a problem with this statement though: while believers do “act passively” and do not resist the Spirit of Grace, by so doing, they COOPERATE (work with) the Spirit. For Calvin to say this is a huge breakdown of his entire argument. He has spent time in the last two chapters arguing that it is the Spirit that does everything—believers do nothing. Now, he’s saying that believers “ACT”!
In case you think my context is a bit off, let’s continue to examine the context of Philippians 2. After Paul’s remarks about having the mind of Christ, Paul writes these words:
“So then, my dear friends, just as you HAVE ALWAYS OBEYED, not only in my presence, but now even more in my absence, WORK OUT your own salvation with fear and trembling…DO EVERYTHING WITHOUT GRUMBLING AND ARGUING, so that you may be blameless and pure, children of God who are faultless in a crooked and perverted generation, AMONG WHOM YOU SHINE LIKE STARS IN THE WORLD. HOLD FIRMLY THE MESSAGE OF LIFE. THEN I CAN BOAST IN THE DAY OF CHRIST THAT I DIDN’T RUN IN VAIN OR LABOR FOR NOTHING” (Phil. 2:12-16, HCSB).
The theme of these last five verses is OBEDIENCE—“Just as you have ALWAYS OBEYED…” I found the definition for “obey” in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary online:
1) “to follow the commands or guidance of.”
2) To conform or comply with
What does it mean to “follow”?
“to act in accordance with, to accept as an authority, to copy, to imitate,” etc.
All these definitions show us what humans do when they “obey.” But, to distinguish, let’s see what happens with objects when they “obey”:
“Falling objects OBEY the laws of physics” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obey)
What does an object do when it OBEYS? It does nothing. Because the laws of physics contain a gravitational force which pulls on the object, the object (such as a rock) follows the law and FALLS to the ground. It does not get a choice to resist; it has no way of resistance, no ability of resistance within itself. Why? Because it’s an object; and objects HAVE NO MIND, or INTELLECT, or ABILITY to do other than what the scientific laws call for.
But with humans, we are different; we are not like objects in that we simply “fall” into whatever the laws say. Now, while we are forced to obey laws like the law of gravity, there are certain things we can do against nature—like, for instance, build homes, cars, trucks, vans. Humans everyday find ways to make nature “bend” to whatever their desires are. Currently in our world, we are striving to learn how to use healthier car fuel other than the gas emissions we have—so that we can better protect our environment. While our abuse of natural resources has led to pollution and ozone layer thinning, our good use of these resources has led to the preservation of near-extinct species, as well as medicines to fight sicknesses and diseases. We are helping people live longer today—and creating new “anti-wrinkle creams” so that women can fight the signs of aging. In short, we are making an impression upon our society.
But objects cannot do this. Objects are simply “pulled along.” And that is the major problem I have with Calvinism. It seems as if Calvinists make the Holy Spirit out to be some mystical “force” that jumps into my body and DRIVES me to do certain things. It kinda reminds me of the movie “Ghost” that I saw about two or three months ago, where the spirit of a deceased man (played by Patrick Swayze)jumped into the “spiritual advisor’s” body (played by Whoopie Goldberg), and made Whoopie Goldberg say EXACTLY what the deceased man wanted to tell his wife (played by Demi Moore). But the problem is, that this IS NOT how the Spirit works. He does not FORCE us to do things. We are not OBJECTS, but PEOPLE; and as creation made IN THE IMAGE AND AFTER THE LIKENESS of our Creator, the Spirit responds to us AS SUCH—humans who are capable of making decisions. If God wanted to make us as objects or automaton who simply do His bidding, He could have done that. However, He made us IN HIS IMAGE, AFTER HIS LIKENESS…and if He did that, don’t you think that our will, the component of our constitution that allows us to make decisions, is part of the LIKENESS of God that we bear in ourselves?
I will continue my discussion of Calvin’s Book II, Chapter 5, in my next post.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Common Grace
“In every age there have been some who, under the guidance of nature, were all their lives devoted to virtue. It is of no consequence, that many blots may be detected in their conduct; by the mere study of virtue, they evinced that there was somewhat of purity in their nature…such examples, then, seem to warn us against supposing that the nature of man is utterly vicious, since, under its guidance, some have not only excelled in illustrious deeds, but conducted themselves most honorably through the whole course of their lives. But we ought to consider that, notwithstanding the corruption of our nature, THERE IS SOME ROOM FOR DIVINE GRACE, such as, WITHOUT PURIFYING IT, MAY LAY IT UNDER INTERNAL RESTRAINT. For, did the Lord let every mind loose to wanton in its lust, doubtless there is not a man who would not show that his nature is capable of all the crimes with which Paul charges it (Rom. 3 compared with Ps. 14:3, etc.)…If every soul is capable of such abominations (and the apostle declares this boldly), it is surely easy to see what the result would be, if the Lord were to permit human passion to follow its bent…thus God, BY HIS PROVIDENCE, CURBS THE PERVERSENESS OF NATURE, preventing it from breaking forth into action, yet without rendering it inwardly pure” (John Calvin, “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” page 180).
I just started in-depth reading of John Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian Religion” tonight. What fascinated me most was his argument against free will, but to get into it, I had to read material prior to that. So, I picked up chapter three of his second book, the chapter being titled “Everything Proceeding from the Corrupt Nature of Man Damnable.”
The quote above is taken from Calvin’s section three of the chapter on the Corrupt Nature of Man. Now, before I get started, let me say that I agree, the nature of man is completely corrupt! No matter how many good things we do, we are still corrupt, and our selfish motives drive us most, if not all, of the time. I can grant Calvin this point regarding human nature.
But the part that gets me is, If there is no grace on those EXCEPT the chosen of God (God of course, choosing people for salvation, according to Calvin), then, why is it that the reprobate demonstrate ANY signs of virtue? Calvin’s response? God’s providence continues to restrain their wickedness.
I have two responses. First, if God gives them common grace and “restrains” their wickedness, then doesn’t it make sense to give them salvation grace, save them, and then persevere them to the end so that they won’t live in lawlessness anymore and be damned to hell? Calvin’s idea of the elect has lots of problems, especially when he gets here to his discussion on common grace. Notice what he writes regarding common grace:
“Thus God, by his providence, curbs the perverseness of nature, preventing it from breaking forth into action, yet WITHOUT RENDERING IT INWARDLY PURE” (180).
There is a problem with this statement above. What Calvin is saying here is that God is able to restrain evil in them, but He’s not “able” or doesn’t desire to give them salvation grace, which would save them; and have His grace keep them from such an immoral lifestyle? How does this fit with the character and nature of God? If God only restrains their deeds, but damns their souls, then, isn’t God DANGLING A CARROT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS IN FRONT OF THEM when He can deliver them from SOME of their evil, but not all (because He won’t extend salvation grace to them)? My reason for this question is that, if God isn’t going to save them, or has no good desires towards them (the “them” here referring to the reprobate, the damned),then why does God worry about what they do, since they are gonna go to Hell no matter what? It doesn’t make sense to say that God gives them some moral grace and restraint, bends their wills to do some good in the world, but then, He can’t bend their wills to accept Him by faith and persevere in their Christian walk. Calvin stresses that God elects some and damns others; but it seems that, in the grand scheme of things, God showers down His grace upon all. God can’t elect in salvation but not elect in moral grace. To say that God does this is to place the blame on God for humankind’s actions.
Secondly, what does one do with Genesis 6? The passage of God’s decision to send the Flood but to save Noah and his family shows us that God does not just restrain the evil of man. Genesis 6 says:
“When the Lord saw that man’s wickedness was widespread on the earth and that every scheme his mind thought of was nothing but evil all the time, the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. Then the Lord said, ‘I will WIPE OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH: man, whom I created, together with the animals, creatures that crawl, and birds of the sky—for I REGRET THAT I MADE THEM” (Gen. 6:5-7, HCSB).
God decides to destroy all of creation. And why? Because “man’s wickedness was widespread on the earth and that EVERY SCHEME HIS MIND THOUGHT OF WAS NOTHING BUT EVIL ALL THE TIME…”
I don’t know what you’re thinking, but me—I’m thinking that it can’t get much worse than this description! I mean, Adam and Eve sinned ONCE in the Garden—but now, man sinned ALL THE TIME! All he did was evil, rarely any good whatsoever.
However, notice what God says to Noah regarding Noah’s walk?
“Then the Lord said to Noah, ‘Enter the ark, you and all your household, FOR I HAVE SEEN THAT YOU [alone] ARE RIGHTEOUS BEFORE ME in this generation” (Gen.7:1, HCSB).
Genesis 6 also tells us about Noah:
“Noah was a RIGHTEOUS man, BLAMELESS among his contemporaries; NOAH WALKED WITH GOD” (Gen. 6:9, HCSB).
Despite the majority of the world, Noah CHOSE to walk right before God. And God told Noah that he was to enter the ark because God would preserve some of the inhabitants of the earth…and because Noah loved God, Noah would be one of those people (along with his family) who would get to inhabit the new earth.
In Genesis 6, the Lord decides to destroy all of creation because of wickedness and evil. However, He chooses to save Noah and his family, since Noah was righteous, one of the only righteous people on the earth in those days. Now, if God were to destroy the inhabitants of the earth, including those who despised God (the reprobate, as Calvin says) because of their evil (although HE created them reprobate, as Calvin says), then How can God destroy them and be called “JUST”?
Back to what I said regarding God “dangling a carrot of righteousness (via faith) in front of the reprobate: for Calvin to place this on God restraining their moral evil but not restraining their spiritual waywardness is preposterous. I think Calvin aims here to uphold God’s sovereignty and providence: But what Calvin actually does is UNDERMINE the responsibility of those who choose to do evil. The only way to get around blaming God, and the only way to MAINTAIN God’s innocence, is to include the factor of FREE WILL—something that Calvin seems reluctant to do, at all costs.
I just started in-depth reading of John Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian Religion” tonight. What fascinated me most was his argument against free will, but to get into it, I had to read material prior to that. So, I picked up chapter three of his second book, the chapter being titled “Everything Proceeding from the Corrupt Nature of Man Damnable.”
The quote above is taken from Calvin’s section three of the chapter on the Corrupt Nature of Man. Now, before I get started, let me say that I agree, the nature of man is completely corrupt! No matter how many good things we do, we are still corrupt, and our selfish motives drive us most, if not all, of the time. I can grant Calvin this point regarding human nature.
But the part that gets me is, If there is no grace on those EXCEPT the chosen of God (God of course, choosing people for salvation, according to Calvin), then, why is it that the reprobate demonstrate ANY signs of virtue? Calvin’s response? God’s providence continues to restrain their wickedness.
I have two responses. First, if God gives them common grace and “restrains” their wickedness, then doesn’t it make sense to give them salvation grace, save them, and then persevere them to the end so that they won’t live in lawlessness anymore and be damned to hell? Calvin’s idea of the elect has lots of problems, especially when he gets here to his discussion on common grace. Notice what he writes regarding common grace:
“Thus God, by his providence, curbs the perverseness of nature, preventing it from breaking forth into action, yet WITHOUT RENDERING IT INWARDLY PURE” (180).
There is a problem with this statement above. What Calvin is saying here is that God is able to restrain evil in them, but He’s not “able” or doesn’t desire to give them salvation grace, which would save them; and have His grace keep them from such an immoral lifestyle? How does this fit with the character and nature of God? If God only restrains their deeds, but damns their souls, then, isn’t God DANGLING A CARROT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS IN FRONT OF THEM when He can deliver them from SOME of their evil, but not all (because He won’t extend salvation grace to them)? My reason for this question is that, if God isn’t going to save them, or has no good desires towards them (the “them” here referring to the reprobate, the damned),then why does God worry about what they do, since they are gonna go to Hell no matter what? It doesn’t make sense to say that God gives them some moral grace and restraint, bends their wills to do some good in the world, but then, He can’t bend their wills to accept Him by faith and persevere in their Christian walk. Calvin stresses that God elects some and damns others; but it seems that, in the grand scheme of things, God showers down His grace upon all. God can’t elect in salvation but not elect in moral grace. To say that God does this is to place the blame on God for humankind’s actions.
Secondly, what does one do with Genesis 6? The passage of God’s decision to send the Flood but to save Noah and his family shows us that God does not just restrain the evil of man. Genesis 6 says:
“When the Lord saw that man’s wickedness was widespread on the earth and that every scheme his mind thought of was nothing but evil all the time, the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. Then the Lord said, ‘I will WIPE OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH: man, whom I created, together with the animals, creatures that crawl, and birds of the sky—for I REGRET THAT I MADE THEM” (Gen. 6:5-7, HCSB).
God decides to destroy all of creation. And why? Because “man’s wickedness was widespread on the earth and that EVERY SCHEME HIS MIND THOUGHT OF WAS NOTHING BUT EVIL ALL THE TIME…”
I don’t know what you’re thinking, but me—I’m thinking that it can’t get much worse than this description! I mean, Adam and Eve sinned ONCE in the Garden—but now, man sinned ALL THE TIME! All he did was evil, rarely any good whatsoever.
However, notice what God says to Noah regarding Noah’s walk?
“Then the Lord said to Noah, ‘Enter the ark, you and all your household, FOR I HAVE SEEN THAT YOU [alone] ARE RIGHTEOUS BEFORE ME in this generation” (Gen.7:1, HCSB).
Genesis 6 also tells us about Noah:
“Noah was a RIGHTEOUS man, BLAMELESS among his contemporaries; NOAH WALKED WITH GOD” (Gen. 6:9, HCSB).
Despite the majority of the world, Noah CHOSE to walk right before God. And God told Noah that he was to enter the ark because God would preserve some of the inhabitants of the earth…and because Noah loved God, Noah would be one of those people (along with his family) who would get to inhabit the new earth.
In Genesis 6, the Lord decides to destroy all of creation because of wickedness and evil. However, He chooses to save Noah and his family, since Noah was righteous, one of the only righteous people on the earth in those days. Now, if God were to destroy the inhabitants of the earth, including those who despised God (the reprobate, as Calvin says) because of their evil (although HE created them reprobate, as Calvin says), then How can God destroy them and be called “JUST”?
Back to what I said regarding God “dangling a carrot of righteousness (via faith) in front of the reprobate: for Calvin to place this on God restraining their moral evil but not restraining their spiritual waywardness is preposterous. I think Calvin aims here to uphold God’s sovereignty and providence: But what Calvin actually does is UNDERMINE the responsibility of those who choose to do evil. The only way to get around blaming God, and the only way to MAINTAIN God’s innocence, is to include the factor of FREE WILL—something that Calvin seems reluctant to do, at all costs.
True Investigation
“A common myth about Arminianism is that it promotes an OPTIMISTIC ANTHROPOLOGY. And yet even some Reformed critics of Arminianism admit that they share significant common ground with it. ‘Arminians and Calvinists alike believe in total depravity: because of the fall, EVERY ASPECT of human nature is tainted by sin.’
In his ‘Public Disputations’ the founder of Arminianism declared unequivocally that because of Adam’s fall all humanity has come under the dominion of sin and that
‘IN this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent and weakened [attenuatun]; but it is also IMPRISONED [captivatum], DESTROYED, and LOST: and its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has NO POWERS whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.’
This Arminian statement alone should put to rest the all-too-common misconception that Arminius and Arminians believe human free will SURVIVED THE FALL INTACT” (Roger Olson, “Arminian Theology,” pp. 55-56).
Olson’s work on Arminian Theology is all about providing myth-busters: doing away with wrong preconceived notions about Arminius and his doctrine. And one of the claims that has been made about Arminianism is that it is man-centered.
I have been tutoring a friend for a few days now, and she is the product of a Calvinist upbringing. What stumps her the most in Arminianism is, “How can God have sovereignty and yet, humans have power in free will?” She also doesn’t like to use the words “free will” and struggles to see how both God’s sovereignty and man’s choice exist at the same time.
I choose, however, to see the concept this way. It’s very similar to the parable told by Jesus of the servants and the talents.
14 "For it is just like a man going on a journey. (D) He called his own slaves and turned over his possessions to them. 15 To one he gave five talents; [c] to another, two; and to another, one—to each according to his own ability. Then he went on a journey. (E (Matt. 25:14-15, HCSB)
In this parable, a man is going away for a while, so he turns over his possessions to his servants. Evidently, the man is going to be gone for a long while, so he entrusts his servants with his things until he gets back.
The fact that the servants receive their Master’s possessions does not overrule the ownership of those possessions. The Master STILL OWNS THEM, even if he gives them to the servants. His ownership over the possessions is the reason why he is able to reward the faithful servants and condemn the lazy one when he returns (vv.19-30).
It’s the same way with an owner of a store, who entrusts the care of the store to the manager. The manager may have a lot of power, but he doesn’t have as much as the owner. The manager, then, is an assistant to the owner. He is a helper, one who is in charge of overseeing all that happens in the store. If the manager allows things to get out of control, then he will have to answer to the owner. Despite the manager’s control, the owner still has sovereignty, or rule, over the store. Why? Because it’s simple: if he doesn’t like the manager, he can fire him today and get somebody new tomorrow.
So, even though God is in control over ALL the universe, He has given man control over THE EARTH! (Gen. 1:26-28) As a result, man now has control over the earth—but God still controls all of creation, including the galaxies, planets, and time and space. When we sit back and think about it, we only get to “manage” one small piece of God’s creation. Beyond our universe, there is SO MUCH MORE to see that remains in the hands of God.
Looking to Arminius, we find that he, like Calvin, believed in the total depravity of man. Man’s every ability was affected by the Fall, such that man cannot in any way choose God of his own will—unless that will be assisted, or helped, by God’s grace. So grace is needed to “free” man’s will so that he is able to choose God. In the words of Arminius:
‘IN this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent and weakened [attenuatun]; but it is also IMPRISONED [captivatum], DESTROYED, and LOST: and its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has NO POWERS whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.’
After Adam and Eve sin in Genesis 3, man’s will becomes bent towards all kinds of evil. We see this with Cain:
“Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you FURIOUS? And why are you downcast? If you do right, won’t you be accepted? But if you do not do right, SIN IS CROUCHING AT THE DOOR. ITS DESIRE IS FOR YOU, BUT YOU MUST MASTER IT” (Gen. 4:6-7, HCSB).
Notice that now, sin has become a powerful force in the human heart, such that God has to warn Cain about the consequences of his jealous thoughts. We know Cain is upset because the Lord asks him why he is furious. Next, he tells us of the power of sin: “Sin is crouching at the door.”
When I think of someone “crouching” at the door, I think of a frog preparing to jump on someone, or a little kid “hunched down” to surprise his father and sneak up on his back before the father knows what happened. The same image is there for sin. Sin literally was waiting to overtake Cain. However, God told Cain, “Its desire is for you, but YOU MUST MASTER IT.” Although Cain had wrong feelings in his heart, God let him know that he could control his response to those feelings—by not preparing to do what was already in his heart.
What does Cain do, instead? He kills Abel and is banished from his family. He ends up living as a fugitive until he dies, although he is allowed to have a family (Gen. 4:8-17).
By Genesis 6, we see that sin has spread through all of mankind. Violence and iniquity are so great on the earth that God decrees the Flood:
“Then the Lord said, ‘I will wipe off the face of the earth: man, whom I created, together with the animals, creatures that crawl, and birds of the sky—for I regret that I made them” (Gen. 6:7, HCSB).
Why does God decide to wipe man off the face of the earth?
“When the Lord saw that man’s wickedness WAS WIDESPREAD ON THE EARTH and that EVERY SCHEME HIS MIND THOUGHT OF WAS NOTHING BUT EVIL ALL THE TIME,” (Gen.6:5, HCSB).
As the text shows us, evil had increased to such an alarming rate that every thought of man was evil. This is in stark contrast to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1 and 2, who are able to walk in the Garden with the Creator and enjoy a state of perfection.
Sounds like Arminius had a biblical view of the effects of the Fall on the human will.
But, what about the need for grace, you ask? Arminius’s answer is biblical, as well:
“We also speak these things, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people. But the natural man does not welcome what comes from God’s Spirit, because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to know it since it is evaluated spiritually” (1 Corinthians 2:13-14, HCSB).
So the natural man cannot understand the things of God, the spiritual things. In order to understand them, he must have grace given in order to hear the gospel and believe on Christ’s name.
“And you were DEAD in your trespasses and sins in which you previously walked according to this worldly age, according to the ruler of the atmospheric domain, the spirit now working in the disobedient. WE TOO all previously lived among them in our FLESHLY desires, CARRYING OUT THE INCLINATIONS OF OUR FLESH AND THOUGHTS, and by nature we were children under wrath…But God, who is abundant in mercy, because of His great love that He had for us, MADE US ALIVE with the Messiah EVEN THOUGH WE WERE DEAD IN TRESPASSES” (Eph. 2:1-5, HCSB).
Look at the Ephesians passage above. When we were “dead” in our sins, we lived out “the inclinations of our flesh,” meaning that we did what the flesh was INCLINED, or BENT, to do. Remember Cain from Genesis 4? Well, after Adam and Eve sinned, ALL OF US became inclined to sin, not just Cain. Sin not only crouched at the door of his heart, but ALL OF US.
So then, if man was dead in his sins and was made alive through Christ, how did his “resurrection” come about? “For by grace you are saved THROUGH FAITH, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift—not from works, so that no one can boast” (Eph. 2:8).
So, in order for man to even be able to reach out to God, God had to give him grace and faith. So the process by which man is saved is such that God gives man EVERYTHING he needs to be saved. All God asks man to do is RESPOND with what He has given him. In the same way the Master gave each servant some money to work with when he went away, the Lord expects us to make the most of the grace and faith He has given us. There won’t be any excuse when He returns.
From Arminius’s statement about the human will, it seems that he himself was quite orthodox and Reformed… But sometime, it’s not what the originals say that gets listened to—it’s what the followers say that gets heeded! This happened in Arminius’s case: after he died, a follower of his by the name of Phillip Limborch deviated from the teaching of Arminius:
“For Arminius man is deprived of the ACTUAL ABILITY TO WILL THE GOOD, but for Limborch man is only deprived of the KNOWLEDGE WHICH INFORMS THE INTELLECT, but the will is FULLY CAPABLE within itself…” (John Mark Hicks, quoted by Roger Olson, “Arminian Theology, 57).
Arminius believed the ability was gone, while Limborch only believed the KNOWLEDGE was gone. For Limborch, which the knowledge would come a renewed ability for the human being before God.
But this is Semi-Pelagianism at its best! And yet, Limborch affirmed the OPPOSITE of what his predecessor, Arminius, affirmed.
And it is Limborch’s view that is followed today:
“Unfortunately, so it seems, many Calvinist critics of Arminianism know only of Limborch’s and Finney’s ideas and are totally unaware of Arminius’s own affirmation of total depravity” (57).
And what Roger Olson seems to be getting at throughout his entire book is the failure of Calvinists to ADEQUATELY UNDERSTAND Arminian theology. Calvinists simply don’t take time to investigate Arminian beliefs; for whatever reason, they simply pick extremist Arminians like Limborch and run with them. And this is why Arminianism is called “Man-centered” theology: because, those outside the Arminian camp equate Arminianism with Semi-Pelagianism.
All Roger Olson asks for is a true investigation of the facts; and that’s all I’m asking for from the Calvinists—a true investigation of the facts.
In his ‘Public Disputations’ the founder of Arminianism declared unequivocally that because of Adam’s fall all humanity has come under the dominion of sin and that
‘IN this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent and weakened [attenuatun]; but it is also IMPRISONED [captivatum], DESTROYED, and LOST: and its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has NO POWERS whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.’
This Arminian statement alone should put to rest the all-too-common misconception that Arminius and Arminians believe human free will SURVIVED THE FALL INTACT” (Roger Olson, “Arminian Theology,” pp. 55-56).
Olson’s work on Arminian Theology is all about providing myth-busters: doing away with wrong preconceived notions about Arminius and his doctrine. And one of the claims that has been made about Arminianism is that it is man-centered.
I have been tutoring a friend for a few days now, and she is the product of a Calvinist upbringing. What stumps her the most in Arminianism is, “How can God have sovereignty and yet, humans have power in free will?” She also doesn’t like to use the words “free will” and struggles to see how both God’s sovereignty and man’s choice exist at the same time.
I choose, however, to see the concept this way. It’s very similar to the parable told by Jesus of the servants and the talents.
14 "For it is just like a man going on a journey. (D) He called his own slaves and turned over his possessions to them. 15 To one he gave five talents; [c] to another, two; and to another, one—to each according to his own ability. Then he went on a journey. (E (Matt. 25:14-15, HCSB)
In this parable, a man is going away for a while, so he turns over his possessions to his servants. Evidently, the man is going to be gone for a long while, so he entrusts his servants with his things until he gets back.
The fact that the servants receive their Master’s possessions does not overrule the ownership of those possessions. The Master STILL OWNS THEM, even if he gives them to the servants. His ownership over the possessions is the reason why he is able to reward the faithful servants and condemn the lazy one when he returns (vv.19-30).
It’s the same way with an owner of a store, who entrusts the care of the store to the manager. The manager may have a lot of power, but he doesn’t have as much as the owner. The manager, then, is an assistant to the owner. He is a helper, one who is in charge of overseeing all that happens in the store. If the manager allows things to get out of control, then he will have to answer to the owner. Despite the manager’s control, the owner still has sovereignty, or rule, over the store. Why? Because it’s simple: if he doesn’t like the manager, he can fire him today and get somebody new tomorrow.
So, even though God is in control over ALL the universe, He has given man control over THE EARTH! (Gen. 1:26-28) As a result, man now has control over the earth—but God still controls all of creation, including the galaxies, planets, and time and space. When we sit back and think about it, we only get to “manage” one small piece of God’s creation. Beyond our universe, there is SO MUCH MORE to see that remains in the hands of God.
Looking to Arminius, we find that he, like Calvin, believed in the total depravity of man. Man’s every ability was affected by the Fall, such that man cannot in any way choose God of his own will—unless that will be assisted, or helped, by God’s grace. So grace is needed to “free” man’s will so that he is able to choose God. In the words of Arminius:
‘IN this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent and weakened [attenuatun]; but it is also IMPRISONED [captivatum], DESTROYED, and LOST: and its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has NO POWERS whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.’
After Adam and Eve sin in Genesis 3, man’s will becomes bent towards all kinds of evil. We see this with Cain:
“Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you FURIOUS? And why are you downcast? If you do right, won’t you be accepted? But if you do not do right, SIN IS CROUCHING AT THE DOOR. ITS DESIRE IS FOR YOU, BUT YOU MUST MASTER IT” (Gen. 4:6-7, HCSB).
Notice that now, sin has become a powerful force in the human heart, such that God has to warn Cain about the consequences of his jealous thoughts. We know Cain is upset because the Lord asks him why he is furious. Next, he tells us of the power of sin: “Sin is crouching at the door.”
When I think of someone “crouching” at the door, I think of a frog preparing to jump on someone, or a little kid “hunched down” to surprise his father and sneak up on his back before the father knows what happened. The same image is there for sin. Sin literally was waiting to overtake Cain. However, God told Cain, “Its desire is for you, but YOU MUST MASTER IT.” Although Cain had wrong feelings in his heart, God let him know that he could control his response to those feelings—by not preparing to do what was already in his heart.
What does Cain do, instead? He kills Abel and is banished from his family. He ends up living as a fugitive until he dies, although he is allowed to have a family (Gen. 4:8-17).
By Genesis 6, we see that sin has spread through all of mankind. Violence and iniquity are so great on the earth that God decrees the Flood:
“Then the Lord said, ‘I will wipe off the face of the earth: man, whom I created, together with the animals, creatures that crawl, and birds of the sky—for I regret that I made them” (Gen. 6:7, HCSB).
Why does God decide to wipe man off the face of the earth?
“When the Lord saw that man’s wickedness WAS WIDESPREAD ON THE EARTH and that EVERY SCHEME HIS MIND THOUGHT OF WAS NOTHING BUT EVIL ALL THE TIME,” (Gen.6:5, HCSB).
As the text shows us, evil had increased to such an alarming rate that every thought of man was evil. This is in stark contrast to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1 and 2, who are able to walk in the Garden with the Creator and enjoy a state of perfection.
Sounds like Arminius had a biblical view of the effects of the Fall on the human will.
But, what about the need for grace, you ask? Arminius’s answer is biblical, as well:
“We also speak these things, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people. But the natural man does not welcome what comes from God’s Spirit, because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to know it since it is evaluated spiritually” (1 Corinthians 2:13-14, HCSB).
So the natural man cannot understand the things of God, the spiritual things. In order to understand them, he must have grace given in order to hear the gospel and believe on Christ’s name.
“And you were DEAD in your trespasses and sins in which you previously walked according to this worldly age, according to the ruler of the atmospheric domain, the spirit now working in the disobedient. WE TOO all previously lived among them in our FLESHLY desires, CARRYING OUT THE INCLINATIONS OF OUR FLESH AND THOUGHTS, and by nature we were children under wrath…But God, who is abundant in mercy, because of His great love that He had for us, MADE US ALIVE with the Messiah EVEN THOUGH WE WERE DEAD IN TRESPASSES” (Eph. 2:1-5, HCSB).
Look at the Ephesians passage above. When we were “dead” in our sins, we lived out “the inclinations of our flesh,” meaning that we did what the flesh was INCLINED, or BENT, to do. Remember Cain from Genesis 4? Well, after Adam and Eve sinned, ALL OF US became inclined to sin, not just Cain. Sin not only crouched at the door of his heart, but ALL OF US.
So then, if man was dead in his sins and was made alive through Christ, how did his “resurrection” come about? “For by grace you are saved THROUGH FAITH, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift—not from works, so that no one can boast” (Eph. 2:8).
So, in order for man to even be able to reach out to God, God had to give him grace and faith. So the process by which man is saved is such that God gives man EVERYTHING he needs to be saved. All God asks man to do is RESPOND with what He has given him. In the same way the Master gave each servant some money to work with when he went away, the Lord expects us to make the most of the grace and faith He has given us. There won’t be any excuse when He returns.
From Arminius’s statement about the human will, it seems that he himself was quite orthodox and Reformed… But sometime, it’s not what the originals say that gets listened to—it’s what the followers say that gets heeded! This happened in Arminius’s case: after he died, a follower of his by the name of Phillip Limborch deviated from the teaching of Arminius:
“For Arminius man is deprived of the ACTUAL ABILITY TO WILL THE GOOD, but for Limborch man is only deprived of the KNOWLEDGE WHICH INFORMS THE INTELLECT, but the will is FULLY CAPABLE within itself…” (John Mark Hicks, quoted by Roger Olson, “Arminian Theology, 57).
Arminius believed the ability was gone, while Limborch only believed the KNOWLEDGE was gone. For Limborch, which the knowledge would come a renewed ability for the human being before God.
But this is Semi-Pelagianism at its best! And yet, Limborch affirmed the OPPOSITE of what his predecessor, Arminius, affirmed.
And it is Limborch’s view that is followed today:
“Unfortunately, so it seems, many Calvinist critics of Arminianism know only of Limborch’s and Finney’s ideas and are totally unaware of Arminius’s own affirmation of total depravity” (57).
And what Roger Olson seems to be getting at throughout his entire book is the failure of Calvinists to ADEQUATELY UNDERSTAND Arminian theology. Calvinists simply don’t take time to investigate Arminian beliefs; for whatever reason, they simply pick extremist Arminians like Limborch and run with them. And this is why Arminianism is called “Man-centered” theology: because, those outside the Arminian camp equate Arminianism with Semi-Pelagianism.
All Roger Olson asks for is a true investigation of the facts; and that’s all I’m asking for from the Calvinists—a true investigation of the facts.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Miracles
Are Miracle possible?
Spinozian View
To begin looking at this question I want to go back to the root of this argument. The root really starts with a man named Benedict de Spinoza. He is responsible for developing an argument against miracles in his 1670 work entitled Tractatus Theolodico-politicus that goes as follows:
1. Miracles are violation of natural Laws.
2. Natural laws are immutable.
3. It is impossible for immutable laws to be violated
4. therefore, miracles are not possible.
As one reads this argument that Spinoza postulates, one can not help but ask the fundamental question, “are natural laws immutable? Furthermore, does he have a good working definition of miracles? The Next observation that we can make is that he has not given us a fair fight. Spinoza in his argument as already eliminated the possibility of miracles by stating in the second premise that natural laws are immutable.In short this is the fallacy of stacking the deck. With in the scientific community it is well agreed on that natural law don’t tell us what must happen, but only describes what usually dose happen.
Lets look at Spinoza’s argument a little deeper. The first thing that Spinoza want to argue is that nothing happens contrary to the eternal and unchangeable order of nature. Spinoza in his work is putting forth that all that happens in nature is according to Gods will, so the way Spinoza sees it if a natural law was to be violated the this would be God going against his very nature. Spinoza writes this,
Now, as nothing is necessarily true save only by Divine decree, it is plain that the universal laws of nature are decrees of God following from the necessity and perfec-tion of the Divine nature. (6:17) Hence, any event happening in nature
which contravened nature's universal laws, would necessarily also contravene the Divine decree, nature, and understanding; or if any-one asserted that God acts in contravention to the laws of nature,he, ipso facto, would be compelled to assert that God acted against His own nature—an evident absurdity Bk.XX:27588.
Spinoza goes on to say,
We may, in fact, say that a miracle is an event of which the
causes cannot be explained by the natural reason through a refer-
ence to ascertained workings of nature; but since miracles were
wrought according to the understanding of the masses, who are
wholly ignorant of the workings of nature, it is certain that the
ancients took for a miracle whatever they could not explain by the
method adopted by the unlearned in such cases, namely, an
appeal to the memory, a recalling of something similar, which is
ordinarily regarded without wonder; for most people think they
sufficiently understand a thing when they have ceased to wonder
at it.
Spinoza is the originator of what Richard Dawkins calls the God of the gaps. So the question now come “Where is Spinoza taking us?” This is where his second argument comes in. Spinoza says that a proof for the existence of God must be absolutely certain. Spinoza puts it this way:
wherefore if we would conceive that anything could be done in nature by any power whatsoever which would be contrary to the laws of nature, it would also be contrary to our primary ideas, and we should have either to reject it as absurd, or else to cast doubt (as just shown) on our primary ideas, and conse-quently on the existence of God, and on everything howsoever
perceived. (6:30) Therefore miracles, in the sense of events contrary
to the laws of nature, so far from demonstrating to us the existence of God.
Bk.XIA:3343.
Did you catch what Spinoza did? He has now put his reader in such a position that for them to admit miracles, we break the laws of nature and thereby, cast doubt on the existence of God. Thus Spinoza argument leads one directly into Atheism.
Synergism and Monergism: How Does God Work?
“Jacob Arminius is remembered in the annals of church history as a controversial Dutch pastor and theologian who wrote numerous works, filling three large volumes, defending an evangelical form of synergism (belief in divine-human cooperation in salvation) against monergism (belief that God is the all-determining reality in salvation, which excludes free human participation)...(like most theological terms, SYNERGISM has multiple shades of meaning, not all of which are positive; here it merely means any belief in HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY AND THE ABILITY TO FREELY ACCEPT OR REJECT THE GRACE OF SALVATION” (Roger Olson, “Arminian Theology,” pp. 13-14).
As I’ve explained on the site before, the word “synergism” comes from the Greek word “sunergeo,” meaning “to work with.” The word “monergism” comes from the Greek word “monergeo,” meaning “to work alone.”
So which is it? How does God work? Does He work alone in salvation, where He not only gave His Son but FORCES you to believe in Him? Or does He give His Son so you can demonstrate faith IN HIS SACRIFICE in order to be saved?
The answer is: God works with human cooperation, what is known as “synergism.” To see if this is true, let’s turn to Scripture.
To investigate this subject, my first post will only discuss four passages of Scripture. Future posts on synergism and monergism will detail these two views further.
The first passage to investigate would be Mark 16:
“Then He[Jesus] said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And THESE SIGNS will accompany those who believe: In My name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages; they will pick up snakes; if they should drink anything deadly, it will never harm them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will get well.’
Then after speaking to them, the Lord Jesus was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out an preached everywhere, the Lord WORKING WITH THEM and confirming the word by the accompanying signs” (Mark 16:15-20, HCSB).
The word for “working with” in the Greek is “sunergountos.” So here, we find that the Lord is assisting the work of the Eleven, whom He just told to “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15, HCSB).
In verse 17, the Lord tells the disciples that “signs will ACCOMPANY (or follow) THOSE WHO BELIEVE…” This means that as a result of their belief, demonstrations will occur to prove that their belief is right. In verse 20, the Lord does as promised, for everywhere the disciples go preaching (as He told them to do in Mark 16:15), the Lord works to bring about signs and wonders.
This passage shows that, while the Lord sacrificed His life, He does expect us to believe on Him: “WHOEVER BELIEVES and is baptized will be saved…” The one who responds to the Lord’s work as Savior and Lord will do miracles—all because of the NAME of Christ. Christ didn’t stop the disciples from going into the world to preach the gospel (to do it Himself).
The next instance we see synergism is in 2 Cor.6:
“WORKING TOGETHER with Him, we also appeal to you: Don’t receive God’s grace in vain” (2 Cor. 6:1, HCSB).
The Greek word for “working together with” is “sunergountes.” Notice that, prior to the start of chapter 6, Paul has spent time talking about being made anew in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). Next, Christ has given believers a ministry of reconciliation, that which they received in Christ (2 Cor. 5:18-19). In verse 20, Paul says that “we are ambassadors for Christ.”
But then Paul says something that I can’t get past: “CERTAIN that God is appealing THROUGH US…” Not only did Paul say that he and others are working WITH God and then, that God is working THROUGH them? The answer? Because God was doing both. The Spirit lives INSIDE the believer, so Paul and others couldn’t do what they did without the Spirit; however, they were also WORKING WITH God because of the message of reconciliation: “Therefore, we are AMBASSADORS for Christ; certain that God is appealing through us, WE PLEAD ON CHRIST’S BEHALF. ‘Be reconciled to God’” (2 Cor. 5:20, HCSB).
1 Corinthians also presents us with the issue of synergism:
“For WE ARE GOD’S COWORKERS. YOU ARE GOD’S FIELD, GOD’S BUILDING. According to the grace given to me, as a skilled master builder I have laid a foundation and another builds on it. But each one must be careful how he builds on it” (1 Cor. 3:9-10, HCSB).
The Greek word for “co-workers” is “sunergoi.” Here, Paul makes it clear that he and Apollos are workers with Christ—Christ is a worker (He built the church) and Apollos and Paul are just men in it who have been graced to build the church further.
When Paul writes that he and Apollo are God’s coworkers, they are saying that they are working with God. To do what, you might ask?
“They are servants through whom you believed, and each has the role the Lord has given. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase” (1 Corinthians 3:6, HCSB).
Notice that there are three stages to growth: first, there has to be a seed planted; then, the seed has to be given water; last but not least, the growth comes. Paul is saying that in the process, each one (whether himself or Apollos) has played a part. However, the most important part is that God gives the increase, God multiplies the fold.
The next time we see synergism is in James where it talks about faith and works:
“What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith, but does not have works? CAN HIS FAITH SAVE HIM?
If a brother or sister is without clothes and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,’ but you don’t give them what the body needs, what good is it? In the same way faith, IF IT DOESN’T HAVE WORKS, is dead by itself.
But someone will say, ‘You have faith, and I have works.’ Show me your faith without works, and I will show you faith from my works. YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD IS ONE; you do well. The demons also believe—and they shudder.
Foolish man! Are you willing to learn that FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS USELESS? Wasn’t Abraham our father JUSTIFIED BY WORKS when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith WAS ACTIVE TOGETHER WITH his works, and by works, FAITH WAS PERFECTED” (James 2:14-22, HCSB).
Verse 22 tells us that faith “was active together with his works,” for which we see the Greek word “sunergei.” The next phrase tells us that by works, faith was “perfected,” or “completed.” We can believe in God (James 2:19) all we want; but that doesn’t distinguish us from the demons. The truth is, there must be something more than belief in God.
And I think James has implications for the Arminian/Calvin debate. If we say we believe in God, then our actions should demonstrate that. We should be willing to put our faith into action, the same way Abraham did. If the Calvinist really believes in a God that keeps and preserves, he should live as though he wants to be kept and preserved—and as though he wants to persevere.
From the examples of above, we can see that God works with people and people work WITH God. It is a process called synergism, an interaction between God and man whereby both agree to do their part. In my next post, I will go into what Roger Olson calls “two-covenants theology” and show synergism in God’s dealings with man.
As I’ve explained on the site before, the word “synergism” comes from the Greek word “sunergeo,” meaning “to work with.” The word “monergism” comes from the Greek word “monergeo,” meaning “to work alone.”
So which is it? How does God work? Does He work alone in salvation, where He not only gave His Son but FORCES you to believe in Him? Or does He give His Son so you can demonstrate faith IN HIS SACRIFICE in order to be saved?
The answer is: God works with human cooperation, what is known as “synergism.” To see if this is true, let’s turn to Scripture.
To investigate this subject, my first post will only discuss four passages of Scripture. Future posts on synergism and monergism will detail these two views further.
The first passage to investigate would be Mark 16:
“Then He[Jesus] said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And THESE SIGNS will accompany those who believe: In My name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages; they will pick up snakes; if they should drink anything deadly, it will never harm them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will get well.’
Then after speaking to them, the Lord Jesus was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out an preached everywhere, the Lord WORKING WITH THEM and confirming the word by the accompanying signs” (Mark 16:15-20, HCSB).
The word for “working with” in the Greek is “sunergountos.” So here, we find that the Lord is assisting the work of the Eleven, whom He just told to “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15, HCSB).
In verse 17, the Lord tells the disciples that “signs will ACCOMPANY (or follow) THOSE WHO BELIEVE…” This means that as a result of their belief, demonstrations will occur to prove that their belief is right. In verse 20, the Lord does as promised, for everywhere the disciples go preaching (as He told them to do in Mark 16:15), the Lord works to bring about signs and wonders.
This passage shows that, while the Lord sacrificed His life, He does expect us to believe on Him: “WHOEVER BELIEVES and is baptized will be saved…” The one who responds to the Lord’s work as Savior and Lord will do miracles—all because of the NAME of Christ. Christ didn’t stop the disciples from going into the world to preach the gospel (to do it Himself).
The next instance we see synergism is in 2 Cor.6:
“WORKING TOGETHER with Him, we also appeal to you: Don’t receive God’s grace in vain” (2 Cor. 6:1, HCSB).
The Greek word for “working together with” is “sunergountes.” Notice that, prior to the start of chapter 6, Paul has spent time talking about being made anew in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). Next, Christ has given believers a ministry of reconciliation, that which they received in Christ (2 Cor. 5:18-19). In verse 20, Paul says that “we are ambassadors for Christ.”
But then Paul says something that I can’t get past: “CERTAIN that God is appealing THROUGH US…” Not only did Paul say that he and others are working WITH God and then, that God is working THROUGH them? The answer? Because God was doing both. The Spirit lives INSIDE the believer, so Paul and others couldn’t do what they did without the Spirit; however, they were also WORKING WITH God because of the message of reconciliation: “Therefore, we are AMBASSADORS for Christ; certain that God is appealing through us, WE PLEAD ON CHRIST’S BEHALF. ‘Be reconciled to God’” (2 Cor. 5:20, HCSB).
1 Corinthians also presents us with the issue of synergism:
“For WE ARE GOD’S COWORKERS. YOU ARE GOD’S FIELD, GOD’S BUILDING. According to the grace given to me, as a skilled master builder I have laid a foundation and another builds on it. But each one must be careful how he builds on it” (1 Cor. 3:9-10, HCSB).
The Greek word for “co-workers” is “sunergoi.” Here, Paul makes it clear that he and Apollos are workers with Christ—Christ is a worker (He built the church) and Apollos and Paul are just men in it who have been graced to build the church further.
When Paul writes that he and Apollo are God’s coworkers, they are saying that they are working with God. To do what, you might ask?
“They are servants through whom you believed, and each has the role the Lord has given. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase” (1 Corinthians 3:6, HCSB).
Notice that there are three stages to growth: first, there has to be a seed planted; then, the seed has to be given water; last but not least, the growth comes. Paul is saying that in the process, each one (whether himself or Apollos) has played a part. However, the most important part is that God gives the increase, God multiplies the fold.
The next time we see synergism is in James where it talks about faith and works:
“What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith, but does not have works? CAN HIS FAITH SAVE HIM?
If a brother or sister is without clothes and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,’ but you don’t give them what the body needs, what good is it? In the same way faith, IF IT DOESN’T HAVE WORKS, is dead by itself.
But someone will say, ‘You have faith, and I have works.’ Show me your faith without works, and I will show you faith from my works. YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD IS ONE; you do well. The demons also believe—and they shudder.
Foolish man! Are you willing to learn that FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS USELESS? Wasn’t Abraham our father JUSTIFIED BY WORKS when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith WAS ACTIVE TOGETHER WITH his works, and by works, FAITH WAS PERFECTED” (James 2:14-22, HCSB).
Verse 22 tells us that faith “was active together with his works,” for which we see the Greek word “sunergei.” The next phrase tells us that by works, faith was “perfected,” or “completed.” We can believe in God (James 2:19) all we want; but that doesn’t distinguish us from the demons. The truth is, there must be something more than belief in God.
And I think James has implications for the Arminian/Calvin debate. If we say we believe in God, then our actions should demonstrate that. We should be willing to put our faith into action, the same way Abraham did. If the Calvinist really believes in a God that keeps and preserves, he should live as though he wants to be kept and preserved—and as though he wants to persevere.
From the examples of above, we can see that God works with people and people work WITH God. It is a process called synergism, an interaction between God and man whereby both agree to do their part. In my next post, I will go into what Roger Olson calls “two-covenants theology” and show synergism in God’s dealings with man.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Is Arminianism WITHIN the Reformed Tradition?
I know the title of the post (“Is Arminianism Within the Reformed Tradition?”) is a little scary to people. It assumes something that most people today would scoff at—that Arminianism could actually be Reformed!
Roger Olson tackles this question in his book, “Arminian Theology,” under Myth 1: Arminian Theology is the Opposite of Calvinist/Reformed Theology.
To find out whether or not Arminianism is Reformed, Olson turned to the Methodist Carl Bangs, who wrote a biography of Arminius titled “Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation (1985). In the biography, Bangs says that Arminius was not opposed to everything within the Calvinist belief, but rather tried to show the common beliefs between the two theologies. Olson tells of a myth regarding Arminius:
“One popular story about Arminius is that he was a COMMITTED HIGH CALVINIST until he was asked to examine and refute the teachings of a radical Reformer who rejected Calvinist teachings about predestination. According to this account Arminius became persuaded of the truth of Dirk Coornhert’s synergistic theology and shook the Calvinist dust off his feet” (Olson, “Arminian Theology,” page 47).
Carl Bangs doesn’t believe this story has any proof for it, but he does believe that Arminius believed that he was Reformed:
“According to Bangs, Arminius ALWAYS CONSIDERED himself Reformed and in the line of the great Swiss and French Reformers Zwingli, Calvin and Bucer. He studied under Calvin’s successor Beza in Geneva and was given a letter of recommendation by him to the Reformed church of Amsterdam. It seems HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the chief pastor of Geneva and principle of its Reformed academy would not know the theological inclinations of one of his star pupils” (Olson, 48).
While Arminius believed he was Reformed, he differed from his Calvinist counterparts; his theology, therefore, while Reformed, was also a correction of Calvinist theology:
“Arminianism is a CORRECTION of Reformed theology rather than a DEPARTURE from it. ‘Arminius stands firmly in the tradition of Reformed theology in insisting that salvation is by grace alone and that human ability or merit must be excluded as a cause of salvation. It is faith in Christ alone that places a sinner in the company of the elect.’ The correction lies in Arminius’s rejection of STRICT MONERGISM, which many have come to EQUATE WITH REFORMED THEOLOGY ITSELF” (49).
There are many scholars who agree with such a conclusion: Dutch theologian Gerrit Jan Hoenderdal; James Luther Adams; Donald Lake; and Howard Slaatte.
To conclude, I’ll leave you with an analysis of Arminius from Howard Slaatte:
“Hence, the responsive factor [in the human person according to Arminius] may be described as a GRACE-QUALIFIED, GRACE-INSPIRED, and GRACE-GUIDED FREEDOM…he can respond to grace freely ONLY as grace touches him through the Spirit-illuminated Word” (quoted by Roger Olson, 51).
The Slaatte quote above throws away any attempts to label Arminianism as “man-based” and “work-based.” Faith is something we must demonstrate in order to receive salvation, but we can only do it with the grace that God has given to every man. Ephesians 2:8 says,
“For by grace you are saved THROUGH FAITH, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift—not from works, SO THAT NO ONE CAN BOAST” (Eph. 2:8-9, HCSB).
“Grace” means “free gift,” or, as is commonly believed, “unmerited favor.” The favor of the Lord towards us in salvation is not something we could ever earn. However, we must also demonstrate faith in the work of Christ on the cross—but this faith is also a gift, according to Romans 12, given to EVERY MAN. From Scripture, then, it has been shown that both grace and faith are GIFTS from God, not WORKS from man.
Well then, someone may say, doesn’t that make the work of salvation and subsequent acceptance from God? Well, yes—if you address faith and grace as gifts. But when it comes to APPROPRIATING the atoning work of Christ to our lives, WE are held responsible for utilizing the faith that the Lord has given us (but we can only do this by His grace). His grace is there to demonstrate that we can’t even come to Him unless He first allows us to (that allowance being His Holy Spirit).
So Arminius was reformed…right? Yes he was. So if Arminius was Reformed, then on what basis was he characterized as such?
“According to Bands and some other historians, the Reformed churches of the United Provinces in Arminius’s time were generically Protestant rather than rigidly Calvinistic. While they accepted the Heidelberg Catechism as their primary statement of faith, THEY DID NOT REQUIRE MINISTERS OR THEOLOGIANS TO ADHERE TO THE TENETS OF THE HIGH CALVINISM BEING DEVELOPED IN GENEVA UNDER BEZA” (48).
It seems then, that the commitment to Calvinism as Reformed today did not exist back in Arminius’s time. With the passing of time, however, Arminianism was shunned as Reformed or anything close to it. Although not seen as Reformed, Arminianism is within the Reformed tradition. Olson levels the playing field with this myth-buster and makes the point that IF someone is gonna attack Arminianism, they can’t claim it to be outside of the Reformed tradition.
Roger Olson tackles this question in his book, “Arminian Theology,” under Myth 1: Arminian Theology is the Opposite of Calvinist/Reformed Theology.
To find out whether or not Arminianism is Reformed, Olson turned to the Methodist Carl Bangs, who wrote a biography of Arminius titled “Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation (1985). In the biography, Bangs says that Arminius was not opposed to everything within the Calvinist belief, but rather tried to show the common beliefs between the two theologies. Olson tells of a myth regarding Arminius:
“One popular story about Arminius is that he was a COMMITTED HIGH CALVINIST until he was asked to examine and refute the teachings of a radical Reformer who rejected Calvinist teachings about predestination. According to this account Arminius became persuaded of the truth of Dirk Coornhert’s synergistic theology and shook the Calvinist dust off his feet” (Olson, “Arminian Theology,” page 47).
Carl Bangs doesn’t believe this story has any proof for it, but he does believe that Arminius believed that he was Reformed:
“According to Bangs, Arminius ALWAYS CONSIDERED himself Reformed and in the line of the great Swiss and French Reformers Zwingli, Calvin and Bucer. He studied under Calvin’s successor Beza in Geneva and was given a letter of recommendation by him to the Reformed church of Amsterdam. It seems HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the chief pastor of Geneva and principle of its Reformed academy would not know the theological inclinations of one of his star pupils” (Olson, 48).
While Arminius believed he was Reformed, he differed from his Calvinist counterparts; his theology, therefore, while Reformed, was also a correction of Calvinist theology:
“Arminianism is a CORRECTION of Reformed theology rather than a DEPARTURE from it. ‘Arminius stands firmly in the tradition of Reformed theology in insisting that salvation is by grace alone and that human ability or merit must be excluded as a cause of salvation. It is faith in Christ alone that places a sinner in the company of the elect.’ The correction lies in Arminius’s rejection of STRICT MONERGISM, which many have come to EQUATE WITH REFORMED THEOLOGY ITSELF” (49).
There are many scholars who agree with such a conclusion: Dutch theologian Gerrit Jan Hoenderdal; James Luther Adams; Donald Lake; and Howard Slaatte.
To conclude, I’ll leave you with an analysis of Arminius from Howard Slaatte:
“Hence, the responsive factor [in the human person according to Arminius] may be described as a GRACE-QUALIFIED, GRACE-INSPIRED, and GRACE-GUIDED FREEDOM…he can respond to grace freely ONLY as grace touches him through the Spirit-illuminated Word” (quoted by Roger Olson, 51).
The Slaatte quote above throws away any attempts to label Arminianism as “man-based” and “work-based.” Faith is something we must demonstrate in order to receive salvation, but we can only do it with the grace that God has given to every man. Ephesians 2:8 says,
“For by grace you are saved THROUGH FAITH, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift—not from works, SO THAT NO ONE CAN BOAST” (Eph. 2:8-9, HCSB).
“Grace” means “free gift,” or, as is commonly believed, “unmerited favor.” The favor of the Lord towards us in salvation is not something we could ever earn. However, we must also demonstrate faith in the work of Christ on the cross—but this faith is also a gift, according to Romans 12, given to EVERY MAN. From Scripture, then, it has been shown that both grace and faith are GIFTS from God, not WORKS from man.
Well then, someone may say, doesn’t that make the work of salvation and subsequent acceptance from God? Well, yes—if you address faith and grace as gifts. But when it comes to APPROPRIATING the atoning work of Christ to our lives, WE are held responsible for utilizing the faith that the Lord has given us (but we can only do this by His grace). His grace is there to demonstrate that we can’t even come to Him unless He first allows us to (that allowance being His Holy Spirit).
So Arminius was reformed…right? Yes he was. So if Arminius was Reformed, then on what basis was he characterized as such?
“According to Bands and some other historians, the Reformed churches of the United Provinces in Arminius’s time were generically Protestant rather than rigidly Calvinistic. While they accepted the Heidelberg Catechism as their primary statement of faith, THEY DID NOT REQUIRE MINISTERS OR THEOLOGIANS TO ADHERE TO THE TENETS OF THE HIGH CALVINISM BEING DEVELOPED IN GENEVA UNDER BEZA” (48).
It seems then, that the commitment to Calvinism as Reformed today did not exist back in Arminius’s time. With the passing of time, however, Arminianism was shunned as Reformed or anything close to it. Although not seen as Reformed, Arminianism is within the Reformed tradition. Olson levels the playing field with this myth-buster and makes the point that IF someone is gonna attack Arminianism, they can’t claim it to be outside of the Reformed tradition.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The Power of Choice
I was having a conversation with a friend the other day about Arminian theology. I’ve been studying it intensely the last few days and discussing it with all those closest to me that I come in contact with. I always like to investigate my beliefs, subject them to scrutiny, see if my thought processes are warped or not.
When I talked to one of my friends about Arminianism, she stated that she was more libertarian. When I asked her about her view of libertarian freedom, what she didn’t know was that classical Arminians AFFIRM liberatarian freedom!! What scared her the most about Arminianism, though, was that she didn’t believe humans could have THAT MUCH FREEDOM to be able to walk away from the Lord and His Spirit!!!
So that got me to thinking—I decided then and there to do a post on “The Power of Choice.” I figured that, my friend, being very sound in her theology, echoed a sentiment of most people. VERY FEW libertarians know that Arminians affirm their principle tenet, although Arminianism is NOTHING LIKE Pelagianism (despite the attacks on the view itself)!!
We first see the power of choice when God decided to create man. The Lord God did it of His own will—He was not forced to create man and give Him dominion over creation. Neither was He forced to create anything else in creation, for that matter! However, He decides to create the world…and so He does. So choice becomes the motive by which man was created. Our very existence is due to the will of God—God’s CHOOSING to make humankind.
The next instance of choice that we see is that God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden to watch over it (Gen. 2:15).From the very beginning, God desired that man would work and created work as something good. In the same way that God worked by creating the world, so man, bearing HIS IMAGE and being IN HIS LIKENESS, would work as well. Notice that God had a PURPOSE for Adam—he was to “work and watch over” the Garden. God gave the Garden to Adam as something Adam was supposed to do. Whatever happened in the Garden, Adam would have to own up to and take responsibility for (whether it was good or bad).Calvinists who spend time assuming that God is supposed to do everything have NEVER read Genesis, where He gave control of the Garden to Adam. Adam was God’s “right-hand man.” Adam was supposed to keep the Garden in order.
Adam worked the Garden, watered the plants, made sure everything operated as it should; but he was also given the responsibility of naming the animals:
“So the LORD God formed out of the ground each wild animal and each bird of the sky, and BROUGHT EACH TO THE MAN TO SEE WHAT HE WOULD CALL IT. AND WHATEVER THE MAN CALLED A LIVING CREATURE, THAT WAS ITS NAME” (Gen.2:19, HCSB).
Adam was given the responsibility to name the animals, but it was not only a responsibility—it was a privilege. God so honored Adam as His creation that the text says, “WHATEVER the man called a living creature, THAT WAS ITS NAME.” If Adam said, “cat,” then the animal was a cat; if he called another “grasshopper,” then the insect was a “grasshopper,” etc. God does not override Adam’s power of choice. Although God created the animals, HE CHOSE for Adam to name them—and by Adam naming them, Adam was operating under the authority and power of choice that he had received from God.
However, as I said earlier, Arminians affirm libertarian free will—this means that God sets boundaries for man’s free will, but man is able to operate freely WITHIN THOSE BOUNDARIES. Although God gave man the power of choice in the Garden, the Lord still retained control over all things—for He created a woman FOR Adam (and Adam got no say in the matter):
“Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is like him.’ So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to come over the man, and he slept. God took one of his ribs and closed the flesh at that place. Then the LORD God made the rib He had taken from the man into a woman and brought her to the man” (Gen. 2:19, 21-22, HCSB).
Adam did not get a choice over whether or not he wanted to have a helper in the Garden—it was God’s garden, and mankind was God’s creation, so God would decide whether or not to appoint a helper for Adam.
Another good text to look at regarding the power of human choice is in Genesis 1. Let’s read it together:
“And the LORD God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree of the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die’” (Gen. 1:16, HCSB).
God gave man a choice here as to how man would choose to walk before God; but if man broke it, he wouldn’t just have to leave paradise—he would die a physical (and spiritual) death.
Well, as Genesis 3 shows us, the serpent (whom Revelation calls “Satan”) deceives Eve, and she and Adam both partake of the fruit. Let’s listen in, though, regarding the fall in Genesis 3:
“And He said to Adam, ‘Because you listened to your wife’s voice and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘Do not eat from it’: THE GROUND IS CURSED BECAUSE OF YOU. You will eat from it by means of painful labor ALL THE DAYS OF YOUR LIFE. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. You will eat bread by the sweat of your brow until you return from the ground, since you were taken from it. FOR YOU ARE DUST, AND YOU WILL RETURN TO DUST’” (Gen. 1:17-19, HCSB).
When Adam sins, ALL OF HUMANITY AND CREATION is cursed because of his sin. After Adam and Eve sin, God does not shake His head in horror; He does not ask Himself, “Oh no! My creation has sinned—what shall I do?” Instead, God distributes punishments to all three guilty parties—the serpent, Eve, and Adam (although Adam was the one God gave the instructions to). Not only would Adam have to work extra hard to till the soil (since his sin brought thorns and thistles to the ground), but he would actually “return to the ground” (he would die a physical death).God gave Adam the promise that he would die—and he did, according to Genesis 5:5. However, Adam and Eve also died a spiritual death as a result of their sin. The Apologetics Study Bible gives us these words as commentary:
“The couple did not immediately die physically (cp. 2:17). By God’s grace, their death was postponed till a later time. But their expulsion from the Garden (vv. 23-24) shows that the word of God was indeed fulfilled as the immediate consequence of their disobedience. They were cut off from access to the tree of life, WHICH SYMBOLIZED THE SOURCE OF LIFE (Gen. 2:9; Rv. 2:7;22:2,14,19)…The human couple’s expulsion signaled their spiritual death (see Eph. 2:1). That their physical death occurred is confirmed by the refrain “then he died” in Adam’s genealogy (Gn. 5:5). Physical death for humans was the result of disobedience in the garden (Rm. 5:12-21; 6:23)” (“The Apologetics Study Bible,” HCSB, page 9).
And this brings me up to a point I want to emphasize about libertarian freedom. When Adam and Eve sin, God gives them their punishments and never takes them back. And at the end of Genesis chapter 3, God shows Adam and Eve their boundaries—if you think that His punishment to them was boundary enough (that they couldn’t commit sin and escape punishment), read these words:
“The LORD God said, ‘Since man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil, he must not reach out, and also take from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.’ So the LORD God sent him away from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken” (Gen. 3:22-23, HCSB).
Here we see that God makes good on His promise. He told Adam that if he ate from the tree, he would die (Gen.2:16-17). Here, the Lord executes His words to Adam. Eating from the tree of life would have caused the couple to live forever—but this would go against God’s order regarding sin and death. So, because God is consistent and does what He promises, He takes Adam and Eve out of the Garden. This is why He removes them from the Garden and sends them out to the world to live and then die.
We see here that God has a boundary. He is consistent in His character, and He does not change man’s boundaries. God’s boundaries are God’s boundaries, and man isn’t allowed to move beyond them. Man wasn’t allowed to “get around” his punishment for sin and live forever—why? Because GOD PROMISED that man would die for eating the fruit. God demonstrated that He had set boundaries for man—when man attempted to go beyond those boundaries, God punished Him for it, thereby showing His justice. This is what libertarians affirm—that, within specific God-given boundaries, man is allowed to demonstrate freedom. And this is also what Arminians affirm—that God gives man libertarian free will—the right to choose IN THE BOUNDARIES God has established.
So, back to that friend of mine. As I mentioned at the beginning, her response is a typical response from libertarians and Calvinists who want to understand Scripture: they just don’t understand how man could have so much freedom as to walk away from God…
But man did—he “walked away” from His Creator the moment he ate the fruit. In that moment, he decided that he, man, would be the judge of right and wrong. Was the sin worth it? Nope. But thanks be unto God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!
When I talked to one of my friends about Arminianism, she stated that she was more libertarian. When I asked her about her view of libertarian freedom, what she didn’t know was that classical Arminians AFFIRM liberatarian freedom!! What scared her the most about Arminianism, though, was that she didn’t believe humans could have THAT MUCH FREEDOM to be able to walk away from the Lord and His Spirit!!!
So that got me to thinking—I decided then and there to do a post on “The Power of Choice.” I figured that, my friend, being very sound in her theology, echoed a sentiment of most people. VERY FEW libertarians know that Arminians affirm their principle tenet, although Arminianism is NOTHING LIKE Pelagianism (despite the attacks on the view itself)!!
We first see the power of choice when God decided to create man. The Lord God did it of His own will—He was not forced to create man and give Him dominion over creation. Neither was He forced to create anything else in creation, for that matter! However, He decides to create the world…and so He does. So choice becomes the motive by which man was created. Our very existence is due to the will of God—God’s CHOOSING to make humankind.
The next instance of choice that we see is that God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden to watch over it (Gen. 2:15).From the very beginning, God desired that man would work and created work as something good. In the same way that God worked by creating the world, so man, bearing HIS IMAGE and being IN HIS LIKENESS, would work as well. Notice that God had a PURPOSE for Adam—he was to “work and watch over” the Garden. God gave the Garden to Adam as something Adam was supposed to do. Whatever happened in the Garden, Adam would have to own up to and take responsibility for (whether it was good or bad).Calvinists who spend time assuming that God is supposed to do everything have NEVER read Genesis, where He gave control of the Garden to Adam. Adam was God’s “right-hand man.” Adam was supposed to keep the Garden in order.
Adam worked the Garden, watered the plants, made sure everything operated as it should; but he was also given the responsibility of naming the animals:
“So the LORD God formed out of the ground each wild animal and each bird of the sky, and BROUGHT EACH TO THE MAN TO SEE WHAT HE WOULD CALL IT. AND WHATEVER THE MAN CALLED A LIVING CREATURE, THAT WAS ITS NAME” (Gen.2:19, HCSB).
Adam was given the responsibility to name the animals, but it was not only a responsibility—it was a privilege. God so honored Adam as His creation that the text says, “WHATEVER the man called a living creature, THAT WAS ITS NAME.” If Adam said, “cat,” then the animal was a cat; if he called another “grasshopper,” then the insect was a “grasshopper,” etc. God does not override Adam’s power of choice. Although God created the animals, HE CHOSE for Adam to name them—and by Adam naming them, Adam was operating under the authority and power of choice that he had received from God.
However, as I said earlier, Arminians affirm libertarian free will—this means that God sets boundaries for man’s free will, but man is able to operate freely WITHIN THOSE BOUNDARIES. Although God gave man the power of choice in the Garden, the Lord still retained control over all things—for He created a woman FOR Adam (and Adam got no say in the matter):
“Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is like him.’ So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to come over the man, and he slept. God took one of his ribs and closed the flesh at that place. Then the LORD God made the rib He had taken from the man into a woman and brought her to the man” (Gen. 2:19, 21-22, HCSB).
Adam did not get a choice over whether or not he wanted to have a helper in the Garden—it was God’s garden, and mankind was God’s creation, so God would decide whether or not to appoint a helper for Adam.
Another good text to look at regarding the power of human choice is in Genesis 1. Let’s read it together:
“And the LORD God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree of the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die’” (Gen. 1:16, HCSB).
God gave man a choice here as to how man would choose to walk before God; but if man broke it, he wouldn’t just have to leave paradise—he would die a physical (and spiritual) death.
Well, as Genesis 3 shows us, the serpent (whom Revelation calls “Satan”) deceives Eve, and she and Adam both partake of the fruit. Let’s listen in, though, regarding the fall in Genesis 3:
“And He said to Adam, ‘Because you listened to your wife’s voice and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘Do not eat from it’: THE GROUND IS CURSED BECAUSE OF YOU. You will eat from it by means of painful labor ALL THE DAYS OF YOUR LIFE. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. You will eat bread by the sweat of your brow until you return from the ground, since you were taken from it. FOR YOU ARE DUST, AND YOU WILL RETURN TO DUST’” (Gen. 1:17-19, HCSB).
When Adam sins, ALL OF HUMANITY AND CREATION is cursed because of his sin. After Adam and Eve sin, God does not shake His head in horror; He does not ask Himself, “Oh no! My creation has sinned—what shall I do?” Instead, God distributes punishments to all three guilty parties—the serpent, Eve, and Adam (although Adam was the one God gave the instructions to). Not only would Adam have to work extra hard to till the soil (since his sin brought thorns and thistles to the ground), but he would actually “return to the ground” (he would die a physical death).God gave Adam the promise that he would die—and he did, according to Genesis 5:5. However, Adam and Eve also died a spiritual death as a result of their sin. The Apologetics Study Bible gives us these words as commentary:
“The couple did not immediately die physically (cp. 2:17). By God’s grace, their death was postponed till a later time. But their expulsion from the Garden (vv. 23-24) shows that the word of God was indeed fulfilled as the immediate consequence of their disobedience. They were cut off from access to the tree of life, WHICH SYMBOLIZED THE SOURCE OF LIFE (Gen. 2:9; Rv. 2:7;22:2,14,19)…The human couple’s expulsion signaled their spiritual death (see Eph. 2:1). That their physical death occurred is confirmed by the refrain “then he died” in Adam’s genealogy (Gn. 5:5). Physical death for humans was the result of disobedience in the garden (Rm. 5:12-21; 6:23)” (“The Apologetics Study Bible,” HCSB, page 9).
And this brings me up to a point I want to emphasize about libertarian freedom. When Adam and Eve sin, God gives them their punishments and never takes them back. And at the end of Genesis chapter 3, God shows Adam and Eve their boundaries—if you think that His punishment to them was boundary enough (that they couldn’t commit sin and escape punishment), read these words:
“The LORD God said, ‘Since man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil, he must not reach out, and also take from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.’ So the LORD God sent him away from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken” (Gen. 3:22-23, HCSB).
Here we see that God makes good on His promise. He told Adam that if he ate from the tree, he would die (Gen.2:16-17). Here, the Lord executes His words to Adam. Eating from the tree of life would have caused the couple to live forever—but this would go against God’s order regarding sin and death. So, because God is consistent and does what He promises, He takes Adam and Eve out of the Garden. This is why He removes them from the Garden and sends them out to the world to live and then die.
We see here that God has a boundary. He is consistent in His character, and He does not change man’s boundaries. God’s boundaries are God’s boundaries, and man isn’t allowed to move beyond them. Man wasn’t allowed to “get around” his punishment for sin and live forever—why? Because GOD PROMISED that man would die for eating the fruit. God demonstrated that He had set boundaries for man—when man attempted to go beyond those boundaries, God punished Him for it, thereby showing His justice. This is what libertarians affirm—that, within specific God-given boundaries, man is allowed to demonstrate freedom. And this is also what Arminians affirm—that God gives man libertarian free will—the right to choose IN THE BOUNDARIES God has established.
So, back to that friend of mine. As I mentioned at the beginning, her response is a typical response from libertarians and Calvinists who want to understand Scripture: they just don’t understand how man could have so much freedom as to walk away from God…
But man did—he “walked away” from His Creator the moment he ate the fruit. In that moment, he decided that he, man, would be the judge of right and wrong. Was the sin worth it? Nope. But thanks be unto God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
"In Our Image, After Our Likeness": The God of the Calvinists
“There are distressingly many things that happen on earth that are not the will of God (Luke 7:30 and every other sin mentioned in the Bible), that are against his will, and that stem from the incomprehensible and senseless sin in which we are born, in which the greater part of mankind lives, and in which Israel persisted, and against which even the ‘holiest men’ (Heid. Cat. Q.114) struggled all their days (David, Peter). God has ONLY ONE COURSE OF ACTION for this and that is to provide for its atonement by having it all crucified and buried with Christ. To try to interpret all these things by means of the concept of a plan of God, creates intolerable difficulties and gives rise to more exceptions than regularities. But THE MOST IMPORTANT objection is that the idea of a plan is AGAINST THE MESSAGE OF THE BIBLE since God Himself becomes incredible IF THAT AGAINST WHICH HE HAS FOUGHT WITH POWER, AND FOR WHICH HE SACRIFICED HIS ONLY SON, WAS NEVERTHELESS SOMEHOW PART AND PARCEL OF HIS ETERNAL COUNSEL. So it is better to proceed from the idea that God had a certain goal in mind (the covenant, or the kingdom of God, or the new earth—which are all the same thing viewed from different angles) that he will achieve with us, without us, or even against us” (Adrio Konig, quoted by Roger Olson, “Arminian Theology,” page 39).
In Genesis 1:26, God said, “Let Us make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness…” But today, I’m afraid that we have forgotten what it means to be the “creation”—and instead, we’ve become the “Creator.” Instead of God making us like Himself, we’ve now made God LIKE OURSELVES…
Adrio Konig, as quoted by Roger Olson, gives us the heart and soul of the differences between Arminians and Calvinists. Both sides are known for amassing passages of Scripture which they believe justify their view; but if you wanna get to the bedrock of the issue, just look at Christ’s death and resurrection.
Romans 3:25 tells us that “God presented Him [Christ] as a PROPITIATION through faith in His blood, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over the sins previously committed” (Rom. 3:25, HCSB).
Let’s examine this verse. We are told that God put forth His Son; why? “to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over the sins previously committed.” So God sending His Son as a propitiation [a pleasing sacrifice] was to show His righteousness, to reveal His Holy Law against an unholy act (that being the sins of the world). How then, could God “demonstrate His righteousness,” if He were the one responsible for sin IN THE FIRST PLACE? Sounds like the Calvinists are inconsistent and twist Scripture to say something it doesn’t say.
The re-written “God of the Calvinists” also contradicts what John wrote of Christ in Scripture:
“My little children, I am writing you these things so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have AN ADVOCATE with the Father—Jesus Christ the righteous One. He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also FOR THOSE OF THE WHOLE WORLD” (1 John 2:1-2, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
John, an Elder, is writing to fellow believers, for he says in 1 John 2:12, “your sins have been forgiven on account of His name” (HCSB). However, with the verses above from the earlier part of chapter 2, John is not just including BELIEVERS; he is also including UNBELIEVERS, those whose sins are not forgiven because they have not professed faith in Christ. A person either has to be a Christian or not—a believer or a sinner, a part of the family of God or a part of the family of the world. There is no middle ground when it comes to faith.
So if John states that Christ is the pleasing sacrifice for not just the sins of the believer but of the whole world, then he’s saying that Jesus gave His life for ALL, not just some, and not just “the elect.” Christ gave His life for everyone, INCLUDING those who will reject Him.
I think the god invention of the Calvinists is one that has been made in the image of MAN: this god doesn’t like rejection; he wants to dictate man’s every move and play games with his relationships with his creatures. The Calvinists tell us that this god is the God of Scripture; but I believe we should look for another…
In Genesis 1:26, God said, “Let Us make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness…” But today, I’m afraid that we have forgotten what it means to be the “creation”—and instead, we’ve become the “Creator.” Instead of God making us like Himself, we’ve now made God LIKE OURSELVES…
Adrio Konig, as quoted by Roger Olson, gives us the heart and soul of the differences between Arminians and Calvinists. Both sides are known for amassing passages of Scripture which they believe justify their view; but if you wanna get to the bedrock of the issue, just look at Christ’s death and resurrection.
Romans 3:25 tells us that “God presented Him [Christ] as a PROPITIATION through faith in His blood, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over the sins previously committed” (Rom. 3:25, HCSB).
Let’s examine this verse. We are told that God put forth His Son; why? “to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over the sins previously committed.” So God sending His Son as a propitiation [a pleasing sacrifice] was to show His righteousness, to reveal His Holy Law against an unholy act (that being the sins of the world). How then, could God “demonstrate His righteousness,” if He were the one responsible for sin IN THE FIRST PLACE? Sounds like the Calvinists are inconsistent and twist Scripture to say something it doesn’t say.
The re-written “God of the Calvinists” also contradicts what John wrote of Christ in Scripture:
“My little children, I am writing you these things so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have AN ADVOCATE with the Father—Jesus Christ the righteous One. He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also FOR THOSE OF THE WHOLE WORLD” (1 John 2:1-2, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
John, an Elder, is writing to fellow believers, for he says in 1 John 2:12, “your sins have been forgiven on account of His name” (HCSB). However, with the verses above from the earlier part of chapter 2, John is not just including BELIEVERS; he is also including UNBELIEVERS, those whose sins are not forgiven because they have not professed faith in Christ. A person either has to be a Christian or not—a believer or a sinner, a part of the family of God or a part of the family of the world. There is no middle ground when it comes to faith.
So if John states that Christ is the pleasing sacrifice for not just the sins of the believer but of the whole world, then he’s saying that Jesus gave His life for ALL, not just some, and not just “the elect.” Christ gave His life for everyone, INCLUDING those who will reject Him.
I think the god invention of the Calvinists is one that has been made in the image of MAN: this god doesn’t like rejection; he wants to dictate man’s every move and play games with his relationships with his creatures. The Calvinists tell us that this god is the God of Scripture; but I believe we should look for another…
For the Character of God
“…The main reason Arminians reject the Calvinist notion of monergistic salvation, in which God unconditionally elects some to salvation and bends their wills irresistibly, is that IT VIOLATES THE CHARACTER OF GOD AND THE NATURE OF A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP. If God saves unconditionally and irresistibly, why doesn’t he save all? Appeal to mystery at this point does not satisfy the Arminian mind because the character of God as love showing itself in mercy is at stake. If the humans chosen by God cannot resist having a right relationship with God, what kind of relationship is it? CAN A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP BE IRRESISTIBLE? ARE SUCH PREDESTINED PERSONS REALLY PERSONS IN SUCH A RELATIONSHIP?...the issue is most emphatically not a humanistic vision of autonomous free will, as if Arminians were in love with free agency for its own sake. Any fair-minded reading of Arminius, Wesley or any other classical Arminian will reveal that this is not so. Rather, the issue is THE CHARACTER OF GOD AND THE NATURE OF PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP” (“Arminian Theology,” page 38).
I was gonna sit down and write a post called “For the Love of God,” but I thought better of it—why not write a post called “For the Character of God”? So that’s what I set my heart and mind to do—write on the character of God.
What does God’s character consist of? God’s character consists of love, grace, mercy, justice, and holiness. His essence is goodness and perfection. While God is love, He is not a God of love who lacks JUSTICE. God’s justice is a demonstration of His love. And His justice is also a demonstration of God’s holiness.
A relationship is defined as an association, connection, bond, link, affiliation, etc. So to be in a relationship means to be connected to another person. However, the relationship only REMAINS if two people are willing to tough it out and be together. No one can have a relationship by themselves. Even the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are essential to the union of God.
Although two people must remain committed to each other to keep the relationship, there are those cases where a person chooses to walk away. Look at what Matthew tells us about divorce:
“When Jesus had finished this instruction, He departed from Galilee and went to the region of Judea across the Jordan. Large crowds followed Him, and He healed them there. Some Pharisees approached Him to test Him. They asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on ANY grounds?’ ‘Haven’t you read, ‘ He replied, ‘that He who created them in the beginning made them MALE AND FEMALE’…so they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore WHAT GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER, MAN MUST NOT SEPARATE” (Matt. 19:1-6, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
The Lord Jesus states here that divorce is not a good thing—that God made man and woman to remain one flesh from the very beginning.
In response, the Pharisees turn back and respond to Christ:
“ ‘Why then,” they asked Him, “did Moses command us to give divorce papers and to send her away?”
He told them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of THE HARDNESS OF YOUR HEARTS.BUT IT WAS NOT LIKE THAT FROM THE BEGINNING” (Matthew 19:7-8, HCSB).
In Jesus’ words here regarding divorce, He makes it clear that man has “deviated” from the original plan, something that is responsible for all the divorce in the world. When the Lord says, “but it was not like that from the beginning,” He is making it clear that man has strayed in his own life; however, I am saying that still, the Lord allows divorce. Surely, the Lord has permitted couples the right to break up because of a set reason. What is the reason?
“And I tell you, WHOEVER DIVORCES HIS WIFE, EXCEPT FOR SEXUAL IMMORALITY, and marries another, commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9, HCSB).
Jesus even allows here grounds for divorce, thereby establishing divorce. Look at what the apostle Paul writes regarding marriage and divorce in 1 Corinthians:
“I command the married—not I, BUT THE LORD—a wife is not to leave her husband. But if she does leave, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband—and a husband is not to leave his wife. But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: if any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she is willing to live with him, HE MUST NOT LEAVE HER. Also, if any woman has an unbelieving husband, and he is willing to live with her, SHE MUST NOT LEAVE HER HUSBAND…but if the unbeliever leaves, LET HIM LEAVE. A brother or a sister is not bound in such cases. GOD HAS CALLED YOU TO PEACE. For you, wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Or you, husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?” (1 Corinthians 7:10-16, ESV)
Paul says that if the marriage consists of believer and unbeliever, that the believer should not divorce first (but the unbeliever ).If the unbeliever walks away, the person should let him or her go.
What does all this have to do with the character of God? God’s character is such that He will not force mankind into a relationship with Him that mankind does not want. Read John’s Gospel to see mankind’s massive rejection:
“He was in the world, and the world was created through Him, YET THE WORLD DID NOT RECOGNIZE HIM. He CAME TO HIS OWN, AND HIS OWN PEOPLE DID NOT RECEIVE HIM. But to all who did receive Him, He gave them THE RIGHT TO BE CHILDREN OF GOD, to those who believe in His name…” (John 1:10-12, HCSB)
Jesus went to the Jews, His own people—and yet, they did not receive Him. Read the Gospels and you’ll find out that when He went to His hometown, He could not do miracles there because of the pervasive unbelief (Mark 6:1-6).
In addition, look at the rich young ruler: he is allowed to walk away from Christ because Christ gave him instructions about selling his possessions (Mark 10:17-22).
There are several other passages, but this shows us that God desires that all come to Him of their own desire, not because they feel forced to. And I think this tells us about the nature of relationship—that a relationship is a VOLUNTARY association of two or more people. Each person in a relationship gets to CHOOSE whether or not to stay in it.
Roger Olson asks a good question: if people are forced into a relationship with God, then ARE THEY REALLY PERSONS? No—they’re automaton, robotic creatures that simply do what the “remote control” allows. And that is not how God made man. Man was made to have choice.
Arminius believed in the aid of the Holy Spirit as well as the choice of man. And this choice we have been given comes from the fact that we have been made in the image of God and share His LIKENESS; in the same way that God CHOSE to create us out of His own good pleasure, He gives us the power to CHOOSE Him out of our own desire. But if the Calvinists have their way, man has ABSOLUTELY NO CHOICE in anything—God does everything. It seems to me then, that the Calvinist God is no longer the loving, good God of Scripture, but the masochistic, hateful, malevolent God of their own theology…
I was gonna sit down and write a post called “For the Love of God,” but I thought better of it—why not write a post called “For the Character of God”? So that’s what I set my heart and mind to do—write on the character of God.
What does God’s character consist of? God’s character consists of love, grace, mercy, justice, and holiness. His essence is goodness and perfection. While God is love, He is not a God of love who lacks JUSTICE. God’s justice is a demonstration of His love. And His justice is also a demonstration of God’s holiness.
A relationship is defined as an association, connection, bond, link, affiliation, etc. So to be in a relationship means to be connected to another person. However, the relationship only REMAINS if two people are willing to tough it out and be together. No one can have a relationship by themselves. Even the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are essential to the union of God.
Although two people must remain committed to each other to keep the relationship, there are those cases where a person chooses to walk away. Look at what Matthew tells us about divorce:
“When Jesus had finished this instruction, He departed from Galilee and went to the region of Judea across the Jordan. Large crowds followed Him, and He healed them there. Some Pharisees approached Him to test Him. They asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on ANY grounds?’ ‘Haven’t you read, ‘ He replied, ‘that He who created them in the beginning made them MALE AND FEMALE’…so they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore WHAT GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER, MAN MUST NOT SEPARATE” (Matt. 19:1-6, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
The Lord Jesus states here that divorce is not a good thing—that God made man and woman to remain one flesh from the very beginning.
In response, the Pharisees turn back and respond to Christ:
“ ‘Why then,” they asked Him, “did Moses command us to give divorce papers and to send her away?”
He told them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of THE HARDNESS OF YOUR HEARTS.BUT IT WAS NOT LIKE THAT FROM THE BEGINNING” (Matthew 19:7-8, HCSB).
In Jesus’ words here regarding divorce, He makes it clear that man has “deviated” from the original plan, something that is responsible for all the divorce in the world. When the Lord says, “but it was not like that from the beginning,” He is making it clear that man has strayed in his own life; however, I am saying that still, the Lord allows divorce. Surely, the Lord has permitted couples the right to break up because of a set reason. What is the reason?
“And I tell you, WHOEVER DIVORCES HIS WIFE, EXCEPT FOR SEXUAL IMMORALITY, and marries another, commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9, HCSB).
Jesus even allows here grounds for divorce, thereby establishing divorce. Look at what the apostle Paul writes regarding marriage and divorce in 1 Corinthians:
“I command the married—not I, BUT THE LORD—a wife is not to leave her husband. But if she does leave, she must remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband—and a husband is not to leave his wife. But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: if any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she is willing to live with him, HE MUST NOT LEAVE HER. Also, if any woman has an unbelieving husband, and he is willing to live with her, SHE MUST NOT LEAVE HER HUSBAND…but if the unbeliever leaves, LET HIM LEAVE. A brother or a sister is not bound in such cases. GOD HAS CALLED YOU TO PEACE. For you, wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Or you, husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?” (1 Corinthians 7:10-16, ESV)
Paul says that if the marriage consists of believer and unbeliever, that the believer should not divorce first (but the unbeliever ).If the unbeliever walks away, the person should let him or her go.
What does all this have to do with the character of God? God’s character is such that He will not force mankind into a relationship with Him that mankind does not want. Read John’s Gospel to see mankind’s massive rejection:
“He was in the world, and the world was created through Him, YET THE WORLD DID NOT RECOGNIZE HIM. He CAME TO HIS OWN, AND HIS OWN PEOPLE DID NOT RECEIVE HIM. But to all who did receive Him, He gave them THE RIGHT TO BE CHILDREN OF GOD, to those who believe in His name…” (John 1:10-12, HCSB)
Jesus went to the Jews, His own people—and yet, they did not receive Him. Read the Gospels and you’ll find out that when He went to His hometown, He could not do miracles there because of the pervasive unbelief (Mark 6:1-6).
In addition, look at the rich young ruler: he is allowed to walk away from Christ because Christ gave him instructions about selling his possessions (Mark 10:17-22).
There are several other passages, but this shows us that God desires that all come to Him of their own desire, not because they feel forced to. And I think this tells us about the nature of relationship—that a relationship is a VOLUNTARY association of two or more people. Each person in a relationship gets to CHOOSE whether or not to stay in it.
Roger Olson asks a good question: if people are forced into a relationship with God, then ARE THEY REALLY PERSONS? No—they’re automaton, robotic creatures that simply do what the “remote control” allows. And that is not how God made man. Man was made to have choice.
Arminius believed in the aid of the Holy Spirit as well as the choice of man. And this choice we have been given comes from the fact that we have been made in the image of God and share His LIKENESS; in the same way that God CHOSE to create us out of His own good pleasure, He gives us the power to CHOOSE Him out of our own desire. But if the Calvinists have their way, man has ABSOLUTELY NO CHOICE in anything—God does everything. It seems to me then, that the Calvinist God is no longer the loving, good God of Scripture, but the masochistic, hateful, malevolent God of their own theology…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)