I’m going to change my usual modus operandi a bit and state my beliefs near the beginning of this study. I still want to try and present different views as objectively as I can, but I think it might be helpful if I lay out my current understanding.
- I believe in salvation by grace through faith. I admittedly view that differently than some, because I believe that faith is more than intellectual assent. It includes action. Faith that does not express itself in obedience is mere belief, not faith.
- I believe that Jesus’ sacrifice is sufficient to save all men from all times. That sufficiency is never in question. How God applies that sacrifice is a matter of debate. Some would put no limits, arguing that all men will eventually be saved. Others limit it in different ways: to all believers, to believers who do certain things, etc.
- I believe that the New Testament teaches that Christians can “fall away from grace” (as Galatians states it), “believe in vain” (1 Corinthians), “be disqualified” (2 Corinthians), “be cut off” (Romans), “shipwreck their faith,” “lose their crown,” or any of a number of phrases used to describe what happens when a Christian chooses to return to the world.
- I do not believe in “DAISY,” the idea that people can come in and out of the body of Christ on a daily basis. As long as we are walking in the light, Christ’s blood continually cleanses us. As long as we continue to seek that cleansing, God will grant it to us.
- Since some of the doctrines John Calvin taught do influence our beliefs on this issue, I will mention that I do not believe in TULIP. I believe that God has granted unto man free will, especially regarding salvation. I believe that man chooses whether or not to accept God’s salvation. I believe that Jesus died for the whole world, not just a few. And I believe that saints can lose their status as saints.
That should be enough to start with. I think I’ve given just about everyone something to disagree with. Let the protests begin!
That predetermination thing is kinda like holding a beauty contest where the Judge already knows who he is going to pick to win, except for one tiny thing The Father said he was going to have the Son pick the winners, and the son has already said he does nothing without consulting the Father, Now that would make it fair wouldn’t it?
Randall, I won’t debate literary analysis here. I will say that if Newton had expressed himself in such a way that only allowed for his Calvinistic interpretation, I would choose not to sing the song. Or at least the lines that I found objectionable. I actually do pick and choose what I sing.
Do Calvinistic groups sing “How Firm A Foundation”? It opposes the view of faith being a gift from God. Or does the finger only point one way?
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
H.B., I’ll answer “NO” to both of your “Now Shirley” statements. Fact is, the phrase “water baptism” was created by people who wanted to escape the meaning of the word. It is as appropriate as the phrases “water swimming” or “water bathing.”
Read the post Jay Guin wrote on Colossians 2:14. Then we’ll talk about what was nailed to the cross.
As to your later post, you put a lot of words into Paul’s mouth. He never “announces” anything about a change in Christian baptism. I’d rather not to have to copy everything I wrote in that previous post. I don’t think it will take you more than 5 minutes to read it. Until then, we’ll be spinning our wheels in discussing this.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I don’t believe God knows the future. (PLEASE KEEP READING! :) )
Saying that God knows the future is like saying that God knows the orangutan typing your blog comments for you. He doesn’t, because it doesn’t exist.
Likewise, the future does not exist. God knows everything that IS — that is currently in existence and has ever been in existence.
The future does not exist yet. Therefore it cannot be known.
When God says something will happen in the future, he’s not predicting something he already knew — he is creating something that did not exist before. He is telling us what He knows He will do.
Thus God remains omniscient – He knows everything that can be known — what is, what has been, and what He has decided to do in the future.
in HIS love,
nick
PS – FIFTY-FOUR COMMENTS, Tim? That’s some kinda Kitchen record, right? It is a credit to the atmosphere you create that this conversation can continue with so little discord.
Interesting thoughts, Nick. I’ll have to mull that over a bit.
As for the comments, well, credit goes to those participating in the discussion. You know how easily these things can get out of hand.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim asked: “Do Calvinistic groups sing “How Firm A Foundation”?
Yes of course Calvinists sing this hymn. The internet contains several versions of the story of the song and one can be found here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=kN-FilvMftwC&lpg=RA1-PA32-IA1&ots=PuJimt6Iqm&dq=how%20firm%20a%20foundation%20story&pg=RA1-PA32-IA1#v=onepage&q=how%20firm%20a%20foundation%20story&f=false
Although the author is unknown the hymn first appeared in 1787 and was included in an important Baptist hymnal. Eleven editions of that hymnal were printed. An American edition was printed in 1820 and that book was known as the “unofficial hymn textbook of the Baptist churches.” The hymn begins with emphasis upon the written word of God ; there are allusions to multiple scriptures that emphasize the assurance of salvation that we find in his written word i.e that we will never be forsaken by God, come what may. He will be with us to uphold and sustain us in all our trials. This is the very heart of Calvinism. As you already know, the Baptists were very Calvinistic at that time. I suppose the most significant distinctions between them and the Presbyterians were 1.) who was baptized (believers vs infants) as well as the mode (immersion) of baptism and 2.) church organization as the Presbyterian style of government was different than the Baptists. Both were VERY Calvinistic with regard to soteriology.
I have looked at the lyrics several times trying to determine what words prompt you to see this hymn as opposing the view of faith being a gift from God. The emphasis is upon the promises of God we find in his written word. In another comment you said the song mentions the word of God upon which “WE can build our faith” with the emphasis on what WE do. I believe you added a Calvinist could not sing these words knowing what they mean.
I am at a complete loss as to understand why you think a Calvinist is opposed to the notion that we build our faith. Of course we build our faith as a result of God’s activity in our lives. Our walk is NOT something that God does while we are left out of the picture. The HS is active in our lives to bring us to Christ. He gives us spiritual life when there was deadness. He gives eyes and ears where there was blindness and deafness. He leads us to grow in faith and obedience. But he does not do this apart from us. He does this in us and through us. He gives us the strength and will to carry on. Our faith is our own faith, not someone else’s faith. Our decisions are our decisions and our walk is our own. We don’t do it alone, nor as a result of free will or good sense. We do it in response to all that he does for and through us as he leads us.
In one of your comments you said:
“I have no problem in singing about how God sustains the believer. I do believe that. And I know that God will never surrender us to our foes. Nor will he ever be unfaithful to us.
Reading the words again, I had to smile a bit. The song is praising God’s Word as the foundation on which WE can build our faith. Any Calvinist who studies the words won’t be able to sing them honestly.”
Tim, there must be a lot of confusion here. I think you miss the point. The point is not faith in the word. Our faith is in the God of the word and what he tells us about himself in the word. You say that you believe God sustains the believer as the song says. However, I suspect you believe God will stop sustaining the believer if the believer stops being in good standing with God. The song says he will NEVER forsake us, he will NEVER surrender us to his foes. So if Satan and his demons were to attack, or my own weakness were to get the best of me, and let’s note this may well go hand in glove together, for Satan may know just where and how to attack me.
Perhaps it begins with the death of a close loved one, maybe I lose my wife to death or worse, she leaves me for another man. My children may forsake me and blame it on my old fashioned beliefs or what ever issue comes to mind. In my weakness I find a little comfort in a drink and the next thing you know I find myself with a prostitute or a free and easy young woman I met at the bar. As Paul Simon wrote in The Boxer about the whores on 7th avenue, “I do declare there was a time I was so lonesome I took some comfort there.” One mess leads to another and then cocaine enters the picture. Of course, my church friends forsook me long ago. Now I am stung by my wife walking out on me, my children say they hate me, my wife got more than just half in the divorce, the lawyers took most of the rest and what was left I spent on booze, women and cocaine (did I forget the gambling?). Things go from worse to worst. I have nothing left, especially not any self respect, and it seems as though there is no point in even living any longer. If I do live I may get caught for the burglaries I committed to get a little money for more drugs etc. May as well kill myself as I am nothing but a worthless drain on society. And why not kill myself? It has been so long since I met with church folks – why would they want to see me all dirty and smelling of booze and puke etc.. And I wandered by the Union Gospel Mission and someone said “Come in Brother.” It may seem like I have been forsaken by all, and who could blame them in light of the way I have lived. But God has been watching out for me. He knew how proud I once was and he has fixed that problem for sure. In the mission I get my first shower in days or weeks. A simple but warm meal and then the singing begins. I hear the words –
# Fear not, I am with thee, oh, be not dismayed,
For I am thy God, and will still give thee aid;
I’ll strengthen thee, help thee, and cause thee to stand,
Upheld by My gracious, omnipotent hand.
# “When through the deep waters I call thee to go,
The rivers of sorrow shall not overflow;
For I will be with thee thy trouble to bless,
And sanctify to thee thy deepest distress.
# “When through fiery trials thy pathway shall lie,
My grace, all-sufficient, shall be thy supply;
The flame shall not harm thee; I only design
Thy dross to consume and thy gold to refine.
# “The soul that on Jesus doth lean for repose,
I will not, I will not, desert to his foes;
That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake,
I’ll never, no never, no never forsake.”
Wow! His grace all sufficient will be my supply. He has never forsaken me and he won’t. Even now the Spirit is working powerfully in my life. God is not going to let me be given over to my foes. He will never desert me. It is his strength that sustains me as my own has been shown incapable of bearing the load. All I can do is thank him and praise him for his grace. My salvation was all of him and none of me and to him belongs all the glory.
We sometimes make distinctions between something dividing us from God as opposed to our choosing to walk away. But it is not either one or the other. We say things like God will never forsake us but we could forsake him. Oh what crap!!! If he forsook me b/c I forsook him I am still forsaken by him and eternal condemnation is my destiny. No one just sits down and says “Well today I think I will forsake God. I know he gave me everything and loves and gave me salvation b/c he is so merciful and loving and forgiving. I just made a decision to forsake him and I’m walking away, that’s all there is to it. No it does not happen that way. It happens an inch at a time as we are deceived by ourselves or Satan or both. I have no confidence in my ability to remain true to him, but I have every confidence in his ability to keep me true to him. No one can snatch me out of his hand and that includes myself. He is going to complete what he started in me. I know it is true b/c he is true to his promise.
So that’s perseverance of the saints. Some prefer to call it, perseverance of the HS. If you wish to fault me for believing this is what the scriptures teach then so be it. I am altogether comfortable with it and I’ll be happy to provide proof texts if you want them. More importantly I believe this is the story of scripture for beginning to end.
How you think a Calvinist would have reservations about singing this hymn is beyond me. As a Calvinist I would shout it from the rooftops.
Guess I got a little carried away there. Forgive the exuberance.
Now you can see my puzzlement at your thinking members of the church of Christ would have any problems with the songs you’ve mentioned. Though I’m beginning to see that your experiences with churches of Christ have been miles apart from mine.
Faith given by God does not need a foundation based on the Word. Note this quote from the reference you gave: “This challenging question is posed: what more can God do than provide His very Word as a completed revelation of Himself to man?” God has given us His Word and that’s enough for us to have faith. Doesn’t work too well with “total depravity.” I’m sure the words of the hymn can be twisted to fit whatever one wants to find there… oh wait, we said that poetry only has one meaning. ;-)
“However, I suspect you believe God will stop sustaining the believer if the believer stops being in good standing with God.” OK, now you’re making bad guesses at my beliefs. Remember the complaints about caricatures?
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
What if I make myself His foe?
Randall, I think perhaps we have very different definitions of free will. I understand free will to be free from COMPULSION, not free from INFLUENCE. Perhaps I have a false dilemma in my mind that you can help reconcile, between free will and forced action. Because I believe that the God who IS love will do everything to woo me into His embrace, but nothing to drive me there – and that includes making me so willing to repent that I cannot do anything else.
Do you believe there are those whom God has made willing to repent who have not repented?
Tim, I sincerely apologize if I have mis-characterized you in any way. I have no wish at all to do that to you are anyone. It was my impression you believe one can be saved and in good standing with God through faith in Jesus, but that the believer can forsake that faith and become lost i.e. lose his good standing with God. I did not think I was guessing at your belief. I thought you had stated it as such, though I did not actually quote your own words. In your post, point number 3 states:
“I believe that the New Testament teaches that Christians can “fall away from grace” (as Galatians states it), “believe in vain” (1 Corinthians), “be disqualified” (2 Corinthians), “be cut off” (Romans), “shipwreck their faith,” “lose their crown,” or any of a number of phrases used to describe what happens when a Christian chooses to return to the world.”
Could you please help we understand the difference between how I said it and how you would said it yourself? Do you think God continues to sustain one who has believed in vain and chosen to return to the world? Seriously, I wish to understand and not misrepresent.
Faith given by God does have a foundation in the word. Ephesians 2 is the first text that comes to mind but I think I could provide other texts. And I think the normal way faith comes to a person is through the written word with the HS working in the heart. Alexander Campbell was a rationalist and he may have believed faith came objectively through the word apart from the HS. I think he may have Pelagian when it came to conversion, though not in all of his theology. I think there are people that can read the word and hear the most wonderful sermons and not come to faith due to spiritual deadness, blindness, deafness etc.
I also think total depravity is taught clearly in the word. Again, if you want texts I could provide them. I could begin with the opening chapters of Romans culminating with the third chapter. There is the imputation of Adam’s sin to the race in chapter 5. There is the Genesis account just before the flood etc. A quick internet search will surface more texts than most have time to read. These doctrines (specifically TD) came about through careful study of the word.
As to the CofC I am familiar with: I was raised in what John mark Hicks might describe as a “Texas Tradition” congregation as were almost all CofC congregations in the 1950s and early 1960s. I attended ACU in the 1960s and 70s and the belief that we were the one true church b/c we believed the right way and did church the right way was not in short supply. I have been a long time member at two large congregations that would probably be described as progressive, and I am quite familiar with others almost like them. Many in those congregations, including the leadership have stopped believing and preaching we are the only ones saved though they believed it during the early years I was at each. Not one of them has ever publicly corrected that error by which so people many know the CofC. Even today on CofC congregation websites I see the teaching that one is saved only as a result of the five steps with the implication that we’re the only true church. I see it taught in other fora as well. I suspect we are about the same age, and if so, we knew the CofC in the same era. Has your experience with the CofC been all that different?
I also learned the gospel in the CofC. Jesus loves me this I know … Though things were a mess we got lots of scripture, and in my case God’s word didn’t return to him void. In the context in which that scripture was written it never does. We humans frequently make a mess of what is pretty simple, but God works it out the way he wants it to happen. It was in the CofC I was taught to study scripture, know it and meditate on it. The emphasis was on knowing and believing what scripture said and not being led by what the pastor or priest said I should believe. Of course the minister at the Cofc wasn’t like pastors or priests who were just giving their own opinion or spouting the belief of their (gasp) denomination. Well guess what. I did read and question and listen and read and question and I arrived at some different conclusions. For that I can stay in the CofC, but I may be a second class citizen, even if only for a few years and then maybe I can teach a bible class once it is evident I am not a wolf in sheep’s clothing. No thanks. I’ve done that a couple of times already and I don’t want to have those endless discussions for the next 20 years. (like I said, this is my last hurrah.) Eventually the leadership moderates and decides there are worthwhile things that could be said, but it is like pushing a truck uphill to get to that point. From you experience in the Cofc can you even imagine what I am talking about. If your answer is “yes,” could you say it openly? Would there be risk of being in a little hot water with your employer or having your name mentioned to a trustee as a person that might be a little suspect? Oh how I pray and hope you can answer “yes” to that question. It hasn’t always been that way.
I am not surprised that many in the CofC would sing Calvinisitic songs and mean it. I think most people love the doctrines of sovereign grace to the extent that they do not realize it is Calvinism. When that becomes known people may back off and say something in defense of free will as defending free will really is that important to them.
Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.
T’was Grace that taught my heart to fear.
And Grace, my fears relieved.
How precious did that Grace appear
The hour I first believed.
Through many dangers, toils and snares
I have already come;
‘Tis Grace that brought me safe thus far
and Grace will lead me home.
We really do love those words just the way they were written, and we should
Peace,
Randall
Nick,
I think you’re onto something here regarding he way you define free will. To place this in context I’ll quote you:
“Randall, I think perhaps we have very different definitions of free will. I understand free will to be free from COMPULSION, not free from INFLUENCE. Perhaps I have a false dilemma in my mind that you can help reconcile, between free will and forced action.”
Apparently we do have very different definition of free will. For what it is worth. my understanding is that Calvinists DO NOT BELIEVE people make choices from compulsion. This is a caricature that is frequently thrown at Calvinists. Calvinist believe people make choices consistent with their nature b/c that’s the type of people they are. Corrupt people make corrupt choices. We sin b/c we are sinful and may become even more sinful as a result.
A man needs spiritual life and sight and hearing and to be the friend of God to live a life pleasing to God. The natural man is spiritually dead, blind, deaf and at enmity with God. He does not understand the things of God. Indeed he is not able to understand. When one is born again things change. The HS does amazing things in the life of what was once a dead sinner.
As to your last question (get ready – here comes the controversy) I believe that God can work in a man’s heart effectually so as to cause the man to come to faith and repent. Since God is infinitely knowledgeable, wise, powerful etc. etc. he can accomplish whatever he wants to accomplish and he will not be frustrated by any mere man. That’s what makes Calvinism controversial.
Peace,
Randall
That is a GREAT definition of compulsion.
And how does the Fall, where a very good (according to the One True God) man greatly frustrated the will of God, fit into this context?
Randall,
I guess it comes down to word choice, kind of like when I said God forces someone to repent. You objected to the word “force,” even though the final result is the same.
The idea of someone being “in bad standing with God” seems to carry the idea of “sin too big for Christ’s blood to cover,” an idea that is repulsive to all. I prefer the idea of man choosing to reject what God has to offer. Yes, I believe there is some choice involved, both at the time of initially receiving salvation and on the road to sanctification. I think that some can “choose to return to Egypt,” choose to return to their old life.
It’s the image of the God that would sustain his people, but they are unwilling. Reminds me of Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.” (Matthew 23:37)
God will oblige no man to repent, nor will he force any man to continue on the path he has begun. If man chooses to resist and reject God, chooses not to walk in the light, God will not force him to take the path of life. God’s help is there, God’s Spirit works in us, but we can resist the Spirit and quench his fire in our lives.
You may see no difference from what you said my views were, but I do.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Randall,
As you have time, read about a bit on this site. I have felt free to state the things that I believe, even those things that aren’t “official” church of Christ doctrine. Yes, someone called my boss once about what I’ve written. I’m fortunate to work for a godly man who knew how to handle such an incident.
Though I grew up in Texas, I grew up in a church strongly influenced by T.B. Larrimore. If you don’t know who he was, take some time to read about him. I then went to Abilene Christian University and learned a lot about depending on what the Bible says and not what man says (not even men from the church of Christ).
I’m not surprised that you’ve had a different experience. I’m probably in the minority, to tell the truth. But the times they are a changing.
Please don’t take this the wrong way, but you have an interesting definition of compulsion. If I have no choice in a matter, than I am being compelled to do something. Dictionary.com says “a strong, usually irresistible impulse to perform an act.” The dictionary on my computer says “an irresistible urge to behave in a certain way.” That fits every description you’ve given of how God deals with man.
Had John Newton talked about grace compelling me home… no, I wouldn’t sing it. Grace leading me home? I don’t have a problem with that. The same with the rest of his beautiful hymn. He may have believed that, but that’s not what he wrote.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
One more thing, Randall…
Royce Ogle who has commented here is a preacher in the church of Christ who has written openly about his belief in POTS. Edward Fudge is a prominent writer who has expressed the same. I believe that Mike Cope has done the same, though someone might correct me on that. Mike is no longer a pulpit minister, but that’s not because of his beliefs. And he is a regular speaker at many brotherhood events.
Take some time and look at what Al Maxey writes. What Jay Guin writes. (links are on the side) They are not traditionalists, even if they don’t agree with you on this point. There are some that would seek to black ball them, but there are many more that read their writings with enthusiasm.
Some reflections of these changes can be seen in this article from the Nashville Tennessean: http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100131/NEWS06/1310365/Churches+of+Christ+drop+isolationist+view++work+with+other+faiths
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Hi Tim,
I’ve written more than enough for today – really too much even for a couple of weeks. Thanks for the indulgence as it is gracious of you to let me use so much space on your blog.
I am familiar with the others (Fudge, Maxey, Cope and Ogle) you mentioned and follow most of their blogs. While I have been familiar with Royce for only a couple of years, I have followed the others, at least off and on for a decade or more and expect to do so in the future, even if only as a lurker.
One final comment. You said of me: “You objected to the word “force,” even though the final result is the same.” Yes, I would make a distinction between “force” and “cause” even if the result were the same, but that’s just me.
Hope you sleep well. I’ll be shoveling near the woods so filled with snow for I have “miles to go before I sleep. ” But I do look forward to everlasting rest. I guess you knew the allusion to Robert Frost was coming. I imagine it was probably predestined. ;-)
Peace.
Randall
The idea that God doesn’t know the future strikes me as very odd. The fact that the prophets of old were able to make statements about what would happen hundreds of years into the future and be accurate and then to say God doesn’t know?
Peter, in 1 Peter 1 talked about God’s “foreknowledge”. How many things could that mean other than that God knew before?
Royce
Tim,
Please indulge one illustration of the difference between “force” and “cause.”
Soon after I began to date my wife (married now for about 40 years) I soon decided I wanted to marry her. Had I asked her to marry me when we first met I suspect she would have declined the offer and wondered what kind of a nut she was talking to. So, I took a more traditional approach. I wooed her. I took her out on dates to movies etc. I wrote her notes and even love letters. I took her to dinner or grilled a steak for her at my garage apartment in Abilene. I did my best to convince her I would be a loving and faithful husband. Eventually, when I thought the time was right I asked her to marry me and she said “yes.”
I did not by any sense of the word “force” her to marry me. However, I did all within my ability to “cause” her to marry me. In this case I was successful, but I could have failed. I hope this illustrates the difference I see between force and cause.
I believe scripture teaches God is infinite in all his attributes. He has the knowledge, wisdom, power etc. to effect whatever he wants to happen. He will not fail, he will not have to resort to plan B. I think this is an important aspect of the story of scripture.
Peace,
Randall
Randall,
That’s why I switched to compel, since you denied God’s compulsion. Man is asked to repent, but can only do so if God allows/effects/compels/___ it? That’s where we get back to the cruel hoax. Imagine me holding out a treat for a dog that is tied to a tree. Unless I go to him or untie him, he can’t get it. That’s an awful picture. Why would Peter stand up and say, “Save yourselves from this wicked generation” if only some of them could do so?
According to Romans 7, the failure is not God’s failure… it’s man’s failure. God led the Israelites out of Israel and promised to lead them into the Promised Land. He told that generation that they would live in the Promised Land. They, however, lacked the faith to claim God’s promise, and all but two of them died in the wilderness.
Again, God could create a world of robots that could only do his will. I’m more than convinced of that. I’m also sure that he has chosen not to do so.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I’m not fully bought into open theism, but I do understand some of the argument. The idea is that the prophets foretold things that God was going to cause to happen. He knows what he is going to do in the future.
The fact that the Bible talks of God “repenting” of an action seems to imply an open nature to the future. Jeremiah 18 implies a certain flexibility in God’s dealings with the future: “If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.” (Jeremiah 18:7-10)
You don’t have to agree, but maybe it will seem less odd.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I would like to address two passages that have been repeated and that have always been pillars to the Arminian (today, semi-Pelagian) argument: 1 Tim 2:3-4 and Matthew 23:37.
First, what is true is that God demands that all men everywhere to repent. This is His revealed will to us. We know it because He has commanded it. He has given us commandments that we are to obey (repent and believe). Yet His will of decree (hidden will) is one that man is not privy to (unless one claims to know all the things of God). James, for example, tells us that if you assume to know the Lord’s will in this regard then “you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil” (James 4:16).
“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deut 29:29).
A good example of the two wills is Joseph who was sold into slavery by his brothers. Genesis 50:20 reads (this is Joseph talking to his brothers), “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.”
Notice it does not say “God turned it into good” but that “God meant it for good.” Same word used. Same point.
So here we have the known moral will of God that we can certainly assume is “don’t sell your brother into slavery” falling subservient to God’s Sovereign hidden decree that Joseph be sold into slavery so that “many people should be kept alive…” Joseph’s brothers are guilty of breaking the revealed will; but the hidden will of decree is fulfilled.
Or take the crucifixion. Certainly it was the most evil sin to murder the Son of God and that would fly in the face of God’s moral law. Yet God decreed that it happen from before the foundation of the world so that He could reveal His infinite love, mercy and grace, to the praise of His glory. Was anybody on earth privy to what God was totally doing in sacrificing His own Son? No. Yet it was barbaric behavior and it was sinful to kill Him and those who took part will be held accountable to that murder. God sent His Son to die for His good purposes; yet those who killed Him are guilty of murder. Both are what the Scriptures reveal to us.
So in both cases we have God not desiring in one way (don’t break my moral law) yet desiring in another way (my eternal decree will happen according to my own counsel). We cannot escape such things in the biblical text.
So here we have the two favorite passages. First, God desires all men to be saved in the same way He desires all men to obey His commands. Now the hidden will always comes to pass (God never says “oops”) but His revealed will or His commands do not always come to pass, as is obvious from the fact that we are all sinners and are disobedient.
So in regards to 1 Tim 2:3-4, one must assume, as you do, that just because we should do something as ordered by God; or that God wills something; that we are therefore capable of doing that something. This is not correct.
For example: the Ten Commandments. God gave the 10 commandments to tell His People what they should do in obedience to Him. Do we for one minute believe that God believed they had the moral capability to do them? Look at yourself for example. Try, for one day, to obey all 10 Commandments; do you think so highly of yourself as to say “yes, I am able to do that.” Of course not; for we are all sinners. So then are we to think that God, who knows our hearts better than we do, and in fact called them evil, actually thinks we are capable of complete obedience?
No, instead “Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Rom 5:20) and “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20). And James tells us in 2:10, “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it”
To presume that God’s revealed will presupposes our ability to meet it is an error in presumption. Yet this is exactly what you propose by saying “since God desires all men to be saved that means we all have the ability to come to Christ and be saved.” That is not what the Scriptures teach us.
This leads well into the Matthew 23:37 text. The natural condition of man is “dead in trespasses and sins…by nature objects of wrath” (Eph 2:1-3). We are at enmity with God and do not seek Him. The natural man hates the Holy God and we prove it by spitting in His face with our sin. This is all true yet Jesus still expresses a revealed desire that all his countrymen be saved (as does Paul); knowing full well it is not going to happen due to their natural state in sin and their inability to do so apart from God’s grace. God saves only those He effectually moves to then have the ability to accept Him. “I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules” (Ezek 36:26-27).
Why God does what He does according to His Own counsel and will is beyond us; yet there is not a better or more perfect reason for something to happen; for He is God.
Take a look at Mark 4:10-12 and read Jesus’ explanation as to why He teaches in parables. The purpose? So those on the outside won’t turn and repent. In other words, God has already passed judgment on some who are guilty. To His Sheep He calls (“Listen!”) and they hear His voice and follow Him. He knows them, they know Him. To the others God has decreed a just judgment; for nobody is innocent; all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. And only by God’s grace is anybody saved.
John Hendryx writes, “So the gospel is declared to all men … it is news for all to hear, but, due to our natural rebellion and hatred of God, all men reject God. Therefore since men are never found naturally willing to submit in faith to the humbling terms of the gospel of Christ, men will not come into the light (John 14:17; John 10:26; John 6:44; John 3:20; Rom 3:11). But thanks be to God, who is yet merciful, coming to those He has chosen from eternity giving them eternal life. What they could not do for themselves, He mercifully does for them. Those who “have ears to hear” are the same as those whom God’s favor rests. So even the desire for belief itself, like all spiritual blessings, was purchased by Christ on the cross.”
Jr,
Might I suggest you are confusing the means with the outcome? That is, while man is choosing freely to act in a sinful way, God is working in a grander way to achieve a certain outcome: the preservation of the Abrahamic line, the sacrifice of Christ, etc. God can use sinful men to achieve his goals, yet his goals are achieved.
The salvation of every man is not a means to a greater outcome. The salvation of every man is the final outcome that God desires. It is a very different case from the one that you presented.
“Why God does what He does according to His Own counsel and will is beyond us; yet there is not a better or more perfect reason for something to happen; for He is God.” That’s the very point I think you are overlooking. Calvinism arose in the age of reason, when every movement God made had to fit into some preprogrammed design. God has to do this, this and this… It’s cute to say “God never says “oops””, but God does leave himself the flexibility of changing what he has planned.
At the risk of being accused of just pulling out a standard text (maybe you should send me a list), I would point to Jeremiah 18 that I quoted above. Man would like to paint God into a box, but God refuses. He is God.
Now here’s a crazy thought… what if the all sovereign God decided to show his mercy, love and holiness by dealing with man in such a way that some would choose to serve him, free from all compulsion? Would we dare let God be God, or would we insist that he fit into the box we have created for him?
Might I note that God told the Israelites that they were perfectly capable of keeping his Law. And they didn’t do it. Was it not true that they were capable of keeping the Law? Did God not help them enough? Why does God talk about man choosing disobedience and call upon them to choose righteousness?
God calls man. Continually exhorts him to behave in a certain way. Commands all men to repent. Says that all men may seek him. If it’s not true, I still see it as a cruel hoax.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I am shocked at your proof-texting which strains the hermenuetical and exegetical imagination in order to make the redemptive truth God revealed in Jesus Christ to become a bipartite will of which one is somehow been kept secret from us (except for the fact some theologians have been so enlightened to reveal that secret to us). Your doctrine of election, which I understand to mean that God has only been gracious and merciful to select and limited number of people he has elected, flies against the promise of God to Abraham which have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
I honestly do not understand how Christians holding to such a doctrine of election can also claim God loves everyone. According to such doctrine, as I understand it, that since all people are naturally unwilling to submitt to God in faith, only those whom God wills to submitt in faith do so. Further, since only those who have faith are saved, the saved are only those whom God has ‘elected’ to show mercy by willing them to faith. That is not coherent with love…it is coherent with discrimination and partiality.
Grace and peace,
Rex
K Rex I couldn’t have said any better. You are right on in your assessment of one’s held belief of election. How narrow minded some people are to think that they are the chosen ones. Cutting out free will
as a human function flies in the face of what God intended. For humans to be able to make choices.
I know I’m late to the party, but I’d like to think Rex for quoting Christopher J.H. Wright on the missiological nature of election (Comment #15). I am just now discovering Wright and so far am very pleased.
Hey, Robert… welcome to the party. We’re rocking and rolling all over the theological spectrum. :-)
Hi Tim,
I’ll try to be brief, but that is difficult for me. I’ll also include responses to comments from at least two people in two of your posts in an effort to consolidate.
Above, you said:
“Randall, no offense, but the “Yeah, those are the arguments we always hear…”, “Yes that’s a standard caricature…”, “Oh, that’s what everybody that doesn’t understand says…” gets a bit old. There’s a possible reason why everybody says those things.”
Of course you are correct. I do believe that what I typically hear from those in the CofC are standard caricatures of Calvinism and that the majority of the folks with CofC backgrounds do not understand Calvinism. I understand that may get a bit old and I understand, as you said “There’s a possible reason why everybody says those things.” The reason is that it is true!
Almost all the CofC folks I have discussed Calvinism with learned their concept of Calvinism in the CofC, from CofC folks. We may be great at some things, but accurately and fairly representing the opposition is not one of them. If you feel differently I can acknowledge your right to disagree and I hope you can acknowledge mine. We have never fairly and accurately represented the perspective of almost anyone with whom we disagreed . It is an integral part of our dysfunction. If you doubt me please review the attacks of Foy E. Wallace Jr. Or if you prefer, read the histories written by Leroy Garrett or Richard Hughes. Recount what has become known as the Texas Tradition and see how fairly and accurately the opposition even within the CofC has been represented. Most folks in the CofC, if they learned any Calvinism at all, learned it from the CofC. To say they represented the opposition accurately and fairly is to suggest the Hatfields and McCoys made every effort to be fair to each other. I don’t mean to be a smart Alec. I really do believe our fellowship has been hindered by a lack of fair play and a tremendous overemphasis on believing we are saved b/c we understand everything the right way ( and do church the right way) and those that disagree are not being intellectually honest. I acknowledge I do have have a poor impression of the CofC in this regard.
In one of your recent comments you provided an illustration of a dog chained to a tree that wanted a treat offered by a man. You wrote:
“That’s where we get back to the cruel hoax. Imagine me holding out a treat for a dog that is tied to a tree. Unless I go to him or untie him, he can’t get it. That’s an awful picture. ”
This illustration suggests that Calvinists believe that fallen man wants to accept God’s offer of salvation and that man wants to repent, but he is not allowed to do so b/c God won’t allow him access to his offer of repentance and salvation. Calvinists do NOT believe this to be the case and they do NOT teach this. So yes, I still say that is just another caricature of Calvinism and that it misrepresents what Calvinists believe. It is what the CofC would have everyone think Calvinists believe.
In fact, Calvinists believe that everyone that wants to repent and accept God’s offer of salvation shows evidence that God has worked in their hearts to effect this change. They do NOT believe that God prohibits anyone that wants to come to him from coming. To suggest that Calvinists think this way only shows that one does not understand Calvinism and it does indeed put forth a straw man or caricature of the doctrine. If you would show me one widely accepted Calvinist that teaches this doctrine it would give me cause to reconsider. This is little different from the same old “stuff” I was taught about Calvinism 30 or 40 years ago.
Calvinism teaches that the natural man does not and can not understand and appreciate the things of God b/c he is spiritually blind, deaf, dead and the enemy of God. When God works a miracle in his life, regenerating him and drawing man to himself then man recognizes his sinful state, comes to faith (normally through the hearing/preaching of the word), repents and desires to accept God’s offer of salvation and he then desires to please God. NO ONE is turned away by God that wants to come to faith and repentance.
Now changing to a different thread.
In response to Jr.’s comment about the precepts of God and the decrees of God, Rex surprised me when he said of Jr.’s comment that he was shocked:
“I am shocked at your proof-texting which strains the hermenuetical and exegetical imagination in order to make the redemptive truth God revealed in Jesus Christ to become a bipartite will of which one is somehow been kept secret from us (except for the fact some theologians have been so enlightened to reveal that secret to us). Your doctrine of election, which I understand to mean that God has only been gracious and merciful to select and limited number of people he has elected, flies against the promise of God to Abraham which have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ.”
I do not understand why Rex was shocked unless he is not very familiar with Calvinism (perhaps he learned it in the CofC). The scriptures teach us how man should behave and respond to the precepts taught in the written word. The scriptures also suggest that the natural man will not and can not respond appropriately. It is clear that the lamb was slain before the foundation of the world and that paradise was prepared for the saved and hell for the enemies of God. Calvinists believe that if God had decreed that all men w/o exception would be saved then they would be saved. The scriptures are clear that some will be saved and some will oppose God all of their days. So God’s revealed will is that all men should believe and repent and accept the salvation God offers. Since God knows the end, and has declared the end from the beginning, it is apparent that his decrees are that some men (we don’t know which ones) will come to faith and others will refuse to do so. Calvinists refer to this as the will of God according to his decrees. It is NOT a secret that Calvinists believe this, we’re quite open about it. So I am puzzled as to why anyone that understands Calvinism would be shocked to learn this. It is simply evident that the person is ill informed regarding Calvinism. I have never met anyone that learned of Calvinism from a Calvinist that did not understand this. If one does not understand this it immediately suggests they have only heard the caricature.
Rex’s statement “that God has only been gracious and merciful to select and limited number of people he has elected” suggests that God is unfair to not have shown the same degree of mercy to all men that he has shown to some. As Americans we really have a problem with that. But God has the right to have mercy on whom he will and to harden whom he will. That gets under our skin and we don’t like it. Who does he think he is? He must treat all of us equally! Do we really want God to be fair? I don’t! I want mercy and not fair judgment for if that ‘s what we got we would all be condemned. I much prefer mercy to fairness.
I would be surprised but after 30 years in the CofC as a Calvinist (mostly a Calvinist anyway) I understand that very, very few in the CofC understand Calvinism in any form other that the usual caricature and misrepresented form in which it was portrayed to them.
Instead, we in the CofC believe that God is obligated to treat every person the same, like he was an American – remember the Superman TV show – Truth, Justice, and the American Way! If there is one clear thing in scripture that we overlook, it is that God does not treat every person the same. He chose Israel though she was the least of nations. He chose Issac over Ismael, Jacob over Esau, Moses over Pharaoh etc. He chose Paul, and Paul later says he was set apart from his mother’s womb. We can accept that if we can view it as an isolated incident, but it really aggravates our sense of fair play if we think God does it too much. But God is God and we should not judge him by what we think is right and wrong. Rather we should be thankful he has loved us with an everlasting love and brought us to understand our sinful condition and brought us to kneel at the cross and praise him for the covenant love he has shown to us.
Rex: What theologian has revealed the secrets of God? I know not one.
What I was referencing was Scripture which points to men doing something and God doing something within that same action according to His hidden will. Nobody knew why Joseph was sold into slavery (only that his brothers acted in sin); yet to God, He was sold into slavery so that “many people should be kept alive…” The Scriptures revealed the reason why Joseph was sold into slavery, not a theologian.
And Jesus, telling his disciples that in part the parables are meant to hide the secrets of the Kingdom (Mark 4:10-12) so that those who hear them will not turn and repent. Do we dismiss such Scripture? Or do we actually wrestle with it?
Finally, are we to believe that God loves everybody savingly? If you’re going to make those he loves savingly someone other than the elect of God, then you have the intention of God in Himself wanting to save them and being eternally frustrated. The eternally frustrated God; the eternally unhappy God. Is that truly what we see being presented in the Scriptures? I don’t believe that it is.
“I want to feel I’m my own master: but since the facts seem to be the opposite I had to give in.” – C.S. Lewis
If you can spare 2-1/2 minutes watch this brief excerpt O Christian, know yourself loved in this way…
JR. I still believe you are proof-texting scripture to support your own doctrinal dogma. Both of the scritures refering to Joseph in Genesis and Jesus only support the conclusion that God is providentially at work to bring about his redemptive will. However, it does not prove that any part of his redemptive will is somehow hidden or part of a bipartite will for which one half has not been revealed to us in Jesus and subsequently in scripture. That will of redemption is clear in his promise to Abraham as a promise to all nations/people. Now if somehow God has become a different person in the NT from who he was in the OT and no longer allows people the freedom to come to faith but instead controls who comes to faith by only granting such faith to the elect, then God has not only failed to keep his promise to Abraham but he also does not love all and therefore is not just.
As for the video…thanks for sharing it. John Piper does preach with conviction. Unfortunately, I think he is forcing his dogma under the text but that assertation of mine probably does not surprise you :-).
—————
On a different note…I want you to know that even though we disagree strongly on our doctrine of sorteriology, I appreciate your desire to be God’s servant and strive to know his gift of scripture to us. I don’t want to come accross as a know-it-all because there are actually many more questions that I have than I have answers too. I don’t profess to be anything but a novice when it comes to the historical theology of Calvinism and Arminianism (I have much different theology interests) However, given the redemptive theological trajectory of scripture that begins with God’s promise to Abraham coupled with many passages within scripture, there is just too much evidence against 5-Point Calvinism for me to accept it.
But somehting that may be an interest to this conversation…I just began reading a book that has sat on my shelf for several years but which I have not read yet. The book is Thomas H. Olbricht, “Hearing God’s Voice: My Life with Scripture in the Churches of Christ,” Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1996. In his introduction Olbricht oberves regarding the influence of hermeneutics “The sociological and theological background of any confessional group, therefore, weighs heavily upon its hermeneutics. Hermeneutics are shaped by culture and theology, and once formulated, in turn, shape the culture and theology of a specific body of believers” (p. 16). I have long suspected that hermeneutics, for better or worse, has much more to do with why two Christians reading the same scriptures come to different conclusions on a variety of issues. I first suspected this when how much my Trinitarian/Christo-centric hermeneutic had influence on the moral/ethical issue of non-violence vs. just-war. I suspect much of our disagreement has to do with hermeneutics. I am not a hermeneutics expert either (in fact, I’m not an expert in anything except myself :-)) but I suspect you take a Covenantal approach to hermeneutics since that seems to be the most common hermeneutic among Reformed theologians and preachers. Am I right?
Any ways, take care and keep following Jesus. I’ll try to do the same.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Rex,
Nice comment. Thanks for sharing it.
In your comment you said:
“Now if somehow God has become a different person in the NT from who he was in the OT and no longer allows people the freedom to come to faith but instead controls who comes to faith by only granting such faith to the elect, then God has not only failed to keep his promise to Abraham but he also does not love all and therefore is not just.”
I think that really goes to the heart of the problem many have with Calvinism, that is, they think it makes God appear to be not just or unfair.
I don’t speak for Jr. but I have as many problems with Covenant Theology as I do with Dipensational Theology.
Peace,
Randall
Sigh… do you guys never tire of saying “Yeah, that’s the old proof text,” “Yeah, that’s the caricature,” “Yeah, that’s what people always say.” My goodness! Now I understand why you use the terms of Arminian, Pelagian, etc.—you don’t want to deal with people as individuals, with actual intelligence in their heads. Please. Talk to me as me.
We are strongly influenced by culture, background, etc. That’s one of my points in saying that Calvin’s teachings could only have arisen in Europe at the time it did. It reflects a European mindset placed over the framework of the Bible. It appeals greatly to Westerners, especially at times of great pessimism. In the same way, the concept of free will greatly appeals to the optimistic.
I would say that I believe that every man feels a desire for God. Not everyone can identify what that need is they feel, but they all feel the need. I’m sorry that I made a technical mistake in my dog illustration which keeps me from being me and only throws me in the typical CofC box (the ones in the box keep throwing me out, so at least I get some exercise). Let me try again.
God offers salvation to all. He offers grace to all. He commands all to repent. He wants to bless all families of the world. He poured out his Spirit on all flesh. (Yes, Tim, you’re only quoting from the 66 books that are typically used against Calvinism. Say something original.)
The European mindset of several centuries ago says that not everyone is able to respond to this offering of God, but the offering is put out there. God chooses who gets to respond, but he announces that this is available to all.
I’m sorry. That goes against what I see in the Old Testament and see in the New Testament.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Why did he choose Isaac over Ishmael?
Why did he choose Jacob over Esau?
Why did he choose Moses over Pharoah?
Why did he choose Paul?
To fulfill his covenant faithfulness – his promise to this one guy Abram that through his seed, all nations would be blessed. Election has always been with the God-expressed purpose of working out salvation. God elects some to reflect his glory to all. It has nothing to do with fair play, and everything to do with God’s consistent habit of partnering with humanity to work out creation and salvation and re-creation.
How do you know that he has done that for you? How do you know he has “worked a miracle in your heart?” so that you may understand these things? You could sin tomorrow and discover that you were never part of the elect!
Tim: Well said, I guess we do agree on some things. God offers salvation to all and grace to all. He does this wether we know it or not……..
Tim,
In one sense I am sorry for using words like Arminian and Pelagian. It is not done to avoid dealing with you as an individual anymore than referring to my self as as Calvinist suggests I don’t want to deal with myself as an individual of that I believe everything any Calvinist ever said. Quite simply, I use those terms as short cuts to communication i.e. I don’t have to explain that this is a person that seems to affirm that mankind did not fall in Adam’s fall. If I refer to someone as a Trinitarian or a Unitarian it or a Universalist it saves a lot of words. Really, don’t you think I should try to economize words? LOL.
Yes, I ‘ll acknowledge I am to some degree trapped by the intellectual understandings of my culture and it influences how I think. That is true of all of us. Though this may be the first time on your blog, I have stated many times in the past that all of my thinking about God is necessarily flawed b/c it depends in part on finite human logic, knowledge, and wisdom. None the less, I do try to make the best sense of these issues that I can. And while I disagree with others, I hope I do not leave the impression that I would deny them their own opinions and beliefs. We both believe we are saved by grace and not by good thinking.
Per your comment above “God offers salvation to all. He offers grace to all. He commands all to repent. He wants to bless all families of the world. He poured out his Spirit on all flesh.”
Randall says Amen.
Peace,
Randall
Rex: I do not believe such theology dismisses God’s promise to Abraham in the slightest. Jesus reunited the kingdom of Israel (Luke-Acts), fulfilling prophecy that such a thing needed to take place before the Gentile mission went all out; and so it did. As we see there and later, salvation was and continues to be preached to all men everywhere. Today, salvation is still freely offered to all men everywhere by those like us and courageous missionaries; all of us that obey the commandment and love people enough to share with them the Gospel of Christ.
Revelation 5:9 pronounces the following about Jesus: “for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation”. I take this VERY seriously and I take it as a fulfillment of the promises to Abraham that will happen. God has sheep in every tribe, language, people and tongue; and as Jesus tells us, “I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:16). The theological position that I hold in no way dismisses God’s promises to Abraham.
Tim: I need to take issue with the assumption that this interpretation just appeared out of Europe in the 1500s. I would say this interpretation is as old as creation itself.
In their commentary on Mark, Donahue and Harrington, who are Catholic theologians by the way, say the following regarding the Mark 4:10-12 text. Again, these are Catholic theologians who would probably love nothing more than to criticize any interpretation that came out of the reformation! Yet they write:
“The most disturbing element is the deterministic and sectarian theology on the lips of Jesus. Revelation is given to insiders, and outsiders are consigned in advance to misunderstanding. Any explanation must consider the biblical understanding of God’s sovereignty and the predestinarian thrust of much of biblical and early Jewish thought. This appears in the ‘hardening’ theology of the OT (Exodus 4:21, 8:15,32, 9:34), which, in effect, holds that God can be rejected or resisted by human beings only because God as so willed this in advance. It is present in the commission to the prophets to announce divine judgment; for example Isaiah 6:10, ‘Make the mind of this people dull and stop their ears and shut their eyes.’ [Jeremiah does the same]. The…hidden revelation is given to a select group, creating a strong distinction between insiders and outsiders. … In Mark 13 the course of history is determined [But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days” v.20] and the elect will be saved in the end. While shocking to modern ears, a literal reading of Mark 4:10-12 as promising revelation to an elect few, along with the predetermined rejection by outsiders, would be familiar to many of Mark’s readers.” (Sacra Pagina, The Gospel of Mark, 2002, p.144-145)
What they are saying is that this concept is not foreign on the original audience. In other words, the concept of God predestining His Chosen did not just come out of Europe; it was, in my view, the majority position of early Christianity and before then; of God’s People through the OT.
I could say the same thing to you; that the position you put forth is a product of the enlightenment; where everything must be explained. It is certainly what influenced Barton Stone who refused the whole concept of the Trinity simply because it wasn’t reasonable; and who was more in bed with the Socinians (denial of Christ eternal) than orthodox Christianity.
I appreciate Jr.’s discussion in his comment above and at the same time I think I, like everyone else, am to an extent caught in the intellectual currents in which I was raised and continue to live. Maybe the words caught or trapped are too strong, but we are certainly influenced by our culture and overcome it with difficulty.
Now to the point I would like to make. Earlier I used an illustration for how far man fell and suggested could have fallen into a ditch by the side of the road; or fallen down a 100 foot cliff; or fallen into the abyss where he was utterly, hopelessly and helplessly lost. Of course, I believe the latter option and I may have suggested most in the CofC would choose one of the first two options. The way I presented the illustration I said I had fallen into the abyss but Jesus saved me – period, end of the illustration. Tim replied that he too might say he had fallen into the abyss, but Jesus came to him and offered to save him he would accept the gracious offer. (Sorry I didn’t quote Tim, but I think I got the gist of it right. If not, I request to be corrected.)
In my scenario all the credit goes to God for my salvation as I was utterly lost w/o hope and was saved – it was grace pure and simple. But Tim’s situation was different. God offered salvation to Tim, but Tim had to accept it. In my opinion this is the distinction between Calvinists and all others. In the former case salvation is monergistic (the work of one, namely God) and in the latter case salvation is synergistic, the work of God plus the work (at least the activity) of man.
A Calvinist is quick to place all (100% not 99.44%) of the credit for his salvation on God. You know the phrase “There but for the grace of God go I.” A Calvinist (such as myself) hears a response like Tim made and says I think I hear man taking a little bit of the credit for himself in that he would not have been saved if he had not made the right decision. I think perhaps a Calvinist wants to defend the sovereignty of God (not that it is necessary as God can defend himself). I think perhaps a non Calvinist wants to defend God’s justice/fairness and man’s free will (not that it is necessary as God can defend himself.)
A Calvinist thinks that ultimately God is the best person/being to decide who will or will not be saved and he sees a non Calvinist having man ultimately make that decision since who is saved is based on whether man made the right/best decision. As I said, a Calvinist sees this as an affront to God’s sovereignty and a non Calvinist does not see it that way.
Furthermore, a Calvinist sees God as omniscient and omnipotent. He believes that God knows the end from the beginning. He knew who he was making and how it would ultimately turn out and he chose to do it exactly the he did with these results. He knew Satan would fall and he knew man would fall. He knew Jesus would be the lamb slain for our sin. We don’t know all the ins and outs of God’s plan, but we believe he has one and he is working it out just as has always wanted to. He does not have to go to plan B or C.
We are NOT open theists. We abhor the concept of open theism. We see it as contrary to much scripture that teaches God’s omniscience and omnipotence. We believe God has the power to effect all things he desires. We believe he could have saved all men w/o exception if that is what he ultimately wanted to do. We believe he made all things for a purpose, even the wicked for judgment. And we base this on scripture.
Non Calvinists sometimes think we worship a cruel God and that he made decisions arbitrarily. We believe God never did anything arbitrarily (never ever!) even though we may not understand now why he chose to do things this way. We believe that God’s love for those that are his is eternal, unconditional and immutable. He is the most loving, merciful, forgiving (even towards the likes of me) and magnificent God we can imagine. To him belong all things and all our praise, love and devotion.
I say these things in hopes that you will understand Calvinism better. Not to try to put anyone down or force Calvinism upon anyone. We would just like to be understood and not misrepresented by our church family. Tim has not called names or ridiculed or thrown our candle to the ground, or slammed shut the book of life, but others have. If you doubt it take a look at Jay Guin’s blog.
When I was raised in the CofC Calvinism was mentioned about as infrequently as premillennialism They were both stupidly wrong, everyone knew it and we mentioned only once in while so as to be sure everyone continued to know it. That was the end of the story. Sometimes it seems things have not changed all that much in this respect since my teenage years.
Peace,
Randall
But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:44-48 ESV)
I’d like to stick with the God revealed in the Sermon on the Mount, if that’s alright with you.
Randall,
Thanks for that. Let me emphasize again that I definitely see how the churches of Christ grew out of their cultural environment and were influenced by them. Those are things we all have to fight against. To me a strong example is how most members of the church of Christ were pacifists up until WWII, then pacifism became rare in the mainstream churches of Christ. Did we suddenly discover new Scriptures in the 1940s? Obviously our culture changed, and we changed along with it.
Now about my version of the falling into the abyss example: I don’t see how man would get any credit for his own salvation in that case. How many times do you hear on the news, “A man rescued himself from a raging river today by grabbing a rope thrown to him from the shore”? That sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? All credit goes to the rescuer.
We have established that all of us believe that God has chosen to limit himself in some regard. The question is how. That’s where we differ. Which are the limits that God has placed upon himself? That’s the question. I like your representation of how each side is trying to defend God.
Speaking of influences, I will mention again that I was raised in a church that traced its roots back to T.B. Larimore. I don’t know if that’s the reason, but I grew up with a spirit of acceptance of others that was not common in the churches of Christ of the 60s and 70s. I think that spirit is growing today, but I see lots of the other. In fact, I was at a class at Harding Lectureship last year where the teacher and I had a sharp exchange over Larimore’s legacy. I see him as a fine example; the teacher saw him as a compromiser.
Anyway, I know that there are some who would make anything and everything a test of fellowship. I disagree. I think there’s room for disagreement over topics like this. That’s heresy to some on both sides of the issue, I’m sure. But I believe the Bible clearly, CLEARLY, states that that is essential. Other matters are open to disagreement.
“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim,
As I am sure you are already aware, both Leroy Garrett and Douglas Foster speck highly of T.B. Larrimore and his irenic spirit. Leonard Allen has also written on him but I have not read his comments.
Garrett goes so far as to say “If the spirit of these men [Larrimore and a about 10 others] had prevailed, the history of the Churches of Christ would have been different.”
You were blessed to have been raised in a congregation that maintained his spirit of peace. He is known to have said “No man has a right to make a test of fellowship of anything which God has not made a condition of salvation.” I’ll bet you already knew that, but some of your readers may not be aware ot it.
Peace,
Randall
Tim: I don’t believe I confuse the means and ends because I believe God has ordained not only the ends; but also the means to those ends. Again, “God meant [Joseph being sold into slavery] for good” not “God turned it into good.” God ordained that Joseph be sold into slavery. Let us look at Genesis 45:4-8a
“So Joseph said to his brothers, ‘Come near to me, please.’ And they came near. And he said, ‘I am your brother, Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt. And now do not be distressed or angry with yourselves because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life. For the famine has been in the land these two years, and there are yet five years in which there will be neither plowing nor harvest. And God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors. So it was not you who sent me here, but God .’”
As Jesus told us, “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered” (Matthew 10:29-30).
There isn’t a flight path of a sparrow that has not been written. Jesus is specifically telling us that we are yet more valuable than that and if God has decreed such a small detail as the sparrow, we may fear Him only and trust in Him only because we are His and more valuable than they.
There is not a dust moat floating in your room that is not carrying out the eternally good decree of God. There is nothing on earth or in the heavens, that has not been decreed except for His good purposes. “The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble” (Proverbs 16:4).
There are other examples of this; but one is prayer. We pray not only because we are obedient and thankful and relational, but also because that is the way God has ordained some actions to come to pass. For example, Matthew 9:37-38 reads, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.” In this we have an ordained means to an ordained end. God ordained that we pray to send out laborers and that He will send out laborers. This is just one way of how we play our role in regards to the eschaton. We are not by-standers but role players.
This is the same reason why we preach. “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? … So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:14-17).
God has ordained preaching to be the means by which His Sheep are gathered. And His Sheep know Him and hear His voice and they will come to Him. “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out” (John 6:37). Oh what blessed assurance!
Thanks for laying that out Jr. Yes, that is specifically what I reject. I won’t bore you by repeating the verses, but I believe that the Bible clearly shows God willing to react to what man does, willing to change his plans accordingly.
If everything is as you say, though, all of this is pointless anyway. We’re just typing what God is making us type. In that case, there’s absolutely no sense in discussions like this. We’re just pawns in a big game.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Now we are getting into the question of how God exerts his sovereignty within the cosmos and namely as it relates to humanity. We will never come to any concensus on this blog and we all could cite one text after another to support our view. That is no solution. The resolution is not found in just what do a X number of scriptures but in asking what the scripture means in light of its totality with the expressed goal it speaks of for God’s work. That is a question of theology. So if you are really interested, see Terrance Tiessen, “Providence and Prayer: How Does God Work in the World?”, Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2000. It has been a while since I read the book but I know the author does a fair job of laying out 11 different views (models) of how God’s exercises control in the world, from the one spectrum of Semi-Deism to the other end of Fatalism. Some of the other models include Calvinism, Redemtivism, Open Theism, among others. You can purchase the book on Amazon and other online bookstores.
Grace and peace,
Rex