Why I Am Not a Calvinist (long)
This is a post I have been thinking about and working on for quite some time. It is not meant to be an exhaustive critique of Calvinism or an argument for the purity of non-Calvinist theology. It is a response to the genuine inquiries of those who ask why I no longer hold to the Calvinistic “doctrines of grace” and “sovereignty of God.” Confessional intellectual autobiography and polemical discourse are the genres in which I write, and hopefully it will be apparent at which places I vacillate between the two. I have made a concerted effort to downplay the use of technical jargon, though some will be necessary. When words idiosyncratic to the issues emerge I will do my best to explain them, but I plead for grace in advance for any presumed vocabulary that may be foreign to the gentle reader.
I shall begin by giving the argument that persuaded me to embrace Calvinism followed by a critique of that argument. Then I will survey the major intellectual and personal problem I endured as a Calvinist and show how it served to undermine my faith. Finally I will conclude by highlighting the benefits I received from being a Calvinist and identify my own position. Surely, there will be disagreement and I am not naïve to the possibility of inviting scorn. My only request is that this be read with the same hermeneutic of charity that I have tried to extend to the writings and teachings of Calvinists themselves.
Calvinism’s Strongest Argument
Historical theology’s teaching on the freedom and bondage of the human will almost always begins with the dispute between Augustine and Pelagius. Without diving into all of the historical details of the debate, the disagreement was simple yet profound in answering the following question: Do we do righteous works by our own power or by the grace of God? Pelagius argued the former, Augustine argued the latter. History sided with Augustine and “Pelagianism” was deemed a heresy.
And history got it right. The human will is so in bondage to sin that it is incapable of pleasing God in any meaningful way. So much so that it is necessary for God to graciously intervene and “regenerate” our hearts so that we can move towards him. The analogy often given to help us understand this parallels that of resurrecting from the dead: we are dead in sin and God makes us alive in righteousness so that we might have faith him. Calvinists are wholly and biblically correct to insist that we need divine assistance to draw near God.
From this, Calvinism makes its strongest argument: the argument from grace. Simply put, the argument states that since we are so incapable of pleasing God by our good works he must intervene to save us according to his own power and will. We contribute nothing to our salvation. He is the author and perfecter of our faith from beginning to end and any claim we make for the explanation as to why we are saved, be it good works, wise decision-making, or persistent perseverance under trial, in effect “takes credit” for our salvation and renders grace meaningless. God’s glory is compromised and we are able to boast before God. This understanding of salvation is broadly described as “mongergism,” which means that God is solely responsible for our salvation.
When I first encountered this argument I found it persuasive and still find it persuasive in several ways. There is not a Calvinist in print today who does not appeal to this as the first order of arguments against Arminianism or any free will theology that would claim “synergism”—the idea that God and humanity cooperate in bringing about salvation. However, over time certain flaws became evident to me as I persisted in my Calvinistic faith. The way these flaws emerged will be described below, but I will begin with the result of those flaws in formal argument.
Calvinism’s Biggest Weakness
The problem with mongerism, or the argument from grace, is that it ends up taking so much away from the human will that it takes upon things it would rather distance itself from. If God is solely responsible for our salvation, then it seems that he is also solely responsible for our damnation. God’s eternal choice to save some and not others is unconditional. Yet if we hold to unconditional election unto salvation, then it seems we must hold to its logical corollary: unconditional reprobation unto damnation. Therefore, in same manner, we are apparently saved by God’s grace apart from works and we are damned by God’s condemnation apart from works (Rom 9:11-13). To be sure, I know of no Calvinist that would accept this, and there are a number of reasons why we shall examine below.
The first reason why Calvinists reject this argument is by distinguishing the natures of election and reprobation. Reformed Baptist theologian Wayne Grudem says “the cause of election lies in God, and the cause of reprobation lies in the sinner.” Another distinguishing feature between the two categories is “that the ground of election is God’s grace, whereas the ground of reprobation is God’s justice” (Bible Doctrine, 292). This reasoning, however, fails for it seems to say that election is unconditional and reprobation is conditional. If election is not conditional, meaning it is not in response to foreseen faith or received grace, then on what basis is God’s decision to condemn made conditional, meaning it is in response to foreseen sins? Calvinists might try to wriggle out of this dilemma by speculating about the logical order of God’s degrees. God’s decree to permit the Fall could be logically prior to his decree to save some and leave others to judgment. But this is to no avail, because in both cases the decree to allow sin into the created order and the decree to save some and damn the others is found in God. To assert an asymmetry between election and reprobation (as Frame does. See The Doctrine of God, 334) is virtually meaningless, because we act in accordance with God’s “secret will” (or “will of decree”) which, according to Grudem, is made up of those “hidden decrees by which he governs the universe and determines everything that will happen” (Bible Doctrine, 97). Therefore, the idea of responding to knowledge obtained by divine foresight is nonsense in this system. In Calvinism God cannot be conditioned by his creatures in this way, for humanity’s will to sin is rendered certain by divine decree. God may be conditioned by his own decree, but it is not clear how the following proposition, “A loving God desires to save all (1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9) and at the same time desires the damnation of many for his glory” (Rom 9:22-23) avoids logical contradiction.
The second reason this argument is rejected is because Calvinists believe humans are to be held responsible for their actions. In Calvinism, the doctrine of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility is reconciled by appealing to a form of “compatibilism”—the belief that our freedom is compatible (or not rendered void) by causal determinism: God is absolutely sovereign over the outcome of human decisions in such a way that we are still responsible for them. In this view God cooperates with human beings in every action, directing their distinctive characters and natures to cause them to act as they do. Thus every event is said to be 100% caused by God and 100% caused by the creature (See Grudem: Bible Doctrine, 145). By this understanding of divine providence Grudem states, “God has made us responsible for our actions.” He says “If we do right and obey God, he will reward us” and if we do not do right we will be punished (Bible Doctrine, 152). However, this seems to create a problem for the argument from grace in that God is no longer “solely” responsible for our salvation. Since the decision of faith was caused 100% by God and 100% by the creature, we must conclude that we are responsible for our salvation in the same way we are responsible for our sin. The argument from grace would have us believe God is 100% responsible for our salvation and that we are 0% responsible for it, for grace alone is causally sufficient for our faith in Christ (See Paul Helm in Divine Foreknowledge: 4 Views, 170). If this is true, however, compatibilism is false and we are left with hard determinism. Human freedom, thus, is nothing more than an illusion. Ironically enough, an argument for incompatibilism seems to be given in the end. Of course, the more careful Calvinists theologians deny this and hold that human beings are responsible for their salvation (as we will see below), but in my view this softens the idea that God is “solely responsible” for our salvation and leaves the argument from grace significantly qualified rendering its rhetorical value greatly diminished.
Therefore, while it is in the view of this author that Calvinism puts forward many interesting and even believable arguments from Scriptural proof texts, it nevertheless leaves us with an illogical and unintelligible construct that is inconsistent and confusing, and in my case, damaging.
My Journey to this Conclusion
My journey away from Calvinism began not unlike other journeys with intense reflection on the last letter of the so called “TULIP”: the letter “P”—perseverance of the saints. The first four points of the TULIP all focus on the order of salvation before the moment of saving faith, the last point deals with the state of the believer afterwards. Many who have not studied “5 point” Calvinism in depth are attracted to the teaching of the fifth point, because it ensures a “once saved always saved” theology of eternal security. This certainly was the case with me. The possibility of falling away is a dreadful prospect, and the idea of God’s sustaining grace guaranteeing my safety was most assuring. How the letter “P” in the TULIP could be said to be the weakest link was not apparent to me.
An excurse on the TULIP
A common misconception of the TULIP is that it is thought that one can affirm one, two, three, or even four of the points and still be a Calvinist. Hence, the phenomenon of “4 point” Calvinists who commonly affirm all but the “L”—limited atonement (who would want to limit the atonement?). But the fact of the matter is they were designed to be an interlocking logical unit where if you deny one, you deny them all. If you are a one-point Calvinist, then you are a 5 point Calvinist. If “L” is compromised as “unlimited” then, following from the belief that Christ’s death objectively accomplishes forgiveness on behalf of sinners, universalism—or the doctrine that everyone is saved—is implicated. If “T” (total depravity) is denied then humanity may be able to move towards God without divine assistance. If “I” (irresistible grace) is denied then it is possible for humanity to thwart God’s will to save sinners. If “U” is denied (unconditional election) then God’s choice to save us is conditioned by a foreseen response to him rooting the decision for salvation in ourselves and not in God. And of course, if “P” is denied, then our fallen will is able to overcome God’s saving purposes. All this I learned from good Calvinist teachers before I started to seriously reflect on how “P” could be a faulty premise in the argument.
An Excurse on Relevance
At this point, if the reader is still with me, I would enjoin him or her to remember that all theology is pastoral theology. I do not engage in this logical exercise for the sake of intellectual escapism or cerebral entertainment. Many of the questions that engage these issues are questions of the heart that muse late in the night, or when prayer is not answered, or when a loved one is resistant to efforts of evangelism. I share these logical parameters and arguments to better explain how I encountered and overcame deep psychological dissonance within my faith that was often filled with doubt and despair. I came to the conclusion long ago that we often opt for our theological positions out of pastoral needs rather than by rational argumentation. To be sure, our faith seeks understanding as the head follows the heart in its quest to make sense of deep and enduring questions that perplex and befuddle. This is not to say this is a proper way to do theology (for that would be to work towards ascertaining the true teachings of Scripture), but it is typical and incredibly influential. All of us must be in tune with our pastoral needs before we make any big decisions about these matters.
How Can I Know I Am Saved?
My problems with “P” began late one night after awaking from a dream wherein I vividly stood before God as a condemned man. After confidently thinking I would enter the Kingdom for having trusted Christ for salvation I heard the dreadful words, “Depart from me, for I never knew you.” I awoke in an absolute terror and cold sweat as I contemplated the echoing words in my mind. It was perhaps the only moment in my life I could say I felt what it is like to have absolutely no hope. No amount of effort, prayer, faith or repentance could change God’s immutable verdict. It had been decided. Of course, was only a dream and I recovered after a few hours of meditation. Yet the experience elicited a profound theological question: Had my eternal fate already been decided?
As a student of theology who has wrestled with these issues for a good seven years I now can see how there were many other questions that were contained in this question, but as a terrified believer with seemingly no hope such matters were painfully insignificant. Unfortunately, these moments of dread would continue for six months and I developed an incredible fear of death. It seemed to me that the only way I could know I was saved was by knowing the status of my eternal election. Was I chosen by God for salvation or was I eternally damned before I had done anything good or bad? To be sure, the Calvinist theologian in me had responses to this question, yet none of them sufficed. For example, John Frame states God’s eternal decree to damn “does not prejudice our assurance of salvation.” This is because our “assurance is not based on our reading of the eternal decrees of God, which are secret unless God reveals them, but on the promises of God” (The Doctrine of God, 334). Yet as we shall see, one’s ability to believe the promises of God in a saving manner is conditioned upon God’s eternal decree. Therefore, my Calvinistic theology presented my needs for assurance with an epistemological problem: in order to have assurance I needed to know the status of my election, something that by definition is secret and cannot be known.
A Crisis of Faith and Common Sense
After intense study of all these matters I came to doubt many of the core beliefs of the faith. I did not express my doubts to many people, though I often confessed to others that I was struggling with a terrifying fear of death and did not know I was saved. One evening, I had dinner with a friend and confided my struggles with Calvinism and how it had undermined my assurance. In a wry tone he asked, “So why do you keep believing in Calvinism?” I said that I thought it was a correct interpretation of the Bible. He said, “Well, if you are having doubts about your salvation you are missing out on something very basic to your faith.” Suddenly it dawned on me like a ray of light: I had constructed a complex and unassailable system of doctrine that was denying me by birthright. Shortly after this I reassessed my belief in Calvinism and let it corrode under the sweet promises of Scripture: that eternal life is given to all those who believe in the Son of God—Jesus Christ. Studying Luke’s Gospel, an introductory commentary on the text, standard apologetic arguments for the resurrection, and Dallas Willard’s reflections on the teachings of Jesus revived my faith in a personal God who came in universal love to offer abundant life to all who believe in him. It is the most precious news on the face of the planet. Yet I did not simply let my belief in Calvinism die without a serious attempt at preserving it. What follows are my thoughts and conclusions from a engaged study of a book co-authored by one of my professors on the subject of assurance.
The Problem of Assurance
The problem of assurance has a long and checkered history in Calvinistic theology. Perhaps the most devout practitioners of Calvinism, the Puritans of the 17th and 18th centuries, wrestled deeply with the problem and devised many innovative and ingenious solutions to it. Covenant theology was one idea where God’s immutable nature is said to be bound by a contractual agreement with humankind to never revoke his promise of salvation by faith in Christ through grace alone. Another idea was constructing a theology of discernment that worked to distinguish between “reliable” and “unreliable signs” of regeneration and authentic faith. Many of the Puritan Paperbacks you can still purchase today deal with discerning between true and false expressions of such weighty matters as love, repentance, holiness, and faith. The most famous, and arguably the best treatise in this genre is Religious Affections by Jonathan Edwards. It is a very good book, one of the greatest in American theology.
Yet each of these “solutions” is riddled with the same epistemological problem. Covenant theology more or less states the terms and conditions of the promises that we must believe in order to be saved. This does not in any way give us assurance that we will be able to meet these conditions, for the ability to meet them, according to the argument from grace, is contingent upon God’s unconditional choice to save. Edwards’ Religious Affections, though powerful and stirring in many ways, often leaves one introspective like every other argument in this genre. Does one truly have the “reliable signs” at work in one’s heart or not? Answering these questions almost always is a subjective exercise. John Owen’s treatment of assurance, particularly the warning passage in Hebrews 6:4-6, makes a number of claims that are terrifying to consider. For example he asserts that an insincere believer (one that is not truly saved) can be “enlightened” yet not changed, renewed, or transformed. He or she may “taste of the heavenly gift,” meaning the Holy Spirit, yet still not experience the regenerating work of the Spirit. We may even experience gifting of the Spirit (like Simon Magus did [Acts 8:15-21]), yet fail to taste “the goodness of God, and the powers to come” (Quoted in Schreiner & Caneday: The Race Set Before Us, 195-96). Thus one can have the experiences of a genuine Christian, yet not be a genuine Christian. Therefore, whatever “evidence” we muster in favor of making our election sure could very well be spurious. As many of us know, we have shared deep fellowship with those who are no longer walking with the Lord. For Owen and company, this means that they did not “fall away;” rather, they never were truly saved. We thought they were saved for the same reasons we think we are saved, yet we are lead to conclude they never were saved. Therefore, we have no reason to be assured of our own salvation since our faith, which is seemingly genuine, could in fact be a sham.
A Possible Solution?
Perhaps the best book I’ve read on Calvinism in conjunction with a serious study in biblical theology is Tom Schreiner and A.B. Caneday’s The Race Set Before Us. This is a carefully reasoned and trenchantly argued book that is perhaps the best in print on the subject of perseverance and assurance from the Calvinist perspective. The meticulous attention paid to different viewpoints, the thorough exegesis, and the pastoral sensitivity make it a “must read” for anyone in search of real and weighty answers to the vexing problems listed above. The authors do not make the error in the argument from grace that so many Calvinists do in that they treat the sanctification and the perseverance of the chosen believer true to compatibilist terms that dignify his or her responsibility in salvation.
In summary, the book’s argument seeks to make sense of the biblical warnings against falling away (see Rom 8:13; 11:17-24; I Cor 9:27; Gal 5:4; Col 1:23; I Thess 3:5; I Tim 1:19-20; II Tim 2:17-18; Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-31; Jas 5:19-20; II Pet 2:20-22), and criticizes three popular views of perseverance and assurance common among Christians as well as a fourth that is idiosyncratic to certain thinkers in the scholarly world (see here for more my initial interaction with this book). The first of which they repudiate is the simple “loss of salvation” view, which means what it says: genuine believers are able to lose their salvation by failing to persevere. Second is the “loss of rewards” view, which simply entails the loss of certain benefits in heaven, though not salvation, if one walks away from the faith. Third is the “test of genuineness” view which is the view of Owen (above) where a believer devises a system of biblical “tests” that looks for true signs of faithfulness. Falling away proves one never was genuinely regenerated in the first place. The fourth view is the so-called “hypothetical view” that only imagines the idea of a believer falling away, yet maintains the reality of which an impossibility.
Schreiner and Caneday give serious arguments demonstrating flaws in each of these views, if not dismantling them entirely, and present their own view of the warnings: the “means of salvation view” (pp. 38-40). In this view the warnings are the means of eliciting faith in God’s promises, and do not imply the possibility having salvation and falling away from it. No true believer will fail to heed the warnings, thus rendering them compatible with God’s sovereign election and human responsibility. The warnings, then, function as a means of God’s grace to the elect that only the elect are able to heed via the sovereign grace of God. The solution is ingenious because it directs the believer and unbeliever to the promises of God through the warning passages and honors their responsibility of the believer to persevere in believing them. Yet it is not unlike the other views in that it is not without its own problems.
The Molinist Objection
At this point I must tread carefully since I am waging disagreement with a professor from my school. Though I have not taken one of his classes, I am told Professor Caneday does not suffer fools lightly and is very able in defending his view (his blog is here). Yet I will persist with an objection that he has anticipated and formulated a rebuttal to in the appendix to his book. This objection was articulated in an article by William Lane Craig entitled “Lest Anyone Should Fall”: A Middle Knowledge Perspective on Perseverance and Apostolic Warnings where he essentially argues that the “means of salvation view” is actually more coherent in a “middle knowledge” perspective. Middle knowledge is the view of God’s knowledge that contains what his creatures would freely do in any given circumstances (or “possible world”) before he creates the world. This contrasts with the Calvinist perspective in that it allows for libertarian free will, which is a view of freedom that is incompatible with causal determinism. Without diving into the details of this highly technical view and how it relates to the issue at hand, Craig’s view of middle knowledge boils down to the following proposition:
1. If the warnings had not been given, the believers would have fallen away.
He asks,
Does the [Calvinist] regard (1) as true or not? If he holds that (1) is true, then it seems clear that the believers are in fact capable of falling away, for in the closest possible worlds in which the antecedent of (1) is true, they do fall away.
How do Schreiner and Caneday respond to the question “Are believers capable of falling away?” The answer is not so clear. Since Schreiner and Caneday are Calvinists the short answer is that they cannot. Textually, they argue that the warnings do not imply falling away anymore than road signs warning of slippery bridges imply we will slide off the road; they point to conceivable outcomes, not probable consequences (See pp. 208). However, this seems to miss the point by confusing probability with possibility. A conceivable outcome is not that much different from a possible outcome, especially when we consider the warnings against backsliding and shipwrecking the faith. The supposition, “If you swallow arsenic you will die” doesn’t prove one will or that it is likely one will swallow arsenic. Yet it treats swallowing arsenic as a real possibility. One is capable of swallowing arsenic in the same way someone is capable of falling away (see Rom 8:13). This creates a problem for the Calvinist view since it this possibility is exactly what it denies. Schreiner and Caneday’s rebuttal of Craig does not seem to deal with the substance of his proposition and instead gets bogged down in calling attention to fallacies of argumentation and misrepresentation concerning tangent details that lead up to it. While I grant they may be technically correct in naming these, they are not fatal to Craig’s concluding proposition which is the first premise in an otherwise sound argument. As far as I can tell Craig is able to make sense of the real possibility of falling away and the means necessary for guarding against it via God’s middle knowledge, which Calvinism cannot.
The Irrelevance of the Solution
However, even if the Molinist objection is shown to fail, I am not sure that Schreiner and Caneday’s view can transcend the problems of the “test of genuineness” view. When reflecting on “fallen runners” Schreiner and Caneday contrast the lives of Peter and Judas. Both Peter and Judas “failed to persevere” in their own ways. Yet Jesus intercedes for Peter so that his faith will not fail (Luke 22:31-32), and in the end he is restored. The fate of Judas, however, is one of judgment as he goes to his bitter death with much remorse, but no repentance. Schreiner and Caneday conclude that for those whom Christ intercedes (Heb 7:25) they will persevere. Those that have not been “given by the Father to the Son” will eternally perish (pp. 248-49; 251-53). Peter represents the former and Judas the latter. Therefore, we are back to the same epistemological problem: how can we know the Father has given us to the Son and that Christ is interceding on our behalf? Without having the knowledge of our eternal election we can have no assurance that we will persevere, for we have no assurance we will be given the grace to exercise the faith necessary for our salvation. Thus the warnings are meaningless to the unregenerate and the “means of salvation” solution to problem of assurance is irrelevant.
Concluding Thoughts
There are many, many other issues that I could write about, but this post has gone on long enough. However, I want to be clear with my Calvinist brothers and sisters that I do not look back on my time in Calvinism with disdain or regret. While in the end the drawbacks far outweighed the benefits, the benefits were duly enriching. Through Calvinism I came to respect both reason and biblical authority and that neither are properly honored without the other. I came to learn the great truths of the gospel in a deeper way that helped solidify my faith in the grace of God over and against my own works. It taught me that God answers to no one and may do whatever he pleases. I see no reason to hold Calvinism or those who teach it in contempt, nor do I claim to have believed it in the way it has been traditionally understood. This post is simply my intellectual autobiography and concluding reasons from my encounter with Calvinism. As an Arminian Molinist I am not naïve to the problems in my view. However, I think there are less problems in it that serve my faith better. In my view I can rest on the universal love of God expressed through Christ; this is the anchor or my soul. No longer must I speculate about the secrets discriminations of a “God behind the God”—for I can fix my eyes on Christ and run the race with joy, scorning the same shame of the world, the same shame it heaped on the crucified God.
September 10th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Hi Adam,
Very nice article, and I rarely find anything worth reading about Calvinism, either pro or con.
A couple of remarks: interesting your problem was with P, I normally find the L more problematic. But yes, P and “being sure you are sure,” results in a sort of unlivable life. This is especially true when you actually look at how Jesus talks about judgment, which is far removed from Dordt’s Calvin on Augustine on Paul, which is what five-point Calvinism boils down to, IMHO. It seems clear from Jesus’ parables that many people who think they are saved will not be saved, while many people who are unsure of their salvation on the day of Judgment will in fact be saved.
But may I suggest that there is a more fundamental problem than the various epistemological issues you raise?
My critique of Calvinism is not that it misinterprets Scripture, but that it uses language in a way that fundamentally departs from how language is used in Scripture. It’s like there is a contest to build sand castles and Calvin turns out with a great castle built out if play dough or something like that. His presupposition that election refers to God making choices about individuals isolated from the church is, as far as I can see, entirely removed from the concept of the person that pervades both the New and Old Testaments.
Christ is the Elect of the Father. If we are in Christ via his church then we are in the Elect. That is how we can speak about being elect–by being in Christ via his church, and we enter and persist in that church by confession of faith and sacrament.
But enough of that. Glad to see you are coming closer and closer to Anglicanism
What did you think about ++Orombi’s article in FT?
September 10th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Posted a link over at Islam and Christianity
September 10th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
I think the hyperlink did not work for some reason. I mean over at www.islamdom.tk.
September 10th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Thanks Abu. I think you may be onto something with the invisible v. visible problem Calvinism seems to implicate: that election/salvation is something that is secret and invisible instead of tangible our faith can rest on.
I liked Orombi’s article in FT very much. I wrote a post about it actually, and lo and behold you and your lovely wife commented on it! That reminds me–when is the baby due?
September 10th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
[…] avern.com/archives/2007/09/10/1454824.html” rel=”bookmark”>
Get the torches boys. Why I’m Not A Calvinist I can smell the smoke already.
Posted by: Adam Omelianchuk @ 2:21 pm |
[…]
September 10th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
[…] ianchuk’s “Why I am Not An Open Theist” will want to read his new essay: “Why I Am Not a Calvinist.” The pictured book is Walls and Dongal, “Why I Am Not A Calvinist.̶ […]
September 10th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Hey Adam ~
Religious Affections is the only book I’ve read yet - that has caused me to tremble before a Holy God and shut me up without a word to say for myself. God surely wants us to have assurance, but what then?
Do we have faith in our faith or faith in Christ?
Though I’m typically an extravert, thoughts of standing before the Lord (like your very sobering dream/nightmare) with the knowledge that He has every right, tons of evidence in my sins of commission AND omission - to send me straight to hell……..I know so deeply that all I can plead is - Jesus is mine…..I love Him.
I’m still wrestling with the P myself…….and oddly, I’ve been reading “The Race set Before Us” just in the last two weeks.
My instructor at Bethlehem is very insightful……his blog (specifically set up for this book) is http://nicknowalkclasses.blogspot.com
He’s probably the most excellent instructor/communicator at BBC, next to Piper, (he was my TBI teacher and bible study leader for 2 years)
Thanks for taking the time to write the post…..I appreciate your thoughts and can sympathize with your heart in the matter….sometimes Calvinism can tend to seem like………a ‘going through the motions’ theology…where there is no heart…no relationship because of the kindness and severity of God. But it helps the heart to just to rest, and to remember that “any who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved”
Tis true - regardless of our being arminian or calvinist - Jesus is everything.
You’re a great brother ~
See you soon
September 10th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Them is some great books you are reading, Jen. A Classic and a modern view (from two really good scholars). I hope The Race Set Before Us encourages your faith like it did mine. Even though I didn’t totally agree with it in the end, it is still one I can’t recommend enough.
PS: I like that Nick guy. He is a good teacher.
September 10th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Your focus on assurance as the Calvinist Achilles heel is dead on and brilliantly stated. May this get a wide reading.
September 10th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Thanks Michael! We’ll see how it is received.
September 10th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
I guess I was wrong when I thought assurance was not the problem of our age. It seems to me too much confidence in our salvation is our current era’s problem. Your struggle seems to go against my assertion.
It is interesting that the Federal Vision group is wrestling with the same issue and yet trying to develop a Calvinist response. As your post indicates, perhaps a Calvinist response is not possible, and that is why the Federal Vision guys are being condemned in their denominations.
September 10th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Good point too Caine ~
While the doctrine of Sovereign Grace (TULIP) causes people to tremble and question and even to despair of themselves…..that’s not such a bad thing. I think it’s one of the best things that has ever happened to me……
With a BIG view of God and a right view of man in relation to Him…..knowing more deeply just how very much we deserve hell - only increases love and a clinging and longing to Christ.
I’d agree with Caine.
Forgive my broad generalization, but there is very little trembling among the believers in the American Churches…….it’s more like “God is love and He’s big and he’s out there somewhere and he’s nice.”
When I was wrestling with whether or not I was saved…..I distinctly remember that when I told a few sisters about it, they were so quick to correct me and say, oh sure you are saved….and they proceeded to list a bunch of external reasons for why they believe it to be so. But I know my heart……which they cannot see. Their constant attempts to encourage me made me look at them and think “I’ve even fooled them”
Now, looking back….I don’t doubt that I’ve been saved since my broken conversion in 2000…….but that IMMENSE grief and despair deepened my faith. I don’t have a text for it….but my assurance comes now in fruit. Ie….when I respond in some way that I KNOW is NOT normally how I would…….or I am moved to do something outside my comfort zone and given grace to do it with joy. (it’s like -what in the???)
Or sacrifice my preferences happily for others. (opoosite of my selfish nature……granted, I wish to grow more consistent in this - thank God for Jesus!)
Those times shock me and bless me. Ever surprise yourself?
whew.
The best part is that it is OF the Father not my flesh……the fruit in my life is no longer being stapled to the tree……it is fruit from the Spirit of God Himself, the vine.
September 10th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Oh, my whole point was I agree with Caine…..that generally……people have too much assurance.
Seems that people who have little /no fruit seem to have the most confident assertions of their being saved. The people that I know that have the most grace, don’t know it.
September 10th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
This does seem to make it clear that there are enough loose ends to go around, whether you’re a Calvinist or Arminian. As a Calvinist, I think I’ve got some pretty good answers, but I can see how one might find those answers unsatisfying.
The issue of assurance is one that a lot of people struggle with. There are certainly ways to frame the issue of assurance that make Calvinism problematic, but then again, I think you can do the same thing with Arminianism.
In other words, yes, one can argue that, under Calvinism, salvation is ultimately dependent on the decree of God, then my inability to know God’s decree makes my salvation unknowable. And of course there are responses to that which fit within the Calvinist scheme.
But more to the point, the problem of assurance is not unique. Any theology that cannot peer into the future leaves the present question of my salvation indeterminate. If the Arminian account is true, and my salvation is not dependent upon the prior decree of God, but upon my action of exercising faith, then whether I will be saved remains unknown. Why? Because it is dependent upon the genuineness and vitality of my own faith, which can be questioned.
The genuineness of my faith is subject to my own fears and doubts at the same points as one’s election is for a Calvinist– e.g., times of sin and trial.
You might say that an Arminian can have assurance because he can rightly appraise his own faith and see that it is real. The problem is that this would also solve the problem of assurance for a Calvinist. If a Christian is capable of ascertaining the genuineness of his own faith, then for a Calvinist, this means he can know he’s elect, because only the elect have genuine faith.
September 10th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
i, too, have known the intense struggle that comes from a lack of assurance. for two years, i had absolutely NO hope of salvation. it was the antechamber of hell itself. thankfully, god’s restored a spirit of adoption to me, through strong fellowship with encouraging believers, but the horror returns every now and then. i related to your post!
September 10th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Hey there
Thanks for the time and thought put into this article. I’d love to discuss this further or see more. One clarification I’d seek is why it seem you’re using “assurance” of salvation and reference “once saved always saved,” which is not a traditional Calvinist position, but perseverance is.
What are your thoughts on that?
I’ve got so many other thoughts, but I doubt that trying to dialogue about it here is overly valuable! Thanks again.
September 10th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Baby is due any day now. My wife will post pics on her blog when she arrives!
September 10th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Dear Caine:
I want to point out that I, as a very Orthodoxy-oriented Anglican have a favorable opinion of the federal-vision pastors, want to point out that there is a very substantial interstice between Calvin as one source among many and Calvin as the TULIP guy, and that in that space there is a lot of space for exploring questions of Election and grace.
Don’t buy Dordt, but proceed with elements of Calvin’s reflections as a beginning point–I think that is all he would have desired.
September 11th, 2007 at 7:03 am
One clarification I’d seek is why it seem you’re using “assurance” of salvation and reference “once saved always saved,” which is not a traditional Calvinist position, but perseverance is.
What are your thoughts on that?
Mike, good question. I will try to keep up with the questions as best I can! First of all, you are correct to point out that the “once saved always saved” idea as it is commonly understood is not the same thing as Calvinism’s “P.” I agree with that. I should have made it more clear in my post that “P” teaches that we must persevere in our faith until the end, while “once saved always saved” (OSAS) does not. However, I think OSAS is implied in a sense by “P” in that it is contingent on “U.”
September 11th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Ochuk,
Where do you think the idea of OT sacrifice fits into the idea of assurance (or does it at all)?
Peace…Nick
September 11th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Nick, I am not sure that it does since I am not familar with any OT character finding assurance in their sacrifices. Mostly what I have found is false assurance. However, if I were to give an answer, I would say that they play a role in pointing towards the object of faith, which is God’s covenantal promises.
September 11th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Not much to add. Just appreciated your post. I’ve found the Calvinistic “P” to be problematic for years for exactly the same reasons you have stated. A Calvinist buddy of mine a few years ago was in danger of going off the deep end because of the same issue. I don’t know why this issue doesn’t get more discussion.
September 11th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Ochuk! Wow. I greatly respect your journey. Well articulated. I have to admit, however, I look forward to the article entitled, “Why I am not an Arminian Molinist!”
It is certainly time to move towards a more relational articulation of the gospel in light of our late-modern cultural context *Cough*Shults*Cough*.
I would like to see you explore some theological positions that don’t error on the side of positioning God’s designing influence solely at the beginning of chronological time. You may find more freedom in your theological inquiries with an image of God who continuously and redemptively draws (rather than pushes) humanity towards the teleological goal of human longing and desire.
If you would like to do some reading together…I would love to revisit some of these thoughts myself.
September 11th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
I think you are still confused by friend. In my mind, the inner struggles you have had to “P” are not even a struggle. I think your first problem is that you feel the need to define everything by a system instead of by Scripture. Scripture is Truth, not a system.
Of course all true believers will persevere. What the Scripture is teaching is simply that there will be fruit. Your insistence that you must KNOW from a theological standpoint whether or not you are elected is silly. This question does not have to be known in the way you assert. This is something we either know or don’t know in real time. The book of First John is very clear about what the life of a true believer looks like. Paul insists that we continually examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith.
The problem we have is that we are trying to interpret Scripture from a pre-determined standpoint, when in actuality it was written to help us apply truth in real time too. It is both simultaneously. Salvation is either yours or it isn’t. If you have questions about this, simply examine yourself in the light of the tests of 1st John. If you fail the tests, you don’t know God. So, seek Him. Who cares whether or not you are “predestined” at this point and whether or not you can know? This is a silly thing to worry about. Do you want to know God? Seek His face. Will this seeking of God change whether or not you are one of the elect? Absolutely not- but who knows what means God will use to save you or draw you?
Honestly, it sounds to me like you’ve outsmarted yourself man. God elects, but man still must act and still does. Stop worrying about things that can’t be known. Seek God with your whole heart and live. Let Him sort out the rest. Now, if you don’t hate sin, if you don’t desire holiness, if your life is patterned after the world, and if you continually sin without remorse or discipline, then you should be afraid. Be VERY afraid. So, the conclusion? God has decreed it from the foundation of the world, but you still must live and you still must persevere. In my opinion, it’s foolish to try to split the hair you have split here.
September 11th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
The crisis of faith that led me to openly reject Calvinism for two years has brought me full circle.
Embracing a synergistic view put me on the treadmill of self focus instead of the finished work of Christ. If I’m not looking at what Jesus has done then I inevitably will start looking at my “walk” and that doesn’t compare very well to accepting the fact that I am already clothed in the righteousness of Christ.
September 11th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
The problem of assurance gets worse since it is possible for God to predestine you to think you are elect when in fact he has predestined you to be a reprobrate. The belief in assurance and attending experiences are perfectly compatible with reprobation.
Another way to look at the entire problem is to remove monergism from anthropology and put it in Christology. What do we get them? You end up with monoenergism or monothelitism, a major Christological heresy. Monergism in anthropology is simply a Christological heresy placed in anthropology. But since people very often start with human needs or human nature in general, rather than Christology first, this is not apparent.
Synergism is therefore based in the Hypostatic Union of divinity and humanity in the one divine person of Jesus Christ.
September 12th, 2007 at 7:20 am
Daryl H,
While I know you are intending to be helpful, I don’ think your comment was. I’m not sure what exactly you were trying to say, but how you could say my struggle wasn’t really a struggle seemed quite arrogant to me. And your charge that I think systematically over and against thinking biblically isn’t fair or reasonable (a false dichotomy). By criticizing me for not applying tests from 1 John to work out my assurance in “real time” belies your charge that only I interpret scripture from a “predetermined” standpoint, for you do precisely the same thing since you obviously subscribe to the “test of genuineness view” with regard to interpreting the biblical warnings. The problem that I tried to communicate is that in Calvinism election is what is decisive in salvation—not my actions that can “tested” against Scripture. They very well could be spurious as Owen’s remarks indicate. My insistence to know whether God loved me and died for me is not silly by any means. It is integral to the gospel. Election is tied to those very basic things that make up the object of our faith. Simply saying “stop worrying about things that can’t be known” is worthless advice to one who simply wants to know if God cares enough to love and save her.
September 12th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Faith plays such a critical role in all of our thinking, it becomes almost impossible to separate the two. Is my knowledge based upon my faith or my faith based upon my knowledge? I believe it was Augustine who said “I believe in order that I may know”. If I believe that to be true (and I do), than I accept, that there was something at work within me before I believed, to cause me to believe in the first place. Gods’ Spirit at work in the heart of man from the very beginning. We all are given a choice to act on that work. The intellectual pursuit of a God who cannot be pursued intellectually (many may argue that point and I have no problem with that) has caused most of the division that is in Christ’ Church today. We have all learned from our different faith traditions what to believe and what not to believe, and our belief is based on those teachings. The fact that you were willing to step away from those things was based on a spiritual yearning for truth and not an intellectual one. The intellect plays a key role but only as it is driven by a deep rooted spiritual desire to know God. The deeper issue is not one of which faith tradition I choose to align myself with whether it be Calvinism or something else, but my faith in Christ Himself and what that means to me. I ask myself two questions 1.) What does it mean to be in Christ? 2.) What does it mean to be a disciple of Christ?
Now I am on an incredible journey “to know Christ”?
September 12th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Brian Abasciano clued me onto this post on your blog unaware that you and I have common ground.
Dr. Caneday is one of my old professors and, as you’ve said, co-authored what I consider the best defense of the Baptist/Calvinist position in The Race Set Before Us. In one section of the book, Dr. Caneday worked through five views of Hebrews 6 exhaustively setting them forth. As I recall, the Calvinists in my class (everybody but me) thought the book was great and biblically presented everything a Calvinist believes as well as why opposing views were in error. Despite this, I pointed out that Caneday hardly interacts with Robert Shank’s works who 40 years prior to the publishing of The Race Set Before Us, well argued against Caneday’s position. Moreover, Caneday and Schreiner didn’t interact whatsoever Marston and Forster’s God’s Strategy in Human History which is strange given their work is prominent within Arminianism and has been continually in print for nearly 35 years.
Overall, Northwestern’s Pastoral Theology program is a good program but my impression then, as now, is that Northwestern’s Bible department would do well by become increasingly familiar with what the rest of the evangelical community is thinking and writing. My fellow classmates—by now all pastors and burgeoning theologians—are likely still unaware unaware of Shank’s books Life in the Son and Elect in the Son.
FWIW, those wishing to ground themselves in classical Arminian soteriology, I’d highly suggest Thomas Oden’s The Transforming Power of Grace as a primer. And Adam, since I’m in town, look me up if you want to talk theology to whatever level you’re comfortable with.
God bless,
Eric Landstrom
September 12th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Hey ochuk, here’s my trouble. Faith is both theological and practical. It simply appears to me that your struggle is with attempting to make a very practical part of faith too theological. Theology is not our end- but giving glory to God is- and knowing Him is. So, what does the Scripture say about knowing? That’s all I want to know. I don’t want to know what your system says about it. I don’t want to know what ANY system says about it.
I don’t mean to insult your struggle. I just think it is a futile struggle. I’m not saying it’s futile to seek to know whether or not God loves you and died for you- but I think that’s what faith is all about- believing. If you can’t believe it, you’re not one of His. All of this talk of spurious actions brought about by God deceiving someone into thinking they are elect is foolish. Where does the Scripture say that? I tell you that this thought is from the mind of a man- a man who is deceived. Is it not obvious that God wants us to know these things? Isn’t that one of the purposes of Scripture? Isn’t that the entire PURPOSE of the book of 1st John?
No, I say these “spurious” works are only spurious to those on the outside. A person is not truly fooling himself, and certainly not fooling God. A person can’t FAKE desires that have come from a new nature. A person can fake the outward work, but they can’t fake the inward change. You can’t FAKE whether or not you hate sin. Now, you can avoid it out of desire to do your duty, but will an unregenerate person truly HATE the things God hates? Will they not instead love those things but feel they must avoid them in order to be approved by God?
I probably don’t fit into a neat mold of calvinist or arminian, though I’m certain I agree with reformed teachings and teachings related to grace. And perhaps I’m just not smart enough to fully understand your arguments here, but I just think you’ve overly systematized this whole thing, and I do see a danger in that. By the way, how does your Arminian theoligy teach you to KNOW whether or not you’re saved? I’m very curious about that, because I’m assuming you’ve found comfort in this new system.
September 12th, 2007 at 9:05 am
We are always so worried about some kind of “feeling” that we are certain about something. I think our brother Husserl knew we did know things, but he was very clear that what we can know is very limited. On the matter of our own salvation, we should always be concerned about this matter. Anyone who takes himself to be a saint is probably not. However, if God was healing people through my touch, like Agnes Sandford, I’d be pretty sure I was saved because of my friendship with Jesus. Now, I know some will read my comment and wonder if I’m some kind of New Ager. Well, I’m not and neither was Sanford if you took the time to read a Christian who is much more mature than Calvin could ever have dreamed to be.
After years about worrying about so many issues that “cannot be solved in the abstract, they must be lived out” (Dallas Willard), I realized that most Western Christians (including me) have completely missed the point!! Just realize that Willard is more a more mature C
September 12th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Ochuk, I kind of agree with Darryl that you’re missing the point. If you try to separate election from a response in faith to the gospel, then you’re misunderstanding election.
And yes, on its face, pitting systematic against biblical theology is a false dichotomy. But that’s not what he was saying. The claim was that you were adding an extra-biblical component to a robustly biblical overall system, and that addition made the whole thing start to creak and wobble. What you were doing to draw that criticism was glean from a strain of Calvinism the notion that one can have some means, other than the fruits consistent with repentance, of one’s status as elect.
There may be a venerable tradition of such vain explorations, but that doesn’t make it biblical, as you would now, no doubt, agree. But it also doesn’t make Calvinism wrong. Just because we don’t have access to God’s eternal decree doesn’t mean that it’s not there.
Your argument on assurance does not falsify Calvinism in any way. The test you use to determine that your faith is genuine (as an Arminian Christian) would demonstrate, from a Calvinist viewpoint, that you are elect. Trying to use this as evidence against Calvinism is like comparing a Ford Mustang with a Yugo, and noting that, when you pound on the Mustang’s hood, it doesn’t start, but when you turn the key in the Yugo’s ignition, it starts.
September 12th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Darryl,
Not everyone thinks of theology as a human construct nor makes the kind of sharp divide that you attempt to make between the practical and the theological. In fact the latter owes more to Aristotle than to Scripture.
As for deception coming from God, isn’t this the way that Calvinists read say God sending an evil spirit to King Saul? Or isn’t this in fact what follows from Calvinist premises? People can think they are elect and in fact not be? Are there no reprobate that think so?
As for knowledge, isn’t that the point, that namely on a Calvinistic reading it seems quite impossible to know since while the promises are made to the elect based on no condition in them, it is not possible to know if the condition has been fulfilled on the part of the divine will in reference to yourself in particular. To appeal to a “new nature” which not only smacks of Manicheanism, is simply to restate the problem all over again. Thinking you have a new nature is perfectly compatible with being divinely deceived into thinking you have one.
September 12th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Against my better time-management judgment, I am going to come to Adam’s defense…but I don’t have time to stick around long…
Darryl, you separate theological and practical aspects of faith. Are these really separate? It seems that Adam is simply very aware of how certain theological frameworks impact practical (or existential) aspects of faith. Could it be that you are generally unaware of how your particular theological perspective forms your experience of faith?
If you had a better grasp on your own theological assumptions then you may be better equipped to understand (and demonstrate empathy for) Adam’s struggle. Instead you critique Adam, not according to his very practical experience of a particular theological framework, but by your own theological perspective—which you seem generally unaware of. This is not a just criticism of Adam.
You first “need to walk a mile in his shoes.”
September 12th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Daryl: you asked By the way, how does your Arminian theoligy teach you to KNOW whether or not you’re saved?
Assurance is a problem in every system, as it has been pointed out, because no one knows the future. One thing you talked about in your follow up comment is the necessity of faith and that, in of and itself, it brings assurance. I believe that is partially true. Faith in the promises of God bring assurance because the promises contain assuring components for those who believe. However, faith isn’t simply knowledge by itself–it grasps knowledge in its own way. In other words, there needs to be an OBJECT of faith that is objective. Arminian theology can tend to locate assurance wrongly in the will of the believer and so cause anxiety (as in the case of Jim H). However, one thing Arminian theology does have going for it is the simple belief that God is FOR us and that nothing can seperate us from his love. The universality of God’s saving love is an objective fact in Arminian interpretation. It is not in Calvinism. So for me, the OBJECT of faith is more concrete–I say by faith that God loves me, died for me, and wants to see me through to the end. I dare not resist such grace. In Calvinism, however, this OBJECT of faith is absent. I can not know if God loves me or died for me. I just have to believe that he did.
Alan,
You are correct in that the epistemological crisis doesn’t invalidate Calvinism at all. I only brought it up to catalog my journey into Schreiner and Caneday’s book and how I came to find “P” to be incoherent. I tried to give other arguments that specifically addressed the truth claims of Calvinism, yet also wanted to show why I was motivated to make them. Does that make sense?
September 12th, 2007 at 10:44 am
I still agree with caine.
haha
September 12th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Sure. So let’s take Craig’s argument, then.
I don’t see why the “possible worlds” scenario is incompatible with Calvinism. On the Calvinist account, the warnings are God’s means of supplying grace to his elect such that they will persevere in the faith and not fall away.
So a Calvinist could say this. The writer of Hebrews was describing what would have happened if God had, in some possible world, ordained there not to be such grace (the warnings) supplied to these people; absent that grace, they would have fallen away.
We are elect unto glory, like a house is built to have a roof. Absent the house frame, the roof would fall. Absent the means of grace, we would not reach glorification.
So I’m not really seeing how your objection hits the mark against Calvinism.
Therefore, we are back to the same epistemological problem: how can we know the Father has given us to the Son and that Christ is interceding on our behalf? Without having the knowledge of our eternal election we can have no assurance that we will persevere, for we have no assurance we will be given the grace to exercise the faith necessary for our salvation.
However, one thing Arminian theology does have going for it is the simple belief that God is FOR us and that nothing can seperate us from his love. The universality of God’s saving love is an objective fact in Arminian interpretation. It is not in Calvinism. So for me, the OBJECT of faith is more concrete–I say by faith that God loves me, died for me, and wants to see me through to the end. I dare not resist such grace. In Calvinism, however, this OBJECT of faith is absent. I can not know if God loves me or died for me. I just have to believe that he did.
I’m not quite in tune with that reading of Calvinism, but I don’t think it’s critical, so we’ll leave that to the side. What’s critical here is that Arminianism doesn’t give you any more of a solution to the problem you’re identifying. The essence of your objection is that in Calvinism, God gives 100% which makes me give 100%, but since my 100% is based upon his, and I can’t know whether he’s giving 100% or not, I can’t know if I’ll be saved. But contrast that with Arminianism and you don’t get any closer to certainty. God gives 50%, you give 50%. God always gives 50% under this theory. So all you have to account for is whether you’re giving your 50%, and you know that you’re saved. But can you know that you’re giving your half? If so, that works to give a Calvinist assurance, because if he can discern that he’s giving his part, then modus ponens, we can show that God is giving his part.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:29 am
RE Craig’s Argument: Great questions, Allan. The key distinction in Craig’s argument is that grace is “extrinsically efficacious” vs. “intrinsically efficacious.” This means that the warnings imply that it is possible to fall away if they are not heeded via the means of a rebellious libertarian free will. The Calvinist denies this because grace is “intrinsically efficacious.” For even in this world there are believers that do not have a whole bible or a bible at all to warn them of apostasy. God, then, ordains other means to keep them from falling away, because, according to Calvinism, it is *impossible* to fall away. Such an impossibility implies the warnings are superfluous in that they do not point to the real possibility of falling away. This is what I tried to demonstrate with the arsenic example. Molinism is more coherent when dealing with contingents of counterfactual creaturely freedoms than Calvinism because it allows the issue of libertarian freedom to obtain. If it does obtain, “P” is false.
I think your objections to synergism (God=50; me=50) are interesting and worthy of further reflection, but still I think it is incorrect to say that Arminianism doesn’t give “any more” assurance than Calvinism. At the very least in Arminianism I know God is absolutely for me. He wants me to be saved, he wants me to persevere and his promises are held out without qualification. Now, good Calvinists believe this too, but I think they do inconsistently. Of course, I wasn’t that good of a Calvinist—something I fully admit!
Yours is the last word.
September 12th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
I would like to raise a couple of points. First: You seem confused as to what the doctrine of Perseverance actually teaches Adam. Not that we “must” constantly, continually and perfectly persevere, but that through the grace of God we will ultimately persevere. That’s why Peter is such a good example and Judas is not.
Second: The whole assurance angle of your post is superfluous to the doctrine of Perseverance and the way you have characterized it is mostly a Straw Man anyway. I like what MacArthur says about assurance in that it has more to do with “the direction of your life; not the perfection of it”. (loose quote)
Third: The section on “Calvinism’s Biggest Weakness” is in itself weakly (poorly) argued. It seems to be attacking more Straw Men (To be sure, I know of no Calvinist that would accept this,….) and again; (Of course, the more careful Calvinists theologians deny this….) It seems your objections are primarily based on your perceptions and feelings.
September 13th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Greg,
First: how am I confused as to what “P” teaches? I assert nowhere that we must “constantly, continually and perfectly persevere” anywhere. However, “P” teaches that we must, despite our faltering, persevere because Christ is interceding for us. That is why Peter and Judas are brought up as examples.
Second: how is the “assurance angle” of my post “superfluous”? Assurance is hardly surplus to the doctrine of perseverance. If it is, Calvinism shouldn’t teach “P” implies it. Do you mean to say “irrelevant”? If so, I simply disagree. There is nothing more relevant to a discussion about “P” than assurance. Moreover, you don’t explain how I’ve misrepresented “P” other than by citing a MacArthur quote against perfectionism. I argued for no such thing.
Third: how is my section on “Calvinism’s Biggest Weakness” poorly argued? How is it a straw man? You seem to confuse my critique with my representation. You disagree with the former (for unnamed reasons) and call fallacy with regard to the latter. But the fact is you appeal to my representation of Calvinism against me. That would indicate that I have represented it rightly, not wrongly. I make a thesis statement, represent a Calvinists objection, and argue against it. My objections are certainly motivated by perceptions and feelings, but I work them out in formal argument, and you don’t seem to interact with them in any meaningful way.
September 13th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Seems to be much ado about nothing. God could be both or neither. Calvinism v Arminianism is a purely Hellenistic way to look at God. We try so hard to put God in a neat little box; God is this or God is that. God is God and he operates outside of any and every theological boundary or definition we try to put on him. We Western Christians love an answer. Sometimes there is no answer. I really don’t believe that God is going to divide Christians up between C’s and A’s and decide our eternal fate by which group we belong to. Obviously this is not the most intellectual argument on the board but is that such a bad thing? Whether it be debating theologies or denominations, God and the Bible so often become nothing more that pawns to prove this group or that group is right. Perhaps more time needs to be spent just contemplating the Holiness of God and not how to win an argument. In the grand scheme of things, I don’t believe Calvinism or Arminianism matter at all.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Adam You say that the head following the heart is a bad way of doing theology and yet that is what you have done. I got the impression that you were terrified that you were not one of the elect because you could find no infallible method of determining your status before God from your fallible life. My point about P was that you seemed focused on your faith, your actions, your feelings; your your your. The doctrine of Perseverance is grounded in God’s abilities, not yours. Look at the statement again: ““P” teaches that WE MUST,…” No! It teaches first HE WILL, and because of that we will. The difference may seem small to you but I believe you are misplacing trust in God with trust in self.
I said assurance as you are framing the argument, is superfluous to the doctrine of perseverance; not that Assurance is “irrelevant” (not sure why you put that in quotes”. Anyway at best, assurance is an inference of P, and therefore you are not arguing directly against the doctrine itself but against your feelings of the inadequacies of various epistemological methods of acquiring assurance. This moves the argument back substantially and introduces a much greater margin of error by basing conclusions on what are arguably faulty premises.
For example:
“Thus one can have the experiences of a genuine Christian, yet not be a genuine Christian. Therefore, whatever “evidence” we muster in favor of making our election sure could very well be spurious. As many of us know, we have shared deep fellowship with those who are no longer walking with the Lord. For Owen and company, this means that they did not “fall away;” rather, they never were truly saved. We thought they were saved for the same reasons we think we are saved, yet we are lead to conclude they never were saved. Therefore, we have no reason to be assured of our own salvation since our faith, which is seemingly genuine, could in fact be a sham.”
“one can have the experiences of a genuine Christian, yet not be a genuine Christian.”
Oh really? I would grant that one can share SOME of the experiences of a “genuine Christian”. I can play golf at the local club and not be a member and yet you could see me there and make assumptions when in fact, you have reached an unwarranted conclusion. You then launch from there, saying:
“Therefore, whatever “evidence” we muster in favor of making our election sure could very well be spurious.”
Is that what scripture tells you Adam?
“As many of us know, we have shared deep fellowship with those who are no longer walking with the Lord.”
You may know that from your perspective, (although, my postmodern spider senses are starting to tingle) but how do you know the depth of another’s “fellowship”?
“We thought they were saved for the same reasons we think we are saved, yet we are lead to conclude they never were saved.”
You don’t see a difference between looking externally at someone else’s life and;
“Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?”
“Therefore, we have no reason to be assured of our own salvation since our faith, which is seemingly genuine, could in fact be a sham.”
Adam; Your whole post reads like this; stumbling from one faulty premise to the next. Stop feeling and start thinking the kind of thoughts that are captive to Scripture.
September 13th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
I absolutely agree with Frame Ref. I think this person has nailed it.
Further, I’ll tell you why I’m not a Calvinist. The reason I’m not is because I refuse to give some man the glory for what God has done in my life. I agree with many of John Calvin’s interpretations because I see much of it in Paul’s writings, in the book of Romans in particular, but I refuse to be called a Calvinist.
Further, this whole argument seems to smack of the exact same argument that had broke out in Corinth and necessitated Paul’s first letter to them. “I am of Paul. I am of Apollos. I am of Cephas.” Are we not all of Christ? I fear that by continuing to call ourselves by the names of men rather than by the name of Christ, God might well just give us over to that. Anyone here saved in the name of Calvin or Arminius? If so, you should have great fear.
September 13th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
GREG: Adam You say that the head following the heart is a bad way of doing theology and yet that is what you have done. I got the impression that you were terrified that you were not one of the elect because you could find no infallible method of determining your status before God from your fallible life. My point about P was that you seemed focused on your faith, your actions, your feelings; your your your. The doctrine of Perseverance is grounded in God’s abilities, not yours. Look at the statement again: ““P” teaches that WE MUST,…” No! It teaches first HE WILL, and because of that we will. The difference may seem small to you but I believe you are misplacing trust in God with trust in self.
ADAM: I don’t think this is fair, Greg. The entire point of my argument was to bring up the issue you assert about “P”, that “it teaches first HE WILL,” and that there is no way of knowing “HE WILL” because his will to preserve is based on a mysterious eternal decree that is not conditioned by anything. My emotions discovered this before my reason did, and my research into the topic, particularly Schreiner and Caneday’s book was an honest attempt to be faithful to Scripture. When I found their arguments lacking, and that the warnings implied the possibility of falling away “P” melted away.
GREG: I said assurance as you are framing the argument, is superfluous to the doctrine of perseverance; not that Assurance is “irrelevant” (not sure why you put that in quotes”. Anyway at best, assurance is an inference of P, and therefore you are not arguing directly against the doctrine itself but against your feelings of the inadequacies of various epistemological methods of acquiring assurance. This moves the argument back substantially and introduces a much greater margin of error by basing conclusions on what are arguably faulty premises.
ADAM: You are not making any sense to me. Saying assurance is “superfluous” doesn’t challenge anything I’ve said in the least. Describing something as “superfluous” means that it is extra and redundant. Perhaps you mean to say that my lack of assurance is immaterial to the truth status of “P”? I’ve already said above (to Alan) that not feeling assurance of salvation does not entail that “P” is false. My foray into my anxieties was to demonstrate the motivation for reconsidering “P” and Calvinism as a whole.
GREG: For example: [quotes me] Oh really? I would grant that one can share SOME of the experiences of a “genuine Christian”. I can play golf at the local club and not be a member and yet you could see me there and make assumptions when in fact, you have reached an unwarranted conclusion.
ADAM: I see what you are saying here, but I would frame it this way. We have been invited by the owner of a country club to play golf. We both play the same holes, ride the same cart, and have a good time. Yet it has been decided beforehand whether either of us will become members. One of us is “in” the other is not. Yet we have both received the same treatment and we both hope we are in. Neither of us can be assured (until it is revealed) that we are “truly” members.
GREG: Is that what scripture tells you Adam?
ADAM: Scripture certainly tells me to test and examine myself (2 Cor 13:5) but whatever evidence I find doesn’t guarantee that God loves me or died for me. What I believe Scripture tells me is that he desires all to be saved and that he died for everyone (not just some). So I put my faith in God’s promise and find assurance there rather than looking retrospective on my life for good fruit that I judge to be favorable to God.
GREG: You may know that from your perspective, (although, my postmodern spider senses are starting to tingle) but how do you know the depth of another’s “fellowship”?
ADAM: I think you are misunderstanding me here. I am talking about fellowship with other believers we consider to be faithful Christians. We are surprised and dismayed when they “fall away” because that means they were never truly saved in the first place if we subscribe to the “test of genuineness” view.
GREG: You don’t see a difference between looking externally at someone else’s life and;
“Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?”
ADAM: I do see a difference, but that is not my point. My point is that we can deceive ourselves into thinking we are saved when we are not. Examining external or internal evidence doesn’t matter much when we have already decided we are going to skew it in our favor and falsely believe Christ is interceding for us when in fact he is not.
GREG: Adam; Your whole post reads like this; stumbling from one faulty premise to the next. Stop feeling and start thinking the kind of thoughts that are captive to Scripture.
ADAM: I’m sorry you feel that way Greg, but I would implore you to do the same. The promises of God are what take captive my thoughts. You have a problem with the fact that I felt anxiety over the idea that they only applied to a certain class of predestined individuals. I do not.
September 13th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Greg,
One last note–we are in disagreement over a whole host of issues, but one thing that you particularly brought up was my issues with the “test-of-genuineness” view of the biblical warnings. Schreiner and Caneday see this view problematic for a number of reasons, so the issue isn’t one of Calvinism and Arminianism. I surveyed some of the issues in this post if you want to take a look: http://www.ochuk.com/?p=963
And since I fisked you last round, your’s is the last word if you want it.
September 13th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Hmm…..Great banter
And you know me….texts just kept coming to mind that I felt a need to put up for discussion.
Adam - you brought up the solid text that states that God desires that all be saved. 1 Tim 2:4
And we know surely that not all will be saved…..so…….we must ask what to do with text like these ?
John 10:16
“And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they WILL listen to my voice”
John 10:25-30
“Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe.
The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe BECAUSE you are not part of my flock.
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father,who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
The reason that Jesus gives for the crowds unbelief is that - they are not of his flock……..(it’s not the other way around….he doesn’t say, you are not of the flock BECAUSE you don’t believe)
So when I get to the wonderings about how some are Gods and some are not, I won’t question that God has Sovereign selective grace…….but I will make every effort (as you mentioned the self exam verses) to “make my calling and election sure.” 2 Peter 1:10
You might consider coming to the “Living by Faith in Future Grace” seminar this weekend…………it’s all about the “P”
Brent and I will be there…..it’s Friday evening and Saturday from 9-12.
Later Brethren ~
Jen
September 13th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
A few other helpful text that tie God’s not willing that any should perish……..but he will do what is in keeping with his Justice too.
Lamentations 3:33
“for he does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men.”
Ez 33:11
“Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked”
September 13th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Adam: “I don’t think this is fair, Greg. The entire point of my argument was to bring up the issue you assert about “P”, that “it teaches first HE WILL,” and that there is no way of knowing “HE WILL” because his will to preserve is based on a mysterious eternal decree that is not conditioned by anything. My emotions discovered this before my reason did, and my research into the topic, particularly Schreiner and Caneday’s book was an honest attempt to be faithful to Scripture. When I found their arguments lacking, and that the warnings implied the possibility of falling away “P” melted away.”
I am not trying to be unfair Adam. I do challenge the notion that “there is no way of knowing “HE WILL” because his will to preserve is based on a mysterious eternal decree that is not conditioned by anything.” First; scripture is replete with claims that directly contradict you and say we can Know. I take Scripture to be the truth. You would I’m sure, say the same, so how do you handle the outright contradiction? The second half of that sentence is also problematic in that it gives the impression that God has no reasons for the things He does. There is nothing in you or I that condition God’s choice but He has very good reasons.
Adam’s essay: “my Calvinistic theology presented my needs for assurance with an epistemological problem: in order to have assurance I needed to know the status of my election, something that by definition is secret and cannot be known.”
Why are you tormenting yourself with philosophical word games when Scripture says we can know the current status of our souls? This is done by examining jointly; our outward profession and lives, combined with an inward introspection empowered by the Holy Spirit which results in a Faith that rests in the character and promises of the one who raised Jesus from the dead. This faith is not in ourselves but in God.
There is no ONE TEST that you can “Apply directly to the forehead”.
ADAM: I see what you are saying here, but I would frame it this way. We have been invited by the owner of a country club to play golf. We both play the same holes, ride the same cart, and have a good time. Yet it has been decided beforehand whether either of us will become members. One of us is “in” the other is not. Yet we have both received the same treatment and we both hope we are in. Neither of us can be assured (until it is revealed) that we are “truly” members.
Problem is Adam: I can look in your wallet to see if you have a membership card but I can’t look in your heart. OTOH I have the assurance of the owner that if I receive the gift of membership that was bought and paid for by Christ, then I can be certain that my membership is eternally valid. That does not give me license to rip up the greens and if I did and never showed any remorse then I would know that I never was member in the first place.
This conversation reminds me of those who are terrified that they have committed the unpardonable sin. People who have, are never worried about it.
GREG: Is that what scripture tells you Adam?
ADAM: Scripture certainly tells me to test and examine myself (2 Cor 13:5) but whatever evidence I find doesn’t guarantee that God loves me or died for me. What I believe Scripture tells me is that he desires all to be saved and that he died for everyone (not just some). So I put my faith in God’s promise and find assurance there rather than looking retrospective on my life for good fruit that I judge to be favorable to God.
It also says you CAN KNOW the very things you are denying.
If God desires all to be saved then all will be saved. You are either misinterpreting that verse or your God is incapable of accomplishing His will, or you should become a universalist.
Certainly we can deceive ourselves but I am not going to let that cause a feedback loop in my faith by purposely sticking the microphone of my feelings into the monitor of Scripture. My faith is not in myself; it is in Christ. “I am what I am by the grace of God”
Adam: “The promises of God are what take captive my thoughts.”
Don’t just cherry pick the promises you like Adam; take the ones that apply to you and believe all of them. like:
“I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil 1:6).
“I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day” (2 Tim 1:12).
“To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.” (Jude 24-25).
I’ll try to read the other post as time allows.
September 13th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
[…] are saved? This is bound to be controversial and informative. 3. Adam O’s piece on “Why I Am Not A Calvinist” centers on the issue of assurance. Can Calvinists know they are elect or are […]
September 14th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Adam,
I just wanted to say that I really appreciated this. I could go on, but it’d just amount to man-crushing in public. And that’s just embarrassing for everyone involved
Good on ya for this one. Thank you so much for sharing it with us.
–Spencer
September 14th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Jen: “And you know me….texts just kept coming to mind that I felt a need to put up for discussion.
Adam - you brought up the solid text that states that God desires that all be saved. 1 Tim 2:4,”
Luke: Indeed.
Jen: “And we know surely that not all will be saved…..so…….we must ask what to do with text like these ?
John 10:16
“And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they WILL listen to my voice”
John 10:25-30
“Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe.
The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe BECAUSE you are not part of my flock.
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father,who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
The reason that Jesus gives for the crowds unbelief is that - they are not of his flock……..(it’s not the other way around….he doesn’t say, you are not of the flock BECAUSE you don’t believe)”
Luke: I think your observations miss the fact that the background for chapter 10 is chapter 9, and the audience is the same. The allusion in chapter 10 is Ez 34, where God tells Israel that he will one day send his abused an waiting people a true Shepherd, and that Shepherd will be God Himself. The abusing shepherds will be left out, and the community of believers (the flock —>”sheep”) will finally have the Shepherd they waited for (note what just happened in chapter 9).
In other words, there are no unbelieving sheep in Ez 34. Hence, when Jesus speaks of the “sheep,” he says that they NEVER listened to another (John 10:8) prior to his arrival, but awaited the true Shepherd. Note that the verse categorically states that the sheep (those who have faith in the Father) did not follow another. Christ isn’t calling people “sheep” based upon some mysterious criterion, but upon their affection to the Father’s teaching.
The point here is that if they did not believe the Father, they will not believe Christ. If they believed the Father, they would recognize Christ’s voice. Likewise, if they had believed Moses, they would have believed Christ (John 5:46). Therefore, those not believing Christ are not asked to walk away and “suck it up,” nor are they asked to do the exact opposite of what they are now doing. Rather, they are told by Christ that if they don’t believe him, they should look at the miracles, believe them, and know that the Father is in Christ — resulting in belief in Christ (John 10:37-38). And this is in line with John’s purpose for writing his Book (John 20:30-31).
Jen: “So when I get to the wonderings about how some are Gods and some are not, I won’t question that God has Sovereign selective grace…….”
Luke: I will always test what I believe, and I hope you will too.
September 14th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
[…] iddot; Filed Under Calvinist/Arminianism September 14, 2007 | I was reading an interesting article on a Ochuk’s blog. The problem with mongerism, or the argument from grace, is that it ends […]
September 14th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
After a little further reflection on this problem with perseverance, I must say a couple other things…
#1 The evidence of a person’s election (or reprobation) is overwhelming, and saying that God’s election is based on some random act of His will does not do justice to “P”. True, we were predestined before the foundation of the world. (unless you intend to deny a DIRECT teaching in Scripture- Ephesians 1) Yet, as I attempted to say before, this doctrine is played out in real life too. you can’t genuinely say that a person WILL be saved in life based solely upon some random election process and NEVER actually take the actions that are described in Scripture, such as repentance, belief, faith, and perseverance. The fact that we will persevere is seen as God sanctifies us by His will throughout our lives. This is not something that can be faked either. As I said before, this idea of “spurious” works is simply a way to dismiss God’s sovereignty in salvation and attempt to make it dependent on the one who wills or the one who runs.
#2 God’s election is not a cosmic cat and mouse game that he is playing with us. He wants us to know. There is a difference between the way He deals with someone like Pharoah or even someone like Cain or an Old Testament king and the way He deals with one of His own sheep. Jesus said it this way, “My sheep hear my voice and they know me.” All of these questions of, “How can I KNOW I’m one of the elect?” is unfruitful. Either you ARE or you AREN’T. Stop speculating and repent.
So, apply the tests from Scripture. These tests are not intended to determine whether or not a person has only OUTWARD evidence that might be faked. These tests are intended to be given to an honest person who can take an honest inward look not based on emotions or even their own heart- but on the objective standard of Scripture.
By the way ochuk, one of those tests from 1 John is this: “Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” One of the greatest evidences of regeneration is a gradual development of a holy hatred for the things of this world. It may not happen overnight, but it will happen. Unfortunately, there are many who claim to know Christ, but their hearts are set on the things of this world. Paul said it this way in Philippians 3… 18 For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, 19 whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things. 20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ;
That’s where I would start if I were you.
September 16th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Dear Ochuk:
I have read your article above and ‘am sympethetic to your “logical” conclusion and understanding regarding the Sovereignty and human responsibility.
I was an Armenian to the core and after learning the Scriptures, realized my foly. I do not call myself calvinist but Calvinistic not because of what calvin said but I do find it in the Scriptures.
As I understan from your conclusion that you find problems in both sides so which is the correct view and how can you authoritatively teach and preach. Is your conclusion Scriptural or intellectual juct because you have encountered some “Hyper” Calvinists?
DSK
September 21st, 2007 at 10:13 am
Adam,
Hey brother, long time no talk! As one who observed you coming to the Calvinist position, or course it pains me to see you turn back from that. I suspect you will not remain where you are now, though. Molinism works as a philosophical system (and you are at heart a philosopher), but it won’t hold its own as a biblical system for long. I think the problem in your struggles (not just now but in the past as well, perhaps) may be that your starting point is askew.
In your new system, the belief that you could fall away might give you the motivation that you feel you need in order to persevere. Your desire to know God has always been evident to me, and so I have no doubt that you will persevere. But the question really is, will God be appropriate glorified by you in how you persevere. I think that only the Calvinist attributes his salvation ultimately to God. The other systems, man gets glory. Christ is not really your Savior — he merely makes you savable by your own work. he didn’t actually redeem anyone; he merely made them redeemable. God will have none of that, and on the last day we will see that it was all of grace. If Arminianism is true, we would have much to boast in. We made the right choice. We were needy enough to realize we needed God.
Only in the Calvinist scheme does God get the all the glory. And that is the starting point of the Bible and indeed the purpose of creation; the display and magnification of the glory of God. Any other system fails on that account.
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:09 am
Hi - I’m a little late to this post, so I’m hoping you are still reading it and feel like replying.
This entire topic (sovereignty and free-will) has been something that I’ve been looking quite a lot recently, and it’s been interesting to read about your progress (got here via imonk - and the lutheran postings over there on the same topic have also been useful).
I also happened to notice your amazon review of the John Frame book “No Other God”, given that you now less of a calvinist than i presume you were when you wrote the review, I wondered if there was another book that responded to open theism that you would recommend instead [actually not for me - but for a member of my family who tends to have very extreme reactions to Calvinism of any sort].
October 2nd, 2007 at 10:39 pm
[…] ay to the bank.” Ochuk’s blog: Why I Am Not An Open Theist Ochuk’s blog: Why I Am Not a Calvinist (long) Have you got […]