Blog Archives
“Is Free Will Biblical?
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
HT: Doctrine Unites
Also, check out The White Horse Inn for smart, engaging dialog on culture and Christianity.
Debating Calvinism
I finished reading Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views a couple of months ago. Found it to be a valuable addition to my modest library. That being said, I think that the Arminian position, or rather opposition, could have been better represented, more clearly articulated, though. Dave Hunt seemed to be a bit unfocused at times and often ventured into the realm of ad hominem arguments. I think, too, Hunt perhaps misunderstands that which he opposes and finds himself fighting against an errant mixture of hyper-Calvinism and some weak caricature of Calvinism, a strawman of sorts. Also, my limited experience in these exchanges leads me to the conclusion that most, but not all, of the opposition to the doctrines of grace is founded more on an emotional response to the doctrine of election than a wholly biblical argument, an opposition often evidenced by the common ‘God does not want robots to worship/love Him’ refrain.
For further thought, here is video I found at New Demonstration in a post titled He is Not a Weak Beggar, He is a Powerful Saviour. The speaker is James White from Alpha and Omega Ministries who represented the counter-point to Dave Hunt in the aforementioned book.
Paul Washer – Predestination and the Sovereignty of God
Follows is a post from Reformed Voices:
For those whom He foreknew… (Romans 8:29)
“Before the foundations of the earth He knew you, and it’s not because He looked in some crystal ball, or down the corridors of time and saw you in the future.
The bible never speaks of a crystal ball, and it never speaks of corridors of time or God looking into a book that talks about the future… it never does. It never talks about God looking into the future.
God does not know the future because He’s looked ahead and seen it… God knows the future because He’s Lord over it, and directs every molecule, every fiber of being, every bit of matter towards the purpose He has ordained.
That is a God my friend.
Not a god who looks into the future and then reacts, not a god who makes choices based on choices of other men He’s seen in the future.
No.
A god who is The God and Lord and Author of the future.”
-Paul Washer
Part 1:
Part 2
Part 3
Who does the choosing?
Often I feel the need to preface a declaration with a disclaimer, and this post is no exception. I know there are many Christians, better, wiser, than me by far, who love the Messiah who will disagree with me, some perhaps vehemently, regarding the soon-to-follow thoughts. I know, too, that this is ground that has been tread by countless others, and my voice is but one of a myriad, but I want to speak to this subject. Thus it goes…
Here is a typical statement, one I have heard dozens of times, that I believe frames the perception of the nature of salvation of the vast majority of American Christendom:
“If you and I did not have free will, we would not be able to choose to love God. What kind of world would we have if everyone was programmed to love or hate without a choice? God gave us free will so we could choose to love him!”
Another common refrain is that God does not want mere robots to worship Him. If it is His choice, then our ‘choice’ is coerced and thus meaningless. I completely understand that perception, where it comes from, and I used to hold to it.
The problem with this well-intentioned human wisdom is that it does not hold up to robust Biblical scrutiny, that it perhaps does not take the fallen nature of humanity seriously enough, that it glosses over the utterly rebellious nature of the human heart and our innate inability to choose the God of scripture. Read, for one example, Romans 3:11. Let me orbit around this idea of where love for God comes from. Again and absolutely without any ambiguity whatsoever, I do not deny that there are many who disagree with or misunderstand my assertions of God’s sovereign role in salvation who love God. I do affirm, gently, that they misunderstand the perspective of someone who affirms this authentic love for God can, and in the final analysis, must be birthed by the sovereign triune God’s free will in salvation.
First, here are some thoughts on free will:
- Does the fatherless and motherless child choose who will adopt them? Is adoption not the Biblical affirmation of a Christian’s relationship to the Father? (Romans 8:15)
- Did Lazarus choose to be called from the grave by Christ? Do the dead reanimate themselves? Are we not, in our unregenerate state, referred to in Biblical text as being spiritually dead, everyone of us? (Ephesians 2:1) (Colossians 2:13)
- Consider the Christian description and metaphor of salvation as being born again. (John 3:3) Consider this: Did I choose to be physically born? Did I have anything to do with that decision? (John 3:8) (Romans 9:16)
I think that the American church sometimes inadvertently reduces the work of regeneration to a transaction with God that depends to some degree on something we do, even if that work is described as merely making a choice. It is almost as if, in the free-will scheme, I sit in negotiation with God and God slides this offer across the table to me. I pick up the offer and look at it. It is an almost unbelievably good offer, but in the end, Christ’s ability to save is ultimately limited by my inferred ability to ‘choose’ God, to accept that offer. The offer, Christ’s ability to save, is impotent without my input. What sometimes happens is that our certainty of salvation is attached to something we do or perform, even if that work only constitutes 0.00001 percent of the work performed. The results are that we may end up wrestling with doubts about the veracity and ability of our ‘work’. Was I sincere enough? Did I believe hard enough? Is my faith great enough to save? Why am I still struggling with sin if I raised my hand or walked the aisle? Inversely, we may also place our faith in our ‘work’ in such a way that we bank so much on a fleeting, momentary response to an emotionally manipulative call to salvation that we may actually be ‘inoculated’ and hardened to the Gospel. We may also end up taking pride in our ability choose Christ when others do not choose (Ephesians 2:8-9). Think, too, about Acts 13:48.
In searching for some media to give examples of what I refer to, I find this typical example of decisional regeneration in action. I recall being in the audience:
HT:Old Truth
In the end, the evangelical methods used are born out of our view of our role in salvation. If we are trying to coerce a response to an offer that depends on our inferred ability to choose, we may end up marketing the Gospel in the way the world markets products to consumers. I could say more to this, but I have spoken to it ad nausea, among other places, here, here, here, here, and here. The biblical call of repent and believe in Christ is often replaced with non-biblical rhetoric, of offers to try Christ, to accept Christ, to invite Christ. To my ears, these calls, if the language used is actually taken seriously, brings us to the conclusion that Jesus appears to be Someone who needs to be evaluated, and if He meets our needs and qualifications, we ‘accept’ Him. This may not necessarily be the language of someone driven to their knees in despair over their sin and in desperate need of a Saviour.
Here is the crux of the matter. Perhaps we may affirm that love for God is born by a growing understanding of the cost of the Cross and our inability to do anything to add to our salvation.. It is born by the realization that we are utterly and completely helpless to save ourselves, that even our ability to believe is an unmerited gift of the triune God. It is born out of the realization that God owes His creation nothing, that if He never gave us a Saviour, He would still be a holy, righteous, and just God. Indeed, one-third of the angels rebelled and God never offered them clemency, redemption. I love my Saviour, though so imperfectly, because He gave me life – when I was spiritually a walking dead man with no ability to choose God- at the price of His life, that He defeated death as evidenced by the empty tomb. There is nothing good in me that He should condescend to breath life into me.
I could speak so much more to all this, but time to bring pause to the days blogging. Perhaps more on this later….
Some thoughts on Calvinism and evangelism
This post was the ‘intro’ of the preceding post on evangelism. For the sake of clarity, I felt that what I had to say was better served by letting the aforementioned intro and my thoughts on contemporary American evangelism stand on their on.
I have been progressively led into what may be considered a Calvinist view of soteriology, a theological term used in biblically defining how God reconciles humanity to Himself. For those unfamiliar with Calvinism, it is, in a nutshell, the biblical assertion that God is solely responsible for salvation. It is not a cooperative venture between man and God. Rather, it is God who sovereignly draws to Him those whom He sovereignly chooses. That being said, biblical Calvinism does not relieve man of the responsibility of repentance and faith and trust, itself a grace from God, in the in the redeeming work of our risen Messiah.
A common objection to Calvinism, to predestination, refers to our responsibility, or inferred lack thereof, in regards to the Great Commission, the going out into the world and making disciples. The argument goes that if God has already chosen those who will spend eternity with Him, where is the need for evangelism? What we do with and how we feel about the doctrine of election predestination is, in the final analysis, irrelevant in regards to what I perceive to be the biblical veracity of predestination. The fact remains that Christ chose His church to be the primary means, the vector, for bringing the Gospel to the chosen brothers and sisters who are in the world, spread across the centuries and across the continents. He tells his church to go to the nations and make disciples, and we, out of love, obey. It is ultimately the work of the Father to bring fruit from our evangelical efforts that the praise should be directed to Him and the power of His Word, not our methods.
I have tried to think of an analogy that would be helpfully illustrative. Perhaps this is it: the church can be thought of as the tool that holds the magnet that attracts and separates the ferrous from the non-ferrous. God uses the church to sweep over the world the message of redemption through the resurrected Christ. Those that respond are the misshapen and broken bits of iron and steel that will be, over time in the cauldron of discipleship, molded to the image of Christ. Iron has no choice in how it reacts to the magnet. The world has no hold on it.
All that being said, the disagreements and debates between Calvinism and its theological counter-point, contemporary Arminianism are intramural in nature and should be approached from both perspectives with Christ-like grace, love, meekness, patience, and understanding. Both camps are inhabited by many men and women who love and serve the Messiah.
I understand the doctrine of predestination is a controversial stance in the milieu of contemporary American evangelism. What is there, though, about the Gospel message that is not controversial? Such is a subject for another essay, perhaps.
Westminster Bookstore
