I need to do more theologizing because there are those who accept every point of "Calvinism" except this one. Logically it does not make sense that anyone can do this and still remain faithful to the other four points. Maybe someone could help me...Ahem Jeff? :-). So briefly going back through the other points: (1) belief in man's complete and utter depravity; (2) belief in the fact that God elects men to eternal life (unconditional election); (3) that God's elective decisions are limited to those He chooses (Limited Atonement); (4) that God's elective decisions always create a favorable response to those subject to them (Irresistible Grace); (5) that God will sustain His elect until the end so that they will never fall (Perseverance of the Saints). This last point we have yet to discuss and so will withhold comment about it until then.
If the first through fifth are accepted yet this one (the fourth) is rejected what conclusion can we arrive to? If it is accepted that man is fully and utterly depraved and that men are elected to eternal life by God (this has nothing to do with our own abilities and merit); and that God (for mystery only known by Him) chooses to save some and yet pass over others leaving them in their sin to suffer impending judgment; and that God is able to maintain their salvation to the very end; yet man has placed, in His bosom, the supposed ability by God, to reject God's elective processes. In other words, if God were decided to elect me to salvation must He first report to me for approval? If this is the case then we cannot look at the five points in the same way as do the reformers. Because instead of viewing the five points in light of the surety of our salvation being founded on the sure promises of our glorious God, we are left with little to no assurance that they are certain at all, since ultimately it all depends on my effort and persistence to "make my election sure". Furthermore, we'll need to take a closer look at the first point since included within the doctrine of man's total and utter depravity is the concept of man's inability (because of his dead-ness) to choose the right over the wrong. Rejecting the fourth point turns us around and marches us back to take a more serious look at the first point and its ultimate rejection! This is what humanism does - it really knows how to screw up sound logic! So rejecting the fourth leads to a rejection of the first as well. I would love to have someone refute my logic and tell me why I am wrong! We have little problem God electing men to salvation and even that He has a certain number in mind (implying that not all are beneficiaries of God's saving grace in the mind of God). But as concerning the hard things - as points one and four require, these are outright rejected. Die hard Arminians would reject that God would even pass over certain individuals because they believe it is God's will that "all men be saved". But they misunderstand the meaning of scripture here. But in holding to this misconception they must also reject points two and three. Humanism, in this model, has effectively reduced God to the level the deists placed Him in former days. God is merely the maestro of events that enable man to choose life for himself over death. But the emphasis is on the choosing part. Implied is his ability to choose the perfect when he is imperfect; to choose righteousness when his righteousness is as filthy rags before a holy, infinite God. For those who hold to the second and third points in Calvinism, but not the fourth, must also reject, ultimately, the first because since they believe man is able to fall away from grace (meaning God's grace can not be effective) they have to insist that man does have the moral ability to choose the things of God. I would really appreciate it if anyone could tell me if my logic is wrong!
Now I know that human logic is not perfect, but assured on one thing I am: that God has fashioned man to discern and reject contradiction. Tolerate anything else, yes; save for contradiction. If our understanding is in conflict with the teaching found in the ultimate Standard by which we judge our lives, then we need to fix the thing in our lives that stands in conflict with that Standard. The Standard does not change - our understanding must change - and that by God. We acknowledge, as Christians, that it is God who gives proper understanding in everything (2 Timothy 2:7; 1 John 2:27, 5:20; Philippians 3:15; Hebrews 8:10,11; John 14:26).
In the next post I will use more biblical passages and examples demonstrating God's irresistible calling in the lives of those He elects.
4 comments:
There is a sweeping amount of info and concepts to interact with in this post. All of them can't be dealt with because it always takes more words to respond to ideas than it does state them in the first place. Keeping them shorter may get more interaction.
As a side note: using the label "humanism" is a poor way to argue a point unless that is what the post is about. It is insulting to bible believing non-Calvinists. I personally think that the logic of Calvinism seems to lead to a total direct control with no secondary causes view of God's interaction with his creation that reminds me of Islam's fatalism. Using "humanism" in your argument that way is like me using the term "Islamic thought" when describing my objections to the implications of the Calvinistic system of interpretation. Even if they are similar with both things "humanism" or Islamic thought" that does not influence the debate validity. It only tries to win the argument by appealing to emotion. The real issues are biblical. If the bible teaches things that are similar to but not equal with other human philosophies it does not effect the truth or untruth of the theological system (I know your motives are good Joe and don't take offence personally, I love you and your passion brother). Using disparaging labels to make a point only wins those who already agree and hardens those who don't.
As to your post I don’t argue with the "logic" of the Calvinistic system. It is logically consistent. In fact that is what originally attracted me to it and now what keeps me from embracing it. Because the system itself forces (in my opinion) many scriptures to be re-interpreted to fit the system. It effectively makes many scriptures descriptive of the believer's life instead of the way it seems to be written to their original audience as prescriptive. I think the Calvinistic system does logically lead to a monergism even in the things of sanctification which I don't find to be biblical.
On another point you made about choosing what is righteous in light of our works not being worthy of any merit before God as it says in Isa., I don't see the connection to how people come to faith. the argument is not about man's moral corruption, culpability and utter hopelessness before a Holy God (all agree on that)It is about whether or not the scriptures teach divine enablement to believe or divine compulsion to believe. In both cases it takes God to believe, not human moral power alone. As an example Jesus said in Matthew 16:24-25, "If any man be willing to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." in the Calvinistic system it would seem to me they must see "Let him deny himself" as a description of something they could not have resisted. Yet to me the natural reading of this scripture is that Jesus is prescribing or commanding how man is responsible to respond to his call to follow him not just describing an outcome.
....more to come
Jeff, I'll comment as soon as I make my concluding post. But in the meantime one of the issues I take offense with (if you could call it that) is that Arminian (or non-Calvinist if you will) treats faith as a work. Whereas Calvinists place it before God's grace (Faith precedes grace). I expect to separate myself from the host of people who think differently. I will call it what I think it is unless someone show me how I err. At least I am not calling Arminian theology stupid or idiotic! I see humanistic thought through it that concerns me. I don't care how long it has stood in time (historically). Furthermore, I don't believe I am appealing to an emotional response when I am stuck on showing how illogical the system is. I might use emotion in my delivery but that does not mean I am appealing to emotion to convince people to agree with me. In fact a book I am reading mentions that we are in a time where people reject logic as illogical because they view sound reason as "boring". But I could exegete various passages that you may merely say are forced into a Calvinistic framework and so do not properly treat the word of God honestly. Our conversation would end up spinning wheels. But this next post I will use more biblical reference to finish my points.
-Joe
If I read into your use of the word Humanism I apologize.
You do raise an important definitional issue with Faith.
I don't think Arminians treat faith as a work in the biblical sense. That is the accusation against Arminianists by Calvinists about their view of faith as proceeding regeneration. Calvinism seems to say that to respond to God's gracious calling unto salvation through faith in Christ and his work is a work if God does not do the inward choosing by regenerartion for them.
Yet Romans 4:1-3 says,
1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." if faith is a work if it proceeds regeneration as Arminian theology states, this scripture does not make sense. the very point of the verses are to teach that beleiveing God's promises and trusting in his word over trusting in Abraham's good works as a kind of merit. This scripture does not put believing faith in the same catagory as "works" as Calvinist tend to say Arminian faith would be unless God does the believing for a person.
I say this because it seems to me "faith" in the Arminian system is seen by Calvinists as to mean a religious work of merit deserving salvation". But Arminian theology does not teach that. It teaches that faith is a choice to trust Jesus Christ instead of ourselves when the Holy Spirit convicts through the Word of God. Not because of who we are, but because of what Jesus Christ has done and commands us to do.
I have to say Jeff, that despite our differences I have always appreciated our theological and philosophical discussion. I have found that a true rarity. I have met too many who have dismissed these things we discuss, as we are able, offhandedly.
You misunderstand faith preceding regeneration, I think. As pertaining to Arminian theology where the Calvinist would claim the Arminian places faith as a work - it is certainly in practice. But as to the theology - when I say that Arminians make faith a prerequisite for regeneration I mean that they make it into a work where God chooses to regenerate based on their faith. This is not Calvin's position nor is it biblical as I see it. Faith is a gift that is imputed to man when He chooses some for regeneration. So our Lord does not look down the corridor of history and see who will choose Him. No one is righteous, no not one. Each has gone astray to his own way; no one seeks after God no not one. If no one seeks God how was it that Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness? His own free, depraved will? Doesn't this view contradict Paul when he says in Romans 2:3 that we do the same things as that awful list of those who are ungodly? The "each to his own way" is in reference to those who now believe isn't it? Yet God's goodness (Romans 2:4) has been extended to you and me calling us to repentance and a new life that only He can bring! No one is saying we deserve salvation (Calvinists) that would be the faith preceding regeneration model. But Calvinism states regeneration precedes faith. See Sproul's article here. I really do doubt that Arminian theology takes this view. It certainly does not in practice. But Sproul answers it very well. So I should like him to speak.
-Joe
Post a Comment