This is counter intuitive, but it's true: If you hold to "free will" (the way most people think it means), then you are making people "robots". Of course, most people think it works the other way, i.e. people who believe in election or "Calvinism" makes people robots. This is because people assert, "If God decides who gets saved, then we have not a choice. We're just robots." As we shall see. In fact, it works the other way.
Everyone agrees that the human will makes decisions. That's not the controversial part. Those who want to protect "free will" typically mean that people do or should have the ability to equally choose either of two choices, A or B, for example, to follow Jesus or not follow Jesus. Reformed theology (Calvinists) say all people are enslaved to the sinful desires, thus no one has a "free will". Free-willers say human nature is not "totally depraved".
Free-willers say 'free will' means that we can choose to do whatever we want to do. Yet, catch that last phrase. Our desires always make us lean one way or another. My desires do not make me equally likely to choose tomorrow whether I will feed my kids or not feed my kids. My love for them makes it NOT equally likely that I could choose choice A or B.
How do we therefore ensure that people truly have the ability to equally chose A or B? After all, it is suggested, in order to be "free", we need to equally be able to choose A (follow Jesus) or B (not follow Jesus). What you have to do is take away human desire. Otherwise, that desire will tip the scales to actually prefer one choice over another. As a result, we basically have to be robots. Robots don't have human desires so only they can be able to equally choose among any set of options.
So, which theological position makes people robots? Those who push "free will".
For more on this topic, you can see our series, "Why All Christians Are Calvinists (and Don't Know It"
Showing posts with label Calvinism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Calvinism. Show all posts
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Thursday, February 04, 2010
My Favorite Biblical Insight from 2009 (and why it matters to all of us) --Part 2
How does the insight from Romans 6:16-18 discussed in the last post relate to parenting?
First a verse:"As a father shows compassion to his children, so the LORD shows compassion to those who fear him." (Psalm 103:13)
This verse has massive implications on our view of Scripture and parenting. We spend much time teaching people how to interpret and understand the Bible, often forgetting how our experience will contribute or hinder that process.
In some respect, my children’s ability to perceive the Lord’s compassion rests on their seeing a picture of it in their father. This is a weighty reality that I can hardly bear. I recall thinking to myself a few years ago, “I can’t teach them this. I’m not all that compassionate. How can they understand this verse?!”
Romans 6:16-18 has helped us understand our moral inability. God alone is the one who frees us such that we are able to obey from the heart. This is not our own choosing. HOW does this relate to parenting?
I frequently lack patience with the mistakes of my children that are due simply to their being children, i.e. from their clumsiness, forgetfulness, poor judgment, short attention span,…. Yet, they can hardly change since they are kids. In much regard, they are unable to do anything else. I tend to have too high of expectations for others and myself.
To address this, I must know what the Bible says about sin and what I have learned from experience—I am unable to change my own heart. I have been a slave to sin and my freedom was granted to me as the cost of Christ’s life. I have a far more serious inability. Theirs is typically intellectual or biological. Mine is moral. The weight of this struggle, my fatigue resulting from my moral impotence ought to ground compassion for my kids, whose weaknesses are relatively minor.
As I have wondered how to become more compassionate, it helps to grasps the full measure of compassion shown in the gospel. Christ did not merely overcome a legal problem—my guilt—He overcome my heart.
First a verse:"As a father shows compassion to his children, so the LORD shows compassion to those who fear him." (Psalm 103:13)
This verse has massive implications on our view of Scripture and parenting. We spend much time teaching people how to interpret and understand the Bible, often forgetting how our experience will contribute or hinder that process.
In some respect, my children’s ability to perceive the Lord’s compassion rests on their seeing a picture of it in their father. This is a weighty reality that I can hardly bear. I recall thinking to myself a few years ago, “I can’t teach them this. I’m not all that compassionate. How can they understand this verse?!”
Romans 6:16-18 has helped us understand our moral inability. God alone is the one who frees us such that we are able to obey from the heart. This is not our own choosing. HOW does this relate to parenting?
I frequently lack patience with the mistakes of my children that are due simply to their being children, i.e. from their clumsiness, forgetfulness, poor judgment, short attention span,…. Yet, they can hardly change since they are kids. In much regard, they are unable to do anything else. I tend to have too high of expectations for others and myself.
To address this, I must know what the Bible says about sin and what I have learned from experience—I am unable to change my own heart. I have been a slave to sin and my freedom was granted to me as the cost of Christ’s life. I have a far more serious inability. Theirs is typically intellectual or biological. Mine is moral. The weight of this struggle, my fatigue resulting from my moral impotence ought to ground compassion for my kids, whose weaknesses are relatively minor.
As I have wondered how to become more compassionate, it helps to grasps the full measure of compassion shown in the gospel. Christ did not merely overcome a legal problem—my guilt—He overcome my heart.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
My Favorite Biblical Insight from 2009 (and why it matters to all of us)
The well of gospel waters is deep. I am constantly being made aware of what the cross accomplishes not merely accomplished (past tense). Many people know that the New Covenant [i.e. what Christ’s blood enacted] includes the forgiveness of sin; few seems to notice or relish that it also includes God’s giving us a “new heart”, “causing us to obey” His words [Ez 36:27; Hebrews 8, etc.]
But savor with me Romans 6, which unpackages this for us. Paul writes, “Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.”
Verse 16 clearly says we are all slaves, either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness. There are no other options. Absolutely no one is a “neutral” seeker. Verse 17 clarifies for us what this language “slave” means, particularly being a slave of righteousness. Being a slave of sin is contrasted to becoming “obedient from the heart” to God’s word taught through Paul. To be unambiguous, Paul adds in verse 18 that this precisely means “having been set free from sin”. Being set free from sin does not mean we become sinless, but rather we are now free to love Christ, which we could not do before until God sovereignly choose us. This is why the idea of so-called “free will” is so potentially dangerous. It tends to obscure the Biblical concept of freedom and replace it with a Stoic, worldly, philosophical concept.
To be clear, notice who Paul says is responsible for this saving freedom, this radical change of heart—God. In verse 17, Paul says “Thanks be to God…” We don’t thank someone for something unless they actually did it. I don’t thank my one year old for the meal my wife graciously prepared. We can learn much about God’s nature and work by reading those places where God is thanked. This helps us now understand Paul’s rejoicing in Romans 7:25, after discussing the tension every Christian feels between remaining, indwelling sin and our new Spiritually imparted disposition, “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.”
To be continued…. How this should affect our parenting
ROMANS 6:16-18
But savor with me Romans 6, which unpackages this for us. Paul writes, “Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.”
Verse 16 clearly says we are all slaves, either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness. There are no other options. Absolutely no one is a “neutral” seeker. Verse 17 clarifies for us what this language “slave” means, particularly being a slave of righteousness. Being a slave of sin is contrasted to becoming “obedient from the heart” to God’s word taught through Paul. To be unambiguous, Paul adds in verse 18 that this precisely means “having been set free from sin”. Being set free from sin does not mean we become sinless, but rather we are now free to love Christ, which we could not do before until God sovereignly choose us. This is why the idea of so-called “free will” is so potentially dangerous. It tends to obscure the Biblical concept of freedom and replace it with a Stoic, worldly, philosophical concept.
To be clear, notice who Paul says is responsible for this saving freedom, this radical change of heart—God. In verse 17, Paul says “Thanks be to God…” We don’t thank someone for something unless they actually did it. I don’t thank my one year old for the meal my wife graciously prepared. We can learn much about God’s nature and work by reading those places where God is thanked. This helps us now understand Paul’s rejoicing in Romans 7:25, after discussing the tension every Christian feels between remaining, indwelling sin and our new Spiritually imparted disposition, “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.”
To be continued…. How this should affect our parenting
Thursday, January 07, 2010
A Genuine Question
A Genuine Question for Arminians (from Justin Taylor's blog)
I’m not so much interested in a debate, but for those readers who are Arminian (welcome, by the way; I’m glad you’re here), how do you understand a passage like Genesis 20:6, where God tells Abimelech “I . . . kept you from sinning against me” and “I did not let you touch her”?
If God can prevent the action of this king, was the king’s choice free?
And if God can do this for the king, can he and does he do it for others?
I’m not so much interested in a debate, but for those readers who are Arminian (welcome, by the way; I’m glad you’re here), how do you understand a passage like Genesis 20:6, where God tells Abimelech “I . . . kept you from sinning against me” and “I did not let you touch her”?
If God can prevent the action of this king, was the king’s choice free?
And if God can do this for the king, can he and does he do it for others?
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Why All Christians Are Calvinists (and don't know it)--Last Part
Eternal Security
If you believe in eternal security (which the majority of evangelicals do), then you will need to believe in election. Why? Because if you still have “free will” in the absolute, self-determinative sense, then you could also “change your mind” after you get saved.
[Keep in mind my previous posts---by free will, we’re not merely talking about the ability to choose to do what you want. Everyone agrees with that. That’s not questioned. However, people who use Free Will to resist individual election necessarily/logically mean “libertarian freedom”—which means they can equally choose their WANTS, not just their actions. I think the Bible and logic contradicts this]
If you believe in free will and eternal security, then you are saying that a person could get saved, change their mind, hate God, reject Jesus, and still live forever in heaven with him. OTHERWISE, the believer in free-will has to say that after conversion, God takes away from will such that you can’t change your mind and hate Him. If you believe in free-will (the way most people talk about it), then you can’t say, “True faith won’t change your mind” Why? Because a free will by definition would always be able to choose all options.
Again, one more generally accepted doctrine leads us to accept individual election.
If you believe in eternal security (which the majority of evangelicals do), then you will need to believe in election. Why? Because if you still have “free will” in the absolute, self-determinative sense, then you could also “change your mind” after you get saved.
[Keep in mind my previous posts---by free will, we’re not merely talking about the ability to choose to do what you want. Everyone agrees with that. That’s not questioned. However, people who use Free Will to resist individual election necessarily/logically mean “libertarian freedom”—which means they can equally choose their WANTS, not just their actions. I think the Bible and logic contradicts this]
If you believe in free will and eternal security, then you are saying that a person could get saved, change their mind, hate God, reject Jesus, and still live forever in heaven with him. OTHERWISE, the believer in free-will has to say that after conversion, God takes away from will such that you can’t change your mind and hate Him. If you believe in free-will (the way most people talk about it), then you can’t say, “True faith won’t change your mind” Why? Because a free will by definition would always be able to choose all options.
Again, one more generally accepted doctrine leads us to accept individual election.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Why All Christians Are Calvinists (and don't know it)--Part 9
Miracles
Do you believe in Jesus’ miracles? Jesus’ raising people from the dead? Healing the sick? Giving sight to the blind? Here’s my point? Do you think these physical miracles are greater than the miracles of spiritual conversion? Honestly ask that question. Which are you most amazed at?
Our amazement will be in proportion to the difficulty of the challenge overcome. Obviously raising the dead is a more amazing miracle than passing some math test.
Matthew 19:25-26 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?" But Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
Do you think God’s changing your heart is far “more” impossible than healing blind and crippled people? OR, do you think that “free will” makes us ultimately able to control our salvation [i.e. He gives the means, but we have to actually make it happen]. The physical equivalent to “free will” relevant to resurrection and healing would be something like this: Actually, a nerve was out of place in the person’s head and Jesus simply slapped it into place; OR, Lazarus was not actually dead, so he ultimately was able to obey Jesus’ command to come forth. Or, the man crippled his whole life was not actually crippled,…he simply had never tried his whole like to walk. Really? In that case, it was not a miracle at all.
In fact, if we believe in free will, we are logically claiming that those physical miracles are great that God’s changing of our heart. But in fact, freewill says ultimately we change our own hearts. Therefore, the person who believes free-will thinks blind eyes and lame legs are bigger challenges that the sinful heart. After all, according to some, we have free-will. In that logic, Jesus’ simply suggests and urges, not commands in an effectual way.
By “effectual”, I mean commanding so as to MAKE IT HAPPEN, like when he raised Lazarus from the dead or made the demons leave people (apparently denying demons’ freewill). So, God, when he saves us, gives us efficacious grace!! Praise God.
If you believe in miracles, weshould inevitably accept God’s sovereignty in election.
Do you believe in Jesus’ miracles? Jesus’ raising people from the dead? Healing the sick? Giving sight to the blind? Here’s my point? Do you think these physical miracles are greater than the miracles of spiritual conversion? Honestly ask that question. Which are you most amazed at?
Our amazement will be in proportion to the difficulty of the challenge overcome. Obviously raising the dead is a more amazing miracle than passing some math test.
Matthew 19:25-26 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?" But Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
Do you think God’s changing your heart is far “more” impossible than healing blind and crippled people? OR, do you think that “free will” makes us ultimately able to control our salvation [i.e. He gives the means, but we have to actually make it happen]. The physical equivalent to “free will” relevant to resurrection and healing would be something like this: Actually, a nerve was out of place in the person’s head and Jesus simply slapped it into place; OR, Lazarus was not actually dead, so he ultimately was able to obey Jesus’ command to come forth. Or, the man crippled his whole life was not actually crippled,…he simply had never tried his whole like to walk. Really? In that case, it was not a miracle at all.
In fact, if we believe in free will, we are logically claiming that those physical miracles are great that God’s changing of our heart. But in fact, freewill says ultimately we change our own hearts. Therefore, the person who believes free-will thinks blind eyes and lame legs are bigger challenges that the sinful heart. After all, according to some, we have free-will. In that logic, Jesus’ simply suggests and urges, not commands in an effectual way.
By “effectual”, I mean commanding so as to MAKE IT HAPPEN, like when he raised Lazarus from the dead or made the demons leave people (apparently denying demons’ freewill). So, God, when he saves us, gives us efficacious grace!! Praise God.
If you believe in miracles, weshould inevitably accept God’s sovereignty in election.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Why All Christians Are Calvinists (and don't kow it)--Part 8
Prophetic Events
All prophetic fulfillment requires God’s have ultimate sovereignty and control over human hearts. If an Arminian says God can promise to do something in the future (and not merely foretell it like a fortune teller), then God has to be able to overcome “free will”.
Why? All human events, whether wars, births, marriages, migrations, etc…. involve humans choices. If God wanted Israel to defeat another nation, or if he assures that he will save all nations, or says he will send the Messiah, all these things require simple human decisions like, a king deciding to fight and use such-and-such a strategy, various men and women having sex so as to make sure a descendant of David is born (Jesus), and that people actually go to all nations to share the good news. These are promises of God.
If God is not ultimately decisive over human decisions, God cannot actually DO these things, thus can’t promise them. He can only predict them. This is not the sort of God we see in Scripture. That kind of thinking inches closer and closer to deism, if it is not indeed deism. All Christians believe God gives promises, not merely predictions
If you believe in prophecy, you must inevitably accept God’s sovereignty over individual wills, which thus leads us to accept the doctrine of individual election.
All prophetic fulfillment requires God’s have ultimate sovereignty and control over human hearts. If an Arminian says God can promise to do something in the future (and not merely foretell it like a fortune teller), then God has to be able to overcome “free will”.
Why? All human events, whether wars, births, marriages, migrations, etc…. involve humans choices. If God wanted Israel to defeat another nation, or if he assures that he will save all nations, or says he will send the Messiah, all these things require simple human decisions like, a king deciding to fight and use such-and-such a strategy, various men and women having sex so as to make sure a descendant of David is born (Jesus), and that people actually go to all nations to share the good news. These are promises of God.
If God is not ultimately decisive over human decisions, God cannot actually DO these things, thus can’t promise them. He can only predict them. This is not the sort of God we see in Scripture. That kind of thinking inches closer and closer to deism, if it is not indeed deism. All Christians believe God gives promises, not merely predictions
If you believe in prophecy, you must inevitably accept God’s sovereignty over individual wills, which thus leads us to accept the doctrine of individual election.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Why All Christians Are Calvinists (and don't know it)--Part 7
The Law
All Arminians affirm that NO ONE can not sin. No one is able to be perfect. However, Arminians also say that human inability would imply that we are not responsible
[Normally, they apply this to election and total depravity, saying, people can’t be held responsible is they don’t have the “ability” to independently (of God’s irresistible grace) choose him.]
However, God does command us to obey Him. Furthermore, Galatians and Romans makes clear that NO ONE can be justified by the law. No one is perfect. This certainly implies some sort of inability since NO ONE is able. This is a moral INability.
[One major reason why people make up the philosophical notion of Free Will is because they assume, contra Scripture, that inability alleviates responsibility]
Therefore, Arminians affirm the same principle that undergirds Calvinism: INABILITY does NOT take away responsibility. In fact, our moral inability actually makes us blameworthy. With respect to our hearts’ condition, our having moral inability, we cannot obey God [ie. Romans 8:7-8]. Apparently, our will is not all that "free" after all.
If you disavow perfectionism, then inevitable you have to affirm total depravity and the need to irresistible, electing grace.
All Arminians affirm that NO ONE can not sin. No one is able to be perfect. However, Arminians also say that human inability would imply that we are not responsible
[Normally, they apply this to election and total depravity, saying, people can’t be held responsible is they don’t have the “ability” to independently (of God’s irresistible grace) choose him.]
However, God does command us to obey Him. Furthermore, Galatians and Romans makes clear that NO ONE can be justified by the law. No one is perfect. This certainly implies some sort of inability since NO ONE is able. This is a moral INability.
[One major reason why people make up the philosophical notion of Free Will is because they assume, contra Scripture, that inability alleviates responsibility]
Therefore, Arminians affirm the same principle that undergirds Calvinism: INABILITY does NOT take away responsibility. In fact, our moral inability actually makes us blameworthy. With respect to our hearts’ condition, our having moral inability, we cannot obey God [ie. Romans 8:7-8]. Apparently, our will is not all that "free" after all.
If you disavow perfectionism, then inevitable you have to affirm total depravity and the need to irresistible, electing grace.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Why All Christians Are Calvinists (and don't know it) -- Part 6
Personal Awareness of Sin and Salvation
Simply ask yourself, if God gives everyone the same grace to enable all people according to their free-will to receive Christ, then what made YOU different? Why does one brother accept Christ and get saved, while another sibling in the same environment remains heart hearted? Is it because you and I were smarter, more determined, or are more moral? As for me, no way!
The only thing that distinguishes me from others is grace. The only thing I have EVER contributed to my salvation is SIN.
If you humbly believe in grace, you must inevitably accept God’s sovereignty in election.
Simply ask yourself, if God gives everyone the same grace to enable all people according to their free-will to receive Christ, then what made YOU different? Why does one brother accept Christ and get saved, while another sibling in the same environment remains heart hearted? Is it because you and I were smarter, more determined, or are more moral? As for me, no way!
The only thing that distinguishes me from others is grace. The only thing I have EVER contributed to my salvation is SIN.
If you humbly believe in grace, you must inevitably accept God’s sovereignty in election.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Why All Christians Are Calvinists (and don't know it)--Part 5
Bible’s Inspiration
Do you believe the Bible is God’s word, perfect in every way? We all know that God inspired every single word through human authors. Otherwise, if the Bible is not infallible (without mistake), then we don’t know what is or is not trustworthy. Each letter and book expresses the authors’ own personality yet is kept from error.
However, if God will not overcome human free will (the Arminian idea), then how can we be assured that God protected the perfection of His word? An author might want to say one thing, but God wants something else. According to Arminian assumptions, God cannot overcome the author’s free will to write what he wants. At least, there’s no guarantee of perfection.
If you believe in the Bible’s inspiration, you must inevitably accept God’s sovereignty in election.
Do you believe the Bible is God’s word, perfect in every way? We all know that God inspired every single word through human authors. Otherwise, if the Bible is not infallible (without mistake), then we don’t know what is or is not trustworthy. Each letter and book expresses the authors’ own personality yet is kept from error.
However, if God will not overcome human free will (the Arminian idea), then how can we be assured that God protected the perfection of His word? An author might want to say one thing, but God wants something else. According to Arminian assumptions, God cannot overcome the author’s free will to write what he wants. At least, there’s no guarantee of perfection.
If you believe in the Bible’s inspiration, you must inevitably accept God’s sovereignty in election.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Why All Christians Are Calvinists (and don't know it)--Part 4
Heaven
First, a quote from one of the world's greatest evangelists, "I believe the man who is not willing to submit to the electing love and sovereign grace of God, has great reason to question whether he is a Christian at all, for the spirit that kicks against that is the spirit of the devil, and the spirit of the unhumbled, unrenewed heart." -- Spurgeon
If you believe in Heaven, you have to accept Calvinistic theology and reject free-will. After all, there will be no sin in heaven. Apparently then, we will not have so-called “free will” in heaven. Otherwise, we would have the self-determining power to reject God in heaven.
People suppose that “free will” is needed to genuinely love God. Well, according to Scripture’s view of heaven, that’s not the case. If He can take away free will in heaven, why do we suppose it exists at all now?
If you believe in heaven, you must inevitably accept God’s sovereignty in election.
First, a quote from one of the world's greatest evangelists, "I believe the man who is not willing to submit to the electing love and sovereign grace of God, has great reason to question whether he is a Christian at all, for the spirit that kicks against that is the spirit of the devil, and the spirit of the unhumbled, unrenewed heart." -- Spurgeon
If you believe in Heaven, you have to accept Calvinistic theology and reject free-will. After all, there will be no sin in heaven. Apparently then, we will not have so-called “free will” in heaven. Otherwise, we would have the self-determining power to reject God in heaven.
People suppose that “free will” is needed to genuinely love God. Well, according to Scripture’s view of heaven, that’s not the case. If He can take away free will in heaven, why do we suppose it exists at all now?
If you believe in heaven, you must inevitably accept God’s sovereignty in election.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Why All Christians Are Calvinists (and don't know it)--Part 3
PRAYER
For many people, they ask, “If God is sovereign like the Calvinists says, then why should I pray?” I think this is the wrong question. First of all, the Bible does not use this doctrine to discuss abstract philosophical issues of time and space—rather, it intends to emphasize His grace and power in salvation.
Second, I would suggest a better question, which is actually the opposite question I had when I first believed the ‘doctrines of grace’ (another historical phrase meaning “Calvinism”). I asked myself, “If God cannot sovereignly change hearts and minds, then why do I pray?” This is the opposite question. For example, why to I pray for friends and family to accept Christ if God can’t answer that prayer?
Yet Paul prayed like this:
"Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved," (Rom 10:1).
"Finally, brothers, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may speed ahead and be honored, as happened among you," (2 Thess. 3:1).
Apparently, God can decisively overcome human resistance and save them. He is not like Satan, merely have “persuasive power”. He can answer these prayers. It you don’t believe God can actually cause people to believe and be saved, then why are you praying?
If you believe in prayer, you must inevitably accept God’s sovereignty in election.
For many people, they ask, “If God is sovereign like the Calvinists says, then why should I pray?” I think this is the wrong question. First of all, the Bible does not use this doctrine to discuss abstract philosophical issues of time and space—rather, it intends to emphasize His grace and power in salvation.
Second, I would suggest a better question, which is actually the opposite question I had when I first believed the ‘doctrines of grace’ (another historical phrase meaning “Calvinism”). I asked myself, “If God cannot sovereignly change hearts and minds, then why do I pray?” This is the opposite question. For example, why to I pray for friends and family to accept Christ if God can’t answer that prayer?
Yet Paul prayed like this:
"Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved," (Rom 10:1).
"Finally, brothers, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may speed ahead and be honored, as happened among you," (2 Thess. 3:1).
Apparently, God can decisively overcome human resistance and save them. He is not like Satan, merely have “persuasive power”. He can answer these prayers. It you don’t believe God can actually cause people to believe and be saved, then why are you praying?
If you believe in prayer, you must inevitably accept God’s sovereignty in election.
Monday, November 02, 2009
Why All Christians are Calvinists (and don’t know it)--Part 2
Theological Necessity
My conclusion will be this: Arminian theology logically and theologically requires Arminians to believe God elects every person whom gets saved (and does not elect those not saved). Or, to put it in other words, if you don’t believe in individual election (Calvinism), then you must compromise orthodox Christianity. (I’ve never had anyone disprove this. In fact, even many well known Arminians have admitted this fact and have openly compromised orthodoxy)
Here's the argument. I will NOT assume any uniquely Calvinistic assumptions. (1) God knows everything, including the future, my desires, our opinions and background. God is omniscient. (2) God is omnipotent. He can arrange circumstances, give me ideas, etc. [Yet, Arminians will say God can do this without infringing on “free will”].
These two orthodox positions then lead to the following: God knows what would “convince” me to believe, whether a book, a conversation, an idea, or a set of circumstances. Furthermore, if he is omnipotent, he can arrange such circumstances such that a person will be convinced. Therefore, God chooses to act, arranging situations or giving ideas, OR he doesn’t. God knows the “persuasive power” of his actions, thus he essentially elects some people or doesn’t elect individuals simply on whether He acts or doesn’t act. [Again, notice I’ve only used Arminian assumptions]
Here’s a key point: God’s choosing not to act IS de facto a decision to act in another way. He knows the results of his activity and inactivity. In his foreknowledge, He knows that His choosing NOT to act will have consequences just as much as his choosing TO act. Both are His decisions. Thus, the results are in his sovereign hands.
If you refuse to accept this conclusion, then in order to be theologically consistent, you have to redefine (and thus compromise) omniscience OR omnipotence. Open Theists explicitly deny God knows the future. They admit that foreknowledge necessarily leads to choosing. On the other hand, if you compromise on the meaning of “sovereignty”, then you become more and more like a deist (believing that God created the world like a watchmaker, not actively involved in the world, just letting it run). This is heresy and obviously anti-Biblical. Fortunately most Arminians I know and love live better than their theological principles.
It does not solve the problem to say God looks into the future and “elects” those He foreknows will believe. This completely ignores the fact that those future actions are inevitable responses to what God chooses to do or NOT to do between creation and the time of their choices.
Consider the following verses: "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more bearable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you.” (Luke 10:13-14)
Notice, Jesus knew what would save Tyre and Sidon. However, he didn’t go to them. As a result, they too will be judged. These verses demand our reflection.
If you believe in God’s omniscience and omnipotence, you must inevitably accept God’s sovereignty in individual election.
My conclusion will be this: Arminian theology logically and theologically requires Arminians to believe God elects every person whom gets saved (and does not elect those not saved). Or, to put it in other words, if you don’t believe in individual election (Calvinism), then you must compromise orthodox Christianity. (I’ve never had anyone disprove this. In fact, even many well known Arminians have admitted this fact and have openly compromised orthodoxy)
Here's the argument. I will NOT assume any uniquely Calvinistic assumptions. (1) God knows everything, including the future, my desires, our opinions and background. God is omniscient. (2) God is omnipotent. He can arrange circumstances, give me ideas, etc. [Yet, Arminians will say God can do this without infringing on “free will”].
These two orthodox positions then lead to the following: God knows what would “convince” me to believe, whether a book, a conversation, an idea, or a set of circumstances. Furthermore, if he is omnipotent, he can arrange such circumstances such that a person will be convinced. Therefore, God chooses to act, arranging situations or giving ideas, OR he doesn’t. God knows the “persuasive power” of his actions, thus he essentially elects some people or doesn’t elect individuals simply on whether He acts or doesn’t act. [Again, notice I’ve only used Arminian assumptions]
Here’s a key point: God’s choosing not to act IS de facto a decision to act in another way. He knows the results of his activity and inactivity. In his foreknowledge, He knows that His choosing NOT to act will have consequences just as much as his choosing TO act. Both are His decisions. Thus, the results are in his sovereign hands.
If you refuse to accept this conclusion, then in order to be theologically consistent, you have to redefine (and thus compromise) omniscience OR omnipotence. Open Theists explicitly deny God knows the future. They admit that foreknowledge necessarily leads to choosing. On the other hand, if you compromise on the meaning of “sovereignty”, then you become more and more like a deist (believing that God created the world like a watchmaker, not actively involved in the world, just letting it run). This is heresy and obviously anti-Biblical. Fortunately most Arminians I know and love live better than their theological principles.
It does not solve the problem to say God looks into the future and “elects” those He foreknows will believe. This completely ignores the fact that those future actions are inevitable responses to what God chooses to do or NOT to do between creation and the time of their choices.
Consider the following verses: "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more bearable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you.” (Luke 10:13-14)
Notice, Jesus knew what would save Tyre and Sidon. However, he didn’t go to them. As a result, they too will be judged. These verses demand our reflection.
If you believe in God’s omniscience and omnipotence, you must inevitably accept God’s sovereignty in individual election.
Why All Christians are Calvinists (and don’t know it)
We’re about to post a 6 or 7 part series entitled, “Why All Christians are Calvinists (and don’t know it)”. For some of you, you don’t even know what “Calvinist” means. Others know and wonder, “Why in the world do you want to be so provocative and shove your ‘system’ on people?”
First of all, “Calvinism” is a poor term that frankly don’t like. For one thing, most Calvinists I know have never read a paragraph of John Calvin. It’s a historical misnomer. People believed in so-called “Calvinism” way before John Calvin. Calvinists believe in the doctrine of election, predestination, and that God is sovereign over hearts; Calvinists do not believe in free will. Arminians do not believe in election and predestination; they do believe in free will. Calvinists believe God elects individuals to be saved. Arminians do not believe God elects individuals (This is a quite over-simplified introduction of terms)
Some people say, “Don’t push Calvinism. Just teach the Bible.” Of course, that is a false separation as far as we are concerned. For example, the other day, I pointed out the importance of logical words in Scripture (like “because”, “so that”, “therefore”, etc.) I pointed out John 10:26, “you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.” Someone accused me of pushing Calvinism! Actually, I simply pointed how we should pay attention to all the words of Scripture b/c it surprises us often. I never once mentioned “Calvinism”. I just teach the Bible. Actually, Free Will is a philosophical concept completely absent from the Bible. People read into the Bible that assumption and concept.
The point of this series is to argue, all Christians, including Arminians, actually do believe in individual election (Calvinism), whether they realize it or not. However, the awareness of this truth can great enhance Christian joy…hence I’m writing this to serve the two other people who read our blog.
In history, the worlds greatest evangelists have been Calvinists, like William Carey, David Livingstone, David Brainard, Jonathan Edwards, John Paton, Charles Spurgeon, George Whitefield,…..
Listen how direct, even provocative Spurgeon (whom all Arminians and Calvinists alike love), “The doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works..."
The key issue is whether God has the sovereign power to change the human heart. If you believe God is decisively able to change hearts (i.e. overcome so-called “free will”), then you are a Calvinist.
EACH point will show how orthodox Christian beliefs (which Arminians affirm) necessarily lead us to accept God’s sovereignty in electing individuals to be saved.
First of all, “Calvinism” is a poor term that frankly don’t like. For one thing, most Calvinists I know have never read a paragraph of John Calvin. It’s a historical misnomer. People believed in so-called “Calvinism” way before John Calvin. Calvinists believe in the doctrine of election, predestination, and that God is sovereign over hearts; Calvinists do not believe in free will. Arminians do not believe in election and predestination; they do believe in free will. Calvinists believe God elects individuals to be saved. Arminians do not believe God elects individuals (This is a quite over-simplified introduction of terms)
Some people say, “Don’t push Calvinism. Just teach the Bible.” Of course, that is a false separation as far as we are concerned. For example, the other day, I pointed out the importance of logical words in Scripture (like “because”, “so that”, “therefore”, etc.) I pointed out John 10:26, “you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.” Someone accused me of pushing Calvinism! Actually, I simply pointed how we should pay attention to all the words of Scripture b/c it surprises us often. I never once mentioned “Calvinism”. I just teach the Bible. Actually, Free Will is a philosophical concept completely absent from the Bible. People read into the Bible that assumption and concept.
The point of this series is to argue, all Christians, including Arminians, actually do believe in individual election (Calvinism), whether they realize it or not. However, the awareness of this truth can great enhance Christian joy…hence I’m writing this to serve the two other people who read our blog.
In history, the worlds greatest evangelists have been Calvinists, like William Carey, David Livingstone, David Brainard, Jonathan Edwards, John Paton, Charles Spurgeon, George Whitefield,…..
Listen how direct, even provocative Spurgeon (whom all Arminians and Calvinists alike love), “The doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works..."
The key issue is whether God has the sovereign power to change the human heart. If you believe God is decisively able to change hearts (i.e. overcome so-called “free will”), then you are a Calvinist.
EACH point will show how orthodox Christian beliefs (which Arminians affirm) necessarily lead us to accept God’s sovereignty in electing individuals to be saved.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Are You Sure You Like Spurgeon?
A lot of people LOVE Charles Spurgeon because he was an amazing evangelist. Some people have never thought about the theology that motivated his evangelism. Here's an interesting article, Are You Sure You Like Spurgeon?
Here's a taste: Spurgeon writes In Defence of Calvinism,
"The doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works...[T]here is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.
I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation."
Here's a taste: Spurgeon writes In Defence of Calvinism,
"The doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works...[T]here is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.
I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
