When I was growing up, I thought myself a "Calvinist" because I believed that, once saved, you couldn't lose your salvation. I knew those "Arminians" believed you could, so I was obviously a Calvinist. Imagine my surprise when I learned that I was a "1-pointer", in terms of Calvinist beliefs, and a "4-point Arminian".
Since then, Scripture and reason that I couldn't escape has edged me into a corner. I'm forced now, based on what I see in the Bible, to be identified by my beliefs as "a Calvinist". I don't like the term because it seems to say I'm a follower of Calvin, while the truth is I'm a follower of Scripture, but there it is. If a "Calvinist" is defined as believing what I believe, then I'm one.
So what's the big objection? I've read quite about in the debate between Calvinists and ... not. (Very few who are aligned with the Arminian perspective will call themselves or be called "Arminians".) They generally rehash the same thing over and over. And I think I've boiled it down to a very fine point. So this is what I see is the general perception of what's wrong with Calvinism.
Calvinists place an undue emphasis on the Sovereignty of God. Most Christians will write the "sovereignty of God", but Calvinists prefer to capitalize it -- the "Sovereignty of God" -- because it's so important. In this extremist position, they hold that God is absolutely sovereign. Humans are never sovereign. They only appear to be at times. A human "sovereign" never really exercises "supreme authority". But to the Calvinist, God is truly Sovereign -- the Supreme Authority.
The rational next step of this belief is that humans don't decide who gets saved -- the Supreme Authority does. Calvinists view this as a magnification of the character of God and a magnification of the nature of grace. So much is grace magnified in their view, that they refer to their doctrines as "the doctrines of grace". You see, if "grace" is defined as "unmerited favor", and God alone decides who will be saved outside of human choice, then it is an extreme view of "unmerited favor" -- grace.
So Calvinism has its impact on God's character (Sovereignty), grace, and on Man's character. Calvinism claims that natural Man is dead in sin. Not only is he "sin sick"; he's actually dead, spiritually ("Total Depravity"). This renders him incapable of responding to God ... since he's dead. Being incapable of responding to God, there is nothing in him that would endear him to God, so the basis of God's choice is not Man, but ... God ("Unconditional Election"). So God, for His own purposes and of His own free choice, has done what was necessary to save those whom He has chosen to save ("Limited Atonement") and then, when He so chooses, irrevocably brings the chosen to spiritual life (Irresistible Calling). This new life produces a change in the chosen that causes them to work toward personal holiness because God is at work in them (Perseverance of the Saints). In other words, God is magnified to the utmost Sovereignty, and Man is diminished to the smallest.
Look at the arguments. I think this is what you'll generally see. Those who disagree with Calvinist doctrines do so primarily on two points. 1) It makes God out to be the utmost. 2) It diminishes Man to be the least. They complain that it makes God "unfair" (As my dear mother taught me time and time again, "Who ever told you life was fair?"). They complain that it diminishes Man's abilities. Surely the Bible doesn't teach that God is absolutely Sovereign and Man is not ... does it?
7 comments:
"... and I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his, where he says, ‘If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.’ It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will nor power, but that He gives both; that he is ‘Alpha and Omega’ in the salvation of men. (C.H. Spurgeon from the sermon "Free Will A Slave", 1855)."
Agreed.
I was going to post something but Spurgeon said it better than I could.
Yes, the Bible teaches that God is absolutely Sovereign and man is not.
I initially rejected reformed theology for the very reasons you share, Stan. But since then, I started reading the Bible, and in doing so I have come to the conclusion that I need to accept the truths it teaches, even if it makes me uncomfortable at times. I believe it teaches that God is entirely sovereign.
I agree, and we've discussed this, that the danger is that an extreme view of God's sovereignty can potentially lead to dangerous conclusions and un-Christianlike actions if one isn't careful to take in the big picture that the Word provides.
We have a role to play, we have responsibilities as Christians not just in our relationship with God but also in our relationships with others, and we should take those things very seriously.
I will definatly come back to this post a few more times. I have been battling "Am I calvinist or not" question myself. When so many at my church are and I hear that word alot...I get tense.
Tom,
Based on my personal experience and my current understanding, I find it actually rare to find Calvinist churches and Calvinists at all. I suspect (don't know for sure) that a lot of people who call themselves (or others) "Calvinists" aren't really clear on what the term means. I know I wasn't.
Starting here, I did a brief outline of what the "five points" are. Maybe that will provide some clarity. Also, my friend Scott did a nice series here that might provide some insight.
Most of all, I understand "I get tense." I feel that way when people say, "Oh, you're a Calvinist." No, I'm a Biblicist; I'm just happy that Calvin saw things as I do at times. ;-)
Well those of you who know me, know that I don't feel I fit in either camp. I believe it is a combination of the views since both are in the Bible and is either more in the middle or just higher than most of us are comprehending, which completely fits the character of God, that His thoughts and ways are higher than ours.
I personally don't see the arguments coming down to those 2 points. I believe God can be completey Sovereign in choosing to give man free will. That in no way would ever make Him less Sovereign, He is assuredly the Utmost. He was in control of that choice and will always continue to be in control. He is the Almighty.
Why can't they coexist? While I am the parent and I exercise ALL control in my household, if I choose to give my children the choice to exercise some free will in certain subjects, that does not take away my authority or make me less in control. I am stil the boss of the applesauce in our home.
I truly don't mean to argue, just restating what you know...I personally think there is truth in both sides.
Blessings to you brother, Julianne
Julianne,
Just to clarify, I think if you review what I wrote you'll see that I was generalizing. I said, "I think this is what you'll generally see." Further, I was referring to the arguments. You aren't presenting arguments (just as you said), so you aren't included in this generalization. Nor would I suggest that God didn't give Man "free will". Seems to me that would be a "hyper" position to take.
Just so we're not at odds here. =)
Post a Comment