The argument of the prevalent Christian today is that God did 99.9% of what was required to save us and we are required to take that last step by responding in faith. It is our choice. God lets us make that choice without influence or interference. It's up to us. And if you argue, as the Reformed faith does, that God originates that final choice, eliminating that last 0.1% and placing Him as the one that did 100% of the work, well, you're just plain wrong -- maybe even evil. You rotten Calvinist!
I once asked a friend who held this view to consider this illustration. There is a (fictional) community that resides at the base of a rather steep hill. At the top of the hill is an unusual, natural phenomenon. It is a gigantic boulder resting an the cusp of the hilltop. Natural forces should cause the boulder to roll down into the town, but there happens to be a small, fist-sized rock at the base of the boulder placed just so that it won't move. In all the time that it has been there, nothing has caused it to shift at all. The town lives in apparent jeopardy, but it is actually safe and even interesting because of this phenomenal rock formation. One day, a local problem teenager named Bobby walks up the hill. He examines the Rock, as they call it. He wonders about how it stays where it is. It looks like it should fall. It is 99.9% ready to fall. Why doesn't it fall? He spies the little rock at the base. "That's it," he says to himself. "What do you suppose would happen if I take that stone?" So Bobby snatches that little stone from under the boulder and steps back. As sure as gravity, the boulder moves an inch, another inch, a foot, and then, with gathering power, tumbles down the hill. It demolishes houses and cars in its path. It rolls right into the center of town, leaving destruction in its wake. It's a disaster. The question to ask, then, is this: Who is responsible for the destruction?
There is no real question. Even though Bobby only removed a tiny rock -- 0.1% of the equation -- he will be held responsible for the damage because nothing happened before Bobby acted. In the same way, if God did 99.9% of the work of our salvation, but nothing happens until we act in faith and choose Christ, who will get the credit for the salvation that befalls us? You'd like to say that Christ will, but it is unavoidable that you must get some credit because without your correct faith and correct choice, nothing would have happened for you to be saved.
My friend didn't have an answer to that.
4 comments:
Hmmm….
But where does the “.01%” number come from? Why isn’t it “10%”? Even more importantly, when it comes to causative force, isn’t it 100%?
Look at it this way, given this scenario; if Bobby never existed, or Bobby never inspected said rock, this particular event would never have happened. “But for” Bobby’s intervention, that big rock would still be there. In that light, he is 100% of the causative factor.
Or imagine if Bobby was sued. Would the jury say, “Oh, he is only .01% at fault here”? Nope, they would allocate 100% of the fault to Bobby.
Further, in comparison to the claims of what God did to effectuate salvation, whether it was 99.99% or 99.999999%--it is still not effectual! Why? Because there is still a required element upon which the remaining 99.99% is entirely hinged. And, in fact, according to this theology, there is a 100% failure rate, absent the .01%
For a comparison, imagine I carried life-saving medicine to you, and came 99.99 miles. You only needed to come .01 miles to meet me to get the medicine. Without your going those .01 miles—would the medicine ever help you? Nope. Regardless of how many miles I traveled to meet you (.01, 10, 50 or 99.99) the medicine is either 100% effective or 0% effective depending on your .01.
Therefore, it is still 100% dependent on you—despite how much effort I put into it.
DagoodS,
The "0.01%" comes from a generous acceptance of the "God did 99.99%" position. You are 100% correct that, in the final analysis, if God did 99.99% and did not accomplish what was necessary, then my "0.01%" constitutes 100%. That, in fact, was my point. (Of course, Reformed theology denies the so-called "0.01%" and places 100% on God.)
Hi Stan,
I'm thinking there might be one difference. The premise: God provides 99.9% of the salvation of one person. The rock, once loosed in your example, rolled down and destroyed a town. In order to be comparing apples to apples wouldn't the rock have to fall on Bobby crushing him only? Just a thought.
I know this other news note probably misses the mark, but there was a Drudge Report headline a few days ago that scientists had created an embryo that was 99.9% human and .1% cow. It lasted only three days [No idea what the stupid scientists would do if it had survived, but...]. I think the .1% might better represent our own strength, or our own proverbial wedding clothes so to speak.
In a sense this might be more analogous to Bobby's blunder, adding that .1% to the equation. The rock itself [oh, no, I think there's a sermon trying to come out..] is 100% and the little rock is external but can bring the wrath of the big rock down on your head.
I don't know much about Calvinism but I'd go with the 100% and give God the benefit of the doubt.
Thanks for the braintwister.
Well, I'm sticking with my "apples to apples" version. Who is one ultimately responsible for the event (be it salvation or destruction of a town)?
Post a Comment