The previous post on the Practical Value of Calvinism offered you what I would lose if my understanding of Scripture on these points is false. I need to offer the reverse as well, I think. I have always held that orthodoxy is necessary for orthopraxy, that right thinking produces right living. I have always held that doctrine produces more than "orthodoxy"; it is of practical value. What, then, is gained if my interpretation is accurate?
Well, that previous post offered a lot of losses. I think you can turn those around to see some of the gains. There is, for instance, nothing quite so humbling as realizing that I am saved purely and completely by God's good grace. We all agree our works don't contribute anything, but I didn't contribute even faith or repentance. Even those were gifts. I wasn't chosen because I would make the right choice; there was nothing at all to commend me. There is, quite clearly, the satisfaction of a truly Sovereign God who actually does ordain all that comes to pass ... you know, like the Bible says. It solves the problems of "Why did this bad thing happen?" and the like. It eases the fears of "What will happen?" because I know He is in control. And since I didn't have anything that caused my salvation and God is absolutely Sovereign (with a capital "S"), the assurance is stunning. Not only do I know He cannot lose me, but I also know that my perseverance is His work, just like my salvation was His work. All of this provides a peace that I would otherwise lack, and a gratitude that wouldn't have been as deep. This much could be gleaned from yesterday's "losses".
Another that could be seen in the previous post is that I gain a vaster picture of grace, far more amazing than I ever saw before. I put this one separately from the rest because it is so, so very important. We are told that "[God] chose us in [Christ] before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace" (Eph 1:4-6). There is a pile of goodies there, of "chose us" and holiness and blamelessness and "predestined" and adoption, all magnificent gifts of God, but note the reason. Why did God do all that? "To the praise of the glory of His grace." Not just random praise. Not just praise of His glory. The specific thing He wanted praised in all of His glory was ... His grace. Thus, since this view of Scripture produces the most magnificent panorama of grace that I've ever seen, it is accomplishing this purpose. It is this view of God that engenders in me the warmest, deepest worship.
It gives me a bigger view of God. His Sovereignty is absolute. His grace is phenomenal. His perfection is unmarred. And in so doing, it gives me a smaller and, I think, a more accurate view of Man. We are not the point here. God is. All that He does He does for Himself first and foremost. Any theology or doctrinal system that starts with Man is suspect to me. This one does not.
There are two aspects that are important to me that result from these "doctrines of grace" as they are called. The first is in prayer and the second in evangelism. Some have argued, "Well, if God is as Sovereign as you say He is, why do either?" The answer is twofold. First, He said to. In truth, that should be a sufficient answer. But there is more. If God is as Sovereign as I see Him to be in the pages of Scripture, then God ordains both the ends and the means. And both prayer and evangelism are the means that God has ordained to accomplish His work. He commands us to ask. He commands us to preach the Gospel. Why? Well, I wouldn't wish to put words in His mouth, but He has commanded us to participate in His work, so He is giving us the chance to participate in the Divine. Why would we not want to do that? Beyond that, since it is His work in which we are participating and He is indeed Sovereign -- get this -- we cannot fail. No lack of skill, no disobedience, no faltering speech, no incomplete presentation, no short-sighted prayers, none of my shortcomings will stop it. That means that I can pray boldly and I can preach boldly out of sheer obedience and out of the pleasure of participating with my Lord as He does His work and He will accomplish what He intends and -- now this is classic -- I will be rewarded for it! Seriously, it doesn't get much better than that!
There is one more quite personal outcome here. It hinges on this whole "God is Sovereign in salvation" thing. I believe that Scripture teaches He is. The Arminian view teaches that He is not; Man's Free Will is the final determination of who does and who does not get saved. God offers it to all, but we finally decide if we get it. I have to tell you that this notion terrifies me. You see, the heaviest burden on my heart for the lost is not for those who have never heard. It is for those who have been thoroughly inoculated. Perhaps they are the "Yeah, I tried that 'born again' stuff; it didn't work" type. (I've known them.) Perhaps they are the "I was raised in the church and outgrew it" type. You'll find some of them commenting on my blog. Worse, perhaps they are sitting next to you at church, maybe even in the pulpit. Most disturbing (to me), they may be your child or your grandfather or your husband or your best friend. They don't know they're not saved. They've heard it all, even "accepted" it all. They are like those false teachers of Matt 7:15-23. Notice that these didn't set out to be false prophets. Notice that they thought they were doing it for God. They didn't know. They were "religious" and even fervently so, but Jesus ... never ... knew ... them. How do you reach these? They think they've arrived already. Well, as far as I can tell, it will only be through the Sovereign act of a Sovereign God who crosses that "Free Will" line and, against their personal preferences and perceptions, opens their hearts. It would require a God who is willing to take a heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh without first having to persuade the owner that he or she has a heart of stone. when I pray for and when I share the Gospel with these types of people, it is this God that gives me hope, because the Arminian God offers me none. Having heard all the arguments, felt all the "tugs", having even been persuaded perhaps that they've properly responded, these are beyond the reach of that God. No, I need a God who doesn't require the permission of His creation to accomplish their salvation.
These are some of the most important things to me. These are the practical benefits that I receive from the doctrines of grace, the theology some call "Calvinism" and I think of as "biblical Christianity". They are not merely theoretical, and they are not trivial. Being convinced as I am by Scripture and evident reason and then showered with these blessings, I'm not likely soon to move my beliefs from here.
7 comments:
I agree that Calvinism does make more sense when it comes to those things and has many benefits. For example, I'm not sure how pure Arminians sleep at night "knowing" how many will go to Hell because they weren't persuasive enough.
Exactly!
"For example, I'm not sure how pure Arminians sleep at night "knowing" how many will go to Hell because they weren't persuasive enough."
Well, I'm not sure that's even a concern for Arminians. That is, I hope that God will use me and call others to Him through me and my humble efforts. But I don't lose any sleep wondering about "MY" success or failure, but only (if I lose any sleep at all---I sleep easily most anywhere, anytime) why the person might not be responding to God's call. As I said, I hope to be His instrument, but I may not be. Frankly, I wonder if I ever am.
There's a saying in network marketing (possibly in marketing in general) that you can't say the wrong thing to the right people and you can't say the right thing to the wrong people. If I'm a stumble bum in my evangelism, I may still be useful in providing the call---His call may still work through me for certain people.
But the bottom line, to me anyway, is that He will get His message to whomever He pleases through me or despite me, with or without me as the situation fits His desire.
Moving along, you insist that the Arminian view must result in God requiring permission of human beings. I don't believe that any such thing is believed by Arminians, and it certainly hasn't been the case for me. If permission is "required", it's by His own sovereign choice, His sovereign plan. I don't see where anything you think you gain by your belief is in any way lost by mine (I say "mine" because I don't really know the Arminian POV any better than the Calvinist). If I choose God, I still have done nothing over which I can boast or be commended as far as I'm concerned. It does nothing for me if there's no salvation to attain.
At the same time, your perspective suggests that nothing I do can make the least bit of difference for my salvation so that there really is no knowing that I am saved. Even if my works become more Christian-like, how does that prove anything. Can't atheists be Christian-like in all they do, even to the point of constantly being mistaken for a Christian?
In other words, the most devoted Christian can still not be amongst the elect and would never know it if his free will made absolutely no difference and played absolutely no role in the process based on my best understanding of your position (which ain't necessarily saying a whole lot, I grant you).
A lot here. This will take a couple entries ...
"He will get His message to whomever He pleases through me or despite me, with or without me as the situation fits His desire."
Your description of God using you like that is a Calvinist description. Since the Arminian believes that the final determination of salvation is "my faith, my choice", then the Arminian must work as hard and as long and as persuasively as possible to urge people to come to their own faith to make the right choice and any failure of getting someone to the right decision is very possibly a failure of the messenger. (I, in fact, have known many Arminians wracked with guilt for just such failures.)
"If permission is 'required', it's by His own sovereign choice, His sovereign plan."
I think you turned something around in the first sentence of the paragraph I reference. The Arminian view does require that God get human permission to save them. Even if the requirement is self-imposed (as your statement above indicates), it is a requirement. And while it appears to baffle most who hold your view why I would suggest that there is something to boast about, I'm baffled at the repeated denial of same. A parallel: I didn't build the power plant or run the wires or put up the transformers or connect up the power or run the wiring inside the house or design the lightbulb or the lamp. All of that was done outside of me. All of that is available for me without doing a thing. So what is the difference between having lights in my house at night and being in the dark? I flipped the switch. That's all. Nothing more. But if I complain, "It's dark in here", who will my wife say is at fault? "Go turn on the light, silly!" And if my wife complains, "It's dark in here" and I flip on the light, who gets the thanks? Does she contact the power company or the homebuilder or GE? No, it would be me. You said, "It does nothing for me if there's no salvation to attain." We already agree that God did all that other stuff (like making salvation available). "No salvation to attain" is not an option. But if God wills that all are saved but fails to have His will fulfilled because His creation will not allow it ... who is sovereign? And if the difference between "saved" and "not saved" is "I chose" or not, who is the final determiner of my salvation?
"Your perspective suggests that nothing I do can make the least bit of difference for my salvation so that there really is no knowing that I am saved."
No matter what I've said in the past, you keep bringing this one up. It makes me wonder -- is this a big issue for you? (No insult or accusation; just asking.)
Your understanding of my perspective (of the way I read Scripture) is inaccurate. The concept of "monergism" -- that God alone produces salvation -- is limited to the initial production of salvation in the individual. There is a divide (called "dead in sin", hostility to God, blinded by Satan, slave to sin, all that stuff) that must be breached to cross from death to life. That divide cannot be breached by human effort or will (from what I read in the Bible). However, once God moves a person across that divide, the system is synergistic -- regenerated humans cooperating with God. He provides faith and repentance and we exercise it. He gives new inclinations and we choose according to them. Some people see this stuff and think "But the Bible says we have to have faith and to choose Christ and to repent. How can anyone say otherwise??!!" We don't. We agree. It's just that we disagree about where that faith and choice and repentance originate.
In answer to your question, yes indeed it is possible for genuine unbelievers to convince themselves (and others "blinded by the god of this world") that they are Christians. Oh, and note, by the way, that "the most devoted Christian" must be among the elect (that's not my opinion; that's the biblical view however you think of "the elect"). You can have "the most devoted, self-deceived person who thinks they're a Christian", but all genuine Christians are among the elect.
In response to your primary concern here -- "no knowing that I am saved" -- I would disagree. However, what I would think is irrelevant. Throwing out what I see in Scripture as plain and evident, what does your view give you? If, for instance, it is your faith and your choice and your repentance that gets you that salvation, how does that give you "know I am saved"? If your faith and your choice changes, would you remain saved? You are quite certain that nothing I have offered gives any assurance, and you're certainly free to think that. (The purest Arminian view specifically denies that we can have assurance. The plain reading of 1 John 5:13 contradicts that.) What do you believe different that does give you assurance?
"Your description of God using you like that is a Calvinist description."
Maybe I'm a hybrid! :)
In case I haven't been crystal, I'm no more one than the other in my understanding of either. But the way you're describing the Arminian view, I can't say as that really does it for me. When I talk about free will, I see it as a result of God's sovereignty that we have it. I guess I'd have to say that my perspective is that we are called by Him through whatever means He desires, deigns or designs to that point at which we are allowed to make the choice, but make the choice we must. It's not a matter of Him needing permission to do anything. He's set it up this way. He's provided all we need. Do we want it? So, to say this:
"The Arminian view does require that God get human permission to save them."
...is something on which I'll have to take your word, because I don't know "Arminianism" any better or worse than I do "Calvinism". I can only say that I've never thought of it quite like that regarding God needing permission to do anything. (He IS the Supreme Being! See Time Bandits)
Now, if something as simple as flipping on a switch to avail one's self of all that went into providing light can be regarded as something for which one might boast, that makes for one desperate and needy person. Who can't do that? Boasting demands some special quality that isn't present in an action ANYONE can do. It's like saying, "Hey check it out! I WOKE UP today." or "I was BREATHING today!" Considering the rewards, to choose NOT to flip on that switch and instead stumble about in darkness seems more noteworthy.
more later
"I've never thought of it quite like that regarding God needing permission to do anything."
Arminian or Calvinist, American or Soviet, black or white, if your view says that God requires you to choose Him and that until you do, He cannot save you, then God needs your permission to save you. And one big thing at stake for me here is just that -- God's Sovereignty in salvation.
But for me I have all these unanswered questions. Look, what does it take to be saved? Well, it's simple. You have to understand the call, come to Christ, and believe, right? I mean, that's easier than throwing a light switch, right? Except that the Bible says that we cannot (not "may not") do any of those things. It is not within our natural capabilities. Jesus's words were "no man can", which is pretty absolute. So if God has ordained that we have Free Will and He's wooing and calling and cajoling us to come and we cannot, seems kind of pointless, doesn't it? All three of these items -- understand, come, believe -- are specifically listed in Scripture as innate inabilities in Man. So how does Natural Man cross that chasm of "cannot"?
My reading of Scripture says God does it. The Arminian view says that Man does it. Your view seems to agree with that view, but neither you nor the Arminians offer any possible explanation as to how.
Note, by the way, that I'm not saying that we don't choose Christ. The thing that has to change is the ability to choose Christ, the ability to believe. From what I see in Scripture, that is what God does apart from Natural Man's "Free Will" after which this person does choose, does believe. In other words, not seeing what's going on in the heart, in the supernatural work of God, it would look exactly like what you're seeing. He hears the message, finds himself believing it, and chooses Christ. But what is it that makes that happen? Jesus said, "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep." Being "My sheep" is required before "believe". Paul said "We preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." That is, there are three reactions to the Gospel. In one case they get tripped up ("stumbling block"). In another they think it's silly. The third -- those who see it as wisdom -- have a prerequisite. They have to be among the called. And as Jesus told His disciples, "You didn't choose Me, but I chose You."
Post a Comment