Interestingly, these are 5 points and 5 points only. That is, of the entire set of theology that these seminary students were given and that Arminius taught, there were only five contentions. So, we're starting out here with vast agreement. And yet, at the end of the day, we're told that there is vast disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians. You can see on the surface it isn't true. But what about the actual disagreements? Well, here's what we find.
Both Arminians and Calvinists believe that Man is, by birth and by practice, sinful. He is, at his core, depraved. You will find this agreement in the Statement of Faith of both Arminian and Calvinist churches, of Baptists and Presbyterians, of all genuine Christians. It's in the Bible. We're in agreement. Based on passages like Eph 2:1-3, Gen 6:5, Gen 8:21, Rom 8:7, and so many more, the Reformed view says that this depravity is too deep for Man to bridge on his own. Oh, and we're all in agreement on that point as well. But the Reformed view goes on to say that when Paul wrote that we were "dead in trespasses and sin" (Eph 2:1), he meant that we were dead in trespasses and sin. Arminians see it as more like a serious sickness, a metaphorical "dead" that doesn't actually prevent Man from making the right spiritual choice. A disagreement. Still, notice that we are agreed that Man is depraved at his core and incapable of saving himself.
Both Arminians and Calvinists believe that God chooses whom He will save. It is, again, biblically unavoidable. A smattering of example Scriptures would necessarily include John 15:16, John 17:6, Eph 1:4, Eph 2:10, 2 Thess 2:13, John 13:18, John 15:19, and Jude 1:4 (which speaks of a reverse election). Paul seemed to take it for granted in many of his epistles (e.g., Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2; 1 Thess 1:4; 2 Tim 2:10; Titus 1:1). A quick search of the word, "chosen", includes texts like Matt 22:14, Luke 9:35, Acts 9:15, Col 3:12, James 2:5, 1 Peter 2:4, 9, and Rev 17:14. And you don't have to go far at all to find the "elect" (e.g., Matt 24:31, Rom 8:33, 1 Peter 1:1). But the clearest text on the topic is in Romans.
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good fto those who love God, for those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified (Rom 8:28-30).You can squirm and deny and retranslate all you want, but the text is not avoidable. God predestines some to be conformed to the image of His Son and calls them. They come. This isn't "Calvinism"; it's the Bible. And every Arminian agrees. The question, then, is not whether or not God chooses whom He will save -- we all agree that He does -- but how God chooses. And you have to admit, how God chooses is, in all honesty, up to God. So we're stuck with a vast agreement here, coming to different conclusions on how, but agreeing that He does choose.
All genuine believers are convinced that Christ is the only way to God (John 14:6). All genuine believers understand (at least eventually) that Christ paid the price for our sin (Rom 3:23-26). This is what we call "Atonement". And, as it turns out, all genuine believers agree on the extent of the Atonement. Various outliers will argue that the Atonement is universal, covering all sin and, therefore, saving everyone. But this can't be supported with Scripture, starting with the words of Christ who tells us, "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few" (Matt 7:13-14). No, no, universal atonement doesn't work. We are agreed. So in that sense we all agree that the Atonement is limited in its extent. The disagreement, then, only occurs when discussing the intent. Did Christ come to save everyone and not succeed, or did He come to save the Elect and succeed? Without offering an answer, it should be clear that we all hold that the Atonement has limitations since not everyone is saved, and we are, again, in agreement.
The question of "Irresistible Grace" seems to be a sticky one. It's funny, though, because both Arminians and Calvinists agree that humans resist God's grace continually. The question, then, is whether there is a point that God can overcome Man's resistance. Arminians say no but pray for it. Calvinists say yes. So we're largely in agreement ... again.
In the end, then, it is this last point that brings contention. Is it possible for a believer, once in Christ, to lose that salvation? The Calvinist says no, absolutely not. The thoughtful Calvinist says, "But we must persevere in faith." The Arminian says, "Yes, you can", but won't actually hold that position for all cases since he believes you can always get it back even when Scripture says otherwise. (There are, in fact, a large number of "Four Point Arminians" who disagree with the Calvinist's first four points but agree on this last that salvation cannot be lost.) The typical Calvinist will point to the myriad of texts where God cannot lose what He has, and the typical Arminian will point to the multiple texts where Man must persevere. In order to be biblical on the topic, both sides will need to put the two ideas together or remain only half biblical, a dangerous place to stand.
So, as it turns out, even on the contentious "Five Points", we are largely in agreement. As it turns out, it is mere details in question. How bad is depravity? How does God choose whom He will save? What was the intent of the Atonement? Can God ever override Man's resistance? And exactly how do we correlate both "you must persevere" and "God cannot fail"? Details, my friends. You'd think, with all this agreement, we'd be better able to discuss this amicably. Go figure.
1 comment:
Excellent distinctions!
Post a Comment