As it turns out, no particular set of doctrines is without genuine questions that need to be answered and are difficult. If you think otherwise, you haven't really looked. And throwing them at your opponent often doesn't help. Consider some examples from the "Arminian vs Calvinist" disagreements.
Calvinists believe God is absolutely Sovereign. Arminians believe His sovereignty means that He sovereignly ordained Man's Free Will to be really free and "redeems" Man's decisions for His good purposes. Calvinists believe that God ordains all that comes to pass (without requiring a causal effect) and Arminians argue that God does not ordain all that comes to pass -- in particular, sin. And, oddly, both sides point at the other and say, "You've got some serious questions to answer there."
The Calvinist has to explain how it is that God could clearly command against sin (expressing, obviously, His will) and then ordain that, say, Joseph's brothers sin by selling him into slavery (Gen 50:20) or that Herod and Pontius Pilate would crucify His own Son (Acts 4:26-28). The position is that He wills against sin and for it? And how is He then not the author of sin?
The Arminian has to explain how it is that God could know from the beginning that Adam and subsequent mankind would sin, could have the ability to either not create or even to prevent the sin, and still create Man and allow the sin. The position is that He knew it and did it anyway and didn't intervene but it was not in any sense His will?
The Calvinist has to explain, if God works all things after the counsel of His will, how it is that Man could be held responsible for his sin since God worked that after His will.
The Arminian has to explain how God works all things after the counsel of His will with the very clear exception of all sin.
On the subject of the Atonement, the Calvinist argues that Jesus's intent on the Cross was to atone for the sins of the elect and that He actually accomplished this. The Arminian holds that He died for the sin of the world and only those who come in faith are saved.
The Calvinist has to figure out how "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2), but not of the whole world, and the Arminian has to figure out how He could be the propitiation[1] for our sins but only those who come in faith receive the benefit. (Note the problem here. If "come in faith" is the determining factor of "propitiation", then it cannot be said that Jesus propitiated the sins of the whole world, but only that He potentially propitiated them ... pending faith.[2])
Based on Sovereignty, the Calvinist argues that God saves some and doesn't save others, thereby predestining them to Hell[3] (Jude 1:4; 1 Peter 2:6-8). The Arminian holds that God predestines no one to Hell and only predestines those to salvation who, of their own free will, come to Him. (This view argues that "predestination" is a group, not individuals ... that God ordains that there will be a Church, a Body of Christ, and not what individuals will be in it.)
The Calvinist has to explain how it is that God could ordain some to damnation and desire all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4). The Arminian has to explain how it would please Him to have all people saved and "does all that He pleases" (Psa 115:3; Psa 135:6) but doesn't save all men.
Notice that in none of this have I provided answers ... for either. This was just a sampling. Assuming 1) both sides are Christians and 2) both sides want to abide by Scripture, it should be clear from these examples that it is rarely a case of "Our side has it all figured out and their side has some sticky questions to answer." No side is without questions, without challenges. We should keep that in mind in our thoughts and discussions on these kinds of issues.
________
[1] Propitiation means to set aside wrath. Thus, if Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, then God no longer has wrath for the sins of the whole world and we'll all have to be Universalists.
[2] It's a funny thing, when you get down to it. The Calvinist says, "Christ's death was sufficient for all sin, but efficient only for the Elect" and the Arminian says ... the same thing. The Calvinist believes in Particular Atonement -- only some will have their sins covered -- and the Arminian believes ... the same thing. The Calvinist holds that only the sins of the elect -- those who come to Christ in faith -- will be propitiated and the Arminian believes ... the same thing. And still there is a "tooth and nail" battle over this.
[3] The Calvinist does not believe that God forces anyone to go to Hell who 1) didn't deserve it or 2) sought to come to God but couldn't. This error is called symmetrical predestination. It argues that God uses the same work to save some as He does to damn others. Not the view of the Calvinist.
[2] It's a funny thing, when you get down to it. The Calvinist says, "Christ's death was sufficient for all sin, but efficient only for the Elect" and the Arminian says ... the same thing. The Calvinist believes in Particular Atonement -- only some will have their sins covered -- and the Arminian believes ... the same thing. The Calvinist holds that only the sins of the elect -- those who come to Christ in faith -- will be propitiated and the Arminian believes ... the same thing. And still there is a "tooth and nail" battle over this.
[3] The Calvinist does not believe that God forces anyone to go to Hell who 1) didn't deserve it or 2) sought to come to God but couldn't. This error is called symmetrical predestination. It argues that God uses the same work to save some as He does to damn others. Not the view of the Calvinist.
15 comments:
Stan is quoted: "No side is without questions, without challenges. We should keep that in mind in our thoughts and discussions on these kinds of issues." I may be off topic somewhat but I want to look at it from a church membership perspective.
My pastor has commented on the issues of Reformed theology and Arminian theology last year when he said: "We recognize that there are secondary and even other realms out there where there is room for healthy debate, where there are even, get this word, Tensions, that exist within your Bible. Therefore there are tensions that will exist within a church family and within a church body. These tensions have existed for 2000 years. It is very unhealthy to be defined by secondary issues. That is not what defines us. We will we will attempt to avoid imposing a theological presupposition on every passage. Our call is to preach the “full counsel of God” and avoid being “issue zealots.”"
There has been issues in my church in the past and the pastor has had to deal with them. Our pastor has been accused of being too Reformed and not being Reformed enough. People have questions in the church but the questions are not forth coming because half the elders are Arminian and the other half are Reformed. Instead of addressing the issues the elders have decided to avoid them. I am no longer a teacher because I have been told I see things only in black and white (monergistic) and not open to other views. I don't have problems with people who disagree and I am open to hear other view even though I may disagree but that is another story. When people ask about election and predestination in the church they are told to look up the answers for themselves. We will not spoon fed church members on secondary issues.
Instead of avoiding these questions we need to find out what we believe and why we believe it. The questions the opposing group throws at us need to be addressed. The Bible is either monergistic or synergistic. It can't be both. I need to study to show myself approved unto God... and do my best to teach what the Bible teaches. If people disagree then we can respectively agree to disagree. God has shown me truth and will continue show me truth and it is up to Him to show truth to others. Unity in the church should be because of doctrine, not the avoidance of it. If there is no unity in doctrine then the only option may be to attend another church. The Bible has answers to these questions and challenges and also by biblical scholars though the ages. Maybe I am a black and white person.
Ron, I have a few questions. Do you think the Bible must be monergistic to all people, meaning one truth? What I mean by this is, could God have created a nuanced scripture that speaks to people where they are at? I agree that we all have to choose what we believe to be the right and true interpretation, but maybe God intentionally left room for slight differences. One final thought. Is it okay for a church to say we will have unity in the Gospel of Jesus, but leave room for disagreement on the secondary issues, or in your opinion must a church choose a side on the secondary issues? Thanks.
Stan, I appreciated this. It layed it all out there nicely.
Josh, without making an argument, I need to explain what "monergistic" means. You've heard, I suppose, of synergism, where "erg" means "energy" and "syn" means "together". Thus, a "synergism" is when work is being done with two or more forces.
Monergism, then, is the opposite, where the "erg" is the same, but the prefix is "mono" -- one. So when Ron (and others) refer to "monergism", they are saying that the work done in salvation is the work of one (God), not more than one (you and God). That is the idea behind the term.
(I think you were thinking "monolithic" -- one thing, one meaning, that sort of thing. That is not what "monergism" refers to.)
Gotcha, thanks
Josh says: I agree that we all have to choose what we believe to be the right and true interpretation, but maybe God intentionally left room for slight differences. One final thought. Is it okay for a church to say we will have unity in the Gospel of Jesus, but leave room for disagreement on the secondary issues, or in your opinion must a church choose a side on the secondary issues?
There can be unity in the Gospel with secondary differences. On secondary issues like future things, baptism, tongues, etc. each person can have a different opinion other than what I believe. I would not necessarily put the doctrine of man in the secondary issue column. For example if you don’t get the doctrine of man correct then the rest of your theology will be wrong. If a person thinks that man is corrupt but there is an island of righteousness in every man and he can choose Christ at any time, then he will present the Gospel in a different way than I would. He will probably use Charles Finney’s method – emotionalism, music, mood, persuasion, etc. He will use whatever it takes to try to persuade someone to make a decision for Christ, not realizing that it is the Father who must draw him to the Savior. Many times repentance is never brought up, just a three step process. Easy believism is one of the reasons why people make decisions for Christ and are never heard from. So my list of secondary issues are different from my pastor’s list of secondary issues. He and the elders have decided not to teach these doctrinal issues in detail because it may cause disunity. For me it is hard for church members to hear one elder teach man make can decide for himself to receive Christ at any time and hear another elder say it is God alone who saves. Instead of teaching the doctrine of man in detail, they will simply say study it for yourself. Anytime a church will not address the issue of the doctrine of man, the teaching will default to semi-Pelagianism or Arminianism. I wish the elders would agree one way of the other – monergism or synergism. If I happen to disagree and express my views, I might be considered a trouble maker and will disrupt the unity of the gospel. So in order not to cause “division” I usually don’t say anything because, first, I am not confrontational, and second, out of respect for my son-in-law who is the student pastor, even though I am no longer a teacher because of my views. It is okay, although disappointing, if my church wants to move in that direction but I know I can trust the Lord will work in my heart or move me to a different church.
Give it whatever title you like, but the Bible says man MUST accept by faith the work of Christ. Man has to cooperate with God in that way, i.e., accept the gift offered.
And THAT is the real debate, isn't it? Calvinism say man is unable to make that choice until God gives him the ability to do so, while Arminians (or other non-Calvinists) say that God gives EVERYONE the ability to choose and lets them make the decision. Otherwise there really is no choice - man only thinks he has a choice when God already forced it upon him.
As Stan has said many times, there is a distinction between must and can. We all agree that we must choose God.
I can't remember what topic it was under, but the corporate elect thing still bugs me. How can God predestine a grouping of people but have no say in who is in it? It seems to me that theoretically, it would be possible that none are saved because nobody chose, and then that would make God a failure. If there is the possibility of no one joining the group, how can it be said with any meaning to predestine said group?
God DOES have a say as to who is in the group - God gave the condition as to how to become saved. Those who accept the condition are in the group. What's so hard to understand about that? And NOWHERE in the Bible does it say man CAN'T choose for or against God.
No, God gave the conditions and is then biting His nails going people respond. And are you just ignoring all the references Stan has been giving about Man's inability to choose God? It would not be something we are defending if it wasn't in Scripture.
David,
By the laws of quantum physics I could theoretically walk through a wall, but realistically I know that to be 'impossible'. The same could be said of God's corporate election, theoretically everyone could refuse God, but God's perfect knowledge allows him to see this as an impossibility.
Most of the Bible is directed at the nation of Israel. This too is discussed in corporate terms, as individuals were added and removed from the nation. The Jews that would receive the new Covenant and much of the teaching of the early Church were used to this corporate way of viewing society. The Elect would be understood as those who have chosen to fall under the New Covenant of grace and salvation, as opposed to the old Covenant under the Law.
Not one verse in Scripture says man is UNABLE to choose God. NONE.
Josh, there are, as I see it, two significant problems with the "corporate election without individual election" concept. (Note: Those of us who see individual election in Scripture also believe in corporate election.)
One problem is the image. God makes a bowl ... we'll call it "the Church" ... and stands there, bowl in hand, waiting for someone, anyone, to jump in. Not a sensible picture.
The other is that the Bible speaks of individuals being predetermined. While a lot of people argue, for instance, that Romans 9 is about corporate election, every example Paul uses is of individuals (Jacob, Esau, Moses, Pharaoh) and all the language is in terms of individuals. In Acts we read of Lydia who believed when God opened the eyes of her heart (Acts 16:14). In Acts 13:48 we read, "As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." Individuals. In Romans 16:13 Paul mentions Rufus, "a chosen man in the Lord." On the converse side, Jude writes of false teachers who "were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation" (Jude 1:4) and Peter writes of those who refuse Christ, "they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed (1 Peter 2:8).
So the image of a God hoping to fill a corporate bucket and the fact that Scripture speaks of individual as well as corporate election would seem to be a problem for that "corporate only" view.
The corporate election of Romans 9 is election to service, not to salvation. TULIPer seem to have a problem understanding the difference.
That's a new one, Glenn. It looks like you're reading a different Bible entirely than I am.
Context: "Who is descended from Israel?" (Rom 9:6)
Answer: "The children of the promise" (Rom 9:8)
Examples: Jacob, not Esau (Rom 9:10-13), Moses (Rom 9:15), Pharaoh (as an example of the reverse) (Rom 9:17).
The subtexts: 1) All are individuals. 2) Every reference is to individuals ("I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy", "I raised you up to demonstrate My power in you", "It does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs", etc.)
The bottom line: God chooses to show mercy to some vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (Rom 9:22-23).
Now, if all of that references service and not salvation, you're the first one I've ever known to see it, whether in present day existence or in Church history. "TULIPers" have a problem indeed seeing how "mercy shown to vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" refers to service, not salvation. But, then, so does every single other commentator, writer, or interpreter I've ever read. So don't lay that at "TULIPers'" feet.
We only can't pass through a wall because we can't vibrate our atoms fast enough and keep cohesion at the end. We only can't choose God from our Natural state because we can't make ourselves alive again.
Post a Comment