I've never hidden the fact that I'm convinced, for biblical reasons, that reformed theology is true. (Don't worry. This isn't an argument for reformed theology.) Of course, while many things -- the Trinity, birth, death, and resurrection of Christ, the authority of Scripture, salvation by grace through faith, etc. -- are things that all true Christians agree on, reformed theology isn't one of them.
It's a shame, too. I mean, I'm not really interested in debating the subject. I've offered clear biblical reasons for my conclusions. I've offered reasons why it's important to me, too. But I don't believe that if you don't agree you're not a true Christian, so I'm not willing to do battle over it. But it's a shame because it's so marvelous to me, and I really wish I could share it rather than debate it. I wish this was a place where I could share the wonders of God's Sovereignty (1 Tim 6:15; Psa 115:3; Psa 135:60; Prov 16:9; Prov 19:21) and His irresistible grace (John 6:35-36; Rom 8:29-30), the marvel that He would preserve His own, His choice to save some without something worthwhile in them (Rom 9:11,16), His unilateral regeneration (John 3:3; 1 John 5:1) to new life and the gifts of repentance (2 Tim 2:25) and faith (Phil 1:29), and so much more. I only wish.
There are those who will tell me that I'm not even a Christian with beliefs like these. Others assure me I'm following Man's teaching (and will likely provide a name for the man they have in mind). I've been tricked and confused. And I suppose I'd go along, except that I find it inescapably clear in Scripture, the only line of biblical reasoning that makes sense to me. I didn't pick it up from John Calvin or Augustine or some other teacher. I'm convinced by Scripture. Beyond that, I find the truths of these positions amazing, magnifying God. So I wish I could just share them with others and enjoy them with others. "Isn't this stuff wonderful?" "Yes, yes it is. Oh, did you notice this, too?" I'd love that. Too bad it has to be a conflict. I don't want it to be.
36 comments:
I agree on all counts. There are many, many times that I think, "I'm so glad I hold to this theology!"
Stan,
Your willingness to step out into these land-mine strewn boundaries is an encouraging example.
As a "Reformation" Christian who looks to the Scripture first, and then the confessions, these things seem so clear. Yet as one who has also read much in other Christian traditions, including the very good book by Dave Hunt, What love is this, which all Reformed Christians would do well to read, I understand the difficulties non-Reformation Christians have in accepting it.
Essential to understanding the reasons for this is that what is called "Reformed" these days is almost never actually "Reformed". It is neo-Reformed. Men like Piper, Wilson, Keller, etc do not speak for me, nor those like me. They reject essential parts of the Confessions. They do great disservice to the body of Christ by presenting themselves as different from what they truly are.
God through his means of grace leads his own into all truth. What a blessing it is to know that my salvation is all of Him.
Alec
Personally, I find it amusing that Calvinism is called "Reformed Theology," as if Calvin was the only leader of the Reformation. Luther was before him, and if any theology has the right to the name "Reformed" it would be Lutheranism. And there were others who were "reformed" even before the Reformation, let alone others who were part of the reformation movement. So you guys really need to get another term. :oD
Personally I find it amusing that Reformed theology is called "Calvinism". Calvin didn't specify it. (The five points that came to be considered "Reformed theology" were actually a response to the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dordt.) But "Reformed theology" (the name) has no special value to me. It's shorthand for a particular set of beliefs that most people have at least some recognition of. It's just that some people get upset when I refer to it as "biblical theology". :)
I always find it odd that people accuse others of following a certain teacher. Don't we all do that? Mine it's your dad or your mom or your pastor or that guy on the internet or that guy from that book or that guy in history. Do any of us come to our theology in a vacuum?
Actually, Calvinism ISN'T "biblical theology," rather it would more appropriately be called "Augustinianism" because it just Augustine's teachings rehashed. Calling it "biblical theology" is why non-Calvinists (and not all of us are "Arminian" either as Calvinists seem to think) get upset. Still trying to find TULIP in the Bible without eisegesis. :oD!
I don't know about you, but I learned my theology straight from the Bible. That's all I read for several years before I even heard of Calvinism or Reformed or Arminianism, or whatever. I didn't get my first commentary until I had been a believer for 14 years. No radio, no church (because I worked Sundays), no TV preachers --- Just that book called the Bible. I wonder why I never found any of those "isms" in there?
I know that's your position, Glenn, and, of course, you're certainly free to hold it. Calvinism. Augustinianism. Arminianism. Lots of names tacked onto lots of beliefs. One small problem, Glenn. I've never read Calvin or Augustine. I wasn't even raised in that belief system, so it wasn't "secretly inculcated" (as some might think) in my youth. No, I came to the beliefs I hold based on the clear biblical texts that lead me to this and no other possible conclusion. You won't believe that. That's fine. No hard feelings. But I know that it is the Bible and the Bible alone that led me to where I now stand, and to go another way wouldn't be for me a violation of Calvin or Augustine; it would be a violation of clear Scripture. As soon as someone else can come along and explain to me that all those Bible passages don't mean what they seem to mean, then perhaps I can consider a lesser theology that will not give me the peace from God and confidence in Him that this one does. You think it's from some man. Mine is Bible only. You may be sure that it isn't biblical theology, but mine comes solely from the Bible, so it is by definition biblical theology. I'm pretty sure yours is, too.
Is that true, Glenn? You've had no teachers, no instructors, no pastors? No one assists you as you read the Word? I think the Bible says we need teachers, doesn't it? (Eph 4:11-12)
I came to know the Lord through the Navigators while I was in the Army (and they had basic Bible teaching with no commentary slant towards one position or another at that time, which is why both sides of the debate hold ex-Navigators). That was only for a year before I got out of the Army and became employed. I worked every Sunday for the next 3 1/2 years and so didn't go to church. I studied my Bible daily, getting through it usually at least twice a year. When I changed jobs I was of 2 Sundays out of 7 for the next 10 years so never went to church because I had no idea what sort of church to go to, being worried about getting caught up in something weird like the Mormons I left (but my wife and I studied together, and as the kids grew she walked a couple blocks to a Baptist church so they could have Sunday School). Finally, after 14 years as a believer my rotation was going to let me work Sunday afternoons with permanent Thursday/Friday days off, so I studied all the mainline denominations and their doctrines, reading the confessions of the major groups, examined what their doctrines stated and compared them to the Bible. Since my wife grew up LCMS, I purchased the Book of Concord and studied to see how they stood. I had a good Catholic friend at work who provided me with tons of RCC material to study (which led me to quickly reject them). Then I found a book at the library which showed statistics on mainline denominations and where they stood on various theological and social issues (and was shocked how many taught that Genesis was mostly myth, and believed in evolution, etc). I finally decided that LCMS was acceptable and met with a couple different pastors to find where they stood on Genesis and evolution, etc. I still disagreed with Lutheran consubstantiation (thinking it is too close to transubstantiation) and baptismal regeneration, but I was able to handle it so we could start attending church in the summer of 1988 -- 14 years after I was born again.
Four years later we began homeschooling and I learned about non-denominational churches, so when I got fed up with Lutheran teaching of tradition rather than Scripture, kids memorizing Luther's words rather than Scripture, I began thinking we should try a non-denominational church homeschool friends went to, but I got a transfer and stayed with the LCMS until arriving in Iowa and never set foot in one again.
I began learning about "Reformed" theology in 1996 and rejected flat out, the same as I rejected what is know (falsely) as Arminian theology as practiced in the AOG and others of that type where people can jump in and out of salvation.
By the way, Ephes doesn't say we NEED teachers, it just says teachers were given to the Church. The Bible alone is sufficient when there is no ability to have teachers. Is it better to have teachers? Yes, as long as they aren't practicing eisegesis.
It's ironic in a way, that after I became a Christian I wanted to reach the Mormons and so spent almost as much time studying them as I did the Bible, and that was the beginning of my apologetics ministry, which I believe the Lord led me in to.
All during 1987-1988 you might say I studied under teachers, because I studied all the doctrines of all those denominations so as to be able to decide which would be "safest" in overall theology. And the same summer we began attending church regularly is when I bought my first commentary- Halley's Bible Handbook. My library now has numerous commentaries from various theological positions and, amazingly, a large percentage are by "Reformed" teachers!
Informative. Thanks, Glenn. (Just for the record, would you recommend that all believers go without any teachers and just read the Bible for themselves, or would you recommend good teachers and disciplers?)
Oh, I always recommend getting good instruction from solid teachers. After all, a deeper understanding of the nuances of the original languages, the cultural contexts, the many cross-references from the N.T. to the O.T., and stuff like that really brings so much more understanding. And there are a lot of things that are difficult to understand (as Peter said about Paul's writings, e.g.) that good teachers can expound on. Besides that, the more in-depth we can understand our faith, the more we are prepared to defend it.
Thanks. I figured as much.
So, that would make you the exception. Typically people are taught by someone, especially about those deeper passages. You were able to figure them out all on your own. Do you prefer spelling out every theological idea you have every time (to avoid association with a particular person) or do you use short-hand (like all those TLA's you just threw out there with no explanation) to give people an idea about what you believe without going into detail every time? Stan considers himself "reformed" or "Calvinist" because those theologies align closer with what he believes, but he doesn't fully agree with everything they teach.
And why do people get so hung up on TULIP? It's a helpful mnemonic tool, not anything word for word from Scripture. The times I've looked into the acronym, it has had verses on the description as proofs. It is a shortening of theological ideas, not verbatim. Stan doesn't agree with TULIP because Calvin said so, but because it aligns with what he sees in Scripture. Or is there no room for grammatical aids to help move a conversation along?
I never read Calvin or Augustine. I was raised in a culture and churches that were 100% "free will / you can lose your salvation / etc." and didn't realize there were mainstream alternatives. When I first heard of Reformed theology (my preferred term -- call it what you like -- life's too short to quibble on that one and most people know exactly what I mean by it) I thought it threatening. Over time I heard and read the pros and cons and eventually switched sides. That process doesn't make me right, but it does mean I wasn't conditioned into the belief but came by it via a carefully digesting the opposing views and reading the Bible. And admitting that I used to be wrong :-).
David,
I've known other people who came to the Lord solely by reading Scripture, and who have never accepted "reformed" theology, so I'm not an exception.
If people ask my specific theological position, I spell it out in a fairly short statement:
God has given everyone on earth the knowledge about Him (Ps. 19:1; Rom. 1:19-20; Job 12:7-8; Acts 14:17; Acts 17:24-28), and the individual is expected to have the ability to understand God (Jer. 9:24). God knew man would sin and therefore predestined a way of salvation through Christ. He predestined that those who would accept Christ by faith would be the elect. He predestined through His foreknowledge, not fore-ordination. And that is where Calvinists go astray - confusing foreknowledge and fore-ordination. They claim that God cannot foreknow what He didn’t fore-ordain, which actually limits God. God is outside of time and sees the end from the beginning, so he KNOWS who will choose to believe rather than forcing people of His choice to believe. God sovereignly gave man the free will to accept or reject Him - and that is what the Bible shows.
I get "hung up" on "TULIP" because it is really what defines Calvinism/Reformed Theology. For a full explanation, I wrote an article for my blog -- if you care to peruse it.
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2013/02/i-am-not-calvinist.html
So then, you believe things happen that He didn't ordain? While I agree that foreordination and foreknowledge are different, nothing that happens without Him ordaining it. And since we agree He is outside of time He would be foreordaining since He ordained everything to happen before it happened, while it happened, and after it happened.
So let me see if i understand Glenn's explanation.
God has foreknowledge, but does not foreordain.
God knows because he looks into the future to see who is going to accept Christ.
does that mean that God's knowledge is contingent upon something happening in the future?
then that means that there is a point in time that God did not know something.
if so then it follows that God is not omniscient.
What is free about the sinful nature of man's will? is not natural man Dead In Sin?
the logical conclusion is that if Man has free will that can thwart the sovereign will of God then God is not sovereign.
that's just some small logical arguments. but what does the scripture say?
Mathew 11:25 I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. 27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and [he] to whomsoever the Son will reveal.
does not the revelation of Christ, depend wholly upon the exclusive prerogative of God alone? where in scripture, does it explicitly state that fallen man has freewill?
Mathew 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Bob,
I said God does not fore-ordain who will be saved - in that he does not choose who to save and who not to save without their free will choice of Him. God fore-ordains lots of things, just not whether I will choose to follow him.
There is no point in time where God does not know what is happening - He is outside of time and sees the end at the same time he sees the beginning. How you derived your ideas from what I wrote has to be based on your personal bias and eisegesis rather than what I wrote. In fact, your whole comment about my statement is eisegesis. NOWHERE did I even intimate that man can thwart God's will. Your problem is that you deny God the sovereignty to allow man to make choices and yet blame man for not making choices!
David,
So then God ordained sin and ordained that men must sin, and is therefore responsible for sin? That is the logical conclusion of your statements.
I never claimed or intimated that God does not ordain things, but for the most part He ordains that life just goes as He set it in motion. If he ordains every detail of every life then he is nothing but a puppet master and we are nothing but puppets -- preprogrammed robots.
This is what the post was about! It's just sad to me. I wish we could celebrate the Sovereignty of God and instead we need to debate it. Too bad.
Romans 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Romans: 13 As it is written: I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau.12 14 What should we say then? Is there injustice with God? Absolutely not! 15 For He tells Moses: I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.13
16 So then it does not depend on human will or effort 14 but on God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture tells Pharaoh: I raised you up for this reason so that I may display My power in you and that My name may be proclaimed in all the earth.15
18 So then, He shows mercy to those He wants to, and He hardens those He wants to harden.
Eph. 1. 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us2 for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known3 to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
Glenn i am sure that you love the Lord, and if i have offended please forgive me.
but just for fun's sake: start with the Gospel of john then read thru all the nt books and search for the words .. calling, called, given, elect, predestined, and see what you find.
Bob, No offense.
I don't disagree with what the passages say, we just disagree with what they mean as for what "predestination" means. I spelled out my understanding above. I see no need to continue the conversation, because you will tell me nothing I haven't already heard or read from the very numerous "reformed" teachers I've encountered either in person in classes or in the many books in my library. I fully understand the viewpoint but I thoroughly disagree with it.
This is why we debate it though. One says God is absolutely sovereign and the other says He have up His sovereignty.
Oh, sure, David, I debate it. I debate it because I'm hoping someone will, like I did some years ago, smack themselves on the forehead and say, "Oh, my! This DOES all make sense biblically. And, oh, boy, is it good!" Still, I do like just enjoying it far more than debating it.
David,
the other says He have up His sovereignty
And THAT is where YOU misrepresent the position. God doesn't give up any sovereignty when he sovereignly gives man the decision to choose to obey him or not. God gives up NO sovereignty by allowing man ANY choice. God can and does (historically demonstrated in the Bible) counter man's choices in many, many things. But there is no where which says God will force man to choose to follow him - in his sovereignty he allows that choice and provides the consequences for how the choice is made.
Stan,
I keep hoping the "reformed" people will say about the anti-Reformed side, "Oh, my! This DOES all make sense biblically. And, oh, boy, is it good!"
Glenn, I was raised on that side. Scripture forced me to change my mind.
Hey i almost forgot.
it's Friday,, yea..
you Guys have a great weekend. God Bless.
and thank you Jesus.
That's okay Stan -- my side must says you are in denial :oD
"just says" -- I hate missed typos!
Are you of the group then that believes that the "elect/predestined/chosen" is just a hypothetical grouping that God set out there, only knowing that some will choose but not who?
And it is not a misrepresentation, it is the complete conclusion to the statement that "God sovereignly gives us the ability to choose". If He is allowing someone to make a decision without His desire, He is subjugating His Sovereignty to us. Sure, He's doing it willingly, but that doesn't make it any less true that He is sovereignly making our choice sovereign. We believe that God is 100% in control 100% of the time, and we find comfort in that, knowing that nothing can happen that He didn't want to happen. You believe He is in control 100% of the time, only when it is regards to anything but us (I assume you believe He's even in control of natural phenomenon), and you find comfort in a God who isn't quite sure how things will go His way, but knows they will. You attempt to relieve Him of any responsibility for us, only to give up the assurance that ALL things are His plan. He foreordained it when He looked at creation (through all of time since He's outside of time) and said it was good. He didn't say good enough, or it will do. It is good. Like many skeptics claim, if He could have made it different and didn't, He's cruel. Or, everything is as He planned it and everything is good.
David,
Do you subject you sovereignty over you children when you allow them to chose? Of course not.
God knows who choses him because he is outside of time -- again, he knows the end at the beginning. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Again with your idea of sovereignty, God has to be responsible for sin, because if if people do things outside his desire, then they impinge on his sovereignty. He ALLOWS people to sin, he ALLOWS people to chose. Otherwise we are nothing but preprogramed robots and you CANNOT know if you are one of the elect. You have God fore-ordaining sin, and that makes him evil
I'm really finished with this conversation now. It is futile. Go on if you want, but I'm finished.
If I had any kids, and I allowed them to do something contrary to what I want them to do, I am allowing them to hold authority over me, so yes, I would be subjecting my sovereignty to them. If I didn't care one way or another, then I've also subjected my sovereignty to them.
We agree, He allows people to sin, He allows them to choose, but if they wish to choose something contrary to His plan, then He will prevent them. And I'm not talking contrary to His Law, I'm talking about His hidden Will, the one that will become apparent only when we arrive in the end. I believe that the world has not become bad enough to earn another flood, not through our ability, but through His restraint. How many generations between Adam and Noah? We've easily surpassed that multiple times over, and yet we haven't gotten as bad as the world of Noah's time. The only way that is possible is if God is involved in preventing us from getting that bad, or He's just ignored us and we are far worse than Noah's time. You want to believe that God's Sovereignty and our choices are separate because you believe that would make us robots. Was Pharaoh a robot when God hardened his heart? Was the High Priest a robot when God hardened his heart? We are still culpable for our choices because we make them, but anything that is contradictory to His ultimate plan won't be allowed.
Hi David (and Stan),
Your dialogue is very helpful to me. I wish we all saw things in the same manner - how wonderful for brothers to be in unity in our beliefs. However, to get to real unity takes many many conversations like this one. And authentic unity is the only kind of unity we should care about.
One small point you probably already know, but am adding here for the sake of anyone else who may read this thread. The reason there's been no flood has nothing to do with human beings, and everything to do with God's promise and with the true meaning of the rainbow. (Genesis 9.8-17)
Alec
Typo - meant to write "Hi David (and Glenn)".
I wasn't saying He would flood again, He promised that in the rainbow. But I believe we aren't as bad as Noah's time. I believe when we do get that bad He will return. I see no reason for Him to turn a blind eye to sin after almost wiping us out for it. He's no less offended by it than He was, we're just not as bad as that yet, and I believe that is only due to the restraining influence of God in the sinfulness of Man.
Post a Comment