A Discussion Among Believers

Glenn has explained in recent comments that he is opposed to Calvinism and gave us a link to his explanation as to why that he entitled, I Am Not A Calvinist. Now, several people commented that following someone (like Calvin) is wrong, and this is a silly point. "Calvinism" is not a following of Calvin unless it is based on Calvin's views and writings. If it is based on Scripture, it's not following Calvin, but simply shorthand for "this set of beliefs we find in Scripture." I am not a Calvinist either, especially in that regard. But I didn't see Glenn going there, and that's not the issue here. I wanted to look at some of his points not to refute Glenn, but to answer the claims. Glenn is not my enemy and nothing here ought to be taken as a personal attack.

Glenn wrote, "Calvinists claim what they teach is the 'Doctrines of Grace,' implying that any other belief has no doctrine of grace." They are simply saying that the core of their beliefs is grace. Other beliefs have other cores -- mercy, judgment, works, etc. -- and most of those other cores aren't false. They are simply claiming their approach is centered on grace and saying nothing at all about anyone else's core. It is not a contest, unless it is one in opposition to works-based Roman Catholic salvation.

On "T," Glenn wrote, "Nowhere does it say man is UNABLE to do anything, rather it says man is unwilling." Disregarding what his sources say, Paul says, "The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Rom 8:7). Paul says, "A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Cor 2:14) The author of Hebrews wrote, "Without faith it is impossible to please [God], for whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him" (Heb 11:6). (Paul says the same sort of thing in Romans 8:8.) Jesus said, "A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit" (Matt 7:18). There are ample texts that indicate that the unsaved lack ability to do what is required to be saved, starting with grasping the things of God. Mind you, in what sense "cannot" is intended should be discussed, but it's a biblical term, not an extrabiblical conclusion.

Glenn talked about the commands to make moral choices for God and to seek Him. He concludes that it must be possible. On one hand, that's not necessarily so. For instance, I could tell you, "In order to travel in time you'd have to exceed the speed of light." That may be a true statement, but it doesn't imply it can be done. And if we conclude that unbelievers can and do seek for God and do good, what do we make of Scriptures (not Calvin) that say, "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:10-12)? That's a lot of absolutes to deny by the understanding that everyone can and does.

Glenn denies "Unconditional Election" on the basis that faith is the condition. Setting aside the "U" there, we need to consider what Election is. Jesus told His disciples, "You did not choose Me but I chose you" (John 15:16). Paul wrote, "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world" (Eph 1:4). Speaking specifically on Election (Rom 9:11) (not on the basis of anything we have done), Paul wrote, "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Rom 9:16). These and more indicate that election is not based on faith, but on God. Further, if we are saved by grace through faith so that none may boast, why is there no room for boasting for supplying the single necessary component lacking in our salvation? But, mind you, that's just thinking it through, and I find no text that says it even if it is implied.

Glenn writes of Limited Atonement that there is "absolutely no hint in the Bible of agreeing with the claim." I suspect that the problem here (as in all of the TULIP acronym) is a failure to comprehend the intent. (I personally despise the TULIP acronym for that reason; it distorts the intent.) "Limited Atonement" is not about atonement being limited. The question is, when Jesus said from the cross, "It is finished," to what was He referring? When Scripture says Jesus died for the world, does that mean that all sin is atoned for? Most directly, what was Jesus's aim when He died on the cross? To pay for all sin and save everyone, or to pay for some sin and save some? That's it. That's the question. Now, if you say, "He died for all sin and all sin is paid for," you have a problem. People are going to Hell for sin that is paid for. If you say, "He died for the sins of those who receive Him," you have "limited" the atonement. And that is all that in view in the "L" -- Christ did not pay for all sin for all men for all time. He didn't come to do that (because if He did, He failed). And I'm pretty sure Glenn is not a universalist.

Glenn disputes "Irresistible Grace" because it is not grace to force a gift on someone. (Note: he doesn't do that with any Scripture that refutes the idea.) But, thinking down that line, if a father gives his son a kidney against his son's will to save his life, is that grace, or is it evil? But, again, the "I" is misleading. You see, if we truly cannot respond positively to the call (e.g., Matt 7:18; Rom 8:7-8; 1 Cor 2:14; Heb 11:6) and we are chosen apart from any qualifications we bring (e.g., Rom 3:10-12; Eph 2:1-3; Rom 9:11), then in order to come to Christ there must be something that fundamentally changes in each individual who does respond to Christ. Peter describes it as obtaining faith (2 Peter 1:1) rather than making our own. Jesus said that the only way to come to Christ is through a grant from the Father (John 6:65). And Paul describes repentance as granted repentance (2 Tim 2:25) rather than self-actuated. So if we are granted faith and repentance, how could we not respond; how could we not exercise them? That's all "Irresistible Grace" is trying to convey; not coercion.

Glenn has no complaint about "Perseverance of the Saints" (although, personally, I don't like that phrase either). He rightly says that the truly saved person will persevere in that faith to the end. I think that's biblical.

Look, I'm not here to convince anyone to follow Calvin. I don't. Why would I ask anyone else to? And I'm not here to convince anyone that Glenn is wrong. What would be the point to that? Ultimately, I'm not even trying to persuade anyone to my way of thinking. That's between you and God and your Scriptures. I don't question in the least Glenn's character, sincerity, or salvation. All I'm saying here is that these beliefs are not "unbiblical" (since I clearly laid out Scripture for them here). You might say mine is a misunderstanding of the Scriptures and you'd be entitled to your view. I believe, for instance, that infant baptism is a misunderstanding of the Scriptures, but I have enough sense not to say, "It's not biblical," but, rather, "I think you're misunderstanding that Scripture." I would hope that we -- fellow believers, brothers in the faith, those who are supposed to be marked by love for one another -- wouldn't become adversarial in our examination of God's Word. That would surely be unbiblical.