No, I did not say “Doubting Calvinism.” Although I am a master of typos, this blog is about something different. First, every reader needs to know that I am a Calvinist. And while the “doctrines of grace” are not the most important issues in theology, I believe in them very deeply and find that they constitute a significant portion of my hope and comfort.
Why all this snuggling up to Calvinism? Because I don’t want to look like one of those disgruntled emerging types, continually complaining about his own family. Having said that, I am going to discuss a “problem” I often (certainly not always) see among my Calvinist brothers and sisters. I am going to state the issue and then attempt to provide a timid yet substantial interpretation of the problem.
Okay, enough of the prologue. Let me get to it.
I grew up a Baptist. As such, I was quite aware of the “Baptist way” of evangelism. First, you get the person saved. Next, you make sure they know that they can never lose their salvation. Assurance of salvation was not some tertiary or auxiliary doctrine. It was something the new believer in Christ must have, now. To be fair, this is not simply a Baptist thing. It is something that can be found in the DNA of pop Evangelicalism as well. And it makes some sense. If a new believer knows that he is secure in Christ, his works and service to the Lord will come because he is saved, not so that he can be saved. This secures his belief and understanding in justification by faith alone.
Assurance of salvation. I suppose this is the subject of this post. The question is Can one be absolutely sure that they are a believer and how important is this assurance in their walk with the Lord? Many Christians don’t believe an individual can be assured of their ultimate salvation. Many believe one can lose their salvation. Catholics believe that “mortal sins” (really nasty sins such as adultery, rejection of the perpetual virginity of Mary, or missing Mass without a valid excuse) can cause a Cathlic to lose their salvation. Arminians and Wesleyans believe one can cease to believe, thereby forfeiting their seat in heaven. Therefore, from the perspective of those who don’t believe salvation can be lost, these belief systems cannot offer any assurance. The criticism would be that no one could ever be sure, until death, whether or not they are saved. After all, what if I decided to sleep in on Sunday and then immediately died of a heart attack without repenting? How do I know for sure if my faith is going to last until the end? For Catholics, the fact that one cannot be assured of their salvation is dogmatized.
If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Canon XV of the Decree on Justification
If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end, unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Canon XVI of the Decree on Justification
Ironically, for the Catholic, to believe that one can be assured of their salvation would be the means by which they lose their salvation!
You: I thought this was about Calvinists!
Me: Patience, my son. Patience
Calvinists believe in a doctrine called “perseverance of the saints.” Normally, we don’t like the phrase “Once saved, always saved” (even though, technically, we believe this). A little better is the designation “eternal security.” But our favorite is “perseverance of the saints.” We believe that the elect will persevere in their faith until the end. Therefore, if one is among the elect, she cannot lose her seat in heaven.
One would think this would bring a great deal of assurance among Calvinists concerning their security. Their faith is a gift of God and he will never take it back. The elect are secure.
Now, as many of you know, I have quite a significant ministry dealing with Christians who are doubting their faith for one reason or another. Jude 22 says “have mercy on those who doubt.” I don’t think we do this enough. We avoid doubters like the plague, not knowing how to minister to them. Unfortunately, many of my fellow Calvinists deal with doubters according to one of two theological clichés. If they leave the faith, they were never saved to begin with. If they are elect, they will not leave faith. End of story.
There are three primary reasons Christians doubt. The first has to do with objective intellectual issues. These doubt the Bible’s truthfulness, Christ’s resurrection, and even God’s existence (among other things). Another group doubts God’s love and presence in their lives. The last group doubts their salvation and the reality of their faith. These are always wondering if they have true saving faith or a false faith. This last group lacks assurance.
It may surprise you to know that just about every contact I have had with people who are doubting their salvation are Calvinistic in their theology. In other words, they believe in unconditional election. These are the ones who believe in perseverance of the saints. These are the ones that believe that we cannot lose our salvation! Yet these are the ones who are doubting their faith the most.
Their issue has to do with their election. Are they truly among the elect? If they are, they believe their faith will persevere until the end. But if they are not, there is no hope. But how are they to know for sure whether they are elect? Maybe their faith is a stated faith? Maybe it is false. The gentleman I talked to today was so riddled with doubt, he was having thoughts of suicide. “How do I know my faith is an elect faith?” He wanted assurance so badly, but felt that his Calvinistic theology prevented him from ever having such assurance.
Isn’t this ironic? I have never had a call from an Arminian (or any other believer in conditional election) about this. In my experience, it is only Calvinists who doubt their faith in this way, with such traumatic devastation. Why?
I have my theories. Let me share them, but I am interested in your thoughts.
Here we go (close your ears Baptists): I think we make too much of the doctrine of assurance. I don’t know if it is paramount for a believer to always be absolutely assured that he is a believer. John Hannah, one of my favorite profs at Dallas Seminary, said one time in class, “I am ninety percent sure I am saved . . . but I am only ten percent sure of that.” He would say things like this, knowing it would disturb most of his Evangelical students’ foundations, causing them to think more deeply. I thought if John Hannah is not one hundred percent sure he is saved, how can anyone be? I did not know whether to rethink my Baptist upbringing or take John Hannah out into the hall and share the Gospel with him. Eventually, it caused me to rethink my understanding of assurance. I don’t think there is any reason why we have to be absolutely certain we are saved at every moment. When we present the Gospel to someone and they say they have trusted in Christ, we do them a disservice to force assurance upon them. After all, how do we know that their faith is real? We don’t. Instead of assurance, maybe we should give them some of the Hebrews warning passages. Maybe we should speak to them as Christ spoke to the seven churches in Revelation: “to him who overcomes . . .” Maybe we should encourage them to “test their faith” (2 Cor. 13:5). Maybe we should warn them that there is a possible disqualification. (1 Cor. 9:27). This may not fit into your thinking, but we all know there is a faith that does not save (James 2:19). Why not bring this up?
You see, people in our tradition often believe it is anathema to test your faith. To even bring up the possibility of our faith not being real scares us. Why? Because if it is not real, in our sometimes distorted thinking, it is God’s fault and there is nothing we can do about it. We are either elect or not and all that can happen if we examine our faith is bring about the terrifying possibility of reprobation.
I think, for so many of us, the issues are as black and white as they can be. We are caught up in this modernistic ideal of absolutes. Either you know with one hundred percent infallible certainty that we are saved – or we have no certainty at all. But I think our certainty is relative to our situation. The question is never Are you elect? That is a question only for God. The question is Do you believe right now? If you do, you can know you have eternal life. Could you be wrong? Could your faith be false? Could your trust in the Lord be like that of the second and third soils of Christ’s parable? Those that sprung up quickly but faded away? Sure. But the solution is not to divine the mind of God to see if you are elect. It is to persevere in your faith. Arminians know this. They live with this every day. Therefore, they don’t call me falling apart about their assurance. They know how to test their faith and they do all they can to keep it. Calvinists often just get paralyzed in fear thinking they are not among the elect and have their hands tied. When, truth be told, we should respond very much like Arminians with regard to the stability of our faith. We do everything to persevere (which I would love to expand on, but I don’t have the space). Our theology demands that when we do persevere, we know that it was God who would not ever let us go, not us who would never let him go. Therefore, we understand our faith was not of ourselves. But this fact does not help much in situations when our faith needs to be tested. We simply do not have a magic decoder ring to determine if we are truly elect.
You ask me: Michael, do you know you are saved? My answer: yes. You ask me: Michael, do you have assurance? My answer: yes. You ask me: Michael, why do you believe you are saved? My answer: because today I am still believing. But I have to test this all the time, as I am not infallible. I could have a false faith, but I don’t believe I do. This ninety percent assurance will have to do. The witness of the Spirit I have today is enough for today. Tomorrow I will examine myself again. But my assurance does not have to be absolute and comprehensive. While the Catholics went way overboard on their “anathemas” (I mean, come on, guys . . .), I do think they are right to warn against any necessity of infallible assurance. Once we learn to test ourselves, the times of doubt will lead to productive action, not paralyzing fear.
867 replies to "Doubting Calvinists"
Btw, lets hear an Arminian Creed, do our SEA Brethren have one?
Well Cherlyu, the blog does not endear much respect that’s for sure! I have noted that the first day I arrived on the blogs! (2008?) And note as I have said before, I never use the term Dr., as many do who have that educational, theological right! The point is indeed that “respect” that I learned in both the military, and just my Irish generation, is sadly a lost reality in both modernity and postmodernity! And I am not attacking you at all! But I am seeking to make the case for the ill of postmodernism, and just bad theology today!
Btw, Greg just said it experientially very well! The essence of God’s Sovereignty… it is more than just an idea, but a reality, as an experience in the doctrine of God, itself!
Fr Robert,
I do believe that my comment: And it seems to me that your translation of John 3:16 only “seems better” if you are already convinced that Calvinism is correct, was offensive to you and I apologize for that.
That was an opinion based on the fact that all but one of the versions that I had read rendered it as, “For God so loved….” and the obvious fact that you thought the other way of translating it fit with your Scriptural understanding better.
@cherlyu: Thanks for your #390, that’s the give and take we all should have! Btw heaven & eternity will no doubt really surprise us, we will first be on our face for awhile that for sure! 😉
Fr Robert,
I agree that respect seems to be a lost concept in our world today.
But there is something else I learned a long while ago too. And that is that just because someone has a lot of education in some area does not necessarily make them correct. And I am speaking specifically of theological areas now. All that it takes to realize that is to spend some time in different denominational churches and listen to the Pastor’s sermons. These are the folks that have come out of various seminaries. And guess what, they can’t agree on a whole host of issues. Beyond the fact that there is one God, the Trinity is the correct understanding of Him, and we are all sinners on the way to hell without the salvation that Jesus gives us, the differences are great. Even the way that salvation is applied, the ones it is meant for, and how it is received by us are obviously areas of great difference.
So just because someone has great theological learning, I just can’t sit back and take what they say as “the truth.”
PS to comment 392,
I grew up in an atmosphere that either explicitly or implicitly taught that, “the pastor is the one that knows. He has gone to school for years and studied all of this stuff. So he has the answers and so what he says is THE truth.”
The only trouble was, as I related above, THE truth from one pastor was not necessarily THE truth from another pastor.
And spending time on the blogs in the last years has only emphasized the fact of how many different “takes” there are on all things theological out there.
@cherylu: In reality, there is more theological agreement in the historical churches, at least those churches that somewhat follow and believe in the Ecumenical Councils and creeds! I have theological academic friends.. Catholic, Orthodox, and Reformed, and some that are just not visible church oriented. Though I admit I have a kind of hard time historically with the latter! Yes, I am a classic Churchman to some degree! But, I understand your point, but in my opinion this is far more the problem with the Church Academy today (I left that in the 90’s). For example people like NT Wright, with his scientific intellectual theology, for the most part it is just “Tom Wright’s”, rather than historical and theological Christianity! The Reformation really was part of God’s great hand in returning back to the Apostles Doctrine! But then again, I am a historic churchman. 🙂
Btw I could run with Luther here also! His “theologia crucis” is so needed today in the Church! And indeed both Calvin and Luther taught both Law & Gospel, another lost theological art in the Church today!
So yes, always biblical theology, and this does include some form of the systematic!
The real lack of pastors who are really pastor-teachers, using historical theology, with the dogmatic, is surely very real today! And I am not just speaking of Calvinism either, but a true desire for a Biblicism, that is “theological”!
Fr Robert,
Down through the years I have had association with quite a few different denominations. Some for just a short time, others for quite a while. I have been in two different Lutheran groups that had quite a few differences amongst themselves. I have also been in Christian Missionary Alliance churches, Assembly of God churches, a Foursquare church, a Christian Church, and several non denominational churches. Quite a varied background for sure.
And yes, there were a lot of differences of belief and resulting practice in all of that.
@cherylu: That experience sounds like it is your “own” and good! I have mine also! I have preached in several Lutheran Churches, as too Presbyterian (FV types) mostly, besides my Anglican time and experience. But I have also preached at a few Open Brethren Conferences (few years back). They are historical PB’s or Plymouth Brethren. Of course all of this is as a guest preacher/speaker (save the Anglican). And something I don’t get into depth here much, is that I am more certainly one that believes the Eschatological Coming of Christ is ever closer! I am most surely Historical Pre-Mill (post-trib.), and somewhat a Progressive Dispensationalist (which includes being most certainly a “Biblical” Zionist!)…Oh yes! The time is short! Man will not survive the 21st century! > I will stand on that!
In case you missed it: http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/an-important-admission-on-salvation-assurance-from-prominent-calvinist-c-michael-patton/
@AP: Another ad-hoc, that does not really engage with historical Calvinism, nor historic Christianity! More, “sounding brass”. (1 Cor. 13: 1, etc.)
Fr Robert,
Someone can not express their belief and understanding of things without being accused of having no love? That is the context of something being called “sounding brass” after all.
It seems to me that is a pretty hefty accusation/judgment to make of someone.
cherylu,
Fr. Robert loves to use the words, “ad hoc” and “ad hom”, but he can’t explain how or why opposing arguments should be considered “ad hoc” or “ad hom.” Basically, anything that really challenges his own views appears to be “ad hoc” or “ad hom.” Note I asked him earlier to give me examples of what arguments of mine were “ad hom.” That request was met with silence. So now I will ask him again, as well as ask him to define “ad hoc” and explain why my arguments are to be considered “ad hoc” (or “ad hom”) while his are to be considered legitimate arguments.
I would like to respond back to the original intent of this post. Assurance of salvation. Let me first say that I am a bible believing Christian. I was raised in a non-denominational church and by Christian parents.
A little background on my experience with Calvinist/ism.
A few years ago (by a few I mean 15 or so) I had never heard of a Calvinist, nor did I know what Calvinism was. That changed when I joined a bible study group that was held on the college campus of the school I was attending. This bible study was also affiliated with the church I went to while away from home. I of course did not know of the churches Calvinistic leaning beliefs as it was a place recommended to me by a family friend. The bible study is where I first heard of the 5 points of Calvinism. Actually to be more accurate it was at the after study get together at taco bell:) They would give me scripture verses here and there to back up their belief. I carefully considered these verses. Their view on predestination is what interested me the most and I think is more on topic for my response to this post. The idea that God individually chooses, based on nothing but His will, who to save was a foreign concept to me. And it honestly scared me. So I looked into it a great deal by reading my bible. When I read the verses they gave me to consider on predestination/election, I also read the verses before and after, and sometimes the whole chapter and sometimes the chapters before and after, but I never came to their understanding of predestination (specifically what is predestined). Meaning, I don’t believe an individual’s salvation is predestined/predetermined. Of course I was new to this concept and reserved the right to admit that I might be wrong. After all I hold to the fact that God is God and He is righteous in all that He does no matter what. But I have never come to a Calvinistic understanding of predestination when considering salvation.
All that to say all this.
I never doubted…
sorry, think i went overboard on content. here is the second part to my previous comment.
All that to say all this.
I never doubted my salvation in such a way as when I contemplated that the Calvinist was right. I am not saying I doubted my faith and who my faith is in, but my salvation was in doubt for me. Faith became meaningless in Calvinism. Responsibility was out the door. Even if you say it’s perseverance (which I take to mean works demonstrating faith) and I don’t have a problem with that, but it too is meaningless. The way I saw it and still do, is I could have all the faith in the world and believe that Jesus is the Christ, that He was born of the virgin Mary, that He lived on this earth, that He died on the cross shedding His blood for my sins, that He was buried and rose again the third day according to the scriptures, that He will come again, that He created this earth and the heavens and all that is in them, I could believe everything about the gospel and still not be saved because God did not choose me for salvation. This is why I believe you have come across more people who doubt their salvation who are Calvinistic in theology. Because for me while I rest in my faith and the faithfulness of God to do as He has promised, the Calvinist (though they have faith) can never be sure if they are one of the chosen/predestined/elect. Sure it’s a question only for God, but a Calvinist can’t have assurance without the answer to it. Perseverance only profits you if you are one of the chosen, which you can’t know. Who knows the mind of God except God Himself.
I would tell the Calvinist to rely on their faith, being sure of what they hope for and ignore election. I imagine this would be a hard thing for them to do though. The two seem so intertwined for them. And so the Calvinist is left to wonder if they are one of the chosen prior to their faith.
@AO: Of course the terms ad hoc and ad hom, are Latin. But let me quote my Webster’s Dictionary Second Edition (Unabridged), 1960. This was a gift my father got me, from his trip to America of the same year.
Ad hoc, [Latin, to this] Pertaining to, or for the sake of, this case alone; – said of a hypothesis or reason adduced to explain a phenomenon or class of phenomena, and having no other application by which its validity and significance can be tested.
Thus it is not necessarily a negative at all, but an argument itself!
Of course, ad hominem is from the Latin also. But means, ‘To the man; – said of an argument directed at or appealing to one’s passions or prejudices rather than one’s intellect.
I think it is rather easy to see, that often blog arguments are rather a combination of both of these! WE all need to work on the best of our ad hoc arguments, rather than the ad hom!
Btw, this was my point too about quoting Paul’s use of “echeo” (in 1 Cor. 13: 1, Greek for voice like, note the Greek word “phone” (akin here)… for “sounding or roaring brass”! Sadly in OUR theological debates, we all must beware of this posture! And btw, its a very human problem, even for Christians! And I include myself!
And Latin, has been used for centuries for Theological Study! I love it myself! Perhaps we need more ad intra: internal, inward, toward the inside, opera Dei ad intra: the inward or internal works or activity of God; also termed opera Dei interna. Yes, I love Reformed Scholasticism!
Btw, Noah Webster, here is a great American Christian well worth checking out! He was a devout Calvinist also!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster
“His 1828 American Dictionary contained the greatest number of Biblical definitions given in any reference volume. Webster considered education “useless without the Bible”. Webster released his own edition of the Bible in 1833, called the Common Version. He used the King James Version (KJV) as a base and consulted the Hebrew and Greek along with various other versions and commentaries. Webster molded the KJV to correct grammar, replaced words that were no longer used, and did away with words and phrases that could be seen as offensive.”
Btw, this was my point too about quoting Paul’s use of “echeo” (in 1 Cor. 13: 1, Greek for voice like, note the Greek word “phone” (akin here)… for “sounding or roaring brass”! Sadly in OUR theological debates, we all must beware of this posture! And btw, its a very human problem, even for Christians! And I include myself!
Well, when one takes a phrase out of the context of the Scripture it was used in, (while being sure to give the Scriptural reference for it) I reckon one should figure he is likely to be misunderstood or his intentions questioned if the Scriptural context is negative. 🙂
And just how did I take this out of context, to give it an application? Paul in fact puts the whole of 1 Cor. 13 right within this context! Note verse 6…[Love]…”Does not rejoice over unrighteousness (wrongdoing) but rejoices in THE truth”. (note the article!)
YOU just cannot get to any pastoral place can you? Is your dislike for Calvinism that bad? Btw, what if its theological essence is true? True Christian love does not negate “the truth” of God!
Okay, so I guess I was right in the first place. You are saying that AP was not loving when he posted that article?
If that is true, then I ask as I asked before, how is it not loving to post one’s understanding of a subject? And how is it not quite a harsh judgment to make of him by stating that?
Either I am completely misunderstanding you here, but it truly seems to me that is what is happening.
If I misunderstood what you said, please clarify.
True Christian love does not negate “the truth” of God! I agree that true Christian love does not negate the truth of God. However, what is in question in this nearly a thousand comment thread is what exactly is the truth of God. One can hardly be said to be unloving and negating the truth of God when one doesn't believe what has been presented is that truth, can one?
The greatest truth of God, is indeed the “doctrine” of God! And GOD’s Sovereignty is here first place, when we loose this, then we loose God, or surely will! It is just about as simple as that! Of course there is no perfection in any human approach to theology (the study and doctrine of God), but for us Reformational, Reformed and historical seeking Christians, the great doctrine of God’s total Otherness (transcendence) is a top stone, in biblical theology! (Rom. 11: 36) …and yes indeed, “this” is the great debate!
And btw, we find the doctrine of God in both HIS “transcendence” and “immanence”! The great and holy “mystery” (musterion, Gk.) In God In Christ! (Col. 1: 26)
Fr Robert and Greg,
Here is a link to an article I just read: http://atheologyintension.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/2376/ The article is titled, “Calvinist Quotes on God Determining All Evil.”
It contains quotes by various Calvinist authors. A few of those quoted are John Calvin, John Piper, and J I Packer. I would be interested to know if you agree with the understanding those folks are presenting.
(Please just read the quotes and not the Arminian commentary under them. I know you will not agree with them!)
Greg,
You seem to suggest that Arminians serve some sort of “false god”. Do you actually know that for a fact? I mean, seriously, maybe they see a different aspect of God than you do. I personally am an agnostic myself.
Greg said: “All Christians worship the same God as there is only one true and living God. Thankfully, converted Arminians,”
Let’s deconstruct this statement. Let’s take an example of a rubix cube. Jill sees one side of the cube and says that it is red. Marcos sees a different side and says it is green. Still, Carl sees another side and says that it is blue.
Now here’s the question – are they all examining the same cube?
Also, it’s not as simple as “Arminianism vs. Calvinism”. I personally favour open theism but there are problems in all philosophies. There is, in addition to these three, Molinism held by William Lane Craig.
Fr Robert,
I would like to know what you think of those quotes too if you get the opportunity to read them.
Greg,
You said once that you didn’t believe God loved the reprobate because, and I think these were your words, “that would be a horrible love”.
So, what I would like to know is this. If God positively decrees that evil has to be and didn’t just permit it, if every event comes from His intended will, and if man freely chooses that which God has foreordained, and if man can do nothing unless He has deliberately inspired it–and is then held accountable and punished eternally for it–what a “horrible kind of justice” is that? It is certainly not any kind of justice known to mankind.
It seems to me then that one would have to ask if He is only just to the elect and not just to the reprobate for that seems to be a horrible kind of justice indeed.
Amen our brother Greg is “shooting good rounds down range”… Biblical, logical and theological! The military metaphor seems appropriate. 😉
It is my supposition that the Arminian doctrine of God, can loose the doctrine of God, it at least opens the door. And from here we get Open Theism, process theology, etc. So yes, UGH! Thankfully the older Wesleyan Arminian doctrine does not fully go here!
And Cherylu, I don’t agree always with many past and certainly present Calvinists! But, perhaps old John Calvin is still my favorite, and especially some of his Gevevan men and disciples! But again, there is no perfection here, save the Word of God itself! But again, only the Reformed Divinity comes closest to the “soli Deo Gloria”: glory to God alone!… for me anyway.
On a lighter note folks, I see this is going to be comment # 921.
An old kids song that my grand kids and I enjoy comes to mind with a twist appropriate to the present circumstances. It would go like this:
This is the thread that never ends,
It goes on and on my friend!
Some people started writing here not knowing what it was.
And now they keep on writing here forever just because…
This is the tread that never ends…. 🙂
Maybe it won’t strike any of the rest of you as humorous, but it did me anyway.
I’ve got just a minute here and wanted to make one distinction.
Greg,
You keep saying things to the effect that the Arminian doctrine replaces God’s truth for what humans think the truth should be. Judging and concluding from human reason instead of accepting the ultimate truth which is God.
But the Armininan perspective (or maybe I should speak just for myself and the Catholic position) isn’t doing that. In my view, the Calvinist position doesn’t match what God has revealed about himself. It’s not that I think Gods ways should make sense to me, it’s that Calvinism’s interpretation of God’s sovereignty doesn’t hold true with what I have heard this sovereign God say.
So, the point of conflict is not really about where we get truth (faith vs. humanistic assumptions). It’s about two different visions of God.
Accusations along the lines of Arminians trying to fit God in their own mold aren’t going to lead to understanding, or even to pinpointing disagreement, because that’s not where the difference lies.
If I accepted Calvinism, I wouldn’t be being disloyal to my own ideas, I would be being disloyal to God as I hear his revelation to humanity.
Greg said: “God is not a rubix cube. Nor is He in anyway analogous to a rubix cube.”
I never said that God was a rubix cube nor was he analogous to rubix cube. I was using the rubix cube as an example to show how Christians can be allowed to have diverse opinions on God while at the same time worshipping the same God.
Greg comment p. 2, comment # 422,
I saw that comment when you first made it and wanted to respond, but didn’t have time or the like. But now that you have re-posted it, let me point out that your comments seem easily overturned by simply plugging into your formula, “if God does x, then x is perfectly holy, righteous, just, and good” various things that go expressly against Scripture. For example, the spirit of your comments would seem to extend to saying, “If God lies, then that is perfectly holy, righteous, just, and good” or “If God treats the righteous and the wicked the same, then that is perfectly holy, righteous, just, and good” or “If God breaks his promises, then that is perfectly holy, righteous, just, and good.” But we know that those things are not perfectly holy, righteous, just, and good for God to do. God does not do them because they are not right for him to do. Now what is right for him to do flows from his own holy and righteous nature, and not because notions of holiness and righteousness are above him. But the question becomes what the Bible reveals of God’s nature and what is consistent with what the Bible reveals about God’s nature, such as his love and justice. It is not judging God by our standard of these things, but what it is believed that the Bible reveals of them.
I see now that Irene has made the same basic point. The logical implications of Calvinism are simply at odds with what the Bible reveals of God’s goodness, holiness, justice, and love.
Greg, I hunted back and found your quote. Here is the whole comment:
Oh yeah. No, I do not believe God loves everyone unless somebody can explain how He loves those upon which He is pouring the full fury of His unrestrained eternal wrath and judgement. That’s some awful strange love there. I’m also with White in that I do not consider supralapsarianism to be “hyper”-Calvinism.
Aside from the fact that you said “awful strange love” instead of horrible love, are not the folks you are speaking about that God pours His wrath on the reprobates? Or do you maybe think He loves them up until the time He pours that wrath out on them in full force? I’m trying to understand what you are meaning here as it appears I many have misunderstood you.
And my question about justice could just as well be rephrased to “some awful strange justice there” in keeping with the word you actually used in your comment.
(This is one of the pitfalls of threads that never end. Don’t know of one here that has ever gone on 4000 and some comments though.)
@newenglandsun
I understand what you meant.
I believe each person (each created person, not just each Christian person) is a reflection or manifestation of a different aspect of God. Just as male and female are both made in his image, so is every person with their different strengths, personalities, and contributions. (Not that all things about every person are reflective of God. Hopefully we become holier and more reflective as we go.). We are all one of a kind in the universe, and we are all created to give God glory in our own unique combination of ways. When someone misses heaven, it is sad for that person and it is also a way God could have been glorified, in them, but is not. (God already, though, has infinite glory just in himself, too.)
Arminian,
This goes back to my rubix cube analogy. Open theists, Molinists, Calvinists, and Arminians see God’s sovereignty. They then interpret these two things from different angles and come up with different interpretations of what this means.
Calvinists approach the issue and emphasize God’s irresistible grace and responsibility in salvation. They then interpret this to mean that God chooses who will be saved.
Arminians see God’s love but also his responsibility as well as absolute omniscience. They interpret this to mean that God will try his best but cannot override human free will.
Open theists see similar to Arminians. But they do not see an absolutely omniscient God. They see God as always working throughout history working to acheive his will.
Molinists see God’s love and they look at this and see God as putting us in the best possible situations.
Greg, you said: “tell me what has occurred in time that is contrary to God’s eternal decree”
Ezekiel 30:10-11 – 10 “Thus says the Lord God: I will put an end to the wealth of Egypt, by the hand of Nebuchadrez′zar king of Babylon. He and his people with him, the most terrible of the nations, shall be brought in to destroy the land; and they shall draw their swords against Egypt, and fill the land with the slain.
Nebuchadnezzar did not do this.
@Greg: Your hitting the marks today, mate! Rock & Roll! 🙂
Greg said, It means that if He has decreed the existence of billions of human beings for the expressed purpose of casting them into the lake of fire in judgement for sin that He also decreed that that is PERFECTLY holy, righteous, just and good.
Well, we also know that He has commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves. I still don’t know how that command can make it possible to accept what is happening to these people with any degree of peace. I guess that maybe the only way to do so is to look on them as creatures that really have no value and that their decreed eternal suffering (horrible thought that is) does not really matter in any way since it is for God’s glory. Unfortunately, I don’t think that fits with what Scripture teaches either.
Greg, maybe I have said this before, I don’t remember. But put yourself in their shoes for a while. You are the reprobate created for an eternity of unutterably horrible torment in hell because of the sin that God also decreed must be. I don’t mean to be crass, but how do you deal with that to the glory of God anyway?
“Please tell me what has occurred in time that is contrary to God’s eternal decree. OR that He did not decree.”
***** God has not decreed much that happens. For example,
the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life. “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. (1Jn 2:16; NASB). Or from Jeremiah, the 19th chap., which you mentioned, God clearly did not decree the idolatrous child sacrifice practiced by sinful Judah, of which God says, “a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind” (19:5; NASB).
By the way, it seems incredibly strange to me that Jesus would take the time more then once to warn people about the horrors of hell and to also tell them to do what they had to do to keep from going there if He had indeed created billions of them for that very purpose.
In effect He seems to be saying, “It is a truly horrible place. Avoid going there at all costs. But of course most of you can’t do that because I made you for that very purpose.”
I’m sure there must be some Calvinist way of understanding that Jeremiah verse. At this point I don’t believe I have ever heard it.
But I’m waiting because I am sure that I will! 🙂
God would never command anyone to eat someone’s flesh. That’s wrong, and against Jewish law and belief.
Obviously symbolic.
You didn’t catch the sarcasm. (;
Take and eat.
There are times for everyone, of every persuasion, when they appear to tell God what He really means/should do.
Greg, you said: “tell me what has occurred in time that is contrary to God’s eternal decree”
I gave you Ezekiel 30:10-11 which is a declaration of God’s. This event did not happen. Therefore, it did not happen contrary to what God had decreed.
Greg,
Backing up a bit since I don’t believe I really got an answer earlier. You said you don’t believe God loves those He pours His wrath out on (the reprobate) because that would be stange love. Why then do you not see a similar problem with strange justice in decreeing that many be born for the purpose of going to eternal hell for sin that God also decreed?
It seems you see the need for some correspondence between the human understanding of love and God’s love. Why don’t you see the need for the same correspndence when it comes to the concept of justice in that same scenario? It is certain that there is no human understanding of it that would call it just to irresistably decree that evil must be, then decree someone do some evil, bend their desires and will to do it to be certain it will have to happen, and then punish them eternally for it.
Cherylu,
Psalm 5:5 – The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity.
Proverbs 6:16-19 – There are six things which the Lord hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: … A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers.
Malachi 1:3 – but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness.”
Luke 14:26 – “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.
Romans 9:13 – Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
Ultimately, we get our sense of justice from God – it is one of his communicable attributes. While our version of God’s justice is corrupted, it is still based on the character of God himself.
Therefore it makes me nervous when people claim that what seems unjust to us is somehow fully just for God.
Micah 6:8 tells us that that one of God’s most basic requirements for us is that we act with justice. What exactly does that mean if our justice is so radically different from God’s?