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"
Irene,
Comment #50 was for you. Read the entire linked sermon. Then let me know that you have done so. Thanks.
TUAD,
I read the article. It didn’t at all address the question, “is Calvinism good news for the reprobate?”
@cherylu: The whole reality is that the Infralaparian position shows that men or all humanity without God’s grace and decree of election really don’t care about God in reality, even the so-called religious go along in their own errors. They are left to themselves and their own sin, and they like it, and wish it so! We can see this in the examples of men and people like Judas (John 17: 12 / Mark 14: 21), and also Pharaoh (Rom. 9: 17-18). See also Matt. 7: 13 thru 23, etc.
And the Gospel is only “Good News” to those who respond to it by and in grace, and God’s glory! And this is God’s work and call, making them His people, (2 Thess. 2: 13-14).
Btw Calvin called the awful theme of reprobation a horrible decree – decretum quidem horribile fateor! “Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, by which He hath determined in Himself what He would have to become of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with a similar destiny; but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others.” (Inst. III. 21) Yes, to my view, this was Calvin’s peculiar contribution to theology, i.e. the decree of God’s terrible reprobation, to leave some, perhaps many in sin! Indeed a hard saying! (Mark 4: 11-12)
Cherylu: “One more time, how can Calvinism be seen as “good news” for the reprobate?”
Thanks Cheryl for reading the Charles Spurgeon sermon in which he makes the argument that Calvinism is simply the Gospel. I.e., The Gospel = Calvinism.
So, let’s take your question with this equivalence, and see if it makes sense:
How can the Gospel be seen as “good news” for the reprobate?
Does this make sense to you?
If I am understanding you correctly, TUAD, you are saying that of course Calvinism isn’t good news for the reprobate? Right?
In other understandings of the Gospel however, Jesus death and resurrection are indeed good news for all of mankind. Not just for a selected few. In Calvinism’s understanding, they are left helpless and hopeless. Doomed even before birth.
For unbelievers, God’s purpose and design is to render the unbeliever without excuse. Men are CONDEMNED because they have rejected the Person and WORK of Jesus Christ and refused God’s only remedy for sin (John 3:18; 5:40). Unbelievers can never say that a provision for their salvation was not made and not offered. They can never stand before God and say, “The reason I am not saved is because Christ did not die for me.” No, the reason they are not saved is because they rejected the One who died for them and who is the Saviour of all men (1st Timothy 4:10). They are without excuse. This issue is not merely academic. It is extremely practical. It affects the very heart of the gospel and its presentation. The gospel which Paul preached to the unsaved people of Corinth was this: “Christ died for our sins” (1st Corinthians 15:3). Do we really have a gospel of good news for all men (compare Luke 2:10-11)? In preaching the gospel, what can we say to an unsaved person? Can we say, “My friend, the Lord Jesus Christ died for you. He paid the penalty for your sins. He died as your Substitute”? Or Jesus only died for the elect?
Cherylu: “One more time, how can Calvinism be seen as “good news” for the reprobate?”
I.e., “How can the Gospel be seen as “good news” for the reprobate?”
Cherylu, when you use the term “reprobate” what do you mean? It’s helpful to be clear and careful on the terms being used. And I want to make sure that I understand your use of the term “reprobate” and all that it entails.
Thanks.
Seems like just about all the critics of Calvinism are only critiquing the supralapsarian version which is not only a minority in evangelicalism but one that is akin to just critiquing open theism when talking about Arminianism.
Folks, if you are going to engage in theological discussion here, go out of your way to be true and fair. If not, there is no reason to keep comments open on blogs at all.
Besides, this post certainly was not meant to be a Calvinist bashing party! I was actually hoping for more Calvinists to discuss assurance in lifht of what I wrote.
Nelson said:
“Patton: “Therefore, from the perspective of those who don’t believe [e.g. the Arminian] that salvation can be lost, these cannot have any assurance.”
This is not accurate. There is assurance of present salvation. Whether one will be ultimately saved is irrelevant. As long as one is assured of his present position in Christ, there is no need to concern oneself about the future: “Do not worry for tomorrow…””
I agree. I did not say it well but I meant that this was the critique of many Calvinist and Baptists.
I do agree, however, practically speaking I think I am willing to say that we are all in the same boat in this regard with respect to assurance. However, pragmatically, I still think I would be a slight bit more comfortable believing as Calvinists since God’s power is ultimately protecting those with true faith. Having kept my faith through some difficult times, I really believe my faith is from God. Therefore, I know it will persevere. If it was from me, from what I have discovered about the volatility of the mind, go would be more timid about it.
CMP,
I don’t see why you would say that “just about all the critics of Calvinism are only critiquing the supralapsarian version”. Both Supra and Infralapsarian Calvinism teach that God unconditionally decreed all things (which would include all sin and evil) and that people cannot do anything other than God has unconditionally decreed for them to do. Neither brand of Calvinism allows for the non-elect to have ever had a chance to be saved. Their sin was decreed by God and their punishment for that sin they were decreed to do was also decreed. As I said earlier, Calvinism teaches that God unconditionally decreed the sin of the reprobate (and the sin of the elect too for that matter) and their rejection of the gospel etc. So not only does God leave them helpless and hopeless in Calvinism; he also was the ultimate and definitive reason they were sinful, helpless, and hopeless in the first place. This is not a Supra vs. Infra issue, but a Calvinism issue.
Hey Greg, good you finally got on!
But you’re misunderstanding my point. I am by no means claiming that God’s plans should pass my own standards of justice and goodness. I am by no means saying Calvinists don’t care about anyone other than themselves. My point has been to claim, and to try to get someone to admit, that the gospel according to Calvinism is not good news for everyone. And you’re the first one to do it!
–“Cherylu your answer to how can the gospel be good news for the reprobate is that there is no good news for the reprobate.”–
Thank you for the straight answer!
I asked that question way back toward the top of the comments. Why does it matter? It’s relevant to the question of how you deal with a Calvinist suffering from anxiety or terror as to whether he is saved or not. Does he have a right to be worried? What needs to be “fixed”? Does the man need to be retaught because he misunderstands the “good” news, or does he need stress control to deal with his correct understanding? See what I mean?
A similar but not exactly identical situation would be that of a parent or spouse worried about the souls of their loved ones. Is there any reassurance for them? What hope? Or is it a possibility that their loved ones are some of those for whom Calvinism brings no good news? This would be in contrast to those theologies, such as Catholicism and Arminianism, which would tell the worried parent, “Never give up hope! Keep praying! God wants him in heaven even more than you do!”
To sum up, whether or not the gospel you’re presenting is good news for EVERYONE, whether or not there is a day of mercy for EVERYONE, determines how you should handle someone doubting their own salvation or the salvation of someone they love.
See where I’m coming from now?
Whoops. I take back, Greg, that you were the very first to admit it. Fr Robert did talk about a “horrible decree” and a “hard saying”.
TUAD,
I tried to answer you last night, but my comment wouldn’t go through. I was going to say that I think the answer to your question was given in my comments and questions to you guys.
Greg,
You simply leave me speechless. I am not even going to attempt to be a part of this conversation any more. The contrast between God who calls Himself “love, and God creating billions of people for the sheer purpose of eternal torture in hell couldn’t be more severe. You keep speaking of “perfectly holy, righteous, just and good.” I notice you never once mention “love”.
(PS I also find it interesting that is John Calvin–not the Bible or the Holy Spirit–that convicted you of your sin.)
Have the last word–I am done.
Cherylu: “One more time, how can Calvinism be seen as “good news” for the reprobate?”
I.e., “How can the Gospel be seen as “good news” for the reprobate?”
Cherylu, when you use the term “reprobate” what do you mean? It’s helpful to be clear and careful on the terms being used. And I want to make sure that I understand your use of the term “reprobate” and all that it entails.
“TUAD,
I tried to answer you last night, but my comment wouldn’t go through.”
Please try again. Thanks.
Oops, correction:
I said to Greg, (PS I also find it interesting that is John Calvin–not the Bible or the Holy Spirit–that convicted you of your sin.) The word he used was “convinced”, not convicted. There is a difference there. And it does change what I said. If I had read it correctly, I probably wouldn’t of made that comment at all.
I’m sorry Greg. That was entirely my fault.
Is the gospel good news for the non-elect? No. Is the lake of fire good news for the non-elect? no. Is the very existence of God good news for the non-elect? No.Is the existence of demons good news for the non-elect? No.Do the elect and non-elect exist in Arminian theology?Does not appear to be so on this blog.Does God forsee the future as definite and certain? If so,what makes the future certain? Do the Arminians have an answer? No.If Calvinism is a lie,then why are Arminians here. Why don’t they spend their time crying and praying that God will lead us poor fools to the light?Do any of you feel sorry for the ones in hell right now. Do you pray for God to release them? After all,if God loved them here,He should still love them there.Now Calvinists admit that if it turns out that we were wrong,we will put on our ashes and sackcloth and do our Pennance.And if We turn out to be right what will you Arminians do?Are you going to tell God to his face He is an unfair monster. Are you going to start rebellion number 2 in heaven,and bring Saint Michael back for battle. Just what do you think you could do about it?
@Arminian: Sorry mate, but we must see the true nature, theologically, from the Infralapsarian. And it is from God’s perspective rather a linear view, but first : the theological position that God’s decree to save “follows” logically (not temporarily) the decision to create and permit the fall. God choses from sinful man/humanity, who He will save and thus predestinate & foreordain; and the rest HE simply leaves in the place of sin in the Fall.
Let me quote from the Irish Articles 1615 (somewhat by the Archbishop James Ussher).
http://www.lasalle.edu/~garver/irish.html See # 3, Of God’s Eternal Decree and Predestination
11. God from all eternity, did by his unchangeable council, ordain whatever in time should come to pass: yet so as thereby no violence is offered to the wills of the reasonable creatures, and neither the liberty nor the contingency of the second causes is taken away, but established rather.
But, as # 13, this is “to deliver (some) from curse and damnation (looking at the Fall from Adam) those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind..” This is Infralapsarian!
Btw, indeed Jay makes some good points & logic about God’s Sovereignty! And God’s love is not a sloppy agape, mere human love for sure!
Now back to the question about assurance, and for ALL of US! And surely our assurance is always the love of a Risen, Ascended Christ, who HIMSELF died “once” for sin and sinners! It is to Him that we draw near in faith, hope & love.
BTW Greg,
Your FB page doesn’t seem to be visible. I reckon you maybe have your privacy settings to “friends only”?
(I’m still having posting problems, is anyone else? As a matter of fact, the whole site is acting “weird.”)
Fr. Robert (comment #30),
Infra vs. supra is irrelevant to the issue. it is not that there is not a difference, it is that both ascribe to exhaustive divine determinism in which God unconditionally decreed everything that comes to pass leaving people unable to do anything other than they do. Both Supra and Infralapsarian Calvinism teach that God unconditionally decreed all things (which would include all sin and evil) and that people cannot do anything other than God has unconditionally decreed for them to do. Neither brand of Calvinism allows for the non-elect to have ever had a chance to be saved. Their sin was decreed by God and their punishment for that sin they were decreed to do was also decreed. On this they both agree. So highlighting other differences is irrelevant to the point being made.
Woops, that was supposed to be a response to comment # 130, not 30.
@Arminan: You must take issue and study then with the whole of idea of “the liberty and contingency of the second causes”! Btw, R.C. Sproul has written well here. Certainly a Protestant and Reformed Scholasticism is a central part of Reformed Divinity! And this is hardly irrelevant! And it is also here that we simply must see and read Augustine and the whole of the Augustinian! Our top-tier historical Reformers were all somewhat Augustinian, as Luther and Calvin.
You are writing and thinking like a classic “fundamentalist”! But the Bible and the revelation of God uses historical sources somewhat, as we see in the Jewish Hellenism and the Greco-Roman of St. Paul and the Pauline, and too the Johannine. Indeed the Bible did not just drop out of heaven literally. We call this “theology”! Note btw, that we can see a kind of Platonic backdrop and ideal in the Book or Letter of N.T. Hebrews.
PS… Richard Muller is also a good historical and Reformed scholar! His book from the series of the Oxford Studies In Historical Theology: The Unaccommodated Calvin, Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition, (Oxford 2000), is one the best Calvin historical studies I have ever read! Every serious pastor-teacher that cares about historical and biblical theology must read this book!
CMP: “Seems like just about all the critics of Calvinism are only critiquing the supralapsarian version which is not only a minority in evangelicalism but one that is akin to just critiquing open theism when talking about Arminianism.”
Arminian: “CMP,
I don’t see why you would say that “just about all the critics of Calvinism are only critiquing the supralapsarian version”. Both Supra and Infralapsarian Calvinism teach that God unconditionally decreed all things (which would include all sin and evil) and that people cannot do anything other than God has unconditionally decreed for them to do.”
Let’s give CMP the last word based on what he’s written elsewhere as a caution:
“Do not call authors out for debate. You must count the cost (Lk. 14:31). You don’t want to get whipped up on anyway.”
😉
Arminian,
It may sometime be the same wording that both infra and supra use, but they have very different meanings. And this comes down to the will of desire and will of decree distinction.
Supras don’t use such a distinction and it makes all the difference in the world.
For example, supra says that God created evil and created sin in order to facilitate the population of hell. Infras do not. We believe that God loves everyone. Supras do not.
Okay, have to go.
CMP,
I believe you are mistaken in your understanding of supralapsarianism. All you have to do is look at a standard systematic theology text. Here are a couple convenient links from reputable internet Calvinist sources:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/superinfra.html
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm
What you are describing as supra is a form of hyper-Calvinism. Supra vs. infra is not about whether God loves everybody or has 2 wills, but about the order of God decrees. Yes, supra is a more extreme position, and so supras can be more likely to hold the things you mentioned, but most of those are not inherently part of supra (it is true though that supra holds that God purposed to glorify his name by unconditionally choosing some individuals for eternal blessing and some individuals for eternal Hell, and that God ordained the Fall and decided to create the world to accomplish this goal).
But I was not addressing the order of decrees. I was pointing out something that both supra and infra have in common, and that is exhaustive divine determinism, which entails that God unconditionally decreed all things (which would include all sin and evil) and therefore that people cannot do anything other than God has unconditionally decreed for them to do, leaving the non-elect no chance of believing or getting saved.
Yes, but the decrees are defined, as I said, very differently. And the time of the arguments against Calvinism neither take this into perspective, IMO, and they assume all the extremes that often accompany supra
CMP,
I am not sure why you would say that the decrees are defined differently between supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism. I believe that is false and would again point you to any standard systematic theology, or if more convenient, the links I mentioned. The difference between the two is the order of the decrees, not really the decrees themselves.
It may be that some assume the extremes some supras embrace to be true of all Calvinists, but that may be because it seems to many to be a distinction without much difference in terms of logical implications. For example, if God unconditionally decreed all sin and evil and human thought and action, as both infra and supra hold, then it hardly seems to make much difference if God logically first chose people for Heaven and Hell and then ordained the Fall, or vice versa. To many, the logical implication is that God does not really love the reprobate and *despite the great majority of Calvinists claiming they believe God loves the reprobate*. Many also tend to find the Calvinist 2 wills theory to be incoherent.
Be that all as it may, I don’t think you can assume anyone is attributing supra beliefs to infras. I know when I have posted in this thread, I have not been assuming that. I have been addressing things held in common by infras and supras, exhaustive divine determinism, which entails that God unconditionally decreed all things (which would include all sin and evil) and therefore that people cannot do anything other than God has unconditionally decreed for them to do, leaving the non-elect no chance of believing or getting saved. Logically, that leaves the gospel to be NOT good news for the reprobate despite whether Calvinists might actually believe that it is somehow good news for the reprobate. So I am not claiming Calvinists necessarily hold that the gospel is not good news to the reprobate, but that it is the logical implication of their doctrine, and incoherent for them to think otherwise.
Greg said, 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.
Greg, there is a huge difference between loving someone and in the end pouring out your horrible wrath on them because they have not accepted the provision made for them at the cost of the horrible death of your own Son and creating billions of people for the express reason of pouring out your wrath upon them eternally. I see no love in the latter at all. In fact, as far as that goes, those people would seem to be simply the “pawns,” for lack of a better word, created for the end of God’s need to glorify Himslef. And the price that those billions pay for all of eternity is horrific indeed.
Since He declares in the Bible that He is love, that last idea seems to me and many others to be totally incomprehesible and atrocious.
Notice it doesn’t say he loves some people, namely the elect. It says He IS love.
And for that matter, those of us that aren’t Calvinists can’t figure out for the life of us either how God can be love and just “pass over” a whole lot of those people that He has created and leave them to die an eternal death of torment in hell with no hope whatsoever and only provide a way of escape for a chosen few. That doesn’t show much of that love that He claims He is to those people either.
And that is particulary true when you remember that He has decreed sin to happen and that people are therefore born with a depraved nature that they can do absolutely nothing about without His help.
CMP,
I am still having problems posting here. When I hit “submit” nothing happens–at least not for a long time. The only way I have found to get a comment to post consistently is to close the window and open a new one with P and P in it. For some reason, the comment is always posted then.
The downside of that though is that you can not use the edit feature as it doesn’t appear in your comment when you open the new window. To say nothing of the fact that it is a quite annoying way to make comments!
I have taken to copying all of my comments before I try to post them. I have had the disappearing act played on me several times too. Not from my PC but from my tablet.
Btw, in this whole argument and debate, we must see the theological subject of Theodicy: That part of theology concerned with defending the goodness and omnipotence of God in the face of the suffering and evil of the world. And it is here btw, that the whole idea of the free-will defense literally goes to hell! The great question is always God’s Sovereignty, it is true or false? And for the Judeo-Christian this can only be answered by God’s revelation and word! GOD’s Word is always “Thematic” and a whole! It is here btw, that we must note too the Salvation History of God, and His Covenant/covenants and His Soteriological Will! (Gen. 3: 14-16 / Rom. 11: 32-36)
Sorry, but we simply must think biblically & theologically, i.e. the doctrine of GOD!
Fr Robert,
And that is precisely why the whole issue of “God is love” is so very important in this discussion.
@ Fr. Robert (Anglican)
Your name does not link to your blog and I would very much like to read it. Would you be so kind as to post the actual link if the comments allow it.
Btw too in these blog debates, we must be careful not to press the whole win / loose idea, for we are dealing with something quite beyond just logic finally, though of course we use logic, but in the end God transcends His own logic, and we are always left with GOD’s Mystery! Though biblically the Greek word mystery (mysterion) really means truth “revealed”, especially by or used by Paul, (Col. 1: 26)… “manifested”, “revealed”! And surely the doctrine of the mystery of divine election is somewhat revealed in St. Paul’s writings! (Rom. 8: 29-33, etc.)
Supralapsarianism or infralapsarianism -what difference does it make to Mr. Doubting Calvinist? (or Mr. Doubting Calvinist’s mother?) His concern is assurance. Does infralapsarianism offer a means of assurance that supralapsarianism doesn’t? The mother’s concern is hope for her child. Does infralapsarianism offer hope that supralapsarianism doesn’t? In either case, they are left with the very real possibility that Mr. Doubting Calvinist is non-elect, with no hope of help from earth or heaven, eternally. And on top of that, there is no really reliable way to tell the difference (but I say this is a minor problem compared to the previous one).
Catholics (also Lutherans) don’t “fall apart” like Mr. Doubting Calvinist because they receive external assurance, like theoldadam has been saying, and don’t have to try to analyze their own subjective emotions and “warm fuzzies” in their heart. They hear the words of the priest (or pastor) saying “I absolve you of your sins…” They see babies baptized and know for sure that that baby is now a child of God, and they can trust in the fact that they, too, were baptized. They know that baptism and forgiveness apply to anyone who receives them. Please note, I am not here and now trying to argure which system of beliefs is correct! I am just demonstrating that Arminians, Catholics, Lutherans, and others have sources of help and reasons of hope that Calvinists do not have. So I disagree when CMP tells Mr. Doubting Calvinist to do as Arminians do and “test their faith” and “persevere” . That doesn’t really solve anything for Mr. Doubting Calvinist, esp for Mr. Doubting Calvinist’s mother, as long as they hold Calvinism to be true.
Greg. Your wasteing your time Greg. It does not make any difference what you or God says. The bible if full of God’s hatred for the non elect. God hates tthe workers of iniquity;God hates the house of the wicked;God hates Esau;Jesus rejoiced the truth is with-held from the non-elect and revealed to babes;Jesus refuses to pray for the non-elect;Even John 3-16 is limited to the believing ones-whoever is a partciple,not a pronoun.Jesus tells the reprobate:”depart from me I never knew-loved-you”.Basically as G.L Williamson said”One of the clearest doctrines in Scripture is that God determines who will be saved. The refusal to acknowledge this is due to human perversity.”
To both Greg and Fr Robert,
If your understanding of Scripture is true, all I can say is that for the greatest share of humanity it would of been better indeed if they had never been born. The thought of being born helpless and hopeless and doomed for an eternity in hell without a thing you or anyone else can do about it is beyond appalling.
Say whatever you like, but I see no way whatsoever that any concept of love can be applied to that situation. At least you were honest about that Greg and said you didn’t believe God loves the reprobate.
And the thought of creating people to torture them forever in a place that you yourself warn people to avoid at any cost seems downright diabolical.
I think the only way to have “peace” with such a situation is to just decide that it really doesn’t matter at all that billions are born hopeless and helpless and going to an eternal hell without any hope of escape because that is exactly the way God wants it to be. Just tough luck to all of you guys and I am so glad I’m not one of you! Unfortunately, I have imagined my self in their shoes with that kind of hopelessness being all I have, and I simply can’t do that. It is absolutely horrifying.
Jay,
I think maybe we should be telling people that God’s defining characteristic towards most is hate instead of love! If the way is narrow and few find it compared to the broad way of destruction that many are on, then for the greatest part of humanity God is effectively hate instead of “God is love.”
What a fearful God He then becomes. You had better hope that none of you discover that you only thought you were one of the elect and that indeed instead you are one of the helpless, hopeless ones that God has hated since you were conceived and that indeed Jesus didn’t even die for you. Hell is not a nice place.
Dear Cherylu: Relax. Have a nice piece of apple pie and watch reruns of “leave it to beaver.”Your getting too excited.You have plenty of friends. John Wesey and multitudes of others. Roger Olson states that the calvinist God is worse than the devil and if he exists Roger is going to tell him He is a monster.Actually,every heresy,whether moral or spiritual works itself, either first or last,into a frenzy against Calvinism.God warns that His ways are not our ways,and Calvinism proves it. It’s not man’s way and thus hated without measure.But men die and are not heard from again.God’s Unconditional Election continues and will do so till the body of Christ if completed. Then the curtain comes down.You did make an interesting comment about it being better for the non elect not to have been born. Well,God could have prevented them from being born. But He intentionally created then knowing he would burn them in hell.So you have a bit of a problem there. In time,whether in this life or next,you will accept the truth of Calvinism. No pun intended,you will have no choice. Now go have that piece of pie and watch a good movie.Love Ya..
Jay,
Don’t be patronizing.
Calvinists have their TULIP and Arminians have their daisy: God loves me, God loves me not….
God does not preserve us based upon our faithfulness but upon His own faithfulness towards us.
Our perseverance is related to our faithfulness, yet it is only by God’s grace that we are saved in the first place.
Cause: God’s preservation of the saints.
Effect: Our perseverance in the faith.
When I doubt, I have questions in the back of my mind that I cannot put into words. So I can’t ask anyone…but when I am open, then the Lord answers my questions on His timetable.
Great book titled
Doubting by Alister McGrath….helpful book for any doubter, regardless of their soteriological leanings.
Lora,
Arminians have strong and wonderful assurance, the most that can be had biblically (see my comments 54 and 56 above). But you don’t seem to see that your own position is actually incompatible with substantial assurance. For if you believe that perseverance in faith is guaranteed for believers, and argue that the many who forsake their faith that is indistinguishable to themselves or others from true saving faith, then there is no way you could know your own faith is real and that you won’t fall away. Many who have fallen away have had the same conviction you have had, that God won’t let them fall away. So on what do you base your assurance? Whatever you say, there have been many who have fallen away who had the same confidence and the same reasons. So how could you know that you would be any different?
The better course is to take up the biblical grounds of assurance for final salvation, which is substantial but not unconditional, and to not give yourself or anyone false assurance that can more readily lead to turning from Christ because of lack of concern for the danger of falling away. danger that is real but thought impossible becomes more dangerous because it is not taken seriously.
Wopops, I see that I left out something critical in my reply to Lora.
One of the sentence should have read like this (I’ll now add a little emphasis to show what was accidentally left out):
“For if you believe that perseverance in faith is guaranteed for believers, and argue that the many who forsake their faith that is indistinguishable to themselves or others from true saving faith *never really believed*, then there is no way you could know your own faith is real and that you won’t fall away.”
BTW, I have never heard a Calvinist answer this point without basically having to admit that they cannot have substantial assurance. But usually they just ignore the point. I have also never heard anyone who believes that apostasy is impossible for genuine believers answer this. That’s because it is unanswerable for any who see apostasy from saving faith as impossible and think that perseverance in faith is guaranteed by God or necessary for final salvation.
Arminian,
What you are saying to Lora is part of the reason I have such a hard time with Calvinism. There is absolutely no guarantee to any of us that we will persevere until the end. Sure, the elect will. But what of those that have thought they were one of the elect and shown every sign of being one of the elect and have then fallen away? I guess that they are just one of those hopeless reprobates that God has hated since conception.
Maybe I am one of them. Maybe you are one of them Maybe Fr Robert is one of them. Maybe Greg is one of them, or maybe Jay is. Then where does that leave us? An eternity in hell because there was never any hope for us from the beginning and we only thought there was. Perish the thought.
And the thing is Cherylu, this takes away any grounds for assurance from the Calvinist or other believer who sees apostasy from saving faith as impossible and think that perseverance in faith is guaranteed by God or necessary for final salvation.
So the ironic thing is that it is actually Arminian theology that gives solid grounds for solid assurance, though not unconditional assurance (see my comments 54 and 56 above). I would also add that this leaves Calvinists and other unconditional securists at odds with 1 John 5:13, which indicates that we can know that we are saved.
Now let me very clearly say that I am not saying that Calvinists and other unconditional securists do not have assurance. Most do. But their assurance is despite what their theology logically can afford them rather than because their theology gives cogent grounds for it. Many of them might think their theology provides good grounds. I am pointing out that deriving such assurance from their theology is illegitimate. But I rejoice that they have assurance and do not want to undercut that. I just want them to have biblical assurance as opposed to false assurance or ill-grounded assurance.
CMP, #116: “Seems like just about all the critics of Calvinism are only critiquing the supralapsarian version which is not only a minority in evangelicalism but one that is akin to just critiquing open theism when talking about Arminianism.”
Here’s the first paragraph from the Theopedia entry on “Open Theism”:
“Open theism, also called free will theism and openness theology, is the belief that God does not exercise meticulous control of the universe but leaves it “open” for humans to make significant choices (free will) that impact their relationships with God and others. A corollary of this is that God has not predetermined the future. Open Theists further believe that this would imply that God does not know the future exhaustively. Proponents affirm that God is omniscient, but deny that this means that God knows everything that will happen.
Q: Are the folks who are dismayed by classical Reform theology (classical Calvinism), are you classical Arminians or are you Open Theists?
CMP says we should tell Mr. Doubting Calvinist to 1)test his faith and 2) act on his faith.
It would seem that the best thing to do would be to tell him, “God loves you.” But in Calvinism, that is not _necessarily_true. ”
So we commenters have pretty much said that Calvinism is not good news for everybody. In Calvinism”s view of things, when God says, “God IS Love,” what does that mean? Can He be love while hating (not loving) many?
————-
Q: Are the folks who are dismayed by classical Reform theology (classical Calvinism), are you classical Arminians or are you Open Theists?
Neither.
Irene, and other non-Reform folks,
An Either-Or question:
(A) Do you believe that God knows the future exhaustively and He knows everything that will happen?
OR
(B) Do you believe that God does not know the future exhaustively and He does not know everything that will happen?
Whole-heartedly A.