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"
Fr Robert,
I have never understood why Calvinists say that Arminians do not have a sovereign God. If God has allowed people to make choices, has He not made a “sovereign choice” to do so? Certainly none of us are saying that God lacks the ability to make every choice for us. However, if He is the one that used His sovereignty to decide that when He created the world, He would grant mankind freedom to make at least some choices for Himself, does that really make Him any less sovereign?
Does He have to decree when and how I will tie my shoe today, precisely what I shall eat for breakfast and how much, what time I sneeze, cough, when I make a phone call, when I go to bed, determine exactly what thoughts will go through my head and every single action that I will pursue arising from those thoughts down to the finest of details, decree exactly each word that I am typing to you–indeed how many and what mistakes I make in that process–decree that I just had to stop right now because the phone rang, decreed the exact words I would say to the person on the phone and exactly how long we would talk, etc, etc, etc……
Did He truly decree every detail about our lives in such a way and is that the only way He can be “sovereign?” Or did He sovereignly decide to create mankind with the ability to truly make make meaningful decisions for themselves?
The first definition of sovereignty seems to render man as a very precise wind up toy put in motion by it’s maker, or a robot with very finely programmed details covering every aspect of what it is supposed to do.
Oh, btw Jay, Jimmy Akin has an article you might be interested in called “Tiptoeing through TULIP” or something like that. It’s about the similarities between Tulip and Catholic theories of predestination. They don’t exactly match up of course, but there’s more overlap than you would think between Tulip and one Catholic theory of predestination. Now I’m going to have to go read it again myself, instead of talking about things I only half remember. (:
Fr. Robert: “Clutching at straws I am afraid! And Arminianism is a “straw” theology, sorry but we simply MUST get down to it!”
Tally Ho! Tally Ho, old boy!! The game is afoot!
Yes, Cherylu, I understand you completely. I think God issued his sovereign decree at our creation, that we would be creatures with our own wills. When he said, “Let us make man in our image.” I wonder what the Calvinist position is on how we are made in the image of God, if we don’t have free wills. We’re only Adam and Eve in the image of God? And not us now? Seems strange that they shod have a higher state of being, even in their innocence, than we do, who have been redeemed by the Lamb and filled with the Spirit. In the Catholic Church, we say of the Fall. “Oh, happy fault.” Because we ended up better off, as adopted children!, than we were before the fall. Anyway, just some thoughts.
I wonder what the Calvinist position is on how we are made in the image of God, if we don’t have free wills.
I have wondered that too, Irene.
I’m tired of wondering, now I am asking! What say ye guys? What does created in the image of God mean to you? Or do you believe Adam and Eve actually had free will? Of course, if every minute decision has to made for us by God in order for Him to be sovereign, I guess I know the answer to that.
So what did it mean that they were created in the image of God?
cherylu,
Very good point about sovereignty. In Calvinism God can do whatever He desires, except create free moral agents and hold them accountable for the choices they make. That is one thing God is apparently not allowed to do. So, as you rightly observe, it is Calvinism that limits God’s sovereignty, not Arminianism.
A.W. Tozer puts the matter very well:
“God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What doest thou?’ Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.” A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God
C. Michael Patton:
A Calvinist Understanding of Free Will.
Read. Learn. Enjoy.
BTW Father Robert, your outburst of anger at Arminian a bit earlier rang a little bit hollow with me. All you had to do was click on his name to see his blog site and know exactly who he was. On the other hand, all we get when we click on your name is a dead link. It is obvious to anyone since your names are both highlighted as links that you are both blog owners.
I have long wondered about your web site and I did finally find it by doing a Google search. But I had to take the time to do it.
Fr. Robert,
It is too bad you have resort to such unnecessary rhetoric. It seems that when you get challenged on your assertions and someone brings up problems with your interpretation, you quickly resort to insults, questioning other’s motives, and grandstanding. It’s too bad you can’t just interact with the text and the objections to your interpretations without all of that.
You began by saying that basically you had never heard an Arminain deal with John 17. But then when we do, you get all upset about it. I hate to say it, but in my experience, that is the Calvinist MO.
Still, I will point out that you didn’t really answer Arminian’s point, nor mine, except to refer to other texts in John that you feel work against our interpretation. But we could easily do the same by appealing to passages like John 3:16, and many, many others. But you would probably get all excited about that if we did it. So why is it OK for you. Oh, and how about John 17:21? Unless I missed it, you never addressed that either. That verse explodes your whole theory about John 17.
I would love to discuss it further, but if you are just going to go on and on about how you think I don’t have a sovereign God, and all such things, then there really isn’t any point in continuing this conversation. Too bad.
Fr. Robert,
Let me also point out that you have always seemed to have a real problem understanding what Arminianism believes and teaches. Long ago, you made reference to something called “The 15 Major Tenets of Arminianism” as if this was an official document by Arminian’s stating what they believe, when in actuality, it was a horrible misrepresentation of Arminianism from Nelson’s Dictionary of Christianity. Sadly, it seems you are still content to affirm those misrepresentations rather than deal honestly with what Arminianism really teaches.
Read. Learn. Enjoy.
Been there, done that. Nothing new there, just the usual incoherent compatibilist arguments.
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/an-arminian-response-to-c-michael-pattons-the-irrationality-of-calvinism-part-4-returning-the-favor-reversing-the-argument/
See especially footnote 7
Fr. Robert writes,
UGH! Use your real name mate! We should have known you we baiting Calvinism, and tolling for people!
A lot of people prefer to remain basically anonymous in such discussions for various reasons. Why don’t you call out TUAD for his screen name?
He is also not trolling. He simply provided a link to the SEA site when he logged in as Arminian. Patton’s site actually asks you to put a site that your name will link to to when you login. If that bothers you, you should take that up with Mr. Patton.
You and others have also made reference to other sites, posts or articles, and you have referred people to your blog. So why is none of that trolling? It seems that there is quite a double standard behind much of what you have said in this thread on more than one issue.
I have come to answer your Question Itrene.L ewis Molina,1541,was a Spanish Jesuit. He is the author of Scienta Media.This theory stated that God knows a special class of events future certain by infinite insight as to creatures acting,rather than knowing His purpose to effect them.Thomas Aquinas was an Italian Monk in the order of ST Dominic. He was mostly Augustanian,but with some Arminiansm thrown in.Jansenius was a bishop in the Netherlands and the Jansenists followed him. Pope Innocent,1653,sided with the Jesuits,and the Janesists sort of disappeared. But the conflict still continued between the Thomists,or Dominicans, and the Jesuits.The Church settled down and left the Dominicans alone as long as they claimed God willed the salvation of all men.Then they could move toward Augistine.Kind of like ask but don’t tell.Cheers.
I’m surprised no one has mentioned Calvin’s doctrine of Evanescent Grace Institutes III.2.11
“I am aware it seems unaccountable to some how faith is attributed to the reprobate, seeing that it is declared by Paul to be one of the fruits of election;284 and yet the difficulty is easily solved: for though none are enlightened into faith, and truly feel the efficacy of the Gospel, with the exception of those who are fore-ordained to salvation, yet experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. Should it be objected, that believers have no stronger testimony to assure them of their adoption, I answer, that though there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith, yet the elect alone have that full assurance which is extolled by Paul, and by which they are enabled to cry, Abba, Father. Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only for ever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprobate.
Fr Robert, some manuscripts and translations do say in that verse that the ones He guarded are the ones “given to Him.” And that included Judas.
That might be the case, but I think I just meant to reference verse 9 with regard to “given” while the implications of that with regards to Judas are in verse 12. But as Arminian pointed out, the “given” isn’t even needed to make the point,
Notice that Judas was part of “them” protected by the Son. “I have guarded them [which includes Judas], and not one of them [which includes Judas] has been lost except [the “except” here shows that those protected by the Son, “them”, included Judas; not one of them was lost except Judas] . . .” So Judas was protected by Jesus, but still fell because while Jesus will protect us from anything overpowering us and taking us away from him, he does not make us stay with him and will allow us to walk away.
Meanwhile, believers are taught to examine themselves carefully and humbly, lest carnal security creep in and take the place of assurance of faith. We may add, that the reprobate never have any other than a confused sense of grace, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only, applying it by special faith to their use. Still it is correctly said, that
479
the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy.285 In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.”
cherylu,
I see what you mean. I saw a comment of yours posted at my email (as an alert for responses on this thread), but that comment has still not appeared on this thread. If you like, I can post it for you. It was regarding Fr. Robert’s comments about Arminian being a troll, etc.
Thanks AP. Actually, I decided to request deletion of that particular comment. (In the edit feature.) I didn’t realize it would show up in people’s e mail feeds before that could happen.
So for any of you that got that comment, realize I thought better of it and asked that it be removed.
But now that the convo has gone this far on the subject, I will restate some of what I said there:
Fr. Robert, you could of seen who Arminian was if you had taken a few minutes to go to his blog. It is obvious that he is a blog owner since his name is a link. Just like it is obvious that you are a blog owner. But all we get when we click your name is a dead link. So we can’t “check you out” in the same way.
cherylu,
Sorry. Had I known that, I wouldn’t have mentioned it. I made the same basic point about his comments above (#289).
Thought I would highlight a comment I made earlier that gets us back to the subject of this post before I turn in for the night:
I just want to highlight that while this discussion has gotten off topic, it seems that no Calvinist here can offer any real assurance of salvation when their own doctrines of unconditional election and inevitable perseverance are taken into account. Like someone wisely said earlier, the basic answer seems to be, “Try not to think about it and live like an Arminian.”
And this good comment from Arminian as well:
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 — 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.
God Bless and goodnight.
First, I had a busy day (in and out, up and down), and my blogs were no doubt quick! But, I am not going to apologize for the essence of what I have said, but I perhaps should have waited to express myself more suitably, with better time and thought. But as “Truth” has said, ‘the game is afoot’! And may biblical truth win the day, always! I am sure “Truth” is younger than I am, so Tally Ho mate, give ’em Hell, literally! 😉
As concerns my blog, one has to work a bit to find it, since I am not really a computer guy at 63! I guess I must ask my youngest son for help. Both my sons were born in my 40’s (now they are young men), not bad for an old Irishman! God is good to me!
And btw, the exegetical work by I think so-called “Arminian” on John 17: 12, was so bad, I just could not fully then express it! This is just one of the major problems with Arminian theology, i.e. their so-called approach to biblical exegesis. How we approach the Text is surely very important! (And aye, I am a presuppositionalist) And it is hard on the blogs to fully get to all of this! But, if I can, and CMP allows, I will do my own work on this Text. Which is most certainly Reformed and Calvinist!
Rock on Reformed Divinity!
Oh I see that was AP on # 291, awful exegesis! But I will work up my reply when I can, but be patient with an old man! I will get there, Lord willing. 😉
Um, give ‘em Hell, literally! 😉??
Think it is time for us all to bow out of this conversation–permanently.
Isn’t it possible that good people disagree about these things because they are not as clear as they could be? And if so, doesn’t that translate into some sort of concession on all sides? In the end, I would think we could hold to our opinions, recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of both sides, and build in some gracious and honest uncertainty.
Each side has some significant problems. The goal is not to have clever arguments, but to figure out what issues we are willing to live with.
Fr. Robert,
And btw, the exegetical work by I think so-called “Arminian” on John 17: 12, was so bad, I just could not fully then express it!
This seems like pure rhetoric to me. To exegete a text means to allow the text to speak for itself, as the writer intended it. Arminian did exactly that. He showed how the consistent language throughout included Judas when he wrote,
Notice that Judas was part of “them” protected by the Son. “I have guarded them [which includes Judas], and not one of them [which includes Judas] has been lost except [the “except” here shows that those protected by the Son, “them”, included Judas; not one of them was lost except Judas] . . .” So Judas was protected by Jesus, but still fell because while Jesus will protect us from anything overpowering us and taking us away from him, he does not make us stay with him and will allow us to walk away. This is why Scripture assures us the power of God will protect us by faith but wanrs us not to forsake faith.
That is a very good case of exegesis. To exclude Judas here (as you must do), one has to really make a mess of the specific language being used by Jesus and the obvious implications of that language. In other words, one has to read it in a very unnatural way. That is the opposite of exegesis.
With regards to vs. 21, Jesus makes it clear that the “world” is indeed a concern for Him, which is contrary to the whole point that Calvinists (like you) wish to make of this text.
You need to also remember that you basically held this up as an irrefutable prooftext for Calvinism. That carries with it quite the burden of proof, but you haven’t even really interacted with the text yet. You have only made claims that those who have are guilty of really bad exegesis. I understand being busy. We probably all do. I look forward to when you can actually back up your assertions.
So much for going to bed.
God Bless,
Ben
Oh, now I see that you are accusing me of the “awful” exegesis. Can’t wait to see what you say next. I look forward to interacting with this. I think your view is in big trouble in John 17.
God Bless,
Ben
@cheerylu: I was speaking somewhat in jest, and theologically! And yes, I am an old RMC, Royal Marine Commando, with the rough edges! Sorry if this upset you!
Note I did write # 154! Did anyone listen?
Greg writes,
I would like to point out real quick that while I have rock solid personal assurance as a Calvinist that I could never have as an Arminian, the ability to provide such or not IS NOT the standard by whch a theological system stands or falls.
But if the Bible gives grounds for assurance and a system cannot, then the system may very well need to fall.
Now you may feel like you have a “rock solid” grounds for assurance, but it has been argued that your doctrine simply cannot provide that (though you could have it despite your doctrine). If you think that argument is not sound, please explain why. And please explain why an Arminian supposedly can never have such assurance as you seem to have. I think that is fair. (take your time)
I definitely drank too much Dr. Pepper. Time to go to bed, for real.
Fr Robert,
Thanks for the apology.
@cherylu: Long day on many levels! This is the least of my poor efforts! Many people are hurting, sick and even dying! And only the Sovereign Gospel of Jesus Christ can meet this need!
Amen dear brother Greg, you have spoken well, and with great insight and wisdom! YOU get the last word tonight in my wee opinion!
Off to the sheets, and my dearest-heart (Helpmate).
Fr Robert,
@cherylu: Long day on many levels! This is the least of my poor efforts! Many people are hurting, sick and even dying! And only the Sovereign Gospel of Jesus Christ can meet this need!
No matter how much we may disagree on these issues we have been discussing, we can certainly agree that what those folks all need is the salvation Jesus offers. May they find Him!
I would think that your work as hospital chaplain would be very exhausting in many ways. I can imagine you have a lot of long days.
Sigh… And that comment had to come from an advocate of my own position.
It is hard to believe how many of us swallow the camel of gracelessness while straining out the gnats of non-essential theological distinctions.
When it comes to the Arminianism/Calvinist debate, I find that I would much rather hang out with those who are less passionate and concerned about the importance of these issues than someone, on either side, who believes dogmatically they are right and that this is a central issue worth dying for. There is brainwashing on both sides that fail to have a balanced epistemology and seem to have skipped prolegomena in favor of soteriology.
This, I suppose, is why I am a Christian first, Protestant second, Evangelical third, and Calvinist fourth or fifth.
Hey CMP,
I was trying to say similar things to Father Robert and am right with you in seeking to have such discussions with grace and charity toward one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. We should try not to call one another’s motives into question. None of us are perfect and we can genuinely be wrong about some doctrine or other even while trying to discern the truth from Scripture and seeking to submit ourselves to Scripture. So we don’t need to accuse each other of not honoring the word of God etc. because the other guy disagrees with our position and offers reasoning we find flawed. There may be a time and place for calling someone out in that way, but that does not seem to be the case here and it should be something we tend away from. We should give one another the benefit of the doubt as brothers in Christ that we are trying to rightly interpret the word and let it rule our beliefs.
I say all this as someone who staunchly believes Arminian theology is true and biblical and that distinctive Calvinist theology is false and unbiblical. But I can see why Calvinists believe in Calvinism from the Bible and believe that most seek to submit themselves to God’s word even if in my opinion they are wrong about what the Bible teaches on soteriology. And I know that i could be wrong on any number of issues. I hope my Calvinist brothers can take the same stance toward us Arminians.
May God bless you and lead us all in his truth.
Amen Arminian,
I have followed your stuff and do know that you are passionate yet charitable and humble.
[…] Michael Patton notes that while Calvinists uphold ‘perseverance of the saints,’ he often encounters some among that group that lack assurance of salvation. […]
I will have to say that in general I agree with the nature of what Greg is aiming and seeking to get at, outside of the Wesley brothers, who were very Reformational and in spots were even somewhat Reformed or close to Calvin (Justification & Sanctification), Arminianism has become a glorious failure in my own Communion! It is more now than just a leaky boat, but apostasy itself has come to be almost central. And here I speak surely of the leadership! (Again to make my point here, even the great N.T. Wright is more of a “scientific intellectualist”, than a historical Biblicist. Again my thoughts anyway!) So to my mind anyway, this theological issue has huge ramifications, so if I get a bit over zealous.. it comes from watching my own Anglican Communion self-destruct in my life-time especially! And btw, some Baptist groups are on their way also, with the “emergents! So indeed Biblical and Historical Theology, i.e. the Reformational & Reformed are as Spurgeon said of the “downgrade” in his time, we are being hammered by the downgrade of the postmodernity of our time! But now it is both the church and culture that are aflame here (down in flames!)
And CMP, para-church structures are also not exempt here, i.e. “postmodernity”!
Btw, certainly “Calvinists” are also not exempt either, but their problems are generally more pharisaical, than doctrinally soteriological. But then hey, I am a neo-Calvinist, myself. 😉
@cherylu: Yes, yesterday was a rough day as a hospital chaplain! It is not always the amount, but the nature of the suffering I see! But I must always recall my God is the worker, and not really me (I am just dust myself, but somehow HIS dust & spirit!)
Thank you to give me some understanding and graciousness here, we pastors need it too! 🙂
With my time element, I have brought with me my copy of B.F. Westcott’s Commentary on John…’The Gospel According To St. John, (1881). Of course Westcott was something of an Evangelical Anglican, though the scholar type always. But not really a full-blown Calvinist certainly!
Btw, if any of my “Arminian” brethren have a copy, check out John 17: 12 here…(noting too verse 11)… this verse would exclude Judas also! From verse 12, “in they name: those that thou gavest me I have kept…] in thy name ‘that thou hast given me; and I guarded them. . . as in v. 11.
But…} The excepting phrase (in the Greek) does not necessarily imply that Judas is reckoned among those whom the Lord “guarded.” The exception may refer simply to the statement “not one perished.” Comp. Matt. 12: 4 ; Luke 4: 26, 27 ; Gal. 1: 19, 2: 16; Rev. 21: 27. Contrast 17: 9.”
More later…!
From Strong’s theology:
“What God does He has eternally purposed to do.Since He bestows special regenerating grace on some,he must have eternally purposed to bestow it-In other words, he must have chosen them to eternal life”.Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to discern what the non bestowal of regenerating grace does for the rest.
Fr. Robert,
Arminianism has become a glorious failure in my own Communion! It is more now than just a leaky boat, but apostasy itself has come to be almost central. And here I speak surely of the leadership! (Again to make my point here, even the great N.T. Wright is more of a “scientific intellectualist”, than a historical Biblicist. Again my thoughts anyway!)
Could you elaborate on this? What is it about Arminianism exactly that has caused such problems specifically in your “Communion”? I ask this, because as I mentioned earlier, you seem to have very inaccurate and unbalanced view of what Arminianism entails. I would also really like to know what it is in Arminianism that leads to apostasy, failure, etc. Suffice it to say that my experience has been much different than yours.
And if I may be so bold, doesn’t your theology say that God decreed all of this anyway? Why then should you be upset about it? Are you trying to fight against God and His irresistible decree? But then your anger is also decreed. Here is just one post that illustrates the problem, from my perspective, with such indignation from Calvinists.
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/how-can-gods-glory-be-diminished-in-calvinism/
Btw, just looking on-line too, at the NICNT of The Gospel of John, by J. Ramsey Michaels on John 17, especially verses 1 thru 3, and verses 11 and 12. I was very close, if not right on the money! Check it out!
“The shared responsibility to “dwell” or “remain” in the Father and the Son (see 14: 20 ; 15: 4,7). Jesus concludes that he has done so successfully because “none of them is lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.” In short, he announces that the intention stated in 3: 16, 6: 39, and 10: 28 has been realized. That is, none of those who believe in Jesus – his “sheep,” according to 10: 27-28 – are “lost.” As we have seen, there is a grim finality in this Gospel to being “lost” which is not present in other Gospels or the letters of Paul.” (page 869)
And the footnote on the same page: “Judas too is an Antichrist figure, probably in much the same sense as the heretics in 1 and 2 John (see 1 Jn 2: 18, 22; 4:3 ; 2 Jn 7).”
Btw, I am not sure what Michael’s ecclesiology is? Though he is the professor emeritus of religious studies at Missouri State University and adjunct professor of NT at Bangor Theological Seminary. And I believe he is older than I am, which is always nice for myself! 😉
@AP: If you knew and understood where the English Reformation came from with the Archbishop Thomas Cranmer – the first Anglican martyr, btw. And (The Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles) with the Anglican Articles 1615, unto the so-called Caroline Divines, the first so-called exponents of the High Church principles (during the reigns of Charles 1 (1625-49) and Charles II (1660-85), certainly Arminian! From here we get later mere Deists, rationalists and just latitudinarianism, and then finally the move to the Oxford Movement and the so-called Catholic Revival (Anglo-Catholicism). And in the 19 century, we get the Anglican Broad or Liberal Church. And now we have just a mix of postmodernity, the child of modernity and “deconstruction”! – And btw, Christian theology, especially the academy in places today has quite swallowed lots of both modernity & postmodernity!
I am not even going to try to answer your ad hoc about Calvinism! As I see that I am on the “moderation” list again!
2 posts still hanging?
Fr. Robert,
No offense, but that didn’t answer my question at all. Here it is again for reference,
“What is it about Arminianism exactly that has caused such problems specifically in your “Communion”?”
Thanks.
@AP: Well again, with two posts still hanging, I will let them appear first!
Off to my lunch…
Fr. Robert (comment 326),
The Michaels quote simply does not attend to the details of the text I pointed out. He is a Calvinist btw! Quoting him as taking a Calvinist view of the text is not worth very much when he doesn’t really give any evidence that addresses the specifics we are actually talking about (for example, his use of John 10:27-28 assumes a Calvinist interpretation of that passage; Judas as an antichrist figure does not mean he could not have been saved and then lost, becoming an antichrist figure). That is not to criticize Michaels. He was not necessarily purposing to present those things as evidence in this type of debate. It is just that your citation of him as a Calvinist scholar supporting your Calvinist reading is not too compelling. I will reply to your comment 323 in another post.
Fr. Robert (comment 323),
As for your finally addressing details of John 17:12, the statement you provide (is that yours or Westcott?) that the excepting phrase (in the Greek) does not necessarily imply that Judas is reckoned among those whom the Lord “guarded.” But it in such cases, the sense of the phrase is “but” (see Bauer’s lexicon) and there is actually what is called in grammar an ellipsis, something left out of the sentence that is so obvious as to be assumed. Let’s take one of the cited examples of the Greek phrase that can attach to what follows. Rev 21:27 – “and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life” (NASB). Here as in the other examples (with adjustment to their particulars), it is utterly clear on the face of it that those who are wicked and those who are saved are utterly distinct, and there is an assumed phrase missing at the end: “and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life [shall come into it]”. So for John 17:12, you are essentially suggesting we read it this way: “I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost, *but* [rather than “except”] the son of destruction has been lost.” That is possible, but John 17:12 does not have the same character as the cited examples, in which the ellipsis and utter distinction between the 2 groups under consideration are obvious. Indeed, in John, Judas was one of the 12 disciples/apostles and was with them. So the most natural way to read the text is how virtually all translations translate it: “I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction”, implying that Judas was indeed among those guarded. So while possible, your suggestion is not the most natural reading of the Greek. It certainly does not make for a strong Calvinist proof text…
@Arminian: This, was simply a quote from B.F. Westcott’s book on John, and chapter 17: 12! It is interesting watching you try to find a way out or around of this most obvious textual reality here! You will have to take this up with Bishop Westcott, at least from here. Note again from the same Gospel of John 6: 70-71! Surely here John 6: 70, “Did I myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil.” Judas was NEVER regenerate! (spiritually reborn)