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"
Now therefore fear the LORD and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD Joshua 24:14-15
Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? Ezekiel 18:31-32
I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the LORD your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them. Deuteronomy 30:19-20
Well, since we all know that man can not make any spiritual choices for himself, I guess we have to relegate these verses to total irrelevancy. Maybe God forgot to check with the Calvinists before these commands were made. Or maybe He just had them added to the Bible to fool some of us poor folks into believing that man really does have a choice while of course it is quite obvious that we don’t.
(Please read all of my personal comment with a lot of :), :), :), in mind.)
@cherylu: Sadly YOU have almost no understanding of true Calvinism! Have you read really any John Calvin? It seems you are caught-up in all the rhetoric of so-called modern anti-Calvinist verbiage, very sad! And btw, that’s all your gonna get with these so-called Arminian’s here too! And, you too should look at Augustine, who also taught God’s total Otherness, and there were Roman Catholics who stood closer here too, Dominicans, Augustinians, etc. MY first priest in Ireland was an Augustinian (when I was a lad). Talk about providence for me! Of course Calvin was a Augustinian, as Luther!
I challenge both you and Irene to historical theology, it is here btw that the Reformed Divinity lives and stands! Let me too recommend the book edited by Donald McKim, The Cambridge Companion To John Calvin. You simply must at least touch the real John Calvin to degree, and here is a nice historical read and place to begin!
Greg
Free will or no free will,those in the flesh,unregenerate,cannot please God Romans 8-8.Of course Arminians say they can. With their non-spiritual nature,being in the flesh,they,independent of God,work spiritual faith in their stony unregenerate hearts. And they do this before they can see the Kingdom of God. They not only please God,they move him to reward them for their Amazing Decision.And God bows to their will because otherwise He could not get love from their unregenerate heart,that the Apostle says is hostile and opposed to God.Amazing doctrineThey actually believe this with a Stright face.
Greg,
I never said you haven’t read them. It just seems that they are understood in a way to say something else. I have read some interesting ways that those verses have been interpreted by other Calvinists, that is for sure.
I almost added the verses in Acts 17:26-27 that say, And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us… But I didn’t bother because the last time I used them in a discussion with a Calvinist, I used them to make the point that God says here that people can or do seek God. And do you know what he did with it? He ignored the second verse that says that completely and said that those verses taught that God put people in certain places so that they wouldn’t know God! I was just left shaking my head.
Fr Robert,
I have’t read huge amounts of John Calvin. But I have read some. And it has left my head spinning. And you know what, I have read a whole lot of stuff by other Calvinist authors too. And I have gleaned my understanding of these issues from all of them. And some of what I understand is the logical implications of what is said.
And you know what else I have found interesting? You keep insisting that people read Calvin. Funny thing, the last time I tried to discuss these issues with some one on the basis of what Calvin said, you know what I was told? “Don’t go to Calvin. We don’t necessarily believe what he said. You must engage with us on what we actually believe.” Not an exact quote, but I think it is the essence of what was said. I have found that Calvinism is a hodge podge of beliefs as is shown right here in this very thread. You don’t agree among yourselves, that is for sure. Just look at the differences in belief between CMP and Greg for an…
Greg,
That last comment was posted before I saw your apology.
Irene, 9:16am: “Btw, fwiw, the catechism was prepared over six years, the intense work of cardinals, bishops, theologians, exegetes, and catechists from all over the world.”
Oh? What was that you said earlier?
Irene, 8:48am: “Just fallible men. I’ll stick to the plain words of Scripture. (Right??)”
Right. Have a Snickers bar.
Scripture:
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” (Jer. 1:5)
Question for Cherylu and Irene:
Reprobate has a thought in her brain. She decides whether to write that thought down or not. She ultimately decides to write that thought down.
Question: When Reprobate decided to write down that thought, did she decree that her thought be written down?
I read your question before TUAD. And frankly, I don’t know what you are getting at or even what you are asking. I don’t think in terms of “decreeing” something when I do it. I just do it. Your question makes no sense to me.
The hypercharismatic church is always making “decrees” in the name of God. Funny thing though, it doesn’t seem like all those decrees have much affect on anything.
Like I said, I don’t understand your point.
TUAD,
I know. I was just picking at Greg’s comment about the Westminster Assembly.
Shouldn’t have been so snarky I guess.
So what’s the deal with Reprobate having a thought?
TUAD,
I meant *I* shouldn’t have been so snarky. Not Greg. I’m starting to get used to him….. (:
@cherylu: That is why I suggested reading some historical theology, there are several very good historical Reformed scholars today, and they are not pop-culture stars either! Like Richard Muller, Michael Horton, John Frame, etc. To my mind Muller is the greatest living Reformed historical theolog today! And there are some very good 20th century one’s too! Like G.C. Berkouwer, Ford Lewis Battles, (btw see an edited book on Battles called: Interpreting John Calvin, by Robert Benedetto). One must simply try to keep and open mind and do their homework. But make no mistake this is “theological” work!
Before you too reject John Calvin, you should read a good Calvin bio, like Bruce Gordon’s: Calvin, and Bernard Cottret’s (he is French): Calvin, A Biography. YES, again this is “homework” and study! But the question always is, are we ready and willing? Just to make a point, I have read “perhaps” more of both John and Charles Wesley, than our Arminian friends here? But then I am no doubt older, and quite obviously a reader! (AS too was St. Paul a reader btw, 2 Tim. 4: 13… though of course I am no Paul!)
Fr Robert,
My point is that to have discussions with Calvinists, one has to be aware of umpteen different view points because if you don’t, you are discussing something that they are not. You guys are kind of like pinning jello to a wall! 🙂 And what you call “true Calvinism” isn’t maybe what they call Calvinism–at least not in all of it’s points. And to put it bluntly, it doesn’t seem to matter which approach I take–referencing John Calvin as the basis for Calvinist belief or leaving him out of the picture, it seems someone is likely to tell me that my approach is all wrong for those specific reasons.
And FWIW, I don’t think any of the things I have stated on here or drawn conclusions from are contradicted by John Calvin, are they? My conclusions may not be the same, but I don’t think I have misunderstood the positions they are coming from to start with.
Cherylu (399),
Those are all great passages. There are plenty more, of course. The Calvinist charge that the Bible does not teach free will is totally false. Free will is assumed and implied throughout. Not only that, but when we read the Bible assuming decretal exhaustive determinism, almost nothing makes sense. Instead, one has to heavily philosophize what they are reading, or just “not think about it.” I think someone referenced this post before, but I will reference it again:
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/the-reality-of-choice-and-the-testimony-of-scripture/
Of course, all of the ante-Nicean writers (the earliest Christian writers) held to libertarian free will and argued against the determinism of the Gnostics using the same arguments and Scriptures that Arminians use today.
Determinism didn’t enter the church until Augustine, and even he held to libertarian free will and argued for it for many years. His views didn’t really change until he began to argue against the Pelagians (who were extreme on free will), which seemed to push him back towards the determinism of his former Gnostic sect, the Manicheans.
That’s the kind of history you won’t get from Fr. Robert and Greg. None of this is definitive, but it should raise eyebrows just the same. Not only that, but the idea that truly regenerate believers could not fall away began with Calvin (not even Augustine believed that). That’s 1500+ years of Christian History that rejected a doctrine that Fr. Robert and Greg seem to see as a near test for Orthodoxy. Truly wild.
I say this, because they are really getting into history and such, rather than relying solely on Scripture. But there is plenty of history against them and their views.
God Bless,
Ben
And here is an excellent article by Glenn Shellrude that highlights the incompatibility of determinism with a natural reading of Scripture:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/glen-shellrude-calvinism-and-problematic-readings-of-new-testament-texts-or-why-i-am-not-a-calvinist/
Greg writes,
Do you REALLY think that none of us reformed types have ever seen those passages of scripture or all the rest like them before? REALLY?
The same can just as well be said of Arminians regarding all the passages you guys keep referencing that you seem to think support determinism, etc. I mean, REALLY?
Do you think Augustine would have thrown his hat on the floor and stomped all over it in frustration if he read your post? Come on girl. Can we get a little more credit than that?
Likewise, do you think Arminius or most knowledgeable Arminians would throw their hats on the ground and stomp on them after reading your posts? Come on man, can we get a little more credit than that?
Why don’t you do some reading at my blog or at SEA to see if maybe, just maybe, we don’t find such passages very troubling at all.
Ya need to help out yer friend arminianperspectives because he is wanderin around out in the weeds somewhere.
If I am in the weeds, it would nice if you explained how. It would be nice if you explained how the comments you made that I highlighted can in anyway be called compatible with exhaustive decretal divine determinism. In light of that doctrine (the Calvinist “Prime Directive”), all of those comments reduce to utter nonsense. If you like, I will spell it out for you in a follow up post, but I really thought it was self-evident (as Cherylu seems to realize), and didn’t want to insult your intelligence by giving a detailed explanation of something that really shouldn’t need one.
Let me know.
Having commenting wars again. I’ll try again to post the one that just totally disappeared.
Thanks AP. What you said about things not making sense is, of course, a part of my problem with Calvinism. And punting to “just not thinking about it,” does not seem to work very well for me.
Greg, I have been wondering how that wonderful peace you talk about works when someone that is very close to you dies without having shown any evidence of knowing the Lord? Does it trouble you in the least to know that the reason they are now in hell is because God created them for that very purpose?
cherylu writes,
My point is that to have discussions with Calvinists, one has to be aware of umpteen different view points because if you don’t, you are discussing something that they are not. You guys are kind of like pinning jello to a wall!
The problem is, it doesn’t matter how much you study Calvinism, this accusation will still come from Calvinists. I have read numerous books, articles, posts, and debates by Calvinists. I own several books written by Calvinists and have read them all (many more than once). I have been debating Calvinism online for about 7 years now. In that time I have had hundreds of debates on every conceivable topic regarding Calvinism. And yet, I still get told that I don’t understand Calvinism. The only possible explanation can be that God has decreed for me not to understand it and has refused to enlighten me to it’s truth, unlike those other’s here. How strange that God would want one of His children to wander in the weeds and not know or embrace this supposedly superior form of Christianity?
But since I don’t believe Calvinism is Biblical, I don’t think that is what is going on at all. In my experience, it is typically a rhetorical tactic used when a Calvinist is really getting challenged on their beliefs and doesn’t know what else to do. At that point, it is easy to just throw out the “you just don’t understand Calvinism” and “you need to read these 15 volumes of Calvinist Theology before you can argue with me,” etc. (though you will find that they rarely have read much from actual Arminians).
But straight answers to difficult questions (like some of yours) are very hard to come by. Now that may not be true of all Calvinists, and it might not even be true of the one’s here. But it is a definite pattern that I have seen over the years. I highlighted it long ago in this post:
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/08/06/debate-tips-for-calvinists/
God Bless,
Ben
“Libertarianism”, Ugh! Oh once again the mind and ideas of the Roman Catholic Luis de Molia, “Molinism”. Here are the Jesuits, though thankfully the Dominicans, and the Augustinians knew better! Here we are always just one click away from Pelagius and Pelagianism! And btw, pantheism is not far away from here either!
Oh the study of natural theology and natural law is still central for Reformed theology. Sadly some evangelicals don’t even engage here!
To the Calvinists here, (and Greg in particular) does I Timothy 2:1-4 really mean that God desires all men to be saved? Or does it just mean that he wants the elect to be saved or some of all kinds of people to be saved?
And if He wants all all men to be saved, why does He not love all of them and why does He create them for the purpose of sending them to hell?
Jay,
If you are really wanting us to interact with the questions you asked earlier, would you please break them down to one or two at a time? Interacting with that list would take about fifteen comments and we are allowed one at a time. And I honestly don’t even understand the relationship of all of them to the current discussion.
Jay,
Arminians do not believe in unqualified libertarian free will. They believe in freed will. That means that while apart from Christ there is no hope, Christ’s death and resurrection and the grace that he imparts to all through his Holy Spirit allows them to make choices – accept or deny the salvation offered.
Others have implied that God is so sovereign that he freely choose to create free will.
Greg implies that the God from whom he claims logic flows (is it part of his nature or is it a creation of his) cannot be sovereign if he does not decide exactly how things are going to go in the details.
The complaint I am about to make is a very common one, but I think it should be made again. When Arminians appeal to logic as they approach scripture and try to interpret it, Calvinists object that we should not use just logic, despite the fact that we claim to appeal logically to scripture. When a Calvinist is confronted with logical objections to their system, they (in my experience and what I have seen on this blog) appeal to mystery and ask us to submit our logic to their interpretation of God’s word.
As a result, the conversation ceases to be a conversation. The actual issues are obfuscated.
As one who identifies most strongly with Arminian ideas (though not completely) Psalm 131 is one of my favorite Psalms. But it certainly shouldn’t be used to brow-beat us into submitting to an interpretation of scripture that we don’t agree with. There are revealed things. Yet when arguing for “Calvinist” verses, the Calvinists say “it is revealed” and when “Arminian” verses are brought up they say “it is a mystery.” How can there be a conversation?
Fr. Robert,
You really need to look at the post I linked to above called “Debate Tips for Calvinists.” If you do, you will see why it is hard for me to read your posts without laughing at this point. And to think I wrote that post in 2007. Things sure haven’t changed much, they could just as easily have been written today.
Interesting that you mention pantheism, especially when many have charged Calvinism with essentially collapsing into panentheism, or outright pantheism. If you need me to explain why, I would be glad too.
Ugh! Oh once again the mind and ideas of the Roman Catholic Luis de Molia, “Molinism”. Here are the Jesuits, though thankfully the Dominicans, and the Augustinians knew better!
This is rather silly as if libertarian free will was an invention of these groups. It is like you completely ignored what I wrote about the Ante-Nicean Fathers, many of whom learned under the apostles themselves or learned under those who learned under the apostles. For many of them, Greek was their native tongue, and yet they couldn’t find anything like Calvinism in Scripture. Augustine, on the other hand, didn’t even know Greek, and based a lot of his interpretations on problematic Latin translations, and probably on many of the left over philosophical leanings from his Gnostic background.
But none of this is definitive, as I said. Scripture is what matters. But since you keep referencing history as if it overwhelmingly supports your theories, it needs to be pointed out that such assertions by you are very problematic, to say the least.
@cherylu: Indeed there is no perfection in the best of Theology, but I think at least from Greg and myself, we are pressing Reformed epistemology! For the most part, the Arminian’s appear to not have much of a “prolegomena”, in the discussions of how knowledge is attained in dogmatic theology, noting now their use of a Catholic idea called Libertarianism in theology. But anyway we both are certainly Presuppositionalist’s, God is not someone whose existence may be questioned or denied, because he is necessary to the existence of all facts, including the faculties of human beings. Indeed God proved by reason alone is always less than the true God. The Christian task is not to prove but to proclaim, and we can only seek to proclaim of the Gospel of Christ, itself, i.e. the Kerygma (message)!
@AO: Aye when ya cannot attack the issue, attack the man (Augustine)..the old ad hominem! Btw, historical theology is indeed part of our Holy Scripture! The Judeo and the Christian (Judeo-Christian) used both the Jewish Hellenism, and the Pauline of the man Saul/Paul, the Roman citizen and his Greco-Roman. But in God’s providence and sovereignty! God’s Word is the Presupposition of Truth & Revelation!
Just to clarify something here. I have never claimed to be strictly Arminian either although I certainly lean way more toward Arminian views then I do Calvinist views. I don’t see that either one fully accounts for Scripture as I understand it.
And I think that this conversation is growing very strange and not really going anywhere.
Cherylu,
What don;t you agree within Arminianism? I wouldn’t be surprised if your position is really Arminian. There are different strains of Arminianism. It is less rigid than Calvinism and allows for more diversity.
Isaiah 55:8-9 is one of the most commonly misquoted scriptures.
PART 1
Most people I hear quote this as a way of explaining mystery in the activity of God. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, ”declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts. (NIV)
Pretty straightforward, right?
Well, not so much, in my opinion. There are two places to look when understanding any passage of scripture. Previous context and subsequent context. The previous context of this passage is summed up neatly in verse 7: Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon. (NIV)
In what way is our God higher than us? In what way greater? Certainly in his mercy and loving kindness! He grants forgiveness to the repentant. Are we to say, “Surely the Lord cannot forgive us?” No, the Lord is not like us. His holiness is not only something that causes fear and terror, it also grants us assurance (cf. Isaiah 40 and 49; it reminds me of the hymn “Amazing Grace” with the words “tis grace that taught my heart to fear and grace my fears relieved”).
PART 2 (re: Isaiah 55)
The subsequent context is summed up in verses 10-11:
As the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
and do not return to it without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. (NIV)
God’s ways, his character, and his greatness are not just about his compassion, but about his ability and consistency in bringing about his purpose. There are so many reasons to magnify the Lord. For he is worthy to be praised. His glory is not merely his reputation that he must keep from being smeared. It is who he is in his compassion and greatness. He doesn’t “need” us to glorify him. We need to see what his glory is really like and we will naturally want to glorify him.
What does this glory look like? We see it most clearly in the face of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is why I have always appreciated the part of the liturgy which goes: “Glory to God in the highest . . . we praise you for your glory: Lord Jesus Christ . . .” While it is probably true that the liturgy was not meant the way I take it, it is a wonderful reminder that the words “Lord Jesus Christ” come right after the phrase “your glory.”
Oh, I should add that sometimes people think they are not Arminian when they actually are because Arminianism has been misrepresented to them. You might want to take this survey at the Society of Evangelical Arminians:
“Are You an Arminian and Don’t Even Know It?”
(http://evangelicalarminians.org/survey-are-you-an-arminian-and-dont-even-know-it-2/)
And you might want to look at the outline of Arminian beliefs as stated in our FACTS acronym:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/an-outline-of-the-facts-of-arminianism-vs-the-tulip-of-calvinism/
Arminian,
Well, I am undoubtedly indicting myself here, but I don’t necessarily find the corporate views of election completely convincing either.
I find myself wondering all of the time if either group, Calvinists or Arminians, really have it right. And I don’t know the solution to that.
There are Scriptures that I think give credence to the Calvinists views. BUT, I think that if they are understood in the way the Calvinists understand them, they make a whole lot of the rest of the Bible into nonsense. Case in point, turning a God who says He is love into someone that doesn’t show love to people in the area where it is most needed (infralapsarianism) or not showing most of his creation love at all and actually creating them for the purpose of going to hell as in Greg’s view. Or God speaking to people as if they can indeed chose life while all of the time they have been destined for hell or are kept from making that choice by His decree.
Those things just don’t add up for me. And to say it is all a mystery when it seems like utter contradiction doesn’t work for me either.
Cherylu,
Hmmm, I am so impressed by the biblical nature of the corporate election view. It just seems to flow naturally out of the Bible, and as study thew Bible I am increasingly impressed with it.
Have you read a good article on it? For example, have you read “Clearing Up Misconceptions about Corporate Election” http://evangelicalarminians.org/brian-abasciano-clearing-up-misconceptions-about-corporate-election/ ?
If so, what reservations do you have?
@cherylu: You might want to check into the aspect of Common Grace in certain Calvinists and Calvinism. Have you tried reading R.C. Sproul?
And btw, it sure seems like “A” is pressing for converts? Watch out! 😉 (I am smiling!)
Cherylu
Just asking how an Arminian gets saved. Now I assume God has no power to control free will,So He does not control the distribution of the gospel.That is,who gets the message depends on men.Let’s assume now that Cherylu receives the gospel message and says “I accept Jesus as my personal Saviour”and you really meant it. At this point you can’t just say Jesus forgive me.You must accept him.So now God can go to work. He regenerates Cuerylu and you are born again.So now you have a new nature.But you can lose this new nature by ceasing to believe or by becoming very sinful.Now does God turn your new nature back to the old unregenerate nature,or do you perform that your-self? Surely God is only one that can change a nature.Or do you claim to have that power?So now you have the old natureback again.But the good news is that now you can get saved again. You can’t just say I’m sorry.You must accept Jesus all over again.Then God will regenerate you again.Now you have your new nature back.Is this how it works?
But hey you can become an Arminian many times, but only a real Calvinist once! Sorry, but I could not help myself! 😉
*Its Friday, and I am home! 🙂
Cheryl, I’m with you on this in some sense. Calvinist’s say that Arminian’s can’t pray for the souls of the lost because the lost have a choice and God can’t overcome free will. Arminians say that Calvinist’s can’t pray for the lost because whatever God has decreed, he has decreed. You can’t change God. It is hard for any Christian to understand you prayer can be meaningful when God is all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful – for any theology. If I were to say, “God you are beyond me.” I’d rather it be for the reasons I mentioned regarding Isaiah 55 than for Calvinist reasons. I mean this. Though I don’t know how prayer fits in with such an omni-God, I trust that it fits in such a way that God’s mercy is magnified and that his glory is found primarily in Jesus Christ, not in some inscrutable, unfathomable glory (which inexplicably involves reprobation). This I think is the primary divide between Calvinist and Arminian typically. Is God’s primary goal his glory or to show love. Irene has made some great comments in regard to that. In my opinion, the Calvinist interpretation of God makes him not love, because love involves others. They tend to speak of him in such a way that I imagine a ego-maniacal dictator rather than a Triune God of love in three persons. Funnily (in terms of Fr. Robert’s own experience of Anglicanism) what has struck me is the depth of emphasis on God’s love “in your infinite love you made us for yourselves. And when we had fallen into sin and death, you sent your only and eternal son.” When I think of God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – I think of them loving one another and in that love, creating us for one another – and then redeeming us for us and for one another. I know that in their view I am probably misrepresenting them, but the Calvinist understanding of God’s glory and sovereignty sounds as they they are worshiping a monistic God (not triune) and a despotic one at that.
To quote Timothy George, ‘Why was the Trinity such an important issue for Calvin? “As we have seen, he was not interested in the metaphysical niceties of abstract theology, nor was he slavishly attached to traditional terminology. ‘The Trinity was crucial because it was a witness to the deity of Jesus Christ and thus to the certainty of salvation procured by Him.’ The purpose of Calvin’s trinitarianism was, like that of Athanasius, soteriological (salvation). He wanted to safeguard the biblical message, “God was manifest in the flesh,” against false interpretations.”
Promethius (comment 432),
The Calvinist argument that Arminian theology is not consistent with praying for the lost is erroneous. See “Arminians Can Be Consistent and Pray for God to Save the Lost” (http://evangelicalarminians.org/arminians-can-be-consistent-and-pray-for-god-to-save-the-lost/).
So much ad hoc and ad hom’s have been leveled at “Calvinism”, as Calvin and Calvinists on this blog! But God’s Doctrines of Grace are in His hand, not man’s. Though the regenerate surely & truly respond!
But what if it is true, or part of the truth? I wonder if any non-Calvinists have considered this? I can well remember when I did consider Wesleyanism, and it came up lacking, both biblically & theologically for me! Though again, I really like the Wesley brothers.
Arminian,
I should probably do some more reading on the corprate election view.
But according to the first article you linked above, I would say I am certainly WAY more Arminian then Calvinist. I found very little there that I would have a problem with.
Cherylu,
In that case, perhaps you should start here: “A Concise Summary of the Corporate View of Election and Predestination”
(http://evangelicalarminians.org/a-concise-summary-of-the-corporate-view-of-election-and-predestination/).
The title gives a good description of the page. Then move on to the article I mentioned previously, which is a full scope article.
Yes, I wonder sometimes how CMP maintains blog post subjects like this, on Calvinists and Calvinism, especially when a formal group like these Arminian’s show up? I admit I have been hit and miss on my depth here, we are all busy people, as no doubt Michael!
I don’t think any of us can keep up with this!
I may have said this earlier in this convo, but I find it just one more contradictory thing about Calvinism when we are told by God to love our neighbor as ourselves, and then do not find ourselves being quite upset if our neighbors (any man) is not offered salvation. And even more so if he was actually created to be damned. It seems to me that love for neighbor is really very hard pressed indeed if Calvinism is true. I’m not sure if that expressed what I am trying to say very well. But it certainly seems to me that love and concern for another is likely to be very upset at the thought that that one was created for damnation.
Greg,
A couple of things.
Psalm 8:4-6 has been running through my mind: …what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet… This is man as God made him and how He sees Him. Strange then, is it not, that He would create most of those same men for the purpose of spending eternity in hell? One more unexplainable thing it seems to me.
And while I wasn’t the one that “corrected you” about Isaiah 55, I do think he had a valid point. No one is saying that His thoughts aren’t higher then ours. But to use a verse taken out of context as a proof text that we must accept that our definitions of words are not at all accurate in light of His definitions seems like really stretching things. (Unless I have completely forgotten how this text was originally used in this convo.)
Greg Tiribulus: “I live for the glory of my God. I am grieved that as far as I know NONE of my relatives except my paternal grandmother are likely with the Lord. That grief is far more than mitigated by the knowledge that my perfectly holy, righteous, just and good Father God has deemed it most glorious to Himself to send them to perdition. I deserve that lake of fire. I am in NO position to question my merciful savior about who or how He saves. He has by His sovereign election denied the occasion for anger or condescension toward them in not making the same saving choice that I have. I use that grief to motivate me to keep telling others about His love in the hope I might one day hear him say “well done my good and faithful servant”.”
Well said, Greg!! Really quite good. Let him and her who have ears, hear these words of counsel and heed them!
Fr Robert,
I am still not at all sure why you continue to be so upset by the presence of “Arminian” and “ArminianPerspectives” in this conversation.
You have put forth your Calvinist beliefs in a very large share of the conversations you have been a part of here on P and P for a long time now. Even if they are not discussions about Calvinism. Why aren’t these folks free to do the same thing? I don’t get it.
Usually Arminians end up calling the Calvinist God a monster,devil,a cancer,honmophobe,ect..Such rhetoric has no effect on truth,but it makes them feel smugly self righteous.Rarely is it acknowledged that men had their Free will choice to obey God and lost it in Adam.This is true because God says it is true.That is why we are born with a fallen nature,enemies of God.We are criminals and God does not owe us love any more than he owed the fallen angeles love.And He gave them wrath.So assume there are two criminals on death row. The Governor pardons one and refuses pardon to the other.Two sinful criminals are before God. God pardons one and refuses pardon to another.Men praise the Governor as merciful,and condemn God for being discriminatory.Fortunately the Lord is immune to such arrogance and perversity of men,who only deserve damnation.
@cherylu: I am not down on people who are Arminian at all, I have many friends who are somewhat of that stripe, after all I am an Anglican, and Anglicanism has always been quite diverse. But I must confess that I was not happy to see both “A” and I guess too “AO”, not expressing early that they were part of a “formal” Arminian group! If this were “my” blog I would have to say something to them, but it is not, but I still must show my distain about what appeared (to me anyway) to be both bating and trolling! And they are the one’s that seem to think their better than the rest of us poor “Calvinist’s”, that’s the way I sense and see it at least. I mean I never try to press my theological education (and on the blogs I have never asked to be called “Dr.”) Just a point. As I have written on my blog, being called “Father” has always been quite enough for me as an Anglican presbyter (and I used to be somewhat High Church years ago), for to me it is a pastoral title (1 Cor. 4: 15), that Paul used himself.
Jay,
That argument seems to forget that the governor didn’t decree that those folks would be criminals.
It also fails at all to deal with that fact that there is not a single person alive on this earth now who has chosen to be born in Adams’s line. But we are born criminals, enemies of God before we take our first breath and outside of any desire of our own to be in that place. We can not do anything else but follow our sinful nature, and then the one that decreed it so decrees they (speaking of the reprobate) shall spend eternity in hell for it to bring Him glory.
It all from the fall of Adam and onward happened because God decreed it would be so and billions–who knows how many–people will suffer in hell for eternity because of those decrees and were never given an opportunity for anything else.
I feel like a cracked record repeating myself over and over. But it doesn’t seem like anyone hears what I am saying.
Fr. Robert writes,
noting now their use of a Catholic idea called Libertarianism in theology.
What? Are you purposely ignoring what I am writing? Are you seriously saying that the Ante-Nicean fathers are just Catholics? If that is what you think, it really undercuts any credibility you may assume for yourself on Christian History. Yet, Augustine is considered by many Catholics to be one of the major fathers of Catholicism. Your one sided and inaccurate portrayal of history is not helping you. Maybe you should just leave it alone.
Aye when ya cannot attack the issue, attack the man (Augustine)..the old ad hominem!
Seriously? You are the one who kept bringing up Augustine to prop up your theology (rather than dealing directly with the “issue”). So I can’t make a comment about Augustine, or your lopsided recounting of Christian History? Why is that? And notice how you do not challenge what I actually wrote about the matter. That is telling in itself. More empty rhetoric when things get tough. At least that is certainly the way it seems. Did I write something inaccurate about Augustine? If so, what?
I feel like a cracked record repeating myself over and over. But it doesn’t seem like anyone hears what I am saying.
Get used to it. You are simply not going to get any satisfying answers. Just the typical Calvinist run around.
Well said, Greg!! Really quite good. Let him and her who have ears, hear these words of counsel and heed them!
Well, never mind the fact that in Calvinism, no one can have “ears to hear” or “hear” these “words of counsel” unless God irresistibly decreed it from all eternity. Just another example of how Calvinists can’t even speak consistently with their Calvinist presuppositions. Don’t worry though, just “Try no to think about it.” 😉