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 writes,
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.
This is really strange. Calvinists can promote Calvinism ad nauseum on this blog, but if Arminians show up and promote Arminianism it is a case of baiting and trolling? What? Did you really have questions about our theological orientation when Arminian posted as, well…”Arminian” and I posted as “arminianperspectives”? (never mind how easy it would have been for you to click our names and see where that leads). But you don’t like that. Why? Oh, because we don’t support Calvinism, is that right?
But we already covered this ground. Too bad you think that only Calvinist perspectives should be promoted here and only Calvinist links to articles, books, posts, etc. should be rightly tolerated. I actually appreciate the fact that Mr. Patton tolerates different views being expressed on his blog, even when those views contradict his own. Too bad you don’t seem to feel the same way.
Jay,
My bringing up Isaiah 55 and “correcting” you was just to show that in context what the Israelites could not comprehend was very particular – God’s love for those whom he would have mercy on if man would turn – verse 7. So it is relevant in that the thing that we cannot understand is not God’s inscrutable will in decreeing damnation without the person’s choice, rather it is God’s marvelous will in wanting to save and have mercy on those who don’t deserve it.
That said, it seems that I must point out that Arminians do believe that people don’t deserve mercy, but that they nonetheless have been given a choice through the gospel. Just because you are given a choice doesn’t mean you are earning or even working for your salvation. The choice wouldn’t be there if God hadn’t provided it.
I also think I need to point out that there are two reasons on this blog that the Calvinists are giving for why God must be meticulously sovereign. The first is “the Bible says so.” But it seems that the second underlies the first issue. There is a philosophical commitment to determinism (at least for Greg). Despite the fact that many philosophers fall on both sides of the free will-determinism issue even outside of Christianity. While they may feel that determinism is necessary philosophically, I would find it somewhat an overstatement to say that free will is complete nonsense. That is to say that those philosophers who believe in it are utter morons.
There are many common-sense and philosophically sound reasons for accepting free will as a real possibility.
Obviously the Arminians have two similar arguments. “The Bible says so” and a commitment to the love of God.
Calvinists seem concerned about a certain definition of sovereign and Arminians about a certain definition of love. Calvinists often don’t see the importance of the Arminian concern, and Arminians certainly don’t agree with the Calvinistic definition of…
I might add that one of my biggest frustrations with the way the Calvinists here have argued has been that you want Biblical evidence, and then, when an Arminian argues against you Biblically, you say it is invalid because their epistemology is flawed. Greg for sure argues that one cannot understand these issues unless we begin with epistemology which of course will lead to divine determinism. And then, of course, we cannot argue the point. It is just true. And we have then deviated from the main point, which is that we can use scripture to argue.
But instead of arguing scripture, you say that we need to understand your whole system. And yet that is the point. We are, of course, undermining your whole system if we are right. But we cannot assume that you are right for the sake of the argument! That would defeat the conversation.
I guess I feel that you all are trying to have your cake and eat it too. If we argue philosophically, it is invalid because logic and philosophy come from God and must be submitted to him and his word. If we argue Biblically, it is invalid because we have poor philosophical presuppositions. Heads you win, tails we lose.
I wish this could be a conversation. I wish you would take the difficulties we find with your position seriously. But what I see instead is a kind of claim that what you see in the Bible is the obvious reading. Michael Patton is right. These are thorny and difficult issues.
But one thing I cannot get my head around is how one can call Calvinism “the gospel” and then say you accept Arminians because they are saved by the “Doctrines of Grace” even though they don’t agree with them. Does that mean that you also affirm that Muslims, Buddhists, etc. are acceptable Christians in your book as long as they live grace-filled lives . . . if not, then Calvinism is not the standard of the gospel. Something else. There must be other more important things.
Prometheus,
Some good and helpful comments here. Thanks for the input.
God Bless,
Ben
Well Cherylu
I think your real quarrel is with God,not Calvinists.You don’t like his justice in holding men responsible for Adam’s rebellion.Then you don’t like to hear some of them do not receive grace and a choice,even though God does not owe them a choice or grace.The fallen angels might agree with you. They did not have a second chance and they did not choose to be born.Then you don’t like God’s decrees.But that means you don’t like the idea God has an eternal plan that rendered certain all events in the future,throughout eternity.You want God to operate without a plan.Just be in the dark like men.And what is a decree? It is just a determination that something will exist and happen. Please explain how the universe and all that is in it,could exist without a plan.If God doen not plan the future how could there be a future? Who keeps you in existence and gives you power to act. Guess what,if God were not here,neither would you be.You think he is doing all this without a plan?You think He would know from eternity that you would exist at this time without planning for that to happen? If your going to quarrel with God’s decree,take care you don’t quarrel as to what He does in time.It is evident all men are not saved,and that those that are are saved operation of His grace. If this is consistent with his honor to save some and let others perish,it is consistent withit to dercree to do so from all eternity.He known before he creates men,many will never receive the gospel or any other grace and will perish eternally. Yet he freely creates them.If you can’t accept this ,your quarrel is with God,not me.Men just don’t like to hear that in making and disposing of us,God consults His Sovereign pleasure and His glory rather than our interest. You resent this and strive to bring Him to the bar to answer your objections.Never will happen.Your quarrel really is with God.Your not alone Multitudes feel the same way.God could never be elected President in this corrupt…
Jay writes,
I think your real quarrel is with God,not Calvinists.
There’s that over the top Calvinist rhetoric again!
Jay, try not to forget that, according to Calvinism, God irresistibly controls our every thought, desire, choice an action. He fully controls our wills. So if Cherylu is quarreling with God, she has no choice in the matter. She is doing just as God irresistibly controlled her to do, sorta like how God forms the pots in such a way that they cannot help but to talk back to the Potter, and then rebukes them for doing exactly as He irresistibly decreed for them to do (which is, of course, a major problem with the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9). What a mess. Yet, Calvinists continue to talk and live like Arminians. Why? Because the fundamental presuppositions of Calvinism are so contrary to reality, and for that reason, Calvinists simply cannot think, talk or live consistently with the doctrines they espouse as the ultimate Christian truths. We have seen more than one example of this so far in this thread. Too bad this doesn’t lead them to re-examine and re-consider the validity of their theology.
@AO: I guess you did not read what I said, I could care less personally if your an Arminian, but when you come on site to a well-known Calvinist blog, please have the respect and truthfulness to reveal yourself and your Arminian group! This was not done, and this is the real issue for me! But of course I am NOT one who sees much at all that is good in Arminianism, which in reality misses the central great doctrine of God and His most complete sovereignty and decrees!
Fr. Robert and Greg, I know that AO and A are both Arminians and that they are part of an Arminian group, but that doesn’t mean that they are here representing Arminians as a kind of “ganging up.” Can these two not come as individuals even if they have such obvious monikers (and happen to be part of SEA)? Besides, aren’t blogs and comments supposed to be places where discussion can take place? But rather than that, you view them as bashers. I agree that we Arminians are not always perfectly gentlemanly, nor has every comment from the Arminian perspective here been without the ability to be ad hominem or incisive. Nonetheless, it seems that this debate on your side has gone down to mere assertions. I think I can see why. You don’t see any merit in Arminian thought. And yet you don’t think logic and reason a good way to go forward. Or if you do, then why don’t you patiently show us in particular places where we are wrong. You pointed out Judas. It was pointed out to you that Judas “saved” status is not agreed upon by Arminians. I agree with your view of John 17:12.
The word “regeneration” needs to be defined before verbal assault begins. For instance, Calvin in his Institutes III.XI.1 divides talks about a) justification and b) sanctification – the former is what makes us children of God and the latter is considered the result of a distinct work called regeneration. So, in what sense is this description applicable to the Old Testament and in what sense is it a description of the new dispensation? I guess that probably would depend upon how you read Peter’s words in Acts: “Believe and be baptized and you will be saved and you will receive the Holy Spirit; this is for you and your children.” (paraphrased). Does this reception of the Holy Spirit have anything to do with regeneration? Or is that something else completely?
I do agree with you, though, that salvation has always been accomplished the same way 🙂 by grace through faith.
Just a thought about Anglicanism, Fr. Robert. It seems odd that the way Anglicans do infant baptism. The words said seem to be manifest nonsense, since they claim about a baby what can only be said of God’s elect: “You are sealed as God’s own forever.” What does that mean? Are Anglicans truthful when they say such words over a reprobate baby? Or do they really (secretly:)) mean that the baby is God’s own for ever – for good or for ill!
Now I know there are Arminian Anglicans and they have the same problem in my view, so I am not picking on Calvinism per se, but I do wonder how one can truly be Calvinistic and Anglican and consistent.
Jay,
In writing cherylu, I think you are missing some of the point. I don’t think she is meaning to quarrel with God. And saying, “You are quarreling with God” is not an argument. If the prayer of a good Calvinist is efficacious in some sense, it probably would be better for you to pray for her than to rail at her. I don’t see the point of your comments if you are unwilling to reason Biblically.
But even when you ask rhetorical questions Philosophically, it doesn’t follow that your philosophical assumptions are manifest or even correct. That you must demonstrate rather than assume. Arminians of course believe that God has a plan. If I have a plan for how a vacation is going to go and I deliberately plan it with some contingencies depending upon my childrens’ choices that does not make the vacation any less planned. It rather allows for my children to act with in it. This, by the way, has nothing to do with sinful man’s inability, since we are assuming that the free will of the man we are discussing is someone who has been freed by God’s grace, not someone unable to act because they have not yet been freed. If we are to tackle the question of whether any sort of contingency is possible we should start modestly and ask if a person regenerated by grace can assent to or resist further grace. In other words, is all sin in a believers life decreed. Now I know what you will say: yes. But that, again, is an assertion. Do we admit that freed will can exist without being determined. Can my children act on vacation in such a way that it affects how the vacation goes without it ruining my plan for the vacation. You reply, yes but God is different! I reply, yes, precisely, he can set the boundaries much more surely so that the vacation cannot ultimately be ruined through some unforeseen choice. He can limit the choices appropriately. Plus, mirabile dictu, he knows the future! But Arminians can show how certain does not mean…
Jay,
Also, you seem to miss cherylu’s the point about the justice of a God who condemns all humanity to eternal misery because of the sin of Adam. You state the example of angels – but with them there is no ancestral sin, so the comparison is invalid (i.e. they each sinned individually). Also the Bible seems to suggest that God works through willing repentance and that the sin of the past (by God’s gracious plan) does not determine our future. He has granted the opportunity of repentance to people and they must take it or leave it as shown in Ezekiel 18. This is one of the longest passages in which God argues with the people. They claim God is unjust because he ought to regard genetic/ancestral sin or righteousness, but he argues that they have got it all wrong. God does not regard ancestral or personal sin OR righteousness. He regards the one righteous who repents and as unrighteous who refuse to remain in righteousness. What is so interesting is that taken apart from a Calvinistic systematic theology and together with how it would sound if preached to someone unaware of Calvinist or Arminian presuppositions the audience, the original hearers of the passage in Ezekiel 18 would have heard the call to repentance as something they could legitimately do because God graciously called them to do so! And God seemed okay with that! Why then try to take chapters like this and fit them into a scheme that seems so foreign to it? Why spend so much time defending God’s “sovereign decree” when he was happy to communicate a sense that we have a choice without adding “and, oh yeah, by the way, you can’t do what I’ve commanded and if you do I actually caused you to do it, but in such a way that you felt like you made a decision.” Of course much of this argument is rehashed for the last 500 years or so (see The Battle over Free Will: Erasmus and Luther).
@Prometheus: Thanks, the first actual friendly approach in dialogue! Yes, of course “regeneration” means the life of God, and the so-called New Birth was/is in both Covenants, as in John 3. And of course yes to the work of the Holy Spirit.
As to your second, the reality of the Covenant of Grace is presumed in the life of the children of the Covenant itself and the family (Acts 2: 39), though this must also be seen too in faith, hope and love! Note Paul, in 2 Tim. 3: 14-15 (looking back at 2 Tim. 1: 3 ; 5).
Btw, if you have not yet seem them? note the Irish Articles 1615 (Archbishop James Ussher).
@Greg: Rest in sleep for 8 hours or so for that sanctified head! Blessings! 😉
Jay, #455: “Well Cherylu
I think your real quarrel is with God, not Calvinists.”
Bulls-eye!! 100% dead-on target. Full points.
Me: “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?”
Cherylu: “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.”
(A) Are you saying that you’re typically an impulsive person?
(B) Does God do what you do? Can He say like you: “I just do it.”
(C) Jay, from his excellent comment in #455, should be able to help you understand the question above with this helpful explanation:
“And what is a decree? It is just a determination that something will exist and happen.”
Given this definition, answer this question: When Reprobate decided to write down that thought, did she decree that her thought be written down?”
Yes? Or No?
TUAD, # 466;
“Jay, #455: “Well Cherylu
I think your real quarrel is with God, not Calvinists.”
Bulls-eye!! 100% dead-on target. Full points.”
Are you serious? That would be like us saying that we think your real quarrel is with God, not Arminians, because you refuse to submit to his sovereign decision to give humanity free will and to the plain teaching of God’s word on the subject. Is that sort of thing helpful to dialogue? And do you not see how that comes off as arrogant? Do you not see how you’re simply equating your opinion with God’s, which is not really helpful in debate between brothers and sisters in Christ over what God’s/Scripture’s view actually is? As CMP asked earlier in the thread, isn’t it possible that good people disagree about these things because they are not as clear as they could be?
Greg writes,
Yes weeds. That’s where you are. NOBODY can speak at all WITHOUT Calvinist presuppositions. Saint, sinner… nobody. I’m not up to typing it all over again again. God’s special and general revelation presuppose one another and require each other for a proper view of reality. A systematic reality wherein ALL things are from Him, to Him, for Him, by Him and through Him.
But all of this, no matter how often you type it, is nothing more than an assertion on your part, an un-backed, un-argued assertion. It is filled with enormous leaps in logic and isn’t even coherent with the things that you say here, things I have pointed out, and things you have yet to address (i.e. the blatant inconsistency between your comments and your fundamental presuppositions about decretal exhaustive determinism, which continue with each additional protest you make against Arminianism). Just typing it over and over again doesn’t make it true, nor does it make it coherent. Have you considered the possibility that maybe you are the one who is being irrational here?
Do you think you are the only one familiar with Van Til, or Bhansen, or presuppositional apologetics, or the transcendental argument for the existence of God, etc., etc? None of that changes the fact that you are making huge and unfounded leaps of logic in your assertions. It is up to you to prove the connections you keep trying to make between being able to do or think anything and the truth of Calvinism somehow needing to be behind it all. I submit that it is something you simply cannot do. I can just as easily argue presuppositionally, that the Bible cannot be intelligently read or understood, unless free will is presupposed. Indeed, your own posts here presuppose the existence of free will. So your arguments are self-defeating, and therefore false. I won’t get into the details right now, since assertions seem to suffice for you. But let me know if you want me to explain.
Greg,
My Armniian brothers won”t like this, but I have not read even one single new syllable from any of you in this discussion. I’ve had what amounts to the same one with dozens and dozens of unbelievers. Some of my posts have actually been largely copied and pasted from those old discussions with non Christians who hold the same epistemology you do. I am not being in any way sarcastic. You have my word.
You probably won’t like this either, but I haven’t heard anything new here from my Calvinist brothers. It can all be found in my post, “Debate Tips For Calvinists.” (linked above) The only thing that might need to be added to that list is the fairly common attempt of passing incoherent arguments off as grand profound philosophical insights that only Calvinists are smart enough to really understand. Yep, that about sums things up from my point of view.
So maybe we just need to leave it there. You think we are stupid uneducated spiritually immature Christians, while you and the others are profoundly intelligent, well read, well rounded superior Calvinist thinkers who have been gifted by God to understand these deep theological secrets that us primitive Arminian types have been denied access to, and rightly so, due to our sinful attempt to be autonomous (a completely incoherent statement in view exhaustive determinism, as already noted).
But what does it matter? God is the only true actor in the universe and we are just passive instruments, unable to form an independent thought or act in any way without being irresistibly acted upon. So it all collapses into a sort of panentheism, where we are all just expressions of God. So when we debate and argue about things like this, it is really God just giving Himself a hard time through us.
So keep in mind that when you protest about what I have just said here, you are just protesting against God. Strike that, God is just protesting against God. But we should just “try not to think about”…
BTW, it seems that Fr. Robert, and now some others, seem to be referring to me as AO. Not sure what the O is supposed to mean. I assume it is a typo, and it should be AP. Just thought I’d point that out to avoid confusion.
Fr. Robert writes,
@Prometheus: Thanks, the first actual friendly approach in dialogue!
Who has been unfriendly here? Or is it that you see strong disagreement with you as necessarily unfriendly?
Let me just suggest to you that it can lead to frustration trying to cut through all of the Calvinist rhetoric here in order to get to any meaningful, civil conversation.
We have been told that we don’t know our History. We have been told that we are fighting against God. We have been told that we are guilty of awful exegesis. We have been compared (many times) to unbelievers and atheists. We have been told that we essentially reject the Gospel (Calvinism). We have been repeatedly talked down to as if we are just unlearned school children who really don’t know the first thing about God or His revelation because we do not accept Calvinism. We have been told we can’t even do anything: think, talk, whatever, unless Calvinism is true.
Now can you see how such things can make discussions a little frustrating? I suggest that we proceed by assuming that we might in fact be wrong about some things and that we might have something to learn from each other. I suggest that we proceed with the assumption that we are all trying to hold to God’s truth, not trying to fight against God or deny the gospel, or whatever. I suggest we honestly evaluate other’s arguments without all of the grandstanding. I suggest we stop assuming those we are speaking to are ignorant or uneducated or need to read volumes of books before we can understand the arguments that are being presented here.
For me, that will create an atmosphere for friendly and respectful dialogue. Are you willing to do that from now on? I am.
May God lead us all into His truth.
Greg writes,
arminianperspectives says: I can just as easily argue presuppositionally, that the Bible cannot be intelligently read or understood, unless free will is presupposed.
Please do sir.
Surely. Let’s just look at the following statement:
This morning as I was out I knew this was comin. I don’t know why more Christians (though the number is growing) don’t promote God to the office of governor of their thought life.
You say you don’t know why more Christians don’t promote God to the office of governor of their thought life. But you know the reason. The reason is because God decreed it that way from eternity in such a way that those Christians can no more do what you think they “should” do than create a universe. See what I mean? The things you say are wholly inconsistent with your fundamental underlying presuppositions. So the more you protest against free will and make statement s like this, the more you either affirm free will or prove your statements to be incoherence. You are truly on the horns of a dilemma. The only other option is for you to just “try not to think about it.”
So you’re own presuppositional method of argument invalidates your own stated views on determinism. In other words, what you say invalidates what you believe.
Nice how Greg walked right into that one, huh AP?
I just wanted to add that while AP has made some arguments that the Bible cannot be intelligently read or understood unless free will is presupposed, that Greg has not offered any arguments for the idea that that the Bible cannot be intelligently read or understood, unless Calvinism is presupposed. All he has offered are mere assertions about that, sometimes presented in the form of major leaps in logic (e.g. his claim that unless exhaustive determinism is true, then God is dependent on his creation). And ironically, it is Greg who has been pushing the whole idea needing to presuppose his system.
Greg writes,
I am compelled to say real quick that I have never once in the history of my life attributed the failure of an opponent to see things my way to stupidity. EVER, even once. I go out just about every morning to walk and pray. This morning as I was out I knew this was comin. I don’t know why more Christians (though the number is growing) don’t promote God to the office of governor of their thought life.
I wonder if you realize how insulting your comments come across. My guess is that you don’t. You say you never attribute anything an opponent says to stupidity, but then instead say it is just a matter of those people not promoting God to the office of governor of their thought lives.
So now you have just told me that my problem isn’t that I am stupid, but that I refuse to promote God to the office of governor of my thought life (which is completely incoherent and self-defeating in your own system of thought since God governs everyone’s thought life all of the time).
You don’t see how offensive and arrogant statements like that sound to us? You seriously don’t see how statements like that make civil and respectful dialogue nearly impossible?
Please forgive all the typos in #479.
Arminian writes,
Nice how Greg walked right into that one, huh AP?
Greg has been walking into it from the start, he just hasn’t seemed to realize it for some reason. Surely, it’s not because he refuses to promote God to the office of governor of his thought life, though. 😉
AP
Does God absolutely control you?Does He control even your thoughts so you must do His will come what may?Indeed He does.Amos 4-13.He declares to man what are his thoughts.Here you can only think the thoughts God declares to you. No other choice is possible. Psalm 105:25.He turned their heart to hate His people.Hatred is a mental state.God made them think that way.Prov231- .The heart of the King is in the hands of the Lord He turns wherever He wishes.Job 23-
He performeth the thing that is appointed-how about decreed-for me.
The heart of man is deceitful beyond measure.It will use all possible devices to avoid acknowledging that it is a worm,a lump of clay,a creature,and not an independent autonomous being.Now you can resume your delusions that you are the master of your fate.It is a warm thought if God decides to reveal it to you.
@Greg/Tiribulus’
I agree with your biblical “presupposition”! 😉
Btw talk about redundancy with “AP” (sorry, that was my typo on AO) and “A” towards you! As me somewhat too. But, we must expect this from these men of grave biblical & theological error! They are actually like Paul who was, ‘kicking against the “pricks” ‘! (Acts 9: 5, KJV) And I say this pastorally as well as theologically too!
When I came to see (as a believer btw and even a Anglican presbyter), in the complete Sovereignty of God & His Word, it was almost like a second conversion (so-called) to me! And only since then, have I been able to say fully, “soli Deo Gloria”: glory to God alone!
Fr. Roberts,
See comment #477. In light of this newest statement of yours (#485), it would appear that you have no interest in a respectful discussion. That is really too bad. Your comments truly sadden me.
Greg writes,
BTW, I said “intelliGIBly, not intelliGENTly. I’m sure it was an honest misreading, but there’s’ a big difference.
That’s what I meant too. Thanks for pointing that out.
Okay Jay,
Does God absolutely control you?Does He control even your thoughts so you must do His will come what may?Indeed He does.Amos 4-13.He declares to man what are his thoughts.Here you can only think the thoughts God declares to you. No other choice is possible.
The heart of man is deceitful beyond measure.It will use all possible devices to avoid acknowledging that it is a worm,a lump of clay,a creature,and not an independent autonomous being.
Okay Jay, God absolutely controls me. My thoughts everything. But I have such a deceitful heart that I will do everything imaginable to keep from acknowledging that fact.
Umm, if God absolutely controls me, my thoughts and everything, then is it not indubitably obvious that it is He that is controlling me to make me think these wicked thoughts and do everything imaginable to keep from acknowledging that it is He that is controlling me and making me do and think these very things? No other choice is possible. All of these wicked thoughts are only me doing God’s will after all.
@AO: I guess you did not read what I said, I could care less personally if your an Arminian, but when you come on site to a well-known Calvinist blog, please have the respect and truthfulness to reveal yourself and your Arminian group! This was not done, and this is the real issue for me!
Nobody was trying to hide anything, and it is pretty ridiculous that you would suggest that. Also, I don’t even think Mr. Patton would call this a “Calvinist Blog.” You do know that well known Arminian, Paul Copan, also posts here, right?
But even if it is a well known Calvinist blog, as you say, that doesn’t mean that Arminians can’t voice their opinion or refer to works that support Arminianism. Nor do they need to go out of their way to reveal the obvious. Did you you really have some trouble discerning that we were Arminians? I think you are very confused about the nature of blogs, as well as the nature of this blog.
cherylu (#488)
Exactly. Just another example of a Calvinist who undermines his own theology in trying to undermine Arminianism. It is really baffling to me why this is such a difficult concept for them to grasp. They just cannot seem to figure out a way write, argue or express themselves in a manner that is consistent with their Calvinist presuppositions. That tells me something about Calvinism. Too bad it doesn’t seem to tell them anything.
I quoted this by C.S. Lewis on my own wee blog the other day, as to the doctrine of “knowing” God’s Sovereign Grace:
“There are a dozen views about everything until you know the answer. Then there’s only one” (That Hideous Strength).”
@AP: Sorry mate, but you guys have spoken just too ad hom, and poorly ad hoc (to people like Greg and Jay especially), to turn back the clock now! I know the “Calvinists” who have spoken here, perhaps feel the same also? Not anything personal really from our end, one thinks about the long debate between Augustine and Pelagius here. Augustine could write: “Many sins are committed through pride, but not all happen proudly… they happen so often by ignorance, by human weakness..”; and that is done on all sides in so-called Christian apologetics! But then with Pelagianism, it just cannot be redeemed, as sadly with some forms of Arminianism, but then that’s the way I see it at least!
Btw, let me recommend people read Augustine’s piece: Causa Gratiae! (I think Bonner has it in his book, St. Augustine?)
Re # 486,
While I think everyone knows that Michael Patton is a Calvinist, it is also true that at least one other contributor to this blog is not.
I have been commenting here fairly steadily for about 5 years now I believe. To my knowledge this blog has never been promoted as a Calvinist blog. And while Michael and others here do discuss this issue, they also discuss many, many other issues across the theological spectrum.
They don’t seem to be nearly as eager to promote Calvinism as some of the commentor’s here are, that is for sure!
Yes Cherlu,now you are finding out that God is not Santa Claus.Everything you said is true. And your objection is that you are just a robot-actually a piece of clay-and not responsible for yur naughty ways.After all you are only carrying out God’s will and you have no other choice. Now isn’t it strange that that is the same objection raised against Paul in Romans 9.So why does He find fault,for who can resist His will?. And Paul’s answer is clear. Who art thou O Cherly,who replieth against God. Put in more severe language,Paul is saying Shut up.Your a piece of clay.Suck it up.Your not on his level.God does as He pleases.Tough cookies.Be thankful your not going to hell. But on our level we love you Cherly.We love all Arminians.
Fr. Robert,
I am truly sorry that is how you feel. Suit yourself.
Jay (comment 490),
I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but since you have raised the potter/clay passage in Romans 9 again, I would again like to mention that your reference misconstrues that passage from Romans 9. Here’s a better explanation of that passage: http://evangelicalarminians.org/an-apparently-not-so-brief-response-to-c-michael-patton-on-rom-9/.
@AP: Wow.. once again just more ad hom! As I stated, it was your “formal” grouping as Arminian’s that set me off! Hell, I did not punch-up your “name” till well into the discussion.
And as to CMP, we all know he is an “evidentialist”, more so than a presupper. (I pray for him! 😉 ) He is young, he will change as he grows in the Reformed Divinity! (I hope?) And we all need the “pastoral” dimension until the end!
Greg writes,
I am unable to offer a less offensive way of expression.
Finally, a statement that is wholly consistent with your deterministic presuppositions! I knew you could do it.
It seems that at least Fr Robert and Greg (according to their own statements) know beyond the shadow of a doubt that they know the truth. Any possibility for error there at all guys?
Fr. Robert,
God Bless you brother. That will be my last word to you (unless you specifically address me or something I wrote).
Yes, and St. Paul, (as our Lord Jesus, Matt. 23) could surely be “offensive”! That is truly the nature of the Gospel of the Cross (note Luther’s “theologia cruces” also). See, Phil. 3: 18-19!
Cherylu,
How nice it must be for Calvinists that God apparently decreed from eternity that they all be right, and all of us be wrong. Must make them feel pretty special, I suppose.
Has anyone read the blog rules here lately?
I think maybe it is time that we all (me included) remember this one: 5. In everything, be courteous and respectful. This does not mean that you agree, but take the extra time to write with tact, making the most of the opportunity.
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/blog-rules/
@cherylu: Oh indeed I am often wrong, but never is GOD’s Sovereignty, and sovereign Word! I pray that you might encounter our Sovereign God sometime! And soon I hope? 😉
*crucis
cherylu,
Good reminder for us all. I am tapping out for now. I will check back in later if I can.
God Bless to everyone.
@AP: Agreed! YOU Sir, are just too ad hom! And bring out the worst of my old Irish nature! (That’s the “flesh” mate), if we were face to face, you would speak much differently I assure you! 😉
Btw, at 63, I really see the “narcissism” of this generation, the lack of respect and manners is well gone now for the most part! Very Sad! But sadly one of the worst aspects of the blog is part of this ill, i.e. lack of manners, etc.
Fr Robert,
I pray that you might encounter our Sovereign God sometime! And soon I hope? 😉
Can you clarify what you meant? Please don’t tell me that because I do not agree with your understanding of things you don’t think I have ever “encountered” God? In other words, please don’t tell me that you are implying that I am not a Christian.