I normally do not like to identify myself as a Calvinist. Not because I am embarrassed of the title or because it makes me look like I'm "following a man." But chiefly because it is so misunderstood from my Arminian brethren. I spend more time correcting the false views presented concerning my position. I recently had a two hour conversation with an Arminian brother that took me to task because he said Calvinists believe that man does not a have a will. After twenty minutes of his attacking a conclusion built off of a faulty premise, I finally interrupted and let him know that I believe man has a will. He looked confused so I explained to him that man has a will but that Calvinists hold that it is in bondage to sin and will remain in bondage unless the grace of God, through the working of the Holy Spirit, breathes life into Him so that He can repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved.
He then asked if the Holy Spirit works in everyone this way. I responded "no" with reference to Romans 9:13 and he then proceeded to resume taking me to task for saying man has no will. What a mass of confusion! It was obvious that in his theology, as with most Arminians, that "free-will" is the hinge on which the relationship between God and man hangs. And to deny libertarian "free-will" is, in their theological framework, synonymous with saying man has no will. The view is that the Holy Spirit "enlightens" everyone equally and it is up to the individual to exercise their "free-will" to receive or reject Christ ("prevenient grace").
Of course they will deny that "free-will" is central to their theology. They maintain that Christ is central. Here we have no disagreement. But when pressed we see that "free-will" is indeed vital to their understanding of how Christ redeems man in the application of His work. Does He of His own sovereignty, love, mercy and grace redeem those that the Father sent Him for- choosing them out of His own love and for His own purpose and glory, for his own pleasure and out of His own will ( Jn. 17:1-10) or does the Father simply look down time and see who is going to respond to Him and then send Christ for everyone with the understanding that all who choose Him will be His elect? The former is the Calvinist position while the latter is the Arminian. And it makes a great difference which position you take. One side clearly gives man some credit for his own salvation.
How so you ask? If, as the Arminian contends, the Holy Spirit enlightens everyone the same so that anyone whom wishes to exercise their "free-will" to believe- what is the basis for why one person receives Christ and another rejects Him. Was one smarter? More "moral?" Spiritually sensitive? What makes them differ? The Arminian cannot point to God, specifically the Holy Spirit, because He allegedly (according to them) has given the same kind of "prevenient grace" to everyone. So the difference cannot be said, from the Arminian, to be with God but with man. This, however, flies in complete contradiction to numerous biblical passages but specifically with:
But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast (Eph 2:4–9 emphasis mine).
For the Arminian view point to work, "free-will" (in some sense and however they wish to get fancy in describing it) is central to man's salvation. Some are bold and honest enough to admit it but others not so much. And all one needs to do in order to see this is taken them to passages like John 6:37, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out" and John 6:44, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day;" watch how they smuggle in the idea of man's choice or "free-will" when those passages are utterly devoid of any mention of it. The emphasis is not on man's "choosing" but on God's choice. In the first passage all that the Father gives to Christ will come to Christ. There is no "but only if they receive Him." No, they will receive Him because the Father has given them to the Son. So if the Arminian view point is correct- that the Holy Spirit enlightens everyone and draws everyone- then all people will be saved. Of course thankfully they will be grossly inconsistent in their hermeneutic and repudiate any Universalism since it is nowhere found in Scripture. But for them to get around passages like John 6:37 and 6:44 they must insert a "but" with some argument for man's choosing or rejecting ("free-will").
The same thing applies to John 6:44. The same him that is drawn by the Father in the first part of the verse is the same him in the last part of the verse who will raised on the last day. If the Father draws everyone as the Arminian argues, then everyone will be raised at the last day and that, again, is Universalism. Praise the Lord that they will be inconsistent and reject any form of it.
David Clotfelter states it even better:
The Bible says that “Salvation comes from the LORD” (Jonah 2:9 NIV), but Arminianism, even if unwittingly, says, “Salvation is partly from the Lord and partly from the exercise of human freedom.” The Bible says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph. 2:8–9), but Arminianism says, “It is chiefly by grace that we have been saved, but not entirely; and we may very appropriately assume credit for the faith through which we receive salvation since it is an act of our own free will.”
Again, I do not claim that Arminians actually make such statements, but neither do I see how they can logically avoid them. If God’s choice of me rests ultimately upon His foreknowledge of my choice of Him, then it is just and right for me to take credit for my salvation and to view myself as in some way superior to the person who makes a decision not to believe. Maybe I am smarter than my friends who haven’t believed, or maybe I am more virtuous; one way or the other, it is by my own freedom that I differ from those others, and it would be false modesty to refuse to boast. Yet what Christian wants to boast in this way? Arminianism may square with ordinary human notions of justice, but it doesn’t square with the Christian understanding of divine grace.*
Furthermore, it is hard to see that divine election really means anything at all on Arminian principles, which makes it difficult to understand why the New Testament devotes so much attention to it. If “God chose us” really just means “God foresaw that we would choose him,” then why should the Bible even bother to speak of God’s choosing?
Let me illustrate the point with two texts of Scripture. First, look at 1 Corinthians 1:26–31:
For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. Therefore, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
At least on the face of it, this passage is about God’s exercise of His prerogative to choose whom He will. He has deliberately chosen people who may be considered weak or foolish in order to shame those who are strong, so that no one may boast before Him. Therefore, the Christians in Corinth should recognize that it is by God’s grace that they are in Christ, and they should boast only in Him. On this reading, the passage sets up a relationship of opposition between God’s election on the one hand and human boasting on the other. The Corinthians must not boast, not only because the initiative in their election lay with God, but also because their election is, if anything, a sign of their lowliness and weakness.
If Arminianism is correct, however, and God simply chooses those who choose Him, then it seems that we have to radically reinterpret the passage. In this case, what Paul is really saying is that the weak and foolish chose God (as He of course foreknew they would), while the wise and strong did not. Though apparently about God’s prerogative to choose whom He will, the passage actually is a discussion of human choices. But if this is so, then what is the point of the discussion? And how does the reference to God’s choosing counteract the tendency of the Corinthians to boast? A Corinthian Christian might, I suppose, say something like this: “Well, perhaps my decision to believe in Christ is in one sense a sign of my ‘weakness’ or ‘foolishness,’ but in another and much deeper sense it is evidence of my superiority. The ‘wise’ ones of the world may look down on me, but I have chosen the better path and have thereby shown that it is they who are the fools.” But this leaves the Christian boasting in himself, which is the very thing Paul is trying to avoid! Surely the Calvinist understanding of the passage is the more logical one.*
Yes my friends this is a discussion worth having. God's greater glory and our growth in Him is at stake!
If you have ten minutes or so give this video your time.
Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando
*Clotfelter, David (2004-10-01). Sinners in the Hands of a Good God: Reconciling Divine Judgment and Mercy (p. 116-18). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment