Galatians 1:13-16 - "For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me..."Maybe I am just a baby in my thinking about Reformed Theology, but I have never heard this very used in support of it. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
One of the quintessential passages that deals with election is found in Romans chapter 9. Many opponents of the Reformed understanding of election argue that Romans 9 does not talk about election of individuals but rather of a group of people (Jacob = Israel, Esau = Edom, etc).
Let's grant for the moment that that is the case (it's easy to prove from Romans 9 that it's not). Would not this text above show that Paul believed in election of individuals, namely, of himself when he writes, "...he who had set ME apart before I was born, and who called ME by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me...".
Just a random thought from my Bible reading this morning.
Any Arminians out there want to give a push back?
15 comments:
Zach, I grew up in churches that hold to the Arminian viewpoint, but in the past few years I've come to see more and more how the Bible teaches something far deeper and greater than "free will." I don't understand how we miss them, because the verses (such as the one you quoted from Galatians) seem to be EVERYWHERE in Scripture! The more I read the Word, the more I see His sovereignty and purpose, over an above any choice of my own. Shoot, my day to day life SCREAMS election, because, left to my own devices, I'm a wreck.
The more I read Scripture, the more I'm convinced of this. Call it Calvinism, TULIP, Reformed, whatever. I call it Truth!
I came to Calvinism kicking and screaming (or protesting at least). But now like Tree I see this everywhere in Scripture--Psalms, Jude, everywhere. We shouldn't need the usual proof texts or canned arguments.
Jeff
Zachy poo, you know we go round and round on this. Actually, we never let it get that far, but you know that we differ. My question tonight is this: Why has what is know today as "reformed theology" come to be all about Calvinism? From what I know of church history, and I admit that it is sadly not all that I should, it seems that the reformation was about breaking free from the control and lies and power structure of the Catholic church, rather than dogmatically promoting a 7 point Calvinism that Mr. Calvin might not even endorse. Why then today is a posting such as you have made said to be about reformed theology rather than Calvinism?
Johnny Poo,
That is another blog post for another day. Why not engage with this verse? You preached on it a few months back. What did you say?
z
Interesting discussion. To answer Johnny P., Reformed is a particular title attached to a particular tradition from the Reformation (as distinct from the Lutheran tradition or the Radical Reformation, i.e. the Anabaptist tradition). Reformed becomes the term attached to the theology of the Reformed Confessions.
To the verse Zach quoted, although I agree with you on the importance of Reformed theology, and I believe that this is a helpful verse, the Arminian response would be that this is Paul's call. In some ways, this goes to the discussion in the early stages of what is now known as the New Perspective-the emphasis upon Paul's conversion or his call.
So some Arminians will argue that what is being mentioned here is Paul's call to the gospel ministry (similar to Jeremiah in Jer. 1), and because that call came at a conversion experience, then we have to be able to distinguish the two, especially based on other passages.
Now my response to that would be two-fold. First, the context of the verse says that Paul was called by grace and the Son was revealed to him. So I agree that it is talking about his conversion.
But secondly, even if we grant that it is talking about a call, we have not avoided the question. Implied in a call is some previous conversion/calling to the faith in particular. So one cannot talk about a call without also talking about salvation. So even when Arminians acknowledge the call, they still have the problem of God's predestinating act.
Just my thoughts...JHG
It's not predestination that bothers me about Calvinism, its the double predestination. Don't forget there is another viewpoint on all that that was around for about 1500 years before Calvin was toddler.
Seth,
If predestination is true, (which the bible plainly teaches that it is) then it is only logical that so called "double predestination" is also true. If some (the elect) are called, then what of those who aren't? Aren't they ultimately predestined too? So then, double predestination and predestination are really the same thing. Those who are called and those who aren't: two sides of the same coin.
Seth,
As for the 1500 year opinion, you are simply begging the question. If Paul teaches "predestination" and "double predestination," then that perspective has been around much longer than Calvin. You can see this understanding in church fathers like Augustine; contrary to popular opinion, the Reformers quoted from and referred to the church fathers and were eager to avoid being or being seen as novel.
Thanks for the discussion, guys! First let me say that I do not wish to offend anyone here. I strongly believe that you all are my brothers regardless of our view of predestination. I find it totally impossible to be brief about this subject and I wish I were better at the art of that.
A double sided coin argument is quite similar to dualism in many respects. Whereas God is good and predestines those to heaven, and God is evil, causing man to sin and fall into hell. To this argument Calvin only offers this: "I confess that all descendants of Adam fell by the Divine will," and that "we must return at last to God's sovereign determination, the cause of which is hidden" Essentially, "good question, can't answer, don't ask." Therefore a true Calvinist is a supralapsarianist. All were damned from the time we were a gleam in God's eye. To this Augustine never implies absolute rejection divorced from foreknowledge of man's guilt. Even though his later views became more severe, there was always an element of prevision in the relation of God with His creatures.
So yes, where the logic would seem simple, the flaw in it lies in attributing a characteristic to God that is contrary to scripture: He tempts man and causes man to sin,
Calvin's view on man's state must be traced back to Adam, where he was in the belief that Adam, in his first state, was not capable of resisting sin. This would profoundly imply that God created a man, not only imperfect, but hardwired to sin. This view was also held by the Pelagians and it is false to Church doctrine. (A view that Augustine wrote extensively against.) Calvin also thought that once original sin took man captive that the image of God was entirely blotted out, not unlike the demons of hell. - total depravity. Calvin stated "in man all which bears reference to the blessed life of the soul is extinct."
Calvin also states a curious position on the predestined, to which I can't for the life of me reason why any Calvinist would take comfort in this. He states that in ever age the elect constituted the flock of Christ, and that all besides were strangers. The reprobate only have "apparant" faith. They may FEEL as do the elect, experience similar fervours, and to the best of their judgment be accounted as saints. All that is mere delusion and they are hypocrites, "into whose minds God insinuates Himself, so that, not having the adoption of sons, they may yet taste the goodness of the Spirit." Thus explains ho many believers did not persevere, and that the church was made up of saints who can never lose their crown, and sinners by no effort, even "apparent faith" could attain salvation. Soooo, basically, you man "think" you are elect, but good luck.
As far as Augustine and Calvin - stating he is in line with the African Father goes - John Henry Newman (a famous x-calvinist) compares the views of the reformers and Calvin to Augustine's:
"The main point is whether the Moral Law can in its substance be obeyed and kept by the regenerate. Augustine says, that whereas we are by nature condemned by the Law, we are enabled by the grace of God to perform it unto our justification; Luther [and Calvin equally] that, whereas we are condemned by the law, Christ has Himself performed it unto our justification -- Augustine, that our righteousness is active; Luther, that it is passive; Augustine, that it is imparted, Luther that it is only imputed; Augustine, that it consists in a change of heart; Luther, in a change of state. Luther maintains that God's commandments are impossible to man Augustine adds, impossible without His grace; Luther that the Gospel consists of promises only Augustine, that it is also a law, Luther, that our highest wisdom is not to know the Law, Augustine says instead, to know and keep it -- Luther says, that the Law and Christ cannot dwell together in the heart. Augustine says that the Law is Christ; Luther denies and Augustine maintains that obedience is a matter of conscience. Luther says that a man is made a Christian not by working but by hearing; Augustine excludes those works only which are done before grace is given; Luther, that our best deeds are sins; Augustine, that they are really pleasing to God (Lectures on Justification, ch. ii, 58)."
To me, though I am not Catholic, the Catholic standpoint is the POV that makes the most sense as it holds what they call the Golden Means of the views: While God knows and knew who would and who wouldn't choose his saving grace before time, He also desires that none should perish and does not cause a man to sin by depriving him of Love, as this would is contrary to his Holiness and John 3:16. God initiates Grace and it is still left to the man to choose Him or not. It is also contrary to His character to tempt man.
James 1:13
"13. Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God "; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
14. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust."
So where the Calvinists and the Armenians both get it wrong is here: One places the reason for predestination in God alone and the other in man alone. Calvinism abolishes the free co-operation of the will in obtaining eternal life, while the other abolishes God's part by attributing the beginning of faith to man's natural powers and not the initiative preventing Grace of God. The Catholic view of predestination is found in the three steps outlined by Paul in Ephesians 1:4-11, "vocation", "justification", and "glorificaion" In other words, "God foresees the free activity of man precisely as that individual is willing to shape it." Therefore, God knows, and knew but did not force beyond the breaking of man's will.
Seth,
You said: "Calvinism abolishes the free co-operation of the will in obtaining eternal life, while the other abolishes God's part by attributing the beginning of faith to man's natural powers and not the initiative preventing Grace of God."
I don't think you understand either Calvinism or Arminianism. Neither Calvinists or Arminians would agree with your assessment of their position.
Calvinists believe men freely choose God but only after He has changed their nature so that they will want to choose Him. Most Arminians believe that God does indeed initiate salvation but that they have to cooperate by accepting His free gift of salvation.
Tom, Seth was talking about the Armenians.
Jeff
(sorry)
Scripture Zealot,
I re-read Seth's post more slowly and thoroughly. I don't think he was talking about Arminians. He was seeking to say that both Arminians and Calvinists have it wrong and he was advocating the Catholic position.
I still maintain that his description of both the Calvinistic and Arminian beliefs is wrong. Neither group would affirm his description as being an accurate representation of their beliefs. I am not trying to attack him, I am just pointing out that his understanding in not accurate.
Tom, thanks for your kind tone. I didn't feel attacked. I think that Zealot was taking a crack at my spelling of Arminian.
I am completely open to the idea that I got the descriptions wrong... On my re-read I do think that I typed in a hurry, trying to get out too many points in one big comment-vomit. My apologies.
I have come to learn that modern Calvinists (and the original Calvinists after Calvin) differed on a many things.
It seems that there really isn't a cohesive, comprehensive Calvinism these days as there are 3,5, and 7 point calvinists, including a hypercalvinist sect.
More to say, and tomorrow I'll take a re-crack at what I was trying to communicate in haste.
Tom, sorry it took more than a day to get back over here, but its been a busy last two days. Maybe the Z will drop you a note and let you know i responded...
So, I went back and examined the paragraph in question. After further review, I stand by my assessments.
Calvinism does indeed abolish the free co-operation of the will with the doctrine of irresistible grace. The will only cooperates in that it does what it has been predestined to do, or hardwired to do. In this way, there is no real co-operation, but rather an "operation" natural to something that is wired to work in a certain way; it is much like the fact I cannot help crying if someone is peeling an onion. I operate in that I cannot help crying, my body is "naturally" hardwired to respond or operate in this way. And just because it is a response, it does not mean it is a willful one, therefore, co-operation is replaced by a nature that can only operate the way that it is irresistibly pulled.
In Calvinism, eternal life is set for predestined, and eternal hell for the damned. God sets it by changing your nature, as you put it, before time, so that your "faith" would come whether you like it or not, when scripture is clear: It is grace THROUGH faith, not visa versa.
In many ways, (IMO) Calvinism teeters awfully close to a kind of dualistic universalism, where Christ reconciles all elect, and damns all others, unconditionally whether we like it or not. The virtue of faith is simply a charade of the elect.
As far as Arminianism and what I said: "the beginning of faith to man's natural powers and not the initiative preventing Grace of God," I'm not sure how you would disagree with this as my viewpoint is in agreement with John Piper Desiring God website: "the Arminian must limit the atonement to a powerless opportunity for men to save themselves from their terrible plight of depravity... It can't mean that because we have seen from verse 30 that people do not come to faith on their own."
However, after further study of Arminianism, it is interesting to note how very close they come to the Thomist.
Hope that clears a few things up...
Seth,
A couple points I need to clarify. First you said
"Calvinism does indeed abolish the free co-operation of the will with the doctrine of irresistible grace."
The Doctrine of Irresistible Grace has nothing to do with free will co-operation. It has to do with regeneration. In regeneration our will is changed so that we will willingly choose God. In Willing To Believe, RC Sproul explains it this way. "The monergistic regeneration of Reformed Theology, however, does not violate the sinner's will. Indeed it is a change of the sinner's will wrought by the sovereign agency of God. It is precisely this work of God that liberates the sinner from slavery. It is a strange thing to deem the liberation of an enslaved will as a violation of freedom. It is God's work of freeing, not violating, that is in view."
In the Bible, we are told that everyone who sins is a slave to sin. The enslavement means we are spiritually dead. Irresistible Grace is the freeing us from the slavery of sin and bringing us back to spiritual life. It is explained as removing a heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh. It is also explained as the old nature (will) going away and the new nature (will) replacing it. We go from being opposed to God and not willing to choose Him to wanting to choose Him because we understand from what we have been saved.
You can attempt to argue that this process of regeneration does violate our free will but you first have to prove that we have a will that is free. I don’t think you can do this because the Bible clearly teaches our will is a slave to sin.
Also, thank you for the clarification of your Arminian belief statement. In light of your clarification, I humbly retract my objection to your statement. We appear to be in agreement on that issue.
Post a Comment