Recently in the comments of an earlier post of mine “Regeneration, Reception, and Faith“, the charge has again been made that Calvinism is a man-made philosophy.
Many of the Calvinist faithful are rolling their eyes and muttering “not again!” Yes, again.
I’m sure we’ll continue to hear this charge, and so I think it is worth addressing in a post. Hence I’m breaking my blog-silence and giving you a substantive post for a change!
Before I begin, let me say I have nothing against C. Hartline. She levied the charge (you can see the relevant exchange by clicking here and scrolling all the way down until you see comments from October 2007–about the last 4 or 5 comments) and I do plan on addressing many of her specific comments. But I will keep that in the comments of the post in question.
Here I hope to address the larger issue: the common claim that Calvinism is a man-made philosophy. So let’s begin.
The Anatomy of the Charge
Now I will attempt to be fair to the non-Calvinist side in this post. But it should be obvious that saying Calvinism is a “man-made philosophy” is designed to be a pretty strong blow to our side. The charge insinuates that we don’t follow the Bible, but man. And to be frank, the charge is often hollow: there is little or no proof. It’s just thrown out there as fact, and it is designed to predispose people to not trust Calvinism. That is called “poisoning the well”.
When a proof is given for this assertion, often it is given “pit bull style“. I’m referring to “verse pitting“. I suppose a whole post could be devoted to this one thought, but let me try to explain. “Verse pitting” involves throwing proof texts at someone in a debate. I’m not saying whether context is considered or not, quantity is the issue. Rather than dealing with each text brought up for either side, one side just dodges the bullets and keeps firing yet another proof text. If one text gets explained away, fine, they reach for another. And they feel no compulsion to deal with texts which might contradict their side, because after all their verses need answering too. Jehovah’s Witnesses are master of this technique, by the way.
What’s wrong with this approach is that Scripture is belittled. Based on Scripture’s testimony to itself, we would expect all of Scripture to harmonize and agree. Rather than compiling a list of texts that prove our side and contradict the opposing side’s texts, we should seek to harmonize all the texts and really do honest exegesis.
The Myth of Neutrality
Moving beyond the logic of the charge itself, we must consider the claim to neutrality. Non-Calvinists who levy this charge turn around and set up their own man-made philosophy in the place of Calvinism. You can say “it’s just plain Bible” until you’re blue in the face, but that doesn’t make your interpretation obviously neutral. All of us are men, and all of us are trying to fit together verses and passages from all over the Bible into an intelligent system of thought.
We all are trying to follow what the Bible says. Just because you think you are right and I’m not, doesn’t let you impugn motives on me, or assume that I am just resisting the plain teaching of the Bible. We all come to the Bible with different assumptions and with holes in our thinking. I know what I’m saying here won’t really make sense until I move on to the next point. So let’s do that.
The Evidence to Explore
It’s time to back up what I’m saying with some evidence. Let me do it this way. Non-Calvinists will unfurl their list of proof texts that they claim Calvinists “explain away” in favor of their man-made philosophy/system. Then they point to the Calvinists’ explanation of these texts as proof that Calvinists really are all about “logic”, “intellect”, or whatever. And they very neatly conclude that Calvinism is just a man-made philosophy that doesn’t come from Scripture.
With this background, let me marshal some of the non-Calvinist texts for you. Then I’ll show what Calvinists do in explaining them that seems so “man-made” to the other side. Next I’ll turn around and marshal some Calvinist texts for you, and show that non-Calvinists do a similar job of explaining away texts in a “man-made” fashion. Finally, I will list some texts that both sides of this debate “philosophize” together on. You be the judge!
Calvinist “Philosophizing”
John 3:16 — Calvinists explain away “whosoever will”, claiming only the elect can believe and be saved. In this verse, and others, Calvinists redefine “whosoever” to mean “the elect”.
2 Pet 3:9 & 1 Tim 2:4 — Calvinists explain away “[God is] not willing/wishing that any should perish” and “[God] desires all (people) to be saved”, claiming that God only wants the elect to be saved. In these verses Calvinists either redefine “all” or “wish/desire”.
1 Jn 2:2 — Calvinists explain away the truth that Christ is a propitiation for “the sins of the whole world”, claiming that Christ died only for the elect. Here Calvinists twist “whole world” into “world of the elect”.
1 Pet 1:1-2 — Calvinists explain away the qualification that people are elected “according to the foreknowledge of God”, claiming people are elected apart from God’s knowing beforehand that they will choose to believe. Here Calvinists ignore the above phrase altogether.
Heb. 2:9 — Calvinist’s explain away the assertion that Jesus died to “taste death for everyone”, claiming instead that Jesus only tasted death for the elect. In this verse Calvinists redefine “every”.
Non-Calvinist “Philosophizing”
Acts 13:48 — Non-Calvinists explain away “as many as were appointed/ordained to eternal life believed”, claiming instead that because people believe they are elected/ordained. In this verse they redefine “appointed/ordained” to mean “predisposed to”.
Jn1:13 & 1 Jn 5:1 — Non-Calvinists explain away both that the new birth is “not of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God” and that belief in Jesus indicates one “has been born of God” (rather than resulting in a subsequent new birth), claiming that the new birth results from human-originated faith. In these verses, non-Calvinists seem to ignore the above phrases altogether.
Jn 10:26 — Non-Calvinists explain away Jesus statement that people “do not believe because [they] are not part of [Jesus’] flock”, claiming instead that it is belief which makes people members of his flock. Here, non-Calvinists ignore the cause relationship between being of Jesus’ flock (which comes first) and believing. [Cf. Jn. 8:47]
2 Pet 2:8b — Non-Calvinists explain away the statement “they disobey the word, as they were destined to do”, claiming rejection of the Gospel and disobedience in general does not result from any choice on God’s part or any outside force at all. In this verse, non-Calvinists either redefine “destined (or appointed)” or explain this as referring only to national Israel.
Rom. 9:11,15-16, 22-23 — Non-Calvinists explain away such clear statements as “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad–in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call”, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy….So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy”, and “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction…vessels of mercy, which [God] has prepared beforehand to glory”, claiming instead that the passage does not touch on individual election or salvation at all. For these verses non-Calvinists claim that only national Israel and national election is in view, not individual salvation.
Calvinist & Non-Calvinist “Philosophizing”
Rom. 5:18 — Both groups explain away the statement “one act of justification leads to justification and life for all men”, claiming instead that only some men receive justification and new life. In this verse, both groups redefine “all” to be referring to a specific segment of humanity: “the saved/elect”.
1 Cor. 15:22 — Both groups explain away the truth that “as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive”, claiming that only some men will be made alive in Christ. Here both groups claim the first “all” refers to all people and the second “all” only refers to “the saved/elect”.
Jn. 14:28b — Both groups explain away Jesus’ statement that His “Father is greater than [He]”, claiming instead that Jesus is co-equal in essence with God the Father in the Trinity. In this verse, both groups look at the larger context of the phrase and define it in light of Jesus’ subjecting Himself as a man under the authority of God the Father.
Rom. 2:7 — Both groups explain away the assertion that those who “by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, [God] will give eternal life”, claiming rather that eternal life is given on the basis of faith alone not as a reward for “well-doing”. Both groups interpret the verse in light of the whole teaching of Romans and harmonize it with other clear verses which say salvation is given on the basis of faith in Christ alone.
A Final Appeal to Non-Calvinists
Now we come to the conclusion. From the above list of texts let us make a couple points. First notice that both sides do some “philosophizing”. We cannot escape the need to fit the various texts into our heads and try to harmonize them. So no side can truly claim neutrality. There isn’t just a completely simple “Biblical” interpretation that can be taken for granted.
Secondly, I hope you would agree that we can’t just “keep score”. We don’t give the prize to the group with the longest list. Each and every text on both lists must be brought into harmony with one another. We can’t ignore Acts 13:48 if we don’t have an answer for it, simply because we can find 20 verses that have “whosoever will” in them.
Finally, let me encourage any non-Calvinists to do some homework. Don’t lash out against the imagined evils of Calvinism. Seek to truly understand our position. Many of us, myself included, used to dwell in your ranks. It was Scripture which caused us to change our thinking in this area. It is so easy to just attack the opposite position and claim they’re just plain wrong, and go on to imply they’re unBiblical. I have to guard against the temptation to be lazy in my debating myself, as well.
If you really want to understand Calvinism, please do yourself a favor and read one or two articles written by Calvinists. Get the scoop from the horse’s mouth himself! I recommend this short booklet written by my pastor John Piper. In the comment thread linked to at the top of this post, there is evidence of a non-Calvinist reading that booklet and coming to understand he was much closer to being a Calvinist than he thought. At the least he gained an appreciation for Calvinism and understood us better.
So please, before you claim we’re just a man-made philosophy, check out the evidence for yourself. Try to understand how we arrive at our conclusions. If you stop and listen, at the least you will have to see we are moved by many many texts to come to the conclusions we arrive at.
Bob,
Thanks for a good article. This is very helpful. I’ve only been seriously looking at Calvinism for about a year. It’s evident to me that honest adherents to both Calvinism and “other” (you guys call us Arminians and we hate it when you do that) will admit that we have holes in our systems. We come to places that we just can’t reconcile. But my experience is like the friend you describe. I’m much closer to being a Calvinist that I suspected. And I’ve certainly gained a decidedly deeper appreciation for the sovereignty of God. Though I’m still in the camp of Geisler’s moderate Calvinism, I could very easily be on my way to being a 4 pointer.
Thanks again for a helpful post.
Ed
P.S. Congrats on the new baby, too, bro!
Bob,
I’ve read your philosophizing articles. You have done your homework and built a well crafted “neutralizing case”.
According to your classifications however, I would not be a considered a non-calvanist. Above all, I’d like to consider myself a follower and disciple of Jesus Christ.
I did read the short article on the five points of Calvanism. I am very familiar with them. Reluctantly I have to say, that I have found many scriptures to be taken out of context.
Though I did thank you on my previous post for the opportunity for having an “open response” vs private email…I believe the time it would take me to challenge your hard sell will afford me more time than I have and perhaps you also.
It seems you are a protege of John Piper. I know he is a well respected man however, I have found that the 5 pt extreme Calvanistic view he teaches does not always promote unity among the brethren. I am sorry to say that I have witnessed church splits and relationships harmed because of these teachings.
You know somewhat of my stand.
Why don’t we say, if anyone has questions concerning my opposing view and why, they can contact me direct: clhartline@cla-network.com rather than stiring up more challenges on this site. You have a new baby and I respect your ordained position as a Father.
Blessings to you, your family and newborn!
In Christ I stand,
C.Hartline
C. Hartline,
Thanks for your gracious reply. I do agree that some can take Calvinism to far and do damage to churches over it. The vast majority of those I know, however, would not. There are many other things which split churches, KJV-onlyism being one of them. Sometimes it is the anti-Calvinist side which has a lot of vitriol which contributes to these splits too. Both positions should be able to coexist peacefully in a church, and they do in my church, by the way.
I hope you understand that I am bound to Scripture and seek to follow its teachings. My own independent study led me to accept Calvinism as Scriptural truth, although I no some of the finer points of my doctrine may yet need revision. i hope I am honest enough to change based on what I believe the Bible teaches. I have done that before and so my allegiance is first to Christ and the word.
But the more I study the more convinced I am of the overall truth of Calvinism.
Neither of us will probably convince the other, but I must say you never did really interact with the thrust of my post on regeneration. Anyways, the exchange has been good in that it has driven me to the Word again.
Blessings from Christ be on you, even if you never accept my theological system. Be true to Christ and open to His leading from the Word. And pray the same for me.
Again, blessings from the cross,
Bob Hayton
By the way, I responded in depth to some of your points on the regeneration post.
I wouldn’t really say that I’m explaining away statements like “as many as were appointed/ordained to eternal life believed.”
Personally, I see God as both outside of time and omnipotent. The fact that he is outside of time means that he knows the future. He knows who will be saved. The fact that he is omnipotent means that he is in control of everything, so biblical authors often ascribe actions to God that he was not directly responsible for.
For example, one verse says that God tempted David to number his army and another says that satan did the tempting. The simple solution is that God allowed satan to tempt David, and therefore God is ultimately responsible, so the author can ascribe responsibility for the temptation to either God or satan (or both).
These two observations make me think that verses about the “elect” are not statements about God deliberately choosing only a certain few but more like reflections of God’s ultimate control over everything that goes on in the universe.
Why is it called Calvinism if it isn’t man-made?
I’m not a Calvinist and I don’t explain away anything. Some things can’t be answered and Calvinists, IMO, seem to try to provide an answer for things that God chose not to reveal. I’m fine with not knowing them. You can’t explain everything that Scripture says, and yet all of it is consistent.
I personally believe that Calvinism makes more sense than Arminianism in explaining the eternal fate of those who never had the chance to hear the Gospel (e.g. Buddhist Chinese from central China, a Hindu Indian from central India, and a Muslim Iranian from Iran). According to Arminianism, God loves all men without exception. But if that is really the case, why does God fail to save all of them? Why does He not provide all the means for them to hear the gospel and believe?
If the Lord Jesus really died for the all the sins of all men without exception, then everyone would be saved. The Arminian, of course, would say that the statement does not make sense. For him, unviersal atonement does not lead to universalism. The problem, however, with this kind of argument is that it fails to see the power of Christ’s atonement. The blood of the Lord does not only pay for the sins we usually know (e.g. murder, adultery, etc.). It also overcomes the sin of unbelief. Yes, the sin of unbelief.
Calvinism is perfectly consistent with passages that declare the sovereignty of God in salvation. The Father draws a people. They come to the Son and believe in Him. On the last day, they are raised up. In other words, those who are drawn are the same people raised up on the last day. No one believes apart from this drawing or enabling. (See John 6:37 onwards)
Albert,
I’m not Arminian, but I also believe God loves everyone without exception. Do Calvinists not believe that God loves everyone? God doesn’t fail at anything, including to save. God cannot fail. The Bible explains that God saves those who believe. If they don’t believe, He doesn’t. John 3:16, 18, 36. Acts 10:43.
He also provides all the means by which they can hear the gospel and believe. Romans 1:18-25.
Jesus did die for the sins of all men without exception. 1 John 2:2; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 Tim. 2:6. That doesn’t follow that everyone will be saved. They must believe to be saved. That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in the power of Christ’s sacrifice or death.
I believe that no one comes to Christ unless He draws them. It’s actually John 6:44.
This idea that not-everyone-getting-saved-that-Christ-died-for somehow renders the Lord less than Almighty and powerful is an addition to Scripture. You put that in to get it out.
Pastor Kent, I appreciate your kind response but I am not in any way adding to Scripture. Like you, I also believe that sinners must believe in order to receive salvation. But if Jesus really died for all men without exception, should he not have provided all the means for all men without exception to hear the gospel and believe?
Tell me, how does your position explain the eternal fate of those who never had the chance to hear the gospel AT ALL (e.g. the American Indians of North America before the Europeans came)? Were they saved? If God really loved them, why didn’t He give them a chance to hear the story of the Lord Jesus?
Albert, you too were very kind. Thank you. If you read Romans 1:18-25, God’s Wrath is justified there against all those subject to it, because when God revealed Himself through various means generally to everyone, they turned from that general revelation at the least.
Romans 1:18ff says that every man has had ample opportunity to receive God’s revelation. Since I cannot be everywhere at every moment, but God can, then I can’t disprove God in Romans 1:18ff. I can believe only that those American Indians did have sufficient opportunity to justify God’s wrath on them.
Thanks for asking!
Pastor, you are right about the existence of general revelation. But I think you are making a case for inclusivism, which the Bible nowhere teaches. The Word says, “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Romans 10: 14 KJV)
The preaching of the gospel clearly precedes the believing. Your comment seems to imply that it is possible for sinners to be saved without it. If that were the case, preaching the gospel would be of no use at all. In our example, the American Indians who lived in North America before the Europeans came did receive general revelation BUT they never had the chance to hear the gospel. The story of Jesus’ sinless life, death and ressurection was totally unknown to them. Yet you are saying that “every man has had ample opportunity to receive God’s revelation” AND that they “have sufficient opportunity to justify God’s wrath on them.” Now, since the Bible says that the gospel proclaimed first before sinners can be saved, how can this group of people, who did receive God’s general revelation but knew nothing about the person of Jesus of Nazareth, receive salvation? Unless you believe in inclusivism (the view that it is possible for non-Christians to be saved which is what the Roman Catholic church today believes), they cannot.
Thanks. 🙂
There are two words missing in my previous comment. Here they are: “Now, since the Bible says that the gospel SHOULD BE proclaimed first before sinners can be saved, how can this group of people, who did receive God’s general revelation but knew nothing about the person of Jesus of Nazareth, receive salvation?”
Bob, thanks for that post.
Albert,
What I am espousing is not universalism, but it is historic doctrine. We have examples in Scripture of those who received the revelation they did have and as a result God gave them more. Who comes to mind are the Ethiopean, Cornelius, the city of Nineveh, and even the Syro-phoenecian woman. It is true that they must have more than general revelation to be saved, but if they do not receive the light they do have, then God is justified in not giving them more. That is how I read Romans 1:18-25. An example of someone who would not receive the light he did have is Pharoah, and what did it do as a result? It hardened his heart.
I’ve actually never read what you have written, Albert, even by a Calvinist. I would be interested in finding out if this is a Calvinistic view. It seems to contradict Romans 1:18ff.
Thanks again.
Two morsels: An understanding of paradoxical truth allows for both sovereignty and responsibility. Secondly, a question maybe, how is that Paul’s admonishment to have unity and not submit to divisions around personalities (I Cor. 1) not give rise to repentance from calling yourself a “Calvinist?” This has always troubled me.
Also, I have lead a pleasurable life in being able to learn from Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Wesley, Finney, Bounds, Muller, etc. without having to abide in their faults, sins, and inconsistencies by taking their name.
Bob.
I hope you know that I have to come in and give my two cents when the atonement is brought up.
Albert.
First, know that I am an unabashed Calvinist. But, I believe that historic Calvinism taught and believed in unlimited/limited expiation.
Know that, whether you know it or not, your view of the atonement is driven by the Owenic formula for pecuniary debt payment leading to “double jeopardy” if the sins of all the people were paid for, i.e. ransomed for. There are some very large holes in this argument, but it is regurgitated as truth, without taking an honest look at his assertations.
I would love to discuss more with you on this topic but to do so you might want to take a look at these posts so we don’t “hammer” Bob’s blog with all of it.
First, historic quote from Calvin…there are a lot more if you want to look…
Calvin on 2 Peter 2:1
Second,
Penal Substitution
Third,
Double Jeopardy?
Fourth,
Imputation: When Does it Occur?
Hope these help. Would love to discuss…
Hope you guys have a great weekend.
Pastor Kent, I did not say that you were espousing universalism, the view that all men without exception will ultimately be saved. What I did say was that you were making a case for inclusivism, the view that it is possible for non-Christians to be saved. Apparently, you were saying that even those who knew nothing about the death and ressurection of Jesus could enter heaven. I don’t think your examples support your position. Cornelius and the Ethiopian heard and believed the gospel. The city of Nineveh heard Jonah’s message of repentance. The Phoenecian woman had an encounter with the Jesus. The Pharaoh saw the power of the God of the Israelites led by Moses. These examples are different from the example we are discussing, a people who never knew the God of the OT and the NT. In fact, they worshiped false gods whom they thought would be appeased if they offered human sacrifices. I have nothing against American Indians. I am just using an example. There are actually more examples. The Muslims of the Middle East, the tribes of Africa, the Hindus of India, and the Chinese in mainland China who follow ancient religions. Many of these people have died without knowledge of Christ. Can they enter heaven? You seem to say yes because of general revelation.
Actually, you did not answer my question directly. I pose this question again: Since the Bible says that the gospel should be proclaimed first before sinners can be saved (Romans 10:14), how can this group of people (the American Indians before the Europeans Christians came), who did receive God’s general revelation but knew NOTHING about the person of Jesus of Nazareth, receive salvation?
To make the question simpler, is there any possibility for sinners, who know NOTHING about the Lord Jesus Christ (otherwise known as NON-CHRISTIANS or followers of false religions) to enter heaven? YES or NO?
Thanks. 🙂
Your brother in Christ,
Albert
Albert,
People who die never having heard the gospel do not get into heaven. However, I believe everyone will hear the gospel who will respond and keep responding to general revelation. My examples show people to responded to revelation they had and God gave them more in a supernatural way. That is the point Albert. Yes, they received the gospel, but it was based on their reception of truth at the level they had it. Think about the examples I gave and how that God made sure they got the gospel.
Thanks again,
KB
Farnkly, I don’t understand your position Pastor Kent. You answered my question and your answer was right. The examples you gave, however, do not have anything to do with the topic being discussed. All of them had an encounter with Jesus or His followers. What we are discussing is the fate of souls who NEVER had the chance to hear and believe the gospel. It follows that the Pharaoh, the people of the city of Nineveh, the Phoenecian woman, the Ethiopian and Cornelius are out of the question.
You mentioned that sinners “…who die never having heard the gospel do not get into heaven.” In other words, only Christians can enter heaven. But your previous comments tell me that you are admitting the possibility that people who never heard the gospel (e.g. the American Indians in North America before European Christian came) can be saved. You even wrote that “I can believe only that those American Indians did have sufficient opportunity to justify God’s wrath on them.” Isn’t this a contradiction since we know for sure that this group of people knew NOTHING about the Lord Jesus? I hope you clarify your position. The Bible is clear the only Christians can enter heaven.
Thanks.
John 14:6 and Acts 14:12 show the exclusivity of salvation, but Romans 1:18-25 say that everyone has the opportunity for salvation, because every single person who ever lived is without excuse due to the general revelation that each receives. If someone keeps responding to general revelation, God will make sure He gets more revelation until he does hear the gospel. The examples I gave were of people who did respond to the revelation they did have, so God gave them more. Because of this teaching, I’m saying that every person who ever lived has had the opportunity to be saved.
Thanks Pastor. But as I have noted, no one is saved apart from the proclamation of the Gospel (Romans 10:14). One Calvinist even wrote:
“…Christians all affirm that one must first hear the gospel in order to believe since general revelation is not enough to engender saving faith (Romans 10:13-15).”
Source: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/libertarian.html
Clearly, many people have died without hearing the gospel. You say that “… every person who ever lived has had the opportunity to be saved.” How can this be if some of them knew absolutely nothing about the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ? Wasn’t this the case of the American Indians in our example?
You may not agree with me but your understanding of grace and human freedom are Arminian. I know you believe in eternal security. I believe, however, that it has no sure foundation if unconditional election and reprobation are denied. The fact that God saves some and passes over the rest cannot be denied. And on this issue, only Calvinism makes perfect sense. It stands on the proper exegesis of Scripture. Contrary to the claims of many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists of our day, Calvinism is NOT a man-made philosophy.
Thanks. 🙂
Well, I’m going to jump in if you don’t mind. I recently found this post and it has been such a blessing to me.
I know that our church and denomination (Evangelical Free) does not hold an official position on it, and I’m in the middle of a Precepts study on Romans, also coming out of a Sunday School class having discussed a little of this subject and it’s been clear that opinions are divided as well as everywhere in between, yet the church stays together in love.
Actually, Kent, my church had classes for years called “Church Based Training” (CBT) and our pastor in there had us study the church for a year (very intense classes). Starting with Acts, and I remember us discussing Rom. 10 (passages around vs. 17) and how it is that people like the Native Americans, etc. would come to hear the gospel. He, like both you and Albert, agreed that in order to be saved, one must hear the gospel first. He said that when one begins to see God through general revelation, God will send someone to tell them the gospel (in other words, a missionary). That was an eye opener for me for 2 reasons:
1) It seems incredible (and wonderful, and awe-inspiring) to me that a missionary can be called from halfway around the world to help save maybe even only 1 person whom God has called that person to lead to Christ,
2) I asked the pastor if that meant that for 1,000 years before that, everyone else did NOT see God through nature and general revelation and then that would mean that 1,000 years worth of people were lost to hell. The answer came back a sad “yes”.
While I am not an Arminian, basically a 4 pt. “calvinist” (don’t much like that term since those doctrines have been around since the New Testament, Augustine, Luther, etc.), my flesh has a real problem with this. In one sense, I just don’t understand it. It seems cold, and unfair.
However, in another sense it seems to make sense as well, the heart is “wicked and deceitful above all things, who can understand it?”. If I believe in the doctrines of “calvinism”, then it makes sense that people are unable to chose God on their own because of how blinded and wicked the heart is. 2 Cor. 4:4,6 was really an eye-opener for me yesterday, of the depth of the “word” of God – once spoken, it *physically* created the world, once spoken by us (meaning spreading the gospel, which is the word of “life”, John 6:63), it brings “light into the darkness of the hearts of men”. God’s word is far more encompassing than I ever thought – full of all kinds of life!
In all my meditating on this subject recently, it dawned on me that the “synergy” that occurs between us and God is NOT between *unbelievers* and God (i.e., God puts his hand out to non-believers and they accept it), rather it is between *believers* and God, i.e., that God calls people, knows who will accept, and asks *us* to go tell them, asks *us* to pray for them (Eph. 1:18). The “calvinist” beliefs show us that the onus isn’t on the unbeliever, rather, on the monergism of God to save, and the believer’s part in this is to deliver the message and to pray, not persuade. The power isn’t in our persuasion, but in God’s “word”.
Before my revival (and before I began understanding these things), I was afraid to share the gospel because I was always thinking *I* had to persuade others. I felt an obligation to learn apologetics in order to be comfortable in my persuasion. After my revival, I began to see that, although apologetics and understanding theology is important (I still love it and feel it’s useful), I could let go of my fears of offending someone and boldy tell the gospel and my testimony in love. In fact, I felt a desperate *need* to tell others, a passion (and compassion) I had never before felt (Jer. 20:9)! I don’t know who the “elect” are, I must hurry up and get the word out! I found myself thinking “What if I fail to tell someone and they never hear the gospel? what if, like Jonah, I do not obey in telling someone of the gospel?” Yes, if they are elect, God will make sure they hear it, however, the onus would have been on me to give it and *I’m* the one who disobeyed. See the synergy there? It’s not between the unbeliever and God, it’s between believers and God, and if I disobey, I am sinning, I am losing out. How many Christians have disobeyed this call? How many *more* people might have heard the gospel if they had obeyed? “The harvest is great, the laborers few.” I know this brings up more questions probably than it answers. I don’t know how God answers that: does he leave, then, those masses of people to not hear the gospel? Is that part of those he has “not chosen” for salvation because he knew there would not be the people to bring it? I don’t know. I only know more keenly now than ever what my duty is: to tell and to pray…
Albert,
All I care is that I’m Scriptural. I’ll leave it to you to label people, which it seems that you are fond of doing. You haven’t answered one iota the passage in Romans 1. None. If you don’t come to an understanding of that, you won’t understand what I’m talking about. Since you don’t seem to desire to read it, I’ll cut and paste it and comment on it.
v. 18—For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
God’s wrath comes against all sinners. It says they “hold” the truth. Literally, this is “suppress the truth.” Men suppress God’s truth, even though they know it, and this includes everyone—“all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.”
v. 19—Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Why? Because God shows Himself to them. God shows Himself to everyone in the world. The great theologian Augustus Strong puts it this way: “God has inlayed the evidence of the fundamental truth in the very nature of man so that no where is he without a witness. Now there is a verse in Ephesians 2:12 that says that unregenerate man is without God in the world, but the signification of that phrase is that he is forsaken by God, not that he is ignorant of God. He is without God not because he doesn’t know of God but because he will not receive God and therefore God forsakes him.” I grant that men on their own initiative could not know God, but God has shown Himself to them, it says. God would never send someone to hell who didn’t have an opportunity to know Him. God is a God of justice; God is a God of equity.
v. 20—For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Verse 20 tells us the content about God that is known—His eternal power and godhead. What is knowable about God has been revealed to all men so they’re without excuse. Hodge writes: God therefore has never left Himself without a witness, His existence and perfections have ever been so manifested that His rational creatures are bound to acknowledge and worship Him as the true and only God. These things v. 20 says are clearly seen.
I’m going to stop there for time and length, but Albert, this is what you must deal with, is Romans 1:18-25. People don’t get saved, it says, because they supress the truth. They reject the revelation that God has given everyone. As a result, they don’t get more, which, of course, would be the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation, which we see in v. 16.
Greeting in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ!
Let me say for now it is very snort because there so much to read. Probably too much! lol 😉
By the way, many articles and responses are interesting and by the way, for short. I don’t think it has do with with anything with “Calvinism” because it is clearly seen in scripture plus although through the church history I’ve notice that they don’t stop at John Calvin but they go beyond that in the past church history. There was never a time that you would see a system of such known as “TULIP” and you would normally see it is not in a system but Bible! 😉
One more thing I learn from my study that there is about 6 different views of “Calvinism.” I would recommend everyone to broaden their study in this area because you don’t want to stick with one man but varies of reformers and you can outweight of all arguements and I seen this kind of study can balance your view in a whole because most of the time I see is one sided if not done. 😉
So I would stick with “Historical Calvinism” because they don’t emphasizes on labelism but stick with scripture which is most important and what I would label this doctrine is either “The Gospel of Grace” or “The Sovereign Grace of God of all things and His passion of his Glory!”
Deo Soli Gratia! 🙂
Joseph
Pastor Kent, I have no problems with general revelation. That’s an established Biblical truth. Even Calvinists affirm that. Suppresing the truth about God is something unregenerated sinners will always do. This is total depravity.
Here’s what I find problematic in your position. You seem to affirm exclusivism on the one hand, and inclusivism on the other. You mentioned that sinners without Christ are not saved, but you also keep on saying that it is possible for them to be saved even without the preaching of the gospel. This is clearly a contradiction. If general revelation is sufficient in itself, then there’s no need for the gospel anymore.
“…Christians all affirm that one must first hear the gospel in order to believe since general revelation is not enough to engender saving faith (Romans 10:13-15).â€
Source: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/libertarian.html
Please tell me. What exactly do you believe? Exlcusivism (only Christians are saved) or inclusivism (non-Christians can also be saved)?
I am not fond of labeling people. I was simply stating what you believe. It seems that you strongly disagree with my claim that your views on grace and free will are Arminian. That’s ok with me. For your information, I have nothing against Arminians. Most God-fearing Christians I know are Arminians. What I wanted to say is that it is inconsistent to believe in eternal security and deny unconditional election at the same time. If a Chrisitan truly has the natural ability (or free will) to accept or reject God at the beginning, it follows that the same ability will remain later on his life, which makes it possible for him to reject God and lose his salvation as a consequence. After all, God is dependent on his free will.
Eternal security has no foundation if salvation is not a monergistic act of God. True believers must and will persevere only if God is in control of their salvation from start to finish.
CHAP. XVII. Of Perseverance of the Saints.
1. Those whom God hath accepted in the beloved, effectually called and Sanctified by his Spirit, and given the precious faith of his Elect unto, can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end and be eternally saved, seeing the gifts and callings of God are without Repentance, (whence he still begets and nourisheth in them Faith, Repentance, Love, Joy, Hope, and all the graces of the Spirit unto immortality) and though many storms and floods arise and beat against them, yet they shall never be able to take them off that foundation and rock which by faith they are fastned upon: notwithstanding through unbelief and the temptations of Satan the sensible sight of the light and love of God, may for a time be clouded, and obscured from them, yet he is still the same and they shall be sure to be kept by the power of God unto Salvation, where they shall enjoy their purchased possession, they being engraven upon the palm of his hands, and their names having been written in the book of life from all Eternity.
2. This perseverance of the Saints depends not upon their own free will; but upon the immutability of the decree of Election flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ and Union with him, the oath of God, the abiding of his Spirit & the seed of God within them, and the nature of the Covenant of Grace from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.
3. And though they may through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein; whereby they incur Gods displeasure, and grieve his holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired have their hearts hardened, and their Consciences wounded, hurt, and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgements upon themselves: yet they shall renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.
– The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith
FYI to all: I was gone and Seth McBee’s comment (the 15th one above) accidentally got stuck in a moderation queue.
I’ve approved it now.
Sorry, Seth.
Bob…
I will leave this up to you on whether you want to post this or not…
But we are having an atonement debate over on my blog if any would like to discuss.
Atonement Debate
Hey all, I admit I’ve been missing in action. I haven’t really paid attention to Kent & Albert’s debate.
I took the time to read through it and I have a couple observations.
1) Albert’s connection of limited atonement to God’s limited work of election and regeneration is not uncommon. But it is not essential to “Calvinism” per se. Seth McBee would agree with me in affirming that there is a limited sense of the atonement that only applies to the elect. He and I (at present) differ on what exactly the universal effects/purposes of Christ’s atoning work on the cross were. Seth goes by the designation 6 point Calvinist, and some as CDJ above, are 4 pointers, I (like Albert I think) am a 5 pointer. But I admit the “L” point has more room for alternate views than the other 4 points (I’ve posted about this before).
2) The debate between Albert and Kent doesn’t really impact the atonement debate. It centers more on the level of unconditional election and/or irresistible grace. I understand where Albert is coming from. Many will argue against Calvinism by saying God loves all men and would never do for some what he doesn’t do for others in God’s desire that all be saved. What Kent is saying jives with that view. All have rejected God, but if they didn’t God would give more revelation to them, even spiriting people away (as with Philip) in order to give those people opportunity to believe in Jesus.
3) With respect to that argument let me interact a little. First look at the key verses Kent is using:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
(Rom 1:18-20)
This does deal with fairness and culpability. Indeed chapters 1-3 of Romans point out that every one is a sinner and the whole world is accountable to God. All are without excuse. And all have sinned.
What it does not expressly state is that if someone were to respond to the natural/general revelation about God they have, that they would thus require God to give them more revelation. It just doesn’t state that. God set his love on the Jews and not on other nations, totally irrespective of their response to Him. It wasn’t something great in them as a people which secured for them a greater supply of revelation than for other peoples, like the ancestors of the Mayas, for instance. (Deut. 7:6-8; 9:4-6; see also 2 Tim. 1:9)
In fact, we know that the presence of spiritual teaching is a blessing to a people–consider Jesus’ warnings to Capernaum and other cities, for instance. So the fact that Jesus did not teach in the Americas in 500 BC, but he is preached to us in 20th/21st century America, is a distinct advantage to us. But we don’t have to reason this out, what I’m trying to say is expressly stated here:
Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.” At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
(Mat 11:20-27)
In the above passage, Jesus knew that if more revelation/works had been performed for Tyre, the people would have repented. But God chose not to give those works. And more so, God gave the works to those He knew would not respond (Capernaum/Bethsaida).
Faith and repentance are gifts, and all are called to believe, but only some are drawn. Of those who hear the gospel, some stumble at it, others think it foolish, but all the “called” respond in faith, believing it is the power of God (see 1 Cor. 1). Those “of God”, hear his words [Jn. 8:47], and those “ordained to eternal life” believe [Acts 13:48], and those who are Jesus’ sheep, believe and know his voice [Jn. 10:26-27]. This is Scriptural, and it is what all variations of (as someone said above) historical Calvinism affirm.
I believe Calvinism is a name of the belief system closest to the general teachings of Scripture. Just because someone’s system doesn’t have a name, doesn’t mean it is true and thus not “man-made”. “Calvinism” is just a term, a descriptive term for a set of beliefs that many (who differ with Calvin even on important points) accept.
Thanks for all who have joined the discussion. (By the way, I can’t guarantee I will be able to follow up this response with further and more detailed responses, due to time and other constraints.)
Blessings to all in Jesus,
Bob Hayton
PS Feel free to follow Seth’s links to the atonement debate–interesting and worthy of study.
Seth, thanks for the link.
Bob, I affirm that Calvinism is not a man-made philosophy. At first, it was also difficult to accept. I am from the East/Southeast Asian region. The countries here with a significant number of Evangelical Christians are South Korea (one of the strongest bastions of Calvinism today), the Philippines (my country and has a growing Reformed community), Indonesia (also with a Reformed community), and Singapore (also with a Reformed community) among others. The gospel reached the shores of our countries only during the 19th century. That means that our ancestors never had the chance to hear the gospel. When I think of this, I remember this article from a popular Reformed teacher.
Double Predestionation by R.C. Sproul – http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html
I am making an exegetical point that is yet unanswered, that being that every single person who does not receive Jesus Christ unto salvation, and, therefore is an object of the wrath of God, receives God’s wrath not because he did not have an opportunity, but because he supressed the truth for a lie. That is expressly what Romans 1:18-20 says. They are without excuse because when they knew God, they suppressed the truth. I am not arguing from silence but from a clear point that this verse teaches. I’ll await the answer.
Thanks Albert for sharing. I hadn’t really considered how strong Calvinism is in Asia. That’s interesting considering it is a hotbed for evangelism and missions. Calvinism is also intricately connected to the revival of orthodoxy and conservatism in American Christianity too (think conservative resurgence of the SBC, and other positive movements in Evangelicalism today).
Come to think of it, there is a Far East Bible College in Singapore which is fundamentalist. They are very staunch on King James Onlyism, but at the same time they defend Calvinism–which is not common for the more conservative fundamentalists.
Kent,
You are correct in that exegesis in your last point. No one is really disputing that. But you go a step further and say that everyone who doesn’t suppress the truth then receives even more explicit revelation and an opportunity to actually hear the gospel. That is what Rom. 1 does not expressly teach. The Jews resisted the great amount of revelation Jesus gave them, the Gentiles resisted the small amount gained from Creation. Both are condemned and in accord with justice, to a greater degree of condemnation for those rejecting the more explicit revelation. No one is innocent, no one has no revelation, all are guilty and all are accountable to God.
Also, all at one time resisted the truth, until they were saved. Did they get saved because they in their unregenerate state were more and more responsive and cooperative with God and his revealing work? Or does God have to grant faith and repentance to those who are unable to please God and who are blinded by the devil?
Anyways I’m not trying to extend or open a new debate. I’m just pointing out that your exegesis is fine, I just differ with what seems to be the implications you draw from it.
Albert is disputing the exegetical point. He says that the reason Indians in pre-Columbus did not hear the gospel is because God chose them not to hear it. Romans 1:18-20 debunks that idea. You allow his position to stand as well. It says they knew God and that the wrath of God falls on them because they suppressed the truth once they knew it. Romans 1 does not allow God culpability for their not hearing the gospel. They themselves are responsible based on their suppression of the truth. It says that God turned them over as a result of that suppression. In the context of the entire book of Romans in which Romans 1 fits, they did not hear a gospel presentation because of their suppression of the truth.
Based on Romans 1, yes, as God continues revealing His truth to those not suppressing it (however you want to describe this non-suppression—I think “responsive” and “cooperative” are Calvinist code-words, due to their understanding of total “inability”), they will finally believe. In light of Rom. 1 within the context of the whole book of Romans, this is what will occur. If they aren’t suppressing, then God is granting them faith and repentance. They can’t suppress something that they are not getting. And they can’t get unless God gives. He grants faith and repentance by means of His Word (Rom. 10:17; 1 Peter 1:23-25; James 1:18). These aren’t just implications. Scripture states these points, and God does tell us that in 2 Thessalonians that He chooses “through belief in the truth.”
We’re still at an impasse here. Rom. 1 doesn’t promise more revelation to those who don’t suppress the truth. It is not explicitly stated. All people everywhere suppress the truth, unless God acts to change their hearts to attend to His truth. Jesus gives revelation to those He sovereignly chooses (Matt. 11 passage quoted above).
2 Thess. says God chooses some to be saved through belief in the truth. It is the salvation which comes through belief in the truth, not God’s choosing. And yes, God initiates his new birth in and through the preaching of the gospel, as no one is saved apart from that. It is still, however, God who causes us to be born again (1 Pet. 1:3).
The indians were guilty of suppressing truth and rejecting God’s general revelation and thus have no excuse. They also did not receive the gospel, as others did. Irrespective of the gospel coming, they are guilty. But yes God sovereignly chose to pass them over even as he gave the light of the gospel to other groups.
You can respond once more, but lets shut down this topic as we are obviously coming at this from different perspectives and no one else is engaging in this at present.
Yours in Christ,
Bob Hayton
Truth is antithetical. Based upon that, Romans 1 does teach us that those who do not suppress the truth will keep receiving the truth until they are saved. If they are not saved, it is because at some point they suppressed the truth, so the adverse must be true as well, that is, they will keep receiving the truth if they do not suppress it. Denial of this is simply denial of this text. Romans 1:18-25 is as clear as any writing that those who do not receive Christ do not do so because they suppress the truth.
Every person who does not receive Christ knows God, he changes God’s glory into something else, and he changes the truth into a lie. This is what Romans 1:18-25 reveals. There is no such thing as someone who does not suppress the truth at all, but he still does not get saved. That is what you are saying, however, in contradiction to this passage. No, every single person who does not get saved, does not get saved because at some point he suppressed the truth. That means that if he is not suppressing the truth, he is continuing to receive it until he has received enough in order to be saved.
Bob, you say that the passage doesn’t promise more revelation to those who don’t suppress it. Not everything must be “promised” in order to be valid or at the level of a promise. The “no-promise” idea is a red-herring. The passage does say that everyone that is subject to the wrath of God (which is only unbelievers in Scripture) is subject to it because he suppresses the truth. Therefore, he who is not subject to the wrath of God does not suppress the truth, that is, he keeps receiving it until he is saved. If not, then he too would suppress it. Or someone that has not suppressed would be subject to God’s wrath. But the passage says that God’s wrath is vindicated by this point. Saying that God stops revealing to those who do not suppress is to call God guilty of injustice by His own standard.
There is worse punishment for those who suppress the most truth, that is, have the most revelation without receiving it (Mt. 11:20-24). This dovetails with Romans 1:18-25.
A few other points. 1 Peter 1:3 does not say God “causes” us to be born again. It says that he begats us. He actually does the regeneration. It does not follow that He does that without our faith. We can’t regenerate ourselves. That’s what we conclude in the adverse from 1 Peter 1:3. You add the idea of “cause” to Scripture. James 1:18 says that He does that with the Word of Truth.
You wrote: “2 Thess. says God chooses some to be saved through belief in the truth. It is the salvation which comes through belief in the truth, not God’s choosing.”
The text of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 reads: “God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.”
“to” is a preposition, eis. “salvation” is a noun, soteria. You rendered a preposition and noun, in unknowing or knowing deceit, as an infinitive “to be saved.” I have noticed that John Piper does the same thing. People are given the wrong impression of this verse through this mistranslation of the TR or the UBS 3/4—they’re the same. The verb is “chosen,” not “salvation.” If I were to diagram the phrases after the preposition en, translated “through,” I would place them under the verb “chosen,” eilato. We actually have a parallel passage for this that is clinching for this position that says that this is “salvation through” instead of “chosen through.” That passage is 1 Peter 1:2. 1 Peter 1:2 says “elect…through the sanctification of the Spirit.” This is the same preposition and noun (one of only four times in the NT) as in 2 Thess. 2 and it ties back to eklektois.
There is only one perspective and it comes out of the text, not put into the text. Let’s get ours from the text. This is the solution for “impasse.”
Thank you Kent!
Amen and Amen.
Scripture is continually taken out of context to support Calvin’s theory. Praise God that someone else “sees” it!
Blessings to you,
C.Hartline