;)
A Simple Suggestion in the Calvinism Debate
Posted by Dave Miller in Baptist Life, News & Culture
Calvinism is a hot topic in the SBC again. That’s insight you can’t get everywhere, folks. We have Morris Chapman railing against the deleterious effects of Calvinism while the ranks of the 5-pointers in the SBC seems to grow daily. Blogdom is populated by both “young Southern grads” and those warning about the evils of “Dortian Calvinism” (whatever that is). We all talk about getting along, but that is sometimes a harder challenge than it seems.
I started at Southern Hills Baptist Church on August 28, 2005. While we were moving, I was praying and thinking about what to preach when I first arrived. I felt strongly led to study and teach Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. My first Sunday, I began the series. That meant that in my first month there I was dealing with Ephesians 1:4. “He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.”
In the meantime, I found out something I did not know. Our church had a Calvinism problem. A previous staff member had evidently been a “cage stage” Calvinist and had taught the “Doctrines of Grace” with (extreme?) passion and zeal. Some bought it. Many did not. It was a hot topic at Southern Hills. No one told me about any of this during my candidating process.
So, here I was, someone who believes in the sovereignty of God in salvation, about to preach Ephesians 1:4, knowing that many of the folks in the church thought Calvinism was a horrible evil. I would like to share with you how I approached things. I preached what I believed and the church went forward in unity. I preached sovereign grace to a largely non-Calvinistic church and everyone was happy.
I don’t know if the way I approached it could help in the SBC. Sometimes, when you try to find middle ground in debates like this, you get shot at by both sides. I do not have the theological sophistication of many bloggers, and perhaps naïveté drives my suggestion, but I put it forward nonetheless.
Foundational Verse
Isaiah 55:8-9 are key verses in the way I approach the Bible. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” God has a logic, an intelligence that is not accessible to human beings. His thoughts are so far beyond ours that they are not discernible through our intellect. I can communicate with my dog, but he cannot understand me. I have a logic higher than his (not hard – my dog was, I think, born without a brain). God reveals himself to us, that part of him which our limited intellect can understand. But there is a whole realm of truth, of understanding, that only the Divine Intellect can enter.
Understanding Antinomy
In seminary I was taught a word that has also become foundational to my theology – antinomy. It is a philosophical term which means “the mutual incompatibility, real or apparent, of two laws.” In theology, it means an extreme paradox. Two truths are both taught in scripture which are in logical contradiction to each other. According to human reason, both cannot be true. But, in God’s higher logic, into which we do not have access, there is a solution. We have to accept the solution by faith since our reason cannot grasp it.
The most obvious antinomy in Scripture is the Trinity. We have one God and one God only. Yet, he exists eternally in three distinct Persons, each of which is fully God. Every explanation you have ever heard or made of the Trinity is a heresy. It is beyond human understanding. God cannot be both three and one. Each of the three cannot be fully God. The Trinity defies human logic in every way. We just believe that there is a solution in the higher logic of God that we cannot understand. Scripture teaches both, so we believe both even if it boggles our minds.
Another example is the dual nature of Christ. Jesus Christ was God come in a human body. He was not some sort of divine/human mix. He was fully God. He was also fully man. How can anyone be 100% God and 100% man at the same time? I don’t know. If I were God, I would understand it, but I still couldn’t explain it to you. His thoughts are higher and we cannot understand them.
It is my theory that the antinomy principle may actually explain a lot of our difficult theological debates. Every truth in scripture seems to be held in tension with another truth. We must maintain the careful balance of these truths.
Calvinism and Antinomy
I believe that scripture reveals two truths which seem to be mutually exclusive. Both cannot be true according to human logic, yet scripture seems to teach both. If God chose me before the foundation of the world, how does my choice matter? I don’t know. I don’t really understand it. But I believe that the Bible teaches two truths very clearly – that God chose us and that we must choose him.
Honestly, folks, it isn’t that hard, in my view, to demonstrate God’s sovereign choice as the prime motivator of salvation. Romans 9:15-16 says, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” 2 Thessalonians 2:13 adds, “God chose you…to be saved.” In Pisidian Antioch, Paul preached to the Gentiles after being rejected by the Jews. We are told that there was great rejoicing among the Gentiles. Then, Acts 13:48 says, “And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” Even the metaphors of salvation emphasize God’s choice (born again – does birth take place by the child’s will?).
I am absolutely convinced by scripture that God chose me before the foundation of the world based solely on his love and sovereign grace, not based on any merit in me, nor even based on the foresight that I would one day choose him. It’s pretty clear to me.
But I also believe that we sinners must make a genuine choice of faith. My fellow Calvinists deal with this by pointing to Ephesians 2:8-9 and pointing out that even faith is a gift of God. Some have ridiculed the concept of “decision-evangelism” because it implies free will.
(In my experience, we Calvinists vary on this point. Some deemphasize man’s choice and push monergism to a point I simply cannot accept. I think the majority would agree with me about the importance of our choice to believe.)
We must not negate the reality of that choice that every human being must make. We all know and love John 3:16. “God so loved the world…that whoever believes on him shall not perish.” Smart aleck church members have pointed out to me the brevity of Peter’s sermon in Acts 2, reminding me that after that short sermon 300 souls were saved. They have ignored Acts 2:40-41. “With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, ‘Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.’ Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.” Peter gave a pretty forceful invitation at the end of his message. He told them “Save yourselves.” Make a choice. Respond to the gospel.
My Solution
I have a simple solution to the debate. It may not satisfy you, but it works for me. At some point, I agree with both sides. I agree with the Calvinists that salvation rests in the sovereign choice of God. I also affirm that humans have a real choice we must make whether to respond in faith to the gospel.
How can both be true? I don’t know. But I see both in scripture. It is an antinomy. God chose me before time began, but I have real and valid choice.
If we who are Calvinists will make it clear that our affirmation of the sovereignty of God in salvation does not mean that we denigrate human responsibility (as many believe that we believe) we will encounter less resistance to our beliefs.
;)
;){kind=logo}
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
A most excellent post. You dealt with the issue practically and thoroughly. If our brethren would giveit heed, our message may be at least listened to without being discarded because of the stigma, many attached to it.
Also I donot use the term Calvinist I am a historic Baptist.
i use doctrines of grace, not calvinism. I see the doctrines in the Bible, that’s why I follow them.
Know you are chosen and live like you are free.
I noticed that you didn’t have a copyright on this so I am copying it to use. This is pure. I like it.
When I began to be influenced by the Holy Spirit regarding grace it began to affect what I was saying to my Sunday School class. One Sunday I had made the comment, “it’s all of grace”, and continued on with my lesson. Out of nowhere a young lady in the class interrupted and said, “That’s Calvinism.” at which I denied immediately because I was not Calvinist at all. Then I began reading Calvin and I realized that he believed what I believed.
In further studies and over 25 years in God’s word and work I have aligned myself with what you have presented above. A friend of mine introduced me to a stick figure 3D cube example and asked me to look at it. At one point you can see the cube one way and at another you see it another way. The one thing we cannot do is see both ways simultaneously. If God could be placed on a sheet of paper and be analyzed like we do DNA we would have a common god, however, the thing formed cannot use earthly formulas to explain God because the kingdom of God is eternal and uses completely different criteria. We were not made for that kind of thinking. All we have is a glimpse of eternity and that enables us to trust for more.
I like what Frederick Faber said, “O give me grace to keep thy grace and grace to merit more.”
Well written. One of the best explanations I’ve ever encountered was written by Gregg Allison of Southern Seminary in his book, “Jesusology.” He speaks of God’s choice in eternity and our choice in time. It may be geared towards high school students, but I think it is worth the read for most anyone. I’d read it probably three or four times until it was lost in my most recent move.
Google books has part of it online. Read some of the chapter on election and free will here @ http://tiny.cc/Jesusology
Dave,
Thanks. I appreciate the attempt to offer solutions. In my own mind, the most significant issue however is not about Calvinism per se. If you embrace such a view, be my guest. Southern Baptists have always had, within their ranks, those who claim Calvinism as do you. The larger issue rather is attempting to broadly “reform” the SBC in embracing the Calvinistic understanding of the doctrines of grace. And, this attempt is rightly met, in my view at least, with resistance.
As for one statement you wrote: “God cannot be both three and one. Each of the three cannot be fully God. The Trinity defies human logic in every way. We just believe that there is a solution in the higher logic of God that we cannot understand. ” I’m afraid you are alone in your assertion, Dave. You’d be hard-pressed to find an evangelical theologian–not to mention Calvinist!–who’d take your position. Of course, you may not care, which is also fine with me.
Initially, there are two obvious problems with the statement you make. First, it’s self-refuting which makes it theologically absurd. How so? The only way one may know the Trinity “cannot be three and one” is to know something about God which we’re not supposed to understand. And the only way we discern what we’re not supposed to understand is by applying human logic to the Trinity which, according to you, is something which “defies human logic in every way.” But if the Trinity defies human logic in every way, how may one test whether human logic is capable of concluding God cannot be both three and one? For me, I can make no sense out of that.
I’m sure you’ll hate me for saying this Dave, but your statement comes oddly close to the proposition a Jehovah’s Witness offered to me in our dialog the other day (For the record, I’m not making you out to hold JW doctrine; instead only the structure of your proposition being oddly similar to his, that’s all).
But secondly–and, surprisingly to some, I learned this from R. C. Sproul–the early church Fathers’ conclusion concerning the creedal formulation of the Trinity ever was like the following: “God is one in A but three in B.” That is, He’s one in Being but three in Person. No canon of formal logic is breached with this formula.
However, had they said “God is one in A and three in A” there would be a glaring contradiction. God cannot be one in A and three in A because such is utter nonsense. And, for the record, I do not think they appealed to a heavenly logic to suggest it’ll all come together in the end.
What I think you have done, Dave, is fundamentally confuse logical contradiction (antimony, etc.) with mystery. While we may not understand mystery, no logic is breached by asserting it.
With that, I am…
Peter
Dave, when you said,”I agree with the Calvinists that salvation rests in the sovereign choice of God. I also affirm that humans have a real choice we must make whether to respond in faith to the gospel.” I agree with that statement 100%. As I read this post that you wrote, I found myself agreeing with most of it.
I like Spurgeons illustration on this antinomy. He said that predestination and election, and the responsibility of man are like two sides of a mountain. On one side, you have predestination, election, the sovereignty of God. On the other side of the mountain, you have the choice of man, the responsibility of man, the whosoever will. Both sides are true. One side does not erase the other side. Where do they meet? How do they come together? We dont know. The Bible does not tell us. They are like two sides of a mountain that meet in the clouds. We cant see the tip of the mountain with our little, finite brains.
Of course, some people think they have it all figured out and put their thoughts into a philosophical/theological system. They fall short, IMHO.
And, Dave, also IMHO, a Dortian Calvinist is one who would be sold out to the TULIP theory…one who would agree with Beza’s thoughts on Calvinism. They are the Calvinists who believe in regeneration before faith, and they have a fatalistic view of salvation…IMHO.
There are Calvinists, and many who are Calvinistic in thier theology, who would not be Dortian Calvinists.
David
This is how we have dealt with the subject at our church. I am not a Calvinist, but I have had some here who are. We get along well. As a church we are non-Calvinist, but we have decided that we will get along.
I am not sure that logic is a character trait of God. He is consistent within His holy character, but he breaks out of logic over and over again in salvation: Logically, we should all die in our sins. Logically, the everywhere present God cannot be located on one spot of ground on earth.
But God has been gracious to provide salvation. He sent His Son to earth to be born, live, die and be raised again as He lived in Israel.
Is it mysterious? You bet. Is it a logical contradiction? Yes. But that is how God has revealed Himself in Scripture. So I am content with not trying to systematize God into logical statements.
Brother Dave,
Peter is technically correct in his argument concerning the trinity example.
Sovereignty though, I would say is not an antimony, nor is it difficult to understand. Many theologians may try and make the simple logic of Calvin an antimony and this may be your point and where tension develops in the SBC.
Either God is sovereign or He is not…. If He is,…then the art and science of describing that sovereignty to the hearer is important. This, in my opinion is where the tension manifests. Heresy can run in both directions from the truth.
Blessings,
Chris
Well said, Dave. I find it helps to remind myself that God exists outside of time. Aquinas called it “the eternal Now.” That is a hard concept for us humans to wrap our minds around, but if God is truly God then he is not bound by anything, including time and space. Thus it is possible for us to be both predestined and to have free will.
That’s the way I understand it, at least. Many of these conundrums are easier if you try to think in terms of “both/and” rather than “either/or.”
Dave,
I resonate greatly with what you write here. I would say “agree,” but I am not confident enough in my own position on these issues yet to say I completely agree or disagree with that of someone else.
I wrote something similar to what I understand you to say here:
http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2006/07/calvinism-free-will-narnia-and.html
I believe that sovereignty and free will are two coexistent, apparently contradictory, yet true realities that depend on the perspective from which you look at them, similar to England and Narnia in the Chronicles of Narnia.
As I read Chapman, though, it seems to me he is saying something very similar. For instance, here are two quotes from his Executive Committee Presidential Report:
“The Southern Baptist Convention is experiencing a resurgence in the belief that divine sovereignty ALONE is at work in salvation without a faith response on the part of man.”
“The sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man both are taught in the Bible. Both are necessary elements in the salvation experience. A healthy tension (an ANTIMONY) exists in the Bible with regard to these two important biblical truths. Both are present in the salvation experience.”
I wonder how what you are saying here, at the bottom line, is different from what Chapman said.
David, I have to admit is that all I read of Chapman’s quote is the controversial section.
Andrew, I think I want to get that book – sounds great (defining great as agreeing with me.)
Peter and Chris – I believe that the trinitarian nature of God remains beyond human logic. More than just a mystery, but a truth that defies the highest of intelligence.
Bruce,
If you can use it, use it!
To all,
Read David Roger’s article he linked to here. He wrote what I was trying to say here.
David,
I think I am in the same boat you are – I see two things taught in scripture and I think both sides of the “apparent contradiction” are important to maintain.
Perhaps the suggestion we both made is correct – maybe we just don’t understand things as well as those who are more certain of one side or the other. Sometimes when I read some of these in depth discussions of sovereignty issues, my head hurts.
Chris,
I agree. I think the issue of predestination rests on the sovereignty of God. It is indeed a topic that is much too large for us to comprehend in its entirety, especially when we get into the details. Since all things were known and planned by Him before the creation of the world, even the minute details had to be in His mind. I have a dominoe sitting on my desk. It has four greeen dots, two on one side, two on the other. Did God have that in mind before the creation of the world? Did God cause it to be given to me and then for me to place it where it is? Why not two green dots and three red dots? God does not only work in the significant.
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”Besides, my biggest challenge with Calvinism is Limited Atonement. I don’t fully understand it yet. It seems to me that some advocates of the view say the effect of the atonement applied when Jesus died on the cross, and that it only applies to believers. The second part makes sense to me, but if the effect applied when Christ died, wouldn’t that mean I was effectually debt-free when it comes to sin before I became a believer? If anyone has some useful materials on limited atonement, please let me know either here or by e-mail at wencl1440@gmail.com
Kingdom living is different than our earthly living. I’m sure Jesus was thought of as a peculiar person because His statements were both of His kingdom and this earthly kingdom. He could not communicate to human ears what His kingdom was all about. That is another thing Jesus could not do along with lying. The only time someone could understand what Jesus said was when He opened the understanding of the individual. Unless and until the understanding of a person is activated by God alone, he or she will simply not understand. Man, alone, can only logic things out.
In support of this important issue I would say in a word that God is incomprehensible. If you analyze some of our statements you will see that we have tried to figure Him out. Anytime we may think we can figure Him out through all we have learned we have failed miserably and have positioned ourselves alongside Simon. That goes for both sides of this topic. We must learn to be childlike, transparent and humble. Then, we can see into His kingdom a little more clearly.
I was one of those kids that, when the two (2) captains were chosen and the teams were picked, I ended up being the last person chosen on the team. That never felt good; however, there is something about knowing I was chosen from the foundation of the world that is therapeutic. Once God enlightened me on this wonderful truth it changed my life. Someone somewhere will benefit from it as their spirit confirms what I am saying. This happened recently when I was teaching this very truth in our Adult Vacation Bible School. The lady came up to me after the final lesson and told me that she has always wondered about the idea of God choosing her and began crying. Isn’t God good.
Good word, Bruce!
I will admit that the tension between God’s sovereignty and man’s will has not troubled me much. Man does not have absolute free will. Our will is free only insofar as our nature allows it. Whosoever will, is certainly true. But the question is, why does anyone will? That, I believe, is where election and effectual grace comes in. Although all are technically free to choice Christ, our natures do not allow it without Divine intervention. God does not turn people away, but rather enables them to come. This is why I believe in regeneration before faith. God did something I could not do for myself, nor even wish to do myself.
Brother Dave,
Back in 2007 I wrote a similiar piece, from a slightly different angle over at SBCToday…. if interested, here is the link.
http://sbctoday.com/2007/12/05/an-ironic-tulip-and-similarities-of-baptist-confession/
This is always a good subject to speak about.
Blessings,
Chris
Dave,
Enjoyed this post. Although I may describe my personal theology a little different than you, we are on the same page. Dr. Jimmy Millikin was one of my MABTS professors. He is an unashamed Calvinist. He told us one day about the grief that he sometimes gets from his friends. The Calvinists ask, “Why do you give such strong invitations for people to believe and be saved?” His answer “It is in the Bible!” His less Calvinistic friends want to know, “Why do you preach so strongly about God’s sovereignty?” Dr. Millikin’s answer, “It is in the Bible.”
I can “Amen” a Calvinist like that.
Steve in Montana
Brother Dave,
On the thought of logic (you made me think this morning)
,… I think it is important to not abandon what is known as logic. IMHO it appears to me that Truth forms logic since Jesus Christ being Truth has formed all that exists and as He is higher and his ways are not like ours, I think it is a mistake to discount the logos as potentially illogical because of man’s inability to express it rightly.
The Trinity for instance is logical, because it personifies and explains to sinning humans the reality of God as He communicates to His creation and announces its salvation. We should not allow our human lack of teaching the reality of the Trinity to impose an illogical paradigm on the truth of what God has revealed.
The same goes for how God predestined us in love, in Christ. It is logical….when the object is Christ,…it becomes increasing illogical when the object becomes man.
Ephesians 1:3-6 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, (4) just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love (5) He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, (6) to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
The “in Christ” is the trigger to understanding the logic of the “just as” reality and continued explanation in this section. In other words, it is logical for Christ to know the end from the beginning….not us though.
As the Apostle taught those in Thessalonica…
2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. (14) It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
God is a God of logic formed from truth….and yet He limits us for His purpose.
Ecclesiastes 3:11-13 He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end. (12) I know that there is nothing better for them than to rejoice and to do good in one’s lifetime; (13) moreover, that every man who eats and drinks sees good in all his labor–it is the gift of God.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris, good article (recommended to all), except for the picture. I suggest you use a New York Yankee gravatar like I do.
Steve Young, good word. Sorry, though. I was never a 49ers fan.
I just got back from Montana – working with Meadowview church in Missoula. How can you stand the general ugliness out there? We Iowa flatlanders went around with our tongues hanging out all week.
Chris, my point is not that we should abandon logic, but simply understand that our God is beyond the reaches of our logic. We can reason from scriptures what is revealed of him, but must remember that his thoughts are higher than ours.
Ultimately, our job is to obey, not always to understand.
Brother Dave,….I can go with that. Your right about the picture as well!!
Blessings,
Chris
I believe the clincher in all this is the factor of time. God is not bound by time. Yet, even though we may talk about timelessness as a philosophical category, it is impossible for us, as humans, to truly comprehend it.
In reference to my post #14:
My biggest challenge with Calvinism is Limited Atonement. I don’t fully understand it yet. It seems to me that some advocates of the view say the effect of the atonement applied when Jesus died on the cross, and that it only applies to believers. The second part makes sense to me, but if the effect applied when Christ died, wouldn’t that mean I was effectually debt-free when it comes to sin before I became a believer?
If anyone has some useful materials on limited atonement, please let me know either here or by e-mail at wencl1440@gmail.com
I don’t have access to my e-mail at the moment.
I hope you have a wheel-barrow, Andrew.
I struggle with Limited Atonement as well. I see the logic of it within the Calvinist system, and there are certainly some scriptures that support it. However, I struggle with some scriptures that seem to indicate Jesus died for the world. I have seen the explanations for that, but am unsatisfied with them.
I kinda describe myself as a 4.3 point Calvinist.
One of A.W. Tozer’s books had a chapter on, “To Be Understood, Truth Must Be Lived”. I believe that mainly because I prooved it. With that, I think a hard line Calvinist that is not evangilistic should go out soul winning until he finds and presents the gospel to one of the elect and experiences what happens. Additionally, I think that an Armenian should stop trying to entertain sinners to become a Christian with Hollywoodlike shows and only allow the preaching of the Word to convict a sinner. A better understanding of truth would surface if we did that on a routine basis.
In my previous comment I had mentioned the story of me not being chosed until last by the team captains and how God chose me from the foundation of the world. Then it occured to me, if Jesus comes back today, that would mean that I was one of the last again. Then it hit me, “the first will be last and the last first”, and I feel better again. Please don’t burst my bubble on this with allot of doctrine stuff! Ha.
Dave,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts for discussion.
A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ and not any other being or thing.
It is a very very Humbling Feeling to be chosen by God before the Foundation of the World. No one is worthy of being Chosen but by the Lamb of God. Now the Lamb of God (Jesus) Who was Present, wrote Names of His Chosen in a Book called The Lambs Book of Life. You can read about it here in the ESV Bible
.
Php 4:3 Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.
Rev 3:5 The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.
Rev 13:8 and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.
Rev 17:8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.
Rev 20:15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Rev 21:27 But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
Wayne
David R.: When you speak of God being outside of time, are you referring to the idea that God “looks ahead” and sees who will accept him and then elects them? I’m not saying you hold to that, but I’ve never understood how that idea is election at all. It becomes God, responding to us, not vice versa.
Bill,
Too, if God had to discover something in the future He would be in time and not eternity. It would also mean that he was more human with similar limitations of knowledge. That He is not.
Bill,
First of all, I am not exactly saying that God is “outside of time,” but rather, that He is not bound by time. I would have less problem saying He is “beyond time.” He, being omnipotent, however, is able to enter into the realm of time, as He obviously did in the incarnation, as well as in His dealings with man throughout history.
The very language you (and, for all practical purposes, any of us who are bound by humanity) use to ask your question, however, frames the question from the perspective of time (e.g. “looks ahead”–which, I imagine you put in quotation marks for this very reason; “will accept”; and “then”). Also, the concept of “God, responding to us, not vice versa,” seems to me to be framed with a reference of time in the backdrop.
I am reluctant to talk about the mechanics of election. Number one, because I haven’t studied it out all that much, and I might expose my ignorance. But, number two, because I am not convinced that God necessarily intended for us to understand and analyze the mechanics of election. I accept it by faith. But I am reluctant to try to explain it.
Brother Wayne,
Good to see your addition here,…. and congratulations to you and Irene on your 51st year of holy matrimony.
Blessings,
Chris
Again, David, I affirm your last paragraph in comment 31. When I see people discussing the ordo salutis or all the ins and outs of God’s decrees and mechanics of election, I have two responses:
1) My brain hurts.
2) I wonder what practical effect any of that has in evangelizing the lost or discipling the saved.
I guess someone has to hammer out all the nuts and bolts, but I think it is those nuts and bolts that sometimes cause the problems.
I am content to be grateful for God’s sovereign love and to seek his transforming power day to day to make me more like Christ.
As you know I think SBC discussions are too narrow by fiat.
That said, I am sincerely taken by what appears to be the humility of David Rogers to make assertions he admits he does not understand and is left to take by Faith.
To that extent I think he may have more in common with Bill Leonard and his recent essay on the state of Baptists in the world in recent abpnews.com story.
I comment that to all of you.
In Re Calvinism. I submit Danny Akin, Mohler and even some in the CBF take off on preconceived notions about Calvinism.
I don’t take anybody serious in a discussion of Calvinism unless they heve a working conversational knowledge of Pulitzer Winner Marilyn Robinson essay on Jean Cauvin in her collection the Death of Adam.
I heard her speak in a room with Fisher Humphreys a few years ago.
From Robinson to Notre Dame’s Mark Noll; that is where the conversation begins with me on John Calvin.
As for the rest I am in the same church with David Rogers. In this world we see things from afar, yet there is more than enough there to be persuaded, to embrace by faith while admitting we are pilgrims and strangers in this world.
That church is big enough for me and David Rogers and Bill Leonard. I am hoping David as time goes on will plant his foot even firmer in this congregation that is open to Anne Graham Lotz, Ginny Brant, Dan Vestal and the Baptist World Alliance.
Brother Andrew,
To help answer a little of your comment #25,…it is important to understand that Calvin is certainly different than Calvinism. Calvin never used the word “Limited Atonement” in his defense of God’s sovereign will. Yet, his contemporaries such as Peter Martyr, H. Zanchius, T. Beza, J. Piscator, W. Ames, R. Abbot., etc have used “Limited or Definite” Atonement to try and explain the thoughts of Calvin. …along with the popular Synod of Dort articles written against Calvin’s views of which the TULIP stems grow.
Calvin himself does a better job of explaining his own view of justifying grace than any of the above contemporaries do concerning his (Calvin’s) writings. So, it is a good exercise to read Calvin and then read the contemporaries to see the differences in their terminology and theology. This is how you will discover why Calvinism is different than the writings and teachings of Calvin. There have been others in the Universalism slant that use Calvin as their basis. Hmmm.
Blessings,
Chris
David: I agree with you regarding the difficulty using temporal language to describe God’s work in election. I used the phrase “looks ahead” because that is the terminology I have heard used to dismiss the concept of unconditional election. Foreseen faith is another way of stating it, which I’m sure you’ve heard.
STEPHEN FOXE; IN THE 60′S THE BAPTISTS IN MIAMI, FL., BOYCOTTED THE BAPTIST WORLD ALLIANCE BECAUSE OF COMMUNISTS FROM THE IRON CURTAIN BEING IN IT, WHILE THE TRUE CHURCH WAS AND IS STILL UNDERGROUND. ALSO THE NORTHERN BAPTISTS WHO DENY THE VIRGIN BIRTH, AND BLOOD ATONEMENT ARE IN IT. I ATTENDED A PROTEST RALLY WITH THE FOUNDER OF THE GARB, DON KETCHEM,
IF THE SBC COOPERATES WITH IT, THEN APOSTASY WITHIN THE SBC IS FULL BLOOM, AND I WILL NEVER COOPERATE WITH ANY CHURCHES WHO SUPPORT THE BAPTIST WORLD ALLIANCE.
Stephen and Paul,
I think we are trying to discuss how to process the eternal things of God. A discussion of SBC vs CBF or the Baptist World Alliance is not germaine to the post and will almost certainly lead us in a direction that will be unproductive.
I hope you will discuss the topic at hand and not lead us down that unfortunate path.
Stephen, you said, “I don’t take anybody serious in a discussion of Calvinism unless they heve a working conversational knowledge of Pulitzer Winner Marilyn Robinson essay on Jean Cauvin in her collection the Death of Adam.”
Personally, I would take anyone seriously who studies God’s Word in depth and handles it faithfully.
You seem to be invalidating the opinions of anyone who has not read a certain author. I think that is unfair. You refuse to take anyone’s opinion seriously unless they have digested Marilyn Robinson’s essay?
I cannot buy that.
Stephen,
If your “congregation” has room for Paul Foltz and Dave Miller, maybe you can count me in too.
However, I’m not sure if it is a good idea for all the folks you mention to try to work together in the context of something like the SBC.
Couple of things, maybe three or four.
1) If I understand D Rogers correctly, good to fellowship with him in the wider congregation.
2)To D Miller. Point bein–to reference the sheriff in No Coutnry for Old Men– I hold Marilyn Robinson and her take on Calvin to be seminal to a discussion of his influence, especially for one like yourself who seems to be strongly concerned with his influence.
That said, Just today, I saw a very good piece on Calvin in Wash Post and Newsweek Religion Blog and it inflected my thinking a little.
Said Calvin is key to American Ideas about Liberty.
Artice written by Doug Phillips who spearheaded the Reformation 500 Celebration in Boston last week.
3)Anne Graham Lotz, Billy’s Daughter, is fully involved (as they say at the Firehouse) in BWA. She preached in Bham in January right before the President of the SBC, Johnny Hunt.
So it looks like the brother above is already in bad company when it comes to the BWA.
When he talks about the BWA and Communists, I wonder what he does with all the Baptist Deacons in Alabama in the 60′s who gave George Wallace 80% approval rating when he was most virulent.
Bible talks about the wheats and the tares and in the End God himself will decide. To that end I think BWA and quite likely David Rogers has a bigger tent than the fellow above who has such a cosmologically limitted view of the Baptist World Alliance.
4)Then again there was Nixon with Billy Graham in Knoxville May of 1970 without Al Gore Sr. I’m still working on that one.
I wonder if and what Mark Noll would think John Calvin woulda made of that event.
5)Daivd Rogers, always an honor to get a respone from you. I do hope you will take a look at the Bill Leonard ABPnews.com essay and maybe take it up in a new post here at the Impact.
Friends; while I am here amongst you click on my name on this post and it will take you to a passage from Ron Rash, who if I am not mistaken was a classmate of Johnny Hunt at Gardnew Webb circa 1975
Rash was a Pen/Faulkner nominee this year for his novel Serena; and most recently was interviewed on Ga Public Radio, Sunday night as a matter of fact.
Though the novel is about timber industry in WNC in the 30′s there are several good preachers in there.
Michelle Norris is a fan as is syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker.
Several reviews easily googled at Russoff Agency; linked there, including fabulous feature article from Columbia State 2006 or so.
Now back to John Calvin.
Brother David R,
You said:
I say we’re in the same boat ;^)
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
David Worley,
You said, “They (Dortian Calvinists) are the Calvinists who believe in regeneration before faith”. I added the parenthesis to give your quote some context.
It’s obvious you don’t understand Calvinism. Anyone who believes in Irresistible Grace, which includes all 5-point Calvinists, believe in regeneration before faith, which, by the way, is biblical. That has nothing to do with being a “Dortian” Calvinist.
Nothing personal. I just have a major problem with people talking about stuff they obviously do not understand. Do your homework before you comment on something.
Les
Les,
Is Dortian Calvinist a real term? Or is it just one used by those who oppose calvinism?
It is not a term I ever heard of until recently on blogs. And it is not a term I have heard Calvinists use for themselves.
David,
Were I you, I’d simply give it up on this one. Since you may not use “real” terms perhaps out of your tendency to “oppose” Calvinism, your view point cannot possibly be taken seriously. A marvelous tribute it becomes, were one to ask me, to the “simple suggestion” on the Calvinist debate.
With that, I am…
Peter
Les and Dave:
You are correct. The word “Dortian” has become code.
Peter,
You do have a way with words.
Les, there are people who are Calvinistic in their theology who do not believe in regeneration before faith. There are some who believe that it happens simultaneously. And yes, anyone who holds to the TULIP theory(which came from the Synod of Dort) would most certainly have to believe in regeneration before faith. That does not make it Biblical…it just makes it a belief that someone must believe in order to make the TULIP theory work.
If you do not like Dortian Calvinist, then maybe yall would accept Beza Calvinists, or would it be Bezan Calvinists? I do beleive that this would describe those who believe in the TULIP and regeneration before faith, and who have a fatalistic view of salvation. Would it not? I’m just trying to describe yall correctly…no hate intended.
Les, I know many, many people who are Calvinistic in their theology, some who even call themselves Calvinist, who would not agree with you and Bill on thier Calvinism. Thus, I’m just trying to distinguish between yall and the other Calvinists that are out there.
BTW, I’m not anti-Calvinist.
lol.
David
Peter,
Dortian.
David
PS. I know that you know what I mean.
David W,
You wrote, “I know many, many people who are Calvinistic in their theology, some who even call themselves Calvinist, who would not agree with you and Bill on their Calvinism.”
Thanks for your reply. Sorry if my comment sounded “snippy” but I’ve had a trying week. I don’t mean to take it out on you.
Those whom you term as “Calvinistic” are not Calvinist. A Calvinist is someone who holds to all 5-points of the TULIP soteriology. Someone who holds to 4-points is not a Calvinist, he or she is an “Amyraldism.” Here’s a link for you: http://www.theopedia.com/Amyraldism.
The term “Calvinistic” is not helpful in this or any other discussion of Calvinism because it has no single definition. I have seen people use this term for those who hold to 4, 3, or 2 points of TULIP. Actually, one could say that those who believe in the perseverance of the saints, which all good SBCers do, are “Calvinistic.”
The term “Dortian Calvinist,” as used by most theologians, refers to those who believe that unless one holds to all 5 points of the TULIP soteriology, then they are heretics. I know of no one in the SBC who holds this opinion. If you know of anyone in the SBC who holds this view, name them.
Have a great day.
Les
Les & VolFan:
There is a huge definition problem regarding what Calvinism is.
According to some, at least, even Calvin himself would not be a Calvinist, according to their definition. To the extent that Calvinism can be categorized in terms of “points” Calvin can’t be at once an adherent to two or more versions of the points.
Remember that the so called 5 points (TULIP) were not even formulated until after Calvin’s death. The TULIP acrostic (more accurately some “equivalent” verbage in either French, Dutch, or Latin) was actually derived by the the opponents of Calvinism who were the Remonstrants.
For example, the Calvinist principle of Limited Atonement was derived as a response to the opposite principle that was articulated by the Remonstrants.
>>>
EXAMPLE
According to “popular lore” the L in TULIP means “Limited Atonement”
The second point articulated by the Remonstrants was “Christ’s death for all, but only believers enjoy his forgivness”. The negative of this second point became the third letter in the English language version of the TULIP acrostic
>>>
So Calvin didn’t really come up with TULIP because:
(a) He was already dead by the time the TULIP acronym took shape
(b) Calvin’s understudy (maybe not the best word) Theodore Beza took over and he was the guy who around when the TULIP acrostic (albiet not in English) took shape
(c) The TULIP acrostic does not necessarily represent what Calvin believed. Calvin’s INSTITUTES OF CHRISTIAN RELIGION went through several editions in both French and Latin and they showed “some variance” (or ‘growth’) from edition to edition. So scholars would argue whether any given tightly defined theological parameter represents “true Calvinism” (i.e. is it the view most consistently found across all the editions of the Institutes)
(d) The acrostic was framed as a result of one to one refutation to those who objected to what they percieved as “Calvinism”. It is probably accurate to say that the TULIP acrostic was more influenced by the enemies of Calvinism that by people that today we would call proto-Calvinists.
In addition to all of this confusion, Calvinists today all over the map in terms of the number of “points” they adhere to.
Calvin would not necessarily have carved up his thesis on Sotorology into five points. He might have had three, or six or eight. I am not a heavy-duty student of the works of Calvin obviously, but I think it can be argued that if we had fifty very very smart theologians in the room — each of which knows French and Latin, and each of which has read and studied all of the various editions of the Institutes — that each of them would be summarizing Calvin’s ideas on Soteriology differently and most of them would not necessarily be using five points.
Therefore, I find any discussion of “Calvinism” especially as it relates to “points” to be meaningless.
It is OK to argue about what we now call the TULIP points. The only problem is that this only indirectly has anything to do with Calvin.
Another “problem” with Calvinism is that — according to the idea of “Sempra Reformada” — Reformed theology allows for change over time. So even if something could be said to be “Calvinist” at any given point in time that idea could be refuted and superceeded based upon a more complete understanding of the scriptures.
Roger K. Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
Roger,
Exactly. Les, did you read what Roger said?
David
I’m disappointed none of you have taken the challenge to begin to explore Marilyn Robinson’s thoughts on Calvin.
As you explore Robinson you will pick up good sermon material on the Prodigal Son as you investigate her novel Gilead.
Roger Kimball wrote a review on her collection The Death of Adam for the New York times.
You should be able to google that up easily; a good place to start.
Roger: What you post is interesting, but only briefly touches on the point. Calvinists don’t wear WWCT (what would Calvin think) bracelets. We have a biblical belief system regarding soteriology that has for centuries been known as Calvinism. It is briefly summarized by the 5 points of TULIP. We are trying to resist the idea that 1,2,3,or 4 pointers are also “Calvinists” and that 5 pointers need some special designation to distinguish them from the other “Calvinists” in the SBC. Do a quick Google search on the term “Dortian Calvinist” and see who is using the term and why.
Despite the name, Calvinism isn’t about Calvin.
An interesting fact (to me, at least). I was tracing my genealogy and my wife’s. One of her ancestors was a signatory to the Remonstrance.
That would be a problem, except that by Les’ definition, I’m not really a Calvinist since I am not a full-fledged card-carrying 5-pointer.
I wonder why we cannot discuss this without the temperature rising and the increasing snippyness of some comments.
We have to be able to talk about issues like this.
In a more serious response to Les – for myself, I simplify the word Calvinism. Calvinists don’t even agree on everything – for instance, the application of Limited Atonement.
So, I defined myself as Calvinist because I believe in the priority of God’s sovereign choice in salvation over the sinner’s choice. God chose us, not the other way around.
I sometimes wonder on alot of the rest of it if David Rogers’ comments above don’t come into play.
I keep hitting send, then thinking of something else.
I have shied away from the term Calvinist because there is much in the Reformed System I think is biblically incorrect (paedobaptism, obviously; much of what I have heard some Calvinists teach on sanctification, and eschatology). I do not accept the Calvinist system as a whole, just the idea of depravity, sovereignty and perseverance.
In summary, I do not believe in the Calvinist system, just the doctrine of God’s Sovereign Grace. Maybe I should call myself a “Sovereign Gracer” instead of a Calvinist.
Dave: I’m as much to blame for this as anyone, but when we start discussing Calvinism, we end up discussing Calvinists.
But you raise a good point. How can we discuss Calvinism if there isn’t common ground as to what is meant by the word? Even the infamous J3:16 conference was based around the 5 points.
That’s an interesting insight, Bill. Calvinism/Calvinist. I think that is true a lot of times.
Bill:
I don’t know much about how whatever branch of “Calvinism” it is that exists in Baptist circles.
All I can say is this. My wife and I attended a study session on Reformed Theology at a RCA (Reformed Chruch in America) church. The class meet once a week for about four months. The author of the textbook we used was Dr. Shirley Guthrie [he is a man] – Professor Emeritus at Columbia Theological Seminary.
We got involved in this because of interactions I had with guys I met at Western Baptist Seminary who were members of that RCA congregation. I know this is far out, but one of those guys became the pastor of that RCA chruch.
In actual practice, Calvinism in the RCA is very fluid. For example regarding predestination Guthrie says:
DOUBLE PREDESTINATION
Some are included and some are excluded. This interpretation of predestination is often considered the one position you are supposed to believe if you are a good Presbyterian or Reformed Christian. Calvin himself taught it (see chapters 21-24 of book 3 of the INSTITUTES), and it is strongly affirmed in the Westminster Confession of Faith and in the Canons of the Synod of Dort. But other Reformed confessions such as Calvin’s own Geneva Catechism, the Scots Confession, and Second Helvetic Confession, and the Heidelberg Catechism do not teach it. It is only one of several possible views in the Reformed tradition.
Guthrie, Shirley, CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE — Revised Edition 1994
page 120
Other topics in the book discuss how Reformed tradition and Calvinism are always a “work in progress”. Guthrie says any creed or theological system is limited in scope and/or subject to change because (a) it is subordinate to the higher authority of the Bible, and (b) it is a product of fallible men, and (c) it is subject to new understanding because implicit in the Reformed tradition is “sempre reformada” which means that Christians are always open to new insights as a result the Holy Spirit illuminating the text to them.
I don’t know any one at that RCA church, including anyone on the staff, that claims to adhere to any number of “points” of Calvinism whether 0,1,2,3,4 or 5. That type of rigid construct is just foreign to them. They just don’t consider that discussion to be relevant.
It must be the case that whatever type of Calvinism it is that is espoused by some in the SBC is much more rigid.
RCA churches I know have various creeds pasted in the inside of their hymnals. (Yeah, they still use hymnals). They have the Heidelburg confession, the Geneva confession, etc. But they don’t avoid examination of the scriptures to directly inform them.
They don’t teach that there is any “correct” theological system — Calvinism or anything else except the Bible.
Calvin led the way by doing a systematic study of the Bible void of eclestical apparatus. The RCA congregations that I know about try to emulate this today so the “guy in the pew” sees an “unvarnished” view of the Bible. The RCA would say their understanding is “informed” by Calvin and the creeds but is not defined by these.
Roger K. Simpson
Oklahoma City OK
The serious among you will want to click on my name at this post for what will be in top 5 definitive articles on Calvin’s legacy.
Check the comments there.
Or Google Calvin’s legacy of Cruelty and Joy at religiondispatches.org.
I would certainly not put that article in the top 5 of articles I have read about Calvin. Prosaic, but empty.
Thanks Dave. I knew your opinion already, but enjoyed reading it again. I know as one of the “younger Calvinist” I have been accused of being the harbinger of destruction for the SBC, but my theology falls in line with what you said. Calvinism isn’t the death of Evangelism, it’s the liberation of those who have proven that you can’t argue someone into the Kingdom.
Excellent post — we live with the tension. And, we hold our interpretations of Scripture lightly because we are limited humans.
I am wondering if Dr. Morris Chapman reads SBC Impact. When he “clarified” his views on Calvinism recently, his viewpoint was very similar to what I said here about antinomy – he even used the word.
You are a trend setter Dave!
I am another Pastor Dave Miller (David Ward Miller), but not a Baptist, however I love Baptists and married one!
Dave, you are to be commended on seeing the issue of divine election and human choice as an extreme paradox or antimony, not a contradiction or absurdity. God’s word teaches God chose us and we chose God.
The pendulum swung too far in the not-so-distant Evangelical past with too much emphasis on human free will. Today it is swinging to the other extreme to the exclusion of any human choice. The biblical balance of embracing the paradox of both parties having a choice is rare.
The Bible teaches “Calvaminianism.”
In the trilogy of parables—the lost sheep, the lost coin and the lost son, Jesus brilliantly presents this paradox of God’s sovereign loving choice in rescuing us and our choice of coming to God. In the first parable the shepherd goes and gets the lost sheep. In the second, the lady seeks and finds the lost coin, and coins have no will or ability to choose. But the final and climatic story is of the prodigal son who leaves in rebellion and in an unexpected dramatic change from the previous two parables–the loving Father waits. One great theologian has called this parable, “The Waiting Father.” In time, the rebel son hits bottom after wasting his inheritance, comes to his senses while feeding pigs, and makes the choice to humbly return. The father runs to embrace him as he sees his son return, but he did not go after him to force him to return or even try to persuade him to return. The Father left that choice to his son.
One more biblical example of this paradox. Upon entering Jerusalem, Jesus cried out, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.” (Matthew 23:37 NIV) The Greek word for willing is the same word translated “wants” (NIV) or “wills” (NKJV) in Romans 9:18: “Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.” (NKJV) Our will matters. God’s will matters.
But be prepared to be hit from both sides of the debate. Just as Jesus was attacked by the Pharisees who added to God’s Word and the Sadducees who subtracted from God’s Word, the “Calvaminian” will be hit hard by the Calvinists and Arminians.
The move toward Calvinism removes love. Love ALWAYS includes choice. God did not force anyone to love him. I reject as totally unbiblical the Calvinist’s idea that our divine election was a “holy rape of the soul.” Yet, some form of spiritual rape is what happens if we have no choice in rejecting the love of God. But the whole of Scripture does not teach a God of love forced himself on us until we enjoyed it.
Another way to describe Calvinism is to see humanity as robots. It looks something like this. We were born bad robots who cannot chose or reject God. God then flips the switch on some of us to be good robots. That good switch is located in the middle of our backs, and we cannot see it or reach it. God does not flip the switch on most of the bad robots who go to the furnace of the metal melting pot. When God flips the switch on our backs, it then reveals a new switch on our belly and we are automatically preprogrammed to want to flip our switch to be good robots. But we never had the possibility or actual choice in flipping our front switch once God flipped his good switch first.
Timothy Keller, a Presbyterian Pastor, presents a great illustration that God is not a Stepford God:
“The husbands of Stepford, Connecticut, decided to have their wives turned into robots who never cross the wills of their husbands. A Stepford wife was wonderfully compliant and beautiful, but no one would describe such a relationship as intimate or personal. Now what happens when you eliminate anything from the Bible that offends your sensibilities and crosses your will? If you pick and chose what you want to believe and reject the rest, how will you have a God who contradicts you? You won’t! You’ll have a Stepford God! A God, essentially of your own making, and not a God with whom you can have a relationship and genuine interaction.” – The Reason for God (pp.113-14)
Now comes a valid follow-up question—is the Lord’s bride, the church, a Stepford wife? No! Just as we have no Stepford God, God has no Stepford bride. We, who are the Lord’s bride, are not “robots to never cross the will” of our husband, Christ. While our “husband” is perfect, we, his bride, are not. Our Lord’s directives in His word often “offend our sensibilities and cross our will.” We are often not compliant to Him, and stubbornly unsubmissive. Neither of us are robotic Stepfords. With choice we have the wonderful possibility of a mutual loving relationship that is “intimate and personal.”
If we are not robots, what are we? We are persons. Persons have choice, most importantly spiritual choice. Animals have instinct, and no spiritual choice whatsoever. God is three persons in one. Angels are persons. Humans are persons. None of the rest of God’s living creation are persons. Angels were given the choice to follow Satan or God. One third of the angelic host made the wrong choice and God prepared the lake of fire primarily for them. We as human beings who have been created in the image of God also have a choice. We have a choice to respond to God’s general call of his love. After we say yes to God’s call, we have the choice to love and obey him as a believer. Even after our new spiritual birth, God does not force us to always love and obey.
Yes, love requires that we have a choice in our relationship with God. On the other hand, God chose whomever he wished before the foundation of the world. We dare not remove God’s choice! Therein lies the paradox.
I like to summarize and illustrate this dual choice paradox with my “courting” of my wife that brought us to the alter of marriage. Here is how it happened—I chased her until she caught me.
Let’s embrace the paradox of mutual choice in love.
© 2009 David W. Miller, permission usually granted if authorship is acknowledged.
See you at the annual David Miller convention. Thanks for stopping by.