Fifty Million Rob Bell Fans Can’t Be Wrong
In 1959 RCA releasedFifty Million Elvis Fans Can’t Be Wrong—Elvis’ Gold Records Vol. 2.1 Elvis Presley was an exceptionally popular entertainer who was also one of the most controversial public figures of the late 1950s. The title of his second greatest hits album indicates a popular sentiment: It must be right, because millions of people believe it. But this sentiment does not translate to theology. Though many church fathers and theologians throughout the ages may have believed in a particular doctrine, it’s correctness is not established by that fact alone.
Rob Bell is the founding pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan and is the author of such books as Velvet Elvis, Sex God, Jesus Wants to Save Christians, and Drops Like Stars. Many evangelical Christians are familiar with his Nooma series of videos.2 Bell is influential in Emerging Church circles and is a popular speaker. Though his previous books have sold well, Love Wins is especially popular.
The twin premises of Love Wins are that God is a God of love and that the evangelical Christian view of God is too narrow. “Has God created billions of people over thousands of years only to select a few to go to heaven and everyone else to suffer forever in hell?”3 Bell asks. Love Wins challenges the traditional views concerning heaven, hell, and salvation. For the sake of brevity this review concentrates on Bell’s view of salvation.
Universalism
Simply stated, Rob Bell is a universalist. Baptist theologian Millard Erickson’s description of universalism also describe’s Bell’s views: “From time to time, however, a contrary position has been espoused in the Church, namely, that all will be saved. This position (is) known as universalism.”4 Some years ago Erickson noted this tendency in a list of trends within liberal evangelical circles: “A hope for near-universal salvation. God has not left Himself without a witness in all cultures, sufficient to bring people to salvation if they earnestly seek it.”5
Bell does not concern himself with “earnest seekers.” Instead, he arranges a list of passages from both the Old and New Testaments to describe God’s love for human beings.6 God must save everyone, reasons Bell:
How great is God?
Great enough to achieve what God sets out to do,
or kind of great,
medium great,
great most of the time,
but in this,
the fate of billions of people,
not totally great.
Sort of great.
A little great.7
Bell sees God as a failure if He doesn’t save everyone: “Will all people be saved, or will God not get what He wants? Does this magnificent, mighty, marvelous God fail in the end?”8
One could call this “God is a failure” argument “extreme pathos.” Evangelical theology answers this dilemma, “Will all be saved? The church’s usual position throughout history has been that while some or even many will be saved, some will not.”9 At least two theological arguments stand against the universal salvation espoused in Love Wins. [amazon 006204964X thumbnail]
The nature of the atonement
Bell’s view of the extent of Christ’s atonement is apparently informed by the “Moral-Influence Theory.” This view was originally developed by Peter Abelard (1079-1142), a theologian and professor at the University of Paris.10 Abelard “emphasized the primacy of God’s love and insisted that Christ did not make some sort of sacrificial payment (i.e. ransom) to the Father to satisfy His dignity. Rather, Jesus demonstrated to humanity the full extent of God’s love for them.”11
The Moral Influence Theory was further developed at a much later date by Horace Bushnell (1802-1876) in the US and Hastings Rashdall in the UK.12 Bushnell wrote, “It is not that the suffering appeased God, but that it expresses God—displays, in open history, the unconquerable love of God’s heart.”13 Lewis and Demarest summarize this theory: “At bottom, then, people are saved by the compelling power of God’s self-giving love.”14
Bell views the traditional evangelical view of salvation as “God in the end doesn’t get what God wants”15 because God “wants all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (NASB, 1 Tim. 2:4). What will be the outcome of the lives of billions of human beings?
To be clear, again, an untold number of serious disciples of Jesus across hundreds of years have assumed, affirmed, and trusted that no one can resist God’s pursuit forever, because God’s love will eventually melt even the hardest of hearts.16
This is universalism, clearly presented and concisely stated.
The means and extent of salvation
The second theological problem with Love Wins is Bell’s view of the means and extent of salvation. How far does the death of Christ extend to all human beings?
Rsearch on this topic reveals a “kindred spirit” to Rob Bell: Nels Ferré of Sweden.17 As a youth Ferré was troubled by his father’s conservative understanding of the Scriptures, especially his eschatology. Ferré eventually immigrated to the US where “he built his own theology on the central thought of divine love.”18 “It is his understanding of God’s love that governs his interpretation of Scriptures and the issue as a whole.”19 Ferré described the means and extent of a universalist salvation in these terms:
The logic of the New Testament at its highest and deepest point is the logic of God’s sovereign love… Those who worship the sovereign Lord dare proclaim nothing less than the total victory of His love. No other position can be consistently Christian. All other positions limit either God’s goodness or His power, in which case both Fundamentalism and modern Liberalism have their own varieties of the finite God.20
Bell’s conclusions are mirror-images to those of Ferré. Concerning the love of God, he writes:
Which is stronger and more powerful, the hardness of the human heart or God’s unrelenting, infinite, expansive love? Thousands through the years have answered that question with the resounding response, “God’s love, of course.”21
…
At the center of the Christian tradition since the first church have been a number who insist that history is not tragic, hell is not forever, and love, in the end, wins and all will be reconciled to God.22
Indeed, theologians throughout the centuries have written about universalism. Origen (ca. 185-254) probably first systematized universalism: “Origen also adopted with some enthusiasm the idea of apokatastasis or universal restoration, according to which every creature, including both humanity and Satan, will be saved.”23 But universalism is not the prevalent theological concept of salvation. Over the centuries a few writers and theologians followed Origen’s lead. Far more theologians have not.
Theological method
At this point we must ask the question, “How does Rob Bell do theology?” In the case of his universalism, Bell assembles a number of verses in an effort to support of the dominance of God’s love over all His other attributes. He then adds a number of “traditions” to the mixture and concludes that everyone must be saved from destruction.
On the one hand Bell does not consider many of the Scripture passages that obstruct his assertions. On the other hand Bell paints the opposing views in stark, evil terms. In response to some church doctrinal statements concerning the condemnation of unbelievers, Bell writes:
So, in the first statement, the “unsaved” won’t be with God. In the second, not only will they not be with God, but they’ll be sent somewhere else to be punished. And in the third, we’re told that not only will these “unsaved” be punished forever, but they will be fully aware of it—in case we were concerned they might down an Ambien or two when God wasn’t looking…24
Bell does not attempt to balance the opposing views against universalism. He makes little effort to compare and synthesize the data of the biblical passages and word studies and the biblical, systematic, and historical theology—and then determine a measured conclusion. This is not to say that Bell did not do any theological research, word studies and analysis. But his presuppositions allow no other conclusion than that Love Wins. In the final analysis, Bell’s theological method is careless and prejudiced.
What may the reader conclude from Love Wins?
Love Wins is as much a book about American popular culture as it is about theology. Bell’s underlying assumptions about salvation are probably based on the prevailing concept of “fairness,” that is, there are no losers and the authorities ensure an equality of outcomes—the authority in this case being God.
It is not unreasonable to conclude that Bell perceives the traditional view of salvation as unfair because some are saved but others aren’t. Though Bell wishes the reader to think he is defending God’s honor, in reality he creates a god who is forced to serve human beings “because He loves them.” In this sense Love Wins is man-centered, or anthropocentric. Here salvation is a right and not the gift of God.
Is Love Wins a polemic against the evangelical view of the gospel? In response to the evangelical view that some are saved but others aren’t, Bell writes:
What kind of faith is that? Or, more important: What kind of God is that?25
This belief raises a number of issues, one of them being the risk each new life faces. If every new baby being born could grow up to not believe the right things and go to hell forever, then prematurely terminating a child anytime from conception to twelve years of age could actually be the loving thing to do, guaranteeing that the child ends up in heaven, and not hell, forever. Why run the risk?26
This statement is part of his “extreme pathos,” a prejudiced opinion against conservative evangelical Christianity. One might hope that Bell is merely overstating his case for emphasis and not revealing his true beliefs. However, though he makes many other harsh statements, Love Wins is not really a polemic.
The God who is revealed in the Bible is most certainly a God of love, but He is not limited to love. This is the major error of Love Wins. He is also the God of justice, mercy, forgiveness, and grace. He is infinite in His wisdom, eternal in His being, sovereign over the Universe, both transcendent and imminent, and yet He is not limited in any way by our finite understanding of these qualities or attributes. There is much we cannot understand about our great God: “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.” (NASB, Isa. 55:9).
Perhaps the combination of Rob Bell’s writings, videos, personal appearances, large church and cultural influence has gained him millions of fans. But his personal popularity does not make him correct—nor does the popular culture he represents make him correct. Love Wins is poorly-done theology and a caricature of evangelical Christianity. How evangelicals wish that universalism was true! But it is not. The Bible is clear that not everyone receives salvation.
And no one’s heart breaks more for the lost than God’s.
Notes
2 Love Wins, dust jacket.
3 Quote from Love Wins dust jacket; “If you don’t have that (a personal relationship with God), you will die apart from God and spend eternity in torment in hell,” p. 10.
4 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998, p. 1025.
5 Millard J. Erickson, The Evangelical Left: Encountering Postconservative Evangelical Theology. Carlisle (UK): Paternoster Press, 1998, p. 21. Though Erickson was describing the Evangelical Left’s openness to salvation through general revelation, Bell argues that salvation is indeed universal (p. 100).
6 Love Wins, pp. 98-103. Though the dust jacket describes Love Wins as “a deeply biblical vision for rediscovering a richer, grander, truer, and more spiritually-satisfying way,” the book consistently does not utilize standard biblical book, chapter and verse citations. Instead, Bell simply refers to chapters (Psalm 22, Philippians 4, etc.). It is frustratingly difficult to find the listed verses without the standard references.
7 Love Wins, pp. 97-98.
8 Love Wins, p. 98, author’s emphasis.
9 Christian Theology, p. 1025.
10 Alister E. McGrath, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Oxford (UK): Blackwell, 1998, p. 138.
11 Christian Theology, p. 803.
12 Ibid.
13 Quoted in Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990, Vol. 2, pp. 373-374 . It must be stated that neither Abelard nor Bushnell were universalists.
14 Ibid.
15 Love Wins, p. 103.
16 Love Wins, p. 108.
17 See Nels Ferré, “The Third Conversion Never Fails,” in These Found the Way, ed. David Wesley Soper (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1951) and The Christian Understanding of God (New York: Harper, 1951, p. 228).
18 Christian Theology, p. 1028.
19 Christian Theology, pp. 1028-1029.
20 The Christian Understanding of God, pp. 246-247.
21 Love Wins, p. 109.
22 Ibid.
23 Historical Theology, p. 25.
24 Love Wins, p. 96.
25 Love Wins, p. 4.
26 Ibid.
jimfrank Bio
Jim Franklin is a native of Covington, Kentucky and is 2004 graduate of Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. He earned his MA in Theological Studies at age 50. He served twenty years in the US Air Force as a supply specialist and medical technician, retiring in 1997 as a Technical Sergeant. Jim was an Adjunct Professor of English with Grace College’s Prison Extension Division from 2008 to 2011. He is currently the pastor of Flora Grace Brethren Church, Flora, Indiana. Jim is married to Alice. They have two adult sons. Jim blogs with his good friend Jeff Bowers at “The World as Best I Remember It” and comments at The American Thinker as “Van Owen.”
Jim,
Thanks for sharing your work with us on this.
For me, the burning question is why should God’s love win? Why shouldn’t His holiness win? Or His justice? Or of His other perfections? As I read the article, it occurred to me that part of the problem is that Bell (and his theological predecessors) define God’s “goodness” too narrowly. The reasoning in a few places is that if God’s love does not “win,” He is either less “good” or less powerful. But that reasoning presupposes that His goodness must be measured solely by the quantity of grace He disperses (basically the percentage of people He redeems).
If I could chat with those guys, I’d simply ask “Why?”
What if His “goodness” is revealed in the “quantity” of His own glory that He reveals?
Or, if we want to use “goodness” exclusively for what He does for His creatures, why can’t the infinite quality of His grace be the measure of that goodness? Measure the grace by what it cost Him to provide it and by the preciousness of receiving it (which depends in part on a kind of scarcity—it’s revealed to be more precious by the relative few who obtain it in contrast to the many who don’t.)
Just musing, but the point is that there are many ways to measure “goodness.”
Jim is right that Bell’s thought is deeply man-centered from the start.
Thanks for sharing your work with us on this.
For me, the burning question is why should God’s love win? Why shouldn’t His holiness win? Or His justice? Or of His other perfections? As I read the article, it occurred to me that part of the problem is that Bell (and his theological predecessors) define God’s “goodness” too narrowly. The reasoning in a few places is that if God’s love does not “win,” He is either less “good” or less powerful. But that reasoning presupposes that His goodness must be measured solely by the quantity of grace He disperses (basically the percentage of people He redeems).
If I could chat with those guys, I’d simply ask “Why?”
What if His “goodness” is revealed in the “quantity” of His own glory that He reveals?
Or, if we want to use “goodness” exclusively for what He does for His creatures, why can’t the infinite quality of His grace be the measure of that goodness? Measure the grace by what it cost Him to provide it and by the preciousness of receiving it (which depends in part on a kind of scarcity—it’s revealed to be more precious by the relative few who obtain it in contrast to the many who don’t.)
Just musing, but the point is that there are many ways to measure “goodness.”
Jim is right that Bell’s thought is deeply man-centered from the start.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Jim…this was an excellent response. Bell’s book is one more indicator of the lack of discernment in today’s evangelical world and what we have created through mushy thinking, relativistic philosophy, church-growth movement idolatry and the absence of fundamental and orthodox voices (due largely to the insistence many of those voices have in fighting each other rather than confronting unsound theology). Well done and Amen.
My friend and pastor, Bobby Conway, (aka, the ” http://oneminuteapologist.com/ One-Minute Apologist “) has recently released an e-book on Bell’s book as well and it can be found http://www.amazon.com/Hell-Bell-Happens-People-ebook/dp/B0052FD3FM/ref=…] HERE . It is not intended to be a deep theological response, but one for lay people who need to see the danger of Bell’s universalistic bent. It has a gentle tone, but is direct about the error. He’s a DTS and Southern Evangelical Seminary grad and has a good grasp of orthodox theology in a contemporary setting with an apologetics emphasis.
Great article!
My friend and pastor, Bobby Conway, (aka, the ” http://oneminuteapologist.com/ One-Minute Apologist “) has recently released an e-book on Bell’s book as well and it can be found http://www.amazon.com/Hell-Bell-Happens-People-ebook/dp/B0052FD3FM/ref=…] HERE . It is not intended to be a deep theological response, but one for lay people who need to see the danger of Bell’s universalistic bent. It has a gentle tone, but is direct about the error. He’s a DTS and Southern Evangelical Seminary grad and has a good grasp of orthodox theology in a contemporary setting with an apologetics emphasis.
Great article!
Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com
Jim, thank you for this EXCELLENT review. Your perceptive comments are helpful!
"The Midrash Detective"
Great article. Thanks!
As a Calvinist, I can’t help but notice that Bell has taken a Calvinist argument in an opposite direction. He reasons that if God desires to save everyone, but fails to accomplish His purpose, he loses. Conclusion: in the end, everyone will be saved, because in the end, love wins. (and correspondingly, God wins. He accomplishes His plan. He succeeds.)
This, of course, is the doctrine of Particular Redemption (Definite Atonement, or Limited Atonement), turned on it’s head. The correct solution is to acknowledge that God succeeds because he accomplished exactly what He intended to do, namely save His chosen people. He selected them in Eternity past, and is bringing everyone one of them to Heaven in time, without failure. God wins (yes, love wins) because God succeeds in doing perfectly and without failure what He intended to accomplish.
Bell’s argument seems to me to highlight the weakness of the doctrine of Universal Atonement, that God desires to save everyone, and Christ died to provide atonement for everyone, but only some will be saved. That does raise some legitimate questions about the nature and character of God. Should we conceive of God as failing to accomplish what He desires to do? Should we conceive of Christ as desiring the salvation of all and paying the price for the redemption of all, and yet only succeeding in in saving some?
Perhaps Bell’s book will help Evengelicals and Fundemantalists alike think more deeply about these questions. If so, it may serve a helpful purpose after all.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
As a Calvinist, I can’t help but notice that Bell has taken a Calvinist argument in an opposite direction. He reasons that if God desires to save everyone, but fails to accomplish His purpose, he loses. Conclusion: in the end, everyone will be saved, because in the end, love wins. (and correspondingly, God wins. He accomplishes His plan. He succeeds.)
This, of course, is the doctrine of Particular Redemption (Definite Atonement, or Limited Atonement), turned on it’s head. The correct solution is to acknowledge that God succeeds because he accomplished exactly what He intended to do, namely save His chosen people. He selected them in Eternity past, and is bringing everyone one of them to Heaven in time, without failure. God wins (yes, love wins) because God succeeds in doing perfectly and without failure what He intended to accomplish.
Bell’s argument seems to me to highlight the weakness of the doctrine of Universal Atonement, that God desires to save everyone, and Christ died to provide atonement for everyone, but only some will be saved. That does raise some legitimate questions about the nature and character of God. Should we conceive of God as failing to accomplish what He desires to do? Should we conceive of Christ as desiring the salvation of all and paying the price for the redemption of all, and yet only succeeding in in saving some?
Perhaps Bell’s book will help Evengelicals and Fundemantalists alike think more deeply about these questions. If so, it may serve a helpful purpose after all.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
Greg… hadn’t looked at it that way.
Bell’s is kind of a sovereignty of God argument in which love (as he understands it) is the focus rather God’s glory.
You reminded me of a book just out (or maybe not yet out)
[amazon 1414366663 thumbnail]
Bell’s is kind of a sovereignty of God argument in which love (as he understands it) is the focus rather God’s glory.
You reminded me of a book just out (or maybe not yet out)
[amazon 1414366663 thumbnail]
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Bell’s god deserves our pity. Like the death angel in Egypt who passed over the Hebrew homes, Bell’s god passes over the house of justice, righteousness, and holiness. He wins at his own expense. He is the ultimate unrighteous steward who makes eternal friends for himself by selling his glory at a discount.
We who suffer with Christ in the present age are the biggest losers, since in Bell’s heaven the greatest sinner is the greatest winner: he got the ‘best’ of both worlds. Obeying Christ in this life earns the title “Fool!” since alongside the martyr in heaven stands the one who martyred him. Love wins, we who love the Lord lose.
But I almost find myself led to the same pity by the last line of the review, “And no one’s heart breaks more for the lost than God’s.” Since more people die in a day than there are seconds in a day, his heart is breaking all day long - and breaking badly. He definitely deserves pity. Apparently He has no glory in the judgment called death (Romans 6:23). Or does his heart “break” over that which brings Him glory? Either way, such a double-minded god likewise deserves our pity.
Perhaps this is the god Norman Geisler speaks of. When asked to summarize his Christian theology of the cross, he answered, “It is better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all.”
We who suffer with Christ in the present age are the biggest losers, since in Bell’s heaven the greatest sinner is the greatest winner: he got the ‘best’ of both worlds. Obeying Christ in this life earns the title “Fool!” since alongside the martyr in heaven stands the one who martyred him. Love wins, we who love the Lord lose.
But I almost find myself led to the same pity by the last line of the review, “And no one’s heart breaks more for the lost than God’s.” Since more people die in a day than there are seconds in a day, his heart is breaking all day long - and breaking badly. He definitely deserves pity. Apparently He has no glory in the judgment called death (Romans 6:23). Or does his heart “break” over that which brings Him glory? Either way, such a double-minded god likewise deserves our pity.
Perhaps this is the god Norman Geisler speaks of. When asked to summarize his Christian theology of the cross, he answered, “It is better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all.”
I had to read this book when I discovered my son-in-law quoting from it. It has actually its way into the “Bible Studies” of some churches, and they are leading folks to actually “think outside the box” of clear, Biblical theology. My challenges to a few of Bell’s conclusions set off quite a firestorm. Clear Biblical doctrine finds no place in a great many ‘churches’ these days I’m afraid. I hope a great many people take the time to thoughtfully read your review. You hit the nail on the head!
Bro. Steve...
It is very difficult and dangerous to follow Mr.Bell flow of thoughts on the winning Love of God. Mr. Bell do you believe Jesus loved Judas till the end Jh 13:1? affirm. Than Jesus loved the one whom he called a “satan” in Jh 6: 70. The love of Jesus send him to his place(hell) Acts 1:25. So Mr. Bell you should repent of your nonsense thoughts or both the blind and the his followers will end up in what they believe in the end the Love of God wins not in ending up in heaven but in hell. Beware of such teachers who are heaping up judgment on themselves. God’s love is been hijacked by these “dogs” Phil 3:2 who distort the Highest character of God at the expanse and rejecting the other side of His Holiness, righteousness, justice.
I pray “God may perhaps grant them( Bell and all who supports such kind of distorted view about the trice Holy God whose Love is tough) repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they ( Bell and all who supports such kind of distorted view about the trice Holy God whose Love is tough)may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will” 2 Tim 2:25-26.
Philiplazar, Pastor
India.
I pray “God may perhaps grant them( Bell and all who supports such kind of distorted view about the trice Holy God whose Love is tough) repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they ( Bell and all who supports such kind of distorted view about the trice Holy God whose Love is tough)may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will” 2 Tim 2:25-26.
Philiplazar, Pastor
India.
Thanks to all who read this review and especially those who took the time to comment on it. We do indeed serve a great God who loves us more than we will ever know.
Jim Franklin
Jim Franklin
[G. N. Barkman] As a Calvinist, I can’t help but notice that Bell has taken a Calvinist argument in an opposite direction. He reasons that if God desires to save everyone, but fails to accomplish His purpose, he loses…This, of course, is the doctrine of Particular Redemption (Definite Atonement, or Limited Atonement), turned on it’s head. The correct solution is to acknowledge that God succeeds because he accomplished exactly what He intended to do, namely save His chosen people…Observation:
I have the impression it is in particular the Calvinist notion of salvation that Bell is opposing. If Greg is correct, Bell’s denial of hell presupposes that Calvinism is the message of the Bible and, although his argument is faulty, his opposition to Calvinism is understandable.
I agree that “the correct solution is to acknowledge that God succeeds because he accomplished exactly what He intended to do,” but what God intends is to save believers; it is those sinners who repent and believe that are chosen by God to be His people. At least, from my reading of the Bible, this seems to be the more Biblically correct view.
As such, I think it would be much harder for Bell to posit such an anti-scriptural position if he began on the presupposition that God’s desire is to choose believers for salvation since this more justly frames God’s revelatory character than the Calvinist premise that Bells seems to oppose.
Jim writes, “[God] is infinite in His wisdom, eternal in His being, sovereign over the Universe, both transcendent and imminent, and yet He is not limited in any way by our finite understanding of these qualities or attributes.”
I’m no scholar but it seems to me that, unless I misunderstood Jim’s point, if God’s character cannot be adequately and coherently understood, then we do not really know God. If such is the case, is it because God is not able to define Himself in terms we can understand and, therefore, fully rely on?
I owuld think God is the foundation upon which we define things like justice and mercy, and these things are seen clearly and adequately revealed in the life of his Son as he is presented to us in the Gospels and Acts and interpreted for us in the epistles. Such a limitation as Jim suggests makes God’s character, e.g. His love, justice, mercy, wrath, sort of nebulous, no? If we are unable to understand “these qualities or attributes” of God, then, it seems to me, we cannot truly understand God and his actions in human history.
I’m no scholar but it seems to me that, unless I misunderstood Jim’s point, if God’s character cannot be adequately and coherently understood, then we do not really know God. If such is the case, is it because God is not able to define Himself in terms we can understand and, therefore, fully rely on?
I owuld think God is the foundation upon which we define things like justice and mercy, and these things are seen clearly and adequately revealed in the life of his Son as he is presented to us in the Gospels and Acts and interpreted for us in the epistles. Such a limitation as Jim suggests makes God’s character, e.g. His love, justice, mercy, wrath, sort of nebulous, no? If we are unable to understand “these qualities or attributes” of God, then, it seems to me, we cannot truly understand God and his actions in human history.
Dear nbanuchi,
Of course God intends to save believers. Nobody disputes that point. But many questions now arise. Are men innately able to believe? The Bible says no. (I Cor. 2:14) So how does a fallen son of Adam, deaf, blind, dead to spiritual truth, believe? Only by the prior operation of God’s Spirit. Is God’s Spirit resisted by sinful man? Always. Men love darkness rather than light. So how is this universal sinful resistance from men overcome? By the overcoming, irresistible, gracious operation of God’s persevering Spirit. Does this operation work in all men? No, for if it did, all would believe. To whom does it come? To God’s elect, chosen before the foundation of the world. By God’s Spirit, His elect are brought to faith, and God has accomplished His purpose, namely to save believers. It can happen no other way, given the Bible’s clear teaching about the depravity and spiritual inability of fallen humanity.
God is gloriously successful because He accomplishes exactly what He intended, namely to save His elect. Christ is satisfied, because every soul for whom He died is brought to faith and ultimately to glory.
It is Universal Atonement that has serious problems, which Bell has endeavored to solve by making salvation universal. If God desires (or intends) to save all men, and if Christ died for the purpose of saving all men, God has failed unless He saves all men ultimately. That is universalism.
To say that God intends to save believers, but that Christ died to save all men without exception, is to put the Father and the Son at cross purposes. To say that the atonement is universal in its scope and intention means that God endeavored to accomplish more than He was able to accomplish, unless Bell is correct, and all men are ultimately saved.
Universal atonement has problems, both logically as well as Biblically. Bell solves the problem at the expense of God’s holiness and justice, and at the expense of the clear teaching of the Bible. Calvinists solve the problem by working through the apparent Biblical contradictions between the “all” , “every” and “world” statements in the Bible to recognize that, in spite of what may seem true on the surface, the Bible does, in fact, teach particular redemption, also known as definite atonement. Christ died to save His elect, and the Spirit of God works in the hearts of the elect to regenerate them, bring them to faith in Christ, and ultimately to glory. Mission accomplished!
Universal atonement teaches God sent Jesus to die for the salvation of all men, but only some will believe. This leaves us with a God Who has failed to accomplish what He intended to do. God appears to be disappointed and frustrated. This is not the God of the Bible, and thinking of God this way dishonors Him.
The question is, whose solution to this problem is correct, Bell’s, or the Calvinist’s? Each must study his Bible to decide. There are, it seems to me, three choices. 1) Bell’s universalism. 2) Calvin’s particular redemption. 3) The in-between, inconsistent, disappointed God.
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
Of course God intends to save believers. Nobody disputes that point. But many questions now arise. Are men innately able to believe? The Bible says no. (I Cor. 2:14) So how does a fallen son of Adam, deaf, blind, dead to spiritual truth, believe? Only by the prior operation of God’s Spirit. Is God’s Spirit resisted by sinful man? Always. Men love darkness rather than light. So how is this universal sinful resistance from men overcome? By the overcoming, irresistible, gracious operation of God’s persevering Spirit. Does this operation work in all men? No, for if it did, all would believe. To whom does it come? To God’s elect, chosen before the foundation of the world. By God’s Spirit, His elect are brought to faith, and God has accomplished His purpose, namely to save believers. It can happen no other way, given the Bible’s clear teaching about the depravity and spiritual inability of fallen humanity.
God is gloriously successful because He accomplishes exactly what He intended, namely to save His elect. Christ is satisfied, because every soul for whom He died is brought to faith and ultimately to glory.
It is Universal Atonement that has serious problems, which Bell has endeavored to solve by making salvation universal. If God desires (or intends) to save all men, and if Christ died for the purpose of saving all men, God has failed unless He saves all men ultimately. That is universalism.
To say that God intends to save believers, but that Christ died to save all men without exception, is to put the Father and the Son at cross purposes. To say that the atonement is universal in its scope and intention means that God endeavored to accomplish more than He was able to accomplish, unless Bell is correct, and all men are ultimately saved.
Universal atonement has problems, both logically as well as Biblically. Bell solves the problem at the expense of God’s holiness and justice, and at the expense of the clear teaching of the Bible. Calvinists solve the problem by working through the apparent Biblical contradictions between the “all” , “every” and “world” statements in the Bible to recognize that, in spite of what may seem true on the surface, the Bible does, in fact, teach particular redemption, also known as definite atonement. Christ died to save His elect, and the Spirit of God works in the hearts of the elect to regenerate them, bring them to faith in Christ, and ultimately to glory. Mission accomplished!
Universal atonement teaches God sent Jesus to die for the salvation of all men, but only some will believe. This leaves us with a God Who has failed to accomplish what He intended to do. God appears to be disappointed and frustrated. This is not the God of the Bible, and thinking of God this way dishonors Him.
The question is, whose solution to this problem is correct, Bell’s, or the Calvinist’s? Each must study his Bible to decide. There are, it seems to me, three choices. 1) Bell’s universalism. 2) Calvin’s particular redemption. 3) The in-between, inconsistent, disappointed God.
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
Because of the debate ignited by Rob Bell’s book, the folks who are reviving Christian History magazine have put together a booklet highlighting certain historical views of hell and who held those views. The booklet can be read online.
http://issuu.com/christianhistory/docs/history-of-hell?mode=embed&layou…] The history of Hell: A brief survey and resource guide
http://issuu.com/christianhistory/docs/history-of-hell?mode=embed&layou…] The history of Hell: A brief survey and resource guide
Barkman,
1. My main pount was this: Bell is opposing the Biblical view of hell as eternal torment on the grounds of the mistaken view of Christian salvation as taught by Calvinism.
That is, it seems to me that Bell’s book is actually objecting to Calvinism, to what he mistakenly thinks is the apostolic or early church view of Christian salvation. Rather than embrace the position that God elects specific individual to salvation and the rest God “foreordained to everlasting death”. Bell, maintaining (this mistaken view of) God’s sovereignty, decides that God chooses all - sooner or later - for salvation.
My point was not to object to Calvinism itself, but to note that Bell’s objection of hell is informed by what I believe is a faulty theological view of Christian salvation.
2. As far as your comment, “Of course God intends to save believers”, is that an accurate assessment of what Calvinism actually teaches? I realize that is what the Calvinist may claim but does that follow the logic of what Calvinism actually teaches? For example, the Westminster Confession does not state that God intends to save believers, but that he saves “some men”. Since (unless I am mistaken in my reading of the WCF 3:5), faith is not a condition of salvation but something that God chooses to give so one can be saved, would it not be more accurate to say that God intends to save those particular men whom he has chosen to save. To say God intends to save believers really, as I see it, is addressing the means, not the object: God will give them faith, make them believers (no one in reality chooses of himself to be a believer) and, thereby save them.
Or, to come to a compromise, it might be better to say that God intends to make believers out of certain men and thereby save them.
The object of salvation is certain men divinely chosen; the means is, God-given (faith in Christ); that is, God intends to save. Or, as the WCF states, “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men…are predestinated unto everlasting life”.
As such, unless I have misread or missed something in the WCF, would it not seem that your statement is inaccurate?
If I misunderstood, please accept my apology. Any clarification regarding what you mean by “God intends to save believers” is welcome.
1. My main pount was this: Bell is opposing the Biblical view of hell as eternal torment on the grounds of the mistaken view of Christian salvation as taught by Calvinism.
That is, it seems to me that Bell’s book is actually objecting to Calvinism, to what he mistakenly thinks is the apostolic or early church view of Christian salvation. Rather than embrace the position that God elects specific individual to salvation and the rest God “foreordained to everlasting death”. Bell, maintaining (this mistaken view of) God’s sovereignty, decides that God chooses all - sooner or later - for salvation.
My point was not to object to Calvinism itself, but to note that Bell’s objection of hell is informed by what I believe is a faulty theological view of Christian salvation.
2. As far as your comment, “Of course God intends to save believers”, is that an accurate assessment of what Calvinism actually teaches? I realize that is what the Calvinist may claim but does that follow the logic of what Calvinism actually teaches? For example, the Westminster Confession does not state that God intends to save believers, but that he saves “some men”. Since (unless I am mistaken in my reading of the WCF 3:5), faith is not a condition of salvation but something that God chooses to give so one can be saved, would it not be more accurate to say that God intends to save those particular men whom he has chosen to save. To say God intends to save believers really, as I see it, is addressing the means, not the object: God will give them faith, make them believers (no one in reality chooses of himself to be a believer) and, thereby save them.
Or, to come to a compromise, it might be better to say that God intends to make believers out of certain men and thereby save them.
The object of salvation is certain men divinely chosen; the means is, God-given (faith in Christ); that is, God intends to save. Or, as the WCF states, “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men…are predestinated unto everlasting life”.
As such, unless I have misread or missed something in the WCF, would it not seem that your statement is inaccurate?
If I misunderstood, please accept my apology. Any clarification regarding what you mean by “God intends to save believers” is welcome.
Thanks for the website, Brenda; much appreciated. I use to get CH mags…I luv ‘em!
Here’s the website for more information about subscribing to Christian History under its new owners/editors.
http://www.christianhistorymagazine.org/index.php/magazine/
http://www.christianhistorymagazine.org/index.php/magazine/
@nbanuchi,
It doesn’t ultimately matter much what Bell is reacting to. What he rejects is the biblical teaching regarding eternal judgment.
The only meaningful overlap is that Bell is interested in how God’s sovereignty relates to saving people. To Bell, if God is powerful enough to be sovereign (in the sense of “in control”), and is also loving, His love must “win.”
Can’t see what “Calvinism” has to do with it beyond that. It’s not like if we offered him a more free-will oriented view of salvation, he would change his mind and decide some people are ultimately doomed forever after all.
It doesn’t ultimately matter much what Bell is reacting to. What he rejects is the biblical teaching regarding eternal judgment.
The only meaningful overlap is that Bell is interested in how God’s sovereignty relates to saving people. To Bell, if God is powerful enough to be sovereign (in the sense of “in control”), and is also loving, His love must “win.”
Can’t see what “Calvinism” has to do with it beyond that. It’s not like if we offered him a more free-will oriented view of salvation, he would change his mind and decide some people are ultimately doomed forever after all.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron, I agree with your post. It hits the target perfectly.
nbanuchi, your expanded statement regarding who God intends to save, quoting from the WCF, is accurate as I understand it. Like so many doctrines, there is more than one way to state truth, each statement highlighting a different aspect, with every statement being accurate.
It is entirely correct to say that God intends to save believers. It is also correct to state that God intends to save those whom He chooses, the elect. It would also be correct to add that God will bring every elect person to faith, and justify those who believe. I’m not sure what you are objecting to.
Cordially,
Greg
nbanuchi, your expanded statement regarding who God intends to save, quoting from the WCF, is accurate as I understand it. Like so many doctrines, there is more than one way to state truth, each statement highlighting a different aspect, with every statement being accurate.
It is entirely correct to say that God intends to save believers. It is also correct to state that God intends to save those whom He chooses, the elect. It would also be correct to add that God will bring every elect person to faith, and justify those who believe. I’m not sure what you are objecting to.
Cordially,
Greg
G. N. Barkman
[Aaron Blumer] @nbanuchi,But, that may be the problem. Bell is rejecting a concept that, as far as I can understand the Bible, is not what the Bible teaches. Well, I really should read the book, so I apologize if I am responding ahead of the game. But, it seems to me from little about the book that I’ve read, Bell may be reacting to the kind of sovereignty Calvinism espouses, that is, the kind that chooses for salvation certain ones unconditionally and that does all to ensure it while choosing to damn the rest by “passing over” them; and all that are saved or damned are merely by God’s unfathomable choice - no rhyme, no reason as far as why/who (except to glorify God).
It doesn’t ultimately matter much what Bell is reacting to. What he rejects is the biblical teaching regarding eternal judgment.
The only meaningful overlap is that Bell is interested in how God’s sovereignty relates to saving people. To Bell, if God is powerful enough to be sovereign (in the sense of “in control”), and is also loving, His love must “win.”
Can’t see what “Calvinism” has to do with it beyond that. It’s not like if we offered him a more free-will oriented view of salvation, he would change his mind and decide some people are ultimately doomed forever after all.
Your right, it can be said that Bell is arguing from this premise, that “if God is powerful enough to be sovereign (in the sense of ‘in control’), and is also loving, His love must ‘win’.” And that might be Bell’s dilemma as far as Calvinism is concerned. maybe Bell is saying, “If God is so powerful as to make such unconditional choices and his love is so great as to encompass all the world, then why cannot not all be saved.” Maybe the only difference between Bell and Calvinism is not so much his sovereignty - that God is powerful enough to do all that He intends to do - but whereas Calvinism limits God’s love to the elect and, therefore, intending and, thereby, securing the salvation of only the elect; Bell includes all men as being so loved by God as to intend and secure the salvation of every person.
And, you just may be right that maybe if Bell understood that the Bible actually does teach “a more free-will oriented view of salvation”, then, “he would [correctly] change his mind and decide some people are ultimately doomed forever after all,” and be more in line with what the Bible teaches.
As such, you have just implied that the teaching of Calvinism was the catalyst that sent Bell to the extreme. It seems such a view of divine sovereignty in salvation, as Calvinism teaches, just might just provide the thinking person whose moral sensibilities are (rightly) offended by the idea that God would foreordain certain ones to everlasting damnation an avenue for espousing Univeralism.
I could be wrong as I am not a scholar, but it seems this may be the case. I’ll need to sit down and read the book to confirm my assumptions of what is informing Bell to enbrace Universalism.
[G. N. Barkman] nbanuchi, your expanded statement regarding who God intends to save, quoting from the WCF, is accurate as I understand it. Like so many doctrines, there is more than one way to state truth, each statement highlighting a different aspect, with every statement being accurate.Hi Greg, I apologize for not being clear.
It is entirely correct to say that God intends to save believers. It is also correct to state that God intends to save those whom He chooses, the elect… I’m not sure what you are objecting to.
What I am saying is the your phrase, “God intends to save believers” refers merely to the character of those who God intends to save, and not the ultimate reason why they are saved. God’s ultimately intends to save certain ones. I think it would be more accurate to say, according to Calvinism, that God intends (foreordains) to save certain ones of whom He intends to give them faith.
Salvation is not based on their faith, it is only a means to actualize the salvation of those whom are already divinely chosen before they actually actualize the gift of faith (if one takes in the notion the regeneration precedes faith…but I won’t go any further for that gets confusing!).
Is this clearer? “God intends the save those whom he has chosen to save”, I think, more accurately describes the ultimate intention Calvinism gives for God in explaining salvation.
[nbanuchi] And, you just may be right that maybe if Bell understood that the Bible actually does teach “a more free-will oriented view of salvation”, then, “he would [correctly] change his mind and decide some people are ultimately doomed forever after all,” and be more in line with what the Bible teaches.I think you missed my point there.
As such, you have just implied that the teaching of Calvinism was the catalyst that sent Bell to the extreme.
Bell is not rejecting Calvinism. He is rejecting the historic doctrine that
a. Not all people will be saved.
b. Those who are not saved suffer eternal wrath.
Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism (or its relatives) have anything to do with it.
Bell does argue partly on the basis God is sovereign and will accomplish what He wants to—but this is not Calvinism (Arminius taught this as well). So I don’t think he is even reacting to Calvinism, much less rejecting it.
It makes no difference to him whether those who believe are elect conditionally or unconditionally… his view is that they are all loved into some kind of redemption in the end.
It’s hard to see how election could really have any meaning at all in Bell’s thought.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron,
Again, I think you have analyzed this well, and stated it correctly.
nbanuchi, although it is not at all necessary that Bell’s errors are in reference to Calvinism, my original response to this article simply pointed out that Bell has taken one of the Calvinist’s arguments for “limited atonement” (or particular redemption), and turned it upside down. I did not intend to imply that I thought he was specifically responding to this doctrine of Calvinism. I only intended to show that he was dealing with the same problem, but that Bell has proposed an entirely different solution. The problem is, if Christ’s blood was shed for the purpose of paying for the sins of every individual who ever lived, and yet multitudes are not saved, doesn’t that make God a “loser”? Bell recognizes the problem. He says, No, God is not a loser. “Love wins” because ultimately, everyone is saved. If God desires to save everyone without exception, and Christ died to pay for the sins of everyone without exception, it must follow that an almighty sovereign God will ultimately save everyone. If that is what He desires, that is what He will accomplish.
I am certain that Bell could easily have recognized this problem without specifically considering the Calvinist solution. It is a problem. Calvinism has a solution. God never intended to save everyone. God intends to save a vast number of specifically chosen individuals out of the mass of fallen humanity, sent Christ to die for them, and has dispatched the Holy Spirit to bring every one of them to repentance and faith and into union with Christ. Bell’s “god” wins, but at the expense of His holiness, justice, and the clear statements of God’s intentions in the Bible. This is no solution for the serious Bible believer. Calvinism’s God wins, because He accomplishes exactly what He intended to do without failure. Not one of God’s elect will be lost. The Arminian God loses, because He desires to do more than He succeeds in doing, and because Christ paid for the sins of multitudes of sinners who are ultimately lost.
I trust this helps make my point more clear.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
Again, I think you have analyzed this well, and stated it correctly.
nbanuchi, although it is not at all necessary that Bell’s errors are in reference to Calvinism, my original response to this article simply pointed out that Bell has taken one of the Calvinist’s arguments for “limited atonement” (or particular redemption), and turned it upside down. I did not intend to imply that I thought he was specifically responding to this doctrine of Calvinism. I only intended to show that he was dealing with the same problem, but that Bell has proposed an entirely different solution. The problem is, if Christ’s blood was shed for the purpose of paying for the sins of every individual who ever lived, and yet multitudes are not saved, doesn’t that make God a “loser”? Bell recognizes the problem. He says, No, God is not a loser. “Love wins” because ultimately, everyone is saved. If God desires to save everyone without exception, and Christ died to pay for the sins of everyone without exception, it must follow that an almighty sovereign God will ultimately save everyone. If that is what He desires, that is what He will accomplish.
I am certain that Bell could easily have recognized this problem without specifically considering the Calvinist solution. It is a problem. Calvinism has a solution. God never intended to save everyone. God intends to save a vast number of specifically chosen individuals out of the mass of fallen humanity, sent Christ to die for them, and has dispatched the Holy Spirit to bring every one of them to repentance and faith and into union with Christ. Bell’s “god” wins, but at the expense of His holiness, justice, and the clear statements of God’s intentions in the Bible. This is no solution for the serious Bible believer. Calvinism’s God wins, because He accomplishes exactly what He intended to do without failure. Not one of God’s elect will be lost. The Arminian God loses, because He desires to do more than He succeeds in doing, and because Christ paid for the sins of multitudes of sinners who are ultimately lost.
I trust this helps make my point more clear.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
Without touching the Calvinism theme in this thread (Yikes, can we find some way to put CCM into it too?), I would be interested to see how this has impacted or will impact Bell’s preaching over the years.
Has anybody listened to his sermons enough to know what he does with passages like “Narrow is the way that leads to life, and few find it.” [Matthew 7:14, roughly]? Such statements by Christ provide a sharp dividing line that make Christianity far more offensive to the modern ear than people like Bell would like to make it sound.
Has anybody listened to his sermons enough to know what he does with passages like “Narrow is the way that leads to life, and few find it.” [Matthew 7:14, roughly]? Such statements by Christ provide a sharp dividing line that make Christianity far more offensive to the modern ear than people like Bell would like to make it sound.
Hi Aaron and Barkman,
Thanks for clarifying things for me and I apologize for any misunderstandings on my part.
Aaron said, “It’s hard to see how election could really have any meaning at all in Bell’s thought.” I’ll just need to read the book to see if Bell is rejecting your points “a” and “b” but specifically from from the Calvinistic perspective.
Barkman said, “I am certain that Bell could easily have recognized this problem without specifically considering the Calvinist solution. It is a problem. Calvinism has a solution. God never intended to save everyone.” Well, aside from Bell (and, as I said, I’ll need to read his book to see exactly what is informing his rejecting of eternal damnation), that “God never intended to save everyone” is, from my reading of the Bible, faulty thinking. It might be more accurate to state that God intended to save anyone who reoents and believes in the message of the Gospel. Since Christ died for the world (that is, all men) then, if all men did believe, all men would be saved. Of course, that is not the reality, that all men believe, but it is the divine intention expressed where the Bible somewhere reads something to the effect that God’s desire all men be saved, coming to the knowledge of the truth. As such, Calvinism, as I understand the Bible, is not a solution but rather further aggravates the problem.
However, that’s for another debate and I should forego any further discussion until I’ve read Bell’s book.
In any case, I appreciate the manner in which the comments were made; I realize that with me, since I am not a scholar or, at least, properly knowledgeable enough of the wider scope of pro/con arguments, more patience in responding to my comments may be required and I do appreciate it. Thanks, again, guys.
Thanks for clarifying things for me and I apologize for any misunderstandings on my part.
Aaron said, “It’s hard to see how election could really have any meaning at all in Bell’s thought.” I’ll just need to read the book to see if Bell is rejecting your points “a” and “b” but specifically from from the Calvinistic perspective.
Barkman said, “I am certain that Bell could easily have recognized this problem without specifically considering the Calvinist solution. It is a problem. Calvinism has a solution. God never intended to save everyone.” Well, aside from Bell (and, as I said, I’ll need to read his book to see exactly what is informing his rejecting of eternal damnation), that “God never intended to save everyone” is, from my reading of the Bible, faulty thinking. It might be more accurate to state that God intended to save anyone who reoents and believes in the message of the Gospel. Since Christ died for the world (that is, all men) then, if all men did believe, all men would be saved. Of course, that is not the reality, that all men believe, but it is the divine intention expressed where the Bible somewhere reads something to the effect that God’s desire all men be saved, coming to the knowledge of the truth. As such, Calvinism, as I understand the Bible, is not a solution but rather further aggravates the problem.
However, that’s for another debate and I should forego any further discussion until I’ve read Bell’s book.
In any case, I appreciate the manner in which the comments were made; I realize that with me, since I am not a scholar or, at least, properly knowledgeable enough of the wider scope of pro/con arguments, more patience in responding to my comments may be required and I do appreciate it. Thanks, again, guys.
Yes, another debate entirely…. the “what God ever intended” debate.
There’s something I’d really like to say about that specifically but it doesn’t really belong here so… (and it’s not like thousands of people haven’t already said it over the millennia :) )
There’s something I’d really like to say about that specifically but it doesn’t really belong here so… (and it’s not like thousands of people haven’t already said it over the millennia :) )
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Hi folks,
Just thought this article might be interesting and worth a read:
http://www.patheos.com/community/rogereolson/2010/12/10/calvinism-leads…
Just thought this article might be interesting and worth a read:
http://www.patheos.com/community/rogereolson/2010/12/10/calvinism-leads…
Dear nbanuchi,
By the reasoning of that article, Calvinism may lead to virtually anything! There is nothing remotely Calvinistic about the theologies of the men he references, nor does the author himself show much understanding of Calvinism. One reason Calvinism cannot lead to Universalism is because Calvinism is first and foremost Biblical. It does not, may not, and cannot reason its way to conclusions that are contrary to Biblical teaching. However, I am accustomed to Calvinism being blamed for nearly everything that’s bad, so why not throw Universalism into the mix? :)
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
By the reasoning of that article, Calvinism may lead to virtually anything! There is nothing remotely Calvinistic about the theologies of the men he references, nor does the author himself show much understanding of Calvinism. One reason Calvinism cannot lead to Universalism is because Calvinism is first and foremost Biblical. It does not, may not, and cannot reason its way to conclusions that are contrary to Biblical teaching. However, I am accustomed to Calvinism being blamed for nearly everything that’s bad, so why not throw Universalism into the mix? :)
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman] One reason Calvinism cannot lead to Universalism is because Calvinism is first and foremost Biblical. It does not, may not, and cannot reason its way to conclusions that are contrary to Biblical teaching. However, I am accustomed to Calvinism being blamed for nearly everything that’s bad, so why not throw Universalism into the mix? :)C’mon, Greg, you basically said unlimited atonement can (should?) lead to universalism, so don’t be surprised if someone says the same thing about Calvinism. And your reasoning that Calvinism can’t lead to universalism is “because Calvinism is first and foremost biblical”…well as a four-point Calvinist I could say the same thing about unlimited atonement: Unlimited atonement can’t lead to universalism because unlimited atonement is first and foremost biblical.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
Hello Barkman, re: your comments on #27, note the following:
1. The author stated that Calvinism does not lead inevitably to Universalism but that scholars who leaned into Calvinism did end up as Universalist, a choice that is the logical step in rejecting unconditional election/reprobation.
2. The author did admit that his examples would be rejected by Calvinist as Calvinist but that they espoused “strong Calvinist principles”.
3. I don’t know if one’s notion that “Calvinism is first and foremost Biblical”, etc., is necessarily a guarantee against being led into error or else no Calvinist would ever have fallen into it, which is historically not the case (or is it?); at the moment, I’m thinking of Harold Camping. Respectfully, it seems to me that this objection is trivial and not at all warranted; it is merely personal opinion.
4. I may have misunderstood the article but I think the author’s point is that the only way to get away from the Calvinisticl teaching of unconditional election, and all that it entails respecting the foreordination of certain one’s to hell, without sacrificing God’s absolute sovereignty, is to posit Universalism.
Unless one seeks to maintain God’s unconditional election to damnation of certain individuals, Universalism is the logical next step (I am aware that some Calvinists deny “double predestination” but if God deliberately and freely “passed over” certain one’s for no reason than it was the “good pleasure of His will”, such a denial is doublespeak): “Barth saw rightly that the inner logic of Calvinism must lead to unversalism IF it takes seriously love as God’s nature.”
5. I do not see how unlimited atonement can lead to Universalism when coupled with libertarian free will as the condition on man’s part for it’s actualization (unlike Calvinism, this does not deny the premise that God intends to save believers, but confirms it). The denial of free will and the thought that “faith” is something given an lead some one to accept Univeralism; for if God can do it for the “few”, will not love compel him to do so for “all”?
1. The author stated that Calvinism does not lead inevitably to Universalism but that scholars who leaned into Calvinism did end up as Universalist, a choice that is the logical step in rejecting unconditional election/reprobation.
2. The author did admit that his examples would be rejected by Calvinist as Calvinist but that they espoused “strong Calvinist principles”.
3. I don’t know if one’s notion that “Calvinism is first and foremost Biblical”, etc., is necessarily a guarantee against being led into error or else no Calvinist would ever have fallen into it, which is historically not the case (or is it?); at the moment, I’m thinking of Harold Camping. Respectfully, it seems to me that this objection is trivial and not at all warranted; it is merely personal opinion.
4. I may have misunderstood the article but I think the author’s point is that the only way to get away from the Calvinisticl teaching of unconditional election, and all that it entails respecting the foreordination of certain one’s to hell, without sacrificing God’s absolute sovereignty, is to posit Universalism.
Unless one seeks to maintain God’s unconditional election to damnation of certain individuals, Universalism is the logical next step (I am aware that some Calvinists deny “double predestination” but if God deliberately and freely “passed over” certain one’s for no reason than it was the “good pleasure of His will”, such a denial is doublespeak): “Barth saw rightly that the inner logic of Calvinism must lead to unversalism IF it takes seriously love as God’s nature.”
5. I do not see how unlimited atonement can lead to Universalism when coupled with libertarian free will as the condition on man’s part for it’s actualization (unlike Calvinism, this does not deny the premise that God intends to save believers, but confirms it). The denial of free will and the thought that “faith” is something given an lead some one to accept Univeralism; for if God can do it for the “few”, will not love compel him to do so for “all”?
nbanuchi,
I understand what you are saying. (At least I think I do. If I have missed it, feel free to help me better understand.)
You may well be correct that a rejection of Definite Atonement leads logically to Universalism. That was your argument regarding Bell’s Universalism, though I have seen no evidence that he was ever a Calvinist, nor that he was responding to the doctrine of Definite Atonement. However, he did take one of the logical arguments supporting Definite Atonement (Particular Redemption, or Limited Atonement), and turn it completely around. My contention from the beginning has been that if one rejects Definite Atonement, Universalism is the most logical position, since the doctrine of Universal Atonement undermines the sovereignty of God to accomplish what He purposes to do. Either God succeeds by saving everyone (“Love wins” since God desires to save everyone), or God succeeds by accomplishing His intended purpose to save His elect. To posit God desiring to save everyone, but only succeeding in saving some means that God “loses.”
But to say that Universalism is the logical result of Calvinism is, again, to turn logic upside down. What you may legitimately conclude is that those who REJECT Calvinism (specifically Definite Atonement) are driven, logically, to Universalism. It is no doubt true that some with a background of Calvinism have done exactly that, as the cited article contends. But that doesn’t demonstrate that Calvinism leads to such a conclusion. It demonstrates two things: 1) that those who understand the problem of God failing to accomplish what He desires, and who are unwilling to accept the Calvinist solution of Definite Atonement, are driven to Universalism as the only acceptable solution, and 2) that those who accept Universalism as an acceptable solution must first abandon the Calvinist solution. In other words, some Universalists may have been brought up within Calvinism, or influenced by Calvinistic thought, but they have to reject Calvinism, at least in part, in order to become Universalists.
Maybe what you are observing is this, namely that those who believe in Universal Redemption but reject Universalism, are very inconsistent, but less likely to see their inconsistency if they have never had a serious exposure to Calvinism. Calvinistic thought clarifies the necessity of the doctrines of election and definite atonement to preserve God’s sovereignty, His certainty to succeed in everything He intends to do. In that sense, it may lead to Universalism, but only when Calvinism is first rejected. My contention is that is it impossible to be a Calvinist, in any meaningful sense of the word, and a Universalist at the same time, because the Bible is too clear about the eternal punishment of unbelievers. The doctrine of damnation forces one to believe in “free will”, which absolves God of responsibility for the damnation of sinners, but at the expense of His sovereignty, or else acknowledge that God is glorified in the damnation of sinners (which demonstrates His holiness and justice) as much as in the salvation of sinners (demonstrating His love and mercy).
I would be very reluctant to accuse God of being a “moral monster” (or similar language) to prop up one’s doctrine of Universal Redemption. Such language reveals a lower view of the enormity of sin against the holy Creator than the Bible teaches. In truth, the only way to completely escape such a charge is to resort to Universalism, since even Arminians concede that God could prevent sinners from going to Hell by, for example, ending their lives prematurely. If He allows them to proceed to eternal damnation, how does “free will” absolve God from all responsibility? If He could have prevented it, but chooses not to, He is, in some way, at least partly responsible for their damnation. The Arminian “solution” turns out to be unsatisfactory after all. That leaves two choices: either Universalism, or election. Either God’s love prevents Him from allowing anyone to go to Hell, or God’s justice demands that some be allowed to go.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
I understand what you are saying. (At least I think I do. If I have missed it, feel free to help me better understand.)
You may well be correct that a rejection of Definite Atonement leads logically to Universalism. That was your argument regarding Bell’s Universalism, though I have seen no evidence that he was ever a Calvinist, nor that he was responding to the doctrine of Definite Atonement. However, he did take one of the logical arguments supporting Definite Atonement (Particular Redemption, or Limited Atonement), and turn it completely around. My contention from the beginning has been that if one rejects Definite Atonement, Universalism is the most logical position, since the doctrine of Universal Atonement undermines the sovereignty of God to accomplish what He purposes to do. Either God succeeds by saving everyone (“Love wins” since God desires to save everyone), or God succeeds by accomplishing His intended purpose to save His elect. To posit God desiring to save everyone, but only succeeding in saving some means that God “loses.”
But to say that Universalism is the logical result of Calvinism is, again, to turn logic upside down. What you may legitimately conclude is that those who REJECT Calvinism (specifically Definite Atonement) are driven, logically, to Universalism. It is no doubt true that some with a background of Calvinism have done exactly that, as the cited article contends. But that doesn’t demonstrate that Calvinism leads to such a conclusion. It demonstrates two things: 1) that those who understand the problem of God failing to accomplish what He desires, and who are unwilling to accept the Calvinist solution of Definite Atonement, are driven to Universalism as the only acceptable solution, and 2) that those who accept Universalism as an acceptable solution must first abandon the Calvinist solution. In other words, some Universalists may have been brought up within Calvinism, or influenced by Calvinistic thought, but they have to reject Calvinism, at least in part, in order to become Universalists.
Maybe what you are observing is this, namely that those who believe in Universal Redemption but reject Universalism, are very inconsistent, but less likely to see their inconsistency if they have never had a serious exposure to Calvinism. Calvinistic thought clarifies the necessity of the doctrines of election and definite atonement to preserve God’s sovereignty, His certainty to succeed in everything He intends to do. In that sense, it may lead to Universalism, but only when Calvinism is first rejected. My contention is that is it impossible to be a Calvinist, in any meaningful sense of the word, and a Universalist at the same time, because the Bible is too clear about the eternal punishment of unbelievers. The doctrine of damnation forces one to believe in “free will”, which absolves God of responsibility for the damnation of sinners, but at the expense of His sovereignty, or else acknowledge that God is glorified in the damnation of sinners (which demonstrates His holiness and justice) as much as in the salvation of sinners (demonstrating His love and mercy).
I would be very reluctant to accuse God of being a “moral monster” (or similar language) to prop up one’s doctrine of Universal Redemption. Such language reveals a lower view of the enormity of sin against the holy Creator than the Bible teaches. In truth, the only way to completely escape such a charge is to resort to Universalism, since even Arminians concede that God could prevent sinners from going to Hell by, for example, ending their lives prematurely. If He allows them to proceed to eternal damnation, how does “free will” absolve God from all responsibility? If He could have prevented it, but chooses not to, He is, in some way, at least partly responsible for their damnation. The Arminian “solution” turns out to be unsatisfactory after all. That leaves two choices: either Universalism, or election. Either God’s love prevents Him from allowing anyone to go to Hell, or God’s justice demands that some be allowed to go.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
I’m probably spelling it wrong, but there’s an old logical fallacy called something like post hoc ergo propter hoc. It means basically “It happened after so it must have been caused by.”
I usually just call it a causation fallacy.
Of course, if something comes after something else the earlier thing might be the cause of the later thing. But the sequence doesn’t prove the causal relationship.
I usually just call it a causation fallacy.
Of course, if something comes after something else the earlier thing might be the cause of the later thing. But the sequence doesn’t prove the causal relationship.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[nbanuchi] 5. I do not see how unlimited atonement can lead to Universalism when coupled with libertarian free will as the condition on man’s part for it’s actualization (unlike Calvinism, this does not deny the premise that God intends to save believers, but confirms it).Calvinism “does not deny the premise that God intends to save believers”! Calvinism affirms that God intends to save believers.
All who are hungry and thirsty (John 6:35) may come, whoever believes will have everlasting life (John 3:16).
Calvinism insists that man in his natural state (unregenerate) does not recognize that he is hungry and thirsty, nor is he willing to come. Something must happen to cause man to recognize hunger and thirst, and to make man willing. Call it whatever you want, but most frequently Calvinists refer to that as regeneration. However, we do not treat the words regeneration and salvation as synonymous. There is already a discussion of http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-regeneration-precedes-faith] the regeneration issue , so won’t belabor it in this thread.
There is a http://20.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=6649] closed thread , as well as an http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-free-will-redux] open thread on the subject of Free Will.
[nbanuchi] The denial of free will and the thought that “faith” is something given an lead some one to accept Univeralism; for if God can do it for the “few”, will not love compel him to do so for “all”?You seem to be conflating monergism and synergism here.
I affirm that faith is a gift from God, given only to the elect, while at the same time denying universalism.
Monergistic Calvinism affirms that God’s love for his elect is different than his love for the non-elect. The view also affirms that God is not obligated (compelled) to offer mercy and grace to any man, so the fact that he offers it to some and not others is not unfair.
Upon reading the OT one can easily see that God’s affection for the childrewn of Israel is significantly different than any affection he shows for the other nations. Look at Egypt, Jericho, and all of the “ites” peoples, and it is evident that God’s unconditional love for Israel is different. It is the synergist that insists on God being fair, that He must love “all” in the same manner.
In Romans 9:18-21 Paul answers the question of fairness.
[NKJV] 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
[nbanuchi] 4. I may have misunderstood the article but I think the author’s point is that the only way to get away from the Calvinisticl teaching of unconditional election, and all that it entails respecting the foreordination of certain one’s to hell, without sacrificing God’s absolute sovereignty, is to posit Universalism.Notice in the http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html Canons of Dort, 1st Main Point of Doctrine , that God is active in election, but is passive in reprobation
Article 1: God’s Right to Condemn All People
Since all people have sinned in Adam and have come under the sentence of the curse and eternal death, God would have done no one an injustice if it had been his will to leave the entire human race in sin and under the curse, and to condemn them on account of their sin. As the apostle says: The whole world is liable to the condemnation of God (Rom. 3:19), All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), and The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23).
Article 6: God’s Eternal Decision
The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decision. For all his works are known to God from eternity (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:11). In accordance with this decision he graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of his chosen ones and inclines them to believe, but by his just judgment he leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen. And in this especially is disclosed to us his act—unfathomable, and as merciful as it is just—of distinguishing between people equally lost. This is the well-known decision of election and reprobation revealed in God’s Word. This decision the wicked, impure, and unstable distort to their own ruin, but it provides holy and godly souls with comfort beyond words.
Article 15: Reprobation
Moreover, Holy Scripture most especially highlights this eternal and undeserved grace of our election and brings it out more clearly for us, in that it further bears witness that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God’s eternal election— those, that is, concerning whom God, on the basis of his entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure, made the following decision: to leave them in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves; not to grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but finally to condemn and eternally punish them (having been left in their own ways and under his just judgment), not only for their unbelief but also for all their other sins, in order to display his justice. And this is the decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[G. N. Barkman] The Arminian “solution” turns out to be unsatisfactory after all.I just read this online; it was one of the replies in a forum discussion on Calvinism and God’s love:
Calvinism and Arminianism “don’t have the same ultimate problem. Yes in Calvinism and Arminianism some folks will go to hell. The difference though is the Arminians believe those that go to hell do so of their own free will. Calvinisms God purposefully chose who would go to hell, determined who would go to hell, chose not to draw or woo them, and is happy they are in hell. The Arminians view of God is that while some will end up in hell, God will woo them, draw them, and hurt for them… not feel pleasure in their burning in hell forever. The Arminian God desires that all be saved (and hence avoid Hell) while the Calvinist God enjoys sending folks to hell. The in essence, Arminians believe folks will suffer in hell because of their rejection of Christ, while Calvinists believe they will suffer in hell forever because of God’s choice and good pleasure (… yes they might say those in hell chose to be there, but is a choice a choice if there is not an alternative and God purposefully works and determines who will go there?).”
See: http://randalrauser.com/2011/07/calvinism-preaches-a-god-of-love-and-ye…
Thought it might relate’ If it does not, I apologize for taking your time.
[nbanuchi]I have followed this thread with some interest and am not directing these comments to anyone other than the original author of this quote - randalrauser.com. This is a misstatement of Calvinism. I speak of the statement[G. N. Barkman] The Arminian “solution” turns out to be unsatisfactory after all.I just read this online; it was one of the replies in a forum discussion on Calvinism and God’s love:
Calvinism and Arminianism “don’t have the same ultimate problem. Yes in Calvinism and Arminianism some folks will go to hell. The difference though is the Arminians believe those that go to hell do so of their own free will. Calvinisms God purposefully chose who would go to hell, determined who would go to hell, chose not to draw or woo them, and is happy they are in hell. The Arminians view of God is that while some will end up in hell, God will woo them, draw them, and hurt for them… not feel pleasure in their burning in hell forever. The Arminian God desires that all be saved (and hence avoid Hell) while the Calvinist God enjoys sending folks to hell. The in essence, Arminians believe folks will suffer in hell because of their rejection of Christ, while Calvinists believe they will suffer in hell forever because of God’s choice and good pleasure (… yes they might say those in hell chose to be there, but is a choice a choice if there is not an alternative and God purposefully works and determines who will go there?).”
See: http://randalrauser.com/2011/07/calvinism-preaches-a-god-of-love-and-ye…
Thought it might relate’ If it does not, I apologize for taking your time.
“God chose those who would go to hell.”While it is semantically true, it is a twisted version of truth. God chose who He would redeem. However, everyone who ends up in hell is there because they chose to be there while rejecting God. God does not force anyone to reject Him against their will. Every person gets exactly what they want. Nor does the Calvinist believe God finds pleasure in condemning sinners to hell. This is a false dichotomy between the two systems. This is the subtle line dividing those who disagree about double predestination - subtle but distinct.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Hi Chip,
I don’t understand what you mean regarding Rauser’s comment that “God chose those who would go to hell”, which you say, “While it is semantically true, it is a twisted version of truth.”
If the meaning of what is stated is true (is this what you mean by semantics?), then how is it, at the same time, false (for a statement to be “a twisted version of truth” is false). What am I missing here?
Please explain. Thank you.
I don’t understand what you mean regarding Rauser’s comment that “God chose those who would go to hell”, which you say, “While it is semantically true, it is a twisted version of truth.”
If the meaning of what is stated is true (is this what you mean by semantics?), then how is it, at the same time, false (for a statement to be “a twisted version of truth” is false). What am I missing here?
Please explain. Thank you.
[Aaron Blumer]…there’s an old logical fallacy called something like post hoc ergo propter hoc. It means basically “It happened after so it must have been caused by.” I usually just call it a causation fallacy. Of course, if something comes after something else the earlier thing might be the cause of the later thing. But the sequence doesn’t prove the causal relationship.Hi Aaron,
I don’t think I’m making that mistake. I did not say Calvinism necessarily leads to Univeralism but only that (in a logical sequence), the rejection, or rather, a refutation of Calvinism may lead to Universalism. I may not have been clear, so please accept my apologies.
Hello again nbanuchi,
If the proposition is “may”, not “necessarily”, your assertion loses much of its force. The very same statement could be made equally for Arminianism, which “may” also lead to universalism. In fact, the the example before us would point in that direction. Bell is no Calvinist. His theology leans more toward Arminianism. Hence, his move to Universalism demonstrates that Arminianism may lead to universalism.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
If the proposition is “may”, not “necessarily”, your assertion loses much of its force. The very same statement could be made equally for Arminianism, which “may” also lead to universalism. In fact, the the example before us would point in that direction. Bell is no Calvinist. His theology leans more toward Arminianism. Hence, his move to Universalism demonstrates that Arminianism may lead to universalism.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
The problem is how to ascribe absolute sovereignty to God, and not assert that He chooses men for Hell. In some ways, this really is a matter of semantics. Does God “choose” men for Hell? Yes and No. It all depends.
Most Calvinists believe that in election, God viewed man as already fallen. In that condition, God chose to rescue some from Hell, and allow others to proceed to their own chosen fate. Is God obligated to rescue all if He rescues some? No. Study Christ’s parable of the Laborers in Matthew 20:1-16. “Is your eye envious because I am generous?” (15b) God is under no obligation to rescue any. He allowed ALL the fallen angels to remain under condemnation without providing salvation for any. He could justly do the same for fallen humanity.
All men were already on the way to Hell. God chose to rescue some. Those He rescued were given new desires. Hence, everyone gets exactly what he chose in the end. Unbelieving sinners receive exactly what they choose. The elect receive what they choose. God receives what He chose. What could be more “fair” than that?
Did God, therefore, “choose” some for Hell? Only in the sense that He chose not to rescue them. The “choosing” of the elect is not an exact parallel to passing over the non-elect. God determined to leave some to their own sinful choices, and to rescue some out of their self chosen misery by providing them with a Savior, and giving them new desires.
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
Most Calvinists believe that in election, God viewed man as already fallen. In that condition, God chose to rescue some from Hell, and allow others to proceed to their own chosen fate. Is God obligated to rescue all if He rescues some? No. Study Christ’s parable of the Laborers in Matthew 20:1-16. “Is your eye envious because I am generous?” (15b) God is under no obligation to rescue any. He allowed ALL the fallen angels to remain under condemnation without providing salvation for any. He could justly do the same for fallen humanity.
All men were already on the way to Hell. God chose to rescue some. Those He rescued were given new desires. Hence, everyone gets exactly what he chose in the end. Unbelieving sinners receive exactly what they choose. The elect receive what they choose. God receives what He chose. What could be more “fair” than that?
Did God, therefore, “choose” some for Hell? Only in the sense that He chose not to rescue them. The “choosing” of the elect is not an exact parallel to passing over the non-elect. God determined to leave some to their own sinful choices, and to rescue some out of their self chosen misery by providing them with a Savior, and giving them new desires.
Warm regards,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman] Hello again nbanuchi, If the proposition is “may”, not “necessarily”, your assertion loses much of its force….I understand that my assertion loses much of it’s force; I was only attempting to suggest that’s where Bells’ book can be coming from. Well, I’ll just need to read the book. I appreciate your comments.
[Barkman] The problem is how to ascribe absolute sovereignty to God, and not assert that He chooses men for Hell. In some ways, this really is a matter of semantics. Does God “choose” men for Hell? Yes and No. It all depends.I must respectfully submit that it seems to me your comments seem to engage in double-talk.
It must be semantics - and not a matter of what the Bible clearly and forthrightly reveals respecting man’s salvation - for the Calvinists because only by making qualifying statements (“Yes and no. It all depends”) and changing the meanings of words and terms can the Calvinist arrive at conclusions that [I] appear[/I] Biblical and logical but are really unwarranted by Scripture and absurd.
I mean no offense.
[Barkman] Most Calvinists believe that in election, God viewed man as already fallen. In that condition, God chose to rescue some from Hell, and allow others to proceed to their own chosen fate.First of all, it seems there is an attempt here to cast God as active in the eternal fate of the elect and passive in the damnation of the non-elect. That’s not an accurate portrayal as far as what I read in the Bible (Matt 5:29-30; 8:12; 25:30; Rev 14:19; 20:14-15).
According to Calvinist teaching, it seems to me, the non-elect do not “proceed to their own chosen fate” but to that fate chosen for them by divine decree (cf. WCF 3:3-4); and as God preordained to save men (WCF 3:5-6), in what can only be opposite-like manner He chose to damn others (WCF 3:7).
However, even the WCF seems to engage in much double-talk when, on the one hand it states, “[I] By the decree[/I] of God…others (He) foreordained to everlasting death,” yet, on the other hand it reads, “to ordain them to…wrath [I] for their sin[/I].”
What you say may be what Calvinists believe but, from my perspective, such assertions demonstrate double-talk.
Another example of double-talk in the WCF is found in 3:1, where it states, on the one hand that God “ordain(s) whatsoever comes to pass,” yet, right afterwards, on the other hand, it reads, “so as God is not the author of sin.”
If God ordains all things, especially in light of the Calvinistic notion of divine providence (5:1), how can God not be the author of sin? To say it is a “mystery” is escapism and the acknowlegement that one does not know the answer.
In the second place, to say God “allows” the eternal damnation of the non-elect is misleading and, as far as I can see, an attempt to obscure or escape the hard and what others may see as offensive conclusion of Calvinistic teaching.
God’s decree of foreordination to heaven/hell was made before man was created, as believed by some Calvinists, therefore, anything man did was not contemplated in the divine choice. As other Calvinists are Infralapsarianism, they still have to deal with the fact that God makes choices based only upon His good pleasure and secret counsel (any other reason would be speculation). Both views demonstrate the divine choice as the first, ultimate, and arbitrary cause; it has no relation whatsoever to either what the non-elect or elect have/have not done (i.e. the divine choice had nothing to do regarding what was “just” or “fair” but only what was the mere “good pleasure” of God; what someone else described as what “makes God happy”).
[Barkman] Is God obligated to rescue all if He rescues some? No. Study Christ’s parable of the Laborers in Matthew 20:1-16. “Is your eye envious because I am generous?” (15b) God is under no obligation to rescue any.First of all, it looks to me, as I read the text, that you are taking Matt 20:1-16 totally out of context. It is a parable about the kingdom of heaven and has specific reference to the believer, not the unbeliever. “(T)he story is purposely molded as to reflect what occurs in God’s rule of grace” (Lenski).
Second, God is obligating himself to what was agreed upon between him and the early workers and granting, as an obligation, the same to the late-comers. Whether coming early or late, all are recepients of what agreed upon as promised under conditions clearly stated.
The issue is not rescuing from hell, but the equality all men have under the rule of the heavenly kingdom now and upon its actualization and, therefore, the equal mercy that will be bestowed on each for their labors within the kingdom.
In vs.16 (cp.19:30), the warning is to those who seek to enter the kingdom merely on the basis of having worked for it and who despise those who they view as not having sufficiently earned entrance. It is not about who God is obligated or not obligated to save; it is not so much the idea of a divine election that is the emphasis of the parable, but of divine grace.
As far as your assertion that God is not obligated to save all men, however, neither will He “rightfully do with them whatever His inifinite and absolute power could do with them” (Arminius); or, as I have said it, God will not do to men what can be imagined of a God possessing inifinte and absolute power could do.
[Barkman] He allowed ALL the fallen angels to remain under condemnation without providing salvation for any. He could justly do the same for fallen humanity.Yes, God could justly keep mankind under damnation, however, one cannot view God to be just in choosing damnation for some men (while saving others) “as he pleases” without any consideration of their unbelief, wicked works, or their perseverance in them. In affirming so, one may retain the idea of God’s absolue power, but he would deny any reasonable idea of divine justice.
I must repeat that the use of “allow” is self-contradictory when it is stated that God “ordain(s) whatsoever comes to pass,” especially when coupled with the notion of his providence as explained in the WCF 5:1 (cp. 3:1).
[Barkman] All men were already on the way to Hell.This is what the Calvinist asserts but it is not an accurate reflection of what I see as taught by Calvinism, especially if the decree to save some and damn others is made before each man was created. As such, the elect were never “already on the way to Hell”; only the non-elect are. The elect were always “from all eternity” already on their way to heaven.
To be continued…
[Barkman] God chose to rescue some. Those He rescued were given new desires. Hence, everyone gets exactly what he chose in the end. Unbelieving sinners receive exactly what they choose. The elect receive what they choose. God receives what He chose. What could be more “fair” than that?This also is a clear example of Calvinistic double-talk.
God’s choice to save had nothing to do with what the saved did; nothing at all (WCF 3:2,5). God made the choice to save certain for reasons unknown except that it was the “good pleasure of His will.” Therefore, for someone to say that the “non-elect” or the “elect receive what they choose” is asserting a wisdom that God had not revealed to anyone else and ascribing to man a part in his own salvation.
As far as what Calvinism teaches, if one is to follow the logic, neither the “elect” nor the “elect receive what they choose” but each receives what God has foreordained by decree and thus chose for them to receive.
[Barkman] Did God, therefore, “choose” some for Hell? Only in the sense that He chose not to rescue them. The “choosing” of the elect is not an exact parallel to passing over the non-elect. God determined to leave some to their own sinful choices, and to rescue some out of their self chosen misery by providing them with a Savior, and giving them new desires.Again, it seems you are engaging in double-talk here.
“Only in a sense”? That looks to me like an attempt to redefine phrases and meanings; to skirt the logical conclusion of an absolute sovereignty that decrees and foreordains all things “from all eternity”.
God was not passive, as you seem to make Him, in the eternal damnation of the “non-elect”, as I showed before.
First if “God from all eternity…ordain(s) whatsoever comes to pass”, then He ordained “from all eternity” the damnation of certain ones and, being “from all eternity” past, it had nothing whatsoever to do with deserts or fairness) but only, as the WCF asserts, the divine “good pleasure”.
Second, God provided only the “elect” with a Savior and “fore-ordained all the means” to effect their salvation. Therefore, having from all eternity damned the non-elect, God also foreordained every and all means whereby the non-elect may never procure salvation and assured their damnation in no uncertain terms.
No man is getting what he deserves; all men are receiving what God has chosen for them…period.
As such, to say God “allowed” or “passed over” does not nullify God’s activity in casting those whom He has foreordained by divine fiat from all eternity and before their creation into an eternal damnation on the mere basis of a divine pleasure. It’s not like they slipped and fell on their own accord accidently into hell. To not choose is to choose. God chose men for damnation. How one escapes that logical step in Calvinistic thought and denies it may be creative but it is still, at least from where I sit, double-talk.
Please do not take my responses as hostile. I am not a scholar and have come to an understanding of the Bible through personal study. My objections are not meant as a personal attack against anyone’s person but only as objections (however poorly made) to what Calvinism teaches and towards what I see as the double-talk engaged in to sustain it’s tenets. I am only so surprised that such forms of double-talk are not only engaged in but unrealized by those who form such arguments in defense of Calvinism.
I have experienced Calvinism to have confusing and self-contradictory views of the Gospel message.
I appreciate everyone’s responses and the patience taken to read my postings.
[Barkman] God chose to rescue some. Those He rescued were given new desires. Hence, everyone gets exactly what he chose in the end. Unbelieving sinners receive exactly what they choose. The elect receive what they choose. God receives what He chose. What could be more “fair” than that?I just noticed this comment again and wanted to make a few observations.
1. I’m amazed how one can miss the double-talk here. Here we have, on the one hand, the assertion that “God chose to rescue some”, and then, on the other hand, “sinners receive exactly what they choose.” Each cancels out the other and renders both assertions meaningless.
2. Unless what is meant is that those whom God choose for salvation, He gave the ability - new desires - that resulted in their acquiesence to God’s saving work; while, to those whom God decided to reject, he gave refused to grant them such an ability. Howevever, that contradicts the assertion that each “everyone gets exactly what he chose”. The elect did not get what they choose; they received the ability to choose what they could not choose and, thereby, were “re-wired” to go along with God’s plan for them; they could not choos otherwise. So, for the saved, again, they essentially God, not what they had chosen, but what God had chosen for them. The non-elect did not get to choose one way or the other since (a) God had already chosen their end “from all eternity”, and (b) God had wired them to choose according to what He had chosen for them, that is, damnation.
3. This is the point at which can be led to Univeralism because if God can “chose to rescue some” and “given new desires” to them, the question may be legitimately asked, why not for all, especially if God is love and powerful enough to choose all for salvation? Why not? Because the only way God can properly demonstrate His glory and justice is by the eternal torment of some (if not many)? If that is the case, one may just be forced to re-think just what is the nature of this “wise”, “omnipotent,” and “loving” God he seeks to believe in.
[Quote=Chip] While [“God chose those who would go to hell”] is semantically true, it is a twisted version of truth. God chose who He would redeem. However, everyone who ends up in hell is there because they chose to be there while rejecting God. God does not force anyone to reject Him against their will. Every person gets exactly what they want. Nor does the Calvinist believe God finds pleasure in condemning sinners to hell. This is a false dichotomy between the two systems. This is the subtle line dividing those who disagree about double predestination - subtle but distinct. Although I’ve not received an answer to my question from you, nevertheless, allow me to respond.
Unfortunately, Chip, the assertions you make seem to engage in double-talk. This statement alone is a clear example of double-talk: “God chose who He would redeem. However, everyone who ends up in hell is there because they chose to be there while rejecting God.”
1. It is a self-contradiction to assert that God chooses those who go to hell and, at the same time, that those who go to hell choose it for themselves; each statement cancels out the other and, thereby, ends in a meaningless assertion.
2.If the condemnation of “some men” is according to the divine “good pleasure” (as insisted in the WCF), then God is pleased (happy, glad, gratified, contented) to damn “some men” to eternal damnation. The logic is warranted regardless of any denials to the contrary.
3. Maybe it can be said that God “does not force anyone to reject Him against their will” but that is only because, having elected “from all eternity some men” to eternal damnation, God has decreed to withhold the grace and faith necessary for their salvation through the governing of their rebellious actions “from the least even to the greatest” in order that their condemnation would “come to pass immutably and infallibly” (WCF 5:1-4).
In another place, Calvinism teaches that certain men were created expressly for eternal damnation. Being created for such, there is no need for God to “force” their rejection of Him; they were created to do so. Simply put, none are forced to reject God because it has already been hardwired in them to do so. No one forces a computer to go off or on; it’s made to do so. No one forces a dog to bark; they are made to do so.
4. To say that God acts in choosing some for salvation but stand passive – “passing over”; “leaving” – the rest for damnation is positing a double-predestination. Denial, however creative, to the contrary is merely double-talk. By the [I] act[/I] of not choosing, God choose.
Standing in line to be picked on a team to play stickball, if the captain of one team “passes me over”, then [I] he[/I] made the choice that I not play on his team. Someone asks me, “Why aren’t you playing in that team?” Would I be telling the truth if I answered, “[I] I[/I] chose not to be in that team”?
Respectfully, the only subtlety I can see here is the manner is which double-talk is used to sustain untenable and unbiblical propositions.
Please note that nothing here stated is intended as an attack against or an insult to anyone’s person. If some points are taken as offensive, please accept my apology and give allowances for my lack of education and experience in forming thoughts objectively.
Unfortunately, Chip, the assertions you make seem to engage in double-talk. This statement alone is a clear example of double-talk: “God chose who He would redeem. However, everyone who ends up in hell is there because they chose to be there while rejecting God.”
1. It is a self-contradiction to assert that God chooses those who go to hell and, at the same time, that those who go to hell choose it for themselves; each statement cancels out the other and, thereby, ends in a meaningless assertion.
2.If the condemnation of “some men” is according to the divine “good pleasure” (as insisted in the WCF), then God is pleased (happy, glad, gratified, contented) to damn “some men” to eternal damnation. The logic is warranted regardless of any denials to the contrary.
3. Maybe it can be said that God “does not force anyone to reject Him against their will” but that is only because, having elected “from all eternity some men” to eternal damnation, God has decreed to withhold the grace and faith necessary for their salvation through the governing of their rebellious actions “from the least even to the greatest” in order that their condemnation would “come to pass immutably and infallibly” (WCF 5:1-4).
In another place, Calvinism teaches that certain men were created expressly for eternal damnation. Being created for such, there is no need for God to “force” their rejection of Him; they were created to do so. Simply put, none are forced to reject God because it has already been hardwired in them to do so. No one forces a computer to go off or on; it’s made to do so. No one forces a dog to bark; they are made to do so.
4. To say that God acts in choosing some for salvation but stand passive – “passing over”; “leaving” – the rest for damnation is positing a double-predestination. Denial, however creative, to the contrary is merely double-talk. By the [I] act[/I] of not choosing, God choose.
Standing in line to be picked on a team to play stickball, if the captain of one team “passes me over”, then [I] he[/I] made the choice that I not play on his team. Someone asks me, “Why aren’t you playing in that team?” Would I be telling the truth if I answered, “[I] I[/I] chose not to be in that team”?
Respectfully, the only subtlety I can see here is the manner is which double-talk is used to sustain untenable and unbiblical propositions.
Please note that nothing here stated is intended as an attack against or an insult to anyone’s person. If some points are taken as offensive, please accept my apology and give allowances for my lack of education and experience in forming thoughts objectively.
Mr. nbanuchi,
What sounds like “double talk” to you enables others to understand important areas of truth that are otherwise incomprehensible.
To the Jehovah’s Witness, the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity sounds like double talk. God is one, yet God is three. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons yet one God? How foolish! Double Talk! And yet, as we know, this is exactly what the Bible teaches, and failing to accept this doctrine is not only wrong, but fatal to the soul. Much spiritual truth is foolishness to the natural man.
Your prejudice to the Bible’s teaching regarding God’s sovereignty in salvation is blinding you to important Bible truth.
I thank you for the discussion, and the opportunity it affords to articulate truths which are precious to me.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
What sounds like “double talk” to you enables others to understand important areas of truth that are otherwise incomprehensible.
To the Jehovah’s Witness, the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity sounds like double talk. God is one, yet God is three. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons yet one God? How foolish! Double Talk! And yet, as we know, this is exactly what the Bible teaches, and failing to accept this doctrine is not only wrong, but fatal to the soul. Much spiritual truth is foolishness to the natural man.
Your prejudice to the Bible’s teaching regarding God’s sovereignty in salvation is blinding you to important Bible truth.
I thank you for the discussion, and the opportunity it affords to articulate truths which are precious to me.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
Barkman,
With all due respect, when I say you are engaging in “doubletalk”, that is when you present two propositions that cancel out each other resulting in meaningless assertions; add to that qualifications that change the meaning of phrases and terms only more confuses rather than clarifies the issues.
For example, to say that God chooses whom to save and then assert that man chooses for himself is doubletalk; each proposition cancels out the other.
That God is three and yet one is, fortunately, not doubletalk because one is not saying God is three God’s that are one God but that God is three persons, which comprise the one God. Although that may require a JW to stretch their imagination a bit, it is not doubletalk (at least, not from my perspective). I am not asking the JW to believe in a self-contradiction but to submit to a mystery, that is, the mystery of one God in his esssential nature as three persons.
I not prejuduced against what the Bible teaches, as far as I understand it; I am prejudiced against what Calvinism teaches with regard to salvation.
Finally, I do hope my comments that your assertions, at least to me, consist of doubletalk did not offend you; that is not at all my intention.
In the hopes that continued discussion offers all of us the necessary grace to pursue, if not uniformity, that amity, which places oneself in sympathy for another’s standing in Christ.
With all due respect, when I say you are engaging in “doubletalk”, that is when you present two propositions that cancel out each other resulting in meaningless assertions; add to that qualifications that change the meaning of phrases and terms only more confuses rather than clarifies the issues.
For example, to say that God chooses whom to save and then assert that man chooses for himself is doubletalk; each proposition cancels out the other.
That God is three and yet one is, fortunately, not doubletalk because one is not saying God is three God’s that are one God but that God is three persons, which comprise the one God. Although that may require a JW to stretch their imagination a bit, it is not doubletalk (at least, not from my perspective). I am not asking the JW to believe in a self-contradiction but to submit to a mystery, that is, the mystery of one God in his esssential nature as three persons.
I not prejuduced against what the Bible teaches, as far as I understand it; I am prejudiced against what Calvinism teaches with regard to salvation.
Finally, I do hope my comments that your assertions, at least to me, consist of doubletalk did not offend you; that is not at all my intention.
In the hopes that continued discussion offers all of us the necessary grace to pursue, if not uniformity, that amity, which places oneself in sympathy for another’s standing in Christ.
Dear nbanuchi,
Yes, your several diatribes calling my statements double talk are offensive. This may seem like double talk to you, but I assure you it is not. It only seems that way because you do not understand, much as a JW finds it impossible to understand the doctrine of the Trinity. You are willing to call the Trinity “mystery” but Calvinism is “double talk.” But to the JW the Trinity is double talk, and to a Calvinist, election and its various tennents is mystery.
Many years ago, I believed very much as you do. I did not understand Calvinist teaching on salvation, and was prejudiced against it from my upbringing. I could muster many arguments against it, as you are doing. But I was mercifully kept from denouncing and defaming it as some do, and as you seem to want to do. I think the Holy Spirit enabled me to realize, even then, that there was mystery here that I did not understand, and it is unwise to denounce what one does not understand. Perhaps, in time, it may prove to be true after all. Gradually, as I continued to study Scripture, the spiritual fog began to recede, and these truths became clear and eventually compelling. I understand where you are coming from because I have been there.
I would strongly caution you against defaming what you do not understand. It is one thing to confess that you do not understand. It is quite another to slander and defame. It should be obvious that millions of Christians over many centuries and in many parts of the world have believed these doctrines. You may disagree, but if you are wise, you will be more cautious.
Given your strong prejudices, I question that further discussion would be profitable. Perhaps when you are more open to inquiry we may resume. Until then, I trust you will know God’s blessing upon your life.
Sincerely,
Greg Barkman
Yes, your several diatribes calling my statements double talk are offensive. This may seem like double talk to you, but I assure you it is not. It only seems that way because you do not understand, much as a JW finds it impossible to understand the doctrine of the Trinity. You are willing to call the Trinity “mystery” but Calvinism is “double talk.” But to the JW the Trinity is double talk, and to a Calvinist, election and its various tennents is mystery.
Many years ago, I believed very much as you do. I did not understand Calvinist teaching on salvation, and was prejudiced against it from my upbringing. I could muster many arguments against it, as you are doing. But I was mercifully kept from denouncing and defaming it as some do, and as you seem to want to do. I think the Holy Spirit enabled me to realize, even then, that there was mystery here that I did not understand, and it is unwise to denounce what one does not understand. Perhaps, in time, it may prove to be true after all. Gradually, as I continued to study Scripture, the spiritual fog began to recede, and these truths became clear and eventually compelling. I understand where you are coming from because I have been there.
I would strongly caution you against defaming what you do not understand. It is one thing to confess that you do not understand. It is quite another to slander and defame. It should be obvious that millions of Christians over many centuries and in many parts of the world have believed these doctrines. You may disagree, but if you are wise, you will be more cautious.
Given your strong prejudices, I question that further discussion would be profitable. Perhaps when you are more open to inquiry we may resume. Until then, I trust you will know God’s blessing upon your life.
Sincerely,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
Barkman,
My response re: doubletalk was not meant to insult your person, as I’ve tried repeatedly to point out. It is unfortunate that you have taken it personally. I was hoping to find at least one instance where a logical explanation can be made, which clearly shows that the assertions made do not cancel out each other and qualifications, if any, put forth do not change the meanings of words or phrases.
To warn someone not to defame Calvinism with implicit warnings of dire consequences is tantamount, in my opinion, to idolizng a theological system on the part of the one giving warning. I actually expected so much more from this SI forum.
I appreciate the patience you have had with me and I respect your position. Let us hope that sometime I will appear to you more open for discussion and you would be willing to show me specifically in what way certain of your propositions offered are not doubletalk.
My response re: doubletalk was not meant to insult your person, as I’ve tried repeatedly to point out. It is unfortunate that you have taken it personally. I was hoping to find at least one instance where a logical explanation can be made, which clearly shows that the assertions made do not cancel out each other and qualifications, if any, put forth do not change the meanings of words or phrases.
To warn someone not to defame Calvinism with implicit warnings of dire consequences is tantamount, in my opinion, to idolizng a theological system on the part of the one giving warning. I actually expected so much more from this SI forum.
I appreciate the patience you have had with me and I respect your position. Let us hope that sometime I will appear to you more open for discussion and you would be willing to show me specifically in what way certain of your propositions offered are not doubletalk.
nbanuchi,
I did not say that I thought you insulted me personally. I said that I found your label of Calvinist theology as double talk offensive. I cautioned you against blaspheming (speaking against) what you clearly do not understand. I return to the example of the doctrine of the Trinity. To the JW (as well as others), it appears contradictory, self-cancelling, or double talk. To the orthodox Christian, it is mystery, a precious, glorious, and necessary truth. In other words, for those who cannot and will not understand it, it is double talk. To those who have come to understand it (I would say have been enabled by the Spirit of God to understand it), it is mysterious but vital and precious truth.
You say that you are disappointed because I do not show you why my explanation of Calvinist soteriology, which you consider double talk, is not self contradictory. Much like the JW who keeps challenging the Christian to explain why the doctrine of the Trinity is not double talk. No matter what the Christian says, it will continue to sound like contradictions to the JW. After a while, there is really no more to be said. The JW will continue to consider the Trinity a foolish, self-contradictory doctrine unless and until the Holy Spirit opens his mind to understand.
I am aware that this sounds audacious to an Arminian. Remember, I used to be where you are, and I bristled as you do by such assertions from Calvinists. Calvinist doctrine used to seem contradictory to me too, until I began to understand it. What more can I say? If what I have already said can only been seen by you as double talk, I have nothing more to add. There is no value in going around and around endlessly, and I do not believe Christ will be honored by my laying out more explanations of truth for you to defame by your responses. Enough for now. I pray God’s richest blessing upon you.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
I did not say that I thought you insulted me personally. I said that I found your label of Calvinist theology as double talk offensive. I cautioned you against blaspheming (speaking against) what you clearly do not understand. I return to the example of the doctrine of the Trinity. To the JW (as well as others), it appears contradictory, self-cancelling, or double talk. To the orthodox Christian, it is mystery, a precious, glorious, and necessary truth. In other words, for those who cannot and will not understand it, it is double talk. To those who have come to understand it (I would say have been enabled by the Spirit of God to understand it), it is mysterious but vital and precious truth.
You say that you are disappointed because I do not show you why my explanation of Calvinist soteriology, which you consider double talk, is not self contradictory. Much like the JW who keeps challenging the Christian to explain why the doctrine of the Trinity is not double talk. No matter what the Christian says, it will continue to sound like contradictions to the JW. After a while, there is really no more to be said. The JW will continue to consider the Trinity a foolish, self-contradictory doctrine unless and until the Holy Spirit opens his mind to understand.
I am aware that this sounds audacious to an Arminian. Remember, I used to be where you are, and I bristled as you do by such assertions from Calvinists. Calvinist doctrine used to seem contradictory to me too, until I began to understand it. What more can I say? If what I have already said can only been seen by you as double talk, I have nothing more to add. There is no value in going around and around endlessly, and I do not believe Christ will be honored by my laying out more explanations of truth for you to defame by your responses. Enough for now. I pray God’s richest blessing upon you.
Cordially,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
Barkman,
1. I already noted that explaining the trinity to a JW not asking him to accept doubletalk but rather a mystery. To me, a myster and logical a self-contradictions are two different things.
2. The theology of Calvinism is not “audacious” but mere self-contradictory, as far as I see it. I could never reconcile myself to it’s propositions. Just in case, I should let you know I’m not bristling (thanks for the concern), I just find Calvinist theology, with respect to the subject of salvation, as incompatible with Biblical revelation.
3. I would think that showing, at least in one place, where and how there is no self-contradaction, at least, on one particular point would help me better understand the Calvinist position. Failing that, I must maintain my position that what is presented by Calvinist in defense of their theology is doubletalk (not “doubletalk” as a deliberate deception but as a logical self-contradiction).
Well, in any case, I’m glad to know there was no personal offense on your part taken by my comments.
1. I already noted that explaining the trinity to a JW not asking him to accept doubletalk but rather a mystery. To me, a myster and logical a self-contradictions are two different things.
2. The theology of Calvinism is not “audacious” but mere self-contradictory, as far as I see it. I could never reconcile myself to it’s propositions. Just in case, I should let you know I’m not bristling (thanks for the concern), I just find Calvinist theology, with respect to the subject of salvation, as incompatible with Biblical revelation.
3. I would think that showing, at least in one place, where and how there is no self-contradaction, at least, on one particular point would help me better understand the Calvinist position. Failing that, I must maintain my position that what is presented by Calvinist in defense of their theology is doubletalk (not “doubletalk” as a deliberate deception but as a logical self-contradiction).
Well, in any case, I’m glad to know there was no personal offense on your part taken by my comments.
nbanuchi,
We are probably getting a bit silly, now, debating perceptions rather than doctrine. However, I did not call Calvinism audacious. I said that you probably will consider my statement that you, like the JW, will not understand Calvinist theology until the Lord opens your mind “audacious.” You can continue to state that the Trinity is not contradictory, but a mystery, but that will not convince a JW. To him, it appears to be a contradiction, just like to you, many assertions of Calvinism appear to be contradictory. I have debated the Trinity with JW’s enough times to know that at some point it is useless to continue. He will continue to see a hopeless contradiction where I see a beautiful mystery. Ditto for our discussion regarding Calvinist theology.
When someone is genuinely interested to know what I believe, I am happy to try to explain. When it appears that someone merely wants to argue, it is time to walk away, like the Apostle Paul from synagogues when the Jews stopped listening, studying, learning, and started blaspheming. He then know it was time to withdraw. At what point does one become guilty of casting pearls? It is clear that you have studied Calvinism fairly thorougly, as your citations from the WCF indicate. It is also clear that you do not understand very well what you have studied, as your responses about “double talk” indicate. It seems to me that you are more interested in arguing than studying. If I am mistaken, please forgive me.
Sincerely,
Greg Barkman
We are probably getting a bit silly, now, debating perceptions rather than doctrine. However, I did not call Calvinism audacious. I said that you probably will consider my statement that you, like the JW, will not understand Calvinist theology until the Lord opens your mind “audacious.” You can continue to state that the Trinity is not contradictory, but a mystery, but that will not convince a JW. To him, it appears to be a contradiction, just like to you, many assertions of Calvinism appear to be contradictory. I have debated the Trinity with JW’s enough times to know that at some point it is useless to continue. He will continue to see a hopeless contradiction where I see a beautiful mystery. Ditto for our discussion regarding Calvinist theology.
When someone is genuinely interested to know what I believe, I am happy to try to explain. When it appears that someone merely wants to argue, it is time to walk away, like the Apostle Paul from synagogues when the Jews stopped listening, studying, learning, and started blaspheming. He then know it was time to withdraw. At what point does one become guilty of casting pearls? It is clear that you have studied Calvinism fairly thorougly, as your citations from the WCF indicate. It is also clear that you do not understand very well what you have studied, as your responses about “double talk” indicate. It seems to me that you are more interested in arguing than studying. If I am mistaken, please forgive me.
Sincerely,
Greg Barkman
G. N. Barkman
Featured Resource
Discussion