Why I'm Not a Calvinist . . . or an Arminian, Part 4
Read the series so far.
The Calvinism/Arminianism debate considers three essential issues: (1) The degree of God’s activity in human salvation, (2) the degree of human culpability, and (3) the degree of human activity in salvation. Historically Calvin placed strongest emphasis on God’s activity in salvation, whereas Arminius tended towards emphasizing human volition over God’s volition. Ultimately the two theological traditions are trying to resolve the apparent conflict between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility, and they both attempt resolution by means of extra-biblical rationalistic constructs. I suggest it is due to the artificial nature of these arguments that there has been no historical resolution to the debate. Because the base of authority for both sides is subjective (rationalistic theology) rather than objective (exegesis), neither side can, in my estimation, claim the full authority of Scripture. Hence, the longstanding and unresolved debate.
In 1 Corinthians 4:6, Paul expresses his desire that the Corinthians “learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.” In order to maintain the proper humility (and to ensure the highest degree of accuracy), it is best when dealing with the mysteries of God (1 Cor 4:1) not to expand their definitions beyond what God has revealed. This is an important principle broadly applicable throughout the Christian life, and certainly in resolving any theological difficulty.
Therefore, preferring an exegetical approach to a strictly rationalistic one, I am willing to endure some uncertainly in theological conclusions insofar as the Bible does not address certain details, rather than to build a theological construct that answers every detailed inquiry but which is not grounded on the certainty of revelation. In other words, where the Bible is silent, I prefer to be silent rather than trying to extrapolate a theological system that can’t be exegetically defended. Still we are left with the question: if neither Calvinism nor Arminianism is sufficient explanatory devices, then how can we explain the biblical data? Answering that question is the task of parts 4 and 5 in this series. A simple series of biblical assertions is sufficient to accomplish that task.
- Assertions #1 and #2 provide foundational data to address the questions.
- Assertion #3 answers the Calvinistic concept of total depravity.
- Assertion #4 answers the Calvinistic concept of unconditional election and the Arminian concept of conditional predestination.
- Assertion #5 answers the Calvinistic concept of limited atonement and the Arminian concepts of universal atonement and saving faith.
- Assertion #6 answers the Calvinistic concepts of irresistible grace and perseverance of saints, and the Arminian concepts of resistible grace and uncertainty of perseverance.
- Assertion #7 answers the rationalistic premise underlying the entire Calvinism/Arminianism debate.
#1 The Biblical God Exists, and He is Holy
- In the beginning God… (Genesis 1:1)
- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. (John 1:1-3)
- and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. (Genesis 1:3)
- Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last…And now the Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit.” (Isaiah 48:11, 16)
- “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory.” (Isaiah 6:3)
- “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come.” (Revelation 4:7)
#2 He Has Revealed Himself Authoritatively
- Then God said … (Genesis 1:3)
- that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:19-20)
- God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. (Hebrews 1:1-2)
- No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten one (monogenes) who is God, in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (John 1:18)
- All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
- But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2 Peter 1:20-21)
- For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.” (Romans 1:16-17)
#3 He Has Described the Human Condition as Universally Fallen
The descendants of Adam did not choose to be born, and yet we are all held accountable for his sin—we are all condemned. The human condition was not chosen by anyone after Adam, yet we prove we are in Adam’s likeness and image by adding our own sin.
- for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die. (Genesis 2:17)
- she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. (Genesis 3:6)
- When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image… (Genesis 5:3)
- Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:5)
- through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned…by the transgression of the one the many died…through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men… (Romans 5:12, 15, 18)
- For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. (Isaiah 64:6)
- both Jews and Greeks are all under sin… as it is written, There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.” (Romans 3:9-12)
(Next, Assertions 4-7)
Christopher Cone 2014 Bio
Christopher Cone (ThD, PhD) is former President of Tyndale Theological Seminary and Biblical Institute, and serves as pastor of Tyndale Bible Church. He is the author and editor of several books and blogs at drcone.com.
- 116 views
The problem is I made the original post in the context of a series of threads on there being people who are neither Arminian nor Calvinist (and by implication not Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, etc). I was not trying to lay out a systematic theology, just reinforce the idea that such a thing was possible. At the time no one commented on my post.
Then later you referred to my response but didn’t mention me specifically. Instead, you went off talking about people not recognizing historical theology and how some of my points were Arminian and possibly semi-Pelagian. You stated that many people who reject labels were ignorant of the historical nature of various theological positions (I took that to mean that you were including my post in that). You repeated that ignorance claim multiple times after referring namelessly to my post, and you just tripled down on it with your last post. You seem to have done this all to argue that labels are helpful.
What I was trying to do in getting your attention was to get you to see that labels didn’t work in this case. I was not attempting to outline a specific position at all. Thus the labels are POINTLESS!!
Finally, I guess you thought you were being to the point in not specifically referring to my post, but it seemed to me to be intentionally insulting, reinforcing “my ignorance”. Everything you have said leads me to believe that was your intent.
To be clear, I couldn’t care less whether you think I am Arminian, semi-Pelagian, or whatnot. What I do care about is the dismissive tone you have used, and the repeated claim of ignorance. I thought it was rather rude, and unjustifiably so.
Mark, I think I have been pretty clear about what I was doing and what my intent was. It is not about you; it is not about your ignorance or intelligence (which I know nothing about); it is not about your position. But you seem to think you know better than I do what I intended. I would encourage you to consider being a bit more charitable in reading others, and to consider being a bit less sensitive.
My best to you, Mark.
Calvinist? Anti-Calvinist? Not an Arminian? Not a semi-Pelagian? Biblicist? Personally I’d prefer someone who would just tell me what they believed by answering my questions with simple answers. It can be done.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Larry,
While I think most of us understand that a particular label may be accurate when used in the sense of its original intention, I kind of have to agree with Don that some labels have taken on a connotative (as opposed to denotative) meaning that now overshadows the original meaning, and as such, are less than helpful, especially when they are used, as Don points out, specifically to label someone in a way that attempts to end debate before it starts. Pelagian and semi-Pelagian would definitely be in this category when outside an academic context. It’s not really a whole lot different from the word “fundamentalist” that has been debated on SI, and that many of us think is only useful in certain contexts.
Dave Barnhart
Dave, I agree that if someone is using a label to shut down debate, then they shouldn’t. I wasn’t attempting to shut down debate at all. Don was incorrect on this point. In fact, I didn’t even want to debate. As I said, I don’t really care. Don equated historical labels with name-calling, and that is what I responded to. The point was that labels have meaning based on the beliefs they represent. They are not the same as name-calling.
Like Mr. Bean, if people would answer questions, we could get answers. Labels are one way to answer questions. They are pretty easy because they have a definition.
However, I would say that Pelagian and semi-Pelagian are significantly different from “fundamentalist” in that Pelagian and semi-Pelagian have pretty clear meanings and have for hundreds of years, no matter who uses it. “Fundamentalist” does not.
In the end, I think labels are different than name-calling (contra Don), and we all agree that labels should not be used to shut down debate before it starts. I also think labels are useful because they are accurate—they describe beliefs about something a shorthand form.
Why You Must Be a Calvinist or an Arminian by Bill Combs
…what I’m trying to get at, is who is the ultimate decider in the matter of our salvation? Is God the one who ultimately decides if I end up in heaven or hell, or am I the one who ultimately decides if I end up in heaven or hell? Quickly, someone will say that both God and I decide. There is truth there, but there can be only one ultimate decider, one person who makes the final determination.
This binary choice is untenable, unthinkable for many. There must be another way, a third position (tertium quid), particularly a middle way (via media) between these two harsh extremes. But there is none. In Calvinism God ultimately chooses (unconditional election) and gives grace (efficacious) to bring the sinner to Christ. The sinner makes a real, genuine choice for Christ, but only because of God’s prior choice. God is the ultimate decider. In Arminianism the sinner cooperates with grace (prevenient) and chooses God (conditional election). In Arminianism God is not the ultimate decider. If the sinner chooses God, God must choose to save the sinner, but if sinner rejects God, God cannot choose to save the sinner. God simply ratifies whatever decision the sinner makes. God is not deciding anything. The sinner is the ultimate decider.
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
[JohnBrian]From the same article coming between the two quotes JohnBrian provided:Why You Must Be a Calvinist or an Arminian by Bill Combs
…what I’m trying to get at, is who is the ultimate decider in the matter of our salvation? Is God the one who ultimately decides if I end up in heaven or hell, or am I the one who ultimately decides if I end up in heaven or hell? Quickly, someone will say that both God and I decide. There is truth there, but there can be only one ultimate decider, one person who makes the final determination.
This binary choice is untenable, unthinkable for many. There must be another way, a third position (tertium quid), particularly a middle way (via media) between these two harsh extremes. But there is none. In Calvinism God ultimately chooses (unconditional election) and gives grace (efficacious) to bring the sinner to Christ. The sinner makes a real, genuine choice for Christ, but only because of God’s prior choice. God is the ultimate decider. In Arminianism the sinner cooperates with grace (prevenient) and chooses God (conditional election). In Arminianism God is not the ultimate decider. If the sinner chooses God, God must choose to save the sinner, but if sinner rejects God, God cannot choose to save the sinner. God simply ratifies whatever decision the sinner makes. God is not deciding anything. The sinner is the ultimate decider.
In Calvinism faith is the result of election; in Arminianism election is the result of faith. All evangelicals, whether Calvinist or Arminian, believe in salvation by grace. All agree that we are sinners and because of depravity need God’s grace: efficacious grace in the case of the Calvinist, or prevenient grace in the case of the Arminian. In Arminianismprevenient grace is given to all people, or at least to all who hear the gospel, and enables them to be saved by cooperating with God’s grace (synergism), but this prevenient grace may be rejected. Again, there are only two choices. Either God’s grace is efficacious and ultimately overcomes the individual’s depravity and brings him to faith in Christ (Calvinism), or God’s grace is just prevenient, that is, it is sufficient to overcome depravity, but the individual may reject this grace (Arminianism).
Both Calvinists and Arminians agree that the sinner chooses Christ. The sinner is not coerced into a decision for Christ. The major difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is what ultimately and finally causes a depraved sinner to choose Christ.
The first sentence is the crux. Either election causes faith or faith causes election. From this proposition flows doctrine and practice forming a barrier between the two worlds. This divide makes it difficult (impossible) for the two sides to work together within the same church construct/membership.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
That DBTS post has been made into a separate thread here
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Discussion