This past Sunday was Reformation Sunday and I am a Calvinist (I use the word Calvinist for simplicity in communicating a range of doctrine - I am not attempting to be technically accurate). Coincidently (odd choice of words in reference to Calvinism - oops, and now I said choice ... spooky), I had a chat with several friends regarding the Doctrine of Grace. As in the photo above, their view on Reformed Theology and specifically the points regarding salvation were distorted. Without critiquing whether they are right or wrong in their theology, they certainly did not understand what they were arguing against.
Related to that, Trav, a commenter here and a seemingly nice fellow, raised similar concerns. Trav wonders "why a Calvinist, believing God is in control and elects only a few, would ever have children?" I couldn't answer him in a few short words there nor will I attempt to here.
But all of this reminded me that Geoff asked me a long time ago if I would write a short piece on why I am a Calvinist and that I still haven't met his request. I don't think I will answer that question here but I want to provide some simple reference material (other then Scripture) for those seriously interested in what they are arguing against.
Here's my short story on how I became one. Way back in my college days a friend of mine moved away and fell into Satan's trap - yep, he got connected with a group known as Presbyterians. I know, what's up with that? Anyway, before long he started asking me what this predestination thing was about. I felt up to the task. I honestly thought to myself, "how long could it possibly take to disprove this obscure heresy?"
So with my Thompson Chain in hand (not wanting to be tainted by commentary - and thinking I wouldn't need it), I set off to read the relative Scriptures. It didn't take long before I realized things weren't as clear cut as I previously thought. The week I originally planned turned into months. The more I read the more I found tension in my non-Calvinist position. Eventually I started thinking that the weight of Scripture was toward Calvinism and more interesting, I was finding that it seemed all of Scripture was somehow connected. Passages that I thought would be unrelated either drove me more toward Calvinism or made much more sense to me with a Calvinistic undergirding. It was effecting my general Bible reading - not only when I was trying to study this topic.
Eventually I gave up. I just figured I wasn't smart enough. After college I became close to my pastor and since he was an educated man I asked him about this. He gave me the, "it's like the two parallel rails of a train track" line. That stirred me up. I couldn't see it - these tracks were not parallel - they contradicted each other. The more I thought about it the more I realized that this stuff was effecting my thinking in almost every other area of theology and that to leave it undecided as my pastor had done was not ok.
I'm not sure why but around that same time I got turned on to RC Sproul's books. Specifically, Grace Unknown and Chosen by God. Wow! These books provided a clear framework for the Scriptures I had been wrestling with. Since then I've found many great authors (e.g., Wayne Grudem, John Piper, etc.) who God has used to shed even more light on the topic.
My recommendation to you, if you really want to understand what you are fighting against, is to read these two books by Sproul and then as a good general Bible study, work through Grudem's Systematic Theology.
These may not change your doctrine but at least you might be able to drop the rhetoric so often employed by those less informed. For me, not only was my doctrine changed, but in my heart, my love and awe of God took a giant step in the right direction. I stand in wonder at His great sovereignty and His amazing grace in my life. Who knows, perhaps you will experience the same.
Technorati Tags: Calvinism
4 comments:
Bondage of the Will, by Luther, is also interesting.
Most of my acquaintances are non-Calvinist because it's a "nicer" theology.
That is, it sounds so much freer.
Me, I plant tulips in the yard. Every year.
Rick,
it seems like perhaps I'm on a similar journey to the one you were on all those years ago. Somehow I got into calvinism about a month ago, and this was spurred on conversations with a friend from church who knows his bible better than your average church goer and considers himself a calvinist.
Now, this is where my thoughts are currently at. Maybe you or another blog reader can give me your thoughts.
1. Limited atonement- I was fascinated when I saw Jerry Falwell describe this as heresy, and I must agree with him. Read passages like Romans 5 12-21 and 1 John 2:2 and limited atonement makes zero sense. You simply cant interpret the doctrine in light of those scriptures (and others...). And furthermore, the scriptures which seem to support limited atonement don't prescribe election. That is, when Jesus said "I died for my sheep", you can interpret that as saying he died for his sheep because he foreknew who he was dying for. It doesnt necessarily indicate that the atonement was limited in nature (obviously it was in the end, as not everyone is saved. But my point is that the intention was that the "whole world" could be saved).
It appears to me that the scriptures supporting UNlimited atonement are mare more direct and conclusive in their statements about atonement than the ones which support limited atonement, so I'd say, in light of romans 5 12-21, 1 John 2:2 and others, limited atonement has to be heresy. As Falwell, Caner, Witherington, Olson, Geisler and others would agree.
2. A friend got me the book "four views on predestination and free will". It's a combination of theology and philosophy with 4 essays and critiques by John Feinberg, Norman Geisler, Bruce Reichenbach and Clark Pinnock.
Part of Pinnock's response to Feinberg's hard determinism (the type that 5 point calvinism calls for) was really eye catching:
"
It should be clear to the reader why the number of strict calvinists is relatively small. It involves one in agonising difficulties of the first order. It makes God some kind of terrorist who goes around handing out torture and disaster and even willing people to do things the bible says God hates"
And, Bingo!
He just nailed the philosophical and biblical problems with calvinism in 50 words or less. He's right- I'd love to hear an explanation of why God would deliberately decree and preordain things which the bible clearly states are 1. Things that he hates and 2. Outside his will. What a self contradiction. Who's morally responsible for evil if God wills people to do it? Bali Bombers, hello. No matter how you talk about calvinism, no matter how you sugar coat the doctrine, I can't get over how morally unjustifiable it is. So how on earth you, Rick, "can't see the ugly side" to the doctrine is beyond me. There is definitely an ugly side, you must just be ignoring it.
3. Geisler waters down calvinism a bit. Some would call him arminian but I consider him a fence sitter. He kind of hedges his bets but ends up putting himself in a position which pleads mystery and doesnt answer the questions effectively (side note I havent read chosen but free...Only his views in the predestination book). He tries to get around my issues in point 2 by talking about three different wills of God. Prescriptive, sovereign and the other (cant remember...). Basically what God wants, what he allows and what he knows will happen.
But my question is this. If God has a prescriptive will and a sovereign will, what's the point of even having a prescriptive will if the sovereign will eventuates anyway, and nothing can change it?
And if God only has s sovereign will, why does he clearly teach a prescriptive will in the scriptures.
It's an interesting paradox. And one I'd argue a calvinist has to answer. I'm thinking the only way to get around the paradox is to admit humans have complete free will, which goes against calvinism.
Also, it seems to me that limited atonement and unconditional election are inextricably linked. They seem to logically go hand-in-hand in my mind.
So I'm trying to figure out that relationship. And if limited atonement is heresy (I believe it is..) then unconditional election might be too.
If UE is correct, then the same problems arise- how to interpret Gods will "that all be saved" and the other scriptures I mentioned above, in light of the calvinist interpretation of election?
Trav - all fair questions and none with simple answers. At this point all I can do is recommend the books I already have.
The other thing I'd suggest is stop listening to points such as Pinnock's. Step back and reread it and ask yourself is that really what Calvinism is teaching or is that just an emotional backlash. It's easy to get caught up in that kind of rhetoric which then affects our ability to reason (both sides are guilty so I'm not pointing fingers here).
You will be better served to stick with Scripture and ask the hard questions as you are.
Post a Comment