Abusing Texts: 2 Peter 3 (part 1)

What is the most abused passage in the Bible? Matthew 7:1? Leviticus 19:19? Probably both good candidates, but my vote is for 2 Peter 3 (especially verses 8-9). For one thing, the former two passages are usually abused by non-believers, whereas the last is usually abused by people who are (at least professing) Christians.

But more, 2 Peter 3 stands out as having been abused by so many different kinds of professing Christians! First, we have the old-earth creationists. There's evidence for and against old-earth creationism, and frankly I don't know which side of that debate I come down on. But surely 2 Peter 3:8 is not good support for any Christian? Its context has absolutely nothing to do with creation. As far as I know, until the mid-19th century nobody took this verse as support for an old earth. If it is support, then we'd have to admit a fatally flawed hermeneutical method, wrenching the verse out of context to make a point. This is called eisegesis, and I don't think we want to go there.

The second kind of Christian who have abused this passage is that group who recently had their day in the spotlight, followers of Harold Camping. Although their books provide many convincing (well, to "true believers" anyway) proofs of the October 21st end of the world, this verse is the foundation. Read for yourself in Camping's booklet "We are almost there". This understanding has a little better support than the first case of abuse (or frankly, than the third) since the passage is actually about judgment. But taking this as a mathematical formula, adding it to an assumed and arbitrary date of Noah's flood, and coming up with a date that conveniently falls with Camping's lifetime is a bit more than the text will bear, especially as the entire chapter of Matthew 24 militates against this as a possibility. (Note the tenor of the entire chapter fights it, not just 24:36, regardless of what Campingites would have us believe.)

But the third, and perhaps most egregious case of abuse against 2 Peter 3:8 is by traditional evangelical Christians. Everybody from Chuck Smith to Norm Geisler to Dave Hunt use this passage as one of their primary proof-texts against the doctrine of unconditional election. But surely this is a terrible case of eisegesis?

In my next note I will 'splain.

Is the Calvinist God a cosmic rapist?

I have mentioned before that Yahoo! Answers is one of my personal mission fields. I go over there to defend the faith as best I can, to hear some new criticisms of Christianity from non-Christians (this does not happen very often), and generally to witness to people. I have met a number of interesting people over there, including atheists, Muslims, and Wiccans. I had the honor of speaking to a very intelligent and sensitive Wiccan in an extended email conversation a few months back. As a defense again my monergistic ideas of God's election and, indirectly, against the idea of any kind of sovereign God at all, she mentioned that Hank Hanegraaff said that the God of Calvinism would be equivalent to a cosmic rapist. I had never heard this ridiculous quote before, so I had to find whether he had really said this.

A little searching led to an article by Hank titled "Why Does God Allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People?", where he said:

Furthermore, without choice, love is meaningless. God is neither a cosmic rapist who forces His love on people nor a cosmic puppeteer who forces people to love Him. Instead, God, the personification of love, grants us freedom of choice. Without such freedom, we would be little more than preprogrammed robots.

I wish I could say that I was shocked by this, but sadly I am not. This is the kind of stuff that Hank comes out with too often today. This kind of thing can only have the effect of turning people off from the Biblical God to a god of their own making. It gives them one more arrow they can use to not to believe in the God of the Bible, a quiver which is tragically quite full already. In the case of the Wiccan above, it was another reason why she did not accept God's claims on her. And from her point of view it makes sense: why should she accept the claims of a cosmic rapist?

In addition, it shows an unfortunate lack of understanding of Calvinist theology which is common from people with less theological sophistication, but which I had hoped better for from Hank. Specifically, these comparisons are ludicrous for several reasons:

• What is a rapist? A person who does something against the person's will that will harm them. Even with any greater understanding of Calvinist theology, the comparison is terrible because God is doing something indescribably wonderful for the person.
• What is a puppeteer? A person who animates a dead body to give it the illusion of life. This one actually does have a bit of Biblical support: for what can a dead man do for himself? However, the Bible does not say God gives us the illusion of life. It says He gives us life, and that more abundantly, eternal life with Him ruling in the heavens. What's more, our fallen will is not neutral: it is actively fighting against God, hating Him.

No, God does not cosmically rape us. He, who created us to love Him, sees us in our pitiful fallen state and, despite the fact that we hate Him, made way for us to be reconciled to Him. None of us deserve to be saved, we all deserve the hell we desire. Due to our fallen will, nobody wants to be saved; the dog returns to its vomit. Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven.

However, God's justice would be a travesty if everybody were saved. Thus, God, with an intelligence and wisdom not only infinite but untainted by sin, wisely decides which of us to graciously save. I cannot imagine on what basis He makes that decision; but then I am not God. I can't figure out most things He does; His thoughts are not our thoughts. Because none of us wants to be saved, He must regenerate our wills, at which point we can accept His offer of salvation.

The Calvinist's God is not a Cosmic Rapist or puppeteer. The comparison is crass. Even if you're not a Calvinist, you must understand this. Hank, I expected better from you.

An interesting comment by Ray Comfort

I wanted to quickly note something that Ray Comfort said on the air a couple of weeks ago. I should start by noting that they are very non-committal when it comes to the subject of the basis of soteriology. Todd regularly skirts Calvinist/Arminian issues on his radio show. For their purposes, I think that is totally appropriate. It is far more important that people come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ than that they accept Biblical theology as a whole. Theology is important, but one can become a Christian even with a rather poor knowledge of theology. There's time for them to grow in their new faith, and God will see that they understand what they need to.

Besides, until recently, every preacher of the Gospel agreed that the word of God and the consequent convicting knowledge of sin and repentance is what saves people, not cool music and "relevant" videos and stories. This was as true for John Wesley as for Charles Spurgeon. I note that they have recently added the book "Wesley Gold" to their "Spurgeon Gold." That is a good thing: I'd hate for Arminians to reject the greatest tool to evangelize the lost simply because their theology does not allow them to listen.

Anyway, they were preparing to talk to a Muslim on the air. For those who have not heard the show much, there is quite a bit of "peanut gallery" conversation - back and forth, just for fun. So, during this period when the Muslim was coming on the line, Todd mentioned something about the five pillars of Islam. Ray then said:

"He wants five pillars? I'll give him five pillars: T-U-L-I-P."

Made my day. :-)

Hank Hanegraaff - Jumped the Shark?

In my previous article on my own spiritual history, I mentioned some of the people who have been an influence on me. One person I forgot to mention was Hank Hanagraaff, especially through his "Bible Answer Man" radio show. He has had a huge influence on me, entirely for the better. In the early days of my Christianity, I had to drive about an hour to and from work. I found myself being drawn to Christian radio, at first to come up with reasons to oppose what they were saying (such is what our fallen will gets us!), but before long to learn from it. It is because of this time period of my life that I retain such a positive attitude about Christian radio. Christian television is, sadly, almost a wasteland with people like Fred Price, Kenneth Copeland, Robert Schuller, and T. D. Jakes filling the airwaves. Note that I say "almost": there are still good teachers and preachers on TV - people like Greg Laurie, John MacArthur, D. James Kennedy (RIP). In particular, I have recently discovered the "NRB" network (channel 378 on DirecTV) that seems to consist of almost completely solid preaching. Perhaps there is hope for Christian TV after all. Thankfully, Christian radio does not seem to have suffered quite as much from TV's downhill slide, perhaps because there is not as much money in it.

Anyway, because of my long commute, in those pre-MP3 days of the mid-90s I listened to a lot of Christian radio. I used to listen to so many programs - Hank's, John MacArthur, Dennis Rainey's Family Life Today, Tony Evans, even the corny radio drama "Unshackled." Though I don't have a commute anymore and so I don't listen to radio much, I am still very positive on Christian radio; I very seldom listen to any other radio stations - except, of course, when the Redskins are playing. It happened that Hank was on the radio exactly during my afternoon drive time. At first, I resisted what he had to say, but before long, after God changed my heart, I soaked it up. He spoke a lot of sense; he was obviously incredibly knowledgeable about the Bible; he had that quality of "holiness" about him.

Perhaps best of all, he supported the "mere Christian" idea I was learning to love from C. S. Lewis. That is, that we should not divide ourselves from other Christians, that we should (to use Hank's phrase), "debate vigorously but not divide." It is, I hope, with this spirit of "mere Christianity", that I write these blog postings. I heard him do this repeatedly even with positions that he disagreed with, and I respected him for it. For example, he wrote an article called "Safe and Sound" where he laid out his belief in the eternal security of the believer; and he was clear that he thought that the most Biblical position on the subject. However, he was always careful to emphasize that those who did not believe in eternal security were definitely within the "pale of orthodoxy," and never implied that such people had a faulty hermeneutic or a severe lack of understanding of the Bible. I learned to expect and respect and appreciate this kind of view of other Christians.

Then, a few years back, the "Left Behind" series started getting popular. There are many reasons not to like this series: two are that it is not well-written, and that it takes an extreme view of end times events that the vast majority of Bible-believing Christians throughout history have not believed and elevates it to dogma. (That it makes scads of money for its authors is neither here nor there.) So, Hank underwent his own quest to come to a conclusion on the end times; I recall that part of it included memorizing the entire book of Revelation.

He finally came to a conclusion, which is the orthodox partial preterist (amillenial) position. Now, I don't feel strongly about either the pre-tribulational or amillenial position; in fact it seems to me the most natural understanding of the Bible as a whole would lead one to a pre-millenial but post-tribulational view. But I naturally assumed that, in taking a view, he would treat other views the way he treated other doctrines he disagreed with.

So imagine my surprise to hear him using language against pre-tribulationists that I never heard him use with other views he disagreed with. He repeatedly said - and continues to say - they didn't know how to "read the Bible for all it's worth." I heard him very nearly equate John Nelson Darby's epiphany about dispensationalism to Joseph Smith's reception of the Book of Mormon from the angel Moroni. Then, I recently heard him blame the dispensationalist point of view for the sufferings of the Palestinian people; his idea seemed to be that the Palestinians suffer because America supports Israel, and the primary reason America supports Israel is because of dispensationalist preachers.

Now, I am no dogmatic dispensationalist (the doctrine seems to me plausible but not well-supported by Scripture) but this seems quite a bit excessive. I could imagine few things less like the "mere Christian" Hank that I had grown to know, respect, and love.

This was followed closely by another area of non-"mere Christian" response; and this second area is one that is far more important than eschatology. I am speaking, of course, of soteriology. He seems to be one of that popular but ill-defined breed, the "Calminian." He takes some views that seem more or less Calvinist (Total Depravity, Eternal Security), but rejects the tough Calvinist points (Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace); sort of a "Calvinist Lite."

However, as with his eschatology, I am not so much disappointed with the position he takes as with the fact that his position is so harshly and vehemently anti-Calvinist. This, too, seems to me a relatively recent innovation in his thinking. Initially, when I was trying to sort out the questions of monergism vs. synergism, I heard Hank talk on several occasions about "libertarian" and "compatibilist" free will. This seemed to me very abstruse terminology, but something I wanted to understand. I recall hearing James White on his program - in fact, Hank's program is where I first heard Dr. White. He once held a live debate between two radically opposing viewpoints on soteriology: James White taking up the Calvinist position and Calvary Chapel's own George Bryson taking up what can only be called the anti-Calvinist position.

Over time he became more and more against the Calvinist position himself, similarly (it seems to me) as his transformation in the area of eschatology. Recently, he has gone completely off the deep end, equating the God of Calvinism with a "cosmic rapist" and saying that the Calvinist's God would be personally responsible for sin in the universe. (Why the Arminian's God, who apparently knew evil was going to happen but decided not to do anything about it, escapes the same criticism I'm not sure.)

With this, my disappointment in Hank was complete. He took simplistic, poorly-thought out criticisms of Calvinism and spread them far and wide. I now rarely listen to him. It is a real shame that the champion of "mere Christianity" would use such strong language against positions which I think he would admit are within the "pale of orthodoxy" (though, strangely, I have never heard him say on the radio).

Should we have strong opinions, and "discuss [them] vigorous without dividing?" Yes, about important topics. But to call names? That seems to me to be about as un-"mere Christian" and (more importantly) unloving and un-unified as you can get. Hank, whither hast thou gone?

C.S. Lewis the Calvinist?

I have just finished re-reading Lewis's book "Surprised by Joy." I have always considered Lewis a pretty pure Arminian: he rejects Total Depravity, for example. (Of course, he totally misunderstands the doctrine, as I've found is often true for those who reject the 5 points). However, this quote from page 224 of the 1984 Harcourt Brace edition of Surprised by Joy, which refers to his own moment of conversion, made me wonder.

... I was in fact offered what now appears a moment of wholly free choice... I became aware that I was holding something at bay, or shutting something out... Neither choice was presented as a duty; no threat or promise was attached to either, though I knew that to open the door or to take off the corslet meant the incalculable.... In a sense I was not moved by anything. I chose to open, to unbuckle, to loosen the rein. I say, "I chose," yet it did not really seem possible to do the opposite. On the other hand, I was aware of no motives. You could argue that I was not a free agent, but I am more inclined to think that this came nearer to being a perfectly free act than most that I have ever done. Necessity may not be the opposite of freedom, and perhaps a man is most free when, instead of producing motives, he could only say, "I am what I do."

Upon reading this, I wonder if people will - due to the presence of the somewhat magical word "choice" - conclude that this experience is consistent with an Arminian understanding of soteriology, and only with an Arminian understanding. Though experience does not prove theology, it may be that it is consistent with Arminianism; but it is also perfectly consistent with Calvinism. If you don't think so, I submit that you don't really understand Calvinism.

Before I tell why, I think it is necessary to separate classical Calvinism from hyper-Calvinism. (As usual, I don't like the term Calvinism and would prefer to use "monergism"; but I'm starting to be afraid that's a losing battle.) Some people think that somebody who holds to the 5 points is a "hyper-Calvinist" while a real Calvinist is somebody who holds to somewhere between 1 and 4 of them. But that's completely untrue: somebody is a Calvinist/monergist in the classical sense if they hold to all 5 points. So, if the 5 points are not the difference, what is the difference between classical Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism?

I think the best explanation is that classical Calvinism teaches that man does have a will, and that will is involved in his conversion; while hyper-Calvinism teaches that man effectively does not have a will at all, or at least his will is not involved in his conversion. Does this seem a hair-splitting difference? Not at all! This point of Classical Calvinism is probably best explained in Jonathan Edwards' book "The Freedom of the Will." In that book, Edwards explains that man's will, like everything else about us, is subject to sin, is (to use the Biblical terminology) a slave to sin. I love that Biblical word because it is so clear. Slaves aren't slaves because they want to be, but because they are compelled to be. Man's will is controlled by his sin so that it cannot do anything good. Thus, man's unaided will cannot accept God's offer of salvation. (I am aware that the Arminians posit a concept called "prevenient grace" to answer this Biblical truth, but I find no Biblical support for the idea.)

So, in conversion, God does not ignore man's will (as the hyper-Calvinists would teach) but rather converts it, regenerates it, makes it a "new creation." What used to be repugnant to us - giving up our own secret sins and imagined control over our own destinies - is now attractive. Edwards spends a good deal of time explaining how we do what we most want to do and I am not doing justice to his argument. However, the main point is that we do have a will, and when God saves us He converts that will from being a slave to sin to a slave to Jesus Christ.

Getting back to Lewis, it should be clear that his experience is perfectly in sync with what classical Calvinism teaches. He chose, but he felt that it was not possible to do the opposite. Whereas his unregenerate will had previously wanted to "[shut] something out", it now wanted to let that something (or Someone) in. It was a free choice Lewis made; yet he knew at that moment there was only one choice that he wanted to make, and not for any specific reasons he could enumerate. His will had been converted instantaneously from being a slave to sin, and because that conversion had already taken place, he now wanted to follow Christ.

In fact, I'd argue this experience better fits with classical Calvinism than it does with Arminianism. I would think a more consistent Arminian experience would be something like "I had a totally free choice to make; I weighed the pluses and minuses of accepting Christ and decided that I wanted to accept Christ's free offer of eternal life." After all, a free choice in the libertarian free will sense used by most Arminians, involves no necessity of decision; we weigh the pluses and minuses, and freely make whatever decision we want to make at the moment.

How about you? Which of these statements (Lewis's or my made-up one) would you make? I think the answer is clear, if you are truly a Christian: your statement and mine would be something very much like Lewis's. Isn't that telling? I submit that our actual experiences fit better with the classical Calvinist explanation of salvation than the Arminian one; it's only when we start to talk in the abstract that we talk differently.

Again, this does not prove Calvinism is true. As I have said many times before, I think the Bible teaches that clearly enough, and one should never put one's experiences over revealed truth. But I think it has something to say about which soteriological view is more consistent with our actual experiences.

A personal note about Arminians and Calvinists

Reading over this blog, one might think one of several things about me. First, that I am obsessed with Arminians. Second, that I have a hate or disrespect for them. Neither of these can be farther from the truth.

Christ prayed that we (believers) would all be one. But this cannot mean agreeing all of the time. Heck, whatever we do we will not agree all the time. Perhaps Christ only meant agree all the time on spiritual things, that our oneness only extends when we are talking about "religion"? So might say my Catholic friends. But I see no such limitation in the text. And, as somebody has said, dividing things into the sacred and the profane is not a valid division. Holy and unholy, yes - pretty much everything in our lives is either done to the glory of God, or done against Him and His glory and will. Hard to imagine, but we are living on that (to pull in C. S. Lewis's quote) razor's edge every minute of our lives. But not sacred and profane. The most "sacred" thing in the world can be done in the most unholy manner (for example, in clown-led worship services); while the most "profane" can be done in the holiest manner (when I do something for somebody not because I want to or particularly feel good around it, but because I think God wants me to).

So, Christ prayed that we be one; but that obviously will not mean that we are all one of the same opinion. I think it must mean that we would be one in the sense that we loved one another and wanted the best for each other, and that we are working for the same overall goal. Namely, working for Christ's kingdom, for God's glory, etc. In fact, I think it means much the same as when man and wife are called to be "one." Anybody who ever thought that means "having the same opinions on every, or even, any subject" has obviously not been married. :-)

So, the fact that I take a different interpretation of Biblical passages does not, in itself, mean that I am not "being one" with my Arminians brothers and sisters in Christ. I should note, of course, that I am speaking solely of oneness with other believers; oneness with unbelievers is (as we say here in The South) a whole 'nother subject. But, as to believers, I can be "one" with them even if I hold a widely different theology than them.

One might object that we can hold different opinions on theology, but I should not talk about them. Thus, the fact that I disagree with Arminians is ok in itself; but I should not be talking about it here on the blog. That seems to me wrong on three counts. First, as long as I do it in a respectful manner - which I attempt to do - what is the problem? If you read my postings, I think you will note that I attempt to fairly portray both sides of the argument, even bringing up objections that a reader may never have thought of. In fact, I am intentionally not bringing up the kind of ridiculous strawmen often brought up by people of other theological stripes. For example, I have no desire to think of an analog to the infamous Bus Stop Analogy, or to present seriously a counter to John Wesley's statement about Calvinism stopping one from evangelizing. No doubt with free time on one's hands, a Calvinist could think up devastating-sounding equivalents that hit on Arminians. But what would be the purpose of that, except to dissuade people from being Arminians but not actually letting them consider the issues? How would God be glorified that way? If monergism is true (which I believe it is), we should not be afraid to confront the actual Biblical text; Bus Stop Analogies and clever but misguided redefinitions of words (like "Elected because I selected") are not only a waste of time, but disrespectful and thus unloving. It is these kinds of analogs and "arguments" that truly reflect a lack of "oneness."

The second reason it is wrong is like unto the first: because there is so much disinformation out there regarding Arminianism and Calvinism. See the examples above. It seems to me that some kind of antidote is called for; if I can play some small part in administering that antidote, all the glory goes to God.

Finally, there are a number of people around who claim to disdain both Calvinism and Arminian, to be "Biblicists" in place of those types of labels. If they are talking about Calvinism per se - following in lock step the teachings of Calvin - then I agree with them that Calvinism can divide people unnecessarily. (Curious how these types of people never seem to be that concerned that Arminianism divides people just as much as Calvinism.) In fact, the whole so-called "Calminian" point of view - which also divides people, I should note - deserves another post. For the time being, I should say that as long as there are folks out there claiming to be "Calminians" or "moderate Calvinists" but in reality being no such thing, an antidote is called for. Not to knock them down a notch - that is not at all my purpose. Rather, hopefully to help them think about some things they've not considered, rejected out-of-hand because of some presupposition.

As to the question of whether I have a hate or disrespect for Arminians, I have to meet this suspicion with straight denials. To borrow the old phrase, "some of my best friends are Arminians." This is totally true. Some of the men and women whom I most respect and love are Arminians and would disagree with me strongly on much of what I've written here. But that does not diminish by one iota my love and respect for these people. Most of them are better people than I will likely ever be; the best of them have a certain quality about them that is only describable as "holiness." My pastor, for instance, has a holiness about him and his entire family that I despair of ever matching. He is not holier than I wish to be, of course - but I have many years of bad habits lamentably built up in my life, and bad habits, repeated for 20 years, die hard. That's an explanation, not an excuse.

What's more, some Arminians - not all, of course - are far more evangelistic in their actions than I am. I am thinking of a certain associate pastor at our church who will share the gospel with absolutely anybody. I am asking God to change me, to help me be more like that; to be bolder about sharing the gospel. As well, I am studying evangelism training such as Way of the Master. Most Arminians, of course, do not have this kind of fervor (just as most Calvinists don't); but some do, and I love and respect them for it.

So, I pray to be like the best of them in holiness and in love for the lost and action to help unbelievers get to the point of saving faith in Christ. But that does not mean that I have to agree with them, just as it does not mean they have to agree with me.

Arminians don't pray for people's salvation

In the tradition of my previous Outrageously Untrue Assertions (Arminians don't evangelize! and Calvinists don't evangelize!), I present my latest outrageously untrue assertion: Arminians don't pray for the salvation of other people. In other words, following in the tradition of those misunderstandings, I want to fill another posting with a new set of misunderstandings for your consideration.

Before properly rejecting it as obviously untrue, let's follow the philosophical path taken by most of those who say "Calvinism kills evangelism" and consider the merits of my assertion. Just like Calvinists, Arminians believe that God wants to save everybody in some sense, but that there is another consideration that overrides His acting on that desire and saving everybody. Calvinists would say that consideration is His glory, which can only be fully displayed in both His wrath and His mercy. It is my understanding that Arminians, on the other hand, generally believe that consideration is God's respect of our free will. (At least, that's what I would have said when I was among their honorable ranks.) C. S. Lewis said that God did not want to create an army of puppets; that, to quote the Free Will Song, "only willing love is worth the price." Thus, God cannot save everybody, though He wants to, because He wants more to respect our free will. That's His higher will that overrides His will that all be saved, just as Calvinists say that God's higher will that His glory be increased overrides His will that all be saved.

Let's see how the Arminian understanding plays out in the question of whether we should pray for our unsaved friends and relatives. First, logically, it means that we can't make a request of God to override the person's free will; we can't say "Lord, change his/her heart," because that would be against what we understand his will to be. We know that "praying in Jesus's name" cannot mean praying for something that we know is against His will; thus, following the idea that God's highest will is to respect our free will, we can't pray for God to save somebody.

I should note that some people may object that prayer is not simply making supplication; there are other sorts of prayer that are simply "communing" with God, thanking God, praising Him, etc. I would certainly agree with that, but I don't think that's what people actually do when they are praying for somebody else's salvation. I don't think they simply say "O God, thank you for your greatness in saving me and for your greatness in respecting X's free will." That's a valid prayer (and perhaps the kind worth praying more often), but it is not praying for the other person's salvation, so I don't think that's the way most pray. Certainly, that's not what they've done in my presence.

So, the best we can pray for given that understanding of God's will - and this is what I often tried to do when I was an Arminian myself - is that God will do His will in the situation, whatever that may be. That, too, seems unsatisfying. We have such a love for our unsaved family and friends, such a desire to see them saved by God as we know that we have been saved by Him - for who among us would have the temerity to boast that it was thanks to our own free choice that we accepted God's saving grace? - that we cannot help wanting to pray for the person's salvation. Sure, we want God's will in every situation; but, like David in many Psalms, cannot help crying out our desire for God's intervention. So, how can we pray?

What if we pray for God to change the circumstances of the person's life so that he will accept the Gospel? Surely we can pray for God to change those, so the person will then accept God of his own free will. At least, that's the kind of conclusion that I drew when I was an Arminian myself, and often prayed that way. However, let's consider that answer in the full light of our libertarian free will assumption. It seems like the circumstances around the person that God might change might be of two types: the people around him, and the inanimate objects and situations around him. Let's consider each in turn.

• If the circumstances that need changing are other people around him, them what about their free will? If God so respects free will, He needs to respect their free will also. Does God only respect the free will of people He foresees as coming to faith in him in faith and thus making themselves part of the elect? And what verse does that come from?
• On the other hand, if the circumstances only include purely inanimate objects, isn't God bribing the person? Isn't this like saying either "you are free to love me or not; ignore this million dollars I'm holding in front of you" or "you are free to love me or not, pay no attention to the gun I'm holding to your head"? Either way, positively or negatively, God is coercing the person's will; and if "only willing love is worth the price," that kind of coerced love is not "willing" in any important sense I can think of.
  

The fact is, my mind cannot conceive of any way that God could influence the person to accept salvation without somehow violating their assumed libertarian free will. God could only love the person and hope for the best, so to speak; any positive action on His part would be violating what is said to be His highest will. Thus, it seems to me that a consistent Arminian would not pray for other people's salvation; the best they could do is pray that God's will be done, whether it's to save or damn the person.

However, unlike some who take a misunderstood understanding of unconditional election and assume that therefore Calvinists don't evangelize, I do not reach the conclusion that actual Arminians don't pray for their friends' and family's salvation. To their credit, most Arminians do not follow their philosophy to this logical end. They pray for their friends and loved ones with fervor, asking God to change their hearts. I have heard it myself; I prayed it myself (thought not as sincerely, no doubt, as many) when I was in more or less the same state of mind and emotions.

So, what is my point? Just the same as my other Outrageously Untrue Assertions: that you cannot take a understanding of somebody's philosophy and assume that they act on that philosophy the way you think they will. And that for two reasons:

• First, they may not act consistently with their philosophy: it was C. S. Lewis who said that he would rather play cards with a man who had doubts about ultimate questions of right and wrong but who had been raised with the understanding that "gentlemen do not cheat" than with an impeccable moral philosopher who had been raised by card sharps. People often don't act consistently with their philosophy, and I am extremely grateful for that. Otherwise atheists would be following their assumed "law of the survival of the fittest," whose primary duty - if one is to improve the human race's condition - would have to be to ruthlessly conquer everything in sight. In other words, even if it were true that Calvinism per se discouraged evangelism - which I am far from granting - you cannot assume that any given Calvinist will disdain evangelism themselves.
  
• Second, your understanding of that philosophy may be faulty. My understanding of Arminian philosophy may be faulty, I don't know; one is perhaps a poor judge of one's own positions on things. However, I can say for sure that the vast majority of Arminians I have talked to and listened to misunderstand Calvinist theology. Many hear things that don't exist ("The doctrine of Unconditional Election means there's no reason to evangelize") and ignore things that do ("What do you mean God wants all to be saved? So why doesn't He save them?")
  

One of these may be true, or both; either way, it's unwise to make pronouncements on how people will act based on what you think their philosophy teaches.

Calvinists and Arminians in a hole

I thought it would be interesting to share a little analogy I used to describe the different kinds of Christian soteriologies to my son. Let me tell you a story about a man in a hole in the ground. He's in the hole partly because he was born there (for his mother and father also lived in the hole, and in fact they were born there as well), but also partly because he enjoys it down there. Sure, it's inconvenient sometimes; and sometimes it's embarrassing. A person in a hole does not generally enjoy being seen by other people in that state, even other people who are in the hole themselves. It's true, there are some other people in the hole that the man is proud to be seen in the hole with: he even sometimes exaggerates the depth of his own hole to seem "bigger" or "cooler" in the eyes of the other people in the hole.

However, he knows deep inside that he was not made for that hole; that there's a loving Person right outside the hole, who wants him out of the hole to live alongside Him in the light. So, in his better moments - which are fleeting and only there in the first place because the Person outside gives them to him anyway - he wants to leave the hole. Not that he wants to yield his rights to the hole and follow the Person outside, or even to have his filth fully examined in the dreadful light of day: he has no desire to do that. It's simply that sometimes the inconveniences of being in the hole makes him wish to be outside it. How does the man in the hole understand how he might be saved? It all depends on his theology:

• The Pelagian says that the Person outside is just standing there, waiting for him to come out. It's up to him to claw his way up out of the hole using any means at his disposal (good works, morality, etc.) But, of course, the hole is far too deep for that, so again and again makes it a little way up the wall, but always falls back to the bottom again.
• The Semi-Pelagian says that the Person outside will reach down and grab him, but only after he crawls most of the way out of the hole himself. The Person outside wants to save him, but the problem is that His arms are just not long enough to reach down and grab him. So, he tries to claw his way up far enough so the Person outside can reach him, but unfortunately can't make it that far. He too falls back down into the hole.
  
• The Arminian says that the Person outside can in fact reach down and grab him and save him, but has too much respect for the man's desire to stay in the hole to do it. Therefore, He reaches down and holds His hands out, but doesn't grab him; He dangles His hands mere inches above the man's nose. But the man does not really want to accept help from the Person. Being lifted out of that hole would mean surrendering all his pride; and he simply - at his better moments - wants to be outside the hole. There's such a thing as getting more than you bargained for! So he does not grab onto the Person's hand.
  
  However, the Person sometimes inexplicably stops respecting the man's free will and change the circumstances of the man's life - alters the other people and things in the hole - so the man then wants to grab onto the Person's hand and be saved. The man's a little fuzzy on how changing the people around him is not violating their free wills; but he's thankful that the Person did it. Unfortunately, once he's on the surface, the Person still lets him have his unregenerated free will, so if he's not very careful, he'll decide the hole really was not that bad, and slip back down into it, necessitating that the whole process starts over again.
  
• The Calvinist believes that the Person can reach down and grab the man. However, the Person will not grab the man as long as the man still desires to be down there, as long as he still does not want to surrender his hole to the Person. But thankfully, since the Person outside the hole made the man, He knows the man's desires, and is able to change them. This should not be shocking: He generated the man and his desires in the first place, so why can't He re-generate them now? So, the Person reaches down, and changes the man's desires; once the Person does this, the man reaches up and grabs the hand of the Person reaching down for him. The man is pulled up, not with any merit of his own, not even that he made the Right Decision and chose to be saved; only thankful that the Person outside changed him from the inside out.
  
  The man is slightly troubled by one problem, however: the Person outside does not save everybody from their holes, when clearly He could. However, the man realizes two things. First, the Person is respecting their free wills and leaving them in their holes - because that is where they truly desire to be. Sure, they complain sometimes, but given the alternative (living a life with their desires for the hole surrendered to the Person) is even less desirable: the hole is the lesser of the two evils in their minds. Second, the man realizes that there may be some reason for the Person to leave people in their own holes that he may not grasp 100%. And he is not shocked by this. After all, down in the hole, the man knows that his thinking is futile and his foolish heart is darkened. The Person outside is not only much wiser, but His own thinking is not futile. Certainly part of the reason why the Person does not save everybody - though in one sense He certainly desires to do so - is that He wishes to demonstrate His justice as well as His mercy. But, beyond that, the Person obviously has other reasons that the man will not fully know until he is living in the ultimate light of day with the Person.
  
  The man simply accepts that, thankful that the Person has chosen to pull him from his hole.
  

You'll note that I did not say anything about what I've called semi-Calvinists or semi-Arminians, those who usually call themselves "moderate Calvinists" or "Calminians." This is because I am increasingly coming to believe that they do not actually exist. But that will take another article to explain.

Arminians don't evangelize!

Ok, so that's a provocative title. And it's probably the first time in history that anybody has ever used that phrase. (Google turns up no hits on it: guess I'll be the first!) However, I'd like to discuss the merits of this phrase versus the common refrain that Calvinists don't evangelize. I believe it was Wesley (cite, anybody?) who said that if Calvinism was true, there would be no reason to evangelize. If the quote is authentic, it shows me one thing only: Wesley knew very little about Calvinism, despite having been brought up on Calvinist doctrine. (That should not be surprising: how many today would call themselves Calvinists because they were brought up in the Presbyterian church, perhaps are even Presbyterian pastors; but could not give any substantive doctrinal differences between the 5 points of Calvinism vs. the 5 points of the Remonstrants? Or describe the key difference between monergism and synergism, and why it's illogical to cling to "once saved, always saved" and still be a synergist?)

However, I don't want to talk about Wesley. What I'd like to do is discuss on what basis a person would come to the strongly-held belief that either Calvinists, Arminians, or any other group don't evangelize, and whether Calvinists have just as strong a claim to say Arminians don't, as the other way around.

It seems to me that you can make the claim that any group of Christians (Calvinists, Arminians, Pentacostals, etc.) don't evangelize on one of three grounds. First, the experiential: who do you actually know who subscribes to the doctrine, and do they share the gospel with others? Second, the historical: have members of that group historically been evangelistic? Third, the philosophical: does the doctrine tend to discourage evangelism? All three of them have faults. Let's consider them in turn.

First, the experiential argument. Think for a second of other Christians you know. Then ask yourself two questions: (1) Do you really know where they stand doctrinally? (2) Do you really know whether or not they share their faith? I think you will find that you probably come out, as I did, rather poorly in both of these areas. First, I seriously doubt that you really know what most of their doctrinal beliefs are. There are beliefs of every stripe in every kind of church. I attend a Calvary Chapel, which I've noted before as being well-known for its anti-Calvinism; yet I know a number of monergists that attend there. We are pretty quiet most of the time, but we are here nonetheless. But in addition, I doubt you really know whether most of them share their faith. I have fairly recently (past year or so) become more convicted about sharing my own faith, so I purchased the Way of the Master video series and I am now leading a small group in this series. One of the assignments was to call some Christian friends and ask them whether they shared their faith. I was, frankly, very surprised at their responses. The wife, very outgoing and friendly (and strong in her faith as well) said she rarely did. The husband, on the other hand, is very, very quiet: yet he said that he shared his faith all the time, even seeking out strangers. (I believe he has monergist leanings as well.) I would bet most people have the same lack of understanding of their friends doctrines and evangelistic fervor.

So, the question next turns to the historical. This is even trickier, because the vast majority of people in the past we have no access to. All we know is the well known preachers and writers. And I submit that many of them in the past: Whitefield, Spurgeon, and Edwards, to name three, were both Calvinist and evangelistic. Even if it were true that there were more Arminians in the past who were evangelistic, that would have little bearing on whether it was the monergism itself that tended to produce less evangelistic fervor or some other factor. (Relationships, other philosophies, etc.) One might also compare against these against non-Christian groups (e.g. Mormons) and both Calvinists and Arminians would fare rather poorly in comparison, evangelistically-speaking.

Finally, we turn to the philosophical. I find, in practice, that most people who have used a variant of "Calvinism destroys evangelism" with me are basing their belief on the philosophical ground that the doctrine of election makes it useless to evangelize. I have argued elsewhere on this blog, of course, that this is a specious argument: but I will have to keep fighting this battle for a long time to come. However, the title of this blog is not "Calvinists don't evangelize", but rather "Arminians don't evangelize." And, following my many synergist friends, I want to put forth primarily the philosophical argument, because as I have pointed out, I know so little about other people's evangelistic efforts in the present or the past.

Now, the philosophical basis is dangerous too, because I've found that it's dangerous to assume you know how somebody acts based on his philosophy. I know atheists who are kind and loving even though logically their philosophy (some variant of "survival of the fittest") should dictate they should not be.

Nevertheless, let's consider how the typical Arminian sees God's foreknowledge. We all believe that God knows "the end from the beginning," and that He "elects" us in some sense. The most logical way these could be true, of course, is if He's ordaining them; but let's take the synergistic tack here. Let's say that God's looking down that "corridor of time" to see who will believe in Him, and electing them on that basis. Now, let's say that God foresees that some time in the future a given person will believe. Since God is perfect, He must have perfect knowledge of the situation, right? So, if God sees that the person will believe, why should I bother sharing the Gospel with him? God knows who will believe in him; if I don't share the Gospel with him, obviously somebody else will (since God has already seen that it will happen). Bingo! I'm off the hook!

Let's say, on the other hand, that God sees that the person will not believe. In that case, there's still no point in sharing the Gospel, right? No matter what I do, God has already seen with His perfect knowledge and flawless vision down that big "corridor of time" that the person will not believe. Again, why should I then bother sharing the Gospel with him? In fact, it seems to me that Calvinists and Arminians are in the exact same boat here. Either way, what the person will do is foreknown by God. In either case, one could argue there's no reason to share the Gospel with anybody. In fact, using this logic, the only people who would ever share the Gospel are Open Theists, those who believe that God does not know the things to come. They reject the "corridor of time"; and thus, they might argue, they need to share the Gospel because the future of the person cannot be known by anybody, either us or God.

At this point, an Arminian may demur and bring up the point that there are other reasons why he shares the Gospel, such as the following:

1. God may have access to that "corridor" and know who will believe in Him, but we don't.
   
2. We were told to share the Gospel in the Great Commandment, and it doesn't matter whether the person will ultimately believe or not. Therefore we need to share the Gospel with every man.
3. Even if God can see that down His "corridor of time" that the person will not believe, being told the truth of the Gospel will make his eventual lot in hell worse, and rightly so.
   

And I would agree with him. However, one could make the point - and I have in other posts - that these exact same reasons can be used by Calvinists:

1. God may know who His elect are, but we don't.
2. We were told to share the Gospel in the Great Commandment, and it doesn't matter whether the person is ultimately saved or not. Therefore we need to share the Gospel with every man.
3. Even if God has not sovereignly chosen to save that person from the condemnation he rightly deserves and even desires, being told the truth of the Gospel will make his eventual lot in hell worse, and rightly so.

So, you can't have it both ways. Either you believe that both Calvinism and Arminianism discourage evangelism (and become some form of Open Theist, whether the Christian variety, Jehovah's Witness, Muslim, whatever), or you give up on the old saw that Calvinists don't evangelize.

Postscript: I should note that none of this says anything about whether monergism or synergism is actually the true description of God's redemptive plan. After all, two of the most evangelistic groups today, with more evangelism per capita than either Arminians or Calvinists, are the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. They are evangelizing to a false gospel, but they certainly have fervor.

Limited Atonement

Part of a series on the Five Points of Calvinism
[Introduction] [Total Depravity] [Unconditional Election] [Limited Atonement]

The "L", Limited Atonement, is probably the most vilified of the five points of monergism. I have spoken with many people who held a high view of God's sovereignty, and who agreed with points such as Total Depravity and Perseverance of the Saints, but stumbled on Limited Atonement. Limited Atonement can be defined as the understanding that:

Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only, and actually secured salvation for them, and only them.

It is my aim here, as always in this series, to clear up misconceptions about Limited Atonement and make it believable, if not exactly palatable. For I, too, somehow feel the injustice of it. Christ's death - limited only to certain people! It seems so unfair of God. Yet, I have come to believe over my years of growth as a Christian and increasing knowledge of the Bible that it is true.

One thing that Limited Atonement does not mean is that God's saving power is limited somehow, that God is being put in a box, or that God's salvation is any less glorious. What's more, the extent of God's atonement is not limited by any factor except God 's own justice and wisdom. Spurgeon's sermon on this topic is well worth reading.

It also does not mean that God does not love those who are not His elect, nor does it mean (as I have argued before) that believers in Limited Atonement are less evangelistic than those who do not believe in Limited Atonement. It means simply what it says: that the salvific effect Christ's death is only applicable to those who God has elected. In fact, Limited Atonement does not even mean that Christ's death had no effect on those who are not elect. Christ's death had many effects on men, including changing the way God relates to us, handing Satan an intermediate defeat, showing us an example of supreme self-sacrifice, etc. The only effect it does not have for the non-elect (undoubtedly, from our point of view, although perhaps not from God's, the most important) is saving them from their sins.

Now that we've considered what Limited Atonement is and is not, I will try to convince you that it is reasonable. But, before we can consider that question, we need to consider two others first. The first one is: Why do people go to hell? It seems to me that there are only two answers, from a Christian point of view, to that question. First, because they don't believe in Jesus; or, second, because they are sinners who are not covered by Christ's redeeming blood.

Let's consider the first answer. Do people really go to hell because they don't believe in Jesus? I don't see any Scriptural support for that idea. Furthermore, there are real problems with that belief. First, what about the "native in Africa", or the "good Jew" problem? Is it really right that God should punish people forever because they happened to be born in the wrong place, the wrong time, or into the wrong family? What about people before Jesus died? If you go to hell because you don't believe in Jesus, why aren't they all in hell now? (Below I will argue that the second position does not have this problem, although on first blush it seems it does.)

For that matter, what about the good and honest atheist? It seems to me (and it seemed the same to atheists I have actually talked to) that this kind of God would capricious and unworthy of our worship. Now, before you judge me for considering philosophy and man's judgment over revealed truth, I believe in Limited Atonement because I believe it is scriptural, not because I was convinced of it by philosophical considerations such as I am raising now. My discussion here is merely to clear up misconceptions and hopefully to help people better understand the Biblical data, which is always the final court of appeal.

An analogy may help: people who jump out of an airplane without a parachute don't die primarily because they didn't have a parachute, but because they jumped out of the airplane. The parachute could have saved them, but its lack is not the cause of them dying: jumping out of the airplane and hitting the ground is. It's the same with salvation: believing can save us, but lack of believing is not what condemns us.

On the other hand, consider the second answer: that people go to hell because they are sinners. This answer seems to me much better fitting with the Biblical data, as well as other doctrines that I am many non-monergists accept (such as Total Depravity). Further, it does not have the philosophical problems above. It may seem that the native in Africa problem applies, but I believe it does not. The native in Africa (substitute good Jew or atheist if you wish) goes to hell not because they don't believe in Jesus, but because they are sinners. I am a sinner too, of course, which means that I deserve to go to hell just as much as the good native or Jew or Muslim or, for that matter, Adolph Hitler or Josef Stalin. Believing in Jesus saves me from what I otherwise deserve: that's why we call it grace.

In fact, if people went to hell because they did not believe in Jesus, that would make salvation at least in part a work on our parts, and it would not be fully of God's grace. The native in Africa would go to hell because he didn't perform the right work, and I am going to heaven because I did. As Paul would say, "God forbid!"

So, if it is true that men go to hell because they are sinners, let's consider a second question: what is the effect of Christ's death on the cross? Is it that our sin is covered, the guilt of our sins is removed, and we are saved? Or is it simply that we are made savable? It must be the former, because otherwise our sins would still be on our own heads, their effect still upon us. If we are made savable, but God still considers us "dead in our sins and trespasses," and if people go to hell because of their sin, then we would still be going to hell. To avoid going to hell, something needs to remove the guilt of our sins; and that something must be Christ's atoning death. Thus, the effect of Christ's death must be that the guilt of our sins is removed, it is put on His head, and He became sin for us, in our place.

As an aside, I should note that this is the doctrine of substitutionary atonement - Christ took the guilt of our sins on His own head. I have heard people affirm the idea of substitutionary atonement yet deny that the effect of Christ's death was to effectively save people. It seems to me that this is a logical contradiction: the two ideas - substitutionary atonement and Christ's salvific death - are essentially the same thing. In either case, Christ died in our place and took our penalty.

Having considered these two questions, let's finally consider Limited Atonement. If Christ's death takes away the guilt of our sins, for whom did Christ die? It cannot be for the entire world, because then everybody would go to heaven, because the guilt of their sins would be removed. Or, alternatively, it removes the absolute sovereignty of God, because we as men would be able to continually thwart His plans. He planned that Christ would remove the guilt of sin, and thus that we would all go to heaven, but we keep ruining His plans by not believing in Him. That kind of God would be continually frustrated by His creatures.

The only conclusion that makes sense to me is Limited Atonement. Christ's death is perfectly effective for those whom He intends to save, and God's will is never thwarted. Those who He does not save deserve to go to hell (as do we all) because they are sinners, not because they did not believe in Jesus. It's completely by God's grace, not due to anything - not even having faith - that anybody is saved. Praise be to God!

Additional Resources:

monergism.com's Limited Atonement page has lots of them

Apologetics or the Gospel?

I wanted to post a short item today which came out of a discussion I was having with a teacher. Our kids both attend a Christian school, and I am in general very thankful for them. I believe that most of their teachers are saved, and the ones who aren't at least don't teach heresy. However, many of them (reflecting the Christian church in general) have been seduced by the whole seeker-sensitive belief system. The church that runs the school is very seeker-sensitive, doing the whole "find your purpose" thing, recently promoting luminaries such as Kate Campbell (touring with and promoted by Tony Campolo) and Brennan Manning (see my review of one of his books entitled "Half the Gospel" in the link above). I heard one person from that church complain that they save the people and then other churches steal them. I think it would likely be more accurate to say that people come in, and then they are either saved or bored; if they are really saved, they go where they can be fed; if they are bored, after the fluff wears off, they once again stop attending church. If you're not really saved, going to church is a salve to your conscience for a while, but in the end playing golf usually wins out.

Anyway, the aforementioned teacher and I were having a discussion about the Way of the Master method of evangelism. I have recently acquired the Way of the Master Basic Training Course and am very excited about it, so I naturally wanted to talk about it. I should mention that I have the great respect for this teacher, in terms of her salvation, teaching style, friendliness, love, holiness, and many other things. The last thing I wish to do is impute any kind of questioning of her salvation or motives: she is no doubt far better and purer than I am, and a lot more fun to be around.

However, I believe she has bought into the false gospel of seeker-sensitivity, which I have argued elsewhere is essentially semi-Pelagianism reborn. In our discussion, I said that it was important to help people get to where their conscience is awakened by God; because the Gospel can only be accepted - and even understood - when accompanied by true repentance and brokenness. She disagreed, saying that "friendship evangelism" is more important. My rejoinder was that it seems to me that friendship is important, but one should not confuse it with evangelism. She didn't articulate exactly why she disagreed with me, but it was clear she did. I probably should have listened more closely to what her objections were, but frankly I was nervous about disagreeing with her. So often, I am a people-pleaser and don't like to disagree.

She then told me what she had been studying recently, which is apologetics. Now, I agree with her that apologetics is very important. Every believer should know exactly what he believes and why. And when confronted with people who have honest questions and doubts about Christianity - and these do come along occasionally - we should always be prepared to make a defense for the hope that is in us. Of course, the majority of unbelievers are not honestly questioning:

What do you mean Christianity is true? Well, what about the native in Africa? And if God is good, how come disasters strike? And how could a God of love send people to hell anyway? And what about all the contradictions in the Bible? And ...

When a stream of questions like that come out - and always the same ones, of course - you are probably not dealing with an honest doubter. But there are some, which is why I agree that studying apologetics is important. In fact, the Way of the Master video series contains a section on apologetics, answering the most common objections. So, Ray Comfort and I would agree with this teacher that apologetics is important.

However, then she made an statement that stopped me cold. She said that she was convinced that lack of apologetics training is what is causing so many people to come to their church, get "saved," and then fall away. Thus, to keep people "saved," you have to teach them apologetics. Now, I am not questioning that a knowledge of apologetics helps us to maintain a strong faith: clearly it does. We are all tossed like ships on the sea of emotion from time to time. But I don't think that's what she was talking about. I think she was talking about people who come to church a few times; "make a decision for Christ;" go to church a while more; and then fall away, presumably never to be heard from again.

At first I was stunned - how could a few intellectual doubts "unsave" a person who had been regenerated by God's Holy Spirit? How is it that Jesus can lose some that the Father has given Him, simply because of some intellectual difficulties? Then I realized the problem: I was up against semi-Pelagian assumptions. In this system, people can come, get attracted by Jesus, even choose to make Him their Lord (lucky Jesus!), but at the first intellectual doubt, their sovereign intellect will decide against the existence of God, and thus they will fall away.

I answered that I thought many times the problem is not that they have accepted the Gospel, but that they had never heard the Gospel. I think she was getting uncomfortable with the conversation, and we parted amicably for the night. I don't know when we'll have a chance to talk on this subject again, but I hope I can help her understand that the Gospel is not about us making a decision, but about the decision that God makes for our benefits.

Apologetics is good. It builds up our faith. What it does NOT do is create the faith in the first place; it does not turn an unbeliever who has never even really come to a realization of his utter sinfulness and lostness into a believer. Only God can do that, putting in a heart of flesh to replace our hearts of stone. In other words, apologetics is no replacement for the Gospel.

Unconditional Election

Part of a series on the Five Points of Calvinism
[Introduction] [Total Depravity] [Unconditional Election] [Limited Atonement]

The second part of TULIP is, of course, the U: Unconditional Election. This seems like a doctrine that no believing Christian could argue with, because the Bible so continually talks about election from cover to cover. God elected Noah and his out of all the men on earth at the time; God elected Lot out of Sodom; God elected Joseph our of the sons of Jacob; God elected Moses out of all those babies who died to not only be saved from the Pharaoh's order, but ultimately to save "Israel mine elect" out of all the nations of the earth, such as the Amalekites; God chose Isaac and Jacob but rejected Ishmael and Esau, and not because of what they had done; God elected Saul though he had hid himself among the stuff to escape being chosen; God elected David from among his brothers to be king, and ultimately every king of Israel thereafter; and the list goes on.

Then in the New Testament, the disciples did not choose Jesus, Jesus chose them; God first chose the Jews to receive salvation, then the Gentiles; God chose Peter (unwilling though he was) to start the transition to allowing Gentiles into the church; he even chose Saul to be an apostle period, though he was completely unwilling. Ephesians 1:3-14 best sums it up:

He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love He predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. (Ephesians 1:4-6 ESV)

Note that in every case, God did the choosing without regard to whether the person had done anything good or not (i.e. unconditionally); in fact, in many cases (e.g. Lot, Saul the king, Saul/Paul the apostle), the person chosen was quite wicked. So the fact of election should be so clear in the Bible from cover to cover, that there should be no discussion required, at least among Christians. (Unbelievers also disagree with the idea of God's election, of course, but that would be expected.)

Yet, Christians rail at the idea of God choosing unconditionally. Or, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that people have no problem with the idea of God choosing unconditionally in all the above cases, but they rail at the idea of God choosing us unconditionally for salvation. Why is that? It seems to me that if you have a problem with God choosing us unconditionally for salvation, God has a lot more to answer for that just that. What about all the other people on earth in Noah's time? What about those poor babies in Moses's? What about the Gentiles for thousands of years before God sovereignly chose them in the New Testament days? Where does God get the right to make all those choices unconditionally?

He has the right, of course, because He is God, and we are not. And since we trust that God is right in making all those decisions, why not trust that God will rightly make the election decision as well? Yet, we don't. One of the worst examples is Dr. Nelson Price's wretched bus stop analogy. Where do I get off calling it "wretched"? I call it that because, although I highly respect Dr. Price in so many ways, his analogy so completely ignores the facts that it's almost criminal. It would be like me saying that the reason we should not be atheists is because atheists kill babies. In fact, it's worse than that, because a logical result of believing in atheism is that human life is not worth anything, therefore killing babies can be justified by any number of practical reasons.

However, no Calvinist/monergist could believe what the bus stop analogy seems to say that they believe. Nobody believes that a "missionary couple who with zeal have served Christ all their lives" would be rejected by God because they are not among the elect, and that for two reasons. First, we cannot look at that missionary couple and know for sure if they are among the elect. It may be that they were externally serving Christ because they thought they could earn their way to heaven: like the little boy in the joke being told by his mother to stand up against his will, perhaps they are standing up on the outside but sitting down on the inside. Perhaps they are missionaries because an elderly relative promised them a big inheritance if they became missionaries. The truth is, neither I nor you can truly judge somebody else's motives; heck, we have a hard enough time judging our own. But surely God can rightly judge people's motives. And this is one reason why the bus stop analogy is bad: because God would never judge wrongly, as the analogy implies.

The second reason why the analogy is bad, of course, is more basic: that missionary couple would never want to serve Christ with zeal in the first place (assuming that zeal was real and holy) unless God had first elected them and then regenerated their hearts, taken out the heart of stone and put in the heart of flesh.

So what do Christians who wish to deny Unconditional Election do with the many Biblical texts that teach election? They redefine it. In the above article, Dr. Price defines election as being that God "gave man a free will to choose his or her eternal destiny depending of his or her faith in Christ." In other words, in a way that is compatible with the presupposition of libertarian free will. I am not sure what text that comes from; in fact I would say that such a definition of election is completely against all the examples of sovereign election given above. Is it possible that this is what God means by "election" in this one particular instance? Sure, but it militates against every other example of election ever given in the Bible. The evidence for that understanding would have to be very strong to go against the entire tenor of Scripture like that, and I submit that it is not. The references below contain many references that show exactly that.

Another redefinition is by Dr. Ergun Caner. He signs many blog posts with the tag line "Elected because I selected" and this, in fact, seems to be a catchphrase of his. With all due respect to Dr. Caner (who I do in fact respect very much), that makes no sense at all. In what sphere of life is my choice the cause of being "elected" or "chosen"? Am I elected President of the USA because I want to be? Am I chosen captain of the hockey team because I chose to be? Did Israel become God's chosen people because they decided to be? No! In fact, I'd submit that the idea that "elected because I selected" would never be proposed for any use of the word "elected" if not to counteract the obvious meaning of the Biblical doctrine of election.

So, if you chose to disbelieve in Unconditional Election, do it for good and consistent reasons: don't believe that God is sovereign over every sphere of life, especially including man's salvation. But don't pull the word out of the Bible and then redefine it to a completely alien concept based on your presupposition of man's libertarian free will.

Additional Resources:

Spurgeon on Election
A "Southern Baptist" on Election
Boettner on Election

Total Depravity

Part of a series on the Five Points of Calvinism
[Introduction] [Total Depravity] [Unconditional Election] [Limited Atonement]

The first of the five points is, of course, Total Depravity: the idea that sin touches every aspect of our lives and makes us naturally incapable of doing anything at all that is good in God's sight. This does not mean, of course, that we do not do anything good (more below); but, when applied to the soteriological question, we cannot do anything that merits our salvation. The most straightforward Biblical statement of the doctrine, it seems to me, is Romans 8:7-8 (ESV):

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

As with many doctrines, there have been major misunderstandings of Total Depravity by those who don't hold it. One of the foremost that comes to mind was that of one of the men God has used in my life: C. S. Lewis. Lewis said:

"The doctrine of Total Depravity -- when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing -- may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil worship" (The Problem of Pain, HarperCollins edition 2001, p. 29)... "I disbelieve that doctrine partly on the logical ground that if our depravity were total we should not know ourselves to be depraved, and partly because experience shows us much goodness in human nature. (ibid, p.61)

I cannot begin to explain the extent of influence Lewis has had in my life for the better - it was his writings that largely led me to intellectually accept the truth of Christianity - but I cannot agree with his statement here. Lewis is begging the question in a subtle, unstated way. The doctrine does indeed mean that sin affects every part of us, including our moral judgments. However, Lewis judges the doctrine based on a synergistic understanding of salvation: the doctrine says that our depravity causes us to be unable to respond to God, which (in his view) makes believers power worshipers or, at best, robots. In other words, Lewis is using an Arminian understanding of salvation (that sinners can freely respond to God) to judge a non-Arminian doctrine. Naturally, if Arminian soteriology is true, then Total Depravity is to be rejected.

However, just you don't judge a football game according to the rules of baseball, you don't take an Arminian assumption and use it to judge Calvinism. The Arminian assumption is that we can choose to follow God, which negates the doctrine. However, the Calvinist understanding is based on the idea that we cannot choose to follow God: that sin has so infected our spirits that none of us wants to follow God. In other words, using Arminianism to argue against Total Depravity is begging the question. Total Depravity must not be determined by Arminian presuppositions - or Calvinistic, for that matter - but rather Biblical support. (There's lots of support, of course: see comments by John Piper, R. C. Sproul, Herman Hanko, and many others. My main purpose here is not to defend the doctrine per se, but to relate my own thoughts on the subject.)

The last part of the quote above, that there is "much goodness in human nature," is also a question-begging assumption. The assumption seems to be that human nature, per se, contains much that is good. But that assumption is simply a negative statement of Total Depravity. In fact, I believe that the Bible does support the idea that in my flesh there is nothing good; all good things come from God Himself. It is not our nature that causes us to do good things, but rather God, who causes rain to fall on the just as well as the unjust. If we are thoughtful and caring towards our fellow-man, there's only one reason: God's grace, poured out on us though we don't deserve it.

Among those who demur from the Arminian position, Total Depravity seems to me to be among the most popular of the five points. People sometimes claim to be one-, two-, three-, or four-point Calvinists (a former pastor of mine called himself a three-and-a-half pointer), but it seems that the one they always include is Total Depravity. This seems to me to be based on a misunderstanding as well. In fact, the five points of Calvinism are not things you can really pick and choose (same for the five points brought forth first by the Remonstrants). The five points of both are the constituent parts of the appropriate Biblical understanding. If you do not have the basic Biblical understanding, you almost certainly do not subscribe to any of the parts.

In fact, in a very real sense, Total Depravity is not just one of the five points: it is THE foundational point. Sin has completely permeated our being: mind, soul, and spirit. It has made us spiritually dead, unable to initiate love towards God (such as the Pelagians would say) or even respond to the love God shows us (such as the Arminians would say). If you really believe in Total Depravity, it seems to me that you cannot believe in any form of synergism. God loves us, but due to our depravity, we cannot respond to His love; we are dead in our sins and trespasses.

The idea that I am able to respond to God's love in such a state seems to negate the idea of Total Depravity, as well as (more importantly) the Biblical analogy of being dead. Lazarus didn't reach out and accept the resurrection Jesus was offering him - he was unable to do anything until Jesus brought him back from the dead. So, it seems that if one wants to reject Total Depravity, one should reject it; but to cling to the idea of Total Depravity and reject the other soteriological tenets of Calvinism makes no sense to me.

The Five Points of Calvinism

Part of a series on the Five Points of Calvinism
[Introduction] [Total Depravity] [Unconditional Election] [Limited Atonement]

It should come as no surprise to anybody who reads this blog (if there were some day to be such people, that is) that I am a five-point Calvinist. Note that this is distinct from what one denizen of Kim Riddlebarger's blog called "fifty-point Calvinism," i.e., following Calvin's every teaching. It is largely for this reason that I like to call myself (and people who believe similarly such as Reformed Baptists, John MacArthur, etc.) "monergists." If I don't accept all Calvin's teachings, perhaps I shouldn't take his name as my description.

There are many descriptions extant of what the five points of monergism really mean and where they came from. There are certainly fine expositions of the five points out there. But I do not wish to write another one. My goal is to write down my thoughts on each, especially from the perspective of somebody who has not embraced monergism until recently. If I succeed in this goal, perhaps I can help somebody else to understand the five points a little better as well.

Speaking of the latter, I have heard a number of times synergists who expect to shock us by telling us that "Calvin didn't even believe in Calvinism," presumably meaning - if it means anything at all - that Calvin did not formulate his famous five points. It's not a great shocker. The five points, as most monergists know, were formulated by the Synod of Dort over fifty years after Calvin died. They were formulated as a response to the five points of the Remonstrants, followers of Jakob Harmenszoon, also known as Arminius. Thus, it was the Arminians who first formulated five points: the Calvinists created theirs as an answer.

The initial observation I wish to make, in fact, builds on this fact. The five points were not formulated - or even unequivocally stated - by Calvin. This fact does not bother me in the least, because, frankly, I don't care what John Calvin said. I don't believe "Calvinism" to be the truth because Calvin said it, but because I believe it is the best systematic presentation I know with of the overall teachings of the Bible in the area of soteriology. And I have seen a few: I first became a Christian primarily by reading C. S. Lewis, who was a pretty thorough-going Arminian. (I think he clearly rejected Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, and Persistence of the Saints; I'm not sure where he'd fall on Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace.) Thus, I also became an Arminian. As I learned more and more teachings of the Bible, I rejected outright Arminianism and moved along my scale to become what I'd call a "semi-Calvinist." Finally, about eight months ago, I accepted the monergist view of salvation.

At no point in this process did the explicit teachings of Calvin come into play; in fact, on some points taught by Calvin, I was far more in accord with his beliefs at the beginning than at the end of the process. For example, regarding paedobaptism, I was brought up in the Roman Catholic Church and became a Christian in the Episcopal Church under (as I said) heavy influence of C. S. Lewis. If anybody had a basis for believing in paedobaptism, it was me. Yet I gradually came to reject a number of the teachings of Calvin and others, while embracing that which I believe is Biblical.

I think most monergists would have a similar story. However, I have heard the most ludicrous statements by anti-Calvinists along these lines. I heard one Southern Baptist preacher imply that the result of coming to believe reformed doctrine is to become a paedobaptist. Another, a well-known seminary professor who should certainly know better, said that some Calvinists think that JC stands for John Calvin instead of Jesus Christ. There are weasel words here, no doubt, so that, if challenged, these men would say "I didn't mean all, I meant only some Calvinists think that way." But, in fact, the bias in the mind of the speaker, and that intended to be created in the mind of the listener, is clear.

After all, since the avowed intention of the speakers is to dissuade people from believing reformed theology, what good would it do to really say that "some Calvinists" believe such-and-such? I could say "some synergists kill babies," which would be true if even one of them did; but it would have no bearing whatsoever on whether one should listen to synergist soteriological doctrines unless I was implying that all or most synergists do so, and that killing babies is a near-inevitable result of following the synergist doctrine.

That is ridiculous, of course: the vast majority of born-again synergist Christians no more support abortion than any monergist, and thus I would never use such comparisons. But synergists don't seem to have a problem using them. I am not, for the same reason, trying to use this as an argument against synergist soteriology: simply imploring synergists not to use them.

Anyway, thus begins my series on the five points. I hope it will be edifying to somebody, and clarifying to myself.

Us Mean Calvinists

Am I a mean Calvinist? I am afraid that sometimes I come off that way.

In a discussion recently with a good friend of mine, the question of Calvinists and evangelism came up. I said that we Calvinists evangelize because God told us to. She was gracious (especially so given her very tender age of 25 26) but gently pointed out that people have a negative impression of Calvinists for exactly that kind of reason. It seemed to her that we may evangelize, but it's like it's a duty - we do it because we have to, not because we love the people and want to see them saved.

That got me thinking. Now, her impression is certainly false for me - and I know she knows it, as we are both counselors at a crisis pregnancy center. I love people and want to serve them in part because it's a wonderful opportunity that God gives me. But I know what she's talking about. If you didn't know me as well as she does, you might come away from a statement like mine with a distaste for Calvinists. You might get the idea that Calvinism drives people to be highly logical, but also to have no life or love of God in them.

I can't help but think of experiences that I have had on the chat channel of a well-known Christian ministry. I hung around there for several weeks, but ultimately stopped because a number of the denizens came across as just plain nasty. Sure, they were logical, and I agreed with them for the most part on their theology ... but they were not a lot of fun to be around.

The sad part is that I believe many of them, if you actually talked to them one-on-one, are probably decent and even friendly people: many probably friendlier and more loving than I am myself. However, in the chat/blog environment, or even in person sometimes, many times our pride causes us to put on airs, to try to out-argue people and be right at all costs: truth at the expense of love. And though I don't like to admit it, I see this tendency in myself.

Perhaps my friend at the beginning of this post was seeing that in me. And if I had that kind of reaction when saw this attitude in my fellow Calvinists, whom I agreed with theologically, wouldn't the person who disagreed with them have at least as bad of a reaction? That's too bad, because emotional reactions like this can insulate somebody from the truth. I have a feeling that there are a large number of Christians who don't consider the Biblical truths of monergism because of an emotional reaction. The feel more comfortable with the synergists.

That's a shame, and something I will strive to work on in the future. Thanks for putting me onto this, Eve.

Calvinists don't evangelize!

"Calvinists don't evangelize. After all, if you're among the elect, God will save you no matter what happens. If you're not, God will send you to Hell regardless of what you do."

If you're a fellow monergist, you have no doubt heard those statements countless times. If you are a synergist (either of the classical Arminian variety or a modern "all means all" Southern Baptist/Calvary Chapelite), you have probably said them. A good friend of mine who is one of the latter said essentially this very thing to me not long ago, and there is a recent comment in Tim Challies' blog saying essentially the same thing. I would like to give an answer to this from the point of view of one monergist.

The crux of the issue is that we need to distinguish between classical Calvinists/monergists and hyper-Calvinists. As I discussed in an earlier entry (although Phil Johnson does a much better job of it than I ever could) they are not at all the same thing. I have generally found that those who are not monergists generally don't make such distinctions - not that nobody does, but that most don't. It's not that surprising, really: people tell me all the time that the kinds of music I favor (classical, jazz, and bluegrass) "all sound the same," though they know next to nothing about the genres. We tend to lump everything we don't really know or understand into one big category: thus black/European/Asian people "all look the same," and as C. S. Lewis pointed out, in most people's minds basically all of history up to about 100 years ago was one big undifferentiated soup of Roman centurions, Vikings, Renaissance men, and Knights.

If you are only planning on having a passing interaction with a subject, I suppose that's reasonable: I don't expect a person who likes to listen to general "classical stuff" as background noise to master the fine distinctions between fugues and canons; similarly, between bebop and post-bop, or between Bill Monroe's instrumentation and that of Flatt and Scruggs. There are only so many hours in the day.

However, if you are going to make an argument maligning another person's love for the lost, it is a serious charge and you really should know what you're talking about. And this is what I find many synergists don't do. Many of them take a sketchy understanding of the monergist's understanding of the secret will of God, and then they extrapolate it to be his total belief about the action of God in history. Furthermore, they then assume the monergist will ignore the clear teaching of Scripture to evangelize the world in favor of his understanding of God's secret will.

For that is what we are really being accused of: ignoring God's clear command to evangelize in favor of our understanding of God's secret will. This is no small accusation. However, if you think about it, does it really make any sense? Is somebody willing to tell me to my face that we monergists are willing to ignore God's clear commands and follow what we think (even based on good evidence) that God is planning on doing to the unregenerate in the end? If one is going to take that tack, why not do as the extremist Muslims to, and kill the infidels? After all, God is just going to send them to hell in the end anyway, right? One might object that we don't know somebody is non-elect, only that they are not yet regenerated (yet synergists make this same mistake when they facetiously ask us "why don't you just preach to the elect?") But let's say that we somehow did know who was elect and who was not. In principle, why not kill them now, since we know God is planning on reprobating them anyway?

The answer should be obvious: because God never told us to. He told us to love our neighbor and preach the Gospel. And ignoring what you are clearly told for what you think God will do in the end is not only extremely foolish but sinful.

On the two wills in God

Perhaps you have read John Piper's excellent essay, Are There Two Wills in God?. If you have not, I highly recommend it since I will be restating parts of it and building on other parts of it here.

I take as my starting place that both monergists (as usual, the term I prefer to Calvinist) and synergists (in place of Arminians) believe that there are two wills in God, a revealed will and a secret will. (If you are a synergist and you don't think you believe God has two wills, please read Piper's essay. I will be supporting the point more below, but digesting that essay is very helpful for clear thinking on the subject.) Sometimes these are called prescriptive will and eternal will.

Nevertheless, I believe that there is further agreement in that both monergists and synergists agree on God's revealed will: that God loves all men, wishes (in some sense) for them to be saved, and that He commands us to share the Gospel to all men and invite them to repent, believe, and be saved. He also reveals that anybody who hears the Gospel and believes will be saved. Both monergists and synergists agree on these points, since they are clearly laid out in the Bible.

The difference only occurs in what God's secret will is, that is, the basis on which people are saved in God's eternal plan. This difference is because the Bible does not lay this out in a systematic fashion: you have to piece together evidence from many different Bible verses, and people differ on the interpretation. However, again there is some agreement. Both agree (I hope) that God's secret will is primarily to give Himself glory. It is true, synergists do not normally talk in terms of God's glory: they typically talk, like C. S. Lewis did (definitely a synergist, a pretty pure Arminian) about God's upholding men's free will because He did not want an army of puppets. But I hope that the underlying unstated reason is that they believe giving men ultimate control over their own salvation brings God glory in some way.

The crux of the difference between monergists and synergists is what it is that gives God the most glory. The monergist says it is that He is demonstrated to be both merciful (through those He elects) and just (through those He reprobates). For the current purpose, I don't think it matters so much whether God actively reprobates the lost, or simply allows them to perish in their sins: the point is that God could have saved them, but He doesn't, and the fact that He saves some and not others brings Him glory. After all, better knowledge of God brings Him glory, and understanding that he elects some and not others is better knowledge of Him. This is true even for those who are lost: though their will continues to rebel against God, at least the flag of truth is planted within them (as Lewis also noted), even if they don't do anything else with it.

On the other hand, the synergist says that God gets the most glory by allowing man his free will when it comes to salvation. And I can understand that, in a way. Why shouldn't it give God glory? After all, it gives men glory (in their own way) when they respect the free will of others. The problem here is really the same one I mentioned in my last post about the "Free Will Song": many of the standards that apply in human-to-human relationships do not apply in God-to-human ones. It is wrong for a human being to demand worship from another: not so between men and God. One human should not be a slave to another: but Paul said that he was a slave to Jesus Christ.

Similarly, men should give each other free will: but God's understanding is so much above ours the same does not apply to God, and in two ways. He is infinite, of course, while we are finite. But just as importantly, we are sinful and He is not. Our wills are free, but they are enslaved to their own sin. Thus, we neither can nor wish to respond in faith to God. He could have let us go according to our own wills: but then nobody could be saved. It's only because He does NOT let us go according to our own wills that any of us are saved.

I should mention a point once made by a synergist I was talking to (a very intelligent young man, very knowledgeable especially given that he was only 17 years old). He agreed with me that he also believed in the idea of two wills in God; but then he made the comment "But in my understanding the two wills do not contradict each other." We didn't get a chance to hash that out, but I have thought about his position. I think he was saying that in the situation of the people that God reprobates, His two wills are in conflict with each other: the revealed will saying "save the person" and the secret will saying "condemn the person."

It was an interesting comment. It is true, one will says "save" and the other says "don't save." But if the results weren't different at least in some cases, there would really be no reason to speak of there being two wills: there would only be one will. Still, I think it fails as a support for synergism, and that in two ways. First, the two are not really in conflict at a high level: God's revealed will is to save, and His secret will is to bring Himself glory. They are really dealing with two different issues. The only way they can be said to be in conflict is with regards to that particular person.

Second, doesn't the synergist have the same problem? In the synergist's view, God wants to save the person (revealed will), but not wanting to save the person so as not to interfere with his free will (secret will). Again, we have an apparent conflict as regards that one individual person. So if the monergist's version of God's two wills has a "contradiction," so does the synergist's.