Today's topic is Calvinism. It's a rather difficult and broad one. But I think we can break down and discuss some of it's elements, and hopefully get a better grasp on the concept in the process.
In order to have the most interesting and engaging conversation possible, I'm not going to google search anything about this topic for now. In the follow-up responses by anybody, we can do some research. But for now, I'm just writing from the heart.
First, I'd like to break apart the idea of being predestined (or foreordained) for salvation from the idea of having all of our daily actions being predetermined. I think this is one sticking point, or possible misunderstanding, about Calvinism. We can discuss both of these things, but the most important (and interesting, in my opinion) is the salvation issue.
Not all Calvinists like this acrostic, but it's helpful - TULIP.
T - total depravity of man
U - unconditional election
L - limited atonement
I - irresistable grace
P - perseverance of the saints
(OK, I googled that cause I usually get the U wrong)
Some christians say they're 3 or 4 point Calvinists. Usually the L and I are the 2 debated points.
Obviously, if antonement is limited (the L), Christ didn't die for all people. But personally, I think Calvinism is proved, or disproved, by I. Is God's call 'irresistible'? Does man have the option to resist? Calvinists would say that once God has regenerated a soul, that soul willingly accepts God's offer of salvation. In other words, the question isn't CAN man resist, there simply is no desire TO resist. Yet we often hear this idea that Christ is 'knocking'. Won't you open the door? Will you reject Him? Or we may have heard people say, 'I felt God tugging at my heart, but I just didn't want to respond'. That doesn't sound too irresistible. Or was it merely human emotion at work?
Most baptists I know are reluctant to identify themselves with Calvinism (or sometimes the word Reformed is used). However, we also can't ignore the many references in the bible to the elect, the chosen, the predestined, the foreordained, and so on.
Calvinism is heavy on God's sovereignty in saving us, and I think that's a good thing. Some complain that it would necessarily minimize evangelism due to the elect being secure - regardless of whether or not you and I witness to them.
These are just a few points to raise. What are your thoughts?
It's obviously becoming a very big topic in the Baptist church today.
In fact, the Kentucky Baptist Convention is sponsoring an all-day conference August 4th at Crestwood Baptist Church entitled 'Calvinism: Concerned, Confused or Curious. Cost $45.
I'm signed up.(It may not be visible, but if you hover your cursor under \/ here, the comment link will become visible)
Right after posting this to FB, I saw that today is Calvin's birthday. Now that's creepy.
ReplyDeleteAnother big complaint about Calvinism is that it's not fair. If only the elect are chosen by God for salvation - not based on anything they did or didn't do - then by default everyone else is chosen for hell. There are varying responses to this. Paul makes a couple of them in Romans 9.
ReplyDeleteI am commenting as 'anonymous'.
ReplyDeleteA few additional points:
ReplyDeleteThere is apparently a movement to 'reclaim our reformed theology roots' among some Baptists. There is even a Reformed Baptist Church of Louisville off of Taylorsville Rd.
Also, many of the phrases I used (possible all) in the paragraph describing this idea of Christ knocking, or the H.S. tugging at your heart, are not found in the bible - that I am aware of. It seems to me that when evangelism occurs in the bible, there is a proclamation of the facts surrounding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and then there is a response - good or bad. No pleading or begging.
Last, the question has been raised: What does it matter what I believe about Calvinism? Is it going to change anything for me? I think that's a good question. I don't know the answer. I do think endeavors into understanding the truths about God (as far as we can comprehend them) are a good thing. I don't think we should be divisive over non-essential areas regarding salvation - though some may say these are essential and fundamental.
Besides it's just plain interesting!
Interesting quote from Sproul in refuting objections to God choosing only the elect: If grace is a requirement, it is no longer grace - it is justice. Does that then mean we can say grace is not available to all?
ReplyDeletePart of Sproul's argument is based on the Calvinist belief that man does NOT have any ability, or 'remnant' of free will, to choose Him. He is 'dead' spiritually per Ephesians 2.
I'd like to introduce another view at this point called semi-Pelagianism. This view, as best as I can tell, says that indeed God's grace is necessary due to the corrupt nature of man through the Fall, and that God initiates salvation, but man does have enough moral ability, or remnant of free will, to choose God when His grace sufficiently enlightens his understanding. I would say this is very much like the Baptist view, which seems to hold that man can also reject the offer.
BTW, the Pelagian view says that man has the ability to seek after God on his own. This has been labeled heresy by the church. The semi-Pelagian view is one where man is able to cooperate with God's work in salvation.
DeleteLastly, Armenianism is used as the opposed view to Calvinism. Aremenians do not believe grace is irresistable or 'once saved, always saved' is necessarily true. But are Armenians also semi-Pelagian?
DeleteOK, the conference happened and it was quite interesting.
ReplyDeleteIt had a bit of a historical feel.
There were certainly strong feelings both ways, particularly against Calvinism. Though it was noted that the term 'anti-Calvinist' was never mentioned. The overall tone (I'd even say requirement) was unity. The conference lasted over 6 hours, with breaks, so this is only a brief summary of what happened. I noticed on the KBC website that video is going to be posted next week for viewing. You'll probably find the most interesting part to be the debate between York and Lemke, though I highly recommend checking out David Dockery's history of the baptist church.
Paul Chitwood, who is the new KBC president, opened things up. Dockery then gave a quick overview of 400 years of the baptist church and the leaders that shaped it. The short story is that, according to Dockery, most of our early history (first 300 years) was more Calvinist, or Calvinist-leaning. He made an interesting suggestion that the leaders were Calvinist but wasn't sure that could be said of the membership. Why there would be a disconnection there is worth exploring. Since the membership doesn't put out writings generally, I think it's hard to quantify how exactly they felt. The leaders are publishing. Also, the concerns came up about whether that means the membership isn't following biblical leadership (from the Calvinist camp) or whether the leaders are out of touch with membership and need to preach like their congregations want them to (from the non-Calvinist camp).
Dockery said that in the 1900's we moved into a more programmatic era and approach to church. Incidentally, I noticed that the next upcoming event on the KBC website is the Committee on committees. Of course, even the programs were argued for as necessary planning and implementation by some there.
Apparently, most of the leaders of the 1900's were mostly what was called modified-Arminian - meaning they weren't strict Armenians. I think the P of TULIP, or what baptists call eternal security, was usually held by our leaders, which is not an Arminian belief. Incidentally, that is one of the points made by the Calvinists to show that baptist are calvinists - eternal security. Usually I hear that someone today is a 3 or 4 point Calvinist, or what was being called a modified Calvinist at this conference, rather than a modified Arminian. I guess it depends if you're leaning more Calvinist or Armenian.
That's about all worth mentioning that I can recall by memory. I'll check my notes later for any other important info, and comment on how the debate went.
Here's the YouTube link to the debate between York and Lemke.
ReplyDeletehttp://youtu.be/k4JMBlc4s1g
Additional notes and email response from Dr. Dockery:
ReplyDelete'General Baptist' refers to general atonement, or that Christ died for all people. 'Particular Baptist' refers to a more Calvinist soteriology (soteriology means doctrine of salvation).
Unlike Calvinism, or Methodists, or others, there was no single authoritative man or source for Baptist theology.
1609 Beginning of General Baptists
1630 Beginning of Particular Baptists
1640 'Single immersion' instituted
1689 London Confession published (Westminster Confession with Baptist influences).
Early Baptists in America were more 'particular'.
1833 New Hampshire Confession unified general and particular thought. It mainly tried to rein in general baptist issues. It also helped spawn the 1925 BF&M (Baptist Faith and Message)
(Dockery then stated that missions brought Southern Baptists together and it holds us together)
1859 SBTS began in S. Carolina then moved to Louisville in 1877. Abstract of Principles was published - had Calvinistic leanings.
1899 'Landmarkism' controversy (google it)
Early church leaders, and seminary president, were particular Baptist, but congregations seemed to be more general.
Initial years of SBC were shaped by particular Baptists.
In the early 1900's there was a shift from theology and cultural identity, to programs and evangelism.
1950's Programs reached an all time peak
1960's Marked by instability
1970's No consensus, controversy
1979 to present: A movement to recover the authority of the bible, the gospel (incipient univeralism had come), and Baptist heritage. The Calvinist resurgence also came within this movement.
Dr. Dockery's comments are in caps.
ReplyDeleteAn email to Dr. Dockery with responses:
Thank you, Rob, for your email. I am glad you were able to attend the conference. Please see RESPONSES BELOW . . .
David S. Dockery, President
Union University
1050 Union University Drive
Jackson, TN 38305
Phone: 731-661-5180
Fax: 731-661-5444
ddockery@uu.edu
________________________________________
From: Rob Dyson [robdyson@insightbb.com]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 11:36 AM
Dr. Dockery,
I attended the Calvinism conference at Crestwood Bapt. this past saturday.
I AM GLAD YOU WERE ABLE TO ATTEND. I TRUST IT WAS HELPFUL.
It was a very interesting and informative meeting.
FOR WHICH I AM GRATEFUL . . .
I thought your part would be a little dry but found it to be very engrossing.
THAT MEANS MUCH! THANK YOU!
I have a couple of questions related to your part of the talk, if you would be so kind as to answer them:
1) You mentioned that in the 1900's baptists moved into both a less Calvinistic and a more programmatic era.
IN MY MIND THE PROGRAMMATIC EMPHASIS AND EXPANSION STARTED TO TAKE PLACE WITH THE $75 MILLION CAMPAIGN, THE ADOPTION OF CONVENTION WIDE PROGRAMS SUCH AS CP, AND WAS BEST TYPIFIED IN THE 1954 MILLION MORE IN '54 CAMPAIGN. ALL OF THESE WERE (AND SOME STILL ARE) GOOD THINGS IN AND OF THEMSELVES. BUT IT WAS A NEW EMPHASIS IN A DENOMINATION COMING OF AGE.
I THINK THERE CAME WITH THE PROGRAMMATIC EMPHASIS A MORE "A-THEOLOGICAL" MINDSET. WE BECAME MUCH MORE PRAGMATIC IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORK OF THE CONVENTION AS A WHOLE.
CALVINISTS TEND TO BE RATHER THEOLOGICALLY FOCUSED IN THE WAY THAT THEY SEE THE WORK OF THE CHURCH AND THE WAY THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THE WORLD. SO, IN THAT SENSE IT WAS A CHANGE.
I AM NOT SURE THAT THE PROGRAMMATIC EMPHASIS NECESSARILY CARRIED WITH IT A MORE ARMINIAN MINDSET, SO MUCH AS IT SEEMED TO HAPPEN AS A RESULT OF THE "A-THEOLOGICAL" WAY THAT PEOPLE STARTED TO THING ABOUT CHURCH LIFE AND MINISTRY.
PROGRAMS AND PLANNING ARE IMPORTANT. IT IS ONE THING TO HAVE THE PROGRAMS AND PLANS AS THE VEHICLE AND STRUCTURE FOR OUR LIFE AND WORK, IT IS ANOTHER THING WHEN THEY BECOME THE WAY THAT WE UNDERSTAND OUR IDENTITY.
In your mind, is there a connection between an abundance of programs and Arminianism? (a funny side-note, the next upcoming event for the KBC is the Committee on committees!)
2) You also mentioned that although the baptist leaders of the first 300 years were more Calvinistic, you didn't know if the congregations were. What supports that idea, and what does it mean?
ReplyDeleteI THINK I SAID THAT IN THE SBC, LEADERS WERE MORE CALVINISTIC FROM 1845 TO THE TURN OF THE CENTURY. THERE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE EVIDENCE THAT ALL OF THE LAYPEOPLE SHARED THOSE CONVICTIONS. THE LEADERS AND WRITING THEOLOGIANS WERE CALVINISTIC, BUT THE CHURCHES AND ASSOCIATIONS WERE STILL SURPRISED IT SEEMED WHEN THE YOUNG MEN WOULD GO OFF TO SEMINARY AND RETURN HOME AS CALVINISTS.
THE OTHER REASON I THINK THAT MOST OF THE GRASSROOTS WERE LESS CALVINISTIC HAS TO DO WITH THE FRONTIER CULTURE AND THE RISE OF REVIVALISM IN GENERAL, ESPECIALLY AMONG THE CIRCUIT PREACHERS AND THE LAY BI-VOCATIONAL PREACHERS. BY THE 1920s, IT SEEMS THAT CALVINISM HAS GENERALLY DISAPPEARED AMONG LEADERS AND LAITY. MY GUESS IS THAT IT HAD DISAPPEARED EARLIER AMONG THE LAITY OR PERHAPS HAD NEVER BEEN AS STRONG. THIS IS MORE BY INFERENCE THAN BY DIRECT STATEMENT, OTHER THAN TO READ MORE STATE CONVENTION AND ASSOCIATION HISTORIES . . .
YOU CAN READ MORE IN MY BOOK CALLED SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONSENSUS AND RENEWAL (B&H, 2008).
ALSO, TWO EDITED BOOKS: THEOLOGIANS OF THE BAPTIST TRADITION (B&H) and SOUTHERN BAPTIST IDENTITY (CROSSWAY).
THESE MIGHT PERHAPS BE HELPFUL REGARDING SOME OF THESE POINTS . . .
The first point was rebutted by Lemke who stated that he supposes some would have us not do any planning or organizing. The second by Page who complained that candidates for pastors aren't being honest when interviewed about their Calvinist beliefs and the congregation isn't getting who they thought. York pointed out that perhaps the congregation is in the wrong and needs to be appropriately led.
What do you think about these issues?
I THINK I WILL LET DRS. LEMKE, PAGE, AND YORK OFFER THEIR COMMENTS WITHOUT ANY RESPONSE OR REFUTATION. THAT SEEMS BEST TO ME AT THIS POINT.
I'm just a church member at Hunsinger Lane Baptist Church in Louisville KY who is interested in these matters. Really enjoyed your presentation.
I HOPE THIS IS HELPFUL FOR YOU. THANKS FOR YOUR KIND COMMENTS, ROB!
BLESSINGS,
DSD
Thanks, Rob Dyson
Lastly, during the conference, I had this intriguing thought:
ReplyDeleteThe present is like a lit fuse, not leaving dust behind, but rather a concrete, unchangeable structure called the past. All of the frenzied activity that creates that past crystallizes at the point of that volatile, burning fuse.
Regardless of where you fall on the issue, we would all hopefully agree that in some sense, that we were predestined to read this article! Unless God doesn't know the future (open theism) then God did know you would read it. If God knew you were going to read it, then that choice would have to be determined, meaning that at the last minute, you couldn't surprise God and do the opposite of what he knew you would do. I like the author/character model in explaining how God's sovereignty works.
ReplyDeleteWayne Grudem uses the example of Shakespeare in the play Macbeth. In the play, Macbeth kills King Duncan. However, Shakespeare wrote the murder into the story. Grudem says, "On the level of the characters in the play Macbeth fully caused King Duncan's death, but on the level of the creator of the play, Shakespeare caused it. In a similar fashion, we can understand that God fully causes things in one way (as Creator) and we fully cause things in another (as creatures). Of course, God does not do sinful actions. I would say then that God wrote us reading this article into his will, so that it is predestined, and more than the foreknowledge of God as to what we were going to do. On our level, we chose to do it. Calvinists would never say that people are puppets, but would affirm that they have real choices with meaning. These choices are compatible with God's sovereignty, so that God is upheld as completely sovereign and not limited by our decisions. How these 2, God's sovereignty and human responsibility, work together, is a paradox.
In terms of limited atonement, everyone (except a universalist) limits it in some way. Both calvinists and arminians agree that a person must believe the gospel and turn to Christ in order to be saved. I have included a good link, for anyone who would like to better understand the 5 points of calvinism.
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism#Grace
It seems to me that there's a difference between God's foreknowledge (knowing in advance what will 'freely' happen) and determinism (God's fore-ordaining, or actively 'causing' things to happen). Though I will concede that in one sense, everything is predetermined due to the fact that it's foreknown AND that God's will is sovereign over all free choices. Does that make sense? In other words, God knew you would read this article, but didn't cause it to happen.
ReplyDeleteI think I like the analogy of the home better than the one of Shakespeare when comparing man's free will with God's sovereignty. In the home, the Dad may set the rules. But, due to having (limited) free will, the kids don't always obey. They may be punished as a result. But the Dad gives some leeway to actions as long as they don't directly oppose his will for the kids. So not every action is caused, but allowed, unless against the Dad's will.
I'll check out the link.
OK, I read the Piper article, and here's the issue - appropriately enough found under the Irresistible Grace heading, 6th paragraph.
ReplyDeletePiper says:
Someone may say, "Yes, the Holy Spirit must draw us to God, but we can use our freedom to resist or accept that drawing." Our answer is: except for the continual exertion of saving grace, we will always use our freedom to resist God.
Me:
The 'resistable' position sounds like the traditional Baptist view I was raised with. Piper makes a good point. Our natural inclination is always going to be away from God. But I don't think Calvinism holds that man doesn't have anything to do with his salvation. My understanding is that Calvinists believe man finds God irresistible and chooses Him freely. Of course, that can't happen without God's work. But Baptists say that as well (when I say 'Baptist', I'm referring to non-Reformed Baptist thought).
In fact, Piper goes on to say: That is what it means to be "unable to submit to God." If a person becomes humble enough to submit to God it is because God has given that person a new, humble nature. If a person remains too hard hearted and proud to submit to God, it is because that person has not been given such a willing spirit. But to see this most persuasively we should look at the Scriptures.
Me: So he says that submission can't happen without God's work, but also says the person has the role of submitting to God.
Piper: In John 6:44 Jesus says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." This drawing is the sovereign work of grace without which no one can be saved from their rebellion against God. Again some say, "He draws all men, not just some." But this simply evades the clear implication of the context that the Father's "drawing" is why some believe and not others.
Specifically, John 6:64-65 says, "'But there are some of you that do not believe.' For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. And he said, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.'"
Notice two things.
First, notice that coming to Jesus is called a gift. It is not just an opportunity. Coming to Jesus is "given" to some and not to others.
Me: Can't gifts be rejected? Piper says 'given' but the text he uses says 'granted' (as do NAS, ESV and Holman) and I wonder if it could also have the meaning 'to allow'.
2 things: I've heard Sproul make a stronger case regarding the meaning of the word 'draw' which is interpreted much more forcefully in other passages - such as the word 'dragged'- also, I certainly appreciate the elevated view of God's sovereignty in salvation the Calvinist holds.
Here's an interesting argument from Piper under the heading Limited Atonement:
ReplyDeleteWe can conclude this section with the following summary argument. Which of these statements is true?
1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.
2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.
3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.
No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.
The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men.
Me: I can't argue against this, but like many Calvinist arguments, it seems to rely on some type of man-made puzzle. Kind of like the math problem where you can't walk across a room if you only went half the distance each time you move. Even the smallest amount of distance could be divided. Even when you got down to 1 atom theoretically.
And finally, from the last paragraph, a 'sinners prayer' by Spurgeon. He says: But I now do from my very soul call upon thy name. Trembling, yet believing, I cast myself wholly upon thee, O Lord.
Me: Is this not a volitional act? A cooperation with the Holy Spirit?
These are a few of my concerns with Calvinism.
I hope I have not played the devil's advocate.